Between arts and academia

The longer I’m involved in the arts, the stronger and more frequent the sense of déjà vu, as the political pendulum swings back and forth and the sector is exhorted to argue its existence, yet again, on ever-changing grounds. When I started work in the 1980s it was contribution to tourism and trade. A decade later, under Chris Smith, new objectives such as urban regeneration and social inclusion emerged. With Tessa Jowell and her passionately argued 2004 ‘art for art’s sake’ pamphlet, the ground shifted again. Her successor James Purnell announced the end of ‘targetology’ and commissioned Brian McMaster’s 2008 Review Measurement to Judgement with its focus on excellence. Jeremy Hunt suggested philanthropy was the way forward and then it was all change again, with Maria Miller’s 2013 British Museum speech, in which we were told to make our case firmly on the basis of culture’s economic impact.

Gamely, the sector has tried to keep pace with all this, arguing for value as required on artistic, economic, educational or social terms. But with the impact of arts interventions only really demonstrable over time, these frequently shifting goal posts present a challenge to the development of the evidence base that will finally prove what every artist feels instinctively to be true: that the benefits art delivers are not either/or – they are intimately connected. From art’s intrinsic value – its enrichment of our inner lives and our understanding of ourselves – extrinsic value is ultimately derived: social cohesion, educational attainment or the creativity that drives the economy. But with terms of office short for governments and, often, shorter still for secretaries of state, in whose interest is it to step outside the spin cycle of a parliamentary term and take the longer view?

Artists and cultural organisations would have access to the analytical rigour that supports evidence-based decision-making

I am increasingly convinced that the answer lies in partnership between the arts and academia. Since moving to King’s College London from the Royal Opera House in 2012, the symbiotic benefits of what Peter Bazalgette has described as a ‘grand partnership’ have become ever clearer. For universities, arts and culture offer new ways to drive innovation, work across disciplines, demonstrate impact, create original learning opportunities for students, widen participation and engage a broader public with their work. For the cultural sector, partnership with higher education offers access to new knowledge, new approaches and the chance to amass the evidence that will support decision-making and build the case for sustained investment.

Academic research is already providing a growing evidence base about the impact of arts and culture. The DCMS CASE database (which covers sport as well as culture) contains upwards of 12,000 pieces of evidence, but is in itself symbolic of one of the main challenges to partnership. Like much academic research it is largely inaccessible to the very people who stand to benefit so much from it. There is an all too significant gap between the cultural sector and the language and approaches used by academic organisations in sharing the findings from completed research. The requirement for research to be ‘REF-able’ may be undermining its chances of being referenced by potential beneficiaries.

It was to help address this divide that we developed CultureCase, an online resource for the cultural sector that translates academic-standard research, highlighting recommendations and key findings and making it freely available via an intuitive web portal. The primary aim was to surface the evidence that does exist and put it to work in the cultural sector, but CultureCase has also begun to identify areas where research is lacking. Crucially, it is helping to create dialogue between two sectors that should work closely together but which in truth often struggle to make partnership work.

What makes it so difficult? For a start, universities can be hard places to penetrate, with structures and titles that do not align with cultural organisations. It is usually easier to seek out academics whose research profile matches a specific project than to identify the office charged with developing sustainable relationships. Collaborations therefore tend to develop between individuals – artist to academic – rather than at an institutional level, so that when academics move on from one university to another, the relationship moves with them and any momentum that has built up rapidly dissipates. Across higher education, there are differing levels of commitment to public-facing activity. While arts organisations are generally externally focussed, universities are only just beginning to understand their relationship with the broader public. And as both ‘culture’ and ‘partnership’ are often seen as peripheral to the core purpose, cultural partnerships can be low on the priority list. There is, at best, a patchy understanding of the benefits of collaboration. And then there are the generic challenges of partnership between differing cultures: terminology (especially research, engagement, impact and education), timescales, pay disparities and the relative ability to be fleet of foot.

Of course, there are many fruitful partnerships between higher education and arts organisations. In the last week of June, two conferences on the subject took place in London alone, with many examples of good practice to celebrate. But without a real structure in which a culture of partnership can be developed, a shared understanding of the benefits it brings or close working between those bodies that govern and fund arts and research, the real potential for partnership between the arts community and academia has yet to be fully explored.

Sitting as I do at the interface between arts and academia, I can see how much there is to be gained. If the two sectors could develop a shared agenda, academic research would be informed by sector need, ensuring that it has an impact outside the university. At the same time, artists and cultural organisations would have access to the analytical rigour that supports evidence-based decision-making and provides robust arguments that address, once and for all, questions about the value and worth of culture – whatever criteria it is to be judged by.

And academia, unlike governments, can take the long view, providing continuity beyond the confines of electoral terms. Our latest project at King’s seeks to do just this: a short cultural enquiry investigating the various ways in which successive governments since 1945 have sought to provide children and young people with access to the arts. If we are to make arts and culture genuinely available to all, we need to learn from the hits and misses of a succession of government policies, regardless of which party devised or implemented them. Some things are too important to become political footballs. The higher education sector is uniquely positioned to take a robustly impartial overview, rising above party politics and deftly working around those ever-shifting goal posts.

Deborah Bull is Director, Cultural Partnerships at King’s College London.
www.kcl.ac.uk/cultural