"What is to be Done?" : Cultural Leadership and Public Engagement in Art and Design Education [1 ed.] 9781443862844, 9781443858908

Citation preview

“What is to be Done?”: Cultural Leadership and Public Engagement in Art and Design Education

“What is to be Done?”: Cultural Leadership and Public Engagement in Art and Design Education

Edited by

Steve Swindells and Anna Powell

“What is to be Done?”: Cultural Leadership and Public Engagement in Art and Design Education, Edited by Steve Swindells and Anna Powell This book first published 2014 Cambridge Scholars Publishing 12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2014 by Steve Swindells, Anna Powell and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-5890-0, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-5890-8

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Illustrations .................................................................................... vii Acknowledgements .................................................................................... ix Part One: Defining the Landscape: Public Engagement in Context Introduction to Part One .............................................................................. 3 I Say Aesthetic = Human Being Steve Swindells and Anna Powell Chapter One ............................................................................................... 19 Creating #havoc: A Holistic Approach to Valuing Our Culture Claire Donovan Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 29 The Renaissance of University Galleries? Sarah Shalgosky and Stephanie James Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 37 Public Engagement, Impact, and the 21st Century University: A Guide for the Bewildered Paul Manners Part Two: Dialogues Present and Past................................................... 51 Part Three: Mapping the Landscape: Application, Measurement, Articulation Introduction to Part Three.......................................................................... 63 Measuring the Immeasurable? Steve Swindells and Anna Powell

vi

Table of Contents

Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 73 Post-REF: Collecting Evidence from Public Engagement. Necessity with Unforeseen Consequences? Rosa Scoble Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 81 Bridging the Divide: Articulating the Value of Creativity to Politicos Jocelyn Bailey Where Are We Now? ................................................................................ 89 Steve Swindells and Anna Powell Editors ....................................................................................................... 95 Contributors ............................................................................................... 97

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

1. Paul Manners: clusters of questions and theoretical framings into researcher/community interactions. 2. Image from the ICA Symposium, Public Engagement and Impact, Articulating Value in Art and Design, 2013. Placards showing event Twitter ‘hashtag’ used for collecting at-event feedback. 3. Image from the ICA Symposium, Public Engagement and Impact, Articulating Value in Art and Design, 2013. Panel discussion. From left to right – Ailbhe MacNabola (Design Council), Rosa Scoble (Brunel University), Helen Phebey (Yorkshire Sculpture Park), Stephanie James (Arts University Bournemouth) and Sarah Shalgosky (curator, Mead Gallery, University of Warwick). 4. Image from the ICA Symposium, Public Engagement and Impact, Articulating Value in Art and Design, 2013. Panel discussion. From left to right - Sarah Shalgosky (curator, Mead Gallery, University of Warwick), Paul Manners (Director NCCPE). 5. Image from the ICA Symposium, Public Engagement and Impact, Articulating Value in Art and Design, 2013. Plenary discussion, creating mind-maps around key words (‘impact’, ‘public engagement’, ‘value’). 6. Bob and Roberta Smith performative presentation at the ICA symposium Public Engagement and Impact, Articulating Value in Art and Design. 7. Bob and Roberta Smith, sketch featuring the words “Art Makes People Powerful”, created during presentation at the ICA symposium Public Engagement and Impact, Articulating Value in Art and Design. 8. University College London, example of an Evaluation Toolkit.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to offer our sincere thanks and appreciation to the following people and organisations: Huddersfield Art Gallery and Kirklees Council Cultural and Leisure Services, including Ruth Gamble, Richard Butterfield, Grant Scanlon, Andrew Charlesworth and Kimyo Rickett; ICA, London, including Sumitra Upham and Karen Turner; colleagues from the University of Huddersfield, School of Art, Design and Architecture contributing to the ROTOR programme, including Dr Catriona McAra and Stephen Calcutt; and finally a special thank you to all who took part in the ICA symposium (May 2013), including the contributors to this publication.

PART ONE: DEFINING THE LANDSCAPE: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IN CONTEXT

INTRODUCTION TO PART ONE I SAY AESTHETICS = HUMAN BEING STEVE SWINDELLS AND ANNA POWELL

“I say aesthetics = human being”. —Joseph Beuys, 1973.1

While serving a life sentence for murder in a Scottish jail, the artist Jimmy Boyle viewed photographs of Joseph Beuys’ performance with a coyote, entitled “I like America and America Likes Me” (1974), in which the artist had locked himself in a cage with a coyote for a week. After viewing the photos, Boyle commented on how the then current art (of the 1970s) was trying to engage with the whole of society but, he suggested, was failing to do so because of its subjectivity and conceptual positions which continued to alienate people. Boyle cites Beuys’ performance with the coyote – despite the conceptual nature of the practice – as a laudable attempt by Beuys to clarify his position regarding the role of the artist in society. Boyle went on to assert that: The only worthwhile statement that has had any effect on me and others in my [prison] environment has been Joseph Beuys’ dialogue with a coyote. The others pass over the head of society and lose their impact […].2

Boyle, confined in prison, recognised that Beuys’ work attempted to harness a group consciousness, while retaining a sense of individual freedom, as a way of attempting to resolve or emancipate people from social ills. In his text “Good Education in an Age of Measurement: Ethics, Politics, Democracy” (2010) Gert Biesta, Professor of Educational Theory and Policy at the University of Luxembourg, is seriously concerned with the instrumentalisation of education. In particular he is interested in the 1

Joseph Beuys, “I am searching for field character” (1973), in Energy Plan for the Western man - Joseph Beuys in America, ed. by C. Kuoni (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 1993), 34. 2 Caroline Tisdall, Joseph Beuys: Coyote (London: Thames and Hudson, 2008), 5.

4

Introduction to Part One

idea that relentless auditing might be reframing educational practices, and asks whether the current fixation with accountability might in fact be exacerbating the normative question, “what is good education?” A key concern for Biesta is whether modes of measurement can be tamed and utilised as a way of effectively recognising “good education”, particularly in relation to democratic citizenship.3 So, do Beuys and Biesta have something in common or, indeed, might there be some commonality between Beuys’ relationship with the coyote and Beista’s vision of a refined, more discursive measurement system? Beuys wasn’t trying to tame the coyote as such, merely to establish a dialogue with a sense of “the wild”, in order to rejuvenate humanity. Biesta does not suggest that the notion of measurement is wrong, but seemingly perverse in its current application and in need of dialogue. Beuys believed Western society had become spiritually bankrupt, and his coined motif “show your wounds” became an approach to transform society through what he called “Social Sculpture”: the shaping of society through the collective creativity of its members.4 Biesta is likewise concerned with the interrelationships between learning, identity and agency in people’s lives, and in the ways in which cultural citizenship and education might be able to respond to the complexities of contemporary societies. Their commonality, then, might reside in their mutual concern for promoting both dialogue and democratic citizenship, where Biesta’s ideas about the instrumentalisation of education through relentless auditing appear to bear out Beuys’ concern that Western society lacks meaningful agency, and continues to be spiritually bankrupt. In 2011 we commenced a formal partnership with Huddersfield Art Gallery to offer a programme of art and design exhibitions featuring the work of our colleagues at the University of Huddersfield. Through this ongoing programme, we continue to ask the question of how art and design practices might engage, and impact upon the locale, and what we should be looking for in order to better understand this impact and its value. Biesta might have responded to these questions with, “it depends”; it depends whether all gazes can be invited, encouraged and equalised

3

Gert Biesta, Good Education in an Age of Measurement: Ethics, Politics, Democracy (Interventions: Education, Philosophy, and Culture) (Boulder, Colorado: Paradigm Publishers, 2010), 1. 4 See Gregory L. Ulmer, Electronic Monuments (University of Minnesota Press: 2005), 27.

I Say Aesthetic = Human Being

5

through the interpretation and mediation of “the exhibition”.5 Across the board, artists, curators, universities and research councils are now considering what it means to be “engaged”, and as the concept of engagement grows into different conversations, so the possibilities expand for embedding public engagement within research practices and processes. In the context of an art and design school within a university, we too are encountering a complex series of questions and ideas about the role of the university sector in contributing to cultural leadership within a town locale and its surrounding region. Some of these questions and ideas are addressed in this publication, and some will form the basis of future research. As Vice Chancellors across the UK position their institutions’ identities and future trajectories in the context of national and international league tables, John Goddard (OBE)6, proposes the notion of the “civic” university as a “place embedded” institution; one that is committed to “place making”. The civic university has deep institutional connections with different social, cultural and economic spheres within its locality and beyond. In this respect, the hierarchical research ratings between “old” and “new” (post-92) universities7 need not concern the civic university, as practice-led research in the arts, design and humanities aligns them more closely with the broader impact mission of the Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE). Further, those academics with established lasting cultural partnerships might look to the Research Excellence Framework (REF) impact agenda as a long-awaited means of acknowledgement of their civic-centred work in their respective sectors.8 As cultural policy becomes an ever increasing component in economic and physical regeneration, what will be the cultural legacy of the university sector, with its expanding campuses and burgeoning building programmes for future generations? It is widely acknowledged that Vice Chancellors continue to face unprecedented challenges. However, perhaps, for those 5

See Gert Biesta, “Learning in Public Places: Civic Learning for the 21st Century” (Inaugural Lecture) accessed 3rd December 2013, http://www.ugent.be/pp/socialeagogiek/nl/inaugural 6 Emeritus Professor of Regional Development Studies at the Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies, Newcastle University. 7 Former polytechnics or colleges of higher education were given university status by the Conservative Government in 1992 through the Further and Higher Education Act. 8 The Research Excellence Framework (REF) is the current system for assessing the quality of research in UK higher education institutions (HEIs), see: http://www.ref.ac.uk

6

Introduction to Part One

who can look beyond the incessant demands of instrumentalisation, an opportunity exists to make a lasting contribution to the cultural legacies of the moment. In a period of austerity, which is felt no more intensely than in the arts and cultural sectors, there is now a clear need for universities to further their contribution to civic society, helping to sustain the cultural life of towns and cities across the UK. The sentiments in this publication have been inspired by the Arts Council England’s Achieving Great Art for Everyone9 publication, and the subsequent second edition entitled Great Art and Culture for Everyone: 10-Year Strategic Framework 2010-2020.10 With universities, funding bodies, government bodies and cultural organisations such as the Arts Council all immersed in developing strategic frameworks towards 2020; so the rationale for this publication is to intimate and explore emerging points of convergence and mutual understanding within and across these different agendas. Across the UK, academics in art and design fields, and arts and culture organisations, are increasingly facing pressure to demonstrate, by way of “knowledge exchange”11 the impact and value of their research upon the public. With the difficult challenge of articulating this in a meaningful way and in an accessible language, and with “public engagement” being the current buzzword in both cultural and education sectors, the foundations of these debates include John Myerscough 198812 with regard to economic impact, and François Matarasso 199713 in relation to social impact. “Public engagement”, in the context of art and design, is often used as an all-inclusive term for an assumed ability to engage with and positively affect society. Regardless of its common usage across the university and cultural sectors, however, it remains a contested concept. In relation to the REF assessment for HEIs, public engagement is considered one of the valid examples of research impact identified by HEFCE; a potentially valuable means of identifying the benefits to society of art and 9

Arts Council England, Achieving Great Art for Everyone: A Strategic Framework for the Arts, 2010, see http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/achieving_great_art_for_everyone.pdf 10 Arts Council England, Great Art and Culture for Everyone: 10-Year Strategic Framework 2010-2020, 2nd edition, revised 2013. 11 See “Knowledge Exchange and Impact”, Research Councils UK, at http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/kei/Pages/home.aspx. 12 John Myerscough, The economic importance of the arts in Britain (University of California: Policy Studies Institute, 1988). 13 François Matarasso, USE OR ORNAMENT?,The social impact of participation in the arts (Comedia, 1997).

I Say Aesthetic = Human Being

7

design research activity. This publication presents “public engagement” as a flexible term for variant modes of relational impact, whatever form that impact might take.14 It is written in light of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (DBIS)’ Concordat for Engaging the Public with Research 2013, whose set of principles sets out the significance and value of enabling effective public engagement with research,15 and which underlines the extent to which “engaging the public with research helps empower people, broadens attitudes and ensures that the work of universities and research organisations is relevant to today’s society”.16 Part One of this publication introduces and highlights the landscape of public engagement and cultural leadership in art and design higher education. The essays were conceived during a symposium which was hosted by the University of Huddersfield at the Institute of Contemporary Arts, London, in the summer of 2013, entitled Public Engagement and Impact: Articulating Value in Art and Design.17 The symposium sought to explore and provide insight into mechanisms for overcoming sociocultural barriers to public engagement. It was also both a response to, and an exploration of the concepts of “impact” and “cultural value”.18 In the spirit of public engagement it was our intention to make these proceedings accessible to a wide readership. It is hoped that they will be of interest to those working in both higher education and the cultural industries. Contributions are provided by a range of individuals including artists, designers, curators and academics. Their essays introduce a myriad of concerns, debates and viewpoints which together demonstrate the complexity of the landscape – which was another of the publication’s aims, and one of the things which at its outset caught, and continues to 14

See Nicolas Bourriaud, Relational Aesthetics (Paris: Les Presses du Réel, 2002). See “Inspiration to Engage”, Concordat for Engaging the Public with Research, Research Councils UK, http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/scisoc/ConcordatforEngagingthePublicwithRese arch.pdf 16 See Concordat for Engaging the Public with Research, Research Councils UK, http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/Documents/publications/ConcordatInspiration.pdf p. 5. 17 Hereafter referred to as the ICA symposium. 18 See the Arts and Humanities Research Council, The AHRC Cultural Value Project (http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/Funded-Research/Funded-themes-and-programmes/ Cultural-Value-Project/Documents/Cultural_Value_Project.pdf , and http://culturalvalueproject.wordpress.com/), and REF2014, Decisions On Assessing Research Impact, March 2011 http://www.ref.ac.uk/media/ref/content/pub/decisionsonassessingresearchimpact/0 1_11.pdf . 15

Introduction to Part One

8

catch our imagination. In this respect, the publication does not try to provide a comprehensive account on all fronts. Rather, it aims to introduce different perspectives on the public engagement and cultural leadership environment, and its challenges and complexities. We hope it will enable the reader to discover future focus and pursue further reading in relation to this multifaceted subject. A fundamental concern of this research, and one which was implemented through the ICA symposium is the nurturing of existing, and the development of new collaborations with cultural partners. This collection of essays also aims to mirror the symposium’s ethos of collaboration, and it is hoped that it will provide a useful insight into some of the challenges and benefits of partnership working. In view of the escalating number of HEI-cultural organisation partnerships, we hope that this publication will also prove useful to those already working collaboratively.

A national perspective: ICA symposium The University of Huddersfield formed its partnership with the ICA in 2012. The ICA has since worked collaboratively with the University in developing joint projects and research, designed to engage and promote greater fluidity and collaborative opportunities between university students, teaching staff and its public programmes. The ICA symposium addressed the ways in which recognisable impact, beyond academia, could be achieved through the effective delivery, measurement and dissemination of public engagement activity across art and design practices. The call for participation was framed around the following problematic questions: -

What do we mean when we discuss “public engagement” in relation to contemporary art and design? How do we overcome some of the issues arising as we are increasingly encouraged to quantify the value of contemporary art and design research, and its exhibition within the public realm? If we are able to create a framework for assessing this value, how then do we go about capturing, measuring and communicating it? How can this information be used to help plan for the future of art and design research in UK cultural and education sectors?

The ICA symposium was also born of a desire to tackle some of the often ambiguous language that surrounds these questions. It presented a platform for sharing ideas and good practice, while encouraging dynamic discussion through the inclusion of interactive and creative plenary

I Say Aesthetic = Human Being

9

sessions. It also functioned reflexively; simultaneously providing – and requesting feedback on – a model of public engagement in itself. Speakers at the symposium were selected from a range of UK organisations and institutions, and they explored a breadth of approaches to public engagement, from critical explorations of the very term itself, to practical examples of its application and the challenges it can present. Each paper preceded an open floor discussion soliciting input from delegates, while a live Twitter feed and event questionnaires helped to draw together common threads and highlight areas of collective opinion. In addition to discussing strategies for public engagement, papers also included a debate which countered the perceived assumption that the public is disengaged from art: Based on her PhD and subsequent research at Yorkshire Sculpture Park (YSP), Curator Helen Pheby, and founding Director Peter Murray (CBE) traced the relationship between art and its publics, and the critical role public engagement and interpretation have played at YSP in relation to audience development. Their discussion included a consideration of how the engaged public is perceived and celebrated from a curator’s perspective. Artist Bob and Roberta Smith’s performative presentation also placed existing audiences at the core of his argument. Using art as both a medium for free speech and as a way of exploring new futures, Bob and Roberta Smith believes ‘Art’ allows people to get out of the trench of existence and to see how the land really lies, and his presentation underlined this, demonstrating how art can play a powerful role in democratic systems. Sumitra Upham, Assistant Curator – Education at the ICA commented on the mutual benefits of the collaborative events, stating, “We were delighted to work collaboratively with the University of Huddersfield [...] [as] we continuously question notions of ‘public’, ‘impact’, and ‘engagement’ in relation to visual arts practice through our interdisciplinary programme of exhibitions, projects and events,” adding: Public engagement is increasingly becoming important for cultural rights, arts education, audience participation, social cohesion, and cultural diversity. As a public institution we recognise the importance of public engagement in the visual arts and are concerned with how we effectively communicate and learn from our public/s. We hope to develop further a programme that actively engages a diverse audience across the arts [...] responding to public feedback and societal concerns.19

19

Sumitra Upham, Associate Curator, Education, Institute of Contemporary Arts, London, January 2013.

10

Introduction to Part One

Closer to home: ROTOə Our interest in exploring public engagement – despite its currency within REF, and other cultural policy rhetoric – goes far beyond the seeming bureaucracies of governmental impact agendas. Rather, it stems from a sense of responsibility for bringing together members of the public with staff from the School of Art, Design and Architecture and their research, in order to enable “shared access to knowledge and information”.20 This objective can be recognised in an initiative which developed from an ardent period of work with Huddersfield Art Gallery, entitled “ROTOə: transdisciplinary dialogue and debate”. ROTOə is an on-going programme of exhibitions, public events and talks, and acts as a platform for disseminating and communicating practice-based-research, showcasing a community of artists, designers and curators whose ideas and connective practices migrate and span art and design production. Our intention with ROTOə is to locate the interpretation of the exhibition content at the pivot between academic research and public engagement, where points of intersection are considered and debated from multiple perspectives. To initiate ROTOə, a two year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between the University of Huddersfield and Kirklees Culture and Leisure Services. The MOU was founded upon the Arts Council England (ACE)’s strategic framework 201021 to help in the successful development of conversations between the University, the Gallery and the public. The ROTOə programme also reflects elements of the University’s aforementioned partnership with the ICA, namely in its innovative and challenging approach to visual arts programming, as well as its incorporation of contemporary music, international cinema, performance, live arts, talks and debates, all of which provide exemplary models of public engagement. Of particular relevance to ROTOə is the ICA’s Student Forum which encourages long-term engagement between the organisation and emerging practitioners. One of its key aims is to “interrogate, subvert and re-define traditional pedagogical terminology in response to academic research and public engagement with art, within the

20

Nicola Dandridge, Chief Executive of Universities UK, speaking at The Cultural Knowledge Ecology - Universities, Arts and Cultural Partnerships - a one-day conference, 5th February 2014, Liverpool John Moores University. 21 Arts Council England, Achieving Great Art for Everyone: A Strategic Framework for the Arts, 2010, see http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/achieving_great_art_for_everyone.pdf.

I Say Aesthetic = Human Being

11

context of an arts institution”.22 ROTOə mirrors some of these elements and, as with the ICA partnership, provides opportunities for creative exchange, investigation and discussion between practitioners and audiences, as well as a “fruitful dialogue with students engaged in critical thinking around contemporary practice.”23 Alongside the ROTOə programme, we also decided to focus our concurrent edition of the School’s journal; radar 4, on some of the questions posed above. radar is the Review of Art, Design and Architecture Research, and in radar 4 we aimed to present reflexive a means of querying different understandings of the terms “public”, “engagement”, “impact” and the “contemporary” in relation to art and design. radar 4 aims to: […] address recent trends and issues in the social, political and cultural life of the University, while tracing their relationship to those art, design and architecture practices happening beyond the University [...]. The current issue of radar situates itself at the interface between the researchorientated arena of the University and the broader [...] public sphere.24

ROTOə has now established its own identity and presence in the Kirklees community and responses from visitors to the exhibitions have been very encouraging, demonstrating people to be taking something positive from their experience of encountering art and design research in a municipal gallery environment. Interestingly, from a research perspective, it has been difficult for visitors – and equally for us – to be able to articulate this; to put into words exactly what caused or comprised the positive experiences they refer to in written and verbal feedback. We want to be able to further (understand) our contribution to culture in Huddersfield, and so this problem – one which is broadly prevalent across the museums and galleries sector – is influencing our current and future research.25

22

Sumitra Upham, Associate Curator, Education, speaking at the Institute of Contemporary Arts, London, January 2013. 23 Sumitra Upham, Associate Curator, Education, speaking at the Institute of Contemporary Arts, London, January 2013. 24 radar, ed. by Catriona McAra and Anna Powell (Huddersfield: University of Huddersfield Press, 2014). 25 Future research plans include the development of a project which will consider the ways in which empirical psychology might be used to test the immediate experience of art and design upon the viewer, in the context of its impact upon society. See Rolf Reber, “Art in Its Experience: Can Empirical Psychology Help Assess Artistic Value?” Leonardo, Vol. 41, No. 4 (August 2008): 367-372.

12

Introduction to Part One

Back to the future: STEAM In her 2009 paper, “Theory-based evaluation and the social impact of the arts” Susan Galloway proposed that: [...] despite the ubiquitous calls, the political likelihood and ethical justification for investing substantial resources in large-scale longitudinal evaluations [for measuring the social impact of the arts] remains slim. […] A key question remains how best to learn from the aggregation of smaller studies.26

In 2009 it would have been difficult for Galloway and others to predict just how prominent and problematic the question of measuring “impact” would be in the lead up to the REF2014. At the point of writing the outcomes of the REF exercise – in relation to the impact of art and design upon society – remains unknown. It will be interesting for those involved to learn whether post-REF analyses of impact case studies will, collectively, be taken as an opportunity to meet Galloway’s suggestion of aggregation. Beyond REF, another scheme now within the current sights of those working in academia is Horizon 2020, which is: […] the biggest EU Research and Innovation programme ever, with nearly €80 billion of funding available over 7 years (2014 to 2020) – in addition to the private investment that this money will attract. [...] EU funding for research [...] [is] seen as a means to drive economic growth and create jobs, Horizon 2020 has the political backing of Europe’s leaders and the Members of the European Parliament. They [...] put [Horizon 2020] at the heart of the EU’s blueprint for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and jobs. By coupling research and innovation, Horizon 2020 is helping to achieve this with its emphasis on excellent science, industrial leadership and tackling societal challenges. The goal is to ensure Europe produces world-class science, removes barriers to innovation and makes it easier for the public and private sectors to work together in delivering innovation.27

It is notable, however, that the arts and humanities do not feature prominently within this substantial and broad-reaching incentive for driving economic growth, especially considering the significant contribution 26 Susan Galloway, “Theory-Based Evaluation and the Social Impact of the Arts”, in Cultural Trends, Vol. 18, No. 2 (June 2009), 143. 27 Horizon 2020: The EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, accessed 12th January 2014 http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/whathorizon-2020.

I Say Aesthetic = Human Being

13

of the cultural sector to EU economies.28 Similarly, the organisation Arts & Business,29 as well as a European Commission Executive Summary, found that the growth of the cultural and creative sector in Europe from 1999 to 2003 was 12.3% higher than the growth of each nation’s general economy. In 2003 the cultural and creative sector generated a turnover of more than € 654 billion, which in 2003 amounted to 2.6% of the EU GDP.30 The European Parliamentary Research Service noted in 2013: The economic performance of the cultural and creative sectors in the EU account for 3.3% of GDP and employ 6.7 million people (3 % of total employment). Figures are also important if one considers fashion and highend industries, which account for 3% of the EU GDP each and employ respectively 5 and 1 million people. 31

Nicola Dandridge, Chief Executive of Universities UK, notes the extent of the arts’ contribution to the economy when she states, “The arts are absolutely not marginal – they are core business”.32 John Maynard Keynes, arguably one of the most influential economists of the 20th century and founder of the Arts Council of Great Britain, also recognised the value of state investment in the arts.33 It was largely Keynes who, back 28

See Horizon 2020: The EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, accessed 12th January 2014 http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/what-horizon-2020. 29 Arts and Business, The value of the Creative Industries & Culture, 2007/08, 70. Accessed 17th February 2014 http://www.artsandbusinessni.org.uk/documents/2012-05-16-14-04-07-7009Jul_REI_PICS0708_Chap3.pdf. 30 “Mapping out the economy of culture in figures”, in The Economy of Culture in Europe, Study prepared for the European Commission (Directorate-General for Education and Culture), 65, accessed 12th January 2013 http://ec.europa.eu/culture/pdf/doc887_en.pdf. 31 “European Cultural & Creative Sectors as Sources for Economic Growth & Jobs”, European Parliamentary Research Service, 17th April 2013, accessed 15th June 2013 http://epthinktank.eu/2013/04/17/european-cultural-creative-sectors-assources-for-economic-growth-jobs/. 32 Nicola Dandridge, Chief Executive of Universities UK, speaking at The Cultural Knowledge Ecology - Universities, Arts and Cultural Partnerships - a one-day conference, 5th February 2014, Liverpool John Moores University. 33 John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes, CB, FBA (5 June 1883 – 21 April 1946). His ideas are the basis for the school of thought known as Keynesian economics, which advocates a mixed economy, which consists predominantly of private sector, but where there exists a role for government intervention during recessions.

14

Introduction to Part One

in the 1940s, conceived of the model of mixed economy funding for the arts that has been adopted around the world today. How then, today, do we ensure the arts and STEM34 are given equal regard, when often the arts are overshadowed by the assumed greater social and economic benefits of STEM? One scheme currently being adopted in the United States, and of particular relevance to innovation within science and technology, is the inclusion of art and design practices into STEM; where “STEM + Art = STEAM.”35 STEAM has the potential to open new spaces for thought and debate, where art and science are not considered mutually exclusive but inextricably connected. True public engagement in art and design encompasses all of society, which necessarily includes scientists, engineers, technologists and industrialists, as well as artists, curators and designers. Maintaining a vibrant cultural infrastructure enables lateral thought and creative thinking. This is not to suggest that public engagement within the cultural sector is the only facilitator for inclusivity and resolving societal needs, neither is it the only barometer for measuring public thinking. Nevertheless, large scale European research funds have an essential role to play in addressing questions of individual and collective identity across Europe, in particular where political agendas on civic cohesion are concerned. Take, for example, youth unemployment. Relatively, across Europe the creative and cultural sectors are responsible for employing a high percentage of young people. Between 2008 and 2011 growth rates in employment were evidenced in the cultural and creative sectors,36 and yet “youth unemployment in Europe has reached 23.8%” to date.37 Taking Galloway’s suggestion that we need to aggregate a breadth of research to find an effective way of assessing the social impact of art and design upon society, and Arts & Business’s views on the wider economic significance of the cultural industries, herein might lie an opportunity for future European research funds. These interrelated positions and, indeed, 34

Science, technology, engineering and maths. “STEAM” is “a movement championed by Rhode Island School of Design (RISD) and widely adopted by institutions, corporations and individuals.” See http://stemtosteam.org/. 36 “European Cultural & Creative Sectors as Sources for Economic Growth & Jobs”, European Parliamentary Research Service, 17th April 2013, accessed 15th June 2013 http://epthinktank.eu/2013/04/17/european-cultural-creative-sectors-assources-for-economic-growth-jobs/. 37 Kate Hodge, “Beating Unemployment in Europe: Careers advice surgery”, in Guardian Professional (2nd July 2013), accessed 5th September 2013 http://careers.theguardian.com/unemployment-in-europe-careers-advice. 35

I Say Aesthetic = Human Being

15

the essays contained within this publication, reiterate the extent to which future debates around measuring cultural engagement in the arts need to equate both its social and economic impacts, as well as recognising the significance of the arts both to, as well as alongside, STEM.

The essays The Cultural Leadership Handbook (2011) provides a comprehensive definition of public engagement, which it describes as: The interaction between an organisation and its audience when it mounts a performance, stages an exhibition, issues a publication or provides a service of some kind –in other words, what it does when it performs its self-defined function as a cultural organisation. More and more, this is a two-way process: it is launched by the organisation, but has to be genuinely responsive to the needs and opinions of the audience. To really work, this engagement has to be judged successful by both the organisation and its public. And that will depend not only on the competence of the organisation and its willingness to respond, but the creative way in which it approaches that engagement.38

The following papers address these ideas from a variety of viewpoints. In her essay “A Holistic Approach to Valuing Our Culture”, Dr Claire Donovan, Reader in Assessing Research Impact and member of the Health Economics Research Group at Brunel University, provides a summary of a programme of work carried out for an AHRC/ESRC39 Public Service Placement Fellowship entitled “Measuring Cultural Value (Phase Two)” based at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Donovan’s essay provides a detailed analysis of the issues addressed in her report; which engaged directly with representatives of the cultural sector. Sarah Shalgosky is Curator of the University of Warwick’s Art Gallery – MEAD, and Professor Stephanie James is Associate Dean and Head of the School of Visual Arts at the Arts University Bournemouth, as well as a practising artist. In their essay, entitled “Peer Pressure”, Shalgosky and James discuss the significant expansion of university art galleries across the UK within the last five years. With reference to 2013 conferences at the Universities of Cork, Warwick and Bournemouth which critically examined the roles of the university art gallery, they explore the capacity 38

Robert Hewison and John Holden, The Cultural Leadership Handbook: How to Run a Creative Organization (Surrey: Gower, 2011), 180. 39 Arts and Humanities Research Council/Economic and Social Research Council.

16

Introduction to Part One

for these spaces to become embedded in a range of strategic objectives, including the development of research impact; supporting the delivery of a high calibre student experience; widening participation and improving the university’s overall profile. Paul Manners, Associate Professor in Public Engagement at the University of West England, and Director of the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement presents his essay entitled “Public engagement, impact, and the 21st Century University: a guide for the bewildered”. In this essay he teases out the different meanings and motivations which underpin current trends relating to public engagement which are currently high on the agendas of university funders and policy makers, as well as across the wider cultural and public spheres.

I Say Aesthetic = Human Being

17

References Araeen, Rasheed et al (eds.), The Third Text Reader: on Art, Culture and Theory, (London & New York: Continuum, 2002). Arts and Business, The value of the Creative Industries & Culture, 2007/08, 70. Accessed 17th February 2014. Arts and Humanities Research Council, The AHRC Cultural Value Project (http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/Funded-Research/Funded-themes-and-program mes/Cultural-Value-Project/Documents/Cultural_Value_Project.pdf. Arts Council England, Achieving Great Art for Everyone: A Strategic Framework for the Arts, 2010. Arts Council England, Great Art and Culture for Everyone: 10-Year Strategic Framework 2010-2020, 2nd edition, revised 2013. Biesta, Gert, “Learning in Public Places: Civic Learning for the 21st Century” (Inaugural Lecture) accessed 3rd December 2013, http://www.ugent.be/pp/sociale-agogiek/nl/inaugural Biesta, Gert, Good Education in an Age of Measurement: Ethics, Politics, Democracy (Interventions: Education, Philosophy, and Culture) (Boulder, Colorado: Paradigm Publishers, 2010). Bourriaud, Nicolas, Relational Aesthetics (Paris: Les Presses du Réel, 2002). Concordat for Engaging the Public with Research, Research Councils UK. Cultural Trends, Vol. 18, No. 2 (June 2009). Dandridge, Nicola, Chief Executive of Universities UK, speaking at The Cultural Knowledge Ecology - Universities, Arts and Cultural Partnerships - a one-day conference, 5th February 2014, Liverpool John Moores University. European Parliamentary Research Service, 17th April 2013. Guardian Professional (2nd July 2013) http://careers.theguardian.com/unemployment-in-europe-careersadvice. Hewison, Robert and Holden, John, The Cultural Leadership Handbook: How to Run a Creative Organization (Surrey: Gower, 2011). Horizon 2020: The EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/what-horizon-2020. Knowledge Exchange and Impact, Research Councils UK, http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/kei/Pages/home.aspx. Kuoni, C., (ed.), Energy Plan for the Western man - Joseph Beuys in America, (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 1993).

18

Introduction to Part One

Leonardo, Vol. 41, No. 4 (August 2008). Matarasso, François, USE OR ORNAMENT?, The social impact of participation in the arts (Comedia, 1997). Matzner, Florian (ed.), Public Art: A Reader, ed. (Germany: Hantje Cantz Publishers, 2004). McAra, Catriona and Powell, Anna (eds.), radar, Vol. 4 (Huddersfield: University of Huddersfield Press, 2014) . Mulgan, Geoff and Leadbetter, Charlie, Systems Innovation: Discussion Paper (Nesta, January 2013). Myerscough, John, The economic importance of the arts in Britain (University of California: Policy Studies Institute, 1988). REF2014, Decisions On Assessing Research Impact, March 2011. The Economy of Culture in Europe, Study prepared for the European Commission (Directorate-General for Education and Culture), 65, 2013. Tisdall, Caroline, Joseph Beuys: Coyote (London: Thames and Hudson, 2008). Ulmer, Gregory L., Electronic Monuments (University of Minnesota Press: 2005). Upham, Sumitra, Associate Curator, Education, Institute of Contemporary Arts, London, by email, January 2013. http://stemtosteam.org/.

CHAPTER ONE CREATING #HAVOC: A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO VALUING OUR CULTURE CLAIRE DONOVAN

A central theme of the symposium Public Engagement and Impact: Articulating Value in Art and Design was the question of how the cultural sector might most effectively respond to increased bureaucratic pressure to supply evidence of the value of culture. This essay proposes a holistic solution, based on the findings of a research project which directly engaged with the cultural sector’s views on the idea of measuring cultural value.1 The project was Phase Two of an initiative funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), and its end product was a report to the DCMS, A Holistic Approach to Valuing Our Culture.2 This essay provides a summary of the findings of the Phase One report, which recommended that the cultural sector should embrace the use of a

1

The essay is based on research conducted during a Public Service Placement Fellowship “Measuring Cultural Value (Phase 2)” funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), grant reference ES/J008265/1. The views and opinions expressed in the essay do not necessarily reflect the official views of the AHRC, ESRC or DCMS. An earlier version, “Is there a third way? Going beyond instrumentalism versus intrinsic value”, was presented at a St. George’s House Consultation (in partnership with the Institute of Ideas) on The Value of Culture and the Crisis of Judgement, Windsor Castle, 11-12 December 2012. 2 The report’s original title was A Holistic Approach to Valuing Culture but was modified when a Twitter user suggested adding the word Our as this not only captured the inclusive nature of the report’s recommendations but also produced the acronym HAVOC (or #havoc).

20

Chapter One

specific range of economic valuation techniques.3 It also underlines some serious ideological and practical shortcomings with applying these measures: the most conspicuous being that the costs and expertise involved are beyond the means of most cultural sector organisations. It goes on to outline the Phase Two work that sought to test the principle of adopting an additional range of alternative approaches (quantitative, qualitative and narrative), which were accessible to the whole cultural sector. The essay then offers a brief account of the cultural value debate, which concerns long-running conceptual wrangling over the instrumental or economic value of culture versus its intrinsic or “spiritual” value. It explains how, by finding unanimous cultural sector approval for a holistic approach to valuing culture, the Phase Two project was able to transcend this divide. It maintains that a holistic approach to measuring cultural value can capture the value that is unique to the cultural sector; can be applied to the full range and scale of cultural sector organisations including economic and non-economic data; and can be used to inform funding decisions at local, regional and national levels. Finally, it concludes that the time is right for the cultural sector to press for funding agencies and government to adopt a more meaningful, inclusive, and holistic approach valuing our culture.

Measure for Measure4 The Phase One report Measuring the Value of Culture argued that, …the cultural sector will need to use the tools and concepts of economics to fully state their benefits in the prevailing language of policy appraisal and evaluation.5

3

Dave O’Brien, Measuring the value of culture: a report to the Department for Culture Media and Sport (Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 15th December 2010). 4 The symposium talk upon which the essay is based was accompanied by images projected onto a cinema screen. The first was a picture of the back of a £20 note (which depicts the balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet with a pensive-looking Shakespeare in the foreground) to symbolise the intrinsic/economic divide present in the cultural value debate. Each section of the talk was accompanied by images representing titles of well-known Shakespeare plays, including products and artefacts such as CD covers, book covers, and a variety of posters for films, stage plays, festivals, and Shakespeare in the park. The essay uses the play titles for its subheadings. The animation used at the symposium can be found online at http://bit.ly/1a9vzvD.

Creating #havoc: A Holistic Approach to Valuing Our Culture

21

It recommended the adoption of a specific set of economic valuation techniques to provide a monetary value for the relative benefits of culture. In essence, this pragmatic act was seen as an essential step to secure greater public funding. The following provides a flavour of the preferred types of measure, or stated preference techniques that construct hypothetical markets and elicit people’s maximum willingness to pay for cultural goods or services; and revealed preference techniques that infer people’s willingness to pay for a cultural good by observing actual behaviour in consuming the good itself (for example the cost of tickets and travel) or in related markets (for example the differential cost of rental or housing prices in areas closer to cultural amenities). Besides grating against the general ethos of the cultural sector by presenting the value of culture in purely monetary terms, a fundamental flaw was that applying these techniques takes a great deal of time, money and expertise, and so extends beyond the reach of most cultural sector organisations. The Phase Two report accepted that economic valuation techniques might be appropriate for large enterprises and for aiding decision-making about the potential impact of national cultural policies, but also sought to test the principle of adopting an additional range of alternative methods to measure cultural value that were accessible for the whole of the cultural sector. The Phase Two work therefore sought to test, with the help of cultural sector representatives, a range of quantitative, qualitative, and narrative approaches to “measuring” cultural value. There were two stakeholder workshops, the first of which addressed lists of possible economic and alternative techniques, measure for measure, to decide which held the most promise for capturing the value unique to the cultural sector.

The Tempest The long-running cultural value debate comprises opposing views about how data collection relates to the subjective experience of culture. On the one hand, it is felt that public funding supports cultural value in the form of instrumental value (for example social and economic benefits), institutional value (public benefits created by institutions), and intrinsic value (subjective, intellectual, emotional, spiritual).6 However, governments 5

O’Brien 2010, 4. See Robert Hewison and John Holden, Challenge and Change: HLF and Cultural Value—A Report to the Heritage Lottery Fund (London: DEMOS, 2004), 6

22

Chapter One

are perceived only to have an interest in instrumental value and its social and economic impact. In this respect, not only does data collection overlook the concept of intrinsic value, but it employs methods completely incapable of grasping the essence of the subjective experience of culture.7 On the other hand, it is argued that the basis of modern microeconomics is the analysis of subjective preferences. It follows that economic valuation techniques, when applied to the cultural sector, necessarily capture intrinsic values because these underpin people’s preferences, which are, in turn, revealed through people’s market behaviour or expressed through people’s hypothetical willingness to pay for cultural goods or services.8 Indeed, it is argued that a “reluctance to use economic methods has hindered rather than helped the case for the arts”.9 My personal involvement in the Phase Two work began due to my previous experience in chairing a government committee in Australia, where I was tasked with recommending to the Chief Scientist the optimum method for assessing the wider social, economic, environmental and cultural impact of publicly funded university research.10 I found that there were many similarities between this experience and the cultural value debate, although in the case of assessing research impact, international best practice had moved beyond reliance upon economic measures. It embraced a range of quantitative and qualitative metrics to support narrative accounts of the benefits of research for wider society. In the UK I attended two cultural value events before beginning the Phase Two work and found entrenched positions and encountered something of a storm about the use of economic valuation techniques. I characterised the two camps as the Cynics who, following Oscar Wilde: “[…] know the price of everything and the value of nothing,” and the Sentimentalists who, “[…][see] an absurd value in everything, and [don’t] know the market price of any single thing.”11 and John Holden, Cultural Value and the Crisis of Legitimacy: Why Culture Needs a Democratic Mandate (London: DEMOS, 2006), 14. 7 Holden 2006, 32, 48. 8 Hasan Bakhshi, Alan Freeman, and Graham Hitchen, Measuring Intrinsic Value: How to Stop Worrying and Love Economics (London: Missions, Models, Money, 2009), 10. 9 Bakhshi et al., 2009, 2-3. 10 Claire Donovan, “The Australian Research Quality Framework: A Live Experiment in Capturing the Social, Economic, Environmental, and Cultural Returns of Publicly Funded Research” in New Directions for Evaluation, Vol. 118, ed. by Chris L.S. Coryn and Michael Scriven (Wiley Periodicals ,2008), 47- 60. 11 Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere’s Fan, (1917 [1893] Act III).

Creating #havoc: A Holistic Approach to Valuing Our Culture

23

From my point of view, the cultural value debate was lagging behind the impact debate, and was dominated by the tyranny of The Green Book12 in the form of an implicit requirement on behalf of the Cynics to use economic measures that The Treasury would find acceptable. The Phase Two work, therefore, sought to propose a Cynical-Sentimental; or holistic solution.

Much Ado About Nothing The Phase Two project included two one-day workshops that sought to engage with a representative group of cultural sector organisations and experts in evaluation, including Arts Council England, DCMS, English Heritage, HM Treasury, and also covering London and the regions, largeand small-scale cultural enterprises, the third sector, consultancy and academia. Participants were drawn from the visual and performing arts, heritage, galleries, museums and libraries, and their interests covered cultural economics, social return on investment frameworks, and questionnaire or narrative-based approaches. Different philosophies of assessing cultural value were also represented, ranging from the ideas of cultural economists to advocates of anthropological approaches, to constructions of narrative accounts of cultural value. The first workshop narrowed down a range of promising “measures” of cultural value to test, then decided on a range of features to be included in case study simulations that would be road-tested in the second workshop. The anticipated tempest actually proved to be a storm in a teacup. The polarisation I had expected to encounter between workshop participants was not evident: there was unanimous support for a holistic approach that could draw on economic, non-monetary quantitative, qualitative and narrative techniques, either in isolation or combination. There was no opposition to the use of any particular type of technique as long as this was applied to match the appropriate context, and other measures were not excluded. For example, it was strongly felt that approaches to valuing culture should be proportionate according to the scale of investment, so that while it may be suitable to use economic valuation techniques for large-scale enterprises, these were disproportionately expensive for smaller-scale projects where alternative techniques were more fitting. It was also agreed that non-economic techniques (including narrative 12

HM Treasury, The Green Book, Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government (London: TSO, 2011). See https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/220 541/green_book_complete.pdf.

24

Chapter One

approaches) could provide evidence of “added cultural value” – in addition to economic data – to enhance large competitive funding bids. This sector-wide support for the principle of a holistic approach to valuing our culture, that was not “one size fits all”, that was sensitive to a variety of scales of investment, and that balanced the need for transparent decision-making with a broad vision of the unique value that the cultural sector created, transcended the polarisation of the cultural value debate.

A Comedy of Errors We have seen that the Phase One and Phase Two projects were both set against the backdrop of, and were in different ways reactions to, the cultural value debate. The Phase One report clearly fell on the side of the Cynics and was in line with DCMS policy. In that respect, the Phase Two project presented a challenge for DCMS in that its Cynical-Sentimental findings did not simply endorse the Cynical direction of thinking but, rather, sought to extend it. An additional element of the Phase Two research was desk-based work to inform guidance to the sector on applying the economic valuation techniques recommended by Phase One. Yet after an extensive review of the literature and of government guidance documents, this part of the Phase Two research also found that reliance on economic valuation techniques alone was insufficient and unrealistic in practice.13 In part, this was due to the lack of an adequate foundation of relevant economic valuation studies – an absence previously noted by Bakhshi, that the time, expertise, and expense required was beyond the reach of the majority of cultural sector organisations.14 In that respect, the theory of the DCMS policy at that time simply did not fit the practical requirements of the majority of the cultural sector.

As You Like It The key finding of the consultative part of the Phase Two project was unanimous support for the principle of adopting a holistic approach to valuing our culture. It was seen to be responsive to the needs of the full range and scale of cultural sector organisations, and, set within an appropriate overarching valuation framework, could be used to inform 13

Claire Donovan, A Holistic Approach to Valuing Our Culture: A Report to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2013), 16-17. 14 Bakhshi, 2012, 2.

Creating #havoc: A Holistic Approach to Valuing Our Culture

25

funding decisions at local, regional and national levels. It could capture value that was unique to the cultural sector, and while any wider instrumental benefits were desirable, these were viewed as a spill-over of the cultural intervention and its intrinsic value. In this light, the starting point of any valuation should begin with the unique value that the cultural sector offers, and should address cultural and artistic practice, as well as including assessments of the value and quality of the art form or cultural practice in question. Another recognised benefit was that “value” could be addressed in terms of the viewpoints of various parties, rather than imposing one vision on the cultural sector in the form of economic value. In this respect, organisations could start from what it is they value, and seek to represent this, and valuations could go on to include instrumental, organisational, or “economic” measures if required. Finally, there was repeated support for the idea that both economic and non-economic approaches to valuing culture are valid depending on context, especially when the cost and the effort required is relative to the size of funds requested. In terms of Green Book compliance, the Cynical-Sentimental approach resonated with workshop representatives from the Treasury who supported the idea of using robust non-economic data to inform decision-making when economic data could not be provided. For example, an overarching decision-making framework (multi-criteria analysis) has been used within government to bring together economic and non-economic evidence to inform funding decisions concerning aesthetic aspects of transport and environmental policy.

Love’s Labour Lost Despite a highly collaborative project ethos, the findings of the Phase Two work were perceived to run counter to, rather than building on, the Phase One report and DCMS policy. The original report and recommendations were heavily criticised, and publication seemed unlikely. However, a change in the policy climate occurred, perhaps prompted by the launch of the Arts and Humanities Research Council’s (AHRC) Cultural Value Project15 which was underpinned by a similar Cynical-Sentimental philosophy and shared comparable goals. The view was then taken within DCMS that the holistic approach was, in fact, compliant with Green Book requirements, and a heavily revised final 15 See http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/Funded-Research/Funded-themes-and-programmes/ Cultural-Value-Project/Pages/default.aspx.

26

Chapter One

report (minus the critique of various economic valuation techniques) was successfully published.

All’s Well That Ends Well The key messages from the Phase Two research regarding the very idea of measuring cultural value are that: (i) what are often presented as measures of cultural value do not actually measure cultural value; (ii) economic valuation techniques (such as stated preference techniques and revealed preference techniques) are only relevant to a few large cultural enterprises; (iii) there can be no standard (economic) definition of cultural value – and this would not be desirable anyway; (iv) “measuring cultural value” is the wrong term as this presupposes quantification, and so the terms “assessing cultural value” or “capturing cultural value” are more appropriate when discussing a holistic approach; (v) narratives are a powerful way to capture the value of culture, and are even more powerful when supported by robust quantitative or qualitative evidence. The Phase Two project tested and found unanimous support for the concept of a holistic approach to valuing our culture, but it is essential to develop this further and offer guidance to cultural sector organisations on what methods of capturing cultural value can be used, and how they can go about doing this. The AHRC’s £2 million Cultural Value Project seems perfectly timed in this respect, in that there are numerous organisations and individuals with expertise in different evaluation methods, and who are willing to engage with, and develop, a holistic approach to valuing our culture.

Creating #havoc: A Holistic Approach to Valuing Our Culture

27

References Bakhshi, Hasan, Alan Freeman, and Graham Hitchen. Measuring Intrinsic Value: How to Stop Worrying and Love Economics. London: Missions, Models, Money, 2009. Bakhshi, Hasan, “Measuring Cultural Value.” Keynote speech presented at the Culture Count: Measuring Cultural Value Forum, Customs House, Sydney, Australia, March 2012. Donovan, Claire, A Holistic Approach to Valuing Our Culture: A Report to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2013. Donovan, Claire, “The Australian Research Quality Framework: A Live Experiment in Capturing the Social, Economic, Environmental, and Cultural Returns of Publicly Funded Research.” New Directions for Evaluation 118, 2008. Hewison, Robert, and John Holden, Challenge and Change: HLF and Cultural Value—A Report to the Heritage Lottery Fund. London: DEMOS, 2004. Holden, John, Cultural Value and the Crisis of Legitimacy: Why Culture Needs a Democratic Mandate. London: DEMOS, 2006. O’Brien, David, Measuring the Value of Culture: A Report to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2010. Wilde, Oscar, Lady Windermere’s Fan: A Play About a Good Woman. London: Methuen, 1917 [1893].

CHAPTER TWO THE RENAISSANCE OF UNIVERSITY GALLERIES? SARAH SHALGOSKY AND STEPHANIE JAMES

Earlier this year, it was said of culture in Britain that we are living in a ‘golden age’. It is certainly a time of phenomenal creativity but I think that that the true golden age could be ahead of us. The society we now live in, in Britain, is arguably the most exciting there has ever been. The experience that it encompasses could produce the greatest art yet created. This will have an impact around the world. We could be on the verge of another Renaissance. —Brian McMaster, 2008.1

In late 2007 Brian McMaster could not anticipate that the developing global financial crisis would usher in an age of austerity for the arts rather than his vision of a “true golden age” with its worldwide impact. Cuts in funding have affected gallery programmes and the commissioning of new work, public access, acquisitions and staffing.2 However, between 2008 and 2013, the same period covered by the Research Excellence Framework (REF), there does appear to have been a Renaissance of sorts after all. An influx of new galleries has occurred across UK university campuses. For example: the Hannah Maclure Centre, University of Abertay, Dundee; Ruskin Gallery, Anglia Ruskin University Cambridge; 1

McMaster, B., McMaster Review: Supporting excellence in the arts - from measurement to judgement (London: TSO, 2008). 2 In March 2013, a spokeswoman for the National Museum Directors Council noted that national museums had received a total cut of nearly 20% since the 2010 spending review. The Museums Association survey, The Impact of Cuts on UK Museums, of 2012 noted that 51% of respondents reported a cut to their budgets and almost a quarter had been forced to reduce public access by closing whole sites or parts of sites permanently or temporarily. Of the respondents that experienced cuts in 2011 and 2012, over a third saw a cumulative reduction of more than 35%.

30

Chapter Two

Gallery North, University of Northumbria; SIA Gallery, Sheffield Hallam University; TheGallery, Arts University Bournemouth; Waterfront Gallery, University Campus Suffolk; Solent Showcase, Solent University, Southampton; Lethaby Gallery, Central St Martins; Lanchester Gallery, Coventry University, while others such as the Stanley and Audrey Burton Gallery at Leeds University have been refurbished. Further new gallery buildings are planned for institutions such as Glasgow School of Art; Edinburgh School of Art; Goldsmiths College of Art and the John Hansard Gallery at the University of Southampton. New programmes and initiatives have been developed that include Bath Spa University working in partnership with the Holburne Museum; the development of Eastside Projects by Birmingham City University; the development of the RADAR programme at Loughborough University; a partnership between University of Hertfordshire (UH) Galleries and St Albans Museum and Gallery and the location of the University of Dundee's Visual Research Centre in Dundee Contemporary Arts while major cultural institutions like the Ashmolean Museum Oxford, the Hunterian Gallery at Edinburgh University and the Whitworth Art Gallery at the University of Manchester have received significant investment to update their facilities. The rapid expansion of the university gallery sector in the period since the last Research Assessment Exercise (RAE, 2008) suggests that despite the cold climate affecting most arts organisations, universities see the deployment of resources into galleries as a good investment, and arguably, these galleries may help to develop stakeholder support and enhance the appearance of the university to the benefit of student recruitment.3 Inevitably, the majority of the investment has been by universities which already offer art and design undergraduate and postgraduate courses. However, this concentrated development of an expanding group of exhibition-focused galleries in close association with courses relating to art production suggests that a research element also underpins their development. For example, a recent exhibition entitled Making Knowledge, at the new Lethaby Gallery at Central St Martins (CSM) introduced the research pathways of nine CSM research staff. The ideas raised by the research were developed through a series of lectures and round-table 3

The majority of existing nineteenth and twentieth century university galleries – which arguably have a more overtly public facing and philanthropic museum function – are already recognised by the primary network for the sector, the University Museums Group. The UMG promotes the role of university museums, galleries and collections in research and HE teaching and the importance of their contribution to widening participation and public engagement. See http://universitymuseumsgroup.wordpress.com/about/.

The Renaissance of University Galleries?

31

discussions staged in the Gallery. Central to the ethos of the new gallery, it seems, is the role of the exhibition in generating knowledge and critical exchange, bringing together the academic community with experts and audiences from outside the institution. Outside higher education, cultural organisations receiving public subsidy are exhorted to focus on the economic impact of their activities. In her Testing Times speech of 24 April 2013, Maria Miller extolled the dividends that creativity brings to the country, in the shape of a buoyant visitor economy and the global marketing of “brand Britain.”4 The economic value of the arts, and in particular of gallery programmes, might be expressed in visitor numbers, ticket sales, turnover of retail and commercial activities. The Treasury's Green Book notes that “objectives, outcomes and outputs should be defined and quantified as precisely as possible” in order to assess the economic impact on local/regional economies.5 The quantitative data collated by the EIA (Economic Impact Assessments) measure “change” which, in turn, is translated as value for money; the additional spending of visitors attracted by the new investment or project over and above the spending of visitors who would have been attracted to the area without the investment or project. But what does this quantitative data tell us about the intrinsic value of exhibitions? Arguably, it is an indicator of other quantitative attributes such as the level of marketing budgets, the proximity of the venue to major transport hubs, the relevance of the exhibition to the national curriculum, and the public profile of the artists involved. The transformative significance and impact of an exhibition programme, however, is not elicited from such data. More pertinent to the university gallery sector are the quantitative and qualitative metrics that measure culture and knowledge economies. The practice of exhibition-making is surrounded by broad-ranging critical discourses, not only through press reviews, but via essays in exhibition catalogues, in specialist academic and journalistic arts and culture magazines such as Aesthetica, Artforum and Art Monthly, as well as in the growing field of online blogs and discussion forums. Arguably, these reviews and essays can accrue to provide a critical discourse that 4 Maria Miller, “Testing times: Fighting culture’s corner in an age of austerity”, 24th April 2013, see https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/testing-timesfighting-cultures-corner-in-an-age-of-austerity. 5 HM Treasury, The Green Book, Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government (London: TSO, 2011). See https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/220 541/green_book_complete.pdf.

Chapter Two

32

utilises quantitative and qualitative data sets, which, over a period of time, could contribute to a longitudinal measure of an exhibition or programme’s impact. One example of this in practice is EAST International. EAST International features in the early biographical information of many artists who have now achieved a considerable international reputation, including artists such as Hurvin Anderson, Zarina Bhimji, Luke Fowler, Laure Prouvost, Veronica Ryan and George Shaw. Based at Norwich School of Art, EAST International has helped to expand the boundaries of the London centred art world, and turned the Norwich Gallery into a recognised international hub for contemporary art, a phenomenon described by its curator Lynda Morris in her text The International Provincial (or Why Every Art School Needs a Dealer).6 As a sector, university galleries have the potential to contribute to cultural leadership in the arts, both regionally and nationally. Within their own institutions, however, their terms of reference and agendas are often complex and can stand in the way of progress in this area. In 2009 twentyseven members of the Council for Higher Education in Art and Design (CHEAD) formed a network to co-share ideas and best practice on programming and managing a university gallery. In 2011 the network was funded by the Leadership Foundation to research the effectiveness of the “Art School” gallery and to evaluate the impact on the learning environment. This research focused on what the gallery means within the context of art and design education, and the gallery’s potential to support innovative approaches to pedagogy and research. The research focused upon twenty galleries across the UK, and the project highlighted that the art school gallery continues to make a vibrant contribution to the portfolio of the parent HEI, albeit one that manifests itself in a multitude of forms. In general, university galleries are perceived and valued differently within their parent institutions however; some are programmed within the management structures of marketing and communications departments and are engaged in externalising the institution, while others are more aligned to research and pedagogy, and are located in academic departments. Some derive from a historic strategic imperative, particularly those located in major cities, while others are new ventures with nascent objectives. It is notable that practically all of the new university galleries replicate the quintessential white cube exhibition space – a space that connotes curatorial authority and aesthetic currency. In these terms, they appear to .

6

Lynda Morris, “The International Provincial (Or Why Every Art School Needs a Dealer)”, paper delivered at Research and the Artist: Considering the Role of the Art School, a one-day symposium organised by The Laboratory at Ruskin School of Drawing and Fine Art, 28th May 1999.

The Renaissance of University Galleries?

33

add to the status of the institution and provide an environment in which creative research can be confidently exhibited. There is, however, little formal evidence that a university gallery is recognised as a research centre which initiates and drives research, generating partnerships, exhibitions, conferences and publications that move and change the way people think. One notable exception is the John Hansard Gallery at the University of Southampton, which through its Director, Stephen Foster, conceives the gallery programme as a research venture with the coherence and discipline that this entails. The programme explores the legacy of conceptual art. It shows work from the 1960s and 1970s by conceptual artists for whom the making of objects either was secondary, non-existent or relational to a particular audience. Many of these artists and their works are now shown posthumously, which means remaking or re-enacting their work in the context of historical evaluation and reinterpretation. The programme includes artists, such as, John Latham, Gina Pane, Charlotte Pozenenske, Andy Warhol and Robert Smithson. The gallery also commissions and acquires new work by living artists, often from a younger generation, to discover and articulate the influence of the original generation upon new conceptual artists. It is an exemplary model of managing the balance between academic research whilst contributing to new understandings of past and current contemporary art, as well as developing those artists’ careers which are regarded as significant to the art world sector. In 2008 four of these exhibitions were returned as academic research “outputs” to the RAE (the predecessor of the REF) and were assigned as world-leading research status.7 Historically the Arts Council and the creative arts university sector have worked alongside one another, but in recent years, following the central government Spending Review,8 there has been a national initiative to forge an even closer relationship. This has at times been met with scepticism, as public services shrink and university galleries find themselves the only source of cultural engagement in their town (and sometimes in their wider region). However, such initiatives do have some real benefits via the convergence resources, sharing of ideas, joint-funding and, above all, the provision of a “quality” experience for audiences and participants, and the Arts Council England’s plan 2011-15 includes 7

Roger Palmer, International Waters (2001); Gina Pane, Works: 1964 - 1990 (2001-02); Joan Jonas, Lines in the Sand/The Shape, the Scent, the Feel of Things (2004-05) and John Latham, Time Base and The Universe (2006). 8 The Chancellor presented the Government Spending Review on 20th October 2010, which fixes spending budgets for each Government department up to 201415.

34

Chapter Two

“Uniting the Cultural Sector”9 (see also the Arts Council England’s Great Art and Culture for Everyone: 10-Year Strategic Framework 2010-2020). The university gallery now finds itself at the nexus of different public funding bodies (Arts Council England, HEFCE, municipal and central government) concerned with public engagement, impact, research, innovation and knowledge exchange. The REF is a process of expert review of a substantial period of research activity.10 Expert review is the paramount measure of the significance of academic research; however it has yet to be fully implemented consistently across the university gallery sector. Normally, a review of programme and activities of each university gallery is incorporated into an annual university report providing, at best, a regional snapshot of the gallery’s activities rather than contributing to a sustained national evaluation. The process for measuring impact in the REF2014 and REF2019 is an opportunity and potential mechanism that might provide a national picture of the influence of the university gallery sector on the cultural landscape of Britain. We propose the process of measuring impact within the REF offers scope for the development of a network of peers to review curatorial outputs, and to take an expert longitudinal view of the significance of gallery programmes, both within and beyond academia, providing “professional evaluation of exhibitions, performances and other outputs”.11 The validation that this expert review imparts has the potential to increase the significance of the gallery exhibition programme. Equally, it is possible to conceive of future REF panels as a crosssector forum for providing mentoring and professional development within the visual arts. Whether connected through interest, proximity or context, this peer-review network could provide an opportunity for staff working in university galleries to interrogate ideas, share best practice and discuss issues requiring expert support. Furthermore, it would provide a focus for cultural leadership and advocacy, in itself contributing to the developing influence and impact of the sector. Since most universities reside outside of London, these galleries offer an extraordinary opportunity to provide a cultural leadership network across the UK and even extending further afield to link with overseas universities. Indeed, it is possible to envisage this as an international network – a true “International Provincial”.

9

DCMS, The Arts Council Plan 2011-15 (London: TSO, 2011), 5. See http://www.ref.ac.uk/ 11 HEFCE, REF2014: Panel Criteria and Working Methods (London: TSO, 2012), 148. 10

The Renaissance of University Galleries?

35

Although the new investment in many university galleries – especially those traditionally associated with art schools – may have its origins in the maximisation of the research environment and impact for the REF2014, forthcoming REF outcomes (due January 2015) and the subsequent REF2019 could help to review and refocus the wider gallery sector across the UK. We propose that the next step for the development of these art school galleries might be to seize the opportunity – as a distinctive, academic body – to become a rigorous peer-review network, providing cultural leadership across the UK, able to articulate and demonstrate the sector’s significance relative to the already accepted research excellence of STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) subjects. This will enable the sector to contribute a framework of longitudinal metrics to the selfassessment processes of galleries outside of the university sector. The distinctive expertise and creative thinking within university galleries needs to be shared and interrogated. It has been said that every art school needs a dealer, but we believe that what every art school gallery needs is “critical friends”; a strong, research- led network of peers to create a sustained and influential Renaissance.

36

Chapter Two

References DCMS, The Arts Council Plan 2011-15 (London: TSO, 2011), 5. HEFCE, REF2014: Panel Criteria and Working Methods (London: TSO, 2012). HM Treasury, The Green Book, Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government (London: TSO, 2011). McMaster, B., McMaster Review: Supporting excellence in the arts - from measurement to judgement (London: TSO, 2008). Miller, Maria, ‘Testing times: Fighting culture’s corner in an age of austerity’, 24th April 2013. Morris, Lynda, “The International Provincial (Or Why Every Art School Needs a Dealer)”, paper delivered at Research and the Artist: Considering the Role of the Art School, a one-day symposium organised by The Laboratory at Ruskin School of Drawing and Fine Art, 28th May 1999. http://www.ref.ac.uk/.

CHAPTER THREE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, IMPACT, ST AND THE 21 CENTURY UNIVERSITY: A GUIDE FOR THE BEWILDERED PAUL MANNERS

There is currently a lot of “noise” surrounding university public engagement. In this essay I will try to explain why the term has come to have so much prominence in debates about the present and future role of universities in society. I will explore how the term “public engagement” has provided a loose coherence to the variety of ways in which universities have sought to respond to different societal challenges in the ways they work. These could be described as “pressure points”; voices from outside (and sometimes inside) the sector which confront the purposes and practices of higher education. At the root of all of these challenges is the overriding contention that – true to the allegory of the “ivory tower” – universities are in danger of drifting away from what society needs and expects of them, with potentially dire consequences. These are not concerns limited to the arts and design – indeed, many related debates and policy interventions began in the sciences. Together, they provide the context in which the push and pull around public engagement can be most helpfully understood.

Eroding trust Tracing the origins of the term “public engagement” in Higher Education (HE) policy does initially take us into the world of science policy. The mid 2000s saw a series of scares about public attitudes to cutting edge scientific research, perhaps most vividly seen in the debates about “Frankenstein Foods”; the powerful public backlash against research into Genetically Modified foods. Up until that point, the dominant framing device for the relationship between scientists and the public had been via

38

Chapter Three

“Public Understanding”: a movement, triggered back in the 1980s by the work of bodies like COPUS (The Committee on the Public Understanding of Science), which was established in 1986 to reinterpret and communicate scientific advances in order to make them accessible to non-scientists. What the GM debate brought home, forcefully, to the science community and its funders, was that the intense social and ethical sensitivity that existed around science could not be accommodated simply by explaining the science and attempting to justify it. The public expected to be engaged in a debate exploring the frontiers of science policy. If scientists and policy makers had not opened up the conversation, and brought social intelligence into the policy making process, then a series of similar breakdowns of trust would have been likely. Several things happened as a result. The Royal Society commissioned an influential survey to try to identify the cultural and professional barriers existing within the science community which were inhibiting effective communication and engagement with the public.1 In tandem, efforts were made to engineer a shift from “public understanding” to “public engagement” in science policy, most notably through the Government establishing the Sciencewise project. Still existing, and now the Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre, this initiative sought to introduce sophisticated methods to engage proactively with members of the public to explore the social sensitivities around emerging areas of science policy and, moreover, to ensure that this feedback was used to influence policy.2 In parallel, the Science Media Centre was established in attempts to address the parallel challenge of nurturing well-informed reporting of science in the press and media.3 Acting as a broker between the two communities of scientists and journalists, the Centre encouraged greater mutual understanding and interaction to ensure media discourse more accurately reflected the subtleties of science, and that scientists were more skilled in working with the media. While Sciencewise addressed the mechanics of policy making, by introducing into it new methods of engagement and public dialogue, the Royal Society survey teased out those cultural and professional norms which shaped the ways in which scientists approached their relationship with the public. It revealed some stark conclusions, and significant barriers were identified in the survey:

1

Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers (Royal Society, 2006). 2 http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/. 3 http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/.

Public Engagement, Impact, and the 21st Century University

• • • • •

•

39

64% of those polled said the need to spend more time on research was stopping them getting more engaged (the top response); 29% said that time taken away from research was the main drawback for engaging with the public; 20% agreed that scientists who engage are less well regarded by other scientists; 3% cited peer pressure as a barrier. The research assessment exercise was cited as a key driver influencing the academic community in the UK and as having a negative influence on science communication and, more broadly, all non-research activities, such as teaching. Science communication was viewed as ‘altruistic’ and not a central part of academic life.

All in all, a toxic climate for engagement to flourish: •

Public engagement activity was seen by peers as bad for Careers […] public engagement was done by those who were “not good enough” for an academic career; and public engagement was seen as “light” or “fluffy”, and risked reinforcing negative stereotypes for women involved in such activity.

The quest for relevance In parallel with the pressures building around the public’s trust in science, universities also risked the charge of irrelevance. Crudely put, to the public it appeared that the ivory tower not only harboured scientists working secretively on potentially toxic and ethically unacceptable research, it also gave a home to academics pursuing (at best) trivial or (at worst) useless, self-indulgent enquiry. Pressures mounted on two fronts: to ensure that university research was better aligned with societal need, and that the curriculum better prepared students for the world of work, and was responsive to the calls from employers for “work-ready” graduates. These were not new challenges, but they led, from the 1980s, to a series of policy interventions around, in particular, “knowledge transfer” and “employability”. As with the challenges around trust, these debates revealed deep cultural ambivalence within the higher education community. On the one hand, there was a powerful resistance to the imposition of a utilitarian philosophy which reduced higher education to a “pipeline” of knowledge and skills to be pumped into society. On the other, there was a passionate defence of the value of both “curiosity-

40

Chapter Three

driven” research, and a liberal education to better meet society’s needs, and deliver on the true promise and potential of higher education and research.

The university in the community A third pressure point lay in the relationship between the university and the community. A convincing argument has been made that university funding and policy regimes since the 1950s have encouraged research intensive universities in particular to detach themselves from their local communities in pursuit of global influence and reach.4 Throughout the 2000s, debates were triggered about the role of the university in support of its local communities, especially in times of economic stress – leading to the resurgence of notions of the “civic” role of the university.5 “Studentification” became a hot topic; a potentially harmful invasion of cities by large concentrations of students, whose anti-social behaviour fostered resentment in local communities. At the same time, universities were seen to be reinforcing inequality by rewarding students from privileged backgrounds, leading to a range of investments to “widen participation” and enhance social mobility. Research funders were particularly exercised by the risk that young people were being discouraged from pursuing careers in research, resulting in a diminishing talent pool. This led to various interventions which aimed to widen the appeal of research careers to young people.

Accountability The final pressure point centres on accountability: if universities were to continue to receive billions of pounds of public money, what checks could be put in place to hold them to account for how that money was being spent? This pressure was mirrored, of course, in other sectors, particularly the public sector, where fierce pressure began to be exerted on the recipients of such funding, and new “strings” attached. For instance, Arts Council policy goals have repeatedly underlined the importance of greater public engagement and collaboration, partly with a 4

See for instance John Goddard’s exaugural lecture ‘The role of the university in the development of its city and region’ (2008). http://www.ncl.ac.uk/curds/assets/documents/roleoftheuniversity.pdf 5 See for instance Newcastle University’s Strategy to 2020 which framed its role as “a world class civic university, playing a leading role in the economic, social and cultural development of the North East of England”.

Public Engagement, Impact, and the 21st Century University

41

view to attracting and inspiring new audiences and ensuring the arts are “sustainable, resilient and innovative”.6 And a very particular stress has been placed on how they might account for the value produced through investment. For instance, an AHRC/ESRC report to the DCMS argued that due to the “cooler climate” facing cultural and arts organisations, central government and parts of the publically funded cultural sector needed to “more clearly articulate the value of culture using methods which fit in with central government’s decision-making strategies.”7 These pressures made their way into the higher education system under the banner of the so-called “impact agenda”, which is explored later in the essay. Together these battle lines replicated a wider set of shifts in public attitudes to the public and private institutions and businesses, which included: x An increasing lack of deference for authority and self-professed experts (witness the radical shift in public attitudes towards politicians); x A much greater expectation of openness and transparency (fuelled by the profound distrust of the financial sector, triggered by the economic crash); x Intense public interest in the ways in which public institutions spend public money (for instance, the BBC’s attempts to defend the licence fee).

The rise of public engagement All of the above provides the political and cultural context within which calls for greater public engagement in higher education can begin to be understood. These increasingly intense pressures have led to a series of policy interventions which are beginning to re-shape the landscape of higher education. The profound shocks around public trust in science led to a number of interventions through the 2000s. Following the Royal Society report, the main UK research funders came together to invest in a four year project to address the cultural barriers to engagement within university research 6

Achieving Great Art for Everyone, A Strategic Framework for the Arts, Arts Council England, November 2010. 7 Dave O’Brien, Measuring the Value of Culture: A Report to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2010).

42

Chapter Three

communities. The Beacons for Public Engagement8 – of which the NCCPE9 is a part – was established in 2008, incorporating the following mission statement: This initiative aims to create a culture within UK Higher Education where public engagement is formalised and embedded as a valued and recognised activity for staff at all levels, and for students.10

The initiative included six pilot projects which were funded for a four year period, in an attempt to galvanise lasting cultural change. In parallel, and led by RCUK, research funders created a Concordat for Engaging the Public with Research, which spelt out four expectations:11 x UK research organisations have a strategic commitment to public engagement; x Researchers are recognised and valued for their involvement with public engagement activities; x Researchers are enabled to participate in public engagement activities through appropriate training, support and opportunities; x The signatories and supporters will undertake regular reviews of their and the wider research sector’s progress in fostering public engagement across the UK. As well as focussing attention on the leadership and management of universities and research departments, there has also been close attention paid to what this shifting social context for research means for the skill and attributes of researchers themselves. The Research Councils triggered an extensive consultation on researcher skills which resulted in the launch of a new Researcher Development Framework in 2011.12 This framework articulated four domains in which researcher proficiency was expected. As well as, perhaps, the more obvious areas of “Knowledge and Intellectual Abilities”, “Research Governance and Organisation”, and “Personal Effectiveness”, a fourth domain was introduced: “Engagement, Influence and Impact”. This domain emphasised skills in engagement and 8

http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/about/beacons. National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement 10 See https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Community%20 Partner%20Summit%20Sophie.pdf. 11 http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/per/Pages/Concordat.aspx. 12 http://www.vitae.ac.uk/researchers/429351/Introducing-the-Researcher-Develop ment-Framework.html. 9

Public Engagement, Impact, and the 21st Century University

43

collaboration; “the knowledge and skills to work with others and ensure the wider impact of research”.13

Impact The final policy intervention was the so-called ‘impact agenda’ resulting in a new set of incentives and accountability measures for research funding, which explicitly incentivised research that delivered impact “beyond academia”. The origins of “impact” in this context can be traced back to the mid-2000s and the Warry Report, through a complex consultation process and significant “battle” with the sector (at one point a petition of over 18,000 signatories was delivered to Downing Street, calling for the abandonment of the plans).14 All Research Council grants currently expect applicants to complete a “pathways to impact statement”, claiming: RCUK do not expect applicants to be able to predict the impact of their research. The purpose of Pathways to Impact is to encourage applicants to explore, from the outset, who could potentially benefit from their work in the longer term, and consider what could be done to increase the chances of their research reaching those beneficiaries.15

In parallel, the new Research Excellence Framework (REF), which retrospectively assess the quality of research unit’s work has, for the first time, introduced a percentage of the overall profile to be awarded on the basis of case studies which articulate how particular research outputs have created impact “beyond academia”. Underpinning both schemes are similar typologies which provide prompts to explain the types of impact which might be expected. For the Arts and Humanities, the REF guidance provides what is, arguably, a rich palate of such prompts.16 For instance, researchers are invited to evidence how their research has enriched “Culture and Society” in the following domains: x Civil society: Influencing the form and content of associations between people or groups to illuminate and challenge cultural values and social assumptions;

13

http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/per/Pages/Concordat.aspx. http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/Publications/archive/Pages/TheWarryReport.aspx. 15 See http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/ke/impacts/expectationpolicies/. 16 HEFCE, REF2014: Panel Criteria and Working Methods (London: TSO, 2012). 14

44

Chapter Three

x Public discourse: Extending the range and improving the quality of evidence, argument and expression to enhance public understanding of the major issues and challenges faced by individuals and society; x Cultural life: Creating and interpreting cultural capital in all of its forms to enrich and expand the lives, imaginations and sensibilities of individuals and groups. Possible indicators that might be used to evidence “impact” in such domains are also offered, including specific guidance about accounting for the impact of public engagement. These indicators might include: x Descriptions of the social, cultural or other significance of the research insights with which the public have engaged; x Evaluation data; x User feedback or testimony. Critical external reviews of the engagement activity; x Evidence of third party involvement, for example how collaborators have modified their practices, contributions (financial or in-kind) by third parties to enhance services or support for the public, or evidence of funds from third parties to enhance or extend the engagement activity; x Evidence of sustainability through, for example, a sustained or ongoing engagement with a group, a significant increase in participation in events or programmes, continuing sales, downloads, or use of resources.

Re-framing engagement At this point, it seems appropriate to step back and take stock: All of the above provides a rational and hopefully reasonably coherent account of why and how engagement has entered into the discourse of HE policy and practice. But the account is vulnerable to a number of challenges: x It is a post-hoc rationalisation; x It skates over the profound unease with which many of these interventions have been received by the sector; x It reproduces a potentially soul-destroying instrumentalism in framing engagement as (at best) a defence mechanism to slow down “social drift” and buy longer term political and public support for higher education.

Public Engagement, Impact, and the 21st Century University

45

Indeed, reading the brave efforts by the REF panel in relation to the arts and humanities, it is hard to suppress the whispered voice of John Keats in the poem Lamia (1820): … Do not all charms fly At the mere touch of cold philosophy? Philosophy will clip an Angel’s wings, Conquer all mysteries by rule and line, Empty the haunted air, and gnomed mine – Unweave a rainbow.17

In my view, the pressures I have outlined – namely around trust, accountability, relevance and community – are hugely important centres of gravity, which we ignore at our peril. But rather than thinking about them defensively and reactively, prodded by what are relatively unsubtle policy levers, can we not think more imaginatively and creatively about how responding to this public interest in our work should animate – rather than constrain it? To this end, I’m drawn to reflect on the exceptional, creative practice that is already underway and has been for many years across higher education, perhaps particularly in the arts and design: the kind of “engaged practice” that seeks to find powerful ways to connect research and teaching with the imaginations and expertise of our many collaborators – students, lifelong learners and research partners. I am drawn to a metaphor that I favour above the rather mealy-mouthed and bureaucratic term “engagement”: I prefer “conversation”.

Conversation: creative and critical dialogue with society I wish to argue for the necessity of universities being in creative conversation with society. This would build value both for those of us who work in higher education – by animating it with insight, expertise and experience from “outside” – but also, in terms of inspiring, informing and enlightening those with whom we share our work. It is intriguing to explore the dynamics of how such conversations can be built. I want to close by sharing a recent piece of work we at the NCCPE have been involved in; a project whose aim was to help us to better understand university public engagement. Commissioned by AHRC, the working paper we produced was built upon an extensive literature review of research exploring the dynamics of engagement, and on conversations 17

John Keats, Lamia, 1820.

46

Chapter Three

with a range of people working actively in this space.18 We wanted to identify the key focal points for reflection upon, and critique of engagement practices, with a view to clarifying how, collectively, we could deepen our understanding and insight into these practices. The paper identified five broad and overlapping areas of enquiry which, I believe, provide a thrilling call to collective enquiry: How knowledge develops – this question is concerned with understanding the connection between researchers and publics in the creation of new knowledge, insights and ideas. Papers here often make the case for (or argue against) concepts such as the “knowledge” and “information” society, and interrogate examples of university/public/stakeholder interaction for their insights into mechanisms for producing knowledge and value. How people make meaning – this question is concerned with understanding communicative processes and learning, with interrogating how different groups and individuals interact; getting to grips with how such interactions are shaped by wider social contexts, whether patterns of culture and taste or institutional frames. Papers here are often concerned with questions of mediation and reception of expert knowledges, with learning processes, and with studying moments of encounter. How democracy works and publics are constituted – this question reflects those studies that are concerned, in particular, with understanding relations of power and the institutions, relationships and knowledges which might be understood as unsettling, or reproducing them. Studies in this area are often concerned with understanding how research can be held democratically accountable, and/or how research processes can be used to better equip citizens to produce public and democratic spaces. How change happens – this question addresses the dynamics and wider implications of encounters between researchers and publics, it is concerned with understanding the wider systemic effects of engagement. It often explicitly references different theories of change, and is beginning to draw in resources from fields such as complexity and systems theory. How knowledge-based institutions develop – this question is concerned with understanding how institutions such as universities, schools, museums and galleries are changing in the light of shifts in the relationship between researchers and “society”. It is often located in historical analyses, but also draws on geographical analyses to take account of changing local and global relationships. This broad question often speaks to the wider debate on the “future of the university” and is intimately concerned with ideas around changing identities for scholars 18 “Towards a Knowledge Base for University-Public Engagement” (NCCPE, 2013).

Public Engagement, Impact, and the 21st Century University

47

and researchers. These focal points – and some of the literature that underpins them – are represented in Figure 1.

Some concluding thoughts In this essay I have looked at university public engagement from two angles. From one side, I have sought to make explicit the logic underpinning a concerted series of policy interventions designed to nudge engagement closer to the core of university culture and practice, placing these in the context of similar pressures in other sectors. But I have also approached the challenge from another viewpoint, asking what theoretical resources and deeper analysis are needed in order to gain a real understanding of what is at stake, and to navigate towards success in this space, maximising the creative interaction between universities and wider society. To close, I wish to visit a definition of engagement which I think best captures the stimulating cut and thrust that a truly “engaged” conversation with society would entail. Drafted in 2002 by the Association of Commonwealth Universities, it describes engagement as follows:19 Engagement implies strenuous, thoughtful, argumentative interaction with the non-university world in at least four spheres: setting universities’ aims, purposes and priorities; relating teaching and learning to the wider world; the back-and-forth dialogue between researchers and practitioners; and taking on wider responsibilities as neighbours and citizens.20

19

Association of Commonwealth Universities, Engagement as a core value for universities: A consultation document (London: ACU, 2002). 20 Brenda M. Gourley, “Higher Education as a Source for Societal Change in the Twenty-First Century”, in Higher Education and Civic Engagement: Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Lorraine McIlrath, Ann Lyons and Ronaldo Munck (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 32.

48

Chapter Three

Figure 1: Paul Manners: clusters of questions and theoretical framings into researcher/community interactions

Public Engagement, Impact, and the 21st Century University

49

References Arts Council England, Achieving Great Art for Everyone: A Strategic Framework for the Arts, 2010. Association of Commonwealth Universities, Engagement as a core value for universities: A consultation document (London: ACU, 2002). Goddard, John, exaugural lecture “The role of the university in the development of its city and region” (2008). HEFCE, REF2014: Panel Criteria and Working Methods (London: TSO, 2012). John Keats, Lamia, 1820. McIlrath, Lorraine et al (eds.), Higher Education and Civic Engagement: Comparative Perspectives (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012). O’Brien, David, Measuring the Value of Culture: A Report to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2010. http://www.ncl.ac.uk/curds/assets/documents/roleoftheuniversity.pdf. http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/about/beacons. http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/ke/impacts/expectationpolicies/. http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/per/Pages/Concordat.aspx. http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/Publications/archive/Pages/TheWarryReport.aspx. http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/. http://www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk/. http://www.vitae.ac.uk/researchers/429351/Introducing-the-ResearcherDevelopment-Framework.html. https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Community%20Pa rtner%20Summit%20Sophie.pdf.

PART TWO: DIALOGUES PRESENT AND PAST

Figure 2: Image from the ICA Symposium, Public Engagement and Impact, Articulating Value in Art and Design, 2013. Placards showing event Twitter “hashtag” used for collecting at-event feedback.

Figure 3: Image from the ICA Symposium, Public Engagement and Impact, Articulating Value in Art and Design, 2013. Panel discussion. From left to right – Ailbhe MacNabola (Design Council), Rosa Scoble (Brunel University), Helen Phebey (Yorkshire Sculpture Park), Stephanie James (Arts University Bournemouth) and Sarah Shalgosky (curator, Mead Gallery, University of Warwick).

54

Part II

Figure 4: Image from the ICA Symposium, Public Engagement and Impact, Articulating Value in Art and Design, 2013. Panel discussion. From left to right Sarah Shalgosky (curator, Mead Gallery, University of Warwick), Paul Manners (Director NCCPE).

Figure 5: Image from the ICA Symposium, Public Engagement and Impact, Articulating Value in Art and Design, 2013. Plenary discussion, creating mindmaps around key words (“impact”, “public engagement”, “value”),

Dialogues Present and Past

55

Figure 6: Bob and Roberta Smith, performative presentation at the ICA symposium Public Engagement and Impact, Articulating Value in Art and Design.

Figure 7: Bob and Roberta Smith, sketch made during presentation at the ICA symposium Public Engagement and Impact, Articulating Value in Art and Design, featuring the slogan “Art Makes People Powerful”, 1 1

“The arts make people powerful because art and design is about creating new desires. It inspires people to create their own reality, to get their own thing going. Fundamentally, though, art makes people powerful because art is about our

56

Part II

The public space has ears. It pays to listen and join in the conversation.” —Hans Haacke, 20042

freedom of expression.” http://www.theguardian.com/culture-professionalsnetwork/culture-professionals-blog/2013/nov/23/art-party-conference-bob-robertasmith. 2 Hans Haacke, “Public Sights”, in Public Art: A Reader, ed. Florian Matzner (Germany: Hantje Cantz Publishers, 2004), 189.

Dialogues Present and Past

57

“There is a kind of social contract to working in a space shared by many, and the artist has some responsibility to provide a level of attainable meaning. The task is to do that and not compromise one’s problematic as an artist.” —Joseph Kosuth, 20043

3

Joseph Kosuth, “Public Text”, Public Art: A Reader, ed. Florian Matzner (Germany: Hantje Cantz Publishers, 2004), 189.

58

Part II

“Through its power to preserve and represent culture, the State has assumed some responsibility for educating the citizenry in those forms of ‘really useful knowledge’, as the Victorians put it, which would refine the sensibilities of the vulgar and enhance the capacities of the masses. This was the true test of their ‘belongingness’: culture as social incorporation.” —Stuart Hall, 20024

4

Stuart Hall, “Whose Heritage? Un-settling ‘The Heritage’, Re-imagining the Post-Nation”, in The Third Text Reader: on Art, Culture and Theory, ed. Rasheed Araeen, Sean Cubitt and Ziauddin Sardar (London & New York: Continuum, 2002), 73-74.

Dialogues Present and Past

59

“Universities are significant deliverers of culture to the public [...]. The arts play a significant communication and educational role”. —Moira Sinclair, 2014.5

5

Moira Sinclair, Executive Director, London and SE, speaking at the speaking at The Cultural Knowledge Ecology - Universities, Arts and Cultural Partnerships a one-day conference, 5th February 2014, Liverpool John Moores University.

60

Part II

“The production of measurable evidence that might throw light on the claims made for the transformative power of the arts is particularly problematic. For a start, the idea of transformation is so complex that it is impossible to imagine how it might be reduced to a set of measurable attributes [...].” —Guy Julier and Liz Moor, 2009.6

6

Guy Julier and Liz Moor, “Problematising the instrumental roles of public art”, Design and Creativity: Policy, Management and Practice (New York: Berg, 2009) 81.

PART THREE: MAPPING THE LANDSCAPE: APPLICATION, MEASUREMENT, ARTICULATION

INTRODUCTION TO PART THREE MEASURING THE IMMEASURABLE? STEVE SWINDELLS AND ANNA POWELL

It was observed in a 2010 Research Council Report1 to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) entitled Measuring the Value of Culture, that central government and parts of the publicly funded cultural sector now recognise the need to “more clearly articulate the value of culture using methods which fit in with central government’s decisionmaking” strategies.2 As a consequence, these sectors are required to “use the tools and concepts of economics to fully state their benefits [for the public] in the prevailing language of policy appraisal and evaluation”.3 When faced with the “intangibles”; the seemingly non-quantifiable impacts which inevitably underlie much art and design research, however, the question of value measurement becomes problematic.4 It is made even more problematic when considering that, as noted by the UK Audit Commission, “The art of evaluation lies in ensuring that the measurable does not drive out the immeasurable”. The challenges associated with quantifying qualitative impacts have been addressed in a number of studies, since François Matarasso (1996). Matarasso acknowledges that activities, emotions or relationships which are difficult to measure in quantitative terms frequently have their legitimacy called into question. He argues, however, that the value and significance of arts activities should 1

A report by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). 2 Dave O’Brien, Measuring the Value of Culture: A Report to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2010), 4. 3 Dave O’Brien, Measuring the Value of Culture: A Report to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2010), 4. 4 Francois Matarasso, “Defining Values: evaluating arts programmes”, The Social Impact of The Arts, Working Paper 1, Gloucestershire (Comedia: 1996), 15.

64

Introduction to Part Three

not be negated simply because they are difficult to express using conventional systems.5 There are clearly inherent challenges in proving evidence of cause and effect relationships, and in making comparison across projects which are not necessarily like-for-like, for example concerning the perception of STEM in relation to arts and humanities subjects. 6 In the 2011 International Council of Museums (ICOM) conference Measuring the immeasurable: capturing intangible values, Keynote speaker Dr Carol Scott addressed the problem of measuring public engagement in art and design. She discussed the significance of intangibles for enabling us “to realise our human and social potential to the highest possible level”, where, for example, “as the result of a museum visit [where] a person experiences the joy of discovery, his/her capacity to learn is likely to be enhanced”.7 She goes on to discuss the problematic question of even capturing, let alone measuring these intangibles, a question which, according to Scott, forms “part of a wider conversation about the role of intangibles in many spheres of our lives”.8 Under today’s proviso it is not enough to suggest – without concrete evidence – the value of art and design research in terms of its “intrinsic” value, that is, its creation of a more culturally rich, and arguably, a happier and healthier world. We are now required to provide tangible evidence of its “instrumental” value; whether interpreted as economic or social benefits. 9 Dr Eleonora Belfiore and Professor Oliver Bennett, in The Social Impact of the Arts: An Intellectual History (2010) note, however, that: If advocacy is put aside, the notion that engagement in the arts can produce deeply transformative effects for both the individual and society very quickly becomes a much more complex proposition [...] [one which is] integrally connected with the education of feelings and the development of a particular idea of civilisation. [...] What has been striking about public debate on the arts, at least as it has been conducted in most of the Englishspeaking countries, has been the almost complete absence of references to this history. This is all the more surprising given that the value and 5

Matarasso, 1996, 15. Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. 7 Carol Scott (conference keynote speaker), Measuring the Immeasurable: Capturing Intangible Values, Marketing and Public Relations International Committee of ICOM (Brno, Czech Republic: International Council of Museums, September 2011) 3. 8 Scott, 2011, 3. 9 John Holden and Jordi Baltà, The Public Value of Culture: a literature review, European Expert Network on Culture (EENC Paper, January 2012), 6. 6

Measuring the Immeasurable?

65

function of the arts have occupied a very significant position within the Western, and particularly European, intellectual and philosophical tradition. No doubt intellectual history sits uncomfortably with evidence based policy making as it is customarily practiced. 10

Art and design disciplines are being asked to evolve value-measuring frameworks which can enter mainstream policy appraisal similar to those developed in other fields, but with little and somewhat ambiguous guidance about how to do so at a local level, and where such measurement, at times, seems contrary to the rationale of the work and the environments in which it is disseminated and received. Annabel Jackson,11 a UK evaluation specialist, notes that, “Quality of experience is a key concept in Arts Council England’s strategy. However, Arts Council England has not produced a conceptualisation that would operationalise this concept and allow it to be measurable”.12 Tate Galleries has similarly underlined this issue in its Research Centre statement of aims, which notes that today as an organisation they “face many challenges”, including the problem of displaying and interpreting new art practices in conjunction with a “rapidly evolving vision of the relationship of art museums and their publics”.13 Similar sentiments were held by the former Arts Minister Estelle Morris who deliberates pertinently on this issue in 2003, when she states: I know that arts and culture make a contribution to health, to education and crime reduction, to strong communities, to the economy and to the nation’s well-being, but I don’t always know how to evaluate it or describe it. We have to find a way of describing its worth.14

Michelle Reeves, Research Officer for the Arts Council England, further underlined in a 2002 report that, “despite a growing body of studies claiming to provide evidence of the contribution of arts and culture to 10

Eleonora Belfiore and Oliver Bennett, The Social Impact of the Arts: An Intellectual History (Hampshire: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2008), 10. 11 See http://www.annabeljacksonassociates.com/. 12 Annabel Jackson Associates Ltd., Quality of Experience in the Arts: A Discussion Paper (2012), 8. 13 Tate, “The Art Museum and its Future”, Tate Research Centre, http://www.tate.org.uk/about/our-work/tate-research/research-centres/art-museumand-its-future. 14 Estelle Morris, speech to the Cheltenham Festival of Literature, October 2003, in Arts Council England, “The Power of Art, Visual Arts: Evidence of Impact” (St Ives: Print St Ives Roche, June 2006), 10.

66

Introduction to Part Three

social and economic development, few studies define what they mean by impact”.15 These assertions, taken from a cross section of arts-related organisations, highlight the fact that what we mean by terms such as “impact” and “public engagement” must necessarily be defined – and therefore definable – before a relevant measurement framework(s) can be developed and put into place.

The “impact” terrain REF foregrounds the principle that HEIs, institutions perhaps once regarded as “ivory towers”, today more than ever have a responsibility to communicate their value to society. It structures its assessment criteria on the idea that HEIs should gain reward for their research being communicated beyond academia and having a positive impact upon society.16 Impact, for the REF2014, is defined as the identification of a positive effect on any of the following: individuals; the economy; society; culture; public policy or services; health; the environment; wellbeing and quality of life.17 While the scope for identifying impact seems vast according to this list, in reality, for many subject areas (in particular the arts and humanities) it is problematic to identify where this influence is occurring, to what effects, and to what extent the research in question can be proven accountable. Central to the assessment process are the levels of “reach” and “significance” of the research’s impact. Not only are these terms open to interpretation, but even in instances where impact can be successfully identified within the parameters of “reach” and “significance”, gathering tangible evidence of this presents real challenges – and no more so than in relation to the question of public engagement: It is not simply a matter of evidencing that the public has been exposed to academic research, but of demonstrating the cause and effect benefits of this. Neil Robinson (Bulletin Academic) explains the limitations of quantitative measurement for evidencing impact within these terms: It is about recognising that [saying], ‘I held a workshop for a hundred policymakers’ is not much better than, ‘I held a workshop for fifty 15

Michelle Reeves, Measuring the economic and social impact of the arts: a review (UK: ACE, 2013), 22, accessed 15th January 2013 http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/documents/publications/340.pdf. 16 “Impact” constitutes 20% of a submitting HEI’s REF submission, which determines the amount of Quality Research income. 17 See REF2014, Decisions On Assessing Research Impact, March 2011, 2.

Measuring the Immeasurable?

67

policymakers,’ and that in either scenario the desired level of detail is attained only when one can say which of those policymakers used what they learned, how they used it and how it benefited their organisations and stakeholders. 18

Gathering evidence of impact objectively is not only a resourceintensive undertaking, but one which poses numerous practical – and potentially, at times, ethical – challenges. These include, for example, the problems of capturing the required detail about art gallery visitor experiences, while negotiating the challenges consistent with any interview, focus group or survey process.19 Then there is the issue of how long-term effects which might only manifest themselves some weeks, months or years after an exhibition visit can be measured when such effects are limited within particular timescales.20 According to Robinson in his 2013 Times Higher Education article, the REF2014 submission caused “myriad challenges” for HEIs, with these issues being pushed to the forefront of many institutions’ priorities and being addressed with renewed vigour.21 As an inevitable result of some of these challenges, criticism has been voiced in relation to the REF assessment process, regarded by some as flawed and even, by a few, as “illogical and dangerous”.22 “How can it be”, asks Robinson, “that the most resolute efforts to ensure that academic research is understood, taken up and used for the widest possible benefit are ultimately encapsulated in a jumble of ambiguity, imprecision, hyperbole and understatement?”23 The main arguments underpinning these criticisms include the opinion that much of the impact created by research is, by its very nature immeasurable, and that “research does not [necessarily] translate into immediate measurable impact for public policy or industry in the UK”.24 They demonstrate an acknowledgement of the 18

Neil Robinson, “Tell your story clearly, and consider getting a little help if needed” (Times Higher Education, 10th January 2013). 19 See Jaber F. Gubrim and James A. Holstein, “Qualitative Interviewing”, in Handbook of Interview Research (California: Sage, 2001), 83-100. 20 For REF2014, impact case studies could cite research as far back as 1993. See Paul Manners’ essay and his discussion of the problems of REF assessment often being retrospective. 21 Robinson, 2013. 22 Andrew Oswald, Professor of Economics at the University of Warwick, “REF should stay out of the game”, The Independent, Thursday 26th November 2009. 23 Oswald, 2009. 24 Matthias Uecker (Head of the German Department at the University of Nottingham), in Jessica Shepherd, “Humanities research threatened by demands

68

Introduction to Part Three

fact that “popular economic models have translated uneasily into the artistic sphere”, where, “seeking a quantitative resolution to the discussion of quality of experience” is near impossible.25 Belifore and Bennet succinctly present the true nature of the problem of measurement and impact in the following argument: [...] we would argue that before ‘impact’ and its measurement can be discussed in any meaningful way, we need a better understanding of the interaction between people and the arts. A review of the research carried out in this area (both in scientific and humanistic fields of enquiry), indeed, leads to the conclusion that, despite great improvements in our understanding of aesthetic responses, the mechanisms by which people might be deeply affected by the arts are still largely unclear, and we simply cannot expect to predict how individuals might react to each art form or specific artworks.26

We wish to reiterate here that neither this publication nor the preceding ICA symposium are presented as a response to the REF assessment alone. While unquestionably the issues surrounding how to measure impact of were helped into the limelight by HEIs’ preparations for REF2014, the questions and challenges addressed by the symposium and subsequent publication stretch far beyond REF-related concerns. As noted by Michelle Reeves, one of the most important reasons for monitoring, measuring, assessing and evaluating creative work is the genuine desire “to help to make the complex and intriguing web of creative exchange more visible, to articulate actual and potential achievement, to help us all move forward”.27 This is a common goal. These challenges might be regarded as fundamental to much of the cultural sector both within and outside of academia, relevant not only in relation to the current funding climate, but constituting a more deep-seated profundity; being for “economic impact”, Guardian (13th October 2009). See also Felipe FernándezArmesto’s article “Poisonous Impact”, which appeared in Times Higher Education, (2009). 25 Jackson, 2012, 6. 26 Eleonora Belfiore & Oliver Bennett, “Beyond the ‘Toolkit Approach”: Arts Impact Evaluation Research and the Realities of Cultural Policy-Making”, in Journal For Cultural Research (Vol. 14, 2) (London, Routledge, April 2010), 121142. 27 Michelle Reeves, Measuring the economic and social impact of the arts: a review (UK: ACE, 2013), 22, accessed 15th January 2013 http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/documents/publications/340.pdf> [accessed 15th Januery 2013], p. 22.

Measuring the Immeasurable?

69

fundamental to our understanding of how arts and culture “works” in the UK. As artist Eleanor Turney put it in her article for The Guardian (January 2014): Yes, we want to know who is engaging with our work, but it’s always worth looking at why we’re asking the question and how we’re asking it. [...] Is it merely a condition of funding that we segment audiences and examine them? We need to be asking meaningful questions, whose answers then feed back into decisions that are made about the work we make and how we make it. There’s no point asking audience members to engage with you or your organisation if it’s not a two-way conversation.28

The essays Dr Rosa Scoble, is Deputy Planning Director (Research & Resources) and Head of Research Evaluation Unit, Brunel University. Her essay PostREF: collecting evidence from public engagement. Necessity with unforseen consequences? explores the legacy of public engagement as an indicator of impact. It asks whether, in the wake of public engagement impact case studies for REF2014, institutions might begin bureaucratising public engagement, and questions what might be the effect upon the public of the ensuing potential for an over-proliferation of surveys, questionnaires and follow-up interviews. Jocelyn Bailey is former Head of Manufacturing Design and Innovation Policy at Policy Connect, Westminster. In Bridging the divide: articulating the value of creativity to politicos, she notes some of the challenges caused by the cultural gulf between the creative and design-led industries, and the world of politicians and policymakers, in particular the problem of nurturing a voice in Westminster for the cultural industries. Her essay underlines some of the ways in which Policy Connect works to try to mitigate this deteriorating relationship to support quality communication between these different sectors.

28

Eleanor Turney, “Hello 2014: same arts and culture buzzwords, new year's resolutions”, Guardian, 2nd January 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/cultureprofessionals-network/culture-professionals-blog/2014/jan/02/2014-arts-culturenew-year.

70

Introduction to Part Three

References Belfiore, Eleonora and Bennett, Oliver, The Social Impact of the Arts: An Intellectual History (Hampshire: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2008). Belfiore, Eleonora & Bennett, Oliver, Journal For Cultural Research (Vol. 14, 2) (London, Routledge, April 2010). Fernández-Armesto, Felipe, Times Higher Education, 2009. Francois Matarasso, The Social Impact of The Arts, Working Paper 1, Gloucestershire (Comedia: 1996). Unwin, Julia, Guardian Society, 11th June 2009. Gubrim, Jaber F. and Holstein, Handbook of Interview Research (California: Sage, 2001). REF2014, Decisions On Assessing Research Impact, March 2011. Holden, John and Baltà, Jordi, The Public Value of Culture: a literature review, European Expert Network on Culture (EENC Paper, January 2012). Jackson, Annabel, Quality of Experience in the Arts: A Discussion Paper (2012). Julier, Guy and Moor, Liz, Design and Creativity: Policy, Management and Practice (New York: Berg, 2009). Morris, Estelle, “The Power of Art, Visual Arts: Evidence of Impact” (St Ives: Print St Ives Roche, June 2006). Nietzsche, Friedrich, Joyful Wisdom, trans. Thomas Common (New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1960). O’Brien, Dave, Measuring the Value of Culture: A Report to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2010). Oswald, Andrew, The Independent, Thursday 26th November 2009. Reeves, Michelle, Measuring the economic and social impact of the arts: a review, (UK: ACE, 2013). Robinson, Neil, Times Higher Education (10th January 2013). Scott, Carol, Measuring the Immeasurable: Capturing Intangible Values, Marketing and Public Relations International Committee of ICOM (Brno, Czech Republic: International Council of Museums, September 2011). Shepherd, Jessica, Guardian (13th October 2009). Sinclair, Moira, speaking at The Cultural Knowledge Ecology Universities, Arts and Cultural Partnerships - a one-day conference, 5th February 2014, Liverpool John Moores University.

Measuring the Immeasurable?

71

Tate, Tate Research Centre, http://www.tate.org.uk/about/our-work/tateresearch/research-centres/art-museum-and-its-future. Turney, Eleanor, Guardian (2nd January 2014).

CHAPTER FOUR POST-REF: COLLECTING EVIDENCE FROM PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. NECESSITY WITH UNFORESEEN CONSEQUENCES? ROSA SCOBLE

Introduction The development of the impact agenda for the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 has seen a significant departure from one of the major principles that has been at the foundation of all previous Research Assessment Exercises (RAEs): It was accepted, with slight reviews and variations over a number of RAEs, that research, in the form of “outputs”, remained with the individual researcher; moving with the researcher between their employing institutions. Impact in the REF2014, however, has departed from this basic principle, and is now asking institutions to submit only evidence of impact which has arisen from research that has taken place at that institution. This means that in the future, institutions will not be able to rely on the controversial practice of “buying-in” academic staff with existing repertoires in impact in an attempt to secure the best outcomes in forthcoming REF assessments. Rather, they will need to identify and collect evidence of all forms of impact and potential impact, including any resource and support activities which might facilitate impact and its sustainability. It is accepted, and acknowledged in all REF guidance on submitting impact case studies, that public engagement – especially in the arts and humanities – is one of the most successful vehicles for generating impact, whether this is due to its creation of cultural enrichment, its facilitation of

74

Chapter Four

increased public participation in social discourses or, more generically, its supporting role in individual participants’ personal development. Given that impact identified within an institution will remain with that institution, and in light of the REF’s financial and reputational importance for institutions, we are led to question what the future of public engagement might look like. Will institutions start bureaucratising public engagement? Will researchers be asked to “count” participants and the public at all of their events? Will there be an over-proliferation of surveys, questionnaires and follow-up interviews? Will “the public” become tired of being asked “what difference did it make to you?” And in the end, is there a real danger of some researchers shying away from public engagement altogether and, in so doing, withdrawing from some of their most creative practices? From an external perspective, the REF and previous RAE must look like a peculiar academic obsession which consumes a large amount of resource, and which is often exceptionally political and emotionally charged. However, for academic institutions in the UK, the outcomes of the assessment itself and the subsequent funding stream are of considerable importance. In the UK, research is funded by a dual support system in which 60% is allocated through competitive bidding and 40%, also called Quality Related (QR) funding, is allocated based on the outcomes of the REF. The total funding for research in 2012-13 was £4,300 million with £1,700 million QR related. The assessment exercises occurs approximately every six years as is the resulting QR, therefore having a long-term impact on institutions’ financial sustainability. While a large proportion of the funding does go towards the medical sciences, physical sciences, engineering and technologies, every year £58 million is allocated to support research in the creative arts.

The REF backdrop The REF, however, is not just regarded as an instrument existing to help allocate funding between institutions. It also holds a very high reputational value. Good outcomes are used by institutions to demonstrate the quality of their research and are used extensively by league table compilers, and for marketing purposes both nationally and internationally. Gradually over the past two decades the RAE has evolved, but the fundamental elements of the assessment have remained unchanged and consist of: The assessment of outputs for each member of staff submitted; the evaluation of the research environment to assess research sustainability; and a measure of the esteem/external profile of the staff

Post-REF: Collecting Evidence from Public Engagement

75

submitted. The 2014 REF, however, saw the greatest change in the underlining assessment, by substituting “esteem” with the evaluation of the socio-economic impact of the research conducted at the institution. The fact that impact stays where the research was conducted even if the academic subsequently moves to another institution, has a substantial effect on how institutions view the burden of collecting impact evidence. It shifts responsibility for the “impact agenda” from the individual academic to the institution in which their research is conducted. Further to individual outputs, institutions are required to submit one impact case study for approximately every ten members of staff submitted. While there is not necessarily immediate pressure for all members of staff to engage with what might be deemed “impactful” research, in areas of identified impact which constitute a case study there are strict and complex rules about how any assumed impact is evidenced.

Backing the evidence of impact A distinction needs to be made between types of impact, and it needs to be understood that some disciplines will have a very specific understanding of impact. For example: health benefits occurring through research might underpin the development of new drugs and treatments; economic prosperity as a result of research might underpin the development of more efficient goods production methods; environmental benefits occurring through research might underpin the development of new processes for recycling or new recyclable materials; research leading to a fairer society might inform policy makers; and there are numerous other examples of science, technology, and social sciences research where evidence of impact can be quite easily captured. When looking at the exemplars of the types of impacts that the REF, in its guidance, associates with the creative arts, however, the evidence appears significantly more difficult to collect. Below is a list of some of the more challenging examples of impact in the humanities and creative arts, considered acceptable by REF assessors (HEFCE 2013): • • • •

Generating new ways of thinking that influence creative practice; Creating, inspiring and supporting new forms of artistic, literary, linguistic, social, economic, religious, and other expression; Helping professionals and organisations adapt to changing cultural values; Contributing to processes of commemoration, memorialisation and reconciliation;

Chapter Four

76

• •

Contributing to a wider public understanding of basic standards of wellbeing and human rights conceptions; Contributing to widening public access to and participation in the political process.

For impacts that involve the public, examples of the evidence required include: • • • • •

Descriptions of the social, cultural or other significant benefits of the research findings with which the public have engaged; Critical external reviews of the engagement activity; Evidence of third party involvement, for example how collaborators have modified their practices; Contributions (financial or in-kind) by third parties to enhance services or support for the public, or evidence of funds from third parties to enhance or extend the engagement activity; Evidence of sustainability, through, for example, a sustained or ongoing engagement with a group, a significant increase in participation in events or programmes, continuing sales, downloads, or use of resources.

The link: institutional responsibility and need for evidence It is apparent, given the experience of preparing impact case studies, that institutions need to begin collecting possible case studies and associated evidence throughout the full period up to the next REF (possibly in 2020) to have sufficient evidence to support their case for impact. This means having systems and support in place to measure, collect and communicate that evidence. Where this is based on audiences or public engagement, it will need to include not only quantitative information about audience sizes and demographic details but, more importantly, qualitative information in the form of testimonies and interview material. A focus on public engagement and an increase in public engagement activity began some time before the development of the impact agenda. While public engagement does not automatically lead to impact, it is an essential element of most of the creative arts disciplines. In 2008, six “beacons” for public engagement and a National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement (the NCCPE) funded by the Research Councils UK, HEFCE and the Wellcome Trust, were set up to support and develop

Post-REF: Collecting Evidence from Public Engagement

77

capacity in universities for public engagement.1 Part of this initiative resulted in the development of support tools that different institutions could adopt to evaluate their activities, including advice on ways of collecting evidence from audiences and publics. The Beacon for Public Engagement set up at University College London (UCL)2 for example, has developed a number of toolkits to help plan, deliver and evaluate engagement projects (UCL toolkits).3 The “Evaluating your Public Events” toolkit suggests five methods which define the impacts upon participants across four different categories: knowledge and awareness; attitudes; skills and empowerment. Such toolkits have proved exceptionally helpful at planning stages when considering how to collect evidence of impact at public events. Given the nature of research in the creative arts, it is easy to see how institutions could translate these methodologies effectively, and meet the strict REF impact case study demands for evidence in this area. However, this support (some might see it as interference) has the potential for long-term unintended consequences.

Research in the creative arts: academic versus artist The creative process and the research processes therein, have some very particular and interesting characteristics. Practice based research is often given negative press in terms of the correlation between audience numbers and the quality of the underpinning research. It is has been acknowledged that high quality research in the creative arts is seldom accessible to the general public and, even, has impact for only a small sample of highly engaged experts.4 As an example, when considering art exhibitions as research, the venue, the installation process, curatorial decisions and identifying the target audience – as well as the exhibition content itself – are all considered intrinsic parts of the research process. It is easy to see, therefore, how an institutionally managed approach, where numbers and formal feedback are placed at the centre of public engagement activities at the expense of more qualitative, longitudinal and process-based measures of impact, can sometimes undermine the quality of the research outcomes.

1

http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/public-engagement/evaluation/reports/BPEReport. 3 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/public-engagement/evaluation/toolkits. 4 See Mieke Bal, Quoting Caravaggio: Contemporary Art, Preposterous History, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999). See also Emma Barker, Contemporary Cultures of Display (London: The Open University, 1999). 2

78

Chapter Four

To return once more to the UCL evaluation toolkit, the five methodologies they suggest to collect evidence are summarised as follows: Technique Individual interviews Questionnaires

Observations

Focus Groups Poster exercise

Who to use it with and when to use it Any person that you require more in depth and qualitative answers. Useful to use at the end of the event, or anytime post event. Can be used with everyone who comes to your event immediately after the event. Usually self-completing (handed out on paper, or later online). The event planning and the event itself can be observed (e.g. team, audience/ participants). Most useful for participatory and interactive events. Can be used with a selection of the event team or audience. Most useful after the event. Could be used with all event attendees. Could be undertaken both at the start and end of an event.

Figure 8: University College London, example of an Evaluation Toolkit.5

While these might be deemed extremely useful in some cases of evidence collection; questions still exist around how the relationship between the artist-researcher and their audience might be skewed or compromised by the prescribed combination of REF demands and toolkitstyle “solutions”. The continuous search for measurable and verifiable “indicators”, which suit STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics)-related subjects, might, when forcibly applied to creative, arts and design subjects, undermine the value of the very evidence they claim to measure.

5

See http://www.ucl.ac.uk/public-engagement/evaluation/toolkits.

Post-REF: Collecting Evidence from Public Engagement

79

Conclusions: a word of caution Socio-economic impact is an important and valuable outcome of research, and one which needs to be effectively articulated – both for REF assessment reasons but also to communicate the value of research activity to the wider public. The true impact of funding for research has, for too long, failed to have been acknowledged or understood by both governments and the wider public. Institutions should make it a priority to disseminate the value of their research – its contribution to public debate; the economy; and the health and wellbeing of the nation – to society in an accessible manner. However, when funding and reputation are brought so predominantly into the equation, institutions begin to introduce management processes more akin to the rules of a game than a productive methodology for identifying impact through public engagement. The impact of research is becoming part of what we can call the “research capital” for both individuals and institutions.6 At this point in time there is no evidence of how some of these more managed approaches might affect the quality of practice based research in the creative arts. Institutions must be cautious and not impose methodologies that might undermine the special relationship between the artist-academic, and its audiences. The risk is that audiences feel overwhelmed by requests for feedback and, ultimately, become alienated from the creative experience. Simultaneously, the practitioner might feel forced into a situation where their work and its impact are compromised in attempts to create notional high-quality research experiences that can easily be evidenced.While responsibility has to be on research institutions to promote, support and reward impactful research, a “blanket” approach, based solely on the need of hard evidence, could result in unintended consequences.

6

Rosa Scoble, Keith Dickson, Stephen R Hanney and G J Rodgers, Institutional Strategies for Capturing Socio-Economic Impact of Academic Research (Middlexes: Brunel University, 2010).

80

Chapter Four

References Bal, Mieke, Quoting Caravaggio: Contemporary Art, Preposterous History, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999). Barker, Emma, Contemporary Cultures of Display (London: The Open University, 1999). HEFCE, Part 2D: Main Panel D criteria, (2013) http://www.ref.ac.uk/pubs/2012-01/ Scoble, Rosa et al, Institutional Strategies for Capturing Socio-Economic Impact of Academic Research (Middlesex: Brunel University, 2010). http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/public-engagement/evaluation/reports/BPEReport. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/public-engagement/evaluation/toolkits. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/public-engagement/evaluation/toolkits.

CHAPTER FIVE BRIDGING THE DIVIDE: ARTICULATING THE VALUE OF CREATIVITY TO POLITICOS JOCELYN BAILEY

In advance of the 2013 spending review, Maria Miller, still relatively “green” in her role as Culture Secretary, pleaded with arts and creative communities to help demonstrate their economic value to the Treasury. In the world of Whitehall the Treasury is “king”, and in order to protect the sums of money issued to her department, Miller had to prove it would be money well spent. A predictable, concomitant kickback against her unreasonable demands from the arts world followed. How could Miller be so reductive? Surely the value of arts and culture is greater than its economic contribution in pounds sterling? Miller’s request is emblematic of the inability of government and cultural organisations to fully comprehend the position of the other. There is, at present, a wide and often seemingly impassable cultural gulf between the creative and political industries, with each feeling that the other just doesn’t “get it”. This is problematic at a time when politics is struggling with decreasing participation and growing disillusionment, and when our creative and cultural industries might be seen to be losing ground to other nations through lack of investment. Many would argue that, at this moment in history, the government ought to be investing in what is one of the only sectors where the UK has a clear competitive advantage. Why it is not doing so is an interesting question. My focus here will be on the story of one creative industry in particular: the design industry. Design functions in a holistic capacity; it permeates into all aspects of life. Despite its usefulness, however, politicians and policymakers find it difficult to comprehend its full value in instrumentalist terms. This essay discusses the reasons for that uncertainty and inaction, and what might be done to mediate it.

82

Chapter Five

Where it all began That there might be some kind of vague fruitful alchemy to be found in “the arts” was an idea with which our Victorian forefathers were very comfortable. In the mid-19th century, the belief in art for the general edification of the public was commonly held. And there was no shortage of advocates for forcing a much closer union between industry and “the arts”. Governments, the monarchy, charitable organisations and philanthropists invested in the arts, and in the application of art to industry, apparently with few demands for proof of concept, or guarantees of return on investment. It worked out well. We are still reaping the rewards of that investment. Our cultural infrastructure, much like our railway system, owes much to the grandiose visions of the 19th century. This historical moment also witnessed the birth of what we might now term design policy: measures to support the improvement of quality and competitiveness in industry through the application of art. The Great Exhibition and the consequent construction of Albertopolis,1 seen as highly progressive initiatives, were mimicked across Europe (or, at least, like-minded design reformers in other European countries pleaded with their governments to do so). But having once kick-started a repeating cycle of international oneupmanship through design reform; in recent years the UK government seems to have forgotten what it formerly knew. The words “design policy” do not land with reasonable comprehension anywhere in Whitehall. Not only has the institutional understanding of design policy failed to keep pace with the increasing complexity of business and expanding field of design application, it appears, rather, to have regressed.2

Institutional blindness There are multiple reasons for this regression. First, it would seem that it is difficult for governments to be able to “see” design (despite wearing it, sitting on it, living in it). This might be partly because, as mentioned previously, as an industrial activity it tends to be the intangible means rather than the end; an often unmentioned servant of more powerful 1

“Albertopolis”, named after Prince Albert (1818 – 1861) is the area centered on the large number of cultural and educational sites situated on Exhibition Road, London. 2 See this blog on the disenfranchisement of design policy expertise: http://jossbailey.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/a-captainless-ship/.

Bridging the Divide: Articulating the Value of Creativity to Politicos

83

industries. And if more complex than a simple logo, it is often difficult to recognise the design contribution. But this lack of visibility is also to do with the way government measures the economic contribution of different industries. The industrial classification system used by the Office of National Statistics simply does not have the right categories to adequately take account of the range and breadth of the creative industries. There are large swathes of professional designers whose activity in terms of economic units goes under the radar, because it doesn’t tick any of the predetermined boxes. This inadequacy in the Standard Industrial/Occupational Classification system has long been understood, and there are now moves afoot to tackle the problem at source, as the codes are periodically reviewed. Design also faces challenges when it comes to fitting neatly into a single departmental remit – is it a part of cultural policy or industrial policy? Is it the remit of Department for Culture, Media and Sport or Business, Innovation and Skills? In reality it falls between these two departments. The origin of government interest in design was industrial policy; as a tool to improve quality of manufacturing products. But in recent years this original purpose has been eclipsed by the emergence of the “creative industries” categorisation, through the rise of the Department for Culture Media and Sport. The foregrounding of Britain’s creative talent as a national strength was a progressive and welcome move by the New Labour government in the ‘90s. Although “Cool Britannia” might have been a reductive way of putting it, New Labour spotted, promoted and, importantly, diverted increased funding to a very distinctive part of our economy and society. Whilst this may have served the arts world well, for design it caused some unhelpful confusion. At a very high (political) level, the creative industries discourse suggests that value within the design industry is measured in terms of design as a cultural product, as something which, like our museums and galleries, will attract visitors and investment to Britain. Ultimately it implies that the elements of design to be endowed with value are the “pretty commodities”.3 This doesn’t present a full picture of the value of design in the economy, and it also doesn’t help endear its services to other non-CI sectors.4 However, even if it had a safe home in industrial policy, it would not be an exaggeration to say that Britain has not had a clear or active industrial policy for years – certainly

3

Frontier Economics, The Value of the Cultural and Creative Industries to the European Economy, a Report Prepared for the ECCIA (London: Frontier Economics Ltd, June 2012). 4 The Cultural Industries.

84

Chapter Five

in relation to manufacturing, which has only recently returned to favour, and a similar situation exists for the service sector.5 Design policy, traditionally understood as a subset of industrial policy, has not, therefore, been high up the agenda of prevailing government concerns. Even now, when the Coalition government is allegedly developing an industrial policy (rather slow in the making), it is possible that pursuing design policy – an act which is arguably much more “interfering” than, say, the removal of “red tape” – may have too interventionist a flavour for the current administration.

Culture clash As well as these apparently practical reasons for design being overlooked, it is also a question of ideology; of how people think the world works and ought to be run. To return to my opening anecdote, in response to Miller’s request for economic evidence, playwright Dan Rebellato wrote in The Guardian: […] if you start asking theatre makers, poets and artists to ‘play [a role] in delivering local growth’ or ‘position yourself squarely in the visitor economy’, you are asking people to stop doing the thing they’re good at, the artistic risk-taking that produces good work.6

It is exactly that concept – of value in “artistic risk-taking” – that very few of today’s politicians appear able to compute. The intellectual practice of creativity seems, here, to be an alien concept. Recent evidence of this includes the reform of the Design and Technology curriculum. It has been manifestly clear to those involved in the wrangle over the content of the new specification, that those in charge of the process do not understand or recognise the intellectual value of the subject; the cognitive skills that are developed through the practice of designing and making. This has led to a very reductive approach where the curriculum seems to be based around the limiting question, “which tools do pupils need to know how to use by 5

Activities in the service sector include retail, banks, hotels, real estate, education, health, social work, transport, computer services, recreation, media, communications and utilities. 6 Dan Rebellato, “Maria Miller: a mind already made up?” Guardian Culture Professionals Network (24th April 2013) accessed 19th May 2013 http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture-professionals-network/culture-professionalsblog/2013/apr/24/maria-miller-cultural-value-economic.

Bridging the Divide: Articulating the Value of Creativity to Politicos

85

the age of ‘x’?” Ultimately, design’s limited manifestation in the curriculum stands to impoverish the design community. But it took the design community (with the exception of the Design and Technology teachers’ association) a long time to notice that policy changes were afoot; understand their implications; and marshal a defensive lobbying campaign. The two worlds (government policy and the design education sector) are so divorced that watching their forced interaction over a number of months, battling over the curriculum, was a rather excruciating experience, akin to watching a disagreement unfolding between two people of different mother tongues who only half understand one another. The reason for this lack of a shared language, most likely stems from politicians and policymakers having different experiences and career routes from those in the design sector. There is a typical and very dominant profile where elected political representatives tend to come from a fairly narrow range of backgrounds; predominantly economics, law, financial services, public affairs – and the political world itself. Very few politicians (less than 5%) come from scientific, creative or industrial backgrounds. The result is that the “real world” experience of the governing elite is arguably dangerously narrow. In any other field such homogeneity would be actively avoided, and in politics it desperately needs addressing. This wouldn’t necessarily be a problem if all politicians were endowed with substantial capacity for empathy and imagination. But just as someone who has studied art all the way through the education system and gone on to work in an artistic career might not have a full understanding of how politicians think (and the art world’s response to Miller’s pleas for an economic justification testified to this being the case), so those who study politics and economics, and steep themselves in the history and theory of that profession probably have little understanding of the values of the art world. Much of the political and economic theory with which our governing institutions are saturated is based on models which do not make room for the functions that design, in particular, performs. To give a somewhat crude example: neo-classical economics does not allow for the fact that consumers make choices on criteria other than price. Such elusive qualities as brand value, quality and novelty are unaccounted for.7 These are very much the models that still hold sway, and Whitehall is crippled by its obsession with only being able to assign numerical values to things.

7

There is a much lengthier analysis of this in a paper by John Heskett, “Creating Economic Value by Design”, see http://www.ijdesign.org/ojs/index.php/IJDesign/article/viewFile/477/232.

86

Chapter Five

What does this mean for design policy, and what do we do about it? What this all means, is that design policy in the UK is somewhat disjointed – a product of accident rather than design (!) – and that the “wins” have to be fought for aggressively. Unfortunately, broadly speaking, the design industry is not set up for systematic lobbying. Campaigns to-date have tended to be reactive rather than proactive. Occasionally a James Dyson or a Jonathan Ive will be persuaded to say something, but as a sporadic protest rather than the consistent, sophisticated critique that would be of more benefit.8 The aerospace and automotive industries have recently seen very open support from government – along with windfall funding – as a result of a number of years of relationship-building, however, this is an activity that most design businesses, the majority of which exist at the small to micro end of “SME”, are unable to undertake due to limited resources.9 It is left to a handful of organisations such as the Design Business Association, Design Council, NESTA10, and more recently Policy Connect (through the Associate Parliamentary Design and Innovation Group, and the Design Commission)11 to highlight to government the value of the creative industries and broader cultural sector, what it needs in policy terms, and how they might be overlooked. While it is undoubtedly an important task to establish a reliable set of numerical evidence which demonstrates the extent of the creative and design industries’ contribution to the economy, we must also be wary of relying solely on these figures. The problem of how to quantify public engagement and impact, despite Whitehall’s aforementioned obsession with numbers, cannot be resolved numerically. Firstly there is the much bigger job of familiarisation and relationship-building to be undertaken. In addition to economic evidence, we need to regularly present convincing theories and compelling stories about the cultural and creative industries’ value and worth. 8

James Dyson CBE, British inventor, industrial designer and founder of the Dyson company, and Jonathan Ive, Senior Vice President at Apple Inc. 9 Small and Medium Enterprises. 10 National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. 11 Policy Connect is a think tank and advocacy organisation, set up in 1995 to act as a point of contact between particular industrial sectors, including design, and the parliamentary body. It operates by running a number of All Party Parliamentary Groups - whose members include MPs, Peers, and industry representatives - that meet to discuss issues of concern to the industry in question, and the development of policies that might affect those industries.

Bridging the Divide: Articulating the Value of Creativity to Politicos

87

A note on All Party Groups The value and worth of the cultural and creative industries is something that “All Party Parliamentary Groups” (APGs) are in a strategic position to support, by bringing industry and Parliament together in an open and transparent manner. Attributed to the narrowness of traditional parliamentary debate and activity, and the restrictiveness of party politics, APGs are cross-party groups of Parliamentarians who share a particular subject or policy interest, and their numbers have blossomed in recent years. APGs allow MPs and Peers to come together and agitate on topics of mutual concern, and to discuss minority interests which are outside of the normal remit of the chamber or of departments. In the case of design, the fact that it has no clear institutional home or grounding in government policy makes it an ideal subject for a Parliamentary Group. As there is no clear body of policy to critique, the sophistication of discourse in this policy area has fallen behind others – within government and within industry – and the conversation with policymakers begins on rather uncertain ground. Over recent years the Parliamentary Design Group12 has been working to redraw the terms of the debate. (See the Restarting Britain reports 1, 2 and 3. In its third enquiry, the Design Commission is “investigating the role of design in the context of the third (or is it fourth?) industrial revolution, and the policy implications of these industrial developments”).13 The current government does not yet “do” Design Policy, but if it did, what would it look like? What would it address? Who would be involved and what would the different parties contribute? My hope is that by building up a body of work to establish a design policy archive, and by regularly hosting thoughtful discussion around some of the issues discussed in this essay, the APDIG will make a valuable contribution to that imperative task of familiarisation with design and its industries amongst policymakers and Parliamentarians.

12

Its full name is the Associate Parliamentary Design & Innovation Group, or APDIG, see http://www.policyconnect.org.uk/apdig/. 13 The Design Commission is Parliament & industry collaboration: a research group which aims to driving thinking around design policy in the UK. So far the Commission has published influential papers on design education, and public service reform. This third inquiry will turn to the future of industry. See http://www.policyconnect.org.uk/apdig/design-commission/inquiries/restartingbritain-3-design-and-digital-revolution.

88

Chapter Five

References Frontier Economics, The Value of the Cultural and Creative Industries to the European Economy, a Report Prepared for the ECCIA (London: Frontier Economics Ltd, June 2012). Rebellato, Dan, Guardian Culture Professionals Network (24th April 2013). http://jossbailey.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/a-captainless-ship/. http://www.ijdesign.org/ojs/index.php/IJDesign/article/viewFile/477/232. http://www.policyconnect.org.uk/apdig/. http://www.policyconnect.org.uk/apdig/design-commission/inquiries/ restarting-britain-3-design-and-digital-revolution.

WHERE ARE WE NOW? STEVE SWINDELLS AND ANNA POWELL

In 2012 Sarah Fisher completed a report entitled The Cultural Knowledge Ecology, commissioned by Arts Council England (North).1 The report reviews current partnerships between HEIs and cultural organisations, with the intention of sharing good practice and knowledge, and raising awareness of the benefits of such partnerships. The report draws upon discussions held with visual arts professionals and academics currently engaged in partnership work, primarily from across the North of England. The intention of the report, and a subsequent eponymous conference held at Liverpool John Moores University in 2014, explored the ways in which partnerships between HEIs and cultural organisations can be optimised with respect to Arts Council strategic goals. Fisher’s report reflects upon previous research conducted by Oakley and Selwood in 2010, entitled “Conversations and Collaborations: The Leadership of Collaborative Projects between Higher Education and the Arts and Cultural Sector”.2 This stresses the importance of cultural leadership as a key component to driving innovation in both the cultural sector as well as in the broader cultural industries economy. Along a similar vein, the AHRC two year Cultural Value Project (2013 – 15) aims to illustrate the ways in which culture is valued, and to measure its contribution to civil society in a period when the UK higher education policy tends to focus its research funding on STEM subjects.3 Today, across art and design education, there is a growing momentum to educate the public about the vital role of art and design in society, and its contribution to the cultural economy. One aspiration of such projects, as highlighted in the section “Back to the future: STEAM” is to foster the 1

Director of Chinese Arts Centre, Manchester. Kate Oakley and Sara Selwood, Conversations and Collaborations: The Leadership of Collaborative Projects between Higher Education and the Arts and Cultural Sector (Leadership Foundation for HE: 2010). 3 See http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/Funded-Research/Funded-themes-and-programmes/ Cultural-Value-Project/Pages/default.aspx. 2

90

Where Are We Now?

innovation that comes from combining science and technology practices with art and design practices – turning “STEM” into “STEAM”. Artist Bob and Roberta Smith comments: STEAM - It sounds appropriate. The arts make people powerful because art and design is about creating new desires. It inspires people to create their own reality, to get their own thing going.4

Jocelyn Bailey’s essay “Bridging the Divide: Articulating the Value of Creativity to Politicos” reminds us that in the mid-19th century there was a belief in the importance of the arts to civil society, as well as a deep understanding that innovation and creativity within art and design practices play a vital role in nourishing industry: Art and design education is, arguably, the key to creativity, and creativity is an essential precursor of innovation, necessary for the successful development of new industries and future businesses. Despite the reports, funding incentives, and debates – some of which are presented in this publication – there remains a series of questions on the role of the public and universities sectors within the cultural knowledge ecology, including the value of art and design education. In a period of austerity and reduced public funding for the arts, it is pertinent that the Arts Council is now providing guidance on policy and strategic objectives to be shared with HEI leadership bodies, such as the Research Councils UK (RCUK) and Universities UK (UUK) – debates which should also be of interest to local and national government who have long acknowledged HEIs as key economic and cultural drivers. As noted by Fisher’s report, as the main educators of cultural sector professionals, HEIs employ many of the UK’s leading artists and designers; they lead the most innovative and creative research programmes and are becoming increasingly significant deliverers of cultural experiences to the public. She writes: Institutionally, high level HEI strategies dovetail well with those of many arts organisations, especially in workforce development, civic leadership, international profile, and exploring 21st century problems to support wellbeing, social and cultural aims. For the arts the impetus for strengthening interconnections starts with an understanding of HEIs and 4

Bob and Roberta Smith, “Art Party: ‘to preserve education we need to pull down Gove’s gates’”, Guardian Culture Professionals Network (23rd November 2013), accessed 14th February 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/culture-professionals-network/culture-professionalsblog/2013/nov/23/art-party-conference-bob-roberta-smith.

“What is to be Done?”

91

what arts organisations offer as sites of research, public engagement and knowledge sharing.5

It is interesting to note that Professor John Goddard’s reflections on the civic and un-civic university are reminiscent of Ambrogio Lorenzetti’s frescoes The Allegory of Good and Bad Government (1339), where parallels may be drawn between the university campus and the region within which it is located.6 Lorenzetti’s frescoes iconographically depict a successful, “good government” which is founded upon art and cultural vitality, depicted as being central to the heart of a peaceful and balanced civic society, which in turn will provide economic benefits. On the contrary, “bad government” is shown as bereft of art and culture; a damned society plagued by devils, violence and a failing economic infrastructure. Despite their medieval context and allegorical hyperbole there is, perhaps, something we can still learn from the central messages within the Lorenzetti frescoes.7 Paul Manners points out in his essay “Public engagement, impact, and the 21st Century University: a guide for the bewildered”, that the strategic value of public engagement resides in making universities open and accessible to those people and organisations who live around them, in order to nurture a sense of ownership and identity. One such initiative, funded by the European Commission, which actively engages the public in academic research, is Researchers’ Night.8 Often billed as a family event and largely dedicated to STEM subjects, Researchers’ Night events showcase researchers’ contributions to society, often in interactive and engaging ways. They take the form of hands-on experiments, technical and scientific demonstrations, and a range of learning activities for all ages. In 2011 the University of Huddersfield participated in Researchers’ Night, focusing upon Huddersfield’s textiles industry heritage. The event enabled direct access to research, and to facilities not usually available to the public, as well as providing participatory sessions where visitors were able to exchange ideas with key members of research teams and departmental staff.9 Perhaps this, and initiatives like it, need to be made 5

Sarah Fisher, The Cultural Knowledge Ecology, a discussion paper on partnerships between HEIs and cultural organisations (London: ACE, 2012), 13. 6 John Goddard OBE, Emeritus Professor of Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies, Newcastle University. 7 Ambrogio Lorenzetti, The Allegory of Good and Bad Government (1339), Palazzo Pubblico, Siena, Italy. 8 See http://ec.europa.eu/research/researchersnight/index_en.htm. 9 See http://www.flickr.com/photos/69297764@N02/sets/72157627903597267/.

92

Where Are We Now?

more prevalent across the arts and humanities, so that publics can more easily recognise these subjects as valid fields of research, and begin to understand and appreciate the value of non-STEM research. Further, there is arguably a moral and academic case for HEIs being accountable to the public for the research funding they receive. The National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement, for example, notes that there are a growing number of imperatives for HEIs to form clear strategies for engaging the public with their work. There is also the interrelated cultural and business case for HEIs taking the opportunity, and perhaps having a responsibility, for utilising partnerships with cultural and non-cultural organisations, in order to enable an environment of symbiosis which nourishes the local and national economy, and enhances its cultural infrastructure. Twenty four years ago, in 1990, Louwrien Wijers organised a conference entitled Art Meets Science and Spirituality in a Changing Economy. The conference united the thoughts of eminent artists (including Robert Rauschenberg, Marina Abramovic and John Cage), scientists (including David Bohm and Fritjof Capra) and spiritual leaders (including the Dalai Lama and Mother Tessa Bielecki) to discuss how their different voices might, when brought together, transform a “competitive [in]to a compassionate society”.10 Physicist David noted his view that art, science and spirituality are “[the] three basic components of culture”.11 Today there remains a fundamental question for HEIs and cultural organisations: Can the different articulations of “engagement"; of the relationships between art, design and society, be brought together to form one coherent language? The challenge for this publication and others like it, is how to negotiate what these different articulations might mean in practice. To give a current example, the definition of impact as stipulated by the REF includes, but is not limited to: [...] an effect on, change or benefit to: the activity, attitude, awareness, behaviour, capacity, opportunity, performance, policy, practice, process or understanding of an audience, beneficiary, community, constituency, organisation or individuals in any geographic location whether locally, regionally, nationally or internationally.12

10 Joseph Beuys, in Art Meets Science Meets Spirituality (ed. by) Andreas Papadakis (London: Academy Editions, 1990), 7. 11 David Bohm, in Art Meets Science Meets Spirituality (ed. by) Andreas Papadakis (London: Academy Editions, 1990), 7. 12 HEFCE, REF2014: Panel Criteria and Working Methods (London: TSO, 2012).

“What is to be Done?”

93

Will the aspirations of the REF impact agenda translate into something which can stimulate and inspire artists, designers, scientists, cultural organisations and HEIs to generate conversations and partnerships that affect positive cultural change? In 1990 Bohm recognised the need to “start something that might make our culture more coherent”, and Fritjof Capra noted, “We are in a state of global crisis. The characteristic of that crisis is that the major problems of our time are all interconnected.”13 Around the same time, Bill Readings argued in The University in Ruins (1993), that “the grand narrative of the University, centred on the production of a liberal, reasoning subject, is no longer readily available to us”.14 Rather, he saw the university as having become “commodified” in the process of “busily transforming itself from an ideological arm of the state into a bureaucratically organised and relatively autonomous consumeroriented corporation”.15 It is with these challenges and anticipated challenges in mind, past, present and future, that we continue to explore, understand and practice public engagement and cultural leadership as a fundamental component of the civic university. Will we, twenty or thirty years from now, be addressing the same concerns which Wijers, Readings and others explored in the 1990s, or will we be describing an opportunity taken?

13

Fritjof Capra in Art Meets Science Meets Spirituality (ed. by) Andreas Papadakis (London: Academy Editions, 1990), 93. 14 Bill Readings, The University in Ruins (USA: Harvard University Press, 1996), 9. 15 Bill Readings, The University in Ruins (USA: Harvard University Press, 1996), 11.

94

Where Are We Now?

References Bob and Roberta Smith, Guardian Culture Professionals Network (23rd November 2013). Bowie, David Where Are We Now? (2009). From the album The Next Day Extra, 2013. Evans, Jessica and Hall, Stuart (eds.), Visual Culture: The Reader (London: SAGE, 1999). Fisher, Sarah, The Cultural Knowledge Ecology, a discussion paper on partnerships between HEIs and cultural organisations (London: ACE, 2012). Goddard, John, Newcastle University, Emeritus Professor of Regional development Studies, speaking at the LJMU Cultural Ecology Conference. HEFCE, REF2014: Panel Criteria and Working Methods (London: TSO, 2012). Oakley, Kate and Selwood, Sara, Conversations and Collaborations: The Leadership of Collaborative Projects between Higher Education and the Arts and Cultural Sector (Leadership Foundation for HE: 2010). Papadakis, Andreas (ed.), Art Meets Science Meets Spirituality (London: Academy Editions, 1990). Unwin, Julia Guardian Society (11th June 2009). http://ec.europa.eu/research/researchersnight/index_en.htm. http://www.flickr.com/photos/69297764@N02/sets/72157627903597267/.

EDITORS

Steve Swindells Dr Steve Swindells is a Professor of Creative Practice at the University of Huddersfield. As a practising artist he has exhibited his work, individually and collaboratively, across Europe, Asia and North America. He has collaborated with Steve Dutton since 1998. In 2008 Dutton and Swindells received a major Arts Council of England Award to attend an international artist-in-residence programme at Ssamzie Space Studios, Seoul, South Korea. In 2011, the artists were long-listed for the Northern Art Prize. Professor Swindells completed a practice-based PhD in 2004 on The Relationship between Art and Citizenship. Anna Powell Dr Anna Powell is Research Assistant in Contemporary Art in the School of Art, Design and Architecture at the University of Huddersfield. Her previous roles have included teaching modules on contemporary art, the museum and the English country house at the University of Leeds, and supporting the development of education resources for Leeds Art Gallery. She has also managed projects for a variety of heritage, arts and STEM organisations. Her research explores the relationships between artwork, curatorial practice and audience, in relation to both interpretation and public engagement.

CONTRIBUTORS

Claire Donovan Dr Claire Donovan is a Reader in Assessing Research Impact, and joined the Health Economics Research Group at Brunel University in 2010. She originally trained as a philosopher, and holds an MA and DPhil in social and political thought. She previously held research and teaching positions at the Research School of Social Sciences, The Australian National University; Nuffield College, Oxford University; and The Open University. Claire has published widely on assessing research impact (all fields), research evaluation and research policy, evaluation and metrics as technologies of governance, and the place of the humanities, arts and social sciences within science-based evaluation systems. In 2006, Claire was Chair of an Australian Government Technical Working Group on Research Impact, which was tasked with finding the optimum methods for assessing the social, economic, environmental and cultural impact of university research for Australia’s national Research Quality Framework, which has formed the basis of impact assessment for REF2014. Sarah Shalgosky Sarah Shalgosky is Curator of the University of Warwick. Her role encompasses management and development of the University’s Art Collection, as well as the development of the exhibition and events programme at the Mead Gallery. Trained as an art historian at the Universities of East Anglia and then Oxford, Sarah worked at a number of regional museums before taking up her role at Warwick in 1993. Sarah has been a member of advisory panels for the Arts Council and has just completed a ten-year term as a member of the Advisory Committee for the Government Art Collection and a three year term as a member of the Steering Group for Turning Point West Midlands. She is a member of the steering group for the Coventry Contemporary Art Forum.

98

Where Are We Now?

Stephanie James Professor Stephanie James is a fine artist and Associate Dean of the School of Visual Arts at the University of Bournemouth. Her research and professional practice involves exhibiting, organising and curating exhibitions. She has previously completed a knowledge transfer initiative with ArtSway and developed Research Network workshops, exploring “value” in relation to contemporary art. Paul Manners Paul Manners is Associate Professor in Public Engagement at UWE and director of the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement. The NCCPE was set up on 2008 as part of the Beacons for Public Engagement project, which involved six HE-based projects piloting innovative approaches to involving the public in their work. The NCCPE’s role is to help to coordinate public engagement practice and to support innovation and strategic change in HEIs, and it is widely recognised for its expertise in supporting organisational change, partnership working, impact assessment and innovation in engagement. He is chair of the National Trust’s advisory panel on Learning and Engagement and a fellow of the RSA. Rosa Scoble Dr Rosa Scoble graduated from LSE with a degree in Management Sciences and completed a PhD at Brunel University before taking up the role of manager of the School of Information Systems, Computing and Mathematics. She was appointed director of the University’s Research Assessment Exercise 2008 Office. She is currently Deputy Planning Director (Research & Resources) and as part of her role heads the Research Evaluation Unit. Her main areas of expertise are research impact and research information management, with a key interest in research metrics. She has and is working on three JISC funded projects all in the RIM area. In 2009 she ran a pilot study that has led to the development of BRIDE (Brunel Research Impact Device for Evaluation) based on HERG’s Payback Framework. Her work on impact and the development of BRIDE is captured in a research publication that analyses institutional strategies for capturing and enhancing the socio-economic impact of research.

Contributors

99

Jocelyn Bailey Jocelyn Bailey is former Head of Manufacturing Design and Innovation Policy at Policy Connect, an independent, not-for-profit, Westminsterbased think tank. At Policy Connect she coordinated the work of the Associate Parliamentary Design & Innovation Group and the Design Commission. For these groups she has conducted research into the relationship between design education and economic growth in the UK, and, more recently, “Redesigning Public Services”. Alongside policy analysis and research, the role involved a mixture of parliamentary and public affairs, and lobbying; shaping the intellectual space around design policy in Parliament, and in the design community more broadly. She holds an MA in History of Art and a BA in Architecture from Cambridge University, UK.