a review study on cultural audit

CENTRALPOLICYUNIT

THEGOVERNMENTOFTHEHONGKONGSPECIAL

ADMINISTRATIVEREGION

AREVIEWSTUDYONCULTURALAUDIT:

THELANDSCAPEOFHONGKONGS

CULTURALINFRASTRUCTURE

HONGKONGDEVELOPMENTANDSTRATEGY

RESEARCHCENTRELTD

MARCH2011

Final Report A Review Study on Cultural Audit: theLandscapeofHongKong'sCulturalInfrastructure

HongKongDevelopmentandStrategyResearchCentre

2

ExecutiveSummaryRecent commitment of the HKSAR Government to diversify local economy bypromotingculturalandcreative industriesasoneofthesixcoreareasof longtermeconomic development arouses enormous interest in thedevelopment of culture.Culture isconsideredoneofthe importantresourcesforthegrowthofculturalandcreative industries.Withhighexpectationon thedevelopingeconomic sector, it isgenerallybelieved that the soilofHongKongs cultural landscape, vibrancyof thecitys cultural life and traditions, aswell as the practices and experiences of localcommunities should form the base uponwhichHong Kongs cultural and creativeindustriesdevelop.Whilethepublicaspirationforthedevelopmentofculturaleconomyisgrowing,weseeanincreasingdemandforarobustevidencebaseframeworktotakestockofourcultural assets. Such a research project becomes imperative so as to examine thestrengths and weaknesses of Hong Kongs cultural ecology, and to ascertain itsprospectsandchallengesposedbytheriseofculturalcreativeeconomy. InordertoenhanceourunderstandingofthedevelopmentofHongKongsculturallandscape, this research, for the first time, conducts a reviewof international andrecentstudiesonthemeasureofculture.Meanwhile,itproposesaCulturalIndicatorFramework (CIF)whichadvises the scopeofmeasurement, themagnitudeofdatasources and data collection, spectrum of dimensions and practical uses of theframeworkforthemeasureofcultureaswellasforculturalpolicyplanning.Thisreportexaminesthe latestdevelopmentofculturalstatisticsframeworkbytheUNESCO,EuropeanUnion,theUnitedKingdom,theUnitedStates,Canada,Australia,ShanghaiandTaipei.Byreviewingthescope,designand implementationofculturalstatistics frameworks and/or cultural indicator frameworks in these studies, weobtain invaluable information and reference so as to propose the approach,methodology and scopeof areas for a culturalmeasurement framework forHongKong. The study proposes amatrix for Hong Kongs Cultural Indicator Framework. Thematrixontheonehanddefinestheculturaldomainscoveredintheframework,andontheotherhand,advancesaclusterofconceptsanddimensionsfordatacollection,analysisandinterpretation(seediagrambelow).



3

ScopeofCulturalDomains:WithreferencetoUNESCOculturalstatisticsframework,the study defines the scope of culture in the CIF by a group of cultural domains,including:

CulturalandNaturalHeritage; PerformanceandCelebration; VisualArtsandCrafts; BooksandPress; AudiovisualandInteractiveMedia; DesignandCreativeServices; IntangibleCulturalHeritage

KeyDimensionsandTransversalDomains:Dataandindicatorsshouldbedevelopedineachculturaldomain inordertocapturethe flowofculturecycle fromcreation,production, dissemination, exhibition/reception to consumption and participation.TheideaofseeingcultureinperspectiveofactivitychainispromotedbytheUNESCOandother internationalstudies,and it is recommended toHongKongsCIFso thatthe local framework could afford international comparison. Besides, proposedmeasuresofnaturalcapital,socialcapitalandculturalcapitalarerecommendedtobeadopted intheCIFofHongKong, inadditiontothetransversaldomainssuchaseducation, preservation and archiving. Each dimension is defined by independentvariables, reflecting the status of natural resources, assets, social and culturalenvironmentsandeducationalandpreservationactivitiesthatarevitaltoallculturaldomains.Further Steps to Establish CIF: The report suggests five distinct stages of CIFdevelopment. While the current research addresses the issues aboutconceptualization of the framework, further efforts should be focused on otheraspectsofframeworkbuildinginnextstageofresearch.Thefivestagesare:



4

Conceptualization: theoretical foundations and/or concerns of theframeworkandthecontextofindicatorbuilding;

Selection:explorationandvalidationofrelevantindicators; Definition:defininganddescribingtheframeworkandchosenindicators; Collection:collectionofdataanddataprocessing; Management and Evaluation: implementation of an information

managementsystemtocollectdataovertimeandtoevaluatetheindicatorsystemfromtimetotime.

StrategiesandRecommendations:Culturalindicatorstudyisalongitudinalresearchwhich requires continuous improvements and dedicated efforts to make itsustainableandeffective.Inordertoachievethesegoals,thereportsuggestsaseriesofworkitemstobecompletedinfuture.Theyinclude:

standardized definitions and defined terms of cultural domains andrespectivesubsectorsshallbedevelopedintheCIF;

amaster layoutplan forallculturaldomainsand subdomains in theCIF

Modelwithdetaileddescriptionsanda listof indicators foreachculturaldomainshouldbedeveloped;

a detailed plan of data matrix, encompassing types of measures and

potential indicators shallbedeveloped (exampleequivalent to the tablesincludedintheLocalTheatreAudit);

Alistofpotentialdatasources(local,regionalandinternational)shouldbe

setuptofacilitatetheprocessofdatacollectioninlaterstage;

qualitativeresearchagendasonkeynotionsorconceptsshallbefilledupinorder to incorporate social, economic and cultural perspectives into theframework;

surveyson culturalparticipation in arts and cultural activities,household

expenditure in cultural goods and services, individual time use patterns, governmentexpenditure inartsandculture,aswellas itsexpenditure incultural, historical and natural heritages shall be conducted regularly.Questionnaires and surveys on these topics should also be granted toppriorityinthependinglistofresearch.



5

Operational PolicyRecommendations: Establishing a CIF involves interdisciplinaryresearchand itsdatacollectionprocesswillcutacrossdifferent fields in thepublicsector and departmental units within the Government, it is recommended thatCentral Policy Unit (CPU) should act as coordinator to promote crosssectordialogues and to facilitate the sharing of information among different sectors. Sharing sessions shall also include international research communities in form ofworkshopsandseminarsso that relevantknowledgeandexperiencecanbedrawnfrom outside into the development of Hong Kongs CIF Model. The report alsorecommends the establishment of a cultural observatory function by CPU (and inpartnershipwithrelevantgovernmentagenciesandlocaluniversities)soastosustainthe localization of CIF development, and on the other hand, to oversee thedevelopment of cultural indicator system in Hong Kong,mainland China and theAsiapacificregion.In conclusion, we see the Review Study an important step towards a visionaryresearch agenda. The Study is not only supported by robust review of relevantindicator researchesby the internationalcommunity;meanwhile, italsodelineatesthe scope, scale andmethodology for building a local framework forHong Kong.Taking a local perspective, the proposed Cultural Indicator Framework serves thepurposesofrevealingandassessingHongKongsculturallandscape.FurtherstepsinconsolidatingtheCIFandmakingitalongtermdevelopmentwouldstrengthenHongKongs position in the regional dialogues and exchanges of cultural information,researchanddevelopment.



6

()



7

/



8

CPU

CPU



9

AReviewStudyonCulturalAudit: theLandscapeofHongKong'sCulturalInfrastructureFinalReport

TableofContents ExecutiveSummary 2 1. Staffing 111.1 DescriptionofOrganization 111.2 ResearchPersonnel 11 2. BackgroundoftheStudy 132.1 BackgroundofResearch 132.2 AimsofStudy 142.3 ResearchObjectives 142.4 GeneralDescriptionoftheStudy 15 3. TheMeasurementofCulture 163.1 Introduction 163.2 DefinitionIssues 163.3 CulturalData,IndicatorsandInterpretations 183.4 FromIndicatorstowardsCoherentFrameworkof

Measurement21

4. InternationalPractices 304.1 Introduction 304.2 SelectionofPractices 304.3 SelectedStudiesbyInternationalOrganization 314.4 SelectedStudiesinNorthAmerica 344.5 SelectedStudiesintheU.K. 464.6 SelectedStudiesintheAsiaPacificRegion 504.7 IndicatorStudiesinHongKong 574.8 IssuesHighlightedintheInternationalPractices 594.9 StepsForward 63 5. BuildingCulturalIndicatorFramework 5.1 Introduction 645.2 GeneralPrinciplesforEstablishingaCIF 645.3 ScopeandDefinitionofCultureinCIF 655.4 ConceptualBearingsforDesigningCIF 695.5 TheLocalTheatreAuditAnIllustrationoftheApplicationof

CIF75

5.6 HighorderAnalyticalFramework 96

5.7 Summary 98



10

6 WayForwardandRecommendations 1006.1 FutureStepsinBuildingCIF 1006.2 RecommendationsonNextStageofResearch 1006.3 OperationalPolicyRecommendations 1026.4 Conclusion 104AppendixA: ListofOrganizations/Projects 106AppendixB: UNESCOModelofFrameworkforCulturalStatistics 109AppendixC: ExtractsofNEAsStudyArtistOccupationData 112AppendixD: TheNationalArtsIndexintheUnitesStates 113AppendixE: TheoreticalModelofCulturalVitalitybyUrban

Institute116

AppendixF: TheBostonIndicatorsProjectIndicatorsAtaGlance

119

AppendixG: FrameworkfortheAnalysisofCulturalInfrastructureinCanada

121

AppendixH: StatisticalFrameworkRecommendedbytheDCMSEvidenceToolkit

126

AppendixI: IndicatorStructureoftheReportofLondonCulturalAudit

127

AppendixJ: IndicatorsofShanghaiUrbanCreativityIndex 130AppendixK: ListofTaipeiCityCulturalIndicators 134AppendixL: ListofIndicatorsofSocialCapitalandCulturalCapital 139AppendixM: ListofIndustryGroups 140AppendixN: DataSourcesoftheLocalTheatreAudit 149Annex1: HowCulturalIndicatorFrameworkInformsOther

ToolsofAssessmentonCulturalOrganizations152

Annex2: ListofMembersoftheAdvisoryPanel 155References

156



11

1Staffing1.1DescriptionofOrganization1.1.1 TheHongKongDevelopmentandStrategyResearchCentre (HKDSRC)Ltd

wasfoundedin1996.Itaimsatenhancingthequalityofpolicydeliberationandpromotingpublicparticipation in thepolicymakingprocess.Since itsestablishment in 1996, HKDSRC has conducted several public policyresearch projects including research projects on public libraries in HongKong, public museums in Hong Kong, film censorship and publicarchitecture, information technology education in secondary schools ofHongKong.

1.2 ResearchPersonnelProjectInvestigatorDr.PatrickKinWai,MOK,Director,HongKongDevelopmentandStrategyResearchCenterLtd;Consultant,HongKongInstitutefortheHumanities&SocialSciences(inc.theCentreofAsianStudies),TheUniversityofHongKong Dr.Mokhasbeenengaged inanumberofconsultingandresearchprojectsrelatedtoculturalandcreativeindustries,culturalplanning,cultural indicators,filmstudiesandthedevelopmentofdigital libraries.Hewas intheresearchteam ledbyChinaNationalSchoolofAdministration toconductastudyoncultural industries for the12th FiveYearPlan.The studywas commissionedby theMinistryofCulture,PRC.Recentworks includeStrategicDevelopment forCultural Industries inChina (2008), in collaboration with China National School ofAdministration,Beijing;HongKong:ACreativeMetropolis (2007) for TheBauhiniaFoundationResearchCentre;StudyonHongKongsCulturalCreativeIndustriesinthePearlRiverDelta(2006)fortheCentralPolicyUnit;AStudyonHongKongCreativityIndex (2004) for Home Affairs Bureau; Baseline Study on Hong Kongs CreativeIndustries(2003)fortheCentralPolicyUnit,HKSARGovernment.CoinvestigatorMr.MathiasYanWai,WOO,Chairman,HongKongDevelopmentandStrategyResearchCenterMr.Woohasinitiatedaseriesofstudiesonartsandculturalpoliciesandhasbeenanactivecommentatoronmedia,arts,cultureandarchitecturesince1990s.Researchworks include InSearchofCulturalPolicy1991&1993, InSearchofFilmPolicy97



12

andInSearchofInformationPolicy97.In2006,hewasappointedbythegovernmentoftheHKSARasamemberofPublicServiceBroadcastingReviewCommittee,andamemberof theAdvisoryGroups (PerformingArtsandTourism)of theConsultativeCommittee on the Core Arts and Cultural Facilities of theWest Kowloon CulturalDistrict; in2009,hewasappointedbytheChiefExecutiveasamemberoftheTaskForceonEconomicChallenges.ResearchAssistantsMs.WaillisKaWai,LEE,ResearchAssistant,HongKongDevelopmentandStrategyResearchCenterLtdWith a BSocSc Policy Studies and Administration,Ms. Lee has been assistingMr.MathiasWoo in conducting and coordinating several research projects related artand cultural policies. She is also the editor of the book Cultural Opportunities inEconomicCrisis,publishedbyE+Ein2009. Ms.AnnieLAM,ResearchAssistantAftergraduatedwithaBAinHistoryandPerformanceStudiesin2004andcompletedherMphilthesisabouttheCulturalHistoryofHongKongin2006,Ms.Lamhasbeenworking as a researcher and project coordinator in the Hong Kong Institute forContemporary Culture, the Law School of Shantou University, and the School ofChineseintheUniversityofHongKong.



13

2BackgroundoftheStudy2.1 BackgroundofResearch2.1.1 Worldcitiessincethepostwarperiodhadmadesubstantialprogressinthe

development of economic and social infrastructure. Investments instrategicinfrastructureincludingpublicutilities,transportsystems,ports,communicationsand infrastructuralbuildings inurbandistrictsearmarkedthemajordevelopmentofcities inthetimeswheneconomicsuccessandsocial development in past century had achieved. Without exception,wellknowninternationalbenchmarkingstudiesonsocialdevelopmentandworld competitive cities subscribe such a dimension that infrastructuralbuilding isoneofthecompetitivecorestosuccess,andthatfactorshouldbe counted in the evaluative framework for crosscountries or citiesresearch. Yet, global cities compete for sustainable development andleadingpositionintheworldeconomyindifferentwaysinthe21stcentury.The millennium century is knowledge driven, fuelled by evergrowinginnovation, creative ideas and powered by creativity and culturalresurgence.Thatsortpowergenerallyintermsofcreativity,knowledge,innovation and culture plays everincreasing role in propellingsocioeconomic progress of theworld economy. The rise of creative agetherefore calls for a review of the conventional view to infrastructuraldevelopmentofworld cities in thenew century,withaviewnotonly toexaminethestrategicimportanceofinfrastructuralbuildingbutalsotakeinaccount thecontributionofcreativecapitaland socioculturalnexuses tothedevelopmentofurbancities.

2.1.2 HongKonghasperformedverywell inareasofeconomicdevelopmentas

the city ranks high in major studies of city competitiveness and worldeconomic development.However, having lost sight of the importanceofsociocultural environment conducive to Hong Kongs overallcompetitiveness, the public sector seems to put little effort inmapping,auditingandkeepingtrackofthechanges insocialandcultural landscapethatmightaffecttheoverallvitalityandcreativityofthecity.Basicresearchon sociocultural landscape such as the research on Hong Kongs thirdsector,creative indexandartsandcultural indicatorsweremadeavailablesomeyearsago,but these studieswere far fromcompleteandwerenotconductedonaregularbasis.Thesocialindicatorsprojectundertakenbyaconsortiumof localacademic institutions,despitehavingthecontributiontofillsomegaps,cannotmeetthepolicygoaltodevelopaframeworkfortheassessmentofHongKongsculturallandscape.

2.1.3 There is urgent need to fill this gap, largely due to changing policy

environment.TheChiefSecretaryof theHongKongSARGovernmenthas



14

recentlymade commitment to diversify the economy of Hong Kong bymaking cultural and creative industriesoneof the six core areasof longterm economic development. Meanwhile, the West Kowloon CulturalDistrictisgoingtomoveintoimplementationstage.Thisflagshipprojectisexpected to become one of the key drivers of Hong Kongs creativeeconomy in future. New commitments in developing culturalcreativeeconomy in Hong Kong therefore create an environment that culturereclaimsahigherpriority inthepolicyagendaofthecity,andthatseesastrong need of a robust evidencebase framework for the mapping,collection,assessmentandanalysesofinformationrelatednotonlytoartsand culture, but also to the domain of cultural life, practices aswell asculturalecology.

2.2 AimsofStudy2.2.1 The proposed study is the first attempt to examine how such an

information framework could be developed for Hong Kong. Byreviewing international and local studieson the same topic anddrawingrelevantlessonsfromthem,thisstudywouldshedlighton:

thetheoreticalunderpinnings,scopeandframeworkofculturalaudit;

mapping of cultural infrastructure that would empower, nurture and

harnesscreativityinlocalcommunity; role of formal/informal cultural institutions that facilitate, promote and

realizethecirculationofideas,creativeskillandknowledge;

roleofcultureasagentofchanges; functions of culture notmerely as kind of services but resourcesmade

available to communities for the realization of economic potential andsocialempowermentschemes;and

methodologies of designing the framework of cultural audit that takes

stockofandexaminesthechangesofculturalenvironmentinHongKong.

2.3 ResearchObjectivesTheproposedstudypurportsto:

conductaliteraturereviewofrelevantstudies,bothlocalandinternational, on the purpose, theoretical underpinnings, scope, framework,methodology,andtheapplicationofculturalaudit;

propose the approach, methodology, and content for a cultural audit



15

frameworkforHongKong.2.4 GeneralDescriptionoftheStudy2.4.1 Theproposedstudy lastsforsixmonths. Itconductsa literaturereviewof

relevant studies on mapping, auditing and index studies of culturalinfrastructure.Studiesofsimilarnaturehavebeen identified in theNorthAmerica and European Countries. Studies by theUNESCO and EuropeanCommissions recent indicator projects on cultural statisticswill also beconsulted.Besides,academicstudiesinAsiaandlocalstudiesincludingtheresearchstudiesconductedbytheHomeAffairsBureau,ArtDevelopmentCouncil and theYouthCouncilwillbe covered in the review.Auditingorindicator projects in these countries vary in scope, and their theoreticalassumptions of establishing auditing indicators are sometimes notcompatibleandcomparable,nottomentionthattheirapplicationsandtheadoptionofindicatorsvaryindifferentpolicycontexts.

2.4.2 Lessonsdrawn from the relevantstudieswillprovidevaluable insightson

whatconstitutesculturalauditing,whyitisdoingandhowitisapplied.Thereview also examines the theoretical frameworks for conducting culturalaudit research as well as their limitations. These lessons lay solidfoundation for the construction and design of appropriate indicatorframeworkrelevanttoHongKongslocalcontext.

2.4.3 Development of indicator framework could encompass many levels of

breadth and depth, and there aredifferentways of interpreting a singleindicator or a group of indicators. The proposed study will design aframeworkthatadvisesthescopeofindicators,datasourcesandcollection,the spectrum of dimensions, interpretations and practical uses of theindicator framework in localpolicycontexts.Studiesonculturalauditarenotwithout debate onmethodologies and their findings are sometimessubject to interpretation. However, advice from local and internationalcommunitieswillbesoughtinduecourseoftheresearchsoastoobtainanobjective view of the study. We also propose to consult the views ofexperts in the field and the Statistical Institute ofUNESCO. An advisorypaneloftheresearchwillbeformedforthatpurpose.

2.4.4 Theprojectwilldelivera reportwhich comprisesa substantial reviewof

relevantstudiesonculturalaudit/mappingaswellasaproposedCulturalAudit Framework (CAF) in Hong Kong. Cultural mapping should besupported by a review of how cultural data is collected, processed andevaluatedwithinandacrosspublic agentsand governmentdepartments.Theproposedstudywillthendeliverapreliminaryassessmentonexistingflow of data collection. A list of recommendations will be made forimproving the methodology of data sourcing and mining and forconductingtheCAFinnextstage.Theresearchteamwouldalsopresentitsfindings in the final report to CPU at a seminar or workshop uponinvitation.



16

3TheMeasurementofCulture3.1 Introduction3.1.1 This chapter setsout to explore thedefinitionof culture and examine a

cluster of issues concerning the nature of cultural data as well as itsrelationshipwithindicatorframeworkandinterpretativemodels.Itaimstoexplain the reasonswhymeasuring culturematters,and thepurposesofquantifying culture and the constraints and contributions that culturalindicator studies may have. The background issues addressed in thischaptershedlightonthetheoreticalunderpinningsfortheconstructionofcultural indicators. Some key concepts and termsoftenused in indicatorresearch and/or introduced in this study so as tomake the context ofresearchmore comprehensible. It also serves as preface introducing theinternationaland localpractices inmeasuring cultural landscape. Furtherdetailsofthesestudieswillbeexaminedinthesectionsthatfollowinnextchapter.

3.2 DefinitionIssues3.2.1 The notion of culture is a subject of considerable debate, andmaking a

precise scope of culture is not simple and straightforward. Besides, theusageoftheword cultureevolves inhistoryand itsmeaningvariesfromone context to another. Forwhatever reasons, it is not easy to derive asimplebut relativelycoherentmeaningof theword.Havingsaid that thenotion is ill defined, in broad sense, culture refers to a set of attitudes,beliefs, customs, values and practices common to or shared by a group.Thisinterpretationofcultureisinabroadlyanthropologicalorsociologicalframeworktodescribethecharacteristics,uniquenessand/oridentityofagroup(suchasanethnicgroup,oracommunity,etc.).1

3.2.2 Another interpretation refers to the functionalmanifestation of culture

thatembracesawiderangeofactivitiesandtangibleoutcomeshavingtodo with the intellectual,moral and artistic aspects of human life. Thisinterpretation concisely captures the essence of culture in terms ofactivities,representationsandprocessesengagedbyhumanbeing.AsetofcontemporaryviewsaboutculturesuchasthenotionofculturalindustriescoinedbyAdornoandHorkheimerinthepost2ndWorldWarperiod,orthetermof creative industries in recent yearsby theUKGovernment in thelate1990s,despitehavingtheirowncontextofusage,basicallyfallwithin

1 Throsby(2001,pp.34)



17

theboundaryofthisseconddefinition.23.2.3 There is the third interpretation of culture, which is defined by

administrative boundary of cultural institutions, organizations andadministrativeunits inthepublicandprivatesectors.Theseorganizationsoffer cultural services or engage in some forms of activities related toculture. In this context, administrative agencies have to set policy andoperational objectives and to define scope of services in precise terms;understandably, they tend to define culture in a narrow sense. TheArtsCouncil England for instance maintains a territory of services coveringdance, music, literature, theatre, visual arts, combined arts(multidisciplinary creation and activities) and collection the seven artformsthattheCouncilofferssupportsandfundingservices.Therefore,forthoseorganizationsdedicatedtotheclauseofpromotingartsandculture,their interpretation of culture is shaped by institutional boundaries,organizational missions and administrative responsibilities rather thanboundbytheoreticalrationales.

3.2.4 Different interpretations of culture apparently create further difficulty in

examiningculture inaquantitativeway.Furtherquestionsmayalsoarisefromwhat forms, representationsand/oractivitiesof culture shouldandcould be quantified. In practice, organizations and institutions thatdischarge administrative responsibilities have used to collecting culturaldata in one form or another for a particular purpose, even though theabove questions have not been answered in satisfactory way. They arecompelledtocollectandanalyzeculturaldataforroutinemanagementoroperational uses. And their efforts in data collection and compilationusuallyproducea considerablequantityof culturaldata,and sometimes,maintainrelativeintegrityofdatathatcouldbefurtherusedforanalysis.

3.2.5 The U.S. Department of Commerce, for instance, produces a series of

National Income andProductAccounts of theUnited States (NIPA) since1929.ThesearetheaccountsinwhichtheDepartmentcalculatesthesumof personal consumption expenditures as one component in grossdomestic product (GDP) in a year. Among the items of personal

2 Differentdefinitionshavebeenused inacademic studiesandpolicy researchwhichdelineate themultiplicityandaspectsofculturalmanifestations.Forinstance,RaymondWilliamsdistinguishestwomaintypesofcultureoneemphasizingontheinformingspiritwhichismanifestoverawiderangeof specifically culturalactivities from a language, stylesof art to intellectualwork, and anotheronmaterialist formsofculturalpractices, representationsandmeansof reproduction (suchaswriting,printing,fashionandadvertising,etc.);Williams(1981,pp.1013,87118).Takeanotherexample,thetermculturalindustrycoinedbyAdornoandHorkheimerreferstothemechanicalreproductionofartandculturetocommercialproducts;AdornoandHorkheimer(1947,pp.94136).Recentdiscoursesoncreative industries (or culturalcreative industries) share a view todefine some formsof economicproductionthatfactorsincreativity,communicatesculturalandsymbolicmeaningsand/orpotentiallygenerates intellectualpropertyascoreeconomicsegmentsofcreative industries;(DCMS,2001,p.5).In thecaseofHongKong, thedefinitiononculturalcreative industriesadoptsasimilarviewof theDCMS(CPU,2003,pp.2226).



18

expenditure, the Department collects data regarding expenses on theadmissionstotheaters,operaandentertainmentsofnonprofitinstitutions.The series are valuable data sources formeasuring the growth of artssector in the United States since 1929.3 Take another example, ArtsParticipation Survey has been conducted since 1982 by NationalEndowment fortheArts (NEA),withan intentiontomonitorthetrendofthe publics involvementwith arts events and activities. The survey hascollectedrichdatasourcesonU.S.citizensparticipationinthearts,andastheNEAresearchasserts,longitudinaltrendofpeoplesparticipationintheartsovertimecouldreflectacountrysculturalvitality.4

3.2.6 Thevarioususageofculturethenprovidesacontextwherethisstudywill

makereferenceto,andwewillderiveanoperationaldefinitionofcultureinlaterstage.Sufficeittosaythescopeofcultureshouldnotbenarrowlydefinedasartsandculture,foranarrowdefinitionwill losesightofmanyotheractivitiesandrepresentationsofculturethatarereally important inour contemporary cultural and social life. Besides, there are differentdimensionsofculture.Aculturalrealitycouldbeanalyzedthroughthelensof supplyanddemand relationships, valuechain relationships, economicimpacts and sociocultural engagement with the communities. Only byrevealing different levels of a cultural reality do we have relativelycomprehensiveunderstandingofthebreadthanddepthofculture.

3.3 CulturalData,IndicatorsandInterpretations3.3.1 Against thecontextwhere thedefinitionofculturevaries,dataareoften

collected and respective indicators established by individual arts andcultural institutions tomeet respectiveneeds,be it formanagementandoperationaluses,performanceevaluationorformonitoringthetrendofaparticular culturerelatedactivity (oragroupof).Yet,whendataareputinto a broader framework of analysis, there would be foreseeablelimitations.

3.3.2 Takeoneexample, thescopeanddefinitionmaybe toonarrowso thata

wide rangeof culturalactivitiesor typesof cultural consumptionare leftoutwhileinanothercase,thecollecteddatamaybeunfitforfurtherpolicyanalyses.ChristopherMaddenwho isresearchanalystat IFACCApreciselyillustratesthedifferent levelsofcomplexity involving in indicatorbuilding.Referring to Bonets model, Madden recapitulates the relationshipbetween data and the interpretive or conceptualmodels that drive thedesignofindicators.IllustrationofthemodelisshowninFigureA:

3 GrayandHeilbrun(2001,pp.1216);forthedatasourcesofNIPA,seeUSsBureauofEconomicAnalysis(http://www.bea.gov/).4 NationalEndowmentfortheArts(2009).



19

FigureA

Source:SimplifiedandreproducedfromMadden(2005)3.3.3 AsMaddenputs it,dataaredesigned toapproximateacultural reality.

Indicators utilize data to understand this reality, albeit in a necessarilyflawedway.Dataarchitecturesandindicatordesignarethelensthroughwhichwemeasureculture,andtheseareinfluencedbychangesinthewaywe conceptualize culture.5 In short, the intricate relationship betweendata, indicatorsand interpretationsrevealsthesubjectivityexpressed inany cultural indicator framework. Sincewe cannot directlymeasure theessence(ormeaning)ofaculturalphenomenon,anyquantifiabledataareonlyproxyofaculturalreality.

3.3.4 Anexamplecanbequotedtoillustratethisquandary.Whenonewouldlike

tomeasurethevitalityofopera,thenotionofvitalityinthiscaseislargelyimpossible tomeasure in a direct way. One could, on the other hand,measurethenumberofoperaproductionsornumberofperformancessoas to reflect the intensity of the activity. Therefore, the number ofproductions is a descriptive data as proxy of the intensity of operaperformances. Inthatprocessofapproximation,whatone is interested inwilldeterminewhat counts andwhat kindofdatahe/she should collectandwhat kindof indicator toestablish.More importantly,data couldbeinterpreted in different ways, depending on ones conceptual ways ofinquiry aswell as purposes of analysis. Referring to the example aboutopera,thegreaternumberofproductionsmeansahighervitalityoftheartform in the society.A differentway of inquiringwould, however, derivedifferent meaning from the same indicator. An increasing number ofproductions could be as a result of increased supply of public fund thathelpsproducingmoreperformancesbutdoesnothonortheideaofvitalityatall.

3.3.5 Thediscussionaboveisneithertrivialnoracademic.Quantifyingcultureis

not an exclusive question only reserved for academia and expert in the

5 Madden(2005,p.17).



20

field. The ways of collecting data, designing indicators and makinginterpretationsarecloselyrelated inaprocessofcognitiveunderstandingthatcanbesharedamongordinarypeople,peoplewhorunculturalvenuesand stakeholders in the public and private sectors. A theatre fan, forinstance,whoobtains enjoyment from attending a theatreperformance,maycounthowmany timeshehasgone to theatre ina timeperiodandhowmuchmoneyhehasspentonthisformofentertainment.Thetheatregroupwhichcreatestheworkwouldbeeagertotakerecordofthenumberofperformances ithasplayedsoastoestablish itsprofessionalprofile.Asforthevenueoperatorwhorunstheprogramschedulemaybe interestedin attendance rate and the gross amountof ticketing sales. Stakeholderswhoareconcernedaboutthesocialandeconomic impactsoftheatrewillbe interested inknowingthegrosseconomicreturnoftheatresectorasawhole. At each step of the theatrical activity mentioned above, theregenerates a host of cultural data thatmay interest individual audience,artists,programorganizersandpolicymakers.

3.3.6 Nomatterwhatkindofdatacollected,culturaldataaresubjecttodifferent

purposesofanalysesand interpretations.Andpeoplescognitive interestsand frameofmindwoulddefinitelyshape thescopeandmethodofdatacollection.Tounderstandhowsubjectivityexpressesintheprocessofdatacollection, indicatordesignand forming interpretative views, itwouldbehelpfultocategorizetheframeworkforestablishingculturaldata intermsofthefollowingthreedimensions:(SeeTable1)

Table1 Dimension Definition CognitiveDomainDescriptive where people or organizations capture a

cultural reality by describing the reality in aquantitativeway (suchashowmanytimes inayearonewillgotocinema);

Descriptive;frameworkfortheapproximationofaculturalreality

Functional where people or organizations subscribe aview to collect and analyze data foroperational uses and/or with immediatefunctional value to the cultural reality beingdescribed(suchashowmanyticketsalesofaperformance would make it break even; orwhat genres of musical performance dodifferent groups of audience place value on,etc.).The functionaldimensions taken in theprocess of data collection, indicator designand in interpretative framework are closelyassociated with the acts of appraisal,evaluationormanagementbenchmarking;

Evaluative;frameworkoperatedinacontextsubjecttofunctionaluses,operationalobjectivesandspecificpurposes

HighOrderAnalytical

where people or organizations collect,compile, analyze and interpret cultural datathrough the lens of different value

Evaluative;frameworkoperatedinacontextsubjecttovalue,



21

framework (e.g. diversity, vitality, etc.) andanalytical dimensions (e.g. supplydemandside relationships, production, consumption,etc.)forengagingadiscussionorevendebateon the development and strategic value ofculture.

strategicanddevelopmentgoals

3.3.7 The three dimensions refer to the cognitive interests in describing or

approximating,andanalyzinga cultural reality,and/orderivingmeaningsfrom the reality. In practice, cultural data per se embrace all threedimensions above. Yet, for analytical purpose, such a distinction amongthemgivesusapreliminaryideathatthethirddimensionwillbecomethemost relevant parameter for the construction of indicator framework. Inparticular,thisresearchwilllargelyfocusonthedimensionofhighorderanalyticalframeworkwhichmayequipobserversandpolicymakerswithanalyticaltoolforstocktakingthelandscapeofculture.

3.4 FromIndicatorstowardsCoherentFrameworkofMeasurement3.4.1 Culturaldatacollectedandcompiledbythepublicandprivatesectorsatall

levelnowadayscoverawiderangeofcategoriesfromtangibleoutputsofcultural creation, economic measurement of culture, access to andparticipation inartsandculturetosubjectiveviewsonaparticularaspectofculture.Itisnotpossibletoproduceanexhaustivelistofdifferenttypesofdatawithexceptionofsomeexamplesoftypologiesthatwouldgiveussomeideasofexistinglandscapeofdatacollectioninthefield.

3.4.2 For the interest of this research, our discussionwill be largely on those

typesofculturaldataproducedbynationalandpublicagenciesaswellasinternational organizations due to the considerations of data integrity,consistency,continuityandcomparability.Inparticular,focuswillbeplacedon selected indicator studies or indicator frameworks that helppolicymakerstorevealthestatusanddevelopmenttrendsofculture.Dataframework designed by professional and/or academic institutions thatmight contribute to the discussionwill also be cited on individual case.With these considerations, those studies largely focusing on individualtopics, local cultural development or performance review of individualart/culturalformswillnotfallintothescopeofourresearch.6

6 Studies such as Local Performance Indicators for the Arts by the Arts Council England (AuditCommission,2003)orMeasuresand Indicators inLocalCulturalDevelopment (Backer,G.,2002)aresomeoftheexamplesofrelativelynarrowfocus.Foralandscapereviewofdifferenttypesofindicatorresearch,seeMadden(2005,Appendix1).



22

3.4.3 Cultural indicators are established for forming views on how culture ismeant toour life.Towards thisend, researcheshavebeen conductedbyinternational or national agencies to develop appropriate framework formeasuringandforunderstandingthesocioculturalandeconomicimpactsof culture. A cursory scan of these selected studies or programs ispresented in Table 2. It highlights the major efforts by internationalcommunities in addressing ahostof issues regardingmethodologies andcompositionofindicatorframeworkforthemeasureofculture.

Table2 International/Regional/NationalAgencies

DescriptionoftheResearch/Study/Program Reference

UNESCO TheUNESCOand itsassociatedagencieshavemade substantial effort in harmonizing acrossnational statistical framework for themeasurement of cultural and creativeindustries. Meanwhile, the UNESCO revisedthe replaced the Framework for CulturalStatistics (FCS) which has been used forcollectingandcompilingnationalstatisticsandindicators on culture since 1986. The revisedframework expands the scope and definitionof culture and establishes a conceptualfoundation, common understanding andminimum dataset that facilitate internationalcomparison of a full range of activities ofculture(alsoseeChapterFoursection4.3.2).

The2009UNESCOFrameworkforCulturalStatistics(UNESCO,2008);StatisticsonCulturalIndustries(UNESCO,2007)

OECD The OECD launches a new project on themeasurement of culture and artrelatedactivities in 2006. Taking a holistic view ofculture,includingsocialandeconomicaspects,and quality of life, the project aims atproviding an approach to measuring theeconomic and social importance of culture.Followup activities in form ofworkshop andconference intended to establishinternationallycomparablemeasures on fourinitial areas including economic indicators,classification standards, social indicators andlinkages between the culture sector, societalwellbeingandahealthyeconomy.

InternationalMeasurementoftheEconomicandSocialImportanceofCulture(OECD,2006)

NorthAmericaUSA

Americans for theArts initiatedaprogram in2006 to develop a National Arts Index toreview the vitality of arts and culture in theU.S. Composing indicators of the indexweresaid toembracemultidimensionalaspectsof

TheNationalArtsIndex(CohenandKushner,2006);NationalEndowmentfor



23

artsandculture(e.g.fromsocialtoeconomicdimensions) and to communicate the impactmodel that takes input (e.g. public/privatesupports, etc.), activities (e.g. production,establishments, etc.), outputs (e.g.consumptionofproducts/experiences,beliefs,etc.)and impacts(e.g.thecompetitivenessofthe arts, etc.) into consideration. NationalEndowments for the Arts, a public agencydedicated to supporting arts, also producesregular statisticsanddataonartandculture.Inparticular,topicssuchaspublicparticipationinthearts,economicstatus,demographicandemploymentpatternsofartistsandeconomicimpacts of arts are the concerned areascoveredbylongitudinalstudies.On the regional level, The Boston IndicatorProject examinesdifferent aspectsof culturallife shared by the citizens of Boston. TheCultural Vitality report, conducted by theUrban Institute, proposed definition,categorization of data, and researchframework for regional cultural statistics.Thesetwostudieswillbeexaminedinthenextchapter(alsoseeChapterFoursection4.4.5).

theArts7

NorthAmericaCanada

TheCultureStatisticsProgram(CSP)ofCanadawas established in 1972 to create, maintainandmakeavailabledataontheculturesector.Through regular census surveys and otherStatistics Canada surveys, data on culturesectors (such as culture industries, includingbook publishing, film, video and audiovisualproductionanddistribution,etc.)andartsandheritage are systematically collected.Analytical studies of such topics as theeconomic impactofculture, theconsumptionof culture goods and services, government,personal and corporate spending on culture,the culture labourmarket, and internationaltrade of culture goods and services are alsocoveredintheCSP.Regarding thestatusofcultural infrastructurein Canada on a national level, the Centre ofExpertiseonCultureandCommunitieshad in2008publishedaresearchreporttakingstockon the financial value of the cultural

CanadianFrameworkforCultureStatistics(StatisticsCanada,2004)

7 SeeofficialwebsiteoftheNationalEndowmentfortheArts(http://www.nea.gov/index.html)



24

infrastructure in the countrywithdatadatedbacktothe1960s.Detailsofthereportwillbediscussed in the next chapter (see section4.4.6).

EU The leadership group on cultural statistics(LEGCulture) was set up by the StatisticalProgramme Committee in March 1997. TheLEG was given the status of a 3year pilotproject with a mandate for building up asystemof coherentand comparable indicatorframework that could contribute to a betterunderstanding of the links between cultureand socioeconomic development. The finalreport released in 2000 conveyed substantialdiscussions on methodological issues aboutcultural statistics, cultural employment,expenditureand financeand issues regardingparticipation in cultural activities. Upon thisfoundation, the pocketbook CulturalStatisticswaspublishedbyEurostatin2007,rely on the definition of culture generallyagreed by the LEG. The publication presentsdata related to culture which are currentlyavailable from European harmonised surveysand data collections, as well as additionalinformation from other data sources such asEurobarometer.

CulturalStatisticsintheEU(EuropeanCommission,2000); CulturalStatistics(EuropeanCommission,2007)

EU theUnitedKingdom

In response togrowingdemand forobtainingrobust data about creative economy, theDepartment of Culture, Communications andSports (DCMS) initiated the Regional CulturalData Framework project in 2002 to build apracticaltoolforgatheringdataonthesectorsbroadlycoveredbyDCMS.Thiscomprehensiveconsultation process led to the developmentoftheDCMSEvidenceToolkit(DET)atoolforaccessing and using information about thecultural sector. The DET aims to establish ablueprintfortheanalysisofculturalsectorbyoutliningastandardconceptualand technicaldefinition; to provide a reference point onhow to use key data sources for a range ofpurposes; and outline some best practicemeasures for researching the cultural sector(alsoseeChapterFoursection4.5.2).

DCMSEvidenceToolkit(DCMS,2004)

AsiaPacificAustralia

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)developedtheAustralianCultureandLeisureClassifications (ACLC) in 2001 to develop

AustralianCultureandLeisureClassifications



25

national standards for culture and leisureinformation. The framework comprises threeseparate classifications, covering culture andleisure related industries, products andoccupations. The classifications of the ACLCfocus on the economic side of culture andleisureactivitiesthatis,thewaycultureandleisure activities are linked to the economythroughdirect expenditure and employment.Through its arm the National Centre forCulture and Recreation Statistics (NCCRS)whichwas founded in1991,ABScollaboratedwith other agencies to conduct surveyscovering a wide range of topics such asparticipation, employment and attendance,expenditure and the activity of businessesoperating in the fields of culture andrecreation.

(AustralianBureauofStatistics,2008)8

AsiaPacific China

TheGovernmentofPeopleRepublicofChina(PRC)hasarichtraditionincollectingdataandstatistics on cultural facilities and activitiesprovided by the public sector. Particularlysince the 1980s, data on libraries,museums,culturalmarketsandperforminggroupswerereleased on regular basis through thepublications of voluminous statisticalyearbooks. In 2004, the Ministry of Culturepromulgated a new statistical framework forcultural industries in China. Using NationalClassification of Economic Activities, theframeworkcomprises9sectors(newsservices,publishing and copyright services,broadcasting, television and film services, artand cultural services, online services, leisureand cultural entertainment services, othercultural services, manufacturing andproduction of cultural goods and equipmentandwholesaleandretailofculturalgoodsandequipment). On city level, Shanghai andBeijing have devised the Creativity Index in2005 and 2007 respectively. Both indicescomprise subindices of the following areasincluding market development of culturalindustries, science and innovations, humancapital, cultural environment and socialenvironment.

ClassificationofCulturalandRelatedIndustries(NSB,2004)

8 FurtherinformationabouttheworksofAustralianBureauofStatisticsandtheNationalCentreforCultureandCreationStatisticsisfoundinABSsofficialwebsite(http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/Home/Home?OpenDocument)



26

AsiaPacificTaiwan

A survey of cultural demand and supplywasconducted by the Directorate General ofBudget,Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) ofExecutiveYuan for the first time in1992.Thesurvey covers ten topics including time use,householdculturalexpenditure,attendanceinarts and cultural activities, reading andparticipation in leisure activities (such aswatching television, tourism, etc.), valueplaces on cultural assets and heritage,attendingsportandreligiousactivities,aswellasparticipationinvoluntarywork.Thoughthesurvey seemednot to continue in the1990s,some aspects of the survey have beenincorporated into the Taipei City CulturalIndicator. The latter study covers data oncultural asset, environment, cultural livingstandard, cultural activity, cultural exchangeandculturalandcreativeindustries.Thestudyisconductedannuallyandthefirstreportwasreleasedin2003.

TaipeiCityCulturalIndicator(CouncilforCulturalAffairs,2006)

3.4.4 Theresearchescitedaboveareofcoursenotexhaustive. In fact,theyare

highly selective to cover some major aspects of the topic includingmethodological issues about constructing national and internationallycomparablemeasures of culture as well as selected aspects of culturaldevelopment inthesociety.It isalsoapparentthatmanydefinition issuesof common concern remain unresolved, and given that the scope ofresearchanddata sources in respective studiesvary fromonecontext toanother,itseemstobelessvisibleinnearfutureforacommonframeworktoemerge.

3.4.5 Having said that such disparity and difference exists, there are areas of

commoninterestssharedbytheinternationalcommunities.Theresearchesmentioned above, despite only a faction of themost important works,contribute to delineate the scope of issues, areas of concerns andsuggested approaches that would help building a coherent indicatorframeworkforthemeasureofculture.Thecommongroundsharedbytheinternational/national researches are summarized if not beingoversimplifiedinthefollowingconcerns:

(a) Whether the scope of culture shall be defined in a more inclusive

dimension to reflect the fluid and contextual nature of culture indifferentsocieties;

(b) Could terms and definitions of indicators as well as respective data

sources be harmonized, and whether national accounts of statistics



27

shouldformthebasisofdatasourcesforinternationalcomparison.

(c) Aculturalrealityismultifaceted,andthatcomplexityshallbeexaminedthrough different lens of analytical framework, such as the creativevalue chain, inputout relationshipsand supplysideanddemandsiderelationships,etc.Thisdoesnotonlyapplytoaculturalphenomenon,but also to a wide range of representations of culture (such asart/culturalforms).

(d) While economic impacts of culture should be one of the important

aspectsintheindicatorframework,thereareconcernsonthefinelinedrawing a distinction between the cultural sector and the creativeindustriessector.

(e) Besides,employmentandconsumptionfiguresaswellasdirect/indirect

economic contribution to domestic economy aremeasurement oftenadoptedbynationalgovernments inevaluating theeconomic impactsof culture. However, the dynamic linkage of culture with informaleconomy and social economy (or economic significance ofnotforprofit sector) isneglected aspect that shouldbe addressed infuture.

(f) Government and public agencies are more interested in collecting

economicdata,but sociocultural impactsof cultureon communities,on personal development, or transformation of individual values areseldomadequatelyreflectedintheframeworkofofficialstatistics.

(g) Furthermore,cultureisnotanisolateddomain;itissuggestedinsomeofthe internationalresearchesthatcultureshouldbeput intoawiderperspectiveandcontextoftheoverallwellbeingofhumanityandthesociety.

3.4.6 The host of issues articulated in the group of international researches

reveal the multifaceted representations of culture, the value chain ofcultural creation to consumption, financing culture, cultural expenditure,economicimpactsofculture,socialimpactsofcultureaswellasthewiderconnections and relationships between culture and social development,not to mention the definition issues and methodological concerns inquantifying cultural realties. By delineating some key aspects of culture,these researches curve along certain trajectories towards a betterunderstandingoftheroleofcultureinhumansociety.

3.4.7 Moreimportantly,thataspirationforarelativelycoherentunderstandingof

cultureandaframeworkforthemeasureofculturehasbeenreinforcedbythe imperativeresponsetothepaceofglobalizationandthecompetitionforthestatusofglobalcities.Urbancitiescompetebothinaflatworld,a



28

spiky world and/or a global network.9 The pressure for securing aleading position in the global system opens up a new direction ofinternational benchmarking studies on urban city competitiveness, bywhich culture is given a prominent role to play. The Global UrbanCompetitivenessReport,forinstance,incorporatesculturalcompetitivenessasoneofthecore indicescomposingthesoftcompetitivenessofurbancities.10 The AnholtGfK Roper Nation Brands Index, on the other hand,measuresthepowerandqualityofacountrysbrandimagebycombiningthe six dimensions ofwhich culture and heritage are key components.11Andamore focusedstudyon thecontributionofculture tocityvibrancyand competitivenesswould be the cultural audit study by the LondonDevelopmentAgency.12 Inanutshell, these studiesgenerally subscribeaview that culture is resourceful asset and becomes one sort ofdeterminantsofthecompetitivenessandexcellenceofurbancities.

3.4.8 The term cultural audit was initially used in a body of management

literature studying and examining organizational culture (such as anorganizationsnorms,philosophy,andvalues)todeterminehowthattheyhinderoralignitsvision,missionandstrategies.Itwasacreativeuseoftheterm for the first timeby the LondonDevelopmentAgency in the studyLondon: A Cultural Audit in 2008. The study aims at taking stock ofculturalassetsofLondonbycompilingandassessingasetofquantifiableand internationally comparable data related to culture. The indicatorsadopted in the study come from available sources identified by theresearchteam.Detailsofthestudywillbediscussedinnextchapter.Sufficeit to say is itsaffirmativegesture to take stockofculture,withaview toillustratethedynamicrelationshipsamongcultural infrastructure,culturaldevelopment, cultural life and theevolvinghistoryof London as aworldcity,businesscentreaswellascreativehub.Thestudy isambitious for itintendstoapplyahighlyinterpretiveframeworktootherfourcities(Tokyo,Shanghai,NewYorkandParis)byusingsamesetofquantifiableindicatorsforcrosscitycomparison.

3.4.9 It is still a heatdebated topic on howmuch and inwhatways culture

contributes to theoverall competitivenessofurban cities.13 In any case,thedebateinvitesongoingdiscussiononthetheoreticalunderpinningsandreasoning that might come along with the construction and design ofCulturalIndicatorFramework(CIF).Putsimply,towhatextentahighorder

9 Flordia(2008,pp.1739);Friedman(2005);Abrahamson(2004,pp.23)10 KreslandNi(2008)11 GfKRoper(2008)12 LDA(2008).13 TheEuropeanCapitalofCultureProgrammelaunchedin1985providesamplecasesforthedebate.TheprogramdesignatesaEuropeancityEuropeanCapitalofCulturebytheEuropeanUnion foraperiodofonecalendaryear,duringwhichthechosencityisgivenachancetoshowcaseitsculturallifeandculturaldevelopment.Thoughinsomecasestheprogrammeservedasacatalystfortheculturaldevelopmentand the transformationof the chosen city, thebeneficialeconomic impacts for somecitiesmaybemixed;PalmerRaeAssociates(2004);Garca(2004).



29

analyticalframeworkdescribedinsection3.3.6isrealizedandsustainedinaCIF,and forwhatpurpose itserveswouldbean issuetoaddress in thearchitectureanddesignofthatframework.Suchatopic,togetherwiththehost of issues mentioned in above (section 3.4.5), justifies furtherdiscussionwithreferencetoindividualcasespresentedinnextchapter.



30

4InternationalPractices4.1 Introduction4.1.1 Measuringcultural landscape isachallenging jobtobothstatisticiansand

policymakers.Theaspiration forobtaininganaccuratemeasurementandthepolicy intention tomonitorcultural trendshavenotalwaysbeenmetdue tomany reasons, for example, gaps in data sources or insufficientcapacity of a Cultural Indicator Framework (CIF) that fails to serve asinformative sourceor as analytical tool,orboth.This chapter introducesthe practices of international organizations, national agencies andacademic institutions which develop solid research for establishingrespective framework and offer thoughtful insights to the internationalresearch on CIF. Lessons learnt from the selected works and practiceshighlight several aspects of frameworkbuilding definition, economicperspectiveofculture,socialdimensionsofcultureandtheuseofCIF forhighorder analyses. All of these dimensionswill form the basis of thereviewofHongKongsculturallandscape,whilerelevanceandreferenceofthe international practiceswill be taken into the next chapter (ChapterFive).

4.2 SelectionofPractices4.2.1 Thischapterdoesnot intendtogiveacomprehensivereviewofwhathas

been done in the field of cultural indicator research. Readers who areinterestedinthegeneraldescriptionandthedevelopmentofthefieldcanconsultothervaluablereferencesthanthischaptercanoffer.14 Therefore,for the interest of this research, the focus of the chapter tends to beselective.Wedrawexamplesfromacoupleofinternationalresearchesthatoffer insights to the definition of culture, the scope of indicatorconstituents,aswellasskillsandtoolsforcollectingdata(fora listoftheorganizationsmentionedinthissection,seeAppendixA).

4.2.2 Apart from these technical aspects,we are interested in the evaluative

dimensionsthatanyCIFmayhavesubscribed.Somestudiesareexemplarsof a particular kind of research on culture such as study on culturalparticipationoreconomicimpactsofculture,forinstance,whileothersaremore informative on the topic of sociocultural impacts of culture. Thevarious dimensions of culture covered in the international practices laydown the scope of areas for further research and discussion, and they

14 Some references are consulted in this study for obtaining a general background on thedevelopmentofthe indicatorresearch;seeUNESCO(1995,chapter10);UNESCO(2000,pp.25481);Goldstone(2003,pp.17782);Madden(2005,pp.217247);RsselandOtte(2009,pp.116).



31

serveas invaluablepointsofview fromwhere the latecomer in the fieldcouldsetouttoestablishhisownCulturalIndicatorFramework.

4.2.3 Besides, there isnoneed tomention thoseworkswhichhavebeenwell

documented in literature. The National Culture Statistics Program ofCanada,forexample,wasreportedinUNESCOsWorldCultureReport2000.Thecasewillnotappear in thischapteralbeit itsoutstanding frameworkfor themeasure of culture should be one of the invaluable references.Someresearchstudiesarementionedinthisreport(seeTable2ofChapterThree),but theywillnotbeexamined in greaterdetails in the followingsections.Notbecausearethey less importantthantheonehighlighted inthischapter,butsimplybecausetheysharethesamefeatures,dimensionsand similar scopes that we believe the selected studies have alreadycovered. For instance, Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Cultureand Leisure Classifications shares a similar nature with the DCMSsEvidenceToolkitonthetopicaboutthenature,scopeandcategorizationofculturaldata,anditisnotincludedthereviewinthischapter.

4.2.4 Takingstockofculturalresourcesinoneplacedoesnotsimplyaimatgiving

a factual account of what have been done in the provision of culturalservices,orhowoftenpeople inaplaceattend culturalactivitiesand/orconsume cultural products. The international researches provide uswithinsights to the interpretationofdifferentaspectsof cultural reality.Theyinform us of the better approaches to keep track of and to analyze thereality. More importantly, these studies demonstrate an effort to putculturaldata intoameaningfulframework,which inthemeantimeservesthe purpose of providing an analytical tool, helping policymakers torethinkwhat the goals/values of cultural development are and how farthesegoals/valueshavebeenobtained.

4.3 SelectedStudiesbyInternationalOrganization4.3.1 AmongmanyUNESCOs researchpublicationsand reportsonculture, the

2009UNESCOFrameworkforCulturalStatistics istheonlyreferencecitedin this section.15 Not because the other researches byUNESCO are notrelevant, but the 2009 Framework is the relatively important onewhichsupposes toencompass amore comprehensivedefinition anddiscussionon the measure of culture.16 Besides, the latest status of the 2009FrameworkbeingsubmittedtoUNESCOsmemberstatesforendorsementjustifies an exclusive attention. Once implemented, the document willmake a farmore important impact on the global framework of culturalstatistics.

15 UNSECO(2008).16 OECDsstudy(2006)albeitslightlymentionsmembercountriespracticesinmeasuringsocialimpactsofculture,itsfocusislargelyonthecultural/creativeindustries.



32

4.3.2 2009UNESCOFrameworkforCulturalStatistics

4.3.2.1 Background: Since the advent of the original Framework forCultural Statistics (FCS) published in 1986, there have beenapparent needs of the revision of the framework and itsmethodology. The original framework was based on a staticnotion of culture. Itwas designed to collect statistics on thefrequentation of museums, for example, or the numbers ofpeopleemployed inprofessionaltheatreordancecompanies.17This perspective does not reflect the conditions and does notaddress the apparent issues arising from the increasingcommercialization of culture and the expanding globalizedeconomy.

4.3.2.2 FollowingaseriesofconsultationswithMemberStates,regional

and international experts in 2008, the revised frameworkwaspresented to the UNESCO General Conference in 2009. As acontinuationofthisconsultationprocess,aTaskForceofexpertswas established in November 2008 and met from 23 to 25February 2009 in Montreal to finalize the revised frameworkdocumenttobepresentedattheGeneralConferencein2009.

4.3.2.3 Methodology andHighlightof Findings: The revised framework

aimstoprovideabasisforproducingcomparabledataoncultureworldwide. Its frameworkbuildingdevelopsupon the followingfewconceptions:

Culturecycleorculturalproductionchainculture isviewedas

the representation of a set of productive and distributiveactivities. These activitiesmay ormay not be institutionalized,and they may or may not be governed by the state. Formalactivities inmarketsectorwillbe included,andsowith informalandamateuractivities(seeFigureB1,AppendixB).

The notion of core cultural domains the definition of coredomains include cultural activities, goods and services that areinvolved in thedifferentphasesof theculturalproductionchainmodel.Therelateddomainsorexpandeddomainsare linkedto the broader definition of culture, encompassing social andrecreational activities. They represent categories that have aculturalcharacter,butwhichhaveamaincomponentthat isnotcultural.Thereare fivecoresdefined intheUNESCO framework,while theexpanded activities are included in fourdomains (see

17 UNESCOInstituteforStatisticswebsite(http://www.uis.unesco.org/ev.php?ID=7226_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC;accesson9Oct2009)



33

Figure B2, Appendix B). For an illustration of how the aboveprinciplesinoperation,seeFigureB3,AppendixB.

4.3.2.4 The Framework is also built upon the common international

statistical standards. For instance, UNs Central ProductClassification(CPC) isusedtocollectdatarelatingtoproductioncycle; International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC) formeasuring cultural industriesandeconomicactivities related toculture;InternationalStandardClassificationofOccupation(ISCO)formeasuringculturaloccupations(orculturalemployment).

4.3.2.5 ContributionandLimitations:Therevisedframeworksetsanew

approach to go beyond the conventional dichotomy of culturalsector and economic sector. The conventional perspective ofculturaldata isonlytoreflectthesupplyofculturalservicesandfrequentation of cultural activitieswhile in theUNESCO reportculture is treated as a multifaceted reality wherecommercialization of culture is just one aspect. Normarket/economic data becomes so overwhelming to excludecultural activities that do not generate economic value. Thisrevised thinking enables the UNESCO framework to collectcultural data from different perspectives, from economic tononeconomic value of cultural, formal and informal use ofculture,or cultural activitiesundertakenbygovernment and/ornongovernment sectors. In particular the notion of culturecycle provides a perspective of viewing culture from creation,dissemination to consumption that makes a lot of sense tounderstandthesocialandeconomicprocessofcultureinsociety.

4.3.2.6 The breadth of culture is also expanded in the

framework to cover many activities fallen into the redefinedcultural domains. As for the domain of Cultural and NaturalHeritage(CNH),culturalheritagewillnotbenarrowlydefinedinterms of historic and aesthetic value, places and sites withethnological and social significance will count. Even morevisionary is the inclusionofintangibleheritage in thedomainofCNH. Inadditiontotheheritagesalreadyrecognized (suchaslanguage), traditional craftsmanship, cultural spaces and localknowledge that communities, groups and, in some cases,individualsrecognizeaspartoftheirculturalheritagewouldbeincluded.18 Another culturaldomain Audiovisualexpandsto include interactivemedia so as to reflect the culturaluseofcomputer, interactiveweb andmobile content. Suchexpandingscope does fill upmissing gaps in collecting data and reflect ablurringboundaryandthedynamicnatureofculture.

18 UNESCO(2008,p.32)



34

4.3.2.7 Although the UNESCO document offers a lot of refreshingperspectives, it is not clear in many areas whether the newprinciplescouldbe implemented into indicators.Thoughpeoplewillagreeinternetspaceisanimportantmeansofdisseminationandexhibition,itisnoteasytoestablishappropriateindicatortorepresenttheculturaluseofthe internet.Todefineappropriateindicatorsforintangibleculturalheritagewillalsomeetthesamedifficulty in indicator design. Therefore, the practicality andimplementation of the framework is not fully tested. Theframework also makes little reference on the design andcomposition of indicators for measuring social and culturalimpactsofculture.Inparticular,thenotionsofculturaldiversity,socialcohesionandempowermentofindividuals,thoseconceptsUNESCOhavebeenchampionedforyearshavenotfullyreflectedintheFrameworkforCulturalStatistics.19

4.4 SelectedStudiesinNorthAmerica4.4.1 Fivestudies/researchprogramsarecited in thissection.They include: (a)

Artist inWorkforce: 19902005 by theNational Endowment for the Arts(NEA);20 (b)NationalArtIndex2009bytheNEA;(c)theBostonIndicatorsProject 20042006 by the Boston Foundation21; (d) Cultural Vitality inCommunities by the Urban Institute22; and (e) Under Construction: TheStateofCulturalInfrastructureinCanadabyCentreofExpertiseonCultureandCommunities(CECC).23

4.4.2 OnlythestudyonartistemploymentisconductedbytheofficialagencyoftheUSAGovernment.Theother threestudiesareactuallyundertakenbynonprofitmakingoracademicorganizations.Astheirtitlessuggest,thesestudies cover three different aspects of culture from manpower,communitytophysicalinfrastructureofculture.Thestudiesofferintriguingideas, invaluable knowledge and experience in developing appropriateframeworks for evaluating the employmentmarket of cultural workers,cultural impacts on communities, as well as the function and usage ofhardwarefacilitiesofculture.

4.4.3 NEAsStudyonArtistinWorkforce:19902005

4.4.3.1 Background: Themain objective of this research project is to

19 UNESCO(1995,chapters23,56)20 NEA(June,2008).21 SeesectionCulturalLife&theArts,BostonIndicatorsProjectwebsite(http://www.bostonindicators.org/IndicatorsProject/CulturalLife/Default.aspx,accessedon15September2009) 22 UrbanInstitute(December2006).23 CECC(2008)



35

studyartistsasworkerswhoplayanimportantroleinAmerica'scultural vitality and economic prosperity. 24 Prior to thepublicationofthisproject,theNationalEndowmentfortheArts(NEA)hasbeenconducting researchonartistoccupations sincethe 1970s.25 This report is also an attempt to update the pastNEAreportswhichhaveprovided informationaboutartistsfromthe1970,1980and1990censuses.26

4.4.3.2 Methodology and Highlight of Findings: The report uses data

fromthedecennialcensusesandthenewAmericanCommunitySurvey (ACS) to study the demographic, social and economiccharacteristicsofartists.27 Itrepresentsthefirstcomprehensivelookatthenationsworkingartistsinthenewcentury.Thestudyalsomarks the firstuseofAmericanCommunitySurveydata toprofileartistoccupations.

4.4.3.3 SincethecensusandtheACSquestionnairesask forapersons

most recent jobwith themosthoursworked, thusdata in thisreport include only people whose artistic jobs were theirprimary occupations.28 The 11 artists occupations included inthis report are actors, announcers, architects, fine artists, artdirectors,andanimators,dancersandchoreographers,designersentertainers and performers, musicians and singers,photographers,producers,writersandauthors(seeAppendixC).

4.4.3.4 Thereportstudiesthedemographictrends,includinggender,age,

education level, household patterns, and racial distributions ofthe approximately two million people with primary artistoccupationsintheUnitedStates.29 Besidesdemographictrends,information regarding the employment and income patterns ofartists, such as their working hours, percentages ofselfemployment, fulltime employment, and percentages ofemployment by profit or nonprofit organizations are alsoincluded.

4.4.3.5 ContributionandLimitations:As the firstattempt to lookat the

artistsintheUSasworkersofthenewcentury,thereportrevealsspecific groups of artists who are underrepresented,

24 NEA(June,2008,iii).25 RecentattemptsbytheNEAtostudytheoccupationpatternsofartistsintheUSincludeNEA(1996,ResearchReportNo.37);NEA (2000,No.41);NEA (2003,ResearchReportNo.43).TheNEAhasalsobeenconductingresearchonartparticipationssince1995.ForalistofresearchprojectsconductedbyNEA, see the organizations website (http://www.nea.gov/research/ResearchReports_chrono.html,accessedon4September2009) 26 NEA(June2008,p.2);alsoseeNEA(1994,ResearchNo.29) 27 NEA(June,2008,p.1).28 Ibid.,p.4.29 Ibid.,p.6.



36

underemployed, or underprivileged in demographic andemploymentaspects.Thisrevelationallowspolicymakerstotakenecessaryactions tosupportcertaingroupsofartistswhoneedmore assistance from the government, and allow the policymakers tounderstandwhatvariousgroupsofartistsspecificallyneeds.

4.4.3.6 However, since census data captures information only on a

person's primary job, the report is missing many artists orinformalworkerswhoengageinartisticcreationoractivitiesasasecondjob.Itisthereforedifficulttoanalyzehowothergroupofthepopulationhasactuallybeentakinganactiverole inmakingartwithinthenation.Italsocannotreflectwhatkindofhelpdoamateurartistsneed from thegovernment inorder topromotetheir art, or if theywould like to become a professional artist,what support can the government offer them, etc.Moreover,since all data collected are quantitative, it is also difficult toaccess the artists in amore individual level. For example, thereport cannot show whether or not the artists are actuallyenjoyingtheprofessiontheyhaveandwhatproblems,otherthanthose shown in the demographic and employment patterns,these artists may often encounter as cultural workers of thenation.

4.4.4 NationalArtsIndex2009 4.4.4.1 Background: heNationalArts Index is created byAmerican for

theArts,oneoftheleadingnonprofitorganizationswithanaimtoadvocatethearts inAmerica.Thereportattemptstopresentanannualmeasureof thehealthandvitalityof thearts in theUS. Itseeks toofferaconsistentway tomeasurechangeovertimeinordertostimulatepublicdialogueaboutthevaluesoftheartsaswellasimprovepolicyanddecisionmaking.30

4.4.4.2 Methodology and Highlight of Findings: The measure of the

National Arts Index is consists of 76 equal weighted,nationallevel indicatorsof arts activity that covers an 11yearperiod, from 1998 to 2008. It states that cultural statisticsshould not be measuring the onetime snapshots of currentconditions.Instead,thesestatisticsshouldbeasystematicdatacollection initiative that is conducted regularly over time. Allindicators used in the report are said to meet the followingcriteria:

30 Thefulltitleshouldbe:TheNationalArtsIndex2009:AnAnnualMeasureoftheVitalityofArtsandCultureintheUnitesStates;KusherandCohen(2010).



37

TheIndicatorhasitscoreameaningfulmeasurementofartsandcultureactivity;

Thedataarenationalinscope; Thedataareproducedannualbyareputableorganization; Five years of data are available, beginning no later than

2003andavailablethrough2007; Thedataaremeasuredataratio level(not justonrankings

orratings); Thedataseriesisstatisticallyvalid,evenifbasedonsample; ThedataareexpectedtobeavailableforuseintheIndexin

futureyears; Thedataareaffordablewithinprojectbudgetconstraints

4.4.4.3 Indicators used in the report are also adjusted to account for

nationalchangessuchaspopulationgrowthand inflation. The76 indicators used in the report are grouped into four maincategories: 15 on financial flows, 14 on capacity, 22 onparticipationand25on competiveness. Fora complete listofindicators,refertoAppendixD.

4.4.4.4 The Indexoperatesonabaseline; for instance, theyear2003 is

chosentobethebaselineofthe2009report.The2008NationalArts Indexscore in98.4.Thenumber isadeclineof4.2pointsfromits2007scoreof102.6(seeFigureBbelow):

FigureB ScoreboardofNationalArtsIndex 4.4.4.5 Major findings of the 2009 report alsomade other important

observationsabouttheculturalscenesoftheUnitedStates,suchas:theartsfollowsthebusinesscycle;thenumberofartistsandarts organizations has grown steadily over the past decade;cultural participation and consumption is expanding; nonprofitartsorganizationsarelosingtheirmarketshareofphilanthropytoothercharitableareas.Oneofthebiggestchallengesrevealedbytheindicatorsisthattheincreaseinthenumberofartistsandartsorganizationismetwithadecliningnumberofaudienceand



38

financial contribution from both government andnongovernment agencies. However, communitybased andculturally specificartorganizationsaredrivingparticipationandvitality.31 Thisfindingdrawstheattentionofpolicymakersandart practitioners to ensure better use of limited resources andinfrastructures,aswellasattractingmoreaudiencetobeactivelyengagedinvariousartsandculturalactivities.

4.4.4.6 Contribution and Limitations: The National Arts Index

demonstratesa systematicmeasureofessential informationonarts and culture in theUSover adecade. It also allowsone toevaluatethefindingsofoneparticularyearbycomparingthatofpreviousyears.Thecriteriafortheselectionofdataalsoserveasan important model for sustainable and nationally orinternationally comparable cultural statistics. The utilization ofdataagainstchanges in inflationordemographicpatternsofthenationisalsooneofthesignificanthighlightsinthisreport,foritensuresamoreaccurateevaluationoffindingspresentedbytheindicatorsovertime.

4.4.4.7 Nevertheless, a complete quantitative statistics on arts and

cultureonceagainbegs thequestiononwhetherachievementsinartsandculturalcreationcanbesolelymeasuredbynumbers.Anoutstandingpieceofartorperformancemaynotattractthemassaudience,yet itmay stillhaveprofound impacton in thearts.The inclusionofqualitativedataregardingthecreationandreceptionofartsandculturalactivitieswillallowone tohaveabroader picture of the achievements made by the arts andculturalsectors.

4.4.5 CulturalVitalityinCommunities:InterpretationandIndicators

4.4.5.1 Background: The researchproject ispartof a seriespresentingthe work of the Urban Institutes Arts and Culture IndicatorsProject(ACIP,seeAppendixA).32 Thefourmainobjectivesofthisproject are: first, to act as a resource for those interested indevelopingCulturalVitality Indicators; second, toenableurbandesigners and planners to givemore consideration to ensuringthat communities have community/cultural centers, includingfacilitiesforthepracticeofart,thatmakespossibleawiderangeof arts engagement; third, to encourage the cultural district

31 KusherandCohen(2010,pp.67).32 Research projects conducted by the Urban Institute on culture, arts participation and thecommunity includeMariaRosario Jackson and JoaquinHerranz, (Nov, 2002),Urban Institute (Nov,2003); Maria Rosario Jackson, Joaquin Herranz and Florence KabwasaGreen (Nov, 2003); MariaRosario Jackson, Joaquin Herranz and Florence KabwasaGreen (Nov, 2003); D. Garth Taylor (Oct,2008);MariaRosarioJackson(Dec,2008).



39

concept to includemore opportunities for amateur aswell asprofessionalartsengagement;and last,tocompelpolicymakersto think critically aboutwhat aspect of a communitys culturalvitalitytheyarecontributing.33

4.4.5.2 MethodologyandHighlightof Findings:Theprojectproposesa

theory that indicators research results shouldhave implicationsforpeopleboth insideandoutsidethecultural field.Thedesignofindicatorsshouldexpandtherangeofstakeholdersintheartsto includepeoplewhoarenotartsexpertsorprofessionals.Theresearch introducesadefinitionof culturalvitality that includesthe range of cultural assets and activity people around thecountryregisterassignificant.34 Itwaswritten intheExecutiveSummarythat:

Specifically, we define cultural vitality as evidence ofcreating,disseminating, validating,and supportingartsand culture as a dimension of everyday life incommunities.35

4.4.5.3 The project also makes an attempt to redefine cultural

activities in indicators, which includes conventionalinterpretationsofartsandculture,butonlyaspartofa largerpicture of active arts practice and in awider range of artisticgenresthatreflectthevaluesandpreferencesofthepopulationgroups that make up communities.36 The above definition isused to document adequately and include arts and culture inmore general quality of life indicators.37 Moreover, an initialsetofartsandcultureindicatorsderivedfromnationallyavailabledata is developed, and selected metropolitan statistical areasbasedonthedevelopedmeasuresarecompared.38

4.4.5.4 Theprojectproposes threedomainsofCulturalVitality,namely

Presenceofopportunities forculturalparticipation,(Cultural)Participation,andSupport forculturalparticipation.Presenceofculturalparticipationopportunities is importantas it is foundthatamixofnonprofit,commercial,public,andinformalvenuesandopportunities forculturalengagement isessential tocreatethecontinuumofparticipation thatenablesrobustartspractice

33 UrbanInstitute(December2006,p.6).34 UnderExecutiveSummary,http://www.urban.org/publications/311392.html,accessedon9September2009.35 Ibid.36 UrbanInstitute(December2006,p.13).37 SeeExecutiveSummary,websitereferstofootnote#3above.38 Ibid.



40

and consumption, both amateur and professional. 39Participation of cultural activities includes a broader definitionmentionedintheabovesession.Itwasemphasizedinthereportthat opportunities for collective artmaking and the collectiveexperienceofartsisaverysignificantelementinthecontextofunderstandingartsandculturalparticipationasacatalyst fororexample of social capital.40 On the support side, the reportclaimsthatitisimportanttoconsiderresourcesforartsactivityin the commercial sector as well as for unincorporated artsactivity inaddition to resources fornonprofitarts.41 Moreover,supportby the government to continuously integrate arts andcultureintootherpublicpolicypriorities,suchashousing,publicworks, education, and economic development would also benotonlyimportantbutessentialfortheenhancementofculturalvitalitywithinincommunity(seeAppendixE).42

4.4.5.5 Another significant theorydevelopedby this researchproject is

the categorization of arts and culturerelated data into fourdifferenttiers.Thedataunderdifferent tiers iscategorizedbytheir level of availability and other characteristics that reflectusability. It issaid in the report thatsuchaschemahavebeenproven useful by researchers and practitioners in urbanplanning,communitydevelopment,andthearts.43

4.4.5.6 Thefourdifferenttiersofculturerelateddataareasfollows:

Tier One data refers to information that is quantitative,publiclyavailableandnationallycomparable.Examplescitedare the US Census Bureaus County Business Patterns,National Centre for Charitable Statistics, and Bureau ofLaborStatistics.

TierTwoincludesdatathatisquantitative,publiclyavailable,

butnotnationallycomparable.ExamplesareAdministrativedata about parades and festivals collected by police andother city departments, annual household surveys, andfundingdatacollectedbylocalartsagency/foundation.

Tier Three data is also quantitative. It includes sources

restrictedtoasinglepointorsporadic.

TierFourdataisqualitative.Italsoincludesprequantitative

39,UrbanInstitute(December2006,p.14).40 Ibid.,p.17.41 Ibid.,p.18.42 Ibid.,p.19.43 Ibid.,p.33.



41

documentation from anthropological and ethnographicstudies. Qualitative data can serve as guides to constructquantitativedatacollectioninstruments.

4.4.5.7 Contribution and Limitations: The report provides important

guidelines for cultural indicator frameworks and thecategorization of data for the development of indicators. Theproposed frameworks and categorization are also practical andcanbeeasilyappliedtoresearchprojectsonculturalandartsinacommunity.Forexample, theBoston IndicatorProject (seenextsection)uses theaboveproposed framework to construct theirindicatorcomponents.TheProjectalsoincorporatessomeoftheindicatorssuggestedabovetoshowthelevelofculturalvitalityinthe cityofBoston.The inclusionofamateurand street culturalactivitiesalsoallowsabroaderviewofculturalactivitieswithinacommunity,andatthesametimeenablestheindicatorstohaveacloserlookonamoreindividuallevelofculturalparticipationinthecommunity.

4.4.6 TheBostonIndicatorsProject20042006

4.4.6.1 Background: The Boston Indicator Project is a collaborativeprojectofGreaterBostons civic community. Itwas selectedbythe Government Accounting Office (GAO) to help inform thedevelopmentofnational indicators.Since2000, theprojecthasreleased four biennial reports. 44 The objectives for BostonIndicator Project 2006 are: first, to democratize access to highqualitydataand information; second, to foster informedpublicdiscourse,andlast,totrackprogressonsharedcivicgoals.45

4.4.6.2 MethodologyandHighlightofFindings:Theprojecthostsaseries

ofconvening ineachof the tensectors, (withCulturalLifeandtheArtsasoneofthem)inordertoframethereportsfindings.Each convening, chaired by stakeholders fromwithin the field,includes a range of perspectives from academic experts,communitybased practitioners, public agency and foundationstaff,privatesectorrepresentativesandconsumers.46

4.4.6.3 IndicatorsselectedforthisprojectshowhowBostonremains its

competitivenessinattractingbothyoungtalentedworkforceandcultural tourists, how community life is enhanced by thepresence of art organizations and diverse cultural festivals,

44 UnderConveningParticipants&Notes,(BostonFoundation,2009)http://www.bostonindicators.org/IndicatorsProject/CulturalLife/Content.aspx?id=668,accessedon15September2009.45 Ibid46 Ibid



42

whetherpeopleofthecityhasequalaccesstoarteducationandcultural participation, and last but not least, whether the issufficientpublicsupportandfundingforthearts.

4.4.6.4 The seven major goals of the 21 indicators of this project

include contribution to metro Bostons competitive edge,Boston as a

a review study on cultural audit

Documents