The Production and Dissemination of Knowledge: A Scoping Review of Arts-Based Health Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of arts-based research is shifting our understanding of what counts as evidence and highlights the complexity and multidimensionality involved in creating new knowledge. A scoping review of arts-based health research was undertaken to identify the breadth of peer-reviewed literature, summarize findings and identify gaps. A literature database search identified 71 original studies meeting our criteria for review. Studies were characterized by diverse art genres, designs, and substantive health topics. The arts in qualitative research were considered an opportunity for enhanced engagement of participants and audiences alike, a way to enrich communication and make research accessible beyond academia, and a method for generating data beyond the scope of most interview-based methods. Three central gaps were identified: the need for critical dialogue regarding the impact of arts-based health research, the need to focus on how the quality of such projects is judged, and the need to address the ethical challenges of engaging in this work. We suggest that the broadening of qualitative methodologies to include arts-based approaches offers more than simply adjuncts to typical data collection and dissemination approaches, and instead, presents different ways of knowing. We believe that this may be a significant moment in the field in which to question whether or not we are witness to a paradigmatic shift in the ways we approach inquiry into the social world and/or the emergence of an innovative set of techniques that researchers can draw upon to enhance traditional methods of conducting qualitative inquiry. URN: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1201327
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.204 | 0.347 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.079 | 0.067 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".