SUMMARY Insight and Experience: An evaluation of the Wellcome Trust's Sciart programme

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 7
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.


Document Related
Document Description
An independent evaluation of the Wellcome Trust's Sciart funding programme. (Summary)
Document Share
Document Tags
Document Transcript
  SUMMARY InSIght And ExchAngE:    A evaluaio o e Wellome trus’s Siar proramme By Paul glikowski aProessor Ae Bamor  2 InSIght And ExchAngE: A evaluaio o e Wellome trus’s Siar proramme  Acknowlegements Te autors wis to tank Meroë Cany an er colleaguesKen Arnol an Sara Cany at te Wellcome Trust, wo,togeter wit Paul Glinkowski an Proessor Anne Bamor,orme te Sciart evaluation researc project steering group.Te Engine Room also etens its tanks to te many Sciartproject participants, recipients o an applicants or Sciartawars, an oter iniviuals wit an involvement in oropinions about te Sciart programme wo contribute teirtime to provie etaile an rank responses in interviews,ocus groups, surveys an meetings.Publise by te Wellcome Trust, October 2009  Authors Paul Glinkowski an Proessor Anne Bamor Citing this report We suggest tat you cite tis report as ollows:Glinkowski P, Bamor A. Insigt an Ecange: An evaluationo te Wellcome Trust’s Sciart programme. Lonon: WellcomeTrust; 2009. (accesse 1November 2009).I you ave any queries about tis report, please contact: Meroë Candy Wellcome TrustGibbs Builing215 Euston RoaLonon NW1 2BE, UK T +44 (0)20 7611 8332 F +44 (0)20 7611 8254 E m.can © Te trustee o te Wellcome Trust.Tis is an open access publication an, wit te eception o images an illustrations, te content may, unlessoterwise state, be reprouce ree o carge in any ormat or meium, subject to te ollowing conitions:content must be reprouce accurately; content must not be use in a misleaing contet; te Wellcome Trustmust be attribute as te srcinal autor o te ocument specie in te attribution.Te Wellcome Trust is a carity registere in Englan, no. 210183. Its sole trustee is Te Wellcome TrustLimite, a company registere in Englan, no. 2711000, wose registere oce is at 215 Euston Roa,Lonon NW1 2BE, UK. INSIGhT ANd ExChANGE:  An evaluation o te Wellcome Trust’sSciart programme ExECUTIVE SUMMARY – INCLUdING WELLCOMETRUST RESPONSE   Full report available atis researc was commissione rom Engine Room EnterpriseResearc an te University o te Arts Lonon.Cover image: ‘Primitive Streak’, a Sciart-uneproject by helen an Kate Storey. Jason Lowe  3 InSIght And ExchAngE: A evaluaio o e Wellome trus’s Siar proramme In 2007, te Wellcome Trust commissione te Engine Room atte University o te Arts Lonon to unertake an inepenentevaluation o te Trust’s Sciart uning programme.Running rom 1996 to 2006, Sciart was srcinally launceto un “visual arts projects wic involve an artist an ascientist in collaboration to researc, evelop an proucework wic eplore contemporary biological an meicalscience”. Over te course o a ecae its remit site anepane to embrace a wier spectrum o arts an scienceactivity. In total, Sciart supporte 118 projects wit nearly£3 million o uning to: stimulate interest an ecitement in biomeical science ã among aults oster interisciplinary an collaborative creative practice ã in te arts an science create a critical mass o artists looking at biomeical ã science an buil capacity in tis el.Sciart was believe, anecotally, to ave supporte teevelopment o a unique community o arts practitioners,a new orm o interisciplinary practice an a boy ocontemporary artistic work relating to science, an to avea a signicant infuence on te public’s engagement witscience. Te Sciart evaluation was commissione to investigate,ocument an summarise te outcomes o te sceme an toseek evience o its impacts.Te evaluation process inclue esk an arcival researc,primary ata collecte troug 46 in-ept interviews ansurvey tecniques, project an auience case stuies, anauience eit survey an ocus groups. In aition to a writtenreport, a limite istribution dVd giving an overview o ten Sciartcase stuy projects was prouce. Te report was launce ata conerence, Evaluating Sciart, el at te Wellcome Trust on5 June 2008. A summary o te key nings is organise ere aroun a serieso types o ‘capital’ 1 or wic evience was oun troug ananalysis o te sceme’s ten years o grant giving. Cultural capital Weter it was a matter o timing or incentive, uring teecae o Sciart tere was a cultural sit, especially witinte arts, towars more interisciplinary practice. Te burgeoningacaemic researc culture o te visual arts in particularbenete rom aving Sciart as a contet witin wic artistscoul evelop projects. Troug te contacts tat it encouragean enable wit te worl o science, Sciart also elpe toacilitate a tenency tat was perceive to be taking place witinte arts towars a more eplicit ‘social engagement’. Te Sciartprogramme a enable sometimes orgotten connectionsbetween te ‘two cultures’ 2 (art an science) to be recognisean accentuate. Bot Sciart an te Wellcome Trust wereseen as powerul an well-recognise brans. Partly as a resulto tis, iniviual Sciart projects were oten very successul inattracting meia coverage an wie eposure. however, terewas a eeling tat te potential overall or meia coverage ancultural sit a not been ully eploite, particularly wereprojects tat a receive iger value awars were concerne. Eucational capital Te presentation o te outputs o Sciart projects, trougevents suc as eibitions, a a consierable eucationalvalue or teir auiences. Te presentations tene to beinormative in temselves, oten introucing new subjectmatter an ieas, but tey also oten involve a more ormaleucational component. Tere was a wiesprea view tatartists’ communicative abilities a elpe to emystiy anmake more intelligible aspects o contemporary science. Aig proportion o bot artists an scientists a participatein eucational activities associate wit teir Sciart-uneprojects an te sceme a a a positive impact onperceptions o bot artists an scientists as communicatorsan as eucators. In tis sense te ‘two cultures’ weresown to ave te potential to coeist in a ruitul symbioticrelationsip. Interestingly, te participating artists anscientists learnt muc about one anoter’s isciplinesrom teir collaborations, but appeare generally not toave gaine a ig level o new insigt into teir own. Innovative capital  As well as ostering innovative outputs, Sciart grants aresulte in te emergence o new processes o working,particularly in terms o artists’ practice, an innovation oprocess was oten elt to be as important as te resultingproucts. Te smaller Sciart R&d grants, in particular, asucceee in ostering eperimentation an innovation.Te feible an non-prescriptive conitions associatewit te aministration o Sciart were value as avingirectly contribute to greater levels o risk-taking an tus toinnovation, an a perceive ‘permission to ail’ was seen as astrengt o te Sciart sceme. A minority o interviewees elt,owever, tat te reeom to take risks a peraps eclinein Sciart’s later years. It was suggeste tat artists were morelikely to be innovative an to take risks tan scientists, but tatsome scientists a become more open to risk-taking trougteir association wit artists. A small minority o intervieweescommente tat wile innovations a emerge rom projects,tese a oten not been ully capitalise upon an, wit urterinvestment, coul ave le on to te evelopment o prouctsor processes wit a wier application. Te ‘knowlege transer’implie in tis critique was not, owever, an eplicit aim orintention o te Sciart sceme. 2 the two culures was a ifueial Ree Leure ive i May 1959 by e ovelis c P Sow,wo was also a raie sieis. Sow arue a e ‘wo ulures’ o moer soiey – esiees a e umaiies – were eperiei a breakow i ommuiaios a wasa irae o solvi may o e problems ai e worl. te leure was subsequelypublise as The Two Cultures and the Scientifc Revolution , a oiues o be a imporapoi o reeree i isussios o e relaiosip bewee e ars a e siees. I wasreerre o o a umber o oasios uri e Siar evaluaio ierviews. 1    te sese i wi ‘apial’ is iee ere raws o e work o soiolois a uluralaalys Pierre Bourieu. For Bourieu, apial as as a soial relaio wii a sysemo eae, a e erm is eee “o all e oos maerial a symboli, wiouisiio, a prese emselves as rare a wory o bei sou aer i a pariularsoial ormaio”. harker P. Euaio a ulural apial. I R harker, c Maar, c Wilkes(es). A Irouio o e Work o Pierre Bourieu: te praie o eory. Loo:Mamilla Press; 1990. p. 13.  4 InSIght And ExchAngE: A evaluaio o e Wellome trus’s Siar proramme Economic capital Te amount o money available troug Sciart to supportiniviual arts projects was seen by artists an arts promotersas quite substantial, an te scale o te uning oere (ascompare wit oter arts grants scemes) a immeiatelyencourage a ig volume o project submissions. Teeistence o Sciart uning a unoubtely a a signicantinfuence on te genesis an/or te evelopment o manyprojects. Oten Sciart R&d Awars a acte as see uning,enabling te projects to evelop to a point were oter unersa been encourage to invest in teir continuance. Te igvalue o Sciart Prouction Awars a enable a greater tanusual scale o ambition to be consiere an realise by artistsan arts proucers, an a elpe to militate against a senseo nancial isparity tat was perceive to eist between tearts an te sciences. Artists’ career opportunities were otenenance troug participation in Sciart projects. however,tere was also a strong sense tat artists were oten notaequately remunerate or teir input into projects.  Aestetic capital hig-quality aestetic outcomes were oun to ave resulterom a signicant proportion o te projects une by teSciart sceme. A review o te artistic outcomes o ten casestuy projects evience wiesprea issemination to sizeableauiences, an unusual longevity o auience an proessionalinterest, an positive meia an critical review. Te venuesor isplay – wic migt be artistic, scientic, meical an/oristorical – inevitably infuence te ‘aestetic’ reception o tework. A signicant minority o responents (particularly romte arts sector) epresse concern about te instrumentalisationo te arts in te service o biomeical science, wic te Trustwas elt to ave contribute to. Some artists were concernetat uning te arts or reasons tat were not principally to owit te arts coul ave a etrimental impact on te generalevelopment o arts practice. Several interviewees reerre toinstances o wat tey escribe as ‘inautentic’ arts projectstat tey elt a resulte rom artists casing Sciart uning. Scientic capital Te communication o scientic researc an ieas, an ogeneral messages about te scientic proession, was elt toave been acieve by a signicant number o Sciart-uneprojects. It was not generally elt, owever, tat Sciart projectsa contribute to a sit or evelopment in scientic processesor outcomes. Sciart a elpe to more closely connectte cultures o art an science, toug tis connection wasperceive to ave a greater benets or te arts tan orscience. Scientists oten commente tat teir involvementin Sciart projects a elpe to generate a more refeiveawareness o te wier contet or teir work. A number oscientists also testie tat teir involvement wit artists aencourage tem to aopt a more speculative approac toteir researc an as a result o participating in Sciart projectssome scientists elt tat tey were more prepare to take risks.Working alongsie te arts a elpe to make science moreaccessible to te public, an a tus improve scienticcommunication. It was suggeste tat artists a, in somecases, elpe to improve a perceive ‘image problem’ascribe to scientists an to te scientic proession. Etical capital  Artists working on Sciart projects were elt to ave acte as aproy or te public, opening up scientic practices to a wiergaze. By bringing into te public omain new perspectives onte work tat was being conucte in laboratories an oterplaces o science, it was suggeste tat artists were, in eect,acting as te ‘public’s representative’. A signicant aspect ote artists’ contribution to ‘public engagement wit science’was tus as inepenent scrutinisers – asking questions anprovoking insigts tat migt not oterwise be possible, eiterrom te perspective o te general public or rom witin tescientic community itsel. Catalytic capital Tere was a strong perception tat Sciart a elpe to removete barriers to cross-isciplinary collaboration an a maeit easier or more arts–science collaborations to appen in teuture. Tis was partly because o te legacy o eample tatit a given rise to. Tere were reputational benets bot toartists an to scientists rom aving teir activities une byte Wellcome Trust. Tere was also clear evience o Sciartbeing a catalyst or ongoing collaborations an innovations.Many o te new collaborations tat a emerge uring Sciart’sliespan a been sustaine well beyon te initial perio ouning. It was clear tat Sciart uning a incentivise asignicant number o artists to orient teir practice towars tesciences, peraps or te rst time. Tis was a mie blessingas it was elt to ave encourage ‘inautentic’ proposalsrom some artists. As well as ostering an incubating newcollaborations between artists an scientists, Sciart uning abeen te catalyst or many oter new relationsips to evelop:wit arts promoters an arts venues, wit colleagues an peers,an wit public an proessional auiences. Personal capital  A number o personal gains were reporte. A signicant minorityo te science interviewees reporte tat working wit an artista enable tem to reiscover a creative imension tat a,to some egree, been ‘sacrice’ because o te proessionalprotocols an conventions tat were involve in being ascientist. Some o te scientists sai tat teir participationin a Sciart project a represente a signicant milestone tata a prooun an positive eects on eiter teir careerevelopment or teir personal an proessional sense o sel.In some cases, scientists a become active collaboratorsin te artistic process, wic a le to a personal sense oacievement. Artists a elt stimulate an callenge by teopportunity to work wit scientists an witin scientic contets,an a oten emerge rom Sciart projects eeling moreconent about teir proessional capabilities an staning Social capital Many o tose questione elt tat te lure o Sciart uninga provie a positive incentive an stimulus or artists to enterinto eploratory iscussions an more ocuse negotiations witscientists. Many o te proessional an social relationsips tatbegan as science an art collaborations a continue ater teSciart uning a stoppe. Te Sciart sceme itsel an teiscursive events organise aroun it a provie a valuablemeeting point, elt previously to ave been lacking, arounwic a community o people wit an interest in te sciencean art el were able to come togeter. A number o Sciart
Search Related
Similar documents
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks