Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding Audiences: A Critical Review of Audience Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Audience Engagement in the Performing Arts

Part of the book series: New Directions in Cultural Policy Research ((NDCPR))

  • 2071 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter provides a critical overview of the existing literature on audience research and audience engagement. It surveys the seminal contributions to the rapidly emerging field of audience studies and classifies its recurrent themes into the following categories: the pacification of audiences; power, elitism and class; cultural policy, participation and co-creation; immersive performance; performance venues, spaces and places; performance as ritual; reception theory and semiotics; research methodologies; the audience experience; value and impact research; young audiences; arts marketing and management; audience engagement and enrichment. The aim of this taxonomy is to inform a new paradigm for audience studies in the context of the performing arts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alston, A. 2016. Beyond immersive theatre: Aesthetics, politics and productive participation. London, Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Arts and Humanities Research Council. 2013. Cultural Value Project [Internet]. London, Arts and Humanities Research Council. Available from: http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/Funded-Research/Funded-themes-and-programmes/Cultural-Value-Project/Pages/default.aspx [Accessed 25 June].

  • Auslander, P. 2008. Liveness: Performance in a mediatized culture. 2nd ed. Oxon, Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, M. 2006. I have seen the future and it is not here yet …; or, on being ambitious for audience research. The Communication Review, 9(2), pp. 123–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, M. and Mathijs, E. 2016. Introduction: The World Hobbit Project. Participations [Online], 13(2), pp. 158–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, M. 2015. Diversity and social engagement: Cultivating a working class theatre audience. In: ENCACT (ed.) The ecology of culture: Community engagement, co-creation, cross-fertilization. Lecce, ENCACT, pp. 47–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, L., O’Reilly, D. and Carnegie, E. 2013. Innovative methods of inquiry into arts engagement. In: Radbourne, J., Glow, H. and Johanson, K. (eds.) The audience experience: A critical analysis of audiences in the performing arts. Bristol, Intellect, pp. 113–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben Chaim, D. 1984. Distance in the theatre: The aesthetics of audience response. London, Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, S. 1997. Theatre audiences: A theory of production and reception. 2nd ed. London, Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlyne, D. E. 1971. Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York, Appleton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, H. 1990. The audience. Baltimore, The John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleeker, M. and Germano, I. 2014. Perceiving and believing: An enactive approach to spectatorship. Theatre Journal, 66, pp. 363–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. 1991. The love of art: European art museums and their public. Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourriaud, N. 2002. Relational aesthetics. Dijon, Les Presses du Réel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brand, G., Sloboda, J., Saul, B. and Hathaway, M. 2012. The reciprocal relationship between jazz musicians and audiences in live performances: A pilot qualitative study. Psychology of Music, 40(5), pp. 634–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. 2013. All the world’s a stage: Venues and settings, and their role in shaping patterns of arts participation. In: Radbourne, J., Glow, H. and Johanson, K. (eds.) The audience experience: A critical analysis of audiences in the performing arts. Bristol, Intellect, pp. 49–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. S. 2006. An architecture of value. Grantmakers in the Arts Reader, 17(1), pp. 18–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. S. and Novak, J. L. 2007. Assessing the intrinsic impacts of a live performance. San Francisco, WolfBrown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. S. and Ratzkin, R. 2011. Making sense of audience engagement: A critical assessment of efforts by nonprofit arts organizations to engage audiences and visitors in deeper and more impactful arts experiences. San Francisco, The San Francisco Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. 2011. The 21st century venue. In: Walmsley, B. (ed.) Key issues in the arts and entertainment industry. Oxford, Goodfellow, pp. 103–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burland, K. and Pitts, S. 2012. Rules and expectations of jazz gigs. Social Semiotics, 22(5), pp. 523–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butsch, R. 2008. The citizen audience: Crowds, publics, and individuals. New York, Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Colbert, F. 2011. Management of the arts. In: Towse, R. (ed.) A handbook of cultural economics. 2nd ed. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, pp. 261–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner, L. 2004. Who gets to tell the meaning? Building audience enrichment. GIA Reader [Online], 15(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner, L. 2013. Audience engagement and the role of arts talk in the digital era. New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1988. The flow experience and its significance for human psychology. In: Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. (eds.) Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 15–35.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dearn, L. K. and Pitts, S. E. 2017. (Un)popular music and young audiences: Exploring the classical chamber music concert from the perspective of young adult listeners. Journal of Popular Music Education, 1(1), pp. 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Marinis, M. 1987. Dramaturgy of the spectator. The Drama Review, 31(2), pp. 100–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenreich, B. 2007. Dancing in the streets: A history of collective joy. London, Granta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, J. W. 2003. Audience participation in the eighteenth-century London theatre In: Kattwinkel, S. (ed.) Audience participation: Essays on inclusion in performance. Westport, CT, Praeger, pp. 55–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freshwater, H. 2009. Theatre & audience. London, Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Glow, H. 2013. Challenging cultural authority: A case study in participative audience engagement. In: Radbourne, J., Glow, H. and Johanson, K. (eds.) The audience experience: A critical analysis of audiences in the performing arts. Bristol, Intellect, pp. 35–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golden, L. 1973. The purgation theory of catharsis. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 31(4), pp. 473–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, E. 2010. Greek tragedy: Suffering under the sun. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, C. L. 2012. ‘Argue with us!’: Audience co-creation through post-performance discussions. New Theatre Quarterly, 28(2), pp. 189–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim, C. 2016. Audience as performer: The changing role of theatre audiences in the Twenty-First Century. London and New York, Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jancovich, L. 2011. Great art for everyone? Engagement and participation policy in the arts. Cultural Trends, 20(3–4), pp. 271–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kattwinkel, S. 2003. Introduction. In: Kattwinkel, S. (ed.) Audience participation: Essays on inclusion in performance. Westport, CT, Praeger, pp. ix–xviii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keaney, E. and Oskala, A. 2007. The golden age of the arts? Taking Part survey findings on older people and the arts. Cultural Trends, 16(4), pp. 323–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, R. 2010. Theatre and interculturalism. London, Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kolesch, D., Schütz, T. and Nikoleit, S. (eds.) 2019. Staging spectators in immersive performance. Oxon and New York, Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konijn, E. A. 1999. Spotlight on spectators: Emotions in the theatre. Discourse Processes, 28(2), pp. 169–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machon, J. 2013. Immersive theatres: Intimacy and immediacy in contemporary performance. London, Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, K. F., Ondaatje, E. H., Zakaras, L. and Brooks, A. 2004. Gifts of the muse: Reframing the debate about the benefits of the arts. Santa Monica, CA, RAND.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConachie, B. 2008. Engaging audiences: A cognitive approach to spectating in the theatre. New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, D., Brook, O. and Taylor, M. 2018. Panic! Social class, taste and inequalities in the creative industries. London, Arts and Humanities Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Toole, J., Adams, R.-J., Anderson, M., Burton, B. and Ewing, R. (eds.) 2014. Young audiences, theatre and the cultural conversation. Dordrecht, Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piber, M. and Chiaravalloti, F. 2011. Ethical implications of methodological settings in arts management research: The case of performance evaluation. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 41, pp. 240–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitts, S. E. 2005. What makes an audience? Investigating the roles and experiences of listeners at a chamber music festival. Music and Letters, 86(2), pp. 257–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popovici, V. 1984. Is the stage-audience relationship a form of dialogue? Poetics, 13(1–2), pp. 111–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radbourne, J. 2013. Converging with audiences. In: Radbourne, J., Glow, H. and Johanson, K. (eds.) The audience experience: A critical analysis of audiences in the performing arts. Bristol, Intellect, pp. 143–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radbourne, J., Glow, H. and Johanson, K. 2010. Measuring the intrinsic benefits of arts attendance. Cultural Trends, 19(4), pp. 307–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radbourne, J., Glow, H. and Johanson, K. (eds.) 2013. The audience experience: A critical analysis of audiences in the performing arts. Bristol, Intellect.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radbourne, J., Johanson, K., Glow, H. and White, T. 2009. The audience experience: measuring quality in the performing arts. International Journal of Arts Management, 11(3), pp. 16–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reason, M. 2008. Did you watch the man or did you watch the goose? Children’s responses to puppets in live theatre. New Theatre Quarterly, 24(4), pp. 337–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reason, M. 2010. Asking the audience: Audience research and the experience of theatre. About Performance 10, pp. 15–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reason, M. 2019. A prison audience: Women prisoners, Shakespeare and spectatorship. Cultural Trends, 28(2–3), pp. 86–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinelt, J. G. 2014. What UK spectators know: Understanding how we come to value theatre. Theatre Journal, 66(3), pp. 337–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rentschler, R., Radbourne, J., Carr, R. and Rickard, J. 2001. Relationship marketing, audience retention and performing arts organisation viability. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7(2), pp. 118–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, D. and Reason, M. (eds.) 2011. Kinesthetic empathy in creative and cultural practices. Bristol, Intellect.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauter, W. 2000. The theatrical event: Dynamics of performance and perception. Iowa City, University of Iowa Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schechner, R. 2003. Performance theory. 2nd ed. London, Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenmakers, H. 1990. The spectator in the leading role: Developments in reception and audience research within theatre studies. In: Sauter, W. (ed.) New directions in theatre research. Stockholm and Copenhagen, Munksgaard, Nordic Theatre Studies, pp. 93–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sedgman, K. 2016. Locating the audience: How people found value in National Theatre Wales. Bristol, Intellect.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sedgman, K. 2017. Audience experience in an anti-expert age: A survey of theatre audience research. Theatre Research International, 42(3), pp. 307–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sedgman, K. 2018. The reasonable audience: Theatre etiquette, behaviour policing, and the live performance experience. London, Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sedgman, K. Forthcoming. On rigour in theatre audience research. Contemporary Theatre Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silvia, P. J. 2005. Emotional responses to art: From collation and arousal to cognition and emotion. Review of General Psychology, 9(4), pp. 342–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, V. 1975. Dramas, fields, and metaphors: Symbolic action in human society. Ithaca and London, Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, V. 1982. From ritual to theatre: The human seriousness of play. New York, PAJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walmsley, B. 2011. Why people go to the theatre: A qualitative study of audience motivation. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 10(4), pp. 335–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walmsley, B. 2013a. ‘A big part of my life’: A qualitative study of the impact of theatre. Arts Marketing: An International Journal, 3(1), pp. 73–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walmsley, B. 2013b. Co-creating theatre: Authentic engagement or inter-legitimation? Cultural Trends, 22(2), pp. 108–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walmsley, B. 2016. From arts marketing to audience enrichment: How digital engagement can deepen and democratize artistic exchange with audiences. Poetics, 58, pp. 66–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walmsley, B. 2019. The death of arts marketing: A paradigm shift from consumption to enrichment. Arts and the Market, 9(1), pp. 32–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walmsley, B. Forthcoming. Theatre fans: A typology of serious leisure seekers. In: Sedgman, K. (ed.) Theatre fandom. Iowa City, University of Iowa Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, G. 2013. Audience participation in theatre: Aesthetics of the invitation. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • White, T. R. and Hede, A.-M. 2008. Using narrative inquiry to explore the impact of art on individuals. Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society, 38(1), pp. 19–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, D. 2015. Understanding cultural taste: Sensation, skill and sensibility. London, Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School Performance Cultural Industries, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK

    Ben Walmsley

Authors
  1. Ben Walmsley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ben Walmsley .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Walmsley, B. (2019). Understanding Audiences: A Critical Review of Audience Research. In: Audience Engagement in the Performing Arts. New Directions in Cultural Policy Research. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26653-0_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation