This article provides a critical analysis of the methods employed in the Culture and Sport Evidence (CASE) programme. Based on a comprehensive review of the arts management and cultural policy literature, it contests recent claims that the cultural sector should state its value in the economic language of policy appraisal and evaluation (O’Brien, 2010) and proposes alternative methods for evaluating the drivers, impact and value of engagement in the arts, including the balanced scorecard approach.
The literature identifies a number of fundamental problems in quantifying the social and personal impact of the arts, and an underlying policy issue is that the arts have become increasingly subject to the benchmarks of incompatible disciplines and practices. This paper seeks to redress the balance by questioning the argument that economic cost benefit analysis is the best way to understand cultural value and influence public policy.
As the CASE programme aimed to make the business case for optimum Government investment in sport and culture, it adopted the framework set out in HM Treasury’s Green Book and took a quantitative, evidence-based approach to measuring the drivers, impact and instrumental value of engagement, disregarding established qualitative studies and approaches, which have been shown to articulate cultural value through a more personal, intrinsic and holistic lens. This article makes the case for a more balanced approach to cultural evaluation and a more holistic articulation of cultural value, which would combine intrinsic and instrumental benefits and comprise both qualitative and quantitative methods.
The key implication of this re-conception of value is that cultural policy should be evaluated not on return on investment but rather against a balanced range of objectives and articulated in a language that reflects artistic practice and speaks directly to existing and potential audiences.
CORE (COnnecting REpositories)
CORE (COnnecting REpositories)