gBDkI

4.2 What makes a good cultural participation survey?
Overall, it should be said that a good cultural participation survey requires much more attention to
detail, from initial conception to publication of analyses, then a regular household survey. This is
because we are all prisoners of our cultural background and it is extremely difficult to step out of
this frame and see where our assumptions do not prove true in other societies (national or subnational).
This handbook addresses design and data collection issues more than analysis, but as the
statistical proverb ‘rubbish in, rubbish out’ indicates, the quality of the survey design is a preexquisite
for obtaining quality data. This means, as stressed above, careful sampling is needed to
cope with different minority groups, household structures, etc. It means forming good definitions
and improving questionnaire design so that both are comprehensible to respondents from a wide
variety of different backgrounds including, for example, indigenous people and recent migrants.
Above all, consultation and gaining ownership from different cultural groups are vital to make the
survey outcomes useful and enlightening. Instead of just using a standard pattern of attendance at
formal events, agencies should look through some of the more detailed issues included in surveys
quoted in this handbook. Examples include – coming of age ceremonies in Uganda, visits to Maori
archives, and visits and performing at traditional festivals in Mexico. These are the kinds of
activities which come closest to describing the cultural identities of the participants concerned, and
it is undoubtedly through the patterns of participation associated with them (e.g. age, sex,
language, frequency and location) that governments and cultural agencies will come closest to
understanding their clients and citizens’ interests and aspirations.
4.3 Concluding remarks
The previous chapters have pointed out that cultural participation is a particular instance of social
capital as effectively summed up by Fintan O’Toole’s assertion that “exclusion from culture is (…)
about exclusion from full participation in what it means to be human” (O’Toole, 2006). Participation
is seen as a kind of core competence and behavioural attitude in confronting choices, in taking
something into account in critical terms and deciding whether to take part or not, according to the
specific situation. Participation as a whole can encompass civil life, political issues, cultural
activities, religious ceremonies, sports and leisure, voluntary services, etc. At the same time,
cultural participation may be considered as a specific element of this ‘holistic participation capacity’
and a way of strengthening this core attitude, by enhancing self-esteem, enabling comprehension
of diversity, fostering curiosity, “opening up” to allow comparison of the self with others,
overcoming the stress of dealing with the unexpected and the diverse, and minimising our own
burden of worry and concern in relation to social groups.
A virtuous interactive circle emerges: cultural participation requires general and basic participation
skills and, at the same time, it is able to feedback on those skills of empowerment, development
and cultivation of them in an organic process.
These multifaceted spill-over effects are one of the reasons why it is so important to consider and
measure cultural participation. Apart from its being crucial for cultural practices, its impact
transcends the cultural domain and deeply involves links and relationships with society on a local
basis. Considering the effects of cultural participation does not mean under-valuing the key role of
social agencies that are crucially cooperating in building up and enabling those skills,
encompassing the family, the school, civic institutions and others, but it is worth drawing attention
to its network of linkages with closely related domains of civil and social life.
- 72 -