Appraising metropolitan arts education partnerships: a policy analysis

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Ryan D. Shaw, Cara Faith Bernard
{"title":"Appraising metropolitan arts education partnerships: a policy analysis","authors":"Ryan D. Shaw, Cara Faith Bernard","doi":"10.1080/10632913.2023.2277941","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AbstractOver the past 20 years, some of the most notable arts education policy initiatives have taken place in urban areas with the creation of metropolitan arts education partnerships. Aside from a few impact studies and isolated reports, little research exists that specifically analyzes their policy implications. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to describe the formation of high-profile metropolitan arts education partnerships. Research questions were: 1) What stakeholders are involved and how do they interact? 2) How are the metropolitan arts partnerships framed?, and 3) What are the goals and metrics associated with the partnerships? Using a policy-focused multiple case study approach, data collection included document analysis and interviews with key stakeholders from five partnerships. There were a variety of structures behind the partnerships, and stakeholders described interactions in terms of collective impact and negotiations over agendas. Partnerships were framed around equitable access to arts education alongside more sentimentalized rhetoric about the power of the arts. Finally, partnerships collected data on both arts-specific and non-arts-specific metrics to track progress.Keywords: Arts partnershipsthird space policymakingaccessequityurban education Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 As we discuss later, the resulting policy effort is sometimes a named initiative (“Creative Advantage”) or results in a new formation of an entity that manages the effort (“Ingenuity”). We discuss the variation later in the paper, but for the sake of simplicity, we use the terms “partnership” and “initiative” interchangeably.","PeriodicalId":37632,"journal":{"name":"Arts Education Policy Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arts Education Policy Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2023.2277941","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

AbstractOver the past 20 years, some of the most notable arts education policy initiatives have taken place in urban areas with the creation of metropolitan arts education partnerships. Aside from a few impact studies and isolated reports, little research exists that specifically analyzes their policy implications. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to describe the formation of high-profile metropolitan arts education partnerships. Research questions were: 1) What stakeholders are involved and how do they interact? 2) How are the metropolitan arts partnerships framed?, and 3) What are the goals and metrics associated with the partnerships? Using a policy-focused multiple case study approach, data collection included document analysis and interviews with key stakeholders from five partnerships. There were a variety of structures behind the partnerships, and stakeholders described interactions in terms of collective impact and negotiations over agendas. Partnerships were framed around equitable access to arts education alongside more sentimentalized rhetoric about the power of the arts. Finally, partnerships collected data on both arts-specific and non-arts-specific metrics to track progress.Keywords: Arts partnershipsthird space policymakingaccessequityurban education Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 As we discuss later, the resulting policy effort is sometimes a named initiative (“Creative Advantage”) or results in a new formation of an entity that manages the effort (“Ingenuity”). We discuss the variation later in the paper, but for the sake of simplicity, we use the terms “partnership” and “initiative” interchangeably.
都市艺术教育合作评估:政策分析
在过去的20年里,一些最引人注目的艺术教育政策举措发生在城市地区,建立了大都市艺术教育合作伙伴关系。除了一些影响研究和孤立的报告外,很少有研究专门分析它们的政策影响。因此,本研究的目的是描述高知名度都市艺术教育伙伴关系的形成。研究问题是:1)哪些利益相关者参与其中,他们如何相互作用?2)大都会艺术伙伴关系是如何构建的?3)与合作伙伴关系相关的目标和指标是什么?数据收集采用以政策为重点的多案例研究方法,包括文件分析和与五个伙伴关系的主要利益相关者的访谈。伙伴关系背后有各种各样的结构,利益相关者从集体影响和议程谈判的角度描述了相互作用。伙伴关系的框架是围绕公平获得艺术教育的机会,以及对艺术力量的更多愁善感的言论。最后,合作伙伴收集了特定艺术和非特定艺术指标的数据,以跟踪进展。关键词:艺术合作第三空间政策制定可及性城市教育披露声明作者未发现潜在利益冲突。注1:正如我们稍后讨论的那样,最终的政策努力有时是一个命名的计划(“创造性优势”),或者导致一个管理工作的实体的新形成(“独创性”)。我们将在本文后面讨论这种变化,但是为了简单起见,我们可以互换地使用术语“伙伴关系”和“主动性”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Arts Education Policy Review
Arts Education Policy Review Arts and Humanities-Visual Arts and Performing Arts
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: Arts Education Policy Review ( AEPR) presents discussion of major policy issues in arts education in the United States and throughout the world. Addressing education in music, visual arts, theatre, and dance, the journal presents a variety of views and emphasizes critical analysis. Its goal is to produce the most comprehensive and rigorous exchange of ideas available on arts education policy. Policy examinations from multiple viewpoints are a valuable resource not only for arts educators, but also for administrators, policy analysts, advocacy groups, parents, and audiences—all those involved in the arts and concerned about their role in education. AEPR focuses on analyses and recommendations focused on policy. The goal of any article should not be description or celebration (although reports of successful programs could be part of an article). Any article focused on a program (or programs) should address why something works or does not work, how it works, how it could work better, and most important, what various policy stakeholders (from teachers to legislators) can do about it. AEPR does not promote individuals, institutions, methods, or products. It does not aim to repeat commonplace ideas. Editors want articles that show originality, probe deeply, and take discussion beyond common wisdom and familiar rhetoric. Articles that merely restate the importance of arts education, call attention to the existence of issues long since addressed, or repeat standard solutions will not be accepted.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信