The quality of a research process is often assessed through the concepts of reliability, validity, and generalizability. Reliability is concerned whether the processes of the research, for instance data collection, can be repeated leading to the same results (Yin, 2018), or whether the methods are chosen and used correctly (O’Leary, 2010), or whether the same results can be reached with different investigators in different circumstances (Gibbs, 2015d). Validity refers to the study’s ability to evaluate if its findings are true and correctly captured. Construct validity focuses on identifying the correct ways of collecting data for the concepts being studied, internal validity asks if the research design measures what it aims to measure, and external validity questions if the findings of the research can be generalised. (Yin, 2018)
According to Silverman (2013b), in qualitative research the criteria of reliability can be achieved by for example describing data analysis methods in sufficient detail. In this study I have addressed the matter by following good research practises: by recording the interviews, transcribing and coding them according to the arisen themes, by presenting extracts of those transcriptions in the research report and by comparing the results with the thematic framework and earlier research. However, it would be unlikely to get exactly the same results when the process would be repeated again, since the conditions of the dance companies and their interviewed representatives change over the time. That does not mean that the chosen methods of the research as such are weak, but simply the circumstances of the examinees have changed, as pointed out by Hirsjärvi and Hurme (2010). Also, it needs to be
72 recognised that with other representatives of the same dance companies as well as with another interviewer less familiar with the topic, the answers received or their interpretations might have resulted differently, especially when discussing about opinions and views. Likewise, repeating the process instantly with the same participants would presumably lead to partially transformed results, since the interview per se increases the interviewees knowledge and awareness about the topic.
To evaluate the validity of the research, Yin (2018) advises to use multiple sources of research material and to maintain the chain of evidence throughout the process.
In this study, in addition to recorded and transcribed interviews, also administrative documents, annual reports, statistics, literature, articles, online material and earlier research have been studied and documented with notes and comments. The chain of evidence has been maintained for comparison and validation. Through triangulation, as suggested by Silverman (2013b), Gibbs (2015d) and Taylor (2015), the validity of the research was evaluated by comparing material from above- mentioned various sources as well as by following the accuracy of the applied coding system. Later, the quotations and findings were brought back to the interviewees to be verified as an act of respondent validation. The research method arose from the research questions along with the aim of the study and was approved by the scholars and specialists of arts management.
O’Leary (2010) evaluates generalizability of a qualitative research in terms whether its findings are applicable on a larger scale, and Silverman (2013b) by comparing cases to find something characteristic or dissimilar in them. The thematic framework of this research and coding according to the arisen themes highlighted both similarities and differences between the seven studied dance companies. Yet, increasing the number of participating cases in various locations in Finland, would widen the perspectives on a large scale.
Although the interest for this research topic grew from my personal experience in the professional contemporary dance field, I aimed at following an unbiased, neutrally critical, open, and reflective approach throughout the research process.
Still, no researcher can guarantee full objectivity, as mentioned by Gibbs (2015d).
73 Based on my long-term experience in the Finnish contemporary dance scene, some of the interviewees I knew well, which made the interview situation open and easy, while some of the interviewees were quite new in their positions, which could make them more cautious with their answers. Therefore, my knowledge of and experience in the dance field could be regarded as an advantage in getting familiarised with the research topic and understanding the needed themes around it, or as a disadvantage to be too close to the topic and having possible predictions of the findings of the research. Being aware of the risk of subjectivity, I consciously emphasised neutrality by following the thematically structured interview questionnaire in the interview situations, by verifying facts from other materials and by staying equally reflective throughout the process of analysing the results.
The determination to stay neutral in the interview situations brought up another dilemma: to be able to capture the interviewees’ own understanding about the concepts and methods of fundraising without pre-defining them, the definitions for those concepts could not be explained beforehand. On the other hand, the interview questionnaire was sent to all the interviewees in advance, which gave them an opportunity to clarify unknown concepts or methods when so wished. Furthermore, the form of a semi-structured interview enabled discussions and questions when needed.
Since the interviews were conducted mainly via remote connections due to the restrictions of Covid-19 pandemic, non-verbal communication was not taken into consideration at its full extent: the analysis concentrated more on what has been said rather than how it has been said. Moreover, Covid-19 pandemic and the reform of the state subsidy system for performing arts were still ongoing during the interviews, and their concrete long-term influences on the studied dance companies could be only guesstimated by the interviewees. However, this study concentrated on recognising and describing planned or implemented fundraising practises of the studied contemporary dance companies as well as their reactions to the above- mentioned issues at that time, in the middle of the acknowledged uncertainties.
74
4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
This chapter presents the results and analysis of the study. The primary data gathered in the interviews is supported by the data gathered from the websites and annual reports of 2017–2019 of the studied dance companies. The initial letters of the names of the interviewed individuals are used to refer to the comments of that interviewed representative of the dance company, for example, JM refers to the comments of Jarkko Mandelin. Occasionally the following abbreviations are used to refer to the studied dance companies: AB (Aurinkobaletti), Minimi (Dance Theatre Minimi), Hurjaruuth (Dance Theatre Hurjaruuth), TSC (Tero Saarinen Company), PDC (Pori Dance Company), Routa (Routa Company) and KO (Kinetic Orchestra).
All the interviewees and studied dance companies are introduced in chapter 3.2 Data collection.
VOS system (=in Finnish valtion osuutta saava) refers to the legitimated state subsidy system for arts as such, and VOS dance companies refer to the dance companies receiving this particular form of public support. VOS subsidies are paid according to the Act on the Funding of Education and Culture (Laki opetus- ja kulttuuritoimen rahoituksesta 1705/2009). Taike (= in Finnish Taiteen edistämiskeskus), an abbreviation for Arts Promotion Centre Finland, presents another kind of public support for arts. For the studied dance companies outside of VOS system, Taike’s operational subsidy is the main form of public funding.
Additionally, Taike may award special allowances as well as individual and project grants for the studied dance companies or their individual members. Chapter 2.1 introduces the Finnish funding system for arts more closely.
The results are discussed under four sections following the main themes of the research. Section 4.1. presents the structural baselines of the studied dance companies by comparing their organisational forms, missions, locations, content of boards, budgets, and number of employees. Simultaneously it discusses the possible influence of these dimensions on fundraising of the dance companies. Section 4.2 displays how the dance company representatives perceive the concept of fundraising in general and what are their views to fundraising from private sources. Section 4.3 focuses on the practised forms of private fundraising, and section 4.4 illuminates
75 how the interviewees observe Finnish cultural policy, public support for arts and the reform of state subsidy system for performing arts.
Besides finding answers to the set of research questions and discussing the arisen themes, the analysis aims to contribute feasible ideas for future fundraising methods for dance companies, organisations, or individual artists. Therefore, the analysis sometimes highlights practical and rather detailed fundraising examples of some dance companies instead of generalizations around the examined matter.
Occasionally illustrations are used to adduce the findings. The structure of the chapter 4 Results and analysis, follows the order of the interview questions, which were assembled under corresponding themes for the data collection.