Sensory Methodologies and Methods: A Scoping Review

Abstract

This scoping review examines the application of sensory research methodologies and methods in primary research, guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s five-stage framework. The scoping review addresses two primary questions: (1) what is the extent and nature of research activities that use multisensory methodologies and (2) what is the extent and nature of research activities that use multisensory methods? The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist was used to guide the reporting and mapping process. A total of 80 sources (45 peer-reviewed articles and 35 dissertations) met the inclusion criteria. Findings reveal ethnographic-based methodologies were the most common sensory approach, whereas combined visual and audio methods were the most commonly used techniques. There is the potential for more innovative and inclusive methodologies and methods to expand the use of taste and smell, which remain underrepresented in the literature. Additionally, greater attention is needed to address power dynamics and reflexivity in sensory research to avoid essentializing or misrepresenting participants’ experiences. Future research could improve methodological clarity and consistency while emphasizing accessibility and community engagement. This scoping review contributes to the field of sensory research by synthesizing current practices and identifying gaps that warrant future exploration, particularly in underrepresented sensory modalities.

1. Introduction

Sensory studies involve studying the senses as both a topic of investigation and a mode of inquiry. The sensorium is fundamental to experiencing the world and is shaped by cultural, gendered, historical, and class-based factors [1]. The senses mediate the relationship between the mind and body, as well as between individuals and their environments. Emerging from the fields of anthropology, sociology, history, archaeology, communication, design, urbanism, disability studies, and geography, the study and application of the senses in the domain of research also intersects with cultural expressions, including the visual, auditory, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, and tactile realms.

Within the context of research, the term “multisensory” refers to both research designs and/or data collection methods. For instance, multisensory methodologies are research designs that employ and consider embodied and sensory ways of knowing, such as sensory ethnography, which takes the sensorial experiences as the topic of ethnographic investigation [2], whereas examples of multisensory research as a form of data collection may include sound recordings, taste-elicitation, haptic engagements, or methods that focus on gathering data primarily through sensory modalities.

By prioritizing the often-overlooked dimensions of the sensorium such as tastes, smells, sounds, sights, textures, and bodily sensations, multisensory research broadens our understanding of the human experience [3]. Multisensory research holds significant potential for advancing equity-oriented goals in research [4]. For example, sensory studies hold particular relevance for disability research as the paradigm recognizes and values distinct ways of knowing, being, and experiencing the world [5]. In social science research approaches, commonly used data techniques of oral or written expression inherently creates participation barriers for many individuals, whereas multisensory methods and methodologies that blend and explore embodied ways of knowing provide unique opportunities to understand lived experiences in ways that are inclusive and accessible.

At the time of writing this scoping review, the field of sensory studies is experiencing a “sensorial turn” and gaining prominence within various fields [6]; however, there is currently no review of the literature mapping the use of sensory methods or methodologies. Existing reviews have focused on specific areas, such as sensory interventions [7,8,9], equipment, and evaluation approaches [10,11]. However, no formal reviews to date have examined sensory methods and methodologies as distinct components of research. This scoping review was conducted to map the current knowledge of multisensory methods and methodologies, with the purpose of contributing to the field of sensory studies.

This scoping review documents the landscape of sensory studies by synthesizing and categorizing the use of the senses as both methodology and method. The central objective is to determine the nature and extent of multisensory methodologies and methods. To achieve this, the review examines the following: in what contexts are multisensory methods and/or methodologies being applied? What research topics and questions are multisensory methods and/or methodologies being used to investigate? Which senses and/or populations, if any, are being prioritized in this body of work? Additionally, the review considers what types of knowledge are gained/created through these approaches and techniques. A key focus is to identify prominent gaps in the literature, including populations that may be underrepresented. These insights will help inform future directions of multisensory research.

2. Methods

The approach for this scoping review is guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s five-stage framework (Figure 1. Sequence of the 5 stages), which aims for rigor, transparency, and the ease of replicating search strategies [12]. These five stages include: (1) identifying the research questions; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) study selection; (4) charting the data; and (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results.

2.1. Identifying the Research Questions

The focus of this scoping review is to explore the application of sensory research methodologies and methods in primary research. To report and map this scoping review, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist was used [13]. This review incorporates the 20 essential reporting items outlined in the PRISMA-ScR guidelines; the two optional items related to the critical appraisal of the sources were excluded as such an evaluation falls outside the scope of this review.

At the time of conducting this research, there were no existing scoping reviews exploring these topic questions. To ensure a substantial range of scholarship—including peer-reviewed studies and dissertations—the following research questions guided the search as the first stage of review:

1.

What is the extent and nature of research activities that use multisensory methodologies?

2.

What is the extent and nature of research activities that use multisensory methods?

The distinction between methodology and method is worth noting. Methodologies refer to the overarching research frameworks or designs that guide how sensory experiences are conceptualized and integrated into a study. In contrast, sensory methods are the specific techniques used to collect sensory data, such as sound recordings, photography, or body mapping. While methodologies shape the theoretical and structural approach, methods focus on the practical application of gathering sensory information. By clearly differentiating between these concepts, researchers can better understand how sensory research is structured and applied to investigate or explore a particular topic. Thus, knowing how the research is designed (methodology) versus how data are collected (method) allows for a deeper understanding of the role sensory research plays in answering research questions.

2.2. Identifying Relevant Studies

The second stage of the scoping review involved identifying relevant studies. Five electronic databases were searched: Anthropology Plus, Social Work Abstracts, SOCIndex, Sociological Abstracts, and ProQuest dissertations and Theses Global. These databases were selected to ensure the inclusion of relevant disciplinary published and grey literature (dissertations). The search string (see

Table 1. Search string used for the second stage of the scoping review.

Search	Query
#1	(multi-sensor * OR multisensor * OR multimod * OR sensory OR sensorial OR embodied) AND (research OR method * OR storytelling OR mode * OR ethnography)

* Limited between 2010 and 2023 and controlled for studies published in English.

) was first developed for Anthropology Plus, then subsequently adapted as necessary for the four other databases. When possible, subject headings were included in the search. In instances where a subject heading did not exist for a search term, a search string was entered using key words, with phrase searching applied where necessary.

Boolean operators and truncation were employed to both control and allow for various search terms. Searches were limited to articles published in English, with key descriptors developed by the first and second authors and after a review of relevant keywords within sensory nomenclature search and subsequently reviewed by a research librarian (see

Table 2. Search terms used.

Embodied methodology Embodied methods Embodied modes Embodied research Embodied storytelling Multimodal Multimodal methodology Multimodal methods Multimodal research Multimodal storytelling Multisensorial Multisensorial methodology Multisensorial methods Multisensorial modes Multisensorial research Multisensorial storytelling Multisensoriality methodology Multisensoriality methods Multisensoriality modes Multisensoriality research Multisensoriality storytelling Multisensory Multisensory methodology Multisensory methods Multisensory modes Multisensory research Multisensory storytelling Sensory methodology Sensory methods Sensory modes Sensory research Sensory storytelling Sensory ethnography

for our search terms). For Sociological Abstracts, a limit to the discipline of anthropology was chosen due to the multidisciplinary nature of this database. For the final database, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, inclusion criteria were limited to doctoral dissertations within the discipline of anthropology and ethnography. This limit was chosen using guidance from a research librarian to control for disciplinarian and methodological relevancy given the vast number of doctoral dissertations.

2.3. Study Selection

The third stage of the scoping review was study selection. The first search was run across four databases: Anthropology Plus, Social Work Abstracts, SOCIndex, and Sociological Abstracts to search for peer-reviewed articles. A search was then performed on ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global to search for dissertations as grey literature. After completing the search across the five databases, the bibliographic information (i.e., title, abstract, authors, and subject headings) for each search result was imported into Rayyan QCRI© for deduplication and review. Four searches were run over the span of one calendar year. The most recent search was run on 27 January 2023. From our search, 5990 were identified for review. After duplicates were removed 5894 records were identified for initial review of titles and abstract before proceeding to a full-text review.

The inclusion criteria included published peer-reviewed studies and dissertations published between 2000 and 2023, including all research designs (quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, arts-based, etc.) that used either sensory methods or sensory methodologies. For exclusion criteria, peer-reviewed publications or dissertations before 2000 were excluded. Items were also excluded if there was no mention of multisensory methods or methodologies (or key descriptors). Items were also excluded if they explored multisensory or embodied sensations but employed non-sensory methods (i.e., surveys, questionnaires, interviews, and focus groups). For example, if an article focused on the sensation of disgust but used measures such as a survey or observation as method, the item was excluded for review.

Three researchers reviewed the titles, abstracts, and subsequent full texts of all sources in this review. In the first part of the study selection, three researchers independently reviewed the titles and abstract information across the 5894 sources. Each researcher initially reviewed the same 100 abstracts individually to pilot inclusion and exclusion criteria and the charting tool, which helped ensure a shared understanding of the criteria. After cross comparison spanning the 100 abstracts, each researcher completed an independent review of all the remaining titles and abstracts. After full review of titles and abstracts, 212 items remained for full-text review. The remaining titles were read by the three researchers, paying attention to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and checking for duplication. The research team met weekly to discuss the scoping review process. Disagreements from reviewing abstracts and subsequent full texts involved a close discussion about eligibility criteria with the respective item. After the review of full texts, 80 articles remained that are included for this review. The study selection stage took 12 months to complete, between January 2022 and January 2023, with one additional search for updated literature completed in 2023. Our search process is provided in Figure 2. Interventionary studies involving animals or humans, and other studies that require ethical approval, must list the authority that provided approval and the corresponding ethical approval code.

2.4. Charting the Data

The fourth stage of the scoping review was charting the data. The data were charted and sorted by author, country, article purpose, participant characteristics, study discipline, study methodology, and study methods. Each item was also searched with references to multisensory methods or methodologies. The methodology and method descriptions and terminology are the terms used by the respective authors. The headings of the charting tool can be found below in

Table 3. Data charting tool.

Author(s)

Country

Article Purpose

Participant Characteristics

Discipline

Study Methodology

Methods

.

2.5. Collating, Summarizing, and Reporting Results

The fifth and final stage of the scoping review was collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. Of the 80 sources, 45 were peer-reviewed articles and 35 were unpublished doctoral dissertations. All sources were based on empirical research with a variety of disciplinary focus. After the three researchers read through the full texts, charted the data, and summarized the data by preparing the two tables (see Supplementary Materials, Tables S1 and S2), the researchers noted the most prominent methodologies and methods. These methodologies and methods are discussed in the results section below.

3. Results

A total of 80 sources (n = 45 peer-reviewed articles and n = 35 dissertations) met the inclusion criteria for this scoping review. Author(s), year of publication, country, purpose, participant characteristics, discipline, methodology, and methods were extracted from the studies using our data extraction tool (see Table 3). The majority of studies were conducted in the USA (n = 20), followed by the UK (n = 17), then Brazil (n = 7). Australia and Israel both had four studies each, while an additional eight countries (Cambodia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Mexico, and Singapore) contributed two sources each. Another 14 countries (Algeria, Bolivia, Cuba, Egypt, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Portugal, South Africa, Sweden, and Tibet) included one study each. Summaries of the articles are provided in Supplementary Materials, Table S1: Peer-reviewed articles that met the scoping review inclusion criteria [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58]; and Table S2: Doctoral dissertations that met the scoping review inclusion criteria [59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93].

3.1. Multisensory Methodologies

In response to the first question “What is the extent and nature of research activities on multisensory methodologies?”, the most common methodology (n = 55) in the reviewed sources were ethnographic-based methodologies (see

Table 4. Sensory methodologies *.

1. Ethnographic-Based Methodologies	2. Phenomenology-Based Methodologies	3. Participatory-Based Methodologies	4. Other Methodologies	5. Not Identified/Clear
General (ethnography): 18 Sensory:11 Blended Sensory: 6 Autoethnography: 6 Visual: 3 Video: 1 Other: 9	Phenomenology: 1 Sensory: 1 Ethnography: 5	Participatory action: 2 Sensory and visual: 1 Arts-based: 1 Ethnography: 1	Mixed methods: 2 Multimodal clinical study: 1 Digital storytelling: 1 Narrative inquiry: 1 Case study: 1 Portraiture: 1 Technoecology: 1	5
Total: 55	Total: 7	Total: 5	Total: 8	Total: 5

* In each category terminology, studies are categorized once. Terminology presented in this table is directly sourced from the studies and has not been written or redefined.

below). Generally, ethnographic-based methodologies explored culturally situated phenomena through individuals’, groups’, and community experiences [94]. For example, a dissertation by Carrizo centered around Iraqi Jews who fled to Israel after escalated anti-Semitic persecution during World War II and the 1948 Arab Israeli War [66]. Specifically, Carrizo explored how Iraqi Jews use their musical and culinary practices to make meaning of trauma, grief, joy, and exile [66]. As another example, Tornqvist and Holmberg explored dance culture and how intimate eye contact was utilized in couple’s dancing [56].

The second most frequently identified methodology (n = 18) was sensory ethnography. It was identified as the sole methodology in several studies [33,38,52,53,54,58,59,74,77,84,86,88]. Additionally, sensory ethnography was blended with other research designs, including visual ethnography [46,50], video ethnography [28], autoethnography [72], performance-focused ethnography [91], multi-species ethnography [40], and multimodal ethnography [49]. Pink differentiates sensory ethnography from broader ethnographic methodologies [2]. Sensory ethnography is a way of thinking about and conducting ethnography that takes the multisensoriality of experience, perception, knowing, and practice as a starting point and defines it as “a process of doing ethnography that accounts for how this multisensoriality is integral both to the lives of people who participate in our research and to how we ethnographers practice our craft” [2] (p. 1). For example, Snake-Beings analyzed the sensory experiences of smell, vision, and sound when walking along a sewage canal in Phnom Peng, Cambodia [50]. Another example is Hou, who participated in tea tasting events, expos, and lessons to engage with the significance of drinking and tasting tea as a part of daily, ritualized social relations in Dalian, China [74]. In the UK, Stevenson investigated how sensory and bodily experiences construct meaningful places for newly arrived international students [52].

Autoethnography was the third most frequent methodology (n = 9; [16,21,22,29,31,57,62,70,72]). Autoethnographies analyze and interpret the personal experiences of the author [95]. For example, Edensor recalled sensory experiences of darkness and gloomy spaces [29]. Another example is Bishop, who used autobiographical performance ethnography to reflect on how they shaped their identity around punk rock music and culture during the 1980s and 1990s [62].

Other methodologies included phenomenology-based methodologies (n = 7) [15,16,30,37,49,79,83] and participatory methodologies (n = 5) [25,41,42,43,45]. Regarding participatory methodologies, O’Neill utilized arts-based and participatory arts-based research with racialized, newcomer women who were seeking asylum in England to broaden understandings of citizenship [42].

Visual ethnography (n = 5; [18,20,28,32,39]) and video ethnography (n= 4; [26,46,50,51] were less common and often blended with other research designs. For example, Due and Lange used video ethnography with ethnomethodology to assess how Blind participants navigated the city and obstacles that the participants collided with on their walk [26]. Other methodologies (n = 8) identified in this scoping review include mixed methods [36,80] and multimodal clinical study that included bodily mediation methodology [47], digital storytelling [17], narrative inquiry of Deaf-life storytelling [24], case study [85], portraiture [65], and technoecology [55]. Technoecology combined feminist post-humanism, new materialism, and voice to understand an Algae Opera performance art piece and the relationships between the opera singer, algae, and the artists during the multisensory experiences of the art piece encompassing sound, touch, and taste [55]. Table 4 provides details of the sensory methodologies across the reviewed sources.

1.

Ethnographic-based methodologies:

(1a) General refers to studies that solely noted “ethnography” [19,27,35,48,56,63,64,66,67,69,71,73,81,87,89,92,93].

(1b) Sensory ethnography [33,38,52,53,54,58,59,74,77,84,86,88].

(1c) Blended sensory ethnography: reflexive sensory ethnography and video ethnography [46]; sensorial autoethnography [72]; sensory and performance-focused ethnography [91]; multispecies ethnography and sensory anthropology [40]; sensory ethnography and video ethnography [50]; and visual and sensory ethnography [28].

(1d) Autoethnography: [22,29,31,57,70]; subaltern autoethnography [21].

(1e) Visual ethnography [18,20,32,39]; video ethnography [51].

(1f) Other: ethnomethodologic interaction analysis [14]; rhizomic ethnography [60]; ethnographic case study [61]; autobiographical performance ethnography ** [62]; ethnography and performative discourse analysis [82]; collaborative and multimedia ethnography [90]; passive ethnography [68]; ethnography and transdisciplinary methodology [44]; and ethnomethodology and video ethnography [26].

2.

Phenomenology-based methodologies:

(2a) Phenomenology [15].

(2b) phenomenology and sensory [83].

(2c) Ethnography and phenomenology: autophenomenology [37]; phenomenology-based autoethnography [16]; corporeal ethnography and cultural phenomenology [30]; multimodal ethnography, sensory ethnography, and phenomenology [49]; and ethnography and phenomenology [79].

3.

Participatory-based methodologies:

(3a) Participatory action research [25,45].

(3b) Sensory and visual participatory [41].

(3c) Arts-based research: participatory action research and arts-based research [42].

(3d) Ethnography and participatory: ethno-mimesis and participatory action research [43].

4.

Other methodologies:

(4a) Mixed methods [36,80].

(4b) Multimodal clinical study [47].

(4c) Digital storytelling [17].

(4d) Narrative inquiry [24].

(4e) Case study [85].

(4f) Portraiture methodology [65].

(4g) Technoecology [55].

5.

Not identified/unknown [23,34,75,76,78].

3.2. Multisensory Methods

In response to the second question, “What is the extent and nature of research activities on multisensory methods?”, visual methods were the most common across all the studies in this review (n = 45, see

Table 5. Sensory methods *.

1. Kinesthetic	2. Mapping	3. Sound	4. Smell	5. Taste	6. Touch	7. Visual	8. Other
42	13	32	7	11	11	45	24

* The terminology presented in this table is directly sourced from the studies and has not been redefined. Additionally, the types of methods are aggregated from across all the studies, with some studies being represented more than once due to the use of multiple methods.

). This method of data collection included still images such as photographs [28,32,39,42,43,49,59,64,71,74,86,90], photo journals [61], pictures [84], and the act of using photographs or graphics to facilitate interviews [41,53,89]. An example is the photographic storytelling of Cath Arctic, a woman who uses bondage, dominance, submission, and masochism (BDSM) to relate and reckon with her Christian faith [32]. In this study, Cath shared photos with the researchers to support them to understand her sexual practice and BDSM, in addition to the author’s reflection on the visual representations in the context of religion [32].

1.

Kinesthetic:

(1a) Body movements [30,57]: bodily engagement [46,68,70,81,82,85,87,91]; sensory motor engagement [15]; and engagement with vibrations through mediating objects [47].

(1b) Activities/sports: cycling [51,57]; dance [22,34,69]; fishing [79]; and yoga [69,73].

(1c) Dharma vajras mediated sensory practices, body alignment, and perceptual attunement [67].

(1d) Itinerant soliloquies [41].

(1e) Kinesthetic empathy [87], emotion [82], and embodied expressions of love [91].

(1f) Thermoception [16].

(1g) Walking [42,43,44,47,52]: walkscapes [19,21,29]; walking interviews [35,38,49,59]; sound walks [45]; walk-along sessions [54]; walking tours [83]; and transect walks [79].

2.

Mapping:

(2a) Body mapping [25].

(2b) Cartography [49]; self-cartography [71].

(2c) Hand-drawn maps [14,61]; sketch maps [36,43].

(2d) Geospatial data [79]; GIS-GPS mapping [79]; GPS tracking [36].

(2d) Participatory mapping [90].

(2e) Walking maps [52]; guided home tours [61].

3.

Sound:

(3a) Audio-visual material, speculative hermeneutics, and music analysis [33].

(3b) Sonic technoecology [55].

(3c) Sounds [20,34,46,70,82,85,91] and protest songs [71].

(3d) Sound/audio recording [19,31,37,39,50,59,60,65,66,72,79,84,86,87].

(3e) Sound diaries [45].

(3f) Soundscapes [47,52,57,60,83,84].

(3g) Performance of songs [66].

4.

Smell:

(4a) Blind smell association experiment [92].

(4b) Olfactory engagement [23,46,78,91].

(4c) Smellkit [79].

(4d) Smellscapes [38].

5.

Taste:

(5a) Cooking and eating [76].

(5b) Gustatory/taste [68,78,81,82,85,91].

(5c) Material esthetic of food [91].

(5d) Taste elicitation interviews [27].

(5e) Tea tasting [74]; wine tasting [59].

6.

Touch:

(6a) Haptic [15,31,86].

(6b) Sense of touch [16,46,70,78,82,91].

(6c) Tactile engagement [20] and analysis of artifacts [78].

7.

Visual:

(7a) Digital storytelling [17].

(7b) Graphic elicitation interviews [41].

(7c) Photographs [28,32,39,42,43,49,59,64,71,74,86,90]; photo journals [61]; photo-elicitation interviews [32,53,89]; and pictures [84].

(7e) Video/film [26,36,37,42,46,50,51,60,64,72,86,87]; video recordings, collages, and drawing [24,49,61]; video diaries [18]; and collaborative film [90].

(7f) Visual material [33]; visual data [65,87]; and imagery [83].

(7g) Vision [46,57,78,91]; vision, gaze and observation [56].

8.

Other:

(8a) Active participation in events is the act of being attuned to the senses in an embodied understanding of the topic in active participation of events and sensory engagement [46,70,78,81,82,85,87,91].

(8b) Archival material [65], participant artifacts [60], and historical research [63].

(8c) Art workshops [43,90], socioesthetics [62], and art analysis [88].

(8d) Descriptive sensory evaluation [80].

(8e) Memory [78].

(8f) Nonvisual apprehensions, alternative modes of visual perception, and space [29].

(8g) Puppets [24].

(8h) Recipes [80].

(8i) Seances [93].

(8j) Screen recordings of online interactions [60].

(8k) Sensory diaries [79].

(8l) Texting [72].

Video and filming methods [26,36,37,42,46,50,51,60,64,72,86,87,90] were also very common visual techniques. Other visual examples included a blending of visual artwork such as drawing [24,49,61], video diaries [18], and digital storytelling [17]. For instance, De Clerk utilized a combination of visual methods to explore Deaf life storytelling research, including puppets, drawings, collages, and silent video recordings [24]. These art forms created counter-narratives to ableist stories from Deaf individuals, where stories from Eastern Europe, South Asian, and Sub-Saharan Africa were showcased [24].

Kinesthetic methods were the second most frequently used sensory method (n = 42). Kinesthetic techniques involved sensory perceptions of movement, position, and/or sensations in the body. This included a vast array of methods, such as walkscapes, dancing, and bodily engagements. For instance, Allen-Collinson et al. used immersive fieldwork to capture the lived senses of temperature and novel experiences of thermoception that are under-researched in kinesthetic studies [16]. Combining both visual and kinesthetic methods, Bates captured personal stories through audiovisual diaries of adults from London with long-term physical or mental health conditions [18]. Recordings of everyday life showcased embodied experiences of health and illness, such as the kinesthetic feeling of doing yoga or the ritualistic motions of making a glass of lemon water [18]. Another example explored the relationship between body and self for students learning therapeutic yoga practice in the USA [73]. In this study, Goldwert actively participated in yoga with the students, as well as recorded and analyzed videos to investigate this emerging form of yoga practice [73].

Sports and activities, such as fishing [79], cycling [51,57], dance [22,34,69], and yoga [69,73], were both a topic of inquiry and data collection method. Frequently, kinesthetic methods were often combined with other sensory methods, such as visual techniques (n = 10; [14,17,18,34,42,47,56,61,68,69,82,86]) and visual, audio, and kinesthetic methods (n = 8 [15,41,43,54,62,83,93]). Other studies that blended kinesthetic methods with other sensory methods included kinesthetic and taste [68,70]; kinesthetic and smell [38]; kinesthetic, visual, audio, and taste [59]; kinesthetic, visual, audio, and smell [79]; kinesthetic, visual, audio, taste, and smell [80]; dancing and sound [34]; and vibrotactile mediation and walking [47].

Most studies in this scoping review incorporated a blend of sensory methods. Sources that combined both visual and audio methods were very common (n = 22 [17,21,33,37,39,46,50,51,58,60,64,65,66,70,71,72,78,81,82,84,85,87,91]). Many ethnographic studies that identified the researcher(s) active participation in events involved the act of being attuned to the senses to gain an embodied understanding of the topic [46,70,78,81,82,85,87,91]. Examples included a combination of sensory engagement of touch, sight, sound, body, and smell [46]; touch, body, listening [70], taste, smell, touch, visual, and memory [78]; sounds, sensory emotion, taste, touch, and movement [82]; embodied experiences of eating, listening, and moving [81,85]; kinesthetic empathy and bodily movement [87]; and taste, visual, smell, sounds, touch, and embodied expressions of love [91].

A number of studies adopted audio and visual recordings to share stories and lived experiences. For example, Barcelos and Gubrium used digital storytelling to capture the emergence of knowledge that occurs through young pregnancy and parenting [17]. As another example, Butz and Cook combined autophotography and oral narratives to understand the perspectives of residents in Shimshal, Pakistan, on the new road connecting their village to other communities [21]. In addition, Bailey explored the lived experiences of children in an afterschool Minecraft club [60]. They used visual screen recordings and soundscapes to explore how children created online worlds and how this affected the children’s interactions, play, and socialization [60].

Mapping methods (n = 13) were another significant category, encompassing techniques such as guided home tours [61], hand-drawn and sketched maps [14,36,43,61], and cartography [49,71]. These methods were effective in capturing participants’ spatial and sensory interactions with their environments. For instance, Naidu’s study involving geospatial GPS tracking, GIS-GPS mapping with soundscapes, transect walks, sensory diaries, fishing, and smell kits illustrated the intersection of sensory experiences with ecological and social landscapes [79].

Taste and smell, while less represented, featured in a subset of studies that demonstrated their potential to provide unique cultural and sensory insights. Several studies blended taste with other sensory methods, such as visual and gustatory [27,59,81]; visual, audio, and taste [74,76]; and flavor and smell [92]. One example is Duruz’ involving taste elicitation interviews combined with visual immersion of an Ethiopian restaurant in Australia, which captured stories representing home for the Ethiopian diaspora in a mixed neighborhood [27], whereas Arceno used a combination of photography of the wineries, audio recordings of the physical space, reflections after wine tasting, and walking interviews to explore the experiences of wine growers in Ohio compared to France [59]. They sought to investigate how the sensorial environment of the vineyards, wine cellars, and tasting rooms influenced their social experiences.

Seven studies identified olfactory methods with other senses, including response stimuli [23]; smellscapes, and walking interviews [38]; smell elicitation, sounds, and sensory diaries [79]; and flavor and smell association [92]. Ulloa Garzon conducted a blind smell association experiment with cooks, sommeliers, and waiters to understand the impact of food on identity, relationships, environments, and economies [92].

While audio was often blended with other sensory methods, it was also used as a single technique in three of the included studies [19,31,45]. Gieser employed sound recordings to investigate the meaning of making of chainsaw noises during tree felling, and Battesti and Puig drew on sound recording elicitation interviews to describe the acoustic ecology of sounds in Cairo, Egypt [19,31], whereas Battesti and Puig demonstrated that innovation can be involved in sensory methods by using a novel recording device placed in participants’ ears to accurately depict the auditory environment [19]. Examples of blending sound techniques with other sensory methods include Patino-Lakatos et al.’s research that combined soundscapes with explorations of touch [47]. In combining these two senses, the authors demonstrated how sound and vibrations assisted anorexia patients with experiencing bodily sensations as well as processing and sharing inner experiences of an eating disorder.

3.3. Summary of Methods and Methodologies

The sensory methods and methodologies reviewed in this scoping review reveal a range of approaches employed in sensory research, identifying trends and gaps within the field. Ethnographic-based methodologies emerge as the most frequently used framework, with 55 studies employing this approach to explore culturally situated phenomena through individual, group, and community experiences. Sensory ethnography follows as the second most common methodology (18 studies), focusing on the multisensoriality of lived experiences and practices, often in combination with other frameworks such as visual or autoethnography. Autoethnographies, participatory research, and phenomenology-based methodologies also feature prominently, highlighting their role in capturing diverse and situated sensory experiences. Emerging methodologies, such as technoecology and multimodal clinical studies, illustrate the innovative potential of sensory research.

In terms of methods, visual techniques, including photography and video recordings, dominate the studies reviewed (45 instances), often serving as primary tools for documenting and analyzing sensory experiences. Kinesthetic methods, such as walkscapes and embodied practices, are also prevalent, employed in 42 studies to explore movement and bodily sensations in context-specific ways. Mapping methods (13 instances), such as hand-drawn maps and geospatial tracking, provide spatial and sensory insights, while taste and smell remain underutilized despite their potential for revealing cultural and environmental dimensions. Blended approaches that combine audio, visual, kinesthetic, and other sensory modalities further underscore the interdisciplinarity of the field, offering nuanced ways to understand embodied knowledge. The review identifies significant gaps, particularly in the representation of taste and smell, and calls for greater methodological clarity, reflexivity, and inclusion of underrepresented populations in future sensory research. The findings, limitations, and broader implications of these methods and methodologies are contextualized in the discussion that follows.

4. Discussion

This scoping review systematically examines the extent to which multisensory methods and methodologies are utilized in contemporary research, offering an overview of current practices and their implications. The findings highlight a predominance of blended methods incorporating multisensory practices, along with several key methodologies. The review also identifies innovative approaches, which suggest directions for further exploration. However, there remains a limited focus on olfactory and gustatory modalities [38,40,54,59,70,79], a gap potentially shaped by the search criteria and parameters used, as discussed in the limitations section.

While visual and auditory modalities received the most attention, the scoping review identified creative approaches that utilized taste and smell, demonstrating their potential to enrich understanding of embodied and sensory dimensions of knowledge. For instance, smell and taste offer unique insights into how cultures and communities construct and convey knowledge across different temporal and spatial contexts. Gieser’s work on auditory skills in tree falling [31] exemplifies the potential of sound to communicate experiential knowledge, illustrating the breadth of applications for sensory methods.

The scoping review emphasizes the capacity of sensory methodologies to inform innovative research designs. Although traditional ethnographic and sensory ethnographic approaches dominate, other methodologies provide alternative avenues for addressing complex questions through a sensory lens. Participatory methodologies, for example, effectively integrate multisensory methods while challenging hierarchical power structures. Dew et al.’s study [25] demonstrates how participatory methods can foster agency and sensory engagement, particularly in disability research.

Despite these advancements, the review reveals limited attention to issues of power, accessibility, and equity within the reviewed studies. A recurring theme involved researchers examining cultural practices and knowledge systems outside their own contexts, which occasionally resulted in representations that might be perceived as lacking in nuance. Sensory dimensions such as smell, taste, and sound are closely linked to cultural and social identities. Without adequate contextualization, such research risks reinforcing essentialist or reductive views, particularly in light of historical and ongoing discriminatory practices. This underscores the importance of researchers critically reflecting on their positionality and the ways in which their theoretical and methodological frameworks shape their work. Reflexivity, often central to critical and community-based research approaches, received limited attention in many studies.

The potential for multisensory methods to enhance inclusivity and accessibility, particularly for disabled populations, remains underexplored. Disabled populations are particularly well suited to benefit from sensory methodologies, as these approaches facilitate engagement with nontraditional modes of communication and representation, offering alternative pathways to overcome barriers often associated with conventional research practices. Only 6 of the 80 reviewed studies explicitly included disabled participants [14,18,24,25,58], indicating a significant missed opportunity. Sensory methods can offer richer, more nuanced insights into the lived experiences of disabled individuals by accommodating diverse sensory modalities and fostering more inclusive participation. For example, visual storytelling and other sensory-based approaches enable researchers to better capture and convey the embodied experiences and perspectives of disabled communities, contributing to a broader understanding of accessibility and representation in research. De Clerck’s use of visual storytelling to articulate the experiences of Deaf individuals [24] highlights how sensory methods can effectively represent marginalized perspectives.

Clarity and consistency were recurring challenges within the reviewed literature. Methodologies were often vaguely defined, inconsistently applied, or presented using discipline-specific terminology that limited broader accessibility. Additionally, inconsistencies in the terminology used to describe multisensory methods complicated efforts to compare or replicate studies. The dominance of anthropology within the reviewed literature likely reflects its deep historical and methodological engagement with sensory studies. While this highlights the field’s significant contributions, it may also have constrained the inclusion of interdisciplinary perspectives and approaches. Other disciplines, such as sociology, psychology, and design studies, bring complementary frameworks and methodologies that could broaden the understanding and application of sensory methods.

Finally, the review highlights a gap in knowledge mobilization practices. While the reviewed studies make significant contributions to academic understandings of the sensorium, few explicitly address how findings are communicated to broader audiences or utilized beyond academic settings. Sensory engagement with nonacademic audiences is critical, as it offers accessible modes of interaction that can accommodate diverse needs and foster inclusive participation. Furthermore, sensory methodologies can reveal alternative ways of knowing and experiencing the world, challenging conventional epistemologies and enhancing public understanding. Prioritizing knowledge mobilization through sensory methods not only broadens the impact of research but also bridges gaps between academic and nonacademic contexts, making findings more actionable and meaningful for diverse communities. Future research should prioritize community engagement and consider how findings can be effectively disseminated and utilized by diverse publics.

5. Limitations

This scoping review is subject to several limitations. First, the search parameters restricted the review to 80 articles and dissertations, excluding significant works published in book chapters and other non-journal formats. This likely limited the scope of the review and its ability to incorporate the foundational literature. Second, the search strategy—focused on primary research and specific databases—resulted in an overrepresentation of studies from anthropology. While this reflects Sensory Studies’ disciplinary roots, it may have excluded innovative perspectives and methodologies from other fields.

The restriction to English-language publications is another notable limitation, as it excludes valuable research conducted in other languages. This linguistic bias likely skewed the sample toward perspectives from the Global North and reduced the racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity represented in this review. Additionally, the emphasis on academic literature may have overlooked critical insights from community-based or practice-oriented research, which often employs alternative dissemination formats.

Finally, the inclusion criteria may have contributed to the underrepresentation of studies focusing on smell and taste. These senses, though underexplored, offer substantial potential for advancing Sensory Studies and warrant greater attention in future research. Disciplines such as psychology, culinary arts, and marketing have explored these sensory modalities, demonstrating their relevance in areas like memory formation, consumer behavior, and identity construction. Within Sensory Studies, the inclusion of smell and taste provides an opportunity to broaden methodological approaches and deepen interdisciplinary engagement. These sensory dimensions offer diverse pathways for understanding human experience, contributing to both accessibility and alternative ways of knowing. As foundational texts in Sensory Studies often address the theoretical and applied significance of these sensory modalities, including such works in future reviews could enrich understanding by drawing on well-established and expansive discussions within the field.

6. Conclusions

Multisensory research methods and methodologies expand the pathways researchers can explore, interpret, and represent lived experiences. To date, limited work has synthesized how sensory methods and methodologies are described and applied in research. This scoping review contributes to this emerging area by mapping current approaches to multisensory methods and methodologies across diverse research contexts.

The findings outline the scope and nature of research involving multisensory methods and methodologies, offering an overview of current practices while pointing to areas that warrant further inquiry. The synthesis of the reviewed studies suggests that ethnographic-based approaches, particularly sensory ethnography, are frequently used to explore embodied and culturally situated experiences. A wide range of sensory methods was also identified, with visual techniques noted as the most common method across the reviewed literature. This prevalence highlights the dominance of ocular centrism in current practice and the relative underrepresentation of olfactory and gustatory methods, suggesting opportunities for broader sensory inclusion in future research.

Further, future research that more intentionally includes disabled populations holds significant potential for advancing adaptable and accessible practices within multisensory research designs. These findings underscore the importance of transdisciplinary collaboration and the need for ongoing methodological reflexivity to support the field’s development. Enhancing consistency with terminology and expanding attention to sensory modalities within the exciting field of Sensory Studies hold significant potential for enriching multisensory research. Through such efforts, multisensory research may continue to evolve, offering more nuanced and transformative insights, contributing to an expanded understanding of lived experience in more-than-human worlds.