3. The decontextualisation of value in cultural policy
• Cultural value trapped in a self-contained and self-referential
debate
• Where is the value of publicly funded culture located & what
is needed to demonstrate this? (Belfiore & Bennett 2008,
(Bakhshi 2009, O’Brien 2010)
• Narrow focus on ‘high’ cultural practices obscures the ways
in which the idea of cultural participation and its valuation is
socially constructed and constructing (Bourdieu 1984)
• Cultural policy as ‘social inclusion’ - in fact operationalised
around a polarizing ‘deficit model’ of participation (Miles and
Sullivan 2012)
• Underpinned by methodological techniques that confirm a
narrow and tendentious view of participation and participants
4. What, where and when is cultural participation?
• ‘Manchester’s Cultural Institutions’ project
• Probe beyond the cultural indicator - participation narratives
of those identified in surveys as ‘users’ and ‘non users’ of
formal cultural venues (Miles 2013)
• Non-users often have vibrant informal cultural networks
defined by ostensibly mundane pursuits and social
relationships
• ‘Ghostly’ participants hidden by lack of self-identification and
alienation from mainstream contexts
Problematise participation - resist and examine the writing out
of everyday participation by the official model of cultural
participation and value
6. What are we trying to do?
• Discover how people participate in their everyday lives and
the ‘stakes’ they attach to their participation
• Understand how communities are communities rendered
through participation
• Reveal and develop new articulations and measures of
cultural value
• Explore the relationship between different cultural contexts –
institutional, voluntary, informal
• Reconnect policy and practice with the everyday
7. Some theoretical background
• Project starts from Pierre Bourdieu…
− participation is an important source of identity, power and value
− there are different forms of ‘capital’ – cultural and social as well as
economic
• …but explores Bourdieu’s ideas further
− by looking at the day-to-day practices of those who do not engage
with formal culture
− by exploring how participation relates to location and place
8. Our approach
• Not defining ‘culture’ or ‘value’ in advance
• Viewing participation as a social process, not just individual
behaviour
• Participation practices are situated – they shape and are
shaped by people’s relationship to place
• Mixed methods - combining historical, quantitative and
qualitative work
• Interdisciplinary working – history, sociology, English
literature, performance studies, cultural policy, cultural sector
research
• Collaboration with communities, local authorities, voluntary
organisations, cultural professionals and policymakers
9. Five work packages
1. Histories – discourses of cultural participation and value;
cultural technologies; cultural policy, place and economy;
representations of everyday life; community cultural practices
2. Reanalysis of survey data – how does participation vary by
place and throughout people’s lives?
3. Cultural ecosystems research – local histories, mapping,
in-depth interviews, ethnography and social network analysis
in six contrasting locations
4. Application projects – working with communities and
partners to develop projects in response to findings
5. Research-policy-practice nexus – reflecting on partnership
and developing new models of collaboration
11. WP1: two histories under way
History of participation and value
• how has our understanding of cultural participation and
value been shaped by key individuals and institutions?
• focus on Literary and Philosophical and Museum Societies
History of cultural indicators
• how have cultural participation and value been measured in
recent years, why and with what consequences for
understanding and policy?
• focus on the national Taking Part survey and local authority
frameworks in Manchester and Aberdeen
12. WP2: identifying and exploring datasets
• What can existing datasets tell us about
− informal participation
− local level participation
− participation over the course of people’s lives?
• Starting with Taking Part data
− literature review, variable mapping, much data under-used including ‘free
time activities’
− rolling up of 6 years of quarterly waves allows detailed local analysis
• Additional datasets
− Time Use Survey
− Scottish Household Survey
− Longitudinal Study of Young People in England
− 1958 National Child Development Study
13. WP3: discovering the ecosystems
• Manchester
− rich cultural infrastructure with a history of civic engagement
− focus on Broughton and Cheetham – straddling the
Manchester/Salford boundary
− diverse faith communities including a significant Orthodox Jewish
presence, Tesco and parks as important neutral public spaces
• Dartmoor
− areas of deprivation, incomer affluence and rural isolation
− partnership with Dartmoor National Park Authority, participatory
practices that don’t want to be found
− rich in community practice, from Tavistock Arts Market to the
Sticklepath Fireshow
14. WP3: discovering the ecosystems
• Gateshead
− bottom 20% nationally for cultural participation despite major Quayside
investment in ‘culture-led regeneration’
− working with communities to understand everyday activities from the
ground up and how these are recognised/accommodated by cultural
institutions
• Peterborough
− a cultural ‘cold spot’ and priority area for several national agencies
− engagement with more than 100 groups and practitioners to date, from
artists and DJs to ‘Operation CAN-do’
− cultural dynamic is changing – rebellious ‘undergrounders’ striving to
do things differently
15. WP3: discovering the ecosystems
• Aberdeen/shire
− Fraserburgh – traditional fishing economy with social problems but a
culture of volunteering; informal practices range from writing clubs to
surfing to ‘Fly Cup’
− contrast with Aberdeen city – a top-down, local authority-driven
approach to cultural investment; potential to work with community
groups such as Radio Schmu
• Eliean Siar – Stornoway
− geographically isolated, aging community with an inclusive, bottom-up
culture and high levels of social enterprise
− vibrant grassroots cultural activity, often documenting and passing on
cultural traditions
17. Project Team
Principal Investigator
Dr Andrew Miles, Centre for Research on Socio-cultural Change, University of Manchester
Co Investigators
Dr Eleanora Belfiore, Centre for Cultural Policy Studies, University of Warwick
Dr Lisanne Gibson, School of Museum Studies, University of Leicester
Dr Abigail Gilmore, Institute for Cultural Practices, University of Manchester
Dr Felicity James, School of English, University of Leicester
Dr Jane Milling, Department of Drama, University of Exeter
Dr Kerrie Schaefer, Department of Drama, University of Exeter
Policy and Sector Researchers
Catherine Bunting, Arts Council England
Sarah Stannage, Clore Fellow, MLA Living Places
Funded through the AHRC’s
Connected Communities programme
