aceUVi

Recommendations

Info

The primary focus of the literature on post-event survey research has been developing tools to assist arts and cultural organisations in gathering high quality audience feedback for internal accountability purposes. In fact, an organisation’s capacity to gather and reflect on critical feedback from its audiences may be an organisational indicator of its creative capacity (explored in the next section). The larger question of the role of post-event survey data in assessing public sector policy is only emerging in the most recent literature (Bunting and Knell 2014). Some researchers, however, have expressed concerns about aggregating survey data across organisations and artforms, due to the highly personal and situational nature of impact, and because of differences across the forms themselves (Belfiore and Bennett 2007). Additional research and debate is required to better understand the extent to which it is appropriate and useful to aggregate self-reported participant impact data across organisations and artforms. Qualitative methods have the advantage that they allow respondents to focus their reflections on the areas that are most significant to them. Rather than defining constructs in advance, researchers can allow their informants to express themselves in their own terms and subsequently derive the most relevant categories of responses inductively. However, as with formal surveying, qualitative methods of inquiry can only capture aspects of an experience of which respondents are aware and that they are able to articulate (Foreman-Wernet 2013, 70), and it is difficult to rule out the possibility that informants merely recite common tropes about the arts and culture (Armbrecht 2012, 134). Whereas survey methods can be expected to yield consistent results over time and thus generate a stable basis of knowledge, the results of qualitative studies are not replicable, independently verifiable or refutable. As in any field of research, there is qualitative work that has been conducted conscientiously, thoughtfully and meticulously; however, there are also studies that are less rigorous. Since the conclusions drawn by one qualitative study are not disproven by contradictory findings in another, there is no inherent mechanism that weeds out research that is of substandard quality. One must therefore assess the integrity of each study by paying close attention to the research design and methodology, which can be challenging for readers who are not experienced researchers. The increased attention that has been paid to the durational value and longitudinal impacts of cultural experiences is a welcome addition to the research literature. While the retrospective identification of impactful cultural events may not be a reasonable way to assess the impact of specific works or organisations, it can inform our understanding of the role that cultural participation plays within the larger scope of people’s lives. Miles and Sullivan (2012) even go a step further and Measuring Individual Impact: Qualitative Research 90 UNDERSTANDING the value and impacts of cultural experiences
analyse existing interviews from sources such as the 1958 Birth Cohort Study (also known as the National Child Development Study). By examining interviews about people’s general leisure activities conducted with a truly random sample of the British population, Miles and Sullivan glean important insights into the role that arts and culture play in the lives of the population at large, whereas all other studies discussed here only capture the responses of people who engage with formally recognised cultural events and arts institutions. In order to assess the cumulative value and longitudinal impacts of specific events, one would have to collect data from participants several months or even years after their initial experience. To the best of our knowledge, little research of this sort has been conducted to date, though it is feasible in principle, though costly. Table 2 Stages of Individual Impact Concurrent Impacts Those that occur during the experience Experienced impacts Observed post-event hours or days later Extended and cumulative Impacts Lifelong engagement/memory — weeks or years later Unconscious psycho-physical responses and states, such as: • Physiological response (heart rate, skin conductance) • Pre-cognitive response (arousal) • Captivation (flow, awe, absorption, concentration) • Energy and tension Short-term experienced impacts, such as: • Emotional affect and meaning • Spiritual uplift • Learning and critical reflection • Social connectedness • Aesthetic enrichment and creative activation These impacts can occur before, during and after experiences, but are typically measured afterwards. Delayed impacts of individual events, and impacts that accrue through repeated engagement in cultural activities over time, such as: • Memory of event • Sense of social belonging • Increased cultural capacity • Increased capacity for empathy • Expanded worldview • Health benefits • Subjective well-being Based on our review of the literature, we have come to think of the impacts of cultural experiences on individuals as occurring in three stages (Table 2) in temporal proximity to the experience or stimulus. The stages do not necessarily reflect clearly distinguished segments of individual’s experience. There is little point, for instance, in trying to pin down whether the post-event engagement phase continues for half an hour or two weeks after the initial event, since this is likely to vary from event to event and from individual to individual. Rather, we Measuring Individual Impact: Qualitative Research 91 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 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: Discussion of research methodologie
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?