aceUVi
aceUVi
aceUVi
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
This section covers four research approaches:<br />
1. physiological and psychometric research<br />
2. post-event surveying<br />
3. qualitative post-event research<br />
4. retrospective identification of impactful events – and concludes with a<br />
synthesis of the various research methods.<br />
Physiological and psychometric responses<br />
measured during the experience<br />
There is a growing body of research that investigates the biological functions that<br />
underlie the aesthetic experience. Within this field (sometimes referred to as ‘bioaesthetics’)<br />
a significant amount of research examines neurological responses to<br />
aesthetic stimuli. Due to the technological requirements involved, it is currently<br />
not feasible to measure the brain activity of large numbers of people at once,<br />
although a number of studies have sought to capture other forms of biometric<br />
data as a means of gauging audience responses to art, some of which may be<br />
useful in informing the discussion of value and impact.<br />
Latulipe, Carroll and Lottridge<br />
For instance, Celine Latulipe, Erin A. Carroll and<br />
Danielle Lottridge (2011) measure galvanic skin<br />
responses (conductance) during performing arts<br />
experiences and correlate them with the level of<br />
engagement that test subjects report during the<br />
performance. While such measurement techniques<br />
may not be of immediate practical value as means<br />
of gauging audience responses on a routine basis at<br />
C Latulipe, E A Carroll and D Lottridge,<br />
2011, ‘Love, hate, arousal and engagement:<br />
exploring audience responses to performing<br />
arts’, in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference<br />
on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1845-<br />
1854.<br />
theatres and concert halls, the study raises important questions that may inform<br />
refinements in the theory of impact and value creation. During pilot tests of the<br />
rating systems, for instance, the researchers found that<br />
… simply labeling the slider with No Engagement and High Engagement was<br />
confusing. Participants could not detach valence from the word, and tended to<br />
only rate themselves as being engaged when they liked what they saw. Others<br />
just didn’t really seem to know what we meant by engagement, and still others<br />
didn’t seem to know how engaged they were. (1850)<br />
Measuring Individual Impact: Physiological and psychometric responses measured during the experience 60<br />
UNDERSTANDING the value and impacts of cultural experiences