Photography was the most popular visual art form, theatre the most used performing art form, and poetry the most used literary art form in community-based arts-based research, with 64% of studies combining multiple art genres¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Across the 131 reviewed studies, photography dominated visual art forms (n = 81 still-image studies), theatre dominated performing art (n = 31), poetry dominated literary art (n = 10), and 64% of studies combined different art genres. → Sara Coemans 2017

Evidence¶

Sara Coemans 2017¶

Sara Coemans, Karin Hannes. (2017). Researchers Under the Spell of the Arts: Two Decades of Using Arts-Based Methods in Community-Based Inquiry with Vulnerable Populations. Educational Research Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.003

q2 · i? · review · r2

Descriptive numerical synthesis of the 131 included studies (Table 2). Art forms were categorized as visual art (still images, moving images, 3D artefacts), performing art, literary art, and multiple methods. The review reports "a multiple methods approach" combining genres in 64% of studies, and counts such as n = 81 for still images and n = 31 for theatre.

"Table 2 shows that the most popular visual art form was photography, whereas theatre and poetry were the most used performing and literary art forms."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Arts-based methods in community-based research with vulnerable populations grew steadily in use from 1993 to 2013, with 90% of the 131 reviewed studies published between 2004 and 2013 — related
• Reported strengths of arts-based methods include participant-driven engagement, personal, institutional and audience transformation, and richer data than traditional interviews, but few studies evaluated these outcomes — related
• Analyzing arts-based data was one of the biggest challenges in community-based arts-based research: what counts as data was unclear, conventional textual analyses dominated, and researcher-led versus participant-led interpretation each risked stereotyping — related