Category: Research Sharing

Brand new research that was shared with the listserv on a monthly basis.

July 2020

1. Steven Hadley and Clive Gray. Cultural Trends 26:2. “Hyperinstrumentalism and Cultural Policy: Means to an End or an End to Meaning?” 2017. United Kingdom.

This paper investigates the implications for cultural policy of the logic of the instrumental view of culture taken to its conclusion.

2. Eleanora Belfiore. Cultural Trends 26:3. “Cultural Policy Research in the Real World: Curating ‘Impact,’ Facilitating ‘Enlightenment.” 2016. United KIngdom.

This article argues that policy relevance and influence represent legitimate goals of critical research, which does not necessarily mean accepting the pressures and restrictions of arts advocacy and lobbying, or the relinquishing research excellence.

3. Arlene Goldbard. U.S. Department of Arts and Culture. “Standing for Cultural Democracy: The USDAC’s Policy and Action Platform Summary.” 2016. United States.

In this platform, the U.S. Department of Arts and Culture describes ten ways to advance toward cultural democracy, a social order which embodies and affirms the right to culture in every aspect of our public and private policies.

4. District of Columbia Office of Planning. “DC Cultural Plan: Executive Summary.” 2019. United States.

The Cultural Plan establishes a framework to inclusively grow the District’s cultural community informed by the Office of Planning’s experience in community development, land use, systems planning, public facilities and infrastructure

5. Hilda L. Solis and Sheila Kuehl. Los Angeles County Arts Commission. “Adoption of the Countywide Cultural Policy.” 2020. United States.

This is a motion from the LA County Arts Commission for adoption of a county-wide cultural policy.

6. Jennifer Craik. ANU Press. “How Can Cultural Sub-Sectors Respond?: Three Indicative Case Studies.” 2007. Australia.

This chapter examines some sub-sectors that have challenged prevailing policy approaches to the management of culture.

7. Government of Western Australia Department of Culture and the Arts. “Indigenous Arts and Culture Action Plan 2012-2014.” 2014. Australia.

A growing number of Indigenous artists are sharing their significant stories through artistic mediums. The Department of Culture and the Arts supports this sector as part of its vision for a community enriched by unique and transforming arts and culture.

May 2020

1. Yasmin Anwar. UC Berkley. “COVID-19: Mental health and well-being for ourselves and our children.” 2020. United States.

In this webcast of Berkeley Conversations: COVID-19, UC Berkeley psychologists Dacher Keltner, Sonia Bishop and Frank Worrell offered advice on how to tackle COVID-19 stress, based on their specific areas of research, mental health data and proven therapeutic interventions.

2. Cath Neal. Cultural Trends, Vol 24. “Know Your Place? Evaluating the Therapeutic Benefits of Engagement with Historic Landscapes.” 2015. United Kingdom.

This paper emphasises the restorative power of engagement with natural/cultural environments by exploring a body of work that identifies the positive impact of the historic environment on the health and well-being of community archaeology participants.

3. Daisy Fancourt and Saoirse Finn. World Health Organization. “What is the Evidence on the Role of the Arts in Improving Health and Well-Being? A scoping review.” 2019. Europe.

This report aims to increase awareness of the effects of the arts on health on wellbeing by mapping the current available evidence in the field of arts and health.

4. Alan Tomlinson, et al. What Works Centre for Wellbeing. “Visual Arts, Mental Health and Wellbeing: Evidence Review.” 2018. United Kingdom.

This review looks at the subjective, or self-reported, wellbeing outcomes of visual arts projects aimed at adults who are experiencing, or have experienced, diagnosed mental health conditions.

5. Heather L. Stuckey and Jeremy Nobel. American Journal of Public Health, Vol 100 No 2. “The Connection Between Art, Healing, and Public Health: A Review of Current Literature.” 2010. United States.

This review explores the relationship between engagement with the creative arts and health outcomes, specifically the health effects of music engagement, visual arts therapy, movement-based creative expression, and expressive writing.

March 2020

1. Douglas S Noonan. Cultural Trends, Vol 22, No 3-4. “How US Cultural Districts Reshape Neighbourhoods.” 2013. United Kingdom.

This article describes the phenomenon of cultural districts in the US, reviews some claims made about their impacts, and provides evidence of districts’ effects.

2. Geoffrey Crossick. Global Cultural Districts Network. “The Social Impact of Cultural Districts.” 2019. United Kingdom.

This report analyses the different ways social impact is defined; draws out current good practice, highlighting gaps and challenges; and suggests a framework and principles for future action.

3. Jessica Cusick and Maria Rosario Jackson. California Arts Council. “Cultural Districts Development Program.” 2016. United States.

This report was prepared by the California Arts Council to encourage the development of a broad array of authentic and sustainable cultural districts that reflect the breadth and diversity of California’s cultural assets.

4. Chung Hagen Consulting. Mission Local. “Exploring an Expansion of the Latino Cultural District.” 2019. United States.

This study from Chung Hagen Consulting looks at how to stabilize and expand the Latino Cultural District in San Francisco by synthesizing findings from interviews, focus groups, and community meetings.

5. Egle Rindzeviciute. International Journal of Cultural Policy, Vol 25, No 4. Book Review of “Scenescapes: How Qualities of Place Shape Social Life.” 2019. United States.

Egle Rindzeviciute reviews “Scenescapes,” a book by Daniel Aaron Silver and Terry Nichols Clark that looks at how localities shape social, cultural, and economic lives.

February 2020

1. Andries van den Broek. Cultural Trends Vol 22, No 1. “Arts Participation and the Three Faces of Time.” United Kingdom. 2013.

This article looks at how arts participation in the US has been influenced by the imprint of time (early life, socialization, and historical circumstances) on preferences and behavioral patterns.

2. Alan Brown, Jennifer Novak-Leonard, and Shelly Gilbride. The James Irvine Foundation. “Getting in on the Act: How arts groups are creating opportunities for active participation.” 2011. United States.

This report and case studies of illustrative projects help provide a better understanding of how people are engaging in the arts, and of how arts organizations are enabling this involvement. Researchers at WolfBrown investigated active arts participation across the arts sector in the United States, United Kingdom and Australia, learning from more than 100 organizations currently engaging in participatory arts.

3. François Matarasso. Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. “A Restless Art: How participation won, and why it matters.” 2019. United Kingdom.

Community-arts researcher and advocate Francois Matarasso presents a book on participatory art and community art written from the perspective of engagement.

4. Harder and Company Community Research. The James Irvine Foundation. “Innovation and Impact: When Arts Organizations Take Risks.” 2019. United States.

This concluding evaluation report on the Exploring Engagement Fund offers insights, best practices, and considerations for arts organizations and funders who prioritize engagement, diversity, equity, and inclusion. 

5. Amber Walls, Kelsey L Deane, and Peter John O’Connor. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, Vol. 28, No. 4. “‘Looking for the Blue, the Yellow, all the Colours of the Rainbow:’ The value of participatory arts for young people in social work practice.” 2016. New Zealand.

In this article, the authors focus on policies and practice pertaining to youth mental health and wellbeing.

January 2020

1. Yasemin Arikan, Terry Nichols Clark, Douglas S. Noonan, and George Tolley. Cultural Trends, Vol 28 No 5. “The arts, Bohemian scenes, and income.” United States. 2019. 

Where and how does arts activity drive neighbourhood revitalization? We explore the impact of arts establishments on income in US zip codes, nationally and across quantiles (from four to seven subgroups) of zip codes stratified by disadvantage (based on income and ethnicity/race). We focus on what is new here: how neighbourhood scenes or the mixes of amenities mediate relationships between the arts and income.

2. Grant Patterson and Leah Binkovitz. Kinder Institute for Urban Research at Rice University. “Artist-Planner Collaborations: Lessons Learned From Arts and Culture Ecosystems For Inclusive Planning.” United States. 2019. 

This report shows how art can be used to promote positive neighborhood change, including equity of access to resources and programs, inclusive planning processes and implementation of new strategies to promote inclusivity and maximize economic impact.

3. A New Approach. Australian Academy of the Humanities. “Transformative Impacts of Culture and Creativity.” Australia. 2019.

The report explores how investing in culture affects seven broad aspects of Australians’ lives: society and place; the economy; innovation; health and wellbeing; education and learning; international engagement and how engaging with creativity builds a strong cultural life across the nation.

4. Hill Strategies Research, Inc. Canadian Arts Presenting Association. “Vitality and Impact of Arts Presenting.” 2019. Canada. 

This study is the outcome of a pan-Canadian survey of performing arts presenters and festivals, conducted by Hill Strategies Research. It casts a light on a broad range of presenting practices and the magic that they bring into Canadians’ lives.

5. Wavehill Ltd. Arts Council England. “The Value of Arts and Culture in Place-shaping.” United Kingdom. 2019. 

This research seeks to generate further evidence to support the notion that arts and culture has the ability to promote and drive positive economic and social outcomes at a local level and thus contribute effectively to a place-shaping approach.

December 2019

1. Ben Cowell.  Cultural Trends, Vol 21 No 3. “Arts philanthropy: the facts, trends and potential.” United Kingdom. 2012.

This report by Arts and Business aims to provide the basic facts about the market for private giving to the arts in the UK, as well as recommendations on how it can be increased. Given that Arts and Business has since had its funding removed by the Arts Council, it may soon find out for itself how realistic some of its proposals for enhancing private revenues actually are.

2. Mark Rovner. Blackbaud. “Diversity in Giving: The Changing Landscape of American Philanthropy.” United States. 2015.

America is in a dramatic cultural shift, but evidence suggests that organized philanthropy may be stuck in the past. As the nation becomes more diverse, it is more important than ever to consider whether the fundraising playbook is due for an overhaul.

3. Holly Sidford and Alexis Frasz. Helicon Collaborative. “Not Just Money: Equity Issues in Cultural Philanthropy.” United States. 2017.

This report documents the inequities in funding for the arts in the U.S. and laid out the aesthetic, demographic, and economic case for supporting the cultural diversity of our country more equitably.

4. Ian David Moss. Createquity. “The Last Word: Recommendations for Arts Philanthropists.” 2017. United States.

This article summarizes lessons learned in arts philanthropy by Createquity, as well as recommendations going forward for foundations, government agencies, individual philanthropists, and others providing resources to support the arts.

5. Maurine Knighton and Glyn Northington. Grantmakers in the Arts. “Racial Equity in the Arts.” 2016. United States.

This four-session web conference series explores practices used to advance racial equity in arts grantmaking, specifically focusing on the various practice components of the grant cycle.

November 2019

1. Peter Merrington, Matthew Hanchard, Bridgette Wessels, et al. Cultural Trends, Vol 28, No 2-3. “Using Mixed-Methods: A Data Model and a Computational Ontology in Film Audience Research.” 2019. United Kingdom.

This paper discusses a methodology in mixed-methods audience research that attempts to sort, order and categorise different data so that they can be systematically combined and interrogated.

2. Department for Culture, Media, and Sport. “Culture is Digital.” 2018. United Kingdom.

Culture is Digital looks at the way technology can drive audience engagement, boosting the digital capability of cultural organisations and unleashing the creative potential of technology.

3. Nesta and MTM London. “Digital Culture 2014: How arts and cultural organisations in England use technology.” 2014. United Kingdom.

The second report in the Digital Culture Survey, a three-year initiative to track digital technology use by arts and cultural organisations in England and the perceived impact of those technologies on marketing, operations, audience development, strategic

4. MTM London. “Digital Culture: How the Digital R&D Fund for the Arts impacted the arts and cultural sector.” 2016. United Kingdom.

A program-level evaluation of the Digital R&D Fund for the Arts, a partnership between Nesta, Arts Council England and the Arts & Humanities, which provided £7 million for collaborations between arts organisations, technology providers, and researchers.

5. Katherine Gressel. Createquity. “Smart Public Art: Interactive Technology and Public Art Evaluation.” 2017. United States.

This article focuses on the role of web and mobile technologies in evaluating, promoting and explaining public art.

October 2019

1. Eleonora Belfiore and Oliver Bennett. Cultural Trends, Vol. 3. “Determinants of Impact: Towards a Better Understanding of Encounters with the Arts.” 2007.  United Kingdom.

This article argues that current methods for assessing the impact of the arts are largely based on a fragmented and incomplete understanding of the cognitive, psychological and socio-cultural dynamics that govern the aesthetic experience.

2. Eleanora Belfiore and Oliver Bennett. Cultural Trends, Vol. 4. “The Social Impact of the Arts.” 2009. United Kingdom.

This short book is the result of a 3-year Arts and Humanities Research Council and Arts Council of England funded project at the Centre for Cultural Policy Research (CCPR) at the University of Warwick. The research encompasses: orthodoxy amongst arts advocates that art can transform lives; the large scale of government investment in the arts and arts education; recent political commentary on the utility of the arts for the economy and national identity formation; the tainting of research on impacts by advocacy; and the recent “intrinsic versus instrumentalist” debate on the role of the arts in the UK.

3. Guz Raz, Titus Kaphar, Dre Urhahn, eL Seed, Magda Sayeg, and Benjamin Zander. TED Radio Hour. “How Art Changes Us.” 2019. United States.

In this edition of the TED Radio Hour, speakers share ideas on the transformative nature of art and its ability to shape the way we see ourselves and the world around us.

4. Armine Avetisyan, Cynthia Cohen, Emily Forsyth Queen, and Toni Shapiro-Phim. Brandeis University. “Imagine Impact: An emerging strategy to strengthen the arts, culture, and conflict transformation ecosystem.” 2019. United States.

IMPACT is an initiative of the Program in Peacebuilding and the Arts at Brandeis University, in collaboration with the Baker Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies at Juniata College and Maseno University in Kisumu, Kenya. This report makes the case for the power of arts and culture to transform conflict and advocates for a platform to support the arts ecosystem.

5. Alexis Frasz and Holly Sidford. Helicon Collaborative. “Mapping the Landscape of Socially Engaged Artistic Practice.” 2017. United States.

Helicon Collaborative, supported by the Robert Rauschenberg Foundation, began this research in 2015 to contribute to the ongoing conversation on socially engaged art. Their goal was to make this realm more visible and legible to practitioners and funders.

September 2019

1. Dave O’Brien, Daniel Laurison, Andrew Miles, and Sam Friedman. Cultural Trends, Vol. 25 No. 2. “Are the Creative Industries Meritocratic? An Analysis of the 2014 British Labour Force Survey.” 2016. United Kingdom.

There is widespread concern that Britain’s cultural and creative industries (CCIs) are increasingly dominated by the privileged. This stands in stark contrast to dominant policy narratives of the CCIs as meritocratic. Until now this debate has been clouded by a relative paucity of data on class origins. This paper draws on new social origin data from the 2014 Labour Force Survey to provide the first large-scale, representative study of the class composition of Britain’s creative workforce.

2. Diversity Arts Australia. “Shifting the Balance: Cultural Diversity in Leadership within the Australian Arts, Screen, and Creative Sectors.” 2019. Australia.

Diversity Arts Australia undertook research in February 2018 to investigate levels of representation of culturally and/or linguistically diverse Australians in leadership positions within the country’s major arts, screen and cultural organizations. For this report, they examined the cultural backgrounds of 1,980 Board chairs and members, chief executive officers, creative directors, senior executives and award panel judges from 200 major cultural organisations, government bodies and award panels.

3. Scott Hutcheson, Alison Gavrell, Alexandra Miller, Atianna Cordova, and Beth Siegel. Office of Cultural Economy, City of New Orleans. “2016 New Orleans Cultural Survey.” 2016. United States.

This research examines the career and educational paths of cultural workers in New Orleans in order to identify gaps and ultimately policy solutions relating to public, educational, and economic infrastructure supportive of the cultural economy.

4. Economic and Public Policy Research Group of the UMass Donahue Institute. New England Foundation for the Arts. “The Job’s in New England’s Creative Economy and Why They Matter.” 2017. United States.

The New England Foundation for the Arts (NEFA) partnered with the Economic and Public Policy Research group of the UMass Donahue Institute (UMDI) to answer a few important questions about New England’s creative enterprises and creative workers. By finding data on and accounting for creative sector employment, income, demographics, and socioeconomic attributes, this report aims to provide a full story of creative work and workers in New England.

5. NEA Office of Research & Analysis. National Endowment for the Arts. “Artists and Other Cultural Workers: A Statistical Portrait.” 2019. United States.

This omnibus report, Artists and Other Cultural Workers: A Statistical Portrait, extends the range of statistics that the National Endowment for the Arts historically has tracked as part of its decades-long research function. Although the agency periodically reports facts and figures about 11 distinct artist occupations (based on U.S. Census data), this report brings in other job characteristics, other data sources, and even other kinds of cultural workers.

August 2019

1. Sara Selwood. Cultural Trends: Vol 28, No 2-3. “A Possible Teleology of Cultural Sector Data in England.” 2019. United Kingdom.

This article looks at the Art Council England’s new Impact and Insight Toolkit, which seeks to collect qualitative data on the arts sector, and how it might shape the future of the organization and the future of the arts sector.

2. Regional Arts Australia. “Collaborating with Regional Communities.” 2019. Australia.

These guidelines and tools are to assist those working in regional communities achieve a more rewarding level of involvement in cultural activities. They show how to strengthen decisions, build productive partnerships and develop positive outcomes.

3. Roland J. Kushner and Randy Cohen. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. “National Arts Index (NAI), United States, 1996-2017.” 2019. United States.

The National Arts Index is a highly-distilled annual measure of the health and vitality of arts in the U.S. using 76 national-level indicators of arts and culture activity. This report covers an 11-year period, from 1998 to 2008. This National Arts Index encompasses one of the largest collections of data on arts and culture in the U.S. ever assembled. The information has been gathered from reputable government and private sector sources and covering multiple industries—nonprofit and for-profit arts organizations, artists, funding and investment, employment, attendance and personal creation, and much more.

4. Claus Von Zastrow. Education Commission of the States. “Using State Data Systems to Report Information on Arts Education.” 2018. United States.

This Special Report — drawing on insights from a technical working group of experts in arts education, state data systems and state policy — offers guidance on key arts education metrics many states could track by using data they already collect.

5. Claus von Zastrow and Zeke Perez Jr. Education Commission of the States. “50-State Comparison: Arts Education Data Collection and Reporting.” 2019. United States.

This 50-State Comparison is one in a suite of tools created by the State Data Infrastructure Project in the Arts — a partnership between the National Endowment for the Arts and Education Commission of the States — to build states’ capacity to extract, analyze and report on data about arts education. The project aims to empower policymakers, communities and families with the information they need to ensure that every American student has the opportunity to excel in and through the arts.