'data' is the magic word these days as every industry is trying to validate what they are doing and why. and the whole idea of impact measurement is like a golden ticket in the non-profit art world...except it's not always the right kind of ticket.
this is the crux of my master's thesis: the disconnect between what data can measure and the realities of how art can benefit communities. it's not just about trying to measure what might be immeasurable according to current criteria and metrics; it's also about providing organizations with the right questions and tools that a) actually prove useful and can be consistently utilized over time and b) enable them to understand how to gauge their own program effectiveness and communicate that information to funders in a way that's coherent.
it's like i'm swimming in these issues, to the point where i can't stop thinking about it. i am obsessed.
measuring impact is a hot topic right now, and here's a great recent post by david brooks in the nytimes about why data collection and interpretation can be not only inaccurate but actually insufficient:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/opinion/brooks-what-data-cant-do.html
love this quote:
"One of the points was that data is never raw; it’s always structured
according to somebody’s predispositions and values. The end result looks
disinterested, but, in reality, there are value choices all the way
through, from construction to interpretation."- David Brooks
at the end of the day, it's not just about the answers you seek but the questions you ask (or don't ask).
cups of coffee: 3
mood: nerding out
No comments:
Post a Comment