This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 26 October 2014, At: 11:10Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Arts Management, Law,and SocietyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjam20

The Public University's Performance inState Arts Policy: Lessons from VirginiaKatherine Preston Keeney aa Center for Public Administration and Policy, Virginia Tech ,Blacksburg and Alexandria , VirginiaPublished online: 07 Mar 2013.

To cite this article: Katherine Preston Keeney (2013) The Public University's Performance in State ArtsPolicy: Lessons from Virginia, The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 43:1, 18-35, DOI:10.1080/10632921.2013.767760

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2013.767760

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

THE JOURNAL OF ARTS MANAGEMENT, LAW, AND SOCIETY, 43: 18–35, 2013Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1063-2921 print / 1930-7799 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10632921.2013.767760

The Public University’s Performance in State Arts Policy:Lessons from Virginia

Katherine Preston KeeneyCenter for Public Administration and Policy, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg and Alexandria, Virginia

This article investigates the extent to which public higher education institutions participate in state-level arts policy through a history of selected budgets and a textual analysis of performing artspresenting centers at public higher education institutions in Virginia. Evidence from this researchsuggests that the arts policy field is altered by the emergence of public higher education institutionsas policy actors. The findings have financial and decision-making implications for arts policy makers,university administrators, and arts agencies as the participation of public higher education institutionsaffords new opportunities and challenges for the state encouragement of the arts.

Keywords arts funding, arts policy, budgeting, higher education institutions, policy fields

INTRODUCTION

States and localities are exploring new ways to secure funds to preserve and stimulate theadvancement of their cultures and heritage (Miller and Yudice 2002) amidst a national declinein public support for the arts. One such approach to advancing arts policy is through harnessingindirect funding that comes from higher education institutions (Cowen 2006). Traditionally,universities are viewed as consumers and producers of the arts and culture (Pollak, Hager, andRowland 2000; Tepper 2004; Bishop, Kavanagh, and Palit 2010) but are not considered significantplayers in public arts policy making (DiMaggio 1991). A more thorough examination of highereducation in the arts policy field provides a fresh perspective on how arts policy might be preservedduring challenging economic times.

In this article, “arts policy” includes “public support for museums, the visual arts (painting,sculpture, and pottery), the performing arts (symphonic, chamber and choral music; jazz, moderndance, opera and musical theater, and ‘serious’ theater), historic preservation, and humanitiesprograms (such as creative writing and poetry)” (Mulcahy 2006, 321).1 Although Kevin Mulcahy(2006) argued that arts policy may be categorized in this way, Constance DeVereaux (2006)suggested that the category of art has ill-defined boundaries and, therefore, this terminology isproblematic for policy makers. Arts policy may in part define public support for the arts, but

The author gratefully acknowledges the guidance and support of Drs. Laura S. Jensen and Larkin Dudley with theCenter for Public Administration and Policy at Virginia Tech as well as the thoughtful comments provided by anonymousreviewers.

Address correspondence to Katherine Preston Keeney, Center for Public Administration and Policy, Virginia Tech,1021 Prince Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. E-mail: kapresto@vt.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:10

26

Oct

ober

201

4

PUBLIC UNIVERSITY’S PERFORMANCE IN STATE ARTS POLICY 19

arts policy should not be limited to this definition. Casting a wider net in the study of culturalpolicy, J. Mark Schuster’s (2003) work highlights numerous cultural policy actors and showslobbying and information exchange between nonprofit and state agencies as part of the mix.2

Mulcahy’s 2006 definitional work helps to draw a circle around what is included in arts policy,and Schuster (2002, 2003) and other scholars shed light on the policy field as well as its actorsand activities. This research examines actors in the policy field through an investigation of linesof public support for the arts.

Because of the relationship between arts and education (National Endowment for the Arts1988; Dempster 2004), it is appropriate to consider the contributions that public higher educationinstitutions make in the arts policy field. Specifically, this article investigates public highereducation institutions’ participation in state-level arts policy in order to reveal evidence of changeof actors in one state, Virginia. Evidence for higher education’s participation in the policy fieldcomes from a study of capital spending on arts infrastructure in Virginia from 2000 to 2012 anda comparison of the organizational statements from performing arts centers at higher educationinstitutions with those from a public arts agency, the Virginia Commission for the Arts.

The boundaries of the arts policy field have extended beyond the traditional boundaries ofstate arts agencies as arts advocates look to partnerships with non-arts agencies, including highereducation institutions (Schuster 2002). In many policy areas, the university extends administrativecapacity and resources for programs that benefit citizens but are becoming diminished by thestate due to budgetary constraints and a desire for localized policy decision making (Loss 2012).Yet, although scholars have already drawn attention to the fragmented arts policy environment(Mulcahy 1992; Hofferbert and Urice 2001), policy makers, grant makers, and policy evaluatorsstill rely on a narrow interpretation of the arts policy field. For example, state per capita spendingon the arts is typically used to compare states in terms of support. This assessment ignores non-artsagencies, such as housing and transportation, and particularly higher education institutions thatare increasingly entering the arts policy field. By failing to account for these public institutions,citizens, arts advocates, and policy makers may hold misunderstandings about their state’s totalsupport for the arts and culture.

Not only is there an immediate need to address the financial challenges facing public artsagencies, but it is also necessary to reevaluate the public arts agency structure. Most state artsagencies (SAAs) were created at the encouragement of federal-level arts policies includingthe National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) during the late 1960s. Although the substantiveprograms of SAAs have changed since their inception (Lowell 2004, 2008), their governanceand funding mechanisms have not since been significantly altered. Additionally, as “little NEAs,”SAAs face similar criticisms regarding the appropriate role of the state in arts policy (Mulcahy1992, 2002). It is commonly known that the state’s contribution to the arts is decidedly smalland often contested (Wyszomirski 1982; Hofferbert and Urice 1985; Schuster 1990; Miller andYudice 2002; Lowell 2004). The ongoing challenges of an outdated structure and public criticismconfronting SAAs create room for new actors to enter the policy field as states and localities lookfor new implementation models and financial resources.

In this article, the role of public higher education institutions in the implementation of publicarts policies and funding is investigated through an exploration of university arts infrastructure—amissing piece from the understanding of total arts spending. The arts policy landscape is changingand expanding, but exactly how remains an unanswered question. A descriptive analysis of this

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:10

26

Oct

ober

201

4

20 KEENEY

sort will provide arts advocates and university administrators a clearer picture of the significantcontributions that public higher education institutions make to arts policy.

This article is organized into the following sections. The first section includes a discussion of theconceptual framework supporting this research. The second section provides a brief backgroundof the state arts policy field as it is traditionally constructed. This is followed by the method anddata collection, findings, and limitations of both the archival budget and textual analyses. Thelast section offers a discussion of these findings, their implications for the arts policy field, andrecommendations for future research.

A POLICY FIELDS FRAMEWORK

The study of policy fields informs this research, including an exploration of the increased partici-pation of actors involved in an unstable policy area like the arts.3 Not only are SAAs struggling togarner resources and support in their external environments, but higher education institutions arealso adapting to increasing resource scarcities (Kerr 1995; Newfield 2003). This resource-scarceclimate underscores the arts policy field and the increased state–academic relationship in artspolicy implementation.

There is substantial literature from the management, organizations, political science, public ad-ministration, and sociology fields that addresses the context of public policy making, particularlythe actors and relationships that are present in public policy. Concepts from organization fields,policy subgovernments, policy subsystems, networks, policy domains, and policy fields contributeto the understanding of how institutions, organizations, agencies, and individuals participate in thepolicy process.4 Although a thorough treatment of this literature is beyond the scope of this article,Melissa Stone and Jodi Sandfort’s (2009) policy field framework is most useful in investigatingstate-level arts policy. Similar to a policy domain, the authors defined a policy field as “an identi-fiable set of elements in a specific environment that directly shape local public service provision”(Stone and Sandfort 2009, 1056). Because arts policies are most significant at the state and locallevels, the policy field framework is appropriate for this research. Stone and Sandfort (2009) sug-gested that “The policy field framework helps one analyze how actual relationships among majorinstitutions and key stakeholders influence the exertion of power and flow of resources, such asmoney, information, and clients” (1056). This framework, applied to the arts in more detail below,is essential in understanding the fragmented, ambiguous, and unstable conditions surrounding artspolicy.

Other frameworks, such as Edward Goetz and Mara Sidney’s (1997) application of the policysubsystem, also add insight. The authors examined changes in community development policythrough the lens of the policy subsystem. After the actors were identified, historical changes inthe subsystem and external and internal causes of instability were determined. The findings fromthis research suggest that policy subsystems are not stagnant. A second interesting finding fromGoetz and Sidney (1997) relates to public discourse and social construction. They reported thatas the policy definition of community development changed, so did the subsystem dynamics.This concept of change in subsystem dynamics is applicable to arts policy—an area that wassupported on the national level, with significant growth from 1965 to 1980, and then fiercecriticism at the end of the twentieth century (Binkiewicz 2004). The arts policy environment is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:10

26

Oct

ober

201

4

PUBLIC UNIVERSITY’S PERFORMANCE IN STATE ARTS POLICY 21

not stable; therefore, new organizations enter and exit when “the supply of resources becomesmore or less scarce” (Pfeffer and Salanick 1978, 3). Through the lens of policy fields, this articlewill consider whether there is evidence to suggest that the arts policy field in Virginia is changingwith the increased participation of higher education institutions and whether the policy field isadapting to that change.

STATE ARTS POLICY

Policy Field

Although the arts sector is a small, specialized, and close-knit community (McCarthy 2006),public encouragement of the arts is fragmented and often ambiguous, with funds for the artscoming from various agencies. In a way, through the receipt of funds from many sources, thearts policy field is buffered from its external environment (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978). Yet, theseresources remain unstable and the policy environment uncertain because of the nature of artspolicies that encourage creative, innovative, and educational outputs that are extremely difficultto assess (Hirsch 1972).

Following Stone and Sandfort’s (2009) policy field framework, the way in which the traditionalarts policy field is usually constructed is with few actors who are instrumental in distributing grantsto artists, arts organizations, and arts programs at other types of institutions. In this conceptionof the field, Ronald Berman (1992) suggested, “The politics of ‘the arts’ is clearly a cycle; fundsare distributed to organizations created by the distribution of funds” (110). Here, the policy fieldis constructed as a top-down system with few actors. State and local elected officials determineappropriations for arts agencies and sometimes directly to arts organizations through line item ap-propriations. Additionally, state- and local-operated arts and cultural organizations receive directappropriations in addition to grant awards. The Virginia Museum of Fine Arts is an example of astate-operated art museum (Virginia Museum of Fine Arts 2012). Organizations and individualswho receive grants from arts agencies are included in the policy field as grant recipients.

In this construction of the arts policy field, the arts agency is paramount and at the center ofpolicy making. Missing from this traditional conception of the field, however, are non-arts agen-cies and institutions of higher education that contribute, at least financially, to the field (Schuster2003). An analysis of funding that higher education institutions receive for arts infrastructurecould encourage the addition of this actor to the conception of the arts policy field.

Measuring State Support

Public funding for the arts and culture comes from many direct and indirect sources and thereforeit is difficult to assess total public expenditure in this area. One way that a state’s contributionto the arts is measured is with per capita arts spending, as defined by legislative appropriationsto SAAs. Obviously, this measurement is limited because only explicit arts funders are included.As early as 1989, Schuster wrote about the “flawed” nature of using per capita comparisonsto understand the field of arts policy, “it suffered from selective vision—only the most visiblearts funding agencies were counted” (15). Schuster’s (2003) research on mapping cultural policy

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:10

26

Oct

ober

201

4

22 KEENEY

in the state of Washington adds additional evidence that a per capita comparison or rankingis problematic. He described Washington’s cultural policy system as a “rich and complex mixof agencies and nongovernmental organizations engaged in cultural policy at the state level”(Schuster 2003, iii). Although there has been significant research on the arts and culture at thefederal level, additional work and measures of assessment are needed at the state and local levelsto fill in the gaps of this limited research. This article contributes to a more complete picture oftotal public support for the arts at the state level.

Governance

Painting an accurate picture of state arts policy is one challenge, but another remains in SAAgovernance and decision making. SAAs are governed by independent boards, which are in placeas a means of preventing elected officials from determining programmatic matters and fundingdecisions (Mulcahy 1992; Rushton 2002; Lowell and Ondaatje 2006). This governance structureallows for several unintended consequences, however. First, because arts agencies are governedby independent boards, elected officials may have limited knowledge of arts agency activitiesand, in turn, give little attention to the policy area (Schuster 2003; Lowell and Ondaatje 2006).To combat their low political profile and declining budgets, SAAs began to rethink their missionsand use of resources (Cherbo and Wyszomirski 2000; Lowell 2004, 2008). Instead of focusing onindividuals and specific organizations, today SAAs often support public-minded projects that alignwith state government priorities, such as arts education and development of the creative economy(Florida 2002; Lowell 2008; National Governors Association 2009). Second, the existence of anindependent governance structure means that policies determined outside the established systemcompromise the independent decision-making process that is intended. For example, Mulcahy(1992) noted that some arts administrators believe direct appropriations “violate the council andpanel review system that was designed to ensure the allocation of arts funds based on culturalneed or value rather than due to political pressure” (14). Indeed, direct appropriations to artsorganizations increase total public support for the arts, yet without the independent guidance ofthe SAA, political officials rather than arts experts may make decisions in awarding these limitedresources.

In summary, the conceptions of the traditional arts policy field, measures of support, andgovernance portray an arts policy paradigm that does not reveal the less visible actors in thisfragmented sector. Still, although the field may be difficult to assess comprehensively, it isimportant for states to understand their total distributive subsidies for the arts and for the artspolicy community to recognize its collective strength when non-arts agencies are included.Margaret Jane Wyszomirski (2000) stated, “To become more policy effective, the present artscommunity needs to evolve into at least an arts policy community, if not into an even moreextended cultural policy community” (100). An investigation of the contributions made by highereducational institutions will shed light on whether the field indeed has new actors that have notbeen previously acknowledged fully. At the same time, evidence of the increasing role of highereducation in the policy field will support the claim that the policy field is adapting in a climate ofscarce resources. To assess the scope of higher education in the Virginia arts field, a study of botharchival budget documents and organizational statements of performing arts presenting centersfollows.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:10

26

Oct

ober

201

4

PUBLIC UNIVERSITY’S PERFORMANCE IN STATE ARTS POLICY 23

ARCHIVAL BUDGET ANALYSIS

Method and Data Collection

To determine the contributions of public higher education institutions to the state-level artspolicy field, an archival analysis of budget documents was performed (Yin 2009; Marshalland Rossman 2011). Specifically, capital appropriations to arts infrastructure at public highereducation institutions were examined as a measure of additional state support for the arts. Twofigures were collected and compared: (1) capital spending on performing arts presenting centersat public higher education institutions and (2) capital spending on state-operated arts and culturalorganizations. Data were collected for the state of Virginia, a state that ranks in the lower rangeof state spending on the arts as defined by per capita spending (National Assembly of State ArtsAgencies 2012a, 2012b). Another reason that Virginia was selected for this research was therecent construction of performing arts presenting centers at several public universities. AlthoughVirginia may not be a critical case, the numerous public higher education institutions and recentarts infrastructure projects provided opportunity to explore the relationship between public artsand higher education. The aggregate-level unit of analysis used in this research was the state.Embedded units of analysis were the public universities that met the criteria of this study. Thetime frame for capital budget archival analysis was 2000 to 2012, determined by budget data thatwere available on the website of the Virginia Department of Planning and Budget.

Twelve public higher education institutions (including regional and community colleges) withperforming arts presenting centers (PACs) defined the embedded unit sample. Although thereare many different types of arts infrastructures and programs in academia, this study’s focus wasmulti-use, enclosed PACs. PACs were defined as presenting centers that produced work “outsideof the presenting organization” (Hager and Pollak 2002, 2). Data on PACs were collected overother types of arts infrastructure because PACs serve diverse artistic and audience interests and areoften most significant in terms of capital infrastructure requirements. In addition, in a recent studyof cultural infrastructure, PACs comprised 54 percent of total spending on cultural projects, greaterthan the percentages found for museums and theaters (Woronkowicz et al. 2012). Auditoriums,arenas, or single-function spaces, such as playhouses and fine arts museums, were not included inthe sample (Peterson 2001). Academic-focused programs such as university schools of music orfaculty artist series did not meet the PAC criteria. Additionally, most of the centers in the samplehad explicit missions of support for the academic institution and the community.

The total capital expenditures for arts infrastructure in public higher education institutions andstate-operated arts and cultural organizations were retrieved from biennial executive budgets.5 Inthe state of Virginia, capital spending for education and state-operated cultural facilities, includingstate arts organizations, museums, and historical sites, is categorized within the department ofthe Secretary of Education.

Findings

The archival budget analysis in Figure 1 revealed that spending on capital arts infrastructurein public higher education institutions was evident in Virginia. Specifically, biennial capitalspending on higher education institution PACs ranged from $10.3 million to $51 million between

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:10

26

Oct

ober

201

4

24 KEENEY

FIGURE 1 State-level capital spending on the arts in Virginia (in thousands). Source: Virginia Department of Planningand Budget (2000–2012). (color figure available online)

2004 and 2012. These figures can be compared to the most recent legislative appropriation tothe Virginia Commission for the Arts of approximately $3.8 million and with a trend of overalldecline in per capita spending for the arts (National Assembly of State Arts Agencies 2012a). Inaddition, the data showed evidence of not only increased capital appropriations to universities butalso decreased capital appropriations to state-supported arts organizations, such as the VirginiaMuseum of Fine Arts in Richmond. This was particularly striking between 2002 and 2012. Thefinancial trends of these two categories do not mirror one another in a way that suggests thatappropriations to higher education institutions are displacing those to state-operated arts andcultural organizations, but the results from this snapshot in recent history strengthen the argumentthat higher education institutions may be playing an increasingly significant role in the state-levelarts policy arena.

Clearly, capital budget data reveal that state spending on arts infrastructure far exceeds ap-propriations to Virginia’s SAA. Of course, drawing a comparison between arts infrastructureand an arts programming agency is a bit like comparing apples to oranges. Yet, these capitalappropriations to higher education institutions and state-operating arts organizations add greatlyto the comprehensive spending in this policy area. Findings from Virginia reveal that the stategives significant amounts of capital support to higher education institutions for the arts.

Limitations

There were several limitations in the use of archival budget documents to determine an actor’sentrance into a policy field. First, the purposes of capital appropriations as recorded in budget

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:10

26

Oct

ober

201

4

PUBLIC UNIVERSITY’S PERFORMANCE IN STATE ARTS POLICY 25

documents were not always specific. For example, budget lines that were categorized as “sup-plemental funding for previously approved project,” “acquired land,” or “blanket authorization”could not be included in the study because the programmatic intent was impossible to determine.In addition, public universities in Virginia receive maintenance reserve funds for capital improve-ments. Again, because of a lack of specifics in budget documents, assumptions could not be madeabout how these funds would be used and thus they were not included in this research. Second,capital spending on arts infrastructure at higher education institutions that did not meet the PACcriteria was not included in the study. For example, single-function buildings like visual art gal-leries and academic-based buildings like a school of music did not meet the PAC criteria. Withthese distinctions, this study does not capture all arts related capital spending on higher educationinstitutions. However, these limitations suggest that capital spending for the extracurricular artscould in fact be much greater than was identified. Lastly, archival budget analysis is one way toquantify the entry of public higher education institution PACs into the policy field but is limitedin that it does not explore their roles. In the next section, an analysis of organizational statementscomplements this financial assessment.

TEXTUAL ANALYSIS

Method and Data Collection

To triangulate this research (Eisenhardt 1989; Yin 2009) on the contribution of higher educationinstitutions to the arts policy field of Virginia, a textual analysis of the organization statementsof PACs was performed using a process of emergent coding (Neuendorf 2002). Accordingto Catherine Marshall and Gretchen Rossman (2011), an analysis of documents is useful inrevealing the values and beliefs of those in a particular setting. The analysis was completed inorder to determine whether the organizational statements of public higher education institutionPACs were more or less similar to a state arts agency or a performing arts presenting organization.These exemplars were selected because they are different functionally. Traditionally, public artsagencies are primarily in the business of awarding grants, whereas performing arts presentingorganizations largely present performances. Therefore, similarities between higher educationinstitution PACs and the state arts agency would indicate that PACs were fulfilling functionssimilar to those of the state agency. On the other hand, if higher education institution PACs weremore similar in purpose to a performing arts presenting organization, this would indicate that PACsare fulfilling this traditional role. This method of comparing organizational statements follows a2010 study by Odile Paulus, where the author found that the mission statements of American artmuseums had many similarities and some differences related to their locale and raison d’etre. Inan effort to determine the homogeneity and differentiation of art museums’ mission statements,Paulus compared museums’ mission statements to an industry-accepted institutional definitionof “museum.” In a similar vein, this present research compares the organizational statementsof university PACs to those of a state arts agency and to an industry-accepted definition of“performing arts presenting organization.”

The purposive sample for the textual analysis was the same as the budget analysis and includedthe twelve higher education institutions in Virginia with PACs. Of these twelve institutions, eight

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:10

26

Oct

ober

201

4

26 KEENEY

had background information and mission and vision statements available on their websites. Be-cause only a few of the sample PACs had strategic planning documents and objective statements,these were not included in the analysis. Two exemplars were used for comparison: the VirginiaCommission for the Arts and an industry-accepted definition of performing arts presenting or-ganizations. Statements from the Virginia Commission for the Arts were used as the public artsagency standard for comparison because this research is positioned in the state of Virginia. Theindustry-accepted definition of performing arts presenting organizations was taken from MarkHager and Thomas Pollak’s (2002) study about the capacity of performing arts presenting or-ganizations. Here, PACs are defined in the same way as they were for the budget analysis as“an organization, or a department or program of a larger organization, that works to facilitateexchanges between artists and audiences through creative, educational, and performance oppor-tunities. The work that these artists perform is produced outside of the presenting organization”(Hager and Pollak 2002, 2). This definition was used to analyze the broad range of performingarts presenting organizations in a national survey with over 800 respondents. It should be notedthat the public higher education institution PACs included in the textual analysis sample alreadymet the criteria of this industry-accepted standard.

A priori constructs as opposed to preset coding guided the interpretation of the text. Sixconstructs were created based upon literature presented previously in this research and a reviewof the organizational documents for keywords and themes. These constructs were chosen becausethey were thought to best represent generally the goals, functions, and activities of both the statearts agency and a performing arts presenting center. The constructs were (1) audience, (2) priorityto artistic product or public, (3) artistry, (4) governance, (5) economy, and (6) education. Toyield insight into the institutional purposes of higher education institution PACs, organizationalstatements from these institutions were compared with those of the Virginia Commission forArts and with an industry-accepted definition of performing arts centers. First, organizationalstatements from the Virginia Commission for Arts and the industry-accepted definition of a PACwere organized into these six constructs. Then, statements were extracted from the background,mission, vision, and values statements of the public higher education institution PACs includedin the sample and were similarly organized into the constructs.6

Findings

This section addresses how organizational statements from public higher education institutionPACs compared with (1) organizational statements from the Virginia Commission for the Artsand (2) the industry-accepted definition of a performing arts presenting organization. Similarityin statements between the PACs in the sample and the SAA would indicate that higher educationinstitution PACs have roles similar to those of a public arts agency, despite their functionaldifferences. Similarity to the industry-accepted definition would indicate that higher educationinstitution PACs fulfill the traditional and defined role of a presenting arts center.

1. Audience: In relation to the audience construct, statements from public higher edu-cation institution PACs were more similar to the Virginia Commission for the Arts’organizational statements than the industry-accepted PAC definition. The Commission’sstatements focused on citizens of Virginia as beneficiaries of public arts programs. Thearts were discussed, but artists were largely absent from the Commission’s mission and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:10

26

Oct

ober

201

4

PUBLIC UNIVERSITY’S PERFORMANCE IN STATE ARTS POLICY 27

values statements. This is unlike the definition of PACs, however, which centered onthe artist and audience. Seven of the eight educational institutions explicitly defined theuniversity community and the local community as their core audiences. This mentionof community is similar to the state arts agency’s organizational statements. Althoughhigher education institution PACs exist in part to encourage the production of art, therelated organizational statements made no declaration of artists as audience.

2. Priority to artistic product or to public?: This construct addressed the internal versusexternal focus of PACs and was determined in part from Paulus’s (2010) researchquestion, “Do the museums differentiate by giving priority to the collection or to thepublic” (17). The Virginia Commission for the Arts certainly prioritized the public,because it produces no artistic product of its own. Within the industry-accepted defi-nition of a PAC, however, a more equal treatment of the art and the audience existed.The public may be more central to a presenting organization, as opposed to a mu-seum that holds permanent collections that must be preserved and protected. Five ofthe eight higher education institution PACs had statements that could be categorized inthis construct and all gave priority to the public rather than to the artistic product. Forexample, these PACs offered broad-ranging and affordable performances. Terms suchas “audience,” “enrichment,” “education,” “transformation,” and “outreach” were usedfrequently. Only one institution described the high-quality facility in more depth thanothers and made no mention of outreach activities. In this example, the higher educationinstitution PAC was determined as giving priority to both the artistic product and thepublic.

3. Artistry: The artistry construct was used to categorize the artistic goals, achievements,and outcomes of the organizations in the sample. Here, the Virginia Commission forthe Arts highlighted diversity and individuals’ growth in addition to high-quality artisticexperiences. The industry definition of a PAC differed in that it centered around theperformance, as opposed to the residual impact on the audience. In addition, PACs aredefined by work that is “produced outside of the presenting organization” (Hager andPollak 2002, 2). For higher education institution PACs, this construct was the mostexpansive of all six categories. Like the Virginia SAA, cultural awareness, diversity, andaccessibility were prominent themes in these academic institutions’ documents. In linewith the industry-accepted PAC definition, these higher education institution PACs alsoprovided information about performance type and included statements of artistic acclaimand notoriety. One institution stated that in addition to being one of the finest culturalattractions in the world, its programming was cost-effective and diverse. In order to serveall audiences, the higher education institution PACs offer expansive and far-reachingartistic goals.

4. Governance: Like in most state arts agencies, a volunteer board, appointed by the governor,acts as the governing body for the Virginia Commission for the Arts. PACs, on the otherhand are “independent organizations or departments of larger organizations” (Hagerand Pollak 2002, 2). Although there is little specificity regarding governance in the PACdefinition, most presenting organizations are not-for-profits or higher education institutionaffiliates. Governance is included in both the Virginia Commission for the Arts’ statementsand the industry-accepted PAC definition, yet governance was only mentioned by three ofthe higher education institution PACs. These three institutions mentioned collaboration

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:10

26

Oct

ober

201

4

28 KEENEY

and partnerships between the arts communities in different levels of government andbetween the university and the community. One university PAC provided informationabout a governing foundation that existed to “support artistic and educational programs”(CNU Ferguson Center for the Arts 2012) at the university. In terms of governance, it isdifficult to categorize higher education institution PACs as more like public arts agenciesor like traditional PACs. It is likely that the governing bodies at these higher educationinstitutions are unlike either of the standards used in this research. Unfortunately, detailswere not provided in the available background, mission, and vision statements of theseinstitutions.

5. Economy: There is much literature about the arts as an economic driver in urban devel-opment (Florida 2002; National Governors Association 2009), yet economy was onlymentioned in the Virginia Commission for the Arts’ statements and not the industry-accepted PAC definition. The Virginia Commission for the Arts “values and promotes thearts and artists as a vital component of the Commonwealth’s economic health, supportingjobs, businesses, and tourism” (Virginia Commission for the Arts 2012). Three of theeight higher education institution PACs had similar statements that mentioned local andregional business and the economic community. One statement was that the universityPAC “gives the university a unique opportunity to strengthen its relationships with localbusinesses, to enhance the cultural life of the community, and to support economic growthand social interaction in the region” (JMU Forbes Center for the Arts 2012). In compar-ison with a public arts agency and a performing arts presenting center, the statementsorganized in the economy construct were more similar to those of the public arts agency.

6. Education: Arts advocacy and education disciplines have long discussed the importanceof arts education and using the arts as an educational tool. It is not surprising, then,that both the Virginia Commission for the Arts and the industry-accepted PAC definitioninclude educational and lifelong learning opportunities. Six of the eight university PACsalso mentioned education in their organizational statements. The arts were not onlydiscussed generally in terms of educating students and citizens but were mentioned asbeing “integral to the College’s mission” and used in educational planning and generalinstruction (GMU Center for the Arts 2012). Integral to both the public arts agency andperforming arts presenting centers, it is difficult to categorize public higher educationinstitution PACs as more similar to one or the other in the education construct.

After examination of the six constructs above, the findings from the textual analysis reveal thathigher education institution PACs have organizational statements that are similar to those ofa state arts agency. These similarities are apparent despite their functional differences. Withinthe constructs of audience, priority to artistic product or public, artistry, and economy, highereducation institution PACs had organizational statements that were more similar to the SAA.The higher education institution PACs were similar to both exemplars in the constructs ofartistry and education. There were insufficient details from organizational statements to drawsimilarities between the institutions in the construct of governance. These findings suggestthat higher education institution PACs were fulfilling roles defined by the SAA, in addi-tion to their defined roles as performing arts presenting centers. This evidence complementsthe budgetary findings on the entry of public higher education institutions in the arts policyfield.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:10

26

Oct

ober

201

4

PUBLIC UNIVERSITY’S PERFORMANCE IN STATE ARTS POLICY 29

Limitations

The small number of public higher education institution PACs included in the purposive samplelimits the generalizability of the textual analysis. However, this type of analysis adds to the budgetdata findings and therefore yields insight into the arts policy field. Additionally, the research waslimited to organizational statements available on public higher education institutions’ websites.The background, mission, vision, and values statements were not equivalent across units inthe sample. As a result, the textual analysis was not limited to an examination of missionstatements. Instead, a combination of organizational statements was used to organize data intothe a priori constructs. Because only a few higher education institution PACs had strategicplanning documents, these were not included in the analysis. Theoretically, strategic plans couldoffer more information about the long-range plans, purposes, and activities of these arts centers.

The textual analysis also is limited by a general lack of available data on public higher educationinstitution PACs. Although the State Council for Higher Education in Virginia collects generaldata about higher education institutions, including enrollment rates and affordability, there isno method in place for the state to measure the performance of these performing arts centers.7

Similarly, the state has not stipulated geographic imperatives for higher education institutionPACs. Although these measures of accountability exist for the state arts agency, they are notcollected for the higher education institution PACs, and so these measures were not included inthis analysis.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

State support for the arts is often measured by direct appropriations to SAAs. Scholars have shown,however, that arts policy is fragmented and that there are many actors involved in the public,private, and nonprofit arenas. This research sheds light on public higher education institutions asone of the unexamined, yet significant players in arts policy. Known as leading producers andconsumers of art, higher education institutions also are serving as community arts institutions, asthe similarities to the organizational statements of an SAA reveal. The findings from this researchshow that increased spending on higher education arts infrastructure correlates to decreased percapita arts spending and decreased capital spending on state-operated arts organizations. Thissuggests that money for the arts is being directed into new avenues of delivery, including highereducation.

Evidence from Virginia supports the argument that the arts policy field is undergoing adaptation(Ripley and Franklin 1991) with the increased action of a previously unacknowledged actor. In thelong run, this process of adaptation may be unfavorable for SAAs that are experiencing revenuedeclines yet favorable for higher education institutions that are acquiring new resources (Ripleyand Franklin 1991). SAAs and arts constituents would benefit by acknowledging and adapting tothis change in the policy field. The public higher education institution affords new opportunitiesfor the arts policy field in terms of capacity and financial resources.

It is important to note, however, that these findings exist in a resource-scarce climate not onlyfor the arts but also for higher education. Unlike ever before, public higher education institutionsare competing for resources within a fiscally constrained environment. This external climateleads some institutions to engage in new activities and partnerships that will result in new forms

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:10

26

Oct

ober

201

4

30 KEENEY

of revenue generation while others are rightsizing and narrowing their scope to focus on thecore components of education. Nevertheless, higher education institutions remain engaged ineducation, research, and public service, which includes the arts and entertainment (Bowen 1996;Duderstadt 2000). Interestingly, the lack of data and accountability reports between the state’shigher education governing body and the public education institution PACs is telling in and ofitself. If these organizations are acting to advance state arts policy in some way, then it may benecessary for the state, the state arts agency, and the PACs to coordinate planning, resources,and evaluation efforts. Evidence from Virginia suggests that these public institutions are makingcontributions to the state’s comprehensive approach to public support for the arts, and thosecontributions should be measured as such.

STATE ARTS POLICY REDEFINED

Policy Field

A redefinition of the state arts policy field should include the public higher education institution.Evidence from this research suggests that PACs at higher education institutions are the recipientsof significant state funds and have organizational statements that are similar to those of a publicarts agency, indicating that these centers are more than just presenting organizations. With theaddition of these institutions, the arts policy field may become more expansive, comprehensive,and unified. Based upon literature and an assessment of their organizational statements, highereducation institution PACs see themselves as contributing to the university and local communities.The number of PACs in Virginia institutions alone suggests that these are important players inthe policy field. Yet, the state policy system has yet to recognize their impact fully.

Measuring State Support

Tyler Cowen (2006) suggested that the future of public arts funding will include disguised forms ofsupport, but effective support nonetheless. He stated, “An indirect subsidy arises when governmentpolicy somehow influences relative prices, or relative returns, to encourage the production of art”(Cowen 2006, 31). The higher education system serves as one indirect way to support the arts,and Cowen (2006) described this approach as an “underappreciated vehicle” for arts funding(54). Schuster (2003) suggested that “State cultural agencies, and their grant-making programsin particular, provide the most visible support for culture, but the combination of policies andprograms across state governments is a much better indicator of a state’s cultural vitality and itscommitment to developing the cultural life of its citizens” (v). This comprehensive approach toarts policy will help the arts to redefine its place in public life and to remain politically relevant(DiMaggio 1991; Schuster 2002; Lowell and Ondaatje 2006; Cherbo, Vogel, and Wyszomirski2008).

Governance

With the acknowledged presence of the higher education institution, what will the arts policy fieldgovernance structures look like in the future? The arms-length system of government support

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:10

26

Oct

ober

201

4

PUBLIC UNIVERSITY’S PERFORMANCE IN STATE ARTS POLICY 31

for the arts may be compromised with the increased participation of public higher educationinstitutions in the arts policy field. As the textual analysis revealed, the governance arrangementsfor arts centers at higher education institutions are unlike public arts agencies and independentperforming arts centers. Instead, foundations or other more complex governing arrangementsmay exist. Mulcahy (1992) cautioned against direct appropriations to arts agencies as a violationof the independent peer review system. Direct appropriations to public higher education PACs areno different from what Mulcahy (1992) finds problematic. If state funds for the arts continue toflow directly from the legislature to higher education institutions, then what are the implicationsfor nonprofit arts programs outside this system? Will public funds to these recipients decrease? Ormight artists strive to become part of the state–university arrangement? No matter the outcome,direct appropriations to higher education arts infrastructure raise questions about the arms-lengthgovernance paradigm that the arts policy field in the U.S. context has strongly adopted.

CONCLUSIONS

This research has sought to describe a change in the state-level arts policy field. In a resource-scarce environment and with a contested policy area like the arts, it is reasonable to expect publichigher education institution performing arts centers to participate in the policy arena. Evidencefrom this research shows that these performing arts centers are receiving capital projects fundsfrom the state that should be considered in the total amount of public support for the arts.Additionally, the textual analysis reveals similarities between the higher education institutionPACs and the state arts agency, especially within the constructs of audience, priority to artisticproduct or public, artistry, and economy. Higher education institution PACs are more than justpresenting centers serving their respective educational communities. Organizational statementsshow that these centers also are focused on community and advancing the arts throughout Virginia.Arts policy makers and evaluators should include the contributions of public higher educationinstitution PACs.

Although this study provides evidence for the presence of new actors, it does not reveal theintentions of these actors in the arts policy field. Scarce resources, interdependence, and structuralcomplexity contribute to organizations’ motivations to work together (Levine and White 1961;Pfeffer and Salancik 1978; Lundin 2007). Education and the arts may be natural partners, yetwith the increased role of higher education in the arts policy arena, SAAs may experience a lossof autonomy or centrality in the policy field. Evidence of spending on PACS at public highereducation institutions leaves outstanding questions for the future of the already fragile publicarts field. Nevertheless, the arts policy community should take this possibility into considerationdespite the opportunities that public higher education institutions might afford in terms of capacity,resources, and buffering the arts from an uncertain external environment.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

This study revealed evidence of change in the arts policy field. Additional research is necessaryto investigate that change further. First, although the state of Virginia served as fertile groundfor this research, the study is limited to one state and cannot be generalized beyond this context.Research in other states, with varying higher education governance structures, would verify or

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:10

26

Oct

ober

201

4

32 KEENEY

disconfirm this phenomenon. Second, through the lens of resource dependency and exchangetheories, the intentions of actors in the policy field must be further examined (Bardach 1998).This would provide great insight into how institutions are adapting and why. By acknowledginga new actor, the arts policy field might be intentionally strengthened with a coalition or networkthat includes public higher education institutions. Third, this research analyzes only some ways inwhich higher education institution PACs contribute to arts policy. Acknowledging their presenceas a policy actor raises many more questions about the roles that they may play in the policyfield. For example, how do these organizations engage in state policy dialogue or act as policyentrepreneurs? Further in-depth investigation is required to fully address these new questions.Fourth, state spending on the arts should be examined with close consideration of states’ budgetcategorization. The way in which budgets are categorized gives meaning to a policy issue and astate’s treatment of that substantive area.

NOTES

1. See Mulcahy (2006) for a thorough treatment of the terms “cultural policy” and “arts policy.”2. See Schuster’s diagram, Ecology of State Cultural Policy (2003, 6).3. See Figures A1 and A2 that portray instability in appropriations to the Virginia Commission for the Arts,

1970–2012.4. Stone and Sandfort (2009) acknowledged the contributions of many policy theories in the development

of their framework, particularly the policy domain literature. A thorough examination of these conceptsis outside the scope of this article.

5. Executive budgets and amendments were analyzed to account for changes that occurred between biennialappropriations.

6. Data came from the websites of public higher education institution PACs.7. See the State Council for Higher Education in Virginia (http://www.schev.edu) and Virginia Performs

(http://www.vaperforms.virginia.gov).

REFERENCES

Bardach, E. 1998. Getting Agencies to Work Together: The Practice and Theory of Managerial Craftsmanship. Washing-ton, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Berman, R. 1992. “Art versus the Arts.” In Public Policy and the Aesthetic Interest: Critical Essays on Defining Culturaland Educational Relations, edited by R. A. Smith and R. Berman, 105–18. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Binkiewicz, D. M. 2004. Federalizing the Muse: United States Arts Policy and the National Endowment for the Arts1965–1980. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

Bishop, S., K. Kavanagh, and M. Palit. 2010. “The Role of Performing Arts Centers: A Case for the City University ofNew York.” The International Journal of Learning 17 (8): 473–84.

Bowen, H. R. 1996. Investment in Learning. The Individual and Social Value of American Higher Education. NewBrunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Cherbo, J. M., H. L. Vogel, and M. J. Wyszomirski. 2008. “Toward an Arts and Creative Sector.” In Understanding theArts and Creative Sector in the United States, edited by J. M. Cherbo, R. A. Stewart, and M. J. Wyszomirski, 9–27.New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Cherbo, J. M., and M. J. Wyszomirski. 2000. The Public Life of the Arts in America. New Brunswick, NJ: RutgersUniversity Press.

Christopher Newport University’s Ferguson Center for the Arts. 2012. “Ferguson Center for the Arts Foundation.”Accessed May 1, 2012. http://fergusoncenter.org/support/ferguson-center-foundation/.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:10

26

Oct

ober

201

4

PUBLIC UNIVERSITY’S PERFORMANCE IN STATE ARTS POLICY 33

Cowen, T. 2006. Good and Plenty: The Creative Successes of American Arts Funding. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress.

Dempster, D. 2004. “American Medicis: Training and Patronizing Professional Artists in American Universities.” Paperpresented at the 104th National American Assembly, Creative Campus: The Training, Sustaining, and Presenting ofthe Performing Arts in American Higher Education, Harriman, New York, March 11–13, 2004.

DeVereaux, C. 2006. “Any Way the Wind Blows: Changing Dynamics in American Arts Policy.” Journal of ArtsManagement, Law, and Society 36 (3): 168–80.

DiMaggio, P. J. 1991. “Decentralization of Arts Funding from the Federal Government to the States.” In Public Moneyand the Muse: Essays on Government Funding for the Arts, edited by S. Benedict, 216–53. New York: W. W. Norton& Co.

Duderstadt, J. J. 2000. A University for the 21st Century. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. “Building Theories from Case Study Research.” Academy of Management Review 14 (4): 532–50.Florida, R. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community, and Everyday

Life. New York: Basic Books.George Mason University Center for the Arts. 2012. “Mission Statement.” Accessed May 1, 2012. http://

cfa.gmu.edu/about/mission.php.Goetz, E. G., and M. S. Sidney. 1997. “Local Policy Subsystems and Issue Definition: An Analysis of Community

Development Policy Change.” Urban Affairs Review 32 (4): 490–512.Hager, M. A., and T. H. Pollak. 2002. The Capacity of Performing Arts Presenting Organizations. Washington, DC:

Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, The Urban Institute.Hirsch, P. M. 1972. “Processing Fads and Fashions: An Organization-Set Analysis of cultural Industry Systems.” American

Journal of Sociology 77 (4): 639–59.Hofferbert, R. I., and J. K. Urice. 1985. “Small-Scale Policy: The Federal Stimulus versus Competing Explanations for

State Funding of the Arts.” American Journal of Political Science 29 (2): 308–29.James Madison University Forbes Center for the Arts. 2012. “About the Forbes Center.” Accessed May 1, 2012.

http://www.jmu.edu/jmuarts/forbescenter/.Kerr, C. 1995. The Uses of the University. 4th ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Levine, S., and P. E. White. 1961. “Exchange as a Conceptual Framework for the Study of Interorganizational Relation-

ships.” Administrative Science Quarterly 5 (4): 583–601.Loss, C. P. 2012. Between Citizens and the State: The Politics of American Higher Education in the 20th Century.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Lowell, J. 2004. State Arts Agencies, 1965–2003: Whose Interests to Serve? Santa Monica, CA: RAND.———. 2008. State Arts Policy: Trends and Future Prospects. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Lowell, J., and E. H. Ondaatje. 2006. The Arts and State Governments: At Arm’s Length or Arm in Arm? Santa Monica,

CA: RAND.Lundin, M. 2007. “Explaining Cooperation: How Resource Interdependence, Goal Congruence, and Trust Affect Joint

Actions in Policy Implementation.” Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 17 (4): 651–72.Marshall, C., and G. B. Rossman. 2011. Designing Qualitative Research. 5th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE.McCarthy, B. 2006. “Building and Sustaining Trust in Networks: Lessons from the Performing Arts.” Irish Marketing

Review 18 (1): 47–57.Miller, T., and G. Yudice. 2002. Cultural Policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Mulcahy, K. V. 1992. “Government and the Arts in the United States.” In Public Policy and the Aesthetic Interest:

Critical Essays on Defining Cultural and Educational Relations, edited by R. A. Smith and R. Berman, 6–19. Urbana:University of Illinois Press.

———. 2002. “The State Arts Agency: An Overview of Cultural Federalism in the United States.” Journal of ArtsManagement, Law, and Society 32 (1): 67–80.

———. 2006. “Cultural Policy: Definitions and Theoretical Approaches.” Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society35 (4): 319–30.

National Assembly of State Arts Agencies. 2012a. Legislative Appropriations Annual Survey: Fiscal Year 2012. Wash-ington, DC: National Assembly of State Arts Agencies.

———. 2012b. NASAA Data: Virginia Commission for the Arts 1970–2012. Washington, DC: National Assembly ofState Arts Agencies.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:10

26

Oct

ober

201

4

34 KEENEY

National Endowment for the Arts. 1988. “Toward Civilization: A Report on Arts Education.” Excerpted by R. A. Smithand R. Berman in Public Policy and the Aesthetic Interest: Critical Essays on Defining Cultural Educational Relations,154–67. Urbana IL: University of Illinois Press, 1992.

National Governors Association. 2009. Arts and the Economy: Using Arts and Culture to Stimulate State EconomicDevelopment. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. Accessed February1, 2012. http://www.nga.org/cms/home/nga-center-for-best-practices/center-publications/page-ehsw-publications/col2-content/main-content-list/arts–the-economy-using-arts-and.html.

Neuendorf, K. 2002. The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Newfield, C. 2003. Ivy and Industry: Business and the Making of the American University, 1880–1980. Durham, NC:

Duke University Press.Paulus, O. 2010. “Museums as Serigraphs or Unique Masterpieces: Do American Art Museums Display Differentiation

in Their Mission Statements?” International Journal of Arts Management 13 (1): 12–28.Peterson, D. C., ed. 2001. Developing Sports, Convention, and Performing Arts Centers. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Urban

Land Institute.Pfeffer, J., and G. R. Salancik. 1978. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New

York: Harper & Row.Pollak, T., M. A. Hager, and E. Rowland. 2000. “University Arts Programs and Local Communities: A Report on a Pilot

Study.” Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 30 (2): 146–59.Ripley, R. B., and G. A. Franklin. 1991. Congress, the Bureaucracy, and Public Policy. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole

Publishing.Rushton, M. 2002. “Political Oversight of Arts Councils: A Comparison of Canada and the United States.” International

Journal of Cultural Policy 8 (2): 153–65.Schuster, J. M. D. 1989. “The Search for International Models: Results from Recent Comparative Research in Arts Policy.”

In Who’s to Pay for the Arts? The International Search for Models of Arts Support, edited by M. C. Cummings, Jr.,and J. M. D. Schuster, 15–41. New York: American Council for the Arts.

———. 1990. “Resource Allocation to the Arts.” Society 27 (6): 21–24.———. 2002. “Sub-national Cultural Policy—Where the Action Is: Mapping State Cultural Policy in the United States.”

International Journal of Cultural Policy 8 (2): 181–96.———, ed. 2003. Mapping State Cultural Policy: The State of Washington. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago

Cultural Policy Center.Stone, M. M., and J. R. Sandfort. 2009. “Building a Policy Fields Framework to Inform Research on Nonprofit Organi-

zations.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 38 (6): 1054–75.Tepper, S. 2004. “The Creative Campus: How Do We Measure Up?” Paper presented at the National American Assembly,

The Training, Sustaining, and Presenting of the Performing Arts in American Higher Education, New York, March11–13.

Virginia Commission for the Arts. 2012. “Values and Mission.” Accessed March 1, 2012. http://www.arts.virginia.gov/about/mission.html.

Virginia Department of Planning and Budget. 2000–2012. Virginia’s Budget. Richmond, VA: Virginia Department ofPlanning and Budget. Accessed March 1, 2012. http://dpb.virginia.gov/budget/budget.cfm.

Virginia Museum of Fine Arts. 2012. “History of the Museum.” Accessed February 1, 2012. http://www.vmfa.state.va.us/Visit/About VMFA/History of the Museum.aspx.

Woronkowicz, J., D. C. Joynes, P. Frumkin, A. Kolendo, B. Seaman, R. Gertner, and N. Bradburn. 2012. Set in Stone:Building America’s New Generation of Arts Facilities, 1994–2008. Chicago, IL: Cultural Policy Center at theUniversity of Chicago.

Wyszomirski, M. J. 1982. “Controversies in Arts Policymaking.” In Public Policy and the Arts, edited by K. V. Mulcahyand C. R. Swaim, 11–31. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

———. 2000. “Policy Communities and Policy Influence: Securing a Government Role in Cultural Policy for the Twenty-first Century.” In The Politics of Culture: Policy Perspectives for Individuals, Institutions, and Communities, editedby G. Bradford, M. Gary, and G. Wallach, 94–108. New York: The New Press.

Yin, R. K. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th ed. Applied Social Research Methods Series. LosAngeles: Sage Publications.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:10

26

Oct

ober

201

4

PUBLIC UNIVERSITY’S PERFORMANCE IN STATE ARTS POLICY 35

APPENDIX

FIGURE A1 Total legislative appropriations to the Virginia Commission for the Arts. Source: National Assembly ofState Arts Agencies (2012b). (color figure available online)

FIGURE A2 Total legislative appropriations to the Virginia Commission for the Arts, per capita. Source: NationalAssembly of State Arts Agencies (2012b). (color figure available online)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:10

26

Oct

ober

201

4