[ { "key": "NAH797QD", "version": 4217, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 275956, "name": "createquity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/createquity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/275956/items/NAH797QD", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/createquity/items/NAH797QD", "type": "text/html" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 3345380, "username": "rratzkin", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/rratzkin", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "NAH797QD", "version": 4217, "itemType": "note", "note": "
\n
Title: “Taking Charge – Evaluating the Evidence: The Impact of Charging or Not for Admissions on Museums”
\n\n
Author(s): DC Research Ltd.
\n\n
Publisher: DC Research / Association of Independent Museums
\n\n
Year: 2017
\n\n\n
\n
Topics: museum admission, admission price, museum attendance, museum finances, UK, Wales
\n\n
Methods: literature review, survey, case studies, interviews
\n\n
What it says:Purpose and product: DC Research Ltd undertook this study in the first half of 2016 to understand the effects of charging or not charging for admission at UK museums – and of changing a museum’s policy toward charging – on attendance, visitor diversity, funding, visitor experience, and institutional relationships. (The research was commissioned by the Association of Independent Museums (AIM), in partnership with Arts Council England (ACE) and the Museums Archives and Libraries Division (MALD) of the Welsh Government.) The researchers produced four documents: the full report discussed here, a separate executive summary, a summary of the results from Wales, and a “Success Guide” capturing lessons learned for use by museums.
\n\n
Methodology: The authors reviewed the existing literature on the consequences of charging for museum admission; conducted a survey generating usable responses from 311 museums across the UK; produced 20 case studies, primarily of museums that had changed their charging position, involving site visits and interviews with a variety of stakeholders; and consulted 18 museum experts through one-on-one conversations. Notably, all of the study components excluded National Museums and Galleries, which have tended to be the emphasis of much previous research into this issue in the UK. The authors also had access to AIM’s proprietary Visitor Verdict database.
\n\n
Findings: Few clear patterns emerged with respect to what kinds of museums charge for admission or the effects of charging. Perhaps the biggest takeaway is that other factors, including how a change in charging policy is communicated and managed, seem to matter more for nearly all of the metrics considered. The main exception is that charging seems to be associated with more time spent in the museum (longer “dwell times”) and possibly with greater likelihood of using the museum shop and café. Unsurprisingly, charging was found to provide a useful focal point to welcome visitors and collect data.
\n\n
Of the 311 respondents, 57 percent charge for general admission and/or specific exhibitions, with a mean general admission price of about £6 for adults; this was higher for museums with more visitors and those that reported being a key attraction in their area. There was a stark difference in perceptions between institutions that are free and those that charge: the former mostly believed that being free had a positive effect on the number and diversity of visitors and on spontaneous donation and secondary spend; the latter mostly believed that charging did not have much effect on any of these. (Interestingly, separate data suggests that the average visitor experience rating was similar across the two kinds of institutions.)
\n\n
Only 26 percent of the 311 respondents changed their charging policy in the last three years, with 70 percent of those who did being museums that already charged and merely increased price or scope. The institutions that increased charges mostly believed that these increases had no significant effect on number or diversity of visitors or spontaneous donations. The nine institutions that went from free to charging reported that adding a fee did reduce attendance overall (by some 35-40 percent, anecdotally) and disproportionately for locals and repeat visits, but did not seem to affect the social diversity of attendees. Data from AIM’s Visitor Verdict offers some support for this last point: the 2016 breakdown of attendees by social class was nearly identical for charging and free museums. The museums reported, however, that special outreach and discount programs are necessary to achieve this. (Some of the institutions that switched from charging to free reported an increase in diversity, although data was often thin.) The institutions that added a new fee also reported that spontaneous donations decreased, but that this was more than offset by the admissions income.
\n\n
In terms of best practices for changing charging position, the authors conclude from their case studies that communication is the most important factor for success, emphasizing that staff should be trained to be confident and positive, stakeholders (especially the local community) should understand why the change is happening, any increase should ideally be tied to an improvement in the visitor experience, and thoughtful pricing tiers and discounts are key to maintaining the diversity of attendees.
\n\n
What I think about it: The design of the study means the authors rely mostly on what museums perceive to be true, and so it doesn’t allow analysis of causality – especially since so few of the institutions involved changed their admissions policy. The authors wisely adduce external data (especially from Visitor Verdict) to triangulate those perceptions and adjudicate among them, but because the dataset is proprietary, it is hard to know how much confidence to place in it, and the authors do not address that question. As a result, the findings on the effects of charging must be taken with a grain of salt. More interpretation, perhaps from the case studies, might have increased the usefulness of this study.
\n\n
The real value of the work may therefore be in the success guide, which provides practical advice to museums considering changing their policy. Here the anecdotal approach yields valuable insight, and the narrative style allows the authors to put their suggestions in the context of specific institutions they have learned from so their applicability to other institutions can be weighed by the latter’s staff.
\n\n
The report would be strengthened if the authors made available the list of relevant institutions in the UK and/or of those that received the survey (to clarify how representative the response base is) and the survey instrument itself, without which it is sometimes hard to interpret the summarized responses. For example, only 3 percent of respondents charge for specific exhibitions only; one-third of free institutions believe being free has no impact on “admissions income”; and respondents are more likely to charge admission if they report that competition for visitors is more intense in their area. These findings strike me as quite counter-intuitive, and I’m not sure how to evaluate them: access to the survey would help me understand whether I am interpreting the terms differently from the respondents. These are also examples of when more interpretation from the authors would be useful: if these things are true, what do they mean? If not, why do the museums perceive them to be?
\n\n
What it all means: This is a topic on the minds of many museums: about half of the institutions surveyed have considered changing their admissions policy, though the vast majority think it is “not very likely” or “not at all likely” that they will change in the next three years. That last point, and the fact that such a small number of institutions actually did switch from free to charging or vice versa, suggests that this debate might be a proxy for more fundamental issues – and potentially a distraction from real engagement with them.
\n\n
\n
For example, the debate about charging in the US is often considered in terms of equity and access. This report (and especially the Visitor Verdict data it cites) suggest that charging or not charging is not the main factor in achieving diverse attendance, though the grain of salt mentioned above must be added. If that’s right, this report is a salutary reminder to focus on what matters to achieving our desired ends, which may be more about communication and implementation than admissions charge. But one additional caveat applies here: like many studies touching on diversity in the UK, this one focuses on social class based on occupation; race is not considered.
", "tags": [], "collections": [ "6AGEZR4Q" ], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2017-06-06T04:55:39Z", "dateModified": "2017-06-06T04:56:26Z" } }, { "key": "XFS2CQ3X", "version": 4213, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 275956, "name": "createquity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/createquity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/275956/items/XFS2CQ3X", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/createquity/items/XFS2CQ3X", "type": "text/html" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 3345380, "username": "rratzkin", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/rratzkin", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "XFS2CQ3X", "version": 4213, "itemType": "note", "note": "Createquity Capsule Review: Culture Urban Future
\n\n
Title: Culture Urban Future: Global Report on Culture for Sustainable Urban Development
\n\n
Author(s): UNESCO and many others
\n\n
Publisher: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
\n\n
Year: 2016
\n\n
URL: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002459/245999e.pdf
\n\n
Topics: urban planning, cities, economic development, community revitalization, social cohesion, community identity, cultural heritage, sustainability, resilience
\n\n
Methods: survey of regional and global trends, case studies
\n\n
What it says: The report aims to provide a global overview of the role played by culture – including cultural heritage, creative economies, and diverse forms of cultural expression – in developing thriving cities that are people-centered, inclusive, and sustainable; in the process, the authors hope to make the case for culture as a force “at the heart of urban renewal and innovation.” Their proximate purpose is to influence the implementation of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 11 – “make cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable” – to ensure that culture is incorporated robustly as a lever of change. That’s a big ambition with fuzzy borders, and the report accordingly adopts a strategy of profusion, combining across its three hundred pages:
\n\n
Part I: Eight regional surveys covering every part of the world, conducted by local experts. (The versions in this report are condensed; full versions are available separately online.) Each lays out for its region the history of urban development, trends within cities (e.g., suburbanization), challenges to continued development with a special eye to the role of culture, and high-level policy recommendations.
\nPart II: Twelve thematic reflections on the role of culture for sustainable cities grouped into the categories of People, Environment, and Policies. Each of these consists of an essay by an expert on a different general idea, such as “humanizing cities through culture” and “enabling access to public spaces to advance economic, environmental, and social benefits.” These meditations draw on the literature in a general way and with relatively few citations (though more are available online) to point to possible ways to use culture in urban development, sometimes drawing on successful examples from the field.
\nOne-hundred-eleven case studies: Throughout the first two parts, short examples of specific interventions are summarized in inset boxes (e.g., an app developed to map the informal public transit network of vans in Nairobi; the gradual development of the historic city in Coimbra, Portugal). These are typically a paragraph or two long and seem designed to illustrate the breadth of ways culture and urban development intersect.
\nForty-four “perspectives”: Also throughout the first two parts, mini-essays from luminaries such as architect Renzo Piano and the head of the Library of Alexandria offer first-person takes on a range of issues, from “creative placemaking as urban policy” to “people-centered heritage conservation in Beijing.”
\nConclusions and recommendations: See below.
\nEight “dossiers” on UNESCO programs relevant to culture and urban development. These brief primers, gathered in an appendix to the report, describe things like the role of cities in the World Heritage program (one-third of the sites on the list are historical urban areas) and the UNESCO Global Network of Learning Cities.
\n\n
The report’s short “conclusions and recommendations” section acknowledges the difficulty of summarizing the state of global urban culture in a few crisp proposals, but the authors do offer 12 recommendations with a few sentences of description for each. These draw out ideas that recur throughout the other sections of the report, and they are grouped into three themes:
\n\n
People-centered cities are culture-centred spaces: enhance the liveability of cities and safeguard their identities, ensure social inclusion in cities through culture, promote creativity and innovation in urban development through culture, and build on culture for dialog and peace-building initiatives
\nQuality urban environments are shaped by culture: foster human-scale and mixed-use cities by drawing on lessons learned from urban conservation practices, promote a livable built and natural environment, enhance the quality of public spaces through culture, and improve urban resilience through culture-based solutions
\nSustainable cities need integrated policy-making that builds on culture: regenerate cities and rural-urban linkages by integrating culture at the core of urban planning, build on culture as a sustainable resource for inclusive economic and social development, promote participatory processes through culture and enhance the role of communities in local governance, and develop innovative and sustainable financial models for culture
\n\n
What I think about it: While far-reaching and well-intentioned, this report suffers from key limitations. First, the report’s purpose is not really to assess or systematically synthesize the most up-to-the-minute academic research, and the paucity of citations or even explicit connections to the literature limits its usefulness as a guide for in-depth inquiry. Second, as a general primer encompassing (at least in theory) all cultural aspects of cities everywhere, it skims vast expanses, summarizing trends to raise awareness in a general way without engaging with any particular topic in great depth or contributing significant new insights that would merit further evaluation as independent evidence-based claims.
\n\n
What it all means: The report may be useful to students of urban development or urban culture as an introduction to some of “the current policies and practices of urban regeneration and sustainable development that have put culture at their core,” in the words of the report’s mission statement. This especially pertains to those with a specific regional interest who can focus on the relevant section for a partial overview of trends and practices. The topic itself certainly merits further study: the report notes that although it was only in 2007 that the majority of human beings lived in cities, urbanization is accelerating dramatically: 67% of the world’s people are expected to be urbanites by 2050. Increasingly, human culture will be city culture, so we would do well to get our “culture urban future” right.
\n", "tags": [], "collections": [ "6AGEZR4Q", "M24ZIVCT" ], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2017-04-25T05:01:43Z", "dateModified": "2017-04-25T05:01:43Z" } }, { "key": "ZNW8ZGAG", "version": 4210, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 275956, "name": "createquity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/createquity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/275956/items/ZNW8ZGAG", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/createquity/items/ZNW8ZGAG", "type": "text/html" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 3345380, "username": "rratzkin", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/rratzkin", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "ZNW8ZGAG", "version": 4210, "itemType": "note", "note": "
\n
Title: Arts and Cultural Participation among Children and Young People: Insights from the Growing up in Ireland Study
\nAuthor(s): Dr. Emer Smyth
\nPublisher: The Arts and Research Council of Ireland and The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI)
\nYear: 2016
\nURL: http://www.artscouncil.ie/uploadedFiles/Arts-and-cultural-particiption-GUI.pdf
\nTopics: cultural engagement, television watching, cultural engagement in children, wellbeing, disparities of access, arts education
\nMethods: Longitudinal study, survey, participant interviews, descriptive analysis, multivariate analysis.
\n\n
What it says:
\nThe report from ESRI and the Arts Council of Ireland analyzes data from Growing up in Ireland – the National Longitudinal Study of Children (GUI), in order to address three research topics: 1) the likelihood of different groups of children to engage in cultural activities, 2) the influence of different schools’ emphasis on cultural activities on children’s cultural engagement out of school, and 3) the relationship between participation in cultural activities and other outcomes including academic skills and socio-emotional wellbeing.
\n\n
The GUI is a longitudinal study performed on two cohorts of children. The first cohort of 11,134 were recruited at nine months, and then surveyed in two subsequent waves at 3 and 5 years of age (the report focuses on data from the second of the two waves). The second cohort of 8,568 children was recruited at 9 years old, with a follow-up study at 13 years old. At each time-point, the study consisted of surveys and interviews with the children’s caregivers, tests of cognitive abilities and wellbeing, and surveys completed by the children’s school principals and teachers for the older cohorts. Data from all of the cohorts was re-weighted to ensure that is was representative of the population of children in Ireland.
\n\n
The researchers analyzed a broad range of types of cultural engagement, including being read to and self-directed reading, participation in drawing, painting, singing, and rhymes, participation in organized cultural activities such as drama or music, being taken to cultural events or on educational visits, and television watching and computer games. When researchers analyzed the distribution of cultural engagement among different groups, they found higher rates of engagement among children from more advantaged social backgrounds, and with higher levels of educational attainment by the mothers, to varying degrees. Children from highly educated and middle class families watched less television and had less screen time overall. The researchers also note the strong influence of gender on cultural engagement, with girls in multiple age groups participating at higher rates. In a couple of cases, including participation in singing, painting or drawing by three year olds and independent reading among nine year olds, gender had a greater influence on cultural participation than social background.
\n\n
Researchers also analyzed the relationship between cultural participation and other outcomes for children. The researchers measured two sets of outcomes: cognitive development as measured by standardized tests and wellbeing as measured by the prevalence of socio-economic difficulties. The analysis controlled for individual and family characteristics, the type of childcare at three, and whether the child had started school at five, but there was no way to control for individual personalities or other characteristics of the children. However, the second set of data collected for each cohort (at 5 years and 13 years respectively) was analyzed in terms of change from the first set of measurements, which makes that data a more reliable estimate of the actual effects of cultural engagement. The most noticeable relationships between changes in various outcomes over time and cultural engagement were:
\n\n
Being read to frequently between the ages of three and five and having more access to books contributes to improved vocabulary at age five.
\nWatching higher amounts of television between ages three and five is related to improved vocabulary but also greater socio-emotional difficulties at age five.
\nReading, painting and drawing, attending cultural events, and going on frequent educational visits are all related to decreases in socio-emotional difficulties.
\nThere is moderate improvement in tests on identifying picture similarities for children who are read to, who paint or draw, and who attend cultural events frequently at the age of five.
\nAmong older children, self-directed reading and taking part in structured cultural activities outside school time contribute to cognitive development (in terms of both verbal and numeric skills) as well as to academic self-confidence.
\nSelf-directed reading also contributes to socio-emotional wellbeing.
\nSimilar to patterns observed in the early years, watching higher amounts of television between the ages of 9 and 13 is related to improved verbal skills but at the expense of greater socio-emotional difficulties.
\n\n
The researchers also looked at data provided by the children’s school principals and teachers to assess the role of school-based cultural activities. The researchers found that, taking account of social background and other family characteristics, children attending schools with a strong cultural emphasis (measured as a combination of the relative importance of cultural activities to the school’s ethos and the amount of cultural extracurricular activities provided) were significantly more likely to be involved in structured cultural activities and frequent reading. They were also less likely to spend a lot of time watching television. Researchers also looked at differences across types of school. Notably, Urban DEIS (or disadvantaged) schools were more likely to employ creative activities and play for younger children, provide music/dance and arts/crafts activities at the primary level, and musical instruments and dance at the second level because of programs and interventions aimed at those specific schools designed to promote retention and school engagement. However, children at these schools are less likely to read for pleasure or take music and drama lessons and are more likely to spend lots of time watching television or playing computer games, meaning that these interventions are not enough to overcome the disparities of access to cultural activities observed based on social class.
\n\n
What I think about it:
\nThe report makes excellent use of data from a larger study on child outcomes, which seems to have been collected with some study of cultural engagement in mind. The longitudinal nature of the study is a valuable companion to experimental study designs, which test the short-term effects of arts engagement on cognitive and socio-emotional development. The analysis of participation data alongside individual and familial characteristics allows the researchers to identify disparities of access to cultural opportunities in the early years of life that are replicated across the lifespan. Finally, the school-based data points to the viability of one of the most common interventions to promote arts access and participation: arts education in schools.
\n\n
The report showcases the importance of including cultural information within large-scale studies of this nature. It also points out interesting connections between cultural activities as traditionally defined and popular-culture diversions such as television watching, revealing the research benefits of considering cultural activities holistically among audiences of all ages.
\n\n
What it all means:
\nWithin this study, reading unsurprisingly wins the day in terms of generating strong positive outcomes for children, but other forms of cultural participation also generate positive results. This study’s longitudinal design allows us to observe how incremental arts benefits add up throughout the actual lives of children over time. While not always dramatic or universal to every arts discipline, the long-term benefits measured in the study are quite apparent, especially in relation to social and emotional development in younger children and cognitive benefits in older children.
\nInterestingly, both reading and television watching are found to contribute to vocabulary-skills development for children Yett watching high amounts of television (and spending high amounts of screen time) are associated with higher levels of socio-emotional difficulties. At the same time, arts activities including painting and drawing, attending cultural events, and educational visits correlate with fewer socio-emotional difficulties, which could point to arts engagement as a viable way to counteract negative socio-emotional effects from television watching for young children.
\n\n
The analysis on disparities of access largely confirms trends researchers have observed in adults. The differences in engagement observed between genders raise interesting questions about how young boys might become more fully engaged in the arts. Finally, the data on schools is both encouraging and not. The study does suggest that emphasis on cultural activities at school can effect cultural engagement outside of school time. However, many programs designed to ensure that arts education activities are provided at disadvantaged schools in Ireland have not effectively overcome disparities of access to cultural activities (besides television). What is not clear from the report is whether disadvantaged schools with these programs promote higher levels of cultural engagement in their students than schools without the programs would. The author’s also make note of widespread use of libraries by families with young children, and wonder if they may be a fruitful site for cultural engagement programs.
\n\n
All of this together tells us that, in Ireland, the arts do indeed benefit children, though not more than reading does. And arts education in schools has a role to play in encouraging higher levels of arts engagement. Questions remain as to whether in-school arts education alone can level disparities of arts access based on socio-economic status. The larger patterns revealed here are likely to be similar in other comparable societies, but further longitudinal studies in different locations would help to shed light on the long-terms benefits of the arts on individuals within a given society, and the benefits of interventions on the ground.
", "tags": [], "collections": [ "6AGEZR4Q" ], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2017-03-26T23:15:03Z", "dateModified": "2017-03-26T23:15:03Z" } }, { "key": "UGUKTETT", "version": 4188, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 275956, "name": "createquity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/createquity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/275956/items/UGUKTETT", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/createquity/items/UGUKTETT", "type": "text/html" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 2005544, "username": "johncarnwath", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/johncarnwath", "type": "text/html" } } }, "lastModifiedByUser": { "id": 282531, "username": "katieingersoll", "name": "Katie Ingersoll", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/katieingersoll", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "UGUKTETT", "version": 4188, "itemType": "note", "note": "Createquity Capsule Review: Culture Counts in Communities: A Framework for Measurement
\nby John Carnwath
\n\n
Title: Culture Counts in Communities: A Framework for Measurement
Author(s): Maria Rosario Jackson and Joaquin Herranz
Publisher: The Urban Institute
Year: 2002
\nURL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/310834_culture_counts.pdf.
Topics: Cultural Indicators, Neighborhoods, Community, Cultural Vitality
Methods: Literature review, consultations (interviews and focus groups) with experts and community members
\n
What is says
\nThe Arts and Culture Indicators Project (ACIP) was launched in 1996. \"Recognizing that arts and culture had too frequently been neglected in efforts to assess quality of life\" the Rockefeller Foundation commissioned the Urban Institute to \"explore the possibility of integrating arts and culture-related measures into neighborhood indicator systems\" (1).
\n\n
The researchers conducted interviews and focus groups with arts professionals and community residents, and reviewed the available literature. They found that there is neither much empirical data nor theoretical work on the ways in which arts and cultural participation contribute to social dynamics, and the data that is available primarily focuses on formal arts and culture venues. Since the existing research is insufficient as the basis for an indicator system, the authors propose principles and parameters for research and measurement that were developed through a series of workshops and conferences.
\n\n
The authors present four \"guiding principles\" for indicator development in communities, which highlight the need to allow the communities that are being studied to define “arts,” “culture,” and “creativity” in ways that are appropriate for their community, the need to be open to broad definitions of participation and the multiplicity of meanings art can have simultaneously, and the fact that opportunities to participate require both arts and non-arts resources.
\n\n
They go on to propose a conceptual framework that has four domains:
\npresence (qualitative and quantitative cultural inventorying)
\nparticipation
\nimpacts (contribution to community building outcomes)
\nsystems of support
\n\n
Regarding the impact domain, the authors point out that the necessary fuzziness around the definition of arts, culture and creativity make it difficult to pinpoint their impact on community building outcomes (34).
\n\n
While the data is considered inadequate to support any definitive conclusions, the authors identify \"a list of important impacts that participation in arts, culture, and creativity at the neighborhood level may have\" [emphasis added] based on their review of the literature. Directly or indirectly, the arts, culture, and creativity may contribute to
\nsupporting civic participation and social capital;
\ncatalyzing economic development;
\nimproving the built environment;
\npromoting stewardship of place;
\naugmenting public safety;
\npreserving cultural heritage;
\nbridging cultural/ethnic/racial boundaries;
\ntransmitting cultural values and history;
\ncreating group memory and group identity (33).
\n\n
The authors acknowledge that their principles and conceptual framework are just a beginning and that further theoretical development and empirical research is necessary (42).
\n\n
What I think about it
\nThis is an important initiative/study that shifted the conversations about arts in communities by introducing expanded definitions of participation and including practitioners and community members in the research/definition of outcomes. It's really at the beginning of the whole creative placemaking conversation.
\n\n
Nonetheless, there are some weaknesses: The \"Systems of Support\" domain in the ACIP framework seems like a measure of outputs rather than outcomes. The same might be said about the mere \"presence\" of cultural opportunities. Moreover, in the discussion of potential impacts that the arts have on communities little attention is paid to the fact that arts and culture can also work in the opposite direction: they can increase cultural/ethnic/racial boundaries, obscurecultural values and history, etc.
\n\n
What it means for our research
\nACIP’s objective of including arts and culture in systems of quality of life indicators parallels our work on wellbeing at Createquity, but since they're focused on neighborhoods it's not clear that much of their work would carry over to assessments of wellbeing at the national level. For instance, ACIP’s desire to let the communities under investigation develop their own definitions of “arts,” “culture,” and “creativity,” and set their own indicators of cultural participation may make sense at the neighborhood level, but it would be extremely difficult to arrive at a national consensus on these matters through community consultations. Similarly, it is easier to imagine incorporating qualitative data that sheds light on local history and local cultural meanings in the context of neighborhoods than in national indicator systems.
", "tags": [], "collections": [ "6AGEZR4Q" ], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2015-12-07T06:43:18Z", "dateModified": "2017-03-13T22:58:02Z" } }, { "key": "GCJX4D25", "version": 4183, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 275956, "name": "createquity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/createquity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/275956/items/GCJX4D25", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/createquity/items/GCJX4D25", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/275956/items/4APNVJ9Z", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 1985163, "username": "iandavidmoss", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/iandavidmoss", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "GCJX4D25", "version": 4183, "parentItem": "4APNVJ9Z", "itemType": "note", "note": "Capsule review: Culture, Cities, and Identity in Europe
\nTitle: Culture, Cities, and Identity in Europe
\nAuthor(s): from Culture Action Europe: Katherine Heid, Mehdi Arfaoiu, Luca Bergamo, Natalie Giorgadze; from Agenda 21 for Culture - UCLG: Carina Lopes, Jordi Balta Portoles, Jordi Pascual; Simon Mundy
\nPublisher: European Economic and Social Committee
\nYear: 2016
\nURL: http://www.eesc.europa.eu/resources/docs/qe-01-16-463-en-n.pdf
\nTopics: urban planning, creative placemaking, cities, Europe, economic development, community revitalization, social cohesion, community identity
\nMethods: Narrative literature review, case studies
\nWhat it says: The report aims to assess what is known about the relationship between culture (defined as \"cultural industries, visual and performing arts, heritage and the creative industries\") and cities along four dimensions, as follows:
\nWithin each section, the authors offer several case studies of \"good practices\" representing on-the-ground approaches toward achieving the goals in question.
\nThis main part of the report is preceded by a brief review of data on cultural participation in Europe, the role that culture plays in society as perceived by citizens, and economic data on the creative industries. The report concludes with a set of 17 recommendations to the European Economic and Social Committee for its future work in cultural policy. These recommendations encompass five themes:
\nWhat I think about it: Despite the relevance and importance of its subject matter, \"Culture, Cities, and Identity in Europe\" is a prime example of the limitations of narrative-style literature review. Because it makes little effort to distinguish between the studies it cites or synthesize across them, the central portion of the report reads mainly as a series of disconnected (and lengthy) quotes from other authors. To its credit, the report does attempt to offer takeaways in the set of policy recommendations advanced at the end of the document. Some of the ideas offered are worth exploring - in particular, the idea of integrating dialogue and communities of practice around culture and human rights - and the holistic/integrationist stance of the authors very much matches Createquity's. However, the language of the recommendations is often so vague and general as to significantly undermine their usefulness.
\nWhat it all means: Though it doesn't offer much in the way of striking insights on its subject matter, \"Culture, Cities, and Identity in Europe\" will be useful to someone looking for a bibliography on the topics covered, particularly from a European perspective. It's also worthwhile to compare this pan-European take on culture and urban policy to American approaches; of particular interest from a US perspective is the bid to redefine European identity as tied to an inclusive, globally conscious notion of cultural citizenship rather than any particular set of ethnicities or national origins.
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2017-02-25T19:26:24Z", "dateModified": "2017-02-26T20:23:27Z" } }, { "key": "NMERJMT7", "version": 4097, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 275956, "name": "createquity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/createquity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/275956/items/NMERJMT7", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/createquity/items/NMERJMT7", "type": "text/html" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 1985163, "username": "iandavidmoss", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/iandavidmoss", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 1 }, "data": { "key": "NMERJMT7", "version": 4097, "itemType": "webpage", "title": "Culture and Wellbeing: An Itinerary | CAE 2014/2015 final Reflection Papers & Toolkits", "creators": [], "abstractNote": "“Culture and Wellbeing: Theory, Methodology and Other Challenges: An Itinerary” aims at assessing the impact of culture on well-being, starting from the", "websiteTitle": "Culture Action Europe", "websiteType": "", "date": "", "shortTitle": "Culture and Wellbeing", "url": "http://cultureactioneurope.org/document/cae-20142015-final-reflection-papers-toolkits/cae2015_cultureandwellbeing/", "accessDate": "2017-02-25T20:21:54Z", "language": "", "rights": "", "extra": "", "tags": [], "collections": [ "EIZXZ4C7" ], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2017-02-25T20:21:54Z", "dateModified": "2017-02-25T20:21:54Z" } }, { "key": "DH3HJ6ZR", "version": 4095, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 275956, "name": "createquity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/createquity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/275956/items/DH3HJ6ZR", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/createquity/items/DH3HJ6ZR", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/275956/items/NMERJMT7", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 1985163, "username": "iandavidmoss", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/iandavidmoss", "type": "text/html" } } } }, "data": { "key": "DH3HJ6ZR", "version": 4095, "parentItem": "NMERJMT7", "itemType": "attachment", "linkMode": "imported_url", "title": "Snapshot", "accessDate": "2017-02-25T20:21:54Z", "url": "http://cultureactioneurope.org/document/cae-20142015-final-reflection-papers-toolkits/cae2015_cultureandwellbeing/", "note": "", "contentType": "text/html", "charset": "utf-8", "filename": "cae2015_cultureandwellbeing.html", "md5": "4c91a5d50b14468f7fe11544b4a7934e", "mtime": 1488054114664, "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2017-02-25T20:21:54Z", "dateModified": "2017-02-25T20:21:54Z" } }, { "key": "X83XN8VP", "version": 4084, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 275956, "name": "createquity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/createquity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/275956/items/X83XN8VP", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/createquity/items/X83XN8VP", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/275956/items/4APNVJ9Z", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 1985163, "username": "iandavidmoss", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/iandavidmoss", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "X83XN8VP", "version": 4084, "parentItem": "4APNVJ9Z", "itemType": "attachment", "linkMode": "imported_url", "title": "16_280_EN.indd - qe-01-16-463-en-n.pdf", "accessDate": "2017-02-25T19:26:04Z", "url": "http://www.eesc.europa.eu/resources/docs/qe-01-16-463-en-n.pdf", "note": "", "contentType": "application/pdf", "charset": "utf-8", "filename": "qe-01-16-463-en-n.pdf", "md5": "b2a5351dec07e140551d7ae707a8e016", "mtime": 1488050765067, "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2017-02-25T19:26:04Z", "dateModified": "2017-02-25T19:29:30Z" } }, { "key": "4APNVJ9Z", "version": 4186, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 275956, "name": "createquity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/createquity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/275956/items/4APNVJ9Z", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/createquity/items/4APNVJ9Z", "type": "text/html" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 1985163, "username": "iandavidmoss", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/iandavidmoss", "type": "text/html" } } }, "creatorSummary": "Heid", "numChildren": 3 }, "data": { "key": "4APNVJ9Z", "version": 4186, "itemType": "report", "title": "Culture, Cities, and Identity in Europe", "creators": [ { "creatorType": "author", "firstName": "Katherine et al.", "lastName": "Heid" } ], "abstractNote": "", "reportNumber": "", "reportType": "", "seriesTitle": "", "place": "", "institution": "European Economic and Social Committee", "date": "", "pages": "", "language": "", "shortTitle": "", "url": "", "accessDate": "", "archive": "", "archiveLocation": "", "libraryCatalog": "", "callNumber": "", "rights": "", "extra": "", "tags": [], "collections": [ "VSJQZ6IH", "6AGEZR4Q" ], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2017-02-25T19:27:10Z", "dateModified": "2017-02-25T19:29:08Z" } }, { "key": "RGE5RNW6", "version": 4076, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 275956, "name": "createquity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/createquity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/275956/items/RGE5RNW6", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/createquity/items/RGE5RNW6", "type": "text/html" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 3345380, "username": "rratzkin", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/rratzkin", "type": "text/html" } } }, "lastModifiedByUser": { "id": 1985163, "username": "iandavidmoss", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/iandavidmoss", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "RGE5RNW6", "version": 4076, "itemType": "note", "note": "\n
Title: Nonprofit organizations and the Intersectoral division of labor in the arts
\nAuthor(s): Paul J. DiMaggio
\nPublisher: Yale University Press (in The nonprofit sector: A research handbook)
\nYear: 2006
\nURL: https://www.princeton.edu/~artspol/workpap/WP30-DiMaggio.pdf
\nTopics: Nonprofit arts sector, commercial arts sector
\nMethods: Analysis of economic census data, literature review
\n\n
What it says:
\nThe article explores the division between nonprofit and commercial organizations within particular sub-fields within the arts. DiMaggio primarily uses data from the 1997 US Economic Census, which collects data on tax exempt (nonprofits and public) and taxable (for profit) entities in multiple categories. DiMaggio acknowledges several limitations of this data set, most notably that it tends to exclude or underestimate small or unincorporated arts organizations as well as those embedded within larger institutions like universities. DiMaggio relies on the data set despite these drawbacks, since he believes that it is the single best source to determine how arts activities are divided between the for profit and nonprofit arts sectors in the United States.
\nDiMaggio’s analysis finds that art and history museums are primarily non-profit. Within the performing arts, he finds that fields with the longest history of prestige and recognition as high art (symphonies, resident theatres, operas) tend to adopt non-commercial form while other less prestigious fields (popular music, dinner theatre) tend to adopt commercial status. Fields that have recently gained respect from critics and scholars, such as ethnic dance or Jazz, contain either a mix of organizations of both types, or skew toward the commercial. Overall, the majority of the categories DiMaggio examines are largely dominated by tax exempt organizations.
\nThe author reviews three theories frequently cited in the literature to explain this division between nonprofit and commercial structures, or more specifically the dominance of the nonprofit form in the majority of many arts fields. The first theory is market failure, or the idea that certain arts activities are not feasible as commercial enterprises and so can only thrive with private or public subsidies (Baumol and Bowen’s landmark work on cost disease in the performing arts is cited). DiMaggio points out that cost disease explains why subsidy is needed, while theories about collective or public goods, or goods which have benefits that accrue beyond those who utilize them, help explain why subsidy is made available.
\nThe second group of theoretical approaches that DiMaggio examines are industrial-organizational in nature. These theories focus on the specific characteristics about the nonprofit organizational form that make it a well-suited for artistic endeavors. DiMaggio discusses literature focused on variable demand for products, with some patrons willing to pay high amounts to subsidize the availability of the arts product (this “demand” is met by accepting donations from individuals) while another segment of patrons with less interest or ability to pay have a drastically lower price point and contribute via ticket sales.) He also discusses “club theory”, which discusses how the governance models of nonprofits are particularly suited to a small group seeking to ensure that their aesthetic sensibility is privileged over business needs. He also discusses theories positing that nonprofit status is useful for organizations in order to signal their commitment to artistic excellence and thereby attract and retain high caliber artists.
\nFinally, DiMaggio turns to historical and political analyses, which he identifies as an important addition to the theoretical explanations listed above. DiMaggio describes the establishment of nonprofit cultural organizations like museums and symphonies in the 19th century by elites, and then the slow diffusion of this model to other geographic areas as well as additional disciplines like opera or theatre. DiMaggio states that, by the mid-20th century “the contours of the intersectoral division of labor in the arts were well defined. All that remained was to fill them in.” According to DiMaggio, this began to happen through the arts funding and field building programs led by the Ford Foundation, as well as the establishment of the NEA and other public funding sources. Public funding also served to broaden the range of arts activities likely to receive institutional subsidies, to include new types of activities like photography or ethnic dance. DiMaggio posits that the availability of private or public subsidies may have made organizations pursuing these activities more likely to be established as or become nonprofits. DiMaggio also references larger demographic shifts that made Americans more educated and prosperous, which in turn created a wider audience for more serious art forms. DiMaggio suggests that these three historical analyses, taken together, provide a solid overall explanation for the intersectoral divisions that appear in his data analysis.
\nDiMaggio concludes his paper by exploring patterns in the data not accounted for by these theories which also serve as potential areas for further research. He leads with a discussion of efficient boundaries, or tendencies of organizations to form different types of employment relationships, i.e. long term employment relationships or shorter term contracts with workers (in this case artists). He notes that nonprofit organizations tend to dominate in fields which pursue long term employment arrangements, both in the arts and other sectors. DiMaggio suggests that for those types of organizations that gained an early foothold within the system of philanthropic support as it was being built, the nonprofit form provided an opportunity for managers and artists to limit risk. In fields without this longstanding access to grant support, DiMaggio notes that managers limit risk by decoupling presenting and artistic activities, while many artists limit risk by subsidizing arts activities through alternate employment, or day jobs.
\nNext, DiMaggio raises the question of whether cost disease can be addressed in the future, citing recent methods to lower costs within some traditional disciplines, such as delivering symphony music through technological means. Finally, he returns to the importance of arts organizations and programs embedded within universities, churches, and other larger organizations as well as unincorporated organizations and hybrid organizations, which combine characteristics of multiple forms. DiMaggio recognizes that these groups are not fully accounted for in the theories in the article but make up a significant portion of arts activities. He also discusses the division of labor between the public and private sectors, noting that there are few arts fields where public and commercial institutions compete.
\nDiMaggio’s final question is this: Does organizational form matter? How does it affect the actions of decisions made by organizations? He notes that while there are numerous comparative studies on the differences between nonprofit and commercial organizations for fields like healthcare and education, these are few such studies related to cultural organizations. This means that case studies and theory provide the only available set of literature.
\nTo conclude, DiMaggio highlights larger changes that may affect the sectoral division of labor in the arts going forward. He discusses demographic changes such as new waves of immigration that will lead to a boom in arts activities presenting and furthering the cultures of immigrant groups. These organizations may adopt the nonprofit or the commercial form. He also discusses the eroding boundary of high and popular culture and a gradual erosion of ideologies which privilege European culture over other forms. These trends could lead to future growth areas. He also notes the erosion of clear boundaries between nonprofits and commercial organizations, as many nonprofits are adopting language and practices from the commercial world, and embracing modes of distribution or business endeavors previously seen as too market-based. Lastly, DiMaggio discusses the disruption that new technologies are likely to produce. He predicts that these technological shifts may result in some services currently provided by arts nonprofits shifting to commercial arts firms and vice versa.
\n\n
What I think about it:
\nDiMaggio’s use of intersectoral division of labor as a framework to examine the contours of the arts sector proves to be a rich investigation, as evidenced by the number of critical arts issues that come up in his theoretical exploration of this one data set. While there are issues inherent in the data used for his analysis, DiMaggio fully acknowledges these limitations and takes time to explain how they may limit his sector analysis and where they may point to further research. DiMaggio’s literature review is particularly helpful since it combines theories and approaches from economics, organizational theory, and history.
\nWhat it all means:
\n\n
While Createquity understands that organizations as such are not a prerequisite for a healthy arts ecosystem, they can be important factors in the success of the ecosystem. DiMaggio acknowledges the influence that organization types have on the arts sector while refraining from assuming a default or obvious form for organizations. Instead of letting the current boundaries within the arts sector frame his inquiry, DiMaggio probes them, and in the process identifies multiple avenues of inquiry that may be able to provide insight into critical major arts issues.
", "tags": [ { "tag": "Capacity to Create Change" }, { "tag": "Ecosystem Histories" } ], "collections": [ "6AGEZR4Q" ], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2017-02-06T06:06:37Z", "dateModified": "2017-02-25T19:25:06Z" } }, { "key": "ZPSFEEV5", "version": 4075, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 275956, "name": "createquity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/createquity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/275956/items/ZPSFEEV5", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/createquity/items/ZPSFEEV5", "type": "text/html" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 2254811, "username": "lgeraghty", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/lgeraghty", "type": "text/html" } } }, "lastModifiedByUser": { "id": 1985163, "username": "iandavidmoss", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/iandavidmoss", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "ZPSFEEV5", "version": 4075, "itemType": "note", "note": "Capsule Review: Artists Report Back: A National Study on the Lives of Arts Graduates and Working Artists
\n\n
\n
\n
Title: Artists Report Back: A National Study on the Lives of Arts Graduates and Working Artists
\n\n
Author(s): Susan Jahoda, Blair Murphy, Vicky Virgin, Caroline Woolard
\n\n
Publisher: BFAMFAPhD
\n\n
Year: 2014
\n\n
URL: http://bfamfaphd.com/
\n\n
Topics: arts degrees, debt from arts degrees, the lives of working artists
\n\n
Methods: Summary statistics from data from US Census’ 2012 American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Micro Sample (PUMS).
\n\n
What it says: Only 16% of working artists in the United States have arts-related bachelor’s degrees. Forty percent of working artists over the age of 25 do not have bachelor’s degrees in any field, and the remaining 44 percent have bachelor’s degrees in other fields. Of the two million annual arts graduates, two hundred thousand make their primary living as an artist. The median income of working artists is $30,621, but those with bachelor’s degrees have median earnings that are higher at $36,105. Arts grads’ debt loads tend to be higher than non-arts grads, and some of the best arts schools in the country have shockingly high student loan default rates. Those pursuing arts bachelor’s degrees are largely white and female, and the majority (54 percent) of working artists are male. The report makes three recommendations for the art schools and the field:
\n\n
· While the majority of working artists do not have arts degrees, formal arts education is still a valuable way of building critical thinking, skill building, and other competencies that would be difficult to gain outside of formal school. The authors encourage those seeking arts degrees to seek low-cost or free options instead of expensive schools.
\n\n
· Philanthropic and cultural institutions should look beyond higher education for emerging talent.
\n\n
· Encourage groups of working artists without degrees and those with arts degrees to share and learn from one another.
\n\n
What I think about it: These statistics do not include those with Master’s degrees or higher in the arts because of the way the Census collects data about educational attainment, and the methodology on earnings does not include those who make their livings as designers or architects. I wonder how many of those who do not have bachelor’s degrees in arts-related subjects went on to get MFAs. The choice to exclude architects and designers also seems like it would exclude some high earners in fields that typically require or heavily favor those with formal arts education.
\nAdditionally, I wonder about how the statistics on the probability of artists attaining degrees compares to the rest of the labor market. In the United States, just about a third of people over the age of 25 have a bachelor's degree, and in the labor market, a proportion of 60% of people with a bachelor's degree puts it on the higher end of educational attainment in terms of professions. Further, I wonder how often people in other professions tend to stay in the same field as their college major, which would contextualize the other figures they cite in the report about the educational background of artists. I recognize that this is meant to be a critique of the conventional wisdom of a particular group of people about pursuing arts in higher education, but without some context about earnings and degrees in the United States, I think the findings and the interpretation can be distorted.
\n\n
What it all means: The findings on the relatively high debt load for arts graduates combined with the seemingly low probability that those graduates will go on to become working artists presents troubling evidence for those considering higher education in the arts. Further, that seven of the ten most expensive colleges in the country after financial aid are art schools is evidence that arts students are over paying for their degrees. However, without additional context to compare these findings to the rest of the labor market, it's hard to really understand whether we should think the proportions of holding an arts job or an arts degree in the arts profession are high or low.
", "tags": [], "collections": [ "6AGEZR4Q" ], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2016-04-19T12:49:56Z", "dateModified": "2017-02-25T19:24:23Z" } }, { "key": "7IEGRCT7", "version": 4074, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 275956, "name": "createquity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/createquity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/275956/items/7IEGRCT7", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/createquity/items/7IEGRCT7", "type": "text/html" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 3345380, "username": "rratzkin", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/rratzkin", "type": "text/html" } } }, "lastModifiedByUser": { "id": 1985163, "username": "iandavidmoss", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/iandavidmoss", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "7IEGRCT7", "version": 4074, "itemType": "note", "note": "\n
Title: Understanding the Contributions of the Humanities to Human Development: A Methodological White Paper
\nAuthor(s): The HULA Research Team: Danielle Allen, Chris Dean, Maggie Schein, Sheena Kang, Melanie Webb, Annie Walton Doyle
\nPublisher: Harvard University
\nYear: 2016
\nURL: http://www.pz.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/HULAWhitepaper.pdf
\nTopics: humanities, education, impact evaluations, assessment tools, evaluation as assessment
\nMethods: assuming/defining theoretical concepts about education, coding the learning pathways of the humanities, and then correlating the “logic” of the learning pathways with comparable logical constructs from the study of Psychology
\n\n
What it says: In this white paper, the HULA research team proposes a theoretical and methodological framework for understanding and assessing the contributions of the humanities to human development, based on preliminary analysis of qualitative materials from partner organisations and other researchers.* The theoretical framework builds upon two different concepts about education: 1) education as a system of institutions, which is maintained by the state to serve utilitarian purposes (such as cultivating civic service or civic responsibility); and 2) education as individual acts of instruction, which relates to personal development. The practice of humanities is then likened to the practice of “crafts” that help advance education and contribute to human development. The methodological framework treats the humanities as “crafts” that follow certain “craft logics” (pathways by which the craft is practiced, towards the achievement of the goals of the craft). The main idea is that if each humanities practice could be broken down according to categorical logics of its practice, then each tool used and each step of progress achieved in undertaking the practice could be coded in a standardized way to help researchers assess its utility or value.
\n\n
What I think about it: As a layman, I found the presentation of the language and construction of the HULA methodology too abstract and too academic, which could harm its mass adoption. The definitions and applications of the methodology need to be greatly simplified for the value of the concept to shine through. I am not entirely convinced that it is necessary to make so many parallel comparisons (humanities as “crafts”, each craft as an “artefact”, manner and purpose of humanities practices according to “craft logics”, each logic pathway translated from some comparable construct in Psychology) as it could be more effective to simply make a strong case that every practice of the humanities could be coded according to certain logics, and define these logics in an easy-to-understand code book of sorts. I proposed a simplified summary of the main idea above, which could be a good place to start unpacking some of these concepts in a way that even non-experts like me can better understand and then adopt.
\n\n
What it all means: HULA argues that gathering, coding and analysing humanities as “crafts” that follow “craft logic” can help us break down the elements that make up a craft, order the elements in a logical developmental pathway, and ultimately understand how humanities practices lead to the achievement of particular educational or human development outcomes. Assumptions are made about each humanities practice in terms of the elements it comprises, how it works, what it is trying to achieve, and which skills it develops – and the effect or effectiveness of each of these components are then coded categorically. Applying the HULA methodology according to the proposed definitions and categorisations requires that the user is familiar with or can easily understand concepts that are rather academic and often abstract, which may ultimately limit its adoption by the wider public.
\n\n
*It is unclear from this White Paper how many partner organizations have been consulted, although the paper did explicitly note that the study sample included at least a “30-year archive of successful grant applications to the Illinois Humanities Council.”
", "tags": [], "collections": [ "6AGEZR4Q" ], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2017-02-19T20:31:01Z", "dateModified": "2017-02-25T19:24:04Z" } }, { "key": "6SC5MURX", "version": 4070, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 275956, "name": "createquity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/createquity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/275956/items/6SC5MURX", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/createquity/items/6SC5MURX", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/275956/items/7RUZTTCU", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 2254811, "username": "lgeraghty", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/lgeraghty", "type": "text/html" } } }, "lastModifiedByUser": { "id": 1985163, "username": "iandavidmoss", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/iandavidmoss", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "6SC5MURX", "version": 4070, "parentItem": "7RUZTTCU", "itemType": "note", "note": "Reading Notes: Bruce Seaman Lit Review
\n
First chapter: Conventional wisdom might suggest that art is obviously a luxury good, and that studies designed to look at price elasticity of demand are carefully designed efforts to confirm the obvious. This first chapter seeks to evaluate evidence and existing research on price elasticity of demand regarding the arts and finds some unexpected and contradictory results. Studies on arts price elasticity using empirical evidence are difficult to replicate.
\n\n
Contradictory findings:
\nArts demand econometric literature looks tends to use survey data or data derived from other studies on arts participation that uses survey data- thus more about parsing out the differential predictors of arts participation than about price elasticity in the traditional sense.
\nLevy-Garboua/Montmarquette claim that there needs to be more progress in the areas of econometrics, more use of large data sets, and more explicit models of the “cultivation of taste” before these questions can be answered definitively. This review evaluates those claims.
\n\n
2.1: What do we know about arts audiences?
\nEarly observations about arts audiences:
\n“elite” audience members; uniform across arts types (not much change from opera to ballet)
\n“arts elite” is not restricted to one country - Baumol & Bowen found remarkable similarities between US and Britain, despite a perceived greater emphasis on the arts/humanities in schools in Britain
\nearly studies confirmed the impact of higher education levels, less the impact of higher income levels.
\nDespite some agreement on arts demand drivers, these factors have different effects in different studies. Additionally, age sometimes plays a role, though not consistently.
\nSome differences in income/education levels in Australia according to an Australian study from the same time period as Baumol/Bowen (p. 12)
\nage in 1960s was really young: most overrepresented age group in Baumol/Bowen was 20-24; however, there is some variation when one considers audience age distribution (percentage of audience makeup) instead of “overrepresentation” in the audience
\nwhile top two income levels are over-represented, they do not make up the largest share of arts audiences because the overall share of the population is much smaller
\naudience makeup is similar across arts types
\nstudy in Japan looking at occupation types found that arts audience makeup is not necessarily “elitist,” or not entirely comprised of people in managerial positions. Seaman speculates that this might be because attendance is more related to arts-related education than income
\nMajority of japanese audiences were also younger than age 30
\nUseem & DiMaggio study on American arts audiences: income gap is surprisingly the lowest for classical music (which might be considered the most “elitist” art form)
\nearly evidence (such as 1974 Ford foundation study) highlighted the causal effect of education level over income; hard to separate the two effects
\n2002 & 2004 SPPA continue to report that education, “more than any other demographic factor,” is a strong determinant of arts participation
\nDiMaggio and Useem were reluctant to conclude that education was the dominant determining factor for arts participation
\n\n
2.2: segmentation studies and audience overlap: the co-patronage evidence
\nmost studies have found limited evidence of “overlap” among arts attendance types (so not a lot of overlap between ballet and classical music, for example)
\nlots of studies looking at overlap vs. segmentation in the mid-1970s in the United States; these studies are largely ignored by the field
\n2004 SPPA (somewhat mysteriously, according to Seaman) has statistics on the degree of audience overlap, including significant overlaps between arts events and art museums, opera and ballet and “other dance,” ballet/opera and musical performance, opera or ballet & jazz. non-musical theater audiences did not have much crossover
\nSvendson (1992) finds that the United States has exceptionally “non-fragmented” audiences
\nBelk et al (1980) find that researchers should consider “base rates” of participation among groups when considering for co-patronage, and suggest that this may be a reason for the conflicting findings in two of the surveys
\nnotes Belk et al’s “frustration” at unclear evidence of audience crossover
\nevidence of “non-attenders” of one art form attending another art form supports idea that not all arts audiences are alike
\npart of the literature looks at omnivores vs. “snobs” (those with narrowly defined elite tastes); behavioral changes make people tend toward eclecticism than snobbery, suggesting that “omnivores are more committed to the performing arts than snobs in general”
\nevidence that arts overlap that should be mildly encouraging to performing arts providers
\n\n
2.3: stability or change in audience characteristics over time
\nThrosby & Withers (Australian study) found that 25% of Australian population had been exposed to the performing arts, compared to 23.8% of the US population in 1974 report
\nperforming arts audiences are becoming older: compared to the Baumol & Bowen study, which showed that audience members age 18-24 were the most over-represented relative to the size of the population, frequencies fall in later studies
\n2002 vs. 1960s finding re education: boost from having a college degree as opposed to just have attended some college was greater in 1960s than in 2002 data. suggests that the intensity with which educational over-representation varies with incremental improvements in education
\nrelative frequency statistics have “smoothed” over 40 year period, suggests a drop in “elitism” of arts audiences
\n“smoothing” contrasted with DiMaggio and Mukhtar, who calculate an “arts attendance odds” across ed. levels, find that odds have declined between 1982 & 2002 for both college grads and high school grads, but odds of high school grads attending arts events has declined more quickly than college grads
\npercentage of attendees aged 18-29 fell as a percentage of classical music, opera, and theater audiences, while combined age groups over age 50 rose
\n“trend of arts activity...is complex and not easily summarized” as shown by two studies published in the same year with different conclusions: O’Hagan showed that pattern of arts participation had changed little, while Heilbrun found that the arts are becoming “less and less ‘elitist’”
\nconflicting evidence might be because of a focus on different, though related, aspects of the problem
\n\n
3: technical issues in arts demand studies: price and income elasticities
\nof 44 econometric studies on arts demand published since 1966, 29 have attempted to either derive or impute own price and/or income elasticities of demand for performing arts
\nsome studies take “quality” of performance into account
\nstudies use a variety of econometric techniques (standard OLS, logit, probit, mle)
\nstudies show that, despite the Levy-Garboua & Montmarquette conclusion, arts are not conclusively luxury goods with own price elastic demands (view hasn’t yet been justified - 12 studies found demand for the arts to be inelastic; only four found strong evidence of price elastic demand)
\nprice inelasticity is much more prominent in studies that use very aggregative data (as opposed to those that study individual organizations)
\n\n
3.1.1: price elasticity differences by level of aggregation
\nstudies that look at particular organizations and that therefore distinguish by organization size, type, and mission are analytically superior to studies that look at the aggregated data
\nmore compelling problem is to obtain the right unit of analysis (as opposed to obtaining the right data)
\nproblem with looking at prices is not the absence of weighted average price data, but producing a price that no consumer actually faces (looking at average price as income from ticket sales over number of attendees - not a credible number)
\nmost disaggregated data shows relatively low price elasticities of demand, low cross price elasticities
\nless aggregated studies segment audiences in ways that allow for more careful examination of pricing: can look at seating section, scale of ticket prices
\nLG & M find that (imputed) price elasticity of demand is higher for more experienced theater-goers, which is something of a counterintuitive result
\nno unambiguous finding of price elasticity greater than one even when focus is on individual organizations
\n\n
3.1.2 Conceptual issues in interpreting price elasticity results
\nwhile there are some surprises in the data (like lower price elasticities of demand for those in more expensive seats), there are no inconsistencies with the general theoretical demand curve
\ninelasticities of demand may be related to the fact that arts organizations strategically under-charge for tickets. sports, for example, tend to strategically under-charge for tickets, but sports economists do not tend to interpret this as price inelasticity of demand for sports tickets
\nin contrast, cultural economists find low price elasticities to be consistent with theoretical evidence
\nlow price elasticity may be related to the need to consider the “full price” elasticity of attending an arts event (including things like parking, dining, shopping, etc.)
\nneed to consider ticket prices and donations: price discrimination strategy could encourage donations, need to consider donations of patrons along with ticket cost
\nin conclusion, some reason to think that arts tickets are relatively price inelastic
\n\n
3.1.3 income elasticity difference by level of aggregation
\nsome ambiguity with level of aggregation: some evidence of “luxury” good elasticity in ballet company study (Felton, 1992)
\nevidence for elasticity estimates being different for different levels of aggregation: more disaggregated studies find higher price elasticities of demand for more theoretically useful units of analysis
\nprice elasticities are sensitive to aggregation in the data, price inelastic demand interpretation is weakened by studies that distinguish individual orgs
\n\n
3.2 are there unique challenges to estimating arts demand?
\nwhile arts demand is not so different from estimating demand from other goods, but has some unique challenges in product homogeneity, established and not dramatically heterogeneous tastes, independence of choice of individuals, and quality variations that might be measured more tangibly without raising issues of “aesthetics”
\ncould thematically organize discussion of how particular studies confronted the standards as well as the unique problems of estimating arts demand
\n\n
3.2.1 the basic problems: measurement and modeling
\nbiggest problem in research: lack of data, conditions have improved since the 1960s and 1970s
\na number of data sources available today (SPPA, universities and research institutions, getting information from private organizations)
\nproblem is that a particular data source that may be able to overcome some types of missing data cannot incorporate demand determining variable
\nfor example, deriving elasticities from data, but don’t have income data
\nMoore (1966) - why had broadway theater attendance increased by only 20% when GDP increased by 160%
\nuses time-series model that includes transportation and “other costs” of attending a broadway play
\nfound low elasticities of demand, could not control for opportunity cost of time in theater-going, used single-equation recursive techniques
\nWithers: uses Becker “full-income” effects, real instead of nominal prices, results potentially weaken the case for government support of the performing arts bc of financial distress
\nboth studies are successful in decomposing the effect of rising income in time allocation model, inelastic price elasticities are structurally sound, consistent with the idea that performing arts are an “acquired taste”
\nLuksetich and Lange: price elasticities vary by orchestra size (more elastic as orchestra gets smaller), major orchestra demand quite inelastic; price elasticities become less elastic with inclusion of a donor price variable, sample price elasticity both with and without donor price was close to estimates from prior studies, support for using 2sls
\nidea of voluntary price discrimination to encourage donations
\nresults: quality of performance has a negative effect on per capita attendance
\nprice elasticities are low for all orchestra types, interactions between ticket price and gifts per capita suggest that orchestras are following an intentionally low pricing strategy
\neven with an average ticket price increase, average ticket price elasticity of demand would still be low
\nlow ticket prices may also be an effort to broaden audiences
\n\n
3.2.2 the multicollinearity problem: the case of education vs. income
\nwhile education is the main driver of arts attendance according to conventional wisdom, regression analysis does not confirm (multicollinearity, other complications)
\npast consumption affecting current and future consumption - habit formation
\n\n
3.2.3
\neffect of past consumption on future consumption - how to empirically account for this in the literature
\nlearning by consuming - consumers don’t know their utility functions, learn their own preferences through a process of consumption experiences
\nsome studies use one year time lagged dependent variable, it’s not really the best way to go about capturing the effect of taste cultivation in arts demand analysis
\n\n
3.2.4 the product and geographic market problem: substitutes (and complements)
\nno definitive evidence regarding close substitutes for the performing arts
\nhistorically (Withers, 1980) used “reading and recreation component of the CPI”
\nlooking at substitute price data from other sources instead of just cross-price elasticities
\nonly withers (1980) finds positive cross-price effects in the performing arts; other results in more granular categories of orchestras, etc.
\nGapinski (1986) finds that price interdependencies among performing arts orgs in small geographic markets are probably important - need more studies to confirm; no one has since replicated or extended Gapinski’s work
\nnot a lot of cross-price elasticity evidence regarding complementary goods (transportation, parking, child care, dining, etc.), with a couple of exceptions
\nlooked at television specifically: strong negative effects on the number of television subscribers on tickets; some conflicting evidence with confirming this
\nwhat is the best geographic scope of the performing arts? especially considering television, etc.
\nsome instances of using travel cost data as an additional control to ed, social class, etc.
\nsummary: good research efforts, nothing conclusive
\n\n
3.2.5 the product quality problem
\nhard to construct an objective measure of arts quality
\nmost studied art form is quality of theater; outcomes are mixed
\neffect of drama critics can be negative or positive
\n\n
3.3 role of ses factors vs. lifestyle determinants of arts demand
\nlifestyle, attitude toward the arts, socialization
\nBelk (1980) none of the standard ses variables were significant predictors of future arts attendance when controlling for attitude & general and specific lifestyle factors
\nnot much evidence to suggest a relationship with racial/ethnic variables
\nhypothesis regarding lifestyle has not been confirmed by further work
\n\n
4. Evaluation and conclusions
\narts demand research has unique conceptual data challenges
\nthings that stand out:
\nsubstitution across performing art forms shows that inter-arts substitutions may be important, no competitive effects within an art form
\naggregate price elasticities will be lower than firm price elasticities
\nincome elasticities need to account for real income effect and opportunity cost of leisure
\nquality matters, but it’s hard to measure it
\nconsidering how people’s attitudes change toward the arts as they consume them is important for estimating demand
\nsurvey evidence suggests that education is the strongest determinant of arts demand, but is not supported in regression analysis. regression analysis favors arts training, family socialization, and other forms of arts experience over ed. levels
\nsurprisingly few arts demand axioms
\n- LG
Potential for Research Spotlight
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2016-12-28T19:18:20Z", "dateModified": "2016-12-28T19:18:20Z" } }, { "key": "G4TWXAKR", "version": 4064, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 275956, "name": "createquity", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/createquity", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/275956/items/G4TWXAKR", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/createquity/items/G4TWXAKR", "type": "text/html" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 2254811, "username": "lgeraghty", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/lgeraghty", "type": "text/html" } } }, "lastModifiedByUser": { "id": 282531, "username": "katieingersoll", "name": "Katie Ingersoll", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/katieingersoll", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "G4TWXAKR", "version": 4064, "itemType": "note", "note": "\n
\n
\n
Title: Older adults’ television viewing as part of selection and compensation strategies
\n\n
Author(s): Margot J. van der Goot, Johannes W.J. Beentjes, and Martine van Salem
\n\n
Publisher: Communcations
\n\n
Year: 2015
\n\n
URL: http://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle/j$002fcomm.2015.40.issue-1$002fcommun-2014-0025$002fcommun-2014-0025.xml
\n\n
Topics: reasons for watching television, aging
\n\n
Methods: Interviews with Dutch older people about their television viewing habits
\n\n
What it says: This article investigates whether older people, who tend to watch television more than younger people, use television as a substitute for other activities that they may do less because of their age like working and socializing. The authors draw on Selective Optimization and Compensation (SOC) theory, which states that successful aging is a lifelong process of optimizing life circumstances through selecting and compensating to maximize gains and minimize losses. Other researchers have suggested that increased television viewing among older people is a compensation strategy for losses in their lives. The authors conducted qualitative interviews with Dutch older adults to see if they could find more instances of selection, or choosing to engage in watching television, vs. compensation, or substituting television for diminished abilities or activities.
\n\n
Their analysis indicates that television was a choice for some interviewees, and that it did not simply take the place of other activities in which interviewees were unable to partake. This suggests that television was one of a variety of meaningful activities in which interviewees could participate, and that they chose television over those other activities. Interviewees also appreciated the social aspect of television and being able to share it with a partner.
\n\n
For interviewees who indicated that television was part of a compensation strategy, it did take the place of more meaningful activities, or to fill time. Respondents using this strategy also reported substituting television after losing a social relationship, like the loss of a spouse. Overall, the authors found that selection strategies better described older adults’ television viewing behavior than compensation strategies.
\n\n
What I think about it: The interview methodology means that we can’t generalize these findings and that they haven’t been quantitatively tested, but these are interesting results that might relate to how we’re thinking about television vs. attending arts events more generally. In terms of other limitation, I wonder about a potential for social desirability response with some of the interviewees that might have increased the number of respondents who appeared to use television as a selection strategy instead of a compensation strategy. Additionally, since the Survey of Public Participation in the Arts data shows a mostly upward trend of arts participation with aging, I wonder if older adults tend to engage with more entertainment in general that might explain some of the selection strategy.
\n\n
What it all means: Selection and compensation strategies apply to aging, but I wonder if this construct applies to other aspects and changes in our lives. According to these results, the choice to watch television among these older people is usually healthy and fulfilling, but other times a simple use of time and heavily related to things that they have lose throughout their lives. Similarly, I wonder if people who find themselves with an injury or in poor health, experienced a loss, or have otherwise undergone a change in life find themselves in a similar position of having to choose whether or not to watch television to either compensate for losses or maximize a positive aspect of a life change.
\n\n
The SOC framework seems related to how we’re thinking about how people of lower socioeconomic status choose to prioritize and fill their free time. For some, limitations might push them toward watching television instead of doing what they’d really like to be doing, like attending arts events, and for others television might be a meaningful activity with which to fill their time. While the results from this article can’t point us in any conclusive direction, this is an interesting way of framing the question.