aceUVi

Recommendations

Info

culture, this understanding of ‘value’ is closely related to notions of ‘benefits’ and ‘impacts’ though the terms are not entirely synonymous. In the field of cultural economics, ‘cultural value’ refers to the value that is created by cultural goods and experiences that is not ‘economic value’ (Throsby 2001). Scholars disagree as to whether ‘social value’ should be separated out as a third category of value (Klamer 2004). Some researchers subdivide ‘cultural value’ into smaller components, such as aesthetic value, spiritual value, social value, historical value and symbolic value, which are easier to interpret. Other researchers use ‘cultural value’ to describe a way of thinking about the many ways in which cultural organisations produce value (Holden 2004, 2006). In this usage, ‘cultural value’ refers to a strategy rather than an outcome. Two major research initiatives are currently underway in the UK to explore ‘cultural value’ in depth: the Arts & Humanities Research Council’s Cultural Value Project and the Warwick Commission on the Future of Cultural Value. ‘Cultural capital’ has two distinct meanings in the economic and sociological literature. Both meanings are related in that they refer to an investment in the capacities to realise cultural value. In the economic framework advanced by Throsby (2001) the cultural capital is stored in cultural goods, whereas in Klamer’s view (2004), which is closer to the sociological perspective, cultural capital is a trait of individuals who are particularly skilled at consuming cultural goods. Other researchers have used the term ‘creative capital’ in referring to the accumulated capacities of individuals and families to create and invent (Wolf and Denson 2009). Due to the idiosyncrasies of the conceptual frameworks and the terminologies, it can be difficult to determine when authors are describing the same phenomena with different words, and when important distinctions are being made that should not be glossed over. Despite the ambiguities and interrelationships, the frameworks and terminology can be understood as aligning around several different senses of value, from microcosmic to macrocosmic: 1. The value of cultural experiences to individuals, which, most scholars agree, cannot be measured solely in economic terms (we settled on the term ‘individual impacts’ to describe the totality of ways in which an individual is affected by a cultural programme or activity, both in the short and the long term); 2. The value represented in cultural organisations, individually and collectively; 3. The value to society of a thriving cultural sector. Our decision to focus on individual impacts and organisations’ abilities to engage the public in experiences that produce those impacts is primarily motivated by Executive Summary 10 UNDERSTANDING the value and impacts of cultural experiences
the necessity of limiting the scope of our inquiry and our belief that there is much to be learned about the types of interrelated impacts that accrue for individuals. In placing the emphasis of our study on individuals, we by no means intend to downplay the value that arts and culture have for communities or society as a whole. Moreover, we would not suggest that the total value of arts and culture can be calculated by adding up the impacts experienced by individuals. The sum of individual impacts can only give an incomplete picture of the total value created, since it ignores values that are inherently social such as the value of active and engaged citizens (O’Brien 2010, Fourcade 2011). Measuring individual impacts Researchers have measured, interrogated and assessed individuals’ responses to arts and culture in numerous ways. Our review of this literature is organised in groups of studies that employ similar methodologies, including biometric research, post-event surveying, qualitative post-event research, and longitudinal or retrospective studies. Physiological and psychometric responses Biometric research is unlikely to provide a practical means of assessing the overall impact or value of cultural experiences, at least not in the near future. While research on the biological functions that underlie the aesthetic experience provides ‘objective’ measures of audience response (Tschacher et al 2012, Stevens Executive Summary 11 UNDERSTANDING the value and impacts of cultural experiences
Page 1 and 2: UNDERSTANDING the VALUE and IMPACTS
Page 3 and 4: However, we cannot ignore this ‘i
Page 5 and 6: TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 FOREWORD 4 ACKN
Page 7 and 8: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Over the past dec
Page 9: dividing the overall value into con
Page 13 and 14: espondents are conscious; 2) there
Page 15 and 16: Table 2 Stages of Individual Impact
Page 17 and 18: Figure 6 Impact pattern of a cultur
Page 19 and 20: Valuing arts and culture from the m
Page 21 and 22: cultural researchers are hamstrung
Page 23 and 24: organisation’s creative capacity
Page 25 and 26: The literature clearly identifies t
Page 27 and 28: 1 INTRODUCTION This literature revi
Page 29 and 30: Outline of the report This literatu
Page 31 and 32: Economic value There are several di
Page 33 and 34: happy, healthy, educated people pro
Page 35 and 36: 2 FRAMING THE CONVERSATION LANGUAGE
Page 37 and 38: six in particular. Indeed, the fact
Page 39 and 40: Arjo Klamer Within the field of Cul
Page 41 and 42: culture. By increasing people’s k
Page 43 and 44: that Holden mentions under the head
Page 45 and 46: public value’ (4). The authors de
Page 47 and 48: Figure 3 Tentative visual synthesis
Page 49 and 50: establish an interpretive frame and
Page 51 and 52: terpretive, curatorial, observation
Page 53 and 54: Knell and Taylor Due to the widespr
Page 55 and 56: of impacts with instrumental values
Page 57 and 58: the capacities to realise cultural
Page 59 and 60: 3 MEASURING INDIVIDUAL IMPACT As wa
Page 61 and 62:
While one might argue that the requ
Page 63 and 64:
Table 1 Comparison of components of
Page 65 and 66:
In Brown and Novak-Leonard (2007),
Page 67 and 68:
Novak-Leonard’s terms) stands out
Page 69 and 70:
Like Brown and Novak-Leonard and NE
Page 71 and 72:
Table A-2: A grouping of indicators
Page 73 and 74:
The same two studies also provide a
Page 75 and 76:
Summary The fact that different res
Page 77 and 78:
with audience members, and they all
Page 79 and 80:
are applied in the evaluation of te
Page 81 and 82:
White and Hede Tabitha White and An
Page 83 and 84:
(2008) and Foreman-Wernet and Dervi
Page 85 and 86:
Everett and Barrett Michelle Everet
Page 87 and 88:
‘sensation’, while Walmsley use
Page 89 and 90:
Discussion of research methodologie
Page 91 and 92:
analyse existing interviews from so
Page 93 and 94:
Individual impacts are not fixed or
Page 95 and 96:
4 VALUING ARTS AND CULTURE FROM THE
Page 97 and 98:
In reviewing types of goals, motiva
Page 99 and 100:
Intrinsic • Self-oriented, active
Page 101 and 102:
of audience members’ overall eval
Page 103 and 104:
this factor leads the researchers t
Page 105 and 106:
5 CREATIVE CAPACITY OF AN ORGANISAT
Page 107 and 108:
Sabine Boerner Sabine Boerner (2004
Page 109 and 110:
Daniel Urrutiaguer Daniel Urrutiagu
Page 111 and 112:
Hannah, Langsted and Larsen 1 Boern
Page 113 and 114:
In entrusting the evaluation to exp
Page 115 and 116:
of the major performing arts organi
Page 117 and 118:
Clarity of intent and commitment to
Page 119 and 120:
tional structure in determining art
Page 121 and 122:
Supportive Networks (conditional el
Page 123 and 124:
CODA: COMBINING MEASURES OF EXPERIE
Page 125 and 126:
dimensions in the shaded boxes have
Page 127 and 128:
The 2012 DCA report assures readers
Page 129 and 130:
Bailey, Jackie 2009a. Defining arti
Page 131 and 132:
Margaret Bolton and Clare Cooper. 2
Page 133 and 134:
Chappell, Michael, and John Knell.
Page 135 and 136:
Falk, John H and Lynn D Dierking. 2
Page 137 and 138:
Johanson, Kaya. 2013. ‘Listening
Page 139 and 140:
Marsh, Kevin, and Evelina Bertranou
Page 141 and 142:
New Economics Foundation. 2008. Cap
Page 143 and 144:
Reason, Matthew. 2004. ‘Theatre a
Page 145 and 146:
Throsby, David. 2010. The Economics
Page 147 and 148:
Williams, Tandi. 2011. Community Re
Page 149 and 150:
Hegarty, C Boyd. 2009. ‘The value
Page 151 and 152:
APPENDIX TABLES Table A-1 A groupin
Page 153 and 154:
Table A-3 A grouping of indicators
Page 155 and 156:
Table A-5 A grouping of indicators
show all

aceUVi

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?