Arts Learning Across a City: How Ecosystem Thinking Helps Shape Understanding of Black-Centered and Eurocentric Arts Programming

Abstract

Given historical patterns of unequal access to arts education, we used an ecosystem perspective to investigate Black Centered Arts and Eurocentric Arts in a mid-sized U.S. city, with a focus on youth programs, museums, and other youth arts organizations. We found that practitioner-leaders valued arts quality, equitable access, community embeddedness, and cultural preservation. Programs that provided access to Eurocentric arts tended to be older, larger, and better funded, and network analysis revealed a subnetwork made up largely of Black Centered Arts organizations. Results will inform an ongoing research-practice-philanthropy partnership structured to develop a more equitable city-wide arts ecosystem.

Keywords

arts education out-of-school time learning ecosystem programs after-school programs social urban urban education youth development

Youth participation in arts education can lead to substantial benefits for the development of important dispositions and skills (Bowen & Kisida, 2019; Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Hetland et al., 2015). However, the past several decades saw a steady removal of arts from public schools, with a particular drop in access for students of color (Rabkin & Hedberg, 2011). This removal coincided with the growth of community-based youth arts organizations and teaching artists, who operate in a variety of settings (Rabkin et al., 2011). Today's youth arts education takes place across organizations and settings, including but not limited to school buildings, and including traditional arts, music, and dance, as well as new media arts (Kirshner et al., 2019). The prevalence of arts education across spaces is especially true in urban environments, which provide a density and variety of youth arts programs. Such a landscape requires new models for conceptualizing and supporting arts learning; particularly, when equitable access and representation are principal goals. Such goals have increased priority considering the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on learning and participation in out-of-school time spaces (Ettekal & Agans, 2020). The present study addresses three key aspects within this landscape: the values held by practitioner-leaders, the distribution of youth arts organizations, and the particular roles of Black Centered Arts organizations (i.e., organizations that focus on arts with African or African American roots and/or serve Black youth) in arts education.

We present here a case study of a city-wide youth arts learning and development (L&D) ecosystem, which, though deeply local, is intended to provide useful illustrations for other communities. We employed a case study with an engaged scholarship approach in order to understand how arts educational equity is bound to the context of this particular city, its history, and current practices (Yin, 2014). Our study takes place in a mid-sized city, considered urban emergent in Milner’s (2012) typology of urban education. This work is part of a research-philanthropy practice partnership (RP3; see Howison et al., 2022), structured to use a L&D ecosystem framework as a tool for a regional foundation to refine their funding for youth arts. We adopt an L&D ecosystem framework because inequity in education is not due only to challenges within K-12, but rather is a systems level issue (Akiva et al., 2020; Falk & Dierking, 2018). An L&D ecosystem framework has become a useful approach for exploring regional structures that support arts education (Knutson et al., 2011). However, this framework has been somewhat limited in its conceptualization of L&D ecosystems as complicated, rather than as complex systems with dynamic and emergent properties (Akiva et al., 2022; Hecht & Crowley, 2020).

We aimed to explore the complexity of this urban arts L&D ecosystem by embracing dynamism and ecological thinking in the deliberate co-design of the system by the philanthropic partners, university-based researchers, and practitioners in the field. The arts L&D ecosystem includes large arts organizations such as museums, smaller community-based arts organizations, educational organizations that also offer arts (e.g., Boys and Girls Clubs), and a handful of intermediary organizations that support arts education. We approach this work with the understanding that the present-day context of the youth arts ecosystem—including organizations, access, funding patterns and the types of arts held up for young people—is rooted in a socio-historical context that includes histories of colonialization and racism (e.g., Chalmers, 1999).

We centered our study around what we call practitioner-leaders: adults with influence and decision-making power in the ecosystem. These were mostly organization leaders, education directors, or others in influential positions in organizations that centered or included youth arts. We prioritized looking at the ways that practitioner-leaders conceptualize the citywide arts L&D ecosystem and make sense of their organization's role within the larger system because of their essential role as actors in the system. Our aim was to use an ecosystem perspective to understand the programmatic structure of non-school arts education in the city. Given the historical patterns of unequal access to arts education and the regional demographics, we were particularly focused on understanding the role of Black Centered Arts programs and African/African American Arts alongside Eurocentric Arts programs in creating a more equitable L&D ecosystem.

Specifically, this study reflects a snapshot of the arts L&D ecosystem in one mid-size city at one moment in time: prior to COVID-19 and the heightened awareness of and activism around racism with the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests. We shaped our investigation around three main questions. First, we asked, what do practitioner-leaders in such an ecosystem value? We next asked, How are organizations distributed in terms of organizational characteristics including budget, focus, and role in the network? Finally, we considered Black Centered Arts organizations within this context; specifically, what is the role and position of Black Centered Arts organizations in the ecosystem? In the remainder of the introduction, we provide context for our ecosystem approach, for community-based youth arts, for Black Centered Arts, and for this study.

The L&D Ecosystem Approach

Educational networks that facilitate connected learning are designed to support interest driven engagement that crosses boundaries between schools, informal learning spaces, and homes (Ito et al., 2013). A connected learning approach recognizes that educational systems and processes are complex, by which we mean they have dynamic and emergent properties that can be difficult to predict (Gomez et al., 2016; Lemke & Sabelli, 2008). Educational funders have embraced this approach through funding of networks at the national scale, such as the Connected Learning Research Network, as well the regional scale, such as the Chicago Learning Exchange (chicagolx.org). The funding partner in this project has also embraced an ecosystem approach and aims to deepen its work using ecosystem thinking. Specifically, the funder recognizes the role of the foundation a driver of energy in this L&D ecosystem due to the allocation of funds and other resources in the arts education community (Howison et al., 2022).

The use of an L&D ecosystem framework has helped researchers explore network complexity by extending our understanding of how learning happens in places beyond school, including home and out-of-school spaces, as well as across our lifetimes (Banks et al., 2007; Barron, 2006). However, the application of the framework in educational research often simplistically focuses on connections between system parts, rather than on dynamic complexities that explore relational interactions between system actors (Falk & Dierking, 2018; Hecht & Crowley, 2020). In this paper, we position our focal arts L&D ecosystem as complex and recognize that this dynamic system may benefit from adaptive management. In biological ecosystems, restoration ecologists use adaptive management to improve the health and resilience of an ecosystem. Similarly, our project team of philanthropists, university-based researchers, and practitioner leaders are deliberately working together to improve the management of the local youth arts ecosystem through careful observation, intervention, and regular readjustment. Therefore, we draw on concepts used by restoration ecologists in the management of biological ecosystems for our analysis (Akiva et al., 2022; Hecht & Crowley, 2020).

An important component of adaptive management is responsiveness to system disturbances. Biological ecosystems regularly experience disturbances at small and large scales, such as a single large tree falling to allow sunlight to reach the forest floor or a widespread wildfire that burns trees and allows some types of seeds to open. These disturbances in an ecosystem may cause tremendous damage; however, they may also open new opportunities for growth. A healthy system will be more resilient in the face of these disturbances than an unhealthy one (Palmer et al., 2016). We conceive of a new funding area focused on youth arts as a disturbance in the arts L&D ecosystem. Therefore, we conducted this pre-disturbance analysis—that is before the funder has enacted changes—in an effort to guide the youth arts ecosystem towards a healthy and resilient response to the disturbance. Our work in this phase of the project was an effort to build resilience and health within this L&D ecosystem.

Youth Arts Education: From Schools to Community

Arts education has undergone multiple important shifts and disturbances over its long history (Heilig et al., 2010). Over the past few decades there has been a gradual removal of arts from public schools. A longitudinal survey of arts involvement conducted over four decades reveals a decline in arts involvement beginning in the 1980s (Williams & Keen, 2008). Black youth are disproportionally affected by this decline—a trend that began in response to education policy that prioritized an academic achievement discourse at the expense of whole child development approaches in education (Akiva et al., 2020; Armstrong, 2006). According to Rabkin et al. (2011), between 1980 and 2008, Black youth exposure to arts education declined by 20%. Black youth have significantly less arts exposure than White and Asian youth (Welch & Kim, 2019). This trend of declining arts access for Black youth is antithetical to the significance of the arts as an aspect of community cultural wealth for Black people in the United States.

Alongside this substantial and uneven reduction of arts in schools, several studies have provided evidence of the importance of art for L&D. Some of this evidence supports a link between arts education and academic success. Fredricks and Eccles’ (2006) study of extracurricular activities, including the arts, revealed that involvement can lead to increased levels of academic adjustment and psychological adjustment in adolescents. Participation is also generally associated with higher than expected grades, school value, self-esteem, resiliency, and prosocial peers (Fredricks & Eccles, 2008). Additionally, analysis from four large, longitudinal studies, Catterall (2012) found multiple indicators that youth in low socioeconomic status (SES) families who engage in in-depth arts involvement have better academic outcomes than low-SES youth with less arts. They also found that students (regardless of SES) who had intensive art in high school were more likely to earn a bachelor's degree and to earn “mostly A's” in college. Catterall (2009) analyzed additional years of data following 12,000 youth and found additional evidence that low-SES youth do better in “art-rich” schools.

Providing opportunities for young people to engage in creative, arts-based learning is about more than enhancing school experiences and boosting academics. In and through the arts, young people can engage in representational thinking, identity exploration and processes, language development, and creativity and design thinking (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014). In a study that examined five arts classes over the course of a year, researchers observed students demonstrating increased persistence, improved observation and envisioning skills, and the ability to think and communicate with one another reflectively (Winner & Hetland, 2008). Although arts education may offer some academic benefits, the advantages of creative arts experiences include go beyond academic outcomes to include: strengthening critical thinking, compassion, and citizenship (Bowen & Kisida, 2019; Winner & Hetland, 2008). Arts learning, therefore, can be a liberatory form of education that supports equity and justice, through enhancing L&D for youth at the margins of our educational system. The absence of arts learning opportunities reflects the opportunity gap that exists for Black youth in schools and further exacerbates existing educational inequities (Milner, 2012). The potential for arts education to address that gap is especially relevant when we consider arts experiences in out-of-school settings, where youth often participate due to their own interest (Akiva et al., 2014).

Teaching artist expertise in out-of-school settings can help guide youth interest for effective arts education opportunities. In fact, the decline of arts in schools coincided with and likely led to the growth of the field of teaching artists. The term “teaching artist” was first used in the 1970s and since has developed into a field of study and a profession (Booth, 2003; Reeder, 2007). Though the term came about in the 70s, the emergence of the role is connected to grassroots, community-based learning movements that burgeoned in the settlement movement of the 1800s (Rabkin, 2013). The pattern of utilizing teaching artists’ expertise in informal settings continues to this day, as up to half of teaching artists work in the non-school settings (Rabkin et al., 2011). Teaching artists have a unique dual nature to their role—a synthesis of both doing and teaching or being an artist and an educator (Booth, 2003). Consequently, teaching artists can play a pivotal role in developing youth interest in and commitment to youth arts experiences, especially when they are able to draw on their own experience as artists (Garber et al., 2020). As participation rates in out-of-school learning spaces are higher for Black and brown youth (Afterschool Alliance, 2014), teaching artists may help fill the void that the removal of arts from schools has created.

The quality of arts learning experiences children and youth have in programs is determined to a large extent by these teaching artist adult leaders who help facilitate those experiences. Therefore, nurturing profound arts learning experiences relies on a strong, well-trained pool of teaching artists that are professionalized and remain in the field. These teaching artists are then positioned to become practitioner leaders who can shape youth learning experiences in unique ways, contributing to desirable outcomes related to equity, well-being, and academic success for marginalized youth who are fortunate to access arts learning opportunities.

Black Centered Arts

Both race and racism are enmeshed in our society and thus the experiences of people of different races should be taken into account when thinking about an arts learning ecosystem. For this study, we draw on scholarship—particularly scholarship rooted in Critical Race Theory—that invites us to reckon with the significance of race in all aspects of society, including both in the arts and in education (Gaztambide-Fernández et al., 2018; Ladson-Billings, 1998). Our acknowledgement of Black Centered Arts stems from the rich and robust presence of artistic expressions rooted in the Black Diaspora. Additionally, Black Centered Arts are important because of the need to provide culturally relevant arts learning experiences to Black adolescents in our learning ecosystems. To “center” Black arts and the promise of Black arts education in urban areas has two purposes: (1) it is a means to intentionally recognize culturally specific forms music, dance, and other creative expressions that signify the Black experience; (2) it privileges the inclusion and representation of Black people in any artistic endeavor. In other words, Black Centered Arts is a way to humanize and give priority to the non-dominant expressions and experiences of the arts.

To understand the role of Black arts education within present-day L&D ecosystems, it is helpful to consider the history. The Black Arts Movement (BAM) of the 1960s and 1970s represents the richness of arts in the experience of the African diaspora in the United States (Gladney, 1995). At its inception, the BAM was a social movement in response to social problems facing Black Americans during the Civil Rights Era (Neal, 1987). Yet, the Black arts experience in the United States. began well before the 1960s. The roots of BAM can be found in the music and dance performed by enslaved African people in the antebellum South (Brown, 2015; Welsh-Asante, 1996). Music and dance represented a source of cultural preservation, healing, and reprieve from the harsh realities of life on plantations. For Black people in America, the arts represent a cultural expression that communicates the uniqueness of the Black experience. Using a community cultural wealth perspective, the arts represent a cultural strengths grounded source of spiritual, emotional, physical, and mental wellness (Yosso, 2005). Historically and in our current age, Black arts holds significant value for the healthy psychosocial development of Black families and communities.

In a reflection on youth involvement in Black arts, written during the height of BAM, Bushnell (1970) states that:

[Black arts organizations] give the minority child a sense of historical pride, a knowledge of the roots of his own culture, something with which he can readily identify and on which he can build confidence in his own worth and ability. Community arts centers thus become a prime vehicle for social change. At the same time…active participation of neighborhood youth in centers’ activities [offers] young people a chance to develop their esthetic and creative abilities and to develop skills and discipline in chosen crafts and arts.

Though arts involvement may benefit all youth, the particular experience of Black youth in Black Centered Arts organizations provides culturally relevant and identity affirming experiences in building self-efficacy and cultural richness. The connection between Black cultural affirmation and healthy socialization provides clear insights into the value of Black arts in healthy development. For decades, community-based organizations have sponsored programs that allow Black youth to experience the arts, despite (and in response to) the conspicuous absence of arts opportunities in many of the public schools that serve Black families and communities.

In contrast to Black Centered Arts, arts education in the United States. has largely promoted European Arts in ways that engender cultural colonialism. For example, Chalmers (1999) argues that the dominant Western art education operates from a perspective that European arts—particularly oil painting, sculpture, and monumental architecture—are superior to all other artforms and that therefore dismisses vast contributions from the rest of the world. The notion that “high quality” art is synonymous with European art has been prevalent throughout arts education discourse and history (Rasmussen, 2017)—and this affects arts education and arts funding. In the United States., the National Endowments of the Arts was founded in 1965 to address access and diversity of arts. Although it has had some successes supporting smaller organizations (including Black Centered Arts organizations), its funding is continuously a target of political attack (Horwitz, 2016). Funding for youth arts organizations is connected to this larger, complex system of arts funding and subject to the forces that favor Eurocentric arts and promote cultural colonialism.

With this historical and developmental backdrop, we use the terminology of Black Centered Arts to represent both the type of arts (African or African American roots) and the youth being served. Importantly, Black Centered Arts necessitates the involvement of Black teaching artists and staff, which can address inequities related to the experiences of teaching artists of color. Black teaching artists are critical as they represent the cultural uniqueness of learning Black arts, particularly when schools are often lacking Black educators as role models for Black youth. Youth benefit from culturally responsive and culturally relevant learning experiences, even (and maybe especially) in the arts (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Black Centered Arts experiences affirm cultural identities for Black youth, which is healthy for racial identity development. Healthy racial identity development is a protective factor that supports a host of academic outcomes for young people. Arts ecosystems that prioritize Black Centered Arts experiences are addressing the needs of Black families and communities, while also reframing the arts as not an entirely Eurocentric/Western concept. Arts programs and organizations that elevate Black Centered Arts address deficiencies of schools that often fail to provide adequate arts experiences, while also providing culturally affirming experiences that are useful for youth development. Black Centered Arts play a key role in any arts learning ecosystem that seeks to be more just and equitable.

Project Context

The multi-year project of which this study is a component focuses on redesigning the youth arts L&D ecosystem so that it is more equitable. The longer-term project includes three phases. Phase 1 focused on developing program goals and standards based on shared definitions of “creative learning” (the name of the new funding area) within the team and in the larger arts community. This phase, which took 8 months, included five project team meetings, interviews with four foundation program officers, review of relevant literature, and four focus groups with representatives from 18 stakeholder organizations to vet developing ideas for the new funding program. Phase II, which is the focus of this manuscript, was a 7-month effort to better understand the existing youth arts ecosystem before the launch of the new funding program. Phase III, which is the final phase, includes a 3-year evaluation of the newly launched program using a collaborative transformative evaluation protocol that engages youth and teaching artists in interpretation of their own learning experiences.

We attend here to local context because, as with all ecosystem work, localized histories and patterns matter. The study took place in Pittsburgh, PA, a mid-sized Mid-Atlantic city with a robust history of arts; a city that has produced famous artists in multiple genres including film/theater (August Wilson, Jimmy Stewart, Jeff Goldblum), television (Fred Rogers), dance (Gene Kelly, Martha Graham), music (Wiz Kalifa, Mac Miller, Stephen Foster), and visual art (Andy Warhol). In the 1920s, Pittsburgh—a common stop for musicians travelling between Chicago and New York City—became known for jazz piano, particularly associated with Pittsburgh's African American communities (Brewer, 2007). Pittsburgh is also home to the first Black opera company, opened in 1941 (Black, 2017). Over the decades, with a particular focus on the intentional development of a cultural district in the 1980s, Pittsburgh has received sizeable investment in the arts from government and foundations (Conner, 2007). The city has been ranked in the top twenty cities for arts investment multiples times (Voss et al., 2017, 2018).

Pittsburgh also has a highly segregated Black/White population, an unfortunate distinction that extends back decades and includes residential redlining in the 1930s and 40s (Krauss, 2018). The city is consistently ranked among the most racially segregated in the country (W. H. Frey, 2018; Logan & Stults, 2011). The Pittsburgh metropolitan region is one of the whitest in the United States., with 87% white versus a US average of 64% (CRSP, 2015). And although Pittsburgh is known for decades of economic growth, a “success” story, this revival has not benefitted all residents. In fact, a recent analysis found that across many indicators, African American women and men fare worse across a range of metrics in Pittsburgh than comparable cities (Howell et al., 2019).

This exploration of equity in creative learning in Pittsburgh is part of an engaged scholarship approach that includes philanthropic and community-based organizations as partners. Community engaged scholarship represents collaborations are reciprocal and that produce knowledge that can address public issues related to inequity (da Cruz, 2018). Our partner philanthropic foundation, has, in recent years, introduced a set of funding initiatives relevant to the current project. The Heinz Endowments was a leading voice and investor in the creation of the cultural district in the early 80s. This involved the purchase of numerous buildings and a decades-long conversion of businesses into a multi-block district featuring numerous theaters and art galleries (Tierney, 2014). More recently, the Transformative Arts Process (TAP) was a 5-year “participatory grantmaking project” focused on developing “a new arts and culture grantmaking strategy…that would build the field of artists and art organizations working in African American and ‘distressed’ neighborhoods in Pittsburgh” (Cook, 2019). A key focus of this project was building a professional learning community for teaching artists, a context which extends into the present study. The Heinz Endowments is also currently engaged in a multi-foundation initiative called “Advancing Black Arts in Pittsburgh”, which provides financial support for artists, festival, and artist residencies (www.heinz.org). The present project builds from these efforts.

We center our analyses around three research questions. In seeking to understand the city's arts L&D ecosystem through organizational attributes and network centrality, we wondered:

What do practitioner-leaders value in a city-wide arts learning & development ecosystem?

How are organizations in this ecosystem distributed in terms of size, focus, and network role?

What is the role and position of Black Centered Arts organizations within this ecosystem?

Methods

Sample and Procedures

We used a case study method in which we defined the boundaries of our case prior to data collection (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) and then employed several types of data collection and analysis to help us understand the specific phenomena at play (Yin, 2014). These included focus groups, a regional survey, and social network analysis. We conducted eight focus groups with 39 total practitioner-leaders in [City's] arts learning ecosystem. We used purposive sampling and developed the list of participants together with our philanthropic partners. All focus group participants were grantees of the philanthropy. The use of focus groups as a data collection method allowed participants that were closely tied with our philanthropic partner to express ideas around arts education and equity in their words and to also respond and interact with other members of this learning ecosystem (B. B. Frey, 2018).

Table 1 provides a summary of characteristics of focus group attendees and the organizations they represented. Each focus group had 4–5 participants and lasted for approximately 1.5 h. A large majority of participants represented youth arts learning organizations (90%) and the rest were from intermediary organizations that support arts education. Approximately half of the focus group attendees were representatives from small arts organizations (i.e., with annual budgets under $1 Million, described below in analysis) and the other half were from larger organizations. Several of the smaller organizations placed Black or African art forms as a central focus; whereas the larger and older regional arts organizations were all founded with a focus on Western European art.

Table 1.

Focus Group Participants (N = 39).

Characteristic	%	#
Individuals
Position in organization
Executive Directors/CEOs	39	15
Program or project Directors	59	23
Teaching artists	3	1
Gender
Female	77	30
Male	23	9
Race/ethnicity
Black, African, or multiracial	33	13
White	67	26
Latinx	3	1
Organizations represented by those individuals
Organizational type
Youth arts learning	90	35
Supporting/intermediary	10	4
Arts focus
BCA	21	8
Not focused on BCA	79	31
Organizational size
Small (under $1 Million budget)	51	20
Larger (over $1 Million budget)	49	19

At the start of each focus group, we asked participants to list all the local youth arts programs they could think of within a limited time, and these lists form the basis for much of our analyses. We then had them circle the “five most important” youth arts organizations and write each program name on its own sticky note. We told participants not to name any organizations that were represented in the room—to reduce awkwardness around any social pressures to name other people present. Each individual presented their choices to the group and we asked probing questions about how they decided on those programs. This discussion provides data for analyses of what practitioner leaders value and prioritize. After each individual presented their “important” program selections, we asked them to stick them to a full-wall whiteboard. We also added a sticky note for each organization present. The regional survey was distributed via the philanthropic partners grantees and well as two regional learning networks that support educational providers. As part of the survey, participants were also asked to name the “five most important” youth arts organizations in the region.

We also collected publicly available data in order to develop a more complete picture of each organization's role in the L&D ecosystem, including mission, vision, and budgetary information for the organizations that were mentioned 3 or more times in the “five most important” questions in survey and focus groups as well as for each organization that sent representatives to the focus groups. We reviewed each organization's IRS 2017 990s when they were publicly available on GuideStar. For the organizations that did not have a 990 (n = 7), we used the 990 of their parent-organization or information that had been self-reported to our foundation partner. We also reviewed mission statements and keywords that were included in GuideStar. When no mission was on GuideStar, we examined mission statements from program websites (n = 20) or Facebook pages (n = 1).

Analysis

We began our analysis by exploring each of the data sources separately. We conducted qualitative analysis using Dedoose analytic software (Dedoose, 2021). To better understand what individual practitioner-leaders prioritized or valued in youth arts programs, we conducted two rounds of analyses of the focus group discussions during which each individual shared their top five organizations and reasons for their choices. In the first round, we established codes in an emergent way. In the second round, we refined the coding scheme and recoded all the excerpts from scratch with this refined coding scheme. A second coder then coded all excerpts. To ensure consistency and trustworthiness of codes, we used the training feature in Dedoose for all excerpts in two focus groups. Initial inter-rater reliability was 0.70. The two coders then reviewed and came to consensus on all disagreements and updated the codebook to reflect refinements of codes.

Once the focus group discussions were coded, we created a matrix that grouped coded excerpts by theme (as described in Miles et al., 2014). This allowed us to visually examine which themes were dominant within and across focus groups. We also conducted Social Network Analysis using the organizational nominations for “most important” youth arts organizations derived from focus groups and surveys (cf. Miskel & Song, 2004; Song & Miskel, 2005). We excluded organizations that were only mentioned by 1 or 2 participants (n = 168), nominations of individual educators (n = 2); and mentions of categories without a specific organizational name (e.g., churches [n = 6]). Our sample of organizations that met these criteria was 82.

To better understand the texture of the network (Research Question 2), we investigated three key organizational features: size, degree of emphasis on youth arts, and orientation to Black Arts. For organizational size, we used the budget information that we collected and created the following categories: small organizations with annual budgets of less than $1 Million, large organizations that had budgets of $1 to $10 Million, and very large organizations with annual budgets over $10 Million. We used the mission and vision statements and keywords found in organizational 990s to identify each organization's degree of emphasis on youth arts. To be coded as “Youth Arts Centered,” the organization focused on arts education as a primary function. We also used these mission and vision statements and keywords to identify programs’ orientation to Black Arts. We coded an organization as Black Arts Centered if they specifically mentioned Black or Africana arts in their mission and/or keywords.

For social network analysis (Research Questions 2 and 3), we used ORA-PRO software developed at Carnegie Mellon University (Carley, 2014) to conduct exploratory analysis that examined two network features: (a)relative centrality of organizations and (b) subgroups within the network. We also examined how each of the three organizational attributes (size, Youth Arts Centeredness, and Black-Arts Centeredness) related to these network features. After considering a number of centrality measures, we focused on in-degree centrality as our primary measure because it best reflected how often each organization was identified by other members of the network. Because these data are relational and not independent, we used ORA's Multiple Regression Quadratic Assignment Procedure (MRQAP) function to identify potential correlations between centrality and the three organizational attributes.

To explore the community structure of the network (Research Question 3), we created a cluster association network combining three algorithms (Newman, Leiden, and Spectral analysis) in order to overcome the random or stochastic nature of each algorithm when implemented separately. This helped us establish clusters to identify subgroups with a high density of within-group connections (Altman et al., 2018; Clauset et al., 2004; Newman, 2006). We began by looking for clusters defined by each of the three algorithms separately. We then folded each of these networks using Cluster-Based Similarity Algorithms and combined them into a new cluster association network. Finally, we used the Leiden algorithm to locate subnetworks within this cluster association network. After completing both qualitative and social network analysis of the data sources separately, we worked in our research team to synthesize and triangulate the data through discussion and iterative analysis.

Results

What Practitioner-Leaders Value

Table 2 summarizes the themes discussed in focus groups. Individuals in every group identified the three themes and most discussed the fourth; each theme was mentioned frequently. Quality of art was the most mentioned theme in participants’ identification of programs they admired or found important in the ecosystem. Participants often referred to the quality of arts that young people produced in the program. For example, one participant described an organization she admired: “high quality arts: [they] have done a great job of becoming a professional pipeline for young artists.” Participants also often referred to innovation; i.e., participants liked programs that did good or innovative art with young people. Several described quality as directly associated with teaching artists; for example, one described teaching artists at one of her chosen sites:

[The program is] interested in scaffolding artistic skills. Not only are dance instructors talking about technique, also talking about professionalism which makes the class part of a progression to a career. Also, instructors are practicing dancers and they experiment.

Table 2.

Values Mentioned by Practitioner Leaders as They Described “Important” Programs.

Value (mentions)	Definition	Examples
Quality of art (62)	Main: Quality of art, quality of programming, way of teaching (could separate into 2) Also: authenticity, career pathway, depth, empower/inspire youth, exposure, good teaching artists, impressed with young people, innovative or unique, professional placement, safe space, variety, youth voice	“High quality, professional learning. Transforms youth experiences in a variety of art forms.” “they are interested in scaffolding artistic skills. Not only are dance instructors talking about technique, also talking about professionalism which makes the class part of a progression to a career. Also, instructors are practicing dancers and they experiment.”
Equitable access (49)	Several specifically mentioned access (22) or reach (17). Others mentioned affordable, equity & justice. And several discussed intentionally serving particular groups of students.	“All of [the programs I chose] are giving opportunities to young people who cannot necessarily afford to pay top dollar” “I lean toward orgs that might be really small but are serving important unfulfilled groups, working with underserved communities”
Community embeddedness (30)	Connecting, community, network, neighborhood. Local focus. Collaborative.	“[This program] broke ground with the maker space. Incredible in showing how spaces can revitalize a community. Now you are seeing more things like this. Good example of creative placemaking.”
Black arts and cultural preservation (19)	Most of these comments were specifically about Black, African, or African American Arts. Some comments about cultural/historical preservation and intergenerational themes.	“[This program features] a lot of west African drum and dance, but this group centers central Africa. Shares diasporic knowledge that is creative for children”

Several described the value of authentic art experiences (i.e., art that leads to a performance or showing); for example, one participant noted how she liked how a program had practicing artists working alongside young people. Another expressed the specific value of exposing young people to a global focus.

Equitable Access was discussed nearly as much as quality. This was often described in terms of affordability and making art experiences available to young people, regardless of their resources. For example, one participant stated, “All of [the programs I chose] are giving opportunities to young people who cannot necessarily afford to pay top dollar.” Similarly, another described a support organization, stating, “they provide amazing access for kids, particularly when we think about equity, they are a connector.” Many described access in terms of reach; i.e., participants admired programs that served large audiences or were well known in the community. Sometimes participants discussed programs that served particular populations, such young people of color or LGBTQ youth.

Third, community embeddedness was frequently mentioned, with participants valuing programs that are connected to and part of the community in which they are located. Some mentioned this in terms of youth arts programs organically growing within a community. Many described the value of artmaking intertwined with community development. For example, one described a program as “incredible in showing how spaces can revitalize a community.”

The final value in Table 2 did not come up in every focus group but when raised generated intense discussion: Black arts and cultural preservation. Each time, this was in the context of Black or African-centered artforms, and when it did come up it was discussed at length. For example, one participant described an organization they felt was important as “beautiful, community-based places for students to explore art forms deeply—centered and celebrating blackness and Africana.” In a few focus groups, this led into a conversation about funding; for example, one participant noted:

I was at a conference and they said 60% of the arts money goes to 2% of [organizations]. The smaller organizations are forced to fight over very little resources….2% of the organizations who serve mostly white kids, [rather than the] ones that serve Black and brown.

Distribution of Organizations in the Youth Arts Ecosystem

In order to understand the overall composition of the youth arts L&D ecosystem, we begin here by describing the distribution of organizations across three parameters: size (as a function of annual budget); if youth arts are central to the mission; and whether they do or do not center Black arts. We then explore how organizational size corresponds with organizational focus on arts, and Black arts in particular.

Participants named 258 unique organizations during focus groups. From the organizations indicated as “important” to the ecosystem, participants in focus groups and the two surveys nominated 176 unique youth arts organizations. Of these, 89 were named a single time and 27 were named twice. Of the organizations mentioned three or more times (n = 82), 44% were Youth Arts Centered. Based on organizational mission statements, 15 programs—18% of the sample—centered Black or African Arts. Twenty-five organizations (30% of sample) used euphemistic words in their mission statements or websites such as “diversity,” “inclusion,” and “urban.” Just over half the sites (42, 51%) did not specify.

Table 3 shows the categorized distribution of the 82 organizations by size of annual budgets. A little over half of the programs are small and just under half are large or extra-large. However, small organizations are disproportionally represented in Youth Arts Centered and Black Centered Arts organizations.¹ In other words, most Youth Arts Centered programs are small, and most programs that center Black arts are small. Indeed, in this sample none of the extra-large programs center youth arts or Black Centered Arts. The majority of the 22 extra-large organizations are museums or arts organizations that cater to all ages and include youth components. Others include a foundation that is active in the youth arts sector and two school districts.

Table 3.

Distribution of Youth Arts Organizational Attributes.

Size	All orgs (mentioned 3 + times; N = 82)	Youth Arts Centered (vs. not; n = 34)	BCA (vs. not; n = 16)
Small (<$1 M)	45 (55%)	27 (79%)	11 (73%)
Large ($1 M to under $10 M)	17 (21%)	7 (21%)	4 (27%)
Extra large ($10M + )	22 (27%)	0	0

Note. All percentages associate with the vertical column; for example, 55% of all orgs are small; 73% of the 16 BCA programs are small.

Network Centrality

We then explored how each of these three variables correspond with network centrality (defined by in-degree). In our network visualization, we observed that the network generally exhibits a core-periphery structure where central organizations are largely clustered together and surrounded less central network actors (see Figure 1). Organizations that appear central possess a variety of each of the three attributes we investigated but many of the large organizations are central.

Table 4 presents the association of network centrality to other attributes. The first row displays the 11 organizations with very high in-degree centrality—one standard deviation above the mean. As expected, the sites with above average centrality have an over representation of Youth Arts Centered programs. That is, programs that make youth arts their main purpose tend to have a central place in the youth arts network. Black Centered Arts organizations are not overly represented in central sites; however, a majority of Black Centered Arts sites are central. Size of organization has a relationship with network centrality but this relationship is not determinative—in other words, large organizations are not necessarily central. However, MRQAP analysis revealed a statistically significant correlation between in-degree centrality and those large organizations with annual budgets of over $1Million (r = 0.18; p = 0.003). Still, we did note several small organizations that were central.

Table 4.

Network Centrality (In-degree With Two Cut-offs) by Organizational Attributes.

				Size
Network centrality	All orgs (N = 82)	Youth arts centered (vs. not; n = 34)	BCA (vs. not; n = 16)	Small (n = 44)	L (n = 17)	XL (n = 22)
Core (1 SD above mean)	11 (top 13%)	4	1	4	1	6
Periphery (the rest)	71	30	15	40	16	16

Black Centered Arts in the Ecosystem

As noted earlier, 18% of the sample (15 of 82 programs) centered Black or African Arts and they tended to be organizations with small budgets (73%)—none of the extra-large organizations are Black Centered Arts. That is, Black Centered Arts organizations in general tend to have fewer resources than organizations that do not center Black Arts. This was also mentioned in focus group discussions, as previously noted. Through cluster association, we found that the ecosystem has three distinct subnetworks (see Figure 2). These subnetworks reflect both common attributes and linkages between the different organizations. The density of linkages in Figure 2 indicates that multiple connections occur between organizations across sub-networks; however, within-cluster connections distinguish the subnetworks. Subnetwork A includes almost all of the Black Arts Centered programs. Of note, these are predominantly small organizations. The other two subnetworks include the larger organizations. The subnetwork that is densely populated with organizations that center Black arts reveals both the closeness of this group of actors, as well as some potential disconnect from other organizations within the youth arts ecosystem.

Discussion

This case study—which is part of a larger, 3-year research-practice-philanthropy partnership (Akiva et al., 2022)—used focus groups and social network analysis methods to examine the makeup of an urban youth arts L&D ecosystem, with a particular focus on Black Centered Arts programs. Our analyses revealed that practitioner-leaders in this sample value arts quality, equitable access, community embeddedness, and Black arts & cultural preservation. The network exhibits a core-periphery structure, with over 250 organizations that offer youth arts programming. We found associations between organizational size and network centrality and several relationships among youth arts centeredness, Black arts centeredness, and other key variables. In short, we found that programs that provided access to Eurocentric arts were older, larger, and better funded than their Black Centered Arts counterparts, consistent with scholarship on arts in education with a Critical Race Theory lens (Gaztambide-Fernández et al., 2018). In addition, we found a subnetwork within the larger network made up largely of Black Centered Arts organizations.

Practitioner-leaders in our focus groups roundly prioritized quality of art and equitable access. These two ideas were mentioned considerably more than others as practitioner-leaders described what made youth arts organizations “important” in the ecosystem. Quality of art had a variety of definitions but one that came up frequently was engaging young people in real, “authentic” art with real artists. Arguably, the flexibility and structure of non-school youth arts organizations make them well equipped to meet this goal (Montgomery, 2017). Young people can engage with working artists with specialized expertise in such programs, versus the more generalized arts expertise they may encounter with art or music teachers in schools. As several focus group participants discussed passionately, this authenticity is strengthened when Black teaching artists work with Black youth in Black Centered Arts programs. In this way, teaching artists become a critical keystone in the arts L&D ecosystem.

Equitable access as a value went hand in hand with quality of art—practitioner leaders thought that high quality arts experiences should be accessible to all youth, including those whose families may not have the means to afford music or dance lessons, for example. In conversations about equitable access, dialog was nuanced in terms of access as an ecosystem value versus an individual program value. That is, participants argued that a healthy L&D ecosystem would contain varied organizations serving different youth; a given organization could not provide access alone. In other words, only a diversity of organizations could achieve an equitable access goal. Community embeddedness was also a strong value for these practitioner-leaders. That is, focus group participants valued arts that integrates with and strengthens the local community (with examples such as murals or local performances). The importance placed on this value may be specific to this case study; another L&D ecosystem may or may not value such community connection.

We also found that Black and Africana arts were highly valued in the ecosystem, particularly—but not only—by those organizations that centered those art forms. The deep commitment to Black Centered Arts by many of the participating Black practitioner-leaders contrasted with some practitioner-leaders from white-led organizations who focused equity conversations on access and exposure to the Eurocentric art forms that they were founded to uphold. This is an important distinction that may be easily overlooked by white practitioner-leaders as the notion of “the arts” as synonymous with Western arts is often invisible (Chalmers, 1999; Gaztambide-Fernández et al., 2018). This dichotomy in terms of how practitioner-leaders view equity in the L&D ecosystem matters for future ecosystem management. If equity is defined as access to Eurocentric art forms that would lead to very different ecosystem management choices than if equity is defined as exposure to and production of Black or Africana art forms. To design for a more equitable system requires addressing this distinction.

We found that the overall youth arts L&D ecosystem is remarkably large and diverse. We identified over 250 organizations that offer youth arts programming and did not reach a comprehensive list of all such organizations. That is, our methods led to a clear picture of the large well-known organizations, but we did not reach saturation for identifying all youth arts programs. Part of this is because the lines around what constitutes a youth arts program aren't always clear (e.g., we did not count private, independent piano teachers in our analysis for practical reasons, though they certainly contribute to the youth arts L&D ecosystem). But it also suggests a profusion of programs, and considerable diversity in types of art offered. Presumably L&D ecosystems in larger cities offer more specialization and a larger diversity of program types than smaller communities. For example, our sample included an LGBTQ drama program, multiple hip-hop dance and music programs, and multiple film production programs—a smaller city would not have so many specific choices of art programs and a larger city might have even more.

The core-periphery structure of the case study network, which is a common structure in social networks (Leskovec et al., 2008; Papadopoulos et al., 2012), suggests that organizations within the core are very well connected and those in the periphery have more limited connections. This is in contrast to a structure with multiple cores (e.g., a structure in which programs from particular artforms like dance group together) or a random model with no core, which might be found in a less connected ecosystem. As a baseline for our larger project (beyond the present study), an ecosystem management initiative might seek to increase the core; that is, bring more recognition to more programs. The community structure alone, however, does not tell us how equitable the L&D ecosystem is; for that, we examined the programs that make up the core.

A majority of core programs were what we called extra-large organizations (with annual budgets of over $10 Million) and fewer than half of core programs are youth arts centered. In most cases, this means large, cultural organizations with broader goals (e.g., art museums) have the most central place in the youth arts ecosystem. This is not necessarily surprising; in focus groups, we heard many of these core organizations mentioned over and over again, they are large and stable within the ecosystem. However, this stability means that the values of these large organizations likely have more influence within the ecosystem than smaller organizations, including the majority of Black Centered Arts organizations in our sample.

Our analysis revealed that Black Centered Arts organizations tended to be smaller and less well-resourced (11 of 15 had annual budgets under $1 Million and none had budgets over $10 Million) than their Eurocentric peer organizations. This was not a surprise finding; indeed, this discrepancy was passionately discussed in focus groups, reflective of critical scholarship that examines arts (e.g., Rasmussen, 2017), and substantiated through our statistical and social network analysis. However, although we found the Black Centered Arts organizations to be less well resourced, we also found a clear subnetwork of these organizations. This suggests that a powerful community may already be sharing ideas resources and may be strengthened further with purposeful investments by the philanthropy. In addition, Black Centered Arts organizations made up a substantial portion of youth arts centered programs in the city. If Black-centered Arts lead by Black teaching artists are essential for greater equity, then attention to both the existing strengths and the ongoing inequities will be paramount for the youth arts L& D ecosystem to thrive.

This case study of a regional arts-based L&D ecosystem provides an example of how using an ecosystem framework can help reveal inequities as well as strengths within such a system. Using an ecosystem lens has allowed us to look for patterns and connections that exist at the systems level. The goal is to use this understanding to consider how funding and other supports may be better applied across the system in order to increase equity, particularly racial equity. Because our work is embedded in a long-term research-philanthropy partnership (Howison et al., 2022), we aim to use this research to inform funding and resource allocation for regional arts education. The focus of our work is on the role that out-of-school arts programs play in strengthening educational equity because of the significant role that these programs have come to play in providing youth arts programming as school-based arts education have declined (Halverson, 2013; Russell et al., 2013). Arts education is an essential component of both academic and social-emotional learning for youth. Equitable arts education, however, must include more than just opportunities to experience and create Eurocentric art forms. Instead, equitable arts education ought to include culturally sustaining pedagogies that consider youth and educators’ lived experiences and that embrace a dynamic ecosystem approach (Lee, 2017).

As we noted in the introduction, ecosystems are dynamic; therefore, these results reflect a moment in time, though we believe most of our findings reflect structural factors that are likely to be in place at least for the next several years. We intentionally collected these data prior to the start of the funding initiative in youth arts launched by our philanthropy partner, which will function as an ecosystem disturbance. But these data were also collected before an enormous ecosystem disturbance that was not planned for: the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic and associated shutdowns forced nearly all youth arts programming to go online or pause operations. Many of the smaller youth arts organizations were forced to shut their doors permanently. So, although we think many of the trends we observed in this study are likely to last, the range and strength of youth arts organizations has certainly taken a hit. we hope that an ecosystem management approach may prove useful as such programs rebuild after the pandemic.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Heinz Endowments.

ORCID iD

Thomas Akiva

Notes

Author Biographies

Thomas Akiva is an associate professor in Health and Human Development and director of the schoolwide EdD at the University of Pittsburgh School of Education. His research investigates youth program processes and ecosystem approaches to equitable, citywide learning.

Marijke Hecht is an assistant professor in Recreation Park and Tourism Management at Penn State Greater Allegheny. Her research draws on her background in environmental education, community-based ecological design, learning sciences, and naturalist practices to explore how urban greenspaces can be used as sites for learning, advocacy, and stewardship.

Esohe Osai is an assistant professor in Health and Human Development at the University of Pittsburgh School of Education. Using a strengths-based approach, Dr. Osai engages in research, practice, and policy-related efforts to support just and contextually relevant solutions to challenges facing urbanized schools and communities.

References

Afterschool Alliance. (2014). America after 3PM: Afterschool programs in demand. Afterschool Alliance.

Akiva

Cortina

K. S.

Smith

(2014). Involving youth in program decision-making: How common and what might it do for youth? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1844–1860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0183-y

Akiva

Delale-O'Connor

Pittman

K. J.

(2020). The promise of building equitable learning ecosystems in urban environments. Urban Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920926230

Akiva

Hecht

Blyth

D. A.

(2022). Using a learning and development ecosystem framework to advance the youth fields. In Akiva

& Robinson

(Eds.), It takes an ecosystem: Understanding the people, places, and possibilities of learning and development across settings (pp. 13–36). Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Altman

Carley

K. M.

Reminga

(2018). ORA user’s guide 2018. Center for the Computational Analysis of Social and Organizational Systems at Carnegie Mellon University.

Armstrong

(2006). The best schools: How human development research should inform educational practice. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Banks

J. A.

K. H.

Ball

A. F.

Bell

Gordon

E. W.

Gutiérrez

(2007). Learning in and out of school in diverse environments: Life-long, life-wide, life-deep. The LIFE Center (University of Washington, Stanford University and SRI) & the Center for Multicultural Education, University of Washington.

Barron

(2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49(4), 193–224. https://doi.org/10.1159/000094368

Black

S. W.

(2017). The black legacy of classical music: Mary Cardwell Dawson and the National Negro Opera Company. Western Pennsylvania History, 16–17.

10.

Booth

(2003). Seeking definition: What is a teaching artist. Teaching Artist Journal, 1(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/15411796.2003.9684265

11.

Bowen

D. H.

Kisida

(2019). Investigating causal effects of arts education experiences: Experimental evidence from Houston's arts access initiative. Rice University and Houston Education Research Consortium.

12.

Brewer

J. M

. (2007). Pittsburgh Jazz (Images of America). Arcadia Publishing.

13.

Brown

E. D.

(2015). African American instrument construction and music making. In Burins

M. V.

& Maultsby

P. K.

(Eds.), African American music: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 23–33). Routledge.

14.

Bushnell

D. D

. (1970, July 18). Black arts for black youth. Saturday Review.

15.

Carley

K. M.

(2014). ORA: A toolkit for dynamic network analysis and visualization. In Alhajj

& Rokne

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of social network analysis and mining (pp. 1219–1228). Springer.

16.

Catterall

J. S.

(2009). Doing well and doing good by doing art. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

17.

Catterall

J. S.

(2012). The arts and achievement in at-risk youth: Findings from four longitudinal studies. National Endowment for the Arts.

18.

Chalmers

F. G.

(1999). Cultural colonialism and art education: Eurocentric and racist roots of arts education. In Boughton

& Mason

(Eds.), Beyond multicultural art education: International perspectives (pp. 173–184). Wasman.

19.

Clauset

Newman

M. E. J.

Moore

(2004). Finding community structure in very large networks. Physical Review E, 70(6), 066111. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.70.066111

20.

Conner

(2007). Pittsburgh in stages: Two hundred years of theater. University of Pittsburgh Press.

21.

Cook

(2019). Transformative arts process: Evaluation and executive summary. Dragonfly Partners. http://www.heinz.org/UserFiles/File/TAP_Exec_Summary_final.pdf

22.

Creswell

J. W.

Creswell

J. D.

(2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

23.

CRSP. (2015). Pittsburgh's racial demographics 2015: Differences and disparities. University of Pittsburgh Center on Race and Social Problems.

24.

da Cruz

C. G.

(2018). Community-engaged scholarship: Toward a shared understanding of practice. The Review of Higher Education, 41(2), 147–167. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2018.0000

25.

Dedoose (Version 8.3.45) [Computer software], web application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data (2021). SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC. www.dedoose.com

26.

Ettekal

A. V.

Agans

J. P.

(2020). Positive youth development through leisure: Confronting the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Youth Development, 15(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2020.962

27.

Falk

J. H.

Dierking

L. D.

(2018). Viewing science learning through an ecosystem lens: A story in two parts. In Corrigan

Buntting

Jones

Loughran

(Eds.), Navigating the changing landscape of formal and informal science learning opportunities (pp. 9–29). Springer International Publishing.

28.

Fredricks

J. A.

Eccles

J. S.

(2006). Extracurricular involvement and adolescent adjustment: Impact of duration, number of activities, and breadth of participation. Applied Developmental Science, 10(3), 132–146. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads1003_3

29.

Fredricks

J. A.

Eccles

J. S.

(2008). Participation in extracurricular activities in the middle school years: Are there developmental benefits for African American and European American youth? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(9), 1029–1043. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9309-4

30.

Frey

B. B.

(2018). The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation. Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139

31.

Frey

W. H.

(2018). Diversity explosion: How new racial demographics are remaking America. Brookings Institution Press.

32.

Garber

Beckles

Lee

Madan

Meuschke

Orr

(2020). Exploring the relationship between making and teaching art. International Journal of Education Through Art, 16(3), 435–457. https://doi.org/10.1386/eta_00043_1

33.

Gaztambide-Fernández

Kraehe

A. M.

Carpenter

B. S.

(2018). The arts as white property: An introduction to race, racism, and the arts in education. In The Palgrave handbook of race and the arts in education (pp. 1–31). Palgrave Macmillan.

34.

Gladney

M. J.

(1995). The black arts movement and hip-hop. African American Review, 29(2), 291–301.

35.

Gomez

L. M.

Russell

J. L.

Bryk

A. S.

Lemahieu

P. G.

Mejia

(2016). The right network for the right problem. Phi Delta Kappan, 98(3), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721716677256

36.

Halverson

E. R.

(2013). Digital art making as a representational process. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(1), 121–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.639471

37.

Halverson

E. R.

Sheridan

(2014). Arts education and the learning sciences. In Sawyer

(Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 626–648). Cambridge University Press.

38.

Hecht

Crowley

(2020). Unpacking the learning ecosystems framework: Lessons from the adaptive management of biological ecosystems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 29(2), 264–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1693381

39.

Heilig

Cole

Aguilar

(2010). From Dewey to no child left behind: The evolution and devolution of public arts education. Arts Education Policy Review, 111(4), 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2010.490776

40.

Hetland

Winner

Veenema

Sheridan

K. M.

(2015). Studio thinking 2: The real benefits of visual arts education. Teachers College Press.

41.

Horwitz

(2016). Who should pay for the arts in america? The Atlantic, 31. https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/01/the-state-of-public-funding-for-the-arts-in-america/424056/

42.

Howell

Goodkind

Jacobs

L. A.

Branson

Miller

(2019). Pittsburgh’s inequality across gender and race. Pittsburgh's Gender Equity Commission. http://bioethics.pitt. edu/event/pittsburgh-s-inequality-across-gender- and-race

43.

Howison

Osai

Akiva

. (2022). The role of philanthropy, research, and evaluation in shaping learning and development ecosystems: The case of creative learning in Pittsburgh. In Akiva

& Robinson

(Eds.), It takes an ecosystem: Understanding the people, places, and possibilities of learning and development across settings (pp. 229–248). Information Age Publishing, Inc.

44.

Ito

Gutiérrez

Livingstone

Penuel

Rhodes

Salen

Schor

Sefton-Green

Watkins

S. C.

(2013). Connected learning: An agenda for research and design. Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.

45.

Kirshner

Chang-Order

Harris

Van Horne

(2019). Building and brokering pathways in new media arts: A new dimension of youth programme quality. In Sefton-Green

Watkins

Kirshner

(Eds.), Young people's transitions into creative work (pp. 138–156). Routledge.

46.

Krauss

M. J.

(2018). Pittsburgh neighborhoods and schools remain segregated, but how did it start? 90.5 WESA News. Retrieved from https://www.wesa.fm/education/2018-10-18/pittsburgh-neighborhoods-and-schools-remain-segregated-but-how-did-it-start

47.

Knutson

Crowley

Lin-Russell

Annsteiner

(2011). Approaching art education as an ecology: Exploring the Roleb of museums. Studies in Art Education, 52(4), 310–322. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41407912

48.

Ladson-Billings

(1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465

49.

Ladson-Billings

(1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/095183998236863

50.

Lee

C. D.

(2017). An ecological framework for enacting culturally sustaining pedagogies. In Alim

H. S.

& Paris

(Eds.), Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world (pp. 260–273). Teachers College, Columbia University.

51.

Lemke

J. L.

Sabelli

N. H.

(2008). Complex systems and educational change: Towards a new research agenda. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00401.x

52.

Leskovec

Lang

K. J.

Dasgupta

Mahoney

M. W.

(2008). Community structure in large networks: Natural cluster sizes and the absence of large well-defined clusters. Internet Mathematics, 6(1), 29–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427951.2009.10129177

53.

Logan

J. R.

Stults

B. J.

(2011). The persistence of segregation in the metropolis: New findings from the 2010 census. Census Brief prepared for Project US2010.

54.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

Saldaña

(2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

55.

Milner

H. R.

(2012). But what is urban education? Urban Education, 47(3), 556–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912447516

56.

Miskel

Song

(2004). Passing reading first: Prominence and processes in an elite policy network. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(2), 89–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737026002089

57.

Montgomery

(2017). The rise of creative youth development. Arts Education Policy Review, 118(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2015.1064051

58.

Neal

(1987). The social background of the Black arts movement. The Black Scholar, 18(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00064246.1987.11412735

59.

Newman

M. E.

(2006). Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 8577–8582. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0601602103

60.

Palmer

M. A.

Zedler

J. B.

Falk

D. A.

(2016). Ecological theory and restoration ecology. In Falk

D. O.

Palmer

M. A.

Zedler

J. B.

(Eds.), Foundations of restoration ecology (pp. 3–26). Island Press.

61.

Papadopoulos

Kompatsiaris

Vakali

(2012). Community detection in social media. Data mining and knowledge discovery.

62.

Rabkin

(2013). Teaching artists: A century of tradition and a commitment to change. Work and Occupations, 40(4), 506–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888413503169

63.

Rabkin

Hedberg

E. C.

(2011). Arts education in America: What the declines mean for arts participation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2018.08.097

64.

Rabkin

Reynolds

Hedberg

Shelby

(2011). Teaching artists and the future of education: A report on the teaching artist research project (issue September). NORC at the University of Chicago.

65.

Rasmussen

(2017). Arts education and cultural democracy: The competing discourses. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 18(8). http://www.ijea.org/v18n8/

66.

Reeder

(2007). Teaching artistry. Teaching Artist Journal, 5(1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15411790709336711

67.

Russell

J. L.

Knutson

Crowley

. (2013). Informal learning organizations as part of an educational ecology: Lessons from collaboration across the formal-informal divide. Journal of Educational Change, 14(3), 259–281.

68.

Song

Miskel

C. G.

(2005). Who are the influential? A cross-state social network analysis of the reading policy domain. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 7–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X04269515

69.

Tierney

(2014). How the arts drove Pittsburgh's revitalization. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/how-the-cultural-arts-drove-pittsburghs-revitalization/383627/

70.

Voss

Z. G.

Voss

Awtry

Armstrong

(2018). NCAR arts vibrancy index IV: Hotbeds of America's arts and culture. National Center for Arts Research.

71.

Voss

Z. G.

Voss

Crane

Armstrong

(2017). NCAR arts vibrancy index III: Hotbeds of America's arts and culture. National Center for Arts Research.

72.

Welch

Jr. Kim

(2019). Race/ethnicity and arts participation: Findings from the survey of public participation in the arts. National Endowment for the Arts.

73.

Welsh-Asante

(1996). African dance: An artistic, historical and philosophical inquiry. Africa World Press, Inc.

74.

Williams

Keen

(2008). Survey of public participation in the arts. National Endowment for the Arts.

75.

Winner

Hetland

(2008). Art for our sake school arts classes matter more than ever-but not for the reasons you think. Arts Education Policy Review, 109, 29–32. https://doi.org/10.3200/AEPR.109.5.29-32

76.

Yin

R. K.

(2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publications, Inc.

77.

Yosso

T. J.

(2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006