Doing research on visceral matters is not exactly a straightforward process. After all, if the data you seek to “collect” are ultimately “non-cognitive, and in large part nonverbal, how can they be included in your research?” (Latham 2003). Though qualitative methods have gained considerable ground in geographic and social scientific research in the past decades, and have been increasingly acknow - ledged as acceptable “scientific” practice, qualitative research on/with the body now threatens to push the established boundaries of academic inquiry even further (Crang 2002). Nigel Thrift (2000), for example, laments the weddedness of qualita - tive researchers to traditional ethnographic procedures (interviews and observation), and calls for much more creativity in research methods if we are to broaden the range of sensate life we register (Latham 2003). Others propose that it is not so much the methods we choose, but what and why we assume we are “collecting” that needs to change. Gail Davies and Claire Dwyer (2007) argue for a rejection of the idea that the purpose of social science research is to generate clarity and precision, or to reduce uncertainty and ambiguity, suggesting that we need to revise our understandings of what social science research actually achieves (2007, 258). Along these lines, Mike Crang (2005) notes that, “qualitative research, despite talking about the body and emotions, frames its enterprise in a particular way that tends to disallow other forms of [emotional and bodied] knowledge” (2005, 230). In many ways, research on visceral matters requires that we approach our traditional research method/ologies with a new sense of dynamic, creative practice (Latham 2003).