Category: Research Sharing

1. UNESCO. “Culture: Urban Future. Global Report on Culture for Sustainable Urban Development”. 2016. International.

This report makes recommendations linking the implementation of the UNESCO Culture Conventions with the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, employing insights from scholars, NGO partners, and urban thinkers.

2. ECORYS. Department of Culture, Media, and Sport (UK). “Local economic impacts from cultural sector investments”. 2014. United Kingdom.

This literature review examines 40 different culture-sector economic impact studies in both the UK and abroad (2004-2014), assessing the commonality and variability in the methodologies of these studies, and describing their frequent lack of rigor.

3. Arts Council England. “Equality, Diversity, and the Creative Case: A Data Report, 2015-2016”. 2016. United Kingdom.

This is Arts Council England’s second annual report on diversity within their National Portfolio Organizations (NPOs), concluding that while diversity metrics have improved since the first assessment, privileged participants are still over-represented.

4. Jeffrey Chapline and Julene K. Johnson. NEA Office of Research & Analysis. “The National Endowment for the Arts Guide to Community-Engaged Research in the Arts and Health”. 2016. United States.

This guide describes best practices for collaboration between researchers, organizations, and artists investigating the arts’ impact on healing and health outcomes, as well as assesses the efficacy of applying this knowledge to arts therapy programs.

5. Kelly Hill and Hill Strategies Research, Inc. British Columbia Alliance for Arts + Culture. “British Columbia arts, culture, and heritage organizations in 2015”. 2016. Canada.

This report analyzes the financial, operational, governance, and program capacity of 206 arts organizations in British Columbia, Canada, and compares this field’s situation with the metrics of other neighboring provinces.

1. Matthew Stromberg. California Arts Council. “Nonprofit Media Coverage of the Arts in California: Challenges and Opportunities”. 2016. United States.

This report summarizes activities from the California Arts and Public Media Summit (June 23, 2016), convened to evaluate the flaws in the California Arts Council’s “Arts on the Air” pilot program which was suspended due to stakeholder criticism.

2. Olsberg SPI and Nordicity. British Film Institute. “Economic Contribution of the UK’s Film, High-End TV, Video Game, and Animation Programming Sectors”. 2015. United Kingdom.

This report examines the economic impact of the United Kingdom’s “screen sectors” comprising film, high-end TV, video games, and animation, while advocating for tax relief justified by a claim of multi-fold return on investment.

3. Danielle Linzer and Mary Ellen Munley. Whitney Museum of American Art. “Room to Rise: The Lasting Impact of Intensive Teen Programs in Art Museums”. 2015. United States.

This study evaluates the impacts of American museum programs for teens, focusing on the activities of the Whitney Museum of American Art, the Walker Art Center, the Contemporary Arts Museum Houston, and The Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles.

4. Pierre-Olivier Saire, et al. Canada Council for the Arts. “Patterns of Attendance and Cultural Participation by Young People in the Canadian Theatre for Young Audiences and Children’s Festivals Sector”. 2016. Canada.

This exploratory study analyzes Canadian public participation in theater for young audiences, and children’s festivals, through a series of questions involving regional factors, audience age, teacher/school influence, and the impact of new technologies.

5. BOP Consulting and Graham Devlin Associates. Arts Council England. “Analysis of Theatre in England”. 2016. United Kingdom.

This report explores the current status of UK theatre production, performance, and audience experience by juxtaposing three different economic models that companies employ: subsidized, unfunded not-for-profit, and commercial (for profit).

1. Civic Systems Lab. Lambeth Council (UK). “Designed to Scale: Mass participation to build resilient neighbourhoods”. 2016. United Kingdom.

This report evaluates The Open Works initiative, an undertaking to determine whether aspects of local participatory culture can be scaled in a sustainable fashion, incorporating 1,000 individuals over 12 months and 20 different sub-projects.

2. Canadian Heritage Information Network, et al. Department of Canadian Heritage. “Government of Canada Survey of Heritage Institutions: 2015”. 2016. Canada.

This report aggregates financial and operating data on Canadian cultural institutions such as museums, art galleries, archives, historic sites, zoos, and botanical gardens, with the goal of assisting policy development and program evaluation.

3. Zannie Voss, et al. National Center for Arts Research. “NCAR Arts Vibrancy Index II: Hotbeds of America’s Art and Culture”. 2016. United States.

This is the second installment of SMU NCAR’s Arts Vibrancy Index Report, which employs indices from multiple data sets to assess and rank arts vibrancy in regional communities across the United States.

4. Hill Strategies Research. Ontario Museum Association. “Ontario’s Museums 2014 Profile”. 2016. Canada.

This report is an analysis of data encompassing 184 Ontario museums in every region of the province, examining the sector’s economic impact, relationship to the tourism industry, and overall health, while exploring ways to enhance public accountability.

5. Jamie Buttrick, et al. Consilium Research & Consultancy and Thinking Practice. “What It Does to You: Excellence in CPP”. 2016. United Kingdom.

This report examines ideas of artistic quality within Arts Council England’s Creative People and Places (CPP) program, finding that the CPP moves participant conversation away from the perceived skill of the art and toward the process of its creation.

1. Jackie Bailey, et al. Australia Council for the Arts. “Showcasing Creativity: Programming and Presenting First Nations Performing Arts“. 2016. Australia.

This report examines trends and practices in the Australian performing arts sector related to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and advocates for greater visibility and equity in the presentation of First Nations arts.

2. Bronwyn Mauldin. Grantmakers in the Arts Reader, Vol. 27, No. 2. “The Charitable Deduction: What Does ‘Tax Reform’ Mean for the Arts?“. 2016. United States.

This article speculates about the potential implications of United States federal tax reform on individual contributions to the American nonprofit arts and culture sector, accompanying the new presidential administration in 2017.

3. Harder+Company Community Research and Diane Espaldon. The James Irvine Foundation. “Experiments in Arts Engagement: Real-world examples and practical tips from the Exploring Engagement Fund”.  2016. United States.

This report examines the strategies utilized by the grantees of The James Irvine Foundation’s “Exploring Engagement Fund” to build sustainable relationships with communities of color and low-income individuals in California.

4. Nanos Research. Business for the Arts and the Ontario Arts Council. “Culture for Competitiveness: How Vibrant Culture Attracts Top Talent”. 2016. Canada.

This report analyzes a random survey of 500 skilled workers and 508 businesses in Ontario to ascertain the ways in which arts and culture is employed for talent recruitment and retention.

5. Juan Mateos-Garcia and Hasan Bakhshi. Creative England and NESTA. “The Geography of Creativity in the UK: Creative clusters, creative people, creative networks.” 2016. United Kingdom.

This report employs a framework of “creative clusters” to trace individual and institutional networks among participants in the United Kingdom’s cultural economy, as well as provides policy recommendations to further the growth of these networks.

1. Hasan Bakhshi and Stuart Cunningham. NESTA. “Cultural policy in the time of the creative industries“. 2016. United Kingdom.

This paper argues that a conflation of the cultural sector with the creative industries in the UK harms the ability for policymaking to serve the interests of either.

2. Kim Gibson and Liesbeth Goedhart. Western Australia Arts and Health Consortium. “Examination of the use of the arts to improve health and healing in Western Australian hospitals“. 2016. Australia.

This inaugural report from the newly-formed Western Australian Arts and Health Consortium explores the disjunct between the substantial hospital-based arts activities in Western Australia and a comparative dearth of evaluation and public policy strategy.

3. Jennifer Clary and Amy Terpstra. Social IMPACT Research Center. “The Value of the Nonprofit Arts and Culture Field in Illinois”.  2015. United States.

This report examines art and cultural activity in Illinois through the framework of Social Return on Investment (SROI), comparing socio-economic outcomes with the financial resources and human capital committed by both public and private entities.

4. Christina Davies, Matthew Knuiman, and Michael Rosenberg. BMC Public Health, Vol. 16, No. 15. “The art of being mentally healthy: A study to quantify the relationship between recreational arts engagement and mental well-being in the general population”. 2016. Australia.

This article examines a link between arts engagement and mental health, demonstrating enhanced cognitive well-being for those with two or more hours-per-week of arts activities.

5. Kate Haley Goldman, Steven Yalowitz, Erin Wilcox/Audience Viewpoints Consulting. The Art of Science Learning. “The Impact of Arts-Based Innovation Training on the Creative Thinking Skills, Collaborative Behaviors, and Innovation Outcomes of Adolescents and Adults.” 2016. United States.

This report demonstrates a strong causal relationship between arts-based learning and heightened creative problem-solving acumen in adolescents, as well as arts-based learning and emotionally intelligent behavior in adults.

1. Anne Torreggiani and Jonathan Goodacre. The Audience Agency. “Audience Finder: Outdoor Arts“. 2015. United Kingdom.

These reports assess Outdoor Arts activity as part of the Audience Finder initiative, a three-year program (2013-2016) designed to assist UK arts and cultural organizations in understanding their audiences.

2. Girija Kaimal, Kendra Ray, and Juan Muniz. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, Vol. 33, No. 2, 74-80. “Reduction of Cortisol Levels and Participants’ Responses Following Art Making“. 2016. USA.

This article describes a medical study in which researchers examined the relationship between the production of visual art and the brain cortisol levels of 39 adults.

3. Julia Bennett, Andrew License, Fiona Tuck/TBR. Crafts Council (UK). “Measuring the Craft Economy”.  2014. United Kingdom.

This report gauges the broad economic impact of craft within the United Kingdom from 2012-2013. It employs measures such as: the number of businesses operating, the number of employees per business, turnover, and Gross Value Added, among others.

4. Joshua Siepel et al. NESTA. “The Fusion Effect: The economic returns to combining arts and science skills”. 2016. United Kingdom.

This report examines potential synergy from a combination of arts and science competencies in the UK workforce, and assesses performance impacts that result from a “STEAM” approach.

5. William Cleveland and Intermedia Arts. Americans for the Arts. “Creative Citymaking: In Search of the New Village”. 2016. USA.

This report evaluates the planning, program activities, and outcomes of the 2013 ArtPlace America-funded grant project “Creative Citymaking,” a collaboration between the City of Minneapolis and Intermedia Arts.

1. Ipsos Public Affairs Research. Americans for the Arts. “Americans Speak Out About the Arts: An In-Depth Look at Perceptions and Attitudes about the Arts in America“. 2016. USA

This report distills and explains the results of a December 2015 survey of 3,020 Americans regarding their perceptions about arts and culture, both in their personal lives and society at large.

2. Bob Harlow and Cindy Cox Roman. Bob Harlow Research and Consulting LLC and The Wallace Foundation. “Converting Family Into Fans: How the Contemporary Jewish Museum Expanded its Reach“. 2016. USA.

This research case study in the Wallace Foundation’s “Building Audiences for the Arts” series examines the audience development results stemming from a Wallace Foundation grant to The Contemporary Jewish Museum.

3. Eric Desjardins. Statistics Canada. “Provincial and Territorial Culture Indicators, 2010 to 2014“. 2016. Canada.

This report collates and analyzes Statistics Canada’s Provincial and Territorial Culture Indicators, or PTCI, which generate data about arts, culture, and sports activities throughout Canada in terms of GDP and employment between 2010 and 2014.

4. Kate Hamblin and Sarah Harper. The British Museum, et al. “The UK’s Ageing Population: Challenges and opportunities for museums and galleries“. 2016. United Kingdom.

This report examines the gradual ageing of the United Kingdom’s population and recommends ways in which museums and art galleries can facilitate better access for the elderly through a series of case studies.

5. Shawn Lent, et al. Createquity. “Who Can Afford to Be a Starving Artist? The key to success might be risk tolerance, not talent“. 2016. USA.

This article hypothesizes about a potential correlation between an individual’s socio-economic status and their ability and/or willingness to take on risk in pursuit of a professional arts career.

1. Timothy Senior et al. Arts and Humanities Research Council (UK). “Connecting to Innovate: A Preliminary Report on the Achievements of the AHRC Knowledge Exchange Hubs for the Creative Economy“. 2016. United Kingdom.

This report examines the initial findings of the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council’s four Knowledge Exchange (KE) hubs dedicated to the creative economy: Creativeworks London, Design in Action, REACT, and The Creative Exchange.

2. William Cleveland and The Center for the Study of Art & Community. Intermedia Arts. “Options for Community Arts Training & Support“. 2016. USA.

This report studies local arts agencies in America as providers of culture-based community development training.

3. Ann Markusen. Grantmakers in the Arts Reader, Vol. 27, No. 1. “Supporting Individual Artists: Translating Value, Evaluating Outcomes“. 2016. USA.

This article describes the conversations and challenges surrounding how grantmakers can assess the value of support for individual artists.

4. Melissa Menzer et al. NEA Office of Research & Analysis (USA). “The Arts in Early Childhood—Social and Emotional Benefits of Arts Participation: A Literature Review and Gap-Analysis (2000-2015)“. 2015. USA.

This literature review summarizes the findings of cultural research focusing on individuals ranging in age from newborn to eight years old.

5. Fiona Tuck and Mitra Abrahams. TBR Consulting. “Understanding the Impact of Event Cinema: An Evidence Review“. 2015. United Kingdom.

This report examines the culture-sector impact of alternative content in digital cinema, including live streaming and direct relays of recorded performing arts events.

1. The Center for Urban and Regional Affairs and the University of Minnesota. The McKnight Foundation. “Yes and No: Conversations About Thriving with Artists of Color in the Twin Cities“. 2015. USA.

This study is a targeted exploration of the perspectives and experiences of working artists of color in the Twin Cities, designed to inform the McKnight Foundation’s philanthropic planning and practices in the arts.​

2. Amy Terrill et al. Music Canada. “The Mastering of a Music City“. 2015. Canada.

This report makes recommendations towards building stronger music communities in cities internationally, working from five case studies to create seven key strategies for modeling by policymakers, politicians, and musicians.

3. University of Tasmania. Live Music Office (AUS). “The Economic & Cultural Value of Live Music in Australia 2014“. 2015. Australia.

This report sets out to value the economic, social, and cultural contributions of the Australian live music industry in 2014.

4. Nordicity et al. Music Canada. “Live Music Measures Up: An Economic Impact Analysis of Live Music in Ontario.” 2015. Canada.

This study is an economic profile designed to guide strategic decision-making in the live music industry as well as determine the industry’s impact on the Ontario and Canadian economies.

5. Shawn Lent et al. Createquity. “The BFA’s Dance with Inequality.” 2016. USA.

This article examines the risk burden of earning professional arts bachelors degrees, particularly for individuals from less affluent backgrounds.