Value by design: Cultivating demand for the arts in Washington State Amanda Wold Sipher A Master’s Project Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Master’s Degree in Arts Management Arts and Administration Program School of Architecture and Allied Arts University of Oregon June 2010 ii Advisor approval Approved: ____________________ Dr. Patricia Dewey, Associate Professor, Arts Administration Program, University of Oregon Date: ________________ iii Abstract This master’s project explores the economic, political, and social factors affecting demand for the arts in Washington State and investigates how state-level arts organizations are positioned to cultivate demand through advocacy networks. The researcher uses a mixed-methods approach drawing on theories from cultural economics and public policy to conduct a collective case study of Washington State Arts Commission and Washington State Arts Alliance Foundation programs and initiatives. Data collection includes the use of interviews, observation, and content analysis of publicly available documents related to organizational policy and procedure. Based on these case studies, the researcher identifies various “supplier-induced demand” initiatives supported through advocacy coalition frameworks. Finally, the researcher discusses areas of future research. Keywords: advocacy coalitions, advocacy messaging, public value, supplier-induced demand iv Acknowledgements I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to Dr. Patricia Dewey for her insight, support, and understanding during this research process. Her knowledge of the field and enthusiasm for teaching were instrumental in the formation of my topic. Dr. Lori Hager’s course in arts learning policy and Darrel Kau’s arts marketing class also greatly informed this work. Additionally, the Arts Administration program, the Center for Community Arts and Cultural Policy, and the Emerging Leaders in the Arts Network provided numerous professional development opportunities during my studies. I am thankful to Kris Tucker at the Washington State Arts Commission and Mary Langholz at the Washington State Arts Alliance Foundation for graciously accepting my invitation to participate in this study. I could not have conducted this research without their participation and willingness to share information. Thank you to my Arts Administration colleagues for your support and understanding. We did it…because we had to! I look forward to continuing our mutually supportive relationships as we being our professional careers. Lastly, thank you to Travis Sipher for nurturing me through this process with delicious home cooked meals and just enough teacherly encouragement, and Kathleen Ash Barraclough for kindly suggesting I consider a career in arts management in the first place. v Curriculum Vitae EDUCATION Master of Science: Arts Management – University of Oregon, Eugene, OR (2010) • Coursework: artistic, cultural, and performing arts administration; arts learning policy and practice; arts marketing; arts program theory; conference and event management; community cultural planning and development; cultural policy; information design and technology; research methodology • Master’s project: Cultivating demand for the arts in Washington State – explores the social, economic, and political factors affecting demand for the arts in WA; discusses how arts organizations use advocacy networks and effective messaging to cultivate arts demand Graduate Certificate in Nonprofit Management – University of Oregon, Eugene, OR (2010) • Coursework: board governance; public and nonprofit financial management; grant writing; managing nonprofit organizations; philanthropy; public policy analysis; resource development; volunteer resource management Bachelor of Arts: Economics – Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA (2003) • Coursework: financial accounting; industrial organization and public policy; international business, economics, and finance; resource economics; statistics • Music minor: ethnomusicology, music appreciation, music theory, violin performance AWARDS & HONORS • Cultural Congress Scholarship – Washington State Arts Alliance/Foundation (2010) • Conference Scholarship – International Association of Assembly Managers (2010) • Graduate Research Fellowship – Center for Community Arts and Cultural Policy (2009/10) • Conference Travel Award – Center for Community Arts and Cultural Policy (2009, 2010) • Student Research Award – Center for Community Arts and Cultural Policy (2009) • General University Scholarship – University of Oregon, (2009/10) • Ellen M. Pennell Scholarship – University of Oregon (2009) EXPERIENCE Research Fellow – Center for Community Arts & Cultural Policy, Eugene, OR (2009 – 2010) • Provide project management oversight for publication of scholarly journal and annual report; coordinate communications and resource development strategic planning activities • Maintain financial management system and reconcile expenses; coordinate meetings; manage travel arrangements and logistics for visiting scholars • Conduct research to assist faculty in various areas: capacity building for cultural policy advocacy; children’s museums and community development; cultural tourism; flagship arts organization leadership in urban/rural community cultural development; intercultural dialogue; women and museums; social inclusion and the arts Financial Services Assistant – Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art, Eugene, OR (2008 – 2010) • Assisted Financial Services Coordinator in maintaining confidential financial records • Generated monthly attendance reports for education and events departments • Processed accounts payable/receivable requests; ensured records retention compliance Communications Intern – Washington State Arts Commission, Olympia, WA (2009) • Contributed to strategic goals while gaining experience with state-level project based cultural policy research initiatives, including Arts and Recession, Arts Education Research Initiative, Creative Vitality Index, and Arts Participation Leadership Initiative • Supported daily operations; attended commission meetings and grant panels • Reviewed publications; attended regional conferences and webinars vi Loan Processor – American Home Mortgage, Bellingham, WA (2006 – 2007) • Prioritized loan pipeline tasks to ensure all loans met processing standards • Applied critical thinking skills to independently research and resolve loan approval issues Sales Associate – Washington Mutual Bank, Bellingham, WA (2006) • Assisted top producing account executives with sales support and loan fulfillment activities • Coordinated marketing efforts, maintained customer database, and prepared mailings Loan Closer – Horizon Bank, Bellingham, WA (2005) • Collaborated with internal and external customers to facilitate timely closing of mortgage loan transactions; prioritized work under tight deadlines with minimal supervision • Analyzed files for compliance with program guidelines; proactively problem-solved issues to improve process flow; accurately prepared loan documents for execution • Balanced accounts and disbursed funds with high accuracy and attention to detail Operations Supervisor – Washington Mutual Bank, Bellingham, WA (2000 – 2005) • Organized customer appreciation activities; designed programs to improve service; expanded client base through marketing events; mentored frontline team • Executed monthly audits; identified and implemented changes to office processes and procedures; planned staff meeting agendas; prepared and delivered presentations • Communicated with all levels of management, employees, industry peers, and customers to effectively problem-solve issues in a fast paced and demanding environment VOLUNTEER SERVICE Treasurer – AFTA Emerging Leaders in the Arts Network, Eugene, OR (2009 – 2010) • Maintain financial records; manage annual budget proposal; prepare monthly reports • Attend advisory meetings and student senate hearings; prepare senate special requests • Program professional development opportunities and coordinate special events Volunteer Coordinator – Arts Umbrella, Eugene, OR (2008 – 2010) • Confer with staff to plan, implement, and maintain volunteer database and filing systems • Establish program procedures for recruiting, training, and recognizing volunteers • Evaluate volunteer opportunities and recommend new positions • Serve on fundraising and event committees; coordinate special event logistics All-state Orchestra Assistant Manager – Oregon Music Educators Association Conference, Eugene, OR (Winter 2009 & 2010) • Assisted Orchestra Manager with audition materials; organized sheet music for distribution • Supported conference logistics, including registration and stage management activities Hospitality Coordinator – UNESCO Chairs Conference, Eugene, OR (2009) • Coordinated conference hospitality needs; organized VIP dinner; managed event budget • Collaborated with conference coordinators and directors to facilitate event success Treasurer – Bayshore Music Project, Bow, WA (2004 – 2008) • Managed accurate and transparent financial accounting for nonprofit organization • Prepared monthly reports evaluating the financial position of the organization to forecast expenses and make recommendations to the Board TECHNICAL PROFICIENCY • Adobe Creative Suite: Dreamweaver, Fireworks, InDesign, Illustrator, Photoshop • Microsoft Office: Access, Excel, Outlook, PowerPoint, Word • Social media applications: Wordpress, Blogger, Google applications vii Table of contents ADVISOR APPROVAL .................................................................................................................................................... ii ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................................................................ iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................. iv CURRICULUM VITAE.................................................................................................................................................... v TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................................................................vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Statement of the problem............................................................................................................................................ 1 Conceptual framework. .............................................................................................................................................. 3 Purpose statement....................................................................................................................................................... 6 Methodological paradigm.......................................................................................................................................... 7 Preliminary research questions. ................................................................................................................................ 7 Definitions, delimitations, & limitations. .................................................................................................................. 8 Benefits of the study.................................................................................................................................................. 10 RESEARCH DESIGN.......................................................................................................................................................... 10 Research approach. .................................................................................................................................................. 10 Strategy of inquiry. ................................................................................................................................................... 11 Overview of research design.................................................................................................................................... 13 Anticipated ethical issues. ........................................................................................................................................ 14 Expectations. .............................................................................................................................................................14 Data collection and analysis procedures. ............................................................................................................... 15 Preliminary coding & analysis procedures. ........................................................................................................... 16 Strategies for validating findings.............................................................................................................................16 Specific plans for research....................................................................................................................................... 16 Overview of document. ............................................................................................................................................. 17 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................................................................... 17 CULTURAL ECONOMICS.................................................................................................................................................. 17 Taste formation. ........................................................................................................................................................ 19 Demand and supply studies...................................................................................................................................... 19 Cultural policy. ......................................................................................................................................................... 20 Cultural policy infrastructure. ................................................................................................................................. 21 PUBLIC VALUE FRAMEWORK FOR STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT....................................................................................... 22 ADVOCACY ..................................................................................................................................................................... 26 WASHINGTON’S ARTS ENVIRONMENT ...........................................................................................................................29 Challenges and context. ........................................................................................................................................... 29 CHAPTER 3: COLLECTIVE CASE STUDY AND CONTENT ANALYSIS....................................................... 32 WASHINGTON STATE ARTS COMMISSION..................................................................................................................... 33 Legitimacy and support. ........................................................................................................................................... 33 Authorizing environment. ......................................................................................................................................... 34 Operational capacities. ............................................................................................................................................ 36 Public value...............................................................................................................................................................44 WASHINGTON STATE ARTS ALLIANCE/FOUNDATION (WSAA/F)............................................................................... 49 Legitimacy and support. ........................................................................................................................................... 49 Operational capacity. ............................................................................................................................................... 50 Public value...............................................................................................................................................................52 SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................................................... 55 viii CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................... 55 FINDINGS......................................................................................................................................................................... 57 Revisiting the research questions and conceptual framework............................................................................... 58 Areas of future research........................................................................................................................................... 60 RECOMMENDATIONS TO EMERGING ARTS LEADERS ..................................................................................................... 61 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................................. 62 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY........................................................................................................................................... 66 APPENDIX B: RESEARCH DESIGN SCHEMATIC...............................................................................................67 APPENDIX C: RECRUITMENT LETTER................................................................................................................ 68 APPENDIX D: CONSENT FORM................................................................................................................................69 APPENDIX E: PRIORITIES OF GOVERNMENT, WASHINGTON STATE .................................................... 71 APPENDIX F: 2009-2011 ORGANIZATION CHART, WASHINGTON STATE GOVERNMENT............... 72 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................................................viii FIGURE 1: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK.......................................................................................................................... 13 FIGURE 2: THE CREATIVE SECTOR (WYZSOMIRSKI, 2008).......................................................................................... 30 FIGURE 3: STRATEGIC VALUE TRIANGLE (MOORE & MOORE, 2005).......................................................................... 31 FIGURE 4: VALUE CREATATION CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK (BROWN, 2006).............................................................33 FIGURE 5: ADVOCACY COALITION FRAMEWORK (WIEBLE, ET AL., 2007) .................................................................. 36 FIGURE 6: STATE CULTURAL POLICY ECOLOGY (SCHUSTER, 2003)........................................................................... 38 FIGURE 7:WSAC ORGANIZATION CHART..................................................................................................................... 45 FIGURE 8: STATE ARTS AGENCY VALUE CHAIN (MOORE & MOORE, 2005) .............................................................51 FIGURE 9: WSAA/F ORGNIZATION CHART .................................................................................................................. 57 1 Chapter 1: Introduction Methodology Statement of the problem. Many arts organizations in the United States are struggling to produce quality artistic experiences while coping with declining ticket sales, aging audiences, plummeting endowment earnings, and dwindling public support. Headlines announcing concert cancellations, sales of museum collections, staff furloughs, and potential bankruptcies are published in the media on a near daily basis. The economic crisis currently plaguing much of the world is often blamed as the cause of arts organizations’ troubles, but the challenges facing the arts sector are not new. Nor are they exclusively caused by a weak economy. Due to the inherent issues of the arts sector – particularly well illustrated in the performing arts cost dilemma (Baumol & Bowen, 1966) – public funding for the arts has typically supported supply-side investment (Kreidler, 2000; McCarthy et al., 2008). Starting with its founding in 1965, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) created a national network of state arts agencies to distribute funds to artists and producing organizations, leading to substantial growth in the number of nonprofit arts organizations. Along with direct support to artists and arts organizations, schools taught art appreciation and provided opportunities for student participation. Today, shifting education policies have resulted in a steady reduction of the time and funding dedicated to arts education (Bodily et al., 2008). Current trends highlight the need for a new framework – one in which increasing demand for the arts is essential to the sustainability of the sector. The question is: how does the sector cultivate demand? Garnering public support for the arts is of critical interest to those arts organizations (both public and non-profit) grappling with budget cuts and questions of relevance. As Sterngold 2 (2004) points out, the arts must compete with social, educational, and economic development needs in an attempt to secure public funds. By creating a link to the major needs of society, the arts sector can demonstrate its relevance. Arts advocates are tasked to clearly articulate the value of the arts to the public and policy-makers in order to secure support for the field. During times of economic uncertainty, their role is crucial. However, the sector is struggling in its ability to articulate its value, lacking a unified voice and presence. Recognizing the social, economic, and political environment in which it operates (and organizing within this environment for effective advocacy) are critical considerations for the arts sector to address. Arts advocates must find effective ways to discuss the value of art that are meaningful to the variety of stakeholders served. At a state level, state arts agencies (SAAs) serve a key role in supporting public arts. SAAs receive both state and national funding, and often enable arts organizations to leverage publicly awarded grants for private or local funds. This funding contributes to the creation of new artwork, and makes such works accessible to larger audiences. However, a weak economy and competing public needs have resulted in budget shortfalls affecting SAAs across the country. As SAAs experience decreases in public funding, they are no longer able to support arts across the state at the same level. Rather than awarding ever declining grant funds to arts organizations, SAAs must now expand their missions and engage more of the community. SAAs are well positioned to engage with other state and local agencies (such as education and commerce departments) and show how the arts are relevant to other policy agendas (Lowell, 2008). While viewed by many simply as a source of funding, SAAs can provide a number of policy tools to support the arts: convening and matchmaking abilities; research and development; information dissemination; and consulting expertise. By harnessing these strengths, SAAs can become 3 essential to addressing broad based community issues and leveraging resources through networking strategies. In Washington State, recent surveys document the impact of the current recession on the arts sector. Key findings reveal that the majority of arts organizations are reducing expenses and emphasizing development and marketing activities, lack the capacity to establish partnerships or conduct meaningful strategic planning, and seek leadership from funders (Helicon, 2009; 2009a). Local, state, and regional arts agencies are uniquely positioned to address such issues and support the arts in their respective jurisdictions, but they too are feeling the effects of the recession. The Washington State Arts Commission (WSAC) anticipated a 44% reduction in state revenue for the 2011-2013 biennium, a result of the governor’s need to close Washington’s budget shortfall (www.ofm.wa.gov, 2010). To adjust for this reduction, WSAC is reevaluating its strategic plan and funding priorities – forced to focus on the public value it provides and how effectively it fulfills its mission. Known primarily for supply-side support of arts organizations, how can WSAC position itself to cultivate demand for the arts through its programs and services? Addressing this question is the focus of this study. Conceptual framework. Much has been written on the value of the arts, but little consensus has been reached regarding how to articulate that value – either internally among related stakeholders or externally to the broader public. In fact, the very definition of value is under constant discussion as various authors have identified a multitude of values to assign to art. Ongoing discussion revolves around the instrumental value of art related to economic growth and education, but to it Throsby (2001) and Noonan (2004) add consideration of non-use values. These intrinsic values (associated specifically with public culture goods) are not easily captured by market valuations. 4 They include aesthetic, spiritual, social, historical, symbolic, authenticity, existence, altruistic, option, and bequest values. While the field of economics is often associated and concerned with financial value, as social scientists, economists are interested in understanding how tastes and preferences are developed and influence decision-making. The field of cultural economics has grown from economic theory over the past few decades, and offers the arts sector a way to identify itself within the broader societal context. Given the importance of the field of thought in demonstrating the relevance of the arts sector to society, this researcher conducted her study using a cultural economics lens to frame a discussion of public purpose, supplier-induced demand, and arts advocacy (see Figure 1). Moore’s (2000; 2005) public policy paradigm is another important lens through which to conduct this study. Moore proposes an organizational strategy involving three considerations: legitimacy and support, operational capacity, and public value. Addressed in the next chapter, the public value framework strategic triangle is incorporated into the researcher’s conceptual framework and provides a foundation for layering the related variables discussed below. Within the theoretical frameworks of cultural economics and public policy, economic, social, and political factors influence the cultivation of demand. In the conceptual framework created by this author, the spheres overlap, indicating the factors occur simultaneously and affect one another. Additionally, these factors are seen as dynamic parts that constantly develop and change as they function within the cultural economic frame. As social, economic, and political pressures change, the spheres may expand or contract showing the level of influence a particular factor has on (or independent from) the others. 5 Figure 1. Conceptual framework. This figure illustrates connections among this study’s topical areas. In this study’s framework, public value is influenced by cultural economics, public purpose, and advocacy. These influences and their specific aspects are illustrated on the framework as three connected spheres exerting pressure on the public value variable of the strategic triangle. As the title of this proposal indicates, this study is concerned with the cultivation of demand for the arts in Washington State. As such, an analysis of the cultural policy 6 infrastructure of Washington is central to the inquiry. This is indicated within the author’s conceptual framework by a circle nested within the strategic triangle. Its location is not fixed, and indicates that cultural policy infrastructure operates within (and reacts to) the factors surrounding it. As the strategy and factors shift, the infrastructure will react, so it may become pinched on one end, or flattened on another. Nested inside the cultural policy infrastructure is a smaller circle representing Washington’s arts sector. As grant making trends illustrate, the arts sector is narrowly defined to include those nonprofit arts disciplines historically favored by the NEA – literary arts, visual arts, symphony, opera, theatre, dance, jazz, and heritage arts. State level arts organizations operate across the cultural policy infrastructure and arts sector levels, responding to needs and mandates from both spheres. Demand for the arts can be measured at several points in this framework by capturing details of audience participation, level of engagement, and value placed on the arts. While old models merely measured the number of tickets sold to an event or total earned income, new models developed at both state and national levels (and by both public and private organizations) provide a much more detailed picture of the various levels at which individuals engage in artistic processes. This study was centered in this detailed level of accounting. Purpose statement. The purpose of this study was to investigate the economic, political, and social factors influencing demand for the arts; analyze the state’s existing cultural policy infrastructure; and, evaluate strategies for effective statewide arts advocacy messaging in order to cultivate demand for the arts in Washington State. 7 Methodological paradigm. Given a desire to employ hermeneutic inquiry to explore the environment surrounding demand for arts, this researcher was positioned primarily in the interpretivist/constructivist methodological paradigm of applied research (Neuman, 2006). This position allowed the researcher to view the realities of practical issues in arts administration as a neutral observer in order to understand the situation. Such a view lent itself to qualitative research in the form of observation and interview. Additionally, study participants contributed to the research design by their comments on the state of the sector, reflecting the emergent design of the study. However, the researcher also intended to make recommendations as to what a well-functioning cultural policy infrastructure would look like for Washington State, and how it could be used to effectively organize the sector. In this way, the critical inquiry paradigm also informed the study as it utilized an open-ended format using theory and practice to take a transformative perspective, with a goal to foster sociopolitical action. In this case, the action sought was to mobilize Washington’s cultural sector, employing successful advocacy messaging techniques to promote demand-side investment in the arts. Role of the researcher. Personal and professional biases – such as the researcher’s economics background and for-profit experiences, coupled with the desire to secure post-graduate employment within Washington’s cultural sector – framed the researcher’s participation in the study. Preliminary research questions. An interest in cultural economics, arts advocacy and organizing, and cultural policy infrastructure within the state of Washington led the researcher to two preliminary research 8 questions, and several supplementary questions. The primary research questions guiding this study were: • What are the economic, social, and political factors affecting demand for the arts in Washington State? • How are state level arts organizations positioned to cultivate demand through effective statewide advocacy? Supplementary questions supporting this query included: • What is the current cultural policy infrastructure of Washington State? • What is Washington State Arts Commission role in supporting arts advocacy initiatives? • Is an advocacy coalition model applicable and appropriate for Washington? • How can the arts sector position itself for effective advocacy messaging using currently available tools? Through this research, the author hoped to: develop new strategies for effective statewide arts advocacy messaging; develop a solid understanding of cultural policy by triangulating research, internship experience, and coursework; and, make policy or procedural recommendations based on her findings. Refinement of the conceptual framework was ongoing as the researcher continued developing the literature review. Additionally, the study supported an emergent process informed by reflection of the researcher’s internship at the Washington State Arts Commission, as well as coursework in cultural policy, community cultural development, and community cultural planning. Definitions, delimitations, & limitations. To facilitate the development of the researcher’s understanding and as a tool for those reading this document, a glossary of terms was compiled as part of the literature review and included as an appendix to the final project (see Appendix A). Key concepts defined are 9 italicized throughout Chapter 2, and include: cultural economics; cultural policy infrastructure; advocacy coalitions; and, advocacy messaging. Delimitations to this study are addressed in depth in the following section. The researcher narrowed the scope of the study in terms of several factors. Briefly, these include: choice of collective case study; meso-level review of state organizations; recommendations for future research (areas excluded from this study); choice of concurrent transformative nested mixed methods strategy; and, use of both inductive and deductive analysis. Several areas of potential weakness exist in this study and should be addressed. The study of cultural economics and the field of mixed methods research have emerged fairly recently, and continue to evolve. The body of knowledge related to these areas is growing, and the researcher strove to incorporate the most current developments in the field into this study through an ongoing review of peer-reviewed literature. Another major challenge facing the researcher was navigating the fragmented field of state-level cultural policy. To address this issue, the researcher focused her study on select policy-influencing organizations, drawing heavily upon existing scholarship related to Washington and the field as a whole. The time available to conduct this study constrained the depth and breadth of information the researcher was able to collect. The delimitations mentioned previously focused the study in a manageable and meaningful way. The researcher hopes that findings will be transferable to other organizations with state reach not included in the study, and that the study may offer perspectives that may be applicable to other states and regions. However, it is anticipated that generalizability of the findings will be limited. Two final limitations are the role of the researcher as a qualitative research instrument and the involvement of key informants. The researcher applied several techniques to ensure validity and reliability throughout the study, as discussed below. 10 Benefits of the study. This study expands upon the work of Schuster (2003), McCarthy et al., (2004), Brown (2006), and others. It draws from the work of Throsby (2008), Moore (2000), Sabatier (2009), Mathie (2006), and Sojka (2006) to develop a rich understanding of, and policy recommendations to address, demand-side issues facing arts and culture in Washington State. These findings will likely be beneficial to arts administrators, policy makers, and cultural organizations with statewide reach in Washington, and may have applications for those operating at a local or regional level. Additionally, the study contributes to the growing body of knowledge related to cultural economics. Research design Research approach. This exploratory study combined basic and applied research approaches to investigate the economic, social, and political factors affecting demand for the arts, and how state level organizations are positioned to cultivate demand. For answers to emerge, a variety of qualitative and quantitative research methods were employed. Thus, a mixed methods research strategy was identified as the appropriate method of inquiry as it triangulates data and research, allowing the researcher to design a comprehensive and rich study (Creswell, 2009; Greene, 2008; Neuman, 2006; Piore, 1979). Along with mixed method strategies, the study draws on both inductive and deductive theory. Inductive theory is used in order to critically analyze cases using thick description to develop findings based in grounded theory, while deductive theory draws upon established ideas in cultural economics and public policy. Additionally, the state-level focus favored by the researcher corresponds to a meso-level inquiry of the subject in order to identify 11 its relationships, processes, and structures. The scope of the study supported the use of case- study analysis. Strategy of inquiry. Mixed methods research strategy developed over the past two decades, emerging from a desire to more fully understand the social science field (Creswell, 2009; Greene, 2008). As Greene (2008) and Creswell (2008) note, mixed methods theory reflects Deweyan pragmatism in its dynamic interplay between theory and practice. As the field is quite new, debate exists regarding its conceptual framework. Teddlie and Tashakkori (as cited in Creswell, 2009) have identified six core issues: nomenclature and basic definitions; utility; paradigmatic foundations; design issues; issues in drawing inferences; and logistics of conducting mixed methods review. Since then, Greene (2008) has worked the six issues into four domains: philosophical assumptions; inquiry logics; guidelines for practice; and, sociopolitical commitments. But Creswell (2009) feels a thorough mapping of the mixed methods field is necessary as – given the dynamic development of the field – current maps are quickly becoming stale. Building on the work of Greene (2008) and Teddlie and Tashakkori (as cited in Creswell, 2009), Creswell’s cartography includes domains, topics, and conference paper assignments. While the numerous topics listed are insightful, for purposes of this methodology literature review it seems prudent to highlight the domains of mixed methods research identified by Creswell (2009): philosophical and theoretical issues; techniques; nature; adoption and use; and, politicization. Clearly, as these maps were created and modified quite recently, there is a lot of flux and debate in the field; therefore, it is important to be aware of criticisms of the method. Bazeley (2004) states that some researchers claim greater validity in their results stemming from the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods. However, Bazeley finds that (as with any research), “validity stems 12 more from the appropriateness, thoroughness and effectiveness with which those methods are conducted” (p. 48). Given these validity concerns, Bazeley goes on to suggest critical issues to consider when conducting mixed methods research: • Clarity of purpose, basis and substantive focus, giving direction to the study and a logical basis for explanation; • Awareness of the limitations of traditional methods as they are modified in a mixed methods environment; • Appropriate use and interpretation of quantitized coding from qualitative data; • Varied methods of treatment of “error” or “deviance”; and, • Appropriate generalization, give choice of sample and methods. An early application of mixed methods research served to explore issues in labor economics (Piore, 1979). Piore stumbled upon the method while researching two cases with differing levels of information. In one case the data sought was available, but difficult to interpret, while in the other case the data had to be constructed. Piore found that by conducting interviews with open-ended questions, he was able to gain a deeper level of understanding than would have been attainable through a single method of quantitative analysis alone. Given this discovery, Piore reformulated his study to incorporate mixed method research. As with the instrumental-intrinsic dichotomy, qualitative and quantitative data should not be mutually exclusive. By using both qualitative and quantitative data to triangulate findings the researcher can gain a better understanding of the issues under study. Caution must be taken in designing the study to preserve validity, and the researcher must be aware of potential issues with mixed methods research. As this researcher has had minimal experience conducting formal research investigations (and given the combination of techniques being used) it was important that she familiarize herself with appropriate and well-chosen methods. 13 Overview of research design. This study explored factors affecting arts demand in Washington State and looked at the capacity of state-level organizations to build demand through effective advocacy messaging. In looking at Washington State cultural policy and arts advocacy networks, this researcher used purposive sampling to conduct a collective case study regarding the perspectives of the Washington State Arts Commission and the Washington State Arts Alliance and Foundation. These cases were then critically analyzed using thick description to develop findings based in grounded theory. As key state-level arts organizations, the researcher felt an analysis of these cases would provide highly relevant data pertaining to the topic at hand. The researcher conducted key informant interviews of executive directors, observed public meetings of each organization, and attended the key state arts convening. Due to the highly selective mission of each organization within the state (and specific positions within each organization), it was not possible to maintain confidential identification of interviewees. Site and interviewees were recruited via mail solicitation with email follow up. The researcher had previously made connections with individuals at WSAC and utilized these relationships to solicit involvement from participants at WSAA/F. Along with performing field interviews, it was necessary to conduct an in depth literature review to understand the historical context of public funding in Washington, and also utilize nonreactive research methods such as content analysis of policy documents and existing statistics research. Mathie (2006) effectively uses similar techniques in her master’s project on Oregon advocacy networks, as does Schuster (2003) in his study of cultural policy mapping. While case- study observations took place over a three-month period, an analysis of organizational 14 documents from the previous strategic plan period, combined with reflection on the researcher’s internship experience at one organization, also informed the literature review. WSAC, the state arts agency, is located in Olympia, WA, with a satellite office in Seattle, WA. WSAA/F is the state level arts advocacy organization, and operates from Seattle, WA. The two organizations work together on a number of initiatives, including Arts Day and the Cultural Congress. The executive directors of each organization were selected as key informants for the study. Informal interaction occurred with several board members, staff, and stakeholders during advocacy and commission meeting observations, as well as through the researcher’s participation in Arts Day and the Cultural Congress. Research commenced in February 2010, once human subjects compliance approval was received. Due to the nature of the research strategy selected, qualitative and quantitative data collection occurred concurrently from February to mid-April. Data analysis and preliminary writing began in late-March and concluded late-April. The final draft was completed early May. Anticipated ethical issues. Few ethical issues were anticipated to surface during the course of this study. As a public agency, much of the research conducted related to WSAC involved public information. Minimal risk was associated with staff and board member interviews. A similar expectation held for study of WSAA/F. Expectations. During the course of this research, the researcher expected to develop an in-depth understanding of how WSAC and WSAA/F interact in Washington’s cultural policy environment given the economic, social, and political factors affecting demand for the arts. The researcher anticipated learning about how the two organizations coordinate to promote cultural 15 policy, and the effectiveness of their advocacy messaging strategies. Additionally, the researcher expected to enhance her professional networks. Data collection and analysis procedures. As illustrated in her Research Design Schematic (Appendix B), the researcher used a concurrent transformative nested mixed methods strategy emphasizing a qualitative research approach. Applying the constant comparative method of grounded theory, this researcher employed the following data collection and analysis techniques: collective case study of two state-level organizations (Washington State Arts Commission and Washington State Arts Alliance/Foundation); extensive literature review of books, journals, and web content; and, content analysis of public policy documents and existing statistics. While much of the data was collected from publicly accessible websites, the researcher also participated in several events that informed the study. In early February 2010, the researcher attended the WSAC commissioners’ meeting, and participated in WSAA/F’s Arts Day (both in Olympia, WA). These events provided the researcher with valuable data from observation. In April, the researcher attended WSAA/F’s Cultural Congress in Stevenson, WA. This event allowed the researcher to observe interactions between WSAC and WSAA/F as well as other organizations, and to see how advocacy messages are communicated among stakeholders. The researcher solicited involvement of case-study organizations through mail and email correspondence, attaching consent forms for review. Data was collected through web content analysis (text, audio, and video data) and field methods (digital recording, field notes, and computer entry). Although the majority of information collected was public in nature, precautions were taken to ensure data was stored appropriately. Non-public information will be 16 destroyed 12 months from the completion of the project (this includes audio recordings and correspondence). Preliminary coding & analysis procedures. Code books were based on the study’s conceptual framework and research questions augmented with glossary terms. Research instruments were designed with matching formats to facilitate ease of comparison, and the researcher synthesized information on an ongoing basis using the constant comparison method. As data were collected, the researcher consulted with the research advisor as needed for assistance in sorting information. Strategies for validating findings. In addition to the constant comparison method, validity checks built into the research design included searching for disconfirming evidence, using thick description, maintaining a reflexive journal, and conducting member checks. Specific plans for research. This research study expands on existing literature, applying public policy and cultural economic methods to arts advocacy practice in Washington State. The researcher would be delighted if case-study participants utilized the recommendations in future advocacy efforts, or contacted the researcher for future research initiatives. At the onset of this study, two specific project outcomes were sought by the researcher: a drafted journal article on cultivating arts demand in Washington State through advocacy messaging; and, a drafted set of policy recommendations for WSAC and WSAA/F advocacy messaging. Additionally, the researcher hoped to develop a professional network of contacts. 17 Overview of document. This document is arranged in four chapters, and includes a table of contents, list of figures, and several appendices for ease of use. Beginning with an introduction to research methodology and design, Chapter 1 discussed the researcher’s purpose in undertaking the study and provided an overview of the theoretical framework used. In Chapter 2, key concepts and context related to the study are discussed in terms of currently available literature. This framework provides a reference point for use in discussing the study’s concurrent transformative case study and content analysis – the topic of Chapter 3. Finally, Chapter 4 summarizes the study, addressing the research questions, discussing key findings, and making recommendations. Chapter 2: Literature review In preparing to address the problem identified in this study – how state level organizations involved in arts policy can best position themselves to cultivate demand for the arts in Washington State – the researcher found it necessary to align three distinct theoretical lenses related to cultural economics, public value, and arts advocacy. Doing so required the researcher to synthesize across relevant literature associated with the key research areas. The design of this study allowed for critical concepts from each theoretical lens to emerge during the literature review. Subsequently, these themes were applied to the data collection and analysis process reported in Chapter 3. Cultural economics Cultural economics falls under the classification of applied economics and is defined in the literature as: “the economics of the performing, visual, and literary arts” (Blaug, 2001, p. 123); “economics of the arts” (Throsby, 1994); and, “the application of the ‘economic’ or, rather, 18 the ‘rational choice’ methodology to art” (Frey, 2000, p. 20). Frey (2000) further notes that an economic approach focuses on the scarcity of resources, time, and individual physical and psychic potential with respect to art – a characteristic that distinguishes it from other art studies (and firmly roots it in the broader study of economics). A sub-discipline of economics, a review of literature consistently identifies the genesis of cultural economics as being Baumol and Bowen’s (1966) book, Performing arts – the economic dilemma (Blaug, 2001; Frey, 2000; Heilbrun & Gray, 2001; Throsby, 1994), citing the study as, “the first time a major branch of the arts was subject to systematic theoretical and empirical scrutiny”, (Throsby, 1994, p. 2). This study introduced the phenomenon of cost disease referring to the challenge performing arts organizations face in realizing economies of scale, defined as, “an inherent inability of performing arts firms to enjoy productivity increases from labor, resulting in continuously rising costs relative to revenues” (Brooks, 1997, p. 1). The existence of the cost disease phenomenon provided a strong justification for public support of the arts in the form of direct payments to artists and arts organizations. Along with the creation of state arts agencies, this model of supply-side support led to exponential growth in the number of arts organizations. Having enjoyed great social support for decades, the arts sector found public participation tapering as individuals’ tastes and preferences changed – a result of social, economic, and political factors. Today, much of the arts sector is still trying to redefine itself and demonstrate its relevance to society. An understanding of consumer tastes and preferences can help artists and organizations respond to demand-side shifts in the imperfect market for arts. Taste formation is one of nine major topical areas of study identified by Blaug (2001), Throsby (1994) and Towse’s (1997) surveys on the progression of the cultural economics field since its emergence in the late 1960s. Taken together, these surveys find cultural economics 19 encompasses the areas of taste formation, demand and supply studies, media industries, visual art markets, economic history of the arts, labor markets in the arts, Baumol’s cost disease, and cultural policy. In just the short time since these surveys were published, additional areas of study have emerged, including copyright, international trade of cultural goods, culturally sustainable development, and cultural industries. While elements from multiple areas of cultural economics were relevant to this researcher’s study, the intersection of three in particular dominated the inquiry: taste formation; demand and supply studies; and, cultural policy. Taste formation. Generally, economists observe a rational choice theory of taste formation, assuming individuals have identical tastes and that any differences are explained by changes to observable constraints, not by unobservable differences in preferences. (Blaug, 2001; Throsby, 1994). This exogenous theory of taste formation is not well suited to the study of cultural economics as art is an experience good, “[a good] for which tastes have to be acquired by a temporal process of consumption” (Blaug, 2001, p. 125). Blaug (2001) and Throsby (1994) agree that adopting an endogenous, revealed preference theory of taste formation – one that attempts to measure the impact of previously unobservable differences, such as education and the accumulation of cultural knowledge – is necessary to more accurately study demand for the arts. Recent studies conducted by both public and private institutions (such as the NEA, Americans for the Arts, and the Wallace Foundation) provide extensive data to analyze demand for arts as experience goods based on revealed preferences. Demand and supply studies. Aggregated, individual preferences directly inform the market (interaction of supply and demand) for artistic goods, determining an equilibrium quantity and price. Demand studies are 20 concerned with price- and income-elasticities of demand – in short, how quantity demanded for a good shifts with changes to price or income. Supply studies include evaluations of costs, and typically describe optimal production levels for a given good. However, as nonprofit arts organizations often pursue intangible objectives (i.e. quality), these can be challenging variables to measure. Often, arts organizations resort to measuring event attendance. As Blaug (2001) points out, because artistic goods are experience goods, it may be impossible to measure demand for the arts independent of supply. This assumption introduces the concept of supplier-induced demand – the ability of an organization (producer or supplier) to increase demand for its services through supply-side market manipulations. This condition, grounded in the existence of experience goods and revealed preferences, may occur when information asymmetry exists between the supplier and the consumer (Blaug, 2001). In this case, a producer is able to influence or inform a consumer’s decision-making process because the producer has more information about a given market event than the consumer. The most common example of supplier-induced demand occurs in the medical field where doctors are perceived to have greater knowledge about a medical issue than a patient, so the patient relies on the doctor’s assessment. However, Blaug suggests applications of supplier-induced demand could and should be considered in the cultural realm. Cultural policy. Throsby (1994) asserts that one of the driving concerns of early cultural economics studies was to determine a rationale and guiding principles for public support of the arts sector. This is still of concern today, as evidenced by current discussions happening within the arts sector as well as in the public sector. To address these concerns, Throsby (1994) discusses cultural policy in terms of its positive and normative aspects. 21 Cultural policy, or public support for the arts, is defined as “an arena of public policy that pertains to political choice processes and governmental institutions involved in problem identification, agenda formation, and policy formulation, adoption, implementation, and evaluation actions made in the arts and cultural sector” (Dewey, 2009). Among other things, the field is concerned with direct and indirect public funding and support for the arts, national and international structures, regulatory policies, and advocacy and lobbying activities. Wyszomirski (2008) describes the field of cultural policy as one that evolved from three pillars: artistic practice and management; policy and planning; and, disciplinary and interdisciplinary research. Cultural policy infrastructure. A cultural policy infrastructure can be thought of as the relationship of policy-making institutions, organized constituencies, and clearinghouses of policy-relevant information for a specified community (Wyszomirski, 2008). Schuster (2003) and Wyszomirski (2008) each discuss the challenges of mapping the complex and fragmented infrastructures of cultural policy and the arts sector, and offer conceptual diagrams for understanding the relationship among the various participants. These diagrams provided the researcher with a framework for understanding the complex environment within which state arts agencies and organizations operate, particularly with respect to creating key advocacy messages for stakeholders and policy makers. Wyszomirski’s (2008) model depicts a holistic environment, placing artistic organizations and workers at its core, surrounded by specialized artistic industries operating within the infrastructure required to support the sector (see Figure 2). Upstream production channels connect with downstream distribution channels to provide the general public with artistic experiences. 22 Figure 2. The Creative Sector (Wyszomirski, 2008, p. 14). Illustrates how production and support systems operate in the arts sector. Wyszomirski’s model illustrates the relationship between arts organizations and the public, highlighting the important roles public funding, policy, and advocacy play in a cultural policy infrastructure. Public value framework for strategy development Moore’s (2000) public value framework for strategy development creates a conceptual triangle focused on the key issue areas public and nonprofit managers must address in developing a strategic vision: legitimacy and support, operational capacity, and public value. The framework is designed “to help government managers position their organizations in complex environments not only to ensure the organization’s survival, but also to ensure that they 23 are using the assets of their organizations most efficiently and effectively to create public value” (Moore & Moore, 2005, p. 15). Figure 3. Strategic value triangle (Moore & Moore, 2005, p. 15). This figure illustrates the strategic public value triangle with respect to state arts agencies. In this model, the key area legitimacy and support refers to the political authorizing environment from which an SAA takes its mandate and receives direct funding. Public value refers to the social benefit an SAA provides individuals and communities (stakeholders in the task environment). Operational capacity refers to the structures and systems an SAA relies on to achieve its mandate. Using Moore’s (2000) framework to accomplish immediate and decisive impact, public leaders should focus their attention in three directions: 1. Up toward decision-makers able to provide legitimacy and support (the political authorizing environment) 2. Out to produce public value within the community served (identifying the most important public purpose in the task environment) 24 3. Down to the set of actors whose action is necessary to achieve desired outcomes (community partners and proxies) Applying this framework to state arts agencies, the authors find that these organizations must maximize their reach in terms of population and location served, and impact of support if they hope to demonstrate public value. Moore and Moore (2005) show an SAA’s operating environment is intimately linked to the arts sector, as the sector influences actions in all three points of the strategic triangle. Maintaining a strong relationship with the arts sector is essential for SAAs to fulfill their publicly mandated missions and address the need for a unified voice as discussed by Brown (2006), Cherbo (2007), DeVereaux (2006), and McCarthy et al., (2004). Recognizing the fragmentation across the sector, McCarthy et al. (2004) suggest the debate about the value of arts needs to be significantly reframed. Yet, Cherbo (2007) and DeVereaux (2006) feel the work of McCarthy et al. (2004) further fragments thought across the sector as it exclusively supports the promotion of intrinsic value. With various stakeholders responding to various values, it is necessary for the sector to develop a way to address all of them. While McCarthy et al. (2004), Cherbo (2007), and DeVereaux (2006) have discussed the need for a unified voice, none provide suggestions for how to achieve this goal. Feeling the work of these authors to be too policy driven, Brown (2006) attempts to create an conceptual framework to encompass the dynamic range of values arts practitioners would find useful for value creation. The value clusters Brown identifies build on those identified by McCarthy et al. (2004) and position personal development, imprint of the arts experience, human interaction, communal meaning, and economic and social benefits. The value clusters and associated benefits are useful in identifying a range of values, and Brown intends for them to support a clear language for discussing individual, interpersonal, and community benefits. While Brown (2006) believes 25 Figure 4. Conceptual framework (Brown, 2006, p. 20). This figure displays value clusters for arts practitioner use in value creation activities. creating a shared framework from which to discuss values may help the arts sector organize and effectively advocate for their interests, the method he suggests for doing this seems very time and cost intensive. His vision to measure the value of single and repetitive arts experiences is perhaps too focused on a micro level to be beneficial to the broader sector. To date, economic impact studies (EIS) and contingent valuation models (CVM) have been used to measure the economic value of the arts, indicating monetary value is the most widely understood of all the possible values. Cherbo (2007), DeVereaux (2006), Noonan (2004), Sterngold (2004), and Throsby (2003) recognize certain limitations impact the effectiveness of EISs. However, they also acknowledge these studies are the best available arguments, and necessary in order to advocate for the arts with any kind of legitimacy. Using surveys to reveal consumer preferences, CVMs capture additional non-use values missed by EISs. Noonan (2004) 26 and Throsby (2003) note that this method presents special challenges such as surveying those who are not familiar with the good, or (in the case of complex goods) dealing with both positive and negative values. Because the arts are often experiential, individual cultivation of taste influences a respondent’s answers, as does the choice in open- or close-ended questions. To further develop the public value element of the strategic triangle, it was essential to review the public purpose of art as discussed in numerous works in addition to those already mentioned: The American Assembly (2000, 1997, 1990); Barber (1997); Hawkes (2001); Hutter & Throsby (2008); Throsby (2001); and, Wyszomirski (2000a). Looking beyond the NEA’s mission, these references provide many compelling reasons for public support of the arts, including benefits to community building, cultural diplomacy, civic engagement, economic prosperity, and quality of life. Advocacy and lobbying play an important role in ensuring public value is communicated so that policy favorable to the arts sector is maintained. Advocacy Effective advocacy is essential to the support and success of public funding for the arts. Advocacy is defined as “the process of educating someone else on a specific point of view or facilitating an action in favor of your position” (AFTA, 1997, p. 1). Two criteria are inherent to this description: that arts organizations can articulate their position; and, that they have an agenda for educating others. As demonstrated in the review of literature for this study, the arts sector is known for its inability to organize and articulate a clear message to the public and decision-makers. SAAs and state level advocacy organizations are uniquely positioned to enhance advocacy efforts through the dissemination of knowledge in support of the arts. However, the legal requirements pertinent to each type of organization are quite different. While 27 an SAA may advocate to the public about the value of the arts, it may not lobby for a specific piece of legislation. Advocacy alliances are designed to lobby, and often have close relationships with state and local arts agencies. Understanding each organization’s role and how they can work together is important to the sector. As Wyszomirski and Cherbo (2001) discuss, a holistic understanding of the associational structure of the sector is needed to improve the effectiveness of such partnerships. Katz (2003) argues that SAAs are in the midst of a paradigm shift, diversifying their roles to include established patterns of practice (strategic planning, evaluation, expression of public benefits of the arts in terms of other benefits, advocacy) as well as new strategies for conducting environmental scans and responding to changing factors. Katz finds political uncertainty (due to volatile public leadership, ballot measures and referenda, and government restructuring) and social change (due to shifting demographics and participation) to be key factors affecting the future of SAAs. To navigate these changes, Katz emphasizes the need for a strong arts advocacy infrastructure. Again, this stance aligns with the needs identified earlier in the literature review. According to Americans for the Arts (1997), effective advocacy is a five-step process comprised of the following: 1. Position/belief made public 2. Compelling case for the position made 3. Decision-maker considers case 4. Position adopted 5. Decision-maker’s behavior/position changed An advocacy agenda provides an organized strategy for developing a strong advocacy infrastructure, and changes depending on the environment. Katz asserts change requires a trusted leader, an ability to envision the future, and a willingness and acceptance of change. Key advocacy agenda items proposed by Katz (2003) and the National Association of State Arts Agencies include designating lead advocates, having board members advocate in their networks, 28 treating every public relations event as an advocacy moment, and working for state-wide advocacy organization through systemic partnership building. The last of these resonates with the advocacy coalition framework. Figure 5. Advocacy coalition framework flow diagram (Weible, et al., 2007, p. 123). This figure illustrates the relationship among different actors in the ACF. In this master’s project, the researcher explored the effectiveness of organizing specific partnerships (advocacy coalitions) around particular goals (advocacy agendas) to systemically build demand for the arts through various strategic initiatives. Central to any advocacy campaign is the ability to clearly articulate the key message. The Western States Arts Federation (WESTAF) discussed this issue in its September 2009 symposium. Not only must the arts sector know what it is asking for, it must also know whom it is making the request to and convey urgency in the message. While the advocacy agenda framework and WESTAF symposium proceedings describe a strategy for conveying targeted messages to a defined audience, no direct 29 similarities have been noted between constructing effective advocacy messages and developing effective marketing campaign. In considering smart practices in advocacy, this researcher noticed an obvious connection to marketing campaigns, yet was surprised to find the literature did not identify the connection. Colbert (2000) and Kotler and Scheff (1997) discuss the strategic market planning process in reference to the following steps: 1. Strategic analysis of the organization (situational analysis) 2. Market planning (defining strategies and resources) 3. Defining the marketing mix 4. Implementing the plan 5. Control (evaluation) The application of such a stepwise strategy to advocacy messaging by SAAs and state-level advocacy alliances was key to this research. Washington’s arts environment In line with Wyszomirski’s (2000) definition, WSAC views the arts sector as a collection of creative enterprises (both individual and cooperative), which leverage creativity to create jobs and capital (WSAC, 2009). For-profit and nonprofit arts-related creative enterprises are included in this definition, as are key support and service activities. WSAC has developed its own tool, the Creative Vitality Index (CVI), to demonstrate the value of creative industry within Washington. This tool uses existing data from sources such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics to measure community participation and arts related employment, indicating the economic health of the sector (WSAC, 2009). The CVI draws from existing data, making it cost effective, easy to update, and uniquely designed to demonstrate relevance at an appropriate level. Challenges and context. According the current strategic plan of the Washington State Arts Commission (2009), the state “has no cultural policy infrastructure,” and, “lack[s] the capacity for broad 30 conversations about the public value of the arts, the systems of support, trends in participation, and the impact of various influences on the arts” (p. 26). This statement came as a surprise to the researcher, and piqued her interest. While the strategic plan did not identify any references to support this statement, it is likely the conclusion was based on the observations of the commission, combined with findings from Schuster’s (2003) work using Washington State as a study for mapping cultural policy. As Figure 6 shows, multiple levels of government, public, and nonprofit organizations are involved in cultural decision-making. However, fragmentation among these organizations makes it difficult to advance specific cultural policies as a coordinated effort. The researcher expected this fragmentation to negatively impact state level arts organizations’ efforts in cultivating arts demand. 31 Figure 6. A conceptual diagram of the ecology of state cultural policy (Schuster, 2003, p. 6). 32 To understand the factors affecting demand for the arts in Washington State and how state level arts organizations are positioned to cultivate demand through advocacy messaging, the researcher selected two key organizations for analysis as part of a collective case study: the Washington State Arts Commission; and, the Washington State Arts Alliance. Chapter 3: Collective case study and content analysis To understand the factors affecting demand for the arts in Washington State and how state level arts organizations are positioned to cultivate demand through advocacy messaging, the researcher selected two key organizations for collective case study and content analysis: the Washington State Arts Commission (WSAC); and, the Washington State Arts Alliance Foundation (WSAA/F). Data collection took place February through April 2010, when the researcher observed WSAC’s commission meetings; attended WSAA/F’s Arts Day, Seattle advocacy meeting, and Cultural Congress; interviewed the executive directors of each organization; and analyzed publicly available documents. This chapter discusses the shifting roles of WSAC and WSAA/F in terms of Moore’s (2000) public value framework. Introduced in Chapter 2, this framework identifies legitimacy and support (authorizing environment), public value (key arts participation initiatives), and operational capacity (structure and relationships) as key strategic considerations for public and nonprofit organizations. The researcher uses this framework to profile the strategic initiatives of each organization, while also discussing how rapidly changing conditions are affecting each point of the strategic framework and impacting organizational positioning. 33 Washington State Arts Commission As WSAC approaches its 50th anniversary, its most pressing challenge – and perhaps its greatest opportunity – is how to reposition its operations given the paradigmatic shift occurring in state government. The National Governors Association (NGA) refers to this shift as “The Big Reset”, describing a protracted period of “government downsizing and streamlining” (Thomasian, 2010, p. 14). The NGA expects state performance reviews will lead to changes in core public service provisions, eliminating programs deemed to provide little public value. Beginning with the economic downturn in 2008, executive director Kris Tucker drafted a repositioning document to guide WSAC through the difficult decisions to come given decreasing funding (Tucker, 2009). Based on WSAC’s strategic pathways (education, stewardship, and community), this document focuses on the priorities and strategic approaches Tucker sees as “necessary and prudent to advance the arts, demonstrate leadership, and channel resources toward the highest level results” (p. DR1). Building from WSAC’s strategic plan, the repositioning document is referred to on an ongoing basis as the commission addresses current challenges. According to Tucker, WSAC’s greatest challenge is to prepare staff and commission leaders to consider the broad context (changes in state government) beyond today’s emergency. Legitimacy and support. Purpose, mission, and values. Governor Albert Rossellini established the Washington State Arts Commission in 1961 to provide support for the arts in the areas of public accessibility, arts education, and advocacy. An executive branch agency led by a governor-appointed executive, WSAC falls under the community and economic development area of government (see Appendix F). The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) provides WSAC’s statutory authority, legitimizing its purpose: 34 The conservation and development of the State’s artistic resources are essential to the social, educational, and economic growth of the State of Washington. Artists, works of art and artistic institutions contribute to the quality of life and the general welfare of the citizens of the State, and are an appropriate matter of concern to the government of the State of Washington. (RCW 43.46.005) Driven by this mandate, WSAC has developed articulated vision, mission, values, and action statements. Taken together, these statements define the agency. With a mission to “cultivate a thriving environment for creative expression and appreciation for the arts for the benefit of all”, WSAC “advances and supports arts and culture in Washington State through leadership, knowledge, funding and resources that build participation in and access to the arts.” The commission believes that supporting high quality arts and arts education programs results in improved community vitality, aesthetics, and education. Its vision is “a Washington where the arts are thriving and celebrated throughout the state – woven into the fabric of vital and vibrant communities.” WSAC’s core values inform the actions it takes in pursuit of its mission and vision: 1. Artistic expression is fundamental to human experience 2. Excellence, creativity, and integrity are essential in our work and the work we support 3. Collaboration and partnerships are critical to the way we work 4. The arts play a significant role in healthy civic dialogue WSAC acts in accordance with the Washington Administrative Code, which provides policy and procedures related to general operations as well as specific programs. Authorizing environment. Moore (2005) defines an SAA’s authorizing environment as one consisting of “those actors who hold the formal power to supply or withhold public money and authority to SAAs and/or to place conditions on the distribution of these resources” (p. 37). This environment includes the general public represented by elected officials, but also individuals, groups, and organizations whose lobbying efforts influence the decisions of these representatives. Schuster 35 (2003) provides a detailed diagram of the state arts authorizing environment useful for visualizing the relationships between various arts policy authorizers (see Figure 6). In fact, this diagram identifies areas relevant to each point of Moore’s (2005) public value framework. With respect to legitimacy and support in the authorizing environment, the top half of Schuster’s diagram shows the internal and external policy influence exerted by various authorizers. Legislators, voters, taxpayers, the media, and various interest groups can all influence the authorizing environment, but strategically choosing which relationships to cultivate is key to WSAC’s effectiveness. Ever present and critical to WSAC’s continued existence is Washington’s arts sector. This constituency can mobilize its advocacy efforts in support of WSAC’s programs. However, as noted in the literature, the sector is very diverse and often fragmented. As a result, some perceived tension may exist among organizations over how WSAC can best serve the state. Specific dividing characteristics might include: urban or rural; small or large; community or professional; contemporary or traditional. The bottom half of Schuster’s diagram shows policy and program choices, corresponding to operational capacity and public value, respectively. These areas of the public value framework are addressed in subsequent sections. WSAC continuously engages with its authorizing environment, whether it be through reporting to the governor’s office on strategic planning and budgeting activities, managing the public art collection, inviting legislators to participate in various events, or communicating to the public through press releases. Through these activities, WSAC participates in active political management – critical to building a favorable authorizing environment. Moore (2005) notes several key areas to consider as part of a political management strategy. These include: the need for SAAs to listen to what authorizers are saying as well as asking for support; knowing when to 36 be inconspicuous and when to attract attention; identifying latent and mobilized constituencies; participating in interagency cooperation; and cultivating relationships to enhance the authorizing environment. During the 2010 legislative session, WSAC’s top priority was to preserve the level of funding received from the state to maintain its current service level. While commissioners cannot lobby, they were encouraged to meet with legislators and ask that the governor’s funding recommendation be passed as submitted with no further cuts to WSAC’s budget. Ultimately the budget was reduced further, but commissioners who met with legislators found them to be appreciative of the understanding WSAC commissioners demonstrated in their meetings. Operational capacities. The public value framework identifies policies and procedures, funding sources, disbursement mechanisms, agency reputation, convening power, arts connections and networks as major operational capacities of an SAA. An SAA’s own internal capacities must leverage the capacities of partners and co-producers to successfully achieve its mission. This section reviews WSAC’s structure, funding sources, and strategic plan before introducing its initiatives and related networking activities. Structure. The commission is comprised of 23 members (commissioners), including 19 governor- appointed citizen members, two legislators appointed by the president of the senate, and two representatives appointed by the speaker of the house. Legislative appointments represent both caucuses in each chamber. Citizens members are nominated based on their involvement in cultural, community, or state organizations and represent a variety of artistic disciplines. When appointing citizen members, additional consideration is given to ensure geographic representation (RCW 43.46.015). Currently appointed citizen commissioners include artists, 37 academic faculty and staff, arts administrators, arts advocates, and private for-profit and nonprofit executives from all areas of the state. Representation appears to favor the Puget Sound area, but this is also representative of population concentrations. However in developing its programs, WSAC considers not only the number of people served, but also the impact it makes in a community. Particularly interesting to note is what other associations different commissioners are involved with. For instance, one commissioner is the executive director of a flagship performing arts organization in Seattle and is also chair of the WSAA/F board, serving a triple leadership role in arts administration, advocacy, and state arts policy. Commissioners serve to provide direction, establish policy, and advise Washington’s executive and legislative branches on the health of the state’s artistic resources (www.arts.wa.gov). In accordance with RCW 43.46.050, the commission “shall make such recommendations, as it deems proper for the cultural development of the State of Washington.” Generally, the commission meets five times yearly – both in person at various locations throughout the state, and virtually using webinars. Except for nominal travel expense reimbursement, commissioners are not compensated for their service. As the legislature sought to close the budget shortfall in 2010, even nominal travel expense reimbursement faced elimination – a policy choice that could negatively impact the diversity and representation of the commission. However, WSAC had already taken steps to minimize travel expense and was spared from this additional reduction. Commissioners are appointed for three-year terms, and the chairperson is elected annually. Legislative commissioners serve “as long as they are members of the legislative body from which he or she was appointed” (RCW 43.46.030). Commission action can only be 38 approved with a simple majority quorum. For example, when all twenty-one positions are filled, the quorum is eleven. In addition to its appointed commission, WSAC maintains a professional staff led since 1999 by governor-appointed executive director Kris Tucker. Formerly executive director of the Boise City Arts Commission, Tucker holds an M.A. in whole systems design, serves on the board of the Western States Arts Federation (WESTAF) and the Washington State Arts Alliance, is actively involved with the National Association of State Arts Agencies (NASAA), and has been a panelist for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) (Center for Community Arts and Cultural Policy, 2009; WSAC www.art.wa.gov). In her role as WSAC’s executive director, Tucker is authorized to staff the agency “as may be reasonably required to carry out commission functions” (RCW 43.46.045). Executive Assistant Administrative Assistants (2) Office Assistant (.5) Network Administrator Core Agency Services Deputy Director Communications Manager Conservation Technician (0.5) Project Managers (2) Collections Manager Art in Public Places Public Art Manager Grants Education Program Manager Grants Manager Community Services Manager WSAC Executive Director Figure 7. WSAC organizational chart as of March 2010. 39 As of March 2010, WSAC’s professional staff was comprised of two program management teams and a core agency service team that report to the executive director. The core agency services team provides general operations and technical support to the agency and programs, and includes the deputy director, communications manager, network administrator, and administrative and office assistants. While assistants report to the deputy director, they work directly with programs on a daily basis. The grants management team coordinates grant awards and related research, and is made up of a grants manager, an arts education manager, and a community services program manager. The state art collection team manages the state’s public artwork, and includes a public art manager, two project managers, a collection manager, and a conservation technician. Additional staffing for project-based work is provided on a contract basis. WSAC also employs work-study students for various support activities. When convening grant or artist roster panels, WSAC solicits the volunteer help of arts sector leaders and WSAC commissioners. At the beginning of fiscal year 2009, WSAC employed 17.6 full-time equivalents (FTE). Due to a 26% reduction in state allocations during the 2009 legislative session, WSAC experienced a 2.5 FTE reduction in staff forcing it to restructure grant program management and eliminate three administrative support positions. This resulted in WSAC significantly reducing its involvement in both folk and community arts. WSAC’s operating budget was further reduced by supplemental budget in the 2010 legislative session, resulting in an additional 15% reduction in funds and reducing agency staffing to 10.5 FTE. As of May 2010, updates regarding further staffing adjustments to account for this substantial reduction in FTE were not available. 40 Funding. WSAC receives funding from three sources: state general and capital funds, federal NEA funds, and private funds. The 2007-2009 biennium budget totaled $10,754,000 (Washington State Auditor’s Office, 2010). WSAC appropriated $4.98 million in state funds for its operating budget, $1.52 million in NEA funding, and $254,000 in private funds. Additionally, WSAC received a $4 million allocation from the state’s capital budget dedicated to the public art collection. During the 2009-2011 biennium, WSAC’s state allocation was reduced by more than 45%. The majority of the reduction came directly from grant making functions signaling that the state views this to be a scalable activity. Subsequently, WSAC was forced to reduce multiyear grant payments mid-term, and revise its previous repositioning goals. Cuts to grant funding were made equally across all programs. Washington operates on a biennial budget cycle, implementing budgets on July 1 of odd- numbered years. Modifications to enacted budgets are common, with annual revisions taking place via supplemental budgets in even-numbered years. To receive state funding, an agency must develop and submit a strategic plan and budget to the governor, which is then reviewed and amended for alignment with the governor’s priorities of government before being passed on to the legislature (OFM, July 2009). NEA funding supports many of WSAC’s grants programs and initiatives. To receive funding, WSAC is required to submit a long-form partnership agreement application narrative every three years (known as ‘on-years’). Its most recent long-form application was in 2009. In off-years, WSAC submits simplified applications. NEA panelists review applications to assess the quality of an SAA’s planning practices, access to underserved communities, evaluation and 41 impact assessment activities, policy and programs, communications techniques, partnerships, and overall compliance with application criteria (NASAA, n.d). WSAC receives private funding from organizations such as the Wallace Foundation and the Paul G. Allen Family Foundation to support specific program initiatives (discussed later). Strategic plan. Central to WSAC’s operations is its strategic plan. This document incorporates the agency’s purpose, mission, vision, and values to drive its actions. A dynamic document, the strategic plan is referenced often in Commission activities, and utilized for both state and national funding requests. As mentioned previously, the governor requires agencies to submit strategic planning documents as part of the budget allocation process. This requirement stems from the governor’s management framework – the priorities of government (POG) (see Appendix E). The POG framework strives to identify what results citizens expect from government, what strategies are most effective in achieving desired results, how to prioritize spending to implement strategies, and how to measure progress (www.ofm.wa.gov). The information collected through the POG process guides the governor’s budget proposal and aides in communicating budget decisions to the public. In 2009, the POG process identified arts, culture, and recreational opportunities as a priority area of importance to Washington’s citizens. Emphasizing the instrumental value of the arts, the report cites art’s contribution to improved student achievement, improved economic vitality of businesses and individuals, and improved value of postsecondary learning. As a state agency, it is beneficial for WSAC to align its own strategic plan with the governor’s priorities while incorporating its own recommendations. WSAC, along with several other state agencies, served as part of the culture and recreation results team. In this role, WSAC helped prioritize 42 action items and make recommendations to the governor. Through this involvement, WSAC developed stronger relationships with sister agencies, improved program visibility and “built broader understanding of the public value of the arts” (WSAC, 2009). In the resulting rank ordered list of nearly ninety recommendations to improve cultural and recreational opportunities throughout the state, WSAC held three of the top ten priorities identified: build participation in the arts, support local arts organizations, and provide public art. Planning for WSAC’s current 2009-2013 strategic plan began in 2007 and involved four distinct phases (WSAC, 2008): 1. Identification of research needs for best practices and relevance 2. Publication of research finding from internal and external scan 3. Development of principles based on findings to guide recommendations 4. Identification of priorities, pathways, and recommendations To develop a list of guiding principles, WSAC analyzed trends in demographics, economic activity, arts participation, and public policy; reviewed reports issued by partner organizations and grantees; conducted stakeholder interviews, grantee surveys and constituent meetings. From these principles, WSAC distilled a set of strategic pathways for use as a framework in developing its strategic plan: 1. Education – improve individual and community quality of life through arts learning opportunities for children, youth, and adults. 2. Community – nurture the arts, culture, and creativity as key components of vital and vibrant communities throughout the state. 3. Stewardship – support and promote artists, arts organizations, and the arts in all their forms, including traditional and folk arts; serve as stewards of the State Art Collection. (WSAC, June 2008) WSAC’s full strategic plan details specific goals and strategies for working through each pathway, yet remains flexible for responding to changing needs. In addition to describing the strategic planning process, goals, and objectives, WSAC’s plan includes a summary of findings related to the agency’s internal and external environment. Particularly interesting are the sections on trends, challenges and opportunities. One trend noted 43 is the limited impact arts advocacy efforts have had in securing state funds for WSAC, indicating that new methods of organizing and delivering advocacy messages need to be explored. This is clearly the case, given the continued reductions in state allocations to WSAC. The plan goes on to note that local coordination is essential to effective statewide advocacy. However, few communities have formal cultural plans in place indicating a need to organize at the local level. A striking comment – referred to earlier in this research paper – states: “Washington State currently has no cultural policy infrastructure. [It] lacks the capacity for broad conversations about the public value of the arts, the systems of support, trends in participation, and the impact of various influences on the arts” (WSAC, June 2008, p. 26). While this view likely stems from Schuster’s (2003) survey of Washington’s cultural policy infrastructure, WSAC has taken steps to improve this situation. Recently, WSAC collaborated with various partners in the arts sector to produce reports surveying the impact of the recession on arts organizations in Washington, and is facilitating the dissemination of knowledge through the Arts Participation Leadership Initiative. Its newly updated Arts Education Research Initiative survey has been widely circulated around the state, reaching schools, parents, elected officials, and arts advocates. WSAC’s leadership in information generation and dissemination is creating networks and means for communicating the value of the arts. While Washington’s formal cultural policy infrastructure may still appear quite fragmented at the state level, WSAC’s renewed focus on priorities and strategic approaches is supporting targeted initiatives throughout the state. In early 2009, six months after implementing its new plan, WSAC had to reposition itself following the economic downturn and subsequent reduction in state funding levels. Executive director Kris Tucker developed a proposal for repositioning the organization with diminished resources. Focused on priorities and strategic approaches, her proposal highlighted specific 44 action steps in four priority areas and detailed new investment areas related to arts participation, technology, promotion, and internal efficiencies. The Wallace-funded Arts Participation Leadership Initiative (discussed later) featured prominently in Tucker’s proposal, particularly for its ability to disseminate knowledge through its learning networks. During the 2010 legislative session WSAC’s state budget was again reduced, this time by more than fifteen percent – mostly from arts grant support funding. Tucker anticipated additional cuts, acknowledging that the reduced size and scope of state government is likely the new normal. Changing state government funding priorities indicate granting programs are seen as scalable activities. State arts agencies are often known and relied upon for grant funding. While approximately 75% of WSAC’s total grant funds are retained even with the state cuts, dozens of organizations will be affected by the funding reductions. Public value. Within the public value component of Moore’s framework, SAA’s operate in a task environment, interacting with upstream suppliers (authorizers) and downstream consumers (the public and the arts sector). Figure 8. The state arts agency value chain (Moore, 2005, p. 54). Illustrates how SAA’s create public value. 45 Figure 8 provides a visual representation of an SAA’s value chain, illustrating these relationships. Using this value chain, an SAA must create programs that engage the arts sector to provide public value. WSAC currently manages several programs exemplary in this respect. Arts Participation Initiative. In 2001, WSAC was one of thirteen SAA’s awarded funds through the Wallace Foundation’s State Arts Partnerships for Cultural Participation (START) program. Wallace sought to build SAA capacity to increase public participation in the arts, ultimately increasing public value. WSAC focused specifically on building capacity of arts organizations in underserved communities through its Arts Participation Initiative, which offered multi-year grants, evaluation, and training in capacity building. The program served 41 organizations over nine years, but was discontinued in 2010 due budget cuts (WSAC, 2009). However, WSAC intends to continue supporting the capacity building efforts of these organizations through the new Arts Participation Leadership Initiative. Arts Participation Leadership Initiative. In 2008, Wallace recognized nine outstanding Seattle-area arts organizations with four- year funding to foster arts participation and develop a network to share and learn from each others’ experiences. As part of the initiative, Wallace awarded WSAC $1.6 million over four years to provide technical support and manage the learning network. In its role, WSAC manages the development of twelve working papers or artistic responses (poetry, performance, etc.) to topics such as changing demographics, new technology, and regional trends in participation. While Wallace funding is restricted to the Seattle area, WSAC anticipates the knowledge created through this initiative will benefit organizations on a state and possibly national level. WSAC kicked off the initiative during the 2009 Americans for the Arts Conference held in Seattle. 46 During the conference, representatives from Seattle arts funding leaders convened as an advisory group to inform the project. Keynote speaker Peter Senge facilitated discussion among staff from the Seattle Office of Arts & Cultural Affairs, 4Culture, ArtsFund, PONCHO, the Paul G. Allen Family Foundation, the Seattle Foundation, Grantmakers in the Arts, and the Boeing Company. Working with consultant Jerry Yoshitomi, WSAC is developing ‘communities of practice’ (small groups self-organized around developing arts participation) and designing various communication tools (webinars, discussion guides, talking points) to disseminate this information statewide. Additionally, WSAC’s APLI program manager, Mayumi Tsutakawa, moderated a session with Yoshitomi on raising an organization’s marketing profile by applying principles of arts participation at WSAA/F’s 2010 Cultural Congress. According to Kris Tucker, the goal of this work is to “create richer conversation about arts participation – not necessarily about answers, but the power of networks and asking the right questions” (K. Tucker, personal communication, March 9, 2010). As this initiative is funded by Wallace, WSAC’s participation is not directly impacted by its reduction in state funding. Community Consortium Grant Program. WSAC’s Community Consortium Grant Program “supports community-based partnerships with shared goals around expanding and improving in-school arts education” (WSAC, 2009, p. 5). Central to this program is the relationship between schools and arts organizations, with essential community support from local arts agencies, teaching artists, parents, and local businesses. RAND recognized this program as a “rigorous and comprehensive example of a state-funded arts education partnership program” (WSAC, 2009, p. 6). Beyond monetary support of community consortia, this program “fosters a growing learning community” through an annual convening designed to encourage peer learning and professional development. 47 In an effort to support both established and emerging community consortia members while focusing on the priorities and strategic approaches identified in its repositioning document, WSAC adjusted the evaluation component of the Community Consortium grant program in 2009. Grantees who have received four years of funding are now expected to demonstrate assessment of arts learning increases. Those who have participated in the program for eight or more years must allocate a portion of their funding to support knowledge sharing activities that communicate their experiences to the larger arts community (outside of the core partnership). These procedural changes create significant added value for Washington’s statewide arts environment. Creative Vitality Index. In partnership with the Western States Arts Federation (the regional arts organization supporting Washington and twelve other states) and the Seattle Office of Arts and Cultural Affairs, WSAC created the Creative Vitality Index (CVI) as a tool for measuring and communicating the economic impact of Washington’s arts sector. Drawing on publicly available information (such as census and labor statistics), the CVI collects information on employment in arts-related fields as well as overall community participation in the arts. The CVI draws on both nonprofit arts organizations and commercial businesses within the creative industries, extending WSAC’s reach beyond its usual nonprofit arts sector focus. Arts advocates can use the CVI to discuss the vitality and value of the arts in their communities with elected officials, the public, and others in the authorizing environment. Measures are available for the city of Seattle, Washington State as a whole, and each of the state’s twelve workforce development areas. A model program, the CVI has been adopted by other states and cities. To further enhance the value of the information collected and shared, WSAC now profiles various businesses and 48 partnerships to illustrate how the arts impact business in Washington. Designed to be updated annually, WSAC’s 2009 report will incorporate narrative profiles of representative organizations and their impact on the CVI. Local Arts Initiative. As part of its repositioning, WSAC identified targeting community investments to “support quality arts experiences, connect the arts with local priorities, and leverage local support for the arts” as a focused priority area (Tucker, 2009). One strategy for achieving this goal discussed establishing a local arts initiative to support collaborative cultural projects related to local priorities. Projects could include developing a community cultural development plan, developing the capacity of local arts agencies through strategic partnerships, or launching a re- granting program to leverage WSAC funds with local matching funds. This initiative is ideally suited to the needs and wants of an authorizing environment driven by the impact of programs at a local level in the communities it represents. WSAC hoped to launch this program in 2011. However, such a program requires new funding and has therefore been tabled indefinitely given WSAC’s reduced budget and staff. Supplier-induced demand. WSAC’s arts participation-based programs and initiatives reflect the idea of arts as experience goods and leverage the ability of arts organizations to practice supplier-induced demand through knowledge sharing networks. With state funding shifting away from direct grantmaking activities, WSAC must take stock of its grants programs and determine its best use of funds. Ultimately, this may result in a move towards high-value knowledge networks. 49 Washington State Arts Alliance/Foundation (WSAA/F) Legitimacy and support. History and mission. In 1976 a group of volunteers committed to securing public funding for the Washington State Arts Commission created the Arts Alliance of Washington State. A few years later, the organization restructured to separate lobbying and educational programming, renaming the different arms the Washington State Arts Alliance and the Washington State Arts Alliance Foundation. Subsequently, the Alliance hired professional lobbyists in 1989 to be its “eyes and ears in Olympia” (www.wsartsalliance.com). Following successful lobbying efforts resulting in favorable tax policies and the establishment of WSAC’s Percent for Art Program, the organization (then still volunteer run) became less active in 1992. Transitioning into a professional nonprofit, WSAA/F hired its first executive director in 1996, formalized its programs, and connected to the national State Arts Advocacy League of America. WSAA/F’s organizational structure currently reflects the two separate divisions. The 501(c)(4) Alliance membership arm is dedicated to lobbying and advocacy work, with a mission to “promote public funding, legislation, and policy favorable to the arts.” Simultaneously, the 501(c)(3) Foundation focuses on charitable and educational programming, with a mission to “increase knowledge, understanding, appreciation and practice of the arts in Washington” (www.wsartsalliance.com). Serving over 300 individual, organization, affiliate, and corporate members, WSAA/F represents a variety of arts disciplines from across the state. This membership base constitutes one aspect of WSAA/F’s authorizing environment, while public agencies and elected officials fill a more latent role. Ultimately, WSAA/F exists to serve Washington’s public. 50 Operational capacity. Structure. WSAA/F maintains two boards (one for each side of its operations), but holds joint board meetings. The 501(c)(4) Alliance board has 18 members, representing individual artists as well as arts administrators from nonprofit, local, regional and state level arts agencies statewide. Fourteen members serve on the 501(c)(4) Foundation board, with similar geographic and artistic representation. The Alliance president serves as a general board member to the Foundation, while the same treasurer serves each board. No other board members serve on both boards. As with WSAC’s commissioners, it is interesting to note which other organizations individual board members are associated with. (As mentioned previously, the WSAA board president is also executive director of a flagship arts organization and serves as a WSAC commissioner.) In addition to the executive director, Mary Langholz, who divides her time equally between Foundation and Alliance activities, WSAA/F also employs a full time program manager and part-time events coordinator. A contract lobbyist manages WSAA/F’s activities in Olympia. Lobbyist WSAA 501(c)(4) Board of Directors Events Coordinator Program Manager WSAA/F Executive Director WSAA/F 501(c)(3) Board of Directors Figure 9. WSAA/F organizational chart as of March, 2010. 51 To simplify and streamline its operations, WSAA/F intends to transfer its nonprofit status to be wholly 501(c)(3) in the near future (M. Langholz, personal communication, March 22, 2010). The organization will preserve its current programs, and remain within the 20% advocacy provision allowed under IRS 501(c)(3) regulation. Funding. According to Ms. Langholz, the combined budget for WSAA/F is close to $275,000. The organization collects the majority of its income in the form of membership dues and program fees, receiving limited sponsorship and grant income at present. Its largest event, the annual Cultural Congress, generates registration fee income and contributed revenue from auction events. In the future, Langholz would like to cultivate major donors to fund a scholarship program for the benefit of artists and administrators. Currently, WSAA/F awards a few (four in 2010) competitive scholarships for artists and administrators to attend the Cultural Congress. Strategic plan. Following the continued professionalization of its operations, WSAA/F undertook an extensive planning process in 2008. This effort resulted in four strategic goals: increase relevance to members; strengthen financial stability; strengthen legislative influence; and, expand and strengthen educational services (M. Langholz, personal communication, March 22, 2010). Like WSAC and its three strategic pathways, WSAA/F finds its own strategic goals to be as applicable today as when the document was created. While these are substantial goals for an organization with a lean staff and modest budget, WSAA/F intends to achieve them through structural realignment and increases to earned and contributed income. 52 Public value. Each one of WSAA/F’s programs leverages some type of network within Washington’s arts sector, connects with national advocacy networks, and often accesses networks outside of the arts as well. Through its programs, WSAA/F is able to craft and deliver key advocacy messages throughout its constituency in support of its mission. Regional arts advocacy meetings. For over twenty years, arts advocates in King County have convened in Seattle for one hour each month to discuss issues affecting the arts in their communities. Langholz sets the meeting agenda while the regional meeting chair facilitates discussion. Along with regular agenda items such as introductions, legislative updates, municipal issue updates and other business, the meetings also include timely discussion items and guest speakers. At the March 2010 meeting, discussion included the upcoming National Arts Advocacy Day and 2010 Cultural Congress, as well as reports from WSAC executive director, Kris Tucker, and WSAA/F’s lobbyist, Susie Tracy. Over thirty arts leaders attended, including executive directors from various arts organizations and affiliate organization staff. Based on the success the Seattle regional meeting has had in fostering collaboration, mutual respect, and professional development, regional meetings have also launched in Spokane and Pierce counties. Langholz tries to attend as many meetings as possible, although has had to limit her travel due to the weak economy. Rather than attend the Spokane regional meeting in person, Langholz joins via phone. Others who are unable to attend in person are also invited to call in. Kelly Hart, executive director of Allied Arts Whatcom County, is working to establish a regional meeting in Bellingham to serve advocates in the north Puget Sound area. Expanding its 53 network of regional advocacy meetings is one high-value way WSAA/F is fulfilling its strategic goal of increasing relevance to members. Langholz agrees elected officials are most interested in hearing about the value of the arts to the public they represent. These advocacy meetings offer local communities the opportunity to organize and discuss issues meaningful to them, while also connecting with the larger state arts community. Arts Advocacy Training Workshop. In November 2009, WSAA/F held its first annual Arts Advocacy Training Workshop designed to provide attendees with the tools to become better arts advocates in local, regional, state and federal cultural policy arenas. During the two-hour workshop held at WSAA/F’s office in Seattle’s historic Stimson-Green Mansion, numerous federal, state, and local elected officials shared their thoughts on arts advocacy, providing attendees valuable tips for communicating with elected officials. Guest speakers from WSAC, WSAA, and other arts organizations also provided attendees with information related to various aspects of effective advocacy. Designed to improve the effectiveness of general advocacy messaging, Langholz also found the workshop format and timing to tie in nicely with one of its major programs, Arts Day (discussed next). While the first workshop was free to WSAA/F members, Langholz plans to charge for this event in the future (offering a member discount). To ensure a variety of constituents are able to attend, WSAA/F is considering holding the event at different locations each year. Arts Day. WSAA coordinates Washington’s annual Arts Day at the state capitol campus in Olympia. During this day-long event each February, arts advocates meet with elected officials to discuss the importance of the arts in their communities and lobby for specific issues in the current legislative session. WSAA provides training (including an overview of major issues and 54 key messages), coordinates logistics, and arranges food and entertainment. In the fall prior to Arts Day, WSAA recruits team captains for each legislative district and other volunteers to schedule meetings and collect arts gifts for elected officials. WSAC staff and commissioners also participate, however they limit their advocacy efforts to requests that the governor’s proposed budget be maintained. Cultural Congress. WSAA/F’s annual Cultural Congress provides an opportunity for Washington’s arts administrators to convene and discuss pressing issues affecting the sector. The 2010 Cultural Congress focused on change, and offered keynote addresses from Norman Rice (president and CEO, The Seattle Foundation) and Diane Ragsdale (associate program officer of performing arts, The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation), professional development sessions, artistic experiences, peer group discussions, and networking opportunities. In addition, this year’s move to the Columbia River was designed to attract participation from arts administrators in Oregon. Congress themes, sessions, and speakers are proposed by the planning committee based on feedback and suggestions from previous participants (M. Langholz, personal communication, March 22, 2010). Peer Coaching Leadership Circles. WSAA/F’s Peer Coaching Leadership Circles grew out of peer group discussions at the Cultural Congress, and is currently supported by an NEA grant. Through this program, five or six individuals holding similar professional positions are selected to meet monthly as a group to discuss challenges related to a project they are working on at their organization. A trained facilitator manages the discussion, enabling participants to share professional practices, strengthen leadership capacities, and advance their own programming. Moving forward, 55 WSAA/F hopes to expand this program (either through additional grant funding or a fee-for- service model). Supplier-induced demand. WSAA/F’s programs illustrate how important knowledge sharing and peer group discussions are to understanding and overcoming the challenges faced by Washington’s arts organizations. While WSAA/F may not explicitly state an interest in cultivating demand for the arts through specific initiatives, its actions and resources inform the arts environment in the state and implicitly promote demand for the arts. Summary As illustrated in the case-studies presented above, the Washington State Arts Commission and Washington State Arts Alliance Foundation jointly share a lead role in cultivating demand for the arts in Washington. Through strategic planning and dynamic repositioning, each organization has shown its agility and responsiveness to changing environmental factors while also demonstrating vision and leadership. WSAC and WSAA/F’s programs show a commitment to creating and communicating public value within the state, reflecting Moore’s (2000) strategic framework. Additionally, many initiatives supported by these organizations directly cultivate demand for the arts through explicit networking and advocacy activities. Chapter 4: Conclusion The purpose of this study was to investigate the factors affecting demand for the arts in Washington State; analyze the state’s existing cultural policy infrastructure; and, identify strategies to support effective statewide arts advocacy. Ultimately, the researcher was interested in investigating how state-level arts organizations position themselves to cultivate demand for 56 the arts through initiatives and advocacy networks. Given the paradigmatic shift in state government identified by the National Governors Association (2009), agencies receiving state support must develop strategies for communicating the public value their work creates. This can be particularly challenging for organizations in the arts – a sector that is often quite fragmented and thus unable to clearly communicate unified key messages to decision makers. Through this master’s project, the researcher explored how individuals and organizations in Washington’s arts sector organize to communicate key messages – both internally among themselves, and externally to the public and elected officials. The major research questions related to this study investigated the economic, social, and political factors affecting demand for the arts in Washington State, and how state level arts organizations are positioned to cultivate demand. Supplemental questions raised at the beginning of the study contextualized the study by identifying Washington’s cultural policy infrastructure and WSAC’s role in state-wide arts advocacy. Additionally, supplemental questions sought to determine the appropriateness of an advocacy coalition model to Washington’s arts sector as well as how the arts sector can position itself for effective advocacy using currently available tools. Clarifying questions related to WSAC and WSAA/F’s operations emerged during the researcher’s data collection process. To address these questions, the researcher identified a methodological paradigm from which to position her research. An interpretivist/constructivist approach was used to explore the practical issues surrounding arts participation and arts administration as a neutral observer. Major theories from cultural economics and public policy framed the study in its discussion of public value, supplier-induced demand, and arts advocacy (as illustrated in Figure 1). In particular, Moore’s (2000) public policy paradigm provided a framework for analyzing and 57 understanding state-level arts organizations by focusing on three strategic areas: legitimacy and support; operational capacity; and, public value. This approach involved identifying each organization’s authorizing environment, structure and network, and key arts participation initiatives. While this study initially sought to define independent economic, social, and political factors affecting demand for the arts in Washington, the complex and inter-related nature of these factors made it impossible to discuss one without simultaneously considering the others. Understanding these factors was important to contextualizing the environment in which Washington’s arts sector operates. Employing a mixed methods approach, the research design included both qualitative and quantitative research strategies. Following an extensive literature review of cultural economics, public policy, and cultural policy in Washington, the researcher approached two organizations for collective case study: the Washington State Arts Commission, and the Washington State Arts Alliance Foundation. After conducting a review of publicly available documents related to the history and structure of each organization, the researcher observed several events coordinated by each. These included commission meetings, Arts Day, Cultural Congress, and a Regional Advocacy Workshop. The researcher also interviewed the executive directors of each organization in order to discuss strategic planning processes, as well as repositioning strategies either anticipating or responding to social, political, and economic factors. Findings As the strategic initiatives of the Washington State Arts Commission and Washington State Arts Alliance Foundation show, each organization is both actively engaged in promoting arts participation and acutely aware of its role within a public sphere. Through strategic plans, 58 repositioning statements, and operational realignment, these organizations are attempting to maximize the impact and value they provide the public. Identifying key strategic approaches and prioritizing activities in the current environment, while also considering long-term needs and goals, makes the work of these organizations very complicated. However, developing statewide arts participation is a key initiative guiding both WSAC and WSAA/F. Emergent in this research was the existence and growth of professional networks among members of Washington’s arts sector. Through in-person events such as the regional advocacy meetings, Cultural Congress peer group sessions, and WSAC’s communities of practice, the arts sector is able to share experiences and learn from others. Establishing a network of this type across Washington offers the arts sector a way to engage at both a local and state level, enabling it to better communicate issues and accomplishments throughout the state. WSAA/F’s Arts Advocacy Training Workshop presents a way for the sector to aggregate the information gathered at the local or regional level to communicate key messages regarding the value of the arts to elected officials. Such organizing resembles features of Sabatier’s (1993) advocacy coalition framework, and suggests that members of the arts sector engaged in these networks are better positioned to advocate collectively for action in a public sphere as a result of the information exchanged within the framework. WSAC and WSAA/F hold important roles in this network, providing leadership in convening the sector, sharing research, and offering technical support. Revisiting the research questions and conceptual framework. This researcher found the social, economic, and political factors affecting demand for the arts in Washington to be inextricably linked. Social issues and values drive political action, and both influence and are influenced by economic activity. This relationship is illustrated in the 59 researcher’s conceptual framework (Figure 1). Recent legislation in Washington shows a commitment to arts education, requiring all high school students to fulfill an arts requirement in order to graduate. Yet, WSAC’s research shows great variance in the quality and quantity of arts learning experiences found around the state. Washington’s priorities of government reflect an interest in ensuring cultural activities are available to the public; but the ‘new normal’ of state government has resulted in cuts to WSAC’s funding, limiting state-wide access and arts participation. While the economy will likely recover from recent events, the changes to state government look to be long term. WSAC and WSAA/F must reposition themselves to effectively lead the arts community within this new framework. The repositioning statements and initiatives profiled in this project’s case study show the organizations recognize this, and are making strides in this regard. Partnerships with major research organizations such as the Wallace Foundation, as well as organizations committed to arts and community engagement (such as The Seattle Foundation) offer excellent support and development opportunities. Additionally, Washington’s arts community has numerous knowledge networks in place already that can be easily activated by and benefit from the work of these partnerships. In conducting the literature review and case-studies, the researcher found Washington’s cultural policy infrastructure to be complex and operating mostly through indirect support to the arts. A broad collection of networks exists within this infrastructure, presenting an opportunity for organizations to engage in meaningful advocacy by organizing more explicitly around Sabatier’s (1993) advocacy coalition framework. WSAC and WSAA/F work together to support arts advocacy in the state and are in a position – by virtue of their state-level reach – to lead such an explicit advocacy model. 60 Areas of future research. During this study, the researcher uncovered myriad layers of detail related to every area identified in the conceptual framework. Due to the limited time available to conduct this study, many of these details could not be investigated with the rigor the researcher would have liked. Moving forward, the researcher will engage with Washington’s regional advocacy meetings, especially as new geographic areas are involved and represented. With respect to the researcher’s conceptual framework, micro and macro level analysis would provide a more complete study. For instance, Washington’s arts sector (found at the center of the conceptual framework diagram) could be analyzed using Wyszomirski and Cherbo’s (2001) associational structure to provide more depth and broad understanding of its structure. The cultural policy infrastructure depicted surrounding the arts sector could be expanded to include macro level analysis of regional and national relationships and influences. Additionally, as WSAC and WSAA/F restructure themselves, this researcher’s model would benefit from analyzing shifting goals and evolving initiatives. Analyzing how advocacy networks utilize and advance the research conducted by AFTA, the NEA, foundations, and others for the benefit of enhanced arts participation and public value could provide practical information of use to arts administrators. Additionally, a longitudinal study of how state level arts organizations are adapting to new public environments would likely prove to be very interesting in documenting the evolution and continued relevance of the arts in society. For a more complete picture of Washington’s arts sector, local level issues, structures, and initiatives should be explored – particularly to provide cross-state comparisons. Finally, this study’s findings would benefit from a comparison to the experience of other states. These suggestions offer a way to enhance the practical applications of this research. However, a more in-depth study of the theoretical lenses 61 framing the original research methodology (such as behavioral economics) has the ability to benefit the various fields of study represented in this work. Specific research questions for future consideration include: what is the impact of arts education service organizations and initiatives on demand for and supply of arts experiences in Washington; how are Washington’s arts organizations impacting the demand for arts in their communities; how effective is WSAC’s Creative Vitality Index in communicating the value of the arts to the public; how active is Washington’s creative economy in advocating for arts education; and, would a model such as the Oregon Cultural Trust be feasible and enhance demand for the arts in Washington. Recommendations to emerging arts leaders As state and local governments shift their priorities and structure, communicating the public value of the arts will be essential to the continued relevance and viability of the arts. Emerging leaders must develop effective strategies for cultivating, evaluating, and communicating the value of publicly supported art in their specific communities. To be pragmatic and visionary, it is essential for emerging leaders to be aware of economic, social, and political issues at local, state, national, and even international levels. Many policies and current events have the ability to either directly or indirectly affect the arts sector, and are not always immediately observable to those outside the field of public policy. Fortunately, numerous networks exist within Washington’s arts community, providing an opportunity for arts leaders to share knowledge and experiences relevant to their locale. Emerging leaders in the arts are encouraged to identify the issues relevant to their communities, carve out leadership roles in relevant networks, and create and share knowledge for the benefit of the field. 62 References Baumol, W. J., & Bowen, W. G. (1966). Performing arts – The economic dilemma. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund. Bazeley, P. (2004). Issues in mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. In R. Buber, J. Gadner & L. Richards (Eds.), Applying qualitative methods to marketing management research (pp. 141-156). London: Palgrave Macmillian. Blaug, M. (2001). Where are we now on cultural economics?. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(2), 123-143. Bodily, S., Augustine, C., & Zakaras, L. (2008). Revitalizing arts education through community- wide coordination. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Brooks, A. (1997). Towards a demand-side cure for cost disease in the performing arts. Journal of Economic Issues, 31(1), 197-207. Brown, A. (2006). An architecture of value. [Electronic version] Grantmakers in the Arts Reader. Retrieved February 16, 2009, from http://www.giarts.org Cherbo, J. (2007). On valuing the arts. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 37(2), 170-173. Cherbo, J., Vogel, H., & Wyszomirski, M. (2008). Towards an arts and creative sector. In J. M. Cherbo, R. A. Stewart, & M. J. Wyszomirski (Eds.), Understanding the arts and creative sector in the United States (pp. 9-27). New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Creswell, J. (2009). Mapping the field of mixed methods research [Electronic version]. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(2), 95-108. DeVereaux, C. (2006). Any way the wind blows: Changing dynamics in American arts policy. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 36(3), 168-180. Dewey, P. (2009). Cultural policy. [Course syllabus]. University of Oregon: Author. Frey, B. (2000). Arts and economics: Analysis and cultural policy. New York: Springer. Greene, J. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? [Electronic version]. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7-22. 63 Heilbrun, J., & Gray, C. (Eds.). (2001). The economics of art and culture (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Helicon. (2009). Arts and recession: The economic recession’s impact on cultural organizations in Washington state. Mill Valley, CA: Author. Helicon. (2009a). State of the arts: Impacts of current economic conditions on Puget Sound region arts organizations. Mill Valley, CA: Author. Hutter, M., & Throsby, D. (Eds.). (2008). Beyond price. New York: Cambridge University Press. Katz, J. (October, 2003). Understanding the past; Envisioning the future. In WESTAF Symposium Proceedings Re-envisioning State Arts Agencies (p. 71-78). Kreidler, J. (2000). Leverage lost: Evolution in the nonprofit arts ecosystem. In Bradford, G., Gary, M., & Wallach, G. (Eds), The politics of culture: Policy perspectives for individuals, institutions, and communities (pp.147-166). New York: The New Press. Lowell, J. F. (2008). State arts policy: Trends of future prospects. RAND. Retrieved February 16, 2009, from http://www.rand.org. Mathie, K. (2006). Arts advocacy arguments: Navigating the network. Retrieved May 1, 2009, from the University of Oregon Scholars’ Bank Web site: https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/212 McCarthy, K. F., Ondaatje, E. H., Zakaras, L., & Brooks, A. (2004). Gifts of the Muse: Reframing the benefits of the arts. RAND. Retrieved February 16, 2009, from http://www.rand.org. Moore, M. (2000). Managing for value: Organizational Strategy in for-profit, nonprofit, and governmental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 183-204. Moore, M., & Williams Moore, G. (2005). Creating public value through state arts agencies. Minneapolis, MN: Arts Midwest. National Association of State Arts Agencies Monograph. (2002) The arts in public policy: An advocacy agenda. From The NASAA Advocate Series. Washington, DC: Author. Neuman, W. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson. Noonan, D. (2004). Valuing arts and culture: A research agenda for contingent valuation. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 34(3), 205-221. 64 Office of Financial Management. (2010). Agency recommendation summaries. Olympia, WA: State of Washington. Retrieved February 2, 2010, from http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget10/recsum/default.asp#othered. Piore, M. (1979). Qualitative research techniques in economics [Electronic version] Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 560-569. Retrieved May 16, 2009, from http://www.jstor.org/pss/2392362. Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Schuster, J. M. (Ed.). (2003). Mapping state cultural policy: The State of Washington. Cultural Policy Center. Retrieved February 24, 2009, from http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/books.html#mapping Steinberg, R. (2006). Economic theories of nonprofit organizations. In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 117-139). New Haven, CT: Yale University. Sterngold, A. (2004). Do economic impact studies misrepresent the benefits of arts and cultural organizations? Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 34(3), 166-187. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Throsby, D. (1994). The production and consumption of the arts: A view of cultural economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 32(1), 1-29. Throsby, D. (2001). Economics and culture. New York: Cambridge University Press. Throsby, D. (2003). Determining the value of cultural goods: How much (or how little) does contingent valuation tell us? Journal of Cultural Economics, 27, 275-285. Towse, R. (Ed.). (1997). Cultural economics: The arts, the heritage and the media industries. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Tucker, K. (2009). 2009-2011 Biennium director’s proposal for repositioning WSAC [White paper]. Olympia, WA: Washington State Arts Commission. Washington State Arts Commission. (2008). 2009-2013 Strategic Plan [Brochure]. Olympia, WA: Author. Washington State Arts Commission (WSAC). (2009). Creative vitality in Washington State: 2009 update [Brochure]. Olympia, WA: Author. 65 Weible,C., Sabatier, P., & McQueen, K. (2009). Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. The Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 121-140. Wyszomirski, M. (2000). Arts and culture. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The state of nonprofit America (pp. 187-218). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Wyszomirski, M. (2000a). Raison d’etat, raisons des arts: Thinking about public purposes. In J. M. Cherbo, & M. J. Wyszomirski (Eds.), The public life of the arts in America (pp. 50- 78). Wyszomirski, M. (2000b). Policy communities and policy influence: Securing a government role in cultural policy for the twenty-first century. In G. Bradford, M. Gary, & G. Wallace (Eds.), The politics of culture: Policy perspectives for individuals, institutions, and communities (p. 94-107). New York: The New Press. Wyszomirski, M. (2008). Field building: the road to cultural policy studies in the United States. In J. M. Cherbo, R. A. Stewart, & M. J. Wyszomirski (Eds.), Understanding the arts and creative sector in the United States (pp. 9-27). New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. Zakaras, L., & Lowell, J.F. (2008). Cultivating demand for the arts: Arts learning, arts engagement, and state arts policy. RAND. Retrieved February 16, 2009, from http://www.rand.org. 66 Appendix A: Glossary Advocacy agenda – provides an organized strategy for developing a strong advocacy infrastructure (Katz, 2003). Advocacy coalition – a policy subsystem model used to simplify the complexity of public policy with the aim of manipulating governmental institutions to support certain positions (Wieble, et al, 1993). Arts sector – a large, heterogeneous set of individuals and organizations engaged in the creation, production, presentation, distribution, and preservation of and education about aesthetic, heritage, and entertainment activities, products, and artifacts (Wyszomirski, 2008). Cultural economics – an applied economics approach concerned with scarcity of resources, time, and [individual] potential in the creative sector. Cultural policy infrastructure – the relationship of cultural policy-making institutions, organized constituencies, and clearinghouses of cultural policy-relevant information (Wyszomirski, 2008). Public value framework for strategy development – a concept focused on the key issues public managers must address to develop a strategic vision (public value; legitimacy and support; and, operational capacity) designed to ensure government managers effectively and efficiently position their organizations in complex environments (Moore & Moore, 2005). 67 Appendix B: Research design schematic (Concurrent transformative nested strategy) ↓← ← ← ←QUALITATIVE ↓ Quantitative→ → → → ↓ Perspective: ↓ Cultural economics, ↓ Public policy analysis, ↓ Interpretivist/constructivist ↓ ↓ (Grounded theory: Constant comparative method) ↓ Collective case study Literature review Content analysis WSAC WSAA/F Books, journals, web Statistics Public Policy Triangulate: document analysis, observation, interview Synthesize Triangulate ↓ ↓ ↓ → → → → → ↓ ← ← ← ← ← Analysis, findings, recommendations ↓ Outcomes Policy recommendations Drafted journal article General timeline January - Refine instruments, draft chapters February/March – Data collection March/April – Data collection/analysis, outline, drafts April – Data analysis, full draft Ongoing – Validity checks: disconfirming evidence, thick description, reflexive journal, member checks 68 Appendix C: Recruitment Letter Date Name Address City/State/Zip Dear : You are invited to participate in a research project titled Value by design: Cultivating demand for the arts in Washington state, conducted by Amanda Wold from the University of Oregon’s Arts and Administration Program. The purpose of this study is to explore the economic, social, and political factors affecting demand for the arts in Washington, and how state-level organizations are positioned to cultivate demand through effective advocacy messaging. Garnering public support for the arts is of critical interest to those arts organizations (both public and non-profit) grappling with budget cuts and questions of relevance. Literature shows the arts must compete with social, educational, and economic development needs in an attempt to secure public funds. By creating a link to the major needs of society, the arts sector can demonstrate its relevance. Arts advocates are tasked to clearly articulate the value of the arts to the public and policy-makers in order to secure support for the field. During times of economic uncertainty, their role is crucial. However, the sector is struggling in its ability to articulate its value, lacking a unified voice and presence. Recognizing the social, economic, and political environment in which it operates, and organizing within this environment for effective advocacy, are critical considerations for the arts sector to address. Arts advocates must find an effective way to discuss the value of art that is meaningful to the variety of stakeholders it serves. You were selected to participate in this study because of your leadership position with and your experiences with and expertise pertinent to cultural development in Washington state. If you decide to take part in this research project, you will be asked to provide relevant organizational materials and participate in an in-person interview, lasting approximately one hour, during March 2010. If you wish, interview questions will be provided beforehand for your consideration. Interviews will take place at , or at a more conveniently located site. Interviews will be scheduled at your convenience. In addition to taking handwritten notes, with your permission, I will use an audio tape recorder for transcription and validation purposes. You may also be asked to provide follow-up information through phone calls or email. If you have any questions, please feel free to email awold@uoregon.edu or Dr. Patricia Dewey at (541) 346-2050. Any questions regarding your rights as a research participant should be directed to the Office for the Protection of Human Subjects, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, (541) 346-2510. Thank you in advance for your interest and consideration. I will contact you shortly to speak about your potential involvement in this study. Sincerely, Amanda Wold awold@uoregon.edu 69 Appendix D: Consent form Research Protocol Number: E350-10 Value by design: Cultivating demand for the arts in Washington state Amanda Wold Sipher, Principal Investigator University of Oregon Arts and Administration Program You are invited to participate in a research project titled Value by design: Cultivating demand for the arts in Washington state, conducted by Amanda Wold Sipher from the University of Oregon’s Arts and Administration Program. The purpose of this study is to investigate the social, economic, and political factors affecting demand for the arts in Washington state, and explore how state-level arts organizations are positioned for effective advocacy messaging. Garnering public support for the arts is of critical interest to those arts organizations (both public and non-profit) grappling with budget cuts and questions of relevance. Literature shows the arts must compete with social, educational, and economic development needs in an attempt to secure public funds. By creating a link to the major needs of society, the arts sector can demonstrate its relevance. Arts advocates are tasked to clearly articulate the value of the arts to the public and policy-makers in order to secure support for the field. During times of economic uncertainty, their role is crucial. However, the sector is struggling in its ability to articulate its value, lacking a unified voice and presence. Recognizing the social, economic, and political environment in which it operates, and organizing within this environment for effective advocacy, are critical considerations for the arts sector to address. Arts advocates must find an effective way to discuss the value of art that is meaningful to the variety of stakeholders it serves. You were selected to participate in this study because of your leadership position with the and your experiences with and expertise pertinent to advocacy messaging in Washington state. If you decide to take part in this research project, you will be asked to provide relevant organizational materials and participate in an in-person interview, lasting approximately one hour, during March 2010. If you wish, interview questions will be provided beforehand for your consideration. Interviews will take place at , or at a more conveniently located site. Interviews will be scheduled at your convenience. In addition to taking handwritten notes, with your permission, I will use an audio tape recorder for transcription and validation purposes. You may also be asked to provide follow-up information through phone calls or email. There are minimal risks associated with participating in this study, particularly since this research is exploratory in nature. Any information that is obtained in connection with this study will be carefully and securely maintained. Your consent to participate in this interview, as indicated below, demonstrates your willingness to have your name used in any resulting documents and publications and to relinquish confidentiality. It may be advisable to obtain permission to participate in this interview to avoid potential social or economic risks related to speaking as a representative of your institution. Your participation is voluntary. If you decide to participate, you are free to withdraw your consent and discontinue participation at any time without penalty. Through the use of member checks, you will have an opportunity to review the data related to this interview for accuracy prior to final publication. I anticipate that the results of this research project will be of value to artists, cultural organizations, and arts administrators, particularly in Washington State. However, I cannot guarantee that you personally will receive any benefits from this research. If you have any questions, please feel free to email awold@uoregon.edu or Dr. Patricia Dewey at (541) 346-2050. Any questions regarding your rights as a research participant should be directed to the Office for the Protection of Human Subjects, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, (541) 346-2510. 70 Please read and initial each of the following statements to indicate your consent: _____ I consent to the use of audiotapes and note taking during my interview. _____ I consent to my identification as a participant in this study. _____ I consent to the potential use of quotations from the interview. _____ I consent to the use of information I provide regarding the organization with which I am associated. _____ I wish to have the opportunity to review and possibly revise my comments and the information that I provide prior to these data appearing in the final version of any publications that may result from this study. Your signature indicates that you have read and understand the information provided above, that you willingly agree to participate, that you may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty, that you have received a copy of this form, and that you are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies. You have been given a copy of this letter to keep. Print Name: __________________________________________________________ Signature: _______________________________________________________ Date: ________________ Thank you for your interest and participation in this study. Sincerely, Amanda Wold Sipher awold@uoregon.edu 71 Appendix E: Priorities of Government, Washington State (Office of Financial Management, n.d.) 72 Appendix F: 2009-2011 Organization Chart, Washington State Government (Office of Financial Management, 2009)