aceUVi

Novak-Leonard’s terms) stands out among the audience experience dimensions.
Their explanation, however, is somewhat different:
Of these five dimensions, it seems safe to assume that all (or at least the great
majority of) theatre performances are intended to be engaging; surely no writer
or director sets out to bore the audience or encourage their attention to wander.
(15)
They go on to state that regarding the remaining four dimensions, ‘it is not
obvious that all productions will share the same intent’ and point out that a
community-based theatre might emphasise the sense of shared experience while
an avant-garde theatre company might intentionally challenge its audiences and
provoke a sense of alienation (15). The authors thus seem to share Brown and
Novak-Leonard’s concerns about cross-site comparisons. They therefore primarily
promote their survey as a tool for internal evaluation and documenting success in
achieving specific aims.
Three of the five dimensions identified in the NEF handbook (‘engagement and
concentration’, ‘personal resonance and emotional connection’, ‘shared experience
and atmosphere’) correspond rather clearly to indicators used by Brown
and Novak-Leonard (Table 1) and it is possible that aspects of Brown and
Novak-Leonard’s ‘spiritual value’ and ‘aesthetic growth’ would be captured under
‘personal resonance and emotional connection’ and ‘learning and challenge’, respectively.
The biggest difference between the two sets of indicators lies in NEF’s addition of
an ‘energy and tension’ dimension. This category ‘refers to physiological reactions
to the performance’ (13). According to the NEF authors, responses such as raised
heart rate, increased muscle tension and perspiration ‘are usually associated with
emotional states’ and are ‘a good indicator that people are emotionally engaged
with the work’ (13). Whereas Latulipe et al (2011) would support the claim that
physiological responses are good indicators of arousal and engagement, it is
curious that the NEF survey asks audience members to subjectively assess their
physiological reactions, which are to be used as an indicator of their subjective
response. This brings the feedback cycle full circle. If the ultimate goal is to gauge
the audience’s level of engagement with post-show surveys, it would seem that the
questions in the ‘engagement and concentration’ section would be sufficient and
likely more effective than asking about physiological responses as an indicator of
engagement.
Measuring Individual Impact: Post-Event Surveying 67
UNDERSTANDING the value and impacts of cultural experiences