Mid-level impacts

Mid-level impacts

7.22

7.23

7.24

7.25 Mid-level data concentrates on producing information directly from those engaging with projects and programmes, rather than those running or funding projects and programmes. Normally, many organisations and individuals running projects may not collect any information directly from those who engage with the project. A strategic, programme-wide approach would provide the richest data in this area. Creative Scotland and other funding agencies could work together to refine the indicators and measures that are relevant, and a set of standardised questionnaires could also be developed. These could be ‘modularised’, so that projects could select the questionnaire which was most relevant to the kinds of engagement which they anticipate taking place. For example, it is important that free and ticketed events are clearly separated in future project data returns.

Fieldwork would require training and support to be given to organisations (and potentially volunteers) to collect and then submit their own data, or some investment in a professional fieldwork team to collect data (an existing audience development agency could perhaps take on this role). While online surveys could be used, responses to online surveys are unlikely to be thoroughly representative of all the different kinds of engagement that takes place, and some face-to-face surveys (or distribution of surveys to groups of participants and volunteers directly) may be more useful in ensuring a higher response rate. Additional levels of data collection could be considered (e.g. follow-up ‘telephone interviews with a smaller sample) to explore specific areas in greater detail.

Creative Scotland could consider working with an audience development agency to pilot and develop such an approach. Where possible, if data collection can be embedded within organisations, this approach would support significant capacity building for the sector and continue beyond Glasgow 2014.

This level of data (Table 14) would build significantly on the ‘self-reported’ data from organisations and individuals supplied through monitoring forms, by giving the ‘other side’ (that of the public) of the project experience. It would also supply important indicators relating to who gets involved, why and what they think of it. However, it is worth noting that questionnaire surveys must be manageable in length, and are also a form of ‘self-reporting’ (by the public, in this instance), inasmuch as they do not provide data observed or verified by a third party or other data/indicators. They are, therefore, limited in terms of the detail that they can realistically supply about potential impacts, and particularly in relation to longterm activities.

Table 14: Mid-level impacts

Theme

Cultural

Impact/ activity Area

Programme

Indicator/Measure

- Responses of audiences and participants to programme, including responses on enjoyment, quality, etc. - Responses of audiences, visitors, participants and volunteers

Methods for/notes on data generation

- Audience/visitor/participant/ volunteer survey - Note- these kinds of responses are necessarily ‘self-reported’ rather than observed, and could be strengthened by in-depth work directly with the public

Social Audiences, visitors, participants and volunteers: access, diversity, benefits and beneficiaries - Demographic information on audiences, visitors, participants and volunteers - Information relating to the previous cultural experiences and engagement by audiences, visitors, participants and volunteers - Experiences/benefits of programmes for volunteers and participants of specific activities - Audience/visitor/participant/ volunteer survey - Note- these kinds of responses are necessarily ‘self-reported’ rather than observed, and could be strengthened by in-depth work directly with the public

Economic

Image

Management/ Process Tourism

Job creation/ skills

Sense of place/ community

Coherent brand narrative

Partnerships/ cross-sector working

Funding/ Commissioning process - Origin of audiences and visitors to ascertain levels of tourism (i.e. travel from outside the event/activity area), travel time and mode of transport, motivation for making the visit, spend on visit, other activities undertaken (in addition to attending Glasgow 2014 Cultural Programme activities)

- Indicators dependent on activities/ programmes, but could explore new skills learning with participants and volunteers

- Audience/visitor/participant/volunteer views of the benefits of the culture programme to the way in which they see their area and their community

- Audience/visitor/participant/volunteer awareness of/association of activity with Glasgow 2014.

- Challenges/opportunities of new partnerships: what has worked and what hasn’t

- Challenges/opportunities of funding/ commissioning process: what has worked and what hasn’t - Audience/visitor/participant/ volunteer survey

- Participant and volunteer survey; as with other indicators in this tier, these would be self-reported

- Audience/visitor./participant/ volunteer survey - Note- these kind of responses are necessarily ‘self-reported’ rather than observed, and could be strengthened by in-depth work directly with the public

- Survey (perhaps anonymised) of organisations and individuals delivering projects and programmes

- Facilitated symposium to share learning and create networks across the Glasgow 2014 Cultural Programme