Chapter One (pp. 19-28) Creating #havoc: a holistic approach to valuing our culture

Chapter One (pp. 19-28)

Creating #havoc: a holistic approach to valuing our culture

A central theme of the symposium on Public Engagement and Impact: Articulating Value in Art and Design was the question of how the cultural sector should most effectively respond to increased bureaucratic pressure to supply evidence of the value of culture. The chapter proposes a holistic solution, based on the findings of a research project

that directly engaged with the cultural sector and its views about the idea of measuring cultural value. The project was Phase Two of an initiative funded by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), and its end product was a report to the DCMS, A Holistic Approach to Valuing Our Culture

(Donovan 2013).

The chapter first provides a summary of the findings of the Phase One report (O’Brien 2010) which recommended that the cultural sector should embrace the use of a specific range of economic valuation techniques. The chapter then notes that there are 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. The chapter 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) that were accessible to the whole cultural sector. The chapter 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; and then explains how, through finding unanimous cultural sector approval for a holistic approach to valuing culture, the Phase Two project transcended this divide.

The chapter maintains that a holistic approach captures value that is unique to the cultural sector, can be applied to the full range and scale of cultural sector organisations, can include economic or non-economic data, and can be used to inform funding decisions at the local, regional and national level. It concludes that the time is ripe for the cultural sector to press for funding agencies and government to adopt a more meaningful, inclusive, holistic approach valuing our culture.

Measure for Measure

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.” (O’Brien 2010, 4)

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 (8-9). The following provides a flavour of the preferred types of measure: 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 (e.g. cost of tickets and travel) or in related markets (e.g. 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 may 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 cultural sector. The Phase Two work therefore sought to test, with cultural sector representatives, a range of quantitative, qualitative, and narrative approaches to “measuring” cultural value. There were two stakeholder workshops, the first of which ran through lists of possible economic and alternative techniques, measure for measure, to decide which held the most promise for capturing the value that was unique to the cultural sector.

The Tempest

The long-running cultural value debate concerns 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 (e.g. social and economic benefits), institutional value (public benefits created by institutions), and intrinsic value

(subjective, intellectual, emotional, spiritual) (Hewison and Holden 2004; Holden 2006, 14). However, governments are

perceived to only have an interest in instrumental value and its social and economic impact, and so data collection not only overlooks intrinsic value, but employs methods completely unable to grasp the essence of the subjective

experience of culture (Holden 2006, 32, 48). 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 applied to the cultural sector capture intrinsic values because these underpin people’s preferences, which are revealed through people’s market behaviour, or are expressed through people’s hypothetical willingness to pay for cultural goods or services (Bakhshi et al. 2009, 20). Indeed, “reluctance to use economic methods has hindered rather than helped the case for the arts” (2-3).

My personal involvement in the Phase Two work began due to my previous experience in chairing a government committee in Australia 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 (Donovan 2008). 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 being tied to economic measures to embracing 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 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.” (1917 [1893] Act III) From my point of view, the cultural value debate was lagging behind the impact debate, and was dominated by the tyranny of The Green Book 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, large- and 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 cultural economists to advocates of anthropological approaches to constructing narrative accounts of cultural value. The first workshop narrowed down a range of promising “measures” of cultural value to test, and then decided on a range of features to be included in case study simulations to be road-tested in the second workshop.

The expected tempest proved to be a storm in a teacup. The polarisation I had expected to encounter between workshop participants was not apparent: there was unanimous support for a holistic approach that could draw on economic, non-monetary quantitative, qualitative and narrative techniques, 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 and so alternative techniques were more fitting. It was also agreed that non-economic techniques (including narrative 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”, 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 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

2

economic valuation techniques recommended by Phase One. Yet after an extensive review of the literature and of government guidance documents, that part of the Phase Two research also found that reliance on these economic valuation techniques alone was insufficient and unrealistic in practice (Donovan 2013, 16-17). In part this was due to the lack of an adequate foundation of relevant economic valuation studies—an absence previously noted by Hasan Bakhshi (2012, 2); that the time, expertise, and expense required was beyond the reach of the majority of cultural sector organisations; and that a preference for using benefits transfer equations (based on a bank of relevant studies) was not possible due to a dearth of such studies and because original economic valuation studies would always be required for unique cultural goods, large investments, and important policy decisions.

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, in principle, 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 funding decisions at the local, regional and national level. It could capture value that was unique to the cultural sector, and while any wider instrumental benefits were desirable, these was viewed as a spill-over of the cultural intervention and its intrinsic value. In this light, the starting point of any valuation should be the value that the cultural sector uniquely offers, and should address cultural and artistic practice, and include assessments of the value and quality of the art form or cultural practice in question. Another benefit was felt to be 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 that respect, organisations could start with what they value, and then seek to represent this, and valuations could include instrumental or 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 that the cost and the effort required should be 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 Project that 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 report (minus the critique of various economic valuation techniques) was published.

All’s Well That Ends Well

The key messages from the Phase Two research regarding the very idea of measuring culture 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) that 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.

The time is ripe for the cultural sector to press for funding agencies and government to adopt a more meaningful,

inclusive, approach to valuing culture. The Phase Two work revealed 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.

References

Bakhshi, Hasan. 2012. “Measuring Cultural Value.” Keynote speech presented at the Culture Count: Measuring Cultural Value Forum, Customs House, Sydney, Australia, March 20.

Bakhshi, Hasan, Alan Freeman, and Graham Hitchen. 2009. Measuring Intrinsic Value: How to Stop Worrying and Love Economics. London: Missions, Models, Money.

Donovan, Claire. 2013. A Holistic Approach to Valuing Our Culture: A Report to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. London: Department of Culture, Media and Sport.

Donovan, Claire. 2008. “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: 47- 60.

Hewison, Robert, and John Holden. 2004. Challenge and Change: HLF and Cultural Value—A Report to the Heritage Lottery Fund. London: DEMOS.

Holden, John. 2006. Cultural Value and the Crisis of Legitimacy: Why Culture Needs a Democratic Mandate. London:

DEMOS.

O’Brien, David. 2010. Measuring the Value of Culture: A Report to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport.

London: Department of Culture, Media and Sport.

Wilde, Oscar. 1917 [1893]. Lady Windermere’s Fan: A Play About a Good Woman. London: Methuen.

4

1 Notes

The chapter 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 of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), grant reference ES/J008265/1. The views and opinions expressed in the chapter 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).

3 The symposium talk upon which the chapter 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 Juliette with a pensive-looking Shakespeare in the foreground) to symbolise the intrinsic/economic divide present in 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 chapter uses the play titles for its subheadings.

The animation used at the symposium can be found online at http://bit.ly/1a9vzvD. The image “Happy Happy Joy Joy” is reproduced

with the kind permission of Ady Lander (Adrian Lander Photography, Melbourne).