Beyond the “Toolkit Approach”: Arts Impact Evaluation Research and the Realities of Cultural PolicyMaking (original) (raw)

Mapping research on the social impact of the arts: what characterises the field?

Open Research Europe, 2021

This article explores the broad and undefined research field of “the social impact of the arts”. The effects of art and culture are often used as justification for public funding, but the research on these interventions and their effects is unclear. Using a co-word analysis of over 10,000 articles published between 1990 and 2020, we examined the characteristics of the field as we have operationalised it through our searches. Since 2015, the research field of “the social impact of art” has expanded and consists of different epistemologies and methodologies, summarised in largely overlapping subfields belonging to the social sciences/humanities, arts education, and arts and health/therapy. In formal or informal learning settings, studies of theatre/drama as an intervention to enhance skills, well-being, or knowledge among children are most common. A study of the research front, operationalised as the bibliographic coupling of the most cited articles in the data set, confirmed the co-w...

The social impacts of the arts–myth or reality?

2006

Cultural policy is considered, at least traditionally, the Cinderella of the public policy sphere. As an area of low priority in political discourse, the cultural sector has only ever attracted a modest proportion of public expenditure. Public spending on the arts is still significantly lower, proportionately, to spending on other sectors of the welfare system (education, social and health services, etc.). Nevertheless, there is little doubt that in recent years the arts and culture have gained a much more central role in public policy debate.

Making an impact: New directions for arts and humanities research

Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 2014

The severity of the global economic crisis has put the spotlight firmly on measuring academic and research performance and productivity, and assessing its contribution, value, impact and benefit. While traditionally, research output and impact was measured by peerpublications and citations, there is increased emphasis on a "market-driven approach", which favours the bio-, medical and technological sciences, and helped reinforce a disciplinary hierarchy in which arts and humanities research (A&HR) has struggled for attention. This article charts the changing policy environment across Ireland, the Netherlands and Norway. It draws on evidence from the HERAVALUE project which studied how different stakeholders value arts and humanities research; almost 100 interviews were conducted with representatives from the academy, policymakers and civil society these three countries. Although the arts and culture have played a distinctive nation-forming role, and continue to do so, each country has adopted very different policy responses towards A&HR.

New Directions in Arts and Cultural Policy: Forward by the Editors

Review of Policy Research, 2004

Arts and culture are seldom a central concern of United States public policy literature. Indeed, United States cultural policy is often both neglected and misunderstood. This neglect may stem from how marginalized cultural policies appear to be in this country. It also reflects a misunderstanding on the part of policy analysts of just how far-reaching and deeply embedded government involvement in arts and culture really is. Some might dismiss arts and cultural policy as a fruitful arena for study because the financial and political stakes appear to be so low. Others believe that there are few substantial issues beyond battles over public funding. Yet others might argue that the cultural constituency is small, weak, and ineffectual. Finally, some would assert that the public is apathetic and policy scholars are indifferent. All of these perceptions would be wrong, as the contributions to this issue demonstrate. Some arguments, like the assertion of an apathetic public, would seem spurious grounds for neglecting a policy topic-after all, the public is also apathetic about foreign aid but that isn't taken as evidence that the topic is unimportant. Direct federal appropriations to the three best-known national arts and cultural agencies (National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Institute for Museum and Library Services) totaled approximately 250millionin2002,amereroundingerrorformostfederalagencies.But,asMargaretWyszomirski′sarticlemakesclear,thesemoniesrepresentasmallfractionofallthemoneythegovernmentappropriatestoartsandculturalactivities.AmericansfortheArts,anartsadvocacygroup,estimatesthatthefederalgovernmentspendssome250 million in 2002, a mere rounding error for most federal agencies. But, as Margaret Wyszomirski's article makes clear, these monies represent a small fraction of all the money the government appropriates to arts and cultural activities. Americans for the Arts, an arts advocacy group, estimates that the federal government spends some 250millionin2002,amereroundingerrorformostfederalagencies.But,asMargaretWyszomirski′sarticlemakesclear,thesemoniesrepresentasmallfractionofallthemoneythegovernmentappropriatestoartsandculturalactivities.AmericansfortheArts,anartsadvocacygroup,estimatesthatthefederalgovernmentspendssome2 billion a year on arts and culture, including support for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Smithsonian, and the Kennedy Center, as well as arts programs housed in such disparate departments as Justice, Education, or Housing and Urban Development. Moreover, there has long been a cultural component to foreign and military policy. Don Perone's article discusses the long tradition of funding military bands, and indeed arts advocates in Congress have often noted that the budget for military bands often exceeds that of the entire NEA. The State Department is responsible for formulating and enforcing international protocols for the protection of cultural property; this agency also sponsors cultural exchanges and arts and cultural programming in many embassies. These disparate federal outlays are easily matched by state and local cultural spending. In 2001, according to the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, state legislatures collectively appropriated close to $450 million for their arts agencies, as well as additional funds for arts education, state museums, and other programs.

Re-visioning arts and cultural policy: current impasses and future directions

2007

Professor Wanna has produced around 17 books including two national text books on policy and public management. He has produced a number of research-based studies on budgeting and financial management including: Budgetary Management and Control (1990); Managing Public Expenditure (2000), From Accounting to Accountability (2001) and, most recently, Controlling Public Expenditure (2003). He has just completed a study of state level leadership covering all the state and territory leaders-entitled Yes Premier: Labor leadership in Australia's states and territories-and has edited a book on Westminster Legacies in Asia and the Pacific-Westminster Legacies: Democracy and responsible government in Asia and the Pacific. He was a chief investigator in a major Australian Research Council funded study of the Future of Governance in Australia (1999-2001) involving Griffith and the ANU. His research interests include Australian and comparative politics, public expenditure and budgeting, and government-business relations. He also writes on Australian politics in newspapers such as The Australian, Courier-Mail and The Canberra Times and has been a regular state political commentator on ABC radio and TV. Table of Contents About the Author ix Acknowledgements xi Foreword xiii Abbreviations and Acronyms xvii Chapter 1. The Conceptual ambivalence of art and culture 1 Chapter 2. Historical phases in arts and cultural policy-making in Australia 7 Chapter 3. The convergence of arts and cultural policy Chapter 4. International trends in arts and cultural production and consumption Chapter 5. How can cultural sub-sectors respond? Three indicative case studies Chapter 6. Managing creativity and cultivating culture Bibliography Appendix A. Typology of artforms by characteristics of sector Appendix B. Key moments in Australian arts and cultural policy development Appendix C. Models of cultural policy Appendix D. Definitions of cultural policy Appendix E. The objectives of cultural policy Appendix F. Government expenditure (Commonwealth, state and local) on the arts in Australia ($ million