Misrepresentation or refutation?

Economic Impact studies have absorbed considerably important attention of the academic world not only for their validity as a research method but also their general contribution in measuring the value of culture. This paper extends on the existing knowledge of the validity of such studies as far as their employed research tools are concerned. The question primarily raised addresses the relative effectiveness of researchers to present the pursued economic figures, and the overall constraints of the foundations of this largely discredited method. The methodology of qualitative meta-analysis was adapted in order to synthesize and review a selected number of Economic Impact studies of arts festivals upon six main research issues practitioners are challenged with. For each element respectively, the most effective practice was indicated along with considerations for further improvement. Results of the comparative evaluation demonstrated that each study case applies significantly different methodology and research assumptions, both of which crucially affect the final figures. Furthermore, none of the analyzed impact assessment papers was proved to deal accurately with the examined elements. These findings suggested substantial issues of inconsistency of the general methodology as well as broader limitations regarding the actual usage of such studies by diverse stakeholders. From the perspective of academic research, this thesis precisely delineates the procedural steps required to conduct a meta-analysis evaluating methodology diversities.