Cultural Data: Your Ally, not Your Foe
25 June 2024
by Valentina Montalto
Cultural Data: Much Ado about Nothing?
I recently came across this statement: ‘Yes, our city produces yearly reports but they contain very simple data… no one takes it seriously and there is no appreciation for data-driven decisions. We are used to looking for data that confirm rather than challenge our thoughts’.This reflects a major paradox we live in - with cultural data becoming a source of contemplation, not of transformation[1]. A paradox that has been very well depicted by a recent project on evidence-based policies carried out by the World Cities of Culture network:
“Recent decades have seen a burgeoning in the generation of cultural statistics, economic impact assessments and mapping studies, along with huge advances in measurement and research techniques. At the national and city government level, this has boosted awareness of the sector and resulted in an increase in cultural investment across the world. But beyond advocacy, the practice of using data in cultural planning is less rich and building the evidence-base can be challenging. On a day-to-day basis, the data required to inform key questions are often more granular and detailed than what is typically captured in the main measurement systems.”
In other words, while more and more culture-related data are being collected, they are most of the time not followed by action that makes culture more relevant or better performing in terms of impacts. At the same time, very specific and granular data, that may answer very precise policy questions, are rarely collected. In other sectors, not to mention private companies, no one would think of collecting data just for the sake of it.
Your Ally, Not your Foe: A Necessary Mind-Shift
Whether it is to understand spatial inequalities, promote access and engagement or assess economic impacts, there is a tremendous need to unlock existing data sources and build new research partnerships so as to support strategic cultural planning.
Big cities are of course finding their way, testing new data and methodologies to put cultural data “at work”. But smaller ones, who are more and more confronted with the need of measuring and monitoring their cultural ecosystem (just think of the monitoring requirements set up by the European Capital of Culture action), often do not even know where to start. ‘Top-down’ indicators are often much irrelevant to the local context, but proposing valid alternatives is far from being a trivial exercise. In the end, cities collect strictly what they are requested to collect. Otherwise, they simply avoid applying any sort of measurement and evaluation exercise.
Why is it so?
Maths is rarely one’s cup of tea (not to talk about statistics)
There is an increasingly generalised lack of trust in numbers
The data that you get are rarely what you expect
The indicators that you have is not what you want to measure but you cannot afford more
You need more than just economic indicators but you have no clue on where to start from
You are overwhelmed by your daily business - no time / money for it
You do not know where to find the right competent people
Why should people dealing with culture care about data then?
Believe it or not, you will be asked to do so, to prove how accountable or impactful you are and you won’t probably like what you are asked to produce
Establishing your own indicators will help show what is valuable to you and guide your policies.
Data may help understand how to conquer all those people that otherwise someone else will capture - YouTube has done what a museum has not done in decades in terms of culture democratisation
Use data as an ally - to understand, bring change and improve.
An Open Space for Reflection and Guidance
This space is mainly designed for actors operating in the field of culture - from cities to cultural organisations to funding bodies at all levels - that are faced with the need to measure and analyse data – either on their initiative or because they are asked to do so in the framework of bigger initiatives they are involved in - but lack the capacity and resources to do it.
In this space, we want to break down this problem into small and manageable pieces, so that even smaller entities can have some reference points to start with when confronted with culture-related measurement goals. Most importantly, the objective is to provide inspirational thoughts, expert views, guides and case studies (also from other sectors) that can help put data ‘at use’ beyond ‘mere’ advocacy purposes. Understanding how culture is distributed and accessed in a city, as a basis for improvement, may prove to be much more rewarding than simply showing how culturally vibrant a city is. We also want to warn cities and public officials against traditionally used advocacy indicators – either because ill-designed, badly analysed or wrongly communicated – as more often than one would think they actually bring no value or support to the cultural cause.
The Eight Common Mistakes You Want To Avoid
Mistake #1: Missing the ‘why’ you want to measure
It is very common to start a discussion about culture measurement without addressing one fundamental question: why do I want to measure? Only then we can start addressing the what and the how. To put it (very) simple, if the objective is understanding (ie. culture in your city), setting up a descriptive baseline could suffice. If the objective is to improve people’s engagement with culture, people’s behavioral habits and preferences are going to be needed. Instead, if you want to assess impact, then multiple dimensions (cultural, social, economic, environmental) and data sources certainly need to be mobilised.
Mistake #2: Assuming that available data will never fit the purpose
Data collection is costly. Therefore, using what is available is often the most immediate and available option you have. However, available data are often very poor and simply do not fit the purpose. There are several ways through which this dilemma could be faced, without necessarily engaging into new data collection processes. For instance, you may want to read across available data, which are not necessarily culture-related. As an example, if you want to understand whether culture contributes to happiness or life satisfaction in your city, looking simultaneously (and with appropriate statistical techniques) at the cultural offer data and life satisfaction data (when available) could do the trick. Or, you may want to engage your community for the interpretation of available data.
Mistake #3: Approaching (big) data as the solution, not as a mean
I have often been asked: how do you think the world of culture can make the most of big data or artificial intelligence? I would approach this topic from the opposite perspective: how can big data or AI support cities address old and new challenges? In order words, how can we make the most of what is out there to revamp cultural organisations, cities and policies? Making them more effective and cost-efficient, for instance. Such an approach is certainly very obvious for major corporations, but it is not for small organisations that simply have no time to think strategically. The world of culture has a range of unsolved issues - from spatial inequality to audience engagement - that (big) data and AI can help address, adding new perspectives, if we start with considering data and technology as a means and not as a solution per se.
Mistake #4: Considering data as a source of ‘absolute truth’ (or total fiction)
People looking at data may be artificially divided in two main categories: those that would never trust them and those who believe data are the truth. Of course, none of these two opposing views is really helpful. The ‘truth’ stays in the middle. Take data for what they are: ‘just’ numbers that tell us something, often a ‘tiny something’, of the immense reality we are immersed in. Their major power does not lie in unveiling an untold truth (although it may happen), but rather in engaging people in a discussion. Data are ‘just’ numbers, but with a great engagement potential.
Mistake #5: Reading indicators in ‘silos’ or the ‘contextualisation failure’
A common error in interpreting cultural data is the tendency to view indicators in isolation, often overlooking the broader context. For instance, declaring "Public budget is the most important indicator for culture" or assuming that a surge in museum visitors indicates the success of free entrance policies oversimplifies the evaluation process. To enhance our understanding of cultural policies, it is essential to move beyond single indicators and adopt a more nuanced, contextualised approach. Reference points, such as averages or time trends, can provide valuable insights into how cultural support evolves over time. This approach allows us to discern whether increased cultural engagement signifies the adoption of new behaviours or merely reflects a temporary impact of recent policy changes. Of course, obtaining more granular data becomes imperative in deciphering the underlying dynamics. For instance, an uptick in visitor numbers may warrant investigation into whether it signifies a broadening and diversification of the audience or is merely a result of repeated visits by the same ‘old folks’.
Mistake #6: Using ‘imposed’ metrics
Just because you deal with culture measurement, it does not mean that the same performance measures can be applied all over the place or across very different sectors. The starting point is to understand culture in YOUR city. By asking people what they consider culture, you will be able to identify what can be compared and what is unique to you, which attributes matter the most to people and what needs to be improved to retain specific groups of people or improve their satisfaction with the city, for instance. When it come to comparing economic sectors, culture may look less competitive if we use standard measures not only because the value of culture lies (also) somewhere else but also for very technical reasons (ie. the informal economy plays a huge role). Metrics adaptation and, most importantly, results’ contextualisation is crucial to make sense of available data.
Mistake #7: Not linking measurement to action
Numbers alone are not sufficient to change people’s minds, perceptions and actions (think of the discrepancy between numbers of immigrants and perceived numbers of immigrants), certainly not in the short term. Our actions often follow sentiment or intuition. The old view according to which human beings make entirely rational choices is a story of the past. Yet, having data upon which politicians can act and people debate is extremely important as it can help integrate new voices and perspectives in public policies, as a basis for long term changes in our actions.
Mistake #8: Look for the “big” numbers, whatever it takes
Certainly, politicians often seek impressive figures, which is why the (misleading) visitor number indicator remains the most commonly collected and utilized metric in political and communication campaigns. However, the efforts of a small organization dedicated to working with marginalized communities cannot reasonably be compared to those of the Louvre, which primarily caters to tourists. While a tourist may contribute significantly to the economic prosperity of Paris, their visit may yield limited cultural benefits for the local community. Conversely, the integration of individuals from marginalized backgrounds may not result in an immediate and substantial economic impact. Nevertheless, it is crucial to recognize that the integration of these individuals is imperative for addressing the growing social discontent. Acquiring storytelling skills is just as vital as gathering reliable data, as it enables us to convey the nuanced impact of cultural initiatives beyond mere numerical metrics.
Stay tuned for more stories, case studies, and experts’ views on such mistakes are being addressed.
[1] Maria Lusiani, Fabrizio Panozzo, Andrea Santini, “L’osservatorio regionale delle arti performative per la Regione Veneto. Una proposta fondata sulla ricerca”, in Economia della Cultura, 2023, n. 1. https://www.economiadellacultura.it/anno-xxxiii-2023-n-1/
