Dialoguing With Images: An Expressive Arts Method for Health Research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the increasing integration of arts-based methods within qualitative research, few expressive arts methods have been studied to understand their process, rationale and impact on the inquiry process. We conducted a grounded theory study on family experiences of paediatric HSCT where we simultaneously adapted and studied a 'dialoguing with images' (DI) expressive arts process as method. Fifteen family members participated in two interviews, drew an image and were guided through the DI method. We articulate the social process shared by researchers, participants and the images as they co-constructed knowledge through the DI method. The four distinct phases of the method include: 1) containing the imaginative space within an outer and inner frame, 2) creating an embodied image: image work is an expressive, generative process, 3) a shared, participatory aesthetic interpretation and 4) crystallizing stories of illness. The findings are grounded in expressive arts theory and philosophy, hermeneutics and analytical art psychotherapy theory.
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.
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 | 0.445 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it