Advertisement

Researching (with) Audiences

  • Ben WalmsleyEmail author
Chapter
  • 217 Downloads
Part of the New Directions in Cultural Policy Research book series (NDCPR)

Abstract

Audience research must strive to capture, illustrate, and interpret the value and impact of audiences’ experiences of the arts from a diverse range of disciplines, including positivist techniques that are primarily geared towards the statistical analysis of audiences’ behaviours and experiences as well as those whose objectives are more anthropological and interpretivist. This chapter provides a critical overview of the most common quantitative, qualitative, and bioscientific audience research methods and illustrates how these different methods can be fruitfully combined and even systematically triangulated to provide a multi-perspectival approach to audience research.

References

  1. Alasuutari, P. 1995. Researching culture: Qualitative method and cultural studies. London, Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Barker, M. 2006. I have seen the future and it is not here yet …; or, on being ambitious for audience research. The Communication Review, 9(2), pp. 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baxter, L. 2010. From luxury to necessity: The changing role of qualitative research in the arts. In: O’Reilly, D. and Kerrigan, F. (eds.) Marketing the arts: A fresh approach. London, Routledge, pp. 121–140.Google Scholar
  4. Baxter, L., O’Reilly, D. and Carnegie, E. 2013. Innovative methods of inquiry into arts engagement. In: Radbourne, J., Glow, H. and Johanson, K. (eds.) The audience experience: A critical analysis of audiences in the performing arts. Bristol, Intellect, pp. 113–128.Google Scholar
  5. Bazeley, P. and Kemp, L. 2012. Mosaics, triangles, and DNA: Metaphors for integrated analysis in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6, pp. 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blau, H. 1990. The audience. Baltimore, The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bruner, J. S. 2009. Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Burns, D. 2007. Systemic action research. Bristol, Polity Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chase, S. E. 2005. Narrative inquiry: Multiple lenses, approaches, voices. In: Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.) The Sage handbook of qualitative research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, pp. 651–679.Google Scholar
  11. Conner, L. 2013. Audience engagement and the role of arts talk in the digital era. New York, Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Creswell, J. W. 2014. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 4th ed. London, Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Davern, M. T., Cummins, R. A. and Stokes, M. A. 2007. Subjective wellbeing as an affective-cognitive construct. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, pp. 429–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellis, C. 1991. Sociological introspection and emotional experience. Symbolic Interaction, 14(1), pp. 23–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flick, U. 2016. Mantras and myths: The disenchantment of mixed-methods research and revisiting triangulation as a perspective. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1), pp. 46–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Froggett, L., Muller, L. and Bennett, J. 2019. The work of the audience: Visual matrix methodology in museums. Cultural Trends, 28(2–3), pp. 162–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Galloway, S., Hamilton, C., Scullion, A. and Bell, D. 2005. Quality of life and well-being: Measuring the benefits of culture and sport—Literature review and thinkpiece. Edinburgh, Scottish Executive Social Research.Google Scholar
  18. Garcia, B., Melville, R. and Cox, T. 2010. Creating an impact: Liverpool’s experience as European Capital of Culture. Liverpool, University of Liverpool and Liverpool John Moores University.Google Scholar
  19. Gaser, C. and Schlaug, G. 2003. Brains structures differ between musicians and non-musicians. Journal of Neuroscience, 23(27), pp. 9240–9245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Geertz, C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York, Basic Books.Google Scholar
  21. Geertz, C. 1998. Deep hanging out. The New York Review of Books, 45(16), p. 69.Google Scholar
  22. Hanquinet, L., O’Brien, D. and Taylor, M. 2019. The coming crisis of cultural engagement? Measurement, methods, and the nuances of niche activities. Cultural Trends, 28(2–3), pp. 198–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hartley, J. and Benington, J. 2000. Co-research: A new methodology for new times. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(4), pp. 463–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hill, L., O’Sullivan, C. and O’Sullivan, T. 2003. Creative arts marketing. 2nd ed. Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann.Google Scholar
  25. Holden, J. 2012. New Year, new approach to wellbeing? Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture-professionals-network/culture-professionals-blog/2012/jan/03/arts-heritage-wellbeing-cultural-policy [Accessed 5 January].
  26. Ingold, T. 2007. Anthropology is not ethnography. In: Proceedings of The British Academy 2008. London, The British Academy, pp. 62–92.Google Scholar
  27. Johanson, K. 2013. Listening to the audience: Methods for a new era of audience research. In: Radbourne, J., Glow, H. and Johanson, K. (eds.) The audience experience: A critical analysis of audiences in the performing arts. Bristol, Intellect, pp. 159–171.Google Scholar
  28. Johanson, K. and Glow, H. 2015. A virtuous circle: The positive evaluation phenomenon in arts audience research. Participations, 12(1), pp. 254–270.Google Scholar
  29. Jones, P., Bunce, G., Evans, J., Gibbs, H. and Hein, J. R. 2008. Exploring space and place with walking interviews. Journal of Research Practice [Online], 4(2).Google Scholar
  30. Kozinets, R. 2010. Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. London, Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Lask, T. 2011. Cognitive maps: A sustainable tool for impact evaluation. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 3(1), pp. 44–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Latulipe, C., Carroll, E. A. and Lottridge, D. 2011. Evaluating longitudinal projects combining technology with temporal arts. In: International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar
  33. Ledwith, M. 2007. On being critical: Uniting theory and practice through emancipatory action research. Educational Action Research, 15(4), pp. 597–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lilley, A. and Moore, P. 2013. Counting what counts: What Big Data can do for the cultural sector. London, NESTA.Google Scholar
  35. Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F. and McBrewster, J. 2009. Confirmation bias. Saarbrücken, VDM Publishing.Google Scholar
  36. Moum, T. 2007. A critique of “Subjective Wellbeing as an affective cognitive construct” by Davern, Cummins and Stokes. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, pp. 451–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moustakas, C. 1990. Heuristic research: Design, methodology, and applications. London, Sage.Google Scholar
  38. O’Brien, D. 2010. Measuring the value of culture: A report to the Department for Culture Media and Sport. London, Department for Culture Media and Sport.Google Scholar
  39. Oman, S. and Taylor, M. 2018. Subjective well-being in cultural advocacy: A politics of research between the market and the academy. Journal of Cultural Economy, 11(3), pp. 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pitts, S. E. 2013. Amateurs as audiences: Reciprocal relationships between playing and listening to music. In: Radbourne, J., Glow, H. and Johanson, K. (eds.) The audience experience: A critical analysis of audiences in the performing arts. Bristol, Intellect, pp. 83–93.Google Scholar
  41. Reason, M. 2010. Asking the audience: Audience research and the experience of theatre. About Performance, 10, pp. 15–34.Google Scholar
  42. Rubin, H. J. and Rubin, I. 2005. Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA; London, Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Sauter, W. 2000. The theatrical event: Dynamics of performance and perception. Iowa City, University of Iowa Press.Google Scholar
  44. Seale, C. 2012. Researching society and culture. London, Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Sedgman, K. 2017. Audience experience in an anti-expert age: A survey of theatre audience research. Theatre Research International, 42(3), pp. 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Seung, Y., Kyong, J., Woo, S., Lee, B. and Lee, K. 2005. Brain activation during music listening in individuals with or without prior music training. Neuroscience Research, 52(4), pp. 323–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Taylor, M. 2016. Nonparticipation or different styles of participation? Alternative interpretations from Taking Part. Cultural Trends, 25(3), pp. 169–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. The Audience Agency. 2018. Audience Finder [Internet]. The Audience Agency. Available from: https://www.theaudienceagency.org/audience-finder [Accessed 24 May].
  49. University College London. 2017. Audience members’ hearts beat together at the theatre [Internet]. London, University College London. Available from: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/slms/slms-news/slms/audience-members-hearts-beat-together?utm_content=buffer14d3c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer [Accessed 23 April].
  50. Vincs, K. 2013. Structure and aesthetics in audience responses to dance. In: Radbourne, J., Glow, H. and Johanson, K. (eds.) The audience experience: A critical analysis of audiences in the performing arts. Bristol, Intellect, pp. 129–142.Google Scholar
  51. vom Lehn, D. 2010. Examining “response”: Video-based studies in museums and galleries. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4(1), pp. 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. vom Lehn, D. and Heath, C. 2016. Action at the exhibit face: Video and the analysis of social interaction in museums and galleries. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(15–16), pp. 1441–1457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wallendorf, M. and Brucks, M. 1993. Introspection in consumer research: Implementation and implications. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), pp. 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Walmsley, B. 2012. Towards a balanced scorecard: A critical analysis of the Culture and Sport Evidence (CASE) programme. Cultural Trends, 21(4), pp. 325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Walmsley, B. 2018. Deep hanging out in the arts: An anthropological approach to capturing cultural value. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 24(2), pp. 227–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. White, T. R. and Hede, A.-M. 2008. Using narrative inquiry to explore the impact of art on individuals. Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society, 38(1), pp. 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wogan, P. 2004. Deep hanging out: Reflections on fieldwork and multisited Andean ethnography. Identities, 11(1), pp. 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Woods, P. 2015. Skilful spectatorship? Doing (or being) audience at Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre. Shakespeare Studies, 43, pp. 99–113.Google Scholar
  59. Yu, J. E. 2004. Reconsidering participatory action research for organizational transformation and social change. Journal of Organisational Transformation and Social Change, 1(2–3), pp. 111–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School Performance Cultural IndustriesUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations