Donna Frost

Chapter 4 114 data analysis process to make sense of the information generated, to explicate our learning and to generate new knowledge about professional artistry in our practice are described here, separately from the description of the lemniscate cycle. First, therewas a collaborative process used throughout the CCCI within both inquiry groups. This approach drew heavily on work done by Boomer and McCormack ( 2007 , 2010 ), van Lieshout and Cardiff ( 2011 ) and Cardiff ( 2012 ) with respect to creative hermeneutic analysis of research data. It incorporated, as well, the principles described by Heron ( 1996 ) and Bray et al. ( 2000 ) with respect to meaning making and collaborative generation of knowledge. Second, after the CCCI groups had stopped meeting and I was working alone, I modified the analysis process used during the collaborative phase of the inquiry to undertake, individually, a synthesis of the entire data set. The collaborative and individual methods will be discussed in turn. Collaborative meaning making: philosophical and theoretical principles As stated in the methodological principles underpinning this study the procedures fordata analysis,makingmeaningandco-creatingknowledgeneeded tobe iterative and collaborative, drawon diverse forms of knowledge andways of knowing, create conditions in which those participating could benefit from the process and use both critical and creative processes. More specifically, the CCCI process for collaborative meaning making started with experience (cf. Heidegger, 1953 / 1962 ; Gadamer, 1975 / 1989 ; van Manen, 1990 ) and with sharing the experience with each other (eg. Heron, 1996 ; Bray et al., 2000 ; van Manen, 1990 ). When this sharing was part of a re- telling, the starting point was often not only the story but also creative expressions, photos or descriptions of these (Bray et al., 2000 ; Boomer & McCormack, 2007 ). Although the experiences occurred within the limitations of our own pre- understandings, presuppositions and frame of reference (cf. Gadamer, 1975 / 1989 ; van Lieshout & Cardiff, 2011 ), we were aiming, within the CCCI process, for some kind of fusion of horizons (Gadamer, 1975 / 1989 ), where we each knew more in the end than we did at the start (Boomer & McCormack, 2007 ; Cardiff, 2012 ). To come to this point we intentionally moved between artistic and cognitive processes and ways of knowing and being (Heron, 1996 ; Titchen et al., 2017 ), used our imaginations and imaginal processes (McCormack & Titchen, 2006 ; Titchen & McCormack, 2008 ), artistic critique, cognitive critique and contestation (Simons & McCormack, 2007 ; Titchen, Higgs, & Horsfall, 2007 ; Cardiff, 2012 ), and we accepted that we could not understand the whole without understanding the parts, and vice versa, and that the new understandings resulting from our analysis procedures were, in their turn, contextual.