" If you want to know why middle-aged women are seeing theatre in Gosnells, or what kind of production might work there next year, you will be out of luck. Data is a no substitute for storytelling, discernment, and judgment "
Have you read the festival reports? Measuring demographics and outcomes in a quantitative way is exactly how event organisers are able see which outcomes are generated for middle-aged women attending theatre in Gosnells, and therefore what is driving them to attend. It also enables events to be compared to see which work best (generate greatest outcomes and have highest satisfaction levels) for those audiences in those locations.
Having evidence from a representative sample of audiences is a key part of being able to actually tell a good and reliable story, and making credible judgements about the arts.
I have read quite a few festival reports, albeit none from this year. If there has been a shift in how they are telling their story, I'd be keen to read them.
I certainly don't disagree with the conclusion that a certain amount of data is essential to storytelling. However, there is a lot else to unpack here, of course. I'll focus on two areas where I have some disagreement.
Firstly, I'm not convinced that self-reported satisfaction is an especially meaningful outcome. Many experiences are satisfying in a variety of ways. Commercial providers do quite a good job of satisfying audiences. However, such satisfaction might only last as long as a fifteen minute drive home. We could also ask whether or not that audience's short-term satisfaction (or some other quanitified self-assessment) is a meaningful use of public dollars. I've argued earlier that I think art impact always needs to be considered longitudinally and draw primarily on narrative and qualitative data. Quantitative data is always supplementary. In many ways the annual reporting cycle itself is inimical to understanding the arts.
Secondly, I disagree that even standardised questions enable comparability. A differential between two productions could be explained in myriad ways, the most substantial of which is that the question itself will carry different meanings in different contexts.
I will say that I generally agree that demographic and diversity data is quite important, and quantitative data there can be quite helpful. I am much more skeptical of data that aims to quantify audience experiences, however.
" If you want to know why middle-aged women are seeing theatre in Gosnells, or what kind of production might work there next year, you will be out of luck. Data is a no substitute for storytelling, discernment, and judgment "
Have you read the festival reports? Measuring demographics and outcomes in a quantitative way is exactly how event organisers are able see which outcomes are generated for middle-aged women attending theatre in Gosnells, and therefore what is driving them to attend. It also enables events to be compared to see which work best (generate greatest outcomes and have highest satisfaction levels) for those audiences in those locations.
Having evidence from a representative sample of audiences is a key part of being able to actually tell a good and reliable story, and making credible judgements about the arts.
I have read quite a few festival reports, albeit none from this year. If there has been a shift in how they are telling their story, I'd be keen to read them.
I certainly don't disagree with the conclusion that a certain amount of data is essential to storytelling. However, there is a lot else to unpack here, of course. I'll focus on two areas where I have some disagreement.
Firstly, I'm not convinced that self-reported satisfaction is an especially meaningful outcome. Many experiences are satisfying in a variety of ways. Commercial providers do quite a good job of satisfying audiences. However, such satisfaction might only last as long as a fifteen minute drive home. We could also ask whether or not that audience's short-term satisfaction (or some other quanitified self-assessment) is a meaningful use of public dollars. I've argued earlier that I think art impact always needs to be considered longitudinally and draw primarily on narrative and qualitative data. Quantitative data is always supplementary. In many ways the annual reporting cycle itself is inimical to understanding the arts.
Secondly, I disagree that even standardised questions enable comparability. A differential between two productions could be explained in myriad ways, the most substantial of which is that the question itself will carry different meanings in different contexts.
I will say that I generally agree that demographic and diversity data is quite important, and quantitative data there can be quite helpful. I am much more skeptical of data that aims to quantify audience experiences, however.