aceUVi

A deeper look at specific indicators, and
how they align across four quantitative
studies
Table 1, above, suggests a remarkable amount of overlap between the categories
or constructs of impact that researchers seek to measure. An examination of the
individual survey questions that are used to assess these dimensions, however,
reveals considerable discrepancies between the researchers’ constructs, but also
some striking similarities in individual indicators.
The appendix tables on page 151 attempt to sort out specific questions drawn
from the four closely reviewed survey protocols, in order to examine the similarities
and differences more closely. These include NEF (2008), Bakhshi et al (2010),
Brown et al (2007, 2012, 2013), and Boerner and Jobst (2013). In these tables,
the actual wordings of the survey questions are used as the basis for comparison,
regardless of how the authors categorise or associate these indicators with larger
constructs (indicated in parentheses). In order to keep these tables to a manageable
size, we have left out some indicators from the lengthier protocols and
selected those that most closely align with indicators from other studies.
The tables are organised as follows:
Table A-1: A grouping of indicators around engagement, energy and
tension, concentration, captivation and absorption level
Strong consistency across studies was found as to indicators of absorption, captivation
and the audience member’s general sense of feeling involved and engaged.
Subtle but important differences in specific language are observed, which could
lead to different results, such as:
I was totally absorbed (Bakhshi et al 2010)
During the performance I was constantly very anxious to see what would happen
next (Boerner and Jobst 2013)
Captivation is also identified as a theme emerging from several of the qualitative
studies reviewed in the next section of the report, including Foreman-Wernet and
Dervin (2013) and Walmsley (2013). Brown and Novak-Leonard (2013), citing
psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, argue that captivation (ie, achieving a psychological
state of ‘flow’) is an impact of cultural experiences, not just a precondition
for impacts to occur.
Measuring Individual Impact: Post-Event Surveying 70
UNDERSTANDING the value and impacts of cultural experiences