• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
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ioo 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. www.wellcome.ac.uk/sciartevaluation (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y@wellcome.ac.uk
www.wellcome.ac.uk/sciartevaluation
© 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 original 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 www.wellcome.ac.uk/sciartevaluationT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ioo 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 originally 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
•
among aults oster interisciplinary an collaborative creative practice
•
in te arts an science create a critical mass o artists looking at biomeical
•
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.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...