|
|
Bring out your measures!
Building on my first Priceless? blog, this week I’d like to issue a challenge: how many measures of ‘cultural value’ can you think of?
Mind your language
OK, so perhaps I shouldn’t say ‘measure’. Why not? Well, one of the major themes running through the blog discussion so far is the need to take care in the language we use when discussing the idea of measuring cultural value. Definitions of the words ‘value’, ‘culture’ and ‘measure’ are all contested and convey different meanings.
When thinking about demonstrating the benefits the cultural sector brings to the public, the word ‘measure’ tends to direct thought towards counting things, and, of course, economic valuation. Yet the broader notion of ‘capturing cultural value’ also allows room for alternative ways of thinking about representing cultural value using quantitative and qualitative methods.
Organisations in the cultural sector have largely been individually grappling with how to provide the most powerful evidence of the value of their efforts. The dominant discourse traditionally is one of metrics, inputs and outputs. Yet there is a parallel concern that this renders broader public benefits invisible or intangible.
A joined-up approach
The Priceless? blog wants to hear about and learn from your experience of measuring or capturing cultural value. What 'measures' does your organisation use? What 'measures' do you think DCMS should use (or not use)? Is anything important being missed?It seems that the time has come to share best practice in the sector. Do non-economic approaches to valuation have anything meaningful to offer? Who is at the forefront of developing novel economic or narrative approaches? What can we learn from other policy areas?
'Measure' for 'measure'
I would like to issue a challenge. I bet that there are so many diverse approaches to demonstrating the value of the cultural sector that we can collectively generate a list of one hundred ‘measures’ of cultural value this week. And as an incentive – as if you would need one – there are some DCMS prizes for the most creative suggestions!The point is that my research wants to draw together a comprehensive list of standard and novel approaches to ‘measuring’ or capturing cultural value, and then later go on to investigate what works best and in which contexts.
I will start the ball rolling by listing some methods Phase One of ‘Measuring Cultural Value’ recommended that DCMS could use.
1. Contingent valuation/stated preference techniques
2. Travel cost/willingness to pay
3. Subjective wellbeing
Now, over to you ...
4. Improved equity
5. Enhanced quality of public debate
6. Changes in individual or collective perception/attitudes
7. Contributing to cultural preservation and enrichment
8. Income generated
9. Visitor/attendance figures
10. Visitor/public satisfaction ratings
11. Public participation in events
12. Degree of ‘transformativity’
13. Number of lives changed
14. Social Return on Investment (SRoI)
15. Multi-criteria Analysis (MCA) of various stakeholder views on ‘value’ generated
16. Value of tangible assets
17. Product sales
18. Media mentions
19. Website visits
20. Number of downloads
21. Awards/prizes received
22. Critical acclaim
23. ‘Brand’ visibility
24. Market share
25. Creative industries employment figures
26. Number of arts volunteers
Use the comment section below to share your 'measures' of cultural value, your views on these questions or other aspects of measuring cultural value.
Dr Claire Donovan is a Reader in the Health Economics Research Group at Brunel University, London. ‘Measuring Cultural Value (Phase 2)’ is jointly funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, the Economic and Social Research Council, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
This interactive blog seeks to stimulate discussion across the cultural sector on the very idea of measuring cultural value. Dr Claire Donovan is an academic working at DCMS to write a report on this issue, and wants to know what you think. Can the value of culture be measured by government in monetary (or other) terms, or is it ‘priceless’?
Comments
Here's a list of 56 possible metrics, broadly construed, that we came up with at the Center for the Study of Interdisciplinarity (http://www.csid.unt.edu) to measure our own impact.
Maybe some could be used to measure cultural value, as well -- or at least spur some thinking (we should add that to the list).
1.H-index; 2.G-index; 3.HL-index (universal); 4.HM-index (standard for co-author); 5.Peer review; 6.Place of publication; 7.Number of pubs; 8.Number of citations; 9.Book sales; 10.Article downloads; 11.Website hits; 12.Media mentions; 13.Quotes in media; 14.Quotes in policy docs ; 15.Developing a metric that people use; 16.Rabble rousing; 17.Muckraking; 18.Lawsuits provoked; 19.Meetings with important people; 20.Mention by policy makers; 21.Invitations to present; 22.Invitations to consult; 23.Invitations to evaluate; 24.Protests/demonstrations provoked; 25.Coining phrase or buzzword; 26.Trending in social media; 27.Esteem surveys; 28.Trust/reputation; 29.Rankings; 30.Blog mentions; 31.Student surveys; 32.Student testimonials; 33.Faculty recommendations; 34.Faculty award/prize; 35.Citizen testimonials; 36.Town hall meetings; 37.Social networking contacts; 38.Increased diversity; 39.Degree of ID/TD; 40.Degree of transformativity; 41.Academic rigor; 42.CSID advisors; 43.Special problem requests with CSID faculty; 44.Internationalization; 45.Grant money; 46.Audience size @ CSID events; 47.Success of faculty fellows; 48.Esteem of senior fellows; 49.Success of graduate / UG presentations & grants; 50.Guest posters on blog; 51.Impact factor of journals in which CSID publishes; 52.Number of angry letters received; 53.Textbooks produced; 54.Influencing curricula creation; 55.Participating in public education programs; 56.Branding.
Posted by: J Britt Holbrook | January 19, 2012 09:46 PM
@J Britt Holbrook – Thanks for getting the ball rolling!
I guess this is a very academic take on ‘measures’ applied to assessing academic performance. So you have kindly provided a list of input and output measures of academic quality, markers of academic esteem, and various indicators of academic engagement with the public and policymakers.
I guess that there are three main observations. First, this very much fits with the realm of academia, and the humanities where the written word is the major focus of activity (the arts would include performance, exhibitions, curating, etc.)
Second, the ‘Priceless?’ blog is looking for ‘measures’ of cultural value specific to the public funding of arts and heritage. So I have taken three likely areas from your list and moulded them to this end: ‘Increased diversity’, ‘Degree of transformativity’, and ‘Participating in public education programmes’.
Third: ‘Rabble rousing’, ‘Muckraking’, ‘Lawsuits provoked’, ‘Number of angry letters received’! Really? What do you guys get up to at CSID?!!! Can these ‘measures’ be reasonably used to make the case for public funding of the cultural sector...?
Posted by: Claire Donovan | January 24, 2012 03:22 PM
@Claire Donovan "Third: ‘Rabble rousing’, ‘Muckraking’, ‘Lawsuits provoked’, ‘Number of angry letters received’ .... Can these ‘measures’ be reasonably used to make the case for public funding of the cultural sector...? "
To me this is the nub of your problem. If we are looking only for the ways that heritage makes better citizens, the fact remains that value is often expressed in outrage (you don't know what you've got till its gone).
A vibrant Heritage sector supports increased diversity alright, and possibly 'degree of transformativity', though I'm not sure how that is measurable never mind a measure. I suspect some of those 'dangerous' measures may be a better way at getting to the visceral importance that people actually attach to Heritage for better or worse.
Posted by: Sarah May | January 25, 2012 01:51 PM
@Claire Donovan @Sarah May -- Sarah is getting at what we intended, at least in part. By including these sorts of 'negative' indicators, we are attempting to capture something that gets left out of typical measures.
And, no, I wouldn't want to use only such indicators. The point of including these -- and in having 56 (to which we are open to adding more, so I hope to see some good stuff here) -- is precisely to suggest that any single measure (or even a small set) will fail to capture the full impact of our activities.
Posted by: J Britt Holbrook | January 25, 2012 05:31 PM
Recently at an event Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums held in Newcastle two people came up to me and told me how our Culture Shock project had changed their lives. I think that’s not a bad measure of the value of culture, particularly as it’s both an instrumental and an intrinsic value!
http://www.cultureshock.org.uk
Posted by: IAIN WATSON | January 25, 2012 09:55 PM
In terms of your point about 'is culture just priceless', consider things which are truly priceless in the economic sense. Then ask an insurer how much the premiums would be to insure said priceless 'thing' (sorry to use such a useless word!).
I would imagine, like when you do your car insurance, and gradually lower the car's value to reduce the premium, the value of anything is only what someone is willing to pay to ensure it never goes away (and for the insurer, the risk they associate with the liklihood of it going away.
Value must therefore be intrinsically linked to 'risk' or more importantly, the liklihood of something not being available tomorrow...
Posted by: Peter Davies | January 26, 2012 10:37 AM