Listening to Dancers: Building Feedback Loops That Actually Work
- SPRINT project
- Aug 15
- 5 min read
What if safeguarding wasn’t something done to dancers, but with them?
At The SPRINT Project, we believe safeguarding should be participatory. That means involving dancers in shaping the environments they move in and in the policies and procedures that are designed to protect them from maltreatment and harm.
This blog explores how participatory safeguarding can transform dance spaces, and how creative feedback methods can help build a culture of trust, inclusion, and shared responsibility.
What Is Participatory Safeguarding?
Participatory safeguarding is an approach that actively involves dancers, especially young people and those from marginalised groups, in shaping, monitoring, and improving safeguarding systems. It’s about co-creating safe environments, not just enforcing policies and procedures.
This aligns with how we have defined safeguarding in dance that includes and goes beyond prevention of harm:
“Actions to protect people from abuse, harm and neglect and support their health, well-being and human rights.” (Cumming et al., 2024)

It is also an approach that supports a whole-organisation culture of safeguarding, where everyone has a role in creating safe, inclusive, and empowering spaces.
A safeguarding culture refers to the shared values, beliefs, behaviours, and systems within a dance organisation that prioritise the safety, wellbeing, and rights of all participants, especially those who are vulnerable.
It goes beyond having policies on paper by embedding safeguarding into the everyday practices, relationships, and decision-making of an organisation.
Why Feedback Loops Matter
Dancers can be hesitate to speak up, especially if they fear it could affect their careers. As we explain in our recent viewpoint, that’s why we need psychologically safe spaces where feedback is not only welcomed but acted upon without fear of repercussion.
When dancers are heard, and their insights, concerns, and lived experiences are acknowledged, they will likely feel that their perspective matters. This sense of being valued becomes a powerful form of protection. It helps to identify risks early, prevent harm, and address unsafe practices before these escalate. But it also affirms dancers’ rights to be safe, respected, and included. This kind of listening creates the conditions where dancers can thrive physically, emotionally, and socially, and where their wellbeing and dignity are actively upheld.
But listening alone isn’t enough. When dancers see that their feedback leads to visible change, whether that’s a shift in how feedback is given in rehearsal practices, clearer communication, or more inclusive policies, it builds trust. It signals that their voices don’t just echo into a void, but help to meaningfully shape the environment.
That’s the power of a feedback loop. It transforms safeguarding from a static policy into a dynamic, responsive relationship between dancers and the organisations that support them.
Creative Ways to Listen to Dancers
Dance is an embodied, expressive artform, and feedback methods should reflect that. Here are some creative, dancer-centred ways to gather feedback:
Movement-Based Reflection: Invite dancers to express how they feel through movement. Prompts like “Show me what safety feels like in your body” can be followed by group discussion or journaling.
Diary Rooms: Inspired by reality TV but grounded in research, diary rooms offer dancers a private space to reflect. These can be video booths, audio recordings, or digital voice notes, which are ideal for obtaining honest feedback in flexible and engaging ways. You can read more about how the SPRINT Project has used diary rooms here.
Body Mapping and Visual Journals: Dancers can draw or collage their experiences, such marking areas of the body where they feel strong, vulnerable, or unseen. This is especially powerful for younger dancers or those who prefer visual expression.
Feedback Boxes with Creative Prompts: Set up a physical or digital box with rotating prompts like: “What made you feel seen this week?” or “If this space were a dance move, what would it be?.
Collaborative Choreography: Invite dancers to co-create a short piece that reflects their experience of the space. Follow with a discussion to unpack the themes that emerge.
Peer-Led Focus Groups: Train older or more experienced dancers to facilitate conversations with their peers. This can reduce power imbalances and encourage more open sharing.
Sensory Feedback Tools: Use emoji cards, mood meters, or tactile objects to help dancers express how they feel. This might be especially useful for neurodivergent dancers or those with communication differences.

Benefits of Participatory Safeguarding
When dancers are invited to shape the systems that are meant to protect them, safeguarding becomes more than a policy. It becomes a shared culture of safeguarding.
🤝 It Builds Trust and Openness
If dancers see that their voices are genuinely heard and acted upon, trust will likely grow. They’re more likely to then speak up, share concerns earlier on, and engage in honest dialogue. This openness is the foundation of a psychologically safe environment; that is, one where people feel secure enough to be vulnerable, ask questions, and challenge harmful norms.
📌 It Makes Policies More Relevant and Effective
Too often, safeguarding policies are written without the input of those they’re meant to serve. Participatory safeguarding involves dancers in the design and review of policies to ensure safeguarding measures reflect real experiences, not assumptions. The result is more practical and more inclusive policies that are more likely to be followed.
🌟 It Encourages Ownership and Empowerment
When dancers help shape safeguarding policies, they’re more likely to feel responsible for upholding them. Participation fosters a sense of ownership, which can be especially important for young people, who may otherwise feel sidelined in decision-making processes.
🏛️ It Strengthens a Whole-Organisation Culture of Safety and Inclusion
Participatory safeguarding isn’t just about individual feedback. It’s about embedding safety and inclusion into the fabric of a dance organisation. It signals that safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility, from leadership to dancers to teaching staff. Over time, this creates a culture where safety isn’t just enforced, but it’s lived.
Challenges to Be Aware Of
Power dynamics: Dancers may fear speaking up.
Tokenism: Involvement must be meaningful, not symbolic.
Time and resources: Genuine participation takes planning.
Confidentiality: Balancing openness with protection is key.
These challenges can be overcome with thoughtful design, training, and a commitment to listening.
Call to Action: Start Listening Today
Here are three ways you can start participatory safeguarding:
Ask your dancers what safety means to them.
Try a diary room or movement-based reflection.
Reflect on how you respond to concerns, and how you can do better.
Remember: Safeguarding isn’t just a checklist. It’s a conversation that starts with listening. What are your favourite ways of putting young people at the centre of what you do? We’d love to hear them in the comments section below.
Written by Prof Jennifer Cumming, Co-Director of The SPRINT Project and Chartered Psychologist.
References
Cumming, J., Nordin-Bates, S. M., Johnson, C., Sanchez, E. N., & Karageanes, S. J. (2024). High time to enhance dancer welfare: a call to action to improve safeguarding and abuse prevention in dance. BMJ open sport & exercise medicine, 10(2). https://bmjopensem.bmj.com/content/10/2/e001811
Cooley, S.J., Holland, M., Cumming, J., Novakovic, E. & Burns, V. (2014). Introducing the use of a semi-structured video diary room to investigate students’ learning experiences during an outdoor adventure education groupwork skills course. Higher Education, 67(1), 105-121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9645-5
Owusu-Sekyere, F., Rhind, D. J., & Hills, L. (2022). Safeguarding culture: towards a new approach to preventing child maltreatment in sport. Sport Management Review, 25(2), 300-322. https://doi.org/10.1080/14413523.2021.1930951
Comments