Seeing voices of health disparity: Evaluating arts projects as influence processes
Arts-informed approaches are increasingly popular as vehicles for research, knowledge translation and for engaging key stakeholders on topics of health and health care. This paper describes an evaluation of a multimedia art installation intended to promote awareness of health disparities as experienced by homeless persons living in Toronto (Canada). The objective of the evaluation was to determine whether the installation had an impact on audience members, and if so, to understand its influence on viewers’ perspectives on homelessness and the health concerns of homeless persons. Key themes were identified through the analysis of direct observational data of viewer interactions with the exhibit and qualitative interviews with different audience members after the exhibit. The four key themes were: (1) Promoting recognition of common humanity between viewers and viewed (challenging previously held assumptions and stereotypes, narrowing perceived social distance); (2) functions fulfilled (or potentially fulfilled) by the exhibit: raising awareness, educational applications, and potential pathways by which the exhibit could serve as a call to social action; (3) stories that prompt more stories: the stories within the exhibit (coupled with the interview questions) prompted further sharing of stories amongst the evaluation respondents, highlighting the iterative nature of such approaches. Respondents told of recognizing similarities in the experiences recounted in the exhibit with their own interactions with homeless persons; (4) strengths and weaknesses identified: including aesthetic features, issues of audience ‘reach’ and the importance of suitable venues for exhibition. Theoretically informed by narrative analysis and visual anthropology, this evaluation demonstrates that arts-informed ‘interventions’ are highly complex and work in subtle ways on viewers, allowing them to re-imagine the lives of others and identify points of common interest. It also problematizes our assumptions about which outcomes matter and why.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 36 (2013)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:36:y:2013:i:1:p:165-171. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.