Sara Selwood

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

Abstract 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.

Access, efficiency and excellence: Measuring non‐economic performance in the English subsidised cultural sector

Abstract The requirement to evaluate policies and measure performance in the publicly funded cultural sector in the UK has become increasingly pressing since the early 1980s. This chapter reviews the various attempts to do that. It demonstrates how economic and other quantifiable measures have tended to be emphasised whereas the qualitative aspects of cultural provision, which are more difficult to measure, have tended to be neglected. The chapter presents the first overview of the subject. It covers developments within what is referred to as the ‘cultural framework’ ‐ the infrastructure associated with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which includes the ‘arts funding framework’. It also looks at developments affecting local authorities’ provision of cultural services. The chapter draws on various published and unpublished policy documents, and accounts, as well as interviews with individuals involved in the development of performance management in the cultural sector. Their views are presente...

Museums in the U.K.: Some Evidence on Scale and Activities

This paper reviews the availability and quality of statistical evidence on the structure, visitor patterns and funding of the museum sector in the U.K. The policy context is discussed and the implications for cultural economics are reviewed.

In search of cultural policy

Since May 2010, when the new Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government came to power in England, relatively few cultural policy imperatives have been issued. What there have been are reductions in public funding and the abolition of 19 of the 55 quangos previously supported by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s (DCMS), several of which had been established under New Labour. DCMS has been attempting to encourage more private “philanthropy” (DCMS, 2010), a project that, until the Treasury’s recent U-turn, seemed to be at odds with its current proposal to close tax loopholes and was generally considered more likely to curtail major donations to cultural organisations and other charities (Bailey, 2012). After 13 years of unprecedented levels of hands-on, strategic direction from DCMS, cultural organisations in England are still getting used to a government that appears to be returning to more of an arms’-length relationship with its agencies. Against this background, the latest Cultural Trends conference set out in search of cultural policy. Many of the places it found it were far from the UK. One of the many stimulating aspects of Cultural Trends conferences is the international spread of presentations, which gives unexpected context to more local thinking. This year was no exception, with analysis of cultural policy in places as varied as China, Peru and Israel. But, like the conference itself, this Editorial begins closer to home. In introducing the conference, Editor, Sara Selwood, was optimistic. Despite cuts in England, levels of public funding to culture are still considerably higher than they once were – not least, under the previous Conservative government. But since the November 2011 conference, In search of cultural policy, the Minister for Culture has announced significant increases on the estimates of Lottery funding made at the time of the comprehensive spending review of October 2010. He has also defended his government’s cultural policy as characterised by “Generous funding; philanthropy matchfunding and tax breaks; increasing Lottery income; a technology fund; the first ever national music and cultural education plans. . .” (Valzey, 2012). In retrospect, the sector appears to have found it easy to forget how, when New Labour’s cultural policy was rolled out, cultural organisations struggled with the government’s insistence on political imperatives informing the investment of public funds. This ostensibly tied them to having to meet specific expectations and targets. Opposition to that was often high-profile and vociferous (see, for example, Hytner, 2003). But, over a decade later, many people in the sector, seem to regard the withdrawal of policy as a deficit, which is creating gaps in the system. The relative absence of conspicuous political determinism, together with the loosening of government strings, theoretically, might have constituted a freeing up cultural organisations to be unrestrained in focusing on what they wished for, and to take charge of their own futures in the market (Lees, 2009). That of, course, is the government’s policy and reflects its belief in demand-side stimulus as a driver.

Looking back: understanding visits to museums in the UK since the nineteenth century

Museums and galleries (hereafter museums) are amongst the most visited cultural institutions in the world. They have become the subject of unprecedented levels of scholarly interest: institutional histories have been published in growing numbers; museology is recognised as an academic specialism; and cultural, sociological, economic and political historians all contribute to research on the sector. Thus, the history of museums, covering the last two centuries, is being understood from a number of perspectives, and as embracing a range of themes. Such approaches largely represent “supply-side” interests in that they provide accounts that explore and explain the creation, maintenance, functioning, management and (usually) the expansion of individual museums. These tend to draw on abundant and accessible archival material, and are often (but not always) published by the museums themselves (e.g. AveryQuash & Sheldon, 2011; Burton, 1999; Cannadine, 2007). Less in evidence, but theoretically equally important, should be “demand-side” histories – parallel and intersecting accounts of the visits and visitors that those museums have attracted, and for whom they are maintained. But, despite museums’ “success” being quantified in terms of their visit numbers, until recently the millions of visits made to such places in the past elicited little interest. The distinction between visits and visitors is crucial here. Although the annual figures that mostmuseums produce are referred to as “visitor numbers”, they record visits rather than visitors. Given that many people visit more than once a year, the actual number of visitors is significantly less than the total number of visits. Nowadays, most museums are concerned with their recent, current and future visit numbers, and need to know if their audiences are stable or fluctuating, growing or declining. The explanations that they offer for variations in those numbers have often been short-sighted, institutionally specific and predominantly concerned with the relative success of their programmes. But, over the past decade or so, local, national and international benchmarking exercises have offered explanations of general trends related to such external influences as overseas tourism markets, domestic staycations, the economy, exchange rates and Brexit and changes in market behaviour related to digital connectivity. This suggests that, beyond the specific attendances at individual institutions, broader patterns of museum visiting apply and that deeper forces may influence visit numbers over time. An earlier piece of work which examined the visit numbers of a varied group of eight London museums since 1851 (Selwood & Osterlund, 2004) suggested that art museums, applied art museums, natural history museums and science museums might be subject to similar patterns of attendance. It seemed that that time series, and explanations for

Museums for the many? Rhetorical optimism and the failure of sustained political will at three London government-funded museums – then and now

ABSTRACT This article contends that there are considerable similarities between nineteenth- and twenty-first-century aspirations for museums – not least, in respect to promises of “museums for the many”. Despite contemporary policy makers of different political allegiances embracing similar rhetorics, in general they appear to have had little interest in reflecting on previous realities. This article focuses on attendances at three national museums, in particular the British Museum, the National Gallery and, the Victoria & Albert Museum (formerly, the South Kensington Museum) over two periods: from the early 1850s to the late 1880s, and from the late 1970s to the present. It interrogates those and other institutions’ visit data for evidence of whether they did, indeed, deliver to “the many”. It questions the commitment of state-supported museums to those target audiences, both then and now.

Multiple Perspectives on Culture Counts

The measurement of performance and impact is fundamental to Cultural Trends. The journal champions the generation of better information on the cultural and creative sectors and its widespread dissemination; it seeks to stimulate analysis and understanding of culture and the creative sectors based on relevant and reliable data; it provides a critique of the empirical evidence upon which policy on culture and the creative industries may be based, implemented, evaluated and developed; and it examines the soundness of measures of the performance of government and public sector bodies pertaining to the cultural and creative sectors. It has, consequently, been following with interest the development of quality metrics and Culture Counts, in particular. Culture Counts was first discussed in a Policy Review, “Measuring quality in the cultural sector: the Manchester Metrics pilot: Findings and lessons learned” (Selwood, 2015), which provoked the journal’s first ever debate (Balshaw et al., 2016; Selwood, 2016). Earlier this year, we published a Policy Perspective by Robert Phiddian, Julian Meyrick, Tully Barnett & Richard Maltby (2017), “Counting culture to death: An Australian perspective on culture counts and quality metrics”. This has also prompted a comment by David Throsby, which we are publishing alongside a response by the authors. This discussion prompted us to invite others to comment on what is evidently a highly contested issue. Cultural Trends has always been interested in publishing work by academics, those working for cultural agencies and practitioners. Alongside Throsby and Phiddian et al., we are publishing three commentaries that broaden out the discussion. The contributors include Arts Council England (ACE), John Smithies, Cultural Development Network, Australia, and Rosemary James-Beith, Glasgow Life. Their geographic affiliations reflect the presence of Culture Counts in the UK and Australia. The contributors themselves represent different constituencies of interest. Unlike the academics (Throsby, Phiddian, Meyrick, Barnett & Maltby), each of these contributors have, or have had, some involvement in Culture Counts – albeit in different capacities. Possible bias and conflicts of interest are, therefore, acknowledged. ACE is the main promoter and funder of Culture Counts in the UK. Its account cites Nick Merriman, and Colin Walker, both of whom were invited to contribute to this commentary. Nick Merriman was engaged in the first UK pilot (which was known as the Manchester Metrics), and one of the contributors to Balshaw et al. (2016). Colin Walker, Department of Culture and the Arts, Western Australia, commissioned the first work in Australia on Culture Counts. John Smithies, Executive Officer, Cultural Development Network, has been involved in developing the ZAPS tool for cultural project planning in Australia. This is being jointly promoted with Culture Counts’ evaluation and reporting of cultural projects’ impact. The two systems combined are being marketed as providing a comprehensive solution to the problems of valuing cultural initiatives.

Cultural Trends election special

In its recent report on theWork of Arts Council England, the House of Common’s Culture, Media and Sport Committee noted that “Apart from fleeting references to access to the arts and the arms’ length principle, the Government provides relatively little in the way of a developed policy” (HoC, 2014, p. 7). It not only recommended that “the Government produces and publishes a comprehensive arts policy”, but that “Public funds should be used to support cultural activities that demonstrably contribute to the highest standards of excellence in art, engagement of communities and sustainable economic growth”; that “The principle of [Lottery] additionality should be adhered to both in spirit and in practice”; that “the Government emphasizes to local authorities the advantages associated with an appropriate level of engagement with cultural policy and provision – including what funding opportunities ought to be developed” and that “the Arts Minister should use his or her position to champion the arts at every opportunity, including in dialogues with local authorities” (pp. 36–38). One might have thought that these would be the basic requirements of any department of culture. One would have thought that these would be the least expected of any department of culture. This special issue of Cultural Trends, published ahead of the 2015 UK general election, is intended to stimulate debate about the past and future of cultural policy, to critique current assumptions and to introduce fresh ideas. Cultural Trends invited a number of independent contributors, thinkers and practitioners to reflect on lessons learned from the past five years of the Coalition’s cultural policies, opportunities that have been missed and the possibilities that might be grasped by the next government. Given the journal’s emphasis on empirical evidence, these contributors have – in the main – concentrated on the pragmatics of policy and its outcomes. As such, this Election Special is the fullest account of the culture and cultural policies of the Coalition years to date (see Hewison, 2014, p. 217ff). The contributions cover a rich variety of cultural activities – archaeology, the arts, art and design education, film, heritage and museums and radio – and a range of themes, including the effects of austerity, various inequities, neo-liberalism, regulation, UK and European funding and tax breaks, and well-being. While some of these are the “usual suspects”, Fiona Reynolds’ proposition that politicians should consider the role of beauty, certainly is not. 2015, election year, marks the 50th anniversary of Jennie Lee’s A policy for the arts (Great Britain, 1965). Some contributors have reflected on its enduring principles, not least that cultural provision is essential and that “the exclusion of so many for so long from the best of our cultural heritage can become as damaging to the privileged minority as to the underprivileged majority”. But, however, pertinent Lee’s thinking may still be, Britain is no longer the nation that her policy was intended for, as Deborah Bull points out. When it comes to “the most principled rationale for a public cultural policy”, David Pratley proposes the neglected (SDP, 1986) Green Paper:

Centre/periphery: devolution/federalism: new trends in cultural policy

Cultural Trends 73/74 is a special double issue. It contains written versions of papers given at the journal’s second one-day international conference, held at City University, London, in October 2009. The theme of the conference, Centre/Periphery: Devolution/Federalism: New Trends in Cultural Policy, was intended to reflect the tension between the power and resources at the centre and the interests and ambitions of the periphery – a long-standing issue in cultural policy. This has strongly been in play during the years of the Labour government. The UK has witnessed simultaneously the decline of regionalism and the rise of devolved governments that are experimenting with cultural policy as one of their first exercises in independence from London. Other countries in Europe and the wider world, however, have longer experience of cultural devolution, regionalism and federalism. The conference was intended to interrogate these concepts in the context of the UK cultural sector, and asks what lessons overseas models may have for us. The nine articles selected for the conference, and for this special issue, consider aspects of the situation in England, Scotland, Canada, Israel, Italy, Poland, Spain and Europe. Their authors come from a wide range of disciplines, including cultural policy, economics, journalism, social history, communication, management, art history and political science. It follows that the articles themselves reflect a wide range of perspectives. In this issue of Cultural Trends, as in the conference, the articles have been formally grouped together under four headings: