« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER 2.2 REVIEW OF THE ACADEMIC LITERATURE
Definitions
2.1 Although there are some clear challenges inherent in defining 'quality of life' and 'well-being' we discovered that there are some areas of consensus. The concept of quality of life is generally regarded as multi-dimensional. These dimensions are reflected in a number of 'domains' which, combined, sum up quality of life as a whole. A range of indicators relate to each of these domains, to which subjective and/or objective measurement techniques may be applied. While there is not a 'definitive' cross-disciplinary set of domains, the literature shows that they tend to cover a number of common areas such as physical well-being, material well-being, personal development, social inclusion/social relationships, etc. The consensual view of 'well-being' is that it is one domain of quality of life and is concerned with one's subjective perception of and feelings about life, commonly operationalised in terms of 'happiness' or 'life satisfaction'.
2.2 Some key points for culture and sport, and as such particularly relevant for this paper, are, firstly, that this concept of the multi-dimensional nature of quality of life is dynamic: in other words, the relative importance of each aspect to an individual changes as they move through life. Secondly, the components of quality of life, and the relative importance an individual places on each of these, are contingent upon personal values. Thirdly, the concept of quality of life is culturally specific. Social research suggests that psychological factors are a key determinant of how someone perceives their quality of life. We judge this point as being particularly important for policy development.
2.3 Further, the small amount of research that exists suggests that the measurable contribution made by culture and sport activities to overall quality of life is, at best, modest.
Methods
2.4 Experts approach quality of life from a range of disciplines and often deploy quite different philosophical approaches, concerns and objectives. As a result the object of measurement of quality of life varies widely and, consequently, so do methodological approaches.
2.5 As we illustrate in the literature review, some argue that domains can be divided into those which are about subjective perception and those which are about external life conditions. Meanwhile, other experts suggest that each quality of life domain lends itself to both subjective and/or objective assessment (see Literature Review p. 39).
2.6 A significant methodological debate features in the psychology literature regarding bias. Critics argue that bias can be created even where the most carefully conducted experimental approaches are used. Can we be sure that the effect on quality of life is to do with engagement with sports or cultural activities or, alternatively, is it taking part in a programme of research that counts?; and, how do we know that it is participation in sports or culture that is producing an observed or reported effect? This issue of causality is raised in a large number of the papers reviewed, both those involving longitudinal studies and those which engage over a shorter period.
2.7 In short, we saw that there is insufficient evidence from the research to establish a causal link between culture and sport and quality of life or well-being.
2.8 Methodological questions also include discussions of sample size. The review of the sports and exercise literature found that experimentally based studies often involve small numbers and report large amounts of attrition (Literature Review p. 84). Other methodological debates tend to centre round the choice of tools relevant to that discipline: for example, the debate on the use of different psychology indices or social indicators and the selection of the indicators used. The reviews of literature criticise the lack of consistent methods and champion the use of both quantitative and qualitative approaches.
2.9 There is also a debate, principally within the literature relating to sport and exercise, about the level and quality of intervention - that is, not just the amount of exercise and how it links with quality of life, but also the role of factors such as the quality of the coaching.
2.10 Bell's review of the economics literature defines individual 'subjective well-being', a concept of particular interest to economists ( see Literature Review Annex 1). Economists accept that both measurable individual characteristics and external conditions of life affect subjective well being. These include gender, health, employment status, financial status, marital status, and income relative to others. However, there is currently no literature within economics dealing with the relationship between sports or cultural participation and individual subjective well-being. This is at least partly because of the lack of suitable datasets for use by economists. Nevertheless, Bell suggests there may be a link between 'subjective well being' and cultural and sports volunteering activity, and he recommends this as an area for exploration.
2.11 The economics literature also offers a body of work related to measuring the value of 'non- market goods', which is how (some) culture and sporting activities might be classified. Research here relates to contingent valuation and conjoint analysis. Here, again, Bell argues that sport and culture might well be amenable to this kind of analysis but that, as yet, research of this type has not been undertaken.
Conclusions from academic literature
2.12 The conclusion of the review of the literature - the social research and the economics literature - is that empirical evidence demonstrating a link between cultural and sporting participation and quality of life/well-being is very thin on the ground.
2.13 In short, very little research has been carried out in this area, and none of it offers results which can be generalised across different groups and circumstances.
2.14 In as much as culture and sport is seen to have a role in enhancing quality of life, we have found it referred to in relation to two specific domains. It appears consistently, however, as one of the indicators and descriptors used in domains encompassing subjective well-being, expressed as satisfaction with life as a whole, and social inclusion/social well-being/social relationships. This is perhaps not unexpected as it is often assumed that participation in culture and sport has a positive impact on aspects of quality of life as it relates to social inclusion. The academic literature suggests, at best, an association rather than a causal link between these.
2.15 In as much as we can draw lessons from the academic literature, then, we conclude that quality of life is a multi-dimensional dynamic concept contingent upon both personal and cultural values. As a consequence, in the policy literature we would be looking for an approach which first clarifies the policy goals and which then embraces a multi-dimensional approach to defining quality of life/well-being - even if the policy focus is restricted only to one area.
2.16 Our literature review findings also suggest that the methods for measuring quality of life/well-being should reflect the multi-dimensional nature of quality of life by using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. So, if, along side the 'objective' measures of life conditions, the views and perceptions of individual are seen as being important in determining quality of life, we can see the particular significance of Schalock's call for methods which include 'participant observation, performance-based assessment and standardised instruments.' (Literature Review p.36). As we will see in our interrogation of the policy literature - carried out below - the focus is often on the latter two and rarely, if ever, on the (qualitative) first.
2.17 Finally, an important issue highlighted by experts concerns the quality of sports or cultural activity and how this affects outcomes.
« Previous | Contents | Next »