Fig. 1 is not a coherent 2×2 framework. The horizontal axis opposes “socially-engaged art” to “professional art,” which are not mutually exclusive (professional artists can be socially engaged); the vertical axis opposes “art as research data” to “art as boundary object,” which are epistemic functions, not production contexts. This mixes different dimensions and makes the quadrants non-orthogonal. What validation supports this typology?
Figs. 1 and 2 contradict each other. Fig. 1’s top-left quadrant requires art “made by academic and non-academic actors,” yet Fig. 2 places there a poem written only by participants. Fig. 2 labels the Delta Days collective mural as “professional art,” although the text describes it as participant-generated with artist-prepared materials. How were these examples coded?
The “continuum” claim contradicts the static quadrants and the data/boundary-object binary. The authors state boundary objects are “not analysed for research purposes,” but in Raval Resilient the photographs generated discussion data, and in Illingworth & Jack the poems were both data and boundary objects. Why impose a binary that the examples themselves violate?
No selection criteria or comparative coding are provided for the four examples. The framework is asserted rather than tested. How can it support the paper’s claims about measurable impact and policy relevance?
The discussion overstates empowerment/decolonisation. The examples show researcher/artist control—pre-designed mural materials and pilot feedback constraining the artist—yet the paper claims art “breaks power imbalances” and supports decolonial praxis. How do you address tokenism, extractivism, and researcher control?
The conclusion’s claims about “new social capital” and more just/legitimate policies are unsupported by a perspective piece with four purposively selected examples and no empirical evaluation. What evidence would justify these implications?
