Transcript Open
Researching the Social Impact of the Arts Friday 8 February 2008 Evidence Network for Culture and Sport Centre for Cultural Policy Research, Glasgow University, with the support of the Arts and Humanities Research Council Presentation Overview • Defining social impact of the arts • Determinants of impact • Models of causation – Successionist (experimental research) – Generative (realist research/theorybased evaluation) Social impact of the arts “the transformative power of the arts in terms of personal and social development” Landry et al, 1993 • • • • Unit of analysis: individual or group ‘Passive’ and ‘active’ encounters with the arts Positive and negative Policy interest narrower: participative ‘socially oriented’ arts in the context of health, disability, social inclusion, criminal justice, mental health… • Presupposes a cause and effect relationship Determinants of impact: music • Traditional ‘transmission’ model • A musical stimulus acts on a listener to produce a behavioural response • Listener as passive receiver • Social psychology model • 3 major determinants of an individual’s response to music: • The characteristics of • The music itself • The person involved • The social situation in which it occurs Determinants of impact: all arts • AHRC/Arts Council England Fellowship in Social Impact of the Arts: Warwick University (2004 – 2007) • All creative arts with a focus on poetry, the novel, theatrical performance • Concludes that social, cultural and psychological factors all shape the aesthetic experience • Three groups of determinants of impact: intrinsic to the individual, intrinsic to the art, intrinsic to the environmental/social context Causal explanation: successionist v generative (i) Experimental studies/ traditional evaluation (ii) Realist studies/theory-based evaluation Experimental research (successionist model of causation) • In order to specify a causal relationship alternative causal factors are suppressed. • Aim is to produce generalisable findings: but all arts do not affect all people in the same way. • Can’t explain change: tells you an association exists but not why. • In defence: can accommodate difference – issue is sample size Realist studies/theory-based evaluation (generative model of causation) e.g. Theory of Change, Realistic Evaluation •What works, for whom, in what circumstances? •The ‘whom’, individuals participating in arts, are agents • Change occurs in particular circumstances: what are the processes or mechanisms that produce it and in which contexts are they triggered? Realist studies/theory-based evaluation (generative model of causation) Complexity: • Individuals: differences in motivations, attitudes, personal history & circumstances, previous knowledge & experience • Arts: identifying the processes intrinsic to arts activity, the components of these and how they differ between arts • Contexts: aspects of the environment/social situation which influence change. Realist studies/evaluation – begins with a theory – a framework or narrative - about how an arts encounter will affect individuals – Purpose of research design and data collection is to test theory (theory provides the framework for data collection & analysis) – Multi-method research strategy Appraisal • Strengths – Fits with our understanding of determinants of arts impact – Specificity: very useful for policy makers – Explains rather than describes change • Caveats – Few theory-based or realist studies of the arts to date – Any closer to ‘proving’ causation? – Common challenges: of measurement, ethics, resource constraints • Key issues – Limitations of social research and evaluation – Which types of knowledge are most useful for policymaking?