Exploring the Role of Art-Making in Recovery, Change, and Self-Understanding---An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of Interviews with Everyday Creative People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most creativity theorists consider artists as “agents of control”, capable of overcoming and controllingpsychological distress. However, studies have yet to map the “healing” tendency for “everyday creative people”in detailing the process’ effects on perception and change. This study was aimed to examine this process via aphenomenological and Perceptual Control Theory perspective (PCT: see Powers, W. T. (1973). Behaviour: Thecontrol of perception. Chicago: Aldine). We recruited and interviewed eleven participants who had engaged inart-making and experienced recovery from psychological distress. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis wasused to identify themes between participant responses, generated from self-created semi-structured interviewschedules following Smith and Osborn’s technique (IPA: see Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2008). Interpretativephenomenological analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods,2nd edition, (53-80). London: Sage). Data analysis identified six superordinate themes: 1) “the process of creatingas a goal-oriented focus”, 2) “internalising process and product”, 3) “awareness shift and self-focus”, 4)“emotion regulation”, 5) “goal change, bonding, and conflict resolution”, and 6) “feelings and perceptions withinthe art-making process”. Disconfirming Case Analysis and participant feedback also indicated a seventh theme: 7)“the ‘superficial’ creative process”. The results were interpreted to indicate that art-making involves thepurposeful creation of perceptual experience to fulfil higher-order goals and values. The creative process is alsoa learning process which instigates and promotes positive affect, enhances skills, and facilitates change inhigher-order goals. We consider these interpretations in the light of the components of PCT.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".