{"id":1245,"date":"2025-04-15T13:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-04-15T13:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/scenechange\/?p=1245"},"modified":"2025-02-09T05:42:17","modified_gmt":"2025-02-09T05:42:17","slug":"nonprofit-arts-organizations-beware-a-little-knowledge","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/scenechange\/2025\/04\/15\/nonprofit-arts-organizations-beware-a-little-knowledge\/","title":{"rendered":"Nonprofit Arts Organizations: Beware \u201cA Little Knowledge\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Forcing data to reach a conclusion causes nonprofit arts organizations to issue pronouncements that just aren\u2019t so.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I had a friend who had a Ph.D. in Psychobiology. She spent her post-doc work in a lab where, among other experiments, they tested a hypothesis about access to the brain via the olfactory nerve. That particular nerve, one of the key elements of the sense of smell, uses one of the shortest distances from the brain, which is why smell is usually a keen sense. The hypothesis being tested had to do with sending impulses to the brain from the nerve (rather than the usual access from the nerve to the brain). When she told me about the work, my immediate reaction was that of hope.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIf you can prove that an impulse can be sent backwards,\u201d I asked excitedly, \u201cinto the brain instead of out of it, does that mean that we\u2019ll be able to treat brain diseases, tumors, and aneurysms more directly? With more speed and accuracy? And with a higher potential for success?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSlow down,\u201d she said. \u201cScientists don\u2019t do that. Data scientists collect data. Period. All we proved was that under the right circumstances, an impulse was sent to the brain that way. You can\u2019t jump to conclusions like that. It\u2019s not scientific.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Her study intended to discover not only if<\/em> access could happen, but how<\/em> it could happen, and how reliable the methodology could be repeated, if it was repeatable at all. That study had nothing to do with anything else.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I understand. It\u2019s hard not to make that jump into hope. Hope is exciting. Hope can push people into great things. Hope is, well, hopeful.
But hope is not a scientific attribute. It is strictly emotional and relatively unhelpful. Hope can be harmful to your health.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And to a nonprofit arts organization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n


So when a study comes out, it\u2019s best to look at its data as interesting or curious. No more than that. Above all, one should not jump to any conclusions. Instead, a reader should try to poke holes in the study\u2019s methodology; it\u2019s what any 11th grade Chemistry student would be asked to do, after all. They\u2019d look at the questions being asked, analyze the information gleaned from the answers to those questions, and ask why the questions were asked in the first place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They would never assume if there were some hidden subtext. There might not be any subtext.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And before making any decisions about acting on the data, they\u2019d ask themselves this important question:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

This is not a question that is asked to be dismissively or with snark. It\u2019s a real question. Does this national data affect what they do? Or is it simply interesting? And if it is<\/em> interesting, why?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Top<\/em> 40 Most<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most recent example of this kind of heavy data gathering came from the remarkable data scientists at SMU DataArts. Entitled \u201cThe Top 40 Most Arts-Vibrant Communities of 2024 (which, oddly, repeats the inflated words \u201cTop\u201d and \u201cMost\u201d),\u201d this is the iron pyrite standard for research about, specifically, the forty most arts-vibrant communities in the United States. It does not compare arts vibrancy to that of any other \u201cthing to do\u201d in the 947 metropolitan service areas (MSA) in the United States, nor does it claim to offer the arts as either actively good or actively bad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other hand \u2014 and dangerously so \u2014 SMU DataArts does engage in some beginner-level conclusion-jumping in its press release and its methodology page. A good scientist does not engage in hyperbolic puffery and this may qualify as such.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The Arts Vibrancy Index (AVI) [author’s note: they changed the name here\u2026why?] can help arts leaders, businesses, government agencies, funders, and engaged citizens understand the overall intensity and capacity of the community\u2019s arts and culture sector. Past AVI reports have helped communities get the recognition they deserve from their mayors, city council members, and state legislators. Arts leaders have informed us that they use the AVI reports and interactive map on our website to consider where to relocate their operations and what markets are ripe for touring performances or exhibitions. Communities can benchmark themselves against an aspirational set of communities and understand what sets them apart by examining the underlying dimensions of demand, supply, and public support for arts and culture. Numerous funders have engaged with the AVI data to better understand how investments to increase arts vibrancy might be best directed in the communities they serve, given existing strengths and opportunities for improvement. The AVI\u2019s multidimensional framework provides insights as to why two cities that seem very different on the surface might be close to one another in the ranking.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Is this an admission from SMU DataArts that their data are meaningful only in their ability to act as fodder for arts organizations to gain additional, regardless of the true nature of the study?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As my psychobiological expert friend might have said, \u201cSlow down. Scientists don\u2019t do that. Data scientists collect data. Period.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

National data does not prove local worth.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, if the SMU DataArts data (whatever it\u2019s called) merely measures some form of data about the \u201cvibrancy\u201d of the arts in various parts of the country \u2014 and nothing else \u2014 how is it useful for planning plays, concerts, ballets, operas, exhibitions, and whatever forms of entertainment that don\u2019t neatly fit into those categories?
And how does it help raise funds for those activities?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Simply put: it\u2019s not and it doesn\u2019t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2022, approximately 50 billion hamburgers were consumed by Americans. 333 million people ate an average of 4.2 billion hamburgers every month. (And you wonder why we\u2019re fat.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regardless, if opening a hamburger stand in one of the Top 40 Most Burger-Vibrant Communities in America offers no guarantee that it will achieve any profits. Costs might make it too expensive for the area. Workers might screw up the recipe. Supplies might include inferior meats and bread. The burger, like a $20,000 vacuum cleaner, might cost a lot and still suck<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\u2019s worse is that it might be delicious, the price may be right, the workers are a joy, and the stand might have set up in a high-density area. And it still<\/em> might fail. Businesses fail all the time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now suppose that the owner used a national Burger Vibrancy Index to tell its community story to the leaders of the region. Or supposed they used it to decide where to place their burger stand somewhere in the United States. Would that change anything?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maybe. Maybe not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Data are data. Data can be helpful for an entrepreneur to make the best guess, but it\u2019s not fool-proof. Data are not inconsequential (business success is owed to a lot of inconsequential data becoming consequential at just the right time). And if all those conditions were true, they might become successful. All things considered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are two points here to be made and they are interwoven with other disheartening features of the nonprofit arts community in the United States. One is that too often, a report will come out and cause arts leaders to embellish (lie?) about the positive nature of arts on a community. And the second is that, especially in the largest, flagshippy nonprofit arts organizations with the most capital, the majority of the people being helped by their charity don\u2019t need the help.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the first point: as we\u2019ve seen with the SMU DataArts study, among 947 MSAs who answered its queries, 40 of them have the most arts going on in comparison with the rest of the country. That\u2019s all we know. Not that they\u2019re impactful; just that they\u2019re more active than the other 907.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second point reveals even more. For nonprofit arts organizations, the community is everything. Not the art. Not the audiences. Not the finances. Impact is the coin of the realm, not coins.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Print this out and pin it to your bulletin board. Just as a “from-time-to-time” reminder.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n


The list of activities from which to center one\u2019s work (not just have a program on the side) is supposed to come from the exempt purposes listed by the IRS:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Charitable<\/em>\n