June 4,2005
The Evidence-based Policy in the Cultural and Creative Industries
This essay was my second assignment for the subject "Creative Industries Research Seminar" in the third semester. Any quotation please advice in advance.
Introduction
The notion of 'Creative Industries' incorporates broad issues such as arts and cultural sectors, new media, urban regeneration, social capital and other relevant fields. According to the definition of the 'Creative Industries' in the UK (DCMS, 1997), not only should concrete issues such as economic and employment growth be measured, but abstract ideas such as the deployment of creativities or the rise of cultural identity should also be considered when developing creative industries. In order to successfully develop a new concept in practice, the policy makers are expected to refer to various evidences to formulate strategies. However, as Oakley (2004) argues, even though a large number of materials have been established for the creative industries, evidence for supporting relevant policies is still underdeveloped.
The term 'evidence-based policy' has developed from the concept of evidence-based practice, which has its origin in evidence-based medicine (Marston and Watts, 2003). Researchers and policy activists in the UK have been attempting to mobilise and utilise social science research systematically and then driving the evolution of the evidence-based policy. Evidence-based policy making is not equal to 'good policy making' (O' Dwyer, 2004). Rather, through rigorous and sufficient evidence, policy will be developed with meaningful concepts and be implemented effectively. This essay will look at the evidence-based research and policy making in the creative industries related fields. Four issues will be incorporated into the paper: the drivers of evidence-based policy, the common critiques, the methodologies of evidence-based research, and new approaches in the future.
Why evidence-based policy?
Several forces have been driving evidence-based policy in the UK. The Labour government revitalised the commitment to evidence-based policy and initiated its modernising agenda after the triumph of its election in 1997 (Davies, 2004; Nutley, Davies and Walter, 2002). According to Solesbury (2001), the Blair government's stance was anti-ideological and pragmatic. In the 1999 White Paper on Modernising government, the concept of evidence-based policy was stated:
This Government expects more of policy makers. More new ideas, more willingness to question inherited ways of doing things, better use of evidence and research in policy making and better focus on policies that will deliver long term goals (quoted by Solesbury, 2001).
The evidence has become important since people increase the demand for obtaining knowledge and less take professional views on trust (Solesbury, 2001). As Oakley (2004) states, the considerable research that has been conducted for policy making worldwide is under public pressure to provide evidence to support their policies and strategies. Furthermore, the greater international transparency and emergence of the Internet offers people an environment within which the information and knowledge could be diffused and accessed easily (Oakley, 2005; Davies, 2004). Thus, as Solesbury (2001) argues, policy makers and practitioners need knowledge management to provide 'know how', 'know what', 'know why', and 'know who' to people. In the creative industries related fields, especially, the evidence-based policy making need to be catch up because the problems of 'effective evidence deficit' have contributed to criticisms.
Common critiques
There are a number of critiques of evidence-based policy in the cultural and creativity realms. Oakley (2004) claims that the problems in the creative industries could be sorted into two types: "the question of measurability itself" and "the question of data to support that measurement". Based on these distinctions, some of the critiques of current approaches in the creative industries particularly need to be addressed.
The first concerns the connection between advocacy and evidence. Oakley (2004) argues that many documents such as urban regeneration relevant documents or the ones about the arts battles with social ills are usually written in advocate specific case. Therefore the evidence selection in this area is rarely equitable. This problem can be seen in the way in which the rhetoric of the 'creative industries' has travelled from the UK to Asian countries. Take Hong Kong as an example. In the study of the Hong Kong Creativity Index (HKCI), Hong Kong adopts Richard Florida's theories in his book 'The rise of the creative class' to analyse HK's competitiveness, and measures its creativity and creates HKCI-5Cs for its context (HKU and HAB, 2004). Although Hong Kong attempted to adjust the research to deliver their own frameworks for measuring the 5Cs, the most part of report was developed based on the advocacy of Florida's notions and arguments. It is not yet clear whether the policy can be fully applied in Hong Kong. Even if it can be applied there, it is not certain Florida's arguments can be generalised to other countries for example Taiwan.
In order to provide a complete picture for research, some people argue that the anecdotal evidence should be incorporated alongside 'hard' measurement (Oakley, 2004). Although evidence has been defined as "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid" (quoted by Solesbury, 2001) and consists of "practitioner knowledge, experience overseas, pilots and commissioned qualitative and quantitative research studies" (quoted by O'Dwyer, 2004). People tend to prefer prior 'hard data' to the 'anecdotal' evidence. Oakley (2004) argues that the anecdotal evidence has usually been seen as "informal or intuitive local knowledge" whereas some rational or scientific data seems more convincing. The use of quantitative data in research, she claims, would cause a result of "no effect at all" when the research question could not be measured by hard data. Moreover, with issues such as social capital or participation in arts activities, it is critical to hear the voices of participants, users and the audience although such anecdotes should be used with other supportive evidence rather than be relied on solely.
The systematic shortcoming is also a problem in the creative industries. With the development of 'DCMS Mapping Documents', the quantitative evidence base has been emphasised. However, according to Oakley (2004), the problem of shortcomings in data and statistics gradually emerged and shows inadequacies in systematic review. Oakley (2004) raises several issues relevant to systematic shortcomings in the creative industries. Firstly, in some policy-driven research, a great number of one-off studies and snapshots have been criticised as the research is usually taken after the fact. Secondly, there is an exaggeration of the research results from short-term impacts on small groups to long-term impact on larger groups as a result of lack of longitudinal studies. The next problem is that the opportunity costs did not be measured in some research. Finally, funder-driven research usually produces single pieces of evidence but ignores other evidence that could be related to it. Those problems are caused by systematic shortcomings and therefore show the demand for more longitudinal and systematic research.
Causality plays a significant role in designing research question and determining the effect. However, according to Oakley (2004), some researchers are still confused about correlation and causation. Moreover, some critiques arise in social sciences not because the policy cannot be implemented effectively, but rather, because many documents are written supposing the policy to be feasible and that problems will not happen. In some cases, researchers misdirect the measurement and the research, in the end the research question can not be answered effectively. The causality problem is a fundamental problem of advocacy (Oakley, 2004). For example, in order to increase the culture capital and encourage creativity, there can be huge investment in building the hard infrastructure of cultural venues, the effectiveness of this has been questioned for example in Singapore (Lee, 2004; Tan, 2002). Thus, Oakley (2004) suggests developing better evidence bases or toning down the advocacy to solve the causality problem.
Issues about research methodologies
When developing evidence-based research, some scepticism is needed. According to Solesbury (2001), a number of questions should be asked when bringing evidence to link the policy or practice. For example, how relevant is this evidence to what we are trying to understand? How representative are the information or figures? and how reliable, and well-founded is the information? Those questions are critical in developing evidence-based research no matter which methodology has been chosen.
Quantitative research used to be considered an impartial approach to providing objective data for evidence-based policy. The use of statistical modelling that is a linear and logistic regression method helps the analysis to be more precise and valid (Davies, 2004). However, there are some limits that need to be overcome when this methodology is used for the creative industries. For example, the inconsistent number of digit SIC codes could cause the double counting (Oakley, 2004). Moreover, as Hartley (2005, p. 29) states, the workforce in the creative industries area is not only increasingly internationalised, but also increasingly freelance, casual and part-time in its working style. In terms of self-employment, the sample sizes at the regional level are relatively small (Oakley, 2004). The blurred boundary between different workforce sectors and the small scale of sampling size augment the unreliability of statistical data. Oakley (2004) suggests that the 'data robustness deficit' caused by short and medium term research and unreliable official statistics needs to be supplemented by data from trade organisations and commercial market research.
Some of the statistical problems could be solved by data management or classification. However, in some areas such as tourism and cultural impact, it is inadequate for researchers to only rely on statistical data. Qualitative research and case studies might be complementary to collecting complete and effective evidence. But some tricky problems caused by the inherent characteristics of tourism might be difficult to solve. Given the economic impact of tourism, it is hard to distinguish between revenues from local people and from tourists (cited by Oakley, 2004). Moreover, the definition of multiplier is confusing. While the number of visitors and the spending in a tourist destination has increased, does it lead to multiplicative cultural impact? Tourism may stimulate economic growth and support finance for local cultural activities. However, it may also lead to adverse cultural impacts such as damaging a cultural site, inappropriate hotel development in a culturally sensitive area, and congestion of cultural facilities (Throsby, 2001, p. 130). For such unmeasurable information, a quality survey, interview, or focus group could help researchers to collect data.
Although qualitative based research enables researchers to determine respondents' ideas, policy making based on the results of surveys would not necessarily contribute to an effective outcome. As Oakley (2005) argues, the acknowledgement does not necessarily change human behaviours. More evidence related to behavioural science is needed to make evidence-based policy more effective. In terms of the cultural economy, the connection between knowledge and productivity, and between science and innovation is usually proved by pilot studies or case studies. Such studies tend to focus on individual or specific firms, and the research on creativity and innovation in a social context is therefore inadequate (Oakley, 2004).
When those difficulties in the different research methodologies mentioned above needed to be resolved, it seems that the mixed and complementary evidence would be an appropriate way to undertake research for the creative industries. Nutley, Davies and Walter (2002) argue that methodological pluralism needs to be emphasised. It is important to seek for complementary contributions from different research methodologies rather than "paradigmatic antagonisms". Moreover, the enhancement of current research methods, and the development of new robust methods in the future are essential to ensure the evidence effectiveness.
New approaches
There are a number of areas of culturally relevant issues such as participating in cultural programmes and 'quality of life' that require deeper and more robust research approaches. Oakley (2004) argues that for those issues, not merely is evidence needed, but theories are required to be established. Research into 'social and cultural capital' and 'public value' will be two focuses when undertaking cultural research. They may particularly lead people to understand how the cultural investment can generate social outcomes (Oakley, 2004).
Social capital and cultural capital have gradually attracted researchers and policy makers' attention. The measures of social capital mostly focus on participation which is based on the concept of group rather than individuals, and related to their behaviour or attitudes (Office of National Statistics, 2001). Furthermore, the current research tends to look at the benefits of cultural participation for communities (Oakley, 2004). However, Oakley (2004) argues that not only does the definition of 'culture' such as 'high art' and 'popular culture' need to be understood and be distinguished, but a broader and dynamic understanding of diverse communities has to be established. According to the Office of National Statistics (2001), a variety of critical issues about measures of social capital are under debate: the balance between attitude and behaviour, social trust, survey replies related to collective social capital and individual social capital, and the difference between compositional and contextual measurement. While social capital has been positively linked to economic growth (cited by Office of National Statistics, 2001), rigorous and sound research combining multi-method approaches will be important to understanding other benefits of cultural investment.
Another issue involved in public cultural investment that generates social outcome is public value. Through reviewing the public policy made by government, public value provides broad measures and a way to analyse public benefit (Oakley, 2004; Kelly, Mulgan and Muers, 2002). Although it is similar for 'the user' to derive benefit from the public sector and from the private sector, user satisfaction in obtaining public value is more complex than consuming in the private sector. As Oakley (2004) states, the existence value and altruistic value are good examples to illustrate that people would value things or services even though they do not use these themselves. The difficult measure of public value forces BBC to develop public value tests in three service proposals and enhance their evidence-based approach to measure performance (BBC, 2004). The new 'contingent valuation' is therefore expected to be incorporated into future studies for some aspects of the public value of cultural assets (Oakley, 2004).
Conclusions
Evidence-based policy, as implied by the name, means sound and rigorous evidence, which is concluded by longitudinal, supplementary methodologies, and systematic research, links to an effective policy and demonstrates impartialness and causality. It is difficult in the creative and cultural sectors. In the creative industries context, the evidence-base in some unmeasurable issues such as social and cultural capital and public value are undeveloped. Even though there are statistic data for some areas, it usually confronts the problems of small scale and blurred classifications. While researchers should choose the most appropriate research methodology to obtain data, the policy makers should avoid the advocacy problem and link the evidence to a policy with strong causality. As O'Dwyer (2004) mentions, "researchers and policy makers need to collaborate to get the maximum benefit from an evidence-based approach and to learn more about the other". It should be understood that the evidence-based can only improve the policy making process (Oakley, 2004) but does not ensure the success of policy implementation. However, the adequate and long-term appraisal will contribute to the policy making in cultural investment. It is anticipated that through the development of evidence-based policy, the consultation, policy and practice communities, and creative skilled talent could be encouraged to develop appropriate skills and contribute systematic knowledge to creative industries.
References
BBC. 2004. Building Public Value: Renewing the BBC for a digital world. QUT Online Teaching and Learning. https://olt.qut.edu.au/ci/KCP353/sec/index.cfm?fa=getFile&rNum=1896925 (accessed May 2, 2005).
Davies, P. 2004. Is Evidence-Based Government Possible? QUT Online Learning and Teaching. https://olt.qut.edu.au/ci/KCP353/sec/index.cfm?fa=getFile&rNum=1896842 (accessed April 28, 2005).
DCMS, 2001. Creative Industries: Mapping Document 2001. Department of Culture, Media and Sport. http://www.culture.gov.uk/global/publications/archive_2001/ci_mapping_doc_2001.htm?properties=archive%5F2001%2C%2Fcreative%5Findustries%2FQuickLinks%2Fpublications%2Fdefault%2C&month= (accessed March 14, 2004).
Hartley, J. 2005. Creative Industries. In Creative Industries. ed. J. Harley. 1-40. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Kelly, G., G. Mulgan, and S. Muers. 2002. Creating Public Value: An analytical framework for public service reform. QUT Online Teaching and Learning. http://strategy.gov.uk/files/pdf/public_value2.pdf (accessed May 2, 2005).
Lee, Terrance. 2004. Creative Shifts and Directions: Cultural policy in Singapore. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 3(10): 281-296.
Marston, G. and R. Watts. 2003. Tampering With the Evidence: A Critical Appraisal of Evidence-Based Policy-Making. The University of Sydney. http://www.econ.usyd.edu.au/drawingboard/journal/0303/marston_watts.pdf (accessed May 10, 2005).
Nutley, S., H. Davies and I. Walter. 2002. Evidence based policy and practice: cross sector lessons from the UK. QUT Online Teaching and Learning. https://olt.qut.edu.au/ci/KCP353/sec/index.cfm?fa=getFile&rNum=1896852 (accessed April 28, 2005).
Oakley, K. 2004. Developing the evidence base for support of cultural and creative activities in South East England. QUT Online Teaching and Learning. https://olt.qut.edu.au/ci/KCP353/sec/index.cfm?fa=getFile&rNum=2107929 (accessed April 28, 2005).
Oakley, K. 2005, May 9. Evidence-based Policy Making. [Lecture: Creative Industries Seminar]
O’ Dwyer, L. 2004. A Critical Review of Evidence-based Policy Making. Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. http://www.ahuri.edu.au/global/docs/doc646.pdf?CFID=165364&CFTOKEN=55168444 (accessed May 7, 2005).
Office of National Statistics. 2001. Social Capital: A review of the literature. National Statistics Online. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/socialcapital/downloads/soccaplitreview.pdf (accessed May 1, 2005).
Solesbury, W. 2001. Evidence Based Policy: Whence it Came and Where it’s Going. Evidence Network. http://www.evidencenetwork.org/Documents/wp1.pdf (accessed. March 6, 2005).
The University of Hong Kong and Home Affairs Bureau. 2004. A Study on Hong Kong Creativity Index: Interim Report. Centre for Cultural Policy Research. http://ccpr.hku.hk/HKCI-InterimReport.pdf (accessed March 16, 2005)
Tan, H. H. 2002. Cultural Capital? Time Asia. http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501021014-361790,00.html. (accessed April 2, 2005)
Throsby, D. 2001. Economics and Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The notion of 'Creative Industries' incorporates broad issues such as arts and cultural sectors, new media, urban regeneration, social capital and other relevant fields. According to the definition of the 'Creative Industries' in the UK (DCMS, 1997), not only should concrete issues such as economic and employment growth be measured, but abstract ideas such as the deployment of creativities or the rise of cultural identity should also be considered when developing creative industries. In order to successfully develop a new concept in practice, the policy makers are expected to refer to various evidences to formulate strategies. However, as Oakley (2004) argues, even though a large number of materials have been established for the creative industries, evidence for supporting relevant policies is still underdeveloped.
The term 'evidence-based policy' has developed from the concept of evidence-based practice, which has its origin in evidence-based medicine (Marston and Watts, 2003). Researchers and policy activists in the UK have been attempting to mobilise and utilise social science research systematically and then driving the evolution of the evidence-based policy. Evidence-based policy making is not equal to 'good policy making' (O' Dwyer, 2004). Rather, through rigorous and sufficient evidence, policy will be developed with meaningful concepts and be implemented effectively. This essay will look at the evidence-based research and policy making in the creative industries related fields. Four issues will be incorporated into the paper: the drivers of evidence-based policy, the common critiques, the methodologies of evidence-based research, and new approaches in the future.
Why evidence-based policy?
Several forces have been driving evidence-based policy in the UK. The Labour government revitalised the commitment to evidence-based policy and initiated its modernising agenda after the triumph of its election in 1997 (Davies, 2004; Nutley, Davies and Walter, 2002). According to Solesbury (2001), the Blair government's stance was anti-ideological and pragmatic. In the 1999 White Paper on Modernising government, the concept of evidence-based policy was stated:
This Government expects more of policy makers. More new ideas, more willingness to question inherited ways of doing things, better use of evidence and research in policy making and better focus on policies that will deliver long term goals (quoted by Solesbury, 2001).
The evidence has become important since people increase the demand for obtaining knowledge and less take professional views on trust (Solesbury, 2001). As Oakley (2004) states, the considerable research that has been conducted for policy making worldwide is under public pressure to provide evidence to support their policies and strategies. Furthermore, the greater international transparency and emergence of the Internet offers people an environment within which the information and knowledge could be diffused and accessed easily (Oakley, 2005; Davies, 2004). Thus, as Solesbury (2001) argues, policy makers and practitioners need knowledge management to provide 'know how', 'know what', 'know why', and 'know who' to people. In the creative industries related fields, especially, the evidence-based policy making need to be catch up because the problems of 'effective evidence deficit' have contributed to criticisms.
Common critiques
There are a number of critiques of evidence-based policy in the cultural and creativity realms. Oakley (2004) claims that the problems in the creative industries could be sorted into two types: "the question of measurability itself" and "the question of data to support that measurement". Based on these distinctions, some of the critiques of current approaches in the creative industries particularly need to be addressed.
The first concerns the connection between advocacy and evidence. Oakley (2004) argues that many documents such as urban regeneration relevant documents or the ones about the arts battles with social ills are usually written in advocate specific case. Therefore the evidence selection in this area is rarely equitable. This problem can be seen in the way in which the rhetoric of the 'creative industries' has travelled from the UK to Asian countries. Take Hong Kong as an example. In the study of the Hong Kong Creativity Index (HKCI), Hong Kong adopts Richard Florida's theories in his book 'The rise of the creative class' to analyse HK's competitiveness, and measures its creativity and creates HKCI-5Cs for its context (HKU and HAB, 2004). Although Hong Kong attempted to adjust the research to deliver their own frameworks for measuring the 5Cs, the most part of report was developed based on the advocacy of Florida's notions and arguments. It is not yet clear whether the policy can be fully applied in Hong Kong. Even if it can be applied there, it is not certain Florida's arguments can be generalised to other countries for example Taiwan.
In order to provide a complete picture for research, some people argue that the anecdotal evidence should be incorporated alongside 'hard' measurement (Oakley, 2004). Although evidence has been defined as "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid" (quoted by Solesbury, 2001) and consists of "practitioner knowledge, experience overseas, pilots and commissioned qualitative and quantitative research studies" (quoted by O'Dwyer, 2004). People tend to prefer prior 'hard data' to the 'anecdotal' evidence. Oakley (2004) argues that the anecdotal evidence has usually been seen as "informal or intuitive local knowledge" whereas some rational or scientific data seems more convincing. The use of quantitative data in research, she claims, would cause a result of "no effect at all" when the research question could not be measured by hard data. Moreover, with issues such as social capital or participation in arts activities, it is critical to hear the voices of participants, users and the audience although such anecdotes should be used with other supportive evidence rather than be relied on solely.
The systematic shortcoming is also a problem in the creative industries. With the development of 'DCMS Mapping Documents', the quantitative evidence base has been emphasised. However, according to Oakley (2004), the problem of shortcomings in data and statistics gradually emerged and shows inadequacies in systematic review. Oakley (2004) raises several issues relevant to systematic shortcomings in the creative industries. Firstly, in some policy-driven research, a great number of one-off studies and snapshots have been criticised as the research is usually taken after the fact. Secondly, there is an exaggeration of the research results from short-term impacts on small groups to long-term impact on larger groups as a result of lack of longitudinal studies. The next problem is that the opportunity costs did not be measured in some research. Finally, funder-driven research usually produces single pieces of evidence but ignores other evidence that could be related to it. Those problems are caused by systematic shortcomings and therefore show the demand for more longitudinal and systematic research.
Causality plays a significant role in designing research question and determining the effect. However, according to Oakley (2004), some researchers are still confused about correlation and causation. Moreover, some critiques arise in social sciences not because the policy cannot be implemented effectively, but rather, because many documents are written supposing the policy to be feasible and that problems will not happen. In some cases, researchers misdirect the measurement and the research, in the end the research question can not be answered effectively. The causality problem is a fundamental problem of advocacy (Oakley, 2004). For example, in order to increase the culture capital and encourage creativity, there can be huge investment in building the hard infrastructure of cultural venues, the effectiveness of this has been questioned for example in Singapore (Lee, 2004; Tan, 2002). Thus, Oakley (2004) suggests developing better evidence bases or toning down the advocacy to solve the causality problem.
Issues about research methodologies
When developing evidence-based research, some scepticism is needed. According to Solesbury (2001), a number of questions should be asked when bringing evidence to link the policy or practice. For example, how relevant is this evidence to what we are trying to understand? How representative are the information or figures? and how reliable, and well-founded is the information? Those questions are critical in developing evidence-based research no matter which methodology has been chosen.
Quantitative research used to be considered an impartial approach to providing objective data for evidence-based policy. The use of statistical modelling that is a linear and logistic regression method helps the analysis to be more precise and valid (Davies, 2004). However, there are some limits that need to be overcome when this methodology is used for the creative industries. For example, the inconsistent number of digit SIC codes could cause the double counting (Oakley, 2004). Moreover, as Hartley (2005, p. 29) states, the workforce in the creative industries area is not only increasingly internationalised, but also increasingly freelance, casual and part-time in its working style. In terms of self-employment, the sample sizes at the regional level are relatively small (Oakley, 2004). The blurred boundary between different workforce sectors and the small scale of sampling size augment the unreliability of statistical data. Oakley (2004) suggests that the 'data robustness deficit' caused by short and medium term research and unreliable official statistics needs to be supplemented by data from trade organisations and commercial market research.
Some of the statistical problems could be solved by data management or classification. However, in some areas such as tourism and cultural impact, it is inadequate for researchers to only rely on statistical data. Qualitative research and case studies might be complementary to collecting complete and effective evidence. But some tricky problems caused by the inherent characteristics of tourism might be difficult to solve. Given the economic impact of tourism, it is hard to distinguish between revenues from local people and from tourists (cited by Oakley, 2004). Moreover, the definition of multiplier is confusing. While the number of visitors and the spending in a tourist destination has increased, does it lead to multiplicative cultural impact? Tourism may stimulate economic growth and support finance for local cultural activities. However, it may also lead to adverse cultural impacts such as damaging a cultural site, inappropriate hotel development in a culturally sensitive area, and congestion of cultural facilities (Throsby, 2001, p. 130). For such unmeasurable information, a quality survey, interview, or focus group could help researchers to collect data.
Although qualitative based research enables researchers to determine respondents' ideas, policy making based on the results of surveys would not necessarily contribute to an effective outcome. As Oakley (2005) argues, the acknowledgement does not necessarily change human behaviours. More evidence related to behavioural science is needed to make evidence-based policy more effective. In terms of the cultural economy, the connection between knowledge and productivity, and between science and innovation is usually proved by pilot studies or case studies. Such studies tend to focus on individual or specific firms, and the research on creativity and innovation in a social context is therefore inadequate (Oakley, 2004).
When those difficulties in the different research methodologies mentioned above needed to be resolved, it seems that the mixed and complementary evidence would be an appropriate way to undertake research for the creative industries. Nutley, Davies and Walter (2002) argue that methodological pluralism needs to be emphasised. It is important to seek for complementary contributions from different research methodologies rather than "paradigmatic antagonisms". Moreover, the enhancement of current research methods, and the development of new robust methods in the future are essential to ensure the evidence effectiveness.
New approaches
There are a number of areas of culturally relevant issues such as participating in cultural programmes and 'quality of life' that require deeper and more robust research approaches. Oakley (2004) argues that for those issues, not merely is evidence needed, but theories are required to be established. Research into 'social and cultural capital' and 'public value' will be two focuses when undertaking cultural research. They may particularly lead people to understand how the cultural investment can generate social outcomes (Oakley, 2004).
Social capital and cultural capital have gradually attracted researchers and policy makers' attention. The measures of social capital mostly focus on participation which is based on the concept of group rather than individuals, and related to their behaviour or attitudes (Office of National Statistics, 2001). Furthermore, the current research tends to look at the benefits of cultural participation for communities (Oakley, 2004). However, Oakley (2004) argues that not only does the definition of 'culture' such as 'high art' and 'popular culture' need to be understood and be distinguished, but a broader and dynamic understanding of diverse communities has to be established. According to the Office of National Statistics (2001), a variety of critical issues about measures of social capital are under debate: the balance between attitude and behaviour, social trust, survey replies related to collective social capital and individual social capital, and the difference between compositional and contextual measurement. While social capital has been positively linked to economic growth (cited by Office of National Statistics, 2001), rigorous and sound research combining multi-method approaches will be important to understanding other benefits of cultural investment.
Another issue involved in public cultural investment that generates social outcome is public value. Through reviewing the public policy made by government, public value provides broad measures and a way to analyse public benefit (Oakley, 2004; Kelly, Mulgan and Muers, 2002). Although it is similar for 'the user' to derive benefit from the public sector and from the private sector, user satisfaction in obtaining public value is more complex than consuming in the private sector. As Oakley (2004) states, the existence value and altruistic value are good examples to illustrate that people would value things or services even though they do not use these themselves. The difficult measure of public value forces BBC to develop public value tests in three service proposals and enhance their evidence-based approach to measure performance (BBC, 2004). The new 'contingent valuation' is therefore expected to be incorporated into future studies for some aspects of the public value of cultural assets (Oakley, 2004).
Conclusions
Evidence-based policy, as implied by the name, means sound and rigorous evidence, which is concluded by longitudinal, supplementary methodologies, and systematic research, links to an effective policy and demonstrates impartialness and causality. It is difficult in the creative and cultural sectors. In the creative industries context, the evidence-base in some unmeasurable issues such as social and cultural capital and public value are undeveloped. Even though there are statistic data for some areas, it usually confronts the problems of small scale and blurred classifications. While researchers should choose the most appropriate research methodology to obtain data, the policy makers should avoid the advocacy problem and link the evidence to a policy with strong causality. As O'Dwyer (2004) mentions, "researchers and policy makers need to collaborate to get the maximum benefit from an evidence-based approach and to learn more about the other". It should be understood that the evidence-based can only improve the policy making process (Oakley, 2004) but does not ensure the success of policy implementation. However, the adequate and long-term appraisal will contribute to the policy making in cultural investment. It is anticipated that through the development of evidence-based policy, the consultation, policy and practice communities, and creative skilled talent could be encouraged to develop appropriate skills and contribute systematic knowledge to creative industries.
References
BBC. 2004. Building Public Value: Renewing the BBC for a digital world. QUT Online Teaching and Learning. https://olt.qut.edu.au/ci/KCP353/sec/index.cfm?fa=getFile&rNum=1896925 (accessed May 2, 2005).
Davies, P. 2004. Is Evidence-Based Government Possible? QUT Online Learning and Teaching. https://olt.qut.edu.au/ci/KCP353/sec/index.cfm?fa=getFile&rNum=1896842 (accessed April 28, 2005).
DCMS, 2001. Creative Industries: Mapping Document 2001. Department of Culture, Media and Sport. http://www.culture.gov.uk/global/publications/archive_2001/ci_mapping_doc_2001.htm?properties=archive%5F2001%2C%2Fcreative%5Findustries%2FQuickLinks%2Fpublications%2Fdefault%2C&month= (accessed March 14, 2004).
Hartley, J. 2005. Creative Industries. In Creative Industries. ed. J. Harley. 1-40. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Kelly, G., G. Mulgan, and S. Muers. 2002. Creating Public Value: An analytical framework for public service reform. QUT Online Teaching and Learning. http://strategy.gov.uk/files/pdf/public_value2.pdf (accessed May 2, 2005).
Lee, Terrance. 2004. Creative Shifts and Directions: Cultural policy in Singapore. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 3(10): 281-296.
Marston, G. and R. Watts. 2003. Tampering With the Evidence: A Critical Appraisal of Evidence-Based Policy-Making. The University of Sydney. http://www.econ.usyd.edu.au/drawingboard/journal/0303/marston_watts.pdf (accessed May 10, 2005).
Nutley, S., H. Davies and I. Walter. 2002. Evidence based policy and practice: cross sector lessons from the UK. QUT Online Teaching and Learning. https://olt.qut.edu.au/ci/KCP353/sec/index.cfm?fa=getFile&rNum=1896852 (accessed April 28, 2005).
Oakley, K. 2004. Developing the evidence base for support of cultural and creative activities in South East England. QUT Online Teaching and Learning. https://olt.qut.edu.au/ci/KCP353/sec/index.cfm?fa=getFile&rNum=2107929 (accessed April 28, 2005).
Oakley, K. 2005, May 9. Evidence-based Policy Making. [Lecture: Creative Industries Seminar]
O’ Dwyer, L. 2004. A Critical Review of Evidence-based Policy Making. Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. http://www.ahuri.edu.au/global/docs/doc646.pdf?CFID=165364&CFTOKEN=55168444 (accessed May 7, 2005).
Office of National Statistics. 2001. Social Capital: A review of the literature. National Statistics Online. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/socialcapital/downloads/soccaplitreview.pdf (accessed May 1, 2005).
Solesbury, W. 2001. Evidence Based Policy: Whence it Came and Where it’s Going. Evidence Network. http://www.evidencenetwork.org/Documents/wp1.pdf (accessed. March 6, 2005).
The University of Hong Kong and Home Affairs Bureau. 2004. A Study on Hong Kong Creativity Index: Interim Report. Centre for Cultural Policy Research. http://ccpr.hku.hk/HKCI-InterimReport.pdf (accessed March 16, 2005)
Tan, H. H. 2002. Cultural Capital? Time Asia. http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501021014-361790,00.html. (accessed April 2, 2005)
Throsby, D. 2001. Economics and Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
引用URL
http://cgi.blog.roodo.com/trackback/168039
![[Syndicate this site]](http://blog.roodo.com/_img/rss.gif "Syndicate RSS feed"){kind=small}
![[Syndicate this site]](http://blog.roodo.com/_img/atom.gif "Syndicate ATOM feed"){kind=small}
