Trustworthiness

In my discussion of trustworthiness, I address credibility and transferability. Within these areas I focus on triangulation, member checks, and reflexivity.

I used triangulation by asking the same research questions to different participants and gathered data from multiple sources. With my participants, I incorporated triangulation methods through the making of altered books, engaging in art making in the studio and the garden, the questionnaires, and interviews that were designed to identify emerging patterns and themes. I crosschecked information and drew conclusions by using these sources. I shared my transcripts

with the adults who I interviewed and my interpretation of those interviews. This aided in verifying my work.

My literature review and discussion of methodology also demonstrates methodological and theoretical triangulation. I integrated place-based learning theories as my participants were connected with their local surroundings and community within the constructs of cross-curricular learning (Sobel, 2004, p. 6). Inquiry-based learning, Integrated Learning, Experiential Learning, and Stewardship as highlighted in Natural Curiosity (2011) also provided me with a credible framework endorsed by leading environmental educators including David Orr and others. I connected this framework to Dewey (1900) and Vygotsky’s (1930-1934/1978) theories on social constructivism. Place-based education also extended to the art world. I referenced two

prominent art theorists and educators as we mapped our surroundings and focused on reconstructing our space (Gablik, 1991; Gude, 2007).

Barone and Eisner (1997) remind us that, “what arts-based educational research seeks is not so much conclusions that readers come to believe, but the number and quality of questions that the work raises” (p. 266). Furthermore, the questions raised also reflected the voices that really mattered: the community of participants. I look to the checklist established by Finlay (2003), and paraphrased by me, to assess my Arts-Based Research and Qualitative inquiry.

Did I perform a useful local community service? Was the inquiry harmful in any way to the participants?

Whose voices were heard most clearly, mine or the participant’s?

Was there evidence of ethical concern and care between myself and my participants? Were the roles between myself and my participants blurred?

How did my inquiry shape a space that supported dialogue between readers, viewers, participants, other researchers, and artists?

Was the research passionate? How did it provide for opportunities for connections between the participants, myself, and the audience between the text?

Is the reader or the participants likely to take action as a result of this project and the art works that have been produced?

Using what Barone and Eisner (2012) refer to as “structural corroboration” (p. 162), I gathered evidence from many sources to both deepen conversation and shape a “compelling whole” (p. 162). Sinner et al. (2006) indicated that is common for a/r/tographers to use multiple methodologies, and methods which provided for a hybridity that ensures rigour. They also emphasized that there is no one way to conduct arts-based research. Although each work is individual, the findings as they unfold through collected stories in a/r/tographic inquiries can be transferred. Within the A/r/tography community there is a desire to build upon inquiry. I’ve included rich description and offered a garden path outlining this project and inquiry. The methods, theories, and descriptions allow others to develop insights as how to utilize the concepts for future research.

Gouzouasis (2005) lists a number of criteria in which the research community needs to consider when assessing a/r/tographic works, including reflectivity, reflexivity, insightfulness, ontological and education authenticity, aesthetic merit, strength, durability, and empathy. Also of importance is that the process and the product carry equal weight. Similar to the

artistic/creative process, “a/r/tography invites change, and challenge, play and imagination, creativity and imagination” (p. 231).

In terms of reflexivity, I was constantly looking within to access if I was making the right research decisions and if my relationship with the inquiry itself was proper. This lead to some soul searching; I faced aspects of my own identity and beliefs. As an a/r/tographic living inquiry

it was necessary for my epistemological worldview to play a role in the design and execution of the project, and interpretation of art and graphy data.

During my interviews, I knew that it was critical to not interfere and to not allow my readings and my personal journal topics cloud what I was hearing. I would ask for clarification and for interviewees to paraphrase in order to ensure my understanding. Although I wanted topics such as environmental stewardship, eco-art education, and gardening to be discussed in depth, I also realized that my participants were of various ages and had divergent lifestyles. I heard many different stories and would probe if I wanted more information by asking, “Can you tell me more about how you feel, or can you elaborate on that idea or concept?” By doing this, I tried to keep a distance because, from a professional standpoint, and in the eyes of my

participants, I was wearing the shoes of both teacher and researcher.

I was also sensitive of the need to strike a balance between the theoretical and the

practical. I had to allow for hearing the participant voice and seeing their artwork without letting prior theorizing interfere. Although this was a struggle, I needed to be mindful to not dig up what I was looking for, but to discover what my community and other communities might be interested in unearthing. Through the process of reflexivity and reflection my project took me further into the world of A/r/tography and the experiences gifted to me through this living inquiry.