“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.

“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.

“2016 #PSOTU” by flickr user Ted Eytan

Title: Standing for Cultural Democracy: The USDAC’s Policy and Action Platform

Author(s): Arlene Goldbard

Publisher: The U.S. Department of Arts and Culture

Year: 2016

URL: https://actionnetwork.org/user_files/user_files/000/010/392/original/Standing_for_CD_12-7-16.pdf

Topics: cultural democracy, arts policy

Methods: participatory action research, policy analysis

What it says: “Standing for Cultural Democracy” is the U.S. Department of Arts and Culture’s (USDAC) official policy platform. The USDAC is a participatory art and community organizing project designed to open up space for public dialogue about cultural policy. “Standing” is a follow-up to 2015’s “An Act of Collective Imagination,” which offered a look back at the USDAC’s first two years of existence along with a preview of a number of the policy ideas included in the current report.

The USDAC defines culture as “all that is fabricated, endowed, designed, articulated, conceived or directed by human beings,” and thus in USDAC’s view, topics as diverse as racism, human rights, and social attitudes toward climate change are all cultural issues. Its definition of cultural policy is similarly broad: “the aggregate of values and principles guiding any social entity in matters touching on culture.” The USDAC engages in participatory action research, instigating events such as locally distributed “Imaginings” and the national “People’s State of the Union” to source first-person, often arts-based narratives about what is culturally important and what an ideal future might look like. The “Standing” cultural policy platform purports to be inspired by this action research, though the exact mechanisms by which this crowdsourcing took place are not made clear in the report.

The ten-point policy platform includes the following recommendations:

1. Institute a new public service jobs program. In addition to direct funding for jobs that address cultural infrastructure, the platform recommends that percent for art initiatives be expanded to include community-engaged art projects and that existing public service job programs target artists for outreach.
2. Support a culture of justice and equity by distributing resources in representative fashion for the benefit of all communities, and by creating a “national learning community” for allies for social justice.
3. Redeem democracy with creativity by integrating arts modalities into political dialogue and democratic decision-making processes, and organizing hackathons aimed at designing political reforms.
4. Reform the culture of punishment by adopting Campaign Zero’s ten-point policy platform, supporting prison arts programs, and creating art that spreads awareness of related issues and potential solutions among the broader public.
5. Invest in belonging and cultural citizenship by encouraging governments and private institutions to adopt a “policy on belonging,” supporting long-term artists’ residencies at the neighborhood level, supporting community arts centers, and repurposing disused and underused spaces for creative activities.
6. Integrate community cultural development and the work of artists into all social programs affecting culture. In addition to direct involvement of artists, “Standing” advocates developing curricula for explaining the value of artists to professionals in “community building, social service, and public policy” settings.
7. Support artistic response to artistic and natural cultural emergencies by promoting the value of arts-based interventions in crisis situations, offering training to artists to provide these services, and integrating artists into emergency planning processes.
8. Adopt a cultural impact study in communities where physical developments are planned that might disrupt the existing cultural fabric.
9. Reconceive education to support creativity’s central role by advocating for arts integration at the national and local levels, bringing teaching artists into schools, and training artists to work in educational settings.
10. Adopt a basic income grant at the federal and state levels to increase the social safety net for artists and everyone else.

Since most of the policy recommendations require (in some cases substantial) new resources, “Standing” offers several ideas for how those resources might be acquired. The ideas include a tax on media advertising, a “Robin Hood tax” on bank transactions, a Creative Breakthrough Fund that functions as a kind of venture philanthropy resource for arts-based social innovation, and social impact bonds in which private investors pay for the success of social programs that would otherwise be sponsored by local governments.

In an appendix, “Standing” provides model resolutions for two of the policy ideas: the cultural impact study and the policy on belonging. A call to “hack democracy with creativity” is also included, elaborating on idea #3 in the list above.

What I think about it: “Standing for Cultural Democracy” functions as a kind of revision and extension of the USDAC’s first publication, “An Act of Collective Imagination”; indeed, a substantial amount of text is shared between the two documents. But whereas “An Act of Collective Imagination” was framed first and foremost as a case study of the USDAC as an organization with a handful of policy ideas tacked on at the end, in “Standing for Cultural Democracy” the policy platform takes center stage. And appropriately so: the platform now covers far more ground and feels reasonably comprehensive, and some of the zanier or more random ideas in the first edition have been jettisoned or folded into larger categories.

This is not to say that “Standing” is an unqualified success. For one thing, there is still little reason to trust that participants in USDAC programming are fully representative of the United States population, especially with respect to geography and political orientation, and if anything “Standing” is even less clear than “Collective Imagination” about the connection between the organization’s participatory action research and the final product. As for the platform itself, while on the whole it represents a step forward from the previous edition, the proposals still vary widely in quality. Some are premised on highly questionable assertions backed by the flimsiest of evidence; for example, the policy on supporting artistic response to natural and civil emergencies claims that community-based artists “[help] communities to heal in the aftermath of a crisis.” That is an impressive superpower if true, but “Standing” seems to take it completely on faith that it is: it mentions a few case studies of artistic interventions following Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy and the unrest in Ferguson, but discloses only what the activities were – not whether those activities led to any sort of outcome as meaningful as “healing a community.”

Even when the logic behind them is clearer, most proposals offer little clue about how exactly the ideas should be implemented or who is best positioned to do so. While extending the platform to 10 topic areas and dozens of specific proposals makes its coverage more robust, that advantage is accompanied by a corresponding decrease in focus. The USDAC might enjoy more success bringing its ideas to fruition if it chose two or three priority initiatives to emphasize in its initial phase.

Of the ideas presented, I remain most bullish about the Cultural Impact Study, a smart and easily envisioned add-on to any creative placemaking project. In addition, I give the USDAC credit for being smart enough to realize when it doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel: Signing on to Campaign Zero’s policing reform agenda and the substantial literature and practice around Universal Basic Income are savvy choices that broaden the accepted circle of what is relevant to culture and the contexts in which culture is relevant. Among the ideas for raising revenue, the Creative Breakthrough Fund is the one that I find most appealing – its utility is obvious, it could relatively easily be set up with support from private funders, and the resources required could be fairly modest.

What it all means: “Standing for Cultural Democracy” well epitomizes both the value and the limitations of the USDAC’s participatory approach to policy development. As a standalone document, the platform disappoints: the uneven quality is a distraction, and at times it comes across as overly optimistic about the value of integrating arts-based approaches into contexts and spaces where they’re not usually seen. Moreover, though the document purports to be an example of the sort of arts-based, people-powered democracy-hacking that the platform itself calls for, we’re not given much reason to believe that its authorship is all that democratic in the end. Indeed, the very notion of having a “Chief Policy Wonk” who is the platform’s sole credited author seems a bit of a mismatch with the ideals and rhetoric that drive the enterprise. (One wonders: Is the Chief an elected position?)

But if we think of the USDAC and “Standing” as existing within a larger ecosystem of analysis, dialogue, and thought leadership around cultural policy, their added value becomes much clearer. The USDAC’s broad definitions of culture and cultural policy, despite stretching the boundaries of usefulness on their own terms, serve as a needed counterbalance to the professional nonprofit arts sector’s bias toward looking after the interests of specific institutions and art forms. Its welcome-all-comers engagement strategy helps to establish the relevance of cultural policy with a potentially greater and far more diverse audience than any traditional think tank or foundation-commissioned white paper will ever reach. And even if most of the actual ideas in the platform turn out to be dead ends, that hardly matters if the remaining ones offer real potential for impact.

It would be interesting to think how the USDAC’s creative, brainstorming-driven approach can be deployed within that larger ecosystem to the maximum benefit of all. “Standing” offers ideas for how to improve the world without a whole lot of evidence to back them up; others wait for evidence to arrive and may leave promising ideas on the table in the meantime. Much like Y Combinator’s basic income pilot with 100 Oakland residents, an environment where generative cultural policy proposals can be tested and evaluated before receiving a wider rollout could give us the best of both worlds. Combining the kind of creative energy and willingness to think outside the box demonstrated by the USDAC with an appropriate degree of skepticism and open-mindedness around treasured assumptions sounds like an ideal way to develop any kind of policy.

“2016 #PSOTU” by flickr user Ted Eytan

Title: An Act of Collective Imagination: The USDAC’s First Two Years of Action Research

Author(s): Arlene Goldbard

Publisher: The U.S. Department of Arts and Culture

Year: 2015

URL: http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5220c2ece4b0407999540a76/t/560ca93ee4b093206c084ed8/1443670334742/An+Act+of+Collective+Imagination+9-30-15.pdf

Topics: cultural democracy, arts policy

Methods: participatory action research, policy analysis

What it says: “An Act of Collective Imagination” is a look back at the first two years of the U.S. Department of Arts and Culture’s (USDAC) existence. The USDAC is a participatory art and community organizing project designed to open up space for public dialogue about cultural policy. The USDAC takes the position that everyone is naturally interested in cultural policy, they just don’t have the lingo to realize that that’s what it is. This is in part because the USDAC defines cultural policy broadly, not just as actions by the government, and not just about “the arts.” For example, the USDAC views racism, human rights, etc. as cultural issues. The USDAC espouses values that are mostly about full representation and freedom of expression, but also include some explicitly progressive ideas such as “equitable distribution of public resources, particularly to correct past injustices and balance an excess of commercialization.”

The USDAC engages in participatory action research, instigating events such as locally distributed “Imaginings” and the national “People’s State of the Union” to source first-person, often arts-based narratives about what is culturally important and what an ideal future might look like. A synthesis of the most popular topics arising from these activities is included in the report, as follows:

• Community and Belonging
• Racial and Cultural Equity, Inclusion and Justice
• Displacement and Placekeeping
• Migration and Immigration
• Education and Youth
• Macro-economy and Creative Economy
• Environment and Climate

The report offers a selection of six “generative policy ideas” in anticipation of the USDAC’s more fleshed-out policy report (“Standing for Cultural Democracy,” published in 2016). These specific ideas appear to have come primarily from the report’s author, USDAC’s “Chief Policy Wonk” Arlene Goldbard, though they may have been influenced by the action research. The policy ideas are as follows:

• A Bureau of Cultural Citizenship supporting long-term neighborhood artist residencies and both permanent and pop-up community cultural centers
• A Rapid Artistic Response Manual to help artists mobilize direct action and institutional support in the face of natural disasters and cultural crises like the Baltimore Uprising
• A requirement for government and other planning agencies considering actions like transportation initiatives, real estate development, etc. to conduct a Cultural Impact Study analogous to environmental impact reports
• A Bureau of Teaching Artistry that would work with school districts to create funding for teaching artists in schools and promote arts integration in all subject areas
• A Universal Basic Income Grant to bolster the social safety net for artists and everyone else
• A public-private EcoArts Fund that would employ arts-based strategies to shift public attitudes toward climate change

“Collective Imagination” concludes with a few proposals to pay for the initiatives above, including a tax on advertising, a “Robin Hood” tax on bank expenditures, and having federal agencies hire artists to help with things like disseminating public information. An appendix includes a full model resolution for adopting a Cultural Impact Study policy in one’s community.

What I think about it: “An Act of Collective Imagination” is several things at once, but for the purposes of this review it is most useful to think of it as a policy brief. Viewed through that lens, it makes several contributions of note:

1. It offers an example of a novel method by which to crowdscource areas of policy concern and policy ideas;
2. It offers several specific policy ideas, a mix of original creations and adaptations from other sources; and
3. It offers a few strategies to create funding streams for the policies in #2.

Of these three, the first contribution is arguably the most intriguing in concept. The USDAC sets itself apart by pursuing a radically different method for understanding public attitudes toward policy than traditional think tanks and research initiatives. Unapologetically qualitative, decentralized, and improvisational, it coopts the language and methods of art in the pursuit of knowledge, resulting in rich, overlapping narrative tapestries on a wide range of topics. That said, the weaknesses of this approach are at least as salient as its strengths. Two in particular threaten to drain the usefulness of the exercise. First, given that there is no formal sampling method employed and no information is provided about the participants other than their total number and some of the locations, it’s a strong bet that participants in the Imaginings and other USDAC events are not representative of the US population as a whole. Given the political leanings of the founders and their networks, for example, along with the project’s generally urban focus, I would be very surprised to learn that there were more than a handful of self-identified conservatives included in the action research – a philosophical conundrum for a project that prizes inclusion and holds “culture is created by everyone” as a core value. This is especially so since political identification is presumably more likely to correlate with differences in one’s priorities and vision for the future than other vectors of diversity such as race, gender, geography, or age. An Imagining session held exclusively among Donald Trump supporters might well yield some very different narratives and areas of concern.

Second, the funnel from the action research to the policy ideas is never fully explained, leaving one to wonder whether there is much connection at all. Some of the ideas, such as Universal Basic Income and the Robin Hood tax, are borrowed from other sources not specific to the arts; others, like the Bureau of Teaching Artists, appear to have been generated by the USDAC’s own leadership. If part of the point of doing the action research in the first place is to learn from the people, it would have been more compelling to see the people’s thinking transparently represented in the policy proposals.

As for the proposals themselves, they are a mixed bag. The Cultural Impact Study is the clear highlight here, as it is among the most realistic, innovative, and fully fleshed out of the ideas presented. Though there are inevitably details to be worked out, I would love to see a version of the CIS piloted somewhere and evaluated. While not as original, connecting Universal Basic Income to cultural policy is another wise move. By contrast, many of the other suggestions, like the Rapid Artistic Response manual and the proposal to hire artists to organize public meetings, come across as half-baked.

What it all means: “An Act of Collective Imagination” paints a portrait of a promising and inventive organization that is figuring things out on the fly. The notion of democratizing policy development is a tantalizing one, and while there are legitimate questions and concerns to be raised about the way in which that process has unfolded to date, it’s not difficult to imagine a more seasoned (and perhaps better-resourced) iteration of the USDAC successfully addressing some of these concerns in the future. That said, it’s probably best to consider this kind of participatory approach a complement to traditional, expert-driven policy analysis rather than a replacement for it. Citizens of the world are very good at being experts on themselves, but it takes specialized skills to bridge the disparate narratives to construct truly collective wisdom and broker difficult compromises between competing values, interests, and worldviews. It may be true that everyone cares about cultural policy, but USDAC hasn’t (yet) made a convincing case that everyone should be developing it.

from the United Nations: “UNMISS and Partners Conduct Human Rights Community Awareness Programmme”

Title: Understanding the Contributions of the Humanities to Human Development: A Methodological White Paper

Author(s): Danielle Allen, Chris Dean, Maggie Schein, Sheena Kang, Melanie Webb, Annie Walton Doyle

Publisher: Harvard University

Year: 2016

URL: http://www.pz.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/HULAWhitepaper.pdf

Topics: humanities, education, impact evaluations, assessment tools, evaluation as assessment

Methods: assuming/defining theoretical concepts about education, coding the learning pathways of the humanities, and then correlating the “logic” of the learning pathways with comparable logical constructs from the study of psychology

What it says: In this white paper, the Humanities and Liberal Arts Assessment (HULA) group at Harvard University proposes a theoretical and methodological framework for understanding and assessing the contributions of the humanities to human development, based on preliminary analysis of qualitative materials from partner organizations and other researchers.* The theoretical framework builds upon two different concepts about education: 1) education as a system of institutions, which is maintained by the state to serve utilitarian purposes (such as cultivating civic service or civic responsibility); and 2) education as individual acts of instruction, which relates to personal development. The practice of humanities is then likened to the practice of “crafts” that help advance education and contribute to human development. The methodological framework treats the humanities as “crafts” that follow certain “craft logics” (pathways by which the craft is practiced, towards the achievement of the goals of the craft). The main idea is that if each humanities practice could be broken down according to categorical logics of its practice, then each tool used and each step of progress achieved in undertaking the practice could be coded in a standardized way to help researchers assess its utility or value.

What I think about it: As a layman, I found the presentation of the language and construction of the HULA methodology too abstract and too academic, which could harm its mass adoption. The definitions and applications of the methodology need to be greatly simplified for the value of the concept to shine through. I am not entirely convinced that it is necessary to make so many parallel comparisons (humanities as “crafts,” each craft as an “artifact,” manner and purpose of humanities practices according to “craft logics,” each logic pathway translated from some comparable construct in psychology) as it could be more effective to simply make a strong case that every practice of the humanities could be coded according to certain logics, and define these logics in an easy-to-understand code book of sorts. I proposed a simplified summary of the main idea above, which could be a good place to start unpacking some of these concepts in a way that even non-experts like me can better understand and then adopt.

What it all means: HULA argues that gathering, coding and analyzing humanities as “crafts” that follow “craft logic” can help us break down the elements that make up a craft, order the elements in a logical developmental pathway, and ultimately understand how humanities practices lead to the achievement of particular educational or human development outcomes. Assumptions are made about each humanities practice in terms of the elements it comprises, how it works, what it is trying to achieve, and which skills it develops – and the effect or effectiveness of each of these components are then coded categorically. Applying the HULA methodology according to the proposed definitions and categorizations requires that the user is familiar with or can easily understand concepts that are rather academic and often abstract, which may ultimately limit its adoption by the wider public.

* It is unclear from this white paper how many partner organizations have been consulted, although the paper did explicitly note that the study sample included at least a “30-year archive of successful grant applications to the Illinois Humanities Council.”