The Latvian Song and Dance Festival is a traditional national event held every five years that brings together over 35,000 amateur performers. Research has found social inequalities in participation, with some groups like ethnic minorities and those with low incomes being excluded. The current study analyzes survey data from 2002, 2007, and 2010 to compare the characteristics of participants and non-participants. It finds that participants are more likely to be ethnic Latvians, live in rural areas, have children, and have higher incomes. The goal is to better understand barriers to participation facing underrepresented groups.

1. Differences and Inequalities in
arts participation:
Case of Latvian Song and Dance Festival
Līga Grīnberga, Jānis Daugavietis
Latvian Academy of Culture, Rīga
RN05S09 / Arts Participation I
ESA 12th Conference
Differences, Inequalities and Sociological Imagination
Prague, 25–28 August 2015

2. Abstract
The Latvian Song and Dance Celebration is traditional national event (and
process) in Latvian culture and society, which began in 1873. The Festival takes
place every five years in summer and joins together more than 35 000
performers from amateur choral, dance, orchestra, art and folk craft groups. It is
recognized as a nationwide ritual and represents self-awareness of Latvian
identity, which is closely linked with nation`s creativity. The participation in
amateur arts is one of the most popular leisure time activities of the Latvian
society, however the digital era and new technologies are changing conditions
for the people taking part in the Song and Dance Festival. We are looking for the
conditions which make society to keep this tradition in the new and innovative
environment. In the process of the Festival it is important to include all social
groups, since it is regarded as a nationwide celebration and must meet goals of
modern social policy. Previous research on this shows (Tisenkopfs et al 2002,
2008) that there are some social groups (ethnic minorities, people with low
income, etc.), which have been excluded from taking part in the Festival. The aim
of our research is to continue to explore those social groups and detect possible
changes in conditions which make people to participate in The Latvian Song and
Dance Festival. We are comparing the survey of participants of latest Festival
(2013) with data from similar surveys in 2002 and 2007.

4. Song and Dance Festival (Celebration)
The 1st one in 1873. Never stopped.
(incl. Hitler’s and soviet occupation regimes)
Considered as one of the most important driving force in building
and sustaining Latvian nation and state.
Every five years, one week long.
(next morning – holiday for the participants)
100% Latvian repertoire.
Centralized and subsided process of: learning common repertoire,
selection procedures of artistic groups, managment.
~40 000 participants from all over Latvia and diasporas.
~1600 performing amateur art groups.
(choirs, vocal ensembles, dance troupes, brass orchestras, folklore groups, ethnographic ensembles, amateur theatres, folk
craft studios)
~ 500 000 visitors (total number of inhabitants in Latvia ~ 2 millions).
In the list of UNESCO Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of
Humanity (with Estonian, Lithuanian).
4

6. sustainable development
cultural participation
social capital
culture as a tool for development
(instrumentalisation of culture)
causal link between two factors: cultural participation and
development (social, economic, community ...)
Coleman-Putnam thesis:
unintended outcome – increase of social capital of community
Theorethical approach

7. Quantitative (socio-demographical) and qualitative
(attittudes) differences between the participants and non-
participants of The Song and Dance Festival (2002, 2008
Tisenkopfs et al).
Statistically significant differences between the adult
amateurs and others, dividing line – amount of capitals
(cultural, economic, symbolic) (2015 Daugavietis).
Problem: research of non-participants (excluded groups,
passive segments…) and more solid explanations on
diffeerences in participation.
Previous research
on Latvian amateur arts

8. Secondary:
Three ‘traditional’ surveys of national adult
population, n=1000 (2002, 2007, 2010).
Q: Have you ever took part of Song and Dance festival as a participant?
Primary:
Web survey of participants, n=1000 (2014).
Analysis:
Comparing of participants VS non-participants.
Data & analysis

9. participants non-participants
CHILDREN IN FAMILY
children childless
CHILDREN CHILDLESS CHILDREN CHILDLESS
2002 56% 44% 56% 44%
2007 48% 52% 36% 64%
2010 49% 51% 25% 75%
non-participantsparticipants

10. participants non-participants
AGE
15-24 25-44 45-64 65-74
15-24 25-44 45-64 65-74 15-24 25-44 45-64 65-74
2002 22% 40% 25% 12% 18% 42% 31% 9%
2007 24% 35% 31% 10% 17% 34% 34% 15%
2010 36% 30% 26% 8% 12% 37% 35% 16%
participants non-participants

11. RĪGA OTHER 8 BIGGEST CITIES
TOWNS,
COUNTRYSIDE RĪGA OTHER 8 BIGGEST CITIES
TOWNS,
COUNTRYSIDE
2002 29% 15% 56% 35% 22% 43%
2007 24% 15% 61% 34% 18% 49%
2010 30% 8% 62% 32% 16% 52%
participants non-participants
participants non-participants
PLACE OF RESIDENCE
Rīga other 8 biggest cities towns, countryside

12. Rīga Vidzeme Kurzeme Zemgale Latgale Rīga Vidzeme Kurzeme Zemgale Latgale
2002 29% 25% 15% 21% 11% 35% 19% 14% 16% 17%
2007 24% 35% 8% 11% 22% 34% 22% 15% 16% 14%
2010 53% 11% 16% 4% 17% 49% 10% 13% 13% 15%
non-participantsparticipants
participants non-participants
REGION
Rīga Vidzeme Kurzeme Zemgale Latgale

13. participants non-participants
INCOME PER HOUSEHOLD MEMBER
IN QUINTILE GROUPS
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
2002 30% 32% 11% 20% 7% 30% 35% 13% 16% 6%
2007 14% 35% 20% 20% 10% 22% 32% 25% 16% 5%
2010 43% 25% 15% 8% 10% 35% 22% 25% 13% 5%
participants non-participants

14. participants non-participants
ETHNICITY
Latvians other
participants non-participants
LATVIANS OTHER LATVIANS OTHER
2002 83% 17% 58% 42%
2007 87% 13% 54% 46%
2010 79% 21% 59% 41%

15. Same dividing lines
(gendeer, age, ethnicity, income, habitat, education… ).
Sharper differences in some cases
(e.g. ethnicity, age, education).
Most likely due to the difference in methodology –
controlled CAPI/CATI surveys VS uncontrolled CAWI.
Web survey of participants (2014)

16. Conclusions & next steps
Differences in participation exist
(points on social inequalities).
Stronger explanation is still needed
(on different levels of participation and of non-participation).

17. Thanks!