This blog series pulls back the curtain on what we’re working on at thrive: it’s a chance to share the thinking, the tests, and the work in progress.

‘Cause what happens in the office doesn’t have to stay there.

Are you a Go-er or a Do-er?

Hopefully by now most of you know about our IMPACT research on audiences – the attendees, the visitors, the go-ers. (And if you don’t, please find a mirror, take a long hard look at yourself and go here instead). What we are talking about now is the do-ers – the people who engage in classes, workshops or activities –participants, learners, do-ers. Who are they? Are they any different to audiences? How? What exactly do we want to know and what are the right questions to find that out?

Yes, we are very nosy

But it’s not just that… Data is knowledge and knowledge is power. We want to provide individual organisations and the whole arts sector with the power to say THIS IS WHY THE ARTS MATTER and to have the evidence to prove it.

Couldn’t we just use IMPACT?

Well yes, we could, but… Our research programme IMPACT has been highly successful in providing the sector with evidence and insights into arts audiences. But it’s specifically aimed at attendees, not participants and there are differing levels of engagement involved.

Hang on, audiences engage too, don’t they?

Usually(!) Empathising, laughing, clapping, singing along… is, of course, engaging. But an audience signs up to be an audience, to be the recipients of some sort of performance. Participants are different because they are contributors in some way. They’ve signed up to contributing something to an art form – having a go at watercolours or learning to sing Messiah or practising their pirouettes. It’s a different level of engagement. (And that’s why we are calling this research survey Engage.)

How else are do-ers different to go-ers?

We don’t really know – and that’s the point of Engage. While there are already organisations carrying out evaluation surveys at the end of workshops or courses, there is no standard survey across the sector. Most ask for a rating on the facilitator or the venue. Some ask about skills learned or social impact. None are the same and that’s the problem. We need everyone to do the same survey as we can only see the bigger picture if everyone asks the same questions using the same measuring methods.

What exactly have we been doing then?

Devising, consulting, and devising again, chewing pencils over the details: trying to find the perfect balance between a survey that covers the transactional facts as well as the individual impacts; that is comprehensive but not too long; that uses accessible language but doesn’t patronise; that gives space for open ends but ensures the data is easily quantifiable; that suits big organisations as well as small; that covers painting as well as pottery; and so on. And then we sent Engage out for consultation to a representative sample of arts organisations.

And everyone immediately loved it

Strangely, no. One did (and by chance they also won the Easter Egg incentive for responding*). 16 organisations kindly came back with feedback. We grouped it into topics and dealt with each, tweaking, adding or removing questions to address the feedback. We also took on board the several comments referencing the need to identify more instrumental impacts (e.g. place-making, wellbeing, community relations). But there was one topic that provoked much debate, although we decided, ultimately, that we couldn’t really address it adequately in a one-off survey.

Agency, authorship and co-design

Eh? Yes, you’re in deep now. Essentially, we’re talking about an even greater level of engagement. If go-ers are audiences or attendees, and do-ers are participants or learners, then what we’re talking about now is participants that are actively involved in deciding how projects play out and in deciding what is created – co-creators, or perhaps, in some circumstances, creators. But measuring the impact of engagement at this level is complicated. The participation is less likely to be about transactional or instrumental impacts and more about subjective individual experience, or intrinsic impacts (e.g. intellectual stimulation, emotional resonance, changes in perception / attitude or aesthetic growth).

Now and then

And that’s before we throw in the element of time into all this i.e. at what point do we measure these impacts? Before and after the activity? Before and after the activity and then every five years forever after? And do we measure the impact that that participant goes on to have on other people or their community? Yes, it’s a web of ever-growing possibilities!

Qualitative Street

Could we measure the transactional, instrumental and the intrinsic impacts all in one survey? No. If we want to adequately measure complex experiences, we need to use qualitative methodology (like interviews, focus groups, observation or narrative studies) and the research would need to be longitudinal (e.g. address the before, the after and the future). So, no, we can’t magically achieve that in one survey. However, measuring that deeper level of engagement is an area for development and we’re working in partnership with one very keen organisation… But that’s for a later instalment.

Right here, right now

Following the amendments we made after the consultation period, Engage is currently being piloted for a few weeks. We’ll let you know what the results of that are when we get them and then we’ll make whatever changes we need to before we start rolling out Engage across the sector. And hopefully by this time next year we’ll have some interesting new data to share with you. We’re aiming to start recruiting organisations for Engage in July 2026, so if you’d like to take part, please register your interest with eve@wewillthrive.com.

*That’s a joke. Will try to make it better next time.