Notes of discussion from Workshop 2

The afternoon discussion was largely based around what a model of (or theoretical approach describing) impact might look like.

This will need to take account of inequality of opportunity and reflect the complexity of the issue. All experience is intrinsic - motivations of funders might be described - in policy terms - as instrumental.

Experiences are complex - if a constructivist approach is adopted - it must be understood through the lens of previous experience - level and types of cultural capital determines the ability of an individual or group to take up opportunities that might become available.

A model might give politicians/practitioners a structure - existing approaches don’t really reflect the experience of users.

Terms - instrumental/intrinsic - have become loaded - not clear what they mean - oversimplification in the ways that existing models are constructed is a problem (but pragmatism might require some simplification) - not consider the dynamics of the issue - models become too neat.

Benefits can be delivered to the public in a range of indirect ways. Angel of the North in Gateshead - driven by political will – initially had limited support from local people. Polarisation of intrinsic/instrumental does not help - fixes things at one point in time. It is very difficult to categorise experiences.

A model needs to take into account consumption as well as production and aspects of regulation (the demands of which might change regularly) - unlike existing approaches - needs to be simple and possibly have some sort of measurement structure (although this might require more compromise than is acceptable for all parties). It would involve considerable methodological challenges – given the nature of the subject – probably not achievable. Any approach needs to reflect uncertainty and change which is integral to the policy context. Frameworks organisations have to work to might change every few years - MLA and Arts Council are regularly restructured.

All funding is social engineering to a greater or lesser extent - experiences separated out in a model/theoretical approach. They are difficult to describe and to classify - what happens to a visitor when they visit an exhibition - what impact does it have on them?

How might such a model/theoretical approach be used? How might it guide an organisation? - enable it to carry out its functions more effectively. How might the Arts Council make more effective decisions about how it spends public money? Every organisation has a different need. Some of the existing approaches are rather odd - how might the arts/museums/heritage help with all sorts of policy priorities - can become silly - inappropriate and meaningless. Ideas of public value might help with this by providing containment and rationality. AC - any approach needs relevance - instrumental is meaningless and potentially damaging – within organisations collection based activity might be labelled intrinsic while education/outreach seen as instrumental - false division and problematic.

There has been the assumption that ‘high culture’ sits in the intrinsic domain - colludes with structures that encourage inequality. Need to provide culture in the same way that education and medicine are provided.

A model/theoretical approach might provide a rational basis for understanding experience. Research (for example, John Goldthorpe and colleagues – see http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sfos0006/status.html) shows that social stratification and cultural consumption don’t map onto each other in a simple way - cultural policy often assumes that it does.

An important component of culture is choice - how does this work? How can people be encouraged to take up opportunities? Enrichment of lives? Intrinsic impact - as often described - doesn’t articulate fundamental human needs - identity - culture - relationships.

Work at BALTIC (Newman and Whitehead 2006) with older people explored some of these issues - the relationship with the institution was important even if some didn’t really like the place or exhibitions. Respondents were using the exhibitions and the building as content for identity construction activities - positive/negative/defensive - conscious or unconscious. Not everybody can do this to the same extent - depends on existing levels of cultural capital. Making investments that might help them modify the social world - empowering people to achieve things that otherwise would not be impossible. But not automatic - won’t necessarily be able to take up opportunities - socio-psychological issues - confidence - motivation etc. Seems to determine how this works. Level and types of social capital might determine the ability of people to access resources provided by museums/galleries for identity practices. Intervention/community development projects to help people take up opportunities by helping to deal with socio-psychological issues.

Culture is important even if people don’t directly engage with it. Gateshead high spend on culture but low participation. Northumbria University research on the regeneration of Newcastle/Gateshead - arts in Gateshead has an impact upon wider society - wider benefit new attitudes developed - cultural capital is being created amongst people generally. However, it’s hard to separate out the effects of culture from all other forms of investment - which the region has had over the last 30 years or so. Culture is an important part of the picture - but it is hard to identify precisely what role it has played - how could this be proved? This is the main problem with the 10 year study.

How might a model be developed? If you don’t agree with JH – what do you do instead? It would need to be able to describe impact. GLOs/GSOs are problematic in the form that they have been presented. Evidence is needed to inform development - to enable practice to be improved. Is there an unrealistic expectation of what research can do? What weight does evidence really have in policy making - despite the rhetoric? This is far from clear - Clive Gray - workshop 1 - stated it might be used to support existing policy - rather than being the basis of new thinking. Is there an unrealistic expectation of managerially?

GSOs and GLOs seem to imply a fixed structure that activities have to be mapped to - even if this was not the original intension. Policy priorities can change quite rapidly - does the sector need some enduring principles to sign up to? Models/theoretical approach might have to change - always do better. GSO/GLO framework if used can be used in a more sophisticated way than is often presented - away from the headlines. Any guidance from a model/theoretical approach might be better than none – which is the current alternative.

A model might have to weld together a whole series of approaches (is this possible? - or would it just present a number of options – accept uncertainty). Gaynor’s lecture on social capital introduces a series of important issues - identity actions in research she has described. Identity of parent requires museum visiting – perceived ethical dimension - join PTA - gender constructions as well. A middle class parent (or any other come to that) might see museums/galleries as a ‘status arena’ - act out certain roles – performance/identity actions. This places museums and galleries in everyday life rather than seeing them as different in some way.

Are people self optimising? Will they naturally engage in practices that advance conscious/sub-conscious desires – in identity terms? Consumption is not the only way of thinking about identity formation. Ability to do this is not equal. How can we think about impact? - How do museums and galleries change lives? - In a practical sense - moved from instrumental/intrinsic - to talking about impact more generally.

Identify a range of languages that describes what happens – whole experience. Thinking about understanding impact not measuring it - hard to pin down exactly what is happening.