HOW 

ART 

WORKS

SEPTEMBER 2012

The National Endowment 

for the Arts’ 

Five-Year Research Agenda, 

with a System Map and 

Measurement Model
How 

Art 

Works

The National Endowment 

for the Arts’ 

Five-Year Research Agenda, 

with a System Map and 

Measurement Model

September 2012
September 2012 

National Endowment for the Arts 

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20506-0001 

Telephone: 202-682-5400 

arts.gov 

Based on a manuscript prepared by Monitor Institute 

Produced by the NEA’s Office of Research & Analysis

Sunil Iyengar, Director

Ellen Grantham, Program Analyst

Richard Heeman, Program Analyst

Roman Ivanchenko, Program Analyst

Bonnie Nichols, Research Analyst

Tamika Shingler, Research & Administrative Specialist

Steven Shewfelt, Deputy Director

Joanna Woronkowicz, Senior Research Officer

Designed by Beth Schlenoff Design 

Printed in the United States of America 

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data 

National Endowment for the Arts.

How art works : the National Endowment for the Arts’ five-year 

research agenda, with a system map and measurement model.

 pages cm

“Based on a manuscript prepared by Monitor Institute.”

“September 2012.”

1. Arts and society—United States—History—21st century. 

2. National Endowment for the Arts. I. Title.

NX180.S6N38 2012

700.973’09051201—dc23

 2012038221

202-682-5496 Voice/TTY 

(a device for individuals who are deaf or hearing-impaired) 

Individuals who do not use conventional print materials may contact the Arts Endowment’s 

Office for Accessibility at 202-682-5532 to obtain this publication in an alternate format. 

This publication is available free of charge in print or PDF format at arts.gov, the website 

of the National Endowment for the Arts.
how art works | 3

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

background Note On Goals And Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Why A System Map?

Section One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Establishing A Theory Of How Art Works As A System

Section Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Mapping The System Of How Art Works

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

System Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Human Impulse to Create and Express . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Quality-of-Life Outcomes (First-Order Outcomes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Broader Societal Impacts (Second-Order Outcomes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

System Multipliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Section Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Dissecting The Map For The Purpose Of Measurement

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Initial Construct of Input Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Arts Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Education and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Initial Construct of Intervening Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Arts Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Arts Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Initial Construct of First-Order Outcome Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Direct and Indirect Economic Benefits of Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Benefit of Art to Individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Benefit of Art to Society and Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Initial Construct of Second-Order Outcome Variable: A Work in Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Societal Capacities to Innovate and to Express Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Section Four . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Plotting A Research Agenda On The Map

Overview and Key Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Finding Previous NEA Research on the Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

From System Map to Road Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

NEA Research Agenda by Project Title, Summary, and Placement on the System Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

The NEA’s Inaugural Research Grants Portfolio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

CONTENTS
4 | national endowment for the arts

ILLUSTRATION 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

How Art Works System Map

ILLUSTRATION 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

How Art Works System Map with Multipliers

ILLUSTRATION 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

How Art Works Expanded System Map

ILLUSTRATION 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Example of Arts Infrastructure as a Multi-Level Measurement Structure

ILLUSTRATION 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Example of Education and Training as a Multi-Level Measurement Structure

ILLUSTRATION 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Example of Arts Creation as a Multi-Level Measurement Structure

ILLUSTRATION 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Example of Arts Participation as a Multi-Level Measurement Structure

ILLUSTRATION 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Example of Direct and Indirect Economic Benefits of Art as a Multi-Level Measurement Structure

ILLUSTRATION 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Example of Benefit of Art to Individuals as a Multi-Level Measurement Structure

ILLUSTRATION 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Example of Benefit of Art to Society and Communities as a Multi-Level Measurement Structure

ILLUSTRATION 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

NEA Research Projects for Fiscal Years 2012–2016, Identified by Primary Node on the How Art Works System Map

illustrations
how art works | 5

research projects that have emerged from ORA’s own 

operating principles, but it also aligns those projects 

with key variables identified by the system map. The 

map organizes the research in a way that permits 

greater exploration of gaps and opportunities.

The NEA’s Office of Research & Analysis is indebted 

to a long list of bibliographical resources, interview 

subjects, and workshop and webinar participants 

for assisting its pursuit of a theory-driven map and 

measurement model to guide future work. (Those 

resources and individuals are credited in two online 

appendices, available here: arts.gov/research/HowArt-Works/index.html.) In particular, ORA relied on 

the expertise of Tony Siesfeld, Andrew Blau, Lance 

Potter, Don Derosby, Jessica Gheiler, and the Monitor 

Group. We now welcome broader public engagement 

with scholars, arts practitioners, and policy-makers so 

that the report can provoke fresh research and insights 

about the value and impact of the arts in America.

Sunil Iyengar

Director, Research & Analysis

National Endowment for the Arts

This document sets forth the National Endowment 

for the Arts’ five-year agenda for research, but it does 

more than that. It provides a conceptual frame for 

planning and assessing research priorities so that 

the NEA can improve its ability to meet a core goal: 

To Promote Knowledge and Understanding about the 

Contributions of the Arts.

This goal appears in the NEA’s Strategic Plan for FY 

2012–2016. The plan charges the Arts Endowment’s 

Office of Research & Analysis (ORA) with drafting a 

five-year research agenda with annual milestones for 

reporting to the White House Office of Management 

& Budget, Congress, and the American public. Thus, 

in 2011 ORA developed operating principles for the 

research agenda and presented them for feedback from 

a variety of stakeholders. (To view the presentation, 

visit arts.gov/research/Service-orgs-meeting.html.)

Concurrent with that process, the agency embarked 

on a series of in-depth dialogues—through interviews, 

webinars, and workshops—with leading thinkers in a 

variety of fields and sectors not exclusive to the arts. 

The goal of those consultations was to establish a 

feasible, testable hypothesis for understanding how art 

works in American life. 

The rationale for this approach was two-fold. First, 

much of the NEA’s past research on arts and culture 

has responded directly to the availability of specific 

datasets; to that extent, such research has been largely 

descriptive and reactive, rather than theory-driven 

and pro-active. The second reason for attempting to 

outline “how art works” is that a theory of change 

would enable us better to study the arts as a complete 

system, and thus allow us more clearly to define the 

arts’ “value” and “impact.” Understanding those terms 

is crucial if the NEA is to track progress on achieving 

its strategic outcome for all research activity: Evidence 

of the Value and Impact of the Arts is Expanded and 

Promoted.

The result of the NEA’s deliberations and expert 

consultations was a system map and measurement model (shown in Sections Two and Three of 

this report) that can guide ORA’s annual milestone 

development process as part of its five-year research 

agenda. This report (in Section Four) lists priority 

P REFACE
6 | national endowment for the arts

Researchers, policy-makers, and practitioners in the 

arts sector have had no shortage of ideas for articulating the arts’ potential impacts on individuals and 

communities. Many of those concepts have flowed 

from original analyses of existing datasets, including 

studies conducted or commissioned by the National 

Endowment for the Arts. Researchers from a host of 

disciplines have contributed to an extensive literature 

attempting to describe core components of the U.S. 

arts ecosystem, or to quantify the arts’ impact from a 

variety of perspectives.

Some of the most compelling research has originated in non-arts specialties: cognitive neuroscience, 

for example, with its discoveries about the arts’ role 

in shaping learning-related outcomes; labor economics, with its lessons about the arts’ bearing on national 

and local productivity; urban planning fieldwork that 

seeks to understand the arts as a marker of community 

vitality; and psychological studies that posit the arts’ 

relationship to health and well-being. 

The present report begins with the assumption 

that despite such pioneering efforts, the NEA’s Office 

of Research & Analysis would benefit from a visual 

interpretation of “how art works.” The model should 

outline a rational, defensible theory of change, and it 

should carry direct implications for measurement.

Another assumption behind this report is that 

although many lenses have been applied to understand the arts as a discrete ecosystem, or to measure 

the various types of impact it produces along different 

dimensions, seldom has a unified theory been brought 

to investigate these questions. 

Before embarking on a project of this formidable 

scope, it was necessary to start from a humbler place. 

The project involved literature reviews and consultations with a broad group of people highly accomplished in their fields, not all of which were artsrelated. They came from the academic, government, 

not-for-profit, and commercial sectors, spanning a 

breadth of artistic, scientific, and media disciplines, 

and they participated in a string of interviews, workshops, webinars, and online exchanges. The process 

This report stems from a collaborative research 

inquiry into the nature and consequences of art in 

American life. Although it culminates in a research 

agenda for the National Endowment for the Arts, the 

document also proposes a way for the nation’s cultural 

researchers, arts practitioners, policy-makers, and the 

general public to view, analyze, and discuss the arts as 

a dynamic, complex system.

It is characteristic of complex systems that they 

afford many points of entry and many different vantages, according to the user. Such systems also have many 

moving parts, which often interact in mysterious ways. 

It is frequently the case that examining one or more of 

these parts in isolation will fail to reveal the cumulative effect of the system or its emergent properties. 

A well-established technique for managing this 

complexity, for the purpose of analysis, is to create a 

system map. The tool has been used widely in commerce to understand markets, value chains, the birth 

of new sectors, and how information flows within the 

walls of a business. System maps have figured in a variety of fields and sectors, ranging from neuroscience 

and public health to the evolution of economies.

The arts are a dynamic, complex system. They have 

a rich intellectual history of arguments and counterarguments. Thus, their inputs, core components, and 

impacts are ideally suited for system mapping. 

A system map of “how art works” can provide an 

opportunity to organize recurring themes and concepts. At a time when robust data collection and 

reporting drives the ability of most U.S. sectors to 

define themselves and demonstrate their worth, such 

a map can be all the more valuable. It allows people 

from diverse backgrounds and viewpoints to arrive at 

a shared understanding of how the system works, what 

are its key elements and relationships, and which external factors can alter the system’s efficacy. It provides 

a cartography of current research and exposes gaps in 

knowledge. Beyond these merits, a system map offers a 

blueprint for future measurement goals and strategies, 

suggesting which variables are critical to study for the 

purpose of communicating impact.

BACKGROUND NOTE ON GOALS A ND MET H ODS

WHY A SYSTEM MAP?
how art works | 7

involved “rapid prototyping” to produce a map, 

variables, and definitions that formed the basis for 

those in the report. (Go here for a description of the 

consultation process, a list of participants, and a selective bibliography: arts.gov/research/How-Art-Works/

index.html.)

What this report does not do is attempt to resolve 

longstanding points of contention in the arts. Nor 

does the system map claim to be definitive. Rather, it 

articulates a theory for understanding how art works, 

offers an integrative and holistic map for organizing 

existing research, and illustrates what the National 

Endowment for the Arts is doing to clarify parts of 

the map so we might better comprehend the entire 

system and its implications for the quality of life for all 

Americans. 

We have organized this report into four sections: 

an overview of our theory of “how art works” (Section 

One); a detailed description of the system map and its 

components (Section Two); a measurement model for 

the map, inclusive of component variables, definitional 

questions, and methodological challenges (Section 

Three); and the NEA’s planned research projects over a 

five-year period (Section Four).

To a large extent, the How Art Works system map 

reflects the strengths, limitations, and potential of 

existing research on the arts. Alternatives to the 

map—or future iterations—may generate even better 

research questions and methodologies to explore the 

nature of art, its contributions to human and societal 

development, and its place in American life. 
8 | national endowment for the arts

tured by art—has the possibility of being changed. 

These changes are not certain, and most often are subtle. Over many instances of engagement, with different 

art or with the same art many times (or both), there is 

a good chance that a person’s viewpoint and capacity 

for encountering other experiences will change. Over 

many people, over time, such changes can be profound. 

They can manifest as differences in people’s cognitive, 

social, and emotional development. Engagement in art 

can expand the perspectives a person can take, deepen 

one’s appreciation of things new and familiar, facilitate 

or enhance a feeling of spirituality, and lead to a sense 

of connection that was not originally present.

Within a community—a collection of people bound 

by some common element, be it geography, history, 

an area of interest, or some other shared characteristic—engaging in art can foster a sense of identity and 

belonging. It can promote and signal cultural vitality 

and communal values such as a tolerance of diversity 

and an openness to questions.2

  These communal values are ties that bind. At their best, such ties contribute to unity, identity, a sense of solidarity, higher levels 

of civic engagement, and ultimately the expectation of 

the right to culture. But these ties also can be exclusive, serving to reinforce a “right” and a “wrong” way 

of participating in a group.

Somewhat different from this community benefit 

are the economic benefits of art, both direct and indirect. This variable has been much investigated lately, 

with some studies purporting that geographically 

bound communities where artists have settled tend 

to produce higher real estate values, more tourism, 

and the growth of entertainment industries. In other 

words, arts engagement produces local economic 

activity. 

Most directly, both the artist and the buyer gain 

through the exchange. The artist—and gallery or theater or other venue, if one is involved—earns income, 

and the patron gets artwork or an arts experience that 

both pleases and enriches. And, in the case of a tangible piece of art, the work may be sold and bought in 

the future. There are also indirect economic benefits. 

Historically, generations of artists, philosophers, critics, and social scientists have struggled to define the 

role and impacts of art in terms of public value. They 

have asked questions as fundamental as: What is art? 

What is the nature of an artistic experience? What 

factors and conditions contribute to that experience, 

and how do they manifest in individuals and societies? 

What benefits do the arts confer, how, and to whom, 

and how might those effects be better known? 

Such questions propelled this project, which has generated a system map of art’s impacts on quality of life, 

an analysis of the system’s key variables and how they 

might be measured, and a conceptual basis for presenting and reviewing the NEA’s five-year research agenda. 

The project entailed a substantive literature review 

(more than 150 documents ranging from academic 

research studies to data sets) and a series of consultations with a broad spectrum of “experts.” We use the 

term expansively: our experts came from the arts, from 

disciplines focused on the well-being of communities and individuals (e.g., demographers, psychologists, politicians and policy experts, economists, and 

industry executives), and from adjacent disciplines 

that endeavor to map and understand other complex, 

dynamic systems (e.g., weather, public health, Type 

II diabetes, and the theory of system dynamics). We 

sought informed judgment from various perspectives 

as we laid out key issues and then worked together to 

map a system of the arts and their impacts. 

After 11 months and a series of collaborative working sessions, we produced a map that attempts to 

synthesize main elements of the system and their 

relationships to each other.1

  Our underlying hypothesis is that engagement in art contributes to quality 

of life. Quality of life contributes to society’s capacity to invent, create, and express itself. This capacity 

contributes back to art, both directly and indirectly. 

When the system works, arts engagement expands and 

deepens, quality of life is enhanced, and the creative 

capacity of a society increases. 

At the individual level, a person who engages in art—

who creates, witnesses, is made angry by, or is enrapSECTION one

ESTABLISHING A THEORY OF HOW ART WORKS AS A SYSTEM
how art works | 9

Beyond training and opportunity, something in 

human nature—an impulse to create and to express—

fuels the artist, the creation of art, and ongoing arts 

engagement. Engagement in art contributes to an 

enhanced quality of life. As quality of life improves, 

more arts engagement occurs, strengthening a society’s capacity to express ideas and to create. As this 

societal capacity increases, even greater levels of arts 

engagement can result directly and indirectly. Thus, 

when the system works, it builds itself and leads to 

healthier, more productive outcomes. 

As a simplification of the real world, the system 

described here is inherently imperfect. The system 

sits in a wider system that influences individuals, 

communities, our economy and our very society. But 

in the system here described, art is central, though its 

impacts may be subtle. 

In dialogue with experts from various backgrounds, 

we found that we could articulate a map of this 

complex, dynamic system linking arts participation, 

quality of life, and broad capabilities in our society. 

Our map depicts a Theory of Change for art—providing insight into how, why, and when arts engagement 

enhances the lives of individuals and communities. 

The map reflects several key assumptions that arose 

from this collaborative research project. For example:

•	 Arts engagement—creating art or otherwise experiencing it—is at the heart of how art works. Art 

matters. It is an essential contributing factor to 

health, happiness, and prosperity.

•	 The raw fuel needed to keep the system going is the

human impulse to create and express.

•	 Benefits can accrue separately to individuals and

communities, and these benefits are not all equally 

distributed. Nor are they always reliably present. 

•	 Arts engagement makes important contributions

to the broad capacity of our society to invent and 

express itself. 

The system map helps put long-standing controversies 

and disputes into a context that allows multiple perspectives to exist. It provides what Keats called “negative capability”—the ability to imagine the system 

without having to resolve apparently contradictory 

aspects. For instance, in the current map: 

•	 Art can be an artifact, an action, or an ongoing process. It can be restricted to “high art” or expanded to 

Maybe through local policy and support, through the 

availability of inexpensive space that can be used as 

an artist’s studio, or through the appeal of sharing a 

community of kindred souls, artists concentrate in a 

given area. Arts patrons frequenting the area may spur 

local revenue growth through food and drink purchases, hotel stays, and tourism spending. Not all artists 

benefit, and some may be forced to move on for less 

expensive space or some other reason, but the longterm effect is that the neighborhood is now economically better off.

These benefits “talk to each other.” They feed each 

other. A more vibrant community is one in which businesses are likely to want to operate. An active business 

life will enhance the community, and attract more 

people. 

We hypothesize that these individual and community benefits of art represent its primary and most 

measurable contributions. When people engage in 

art, they themselves may change and “grow,” they and 

their communities can become more vital, and the 

economic benefits to artists and the overall market can 

increase and accrue. Art contributes to and enriches 

the overall quality of life.

Much more indirectly, a healthy and robust engagement in the arts can raise the aptitude of a society for 

invention, creativity, and expression. Although the 

aptitude itself may be difficult to witness directly, it 

can be seen in the creation of new forms and outlets 

for expression. A contemporary example of this phenomenon is the combination of digital video, easyto-use editing software, and the Internet, all of which 

gave rise to YouTube, Myspace, and other places where 

a wide range of people are able to post their own creative expressions. A more fundamental instance of the 

capacity of our society to innovate and to express ideas 

is in the exercise of freedom of speech. 

Our societal capacity to innovate and to express 

ideas can lead to support for arts infrastructure (e.g., 

government funding, or grants or other support from 

foundations, businesses, and individuals). It can result 

also in stronger commitments to formal and informal 

instruction in both the creation and appreciation of 

art. Arts infrastructure provides the financial support, 

materials, and human resources necessary for arts 

participation and arts creation, while education and 

training provide important knowledge and skills.
10 | national endowment for the arts

Notes

1

 System mapping is an analytical technique broadly applied in 

both the social and physical sciences. It allows analysts to picture 

complex interactions between large numbers of variables combining to generate single outcomes. The constellation of causal 

variables is referred to as a “system.” The “mapping” is the process of first imagining and then testing how variables interact with 

one another over time to produce impact. The basis of the method 

is the recognition that the structure of any system—the many 

circular, interlocking, sometimes time-delayed relationships 

among its components—is often just as important in determining 

its behavior as the individual components themselves. 

Recent applications of system mapping have proved instrumental in moving policy conversations forward on topics as difficult as 

the causes, consequences, and policy options for climate change, 

or the interactions between consumer confidence and financial 

market performance, or the interplay between charitable giving 

and social cohesion. While contributions to the field of systemmapping have been made by many leading scientists and social 

scientists, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has perhaps 

contributed more to the field than any other single institution, 

according to Monitor Institute, the NEA’s primary consultant 

throughout this process. Monitor’s approach in Phase II of this 

initiative drew heavily from the particular contributions of Jay 

W. Forrester, Peter Senge, and John Sterman, each with deep ties 

to MIT. 

The primary benefit of system mapping is that it often facilitates a breakthrough understanding of contradictions, trade-offs, 

and tensions routinely found in environments where a wide 

variety of causes interact with one another across space and time 

to produce the results of interest. Given the prevalence of these 

“puzzles” in the discussion of the benefits of art, and in attempts 

to link art and quality of life, the method suggested itself as an 

obvious choice for the How Art Works project.

2

 The term “cultural vitality” is defined by Rosario Jackson et al.: 

“Evidence of creating, disseminating, validating, and supporting 

arts and culture as a dimension of everyday life in communities,” 

from Cultural Vitality in Communities, Washington, DC: The 

Urban Institute (2006).

“popular art.” It can refer to one or more art forms. 

Nevertheless, how one sets the boundaries and limits to these concepts will determine which impacts 

can be evaluated. In this system, moreover, art does 

have to be a human endeavor, the invention and 

expression of a person. 

•	 There are a multitude of individual-level and community-level outcomes associated with arts engagement. None is privileged (in the sense that one is 

more important or more valuable than others), not 

all need be present in every circumstance, and the 

outcomes may register subjectively or objectively. 

Our system anticipates many subtle influences of 

arts engagement, over time and differentially over 

people.

•	 Art contributes to the greater quality of life of individuals and communities. Our single biggest measurement challenge will be to identify quality-of-life 

outcomes that can be attributed exclusively to arts 

engagement. 

The system map provides an integrative and holistic 

model for organizing research to measure the arts’ 

impacts. In Section Four of this report, we locate the 

NEA’s planned and ongoing projects on the map. This 

exercise reveals potential areas that might be underrepresented in the agency’s current research portfolio. 

In the same way, the nation’s larger body of research 

on art’s impacts can be organized by the system map, 

showing where distinct areas of research can be 

brought together for new insight. 

This map is a beginning, not the end. It should provoke conversation, debate, and research. The results of 

these exchanges will help deepen and enrich the map, 

making it a better and more faithful representation of 

the complex, dynamic system of art’s impacts.

As it currently stands, the map can be used to 

“explain” how art works as a system, and to provide a 

basis for planning future research. 
how art works | 11

•	 How arts participation influences the lives of individuals and their communities; and

•	 How individuals and their communities influence

artists and their work. 

The system map we created is a community effort, 

reflecting a series of discussions, literature searches, 

and interviews. (Go here for a description of the consultation process, a list of participants, and a selective 

bibliography: arts.gov/research/How-Art-Works/

index.html.)

The map is both very simple and extremely complicated. At its simplest, it says that with motivation 

and opportunity, a person (the artist) conceives of and 

expresses an idea. This idea, when it reaches another 

person, has an impact. This impact may be seen within 

the individual who engaged with the artwork, within 

Overview

To tell the story of How Art Works, the NEA’s Office of 

Research & Analysis and the strategy consulting firm 

Monitor Institute engaged citizens representing a 

wide range of shaping experiences and perspectives—

including artists and non-artists, academics, policymakers, and business people—to develop a common 

view of the relationship between art and individual 

and community outcomes. This series of exchanges 

produced a system map of art and its impacts (see 

Illustration 1).

What is this map? It is an abstract representation of 

the interplay among:

•	 Arts participation, inclusive of arts creation;

•	 The artist, the artwork, and audience;

Human Impulse 

to Create and 

Express

Education and 

Training

Arts

Infrastructure

Arts 

Participation

Arts 

Creation

Benefit of Art to 

Individuals

(cognitive & 

emotional)

Benefit of Art 

to Society and 

Communities

(economic & civic)

Societal 

Capacities to 

Innovate and to 

Express Ideas

Illustration 1

How Art Works System Map

 Inputs

 Art

 Quality-of-Life Outcomes

 Broader Societal Impact

SECTION two

MAPPING THE SYSTEM OF HOW ART WORKS
12 | national endowment for the arts

participation. Art comes in the form of both artifacts 

and experiences. Quality-of-life outcomes are primary 

and more immediate effects of art and arts participation. Broader societal impacts result from quality-oflife outcomes.

System Components

Human Impulse to Create and Express

This is the primary motive that powers the system: 

the basic drive for virtually all humans across all time 

to express themselves at some point, to make a creative mark. 

How Art Works takes Human Impulse to Create and 

Express as the animating force behind arts participation 

(which can be to create something, to express something, or to receive or interact with the creative expression of another ), and all of its social consequences; 

accordingly, it is a constant in the system, and a fundamentally different type of input from Arts Infrastructure 

and Education and Training. This impulse is a necessary 

but insufficient condition for arts engagement. Arts 

engagement requires opportunity. Much of the context 

for this opportunity is provided by the inputs below. 

Inputs

System inputs enable a context for arts creation and 

arts participation. In this system, there are two broad 

inputs:

•	 Arts Infrastructure refers to the institutions, places, 

spaces, and formal and informal social support systems that facilitate the creation and consumption 

of art. 

•	 Education and Training refers to the standards, best 

practices, knowledge models, and skills that inform 

artistic expression on the one hand, and consumption of art on the other. Education and Training

spans the spectrum of formal and informal instruction, from YouTube and street jam sessions, to K-12 

and adult arts education, to apprenticeships and 

conservatory training.

Combined, Human Impulse to Create and Express, 

Arts Infrastructure, and Education and Training lend 

the context and motivation on which artistic endeavors, audience experiences, and any resulting benefits 

are built.

the community, and/or in an economic exchange. This 

impact flows to the greater society, influencing its 

creative capacity, as well as its means and ability for 

expression. The impact also flows back to the artist, 

directly in some instances (e.g., the artist sells a work 

of art) and indirectly through education, infrastructure, and society’s general embrace of creativity and 

freedom of expression. 

Dig a layer deeper into the map and it reveals more 

complexity. For instance, the question of who has the 

“right” to call a work a piece of art—the artist, the audience, or an informed third party—does not need an 

answer in the system map. All these perspectives are 

possible but no one perspective is privileged. Choosing 

one perspective influences which effects are observed, 

and at what level of magnitude. Likewise, the distinction between high and low art need not be made, as 

both are accommodated in this map. But changing 

the “breadth” of the definition of art will change the 

number of people engaged, and therefore how many 

people can be affected and how large (relative to the 

total population) the impacts are. Whether or not our 

definition includes publishing, radio, and/or movies, 

for example, strongly influences how many people 

engage with art—and, in particular, how much direct 

economic benefit accrues from art.

One risk of system mapping is the tendency to try to 

accommodate everything within the map. To limit this 

risk in the context of How Art Works, we have assumed 

that a work of art is an act of creative expression done 

within the confines of a set of known or emerging 

practices and precedence that is intended to communicate richly to others (e.g., a symphony performance, 

a teenager’s final art project, and a grandmother’s crochet practice). As we are interested specifically in the 

impact of art on individuals and communities, in our 

definition we stipulate that at least one person other 

than the artist is required to engage with the work. 

In addition to depicting the story of How Art Works,

the map implies a number of things about measuring 

art’s impact. We will turn to those implications presently. First, let’s tour the map.

The How Art Works system consists of four parts: 

inputs; art itself; quality-of-life outcomes (first-order 

outcomes); and broader societal impacts (secondorder outcomes). Primary inputs are factors and forces 

providing foundational structure to artists and arts 
how art works | 13

financial returns of the arts (e.g., increases in the 

value of real estate, or benefits to the hospitality 

industry).5

Discussions of the value of art invariably seek to 

highlight a portion of one of these factors, often at 

the exclusion of other parts. Our research in developing an integrated system suggests that the civic and 

economic components of art’s benefit to communities and the emotional and cognitive components of 

art’s benefit to individuals are best acknowledged at 

all points in time and that the particular value of one 

type of benefit over the other can be understood only 

in unique circumstances. Recent arts policy and casemaking for the arts has overemphasized the critical 

value of art’s direct and indirect economic impacts on 

society. Although those analyses and resulting numbers certainly matter and are attractive because of 

their concrete nature, our research suggests that the 

other individual and community values of art—if they 

were more directly quantifiable—in all likelihood far 

outweigh the measurable financial values of the arts. 

Broader Societal Impacts (Second-Order Outcomes)

To complete the systems perspective of how art works, 

we need to take into consideration a final category of 

variables we label here as broader societal impact. The 

overall impact is Societal Capacities to Innovate and 

to Express Ideas. But a more detailed system map (see 

Illustration 3 in Section Three of this report) reveals 

two attendant types of outcomes. One is New Forms of 

Self-Expression, which reflects new ideas and new idioms, and the other is Outlets for Creative Expression, 

which reflects how technological changes are altering 

the sources and reach of creative expression. These 

variables are downstream from our core quality-oflife indicators; yet they are essential to understanding 

how the arts can shape broader life experiences of 

Americans.

•	 Societal Capacities to Innovate and to Express Ideas

refers to the ability of community members to 

“develop, design, or create new applications, ideas, 

relationships, systems, or products”—individually 

and collectively.6

•	 New Forms of Self-Expression (see Illustration 3, 

Section Three) refers to the emerging methods, 

techniques, and materials we have for conveying 

Art 

Art, especially arts engagement, sits at the heart of the 

system. To understand it as intended here, we need 

to acknowledge that Art includes artistic acts (arts 

creation) and the consumption of those outputs (arts 

participation). Regarded this way—and in the context 

of the map—Art is both noun and verb; it is the thing 

and the act of producing and experiencing it. 

•	 The act of producing, interpreting, curating, and

otherwise experiencing art is Arts Participation.

•	 In the system map, we call out Arts Creation as one 

essential aspect of Arts Participation. The agent of 

Arts Creation is the artist, broadly and inclusively 

defined as a person who expresses herself or himself 

within the confines of a set of known or emerging 

practices and precedence, with the intention of communicating richly to others. Art, in this system, is 

created by someone with intention. 

Quality-of-Life Outcomes (First-Order Outcomes)

Quality-of-life outcomes are community and individual benefits derived from interacting with the arts. 

These benefits can have a positive or negative value 

in the context of the system map (i.e., you can have 

“more” or “less” economic, social and community, 

or individual benefits). And because of demographic 

heterogeneity across the United States, it is possible 

for more benefits to accrue to one individual, group, 

institution, or community than to others. We have 

grouped quality-of-life outcomes into two broad 

categories. 

•	 The first is the Benefit of Art to Individuals, which 

refers to the cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and 

physiological effects that arts participation can 

produce in individuals, including transformations 

in thinking, social skills, and character development 

over time.3

•	 The second is Benefit of Art to Society and Communities. This outcome refers to:

› The role that art plays as an agent of cultural 

vitality, a contributor to sense of place and sense 

of belonging, a vehicle for transfer of values and 

ideals, and a promoter of political dialogue.4

› The role it plays as a source of economic benefit. 

This is both the direct income derived from the 

arts (e.g., the price paid for an arts experience or 

artifact of the commercial arts) and the indirect 
14 | national endowment for the arts

Societal Capacities to Innovate and to Express Ideas,

and this creative capacity reinforces basic inputs. 

System Multipliers

Multipliers are factors and forces that broadly influence particular states of the arts system at points in 

time, and may act through many system variables, 

even simultaneously. To understand the state of the 

system at any point in time, we need to take stock of 

how the multipliers are affecting it. By isolating these 

five essential multipliers, we are able to characterize 

changes to the system as time passes. We propose five 

primary multipliers: Markets and Subsidies; Politics; 

Technology; Demographics and Cultural Traditions; 

and Space and Time (see Illustration 2).

1) Markets and Subsidies: Refers to the supplyand-demand factors outside the system, including 

policy mechanisms that direct money and resources 

to different parts of the arts universe at different 

points in time.

2) Politics: Refers to the public dialogue and legislative practices that help set the rules of the game 

through which arts are acknowledged, rewarded, and 

occasionally vilified.

3) Technology: Refers to human-made devices 

with the capability to magnify impact, collapse 

distance, and distort time. These devices sometimes 

affect the arts by making new forms and outlets 

for expression possible, e.g., digital media and 

basic tech tools supporting new crafts, or by transforming existing expressions into new modalities 

that can be broadly distributed and consumed 

at will.

4) Demographics and Cultural Traditions: Refers 

to the size and composition of human populations 

over time. This multiplier captures the critical influence of emigration and immigration, the bulging 

population of cities, and the simultaneous shrinking 

population in the countryside. It captures complexities 

associated with the resulting cultural mash-ups and 

cross-pollination of artistic forms, and group-based 

preferences and tastes. The demographic profiles of 

communities also directly influence the amount of disposable income that can be contributed to the arts as 

well as the amount of direct income that is likely to be 

emotional states and ideas, from new art modalities 

to data visualization. 

•	 Outlets for Creative Expression (see Illustration 3, 

Section Three) refers to the platforms that support 

these new forms of expression, such as YouTube, 

Myspace and Facebook. New outlets and forms of 

expression not only become new media in which artists can express themselves—they also enable more 

individuals to become artists, forcing us to alter the 

ways we think about art forms and fields.

Our capacity to innovate and to express ideas, and its 

links to forms and outlets for expression, also point up 

a core liberty within our society: freedom of expression. This freedom requires certain individual- and 

community-level attitudes that are facilitated by the 

arts: for example, the courage to express oneself and 

a tolerance of new ideas and vehicles for creative 

expression. The system map implies a link between 

arts participation and our ability, opportunity, and 

likelihood to express ourselves freely. 

The benefits of these broader societal impacts spill 

over to creative problem-solving as it applies to a 

whole range of other endeavors, from the sciences to 

design and mass media. Regarded this way, the broader 

societal impacts of the arts are both greater in scope 

and more difficult to track directly back to the arts as 

classically defined. As we will highlight below, these 

impacts interact with “system multipliers,” influencing society well beyond arts participation. 

By explicitly acknowledging the impacts of Societal 

Capacities to Innovate and to Express Ideas, New Forms 

of Self-Expression, and Outlets for Creative Expression

as part of an expanded system map, we establish 

critical ties between the arts and the pollination that 

takes place between the arts and the highly innovative (and often commercial) spaces that have birthed 

phenomena as disparate as self-publishing through 

blogging, socially networked arts funding engines (e.g., 

Kickstarter), media arts-initiated social or political 

activism, and open-source software platforms.

Broader societal impacts in the system also provide 

essential links back to Arts Infrastructure, Education 

and Training, and Arts Participation. They complete 

feedback loops that we know exist in the real world; 

core inputs feed artistic production, artistic production feeds quality of life, quality of life enables the 
how art works | 15

“talk” to one another. It is a picture of the complexity 

inherent in discussions of art’s impact and it suggests 

a set of hypotheses about the relationships between 

arts engagement and the arts’ impacts on individuals 

and their communities. The map offers a platform for 

mounting a research agenda to test the strength of 

these relationships and their underlying hypotheses. 

In the next two sections, we outline measurement implications of the How Art Works system map. 

Section Three discusses in-depth definitions of key 

variables and how they might be made operational. 

Section Four presents the National Endowment for 

the Arts’ five-year research agenda in light of the map 

and measurement model.

derived. It captures the power of taste and communal 

standards for beauty.

5) Space and Time: Space and time are dimensions 

that help us understand the influence that the arts 

have over the centuries and across traditional geographic boundaries. Accounting for time as a multiplier allows us to think about how the arts from past 

millennia remain relevant today, as well as how today’s 

artistic production might influence future generations. This multiplier also indicates variability in the 

time taken for different impacts to flow through the 

system; not all impacts occur at the same speed, and, in 

some circumstances, it may take lifetimes for a change 

to register. Space helps us think about how particularly rich forms of artistic expression, while produced 

locally, can with surprising impact migrate globally.

To sum up, the system map is a conceptual diagram of 

how variables relevant to the topic of How Art Works

Illustration 2

How Art Works System Map 

with Multipliers

Human Impulse 

to Create and 

Express

Education and 

Training

Arts

Infrastructure

Arts 

Participation

Arts 

Creation

Benefit of Art to 

Individuals

(cognitive & 

emotional)

Benefit of Art 

to Society and 

Communities

(economic & civic)

Societal 

Capacities to 

Innovate and to 

Express Ideas

• Markets and 

Subsidies

• Politics

• Technology

• Demographics 

and Cultural 

Traditions

• Space and Time

“System 

Multipliers” 

hit the system in 

complex and subtle 

ways to influence 

system dynamics 

over time

 Inputs

 Art

 Quality-of-Life Outcomes

 Broader Societal Impact
16 | national endowment for the arts

Notes

3

 It is conceivable that some types of art can lead to negative 

individual outcomes, either directly (i.e., as a direct result of 

engagement) or indirectly (e.g., due to tradeoffs in time that occur 

when an individual engages in a specific type of art versus another 

activity). 

4

 Because communities do not all have the same values, ideals, or 

political inclinations, art that is seen as beneficial by one community can appear threatening to another. For an empirical analysis 

of this phenomenon in 71 U.S. cities, see Not Here, Not Now, Not 

That! Protest over Art and Culture in America, by Steven J. Tepper.

5 Economic Benefits of Art to an individual or group can at times 

be at odds with economic benefits to another individual or group 

(e.g., rising real estate prices in artistic communities benefit 

local government and real estate agents but burden low-income 

residents—including some artists—who no longer can afford to 

pay rent). 

6

 The definition of this term comes from literature on creative 

capacity , specifically from McGranahan and Wojan’s (2007) characterization of “thinking creatively,” which is rooted in Richard 

Florida’s concept of a “creative class.” McGranahan and Wojan, 

“The Creative Class: A Key to Rural Growth,” Amber Waves 5:2 

(April 2007):16–21.
how art works | 17

can be independently measured) to support a robust 

research agenda. 

This section of the report constructs key variables 

that can populate the nodes on the system map. The 

choice of variables in each construct will determine 

which steps are needed to establish a comprehensive 

measurement model for the system. 

Each construct is illustrated as a sample “multi-level 

measurement structure” for the node under review. 

The structures draw from existing research in the field, 

as well as from multiple interviews, webinars, and 

Overview

Compellingly specified variables will prove essential 

if we are to test the hypotheses embedded in the How 

Art Works system map. Any research, regardless of 

caliber and scale, can be challenged by the argument 

that variables are mischaracterized. And the outcomes 

of arts engagement in particular involve many difficult-to-measure concepts. In effect, each node in 

the system map needs to be further defined and operationalized (i.e., defined in terms of properties that 

SECTION T H REE

DISSECTING THE MAP FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEASUREMENT

 Inputs

 Art

 Quality-of-Life Outcomes

 Broader Societal Impacts

Human Impulse 

to Create and 

Express

Education and 

Training

Arts

Infrastructure

Arts 

Creation

Benefit of Art to 

Individuals

Benefit of Art 

to Society & 

Communities

Arts 

Participation

Direct and Indirect 

Economic Benefits 

of Art

Societal 

Capacities to 

Innovate and to 

Express Ideas

Outlets for 

Creative 

Expression

New Forms of 

Self-Expression

Illustration 3

How Art Works Expanded System Map
18 | national endowment for the arts

Initial Construct of Input Variables

Arts Infrastructure

Initial Definition

Arts Infrastructure refers to the institutions, places, 

spaces, and formal and informal social support systems that facilitate the creation and consumption 

of art. 

Issues to Explore in Variable Creation

To create variables using this definition, it is necessary 

at minimum to determine: 

1) How broadly to define infrastructure; 

2) How to capture all types of non-financial support; and 

3) Whether to include place-based distinctions. 

The categories listed in the sample measurement 

structure below cover a wide range of infrastructure 

types, including physical spaces, organizations, associations, and other financial and non-financial support. 

In the sample measurement structure, “Arts 

Venues” is divided into “Core” and “Non-Core” venues to indicate the possible relevance of both spaces 

that are primarily used for art-based work and those 

which have another primary function but may include 

artistic programming (e.g., “core” would include 

museums and theaters devoted to musical or theatrical 

performance while “non-core” would include schools 

and parks, which can serve as venues for exhibits or 

performances, but which have primary functions other 

than being arts venues). “Possible Type Elaboration” 

placeholders indicate that further refinement of the 

variable is needed for each type of infrastructure. 

The sample measurement structure also includes 

an “Other Infrastructure” placeholder, which reflects 

the possibility of including additional infrastructure 

types such as new technology-enabled platforms (e.g., 

social-network fundraising) and other types of support 

structures (e.g., health insurance and other benefits, 

equipment and materials, and access to information).

For additional examples of how Arts Infrastructure

variables might be defined, please see a selection of 

relevant studies listed in the corresponding section 

of Appendix A, online: arts.gov/research/How-ArtWorks/index.html.

convenings.7

 (For a partial list of relevant studies 

and data sources, and for a complete list of experts 

consulted, see the report’s online appendices: arts.

gov/research/How-Art-Works/index.html.) Finally, 

these constructs are incomplete; in most cases, fuller 

elaboration and detailed development of subordinate 

variables are necessary. Gaps are denoted with “placeholder” labels.

But first, for the purpose of understanding the variables in greater detail, we consulted an expanded version of the system map (see Illustration 3). In this version, we separate the benefits to a community from the 

economic benefits (thus reflecting the substantial body 

of research existing in each domain), and we isolate 

the societal benefits of “new forms of self-expression” 

and “outlets for creative expression” from the larger 

societal capacity “to innovate and to express ideas.”

This section focuses specifically on the nodes of 

Inputs, Art, and Quality-of-Life Outcomes. The broad 

societal impact nodes, in our view, should be explored 

only once a stronger research program is in place for 

the primary (quality-of-life) effects. Nevertheless, we 

acknowledge the broad societal impacts as important 

outcomes. 

We are not specifying the variable Human Impulse 

to Express and Create, since in the system map it represents the fundamental spark of human creativity.

 Accordingly, we discuss the following nodes reflected in the expanded system map:

•	 Input variables

› Arts Infrastructure

› Education and Training

•	 Intervening variables

› Arts Creation

› Arts Participation

•	 Quality-of-life outcomes

› Direct and Indirect Economic Benefits of Art

› Benefit of Art to Individuals

› Benefit of Art to Society and Communities

•	 Broader societal impact

› Societal Capacities to Innovate and to Express 

Ideas
how 

art works | 19

X Possible

Type 

Elaboration

X Possible

Type 

Elaboration

Further refinement and elaboration 

of (sub)variables needed

Arts 

Infrastructure

Core

Arts Venues

Non-Core

Arts Venues

X Possible

Type 

Elaboration

X Possible

Type 

Elaboration

X Possible

Type 

Elaboration

X Possible

Type 

Elaboration

X Possible

Type 

Elaboration

X Possible

Type 

Elaboration

Arts 

Organizations Arts Venues Art Schools

Financial and 

Volunteer 

Support

Networks, 

Unions, and 

Associations

Public Policy Other Infrastructure

Illustration 4Example of Arts Infrastructure as a Multi-Level Measurement Structure

Some Definitional Questions and Methodological Challenges• There may be insufficient data available.• Type of infrastructure may be more important than quantity.• The impact of increasing infrastructure density may not be linear (e.g., 

more may not always be better).

• Additional political or community context may matter in mediating the 

importance of arts infrastructure.

• It is critical to ensure that arts infrastructure variables are distinct from 

variables of Economic Benefits of Art, since they could be defined in ways that overlap; treatment of labor will be of particular importance.
20 | national endowment for the arts

Art 

Activity

X Type of 

Instruction

X Discipline 

Type

Art 

Activity

X Type of 

Instruction

X Discipline 

Type

Art 

Evaluation

X Type of 

Instruction

X Discipline 

Type

Art 

Evaluation

X Type of 

Instruction

X Discipline 

Type

Education & Training

Participant Type

(e.g. Child, Adult)

Art as a Subject Art in Non-Art Courses

Illustration 5

Example of Education and Training as a Multi-Level Measurement Structure

Some Definitional Questions and Methodological Challenges

• There may be insufficient data available, particularly

with respect to informal arts education (e.g. through the 

Internet, learning about the arts at home, and self-taught 

arts). 

• There is an issue of confoundedness with education,

as some education that is not directly arts-related 

closely influences arts appreciation (e.g., knowledge of 

mythology). 

• Additional dimensions could focus on quality, frequency,

specific exposure (e.g., ability to play a musical instrument), and/or access.

• Quality of arts education may be difficult to measure

without the creation and distribution of cost-effective, 

replicable tools for assessing student and teacher learning 

in the arts across a variety of arts disciplines.

• It is difficult to capture arts exposure in non-arts classes.

• As with other education, there may be a threshold effect

(e.g., each year of participation is not equivalent in terms 

of outcomes) regarding arts content.

• Educational impact may depend on learning styles of

students (e.g., there may be a large impact on some 

students but a small effect overall).

• This sample measurement structure does not account

for the infrastructure variables of U.S. public and private 

school systems, inclusive of state departments of 

education, school districts, schools, and public and private 

two-year and four-year colleges, for example. The unique 

definitional issues and methodological challenges that 

apply to data-collection within these systems will further 

complicate measurement of Education and Training

within the How Art Works system. 
how art works | 21

Initial Construct of Intervening Variables

Arts Creation

Initial Definition

The essential agents of Arts Creation are the artists, 

a broadly and inclusively defined group that includes 

humans who express themselves—within the confines of 

a set of known or emerging practices and precedence—

with the intention of communicating richly to others. 

Issues to Explore in Variable Creation

To create variables with this definition, it is necessary 

at minimum to determine: 

1) Which categories of production count for the purpose of determining who is an artist; 

2) How to capture amateur artists / art hobbyists;

3) Whether there should be a minimum time regularly spent on artistic production to qualify as an 

artist; and 

4) Whether any other parameters should be included. 

The artist categories listed in the sample measurement 

structure (Illustration 6) come from the occupational 

categories derived from U.S. Census data and used by 

the NEA’s Artist in the Workforce report series. The 

measurement structure has been expanded to include 

those who do not earn a living from the production of 

art. It also includes a placeholder for a time threshold, since it may be preferable to require a weekly or 

monthly minimum time spent on artistic production to 

qualify as an artist. 

Finally, the sample measurement structure includes 

an “Other” category placeholder. This “Other” category 

is meant to capture the possibility of a more expansive 

definition of arts production that does not fit into the 

occupational categories currently used. 

For additional examples of how Artist variables might 

be defined, please see a selection of relevant studies listed in the corresponding section of Appendix A, online: 

arts.gov/research/How-Art-Works/index.html.

Arts Participation

Initial Definition

Arts Participation is the act of producing, interpreting, 

curating, and experiencing art. It includes artistic acts 

(e.g., creating an artifact or directing an arts performance) and the consumption of those outputs. 

Education and Training

Initial Definition

Education and Training refers to the standards, best 

practices, knowledge models, and skills that help 

inform artistic expression on the one hand, and consumption of art on the other. Education and Training

spans the spectrum of formal and informal instruction, 

from YouTube and street jam sessions, to K-12 and 

adult arts education, to apprenticeship and conservatory training.

Issues to Explore in Variable Creation

To create variables using this definition, it is necessary 

at minimum to determine: 

1) Whether and how to differentiate between youth 

and adult education; 

2) How broadly to define education; 

3) How to incorporate informal education; 

4) Whether to capture some measure of quality or 

intensity; and 

5) Whether and how to include break-downs by 

disciplines.

For example, the categories listed in the sample 

measurement structure (Illustration 5) begin with the 

differentiation between youth and adult participant 

types, since there is considerable focus in the arts 

literature on childhood arts education in particular. 

The sample measurement model then distinguishes 

between education where art is the explicit subject and 

classes where art is not the primary focus but is nonetheless an important component (e.g., a language class 

that includes literature). These variables are further 

differentiated by whether the educational experience is 

focused on activity (such as arts production) or evaluation (such as arts appreciation or criticism). 

The sample model also includes “Type of Instruction” placeholders to indicate the potential relevance 

of education delivery method, such as conservatory 

learning or online arts education. Finally, the sample 

model includes placeholders for arts disciplines. 

For additional examples of how Education and 

Training variables might be defined, please see a selection of relevant studies listed in the corresponding 

section of Appendix A, online: arts.gov/research/HowArt-Works/index.html.
22 | national endowment for the arts

Time spent is included to delineate level of participation, although intensity might be measured instead 

as the number of times an activity is performed. The 

“Other” category placeholder indicates the possibility 

of more expansive definitions of arts experience. The 

“Possible Type Elaboration” placeholder signifies that 

multiple types of arts interpretation and curation may 

be relevant.

For additional examples of how Arts Participation 

variables might be defined, please see a selection of 

relevant studies listed in the corresponding section 

of Appendix A, online: arts.gov/research/How-ArtWorks/index.html.

Issues to Explore in Variable Creation

To create a variable using this definition, it is necessary 

at minimum to determine: 

1) Which categories of participation to use as a starting point for types of activities covered; 

2) How widely to define participation; and 

3) Whether to break down participation by hours 

spent or by another measure (e.g., frequency of discrete activities). 

The high-level participation categories in the sample 

model (Illustration 7) are drawn directly from the definition, while the more detailed categories come primarily from the NEA’s Survey of Public Participation 

in the Arts. 

Actors Architects Dancers & 

Choreographers

Entertainers & 

Performers Photographers Writers & Authors

Arts Creation 

(Artists, Professional 

& Non-Professional)

X Time

Threshold

Announcers

Fine Artists, 

Art Directors, 

& Animators

Designers Musicians & 

Singers

Producers & 

Directors Other

Some Definitional Questions and Methodological Challenges

• There may be insufficient data available with respect to

non-professional artists. (For instance, there are issues with 

measuring artistic employment as a secondary occupation, 

using U.S. Census Bureau methodology.)

• The existing categories might not capture some emergent

forms of art production.

• It should be determined whether individuals can define

themselves as artists, or whether this variable should be 

externally defined.

• It is important to ensure that Arts Creation variables are 

sufficiently distinct from variables of Arts Participation, 

Economic Benefits of Art, and Societal Capacities to Innovate 

and to Express Ideas, since they could be defined in ways 

that overlap unproductively.

Illustration 6

Example of Arts Creation as a Multi-Level Measurement Structure
how 

art works | 23

Arts 

Participation

Producing 

(Time Spent)

Experiencing 

(Time Spent)

Interpreting 

(Time Spent)

Curating

(Time Spent)

Attending 

Arts Events 

or Venues

Accessing Art 

through New 

and Traditional 

Media

Other (e.g., 

Ambient Art 

Appreciation)

Performing or 

Creating Art

Taking 

Arts-Related 

Classes

X Possible

Type 

Elaboration

X Possible

Type 

Elaboration

Some Definitional Questions and Methodological Challenges• There may be insufficient data available, particularly with respect to

elements such as “ambient” art enjoyment. 

• There is a need to determine how broadly to define art (e.g., whether or not

an audience is needed, whether or not there is an aesthetic standard, who defines what is art, and whether creative intention distinguishes art from personal expression).

• It is difficult to capture emergent art forms ( i.e., activities that may not yet

recognized as art).

• Context matters in mediating the arts experience.• Different types of participation may matter more for different individuals or

populations. 

• There is a need to avoid the fallacy of treatment (e.g., that all forms of arts

participation produce the same effects).8

• There is a need to avoid the fallacy of linearity (e.g., the assumption that

more arts participation leads to greater effect).9

Illustration 7Example of Arts Participation as a Multi-Level Measurement Structure
24 | national endowment for the arts

Economic Benefits of Art

Direct Economic Benefits

Taxes

• Personal Income

• Business Revenue

• Property Taxes

• Artists

• Other Arts 

Professionals

> Museum, Gallery, 

Bookstore Staff

> Legal and 

Accounting 

Professionals

> Management 

and Consulting 

Professionals 

> Arts Educators

> Arts-related 

Trade and 

Manufacturing 

Workers

Income Revenue Job Creation

• Arts and 

Entertainment 

Industries (e.g., 

Music, Film, 

Television, 

Publishing) 

• Components of the 

Software Industry

• Design-Related 

Industries

• Performance 

Venues

• Museums

• Arts-Related 

Supply 

Manufacturing, 

Distribution, and 

Retail

• Art Resellers

• Arts Education 

Organizations and 

Institutions

• Real Estate 

Revenues

> Rents

> Mortgages

• Arts and 

Entertainment 

Industries (e.g., 

Music, Film, 

Television, 

Publishing) 

• Components of the 

Software Industry

• Design-Related 

Industries

• Performance 

Venues

• Museums

• Arts-Related 

Supply, 

Manufacturing, 

and Retail

Illustration 8

Example of Direct and Indirect Economic Benefits of Art

as a Multi-Level Measurement Structure

Some Definitional Questions and Methodological Challenges

• There may be insufficient data available, particularly with

respect to indirect benefits. 

• Measuring “money” has some distinct and significant

challenges. For instance, it is challenging to separate the flow 

of new money from the redistribution of money within a 

community (such as a city). Determining whether increased 

arts participation is inducing new demand (thus, new money) 

or is the reallocation of existing demand (less money spent on 

alternatives so more can be spent on participation) requires 

sophisticated research techniques and controls.

• It is important to ensure that economic benefit variables are

distinct from variables of Arts Infrastructure and Benefit of 

Art to Society and Communities, since they could be defined in 

ways that overlap. For instance, should individual donations 
how art works | 25

Taxes Income Revenue Property Values Local Job Creation

Indirect Economic Benefits

• Growth in 

Desirability of 

Neighborhoods 

with Arts 

Concentrations

• Growth in HighIncome Populations

• Decreased Public 

Expenditures 

Related to Crime

• Increase in Value 

of Commercial 

Properties 

Unrelated to Arts

• Personal Income

• Business Revenue

• Property Taxes

• Restaurant, 

Hospitality, 

Transportation 

Workers

• Retail and Service 

Industry Workers

• Hospitality 

Industry

• Restaurant 

Industry

• Transportation 

Industry

• Real Estate 

Revenues

> Rents

> Mortgages

• Retail and Service 

Businesses

• Property Value 

Increases in 

Arts-Intensive 

Communities

• Relocation of 

Arts-Allied 

Commercial Firms 

to Arts-Intensive 

Communities

• Marketing

• Advertising

• Commercial 

Photography

to a museum from people living outside the area be considered 

economic development, even though those donations may go to 

support the construction of new buildings?

• Itis difficultto capture time lag effects in the creation of economic

value, particularly in terms of indirect benefits. What are the longterm, residual benefits of arts-inspired urban development? And, 

once new businesses and new residents have moved in and are 

established, how much of current economic activity can be rightly 

attributed back to the original development?

• Impact may depend on the type of art and arts participation.

• It will be difficult to determine whether the arts’ impact is

unique.

• Arts economics studies have traditionally over-focused on

metropolitan areas.10

• There is a need to define which industries get counted, as part of

the economic value of the arts, within federal statistical systems.
26 

| national endowment for the arts

Illustration 9Example of Benefit of Art to Individuals as a Multi-Level Measurement Structure

Some Definitional Questions and Methodological Challenges• There may be insufficient data available, particularly by way of longitudinal

assessments of the impacts of art on neurological and motor skill development, creative processes, socialization, critical thinking skills, and illness and disability.11

• Impact may depend on type of art and type and frequency of arts

participation. 

• It may difficult to capture the diffuse and “shallow” effects of a limited but

meaningful engagement with art.

• There is a distributional issue, in that a smaller number of people may be very

engaged and affected, while a large number may be less affected.

• Some impacts may be more relevant for particular subgroups (e.g., young

people).

• Individual responses to art are subjective (e.g., one person may be greatly

moved while another remains unmoved).

• It may be difficult to disentangle impacts from other activities in a person’s

life.

• Consequences can be too removed in space and time for reliable and efficient

measurements of cause and effect.

• Impact of arts exposure is influenced by, among other factors, context,

relevance, and psychological state.12

• There is a need to avoid the fallacy of homogeneity (e.g., that the arts will

have the same effects on different types of participants).13

• It may be difficult to capture time lag effects.• It would be ideal to capture the art’s benefits relative to exposure to other

activities.

Benefit of Art 

to Individuals

Cognitive

Expansion

Affective

Expansion

Social

Expansion

Additional

Constructs

Personal

Happiness

Perceived

Value of Life

Lateral 

Thinking/

Problem 

Understanding

Broadened 

Perspective

Intellectual

Openness

Broadened

Social Sphere

X Personal

Happiness

Items

X Laterality

Items

X Intellectual

Openness

Items

X Perceived

Value Items

X Intellectual

Perspective 

Items

X Social

Contacts

Items
how art works | 27

of indirect effects (e.g., restaurants and hotels serve visitors to arts destinations). But it may be that industries 

not engaged in the arts, but which frequently make use 

of personnel with arts training, relocate to arts-intensive communities to take advantage of a skilled labor 

pool. Marketing and design firms, advertising agencies, 

and software companies produce non-arts products 

but can make use of staff with arts training. This possibility is flagged by the construct “Local Job Creation.” 

Any final measure will require a determination of how 

inclusive we want to be in capturing indirect effects.

There may also be other components in the final 

creation of any economic-benefit-of-arts variable. For 

additional examples of how Economic Benefits of Art

variables might be defined, please see a selection of 

relevant studies listed in the corresponding section 

of Appendix A, online: arts.gov/research/How-ArtWorks/index.html. Further research could also draw 

from broader economics and community development 

literatures.

Benefit of Art to Individuals

Initial Definition

Benefit of Art to Individuals refers to the cognitive, 

emotional, behavioral, and physiological effects that 

arts participation can produce in individuals, including transformations in thinking, social skills, and 

character development over time.

Issues to Explore in Variable Creation

To create a variable using this definition, it is necessary 

at minimum to determine:

1) What broad categories of individual impact to 

include; 

2) How to measure elements such as aesthetic 

sensibility, spirituality, and disposition; and 

3) Whether to differentiate between the impact on 

children and adults. 

In current literature on the arts’ impacts, multiple 

models seek to identify benefits to individuals. The 

sample measurement model (Illustration 9) identifies only a few of the potential variables for illustrative 

purposes. Most of the existing models have significant 

overlaps and/or slight variations of core concepts. 

Empirical studies will be needed to determine which 

factors are most measurable and hold unique variance.

Initial Construct of First-Order Outcome 

Variables

Direct and Indirect Economic Benefits of Art 

Initial Definition

This node refers to both the direct income derived 

from the arts (e.g., the price paid for an arts experience or artifact) and the indirect financial returns of 

the arts (e.g., spending on food, lodgings, and travel 

that might be associated with going to an arts event). 

In this context, “benefit” is a neutral word. There 

can be positive benefit—an artist makes a reasonable 

income—and there can be negative benefit, such as 

when an artist cannot support herself because of small 

or diminishing economic returns, or when someone 

instead of the artist profits from the artwork at a disproportionate level.

Issues to Explore in Variable Creation

To create variables using this definition, it is necessary 

at minimum to determine: 

1) How to define direct and indirect benefits; 

2) How in particular to capture indirect benefits; and 

3) Which industries and occupations to include. 

The categories listed in the sample measurement 

structure (Illustration 8) begin with the distinction of 

direct and indirect benefits. This distinction reflects 

the strength of connection to arts activity. For example, rental income from an artist’s studio or a theater 

space is a direct effect, while rental income from an 

arts-district restaurant is indirect.

From this distinction we have derived broad categories of effects, using “income” to denote personal 

financial benefit and “revenue” to describe dollars 

flowing to companies and organizations. The difference is somewhat artificial, since most income is paid 

via salaries, but it is necessary to isolate wage growth 

from business expansion. Many other forms of economic value occur in both direct and indirect forms, 

including tax benefits that are derived from nearly 

every source of direct and indirect value. Similarly, job 

creation is a direct effect if a staff position is created 

at a gallery or music venue, but an indirect effect if a 

restaurant adds staff to accommodate crowds.

There may be multiple degrees of indirectness. For 

example, hospitality industry effects are a first order 
28 

| national endowment for the arts

Benefit of Art 

to Society & 

Communities

Cultural Aesthetic Social Political

Improved 

Education 

Outcomes

Reduced 

Crime Rates

Perception of 

Community 

as a Source of 

Enrichment

Increased 

Importance 

of Aesthetic 

Considerations 

in Community 

DecisionMaking

Increased 

Value 

of Heritage

Deepened 

Understanding 

of Community 

History

Increased 

Positive 

Contact with 

Diverse Groups 

from a 

Community

Enhanced 

Appreciation 

and Trust 

for Public 

Institutions

Increased 

support for 

Equality and 

Human Rights 

for All 

Community 

Members

Improved 

Capacity 

to Solve 

Community 

Problems

Preservation 

of Structures 

with Aesthetic 

Value

More Public 

Places, Green 

Spaces

Increased 

Commitment 

to Community 

Resilience

Greater 

Community 

Pride

Increased 

Tolerance / 

Appreciation

Strengthened 

Community 

Cohesiveness

Greater 

Perceived 

Equity and 

Respect for 

Human Rights

Better 

Organized and 

Functioning 

Communities

Some Definitional Questions and Methodological Challenges• There may be insufficient data available, particularly with respect to broad

livability elements.

• It may be difficultto determine whether art’s impactis unique, particularly given

the general social benefit associated with activities that bring people together.15 

• It may be difficult to capture time lag effects.• There is a need to differentiate elements from indicators of Arts Infrastructure

(e.g., arts volunteers, or outdoor venues where arts performances can occur). 

• The “social” column of this structure may overlap with the “cognitive

expansion” and “social expansion” columns of the Benefit of Art to Individuals

structure.

• There is a need to avoid the fallacy of homogeneity (e.g., that the arts will have

the same effects in different types of communities).16

• Studies have traditionally over-focused on metropolitan areas.17• It may be important to assess relative effects compared to other spending.18

• Impact may depend on the type of art and type of arts participation.• More diverse communities may be a source of creativity or the result of

creative activities.19

• It would be ideal to have longitudinal data.20

Illustration 10Example of Benefit of Art to Society and Communities as a Multi-Level Measurement Structure
how art works | 29

has value for comprehending the key elements of the 

system, some of the map’s components may, in practice, be tough to differentiate. Economic and community benefits, for example, interact in complex ways 

that challenge simple isolation. Therefore, it is worth 

acknowledging here that the system map depicts components as more distinct than they are when observed 

in detail.)

The measurement model posits four broad value 

dimensions of the arts for communities: 

1) Communities develop a shared aesthetic appreciation for the character of their place, which assists 

community decision-making by providing a common 

frame of aesthetic value; 

2) Communities value the shared heritage of their 

citizenry and value the complex interrelationships 

among groups of all types;

3) Communities facilitate interaction among people 

of diverse experiences; and

4) Community members often work cooperatively 

to solve problems, moved in part by a desire to maintain and improve the aesthetic, cultural, and social 

value of their shared space. 

The system map hypothesizes that arts engagement 

enhances these qualities. 

For additional examples of how a Benefit of Art to 

Society and Communities variable might be defined, 

please see the relevant studies listed in the corresponding section of Appendix A, online: arts.gov/

research/How-Art-Works/index.html. Further 

research could also draw from the broader community 

development and political science literatures.

Initial Construct of Second-Order 

Outcome Variable: A Work in Progress 

Societal Capacities to Innovate and to Express Ideas

Initial Definition

Societal Capacities to Innovate and to Express Ideas

refers to the capacities of community members to 

“develop, design, or create new applications, ideas, 

relationships, systems, or products”—individually and 

collectively.21

This sample measurement structure identifies a 

series of personal characteristics or cognitive states 

that are frequently cited as elements of a high-quality 

life. We have focused primarily on internal and social 

qualities rather than material elements of life-quality, 

reflecting our view that an arts-sensitive definition of 

life-quality will be more internal than external. The 

elements that compose benefit to individuals are not 

only largely internal; they address a series of psychological constructs that have not been well-established 

as discrete concepts. Consequently, a key requirement 

of early research will be developing validation for the 

variables that are selected.

For additional examples of how a Benefit of Art to 

Individuals variable might be defined, please see a 

selection of relevant studies listed in the corresponding section of Appendix A, online: arts.gov/research/

How-Art-Works/index.html. Further research could 

also draw from broader cognitive science, child development, social psychology, and quality-of-life literatures.

Benefit of Art to Society and Communities

Initial Definition

Benefit of Art to Society and Communities refers to 

the role that art plays as an agent of cultural vitality, a 

contributor to sense of place and sense of belonging, a 

vehicle for transfer of values and ideals, and a promoter of political dialogue.14

Issues to Explore in Variable Creation

To create variables using this definition, it is necessary 

at minimum to determine: 

1) What elements to include in community benefits; 

2) How to define a community; and 

3) How to capture heightened social interaction. 

The categories listed in the sample measurement 

structure (Illustration 10) draw from the range of 

existing constructs hypothesizing benefits of the 

arts to communities. Some of these indicators can be 

assessed via community-level variables such as crime 

rates or educational outcomes. Others—such as cultural and political benefits—must be distinguished from 

individual-level outcomes so that they are distinct 

from variables in the Benefit of Art to Individuals node.

(In the system map, outcome variables are portrayed as distinct from one another. While this choice 
30 | national endowment for the arts

for exaptation, and presence of layered platforms as 

elements of innovative environments.) Johnson’s ideas 

express much within the core of notion of Societal 

Capacities to Innovate and to Express, although his 

work more directly addresses personal creativity rather than a community concept. Nevertheless, Johnson’s 

ideas may offer a reasonable starting point for further 

efforts to define a social construct of this node and to 

create a measurement structure for it.

Notes

7

 A measurement structure for each node can be developed and 

validated by one or more methods. There are both theory-driven 

and data-driven techniques available for developing variables. 

In a theory-driven approach, theories are used to identify the 

elements of any measurement model. In a data-driven approach, 

pilot data are collected and the elements of the model are selected 

based largely on statistical criteria. In general, theory-driven 

models are more powerful because they provide more opportunities for confirmation and rejection. However, arts engagement 

theory does not seem established enough to rely solely on a 

theory-driven approach. Thus, we would suggest that the literature be employed to construct initial measurements, but that final 

research constructs be determined by statistical means.

8

 See McCarthy et al., Gifts of the Muse, Santa Monica, CA: RAND 

Research in the Arts (2004), citing DiMaggio. 

9

 Ibid.

10 See McCarthy et al. (2004).

11 This assessment of data gaps comes partly from the 2011 white 

paper The Arts and Human Development: Framing A Research 

Agenda for The Arts, Lifelong Learning, and Individual Well-Being,

by the National Endowment for the Arts and the U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services.

12 See Brown and Novak, “Assessing the Intrinsic Impacts of a Live 

Performance,” WolfBrown (2007). 

13 See McCarthy et al. (2004), citing DiMaggio.

14 Access and participation in cultural activities can also be viewed 

as an indicator of fairness and social equity. See Aotearo, “Cultural 

Indicators for New Zealand,” Statistics NZ (2006).

15 See McCarthy et al. (2004). 

16 See McCarthy et al. (2004), citing DiMaggio. 

17 See McCarthy et al. (2004). 

18 Ibid. 

19 See Stern and Seifert, “Cultivating ‘Natural’ Cultural Districts,” 

The Reinvestment Fund (2007). 

Issues to Explore in Variable Creation

Societal Capacities to Innovate and to Express Ideas is 

the least developed of the nodes in the How Art Works

system map. The experts we assembled agreed on the 

need for a construct that represents creative energy 

at a community or societal level. They suggested that 

variations in a society’s capacity to innovate and to 

express seem observable, and that a higher-order 

construct might capture this insight. They also held 

to the belief that the development of the capacity to 

express is linked with and contributes to a fundamental freedom: our right to express ourselves. This 

freedom requires certain individual- and communitylevel attitudes that are facilitated by the arts—for 

example, the courage to express oneself and a tolerance and even an appetite for new ideas, forms, and 

outlets for creative expression. As with many abstract 

constructs, however, arriving at a uniform definition 

proved difficult. In the course of our work we found 

that other researchers also have attempted to define 

and operationalize this capacity, but in our view none 

has succeeded completely, and there is currently no 

consensus in the field.22 Thus, further exploration of 

the concept remains a future assignment.

Despite definitional issues, there was broad agreement that this capacity is distinct from “generativity” 

(e.g., revenue earned from sales of a creative product). 

Therefore, this node currently reflects the potential 

for creative action, not actual expression (which is 

found in the attendant nodes Outlets for Creative 

Expression and New Forms of Self-Expression) or actual 

production of economic value (which is covered by the 

Direct and Indirect Economic Benefits of Art node).

Acknowledging this uncertainty, we have chosen 

not to provide a multilevel measurement structure for 

Societal Capacities to Innovate and to Express Ideas,

though perhaps others will explore doing so by leveraging what is known about creative thinking throughout human history. A plausible resource is Steven 

Johnson’s book Where Good Ideas Come From, in 

which the author examines environments that foster 

the development of “good” ideas that push our careers, 

our lives, our society, and our culture forward, drawing 

on subjects as disparate as neurobiology and popular culture. (Johnson identifies population density, 

access to information, opportunity for nurturing slow 

hunches, serendipity, acceptance of error, opportunity 
how art works | 31

20 See McCarthy et al. (2004).

21 The definition of this term comes from literature on creative 

capacity, specifically from McGranahan and Wojan’s (2007) characterization of “thinking creatively,” which they used to elaborate 

their understanding of “creative class.” For the present purpose, 

it is the concept of creative thinking rather than any specific occupational assignment that is most relevant. 

22 For example, Florida (2003) situates the creative capabilities 

of a community in individuals whose work creates meaningful 

new forms and in creative professionals who work in knowledgeintensive industries. For Florida, members of the creative class 

share common values of creativity, individuality, difference, and 

merit. A Creativity Index can be measured through elements such 

as the percentage of the creative class out of a total workforce, 

amount of high-tech industry, patents per capita and a measure 

of diversity. In contrast to Florida’s work, Hoyman and Faricy 

(2009) found that human capital predicts economic growth and 

development, while social capital predicts average wage growth. 

McGranahan and Wojan (2007) call upon a slight redefinition 

of creative class in their assessment of creative capacity in rural 

areas, since Florida’s definition maps to virtually all occupations 

that require a high level of schooling. McGranahan and Wojan 

instead include occupations that involve “thinking creatively,” 

defined as “developing, designing, or creating new applications, 

ideas, relationships, systems, or products, including artistic contributions” (p. 5). Markusen et al. (2006) avoid the term “creative 

class” entirely and focus instead on the presence of cultural industries and occupations: those involved in the production of texts 

and symbols for a society.
32 | national endowment for the arts

•	 Arts Organizations and Arts Industries

•	 Arts Funders and Arts Volunteers

Evidence of the arts’ impact: Quantitative and/or 

qualitative research data that measure or clarify the 

benefits of the arts to other domains of American life, 

including:

•	 Health and Well-Being

•	 Cognitive Capacity, Learning, and Creativity

•	 Community Livability

•	 Economic Prosperity

As another dimension of the NEA’s Research Agenda 

framework, ORA has identified three overarching goals 

to guide the unit’s annual priority-setting process for 

research project selection. These goals are:

1) Identify and cultivate new and existing data 

sources in the arts.

2) Investigate the value of the U.S. arts ecosystem and 

the impact of the arts on other domains of American life.

3) Elevate the public profile of arts-related research.23

These goals are not mutually exclusive. For example, 

one can imagine a brand-new data source emerging as a byproduct of a study that seeks to explore a 

particular variable of the U.S. arts ecosystem—just 

as one inadvertently may “elevate the public profile 

of arts-related research” through creation of a new 

dataset. The important point, however, is that ORA has 

established key objectives for these goals as part of its 

Research Agenda framework, which will guide ORA’s 

annual priority-setting process. 

Collectively, the goals can be viewed as a selfreinforcing feedback loop. High-quality, relevant data 

sources are a prerequisite for meaningful research to 

investigate arts topics. New datasets will build capacity 

among researchers in the field while inspiring scholars 

from other disciplines to participate in arts-related 

research. And findings from studies about the arts’ 

value and impact will be distributed widely, to broaden 

and deepen public engagement with arts-related 

research questions.

Overview and Key Assumptions

So far, we have closely examined one potential model 

of how art works. We have reviewed inputs to the model, we have placed arts participation (inclusive of arts 

creation) at the model’s center, and we have described 

a series of first-order outcomes reflecting quality of life 

for individuals and communities. Further downstream, 

we have theorized about second-order, “broader 

societal impacts” that involve capacities for creativity, 

innovation, and self-expression beyond the arts.

In the preceding chapter, we unpacked the variables 

that make up the central nodes of our system map: 

variables related to arts infrastructure and education/

training; to arts participation; and to individual and 

community-level benefits. Our aim now is to determine which parts of the system map align with the 

NEA’s current research priorities, and how the map 

can guide the agency’s future research directions.

This exercise is not purely speculative. In the Arts 

Endowment’s strategic plan for fiscal years 2012–2016, 

the agency pledged to develop a five-year Research 

Agenda with annual milestones. The NEA’s Office of 

Research & Analysis (ORA) consequently has drafted 

a framework for establishing research priorities on 

a yearly basis. This framework aligns with the NEA’s 

strategic goal to Promote Public Knowledge and 

Understanding about the Contributions of the Arts so 

that, as a direct outcome, Evidence of the Value and 

Impact of the Arts is Expanded and Promoted.

The framework for the NEA’s Research Agenda 

hinges, therefore, on an understanding of two key 

terms as they pertain to evidence about the arts: 

“value” and “impact.” ORA distinguishes between 

these terms in the following manner.

Evidence of the arts’ value: Descriptive information, 

primarily statistical, that measures or clarifies factors, 

characteristics, and conditions of the U.S. arts ecosystem—specifically as they relate to four components:

•	 Arts Participants and Arts Learners

•	 Artists and Arts Workers

SECTION four

PLOTTING A RESEARCH AGENDA ON THE MAP 
how art works | 33

ment among at-risk youth (which may be regarded as 

research on the Benefit of Art to Individuals). Still, there 

is limited NEA research available about causal inferences that might be drawn from those relationships.

Now see Section Three, Illustration 3, for an 

“expanded” system map of How Art Works. In this 

depiction, there is an additional first-order outcome 

of arts participation—namely, the Direct and Indirect 

Economic Benefits of Art. (These benefits fall within 

the Benefit of Art to Society and Communities node in 

the simpler version of the map.) The NEA has a strong 

track record of reporting direct economic benefits 

from the arts. This research typically has been based 

on reports from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 

Department of Commerce, that show the arts’ contribution to Gross Domestic Product for a limited range 

of industries. As will be seen presently, this reporting 

capacity could improve substantially in the next few 

years, as a result of the NEA’s Research Agenda. 

Stepping back and viewing the system map as a 

whole, we perceive a research gap associated with the 

nodes and relationships on the left side of the map: 

Societal Capacities to Innovate and to Express Ideas,

and, in the expanded version of the map, New Forms of 

Self-Expression and Outlets for Creative Expression. 

This deficit is not surprising. As stated earlier in 

the document, these “second-order” outcomes still 

require clearer definitions of terms and differentiation of key variables. For researchers, these nodes are 

signposts. They mark a vast unsettled terrain—a “Wild 

West” that will yield to only the most intrepid explorers. And yet, over the long term, it ultimately may 

hold the most promise and profit for those seeking to 

measure arts-related impacts.

From System Map to Road Map

Although the majority of the NEA’s past research has 

focused on the input variables, intervening variables, 

and first-order outcomes—as shown on the system 

map—it is again worth noting that much remains to be 

done in improving our measurement capacity for these 

nodes and their relationships. As shown in Section 

Three, each of these nodes suggests a “multi-level 

measurement structure” with attendant “definitional 

questions and methodological challenges.”

Because of sizeable advances in clarifying these 

issues over the last several years, moreover, the 

Finding Previous NEA Research on the Map

Now we return to the system map (Illustration 1) from 

earlier in the document. 

Even a cursory review of a list of research publications that the NEA has issued over the past few 

decades—see arts.gov/research—will reveal that much 

of the agency’s research efforts to date have focused on 

measuring key variables within the system’s “inputs” 

(Arts Infrastructure or Education and Training) or 

within the Arts Participation node (inclusive of Arts 

Creation). NEA research also has explored the relationships—indicated on the map by arrows—between 

the inputs and the central node. 

Examples of past NEA research publications that 

have explored variables of Arts Infrastructure are plentiful. They include studies of artists and arts workers, 

but also arts organizations, arts funders, and even the 

arts volunteer sector. There are fewer examples of NEA 

studies focusing on Education and Training, though 

some notable publications have examined trends in 

exposure to arts education. More common are NEA 

studies reporting data about Arts Participation and Arts 

Creation. These reports stem from the NEA’s Survey of 

Public Participation in the Arts (SPPA), a large, crosssectional survey of the nation’s adults that the U.S. 

Census Bureau has conducted periodically since 1982.

As noted, there even have been NEA studies that 

describe the relationship of Arts Infrastructure and/

or Education and Training to Arts Participation. 

Examples include research publications about the 

comparative role of venues (e.g., formal or non-formal) 

to arts-going, and studies about the relationship of literacy skills to the frequency of reading literary works. 

But perhaps the most conspicuous of these types of 

studies are reports establishing arts education as a 

significant predictor of arts participation later in life.

Let’s move to the first-order outcomes of arts participation, shown at the bottom of the system map. 

Historically, the proportion of NEA research devoted 

to these two distinct but clearly interrelated nodes has 

been slim indeed. 

To be sure, recent years have seen growth in this 

area, via NEA reports on the links between arts 

participation and civic engagement (which may be 

regarded as research on the Benefit of Art to Society and 

Communities), or via NEA research on the positive academic and social outcomes associated with arts engage-
34 | national endowment for the arts

and Training; AP/AC = Arts Participation and Arts 

Creation; BAI = Benefit of Art to Individuals; BASC = 

Benefit of Art to Society and Communities; DIEBA = 

Direct and Indirect Economic Benefits of Art; and 

SCIEI = Societal Capacities to Innovate and to Express 

Ideas.) Where multiple symbols are listed for an individual research project, the symbol appearing first 

in sequence refers to the primary node covered by 

the project. 

The project titles are enumerated not necessarily in 

order of priority or chronology, but mainly so that the 

accompanying digits can be displayed on the system 

map illustration to follow. This method enables a 

visual comparison of the NEA’s research priorities by 

primary node, the results of which comparison might 

inform project planning in FY 2013 and beyond.

Projects Covering Input Variables 

These projects are intended to yield valuable descriptive information primarily about either the Arts 

Infrastructure or the Education and Training nodes.

1) Artists and Art Workers in the United States:

Use American Community Survey data to enumerate 

the nation’s artists and to describe their demographic 

traits, work patterns, and nationwide concentration. 

Explore links between individual artist occupations 

and specific industries, and report occupational and 

industry patterns for workers who obtained arts-related degrees in college. Use a separate data source, the 

2010 Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, to 

identify state and metropolitan-level concentrations of 

employment within arts industries. (ai) completed

2) In-Depth Analysis of Artists in the U.S. 

Workforce: Provide long-term trend analysis and 

detailed geographical information (at the state and 

metro area levels) for 11 distinct artist occupations as 

captured by American Community Survey data. (ai) 

planned

3) How the United States Funds the Arts: Update 

the NEA’s publication about the nation’s decentralized 

approach to financing arts and cultural activities. This 

publication will use the most recently available statistics from public and private funders and not-for-profit 

arts organizations. (ai) ongoing

4) Federal-State Arts Partnership Data Portal:

Explore creation of a publicly accessible web portal 

that displays data and visualizations about activities 

rewards of short- and near-term investments likely 

will prove greater and more immediate than for 

research on second-order outcomes. Accordingly, 

most of the NEA’s research agenda for the next five 

years will continue to focus on arts infrastructure, 

education/training, arts participation and creation, 

and individual and community-level benefits. 

The NEA’s Office of Research & Analysis has other 

considerations in making strategic investments. As 

noted earlier, a primary goal of the office is to Identify 

and cultivate new and existing data sources. Over the 

next few years, ORA will consolidate large amounts 

of arts-related data and make them available through 

user-friendly systems to the public. Although ORA 

already provides access to raw data and user’s manuals 

for its Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, the 

office aims to supplement this resource with data and 

visualizations from other federal, not-for-profit, and 

industry sources. 

Regarding data collection and sharing, the office is 

uniquely placed to collaborate with federal statistical 

agencies and with research units elsewhere in the U.S. 

government. The NEA is a core sponsor agency, along 

with other federal funders, of the National Academies’ 

Committee on National Statistics. Similarly, in keeping 

with the NEA’s recent history of attracting multiple 

federal partners for the purpose of serving a broader 

segment of the population, ORA has forged many 

research alliances—both formal and informal—with 

other government agencies. The cultivation of these 

partnerships will reap many long-term dividends for 

arts and cultural researchers nationwide.

These investments support the NEA’s Research 

Agenda for FY 2012–2016, given below. They are 

discussed further in the “Conclusions” section of 

this report. 

NEA Research Agenda by Project Title, Summary, 

and Placement on the System Map

Below is a list of NEA research projects that were identified in FY 2011 or later as priorities for the five-year 

period starting in FY 2012. At the end of each project 

summary, the status of the project (“completed,” 

“planned,” or “ongoing”) is duly noted. 

Each summary also includes one or more symbols 

to indicate the node/s where the project falls on the 

system map. (AI = Arts Infrastructure; E/T = Education 
how art works | 35

NEA’s 2013 and 2014 Arts Benchmark Survey (ABS), to 

be conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. This shortform questionnaire will collect nationally representative data on adult participation in the arts, inclusive 

of creation, allowing for capture of U.S. trends in years 

when the more detailed SPPA is not conducted. (ap/

ac) planned

11) GSS Arts Supplement Report and Monograph/s: Release a summary report, one or more 

monographs, data visualizations, and a data user’s 

guide based on the General Social Survey (GSS) arts 

supplement, designed by the NEA to inquire about 

U.S. adults’ motivations for attending (or not attending) arts activities. Data from the supplement will be 

analyzed in combination with other variables from 

this large, nationally representative household survey. 

(ap/ac) planned

12) Innovative Practices in Audience Engagement: Conduct a series of case studies profiling 

innovative methods of audience engagement, based on 

a sample of NEA grants, likely in the Arts Presenting 

category. (ap/ac) planned

Projects Covering First-Order Outcome Variables

These projects are intended to yield valuable descriptive information about the Benefit of Art to Individuals,

the Benefit of Art to Society and Communities, and 

the Direct and Indirect Economic Benefits of Art, and, 

where possible, how those nodes relate to the input and/

or intervening variables.

13) Audience Impact Survey: Measure how audiences register cognitive or emotional “affect” to live 

exhibits, performances, or film festivals in a sample of 

NEA grant projects. (BAI, AP/AC) ONGOING

14) The Arts and Subjective Well-Being:

Commission or conduct an analysis of the arts’ relationship to subjective well-being, potentially using 

national data from Gallup’s Healthways Index. (BAI) 

PLANNED

15) NEA-NIH Literature Review and GapAnalysis: Collaborate with the National Institutes 

of Health program officers and librarians, along with 

other members of the NEA’s Interagency Task Force 

on the Arts and Human Development, to conduct a 

review and gap-analysis of peer-reviewed literature 

featuring arts interventions at various stages of human 

development. Results from this analysis are intended 

undertaken by state arts agencies and regional arts 

organizations, particularly as a result of the NEA’s 

investments. (ai) ongoing

5) Improving Standards and Assessment in Arts 

Education: Host and webcast a roundtable event that 

will provide an opportunity for researchers, educators, 

and policy-makers to consider the implications of a 

NEA-commissioned nationwide study of arts assessment tools and practices. (e/t) completed

6) SPPA 2012 Report on Arts Education: Use 

the 2012 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts to 

produce analyses about the frequency and types of arts 

education that American adults engage in, report for 

their children, and/or recollect from childhood. (e/t) 

planned

7) Understanding Arts Education Access by 

School and School District Characteristics: Analyze 

raw data from the U.S. Department of Education ‘s 

2010 Fast Response Survey of arts education in public 

schools, in light of contextual variables from the 

Department’s Common Core of Data. (e/t) planned

Projects Covering Intervening Variables

These projects are intended to yield valuable descriptive information about Arts Participation, inclusive or 

exclusive of Arts Creation, and how this node relates to 

the input variables.

8) An Average Day in the Arts: Report Americans’ 

daily time-use patterns involving arts participation 

(e.g., performing arts attendance, museum-going, arts/

crafts activity, writing for personal interest), based on 

a state-level analysis of the American Time Use Survey 

for 2006–2010. (ap/ac) completed

9) SPPA 2012 First Look, Summary Report, and 

Monograph Series: Release preliminary findings, 

followed by a comprehensive summary report and 

a series of monographs based on the 2012 Survey of 

Public Participation in the Arts, inclusive of data visualizations for the public and user’s guides for researchers. Examine trends in arts participation for various 

disciplines; report baseline data for new disciplines, 

methods, or forms of participation; and analyze demographic, geographic, and self-reported preferences and 

behaviors associated with arts participation. (ap/ac) 

planned

10) ABS Summary Report: Release report, data 

visualizations, and a data user’s guide based on the 
36 | national endowment for the arts

21) Health Retirement Study Arts Supplement:

Design an arts-related module for inclusion in a 

longitudinal survey of Americans over 50 years old, to 

investigate health and well-being variables in relation to creativity and arts participation. (BAI, BASC) 

PLANNED

22) Randomized, Controlled Trial of Arts 

Education: Conduct a feasibility study for a randomized, controlled trial investigating the long-term 

effects of an arts education intervention on a metropolitan-area cohort. (BAI,BASC) PLANNED

23) Arts and Livability Indicators: Design, validate, and publish a set of national indicators that can 

be used to measure outcomes that align with the goals 

of creative placemaking projects. Publish a directory 

of local data sources that can be used to create comparable indicators at the local community level. (BASC) 

ONGOING

24) American Housing Survey Arts Supplement:

Collaborate with the U.S. Department of Housing & 

Urban Development to explore the design of survey 

questions—for inclusion on the American Housing 

Survey—to investigate the role of arts and cultural 

participation in choosing place of residency, as well 

as arts/design considerations in home selection and 

renovation. (BASC) PLANNED

25) Arts and Cultural Production Satellite 

Account: Work with the Bureau of Economic Analysis, 

Department of Commerce, to establish a national 

account of arts and cultural industries, including 

annual estimates on number of establishments, their 

employment, compensation, output, and “value 

added” to Gross Domestic Product. (DIEBA) ONGOING

Projects Covering Second-Order Outcome 

Variables

These projects are intended to yield valuable descriptive information about the Benefit of Art to Societal 

Capacities to Innovate and to Express Ideas, and, 

where possible, how this node relates to the input and/

or intervening variables.

26) The Arts, New Growth Theory, and Economic 

Development: Commission, present, and publish 

a paper series examining potential applications of 

endogenous growth theory and other innovative 

economic models to the study of art’s impact. (SCIEI) 

ONGOING

to guide future research investments by funding agencies. (BAI) ONGOING

16) NEA-NIH-NAS Public Workshop and Paper 

Series on the Arts and Aging: Collaborate with 

three National Institutes of Health entities (the 

National Institute on Aging, the Office of Behavioral 

& Social Sciences Research, and the National Center 

for Complementary & Alternative Medicine) and the 

National Academy of Sciences to produce a workshop 

on the arts’ relationship to health and well-being in 

older adults. The workshop, and five commissioned 

papers, will identify research gaps and opportunities 

for further investment by the funding agencies. (BAI) 

ONGOING

17) NEA-National Intrepid Center of Excellence 

Research Partnership: Assist and advise in protocol 

development for a research study to assess clinical 

outcomes associated with expressive writing therapy 

as part of a comprehensive care regimen for warriors 

experiencing traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic 

stress, and other psychological illnesses. (BAI) 

ONGOING

18) National Children’s Study Arts/Music 

Supplement: Collaborate with the National Institutes 

of Health (National Institute of Child Health & Human 

Development), the Centers for Disease Control & 

Prevention, and the Environmental Protection Agency 

to include variables about arts and, specifically, music 

exposure in early childhood development, for the 

purpose of long-term analysis of the impact of this 

variable on cognitive, emotional, health, and educational outcomes in a longitudinal study population. 

(BAI,BASC) ONGOING

19) The Arts and Achievement in At-Risk Youth:

Report on an analysis of arts-related variables from 

four large datasets—three maintained by the U.S. 

Department of Education and one by the Department 

of Labor—to understand the relationship between arts 

engagement and positive academic and social outcomes in children and young adults of low socioeconomic status. (BAI, BASC) COMPLETED

20) Analysis of Arts Participation Among 

Children and Families: Explore the strength of the 

relationship between arts participation in children 

and families and their reported behavioral outcomes over time, based on the Panel Study of Income 

Dynamics. (BAI, BASC) ONGOING
how art works | 37

How to Read this Map

This map is an expanded version of the How Art Works

system map, also shown in Illustration 3, but with a 

difference. Most of the nodes contain numbers that are 

linked to specific projects on the NEA’s five-year research 

agenda. (See the accompanying “NEA Research Agenda by 

Project Title, Summary, and Placement on the System Map.”) 

If a number appears on a node, then the project associated 

with that number falls primarily within the domain of 

inquiry represented by the node. 

Human Impulse 

to Create and 

Express

Education and 

Training

5,6,7

Arts

Infrastructure

1,2,3,4

Arts 

Participation

8,9,10,11,12

Arts 

Creation

Benefit of Art to 

Individuals

13,14,15,16,17,18,

19,20,21,22

Benefit of Art 

to Society & 

Communities

23,24

Direct and Indirect 

Economic Benefits 

of Art

25

New Forms of 

Self-Expression

Outlets for 

Creative 

Expression

Societal 

Capacities to 

Innovate and to 

Express Ideas

26,27,28

Illustration 11

NEA Research Projects for Fiscal Years 2012–2016, Identified by 

Primary Node on the How Art Works System Map

 Inputs

 Art

 Quality-of-Life Outcomes

 Broader Societal Impacts
38 | national endowment for the arts

can track the relative allocation of recent, planned, 

and current research projects to different nodes on the 

map of How Art Works: the system’s inputs, the intervening variables that sit at its center, and its first- and 

second-order outcomes. Based on results from this 

ongoing assessment, ORA can take action to fill gaps in 

its portfolio, or to bring it into balance with emerging 

needs and realities that affect the system.

An initial review of ORA’s research agenda as it fits 

on the map suggests at least four points for discussion 

and potential action:

•	 For volume of research projects per node, Arts 

Participation (inclusive of Arts Creation) and Benefit 

of Art to Individuals each claim the largest share. 

This fact reflects the NEA’s programmatic emphasis 

on the values of creativity, arts engagement, and the 

arts’ relationship to quality of life—but it is also a 

function of available data sources and opportunities 

for data collection. Most projects on these nodes, 

or on the Arts Infrastructure and Education and 

Training nodes, are made possible only by historical 

data collections (e.g., the SPPA) or new or planned 

surveys (e.g., the National Children’s Study). 

For example, with Direct and Indirect Economic 

Benefits of Art and Benefit of Art to Society and 

Communities, there is a clear need to build national 

time-series (preferably longitudinal) data collections including arts variables. This need could be 

partly met by ORA’s project #25, “Arts and Cultural 

Production Satellite Account,” which may produce 

time-series data on the value added to the U.S. GDP 

by arts and cultural industries. Availability of such 

data may fuel additional research projects to populate that node. 

•	 The detailed component variables of the system

map—as presented in Section Three of this report—

warrant further analysis for the purpose of developing a comprehensive measurement model of the 

arts as a system. Rather than attempt to construct 

and validate those variables node by node, the NEA’s 

Office of Research & Analysis likely will consult 

the model throughout the five-year agenda period 

so that any advances in measurement may be 

reached in the context of individual research 

projects. Similarly, the impacts of various “system 

multipliers” (see Section Two) may be tracked on a 

periodic basis.

27) Analysis of Arts Variables in the Rural 

Establishment Innovation Survey: Examine the 

potential impact of arts and entertainment options on 

companies’ decisions to locate in a particular community, based on an item proposed by ORA and subsequently included in a U.S. Department of Agriculture 

survey. (SCIEI) PLANNED

28) Study of Design Patents and Product 

Innovation: Collaborate with the U.S. Patent & 

Trademark Office on a research paper exploring the 

relationship between design and utility patent-holders, with an emphasis on innovative product development. (SCIEI) PLANNED

Projects Covering All Nodes

These projects are intended to build long-term capacity for the field to undertake studies that can enable 

measurement of any given node and/or its relationship 

to other nodes. Because the projects do not relate to one 

node in particular, they do not appear on the system 

map illustration above.

29) Research: Art Works: Adjudicate, recommend 

for funding, and award grants to support research and 

analysis to investigate the value of the U.S. arts ecosystem and the impact of the arts on other domains 

of American life. The NEA will post research findings, 

methodology, data sources, and where possible, raw 

data on the agency’s website. ONGOING

30) Online Data Repository: Build a data repository with arts-related datasets, visualizations, and 

research resources for broad public access, including 

specialized tools for researchers. ONGOING

31) Virtual Research Network: Create or sponsor 

an online portal and/or listserv that allows arts and 

cultural researchers to interact and to share working 

papers, methodological problems and solutions, and 

data sources, for the purpose of fostering collaborative inquiries about the value and impact of the arts. 

PLANNED

Analysis 

By aligning the Arts Endowment’s five-year research 

priorities with the system map components shown 

above, the NEA’s Office of Research & Analysis (ORA) 

can achieve a better understanding of how all the items 

in its portfolio relate to each other conceptually. ORA 
how art works | 39

rate the system map’s variables and their relationships 

for the purpose of measurement. But if something like 

a consensus might emerge among arts researchers, for 

understanding at least a portion of the map, then perhaps more fruitful collaborations would arise. There 

would be more targeted research investments, reducing duplicative effort and avoiding the dissonance 

that sometimes occurs in the field when one seeks to 

describe the arts’ impacts, let alone measure them.

A side benefit of producing this report was taking 

stock of the growth and accomplishments of the arts 

research community over the past few decades. The 

NEA’s Office of Research & Analysis aims to build on 

that impressive body of knowledge while inspiring a 

new generation of research into the characteristics 

and contributions of art in American life. From its 

perch within the U.S. government, the office is poised 

to advance this work on two frontiers: by throwing 

a spotlight on large national datasets that may hold 

value for arts research; and by establishing strategic 

ties with other federal agencies. 

•	 Large national datasets: The advent of “big data” 

provides researchers and policy-makers with a 

means for supplementing, or even supplanting, 

traditional survey data. Although many of those 

opportunities involve use of commercial, transactional data, they also reside in government and notfor-profit sectors, through detailed administrative 

records. 

Systematic access to such data is staggering to 

contemplate, and is attended, in some cases, by unresolved issues of privacy and confidentiality. Also, as 

noted frequently by Robert Groves, former director 

of the U.S. Census Bureau and current provost of 

Georgetown University, there are tradeoffs in quality and cost that must be negotiated, particularly 

by social scientists who have grown accustomed to 

working with rigorous data quality standards.24 Yet 

one would be short-sighted not to explore these possibilities with respect to information about, say, arts 

participation. In this respect, the arts may be an ideal 

domain of inquiry, given the prevalence of creativity 

and self-expression on technological platforms for 

which commercial data exist. 

Over the period of its research agenda, the 

NEA’s Office of Research & Analysis has committed to make available public datasets and user’s 

•	 ORA will need to determine the extent to which it

can plan studies within a five-year period to address 

the nodes of Outlets for Creative Expression, New 

Forms of Self-Expression, and, though technically 

a catalyst of the system itself, Human Impulse to 

Create and Express. (In the latter category, for 

example, one envisions research of an anthropological bent, perhaps through textual analysis, case 

histories, or observational studies that clarify primal 

links between human communication and creativity.) A reasonable approach might be to lodge these 

concepts in the broader dialectic of the arts research 

community, so that new hypotheses, research questions, populations, data sources, and methods might 

be proposed by groups outside the NEA.

•	 For long-term planning and evaluation of resources,

it may be worth establishing a hierarchy among the 

projects represented on the arrows, by distinguishing among projects that attempt to posit or test correlations between the nodes, and those which seek 

to establish cause-and-effect relationships, especially since the latter types of projects are traditionally 

scarce within the arts research field.

Conclusions 

The theory-based system map and measurement 

model in this report will lead to greater reflection 

and more deliberate planning within the NEA’s Office 

of Research & Analysis. Beyond this outcome, the 

report invites researchers, practitioners, and policymakers in the arts and in other sectors to examine 

the constructs and definitions used, and to question 

the choices made in including or excluding certain 

variables. The map may even generate alternative 

hypotheses or measurement models that can be tested 

alongside those in the report. The net results of such 

inquiries would strengthen the field of arts research 

as a whole, and, secondarily, would inform policy and 

practice with more relevant and meaningful data.

For now, the system map offers a platform not only 

for the NEA’s own research and measurement activity, 

but also for other public and private stakeholders who 

may see fit to tackle one or more of the definitional or 

methodological challenges raised by the report.

It is unlikely that any single agency or organization 

can set into motion all the processes needed to elabo-
40 | national endowment for the arts

and health and well-being in older Americans. 

Similarly, the office is taking part in protocol 

development for the National Children’s Study—a 

joint initiative by NIH and the Centers for Disease 

Control & Prevention and the Environmental 

Protection Agency—and protocol development for 

research to validate arts therapy at the National 

Intrepid Center of Excellence at the Walter Reed 

National Military Medical Center. In the future, 

ORA aims to collaborate with researchers at the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 

to understand the arts’ potential role in a series of 

metrics for livable communities. 

These examples give a taste of the complex resource 

requirements for a sustainable research program 

in the arts, one that can make demonstrable progress over the next five years in spurring high-quality 

proposals to study the arts’ value and impact. No map 

or blueprint can show the way entirely. At best it can 

function like a jazz musician’s score: performance will 

depend partly on skills of interpretation, and partly 

on gifted improvisation along the way. Yet, with any 

luck, some of the concepts and research questions 

throughout this report may in time become “standards,” sparking original contributions from a growing 

ensemble of players. Together, we can bring new talent 

and resources to answer age-old questions about the 

arts and their importance to quality of life. 

Notes

23 As a unit, the NEA’s Office of Research & Analysis has a fourth 

goal: “Evaluate the administration of NEA programs for impact 

and effectiveness.” These reviews occur as part of an annual performance measurement plan that informs the NEA’s Performance 

& Accountability (PAR) report to the White House Office of 

Management & Budget, Congress, and the American public. 

In addition, ORA routinely conducts grants portfolio reviews 

to inform agency decision-making. The unit also responds to 

periodic requests, from leadership, to assess the performance of a 

specific NEA division, program, or initiative.

24 “Census Chief Robert Groves: We’ve Got to Stop Counting Like 

This,” Washington Post, Aug. 5, 2012

guides—along with the results of analyses—for the 

large, nationally representative surveys it conducts. 

The office also will house a data repository that 

will enable researchers to search for arts variables 

across a wide range of publicly accessible data and 

to perform basic analyses and visualizations. It is 

likely that the repository will include the NEA’s 

own grants data, where applicable, as well as links 

to research papers resulting from NEA research 

grants. Those awards support projects that seek to 

mine secondary data sources for evidence of the 

arts’ value and impact. 

•	 Strategic ties with other federal agencies: If the 

NEA is to be successful in promoting public-private 

partnerships in arts research and in encouraging 

multidisciplinary research collaborations, then the 

agency should start close to home. Over the last few 

years, accordingly, the NEA’s Office of Research & 

Analysis (ORA) has reached out to other federal 

departments, agencies, offices, and divisions to 

identify mutual areas of interest and to make available arts-related research information to a broader 

group of stakeholders than it might have done alone. 

For example, ORA has engaged with the U.S. 

Census Bureau on two distinct surveys as a supplement to existing data collections. Also regarding 

data access and availability, ORA has worked with 

the Bureau of Economic Analysis (Commerce 

Department) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(Department of Labor). And the office has teamed 

formally and informally with the National Science 

Foundation in projects ranging from inclusion of 

arts-related questions on a national survey to the 

public presentation of research about music learning and improved cognitive ability.

Among the office’s most significant accomplishments, by way of federal partnerships, is the creation of an Interagency Task Force on the Arts 

and Human Development, representing 14 federal 

entities such as the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, the National Institutes of Health, 

the Institute of Museum & Library Services, and the 

U.S. Department of Education. As one of their first 

projects, Task Force members cosponsored a public 

workshop with the National Academy of Sciences, 

whose National Research Council commissioned 

papers exploring the relationship between the arts 
how art works | 41

Fordham University 

New York, NY 

To support a study of the impact of arts programming 

on the social skills and mental health outcomes of 

at-risk youth. Data will be examined from two Florida 

programs that served youth who had been arrested 

or had received multiple suspensions from school. 

By comparing outcomes in youth who participated in 

arts programs with outcomes in youth who did not, 

this project will help fulfill a critical knowledge gap 

that may have consequences for youth intervention 

programs and greater public policy concerning at-risk 

populations. (BAI, BASC)

Georgia Tech Research Corporation 

Atlanta, GA

To support a two-phase study investigating: (1) the 

value of time spent by Americans on arts-related activities, and (2) an analysis of the impacts of arts districts 

on neighborhood characteristics. The first phase of the 

study will examine costs of activities such as traveling 

to and from arts events, based on data from the U.S. 

Department of Labor’s American Time Use Survey and 

the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. 

A second phase of the study will use a proprietary dataset to analyze the relationship between arts district 

clustering and the economic value and socioeconomic 

characteristics of U.S. neighborhoods. (AP/AC, DIEBA, 

BASC)

Harvard University 

Cambridge, MA

To support a study of causal factors pertaining to the 

“birth” and “death” rates of arts and cultural institutions. This project will analyze IRS Form 990s from 

nonprofit arts and cultural institutions in six urban 

centers to compare survival rates between 1989 and 

2009. Among factors that will be explored are: size of 

organization; funding sources and levels; type of organization; location; and geographic concentration. The 

resulting knowledge will contribute to public understanding of factors related to the sustainability of a U.S. 

arts infrastructure. (AI)

Since the establishment of a research program at the 

National Endowment for the Arts in 1975, the agency 

has relied mainly on staff expertise and contractors to 

conduct studies on the arts. In 2011, for the first time, 

the NEA’s Office of Research & Analysis announced a 

competitive grants opportunity for research proposals that will mine secondary datasets for information 

about the arts’ value and/or impact. Under Research: 

Art Works, 14 grant awards were made in 2012, totaling 

nearly $250,000. Below is the list of funded projects. 

As with the list of FY 2012–2016 Research Agenda 

projects shown earlier in this section, the FY 2012 

Research: Art Works project descriptions appear with 

symbols (in parenthesis) reflecting particular “nodes” 

on the How Art Works system map. 

Guidelines for FY 2013 research grant applications 

are available at nea.gov/grants/apply/Research/index.

html. The application deadline is Nov. 6, 2012.

Brown University 

Providence, RI

To support a study to identify the long-term social 

and cognitive impacts on children and teenagers who 

received music training. The research will examine 

results from a 50-year longitudinal data collection, 

the New England Family Study, to demonstrate the 

impacts of music training on teen and adult criminal 

behavior and other adverse social outcomes (e.g., 

substance use, low self-esteem), as well as long-term 

cognitive effects. (BAI, BASC)

Creative Alliance Milwaukee

Milwaukee, WI

To support an inventory and analysis of datasets 

and definitions used to profile creative economies 

or industries. The results will yield a “core” definition and dataset that national and local policymakers 

can adopt to understand the relationship of arts and 

cultural sectors to other creative industries. Also, the 

project seeks to place creative industries in a broader 

economic policy context. (SCIEI, DIEBA)

THE NEA’S INAUGURAL RESEARCH GRANTS PORTFOLIO
42 | national endowment for the arts

University of Illinois at Chicago 

Chicago, IL

To support a study to examine the impact of arts 

exposure and artistic expression on society, including 

civic engagement and social tolerance. Using behavioral data collected from the General Social Survey—a 

nationally representative sample of U.S. households—

the study will use multivariate analysis to test hypotheses about the impact of arts exposure on society and 

the impact of artistic expression on individual civil 

behavior. (BASC)

University of Maryland at College Park 

College Park, MD

To support analysis of the cognitive, behavioral, and 

social outcomes of adolescents who study the arts 

in comparison with teenagers who do not. Analysis 

will be conducted with data from the National 

Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, a multi-year 

study of American adolescents that tracked participants from adolescence through early adulthood. The 

arts and non-arts students will be compared in terms 

of their school engagement, psychological adjustment, 

delinquency, involvement in risky behaviors, and substance use during adolescence. (BAI, BASC)

University of Texas at Arlington 

Arlington, TX

To support a cross-sectional analysis of 30 U.S. cities 

over three decades to identify neighborhood attributes 

driving location preferences for artists and artistic 

businesses. The use of multivariate time-series data 

and geospatial mapping will enable statistical methods 

to test a causal relationship between the presence of 

the arts and neighborhood development. The results 

could contribute to the development and refinement 

of social and economic policies that promote positive 

neighborhood change. (BASC, AI)

University of Texas at Austin 

Austin, TX

To support a study to examine current levels of diversity among arts boards and audiences, and identify 

factors associated with fostering or inhibiting greater 

board and audience diversity. This study will explore 

the Urban Institute’s National Survey of Nonprofit 

Governance, a dataset of 476 arts, culture, and 

National Dance Education Organization 

Silver Spring, MD

To support a project to identify, analyze, and summarize data that demonstrate the impact of dance education across multiple domains. The researchers will 

mine the Dance Education Literature and Research 

descriptive index, a database including 5,000 citations 

of dance education research from 1926 to the present. This meta-analysis will result in three separate 

research reports. The reports will describe the value 

of dance education as a learning modality for creative 

and critical thinking skills and social and emotional 

development. (E/T, BAI)

University of Dayton 

Dayton, OH

To support a study of the relationship between arts 

engagement and quality of life, as reflected by economic well-being and civic engagement patterns. The study 

will examine data from several waves of the Current 

Population Survey and its Survey of Public Participation in the Arts supplements in order to explore this 

relationship. Researchers will use factor analysis and 

structural equation modeling of survey variables to 

create constructs of economic well-being and civic 

engagement; logistic regression will be used to predict 

the impact of arts engagement on these constructs. 

Further, by differentiating between “traditional” and 

“customized” arts participation, the study will add a 

finer-grained analysis to complement existing research 

about the arts and civic engagement. (AP/AC, BASC)

University of Georgia 

Athens, GA

To support a qualitative research analysis to generate a 

hypothesis about community-built practices to inform 

policies and programs. The term “community-built” 

describes a practice whereby artists and designers 

involve local volunteers in the design, organization, 

and construction of projects such as playgrounds, 

mosaic sculptures, murals, community gardens, and 

amphitheaters. Literature to be analyzed will include 

press articles, websites, and books written by members 

of the Community Built Association, founded in 1989. 

This research will expand knowledge of the arts by 

defining a new area of study within the fields of art and 

design. (AP/AC, BASC)
how art works | 43

humanities organizations, as well as 4,639 nonprofit 

organizations in other fields of activity, thus allowing 

for comparative analysis. Arts organizations and their 

supporters increasingly have expressed a commitment 

to greater diversity. This study will provide arts organizations, funders, and policymakers with information 

to help them assess and improve strategies for achieving that goal. (AI, AP/AC)

Vanderbilt University 

Nashville, TN

To support an analysis of the relationship between 

creative practice and subjective well-being in individuals studied by three national surveys. Using data 

from the Strategic National Arts Alumni Project, 

the DDB Needham Life Style Survey, and a Teagle 

Foundation-funded study of students with doublemajors, researchers will explore potential correlations 

between art-making and quality of life. The resulting 

report will offer a theoretical basis for understanding 

links between creative practice and subjective wellbeing, and it will test those links empirically. Following 

this study, cultural policymakers will have a better 

opportunity to align the arts with public policy about 

individual and community vitality. (BAI)

Williams College 

Williamstown, MA

To support a study that will examine whether a causal 

link exists between cultural activities and economic 

prosperity, and which investigates the tendency of 

arts and cultural organizations to cluster in specific 

neighborhoods. This study uses two novel methodologies—from other, non-arts sectors—to establish a 

causal relationship between increases in per-capita 

arts program expenditures and long-run gains in Gross 

Domestic Product within urban areas. The resulting 

evidence, and successful use of the methodologies 

themselves, will enhance public understanding of the 

arts’ economic impact. (DIEBA)

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20506-0001