I read this excellent article in The Independent.

Click the image below to read it.

‘Inside the scandal that rocked behavioural science – and paved the way for revolution’ : Helen Coffey – The Independent – June 29, 2025.

It is about behavioural science, that branch of science that studies human behaviour. In the article it addresses a crisis, that of reproducibility in research.

To be ‘objective’ or have quantitative or qualitative rigour, research results must show reproducibility. That is, that other scientists do the same research and get the same results or that the results may be generally or universally applied, not be shown to apply to one person, or just the people studied in the research. There is talk, as alluded to here, that many old research and new research findings may, on reflection, be a bit ‘subjective’. That is applied to just the subject of study, not the general population.

There is reference throughout to sample size. To be objective, research findings of people are best done with a large sample size.

But if you alone are the subject and object of your own research, it can still be research, but research simply about you and your behaviour, your experience. You are the sample. A sample size of one.

Art as research produces a subjective outcome, thus is open to interpretation. But in conducting research through art making, you make yourself open to interpretation. Your sample size is small, but as such it may be taken to apply to you alone. In showing and sharing, your art may resonate with other people, but again, subjectively. There is no better way. You own your subjectivity, and it owns you. You walk your talk. You have made yourself both object and subject.

The point is that through art making thou art approaching a state and inhabiting a process in which thou may, through art making, come to better ‘Know Thyself’. In this, there are health benefits.