Using Narrative Inquiry to Explore the Impact of Art on Individuals

Why people go to the theatre: A qualitative study of audience motivation

“…The second most motivating factor was edutainment, which confirmed the perspective of Rojek (2000) and Stebbins (2007) that many leisure seekers want to be challenged, and reflected the presence of cognitive and aesthetic growth in the various benefits models (McCarthy et al 2004;Brown 2006;White and Hede 2008). Indeed many interviewees declared a desire to be challenged artistically, emotionally, intellectually and ethically, using adjectives such as "uncomfortable", "dangerous" and "risky" to describe their favourite plays.…”

“…Brown (2006) developed this framework into a more comprehensive "architecture of value", which mapped a range of arts benefits into the following value clusters: imprint of the arts experience; personal development; human interaction; communal meaning; and economic and social benefits. White and Hede's (2008) impact model marked a significant development in the literature by removing the traditional dichotomy between intrinsic and instrumental benefits and by exploring the process of impact accrual. While previous frameworks were based on secondary research and divided benefits into discreet clusters, White and Hede's model was based on a qualitative methodology of narrative enquiry, incorporating the fields of theatre and performance studies, aesthetics, ethics, hedonics and marketing.…”

“…Recent literature on the drivers and motivations of event-goers (Getz 2007;Nicholson and Pearce 2001), supported by impact analysis of arts and cultural events (Brown and Novak 2007;White and Hede 2008), has shed some light on the benefits of arts and leisure experiences. But the complex motivations of theatre audiences remain unclear.…”

Whose value is it anyway? A neo-institutionalist approach to articulating and evaluating artistic value

“…In a similar rejection of neo-liberal values, many policy researchers also contest the standard dismissal of narrative evidence in cultural policy, arguing that such methods successfully encapsulate subjective perceptions of impact (Galloway et al 2005;White and Hede 2008). This focus on qualitative evaluation is supported by Carol Scott (2010: 285), who makes a distinction between 'measurable' and 'valuable' and warns that when public funding decisions rely solely on measurable results, cultural policy risks falling back into 'the bind of instrumentality'.…”

“…Boerner and Renz 2008;Boerner 2004) and mixed-method studies into the audience experience (e.g. Brown and Novak 2007;New Economics Foundation 2008;Radbourne et al 2010;Radbourne et al 2009;White and Hede 2008). These studies have provided invaluable insights into audiences' perceptions of value which, in summary, have been articulated in the following terms: emotional impact, stimulation and flight; engagement and captivation; knowledge and risk; authenticity and collective engagement; learning and challenge; energy and tension; shared experience and atmosphere; personal resonance and inspiration; empowerment and renewal; aesthetic growth and self-actualization; improved social skills, better relationships and family cohesion.…”