How Might Aesthetic Experience Help us Diversify Cultural Value?

Here's a response to the Cultural Value workshop by our other guest blogger, Ana Baeza Ruiz. Thanks to Ana for her feedback from the day. 

As a collaborative doctoral student with the National Gallery (NG), I am often hit by a sense of stubborn resilience whenever I step into its cavernous galleries, still installed in pre-WIFI days (soon to be over!) and evocative of an unchanging display ethos. Perhaps for that reason one of the things that struck me the most in our workshop was the malleability of the Museum of Liverpool, as explained by its director David Fleming. However fascinating (and I have no doubt blogs by other colleagues will treat these subjects), I will not delve into questions about its advocacy for social justice or the thematic complexities that underscore recent projects such as House of Memories, the Unstraight Museum conference or the David Hockney show in the Walker Art Gallery. Rather, I admit to having been troubled when I caught the glimmer of a problem that was only too briefly discussed, namely that art galleries (and particularly national collections) have fewer prerogatives to accommodate transgressive curatorial gestures such as Fleming’s. This was partly attributed to the fact that they must meet the demands of an infinitely wider, indeed global audience, and are thus unable to appeal to and exploit local sensitivities.

In this way and by comparison to social history museums, the arts are perceived to be insufficient in their own right and must be displaced to justify their existence. To avoid rehearsing the well-trodden argument of instrumentalism as a proxy for cultural value, I am more interested in asking how might it be possible, in the context of art galleries and especially those like the NG, to articulate cultural values that engage with the aesthetic without falling into either a utilitarian agenda or a universalist and monolithic form of aesthetic consumption.

This has called to mind the awake and defiant mind of one community officer in a gallery in Leeds, Jude Woods, whose relentless endeavours to re-define art appreciation (a very contested term no doubt) is accruing enormous support from local organisations. Her greatest merit, and from which all of us can learn starting with the NG, passes through a grassroots and socially embedded programme to diversify aesthetic experience and in the process prompt debate and exchange across various communities. By inviting participants usually under-represented in the context of the art gallery to become tour guides and directly feed into initiatives in the gallery, the project is breaking the shackles that have kept art history fastened to its usual suspects. As art’s cultural value becomes split its provisional nature is highlighted: rather than instrumentalization of art, what we have is a reorganization of aesthetic experience based on the recognition that all of us can, in our individual ways, engage with an artwork in our own right, and not for art’s sake.

Overview: Impact Workshop 09-07-2014

The afternoon's workshop was led by Dr Charlotte Mathieson, with an introduction by Dr Eleonora Belfiore. This introduction, called 'Cultural Value to Cultural Values: Workshop Value for the Humanities', outlined the image problem and sense of crisis that has come to characterise discussions about humanities research in recent years. It also highlighted the linguistic shift in humanities discourse from funding/subsidy to investment in humanities research (i.e. the encroachment of market values). The issue of value and measuring value in this sphere is central, and the Impact Agenda (see http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/ke/impacts/) represents one approach to demonstrating the contribution that research makes to academic advances.

Ele framed her presentation around the question, 'does a reliance on impact solve the problem of value for the humanities?' - does it respond to charges of uselessness, and address the humanities' perceived confidence issue? The suggestion is that the emphasis on socio-economic impact is a legitimising strategy in documents such as the AHRC's 'Leading the World' (defensive instrumentalism) and that the language of economics is the only language that will secure funding (see Steven Smith). Ele concluded that impact is about big questions but asked, what comes after critique, suggesting that there might be strategies for making some form of impact (as a measure of value) workable. 

Charlotte then delivered the practice-based element of the workshop on 'Communicating your Research Outside Academia', opening with the questions:

* Who is the ‘public’ with which you’re engaging?
* Why would they want to listen to me?
* What is the format?

Through a combination of group activities and discussion, she proposed different methods for research-sharing, primarily through media channels (e.g. radio, blogging, broadcasting). Participants were given pointers about how to communicate succinctly and effectively to non-academic audiences.

For radio, these included: front-loading (i.e. getting to the point quickly), avoiding jargon, visualising/conceptualising, using an example and having an interesting and little-known research fact.

For online writing, the focus was on: style and tone; language; structure and length.

She also gave examples of types of impact, including: informing policy-making, providing evidence, resources for use in campaigns, challenging existing policy, new attitudes and beliefs, challenging conventional wisdom, teacher training, new teaching resources, changing practice, training, creation of databases, providing consultancy to improve efficiency.

For further resources see:

Arts Faculty Impact Webpage: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/rss/impact/

RCUK Web Page: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/kei/Pages/home.aspx

REF 2014 Web Page: http://www.ref.ac.uk/

NCCPE: http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/

Vitae: http://www.vitae.ac.uk/

Heritage Exchange 2014

This year's Heritage Exchange took place LSO St Luke's, London, on the 14 and 15 July. Staged by the Heritage Lottery Fund, in partnership with the RSA, this event provided a forum for sharing ideas about heritage – its role in civil society and place, and how best to ensure its resilience in the future.

A call was issued on this blog in April to invite 10 Postgraduate/Early Career Researchers to take part in the event, allowing for the opportunity to contribute fresh perspectives, and be part of discussions that could influence future directions for heritage. One of our April workshop participants, Niki Black, was selected to attend, and has written a blog post about her research on the Heritage Exchange site.

Panel Overview 09-07-2014

The panel session took place on the morning of the workshop, comprising Eleonora Belfiore (Associate Professor of Cultural Policy, University of Warwick, Director of Studies Warwick Commission for the Future of Cultural Value), Andrew Mowlah (Senior Manager, Policy & Research, Arts Council England), David Fleming, OBE (Director of National Museums Liverpool). The chair was Chris Bilton (Director of the Centre for Cultural Policy Studies at the University of Warwick).

The discussion focused on four main themes: the need for evidence for funding organisations, how to measure impact, how to define cultural value and whether cultural organisations can be politically neutral. The participants engaged in an informal and stimulating discussion with the panellists, trying to give an answer to some complex questions and devise new ways to think about the value of the arts and the humanities.

Andrew Mowlah, as senior manager for Policy and Research at Arts Council England, advocated the need for evidence of social impact made by cultural organisations for funding bodies. Impact measurements do not only provide necessary data to inform the decisions of funding bodies, but are also useful resources for cultural organisations themselves: by conducting research on their own work, they obtain useful information to improve their services and stimulate a debate with their users and the local community. The Arts Council wants to stimulate both the production of high quality art and the implementation of artistic projects that have impact at the heart of their agendas.

Eleonora Belfiore explained that when one tries to give a definition of “cultural value” some problems arise. Cultural value can be articulated in many ways: one can try to define it in social, economic, aesthetic and even psychological terms. The case study selected to explain how cultural value can be a controversial issue was the Channel 4 TV program “My Big Fat Gipsy Wedding”: it is a successful show that has a strong economic revenue and is appreciated by a large audience. These two facts might seem sufficient to determine that it is a culturally valuable product, but it is also true that “My Big Fat Gipsy Wedding” is humiliating and offensive towards the community it is supposed to portray. Its cultural value, therefore, is highly questionable.

David Fleming shared his experience in directing museums and promoting social justice. Measuring impact is hard and cultural organisations feel the need to stop measuring and monetize everything; the different kinds of impact – economic, social and cultural – are at times difficult to measure in a coherent and consistent way. His work in directing National Museums Liverpool is focused on the people who attend exhibitions and their personal stories, their needs and the impact that cultural activities have on their life. The users are not a measurable collective entity, but rather a large and heterogeneous group of individuals, where each person adds value to the experience that takes places in galleries and museums. Moreover, museums have been considered neutral for a long time, but now it seems that they are more willing to bring about the social change they promote in their work.

The difficulties in measuring and defining cultural value seem to suggest that the arts need to find an independent method to affirm their own value and cease to be an “attachment” to wider policies in the public sector. Nevertheless, the importance of impact and its social and political significance need to be acknowledged not only as a rhetorical device, but as an important part of the work of cultural practitioners.

‘Cultural Value’ and the Economic and Social Impact of the Arts

Here's a response to the Cultural Value workshop by our guest blogger, Stephen Pritchard. Thanks to Stephen for his feedback from the day.

A morning of valuing artists, museums as co-producers of ‘social justice’ and cultural value as power, followed with an afternoon workshop about value and impact. The long trip to The University of Warwick was certainly action packed. A day of two halves. A room full of interested and actively probing researchers (and a Director of a National Portfolio Organisation). The day was all about policy: cultural value in the morning; humanities research after lunch. So what happened?

First up was Susan Jones, Director of a-n The Artists Information Company. Susan was, as usual, forthright and focused, delivering the hard facts about the #payingartists campaign; about ‘positive’ mission ‘delivery’; campaigning for fair pay for artists. She pointed out that ‘sometimes artists aren’t even mentioned in cultural policy’ anymore; pay had been reduced significantly in real terms since 1997; and nowadays ‘exhibition budgets exclude the notion of paying artists’. Why?  Susan was clear to place responsibility on an increasing ‘shift in focus towards infrastructure’ – in cultural buildings and top-heavy management and administration teams. All great stuff! I firmly believe in this perspective too. But Susan’s emphasis was on exhibitions and galleries ‘because that’s where public funding is going in visual arts’. a-n’s new #payingartists video advertisement reinforced what, for me, seemed a rather narrow way of conceiving artistic practice today. Susan explained, however, that a-n are beginning to ‘look outside galleries – beyond exhibitions’, so, perhaps, there’s some hope of an expanded future scope for this undoubtedly ‘must address’ issue. I have a nagging concern about institutionalising artists’ rights and pay, but that’s for another day…

Director of National Museums Liverpool, David Fleming was incredibly passionate in advocating a more radical approach to museum programming than is often, perhaps, the case. He’s a firm supporter of national infrastructure buildings, ‘so long as the public get something out of it’. His approach is all about people, emotions, inter-generational activities, variety, and, ‘fighting for social justice’ – all with an authentic Liverpool voice (although he was quick to explain he’s from Leeds)! His show reel of ‘social justice’ programming left virtually no stone unturned: gender reconfiguration; queer; children’s cancer; dementia; well-being; Hillsborough; gun crime; slavery – all examples of successful ‘collusion with other bodies’ (NGOs, charities, etc.) because, apparently, ‘activists like working with the establishment’. David was blunt in his dislike of policy directed at numbers in the building, citing London museums as a prime example of government policy and funding decisions based upon ‘how many high spending tourists you can attract’. Nevertheless, his advocacy of the Museum Association’s Museums Change Lives agenda and tick-all-boxes social justice narrative left me feeling a little unsettled. Was this really radicalism or soft reinforcing of a form of, undoubtedly left-of-centre, neoliberal state instrumentalism?

Arts Council England’s Senior Policy and Research Manager, Andrew Mowlah, always had an unenviable task.  The mood was set. He rehearsed many of the Arts Council’s new ‘tablets of stone’: the need to ‘reflect instrumental and intrinsic values’; fitting ‘the aesthetic… into cultural policy’; ‘making the best possible case for investment in arts and culture’; ‘metrics’; the ‘economic benefits of the UK culture industry’; ‘the wider benefits of the arts’ (beyond economics and tourism, perhaps?); etc., etc. He was steadfast in his defence of the need to ‘evidence’ culture to persuade government to continue to fund arts and culture, concluding that we shouldn’t ‘discount the value of data and evidence’. Many in the audience wondered whether anyone in government really valued the evidence anyway, no matter what its form. For me, any mention of ‘culture industry’ makes me go all Adorno…

Eleonora Belfiore was last in the morning session. Critical antithesis of Arts Council England’s cultural policy, she breezed through a cutting overview of current cultural value policy. Her assertion that the many who see cultural value as a way of determining ‘real value’ are being ‘over simplistic’ was an antidote to the positivist reductionism abounding in much of social sciences and cultural policy right now. Cultural value, like all things, is socially constructed, political, transient, and never neutral – power is always orchestrating. Ele’s example of Big Fat Gypsy Wedding… clearly demonstrated how economics and ‘fun’ programming has very dark undertones: it humiliates an already oppressed ethnic group, redoubling stereotypes whilst making a great deal of money for the media. It is, as Ele explained, the role of academia and research (and, perhaps, the arts and others) to ‘probe the underbelly of cultural value policy’.

I’m over my word count already, so let’s just summarise an excellent afternoon’s research workshop as follows: ‘Impact is not evil’ but ‘how do you engage someone like James Dyson?’ Solid ‘REF Gold’!

Morning Presentations 09-07-2014

Presentation 1: Susan Jones

The morning session was opened by the presentation of Susan Jones, director of the a-n Artist information company. She explained her work in advocating the rights and the value of the artists through the “Paying the Artists” campaign This is a project led by the a-n The Artist Information Company and AIR, which aims to “create the need for and confidence to deliver long-term change in the status and recognition of visual artists within exhibition practice and the wider arts ecology through access to persuasive evidence, advocacy and the consolidation of visual arts peer networks.”

a-n The artist information Company commissioned a research to DHA Communications about to find out about artists remuneration in the UK. 1000 artists filled a questionnaire about their income and the results were quite surprising. First, 72% of artists earn up to £10K year from art practice, while only 12% earn £20K or more. Moreover out of the 62% of artists who exhibited in publicly-subsidised gallery in last 3 years, 71% of them had not received any fee for exhibiting; one third of the artists who received fees were given £200 or less. This data clearly depicts a life marked by economic concerns for most artists, but also implies problems in the organisations and provision of artistic exhibitions: nearly half of all artists reported that exhibiting their work is prohibitively expensive and 63% have turned down an offer to exhibit for reasons including unsuitability of venue, lack of fees, or non payment of expenses. The average artist – usually female, often at the beginning of her career, and valuing sharing her work with the public as the main motivation for exhibiting her work – cannot afford to exhibit her artworks. Visual artists, galleries and audiences miss important opportunities: nevertheless, the report states that improving artists’ fees for exhibitions is not a priority for venues. This picture is disheartening not only to artists, but also to those who value artistic experiences. Therefore, a-n The Artist Information Company has launched the “The Paying Artists” campaign, which aims to obtain transparency on artists’ pay, a national policy on paying artists and pay policy to be written into funding agreements; moreover, this campaign promotes the value and role of visual artists and seeks to empower them to make the case for payment for their work (for further information see www.payingartists.org.uk).

During the Q&A session, the participants shared their own experiences, some as artists, some as other collaborators in art galleries. The practicalities of “The Paying Artists” campaign were discussed, and so were the ideals and the values behind this project that embraces cultural value, economic value, policy and artistic practice. Her presentation was not only the ideal start for a debate around the value of the arts, but also provided advice about presenting quantitative data in a new, engaging and creative way.

Presentation 2: David Fleming

In the following session, David Fleming, OBE, presented his work about museums and social justice. First, he addressed the very notion of “social justice”, a term that has different meanings according to different people; in the particular case of his work, social justice is a term that embraces the promotion of mutual respect between ethnically and socially diverse parts of the society, focusing on the encounter between different generations and fostering a dialogue on human rights. Moreover, when it comes to the Museums of Liverpool, social justice is practiced also through policy: the museums are free and aim to be a place of exchange for the whole local community. The value of museums, according to Fleming, can be not only economic, but also cultural, as it is a centre for research and collection; in his vision, nevertheless, the value of the museum is mainly social. In order to fulfil its role in a society, a museum must be audience focused, educational, community orientated, democratic, open to debate, diverse and socially responsible. The attention to the audience – its needs, its composition, its preferences -  is crucial aspect of museum management.

In Liverpool, a town with a rich cultural and historic heritage, but also one of the most deprived cities in England, offers a particular context for museums, but also endless occasions for debate around social justice. National Museums Liverpool is composed of six different spaces (the International Slavery Museum, the Museum of Liverpool, Sudley House, Seized!, the World Museum, Walker Art Gallery, Merseyside Maritime Museum and Lady Lever Art Gallery), each addressing the theme of social justice in a different way. The portfolio of National Museums Liverpool’s events and activities dedicated to democracy, social inclusion and justice is immense and includes national and international causes. All the exhibitions, nevertheless, aim to provoke an emotional response in the spectator, in order to establish a deep connection between the museum, the individual and society.

The value of museums, therefore, lies not only in the objects they contain, but in the people who attend exhibitions and events. The promotion of social impact in museums is not limited to Liverpool’s experience but expands to the whole nation: the Museums Association, of which Fleming is a past president, is promoting a new vision for the value of museums called “Museums Change Lives”: Museums Change Lives aims to enthuse people in museums to increase their impact, encourage funders to support museums in becoming more relevant to their audiences and communities, and show organisations the potential partnerships they could have with museums, to change people’s lives (for further information see http://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-change-lives).

9 July Workshop Photos

This was the second and final workshop in the Co-producing Cultural Policy series. Thanks to our speakers, participants and to everyone that helped to make the project possible.

Panel with David Fleming (National Museums Liverpool)

Panel Discussion

Afternoon Impact Workshop with Dr Eleonora Belfiore

Humanities in the Twenty-First Century

At a recent University of Leeds workshop on the theme of 'Cultural Values', Dr Anna Upchurch (University of Leeds) mentioned a new book, which she and Dr Eleonora Belfiore (University of Warwick) have co-edited. Humanities in the Twenty-First Century Beyond Utility and Markets is a compilation of original essays that consider the question, 'what is the value of the arts and humanities today?'

The contributors are from a variety of different backgrounds, including culture, business and policy making, in both the UK and the US. The essays examine the collaborative endeavours of arts and humanities research, both within academia and beyond, and the important ethical, political, technological and environmental challenges that this research addresses.

For further information about the book, please visit: http://us.macmillan.com/humanitiesinthetwentyfirstcentury/EleonoraBelfiore

Final Programme - 9 July

‘Cultural Value’ and the Economic and Social Impact of the Arts Workshop
9 July 2014

09:45-10:15 - Registration, coffee

10:15-10:25 - Welcome and Introduction, Alice Borchi, Workshop Organiser (University of Warwick)

10:25-10:45 - “The Value of the Artists”, Susan Jones (Director of a-n The Artists Information Company) 

10:45-10:55 - Q&A

10:55-13:15 - Panel Session, Dr Eleonora Belfiore (Associate Professor of Cultural Policy, University of Warwick, Director of Studies Warwick Commission for the Future of Cultural Value); Dr Chris Bilton (Director of the Centre for Cultural Policy Studies, University of Warwick); Andrew Mowlah (Senior Manager, Policy & Research, Arts Council England); Dr David Fleming, OBE (Director of National Museums Liverpool)

13:15-14:15 - Lunch Break

14:15-16:15 - Research in the Humanities: Value and Impact Workshop, directed by Dr Charlotte Mathieson (Research Fellow, IAS University of Warwick) and Dr Eleonora Belfiore

16:15-16:30 - Closing Remarks, Liz Stainforth (University of Leeds) and Alice Borchi (University of Warwick)

AHRC Collaborative Skills Development project hosted by the Centre for Cultural Policy Studies, University of Warwick, the University of Leeds and Leeds Metropolitan University.

Applications Open for 9 July Workshop

Applications for the second workshop in the 'Co-producing Cultural Policy' project (9 July 2014) are now open. Please look on our Workshops and Registration pages for more information.

Co-producing Policy-Understanding Government

More than a month since the April workshop and preparations are currently underway for July, when the second workshop in the 'Co-producing Cultural Policy' project will take place, on the theme of cultural value. This has given me a chance to reflect on the first event and to think about how we might sustain the life of the project beyond the end-date, through the development of resources follow-up events etc. I recently attended a Collaborative Skills Development networking event for award holders, which was really useful for sharing ideas and best practice. I've also been thinking about potential link-ups through the AHRC, since policy engagement seems to be an area of longstanding interest for them.

For example, in 2012/13, the AHRC's pilot course, ‘Understanding Government: An Arts and Humanities Perspective’, ran in partnership with The Institute for Government. Designed to provide an insight into the policy making process and help doctoral students consider ways in which Arts and Humanities researchers can contribute to government and policy through research, its stated aims were:   

• To provide a basic framework for understanding how government works.
• To demonstrate how Arts and Humanities can contribute to government and policy through research.

I spoke with one of the participants to gain an insight into discussions that happened during the course. Here's an overview of the key themes:

The course was an opportunity for researchers to engage with senior civil servants, who are interested in:

• Engaging with academics.
• Finding evidence on which to base policy.
• Using evidence to back up policy initiatives.

Central Government are primarily interested in quantitative data, job creation and economic benefit.

What participants took away from the workshop was information about ways to get in touch with policy makers (networks of personal contacts, all party parliamentary groups, speculative approaches).

Researchers want to be able to provide answers but there's no guaranteed route to success.

Policy makers see things in very black and white terms (not grey) - wanting something that can be signed off on.

There's a disparity between academic drivers (rigor, complexity) and policy drivers (instrumental, strong clear messages).

We also spoke about the sort of resources or approaches that might be beneficial for participants of the 'Co-producing Cultural Policy' project. Preliminary ideas include:

• Info about parallel career tracks for PhDs and ECRs.
• Toolkit for putting discussion into action, how to be influential.

Postgraduate/Early Career Researchers: Conference Opportunity

INVITATION TO APPLY TO PARTICIPATE IN HERITAGE EXCHANGE 2014 

Heritage Exchange (London, 14-15 July 2014) will bring together heritage sector leaders and thinkers to discuss the most pressing challenges and opportunities for heritage now and in the future. Organised by the Heritage Lottery Fund, in partnership with the Royal Society for the Arts, Heritage Exchange is a major thought-leadership event, focusing on new ways of working in a radically different economic and public funding environment. With national and international speakers, the conference aims to champion the resilience and sustainability of heritage, helping the sectors HLF supports to develop new ways of working to survive and thrive, and to learn from each other.

Participation in Heritage Exchange is by invitation and the Heritage Lottery Fund would like to extend this invitation to 10 Postgraduate/Early Career Researchers interested in the economic, social or cultural value of heritage, its uses and its future. This is a fantastic opportunity to contribute fresh perspectives, which have the potential to influence future directions for heritage.

The Conference 

Date: Monday 14th & Tuesday 15th July 2014

Approximate timings: 4.30pm - 6.30pm on Monday followed by drinks reception until 8pm; 9am - 5pm on Tuesday.

Venue: LSO St Luke’s, Old Street, London EC1

The Programme 

Day 1 will examine the new landscape for heritage through a series of provocations by thinkers and researchers in different heritage arenas.

Day 2 will consist of three sessions:

• Re-imagining heritage – a discussion on the scope for new partnerships based on the contribution heritage can make to core local economic and social goals; supported by new research from the RSA.

• Heritage and the creation of place – the view from elected leaders and entrepreneurs on how heritage can better serve the future of cities, towns and communities.

• The business of heritage – exploring new business models and ways of working; supported by new research from New Philanthropy Capital.

Speakers and panellists include 

UK
o Stephen Bediako, Centre for London
o Gillian Tett, Assistant Editor, Financial Times
o John Holden and Robert Hewison, DEMOS
o Sir Peter Bazalgette, Chair of Arts Council England
o George Ferguson, Mayor of Bristol o Baroness Kay Andrews, author of Culture and Poverty
o Loyd Grossman, Chair of Heritage Alliance
o Professor Nick Groom, University of Exeter
o Sir Laurie Magnus, Chair of English Heritage
o Anna Minton, author and former journalist
o Matthew Taylor, Director of the RSA

International
o Bob McNulty, Founder and President of Partners for Liveable Communities, USA
o Mikhail Gnedovsky, Director, Cultural Policy Institute, Moscow
o Desmond Hui, Non-Executive Director of the Urban Renewal Authority, Hong Kong; Managing Director of Culture & Development Consultancy Ltd

How to apply 

HLF would like to invite up to 10 postgraduate/Early Career Researchers to attend the conference to engage with the issues of relevance to their research.

Attendees will be encouraged to actively participate and engage with the conference proceedings and produce a post-conference reflection to help inform ongoing dialogue with the sector and to contribute to future policy and direction. This could be in the form of a blog or a short paper.

We are able to offer an expenses bursary of up to £100 on provision of receipts.

Applications should be emailed to ecr@hlf.org.uk to arrive by 12 noon on Friday 9 May.

Successful applicants will be informed by email by 31 May and sent an invitation to register for the conference through the event-brite booking system.

Places will be offered on the basis of relevance to research interests. We also seek to fund participants from a range of academic disciplines and universities across the UK.

For enquiries, please telephone Liz Girling on 029 20 234148

Overview: Afternoon Workshop 07-04-2014

The afternoon workshop session, on the theme of 'Cultural Policy-Cultural Politics' was led by Dr Dave O’Brien (Lecturer in Cultural Industry Studies, City University London) and Dr Helen Graham (Research Fellow in Tangible and Intangible Heritage, University of Leeds). Both have been involved in the Connected Communities Research Programme, and they are currently working together on the Connecting Epistemologies strand. The session started with an introduction to Dave and Helen's respective work.

Dave spoke about the research he carried out while working on the DCMS's Measuring the Value of Culture programme, which has informed the topic of his first book, Cultural Policy: Management, Value & Modernity in the Creative Industries. He contrasted this experience, working among policy elites, with the grassroots approaches to arts engagement employed in one of his current projects, 'Cultural intermediation: connecting communities in the creative urban economy'.

Helen spoke about her project 'How should decisions about heritage be made?', with reference to the Stonebow House case study.

Stonebow House

Who used to use the site?
Who uses it now?
What would we like to use it for in the future?

How can all of us make a good decision?
What do we need to know?
Who needs to be involved?

Because in the case of Stonebow House there will be a ‘decision’, there needs to be:
Democratic understanding of knowledge,
Use of conversation and networking,
Leading to public constituency for more democratic decision.

She demonstrated the complex network of decision makers and agencies implied in the case of Stonebow, using the mapping software Coggle:

Participants (who had been split into groups based on shared research interests) were then asked to develop their own impact plan:

How might you position your research?
How does it relate to ‘policy’ and ‘politics’?
Who are the key actors and networks you might interact with?
Where/when are key decision making points?
How will you know if you’ve been successful?
What is your theory of how your research leads to social and political change?
What kinds of ways of knowing might prove effective in different contexts?

Time was allocated at the end for feedback from the group discussions. Issues that emerged related to the importance of organisational processes and personal relationships for influencing policy (one group asked the question, 'can you systematise a personal relationship?'), the difficulty of translating academic language into policy language, and local vs. national perspectives on cultural policy.

Group Discussion - Issues Raised by Morning Session 07-04-2014

Below are the photographs taken of the group discussion, following the panel session:

Panel Overview: Morning Session 07-04-2014

We started the day with a ‘Question Time’ style discussion based on theme of researchers’ roles in participatory decision-making, with Chair Leila Jancovich and panellists:

* Dr Dave O’Brien (Lecturer in Cultural Industry Studies, City University London)

* Karen Brookfield (Deputy Director of Strategy and Business Development, Heritage Lottery Fund)

* Helen Featherstone (Senior Officer, Engagement & Audience, Arts Council England)

* Dr Helen Graham (Research Fellow in Tangible and Intangible Heritage, University of Leeds)

Here's a summary of the responses to the questions.

1. What are the challenges involved in facilitating participatory decision-making without influencing the outcome? (Sarah Harvey Richardson)

Responses - consider approaches that negotiate within the process itself, perhaps it's not so much a question of influence if you can be led by the decision-making process rather than by the decision. On the other hand, some parameters can be useful, as long as they don't exert an undue influence e.g. Disability guidelines might inform decisions about text size in participatory projects like collaborative exhibitions. It is a difficult issue to negotiate since there is often pressure within larger organisations to engage in tokenistic participation, suggesting that often the outcome has already been decided. Sometimes it can be difficult to engage people on policy/decision-making questions.

Questions raised - Is there such a thing as cultural policy? How is it to be defined? Is it possible that participatory approaches have a greater chance of success if you ask people to engage with something they have a strong connection to, e.g. Place?

2. If we are striving for a collaborative environment in which researchers and policy makers work together in cultural decision-making, how do we ensure that the practitioners and artists who deliver the culture are not excluded from this process? What platform do you consider the best upon which to give them a voice? (Niki Black)

Responses - There is a problem when a strong dialogue between elites becomes exclusionary, and decisions are taken without involving other stakeholders. Do artists constitute one such elite? Perhaps, when they are well established but not early on in their careers. Just as researchers and policy makers should be able to work together, so too should practitioners be able to contribute (without occupying a privileged position). Scale is important when considering how best practitioners and artists can contribute to policy/projects. Maybe for smaller scale community projects (which perhaps involve a commissioned artwork) it's more important.

3. When the timing of research and policy-making are so different, how can researchers ensure that their work doesn't get 'left behind' by the speed of the policy making process? (Bethany Rex)

Responses - One way of thinking through the implications of research is as effecting change as part of the process (see above, research that negotiates within the process itself and is practice-led). However, while potentially beneficial, policy usefulness is not the main criteria ECRs will be judged on so it is important not to try and base the value of your research on that. If there are organisations who you want to collaborate with, be proactive about contacting them but try to ensure you use policy friendly language, i.e. cultivate a clear, non-academic writing style.

4. What is the difference, if any, between 'participation' and 'co-production'? (Claire Forbes)

Responses - Participation implies clear authorship or ownership of a project on one side, whereas (the modern usage of) co-production suggests a more equitable relationship between two parties. However, definitions are often contested and it is important to clearly define the terms in your projects/research from the outset (e.g. participation, co-production).

5. The UK model for public subsidy of cultural organisations has come under serious pressure since the last general election. Political priorities have changed and the economic case for the arts is under question. But to what extent do these changes reflect a loss of connection between the British public, in whose name policy is made, and the cultural sector? What can the sector do to revitalise its public mandate? (Jon Price)

Responses - There is a continuity in funding models which perpetuates exclusion, i.e. the largest organisations often get the largest share of funding, so opera, ballet and theatre, which appeal to a relative minority receive disproportionate funds. There is an issue of principles vs. practice here; the hypothetical willingness to fund different types of cultural activity to encourage engagement, vs. what is actually funded.

6. If a 'bottom up' approach to identifying heritage and planning conservation require facilitation skills, what might be the value of the heritage experts skills in archaeology, art history and architecture etc? (Sophie Norton)

Responses - The expertise of heritage professionals can be of great value in a combined approach to planning; it's a case of bringing expertise and know how (the knowledge of different groups and communities) together. Different levels and strands of knowledge can enhance project outcomes, and several current projects (see, e.g., Arts Council England) adopt this approach.

7. Could the panel suggest, perhaps based on their own work, what have been some of the most effective ways to connect participatory modes of research to the making of policy interventions and organizational change? What strategies have you yourselves employed? (Jon Gross)

Responses - While it's often easier said than done, trying not reinvent the wheel is important; participatory models should not be used for the sake of it. Projects that involve participatory decision-making are often hard to negotiate in terms of geography and communication, and the potential for disaster is quite high in adopting this kind of approach. However, it is again a question of scale; while it may be difficult to scale up to a national level, at the level of local government, there can be positive outcomes from participatory approaches (representational democracy model).

7 April Workshop Photos

Thanks again to our speakers, participants and to everyone that helped to make the workshop possible.

Post Panel Discussion 1

Post Panel Discussion 2

Post Panel Discussion 3

Afternoon Workshop with Helen and Dave

Participation & Engagement in the Arts Network

Leeds Metropolitan University run the Knowledge Exchange Network and a series of seminars exploring key issues in participation and engagement in the arts across the North of England.

The project is coordinated by Leila Jancovich, Senior Lecturer in Cultural Policy, Arts and Festivals Management and Professor Franco Bianchini from the Cultural Planning and Policy Unit in the School of Cultural Studies.

The Network creates opportunities for knowledge exchange between cultural researchers, policy makers, managers and practitioners, from across the North of England, to debate key issues around cultural development generally and participation and engagement in particular.

For further information, please visit:

http://www.participationandengagement-arts.co.uk/

This is an Arts Council England-commissioned project.

Final Programme - 7 April

Participation and Cultural Policy Decision-making Workshop
7 April 2014

10:00-10:30 - Registration, coffee

10:30-10:40 - Welcome and Introduction, Liz Stainforth, Workshop Organiser (University of Leeds)

10:40-12:10 - Panel Session, Leila Jancovich (Chair), Dr Dave O’Brien (Lecturer in Cultural Industry Studies, City University London), Karen Brookfield (Deputy Director of Strategy and Business Development, Heritage Lottery Fund), Helen Featherstone (Senior Officer, Engagement & Audience, Arts Council England), Dr Helen Graham (Research Fellow in Tangible and Intangible Heritage, University of Leeds)

12:10-13:00 - Group Discussion

13:00-14:00 - Lunch break

14:00-16:00 - Cultural Policy-Cultural Politics: Workshop Session, Dr Dave O’Brien (Lecturer in Cultural Industry Studies, City University London) and Dr Helen Graham (Research Fellow in Tangible and Intangible Heritage, University of Leeds)

16:00-16:30 - Closing Comments: Where Next? Alice Borchi, Workshop Organiser (University of Warwick)

------------

16:30-18:30 - Wine reception in the School of Fine Art, History of Art and Cultural Studies

AHRC Collaborative Skills Development project hosted by the Centre for Critical Studies in Museums, Galleries & Heritage, University of Leeds, Leeds Metropolitan University and the University of Warwick.

International Perspectives on Participation and Engagement in the Arts

Dates of Event
20th June 2014 – 21st June 2014

Location
Utrecht, Netherlands

Venue Details
Friday: Ottone, Kromme Nieuwegracht 62, Utrecht
Saturday: Department of Media and Cultural Studies, University of Utrecht, Drift 21, Utrecht

Last Booking Date for this Event
15th June 2014

Description
-Networking between academics, policy makers and arts practitioners
-Transfer of best practices in participatory arts and participatory decision-making in cultural policy
-Policy transfer between different countries, municipalities and public service sectors-International speakers for comparative analysis

Since the 1980s there has been a growing international focus on participation in public policy, whether as a means to compensate for diminishing state investment or to give voice to grassroots activism. This has led to an increasing discourse about models of participatory practice, the values that underpin these, and their social and political impact, in the worlds of the arts and cultural activities no less than in other sectors.

For the last two years Leeds Metropolitan University, with the support of Arts Council England and the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), have been coordinating a knowledge exchange network, bringing together academics, policy makers and practitioners to share research and debate issues, on participation and engagement in the arts. In the Netherlands similar activities have been carried out since 2009 by the national expertise centres for arts education and amateur arts, recently merged into the National Centre of Expertise for Cultural Education and Amateur Arts (LKCA), and by the Cultural Participation Fund (FCP).

This conference is the culmination of this work, and aims to draw together current research and practice internationally to assess:

• The relevance of the participation and engagement agenda for professional arts and cultural heritage organisations, voluntary arts organisations, and policy makers at local and national level;
• Which theoretical and political assumptions underpin this agenda and its implementation;
• Which models of participatory arts practices have been developed and have proved to be successful.

This conference is in collaboration with the National Centre of Expertise for Cultural Education and Amateur Arts (LKCA), the Cultural Participation Fund (FCP) and The Department of Media and Culture Studies of the University of Utrecht.

For further info, visit: www.participationandengagement-arts.co.uk

Workshop Preparations

Good news! Participants have now been selected for the 7 April workshop and the final preparations are coming together (finalised programme to follow shortly). We're also excited to announce that Helen Featherstone (Senior Officer, Engagement & Audience, Arts Council England) has been added to the programme as part of the panel discussion in the morning.

Cultural Policy in the Public Eye - A Talk by Leila Jancovich

Cultural Policy Issues: New Research at Leeds

The next seminar in the series will be presented on 18 March by Leila Jancovich (Senior Lecturer at Leeds Metropolitan University), 5:15pm, ICS Lecture Theatre, Clothworkers North (room G.12).

Title: Cultural Policy in the Public Eye

Abstract: A central debate within arts policy in the UK since the formation of the Arts Council in 1946 has revolved around whether policy and funding should respond to the supplier (the artist) or the demand side (the audience) with the balance until recently clearly falling in favour of the artist. But there have been increasing calls for artists and arts organisations to be more publicly accountable and for cultural policy to shift the debate in favour of the audience.

Yet despite a policy discourse and rhetoric including directives and targets to increase levels of participation in the UK, the government's own statistics suggest that there has been little change in the arts institutions who receive regular funding and in the social composition of the audiences who participate in the arts in Britain today, who remain predominantly white and middle class.

Arts funding continues to prioritise physical infrastructure over grassroots activity, professional artists over amateur participation, and high art over popular. Internationally, trends in the public sector have seen the public viewed not just as users or customers, but as co-producers and decision makers, which is beginning to impact on the arts.

This paper considers the implications of participatory decision making in the arts, through interviews with policy makers, artists and audiences and seeks to consider to what extent such initiatives are able to democratise the arts and what impact this has on art form development.

Applications Closed for 7 April Workshop

Applications for the first workshop in the 'Co-producing Cultural Policy' project (7 April 2014) are now closed. Updates and registration for the second workshop at the University of Warwick will be announced soon.

About the Organisers

Liz Stainforth

Policy plays a central role in my PhD research. Over the past 15 years cultural heritage and digitisation has been shaped by a number of key policy statements, frameworks and funding calls. As well as enabling major projects such as Europeana, these have informed shifting understandings of the relationship between ‘heritage’ and ‘the digital’. My work is specifically concerned with the ideological significance attributed to memory, understood as a form of national or transnational inheritance, in relation to debates about digitisation and the preservation of cultural heritage. My research explores the politics of this relationship further through analysis of the projects, press and policies that have the digitisation of cultural heritage as their goal, spanning the period 1994-present, within major organisational and cultural settings.

Leila Jancovich

The rhetoric of cultural policy has placed increasing emphasis on the participation agenda over the last 15 years. But despite this, a study of grey literature demonstrates that there has been little change in the basis upon which arts institutions receive regular funding, or the social composition of those who participate in the arts in Britain today - who remain predominantly white and middle class. Government surveys further provide evidence that the arts are perceived as elitist, and policy too insular and self-reflective. Through interviews with policymakers, practitioners and the public, my PhD examines participatory decision-making in the arts. It examines case studies of practice as well as the levers and barriers to policy implementation in general.

Alice Borchi

My PhD is a contribution to the debate on cultural value, which is an important research area of Centre for Cultural Policy Studies at Warwick University and also the core of the #Culturalvalue Initiative, an international platform of discussion led by Dr. Elenora Belfiore. My research focuses on the relationship between historical context, governmental policies and the perception of culture in the contemporary Italian society, exploring the change in cultural value in Italy from 2008 to the present day, a period when the economic crisis has strongly influenced the everyday behaviour of the Italian people. This project, that includes theoretical and historical research, normative analysis, interviews and case studies, has the purpose to understand the change in perceptions of cultural value in Italy, a country with a rich cultural tradition, analyzing different sectors and different aspects of the national and local cultural life.

Keep up-to-date with our Progress

For the latest updates and programme developments, be sure to follow us on Twitter and Facebook:

https://twitter.com/CoPolicy

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Co-Producing-Cultural-Policy/649417445104099

Welcome

Welcome to the 'Co-producing Cultural Policy' project website. Here's a bit more info about the rationale for the project:

Tim Blackman writes that policy research should be undertaken “not as a detached academic exercise but as a process co-produced with practitioners and their ‘case work’, whether individuals, organisations or places” (Blackman, 2013).  This theme of co-production forms the basis of two cross-disciplinary workshops in Leeds and Warwick, aimed at postgraduates and early career researchers. Bringing together university partners, the Heritage Lottery Fund and Arts Council England, the workshops will explore collaborative approaches to the formulation of cultural policy, addressing key questions and concerns currently affecting policy planning in the UK.

With a strong focus on partnership building, postgraduate networking and research skills, the interactive workshops will provide a forum for cultural policy experts and researchers to share and exchange processes of working. They will be structured around the relationship between research, public engagement and policymaking, focusing firstly on participation and cultural policy decision-making and secondly on cultural value. Through these workshops postgraduates and early career researchers can start to position themselves within the field, developing academic networks beyond their home institutions, as well as networks within the sector.