Knowing Differently by Feeling Differently: A Practice Framework for Affective Reflexivity on Participatory Art
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored the significance of affect in audience responses to participatory art addressing social justice issues. The primary purpose of the study was to develop an affective framework for making meaning of and responding to participatory art that evokes complex feelings; the secondary purpose was to consider the implications of affective reflexivity on participatory art for transformative learning in professional education. The theoretical framework of this study was based on sociopsychological, neurobiological, and feminist theories of affect; audience studies; and researcher reflexivity. The thesis followed an autoethnographic reflexive writing orientation to exploring the relationship between affect (sensations) and discourse (sense-making) in audiencing participatory art.The study highlighted how the transformative potential of participatory art is not just in the way it informs audiences through personal narrative but in the way it interpellates them through affect, such that an affective response to participatory art can fuel or frustrate social action. Through affective interpellation, a work of participatory art can reveal an audience member’s unconscious bias, and a disparity in what they care about. It can also evoke affective dissonance, which is an unsettling experience of perceiving a gap in self-awareness. To address this gap, this study sought to better understand what feelings are evoked by participatory art, and why these feelings matter to attitudinal and behavioural change. It explored what an understanding of affective response can bring to the study of audiencing participatory art for social change. Often, participatory art seeks to influence the audience’s feelings, thoughts, and actions in relation to social justice issues affecting participants’ lives. Healthcare professionals (such as nurses and social workers), policymakers, and educators are key audiences for this type of participatory art, as they play a critical role in social change in terms of reducing inequities in health, safety, and well-being. Yet for some members of these audiences, unconscious biases can produce barriers to their clinical, legislative, and educational effectiveness. Moreover, they can be resistant to participatory art when it seems to threaten their self-awareness, that is, their awareness of their feelings, thoughts, and actions in relation to themselves and others. The study offered a novel practice framework for affective reflexivity on participatory art, which is a discursive strategy for parsing affect and emotion in relation to an audience member’s complex subject/viewing position
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 | 0.020 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".