aceUVi

Recommendations

Info

Qualitative research A wide range of research literature employs qualitative methods to assess how individuals are affected by cultural experiences. This includes studies examining individual participants’ experiences at specific cultural programmes (eg, qualitative assessments of a particular museum visit or theatrical performance), qualitative studies tracking the longitudinal impacts of individuals’ experiences with a specific institution or cultural programme, and more broadly focused ethnographic studies exploring the arts, cultural, and creative lives of individuals, families and communities, and the kinds of programs and activities they find meaningful. Across this broad swath of literature, our primary focus lies in studies of the impact of specific cultural experiences or ‘events’. Post-event qualitative assessments Rather than defining measurement constructs in advance, several researchers have turned to qualitative measures in order to let the respondents describe their cultural experiences in their own terms. Radbourne et al In recent years, Jennifer Radbourne and her colleagues have been developing an Arts Audience Experience Index (AAEI) based on qualitative audience reports. While Radbourne et al have started using more structured means of data collection, including written (2013, 9) and face-to-face surveying (2013, 11; 2010b, 319), they initially emphasised the value of soliciting ‘deep feedback.’ Radbourne et al distinguish between ‘surface feedback’ and ‘deep feedback.’ The former refers to metrics such as box office figures, demographic information and satisfaction surveys, which ‘provide[…] information about the audience’ (2010a, 374). The latter ‘provides information about [audience members’] expectations and experience of the performance’ (2010a, 374). Deep feedback methods ‘progressively build on information given, usually through lengthy discussions J Radbourne, H Glow and K Johanson, 2013, ‘Knowing and Measuring the Audience Experience’, in The Audience Experience: A critical analysis of audiences in the performing arts edited by J Radbourne, H Glow and K Johanson, Bristol, UK and Chicago, USA: Intellect, 1-13. J Radbourne, H Glow and K Johanson, 2010b, ‘Measuring the intrinsic benefits of arts attendance’, in Cultural Trends 19:4, 307-324. J Radbourne, K Johanson and H Glow, 2010a. ‘Empowering Audiences to Measure Quality’, in Participations 7:2, 360-379. J Radbourne, K Johanson, H Glow and T White, 2009, ‘The Audience Experience: Measuring Quality in the Performing Arts’, in International Journal of Arts Management 11:3, 16-29. Measuring Individual Impact: Post-Event Surveying 76 UNDERSTANDING the value and impacts of cultural experiences
with audience members, and they allow for audiences to direct the feedback to what aspects of their experience they consider worthy of discussion’ (2010a, 370). Such detailed qualitative feedback can be collected by several means. Radbourne and her colleagues mention blogs, focus groups, online games for children, annual dinner meetings with select audience members, formal committees of audience members and theatre clubs or music societies as possible options (2010b, 316-17). Based on five focus group discussions held with audience members of three performing arts companies in Melbourne, the researchers identify a set of four indicators that together make up the Arts Audience Experience Index (2009, 22). The indicators are • Knowledge transfer or learning (contextual programming, enhancements, etc.) • Risk management • Authenticity (believability, meaning and representation, sincerity) • Collective engagement (ensuring expectations of social contact and inclusion) By rating each of these indicators on a five-point scale and summing the scores, Radbourne et al calculate the AAEI as a single number on a scale from four to twenty. The index ‘is conceived as a qualitative tool to access audience feedback on quality’ (2010b, 313). Thus, Radbourne et al interpret the score of 16.4 received by a performing arts centre in their case study as evidence that the venue is ‘achieving a moderately high quality audience experience, but not at the highest quality’ (2010b, 321). It is not clear how the index scores can be derived from the qualitative ‘deep feedback’ methods that Radbourne and her colleagues promote. In the one case study in which they calculate an AAEI score they administered a formal survey that asked audience members to score two questions for each of the four indicators on a scale from one to five. While this methods of data collection would seem at odds with the researchers’ earlier call for feedback that is ‘qualitative and thorough, and that encourages sustained reflection’ (2010a, 374), they seem to embrace this ‘transition in research techniques’ and expand their definition of ‘deep feedback’ to include quantitative survey results (2010b, 322). Measuring Individual Impact: Post-Event Surveying 77 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 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: Summary The fact that different res
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?