The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Two cultures: the use and non-use of hypotheses in cultural policy research

Two cultures: the use and non-use of hypotheses in cultural policy research
Two cultures: the use and non-use of hypotheses in cultural policy research
In the hard sciences research programmes are designed to generate evidence consistent or inconsistent with particular hypotheses. Hypotheses unsupported by evidence are modified or abandoned. The framers and testers of scientific hypotheses are members of the same profession, similarly trained and likely to interpret evidence in similar ways. They have professionally generalized responsibility for the quality and integrity of each other's work. Peer review systems are in place to monitor performance and expose chicanery. This is not the case in the cultural policy research arena. Here, policymakers, arts advocates and academic policy analysts are breeds apart. Their professional affiliations and lines of accountability are radically unlike. We have highly selective “advocacy” evidence on the one hand; highly developed but untestable academic theory on the other, suggesting the hypothetical existence of evidence for which academics are not allowed to look. Policymakers avoid “what if?” questions because they are paid to maintain positions of certainty. Academics ask, but lack the data to answer. Neither approach is satisfactory for shaping the future. This paper explains how the two opposing research traditions came into being and points to some of the problems which poor communication between theoreticians and practitioners can create.
cultural economics, cultural policy, cultural policy drivers, cultural trends conference, hypothetico-deductive research method, titanic
1469-3690
139-146
Pinnock, Andrew
a13924a7-d53d-41a6-827c-f91013ea4ee0
Pinnock, Andrew
a13924a7-d53d-41a6-827c-f91013ea4ee0

Pinnock, Andrew (2008) Two cultures: the use and non-use of hypotheses in cultural policy research. Cultural Trends, 17 (3), 139-146. (doi:10.1080/09548960802361944).

Record type: Article

Abstract

In the hard sciences research programmes are designed to generate evidence consistent or inconsistent with particular hypotheses. Hypotheses unsupported by evidence are modified or abandoned. The framers and testers of scientific hypotheses are members of the same profession, similarly trained and likely to interpret evidence in similar ways. They have professionally generalized responsibility for the quality and integrity of each other's work. Peer review systems are in place to monitor performance and expose chicanery. This is not the case in the cultural policy research arena. Here, policymakers, arts advocates and academic policy analysts are breeds apart. Their professional affiliations and lines of accountability are radically unlike. We have highly selective “advocacy” evidence on the one hand; highly developed but untestable academic theory on the other, suggesting the hypothetical existence of evidence for which academics are not allowed to look. Policymakers avoid “what if?” questions because they are paid to maintain positions of certainty. Academics ask, but lack the data to answer. Neither approach is satisfactory for shaping the future. This paper explains how the two opposing research traditions came into being and points to some of the problems which poor communication between theoreticians and practitioners can create.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: September 2008
Keywords: cultural economics, cultural policy, cultural policy drivers, cultural trends conference, hypothetico-deductive research method, titanic

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 67031
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/67031
ISSN: 1469-3690
PURE UUID: 0aa25afb-a311-4ea1-9e24-767dbadb6480

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 03 Aug 2009
Last modified: 13 Mar 2024 18:43

Export record

Altmetrics

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×