“Music,” by Flickr user Emily Ries

Titles: (1) Music, Singing and Wellbeing in Healthy Adults; (2) Music, Singing and Wellbeing for Adults Living with Diagnosed Conditions; and (3) Music, Singing and Wellbeing for Adults Living with Dementia (three reports)

Authors: Norma Daykin, Lily Grigsby Duffy, Guy Julier, Jack Lane, Louise Mansfield, Catherine Meads, Annette Payne, Alan Tomlinson, Christina Victor (reports 1, 2, & 3); Adele Burnett, Giorgia D’Innocenzo, Paul Dolan, Tess Kay, Stefano Testoni (reports 1 & 2)

Publisher: What Works Centre for Wellbeing

Year: 2016

URL: https://www.whatworkswellbeing.org/product-category/artsculture/?filter_resource-type=full-report

Topics: music, singing, wellbeing, health, dementia, older adults, anxiety, depression, young adults

Methods: Systematic review of 145 studies exploring wellbeing outcomes of music and singing for adults, grouped into three categories: healthy adults, adults with diagnosed health conditions, and adults with dementia. (Includes empirical research published from 1996 to June 2016 and systematic reviews from 2010 to 2016.) Review of grey literature and practice reports from 2013 to 2016. Studies sourced through electronic searches. Review and analysis of data from 2,500 participants for review focusing on healthy adults; 1,364 for adults with diagnosed conditions; and 249 for adults with dementia, all from many different countries.

What it says: The authors examine the relationship between music and singing interventions and subjective wellbeing (studies that include paid professional musicians, clinical music therapy, and clinical procedures were excluded). Among healthy adults, the authors found that the evidence was strongest for the effects of music, particularly singing, for older adults on morale, mental health-related quality of life, loneliness, anxiety, and depression. Among adults with diagnosed conditions, the authors found it difficult to synthesize findings due to the heterogeneity of included studies. However, the evidence points to reductions in depression and anxiety across age groups. For adults with chronic conditions (e.g., stroke, cancer), a number of studies reported reduced stress among a range of other wellbeing outcomes. Similarly, for adults with dementia, methods used across studies were inconsistent, making it difficult for the authors to draw conclusions from studies given varying outcomes, sample sizes, and settings. Key findings across the three reports are summarized below, grouped by the quality of the evidence.

High-quality evidence:

• Among young adults, music listening alleviates anxiety and improves wellbeing
• Among older adults, regular group singing enhances moral and mental health-related quality of life and reduces loneliness, anxiety, and depression; also, singing maintains a sense of wellbeing
• Among pregnant women, structured music therapy reduces stress, anxiety, and depression
• Among college nursing students, culturally relevant music interventions decrease depression
• Among palliative care hospital patients, brief music therapy is effective in supporting wellbeing

Moderate-quality evidence:

• Among young adults, music listening for short durations enhances mood and music listening, while exercising enhances the positive effects of physical activity on state anxiety
• Among healthy adults, music listening reduces stress, negative mood, and state anxiety; among males, regular listening to a particular genre of music alleviates anxiety, stress, and depression
• Among older adults, music listening may be effective in preventing or reducing depression; participation in choirs provides positive social experiences and a vehicle for identity construction and revision later in life; and songwriting and performing contributes to happiness
• Among marginalized groups (e.g., the homeless), there is value to the therapeutic benefits of group singing and the opportunity to learn, build relationships, and engage in meaningful exchange with the broader community; among the incarcerated, listening to relaxing music alleviates anxiety and anger
• Among older people with chronic conditions in residential and community settings, culturally relevant music interventions (e.g., playing an instrument, singing) decreases depression
• Among a variety of adult populations, reported wellbeing benefits include relaxation, reduction in anxiety, spiritual uplifting, improvements in mood, emotional wellbeing, confidence, and more; also, music participation can raise awareness of the significance of music in people’s lives, which can have a positive effect on health awareness, quality of life, and behavioral change

Low-quality evidence:

• Among healthy adults, group singing fosters happiness, can enhance perceived psychological wellbeing (e.g., self-esteem, emotion, enjoyment, purpose in life, etc.) and subjective wellbeing, and supports the development of musical identity and a sense of purpose
• Among older adults, learning music may help to realize long-held ambitions and promote spiritual growth; also, motivation for music participation might be to broaden social networks and to learn
• Among marginalized groups, active music making in groups enables them to build a sense of community and share culture and heritage; among young offenders in particular, music and singing projects have a positive effect on self-esteem; among prison inmates, participatory music making, singing, and performing in public supports perceived wellbeing
• Among pregnant women, listening to relaxing music enhances wellbeing and mood
• Among people experiencing PTSD, group drumming supports reduction in related symptoms
• Among patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, singing classes are associated with improvements in areas of wellbeing such as mood
• Among post-stroke patients, music therapy has a positive effect on mood
• Among adults living with chronic conditions, participation in long-term group singing improves quality of life and social and emotional wellbeing
• Among hospice patients, music therapy contributes to improved spiritual wellbeing
• Among undergraduate students, music therapy alleviates anxiety
• Among adults with dementia, listening to music enhances overall wellbeing, and for those in nursing homes, individualized music listening reduces anxiety and/or depression

Music listening accounted for over a third of interventions across studies with healthy adults, followed by under a third examining group singing. Common methodological challenges cited by the authors included small sample sizes in quantitative studies and limited theoretical analysis in some qualitative studies. It’s likely that some people with health conditions were included in some studies on healthy adults, though they were not systematically recorded, making it difficult to account for the effect of these conditions on outcomes. The authors note the following qualitative themes: enhanced personal wellbeing, characterized by happiness and other positive emotions; social wellbeing, or increased interacting and bonding with others; and identity-related benefits, associated with shared culture, past connections, self-awareness, and the perception of music as a meaningful and important part of life. Lastly, the authors conducted a meta-analysis of five studies on anxiety and six studies on depression, which revealed that music participation had no statistically significant effect on anxiety among healthy people, but that it can reduce depression.

What I think about it: Overall, this is a strong systematic review, executed mostly without flaws, though not completely. A couple of things to note which may reduce confidence include the inconsistent date ranges used to pull the grey literature, empirical studies, and systematic reviews used in the reports, as well as use of self-reported measures among participants with dementia, as noted by the authors. Another significant drawback is the potential narrowness of the search due to a focus on specific keywords like “wellbeing,” which may have led to exclusion of relevant evidence. Despite the large number of returned citations, the authors limited the scope of the review to focus on interventions with healthy adults and those with higher quality research designs. That said, findings may seem particularly robust for healthy adult populations, but really, this was just an intentional focus for the systematic review.

What it all means: This capsule review somewhat extends Createquity’s investigation on the claims to the benefits of arts participation, and the quality of evidence to back those claims, with a deeper focus on the impact of music and singing interventions on wellbeing. Notably, even with specificity around art forms, the authors note wide variation among study characteristics and outcomes, including the duration of the interventions, passive versus active forms of participation, individualized versus group experiences, as well as the range of wellbeing outcomes measured. Addressing the aforementioned methodological shortcomings would prove useful for future research in this area. To some extent, it will almost always be difficult to synthesize findings from studies on the arts and wellbeing until there is consistency in the methods employed across studies.

Nonetheless, the reports offer added value in terms of recency of studies and population breakdowns. Createquity’s investigation of the arts and wellbeing mostly cited evidence from 2014 or earlier, with a large portion of studies published before 2010. The Music, Singing and Wellbeing reports use evidence from studies published as recently as 2016, though not all (there still is publication lag). Furthermore, very few studies that Createquity came across focused on specific populations; when they did, the evidence was mixed or of lesser quality. The exception would be older adults. The strongest evidence cited in these reports focuses on older adults, similar to our findings around the benefits of participatory arts for older adults. In fact, Music, Singing and Wellbeing is an excellent supplement to that piece in particular; it includes a new large-scale randomized controlled trial of singing among older adults that was not included in our previous reviews.

“Money,” by Flickr user Clayton

Title: Do Donors Care About Results? An Analysis of Nonprofit Arts and Cultural Organizations

Author(s): Cleopatra Charles and Mirae Kim

Publisher: Public Performance and Management Review

Year: 2016

URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15309576.2015.1137775?journalCode=mpmr20

Topics: Cultural Data Project, nonprofit success metrics, philanthropy

Methods: Analysis of attendance, website engagement, and financial data from a subset of arts and culture organizations that complete Cultural Data Profiles between 2005 and 2015

What it says: This study examines whether nonprofit arts organizations with better “performance outcomes” – defined by higher attendance numbers, audience “awareness of arts and culture activities” (measured through website visits), and “increased access to diverse audiences” (measured through the number of free tickets provided) – receive more contributions than other arts nonprofits. It also examines whether nonprofit arts organizations with lower overall fundraising costs (measured through the ratio of development expense to dollars raised) receive more contributions than organizations that spend more to bring money in the door.  The authors find that foundation contributions decrease as organizations’ audiences and web viewerships grow. The impact of audience growth on individual donations is also negative but much smaller, while the impact on corporate donations is not statistically significant. The relationship between fundraising expense and donations is similarly split, but in the opposite direction: as organizations spend more per fundraised dollar, foundation giving goes up, while individual and corporate donations are not visibly impacted.

In discussing these findings, the authors conclude that certain performance outcomes for arts organizations have little to no relationship to their success with donors; in fact, “better performance outcomes in terms of increased awareness and attendance have a negative rather than a positive influence on charitable giving,” specifically related to foundations.

What I think about it: It’s tempting to get hung up on this study’s limitations – for example, its dubious use of attendance numbers and website visits as proxies for success, it’s reliance on self-reported Cultural Data Project (CDP) data, and it’s lack of a random sample. The latter point is particularly problematic because it’s difficult to glean the total sample size of the organizations analyzed. The authors note they only focus on organizations with audited financials (which excluded a whopping 52% of the overall pool) and further removed organizations with no expenses, revenue, government support, website visitors, or free tickets. Far from examining a cross-section of arts nonprofits in the United States, this study is focused on about half of organizations that submitted CDP profiles – meaning they are also located in one of the 12 states (including the District of Columbia) that have active CDP partnerships. Only one of those states (California) is located on the West Coast. None are in the South or Pacific Northwest.

Furthermore, just because such correlations exist in the CDP dataset doesn’t mean donors are making decisions based on the metrics the authors examine. There is no way to know whether foundations in the regions studied were closely following attendance rates at the organizations they funded, to say nothing of website traffic. To be fair, the authors acknowledge most of these problems, and they call for further research to better examine the relationship between organizational performance, fundraising, and donor behavior. That said, drawing firm conclusions from this study is difficult. What does seem clear is that a) foundations in the regions where CDP is used appear to behave differently from corporate and individual donors; and b) that behavior implies they are more likely to decrease their support as an organization builds a larger audience base. Similarly, foundations in those regions are more likely to respond positively to organizations that spend more money on fundraising.

What it all means: Given the unique role that foundations play in the nonprofit arts ecosystem as gatekeepers and, oftentimes, thought leaders, this study raises several intriguing questions about the extent to which they actually respond to the metrics of success to which they ask their grantees to adhere. It’s very possible that most funders eschew attendance and website data altogether, and focus on different outcomes that are tied to their own theories of change. It’s also possible (though not likely) that they are easily charmed by development officers and/or fundraising galas. Whatever the case may be, it’s worth noting that their decisions do not align with individual or corporate donors. Perhaps that’s how it should be; perhaps it indicates a flaw in how most foundations decide who to support. Without more research into the questions the authors raise – and more comprehensive datasets with which to analyze them – it’s difficult to know.

“Harmony,” by Flickr user Thad Zajdowicz

Title: Characteristics of Civically Engaged Nonprofit Arts Organizations: The Results of a National Survey

Author(s): Mirae Kim

Publisher: Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

Year: 2016

URL: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0899764016646473

Topics: Non-profit management, arts organizations, civic engagement, arts management

Methods: Survey, Structured interviews, correlation analysis

What it says: The study uses data from a U.S. survey, structured interviews and IRS forms to test four hypotheses about characteristics of civically engaged nonprofit arts organizations. After a series of interviews with 21 nonprofit directors, a survey was developed where respondents reported the extent to which their organization is involved with different nonprofit roles, some of which are market oriented (e.g. producing artistic products) and some of which are civically oriented (e.g. promoting community engagement or bringing together people of different backgrounds). The survey was completed by a stratified sample of 1,049 nonprofit arts directors. Additional organizational characteristics were measured by survey items in the same survey or federal data from the National Center for charitable Statistics (NCCS).

Author Mirae Kim finds that civic engagement among nonprofits strongly correlates with network diversity (i.e. working with a range of types of other organizations like schools or senior centers), and a perception of civic engagement as an industry norm. Both of these findings are validated by the structured interviews. Because many of the nonprofits surveyed reported high levels of involvement in market roles and civic roles, the author conducts additional analysis taking market roles into account. The positive correlation between network diversity and civic engagement is heightened when an organization also performs market roles. This also means that increased network diversity predicts a complementary relationship between the two roles. This is explained through interview statements about how work with outside community groups and organizations helps arts nonprofits identify and implement civically relevant programming, and simultaneously exposes their work to new audiences within the market.

Receiving a higher share of program revenue negatively correlates with civic engagement (though the connection is not as strong) and reliance on government funding is not correlated with civic engagement at all. The author also hypothesizes that a rigid and bureaucratic governance structure would be negatively associated with civic engagement. The study finds an opposite relationship in the data, but because this finding conflicts with some of the interview data, the author recommends more research in this area before a conclusion is reached. The authors note that this study does not establish causality between these factors, and more importantly it does not delve into the outcomes of the work of civically engaged nonprofits, only the extent that they pursue this role.

What I think about it: This study demonstrates how effective familiar (and relatively affordable) methods in arts research (surveys, structured interviews, NCCS data) can be when part of a sound and well-thought-out study design. This particular model includes a theoretical and literature review which directly informs the study design, the use of previously validated survey instruments whenever possible, care taken to achieve a representative sample, and triangulation between interview and survey data. In addition, the study poses questions relevant to real tensions in arts management, which do not already have obvious answers.

What it all means: Beyond the promising study methodology, this work offers some actionable insight about an ongoing discussion in the nonprofit arts sector: how does the role of supplying quality arts products and experiences interact with expectations to positively influence civic life? This study creates a theoretical map of the different components of this complicated question, demonstrates that the two functions interact, but don’t necessarily need to compete, and offers a clear action that correlates with civic engagement, which is even more pronounced for organizations who are also actively playing a market role. It also suggests that hearing about other organization’s effort to promote civic engagement, at a national conference, for example, does actually cause other nonprofits to increase their civic engagement in turn.

As the author notes, the findings cannot tell us definitively whether collaborating with other organizations causes nonprofits to be more civically engaged, or if civically engaged organizations are more likely to seek out collaboration. It also does not shed light on how effective the efforts of civically minded nonprofits are in their communities in terms of outcomes. However, the action that the study recommends (partnering with other types of organizations) is not such a departure from the missions or practices of most arts nonprofits to necessitate stronger evidence before nonprofits seeking to increase their civic engagement consider doubling down on it as a tactic. Even arts organizations doing this already can take away from this research increased confidence that their time and effort to collaborate across sector boundaries set their work apart.

This research also identifies a few bright areas for research going forward, including: examining the conflicting evidence related to organizational structure and governance, further research on outcomes, and deeper investigation about the effects of the quality or depth of collaboration or the type of collaborative organization on civic engagement and civic outcomes.

“Coloured pencils,” by Flickr user Alan Cleaver

Title: Artistic education matters: survival in the arts occupations

Author(s): Trine Bille and Søren Jensen

Publisher: Springer Journal of Cultural Economics

Year: 2016

URL: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0CED3IRNcjobmFCOFNjbGt4dm9BYlFKdmFoQlc4ZmNBU2RV/view

Topics: artists, arts education, arts employment, barriers to arts careers

Methods:  Regression analysis, 1996-2012 data from Danish official statistics, literature review

What it says: Using official Danish statistics, the study analyzes more than 27,000 employment records of artists and journalists from 1996 to 2012, across five arts categories: music, dance, film and theater acting and directing, visual arts, and writing (including journalism). Two forms of regression analysis showed that having a formal arts education in one’s career field reduced the risk of the leaving the arts field in question for musicians, acting professionals, and writers/journalists. However, this correlation is not seen for visual artists and dancers (albeit with a relatively small sample in the dance group).

The study also notes that the bulk of attrition among artists happens during the first two years after starting an arts career. The study compares data from a 2005 French study – Gender differentiated effect of time in performing arts professions (Coulangeon et al), which investigated survival function estimates for performing artists in France – and notes that the French study also found the maximum period of vulnerability to be in the two year following entry to the labor market.

The Bille/Jensen paper cites further conclusions drawn from both the Danish data and the French data:

• an arts career is a risky venture, with a comparably low success rate
• the success rate of aspiring working artists differs by arts sector
• theater artists have the lowest success rate in the first two years, followed by visual artists
• musicians and dancers, along with those in the writers/journalists category, show less attrition in the first two years

What I think about it: Overall, it would have been helpful if there had been greater analysis of socioeconomic status and family and personal wealth – and their income implications – on career longevity in the arts. A related concern is the gender analysis for visual arts: while the study indicates that women have a greater arts career survival rate, it doesn’t explicitly investigate other income support from married partners as additional income sources. (This was more thoroughly explored in a similar 2011 study by David Throsby and Anita Zednik using data from Australia.) Finally, the inclusion of journalists in the writers group makes that data less relevant to the overall conclusions – as the authors themselves admit. They cite literature indicating that journalists operate in a more standard supply-and-demand labor market than artists in other creative sectors.

What it all means: This study uses a longitudinal dataset to provide solid analysis based on large samples and a long-time series, unlike previous studies in the area. The report provides empirical evidence that supports some intuitive insights for arts careers – including differences in career paths in various arts fields – which have been posited in other literature. Its conclusions contrast some of those noted in earlier reporting by Createquity on the complex relationship between higher education and artistic success. The analysis provides one key, demonstrable causal relationship: the connection between formal arts education and career longevity in fields such as drama and music. It indicates that, in certain sectors, there’s a likely causal relationship between having formal arts education and surviving longer in an arts career.

In contrast with the United States, Scandinavian countries may have more longitudinal datasets and rates of success in surviving in the arts – but one should be cautious in comparing countries with robust social safety nets to the United States, where socioeconomic and equity concerns may come into play. In particular, evidence for impact of formal arts education in Denmark for successful careers – where university education is free, and living costs are supported by a system of grants – may point to equity barriers for societies like the United States which have high, unsubsidized university costs, especially at the graduate level.

“mahatma” by artist cryptik

Title: Measuring Critical Thinking: Results from an Art Museum Field Trip Experiment

Author(s): Brian Kisida, Daniel H. Bowen and Jay P. Greene

Publisher: Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness

Year: 2015

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2015.1086915

Topics: arts education, museums, field trip, visual arts, critical thinking

Methods: randomized controlled trial involving 8,000 elementary, middle- and high-school students assigned by lottery to attend a field trip and facilitated tour of the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art in Bentonville, Arkansas. Researchers collected demographic information on the students and conducted a textual analysis of essays written by the students after the field trip responding to an image of a work of art. The essays were coded using a critical-thinking assessment rubric developed by the US Department of Education.

What it says: This study validates and expands upon the results of the authors’ 2013 Crystal Bridges study. The museum field trip was led by trained museum docent facilitating open-ended, student-led discussion about art work in the collections. Following the field trip, students completed surveys on their demographics, prior art consumption and production, knowledge of art, and attitudes toward cultural institutions. Students were also shown an image of a painting that was not part of the Crystal Bridges collection and given five minutes to write an essay describing what was going on in the painting, and what they saw that led them to that conclusion. In the first semester of the experiment, as discussed in the 2013 study, students were shown a representational work of art. Students participating in the study’s second semester were shown an abstract work of art.

All students assigned to the treatment group demonstrated stronger critical-thinking skills in their essays than those in the control group. However, across the board, some aspects of critical thinking as measured by the seven-section rubric were more evident than others; and measurements were not consistent between student responses to representational and abstract pieces. Specifically, students responding to the representational painting showed many examples of observations and interpretations in their written responses, whereas responses to the abstract piece were heavy on observation and light on interpretation. Instances of “problem finding,” “flexible thinking,” and  “comparisons” were less likely in response to abstract work.

However, as reported in the 2013 study, a relatively modest “dose” of arts education – one visit to the visual arts museum – produced a significant effect in the treatment group. Many of the students had never attended a school-based field trip before, and the authors note that students who reported prior exposure to arts education – including non-visual arts education – displayed stronger critical-thinking outcomes in general than students who reported little or no arts exposure. Female students and students from larger communities also scored higher on the critical-thinking rubric. Interestingly, students attending Title I schools showed significantly higher critical-thinking outcomes than their more affluent counterparts when responding to the representational artwork, but the differences were less pronounced for the groups responding to the abstract work.

What I think about it: The 2013 Crystal Bridges was rightly lauded for its scale, clarity, and thoughtfulness. This 2015 follow-up continues in that mold. Randomized controlled trials such as this one are considered a gold standard for research; the high level of inter-rater reliability among the researchers coding the student essays – who were not aware of any student characteristics (including whether they were in the treatment or control group) – leaves little to fault in the study’s design. There are limitations, of course: there is no way to know whether the effects on the treatment group last over time, for example, and whether they would remain consistent in an urban area that afforded residents more cultural opportunities. The difference in student responses to the abstract versus representational works of art also raises questions about the depth of conclusions to be drawn. Students were only given five minutes to write their essays, so the fact that they primarily stuck to observations and interpretations isn’t surprising; nor is it illogical that students working with the abstract piece offered fewer interpretations and more observations about the work. It would be interesting to see how the responses would have evolved if students were given more time to work on them. It would also be useful to know which elements of critical thinking were on display during the treatment group discussions at the museum. According to the authors: “The goal of the museum educators was to facilitate an open-ended, student-centered approach to discuss the works of art, encourage a deep level of engagement, and motivate students to seek out their own unique interpretations.” The extent to which students accomplished this, and the balance of observation versus interpretation in the discussions, may have depended on their abilities to respond to the essay prompt in a short amount of time.

Another question emerges: how much of the impact on students’ critical thinking had to do with the field trip and how much had to do with the arts-based nature of the experience? The authors note that “this research does not establish which components of the art museum experience were essential for increases in critical-thinking skills, or if these same effects could be generated from school-based arts exposure.” I wonder whether there were components that didn’t have to do with the arts at all. If students were guided to discuss a representational photograph, or to observe an environment for a science class, would such observational practice lead to similar results? And how much, if any, of the critical-thinking gains exhibited in this study might transfer over to other activities?

What it all means: Not many randomized controlled trials take place in arts education, so this one is heartening; perhaps it will serve as inspiration to other researchers interested not only in the impact of the arts on students, but how critical-thinking skills are cultivated in the first place. Despite its scale, the study leaves several questions unanswered. It does confirm that, in the short term, students who participated in a field trip to the Crystal Bridges Museum were able to respond to works of art in a more robust way than students who did not. As with the first Crystal Bridges study, the fact that this effect is most pronounced for Title I students examining representational work seems worthy of further examination.

“Museum” by flickr user World’s Direction

Title: “Taking Charge – Evaluating the Evidence: The Impact of Charging or Not for Admissions on Museums”

Author(s): DC Research Ltd.

Publisher: DC Research / Association of Independent Museums

Year: 2017

URL: https://www.aim-museums.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Final-Report-Taking-Charge-%E2%80%93-Evaluating-the-Evidence-The-Impact-of-Charging-or-Not-for-Admissions-on-Museums.pdf

Topics: museum admission, admission price, museum attendance, museum finances, UK, Wales

Methods: literature review, survey, case studies, interviews

What it says: Purpose and product: DC Research Ltd undertook this study in the first half of 2016 to understand the effects of charging or not charging for admission at UK museums – and of changing a museum’s policy toward charging – on attendance, visitor diversity, funding, visitor experience, and institutional relationships. (The research was commissioned by the Association of Independent Museums (AIM), in partnership with Arts Council England (ACE) and the Museums Archives and Libraries Division (MALD) of the Welsh Government.) The researchers produced four documents: the full report discussed here, a separate executive summary, a summary of the results from Wales, and a “Success Guide” capturing lessons learned for use by museums.

Methodology: The authors reviewed the existing literature on the consequences of charging for museum admission; conducted a survey generating usable responses from 311 museums across the UK; produced 20 case studies, primarily of museums that had changed their charging position, involving site visits and interviews with a variety of stakeholders; and consulted 18 museum experts through one-on-one conversations. Notably, all of the study components excluded National Museums and Galleries, which have tended to be the emphasis of much previous research into this issue in the UK. The authors also had access to AIM’s proprietary Visitor Verdict database.

Findings: Few clear patterns emerged with respect to what kinds of museums charge for admission or the effects of charging. Perhaps the biggest takeaway is that other factors, including how a change in charging policy is communicated and managed, seem to matter more for nearly all of the metrics considered. The main exception is that charging seems to be associated with more time spent in the museum (longer “dwell times”) and possibly with greater likelihood of using the museum shop and café. Unsurprisingly, charging was found to provide a useful focal point to welcome visitors and collect data.

Of the 311 respondents, 57 percent charge for general admission and/or specific exhibitions, with a mean general admission price of about £6 for adults; this was higher for museums with more visitors and those that reported being a key attraction in their area. There was a stark difference in perceptions between institutions that are free and those that charge: the former mostly believed that being free had a positive effect on the number and diversity of visitors and on spontaneous donation and secondary spend; the latter mostly believed that charging did not have much effect on any of these. (Interestingly, separate data suggests that the average visitor experience rating was similar across the two kinds of institutions.)

Only 26 percent of the 311 respondents changed their charging policy in the last three years, with 70 percent of those who did being museums that already charged and merely increased price or scope. The institutions that increased charges mostly believed that these increases had no significant effect on number or diversity of visitors or spontaneous donations. The nine institutions that went from free to charging reported that adding a fee did reduce attendance overall (by some 35-40 percent, anecdotally) and disproportionately for locals and repeat visits, but did not seem to affect the social diversity of attendees. Data from AIM’s Visitor Verdict offers some support for this last point: the 2016 breakdown of attendees by social class was nearly identical for charging and free museums. The museums reported, however, that special outreach and discount programs are necessary to achieve this. (Some of the institutions that switched from charging to free reported an increase in diversity, although data was often thin.) The institutions that added a new fee also reported that spontaneous donations decreased, but that this was more than offset by the admissions income.

In terms of best practices for changing charging position, the authors conclude from their case studies that communication is the most important factor for success, emphasizing that staff should be trained to be confident and positive, stakeholders (especially the local community) should understand why the change is happening, any increase should ideally be tied to an improvement in the visitor experience, and thoughtful pricing tiers and discounts are key to maintaining the diversity of attendees.

What I think about it: The design of the study means the authors rely mostly on what museums perceive to be true, and so it doesn’t allow analysis of causality – especially since so few of the institutions involved changed their admissions policy. The authors wisely adduce external data (especially from Visitor Verdict) to triangulate those perceptions and adjudicate among them, but because the dataset is proprietary, it is hard to know how much confidence to place in it, and the authors do not address that question. As a result, the findings on the effects of charging must be taken with a grain of salt. More interpretation, perhaps from the case studies, might have increased the usefulness of this study.

The real value of the work may therefore be in the success guide, which provides practical advice to museums considering changing their policy. Here the anecdotal approach yields valuable insight, and the narrative style allows the authors to put their suggestions in the context of specific institutions they have learned from so their applicability to other institutions can be weighed by the latter’s staff.

The report would be strengthened if the authors made available the list of relevant institutions in the UK and/or of those that received the survey (to clarify how representative the response base is) and the survey instrument itself, without which it is sometimes hard to interpret the summarized responses. For example, only 3 percent of respondents charge for specific exhibitions only; one-third of free institutions believe being free has no impact on “admissions income”; and respondents are more likely to charge admission if they report that competition for visitors is more intense in their area.  These findings strike me as quite counter-intuitive, and I’m not sure how to evaluate them: access to the survey would help me understand whether I am interpreting the terms differently from the respondents. These are also examples of when more interpretation from the authors would be useful: if these things are true, what do they mean? If not, why do the museums perceive them to be?

What it all means: This is a topic on the minds of many museums: about half of the institutions surveyed have considered changing their admissions policy, though the vast majority think it is “not very likely” or “not at all likely” that they will change in the next three years. That last point, and the fact that such a small number of institutions actually did switch from free to charging or vice versa, suggests that this debate might be a proxy for more fundamental issues – and potentially a distraction from real engagement with them.

For example, the debate about charging in the US is often considered in terms of equity and access. This report (and especially the Visitor Verdict data it cites) suggest that charging or not charging is not the main factor in achieving diverse attendance, though the grain of salt mentioned above must be added. If that’s right, this report is a salutary reminder to focus on what matters to achieving our desired ends, which may be more about communication and implementation than admissions charge. But one additional caveat applies here: like many studies touching on diversity in the UK, this one focuses on social class based on occupation; race is not considered.

“2012 Olympic Games” by Flickr user Republic of Korea

Title(s): Quantifying the Social Impacts of Culture and Sport; Quantifying and Valuing the Wellbeing Impacts of Culture and Sport (two reports)

Author(s): Daniel Fujiwara, Laura Kudrna, and Paul Dolan.

Publisher: UK Department for Culture, Media & Sport

Year: 2014

URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/304896/Quantifying_the_Social_Impacts_of_Culture_and_Sport.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/304899/Quantifying_and_valuing_the_wellbeing_impacts_of_sport_and_culture.pdf

Topics: cultural engagement, sports participation, social outcomes, subjective wellbeing, cost savings

Methods: Regression analysis of survey data gathered between 2010 and 2011 among a nationally representative sample of 40,000 UK households (Understanding Society, Wave 2). Additional data in analysis drawn from British Household Panel Survey (Understanding Society survey predecessor with smaller sample size but more detailed income-related data).

What it says: The authors examine the relationship between sports and cultural participation and 1) various social outcomes, specifically measures of health, education, employment, and civic participation; and 2) subjective wellbeing (i.e., life satisfaction). They also estimate cost savings and financial values associated with the social and wellbeing impacts of sports and cultural engagement, which was defined by the following variables: participation in arts and cultural activities; attendance at arts and cultural events; participation in team and individual sports; and museum, heritage site, and library visitation.

Examining impacts on self-reported health, the authors found that those who participate in sports are 14 percent more likely to report good health than those who do not, whereas only 5 percent of art goers are more likely to report good health. Unlike arts attendance, arts participation (i.e., active modes of engagement) was found to have a negative association with health, although researchers suggest this could be attributed to reverse causality: the possibility that unhealthy people may be more likely to actively engage in the arts. Overall, the impacts of sports and culture on health were constant across gender, age, income, and geography, except the the impact of team sports on health was greater for younger people, and arts participation had more of an effect on health for older adults.

In terms of education, the authors examined the reported likelihood of 16- to 18-year-olds going into higher education (sample size of 900). There was a 14 percent increase in likelihood for those who participate in the arts, generally, and a 7 percent increase in likelihood for those who participate in swimming, which was the only sports variable to have a significant effect. There was a 13 percent increase in likelihood for those who attended dance events, and a smaller 8 percent increase in likelihood for those who actively participate in music. Given the smaller sample size, the authors did not examine distributional impacts across age, gender, etc.

The authors also examined the effects of sports and culture on job satisfaction and job search behavior. They found that participation in team sports is associated with an increase in job satisfaction, although this association only exists among people with high income. They found that participation in any sport is associated with an 11 percent increase in the likelihood of having looked for a job in the last four weeks. This figure was fairly similar for engagement in the arts (12 percent). The increase in the likelihood of looking for a job was slightly higher for people who participate in drama (11 percent) versus those who were members of an arts audience (8 percent). Those who participate in individual sports and those with higher incomes were 9.5 percent less likely to have looked for a job.

For civic participation, the authors examined correlations between sports and arts engagement and frequent volunteerism and charitable giving. They found that sports engagement is associated with a 3 percent increase in frequent volunteerism (defined as once every two weeks) whereas arts engagement (that is, both attendance and participation) is associated with a 7 percent increase. Participation in drama was more strongly correlated with frequent volunteerism (8 percent) than the next highest associated arts-related activity – attending an exhibition (3 percent). Increased charitable giving was twice as high among those who engage in the arts (£50 increase; although effects are modified by gender, with more charitable donations among men) versus those who engage in sports (£25 increase). Participation in drama was most strongly correlated with increased charitable giving (£83) than the next highest arts-related activity – attendance at dance events (£35).

As for wellbeing, the authors found that sports engagement, arts participation, and arts attendance all had a significant, positive association with life satisfaction. In particular, team sports and swimming had the greatest effect of all sports activities; drama and crafts produced the greatest effects within the arts participation category; and attending musical events and plays and visiting libraries were most effective of all attendance activities. Conversely, the researchers found that fitness and performing music had negative associations with life satisfaction. While there were few significant differences among different population groups, the report indicates that arts participation and individual sports’ positive effects on life satisfaction were larger for people over the age of 46.

Regarding cost savings and financial impacts, the authors looked at the association between self-reported health and use of medical services. Per person cost savings were highest for those who participate in sports (£98) versus those who attended arts events (£37). Arts participation had negative cost savings (-£32). It is important to note that these preliminary estimates do not consider other behavioral factors that may offset health benefits, such as quitting smoking, which may lead to weight gain. The authors then roughly estimated increases in lifetime earnings associated with sports and cultural engagement, which was highest for dance attendees (£56,400) and lowest for swimmers (£26,800). The authors also estimated monetary values (i.e., how much money one would need to derive wellbeing impacts) for arts and sports-related variables with statistically significant wellbeing impacts. The highest values were attributed to participation in dance (£1,671, per person, per year), swimming (£1,630), and library visits (£1,359). Assuming a twice-per-week engagement in sports, the authors estimate an annual value of £1,127 and a per-activity value of £11. For the arts, based on average engagement of 15 to 20 times-per-year, they estimate an annual value of £935 and per-activity value of £47.

What I think about it: The authors control for as many factors as possible using regression analysis, but acknowledge that they cannot fully attribute causality. Prior to conducting these analyses, the authors conducted a literature review to 1) ensure there was existing evidence of positive associations between sports and culture and, for example, improved health outcomes and volunteerism; and 2) determine what to control for in their analyses, which was fairly comprehensive. Also, the analyses seem particularly strong given the large, representative sample. It is important to note that the income data from the British Household Panel Survey and data from the Understanding Society survey come from different time periods, so impacts that may have changed over time are not accounted for in these analyses. In addition, Understanding Society data does not indicate the frequency of respondents’ participation in specific sports and cultural activities (e.g., fitness, swimming, music, dance). Rather, they derive a per-activity value for sports and cultural engagement, generally. In actuality, these values may vary based on the specific activity.

What it all means: Both reports indicate there are strong correlations between sports and cultural engagement and social impact – e.g., arts attendance and improved health; arts participation and volunteerism – and life satisfaction. Although these are not causal relationships, the analyses are useful for determining appropriate policy interventions, including estimating the costs and benefits associated with such changes and in comparison to other areas of leisurely engagement. Indeed, these reports could be helpful in allowing government to determine how best to allocate public dollars. The wellbeing valuation seems more fitting than use of market data (or preference-based valuation) since it examines the impact of a range of factors on wellbeing, including the income needed to achieve particular impact. As the researchers suggest for the future, issues of causality should be addressed through use of experimental methods, such as random assignments for sports and culture engagement, to single out effects and perhaps establish a control group with which to compare results.

“Vista Paradiso against the blue sky” by flickr user See-ming Lee

Title: Culture Urban Future: Global Report on Culture for Sustainable Urban Development

Author(s): UNESCO and many others

Publisher: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

Year: 2016

URL: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002459/245999e.pdf

Topics: urban planning, cities, economic development, community revitalization, social cohesion, community identity, cultural heritage, sustainability, resilience

Methods: survey of regional and global trends, case studies

What it says: The report aims to provide a global overview of the role played by culture – including cultural heritage, creative economies, and diverse forms of cultural expression – in developing thriving cities that are people-centered, inclusive, and sustainable; in the process, the authors hope to make the case for culture as a force “at the heart of urban renewal and innovation.” Their proximate purpose is to influence the implementation of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 11 – “make cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable” – to ensure that culture is incorporated robustly as a lever of change. That’s a big ambition with fuzzy borders, and the report accordingly adopts a strategy of profusion, combining across its three hundred pages:

• Part I: Eight regional analyses covering every part of the world, authored by local experts. (The versions in this report are condensed; full versions are available separately online.) Each lays out for its region the history of urban development, trends within cities (e.g., suburbanization), challenges to continued development with a special eye to the role of culture, and high-level policy recommendations.
• Part II: Twelve thematic reflections on the role of culture for sustainable cities grouped into the categories of People, Environment, and Policies. Each of these consists of an essay by an expert on a different general idea, such as “humanizing cities through culture” and “enabling access to public spaces to advance economic, environmental, and social benefits.” These meditations draw on the literature in a general way and with relatively few citations (though more are available online) to point to possible ways to use culture in urban development, sometimes drawing on successful examples from the field.
• One-hundred-eleven case studies: Throughout the first two parts, short examples of specific interventions are summarized in inset boxes (e.g., an app developed to map the informal public transit network of vans in Nairobi; the gradual development of the historic city in Coimbra, Portugal). These are typically a paragraph or two long and seem designed to illustrate the breadth of ways culture and urban development intersect.
• Forty-four “perspectives”: Also throughout the first two parts, mini-essays from luminaries such as architect Renzo Piano and the head of the Library of Alexandria offer first-person takes on a range of issues, from “creative placemaking as urban policy” to “people-centered heritage conservation in Beijing.”
• Conclusions and recommendations: See below.
• Eight “dossiers” on UNESCO programs relevant to culture and urban development. These brief primers, gathered in an appendix to the report, describe things like the role of cities in the World Heritage program (one-third of the sites on the list are historical urban areas) and the UNESCO Global Network of Learning Cities.

The report’s short “conclusions and recommendations” section acknowledges the difficulty of summarizing the state of global urban culture in a few crisp proposals, but the authors do offer 12 recommendations with a few sentences of description for each. These draw out ideas that recur throughout the other sections of the report, and they are grouped into three themes:

1. People-centered cities are culture-centered spaces: enhance the livability of cities and safeguard their identities, ensure social inclusion in cities through culture, promote creativity and innovation in urban development through culture, and build on culture for dialogue and peace-building initiatives.
2. Quality urban environments are shaped by culture: foster human-scale and mixed-use cities by drawing on lessons learned from urban conservation practices, promote a livable built and natural environment, enhance the quality of public spaces through culture, and improve urban resilience through culture-based solutions.
3. Sustainable cities need integrated policy-making that builds on culture: regenerate cities and rural-urban linkages by integrating culture at the core of urban planning, build on culture as a sustainable resource for inclusive economic and social development, promote participatory processes through culture and enhance the role of communities in local governance, and develop innovative and sustainable financial models for culture.

What I think about it: While far-reaching and well-intentioned, “Culture Urban Future” suffers from key limitations. First, the report’s purpose is not really to assess or synthesize the most up-to-the-minute academic research, and the paucity of citations or even explicit connections to the literature limits its usefulness as a guide for in-depth inquiry. Second, as a general primer encompassing (at least in theory) all cultural aspects of cities everywhere, it skims vast expanses, summarizing trends to raise awareness in a general way without engaging with any particular topic in great depth or contributing significant new insights that would merit further evaluation as independent evidence-based claims.

What it all means: The report may be useful to students of urban development or urban culture as a primer to some of “the current policies and practices of urban regeneration and sustainable development that have put culture at their core,” in the words of the report’s mission statement. This especially pertains to those with a specific regional interest who can focus on the relevant section for a partial overview of trends and practices. The topic itself certainly merits further study: the report notes that although it was only in 2007 that the majority of human beings lived in cities, urbanization is accelerating dramatically: 67% of the world’s people are expected to be urbanites by 2050. Increasingly, human culture will be city culture, so we would do well to get our “culture urban future” right.

“Story Time” by flickr user Alan Wat

Title: Arts and Cultural Participation among Children and Young People: Insights from the Growing up in Ireland Study

Author(s): Dr. Emer Smyth

Publisher: The Arts and Research Council of Ireland and The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI)

Year: 2016

URL: http://www.artscouncil.ie/uploadedFiles/Arts-and-cultural-particiption-GUI.pdf

Topics: cultural engagement, television watching, cultural engagement in children, wellbeing, disparities of access, arts education

Methods: Longitudinal study, survey, participant interviews, descriptive analysis, multivariate analysis

What it says: The report from ESRI and the Arts Council of Ireland analyzes data from “Growing up in Ireland – the National Longitudinal Study of Children (GUI),” in order to address three research topics: 1) the likelihood of different groups of children to engage in cultural activities, 2) the influence of different schools’ emphasis on cultural activities on children’s cultural engagement out of school, and 3) the relationship between participation in cultural activities and other outcomes including academic skills and socio-emotional wellbeing.

The GUI is a longitudinal study performed on two cohorts of children. The first cohort of 11,134 were recruited at nine months, and then surveyed in two subsequent waves at 3 and 5 years of age (the report focuses on data from the second of the two waves). The second cohort of 8,568 children was recruited at 9 years old, with a follow-up study at 13 years old. At each time point, the study consisted of surveys and interviews with the children’s caregivers, tests of cognitive abilities and wellbeing, and surveys completed by the children’s school principals and teachers for the older cohorts. Data from all of the cohorts was re-weighted to ensure that is was representative of the population of children in Ireland.

The researchers analyzed a broad range of types of cultural engagement, including: being read to and self-directed reading, participation in drawing, painting, singing, and rhymes, participation in organized cultural activities such as drama or music, being taken to cultural events or on educational visits, and television watching and computer games. When researchers analyzed the distribution of cultural engagement among different groups, they found higher rates of engagement among children from more advantaged social backgrounds, and with higher levels of educational attainment by the mothers, to varying degrees. Children from highly educated and middle class families watched less television and had less screen time overall. The researchers also note the strong influence of gender on cultural engagement, with girls in multiple age groups participating at higher rates. In a couple of cases – including participation in singing, painting or drawing by three-year-olds and independent reading among nine-year-olds – gender had a greater influence on cultural participation than social background.

Researchers also analyzed the relationship between cultural participation and other outcomes for children. The researchers measured two sets of outcomes: cognitive development as measured by standardized tests and wellbeing as measured by the prevalence of socioeconomic difficulties. The analysis controlled for individual and family characteristics, the type of childcare at age 3, and whether the child had started school at 5, but there was no way to control for individual personalities or other characteristics of the children. However, the second set of data collected for each cohort (at 5 years and 13 years respectively) was analyzed in terms of change from the first set of measurements, which makes that data a more reliable estimate of the actual effects of cultural engagement. The most noticeable relationships between changes in various outcomes over time and cultural engagement were:

• Being read to frequently between the ages of 3 and 5 and having more access to books contributes to improved vocabulary at age five.
• Watching higher amounts of television between ages three and five is related to improved vocabulary but also greater socio-emotional difficulties at age five.
• Reading, painting and drawing, attending cultural events, and going on frequent educational visits are all related to decreases in socio-emotional difficulties.
• There is moderate improvement in tests on identifying picture similarities for children who are read to, who paint or draw, and who attend cultural events frequently at the age of five.
• Among older children, self-directed reading and taking part in structured cultural activities outside school time contribute to cognitive development (in terms of both verbal and numeric skills) as well as to academic self-confidence.
• Self-directed reading also contributes to socio-emotional wellbeing.
• Similar to patterns observed in the early years, watching higher amounts of television between the ages of 9 and 13 is related to improved verbal skills but at the expense of greater emotional difficulties.

The researchers also looked at data provided by the children’s school principals and teachers to assess the role of school-based cultural activities. The researchers found that, taking account of social background and other family characteristics, children attending schools with a strong cultural emphasis – measured as a combination of the relative importance of cultural activities to the school’s ethos and the amount of cultural extracurricular activities provided – were significantly more likely to be involved in structured cultural activities and frequent reading. They were also less likely to spend a lot of time watching television. Researchers also looked at differences across types of schools. Notably, Urban DEIS (or disadvantaged) schools were more likely to employ creative activities and play for younger children, and to provide music/dance and arts/crafts activities at the primary level – as well as musical instruments and dance at the second level because of programs and interventions aimed at those specific schools, designed to promote retention and school engagement. However, children at these schools are less likely to read for pleasure or take music and drama lessons and are more likely to spend lots of time watching television or playing computer games, meaning that these interventions are not enough to overcome the disparities of access to cultural activities observed based on social class.

What I think about it: The report makes excellent use of data from a larger study on child outcomes, which seems to have been collected with some study of cultural engagement in mind. While the role of some potential confounding variables like personality factors can’t be determined from the study design, the longitudinal nature of the study is a valuable companion to existing experimental studies that typically focus on the short-term effects of arts engagement. The analysis of participation data alongside individual and familial characteristics allows the researchers to identify disparities of access to cultural opportunities in the early years of life that are replicated across the lifespan. Finally, the school-based data points to the viability of one of the most common interventions to promote arts access and participation: arts education in schools.

The report showcases the importance of including cultural information within large-scale studies of this nature. It also points out interesting connections between cultural activities as traditionally defined and popular-culture diversions such as television watching, revealing the research benefits of considering cultural activities holistically among audiences of all ages.

What it all means: Within this study, reading unsurprisingly wins the day in terms of generating strong positive outcomes for children, but other forms of cultural participation also generate positive results. This study’s longitudinal design allows us to observe how incremental arts benefits add up throughout the actual lives of children over time. While not always dramatic or universal to every arts discipline, the long-term benefits measured in the study are quite apparent, especially in relation to social and emotional development in younger children and cognitive benefits in older children.

Interestingly, both reading and television watching are found to contribute to vocabulary-skills development for children. Yet watching high amounts of television (and spending high amounts of screen time) are associated with higher levels of socio-emotional difficulties. At the same time, arts activities including painting and drawing, attending cultural events, and educational visits correlate with fewer socio-emotional difficulties, which could point to arts engagement as a viable way to counteract negative socio-emotional effects from television watching for young children.

The analysis on disparities of access largely confirms trends researchers have observed in adults. The differences in engagement observed between genders raise interesting questions about how young boys might become more fully engaged in the arts. Finally, the data on schools is both encouraging and not. The study does suggest that emphasis on cultural activities at school can effect cultural engagement outside of school time. However, many programs designed to ensure that arts education activities are provided at disadvantaged schools in Ireland have not effectively overcome disparities of access to cultural activities (besides television). What is not clear from the report is whether disadvantaged schools with these programs promote higher levels of cultural engagement in their students than schools without the programs would. The author also makes note of widespread use of libraries by families with young children, and wonders if they may be a fruitful site for cultural engagement programs.

All of this together suggests that, in Ireland, the arts do indeed benefit children, though not more than reading does. And arts education in schools has a role to play in encouraging higher levels of arts engagement. Questions remain as to whether in-school arts education alone can level disparities of arts access based on socioeconomic status. The larger patterns revealed here are likely to be similar in other comparable societies, but further longitudinal studies in different locations would help to shed light on the long-terms benefits of the arts on individuals within a given society, and the benefits of interventions on the ground.

“Europe” by flickr user Charles Clegg

Title: Culture, Cities, and Identity in Europe

Author(s): from Culture Action Europe: Katherine Heid, Mehdi Arfaoiu, Luca Bergamo, Natalie Giorgadze; from Agenda 21 for Culture – UCLG: Carina Lopes, Jordi Balta Portoles, Jordi Pascual; Simon Mundy

Publisher: European Economic and Social Committee

Year: 2016

URL: http://www.eesc.europa.eu/resources/docs/qe-01-16-463-en-n.pdf

Topics: urban planning, creative placemaking, cities, Europe, economic development, community revitalization, social cohesion, community identity

Methods: narrative literature review, case studies

What it says: The report aims to assess what is known about the relationship between culture (defined as “cultural industries, visual and performing arts, heritage and the creative industries”) and cities along four dimensions, as follows:

• Culture as a vehicle for economic growth: exploring traditional economic impact and value-added studies on the cultural and creative industries, heritage, cultural events, communications technologies, and “cultural routes,” the study concludes that “the benefits of culture for the economy follow a multidimensional path, having first a direct impact by creating jobs to support cultural production, then attracting tourists and amateurs as culture is being exhibited and promoted, and lastly sustaining regional investments and growth as the cultural value and knowledge of the region is recognised and exploited.”
• Culture as an instrument for reconverting cities: exploring literature on culture and urban regeneration, spillover effects of cultural activities, and the European Capitals of Culture program, the study stresses the importance of citizen participation in planning initiatives and an integrated approach, and recommends the adoption of culture/heritage impact studies.
• Culture as a tool for integration and inclusiveness: exploring literature on intercultural dialogue and migration, gender, and special needs (i.e, disability), the report emphasizes the importance of diversifying organizational management, programming, and audience development strategies.
• Culture as a pillar of European identity within Europe and beyond: examining the literature on the contribution of cities and regions to European identity, the role of non-European cities in maintaining cultural relations with Europe, cross-border cooperation and mobility, city networks, and cultural rights, the study discusses at length the notion of “global cultural citizenship.”

Within each section, the authors offer several case studies of “good practices” representing on-the-ground approaches toward achieving the goals in question.

This main part of the report is preceded by a brief review of data on cultural participation in Europe, the role that culture plays in society as perceived by citizens, and economic data on the creative industries. The report concludes with a set of 17 recommendations to the European Economic and Social Committee for its future work in cultural policy. These recommendations encompass five themes:

1. Recognize cultural rights as fundamental to human development: Envision culture as an enabler of dialogue and exchange, promote cultural diversity in the framework of human rights, and deepen exploration of the relationship between culture and human rights.
2. Acknowledge culture as necessary for sustainable development: Make culture a separate category of concern in sustainable development conversations, recognize the impact of culture on public and private initiatives, and incorporate culture into social cohesion strategies.
3. Include new players in the democratic governance of culture: Bring civil society organizations into dialogue around policymaking, and recognize the importance of grassroots cultural initiatives.
4. Support exchange between cultures to foster social and economic development: Emphasize cross-border cooperation and mobility, encourage collaboration among cities in and beyond Europe, allow migration to be part of the solution, and support the role of cities in international sustainable development.
5. Empower cities’ decisions on culture to shape our future: Use cultural spaces to shape participation, engage communities on the periphery of cities, use culture to active public spaces for increased security, fund cultural processes, and reinvest cultural benefits in cultural ecosystems.

What I think about it: Despite the relevance and importance of its subject matter, “Culture, Cities, and Identity in Europe” is a prime example of the limitations of narrative-style literature review. Because it makes little effort to distinguish between the studies it cites or synthesize across them, the central portion of the report reads mainly as a series of disconnected (and lengthy) quotes from other authors. To its credit, the report does attempt to offer takeaways in the set of policy recommendations advanced at the end of the document. Some of the ideas offered are worth exploring – in particular, the idea of integrating dialogue and communities of practice around culture and human rights – and the holistic/integrationist stance of the authors very much matches Createquity’s. However, the language of the recommendations is often so vague and general as to significantly undermine their usefulness.

What it all means: Though it doesn’t offer much in the way of striking insights on its subject matter, “Culture, Cities, and Identity in Europe” will be useful to someone looking for a bibliography on the topics covered, particularly from a European perspective. It’s also worthwhile to compare this pan-European take on culture and urban policy to American approaches; of particular interest from a US perspective is the bid to redefine European identity as tied to an inclusive, globally conscious notion of cultural citizenship rather than any particular set of ethnicities or national origins.