**5. Analysis**

This section analyzes both the artworks produced, and the silent researcher critique method used to evaluate audience experience of the artworks. The holograms all used the *Z*-axis of holographic space to depict di fferent time periods. Images were sunk into the depth of holographic space to show a period further back in time as illustrated in Figure 3 overleaf. The dotted red line depicts the present moment, the space behind the holographic image plane depicts the past and the space between the plane and the viewer depicts the present.

Experts in art and holography were able to determine how the *Z*-axis of holographic space was being used to depict di fferent time periods and a chronological narrative.

The artwork had an a ffective or emotional impact on its audience, causing viewers to move physically to view the works and interact with them, and declare an emotional response, beyond that of mere wonder. Those unfamiliar with holography more readily expressed their emotional responses.

**Figure 3.** Depiction of holographic space including the Z-Axis marked with an arrow to delineate the structure of a chronological narrative. Illustration by the author.

The benefits of using silence during both critique sessions were evident in that members were given the opportunity to finish their thoughts when the researcher did not answer back, and when posed as a question, participant comments were carefully considered and formed. Silence is recognised to be a useful interview tool when used by a facilitator, enabling the participant to complete their response (Lerpiniere 2015). The silent researcher critique method avoided the need of either participant or researcher to feel defensive in preparing a response and the researcher was able to concentrate on listening. The process enabled a depth of engagemen<sup>t</sup> between the artwork, the researcher and the participant in the critique. Lastly, the process ensured that the viewer was in control of describing their experience, even if it did not relate to the evaluation aims and this was both a benefit and drawback of the method. The researcher was unable to steer the discussion if evaluation topics relevant to the aims and objectives of the project were not being covered, as is possible with a focus group.

It could be argued that the length of time for the second critique of 25 min was too short: In his *Art Critiques: A Guide*, Elkins (2014, p. 27) describes appropriate timings and structure for a critique; which has, he argues, a recognisable start, finish and end: "A very simple reason why some critiques don't make sense is that they are too short. Even an hour can be barely enough to ge<sup>t</sup> acquainted with an artwork." However, the critique did make sense despite being limited because the experts in art and holography were already acquainted with the artwork having seen it on display previously and Elkin's critique structure also describes a situation between a teacher and students, while participants in this research process were all experts. The shorter critique length did not prove problematic as there was no sense that the session was unfinished, the questions from participants came to a natural end.

Other potential limitations of the evaluation process were more general: Social Scientist David Thomas points out that the interpretation of qualitative data is influenced by the evaluators:

"Inevitably, the findings are shaped by the assumptions and experiences of the evaluators conducting the study and carrying out the data analysis." (Thomas 2006, p. 240).

The author learned basic evaluation methods used in social science to ensure a robust approach, and Delanius checked both the transcript and the coding produced by the author as a result.

Overall, the silent researcher method proved a valuable method of obtaining thoughtful feedback from peers in a concise, e fficient manner.
