This research project aims to develop the concept of ‘emergent value’ as well as create a theoretical framework based on this concept that can underpin a range of creative and playful audience research and evaluation strategies. This first blog introduces the idea of Emergent Value (EV for short) and looks at what the framework looks like so far.
Emergent Value describes the very personal ways in which audience members ascribe meaning to their experiences. It arises out of the person-specific connections between elements/instances/aspects of the art event that they are engaging with and the experiences/value systems/ideas they are carrying with them. There will be overlap between the EV from the same work between people – especially if they have things in common – but there will also be personal differences. EV refers both to a value system (which proposes that we should pay attention to these personal perspectives which may be messier and more complicated) and to a way of understanding how we make sense of our art experiences.
Frequently concepts are defined by what they are not rather than what they are – and EV started off as a way of articulating what was ‘wrong’ with instrumental approaches and value types. However, as the project progresses the aim is to articulate EV on its own terms, defined by what it is.
This will no doubt develop along with the project, but currently the definition includes:
Emergent Value is a framework to understand how audiences/participants find meaning in their arts experiences. It describes the process by which unexpected / unpredictable and plural meanings are made by those that take part or encounter an experience. It also sets out a strategy for capturing and understanding these multiple meanings and experiences, which takes a participant-centred approach and uses reflection and facilitation strategies to support the development and capturing of meaningful experiences.
The working hypothesis is that reflection supports the development of emergent value, by providing space for connections to be made between existing experiences/ideas and the art being experienced. In part, this builds on my observations on how taking part in audience research supports the making of connections and contributes to interpretation processes by being asked questions and given space to reflect on them (see Breel, 2015, and Breel, 2025, for examples of my audience research approaches).
This process links strongly to 4E cognition (embodied, embedded, enactive, and extended) ideas: meaning is made in conversation with others, with our environment, with our body and through interactions (see Menary, 2010, and Hibbert, 2016, for an introduction to 4E cognition, and Johnson, 2007, Gallagher and Zahavi, 2008, and Fuchs and De Jaegher, 2009, for an introduction to embodied cognition). This also supports the idea that we make meaning within very complex systems, meaning that emergence is a key part of those systems. EV also uses a plural robust realist framework (Dreyfus and Taylor, 2015), which is a philosophical framework that combines a variety of perspectives to create nuanced, plural understandings of sense-making.
The current EV framework is focused on building audience research and evaluation strategies, as this is the phase of the project we’re in. For this purpose there are 4 key pillars:
EV has the potential to represent a strategy for understanding – and valuing – the more intangible complicated aspects of arts experiences, which are often the things that make an experience meaningful for individual audience members. As the EV framework develops over the course of the project, the aim is to create ways to capture and understand the various ways in which audiences make sense of their experiences.
Breel, A. (2015b). Audience agency in participatory performance: A methodology for examining aesthetic experience. Participations: Journal of Audience & Reception Studies, 12(1), p368-387.
Breel, A. (2024). Meaningful agency in participatory performance: a contextual approach. Studies in Theatre and Performance, 45(1), 23–44.
Dreyfus, H. & Taylor, C. (2015). Retrieving Realism. London: Harvard University Press.
Fuchs, T. and De Jaegher, H. (2009). Enactive intersubjectivity: participatory sense- making and mutual incorporation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 8(4), 465-486.
Gallagher, S. & Zahavi, D. (2008). The Phenomenological Mind. An introduction to philosophy of mind and cognitive science, Abingdon: Routledge.
Hibbert, R. (2016). LIS and BCIs: a Local, Pluralist, and Pragmatist Approach to 4E Cognition. Neuroethics, 9, p187-198.
Johnson, M. (2007). The Meaning of the Body: Aesthetics of Human Understanding. London: University of Chicago Press.
Menary, R. (2010). Introduction to the special issue on 4E cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 9(4), p459-463.
