aceUVi

Recommendations

Info

2010, 20; Belfiore and Bennett 2007, 262)—a sort of spontaneous combustion of multiple factors, any one of which can re-shape the impact: • The nature and quality of the artistic or cultural content on offer (ie, what is being produced or presented) exerts a large influence over impact, as well as the quality of its delivery; • Impact can be influenced by the individual’s personal background (cultural frame of reference) and experience with the form, the artist, the work, or the topic or subject matter; • Situational factors such as venue and acoustics can greatly influence impact; • The community contexts in which cultural programmes are embedded can also influence the impacts received (eg, a musical performance in a hospital waiting room). The ‘impact’ of a cultural programme is not time-bound by the start and end of the programme itself, but plays out over a period of time commencing before the start of the programme (when preparation might occur) and extending days, weeks or even months afterwards during which time the experience resonates through guided or unguided conversation, further exploration and personal reflection (Reason 2013, 101-2). Framing the Conversation 58 UNDERSTANDING the value and impacts of cultural experiences
3 MEASURING INDIVIDUAL IMPACT As was shown in the overview of conceptual frameworks and their corresponding sets of terminology, the variety of theoretical approaches and languages used to discuss ‘cultural value’ and ‘impact’ makes it difficult to generalise or compare the work of researchers across studies. When examining the empirical studies that have been conducted, one finds that some studies explore responses to aesthetic stimuli, others seek evidence of cultural value, and still others examine how audiences ‘make sense’ out of artistic experiences. On what basis can one compare such diverse research agendas One thing that all of this research has in common is that it explores how people experience art and culture. As was shown in the review of frameworks, the cultural experience—the encounter between people and cultural works or their engagement in cultural activities—is central to the creation of value and impacts. Recent attempts to measure intrinsic impacts and cultural value have therefore focused on audiences’ and participants’ experiences. While there is a risk of oversimplifying, one can make out remarkable overlaps between what certain groups of researchers are doing if one ignores the labels they apply to their work (eg, ‘evaluation’, ‘marketing research’ or ‘communications studies’; ‘measuring impacts’, ‘values’ or ‘engagement’). Rather than discussing the empirical studies on the basis of their academic disciplines or the specific terminology they use, it seems most fruitful to compare them on the basis of common methodologies. A wide range of research methods have been deployed in order to illuminate what happens when people engage in cultural experiences. They range from tracking eye movements, skin conductance and piloerection (hairs standing on end), audience surveys and focus groups, to collecting creative responses (drawings or movements), interviews and blog posts 1 . Which methodologies are employed in a given study is often related to the time lag between the artistic experience and the measurement of the response, impact or effect. 1 A detailed explanation of these various methodologies is beyond the scope of the present work. Radbourne et al (2013) provide a useful overview and introduction to several of these methods. See in particular chapter 11, also chapters 8 and 9. 59
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 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: the capacities to realise cultural
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?