Researchers who advocate the use of multiple methods often write interchangeably about 'integrating', 'combining' and 'mixing' methods, sometimes eliding these descriptors with 'triangulation', which itself encompasses several meanings. In this paper we argue that such an elision is problematic since it obscures the difference between (a) the processes by which methods (or data) are brought into relationship with each other (combined, integrated, mixed) and (b) the claims made for the epistemological status of the resulting knowledge. Drawing on the literature for examples, we set out different rationales for using more than one method, then we develop a definition of 'integration of methods' as a specific kind of relationship among methods. We also discuss different places in the research process where integration can occur: for instance, data from different sources can be integrated in the analysis stage, or findings from different sources, at the point of theorising.

No abstract

For Bourdieu, the field of cultural production is comprised of an autonomous and a heteronomous sector. A heteronomous sector is one that is interpenetrated by the commercial field. I discuss an arena that, until recently, was part of the relatively autonomous sector in the field of cultural production - the supported arts sector in the United Kingdom - and argue that it became more heteronomous, due to the penetration by the state. Heteronomy due to the commercial field is present but secondary to, and driven by, the actions of the state. Political parties' attempts to diffuse and legitimate a particular economic ideology have led to state demands that arts institutions adopt neoliberal business practices in exchange for funding. Government giving to the arts, previously at arm's length, proved to be a Faustian bargain that demanded significant repayment in the form of lost autonomy. Coercive pressures from the state, enacted over time, show how the domination of one field over another can occur, even when the domination is resisted.

No abstract

The arts face a number of challenges in the 21 st century brought about by various factors.These include rapid expansion of art markets at an international level, the impact of economic restructuring in public funding for the arts, the increasing dominance of neoliberal models of institutional and organizational success, changes in the definition of artistic work and artistic identity, and changes in the definition of audiences and new modes of arts participation in the face of technological innovations in communication technologies. In this paper, we identify and analyze six major themes central to the arts and the sociology of art: the marginalization of the arts in society and sociology, art and the state, arts institutions and organizations, artists and audiences, and issues of meaning and measurement. We argue that the arts and arts scholarship face a crossroads in the current environment. We conclude with some observations about directions for future research. Drawing inspiration from these changes in arts worlds and their implications for both the arts and arts scholarship, we explore six major themes central to the arts and the sociology of the arts in the current environment. Each of the themes-the marginalization of the arts in society and sociology, changing markets, art and the state, institutions and organizations, artists and audiences, and issues of meaning and measurement-includes observations about changes in the art world as well, as a discussion of scholarship in the area. We conclude with a discussion of directions for future research. It is our hope that this article will provide a useful overview of the state of arts scholarship at this challenging time, and suggestions for its future development. The articles in this special issue of Poetics are a contribution to that development. The marginalization of the arts in society and sociology 3The arts have occupied a marginalized position in both modern society and the discipline of sociology. Historically and today, the arts have been judged less important than other areas of study for the social sciences. As a recognized area of specialization, the sociology of art is relatively new and still developing (see below). The marginalization of art in society may be less obvious or even puzzling. After all, the arts hold an exalted, even sacred, position in society; they have the ability to confer status honor on the people who consume and possess expert knowledge about them; and expensive sales of art are reported frequently in the media. But as we demonstrate below, it is precisely this exalted status that results in the marginalization of the arts in the broader social context.The sharp, hierarchical distinction between the fine and popular arts that was drawn in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries created a dichotomous model of aesthetic objects and practices, the institutions and audiences to which they belong, and the functions or purposes they serve (DiMaggio, 1982a(DiMaggio, , 1982bLevine, 1988). 2 Put simply, the fine arts were ...

This article studies the changing image of children in magazines from 1905 to 1990. Drawing on Goffman's Gender Advertisements, the author examines the portrayals of children in advertising to determine the extent to which, and in what way, the relationship between children and adults has changed. The data suggest that a real shift in the relationship between adults and children has occurred but that it occurred in different linear and cyclical patterns that must be both recognized and examined in relationship to each other and be understood in social and cultural contexts. The research suggests the need for a rigorous methodology for analyzing visual data.

AM, Stanford; AB, Princeton) is Senior Lecturer of Arts Management at Goldsmiths, University of London. Her research falls in the intersection of sociology of the arts, visual culture, sociology of organizations, and sociology of culture. She has studied the funding of art museums, cultural policy in comparative perspective, sociology of the arts, neighborhoods, and visual sociology. Her books include Sociology of the Arts; Museums and Money; Art and the State (co-authored) and Art and the Challenge of Markets (co-edited). See Abstract Cultural organizations are categorized by cultural products (high or popular culture)and by organizational form (nonprofit or commercial). In sociology, these classifications are understood predominantly through a Bourdieusian lens, which links cultural consumption to habitus and a class-based struggle for distinction. However, people's engagement with institutionalized cultural classifications may be expressed differently on the Internet, where a culture of hierarchy-free equality is (sometimes) idealized. Using digital trace data from a representative sample of 280 user-generated reviews of four London cultural organizations, we find that reviewers are concerned with practical issues over cultural content, displaying a popular orientation to cultural consumption (an "audience-focus" or an "embodied" approach). A very small minority of reviewers claim status honor on a variety of bases, including symbolic mastery of traditional cultural capital. Overall, we find an online space in the cultural sphere in which cultural hierarchies are not relevant.

No abstract