|
 This infographic can be found in both the short and long reports of Creative Health. "At least one third of GP appointments are, in part, due to isolation." - Dr. Jane Povey, GP Why I picked it up: I'm always looking for any and all research that provides evidence that the arts and culture have positive impacts in people's lives … as well as for communities and society. And I'm a pragmatist about this. Yes, I absolutely believe we should value arts and culture for its own sake, but that doesn't preclude tracking more practical impacts … such as health and wellbeing. One doesn’t preclude the other. What you need to know: Goodness, this is the most thorough, comprehensive review of what has to be every study out there that provides evidence that arts and culture promote better health and wellbeing. 1,048 footnotes worth, by life stage (from prenatal exposure to death). In the forward, the report makes three key points that arts and cultural engagement:
The report also makes the economic case for shifting the healthcare system from one focused on hospital care and illness treatment to one that is more holistic and person-based, which includes lifestyle choices that matter. In particular, it recommends extending the reach of arts and culture to individuals in lower socio-economic households as well as older adults (two segments of the population that have lower levels of engagement). On p. 10 of the short report there is a far-sighted list of ten recommendations for changes in the UK; I'd like to see a similar list coming out of the American medical, health insurance, and cultural fields as well. Implications for museums: The bottom line is that there is considerable and conclusive evidence that regular participation in arts and culture improves health and wellbeing throughout one's life. This results in longer, healthier lives, greater economic contributions through those lives, and significant healthcare savings. Seems to me that is a pretty powerful case that we can broaden our audiences significantly by attracting them based on their extrinsic motivations for greater health and wellbeing, and then giving them something meaningful to experience as well. I want to flag the older adults bit. We have a rapidly aging population of older adults, and older adults are the least likely segment of the population to participate in arts and culture according to two national studies I fielded. This report lists the significant outcomes that arts and cultural engagement has for older adults, including:
This seems like a no-brainer for museums. Read or skip? You should read the "short report" to familiarize yourself with what is in the long report. In particular, the infographic in that short report is rather useful (pictured above). As for the full report, only those who are focused on wellness initiatives in their work or are writing a proposal that needs clear evidence of health-related impact need to dive in. For the latter, this is absolutely your go-to resource because they covered everything. Finally, the website has five two-page "policy briefings," that are clearly intended for advocacy. Those can be very useful as well, but do keep in mind this is a UK report, even though it cites studies from around the world. Full citation: "Creative Health: The Arts for Health and Wellbeing." Research report published by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Arts, Health, and Wellbeing. Released July 2017. A "short report" is also available. Have a suggestion for my reading list? Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.  Why I picked it up: I'm pretty focused on what impact arts and culture has on individuals and communities. So I'll look at any study that examines long-term arts engagement and civic engagement to see if there is any reliable evidence. This new study was only released last week.
What you need to know: Researchers from the University of Lincoln and the University of Kent (UK) wanted to test the hypothesis that arts engagement generates more prosocial cooperation, thus yielding significant societal benefits. They used the Understanding Society sample, which is longitudinal and, crucially, a representative sample of the UK population. With n = 30,476, they can control for a host of sociodemographic factors. Their questions boiled down to: 1 - Is there a connection between arts engagement and prosocial behavior? 2 - Does that connection still exist when sociodemographic and personality variables are controlled? That is, when the capacity for prosocial behavior and for arts engagement is accounted for. 3 - Is this connection distinctive, or are there other things that similarly affect prosocial behavior? 4 - Does arts engagement create short-term effects, or is it cumulative? Their results were pretty definitive. First, yes, no question. Engagement in the arts was one of the strongest predictors of charitable giving and volunteering even stronger than most socio-demographic variables. And when the socio-demographic variables that also strongly affected prosocial behaviors were controlled for (e.g., education, income), arts engagement was the strongest predictor at all levels. So while low-income individuals may generally have lower capacity to engage in the arts and/or engage in prosocial behavior, those that do engage in the arts still have greater prosocial behavior than those who do not. And while high-income individuals may have greater capacity to engage in the arts and/or prosocial behavior, the same rule holds depending on whether they actually do engage. The results also suggest that the effect is cumulative. The longer individuals engage with the arts, the more prosocial they became. Or, in other words, one museum visit isn't going to make anyone significantly more prosocial. It takes many visits, over years. They summed up their conclusions in three points: 1 - Arts have an essential role in prosocial behavior, benefiting society. 2 - Evidence indicates that there are significant social and economic gains for investing in the arts. 3 - The most effective investments in the arts are likely those that make arts engagement more widely available across the socio-economic spectrum. Implications for museums: This is a solid study, using a well-respected longitudinal survey, that should be helpful for making a case to both donors and potential community partners that arts organizations, including museums, can deliver significant impact that is far-reaching. And the research makes sense to me, as the findings are similar to my own about museum-going and civic engagement: museum-goers are more likely to be active in their communities. I'm mindful, however, that we have to be careful about making judgments about those who are not engaged, and be sensitive about capacity to engage. (See my review of American Generosity for my first thinking about this; you'll see me explore it more in the coming weeks on The Data Museum as well.) Additionally, we need to consider why arts engagement yields these prosocial effects. Read or skip? Probably skip. But keep the citation handy for approaching community partners to extend reach, and for grant proposals that focus on community and/or impact. The article is short, and most of the method and results sections can be skipped … if you want to quote from it in a grant, head to the summary at the end. Full citation: Van de Vyver, Julie, and Abrams, Dominic. "The Arts as a Catalyst for Human Prosociality and Cooperation." Social Psychological and Personality Science. August 2, 2017. Have a suggestion for my reading list? Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com. |