CHAPTER THREE
Overview
This in-depth qualitative portraiture study was to investigate how knowing changes though creating art in a collaborative context. The study, therefore, addressed the following three questions (1) Do ways of knowing change by creating art in a collaborative context? (2) That kind of learning occurs through the collaborative creation process? (3) Does the collaborative creation of art lead to transformative learning among participating adult artists? This section will provide a discussion of the efficacy of portraiture as a methodological strategy to facilitate the investigation of the above study questions. Additionally, the study will present particular methods of finding research participants, data collection, and data analysis for study cohesion.
Context of the Study
The study took place in the local context of Bermuda in the North Atlantic. Owing to the lack of research studies on the collaborative creation of art and the local culture of conformity and there aren’t many places to try on or critically evaluate existing (colonial, oppressive, segregated, exclusive) social systems/structures and dynamics. The study would, therefore, provide a platform to encourage such future endeavors to express this aspect of culture using collaboratively created art. It will also provide suitable insight for helping individuals/adults explore these cultural issues and broaden their belief systems/perspectives.
Participants recruitment criteria
The researcher selected five professors John, Samantha, Charlie, Oliver, and Amelia as the participants of the study using convenience sampling technique. The selection was of this purposeful sample was based on their interests in the purposed research. Even though some researches argue that convenient sampling is not appropriate (SITE), (SITE) argue that in a qualitative model, all sampling is on purpose. (SITE) Explain that convenient sampling is a non-random sampling technique that involves the selection of predetermined study participants for the study depending on them meeting specific practical criteria including availability at a particular time, the willingness to volunteer geographical location, easy accessibility. The study used the named criteria to select the study population.
The study employed a recruitment email (See appendix 1) that was sent to all Art lecturing Professors at the university where I am taking my major, and I have been working as a university supervisor. The researcher received several responses from the professors; three of which were former mentor professors who had worked with the researcher, the researcher’s current professor also decided to be part of the study after being provided with a brief f the purpose of the study. These participants will be discussed in detail in the next chapter. However, it’s important to point out the fact that the participants were endowed with experience at different levels in the field of art. The participant’s information in tabulated as follows (See table 1)
Table 1: Professors’ department information
John
Samantha
Charlie
Amelia
Oliver
University
Year
Gender
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Race
White
White
Black
White
Black
Years of Lecturing
1
10
9
3
7
Data Collection
Ethical consideration
The researcher involved the input of the institutional review board (IRB) in helping establish whether the data collection from human participants was performed ethically. Even though the researcher admits delays during the approval process, in the end, approval was made by the IRB. The study additionally chose to protest the participant’s identity, their departments of operations, and districts by the application of pseudonyms. The researcher also made an assurance to all the participants the lack of any harm as a result of involvement in the study which was followed by the signing of a consent fee assent form for student below age 18 (See Appendix D)