Benefit as a Standard Unit of Measure for Arts Organizations: A Conceptual Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18192/clg-cgl.v8i1.6663Abstract
Benefit is a commonly used concept for expressing positive outcomes of arts participation. The inherent ambiguity of benefit applied to a broad range of arts activities raises issues for research, decision-making, program design, and evaluation. This article offers a conceptual analysis of benefit as a standard unit of measure for design and evaluation of third sector arts organization services. In this article, we explore the possibilities for a standard unit of measure, called Benefit Unit that works toward dispelling the inherent ambiguities of “benefit” in the current discourse on arts programs and services. Conceptual analysis is applied to existing theories of benefit analysis and transaction theory, to advance a framework for Benefit Unit that offers ease of use, coherence, and wide acceptance. Developed for arts organizations, we see potential for any nonprofit organization seeking to establish appropriate measures of the intangible merits of its services. Our research is aimed at decision makers, policy agents, public administrators, and funders who have interest in improving available tools for measuring outcomes of arts services.
References
Art at Work. (2020). Mission & History. Retrieved September 1, 2020, from https://artatwork.us/mission-and-history/
Belfiore. (2009). On bullshit in cultural policy practice and research: notes from the British case. International Journal of Cultural Policy : CP, 15(3), 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286630902806080
Belfiore, & Bennett, O. (2010). Beyond the “Toolkit Approach”: Arts Impact Evaluation Research and the Realities of Cultural Policy-Making. Journal for Cultural Research, 14(2), 121–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/14797580903481280
Belfiore, E. & Bennett, O. (2009). Researching the social impact of the arts: literature, fiction and the novel. International Journal of Cultural Policy,15(1), 17–33.
Belfiore, & Bennett, O. (2007). Determinants of Impact: Towards a Better Understanding of Encounters with the Arts. Cultural Trends, 16(3), 225–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/09548960701479417
Benefit. (n.d.). In Oxford Exico.com. Retrieved October 1, 2020, from https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/benefit
Bentham, J. (1789). Introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. London: T. Payne and Son.
Blastland, M. (2011, October) Go Figure: What bananas tell us about radiation. Seeing stats in a different way. BBC News Magazine. Retrieved September, 30, 2020, from https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-15288975
Boudreau, M. Watson, R. Chen, A.J. Greiner, M. & Sclavos, P. (2007). “The benefits of transaction cost economics: The beginning of a new direction.” Proceedings of the fifteenth Eurpean Conference on Information Systems, ECIS 2007, Gallen Switzerland. Retrieved from https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2007/34
Bourgeon-Renault D., Urbain C., Petr C., Gall-Ely M.L., Gombault A. (2006). An experiential approach to the consumption value of arts and culture: The case of museums and monuments. International Journal of Arts Management, 9(1), 35-47.
Brenton, & Bouckaert, G. (2021). Managing Public Museums Appropriately and Consequentially: The Distinctiveness and Diversity of Leading Organizations. Public Administration Review, 81(4), 715–727. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13323
Brown A. S. & Novak-Leonard J.L. (2013). Measuring the intrinsic impacts of arts attendance. Cultural Trends, 22(3-4), 223-233, DOI: 10.1080/09548963.2013.817654
Carman, J. G. (2011). Understanding evaluation in nonprofit organizations. Public Performance & Management Review, 34(3), 250-377.
Carman, J. G. & Fredericks, K. A. 2010. Evaluation capacity and nonprofit organizations: Is the glass half-empty or half-full? American Journal of Evaluation, 31(1), 84-104.
Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386-405.
Commons, J. R. (1934). Institutional economics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Cordery, C. & Sinclair, R. (2013). Measuring performance in the third sector. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 10(3/4), 196-212.
Courtney, P. (2018). Conceptualising social value for the third sector and developing methods for its assessment. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29(3), 541–557. https://doi-org.nuncio.cofc.edu/10.1007/s11266-017-9908-3
Delaney, M., & Royal, M. (2017). Breaking Engagement Apart: The Role of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in Engagement Strategies. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 10(1), 127-140. doi:10.1017/iop.2017.2
DeVereaux, C. (Ed.). (2018) Arts and cultural management: Sense and sensibilities in the state of the field. London: Routledge.
DeVereaux, C. (2009). Practice versus a discourse of practice in cultural management. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 39(1), 65-72.
DeVereaux, C. (2006). Any way the wind blows: Changing dynamics in American arts policy. Journal of Arts Management, Law & Society, 36(3), 168–180. https://doi-org.nuncio.cofc.edu/10.3200/JAML.36.3.168-180
DiMaggio, P. (2002). “Taking the measure of culture: A meeting at Princeton University, June 7–June 8, 2002,” meeting prospectus. https://culturalpolicy.princeton.edu/sites/culturalpolicy/files/moc_prospectus.pdf
Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. London: Andrew Crooke.
Keeney, K. & Korza, P. (2015). Assessing arts-based social change endeavors: Controversies and complexities. In M. Stephenson & S. Tate (Eds.), Arts and Community Change (186-211). New York: Routledge.
Koto, S., Ashley, S. R. & Weaver, R. L. (2017). Insights for measuring social value: Classification of measures related to the capabilities approach. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,29(3), 558-573. DOI: 10.1007/s11266-017-9912-7
Liu, Q., & Kim, M. (2021). Benefit-Based Revenue Streams and Financial Health: The Case of Arts and Cultural Nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 89976402110120–. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640211012090
Locke, J. (1689). Second treatise of government. London: Awnsham Churchill.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Dr. Kate Keeney, Dr. Constance DeVereaux
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
