aceUVi

Recommendations

Info

Concluding thoughts A brief coda to the review discusses two current initiatives that integrate assessments from multiple sources (self-assessments, peer review and audience feedback) in the evaluation of cultural works (Chappell and Knell 2012; Bunting and Knell 2014). These interconnected projects, one commissioned by the Government of Western Australia’s Department of Culture and the Arts, and the other commissioned by a group of cultural organisations in Manchester, UK, take on the considerable challenge of aggregating and comparing assessment scores across organisations, programmes and sites. Both projects offer new frameworks based on the input of artists and administrators, and both projects define indicators relating to individual impacts (framed as adjudications of product quality) as well as the creative capacity of organisations, and are in various stages of pilot testing and rollout. Notable about these two efforts is the integration of end-user impact data (ie, selfreported data from surveys) along with self-assessments and peer review in the respective two agencies’ accountability schemes. This raises questions about the accountability of public funders for different types of individual, organisational, and sector-level outcomes and impacts. In providing financial support to organisations, is it reasonable for a funding agency to hold itself accountable for individual impacts Is the cause and effect relationship strong enough Or, should funders be satisfied to know that an organisation is assessing individual impacts for the purposes of improving its creative capacity, but not for external accountability At present, there are valid opinions on both sides of this question. Executive Summary 24 UNDERSTANDING the value and impacts of cultural experiences
The literature clearly identifies the benefits to organisations of assessing programme impacts, and the potential benefits to participants of such critical reflection as may arise by virtue of completing a survey or interview. For this reason alone, further investment in research on individual impact is warranted. But an exclusive focus on immediate impacts will not serve the long-term interests of the sector. While individual experiences are the building blocks of the value system, the literature agrees that cumulative impacts – the effects of a lifetime of involvement in arts and culture – are the fuel for larger societal outcomes. The dearth of research on cumulative impacts of cultural experiences on individuals (and their families), therefore, is particularly disconcerting. In closing, we circle back to the three senses in which the ‘value’ of arts and culture is explored in the theoretical literature: 1. The value of cultural experiences to individuals (concurrent impacts, experienced impacts, extended impacts, and cumulative impacts) 2. The value represented in cultural organisations, individually and collectively; 3. The value to society of a thriving cultural sector. A holistic understanding of these three tiers may serve as a framework for future research. There is a good deal of literature at all three levels, yet little consensus as to optimal measurement approaches, and little understanding of how these three components of value interweave. Funders seeking to support organisations in the provision of impactful programmes should focus on the conditions necessary for those organisations to do their work at a high level of creativity and competence. While the measurement of individual impacts is highly contingent on factors over which the organisation has little control (much less the funder), the measurement of an organisation’s creative capacity is likely to be more straightforward, and may benefit from other bodies of literature not covered in the present review, such as the literature on organisational leadership, innovation and capitalisation. Designing and testing frameworks for an organisation’s creative capacity will also serve to educate the field about how to strengthen one of its most essential – but least understood – functions: the creative process. National arts agencies are necessarily concerned with the cultural and creative welfare of the entire citizenry. With this heavy yoke of accountability, building a stronger understanding of societal outcomes must also be a high priority. Further investments in longitudinal tracking studies and retrospective assessments of impact are necessary to complete the puzzle of value and strengthen our understanding of how impact on the microcosmic level accrues into social impacts at Executive Summary 25 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 and 10: dividing the overall value into con
Page 11 and 12: the necessity of limiting the scope
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: organisation’s creative capacity
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?