“I was Struggling at the Beginning to Even Show People or do it… it was Very Emotional at Moments”: Exploring the Process of Art Creation in an Arts-Informed Research Method Among mothers From Ontario, Canada With Experiences of Gender-Based Violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gender-based violence (GBV), or violence perpetrated against someone based on their gender stemming from gender norms and/or unequal power dynamics, impacts women worldwide. It is well documented that during reproductive years, women face a heightened risk of experiencing GBV; however, the impacts of these experiences remain complex. While some literature points to negative health impacts for both mothers and children following experiences of GBV, other research has revealed that for some women, being a mother serves as a source of strength in addressing violence. More research is needed to address this dichotomy in findings, however, many barriers to research participation exist for this vulnerable population. Arts-informed research, a method underscored by empathy, support, and holding space for participants, has been identified as potential conduit to break down potential barriers. Therefore, the purpose of this qualitative, cross-sectional study was to explore the process of arts creation as an arts-informed research method among mothers with experiences of GBV. Guided by Thorne’s interpretive description, 13 mothers created a visual art form that reflected their experience of mothering in the context of GBV, before, during, and after which participants were encouraged to journal about the experience. Following the art creation, individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom to explore the process of art creation and interpretation of the art form. Analysis revealed two distinct but interrelated themes, including: (1) the process of participating in the art creation; and (2) the process of journaling to create. The arts-informed research process afforded new insights, including those that are typically not accessible through traditional qualitative data collection methods. Future research should explore structural factors that exist that enable mothers with experiences of GBV to fully participate and benefit from arts-informed methods.
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 | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".