Who is research and evaluation for?
Reflections on #BeyondMeasure Twitter chat by Centre for Cultural Value
The final Beyond Measure twitter chat focussed on the question ‘Who is research and evaluation for?’. This chat was facilitated by members of the Centre for Cultural Value team: Professor Ben Walmsley (Centre Director), Anne Torreggiani (Centre Co-Director and CEO of The Audience Agency) and Dr Robyn Dowlen (Postdoctoral Research Associate), as well as Tim Joss from Aesop who joined as a contributor. We posed a series of questions intended to stimulate discussion surrounding: who sets the agenda for research in culture, health and wellbeing contexts; how research and evaluation can be inclusive while still meeting the high evidence standards expected by healthcare providers; and what the wider cultural sector can learn about conveying cultural value from culture, health and wellbeing programmes.
We were very pleased to have been joined by a range of contributors including academics, practitioners and representatives from funders and local authorities. The wide range of voices represented within the chat allowed for an open and honest conversation about the challenges associated with answering the question: who is research and evaluation for?
Asking the necessary questions
When discussing how to determine which questions and methods were appropriate, it was clear that contributors felt that they should be tailored to the individual project, its context, and the needs and values of stakeholders. However, it was also noted that the outcomes of evaluations were often determined by funders, which meant that there were not always opportunities to consider other evaluation approaches due to a lack of time and resource. Importantly, it was clear that there was a real desire for researchers to work more closely with creative practitioners to help form relevant questions and areas for investigation. It was suggested that this may enable practitioners to find evaluation more helpful to their own practice rather than treated as a chore.
Creating a balance between culture and health expectations
The second question explored how we balance the need for high quality research/evaluation in order to feed into evidence-based practice alongside ensuring inclusivity, creativity and reflectiveness. This stimulated a discussion around whether arts and culture are having to adopt health and medical models (such as randomised controlled trials) in order to gain approval from healthcare providers. However, it was noted that evidence-based practice is not built on randomised controlled trials alone, and that methods need to be carefully chosen in order to provide the best possible evidence of impact. It was suggested that a rigorously derived typology of evidence is needed within the culture, health and wellbeing area which includes arts-based methods and research in order to create balance between culture and health expectations. It was also noted that it was important to reflect participants’ voices centrally within research and evaluation, including asking questions about how arts and cultural activity is owned by those taking part.
What can the cultural sector learn from culture, health and wellbeing research and evaluation?
The final question centered on what the cultural sector more broadly can learn from culture, health and wellbeing research/evaluation. Contributors discussed the role of the media in often skewing the outcomes from culture, health and wellbeing programmes, with a focus being placed on the positive with the nuances of programmes being ignored. This, it was discussed, often makes it difficult to make the distinction between evidence and advocacy meaning there are tensions about the extent to which there exists a strong evidence-base for culture, health and wellbeing initiatives. While evidence is growing in this area it was highlighted that there is a need for high quality, peer-reviewed academic research going forwards which develops the evidence-base further and addresses current gaps in understanding. Furthermore, it was suggested that the challenge in communicating nuance comes down to the multiple stakeholders, many of whom have vested interests in the outcomes/impacts of culture, health and wellbeing programmes. It was clear that these aren’t challenges that are associated uniquely with culture, health and wellbeing programmes: it applies to the wider cultural sector too.
Overall, the twitter chat was a really insightful and engaged discussion around the very broad question of who is evaluation and research for? The sub-questions we formulated to unpick this broad question were intended to be thought-provoking and we did not expect to provide an answer within a succinct 280-character tweet! However, we hope that this overview gives you a broad indication of the key areas of conversation and perhaps stimulates you to consider this question going forwards when planning and delivering culture, health and wellbeing programmes.
If you want to explore this topic further, the Centre for Cultural Value are planning a programme of online events in November where we will explore some of these questions and challenges in more detail. Join our mailing list to find out more.
