RESEARCH IN THE ARTS AND CULTURAL …unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001261/126114e.pdfRESEARCH IN THE ARTS AND CULTURAL INDUSTRIES: TOWARDS NEW POLICY ALLIANCES A Transatlantic Workshop

RESEARCH IN THE ARTS ANDCULTURAL INDUSTRIES:TOWARDS NEW POLICY

ALLIANCES

A Transatlantic WorkshopCo-organised by

Division of Arts and Cultural Enterprise, UNESCONational Arts Journalism Program, Columbia University

Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies at Princeton University,with the co-operation of the Council of Europe

(UNESCO Headquarters, Paris 24-26 June 2001)

REPORT

by Jennifer WilliamsCentre for Creative Communities

(CLT-2002/WS/7)

Introduction

This report is based on a two-and-a-half-day workshop held from the 24th tothe 26th of June 2001 at UNESCO headquarters in Paris. The topic of theworkshop was Research in the Arts and Cultural Industries in the US and inEurope.

The aim of the meeting was to compare the states of arts and cultural researchon both sides of the Atlantic, so that transatlantic collaborations could beconsidered and developed.

The workshop developed out of conversations among representatives fromColumbia University’s National Arts Journalism Program, the Arts andCultural Policy Center at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public andInternational Affairs at Princeton University, and UNESCO.

Thirty specialists from the cultural policy and research fields in both Europeand the US participated in the meeting.

The presence of so many scholars and foundation leaders gave substance toone of the key charter functions of UNESCO: to maintain, increase and dif-fuse knowledge by encouraging co-operation among the nations in all branch-es of intellectual activity.

Rationale

The meeting was intended to provide a framework to assess work currentlyunderway on both sides of the Atlantic. It aimed to identify mutual questions,compare policies and analyse needs related to the collection and dissemina-tion of findings.

The picture that emerged from conference discussions revealed many inter-esting differences relating to funding systems, methods, content and researchareas between the American and European contexts.

For clarity, issues arising from papers and discussions have been organisedin four main sections: 1) overview of research in the US arts and culturalindustries; 2) overview of research in the European arts and cultural indus-tries; 3) issues of shared concern; 4) suggestions for future transatlantic col-laborations and conclusions.

TOWARDS NEW POLICY ALLIANCES

[3]

Overview of Research in the US Arts and Cultural Industries

In the US the “field” of cultural policy is still in a formative stage; thus,recognition and support for cultural policy work from universities and foun-dations has developed more slowly there than in Europe.

In regard to areas of research, many of the US-produced studies concern theeconomic well-being of the arts. There are, though, a number of factors influ-encing the current definition of “arts and cultural research,” and shiftingtrends in funding for cultural research are increasingly widening the defini-tion of what constitutes “cultural activity.”

Public funding for arts research in the US comes from tax revenues. Amongthe agencies that administer funds for the arts and humanities are theNational Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for theHumanities, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the KennedyCenter and the National Gallery. Corporations and foundations also help fundresearch, due to tax incentives and an active culture of philanthropy.

In regard to research methodologies, the studies carried out by The NationalEndowment for the Arts have been primarily quantitative and designed tosupport its own grant-making. Since in the US there is neither a central gov-ernmental cultural-research agency nor an agency for collecting and dissem-inating such research, the importance of NEA research is that it provides sta-tistical benchmarks.

At present, the realm of US cultural research is undergoing some majorchanges. Topics such as arts and education, arts and youth, and arts anddevelopment are being considered for funding, whereas previously they hadbeen dismissed as inappropriate or peripheral. The current trend is to looknot only at the non-profit arts but also at the commercial, the informal and thecommunity arts. Issues are being studied that are not related to funding, suchas the regulatory effects on culture, tax policy, the effects of telecommunica-tions on culture, and the impact of other types of public policies on arts andculture.

In terms of research content, there has been a profound shift toward theexploration of possible links in other policy areas – such as re-animatingdemocracy; the role of arts and culture in an ageing society; and the chang-ing ecology of arts, humanities and culture.

RESEARCH IN THE ARTS AND CULTURAL INDUSTRIES

[4]

Traditionally, there has not been a strong conceptual base for research in theUS, though recently, deregulation and the culture wars have inspiredresearch. At present, though, Americans have a strong urge to understand theimpact to the arts and humanities of investing heavily in issues such as“youth at risk,” and they have wondered whether such an investment hasmade a difference. This change in thinking is also reflected in the shift froman almost exclusively quantitative focus to a more qualitative approach toevaluation that focuses on transformation and quality of life, and on how sup-port for culture has influenced these more values-based issues.

For 35 years, the US’s main cultural-policy concern was to build an infra-structure of non-profit arts organisations; thus, Americans worked to developpublic funding at the state and local levels and encouraged corporations toinvest in culture. Although that has been successful, the focus has nowturned to new issues such as audience participation, the public purpose of thearts, and their role within civil society.

Research works well at a local level; there is a growing interest in communi-ties and grassroots development, although techniques and standards varyenormously because comparisons are problematic. The model of partneringresearch across agencies has been developing in recent years, but it is high-ly decentralised and therefore difficult to track on a federal level.

Privately sponsored cultural research in the US is hard to track, both in termsof scale and subject matter. Funding data employs information provided bythe American Council of Fundraising Data. Since information from sub-sec-tors of the arts is derived from a small number of organisations, very little isknown. The private side of the cultural research field needs to be developed.Also, cultural-policy research institutes tend not to have long-term financialsupport, although the number of foundations interested in funding culturalresearch has increased.

Overview of Research in the Arts and Cultural Industries in Europe

Unlike in the US, European public institutions, both within individual coun-tries and at the European level, predominantly support research. The choiceof research topics, though, is governed by the priorities of the particularnation performing the research. The types of agencies involved in conductingresearch varies from country to country, but relevant organisations and pro-grammes in Europe include:


[5]

• Agencies directly involved in the planning and implementation ofarts, cultural and media policies – i.e. arts councils, cultural and com-munications ministries, and heritage organisations.

• Departments and programmes in higher-education institutions with ageneral remit to conduct research and supervise the development ofpostgraduate research in areas relevant to the policy issues in the arts,cultural and media industries.

• Higher-education programmes in policy studies or in public adminis-tration that emphasize the arts, cultural and media sectors.

• Higher-education programmes in legal studies, which are becomingincreasingly significant as interfaces between the cultural industries,cultural policy and the law get more complex.

• University-based or independent research institutes and centres withdedicated arts, cultural or media-industry policy foci. These have a crit-ical switchboard function to play in connecting debates within social sci-ences and humanities disciplines with the more practical policy aspectsof cultural policy development.

• Private foundations with developed interests in cultural research,which are fewer in number than such foundations in the US but that doexist.

• Diverse organisations operating at the European level with researchfoci appropriate to their individual sphere of responsibility. The Councilof Europe tends to foster comparative studies and provide valuable serv-ices in collating and synthesising existing knowledge and information onpractice by facilitating trans-national debate. The European Commissionis also an important source of new research.

In terms of general tendencies, one of the most significant factors presentlyinfluencing European research is the increasing convergence of issues acrossthe arts, cultural and media sectors. Research in these sectors is increasing-ly seen less as a specialist enclave, remote from the main dynamics of theeconomy, and more as a paradigm for general industry research.

As in the US, European researchers are exploring a fuller and more diverseset of relations among the arts, cultural and media policies and social issues


[6]

that have resulted from the diversification of citizenship agendas since WorldWar II. Thus, topics such as cultural diversity, culture, media and the publicsphere, cultural capital and social exclusion, cultural participation, andsocial cohesion have grown in prominence.

Central to the research agenda of European countries is the emergent needfor a more qualitative understanding of the different values, practices andinterpretive frameworks that characterise culturally diverse societies. Thiscomes at a time when the accent has shifted from cultural policies with anationalist cast to the acceptance, and even the promotion, of cultural differ-ences.

The relations between cultural and media policies, regions and identities area crucial concern at the national level, especially where not just nationalidentities but the future of national cultural industries is threatened by thedominance of an increasingly internationalised, typically US- and English-language-based cultural market. In some national contexts, there are growingconnections between research in cultural policy and the broader agendas ofneo-liberalism. This is especially evident in research focused on the organi-sation of cultural markets, notions of cultural entrepreneurship and expan-sion of the creative industries.

There is room for improvement in the relationships between major researchproducers and research end users, and a need for effective national or inter-national networks. Connections between cultural-policy studies and publicpolicy/administration studies have been poorly developed. Europe needscross-national comparative studies and better frameworks for collecting cul-tural statistics and studies, which would establish baseline data that could beused in subsequent comparative studies.

Comparative work in Europe is encouraged, but usually only in pursuit ofdeepening the understanding of a particular European identity. Also, the cur-rent funding mechanisms for supporting research in Europe constrain inter-disciplinary work. Difficulties in implementing collaborative researchthroughout the European continent also derive from the lack of normative sta-tistics, the hesitancy to share methodologies and the differing academic tra-ditions.

In terms of content, there is a risk that research could be slanted in the Anglodirection, because there is not enough circulation of foreign-language stud-ies. All of these problems would be eased if more funding were made avail-


[7]

able for translating and disseminating existing non-English research.

Prior to the 1980s, comparative research was characteristically an addendumto national priorities, but since then, it has branched out beyond the nation-al sphere. Expertise from different countries was brought together, and thefirst networking ideas began to emerge; CIRCLE was among these. About thesame time, two distinct EU funding bodies emerged: the Council of Europeand the European Commission.

Yet cultural research still has a long way to go. More attention needs to bepaid to the supra-national aspects of European culture(s), and greater empha-sis placed on local-level activity.

Historically, much of EU’s cultural policy has spun off from other policiessuch as the European Social Fund. At the EU level, research has directimplications in most fields, although this is still not true in the cultural-pol-icy field. Very little work of the European research centres relies on compar-ative studies or looks at the role of culture in a wider EU agenda.

Issues of Shared Concern

A number of practical and theoretical difficulties were identified during theworkshop.

In regard to the language, the need for more precise terminology and clearernormative goals was strongly underlined. It was observed that the term “cul-tural policy” itself is difficult to define, as it refers to different realities,implying notions of access, economic development and cultural diversity.Thus, it would be more appropriate to talk about cultural policies. Emphasiswas also placed on the need to more clearly address the way in which cultur-al policy, norms and politics relate.

In connection with possible comparative work between North America andEurope, participants stressed the need to identify areas of research thatwould benefit both sides. At present, the US does not prioritise Europe, andthe focus of European research is within the EU. Also underlined was theneed to understand more effectively how the research field operates. It wasobserved that, as people have different perspectives on culture and many dif-ferent processes affect the research field, the need to fully comprehend theinteraction between diverse values and processes is crucial.


[8]

Suggestions for Future Transatlantic Collaborations

Participants discussed the advantages to be gained from policy transfers andfrom co-ordinated observations of global/international issues, which couldhelp inform domestic issues. They underlined the need to look more closelyat the impact of different types of cultural research and to assess the effectsof diverse policies in both Europe and the US, so as to implement successfultransfers.

The topics identified as areas of potential transatlantic collaboration prima-rily fell into three broad domains: 1) Policy context and framework; 2) Theorganisation and structures of the field; 3) Programme evaluation.

Issues related to policy framework focus on contexts, vehicles and goals thathave proven successful on both sides of the Atlantic. Questions related tostructures are concerned with developing a framework to analyse how artsand culture operate in Europe and America; problems linked to programmeevaluation look at programmes and their relationships to the policies respon-sible for them.

Issues and topics related to policy context and framework

• Comparative analysis, looking at local and supra-national issues• Identification and analysis of the funding models of various countries• The role of non-state actors in cultural policy• The impact of the Internet on the development and distribution of culture• Policies that encourage or discourage people’s informal arts par-ticipation• Issues and topics connected with structures and organisation of the field • Development and analysis of cultural indicators as a vehicle for economic growth• Development of a database of research interests• Issues related to cultural-policy-research training• Development of a reader for cultural-policy instruction that wouldinclude comparative references• Copyright/Intellectual property, looking at convergence and hybridisation


[9]


[10]

• Issues and topics linked to programme evaluation • Looking at how different funding sources can affect cultural-researchprogrammes, in terms of their direction and content• Finding ways to encourage interdisciplinary discourse• Finding ways to best apply the diversity of policy models

Conclusions

The workshop was an initial step toward the development of increasedtransatlantic dialogue about research into arts and cultural industries. It pro-vided participants with not only a forum in which to share ideas, methods ofinquiries and foci of research, but also with the opportunity to initiate a dis-course for possible future collaborations.

The next steps might include a survey of the types of data available, anexchange of existing research and the inclusion of transatlantic comparativeelements within researcher training. There was general agreement that themeeting had been constructive and that another, perhaps with a greater vari-ety of participants – including some from Canada and Mexico – would be use-ful to the field.

Thus, it was agreed that an informal meeting of the same nature would beheld in the US within the subsequent 12 months.

PARTICIPANTS

UNITED STATES SPECIALISTS:

Alberta Arthurs, MEM Associates, former Head of Arts and Humanities,The Rockefeller FoundationMarian Godfrey, The Pew Charitable TrustBill Ivey, Chairman, National Endowment for the ArtsMichael Janeway, Director, National Arts Journalism Program, ColumbiaUniversityD. Carroll Joynes, University of ChicagoStanley Katz, Princeton UniversityEllen Lovell, Former Director, White House Millennium CouncilKevin McCarthy, RAND

Raymund A. Paredes, Director, Creativity and Culture, The RockefellerFoundationJ. Mark Schuster, Professor of Urban Cultural Policy, Massachusetts Instituteof TechnologyJames A. Smith, consultant, the J. Paul Getty Trust, and Chairman, TheCenter for Arts and CultureAndrás Szántó, Deputy Director, National Arts Journalism Program,Columbia UniversityStephen Urice, The Pew Charitable TrustMargaret Wyszomirski, College of the Arts, The Ohio State University

EUROPEAN SPECIALISTS:

Helmut Anheier, Director, Centre for Civil Society, London School ofEconomicsTony Bennett, Professor of Sociology, The Open University, United KingdomVera Boltho, Head, Cultural Policy and Action Division, Council of EuropeLluis Bonet, University of Barcelona, SpainDario Disegni, Director of Cultural Affairs, Compagnia di San Paolo, Torino,ItalyDorota Ilczuk, Jagellonian University and the Institute for Culture, Warsaw,PolandPierre-Michel Menger, CNRS, FranceColin Mercer, The Nottingham Trent University, United KingdomPatricia Quinn, Director, Irish Arts CouncilBéla Rásky, University of ViennaMats Rolén, Bank of Sweden Tercentenary FoundationKees Van Rees, Tilburg University, The NetherlandsAndreas Wiesand, Zentrum für Kultuforschung, Bonn/Berlin, GermanyJennifer Williams, Centre for Creative Communities, London


[11]

MINUTES

Introduction

The workshop developed out of conversations among representatives from theColumbia University’s National Arts Journalism Program, the Arts andCultural Policy Center at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public andInternational Affairs at Princeton University and UNESCO. It brought togeth-er 30 specialists, 15 from the US and 15 from Europe.

We invited these participants because at a time when many United Statesuniversities, independent research organisations and foundations haveembarked on ambitious new programmes of research in the arts and culturalindustries, comparing and co-ordinating these efforts with parallel efforts inEurope represents both a need and an opportunity. The timeliness of suchan exercise stems from growing policy concerns regarding arts and culture.In Europe, new ways of addressing the issues are increasingly required, asthe dynamics of cultural creation, production, reproduction, circulation andconsumption have been transformed by technology and altered expecta-tions. In the United States, these issues have emerged at the forefront of thepublic-policy agenda.

On both sides of the Atlantic, there are important issues regarding the per-tinence, precision, efficiency, usefulness, compatibility and reliability ofresearch. Because few of the researchers, funders and cultural administra-tors on one particular side know enough about the state of research on theother side, there is a need to compare policy and identify mutual questionsand needs related to data collection, storage and dissemination.

The organisers intended the workshop to provide a framework to assesswork currently underway. Thus participants were invited to focus on ques-tions such as:

1) What is happening?2) Where is it going?3) Where are the gaps?4) What are the collaborative opportunities?

On the first day, participants briefed each other about the organisation andfocus of research on each side of the Atlantic, whilst the second day fea-tured a general discussion on questions such as:

1) What type of research enjoys the highest priority?2) Where are the major gaps in our understanding of arts and culturalinstitutions?


[15]

3) What kind of research lends itself to a transatlantic co-ordinated orcollaborative effort?4) What mechanisms/organisations/events need to be created to facili-tate this work effectively?5) What is the role and potential of information technologies in suchwork?

The organisers’ expectations included: 1) The emergence of new directions for future research2) The articulation of ideas for collaboration between European and USresearchers and research institutions 3) The dissemination of information on cutting-edge research areas tofunding institutions4) An impetus for establishing a regular forum for such co-ordination

The organisers requested Jennifer Williams, Director of the Centre forCreative Communities in London, to act as Rapporteur for workshop. Shehas drafted these minutes.

DAY ONE

Opening Session

Y. Raj Isar, Director on Secondment to the Division of Arts and CulturalEnterprise, welcomed the participants on behalf of the Assistant Director-General for Culture, Mounir Bouchenaki, who was attending the opening ofa major intergovernmental meeting, but who would address the group later.Isar reiterated UNESCO’s thanks to the United States Department of Statefor the confidence it had placed in the Secretariat and stressed the value ofthe partnership with Stanley Katz and András Szántó, which had made theworkshop possible. The presence of so many scholars and foundation lead-ers gave substance to one of the key charter functions of UNESCO: to“maintain, increase and diffuse knowledge by … encouraging co-operationamong the nations in all branches of intellectual activity.” The Organisationfulfilled these responsibilities by serving as an observatory and laboratoryof ideas, a standard-setter, a catalyst, a clearing house, a bridge and acapacity-builder. The workshop would not only contribute importantly tothese broad purposes, it would also reduce the data gap in regard to culture,society, economy and polity. Finally, as the United States had not yet


[16]

returned to membership in UNESCO, it had not been possible, unfortunate-ly, to design the meeting with a clearly envisaged follow-up programme inmind; various opportunities for follow- up nevertheless existed.

Stan Katz of Princeton University emphasised the issue of the US not beinga member of UNESCO and added that even though no specific outcomesfrom the meeting were envisioned, any follow-up would be much easier ifthe US were an official member. Thus participants were urged to activelycampaign at every opportunity for the US’s re-entry into UNESCO.

Katz went on to remind participants that the focus of the meeting was“Cultural Research”. He urged that the definition used be a broad one, soas to explore the relationship between culture and civil society. “We shouldbe ambitious to strive for the creation of a vibrant democratic society andtherefore the varieties of diversity across the cultures is what we are talkingabout.”

Katz raised a few of the problem areas of this kind of meeting in the form ofquestions:

1) Who are the “right” people to engage in this type of dialogue?2) Should other countries on the western side of the Atlantic, such asCanada and Mexico, also be included in the conversation? 3) If something follows, should it be in the form of a para-organisation?And if so, how would it be supported?4) What kind of comparative research might be advantageous? 5) What training exists or is needed?6) What existing data can be put to use immediately? 7) How might we carry this discussion forward if UNESCO cannot takeit on as a programme?8) If we are talking about a para-organisation, how could it be support-ed?9) What could the outputs of collaboration be?10) What is the state of social science data in Europe?

Katz observed that research in Europe is carried out by a greater variety oforganisations than in the US, where it is often developed by universities.Where can advantage be gained by combining forces on collaborativeresearch, training for research, data collection and sharing? He urged thegroup to focus on specific outcomes.


[17]

Finally, Katz urged that the conversation not be only about the arts and cul-tural industries, but should also recognise the crucial role of the humani-ties.

András Szántó of Columbia University suggested that the meeting bethought of at three levels:

1) To look at the nuts and bolts of research1) To consider how we can perpetuate this meeting (if we want to)both by looking at individual institutional links and the possibilitiesof continuing some form of group discussion

2) To explore the new dynamic of international co-operation (transat-lantic and beyond) in culture at-large

Morning Session: The Cultural Research Scenario on Each Side of theAtlantic (Chair, Michael Janeway)

MARGARET WYSZOMIRSKI: US OVERVIEW

Dr. Wyszomirski set out to describe some current trends and topicsexplored by the cultural research in the US, where the field of cultural poli-cy is still in a formative stage. Just ten years ago, “Cultural Policy” was anuncomfortable term. There is now a good, new network of interested parties.However, university and foundation recognition and support for cultural-policy work is slower to develop.

Starting points:

1) In other countries, there is an emphasis on the links between the non-profit and the for-profit side of culture.2) In the US, this is less true, though the emphasis is growing.3) There is a flux of definitions:4) a) The definition of cultural activity is increasingly widening. Does it,for instance, include TV, cultural industries and heritage? The bound-aries are not yet set.

b) We are now looking not only at the non-profit arts but also at thecommercial, the informal, the community, and folk arts. This is a newtrend, so we have not yet developed standard terms or definitions.

c) We have focused on funding for topics such as trade, cultural prop-erty, and preservation.


[18]

5) Our work is inherently multidisciplinary, but the funders are struc-tured, mostly through disciplines creating silos of research. Often ourwork should include economic and social studies, etc. Some funders doexist, but there needs to be a change of attitude.

Influences, both along the lines of inquiry and financial, can be categorisedin silos/groups.

Much of the research produced concerns the economic well-being of thearts, and some of it is not academically grounded.

There are research issues independent of funding, such as the regulatoryeffects on culture, tax policy, telecommunications effects on culture, andthe effects of policies of other fields on arts and culture. There is someresearch on these types of issues, but not much.

At present, there is also a shift within cultural research. Previously, topicssuch as arts and education, arts and youth, and arts and development wereavoided because they seemed irrelevant or were deemed inappropriate.Now, these topics are entering the funding screen.

In commenting about current work in the US, Wyszomirski noted anincrease in concentration on the impact of meta-information analysis. Thereis, she noted, a unified database that would enable an analysis of publicgrants to cultural institutions. There is a Rand Corporation project thatlooks at audiences and participation and the related funding trends. Thereis a fair amount of research on the situation of individual artists. There is amapping of cultural activity that includes a survey of New York City cultur-al institutions, and another that looks at the types of cultural topics thatattract press coverage. From these and other research initiatives, we areable to build models of what is happening. For instance, we could tracemodels of public art projects and cultural-support profiles over time.

Wyszomirski described a trend towards “condition research”, which looksat the new players in research as well as the aspects that are ignored. Thereis also interest in trying to understand new donors, such as dot-com million-aires and a host of new intermediaries in a different networking environ-ment.

In research terms, she feels there is richness in the shift to exploring linkswith other policy areas – like the re-animation of democracy (art and educa-


[19]

tion research); the role of arts and culture in an ageing society and thechanging face of the ecology of arts, humanities and culture. We areincreasingly interested in patterns of production and distribution.

Wyszomirski spoke of the American interest in drawing international com-parisons, from the point of view of intrinsic interest in specific research,from the possible advantages to be gained from transferring policies fromone place to another, and from the perspective of international issues (likeInternet copyright) that will help inform domestic issues.

In terms of dissemination of the results, Wyszomirski named non-profitjournals such as CIVITAS, Poetics, university papers, Web papers producedby students and university publishing houses. She noted that although thereare definitely some outlets, a unified picture does not yet exist.

DISCUSSION:

Michael Janeway asked if there was a connection between the strongeremphasis on cultural research in the US and current trends towards deregu-lation.

Wyszomirski said that deregulation certainly has been a catalyst, but shealso noted that there had not previously been a strong research or conceptu-al base in the US, whilst now one is being built. She added that the culturewars have certainly helped focus the situation.

Ellen Lovell said that currently Americans have a strong urge to understandwhat it has meant to the country and to the arts and humanities to haveinvested so heavily, as public and private funders have, in issues such as“youth at risk”, and whether such an investment has made a difference.

Marian Godfrey commented that many of the choices regarding researchemphases in the US has been greatly affected by the fact that public fund-ing of the arts is very young. The non-profit performing arts, for instance,have been supported for only 40 years.

Bill Ivey noted that research has been significantly aided and influenced bythe advent of the computer and its capacity to store and analyse data sys-tematically and efficiently. With the new technology, much of arts andhumanities research has concentrated on areas that could be quantitativelymeasured, such as cost and participation, although there is now a shift


[20]

towards a qualitative approach to evaluation, focusing on transformationand quality of life, and the ways in which support for culture has influencedthese more values-based issues.

Although it is now possible to talk about desirable outcomes, questionsneed to be asked. How has citizenship been affected by contact with gov-ernment-supported arts? How can we chart the new breakthroughs in artsand education research? And how can these results influence a strongerinvestment in such activities?

Alberta Arthurs observed that for 35 years, the US’s main concern was tobuild an infrastructure of non-profit arts organisations, leading Americansto build public-funding structures in every state and to encourage corpora-tions to invest. The aim was to release creativity in a context that was trulythe US’s own. Although that was successful, it is now time to focus on audi-ence participation, and on the public purposes of the arts and their rolewithin civil society. It is now clear that the not-for-profit sector is only apart of the picture.

Ellen Lovell underlined how federal programmes such as the WorksProgress Administration (WPA) and the GI bill helped enormously to devel-op the arts. Those influences also encouraged other intellectual directions,and the resulting focus on the social sciences caused subtle problems forresearch in the arts and cultural economics.

Margaret Wyszomirski summarised the US overview as follows: 1) We now have a history and a certain critical mass, so analysis is pos-sible.2) We are starting to enjoy the benefits of policy-research results.3) We need to develop new concepts (leveraging is no longer the bestcurrency).4) Many foundations have realised progress has been made, and arebecoming involved.

TONY BENNETT: EUROPEAN OVERVIEW

Tony Bennett explained that he is trained as a sociologist. He has beendirectly concerned with forms of cultural participation and their bearing onquestions of social inclusion, cultural diversity, and intellectual property,specifically in relation to indigenous peoples.


[21]

He felt it necessary to include the media and, in these days of convergence,the telecommunications industries alongside the arts and cultural industriesin view of the degree to which the media are now centrally implicated in theproduction, distribution and consumption of virtually all kinds of art andculture. No research into the arts or cultural industry sector makes muchsense now unless it is informed by a knowledge of the broader media andcommunications environment.

The task of describing cultural research in Europe is complicated, andBennett told participants that he would focus only on research relating tothe arts, cultural and media industries, and only that which is relevant tocultural policy. In particular, to the ways in which, through a variety ofmeans (legal, administrative, and economic) governments seek to provide,regulate and manage cultural resources and their uses in pursuit of a diver-sity of ends (economic development, social justice, quality of life, civicdevelopment). Countries do this through a variety of specially constructedentities: ministries of culture or communications, departments of heritage,arts councils, etc.

In the European context, it is difficult to generalise because of absolutelyfundamental national differences concerning the contextual factors (notionsof citizenship and legal environments, for example) governing arts, mediaand cultural policies, and the ends to which they should be directed. Theeffect of these differences is compounded by equally significant differencesin national intellectual traditions and the kinds of interfaces between“pure” and “applied” research. The situation in Europe, as compared to theUS, is nationally fragmented and varied.

Bennett talked about:

1) What’s happening? (main actors in the field of arts, cultural and mediapolicy research)2) Where is it going? (priority issues)3) Where are the gaps? (shortcomings)

The nature of the agencies who conduct research varies from country tocountry, but – allowing for exceptions – the relevant organisations inEurope comprise:

1) The agencies directly involved in the planning and implementation ofarts, cultural and media policies – arts councils, cultural and communi-


[22]

cations ministries, and heritage organisations. These tend to be fairlyspecific and pragmatic in focus.2) Government-commissioned surveys (of the national population or ofspecific industry sectors) that regularly provide statistical indicators ofthe major trends in levels and forms of production, and of consumptionpatterns characterising the arts, media and cultural industries.3) For key institutions such as broadcasting institutions, telecommuni-cations companies, museums and art galleries, theatre companies, etc,the stress is often on findings about audiences or consumers through avariety of techniques – statistical surveys, diaries, focus groups, inter-views, and analyses of consumer trends.4) National research funding bodies or councils, the entities responsiblefor the competitive allocation of research funds to the higher-educationor university sectors. Such research programmes are often defined as“strategic” – as distinguished from “pure” or “basic” on one hand and“applied” on the other. 5) Departments and programmes in higher-education institutions, whichoverlap departments and programmes in arts management, communica-tion and media studies, sociology, cultural studies, museum and heritagestudies, and urban and community planning. 6) There are some higher education programmes in policy studies or inpublic administration that include foci on the arts, cultural and mediasectors. But in general, they are more likely to concentrate on other pub-lic sectors (health, social security, education, local government) than oncultural sectors.7) Higher-education programmes in legal studies, which are increasing-ly significant as the interfaces between the cultural industries, culturalpolicy and the law get more complicated. In one interesting area, humancivil rights translate into cultural rights and have, therefore, a bearing oncultural-policy agendas and priorities.8) University-based or independent research institutes and centres witha dedicated arts, cultural or media industry/policy focus. These have acritical switchboard function to play in connecting debates within thesocial sciences and humanities disciplines to the more practical policyaspects of cultural policy development.9) Private foundations with developed interests in cultural research,which are fewer in number such than US-based foundations but do exist.10) And, last but by no means least, there are bodies operating at theEuropean level with different research foci appropriate to their particu-lar sphere of responsibility. The Council of Europe tends to foster com-parative studies and provide very valuable services in collating and syn-


[23]

thesising existing knowledge on practice by facilitating trans-nationaldebate. The European Commission is also an important source ofresearch oriented toward the production of new knowledge. It is directedin the higher education sector, especially the Framework 5 (and now 6)programmes that have often included foci with specific arts, cultural andmedia-policy relevance.

Where is it going? Bennett named a number of tendencies:

1) The increasing convergence of issues across the arts, cultural andmedia sectors and the sense that issues relating to each of these must beexamined in the context of their place within the larger whole. This isparticularly evident across the full range of research issues.2) The tendency for research in these sectors to be seen less as a spe-cialist enclave remote from the main dynamics of the economy, and moreas a paradigm for general industry research.3) A fuller and more diverse set of relations among arts, cultural andmedia policies and social issues, a result of the diversification of agen-das of citizenship over the post-war period. Topics such as culture, mediaand the public sphere, cultural capital and social exclusion, cultural par-ticipation and social cohesion, and cultural diversity have grown inprominence. 4) The increasing need on the part of policymakers and researcherseverywhere for more detailed understanding of what different populationsectors do culturally, what activities they engage in, and the values andmeaning they attach to them. 5) The relations between cultural and media policies, regions and iden-tities. This is, in some contexts, a crucial concern at the national level,especially where not just national identities but the future of nationalcultural industries is placed in question by the dominance of an increas-ingly internationalized, typically US- and English-language-based cul-tural market. 6) Increasingly close connections in some national contexts betweenresearch in cultural policy and the broader agendas of neo-liberalism.This is especially evident in research focused on the organisation of cul-tural markets, notions of cultural entrepreneurship, and notions of thecreative industries.

What do we lack?

1) Developed and prospective relationships between major research pro-


[24]

ducers and research users 2) Effective national or international networks to bring togetherresearchers and research users3) Knowledge of, or open-ness to, social-science-based statistical formsof measurement and assessment in both the industrial and policy organ-isations of the arts and cultural sector4) Solid connections between cultural policy studies and public poli-cy/administration studies5) Cross-national comparative studies, and frameworks and mechanismsfor collecting cultural statistics that would increase their validity6) Significant studies establishing baseline data that could be used forsubsequent comparative studies7) Established literature on assessing policy outcomes in the arts, cul-tural and media industries

Where are the collaborative opportunities? Bennett wanted to wait until laterin the meeting to comment on specific transatlantic collaborative researchpossibilities, but pointed out that Canadian involvement could play a usefulrole.

(The text of Bennett’s paper is appended to these Minutes).

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION

Helmut Anheier commented on the 5th Framework, the current EuropeanCommission funded network for supporting research at the European level.The framework has made interdisciplinary research difficult. Debatesbetween areas of interest could be merged, but it would depend on thefields; for example, heritage research would be different from arts research.Cultural policy is distinct from cultural industries, which are seen by manyas vehicles of economic developments.

Commenting on the state and its role in initial research, Anheier thoughtthat local authorities certainly had a continuing interest, but that the Statein many countries is looking for strategies in which culture can play a part:How can cultural policy strengthen citizenship? He added that neo-liberal-ism in Europe is a real threat to cultural policy.

With regard to the 5th framework, Colin Mercer said it could be useful ifproposed appropriately, e.g.:


[25]

1) as research questions that will help look at cultural ecology2) as factors that encourage the development of a discipline such ascrafts, like the development of the Pottery Learning Societies, or thedevelopment of Manchester and its film industry3) as areas that draw on diverse cultures, such as World music4) as connections between local activity and the maintenance of com-mercial sectors, and the cultural production of places like pubs andnightclubs and their incidental impact

Mercer addressed the need to look at areas beyond the radar, such as inde-pendent producers and the informal arts. He argued that the ways in whichthe subsidised sector provides the work force for the cultural industriesshould be examined, and also observed that there are great opportunities forlooking at quality-of-life issues.

In regard to some of the identified gaps, Andreas Wiesand pointed out therisk that content can become too Anglo-oriented, as there is scant circula-tion of foreign-language research and findings; although much research isbeing carried out abroad, often it is not translated into English.

Wiesand also observed that the list of gaps Tony Bennett expressed couldbe different if seen from other countries’ points of view. In some countries,for instance, the research does not connect with its intended users.

He added that specific trends within countries do influence policy, and thatregional research and trends are emerging. Italy, Portugal and France haveorganised themselves to oversee developments. The Budapest Observatoryis quite effective. On the statistical side, Finland is particularly accom-plished.

Afternoon Session (Chair, Stanley Katz)

INTRODUCTION

Mounir Bouchenaki, Assistant Director General for Culture, speaking onbehalf of the Director-General, reiterated UNESCO’s gratitude to the spon-sors, co-organisers and participants from both sides of the Atlantic for hav-ing responded to its invitation to help close the large cultural data gapthroughout the world, whether it had to do with cultural heritage (knowingthe past) or contemporary arts and cultural enterprise (working creatively


[26]

with that legacy). He noted that over the 17 years since the United Stateswithdrew from membership, the Secretariat had done its utmost to maintainworking links with the American intellectual communities; indeed, in areassuch as the World Heritage, the United States has continued to be a leadingplayer by virtue of its treaty obligations as a signatory to the World HeritageConvention. He referred to positive recent developments in the US govern-ment’s assessment of whether to return to UNESCO, and hoped that partici-pants would agree that there are good reasons for American specialists tosupport this effort.

BILL IVEY, US PUBLIC SECTOR (GOVERNMENTAL) FUNDING OF RESEARCH INARTS AND CULTURE

This is a difficult subject to grasp. It is easier to say what hasn’t been done.

Framework elements: In the US, there is a strong commitment to decentral-ising everything. There is a strict divide between profit and non-profit,which can be seen in education, in the judiciary system and in the princi-ple of states’ rights. As there are no direct subsidies to for-profit groups, thegovernment supports only those projects that the market alone cannot payfor. Public money for arts and humanities comes in the form of tax rev-enues. The National Endowment for the Arts is only one of the agenciesthat administers cultural money; others include the National Endowment forthe Humanities, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the KennedyCenter and the National Gallery.

The private sector also contributes. There are tax incentives and there is anactive culture of philanthropy. National Endowment for the Arts researchhas been mainly quantitative (i.e. how many, how much), and designed tosupport its own grantmaking. In the US, there is neither a central govern-ment information agency on cultural research nor one for collecting and dis-seminating such findings. Some federal agencies commission research tothe National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Gallery and oth-ers, and the NEA sometimes gets involved in research that links to culturalplanning and trends over time. The nature of the NEA research is such thatit provides continuity. We use other agencies to collect data.

Most arts-research support in the US is from foundations. Research workswell at a local level, where there is a growing interest in communities. Thisis particularly visible through the development of cultural plans and localenquiries. The downside to this trend is that techniques and standards vary


[27]

enormously, making comparisons and summaries problematic.

Ivey also gave an account of the huge investment by cultural institutions intopics such as radio-audience arbitration. He commented that the implica-tions for non-profit arts should also be studied.

In earlier years, the NEA was more involved in research than it is now. Allof its research is available on the NEA Web site.

The model of partnering research across agencies has been developed inrecent years, but it is highly decentralised and therefore difficult to track ona federal level.

In summary, federal-level research has been quantitative, although deci-sion-makers are dissatisfied with this limited vision of cultural activity andits effects. Additionally, media budgets are much bigger but not part of whatwe see as our brief in the arts.

Most of Tony Bennett’s gaps also apply to the US: topics such as the rela-tionship of the research to its end-users; the resistance of a social-scienceresearch approach to culture, and the absence of a developed literatureabout cultural research. Conversely to Europe, the US commitment todecentralisation is creating unique challenges.

ANDREAS WIESAND, EUROPEAN PUBLIC-SECTOR FUNDING OF RESEARCH INARTS AND CULTURE

Andreas Wiesand commented on earlier papers and referred to MargaretWyszomirski’s overview of US cultural research: in particular, to the currenttrend of decentralisation. In Europe, the trend is the opposite: we are tryingto get rid of central control. He observed how uncommon it is in Europe tospeak out openly about the mechanics of cultural-policy research.

He also mentioned a new picture of culture that is being painted in bothEurope and the US. Whereas cultural traditions in Europe have been dis-parate because of cultural and language differences, they are now to someextent being forced to be more similar through threatening language poli-cies. In the US, though, where once there existed a single cultural authority,a growing minority population is increasingly posing challenges. The twopictures are very different.


[28]

Yet regardless of differences, there may be some methodological commonground. For instance, research regarding the cultural-industries studies inEurope is oriented toward the defence of cultural difference. There is agrowing number of artists active in this field; further research may help usunderstand the impact of globalisation on artists locally.

PUBLIC FUNDING OF CULTURAL POLICY RESEARCH IN EUROPE

Wiesand said he would speak of the status of policy research, omitting com-mercial research.

There is a dominance of public-institutional support for research at bothstate and European levels. Due to a recent paradigm change, researchershave studied artists’ social and economic positions, looking at factors likeretirement plans, which were behind the implementation of social insurancefor freelance artists.

Prior to the 1980s, comparative research was typically an addendum tonational priorities, but since then, something beyond the national spherebegan to occur. Expertise from different countries was brought together, andthe first networking ideas began to emerge; CIRCLE was among these.About the same time, two EU funding bodies emerged: the Council ofEurope and the European Commission.

DISCUSSION AND ADDITIONS TO THE TOPIC:

Pierre-Michel Menger commented that both Wyszomirski and Bennettspoke about synergies for research, the ecology of where research takesplace, the economics of what is supported, and the functions of theresearch, including the controversial ones. Menger observed that “culturalpolicy” is hard to define. Access, economic development and culturaldiversity all represent the extensive shape of cultural democracy. He addedthat cultural policies are constructed from many realities, although linkingthem together is difficult. Cultural policymaking is the problem and theresult.

He strongly underlined the need for scientific expertise and a firm aware-ness of the outcomes.

Patricia Quinn argued that cultural research still has a long way to go inEurope, as the emphasis of the research is not well-focused. More attention


[29]

should be paid to the supra-national aspects of European culture(s), andgreater emphasis should be placed on local-activity.

Much of EU’s cultural policy has been spun off from other policies, such asthe European Social Fund. At the EU level, research has direct implica-tions in most fields, although this is still not true in cultural policy. Very lit-tle work of the research centres in Europe relies on comparative studies orlooks at the role of culture in a wider EU agenda.

Quinn underlined the need to focus on the connections between researchand action.

Lluis Bonet pointed out some gaps in the European picture of culturalresearch. He mentioned a shortage of normative statistics. Additionally,there are problems related to the goals of the research and the sharing ofmethodologies. For example, many consultant companies chose researchtopics related to the conditions of cultural markets. Thus, some gaps existbecause of the lack of interest in certain groups and issues. Some of theresearch problems also arise from differing academic traditions.

Bonet felt that the funding of translations should be given priority in orderto disseminate available research.

The chairman then invited Jim Smith and Helmut Anheier to speak aboutfunding for cultural-policy research.

Jim Smith: Overview of the Private Side of Cultural Research in Europe

Smith talked about how much of policymaking is directly related to theresources made available to support cultural research.

The origin of the funding figures we tend to use is often the AmericanCouncil of Fundraising Data. But information from arts sub-sectors isderived from a small number of organisations, so in reality what we know isvery limited.

He observed how most information about private-foundation giving comesfrom the Foundation Centre or Grantmakers in the Arts. This information isculled from a sample of 1,000 out of 50,000 foundations; much activitydoesn’t show up at all in the surveys. He drew our attention to the researchscan available on the culturalpolicy.com Web site.


[30]

Smith noted two problems in aggregating this kind of information: the infor-mation is spotty; and the definition of cultural policy research varies. Thus,he underlined the need to look closely at the existing infrastructure and towork at building the field in a number of ways.

He observed that often organisational research focuses on evaluation,whereas policy research focuses on communities.

$7 million to $8 million is annually spent on private research, omittingpieces of other research such as the policy part of the Participation Studycurrently undertaken by the Lila Wallace Reader’s Digest Fund.

Smith concluded that there are reasons to be pessimistic about the future ofcultural research because:

1) Leadership changes in foundations have reduced the level of support.2) Funding priorities have shifted too quickly. We are no longer buildinga field but, rather, a quick fix. This perhaps is caused by the neo-liberaltradition, which prioritises administrative and organisational efficiency.The result is a huge gravitational pull toward support for the social sci-ences.3) Research institutes have no long-term support.

He has also noted reasons to be optimistic:

1) We are not apologetic about the federal government’s role.2) “Cultural policy” has become a legitimate term.3) The number of foundations that fund cultural research has increased,from a handful to two dozen. 4) We are now producing a generation of young researchers with jobprospects.

HELMUT ANHEIER: PRIVATE SIDE OF CULTURAL RESEARCH IN EUROPE

Anheier talked about the centrality of the European Commission’sFramework funding system: unless an organisation is mentioned in theFramework, it is impossible to get funding. The Framework is increasinglybecoming more prominent than national funding, and no such equivalentexists in the US. Comparative work in Europe is encouraged, but usuallyonly in pursuit of deepening the understanding of European identity.


[31]

Anheier also gave some interesting statistics about income and employmentin the US as compared to Europe, and he wondered why we have this rangeof expansion, stability and/or decline in various countries.

He maintained that possible collaborative research topics might include:

1) The relationship of culture to the public good in light of the growingprivatisation of cultural institutions, as a different dynamic exists than inprevious times 2) Changes in the perception of culture and public good, and the ways inwhich it affects state support

In the area of innovation in research: Where does it happen, and how canwe encourage it? We are often better at preservation than innovation.

In policy models, there is a diversity of approaches. France has centralfunding but chiefly funds local projects. In Germany there is a complexityof funding. Holland has direct contracts with the government for projects.The UK uses matching funds. It would be interesting to look at which oneworks best, and for which purposes.

In regard to a European/American dialogue: It is not difficult to understandcomparative work within Europe. We need it. Each field is affected as itcopes with a wider European reality, as part of a larger economy. This canbe done in part through a cultural policy forum. It is harder to come up withreasons to do comparative work between countries on opposite sides of theAtlantic.

Anheier concluded that it is not easy to answer the question about whatEurope and the US can learn from each other, because there first is theneed to determine what value it will add.

QUESTIONS & COMMENTS:

Alberta Arthurs expressed concern for having spent so much of the meetingon funding issues. There are so many other processes that affect how theresearch field operates.

Mark Schuster noted that in economics, cultural research is often done bypeople nearing the end of their careers. Although there are young econo-


[32]

mists willing to do this research, they are jeopardising their careers becauseculture is thought so inconsequential. There is a question of where the nextgeneration of cultural researchers will come from.

Bill Ivey cautioned us not to underestimate how many people dismiss cul-ture out-of-hand. Now, after years at the Endowment, I talk about it all moreboldly. You need credible access to people. We seldom have both credibilityand access.

Carroll Joynes questioned whether people in the field are dedicated to it,and argued the need to look at Cultural Policy as a field.

András Szántó argued that the field is in an exciting phase and that talkingto people is very useful.

Patricia Quinn remarked that Margaret’s taxonomy showed how there arepeople with different perspectives on culture, and that each domain has usefor research. She underlined the need to understand the perspectives inde-pendently and interdependently, as everyone is talking about differentthings and has different values.

Kevin McCarthy reminded participants that it takes a long time to formulatethe right questions and that the precise focus is not always clear even afterthe problem has been defined. He also pointed out that the issue of whatworks and what doesn’t in evaluation research hadn’t been addressed dur-ing the meeting, and that the research community hasn’t always made itswork available for the setting of focused goals.

Margaret Wyszomirski noted that the conversation so far had focused onlyon research regarding funding of the arts, which is only part of the picture.She thus urged everyone to consider issues such as the conceptualisationand the realisation of research, and the need to balance research withanalysis. What happens when the analysis says what we are looking at isn’tworking?

Bela Rasky commented that cultural policy is Europe is not the problem itis in the US. Our problem is that our research models are not right for now.

Ellen Lovell said that our questions have changed. We now talk less aboutthe value of the arts and more about the value to the development of thewhole person and of the community. We still talk about heritage and tourism


[33]

and their economic benefit, but we also talk of memorialising our stories.Public-policy officials are also looking at these issues and do not exclusive-ly focus on funding for the arts. It is more sophisticated.

DAY TWO

Morning Session (Chair, Tony Bennett)

The session chair suggested that the second day be spent on pooling infor-mation: i.e., on finding areas feasible for collaboration, and on looking atthe specifics of collaboration.

In considering what mechanisms will drive collaboration, Bennett madethree points:

1) Difficulty arises from the fact that the US doesn’t prioritise Europeand that the European focus is within Europe; thus, there is the need tobe clear about suitable areas for collaboration.2) The remit must be broader than funding for the nonprofit sector.3) There is need to focus on the training of researchers, and how somesort of parallel investment structure can be established. Research is notonly about projects, but also about the infrastructure of the whole, look-ing at short, medium, and long-term possibilities and imperatives.

He felt that we would be stronger if we were to take a progressive approach,with modest steps paving the way for more consequential ones.

ISSUES FROM THE PREVIOUS DAY:

Michael Janeway noticed that we hadn’t talked about the role of the press.Is there any arts journalism in the EU? What about a US Ministry ofCulture versus the present structure plus the hidden policies (i.e. withinhousing and decentralised system)?

Bill Ivey cautioned against the idea of a Ministry of Culture for the US. Inregard to the press, he observed that the nonprofit arts are in the samepiece of the pie as freedom of speech – that critical abilities are not so keenin the arts as they might be in other aspects of life. As an example, he toldthe story of the fall of the classical-music recording industry; although thishas been among the biggest cultural events of recent years, the press hashardly covered it.


[34]

Raj Isar interjected that we don’t know enough about the commercial sector.

Kees van Rees said there is media coverage when government falters andwhen policy has been transgressed upon, but not much else.

Alberta Arthurs wanted intellectual property issues to be more adequatelydiscussed.

Kees van Rees stressed that we must face the apparent contrast betweenresearch and action, and that the complexity of abstract concepts should beanchored by analysis of where we are and where we should go. We shouldreflect on the meaning of the term “cultural policy.” Is there commonground on which to compare the effects of cultural policy? What kinds ofeffects are we after? For instance: In Holland, cultural-participation datacould be very useful, as we can show very clearly that reading has declinedin recent years, but cannot tell whether that observation is importantbecause we have nothing to compare it with and, on any particular day, peo-ple are influenced by all sorts of media.

Mark Schuster was amazed to see how much the discussion continued torely on the old categories even though everything has changed; for example,there are not ministries of culture, and yet we are still talking about them.Instead, convergence and hybridisation are now the way.

He also distinguished between two types of cultural policy research:

1) That which seeks to define what cultural policy is, which is what theCouncil of Europe does2) That which looks at what is useful for cultural policymaking, and atissues of transferability: e.g, the US challenge grant, which has beentaken at face value to the UK

He also commented on research into what has happened in the past. Thereis a huge amount of data on both sides of the Atlantic, but it is hard toaccess the data and gain infrastructural support for analysing it. The surveyof the state of arts in the US is excellent, but the analysis is not. We rely onvery little data to form cultural policy.

Schuster observed that another problem is the US attitude towards inquiry,and that we should be carrying out research that looks at implicit facts andmakes them explicit.


[35]

He added that the key to this work is to break down the silos outlined byMargaret yesterday. The problem is that many of the “new” networks havereinvented or been captured by the old silos. He cited the Journal ofCultural Economics, which is only comprehensible to economists, and thatthis cannot be productive in the longer term.

Colin Mercer reminded colleagues that one should not look to culturalbudgets for long-term funding for cultural policy research. Instead weshould look to Europe: DGV, DGXVI, Regional Development funds. Thetargets are social regeneration and economic development.

Mercer added that one of the implications of that type of funding is theneed to broaden the agenda to include quality of life, job creation andcapacity building. This requires a different definition of the “CulturalFund.” We therefore need a conceptual clarification of culture, translatedinto the domain of quality-of-life indicators.

Patricia Quinn stressed the need to recognise that the deficit betweenresearch and its use is greater than we have discussed. She also felt thatpublic discussion of issues is lacking in richness and emphasised the needto talk about how research is communicated to a wider audience. The reali-ty is that the further you get from the act of research itself, the more crucialits analysis and distribution become. What does it mean, and to whom?Conversations among people across sectors are where true understanding ofthe issues can be developed.

We should look carefully at a place like Holland, which is doing more thanother places to understand its cultural component. At the same time, weshould recognise that no one in the cultural field is using the devices avail-able to the commercial field.

Margaret Wyszomirski suggested that we broaden our discussions, as wehave fallen into the trap of creating a cultural silo. She remarked that thereis a need to look closely at the differences between the US and the EU andthat research on cultural policy affects policy on other subjects.

András Szántó added that we must pursue research that validates a transat-lantic dialogue and helps to fight isolation from what is going on elsewhere.

Ellen Lovell said that her experience would lead her to recommend that wethink not only about how the arts and public-policy systems work, but also


[36]

about how it works better than a central cultural policy would.

Andreas Wiesand observed that research can spark a discussion. Forinstance, arts education research has helped inform the media revolution.Wiesand also urged us to look closely at how the information flow worksand the consequences for training and language development. There aremany papers that relate to this subject, and we should study what theirimpact has been.

Stan Katz started this session with a checklist of reminders:

1) It is not cultural “policy,” it is “policies.” The crucial part is the nor-mative. The way we ask our questions is important, and we need clarityabout norms. For instance, multiculturalism – what are our normativegoals? We need a language for defining policy.2) Policies relate to politics as well as to norms. How do they relate?3) Information technology and new media are major areas that we haven’tdiscussed.4) Intellectual property must be on the agenda. This complex issue mustbe dealt with nationally and internationally.

Raj Isar observed that UNESCO has a strong interest in:

1) Convergence and hybridity: the changes resulting from cultural indus-tries, new media, intellectual property and copyright2) Actual cultural practices and behaviours: understanding how peopleare reacting to and consuming culture3) Cultural diversity and pluralism

Vera Boltho stated that the Council of Europe’s interests are very similarand added that we should keep in mind the diversity of European ministriesof culture. She said that her greatest problem is convincing colleagues toinvest on culture. Whilst it is easy to justify public money to fight povertyand mortality, it is harder to get people to realise that a good educationtranslates into better economics and good health.

The shift in the cultural-policy field is similar to the health-care sector’sshift from health care to well-being. Our task is to find markers so that wecan demonstrate the importance of these policies and their effects. Theareas of greatest importance and emphasis for the Council of Europe are:multiculturalism, prevention of conflict, new forms of cultural co-operation


[37]

in Europe, particularly at the grassroots level, and media.

Andreas Wiesand observed the need to narrow the gap between what istaught and what is needed. He voiced the fear that without greater trans-parency, the field will become confused. An institutional body is the onlything that could narrow that gap.

Mats Rolen invited everyone to Sweden to take part in a conference on cre-ativity they are organising in early December. The conference will look atways to improve the creative development.

Mark Schuster remarked that teaching cultural policy is difficult withoutcomparative references, and that we should develop a reader on culturalpolicy for such courses. He picked up on an earlier reference to culturalobservatories in Europe and explained that they are very different from oneanother: many are non-academic. Thus, he urged us to be clear about thedistinction between projects and policy. He also observed that researchquestions come from within us (those that are curiosity-based), commandfrom on high (from governments that need to know trends, etc.), and conver-sations like these.

He added that organisations like Europe’s CIRCLE bring a research sensi-bility to policy questions and they also organise roundtables on themes ofcurrent interest to “the circle.” Those roundtables produce literature.

Schuster concluded that we must formulate the questions. He would startwith two:

1) What are the effects of different types of cultural research?2) Which policies work, and what makes us believe we can transfer themto other contexts?

Kevin McCarthy remarked that there are at least three domains in terms ofpotential EU/ US collaboration:

3) Policy Context – What vehicles, goals and contexts have worked ofeach side of the Atlantic? More precisely, what do we mean by our ter-minology?4) Structures – How do arts and culture operate in each place? How dowe create a framework to study those systems? If we are going to discussthe issues connected with intellectual property, for instance, we must


[38]

understand the systems.5) Evaluation of programs, and how we can look at their relationship tothe policies that created them

McCarthy urged us to create frameworks within which to operate.

Dario Disegni told the participants that the Compagnia di San Paolo spends30 million Euros a year for culture and humanities. They invest to improvethe quality of urban life. Research is important for the foundation because itenables them to plan their policies and measure the impact of their grants.

He also spoke of the importance of the role of the regions, as the PiemonteObservatory provides them with crucial information. The Compagnia di SanPaolo also uses European research from centres such as AICE at theEuropean Foundation Centre, the Network on Cultural Philanthropy, andothers. Perhaps a dialogue among transatlantic donors would be productive.

Margaret Wyszomirski proposed a different topic: the role of non-stateactors in cultural policy. She suggested that a dialogue could be builtaround that, perhaps over the Internet.

Lluis Bonet proposed some suggestions for transatlantic consideration:

6) Cultural policy (How does the commercial sector work?)7) The development of a database of research interests 8) Training on cultural policy research and development9) For EU training centres, exchanges between the US and EU

He also suggested we look at opening the discussion to other Westernregions.

Bill Ivey urged us to explore what has worked. He suggested assembling acompendium, which would be useful to survey copyrights and their avail-ability to the public, and to see what is owned by private entities like cor-porations that have visual-media, audio, and text assets. Exploring owner-ship rights would open a path to talking about intellectual property andownership.

Patricia Quinn reminded meeting participants that we should recognise anduse existing networks such as CIRCLE. She suggested that a hypertext proj-ect describing and accessing what is known would be very useful. It would


[39]

need editorial vigour and an intelligible way of updating it.

With regard to qualitative research, Colin Mercer said we should ask ques-tions about questions. He wondered if it would be possible to come up withcultural indicators like those used in human development. They would be anational exercise, and the testing of these kinds of questions could be a goalof the transatlantic discussion. He argued that cultural policy should be guid-ed by the quality of life. If there is no connection between cultural policy andquality of life, then there is a basic problem.

Andreas Wiesand argued for the necessity of a marketplace whereresearchers can connect with research needs. He mentioned Culturelink asan example of a good network. If we want to look at the impact of copyrighton creative artists, we should also be studying what digital artists are doing.He added that if we don’t, the lawyers will be the only ones discussing thisaspect of copyright.

Ellen Lovell had put together a set of useful questions:

10) What do we mean by “cultural industries”?11) Does talent flow, and if so, how?12) How do people participate informally in the arts and humanities?13) How are corporate mergers affecting cultural production?14) What cultural-policy areas are affected by and concerned with thepolicies of land use, environment, housing, and how are they affectingcultural life? 15) What common concerns do various branches of cultural researchhave?16) What is the impact of the Internet on the distribution and develop-ment of culture?17) How do arts and humanities and education contribute to creativity?

Jim Smith suggested we look at the mechanisms and structures with whichto communicate research to a wider public, including journalism and publicdiscourse. What specialised arenas do we have? How can we initiate anddevelop an inter-disciplinary discourse? What mechanisms do we have thatcan respond to immediate demands of policy developments? In addition, weshould look at the issue of routine reporting to government.

Carroll Joynes commented that in his experience, people don’t know whereto get information.


[40]

Michael Janeway thought if would be useful to include a few press membersin future sessions, as they often serve as researchers or para-researchers.

Patricia Quinn underlined the need to render our knowledge comprehensi-ble to other people. She suggested finding the issues that attract popularengagement.

SESSION SUMMARY (TONY BENNETT):

We have been articulating the different elements of cultural research andcultural policy. We have looked at the organisation of the field through poli-cy frameworks and structures.

Further, we have discussed dissemination of research to professional peo-ple, the public and journalists. We have speculated about appropriateframeworks in relation to each of these domains.

We have noted that a lot of data has been collected.

We have expressed concern about maintaining public access to the arts. Andwe have discussed what is known already and what the level of comparativeresearch is. In terms of dissemination, we have noted at least some of whatexists, including networks, journals and Internet outlets.

Afternoon Session (Chair: Vera Boltho)

Jennifer Williams presented a preliminary summary of prior proceedings toestablish a basis for the ensuing discussion.

The first day of our meeting focused on speaking and listening. We tried todefine our own realities so that when the possibilities were teased out onDay Two, we would be ready to find pathways to collaboration. We hopedthat these pathways would show us how we might do things together in thefuture.

Our introductory speakers reminded us that interaction betweenarts/humanities research and economic/social research needs developmentboth in Europe and in the US. And, importantly, the organisers permitted usto take the meeting in whatever programmatic direction might be useful.


[41]

RESEARCH AREAS FOR COLLABORATION (HIGHLIGHTS)

Though many ideas were put forward, a few were raised repeatedly andemerged as those in which the meeting had the most interest. They included:

On the level of policy frameworks and structures:a. Comparative work looking at supra-national issues and at local issuesb. A comparison of the experiences in US and Europe, and of what cul-tural policy has emerged as a result of policy decisions in other areas,such as the European Social Fund, as well as the US Justice and Housingand Urban Development Departmentsc. A look at the role of non-state actors in cultural policy formation.d. Research on the Internet’s impact on the development and distribu-tion of culturee. Research on policies that affect informal participation in the arts.

On the organisation of the field:1) Questions related to the training of cultural researchers, and the con-sequences of various kinds of training2) How to deal with the language issues and, therefore, how to accountfor research that has been conducted in places where English is not thefirst language3) Questions regarding the relationship of the digital world to the cre-ative artist, copyright/intellectual property, and the need to understandconvergence and hybridisation4) If the silos are to be broken down or, as some would have it, arealready breaking down, what is replacing them? How can research helphasten the process and to make clear what is to follow?5) What are the indicators for studying these new fields, and how do weget to them? 6) The huge challenge in evaluating cross-sector projects, and the possi-bility of coming up with cultural indicators like those developed in thefield of Human Development (it may not be, but the possibility wouldbenefit from a transatlantic discussion)

Policy programmes of different kinds:7) How are cultural research programmes affected by their fundingsources, in terms of the direction and emphasis of the research content?8) How can the link between research and action be strengthened?Where are the acute relationships?


[42]

9) How can we put the diversity of policy models to best use? Whatworks best, and for what result? (For instance, looking closely at the cen-tral policy of the French and its effects on local cultural production.)10) What effects can cultural research have on endeavours such as edu-cation, social services and health?11) What would a comparative analysis of different programmes thathave been set up to support certain policies look like?12) How can we encourage interdisciplinary discourse?

Concrete steps suggested in the course of the conference:

Tony Bennett recommended a progressive approach, small steps:

What would they be?

What might be the longer terms goals?

Who should we include in future meetings? 13) Michael suggested including the press in the future.14) We should include Canada and Mexico.

How will we determine future topics?15) Patricia Quinn suggested a hypertext project – a listing of what isknown and what has worked and a rolling bibliography16) Andreas thinks we need a marketplace.17) We also need a way to pool the data that already exists.

RAPPORTEUR’S CONCLUSION

Williams reminded participants that we are in a time of extreme change. Weare shifting from hierarchies to networks, which means that the characteris-tics of operating in hierarchies are moving into the characteristics of net-works:

Because of these changes, we are in the middle of a period of confusion. Inorder to move into a period of constructive transformation, we need todevelop the language, components, concepts, structures and feelings thatwill help us change current systems.


[43]

HIERARCHIES NETWORKSstatic dynamicproducts processevents flowssolid fluidbeing becomingexplicit implicitpredictable unfolding

This affects our work in practical and theoretical ways. For this reason, wehave been talking at this meeting about the usefulness of comparing our dif-ferent experiences and realities. But we have also made countless refer-ences to the interface of cultural research and cultural policies withresearch and policymaking in other fields, especially the social sciencesand aspects of development. Both of these areas clearly could use somefocused attention.

If the transatlantic cultural-research forum begun at this meeting is to growand develop, each participant should take a few moments to reflect on theareas of most importance and their relative degree of urgency. These reflec-tions can be pooled, and decisions can be made about the forum’s form andcontent in the future.

Williams’ final suggestion was for each participant to look around the roomand think what concrete step regarding a transatlantic collaboration wouldbe best for each person or institution. She also urged everyone to be surethat each participant is included in all relevant communications, so as tokeep up-to-date and stimulate conversation and the development of a com-munity of interest.

DISCUSSION

Bill Ivey asked participants to consider carefully how we might open themeeting to a wider group. He cautioned us not to tilt the balance towardtrade considerations.

Raj Isar reassured him that this was not at all the intention and said thatUNESCO would certainly wish to broaden the process.

Tony Bennett suggested that the next step may or may not be another meet-ing but, in any case, media people should be included. He also suggested


[44]

we conduct a rapid audit programme along with some small collaborativeprojects to formulate an agenda for a next meeting.

Andreas Wiesand recommended that the notes from this meeting be circu-lated, and that an Internet listserv be developed.

Alberta Arthurs observed that a simple step would be to help each other’swork to become better-known. Also, she thought that if we identified anarea of shared concern – for instance, new technologies and the artist – thiscould help us focus on specific transatlantic collaboration.

Tony Bennett thought it would be interesting to look more closely at theNEA’s participation project and compare it with patterns of access to artsand other cultural activities in Europe, and that such a comparison wouldgenerate more focused questions.

Kees van Rees observed that due to the speed of change, we would need tolook at the mechanisms we use to measure participation.

Patricia Quinn challenged each participant to look for ways to bring net-works closer to one another.

Mark Schuster remarked that directories of existing research do exist, butwe may have to make them more comprehensible. We could conduct a sem-inar series, then publish a series of papers.

Raj Isar reminded the group that until the US rejoined UNESCO, it wouldnot be easy for the organisation itself to be the publisher of information con-cerning US research; however, partner networks such as Culturelink couldcertainly be used.

Alberta Arthurs agreed that studies on parallel participation and new tech-nology’s effect on those patterns would be very useful. She added that itwould be very interesting to look in detail at the types of art that are sharedacross the Atlantic.

Patricia Quinn felt the need for editorial voice in whatever is produced.

Bill Ivey agreed about adding editorial voice, and expressed specific inter-est in how we communicate among the following interest groups:


[45]

18) Cultural Scholars19) Policy Implementors in Government20) Journalists who need motivation21) The private-sector actors (most difficult)

We should create a transatlantic community of scholars to incorporate thefirst group.

Closing Session

Stan Katz urged a broadening of North American participation.

Colin Mercer noted that by strengthening our lines of discussion, we areactually building a knowledge base that will be parallel to bases in otherfields. He welcomed the links to the Center for Arts and Cultural Policy,Columbia University, and others. He also suggested that it would be helpfulto exchange e-mail addresses.

For Lluis Bonet, the most important topics were cultural diversity, culturalorganisation structures and different cultural values.

Patricia Quinn stated that we need to make a concerted effort to lobby cul-tural economists, the Arts Council’s World Forum and other agencies, andrecommended the Center for Arts and Culture as an appropriate organisingagency.

Bill Ivey promised to add this whole discussion to his list of “instructions”to the new NEA chairman.

Patricia Quinn also suggested contacting people like Vivien Reding at theEU. She noted that the Cultural Contact Points is becoming a vocal group,and is keeping the EU informed about developments about this nascentforum. She added that perhaps our format could be like the InformalEuropean Theatre Meeting (IETM), which functions as a standing commit-tee.

Vera Boltho mentioned that the Council of Europe does have funds forinternational cultural-policy research.

Ellen Lovell added an additional topic for consideration: citizenship.


[46]

Dorota Ilchuk also added a study of cultural indicators as a vehicle for eco-nomic development.

The rapporteur promised to have the first draft of the report by the end ofJuly.

There was agreement in the group that the next meeting of this natureshould be held within the next 12 months, preferably in the United States.

At the close of the meeting, Stanley Katz, András Szántó and Raj Isar eachbriefly thanked the participants.

PARTICIPANTS

(a list with contact addresses is appended to the Report of the Workshop)

FROM THE UNITED STATES

Alberta Arthurs, MEM Associates, former Head of Arts and Humanities, TheRockefeller FoundationMarian Godfrey, The Pew Charitable TrustBill Ivey, Chairman, National Endowment for the ArtsMichael Janeway, Director, National Arts Journalism Program, ColumbiaUniversityD. Carroll Joynes, University of ChicagoStanley Katz, Princeton UniversityEllen Lovell, Former Director, White House Millennium Council;Director, Veterans History Project, Library of Congress; Consultant to theCenter for Arts and CultureKevin McCarthy, RANDRaymund A. Paredes, Director, Creativity and Culture, The RockefellerFoundationJ. Mark Schuster, Professor of Urban Cultural Policy, MassachusettsInstitute of TechnologyJames A. Smith, consultant, the J. Paul Getty Trust; and Chairman, TheCenter for Arts and CultureAndrás Szántó, Deputy Director, National Arts Journalism Program,Columbia UniversityStephen Urice, The Pew Charitable TrustMargaret Wyszomirski, College of the Arts, Ohio State University


[47]

FROM EUROPE

Helmut Anheier, Director, Centre for Civil Society, London School ofEconomicsTony Bennett, Professor of Sociology, The Open University, United KingdomVera Boltho, Head, Cultural Policy and Action Division, Council of EuropeLluis Bonet, University of Barcelona, SpainDario Disegni, Director of Cultural Affairs, Compagnia di San Paolo, Torino,ItalyDorota Ilczuk, Jagellonian University and the Institute for Culture, Warsaw,PolandPierre-Michel Menger, CNRS, FranceColin Mercer, The Nottingham Trent University, United KingdomPatricia Quinn, Director, Irish Arts CouncilBéla Rásky, University of ViennaMats Rolén, Bank of Sweden Tercentenary FoundationKees Van Rees, Tilburg University, The NetherlandsAndreas Wiesand, Zentrum für Kultuforschung, Bonn/Berlin, GermanyJennifer Williams, Centre for Creative Communities, London


[48]

APPENDIX

European Overview by Tony Bennett

INTRODUCTION

Let me start with a few points about my background and interests, andabout how I have interpreted my brief for this occasion.

A sociologist by training, my interest in cultural policy forms part of a moregeneral set of interests in the sociology of culture, and particularly in themanifold and varied ways in which questions of culture are centrally impli-cated in the processes of government which characterise contemporary soci-eties. The particular areas of cultural policy that I have been directly con-cerned with in the context of these broader interests include museum andheritage policies, cultural statistics – particularly related to forms of cultur-al participation and their bearing on questions of social inclusion; culturaldiversity; and intellectual property questions, specifically in relation toindigenous peoples. However, these particular interests have been set with-in more general engagements with cultural policy research as the director ofresearch institutes and centres with a cultural policy focus – the ICPS atGriffith University, the government-funded Australian Key Centre forCultural and Media Policy, and currently, the Pavis Centre for Social andCultural Research.

As to the interpretation of my brief, let me make a few quick points. First, Ithought it important to widen the brief a little – although I am sure in waysintended by the organisers to include the media (including, in these daysof convergence, the telecommunications industries) alongside the arts andcultural industries in view of the degree to which the media are now cen-trally implicated in the production, distribution and consumption of virtual-ly all kinds of art and culture to the extent that no research into any of artsor cultural industry sector now makes much sense unless it is informed by aknowledge of the broader media and communications environment. Butthen, having broadened the brief, I thought it important to narrow it infocusing only on research relating to the arts, cultural and media industriesthat is relevant to the concerns of cultural policy – that is, to the ways inwhich, through a variety of means (legal, administrative, and economic),governments seek (through a range of specially constructed entities: min-istries of culture or communications, departments of heritage, arts councils)


[49]

to provide, regulate and manage cultural resources and the uses to whichthey are put, in pursuit of a diversity of ends (economic development, socialjustice, quality of life, civic development).

Second – although this was less a decision than a necessity in view of boththe time available and the limitations of my own knowledge – the picture Ishall offer will be in fairly broad brushstrokes, indicating just a few of whatI take to be the more important general tendencies and counting on otherswith more expert knowledge in particular areas to provide the necessarytexture and colour, and, of course, local (whether it be sectoral or national)detail. That said, even the broad approach has its limitations in theEuropean context, where it is difficult to make generalisations withoutimmediately qualifying them to acknowledge significant, and in some areasabsolutely fundamental, national differences concerning the contextual fac-tors (notions of citizenship and legal environments, for example) governingarts, media and cultural policies, the ends to which they should be directedand the implications of both for their research and assessment. The effect ofthese differences is compounded by equally significant differences innational intellectual traditions and the kinds of interface between “pure”and “applied” research these are likely to generate. This, then, is to touchon what might prove to be the more significant, if obvious, points of contrastthat will emerge between the US and European contexts over the next twodays – namely, the more nationally fragmented and varied situation inEurope.

Third, I have opted for an analytical rather than an empirical approach inthe sense that, rather than describing the work of different research agen-cies (which would have required a research project in itself!), I have aimedto identify general patterns and tendencies – and, in this sense, it is more ofan argument than a list.

And fourth, I thought that it would be useful – as a way of keeping bothmyself and our discussion on focus – to organise my presentation in termsof the first three of the main questions that were initially posed for theworkshop:

What’s happening? I shall focus here on the main actors in the field of arts,cultural and media-policy research; the different kinds of research they areconcerned with; and the relations between them.

Where is it going? My focus here will be to identify some of the priority issues


[50]

that are evident in the literature.

Where are the gaps? I shall try here to bring together my sense of what’s hap-pening and where it’s going by commenting on how some of the more obviousresearch gaps reflect some of the shortcomings in the existing institutionalarrangements for research.

WHAT’S HAPPENING?

The first thing to say is: quite a lot, and certainly more than there used tobe as policy-oriented research into the arts, culture and media industrieshas increased dramatically over the last quarter of a century – for a varietyof reasons: the increased economic importance of these industries; a closerinter-penetration of questions of cultural policy with those of social policy;and the increasing significance of questions of culture in the humanitiesand social sciences, and in public intellectual debates more generally(around issues of cultural diversity, multiculturalism, culture and identity,etc). The nature of the agencies involved in conducting research varies fromcountry to country, but – allowing for exceptions – the relevant organisa-tions in Europe comprise:

a. The agencies directly involved in the planning and implementation ofarts, cultural and media policies – arts councils, cultural and communi-cations ministries, heritage organisations. These tend to be fairly specif-ic and pragmatic in focus, concentrating mainly on short or medium-termtime horizons and aiming to assist in translating current political/policypriorities into specific policy programmes with identifiable targets,means of pursuing those targets and of assessing outcomes. Levels offunding are relatively small (DCMS’s annual research budget is just£400,000) and the emphasis tends to be placed on the collation andinterpretation of existing knowledge rather than of new knowledge.

b. Government-commissioned surveys (of the national population or ofspecific industry sectors), which on a regular basis provide statisticalindicators of the major trends in relation to the organisation, levels andforms of production, and patterns of consumption characterising the arts,media and cultural industries: numbers of books, films, CDs producedper year; investment levels in different industry sectors; rates of use ofpublicly funded cultural institutions (rates of visitation for collectinginstitutions, audience figures for broadcasters); the consumption of cul-tural goods as indicated by surveys of time-use, leisure and spending


[51]

patterns; the ratio of cultural imports to cultural exports, etc. It is oftentrue here that the quantity of the information available exceeds the qual-ity of its analysis, which rarely goes much beyond descriptive reports onthe main trends prepared by the relevant survey organisations.

c. Key institutions – both public and private – in the arts, cultural andmedia industries: broadcasting institutions, telecommunications compa-nies, museums and art galleries, theatre companies, etc. The stress hereis often on finding about audiences or consumers through a variety oftechniques – statistical surveys, diaries, focus groups, interviews andanalyses of consumer trends. Considerations of commercial confidential-ity mean that much of this research is never made public, and its highlyinstrumental nature means that its focus is often limited when viewedfrom the perspective of more general public policy considerations.

d. National research funding bodies or councils – that is, the bodiesresponsible for the allocation of research funds to the higher educationor university sector, usually on a competitive basis and in setting guide-lines and allocating funding for postgraduate research. From time totime, these will earmark significant levels of funding for programmes orcentres with specific arts, cultural or media policy foci – recent exam-ples being, in the UK, the Economic and Social Research Council’s pro-gramme on the media industries (now completed) and the forthcomingprogramme on consumption. Programmes of this kind are often definedas strategic research – as distinguished from pure or basic research onthe one hand and applied research on the other – concerned with theinterfaces between new theoretical perspectives and broader and longer-term policy considerations. As such, they encourage the formation ofresearch teams that include research end-users alongside academicresearchers in the processes of research design analysis and dissemina-tion.

e. Departments and programmes in higher-education institutions with ageneral remit to conduct research and supervise the development ofpostgraduate research in areas relevant to the policy aspects of the arts,cultural and media industries. These range across departments and pro-grammes in arts management, communication and media studies, sociol-ogy, cultural studies, museum and heritage studies, urban planning andcommunity planning. The research produced here is mostly the result ofthe discretionary research time available to academics as a part of theircontractual conditions of employment; it is usually individually per-


[52]

formed and curiosity-driven; and it typically takes the form of researchpublications in relevant journals and scholarly presses. It is worth mak-ing the point, however, that a much greater portion of this kind of workis now undertaken with – if not the immediate, hard-nosed aspects ofcurrent cultural policies in mind – an awareness of a policy horizon anda wish to contribute to the debates about aims of cultural policies.

f. Higher-education programmes in policy studies or in public adminis-tration that include a focus on the arts, cultural and media sectors. I sin-gle this out mainly to signal that – unlike the situation in the US wherethe two have been more closely linked – current trends in cultural indus-try and policy research in many parts of Europe have emerged from theissues posed immediately and directly by the arts, cultural and mediasectors, rather than being connected to a more general discipline of pol-icy studies or public administration which, in turn, are more likely toaccord other public sectors (health, social security, education, local gov-ernment) greater priority than the public administration of culturalresources.

g. Higher-education programmes in legal studies, especially those exam-ining the increasingly significant interfaces between the cultural indus-tries, cultural policy and the law produced by (a) the increasing central-ity of intellectual-property considerations to cultural production in thecontext of the new information or knowledge economy, and (b) thoseareas in which international or European instruments concerning humancivil rights translate into cultural rights that bear on cultural-policyagendas and priorities, for example, the right to maintain distinctive cul-tural traditions and identities.

h. University-based research or independent institutes and centres witha dedicated focus on arts, cultural or media-industry policy, such asAustrian Kulturdokumentation Centre or Comedia. These have a criticalswitchboard function to play in, on the one hand, connecting debates inthe social sciences and humanities disciplines to the more practical pol-icy aspects of cultural policy development, and, on the other, feedingthese practical issues back into the more academic literature.

i. Private foundations with developed interests in cultural research.These are fewer in number than the US-based foundations; have, on thewhole, smaller budgets; and probably – this is just a guess – do not haveas developed a portfolio of interests in cultural-policy issues as has been


[53]

evident in the recent activities of US foundations. But they do exist – theBank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation, for example – and they oftenmake significant contributions to the development of research in specif-ic targeted areas. A recent establishment of the Institute focused on therelations between the Internet and society at Oxford University that wasenabled by private foundation support.

j. And last but by no means least are bodies operating at the Europeanlevel, with different research foci appropriate to their different spheres ofresponsibility – research related to the development of, and debatesabout, specifically, EC cultural policies on the part of the policy bureauxwithin the EC, for example, and the fostering of comparative studies andthe sharing of experience on the part of member states of the Council ofEurope – both providing very valuable services in collating and synthe-sising existing knowledge and information on practice and facilitating itstransnational/national dissemination and debate. The most importantsource of research oriented toward the production of new knowledgedirected to the European level – the EC’s research funding programmesdirected toward (in the main) the higher education sector, especially theFramework 5 and now 6 programmes, which have often included fociwith specific arts, cultural and media-policy relevance: in recent years,for example, the Information Society programme.

WHERE IS IT GOING?

I was tempted, initially, to answer this by saying: “all over the place.” For ifit is true that research in the arts, cultural and media industries hasincreased significantly in recent decades, it is also true that it is a researchfield that is now much more richly textured and multifaceted than was oncethe case. Nonetheless, there are discernible general tendencies, so I willcomment briefly on those which strike me as the most important.

k. The increasing convergence of issues across the arts, cultural andmedia sectors and the sense that issues relating to each of these need tobe examined in the context of their place within the larger whole. This isevident pretty well across the full range of research issues: whether it isresearch into audiences or audience development; research on industrydevelopment support schemes or on staff training programmes; researchinto the implications of different intellectual property regimes for theproduction and distribution of cultural goods – there is, in all cases, anincreasing sense of an increasingly close interlocking of these sectors so


[54]

that, while there are still specialist issues to be taken into account with-in each sector, these need to be placed in the context of what might becalled the broader cultural economy if they are to be properly under-stood. As an example of what I have in mind here, I am struck by theincreasing tendency of arts administrators to see the role of arts pro-grammes in the media as crucial to their own audience-developmentstrategies.

l. The tendency for research in and across these sectors to be seen, andto see itself, less as a specialist enclave remote from the main dynamicsof the economy, and more and more as a general paradigm for industryresearch. There is, no doubt, a good deal of hype in the claims whichneed to be treated with caution that are made on behalf of the so-calledknowledge or information economy (or, as I would prefer, cultural econ-omy). There is no doubt, however, that the defining aspects of the arts,cultural and media sectors – that is, that they are based on the produc-tion of what are variously called symbolic goods or immaterial commodi-ties – are now more broadly characteristic of advanced economies as awhole. This has numerous consequences. It has meant, most obviously,that the relations between arts, cultural and media policies and econom-ic policies have become closer. More importantly, though, it has alsomeant that the logic and functioning of the cultural economy has begunto call into question some of the fundamental assumptions of neo-classi-cal economics and, as a result, come to supply models for the develop-ment of policies relating to other areas of economic policy. The regula-tion of cultural and media markets, for example, since these oftendepend on the monopolistic exploitation of unique and legally projectedpieces of information, now increasingly supplies a paradigm for the reg-ulation of other economic fields (the medical and pharmaceutical indus-tries, for example) that display related characteristics.

m.A fuller and more diverse set of relations among the arts, cultural andmedia policies and social issues that has resulted, in the main, from thediversification of the agendas of citizenship over the postwar period. Thishas been the result of the development of the conceptions of social citi-zenship associated with the social democratic horizons of postwar gover-nance to include understandings of citizenship based on notions of cul-tural rights including both rights to an equality of treatment in spite ofcultural differences (of ethnicity, gender, nationality and sexuality, forexample) as well as the right to be different. Viewing these developmentincrementally – that is, as additions to rather than replacements of ear-


[55]

lier social agendas of citizenship (although there is no doubt that in manycontexts these have been seriously weakened by the political agendas ofneo-liberalism) – there are now four main social agendas informingresearch and debate relating to the arts, cultural and media sectors.

i. Culture, media and the public sphere. Deriving its impetus from thework of Jurgen Habermas, research in this tradition (and it is volumi-nous) is primarily concerned with the consequences of the operationof cultural and media markets, the structures of ownership and con-trol within the media industries, and their occupational cultures forthe flow of information and opinions. Its primarily policy concern iswith the kinds of economic and legal regulation of media industriesespecially concentration of ownership and cross-ownership across dif-ferent media that are needed to maintain or enhance the extent towhich the media are able to function as adequate vehicles for publicinformation and debate in democratic societies.

ii.Cultural capital and social exclusion. The literature that used to bedefined in terms of its concern with the social factors impeding accessto publicly funded cultural resources (art galleries, museums, theatresand the like) has developed into a much more general set of concernsfocused on the extent to which, following the work of Pierre Bourdieu,the unequal distribution of cultural capital (that is, the ability todecode and interpret across the full range of cultural and symbolicgoods) militates against the possibility of effectively equal forms ofaccess to cultural resources. There is a paradox affecting work in thistradition (including my own): it is usually undertaken to identify thekinds of social factors that need to be addressed to identify the kindsof policy action and the points of their social application that areneeded to overcome social barriers to effective participation acrossthe cultural range; yet it is premised on an analysis that contends thatthe relationships between the cultural sector, the education systemand the occupational structure in capitalist economies operate in waysthat, in ensuring that cultural capital is unequally distributed betweendifferent social classes, also predicts that, all good intentions to thecontrary, the consumption of cultural goods will always serve as ameans of organising, marking and symbolising social distinctions.

iii. Cultural participation and social cohesion. I have distinguishedthis from the issues I have identified under the heading of “culturalcapital and social inclusion” because however much it may be true


[56]

(and it is) that the two are confused in practice, they are, properly con-sidered, distinct in their theoretical and political underpinnings andin their policy implications. The cultural capital/social inclusion setof issues is informed by a concern to even out inequalities in accessto and use of cultural resources on grounds that are social democrat-ic or socialist: the argument here is about equalisation of cultural par-ticipation for the sake of benefits of pleasure and knowledge this willbring to those who currently lack the means of enjoying them.Arguments surrounding cultural participation and social cohesion, incontrast, are motivated primarily by the benefits that it is believed willaccrue to society through the enhanced cohesion that, so the argumentgoes, participation in cultural activities will help bring about. Aspectsof these concerns are evident in many different traditions of researchand debate: in debates about the relationship between participation incultural associations and organisations as one of the ways of generat-ing the kinds of social or civic capital that is, the shock of social net-works and organisations that will contribute to social cohesion; indebates about the role of cultural policies and cultural planning inprogrammes of urban and community regeneration; and in debatesabout the links between art, culture and the role of cultural commu-nity development projects in repairing the social fabric.

iv. Cultural diversity. This has many facets and derives, generally,from the expanded conceptions of citizenship discussed earlier, whichforeground the question of cultural rights and are informed by the duallogic of reversing the discriminations that have historically been expe-rienced by oppressed minorities, whether defined in terms of gender,sexuality, or ethnicity while, more positively, nurturing and sustainingtheir right to be different. The issue is posed with particular force inEurope in view of the degree to which, increasingly, international pat-terns of population movements and cultural flows have added diversi-ty to the ethnic composition of many European countries. I hesitate,however, to attribute this to some general phenomenon of globalisation– and not least because the population patterns of some Europeancountries have been affected more by regional than by global popula-tion flows. This – plus the fact that regimes of citizenship, especiallyin terms of their implications for immigrants, differ significantlybetween different European countries – means that questions of cul-tural diversity tend to be posed in different ways in specific nationalcontexts. Nonetheless, there are identifiably common tendencies tothe emerging research agendas in this area: what are the conse-


[57]

quences of different understandings of citizenship for the ways inwhich cultural policies address the members of culturally diversesocieties? What role can policies concerned with regulating the mediaenvironment play in encouraging a diversity of media that will sustainthe identities and cultures of minorities? How can employment andtraining regimes make positions in the media more openly accessibleto people from a broader diversity of backgrounds? In what ways dothe new media, especially the Internet, contribute to the ongoingdevelopment of diasporas as a consequence of their ability to facilitatenew international forms of point-to-point (rather than centre-to-point(communication and cultural flows? How can cultural-industry poli-cies support the emergence of the industrial infrastructure necessaryto provide ongoing support for minority cultures? It is also clear thatthe agendas of cultural diversity are beginning to have a significantconsequences for the role that cultural policies might have in relationto indigenous minorities, such as the Roam, resulting in some inter-esting cross-fertilisation with the field of indigenous cultural-policydevelopment and research in non-European post-colonial settings.

n. My fourth area, finally, is in a sense, less separate from the ones I havealready discussed than a tendency that is discernible across most ofthem: namely, the sense of an increasing need on the part of policymak-ers and researchers to have a more detailed and finely-grained under-standing of what different sections of the population do culturally, whatactivities they engage in, and the values and meaning they attach tothem. This is, in part, the expression of a need for more detailed andsocially informed cultural statistics, but it is also the expression of aneed for a more qualitative understanding of the different values, prac-tices and interpretative frameworks that characterise culturally diversesocieties at a time when the accent has shifted, not totally but relatively,and to varying degrees in different countries, from cultural policies witha nationalist and homogenising cast, to the acceptance and even promo-tion of cultural differences. The most evident sign of this is the abun-dance of projects examining the potential of the Internet as an instru-ment of cultural heterogenisation.

o. The relations between cultural and media policies, regions and iden-tities. These concerns are evident in many different areas of work – therelationship between cultural-industry development and identity mainte-nance, for example, or debates about the role of the new media spheresin fashioning new spaces of identity formation. What I want to stress


[58]

here, however, are the number of different levels at which the concern todeploy cultural resources as means of strengthening regionally basedidentities is evident, and the respects in which these are often in tensionwith one another. This is, in some contexts, a crucial concern at thenational level, especially where not just national identities but the futureof national cultural industries is placed in question by the dominance ofan increasingly internationalised, typically US- and English-language-based cultural market. The strength of these concerns is the most obvi-ous case in point. However, set against these distinctively national con-cerns are research questions focused on the kinds of policies that willsustain sub-national regional identities – through programmes directedat the maintenance of minority languages, for example. And then therehave been those programmes, such as the EC’s controversial People’sEurope, aimed at fostering a transnational, distinctively European senseof identity in the interests of closer integration.

p. Increasingly close connections in some national contexts betweenresearch in cultural policy and the broader agendas of neo-liberalism.This is especially evident in the research focused on the organisation ofcultural markets, notions of cultural entrepreneurship, and notions of thecreative industries. One sees, in these areas, an increasing emphasis onthe need for enhanced cultural-sector entrepreneurial skills spilling overinto new conceptions of appropriate training for cultural producers andthe need for the cultivation of more entrepreneurial relationships to theirwork and to their shelves to compensate for a decline (actual or antici-pated) in public sector support. There is also an evident tendency to sug-gest – as a matter that needs research validation – that the encourage-ment of new forms of cultural entrepreneurship may also have an impor-tant role in securing some of the objectives associated with the culturalpolicy/social policy interfaces I reviewed earlier: social inclusion andcultural diversity, for example.

I am sure there are many areas of research I’ve missed in this sketch: myaim, however, has not been comprehensiveness, but to propose a few head-ings under which to group some of the more distinctive new and developingtendencies in arts, cultural and media-policy research. Let me turn now tobriefly identify some of the more obvious gaps.

WHERE ARE THE GAPS?

1) Developed and planned relationships between major research pro-


[59]

ducers and research end-users (often the result of cultural factors onboth sides of the divide, but also of different time scales, for which thereis no easy way of reconciling)2) Effective national or international networks for bringing togetherresearchers and research users3) Little knowledge of, or resistance to, social-science-based statisticalforms of measurement and assessment on the part of many in both theindustrial and policy organisations of the arts and cultural sectors4) Poorly developed connections between cultural-policy studies andpublic policy/administration studies5) Cross-country comparative studies and the frameworks/mechanismsfor collecting cultural statistics that would give these a high degree ofvalidity (significant studies establishing baseline data that can be usedfor subsequent comparative studies)6) A developed literature on assessing policy outcomes in the arts, cul-tural and media industries

WHERE ARE THE COLLABORATIVE OPPORTUNITIES?

I decided not to say much about this last question, as it is one best answeredin the course of our discussions. But I did want to make one point that touch-es on an ambiguity in the rationale for this meeting, which is variouslydescribed as being concerned with the exploration of collaborative researchpossibilities between Europe and the US, Europe and North America andtransatlantic collaboration. The point I want to make is that whichever ofthese emerges as paramount, it is likely to be the case that Canadian involve-ment could play a useful role in serving, in so many areas, as a useful switch-board between North American and European research funding systems andcultural and media-policy pre-occupations.


[60]

Documents

RESEARCH IN THE ARTS AND CULTURAL …unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001261/126114e.pdfRESEARCH IN THE ARTS AND CULTURAL INDUSTRIES: TOWARDS NEW POLICY ALLIANCES A Transatlantic Workshop