aceUVi

Discussion of research methodologies
Having reviewed a cross-section of the relevant literature, it is possible to draw
some conclusions about the potentials and drawbacks of these various research
methodologies. It seems fair to say that biometric research is unlikely to provide
a practical means of assessing the overall impact or value of cultural experiences,
at least not in the near future. While research on the biological functions
that underlie the aesthetic experience provides the only truly objective measures
of audience responses, it is questionable whether such objective responses –
however desirable from a research standpoint – are relevant to the discussion of
cultural goods and services. It may be that subjectivity is a defining characteristic
of cultural experiences and should therefore be central to the investigation of
audience responses.
Nonetheless, the physiological response is clearly a part of the aesthetic experience
and may be in itself a desirable outcome. Knowledge of the physiological
responses and their relationship to the subjective experience will therefore be of
considerable benefit in advancing our conceptual understanding of impact and
cultural value.
Post-event surveying has proven to be an effective means of assessing the shortterm
effects that specific cultural events have on participants. Since surveying
requires researchers to determine the response measures in advance, it is
important that the indicators are reflective of the full range of responses that constitute
the cultural experience and that the questions on the survey protocols are
correctly assigned to indicator constructs. The lack of consistency between several
researchers’ work in this regard (noted above) is therefore of some concern.
As with any research approach, there are certain limitations to post-event surveys.
Most notably: 1) surveys can only capture aspects of the experience of which
respondents are conscious (Belfiore and Bennett 2007, 239; Brown and Novak-
Leonard 2013, 4); 2) there is limited comparability across events and locations;
and 3) surveys immediately following events fail to capture effects that unfold
over time. Researchers agree that post-event impact data is highly contextual
and must always be considered in light of the nature and intentions of the artistic
programme (Bakhshi and Throsby 2010, 50; NEF 2008, 15; Brown and Novak-
Leonard 2013, 7). Moreover, survey data may be affected by situational factors
that vary from venue to venue and city to city, as well as over time (Belfiore and
Bennett 2007, 244; Brown and Novak-Leonard 2013, 8).
Measuring Individual Impact: Qualitative Research 89
UNDERSTANDING the value and impacts of cultural experiences