重新审视利物浦作为2008年欧洲文化委员会的影响:失去了调和文化政策和评估的机会

IF 0.7 Q4 BUSINESS Arts and the Market Pub Date : 2023-08-02 DOI:10.1108/aam-08-2021-0045
S. Crone, R. Ganga
{"title":"重新审视利物浦作为2008年欧洲文化委员会的影响:失去了调和文化政策和评估的机会","authors":"S. Crone, R. Ganga","doi":"10.1108/aam-08-2021-0045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeIn this paper, the authors reflect critically on their experience as researchers on the Impacts 18 programme: a re-study concerned with the long-term effects of Liverpool European Capital of Culture (ECoC) 2008. Situating Impacts 18 at the confluence of three important debates within the cultural policy field, the paper considers the causation, nature and significance of the shortcomings of the research, with a view to advancing cultural evaluation practices and encouraging re-studies in a field where they are seldom used.Design/methodology/approachThe authors draw on documentary analysis of unpublished research outputs, along with their own research notes and critical reflections. The paper focuses on two projects from the Impacts 18 programme, in particular, in order to illustrate the broader issues raised in terms of the epistemological framing, methodological design and execution of the Impacts 18 research.FindingsThe paper highlights and explores the various issues that affected Impacts 18 in terms of its epistemological framing and methodological design, as well as problems encountered in terms of data management and stakeholder relationships.Originality/valueAs a large-scale re-study of a cultural event, Impacts 18 represents an exceedingly rare occurrence, despite the acknowledged dearth of evidence on the longer-term impacts of such events. Similarly unusual, however, are critical and candid retrospectives from research authors themselves. The paper is thus doubly unusual, in these two respects, and should help to advance research practice in an under-researched area.","PeriodicalId":42080,"journal":{"name":"Arts and the Market","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revisiting the impact of Liverpool as ECoC 2008: the lost opportunity to reconcile cultural policy and evaluation\",\"authors\":\"S. Crone, R. Ganga\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/aam-08-2021-0045\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeIn this paper, the authors reflect critically on their experience as researchers on the Impacts 18 programme: a re-study concerned with the long-term effects of Liverpool European Capital of Culture (ECoC) 2008. Situating Impacts 18 at the confluence of three important debates within the cultural policy field, the paper considers the causation, nature and significance of the shortcomings of the research, with a view to advancing cultural evaluation practices and encouraging re-studies in a field where they are seldom used.Design/methodology/approachThe authors draw on documentary analysis of unpublished research outputs, along with their own research notes and critical reflections. The paper focuses on two projects from the Impacts 18 programme, in particular, in order to illustrate the broader issues raised in terms of the epistemological framing, methodological design and execution of the Impacts 18 research.FindingsThe paper highlights and explores the various issues that affected Impacts 18 in terms of its epistemological framing and methodological design, as well as problems encountered in terms of data management and stakeholder relationships.Originality/valueAs a large-scale re-study of a cultural event, Impacts 18 represents an exceedingly rare occurrence, despite the acknowledged dearth of evidence on the longer-term impacts of such events. Similarly unusual, however, are critical and candid retrospectives from research authors themselves. The paper is thus doubly unusual, in these two respects, and should help to advance research practice in an under-researched area.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42080,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arts and the Market\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arts and the Market\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/aam-08-2021-0045\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arts and the Market","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/aam-08-2021-0045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的在这篇论文中,作者批判性地反思了他们作为Impacts 18项目研究人员的经历:这是一项关于2008年利物浦欧洲文化之都(ECoC)长期影响的重新研究。将影响18置于文化政策领域内三场重要辩论的交汇点,本文考虑了研究不足的原因、性质和意义,以期推进文化评估实践,并鼓励在一个很少使用的领域进行重新研究。设计/方法论/方法作者利用对未发表研究成果的文献分析,以及他们自己的研究笔记和批判性反思。本文特别关注影响18计划中的两个项目,以说明在影响18研究的认识论框架、方法设计和执行方面提出的更广泛的问题。发现该论文在认识论框架和方法设计方面强调并探讨了影响影响18的各种问题,以及在数据管理和利益相关者关系方面遇到的问题。独创性/价值作为对文化事件的大规模重新研究,尽管公认缺乏关于此类事件长期影响的证据,但影响18代表着极为罕见的情况。然而,同样不同寻常的是研究作者自己的批判性和坦诚的回顾。因此,在这两个方面,这篇论文是双重不同寻常的,应该有助于推进研究不足领域的研究实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Revisiting the impact of Liverpool as ECoC 2008: the lost opportunity to reconcile cultural policy and evaluation
PurposeIn this paper, the authors reflect critically on their experience as researchers on the Impacts 18 programme: a re-study concerned with the long-term effects of Liverpool European Capital of Culture (ECoC) 2008. Situating Impacts 18 at the confluence of three important debates within the cultural policy field, the paper considers the causation, nature and significance of the shortcomings of the research, with a view to advancing cultural evaluation practices and encouraging re-studies in a field where they are seldom used.Design/methodology/approachThe authors draw on documentary analysis of unpublished research outputs, along with their own research notes and critical reflections. The paper focuses on two projects from the Impacts 18 programme, in particular, in order to illustrate the broader issues raised in terms of the epistemological framing, methodological design and execution of the Impacts 18 research.FindingsThe paper highlights and explores the various issues that affected Impacts 18 in terms of its epistemological framing and methodological design, as well as problems encountered in terms of data management and stakeholder relationships.Originality/valueAs a large-scale re-study of a cultural event, Impacts 18 represents an exceedingly rare occurrence, despite the acknowledged dearth of evidence on the longer-term impacts of such events. Similarly unusual, however, are critical and candid retrospectives from research authors themselves. The paper is thus doubly unusual, in these two respects, and should help to advance research practice in an under-researched area.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
28.60%
发文量
13
期刊最新文献
Influence of movie-related online consumer reviews on movie choice: are there generational differences in processing information cues? Dance consumption and mood changes: Examining the role of gender and generational cohorts Participant-oriented evaluation through participatory action research: a case study of a community engagement approach Reading relationally: a proposal for relational-comparative research concerning city/capital of culture events Towards an “Evaluation Dilemmas Model” – designing an evaluation scheme for a European capital of culture
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1