In 1999, The Pew Charitable Trusts launched an initative to foster broader public appreciation of nonprofit arts and culture and its role in American society. This initiative, Optimizing America's Cultural Resources, was largely premised on the idea that the development of supportive cultural policies depended on providing more and better information on arts and culture to policymakers.

In June 2000, the Trusts commissioned a report from J. Mark Schuster (see Informing Cultural Policy: The Research and Information Infrastructure) on international models for the gathering, sharing, and archiving of information relevant to cultural policy development. Dr. Schuster was asked to describe how other nations manage policy-relevant information on arts and culture and to suggest whether an existing model could be effectively emulated in this country or whether uniquely American circumstances would require the adaptation of elements from several models. Schuster's report suggested that no one model could adequately serve as a template for the U.S.

At a convening held at Rutgers University in December 2001, experts considered  Schuster's premise that an effective information infrastructure is critical to policy formulation and implementation in culture as much as in other fields. This publication serves as a complement to Schuster's book and the Rutgers conference; it highlights the conclusions and recommendations made at the conference to help cultural policy researchers and policymakers in understanding the risks and rewards of strengthening the U.S.'s cultural policy information infrastructure.

From the Overview:
In contrast to the situation in other industrialized Western countries, the arts and culture in the are primarily a decentralized, private-sector enterprise. Similarly, the U.S. approach to cultural policy research and information is fragmentary and largely ad hoc by comparison. The current system was dissected at the national, state, and local levels; impediments to the current development of the research and information infrastructure were examined; promising efforts were noted; and funding models were discussed. The concept of a decentralized system was reaffirmed as consistent with the decentralized nature of the U.S. cultural sector and the local dimension of American culture.  Although no radical proposals emerged from the discussion, the group's thoughtful definition and analysis of the cultural policy research and information landscape, as well as its recommendations for possible strategies and next steps, have measurably advanced the debate.

Recommendations:

• The large amount of highly dispersed data that already exists should be sorted out and rendered usable. (The NEA and Urban Institute unified database project is an example of such an effort already underway).
  
  
• The research and analysis infrastructure should probaly remain decentralized but with built-in provisions for communication, interaction, and comparative analysis.
  
  
• The databases generated by the new infrastructure should be centralized to ensure coherence and reliability, and made available through digital means.
  
  
• The infrastructure should undergo periodic review.
  
  
• A number of independent but multilateral research centers of excellence should be developed to bridge the data gap between the academy and decision makers.
  
  
• Information providers should formulate a marketing strategy to stimulate demand based on a better working knowledge and understanding of the highly segmented and pluralistic constituency, both current and potential, for arts and culture information in the .
  
  
• Cultural activities should be synchronized within and across agencies and departments at the federal, state, and local government levels.
  
  
• A common language and set of definitional understandings should be a central element of the development of the research and information infrastructure.
  
  
• Grants, prizes, and other incentives should be created to encourage doctoral students and young assistant professors to pursue research in the field of cultural policy and to legitimate cultural policy as an academic field.
  
  
• The research agenda should include broad-based research and focus on issues as well as programmatic outcomes.
  
  
• More-specific links should be developed with the commerical arts and culture, possibly even thrugh the formation of a cultural industries association, as a way of expediting both the supply of, and demand, for, research.
  
  
• Foundations should be educated about, and program officers reoriented to, the importance of arts-policy research and the dearth of current funding available to develop good data in support of informed policy decision making.
  
  
• Communication and broad information dissemination should be facilitated for multiple purposes and multiple audiences, especially beyond the academy. A major target should be advisors and consultants to both private and public decision makers.
  
  
• Vehicles should be developed for disseminating timely, accessible, and trustworthy information.
  
  
• The reach of the U.S. system should be extended to encompass cultural policy research at the international level, including participation in global forums and support for cultural infrastructure issues in underdeveloped countries. Finally, the U.S. should rejoin UNESCO.

CONTENTS
Foreword.
Introduction.
Overview.
Issues of Supply and Demand.
What is the Nature of the Demand for Cultural Policy Research and Information in the ?
What is the Current Supply of Cultural Policy Research and Information in the ?
Which Comes First, Supply or Demand?
Encouraging Developments.
How is a Research and Information System to be Supported in the ?
Recommendations.
Participants.

 

In 1999, The Pew Charitable Trusts launched an initative to foster broader public appreciation of nonprofit arts and culture and its role in American society. This initiative, Optimizing America's Cultural Resources, was largely premised on the idea that the development of supportive cultural policies depended on providing more and better information on arts and culture to policymakers.