*3.3. Methodology*

The objective of both surveys aims to understand the type, as well as the modalities of the dialogue that could arise between the artist and the study participants. In that regard, our setup included an immersion in an art installation and a face-to-face qualitative interview (Appendix A). We favored a qualitative approach as our focus was to "*understand phenomena such as the values, representations and meanings that social actors give to human life*" as well as to "*pay attention to the meaning of phenomena rather than their frequency*". We also looked at the type of dialogue that would emerge from an art-tech installation and whether this dialogue would lead towards sustainable development issues.

Our survey protocol included:

Participants' visit and interaction with the art-installation without being previously informed about the survey purpose (5 min);

Participants' interview about the visit: What they just experienced, felt, and the meanings they might give to it (10 min).

Thirty-eight participants or groups of participants were recruited, randomly and on a voluntary basis among visitors to "La Villette" Science Museum in Paris (Figure 3) and "Le Shadok" Art and Tech Center in Strasbourg, France. In the Science Museum, we chose specific days when various activities were proposed to visitors, such as "Saturday repair cafes", in order to reach a diverse audience in terms of socio-professional categories and ages. Recruitment has been adjusted and redesigned over time to increase the panel's diversification so as to boost the number of female participants in the survey. People were walking past the glass room where the facility was located, and voluntarily chose to step in. We stayed at the facility during large time slots (from 09:00 to 18:30) to include various participants' profiles in our research. Once engaged in the experiment, participants were asked to sign a use-of-data confidentiality protocol and an information and consent form for audio and video recordings. We filmed participants experiencing the immersive art installation to study their movements and verbal and non-verbal exchanges in the room. We then recorded the interviews by audio and video to facilitate their analysis and use.

**Figure 3.** Visitors interviews, Cité des Sciences, (2017). Photo: Anne Charignon ©.

In the end, 38 interviews were conducted. We did not anticipate that several people would simultaneously participate in the survey. Indeed, a total of 18 interviews were run in groups, either as a couple, a group of friends, or a family, ranging from 2 to 4 people. We will see that this element, once analyzed, enhanced our conclusions. In total, we interviewed 62 people, almost as many women as men (25 women against 30 men) and 7 children. The ages ranged from 7 to 69 years old. Individuals had diverse professional backgrounds, from journalism to sociology and mathematics.

This number of participants is relevant for a qualitative survey. We stopped conducting interviews when we reached saturation point in data collection: When new interviews were not providing us with new information or different ways of understanding our subject.

#### **4. Results and Analysis Returns**

#### *4.1. Analytical Method*

Our analysis is based on the grounded theory method, developed by American sociologists Anselm L. Strauss and Barney G. Glaser, and adapted by researcher and specialist in educational science, Pierre Paillée [26]. Indeed, inductive qualitative studies [27,28] allow for an exhaustive and effective conceptualization and provide an in-depth understanding of the concepts emerging from the analysis.

Grounded theory analysis includes seven stages: Initial codification of the participants' comments; categorization of the codes identified in the comments; consolidation of the categorization; co-linkage of the categories; integration of the different concepts; modeling of the relationships between the concepts and the context of the experience; and theorization.

We applied this approach to our corpus in order to extract the relevant concepts. Based on the participants' discourse, but also on the objectives of the survey, we worked more particularly on the analysis of the following four dimensions: Sustainable development, energy, the function of art, and the relationship to light. At a transversal level, we worked on the following categories: Imagination; place of emotion; subjective elements such as memories and how participants relate to their personal life; and emerging questionings (how participants ge<sup>t</sup> surprised).

#### *4.2. Significant Results*

The presented analysis focuses on the question of the dialogue established with the artist. We will therefore not detail all examined categories.

#### 4.2.1. Analysis Elements

Survey results did not show a meaningful link between a logic of discourse and socio-professional categories, the number of annual visits to the Museum where our installation was set up, or even participants whose profession relates to the survey's subject (Appendix A.1). The only di fference we identified in relation to participants' profiles is cultural and relates to their country of origin: Survey participants who lived in Brazil and Western African countries where power outages are more frequent expressed a relationship to light and energy that was slightly di fferent to other participants. However, this finding was not significant enough to be the subject of an analysis of its own.

Then, as pointed out in Section 3.3., we note that when participants experienced the art installation collectively and were interviewed in groups of 2 to 4 people, interview content was enriched as they were encouraged to debate and reflect further than when interviewed individually; especially when they were asked to relate their experience to sustainability, as we will see later in the analysis.

4.2.2. Characteristics of the "Art Installation + Experience + Interview" Setup to Organize the Dialogue

Our analysis of the dialogue developed around the artists' intention highlights the benefit of the installation operating on three levels:


Light was the concept the participants referred to the most with regard to the level of engagement. In 25 of the 27 interviews, participants evoked the possibility of using produce as a nightlight or as an alternative to traditional lighting. Survey participants mentioned these ideas in the artistic and technological contexts when developing ideas for luminous produce as well as when addressing what they experienced at the art installation. In the installation, organic elements were associated with technology. When participants touched the installation, they lit up the produce, arousing their curiosity. People were fascinated by the luminous experience and this notion of experience is essential to our understanding. The term "*curiosity*" was used in 17 of the 38 interviews studied. For example, in the first question of the interview, "*if you had to describe what you just experienced, what would you tell? Emotions, adjectives?*", some people answered by naming the emotion "*curiosity!*", "*I felt, hhmm* ... *I felt curious and confused*" and "*yes, intrigued, it is clear!*". Curiosity can be a leverage to facilitate open-mindedness and dialogue. Also, it is worth noting that out of 17 interviews mentioning "*curiosity*", 13 included the notion of movement such as a willingness to touch and to discover.

On an emotional and imaginary level, the installation triggered memory recall. Several participants in the experiment mentioned that the experience was similar to experiences they had in school. Twelve of the 38 interviews related this type of memory. People would say, "*It reminds me of the power cables I used in school. You plug it in* ... *the voltage* ... *No, it's been a long time since I have done that* ... ". In addition, the art installation evoked a collective imagination through the mention of paintings and masterpieces, notably the work of Italian artist Giuseppe Arcimboldo (1526–1593). During the interviews, 22 of the

38 interviews declared that the experience was reminiscent of a still life painting, when asked if it reflected memories or artistic works. Some of the participants talked about "*modern still life*", "*fruit basket*", and "*living still life*", integrating the luminous and interactive side of the experience with classic still life images found in paintings. In a few other interviews, individuals referred to the portraits made of fruits in the work of Giuseppe Arcimboldo but were unable to name these paintings precisely, for instance: "*I don't want to say the name, because I'm going to be wrong, but I am thinking of the portraits made of fruits* ... " and "*There's this face with lots of fruits and vegetables, it really evokes that image* ... ". This shared imaginary world brought up by the produce within the art installation as well as by participants' projection of paintings featuring human faces enhances their commitment to the experience. Another interesting point is the impact of memories activation: When participants referred to memories during the interview, they were more likely to talk longer and in detail than participants who did not evoke memories. It seems that using the word "memory" stimulates the discussion.

Finally, the cognitive mode completed the experiment. Interviews played an important, if not decisive, role in developing a dialogue and a reflective approach to participants experience with the interactive art installation. The importance of the interview is due, in particular, to Question 5 of the questionnaire: "*For you, is there a link between darkness, light, sustainable development: climate change and what you have just experienced?*" This question opened up a space for dialogue. Before this question, except for two interviews, people did not link sustainable development and climate change to the installation. This question allowed us to move from the emotional and experiential dimensions to a more verbal and expressive one. Thus, half of the respondents only talked about sustainable development when the question about this concept had been asked.

These three dimensions of the setup—engagement, imaginary, and cognitive—were key to linking participants' physical interaction with the art installation to the reflective mode: Movement stimulated by the interaction with the art installation provoked a grea<sup>t</sup> curiosity among participants; the artistic dimension, on the other hand, encouraged the emergence of memories and connected to a shared imaginary and the interview carried out afterwards allowed a "cognitive update" of the experience, encouraging verbal sharing and discussion. Moreover, participants who we interviewed in a group were more inclined to talk with us than individuals or couples. Lara Drew, an education specialist, when talking about embodied learning, explains that the body learns through specific contexts and then emotions are in charge to manage concepts [29]. We propose that this learning phenomenon occurred in our experiment. Indeed, our experiment was an important demonstration of the impact of movement and interaction on learning and of the value of verbal feedback after the experience.

#### 4.2.3. Discussed Topics

#### - Sustainable Development and Climate Change:

Nineteen out of 38 interviews linked the experience of the art installation to sustainable development and climate change compared to 12 out of 38 who did not see any connection. Seven interviews did not address this question at all. The 19 interviews (individuals or groups) talked about sustainable development only when we asked the Question 4: "*Is there a link between darkness, light, sustainable development: climate change, and what you experienced in the cabin?*". Only two interviewees addressed the subject before the question was asked. The question triggered participants' reflection and brought it to a cognitive level, stimulating exchange when they finally recognized that the art installation could be linked up to sustainable development and climate change. Then, when going deeper into the conversation, the vast majority of interviewees associated sustainability with energy and light.

## - Energy:

The term "*sustainable development*" is highly correlated with energy. Eighteen of the 38 interviews mentioned the term "*energy*" used in the sense of "*renewable energy*" and as alternative to polluting energy sources such as oil and nuclear power. They also used this term in relation to lighting. Of these 18 interviews, 13 referred to sustainable development and climate change. Participants who did not connect energy to climate change mentioned energy sources in general. For example: "*perhaps if it was presented in another way, it could be an energy source, the fact that it is an energy source, indeed, but to say that I am going to buy an apple* ... " or "*it is also extremely interesting to see, to discover, which food produces the most energy*".


Eight interviews out of 38 contain references to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Question 7 "*would you be ready to eat an illuminated fruit or vegetable?*" initiated these considerations. This question was deliberate and in line with the artist's intention to express a form of continuity between organic and technical matters in order to question our relationship with technology. Participants then question the nature of light and think about GMO (genetically modified organism). Their reactions included: "*me, a priori, if someone tells me a fruit that enlightens, you eat it? Well, no! This is the big question of the demonization of GMOs!*", "*I know it's going to have to go through genetic mutations, but* ... *why not, huh?*" and "*the whole fluorescent thing, I avoid, anyway* ... *If they are genetically mutated and phosphorescent* ... ". We note that their divide concerns, on the one hand, produce–nature and on the other hand, light–technology. For the majority, light did not modify their perception of fruits and vegetables, while eight interviewees raised the question of transformation of nature. For example, one participant felt that by watching the electrical wires on some of the fruits and vegetables, the experience was more technological than ecological: "*Each time you see electrical cables, I wouldn't necessarily associate it with organicity, I would automatically consider it to be technological*".
