Art and Culture in Communities: Unpacking Participation

A R T A N D C U L T U R E I N C O M M U N I T I E S :

U N P A C K I N G P A R T I C I P A T I O N

Maria-Rosario Jackson, Ph.D.

Joaquín Herranz, Jr.

Florence Kabwasa-Green

2003

Policy Brief No.2 of the Culture, Creativity, and Communities Program

The Urban Institute, Washington DC

A B O U T T H I S P O L I C Y B R I E F

This brief is a product of the Arts and Culture Indicators in Community Building Project (ACIP) – theflagship initiative of the Urban Institute’s Culture, Creativity, and Communities (CCC) program.Launched in 1996 with support from the Rockefeller Foundation, ACIP seeks to integrate arts andculture-related measures into community quality-of-life indicator systems. ACIP is built on thepremise that inclusion of arts, culture, and creativity is meaningful when it reflects the values andinterests of a wide range of community stakeholders. This is the context in which the connection ofarts, culture, and creativity to community building processes and other community dynamics can befully understood.

The authors of this brief would like to thank the Rockefeller Foundation for support of this work.We are indebted to the many community building professionals, arts administrators, artists,community residents and our local ACIP affiliates for their contributions. Also, we would like tothank Felicity Skidmore for her editorial assistance.

C U L T U R E , C R E A T I V I T Y , A N D C O M M U N I T I E S P R O G R A M

The Culture, Creativity, and Communities (CCC) Program at the Urban Institute is a research anddissemination initiative that investigates the role of arts, culture, and creative expression incommunities. It explores the intersections of arts, culture, and creative expression with variouspolicy areas.

http://www.ccc.urban.org

design by: Brooklyn Digital Foundryhttp://www.brooklynfoundry.com

T H E U R B A N I N S T I T U T E

The Urban Institute is a nonprofit nonpartisan policy research and educational organizationestablished to examine the social, economic, and governance problems facing the nation. Itprovides information and analysis to public and private decision makers to help them address thesechallenges and strives to raise citizen understanding of these issues and tradeoffs in policy making.

http://www.urban.org

The Urban Institute2100 M Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20037

1art and culture in communities | unpacking participation

which people actually participate in creativeexpression – as creators, teachers,consumers, and supporters. This briefpresents our findings on arts and culturalparticipation in the context of community-building processes.

related institutions, and on-site examinationof selected community-building initiativesaround the country. The framework has nowbeen further refined through an extensiveprocess of idea development and debate inworkshops and conferences of researchers,community builders, policymakers, funders,arts administrators, and artists – andthrough practical application by ACIPaffiliates around the country.2

Arts and cultural participation is animportant element of community life and anessential component of community building.But delineating the full role suchparticipation plays in the community isdependent on capturing the range of ways in

ACIP’s focus on participation derives fromthe overall framework we have developedfor conceptualizing and measuring the roleof arts and culture at the community level.This framework has been developed throughextensive fieldwork and document review –data gathering that included in-personinterviews and focus group discussions withprofessionals and community residents innine cities,1 document review and telephoneinterviews with staff from arts and arts-

A R T A N D C U L T U R E I N C O M M U N I T I E S

T H E P L A C E O F P A R T I C I P A T I O N I N A C I P ’ SO V E R A L L F R A M E W O R K F O R R E S E A R C H A N DM E A S U R E M E N T

2 unpacking participation | art and culture in communities

Our framework for arts and culture research and measurement has two major parts:

* Four guiding principles.

* A set of parameters that serve as both domains of inquiry (for conceptualization and classification) and dimensions of measurement (for documentation, data gathering, and indicator development).

The concept of participation discussed here is referenced in guiding principle #2 (see leftpanel of exhibit A) – it spans a wide range of actions, disciplines, and levels of expertise. Thisdefinition of participation is what we explore in the second of our four research andmeasurement parameters (see right panel of exhibit A).

EXHIBIT A: Part ic ipat ion in ACIP ’s Framework for Arts/Culture Research and Measurement

Guiding Pr incip les

1. Definitions depend on the values and realities of the community.

2. Participation spans a wide range of actions, disciplines, and levels of expertise.

3. Creative expression is infused with multiple meanings and purpose.

4. Opportunities for participation rely on arts-specific and other resources.

Domains of Inquiry andDimensions of Measurement

* Presence

* Participation

* Impacts

* Systems of support


An example from Zumix, a music-focusedcommunity arts organization in East Boston,helps capture the potential richness of artsand cultural participation at the communitylevel. Reflecting on how the organizationmight be considered an asset to thecommunity, Zumix staff described to us aninstance in which Central Americanimmigrant women living in the neighborhoodapproached them about using theorganization’s space to teach dances fromCentral America. Staff agreed to let thewomen use the space and helped them withtheir efforts. The women recruitedneighborhood children to participate in theclasses and eventually decided to put on ashow for the community. To do this theyneeded materials for costumes, backgroundscenery, and so on. Strapped for cash, thewomen and Zumix staff approached localbusinesses to make financial or in-kind

contributions to bring the show to fruition.The performance took place and families,friends, and neighbors attended. So how didpeople participate? The women and theirstudents were involved in making, teaching,and learning art. Staff members from thecommunity arts organization supported theendeavor with their own labor and space.Local businesses provided financial and in-kind resources. Families, friends, andneighbors participated as audiencemembers.

Comprehensive documentation of themultitudinous ways in which people engagein cultural activities would surely improveour understanding of community dynamics –volunteerism, giving, organizing, civicengagement. However, the breadth, depth,and range of cultural participation in U.S.communities are seldom fully documented.

T H E M A N Y F O R M S O F P A R T I C I P A T I O N


The most common ways of documenting ormeasuring arts and cultural participation arelimited to audience counts – filled seats –and periodic household surveys that alsofocus primarily on attendance at culturalevents. Most efforts to document theseforms of participation limit their scope evenfurther by using definitions that excludemany neighborhood activities that ACIP’sguiding principles would encompass.Missing, for example, are the creativeexpressions that may be observed in publicparks (e.g., drumming), in subways (e.g.,singing or playing live music), on streetcorners (e.g., impromptu dance), or inprivate homes (e.g., sewing circles, amateurphotography, decorative gardening, poeticwriting).

Optimal practices, in contrast, wouldconsider the many categories of

Unlike the other dimensions of ourframework, the meaning and significance ofcultural participation has been the subject ofa long historical debate. This debate hasoften been cast in elitist-populist terms assets of dichotomies: high/low,formal/informal, fine/folk, classic/populist,professional/amateur, and the like. ACIPresearch strongly suggests that these are

engagement in both traditional andnontraditional cultural venues. They wouldalso capture the nature of the participation,as through the following kinds of questions:

* Is it ongoing or episodic?

* Do people participate as individuals or as groups?

* Is participation formal or informal?

* Why do people engage?

* Do motives for engagement change or evolve over time?

false dichotomies that oversimplify thebroad array of participation forms.

Our view is in line with other researchers’criticism of narrow interpretations of culturalparticipation and with emerging researchefforts that offer richer ways to frameengagement. Peters and Cherbo (1998)argue, for example, that the cultural policycommunity has focused mostly on arts

D O C U M E N T A T I O N P R A C T I C E S

L I M I T A T I O N S O F P R E V I O U S R E S E A R C H


participation in the nonprofit and for-profitsectors and has neglected the“unincorporated arts” as a third sector.3 Oneconsequence, they say, has been anundercounting of cultural participation.According to them, expanding the definitionof cultural engagement increasesparticipation rates from 80 percent to 95percent of adults in the United States.

Similarly, in a telephone survey influenced,in part, by the ACIP framework, Walker andScott-Melnyk (2002) examined rates ofattendance at live arts and cultural eventsusing both “narrow” and “broad” definitionsof art and culture.4 Based on responsesfrom 2,400 households in five communities,they found that a broad view of culturalparticipation resulted in estimates about 20percent higher than a narrow definition.Kansas City’s participation rate, for example,increased from 65 percent to 84 percent.5The same study also revealed that many ofthe people who participated in arts andcultural forms that are narrowly defined alsoparticipated in broader ways. Furthermore,the broad definition resulted in 60 percenthigher participation rates among people inthe poorest and least-white areas in thelocalities studied as compared with ratesusing narrow and arguably “elitist”definitions.

Broad definitions of participation, notsurprisingly, also show many more informalorganizations engaged in such efforts thando narrow definitions. A national study bythe RAND Corporation examined the profit,nonprofit, and “amateur” sectors of artsorganizations. It revealed that activities inthe “amateur” sector accounted for 30percent or more of all activities among artsorganizations. Moreover, the “amateur”sector is the fastest growing sector in someplaces.6

Even many formal arts organizations, whenasked about expanded forms ofparticipation, report a wider set of culturalactivities than often assumed. For example,in another RAND study, researchers applieda broad cultural participation definition in asurvey of 102 formal arts organizationsacross the nation.7 Only half (51 percent)were described as traditionally “canon-focused” (i.e., supporting the canons ofspecific art forms); another 35 percent couldbe appropriately described as “community-focused” (i.e., using arts as a vehicle toimprove communities); and the remaining 14percent were described as “creativity-focused” (i.e., engaging individuals in thecreative process).


Emerging local research – data collectedand methods used at the neighborhood level– confirms these national findings about thepervasiveness of creative participation.Researchers from the Chicago Center forArts Policy at Columbia College (an ACIPaffiliate), for example, conducted a studyinvestigating involvement in the informalarts in Chicago.8 They visited 86neighborhood sites (67 within the city limitsand 19 in surrounding suburbs) andexamined community newspapers, posters,flyers, and similar postings collected fromvenues such as grocery stores, churches,libraries, park offices, and coffee shops.Analysis determined that artistic events –including visual arts, architecture, dance,theater, and multimedia – accounted formore than half of the posted activities inalmost two-thirds of the sites. Focusgroups, personal interviews, and year-longethnographic studies about the motivation,behavior, and extent of participation ininformal arts were also part of the study –revealing that people from a wide range ofsocial and economic backgrounds indifferent neighborhoods participated in theinformal arts. In the process, many of themexpended considerable amounts of theirown personal time and resources inactivities such as purchasing materials andtaking classes. In doing so, they also reliedupon social resources – networks of family,friends, and other artists – as well asorganizational resources provided bychurches, libraries, and parks.

Further evidence of extensive culturalparticipation across different communitiescomes from a series of studies conductedby the Social Impacts of the Arts Project at

the University of Pennsylvania (also an ACIPaffiliate).9 These researchers surveyedresidents in five Philadelphia neighborhoodsabout participation in a wide range of localand regional arts and cultural activities.Overall, 80 percent of respondents said theyhad participated in a cultural activity in theprevious year, 69 percent had attended atleast one neighborhood cultural event, and60 percent had gone to at least one regionalcultural event. There was also a strongrelationship between local and regional artsparticipation, with eight of ten regionalcultural participants also attendingneighborhood events. Poorer neighborhoodshad relatively higher local culturalparticipation rates and lower regionalparticipation rates than average.

In an effort to develop better informationabout expanded forms of culturalparticipation in neighborhoods, ACIP workedto enhance the data collection practices ofarts-related organizations at the communitylevel. Such organizations are importantbecause they are often the main source ofinformation about local arts participation. Inthis regard, our work on participation hasbeen geared particularly toward creatingtools and methods that can be adopted oradapted by other practitioners in thecommunity arts and community-buildingfields.

ACIP researchers collaborated, for example,with the Getty Research Institute and twolocal agencies in East Los Angeles: Self-HelpGraphics and Arts, Inc., a community-basedvisual arts organization, and ProyectoPastoral, a programming division of theDolores Mission serving (at the time) mostly

L O C A L R E S E A R C H


public housing residents. These two EastLos Angeles organizations were involved ina joint effort to prepare for and producethree community celebrations: Día de losMuertos (Day of the Dead, an All Souls Daycelebration), Día de la Virgen de Guadalupe(Day of Our Lady of Guadalupe, patron saintof Mexico and prominent saint in other partsof Latin America), and Posadas (Mexican-style Christmas celebrations).10 ACIP alsoworked in the San Francisco Bay Area withthe East Bay Institute for Urban Arts and theCommunity Network for Youth Developmentand some of its affiliates. This was a two-year collaborative research effort, sponsoredby ACIP and involving arts-based youthdevelopment practitioners, youth, artists,researchers, and funders. Our work withthese organizations focused on betterunderstanding participation and itsrelationship to social capital-buildingprocesses.

In both places, we helped organizationsreconsider their documentation practicesand created new tools and methods fordocumenting various aspects ofparticipation. In Los Angeles, for example,ACIP work involved creating a registrationprocess for people participating in variousarts-based programs, as well as internalprogram evaluation tools and practices thatdocument the involvement of volunteers andcollaborating organizations. As an additionalmeans of more comprehensively capturingcultural participation, staff at Self-Help inLos Angeles worked with ACIP to developcommunity curatorial procedures – practicesintended to document the creative process,the art product itself, and the use of the artproduct. Such procedures involve combining

interviews and focus group discussions withparticipants as well as photographic andvideo documentation.

ACIP’s work in Los Angeles reveals both afuller range of cultural involvement and moreconnections to community-building effortsthan previously identified. In settings suchas mask-making and altar-makingworkshops tied to Día de los Muertos, forexample, we found a continuum of culturalopportunities over which an individual’sparticipation could shift among many rolesand span different levels of expertise – fromcreator to spectator, from critic to teacher,and so on. At the same time, researchersobserved that some participants, such ascommunity artists, also acted as facilitators,forging links between neighborhood-basedart-making and other kinds of civicengagement, such as mural painting andcommunity organizing.

In the San Francisco Bay area, ACIPcollaborators have addressed participation,not only by reconsidering existing practicesin documenting individual participation inprograms (which were already quitethorough) but also by becoming moreconscious of the relationships they rely onto do their work. Staff members fromseveral arts-based youth developmentprograms, for example, have createdprocesses to document the various formaland informal collaborators that make theirwork possible. In doing so, they havepushed forward our understanding of aparticular category of participant: supporter.


Accepting an expanded notion of culturalparticipation has important implications forresearchers, as well as for funders,practitioners, and policymakers in the artsand in community development. Recentnational studies using a broad conception ofparticipation confirm that people in the U.S.are more deeply and widely engaged incultural and creative activities than previousresearch suggested. Furthermore, localresearchers conducting qualitative and

quantitative work are finding that culturalparticipation takes place in multiple ways inmany different types of communities.However, there is considerable variationacross communities in the rates ofinvolvement in cultural activities. Finally,documentary practices among organizationsto track cultural participation in communitiesremain a challenge, though promisingexamples are emerging from local research.

S U M M A R Y


1. Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, Los Angeles, Oakland, Providence, and Washington, D.C.

2. ACIP works with local affiliates in seven places: Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay Area, Philadelphia, Providence, and Washington, D.C. ACIP and affiliates work on a variety of projects, with foci ranging from citywide to neighborhood-specific levels. Our aim with the affiliate work is to create tools and methods that can be adopted or adapted by other practitioners in the community arts and community-building related fields.

3. Peters, Moni, and Joni Cherbo. 1998. “The Missing Sector: The Unincorporated Arts.” Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society 26(2): 115-28.

4. Walker, Chris, and Stephanie Scott-Melnyk. 2002. Reggae to Rachmaninoff: How and Why People Participate in Arts and Culture. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

5. Kansas City is a good example because of its social and economic similarity to the United States as a whole.

6. McCarthy, Kevin F., Arthur Brooks, Julia Lowell, and Laura Zakaras. 2001. The Performing Arts in a New Era. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND.

7. McCarthy, Kevin F., and Kimberley Jinnett. 2001. A New Framework for Building Participation in the Arts. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND.

8. Wali, Alaka, and Rebecca Severson, Mario Longoni. 2000. Adult Participation in the Informal Arts: Exploring an Unknown Realm. Report to the National Endowment for the Arts. Chicago: Chicago Center for Arts Policy at Columbia College.

9. Stern, Mark J., and Susan C. Seifert. 1997. Community Revitalization, Diversity, and the Arts in Philadelphia. Working Paper from the Social Impacts of the Arts Project, University of Pennsylvania, School of Social Work. Philadelphia, Penn.

10. The research was also part of the Getty Research Institute’s Participation Project: Artists, Communities and Cultural Citizenship, directed by Josephine Ramirez.

N O T E S

The Urban Institute

2100 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20037

Address Service Requested

telephone: 202.833.7200

fax: 202.429.0687

email: [email protected]

http://www.urban.org

Nonprofit Org.

U.S. Postage

PAID

Permit NO. 8098

Mt. Airy, MD

Art and Culture in Communities: Unpacking Participation

Documents

Transcript of Art and Culture in Communities: Unpacking Participation