Exploring a Qualitative Approach to Arts Advocacy and Evaluation

The quantitative impact of the arts has become an increasingly important factor in determining the overall value of a project, and is often used to determine acceptance of submissions, public recognition and funding disbursement. This project evaluates current understandings of how the arts function within society, popular methods for determining the value of the arts and explores how qualitative reasoning can be utilized to communicate the value of supporting artistic endeavors. While placing a numerical value on the arts based on data collection can be important, this project will aim to evaluate the implications of relying so heavily on facts and figures to determine the value of things that are ultimately driven by human experiences that defy measure. Exploring a Qualitative Approach Belisle 3 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to explore how the arts are currently evaluated, reveal what gets lost when we assess the arts based on a limited lens and convey the importance of recognizing and accurately portraying the impact and value of the arts. Broek (2013) evaluates how time relates to the arts audience in three distinct ways, and examines how these three factors function together to reveal cohorts of individuals that can predict trends in arts participation. This study finds that there is an age, period and cohort effect that can have a significant influence on the development of individuals and choices they end up making; adding or removing one aspect of an individual’s overall circumstances or experiences can have a dramatic impact on resulting actions (Broek, 2013). One significant discovery includes an unexplained decrease in arts participation. Broek (2013) states that the results of the study leave us with “the major challenge of explaining why, independent of age and cohort, US arts participation is on the decline (cf. Stern, 2011) despite a rise in education attainment (which propels arts participation)” (p.53). While Broek did not explore this realization in depth, this results in questions about why such a decline has occurred and what the influencing factors are. Donovan and Gulbrandsen (2018) share that the results of a project meant to “explore how different stakeholders make implicit and explicit statements and judgements about the value of [arts and humanities research]” made it clear that “impact was related to the concept of value, and that traditional measurements of impact – emphasizing costbenefit analyses and economic effects of research – seemed poorly suited to arts and humanities, which were indeed left out of most of the impact literature” (p. 285). There are numerous obstacles faced when evaluating the arts and humanities, and there are significant limitations when the value of the arts and humanities are measured in certain ways. The analysis of how Exploring a Qualitative Approach Belisle 4 value is assigned to the arts provides an interesting lens that can be utilized to explore various topics, including how arts evaluation may impact the decline in arts participation. Broek (2013) argues that “despite the well-established fact that people are more culturally active the higher educated they are, a major rise in the level of education over decades had nonetheless not resulted in a similar rise in cultural participation” (p. 53). A decline in arts participation such as this one is just one reason that it is essential for arts advocates to explore how the arts are evaluated, how significance is conveyed to the public, in what ways individuals engage with the arts and why people believe the arts are important. It is essential to expand how the arts are evaluated, and Donovan and Gulbrandsen stress the necessity for an approach that “highlights the importance of ‘networks, interaction, intersubjectivity, configurations, texture and flows’ in how we visualize, curate and narrate, research impact, and cultural value, providing an alternative to overly simplistic and conceptually narrow quantitative measures” (p. 286). Traditional measurements and understandings of value are inadequate, and an alternative approach is needed in order to capture a more accurate and encompassing view of the impact of the arts and humanities while arguing for the expansion of what is defined as valuable research. LITERATURE REVIEW An Economic Approach to Arts Evaluation The ways in which society assigns value to research often favor particular fields and practices. These methods of evaluation do not adequately assess the impact and value of the arts, resulting in a diminished view of the significance of the arts. Belfiore (2015) addresses the issues surrounding the evaluation of the arts in relation to policymaking in the context of British cultural policy. “The ‘impact agenda’ discourse raises interesting and important questions, such Exploring a Qualitative Approach Belisle 5 as what should be the point, the use, the aim and indeed the value of the research produced within the academy” (Belfiore, 2015, p. 100). Instead of applying a limited number of evaluation methods to a broad range of topics, researchers should be able to be intentional about the methods they utilize in order to offer accurate results. Societal standards and expectations, however, seemingly limit what methods are perceived as valid and significant. Economic impact is often one of the most prominent approaches utilized in order to justify the support of the arts. An article in the New Hampshire Business Review reports on the impacts of a study that evaluates the economic impact of the nonprofit arts and culture sector from a data-driven standpoint. Callahan shares a statement from Van McLeod, commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Cultural Resources, in which he proclaims the figures from the study “affirm the cultural community’s importance to the state’s tourism industry” (p. 11). This study, said to be the first-of-its-kind, presents data collected on revenue produced, origins of the revenue, and impact on the state and its citizens that prove promising for the arts and culture sector in New Hampshire (Callahan, 2012). Callahan also shares that McLeod expressed a twofold importance to the survey stating “. for one it’s important for the communities to understand the impact that arts and culture nonprofit organizations have; but it also gives the organizations ‘an understanding of who they are in their community’” (p.11). This study was successful in conveying the importance of the arts within a community utilizing economic evaluation. It is essential, however, to maintain an understanding that while this is one way to convey impact, it is by no means the only way to effectively advocate for the arts. Madden (2001) explores what economic impact studies look like in relation to arts and culture, expands on why these evaluations are insufficient and argues that they are ultimately counterproductive to advocacy efforts. Madden (2001) states, the use of ‘economic’ impact studies in advocacy is a Exploring a Qualitative Approach Belisle 6 form of misinterpreted authority” (p.161) as he argues that these studies often have little relevance when it comes to decisions concerning the allocation of government funding. Belfiore (2105) recognizes the tendency to lean towards economic evaluations and addresses how utilizing these methods as a means to determine public value is problematic. She states, “this broader discussion should encompass these activities’ economic dimension but critically, not be limited to it” (p.105). It is becoming imperative to find new ways to determine value in a more comprehensive way. When evaluating existing studies, a theme emerges that the use of economic impact to evaluate and advocate for the arts is unwise. Existing economic evaluations of the arts do not adequately reflect or fit into economic theory parameters, and there are better ways to advocate for arts and culture – including economically – that are not being met with current evaluation methods. Madden (2001) shares the view that “’economic impacts invite governments to intervene in art and culture for financial gain” (p. 172) and expresses that the results can be disastrous when it comes to arts and culture objectives. Belfiore (2015) argues that “we have seen that socio-economic impact has so far failed to successfully ‘make the case’ for arts funding and to provide a credible solution to the justification issue” (p. 103). There is value in an economic evaluation of the impact of the arts, but studies reveal that solely relying on economic approaches is not assisting in advocation efforts as much as individuals often believe. Adequate Assessments and Equal Value While dominant approaches for assessing impact can convey some value and are worth utilizing, it has become apparent that they cannot adequately convey the value of the arts. As stated previously, it is essential to explore different ways in which the value of the arts can be assessed. The tendency to continue utilizing largely economic approaches in order to evaluate the Exploring a Qualitative Approach Belisle 7 arts, however, also raises important questions about how the arts are compared to other fields that must be explored. Olmos-Peñuela, Benneworth and Castro-Martínez (2015) assess the value of the humanities in relation to the sciences from a societal standpoint. They address the issue that the humanities are often seen as less worthy as they attempt to explore if that is actually true and offer an explanation as to why that may be by attempting to understanding two different views – less useful compared to useful in a different way – as a means to determine how one could begin to evaluate these differences (Olmos-Peñuela et al., 2015). O’Brien (2015) addresses the question of understanding impact in relation to government programs, how that impact is measured and the problems that can arise by focusing on a British context in order to evaluate not only how things ar