Laserfiche WebLink
the application to future projects in a different time and place are limited, and need to be done <br /> with recognition of the historic context. <br /> A second limitation is the small sample size of three small Minnesota cities. Caution was <br /> taken not to over generalize the findings beyond communities of similar make-up or beyond the <br /> state of Minnesota. Additional research is required to expand this study's findings to different <br /> type cities, in other states or countries, where different attitudes regarding public art may be held. <br /> A third limitation is that this study focused on the role and relationships of the city <br /> manager within three specific type small cities based upon geographic location. Other factors, <br /> such as historical, political, institutional, or economic may represent unique characteristics of <br /> these particular communities, and were largely beyond the scope of study, and not part of the <br /> qualitative analysis. <br /> Finally, the study was conducted at the time of a worldwide COVID 19 pandemic. It is <br /> difficult to know the impact this situation had on the comments and reflections of individual <br /> respondents. Research interviews captured this moment in time and comments referenced both <br /> the opportunities and challenges of public art in a pandemic. Due to pandemic restrictions, most <br /> interviews were conducted via telemetric means (e.g., Zoom) and this mode of interview may <br /> have been influenced the results in some unknown fashion. <br /> Chapter 4 <br /> 4.1 Findings <br /> This chapter reviews and discusses the information and findings from interviews with the art <br /> collaborators within the three study communities.Aspects of public art that were explored <br /> 82 <br />