1,720,960 research outputs found
Evaluation of Australian Performing Arts Market 2014-2018: Year Two Report 2016
No full textIn the awarding of the tender for APAM by the Australia Council to Brisbane Powerhouse for the delivery of the market in 2014-2018, a requirement is that a formal evaluation of the three iterations of APAM be undertaken by the Queensland University of Technology, Creative Industries Faculty, under the leadership of Associate Professor Sandra Gattenhof. The agreed research model delivers reporting on outcomes not only in the year in which APAM is delivered (2014, 2016, 2018) but also in the years between (2015, 2017).\ud
\ud
APAM sits within a context of other Markets internationally. Other Markets include International Performing Arts for Youth (IPAY) and American Performing Arts Presenters (APAP), both annual showcases/conferences held in the United States of America; Performing Arts Market in Seoul (PAMS), held yearly in October; and International Society for the Performing Arts (ISPA), which holds two Congresses every year – one in New York and one in a different region of the world.\ud
\ud
Unlike other Markets, which welcome the inclusion from outside the country in which the Market takes place, the focus of APAM is solely on the presentation of Australian and near-neighbour country (New Zealand) performance works, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, ready for national and international touring.\ud
\ud
This report provides an analysis of data for the period January to August 2016. It also draws on comparative data from four previous reports developed in 2014 and 2015. As such, it falls into phase 3 of the research process outlined on page 8 of this document. The outcomes of the analysis are delivered through a set of narratives about the impact of APAM and its outputs, the activities that are enabling it to have this impact, and any barriers that may be preventing it from having the anticipated impact. The comparative report has been constructed through an analysis of data from the reports provided in May 2014, October 2014, August 2015, December 2015 and June 2016, which capture ongoing development of APAM. As such, it falls into phase 3 of the research process outlined on page 8 of this document. \ud
\ud
Data for this analysis has been drawn from the following sources:\ud
\ud
1. Online delegate survey delivered to all APAM 2016 delegates ten days after the event \ud
\ud
2. Event observations undertaken by the QUT research team\ud
\ud
3. Vox pops (vox populi) undertaken by the QUT research team immediately after performance presentation, pitches or delegate networking events\ud
\ud
4. Two focus buyer’s focus groups that occurred during APAM 2016\ud
\ud
5. Interviews with 2014 and 2016 case study artists and company representatives \ud
\ud
6. Interviews with key Brisbane Powerhouse and APAM staff \ud
\ud
7. Interviews with key stakeholders identified by APAM staff. \ud
\ud
The report highlights nine key trends emerging from the data:\ud
\ud
1. The majority of 2016 delegates indicate in the survey response that they will return to APAM 2018 and that 2016 was a positive experience\ud
\ud
2. The enhanced attention to include Indigenous staff, delegates and programming, particularly with the First Nations focus, was highlight of the event\ud
\ud
3. The central reason for attending is the networking opportunities the Market affords \ud
\ud
4. Respondents are confident that a range of new relationships forged at the Market will afford long-term interest and buying opportunities \ud
\ud
5. Respondents affirmed that greater attention to networking activities within the program enabled touring outcomes\ud
\ud
6. The multi-venue model was still a concern, but is much reduced compared to delegate responses from 2014\ud
\ud
7. The level of expense incurred by producers to present work at APAM, particularly at a time of severe funding cuts to the Australian small to medium companies, remains an issue\ud
\ud
8. There is a need for recalibrating around the value proposition of APAM to respond to better stakeholder needs\ud
\ud
9. APAM will need to respond to the development of ShowBroker, a new Market in Adelaide, that will see its first delivery in February 2017.\ud
\ud
Throughout this report, there are extracted data from the online survey responses, Case Study artists and companies (2014, 2015 and 2016), data from interviews with key stakeholders and APAM 2016 delegate vox pops. These will be tabled to develop a narrative in response to the key research aims outlined in the Brisbane Powerhouse Tender document (2011). A full version of the collated responses to the survey questions can be found in the appendices of this report
Evaluation of the Australian Performing Arts Market 2014-2018 - Year One Report
No full textThe Australia Council awarded the tender of APAMs 2014, 2016 and 2018 to the Brisbane Powerhouse. The Australia Council, in awarding the contract for the presentation of APAM by Brisbane Powerhouse, stipulated that a formal evaluation of the three iterations of APAM and activity in the intervening years be undertaken. Queensland University of Technology, Creative Industries Faculty, under the leadership of Associate Professor Sandra Gattenhof, were contracted to undertake the formal evaluation.\ud
\ud
This is the first year report on the Brisbane iteration of the Market. This report has drawn from data collected across a range of sources, drawing on the scoping study undertaken by Justin Macdonnell addressing the Market from 1994–2010; the tender document submitted by the Brisbane Powerhouse; in-person interviews with APAM staff, APAM Stakeholders, Vox Pops from delegates in response to individual sessions, producer company/artist case studies and, most significantly, responses from a detailed online survey sent to all delegates. The main body of the report is organised around three key research aims, as outlined in the Brisbane Powerhouse Tender document (2011). These have been articulated as:\ud
\ud
Evaluation of international market development outcomes through showcasing work to targeted international presenters and agents\ud
\ud
Evaluation of national market development outcomes through showcasing work to national presenters and producers\ud
\ud
Evaluation of the exchange ideas, dialogue, skill
development, partnerships, collaborations and co- productions and networks with local and international peers.\ud
\ud
The culmination of the data analysis has been articulated through five key recommendations, which may assist the APAM delivery team for the next version, in 2016. In summary, the recommendations are described as:\ud
\ud
1. Indigenous focus to remain central to the conception and delivery of APAM\ud
\ud
2. Re-framing APAM’s function and its delivery\ud
\ud
3. Logistics and communications in a multi-venue approach, including communications and housekeeping, volunteers, catering, re-calibrating the employment of Brisbane Powerhouse protocols and processes for APAM\ud
\ud
4. Presentation and promotion for presenters\ud
\ud
5. Strategic targeting of Asian producers
Emerging trends in contemporary festival practice
No full textThe Festival is a form that transcends cultures, histories and regimes. It is a construct that has been utilised in a variety of ways, for a variety of purposes, but its raison d'etre is always community, sometimes as celebrated from a popularist level, at other points manipulated by the wielders of power. In its modern context, the festival has similarly been deployed as either a means of celebrating a sense of local community, or embraced by governments as a symbol of sophisticated cosmopolitanism.\ud
\ud
\ud
\ud
This research aims to contextualise a particular kind of festival practice within both an historical and contemporary context. This is structured through three key areas: at the heart of the thesis is a study of a particular kind of contemporary festival model, the boutique festival, as produced by the Programming Unit of the Queensland Performing Arts Centre. This festival construct is significant in its positioning of the audience as both producer and consumer in a playful and intelligent manner. This kind of model is different from the more conventional high arts or community arts festival models. Secondly, the research explores how current renderings of the festival can be contextualised within historical functions, so as to highlight points of connection and departure. Thirdly, the study positions the boutique festival as but one example of a range of current local festival practices that highlight the manner in which the festival construct engages with contemporary life. This portion of the study places these local renderings within Creative Industries discourse, focussing on the notion of the Creative City.\ud
\ud
\ud
\ud
The thread that ties the areas of focus together is the role of the audience in the festival. The trope of community remains central to contemporary festival practice, but it is a term that is becoming increasingly problematic and opaque, especially within an urban context. Through a variety of constructs, contemporary festivals encourage a cultural discussion about what community means in a current context, and in so doing, invite explorations of space, identity and authenticity as well
Evaluation of Australian Performing Arts Market 2014-2018 REPORT TWO APAM inter-year report 2015 DECEMBER
No full textThe report follows up on data and trends tabled in August 2015 that collected data from two key sources – six identified case study productions that have been tracked for eighteen months, and an online survey delivered to all APAM 2014 delegates. The comparative report has been constructed through an analysis of data reported from the August 2015 and the most recent online survey to all 2104 PM delegates conducted in late November 2015. The report highlights six key trends emerging from the data: The majority of survey respondents will return to APAM 2016; The central reason for attending is the networking opportunities the Market affords; Respondents are confident that a range of new relationships forged at the Market will afford long-term interest and buying opportunities and that as a result of the 2014 event, real touring outcomes were realised for some respondents; Respondents would like to see greater attention to a greater number of networking activities within the program to enable touring outcomes; The multi-venue model is still of concern, and is a recurrent issue from earlier surveys; The level of expense incurred by producers to present work at APAM. Throughout the report, extracted data from the online survey responses will be tabled to develop a narrative in response to the key research aims outlined in the Brisbane Powerhouse Tender document (2011). A full version of the collated responses to the survey questions can be found in the appendices of the report
Evaluation of Australian Performing Arts Market 2014-2018: APAM inter-year report 2015
No full textIn the awarding of the tender for APAM by the Australia Council to Brisbane Powerhouse for the delivery of the market in 2014-2018, a requirement is that a formal evaluation of the three iterations of APAM be undertaken by the Queensland University of Technology, Creative Industries Faculty, under the leadership of Associate Professor Sandra Gattenhof. The agreed research model delivers reporting on outcomes not only in the year in which APAM is delivered (2014, 2016, 2018) but also in the years between (2015, 2017). \ud
\ud
This inter-year report focuses on the domestic and international touring outcomes resulting from engagement in the 2014 Market and responds two of the three key research foci for the evaluation that are articulated in the Brisbane Powerhouse Tender (2011) document as:\ud
\ud
• Evaluation of international market development outcomes through showcasing work to targeted international presenters and agents\ud
\ud
• Evaluation of national market development outcomes through showcasing work to national presenters and producers.\ud
\ud
The reporting for mid-year 2015, a non-APAM year, collects data from two key sources – six identified case study productions that have been tracked for eighteen months, and an online survey delivered to all APAM 2014 delegates. This inter-year report is a six month follow-up with delegates and identified case studies companies that track the ongoing progress of market outcomes and levers for ongoing improvement of the APAM delivery model that was tabled in the Year One Report delivered to Brisbane Powerhouse in October 2014
Evaluation of Australian Performing Arts Market 2014-2018 - Year Four Interim Report
No full textIn the awarding of the tender for APAM by the Australia Council to Brisbane Powerhouse for the delivery of the market in 2014-2018, a requirement is that a formal evaluation of the three iterations of APAM be undertaken by the Queensland University of Technology, Creative Industries Faculty, under the leadership of Associate Professor Sandra Gattenhof. The agreed research model delivers reporting on outcomes not only in the year in which APAM is delivered (2014, 2016, 2018) but also in the years between (2015, 2017).\ud
\ud
APAM sits within a context of other Markets internationally. Other Markets include International Performing Arts for Youth (IPAY) and American Performing Arts Presenters (APAP), both annual showcases/conferences held in the United States of America; Performing Arts Market in Seoul (PAMS), held yearly in October; and International Society for the Performing Arts (ISPA), which holds two Congresses every year – one in New York and one in a different region of the world. Unlike other Markets, which welcome the inclusion from outside the country in which the Market takes place, the focus of APAM is solely on the presentation of Australian and near-neighbour country (New Zealand) performance works, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, that are ready for national and international touring.\ud
\ud
This report provides an analysis of data for the period January to June 2017. It also draws on and extends comparative data from five previous reports developed in 2014, 2015 and 2016. As such it falls into phase 3 of the research process outlined on page 8 of this document. This report concentrates on outcomes for the case study companies and artists selected for longditudinal tracking by APAM staff. Data for this analysis has been drawn from the following two sources:\ud
\ud
1. Online survey delivered to all APAM Case Study companies and artists.\ud
2. Interviews with APAM Case Study companies and artists or their representative such as producers engaged by the artist or company to promote their artistic product.\ud
\ud
The outcomes of the analysis are delivered through a listing of success outcomes post-presentation at APAM 2014 and 2016, as well as a set of consolidated narratives about the impact of APAM and its outputs, the activities that are enabling it to have this impact, and any barriers that may be preventing it from having the anticipated impact for each company or artist. \ud
\ud
A key throughline that has become resounding within this interview cycle is that the experience of APAM for those established companies who receive operational funding is significantly different to those independent companies and artists who garner project funding only: it is this difference of interface with the APAM experience that is dominant underpinning for the case study interpretations at this point, along with the manner in which the opportunities, ability to successfully navigate, network and exploit the Market differ. There are five key themes emergent from the interview and survey data. Detailed analysis is available on page 42 of this report:\ud
\ud
1. Respondents remain confident that a range of new relationships forged at the Market will afford long-term interest and buying opportunities. \ud
2. The level of expense incurred by small arts companies and independent artists to present work at APAM remains an issue.\ud
3. Respondents remain confident that a range of new relationships forged at the Market will afford long-term interest and buying opportunities. Relationships and presentation opportunities build exponentially when a company or artists tour their work.\ud
4. Respondents support the notion that APAM assists artists and companies to successful profile their artistic product and position their company as a leading Australian arts company. \ud
5. The central reason for attending remains to be the networking opportunities the Market affords. Respondents note that a key benefit of attendance and presenting at APAM ensures that they are part of the national arts conversation
The out-of-the-box festival of early childhood : fashioning the boutique festival for children
No full textThroughout the world festivals are growing – in numbers, in size, in significance – and serve as spaces where aesthetic encounters, religious and political celebrations, economic investments and public entertainment can take place. In this sense, festivals are theatrical events.\ud
This volume contains discussions of 14 diverse festival events from five continents across the globe, written by members of the IFTR/FIRT Working Group on the Theatrical Event, the same group that has produced the ground-breaking study Theatrical Events – Borders Dynamics Frames in 2004 (also published by Rodopi). The events discussed here range from traditional carnivals and festivals to more controversial theatre, dance and opera festivals, children's festivals and community events, as well as saints' and workers' festivities. All of these constitute part of the local playing cultures and take on significant political roles, nationally and regionally. \ud
The authors explore and extend the theoretical frames of reference for any contemporary discussion of theatrical events and festivals, in order to provide a new and fresh perspective on past and present festival culture across the globe
The festival is a theatrical event
No full textAre contemporary festivals an empty spectacle? George Steiner for one suggested in a\ud
1996 address that closing down of the Edinburgh Festival would be ‘rare but vivid\ud
mark of honesty within excellence’. The contemporary world no longer had a need for\ud
festivals as symbols of ‘the credo of a community or the aspirations of a political\ud
regime,’ he argued.1 This critique of the festival as a ‘meaning-free zone’ seems to be\ud
linked with a kind of revulsion at the range of excesses often associated with the\ud
phenomenon of festival in the contemporary industrialized world, and the argument\ud
goes that these excesses tend to obscure and in fact diminish the ‘original purpose’ of\ud
festivals as we have understood it via various anthropological and sociological\ud
discourses
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
