aceUVi

Recommendations

Info

Brown, Novak-Leonard and Ratzkin Alan Brown and his colleagues have conducted several studies using this type of audience survey and their methods and protocols continue to evolve. This empirical research has focused on ‘intrinsic impacts’ as defined in the discussion of Brown’s theoretical framework above (page 47). Other researchers have since adopted Brown’s ‘impact indicators’ for their own purposes, such as investigating responses to the visual arts (Rosenberger et al 2012) and measuring attitude changes that result from performances of musical theatre (Heide et al 2012). The first large-scale empirical study (Brown and Novak-Leonard 2007) measured impact using six constructs: A S Brown and J L Novak-Leonard, 2007, Assessing the Intrinsic Impacts of a Live Performance, commissioned by 14 major university presenters. A S Brown and R Ratzkin, 2012, ‘Understanding the Intrinsic Impact of Live Theatre: Patterns of Audience Feedback across 18 Theatres and 58 Productions’, in Counting New Beans: Intrinsic Impact and the Value of Art, edited by C Lord, San Francisco: Theatre Bay Area, 67-164. A S Brown and J L Novak-Leonard, 2013, ‘Measuring the intrinsic impacts of arts attendance’, in Cultural Trends 22:3-4, 223-233. • Captivation • Intellectual stimulation • Emotional resonance • Spiritual value • Aesthetic growth • Social bonding Brown and Ratzkin dropped the spiritual value indicator in their 2012 study (Brown and Ratzkin 2012, 81), and in 2013 Brown and Novak-Leonard further reduced the number of indicators to the following four: • Art as a Means of Feeling • Art as a Means of Social Bonding & Bridging • Art as a Means of Aesthetic Development & Creative Stimulation • Art as a Means of Learning & Thinking (Brown and Novak-Leonard 2013, 5-6) A significant finding across Brown’s studies has been the central role that captivation plays in experiences of performing arts audiences (Brown and Novak-Leonard 2007, 11). Captivation stands out among the indicators, in that it is most strongly correlated with the other reported impacts, so that the researchers “come to regard Captivation as a gateway to experiencing other impacts” (Brown and Novak-Leonard 2013, 5). Measuring Individual Impact: Post-Event Surveying 64 UNDERSTANDING the value and impacts of cultural experiences
In Brown and Novak-Leonard (2007), the authors hypothesise that the impacts of performing arts experiences depend not only on the presentation of the work on stage, but also on the audience members’ cognitive and emotional state when entering the performance (22). Using three constructs to measure the audience’s ‘readiness-to-receive’ (context, relevance and anticipation) the researchers demonstrate that the audience’s readiness is in fact associated with higher impacts; however, readiness alone cannot predict the impacts that are experienced (71-72, 78). Brown and Novak-Leonard also explore the relationship between the impact indicators they devised and audiences’ overall satisfaction with the performance. They find a ‘generally high level of correlation between indicators of satisfaction and impact’ (2007, 68). Arguing a) that some performances might challenge audiences and thus leave them unsatisfied, and b) that satisfaction is strongly correlated with, but ultimately an incomplete measure of impact (69-70), the researchers conclude that ‘satisfaction questions need not be included in an impact survey’ (68). The authors raise concerns about the ‘deep and inevitable desire by arts organizations to benchmark their impact results against results for similar programmes, and against cohort averages’ (Brown and Novak-Leonard 2013, 7). They maintain that the impact results measured by their constructs are ‘fundamentally non-comparable across sites’ and state that Impact is inherently contextual on several levels. Different artistic programmes will create different impacts, and not all programmes should be expected to have all impacts. (2013, 7) Further, the audience itself is a variable in the equation (2013, 8). Different venues cater to different publics and the audiences that are attracted to certain types of performances may vary. Variations in impact scores may therefore reflect the composition of the audience rather than characteristics of the performance. Measuring Individual Impact: Post-Event Surveying 65 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 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: Table 1 Comparison of components of
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?