首页> 外文期刊>Cultural Trends >Towards a balanced scorecard: A critical analysis of the Culture and Sport Evidence (CASE) programme
【24h】

Towards a balanced scorecard: A critical analysis of the Culture and Sport Evidence (CASE) programme

机译:迈向平衡计分卡:对文化体育证据(CASE)计划的批判性分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

This article provides a critical analysis of the methods employed in the Culture and Sport Evidence (CASE) programme. Based on a comprehensive review of the arts management and cultural policy literature, it contests recent claims that the cultural sector should state its value in the economic language of policy appraisal and evaluation (O'Brien, 201031. O'Brien, D. 2010. Measuring the value of culture: A report to the Department for Culture Media and Sport, London, UK: Department of Culture, Media and Sport. View all references) and proposes alternative methods for evaluating the drivers, impact and value of engagement in the arts, including the balanced scorecard approach. The literature identifies a number of fundamental problems in quantifying the social and personal impact of the arts, and an underlying policy issue is that the arts have become increasingly subject to the benchmarks of incompatible disciplines and practices. This article seeks to redress the balance by questioning the argument that economic cost-benefit analysis is the best way to understand cultural value and influence public policy. As the CASE programme aimed to make the business case for optimum Government investment in sport and culture, it adopted the framework set out in HM Treasury's Green Book and took a quantitative, evidence-based approach to measuring the drivers, impact and instrumental value of engagement, disregarding established qualitative studies and approaches, which have been shown to articulate cultural value through a more personal, intrinsic and holistic lens. This article makes the case for a more balanced approach to cultural evaluation and a more holistic articulation of cultural value, which would combine intrinsic and instrumental benefits and comprise both qualitative and quantitative methods. The key implication of this re-conception of value is that cultural policy should be evaluated not on return on investment but rather against a balanced range of objectives and articulated in a language that reflects artistic practice and speaks directly to existing and potential audiences.View full textDownload full textKeywordscultural policy, impact of the arts, well-being, public value, audiences, cost-benefit analysisRelated var addthis_config = { ui_cobrand: "Taylor & Francis Online", services_compact: "citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more", pubid: "ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b" }; var addthis_config = {"data_track_addressbar":true,"ui_click":true}; Add to shortlist Link Permalink http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2012.726800
机译:本文对文化和体育证据(CASE)计划中使用的方法进行了批判性分析。在对艺术管理和文化政策文献进行全面回顾的基础上,它质疑了最近有关文化部门应以政策评估和评估的经济语言陈述其价值的主张(O'Brien,201031。O'Brien,D。2010。衡量文化的价值:致英国伦敦文化媒体与体育部的报告:文化,媒体与体育部。查看所有参考文献),并提出了评估艺术动因,影响和价值的替代方法,包括平衡计分卡方法。文献确定了量化艺术对社会和个人影响的许多基本问题,而潜在的政策问题是艺术已越来越受不相容学科和实践的基准约束。本文通过质疑以下观点来纠正这种平衡:经济成本效益分析是了解文化价值和影响公共政策的最佳方法。由于CASE计划旨在为政府在体育和文化上的最佳投资提供商业依据,因此它采用了英国财政部《绿皮书》中列出的框架,并采取了基于证据的定量方法来衡量参与的驱动力,影响和工具价值,而不考虑已建立的定性研究和方法,这些研究和方法已被证明可以通过更具个人性,内在性和整体性的角度来表达文化价值。本文提出了一种更为平衡的文化评估方法和更全面的文化价值表述方法,这些方法将结合内在的和工具上的利益,并包括定性和定量方法。重新认识价值的关键含义是,不应根据投资回报率来评估文化政策,而应根据平衡的目标范围来评估文化政策,并以反映艺术实践并直接与现有和潜在受众对话的语言来表达。全文下载全文关键字文化政策,艺术的影响力,福祉,公共价值,受众,成本效益分析,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,更多”,发布号:“ ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b”}; var addthis_config = {“ data_track_addressbar”:true,“ ui_click”:true};添加到候选列表链接永久链接http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2012.726800

著录项

  • 来源
    《Cultural Trends》 |2012年第4期|325-334|共10页
  • 作者

    Ben Walmsley;

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号