Self evaluation summary of 'For what it's worth - Culture valuation workshop'

1. Keywords linked to Culture Valuation and its methods
> Self reflection: 8
> Sustainability: 5
> Self evaluation: 5
> Evaluation (usability, definition): 5
> Reflection: 3
> Definitions: 3
> Partnerships: 3
> Short/ mid/ long term evaluation: 3
> Cultural policy: 2
> Measurability: 2
> Project planning: 1
> Ratio: 1
> Qualitative methods:1
> Monitoring: 1
> Cooperation: 1
> Community: 1
> Communication: 1
> Institutional valuation: 1
> Recognition: 1
> Interdisciplinary work: 1
> Multiplication: 1
> Quality: 1
> Emotion : 1
> Economics: 1
> Impacts: 1
> Common indicators: 1
> Surveys and interviews: 1
> Characterisation of cultural sectors: 1
> Common approval: 1


2. Useful approaches encountered during the workshop:
> Developing and realising culture projects: 12
> Culture and regional development in the EU: 9
> Cultural policy: 8
> Audience development: 6
> Curatorial and residence programmes: 4

Impressions of know-how/ methods of work. and experiences learnt from the workshop proposed by uqbar and NGBK on Culture Evaluation:
> Long term results/ effects/ impact should be considered and followed up immediately.
> The importance of planning and attention to detail as well as maintaining contacts/ networks/ partners.
> Extension/ generational aspects/ EU cooperation need to be a main focus.
> Idea of long term evaluation. How Berlin city’s ‘kunst am bau’ develops and how to measure evaluation.
> Thorough preparation before submitting proposals paying special attention to what is happening where within the EU.
> Focus on international partnerships.
> The importance of self reflection/ evaluation and communication.
> The importance and value of evaluation in cultural processes. Paying attention to the emotional aspect of evaluation and bearing in mind (not only during the evaluation process but during the whole project) that factors such as ‘success’ can have a different meaning for different people involved in a certain project.
> Useful strategies for applications/tenders for example the importance of including the motivation for the collaboration between two partners.
> The different types/stages/levels of evaluation.
> Useful strategies/factors while working on a cultural project.
> The importantance of evaluating the long lasting effects of a cultural project.
> When planning an EU project it is crucial to have an European Added Value.
> The difficulty of finding a common method adequate to valuate all kinds of cultural projects.

3. Recommendations for ANIMATED partners in the planning of the Evaluation Toolkit.
> Common questions on monitoring programmes and questionnaires about working together/sharing ideas/ pitfalls etc.
> Methods for identification of different qualities and process for creative practices and political views to be made public.
> People should work individually to contribute collectively to the development of the toolkit.
> Include examples and methods for those who are unfamiliar with evaluation as a practice.
> Develop an evaluation, reflection and feedback processes.
> More workshops to develop networks and groups of people who can develop and present case studies and propose strategies.
> Documentation of brainstorming results from workshops could be expanded and updated as participants gain more experience.
> An easily accessible toolkit is very desirable. Practice and experience can be shared through an online forum or blog.
> Critical self reflection on failure or unsuccessful projects. How to turn negative into positive, and learn from mistakes and miscalculations.
> The toolkit needs to be appropriate for evaluating the widest types of cultural projects. It could serve as a starting point after which a customised, and more focused evaluation can be developed.
> Case studies that focus on problems and difficulties and their solutions.
> Evaluation from an ‘outsider’- someone who is familiar with the basic characteristics of the cultural sector and has experience in the field (perhaps participants from the workshop?). Fresh eyes can potentially notice the weaker points of a project and objectively point out aspects that can be improved.

Expression of interest to contribute:
> Ruth Cherrington would like to contribute by adding her own experiences/ skills. She is also able to edit materials and texts produced.

4. Recommendations for ANIMATED partners in the planning of learners’ workshops and to include in the ANIMATED blog and toolkit:

> Practical workshops with a greater focus on practical ideas, and evaluation.
> Choose participants wisely. Based on language capabilities, social skills and networking talent.
> Workshops, blog and toolkit should be more interactive. Discussions could be factual as opposed to hypothetical.
> Is one and a half days enough? More meetings and extended workshops where people can talk and exchange ideas more.
> Inclusion of more opinions, findings and advice from people developing arts policy.
> Be succinct and user friendly. Don’t ‘overload’ the toolkit, examples are good but commonalities need to be highlighted.
> A greater volume of shorter presentations.
> More free time to visit local organisations.
> Include case studies.
> Material from the workshop (powerpoints etc) could be available on the blog or a password protected surface. This way discussions and input can be continued online after the workshop is finished.

5. ANIMATED could also
> Become ‘evaluation developers’.
> Offer some brief profiles of people/ places/ projects.
> Reach out to other fields/ areas.
> Consider ways of monitoring/ valuing long term methods–‘longitude measures’.
> Apply new approaches to group work.
> Share more case studies/ examples/ thoughts.
> Offer external evaluation sessions.
> After developing the toolkit ANIMATED should hold workshops for cultural institutions so that they can learn how to use it.
> It is important that the toolkit is shared and used in practice widely not just made in theory.
> After a given period ANIMATED should evaluate the toolkit. How useful was it? Did it actually work in practice?

Berlin Workshop “For what it is worth!” NGBK, 12-13 June 2010
Compiled by Frances Dixon