Research Division Report #9

Performing Artsand Museums:

A Critical Review

National Endowment

fo[ the Arts ~

November 1978

A Study by Paul DiMaggio, Michael Useem and Paula Brown, Center for the Study of Public Policy, November 1977
_pREFAdE_~ " ._

This Research Report had its origins in a

series of meetings organized in 1975 by

Polly Buck, the National Endowment for

the Arts’ progra~L director for the performing arts. The directors of the

programs of theatre, dance, and music

participated in these meetings with the

Research Division staff to outline

research needs. The study of the performing arts audience was an area of

special concern. The performing arts

programs were receiving applications for

support of audience studies from institutions in their fields. The program

directors recognized that many audience

studies had been completed but were

unevaluated and could not be used for the

greatest advantage. A critical review

was thought to be needed before undertaking new audience studies. Subsequentl~

at the direction of the Arts Endowment’s

Chairman, Nancy Hanks, the concept for a

critical review of audience studies was

expanded to include museums as well as

the performing arts.

Ih 19760 a competitive program solicitation was released requesting proposals

from individuals or organizations wishing

to undertake a critical review of  ̄

audience studies. The proposals were

evaluated and an award made to the Center

for the Study of Public Policy in

Cambridge, Massachusetts. The project,

.under the leadership of Michael Useem and

Paul DiMaggio, with the assistance of

Paula Brown, included a diligent search

for audience studies. Initially, it was

hoped that i00 to 150 studies would be

found. A number of this magnitude would

provide an excellent basis for a critical

review. However,, to everyone’s surprise,

270 completed audience studies were found

that were made available to the investigators. All but five have now been made

available to additional users, as

explained in the last paragraph of the

Preface.

The critical review examined two kinds of

questions. The first is about what past

audience studies show when analyzed as a

set. The second group of questions was

concerned with the methodology of

audience studies and the bringing together of the experience so that caveats and

guidance for future audience studies

might be developed. Both of these sides

of the project are presented in this

report.

An important caution to the reader: the

coverage of institutions is not a.result

of a structured sampling procedure aimed

at providing data on all American arts

audiences. Some categories of audiences

are poorly represented among the audience

studies. We believe that this is an

indication that few, if any, audience

studies have been made by the institutions

serving these audience categories. Also,

the study restricted itself to the live

performing arts and to museums: it made no

attempt to collect audience studies in the

media fields. Research Division Report

#4, Arts and Cultural Programs on Radio

and Television, contains useful information about the audience measurement

procedures utilized in the media fields

of radio and TV. (Copies of this report

are available on request.)

During the study, the investigators met,

corresponded, or talked with about~ 600

individuals who had been involved with one

or more audience study projects. In a

very real sense, this study report is a

distillation of the combined experience of

these people. Their contribution to the

project was vital and is greatly appreciated by the Arts Endowment. It is hoped

that this report will become a benchmark

that will allow their experiences to be

used effectively by future audience

investigators and thereby contribute to

both the improvement of the art of studying the audience and to the capability of

arts and cultural institutions to serve

their audiences.

The investigators collected 270 audience

studies. Of these, five were retained as

confidential with respect to further examination beyond the project. The remaining

265 audience studies have been brought to

the Arts Endowment’s offices and are

organized as a study collection. These

studies are identified in Appendix II.

Visitors to the Arts Endowment may make

arrangements to examine these studies by

contacting Mrs. Chris Morrison0 Librarian,

National Endowment for the Arts, 2401 E

Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20506,

telephone (202) 634-7640.

Research Division

National Endowment for the Arts

October 1978
SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER i: THE NATURE OF THE ARTS PUBLIC

The Studies

Basic Demographics

Gender

Age

Education

Occupation

Income

Race and Ethnicity

Summary of Demographics

Additional Issues in Audience Research

The Arts Audience Over Time

~dience Structure

Economic and Political Impact

CHAPTER 2: QUALITY AND IMPACT OF ARTS AUDIENCE STUDIES

The Arts Audience Survey

Predicting Quality in Arts Audience Studies

Factors Predicting Research Quality

The Correlates of Quality

Predicting the Utility of Arts Audience Studies

CHAPTER 3: ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS AFFECTING RESEARCH UTILITY

The Purposes of Audience Research

Political factors

Opportunity

General concerns

The Impact of Audience Studies

Instrumental applications

Political applications

The Role of Audience Research Findings in Arts Management

Factors Promoting Research Utility

Study attributes

Personal commitment

External factors

Factors Preventing Research utility

Staff turnover and lack of resources

Hostility and lack of interest

Research planning

communication and follow-through

Report content

Study execution

Technical quality

Conclusion and Recommendations

CHAPTER 4: AN AGENDA FOR ARTS AUDIENCE RESEARCH

APPENDIX I: BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX II: LIST OF STUDIES

6

8

i0

13

34

42

42

43

44

46

5O

56

56

58

60

63

66

70

72

75

79

ii
Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

Table l0

Table ii

Table 12

Men in Audiences by Art Form

Age of Audiences by Art Form

Percentage of Audiences in Five Educational Categories

by Art Form

Occupational Distribution of Audiences

Occupational Distribution of Audiences by Art Form

Median Income of Audiences by Art Form

Time Trends in the Gender, Age, Education, Occupation,

and Income Compostion of Performing Arts Audiences

Deviation from Average Study Quality by

Investigator Background, Resources, and

Insitutional Setting

Simple Correlations and Regression Coefficients of

Audience Study Quality with Investigator Background,

Resources and Institutional Setting

Deviation from Average Audience Study Internal and

External Utility by Investigator Background, Resources,

Institutional Setting and Quality

Frequency of Instrumental and Political Applications

of Audience Research Results

Frequency of Factors Cited Affecting Use of Audience

Research Results

14

17

20

22

24

30

35

47

49

52

59

64

iii
Audience research for-the performing arts

and museums has increased rapidly in

recent years to the point where it is now

co~anonplace. We have assembled and

analyzed a number of these studies with

two purposes in mind. First, we are

interested in the social profiles of these

groups of attenders. Who is the cultureconsuming public? Our answers to this

question should be of use to arts administrators, government agencies, other

researchers, and the concerned public.

Second, we are interested in the quality

of audience research. How well done

technically is the work? Further, how

useful are the results of these surveys

and questionnaires to the organizations

who undertake them? Ours is the first

systematic evaluation of the quality of

audience research, and we hope our

findings will be helpful not only to

other researchers but to those managers

and directors who contract for audience

studies and who review the results. In

the course of both discussions--on

audience composition and on research

quality--we review and summarize pertinent literature in the field.

There is a need to know who the cultural

audience is--and is not--before policy

decisions are made on how to expand an

organization’s activities or on how to be

more responsive to a wider range of the

public. Our data on the composition of

performing arts audiences and museum

visitors are based on 270 studies, both

published and unpublished, which we list

at the end of the report. We gathered

this material after a search of libraries,

indexes, and bibliographies. A mailed

inquiry to over 1,200 cultural institutions and organizations brought more than

600 responses.

Nearly all of the studies we received were

done after 1970, although originally we

had hoped to include earlier ones as well.

These were done for institutions which

varied widely in size, function, and

location. They do not, however, represent

a precise cross section of the cultural

activities involved. In the field of the

performing arts, the studies were of

audiences for theatre, dance, ballet,

classical music, and opera. For museums

they were of visitors to art, history,

science, and other museums. We did not

receive audience studies for jazz, folk/

ethnic music, popular art, and did not

seek studies on any of the media arts of

radio, television, and film. The studies

came from forty-one states and the

District of Columbia. They were not

weighted according to audience size, but

are what we were able to collect.

For categorical variables (gender, education, occupation, and race) we tabulated

percentages of respondents in those

categories used in the greatest number of

studies. For continuous variables (age

and income) we calculated median figures

for each audience studied.

Gender. The stereotype of the arts as a

predominately feminine activity did not

hold true. Women only slightly outnumbered men in relation to their percentage

of the population as a whole. The men in

the audiences were a median 43 percent for

the performing arts, 46 percent for

museums, and 49 percent for the population

Audiences for ballet and dance were the

most heavily female (60 percent) and

visitors to science and history museums

were the most heavily male (53 percent),

but there were large variations from

audience to audience both within and

among cultural types. For example, there

were more men than women in one-quarter

of the studies of the performing arts and

in two-fifths of the studies of museums.

The median percentage of men ranged from

31 to 58 in the performing arts and from

30 to 71 in museums. In other words, the

overall figures on gender would be a poor

predictor of the make-up of a particular

audience. The day of the week and, perhaps,

the content of the event had some effect

on the gender of the audience.

A__q~. The median age of visitors to

museums was thirty-one and of audiences

for the performing arts was thirty-five.

This age profile is similar to that of the

general population since the figures lie

between the median age of the entire U.S.

population (twenty-eight) and the median

age of the population sixteen and over

(forty). The data from the studies was

complicated by a variety of restrictions

on the age of respondents.

Again, variability was great within and

among the types of perfornting arts and

museums. Audiences for opera and classical music were older than for theat~-e and

ballet/dance. There was less variability

among museums but science museums had

audiences younger by a median two years

than art museums. The seasons of the year

and the time of performance in some cases

affected audience age. Audiences were
younger in the sunder: the median age grew -muSeum-visitors as° .0mpar~-t~. 59_percent

older from weekend evenings to weekday  ̄ ~professionals among ̄per-forming .arts

evenings to matinees (the oldest)~ The~e  ̄ audiences. Art museums differed from

is some evidence that content of th~ent ~- ̄other types-of museums with a higher ratio

and that geographic region affect audience of professionals. In fact, they had the

age.

Education. Educational attainment is the

single most important variable in the

social profile of attenders. Perhaps this

is because schooling provides formal

training in the arts, a social milieu

encouraging participation, opportunities

to attend, and a family habit which is

passed down to children. Although

audiences varied considerably, median

educational attainment was consistently

high. Among attenders, 30 percent had

graduate training, 54 percent had fouryear college degrees (as compared to 14

percent of U.S. adults), 22 percent had

no schooling beyond high school (74

percent of U.S. adults), and 5 percent had

not completed high school (38 percent of

U.S. adults).

It is likely that children were underrepresented in audience samples although

the extent cannot be determined from

analysis of the studies.

Median education was higher for performing

arts audiences than for museum visitors,

higher for ballet and dance than for

theatre, and higher for art museums than

for science and history museums. Although

for education, as for other variables,

museums served a somewhat broader public

than the performing arts, cultural

audiences were closer to each other than

to the general public.

Occupation. The complexity of classifying

occupations into manageable categories,

especially given the vast array of schemes

in the studies we analyzed, means again

that tendencies are more important than

exact figures here. Even with this qualification, however, one of the most

striking findings was the very high

percentage of professionals among

attenders and the very low percentage of

blue-collar workers. Professionals made

up a median 56 percent of employed persons

in the audiences but were only 15 percent

of the employed work force: blue-collar

workers were 4 percent of employed persons

in the audiences but 34 percent of the

employed work force. (At that, the percentage of blue-collar may be slightly

overstated due to classification

ambiguities.)

same percentage (59) as did the performing

arts, which differed little among the

various types.

Teachers (including college and university)

were especially numerous among professionals with 21.0 percent of the attenders

overall but 4.1 percent of the work force.

In comparison to their share of the

professional work force, they exceeded

their share of professionals ammng

attenders by a third.

If professionals were high in all measures, blue-collar workers were low. Only

among "other museums", which showed 17

percent blue-collar, was there any change

in the pattern. Blue-collar workers were

2.8 percent of performing arts audiences

and 3.1 percent of art museum visitors.

And excluding museums other than art,

thirty-four of the fifty-two studies

showed blue-collar workers in numbers

amounting to less than one-tenth of their

share of the work force as a whole.

Among other occupations, managers had

higher percentages in the performing arts

audiences than in the work force, though

not nearly so high as professionals. Some

studies merged professional and manager

into one category. When we did so to

discover a rough index of high status

occupations, we found that 69.5 percent of

attenders fell into this combined category

which made up 25.5 percent of the work

force.

Clerical/sales and homemakers had percentages below their share of the work force

but the latter were highly variable from

audience to audience (5 to 52 percent).

Students were attenders to a very high

degree, though again the range was great

(0 to 63 percent). Retired and unemployed

were consistently low in relation to their

share of the population.

Again, museum visitors were somewhat m~re

representative of the public than the

performing arts audiences. For example,

there were 42 percent professionals among

Income. High income is associated with

cultural participation but is not the

cause, at least not nearly to the degree

that education and occupation are. When

all three factors are controlled, income

does not seem to predict attendance where

education and occupation do.

Since it is sensitive, private information,

income figures are liable to distortion

(there were nonresponse rates up to 29

percent). All figures from the studies

have been converted into mid-1976 dollars

for comparability. In this regard, a
median figure for the U.S. as a whole " change ~n tim~-ov~.~he~l~st fifteen years

would be a family income of $14,000. for the.performing;art-S~ ~the only studies

..... -~-for which we had-sufficient data. Changes

Throughout the studies~familyinc~m~;~as /~ ~imight .be g.oing .on within or among audiconsistently above this baseline. For the ences for individual art forms but the

performing arts, the-median was $19,000

and for museums $17,000. When audiences

for outdoor dramas were excluded, the

median income for the performing arts was

higher, $20,250. Also, once this group of

studies was disregarded there was a good

deal of consistency from type to type in

the performing arts.

AS they did with regard to education and

occupation, museums attracted a somewhat

more representative cross section of the

public in terms of income. But still,

only one museum study reported a median

family income below the general population.

Race. Very few studies reported attendance by race or ethnic background. Based

on this scarce data, we found that

minorities--blacks and persons of Hispanic

and Oriental background--were 7 percent of

the audience but 20 percent of the population. Museums other than art were more

inclusive with Ii percent minority

attendance. Blacks made up 3.0 percent

of the attenders but 12.3 percent of the

urban population. Selected comparisons

of individual studies with urban area

statistics also showed this pattern of

underrepresentation.

The low ratios of minorities are probably

due to the fact that these groups on the

average are younger, have less education

and lower incomes, and are less likely

to work in professional occupations.

A review of cross-sectional surveys in

which people reported on their own

attendance habits showed wide variation

from place to place and time to time, but

in .general the figures for minority

attendance are much higher than in the

audience surveys.

In sum, the studies show that the cultureconsuming public is more educated, has

higher incomes, and has higher status jobs

than the general public. Museum visitors

were somewhat more representative of the

public than performing arts audiences.

The difference may be attributed in part

to the lower median age of the museum

population. Theatre audiences had

slightly lower scale demographic profiles

~han the other performing arts, and art

museums were higher scale than the other

types of museums.

We could find no evidence that audiences

were becoming more democratic. None of

the variables showed any significant

necessary aggregates of our.data would

conceal these.

In our review of audience studies we also

looked at the frequency of attendance,

economic impact, and public attitudes

toward the arts. We discovered that

frequent attenders are more educated and

probably have higher incomes than infrequent attenders. Also, frequent attenders

of one of the performing arts are likely

to go to performances of the other arts

(frequent theatregoers are the exception).

The few studies which examined economic

impact showed that cultural institutions

seem to draw visitors to a city and the

resultant spending benefits certain

segments of the economy substantially.

And finally, studies of attitudes toward

the arts showed widespread public support

with majorities or near majorities in

favor of government subsidy. Local money

tends to be preferred to federal, funds

for institutions are preferred to funds

for artists, and museum support is preferred over the performing arts. In

general, public attitudes seem to be

growing more supportive along with the

increase in government funding.

Good audience research is scarce. The

best single study of cultural audiences to

date has been William J. Baumol and

William G. Bowen’s work in 1966, Performing Arts--The Economic Dilemma. (Their

data showed a more elite audience than

ours, probably because they analyzed

professional performing arts only.) Apart

from this landmark work, quality varies

tremendously. One of our main interests

has been to measure the factors affecting

quality and to relate these to the use to

which audience research findings are put.

We hope our analysis will provide guidelines--though certainly not hard and fast

rules--for those organizations considering

audience research.

Detailed questionnaires were sent to ll2

directors of studies done since 1970. Of

these, 86 responded with the information

requested on such factors as the profession,

education, and experience of the investiga~

tor: organization conducting the research,

the project’s budget, the research methods

employed: and the applications made of the

results. These questionnaires along with

the study reports themselves were rated

according to a checklist of specific

research procedures. We measured both

internal validity (whether the explanatiod

offered is the true cause) and external
validity (whether the results can be gen- cent of ~he’use~ ~[[~i~et±ng 120

eralized) and developed a single quality ~.percent), further.researcn (12 percent),

scale. We used multiple regression~.~.-.~~. L. programming (6 percent), and political

analysis to determine the eff~cts"~f@a~h reasons (22perbent internal and 12

study characteristic, holding all others.

constant.

The result was that budget and investigator’s profession were of greatest

importance in producing quality. For

example, a budget of at least $i,000 and

a study director with a background in

social science, or in a miscellaneous

category of other research-related

professions, did very well on the quality

scale. Budget and profession explained

63 percent of the tota! variation in

quality.

percent external).

Research findings entered into policy

decisions in marginal and indirect ways.

It was not only a matter of results being

applied when they supported existing

attitudes and ignored when they did not--

though this was characteristic--but it was

also that results might fly in the face of

other priorities: "Data step on toes," as

one study director put it. Further, most

cultural organizations have severely

limited means to follow up on the direct

implications of audience research.

We also developed utility scales to

measure the application of research to

policy, based on the reports of the study

directors. These looked at internal use

(e.g., ticket pricing and exhibit content)

and external use (e.g., public relations,

funding, and audience expansion policy).

We found no significant correlation

between use, technical quality, and the

correlates of quality--budget, investigator profession, and institutional

setting. The only factor which had any

sort of importance was the interaction of

two variables: experienced in-house

investigators produced studies that were

found to be more useful than those done

by either inexperienced in-house or

outside investigators. And these two

variables produced a small and inconsistent relationship which explained less

than i0 percent of the variation in use.

The extent to which the studies were

applied varied sharply and neither

quality, its variables, nor common sense

explained why. In order to discover the

answer, we looked intensively at twentyfive audience studies which were selected

on the basis of type, region, and

currency. Also, we conducted forty-two

semi-structured interviews with study

directors and with those responsible for

study use. As additional background,

unstructured interviews were conducted

with twenty-five more directors and users.

Through our interviews we learned that,

contrary to conventional wisdom, research

was not undertaken to solve specific

problems and findings were applied in a

variety of ways. The chief motives for

undertaking audience research were for

political leverage or because the opportunity was offered gratis or out of a

vague sense of concern for more information of some sort. The results--

seventy-seven applications were mentioned--

were used for physical planning (29 perIn addition to being applied when they

confirmed the suspicions of administrators,

results were also likely to be used when

they were championed by an influential

person, when the authority of outsiders

gave them legitimacy, and when researchers

were involved in staff deliberations.

Along with the limits on use imposed by

lack of funds, results were not used when

there was high staff turnover (a common

problem in cultural organizations) and

when they were confusingly reported, not

followed up on, or seemed trivial or

inconclusive.

It is clear that research findings contributed to policy in highly indirect

ways as reinforcing, suggestive,

expressive, and symbolic gestures that

depend little on the precise technical

methods employed. The lack of concern

over technical quality in audience

research is a rational response to the

environment in which these organizations

operate.

But that environment is changing, in part

because of budget pressures and a general

shift in attitudes toward research

planning. It is likely that better use

will be made of better research, and we

recommend the following: support for

systematic planning in the arts with some

consensus as to the role of audience

research: the creation of an information

clearinghouse to publicize and disseminate

arts research: the establishment of local

consortiums for cooperative arts research

to aid institutions that cannot afford

their own work: and workshops on social

science methods for managers and administrators of cultural institut~.ons.

There are a number of gaps in our knowledge about audiences which require

several approaches. First of all, we need

on a national basis routine gathering of

descriptive statistics over time. These
should be from a sample stratified ~cc-oTd- It-seems to .us that the :more local studies

ing to institutional type, region, degree -~ which-are-publ-ish~d[i-~.it~--9~etter for all

of urbanization, programming policy,

concerned and if a-clearlnghouse were

professional status, and ticket prices.

" ~ --available there would be a pool of infor-

....... ~ ~...~.%~-~~i~. - omation all_ could usefully draw upon.

Individual organizations need to standardize their survey data in order to make

results more useful to themselves and to

others. In conducting a survey, they

should base their demographic categories

on census schemes: any other or special

categories should be highly differentiated.

A technique which can be used easily and

to good effect by local organizations is

cross-tabulation- And information can be

increased with little added effort by

using census frequencies for metropolitan

residents and by asking how often respondents attend during a given period. Also,

quasi-experimental design--controlled

studies before and after limited policy

changes--is a useful methodology that

could be employed more often.

Nonattenders, who are of great interest to

arts managers, pose a problem for audience

research and may require special attention

through in-depth interviews.

A major question of audience research is

whether there is one audience or many, and

whether any distinctions can be made

according to audience types and their

responsiveness to such questions as price

and program content. Other large

questions have to do with the process of

socialization of arts audiences and the

public for the arts in forms other than

live performance.

Certainly cultural organizations can

improve the quality and use of audience

research by shifting their priorities.

But the systematic use of audience

research on a wide scale after the fashion

of governmental agencies and private

industry may be prohibitively expensive-
To the general play-goer, it is presumed that the most

interesting part of a theatre is behind the scenes. To

actors and actresses, naturally enough, the chief interest lies with the audience - Before the Footlights .....

I never tired of studying the many-headed animal - the

Audience. I love to take it up in its different elements,

and ponder it - looking out from a cozy corner in a stagebox, myself unobserved. (Logan, 1871: 291)

Although research on the arts audience

dates back to the museum visitor studies

in the 1920s (Robinson, 1930) and Federal

Theater Project performances in the 1930s,

such research appears to have been undertaken on a large scale only in the last

decade or two. Beginning in the 1950s--

with the museum studies of de Borhegyi

Hanson, and their colleagues (1968) and

Abbey and Cameron (1959, 1960)--and

continuing in the 1960’s--with the performing arts surveys of Baumol and Bowen

(1966)--gathering information about

audiences in museums and performing arts

institutions has grown to the point where

it is nearly con~onplace. Of more than

600 arts organizations responding to one

recent survey (Johnson and Prieve, 1976),

23 percent had conducted audience surveys

within the previous five years. We found

a similar situation: out of 612 arts

organizations, 27 percent had undertaken

such studies in recent memory, and many

others were preparing to do so. Furthermore, the generous cooperation we

received from overworked and questionnaire-weary individuals in theatres,

museums, orchestras, and other arts

institutions was itself an expression of

a keen interest in the subject of

audience surveys. In fact, a surprising

number of arts managers sought our advice

on specific aspects of the design or

execution of audience studies.

In relation to the growing study of arts

audiences, our report has two aims.

First, we have gathered research on the

composition, attitudes, and preferences

of arts audiences and have put together

a description of important features of

the American arts public. In doing so,

we drew upon reports, questionnaires, and

other materials from more than 250

research projectsThe second aim has been to assess the

quality and utility of the arts audience

research. This report represents the

first evaluation of research in this

area: and it is one of the first to study

explicitly both how well research has been

carried out by social-scientific standards

an__d how useful it has been to the organizations on whose behalf it was undertaken.

(For a brief but illuminating study of

marketing research by symphony orchestras,

see Wainwright (1973)).

We began to gather our information in the

following manner. First, an exhaustive

library search was conducted for published

audience studies and an inquiry form was

mailed to over 1,200 museums, performing

arts organizations, arts councils, and

other organizations concerned with the

arts. The form requested information on,

and copies of, any audience research with

which the recipient had been involved or

was acquainted. This search eventually

yielded materials on 270 studies.

Second, a longer survey form was sent to

the directors of each of more than 100

studies that we had obtained by January l,

1977. The survey, based on a review of

relevant methodological materials and on

more than two dozen unstructured interviews with arts administrators and

researchers, requested information on the

study director, conducting organization,

research budget and funding, research

methodology, and policy applications.

Eighty-six directors responded within the

allotted time of approximately three

months.

Finally, structured interviews with fortytwo directors and users of twenty-five

audience studies were conducted in order

to better understand the purposes of

audience research and the reasons why some

studies yield more useful findings than

others. The research project selected

for case study represented a cross section

of art forms and study types.

Our findings and methodology are reported

in three chapters. Chapter One presents

a synthesis of data on audience
composition reported by the studies in our~ _and t~pist~ all ~t~-e~ally great skill,

possession. We have analyzed information  ̄

good humorl an~ fo£~l~~H~e~ A~ainst not- ....

on gender, age, educational attainment, -

inconsiderableodds0 she succeeded in

occupation, income, and race of-.~~.!_" /-maintaining order and organization in a

attenders for various art forms. In

addition, Chapter One presents inforr

mation on changes in audience composition

over time, differences between frequent

and infrequent attenders, and the findings

of studies of the economic impact of the

arts and of public attitudes toward

government financing of the arts. Chapter

Two, based on the survey of study directors described above, analyzes the

determinants of the technical quality and

the effects of quality on the use of

audience studies in policy decisions.

Chapter Three draws on the case study

interviews and describes the reasons

audience studies are undertaken, the uses

they serve, the ways they enter the

decisionmaking process, and the factors

influencing their use. Finally, Chapter

Four presents an agenda for further

research.

It should be noted that references are

provided in two ways. References to

audience studies are indicated in the

text by the study number (e.g., #17) and

reported in the List of Studies given in

the back. Other references are cited by

author and year of publication and are

reported in the Bibliography.

This report may be useful to arts managers

and policy makers in several respects.

~ singuiar[y centripetal environment.

Thanks, also, to John Case, Nancy,Lyons,

Larry Baker~ Lee Aitken, Barbara Beelar,

and the other residents of the Center for

the Study of Public Policy, who gave us a

comfortable and friendly home and provided

good advice and moral support on numerous

occasions.

We are also thankful to Joseph Farrell,

Bradley Morison, and Joseph Zeigler, who

went beyond the call of courtesy to make

available to us both their research and

their extensive experience in the study of

arts audiences. We are indebted, as well,

to Donald Newgren, who donated to us a

large collection of museum visitor studies

that he obtained during a study of museum

research: and to Lorraine Brown of the

Research Center for the Federal Theatre

Project at George Mason College for making

copies of several Federal Theater Project

surveys available to us.

The following people also provided valuable information at various stages of this

project in numerous ways: Duncan Cameron:

Irving Cheskin: James Copeland: Stephen

Couch: David Cwi: Kevin R. Diels: Emily

Farnham: Carol Ann Feldman: Arnold Foster:

Janet Gracey: Rena Hall: Walt Haney: Phil

Hyde: Christopher Jencks: Samuel Kaplan:

First, it presents a comprehensive overview Jerome Karabel: Jeff Klopek: Robert

of audience composition and makes clear

the limits of the information now available.

Second, it compares the results of

audience research carried out under

varying circumstances and illuminates

why much of that research is less than

satisfactory. While there is no easy

recipe for ensuring that audience research

can be both useful and of the highest

quality, the material in these chapters

does indicate the complexity of the processes leading to good research and to

research use. These chapters also

provide insights into those aspects of

research management about which something

can be done. However, it should be noted

that this report presents no guidelines

for conducting audience studies. For

details on how to go about surveying an

audience or set of visitors, see Baumol

and Bowen (1966: Appendix IV-l): Camer¢~n

and Abbey (1960a, 1960b, 1961): Mann

(1966): and Newgren (1972).

Lakota: Richard Light: Margaret Parsons:

Laurie Perman: Richard Peterson: E. Arthur

Prieve: Richard Sheldon: Harris Shettel:

Ann smith: Mark Sumner: Mary Tassick:

Ellen Thurston: Harrison White: Thomas

Wolf: and Peter Zeisler.

The opinions expressed and interpretations offered are those of the authors and

do not necessarily reflect the views of

any of the individuals or organizations

whose assistance has been acknowledged.

Any errors or misinterpretations are ours

alone.

Paul DiMaggio

Michael Useem

Paula Brown

Our deepest thanks go to Jane Gallop, who

served as this project’s administrator,

librarian, accountant, editor, secretary,
-THE’tNATURE~OFTHE ARTS PUBLIC

The nature of the public for the arts in

the United States has been a source of

controversy and speculation for much of

this country’s history. Alexis de

Tocqueville, the liberal French aristocrat

who studied American democracy during the

1830s, noted then that America’s Puritan

simplicity and unbounded resources provided more fertile soil for commerce than

for art. Nonetheless, he suggested, as

the frontier closed and the Puritan

legacy was diluted, the natural tendencies

of democracy might eventuate in unprecedented public involvement in the arts.

"Not only will the number of those who

can take an interest in the production of

mind be greater," he wrote, "but the taste

for intellectual enjoyment will descend,

step by step, even to those who, in

aristocratic societies, seem to have

neither time nor ability to indulge in

them" (Tocqueville0 1956: 162).

Tocqueville predicted the democratization

of both the production and appreciation

of art as the United States became more

mature. A half century later Thorstein

Veblen, the iconoclastic economist,

presented a more pessimistic view.

Having witnessed the rise of great fortunes that Tocqueville had not forseen,

Veblen feared that the arts (as well as

most aspects of culture, learning, and

manner) had become the playthings of the

rich--baubles and badges of social standing less respected for their beauty or

intrinsic merit than for their rarity and

expense. High culture, thought Veblen,

would remain the preserve of the wealthy

because only they had the leisure to

attend to it and the power to define

what, in fact, would be considered "art"

(Veblen0 1899).

The opposing perspectives of Tocqueville

and Veblen had been echoed in debates

throughout this century. Recently, for

example, some writers have discerned a

cultural "boom," asserting that the arts,

while previously the monopoly of an elite,

have become central to the lives of

millions of Americans. Alvin Toffler,

perhaps the most optimistic spokesman for

this position, cites the rise of a massive

middle-class constituency for the arts.

In earlier years, he says, the arts

audience was composed of European-oriented,

rich, alienated intellectuals and

aspiring artists: but more recently

"millions of Americans have been attracted

to the arts, changing the composition of

the audience profoundly." While not all

Americans are part of the culture boom,

"a major step toward democratization has,

indeed, been taken." As a result, the

"rise of a mass public for the arts can,

in its way, be compared with the rise of

mass literacy in the eighteenth century in

England" (Toffler, 1965: 34,51).

Other writers have taken a less sanguine

view. Sociologist Herbert Gans argues

that high culture remains the preserve of

a small circle of aficionados and a

diverse "user-oriented" public that

includes art patrons, collectors, highly

educated professionals, and business

executives. But the masses are still

not reached, for in the view of Gans high

culture continues to serve "a small public

that prides itself on exclusiveness"

(Gans, 1974: 77).

Sophisticated critics and analysts have

failed to agree on whether the art public

is mass or elite. The reason, in part, is

a matter of definition. Should the term

"art" be restricted to paintings hanging

in major museums, serious theatre, music

played by symphony orchestras, and traditional or experimental opera and ballet?

Or should we also include commercial and

community theatre, jazz, crafts, foreign

films, and "pops" orchestras? By elite,

do we mean the rich and the top executives,

or does the elite also encompass the

upper-middle classes and the college educated? And does the arts public consist,

say, of anyone who makes an annual visit

to a local art museum, or should the term

be restricted to serious consumers of at

least one of the traditional art forms?

Much of the disagreement about the composition of the arts audience can be

attributed to imprecise language. Yet

a significant part of the controversy is

also due to the state of the research, for

however the terms are defined, good

research on the public for the arts has

been--and to a great extent, still is--

relatively scarce and inaccessible,

difficult to compare, and often equivocal

in its findings.

An exception is William Baumol and William

Bowen’s careful and extensive study of the

audience for the professional performing

arts. It remains a landmark work since
its publication in 1966. Their assess ....

--~ that were-between~5-~and~~0 percent blue

ment indicated that Veblen’s insights

" collar (#!6).~ And_.one. e~rlier-study of

were more accurate than Tocqueville’s--~ ~.-.the Milwaukee Public Museum revealed that

On the much-touted cult-ura~ boom-.~f~i~h~~-.~ -~ _visitors were nearly representative of

1960s0 they wrote: "evidence of a modest the American public: of the employed

expansion in performing arts activity .... " visitors, only a tenth were professionals

though by no means negligible, is far

from universal and can hardly be called a

cultural explosion" (1966: 36). Comparing the performing arts audience to the

urban population as a whole, they noted

that its members were somewhat younger,

far more educated, of higher occupational

status, and more affluent. Over 55 percent of the men surveyed had done graduate

work (as compared to 5 percent of the

adult urban population as a whole), while

only 2 to 3 percent of employed males

were blue-collar workers (as opposed to

60 percent of the urban population).

Frequent attenders were of an even higher

status than infrequent visitors. Baumol

and Bowen conclude that even "if there

has been a significant rise in the size

of audiences in recent years, it has

certainly not yet encompassed the general

public... Attempts to reach a wider and

more representative audience, to interest

the less educated or the less affluent,

have so far had limited effects" (1966:

96).

There is no work comparable to Baumol and

Bowen’s which deals with museums, although

there exists a fifty-year-old tradition

of museum research in the United States.

Most museum research before 1970 was

behavioral, concerned not with who

visitors were but with how they responded

to and learned from exhibits. The few

studies which were nonbehavioral generally indicated that, except for the

greater proportion of children, museum

visitors were similar in most respects

to audiences for the performing arts.

Economic and educational profiles look

nearly identical. An early study of the

Boston Museum of science, for instance,

indicated a well-educated and prosperous

clientele: a third of the adult visitors

were in professional or technical occupations and over half were college

educated (#246). More recently, a 1969

yearlong survey of almost 5,000 visitors

to the smithsonian Institution found that

48 percent of the adults were professionals, 60 percent had family incomes

exceeding $i0,000’, and 70 percent had

some college education: only 14 percent

were in blue-collar or service occupations

(#264). Nonetheless, the studies varied

in their findings. While one study found

that only 3 to 5 percent of the 1969

visitors of three Manhattan museums were

blue-collar workers, museums in neighboring Brooklyn, Yonkers, and Newark were

discovered to attract visitor populations

and nearly half were laborers (#106).

Overall, the early research suggested a

highly affluent visitor population, one

with greater diversity than that for the

performing arts but still closer to

Veblen than to Tocqueville.

until recently, however, the paucity of

available studies made any generalizations

suspect. Only in the past few years has

there been a large enough volume of

research so that an effort to develop a

general portrait of the arts audience is

now feasible. Such an effort could answer

many questions: Has the audience for the

professional performing arts changed in

the decade since Baumol and Bowen

executed their study? Who goes to

museums? Who are the frequent attenders

and how do they differ from individuals

who go only once? Does arts attendance

result in economic benefits for neighboring institutions?

Many of the studies we have used in examining these questions are of low technical

quality. Often little care has been

given to selecting a set of respondents

typical of~the audience about which the

researchers want to learn: questions are

phrased in an imprecise manner: or important information affecting the audience’s

composition has been left out of the final

report. But in an aggregate of more than

250, the bulk of these studies helps us

achieve a degree of certainty that we

could not expect from one or two alone.

If a study of one museum’s audience, for

example, tells us that a disproportionate

number of visitors are women (or men), we

can say nothing about the visitors of

other museums. If, however, twenty or

thirty studies, with differing strengths

and faults, report the same findings, we

can begin to generalize with some confidence. In addressing these issues we are,

of course, limited by the focus and nature

of the studies assembled. And in this

report’s concluding chapter we make some

reco~endations about the sort of research

that is needed to resolve a number of

important questions that currently available studies cannot satisfactorily answer.

The issue of th~s chapter--audience composition, attitudes, and behavior--is not

simply academic. Information on audiences

is of vital interest to individuals

concerned with managing the arts, to those

making general policy for the arts, and

to the public which has an important stake
in these decisions and policies. The -e~timate-th~ o~p6si~~he-audience

arts are increasingly dependent upon _ ; ~ ~or the ~rts in the United States. We

public and corporate benefactors-f~r.~_-~.-- . begin by looking at the basic demographic

their economic survival,. Such donors~may variables-~age, sex, education, income,

want to know just whom their contributions

are serving. Particularly for publicly

funded arts institutions, establishing

the nature and breadth of the clientele

to whom services are delivered may be

critical to soliciting further support.

If, as many have suggested, exposure to

the arts is both personally rewarding and

a social good~ it is important to know

how widely the arts are being distributed.

Before making efforts to expand the arts

audience or to develop art programs more

responsive to public concerns and interests, we should know what groups are not

participating, why they do not do so, and

what programs have successfully attracted

them.

occupation, and race--and we characterize

the arts audience in terms of each,~ with

special attention to variations among art

forms. Then we turn our attention to a

set of more specific questions. Has the

audience composition changed over time?

Is there one or are there many audiences

for the arts? What has been the impact

of the arts on local economies? And what

do we know about attitudes toward the

arts?

THE STUDIES

Understanding the audience for the arts

is also crucial for a range of decisions

that face managers and policy makers at

every level. Information on public

attitudes to the arts, the composition of

existing audiences, and the spending

habits of arts attenders can be used to

establish policies for public and private

support. For instance, information on

differing habits and preferences for performance times and ticket prices can be

used to set schedules and establish

admission prices. And information about

who attends and how they learn about

exhibits and performances would be helpfu! in using scarce promotional resources

more efficiently.

While the tempo of audience research has

increased, some arts managers continue to

feel that they know their public, that

they have an intuitive grasp of their

clientele’s nature and needs, and that

research is superfluous. What data there

is on the question makes these claims

appear dubious. In the course of a study

of the public for the Royal Ontario

Museum, Abbey and Cameron (1961) asked

the museum staff to estimate the education

and income levels of their visitors. The

staff’s estimates varied widely from the

study’s findings: while the staff estimated that 20 percent of the adult visitors

had a college or university education, in

fact the percentage was 41: and while the

staff put the percentage of adult visitors

with incomes in the highest category at

~i0, the actual percentage was 39. It is

our sense from conversations with individuals in the arts that such discrepancies are not atypical.

In the remainder of this chapter we use

findings from the available studies to

Although audience surveys have been conducted for years, very little of the

research has been published and many of

the studies have been lost or buried in

the institutions that conducted them.

The resulting lack of centralized information about the utility, design, or

results of audience research has proved

a serious hindrance to every level of

arts organization from the local symphony

orchestra to the regional arts council.

To help remedy this situation, we wished

to acquire as many reports of audience

studies as were available. After an

initial review of published audience

surveys, we identified three basic kinds

of studies of audiences for museums and

the live performing arts. These three

types of studies were: (i) attender

surveys, in which the audience of a

specific museum or performing arts organization is surveyed, with questions

concentrating on social of economic

characteristics, motivations for attendance, and related issues: (2) crosssectional surveys, in which a sample of a

local, regional, or national population

is surveyed, with questions focusing on

frequency of attendance at museums and/or

performing arts events, attitudes toward

cultural organizations and issues, and

the social and economic characteristics

of attenders and nonattenders: (3) impact

studies, in which the impact of a museum

exhibit, arts performance, or other

feature of a cultural organization on an

audience is evaluated.

We tried in a variety of ways to obtain

as complete a set of audience studies as

possible. First we conducted an extensive

bibliographic search to create a list of

published studies conducted after 1950.

i0
Our review of thirty-five standard indexe~~. invoigedin .ahdie~ee~~e~arch- Finally,

and bibliographic sources yielded approx-  ̄ queries-were plac~di~ne~ghh ~rhs-related

imately forty-five references. In " " ~-periodicals and newsletters (e.g.,

addition, we also consulted-tweiv~’~~!- -~ American~ymphony Orchestra.League

institutional libraries, such as those of

the Massachusetts Council for the Arts

and the Center for Arts Information in

New York City.

However, most audience studies have never

been published, and in order to acquire

these we directly approached likely

organizations. We compiled a list of

over 1200 arts organizations--museums,

performing arts organizations, regional,

state, and local arts councils, support

organizations for specific art forms,

and foundations involved in funding the

arts. The museums and performing arts

organizations on our list were selected

from the Art Museum Directory and the

National Directory of Civic Centers and

Performinq Arts Orqanizations on the

basis of size, as we felt that the larger

organizations would be more likely to

have conducted an audience survey or to

know of other institutions which had.

(Inquiries were mailed to all instrumental music and theatrical organizations

reporting budgets of over $I00,000, all

other performing arts organizations with

budgets of over $50,000 and all museums

reporting i00,000 or more visitors

annually.) To test this assumption, we

did, however, include i00 smaller museums

and performing arts organizations on our

list.

Newsletter, Musical America New York

Times Book Review), requesting audience

surveys. This effort yielded a number

of additional audience studies.

The response to this search for audience

studies was greater than we had expected

when we set our initial goal to evaluate

all published and unpublished audience

surveys conducted since 1964. By the end

of the third month of acquisition we had

obtained 160 studies and were still

receiving new ones. Within nine months

of the start of acquisition we had assembled materials on more than 250 audience

studies.

In October, 1976, the director or manager

of each organization was sent a letter

describing our project and a brief form

that inquired whether the organization

had ever conducted, con~nissioned, or

participated in an audience survey. If

the organization had conducted a survey,

we requested the name and address of the

survey’s director and either a copy of

the final report or information on how to

obtain a copy. To those who wished it,

complete confidentiality was Offered in

regard to any materials that were sent to

us. Respondents were also asked if they

knew of any other institutions that had

conducted audience surveys. The response

rate to this inquiry u.ltimately rose to

over 50 percent after a follow-up letter

and second inquiry form were mailed to

institutions that had not yet responded.

%’hose organizations reported by our

respondents to have done audience studies

were contacted by telephone or mail.

In addition to the bibliographic search

and mailed survey, our two major acquisitions efforts, an effort was made to

acquire other unpublished audience

studies by contacting individuals highly

Certain difficulties were encountered

during the acquisition stage. Because

remarkably few reports of audience

studies have been published, the majority

of studies obtained through the library

search were museum studies, reflecting a

long tradition of visitor behavioral

research that is unique to museums.

(Such journals as Curator and Museum News

have published reports of visitor studies

since the 1930s.) Other studies reported

in the published literature tended to be

large-scale, large-budget studies of

performing arts audiences or population

cross sections.

Studies received in response to the mailed

inquiry varied enormously in the amount

of information reported. Some consisted

of a questionnaire with hand-tallied

responses while others contained thorough

explanations of methodology and extensive

discussions of results. Despite our

expressed interest in studies conducted

in earlier years, almost all the studies

received were conducted after 1970.

Approximately 27 percent of the respondents stated that their organization had

planned, conducted, or sponsored a study

and 20 percent reported familiarity with

other audience research.

Efforts to follow up references obtained

through the mailed inquiry and bibliographic search met a substantial number

of obstacles. Often, people in an

institution reported to have conducted an

audience study had no recollection of

having conducted it or, if they did

remember, the survey report had long

since bee~, lost. This is due in large

part to the high turnover of employees

of arts institutions. Often whe~ the

person responsible for conducting or

initiating a study left the institution,

so did the study. It was frequently

Ii
necessary to contact nearly every depart- ~ s-tatisti~s ~evi-ate ~_--[~q~-actual compoment within an institution before we .were .~ .sition of American audiences for the live

able to locate someone fanti!iar

surveys conducted as recently

months before. Also, despite an offer of

confidentiality, fiveorganizations

refused access to their surveys. In this

regard, it should be noted that we have

no way of estimating the number of surveys

that were never meant to come to public

attention. The number of explicit

refusals received obviously underrepresents the actual number of deliberately

buried studies.

performing arts and for museums. Although

most of the studies eventually received

were from medium and small institutions,

our inquiries were directed disproportionately at large and medium institutions.

Thus, the larger institutions are overrepresented in our data° at least in

comparisc~ to the percentage they

represent of all arts institutions if not

in comparison to the percentage of all

annual visits and attendance for which

they account.

Although the studies we collected were

of audiences for a wide range of institutions, they do not represent a precise

cross section. Surveys of attenders and

nonattenders in forty-one states and the

District of Columbia are included, as

well as several national cross-sectional

studies. By art form, the studies

include: 74 studies of theatre audiences:

44 studies of art museum visitors: 33

studies of population cross sections: 32

studies of visitors to natural history,

general, anthropology, and other related

museums and exhibits: 19 studies of

science museum or science exhibit

visitors: 16 studies of classical music

audiences: 14 studies of those attending

several kinds of arts institutions: 12

studies of visitors to history museums:

ii studies of visitors to arts centers:

7 studies of opera audiences: and 6

studies of ballet and dance audiences.

(Since calcualtions for specific variables

were based on subsets of these studies

containing relevant data, and since many

studies provided data on more than one

audience or set of audiences, distributions provided in specific tables in

the text of this report indicate the

actual number of studies on which any

given finding is based.)

In addition to a range of types, these

studies include surveys of visitors and

audiences for institutions that cover the

full range in size. They do not include

data on audiences for jazz, fo--~/ethnic

music, or the popular arts or data on

audiences for art as transmitted by

broadcasting or mechanical means. (For

information on audience research in

radio and television, see Katzman and

Wirt0 1977.)

Since we attempted to acquire as many

studies as we could, and since nothir.~ is

known about the universe of all studies

conducted or about the representativeness

of institutions that conduct audience

studies, there is undoubtedly some bias

in our data. We can only speculate as

to the extent to which our summary

There is some reason to assume that the

larger institutions in the larger cities

draw a more affluent and well-educated

public than smaller or conununity-based

institutions. On the other hand, since

the quality of studies was so uneven,

since response rates and total numbers of

respondents varied so greatly, and since

necessary data were not available, there

was neither a powerful rationale for nor

the possibility of weighting institutions

by total attendance in calculating overall

figures for audience composition. The

effect of granting data from small institutions equal weight with data from major

institutions would, we think, tend to

compensate for any inflation of high

status categories caused by a disproportionate number of studies from major

institutions.

The audiences from which data have been

drawn may be unrepresentative in several

other ways. We do not know if audiences

that are studied are systematically

different from audiences that have not

been studied. Out of the universe of all

audience studies that have been conducted,

we could speculate that we gathered a

larger percentage of published than of

unpublished studies, of recent than of

less recent studies, of studies for which

reports were written than of studies

yielding no formal reports, of major inhouse or academic studies than of

proprietary studies, of studies of

organizations with relatively low staff

turnover than of studies of organizations

with relatively greater staff turnover,

and of demographic and opinion surveys

than of studies of exhibit evaluation or

performing arts impact. Given the number

and diversity of studies from which conclusions are drawn, we do not think that

these factors strongly bias findings one

way or the other. Nonetheless, the

statistics provided in this chapter must

be seen as estimates rather than as

scientifically rigorous descriptions of

the public for museums and the live

performing arts.

12
BASIC DEMOGRAPHICS

Gender

It is believed in many quarters that the

public associates the arts with femininity

and that this association inhibits men

from attending the arts. The Theatre

Conununications Group, in a 1967 report on

audience development, suggests that

theatre-going "repudiates for many people

the all-American, red-blooded image of

what is supposed to be ’all-right’ for a

man to do and still be considered ’allman’" (Theatre Communications Group,

1967: 31). Consequently, arts audiences

are dominated by women, according to this

belief. Thus, an early study of a

symphony audience concluded that the "sex

difference in @ymphony interest and

attendance--more women than men--is borne

out by statistic after statistic, study

after study. The in-concert survey, the

in-home interviews, and hundreds of

academic studies irrefutably prove the

point." The attendance difference can be

traced to an underlying personality

difference, according to this study, for

"women have greater esthetic appreciation

for music, as they do for art and literature, than men, who place greater

emphasis on theoretical, economic,

political, and practical-success values"

(#64: 15). Arts policies are shaped by

this perception. Audience development

strategies to "de-feminize" the arts have

appeared, such as Bradley Morison’s (1968)

effort to move news and publicity of the

Guthrie Theatre from the woman’s page to

the sports section of Minneapolis newspapers, similarly, dance companies have

occasionally emphasized the athletic

prowess of dancers in promotional material.

unre~014~d:qu~st~bn.i-~n~doubt in part

because-studies hag~sharpl~ V~ried in

the gender ratios reported. Resolution

of.the .issue requires a systematic

assessment of gender ratios across

studies, and in this section we summarlze

the findings of seventy-two audience

studies (which constitute all of the

studies in our possession reporting sex

composition). In turning to these

statistics, it is useful to keep two

points in mind. First, there may be a

response bias. Baumol and Bowen (1966),

for instance, suggest that when survey

forms are distributed to couples attending

an arts performance, husbands will tend

to assert the "male prerogative" and

complete the questionnaires themselves,

thereby inflating the male proportion in

the audience; but Book and Globerman

(1975) have argued the opposite, suggesting that the male prerogative in this

instance would actually be to delegate

the task to the wife, thereby inflating

the female proportion in the audienceSuch arguments aside, the true extent of

the bias either way has not yet been

measured, although one study suggests

that a slightly greater tendency for men

to complete audience questionnaires

increases the observed male proportion by

4 to 7 percent above the true percentage.

In this study, groups entering a museum

were approached and asked to volunteer

one person to respond to an interview.

In one instance, 54 percent of the volunteers were men, while only 50 percent of

the groups were men: in another case, the

respective percentages were 58 and 51

(#121).

Other evidence, however, seemingly contradicts the belief that arts audiences are

heavily female and that the public

considers attendance to be a feminine

activity. In a recent national survey of

attitudes towards the arts, respondents

were asked if "The arts are too effeminate

for most men to feel comfortable taking

part in them." While 18 percent of the

public agreed with this view, an overwhelming majority--65 percent--rejected it

(#7: 34). And Baumol and Bowen’s (1966)

survey of the audiences of more than 150

pwofessional arts organization performances revealed that men were in the

majority, composing 52 percent of the

average audience.

The true gender composition of the arts

audience remains a controversial and

The second point to keep in mind when

interpreting the results of these studies

is the presence of sampling error. The

samples considered have range from under

i00 to over i0,000 respondents: the median

size is approximately 500. Statistically,

we are 95 percent confident that the true

percentage in a sample of 500 is somewhere

in between 4 points above and below the

observed percentage. With studies of this

scope, then, if 40 percent of the respondents are male we can be nearly certain

that males are indeed a minority of the

audience: but if 48 percent are male,

such a conclusion cannot be drawn with

great confidence.

Many of the seventy-two studies containing

information on sex composition reported

results for separate times and performances, and consequently data were

available on i12 distinct audiences (67 in

the performing arts and 45 for museums).

The median percentage of men reported in ..

the studies is displayed in Table 1.

While the percentage of men in the U.S.

13
Table 1 Men in Audiences by Art Form

Number of Studies within

Each Percentage Range

Median percentage

Art Form percentage Range 28.1-42.0 42.1-57.0

All Museums 46.0 30-71 13 28

Art Museums 43.0 30-59 13 16

History Museums 48.5 44-53 - 4

Science Museums 52.0 43-71 - 8

All Performing Arts 42.5 31-58 30 35

Ballet and Dance 42.0 31-50 9 4

Theatre 43.5 32-58 15 17

Orchestra 44.5 33-54 5 7

Opera 46.1 41-58 1 7

57.1-72.0

8

7

2

Total

Number

of

Studies

49

3O

4

15

67 ,’~

13 ~i

33

12

9
population is 49, the median percentage - (fewer than:hal-f ~f~[~r~Ig .age_._women are

of men observed in the museum studies ....- ~ ..employed). This rimefactor may account

was 46 and in the performing arts was -_ for as much as i0 percent or more of the

43. It is evident tha~ womenpar~±~i~a~e

in arts audiences in proportions greater.

than their share of the public as a

whole, but the extent is very modest.

Moreover, the gender ratio varied extensively from audience to audience: the

male percentage ranged from 30 to 71

percent in the case of museums and from

31 to 58 percent for the performing arts.

In fact, men outnumbered women-in a

quarter of the performing arts studies

and two-fifths of the museum visitor

surveys. We have been unable to identify

the factors that account for the striking

gap between the average male percentage

reported in the performing arts studies

surveyed here (43 percent) and the average male percentage (52 percent) found

in the performing arts surveys conducted

by Baumol and Bowen (1966).

The median figure for sex composition

varied among the art fornm. Art museunls

drew a higher proportion of women (57

percent of their visitors on average),

while history museums attracted equal

representation of both sexes and science

museums were slightly favored by men

(52 percent of the visitors). Within

the performing arts, ballet and dance

acquired the largest female audience (60

percent on average): opera drew the

largest proportion of males, though men

still did not constitute a majority (46

percent). Even within these art forms,

the sex composition varied widely: opera

audiences, for instance, ranged from

three-fifths men to three-fifths women,

and art museum, visitors varied from

three-fifths men to two-thirds women.

-variation-in-sex composition~ A study of

visitors to New York’s Natural History

Museum found that 52 percentof the-weekday visitors-were men, contrasting with

59 percent on Saturdays (#203). Another

inquiry revealed that while men and women

were equally represented on Sundays among

museum visitors in the New York metropolitan region, the composition shifted

to 62 percent women on Thursday (#16).

Similarly, studies of performing arts

audiences in the states of New York and

Washington found that the proportion of

men in the audience fluctuated by i0

percent depending on the time of the

performance (#73: #63).

There is some evidence that the content of

the performance or exhibit may attract men

and women differently. For instance, the

proportion of men in the weekend audience

of various productions of the Joffrey

Ballet ranged from 33 to 44 percent (#94).

And a study of visitors to the Chicago

Art Institute discovered that i0 percent

more women attended during a week in which

a special Monet exhibit was on temporary

display than during three other weeks

(#135). Factors associated with geographic region may also influence the sex

composition. Thus, 51 percent of the New

York City performing arts audience are

women, 53 percent of the New York state

audience are women, and 62 percent of the

Washington state attenders are women.

However, the regional factors accounting

for this variation have not yet been

identified (#73: #63).

Along with a slight overall tendency

for women to outnumber men in arts audiences, but not among history and science

museum visitors, it is clear that the

sex ratio varied enormously. In other

words, the median figures represent

statistical tendency and are poor predictors of the composition of an actual

arts audience.

Although a fraction of the wide variation

observed in audience gender ratios is

undoubtedly due to sampling fluctuation

and to the use of nonprobability sampling

techniques (which can introduce systematic

bias), a substantial part of the variation

stems from other factors. Perhaps o~

greatest significance is whether the

visiting or.performance time is during

a workday. Weekdays are obviously

unattractive for most working people, and

the labor force participation rate of men

is approximately twice that of women

The age composition of the audience for

the arts has interested arts administrators for a number of reasons. A

profile of the age of the audience, of

course, can help direct audience development efforts towards one age group or

another. Recently, for instance, there

has been a movement to make the arts more

accessible to older Americans by offering

transportation, ticket discounts, and

special performance times (Johnson and

Prieve, 1976). It is also believed that

a young attender may grow up to be an

old attender and,. while the link between

attendance in one’s youth and in one’s

prime has not yet been fully described,

arts managers often view a young audience

with an optimistic eye to the future. The

age composition of the audience also

raises other interesting if more academic

15
questions. Is culture an acquired taste?~ a comparably smali~ercen~age 6f visitors

Does the age composition of the audien-ce "  ̄ under sixteen.

differ from that of the general

lation? On the latter question, most

observers believe the.difference is small.

Johnson and Prieve (1976), for instance,

asked 605 arts administrators whether they

thought that the age breakdown of their

audience was roughly equivalent to that of

the community: 60 percent said yes, while

18 percent felt their audience was younger

and 16 percent felt it was older.

Two factors should be kept in mind when

examining the age data. First, some of

the studies in our possession restricted

their subject population to those individuals over a certain age. Ten of forty

museum studies surveyed only those over

sixteen years of age and eight included

only those who were over ten years of age.

Likewise, nine of the performing arts

studies restricted their sample to those

over sixteen and seven limited their

sample to audience members over ten. To

examine whether this restriction made any

systematic difference in the results of

the studies, we compared the median ages

reported by the studies that did restrict

their samples with studies that did not.

Surprisingly, there were no systematic

differences.

It may be that many of the studies actually limited their sample population but did

not state so in the report. Also, it is

possible that the study procedures were

frequently biased against the very young

because of the difficulties of obtaining

reliable data from them. Another possibility is that the population under

sixteen is indeed negligible, although

available evidence suggests that this is

the case only for the perfroming arts and

art museums. Studies of history and

science museum visitors that explicitly

did not restrict their sample often

reported substantial numbers of young

children. The Nassau County Historical

Museum in New York, for instance, reported

that 40 percent of their visitor population was under thirteen (#2) and the

Franklin Institute in Philadelphia found

that 39 percent of their visitors were

under twelve and 4 percent were under five

years of age (#234). However, science and

history museum studies generally report

far greater numbers of children attending

than do art museums. The Minneapolis

Institute of Art found that the proportion

of visitors undez thirteen was under 3

percent in 1970 and 1971 (#247), and the

Museum of Fine Arts in Boston reported

that only one in fifty of their visitors

was under sixteen (#17). Studies of performing arts audiences show, on the whole,

Another factor that may affect study

results is the presence of response.bias.

P.erhaps youths defer to adults when

responding to surveys, thus making the

audience appear older than it really is.

The New York State Museum, for example,

found few respondents under 14 years old

in one survey but noted that the actual

proportion in attendance was approximately representative of the young

population at large (#121). In this

study, groups entering a museum were

approached and asked to volunteer one

person to respond to an interview. The

interviewer also collected data on the

group composition. The age composition

of the group was inferred from the group’s

education levels.

Eighty-two of the studies in our possession contained data on the age composition

of 145 distinct audiences. Most of these

studies presented the data as the percent

of the audience falling within various age

categories. Unfortunately, the age

categories varied widely. We have

computed the median age for each audience

(see Table 2) and to allow for comparison

between the age composition of each art

form, we also have found the median of the

median ages. We refer to this number as

the median age of the art form.

The median age of 105 audiences of the

performing arts was thirty-five, while the

median age of 40 museum visitor populations was thirty-one. This difference is

consistent with the results of two studies

of the arts audience conducted by the

National Research Center of the Arts

(NRCA). They found that the median age of

thirty-seven for the performing arts in

New York State was five years older than

the median age of the museum visitor

population (#73).

The summary statistics indicate that the

median age for the performing arts

audience was in the middle to late

thirties while the median age for the

museum visitor population was in the

early thirties. These figures lie

between the median age of the entire U.S.

population (twenty-eight) and the median

age for the population sixteen and over

(forty). On the average, audiences

exhibited age profiles in a range similar

to that of the entire population. However,

specific audiences frequently diverged

from this central tendency, and there was

a great difference in the average ages

within and among the performing art and

museum types.

16
Table 2 Age of Audiences by Art Form

Median Range

of of Number of Studies within Each Age Range

Median Median

Ages Ages 19-22 22-36 27-30 31-34 35-38 39-42 43-46 47-51

All Museums 31 19-51

Art Museums 31 26-51 - 1 6 6 2 2 1 1 19

History Museums 33 28-42 - 2 1 1 1 - - ~5

science Museums 29 19-40 2 1 8 4 - 1 - -

]~6

21-49 5 7 14 23 22 21 8 5 105

Total

Number

of

Studies

Ballet and Dance 33 30-38

Theatre 34 21-48 5 6 12 9 13 I0 3 2 60 .~

Orchestra 40 24-49 - 1 1 2 3 8 3 2 20 1

Opera 41 33-44 _ - - 1 3 3 2 1 i0

,
Ballet and theater attracted the youngest "". attracte~a ~o~ngefi!a~di~dbe than other

audiences of the performing arts while ~ plays (#3~)..

opera and symphony drew the oldest

audiences. The NRCA studiesidentical age rank ordering of the four

performing art forms in their studies of

audiences in New York State and Washington

State. Baumol and Bowen (1966) identified

almost the same pattern except that the

average age of the opera attender was

higher than that of the symphony attender.

The median age for the science museum

visitor was two years lower than that of

the art museum visitor, a difference that

was not as great as among the various

performing arts forms. NRCA also found

that the museum visitor population was

older in art museums than in science

museums..

The age composition of the audience may

vary systematically with the seasons of

the year, with the summer attracting

younger visitors. NRCA found that the

median age of performing arts audiences

in New York State was thirty-three in the

summer and thirty-eight in the fall though

the same did not appear to be true of the

museum visitor population. However, the

Boston Museum of Fine Arts (#17) did find

a slight seasonal variation: the median

age of the winter visitors was twentyeight, while the average for the summer

visitors was twenty-six. The results of

the other rm/seum studies yield no consistent pattern. The Natural History Museum

in New York (#203) found no variation, but

the Chicago Art Museum (#135) found that

visitors were younger in June and November

than in February and March.

The time of the performance seems to

affect audience age. NRCA found that the

median age for weekend evening performances was consistently lower than it was

for matinees. In Washington State the

median age for weekend evenings was forty,

for weekday evenings forty-two, and for

matinees forty-nine. In New York State on

weekend evenings it was thirty-five, on

weekday evenings thirty-seven, and on

matinees forty-six. Audiences for the

Joffrey Ballet (#94) showed this same

pattern: the median age for the weekend

evening audience was thirty-one while for

matinee audiences it was thirty-three.

There is some evidence that different

programs have greater attraction for certain age groups than others. The

previously mentioned study of the Joffrey

Ballet reports that the median age of the

audience for a performance promoted as a

rock evening was younger than for other

performances, and Moore’s study of Broadway theatre audiences found that musicals

-NRCA reports differences in the age composition of different regions. The median

age of the performing arts audience in one

region (Southern Tier Central, Finger

Lakes) of New York State was thirty-three,

while the median age was forty-four in

another region (New York City suburbs,

mid-Hudson). They also report a higher

median age for both the performing arts

audience and the museum visitor population

in Washington State than in New York State.

However, the reasons for this regional

variation are unclear.

Education

Of all the characteristics of individuals

that studies frequently measure, a

person’s educational background appears to

be the best predicator of his or her

attendance at museums and live performing

arts events. The Ford Foundation noted

for example, that while frequency of

attendance at a variety of performing

arts was related to both income and

education, the latter factor was by far

the more important of the two. Individuals with much education but little money

were more likely to attend the theatre,

symphony, opera, and ballet than people

with high incomes but little education

(115: 14-16). Similarly, analysis of a

national cross-sectional study of residents of cities and suburbs found

education to be a better determinant of

attendance at concerts, plays, museums,

and fairs than income or occupational

standing (Gruenberg0 1975).

There are reasons why individuals with

education, particularly higher education,

might be expected to attend more arts

events than their less educated peers.

Schooling exposes students to formal

training in the arts and, perhaps more

important, to a social milieu in which

the arts are performed, exhibited, and

discussed (The Arts, Education and

Americans Panel, 1977).

Then, too, arts attendance is a habit

that one develops over a period of time.

A person may enjoy opera, but if performances are not locally available, or

there is no one to go with, he or she is

unlikely to a~tend. By the same token,

one may find modern painting incomprehensible, but if one’s friends frequent

galleries and museums, sooner or later

oneis likely to give it a try.

Education, particularly higher education,

18
provides both an environment in which th~~. -public ;at:la~ge-?~[~~ample° 30 percenq

arts are relatively accessible and a group.- of the_typical aud~encehad sDme graduate

of peers who attends with regularity~ ..... training: 54 percent had at-least ~ .~, ~ .~%.~.~!. _-- ~ acquired .a.bachelor’s degree, compared to

Finally, a disproportionate number of men 14 percent for the adult population in

and women who acquire a higher education

have parents who are also well educated.

Children of the well educated are more

likely than others to have been exposed to

the arts when they were young and may

already frequent the arts by the time they

reach college (DiMaggio and Useem, 1978).

To learn about the educational attainment

of the American arts audience, we analyzed

the results of seventy-one studies reporting findings of 108 audiences for the

performing arts and museums. In doing

this, we faced several methodological

problems. First of all, different studies

used different categories. Since median

education levels could not be calculated

for every study, it was necessary to

describe audience educational composition

by reporting the percentages of an

audience that fell in five categories of

educational attainment.

A second problem involved differences in

sampling designs used in the various

audience studies. Of the 107 audiences

for which findings were r.eported in at

least one of our five education categories,

57 indicated a minimum age criterion had

been used to exclude audience members from

either the sample or the analysis. Minimum ages, when reported, differed

considerably. Three studies excluded

audience members younger than ten, three

used cutoff ages from thirteen to fifteen,

and twenty cutoff ages from sixteen to

eighteen. Studies of sixteen audiences

asked for the education of the household

head only, one survey excluded "nonadults," another excluded "students," and

one included only nonstudents eighteen

years and older. Twelve studies reported

the educational attainment of only those

respondents aged twenty-five or over.

Also, it is likely that children were

underrepresented in samples that did not

explicitly exclude them: completing

questionnaires is difficult and adults

may tend to answer on behalf of children.

The extent of this underrepresentation

cannot be determined. Differences in the

respondent age criterion no doubt affect

the findings to some extent. Nonetheless,

major differences in the findings of

studies with different exclusionary

principles did not appear, s6 all studies

are pooled in the analysis here.

As expected, the educational attainment of

the arts audience surveyed was substantially higher than that for the adult

general (see Table 3). Only 22 percent on

average had not attended any college,

compared tO 74 percent of the public as a

whole, and only 5 percent were not high

school graduates, in contrast to 38 percent of the general adult public.

There was considerable variation among

studies. Two of the most extreme figures

in the individual studies--6 percent of

the audience had graduate training and 57

percent had not completed high school--

were reported in a study of the Milwaukee

Public Museum in 1962-63 (#35). Since

almost half the respondents were aged

seventeen or younger and more than threequarters were less than twenty-four years

of age, this accounts for much of the

extremely low educational level. A study

of the same institution two years later,

excluding children under thirteen, found

only 25 percent of the visitors to be nonhigh school graduates (#108).

The educational attainment of live performing arts audiences was somewhat higher

than that of museum visitors. Some, but

not all, of the discrepancy is attributable to the greater representation of

young people still in school among museum

visitors.

As anticipated, those studies which

excluded children under ages ranging from

i0 to 15 had a higher median percentage of

non-high school graduates (24 percent)

than those excluding visitors under the

ages of from 16 to 20 (where it was 7

percent). The median percentage of nonhigh school graduates in studies with no

explicit exclusionary rule was 16 percent,

probably reflecting unreported de facto

exclusion of younger visitors. At the

other end of the educational scale, studies

that excluded only the very young reported

a median of 24 percent of visitors with

college degrees, while studies that drew

the line higher recorded a median of 43

percent. Studies that did not explicitly

exclude anyone reported an audience median

for college graduates of 45 percent, again

suggesting that the young were undersampled. However, even the set of museums

that excluded their younger visitors from

the survey reported audiences slightly

less well educa~ ed than the typical performing arts audience.

Among the performing arts, ballet and

dance audiences included slightly above

average proportions of well-educated

attenders: theatre audiences included

19
Table 3 Percentage of Audiences in Five Educational

Categories by Art Form

Art Form

Educational Level

At Least At Least High School Less Than High

Post-BA Training College Graduate Some College Graduate or Less School Graduate

Median Range (N)1 Median Range (N)

All Museums 17.5

Art Museums 22.0

Other Museums2 13.5

All Performing Arts3 32.0

Theatre3 32.7

Classical Music 37.5

Ballet and Danc~4 45.5

Median Range (N) Median Range (N) Median Range (N)

6-35 (13) 41.1 10-66 (23) 72.3 30-93 (18) 27.6 8-69 (18) 9.0 4-57 (23)

18-35 (5) 48.0 41-66 (9) 83.5 75-90 (6) 17.0 10-25 (6) 5.5 4-16~(8)

6-20 (8) 34.4 10-53 (14) 59.6 30-93 (12) 40.4 8-69 (12) 13.1 7-57,(14)

9-66 (42) 61.8 23-87 (53) 83.0 62~95 (44) 17.0 5-38 (45) 4.0 1-19.,~45)

20-50 (24) 58.0 23-80 (27) 82.7 56-93 (25) 17.1 8-44 (26) 4.0 1-15 !~.~21)

21-66 (8) 63.0 46-87 (9) 83.4 63-95 (8) 14.6 5-37 (8) 1.7 1-19 (8)

20-50 (5) 65.0 55-73 (i0) 87.1 77-92 (5) 12.9 8-23 (5) 3.0 1-5

Opera 37.3

All Museums and

Performing Arts5 30.0

U.S. Population

over 24 Years of NA6

Age, 1975

29-49 (5) 61.8 49-75 (7) 83.0 67-94 (6) 18.8 7-33 (6) 4.1 2-7

6-66 (73) 54.0 10-87 (97) 78.0 30-95 (83) 22.0 5-69 (84) 5.0

13.9 26.3 73.7 37.5

I(N) = Number of studies.

2Includes science, history, natural history,

anthropology, and general museums.

3Excludes audiences of outdoor dramas.

:(6)

1-57 (72)

5Number of studies exceeds sum of other categories ..............

due to inclusion of regional studies reporting

attendance of all, undifferentiated art forms.

6NA = Not available

4Dance audience percentages apart from ballet

available only for two educational levels--

at least college graduate and less than high

school graduate.
slightly below average proportions. An~~. stddi4s of hati~i~-~-locaI populations

among museums, art museums attracted a . :. have consistently:~Ound h~gh~ ratesof

more highly educated public than did .... ’ attendance among professionals and

history, science, and ~other~museums~~~. o managers, than any other group (#’s 73,

though still not so well educated as the

audiences for the performing arts.

Overall, the proportion of college graduates reported for the arts audiences

and museum visitors exceeded the proportion of the adult population with

college diplomas in all but one of

ninety-seven audience studies: and the

percentage of individuals who had not

completed high school was below the

national level in seventy-one of seventytwo audiences. Both exceptions are due

to presence of students still in high

school. And in seventy-eight of eightythree audiences for which findings are

available, the proportion of attenders

with at least some college training was

twice that for the general public.

The studies that we reviewed show audiences to be somewhat less educationally

exclusive than did the Baumol and Bowen

study of the performing arts (1966).

There were discrepancies. The relatively

high proportion of individuals with no

college education reported in some of our

studies of opera audiences is surprising,

for example. But most differences can be

attributed to Baumol and Bowen’s exclusion

of respondents under the age of twentyfive and to the restriction of their

audiences to the professional performing

arts.

In sum, it is evident that visitors to

museums and audiences for the live performing arts in these studies had

considerably more education than the

public at large. Museums appeared to

serve a somewhat broader public than did

the performing arts. Nonetheless, in

terms of educational attainment, the

museum visitors and performing arts

audiences surveyed were far more similar

to one another than either group was to

the general public.

Occupation

115, 137, 142).

This tendency is not surprisingl For one

thing, those occupational groups that show

the highest rates of attendance are also

those with the highest educational attainment. Blue-collar workers, who attend

least, also have the least education.

Moreover, one’s job determines to a great

extent the social milieu in which one

spends leisure time. The participation

of a lawyer, teacher, or physician in the

arts may be rewarded with respect by

associates and peers: among these groups,

attendance at the theatre or symphony is

an accepted way of spending a social

evening. By contrast, a carpenter or bus

driver with a penchant for the arts

perhaps receives less encouragement from

friends and co-workers.

To better understand the occupational

composition of American arts attenders, we

analyzed the results of fifty-nine studies

of ninety-six audiences that asked

respondents to report their occupations.

Our findings were consistent with the

expectation that art audiences are

dominated by individuals in higher status

occupations. Professionals, who constituted 15 percent of the employed civilian

labor force in 1975, composed a median 56

percent of employed persons in the arts

audiences surveyed (see Table 4). Conversely, blue-collar workers typically

constituted a mere 4 percent of employed

respondents in the arts audience surveyed

as compared to 34 percent of the employed

civilian labor force.

Although the summary statistics are

striking, .the reader should be cautioned

that the median figures are to be regarded

as approximations. The classification

schemes used in the audience studies were

so varied that comparability was established only with great difficulty. The

occupational categories we used here are

designed to be compatible with as many

study findings as possible and to be

comparable to the classifications used by

the United States Census.

Next to education, occupation is perhaps

the demographic characteristic most

closely related to involvement in the

arts. Gruenberg found occupational status

a more significant predictor of attendance

at cultural events and institutions

(concerts, plays, museums, fairs, and

adult education classes) than income,

second only to educational attainment

(Gruenberg, 1975). And cross-sectional

Categories used to report occupation in

some study reports were vague enough to

encompass those employed in several more

conventional categories. For examp~.e,

many studies used an occupational category

called "business," which may in some cases

have included business secretaries and

clerks as well as executives while

excluding managers of public and nonprofit

concerns. Because most studies reported

21
Table 4 Occupational Distribution of Audiences

Median Percentage of

Occupations of 1 Percentage of U.S~ Employed Respondents

Employed Persons Employment (1975) in Arts Audience

Professionals 15.0 55.9 65

Teachers 4.1 22.1 22

Artists, Writers, 1.0 8.2 8

Entertainers

Managerial 10.5 14.9

Clerical/Sales 24.3 14.6

Service 13.7 3.7

Blue-Collar 33.0 3.7

Farmworkers 3.5 -

Major Activities of Percentage of U.S. Median Percentage of

Persons Unemployed or Population Aged All Respondents in

Not In the Labor Force 16 Years or Over Arts Audience

Homemakers 23.1 14.0

Students 5.5 18.0

Retired, Unemployed

Number of Audience Studies

Reporting Information

for this Category

51

41

13 ~i~; ~

71 iI ~,I ’~

_4

Number of Audience Studies

Reporting Information for

this Category

78

80

11.2 4.5 65

IU.S. Census categories and audience categories

are only approximately comparable due to varying

classification schemes used in arts audience

studies.

2Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical

Abstracts, 1976 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing office, 1976): U.S. Bureau of

Labor Statistics, Handbook of Labor Statistics,

1976). Figures for U.S. population aged 16 or

over exclude military personnel.

3Because these are medians and because not all occupational categories were given in each study, an

tion of the median percentages across occupations will

not equal I00 percent. Thus, these figures offer only

an approximate distribution of the arts audience by

occupation.

4None of the arts audience studies contained an occupa-~

tional category for farmworkers. Thus, they were

either distributed among the other categories or very

few, if any, were found in the arts audiences.
occupation as a percentage of total -It s~uld be not~dLthat~~the U.S. Census

respondents rather than as a percentage of.category ~f.profes-si.~n~which -we follow

employed respondents, results from m~ny -’.---includes not only such individuals as

studies had to be recompu~ed.-

cases, study categories were merged to fit

into the scheme used-here. When study

results could not be reliably altered to

fit our classification system, the findings were dropped. Our categories, then,

represent a compromise. While the

findings can be used with confidence to

assess general similiarities and

differences among art forms, great

precision should not be attributed to the

figures reported here.

An additional caveat: Even in those cases

where audience studies used classifications similar to census categories, only

the most experienced analysts can

unerringly place specific occupations into

their appropriate general categories. For

example, airplane pilots are considered

professionals, ship pilots are managers,

and airplane stewardesses are service

employees; registered nurses are professionals, while practical nurses are

service employees: an inspector is bluecollar unless he is a construction

inspector, in which case he is managerial.

Few people on either end of an audience

survey--visitors responding to forcedchoice occupation questions or coders

classifying open-ended ones--can be

expected to have mastered the precise

technical census system, and a degree of

error is to be expected.

Finally, a word about "status." This

concept is based on the average education

and income within an occupation. In turn,

the mean educational attainment and income

closely relate to the appraisals in crosssectional surveys by respondents who are

asked to rate the status or prestige of

sets of occupations. The several schemes

used to assign status to occupation yield

highly similar rankings (Haug, 1977).

Professionals. As noted, one of the most

striking consistencies in the occupational

distribution of the arts audiences

surveyed was the very high representation

of professionals. They were present in

numbers proportionately greater than their

share of the population in every one of

the sixty-five arts audiences for which

appropriate data were reported. In all

but four of these audiences, the percentage of professionals was at least twice

t~,at of the work force as a whole, in

forty-six audiences it was three times,

and in more than a quarter of the audiences it was four times greater than in

the work force.

doctors, _!awyers, and architects but also

members of lower status professions such

as teachers, engineers, librarians, dieticians, social workers, and computer

programmers. The number of respondents

falling in this category may be understated since individuals in lower status

technical professions seem to have been

included in the residual -white-collar"

categories used by some studies. For

example, in a 1976 study of the Guthrie

Theatre audience (#122), in which only

teachers, doctors, and lawyers were coded

as professionals and a residual whitecollar category was used, the professional

percentage of the employed audience was

only 40.4 percent, compared to 56.5

percent in studies of the Guthrie audience

undertaken in 1963 and 1973 (#117, #126).

The latter had precoded professional,

technical, and clerical/sales categories.

(For the few studies that included

separate "technical" categories, "technica!" respondents were included with

"professionals" for this analysis.)

There was a significantly higher proportion of professionals in the audience for

the performing arts than for museums, 59

percent compared to 42 percent (see

Table 5). The lower overall median for

museums was the result of the proportions

at museums other than art (which comprised

eleven of the seventeen museum studies

found). These reported a median 42 percent professional representation. The six

art museum visitor studies had a median of

59 percent of professionals, the same

figure as for the performing arts.

Except for this profile within a museum

category, findings were remarkably uniform

for the various art forms. Among the

performing arts, median professional

percentages ranged from 56 percent for the

theatre to 61 percent for classical music

audiences. These figures are similar to

but slightly lower than Baumol and Bowen’s

findings (1966) on occupation. The discrepancy is probably attributable to the

presence of a greater proportion of

relatively major institutions among whose

audiences they sampled.

One group of professionals--teachers--

appeared to play a special role in the

arts audience. Overall, teachers (including college and university faculty)

constituted 22 percent of the arts

audiences for which findings were

available. This figure was more than five

times their percentage of the employed ..

23
Table 5 Occupational Distribution of Audiences by Art Form

Art Form

All Museums

Art Museums

Other Museums3

All Performing Arts

Ballet and Dance

Theatre

Orchestra

Opera

OccupationsI of Employed Persons (Percents)

Professional &

Managerial

Median Range (N)2

63.3 17-96 (32)

77.1 56-96 (16)

53.2 27-72 (16)

70.9 49-95 (42)

74.6 61-88 (9)

69.5 49-95 (23)

Professional

Only

Median Range (N)

42.2 12-73 (17)

59.2 31-74 (6)

41.9 12-50 (ii)

59.1 24-80 (44)

59.6 55-73 (8)

56.3 24-70 (25)

Managerial

Teachers Only

Median Range (N) Median Range (N)

23.1 15-33 (6) 9.6 4-27 (14)

23.1 15-33 (5) 9.0 4-27 (,’6)

- - - 10.2 6-22 (’ 8)

J

17.9 6-33 (16) 15.6 4-27 (!33)

- - - 15.2 7-22 ci[~)

17.9 6-33 (7) 16.0 4-27 (20)

75.5 64-87 (5) 61.1 50-80 (6) ...... r ’

- - - 58.3 50-70 (5) ..... ~-
(Table 5 continued)

Occupationslof Employed Persons

ART FORM

Clerical & Sales Blue-Collar

Median Range (N)z Median Range (N)

Major Activities of Persons Unemployed or

Not In the Labor Force

Retired &

Homemakers Students Unemployed

Median Range (N) Median Range (N) Median Range (N)

All Museum~

Art Museums 14.3 4-22 (14) 3.1 0-12 (16) 13.0 7-22 (9) 22.5 0-40 (I0) 8.0

Other Museums3 16.0 5-28 (9) 16.7 4-45 (19) 15.8 6-26 (15) 20.0 10-57 (15) 3.3 1-9 ~ (12)

All Performing Arts 18.0 8-33 (15) 2.8 0-27 (34) 14.0 5-52 (51) 17.1 5-63 (51) 3.9 0-16 (40) ,,,

Ballet and Dance _ - - 2.7 1-7 (i0) II.I 6-32 (i0) 15.0 9-34 (i0) 3.0 1-5 ’ (9)

Theatre 19.7 8-29 (I0) 2.9 0-27 (15) 14.0 5-52 (27) 18.9 5-63 (27) 4.2 0-26’ (24) ̄

_ - - 19.0 5-26 (7) 18.0 7-31 (7) .... -i, ~

Orchestra - - - ’, ",

Opera _ - - 2.8 1-13 (5) 16.2 8-40 (6) 10.7 7-23 (6) ..... ~i’~i,~

,~’,i’~ 

iThe "Professional & Managerial" and "Professional

Only" categories include teachers. The percentages for "Homemakers", "Students", and "Retired

& Unemployed" are based on all respondents: the

percentages for the other categories are based on

employed respondents only. Percentages are not

reported when fewer than five studies are

available.

2(N) = Number of studies

3includes science, history, natural history,

pology0 and general museums.

4Excludes audiences of outdoor dramas.

anthro- ,
civilian work force (4.1 percent).

Assuming that the twenty-two audiencesfor which this category was reported-~are-.-

not systematically different f~om

audiences, the median percentage of

teachers among professionals in the

audiences (37.7 percent) exceeds the

percentage of teachers among profes

sionals in the employed work force as a

whole (28.2 percent in 1970) by more than

a third. Thus teachers seem to be heavy

attenders among heavy attenders.

A second professional group participating

in arts audiences at rates well above

their share of the population was, not

surprisingly, individuals in the arts.

Although artists, writers, and entertainers comprised only 1 percent of the

employed work force in 1970, in eight

audiences for which findings were reported

they accounted for a median 8.2 percent.

A fraction of the high ratio may stem from

dubious sampling procedures, a possible

tendency for researchers coding handwritten occupation responses to report

artists as a separate category if they

were particularly numerous, and the

temptation for some students and amateurs

to report an avocation as an occupation.

Manaqerial. The managerial category in

the United States Census covers a range

of managers and administrators, including

executives, government officials, sales

managers, school and hospital administrators, union officials, and small

businessmen. However, the audience

studies we looked at included executives,

managers, business, and proprietors.

As noted earlier, the "business" category

may have some clerical/sales employees

and leave out some public administrators.

Similarly the "executive" category may

leave out some proprietors and low level

managers. Nonetheless, it is assumed

that the Census category which we use and

the audience studies category are roughly

equivalent.

Managers were found to participate in arts

audiences in greater proportions than

their share of the population but to a

lesser extent than professionals. They

composed a median 15 percent of employed

respondents in fifty-one arts audiences

but only ii percent of the employed work

force in 1975. Their median proportion of

performing arts audiences (16 percent) was

higher than their share of museum visitors

(9 percent and i0 percent for art and

other museums, respectively).

~rofessi0nal/manaqerial. A number of

studies merged professionals and managers

into a single category. In order to use

this information, we joined the professional and managerial categories in other

studies and pooled them with studies

reporting only professional/managerial

percentages. Professional/managerial

percentages may be taken as a rough index

of the representation of individuals in

high status occupations in the audiences

surveyed.

Among employed respondents, the median

percentage of professional/managerial

workers in seventy-seven arts audiences

for which data were available was 69.5

percent, more than double this group’s

fraction of the employed work force as a

whole (25.5 percent). As with professionals alone, there was some disparity

between art museum and other museum

visitors. The managerial/professional

percentage for art museums was 77.1 percent, even higher than for any of the

performing arts, while the percentage for

other museums was 53.2 percent, lower than

for any art form reporting.

Clerical/sales. The clerical/sales category includes, among others, office

workers, secretaries, sales clerks,

advertising, real estate, stock and bond

sales workers, and telephone,operators.

However, some schemes specified that

secretaries were included but others did

not. Residual white-collar categories

were excluded from this analysis except in

a very few cases where white-collar unambiguously included only clerical/sales

employees. Since a number of occupations

listed as clerical/sales by the Census--

for instance, bill collectors, mailmen,

and teacher’s aides--are difficult to

classify, there may have been slight

leakage from this category into business,

blue-collar, or service categories.

Clerical and sales personnel composed a

somewhat smaller percentage of audiences

than their share of the employed civilian

work force. Of forty-one audiences, they

made up a median of 15 percent, while they

constitute 24 percent of the full employed

civilian work force. The median for the

performing arts (18 percent) was slightly

higher than for museums (14 percent).

However, since the number of museum

audiences reporting this category is

small and the percentage range within the

museum and the performing arts studies

Blue-collar workers. Along with the

extremely high proportions of professionals

reported, the most striking finding in the

studies reviewed was the consistently low

percentages of blue-collar workers relative

to their share of the population. In the

26
seventy-one audiences for which data were-, perf~rmi-dg:ar~s.w~S!~.~e~y~i~gimilar to that

available, blue-collar workers comprised .... _for all_museums..~.Them~diah p~centage

a median 4 percent of those emp~oy.@d.~ " .... for art museums was somewhat lower than

That the median is even this- high~i~~%~/~ " .-~ for o~her- museums but the ranges were

partly due to the inclusion of 19 "other sintilar. The ballet/dance audiences had

museum" audiences, which reported a much

higher median blue-collar participation

(17 percent). The median blue-collar

share of performing arts audiences was

only 2.8 percent and blue-collar representation among art museum visitors was

a median 3.1 percent. Excluding visitors

to museums other than art museums, the

proportion of blue-collar workers in

thirty-four of fifty-two arts audiences

for which percentages were reported was

less than one-tenth of their representation in the work force as a whole. In

only nine audiences was it as high as

two-fifths. Among art forms, median

blue-collar percentages were remarkably

consistent: 2.7 percent for ballet and

dance: 2.8 percent for opera: 2.9 percent

for theatre: and 3.1 percent for art

museums.

Remarkably, blue-collar attendance is, if

anything, probably overstated. Bluecollar workers include individuals in the

skilled trades (carpenters, shoemakers,

television repairmen), factory workers,

laborers, and some transportation workers

(including bus, taxi, and truck drivers

and parking attendants). Holders of a

number of other low-status jobs (chambermaids, janitors, busboys, dishwashers,

bootblacks, elevator operators) are

classified in a separate "service"

category. However, information on the

percentage of service employees was

available for only eleven of the

seventy-one audiences that reported a

blue-collar percentage. (Since the

service category also contains a number

of relatively high-status workers like

stewardesses, sheriffs, and detectives,

blue-collar and service categories could

not be merged.) It seems likely that, in

studies where percentages of service

workers were not reported, individuals

in the service category (1.7 to 20.0

percent of audiences were reported, with

a median of 3.7 percent) were divided

between "blue-collar" and residual whitecollar categories, thus giving some upward

bias to the totals of each.

Homemakers. The median percentage of

homemakers in seventy-eight audiences for

which appropriate information was available was 14. While homemakers were thus

statistically underrepresented--in 1975

they comprised 23 percent of the civilian

population over sixteen--variation among

audiences was great, ranging from 5 percent to 52 percent for the audiences as a

whole. The median percentage for the

the lowest median percentage of homemakers

and the classical music audiencesthe

highest, but again ranges were similar.

Students. Students participated in the

arts audlences to a high degree, composing 18 percent of the average of

eighty audiences for which data were

available but making up only 6 percent of

the civilian population over sixteen.

Most of the students were enrolled in

colleges. The only surveys reporting

appreciable numbers of respondents less

than sixteen years old were from museums

other than art museums, and their median

is not much higher than that for the

audiences as a whole. It would be interesting to know to what degree the high

percentage of students is a measure of

the success of c~itural organizations in

attracting them by special discounts and

other incentives.

As with homemakers, the proportion of

students varied widely from audience to

audience, with a range from 0 percent

(found in one study of members only

(#181)) to 63 percent (an audience of a

student theatrical production (#127)).

Retired and unemployed. The median percentage of retired and unemployed persons

in sixty-five audiences for the arts with

appropriate data was 5 percent, as

compared to ii percent of the 1975

civilian population over sixteen. This

figure would seem to reflect the relative

immobility and often severe financial

deprivation of individuals in both groups,

as well as their relatively low educational attainment. Percentages did not

differ greatly among art forms.

In most cases, audience studies presented

data both on retired and on unemployed

persons: sometimes a single category

including both. In our analysis, percentages of retired persons alone were

occasionally included since the representation of the unemployed, where listed

separately, was consistently minuscule.

Downward bias in the totals may result

from a possible tendency for individuals

who are unemployed, underemployed, retired,

or semiretired to report their regular

occupations.

Summary of Occupations. Audiences for

museums and the live performing arts were

found to include substantially more

individuals in high prestige occupations

than the public at large. The two most

27
striking findings in the materials

were the extremely high pro- .  ̄ ~±nternal ~dministratiVe considergtions,

analyzed of professionals,.above-all. .... ~ ~s~ch as estimating the price sensitivity

portions

teachers, and the extraordinarily ~Q~~ of the presentaudience, the level of

percentages of blue-collar workers,

contributions the audience is capable of

Variation among art forms was relatively

minor, with two exceptions. First,

museums reported a less heavily professional public than the live performing

arts. Second, blue-collar workers

composed a far higher percentage of

visitors in museums other than art than

they did in any other category. Several

other findings are also notable. Managers

were slightly overrepresented relative to

their share of the population in performing arts audiences but not among museum

visitors. Clerical/sales personnel were

statistically somewhat underrepresented

in audiences for all the art forms, as

were homemakers. Students were greatly

overrepresented relative to their

proportion of the public at large,

although their participation varied

considerably from audience to audience,

and the retired and unemployed composed

consistently small percentages of audiences for all art forms.

Income

The notion that the audience for the arts

is composed of an economic elite is a

fantiliar one. A study of the Minneapolis

Symphony (#65) describes the popular

stereotype of the symphony audience as one

of "extreme wealth, snobbery, ’our orchestra,’ and long gowns and white ties and

tails." While snobbery and long gowns

have not yet been quantified, surveys

have repeatedly reported that museum and

live performing arts audiences have

considerably higher median incomes than

the population at large. Baumol and

Bowen (#8) found that the median family

income of the performing arts audience

was roughly twice as high as the median

for the total urban population, and the

NRCA (#137) reported that people with

household incomes over $15,000 attended

the arts more than twice as often as

those with incomes below this figure.

The relative affluence of the arts

audience has become an increasingly

important issue as arts organizations have

sought government support. Some observers

have warned that it is difficult to

justify public funding of the arts if the

audience is composed of a small, well-todo segment of the populatiog. Where this

attitude prevails audience income

statistics may not prove particularly

valuable for soliciting public backing.

giving, and the participation of various

income groups in the audience. At any

rate, it m~st be kept in mind that

although income may be associated with

arts attendance, it is not necessarily

the cause of attendance. High income is

correlated with having received a higher

education and holding professional or

managerial occupations, and evidence

suggests that it is these latter factors

rather than income that determine

attendance. When all three factors are

taken into account at the same time,

education and occupation once controlled

predict attendance but income does not

(#115: Gruenberg, 1975). Thus, the

underrepresentation of middle and low

income groups is less the result of their

lower disposable income than of their

lower education and attainment and their

membership in less prestigious occupations.

Income distribution data were available

on eighty-eight audiences for museums and

the live performing arts. Two steps were

necessary to make the data comparable.

First, virtually all studies reported

income statistics by indicating the

proportions.of the respondents falling

in various ~ncome ranges. For comparability, these range figures were

converted to median incomes for each

audience. Second, since the studies

analyzed were conducted over a fifteenyear period, it was necessary to convert

income figures into constant income

levels. Accordingly, the consumer price

index was used to transform all medians

into constant mid-1976 dollars.

Several additional problems should be

kept in mind when interpreting these

income figures. Personal income is

generally regarded as sensitive information, and income data solicited through

questionnaires or interviews is more prone

to distortion than any other social characteristic considered here (the

nonresponse rate for income questions

ranged as high as 29 percent). Moreover,

some studies requested family income,

others sought household income, and still

others failed to specify either (which in

some instances was probably interpreted as

a request for iqdividual income). This

may introduce some downward bias. While

studies requesting household and family

income yielded nearly identical median

incomes, surveys specifying neither

obtained median incomes which were on the

average $2,591 below those eliciting

28
household income. No reliable procedure ~f twen~y-~eveh ~i~[~f-theatre

was available for adjusting these differ- ~..~audiencesreported m4dian incomes below

ences. ~ " .... " ’~<~..i~ ~ ~ ~-

Finally, median real~family incomes for

the population as a whole increased

considerably in the 1960s and modestly in

the 1970s: median family income in

constant 1976 dollars was $10,778 in 1960,

.$14,431 in 1970, and $14,476 in 1975. An

audience with a median family income of

$14,500 in 1976 dollars would be considered relatively affluent were the study

conducted in 1960 but fairly representative of the public were the survey

completed in 1975. More than two thirds

of the studies reporting income data were

conducted during the 1970s, and thus a

figure of approximately $14,000 for median

family income serves as a useful baseline

for comparison with study findings.

Median Family Income,

U. S. Population

1960 $10,778

1970 14,431

1975 14,476

Consistent with the belief that the performing arts draw an upper-income

audience, the median income for seventy

performing arts audiences was $18,983,

approximately $5,000 above that of the

entire public (Table 6). Moreover,

eighteen of the performing arts surveys

were conducted by the Institute of

Outdoor Drama. The outdoor dramas tended

to attract a more diverse audience, and

the median income for these studies was

$15,249. By contrast, the median income

for the performing arts studies without

the surveys of outdoor drama was $20,250.

The gap we found between the population

income and performing arts audience

income was somewhat less than that

observed by Baumol and Bowen (1966),

probably reflecting the greater diversity

of audiences surveyed in the studies

reviewed here. Baumol and Bowen, for

instance, did not include as many university or outdoor performances in their

study, and the lowest median incomes

consistently are reported for these types

of audiences.

The performing arts studies reported a

range of median audience incomes that

indicated considerable diversity in audience composition from event to event.

Nonetheless, nearly all of the assembled

studies found median incomes above that

of the general population. Excluding the

eighteen outdoor drama surveys, only three

-that of the public at large, and all three

ofthese ~ere 5f university theatre productions. No study of the other

performing arts yielded median incomes

below that of the general population. The

minimum median incomes reported for ballet,

orchestral music, and opera were, respectively, about $2,000, $4,000, and $5,000

higher than the population median. If

outdoor drama audiences are excluded, the

major performing art forms appear to draw

markedly similar audiences: the theatre

median is $19,342 and the opera median is

$21,024, with ballet and orchestral music

in between.

As has been previously observed in the

case of both education and occupation,

museums attract a somewhat more representative cross section of the American

public. The eighteen museum studies

reported incomes several thousand dollars

below the performing arts average though

still also several thousand dollars above

the general population figure. (Only a

single museum study found a median income

below that of the general public.) Among

the many factors that may account for this

difference are the generally lower aclmissions charged by museums and the greater

appeal of museums for students and young

people. Though relatively few studies

are available on the separate museum

types, as in the cases of occupation and

education, art museums were found to draw

a somewhat more affluent clientele than

science or history museums.

Race and Ethnicity

The relative paucity of blacks and other

racial and ethnic minorities in arts

audiences has been commented on frequently

and, indeed, has been a matter of some

concern to the arts community. In 1972,

the American Association of Museums called

attention to the problem of making museums

relevant and hospitable to intercity and

minority people, noting that the movements

of the middle class to the suburbs and of

blacks, Mexican-Americans, and Puerto

Ricans to the core city "have left the

museum, an urban institution, to some

extent a beached whale .... " (American

Association of Museums, 1972: 6).

Museums have not been alone in recognizing

this dilemma. Recently, the Kennedy

Center for the Performing Arts formed a

special committee to find out why so few

of Washington’s many black residents were

attending the Center’s events.

29
Table 6 Median Income of Audiences by Art Form

O

Median of Range of Total Number

Art Form Median IncomesI Median Incomes of Studies

All museums

$17,158 $13,394-$30,618 18

Art museums

18,148 14,016- 50,618 i0

History museums 16,757 13,394- 29,055 3

Science museums 17,269 14,765- 20,851 5

18,903 9,466- 28,027

20,082 16,452- 22,404 i0 All performing arts

Ballet and dance

Theatre

Excluding

Including

Orchestra

Opera

fin constant

outdoor drama

outdoor drama

19,342 9,469- 25,784

16,819 9,466- 25,784

20,825 18,221- 28,027

21,024 19,017- 27,245

27

45

ii

5

mid-1976 dollars
Minorities--blacks and persons of Orient~ . metropQ~itan-pop~l.a~iO~2[_ ~n t~o studies

and Hispanic background--were underrep- . of attendance .at~.two~ of the. Smlthsonlan

resented in most of the audiences for ..~ -..museums (#ii0 and #265), visi-tors were

which data on race were acquired£~ii~T~.~_eY"

accounted for a median 7 percent of

thirty-five audiences as opposed to being

over 20 percent of the population as a

whole. The median percentage of minorities for thirteen audiences of the

performing arts was 7, the same as it was

for eleven audiences of art museum

visitors. Again, museums other than art

were more inclusive: for eleven sets of

such visitors the median percentage of

minorities was ii. As to specific

minorities, while blacks constituted 12.3

percent of the total urban population in

1970, they represented a median 3.0

percent of the fifteen arts audiences for

which data were available. In a number

of studies outside the W~st Coast and

Southwest, individuals of Hispanic background were not separated from the white

population, thus depressing the minority

total. We surmise, however, from the few

studies in these areas that did count

Hispanic people separately, that they

generally made up a small percentage of

the audience and that their exclusion

depresses the minority median by no more

than 1 percent.

Such overall figures should be interpreted

cautiously because of the small number of

audiences studied, variations in the

definition of minority and, above all, the

large differences in the populations of

minority groups in different locales. The

set of studies reviewed here, for example,

contains data from the Washington, D.C.

metropolitan area, where blacks composed

24.6 percent of the population in 1970

and from Washington State, where only one

in fifty persons was black. Similarly,

persons of Hispanic origin represented a

substantial portion of the populations of

Los Angeles and New York City (15.0 and

ii.i percent, respectively), but were a

much less significant presence in such

places as Boston or Montgomery, Alabama.

For this reason, selected comparisons

are useful.

In all but one of fourteen audiences for

which data on black attenders can be

compared to census data, blacks were

underrepresented relative to their numbers

in the local population by ratios of up

to eighteen-to-one. In five studies of

museums in the San Francisco area, where

blacks composed 10.6 percent of the metropolitan population in 1970, the highest

black proportion was only 3 percent (#111,

#193, #194, #195, #265). In two New York

City audiences (#94 and #203), blacks

represented 3 and 4 percent of attenders

in contrast to over 16 percent of the

9 .and 5 perce~t black.

Data on audiences in the South differed

little from other sections Of the Country.

In JoffreyBallet audiences in three

southern cities, blacks were underrepresented in audiences by ratios of from

three-to-one to thirteen-to-one (#38)

relative to their share of local metropolitan populations. "Nonwhites" (presumably

almost all blacks) composed a rather

sizeable 19 percent of visitors to a

Montgomery, Alabama, art museum: but the

metropolitan black population in that area

is 34.4 percent. Only among sun, her

visitors of a Boston art museum (#17) were

blacks represented in proportion to their

number in the metropolitan population at

large. Finally, nonwhites constituted a

relatively high 16 percent of New York

City theatregoers in one study (#73).

It should be noted that for many institutions a large portion of the visitor

population consists of tourists from outside the relevant Standard Metropolitan

Statistical Area (SMSA). Out-of-town

visitors have been found to compose between

22 and 30 percent of visitors to the

Metropolitan Museum in New York (#3, #16),

between 12 and 55 percent of visitors to

New York’s Whitney Museum and the Museum

of Modern Art0 and between 2 and i0 percent

of visitors to museums in Newark and

Brooklyn (#16). (These figures vary by

day of week.) Percentages of out-of-SMSA

visitors to Baltimore museums and performing arts institutions range from 2

to 14 percent (Cwi and Lyall, 1977).

A strict comparison would have to take

these figures into account.

Individuals of Hispanic origin appear

to have similarly low p~rticipation

rates, although here the pattern is

less clear. They ranged from 0.8 to

3.2 percent of four sets of San Francisco

museum visitors, while they constituted

7.4 percent of the metropolitan population. Only 8 percent of the San

Antonio Joffrey audience (#138) and 5

percent of American Museum of Natural

History visitors (#203) were found to

be Hispanic, but 37.5 and ii.i percent

of San Antonio and New York City residents,

respectively were of Hispanic origin in

1970. The most anomalous findings on

Hispanic attendance appeared in a s~rvey

in Washington ~State (#63), where Hispanic

people composed from 5 percent of dance

audiences to 12 percent of history museum

visitors even though less than 2 per- _~

cent of the state’s population is of

Hispanic origin. If the findings are not

31
the result of unique methodological from 50 to~24 percent"foraft museums, and

aspects of the study, the high rate of- - .f~0m 44 to 23 percent for theatre (#137).

Hispanic arts attendance in Washing~-~,~..~. _o . _ .

State is remarkable indeed and deserves Altho~gh most of the cross-sectional surfurther study.

Information about minority attendance

habits can also be gleaned from six

cross-sectional studies undertaken by

the National Research Center of the

Arts. These surveys--two national, one

of New York State, one of California,

one of Winston-Salem, North Carolina,

and one of the New York Borough of

Queens--asked respondents if they had

attended each of several kinds of arts

performances and museums in the previous

twelve months. Relative responses of

whites and nonwhites varied widely from

place to place and time to time. In

New York State, virtually equal percentages of whites and nonwhites reported

attendance in every category except

"concert or opera," where 36 percent

of whites had attended as compared to

23 percent of nonwhites. In Queens,

slightly higher percentages of whites

said they attended theatre and classical

music performances, but slightly more

nonwhites attended dance (#190). In

Winston-Salem a higher percentage of

whites than nonwhites reported attending

all the performing arts (#201). In

California white attendance was higher

than black and Hispanic attendance for

theatre, classical music, art museums,

and science and natural history museums,

but a substantially higher percentage

of blacks reported attendance at dance

events. Hispanic respondents indicated

less attendance than blacks or whites at

all the performing arts, but reported

attending museums more than blacks (#42).

Consistent with the California results,

a cross-sectiona! survey of the attitudes

of Amarillo residents found black

respondents relatively more enthusiastic

about classical music and Hispanic

respondents preferring the visual arts

to theatre, classical music, or dance.

The two national surveys are rather

perplexing for although the second was a

replication of the first and found rather

similar rates of attendance among whites,

attendance by nonwhites was sharply lower

in the second. The first survey, undertaken in 1973, showed roughly equal

attendance at all the arts except for

theatre, where more whites reported

attendance, and dance, where greater

attendance was reported by nonwhites (#7).

In the 1975 replication, however, white

attendance substantially exceeds nonwhite in every category, with nonwhite

attendance dropping from 48 to 18 percent

for science and natural history museums,

veys do show relatively small disparities

between the attendance behavior of whites

and minorities~ their findings must be

interpreted cautiously. Information

based on people’s recollection is

obviously considerably less reliable than

information obtained from people at

actual arts events, and cross-sectional

study respondents may often define

attendance in idiosyncratic ways. The

results of these and other differences

can be seen when the findings of a crosssectional study of New York State

residents is compared with the results of

a statewide New York survey of individuals

actually attending arts performances.

Although nonwhites reported slightly

higher attendance rates than whites for

theatre, ballet and dance, and museums

in the cross-sectional survey, nonwhites

were consistently underrepresented in the

actual audiences. This underrepresenration may reflect greater overreporting

by nonwhite respondents: peculiarities

of sampling: disproportionate attendance

by nonwhites at events excluded from the

actual audience surveys: a tendency for

many whites to attend frequently while

many nonwhites attend only once or

twice a year: or some combination of the

above.

While the existing data does not permit

a definitive assessment--for example, no

surveys of museums or performing arts

companies appealing predominantly to

minority group members were available--

it seems likely that blacks and other

minorities are generally underrepresented

in performing arts audiences and among

museum visitors relative to their share

of the population. Since a higher percentage of minorities than whites are very

young, poor, without college educactions0

and/or employed in blue-collar or service

occupations--all categories with disproportionately low participation in arts

audiences--this is not in itself surprising. In 1975, 34.4 percent of the black

population, and only 26.1 percent of the

white population, was under the age of

sixteen. The median income for white

families in 1975 was $14,268 compared to

a median of $8,779 for black families.

Similarly, 63.2 percent of black civilian

employed persons were blue-collar or

service workers as compared to 44.3

percent for whites. And the average black

person twenty-five years of age or older

had completed 10.9 years of schooling

compared to a white median of 12.4.

Although existing data do not permit an

assessment, it is likely that poverty and

32
lack of education, rather than cultural - -found to vary-by-~~~time of perfor

factors or racial exclusion, are respon- ~ . mance (day of wee~"~~me.ofd~y-), and the

sible for the low level of minoritya~ts .... particular content of the performance or

attendance. Only o~e audience 6~%~i-~itor _-~ -exhibit. - One final source of variation

study (#193) reported educational attain- is that the composition of the audience

ment by race. This study foun~ that the

percentage of black visitors who were

college graduates was even higher (by a

few percentage points) than the comparable figure for white college graduate

visitors. Where data permits, further

analysis should be performed to assess

attendance rates by whites, blacks, and

Hispanic persons of equal educational

attainment and comparable occupational

and income levels.

Summary of Demographics

The studies in our sample indicate

consistently that the audience for the

arts is more highly educated, is of higher

occupational status, and has a higher

income than the population as a whole.

Only one study out of ninety-seven found

that the proportion of the audience with

a college education was lower than the

population at large. Every one of the

sixty-five studies which reported occupation found that the audience was

composed of a substantially greater

proportion of professionals than the

general population, and only four of

seventy-six studies found that the median

income of the audience was lower than the

median income of the population at large.

appears to differ slightly for different

art forms.

Museum visitor populations were somewhat

more representative of the American public

than were the performing arts audiences

surveyed. The museum surveys found

smaller proportions of professionals and

the well educated had lower median incomes

than did studies of performing arts

audiences. The differences found between

the museum visitor population and performing arts audiences may be attributable

in part to the lower median age of the

museum visitor. There were differences

between the visitors to the various kinds

of museums. The art museum visitor

population was better educated, wealthier,

older, and composed of more professionals

than visitors to history, science, or

other museums. Among the performing arts,

theatre audiences were somewhat less

educated and less wealthy, and they were

composed of a smaller proportion of

professionals than audiences for the other

performing art forms.

ADDITIONAL ISSUES IN AUDIENC~ RESEARCH

Although women were slightly overrepresented in the arts audience, the gender

ratio varied extensively and one-quarter

of the performing arts audiences in our

sample and two-fifths of the museum

visitor populations were composed of more

men than women. The median age of the

arts audience was close to the median age

of the population at large but varied

widely from audience to audience. The

few studies which examined the racial or

ethnic composition of audiences indicate

that minorities were present in proportions smaller than their share of relevant

metropolitan populations.

All of the variables studied showed

considerable change from audience to

audience. Some of this can be attributed

to the differing methodologies, such as

response categories, methods of sampling,

and presentation of results. Some may

stem from changes within an audience.

Certain characteristics of audiences were

In this section we look at changes in the

composition of arts audiences over time

to determine if the "reach" of museums

and the live performing arts has become

broader, narrower, or remained the same.

Also, we explore the differences between

frequent attenders and infrequent

attenders and evaluate the evidence on

audience overlap among art forms: to

what extent does each art form have its

own devoted following and to what extent

is it correct to speak of one arts

audience? Finally, we examine two important genres of audience research that do

not deal with demographic composition.

These are studies of the economic impact

of spending by arts audiences on local

economies and surveys of public attitudes

towards government funding of the arts.

33
The Arts Audience Over Time

To examine whether the America~

for live performing arts have been progressively democratized over the past

seventeen years, we have evaluated trends

in five major i~dicators--gender, age,

education, occupation, and income.

During certain years, particularly some

in the 1960s, we had few surveys to work

from. Some of these have been grouped

together in a span of several years

to provide a more stable estimate of

audience composition. At least six are

included within each time period (with

the exception of one period for the data

on education). Furthermore, because of

the relatively small number of museum

studies available for some of the periods,

the analysis is limited to performing

arts studies only. It should be

cautioned that the pre-1965 studies

include a number conducted by Baumol and

Bowen (between eight and thirteen,

depending on the social characteristic).

As we have already noted, these studies

yielded social profiles that were significantly more elite than those found

by most other audience surveys. Since

relatively few other early studies are

available, these surveys dominate the

early and mid-1960s audience composition

figures, and this should be kept in mind

in examining trends based on this period.

Gender. The proportion of men in the performing arts audience shows little change

over time, though there is a slight drop

in recent years (Table 7). In most

periods, the percentage of men varies from

the low 30s to the low 50s, indicating

that there is far more variation in gender

composition from event to event than

between time periods.

A__q~. There is no indication of any trend

toward younger audiences.

Education. The proportion of the performing arts audience with at least a college

education evidences no decline over time.

While the education level appears to

fluctuate considerably between the first

three time periods, much if not most of

the change reflects special features of

the studies conducted during these

periods. Thirteen of fourteen pre-1967

studies were executed by Baumol and Bowen,

while seven of fifteen studies during the

1967-1972 period were conducted on

audiences of university productions.

(None of the post-1972 studies were of

campus audiences.)

professional ~or~e~s-~[~lcollar

.~workers--~e see littlechange over the

.past..sevent~eny~arsIncome. Income trends mirror those

reported for the other social indicators.

The average income for 1960-1967 was

recorded at a figure markedly higher (in

constant mid-1976 dollars), but again this

is based almost entirely on the Baumol and

Bowen surveys of prominent performing arts

audiences. It is notable that the median

incomes reported for audience studies

conducted within a time period vary far

more than do the averages between the

periods.

In short, our data do not reveal any

striking changes in the composition of

the audience over the past one and onehalf decades. However, we caution that

the heterogeneity of the audience studies

evaluated here may have concealed subtler

trends. For example, if audiences for

one art form were becoming increasingly

male while audiences for another more

female, such a change would not be

discernable in our data. Similarly, if

theatre audiences in major cities were

becoming more diverse, while theatre

audiences in smaller cities and suburbs

were becoming less so, no change would

be observed. Moreover, any changes in

the audience of particular organizations

or sectors would not be reflected in the

aggregate figures we have considered.

It is possible, for instance, that the

audience for professional dance companies--or any other art form--is undergoing

a significant broadening while the

audience for certain other arts forms is

remaining stable or even narrowing.

Another way to examine time trends, and

one which eliminates problems emanating

from the aggregation of studies of

diverse institutions, is to compare

studies of the same arts organization

which have been conducted at different

times. In twenty-nine cases we have

multiple studies of an organization’s

audience. However, the research methodologies were usually so different and the

idea of time-series data so absent among

the studies that a meaningful comparison

could be made in too few instances.

Occupation. Combining two indices of the

occupational composition of performing

arts audiences--the percentages of

Audience Structure

In most audience studies attention is

rarely directed at one particularly

critical difference among audience

members: frequency of attendance. Some

persons are veterans of many performances

34
Table 7 ~. Time Trends in the Gender, Age, Education,

Occupation, and Income Composition of

Performing Arts Audiences

Total

Median of Range of Number of

Social Character and Time Period Medians Medians Studies

Gender: Percent Men

1960-65 56 45-58 I0

1966-69 46 32-54 7

1970-71 42 36-51 ii

1972-73 45 33-54 ii

1974-75 37 35-43 9

1976 39 34-54 13

Age: Median (in years)

1960-67 37 33-45 9

1968-70 36 24-46 6

1971-72 41 34-42 8

1973 30 21-35 i].

1974 36 22-43 8

1975 38 29-48 12

1976 33 21-45 18

Education: Percent with

College Degree or More

1960-66 72 61-86 14

1967-72 47 21-66 15

1973 63 55-65 6

1974 67 54-74 4

1975 57 48-65 7

1976 65 34-76 13

(Table 7 continues on following page)
(Table 7 continued)

Occupation:

Percent professional

1960-69

1970-74

1975-76

Percent blue-collar workers

1960-69

1970-74

1975-76

Income: 1976 Dollars

1960-67

1967-70

1971-73

1974-75

1976

65 48-80 ii

57 50-63 i0

59 24-73 20

2.4 1-5 8

2.8 0-5 14

3.0 1-7 ii

23,407

19,017

19,684

18,983

20,004

19,342-28,027

16,819-25,229

9,466-27,245

15,292-23,202

14,003-21,004

ii

i0

12

7

ii
or visits, others rarely visit, and still----.Studi4s i~volvlng-~0~@i~£h~h ~ single type

others are in the audience for the first .. ~ of arts organizati~~itY9i~ally reveal that

time. (Some are also there for the last. " frequent attenders of one type-of institime.) A national cross-sec~iOna~%~i#~ey -rut±on .also tend to be frequent attenders

in 1975 reports that 47 percent of the

public had attended at least one theatre,

classical music, or dance performance

during the previous twelve months: 52

percent had visited a museum. Of the performing arts consumers, 62 percent had

made one to five visits, while 38 percent

had gone even more often: of the museum

visitors, 58 percent went to the museum

five times or fewer° while 42 percent had

visited more frequently (#137). Most

audiences contain a mixture of regular and

irregular arts consumers, and for some

purposes defining the relative proportions

is useful.

Growing total attendance can reflect an

increase in the number of individuals

drawn to the arts, an increase in the

frequency of visits, or both. One organization experienced in audience research

distinguishes between the "reach" and

"frequency" of an audience. Reach

describes the percentage of a community

which attends an arts institution at

least once during a one-year period,

while frequency is the average number

of visits made by attenders during the

year (Morison and Fliehr, 1974). The

ratio of reach to frequency can vary considerably from audience to audience. For

instance, in one study of a park and a

theatre in the park, it was found that

the park’s reach was 6.0 percent (6 percent of the area residents had visited

the park during the past year), while

the theatre’s reach was only 2.5 percent

(#118). On the other hand, the frequency

of the park visitor was 4.4 (of those ever

attending during the previous year, each

averaged a little more than four visits),

but the frequency for the theatre patron

was 5.4. In other words, the theatre

attracted a smaller number of individuals

than the park, but it was a more committed

clientele.

Reach is a good measure of an organization’s breadth of appeal, while frequency

signifies the extent to which the organization has cultivated a regular

constituency. Though outreach programs

are usually aimed at increasing the

former, some may actually be affecting

the latter. One art museum developed a

special exhibit designed, in part, to

broaden the museum’s appeal. However, a

visitor study revealed that although

attendance did significantly increase

during the exhibit, much of the expansion

was due to the return of regular visitors

rather than the appearance of new

visitors (#135).

of other institutions. An analysis of

cultural consumers in California reveals

that of infrequent museum visitorslone

to five visits during the previous year),

47 percent had not attended a theatre,

classical music, or dance performance

over the previous year and only 19

percent had attended more than five times.

By contrast, of frequent museum visitors

(more than five times per year), only

24 percent failed to attend one of these

performing arts and 47 percent had gone

to more than five performances over the

year (#42). There is even some evidence

that frequent arts attenders participate

more heavily in all leisure pursuits,

such as sporting events, movies, the

circus, and creative activities (#’s 7,

39, 42, 190, 203). The habits of

attenders of one art form differ from

those in another. One study found, for

instance, that 63 percent of respondents

who had been to the theatre during a

twelve-month period had attended no other

type of performing arts event. By

contrast, only 36 percent of the audience

at the symphony, 25 percent at the opera,

and 20 percent of the ballet had failed

to attend at least one other type of

performing arts event in the past year

(#115). There are various ways of

measuring audience overlap, but however

approached, the results seem to indicate

that theatre audiences are the least

integrated with those of the other performing arts (#’s 8, 115). Also, there is

some evidence that slightly different

types of people frequent performing arts

events as compared to museums (#42).

Arts audiences distribute themselves

along a continuum. Clustered at one end

are those who frequently attend a variety

of arts events, and at the other end are

those who only occasionally sample a

single event. The habitual attenders

group themselves in active social circles.

Friendship and acquaintanceships are

formed around a shared interest in the

arts, cultural events are central topics

of informal discussion and exchange, and

there is the expectation that attendance

at, and knowledgeability of, the arts is

high. Several studies report that

frequent attenders are more likely than

infrequent ones to hear about arts events

through their social networks, to count

cultural consumers among their friends0

and to indicate that arts attendance is

fashionable in their social milieu (#’s

7~ 42, 64, 93).

37
This cluster of the arts audience is also r~ported ~ lower proporti~oh-~f men, and

distinguished from the occasional attend- " :’two studies found no difference~ Simers by its social character.. Sixt.ee~.~--~i~ ~ ~ o~ilar!y, six studies concluded that

audience studies in our possession frequent a~tende£s were older than

examined the relationship between frequency of attendance and education, and

all sixteen found that regular visitors

are more highly educated than irregular

visitors for both museums and the

performing arts. A cross-sectional study

of Californians, for example, found that

of those who had not visited a museum

during the past year, 7 percent held a

college degree or more: of the infrequent

museum visitors (one to five times), 18

percent were college educated: and of the

frequent visitors (more than five times),

31 percent held college degrees. The

corresponding figures for the performing

arts were 7, 18, and 43 percent, respectively (#42).

Those among the regular arts audience

also tend to have higher incomes, though

the evidence here is less clear-cut than

for education. Thirteen of seventeen

studies with relevant data report higher

incomes for frequent attenders than for

infrequent attenders, but one study

revealed no difference and three indicated

the reverse. In all three of the latter

cases, the audiences were for ballet or

dance. For example, a study that included

ballet audiences in New York State found

that median income for frequent attenders

was $19,000, as compared to $19,400 for

infrequent attenders (#73).

infrequent visitors, three found the

opposite, and two reported no age difference.

Since frequent attenders are more likely

to be present in an audience for a

specific performance or to be museum

visitors on any given day, most audience

studies are, strictly speaking, studies

of those present rather than of visitors.

As we have seen, regular arts consumers

are generally more highly educated and

somewhat wealthier than irregular

consumers. Thus social statistics based

on those present will tend to reveal a

somewhat more affluent profile than if

the statistics were based on all those

who ever participate in arts audiences.

Economic and Political Impact

The precarious financial condition faced

by many arts organizations and the growth

of government interest in the arts have

led to an intensified search for ways of

justifying public support. Increasingly,

audience research has provided the

factual platform upon which rationales

for public support of the arts have been

erected.

There is some evidence that income may

have a stronger relationship to frequency

of attendance for the performing arts

than for museums. In one cross-sectional

study, for example, the income gap between

frequent and infrequent attenders is

$2,900 for the performing arts but only

$800 for museums (#42). Although museum

admission charges typically are cheaper

than performing arts tickets or are

nonexistent, we suspect this explains

little of the difference in attender

background. Studies of visitors to

museums before and after the institution

of an admissions charge (Cameron and

Abbey, 1962) or studies comparing "free"

periods to times when admissions fees are

charged (#17) have found little variation.

Then, too, professional sports and rock

concerts impose admissions fees comparable

to those for the performing arts, yet such

events, we suggest, often attract a

considerably less "upscale" audience.

There was no decisive pattern for the

gender and age composition of frequent

versus infrequent visitors. Four studies

indicated that frequent attenders had a

higher proportion of men, six studies

Audience surveys may prove of practical

value for promoting public support in

several ways. Social profiles can be

used to demonstrate that a broad cross

section of the public is being reached by

an arts organization and that, by implication, the organization is performing a

valuable quasi-public service. Another

application of audience research to the

acquisition of public backing is in the

identification of secondary economic

benefits of arts institutions for the

local community. A third practical use

is in demonstrating the educational value

of exhibits and performances for attenders,

thereby showing that the arts serve public

education. Finally, attitude surveys of

cross sections of the public can be used

to document widespread support for the

arts, so that spending on the arts by

funding agencies and legislative bodies

is made politically legitimate.

While demographic profiles have been

acquired in virtually all audience studies,

few have examined the secondary economic

impact or the public appeal of the arts.

Our-assessment of attitudinal and economic

studies, then, rests on a more tenuous

38
base than our assessment of the far more

extensively researched social profile ,~. important’’~ reasonf0r-the trip and 58

" . ~ _percent affirmed that the visit was "a questions.

.- -

~~"i~¢~’~.!. ~-major" reason behind the trip. Comparable

Economic impact. Studies of the local .

economic impact of the arts have not~

solely relied on audience survey methodologies. The direct and indirect

consequences of an arts organization’s

payroll and purchases have been examined:

efforts have been made to identify the

largely uncompensated contributions of

arts organizations to schools and other

local institutions: and the effects of

cultural resources on individual business firm decisions to locate in a community

have been considered (see, for instance,

#139: Arts Education and American Panel,

1977: and Cwi and Lyall, 1977).

Audience research is particularly well

suited to answering still other types of

economic impact questions: Are art

institutions an important consideration

in the decision of nonresidents to visit

a city? How large are the nonarts expenditures during a visit to an arts institution? What sectors typically benefit

from the infusion of the associated

expenditures?

Nine audience studies in our possession,

all except one conducted in the mid-1970s,

addressed one or more of these issues.

One study was based on a survey of a

Boston commerical theater audience (#4):

a second was a survey of New York commercial theater audiences (#37): another

involved a study of visitors to the New

York Metropolitan Museum of Art (#3): a

fourth consisted of a survey of fourteen

audiences of nonprofit performing arts

events in Wisconsin (#29): a fifth and

sixth were of performing arts and museum

visitors in New York State (#73) and

Washington State (#63): the seventh was

based on a survey of visitors to seven

major Chicago museums (#11): and two more

were surveys of audiences for a ballet

company (#94, #138).

There is no effective way of measuring

how cultural institutions draw visitors

to a con~nunity. As a result, these

studies have relied on a technique which

yields suggestive but not definitive

information on this matter. Art organization visitors are simply asked whether

the presence of the institution was a

major factor in their decision to visit

the city. Thus, ~ng the nonresident

visitors to the Metropolitan Museum of

Art (nonresidents comprised half of all

visitors), four-fifths reported that

they had planned to see the museum prior

to their arrival in New York City. And

of these, 24 percent indicated that their

intention t~-s~e ~e.~imus~um-_wa@_’’a fairly

levels of museum drawing power were found

in the Chicago study. Nonresidents. were

asked: "Was-a visit to the museum or

museums an important reason for your trip

to the city?" Nearly 50 percent indicated

it was the "main reason," and 85 percent

attributed at least some importance to

the seven museums in stimulating their

travel plans. The number of city visitors

who would not have come were the museums

unavailable cannot be fixed with any

precision using these figures, but it is

clear that a substantial proportion are

attracted to the city largely as "cultural

tourists." Since cultural consumers tend

to be highly affluent, the arts may be

particularly effective in attracting

those who are most likely to make substantial personal expenditures during

their visit to the metropolitan area.

The expenditures by visitors on nonarts

goods and services varied considerably.

Patrons of the Boston theatre spent $6.40

on the average: in several cities, between

$5.00 and $14.00 were spent aside from

the performance by persons attending

ballet: New York State residents who

attended arts events spent an average

$7.80 on nonarts activities while out-oftown patrons spent $14.30: Washington

residents spent $6.70 along with attending a performing arts event: Wisconsin

performing arts audience spent $1.90 per

person in attending one of fourteen

surveyed events but $15.80 in attending

another: out-of-town visitors to Chicago

museums spent $16.00 on the average: and

out-of-town visitors to the New York

Metropolitan Museum of Art typically

disposed of $85.00 (a median figure).

If these amounts are used to estimate

total annual expenditures, the direct

aggregate impact on the local economy

is considerable. In Boston, visitors of

the single theatre alone contributed

$3.9 million to the local nonarts economy

during one season and $6.6 million during

another season when attendance rates were

higher (nonresidents were not distinguished from residents in this study, so

only a fraction of these totals represents the infusion of outside capital).

In Chicago, out-of-town visitors of the

seven museums contributed $76.5 million

to the economy, and in New York nonresidents passing through a single museum

were responsible for approximately $187

million in expenditures annually. These

figures represent direct outlays, and

there are additional indirect economic

benefits as the money changes hands

39
several times before entering savings or ~0 percent-endorsestate~ ~overnment

tax accounts. A multiplier of two is- i.:’...backing in this circumstance: and 63

often used to estimate the-recycling-~" : " - ~percent back local government intereffects, and so the combined-dir~c~ ~dd- vention (#42). " Comparable patterns are

indirect economic impact may be as much

as double the above figures.

Not surprisingly, virtually all of the

spending is concentrated in the usual

tourist industries. For instance, in

the Chicago study (#ii) of the total

museum related expenditures 29 percent

went to restaurants, 27 percent retail

stores, 21 percent lodging, and 9 percent

transportation. Thus, it is evident that

certain sectors of the local economy

benefit considerably from purchases by

cultural tourists. It remains to be

demonstrated that the whole economy, the

municipal government, and the local

public also benefit from this sectoral

economic impact. It has not been shown

that the benefits outweigh any additional tax burden borne by local residents

resulting from government underwriting

of art organization deficits. Also,

it has not been shown that most of the

money spent on activities associated

with attending arts events would not have

been spent in the absence of such events.

Still another important issue which has

yet to be addressed empirically is the

local economic impact of public sponsorship of the arts relative to government

investment in other areas or institutions.

recorded for Winston-Salem, North

Carolina, (#201) and Anchorage, Alaska,

(#93): the percentages supporting

federal, state, and local govvrnment

°financing are 49, 60, and 64 in the

former region and 47, 69, and 74 in the

latter. In Boston, more than half (57

percent) of the city’s residents favored

expansion of a city-sponsored cultural

program from a summer season to a yearround basis (#62). And in Salt Lake

City, Utah, a majority of the public (58

percent) would urge a greater allocation

of the municipal budget to cultural

events (#166).

Political impact. Although the economic

benefits have not yet been decisively

demonstrated, it appears that public

support for government subsidy is already

widespread. This conclusion emerges from

ten studies we have assembled on public

attitudes toward government underwriting

of the arts. Eight of the studies are

cross-sectional surveys of the public

(including two national studies), and the

other two are of performing arts and

museum visitors in two states. Nine of

the studies have been conducted since

1973, and the tenth was done in 1970.

Seven of the inquiries were carried out

by a single organization--the National

Research Center of the Arts. (#’s 7, 42,

63, 73, 93, 137, and 201: the others are

#’s 62, 66, and 187).

Within certain regions of America,

majorities or near majorities endorse the

general principle that the government

should help finance cultural organizations that are running deficits, with

local help clearly preferred over federal.

Among California residents, for instance,

49 percent subscribe to the position

that the federal government "should help

arts and cultural organizations in the

area if they need financial support":

The apparently high levels of public

support in these regions may be due to

the question-sensitive nature of this

issue (though conceivably there could be

regional pockets of high support for

government involvement). When a national

sample of the American public was asked

in 1973 whether "cultural organizations

(should) have to pay their own way, or

should .... be able to receive direct

government funds to help support them,"

only 38 percent adopted the latter

position, while 34 percent indicated that

cultural organizations should rely on

their own means and 28 percent reported

that it depended on the circumstances or

were undecided (#76). Even greater

skepticism is evident whenthe issue is

government support for artists rather

than cultural organizations. O~ly 31

percent of the California public agreed

that "professional artists should receive

help from (the) California state government if they need financial assistance to

continue their artistic profession" (#42),

and in 1975 only 29 percent of the American public endorsed federal support

for needy artists (31 percent endorsed

support by state or local government)

(#137).

The level of public support for intervention varies widely according to the

specific type of cultural organization

involved, with museums faring far better

than specific kinds of performing arts

organizations. Thus, while 38 percent

of the general public in a 1973 survey

agreed with the principle that "cultural

organizations such as museums and symphony

orchestras" should be eligible for government underwriting, far smaller proportion8

urged such eligibility for specific kinds

of performing arts organizations. Only

llpercent of the public would like to

see opera receive public funds: the

percentages for commercial theatre,

4O
nonprofit theatre, ballet and dance, and -~ a-high p~io~ity-w~r~-; Onfronted ~ith

symphony orchestras stood at only 5,-12, .~. oncretep01itical Choices- Some evidence

ii0 and 16, respectively.. BY .c°ntr~st.~ ~ -: indicates that a Substantial part of the

government subsidies for museums~£e~ ~ar

publicis prepaJed to have the government

greater support. The.percentages

endorsing government support for art,

science, and history museums were 41, 55,

and 57, respectively (#7).

There is some indication that the level

of support has grown in recent years as

government spending on behalf of cultural

organizations has itself expanded. In a

1975 survey of the general American public, the percentages accepting the idea

of local government support for opera

had increased to 33 percent, for theatre

to 38 percent, for ballet and dance to 33

percent, and for symphony orchestra to

37 percent, similarly, subsidies for

art, science, and history museums were

now supported by 46, 64, and 64 percent

of the public, respectively (#137).

The rank order of the level of public

support for the various art forms closely

parallels the degree to which the forms

attract a socially elite audience. The

more representative an art audience is

of the general public, the more widespread

is public support for government financing of the art form. This is hardly

surprising, for one would expect interest

in government support for the arts to

correspond to the benefits perceived.

Among those attending performing arts

events and museums in the states of

Washington and New York, over 80 percent

felt that government assistance should be

provided performing arts organizations

and over 90 percent felt that it should

go to museums (#63:.#73). Similarly, in

cross-sectional surveys two of the best

predictors of individual willingness to

endorse government involvement are the

individual’s educational level (already

shown to be one of the best indicators

of arts attendance) and whether the individual is an active arts consumer. In

the 1973 national survey, 22 percent of

those with an eighth-grade education

agreed that the government should support

cultural organizations, while 50 percent

of the college educated took this position.

Twenty percent of the nonattenders but 64

percent of the frequent attenders (those

in the top decile of the attendance rate)

shared the view that government subsidies

for the arts were desirable (#7).

While large segments of the public agree

in principle that government support for

the arts is appropriate, it is less clear

that these segments would give the arts

intervene in at least a very modest

fashion. In Anchorage, for instance, 71

percent of the residents assert that they

would be willing to pay an additional five

dollars in local taxes to support community

cultural activities (#201): 54 percent are

so inclined in California (#42), and 58

percent of the 1975 national population

would be willing to undertake this

nominal payment (#137). A fivefold

increase in the tax burden, however,

results in many fewer supporters: 20

percent of the California respondents and

41 percent nationally would support a

twenty-five dollar increase in their taxes

to underwrite the arts (#42: #137). Again,

willingness to undertake this burden is

highly correlated with whether the individual is a cultural consumer. However,

it is also clear that the arts still rank

far below other priorities for most of

the public. When a national sample was

asked in 1975 to evaluate the importance

of various community services, the arts

rated below health0 transportation,

education, law enforcement, housing, and

recreation facilities. Similarly, when

asked whether federal spending should be

increased in a number of areas, respondents ranked the arts far below education,

health, public transportation, and housing,

with only defense and welfare spending

rated significantly less preferable than

that of the arts (#137).

It is evident from available audience

research, then, that strong minorities of

the public (and in some cases majorities)

are in agreement with the genera! principle that the government should be

involved in funding cultural organizations,

though there is less support for direct

funding of artists themselves. Support is

strongest among those segments who stand

to benefit most directly from increased

government backing. However, while these

results are suggestive they cannot be used

to determine whether this public support

for the arts is--or could be--mobilized

in the political process. We do not know,

for example, whether the arts lobby has

a more willing public to mobilize on

behalf of art spending than do other

interest groups on behalf of other, competing priorities. Nor do we know

whether public attitudes toward government arts poli~ies become translated

into voter preferences during election

campaigns.

41
OF AUD CE

Arts institutions and organizations

concerned with the arts have already

undertaken a great many studies of

audiences, and the tempo of such research

appears to be increasing. Arts managers

and policy makers have studied audiences

in order to assess public attitudes, to

determine the composition of the public

that particular institutions serve, to

help decide on prices and hours, to

provide baseline data for market development programs, and to estimate the impact

of arts activities on local and state

economies.

Such research has been greeted with a

combination of skepticism and enthusiasm.

An increasing segment of the arts community seems to feel that institutions "in

need of practical advice miss a gold

mine of wisdom by neglecting to survey

their audiences" (Wainwright, 1973).

Others assert that the research is of

trivial importance, an expensive way of

finding out what is already known.

Has audience research been of value to

the arts? To answer this question we

must ask two more in turn. First, has

the technical quality of audience studies

been sufficiently high to provide information that, if acted upon, will permit

managers and policy makers to accurately

predict the impact of their decisions?

Second, has the research been planned in

such a way that the individuals responsible will be willing and able to use its

results? Research can be of the highest

technical quality, but if it does not lead

to recommendations that decision makers

have power to implement, it will not be

useful. Similarly, if research provides

data directly relevant to pressing

decisions but the research is shoddily

executed, policy based on that research

is more likely to have unfortunate consequences.

The purpose of this chapter is to discover

those factors most closely related to

technical quality and policy utility of

arts audience research. Our strategy has

been to rate the quality and utility of

eighty-six studies of arts audiences and

to ascertain the relationship between

certain characteristics of the studies

and their scores on the quality and

utility scales. Organizations that

consider sponsoring or undertaking

audience research may use these findings

as guidelines against which to measure

their own assumptions about such issues

as what kind of research to do, whether

to do research in-house or contract out,

what kind of researcher to hire, and how

much to spend.

THE ARTS AUDIENCE SURVEY

Our discussion is based upon an intensive

examination of eighty-six studies of arts

audiences and on completed surveys from

the directors of these studies. In

addition to reports on museum visitors

and performing arts audiences, we

examined cross-sectional surveys of local

or national populations designed to

acquire information on exposure to and/or

attitudes toward the arts. Most of the

eighty-six studies employ traditional

survey techniques, although some studies

use quasi-experimental designs (Campbell

and Stanley, 1966). They were undertaken

to provide information for a variety of

purposes, ranging from fund raising,

audience expansion, and marketing to

planning facilitie~ setting ticket prices,

and lobbying legislatures.

We described our acquisition procedures in

chapter one. Within three months, we had

127 audience studies which had been undertaken since 1970. Studies conducted

before 1970 were excluded on the grounds

that study directors would find it

difficult to recall essential procedural

details of their research. We estimate

that at least 400 audience studies have

been conducted since then and so the 127

located for this inquiry can be assumed

to be reasonably representative. Some

bias towards more recent studies and

toward studies of above average quality

and utility may have resulted from our

procedures.

Two types of information were compiled.

First, each study report was coded by two

raters on a variety of quality dimensions.

Second, a twelve-page survey form was

sent to directors of i12 studies. (Fifteen study directors could not be located

42
or were deceased.) After a second mail- the eigh~y-~iX ~udi~6~?~-t~i-es--- The

ing and several telephone contacts, ~ - ..~.first set Was used wish the questionnaire

usable forms were received frgm-e~hty~.-~-_-, which had been completed by the directors

six of the directors, for a response of thestudies:°the second set was

rate of 77 percent. The study audiences

were distributed among the various art

forms as follows:

Art Museums 21

History Museums 14

Science Museums 7

Ballet 12

Dance 6

Jazz 7

Folk and Ethnic Music 4

Chamber Music i0

Orchestras 17

Commercial Theatre 7

Nonprofit Theatre 32

Opera ii

Cross-sectional Studies 13

The total exceeds eighty-six because many

studies surveyed audiences of more than

one art form.

PREDICTING QUALITY IN ARTS AUDIENCE

STUDIES

By technical quality we refer to the

extent to which a study is properly

conceptualized and executed in accordance with the norms of scientific investigation. Previous efforts to assess the

technical quality of research have

generally relied on generalized assessments

by peers or specially trained reviewers

(e.g., Persell, 1971: Gordon and Moris,

1975: Yin et al.0 1976) or on itemized

assessments in which raters, counting the

number of specific procedures, generate a

score on a quality index (e.g., Gephart,

1965: Bernstein and Freeman, 1975: Yin

et al., 1976: McTavish et al.0 1977).

While there is merit in both methods,

because of resource limitations only the

latter is used here. Drawing on a number

of standard discussions of preferred

technical procedures in social research

(e.g., Kerlinger, 1973: Bernstein, 1976:

Campbell and Stanley, 1966:Lin0 1976),

on a~ exhaustive list of seventy-five

desirable technical research features

developed by McTavish et al. (1977), and

on observations of factors specifically

relevant to arts audience research (Mann,

1972: O’Hare, 1974: Cameron and Abbey,

1960b), we established two sets of

criteria for evaluating the quality of

employed by two raters who evaluated the

reports available on each audiencestudy-1

We divided the quality criteria into two

domains. Following a distinction elaborated by Campbell and Stanley (1966)

and by others (e.g., Bracht and Glass,

1968: Bernstein, 1976), these domains

can be referred to as internal validity

and external validity. Internal validity

refers to the extent to which an investigator can eliminate alternative

explanations as causes. External

validity refers to the extent to which

the researcher can generalize from the

individuals studied to a larger population.

Internal validity of each survey is

assessed using nine items on the investigator’s questionnaire and ten items from

the research report assessment. These

items include whether the survey was

pretested, trained personnel were used

in the administration of the study,

multivariate statistical techniques were

employed, and a valid linkage was made

between the survey’s data and the conclusions drawn. External validity is

assessed with ten items on the investigator’s questionnaire and eight items

in the report assessment dealing with

such issues as sample selection, sample

size, testing for response bias, and use

of tests of statistical inference.2 Each

item was dichotomized into high- and lowquality categories. Quality scales were

formed by summing the number of times an

audience survey fell into the high-quality

category.

While some of these items may appear

esoteric, each can have a significant

impact and offers the potential of distorting research findings. For example,

imagine a situation in which poorly

supervised theatre ushers are responsible

for inserting survey forms in programs

and placing them on every other seat:

the usher responsible for the front of

the house places the programs in the

correct manner: the usher for the middle

rows inserts the surveys properly but

forgets to collect them: and the usher

responsible for the rear falls ill at the

last minute and is replaced by someone

unfamiliar with the survey procedure who

fails to distribute any questionnaires.

The audience members in the front row

seats dutifully fill out and return their

forms and, when the program has finished,

the researcher has a total response rate

of about 30 percent. The researcher does

not bother to check the representativeness

43
of the seats from which completed forms ~ standard-deviation-higher in-.technical

were gathered. When the results are ..... " ~. quality than the average audience survey.

calculated, he or she is .surp.ri.se~d%.to~~.~.-," .-~ In the study .a .questionnaire was disfind that the crowd is older and m~re tributed to randomly chosen visitors

well-to-do than expected. If the theatre

managers do not choose to ignore the

survey findings, there is a danger here.

They might launch an expensive campaign

to recruit younger and less affluent

people to their performances, without

realizing that the findings simply

reflected the fact that audience members

who purchase more expensive tickets are

generally older and more affluent than

those in the less expensive seats, who

were unrepresented among the returned

questionnaires (Baumol and Bowen, 1966).

Because the respons@ was biased, and

because the investigator failed to take

this into account, the audience survey

could mislead its sponsors.

While this hypothetical case is extreme

(though perhaps not so unusual as one

might hope), it indicates the problems

that can result from poor research

techniques. Failure to pretest questionnaires may result in answers that are

useless or misleading. Failure to use

multivariate statistical techniques may

lead readers to infer that one factor is

responsible for a second when, in fact,

they are both caused by a third. Failure

to sample properly may result in generalizations about an entire visitor

population on the basis of responses from

an unrepresentative group. Thus, the

internal and external quality scales are

important elements for measuring valid

research.

We discovered that the internal and

external quality scales were strongly

associated: studies high on one scale

are likely to be high on the other. The

interscale correlations are .566 for the

investigator questionnaire items and .733

for the report assessment data. Accordingly, the internal and external validity

dimensions for each data source were

combined into a general quality measure.3

Similarly, using this single quality

measure, we found that ratings from the

investigator questionnaire items and the

report assessment data are also highly

correlated (.579). Thus, these too were

combined to form a single overall quality

scale that serves as our technical

quality measure.4

The variation in research quality

measured by this scale can be illustrated

by comparing studies that fall high and

low on the index. An example of a high

quality study is a social profile s%rvey

of the visitors to a major metropolitan

art museum: this study is a full

during four time periods selected to

represent the seasons of the year. ~Those

distributingthe forms were trained and

closely supervised. Nearly 5,000 visitors

were approached, more than 95 percent

provided usable responses, and both

population variability and the width of

preferred confidence intervals were

considered in selecting this large a

sample. The analysis was facilitated by

a computer. Although neither scaling

nor multivariate techniques were employed,

the results were weighted to adjust for

the sample frame and tests of significance and confidence intervals were

established. The study report included

a discussion of the research design

(though previous audience research was

ignored), valid linkages were drawn

between the data and conclusions, and

there was a discussion of the policy

implications accompanied by concrete

recommendations. The report lacked a

synopsis of its basic findings as well as

a statement of the study’s limitations.

For purposes of comparison, we have

selected a low quality study of the

audience for a single performance of a

nonprofit theatre: its quality is a full

standard deviation below that of the

typical audience study. The survey form

was not pretested and those who administered the survey were not carefully

supervised, but a probability sampling

procedure was employed. The sample size,

however, was not based on considerations

of statistical i~ference, a response rate

of approximately 50 percent was obtained,

and no effort was made to adjust for

possible response bias or for the sample

design itself. The analysis was undertaken without the aid of a computer,

simple bivariate statistics were the most

complex data analyses performed, and the

report presented little more than the

distributions of respondents among the

various response categories. The research

design, policy issues, policy implications, and study limitations were nowhere discussed.

FACTORS PREDICTING RESEARCH QUALITY

The quality of a research study is, we

think, a function of the resources that

an investigator can mobilize. Such

44
resources include the investigator’s " distinguished..The~f~-i~.the profespersonal capacities and background and a A-~-~-sion of the investigator, since different

variety of external factors,_such~S:~"~S" -~_professio~s hold varying definitions of

or her colleagues, audiences, career

incentives, time, and financial support.

For instance, if the intended audience

for a report is not well-equipped to

judge its methodological rigor, the

investigator is less constrained to maintain orthodox methodological standards.

similarly, a shortage of funds can force

the investigator, whatever his or her

personal standards, to employ less

acceptable but more economical techniques.

In our hypothesis, then, predicting the

quality of a study is partly a matter of

identifying the investigator’s research

capacities and the necessary environmental

support. To this end, we analyzed the

investigator’s experience and background,

the organizational setting of the study

and the financial resources available.

acceptable research procedure. Bernstein

and Freeman found that variations in

professional norms between social-science

disciplines ~id have consequences for

research quality (1975: 118). Even

sharper differences may be expected

between investigators affiliated with the

social sciences and those identified with

the marketing or arts management professions.

The personal capacity of the investigator

to conduct high quality research depends

on his or her level of training and

research experience. It is true that in

an analysis of 236 major federal evaluation studies initiated in 1970,

Bernstein and Freeman found that the  ̄

researcher’s level of formal training

had little bearing on study quality (1975:

115). Yet the absence of an effect of

formal training may not be universal. It

will be examined here through the variable

investiqator deqree, the highest formal

degree obtained by the study director.5

Investiqator experience, our measure of

relevant research experlence, will be

assessed by the sum of the number of

surveys the investigator had conducted

prior to the audience study in question.6

Financial resources that affect the

quality of a research product include the

size, quality, and organization of the

research staff, library and computer

facilities, and disposable funds for the

purchase of ancillary research materials.

A convenient, albeit approximate,

aggregate measure of project financial

resources is the total study budget.

Although Bernstein and Freeman found no

significant impact of budget on quality

for their evaluation studies, they

excluded studies with total expenditures

under $i0,000. M~st of the eighty-six

arts audience studies considered here

were conducted with more modest resources.

Only ten of the directors report costs of

$i0,000 or more ($150,000 was the most

expensive), and the median cost was a

mere $471.

Three sets of institutional factors that

may affect research quality can be

A second potentially significant

institutional factor is the nature of the

organization in which the investigator

works. The scientific method is perhaps

best established in academic institutions,

less so in nonacademic research organizations, and least so in arts

organizations. Studies of research in

other fields have yielded conflicting

conclusions about the relative quality

of academic and nonacademic research. In

an analysis of 140 studies of technological innovations in local services, Yin

et al. (1976) found no relationship

between the kind of organization conducting the study and the quality of the

research. Yin and Yates’ assessment of

case studies of urban decentralization

and participation (1975), however,

indicated that higher quality studies

were conducted in academic institutions.

Bernstein and Freeman (1975) report a

similar finding.

The third institutional factor is the

relationship of the organization conducting the study to the institution that is

the subject of the inquiry. An in-house

researcher may have a stake in producing

results acceptable to his or her organization, whereas an autonomous outside

researcher may find it easier to maintain

an independent, objective stance. On the

other hand, in-house investigators may

be more sensitive to the research setting

and, as a result, may develop more

appropriate research designs. The

counterbalancing of these two factors

could explain the apparent inconsistency

of previous research on this issue. Yin

et al. (1976) found that outside

researchers did higher quality studies

than insiders. Yin and Yates, however,

found no relationship between these

factors, and Bernstein and Freeman found

that in-house investigators did somewhat

better than their unaffiliated counterparts.

We analyzed the institutional setting of

art audience studies in terms of the

following variables. Investiqator’s

~rofession: thirty-one of the study

45
directors were primarily arts managers: The second, index of~inveStiqat~r backfifteen were in marketing: fifteen were . ~ground--the investigator’s highest

identified with a socialsciencedls~~!.~ " degree-does predict study quality.

cipline: and the remaining twenty-five

were associated with a variety of other

research-related fields. Orqanization

type in which the study director worked:

twenty-seven were arts institutions:

twenty-three were independent research

firms (nonprofit and profit): and

nineteen were academic institutions.

Orqanization experience: the number of

surveys of any kind that the organization

had sponswred before the study in

question." Finally, orqanization affiliation of the study director: thirtyseven of the eighty-six studies were

conducted by internal researchers:

forty-nine were not.

Researchers who hold Ph.D.’s and comparable credentials conduct studies which

are, on the average, 4 to nearly 7 points

above average. Those with only B.A.’s or

M.A.’s typically produce research that is

4 to 5 points below average. (The F-test

is significant at the .001 level.)

THE CORRELATES OF QUALITY

What is the actual relationship between

the technical quality of the audience

studies and the various study characteristics expected to affect study quality?

In answering this, our first step was

to examine the empirical relationship of

technical quality with each study

characteristic. Next, since these study

characteristics are themselves empirically interrelated, it was important both

to isolate the unique impact of each

characteristic controlling for the

influence of the others, and to obtain an

estimate of their joint, overall impact

on quality.

We calculated the average quality of the

studies within each category of the

predictor variables. Then we subtracted

the average quality for all categories

combined (15.40, with a standard

deviation of 8.45).8 Table 8 shows the

resulting deviations from the overall

mean.

First, it is evident that the investigator’s prior survey research experience

has virtually no bearing on the quality

of his or her study. The average quality

of the studies conducted by highly

experienced investigators (more than nine

previous studies) and by those without

prior survey research experience is less

than one point above average, while

investigators with moderate experience

(one to nine studies) performed slightly

below average research (-1.49). An F-test

for intergroup differences fails to meet

even the .05 level of statistical significance.9

Study budget is also strongly correlated

withquality. Audience research

conducted with less than $350 is more

than 5 points below standard, while

research performed with budgets of more

than $1,650 is 6 points above the mean

(F-test significant at .001).

The factors related to the institutional

setting predict variations in the quality

measure as well. Indeed, in this sample

the best predictor of all the variables

is investigator profession: studies

conducted by social scientists score

nearly a full standard deviation above

average (7.01), while research carried

out by arts management personnel is

three-quarters of a standard deviation

(6.40) below average. The nature of the

organization also makes a difference, but

an organization’s prior experience with

survey research does not. Investigators

affiliated with academic institutions

and private research firms generate

studies 2 and 4 points above average,

respectively, while those in arts organizations produce research 5 points below

average. The quality of inquiries

conducted by organizations with extensive

experience, however, is a statistically

insignificant 3 points above the quality

of research by moderately experienced

organizations and only a single point

above the studies of organizations with

no prior experience. Finally, outside

research is clearly of higher quality

than in-house studies. The mean quality

of the former is more than ~0Points

greater than of the latter.

In summary, then, by technical standards

the best research in this sample is.

produced by individuals with Ph.D.’s or

comparable degrees who are social

scientists affiliated with private

research firms or academic institutions.

Since the predictor factors are highly

correlated among themselves, it is

necessary to examine their simultaneous

impact on quality if we are to isolate

the importance of each. For instance,

both budget and type of organization

strongly predict research quality but

these variables are also highly related

to one another. The median budget of

studies conducted in private firms,

46
Table 8 Deviation from Average Study Quality

by Investigator Background, Resources,

and Institutional Setting

Study Characteristic

Investigator Research Background

Investigator experience

DeviationI (N)

More than 9 studies

1-9 studies

0 studies

Resources

Budget2

More than $1649

$350-1649

Less than $350

0.64 (23)

-1.49 (23)

0.75 (36)

Study Characteristic

Investigator degree2

Deviation (N)

6.29 (23)

-0.02 (21)

-5.58 (26)

Institutional Setting

Investigator profession2

Social science

Other research related

Marketing

Arts

Organization type2

Private firm

Academic

Arts

7.01 (15)

4.13 (25)

-0.66 (15)

-6.40 (31)

4.13 (25)

1.99 (26)

-5.02 (32)

Other advanced

Ph.D.

MBA

MA

BA

Organization experience

More than 12 studies

1-12 studies

0 studies

6.85

4 .ii

0.74

-5.00

-3.76

1.22

-1.72

0.25

Organization affiliation2

External research

Internal research

(9)

(27)

(7)

(19)

(22)

(37)

(37)

iDeviation from the overall mean 2F-test for intergroup differences is

significant at the .001 level.
academic institutions, and arts organizations are $6~260, $750, and $253

respectively. We cannot tell fron~-h~e

figures reported in Table 8 whether

budget, type of conducting organization,

or some combination of both accounts for

the variation in ,~ality.

To answer this question, we apply the

statistical technique of multiple

regression analysis, which enables us to

inspect the relationship between research

quality and any single predictor variable,

while holding all other predictor

variables constant.

The predictor variables are entered into

a regression equation with quality as the

dependent variable. Investigator degree

is entered in a dichotomized form, with

those holding a Ph.D. or related degree

joined in one category, and those without

such degrees grouped in the other. The

logarith~$c transformation of the budget

is used,±~ and investigator profession and

organization experience are entered as

sets of dummy (dichotomous) variables.

Since investigator and organization experience exhibited insignificant, zero-order

associations with quality, they are

excluded from the analysis. Because of

the high correlation between two other

variables--organizational affiliation and

type of organization--the less powerful

predictor of the two, organizational

affiliation, is also deleted.

The correlations and the regression

coefficients of predictor variables with

study quality are displayed in Table 9.

The correlations are consistent with the

patterns seen in Table 8, but the standardized regression (beta) coefficients

reveal that several of the predictor

variables have little impact on quality

once other variables are controlled. For

example, the substantial simple correlation of .48 for investigator degree is

reduced to a beta value of -.02 once the

confounding effects of other variables

are removed. This means that whether an

investigator holds a Ph.D. or comparable

degree has no direct independent impact

on study quality. Rather, the high

correlation resulted from the fact that

study directors with Ph.D.’s frequently

were in the social sciences or other

research-related professions and had high

budgets with which to work.

The association between budget and quality

remains very high even after controlling

for the other bariables. The beta value of

~. The beta-coefficie~ts~f0r the £hree dummy

"variables of investigator profession are

" olall statistically significant and range

from .19 for those in marketing to .28

for social scientists and .39 for those

in other research-related disciplines.

These beta coefficients signify that,

other factors held constant, investigators

who were not arts professionals generated

technically better research. Finally,

although the simple correlations of

organization types are substantial, the

more important beta coefficients are not.

The beta value is -.08 for private firms

and .14 for academic institutions, neither

of which approaches statistical significance.

Thus, although a number of factors are

empirically associated with higher quality

studies, it is evident that only two were

found to have a substantial direct

independent effect: budget and the

profession of the study director. Moreover, with only a little assistance from

the other variables these two explain

63 percent of the variance in study

quality. (Variance explained is derived

by squaring the multiple correlation

coefficient.) This means that we were

able to predict audience study quality

in this sample with considerable precision.

With certain caveats we will note in a

moment, the unstandardized regression

coefficients can be used to predict the

likely quality of a proposed audience

study. If the study were allocated

virtually no budget and placed in the

hands of an investigator primarily identified with the arts, a quality index of

approximately 6.2 could be expected: this

is more than a full standard deviation

(8.3 points) below the average quality

level for all the studies. An investigator with a Ph.D. or related degree

would not improve quality, but increasing

the budget wculd have a dramatic impact.

By this model, expansion of the budget

from $0 to $i,000 would add 5.8 points to

the score. (It would require an additional $i0,000 to bolster the score

another 5.8 points.) Employing a marketing analyst as primary investigator means

an additional 4.0 points; a social

scientist adds 5.8 points: and a member

of a research-related profession (these

were urban planning, architecture,

engineering and applied mathematics, and

public opinion polling) increases the

score 7.1 points. Whether the study is

assigned to an investigator located in

an arts organization, private firm, or

.63 exceeds that for any other variable and academic institution makes very little

indicates that one can best predict the difference, though 2.4 points might be

quality of an arts audience study if one added if the academic setting is selected.

knows what funds were available to its

director.

48
Table 9 Simple Correlations and Regression Coefficients

of Audience Study Quality with Investigator

Background, Resources, and Institutional Setting

Study Characteristic rI beta B F1

63 P

Investigator Background

Investigator degree:

Ph.D. or related .497 -.016 -0.26 0.02 n.s.

Resources

Log of budget .699 .627 5.83 41.92 4.001

Institutional Setting

Investigator profession

social science .284 .267 5.81 6.12 4.05

other related .399 .390 7.08 12.50 4.001

marketing -.061 .191 4.01 4.60 4.05

Organization type

private firm .315 -.082 -1.61 0.61 n.s.

academic institution .230 .138 2.38 1.82 n.s.

Constant

Multiple Correlation

Coefficient (R)

R-Squared

6.21

0.794 17.912 4.001

iKey: r=simple correlation; beta=

standardized regression coefficent;

F=F-test value (i and 63 degrees of

freedom); p=statistical probability

level.

0.631

(7O)

2F-value with 6 and 63 degrees of

freedom.
Thus, if the studies reviewed here are PREDICTI~G.~HE ~T~L~[T~.I:~5~~-~T-S AUDIENCE

typical, expanding the budget from $0 to . ~STUDIES

$I,000, selecting a marketing analys~ . -

rather than an arts professi6nal,

quartering the study in an academic

institution rather than an arts organization would increase expected quality by

over 12 points to a total of 18.4. On

the basis of these studies, one would

predict that if a social scientist were

chosen in place of the marketing analyst,

the score would rise to 20.2 and if a

member of a related research profession

chosen instead, the increment would be

still more, over 15 points for a total of

21.5.

Of course these figures, a result of

manipulating the data of the eighty-six

audience studies, represent tendencies,

not hard and fast laws. For example,

some arts organizations have produced

technically better studies than some

academically based researchers. Also,

these figures rest on the assumptions

that the eighty-six studies are representative of arts audience studies in

general and that the associations found

are genuine and do not reflect some other

set of underlying factors that influence

both the predictor variables and research

quality. We believe both of these

assumptions are reasonable, but we are

unable to prove either with our data.

Finally, even if the relationships found

have existed in the past, they will not

automatically continue to exist in the

future. For example, if research users

were to become much more sophisticated

and demanding about research methodology,

the technical quality of studies might

become less dependent upon the profession

of the study director or the nature of

the conducting organization. We do not

suggest that our findings be applied

systematically to every research-planning

decision, rather they are a description of

the factors affecting the quality of

research that has been done in the past

six years. They should be seen as

suggestive guidelines only.

Clearly, however, arts audience research

varies enormously in its technical quality, and the evidence presented here

suggests that much of this variation is

a direct consequence of two elements of

the research process-ithe resources

available for the study’s execution and

the professional identity of the principal

investigator. The other elements in our

hypothesis seem to have little immediate

impact on the quality of the final

research product.

Through an assessment of the available

literature and through informal discussions with thirty individuals involved

in audience research and arts management,

we identified ten areas in which the

results of audience research are often

applied. These ten areas were aggregated

into two subgroups, the internal operations of arts organizations and their

external relationships. Internal policy

questions included such matters as the

evaluation of selection of exhibits or

works to be performed, the development

of educational programs, and the establishment of ticket prices and of hours or

performance times. External policy

issues had to do with planning public

relations campaigns, designing strategies

for approaching funding sources, and

developing or evaluating audience expansion programs. The respondent was asked

to rate the actual usefulness of his or

her study in each of the ten policy areas.

An internal utility scale was created by

summing the ratings of seven internal

items, and an external utility scale was

created from the sum of the ratings for

three external items-12

A high or low rating on these scales can

be illustrated by referring to the two

studies used earlier to exhibit the meaning of the quality index. The survey of

visitors to an art museum rated nearly one

standard deviation above average in overall utility (assessed by combining the two

utility measures). This survey proved of

high value to the museum for its public

relations efforts, development of

strategies for recruiting new visitors,

the assessment of an arts development

plan, the evaluation of the drawing power

of a particular exhibit, and the development of educational materials related to

the museum. In contrast, the survey of a

nonprofit theatre audience rated one-half

standard deviation below average in

utility. The only area of high’application was in the theatre’s audience

development plans.

We considered the possibility that ratings

would be biased by the respondent’s

relationship to the research and to its

application. In half the cases (54

percen~ the respondent reported that he

or she was the person "primarily concerned

with managerial or policy applications of

50
the study’s findings," and half (55 - " is ~ide~pre-a~-a~6~-~tC~:fe~. e~a~ policy

percent) reported that they were "prin-. ..... - makers-over thereliability of applied

cipally involved in making the.decii~on ..... social research(Caplan, 1976) suggests

to finance or fund the audiencei~t~dyl~ that these-users, at least, are highly

A comparison of the average internal and

external utility ratings of these groups

indicates that their assessments do not

substantially differ. Directors involved

in applying results are slightly more

likely to note utility than are other

investigators (1.30 and 0.29 point

differences for internal and external

dimensions, respectively), but, contrary

to expectations, funders are slightly

less likely to provide a high rating than

nonfunders (-0.66 and -0.69 point differences). Since none of the observed

discrepancies approaches statistical

significance, we assume that these factors

do not substantially bias the utility

ratings.

Students of social research have identified a number of factors that affect

whether study results are applied,

although few of their hypotheses have

been subjected to empirical test. In

general, these factors have to do with

such general concerns as: the characteristics of the study and investigator,

such as study quality and substantive

conclusions, investigator reputation, and

project resources: the characteristics

associated with the potential user, such

as the user’s attitude toward and

experience with social research and the

political environment into which the

research is received: and the features of

the investigator-user interaction,

including the study’s timeliness, the

degree of cooperation in the design and

execution of the study, and the means by

which study results are co~m!nicated

(Caro, 1971: Rossi and Williams, 1972:

Weiss, 1972, 1977: Caplan et al., 1975:

Cohen and Garet0 1975: van de Vall et al.,

1976: Rein and White, 1977).

sensitive to the issue of research

quality. A study by Weiss-and Bacuvalas

(1977), in.which 155 federal, state, and

local mental health officials were asked

to rate brief descriptions of actual

research studies, found that of five

study characteristics evaluated research

quality was the best predictor of willingness to consider the findings in

making relevant decisions. On the other

hand, Patton et al. (1977), in intensive

case studies of twenty evaluations of

health programs, concluded that methodological rigor played a very minor role

in determining the extent to which

evaluation results were utilized.

In isolating the impact of quality,

however, it is important to separate the

direct impact of quality itself from the

joint effect of some underlying factor on

both quality and utility. One correlate

of quality that may also affect utility

is the nature of the organization conducting a study. Although outside

investigators may produce research that

is higher quality than that conducted by

their in-house counterparts, van de Vall

and his colleagues have argued that

research done by insiders is more likely

to be used (van de Vall, 1975: van de

Vall et al.0 1976). Consistent with this

thesis is Caplan’s (1976) finding that

top federal officials make extremely

disproportionate use of research conducted

within their own agencies. While arts

audience studies differ from the kind of

applied social research that has been the

subject of these previous studies, we

felt it was important to look at the

relationship between utility and quality

and, also, between utility and the

correlates of quality.

We are primarily concerned in this

chapter with only one of these factors--

technical quality of the research--and

we expected that high quality research

should be more useful than research of

lesser merit. The quality of evaluation

research, for instance, has been shown to

influence whether the program under

evaluation is concluded to be a success

or failure. Reliance on faulty studies

may lead to fundamentally misdirected

policy decisions (Mann, 1972: Yin and

Yates, 1975: Gordon and Morse, 1975: Yin

et al., 1976).

Relatively little research, however, has

tested the assumption that high quality

research is applied more widely than poor

research. Evidence that skepticism

The average ratings for usefulness of

audience studies are displayed in Table

i0. The most notable finding is that

nothing we have measured, neither quality

nor its correlates--investigator background, resources, and institutional

setting--has any substantial impact on

research utility, at least as perceived

by study directors. Although some

differences are apparent for organization

experience, organization type, and

research quality, none of these approaches

eJen a minimum level of statistical

significance. C~ntrary to expectations,

the relationship between utility and

quality is small and inconsistent. High

quality research has an internal utility --

rating 0.13 below average, medium-quality

research 0.66 above average, and

51
Table 10

Study Characteristic

Deviation from Average Audience Study Internal

and External Utility by Investigator Background,

Resources, Institutional Setting and Quality

DeviationI

Study Characteristic

Deviation1

Internal (N) External (N)

Investigator Research Background

Investigator experience

More than 9 studies -0.31 (21) -0.49 (21)

1-9 studies 0.24 (19) 0.77 (19)

0 studies 0.i0 (20) -0.03 (20)

Investigator degree

Other advanced

Ph.D.

MBA

MA

BA

0.46 (8) 0.99 (8)

0.99 (20) -0.19 (21)

0.17 (6) 0.41 (6)

-0.66 (16) 0.ii (17)

-0.66 (20) -0.41 (20)

Resources

Budget

More than $1649

$350-1649

-0.42 (20) -0.00

-0.44 (16) -0.13

(20)

(17)

Institutional Setting

Investigator profession

Social science 0.75 (8) 0.50 (9)

Other related -0.25 (24) -0.39 (24)

Marketing -0.44 (ii) 0.04 (ii)

Arts 0.17 (28) 0.17 (29)

Organization type

Private firm 1.16 (19) 0.44 (19)

Academic -1.45 (23) -0.55 (23)

0.55 (27) 0.20 (27)

Quality

Quality index (points)

High (20-37) -0.13 (21) 0.14

Medium (11-19) 0.66 (25) 0.04

-0.51 (26) -0.15

Previous organization experience

More than 12 studies -1.99

1-12 studies -0.03

No previous studies 1.01

Organization affiliation

Internal research 0.27

External research -0.26

(21)

(25)

(27)

iDeviation from the overall mean: internal and

external utility.

2(N) = Number of studies.

(13)

(12)

(26)

(31)

(32)

-0.91

0.72

0.13

(13)

(12)

(26)

(31)’
low-quality work 0.51 below average. Our

data indicate that there is extensive use

of audience research in decision-rdak~n~

that it varies from study to study but

that none of the factors considered here

influences the extent to which research

is applied.

Although the bivariate relationships

between the utility measures and

predictor variables are largely insubstantial, it is possible that threevariable or higher order interaction

effects may be present. Among the most

likely candidates is an interaction

between investigator experience and

organizational affiliation. It can be

argued that the effect of investigator

experience on utility will be more pronounced if the research is internally

based than if it is conducted outside the

arts organization. When the research is

internally based, an investigator with

prior survey experience is likely to

design a study that is more responsive to

the specific policy conditions and

problems of the arts organization. When

the research is externally based, however,

the prior experience of an investigator

is less likely to result in such special

sensitivity.

Though the relatively small number of

cases on which the statistics are based

renders any conclusions highly tentative,

the patterns are consistent with expectations. Among studies housed within arts

organizations, investigators with at

least some prior survey experience produce

studies which are on average 1.87 points

higher in internal utility and 1.32

points higher in external utility than

those studies carried out by inexperienced

analysts: the corresponding correlations

are .320 and .329 (F-test significant at

the .05 level in both cases). By contrast

investigator experience actually has a

modest negative effect on utility when the

research is housed outside the arts

organization. The difference between the

research of experienced and inexperienced

investigators is -1.48 points for internal

utility and -1.05 points for external

Utility: the correli~ion-s are; r~pec-

 ̄ tively, -.169 and ~.248 (F-test not

~-significant.).. The differences are not

large, but they do suggest that prior

research experience only makes for better

use of the results when the researcher is

on the staff of the arts organization.

But we are still left with a puzzle. Our

independent variables enable us to predict

the technical quality of arts audience

research with an unusually high degree of

accuracy. But neither research quality,

the common-sense explanation, nor any of

the underlying variables that predicted

technical quality so well, seem to have

a major effect on whether research

findings are applied. In contrast to

explaining 63 percent of variance in

quality, we can predict only 9 percent of

the variance in internal utility and 6

percent in external utility.

To some extent, the absence of an

association between quality and utility

may be a product of the nature of arts

audience research and arts policy.

Research-based policy in such areas as

education and health has a long tradition

and is often carried out at the federal

level. Policy makers are in a position to

draw on the best and to disregard the

worst. By contrast, arts policy is young

and largely decentralized. Most of

research that we studied was performed by

local institutions, with few resources

and little cumulative experience.13 It

may be that many of those who would use

audience studies are not sufficiently

aware of research standards to use them

critically and selectively.

Even so, this explanation is not in

itself satisfactory. The extent to

which studies are applied varies sharply

from case to case and something must be

causing this variation. In the absence of

clear answers related to quality or its

correlates, we conducted open-ended

interviews with individuals who had either

directed arts audience studies or been

responsible for applying their results.

The next chapter reports our findings.

53
i. Quality measures based on the investigator questionnaire information could be

somewhat inflated, since there may be a

tendency for investigators to report

greater conformity to the canons of

scientific inquiry than occurred in

practice. By contrast, quality measures

based on our own report assessment may

somewhat underestimate quality, since the

failure of the report to mention a

preferable methodological feature is

coded as if absent from the study.

2. The internal and external validity

items were the following (a study was

scored as high quality on an item if it

included the procedure described):

Investiqator’s questionnaire internal

validity: survey pretested: trained

field staff: survey administration

directly supervised: survey measures

based on measures used in previous

studies: bivariate statistics used:

tables with more than two variables

used: multiple regression and related

techniques employed: other multivariate

techniques utilized: computer-based

analysis.

Report assessment internal validity:

procedures or instrument pretested:

trained research staff: conventional

measurement techniques employed: previous

research discussed or used: scaling

techniques employed: visitors distinguished from visits: bivariate analysis:

table analysis: multivariate analysis:

valid linkage between data and conclusions.

Investiqator’s questionnaire external

validity: some sampling procedure u~ed:

sample size of at least 500: response

rate of at least 60 percent: width of

confidence intervals a consideration in

establishing sample size: population

heterogeneity a consideration in establishing sample size: response bias

assessed: weighting used for response

bias, sample frame, or both: tests of

statistical inference used: confidence

intervals established: analysis of

variance employed.

Report assessment external validity:

sample and/or population clearly defined:

sample definition appropriate: random

sample principles employed: sample bias

checked: respondent representativeness

checked: tests of statistical inference

used: weighting used as a result of

sample design:, generalizability of findings described.

3. Six additional items were added to the

ten internal and eight external validity

items in forming the quality scale based

on the report assessment data. These

items were: research and policy issues

conceptualized: research design described;

implications of study results discussed;

specific policy reco~endations offered:

nontechnical sunm~ry of results included:

results compared with those of other

surveys.

4. The score of the audience studies on

the overall quality scale ranges from 0

to 37, with a median between 15 and 16.

The mean is 15.40 and the standard

deviation is 8.45.

5. The highest earned degree is coded as

follows: (i) high school diploma;

(2) college B.A. or B.S.; (3) M.A., Ed.M.:

(4) M.B.A., D.B.A. (professional business

degrees): (5) Ph.D, Ed.D.

6. The investigators were asked in the

survey: "At the time of the study, how

many previous audience studies or other

surveys had the director participated in

or directed?"

7. The investigators were asked: "At

the time of the study . . . how much

prior experience had the conducting

organization had with (previous audience

studies or other surveys)?"

8. For example, if studies conducted by

people with brown eyes had an average

quality of 20.00 and those conducted by

people with blue eyes had an average

quality of i0.00, the value of brown eyes

would be 20.00-15.40 or +4.60, and the

value of blue eyes would be 10.00-15.40,

or -5.40.

9. An F-test indicates how likely it is

that an observed intergroup difference

could occur by chance alone rather than

as a result of a social process. If an

F-test is significant at the .I0 level,

for instance, there is a i0 percent

likelihood that the differences observed

in the quality of two g~oups of studies

reflects a chance occurrence and it does

not indicate that the two groups actually

differ in their quality. A researcher,

then, would generally argue that the

observed difference was not substantial

enough to signify a tr~e difference. On

54
the other hand, if the F-test is signifi- i2~ .Each itemwas ra~ed*Onthree~point

cant at the .01 level, there is only a-one . =scale (l=not useful., 2=somewhat useful,

percent chance that the d.iffer~nce..be~.~n- _~h±ghly.~s~ful).. The question was as

the groups is the product of a chance follows (the mean and standard deviation

outcome, and the researcher is more confident that the difference reflects a

real social process.

10. The importance of the internalexternal distinction in research location

is further corroborated by a separate

analysis of the externally conducted

research alone. Studies vary in the

degree of cooperation between the investigator and the arts institution whose

audience was the subject of the study.

If external housing of research is

important for producing high quality, it

can be reasoned that the highest quality

external studies should be those conductedby investigators with greatest

independence from the subject institution.

This possibility can be examined by

dividing the externally conducted studies

into three categories: (i) no cooperation

(respondents characterized their study as

one with "no consultation in the design

and analysis of the study, all decisions

made by conducting organization"):

(2) moderate cooperation ("subject institution formally reviewed study design and

analysis, but most study decisions made

by conducting organization"): (3) strong

cooperation ("subject institution had

approximately equal voice in studydesign

and analysis" or "determined most of the

study design and analysis"). As anticipated, the mean quality of the no

cooperation studies (n=14) is 1.88 points

above the average external study quality

(which itself is 2.76 points above the

overall average): the moderate cooperation

studies (n=17) have an average quality

identical to that of all external studies:

and the strong cooperation (n=6) studies

are 4.39 points below the external

average. Thus, the critical advantage of

external research housing for quality

appears to be that the investigator is

freed of nonscientific constraints from

the institution that is the subject of

the study.

ii. The logarithm of the project budget

is used on the assumption that the marginal utility of each additional dollar

declines as the total budget rises.

for the rating of each item appears in

parentheses): "To what extent were the

(audience) study’s findings actually

utilized? Please rate the . . utility

of the study for each of th~ following

areas:

Internal Utility

(1) select exhibits or works to be performed (1.62: 0.90)

(2) evaluate exhibits, performances,

programs (1.77: 0.94)

(3) develop educational or informative

materials (1.63: 0.83)

(4) decide on hours and/or performance

times (1.48: 0.83)

(5) decide on admission or ticket prices

(1.52: 0.91)

(6) decide on organization management or

personnel (1.28: 0.74)

(7) initiate or evaluate arts development

plan (1.76: 0.92)

External Utility

(I) promote public relations (1.96: 0.84)

(2) gain or maintain support from funding

sources (1.59: 0.77)

(3) develop or evaluate audience expansion

strategies (2.20: 0.89)

The mean and standard deviation of the

internal utility scale are 13.63 and

3.81: for the external utility scale

these values are 5.72 and 1.96. The two

scales exhibit relatively high internal

consistency in that there is a marked

tendency for a high rating on one of the

scale items to be associated with a high

rating on the other scale items. The 21

item-to-item correlations among the

internal utility scale items range from

.22 to .77 and they average .44: the

range for the 3 external utility itemto-item correlations is .35 to .51, with

an average of .43.

13. In fact, research on museum visitors,

which is part of a tradition dating back

to the work of Robinson in the 1920s, was

found to be significantly more highly

utilized than were studies of performing

arts audiences.

55
CHAPTER 3 -  ̄ ~ --

ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS AFFECTING ~SEARCH UTILITY

TO better understand the subtle institutional processes by which audience

research is put to use, we have

intensively examined twenty-five audience

studies. These studies included all of

those in our possession that had been

conducted between 1974 and 1977 in the

New England and Middle Atlantic regions.

Among the studies were surveys concerned

with economic impact, general planning,

specific planning, exhibit effectiveness,

and members or subscribers. Eleven

museum studies were included (six art

museums, two history museums, one science

museum, and two other museums), as were

ten performing arts organization studies

(five theatres, two classical music

organizations, one opera, one ballet, and

one other). There were also two crosssectional studies and two surveys of those

attending a number of different arts

events. In each instance we attempted to

interview both the study director and the

person most likely to have been in a

position to use the research results.

However, in eight instances either the

study director was the key user or interviews with only one of the two individuals

could be obtained. Forty-two semi-structured interviews were completed: they

averaged forty minutes in length and

ranged from twenty to ninety minutes-I

As additional background material,

unstructured interviews were conducted

with twenty-five other individuals who

had commissioned, directed° or attempted

to use the results of audience research.

Our interviews with the directors and

users of a wide range of studies revealed

that the conventional view of the decision-making process provides a poor guide

as to what really happens when arts organizations sponsor audience studies. One

might expect that research is undertaken

to help solve a specific problem.

enters the decision-making process. And,

finally, we discuss the factors that are

critical in the use of audience-study

results.

THE PURPOSES OF AUDIENCE RESEARCH

Not one of the twenty-five studies for

which directors and/or users were interviewed was undertaken primarily to

gather information necessary for a

specific managerial decision. Instead,

they were begun because of factors such

as the need for political leverage, the

appearance of an unexpected opportunity

to have a free study conducted, and a

variety of other concerns only indirectly

related to specific organization decisions.

While most managers exhibited a lively

 ̄ curiosity that influenced the content of

the survey questions, the need for data

for specific decisions was never a

study’s raison d’etre.

Political factors

The most frequently cited reason for

undertaking an audience study was politics, prominently mentioned for ten of

the twenty-five studies. Political

purposes included acquiring evidence

useful in seeking funding, gaining

leverage in internal policy debates, and

appeasing members of the organization’s

board of directors or other influentials.

The initiation of research for the sake

However, the researchers and arts managers of seeking outside financing is illuswho shared their experiences with us trated in the case of one study undertaken

portrayed a different process. Their

accounts explained the perplexing lack of

connection between research technical

quality and utility. Thev also suggest

lessons for those who would undertake

audience research themselves. In this

chapter, we describe the purposes for

which the research was initiated. Then,

we illustrate the varied ways in which

audience research was applied. Third,

we explain the ways in which research

to document public support for a new

performing arts facility. Said the study

director: "A committee (of bankers and

businessmen) set about to raise money to

get (the local government) to take over

the theatre for the county once it was

renovated. The study was a spin-off of

that effort .... It was done to prove

that there was a market and to gain

additional support to get the county to

approve and accept a building." In

56
~-_ ~ -- ;- : ...... ~.< ~i~-_-:. -

another instance, an economic impact study . dane in response to pgessure f±0m-influwas done to illustrate the importance of " ential membership com~ztees or members

a beleaguered theatre district, to ar[~i;}:~i~-. ~. o-f~boards of. directors. One inquiry was

urban economy. The city was ready to act

and "the research had clout because it

documented the obvious." In yet another

case, a cross-sectional survey was commissioned by a municipal government to

document an existing arts council’s

failure to meet local art needs. The

survey results contributed to the resignation of the old council and the

creation of a new one. Finally, one

arts counci! conducted a study essentially for the purpose of announcing its

presence and increasing its scope of

operations.

Other research was commissioned for use

in internal debate. Individuals needed

additional ammunition for their positions

and were confident that a research study

would support their cause. Though the

study instigator may have been open to

persuasion, the primary motive was to

compile data for a position rather than

to resolve an issue. One theatre manager,

for instance, in explaining his reasons

for surveying the audience of a summer

drama festival immediately after becoming

manager, stated: "In the summer, (the

theatre) did seven shows in rolling rep,

which I think is insane itself, and (the

theatre was) doing about 50_percent

business .... I had the feeling that (the

theatre) should be delivering a more

popular product, and the survey helped

document this. The next year we provided

more popular plays and got 90 percent

business." Being new to the particular

job, this experienced arts manager needed

to suggest the value of an alternative

policy before instituting a controversial

change, and he (correctly) anticipated

that a survey would support his own

preference for more popular fare. Similarly, a new director for a rather

traditional museum saw in a wide-ranging

membership study a fulcrum for change:

"I had been at the (museum) a little over

a year as director and felt it was

important to see how we appeared to our

major constituency, the membership. We

had been in business for a long while

and certain things continued to be done

because they had always been done that

way, without our knowing what our members

wanted." Still another museum visitor

survey was initiated for evidence to

combat pressure for an admission fee.

The converse purpose motivated one study

of another arts facility: a survey was

undertaken to justify the institution of

an admission fee to a skeptical state

funding agency.

Finally, audience studies are occasionally

undertaken of a performing arts institution because of a membership committee’s

concern with what it thought was an

overly "elite" audience. The study’s

findings, however, were lazgely ignored

by management. This was also the outcome

of study initiated at the behest of a

chairperson of a museum’s membership

committee. The administration of the

museum regarded the survey questionnaire

as "silly" and the disappointed study

director concluded that her study "was

just an exercise." She observed: "I

got a lot of experience and a lot of

frustration. I didn’t know who to tell

the results to or who would listen to

me. "

Opportunity

The second most common general motivation

for undertaking audience research was the

appearance of an unexpected and relatively

free opportunity to undertake a study.

This was a principal consideration in

eight of the twenty-five cases we

examined. Arts managers took advantage

of occasions for inexpensive research to

satisfy a kind of free-floating curiosity.

Volunteer labor, the availability of

outside funding, or both were usually the

catalyst. In one instance, museum administrators were in the process of preparing

a grant application for federal funds.

It was a near certainty that the museum

would receive the grant, and at the last

minute an affiliated researcher revised

the proposal to include a visitor survey.

At another museum, when questioned about

the timing of a visitor study, the

director said: "Simple, funds became

available .... (A federal agency) made

funding available for the purpose so (the

museum) used the occasion to do a study."

Volunteer outside labor was the motivating

factor in other instances. In one case,

a county-wide attenders/nonattenders

study was included in a larger audience

development program only after a university professor stepped forward, suggested

the study, and prqmised to design the

questionnaire and provide student labor.

A theatre study was undertaken when a

business school student with an outside

grant took it on as a su!mner job. The

initiative for such studies often rested

with a single individual prepared to take

advantage of an opportune situation. One

researcher, hired as a consultant for

overall planning, defined his role to

include carrying out a visitor study.

57
The museum "didn’t so much want the study decisions as physical"planning; marketing,

done as they, kicking and screaming, ~ - programming, or further research.-

grudgingly allowed me to do~ it._" . ~.%:~b:~i; ~ tWentyrsix (~34 percent) were basically

political, related either to internal

General concerns

The third major reason for undertaking

audience research, cited as most important in six of the twenty-five studies,

was a vague sense of concern, a feeling

on the part of managers that they are

working in a vacuum and that certain

kinds of background information, usually

not clearly specified, would be good to

have. In several cases, for instance,

museums were about to undertake longrange physical planning and felt that

they needed "some input" from visitors

or wanted "to get some idea about the

audience." One outside researcher complained that a museum representative

approached him with "vague, vacuous

questions." Another said of his clients

on an arts council, "they vaguely suggested doing a survey of general goals."

A museum gallery director spoke of the

difficulty he had in fixing goals for a

study of his visitors, and an in-house

research director for a performing arts

institution described his study as a

"first feeble attempt at research ....

Some of it was stabbing in the dark."

The studies were inspired by a genuine

desire to learn more and a sense that so

little was known that any increment in

knowledge would be worthwhile.

politics or to external lobbying and fund

raising. Instrumental usage was made of

twenty of t ~e twenty-five studies, while

political application was made of eighteen

of the studies. Instrumental applications

can be further divided into physical

planning, marketing, research, and programming: political usage can be divided

into internal and external politics.

Instrumental application

The most frequently mentioned use of

audience research was for the instrumental

area of physical planning, cited for

fourteen of the studies and representing

29 percent of all applications (Table ii).

In nearly half of these cases, research

findings were useful for decisions about

the orientation of museum visitors (e.g.,

signs, information desks, guide training,

brochures) or about visitor conveniences

(e.g., special bus services, restaurant

facilities, roadway markings, cleaner

washrooms). Audience research was also

cited as influencing decisions about

ticket and admission prices, performance

times and museum hours, exhibit labeling

and design, exhibit acquisitions policies,

and performance sites. More generally,

studies were said to have an indirect

influence on architectural planning and

to increase staff concern with visitor

orientation.

THE IMPACT OF AUDIENCE STUDIES

Despite the many reasons for which these

studies were undertaken and the wide range

of their quality, once they were completed,

arts managers did use the results extensively. The reasons for this apparent

paradox--widespread application of

research undertaken for diffuse or noninstrumental reasons--will be explained

in the sections that follow. Here we

describe the range and extent of applications reported.

Participants in all but two of the twentyfive studies mentioned at least one

example of study impact, and multiple

uses were cited in many cases. Of

seventy-seven uses described, fifty-one

(or 66 percent) were broadly instrumental°

related to such specific organizational

In marketing, the second most important

area of instrumental application, audience

research helped with decisions to change

the target of marketing efforts and to

change the themes of promotional materials.

More generally, studies were also given

credit for stimulating institutional

thinking about audience composition,

marketing, and audience development.

Surprisingly, in 12 percent of the

applications the directors and users

reported that they used the results in

connection with more research. Six

studies were used to encourage research

beyond the institution sponsoring the

study: three studies aroused enthusiasm

for further research within the same

organization. Finallh, study results had

a direct effect on programming choices or

on the thinking of administrators about

programming in 6 percent of the applicatiOns.

58
Table 11 Frequency of Instrumental and Political

Applications of Audience Research Results

Application

Number of Studies

Citing Applicationl

Instrumental--total 20

Physical planning 14

Marketing 12

Research 8

Programming 5

Political--total 18

Internal politics 14

External politics 9

Number of

Applications

Percent of All

Applications

51

22

15

9

5

66.2

28.6

19.5

11.7

6.5

26

17

9

33.8

22.1

11.7

All applications 23 77 i00.0

iMore than one citation was found in some studies.
Political application

Internalpolitical consequences we~ ........

cited for fourteen of the twenty-five

studies, representing 22 percent of all

uses mentioned. Such political uses

included increasing trustee interest,

selling administrators on the value of

marketing, aiding the reorganization of

a local arts council, providing leverage

with parental or affiliated organizations,

sparking the withdrawal of some members

to form new institutions, and making

curators more secure in their positions.

Of the application areas described here,

internal political uses were the most

often unexpected by those who had other

purposes in mind at the time the study

was conceived.

Use in external political areas was

mentioned in nine of the studies and

represented 12 percent of all instances

cited. Audience research results were

used to seek funding from municipal and

state governments and from private

individuals and concerns. No interviewees

explicitly indicated the results were

useful in approaching the federal government.

It is evident, then, that audience

research, whatever the reason it is

undertaken, has payoffs for arts organizations in a wide range of substantive

areas. Even research that .is poor by

orthodox standards of social science

inquiry played a useful role in the deliberations of art managers. The conventional view of research holds that it is

most powerful when it is most

sophisticated, that good research,

designed to address specific problems,

is used to make specific decisions about

these problems. While this ideal model

may characterize a few of the studies,

for the most part audience research is

highly variable in quality, is rarely

designed with specific decisions in mind,

yet is reported as being highly useful.

This could reflect a lack of research

and managerial sophistication among arts

administrators, but we think not. Rather,

just as research is not undertaken for

the purposes commonly supposed, research

findings do not play the role in rational

decision-making that has been attributed

to them. To understand how audience

research becomes applied, let us look more

closely at the ways in which study findings have affected arts management.

 ̄ . THE ROLE OF AUDIENCE ̄ RESEARCH FI.NDINGS IN

ARTS MANAGEMENT

The most notable feature of the impact of

research findings on arts management is

that it is invariably a marginal one.

This is true in several senses. First,

arts managers usually have at least some

administrative experience, are often

aware of the limitations of research, and

rely on their own experience and judgment

to assess research conclusions. Research

findings are used selectively in the

context of a complex background of previously acquired knowledge and beliefs.

For instance, a performing arts manager

cited an audience study--the technical

limitations of which he was fully aware--

as influencing his decision to change

promotional strategies for a series of

public performances: "It helped us refocus

our promotional efforts in the (outdoor

drama series). I’m not totally trustful

of the results, but they did show a large

number of people heard about the concerts

in the community newspapers, which we

hadn’t expected, and even if it’s only

half as large as the survey indicated, it

is very economical advertising- We’re

putting more money into the neighborhood

press." Studies frequently serve to

reinforce preferences already held or

decisions already favored. The results

of one study, said a theatre manager,

"followed exactly what my gut was saying.

I just wanted to be sure I was right."

Conversely, when research results contradict strongly held positions or views,

they are likely to be ignored despite

high technical quality and clear-cut

policy implications. Thus, one wellexecuted museum visitor study had

virtually no impact even though it

contained implications for museum design

and visitor orientation- As one person

acquainted with the study recounted:

"(The museum staffers) were skeptical,

first because they could not believe that

(the research director) knew more about

the public than they did, and second

because they did not feel that knowing

about the public had anything to do with

how the galleries should be handled ....

The major criticism of (the research

director) was that he was an outsider

who lacked a depth of knowledge based

on years of experience. He was not

6O
criticized on any specifically method- . ~arginal role in managerial p~ii~-

ological grounds: his critics didn’t ..... m~king, its impact is highly indirect as

know what methodology was~" .In some%~i~.~-~." .~ell... Research contributes in-circuitous,

instances, studies provided material for often unexpected, ways to the policy

those on all sides of a~debate. One some- " process.

what cynical research veteran observed of

another museum study: "I’m a bit jaundiced against this study, I have to say.

People have pulled out of it what they

wanted. They picked and chose what they

needed to support their position. It’s

a predictable use."

A second sense in which audience studies

are marginal is that decisions into which

they enter usually involve competing

priorities. Even when participants take

the accuracy of findings for granted and

agree on the implications, differences in

values strongly affect their willingness

to implement the findings. In one typical

instance, the audience at a performance

strongly preferred an earlier curtain

time, but action on this finding was

thwarted by the need for a tight rehearsal

schedule. Similarly, many museum directors and curators balanced their findings

on visitor needs against their commitment

to other museum functions. One museum

director put it this way: "My chief

purpose is to preserve the collection: my

secondary purpose is to offer programs

and services which will maintain public

support." Indeed, our interviewees cited

many instances of administrative or

curatorial resistance to research implications that were perceived as implicitly

populist. Thus, research frequently confronts vested interests, making direct

application problematic. As one director

of a performing arts audience study put

it, "In general, data step on toes."

Finally, audience research findings are

marginal because they often address

problems which in organizations with

limited funds and staff, are given

marginal attention. One performing arts

manager favored a marketing strategy

suggested by a study (to arrange a dinner

package with a neighboring hotel), but

noted that the "hand-to-mouth" existence

of his organization precluded arranging

for even such a minimal innovation.

Similarly, several individuals in arts

councils felt that other demands on their

time had prevented them from fully

disseminating the results of audience

studies they had undertaken. And one

festival director attributed an inability

to use research results to the precarious

economic existence of his organization:

"One of the restraints on the implementation of new policy was that the festival

is just so poor."

If research results play a largely

In many cases, the studies are used less

to suggest solutions to problems than to

catalyze action on a burning issue or to

symbolize a point of view: "I think that

the survey results basically gave us a

data base to support many of the things

we had an inclination about already ....

But there was nothing cataclysmically

different from what we had expected. It

simply gave us a statistical base from

which to work." In one ~useumwhere a

labeling study was undertaken, the specific findings have been largely ignored,

but staff people arguing for more label

material often cite the study to bolster

their position.

In other cases, directors or users

mentioned that study findings found

application but were at a loss to assess

the findings’ relative weight in the

decision-making process, again suggesting

that the effects were largely intangible.

One sponsor of an internally managed public opinion poll, the results of which

were used in a successful lobbying effort,

said of the study, at one point: "It was

definitely effective in our case and at

our level of government." Several

moments later, however, he thought that:

"It is hard to attribute anything directly

to the report. The biggest thing was

impact--much of what was found was very

obvious, but they never (had done) anyring about it .... They needed some kind

of incentive." The effect was more

catalytic than decisive. Another in-house

research director noted that she used

survey results mainly to legitimize

decisions already reached.

In several other instances, staff members

of arts organizations assumed the role of

champions of a survey, using it repeatedly

in arguments over issues involving the

public. In these cases, data was brought

to bear in the decision-making process,

but its use was largely symbolic,

representing more generalized commitments

to such principles as service, better

visitor orientation, or the value of

marketing. In these cases the research

was simply part of a much broader process

of discourse and contention over organizational values and aims.2

The research process itself is at times

as influential as the study findings.

An audience study can serve to focus

attention on certain aspects of an art

organization’s management or environment.

61
One researcher felt that a report of his

study of museum labeling was

completely ignored, but noted-that ~

"number of the staff had never thought

about the issues I was raising, and my

comments seemed to open their eyes." In

another museum study, both the museum

director and the researcher felt the

study had heightened sensitivity to

visitor concerns. The researcher observed: "I think it has made a general

difference in how people see things.

There is not yet a radical enough

effect .... But the idea of the questionnaire has been accepted. That goes on a

lot now, whenever there is any controversy or question to be solved, people

circulate questionnaires to get visitor

opinions. The idea of feedback from

visitors has become more important. Even

going out on the floor and observing and

talking to people has become more important. The basic change is the idea that

you can’t sit behind closed doors and

predict visitor reaction, you have to go

and find it out."

One of the most important applications

of audience studies was not in solving

problems but in finding them. Rational

decision-making theory would suggest

that organizations monitor their environments, note problems as they arise, and

make decisions accordingly. Research is

generally seen as a part of the decision

process, undertaken to fill gaps in

information Ineeded to make rational

judgments on existing or future programs.

More often, however, research appeared to

help organizations scan their environment,

to define problem areas where at most

only vague concerns existed-3

Museum visitor studies were particularly

useful in this respect. Studies of

visitors to several museums led to

numerous, easily accomplished changes.

Floors were renumbered, new signs posted,

information desks installed. Several

perfornting arts institutions found that

audiences preferred different performance

times and curtain times were changed.

Surveys revealing audience social

compostion sometimes led to greater

publicity among overrepresented groups,

at other times to publicity among underrepresented groups. In some cases,

statistical findings were less influential

than longhand comments elicited at the

end of survey questionnaires. Critical

assessments of the physical plant were

described as particularly useful, since

organizations could readily respond to

many of the recommendations. The importance of the problem-signaling function

of audience studies provides a clue to

the lack of relationship between technical

quality and utility~~<In~ormati6h need

_ not be precise to place an item-on an

 ̄ organization’ s agenda.

Audience research, then, enters the policy

process in a number of often unexpected

.and usually indirect ways. Its use is

generally one of six types:

Problem-solving function. In a few cases,

especially in the area of marketing,

research is used to guide decisions on

specific issues. Spending for promotion

and pricing decisions are typical

examples.

Problem-findinq function. Frequently,

research is used to monitor an organization’s activities and environment.

Identifying causes of visitor discontent

is a common application.

Reinforcement function. Frequently, study

findings are used to back up or legitimate

preferences or decisions of arts managers.

Reinforcing a decision to alter programming would be characteristic.

Attention-focusinq function. Sometimes,

even when the results are ignored, the

research process itself focuses staff

attention on some previously slighted

issue. The importance of doing research

at all may be established only by the

completion of an initial research project.

Expressive function. Occasionally, audience studies are used to represent

symbolically a commitment to such

principles as the importance of marketing

or an organization’s responsibility to

the public.

Lobbyinq function. In many cases,

research findings are used in efforts to

persuade government agencies or other

institutions to provide financial assistance or otherwise support an arts institution.

Poor research can of course, lead to

unsound policies, especially if it is

applied automatically, in textbook

fashion, to a decision. But we did not

find this to be the case. Rather than

helping managers make specific decisions,

the audience studies we looked at usually

served to reinforce opinions, persuade

outsiders, or focus attention on some

general problem area or set of goals.

Tne contribution of research to the

management appeared to be suggestive or

symbolic rather than definitive, and

research carried out poorly was as useful

as research that was well-designed and

executed by orthodox standards. Even in

those few cases where research was

62
brought to bear on relatively specific . outside researCher (cite~ in four studies).

questions, managers often had so little

information that they felt-any

however crude, reduced ambiguity and

clarified alternatives.. If poor policy.

resulted from poor quality research, it

was not so noted by the management.

FACTORS PROMOTING RESEARCH UTILITY

The research directors and users we

interviewed named a long list of factors

that helped or hindered in applying

research results. In general, studies

had powerful effects in these situations:

when their findings confirmed the

suspicions of arts managers: when an

influential person actively sought to

use them; when the authority of outside

researchers lent legitimacy to their

findings: and when researchers were

involved on a sustained basis in staff

deliberations. Studies failed to make an

impact in these cases: when there was

high staff turnover; when organizations

lacked the resources to use the findings;

when influential individuals were hostile

or indifferent to the research: when

results were reported in a confusing

manner: andwhen report contents were

perceived as trivial or inconclusive.

Those factors which promoted use of the

research can be grouped as three types:

attributes of the study, features of the

arts organization applying the results,

and the political environment.

"~igh authority was derived from affiliationwith ~ prestigious university or

reputable marketing or public-opinion

firm. In a few instances individuals ̄

also benefitted from considerable

reputations of their own. Authoritative

directorship of the research ensured that

technical challenges to the research

findings would not be raised and in

general provided an air of legitimacy to

the research. Thus, one study aimed at

local public officials gained credibility

from the firm’s long-standing track

record: "There was no skepticism over

the methods of the study. Most politicians were savvy about survey research,

since they use it in polling all the time.

And the people involved in the study,

including myself, were already well

known .... We were already highly visible

people when we came in to do the study."

In another instance, a museum administrator turned to a well-established

marketing firm for a visitor study after

a previous study had floundered from lack

of credibility: "You have to have a

professional prepare the study, both

because only a professional, an outsider,

can prepare unbiased questions, and only

a professional knows the techniques for

doing these kinds of studies. People

working in museums will prepare biased

questions and don’t know how to conduct the

study." Experienced outside researchers

bring not only the needed technical skills

but also the capacity to effectively

interpret the results based on statistical

procedures. One performing arts manager

in a university town turned to the business school for assistance because "they

have much more expertise in designing

survey instruments (and) they could explain

to me what a cross-tabulation is, how to

understand a chi-square."

Study attributes

The most frequently mentioned of the three

was study attributes. It was cited as

contributing to research use in twelve of

the twenty-five studies (Table 12). The

single most important aspect here was

whether the research findings fit with

the preconceptions of the organization

managers (mentioned in eight studies).

Use was high when the research served to

reinforce attitudes. One study director

reported that the trustees of a performing

arts festival were initially skeptical

about his study because of the relatively

small sample, but nonetheless accepted

the findings because they were expected.

Another attribute of a study which

enhanced its use was the authority of the

The third attribute was the presence of

unexpected results. Surprise findings,

while neither confirming nor refuting

strong preconceptions, were important

in a few instances because they drew

attention to new problems (cited in two

studies). One study designed to provide

ammunition for a struggle over admission

charges found that the museum had a

preponderance of first-time visitors and

drew from a broader public than had been

believed. The surprising nature of these

incidental findings led the museum to

alter its scheduling. In a study of

nonvisitors done by another museum, the

surprise was that nonattenders were

indifferent rather than hostile to

museums. The unexpected lack of public

antagonism had the effect of increasing

managerial optimism about the value of

broader marketing.

63
Table 12

Frequency of Factors Cited Affecting Use of

Audience Research Results

~actor Affecting Use Number of Studies

for Which Factor

Was Cited

Factor Affecting Use Number of Studies

for Which Factor

Was cited

Facilitating Factors

Study attributes--total

12

Fit preconceptions

Authority of outside researchers 2

Surprising results

Organizational factors--total

ii

Support of influential individuals

9

Researcher involved in staff deliberations 4

Small institution provided flexibility

for inovation

3

Autonomy of department

1

External political factors--total

4

Politicians needed position legitimization 2

Interest groups needed results for 2

lobbying

Inhibiting Factors

Organizational factors--total

13

staff turnover broke momentum

ii

Lack of resources for implementation 7

other problems preempted attention

3

Lack of interest or hostility i0

Low priority, uninterested

6

4

Researcher viewed as outsider 4

Hostility to public input

Planning

Lack of goals

No intention to use results

i0

5

3

Inhibiting Factors (Continued)

Communication and dissemination--total

Results delivered without followthrough

Report confusing, too long

Researchers unavailable for followthrough as time passed

Report recipients lacking technical

competence

Report did not reach right people

conflict between researchers and administrators

Report never delivered

Report content--total

Findings obvious or trivial

No study of nonattenders

Organization interests changed during

time of study

Findings outdated

Too few questions addressed

Lack of negative feedback

Study execution--total

Inadequate funds

Inadequate time

Lack of opportunity for managerial input

Technical features of study--total

Low response rate

Small sample

Lack of in-house expertise

10

6

4

2

8
-. - -

Although in only two studies were unex-.. .c~ntained ihthis area.-we do the

pected results explicitly cited as a :~--. research and then we disseminate the

reason for the study’s ut±lity, other ~~ .... information ~o the areas that would be

evidence suggests that theelement of

surprise n%~y increase the likelihood that

a study will be applied. In thirteen

studie~, the results were unexpected by

the researchers and managers: in eleven

studies they were not. All of the former

studies had impact on some policy area,

while four of the latter were deemed to

have virtually no impact.

Personal commitment

The second major set of factors contributing to study utility had to do with

certain features of the organization

(identified as important in eleven

studies). The most critical organizational aspect was the commitment of an

administrator in the arts organization

to the research (cited in nine studies).

Without such a commitment, research was

often ignored.4 One administrator, who

served as advocate for an in-house report

told us: "The only way for these studies

to get used is if someone is personally

involved and comnuitted to the data. You

have to care enough to really push something or it just won’t get used. This is

true of just about everything in the

museum world."

involved in the relevant (nonmarketing)

decisions." More typically, however,

supportive managers faced considerable

resistance. In several cases sympathetic

head aclministrators disassociated themselves from research in order to avoid

further polarizing divided institutions.

Since studies are rarely designed to

provide immediate information for specific

decisions, their use depends on familiarity and a cumulative process of acceptance

and learning. This is most likely to

occur if an in-house researcher is

involved in staff deliberations on a dayto-day basis. One study director, for

instance, repeatedly discussed data at

staff meetings. For many months no final

report was written: "I purposely didn’t

want to write a final report or have a

final report floating around because that

would have created closure on the project.

I wanted people to feel that there was a

data bank there to be used and possibly

added to if there were more questions

that needed answers." In another museum,

the key administrator placed the office

of the research director next to that of

the director of education, to ensure they

would frequently encounter one another in

the halls.

Another museum administrator explained

his role in promoting application of a

visitor study: "There is a mandate to

implement the report at all levels. (The

study director) has the license to roam

around the place and complain whenever

she sees something being done that goes

against the findings of the study. She

tries persuasion and happens to be very

persuasive, and I stand behind her with

a big stick."

Administrative backing of research use

was especially critical in small institutions. One manager of a theatrical

organization, asked if he faced difficulty

in implementing the findings of an inhouse study, put the matter succinctly:

"No. By virtue of the fact that I was

manager of the companies, I could do

whatever I wanted to do."

In large institutions, even when key

achninistrators favor use, bureaucratic

conflicts and resistance can hamper implementation. In one case the relative

autonomy of a research-oriented department

was an aid to application. The marketing

director explained: "The way the marketing department works, it’s pretty selfExternal factors

The third set of considerations contributing to the use of audience studies

involved external political factors

(cited as important in four of the

twenty-five cases). A receptive political climate significantly helped the use

of study results. In two cases, local

government officials, wanted some further

rationale for decisions they were already

prepared to make. In one, for example,

an economic impact study of performing

arts institutions in a city was done as

part of a public relations campaign to

justify improved lighting and police

protection in the theatre district. City

leaders were sympathetic--an important

city official had, in fact, been mugged

in one institution’s lobby--and welcomed

a study with entirely predictable findings .~hich bolstered their position. In

two other cases, lobbying groups quickly

capitalized on results useful to their

campaigns. One study director described

the use of his study: "The communication

was largely personal. We talked to key

people, particularly on the (lobbying)

committee and they talked to the

65
legislature.

talk to the politicians one.by

research was never formally prese~te~-~

The report was very limited in distribution, never presented as a main support,

only drawn on when it was useful."

FACTORS PREVENTING RESEARCH UTILITY

While many studies were applied extensively, others were not. The list of

inhibiting factors was a long one. It

can be divided into the following areas:

organizational factors: lack of interest,

planning, communication, and followthrough: report content: study execution:

and technical features of study (Table

12).

Staff turnover and lack of resources

The financial people would .~simply lacked resources to i~pfe~ent

_ recommendations- One museum s£udy was

opposed by that-institution’s education

department because, in the study director’s words: "It was the attitude that we

know what is right and good to do but we

can’t do it anyway because resources are

scarce, so why spend m~ney on this kind

of research?" Several arts council

administrators felt that studies they had

sponsored were inadequately publicized

due to lack of staff time. Less directly,

low salary levels contributed to the

departures of some staff members who might

have been instrumental in using study

results. But perhaps the most critical

scarcity was that of funds to try new

programs. A performing arts institution

administrator explained: "One of the

restraints on the implementation of new

policy was that (the institution) is just

so poor. It was clear that a broad advertising campaign should be developed to

attract tourists, but (the institution)

didn’t have money or staff to do this.

Our hands were tied." In several cases,

management or financial crises intervened

to the extent that research results were

lost in the shuffle.

The problem most frequently cited as

preventing use had less to do with the

studies themselves than with the organizations that commissioned them (identified as important for thirteen studies).

Of all the organizational factors

hampering implementation, staff turnover,

endemic to arts organizations, was the

prime culprit. The use of research, as

we have seen, involves building and maintaining commitment, and arts institutions,

perhaps because they are understaffed,

seem to rely more on memory and less on

memoranda than other organizations, staff

turnover poses serious problems for

research use. In the case of studies of

two performing arts organizations and

one museum, administrators most involved

with research projects left their

institutions and, while the findings were

useful to them in their new positions,

the studies had no impact on the institutions for which they were designed. In

the case of two other museum studies, the

administrators who commissioned the

research took jobs elsewhere, leaving

study directors to face an indifferent or

antagonistic staff. One museum went

through several directors within three

years of a study’s conception. In two

instances, the reluctance of caretaker

staff to make major decisions during

extensive search periods for new directors

meant a reluctance to use the visitor

studies.

Another problem was that organizations

Hostility and lack of interest

A second set of factors involved indifference or hostility towards research on

the part of staff and management (cited

for ten studies). In some cases the

research director was distrusted as an

inexperienced outsider. One director of

a visitor study was perceived, according

to a sympathetic governing board member,

as "an outsider brought in by the

trustees. If the staff had their way,

all outsiders would be dropped, even the

outside auditors: they think they know

all they need to know." similarly, a

museum director who had attempted to

disseminate the findings of a study of

his institution reported: "There are

some senior people in the museum world

who literally won’t read the report, even

in a very short version. I’m friendly

with some of these people and they have

frankly told me that it is useless and

they won’t look at it. If you want to

remain on friendly terms you just have to

laugh it off." Hostility to social science research also exists. One museum

administrator told us: "I think audience

studies are absolutely hopeless--they are

a waste of time and the work force. We

tried here to use the questionnaire-type

for three different seasons.’ We would

sit somebody down like a stooge to ask

them questions, and we used observation,

66
and it was ridiculous. They are no good people, ve{baf di~cus~n~-~i~h articles,

for anything at all. I’m just predisposed changes in priorities. Cultural instituagainst questionnaires, they’re silly~.-~;-I.~ tions are becoming more important in

get ten a week across my desk. The~~ ~f4 ....... people’s iivAs,th~re is more concern

like macaroni and cheese, you can get it  ̄ with people’s rights, maybe leisure is

anywhere, and the only question is whose

is better." Distrust of outsiders and of

social science methods in general is not

exclusive to museums. It was cited by

persons involved in theatre and symphony

audience research as well.

In some cases, particularly art museums,

the staff doubted the relevance of public

opinion. Administrators contended that a

museum’s responsibilities to the public

have to be balanced against its duties in

the area of scholarship. This position

was a source of complaint by one researcher: "There are people in established

positions who feel that it is entirely

their prerogative to run the museum on

the basis of connoisseurship and that the

public’s desires couldn’t be less relevant. They are very sensitive to arthistorical standards; connoisseurship is

the religion of curators. They have had

a lot of experience with people wanting

circuses for the hoi polloi and they see

that as very threatening to their positions. Even a few who are sympathetic

are afraid." One museum official noted

that some curators even refused to allow

chairs or benches in their galleries

after a visitor survey indicated a demand

for seating to combat museum fatique

because "they felt that tacky modern furniture would distract the visitors from

the beauty of their .... masterpieces."

The presence of such attitudes did not

render all art museum studies useless by

any means. For one thing, resistance to

public input is not universal. Most

institutions studied had several staff

members or administrators sympathetic to

research and the balance of opinion varied

widely from place to place. A number of

respondents reported that financial hardships were making museum administrators

increasingly responsive to public desires.

As an administrator explained, interest

in planning is increasing as a result of

two pressures: "The first is financial

and all the rest can be tied back to this.

Financial pressures are facing all cultural organizations. Donors and supporters are demanding a more businesslike

approach: you are getting greater sophistication from everyone from trustees to

staff .... Also the public is becoming

more aware that the museum is a public

institution. Pressure comes from the

public to make services more readily

available and indirect pressures are perceived by the trustees and others .... It

comes in the form of pressures from

more important. It is not like the sixties when blac~ groups applied pressure

to museums by direct actio[,: that is not

going on now. But it’s more like a

groundswell--the impetus is internal, it

comes from the trustees and management,

but that is just a reflection of the

present-day world."

Researchers and sponsors managed to create

some enthusiasm for research--or at least

tolerance of it--by avoiding questions

threatening to particular staff members,

by presenting findings without recommendations, and by including museum staff in

research design through soliciting questions and feedback on study plans.

Perhaps more distressing to study directors than hostility was the frequent

indifference to their work. One researcher who carried out a visitor study in a

museum (after the director who hired him

had left) complained: "Working in (the

museum) was like working in a vacuum.

Nobody cared. There were no obstacles,

everybody was friendly and nominally

cooperative, but they were very worried

about the new exhibits and this was

taking up their time and energy .... I

have no way of knowing if any of the

results were surprising, since the report

was not read." A director of an in-house

museum study complained, "If I hadn’t

followed through, the results would have

been buried immediately. I had to work

hard to get people to even read their

report." While such lack of interest

seemed particularly characteristic of

museum adminstrations, it was by no means

restricted to them. The director of a

performing arts audience study said: "I

don’t know exactly what use was made of

the research .... The report was sent to

the (membership group) but I never got

any feedback from the board. I also gave

it to (administrators and board members)

and said I would like to talk to them

about it, and that was the last I ever

heard from them. I don’t even know if

they have ever read the whole report." A

performing arts organization staff member

committed to audience research resigned

when he called a meeting to present the

findings of a study he had commissioned

and only one person came. The director

of another performing arts study was

actually unable to find someone in the

arts organization, which had undergone

extensive staff turnover, willing to receive the report.

67
Research Planning ~-bo~h their~authofs ~n~i~i~±ents .(in o~ly

 ̄ one case was a report no~ prepared). One

A third set of factors detracZing fromI ̄-~- university-affiliated researchersaid:

study use is related to planning(ci~’~ ̄~~ "The ~analyses were done by a graduate

for ten studies). Several researchers student working under me .... The student

and users complained about the absence of

clear research goals. A university-based

director of a performing arts audience

study commented that one "factor in

explaining its lack of utility is that

(the study) was not aimed at any specific

problem." similarly, a museum official,

discussing a visitor study in effect

"donated" to his institution, said, "There

was a problem in fixing the objectives of

the study. (The study director) wanted

us to state our objectives, but we found

this difficult to do. The questions he

finally worked out seemed trivial to us."

An academic investigator who directed a

cross-sectional study for a local arts

council noted: "There was a fair amount

of interest in doing a survey. The problem was a lack of understanding of what a

survey could do, a lack of proper expectations--and this was probably our fault,

because it’s important in market research

to establish this first. People didn’t

really know what to expect--they thought

it was a good idea to do a survey and

find out something about the audience,

but they have no clear idea about what to

use the results for." In a few cases,

studies were planned for internal political reasons rather than for the use of

results. As mentioned previously, some

studies were performed to placate membership committees, and one study was

reportedly undertaken because of a personal friendship between an administrator

and a member of the research firm involved. Finally, two studies suffered from

bad timing, unavoidable because of the

availability of funds or personnel. A

performing arts institution was surveyed

(as part of a larger effort) just before

moving into a permanent facility, rendering some of the data irrelevant. The

presence of major construction and its

attendant problems complicated the administration of one museum study, pushing

staff energies to the limit and, those

involved speculated, inflating the number

of respondents who expressed disappointment in their visits.

Communication and follow-throuqh

Difficulties in communicating and disseminating the study information made up a

fourth set of factors which diminished

research use (reported to be significant

in ten studies). Several study reports

were considered too long or confusing by

wrote a long report that was really not

that well written, and then he and a

couple of people at (the arts council

sponsoring the research) sent out a

pamphlet .... For market research to be

really effective, it has to be presented

to small groups who have the opportunity

to ask questions and really go over the

thing. I sort of have the feeling that

that never happened in this case." The

director of another arts council that had

commissioned an audience study felt that

the findings would have been more powerful if the report had been condensed, with

fewer statistics. A museum administrator

who received one rather technical report

of a visitor study confessed that, although

he was interested in research and carried

the results around for a while, he found

the report so boring that he never read

it. Two study directors complained about

la~k of sophistication in their readers.

"It was apparent that most people (in the

museum) didn’t have any appreciation for

social science research, of the most basic

elements of experimental procedures,"

observed one researcher. In general,

however, researchers with specialized

training appeared willing and able to

write their reports for an audience of

intelligent laypersons.

The key communication problems had to do

with an absence of follow-through once

the final report was delivered. In each

of the three cases in which an arts

council or umbrella group sponsored

research on a local cross section or set

of audiences, inadequate communication

with member arts organizations was

identified as a critical defect of the

research policy process. One in-house

study director recommended that such

studies be seen as two-stage endeavors,

the first involving research, the second

consisting of workshops and informal

communications with specific arts institutions. Another felt that, while a

one-day workshop helped to make member

institutions more conscious of research,

further efforts would have been valuable.

In a third case, the director of a performing arts organization whose audience

was surveyed as part of a larger effort

complained: "Quite frankly, I have yet

to have (the study) on my desk. I looked

at it briefly in (the study director’s)

office, but it was such a cumbersome

thing .... We are absolutely not influenced by it because we have no knowledge

at all of what the data did show. That’s

an important point: make sure that the

68
institutions get to see the versely, inflated hop~s~’~-[ cooperating ......

results. That seems simple." This was .......

not a case of malicious neglect~ .In~i.~_t~ ~. -I~ Several other cases the report’s conthe study director, who headed a local

umbrella arts group, urged us to speak to

this arts administrator as someone who

had used the report’s findings to good

effect. Yet the arts administrator had

not been given a copy of the study--"I’ve

asked for the results about four or five

times and I’m not going to ask anymore, I

have other things to do .... and was quite

indignant.5

Lack of follow-through was also cited by

one study director and one research user

as a danger inherent in the use of student

labor. A performing arts manager said of

a study undertaken with the help of a

business school student: "I have a strong

sense that there was other data we had not

dragged out, that there was more there

than we were able to make use of. The

hazard of using a student is that once

her second year got underway, like us,

she got busier and busier and less able

to work with us--that was a liability.

If we do it again and cannot afford to

hire a professional group who will do it

in an elaborate fashion, if we do use

students again, I am pretty sure that we

will assign it to someone and make it

part of a course load for a full year,

not simply a means of summer support."

Our interviews, as well as the experience

of many studies not considered here, indicate that graduate students and, in some

cases undergraduates, represent an important resource to organizations that cannot

afford to hire professionals. But when

student labor is used it is essential to

make sure that students have sufficient

expertise, that they receive adequate

supervision, that they will hold themselves accountable for high-quality work,

and that they will be available to participate in follow-through research,

interpretation, or dissemination,u

Report content

A fifth difficulty had to do with the

content of the reports themselves (identified as important for nine studies).

In two cases findings were perceived as

outdated due to changes in the audience.

In two other instances, research users

stated that results were inconclusive or

obvious, in another case that results

were unexpected but of trivial importance,

and in yet another that findings were "not

dramatic" enough to make a difference. To

some extent, these responses reflect

initial hostility to research or, content was unsatisfactory for relatively

specific reasons. In the case of one

multi-institutional analysis, by the time

the report was delivered the sponsoring

art council changed its interest to

studies tailored to the needs of specific

member institutions. (The study had

already served its primary purpose of

publicizing the council before its findings were available.) In another case, a

museum abandoned a major planning effort,

and the visitor study conducted in conjunction with that effort was not irmnediately usable. Users of three studies,

one of severa! performing arts events and

two of museums, regretted that the studies

they had sponsored were not of wider

scope. They were interested in the

characteristics and attitudes of nonattenders, who had been left out of the

study, as wel! as of those who~sed their

institutions. To some extent, this may

have reflected the fact that as managers

become involved in the research process,

their questions grow more sophisticated

and become better defined. Finally,

in-house directors of two museum studies

regretted the relative paucity of negative

evaluation from visitors, since specific

critism was considered particularly useful to management.

Study execution

Study execution (cited for eight studies)

was also a factor in study utility.

Directors or users of four studies said

that study funding was inadequate. One

art council staff member felt a stronger

study could have been conducted had

money been available to survey nonattenders. An in-house museum researcher

reported that his survey had not been

fully used in part due to the absence of

funds for computerized data analysis.

Another study director, who had volunteered his services, acknowledged that his

con~nitment to the project was undermined

by the lack of compensation: "I was too

busy to pay much attention to (the data

analysis) and I was involved in a number

of other projects. Frankly, if I had

been paid it would have been different."

Two study directors regarded the level of

expenditure on audience studies as an

important index of an institution’s commitment to the research process, which

affected the inclination of the institution to use the results. An in-house

study director for a performing arts

festival observed that "if the project had

69
been given more money (by the board) the As one s~udQ"d~rect~~h~-:~: -"ol was

study would have had more impact because ~..anxious ~obe challengedon the methodothe trustees would have-exp~cted.~.m~.-~i~ - logical quality of the work. Whenever

from it." similarly, an outside director - someone saidsomething slighting in a

of a study of a major performing arts

institution, with much experience in

market research, reported: "The study

was viewed as cheap by (the institution),

which had the effect of lowering the

conm%itment as well. When organizations

are not paying for the product, they are

less committed to using it." In general,

however, few of the directors or managers

interviewed felt that more money would

have noticeably improved their studies

or made their use more frequent. As we

showed in the previous chapter, funding

was the major determinant of audience

study technical quality, but had no

impact on utility.

Two of the arts managers stated that research on their audiences had little

impact because they lacked an opportunity

to affect the study’s design. In most

cases, however, both in-house and outside

study directors reported soliciting user

involvement in the design of the study.

Usually, outside researchers consulted

closely with key administrators, and inhouse research advocates tried to draw

as many staff and administrators as

possible into survey planning. As one

researcher put it, such consultation was

necessary "to establish a political environment in which I could proceed."

Technical quality

In contrast to the extensive attention

given such matters as organizational

problems, administrative and staff attitudes, communication and dissemination,

and planning, references to technical

quality were almost entirely missing from

our interviews. Low quality was mentioned

as a problem in only three of the twentyfive studies What is more, references

to such factors as sample size, low

response rate, and lack of in-house research expertise in these three instances

involved casual, offhand observations.

Although the studies varied widely in

quality and many were poor by conventional social research standards, in n__qo case

was low technical quality cited as a

major reason for disuse. In fact, all

three ~ho mentioned defects in technical

quality were among those who found their

studies useful for specific managerial

decisions. Furthermore, in cases of

those reporting the greatest amount of

hostility or indifference to research, no

objections were based on methodology.

staff meeting, I would call him on it,

but they invariably withdrewi"

If hostility towards research findings

was never expressed on methodological

grounds, neither were such deficiencies

much cause for distress when they were

noted. An in-house researcher referred

to a first study as "stabbing in the

dark," "a first feeble attempt at research," and stated that he was currently

working with university researchers to

develop a more sophisticated program.

Nonetheless, he used the earlier study to

suggest marketing changes that were implemented. He believed only those results

that were very strongly reported and that

he himself found plausible. In another

case, aboard of trustees overlooked the

small sample surveyed in a performing

arts audience study because "the findings

pretty much were expected."

CONCLUSIONANDRECOMMENDATIONS

The willingness of arts managers to accept

findings of research that does not meet

regular technical standards is in large

part a rational response to the environment in which their organizations function.

Most art organizations have little time,

money, or experience and could not strive

to undertake high quality research even

if they wanted to. Also, most have had

virtually no systematic information about

the composition, attitudes, or habits of

their audiences. Any increment in knowledge can be valuable. And finally, lack

of concern with technical quality reflects

a recognition of the way in which research

findings actually enter into the decision

process in arts organizations--as marginal,

indirect, reinforcing, suggestive, expressive, or symbolic inputs that depend

little on the precise technical methods

employed.

Seen in this way, the absence of a correlation between study technical quality

and study utility is neither mysterious

nor cause for great dismay. Nonetheless,

if poor research is useful, good research

can be even more useful, especially if

it is applied in a rational manner to

specific policy problems. We think such

use of good research can become typical,

and we offer the following recommendations.

7O
First, arts managers have to be committed

to using high quality audience research -

as a regular part of policy de!~ber~%i~..~_

and planning. This depends, in turn, on

their receiving the resources necessary

for systematic planning and it means

reaching some concensus as to the role

audience information should play in arts

planning. Second, an information infrastructure must be created in which both

basic and applied research is conducted

and widely disseminated throughout the

art world. Until arts managers can easily

draw on a pool of information and cumulative knowledge about the nature and

habit of American arts consumers, each

will continue to reinvent the wheel.

Because of high staff turnover a professional research memory must serve in place

of many transient individual ones. Third,

an arrangement must be made that will

permit those arts organizations unable to

afford their own high quality research to

get the information they need. Local arts

research consortia, much like cooperative

fund-raising drives for the arts, should

be established and their limits and possibilities tested. Finally, as part of

this effort, managers must increase their

acquaintance with social research methods

through sho~rt tutorials~orother means.

 ̄ The.services of individuals literate in

research met_h0ds s.hould be made available

to institutions that are without access

to them. .

Certainly, there is some cause for optimism. Our formal interviews and informal

conversations convince us that budget

pressures along with a general change in

attitude mean that planning and research

in arts management is increasingly important. The research activities of the

National Endowment for the Arts and other

agencies may in time provide the infrastructure needed to minimize redundant

research and reduce the cloud of uncertainty under which arts managers operate.

And the development of programs in arts

administration and the appeal of arts

management to individuals with other

kinds of business and social science

training promises to raise the level of

technical knowledge upon which arts organizations can profitably draw. There is,

then, reason to believe that if a study

similar to this one is carried out in ten

years, its findings with regard to research quality and use will be different.

NOTES

1. Only post-1973 studies were included

to ensure that respondent recollections

were relatively fresh: the regional

restriction was imposed to minimize data

collection costs. However, the time

restriction resulted in the exclusion of

all examples of several major types of

studies, and the geographic restriction

was therefore relaxed to include five

midwestern studies so that all types of

audience studies were represented among

our interviews.

2. The idea of research as discourse is

developed by Cohen and Garet (1975) in

an essay on social science research and

federal educational policy.

3. For a discussion of the contribution

of research to problem-setting at the

federal level, see Rein and White (1977).

4. On the importance of leadership in

the utility of federal health program

evaluations, see Patton et al. (1977).

5. Although cooperative audience

research efforts hold the promise of

rigourous and comparable studies for

organizations that lack the time or

expertise to undertake them alone, their

potential has yet to be realized. One

reason is that such studies are usually

carried out for broadly political

purposes. Also, local councils or other

consortium organizations lack the staff

and resources to provide an adequate

account of research findings and to help

member organizations make use of them.

6. On the positive value of research

alliances with university faculty and

students, see Wainwright (1973).

71
CHAPTER 4

AN AGENDA FOR ARTS AUDIENCE RESEARCH

Perhaps the first priority for audience

research should be the routine gathering

of descriptive statistics about the

audience over time. Such statistics

could be gathered through a regular

national survey of audiences for a

stratified random sample of arts institutions. Thus far, the population of

arts institutions has not been fully

specified. However, improvements may

make systematic sampling possible in the

near future. The Census of Business,

which had already included data on

performing arts institutions, in 1977

added data on museums for the first time:

and an economic data series is under

consideration by the National Endowment

for the Arts. Institutions included in

the survey should be stratified by such

variables as art type, region, degree of

urbanization, programming policy, amateur

versus professional status, and ticket

price, community-based and predominantly

minority institutions, as well as free

and outdoor events, should be included.

Studies performed by individual institutions must be designed locally to address

the specific needs of the organizations

sponsoring them. But questions can be

written so as to make a survey comparable

to previous research. The benefits are

mutual: others will be able to use the

results and those who undertake the survey will be able to contrast their own

audiences with existing baseline data.

In general, demographic categories can

be patterned after census categorization

schemes, with additional categories added

as needed. When conventional categorization schemes are not used, then the

use of many categories for such variables

as education and occupation is preferable

since it is often possible to merge

response groups for purposes of comparison.

In sampling audience members, it is

important to stress that forms should be

completed by those who actually receive

them, and not other members of their

party or family. Such a practice, for

example, would minimize any biasing

effects of tendencies for older men (or

women) to take on the task of completing

questionnaires for othe9 family members.

Questions on educational attainment

should differentiate between high school

and non-high school graduates, between

individuals with some college, graduates

of two-year colleges, graduates of fouryear colleges, and those with graduate

training or degrees. Occupational

categories are difficult at best. The

use of standard census categories in

pre-coded questionnaires, or requests

for precise occupational descriptions to

be coded by investigators with reference

to census listings, would minimize

confusion in this area. Researchers may

also reduce response error by specifying

that the respondent be currently employed

at least one-half time in the occupation

reported. Where income information is

requested, family income should be

specified. Where racial or ethnic

information is requested, categories

should be made specific and clear. The

category "nonwhite," for example, may

invite ambiguous responses and miss

important differences.

Local organizations can also greatly

increase the information gained from

surveys by making use of crosstabulations--that is, joint frequency

distributions in which audience members

are placed in cells formed by crossclassifying two or more variables. Crosstabulations require little statistical

training, only marginal added effort, and

answer a wide range of managerial and

other questions. For example, if one

wants to see if those audience members

reporting lower educational attainment

are primarily young people continuing

their education, one can do a crosstabulation of age and education. If one

wants to assess an audience’s occupational

level independent of gender, one can

cross-tabulate gender andoccupation. A

manager who wishes to predict the effect

on audience composition of an across the

board increase in ticket prices can gain

some insight by cross-tabulating ticket

price and education (or occupation or

income) and comparing those in the most

expensive seats to those in the least

expensive. A marketing specialist aiming

at a particular income group can crosstabulate income and source of information

to see if different kinds of advertising

reaches different kinds of visitors or

attenders.  ̄

In addition to using cross-tabulations,

researchers can inexpensively increase

the information yielded by surveys in two

72
other ways: demographic frequencies can

be compared to census frequencies for

metropolitan residents as avisits and visitors can be distinguished

by asking respondents to note how many

times they have attended an institution

over a suitable time period (such as the

previous t~.elve months).

Local organizations should be urged to

publicize their own research findings

and to make them available to other arts

organizations. In general, arts institutions do not appear to be competing for

the same dollars. Individuals who

frequently attend one art form or

institution seem frequently to attend

others as well. Promotional energies

may more profitably go towards expanding

the total arts market for an area than

towards dividing up the existing public.

At any rate, audience studies rarely

contain enough surprising, embarrassing,

or definitive information to give an

institution a competitive edge.

Although we offered to maintain audience

studies collected for this study on a

confidential basis, we had few requests

to do so, and such requests were almost

always related to a specific and unusual

institutional consideration. In most

cases, then, those who undertake studies

seem willing to disseminate their results.

What is needed is a clearinghouse for

such research in which organizations can

share information to their mutual benefit.

In addition to the need for comparable

descriptive data on audiences over time,

other critical questions about arts

audiences require more focused studies.

Many of the arts managers we spoke with

wanted information about nonattenders,

the people whom direct audience surveys

can never reach (though cross-sectional

studies, of course, do so). Do individuals fail to attend museums and the

performing arts because of lack of

interest, antipathy, inconvenience, or

prices? Such information is critical to

attempts to enlarge the market for the

arts and to meet the public’s desire for

greater accessibility to the arts. To

understand nonattendance, in-depth interviews may be necessary to get beyond

initial responses to questionnaires and

to reach deeper motivations. Depending

upon the targets of a market development

plan0 such studies could be focused on

individuals demographically similar to

attenders (for example, their next-door

neighbors) or on individuals from

socioeconomic groups with low attendance

rates.

Research on the relationship of attendance at one art form to attendance at

others, indicates that;.~i-th-the p~ssible

- ~xception of theatregoers, aficionados of

one art form a!so.attend others. Such

research, however, is at a rudimentary

stage. Is there one arts audience or

many? Do conditions vary from city tO

city with, say major arts centers like

New York having multiple publics and

smaller cities having a single cultural

public? Furthermore, what is the responsiveness of arts attendance not only to

price but also to content? If the opera

raises its ticket prices or alters its

programming, will audiences go to the

theatre? Will they stay home and watch

television? If an art museum changes its

exhibits policies or raises its admission

fee, will visitors go to science museums

or to the aquarium or to a football game

instead? It has been observed that television viewers watch television rather

than tuning in specific programs. Is the

situation similar in the arts? To what

extent can institutions use program

changes to draw larger or new audiences,

or to experiment with new offerings without fear of losing the existing audience?

We know little about the answers to these

questions.

Many people in the arts have stressed a

need to expand audiences to include those

not already reached. The audiences

analyzed in this study tended to share

such characteristics as high educational

attainment, high incomes, large percentages of professionals, and smal!

percentages of blue-collar workers and

minorities. Yet there were some striking

exceptions. Intensive analysis of

institutions that draw on unusually wide

audiences may provide insights that other

organizations can use.

An often useful but neglected methodology

is the quasi-experimental design. If an

institution is contemplating some change

in admission price, time of performance,

or other program policy and wants to

assess its effect on audience composition,

controlled studies of audiences before and

after limited changes can be of great

value. In such research it is important

to consider alternative explanations for

any change found. If this is done, pretest/post-test studies can be a powerful

management tool.

Another issue about which little is known

and much curiosity exists is the process

of socialization into arts attendance:

how early does it begin, how important is

the family, and how important is the

school? One easy way to begin to assess

the importance of family background is to

ask respondents questions about their

parents. We know nothing about the

73
relationship between the educational ultimateiy ~im~tter[~’~-~cided on the

attainment or occupation of the parents ~..basis of values and priorities, For

and a person’s attendance.. If th@~.~t~ -example, while research has usually

is acquired early in life, family background may be almost as important as

one’s own education or occupation.

A more thorough examination of socialization into the arts must go beyond

surveys to more focused interviews and

studies of children and teenagers. We

know that a person’s educational attainment is the best predictor of his or

her attendance at museums and performing

arts events. But why is this so? Is it

because people who stay in school a

long time come from families where the

arts are cultivated from an early age?

Is it because formal training in the arts

in high schools and colleges creates an

appetite? Is it because colleges provide

students with a culturally oriented peer

group and large quantities of free time?

Or is it some combination of these and

other factors?

If there are many serious gaps in our

knowledge about the public for museums

and for the live performing arts, we

know even less about the public for the

arts in other forms. How many people

enjoy theatre, dance, opera, and

classical music on television and radio?

Are these the same people who attend

live performances or is it an entirely

different group? Do media presentations

serve as a substitute for live performances and exhibits, or do they only

whet consumers’ appetites? (The interested reader should consult Arts and

Cultural Proqrams on Radio and Televlslon

by Natan Katzman and Kenneth Wirt (1977).)

What about art books and phonograph

records? Are such mechanical reproductions a supplement to or substitute for

visits to art museums and nights at the

opera? until we learn more about those

who consume the arts in their media

forms, we can only speculate about the

size and breadth of the arts audience as

a whole.

revealed that the arts attenders are

wealthier, better educated, and employed

in more prestigious occupations than the

public at large, audience research cannot

indicat~ whether this situation is good,

bad, or indifferent. Some institutions

are committed to broadening the social

composition of the audience, and it seems

clear that such efforts can bear fruit.

Among the studies we assembled were a few

of audiences containing quite diverse

cross-sections of the American public.

And in the midst of the Depression,

audiences for the Federal Theater Project

included many employed blue-collar workers.

Other institutions have found it easier,

and financially critical, to develop

further those segments of the public

already attending. Different priorities

for expansion dictate differing research

designs. Such priorities must be made

explicit in order to make the best use of

research.

The kind of research to be conducted and

the extent of research carried out is

Especially at the local level, research

is part of a process of planning and

administration: and planning is something relatively new to the arts, about

which there is some disagreement.

Planning and research both cost money.

The best development and use of arts

audience research will require money for

a research infrastructure, money for

staff time to execute and follow through

the implications of research, and money

to permit institutions now living from

crisis to crisis to become involved in

long-range planning. Arts institutions

have some capacity to improve research

by shifting their own priorities. But,

ultimately, systematic use of research on

a wide scale, after the fashion of many

government agencies and private industry,

may be prohibitively expensive. The level

of resources allocated to the arts from

among competing national priorities is,

of course, a product of the political

process, and the constraints of this

process will, indirectly critically shape

the role that such research can play.

74
APPENDIX_

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbey, D. S. and Duncan F. Cameron

1959 The museum visitor: I--survey

design. Toronto: RoyalOntario

Museum.

1960 The museum visitor: II--survey

results. Toronto: Royal Ontario

Museum.

1961 The museum visitor: III--supplementary studies. Toronto: Royal

Ontario Museum.

American Association of Museums

1972 Museums: their new audience.

Washington, D.C.

The Arts, Education and Americans Panel

1977 coming to our senses: the significance of the arts for American

education. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Baumol, William and William Bowen

1966 The performing arts: the economic

dilemma. Cambridge: The M.I.T.

Press.

Bernstein, Ilene N., editor

1976 validity issues in evaluative

research. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Bernstein, Ilene N. and Howard E. Freeman

1975 Academic and entrepreneurial research: the consequences of diversity in federal evaluation studies.

New York: Russell Sage.

Book, S. H. and S. Globerman

1975 The audience for the performing

arts: a study of attendance patterns in Ontario. Toronto:

Ontario Arts Council.

Bracht, Glenn H. and Gene V. Glass

1968 The external validity of experiments. American Educational

Research Journal 5 (November):

437-474.

Cameron, Duncan F. and D. S. Abbey

1960a Visits versus visitors: an analysis. Museum News 29 (3): 34-35.

1960b Investigating a museum’s audience.

The Museoloqist 77 (December): 2-7.

1961 Museum audience research. Museum

News 39: 34-38.

1962 Museum audience research: the

effect of an admission fee. Museum

News 41 (November): 25-28.

Campbell, Donald T. and Julian C. Stanley

1966 Experimental and quasi-experimental

designs for research. Chicago:

Rand McNa!ly.

caplan, Nathan

1976 Social research and national policy:

what gets used, by whom, for what

purposes, and with what effects?

International Social Science Journal 28: 187-194.

75
Caplan, Nathan, Andrea Morrison, and. ~ - Gordon,- Gerald,i~d ~EdwardV’- Morse

Russell J. Stambaugh ~ - _ ~%~.~~:i~~.-- - 1975~ Evaluation research.  ̄ In Alex

1975 The use of social science knowledge Inkeles, ed., Annual review of

in policy decisions at the national

socioloqy. Palo Alto: Annual

level. Ann Arbor: Institute for Reviews Inc., pP. 339-361.

socia! Research.

Caro, Francis G., editor

1971 Readinqs in evaluation research.

New York: Russell Sage.

Gruenberg, Barry

1975 How free is free time? Analysis of

some determinants of leisure activity patterns. Unpublished manuscript. Middletown: Department of

sociology, Wesleyan university.

Cohen, David K. and Michael S. Garet

1975 Reforming educational policy with

applied social research. Harvard

Educational Review 45 (February):

17-41.

cwi, David and Katharine Lyall

1977 Economic impacts of arts and

cultural institutions: a model for

assessment and a case study in

Baltimore. washington, D.C.:

National Endowment for the Arts.

Haug, Marie

1977 Measurement in social stratification. In Alex Inkeles, James

coleman, and Neil Smelser, eds.,

Anuual review of sociology. Palo

Alto: Annual Reviews Inc.,

pp. 51-78.

Johnson, Alton C. and E. Arthur Prieve

1976 older Americans: the unrealized

audience for the arts. Madison:

Center for Arts Administration.

de Borhegyi, Stephan F. and Irene A.

Hanson, editors

1968 The museum visitor: selected

essays and surveys of visitor

reaction to exhibits in the ~ilwaukee Public Museum. Milwaukee:

Milwaukee public Museum.

Katzman, Natan and Kenneth wirt

1977 Arts and cultural proqrams on radio

and television, washington, D.C.:

National Endowment for the Arts.

DiMaggio, Paul and Michael Useem

1978

social class and arts consumption.

Theory and Society. 5 (spring).

Kerlinger, Fred N.

1973 Foundations of behavioral research.

2nd edition. New York: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston.

Gans, Herbert

1974 popular culture and hiqh culture:

an analysis and evaluation of taste.

New York: Basic Books.

Gephart, William J.

1965 Development of an instrument for

evaluating reports for educational

~esearch. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertati~n.

Lin, Nan

1976 The foundations of social research.

New York: McGraw-HillLogan, Olive

1871 The mimic world and public exhibi-.-

tions: their historyr their morals.,

and effects. Philadelphia: New

world publishing.

76
Mann, J. Persell, Ca;01ine Hodges~ -~ ......

1972 The outcome of evaluative research~-~. ~ 197.1 The quality of research on educaIn Carol H. Weiss, ed.~ E~aluatt~i~d~ ...... tion: an empirical study of reaction programs. Boston: Allyn searchers and their work. New

and Bacon, pp. 267~282. York: Bureau of Applied Social

Research.

Mann, P. H.

1966 Surveying a theatre audience: methodological problems. British Journal of Sociology 17: 380-387.

Rein, Martin and Sheldon White

1977 Policy research: belief and doubt.

Policy Analysis 3 (Spring): 239-

271.

McTavish, Donald G. et al.

1977 Assessing research methodology:

the structure of professional

assessments of methodology. Sociological methods and research ~

(forthcoming).

Robinson, Edward S.

1930 Psychological problems of the

science museum. Museum News 8 (5):

9-11.

Morison, Bradley.gnd Kay Fliehr

1968 In search of an audience: how an

audience was found for the Tyrone

Guthrie Theatre. New York: Pitman

Publishing.

1974 Reach: a new method of measuring

an audience. In Alvin H. Reiss,

Arts Management Handbook. New York:

Law-Arts Publishers, pp. 126-129.

Newgren, Donald

1972 A standardized museum survey: a

methodology for museums to gather

decision-oriented information.

Ph.D. dissertation, Syracuse University. Ann Arbor: University

Microfilms.

O’Hare, Michael

1974 The audience of the Museum of Fine

Arts. Curator 17 (June): 126-158.

Patton, Michael Q. et al.

1977 In search of impact: an analysis

of the utilization of federal health

evaluation research. In Carol H.

Weiss, ed., Using social research

in public policy making. Lexington:

Heath, pp. 141-163.

Rosenberg, Harold

1966 The anxious object: art todaZ and

its audience. New York: Collier

Books.

Rossi, Peter H. and Walter Williams,

editors

1972 Evaluating social programs: theory~ practice~ and politics. New

York: Seminar Press.

Simon, Herbert A.

1965 Administrative behavior. New York:

Free Press, 1965.

Theatre Communications Group

1967 Toward a new audience: a report

on a continuing workshop in audience development. New York

Tocqueville, Alexis de

1956 Democracy in America.

New American Library.

New York:

77
" weiss, -Ca~01 ~. ~".-~d~~-~- -

Toffler, Alvin ~...

1965 The culture consumers. Baltimore: - 1972 Evaluation research: -methods of

................. ~ssessinq proqram effectiveness. Penguin Books. Englewood cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

van de vall, Mark

1975 utilization and methodology of

applied social research: four complementary models. Journal of

Applied Behavioral science Ii (i):

14-38.

Weiss, carol H. and Michael J. Bucuvalas

1977 The challenge of social research

to decision making. In carol H.

weiss, ed., usinq social research

in public policy makinq.. Lexington: Heath, pP. 213-233.

van de Vall, Mark, Cheryl Bolas, and Tai

S. King

1976 Applied social research in industrial organizations: an evaluation

of functions, theory, and methods.

Journal of Applied Behavioral

Science 12 (April-May-June): 158-

177.

veblen, Thorstein

1899 The theory of the leisure class:

an economic study in the evaluation

of institutions. New York: The

Macmillan company.

Yin, Robert K., Eveleen Bingham, and

Karen A. Heald

1976 The difference that quality makes:

the case of literature reviews.

socioloqical Methods & Research 5

(November): 139-156.

Yin, Robert K. and D. Yates

1975 Street-level qovernments: assessinq decentralization and urban

serviceg... Lexington: Heath.

wainwright, June M.

1973 Svmphony orchestras and marketinq

research proqram{, vienna, Va.:

American Symphony Orchestra League.

78
APPENDIX iI

LIST OF STUDIES

Kimmel, Peter S. and Mark J. Maves.

"Public Reaction to Museum Interiors," Museum News 51(1): 17-19

(Sept. 1972).

Twelve museums and galleries in

the San Francisco-Oakland area.

Smits, Edward J. "A Suburban Museum

Looks at Its visitors," Museum News

42: 30-34 (May 1964).

See also #’s 200, 204

Nassau County Museum on Long Island.

Yankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc.

A Study of Out-of-Town Visitors to

the Metropolitan Museum of Art. New

York: Metropolitan Museum of Art,

Sept. 1975, 38p.

See also #’s 230, 250

Arts Administration Research Institute. "The Economic Impact of

Boston’s Legitimate Theatres." (Preliminary Report.) cambridge: Arts

Administration Research Institute,

Dec. 1974, 9p.

Haacke, Hans. "Hans Haacke’s Gallery

Visitors’ Profile," Artforum ii:

44-45 (June 1973).

Boice, Bruce. Comments on Haacke’s

survey, Artforum ii: 46 (June 1973).

John Weber Gallery in New York City.

Gardner, Howard and Lynn Goldsmith.

Final Report to the National Sndowment for the Arts Regarding the

visiting Specialist Grant. Minneapolis: The Minneapolis Institute

of Arts. Sept. 1975, 75p.

See also # 247

8

National Research Center of the Arts,

Inc. Americans and the Arts: A

Survey of Public Opinion. New York:

Associated Councils of the Arts,

1975, 162p.

National Research Center of the Arts,

Inc. Americans and the Arts: Highlights From a Survey of Public

Opinion. New York: Publishing Center for Cultural Resources (avaiable from ACA Publications, P.O.

Box 4764, Tulsa, OK 74104), 1974,

36p.

See also #137

Nationwide public opinion survey

for Associated Councils of the

Arts.

Baumol, William J. and William G.

Bowen. "Chapter IV: The Audience"

and "Appendix IV-l: Audience Survey

Methods." In William J. Baumol and

William G. Bowen, Performing Arts--

The Economic Dilemma. Cambridge:

M.I.T. Press, 1966. pp. 71-97, 443-

467.

Boston Symphony Orchestra, "Audience

Survey - 1964 (print-outs), Baumol &

BOWen (20th Century Fund Study on

the Economi~s of the Performing

Arts)." Separate print-outs for

Feb. 16, Mar. 9, Mar. 19, Mar. 24,

Mar. 28, Apr. 5, and Apr. i0, 1964.

Boston: Boston Symphony Orchestra,

1964, 7p.

National multi-art form survey.

Kaali-Nagy, Christina and Lee G.

Garrison. "Profiles of Users and

Nonusers of the Los Angeles Music

Center," California Management Review

15 (2): 133-143 (Winter 1972).

79
I0

ii

Raymond, Thomas C., Stephen A.

Greyser, and Douglas Schwa!bei.~

"Broome County veterans-Men~fia~~-

Auditorium and Perfroming Arts

Theatre (B)." In Thomas C. Raymond

et al., Cases in Arts Administration. cambridge: Institute of Arts Admin

istration0 July 1971. pp. 1-18.

Tauber0 Edward M. and P. weissenberg.

"Audience Development for Community

Theater: opinion Leaders and Word

of Mouth Communication," ~

Arts Review 2(3): 525-534 (1971).

See also #71

New York--survey of all county

arts events for 1970 season.

(Leo Burnett Company, Inc.) "The

Impact of Chicago’s Museum visitors

on the City’s Economy." Prepared

for council of Museum Directors.

(Chicago: Leo Burnett Company,

Inc.), Jan. 1977, 18p.

See also #’s 135, 136, 179-182, 236,

242, ~43.

12 Washburne, Randel G. and J. Alan

Wagar. ,,Evaluating visitor Response

to Exhibit Content " Curator 15(3):

248-254 (Sept. 1972).

See also #’s 232, 233

Study in four park visitor centers

in the Pacific Northwest.

13 Langley, Stephen. "Chapter Thirteen:

Community Relations-" In Stephen

Langley, Theatre Management in America: Principle and Practice. New

York: Drama Book SPecialistsTPublishers, 1974. pP. 275-288.

Conducted by Theatre Division of

Brooklyn College on six performance nights of a major production14 Cerami, Joseph M. "Chapter V: Audience Profiles for Selected Music,

Drama, and Opera Performances at

Long Island Colleges 1969-1970."

In Alian.Easton~-~eommuni~y Suppor%

of the PerforminqArts--Selected

.Problems of Local and National Interes___t. Hofstra University Yearbook of

Business, series 7, V. 5. New York: Hofstra University, 1970. pp. 275-

284.

15 Shettel, Harris H. and Pamela C.

Reilly. An Evaluation of Existing

Criteria for Judqinq the Quality of

Science Exhibits. Pittsburgh: Am

erican Institutes for Research in

the Behavioral Sciences, Nov. 1965,

81 p. (Clearinghouse for Federal

Scientific and Technical Information,

TiD-22703/General Miscellaneous, and

Progress Reports (TID-4500).)

Shettel, Harris H. "Exhibits: Art

Form or Educational Medium?" Museum

New____~s 52(1): 32-41 (Sept. 1973).

Responses to effectiveness of U.S.

Atomic Energy Commission’s Atoms

in Action exhibit (designed in

American Museum of Atomic Energy,

Oak Ridge, Tennessee)-

16 Johnson~ David A. "Museum Attendance

in the New York Metropolitan Region,"

Curator 12(3): 201-230 (Sept. 1969).

Interviews of visitors to six

muse~  ̄

17 O’Hare, Michael. "The Audience of

the Museum of Fine Arts," Curator

17(2): 126-159 (June 1974).

"The Public’s Use of Art--

~isitor Behavior in an Art Museum,

Curator 17(4): 309-320 (Dec. 1974).

"Why Do People Go to

Museums: The Effect of Prices and

Hours on Museum Utilization-" Working Paper. Cambridge: Laboratory

of Architecture and Planning, School

of Architecture and Planning, MIT,

Aug. 1974, 22p.

See also #224

Boston Museum of Fine Arts.

8O
18

19

20

21

22

23

Kaiser, Michael. Letter to C. 24 -Ellis, John W. "American Shakespeare

Richardson, Skylight Theatre, Mil- " ...... iThea[re Audience Questionnaire, 1975 waukee, Wisconsin, dated Jan..-l~Z~ib<~.~~.." _- - Season: -Response Analysis,-Intro1975, 3p. ductory Material." Stratford, Conn.:

Includes copy of profile comparing

Skylight Theatre audience with

aggregate data for other regional

and major opera companies.

Permaloff, Anne et al. "A Survey of

Patrons of the Montgomery Museum of

Fine Arts." Paper submitted to Montgomery Museum of Fine Arts, April 15,

1976. Montgomery: Auburn University, 1976, 29p.

American Shakespeare Theatre, 1975,

9p. (No data.)

. "The Economic Impact of

the American Shakespeare Theatre on

Stratford, Connecticut." Stratford,

Conn.: American Shakespeare Theatre,

1975, 7p.

25 Fife, Camille. "Indiana Repertory

Theatre Audience Survey, 1975-76

Season." Report. Indianapolis:

Indiana Repertory Theatre, 1976, 24p.

Ballet West. "Statistics of Ballet

West Aspen Poll. " Computer printout. Salt Lake city: Ballet West,

n.d.

Trumpet in the Land. "An Analysis

of Audience Questionnaires From the

1975 Season of Trumpet in the Land."

Mimeographed. Dover, Ohio: Trumpet

in the Land, (1975), 3p.

See also #221

Dourdounas, George (John R. Bayless

and William E. Crocken, project directors). "Initial Pilot Survey of

Rural Central Pennsylvania." University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania

State University, 1975, 10p.

"Survey Results." University P~k, Pa.: Pennsylvania State

University, 1975, 10p.

See also #’s 74,150

Mail survey for Pennsylvania State

Festival Theatre.

26

27

28

New Jersey Shakespeare Festival.

"New Jersey Shakespeare Festival -

Audience Questionnaire Responses,

July 5th through August 19, 1972."

Madison, N.J.: New Jersey Shakespeare Festival, 1972, 4p.

See also #27

Rodgers, F. L. Memorandum from F. L.

Rodgers to Executive Committee Re.

"Telephone Survey," dated Jan. 22,

1974 and "Summary of Telephone Interviews." Madison, N.J.: New Jersey

Shakespeare Festival, 1974, 5p. + 3p.

See also #26

Interviews with renewed and nonrenewed subscribers and individual

play attenders.

(Foran and Greer, Inc.) "Blossom

Survey, 1974." Results. Cuyahoga

Falls, Ohio: Blossom Music Center,

1974, 2p.

Cleveland Symphony Orchestra.

Billings Symphony Orchestra. Copy

of questionnaire and summary of

results of audience survey taken

Apr. 27, 1975. Billings, Mont.:

Billings Symphony Orchestra, 1975,

3p.

29 Byrne, June F. Letter to Richard

Thomas of the Milwaukee Symphony,

dated Aug. i0, 1976. Attachments are

a summary table and questionnaire.

Madison, Wisc.: Graduate School of

Business, Center for Arts Administration, University of Wisconsin, 1976,

3p.

81
Byrne, June F. et al. Hiqhliqhtinq

the Economics of Not-for-Profit.~Arts

Organizations. Madison,

wisconsin Arts council, Inc., 1976,

8p.

Respondents were 140 nonprofit

arts organizations in Wisconsin

(includes survey form used for

fourteen audiences to document

economic impact of the arts).

Parsons, Lee"~-’iSYs~emi£ic Testing

of Display Techniques for an Anthropological. Exhibit." In Stephan F.

deBorhegyi and Irene A. Hanson, eds.,

The Museum visitor: Selected Essays

and Surveys of visitor Reaction to

Exhibits in the Milwaukee Public

Museum. Milwaukee: Milwaukee Public

Museum, 1968. pp. 81-98.

See also #’s 47, 106-109

30

31

DeLuca, Barbara and Carol Bullard.

Arts and Arts-Related Orqanizations

in the capital District: The Structure and Function of the Orqanizations Themselves; The Nature and

Needs of the Audiences They Serve;

The Pattern~ Impact~ and Potential

of Their Funding. Albany: Albany

League of Arts, 1976, 90p.

Rochester Museum and Science Center.

1973-74 visitors Survey. Report.

Rochester, N.Y.: Rochester Museum

and Science Center, 1974, 26p.

32 CONFIDENTIAL

33

34

35

Shettel, Harris H. "Exhibits: Art

Form or Educational Medium?" Museum

New__s 52(i): 32-41 (Sept. 1973).

Effectiveness study of vision of

Man traveling exhibit.

Prague, Rochelle H. "The university

Museum visitor Survey Project,"

curator 17(3): 207-212 (Sept. 1974).

interviews, behavioral observation,

and questionnaires of visitors

to university Museum in Philadelphia.

deBorhegyi, Stephan F. "Testing of

Audience Reaction to Museum Exhibits," Curator 8(1): 86-93 (Dec.

1965). Also in Stephan F. deBorhegyi

and Irene A. Hanson, eds. The Museum

visitor: Selected Essays and Surveys

of visitor Reaction to Exhibits in

the Milwaukee Public Museum. Milwaukee: Milwaukee Public Museum, 1968.

pp..75-80.

36 Nielsen, Richard. Questionnaire for

Krannert Center for the Performing

Arts Audience Survey. Urbana, Ill.:

university of Illinois, n.d., 19p.

N(ie)isen, Richard P. "Types of

Theatre Information and MarketingAudience Development Among the Alienated," Performing Arts Review

14(1-2): 44-57 (1973).

Nielsen, Richard P. and charles

McQueen. "Attendance Types of

Performing Arts Events and Explanations for Attendance and Non-Attendance at the Krannert Center for the

Performing Arts." Paper. Urbana,

Ill.: university of Illinois, n.d.,

18p.

Nielsen, Richard P. and charles

McQueen. "Audience Segments of the

Krannert Center for the Performing

Arts." Paper. Urbana, Ill.: university of Illinois, n.d., 14p.

o ,’Performing Arts Consumer

Behavior: An Exploratory Study."

Paper. Urbana, Ill.: university of

Illinois, n.d.0 19p.

Nielsen, Richard P., charles McQueen,

and Angela B. Nielsen. "Public

Policy and Attitudes on Tax Support

for Live Artistic communications

Media," American Journal of Economics and sociology, April 1976,

pp. 149-160.

Nielsen, Richard P., Angela B.

Nielsen, and charles McQueen. "Attendance Types of Performing Arts

Events and Explanations for Attendance and Non-attendance," Performing Arts Review 6(1): 43-69 (1975).

,.Explanations for Public’s

Willing~ess to Pay Additional Taxes

for Support of the Arts," Performin~

Arts Review 5(3-4): 199-209 (1974).-

"Performing Arts Audience

Segments: A case Study," Performing

82
37

38

39

Arts Review 6(2): 301-312 (1975-76) -40

Champaign and Urbana, Ill. home.~

survey. " - - " ’~~ ~

Moore, Thomas Gale. "V: The Audience." In Thomas Gale Moore, The

Economics of the American Theater.

Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press,

1968. pp. 69-89.

See also #98

Description of 1960 Playbillsponsored survey of Broadway

theatergoers.

41

Moore, Thomas Gale. "V: The Audience." In Thomas Gale Moore, The

Economics of the American TP.eater.

Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press,

1968. pp. 69-89.

 ̄ "New Audience Survey Identifies ~laygoers." In Alvin H.

Reiss, Arts Manaqement Handbook.

New York: Law-Arts Publishers, 1974.

pp. 142-144.

"Non-Newspaper Advertising

Brings Few Theatregoers to Broadway

Plays." In Alvin H. Reiss, Arts

Manaqement ~Handbook. New York: LawArts Publishers, 1974. pp. 146-149.

1962 survey of audiences in seven

Broadway theaters.

42

43

Farrell, Joseph. Letter to Janet

Gracey and Richard Kirshner, dated

Apr. 17, 1973. In Theatre Development Fund, An American Dance Theatre.

New York: Theatre Development Fund,

n.d. 7p.

National Research Center of the Arts,

Inc. Arts and the People: A Survey

of Public Attitudes and Participation

in the Arts and Culture in New York

State. New York: National Research

Center of the Arts, Inc., 1973, 225p.

Reiss, Alvin H. "Key Study Shows

Public Receptive to Arts." In Alvin

H. Rei~s, Arts Manaqement Handbook.

New York: Law-Arts Publishers, 1974.

pp. 122-126.

44

(Pri~ve%ESA~t~[~-~O~estionnaire

for Wisc0nsin UniOn Theater Survey.

Madison, WisC." (Center for Arts

--Administration, 1976), 5p.

Study of university theater audience to be completed in 1977.

Guthrie Theatre. "Guthrie Theatre

1974 Audience Survey" questionnaire.

Minneapolis: Guthrie Theatre, 1974,

2p.

Namakkal/Eringer Marketing, Inc. Report on composition of the audience

of the Guthrie Theatre for the 1974-

75 season. Minneapolis: Namakkal/

Eringer Marketing, Inc., n.d., 33p.

See also #’s 104, 117, 122, 126, 199

National Research Center of the Arts,

Inc. Californians and the Arts: A

Survey of Public Attitudes Toward and

Pariticipation in the Arts and Culture in the State of california. New

York: National Research Center of

the Arts, Inc., 1975 (?), 230p.

National Research Center of the Arts.

Californians and the Arts: Summary

Report. Sacramento: California Arts

Commission, 1975, 13p.

Richardson, Raymond J. and John F.

Maxwell. "Lake Placid Center for

Music, Drama and Art: Its Economic

Impact; A Study for the New York

State Council on the Arts." Plattsburgh, N.Y.: Technical Assistance

Center, Dec. 1973, 30p.

Report of resident and tourist

survey.

Arts Development Services, Inc. ADS

Market Study 1975: A Summary Report.

Buffalo: Arts Development Services,

Inc., (1975), 16p.

(Gottstein, James F.) Potential

Markets for the Arts in Western New

York. Buffalo: Arts Development Services, Inc., (1975), 72p.

Mail survey of Buffalo area.

83
45

46

47

48

J. R. Taft Corporation. An Evaluation of the Impact and Effective- ~

ness of Affiliate Artistsr Inc..

Washington, D.C.: J. R.-Taft~C°r .....

~

poration, Comlab, Inc., Oct. 1971, 49

61p.

Evaluation of school arts program.

Nash, George. "Art Museums as Perceived by the Public," Curator

18(1): 55-67 (1975).

Art Museums as Perceived

by the ~ublic. New York: New York

State council on the Arts, 1974,

31p.

See also #’s 238, 239

Survey of individuals in downtown

Manhattan and Rochester, visitors

to the Whitney Museum of Art, and

study of outreach programs of the

Memorial Art Gallery at the university of Rochester. 51

Screven, C. G. "The Application of

Programed Learning and Teaching Systems Procedures for Instruction in a

Museum Environment." In Stephan F.

deBorhegyi and Irene A. Hanson, eds.,

The Museum visitor: Selected Essays

and Surveys of visitor Reaction to

Exhibits in the Milwaukee Public

Museum. Milwaukee: Milwaukee Public

Museum, 1968. pp. 167-174.

The Application of Proqramed Learnlng and Teachinq Systems

Procedures for Instruction in a Museum Environment: Final Report..

Washington, D.C.: U.S. office of

Education, Bureau of Research (ED

048 745), Dec. 1967, 96p.

The Measurement and Facilitation ~f Learning in the Museum

Environment: An Experimental Analysis. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian

I--~titution Press, 1974, 91p.

See also #’s 35, 106-109

52

53

54

50

Metropolitan Opera. "Me~ sampler--

Survey Findings." New York: Metropolitan Opera, 1976, 5p.

See also #’s 50, 51

Telephone survey of participants

in special Sampler program.

Metropolitan Opera. introduction to

the Met in the Parks Survey. New

York: Metropolitan Opera, n.d., 40p.

See also #’s 49, 51

interviews with attenders of outdoor concert programs; includes

tables and graphs of responses.

(veitch, Patrick.) "cancelled Subscribers--Survey Findings." New

York: Metropolitan Opera, (1976),

5p.

See also #’s 49, 50

Mail survey by Metropolitan Opera’s

Marketing Department-

(Rothman, Steve.) .Stage/West Audience Survey - 1975: Survey Questions

and Sample Response; Schedule C."

springfield, Mass.: Stage/West,

1975, 3p.

New Hampshire Music Festival. "1975

New Hampshire Music Festival Audience

Questionnaire." Tally sheet and

copy of survey. Center Harbor, N.H.:

New Hampshire Music Festival, 1975,

ip.

CONFIDENTIAL

Study of use of self-teaching

machines at Milwaukee Public

Museum.

Barter Theatre. "Audience Survey:

Barter Theatre, 1975." Questionnaire

with results. Abingdon, va.: Barter

55 Homans, Richard. "saint Louis Symphony Orchestra Survey." St. Louis:

University of Missouri, Marketing

Department, June 1976, 7p.

Telephone survey of subscribers

and their non-subscribing neighbors.

84
56

57

58

59

60

61

62

(Carver, James.) "Results of the  ̄ ~.63

Questionnaire." Copy of question~ .....

naire and tally sheets. ~_Kalamaz60~i:~." _- o.

civic Players, n.d., 4p.

Oregon Shakespearean Festival Association. "Survey for the Institute

of Outdoor Drama: King John, Aug.

27, 1969," and "Survey for the Institute of Outdoor Drama: King John,

August 31, 1969." Ashland, Oregon:

Oregon Shakespearean Festival Association, 1969, 12p. (Tabulation

sheets only.)

See also #’s 208-221

64

Holth, Henry. Memorandum to Members

of the Executive Committee, dated

July i, 1976. Attachments: "Houston

Ballet Audience Questionnaire" with

tabulations and "Some Notes on the

Audience Survey Results." Houston:

Houston Ballet, 1976, 6p.

See also #59 65

Houston Ballet. "Houston Ballet

Telephone Survey." Questionnaire

with tabulations. Houston: Houston

Ballet, 1974, 3p.

See also #58

Brookgreen Gardens. "Brookgreen

Gardens: 1970 Survey." Brief report

on results. Murrells Inlet, S.C.:

Brookgreen Gardens, (1970), 4p.

See also #61

66

Brookgreen Gardens. "Brookgreen

Gardens: 1973 Survey." Brief report

on results. Murrells Inlet, S.C.:

Brookgreen Gardens, (1972), 3p.

See also #60

Becker Research Corporation. Attitudes of the Boston Public Toward

"Summerthinq." BOston: Becker Research Corporation, Oct. 1970, 50p.

Telephone survey sampling BOston

residents.

67

National- Reseafch<Cente@ o£ the Arts,

Inc. A Study of Washingtohians’ Attendance, at. Performing Arts Events

and Museums. New York: National

Research Center of the Arts, Inc.,

1976, l19p.

For Washington State Arts Commission.

Beldo, Les. A Report of Three Surveys: A State-Wide Survey Conducted

by The Minnesota Pollr Minneapolis

Star and Tribune; An In-Concert Survey and A Personal Interview Survey

Both Conducted by Mid-Continent Surveys, Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Minneapolis): Campbell-Mithun, Inc.,

Mar. 12, 1956, 89p.

See also #65

For Minnesota Symphony Orchestra

Association.

Earl craig Associates, Inc. The

Constituencies (Actual and Potential)

of the Minnesota Orchestra: A Report

to the Minnesota Orchestra! Association, n.p.: Earl craig Associates,

Inc., 1975, 43p.

See also #64

Audience, community leader, and social institution representatives

were interviewed.

Geltner, Frank J. and Tim Wason.

Articulture and the Eugene-Springfield

Area: Surveys of Public Opinion and

Arts Organizations. Report. (Salem,

Oregon): Oregon Arts Commission,

Sept. I., 1976, 50p.

Oregon Arts Commission. "Summary of

Results: 1976 Eugene-Springfield

Arts Impact Study" and summary of

data tabulations. Salem, Oregon:

Oregon Arts Commission, 1976, 5p. +

3p.

Telephone interviews.

Phoenix Symphony. "Phoenix Symphony

1971 Questionnaire" with tabulations

and summary sheet. Phoenix: Phoenix

Symphony, (1972), 5p.

85
68

69

Free Public Theatre Foundation. . ~ ~

Questionnaires with response .tabular

tions for Romeo and ~Jullet, ~Aug~-~i~8"~ " -~

31, 1975 and Shakespeare and His

Peo_q_o~!~, Aug. 25-31, 1975. Los Angeles: Free Public Theatre Foundation, 74

1975, 2p.

Music Theatre of Wichita. "Entertainment Survey" questionnaire,

"Entertainment Survey Results," and

"Telephone Survey Results." Wichita:

Music Theatre of Wichita, (1973), 3p.

Statewide surgeY~Of~ audien~c~ for

performing arts and museums.

cober, Rodney L. A PsychoqraphiC

Life Style Analysis of Interqenera~

tional Continuity in the Developmen~

of the Rural Theatre Audience. Thesis,

Business Administration. university

Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State university, Graduate School, Department

of Marketing, May 1977, 220p.

See also #’s 22, 150

7O American Ballet Theatre. "American

Ballet Theatre Audience Survey" questionnaire and questionnaire with

data tabulations. New York: American Ballet Theatre, n.d., 4p. + 6p.

75 Becker Research Corporation. The

Boston symphony Orchestra: An Appraisal by Subscribersr Former Subscribers,

and Potential Subscribers. Boston:

Becker Research corporation, June

1972, 53p.

71

72

73

(weissenberg, Peter, Mary Frances

Gordon and Joseph A. Yacura.) Report

on audience characteristics for the

performing arts in Binghamton, New

York. (Endicott, N.Y.: Joseph A.

Yacura, 1976), 32p.

See also #I0

Mittler, Elliott and Walter Wallner.

A Membership Study of the Los Anqeles

County Museum of Art, June 1967. Los

Angeles: LOS Angeles County Museum

of Art, 1967, 35p.

Report of telephone survey of members and survey of membership practices of 27 other other U.S.

museums.

National Research Center of the Arts,

Inc. The New York Cultural Consumer.

New York: National Research Center

of the Arts, Inc., May 1974, 264p.

National Research Center of the Arts,

Inc. The New York Cultural Consumer.

New York: New York Foundation for

the Arts, 1976, 264p.

National Research Center of the Arts,

Inc. Questionnaire for study Th___~e

New York Cultural Consumer. New

York: National Research Center of

the Arts, Inc., n.d., 8p. (Sent by

Munson-Williams-Proctor Institute,

utica, N.Y.)

76

77

78

79

Arts Development Associates, Inc.

A Report on Dialoque on the Arts: A

Public Planninq Project of the Nebraska Arts council. Minneapolis: Arts

Development Associates, Inc., Aug.

1976, 73p.

statewide dialogue program included

citizen questionnaire distributed

at meetings and printed in newspapers.

Gourd, William. information Processinq in the Theatre: Sex Differences

in Response to ’The Homecominq’ and

’Private Lives.’ Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of Health, Education,

and welfare, National Institute of

Education (ED 098 622), Apr. 1974,

17p.

Baltimore Museum of Art. "Instructions to Survey Volunteers." Baltimore: Baltimore Museum of Art, 1974,

2p.

Albany Institute of History and Art.

"A Comprehensive Membership Survey

by the Albany Institute of History

and Art" questionnaire and "Results

of a comprehensive Membership Survey

by the A.I.H.A." summary. Albany:

Albany Institute of History and Art,

n.d. brochure + 5p.

86
8O Smithsonian Institution. Feasibility 87

Study of an Aerospace Museum in. the .-~.~

Western United States. PreP~r@~f.0r ~

the committee on Scienc~ an~A~trD~ -

~

nautics, u.s. House of Representatives, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session,

and the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration by the Smithsonian Institution, Nationa! Air and

Space Museum. Washington, D.C.: 88

Government Printing Office, 1972.

pp. II, III, 160-237, 362-363.

Potential audience survey of public

in area near Ames Research Center.

Hunhi~gto~ ~ib£~~-: ~mpressions of

the-Vis~tors~" ~includes data tables.

San Marino, calif.: Huntington

Library~ J~ne-July 1972~ 5p.

See also #88

Huntington Library. "A Survey of

Visitors." Brief report and data

tables. San Marino, calif.: Huntington Library, 1973, 3p.

See also #87

81 CONFIDENTIAL 89 CONFIDENTIAL

82 walker Art Center. Questionnaire.

Minneapolis: Walker Art Center,

(1976), ip.

In current use.

9O Denver Symphony Orchestra. "Denver

Symphony Questionnaire - January,

1972: Results - June, 1972." Denver:

Denver Symphony Orchestra, 1972, 8p.

83

84

85

86

(Barton, Genevieve.) Questionnaire

for Roberson Center for the Arts &

Sciences audience survey. Binghamton, N.Y.: (Genevieve Barton, 1976),

brochure.

Results in process of compilation.

Oklahoma Theater Center. "Results

of Informal Survey of Audience Taken

During Performances of U.S.A. During

January 1976" and "The Oklahoma

Theater Center Audience Profile 1976"

questionnaire with tabulations. Oklahoma city: Oklahoma Theater Center,

1976, 2p. + 4p.

Garden Theatre Festival. "Analysis

and Evaluation of the Autumn Garden

Theatre Festival 73 (project #four)."

Los Angeles: Garden Theatre Festival, n.d., 13p.

See also #174

Theatre Tulsa. Membership questionnaire. Tulsa: Theatre Tulsa, Mar.

29, 1976, 4p.

91

92

93

Arts Development Associates, Inc.

20 "Flagship" Communities of New

York State: A Report on Research

Conducted on Needs~ Potential Sponsors~ and Facilities for a Possible

Tourinq Program by the New York State

Council on the Arts. Minneapolis:

Arts Development Associates, Inc.,

May 1974, 55p.

See also #92

Foster-Pegg, F. Peregrine and Joseph

Wesley Zeigler. The 1975 New York

State Medallion Tour: A Report on

the Backqround and Findings of the

New York State Council on the Arts

Demonstration Tour of Theatre. Minneapolis: Arts Development Associates, Inc., June 1975, 75p.

See also #91

National Research Center of the Arts.

Anchorage~ Alaska: Public Perspective on the Arts and Culture; Report

of a Survey Conducted for Anchorage

Arts Council. New York: National

Research Center of the Arts, Jan.

1975, 221p.

87
94

95

96

97

National Research Center of the Arts,: -

Inc. The Joffrey Ballet Audience~ ~ _

A Survey of the sprinq 1976 Se~S-~h~~  ̄

at the city Center Theater. New

York: National Research uenter of

the Arts, Inc., June 1976, 133p.

i00

See also #138

Taylor, James B. et al. Science on

Display: A Study of the united

~tates Science Exhibit~ Seattle

world’s Fair, 1962. Seattle: Institute for sociolo~cal Research, Mar.

1963, 184p.

interviews of visitors.

Milton, Paula Mae. Florida State

university; A Descriptive Studv o~

Audience Attitudes: A Survev o~

Selected Audiences in professionalL

Educational and ’CO~unity Theatre~

in Dader Broward~ and Palm Beach

counties in the State of Florida.

~issertation, Florida state university, Aug. 1967, 73p.

Molette, carlton W., II. concepts.

About Theatre: A survey of Som~

colleqe Students in the Florida coun~

ties of Broward, Dade, and Palm Beac~h

~omparinq Those Who Have Had a Theatre and .Drama Apprec.iation course

~-ith Those Who Have Not. Dissertat--ion, Florida state university, Aug.

1968, ll5p.

Includes surve~~--~£-fOrming arts

at tender s-.

Newgren,.Donald A. A Standardized

Museum Survey: A Methodoloqy for.

Museums to Gather Decision-Oriente~ ~nformation Dissertation, Syracuse

-"?- .. ",~-- ~-- Arbor" Unlversity Microfilms. 1973, 282p.

Includes surveys of museums in

Syracuse and Grand Rapids.

101 Arkansas Arts Center. Arkansas Arts

Center: Public Opinion studyr Jann

uary 27, 1971, Project #PS 10-121R~.

Little Rock: Arkansas Arts Center,

1971, 53p.

Telephone survey.

102 community Service Bureau, Inc. Re__~

port and Recommendations: Arkansas

Arts Center~ Little Rock~ Arkansa~-

Dallas: COmmunity Service Bureau,

Sept. I, 1971, 48p.

Leading citizen interviews.

103 McKee, David T. Profiles and Preferences: An Audience survey of Subscribers~ occasional Patrons and the

~eneral Public for Reqional Theatre--

~n Seattle. Dissertation, university

o~f washington, 1972. Ann Arbor: Unlversity Microfilms, 1972, 184p.

98

99

Romano, Albert. October 1971 InTheatre SurV~. New York: Metro-

~edia, Inc., 1971, 103p.

See also #37

Playbill questionnaire survey of

audiences of sixteen shows in New

york city.

cherry, Kathleen Ann, Patricia Ann

Mitchell, and Bradley C. Morison.

Brid~es: A Report on an Exploration

~f the possibilities in a Herita@e --

and Cultural Brid@e concept for F.,’rgo/

~oorhead. Minneapolis: Arts Devel-

~-pment ~ssociates, Inc., Oct. 1976,

138p.

104 Morison, Bradley G. and Kay Fliehr.

In Search of an Audience: HOW an

Audience Was Found for the Tyron~

~uthrie Theatr~e. includes surve~

~estionnaire and report. New York:

Pitman Publishing corp., 1968, 230p.

See also #’s 41, 117, 122, 126, 199

105 Arts Development ASSociates, Inc.

An Evaluation Report on the Illinois

~rts council Bicent~.~nial Theater

~our and a comparative Analysis o~ff

Four Major Theater Tour Pro]ects. ~inneapolis: Arts Development ~ssociates, Inc., Sept. 15, 1976, 122p.

88
106

107

108

Niehoff, Arthur. "Audience Reaction-~.

in the Milwaukee Public Museum: The ~

winter Visitors." In Stephan

deBorhegyi and Irene A.- Ha~s~~eds~,

The Museum visitor: Selected Essays

and Surveys of visitor Reaction to

Exhibits in the Milwaukee Public

Museum. Milwaukee: Milwaukee Public iii

Museum, 1968. pp. 21-31.

See also #’s 35, 47, 107-i09

Niehoff, Arthur. "Characteristics

of Audience Reaction in the Milwaukee Public Museum." In Stephan F.

deBorhegyi and Irene A. Hanson, eds.,

The Museum visitor: Selected Essays

and Surveys of visitor Reaction to

Exhibits in the Milwaukee Public

Museum. Milwaukee: Milwaukee Public

Museum, 1968. pp. 9-16.

See also #’s 35, 47, 106, 108, 109

112

Cooley, William and Terrence Piper.

"Study of the West African Art Exhibit of the Milwaukee Public Museum

and Its visitors." In Stephan F.

deBorhegyi and Irene A. Hanson, eds.,

The Museum visitor: Selected Essays

and Surveys of visitor Reaction to

Exhibits in the Milwaukee Public

Museum. Milwaukee: Milwaukee Public

Museum, 1968. pp. 143-165.

See also #’s 35, 47, 106, 107, 109

113

~ter.views~io~i~itors to the

National Museu~ of Natural History

and the National Museum of History

and Technology.

Colvin, Claire. A Membership Study

of the Fine Arts Museums of San

Francisco and the Asian Art Museum~

July 1976. San Francisco: Fine Arts

Museums of San Francisco, 1976, 94p.

See also #’s 192-195

Arts Development Associates, Inc.

"...For a Town of Any Size!" A Plan

for Developing and Enriching the

Cultural Life of the Sioux city Area.

Minneapolis: Arts Development Associates, Inc., Aug. 1975, 155p.

Interviews with community leaders

and audience survey questionnaire

used at 29 different cultural

events.

Arts Development Associates, Inc.

A Report and Recommendations on the

Quad cities Cultural Survey. Minneapolis: Arts Development Associates,

Inc., (May 1975), 99p.

Audience survey of 19 cultural

events in Davenport, Iowa-Moline,

Illinois area.

109

Ii0

Abler, Thomas. "Traffic Pattern and

Exhibit Design: A Study of Learning

in the Museum." In Stephan F.

deBorhegyi and Irene A. Hanson, eds.,

The Museum visitor: Selected Essays

and Surveys of visitor Reaction to

Exhibits in the Milwaukee Public

Museum. Milwaukee: Milwaukee Public

Museum, 1968. pp. 103-141.

See also #’s 35, 47, 106-108

Krasnegor, Rebecca. Smithsonian

Audience Survey: Summary of BSSR

Pretest Experience and Recommendations for the Conduct of ~n Audience

Survey. Washington, D.C.: Bureau

of Social Science Research, Inc.,

Oct. 1967, 50p.

See also #’s 128, 264

114 Zeigler, Joseph Wesley. A Report on

the Marketability of a Center Staqe

Tour in the Middle Atlantic States.

Minneapolis: Arts Development Associates, June 1974, 188p.

Zeigler, Joseph Wesley. Steerinq the

Center Stage Study: A Report on

Methodoloqy. Minneapolis: Arts

Development Associates, Inc., Aug.

1974, 35p.

See also #’s 198, 202

Communities studied were Dover,

Del.; Frederick, Rockville, and

Salisbury, Md.; Long Branch and

Vineland, N.J.; Allentown-Bethlehem,

Hershey, and Scranton-Wilkes BarreHazelton, Pa.; Charlottesville,

Norfolk, and Newport News-Hampton,

Va.: and Clarksburg, W. Va.

89
115 Ford Foundation. The Finances of.

the Performinq Arts. Volume I:  ̄A

Survey of 166 ProfessionalNQnPr~fit

Resident Theaters, Operas,SY~P

nies, Ballets, and Modern Dance companies. Volume Ii: A Survey of the

characteristics and Attitudes of

Audiences for Theater, Opera, Symphony, and Ballet in 12 U.S. cities.

New York: Ford Foundation, 1974.

Reiss, Alvin H. "Lowry Discusses

New Ford Foundation Survey." In

Alvin H. Reiss, Arts Manaqement

Handbook. New York: Law-Arts Publishers, 1974. pp. 34-38.

120

Dept ~ of - Hdalh~.i!Ed~at ion, _and

welfare,OffiCe of-Education, Bureau

of Research (contract NO. 0ECI-6-  ̄050245-i015), May 1969, l14p.

Children’s Museum of Boston.

Morison/Fliehr Associates. Project

Future: A Ten Year Plan for the Developme%t of Audience~ Funds and

Facilities for the Trinity Square

Repertory comDany, Providence~ Rhode

Island. Minneapolis: Morison/Fliehr

Associates, Mar. 19, 1968, l18p.

116 American conservatory Theatre. Report of 1976 audience survey. San

Francisco: American Conservatory

Theatre, 1976, 73p.

Subscriber survey.

ll7 Arts Development Associates, Inc.

A Decade Later: A Report and Analysis of the Guthrie Theatre Audience

of 1973 and How It compares With the

First Season. Minneapolis: Arts

Development Associates, Inc., Apr.

1974, 57p.

Arts Development ASSociates, Inc.

Ten Years Later: A Report and Analysis of the Guthrie Theatre Audience

of 1973 and HOW It Compares With the

First Season. Draft I. Minneapolis:

Arts Development Associates, Inc.,

Apr. 1974, 57p.

See also #’s 41, 104, 122, 126, 199

118 zeigler, Joseph Wesley. The Artpark

Audience: ̄ A Report on Research Done

by Our Company in Season 1976. Includes materials from "Artpark -

Evaluation II: 1976 Season, Nov. 9

& I0, 1976, Rensselaerville, New

york" meeting. Minneapolis: Arts

Development Associates, Inc., Oct.

1976, 54p. + meeting materials.

Audience at Artpark and public in

western New York and Niagara Frontier were studied.

121 New York State Education Department

and Janus Museums consultants, Ltd.

The 1966 Audience of the New York

State Museum: An Evaluation of the

Museum’s visitors Proqram.- Albany:

university of the State of New York,

State Education Department, Division

of Evaluation (U.S. Dept. of Health,

Education, and welfare, ED 044 621),

Jan. 1968, 60p.

122 Guthrie Theatre. "Interim Results:

1976 Guthrie Audience Survey." Minneapolis: Guthrie Theatre, 1976, 5p.

See also #’s 41, 104, 117, 126, 199

123 walker Research, Inc. children’s

Museum Imaqe Study. Prepared for

the Children’s Museum of indianapolis.

indianapolis: Walker Research, Inc.,

1975, 77p.

Telephone survey of adult residents

of metropolitan indianapolis.

124 weiss, Robert S. and Serge

Boutourline, Jr. "The communication

Value of Exhibits," Museum NEWS,

NOV. 1963, pp. 23-27.

See also #246

Observation of and interviews with

visitors to the Boston Museum of

science.

119 Nicol, Elizabeth H. The Development

of validated Museum Exhibits. Final

Report." washington, D.C.: U.S.

9O
125 Klinzing, Dennis. Determininq Audience Profile and Effectiveness of

Publicity. Washington, D.C~.~U~S.. -~_-

Dept. of Health, Educati0n,ih~:W~i

fare, National Institute of Education

(ED 083 649), Au~. 1973, 13p.

Two audience surveys done at the

University of Delaware Theatre.

126 Batten, Barton, Durstine and Osborn,

Inc. Preliminary Report: An Analysis of Those Attendinq the Guthrie

Theatre Durinq 1962-1963. Minneapolis: Twin cities Marketing &

Research Dept., Batten, Barton,

Durstine and Osborn, Inc., 1963, 18p.

127

"Adult EduCah~i6n~P&r£ic~ant Study"

Questionnaire. Green B~y: Green

.Bay.Adul~ Education Council, n.d.,

4p.

128

Reiss, Alvin H. "Survey Shows When

Audiences for Different Arts Forms

Overlap." In Alvin H. Reiss, Arts

Management Handbook. New York: LawArts Publishers, 1974. pp. 133-135.

See also #’s 41, 104, 117, 122, 199

132 Actors Theatre of Louisville.

"Actors Theatre of Louisville Audience Survey" questionnaire with subscriber and single ticket buyer

response rates. Louisville, Ky.:

Actors Theatre of Louisville, n.d.,

2p.

133 Research and Educational Planning

Center. Status of the Arts and Creative Activities in the State of

Nevada: A Statewide Survey. Reno:

Research and Educational Planning

Center, College of Education, University of Nevada, (1976), 37p.

Stack, Christopher D. An Examination

of Lawrence University Audiences.

n.p., n.d., 30p.

Danquist, Gerald A. et al. A Marketing Study of the Smithsonlan National

Associates. Cambridge: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business

Administration, Apr. 28, 1971, 109p.

134 Long Wharf Theatre. Data tabulations

of Long Wharf Theatre subscription

audience survey. New Haven, Conn.:

Long Warf Theatre, (1976), llp.

See also #’s ii0, 264

129 CONFIDENTIAL

130

135 Leo Burnett U.S.A. The Art Institute

Sur__~. Prepared for the Art Institute of Chicago. Chicago: Research

Department, Leo Burnett U.S.A., Nov.

5, 1975, 62p.

See also #’s ii, 136, 179-182

Questionnaire survey conducted

over one year for one week periods

each season.

Hopkins Center, Dartmouth College.

Questionnaire and "Summer 1974 Statistics" compiled by Ellen Feldman.

Hanover, N.H.: Hopkins Center,

Dartmouth College, 1974. 2p. + 6p.

See also # 151

136 Leo Burnett U.S.A. The Art Institute

General visitor Survey and Focus

Group Research. Prepared for the

Board of Trustees of the Art Institute of Chicago. Chicago: Research

Department, Leo Burnett U.S.A., Oct.

18, 1976, 17p.

See also #’s ii, 135, 179-182

131 Dowling, William D. Characteristics

of Adult Education Participants~

Green Bay, Wisconsin. Green Bay:

Green Bay Center, University of Wisconsin, (Mar. 1962), 48p.

Green Bay Adult Education Council.

137 National Research Cent&r of the Arts.

Americans and the Arts: A Survey o~

the Attitudes Toward and Participation in the Arts and Culture of th~

United States Public. New York:

Associated Councils of the Arts, 1976,

60p.

91
138

139

140

141

See also #7

National Researchcenter of the Arts,

Inc. The Joffre7 Bal~et Audience on

Tour. New York: Natlonal Research

Cent------er of the Arts, Inc., July 1976,

60p.

See also #94

Report of surveys done on tour

audiences in San Antonio, Houston,

and New Orleans.

Joint committee on cultural Resources.

In Search of a Reqional Policy fox

the Arts: Phase II. Baltimore:

Johns Hopkins university Center for

Metropolitan Planning and Research

and Regional Planning council,

(1975?), 52p.

See also #202

145

zeigler, Joseph Wesley. A Report o~n

the Pittsburqh Audience for Theatr9 y~s. New York: Arts Development

A--~ociates, May 1975, 37p.

Leader interviews and mail questionnaire of Pittsburgh area residents.

Century Research corporation. Th___~e

Arts in Arlinqton: 1974 Survey of

the publiq. Prepared for the County

Board, Arlington county. Arlington,

Va.: Century Research corporation,

July 1974, 61p.

interviews of county residents.

Lucarelli, Anth6hy! A, Memorandum to

Dr. Albert S.~Miles, re "Final Re-

 ̄ sukts:- Student Preference SurveyMarch i, 1974," dated Mar. 16, 1974.

Tabulation sheets attached. Riverside, calif.: Performing Arts Presentations, university of california,

1974, 3p.

Lucarelli, Anthony A. Questionnaire

for proposed 1977 city resident survey. Riverside, calif.: Performing

Arts Presentations, university of

california, (1976), 4p.

zeigler, Joseph Wesley. "An Analysis

of the Albany symphony Orchestra

Questionnaires - spring, 1976."

(Analysis, questionnaires, and data

charts included.) New york: Arts

Development Associates, Inc., 1976,

llp.

Comparison of audiences at symphony

performances in Albany, schenectady,

and Troy, New York, and general

public on Albany League of Arts

mailing list.

146 country Music Hall of Fame and Museum.

"Survey 1976." Results of Survey

Aug. 6-23, 1976. (Nashville: country

Music Hall of Fame and Museum, 1976),

5p.

See also #’s 147, 148

147 country Music Hall of Fame and Museum.

"Survey." Results of survey NOV. 12-

14, 1976. (Nashville: country Music

Hall of Fame and Museum, 1976), 6p.

See also #’s 146, 148

142 Arts Development Associates, Inc.

Buildinq an Audience for OPERA/OMAHA:.

A Report and Recommendations for the

1976-77 Season. Minneapolis: Arts

Development Associates, Inc., June

1976, 24p.

Audience questionnaire used at two

performances.

143 Shreveport symphony. ..shreveport

symphony Audience Survey" questionnaire, shreveport, La.: Shreveport

Symphony, n.d., ip.

148 country Music Hall of Fame and Museum.

"survey comparison 1973-1975." (Nashville: country Music Hall of Fame

and Museum), n.d-, 7p.

See also #’s 146, 147

149 (George Eastman House.) "visitor

Survey" questionnaire- (Rochester,

N.Y.: George Eastman House), n.d.,

2p.

Ongoing-survey of visitor residences.

92
150 Heitman, G. and W. E. Crocken. "Some

Observations on Theatre Audience

Composition, Preferences and.2~.cep-.

tions." Paper for Califofni~M~a~e-I

ment Review. University Park, Pa.:

Pennsylvania State University, n.d.,

17p.

Heitman, George and W. E. Crocken.

"Theatre Audience Composition, Preferences, and Perceptions," California Management Review, 19(2):

85-90 (Winter 1976).

See also #’s 22, 74

Audience surveys done at Pennsylvania State University (both the

Festival Theatre and University

Theatre) in 1973.

151 Hopkins Center. Questionnaire.

Hanover, N.H.: Hopkins Center,

Dartmouth College, June i, 1976, 10p.

See also #130

Questionnaire for Dartmouth seniors.

152 (California Museum of Science &

Industry.) "Patronage." Results of

attendance survey. (Los Angeles:

California Museum of Science & Industry), n.d., ip.

See also #’s 251, 252

153 (Bureau of Government Affairs.)

Results of survey for North Dakota

Council on the Arts & Humanities.

Grand Forks, N.D.: Bureau of GOvernment Affairs, (1974), 3p.

Aud ! eric e-Membe~ <’ in~e~ vi-ewf .-.. (Minneapolis) : Arts Development Associate.s, .Ju.ly 26, 1970, !2p.

See also #154

Telephone interviews.

156 Zeigler, Joseph. "The Future of Jazz

at St. Peter’s." Excerpts from

Joseph Zeigler, "The Common: An

Extraordinary Place." New York: ArtsDevelopment Associates, Apr. 23, 1976.

pp. 1-4, 21-22.

157 Theatre Development Fund. "Survey

of Times Square Theatre Centre."

Includes "Comments on the Preliminary

TKTS Survey" by William J. Baumol.

New York: Theatre Development Fund,

Sept. 1973, 20p.

See also #’s 158, 159

Surveyed patrons of day-ofperformance half-price ticket

program.

158 Baumol, William and Hilda Baumol.

Last Minute Discounts on Unsold

Tickets: A Study of TKTS. Report i.

New York: Theatre Development Fund,

1974, 53p.

Theatre Development Fund. "Figures

from the Baumol’s published survey..."

In Theatre Development Fund, Theatre

Development Fund: A Proqress Report~

1974-75. New York: Theatre Development Fund, n.d.0 p. 15.

See also #’s 157, 159

154 Morison/Fliehr Associates. "Preliminary Report--l: Center Opera Company

Audience Research." (Minneapolis):

Morison/Fliehr Associates, Dec. 30,

1968, 40p.

See also #155

Interview survey of Twin Cities’

women judged representative of

potential audience.

159 Baumol, William. "Survey of Users

of the Lower Manhattan Theatre Centre."

New York: Theatre Development Fund,

Feb. i, 1975, 14p.

See also #’s 157, 158

160 CONFIDENTIAL

155 Colburn, D. "Center Opera Company:

Summary of Attendance Review and

93
161 Bureau of Business Research, West

Texas State university. An Awareness L~

and Attitude Study to~Determ~n~t~ "

Characteristics Leading to Attendance

and Participation in Selected Fine~

Arts in Amarillo. Prepared for Fine

Arts council cf the Amarillo chamber

of commerce. Amarillo: Bureau of

Business Research, West Texas State

university, Feb., 1971, 37p.

162 Monmouth county Arts Council. "Audience Survey" questionnaire and

"Results of Showcase II Questionnaires." Red Bank, N.J.: Monmouth

County Arts council, n.d., 5p.

168

Audience Research Study."_ In Thomas

C. Raymond et al., Cases in Arts

Admihistration. cambridge: Institute of Arts Administration, July

1971. pp. 1-21, 1-28.

Lambertville, New Jersey, musical

tent theatre, 1959.

Rankin, Senath. The wilmington Area

Artist series: A Study of the 1974-

75 Season. washington C.H., Ohio:

Senath Rankin, June 1977, 33p.

cincinnati Symphony Orchestra.

163 Green Mountain Guild. Two questionnaires; one with tabulations. (White

River junction, Vt.): Green Mountain

Guild, n.d., 2p.

169 virginia Museum. "Members’ Surveys,"

(questionnaire only) virginia Museum

Bulletin 33(9): i0-ii (May 1973).

See also #’s 170, 253

164 New Hampshire Performing ArtS Center.

"Audience Survey for the New Hampshire Performing Arts Center" questionnaire and letters from E.P.

Jancewicz, Sept. 23, 1976, and

Timothy G. Jones, Nov. 3, 1976, analyzing data. Manchester, N.H.: New

Hampshire Performing Arts Center,

1976, 2p + ip. + 2p.

165 Rivas, Frank W. An Assessment of

Attitudes Toward Music. Prepared

for National Assessment of Educational Progress, a Project of the

Education Commission of the States.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government

Printing office, Sept. 1974, 31p.

On-going national student survey

designed to evaluate music education in the U.S.

166 Grossman, carol. "Report on Feasibility of Music Voucher." New York:

Theatre Development Fund, June 22,

1976, llp.

Includes interviews with theatervoucher users.

170 (virginia Museum.) "council Hostess

.Information Sheet on visitors to

Museum" questionnaire. (Richmond:

virginia Museum of Fine Arts, 1975),

ip.

See also #’s 169, 253

171 Lob, Diana Friedel et al. Market

Research Survey: How People Consume

Chica~o Theater at the organic Theater, Second city Theater~ and St.~

Nicholas Theater. Chicago: university of Chicago, Graduate School of

Business, June i, 1976, 120p.

See also #’s 172, 175-177

172 Alsberg, Eric et al. The Development

of a Subscription Plan for the organic Theater. Chicago: i~niversity of

chicago, Graduate School of Business,

June 1976, 54p.

See also #’s 171, 175-177

Focus group interviews167 Raymond, Thomas C., Stephen A.

Greyser, and Douglas Schwalbe.

"St. John Terrell’s Music circus"

94
173 Connecticut Theatre Foundation. A

Surve7 of Audience Opinion: Monda--y,

19 Auqust Throuqh Saturdayr 24 Au

qust, 1974. Compiled by Rita~.Ma~et

Barrows. Westport, Conn. : Connec

ticut Theatre Foundation, Inc., 37p.

Report of audience survey at Westport Country Playhouse.

179 Chilson, Barby et al. "I Think I

Went .... Backwards": A Marketinq

Research Project for the Art Institute of Chicaqo and Marketinq 353.

(Chicago: University of Chicago,

Graduate School of Business, 1975),

15p.

174 Chernack, Peter A. Report on the

Garden Theatre Festival (4th Annual

L.A. Performinq Arts Festival)~

Barnsdale Park, July 2-25, 1976.

Los Angeles: Garden Theatre Festival, Nov. 1976, 179p.

Garden Theatre Festival. Copies of

completed survey forms. (Los Angeles: Garden Theatre Festival, 1976),

87p.

See also #85

180

See also #’s ll, 135, 136, 180-182

Chesterfield, Jim et al. Focus

Group Interview Study of Member~

and NOn-Members of the Art Institute

of Chicaqo. (Chicago: University

of Chicago, Marketing Class), i0

June 1975, 51p.

See also #’s ii, 135, 136, 179, 181,

182

175 Goonasekera, A. et al. "A Study of

the Sources of Information of the

Organic Theater Audience." Paper

prepared for the Marketing Communication Program. Chicago: University

of Chicago, Graduate School of Business, Spring 1976, 33p.

See also #’s 171, 172, 176, 177

176 Wasso, Louise et al. "Near North

Side Film Audiences as a Market for

the Organic Theatre." Paper prepared

for Business 353, Advertising Management. (Chicago: University of Chicago, Graduate School of Business),

June i0, 1976, 27p.

See also #’s 171, 172, 175, 177

177 Edison, Marcia et al. "The Organic

Theater Marketing Study." Paper

prepared for Business 353. (Chicago:

University of Chicago, Graduate

School of Business), Spring 1976,

33p.

See also #’s 171, 172, 175, 176

181

182

Louer, Robert, Brian Copp, and Jay

Rodrian. The Art Institute Membership: Profile, Attitudes, TastesGroup VI - Report - The Mailed Survey.

(Chicago: University of Chicago,

Graduate School of Business, 1975),

24p.

See also #’s ii, 135, 136, 179, 180,

182

Art Institute of Chicago.

Art Institute of Chicago. "Preliminary Review of the Findings of the

University of Chicago Marketing Class

Survey of the Art Institute - June

1975." Chicago: Art Institute of

Chicago, July 25, 1975, 2p.

(David, Harry.) Art Institute Membership: General Profile; 4-Cluster

Solution. (Chicago: University of

Chicago), Dec. 15, 1975, 17p.

See also #,s ii, 135, 136, 179-181

Reports further analyses of data

from studies #181 and #135

178 Davis, Harry L. The Chicaqo Symphony and Its Audience: A SUmmR~y

Re_~. Chicago: University of

Chicago, Graduate School of Business,

183 Balling, Robert. "The Springfield

Art Center: Its Relationship to

Our Community." Springfield, Ohio:

(Springfield Art Center), 1973, 9p.

95
184

185

186

187

Residence distribution of members

and students.

Temple, Robert E. Excerpts from

"Report to the Board, Oct. 18, 1976,"

profiles from 1976 season parking

lot survey, and audience questionnaire. (Maryville, Tenn.): Smoky

Mountain Passion Play Association1976, 5p.

-off ~h:e- Boro~gh~:o£~een~ _~n~ Th~l~ -

~iews on and Participatzon zn une

Arts and CUlture. New York: National Research Center of the Arts, Inc.,

June 19750 194p.

191 (Andreasen0 Alan R.) Questionnaires

for in-progress survey of symphony

and theatre attendance. Urbana0 Ill.:

university of Illinois, 1977, 37p.

Consumer demand for the arts in

the South.

Story, Janet. Questlonnaire summary,

July-October, 1976, " ,,Questionnaire

Responses Mentioned More Than Once, "

and ,,Questionnaire- " (Portsmouth,

N.H.: Strawbery Banke0 Inc., 1976),

5p.

192 Cavala0 John. "Media Enhancement of

a Musetun Gallery." (San Francisco:

Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco

(M.H. de Young Museum)), n.d., 16p.

See also #’s iii, 193-195

Music Theatre of Wichita, Inc.

Questionnaire with tabulations.

Wichita: Music Theatre of Wichita,

Inc., 1975, 3p.

Interviews of M.H. de Young Museum

attenders.

Season ticket holders.

Gisler0 John F. The People and the

Arts. Prepared b~ the University--

of---~tah, Bureau of Economic and

Business Research and Rocky Mountain

Arts Research Group. Salt Lake City:

Salt Lake council for the Arts, Oct.

1976, 171p.

Interviews of Salt Lake area residents.

188 Sidney Hollander Associates. Geo____l

graphic Origins of Attendance at th~

Baltimore Museum of Art~ Mid-January

Through Mid-June, 1971. Baltimore:

Sidney Hollander Assouiates, 1971,

5p.

189 (Oklahoma Arts and Humanities Council.) "Section G: Organizations,

Spare Time" questionnaire and computer print-out of tabulations.

(Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Arts and

Humanities council, 1976), 26p.

190 National Research Center of the Arts,

Inc. The Arts in the Borough of

Queens: A Survey of the resident@

193 McElroy, Guy and Cleveland Bellow.

Museum audience survey, 1974-75.

San Francisco: M.H. de Young Memorial Museum, 1975, 25p.

See also #’slll, 192, 194, 195

194 M.H. de Young Memorial Museum.

-Acoustiguide Survey Final Tally."

(Questionnaires with tabulations)

San Francisco: M.H. de Young Memorial Museum, n.d., 9p.

See also #’s iii0 192, 1930 195

195 M.H. de Young Memorial Museum.

"American Art: An Exhibition from

the Collection of Mr. & Mrs. John D.

Rockefeller 3rd." Questionnaires

with tabulations and summary. San

Francisco: M.H. de Young Memorial

Museum, n.d., 14p.

See also #’s iii, 192-194

196 Miller, William F. "Staying Away:

Cost, Not crime, Spoils Attraction

of Night Life Here for Suburbanites,"

newsclip from The Cleveland Plain ~

Dealer, (fall 1976?).

96
Playhouse Square Foundation. "Play- . :.202 .Cwi,-David. "~cent@r Stage" residence

House Square Free Theater Study~ ........ data from PhaSe II, Regionil Planning

(Cleveland, Ohio: Playhouse.~r~.~_- .~Council-Johns Hopkins audience survey.

Foundation), n.d., 3p.

 ̄ Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University,

Center for Metropolitan Planning and

Survey of audience for free theatre. Research., (1976?), 24p.

See also #’s 114, 139, 198

197 "Fresno Philharmonic Audience Survey,"

American Symphony Leaque Newsletter

13(2): ii (Jan., Feb. 1962).

Part of larger study done for Regional Planning Council (#139).

Questionnaires distributed to concert audiences.

198 Arts Development Associates, Inc.

Excerpts on Center Stage from The

1973 Reqional Tours of the Cent-~

Staqe of Baltimore, MD and the

Guthrie Theatre of Minneaplis, MN:

A Documentary Evaluation. Minneapolis: Arts Development Associates,

Inc., July 31, 1973, 105p.

See also #’s i14, 202

199 Arts Development Associates, Inc.

Excerpts on Guthrie Theatre from

The 1973 Reqional Tours of the Center Staqe of Baltimore, MD and the

Guthrie Theatre of Minneaplis, MN.

Minneapolis: Arts Development Associates, Inc., July 31, 1973, 59p.

See also #’s 41, 104, 117, 122, 126

200 (Harbour, John E.) "Chapter VI: Summary." In John E. Harbour, "Who Are

the Visitors? An Analysis of the

Visitors to th~ Nassau County Musettm."

Thesis, Cooperstown Graduate Programs, State University College at

Oneonta, N.Y., 1975. pp. 92-96.

See also #’s 2,204

203 American Museum of Natural History.

A Profile of Consumer Use and Evaluation: The American Museum of Natural History: Based on a Survey of

Attendance July 1974-July 1975. New

York: American Museum of Natural

History, Jan. 1977, 303pp.

204 Culp, Marion et al. "Nassau County

Historical Museum Visitation Survey

1967." Paper prepared for Social

Science ReSearch Technician Course,

Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.

1966-1967, 26p.

See also #’s 2, 200

205 Williams, Monte G. "Quincy Symphony

Orchestra General Opinion Survey:

Spring, 1976." Quincy, Ill.: Quincy

Symphony Orchestra, 1976, 10p.

Report on questionnaire and interview study.

206 Cleveland Area Survey. "Cleveland

Area Survey -- 1977" questionnaire.

Cleveland: Cleveland Area Survey,

Case Western Reserve University,

1977, 47p.

Survey of visitors to four museums

of the Nassau County, Long Island,

Museum.

201 National Research Center of the Arts,

Inc. Winston-Salem/Forsyth County:

Public nerspective on the Arts and

Culture. New York: National Research Center of the Arts, Inc.,

July 1974, 189p.

Cross-sectional study of North

Carolina county.

207 Wadsworth Atheneum. Results of a

visitors’ survey at the Wadsworth

Atheneum: Preliminary Report. Hartford: Wadsworth Atheneum, Nov. 1976,

9p.

Wadsworth Atheneum. "Visitor Survey"

and "Visitor Survey: Part II"

questionnaires. Hartford: Wadsworth

Atheneum, 1976, 6p.

97
208

~. ~215 Institute of Outdoor Dr~na. "National Audience Survey 1976:-~.

McIntosh Trail (Peach~ree~Ci~’~

Ga.)." Chapel~Hill: Institute of

Outdoor Drama, 1977, 4p.

See also #’s 57, 209-222

Instituteof~tdo0r Errata-. "National Audience Survey 1976: Louisiana Cavalier (Natchitoches, La.)."

Chapel Hill: Institute of Outdoor

Drama, 1977, 4p.

See also #’s 57, 208-2140 216-222

209 Institute of Outdoor Drama. "National Audience survey 1976: Cross

and Sword." Chapel Hill: Institute

of Outdoor Drama, Jan. 1977, 4p.

Se~ also #’s 57, 208, 210-222

216 Institute of Outdoor Drama. "National Audience Survey 1976: The

Cow, non Glory." Chapel Hill: Institute of Outdoor Drama, 1977, 4p.

See also #’s 57, 208-215, 217-222

210

211

212

Institute of Outdoor Drama. "National Audience Survey 1976: The

Lost Colony (Manteo, N.C.)." Chapel

Hill: Institute of Outdoor Drama,

1977, 4p.

See also #’s 57, 208, 209, 211-222

Institute of Outdoor Drama. "National Audience Survey 1976: Trails

West." Chapel Hill: Institute of

Outdoor Drama, 1977, 4p.

See also #’s 57, 208-210, 212-222

Institute of Outdoor Drama. "National Audience Survey 1976: Stephen

Foster (Bardstown, Ky.)." Chapel

Hill: Institute of Outdoor Drama,

1977, 4p.

See also #’s 57, 208-2110 213-222

213 Institute of Outdoor Drama. "National Audience Survey 1976: From

This Day Forward." Chapel Hill:

Institute of Outdoor Drama, 1977, 4p.

See also #’s 57, 208-212, 214-222

214 Institute of Outdoor Drama. "National Audience Survey 1976: Wilderness Road (Berea, Ky.)." Chapel

Hill: Institute of Outdoor Drama,

1977, 4p.

See also #’s 57, 208-213, 215-222

217

218

219

Institute of Outdoor Drama. "National Audience Survey 1976: Beyond

the Sundown." Chapel Hill: Institute of Outdoor Drama, 1977, 4p.

See also #’s 57, 208-216, 218-222

Institute of Outdoor Drama. "National Audience Survey 1976: strike

at the Wind (Pembroke, N.C.)."

Chapel Hill: Institute of Outdoor

Drama, 1977, 4p.

See also #’s 57, 208-2170 219-222

Institute of Outdoor Drama. "National Audience Survey 1976: The

Sword of Peace." Chapel Hill: Institute of Outdoor Drama, 1977, 4p.

See also #’s 57, 208-2180 220-222

220 Institute of Outdoor Drama. "National Audience Survey 1976: Conquistador (Hot Springs National Park,

Ark.)." Chapel Hill: Institute of

Outdoor Drama, 1977, 4p.

See also #’s 57, 208-219, 221-222

221 Institute of outdoor Drama. "National Audience Survey 1976: Trumpet

in the Land (New Philadelphia,,~Oh-)-"

Chapel Hill: Institute of Outdoor

Drama, 1977, 4p.

See also #’s 21, 57° 208-220, 222

98
222

223

Institute of Outdoor Drama.

tional Audience Survey 1976:

(Canyon, Tex.)." Chapel Hill: In~ " ~ "

stitute of Outdoor Dr.ama, 1977.~-~p~-~ -.

See also #’s 57, 208-221, 223

"Na- -~225 Co£e,--Luhy-Ruggles~:~i-~i-~-Artists InforTexas ...... mati6n ~Ure~u---~~f~-Quiz, May

1976~"Report on survey results and

copy of questionnaire. New Orleans:

Artists InfOrmation Bureau, 1976,

8p. + 3p. -.

Texas Panhandle Heritage Foundation,

Inc. "Texas" 1965-76 materials.

Includes "Cumulative Statistics on

’Texas’ Musical Drama, 1966-1976":

questionnaire forms used during 1966-

1967, 1968-1970, 1972-1976, and 1976.

Canyon, Tex.: Texas Panhandle Heritage Foundation, Inc.

Texas Panhandle Heritage Foundation,

Inc. "Survey Reports: ’Texas’ Musical Drama 1976," "Report on the Buses

to ’Texas’ 1976," and data sheets on

numbers of cars parked in 1976 season. Canyon, Tex.: Panhandle Heritage Foundation, Inc., 8p.

Texas Panhandle Heritage Foundation,

Inc. "Report of Audience Surveys

Taken in 1975." Canyon, Tex.: Texas

Panhandle Heritage Foundation, Inc.,

lp.

Texas Panhandle Heritage Foundation,

Inc. "Texas" survey data for 1970.

Canyon, Tex.: Texas Panhandle Heritage Foundation, Inc., lp.

Texas Panhandle Heritage Foundation,

Inc. "Audience Survey Taken Friday,

August 8, 1969." Canyon, Tex.:

Texas Panhandle Heritage Foundation,

Inc., 2p.

Texas Panhandle Heritage Foundation,

Inc. "’Texas’ Statistics for 1968"

and "Occupations Represented at the

’Texas’ Show in Two Surveys Taken in

1968." Canyon, Tex.: Texas Panhandle Heritage Foundation, Inc., 3p.

General opinion study of public

"monumental sculpture."

226 Wedge, Eleanor F. Nefertiti Graffiti: Cor~nents on an Exhibition.

Brooklyn: The Brooklyn Museum, 1976,

161p.

Analysis of comments written by

visitors to Egyptian art exhibit.

227 Conrad, Jack. Profile of the Playgoer: Study of a Theatre Audience.

Memphis: Southwestern at Memphis,

1969, 137 p.

Front Street Theatre, Memphis

228 Shakespeare Festival of Dallas.

"Shakespeare Festival of Dallas

Audience Questionnaire" and "Shakespearean Festival of Dallas July,

1976 Questionnaire Results." Dallas:

Shakespeare Festival of Dallas, 1976,

4p.

229 Screven., C.G. "The Effectiveness of

Guidance Devices on Visitor Learning,"

Curator 18(3): 219-243 (1975).

Glass exhibit at Renwick Gallery,

Smithsonian Institution.

See also #222

Materials listed above consist of

brief narratives and tables of

data.

230 Metropolitan Museum of Art. "The

Metropolitan Museum and Its Public:

Highlights of the Yankelovich Survey."

In Metropolitan Museum of Art, Annual

Report 1973-1974. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1974. pp. 15-

19.

224 Geer, Abigail. "A Study of the Role

of the Art Museum as Collector or

Educator." n.p., 1976, 78F.

See also #17

Study of visitor behavior at Boston

Museum of Fine Arts.

See also #’s 3, 250

231 Wagar, J. Alan, Gregory Lovelady,

and Harlan Falkin. Evaluation Techniques for Interpretation: Study

~-Results From an Exhibition on Energy:

USDA Forest Service Research Paper

99
PNW-211. Portland, Ore.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestSer- ~ -.

vice, Pacific Northwest Forest_and

Range Experiment Station,1976~°13P

Pacific Science Center, Seattle.

tor Attitude -ada~A~f@h@ss-at an

Aqua~ium~" curato~ 20(1): ~8-52

(March 1977).

See also #ii

John G. Shedd Aquarium, Chicago

232 Dick, Ronald E.0 Erik Myklestad, and

J. Alan Wagar. Audience Attention

as a Basis for Evaluating Interpretive Presentations. USDA Forest

Service Research Paper PNW-198.

Portland, Ore.: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, 1975, 7p.

See also #’s 12, 233

Audio-visual presentations at

various Pacific Northwest park

,visitor centers.

237

238

Merrimack Valley Textile Museum.

"Survey Questionnaire-Merrimack Valley Textile Museum." North Andover,

Mass.: Merrimack Valley Textile

Museum, (1967), ip.

Memorial Art Gallery of the University of Rochester. "Adult Workshop

Questionnaire." Rochester, N.Y.:

Memorial Art Gallery of the University of Rochester, (1971), 2p.

See also #’s 46, 239

233 Wagar, J. Alan. Cassette Tapes for

Interpretation. USDA Forest Service

Research Paper PNW-207. Portland,

Ore.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment

Station, 1975, 20p.

See also #’s 12, 232

Pacific Northwes.t park visitor

study, q

234 Borun, Minda. Measurinq the Immeasurable: A Pilot Study of Museum

Effectiveness. Washington, D.C.:

Association of Science-Technology

Centers, Apr. 1977, l14p.

See also #248

Study of visitors to the Franklin

Institute Science Museum and Planetarium in Philadelphia.

239

240

241

Clay, Langdon F. Student questionnaire. Rochester, N.Y.: Memorial

Art Gallery of the University of

Rochester, n.d., ip.

See also #’s 46, 238

Foster, Arnold and Thomas Juravich.

"Art Activities in the Tri-Cities

Area." Paper presented at the Conference on Community and Policy Research, Apr. 30, 1976, Albany, New

York. Albany: State University of

New York, 1976, 15p.

Cross-sectional survey of Albany

area.

Exhibit Museum of the University of

Michigan. Questionnaire. Ann Arbor:

Exhibit Museum of the University of

Michigan, (1956?), 2p.

235 Celender, Don. "Opinions of Working

People Concerning the Arts." New

York: O. K. Harris Gallery, 19750

150p. ~

Survey of nonr~n~set of Minneapolis residents.

236 Serrell, Beverly. "Survey of Visi242 Museum of Science and Industry. "Attendance Survey." Results. Chicago:

Museum of science and Industry, 1958,

38p. -~ ~

See also #’s ll, 243

Geographical origin of visitors.

I00
243 Museum of Science and ~ndustry. 250 Me~qpo~itao M~mS~[ ~;t. "Ques-

"Six-Day Survey Shows Museum visitors tion~aire ResponseiFe~. 17,-1971" by

Come From All Over the World." In_ . ~ .. Frank Simon, questionnaire,- Jan. 1971,

Museum of Science and Industry,.~-~acts. and "Results of Questionnaire: Janand Information. Chicag6:M~hm~- uary1971." New York: Metropolitan

of Science and Industry, 1969, 13p. Museum of Art, 1971, ip. + ip. + 2p.

See also #’s ii, 242 See also~#’s 3, 230

244 Detroit Institute of Arts. "Questionnaire," Detroit: Detroit Institute of Arts, n.d. (2 completed

questionnaires)

See also #’s 245, 266-268

251 california Museum of Science and

Industry. "Questionnaire for Museum

Visitors." LOS Angeles: California

Museum of Science and Industry, (1965-

1968?), 12p.

See also #’s 152, 252

245 Detroit Institute of Arts. Questionnaire. Detroit: Detroit Institute

of Arts, n.d., 2p.

See also #’s 244, 266-268

246 Museum of Science. "Lilly Endowment

Survey: 1958." BOStOn: Museum of

Science, 1958, 13p.

See also #124

Visitor survey.

247 Minneapolis Institute of Arts. Questionnaire and results from "Painting

in Italy in the 18th Century" and

"Art Deco" exhibits. Minneapolis:

Minneapolis Institute of Arts, (1971),

8p.

See also #6

252

253

254

California Museum of Science and

Industry. Questionnaire. Los Angeles: california Museum of Science

and Industry, 1971, ip.

See also #’s 152, 251

Virginia Museum of Fine Arts. Questionnaire and results of survey from

Members’ Bulletin, 1967. Richmond:

Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, 1967,

2p + Ip.

See also #’s 169, 170

Colonial Williamsburg. "visitor

Analysis-Summer 1964: Post-Image."

(Questionnaire with tabulated responses.) Williamsburg, va.: Colonial

Williamsburg, 1964, 3p.

See also #’s 255-259

248 American Institute for Research.

"An Evaluation of the Educational

Program of the Franklin Institute:

A Summary Report." Pittsburgh:

American Institute for Research,

Jan. 1960, 4p.

See also #234

249 Garvin, Alfred D. An Evaluation of

the Cincinnati Science Center. cincinnati: University of Cincinnati,

n.d., 49p.

Study of fifth graders.

255

256

Colonial Williamsburg. Questionnaire.

Williamsburg, Va.: Colonial Williamsburg, Aug. 1968, ip.

See also #’s 254, 256-259

Colonial Williamsburg. Questionnaire.

Williamsburg, Va.: Colonial Williamsburg, 1968, ip.

See also #’s 254, 255, 257-259

i01
257

258

Colonial Williamsburg. Questionnaire. Will±amsburg, Va.: Colonial

Williamsburg, 1969, ip. " ~

See also #’s 254-256, 258, 259

Colonial Williamsburg. Questionnaire. Williamsburg, Va.: Colonial

Williamsburg, 1970, ip.

See also #’s 254-257, 259

265

See also #’s-Ii0, 128

Report o~ year-long visitor survey

at the National Museum of History

and Technology and the National

Museum of Natural History.

Schwartz, Steve. Results of survey

of Oakland Museum visitors. Oakland:

Oakland Museum, 1971, 19p.

259 Colonial Williamsburg. Questionnaire with tabulated responses.

Williamsburg, va.: Colonial Williamsburg, 1964, 3p.

See also #’s 254-258

260 Corning Glass Center. "visitor Survey--Hall of Science and Industry"

questionnaire. Corning, N.Y.: Corning Glass Center, 1971, ip.

See also #’s 261-263

261 Hares, Doris. "Summary of the Teacher Evaluation of the Corning Glass

Center Tour Program for the Year

1968-1969." Corning, N.Y.: Coming

Glass Center, July i0, 1969, 12p.

See also #’s 260, 262, 263

262 Corning Glass Center. "The Glass

Center visitor." Corning, N.Y.:

Corning Glass Center, n.d., 7p.

See also #’s 260, 261, 263

263 Wake, Robert B. Memorandum to J.P.

Fox, Jr., re. "Results of Visitor

Survey July 3,4, and 5, 1971," dated

July 6, 1971 and Memorandum to J.P.

Fox, Jr., re. "Results of Visitor

Survey July 6 and 7, 1971," dated

July 8, 1971. Corning, N.Y.: Corning Glass Center, 1971, 5p. + 4p.

See also #’s 260-262

264 Wells, Carolyn H. Smithsonian visito_~r. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian

266 Detroit Institute of Arts. "High

School Survey--Spring, 1969" questionnaire with tabulated results and

letter from virginia R. Harriman to

teachers. Detroit: Detroit Institute of Arts, 1969, 2p. + ip.

See also #’s 244, 245, 267, 268

267 Downs, Linda. Memorandum to Miss

virginia Harriman, re. "Results from

Questionnaire Sent to Detroit Grade

Schools Regarding the Interest in

the Tour Program," dated Apr. 22,

1970. Detroit: Detroit Institute

of Arts, 1970, 3p.

See also #’s 244, 245, 266, 268

268 Detroit Institute of Arts~ Questionnaire for teachers on "Ancient World"

tour and "Art to the Schools Evaluation Form." Detroit: Detroit Institute of Arts, n.d., ip. + Ip.

See also #’s 244, 245, 266, 267

269 (National Association of the Denver

Museum of Natural History.) Report

to the Board of Trustees~.Denver

Museum of Natural History on Survey

of visitors to the Denver Museum of

Natural History, 197~. Introduction,

Summary, and questionnaire form.

(Denver: National Association of

the Denver Museum of Natural History,

1974), pp. 1-2, 17-21.

270 Ewell, Maryo and Peter Ewell. "Planning for Grassroots Arts Development:

A Research Study of Nine Communities

in Transition," Arts in Society .

12(1): 92-109 (1975).

Rural communites in wisconsin

102