The politics of data collection: Gathering,analysing and using data about the subsidised cultural sector in England

The gathering of ‘evidence’ about the impact of the sector has assumed centre stage in the management of the subsidised cultural sector in England. It is closely associated with an extension of government control over the sector, and the tendency to value culture for its ‘impact’ rather than its intrinsic value.

This chapter of Cultural Trends considers what has been driving data collection, and how valuable its pursuit has actually been. While not disputing the importance of accountability within the public sector, the chapter observes that much of the data produced about the workings of thecultural sector have been criticised as methodologically flawed and that these say more about policy intentions than about actual impact. Until the collection and analysis of data is carried out more accurately and objectively, and until the evidence gathered is used more constructively, it could beargued that much data gathering in the cultural sector has been a spurious exercise.     

A possible teleology of cultural sector data in England

ABSTRACT

In March 2019, Arts Council England (ACE), an official statistics producer, started collecting a new set of data from its National Portfolio Organisations intended to reveal whether those organizations’ intentions correlate with the perceptions of their peers and audiences. In a world dominated by quantitative data, the Impact and Insight Toolkit addresses a perceived lacuna and marks a substantial investment in qualitative metrics. ACE also expects it to address a number of other concerns – help organizations self-evaluate, measure their short-term outcomes and advocate more effectively. Indeed, it envisages that an aggregation of the data collected will support the case for sustained public support of the sector. The Toolkit’s launch comes at a time when changes to the UK’s official statistics are encouraged, and policymakers are looking elsewhere to inform their thinking. The campaigning aspect of ACE’s aspirations suggests a model of data collection and analysis distinct from that of official statistics production, valued for its impartiality. This article considers what might happen if the Toolkit, which relates to ACE’s role as a development agency, encourages data to be collected and analysed in order to deliver specific outcomes. It reflects on three visions of cultural sector data from the past 50 years: Toffler’s The Art of Measuring the Arts, DCMS’s Taking Part and ACE’s Impact and Insight Toolkit. These suggest a trajectory of cultural sector data determined by increasing importance being attached to institutional interests, and implies that the future of cultural sector data in England may be determined by how ACE addresses its potentially conflicting interests as an official data provider and development agency. Greater investment in the former would more accurately reveal the arts’ contribution to economic and social development; greater investment in the latter would encourage the teleological development of cultural sector data designed for sectorial advocacy.     

Extending the cultural research infrastructure: The rise of the regional cultural consortiums in England

Two distinguishing features of the New Labour Government have been its focus on regionalism and the establishment of a department of state, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), explicitly dedicated to ‘cultural’ policy. This paper tracks the development of a new set of regional cultural organizations, the Regional Cultural Consortiums (RCCs). These were established to contribute to regional development and to deliver the DCMS's national policy goals. The paper examines the RCCs' remit, challenges, achievements and prospects, and locates these in wider debates about evidence-based policy and continuity and change in cultural and regional policy. Particular consideration is given to the RCCs' research and data collection activities and their role in developing a move towards improved capacity in regional cultural research and data collection.     

National cultural indicators in New Zealand

New Zealand was one of the first countries in the world to report national cultural indicators – specifically choosing to use a conceptually based framework which was broadly underpinned by theories of culture, industry and political economy. One of the essential elements of this work was the incorporation of a Māori perspective in recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi and the importance of the indigenous Māori culture. Manatū Taonga Ministry for Culture and Heritage has primary central government responsibility for cultural policy and advice and the reporting of national cultural indicators. The term “culture” in this context broadly refers to Māori culture and the cultures of all New Zealanders, and to endeavours relating to arts, heritage, media, and sport and recreation. The Ministry is currently scoping a programme of research that aims to refine the indicators; relate indicators more clearly to the cultural policy role of government (and in turn their related cultural agencies); and more clearly articulate the relationship that cultural sector indicators have with those of other sectors. Cultural sector consultation to identify and clarify perspectives and reconfirm a common terminology (if not understanding) will be an essential and important part of this work. Better contextualising the national indicators will make them more meaningful and useful for reinforcing the importance and value of the cultural sector; monitoring the “health” and performance of the cultural sector over time; providing useful quality information; measuring the effectiveness of policy interventions and connecting across the cultural sector and to other sectors. This paper outlines the New Zealand context and the development and reporting of national indicators; reflects on the usefulness of reporting national indicators to date; and describes and discusses the intended direction of further work.     

Measuring creativity: A case study in the UK's Designer Fashion sector

Since before the 1997 General Election, New Labour has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the creative industries in underpinning the national economy and as an engine of economic growth. The Creative Industries Task Force Mapping Documents of 1998 and 2001 sought to define and quantify in broad terms economic activity across 13 distinct creative industries. More detailed estimates have been published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) in successive annual Creative Industries Economic Estimates.

An assessment is provided of the way in which the creative industries have been measured using the Office of National Statistics' Standard Industrial and Standard Occupational classifications (SIC and SOC). These classifications have themselves been revised since the early 1990s, and further revisions are in prospect from 2007. In this analysis particular focus is given to the ‘Designer Fashion’ sector, illustrated by a number of tables and data analyses.

These actual and proposed revisions have helped in documenting the rapidly emerging creative industries, which have reportedly grown at two to three times the rate of the UK economy as a whole. However, as the Regional Culture Data Framework published in 2002 records, serious problems remain in providing valid assessments of the creative industries sectors from ‘official’ published sources, even for the UK as a whole, let alone at the regional level emphasized by the Regional Culture Data Framework's regional sponsors. In any case, often the ‘scaling factors’ applied to official SIC codes to define creative industries appear arbitrary.

Many of the Regional Culture Data Framework's recommendations, notably the adoption of a more comprehensive ‘supply-chain’ approach to documenting the cultural sector, make further demands upon the existing official structural classifications and the data bases underpinning them. Even where all elements in the ‘supply chain’ are well documented, there are still questions about the validity of this approach. For example, should wholesale and retail distribution of creative industry products be regarded as part of the ‘Cultural Cycle’?

In conclusion, it is suggested that the ‘official’ data has marked limitations in documenting the creative industries and does not realistically or adequately capture the more interesting and dynamic elements of an industry like ‘Designer Fashion’. This is disappointing in a context where central government has placed increasing emphasis upon evidence-based policy to support the development of the creative industries, and where the British ‘Designer Fashion’ sector has lamented the lack of central support in comparison with the French or Italian industries. It is suggested that a more customized approach to collecting data about the creative industries is needed if the results are to usefully inform the further development and profile of these sectors.     

Participation as policy in local cultural governance

ABSTRACT

This article takes on participation not as taking part in cultural activities per se but in cultural policy-making, by studying the transformation and institutionalisation of participatory processes. Focusing on Switzerland, a federalist country where local and private actors play key roles in cultural policy, several processes by which different actors participate in local cultural policy-making are explored. Top-down procedures, such as formalised mandatory consultation procedures or the inclusion of cultural actors in administrative expert committees, coexist with bottom-up grassroots initiatives that can complement or even supplant traditional participatory processes. Furthermore, certain alternative modes and concepts of participation, such as the “cultural council”, circulate between different cases, across levels of state and in time. Participatory processes in cultural policy-making need to be seen as public policies in their own right, which can aim to depoliticise policies and procedures. Furthermore, actors need certain resources in order to participate, and venues aimed at opening participation do so in a restrained framework, focusing mostly on artistic and cultural elites rather than encourage larger citizen participation.     

Cultural clusters and cultural industries in China

Through examining the development and the nature of the new cultural districts in China, namely, “clusters of Beijing,” this paper attempts to identify the characteristics of, and critically evaluate, the existing models of culture clusters in China. Obviously, these cultural clusters are seen as a united and state effort to assist, develop and boost the so-called cultural industries, including game, animation, comic, software, science and technology and so forth. However, with the clusters of Beijing as a case study, in this paper we argue that in the course of development, the state interests and the authorities' local (e.g. district) interest are often prioritized over the culture or the local interest. There are also tensions and contradictions among various interest groups on different levels of operations of these cultural clusters. In sum, apart from enhancing the private creative industries, developing the national cultural economy, or revitalizing the old industries as in the cluster models of many western countries, economic interests, political powers of the districts and soft power of the nation can be the overriding interests behind the booming cultural clusters in China.     

The concentric circles model of the cultural industries

This paper examines the assumptions and structure of the concentric circles model of the cultural industries. Empirical data for Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the US are used to illustrate the model's key characteristic: the proposition that the cultural content of the output of the cultural industries declines as one moves outwards from the core. The test uses the proportion of creative labour employed in production as a proxy for cultural content. The results confirm the model's validity as a means of depicting the structural characteristics of the cultural industries and also enable some wider features of the cultural workforce in the five countries to be examined.     

Transformation and job creation in the cultural and creative industries in South Africa

The cultural and creative industries (CCIs) have been hailed as offering great potential to create jobs and to be socially inclusive. Since artistic success is defined by individual talent, or merit, the CCIs should be one sector that is especially open to, and appreciative of, social diversity in terms of race, class, cultural group and gender. However, as expected, recent studies in both the UK and the US have revealed that employment in the CCIs is heavily dominated by the middle classes, and is not as diverse in terms of other characteristics. Since the advent of democracy in South Africa in 1994, transformation of firm ownership, previously dominated by white people, to include more black, coloured and Indian/Asian-origin South Africans, has been an important part of achieving greater economic equality and social cohesion, as well as being more representative of the cultures of the majority of the population. Using data from a survey of 2400 CCIs firms in South Africa, this paper examines the extent to which the CCIs in South Africa have transformed in terms of ownership and employment. Comparisons are also made across the six UNESCO [(2009). Framework for cultural statistics. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.uis.unesco.org/culture/Pages/framework-cultural-statistics.aspx] “Cultural Domains” in terms of ownership, average monthly turnover and the number of full-time, part-time and contract employees. Results show some diversity in the industry, but significant differences between the Domains. Statistical analysis demonstrates that CCI funding policy in South Africa is sensitive to advancing the transformation agenda in that more transformed firms were shown to be more likely to have received some form of government grant as part of their income.