Social Capital Through Arts Festival Governance? the Case Of

SOCIAL CAPITAL THROUGH ARTS FESTIVAL

GOVERNANCE? THE CASE OF LIGHTNIGHT

LIVERPOOL

A thesis submitted to The University of Manchester for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities

2020

Graeme Moore

School of Environment, Education and Development

Table of Contents

List of Figures 5

List of Tables 6

List of Acronyms 7

Abstract 8

Declaration 9

Acknowledgements 10

1 Introduction 11

1.1 Introduction 11

1.2 Scope of the thesis 14

1.3 Theoretical focus 16

1.4 Methodology 18

1.5 Contribution to knowledge 19

1.6 Research aim and questions 21

1.7 Chapter structure 22

2 Placing festivals: From culture-led regeneration to social capital 25

2.1 Introduction 25

2.2 Urban Entrepreneurialism: American influence to United Kingdom application 26

Culture-led regeneration as an economic development strategy 29

From urban renaissance to arts austerity 32

2.3 Festivalization and the significance of place 37

Festivalization: ‘Overbearing sameness’ and the dilution of identity 39

Combating festivalization through civic pride and experience 40

2.4 Social capital and festivals 43

Changing notions of social capital: Scaling up the theory 46

Framing the theory: Application to arts festivals 50

2.5 Conceptual framework 52

2.6 Conclusion 54

3 Researching conceptions of social capital through arts festival governance 56

3.1 Introduction 56

3.2 Research design: Setting the boundaries of enquiry 56

Adopting a single case study approach 57

3.3 Extending rigour through a mixed-methods approach 59

3.3.1 Semi-structured interviews: Building critical conversations 60

Sampling strategy 61

Interviewing strategy 66

3.3.2 Netnography: Validating social media posts 70

3.3.3 Documentary analysis: Archives, previews and reviews 72

3.4 Constructing knowledge through data analysis 75

3.5 Conclusion 79

4 From global trader to Capital of Culture: Exploring the changing governance and economies of Liverpool 82

4.1 Introduction 82

4.2 The economic and political implications of Liverpool’s declining port 83

4.3 It took a riot? National government policy imposition in Liverpool 85

The rise and fall of left wing militancy in Liverpool 89

4.4 From Objective One funding to Capital of Culture: Liverpool’s EU Journey 94

4.5 Political infighting and programming turmoil: Governing Capital of Culture 96

A World in One City: Authentic representations or sanitised culture? 102

4.6 Policy influence and perception change: Outcomes from Capital of Culture 104

4.7 Conclusion 110

5 Balancing differentiation and economic sustainability: Creating a free arts festival 112

5.1 Introduction 112

5.2 Rethinking the impact of the Creative Communities Programme 113

5.3 Engagement ‘on their own terms’: Mediating perceptions of the arts 118

5.4 Light the night: Replicating popular European festival formats 123

‘Do something different’: Identity and character through programming 127

5.5 ‘Tons of social capital, just not hard cash’: Arts funding in the age of austerity 130

‘We have no idea how we’re going to keep funding LightNight’ 133

‘LightNight is a loss leader for many people’: How do participants offset their inclusion? 138

5.6 Conclusion 143

6 Trust, access to resources and tailored support: Open Culture’s distribution of social capital within LightNight 145

6.1 Introduction 145

6.2 How does Open Culture's reputation enhance LightNight's legitimacy? 146

6.3 Communal resources and expectation of reciprocity 149

LightNight and a ‘guaranteed audience’ 150

LightNight and the opportunity to be publicised 152

Participants taking responsibility to promote their own events 155

6.4 Open Culture’s changing roles regarding participant requirements 159

Open Culture as programmer: Trusting participants 161

Open Culture as intermediary: Placing content 163

Open Culture as producer: Providing additional support 165

6.5 The significance of place to LightNight 169

In which ways does the design of LightNight attempt to engender civic pride? 171

How does atmosphere inform experience within LightNight? 173

6.6 Conclusion 176

7 Conclusion 178

7.1 Introduction 178

7.2 Main findings and contribution to knowledge 181

7.3 Recommendations for future study 188

7.4 Implications of the research 189

References 193

Appendix 1: Interview Request Flyer 230

Appendix 2: Pre-LightNight Interview Questions Example 232

Appendix 3: Post-LightNight Interview Questions Example 234

Appendix 4: Consent Form 236

Appendix 5: Research Participants Report 237

Appendix 6: LightNight Audience Survey 239

Word Count – 63,112

List of Figures

Figure 1: Tmesis Theatre Twitter post promoting their upcoming LightNight Liverpool performances (Source: Tmesis Theatre, 2018: Online) 71

Figure 2: Preview of LightNight Liverpool 2018 Commissions (Source: Davy, 2018:24) 73

Figure 3: One Latin Culture Twitter post highlighting a positive review of their LightNight Liverpool performance (Source: One Latin Culture, 2018: Online) 74

Figure 4: Review of LightNight Liverpool 2018 (Source: Messy Lines, 2018a: Online) 77

Figure 5: Dilapidated Albert Dock before Merseyside Development Corporation regeneration (Source: Adcock, 1984:278) 86

Figure 6: International Garden Festival site under construction (Source: Unger, 2007:124) 88

Figure 7: Newspaper headlines illustrating Liverpool’s European Capital of Culture preparation disarray (Source: Garcia, 2017:14) 99

Figure 8: Headlines from national and international media coverage of Liverpool's European Capital of Culture year (Source: Liverpool Culture Company, 2009b, as cited in Garcia, 2017:16) 104

Figure 9: A giant marionette from the Giant Spectacular of 2018 (Source: Image by the author) 107

Figure 10: LightNight Liverpool Festival Guide 2012 cover (Source: Open Culture, 2012) 130

Figure 11: Open Culture Facebook post promoting the official after-party (Source: LightNight Liverpool, 2018a: Online) 136

Figure 12: Museum of Liverpool Facebook post promoting shop and café (Source: Museum of Liverpool, 2018: Online) 139

Figure 13: Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark Facebook post promoting dot-art (Source: Orchestral Manoeuvers in the Dark, 2018: Online) 141

Figure 14: Open Culture Facebook post promoting LightNight Liverpool event (Source: LightNight Liverpool, 2018b: Online) 153

Figure 15: Merseyside Transport Trust bus (Source, Liverpool Echo, 2015: Online) 154

Figure 16: Commissioned artist interview (Source, Art in Liverpool, 2018: Online) 155

Figure 17: The Bombed Out Church Facebook post promoting a food hub participant (Source: The Bombed Out Church, 2018: Online) 156

Figure 18: Sensor City Twitter post promoting an exhibitor (Source: Sensor City, 2018: Online) 157

Figure 19: LightNight Liverpool online application question (Source: Open Culture, 2018b) 160

Figure 20: LightNight Liverpool commission ‘Stanza’ (Source: Image by the author) 167

Figure 21: LightNight Liverpool Festival Guide 2015 index (Source: Open Culture, 2015) 170

Figure 22: LightNight Liverpool commission ‘The Imago’ (Source: Image by the author) 174

Figure 23: LightNight Liverpool event ‘Carnival Parade’ (Source: Image by the author) 176 List of Tables

Table 1: Research subjects interviewed within each sampling category 187

List of Acronyms

ACE – Arts Council England

CIC – Community Interest Company

CCP – Creative Communities Programme

CLIP – Culture Liverpool Investment Programme

ECoC – European Capital of Culture

EU – European Union

IGF – International Garden Festival

LARC – Liverpool Arts Regeneration Consortium

LIMF – Liverpool International Music Festival

LJMU – Liverpool John Moores University

MDC – Merseyside Development Corporation

NML – National Museums Liverpool

OLC – One Latin Culture

OMD – Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark

RADL – Royal Albert Dock Liverpool

UDCs – Urban Development Corporations

URC – Urban Regeneration Company

VMS – Variable Messaging Sign

Abstract

This thesis investigates in which ways attributes of social capital theory such as collaboration, reciprocity and trust can further understandings of the governance of arts festivals. Unlike existing festival studies which incorporate social capital into their analysis from the sole perspective of organisers, attendees or local communities, this research focuses upon the sum of relationships between organisers and participants (defined as artists, performers, organisations and venues).

The case study is LightNight Liverpool, a not-for-profit, free to attend, annual one-night arts festival organised by community interest company Open Culture. The use of a third sector festival is deliberate, with my reasoning being that the lack of payment to participants would increase the necessity of attributes of social capital to effectively programme and deliver events. The fieldwork took place between January-September 2018 utilising a mixed-methods approach to explore relationships formed within the festival, combining documentary analysis, netnography (analysing social media interactions) and semi-structured interviews.

I position Liverpool’s hosting of the 2008 European Capital of Culture designation within the city’s contemporary use of culture as a central component of its urban regeneration strategy. Explaining Open Culture’s changing role post-Capital of Culture, I examine the links between LightNight Liverpool and the trend of festivalization. I argue that through theming the programme and integrating existing creative communities and cultural quarters, Open Culture have successfully marked the festival with differentiation. Through an analysis of austerity induced cuts to arts funding, I contrast the wider pertinence of social capital theory to the day-to-day working practices of those within the city’s arts and cultural sectors. Finally I contend that the tailored support provided by Open Culture to participants through their concurrent roles as programmer, intermediary and producer showcases the pre-eminence of leaders in providing access to resources and mobilising networks of contacts within arts festivals. The implication of these findings go against the majority of social capital literature which underplays the importance of leaders, with this thesis arguing their primacy as catalyst of its successful generation and diffusion.

Declaration

No portion of the work referred to in the thesis has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning.

Graeme Moore

Copyright Statement i. The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this thesis) owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the “Copyright”) and s/he has given The University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright, including for administrative purposes. ii. Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or electronic copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in accordance with licensing agreements which the University has from time to time. This page must form part of any such copies made. iii. The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trademarks and other intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any reproductions of copyright works in the thesis, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may be described in this thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions. iv. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and commercialisation of this thesis, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions described in it may take place is available in the University IP Policy (see http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/DocuInfo.aspx?DocID=24420), in any relevant Thesis restriction declarations deposited in the University Library, The University Library’s regulations (see http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/about/regulations/) and in The University’s policy on Presentation of Theses.

Acknowledgements

I would firstly like to thank those within the School of Environment, Education and Development who took a chance on me, and my research proposal (although this changed immensely!), offering me a Postgraduate Research Scholarship at the eleventh hour. Without this opportunity, I may never have returned to higher education.

I would like to thank the directors of Open Culture, Charlotte Corrie and Christina Grogan for their enthusiasm for my research into their festival LightNight Liverpool. Our conversations proved invaluable in framing the direction of my research and uncovered a plethora of detail pertaining to the governance of the festival. Likewise, I would like to thank each primary stakeholder, intermediary and participant of LightNight Liverpool who gave up their time to engage with my research. Our conversations were enlightening, enjoyable and provided a vast amount of rich data far beyond my expectations.

At the University of Manchester, thanks goes to my primary supervisor Kevin Ward and secondary supervisor Saskia Warren for their continued support and guidance, helping to focus my ideas and push the development of my research and writing to greater heights. Their combination of supervision approaches perfectly aligned with my requirements for feedback and I feel lucky to have had such an encouraging and efficient team as primary points of contact throughout my time at the University.

Closer to home my family and friends have been of great support, although they may not know it, regularly allowing me to step outside of the PhD bubble. Taking time away from my research to socialise, one weekend at a time, subsequently reinvigorated my return to the office each Monday morning. Finally to Louise, whose unwavering support and belief in my ability from day one helped with the low and lonely times such a lengthy pursuit can bring. You ensured that my academic endeavours did not come to define or consume me, and I am beyond grateful for the balance we managed to strike over the past three and a half years.

Chapter 1 - Introduction

1.1 Introduction

This thesis explores how social capital theory can reveal new understandings of urban arts festivals and their governance. Festivals, defined by Getz (2012:51) as

‘themed, public celebrations’, traditionally related to agrarian harvest yields and subsequent feasting, however their contemporary focus upon arts and culture forms the subject of this research (Picard and Robinson, 2006; Sassatelli, 2011). The prominence of such festivals has increased over recent decades as part of wider approaches towards culture-led regeneration in cities. Following prolonged periods of decline throughout the latter half of the twentieth century owing to the rise of containerisation and reconfiguration of global manufacturing and trading strongholds, many formerly industrialised cities across the Western world have attempted to catalyse their economic recovery through strategies of culture-led regeneration. The origins of these strategies can be traced to the

Frostbelt cities of north-east America, such as Baltimore and Boston between the mid-

1970s and 1980s (Eisinger, 2000; Ganz, 1985; Levine, 1987). Initially focussing on the physical regeneration of downtown areas within these cities, an increasing prominence of partnership working incorporating private developers helped instigate significant office growth and enhance commercial activity. Subsequently after initial physical regeneration and development had begun, prestige projects with a cultural focus helped accelerate the economic recovery strategies in these cities. The example of Baltimore’s waterfront development Harbourplace showcases how cultural attractions such as aquariums and museums were integrated within prestige projects to develop tourism markets, something which appealed to United Kingdom (hereafter UK) planners and politicians alike (Falk,

1986; Levine, 1987). By the end of the 1980s, Harvey (1989) concluded that there seemed to be consensus in adopting strategies of partnership working and regeneration in deindustrialised urban areas, which amounted to applying an entrepreneurial approach to economic development.

A significant component of culture-led regeneration strategies within the UK have focussed upon changing the perceptions of cities with a legacy of industrial decline and associated economic and social deprivation. Culture-led regeneration strategies have

11 allowed for a reimagining of cities such as Birmingham, Glasgow and Liverpool, with their respective city councils attempting to benefit from an increasingly global tourism economy

(Hall and Hubbard, 1996). In the UK, prestige projects with a cultural focus were developed throughout the 1980s, with the most prominent example relevant to the thesis being the regeneration of Liverpool’s Albert Dock (Parkinson, 1988). The most often cited turning point for culture-led regeneration in the UK however was not an individual prestige project, but Glasgow’s experience as European Capital of Culture (hereafter ECoC) in

1990. The positive impact the designation had upon Glasgow’s image and economy, despite difficulties in sustaining higher visitor levels post-1990, encouraged other deindustrialising cities to invest in culture (Griffiths, 2006). Festivals subsequently became a central component of culture-led urban regeneration strategies in the UK thereafter (Getz, 2012).

The city of Liverpool provides an illustrative example of culture-led urban regeneration strategies. Despite limited cultural policy infrastructure within the city council throughout the 1980s, culture-led initiatives such as the redevelopment of the Albert Dock and hosting of the International Garden Festival (hereafter IGF) were directly imposed onto the city through the nationally controlled Merseyside Development Corporation

(hereafter MDC) (Jones and Wilks-Heeg, 2004). Subsequently, following the city council’s turn towards entrepreneurial governance during the 1990s, a successful bid was made at the turn of the century to host the UK designation to become 2008 ECoC (O’Brien, 2010).

The decision to bid for the award was heavily influenced by the positive perceptions associated with Glasgow’s experience as ECoC, despite limited analysis into the impact of the hosting year (Reason and Garcia, 2007). This decision to attempt to emulate

Glasgow’s experience is indicative of the problems associated with culture-led regeneration strategies, that imitation is often attempted without taking into account local circumstances or site specificity, providing an illustrative example of festivalization processes (Evans, 2011). The planning, programming and delivery of Liverpool’s ECoC year provides an in-depth example of the challenges which can arise for the governance of large-scale urban festivals, and conveys an overarching context to the exploration of the arts and cultural sectors of the city within the thesis.

The case study of the thesis, LightNight Liverpool (hereafter LightNight), is a free to attend annual one-night arts festival, held across central areas of the city since 2010.

LightNight serves as an example of over one hundred light festivals that currently take place across the world in cities such as Melbourne, Osaka, Rome and Toronto (Evans,

2010; Giordano and Ong, 2017). These light festivals are popular owing to their place marketing potential and easy adaptation for site specificity (Diack, 2012; Quinn, 2005).

Within the UK, LightNight is part of the national Museums at Night network, which promotes light festivals and late openings from across the country, with prominent events held in Gateshead, Leeds and Nottingham. LightNight is organised by local independent community interest company (hereafter CIC) Open Culture, who have organisational aims of helping people get involved in the arts, providing platforms for artists and creative organisations, and presenting audiences with knowledge of and access to cultural events

(Christina, Open Culture Director, January 2018). LightNight is framed by organisers

Open Culture as a celebration of the arts and culture offer of the city, and involves a themed programme of over one hundred events taking place across the night. Artists and performers are placed within arts and cultural organisations and venues by Open Culture and tasked with producing unique, one-off events, differing from their usual offer.

Although Open Culture borrow from the popular formats of light festivals, alongside the late openings of arts and cultural venues, they attempt to distinguish

LightNight through the content of the events programme to avoid calls of festivalization, as the thesis will explore. With the festival being not-for-profit, there is no financial impediment linked to this replication of popular formats, with LightNight presented as a distinctly local event, vindicated through how existing creative communities and cultural quarters of the city are embedded within the programme. Such local specificity to

LightNight highlights the importance of place to the festival in providing differentiation to similar events. The parallel that social capital theory and arts festivals share in their close relationship with place forms a central point of enquiry within the thesis, analysing whether this correlation impacts upon the governance of LightNight. What follows is an overview of the scope of the thesis, presenting an explanation of the direction of enquiry.

1.2 Scope of the thesis

The predominant scope of the thesis is to investigate in which ways the use of social capital theory can further understandings of the governance of arts festivals, utilising LightNight as an exploratory case study. The primary focus of existing urban festival studies is based on the economic impact of public and private sector festivals, with Getz (2012) characterising these events as commodities to be utilised as and when needed. The emphasis on economic returns aligns with the increased focus on processes of festivalization, which specifies the replication of successful and profitable festival and event formats, resulting in a situation whereby cities increasingly offer similar experiences

(Carlsen et al, 2010). The relevance of social capital theory to understanding the governance of arts festivals emerges through studies which look at how festivalization processes can be overcome through focussing on civic pride and local specificity (Derrett,

2003; 2004; Finkel, 2010; Getz and Andersson, 2008; Lee et al, 2012; McClinchey, 2008;

Picard, 2016; Raj and Vignali, 2010). This changing emphasis of festival studies helps illustrate the potential for a common social purpose to be achieved through festivals that do not hold a primarily economic focus, linking to conceptions of social capital theory

(Arcodia and Whitford, 2006). Festival case studies which incorporate social capital into their analysis are becoming increasingly recognised within academic research over the last decade (Devine and Quinn, 2019; Murzyn-Kupisz and Działek, 2013; Quinn and

Wilks, 2013; Wilks, 2011). Putnam (2000) summarises that social capital often emerges from cultural activities which hold a predominantly artistic focus, illustrating the potential pertinence of third sector arts festivals in which to base such an enquiry.

In regards to why Liverpool provides a relevant locale in which to base such an enquiry, since the 1980s the city has adopted an increasingly culture-led regeneration strategy as it attempts to diversify its economic base and recover from decades of urban decline (Meegan, 2003; Parkinson, 1990). The most prominent event held within the city as part of this strategy has been the 2008 ECoC award, however this year long festival was beset by governance issues, characterised by political infighting and an incoherent artistic strategy (Connolly, 2013; O’Brien, 2011). As part of the path dependency created for local arts and cultural practitioners through their experience and memory of the ECoC year, a number of independent festivals have subsequently been established within the 14 city. LightNight is amongst the most prominent of these and was created by Open

Culture, who were originally formed to help deliver the community arts programme of

Liverpool’s ECoC designation. The thesis case study thus provides a multifaceted enquiry into the applicability of social capital theory to arts festival governance.

LightNight was selected as the case study based on my reasoning that the lack of payment to participants for their inclusion within the not-for-profit festival would increase the prominence and necessity of social capital attributes to effectively programme and deliver their events. The thesis analyses how the temporary relationships formed between festival organisers Open Culture and those participating within the events programme rely on attributes of collaboration, reciprocity and trust to function effectively.

This investigation into social capital theory will principally focus upon the importance of

Open Culture’s role within the festival, particularly considering Madeleine Leonard’s

(2004) conclusion that the prominence of leaders is often underplayed within social capital literature, despite regularly being tasked with forming bridging ties with external elite groups. As part of this focus upon Open Culture, the potential for social capital inequality based upon hierarchies (Tzanakis, 2013), and strengthened bonds relating to previous association (Coleman, 1988), will inform the direction of enquiry into the governance of LightNight. The principal research subjects within LightNight are organisers Open Culture and the participants involved in the events programme, however the views of funders and sponsors of the festival alongside cultural intermediaries are also included to provide wider contextual analysis. Initial archival research into the festival took place in the latter half of 2017 to chronicle the development of LightNight since its inception in 2010, and inform the sampling strategy applied within the fieldwork. The fieldwork related directly to the 2018 iteration of LightNight and took place from January to September of that year, combining the use of semi-structured interviews and netnography, which employs ethnographic methods to observe social media interactions.

Relating to the scope of questioning within interviews, although the main purpose was to explore participant involvement in the 2018 edition of LightNight, lines of enquiry often pertained to past inclusion in the festival, or wider experiences within the local arts and cultural sectors.

The scope of the thesis also incorporates analysis of the process of festivalization, owing to LightNight’s inclusion of popular event formats typically found within light festivals and late openings of cultural institutions. Set against calls of festivalization and the resultant feelings of placelessness it can evoke (Relph, 1976), a discussion of the importance of place to the festival remains pertinent. Through the festival’s footprint, which bases events within the city’s existing creative communities and cultural quarters, the impact upon place attachment and sense of place for participants and audiences intrinsically link to notions of civic pride (Raj and Vignali, 2010). Finally in relation to the scope of the thesis, the staging of the festival through the evening into the night, linked to the use of light installations, symbolic buildings and outdoor spaces combine with discussions of atmosphere, and how these can impact upon audience experience. The following section details the theoretical focus of the thesis.

1.3 Theoretical focus

The principal theoretical focus of the thesis is based upon conceptions of social capital theory and the process of festivalization, both of which contain prominent links to place. Firstly the exploration of social capital theory pertaining to festival governance is fixed in the notion that festivals, like social capital, represent networks of relationships united towards a common goal, supported by Coleman’s (1988) analysis of interests being aligned for mutual benefit. Social capital was originally designated by Bourdieu

(1986) as the aggregation of resources available through relationships which provide benefits to each member of a network. Putnam (1995; 2000) developed the theory further, applying conceptions of social capital to cities and nations, noting how it could be utilised to facilitate coordination and solve collective dilemmas at a larger scale. Putnam’s conception of social capital also categorised differing manifestations of the theory, explaining how it could be for bridging or bonding purposes.

Bridging social capital allows people from across social boundaries to work together for mutual benefit, whereas bonding social capital more readily applies to like- minded groups (Larsen et al, 2004). Putnam’s designation was criticised, with Hall (1999) explaining that despite social capital often being framed as a ‘public good’, it was important to acknowledge that in some instances it can amount to a ‘club good’, closing

16 off access for perceived outsiders and promoting exclusive identities. A prominent example of bonding social capital can be seen in Northern Ireland, which is characterised by sectarian communities with strong religious and political affiliation (Campbell et al,

2008). Relatedly, Devine and Quinn (2019) reported that Derry-Londonderry’s legacy as the 2013 UK City of Culture was compromised due to an inability to produce lasting bridging social capital which could overcome such deeply entrenched division.

The thesis takes two theoretical arguments concerning conceptions of social capital as central tenets of enquiry within the case study. Firstly, Tzanakis’ (2013) criticism of Coleman (1988) and Putnam’s (2000) horizontal framing of social capital will inform the analysis of whether or not vertical inequalities exist within LightNight, with the potential for hierarchies concerning how participants access resources and support within the festival. Event organisers Open Culture decide which applications are approved for the programme, and then subsequently what level of support they will provide to participants to deliver their proposed event. So whether Open Culture ensure equal opportunities and support for those who require it is central to these enquiries, with a particular focus upon the experience of commissioned participants and those organisations and venues with the capacity to host multiple events simultaneously. The second theoretical argument will be based upon Coleman’s (1988) analysis of how social capital ties can be strengthened based on previous association. Such analysis is relevant to those participants who have taken part in LightNight before, or have an existing relationship with Open Culture outside of the festival, and whether they are treated more favourably in regards to the support they receive. Incorporating the experiences of first- time participants will offer further comparative scope to this enquiry.

The second theoretical focus of the thesis relates to the process of festivalization, and strategies to overcome this linked to local specificity. Festivalization is a process that explains how experiences within cities are becoming increasingly similar, owing to the replication of successful and profitable formats within festivals and events (Carlsen et al,

2010). The prominence of festivalization has been amplified as festivals are increasingly utilised as part of culture-led urban regeneration strategies as previously referenced. As

Quinn (2005:932) contends, ‘raising the city’s international profile and attracting visitors seems to have become the raison d’etre of the city festival.’ Such replication of festival 17 and event formats and the experiences within them has resulted in increased feelings of placelessness within cities (Cresswell, 2004). Placelessness is characterised by the distinctiveness of place being significantly reduced, with local cultural identity diluted

(Macleod, 2006; Relph, 1976). The resultant impact of festivalization therefore can be a thinning of the sense of attachment to place, as short-term economic imperatives are positioned ahead of local celebration (Williams et al, 1992). For those festivals that do celebrate their local specificity though, their connection to place can be heightened, with

Chalcraft et al (2014:116) stating that in these instances, the place in question can become ‘an active ingredient’ in a festival’s production and consumption. Arguments pertaining to festivalization thus showcase the potential of site specificity to allay such fears, aligning with an avenue of enquiry applied within the thesis. The next section details the methodological strategy utilised for the fieldwork stage of the research.

1.4 Methodology

The methodological strategy applied within the case study fieldwork incorporates a mixed-methods approach. These methods are documentary analysis, netnography and semi-structured interviews. Alongside the primary stakeholders of the festival such as the organisers Open Culture, funders Culture Liverpool and principal sponsors Liverpool

John Moores University (hereafter LJMU), the vast majority of interviews took place with those directly involved in the events programme, with these participants comprising of artists and performers, alongside representatives from organisations and venues. The total number of respondents interviewed as part of this approach was thirty-two, with the

Open Culture directors and participants interviewed twice, both before and after their festival involvement, in an episodic style. Netnography, or online ethnography (Rokka,

2010), saw the social media interactions of these participants relating to their LightNight involvement observed either side of the festival for a period of approximately five months from March to July 2018. The application of netnography sought to equate the growing diffusion of ‘meaningful experiences and identities’ which research subjects increasingly share online (Morey et al, 2011:200). Finally, documentary analysis initially focussed upon archival research of past editions of the festival, informing the design of sampling typologies to determine research subjects for interview. Subsequently, this method was utilised to analyse previews and reviews of the 2018 festival from local media and cultural 18 commentators, helping to provide additional lines of questioning for interviews alongside evidence of publicity garnered by participants. Subsequently the contribution to knowledge the thesis makes will be explained, providing insight into the wider influence of the research to the academic literature.

1.5 Contribution to knowledge

The thesis addresses five gaps within the academic literature. Firstly in relation to how conceptions of social capital can be utilised to understand arts festival governance, where there are a relatively limited number of festival studies within the academic literature which incorporate the theory into their analysis. For those that do, they focus their enquiry upon the perspective of the festival organisers (Mykletun, 2009), event attendees (Arcodia and Whitford, 2006; Devine and Quinn, 2019; Wilks, 2011) or local communities (Murzyn-Kupisz and Działek, 2013; Raj and Vignali, 2010). This thesis bases its enquiry from a participant perspective predominantly, aligning with the analysis of Brownett (2018) that those directly involved are best placed to provide the requisite detail pertaining to their festival experience. The studies of Glow and Caust (2010) and

Misener (2013) also base their enquiry from a participant perspective, however both focus solely upon the benefits they gain. This thesis will contribute to knowledge through examining how participant’s involvement in festivals is impacted through their relationship with organisers, with Leonard (2004) noting that the role of leaders is often underrepresented within the social capital literature. The focus on these relationships will centre upon the potential for hierarchies or inequalities within networks (Tzanakis, 2013) and whether previous association can strengthen bonds (Coleman, 1988) to provide illustrative examples of conceptions of social capital within the festival.

Secondly, the thesis provides evidence of conceptions of social capital theory predominantly at the scale of individuals and small groups, aligning with the arguments of

Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman (1988). The previously aforementioned festival studies which incorporate social capital into their analysis mainly focus upon the theory in relation to differing stakeholders involvement in the event. For those studies which make reference to the importance of place to conceptions of social capital within festivals however (Arcodia and Whitford, 2006; Derrett, 2003; Devine and Quinn, 2019; Quinn and

Wilks, 2013), they fail to mention the significance of the geographic scale. This thesis therefore will also make a spatial contribution to conceptions of social capital theory within festival studies. The scale at which LightNight operates regarding the number of programmed events each year is purposefully limited by organisers Open Culture, who look to keep the festival at an optimal size which allows them to continue to provide sufficient resources and support to accommodate all participants’ requirements.

Furthermore, Open Culture integrate existing creative communities and cultural quarters of the city within LightNight, aligning each of their individual social capital networks to the benefit of the festival. The organisers herein utilise bonding social capital to bring together these areas which hold commonality through their community of practise within the city’s arts and cultural sectors.

Thirdly, the thesis contributes to methodological knowledge through the application of netnography as part of the mixed-methods approach. The social media posts and interactions of participants concerning their festival involvement are utilised as evidence to support social capital arguments through their use of online platforms to strengthen relationships. The application of netnography over an elongated period of time immediately preceding and following the festival only finds comparison with the studies of

Comunian (2015) and Laurell and Björner (2018), indicating the scope for further enquiry which incorporates this methodology within the festivals literature.

The fourth contribution to knowledge the thesis presents pertains to the development of hybrid sampling strategies to assist in categorising prospective research subjects. Seeking to encompass a wide range of views from the participants of

LightNight, a suitable sampling technique was sought to replicate such variance.

However an analysis of existing sampling typologies from festival studies revealed limitations. Existing study samples grouped festivals based upon their content, longevity or ownership model (Andersson and Getz, 2009; del Barrio et al, 2012; Finkel, 2009;

Williams and Bowdin, 2007) or stakeholders categorised one dimensionally (primary and secondary) without distinction (Getz et al, 2007; Reid and Arcodia, 2002). Finding support through the purposive strategies applied by Devine and Quinn (2019), Olsen (2013),

Quinn and Wilks (2013) and Wilks (2011), a hybrid sampling typology informed by both existing categorisations within LightNight, alongside theoretical considerations which I 20 wished to explore was created. This allowed for participants to be differentiated based upon if they had been commissioned before, their capacity (to host one or more events), along with their longevity within the festival. In regards to the theoretical considerations, being commissioned for LightNight, along with having the capacity to host multiple events, can be linked to the analysis of whether there is vertical inequality within the festival, evidencing social capital hierarchies based upon prominence of event or size within the programme (Tzanakis, 2013). Longevity within the festival on the other hand aligns with the potential for favouritism and strengthened bonds based upon previous association (Coleman, 1988). In this way the sampling strategy was designed purposefully to align the common characteristics of LightNight participants with specific theoretical foci of social capital which I sought to advance upon.

The final contribution to knowledge the thesis provides relates to LightNight providing an illustrative example of Liverpool’s ongoing culture-led re-branding since the turn of the century. A significant proportion of this literature relating to Liverpool’s contemporary focus upon culture is based upon the city’s experience as ECoC (Campbell and O’Brien, 2017; Cocks, 2009; Connolly, 2013; Garcia et al, 2010; Griffiths, 2006;

O’Brien, 2010). Although the thesis does contribute towards this literature, it most clearly aligns with the legacy of the event. The research highlights the path dependency for participants created through their experience of the ECoC year, and festivals and events held subsequently within the city, of which LightNight is a prominent example. While focussing on a single iteration of LightNight as its central case study, the thesis speaks more widely to the day-to-day ways of working for practitioners within the city’s arts and cultural sectors, alongside the interrelated issue of arts funding in the age of austerity.

1.6 Research aim and questions

The overall research aim of the thesis is to investigate how conceptions of social capital theory can be utilised to explain the governance of arts festivals, utilising

LightNight as a case study. To help achieve this overall aim, the enquiry of the subsequent chapters will be guided by the following research questions:

 How has a focus upon place distinguished LightNight, if at all, from processes of

festivalization?

 In which ways does the organisation and governance of a festival such as

LightNight influence the distribution of social capital within it?

 In which ways can netnography be utilised to measure social capital within

festivals?

 Why has Liverpool’s governance focus shifted towards a culture-led regeneration

strategy over the past few decades?

1.7 Chapter Structure

Following this introduction, Chapter 2 details the central theoretical concepts of the thesis. After urban entrepreneurialism and its emergence in the UK under Thatcher is evaluated (Levine, 1987), analysis of why festivals are increasingly utilised as part of culture-led regeneration approaches indicates how successful and profitable formats are replicated as part of festivalization processes. I argue that site specificity is often central to efforts to allay claims of festivalization, integrating local creative communities and cultural quarters to engender notions of civic pride. The chapter concludes with an explanation of social capital, detailing its origins and initial conception at the scale of the individual and families (Bourdieu, 1986), before discussing how the theory has been scaled up to envelop communities and nations (Putnam, 2000). This scaling up of social capital provides pertinent ground for applying the theory to festivals, linked to how both are embedded in conceptions of place. The chapter concludes with a conceptual framework which outlines the ways in which social capital will be utilised within the thesis to investigate the governance of LightNight. Chapter 3 details the methodological approach applied within the thesis, first explaining the theoretical implications of the ownership model of LightNight, and why social capital theory is best represented through a not-for-profit third sector festival. Subsequently the application of documentary analysis, netnography and semi-structured interviews as part of a mixed-methodological approach are explained, alongside the ethical implications of each method with reference to fieldwork experience.

Chapter 4 analyses the development of Liverpool’s economy and politics over recent decades, to the contemporary context whereby culture-led regeneration is now a primary focus of the city council. The historical prominence of Liverpool’s port and the 22 wealth it generated through trade and transit is detailed, before the subsequent impact of deindustrialization upon the city over the course of the twentieth century is explained

(Wilks-Heeg, 2003). The election of the Conservative Party to national government in

1979 is examined, with the policy impositions to facilitate urban entrepreneurialism in the city throughout the 1980s evaluated (Jones and Evans, 2008). At the turn of the century, the impulsive decision to bid for the ECoC 2008 designation is criticised, owing to the lack of necessary consultation or existing cultural infrastructure within the council.

Subsequently the Liverpool Culture Company is analysed in detail, chartering the resignations, restructuring and incoherent artistic strategy which characterised preparations for the ECoC year. The chapter concludes with an evaluation of the outcomes of Liverpool hosting ECoC, namely the creation of the UK City of Culture award and the perception change experienced by local arts and cultural practitioners.

In Chapter 5, Open Culture’s experiences within the Creative Communities

Programme (hereafter CCP) are examined, and showcase how their role as cultural intermediaries, which involved acting as gatekeepers for socially excluded individuals, would inform their future way of working as an independent entity. Open Culture subsequently capitalised upon the city council moving away from direct engagement with local communities through the arts post-ECoC to a more mediated approach, helping to fill this service gap through the creation of LightNight. I argue that despite borrowing formats from popular events, Open Culture have avoided calls of festivalization through the internal variance they apply to the artistic programme of the festival. An analysis of funding within the festival concludes the chapter, both from the perspective of Open

Culture as organisers, and participants regarding the ways in which they offset their in- kind inclusion.

Chapter 6 evaluates Open Culture’s distribution of social capital within LightNight.

Open Culture’s existing reputation within the city’s arts and cultural sectors is examined first, with the aims and values of the organisation helping to build trust, acting as a direct precursor to social capital within the festival. Subsequently the makeup of the LightNight audience and promotion which participants receive are cited, with the caveat that Open

Culture request that participants reciprocate this support by publicising their own involvement. Specifically relating to the organisation and delivery of events, I examine 23

Open Culture’s tailored support for each participant depending upon their requirements, highlighting their knowledge and expertise in facilitating this process. Finally, the significance of place to the festival is evaluated, focussing upon the scale of LightNight and analysing how civic pride is heightened through local specificity, discussing the use of symbolic buildings to alter atmospheres and collective memories to inform audience experience.

Finally in Chapter 7, the conclusion of the thesis is presented, bringing together the key theoretical, methodological and empirical findings, along with a discussion of the implications of the research. The thesis provides clear evidence relating to the research aim, which intends to investigate how conceptions of social capital theory can be utilised to explain the governance of arts festivals, particularly those which are not-for-profit within the third sector. It is my conclusion that the ability of leaders to provide support, access to resources and mobilise networks of contacts is crucial in this regard. With conceptions of social capital theory and arts festivals both being anchored in place, the thesis showcases how a focus upon site specificity helped integrate existing creative communities and cultural quarters into LightNight. Open Culture have purposefully aligned these existing areas under the LightNight banner, and purposefully limited the size of the festival as a means of protecting the current social capital available for participants within it. Recommendations for future study are provided to further the potential impact of the research, including elongating the fieldwork to encompass three or more annual cycles of the festival, allowing for a comparative analysis of participants experience under the scope of social capital.

Chapter 2 – Placing festivals: From culture-led regeneration to social capital

2.1 Introduction

This chapter will explain the conceptual framework utilised to inform the research.

Firstly in section 2.2, the multidisciplinary debates around culture-led urban regeneration and governance will be examined, explaining how many of these trends originated from across the Atlantic, transferred to the UK after initially being implemented in American cities. Secondly in section 2.3, with the thesis having an exploratory focus around arts festivals, processes of festivalization and the resultant impact this can have upon urban placelessness and dilution of identity are analysed. Subsequently strategies to offset these negative consequences are investigated, through focusing upon the local specificity of place, civic identity and experience to engender distinctiveness. Thirdly in section 2.4, conceptions of social capital are explored, drawing on the work of Bourdieu, Coleman and Putnam amongst others, detailing the differing scales at which the theory has been conceived before explaining its resonance to arts festivals.

Within these sections, firstly looking to explain the contemporary proliferation of festivals in UK cities requires an examination of the mode of governance which helped catalyse decades of culture-led urban regeneration. Urban entrepreneurialism (Harvey,

1989) is explained in section 2.2, and refers to the Thatcher-led Conservative national government adopting a policy influence from the Frostbelt cities of America’s north-east during the 1970s and 1980s (Levine, 1987). Culture-led regeneration as an economic development strategy is subsequently introduced, with the example of Glasgow’s year as

ECoC seen as a turning point for deindustrialised cities in the UK (Mooney, 2004). Finally in section 2.2, owing to the longevity of LightNight and Open Culture as an organisation, a conscious research decision was made to focus upon UK arts policy since the national election of the Labour government in 1997. The party’s subsequent ‘New Labour’ approach provides context to the use of arts and culture in tackling social issues at the neighbourhood level (Griffiths, 2001).

Section 2.3 introduces the process of festivalization, whereby imitation of successful formats and characteristics of festivals and events have become 25 commonplace, before explaining the resultant impact this can have, leading to feelings of placelessness (McClinchey, 2008). Subsequently, factors which provide points of differentiation for festivals such as strengthening notions of local identity are detailed

(Johansson and Kociatkiewicz, 2011). This section concludes with a discussion pertaining to atmospheres and how these can be altered (Edensor, 2017), with illustrative examples from light festivals and late night openings showing the impact this can have upon audience experience (Alves, 2007).

Within section 2.4, the origins of social capital at the scale of the individual are explained (Bourdieu, 1986), before analysis of the theory being scaled up to focus on larger collectives by Putnam (2000) takes place. The applicability of conceptions of social capital to arts festivals are heightened through how each is respectively anchored in place, aligned with the importance of integrating local communities to enhance legitimacy

(Finkel, 2010; Quinn and Wilks, 2013). Finally in section 2.5, the conceptual framework outlines the ways in which social capital theory will be used to investigate the governance of LightNight within the thesis. Firstly within this chapter, urban entrepreneurialism as a mode of governance will be explained, analysing its implementation from a United States

(hereafter US) to UK context.

2.2 – Urban Entrepreneurialism: American influence to United Kingdom application

The origins of culture-led urban regeneration in the UK can be traced to the late

1970s, when urban governance moved away from managerial approaches focussing on the provision of public services, towards entrepreneurial practices influenced by the experiences of multiple deindustrialised American cities. As early as 1976, Molotch identified the potential role of American cities as economic machines, with urban conurbations decimated by industrial decline seeking to identify potential catalysts for their post-industrial economic revival. From a situation whereby providing welfare to the local community had been the primary objective, urban governance increasingly became concerned with attracting private capital to stimulate economic development (Boyle and

Hughes, 1994; DiGaetano and Lawless, 1999; Tallon, 2013). Alongside the negative economic impact that deindustrialisation had upon many cities, additional external political and economic conditions such as the erosion of local tax bases, increased

26 competition for jobs and reduction in federal support for urban programmes exacerbated urban decline stateside (Judd and Parkinson, 1989; Keating, 1986; Leitner and Garner,

1993).

Urban governments across America thus became more entrepreneurial in nature, seeking to attract private investment by offering tax breaks and financial incentives on the purchase of downtown land and buildings (Fainstein, 1991). Molotch (1976:310) stated that it was a ‘desire for growth’ which would act as the motivating consensus for those involved in decision making, before warning that this process would inevitably lead to increased competition between cities. With cities in the US being marked by their relative autonomy and strength (owing to the decentralized nature of the state), this allowed them to undertake local economic development with minimal central government intrusion (Cox and Mair, 1988). Pro-growth alliances were formed between business elites who provided capital, and city mayors with political power to levy access to prime downtown sites for development (DiGaetano and Lawless, 1999; Strom, 2002). By the end of the 1980s, having observed the post-industrial economic redevelopment of multiple major American cities, Harvey (1989:4) concluded on ‘a general consensus emerging throughout the advanced capitalist world that positive benefits are to be had by cities taking an entrepreneurial stance to economic development.’

Multiple policy makers and politicians from the UK visited the US cities of

Baltimore and Boston, keen to emulate the city centre and waterfront developments which regenerated their urban cores and diversified their economic function (Loftman and

Nevin, 1995). Levine (1987) in his case study into Baltimore’s downtown regeneration notes that having faced decades of deindustrialisation and fiscal decline, at the beginning of the 1970s city officials created partnerships with private developers, identifying the

Inner Harbour waterfront as a prime development site. The focus of redevelopment in this area was the expansion of office development and commercial activity alongside a number of hotels and convention facilities, intending to create a corporate centre. In

Boston, the city government aligned with private developers to develop the Faneuil Hall-

Quincy Market complex in the mid-1970s, an urban festival hall project which combined architectural renovation alongside an expansion of commercial activity to draw consumers into the central city (Eisinger, 2000). Ganz (1985:453) in his exploration of 27

Boston’s response to economic decline detailed the sharp increases in office employment and construction, concluding that the city had been ‘thriving since the mid-1970s, with substantial growth in employment, largely services based.’ Despite this growth in employment, Ganz (1985) highlighted that the percentage of households living in poverty within the city had increased over the same period. These findings aligned with the conclusion of Loftman and Nevin (1995), who explained that new developments in central

Baltimore and Boston had provided few benefits to the socially and economically deprived surrounding neighbourhoods.

Within the UK, the first indication of a shift from managerial to entrepreneurial approaches of governance was signified by the 1977 Inner City Partnerships White

Paper. This paper represented a commitment to heightening the role of the private sector in the regeneration of inner cities suffering from economic decline exacerbated by deindustrialisation. Although this paper was introduced by a Labour government, marking the beginnings of an entrepreneurial turn, significant changes were applied by the

Conservative Party upon their election to national government in 1979. Lawless (1991) notes how the prominence of the private sector was further increased alongside a reduction in local government power, showcasing the cross party consensus for urban entrepreneurialism which Harvey (1989) alluded to in his findings. This policy represented central government acknowledging that local governments were unable to resolve their problems alone (particularly those ideologically opposed to urban entrepreneurialism), with the partnership working approaches of US cities presenting an attractive and replicable strategy (Tallon, 2013). The shift from managerialism to entrepreneurialism across UK urban governance was consolidated throughout the 1980s, with policy exchange between the UK and US burgeoning through the newly elected Thatcher and

Reagan regimes. In the UK, Urban Development Corporations (hereafter UDCs) were adopted from across the Atlantic, whilst in the US, Enterprise Zones were implemented, heavily influenced by their UK equivalent (Ward, 1996). DiGaetano and Lawless

(1999:569) concluded on these trends that ‘public-private partnership and pro-growth agendas became common to urban governance in both nations.’

Culture-led regeneration as an economic development strategy

Harvey’s (1989) study of the transformation of urban governance from managerialism to entrepreneurialism implies an increase in the prominence of inter-urban competition, showcasing where many subsequent place-making and wider culture-led urban regeneration strategies find their origins. Harvey’s analysis owed much to another component of urban entrepreneurialism, the prestige project, which was transferred from the US to UK context during the 1980s and often contained a cultural focus. As Grodach and Loukaitou-Sideris (2007:353) explain, ‘what began in the late 1970s and early 1980s as public-private ventures to regenerate dying downtowns and create retail spaces in historically themed environments, has exploded into the construction of flagship cultural complexes and spectacular cultural events competing for attention.’ As previously referenced, the original priorities of these developments were office and commercial expansion, with the nationwide construction of convention centres perhaps best illustrating the predominant target clientele (Sanders, 1998). However the opportunity to capitalise upon tourism revenue saw the addition of cultural attractions to these developments, as cities engaged in inter-urban competition looked for markers of differentiation (Grodach and Loukaitou-Sideris, 2007; Strom, 2002). The building of concert halls, heritage parks, museums and other cultural facilities focussed upon consumption evidences the turn towards culture-led regeneration as the primary focus of economic development strategies from the 1980s onwards (Britton, 1991; Eisinger, 2000;

Strom, 2002).

Hall and Hubbard (1996:162) detail how urban settings ‘geared towards consumption rather than production’ increasingly appeared across UK cities, with shopping malls and cultural centres built in an attempt to create a new economic infrastructure away from industry. Of all the policy approaches to urban regeneration which were transferred from the US to the UK during this period, the prestige project was the most visible in regards to physical changes to the cultural infrastructure of cities

(Loftman and Nevin, 1995). The result of the previously referenced downtown redevelopment of Baltimore (Levine, 1987) for instance saw a $22 million investment into waterfront development Harbourplace, including shops, restaurants and markets which attracted 18 million visitors in its first year. Multiple cultural attractions were subsequently 29 constructed to capitalise upon this burgeoning tourist market, showcasing the potential for economic development such projects could catalyse. Falk (1986:145) in his study of

Baltimore’s redevelopment explained that ‘a succession of planners, politicians and property people have gone to Baltimore to look at the Inner Harbour Area, and have come back to try to do something similar in Britain.’

The UK government were keen for cities to capitalise economically through the development of similar projects, with the increasing prominence of public-private partnerships helping to facilitate these plans (Loftman and Nevin, 1995; 1996). Britton

(1991) explains that these projects sought to entice private investment in commercial property and corporate services, yet it was the cultural and leisure aspects which were seen as vital to attract footfall and tourist spend. Loftman and Nevin (1995:300) emphasise how prestige projects became ‘targeted at encouraging investment and changing perceptions of business decision makers and/or potential visitors from outside the locality.’ A prominent example of a prestige project can be found through the regeneration of the Albert Dock in Liverpool (Parkinson, 1988), which will be discussed further in Chapter 4. Taking Loftman and Nevin’s (1995) point further, a key characteristic of urban entrepreneurialism is that it not only incorporates place-making, but place marketing as a strategy for attracting investment and marking distinction within increasingly globalised markets.

The active marketing of cities has increasingly been utilised as a strategy to enhance competitiveness in the UK, particularly ‘in those cities in which the economic effects of restructuring have been most severe’ (Paddison, 1993:340). The marketing of towns and cities in the UK has been common practice for centuries, however (Ward,

2005). Providing prominent illustrative examples, Ward argues that in the early eighteenth century, large spa towns and cities such as Bath, Buxton and Harrogate were actively advertising the health benefits of their retreats to appeal to the elite classes. From the

1830s, the advent of the railway made seaside resorts such as Brighton and Margate increasingly accessible for the working classes, with significant efforts made to market these destinations to day-trippers. Focussing on contemporary applications within the globally mobile tourist economy, reconstituting perceptions of cities through targeted marketing campaigns has become increasingly prevalent. Kavaratzis and Ashworth 30

(2005:507) detail that ‘at its simplest, encounters between cities and their users take place through perceptions and images’, giving credence to why cities which have suffered the most severe decline look to promote new images.

Whilst prestige projects became a key constituent of economic development strategies, an increasing emphasis on the value of culture as a catalyst for growth ran concurrently. The pre-eminent example of the potential of culture-led urban regeneration during this period is Glasgow’s experience as ECoC in 1990. As Garcia (2005) and

Mooney (2004) explain within the context of urban entrepreneurialism, it was Glasgow’s

Labour run city council’s willingness to embrace the private sector and adopt partnership working which endeared their ECoC bid to national government who decided the UK nomination. This bid formed part of a wider cultural strategy, which also included the

‘Glasgow’s Miles Better’ campaign of 1983 and hosting the National Garden Festival in

1988, overhauling the city’s reputation as an attractive place for investment (Mooney,

2004). Griffiths (2006:418) reported that the subsequent impact upon the city’s image and economy was vital, in ‘encouraging other de-industrializing cities to try the cultural capital route to a more secure post-industrial future.’ Urban festivals subsequently became important components of culture-led urban regeneration approaches in UK cities (Getz,

2012; Quinn, 2005).

Alongside the trend of festivals becoming an increasingly utilised component of culture-led urban regeneration strategies, the commodification of culture within inner- cities has also been consolidated through the process of gentrification. Gentrification was first identified through the work of Ruth Glass (1964), who observed a pattern within inner

London of wealthy and well educated people whom she assumed were related to the landed gentry, buying and renovating property, leading to the displacement of working- class residents. Smith (1982) and Zukin (1987) later identified the middle classes as those most prominent in the conversion of working class residential neighbourhoods within central cities. This trend was evident through significant investment by private developers in architectural renovation of property alongside the development of cultural amenities designed to appeal to this cash-rich section of society. Of particular relevance to the thesis is how gentrification can impact upon the commodification of culture within inner-city neighbourhoods, and how this trend is linked to the process of festivalization. 31

As will subsequently be discussed in section 2.3, the process of festivalization relates to the replication of successful and profitable formats of festival and events (Carlsen et al,

2010), commonly resulting in ‘a sanitized version of the city’s cultural landscape’

(Johansson and Kociatkiewicz, 2011:403).

As part of the process of gentrification Zukin (1987; 1995) explains, much of the existing cultural infrastructure built by the displaced working class residents is lost, replaced by sanitized culture which best appeals to the dispositions of the incoming middle class, heightening exclusionary tendencies. Culture is commodified in this way to appease those who actively seek out ‘authentic’ cultural experiences, despite the inherent irony that through gentrification processes, such representative culture is often that which has been replaced (Getz, 2012). Aligned with this commodification of culture, exacerbated by gentrification and festivalization processes is the concept of spectacle, and how this has increasingly become ingrained as an organising principle within modern society. Pinder (2000:361) explores through the work of Debord (1994) how social life is

‘colonised by the commodity’ and ‘saturated in an accumulation of spectacles’, a process accelerated through the diminishing distinction between urban places as they become increasingly homogenised. It can therefore be seen how the process of gentrification is interlinked with the contemporary preoccupation with providing commodified cultural experiences and spectacles within urban centres as part of wider strategies of culture-led regeneration. Despite the abundance of private investment in cultural amenities and experiences within cities catalysed through gentrification however, as the following section details regarding the impact of austerity, public investment in the arts and culture is often vulnerable ‘when the purse strings tighten’ (Smith, 2010:5).

From urban renaissance to arts austerity

Before the election of the Labour Party to national government in 1997, the rhetoric of the Conservative Party’s ‘trickle-down’ economic strategy had been disputed.

Loftman and Nevin (1996:1014) claimed that even in cities which generated increased economic activity and wealth from adopting an entrepreneurial strategy, local authorities were ‘unable to guarantee that growth will provide benefits for local residents.’ Hall and

Hubbard (1996:168) went further, stating that urban entrepreneurialism as a governance

32 approach had failed to alleviate social and economic problems in the UK, focussing in particular upon the ‘neglect of issues of social equity in favour of the prosperity of certain elite groups.’ Once the Labour Party were elected to national government in 1997, they sought to instigate socio-economic change for poorer urban communities as part of their wider cultural policy approach, forming a significant proportion of their presentation as

‘New Labour’ (O’Brien and Miles, 2010). This approach according to Griffiths (2001) and

Griffiths et al (2003) saw a prioritisation of social regeneration through neighbourhood renewal, with access to arts and culture seen as central tenets of a strategy to address urban issues of social exclusion, community building and job creation. One of the barriers to social inclusion which the Labour government removed was to abolish charges to enter national museums and galleries, with visitor numbers to these institutions subsequently increasing dramatically (Hesmondhalgh et al, 2015).

This policy commitment to access to arts and cultural programmes equated to the doubling of government funding directed through the National Lottery and Arts Council

England (hereafter ACE) (Pratt, 2010). This funding commitment was one which drew criticism from multiple scholars, with Belfiore (2002) questioning whether such an approach works in practise. Hewitt (2011) explained that issues pertaining to the ‘top- down’ nature of the delivery of this funding and focus on access to the arts were criticised as a public relations exercise, despite ‘the spread of a new language, of social capital, community capacity and holistic approaches’ (Griffiths, 2001:4). Caust (2003:58) stated that below the public relations facade, there was a clear message, with ‘no equivocation…the transaction between the government and the arts sector is about the artists pursuing the government’s objectives.’

With the Labour government having an explicit strategy on how it sought to improve social inclusion through arts and culture, subsequently practitioners and organisations were required to include clear examples of how these aims would be achieved as part of their funding applications (Bertelli et al, 2014). Hetherington

(2017:486) summarised the situation, stating that if the treasury’s conditions for funding the Department for Culture, Media and Sport were then passed down through ACE, ‘to what degree do artists then remain free from Government direction?’ Further criticism was levelled at New Labour’s ‘one size fits all’ approach to social inclusion through 33 access to the arts by Macleod (2006), as this strategy failed to take into account the diversity of urban communities across the country, with the prescribed universal approach described as naïve. Therefore despite the overriding headline of the Labour government doubling national funding for the arts and culture, this investment had implicit terms and conditions attached, which were not popular with those bidding during this period

(Hesmondhalgh et al, 2015).

Although the Labour Party lost power in 2010, with a Conservative and Liberal

Democrat coalition government taking over, of particular relevance to contemporary funding commitments to arts and culture was the global financial market crash of 2008.

The incoming coalition government quickly committed to austerity measures in an attempt to mitigate the impacts of the economic downturn, resulting in a significant reduction in public spending levels. Before the financial crash, over 50% of funding for the arts in the

UK came from the public sector (Smith, 2010), which was termed a ‘bedrock of support’

(Holden, 2007:1). However despite the mix of funding that the Labour Party built representing a proportionally higher public contribution than under any previous government, the largest portion of funding for the arts remains privately sourced

(Hetherington, 2017). The UK experience stands in contrast here to trends in Europe, where public funding for arts and culture is often written into the constitution, as is the case in Germany, albeit with admission fees for national museums and galleries (Smith,

2010). In the short term, the budget for ACE was reduced by 29.6% between 2010-2014, with the organisation’s ongoing funding programme replaced in 2012 with ‘National

Portfolio’ funding, as a way of encouraging competition (Alexander, 2018a).

This reduction in funding for the arts as part of national austerity measures helps frame the concept of path dependency and its application within the thesis. Path dependency is a conceptual framework most closely associated with economics, and originates from the understanding that economic analysis must be studied within a wider historical context (Gartland, 2005). Path dependency is therefore based on the assumption that specific ‘pathways’ of change are directly influenced by past events and the social memory attached to these (Wilson, 2014). Away from the association with economics, path dependency has become increasingly prevalent within other disciplines ranging from planning and public policy to humanities and wider social sciences. Booth 34

(2011:20) explains that path dependency has been applied within such a range of contexts as it appears to ‘offer a rational way of interpreting historical phenomena and explaining the influence of past events.’ Path dependency within the thesis is relevant to the increasingly entrepreneurial practices of local arts and cultural practitioners within

Liverpool since the city hosted the 2008 ECoC designation. The collective experience and memory of Liverpool’s ECoC year by practitioners (whether directly involved in the events programme or not) has subsequently impacted upon the increase in resiliency and adaptability for those working within the cities arts and cultural sectors (Andres and

Round, 2015). This framing of the impact of the ECoC year upon local practitioners links to Wilson’s (2014:23) analysis that learning through past experiences ‘influences future resilience pathways.’

The reference to resilience is also relevant to how the ‘pathways’ taken by local arts and cultural practitioners since ECoC has been directly influenced by a period of arts austerity resulting from the global financial market crash (Alexander, 2018a; Smith,

2010). It is within this context that path dependency is connected to conceptions of social capital within the thesis. Although Liverpool’s year as ECoC was directly linked to the city’s ongoing culture-led regeneration strategy, the period of austerity since has placed increasing pressures upon local arts and cultural practitioners. Therefore it is argued that through an increased dependence on attributes of social capital such as collaboration, reciprocity and trust, practitioners have been able to achieve both individual aims and collective endeavours in the absence of funding, influenced by the ‘pathway’ created through the experience and memory of ECoC. Despite the relevance of arts austerity to conceptions of path dependency which will be presented within the thesis however, efforts to reduce public funding to the arts in the UK far predate the austerity induced measures implemented post-2008 (Belfiore, 2015).

The language of encouraging competition in grant seeking aligns with the competitive bidding schemes introduced during the 1990s by the Conservative government such as City Challenge and the Single Regeneration Budget. These schemes, Oatley (1995) states, were seen as a way of promoting an entrepreneurial approach to urban governance (disguising the fact that these schemes represented overall cuts to public funding), with this argument resonating with the contemporary 35 expectations of those bidding for ACE funding. Like the competitive bidding schemes of the 1990s which encouraged partnership working, securing ACE funding is now partly dependent on applicants sourcing additional funding from the private sector. Even before they came to power in 1979, the Conservative Party had long supported the idea of reducing public funding for the arts, advocating a significant increase in private sector sponsorship as far back as 1959 (Quinn, 1997). Once the Conservative Party were elected to national government in 1979, although annual public funding to ACE continued to increase on paper, adjusted to inflation, this predominantly represented a decrease, with the tradition of relying upon public subsidy changing significantly (Shaw, 1993). With

ACE being financially sustained by national government and having no other means to raise income independently, the organisation began to recommend that applicants look towards the private sector for additional funding to bridge this shortfall (Quinn, 1997).

Since the advent of this approach by the Thatcher-led government, prospective applicants have been encouraged to rely less upon the public sector, and align closely with changing ACE criteria in order to receive funding. ACE applicants are now encouraged, alongside securing a proportion of private sector sponsorship, to engage in neoliberal business management practices such as formal planning and target setting to ensure eligibility for grants (Alexander, 2018a). The provision of grants to arts practitioners and organisations is thus no longer based upon need or creative activity alone, but the ability to effectively administrate through grant writing, email and networking (Jones and Warren, 2016). Despite Prime Minister Thatcher necessitating that business management practices be employed by those in receipt of funding, the measurable evidence of economic value or impact which this has subsequently created has had little influence upon encouraging increased public spending on the arts (Belfiore,

2015). Despite the strategy of the Conservative government at this time, it remains widely acknowledged that in the UK, it is the foundation of public money for the arts which helps attract and maintain private sector interest and investment (Hetherington, 2017; Smith,

2010). Subsequently the process of festivalization will be introduced, exploring its resonance to trends appearing within UK cities.

2.3 – Festivalization and the significance of place

As part of the strategy of UK cities increasingly implementing culture-led regeneration for economic development purposes, alongside the place-making and marketing approaches previously referenced, hosting festivals has also been identified as a potential panacea for urban areas looking to catalyse their post-industrial economies.

Quinn (2005:931) explains that festivals became ‘construed as entrepreneurial displays, as image creators capable of attracting significant flows of increasingly mobile capital, people and services.’ Chronicling the development of festivals since their agrarian origins through to their contemporary urban hybridity in the UK is thus pertinent here. Ros Derrett

(2004:33) states that the term festival ‘derives from feast and implies a time of celebration.’ These celebrations were closely linked to the agrarian calendar, and dependent on the success of harvest yields, with traditional rituals and local identities reaffirmed during community feasts (Picard, 2016; Sassatelli, 2011). Getz (2012:51) framing the contemporary definition of festivals as ‘themed, public celebrations’, still holds pertinence today to these origins of the term.

Picard and Robinson’s (2006) book, which explores the links between tourism and festivals, places the origins of urban festivals in their contemporary form, with focus on arts and culture, in the cultural festivals held in European cities throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. They contend that these festivals, consumed on grand tours across the continent by the UK elite class, showcased distinct cultural and social identities closely related to the city and region in which they were held. These festivals presented the local ‘high’ culture, with opera, theatre and art housed within grandiose architecture (Quinn, 2013). When travelling elites subsequently returned to the

UK, their experiences directly influenced cities’ attempts to build upon their existing cultural infrastructure. Jamieson (2004) stated for example that during the eighteenth century, Edinburgh became known as ‘Athens of the North’ owing to its lavish architecture and monuments built across this period. Despite such ‘high’ culture being perceived as exclusionary for the majority of the population outside of the elite class, this remained the predominant focus of urban festivals in the pre-war era, with little sign of oppositional culture, which would emerge in the second half of the twentieth century

(Quinn, 2005). 37

Following the end of WWII, equivalence and access became the focus of cultural policy in the UK, as politicians accepted that significant state contributions to exclusive forms of art and culture were no longer justifiable, based as they were on the aesthetic judgements of an elite minority (Belfiore, 2002). Finkel (2009) states that during this period, festivals once again became communal celebratory events, in line with their original intention. The content and purpose of festivals evolved throughout the 1960s and

1970s, driven by young people and the growth of broader social movements throughout the Western world such as anti-war campaigns, environmentalism and feminism (Quinn,

2005). As the twentieth century progressed further, following decades of decline for many

UK cities owing to the global reorganization of production strongholds, subsequent urban regeneration strategies placed culture as a key pillar of their policy approach, as detailed in section 2.2.

Despite post-war sentiments presenting arts festivals as a public good, the tactic of utilising culture as a component of urban regeneration strategies in UK cities was principally aimed at stimulating economic recovery (Sassatelli, 2011). Van Aalst and van

Melik (2012:196) explained in their study of festivals and urban development that national governments understood how such events provided a unique opportunity as part of wider place-making strategies, operating ‘at the interface of art and culture, the media, tourism and recreation.’ Contemporary urban arts festivals endeavour to provide multiple performance types within their events programme, as a means to increase their vitality and heighten audience experience (Finkel, 2009). Regarding place-making strategies which encompass festivals, the contained and circumstantial gaze which they provide can be capitalised upon in global marketing campaigns and tourist literature as representative of the entire city, with urban festivals providing ‘a ready-made set of positive images’

(Quinn, 2005:932). Getz (2012:26) however is definitive in his conclusions on contemporary urban festivals, stating that their prioritisation of economic means above all else has seen them become ‘utilised by the public and private sectors as commodities to be created or purchased as needed.’

Festivalization: ‘Overbearing sameness’ and the dilution of identity

‘imitation rather than innovation is common in festivals, with very few understanding the core values of their festival that could provide the unique selling point and basis for differentiation’ (Carlsen et al, 2010:129).

Over the last few decades, complaints relating to UK cities have highlighted the fact that these urban centres increasingly look the same, with distinct architectural identity lost at the hands of developers (Miles, 2010). The way in which cities have been represented through place marketing strategies has also been criticised, with unrealistic image perceptions created for tourists far away from the lived experience of host communities

(Britton, 1991). The process of festivalization maligns the fact that experiences within cities are becoming increasingly similar, with specific formats and characteristics of festivals and events replicated when successful and/or profitable. Wynn and Yetis-

Bayraktar (2016:204) here make an explicit link to events being used in this way as part of wider experience economies (Pine and Gilmore 1998; 1999), ‘as a potent blend of place marketing and cultural consumption via accessible and resonant imagery and visceral encounters.’ Négrier (2015:19) differentiates festivalization as not only relating to the proliferation of festivals found within contemporary cities, ‘but also from some

‘eventalisation’ of regular, cultural offers.’ Picking upon the same thread as Négrier,

Jakob (2012:448) terms the phenomenon ‘eventification’, defined as ‘the process with which the consumption of products and space is turned into an event.’

An example of festivalization within the UK can be seen through the annual

German markets held in the weeks preceding Christmas each year. These markets sell the same food, drink and crafts offer in the majority of towns and cities across the country, offering little in the way of differentiation or local distinctiveness (Warnaby,

2013). The proliferation of such popular formats leads to a situation of inauthentic urban places (Zukin, 2010). Zukin’s theoretical forebearer Jane Jacobs (1961:245) warned that

‘duplication of the most profitable use is undermining the base of its own attraction.’ The process of festivalization thus reduces place distinctiveness to an extent whereby cities that continue with such strategies are in danger of becoming essentially placeless

(McClinchey, 2008). Placelessness was originally defined by Relph (1976:6) as ‘the weakening of distinct and diverse experiences and identities of places,’ holding

39 pertinence to contemporary understandings of festivalization. Set against this trend though, there are examples of festivals and events which look to combat the process of festivalization through local specificity.

Combating festivalization through civic pride and experience

There are an abundance of studies which showcase how calls of festivalization can be overcome through an increased emphasis upon place, highlighting local specificity to generate civic pride through festivals (Derrett, 2003; 2004; Finkel, 2010; Getz and

Andersson, 2008; Lee et al, 2012; McClinchey, 2008; Picard, 2016; Raj and Vignali,

2010). This increased emphasis upon place, particularly its identifying structure, character and culture can be shaped by the open networks that intersect and augment around and through it (Massey, 1994). Arts festivals thus have the potential to draw upon distinctly local characteristics as markers of differentiation, and alter conceptions of sense of place. The term sense of place refers to the feelings that individuals and communities collectively hold regarding the areas in which they live, work and socialise (Derrett, 2003).

Festivals which utilise locations and buildings purposefully as part of the performativity of their programme can challenge preconceived notions, as ‘previous spatial functionalities become hidden and forgotten, signs become meaningless, directions reverse, boundaries cease to be bound’ (Picard and Robinson, 2006:11). Liu (2014:995) argues that in such instances, the goal should be for ‘a strong symbiotic relationship’ to be created between the festival and the location in which it is staged.

Festivals utilised in this way can be crucial to ‘express the relationship between identity and place and play a very important role in raising civic consciousness’ (Raj and

Vignali, 2010:52). Such analysis corresponds with Williams et al’s (1992) study of attachment to place, in how when new meanings are imposed onto places, this can impact upon how they are subsequently valued by those who utilise them. The involvement of local communities with the development and production of festivals for instance can have a significant impact upon the civic pride generated. Looking at the

Manchester Day parade, Symons (2016a; 2016b) focussed on how through the active involvement of local communities, collective identities can be represented. As part of preparations for Manchester Day, artists are assigned to work alongside local

40 communities to help develop and realise their ideas, with these communities then performing as part of the parade. Quinn (2005) argues that the integration of local communities into festivals can thus strengthen the civic pride of those involved, however acknowledges that opportunities for engagement are often limited, resulting in a predominance of idealised and sanitised culture on display.

Another strategy utilised to provide differentiation within festivals is to focus upon the audience experience. Britton (1991:454) argues that throughout the cultural sector there is a search for ‘novelty and alternative experiences.’ Of particular focus for festival differentiation is how the places in which they are located can be portrayed and experienced. Sense of place for instance can be directly formed through notions of nostalgia or memory (Massey, 1994), with Lee et al (2012) arguing that festival organisers could make more of the symbolic places in which their events take place.

Experience within places can be both an individual or collective phenomenon. Pine and

Gilmore (1998:99) reason that ‘experiences are inherently personal, existing only in the mind of an individual who has been engaged on an emotional, physical, intellectual, or even spiritual level.’ However for experiences directly linked to specific places, there is potential for communal experience. Such association with a particular space or building, for example as Relph (1976:43) explains, can ‘constitute a vital source of both individual and cultural identity and security.’

A further way in which festivals and events can be utilised to play upon such existing ties to place is through attempts to alter atmosphere, providing a multitude of sensory experiences to provoke deeper engagement with audiences. As Sassatelli

(2011:18) explains, it has become important for festival organisers to ‘create the sense of unique, one-off experiences, for which it is important to say “I was there.”’ Atmospheres can be produced and altered through a host of constituents, including the weather, sound, time of day, architectural forms, sensations and interactions (Edensor, 2015a). In common with the case study selected for the thesis, which incorporates light illuminations and installations, Edensor’s arguments are often portrayed through examples of light festivals. He explains how light illuminations utilised within festivals ‘can transform the experience of space and time, defamiliarizing and augmenting a sense of place, and consequently charging atmospheres with occasionally overwhelming effects’ (Edensor, 41

2017:150). The reference to ‘charging atmospheres’ aligns well with Pine and Gilmore’s

(1998) conclusions on how to create notable experiences, concluding that the higher the number of senses which are engaged, the more memorable it will be for audiences.

The proliferation of light festivals and late night events in cities provide prominent examples of how atmospheres can be altered to heighten the experience of audiences

(Evans, 2010; 2012). Alves (2007), Diack (2012) and Dumbrăveanu et al (2014) place the origins of light festivals as Paris’ Nuit Blanche (White Night) event, which was first held in

2002. Nuit Blanche features a number of large art and light installations, encouraging the exploration of central neighbourhoods at night, seeking to promote notions of civic pride.

Klaic (2014:69) states that such festivals ‘enliven their experiences of negotiating the public space of the city’, referencing the promotion of conceptions of safety in the night- time city. Giordano and Ong (2017) on the other hand denote that the first light festival actually took place in Lyon, the Fête des Lumières (Festival of Light), before highlighting that over one hundred similar festivals now regularly take place in cities across the world.

Although less prominent within the literature, the hosting of late night openings of museums, galleries and other cultural institutions is chronicled by Dumbrăveanu et al

(2014) and Schaller (2011), with Evans (2012) placing the origins of such coordinated events to the longstanding Lange Nacht der Museen (Long Night of Museums) held annually in Berlin since 1997. As well as these events utilising the evening and night to affect atmosphere relating to time of day and diminishing daylight, their single night duration also contributes to audience experience, creating a premise of urgency (Reckitt,

2013). The focus of these events on the specific spaces and buildings utilised, alongside how experiences can be heightened, helps contribute towards their local specificity, in direct contrast to processes of festivalization. Festivals local specificity can also be engendered through the relationships formed within them, through the way in which they are governed by organisers. The following section will explore the theory of social capital and its relevance to understanding relationships formed within arts festivals. This firstly requires social capital to be introduced as the main conceptual focus of the thesis, exploring its origins and differing conceptions relating to scale.

2.4 – Social capital and festivals

A festival represents a network of relationships, aiming towards a shared goal of delivering the event and ensuring its success, holding commonality here with conceptions of social capital theory. Festivals can be framed as temporary networks, which incorporate artists, funders, organisers, performers, sponsors, venues, volunteers and more. With this number of stakeholders directly involved, social capital is being increasingly recognised as an important theory in relation to festival governance, with a wide array of priorities and requirements needing to be managed and catered for, as

Jordan (2015) explores in her study of festival leadership. In their examination of social capital and festival attendance, Arcodia and Whitford (2006:12) explain how ‘the development of a common social purpose may conceivably be achieved through festivals.’ The potential of social capital as a tool for further understanding the relationships formed within festivals is becoming increasingly recognised in academic research (Devine and Quinn, 2019; Quinn and Wilks, 2013). However the origins of social capital theory come from a differing perspective unrelated to the potential relevance to festival analysis which will subsequently be explored.

The first definition of social capital was attributed by Portes (1998) to Pierre

Bourdieu (1986), who had initially published his analysis of the concept in French in 1980.

Bourdieu (1986:248) explained social capital as:

‘the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition…which provides each of its members with the backing of the collectively-owned capital.’

Bourdieu (1986) sought to distinguish between different forms of capital, focussing upon cultural capital and social capital, arguing that both were reducible to personal economic gain. As Leonard (2004:930) explains, Bourdieu gave primacy to economic capital, as he believed that ‘economically privileged individuals have the financial resources to fund the development of cultural capital and their privileged position can be utilized to create social capital.’ Key in Bourdieu’s reasoning Portes and Landolt (2000:531) argue, is that social capital ‘can seldom be acquired without the investment of some material resources and the possession of some cultural knowledge, enabling the individual to establish relations

43 with valued others.’ Bourdieu (1986:246) argued that cultural capital represented ‘the best hidden form of hereditary transmission of capital’, relating to family upbringing (imparting values and outlooks) alongside the ability to facilitate, and prolong, a child’s access to education, freeing them from economic necessity (i.e. the labour market) (Portes, 1998;

2000).

Owing to the primacy Bourdieu (1986) places on economic capital within his analysis however, it is explicitly implied that within class-divided societies, ‘actors are unequal in possessing and activating their resources’ (Tzanakis, 2013:3). Inherent within

Bourdieu’s presentation of social capital therefore is a purported ‘dark side’ to the theory, regarding the reproduction of unequal class structures and how this links to questions of hierarchy. Aligning with Portes and Landolt’s (2000) analysis of Bourdieu, that acquiring social capital requires a base level of cultural capital, Mohan and Mohan (2002:192) explain that possessing such cultural resources and skills is ‘necessary to participate in elite social interactions.’ Bourdieu (1986:245) openly acknowledges that not all people

‘have the economic and cultural means for prolonging their children’s education beyond the minimum necessary’ in relation to accumulating cultural capital, whist recognising that higher qualifications undoubtedly provide increased access to higher powered and paid positions within the labour market. Framing cultural or social capital as a collective good then clearly disregards the ability of individual actors with existing levels of cultural and social capital to take advantage of their capacity for personal gain (Shucksmith, 2000).

The ‘dark side’ of social capital therefore principally relates to inequality regarding access, with Tzanakis (2013:5) summarising that ‘Bourdieu sees social capital as a scarce resource. It is therefore a mechanism of class reproduction that perpetuates structured inequality.’

Although making no reference to Bourdieu in his analysis, James Coleman

(1988:98) applies social capital in a similar way, explaining that it resides within social relationships and is productive, ‘making possible the achievement of certain ends that in its absence would not be possible.’ Beyond this instrumental purpose however, Flora

(1998:488) marks differentiation between their respective approaches relating to the motivation of individual interest from social capital, stating that in comparison to Bourdieu,

Coleman ‘assumes that interests can eventually be harmonized.’ Detailing this belief, 44

Coleman (1988:104) states that a ‘prescriptive norm’ of social capital is that ‘one should forgo self-interest and act in the interests of the collectivity.’ In clarifying the concept of social capital, Coleman identifies three forms. Alongside the aforementioned norms, which introduce sanctions and rules to reduce externalities, Coleman also noted forms of obligations and information-flow capability.

Obligations relate to the trustworthiness of social relations, either between individuals or as part of wider networks, and the expectations that arise from them, such as reciprocity. Information-flow on the other hand provides a basis for action, utilising social relations that are predominantly maintained for other purposes to acquire useful information (Coleman, 1988). Particularly important for Coleman, in framing the forms of social capital relating to norms and obligations, are that these occur within closed social structures. Coleman believes that norms and obligations can be more effectively established and maintained within closed structures, where a basis of collective trust can be better sustained. Tzanakis (2013:5) criticises Coleman’s basis for closure on two counts however. Firstly, that closure is ‘neither needed or desired’ when members are searching for or obtaining resources outside of their immediate network, and secondly, because networks in themselves ‘are becoming more open-ended resulting in less dense, close-knit relationships.’ Coleman also believed that conceptions of social capital can thrive when relations are established purposefully and provide benefits over a sustained period, strengthening bonds over time. This point will form one of the central theoretical foci of the thesis, regarding if participants longevity within LightNight impacts upon their relationship with organisers Open Culture, potentially resulting in favourable support.

To summarise, despite benefits accrued to the individual forming Bourdieu’s social capital framing, Coleman believes that social capital represents a bonding mechanism, whereby individual interests can be harmonized, pointing towards a belief that conceptually, the theory can be utilised to encompass larger groups. Although the benefits accrued by the individual undoubtedly serve as an important precursor, the influence of scaling up conceptions of social capital will now be discussed. This sub- section will introduce further conceptual framings which will be utilised throughout the thesis to analyse participant-organiser relationships within LightNight.

Changing notions of social capital: Scaling up the theory

Despite similarities in early framings of social capital between Bourdieu and

Coleman relating to the benefits at the scale of the individual and small collectives, subsequent understandings of the theory would see conceptions scaled up to encompass entire communities and nations. Robert Putnam (1995:67) defined social capital as

‘features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit.’ Putnam framed his assessment of social capital around how it could be used purposefully, for ‘dilemmas of collective action to be resolved’ (Putnam, 1995:67), however at a scale far beyond what Coleman had originally envisaged. Putnam’s principle argument within Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (2000), was that social capital in America had declined significantly since the 1960s, owing to a range of factors including generational succession, the rise of television, urban sprawl and increasing pressures upon individuals’ time and money.

The reference to ‘bowling alone’ came from Putnam’s (1995:70) earlier finding that ‘between 1980 and 1993 the total number of bowlers in America increased by 10 per cent, while league bowling decreased by 40 per cent’, resulting in a drop in social interaction and civic conversation associated with organised leagues. Beyond bowling leagues, Putnam utilised examples of literary societies, political clubs and voluntary associations, illustrating the decline in membership in these structures over a number of decades, evidenced through census and survey data (Fukuyama, 2001). The use of census and survey data to substantiate these arguments is something which Leonard

(2004:929) takes umbrage with, criticising how Putnam presents ‘very little empirical evidence of communities exhibiting high levels of social capital.’ Furthermore, beyond providing illustrative examples of this purported decline in social capital across America,

Portes (2000) notes that Putnam offers little in the form of explanation for these drops in involvement and membership.

Putnam’s scaling up of the theory, as a collective property of cities and nations creates problems regarding a singular definition of social capital. Portes and Landolt

(2000:534) state that Putnam’s framing ‘is qualitatively distinct from its individual version,’

46 as it is used to characterise entire communities rather than the inter-sum of individual social relations. Tzanakis’ (2013) comparative article on Bourdieu’s, Coleman’s and

Putnam’s conceptions of social capital illustrates this problem in creating a universal definition of the theory, based around their differing ideologies. From the outset, Tzanakis

(2013:2) makes clear his belief that ‘social capital works best as an individual-level concept, which loses much of its intended heuristic utility if it is automatically elevated to characterize communities, nations or parts of the globe.’ Tzanakis’ argument here displays a pre-emptive indication that he does not agree with Putnam’s framing of the theory, aligning with the studies of Foley and Edwards (1999) and Swain (2003) which criticise the lack of a methodological mechanism through which such aggregation can be justified. First focussing on the arguments of Bourdieu, Tzanakis discusses his previously referenced framing of social capital as a scarce resource, before acknowledging his understanding of the distinct inequality created for actors with insufficient economic and cultural capital in the competition for finite resources. Moving onto Coleman, Tzanakis is critical of his horizontal understanding of social capital. Unlike Bourdieu who recognises the potential for vertical inequalities, Coleman’s insistence upon the potential for collective interests to be harmonized fails to take into consideration those actors with existing cultural, economic or social capital, and how this enables them to potentially exploit such disparity to benefit their own ends.

Tzanakis finally turns to Putnam, and explains his apprehension in framing social capital as a collective trait of larger populations such as cities and nations. Despite the predominant focus of his framing applying to larger aggregates, Putnam (2000:19) acknowledges that in its most basic form, social capital relates to ‘connections amongst individuals…the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them.’ What

Tzanakis (2013:6) questions however, is whether such norms can be universally scaled up, so that ‘social capital becomes a collective trait functioning at the aggregate level.’ At the scale which Putnam frames his conception of social capital Harris and de Renzio

(1997:926) summarise, ‘the problem seems to lie in an unquestioned acceptance of the

‘public good’ nature of social capital.’ The negative manifestations of social capital theory are a point which multiple scholars have criticised Putnam for failing to engage with

(Leonard, 2004; Mohan and Mohan, 2002; Portes, 1998). In common with Coleman

47 therefore, Putnam is criticised by Tzanakis based upon his failure to acknowledge the potential for inequality through the theory, particularly considering the significant scale at which Putnam posits social capital. This criticism of failing to recognise the potential for vertical inequalities within networks will form another tenet of social capital theory explored within the thesis, identifying whether hierarchies exist within LightNight, based on the potential unequal distribution of resources and support to participants.

Further challenging Putnam’s findings, Hall (1999:457) argues that social capital can indeed be thought of as a ‘public good’, yet it is important to acknowledge that it can also be depicted as a ‘club good’, as many of its benefits are only accessible to those already within the network. Although Putnam (2000) does state that it is important to ask how positive consequences of social capital theory can be maximized and negative manifestations minimized, he does not suggest any resolutions to these. One of the ways in which potential negative manifestations of social capital can be illustrated however is through another component of Putnam’s conception of the theory, specifically relating to how it can be for either bonding or bridging purposes. Bonding social capital, Putnam

(2000:190) explains, can be evidenced through social relations which are ‘inward looking and tend to reinforce exclusive identities and homogenous groups’ whereas bridging social capital has the potential to ‘encompass people across diverse social cleavages.’

Looking critically at this explanation of bonding social capital, Leonard (2004:929) maligns how Putnam ‘ignores the downside of community life’ by seeing such groups as homogenous, not acknowledging the potential negative features of altruism and reciprocity which can exhibit self-interest. Graeff (2009) takes Leonard’s conclusion further, explaining how there is significant evidence of bonding ties within groups which bring negative societal consequences. Providing illustrative examples, Portes (1998:18) highlights gambling rings, organised crime and youth gangs as examples of how embeddedness within bonding social capital ‘can be turned to less than socially desirable ends.’ Larsen et al (2004) also identify that bonding social capital is more readily apparent within communities who share ethnicity or religion for example, reinforcing notions of potential exclusion for outsiders.

An illustrative example of bonding social capital within communities who share religion (alongside politics) can be found through Campbell et al’s (2008) study into 48

Northern Ireland. Campbell et al (2008:25) termed the social capital found as ‘perverse’, with communities intentionally ‘isolated, sectarian or working in contradiction to the collective interests of society’, owing to embedded religious and political affiliation. The study found that in such sectarian societies, there were incredibly strong levels of bonding social capital, however extremely low levels of bridging social capital between rival groups. Leonard (2004) in her study of social capital in Belfast presented similar findings. She explained that owing to entrenched religious and political attachments, the potential for bridging ties are extremely limited. What prevents bridging social capital from occurring in such societies is suspicion and lack of trust of other rival networks (Harriss and de Renzio, 1997).

The findings from the above Northern Ireland case studies would appear to contradict the outlook of Putnam concerning the transition from bonding to bridging social capital. Putnam’s (2000) belief is that when individuals within groups inscribed with bonding social capital attempt to develop bridging ties, the whole group will benefit. This outlook Leonard (2004:929) concludes however, is ‘flawed because he fails to recognize that bridging social capital also has exclusionary aspects.’ Reverting back to Bourdieu’s original conception of social capital, it is argued that actors with existing cultural, economic or social capital are better placed to establish valued relations with others. This framing aligns well with Leonard’s criticism, as many actors are thus excluded from the process of creating bridging ties as they do not hold the requisite capital to access valued others. For those actors inscribed with sufficient levels of capital to make bridging ties, it is argued that they are more likely to individually benefit from these relations rather than the entire community from which they originated, breeding further inequality (Leonard,

2004). Despite the criticism aimed at Putnam’s framings of bonding and bridging social capital, these will be taken forward as analytic tools within the subsequent empirical chapters to assist in differentiating between the structure of relationships formed within

LightNight, whilst also evaluating the influence which organisers Open Culture have in facilitating these. The applicability of social capital theory to arts festivals has further points of pertinence which will now be discussed.

Framing the theory: Application to arts festivals

Summarising festival studies which incorporate conceptions of social capital into their analysis, Mykletun (2009) applies the theory solely from the perspective of festival organisers, Arcodia and Whitford (2006), Devine and Quinn (2019) and Wilks (2011) focus on the outcomes for attendees, whereas Murzyn-Kupisz and Działek (2013) and

Raj and Vignali (2010) place emphasis upon local communities. Only the studies of Glow and Caust (2010) and Misener (2013) base their research upon participant perspectives.

Glow and Caust’s (2010) research focusses on the short-term outcomes for artists taking part in the Adelaide Fringe, whereas Misener’s (2013) study frames the application of social capital within events in regards to the benefits that participants can accrue. Both studies however fall short of analysing the role that organisers play in the experience of participants, something which this thesis will focus on.

One of the most prominent arguments relating to the applicability of social capital theory to arts festivals relates to how both are respectively anchored in place. As previously discussed, social capital theory was scaled up from Bourdieu’s designation relating to benefits accrued by the individual, to Putnam’s city and nation focussed conception, illustrating the potential adaptation for a strong place-based focus. Arts festivals are also anchored to a specific place, and often look to involve local communities, as previously discussed in section 2.3. Finkel’s (2010) case study into conceptions of social capital at the Up Helly Aa festival in the Shetland Islands, found that festivals can prove beneficial to communities through the collective shared experience and celebration they engender, particularly when they are integrated into planning and delivery. The place in which a festival is held can thus act as the anchor for relationships between stakeholders, providing the basis for communal trust (Quinn and Wilks, 2013).

Within the UK, however, there are examples of place having a negative impact regarding festivals and conceptions of social capital. In their recent post-event study of Derry-

Londonderry’s experience as 2013 UK City of Culture, Devine and Quinn (2019) explain that the lack of legacy planning limited the potential for lasting bridging social capital from the event, in a city defined by deeply entrenched sectarian division.

Such discussion of the importance of place and community illustrate that the types of festivals that engender social capital are those not primarily focussed upon economic returns. This analysis aligns with the view of Putnam (2000:411), that ‘social capital is often a valuable by-product of cultural activities whose main purpose is purely artistic.’ The perceived action of holding a festival as a locally focussed community service ensures that these events gain moral legitimacy and acceptance from the general public (Larson et al, 2015). Focussing upon third sector festivals and the role of community enterprises, Bailey (2012:3) finds that such organisations often ‘emerge out of communities, promote specific values and aim to deliver local benefits.’ These founding principles align well with those who approach festival design from a ‘bottom-up’ perspective, promoting sustainable community-based networks in the process (Getz and

Andersson, 2008).

Of specific relevance to the thesis and conceptions of social capital theory to arts festivals are debates relating to leadership. Leonard (2004:939) states that within the social capital literature, the importance of leadership is often underplayed, explaining that this trend goes against Bourdieu’s (1986) analysis, which she summarises as ‘the communal social capital of a group is concentrated in its representatives or leaders.’

Within Leonard’s (2004) Belfast case study, she explains that it has become the responsibility of political leaders to connect informal community groups to more formal institutional networks. Likewise, Purdue (2001) argues that community leaders play an important role in forming partnerships with external elite groups, providing evidence of their role in facilitating bridging social capital ties. Within a festival setting, it is often the responsibility of organisers to develop conceptions of social capital. Finkel (2010:277) concludes that for many organisers who base their festival around the benefits it may bring to local communities, this can be ‘a point of pride…a reason they decided to become involved in the festival in the first place.’ For such community-focussed festivals, there appears to be grounds for further exploration of how leaders of arts festivals can help nurture social capital. This thesis will thus seek to address the relative sparsity of social capital literature which focusses on leadership, analysing the responsibility of organisers in facilitating bridging social capital ties for participants within the case study.

Subsequently, the conceptual framework will outline the ways in which social capital theory will be utilised to investigate the governance of LightNight within the thesis.

2.5 – Conceptual framework

Following careful review of the various bodies of literature, this section sets out a conceptual framework for use in the thesis. This framework draws upon existing contributions, is informed by my understanding of the work of others, and will be employed to investigate how social capital theory can be used to explain the governance of arts festivals, with LightNight as a case study. Each component of the conceptual framework will be briefly outlined below, with further clarification provided within the remainder of the section.

 Social capital will predominantly be explored as a relational concept at the scale

of individuals and small groups, aligning with the arguments made by Bourdieu

(1986) and Coleman (1988).

 Coleman’s (1988) explanation of the strengthening of social capital ties based on

previous associations will be utilised to examine how participants long term

involvement in LightNight impacts upon their relationship with organisers, Open

Culture.

 Tzanakis’ (2013) criticism of Coleman (1988) and Putnam’s (2000) horizontal

framing of social capital will inform the analysis of whether or not hierarchies exist

within LightNight, investigating whether potential vertical inequality impacts upon

how participants access resources and support within the festival.

 Putnam’s (2000) framing of bonding and bridging social capital will provide

conceptual devices (albeit adapted to a smaller scale to which Putnam originally

envisaged) to differentiate participants’ experiences of delivering their proposed

event for LightNight.

 In relation to Bourdieu’s (1986) analysis that holding existing cultural capital is a

prerequisite for developing social capital, the thesis will explore whether this

position is valid for those artists and performers who seek to take part in

LightNight in contemporary Liverpool.

 Based on Coleman’s (1988) belief in the necessity of closure within social

structures to sustain social capital norms and obligations, the thesis will examine

to what extent LightNight presents a closed network.

First, the scale of conceptions of social capital to be explored within the thesis will be at the level of individuals and small groups. These conceptions originate from

Bourdieu (1986), alongside the subsequent analysis of Coleman (1988), in that social capital resides within social relations amongst individuals, utilised for productive ends.

Despite LightNight operating as a festival of over one hundred networked events, for each individual participant, their predominant involvement functions at the scale of successfully delivering their own proposed event. The thesis will examine how relationships formed within LightNight are thus productive, and allow participants to

‘achieve particular ends that would have been impossible without it’ (Tzanakis, 2013:4), to deliver their programmed event. Second, Coleman’s (1988) argument that social capital ties can be strengthened on the basis of previous associations will be used to investigate whether or not participants’ long term involvement in LightNight impacts upon the level of support they receive from Open Culture. Incorporating the experiences of first-time participants into the analysis will offer a comparative element to the enquiry, in contrast to those who have regularly taken part.

Third, in line with Tzanakis’ (2013) rejection of Coleman (1988) and Putnam’s

(2000) horizontal framing of social capital, the thesis will investigate the potential for vertical inequalities within LightNight. Rather than accepting social capital as an unquestioned public good (Harriss and de Renzio, 1997), my analysis will seek to ascertain whether those participants who are commissioned for LightNight, or have the capacity to host multiple events simultaneously, receive proportionally more support from

Open Culture, creating an internal hierarchy within the festival in the process. Fourth, the framing of bonding and bridging social capital by Putnam (2000), although not focussed on large population aggregates as originally envisioned, will serve to differentiate participant experiences in relation to delivering their proposed events. Although Putnam’s framings are criticised, based on his homogeneous conception of bonding communities for example (Graeff, 2009; Leonard, 2004; Portes, 1998), it is my argument they can be

53 utilised to elucidate the process of programming, exploring the often one-off bonding and bridging ties created to deliver LightNight events.

Fifth, taking Bourdieu’s (1986) analysis of cultural capital being a prerequisite for developing social capital, the thesis will look to investigate if this is relevant for the experiences of participants within LightNight. The thesis will examine whether the cultural knowledge, resources and skills deemed necessary to acquire social capital (Mohan and

Mohan, 2002; Portes and Landolt, 2000) can be attained through participation in the festival, rather than be framed as a requirement for inclusion. Finally, regarding

Coleman’s (1988) belief in the necessity of closure within social structures to manage social capital norms and obligations, the thesis will investigate whether LightNight represents a closed structure. In particular the process of programming referrals will be analysed, keeping in mind Tzanakis’ (2013) conviction that closure can be detrimental when looking for resources outside of existing networks. In the following chapter, I will explicitly state how I will operationalise this conceptual framework methodologically.

2.6 – Conclusion

This chapter has situated the theory of social capital within arts festival exploration, discussing both the resonance of strategies of culture-led urban regeneration and how a strong relationship with place and local communities can provide sufficient differentiation against calls of festivalization. Section 2.2 provided an in-depth analysis of urban entrepreneurialism as a mode of governance, looking at the transferability of US policies and projects to the UK context, and subsequent focus upon strategies of culture- led regeneration (Loftman and Nevin, 1995). Of particular pertinence here to festivals was

Glasgow’s designation as 1990 ECoC, and how deindustrialised cities subsequently sought to implement similar place-making strategies to alter predominant public perceptions (Mooney, 2004). A discussion of New Labour’s increased funding and support for access to arts and culture masked the parties control over how such monies were distributed, ensuring government objectives were met (Caust, 2003; Hewitt, 2011).

Subsequent austerity under the coalition government necessitated neo-liberal business management practices for those seeking to be funded, sidelining creative activity for those choosing to apply (Jones and Warren, 2016).

Section 2.3 explained how festivals utilised as part of strategies of culture-led urban regeneration can result in festivalization, with cities increasingly looking and feeling the same (Carlsen et al, 2010; Relph, 1976). As part of this discussion, examples of festivals focussed upon engendering civic pride through incorporating local communities, as well as symbolic spaces and buildings, showcased the opportunity to portray unique identities and alter atmospheres (Quinn, 2005; Raj and Vignali, 2010). Within section 2.4, the theoretical progression of social capital was explained, alongside the theories applicability to studies of festivals. Putnam’s (2000) scaling up of social capital to characterise larger networks is a strongly debated issue (Foley and Edwards, 1999;

Swain, 2003), yet provides scope for conceptual framings through which discussion surrounding hierarchies within networks (Tzanakis, 2013) and potential for strengthened bonds (Coleman, 1988) can take place. Finally within section 2.5, the conceptual framework was outlined, drawing on the work of Bourdieu (1986), Coleman (1988),

Putnam (2000) and others, presenting how my understanding of their work will be utilised to investigate the governance of LightNight within the thesis. The following chapter clarifies the methodological approach of the thesis, with particular focus upon the research design and strategy applied during fieldwork.

Chapter 3 - Researching conceptions of social capital through arts festival governance

3.1 Introduction

Following the analysis of the theoretical focus of the thesis outlined in Chapter 2, subsequently the methodological strategy utilised to carry out the research will be detailed. Through seeking to explore how conceptions of social capital can be utilised to explain the governance of arts festivals, the theoretical implications of the ownership model of the festival have considerable impact upon the likely prominence of attributes of collaboration, reciprocity and trust (Arcodia and Whitford, 2006; Getz and Andersson,

2008). With publicly and privately run festivals typically providing payment for those participating in the events programme, the research design (section 3.2) will explain how through utilising a not-for-profit third sector arts festival where participants are not paid, an exploration of social capital can be best realised. Concerning the methods applied as part of the research design, documentary analysis, netnography and semi-structured interviews are each introduced in section 3.3, justifying their selection and implementation as part of a mixed-methods approach. The ethical implications and limitations of each method will also be explored with reference to direct experiences from the fieldwork.

Finally in section 3.4, the strategies utilised to analyse and interpret the research data will be explained, detailing how a process of coding helped in framing the narrative of enquiry and structure of subsequent chapters (Crang and Cook, 2007). Firstly within the chapter, the research design will be outlined, explaining the theoretical focus of enquiry.

3.2 Research design: Setting the boundaries of enquiry

The approach to the research design is informed by the work of Yin (2003:20), helping to provide a ‘logical sequence that connects the empirical data to a study’s initial research questions and, ultimately, to its conclusions.’ The research questions of the study take considerable influence from the key theoretical discussions of Chapter 2. The focus of the research is on how conceptions of social capital theory can be utilised to explain the governance of arts festivals. Social capital is defined by Portes (1998) and

Putnam (2000) as the connections between individuals that foster trust and reciprocity, bringing positive consequences to those who are most actively involved. More pertinent 56 to the thesis, though, is Leonard’s (2004:939) framing of Bourdieu’s (1986) argument, that ‘the communal social capital of a group is concentrated in its representatives or leaders’, particularly considering that leaders are often tasked with forming partnerships with external elite groups (Leonard, 2004; Purdue, 2001). Looking to focus upon potential variances between the experiences of participants relating to collaboration, reciprocity and trust highlights the importance of leaders, in this case the festival organisers who control access to resources and support.

Arcodia and Whitford (2006) in their study detailing the impact of festival attendance upon the development of social capital found that proposed one-off collaborations or working relationships with organisers can lead to longer lasting social capital benefits, something which this study will explore further. These findings align with

Coleman’s (1988) analysis (as discussed in the previous chapter) that social capital can thrive when social relations are renewed on multiple occasions, strengthening bonds over time. Interlinked with Coleman’s point, the analysis of Tzanakis (2013) focuses upon the potential for hierarchies and inequality within social capital networks, with the experiences of first-time participants and their integration into the festival of particular relevance here

(Korte and Lin, 2013).

Adopting a single case study approach

The intention to research how conceptions of social capital theory can be utilised to explain the governance of arts festivals made a case study approach necessary, as this best enables a situated exploration of the relationships between organisers and participants. With the research questions looking to challenge theory and propositions alike, as Yin (2003:1) explains, ‘case studies are the preferred strategy when “how” or

“why” questions are being posed.’ Taking this reasoning further, the use of a case study allows for a deeper investigation of those directly involved in festivals, in line with the approach applied by Comunian (2017) on artists taking part in Fuse Festival and Jaeger and Mykletun (2013) on stakeholders involved across three festivals in Norway. The use of a case study approach however required a decision relating to whether a single or multiple case study design should be applied.

The advantage of utilising multiple case studies is the breadth they provide, yet their problem is one of depth, with the reverse being true of single case study designs

(Flyvbjerg, 2006). The breadth referred to here relates to the comparison that multiple case study designs allow. Multiple cases allow for a replication of methodology and for patterns or differences to emerge from fieldwork data, which can help the researcher provide evidence to support theoretical propositions (Eisenhardt, 1991). Common in the use of a multiple case study approach is to compare two or more festivals (Stevenson,

2016; Williams and Bowdin, 2007), often including examples from different countries

(Moscardo, 2007; Olsen, 2013; Stevens and Shin, 2014). Getz et al (2010) justify their use of a four country comparison explaining that such cross-cultural assessment can provide the most conclusive evidence when testing theory or propositions.

In contrast to multiple case study designs which can come closer to making verifiable theoretical conclusions, single cases can still provide value if positioned as an illustrative example of larger groups or units (Gustafsson, 2017). The comparative element from single case studies therefore comes from the ability to align conclusions with other studies which may support or oppose the predominant findings of the research

(Flyvbjerg, 2006). As reinforced through the festival studies of Garcia (2005), Gilmore

(2014), Glow and Caust (2010) and Scott (2014), choosing a single case study approach can ensure a more detailed analysis of the event in question. The maximum amount of time and focus is dedicated to one festival, and is likely to form more definite conclusions concerning specific research questions (Tellis, 1997).

Wanting to delve deeper into the theory and propositions informed by Chapter 2 yet constrained by time and logistics, my initial intention was to study a maximum of two local arts festivals as part of the research. In particular, the framing of two of the research questions around the concept of social capital focussed attention onto arts festivals in which attributes of this theory, such as collaboration, reciprocity and trust may be more prevalent. LightNight was initially proposed due to the festival being a not-for-profit third sector event, with the vast majority of participating artists, performers, organizations and venues not paid by organisers Open Culture for their involvement. Relevant to the investigation of conceptions of social capital within festivals, it was expected that without this financial incentive for participants, the necessity of support through attributes such as 58 collaboration, reciprocity and trust would be a more prevalent component of relationships with the organisers. This mirrors the approach adopted by Olsen (2013), who specifically selected comparative arts festival case studies based on their inherent characteristics when looking to explore social outcomes. Furthermore, with LightNight having taken place since 2010, it was expected that this would allow for a comparison of participants experiences based upon longevity, exploring whether ongoing relationships with organisers Open Culture impacted upon levels of support received (Coleman, 1988).

Seeking a potential comparable case study, Manchester After Hours was initially considered, owing to its similarities to LightNight based upon its not-for-profit status and incorporation of local artists, performers, organisations and venues. The timing of

Manchester After Hours also aligned well, with the festival having taken place since 2015 on the night preceding LightNight, with both included within the national Museums at

Night event (Museums at Night, 2015: Online). However for its 2018 edition, Manchester

After Hours programme was significantly reduced in scale, ‘as organisers pause to consider how to grow even bigger and better going forwards’ (Creative Tourist, 2018:

Online). This scaling down resulted in Manchester After Hours no longer being a comparably sized festival to LightNight, particularly relating to the scope of the sampling strategy as will be discussed in section 3.3.1. With no other comparable local arts festivals occurring during the proposed research period that matched the characteristics of LightNight (other events lacked the not-for-profit status deemed critical for an evaluation of social capital), the decision was made to adopt a single case study approach. LightNight provided the opportunity to investigate how conceptions of social capital theory can be utilised to understand the governance of an established not-for- profit arts festival. Owing to these specificities of the research design which I wished to explore, the adoption of a single case study approach in this instance represented ‘the critical case in testing a well formulated theory’ (Yin, 2003:40).

3.3 Extending rigour through a mixed-methods approach

As part of the data collection process, a mixed-methods approach was utilised for the exploration of LightNight. With case studies being employed to test and develop theory and propositions through research questions, methodological rigour can be

59 extended through combining multiple methods as part of an overarching qualitative approach (Denscombe, 2014; Flick, 2008). This strategy has been employed by Finkel

(2006) in her analysis of Lichfield Festival, Garcia (2005) in her study of the Glasgow’s

ECoC year, Giordano and Ong (2017) in their evaluation of light festivals and Wilks

(2011) in her enquiry of social capital at music festivals. Garcia (2005) frames the need for a mixed-methods approach around the difficulty in finding appropriate methodologies in a field with a prevalence for quantitative-based economic impact studies. The methods utilised as part of the case study research were documentary analysis, netnography and semi-structured interviews. The following sections will justify the selection and application of these methods, citing examples and evidence from the fieldwork and case study literature. Firstly semi-structured interviews will be detailed, as this represented the primary method utilised to explore the relationships between organisers and participants within the festival.

3.3.1 Semi-structured interviews: Building critical conversations

The choice of semi-structured interviews for data collection owes to their inherent adaptability in comparison to questionnaires, both in regards to their design and how they can be conducted (Horton et al, 2004). The utilisation of questionnaires in festival management studies often concentrates on producing large data sets to enable quantitative findings to be illustrated numerically (Getz et al, 2010; Grunwell et al, 2008).

However the multiple choice responses that such questionnaires provide are limited in their analytic scope, and would not provide the requisite depth which the research questions of this study require. Comparatively, the open-ended nature of semi-structured interview questioning allows those being interviewed to respond as they wish, with the researcher subsequently able to probe responses if necessary, turning the exchange conversational in tone (McIntosh and Morse, 2015). Semi-structured interviews thus provide the depth and nuance required to best explore and compare each research subject’s views and experiences (Mason, 2002). Van Aalst and van Melik (2012) in their study of the North Sea Jazz Festival and Bullen (2013) in her comparative analysis of the

ECoC’s Liverpool and Marseille reference that semi-structured interviews best reveal subjects motives, objectives, contradictions and tensions. The ability to focus specifically on each research subject in isolation represents another advantage of the semi- 60 structured interview approach. Questionnaires require a replication of questioning and structure to necessitate quantifiable findings. In comparison, semi-structured interviews allow for adaptation and control of questioning lines, narrative flow and pacing, without these changing facets compromising the ability to equate comparable responses when analysing data (Dunn, 2016; Legard et al, 2003; Qu and Dumay, 2011).

Sampling strategy

Through incorporating semi-structured interviews as a component of the fieldwork, applying a sampling strategy for selecting research subjects was the first requirement for this process, with five categories created. Each category is outlined initially below alongside a brief explanation, with in-depth clarification provided in the remainder of the sub-section:

 Category One – Primary Stakeholders – Including the organisers, funders and

sponsors of LightNight.

 Category Two – Intermediaries – Representatives from local arts and culture

publications alongside national bodies whose work aims to connect new

audiences and engage artistic networks.

 Category Three – Commissioned – Participants who were currently

commissioned for LightNight or had been in previous years.

 Category Four – Capacity – Based upon whether participants (organisations and

venues) had the space to accommodate one or multiple LightNight events.

 Category Five – Longevity – Regarding how many times participants had

previously taken part in the festival.

Firstly, category one relates to primary stakeholders within LightNight. Taking influence from Getz et al’s (2007) article on festival stakeholder roles, these were defined, alongside Open Culture, as those subjects who helped to ensure the financial viability of the festival, such as funders Culture Liverpool and principal sponsors LJMU. These stakeholders were contacted first, with their prominence to the ongoing running of the festival providing justification for their inclusion. Secondly, category two refers to intermediaries from leading arts and culture publications Bido Lito and Art in Liverpool 61 who regularly cover the festival, alongside national body Museums at Night, a network which specialises in promoting festivals and events with similar characteristics to

LightNight. These intermediaries held in common a purpose of engaging new audiences and artistic networks, helping to supplement and situate the views from participants of

LightNight, providing broader perspectives on the festival. It was my intention that the remaining three sampling categories would provide a range of views from the participants of the events programme, defined as artists and performers, alongside representatives from organisations and venues. The strategy here of placing participants experience at the centre of enquiry was reinforced by the study of Brownett (2018) into the role of community arts festivals, finding that those directly involved are best placed to provide requisite detail relating to their own involvement.

Finding a suitable sampling technique which could achieve this range of views from participants presented a challenge. Within the existing festivals literature, sampling typologies either related to entire festivals based upon their content, longevity or ownership model (Andersson and Getz, 2009; del Barrio et al, 2012; Finkel, 2009;

Williams and Bowdin, 2007) or categorised stakeholders one dimensionally (Getz et al,

2007; Reid and Arcodia, 2002). Such one dimensional categorisation is evidenced in

Reid and Arcodia’s (2002) typologies, who only differentiate between primary and secondary festival stakeholders, with no further distinctions made. As Van Niekerk and

Getz (2016:422) summarise echoing these issues, ‘scholars have tried to identify and differentiate their stakeholders—but that they have tended to do so one dimensionally.’

The lack of a replicable existing sampling typology resulted in the development of hybrid typologies for the three remaining categories, specifically informed by the case study in question. The use of such strategic purposive sampling approaches can be seen in the comparative study of European arts festivals by Olsen (2013:484), ‘so that sample members differed from each other in terms of key characteristics and positions', along with the studies of Devine and Quinn (2019), Quinn and Wilks (2013) and Wilks (2011).

However in comparison to the above festival studies which incorporate purposive sampling to ensure that empirical objectives are met, the hybrid approach developed as part of the fieldwork links existing categorisations of participants within LightNight to broader theoretical considerations. The presence of both empirical and theoretical criteria 62 within sampling typologies is an approach not previously replicated within festival studies, which helps to facilitate theoretical analysis from an earlier stage of the research process.

The hybrid sampling strategy also helped to focus the content of interview questioning, ensuring that lines of enquiry were informed by a mixture of empirical and theoretical considerations.

The remaining three sampling categories thus grouped participants of LightNight according to their shared characteristics within the festival whilst concurrently being informed by theoretical propositions. The third and fourth sampling categories thus aligned with Tzanakis’ (2013) criticism of Coleman (1988) and Putnam’s (2000) horizontal framing of social capital, which overlooks the potential for hierarchies and inequality within networks. The third sampling category is based on those participants who have been commissioned for the festival (either for 2018 or in previous years), and seeks to analyse whether owing to the prominence of these events, they receive proportionally more support from organisers Open Culture. With commissions being a relatively recent addition to the festival (since 2015), and with a limited number of commissions having taken place since (eight in 2017 and seven in 2018 for example), the eventual sample size of nine participants was felt to be sufficient for analysis.

The fourth sampling category relates to capacity, and whether organisations or venues are able to host one, or multiple events for LightNight, and if this impacts upon the level of support they receive. The eventual sample size of having just two participants with the capacity for one event, compared with twelve who hosted more than one reflects the makeup of the full programme of LightNight, which relies heavily upon larger arts and cultural institutions hosting several events simultaneously. The final sampling category is linked to Coleman’s (1988) evaluation for the potential of strengthened bonds based upon previous association, focussing on participants’ longevity within LightNight. As alluded to above, Finkel (2009) has previously categorised entire festivals based on their longevity.

Adapting this methodology to the participants of LightNight, although a significant proportion had taken part in the festival before, this typology specifically aimed to secure a number of first-time participants, of which seven agreed to partake in the study.

The implication of this sampling approach is that all participants held an existing relationship with Open Culture through successfully applying to be a part of the 2018 festival. This limit to the participant sample requires some reflection on those who were thus excluded however. Any prior participant of LightNight could feasibly have been included within the sample, and their presence may have uncovered negative manifestations of social capital which impacted upon their decision to choose not to apply to take part again. Certainly those participants included within the sample held a somewhat privileged relationship with Open Culture owing to their initial success in having their applications approved for the LightNight programme. LightNight does not represent a closed network which Coleman (1988) believes best allow social capital norms and obligations to be managed and sustained, owing to its open application process and the range of contacts from outside the festival network which Open Culture call upon to assist in delivering programmed events.

Once applications are approved however, participants do subsequently benefit from access to communal resources and tailored support from Open Culture (as will be discussed within Chapter 6). This access aligns with Hall’s (1999) explanation of how social capital can be thought of as a ‘club good’, with benefits only being available to those within the network. Although Shucksmith (2000) argues that inherent inequalities exist within social capital networks based on those with existing social and cultural capital being better equipped to access and appropriate resources and support, LightNight presents a case which negates such a framing. With access to communal resources and tailored support provided to all successful applicants, it would appear that those participants without existing social and cultural capital may benefit the most from their

LightNight involvement, in line with Open Culture’s organisational aim of providing opportunities for artists and performers to showcase their work.

Owing to the delay in announcing the full programme for LightNight (until 1st

May, less than three weeks before the festival), the majority of interviews held within the first few months of the year focussed upon the sampling categories concerning primary stakeholders and intermediaries. Mindful of the scheduled late announcement of confirmed 2018 participants however, a number of participants from past iterations of the festival who fit within the relevant sampling categorisations were approached for 64 interview. This attempted strategy to bypass the scheduled late programme announcement through contacting previous participants of LightNight was unsuccessful however. The first few participants contacted declined the invitation to partake in the research, noting that they were not involved in the 2018 edition of the festival, which remained the predominant framing of the research purpose. This led to a change of strategy when approaching potential subjects from this point onwards, only contacting confirmed 2018 participants.

Within the hybrid sampling categories it was necessary to secure a sample size of requisite depth to ensure a sufficient data set for analysis, whilst also being wary of the potential for saturation and repetition of responses (Mason, 2010). As Getz et al

(2007:107) disclose in their study of festival stakeholder roles, ‘the bigger and more diverse the sample, the more likely it is that important similarities and differences will be revealed.’ Although the full festival programme was only released on 1st May, the publication of three LightNight preview announcements during March and April revealing a number of programmed events (and thus participants) helped secure a constant succession of interviews across these months. Once the full programme was released, remaining participants who fitted within the sampling categories were contacted, eventually amounting to a total of seventy-six individually researched and tailored interview requests being sent, eventually resulting in thirty-two respondents agreeing to be interviewed (a success rate of over 42%). This sample size was felt to be sufficient for analysis based upon comparable studies (Comunian, 2017; Finkel, 2009; Jaeger and

Mykletun, 2013). For those who responded to the interview request but declined to be involved in the research, a number of reasons were cited, however most related to a lack of time owing to busy performing schedules or shortage of staffing. Overall, within the

LightNight 2018 Festival Guide, 108 events were listed. Through the sampling strategy, interviews were held with an artist, performer, or representative from organisation or venue involved in forty-seven of these events (representing over 43% of the total programme). Regarding the content of these interviews, a defined strategy was utilised as will now be detailed, beginning with how prospective participants were initially contacted.

Interviewing strategy

As part of the interviewing strategy of the fieldwork, firstly, proposed research subjects had to be contacted. This initial contact was instigated via email, with these addresses sourced through subjects’ websites and social media accounts. Within the initial email sent was an invitation to take part in a research study as part of a PhD project, alongside a detailed interview request flyer (example in Appendix 1). Each request flyer included details on the purpose of the research, why the subject had been contacted, how the research would be conducted, how the data would be utilised, a suggested date, time and location for a first interview as well as complaints procedure information. As Raj and Vignali (2010) state in their evaluation of the Leeds West Indian

Carnival, explaining the purpose of research and the potential role that contacted subjects can play is vital in gaining their informed consent. For those who agreed to partake in the research, further email exchanges took place until an interview date, time and location could be arranged. For those who did not reply to the initial email, a second follow-up email would be sent on average a week and a half later, enquiring if they had taken the chance to consider the invitation. Failure to respond to this second request would be read as a rejection of the invitation to partake. In two instances telephone calls were made to research subjects after initial email non-replies, with their lack of response deemed to be detrimental to the study such was their perceived importance (as primary stakeholders of the festival), which in both cases led to interviews being subsequently agreed.

Specifically relating to how the semi-structured interviews were conducted, these took place over the course of nine months between January and September of 2018, with the majority of these occurring between May and July. Regarding location, with the festival being based in Liverpool, interviews took place within the city itself, with exact locations left to participants to suggest for their comfort and convenience. Owing to a reported lack of available time between final interview requests sent out in early May and

LightNight itself, in three instances interview questions were sent via email to participants at their behest, presenting the most viable alternative for those stretched of time (Meho,

2006). Although this online form of questioning led to shorter responses than for any of the face-to-face interviews, their answers were often more coherent and clear, as 66 participants were presented with a longer opportunity to consider their replies. In one instance an interview took place over the phone, owing to the fact the research subject (a representative of a national body) was based over two hundred and fifty miles away in

Brighton. Interviews were recorded through the use of a digital voice recorder. Recording the interview allowed for a more natural flow of conversation, eliminating the need for excessive note taking whilst providing the opportunity to actively engage with the subject in terms of eye contact and body language (Crang and Cook, 2007; Kvale, 2007).

When conducting the semi-structured interviews, as well as having to be adept at guiding the discussion, it was the role of the interviewer to initially fill the research subject with confidence, assuring them that they would only be questioned in line with their own experiences and views (Dunn, 2016; Kvale, 2007; Rubin and Rubin, 2005). One technique utilised to settle the nerves of the interview subjects (and to an extent the interviewer) was to firstly ask about their personal work history alongside their current role and responsibilities (Crang and Cook, 2007). On a more practical level, preparations for each interview were achieved via detailed research into each subject before the interview, in an attempt to gain expert knowledge in the topics which would be under discussion (Qu and Dumay, 2011). Furthermore, this detailed research helped to avoid lines of questioning that may be perceived as simplistic or common knowledge, whilst also ensuring the interview was not filled with technical terms or jargon (Dunn, 2016;

Legard et al, 2003). Controlling the pacing of interviews was a skill which was acquired relatively quickly after the first few interviews had taken place, as did strategies relating to changing tack regarding questioning when responses were deemed vague, incoherent or overly detailed (Crang and Cook, 2007). Being engaged in the interview and maintaining focus on the subject was key, yet just as important was to listen, and remember that constant interruptions were not necessary to become a ‘co-producer of the narrative’

(Kvale, 2007:74). In many instances allowing a lengthy silence whilst the subject considered their response resulted in more detailed answers, which hastily requesting elaboration would not have achieved.

It must be noted that not all subjects were interviewed under the same approach.

Open Culture and participants of LightNight were interviewed twice, both before and after the festival, whilst remaining primary stakeholders alongside intermediaries were only 67 interviewed once, owing to their lack of direct involvement with the events programme of the festival. These solitary interviews took place during the early part of the year, ahead of the release of the full programme. These interviews helped to formulate questioning content going forward, with Adams (2015:499) explaining how ‘some questions and topics may need to be added or subtracted, expanded or condensed, recast or reordered.’ Specifically detailing which lines of questioning were added to or subtracted from the solitary interviews with intermediaries for example, questioning pertaining to direct LightNight involvement subsequently replaced much of the focus upon experiences within the local arts and cultural sectors. This change in questioning was made for the

Open Culture and participant interviews which followed as discussion of LightNight involvement was the primary consideration to conceptions of social capital which I wished to explore.

Open Culture and the participants directly involved in the events programme were subsequently interviewed twice, once before the festival to discuss their inclusion and preparations, and once after to debate their experience and outcomes. Applying a strategy of episodic semi-structured interviews fits with Crang and Cook’s (2007:74) analysis that the advantage of conducting more than one interview is that they ‘can be scheduled to take place in and between a variety of relevant times/places.’ The period between their first and second interview provided time for reflection upon their experiences, understanding that they were to be questioned again (Lee et al, 2012;

Saldana, 2003; Yin, 2003). Repeat interviews also allowed for a strengthening of trust between interviewer and subject, as raising direct quotes or issues discussed in first interviews demonstrated that they had been listened to (Reinharz, 1992). Taking this point further, and representing an advantage of repeat interviews in comparison to single interviews, these follow-ups after the festival provided the opportunity for clarification, whether relating to the interpretation of a particular response, or to delve into missed enquiries from first interviews (Vincent, 2013). Murray et al (2009) also state that a repeat interviewing strategy can be a rewarding investment of time for research subjects, as it provides an opportunity to clarify their own thoughts through a conversation with an interviewer holding an ‘outsider’ perspective (Horton et al, 2004).

There is some debate regarding whether you should ask the same questions to each subject so that data collected can be numerically quantified (McIntosh and Morse,

2015), or as Mason (2002:65) argues, ‘ask different questions of your different interviewees – precisely so that you can generate situated knowledge with all of your interviewees.’ As this study is qualitative in nature, and with research subjects having differing circumstances relating to their activity, history and networks, it was decided that following Mason’s (2002) method of asking different questions to each subject would present the most effective strategy to form a data set for analysis. Although primary stakeholders were predominantly asked about their direct involvement in LightNight, for the sampling category relating to intermediaries, lines of questioning would initially relate to their personal histories and narratives, before broadening to the arts and cultural sectors of the city. Subsequently questioning would centre on the growth of festivals and events in Liverpool, before concluding on the impact of social media upon branding and promotion, in an attempt to position responses to the research question relating to netnography and its application in measuring social capital.

Broadly speaking for the other three sampling categories, the line of enquiry utilised a form of narrative-episodic questioning ‘oriented to situations, their context and progress’ (Flick, 2008:56), based around inclusion in LightNight. A narrative perspective helps to reveal personal experiences and provide useful insights into the exploration of events from differing perspectives, as this study seeks to achieve (Wiles et al, 2005). Pre-

LightNight interviews (for an example of questioning lines, see Appendix 2) predominantly focussed on the personal histories and narratives of participants, ‘asking simple ‘what?’,

‘who?’, ‘where?’ and ‘how?’ questions’ (Crang and Cook, 2007:69). Utilising such open- ended questioning in the first instance aligns with the approach of Jaeger and Mykletun

(2013), who found this strategy beneficial in freeing respondents to divulge their personal experiences and direct their responses as they saw fit. From these initial questions, enquiries relating to the participants general experiences with festivals and events in the city were raised, before specific questioning focussed upon their decision to participate in

LightNight and how they had subsequently prepared for this. Finally to inform the netnographic aspect of the research, questions relating to the participants use of social media concluded pre-LightNight interviews. Following LightNight when participants were

69 interviewed for the second time and having had the opportunity to reflect upon their experience, questioning lines (for an example, see Appendix 3) focussed here firstly on the specific event in which they were involved. Subsequent questioning concentrated upon participants use and experience of social media in the days surrounding LightNight, their expectations of any opportunities arising from their involvement, and finally their perception of Open Culture’s leadership and support they received from them.

3.3.2 Netnography: Validating social media posts

The second research method utilised as part of the mixed-methodological strategy is netnography. Netnography is defined as ‘an application of ethnographic methods to study online cultures’ (Rokka, 2010:383) and works best when integrated with

‘offline’ methods such as interviews and documentary analysis (Bertilsson, 2014), mirroring the methodological approach applied within the research. The subjects of the netnography would be the participants directly involved in the festival programme, entailing the observation of their social media interactions either side of LightNight for a period of approximately five months from March to July 2018. One of the strengths of conducting a netnography is that it represents ‘a readily adaptable methodology offering a specific set of steps and analytical approaches’ (Costello et al, 2017:9), allowing the researcher the opportunity to adjust the confines of data collection. For the purposes of this study, two factors acted as boundaries to the netnographic research. Firstly, only the social media data of participants directly related to their involvement in LightNight would be observed and analysed. Secondly, owing to their repeated prominence within this preliminary research, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter became the online platforms observed as part of the netnographic research, akin to the findings of Van Winkle et al

(2018) on social media platforms utilised to engage festival audiences.

Looking at the type of data the netnographic research sought to record, during the period preceding LightNight, this took the form of announcements of inclusion from participants, promotion of the festival and previewing their events content. After the festival had concluded, event reviews, indications of gratitude and subsequent evidence of outcomes or continuing collaborations were sought. One aspect of the netnographic research that presented an advantage over the interviewing strategy is it allowed for

70 analysis of interactions on the day (and night) of LightNight itself, giving an insight into the hours pre and post the festival, with some participants even chronicling the nights events in real time

(see Figure 1). Collating the social media data of participants before, during and after the festival ‘provided access to what was happening in the “field” Figure 1 – Tmesis Theatre posted updates via their Twitter profile during LightNight in an effort to attract despite my physical absence’ audiences throughout the night (Source: Tmesis Theatre, 2018: Online). (Sin, 2015:676). This strategy of being able to gather situated data from the day of LightNight itself is supported by the analysis of Van Winkle et al (2018:4), stating that ‘the majority of social media engagement occurs the week before and during the festival.’ Utilising netnography to research participants both in the lead up to and after the conclusion of LightNight not only aligns with the interviewing strategy, but also contributes to knowledge within the literature. Only the studies of Comunian (2015) into artists’ networks at Fuse Festival, and

Laurell and Björner (2018) on digital engagement in festivals currently offer comparison.

In relation to how the data from the netnographic research was recorded, this was found to be most easily accomplished through a simple ‘screen grab’ of the visual image, particularly as this allowed for any visual cues to appear within the image as they were intended (Kozinets, 2010).

When utilising online data there are ethical implications to consider relating to access. Although social media profiles and the distribution of information online has an intended audience, this does not equate to guaranteed consent for use within academic research, despite the seemingly ‘public’ nature of the posting. Keeping the intended audience of social media posts in mind, an ‘ethical ambiguity’ (Kinsley, 2013:547) was

71 applied in terms of the use of publicly available data online. Crucial to an ‘ethical ambiguity’ Kinsley continues, is ‘whether individual participants consider their correspondence to be public or private’ (Ibid.). These considerations informed the decision to openly include questions relating to social media in pre-LightNight interviews in an attempt to signpost how such data would be utilised within the thesis so that these became areas of consented research, reducing potential anxieties regarding ethics (Hine,

2015). This strategy of questioning, alongside indicating in the initial interview request flyers that social media profiles would be observed as part of the research approach, ensured that participants were aware social media data would be utilised for analysis. In no instances did participants challenge the application of netnography as a research method, with the majority keen to discuss their use of social media when questioned during interviews. One limitation of the application of netnography as a research method, though, was that it could not be utilised for every participant. A minority of participants didn’t utilise social media owing to artistic preference, lack of time, or failure to understand how these platforms work, limiting the scope of the netnography slightly in comparison to semi-structured interviews, for example.

3.3.3 Documentary analysis: Archives, previews and reviews

Documentary analysis was the third research method utilised as part of the mixed-methodological strategy. Initially, documentary analysis took the form of archival research, locating and examining previous LightNight Festival Guides and local media coverage of the event since its 2010 inception. Of the eight previous editions of

LightNight, the guides for seven of these were successfully sourced, including four from an internet search and two directly from organisers Open Culture. Upon sourcing these festival guides, a spreadsheet was created collating each participant who had previously been involved in the festival, also detailing on how many occasions they had subsequently taken part. This archival research took place before the data collection via interviews and netnography began, and primarily helped in informing the hybrid sampling categories as discussed in section 3.3.1, particularly those relating to capacity of organisations and venues and longevity concerning past involvement. Following the creation of the hybrid sampling categories, archival research also helped to inform

72 specific questioning lines for the first interviews held with participants, often relating to previous LightNight inclusion.

Documentary analysis specifically relating to the 2018 edition of LightNight focussed on the print festival guide as well as local media (both in print and online) previews and reviews of the festival. Regarding which sources were selected for analysis,

Scott’s (1990) quality control criteria of authenticity, credibility, representativeness and meaning helped to inform this process. Following this criteria helped to ensure documents analysed had been critically appraised and held the requisite integrity to be

Figure 2 – A preview of LightNight 2018 Commissions by Bido Lito. Such coverage is deemed an additional bonus to participants who successfully apply to produce commissioned work, with the content of these utilised to inform questioning in pre-LightNight interviews (Source: Davy, 2018).

73 utilised as data for analysis (Ahmed, 2010). This process resulted in only previews and reviews from established publications and cultural commentators being utilised. Previews of LightNight often placed prominence upon the festival commissions (see Figure 2), with these sources utilised to inform questioning lines regarding the potential value of such publicity.

Of greater relevance for the purposes of the study were the festival reviews. The benefit of utilising reviews as a documentary source for analysis were their rapid distribution immediately following the festival, particularly online. Arts publications and cultural commentators looked to report on the night’s events as quickly as possible whilst

LightNight remained fresh in the mind of prospective readers (Gibson and Brown,

2009). These reviews were utilised to further corroborate or challenge participants’ personal narratives of their festival experience during follow-up interviews. This process was not just achieved through a focus upon the content of reviews however, but also related to how participants utilised these subsequently (Prior, 2008), most often actively promoting Figure 3 – OLC promoting a positive review of their any positive coverage their LightNight Liverpool event via Twitter (Source: One event received through their Latin Culture, 2018: Online). social media profiles. Francisco, the Creative Director of arts organisation One Latin

Culture (hereafter OLC) explained that such content (see Figure 3) could be utilised purposefully when applying for further performance opportunities. He stated that positive coverage proves ‘useful when you’re talking to Culture Liverpool, or if you’re talking to

Imagine Wirral, you know the departments that deal with events in the different boroughs’

(Francisco, OLC Creative Director, July 2018). Here the work of De Certeau (1984:170) is pertinent, stating ‘the text has a meaning only through its readers; it changes along with them; it is ordered in accordance with codes of perception that it does not control,’ alluding to the role reviews can play according to how they are utilised subsequently.

Garcia (2005) utilised media reports to analyse the legacy of Glasgow’s ECoC year, subsequently elongating this research to include Liverpool’s experience in 2008. As part of this research, Garcia (2017) highlighted the influence that press narratives can have, and how their account of events can subsequently become the predominant perception, despite these often conflicting with the lived experiences of local people. In contrast to Garcia’s findings, the content of LightNight reviews were quickly followed up with participants in the weeks following the festival, allowing analysis to take place at a much earlier stage. This approach showcased the advantage of incorporating reporting which provides a ‘rapid form of production and distribution of information, knowledge and opinion’ (Gibson and Brown, 2009:72) as part of the documentary analysis.

3.4 Constructing knowledge through data analysis

Ensuring that sufficient academic rigour was applied to the fieldwork through the adoption of a mixed-methods approach as discussed in section 3.3, a significant data set was combined for analysis. The use of a mixed-methods approach provided validation of data through ‘corroborating findings from the same respondents and on the same topic, but using different methods’ (Bloor and Wood, 2006:170). Attempts were made to transcribe each interview as soon as time would permit following their conclusion, allowing initial analysis to take place through a process of coding, relating to the broad themes raised and how these responded to the research questions (Crang and Cook,

2007). In common with the coding method of Williams and Bowdin (2007) in their evaluation of seven UK arts festivals, a content analysis approach was applied to ensure the systematic evaluation of interviews. Content analysis sorts and summarises data according to common characteristics relating to the research focus (Adams, 2015;

Bowen, 2009).

It must be noted that multiple participants who held pre-existing relationships with

Open Culture sought to understand if the study would benefit the organisation before interviews were conducted. Although Open Culture have no direct involvement in the study other than agreeing to be interviewed and providing copies of previous festival guides, the organisation have discussed drawing on the findings of the thesis to inform their future work and strategy for funding applications. The relevance to analysis of such queries though is that often these participants referenced wanting to be good partners

(the perception being that their voluntary involvement in the study would evidence this) and were usually wholly positive of the festival and Open Culture alike. It was therefore critical that these interviews were cross-referenced with evidence from other sources and interpreted with participants existing loyalty to the organisers firmly in mind to ensure credibility (Bowen, 2009).

Upon the conclusion of post-LightNight interviews, the research data accumulated from all three methods was collated so that coding could begin in earnest.

Although coding had been applied to first interview transcripts previously, the inclusion of multiple data sources allowed for more thorough analysis. The data gathered from the netnography could generally be taken at face value, and did not require the application of visual methodologies for interpretation, as advocated by Rose (2016). This lack of necessity for visual methods owed to the value of the data predominantly being displayed through the accompanying text, whether detailing specific information relating to the event or indications of gratitude. Images included within netnographic data merely displayed aspects of LightNight events, offering little evidence relating to the relationships formed within the festival which I wished to explore. Any visual cues included in social media posts such as emoji’s were usually simple to understand, yet in a few instances required ‘insightful interpretation’ (Bertilsson, 2014:137), when conveying sarcasm for example.

Regarding the objectivity of local media reporting on LightNight, the prior relationships of journalists or publications with Open Culture and/or participants had to be taken into account. Specific questioning on such reporting during interviews often revealed the nature of these relationships. Holding an existing association did not necessarily discount the reporting of a publication however, with the application of a 76 discourse analysis ensuring that the data within these sources was not taken at face value, but deconstructed to identify the implied meaning within (Denscombe, 2014).

Through inferring the ’hidden’ meanings within such previews and reviews, evidence from interviews and netnography could be verified or discredited. As Corbin and Strauss

(2008:49) surmise in regards to the application of discourse analysis, ‘researchers are translators of other persons’ words and actions.’ As well as analysing the content of festival reporting, the use and function of these reviews also required evaluation. Upon

Figure 4 – LightNight 2018 review by cultural commentator Messy Lines. Important in the analysis of such reviews was not only their content, but subsequent role and function, with participants often looking to promote positive coverage as evidence of a successful festival (Source: Messy Lines, 2018a: Online). identifying reviews (see Figure 4) in which they were positively portrayed, participants often subsequently promoted these purposefully to their wider networks via their social media profiles (Prior, 2008).

Coding from data accumulated from a variety of methods represents a form of triangulation, corroborating similar types of evidence from multiple sources to showcase analytical rigour (Denscombe, 2014; Flick, 2008). Through this approach, the data collected had to be ‘translated’, particularly the personal experiences and narratives of festival participants which may have been heavily subjective. Utilising a discourse analysis similar to that applied by Wilks (2011), this allows for interpretation of individual perspectives without discounting their value based on subjectivities. As Corbin and

Strauss (2008:52) summarise ‘with time and immersion in the data, a researcher gains 77 insight and sensitivity.’ This process initially formed seventeen codes, with the majority of these being informed through the content of interviews. These codes were relatively broad in the first instance, in an effort to encompass as much of the relevant amassed data as possible. Examples of these initial codes included ‘LightNight programming’,

‘ECoC considerations’, ‘Challenges of funding a free festival’ and ‘Reflections on social media use.’ Through further immersion in the accumulated data, these seventeen codes were condensed down to seven themes, which were subsequently taken forward as key structural components of the analysis chapters, helping inform the direction of discussion.

In a few instances, multiple codes which contained similar foci were combined into an overriding theme. A case in point can be seen through the codes ‘Open Culture’s leadership role’ and ‘Open Culture/LightNight values’ holding common ground, subsequently being combined to create the theme ‘Open Culture’s reputation and

LightNight’s legitimacy’, which forms a component of Chapter 6. Although some codes were strong enough to become themes in their own right, such as ‘Challenges of funding a free festival’ which relates to section 5.5 of the thesis, others required slight refinement

(e.g. ‘ECoC consideration’ into ‘Outcomes from ECoC’). A key component of developing codes into structured themes were theoretical considerations. An example of the formation of such a theme can be seen through the amalgamation of codes ‘LightNight programming’ and ‘LightNight differentiation.’ There was a commonality between these two codes relating to other formats of festivals and events from which LightNight had borrowed, or ways in which differentiation had been sought, clearly linking to festivalization processes. These codes therefore were combined to form the theme

‘LightNight: Replicating popular festival formats’, which became a structural component of

Chapter 5. The applied process of combining and focussing initial codes into strong and coherent themes mirrors the approach of Brownett (2018), who looked at the role of community arts festivals in generating well-being for participants.

Regarding the ethical approach to naming research subjects, upon meeting in person for the first time, the purpose of the research and how accumulated data would be utilised were reiterated before interviews would commence. As part of this explanation, each research subject was asked whether they were happy for their name to be included within the thesis. Although a minority required reassurance that their interview responses 78 would only be utilised for the purposes of the thesis (as was always the intention), in no instances did research subjects ask to remain anonymous. Subsequently signing off their approval via consent form (see Appendix 4), the naming of research subjects was thus encompassed through point three, ‘I understand that my data will only be utilised for the purposes of this study.’ Subsequently however, during the process of analysing the combined data, it was decided to provide participants with pseudonyms were possible, in line with ethnographic tradition (Kozinets et al, 2014; Vainio, 2012). Only in a few instances were real names utilised. Open Culture directors Charlotte and Christina were named owing to their prominent association with LightNight, alongside a small number of participants. These participants were named due to the use of netnographic and documentary data to support empirical arguments. This data revealed aspects of participants’ events which would make them easily identifiable using an internet search engine. In no instances were real names utilised when responses were deemed controversial or of potential detriment to the participants in question (Kozinets et al, 2014;

Stake, 2000).

Owing to the prominence of Open Culture within the case study, it must be noted that the two interviews held with organisation directors Charlotte and Christina are cited heavily. These interviews are of particular relevance within Chapters 5 and 6 which focus upon the organisation’s formation of LightNight, and their contribution to the social capital available within it respectively, with their primary accounts providing requisite detail necessary to support the themes generated through coding. Finally, once the process of coding and outlining the initial structure of the following analysis chapters had taken place, a report was produced, an agreed upon recompense for subject’s time and involvement in the research. The report (see Appendix 5) took the seven themes that had been developed through the coding process and presented an overview of key trends which had emerged through the fieldwork.

3.5 – Conclusion

This chapter has detailed the methodological strategy applied for the research stage of the thesis. Finding theoretical grounding from the previous literature chapter, section 3.2 detailed the research design of the fieldwork. The desire to research how

79 conceptions of social capital could be utilised to explain arts festival governance necessitated a case study approach, with LightNight emerging as the most applicable example based upon its not-for-profit status, scale and longevity. A mixed-methods approach was applied to the case study, as this presented the opportunity to increase academic rigour (Flick, 2008; Yin, 2003). Section 3.3 detailed each of the research methods utilised individually. Of particular pertinence to the application of semi-structured interviews were their inherent adaptability (Mason, 2002), enabling the differing characteristics and circumstances of each research subject to be investigated in isolation.

The application of netnography recorded the online interactions of participants regarding their festival involvement. Owing to the relative gap within festival studies regarding analysis of social media use, particularly relating to its application to evidence social capital, this methodological approach presents a contribution to knowledge. Documentary analysis initially helped form sampling categories via archival research of previous festival guides, before the content of LightNight previews and reviews helped inform questioning lines within the interviewing strategy (Gibson and Brown, 2009). Finally, section 3.4 explained the process of analysing data collected from all three methods, allowing for a cross validation of evidence to heighten analytic rigour. The themes built up from the accumulated data via coding informed the structure of the following analysis chapters, which showcase the interrelationship between literature, methods and data as part of the overall thesis.

To conclude, this chapter has explained the purpose of the research design, based upon a mixed-methodological approach to case study research, combining documentary analysis, netnography and semi-structured interviews. What sets this study apart in regards to methodology is the development of a hybrid sampling strategy based on shared characteristics of LightNight participants, purposefully aligned with the theoretical propositions of social capital which I wished to explore. Alongside this sampling strategy, the application of netnography to provide evidence of social capital looks to capitalise upon the growing prevalence of interaction which takes place online.

The following chapter focusses upon Liverpool and analyses the city’s recovery from decades of economic decline. The eventual transition to entrepreneurial governance within the city council is examined, before the increasing emphasis upon a strategy of

80 culture-led regeneration is evaluated, culminating in the city being awarded the 2008

ECoC designation.

Chapter 4 – From global trader to Capital of Culture: Exploring the changing governance and economies of Liverpool

4.1 – Introduction

The following chapter details the development of Liverpool’s economy and politics over recent decades, providing context to the contemporary situation whereby culture-led regeneration is a primary focus of the city council. This chapter utilises newspaper articles, reports and interviews to provide primary accounts of political and cultural developments. Section 4.2 focusses upon the historical prominence of Liverpool’s port, chartering the wealth this brought through trade and transit (Rodwell, 2008), before explaining its decline over the course of the twentieth century, accelerating the city’s deindustrialization (Parkinson, 1990). In section 4.3, the election of a Conservative government in 1979 marks the beginning of an increasingly fractious relationship between the city and Whitehall, reaching a crescendo when a militant local Labour party took control of the city council (Frost and North, 2013). The significance of policy impositions by national government to facilitate urban entrepreneurialism (increasing private sector prominence whilst diminishing local government autonomy) are explained, with the MDC acting as an illustrative example of this trend (Jones and Evans, 2008).

Section 4.4 evaluates how Liverpool City Council slowly turned towards urban entrepreneurialism during the 1990s, assisted by European Union (hereafter EU) funding, culminating in the decision to bid for the UK designation of the 2008 ECoC award (Cocks,

2009). Section 4.5 examines the Liverpool Culture Company, established to produce the

Capital of Culture bid, then subsequently programme and deliver the event, a process which was beset by resignations, restructuring and an incoherent artistic strategy

(O’Brien, 2010). Finally in section 4.6, the outcomes of Liverpool hosting the ECoC are explained, both upon the creation of the UK City of Culture award (Cox and O’Brien,

2012), and the change in perceptions for practitioners within the local arts and cultural sector. Firstly within this chapter, an overview of the historical importance of Liverpool's port to the city’s economy will be detailed.

4.2 – The economic and political implications of Liverpool’s declining port

Owing to Liverpool’s prominent location for shipping access to the Atlantic

Ocean, the city became a key global trading port from as early as the mid-seventeenth century. The port received cargo of cotton, grain, sugar and tobacco from the colonies of

America and the West Indies, with the export of coal and manufactured goods from the factories of Manchester and the Midlands sent in return (Rodwell, 2008; Wilks-Heeg,

2003). During the eighteenth century Liverpool played a prominent role in the slave trade between West Africa and America, something the city later acknowledged and apologised for, opening an exhibition in 1994 at its Maritime Museum entitled ‘Transatlantic Slave

Trade: Against Human Dignity’ (Donington et al, 2016). At the time such was the standing of Liverpool’s port internationally that by the nineteenth century it was referred to as the second city of the British Empire (O’Brien, 2011). The population of Liverpool grew rapidly owing to the prominence of its port, from 20,000 people in 1750 to a peak of 855,000 by

1931, with subsequent mass immigration from China, West Africa and the West Indies, as well as considerable domestic and Irish migration (Martin et al, 2018; Sykes et al,

2013).

At the turn of the twentieth century, Liverpool had consolidated its position as

Europe’s premier transatlantic port not only for cargo, but also passenger trade, with the city becoming the busiest terminus for migration to America (Rodwell, 2008). This early twentieth century period however represented a zenith for Liverpool in both its population size and prominence of its port. The port subsequently began to suffer from the increasing prevalence of air travel which impacted upon passenger transit, and containerisation (with Liverpool’s Victorian docks unfit for larger ships) upon trade (Sykes et al, 2013). Coupled with these developments in the transportation of passengers and cargo, the nation’s trading focus reconfigured away from the Atlantic, towards mainland

Europe in the post-war era (Lorente, 1996). As Wilks-Heeg (2003:44) concludes,

‘Liverpool’s economy was built around the port to an exceptional degree and there had been very limited diversification in the local economy by the start of the twentieth century.’

There was a brief upturn in fortunes for Liverpool’s port during the 1960s, when

British exports where once again in demand, partly explained by the rise of Fordism.

Fordism revolutionised manufacturing, particularly the technologies used (fixed-purpose machinery) and how production was organised (at single sites with assembly lines). This mass-production was dependent upon mass-consumption, however, explaining the rise of Fordism during the post-war period which was characterised by economic growth and stability (Schoenberger, 1988). 25,000 jobs were created manufacturing cars in the city, yet this upturn was set against a general fall in shipping and maritime related employment throughout the decade, owing to the reduced need for manually intensive dockside labour

(Frost and North, 2013). During the 1970s when this rise in demand for British exports abated and the city’s burgeoning manufacturing sector stagnated, Liverpool suffered further job losses which its already vulnerable local economy could ill-afford. Between

1966 and 1978, employment levels in the city fell by 20%, against a national average of just 5% over the same period (Meegan, 2003). Owing to the continued decline of port employment, Liverpool had by the late 1970s primarily become a public sector employer, with sizeable bases of employment found in local government, the NHS, universities, policing and other nationalised industries, helping to soften the blow of the private sector’s retreat (Parkinson, 1990).

In regards to the political context of the city, Liverpool had been governed for the majority of the twentieth century until the early 1970s by Conservative party administrations. For the remainder of this decade and the beginning of the 1980s, local government in the city was characterised by minority Labour and Liberal administrations, resulting in a lack of consistent leadership or direction during a period of intense economic decline (Frost and North, 2013; Parkinson and Bianchini, 1993). Running concurrently, the incoming Conservative national government in 1979 set about a course of urban entrepreneurial governance, seeking to reduce local government autonomy significantly, introducing centrally accountable bodies to carry out local economic development work (Haughton and While, 1999; Loftman and Nevin, 1995; 1996). The

Conservative government took its policy influence here from the US, where urban entrepreneurialism had been the prominent mode of governance in its major cities for a number of years (DiGaetano and Lawless, 1999; Strom, 2002; Ward, 1996), helping catalyse their regeneration and economic recovery. Observing this cross-Atlantic governance trend, Harvey (1989) stated that there seemed to be a general consensus

84 towards adopting an entrepreneurial approach to economic development in the developed world. Liverpool City Council found itself in a difficult situation, with significant economic decline necessitating an increased reliance upon national government funding, at the same time as the new Thatcher administration had committed to reducing local government autonomy. It has subsequently been argued that since the beginning of the

1980s, Liverpool has experienced more nationally-imposed economic regeneration initiatives than any other city in the UK (Cocks, 2013; Couch, 2003), many of which will be analysed within the following section.

4.3 - It took a riot? National government policy imposition in Liverpool

Liverpool City Council in the early 1980s was characterised by interchanging

Liberal and Labour minority administrations, a political situation which would continue until 1983 when Labour took majority control (Frost and North, 2013). The first policy initiative introduced by the new Conservative national government which directly impacted upon Liverpool were UDCs. As discussed in Chapter 2, UDCs were a prominent example of the policy exchange that occurred between the UK and US during the 1980s, consolidating the shift towards entrepreneurialism in urban governance

(DiGaetano and Lawless, 1999; Ward, 1996). UDCs were designed to instil confidence in the private sector by removing some of the risk and cost associated with inner-city investment. The governing structure and delivery of UDCs would be through a single agency which was nationally funded and separate from local government, containing total planning control and characterised by private sector involvement (Parkinson, 1988).

As inscribed in the Local Government Planning and Land Act of 1980, the remit of UDCs regarding regeneration was to be interpreted principally as physical redevelopment (Thomas and Imrie, 1997). This focus upon physical regeneration was to provide the necessary conditions for subsequent private capital investment, however this emphasis resulted in claims of short-termism, with Coulson (1990) arguing that less thought had been given to the potential longer-term impact of development. The primary objective of UDCs was to develop designated areas as quickly as possible (Brownhill et al, 1996), ‘in sharp contrast to the alleged inﬂexibility and bureaucratic nature of local government’ (Connelly, 2007:94). In October 1980, Environment Secretary Michael

Heseltine announced the first two UDCs, the MDC and London Docklands Development

Corporation, stating that the remit of these organisations would be to take their targeted areas ‘out of their past and into their future’ (Heseltine, 1980, as cited in Adcock,

1984:265).

As section 4.2 detailed, Liverpool’s docks had become a signifier of the economic decline of the city by the start of the 1980s, with Adcock (1984:280) describing them as ‘a depressing monument to the decline of the Merseyside economy and the port on which it was based’ (see Figure 5). Formally designated in March 1981, the MDC was tasked with

Figure 5 – The ‘depressing monument’ referred to by Adcock (1984:280), note the dilapidated state of the buildings and silted up Albert Dock, showcasing the scale of the MDCs task (Source: Adcock, 1984:278). bringing the central and southern docks back into use, to create an attractive environment for people to live and work, with particular focus on development for industrial and commercial purposes (Parkinson, 1988). National government had been keen to regenerate waterfront sites after witnessing the success of prestige projects in the US, such as Baltimore’s Harbourplace (Loftman and Nevin, 1995; 1996). The MDC spent over

£20 million on the physical regeneration of the docks, allowing water to flow throughout the system once again (Adcock, 1984).

For a city that had experienced a significant withdrawal of private capital over the course of the preceding decades, this physical regeneration work was important to instil confidence and showcase that the docks represented a secure investment under the

MDCs stewardship. The MDC however was not a popular organisation within the city

86 council, with the prevailing perception that plans had been imposed without consultation

(which was the intention), with the local authority not being trusted to follow through a national government urban regeneration agenda (Jones and Evans, 2008). Brownhill et al

(1996) noted that not only were UDC boards non-elected, but they predominantly operated in secret, with no requirement to publish minutes or agendas, which helped strengthen the city council’s resolve that the MDC was excluding the views of local decision-makers. The city council claimed that the money invested could be better used throughout Liverpool; yet the intention of the design of UDCs was to kick-start private sector investment which would ‘trickle-down’ and benefit the entire city (Frost and North,

2013). The example here of the city council opposing the work of the MDC was not unusual, however, and was somewhat replicated through the London Docklands

Development Corporation. The Corporation implemented a strategy of high quality residential development and commercial uses for the Docklands, which in essence reversed the approach previously adopted by the local councils of the area, with Lawless

(1991:26) criticising the emphasis on economic development ‘to the detriment of other considerations.’

Shortly after the designation of the MDC, social unrest in Liverpool would soon require further intervention from Whitehall. In the summer of 1981, discontent came to a head in the Toxteth area of the city, which at the time had amongst the highest unemployment and deprivation rates in the country. Two weeks of rioting, looting and arson left hundreds of police officers and civilians injured, with significant damage to homes, shops and public buildings (Unger, 2007). The unrest was reported in national news headlines, with The Telegraph reporting that ‘people in balaclavas were handing out petrol bombs’ (The Telegraph, 1981). Such headlines contributed to the image of

Liverpool as ‘virtually synonymous with urban social problems’ (Jones and Wilks-Heeg,

2004:344) which was prevalent during this period. The Conservative government reacted quickly, with Heseltine visiting the city in the weeks following the unrest in an effort to better understand what caused the disarray (Cocks, 2013). A month after the riots had occurred, Heseltine presented the Prime Minister with a paper summarising his findings, headlined by the quote he felt most resonated with those he had talked to on Merseyside,

‘it took a riot’ (Heseltine, 1981; Unger, 2007). The government appointed Heseltine

‘Minister for Merseyside’, created the Merseyside Task Force and pressed ahead with thirteen initiatives aimed at solving the city’s most pressing problems (Frost and North,

2013). The Task Force became a local government office with officials transferred from national departments, working in conjunction with the private sector and utilising the MDC where necessary to achieve its wider aims (Cocks, 2013). Despite Heseltine’s (1981:19) calls for action in the city, he warned ‘it will take time to draw up a programme of worthwhile projects.’

Just two weeks after the Toxteth riots, however, such a worthwhile project presented itself, with a feasibility study into an IGF released, commissioned earlier in the year after the MDC expressed an interest in hosting. National government invited bids to host such a festival following the success of Bundesgarten shows held in Germany, and in September 1981 it was announced that Liverpool would host the first IGF in 1984, with the development site located less than two miles from Toxteth (Adcock, 1984). Paralleling

MDCs initial work in regenerating the docks, physical works were first required, with 250

Figure 6 – The extensive IGF site under construction, with the exhibition hall and miniature railway visible in the foreground. The festival helped to create new images to market the city (Source: Unger, 2007:124). acres of land reclaimed and transformed at the cost of £30 million (Holden, 1989). The festival attracted over 3.4 million visitors during its hosting year, featuring internationally themed gardens, a miniature railway and exhibition hall (pictured in Figure 6), providing

Liverpool with positive press and television coverage (Holden, 1989; Unger, 2007). With

Liverpool’s image having been impacted by decades of economic decline, coupled with the negative media coverage of the city in the wake of the Toxteth riots, the IGF was utilised as a prestige project to assist in perception change (Kavaratzis and Ashworth,

2005). The IGF thus showcased how special events can be utilised purposefully as part of place marketing strategies to present new images of a city, helping rebuild visitor and investor confidence when existing reputations become tainted.

By 1984 the MDC had realised that developing the docks for industrial and commercial purposes was likely to be unsuccessful due to the lack of demand for such uses, subsequently resorting to developing the site for tourism with a mixture of cultural attractions (Connelly, 2007; Evans, 1996). This approach aligns with the strategy adopted at Baltimore’s Harbourplace. Although the initial development included shops, restaurants and markets, the subsequent additions of a museum and aquarium looked to capitalise upon an initial 18 million visitors within its first year (Falk, 1986; Levine, 1987). By the time the fully refurbished Albert Dock was officially opened in May 1988 by HRH Prince

Charles (the Docks had been partly open to visitors since 1984), both Tate Liverpool and the Merseyside Maritime Museum had become anchor tenants of the redevelopment

(Couch, 2003; Nurse, 2017).

The MDCs change in strategy away from industrial and commercial uses for the docks aligns with the work of Britton (1991) who argues that it is the cultural and leisure attractions which are most lucrative regarding tourist footfall and spend, showcasing an early example of festivalization processes. Therefore despite Jones and Evans

(2008:119) describing the combination of uses at the Albert Dock as ‘highly innovative for the UK at the time’, this was the direct result of a national government strategy to replicate the successful prestige projects within US cities. Utilising the example of the

MDC to showcase how national government were bypassing and isolating the city council, the local Labour party adopted a confrontational position in direct opposition to the entrepreneurial governance which the Conservative Party wished to ingrain.

The rise and fall of left wing militancy in Liverpool

Running concurrently with the MDC regeneration of the central and southern docks and IGF site was the rise of left wing militancy within the local Labour party. A

Liverpool Labour party committed to confrontation with the Conservative national government was elected in 1983 (Frost and North, 2013; Parkinson, 1990). Dominated by working class membership, Liverpool’s Labour party were focussed on issues of rising unemployment, substandard housing, education and workers’ rights, taking the party further to the left with increasing voices for militant insurgency (Frost and North, 2013).

Although a minority within the wider party, this insurgency took over the local leadership, playing upon fears of union members employed by the council, who held uncertainties regarding their ongoing employment (Parkinson, 1990). Aligned with widespread opinion in the area, the local Labour party were driven by the lack of interest from national government in providing funding for the city. Supporting this argument, national government’s contribution to funding the city council fell from 62% in 1980 to 44% by

1983 (Frost and North, 2013). The local Labour party felt that public sector jobs were key to producing economic growth in the city, and argued in favour of maintaining this sector of employment (Evans, 1996).

Theorising back to the original arguments of Bourdieu (1986), Liverpool’s political situation during this period can be linked to his framings of cultural, economic and social capital. Bourdieu placed primary emphasis on economic gain, which he argued was vital in developing cultural capital, which could subsequently be utilised to form social capital ties. The implication of Bourdieu’s framework however, is that it reproduces unequal class structures, negatively impacting upon those without requisite economic capital (Tzanakis,

2013). Within Liverpool during this period, a city characterised by economic decline and associated unemployment and social deprivation (Frost and North, 2013), the local

Labour party grew in popularity owing to its focus on working class issues. This section of society had been disproportionally impacted by a reduction in central funding, leading to a common perception amongst Labour voters in the city that the militant leaders were best placed to represent their interests to national government. With Portes and Landolt

(2000) explaining Bourdieu’s theory that cultural capital is crucial in establishing relationships with valued others, the collective working class of Liverpool looked towards the militant leadership as having the requisite existing capital to be able to best represent their interests. This inference aligns with Leonard’s (2004) analysis that it has become the

90 responsibility of local political leaders to engage with more formal institutional networks

(in this case national government).

Alongside Liverpool, Labour-held cities such as Birmingham, Glasgow,

Manchester and Sheffield adopted similar confrontational approaches to the Conservative national government strategy of decreasing local autonomy (Loftman and Nevin, 1996).

These Labour-held councils argued that the emphasis on economic development by national government was to the detriment of other pressing issues (Parkinson, 1989).

Financial sanctions imposed on city councils placed extreme pressure upon their provision of housing, education, transport and welfare, with the quality of these services deteriorating, disproportionally impacting upon those suffering from poverty within inner- cities (Lawless, 1991). Cultural policy in Liverpool during this period attracted little interest from the Labour council, with a predominant focus upon the aforementioned public sector cuts, job losses and housing programme. Cultural policy not being high on the agenda of the city council predated this militant era, and indeed, many of the minority administrations of the council during the 1970s (Parkinson and Bianchini, 1993). In 1974, cultural policy and management became the responsibility of Merseyside County Council, rather than the city council, with the Labour council thus believing that this removed their obligation to the arts and cultural infrastructure of the city (O’Brien and Miles, 2010).

Liverpool’s Labour council set about trying to implement its own regeneration initiatives through a strategy of municipal socialism, with particular focus upon a housebuilding programme to replace the ageing tenements of the city. As Parkinson

(1989) explains, though, the Labour council were impeded in this directive by the restructuring of capital under urban entrepreneurialism, with national government reducing funding which could be invested at the local level. With the Labour council threatening to bankrupt the city if national government did not provide additional financial support, in July 1984 leaders of the city council met with government minister Patrick

Jenkin, reaching an agreed settlement to fund the city’s housebuilding programme

(Unger, 2007). The manner in which the militant leadership of the Labour council celebrated this mutually agreed settlement however, proclaiming victory over national government, infuriated ministers. Having uncharacteristically committed to concessions at the local level, national government vowed ‘not to be caught out again’ (Frost and North, 91

2013:85), and following further clashes with the Labour council, cut 20% of their housing budget (Parkinson, 1990).

The national Labour Party were looking to purge the party of its far left militants

(despite their contention that the Conservative government had instigated such oppositional politics), in an effort to appeal to a higher proportion of the electorate

(Meegan, 2003). In April 1985, Liverpool’s Labour council set an illegal deficit budget, looking to once again force national government’s hand. However by September of that year, reacting to the council announcing it would issue redundancies to all workers as a positioning tactic, the District Auditor expelled the forty-seven councillors involved from the local party (Frost and North, 2013). At the Labour Party conference in October 1985, party leader Neil Kinnock attacked the approach of the militant left of the party, with his plea ‘I tell you – and you’ll listen – you can’t play politics with people’s jobs and people’s homes and people’s services!’ (The Guardian, 1985).

A new Labour council was subsequently formed in Liverpool, and adopted a less resistant way of working with national government, with the previous demands of increased autonomy and additional funding tempered, in line with the formerly confrontational Labour-held councils of Birmingham, Glasgow, Manchester and Sheffield.

Manchester City Council by the late 1980s had become more open to the private sector, investing heavily in marketing the city more effectively (Loftman and Nevin, 1996), linked to their ambition to host the 1992 Olympic Games (Cook and Ward, 2011). In Sheffield, a new relationship was formed between the local authority and private sector with the creation of the Sheffield Economic Regeneration Committee, which also included representatives from trade unions, community groups and the local UDC (DiGaetano and

Lawless, 1999). Such was the trend of Labour-held cities embracing urban entrepreneurialism during this period that by the end of the decade, the Government’s

Audit Commission reported that the previous conflicts between Labour city councils and national government were no longer a primary concern (Loftman and Nevin, 1996).

By the end of the 1980s however, there remained criticism from city councils that urban regeneration policies presented limited opportunities for the prominent involvement of local authorities, particularly considering their local knowledge and commitment

(Couch, 2003). Increased scope for local autonomy was therefore introduced through the development of competitive bidding schemes, positioning councils in direct opposition with each other for limited funding. Haughton and While (1999:4) referred to these schemes as ‘a gradual rehabilitation of local government in regeneration’ overseen by the

Conservative government. Key in the decision to introduce competitive bidding as an urban regeneration policy strand was that it promoted the entrepreneurial governance style the Conservatives wished to encourage at the city level. Furthermore, bidding cities would only be rewarded funding based on merit, i.e. those bids which conformed to the objectives of partnership working, including significant representation from the private sector (Oatley, 1995). Despite the ‘competitive’ nature of these bidding schemes and awards based ‘on merit’, such language was utilised to disguise that these schemes represented overall cuts to public funding.

The first competitive bidding initiative the national government introduced was

City Challenge, a scheme which encouraged local authorities to create partnerships with business, community and voluntary groups in support of urban regeneration projects

(Couch, 2003; Oatley, 1995). In Liverpool, City Challenge presented an opportunity for the city council to showcase it could effectively form partnerships to facilitate economic regeneration. Meeting partnership criteria represented a challenge for the council, particularly considering that the city had been receiving (and to a large extent depending upon) additional concessions from national government less than ten years previously

(Oatley, 1998). In the first round of bidding in 1992, Liverpool were one of the successful applicants, securing £37.5 million to regenerate an area east of the city centre (Couch,

2003). Meegan (2003:63) suggested this investment brought in ‘a new era of governance in the city’, owing to the bid document containing thirty-seven signatories from a variety of public, private and voluntary sector organisations (see also Jones and Wilks-Heeg,

2004). The funding was granted on one condition however, relating to the recent legacy of political militancy in Liverpool, that no city councillors were to be a part of the board

(Cocks, 2013). Although Liverpool received tens of millions of pounds of investment through challenge funding schemes during the 1990s, and the nationally imposed MDC before this, the money subsequently received from the EU would allow a sustained investment into the built and cultural infrastructure of the city over the following decade.

4.4 From Objective One funding to Capital of Culture: Liverpool’s EU Journey

Despite the aforementioned economic regeneration initiatives instigated during the 1980s and early 1990s, these policy interventions represented piecemeal development in Liverpool. By July 1993, Merseyside was still experiencing an economic downturn, with average GDP falling so low (below 75% of the European average GDP per capita), that it became the first ex-industrial region to qualify for Objective One

European Union Structural Funding (Garcia et al, 2010; Bullen, 2013). Merseyside subsequently received £1.3 billion in funding between 1994-2006, principally for economic regeneration purposes (Cocks, 2013), but also with an explicitly stated expectation of investment into culture, with reference to the positive impact this could have upon economic development (Bullen, 2013). Therefore, as well as investment in the physical appearance of the city, funding for cultural infrastructure and tourism projects was provided, such as the Mathew Street Music Festival, River of Light celebration and refurbishment of multiple theatres (Connelly, 2007).

Assisted by the Objective One funding, perceptions of Liverpool as an investment opportunity improved (Rodwell, 2008), with the Liberal Democrat city council (elected in

1998) supporting an urban regeneration strategy to bolster the city’s economy (Cocks,

2009). Aiding this proactive approach, Liverpool Vision was established by national government before the turn of the century, becoming the first Urban Regeneration

Company (hereafter URC) in the country, aimed at coordinating urban regeneration in the city (Shaw et al, 2009). Despite Liverpool Vision being a private company, separate to the city council, in part so it ‘carried less of the image baggage associated with it’ (Cocks,

2013:590), the URC effectively acted as a vehicle for the council’s regeneration strategy.

One of Liverpool Vision’s first projects was to assist in the development of the long proposed cultural quarter in the Ropewalks area of the city. The resulting gentrification in this area left existing residents feeling isolated however, with Couch and Dennemann

(2000) highlighting the limited opportunities for consultation which were undertaken as part of the planning process.

The similarities between Liverpool Vision and policy predecessors such as the

MDC and Merseyside Task Force are based on the prominence of private sector

94 partners. A key difference between these organisations though relates to how their regeneration programmes are implemented. During the 1980s, the regeneration agenda of the MDC and Task Force were imposed from above by national government, with the city council side-lined. With Liverpool Vision however, the organisation represents a vehicle through which the city council’s regeneration agenda could be aligned with private sector support. Despite this regeneration alliance between the city council and private sector however, strategic decisions were not always made in consultation. A major decision made by city council leader Mike Storey was for Liverpool to bid for the UK’s

ECoC designation for 2008 (O’Brien, 2010). Significant in this decision was that it was made without wider consultation of the council (let alone of the public), and would alter the course of Liverpool’s regeneration strategy towards a cultural focus, concentrating on hosting major events. Relevant to the research question concerning the shift in

Liverpool’s governance focus over the past few decades, the remainder of this chapter will reflect on the city council’s increasingly culture-led regeneration strategy.

The UK had hosted the ECoC once before in 1990, with Glasgow’s bid forming part of a wider economic regeneration strategy by the city council (Mooney, 2004). The proposed funding from the private sector within their ECoC bid appealed to the

Conservative government who decided the designation (Tretter, 2008). Glasgow’s experience subsequently was marked as a turning point for the ECoC award, with the event consequently becoming seen as a panacea for post-industrial cities looking to reinvent their image (Fitzpatrick, 2013). Having noted the positive impact on Glasgow’s image and reputation, alongside the similarity of the two cities prolonged periods of deindustrialisation, Storey decided to attempt to emulate their ECoC experience in

Liverpool, to act as a catalyst for culture-led regeneration (Campbell and O’Brien, 2017).

Storey hoped to focus national and international media attention onto Liverpool as part of a wider place marketing strategy, providing new positive images of the city (Quinn, 2005), as discussed in Chapter 2.

With just a handful of council members informed of this intention however, the decision to bid points towards a lack of strategic planning within the council. In comparison, the cities of Bristol and Cardiff discussed potential bids for the 2008 designation not only within their respective city councils, but with cultural development 95 bodies (Bristol Cultural Development Partnership), marketing bodies (The Cardiff

Initiative) and their local arts and cultural communities (Griffiths, 2006). O’Brien and Miles

(2011:11) agree that the decision to bid in Liverpool was somewhat of a reactive measure, ‘based on the assumption that such policy is easily transferable from place to place’. This assumption links to the thinking behind the process of festivalization, that success elsewhere can be replicated, not taking into account local specificity. Cities who bid for these awards with the intention of catalysing strategies of cultural regeneration and rebranding thus embark upon a ‘festivalization of city development’ (Evans, 2011:5).

Owing to the lack of existing institutional capacity for cultural programming within the council, in the summer of 2000 a separate entity, the Liverpool Culture Company was established to produce the bid (Liverpool Culture Company, 2005). Such a sudden focus on producing a cultural event bid led Jones and Wilks-Heeg (2004:346) to proclaim that cultural policy in the city ‘moved from the margins of the policy agenda to become its primary focus.’ On the 4th June 2003, Liverpool was announced as the UK’s choice for the ECoC 2008 designation, with national media coverage speculating on the role culture could play in Liverpool’s economic regeneration (BBC News, 2003: Online; The

Guardian, 2003: Online; The Independent, 2003: Online, The Telegraph, 2003: Online).

Head of the judging panel Sir Jeremy Isaacs emphasised that the bid promise of engagement with local communities had been particularly influential in the city’s eventual designation (Jones and Wilks-Heeg, 2004). However it would not be the engagement of local communities that characterised preparations for the award, but governance issues within the Liverpool Culture Company, with resignations, restructuring and uncertainty over the artistic programme threatening to jeopardise the city’s hosting year.

4.5 Political infighting and programming turmoil: Governing Capital of Culture

After Liverpool was named the ECoC for 2008, the mandate of the Liverpool

Culture Company changed, with its responsibility to now programme events and deliver on bid promises (Shaw et al, 2009). Liverpool City Council held little existing institutional capacity in relation to culture and had limited precedent of partnership working to host major cultural events. At the turn of the century, despite the MDC projects of the refurbished Albert Dock and IGF, ‘the notion of Liverpool as a cultural centre and tourist

96 destination had little credence’ (Jones and Wilks-Heeg, 2004:343). These issues were glossed over, with the prevailing narrative of the city’s decision to bid being that securing

Capital of Culture status for Liverpool would represent a turning point for the city

(Fitzpatrick, 2013). Looking at how other cities in similar circumstances governed major cultural programmes, the examples of the organisational structures of Glasgow and

Cork’s ECoC designations alongside Manchester hosting the 2002 Commonwealth

Games offer scope for comparison.

Regarding the governance of Glasgow’s year as ECoC in 1990, Garcia (2004) notes that the bid was formed at short notice by Glasgow District Council, yet with a willingness to embrace partnership working and private sector involvement that presented a departure from the city’s previously managerial approach to governance (Mooney,

2004). For the first time the District Council formed a partnership with Strathclyde

Regional Council, the major cultural institutions of the city, and the business community to implement the organisation and delivery of the designation (Tretter, 2008). This cooperation presented an early example of urban entrepreneurialism in Glasgow which the national Conservative government were trying to ingrain. For Cork, which was selected as the ECoC for 2005, a limited company Cork 2005 Ltd was established shortly after their designation in 2001, with aims of generating funding, delivering marketing and programming events for the hosting year (O’Callaghan, 2012). Cork 2005 Ltd reported to the council via an appointed Board of Directors, which contained representatives from the city’s arts, business, education and tourism sectors, alongside elected councillors. This process ensured that Cork 2005 Ltd remained independent yet was overseen by industry experts and council members who could report back to the city council should problems arise (Quinn, 2010).

For Manchester when applying to host the 2002 Commonwealth Games, the city benefitted greatly from its experiences in bidding (albeit unsuccessfully) for the 1992,

1996 and 2000 Olympic Games (Cook and Ward, 2011). These bids had over time forged effective partnerships between the public and private sectors, evidencing the increasingly prevalent urban entrepreneurial governance in the city since the end of the 1980s

(Loftman and Nevin, 1996; Smith, 2012). This example shows the value in forming and strengthening partnerships as part of wider bidding infrastructures, in comparison to the 97 impulsive decision to bid for the ECoC designation by council leader Storey in Liverpool.

Upon being awarded the 2002 Commonwealth Games designation in 1995, Manchester

Commonwealth Games Ltd was created to organise the strategic direction of the games, with representation from the city council and local private sector. After securing the games designation, the team behind the bid (including celebrity ambassadors) were replaced with operational staff who had expertise relating to delivery, attending the

Atlanta and Sydney summer Olympics Games to aid in their preparation plans (Cook and

Ward, 2011).

With the focus of Liverpool Culture Company now on delivery, the appointment of council officers, rather than operational staff with deliverance expertise (as Manchester

Commonwealth Games Ltd did), brought into dispute the claim of independence from the council (like Cork 2005 Ltd had achieved) (O’Brien, 2011). Further undermining this lack of independence from the council, when in early 2004 the first Liverpool Culture Company

Chief Executive resigned (Liverpool Echo, 2004: Online), the replacement was named as

Sir David Henshaw, the chief executive of the city council. The leadership of the city council and Culture Company thus quickly became almost identical (Griffiths, 2006). By

May 2005 the Culture Company board had increased to twenty eight (Liverpool Culture

Company, 2009a), with relationships between elected members and non-elected officers increasingly fractious amid conflicting expectations surrounding the aims of the ECoC year (Connolly, 2013).

The two individuals at the centre of Liverpool’s successful ECoC bid, then council leader Mike Storey and council/Culture Company chief executive Sir David Henshaw, clashed in what was termed ‘a poisonous feud’ (Ward, 2006a: Online), with both subsequently leaving their posts in ‘the collapse of the governing coalition’ (O’Brien,

2011:52). Henshaw’s replacement as chief executive of the Culture Company Jason

Harborow also resigned his post just over eighteen months later, owing to criticism for his handling of the late cancellation of the Mathew Street Festival on health and safety grounds in August 2007 (Liverpool Echo, 2007a: Online; Martin, 2007: Online). This criticism became public knowledge when a leaked email showed Storey’s successor as council leader Warren Bradley calling for Harborow’s sacking for the handling of the events (see Figure 7) (Liverpool Echo, 2007b: Online). 98

Figure 7 – Local newspaper headlines following the emergence of a leaked email from Liverpool City Council Leader Warren Bradley, typifying the continued political infighting that plagued preparations for Liverpool’s year as ECoC (Source: Garcia, 2017:14).

As well as issues plaguing the governing structure of Liverpool Culture Company as a deliverance organisation, the proposed artistic direction of the programme also presented problems. Unlike with the experience of Cork 2005 Ltd who put out a public call for content for their ECoC programme (Quinn, 2010), Liverpool opted for a curatorial approach, appointing Australian Robyn Archer as Artistic Director in 2004. Concerns quickly grew around the lack of time she was spending in the city however, with her six figure salary brought into question (Liverpool Echo, 2006: Online). Ultimately Archer only gained a work visa in April 2006 and resigned the post in July 2006, less than eighteen months before official celebrations were due to begin (Wintour, 2009: Online). According to Archer, she lacked the necessary creative control over the festival due to council interference and the prioritisation of their urban regeneration agenda (Connolly, 2013).

For those within the council though, it was stated that there was ‘growing concern about the direction of the plans she was drawing up for ECoC events and her fractious relationship with leading cultural figures’ (Liverpool Echo, 2006: Online). National press reported at the time that this left the ECoC plans in ‘tatters’ (Herbert, 2006: Online) and

‘disarray’ (Ward, 2006b: Online). When interviewed, Paul, a member of the initial bidding team likened this period to ‘two or three years of f*****g about basically, we brought in

99 these outsiders who f****d things up’ (Paul, Tourist Attraction Curator, March 2018).

Summarising the change in personnel across the planning process for ECoC 2008,

O’Brien (2010) noted the following resignations:

 Leader of Liverpool City Council

 Chief Executive of Liverpool City Council

 Chief Executive of Liverpool Culture Company (on two occasions)

 Artistic Director of Liverpool Culture Company

 Operations Officer of Liverpool Culture Company

 Senior Events Manager of Liverpool Culture Company

Archer’s resignation left plans for the artistic programme of ECoC in jeopardy, with an ongoing debate pertaining to what the balance between international productions and local contributions should be. These arguments hold a theoretical grounding in the process of festivalization and resultant placelessness (McClinchey, 2008), in that by prioritising international productions over locally based contributions, the distinct culture and character of Liverpool may be overlooked. As part of the city’s ECoC bid document, culture had been defined as enabling ‘Liverpool’s citizens to express affiliation and identity’ (Liverpool Culture Company Limited, 2002:1). From these ongoing debates, it was concluded that local cultural practitioners and organisations must be involved alongside high-quality productions from further afield (Shaw et al, 2009). Such debates align with the analysis of Garcia (2004), who explains that programming major cultural events can result in a balancing act, with competing pressures and interests from locals, external visitors and the media.

Away from the problems concerning the direction of the artistic programme for

ECoC 2008, local cultural organisations had been preparing their own calendars of events for the year. Despite Liverpool having been awarded ECoC on the basis that ‘the whole city is involved in the bid’ (Herbert, 2006: Online), there remained a lack of a working relationship between the council and major cultural organisations of the city, a hangover from the void of interest in cultural policy during the 1980s and 1990s. Culture

100

Liverpool employee Lorna supported this view when interviewed, stating that before ‘the impetus of 2008 there wasn’t really…such a strong network of organisations working together’ (Lorna, Culture Liverpool Employee, March 2018). Partly in reaction to this lack of working relationship with the city council (and subsequently Liverpool Culture

Company), a network of major cultural organisations was created, named as the

Liverpool Arts Regeneration Consortium (hereafter LARC).

LARC brought together ‘The Big Eight’ (Bluecoat, Everyman and Playhouse,

FACT, Liverpool Biennial, National Museums Liverpool, Royal Liverpool Philharmonic,

Tate Liverpool and Unity Theatre) and would subsequently play a more prominent role in the ECoC programme than originally envisioned. Following the programming void left by

Archer’s departure, the members of LARC offered to tie their individual programmes of events for 2008 together with the remnants of the Culture Company’s artistic plans, creating a loose public-private partnership in the process (Brown and Richards, 2011).

Paul summarised the situation as ‘the council basically went back, cap in hand to all the cultural organisations and said…“can you help us out?”’ (Paul, Tourist Attraction Curator,

March 2018). This strategy of aligning events together helped to ensure that there was sufficient local contribution from the major cultural organisations of the city towards the

ECoC artistic programme.

Despite the political infighting and programming problems Liverpool experienced organising its ECoC celebrations, news of the Culture Company’s governance issues by and large did not appear in the national press apart from isolated articles. This allowed local community groups and cultural organisations to move ahead with their own preparations, during a period when negative news may have further stalled progress

(Reynolds, 2008a: Online). By September 2007, the Liverpool Culture Company board had been restructured to just seven members, with Phil Redmond, a local television producer with national profile, given full reigns as Creative Director (Garcia et al, 2010).

On the eve of 2008, Redmond likened the overarching governance issues which had plagued the delivery process to a ‘scouse wedding’, explaining that in spite of the previous problems or disagreements, the overarching occasion would unify everyone involved to ensure success (Cox and O’Brien, 2012). Redmond hints here at the potential of events to contribute towards conceptions of social capital (a primary focus of Chapters 101

5 and 6), in that interests can be harmonized to achieve collective endeavours, aligning with the analysis of Coleman (1988).

A World in One City: Authentic representations or sanitised culture?

Liverpool’s ECoC opening ceremony began at 8.08pm (20.08 on a 24-hour clock) on January 8th 2008, with over 50,000 people gathering on Lime Street to witness Ringo

Starr perform on the roof of St George’s Hall, reported by local and national press alike

(Johnson, 2008: Online; Shaw et al, 2009; Ward, 2008: Online). The artistic programme of the ECoC year that followed totalled over 7,000 events, highlighted by several major attractions. In June, Sir Paul McCartney played a sold out Anfield Stadium (Reynolds,

2008b: Online), and over a September weekend La Princesse, a fifty foot mechanical spider ‘roamed’ through central streets (Shaw et al, 2009), garnering ‘media coverage from Canada to China’ (Vallely, 2008: Online). Further prestigious events such as the

Turner Prize and Gustav Klimt exhibition, both held at Tate Liverpool and Tall Ships Boat

Race placed additional global media focus onto the city (Boland, 2010). The cultural venues of the city benefitted too, with a combined audience throughout the year of 15 million people (Iqbal, 2008: Online) contributing £800 million to the local economy (Shaw et al., 2009).

A major component of Liverpool’s bid, and subsequent designation as ECoC was built around the theme, ‘The World in One City’ (Liverpool Culture Company, 2005).

There was an emphasis upon broadening access and engagement (Liu, 2014), with the potential role of culture in delivering social cohesion and community change echoing hallmarks of New Labour’s policy rhetoric (Griffiths, 2001; Griffiths et al, 2003). As part of the programme delivery for ECoC, the Liverpool Culture Company created the CCP in

2004 (to be fully explored in chapter 5), which through partnership with a number of public and private sector organisations became the largest community arts programme in

Europe (Liverpool Culture Company, 2009a). The programme’s core focus was engaging children and young people from across Liverpool, improving their access to the arts.

Looking at the artistic programme of the ECoC year, although the CCP provided access to arts and culture for communities outside of the central city, the vast majority of the most prominent attractions still took place in the centre, leading to feelings of

102 marginalisation within outlying neighbourhoods. Boland (2010) found that these feelings of ostracism were characterised through a spatial bias regarding the geographical location of the most prominent events, but also economically, concerning the predominance of investment focused within the city centre. Maligning the primary economic focus of ECoC on city centre events, residents from surrounding neighbourhoods felt this investment was to the detriment of communities in poorer, peripheral housing estates, in which similar levels of investment could make a significant difference, leading to feelings of alienation from the overriding event. Picking up on many of the same threads as Boland (2010), Fitzpatrick (2013) highlighted the impact of cultural exclusion within Liverpool’s ECoC, evidenced through the experiences of already established cultural groups partaking in CCP projects. Finding that the CCP had pre- constructed identity based categories into which local community engagement was expected to fit, Fitzpatrick (2013) criticised how these projects overlooked the existing reputation and creative capacity of established cultural groups. A common complaint from such cultural groups was that CCP projects merely facilitated their inclusion, offering little opportunity to directly influence the content of their input.

The research of Boland (2010) also challenges the official rhetoric of the cultures portrayed within Liverpool’s ECoC artistic programme. Boland questioned how ‘The

World in One City’ related to ethnic minorities and younger groups in deprived neighbourhoods outside of the city centre, finding no clear evidence of programmed events or promotion in the outlying areas of Norris Green, Speke or Toxteth. There is an inherent irony to these findings, particularly considering that the city’s ECoC bid document stated that ‘the cultural map of Liverpool is grounded in the experiences of traditionally underrepresented groups and individuals’ (Liverpool Culture Company

Limited, 2002:1). The contribution of local culture was also a focus for Campbell

(2011:515), who explained that the artistic programme of ECoC ‘operated in a separate field to the one occupied by many creative industry practitioners’, with a significant proportion of the organisations featured from outside of the city. Therefore despite the claims of local cultural practitioners being important to the ECoC programming mix, it appears that opportunities were limited within the most prominent events, restricting the cultural authenticity of the programme (Getz, 2012; Quinn, 2005).

103

Despite questions relating to whose culture would be represented within

Liverpool’s ECoC and whether this would be sanitised (Jones and Wilks-Heeg, 2004), the city’s experience here was not uncommon in comparison to the mainstream cultures portrayed in Glasgow’s and Cork’s ECoC years. Mooney (2004) states that two conceptions of Glasgow were created within their ECoC year, with the ‘official’ version deliberately overlooking the reality prevalent across large areas of the city of deprivation and high unemployment levels. For Cork’s ECoC year, Binns (2005) noted that local creative groups set up ‘Where’s Me Culture?’ as an outlet for those practitioners left out of the official programme. As will be discussed in Chapter 5, this lack of opportunity for local arts and cultural practitioners would become a motivating factor in the design and purpose of LightNight by Open Culture.

4.6 Policy influence and perception change: Outcomes from Capital of Culture

One of the principle reasons why Storey decided to bid for the ECoC designation was to improve the image of Liverpool, attempting to change perceptions of the city. Even before the conclusion of Liverpool’s year as ECoC, its success was being quantified and praised. There was an almost immediate perception that the ECoC year had an encouraging impact on the image of Liverpool, aided by favourable reporting from national and international media including the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and

Buenos Aires Herald (see Figure 8) (Shaw et al, 2009). The Liverpool Culture Company

Figure 8 – Headlines from national and international media coverage portraying Liverpool's year as ECoC as a success (Source: Liverpool Culture Company, 2009b, as cited in Garcia, 2017:16).

104 equated the value of this media coverage to £200 million, with 14,000 articles referencing

Liverpool in the UK media alone throughout 2008 (Liverpool Culture Company, 2009a).

The positive impact upon the image of Liverpool was defined by the tone of media coverage, which diversified away from negative stories containing ‘stereotypes of crime drugs, violence, unemployment and urban decay’ (Shaw et al, 2009:124) which had characterised reporting on the city throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. Traditional media reporting on Liverpool culture would usually centre on the city’s musical and built heritage, but ECoC highlighted a diversity of cultural activity, leading to increased coverage of visual and performing arts alongside local creative communities (Garcia et al,

2010).

Such was the perception of the success of Liverpool’s ECoC year that it influenced the creation of the UK City of Culture award. The announcement of the UK award came just days before the closing ceremony of Liverpool’s hosting year, strategically timed to capitalise upon existing national media focus on the potential legacy of the event. The idea for the UK City of Culture was first envisaged by Phil Redmond, and subsequently developed alongside Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

Andy Burnham, with Redmond chairing a group to progress plans ahead of the first recipient hosting the award in 2011 (Wardrop, 2009: Online). The creation of the award marked a complete turnaround for Liverpool in regards to its influence over culture-led regeneration policy. From the previously referenced nationally imposed MDC and

Merseyside Task Force bypassing the city council to instigate regeneration initiatives, the perceived success of Liverpool’s year as ECoC illustrated that the city council could host major cultural events and directly influence national cultural policy. Announcing the creation of the UK City of Culture award, Burnham stated that:

‘In Liverpool, something important and significant has happened that has implications for cultural policy in Britain…By receiving national recognition as a city of culture, any city of the UK could be given an opportunity to bring out the creative skills, talent and enthusiasm of its people - showcase it on a national stage - and change perceptions’ (Wintour, 2009: Online).

The implications for cultural policy that Burnham alludes to are summarised by

Cox and O’Brien (2012:96), who state that ‘Liverpool’s “success story” stems from the narrative that the failing city has somehow “turned it around”, using culture.’ The 105 admission by Burnham of the importance of changing perceptions of cities relates back to the positive reporting of Glasgow’s ECoC year in 1990 and how place-marketing assisted in improving its image over the longer term. As Garcia (2017) discovered in her research into the impact of press narratives on image change for major event host cities, Liverpool and Glasgow held similar media narrative trajectories concerning their designation as

ECoC. Specifically, each city experienced a growth in negative local press between winning the bid and hosting the event, often centred on governance issues, before subsequently being praised as exemplars of culture-led regeneration after their ECoC year had concluded.

The Liverpool Culture Company was disbanded by the summer of 2009, with the city council seeking to capitalise upon the success of the cultural infrastructure they had created for ECoC (Liverpool Culture Company, 2009b). Culture Liverpool was created as a more business focussed organisation, entrusted with cultural activity, services and events in the city, alongside responsibility for delivering a funding programme to the city’s arts and cultural organisations. In contrast to the city council’s previous lack of institutional capacity in relation to arts and culture preceding their decision to bid for

ECoC, the creation of Culture Liverpool showcases the value the council now placed upon hosting such events. Paul believed that the council’s experience of working alongside cultural organisations for 2008 had opened their eyes to the potential of the sector. He commented ‘it’s like the council and everyone else has gone, actually we’ve got a load of great things that are going on here, with a little bit more support, we can help you to raise your game’ (Paul, Tourist Attraction Curator, March 2018).

Liverpool City Council’s creation of Culture Liverpool post-ECoC showcased an understanding of the value of culture that was not replicated in the previously designated cities of Glasgow and Cork. In Glasgow, a failure to establish partnerships outside of the major events programme limited ongoing support for culture, with an insufficient balance between budgeting for the main events programme and cultural activity which could take place in subsequent years (Garcia, 2004). Cork 2005 Ltd on the other hand was disbanded in 2006, with no agency taking over responsibility to support the city’s cultural sector (Quinn, 2010). Cork 2005 Ltd had awarded five ‘legacy grants’ worth £50,000 during 2005, yet this one-off funding did little to support the cultural sector in the longer 106 term. The legacy of the ECoC for many in the city appeared ambivalent due to the lack of sustained financial support for culture (O’Callaghan, 2012).

Culture Liverpool has become a key policy instrument for the council, challenged with ‘developing Liverpool as a culturally vibrant, creative city’ (McKinney, 2013:71).

Increasingly looking to position Liverpool amongst leading international cities in regards to hosting cultural events, a survey of local people’s experiences of the ECoC programme revealed that the most popular events were those which were free to attend, open air and attracted large audiences (Liu, 2014). Looking to replicate the success of La Princesse from 2008, Culture Liverpool held three similar events over weekends in 2012, 2014 and

2018, commissioning French company Royal de Luxe to bring their giant marionettes to the city (see Figure 9), which ‘roamed’ through central streets. Although the 2012 event

Figure 9 – A giant marionette from the ‘Giant Spectacular’ of 2018, marking the 10th anniversary of ECoC celebrations (Source: Image by the author). cost a significant sum to stage (£1.5 million), the audience numbers of over half a million people with an associated spend of £12 million were regarded as successful economic indicators by Culture Liverpool (Bennett, 2012: Online; McKinney, 2013). These three 107 events however undoubtedly represented examples of festivalization, bringing in a successful company from abroad to attempt to generate substantial revenue through driving significant footfall to the city centre. Despite Culture Liverpool arguing that these events continued to provide the free to attend, open air events which had proven so popular during their ECoC year (Liu, 2014; 2019), a local cultural commentator warned of their control over major events held in the city:

‘The danger of The Giants now being finished forever is that now the money’s spent, the council feel like they’ve done their duty. We now have to wait and see what the word ‘Culture’ now means in the minds of those making the decisions’ (Messy Lines, 2018b: Online).

A further, less evident outcome of Liverpool hosting ECoC has been the change in perceptions of practitioners within the city’s arts and cultural sectors. Although the final report produced by Liverpool Culture Company was almost universally positive, stating that a key benefit was ‘the confidence and ambition that 2008 has generated amongst those who live and work in the City’, it revealed not all outputs had a tangible form

(Liverpool Culture Company, 2009b). Open Culture director Charlotte likened the situation to ‘an incredible enlightenment’, referring to the increased awareness for those working within the city’s arts and cultural sectors to the resources and opportunities available within Liverpool (Charlotte, Open Culture Director, July 2018). This path dependency that Charlotte alludes to has seen arts and cultural practitioners become increasingly entrepreneurial, with a ‘trickle-down’ effect upon confidence, owing to the perceived success of hosting the ECoC in Liverpool and the positive memories associated with this.

One visible marker of the way this increased awareness and confidence within the city’s arts and cultural sectors has materialised can be seen through the increase in independent festivals. David concluded that this upturn in running festivals and events since Liverpool hosted the ECoC, ‘comes from a change in mind-set over the last ten years, it feels more achievable. I think that there’s a confidence in the city, especially from in the creative community which is different from what it was ten years ago’ (David,

Festival Director, January 2018). David’s opinion here was one commonly held amongst the intermediaries interviewed. Questioning lines surrounding the growth in festivals and

108 events in Liverpool would often lead to a discussion of the ECoC year, helping contribute to the interview data theme ‘Outcomes from ECoC.’ As Elinor, Artistic Director of Tmesis

Theatre comments, ‘it’s like anyone can start a festival…there’s a collaborative spirit…there’s loads of specialist festivals’ (Elinor, Tmesis Theatre Artistic Director, March

2018). Elinor speaks from personal experience, having established Physical Fest (an annual international physical theatre festival) in 2004. There are multiple festivals within the city that began with the same realisation that the city’s arts and cultural sectors could produce their own events, such as Liverpool Sound City, Positive Vibrations Reggae

Festival and Liverpool Psych Fest.

The practical implications of this increased confidence and its impact on the perceptions of those working within Liverpool’s arts and cultural sectors plays out in relation to funding too. Lorna revealed that since 2008, ‘there are (now) less people that come to us and say “why can’t you do it?” and “why can’t you give me the money?” and

“why can’t you sort this out for me?” and people are quite happy to do it themselves’

(Lorna, Culture Liverpool Employee, March 2018). This indicates that a higher proportion of practitioners and organisations are applying a do-it-yourself mentality, owing to increased awareness of resources and capability within the local arts and cultural sectors, a path dependency borne not only from the ECoC, but the success of other festivals listed above. Arts studio manager Louise explained that this do-it-yourself mentality resulted in her organisation working with others on a regular basis, providing evidence of bridging social capital ties being created for mutual benefit (Larsen et al, 2004). ‘You become very resourceful, and in order to be resourceful, you borrow each other’s expertise, you borrow each other’s equipment, skill set, vibe, experiences, stuff like that’

(Louise, Arts Studio Manager, May 2018). The do-it-yourself mentality also refers to increased pragmatism in relation to funding, with their appearing to be a heightened resiliency and adaptability of practitioners and organisations, with Andres and Round

(2015) claiming these are vital characteristics to ensure survival during periods of austerity.

As stated in Chapter 2, ACE replaced its funding programme in 2012 with

‘National Portfolio’ funding, which was presented as a way of encouraging competition

(Alexander, 2018a). However with echoes to the competitive bidding schemes which 109 cities engaged in during the 1990s for regeneration purposes, funding was no longer awarded based upon need, but on the ability to meet government set criteria through

ACE (Quinn, 1997). The competitive bidding schemes of the 1990s favoured bids which conformed to the objectives of partnership working, and likewise, for National Portfolio funding, applicants are encouraged to attract supplementary private sector funding and work in partnership (Knell and Taylor, 2011). Furthermore, ACE often support bids which imitate the language and ideology of the organisation, rather than focussing on the output of creative activity (Caust, 2003). In this way it is apparent how ACE National Portfolio funding represents the challenge funding model of the twenty-first century. Such a sidelining of the value of creative activity acted as a further motivating factor for Open

Culture when creating LightNight as will be discussed in the following chapter.

4.7 Conclusion

This chapter has outlined the relatively recent economic, political and social history of Liverpool in order to contextualise the emergence and evolution of the local council’s approach to culture-led regeneration. Section 4.2 detailed the decline of

Liverpool’s port throughout the twentieth century, as part of the city’s wider deindustrialization (Lorente, 1996; Rodwell, 2008). Section 4.3 analysed how the 1980s were characterised by fractious relations between the recently elected Conservative national government and Liverpool’s Labour-led city administration. The emergence of national neo-liberalism and local experiments with municipal socialism (Parkinson, 1989) made for antagonistic centre-local relations. The nationally-imposed MDC bypassed the local Labour regime, who believed that the Conservative government should prioritise funding the council and supporting public services (Frost and North, 2013). Section 4.4 detailed how a less confrontational city council during the 1990s increasingly turned towards urban entrepreneurialism and assisted by EU funding began to focus upon improvements to both the public realm and cultural infrastructure of the city (Jones and

Wilks-Heeg, 2004).

Section 4.5 explained how Liverpool secured the UK designation to host the

ECoC award in 2008, and revealed the fractious history of the Liverpool Culture

Company regarding resignations, restructuring and conflicting ideas surrounding the

110 artistic programme (Cox and O’Brien, 2012). Finally section 4.6 looked at the outcomes of the ECoC year, with particular focus on how the city’s positive experiences were behind the establishment of the UK City of Culture award. Liverpool went from having limited cultural infrastructure at the turn of the century, to directly influencing national cultural policy less than ten years later. In the next chapter the thesis turns to Open Culture, and how their involvement within the CCP as part of the ECoC delivery, informed their future decision to create the LightNight festival.

111

Chapter 5 – Balancing differentiation and economic sustainability:

Creating a free arts festival

5.1 – Introduction

This chapter looks at how Open Culture developed the LightNight festival, overcoming calls of festivalization (the process of replicating popular festival formats) during a period of austerity for arts funding. Section 5.2 explains the purpose of

Liverpool’s ECoC CCP, highlighting its grounding within New Labour’s Third Way rhetoric of social inclusion through engagement with arts and culture (Belfiore, 2002; Scott, 2014).

Open Culture’s formation within the CCP will be detailed, discussing the organisations role of acting as cultural intermediaries in attempting to communicate access points and the purpose of events held, and how this would subsequently inform their engagement strategies as an independent entity. Section 5.3 investigates the purpose of Culture

Liverpool, and how this new organisation post-ECoC distanced the city council from direct engagement with local communities through the arts, creating an arm’s length funding programme. Open Culture’s decision to create LightNight was partly influenced by their intention to fill this service gap relating to direct engagement, informed by their experiences within the CCP.

Section 5.4 details the formats from which LightNight has taken influence, namely the late night openings inspired by Lange Nacht der Museen and light festivals such as

Nuit Blanche (Alves, 2007; Diack, 2012, Evans, 2012). To avoid calls of festivalization, whereby popular formats are imitated without local distinction (Carlsen et al, 2010), Open

Culture seek differentiation through incorporating an annual theme to provide internal variance for each year’s programme, alongside curating a number of commissioned works. Finally in section 5.5, an analysis of funding within the festival takes place, both from Open Culture’s perspective as organisers, and from a participant viewpoint, to evidence the myriad of ways in which their in-kind inclusion is offset. In the section that follows, the CCP will be examined, highlighting Open Culture’s formation and role, before analysing whether the programme’s rhetoric was realised as part of the wider delivery of

Liverpool’s year as ECoC.

112

5.2 – Rethinking the impact of the Creative Communities Programme

The CCP was created in 2004 as part of Liverpool Culture Company’s delivery of the city’s ECoC designation. The CCP was predominantly responsible for engaging all communities of the city with the arts, particularly children and young people, creating projects which were ‘inclusive, participatory and above all relevant to the people of

Liverpool’ (Burghes and Thornton, 2017:9). The objective of inclusive and participatory projects was in keeping with the aims of the Labour national government during this period, regarding the potential wider societal role the arts could play (Belfiore, 2002;

Griffiths, 2001; Scott, 2014). The Labour party had argued before their election in 1997 that the Conservative government’s ‘trickle-down’ economic strategy in cities was failing to provide sufficient benefits for those living within deprived areas (Loftman and Nevin,

1996).

Upon election to national government, the Labour party set about a new strategy of ‘Third Way’ governance, implementing social justice policies aimed at promoting social inclusion, partly in reaction to the perceived decline of participation in wider civic society

(Belfiore, 2002; Scott, 2014). Arts advocates had long claimed that programmes of cultural activity could be utilised in urban areas with high levels of social deprivation to enhance skills and heighten aspirations (Hewitt, 2011). The Third Way advocated social regeneration through neighbourhood renewal, focussing on community building from the ground up, rather than trickle-down impacts like the previous Conservative administration

(Griffiths, 2001; Griffiths et al, 2003). As well as doubling the funding for the arts through the National Lottery and ACE (Finkel, 2009; Smith, 2010), the Labour government abolished entry fees to national museums and galleries, increasing visitor numbers significantly by removing this barrier (Hesmondhalgh et al, 2015).

For the Liverpool Culture Company, the CCP was designed to attempt to prevent a repeat of Glasgow’s experience as ECoC, where there had been a lack of engagement of more deprived communities of the city within the artistic programme (Garcia, 2004).

The CCP was proposed to run across all areas of the city, partnering with a number of public and private sector organisations to assist with the delivery of events (Liverpool

Culture Company, 2009). In 2004 alone, over 1,400 artists and 65,000 people took part in

113

CCP events, which in the process became the largest community art scheme ever held in the UK (Liverpool Culture Company, 2005). The programme subsequently grew in scale, and, during the ECoC year, there were an estimated 3,500 events including 6,500 artists and over 800,000 people engaged, making the art scheme the largest ever held in

Europe (Liverpool Culture Company, 2009). The scale of the CCP was not surpassed until the Cultural Olympiad was held, forming part of the legacy of the 2012 London

Olympic Games. Held over four years, the Cultural Olympiad took place across all regions of the UK simultaneously, utilising culture (alongside sport) to engage young people, with over 177,000 events (Garcia, 2013).

As part of the CCP, in 2007 Open Culture were formed as a CIC to provide the new organisation with a defined legal structure (Bailey, 2012). Open Culture’s remit was to engage local artists and communities within the community arts programme, to ‘give them platforms and help them produce their own activities, with or without the stamp of approval, if you like, from the city council’ (Christina, Open Culture Director, January

2018). The Liverpool Culture Company claimed that the CCP represented the ‘most successful public engagement programme in the history of European Capitals of Culture’

(Liverpool Culture Company, 2009:74). The success of the CCP is disputed however, with Open Culture’s formation and responsibilities interwoven into these arguments.

Basing this claim of success solely on the number of events held, alongside artists and members of the public engaged, this assertion does hold quantitative validity. Yet if it is quality and not the quantity of engagement by which the measure of success is proclaimed, there is ample evidence to support the argument that the CCP had significant shortcomings.

As illustrated within a 2005 Liverpool Echo report into the CCP and its potential to build momentum towards the ECoC hosting year, there were early warning signs of insufficient communication to local communities as to the purpose of the programme. As one CCP delivery officer explained ‘some people don’t understand that what they’re doing is part of Capital of Culture’ (Liverpool Echo, 2005: Online). Confusion does not appear uncommon within such programmes, particularly in their early stages, still far removed from the overarching event. For example, Gordziejko (2015) describes that media reporting during the first two years of the Cultural Olympiad criticised how both the 114 general public and arts sector by and large had no idea what the Olympiad was at a similar stage.

When Open Culture was formed in 2007 at a relatively late stage of the CCP, they found frustration that local artists, community groups and cultural organisations remained unsure of how to get involved with the programme, which in part explains the intention behind their creation. Open Culture’s first role therefore was to act as cultural intermediaries, which Warren and Jones (2015b:1739) explain was a notion first conceived by Bourdieu (1984) in 1960s France, describing the emergence of cultural professionals whose role involved ‘attempting to mediate cultural taste and practise.’

Negus (2002) on the other hand characterises cultural intermediaries as those who act as a point of connection and articulation between cultural production and consumption. A more contemporary definition which aligns best with Open Culture’s initial responsibilities within the CCP however is provided by Durrer and Miles (2009:236), who explain that cultural intermediaries act ‘as go-betweens or interpreters for socially excluded individuals.’

Charlotte recollected that there were ‘a lot of people feeling that they needed the permission of the 08’ team and it was like “no, just do it”, but they didn’t know how to get it out there’ (Charlotte, Open Culture Director, January 2018). This perception relating to permission aligns with Hall’s (1999) arguments around social capital. Hall explains that social capital theory can be seen as a ‘club good’, a closed off network with limited access (Ibid.), which to a certain extent was how the CCP was viewed, with Open Culture tasked with communicating the points of access. Open Culture’s responsibility here, and to an extent the entire remit of their organisation, was to communicate that the CCP represented a ‘public good’, equally accessible to all. Alongside the lack of clear information at a sufficiently early stage for how artists, community groups and cultural organisations could get involved in the CCP, there were also criticisms regarding the culture portrayed within the programme, as will now be discussed.

As detailed in Chapter 4, there were limited opportunities for local arts and cultural practitioners to be involved with the most prominent events of the ECoC artistic programme, with the majority of these being based in the city centre. Again referring to

115

Open Culture’s remit of involving artists and communities on their own terms, there also appeared to be limited opportunity to directly inform the culture on display. Although

Liverpool Culture Company secured the previously aforementioned Paul McCartney performance, alongside other high profile events such as the Turner Prize and Gustav

Klimt exhibition at Tate Liverpool, these offered little opportunity for engagement, merely affording a spectating role for the public at large. As Campbell (2018:200) explains, the notion of culture as part of the ECoC programme was ‘not necessarily something which comes from the population, but rather comes to them.’ Such reasoning details a situation whereby ‘official’ ECoC culture is portrayed to the detriment of the creative impulses of local communities (Craik, 2013), compromising their levels of engagement. Challenging the rhetoric of Liverpool’s ECoC bid document, specifically the engagement and inclusion of local communities within the programme, Boland (2010) and Fitzpatrick (2013) found that local culture had been sanitized, with the most deprived communities overlooked from CCP engagement. The lack of engagement of these communities aligns with criticism of New Labour’s ‘one size fits all’ approach to social inclusion through arts initiatives, which lacked the adaptation necessary for place specificity (Macleod, 2006;

Wilks-Heeg and North, 2004).

For all the language centred on inclusivity and participation, Creative

Communities events were purposefully framed as empowering local residents through the arts, rather than making explicit claims linking involvement to potential employment opportunities based upon skills gained (Fitzpatrick, 2013). The culture experienced as part of the CCP and main ECoC programme was predominantly prescribed and without input from local communities. This critique aligns with the Culture Company’s decision to appoint Robyn Archer as the artistic director of ECoC, despite her lack of existing knowledge of local arts and cultural communities. A local contribution to culture could have been achieved more effectively through a public call for content as Cork 2005 Ltd had when programming their ECoC hosting year (Quinn, 2010). Liverpool Culture

Company’s ability to decide what kind of culture should be displayed as part of ECoC ties into arguments relating to ACE. Despite new language pertaining to access and inclusion being used, the arts had become ‘instrumentalized as an agent of political, social and cultural complicity’ (Hewitt, 2011:20). The CCP thus essentially ran under the auspices of

116 a Liverpool Culture Company (and therefore Liverpool City Council) approved cultural programme.

Analysing the lessons learnt through Glasgow’s experience as ECoC in 1990 and warning the 2008 hosts of how local culture could be diluted, Mooney (2004:338) deliberated ‘whose and which Liverpool is being celebrated? Whose story is dominating – and whose story is being marginalised?’ For instance when looking into the existing

Malaysian community within Liverpool, Bunnell (2008; 2016) found that they were omitted from official celebrations. Although noted within official bidding literature as one of many diverse cultural communities within the city, giving credence to the framing of Liverpool as

‘The World in One City’, there was no effort from the CCP to engage this community and facilitate their inclusion. Herein lies an example of how arts programmes set within larger cultural or sporting events can become marginalised from the overriding event, as objectives remain unmet and communities are left feeling unfulfilled (Garcia, 2004).

Fitzpatrick (2013:226) concludes that the prescribed culture within the CCP and ECoC programme, ‘constructs the Capital of Culture as ‘year zero’ for the city, a starting point that fails to acknowledge the conditions of emergence,’ which helped to secure the designation in the first instance.

What this section suggests is that the CCP represented a rhetoric heavy programme which in many instances did not fulfil its initial promises. The most illustrative example which provides evidence of this is the creation of Open Culture in itself. From the organisation’s name, late formation (in 2007) and remit to encourage involvement ‘on their own terms’, Open Culture was designed to attempt to manage and mediate many of the shortcomings of the CCP. The necessity of the organisation taking on a role as cultural intermediaries showcases the limitations of the CCP regarding their ability to clearly communicate, both relating to access points and purpose of events held, placing into question the (predominantly quantitative) claims of success. Furthermore, the decision to appoint an artistic director from outside of the city, rather than put out a public call for programming contributions resulted in the sanitizing of culture at the local level, ignoring the creative capacity of local communities and bypassing bid promises. Despite the multiple failings of the programme, though, Open Culture subsequently utilised these

117 experiences from the CCP to inform their future direction within the local arts and cultural sector as will now be analysed.

5.3 – Engagement ‘on their own terms’: Mediating perceptions of the arts

Upon the conclusion of Liverpool’s year as ECoC, in 2009 the Liverpool Culture

Company was phased out and replaced by Culture Liverpool. Culture Liverpool’s remit was to be ‘the business unit of Liverpool City Council responsible for cultural programming’ (Burghes and Thornton, 2017:2), with a retainment of core staff from the

Culture Company. The initial business plan of this new organisation referenced securing

Liverpool’s place as an international city of culture, developing cultural infrastructure and generating economic growth (Liverpool Culture Company, 2009). For local communities however, the engagement aims of the CCP were replaced by promises of empowerment and ownership for cultural organisations, substituting the former direct engagement with the city council to a more mediated approach. Although a subtle change in language, what this represented was a distancing of Culture Liverpool from the responsibility of continuing a scheme at the scale of the CCP. In its place, the Culture Liverpool

Investment Programme (hereafter CLIP) was created, a competitive bidding scheme allowing not-for-profit cultural organisations to apply for funding directed from the city council budget (Burghes and Thornton, 2017). The aim of the CLIP was to enable artistic, creative and cultural activity, rather than be directly involved in its design and delivery, reducing dependency upon the city council hereafter.

The CLIP allocated funding based upon criteria which aligned with the overriding aims of the city council, looking to support not-for-profit organisations who could deliver cultural, economic and social value. More specifically, CLIP funding criteria sought organisations who would ‘directly engage with the city’s events and cultural programme bringing excellent artistic practise and to create high quality experiences for audiences’

(Liverpool City Council, 2013:5). Openly referenced within the CLIP framework was that organisations must support the aims of the Liverpool Cultural Action Plan, which outlines the cultural strategy for the city from 2014-2018. The Action Plan places particular emphasis upon the need to maintain productive partnerships with cultural organisations

118 both locally and nationally (ACE are referenced), owing to the reduction in public funding for arts and culture (Culture Liverpool, 2013: Online).

With the CLIP being a competitive bidding scheme, a primary concern therefore is that funded organisations provide value for money and return on investment, with the council stating that successful applicants must be able ‘to generate income from multiple sources and become more sustainable in the long-term’ (Liverpool City Council, 2013:2).

This approach is similar to the challenge funding schemes introduced during the 1990s under the Conservative Government and more recently the ACE National Portfolio model, both detailed within Chapter 4. The directors of Open Culture were concerned that the aims of Culture Liverpool (evidenced through CLIP funding criteria) appeared to suggest that the council was sidelining direct engagement with local communities through the arts, which had originally formed a major component of their organisational remit as part of the

CCP. Therefore, at the beginning of 2010, Charlotte and Christina decided to take over

Open Culture as an independent CIC, looking to continue to engage local communities through the arts.

Open Culture became an independent CIC during a period of austerity instigated by the global financial market crash of 2008, which had a detrimental impact upon UK public sector funding for the arts (Jones, 2012). Pre-crash, over 50% of funding for the arts in the UK came from the public sector (Smith, 2010). A coalition government was formed in 2010 between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, with austerity the trademark of this union, evidenced in the budget for ACE being reduced by 29.6% over four years from 2010 (Alexander, 2014). The policy rhetoric of the previous Labour government’s Third Way, which looked to support deprived communities, was replaced by the coalition government’s Big Society, a political discourse which spoke of empowerment over direct engagement (utilising similar language to the CLIP) (Alcock,

2016; Bailey, 2012). Empowerment became the prominent agenda for the coalition government as public expenditure was cut significantly, with the third sector and local communities encouraged to fill the gaps created in service provision.

The directors of Open Culture realised there would be an opportunity to address the service gap relating to engaging local communities through the arts in Liverpool,

119 something Culture Liverpool were stepping away from with the CLIP, instead opting for a course of mediated engagement. In common with the ACE National Portfolio model, the

CLIP criteria for funding necessitate that organisations evidence the value of their work in applications (Knell and Taylor, 2011). Through their inclusion within the CCP, the directors of Open Culture had readily available and recent evidence of their organisation’s work. This evidence of work within the CCP closely aligned with the aims of the CLIP to enable artistic, creative and cultural activity, which was perhaps unsurprising considering

Open Culture’s original remit was to promote involvement of local communities ‘on their own terms’.

Open Culture’s formative approach as an independent entity aligns with the judgement of Bailey (2012:14), that CIC’s initially are ‘pragmatic, opportunistic and relying heavily on personal contacts and local networks.’ The directors of Open Culture decided to organise a free one-night arts festival called LightNight as their first major project, looking to create an event which would increase the profile and engagement of the arts and cultural sectors of the city. The directors understood that not all local practitioners felt they had the opportunity to be involved in the artistic programme of ECoC, yet there had been an increased awareness of resources and confidence within the local arts and cultural sectors (a perception change detailed in Chapter 4). Charlotte explained that the creation of LightNight ‘came very close after 2008, so it was a very good time to harness that energy and fuel it’ (Charlotte, Open Culture Director, January 2018), looking to capitalise upon the path dependency of local practitioners catalysed by the ECoC year.

Open Culture’s directors sought out their existing contacts from their time as part of the CCP to help populate the first LightNight, utilising a ‘bottom-up’ approach based on existing networks (Getz and Andersson, 2008). Charlotte recalled ‘we had all of those connections, and then here was our great opportunity to literally phone all of those connections and say…can you all do it in one night?’ (Charlotte, Open Culture Director,

January 2018). Developing existing connections aligns well with the analysis of Coleman

(1988), who stated that social capital can be strengthened when relations are utilised on multiple occasions, reinforcing existing bonds. Access for artists, performers, organisations and venues that wanted to be involved in the festival was maintained through an open call for applicants, removing the barrier to participation which many 120 practitioners felt existed as part of the ECoC and CCP within it. Through this open call for applicants, Open Culture developed a common social purpose through the festival

(Arcodia and Whitford, 2006), framed around access and inclusion. For Open Culture to attract audiences to LightNight however, the directors had to once again act as cultural intermediaries, attempting to effectively communicate the purpose of the festival to a wider cross-section of society.

Although Open Culture were confident that regular visitors to arts and cultural venues would be likely to attend LightNight, as Charlotte explained, ‘it’s not always the arts attenders we need’ (Charlotte, Open Culture Director, January 2018). Open Culture sought to attract a broader audience, targeting those ‘who may not be socially or economically excluded but who simply do not feel comfortable in an arts setting’ (Durrer and Miles, 2009:231). In regards to why audiences might feel uncomfortable in an arts setting, Wiid and Mora-Avila (2018:2) state that an ongoing barrier to engagement remains due to the ‘unfavourable association between art and privilege.’ Such association finds its theoretical grounding in the work of Bourdieu (1984) on cultural capital, as detailed in Chapter 2. Bourdieu argued that educational background and upbringing were significant factors influencing those who consume art and culture and those who do not.

Open Culture have looked to dispel commonly held perceptions surrounding privilege and consuming arts and culture, again through their ability to act as cultural intermediaries in mitigating this process. Rather than placing cultural capital as a prerequisite to forming social capital in line with Bourdieu’s (1986) theorisation, Open Culture have attempted to break the historic association between privilege and consuming arts and culture by reframing LightNight as equally accessible to all audiences. Considering the previously stated argument that visitor numbers to national museums and galleries rose significantly once entry fees were abolished (Hesmondhalgh et al, 2015), Open

Culture have attempted to prove that this trend does not solely equate to a higher number of visits by existing arts audiences. Through explicitly questioning whether audiences members were visiting venues for the first time on LightNight (see Appendix 6, question

5), Open Culture have sought to equate the proportion of non-traditional arts attenders within their wider audience. Aligning with the explanation of Durrer and Miles (2009) that cultural intermediaries act as go-betweens for socially excluded individuals, Open Culture 121 look to bridge the perceived gap between markers of cultural capital such as educational background and upbringing and engagement with the arts and culture. Through encouraging non-arts attenders that LightNight represented something they would enjoy,

Open Culture focus on the way in which they promote the festival to overcome discouraging perceptions associated with the arts.

Open Culture’s predominant means of promotion are their dedicated website and social media profiles for LightNight, alongside their links to local newspapers and radio stations (formed through the CCP). The directors understand that promotion through these avenues will not necessarily reach those who do not normally attend arts or cultural venues or events however. As Charlotte explains of their strategy, ‘we try to stand above a lot of the noise out there, (we) try to get to people that don’t listen to the radio, don’t read the paper, don’t go on social media. We want everybody, that’s why we’re called

Open Culture, because we’re such strong believers in it’s for everyone’ (Charlotte, Open

Culture Director, January 2018). This striving for inclusivity is most evident in Open

Culture’s communication style. In attempting to explain what LightNight is about, Christina revealed ‘we try and talk and message in as simple a way as we can, like you’re just talking to anybody on the street, that’s what we try to do. So we always like it to be friendly and approachable’ (Christina, Open Culture Director, January 2018).

Through this focus on the language they use, Open Culture act as gatekeepers, attempting to allay misconceptions surrounding the arts and who it is for, utilising a form of targeted marketing ‘that promotes dialogue, trust and relationship building’ (Durrer and

Miles, 2009:226). Open Culture’s strategy to mediate perceptions of the arts for those who may feel excluded illustrates their application of aspects of bridging social capital, which as Larsen et al (2004) explain, can help individuals or groups who may appear disparate connect across social boundaries. In Open Culture’s case, although there is not one clearly defined group they seek to appeal to here, the common thread between them is that they do not feel that the arts are accessible to them. Christina explains that Open

Culture’s strategy herein is to provide ‘that last nudge of encouragement just to get somebody out the door…and say that “this is for you, even though you think it’s not, this is for you”’ (Christina, Open Culture Director, January 2018).

122

This section analysed Open Culture’s strategy of directly engaging with local communities since becoming an independent organisation. With Culture Liverpool and national government rhetoric promoting language such as empowerment, distancing themselves from direct engagement, Open Culture understood that if they continued with their existing organisational remit, they could fill this service gap in the city, increasing their chances of aligning with funding criteria. Open Culture’s experiences as part of the

CCP directly informed their future decision to create LightNight, an event based on access and inclusion. Simplifying the message of the festival alongside utilising aspects of bridging social capital to attract new audiences, Open Culture proactively applied the lessons learnt from their past experiences. When creating LightNight, Open Culture took its influences from the successful formats of other festivals and events, yet sought differentiation through the internal variance applied to the artistic programme, as will subsequently be analysed.

5.4 – Light the night: Replicating popular European festival formats

The format of LightNight incorporates arts and cultural organisations and venues within the central city extending their opening hours into the night, presenting programmes of events including dance, exhibitions, light installations, open studios and theatre from local artists and performers. LightNight’s format draws from two types of events increasingly popular across Europe since the turn of the century, late night openings and light festivals. Open Culture had previously helped to organise an event in

Liverpool called Long Night. Although the event only ran on four occasions, annually between 2008-2010 and in 2012, Long Night consisted of the extended opening hours of museums and cultural institutions. In comparison to LightNight, Long Night was not a standalone event, but acted as a point of interest within existing festivals running over longer periods such as Liverpool Biennial (in 2008) and Abandon Normal Devices

Festival (in 2009) (Art in Liverpool, 2009: Online). Christina explained that with the first

LightNight ‘(it) was really the first time the city had ever done kind of one, late night opening, just for the sake of itself, where it wasn’t piggybacking another festival’

(Christina, Open Culture Director, January 2018).

123

LightNight takes influence (as Long Night had) from Lange Nacht der Museen

(Long Night of Museums), held annually in Berlin since 1997. Organised by the Berliner

Museum Association in cooperation with the city council, Lange Nacht der Museen has acted as the forerunner for late night openings of museums and cultural institutions, operating a single ticket entry system for all venues between 6pm-2am (Evans, 2012).

The popularity of the event has seen the format replicated across the continent, with the

European Night of Museums network established in 2005. The network encompasses cities in over thirty countries hosting late night openings on the weekend closest to

International Museum Day each year (Dumbrăveanu et al, 2014). The reason for the popularity of these events is twofold. Firstly, for those museums and cultural venues participating, by collaborating as part of an overarching event alongside multiple other local institutions within a city, each benefit from a greater collective footfall than they would be able to achieve in isolation (Schaller, 2011). A longstanding participant of

LightNight commented that she found the concentration of events over a single night was

‘quite a powerful thing’ in terms of attracting audiences (Kate, Museum Employee, April

2018). This reasoning directly relates to aspects of bonding social capital, as first conceived by Putnam (2000). Although bonding social capital is often framed negatively as inward looking and displaying conceptions of exclusivity as discussed in Chapter 2

(Campbell et al, 2008; Larsen et al, 2004), it can be used for purposeful ends. For instance when several cultural institutions combine their resources to attract and engage new audiences, they are utilising their collective influence purposefully.

Secondly, late night openings correlate with the predominant free time of a wider cross section of society who work during the standard daytime opening hours of such institutions. It has been argued that especially for the so-called ‘Generation Y’, those born between 1982-2002 (Barron and Leask, 2017), opening longer into the evening and night can lead to a trend whereby visiting such institutions becomes ‘an extension of socialised leisure’ (Richards, 2015:249). Richards places this trend in contrast to visiting museums for the development of cultural capital, whereby cultural knowledge can be accumulated through immersion, aligning with the beliefs of Bourdieu (1986). He notes that through reframing the purpose of museums via the extension of opening hours, visiting such institutions can become an event in itself. Richards framing here aligns with Open

124

Culture’s wider strategy to attract non-traditional arts audiences to LightNight. When

Open Culture programme unique content for LightNight in a museum for example, which differs from the usual day-to-day offer, the perceived function of the institution is repurposed for one night. Visiting the museum on LightNight thus becomes a novel experience, as the programmed content is in part designed to appeal to those indifferent to the regular offer. This example serves as an illustration for how late night openings align with wider tenets of culture-led urban regeneration strategies, through the development of events which offer cities further opportunities to invigorate their night-time economies (Edensor, 2015b).

It has also been found that late openings encourage return visits, often with additional family members, as evidenced in Barron and Leask’s (2017) research into

‘Generation Y’ attendees to ‘lates’ events at the National Museum of Scotland in

Edinburgh. As Nick, Project Manager of Museums at Night explains, the idea of hosting events in museums and galleries during the evening and night still represents a novelty to many people, which has contributed to their burgeoning popularity (Nick, Museums at

Night Project Manager, February 2018). Despite having no direct involvement in the festival, Nick’s position as an intermediary within the national arts and cultural sectors with an understanding of these types of events helped contribute towards the interview data theme ‘LightNight: Replicating popular festival formats.’

As embodied in the naming of LightNight, Open Culture have also borrowed from the format of light festivals, which originated in France. Although Fête des Lumières

(Festival of Light) is credited as the first major light festival in the country, held in Lyon since 1989 (Giordano and Ong, 2017), Nuit Blanche (White Night) in Paris is widely regarded as more influential in the mass uptake of similar events. Launched by the city mayor in 2002, Nuit Blanche was originally conceived as a way to bring art to the public, with artists invited to create installations in parks, squares and streets (Diack, 2012).

Promoting the exploration of new routes around the city at night encourages conceptions of safety (Klaic, 2014), increasing the pride of residents in their local areas, with such events construed as ‘a metaphor for social inclusiveness’ (Goss, 1996:229). Likewise with the popularity of Lange Nacht der Museen spawning a network of similar events, the attendance figures garnered by Nuit Blanche (regularly over a million people) quickly 125 resulted in a global proliferation of light festivals, with over one hundred currently held in cities across the world including Melbourne, Osaka, Rome and Toronto (Evans, 2010;

Giordano and Ong, 2017). This replication of light festivals owes to their place marketing potential and easy adaptation for site specificity (Diack, 2012; Giordano and Ong, 2017;

Quinn, 2005). Increasingly utilised as part of culture-led regeneration strategies for cities engaged in inter-urban competition, the use of light festivals provides a prominent example of festivalization trends.

Within the UK there has been a slower uptake of late openings and light festivals.

Despite isolated examples such as the V&A museum hosting regular ‘Friday Lates’ events since 2001 (Culture24, 2018: Online), it was not until the middle of the decade that they became more common. Leeds Light Night was created in 2005 and is now held annually every October across consecutive nights, promoted as a ‘multi-arts and light festival’ (Leeds City Council, 2017: Online). Leeds Light Night is different to its Liverpool equivalent in that it is organised by the city council rather than a CIC, although it does finds similarity in being part-funded by ACE (Arts Council England, 2017: Online; Leeds

BID, 2016: Online). In common with its European counterparts, the increasing popularity of these events in the UK spawned a network called Museums at Night, branded as ‘the

UK-wide festival of Lates in museums and galleries’ (Museums at Night, 2017: Online).

Museums at Night was formed in 2009 by independent charity Culture24, whose aim is to bring ‘art and heritage organisations together to do amazing things they couldn’t do on their own’ (Culture24, 2017: Online). The aim of Culture24 here echoes the earlier cited work of Schaller (2011), in that by aligning similar types of events underneath an overarching banner, they are able to achieve more together than each could in isolation.

Culture24 upscale this assumption, showcasing an understanding of bonding social capital, taking responsibility for the promotion of disparate events across the UK. For

Open Culture, one advantage of their programming strategy for LightNight is that the majority of the involved organisations and venues are already known to each other, with many holding existing relationships. These existing associations present practical evidence of how bonding social capital can be established prior to festival inclusion, and subsequently strengthened through it, as supported by the analysis of Wilks (2011) into reinforcing existing relationships through music festivals. 126

Open Culture’s integration of successful event formats for LightNight illustrate their understanding of the appeal of late openings and light festivals and how these align with their aims of access and inclusion. Furthermore, relating to conceptions of social capital, Open Culture understand the benefits for the participating organisations and venues collaborating on such events, attracting higher collective footfall for their mutual benefit. As will subsequently be explained, despite the similarities to other festivals and events through its format, differentiation for LightNight is attained through the internal variance applied to its artistic programme.

‘Do something different’: Identity and character through programming

Referring to the popular characteristics of contemporary arts and cultural festivals, Carlsen et al (2010) summarise that imitation is more common in the formatting of festivals than variance. This process of festivalization, replicating popular festival formats, has become more prevalent alongside the increase in inter-urban competition, which Harvey (1989:10) warned could ‘force repetitive and serial reproduction of certain patterns of development.’ Festivals are seen as tourism drivers within wider strategies of culture-led regeneration (Griffiths, 2006; Picard and Robinson, 2006; Waterman, 1998), with their staging by public and private sector actors leading to calls of these events being framed as commodities, utilised as and when needed (Getz, 2012).

In Liverpool following its year as ECoC, the city council maintained a commitment to hosting major cultural events (Burghes and Thornton, 2017). This strategy of hosting major cultural events to boost the local economy saw popular formats replicated and successful companies from abroad commissioned (such as Royal de Luxe), providing prominent examples of festivalization. Culture Liverpool decided in 2013 to replace the long-running Mathew Street Festival with the newly created Liverpool International Music

Festival (hereafter LIMF), with running costs projected to be 40% lower for the new event

(Liverpool Echo, 2013: Online). Originally a multiple site event with stages at both the

Pier Head and Sefton Park, LIMF allowed the city to continue to proclaim to host

Europe’s biggest annual free city centre music festival (a title previously bestowed on the

Mathew Street Festival). After evolving into a single site festival based in Sefton Park however, in 2018 it was announced that LIMF was to become a ticketed event for the first

127 time, with Culture Liverpool framing this as a necessity, in order to offset some of the significant costs associated with staging and security (Liverpool Echo, 2018: Online).

The economically focussed strategy of hosting such events is a culture-led regeneration approach of the council well-recognised amongst LightNight participants.

Lorna detailed that the commitment to hosting major events was key, to ‘generate a tourist input…financial turnover in the city, all of that is what’s keeping the culture programme going, both for us, and for the rest of the city’s cultural organisations’ (Lorna,

Culture Liverpool Employee, March 2018). Helen agreed with this approach, stating that the council were placing culture at ‘the forefront of the experience of the city’ for tourists visiting Liverpool (Helen, Marketing Officer, April 2018). These views of participants showcase an understanding of the potential value which hosting urban festivals can provide, through a combination of public art, culture and media coverage, with the most prominent events garnering significant tourism revenue (Van Aalst and van Melik, 2012).

For every example of festivals which replicate formats that have been successful elsewhere or have a purely economic focus however, there are those which seek differentiation. These festivals provide a contrast to the much maligned ‘overbearing sameness’ (Zukin, 2010:231) and ‘synthetic landscapes and pseudo-places’ (Relph,

1976:93) of those accused of festivalization. There are trends to suggest that contemporary festivals are increasingly looking to base the notions of culture they portray in conceptions of the local (Bennett et al, 2014). Such trends find commonality with the arguments of Landry (2000), who argues that distinction and identity can be found within cities by focussing upon local culture, with this often the most valuable commodity of a place. Edinburgh for example has branded itself ‘City of Festivals’, upholding its dominant cultural function as a designation of its identity (Jamieson, 2004). Although engaged in inter-urban competition within the global tourism market, Edinburgh has branded its existing tradition and reputation of having a festival culture to attempt to bring legitimacy to its process of place-making (Johansson and Kociatkiewucz, 2011).

One way that Open Culture have sought to appease those who believe

LightNight represents an example of festivalization is through the programming of the festival. To ensure that the events programme shows sufficient differentiation from other

128 similar festivals, since 2013 an annual theme has been incorporated, providing internal variance. The reasons cited for theming were to create a more cohesive programme of events and to offer a creative starting point for participants. Open Culture have subsequently utilised themes such as ‘Memory and Identity’, ‘Time’, ‘Experiment’ and

‘Transformation’ to provide coherency and distinction to each years programme. In common here with prevailing trends relating to the curation of museum exhibitions and cultural events, theming the festival allows for ‘exploration of contested meanings and identities’ (Delanty, 2011:193). The introduction of theming each iteration of the festival has also proved popular with participants. Museum curator Kate commented that she liked having a programme theme, stating ‘it’s quite broad, so it’s not too restrictive’ (Kate,

Museum Curator, April 2018). Francisco explained that for his organisation, the theme was central to the creation of their performance piece. ‘LightNight, for us, it’s about creating something from scratch. What’s the theme? What’s the context? What’s the story?’ (Francisco, OLC Creative Director, July 2018). Looking more broadly at the city’s cultural calendar, David went further, concluding that ‘LightNight is a really interesting festival, different to many of the others that happen in the city. I think that the fact that it is thematic, each year, is part of that character’ (David, Festival Director, January 2018).

Charlotte explained that the introduction of theming LightNight played into one of their wider promotional campaigns for the festival, ‘do something different on a Friday night’ (see Figure 10). She clarified that this call ‘wasn’t just for the audience, it was a call to action for our artists and also some of our arts organisations…because everybody can get into a comfort zone’ (Charlotte, Open Culture Director, January 2018). By theming the festival, participants are challenged to create new work or adapt their existing offer each year. The open call for content explicitly states that proposed events must be different from your usual offer (Open Culture, 2017a). The promotion of unique programming this creates appeals to participants, who understand the attraction to prospective audiences.

Geoff, a regular participant in the festival stated that ‘I think it offers something that is unique, in a sense that these activities and events are only supposed to be for one night, once a year…you’re only going to see it on that Friday night, and I think that gets people quite excited’ (Geoff, Studio Owner, May 2018).

129

A further marker of differentiation within the festival programming has been the introduction of commissions. First introduced in 2015, what differentiates commissioned works from other programmed events is that the artists and performers are subsidised for their involvement, with this funding sourced via

ACE (as will be discussed further in the following section). For the 2018 Figure 10 – The call to action ‘Do something different festival, three successful on a Friday night’ featured prominently on the 2012 LightNight Guide, with this mentality being further applicants received ingrained the following year with the introduction of annual themes (Source: Open Culture, 2012). £3000, with a further three receiving £1000 to produce their proposed commissioned work (Open Culture, 2017b).

For the majority of participating artists, performers, organisations and venues though, their involvement within the festival is in-kind without subsidisation, representing differentiation from the majority of other festivals and events in which they are involved.

As will subsequently be discussed in the following section, LightNight’s history has correlated with a period of austerity in the UK, with negative financial implications for arts funding impacting upon both organisers Open Culture and the participants of the festival alike.

5.5 – ‘Tons of social capital, just not hard cash’: Arts funding in the age of austerity

LightNight was created during the height of national austerity measures which saw significant cuts made to funding for arts and culture. These cuts to funding bring into question how Open Culture have continually found sufficient money to sustain the event, 130 particularly with the festival being free to attend. The impact of fiscal restraint upon

Liverpool City Council has been significant, with central government funding to the city cut by 52% over the 2010-2015 parliament (Meegan et al, 2014). Liverpool City Council have committed to providing ongoing funding opportunities through the CLIP however, which invested almost £3 million in 36 cultural organisations (including Open Culture) between 2015-2016 (Burghes and Thornton, 2017). As previously explained in section

5.3, the CLIP served as a departure from the city council’s previous strategy of allocating grants based upon perceived need, towards a competitive approach, with funding distributed to applicants whose proposals best aligned with the council’s overarching aims for arts and culture. This approach correlates with the analysis of Alexander

(2014:371) who explains that applicants for funding ‘are required to take on, at least at a surface level, the cultural beliefs of the funder.’

Despite these criteria from funders, there is an element of pragmatism in relation to the current funding landscape within Liverpool’s arts and cultural sectors, as stated in an Impacts 08 report (as part of a five year research programme into ECoC 2008). The report detailed an acceptance of the local sectors being ‘in perpetual transition, from one funding regime to another, from one intervention or policy to the next’ (Impacts 08,

2009:19). This pragmatism of practitioners may highlight an evolving path dependency based upon past experience (Wilson, 2014). For example, through adopting progressive business management practises to increase their chances of public funding (meeting targets, reporting and time management), applicants have also helped improve their adaptability and durability in instances when funding is scarce (Arvidson and Lyon, 2014).

Pragmatism also extends to the ways in which practitioners and organisations look to apply for funding. Match funded projects are particularly popular with funding bodies, in which additional partners, often from the private sector, provide the requisite supplementary capital required, spreading risk for both funder and applicant alike

(Bagwell et al, 2015; McNicholas, 2004). Even for those applicants who do not secure additional revenue from alternate sources, forming partnerships with other practitioners or organisations when bidding helps to increase their chances of receiving funding

(Alexander, 2007). Hannah, an artist, was asked how she approached funding applications, and explained that she looked at partnership working as a way of increasing 131 her chances of success. She stated that ‘Arts Council and other funders are far more likely to support a project that has a good network of partners’ (Hannah, Artist, April

2018). Even for those practitioners and organisations who are already publicly funded, there remains a reliance upon mutually beneficial support from others within the sector to access knowledge, resources and skills. As Rebecca, who works at a gallery funded by the CLIP and ACE revealed, ‘there’s things that FACT can do and there’s things that

FACT can’t do, and so working with other partners’ means that we can get their skill set…the expertise they might have’ (Rebecca, FACT Exhibitions Manager, March 2018).

These temporary partnerships, whether for funding bids or in spite of funding illustrate aspects of bonding social capital at the scale of individual relationships, whereby a knowledge of associates skills and resources can lead to short-term collaboration on mutually agreed projects (Wilks, 2011).

Some LightNight participants though take a conscious decision not to bid for funding, instead looking to become self-sufficient to better sustain their longevity (Jones et al, 2016; Rimmer, 2018). Louise explained that in her experience, the reality of working within the sector was ‘being able to do things for yourself and collaborating with other people without leaning so heavily on financial support’ (Louise, Arts Studio Manager, May

2018). One reason for attempting to become self-sufficient is that arts funding bodies favour evidence from measurable short-term projects, which does not always align with the working rhythms of practitioners who may be engaged in longer-term activity (Jones and Warren, 2016). Coupled with this requirement of evidence are Jancovich’s (2017) findings that indicate that ACE funding predominantly still goes to previously successful applicants, who thus inevitably have evidence of measurable projects which align with funding cycles. Collaborative working for many is thus borne out of necessity, with diminishing pots of public funding and increasingly competitive application processes

(Lees and Melhuish, 2015). For Open Culture in looking to sustain LightNight, they have had to build partnerships to secure sponsorship, engage with feedback to secure funding and implement increasingly commercial practices to raise additional revenue.

132

‘We have no idea how we’re going to keep funding LightNight’

The continuation of the LightNight festival each year requires the directors of

Open Culture to find funding from a variety of sources, which as Christina explains, equates to an annual struggle. ‘I resent the fact that we have to do this…every year we have to apply for money, every year we don't know if we’ll have enough money to do it…it should be really easy to find money for it, and it’s not’ (Christina, Open Culture Director,

July 2018). The directors of Open Culture provided a plethora of detail regarding the challenges of funding LightNight, contributing significantly to the development of the interview data theme ‘Challenges of funding a free festival’ which will be evidenced further throughout the remainder of this sub-section.

Since 2014, LJMU has acted as principal sponsor for the festival. The relationship between Open Culture and LJMU was pre-existing to this sponsorship agreement, with the university having been involved in LightNight previously, hosting demonstrations and workshops in campus buildings as part of the events programme. As

Richard, a senior executive at LJMU recalls, Open Culture’s proposal was ‘we need a principal sponsor, we’d like it to be you because of all the organisations we work with, the

LightNight event is most dependent on John Moores’ (Richard, LJMU Senior Executive,

March 2018). This proposal indicates how Open Culture sought to formalise an existing relationship to ensure the festival’s on-going sustainability (Froelich, 1999; Getz and

Andersson, 2010). The formalisation of the existing relationship into sponsorship for the festival also highlights the applicability of Coleman’s (1988) arguments that social capital can be strengthened over time. Furthermore, this example provides an illustration of how leaders (in this case Open Culture) take on responsibility to connect and form partnerships with external elite groups, solidifying bridging social capital ties (Leonard,

2004; Purdue, 2001). Universities are attractive partners for third sector organisations as they are well placed to deal with economic downturns, with their financial losses underwritten by endowments which help to ensure their survival (Foskett, 2010).

For Open Culture, securing a high profile partner on a more formal basis also provided them with an annual cash contribution and visibility within LJMU’s press and marketing activities. But beyond their high profile, universities represent anchor

133 institutions in cities, having considerable physical presence through large campuses, alongside a close historical identification with place (usually evidenced in their naming)

(Goddard et al, 2014; Harris and Holley, 2016). Charlotte stated that ‘we were just very lucky to ask at a very good time and in some ways they actually wanted a festival’

(Charlotte, Open Culture Director, January 2018). Richard explained how since the sponsorship was formalised, LJMU has framed LightNight as their community day, ‘that kind of ticks the box for us…anyone can come in, as part of LightNight and look at the kind of work we do within the University’ (Richard, LJMU Senior Executive, March 2018).

This framing of LightNight as a community day illustrates Delanty’s (2011) point that universities which partner with arts festivals are changing their ways of working.

Universities are increasingly concerned with the engagement of their surrounding communities to justify the social impact of their research endeavours, particularly when this is publicly funded (Martin, 2011).

Alongside the funding that Open Culture obtains from the CLIP for LightNight, they have also received ACE funding towards the festival since its inception. As director

Christina explains, ACE ‘are a kind of natural and obvious potential funder for an event like LightNight because it has such deep and broad engagement and it has so many high profile partners’ (Christina, Open Culture Director, January 2018). The high profile partners include those organisations and venues which have been a part of the festival since its inception, such as the Bluecoat, FACT, St George’s Hall and the Walker Art

Gallery. Originally ACE funding was distributed through the Grants for the Arts programme, but since this scheme closed in 2018, LightNight has been funded by the replacement Project Grants. The criteria for funding from these grants still broadly align with Open Culture’s remit for the festival, supporting those who ‘deliver projects that engage people across England with arts and culture’ (Arts Council, n.d.-b: Online).

Despite this ongoing alignment with funding criteria however, Christina admits they have

‘adjusted the event over the years to kind of fit more with what they’re looking for in terms of things to fund’ (Christina, Open Culture Director, January 2018). Concluding on why funding bodies change their criteria, Warren and Jones (2015b:1738) explain that ‘those who control the purse strings can dictate the agenda,’ which in the ACE’s case equates to national government.

134

Christina’s acknowledgement of their need for flexibility in funding applications reflects the experience of many organisations, providing further evidence to support

Alexander’s (2014:370) analysis that ‘arts organisations do what is asked. They conform both to formal terms and to informal assumptions that accompany the grant.’ Director

Charlotte revealed that ACE had previously enquired as to what the artistic policy of the festival was, and if they had considered artistic commissioning. ACE encouraged Open

Culture to continue to curate the festival themselves, with commissions decided through a small independent panel of expert local arts and cultural practitioners to assist the directors in this process. In this way, ACE ‘indirectly have an inﬂuence in a “benign” way.

That is, Arts Council gives guidance on what they liked and what they did not like’ (Finkel,

2009:13). With ACE seemingly satisfied with the engagement levels of LightNight (which had long been the primary focus of Open Culture’s funding applications), Christina explained that the enquiry presented an opportunity to develop the artistic offer within the festival. She stated that ‘we’ve always wanted to do more artistic commissioning, so we’ve really made that the focal point of the (funding) application (subsequently)’

(Christina, Open Culture Director, January 2018).

Since introducing commissions to the festival, Open Culture have received increased levels of funding each year from ACE. For the 2015 festival, ACE funded Open

Culture £15,000 for LightNight commissions, which rose to £32,500 by 2018 (Arts Council

England, n.d.-a: Online; n.d.-b: Online). The directors of Open Culture affirm they have gradually tried to increase the amount they ask for, yet this is to ensure that those commissioned are paid fairly for the work they produce. A further recommendation made by ACE was for Open Culture to find additional sources of revenue where possible. The organisation have subsequently looked to further employ commercial strategies to ensure their year-to-year survival and protect against potential budgetary shortfalls exacerbated by economic recession (Goldblatt, 2012).

135

Open Culture had created revenue streams within LightNight previously, firstly through the sale of the festival guide (which had been free between 2010-2015).

Speaking before the festival in reference to the festival guide, Charlotte admits ‘if they

(the audience) bought the £3 programme (festival guide) in their masses, (it) would make life so much easier

(financially)’ (Charlotte,

Open Culture Director,

January 2018). However with the full programme listings available for free online, sales of the print guide are limited. Another revenue stream created for the festival was through the sale of tickets to the official LightNight after- party, held since 2016.

Reflecting upon the 2018

LightNight after-party (see Figure 11 – Christina referenced time spent organising the after-party, evidenced through the number of Figure 11), Christina was performers as part of the line-up, publicised through their dedicated LightNight Facebook account (Source: disappointed with the LightNight Liverpool, 2018a: Online). revenue generated, commenting that ‘I think the offer of the party was fantastic, but it’s just when we’re relying on money from that party. So I think it broke even, which is not what we needed considering the amount of hours we put into working on it’ (Christina,

Open Culture Director, July 2018).

Christina’s admission here aligns with the work of Jones and Warren (2016). In this article, the value of time within the creative economy is examined, particularly relevant to smaller organisations such as Open Culture who have limited staffing. Jones and Warren conclude that time within a period of austerity is being increasingly stretched for smaller organisations, due to the increasing prominence of shorter-term working imperatives such as emails, meetings and funding bids which restrict longer-term

136 strategic planning. For Christina here, the failure to gain sufficient revenue from the after- party impacts negatively on the organisations ability to plan (financially) for the future, perpetuating a cycle of increasingly short-term, reactive measures to ensure immediate survival.

Open Culture looked to further diversify revenue streams within the 2018 festival to help ensure greater autonomy over their financial footing, hoping to generate stable and predictable sources of ongoing income (Froelich, 1999). Introducing official

LightNight food hubs at the Bombed Out Church and Baltic Market, each of these venues were charged £500 to allow their traders to sell under the festival banner, something which equated to ‘small amounts, but it helped’ (Christina, Open Culture Director, July

2018). Additional revenue was sourced through charging a £3 admission fee to attend the popular ceilidh at St George’s Hall, with this income split between funding LightNight and maintaining the Hall. The directors of Open Culture here recognised the opportunity to generate income through the event, explaining the necessity of charging a nominal fee to attend (Abdullah et al, 2018).

Concluding on the amount of revenue raised through the 2018 festival, Christina revealed that they had broken even. Although not losing money, the lack of profit to invest in the following year’s festival reveals the fine margins within which Open Culture operate, which leaves the organisation vulnerable to any unforeseen revenue volatility

(Carroll and Stater, 2009). When questioned on funding future LightNight’s post-festival,

Christina remained pensive, explaining that ‘we roll with the punches, we find sponsorship, we try to find a diverse range of income for it and adapt. We just continually keep trying to learn and make what we do better and we hope that will keep us relevant and funded’ (Christina, Open Culture Director, July 2018). Christina’s admission highlights Open Culture’s resilience given the precarious nature of their ongoing funding of the festival, and how they embrace adaptability, a common characteristic of small to medium sized organisations within the sector impacted by the economic downturn

(Andres and Round, 2015).

Open Culture’s experience of funding the festival appears typical of practitioners within the local arts and cultural sectors more generally, in that they face continued

137 uncertainty regarding their financial sustainability. Open Culture has looked beyond the public funding they receive for the festival, with LJMU as principal sponsor representing a stable source of income, with universities relatively resistant to financial downturns. Open

Culture’s overall strategy appears to be to secure funding from those with whom their aims and interests for the festival align, which can be interpreted as a direct precursor to social capital (Hess, 2017; Wiid and Mora-Avila, 2018). For instance, LJMU have positioned LightNight as their community day, with engagement a high priority for civic universities, correlating with the longstanding remit of Open Culture. Richard revealed that ‘the approach that Open Culture take is one that marries our community outreach strategy really well. To find ways to not only display and project knowledge and understanding to community audiences, but to engage them’ (Richard, LJMU Senior

Executive, March 2018). Likewise, although a long-term funder of LightNight, ACE’s preference for artistic commissioning aligned with Open Culture’s desire for the festival, providing legitimacy based on the output of its art, rather than solely on engagement.

Alongside Open Culture’s resourcefulness in funding the festival, the participants involved in LightNight are not paid for their involvement, and have similarly found a myriad of ways to offset their costs.

‘LightNight is a loss leader for many people’: How do participants offset their inclusion?

With no payment made to participants who either produce or host events for the general programme of LightNight, there are cost implications for those involved. Of the participants interviewed, attempts were made to offset these costs in a variety of ways, whether via raising revenue through shops, cafes or the sale of art, hoping that publicity would lead to future paid opportunities or subsidising their involvement through other festivals and events. This multiplicity of ways in which participants offset their festival costs finds commonality with how funding shortfalls within the sector are absorbed by practitioners, through a diversification of revenue streams (Thelwall, 2015). As Drew, the curator of an arts venue summarised, ‘LightNight is a loss leader for many people’ (Drew,

Arts Curator, July 2018). Within the participant category relating to capacity, for those organisations and venues with the space to house multiple LightNight events, the covering of overheads in relation to staffing was an oft-cited issue when considering the 138 economic outlay from their involvement. As Lorna states, for organisations with

‘complicated staffing to sort out and overtime arrangements…it’s a budget implication’

(Lorna, Culture Liverpool Employee, March 2018). Drew concluded therefore that for many involved in LightNight, ‘you’re forced to think in commercial terms’ (Drew, Arts

Curator, July 2018). Although representatives from organisations and venues that housed events for LightNight were keen to emphasise that they intended to continue to provide their spaces in-kind for the festival, the importance of the commercial viability of their inclusion represented a prominent point of discussion.

Amy, the manager of a small arts venue summarised this general sentiment, stating ‘we’re so happy to collaborate and open our doors, but no-one here can really afford to do anything that is going to cost us money’ (Amy, Venue Manager, July 2018).

For National Museums Liverpool (hereafter NML), Alison, a senior executive revealed that the initial decision to include the waterfront museums as part of LightNight was entirely commercial. This admission aligns with the analysis of Lindqvist (2012:2), who explains that ‘museums count on several revenue sources to support their financial planning.’ Alison explained that staffing costs were being offset from income raised

Figure 12 – The Museum of Liverpool promoted their shop and cafe as a part of their LightNight offer, an explicit indication of their reliance upon this revenue to cover staffing costs (Source: Museum of Liverpool, 2018: Online). through their retail offer, in common with institutions which seek to capitalise upon leisure and tourism economies (Alexander, 2018b). This intent was explicitly stated on the 139

Museum of Liverpool’s Facebook page on the day of LightNight (see figure 12), yet post- festival Alison revealed significant variation in actual revenue taken across the four NML museums involved, much to her disappointment (Alison, NML Senior Executive,

September 2018). For larger museums such as those within NML however, there is an expectation that they are better able to survive funding downturns and potential revenue deficits than smaller organisations who have limited opportunities to protect against funding shortfalls (Pratt and Hutton, 2013).

For regular participants dot-art (a small art gallery), their intention has been to offset their inclusion in LightNight through the sale of art. Managing Director Lucy explains ‘that might sound terrible, but you know, we’re a business’ (Lucy, Managing

Director of dot-art, May 2018), showcasing how their involvement in LightNight is purposeful, and referencing how small businesses look to capitalise upon opportunities to self-sustain (Rimmer, 2018). For the 2018 festival, Lucy called in a favour from Andy

McCluskey, lead singer of electronic band Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark (hereafter

OMD), having previously brokered a deal for dot-art member artist John Petch to produce the cover for their album ‘The Punishment of Luxury’. An exhibition of John Petch’s work entitled ‘Metamorphosis: John Petch x OMD’ was scheduled to launch on LightNight inside the gallery, with a surprise musical performance in the enclosed avenue outside

(OMD could not be named at the behest of their manager). With the high profile nature of

OMD performing at dot-art on LightNight likely to receive significant publicity, Lucy was able to persuade the Liverpool Business Improvement District Company - who aim to animate and promote events within their designated area - to fully fund the stage and PA system required. Landlords Bruntwood also offered their expertise free of charge in organising the required health and safety documentation for the event, with over two hundred people expected to attend the live performance.

Considering the lack of financial outlay on the LightNight event for dot-art, the event in a financial sense was regarded as a success. OMD signed prints of the album artwork which were available for sale and promoted the exhibition through their Facebook page, which has over 300,000 ‘likes’, providing dot-art with considerable reach through access to their international fan base. The Facebook post by OMD (see Figure 13) provides an illustrative example of the social capital norm of reciprocity (Putnam, 2000), 140 showcasing the value in the existing relationship which Lucy held with the band. When interviewed after the festival, Lucy subsequently revealed that it was the ‘most successful exhibition that we’ve ever had…we started getting orders from all over the world’ (Lucy, Managing

Director of dot-art, July

2018), providing the direct link between

OMD’s promotion and the subsequent increase in art sold by the gallery. Figure 13 – Direct promotion by OMD of the limited edition prints and original artwork illustrates the culmination of the favour called in by Lucy, leading to the For the most lucrative exhibition ever held at the gallery (Source: OMD, 2018: Online). participants interviewed who were performing or producing art as part of LightNight, as Hannah considered in the lead up to LightNight, ‘it’s not a paid opportunity, so it begs the question, why would you get involved?’ (Hannah, Artist, April 2018). Hannah acknowledged that the festival presented a vehicle for maximising profile, both through the publicity that is organised by

Open Culture and the attention the festival receives from local media and cultural commentators (as will be discussed further in Chapter 6). In a recent Bido Lito magazine interview, director Charlotte explained that Open Culture’s aspiration was to provide participants with value through their involvement in LightNight. Charlotte continued that

Open Culture provide advice on how participants can sell themselves, present to audiences and utilise the festival as a platform to be commissioned in future (Johnson,

2019: Online).

141

In comparison to the previously referenced participant category relating to capacity, within which multiple organisations and venues referenced their caution in incurring costs through their LightNight involvement, within the category regarding longevity, there was a common finding amongst first-time participants that the festival represented a wholly positive opportunity. Speaking before the festival, commissioned artist John stated that ‘I think all artists are looking for opportunities to showcase their work, it’s a part of your professional development. You have to pull your finger out, collaborate with people, and you’d be a fool not to be interested in something were you have 15,000 people coming into the city centre’ (John, Commissioned Artist, March

2018). For Catherine, a visual artist at the start of her practise, she revealed that ‘having my name associated with something such as LightNight is a big deal…that to me is more important and more beneficial as an artist than getting money’ (Catherine, Visual Artist,

July 2018). Catherine’s analysis of the value of her experience here aligns with the work of Glow and Caust (2010), who looked at the value for artists of participating in the

Adelaide Fringe Festival. They state that particularly for artists at the beginning of their practise, it’s ‘not necessarily about making money. It is generally about being ‘seen’; recognition from peers and having the opportunity to develop artistic work’ (Glow and

Caust, 2010:420).

Subsidising inclusion through other paid performances was highlighted by

Francisco as the principle reason his arts organisation could afford to perform at

LightNight. Originally applying to be commissioned for LightNight (and thus subsidised against costs incurred), Francisco’s organisation was unsuccessful. Francisco subsequently revealed however that they had been commissioned the following weekend at another event, allowing his organisation to perform a stripped back version of this commission for LightNight. Francisco explained that the ‘cost implication to it

(LightNight)…rehearsals, hiring certain equipment, certain costumes…it’s being covered by the other event’ (Francisco, OLC Creative Director, April 2018). Subsequently

Francisco referred to performing at LightNight ‘as a testing ground’ for the commissioned performance the following week. This example provides an illustration of how arts festivals can provide participants with the opportunity to enhance their performance skills and creative capacity (Moscardo, 2007), as will be discussed in Chapter 6.

142

The variety of ways in which participants of LightNight attempt to offset their in- kind inclusion illustrates the financial predicament faced by a significant proportion of the local arts and cultural sectors. As highlighted in previous sections, there are limited public funding avenues for practitioners, whether at the local level via the CLIP or nationally via

ACE. The fact that so many participants are happy to partake in LightNight without payment indicates that different kinds of value can be found from their involvement.

Relying on alternative revenue streams, calling in favours, hoping to capitalise upon publicity or offsetting through other paid performances, LightNight provides a microcosm of the daily struggles experienced by practitioners within the sector, which is characterised by funding uncertainty, perpetuating short-term planning and working cycles.

5.6 – Conclusion

This chapter has detailed Open Culture’s formation, development of LightNight, and ongoing struggle to sustain the festival within a period of austerity for arts funding.

Section 5.2 detailed the deficiencies of the CCP regarding engagement and communication (Craik, 2013) and how Open Culture were formed to rectify these problems through acting as cultural intermediaries. Section 5.3 marked Open Culture’s independence as an organisation, and analysed how experiences within the CCP directly informed their decision to continue with their existing organisational aims and remit, filling a service gap and aligning with funding criteria. Undertaking aspects of both bonding and bridging social capital, Open Culture encouraged cultural institutions to be involved in the newly created LightNight and prospective audience members that the festival was something they could enjoy (Durrer and Miles, 2009). Section 5.4 focussed on the format of the festival, explaining the popularity of late openings and light festivals. The addition of theming each iteration of the festival, alongside introducing commissioned works ensured that LightNight developed internal variance within its artistic programme. These adjustments to the programme appeal to participants and mark LightNight with a character that is distinct from other festivals and events held in the city.

Section 5.5 discussed the funding of LightNight through the context of austerity.

Along with formalising an existing relationship to secure LJMU as principal sponsor, and

143 aligning the creative direction of the festival with ACE recommendations, Open Culture have diversified revenue through utilising commercial tactics to help secure LightNight’s future. For participants of the festival, their in-kind inclusion is likewise dependent on resourcefulness, indicated by examples of alternate revenue streams, the value of promotion and offsetting inclusion with other paid performances. These examples of versatility illustrate a microcosm of the day-to-day working practices adopted by participants to ensure survival within the local arts and cultural sectors. In the following chapter, the way in which Open Culture utilise principles of social capital to programme and produce LightNight will be examined. There will be particular focus on how Open

Culture’s experience, knowledge and networks are utilised to support participants through their concurrent roles as curator, intermediary and producer based upon programming requirements.

144

Chapter 6 – Trust, access to resources and tailored support: Open

Culture’s distribution of social capital within LightNight

6.1 – Introduction

When looking to dissect how Open Culture distribute resources and allocate support within LightNight, the relationships between the organisers and participants of the festival programme provide illustrative examples. Chapter 5 analysed the origins of Open

Culture as part of the CCP, through to the directors’ decision to become an independent

CIC creating LightNight as their first major event. This chapter begins (section 6.2) with an explanation of Open Culture’s existing reputation within the city’s arts and cultural sectors, detailing how the organisation’s founding values have helped to build trust, a key precursor to social capital (Torche and Valenzuela, 2011). Section 6.3 focuses upon the available resources to participants through LightNight under the scope of social capital.

The makeup of the LightNight audience is cited as a pull factor for participants owing to the value this can provide, alongside the significant marketing and PR that Open Culture organise for the festival. In a caveat to the Open Culture and participant relationship relating to social capital however, the organisers explicitly request that each participant reciprocate their support by promoting their own events.

Section 6.4 examines the differing roles Open Culture perform through organising events for LightNight. Of particular relevance here for discussions around social capital is

Open Culture’s understanding that each participant has differing requirements regarding the levels of support they require. Section 6.5 evaluates the significance of place to the festival. Open Culture frames the festival as a celebration of local arts and culture, and seeks to heighten civic pride through integrating the existing creative communities and cultural quarters of the city into LightNight, reaffirming the identities of audiences and participants alike (Derrett, 2003; Jaeger and Mykletun, 2013). This incorporation of established communities and quarters presents evidence of Open Culture utilising bonding social capital to bring together these localised networks, which hold in common a wider community of practise relating to arts and culture. Subsequently, a discussion of how atmospheres are generated through the festival refers to the use of culturally significant buildings and spaces for programmed events, playing upon collective

145 memories to inform experience (Relph, 1976; Williams et al, 1992). Firstly within this chapter, an analysis of trust in Open Culture will explain the influence this has upon

LightNight’s legitimacy within the city’s arts and cultural sectors.

6.2 – How does Open Culture's reputation enhance LightNight's legitimacy?

Perceptions of LightNight’s legitimacy within the city’s arts and cultural sectors are based to a large extent upon the existing reputation of organisers Open Culture.

Larson et al (2015:159) state in their study of festival stakeholders that ‘legitimacy is fundamental to understanding relationship building’ between organisers and participants, however relationships may be informed through association external to the festival. Alison spoke of regularly contacting Open Culture for recommendations outside of LightNight, owing to their extensive knowledge of local practitioners and venues, stating that the organisation represents ‘a great resource for the city’ (Alison, NML Senior Executive, May

2018). This example provides an illustration of how social relations predominantly maintained for LightNight, can be utilised to acquire information-flow external to the festival, linking to Coleman’s (1988) analysis of the differing forms of social capital.

Positive past exchanges can be critical in supporting ongoing relationships and the development of trust (McCarthy, 2006). For those participants without an ongoing association with Open Culture, the majority still held pre-existing knowledge of the organisation’s history within the CCP, and subsequent decision to take their CIC forward as an independent entity, as analysed in section 5.3.

Multiple participants referenced the overarching sentiment of Open Culture’s aims of engagement and provision of opportunities within the festival as the principal reasons why they became involved in LightNight when first interviewed. These responses concerning their motivation in applying to take part in the festival contributed to the interview data theme ‘Open Culture reputation and LightNight legitimacy,’ as will be explored throughout the remainder of the sub-section. Francisco (OLC Creative Director,

April 2018) explained that ‘one of the reasons I do work with Open Culture is that I know that they’re not ripping people off. It’s not like they’ve got all this money, they’re scraping through every minute and therefore I support them, because they’re trying to affect change,’ revealing that these values fell in line with his own organisations aspirations.

146

Of note here is that not all participants had an existing association with Open

Culture before they decided to apply to be a part of LightNight. For these participants, positive word of mouth from within the local arts and cultural sectors was an influencing factor in the formation of their opinions (Luonila et al, 2016, McCarthy, 2006). Existing reputation is clearly a significant component of many participants trust placed in Open

Culture, relating to how the organisation looks to benefit others. This evidence aligns with the analysis of Torche and Valenzuela (2011:186) into the importance of ‘integrity, honesty and moral character’ in building conceptions of trust with others. Further legitimising factors of LightNight include the lack of payment to participants, with the festival being free and a not-for-profit event. Such festivals ‘are perceived to act for public service’ (Larson et al, 2015:170) and provide a sense of moral validity, with director

Christina concluding that LightNight presents ‘genuinely good opportunities’ for participants (Christina, Open Culture Director, July 2018).

Organisers can thus significantly enhance their reputation based upon how their festival is perceived to contribute towards their locality (Finkel, 2009). Persuading major arts and cultural institutions within the city such as the Bluecoat, FACT, St George’s Hall and Walker Art Gallery (Couch and Farr, 2000) to participate in LightNight from the outset represented a significant coup for Open Culture, based on each institution’s local reputation. As Larson et al (2015:171) explain, having such high profile partners

‘facilitates legitimacy, especially when leaders or other festival supporters are in themselves respected and trusted.’ As explained on the festival website, ‘LightNight is

Liverpool's free one-night arts festival, shining a spotlight on the city and celebrating our world class cultural offer’ (LightNight Liverpool, n.d: Online). Such has been the success of Open Culture communicating the importance of Liverpool’s existing arts and culture offer that participants often speak of the city and festival concurrently.

LightNight’s experience here is similar to the Sidmouth Folk Festival, with

Morgan’s (2007) study revealing how the festival became referred to as Sidmouth, with the festival and town inseparable in the minds of visitors. Questioned as to why he decided to partake in the festival, John reasoned that ‘you want to support the city, you want to support LightNight’ (John, Commissioned Artist, March 2018). Likewise, Lucy explains that in her experience ‘we all kind of pull together to make it happen, and it’s a 147 huge showcase for the city’ (Lucy, Managing Director of dot-art, May 2018). These quotes illustrate the communal sense of ownership of the festival from participants, providing further justification to consider LightNight as an institution within the city’s cultural calendar, defined as ‘becoming a permanent, legitimate, and valued part of the society’ (Getz et al, 2007:104).

LightNight’s legitimacy is further enhanced by its longevity (the festival celebrated its tenth edition in 2019). Although there is no transferable model to ensure longevity

(Getz and Andersson, 2008), within the context of LightNight it is clear that continuation of the festival relies to a large extent upon organisers Open Culture. Director Charlotte admits that annually sustaining LightNight represents a challenge, ‘we’re constantly learning with it every single year, because it happens just once’ (Charlotte, Open Culture

Director, July 2018). This admission of gaining knowledge with each iteration of

LightNight aligns with the analysis of Goldblatt (2012), who explains that reflection on the success and failure of previous festivals can help organisers effectively prepare for the future. Longevity of festivals also leads to longer-term relationships within them, as participants become embedded based on positive past experiences, increasing the overall legitimacy of the event as a source of social capital (Larson et al, 2015; Raj and

Vignali, 2010; Wilks, 2011). The limited time frame of LightNight, as a one-night festival, could be perceived as a hindrance to the development of social capital, as found in the study of Mair and Duffy (2018). Yet as previously outlined, Open Culture fulfil their organisational aims year round, strengthening relationships with many participants outside of LightNight, via the exchange of useful information for example (Coleman,

1988). The legitimacy of LightNight is further reinforced by the consistency of the date on which it is held annually, taking place on the Friday closest to International Museums Day

(18th May). Tying the festival in with this international event, along with its link to the national Museums at Night network, enhances LightNight’s reputation (Van Aalst and van

Melik, 2012).

Open Culture referenced having to turn away some new applicants for the festival in recent years, explaining how involving too many organisations and venues had previously made the size of the festival ‘obscene’ (Charlotte, Open Culture Director, July

2018). Understanding the size of their organisation (comprising of three full-time staff), 148

Open Culture took the decision to limit the size of the festival, making it manageable for them as organisers. This evidence best supports Leonard’s (2004) notion that leaders are best placed to distribute and control collective resources through their experience and contacts and opens up arguments pertaining to optimal scale for conceptions of social capital, which will be discussed further in section 6.5. Thus it is the existing reputation of

Open Culture, showcased through the legitimacy of LightNight as a locally focussed arts festival, which has helped build strong relationships with participants who understand the purpose of the organisation. In the following section, the communal resources Open

Culture provide for LightNight participants, namely the distinct audience and publicity of events, will be analysed under the scope of social capital.

6.3 – Communal resources and expectation of reciprocity

For those participants successful in applying to be a part of LightNight, their relationship with Open Culture is central to accessing the organisation’s communal resources available within the festival. These resources may not only benefit participants relating to their involvement in the festival, but may provide positive outcomes in the longer term, increasing capacity based on contacts, experience or skills acquired

(Comunian, 2017). Owing to these potential longer-term benefits, it can be seen how participants apply to be a part of LightNight purposefully, as a ‘goal-oriented action’

(Torche and Valenzuela, 2011:183). These findings are in line with Coleman’s assessment on motivating factors for establishing relationships, based on expectation of reciprocation (Coleman, 1988; Hibbitt et al, 2001). Open Culture understand their role in regards to the wider delivery of the festival. Director Christina acknowledges that despite

LightNight functioning as a collective effort with ‘the whole city collaborating together on a joint programme…we’re the glue of it and they’re the participants in it’, showing an understanding of the inherent hierarchies which exist within the festival (Christina, Open

Culture Director, July 2018). Firstly the ‘guaranteed audience’ of LightNight and how this can benefit participants will be examined, which in part disputes the long-held perception of loyal existing audiences being the most valuable (Kemp and Poole, 2016; Kruger et al,

2010). Secondly, the publicity that Open Culture provide for each event through marketing and PR will be analysed, noting the importance of this for participants who struggle to procure such exposure from their day-to-day operations. Finally, the caveat of 149

Open Culture explicitly requesting that participants publicise their own events will illustrate the expectation of reciprocity apparent within these relationships.

LightNight and a ‘guaranteed audience’

One of the principle attractions of LightNight for prospective applicants is the substantial audience the festival attracts, a factor seen as invaluable in offsetting the lack of payment for their inclusion. Multiple participants referenced the makeup of LightNight audiences as different from other festivals within the city, showcasing the value which

Open Culture provide in having cultivated a distinct and broad audience. Kayleigh stated that she purposefully targeted inclusion in the festival when her venue first opened. She explained that ‘what they (Open Culture through LightNight) offer is a platform and a guarantee, you know these people are going to come, the value is definitely there, it’s something that everyone looks forward to in the calendar’ (Kayleigh, Venue Manager,

May 2018). Comparable with the arguments of Bourdieu (1980) and Coleman (1988) that people intentionally build relationships based upon the benefit they may later bring,

Kayleigh intentionally sought to become involved in LightNight to ‘introduce our space to people.’ Through implementing marketing and communication strategies to mediate public perception of the arts and who it is for (as discussed in section 5.3) (Waltl, 2006),

Open Culture have been successful in encouraging non-traditional arts audiences to attend LightNight, as will be discussed throughout the remainder of this sub-section.

Director Christina confirmed the importance of participants finding new audiences as ‘key to the whole festival, really’ (Christina, Open Culture Director, January 2018).

Reflecting upon her festival experience, Sophie explained that LightNight presented the opportunity ‘to showcase your work to all types of audiences.’ She continued that the differing makeup of audience set LightNight apart from other festivals, in that ‘you don’t know who’s going to be sitting in the audience…(or) what their background is’ (Sophie,

Performer, June 2018). Sophie here hints at the value of exposure to differing types of audiences, something which may eventually be reducible to economic profit, relating back to the arguments of Bourdieu on social capital (Tzanakis, 2013). Strengthening the validity of this point, Sophie revealed that following her LightNight performance, enquiries into her paid classes had increased. This evidence goes against the commonly held

150 assumption that the ongoing survival of arts organisations and practitioners is solely dependent upon loyal existing audiences, revealing the value of developing new ones

(Kemp and Poole, 2016).

Providing participants with access to audiences outside of their existing network showcases an example of bridging social capital within the festival. Summarising the success of Open Culture’s audience strategy, Lorna provides an example. ‘If you say “Do you want to go and see an art exhibition in The Walker (art gallery)?” they might say “No”, but they might go if there’s a drumming group inside there’ (Lorna, Culture Liverpool

Employee, March 2018). The success of this strategy can be illustrated through the statistic that up to 50% of visitors to Tate Liverpool on LightNight had never previously been inside the building (Johnson, 2019: Online). Although LightNight audience survey data is not publicly available (it is primarily utilised for ACE funding bids), lines of questioning (see Appendix 6, questions 5, 15 and 16) illustrate how Open Culture seek to understand the makeup of the festival audience, particularly focussing upon the proportion of non-traditional arts attenders.

Multiple participants identified Open Culture as being successful in attracting newcomers to the festival through the prominence of families with children apparent within the audience. Explaining one of the attractions of the festival for families, Geoff stated that ‘you can spend a whole evening doing free things which for families can be important, it’s a great way to entertain the kids’ (Geoff, Studio Owner, May 2018). A factor deemed more important than the free to attend nature of the festival in attracting families to LightNight however, and something which participants took great pride in, was how safe the festival is. As Hannah considered when interviewed after the festival, ‘it’s very safe isn’t it within the city on LightNight? For families to experience cultural opportunities and events together’ (Hannah, Artist, July 2018).

Despite no interview questions being based around the presence of families within the LightNight audience, or the relevance of safety to this, these factors were something which Charlotte was well aware of. ‘One of our original aims was to change perceptions of the city on a Friday night, which in some ways we have done. People feel very safe in the city on the night. It’s anecdotal, we have a lot of that. You can tell as

151 families with young children stay out much later than usual’ (Charlotte, Open Culture

Director, January 2018). In attempting to quantify this anecdotal evidence to their funders,

Charlotte revealed that for a number of years a question surrounding how safe the public felt in the city on LightNight had previously been included as part of the audience survey.

In this way, Open Culture are aware of the potential of encouraging conceptions of safety in the night time city, aligning with the research of Klaic (2014) into Nuit Blanche. It is not only to benefit participants that Open Culture specifically target non-traditional arts audiences to attend LightNight, with the festivals ongoing survival dependent on continuing to attract newcomers, aligned with the study of Kruger et al (2010) into arts festival visitor loyalty. Alongside cultivating the ‘guaranteed’ and broader audience, a further way in which Open Culture provide support for participants is through their extensive promotion of LightNight.

LightNight and the opportunity to be publicised

The most often-cited benefit revealed by participants from being a part of

LightNight was the publicity garnered from Open Culture’s promotion. As organisers,

Open Culture take responsibility for the marketing and PR of each event within the festival programme as part of the extensive promotional campaign for LightNight. Each event is featured within the print festival guide, listed on the LightNight website and promoted through dedicated Facebook and Twitter accounts (see Figure 14). With each event garnering this level of promotion, in relation to marketing and PR, there would not appear to be evidence of vertical inequality to align with Tzanakis’ (2013) criticism of

Coleman (1988) and Putnam’s (2000) horizontal framing of social capital. Open Culture see the use of social media as particularly important ‘in creating a kind of groundswell of activity and PR’ (Christina, Open Culture Director, January 2018), supporting the research of Hausmann and Poellmann (2013) on the potential of arts marketing via social media.

152

Figure 14 – An example of the marketing and PR for each festival event, in this case the offer at FACT, as posted by Open Culture through their dedicated LightNight Facebook account (Source: LightNight Liverpool, 2018b: Online).

In stating the importance of the marketing and PR which Open Culture provide, some participants admitted they lacked the organisational capacity to promote themselves, in line with the findings of Chung et al (2014) on social media use for marketing. Geoff emphasised how being an organisation which was usually closed to the public day-to-day (a studio holding evening classes) meant that publicity was not something he was regularly able to procure. Geoff felt that the LightNight promotion of his studio allowed for ‘people to even just once a year to go “ok, I didn’t realise you were here”’ (Geoff, Studio Owner, May 2018). Tzanakis (2013) explains that utilising social capital as a productive good aligns with the analysis of Coleman. He explains that

Coleman believed that social capital allows actors to be goal-oriented, and ‘achieve particular ends that would have been impossible without it’ (Tzanakis, 2013:4).

Open Culture have also utilised their media contacts, forged during their time as part of the CCP to help publicise new elements of the festival, again showcasing an example of ties being strengthened on the basis of previous association (Coleman,

1988). In 2015, Merseyside Transport Trust became involved in LightNight for the first time, and have since provided a free heritage bus service on a circular route to help ferry audience members around the festival throughout the night. Through their existing contacts with the Liverpool Echo, Open Culture organised for an article to be published on the heritage bus circular, including an image of one of the buses to be featured (see

Figure 15). Trust volunteer Joe explained that the reach of this publicity in the local press helped in profile raising for the Trust, heightening awareness and publicising their wider work (Joe, Merseyside Transport Trust Volunteer, February 2018). The provision of 153 publicity to the Trust illustrates how resources obtained through social capital relations have the character of a gift from the perspective of the recipient, however the ability to obtain such resources is wholly dependent on membership within the social structure in question (Portes, 1998).

Figure 15 – A Merseyside Transport Trust bus in front of the Cunard Building, promoting their upcoming involvement in LightNight 2015 (Source: Liverpool Echo, 2015: Online).

Such is the reputation of Open Culture and the legitimacy of LightNight as discussed in section 6.2, that local arts media and cultural commentators cover the festival each year through previews and reviews. Open Culture have existing links with the leading cultural publication Bido Lito, and arts website Art in Liverpool, who have covered their events for a number of years (see Figure 16). For first-time participant

Catherine, she stated prior to the festival that she hoped her involvement would bring ‘a lot of exposure to my work and myself as an artist’ (Catherine, Visual Artist, May 2018).

Following the festival, Catherine’s event for LightNight was positively reviewed by two local cultural commentators, showcasing the potential benefits to be garnered from the publicity which LightNight attracts. Catherine subsequently stated that she was ‘genuinely shocked and overwhelmed to have my work featured in such positive reviews alongside

154

Figure 16 – An interview with commissioned artist John Elcock as part of the preview into LightNight 2018 within the Art in Liverpool Magazine. (Source: Art in Liverpool, 2018: Online). some of the more established artists, so I just feel really grateful that these people took the time to consider me in their writing’ (July 2018). As Debenedetti (2006:30) states, such reviews ‘can produce symbolic proﬁt for artists and other arts professionals in the shape of fame, reputation or legitimacy.’ Regarding the promotion of individual events however, Open Culture expect participants to reciprocate the support which they provide.

Participants taking responsibility to promote their own events

The clearest example of conceptions of social capital within LightNight being reciprocal can be seen through Open Culture’s expectation that participants publicise their own involvement. Open Culture’s aim here is to encourage involvement from participants with publicity, aligning with Leonard’s (2004) explanation that enduring social capital is best achieved through the ability to mobilise the resources of others. Speaking

155 before LightNight, director Christina was well aware of the challenges Open Culture face.

She clarified that ‘it’s really important for participants to take on some of the responsibility of marketing their own events…because we’ve got say one hundred events, there’s only three of us, two of us focussing on PR, there’s a lot of work to do’ (Christina, Open

Culture Director, January 2018). Some participants remained pragmatic in regards to the request to publicise their own events, stating that they already actively engaged in such processes. Francisco explained that he didn't understand why some participants chose not to actively promote their own events, stating ‘if you’re not happy with the promotion, do something about it, promote it, it’s your thing…you’ve worked hard on it’ (Francisco,

OLC Creative Director, July 2018).

With the methodological framework applied to the fieldwork incorporating netnography, participants’ social media channels could be closely monitored to

supplement interview

responses on

whether participants

followed through on

this expectation. A

prominent example

observed through the

netnography was the

LightNight food hub

located in the

grounds of the

‘Bombed Out Church’

(St Luke’s).

Announcing the food

hub on their Figure 17 – An example of The Bombed Out Church giving individual promotion to each vendor ahead of the LightNight Facebook page at Food Hub (Source: The Bombed Out Church, 2018: Online). the end of January, events manager Jane set up an event page on the social media platform, to both publicise the food hub and advertise for traders. Utilising social media in this way to

156 publicise their LightNight offer at an early stage of preparation extended the period of engagement with the public (Laurell and Björner, 2018), with over nine thousand people registering their interest in the food hub across subsequent weeks. Jane also utilised the

Facebook event page to individually publicise each of the nine food and drink vendors who would be taking part in the food hub during the weeks preceding the festival, tagging their respective social media profiles and displaying images of their offer (see Figure 17).

Through this timely promotion of vendors, Jane strengthened the collective social cohesion of the event (Newman, 2004), showcasing her understanding and application of social capital as ‘doing with’ (Putnam, 2000:117), a collective endeavour. Speaking after the festival, Jane revealed that multiple vendors had subsequently benefitted from their

LightNight involvement. She explained that owing to their success on LightNight, ‘Feed

Me Street Food returned the following week at a food market, and Quack Wing Chinese

Food, they got a wedding booking out of being a part of the food hub’ (Jane, ‘Bombed

Out Church’ Events Manager, July 2018).

Another participant who looked to utilise social media in a similar way to publicise their LightNight involvement were technology hub Sensor

City. As part of their LightNight offer, Sensor City hosted a variety of technology based exhibitors, with Marketing

Manager Samantha responsible for promoting these (see Figure

18). Detailing the promotion strategy prior to the festival,

Samantha explained that ‘once the full LightNight programme came out on the 1st May, we have started to tweet about Figure 18 – One of the six exhibitors individually highlighted on Twitter in the lead up to LightNight, each of the individual exhibits. publicising both the Sensor City offer and the Key in this is to link each tweet individual exhibitors (Sensor City, 2018: Online).

157 back to the LightNight account and the relevant hashtags to ensure there’s a consistent trail for those viewing’ (Samantha, Sensor City Marketing Manager, May 2018). The strategy of utilising social media in this way was not just reserved for organisations and venues however. There was a common understanding of the potential of social media platforms for promotion amongst the majority of participants, epitomised through the reasoning of Catherine. She explained that ‘tagging the events and other associated people or organisations helps to share your posts to a much wider audience, which is a really beneficial thing to do when promoting events on these (social media) platforms’

(Catherine, Visual Artist, July 2018). The above examples illustrate an understanding that social capital can benefit others when utilised purposefully, especially when choosing to

‘forgo self-interest and act in the interests of the collectivity’ (Coleman, 1988:104).

Some participants framed their use of social media for promotion around how it benefitted others, providing evidence of how they engaged in aspects of social capital day-to-day. Francisco revealed that he actively shares other organisations and performer’s social media content online as it can help build a positive reputation. ‘You get known as somebody who’s always supporting other people’, which he explained can build reciprocal audiences (Francisco, OLC Creative Director, April 2018). The work here of

Schulenkorf et al (2011:109) is applicable to the experience of LightNight participants, in that ‘reciprocal acts facilitate access to resources at an individual and collective level.’ For the participants themselves, they benefit individually from enhanced reputations as referenced by Francisco. In relation to collective access, as Jenny concludes, positive perceptions formed online through social media interactions with others results in ‘more people that are active in culture, more people that are valuing culture, (which is) better for everyone’ (Jenny, Dance Organisation Director, May 2018). These findings concur with the analysis of Xu and Saxton (2018:5) regarding stakeholder engagement that ‘social media use is, in effect, investing in relationships.’ Concluding on whether Open Culture feel that participants publicise their own events for LightNight, director Christina remains pragmatic when reflecting on the 2018 festival. ‘I think generally it’s good, it’s strong you know, but I think there’s a lot of room to improve there definitely…there’s only so much we can do about that’ (Christina, Open Culture Director, June 2018). Although Open

158

Culture are limited in their ability to persuade participants to publicise their own events, through the programming of the festival, they are able to tailor the support they provide.

6.4 – Open Culture’s changing roles regarding participant requirements

The most prominent example of Open Culture’s governance of LightNight which aligns with conceptions of social capital comes through their distribution of knowledge, resources and networks of contacts to support participants via their roles as programmer, intermediary and producer. Open Culture operate an open call for applications to be part of LightNight, inviting artists and performers to produce in-kind programming, alongside venues and cultural organisations to host these events. A call for commissioned work looks for artists and performers to produce high-quality art, for which they will be subsidised. The open and commission call application documents outline what Open

Culture require for LightNight events, with the organisers holding final say in regards to which applicants are selected, alongside finalising the content and siting of their proposed events. Open Culture explicitly state that they will provide practical advice, mentoring, facilitate collaborations and secure venues where necessary (Open Culture, 2017a).

Open Culture, as organisers, can thus ‘provide different opportunities and resources to newcomers as they strive to integrate into the group’ (Korte and Lin,

2013:412). Therefore while Bourdieu (1986:248) defines social capital as ‘membership in a group which provides each of its members with the backing of the collectivity-owned capital’, it is clear that in the case of LightNight, it is Open Culture who hold responsibility for its distribution. Each year’s LightNight programme is put together at their discretion, with every applicant requiring differing levels of support. In regards to whether LightNight represents a ‘closed’ structure, which Coleman (1988) believes allows social capital norms and obligations to be more effectively established and maintained, Open Culture often provide support to participants via their wider network of contacts to help deliver their programmed events. The structure of LightNight closely aligns with the analysis of

Tzanakis (2013) therefore who rejects the notion of ‘closure’, with participants accessing resources outside of their immediate network. The remainder of this section looks at the influence of Open Culture’s governance of LightNight upon participants, providing

159 evidence for the research question pertaining to the impact this can have upon the distribution of social capital within the festival.

To assist in their programming, Open Culture ask a range of questions as part of the online application process. Firstly Open Culture challenge prospective participants to make judgements as to whether they will require support to develop and deliver their proposed event for LightNight. As part of the application process, one question (see

Figure 19) asks which level of help participants require to make their proposed activity happen, with three options; i) not requiring support (being self-sufficient), ii) requiring a venue, or finally iii) requiring a venue and additional support. As director Charlotte states,

‘we try to be their extra brain’, asking questions which will challenge applicants to evaluate their plan to develop and deliver their proposed event (Charlotte, Open Culture

Director, July 2018). The implication of this questioning is that those participants without relevant knowledge, resources or contacts to develop and deliver their proposed event can access the collective social capital, which organisers Open Culture hold access to.

Figure 19 – The online application question which provides Open Culture with an understanding of the potential levels of support they will be required to provide at a suitably early stage (Source: Open Culture, 2018b).

Contradicting this process relating to required support however is an admission that decision making can come down to previous experience of participants. Director

Charlotte states that ‘we take a risk on arts organisations that we know of, if we feel that they need a platform’ (Charlotte, Open Culture Director, July 2018). This admission points 160 toward disproportionate social capital within the festival, aligning with the analysis of Hess

(2017:3) that ‘each actor occupies different positions and consequently varying possibilities to activate social capital as a resource.’ Continuity of relationships can be key to strengthening social capital over time (Flora, 1998), and in this instance relates to the potential for participants to have enhanced access to support and resources from Open

Culture, aligning with Tzanakis’ (2013) framing of vertical inequalities within networks. In the following sub-section, Open Culture’s trust in participants will be explored, relating to those who claim they are self-sufficient regarding the support they require for their proposed activity.

Open Culture as programmer: Trusting participants

For participants who indicate they are self-sufficient and require no additional support from Open Culture to carry out their proposed event, as director Charlotte explains, ‘you have to put that trust in them’ (Charlotte, Open Culture Director, July 2018).

The participants who indicated self-sufficiency for LightNight 2018 were predominantly organisations and venues which have taken part in the festival before, with Open Culture thus having experience of working with them previously. Stevenson (2016) in her study of local festivals reasons that social capital is cumulative, through the building of trust which facilitates future collaborations, supporting Charlotte’s judgement here, whilst also aligning with the analysis of Coleman (1988) that social ties can be strengthened based on previous association. In the case of art gallery FACT, having taken part in every edition of LightNight ensures a relatively fluid relationship with Open Culture. Rebecca explains that ‘they know that we will be programming something for it…FACT doesn't need so much support other than being included in the listings, as we run large-scale events using our own team’ (Rebecca, FACT Exhibitions Manager, March 2018).

For Geoff, he decided before the festival that the purpose of his involvement in

LightNight would be to ‘make connections’ as he sought to organise his own event (Geoff,

Studio Owner, May 2018). Geoff held discussions with Louise, the manager of a neighbouring arts studio. Quickly discovering they shared similar values, it was agreed that a collaborative workshop would be held at the arts studio on LightNight to trial a potential longer relationship, showcasing how trust is a key requisite for potential future

161 exchange (McCarthy, 2006). The trial agreement also aligns with Comunian’s (2015:59) analysis that ‘festivals fit perfectly to the networked and project-based nature of creative work.’ In this way, Geoff and Louise applied principles of bonding social capital, connecting with another organisation that was both geographically close, and held similar values (Hess, 2017; Wiid and Mora-Avila, 2018). For Louise, she summarised following the festival that ‘collaborating with people who have the same agenda and the same head on as we do…it’s the best’ (Louise, Arts Studio Manager, July 2018).

A prominent concern for Open Culture in relation to trusting participants comes from the ‘worry that we’ve put the wrong people in the wrong places and that has affected the audience experience and the impact of the piece’ (Christina, Open Culture Director,

July 2018). For one LightNight commission, an interactive light and sound installation,

Open Culture were required to assist the two artists involved in finding a suitable venue, with the pair settling upon a space within a tourist attraction. The curator of the attraction

Paul, had previous experience of working with Charlotte of Open Culture, and stated before the festival that ‘I trust Charlotte and I think she trusts me…we’ll make it work’

(Paul, Tourist Attraction Curator, March 2018). The delivery of the commission was consequently entrusted to Paul by the directors of Open Culture, with this decision rationalised through their previous experience of working alongside him (McCarthy, 2006;

Stevenson, 2016). However problems arose with technical aspects of the installation during LightNight, compromising part of the lighting aesthetic, with the audience not understanding how to interact with the piece.

Paul explained after the festival that ‘a couple of our team who were on (shift) eventually worked out that actually we should be telling people how it works’ (Paul,

Tourist Attraction Curator, June 2018), yet this realisation came at a late stage. Director

Charlotte subsequently stated that ‘nobody thought about really the true audience experience…that was a lost opportunity…we’re never going to bring commissions to you potentially again’ (Charlotte, Open Culture Director, July 2018), signalling the trust deficit now apparent in their relationship (McCarthy, 2006). Whilst programming LightNight relies to a large extent upon trust within existing relationships, as the following sub-section analyses, Open Culture’s role as intermediary in placing content requires them to utilise their network of contacts within the city’s arts and cultural sectors. 162

Open Culture as intermediary: Placing content

For LightNight, Open Culture relies upon organisations and venues being willing to house programming referrals. For those organisations and venues that do not organise their own events in-house for LightNight, there is an understanding that, as Molly summarises, ‘we provide the space and other people (Open Culture) provide the content’

(Molly, Venue Managing Director, May 2018). Alison explains how hosting events at NML on LightNight referred from Open Culture results in ‘programming in very much a different way to how you might normally’ (Alison, NML Senior Executive, May 2018). Nick stated his personal belief from within the sector that those in charge of running museums are looking to dispel the traditional perception that they represent a ‘ponderous, slow, evidence based risk-free environment’ (Nick, Museums at Night Project Manager,

February 2018). Looking to alleviate such perceptions, Alison explained that part of

NML’s intention when engaging with referrals for LightNight, is that it ‘enables us to do the kinds of programming that we wouldn’t day to day normally do, and be a bit more creative.’

Alison’s view here aligns with contemporary approaches in the programming of museums and art galleries, which are increasingly moving away from the display of static objects and increasingly engaging with intellectually stimulating identities and themes

(Delanty, 2011). Alison continues that it’s the support for referred participants which they can provide that makes their experience of appearing at NML on LightNight worthwhile.

She states that ‘you want them to feel happier and fulfilled as performers’ and in failing to provide sufficient support, ‘you wouldn’t get them to come back to you either.’ Alison here alludes to the importance of building trust through referrals from Open Culture, developing their relationship with the organisers alongside each referred participant and their respective audience. This framing of developing relationships with both organisers and referred participants aligns with the analysis of Coleman (1988) on high levels of obligations for individuals and how these can lead to increased social capital to draw upon subsequently. Alison’s understanding of the required support for referred participants also corroborates with the findings of Newman (2004) and Camarero et al

(2018) on how museums can develop social capital.

163

Further evidence which supports Open Culture’s role as intermediary, and thus the development of new relationships between participants is demonstrated through the experience of Tmesis Theatre. The physical theatre company were awarded a commission for their proposal ‘Walking Upright’, based upon the theory of evolution, featuring five principal performers with accompanying musicians. Not having a set location or venue finalised as part of their application, it became Open Culture’s responsibility to secure a suitable site. As part of Open Culture’s intermediary role here, it is their job to facilitate the bridging ties between participants of the festival, albeit at the level of one-off collaborations far removed from the scale at which Putnam (2000) originally envisaged. Artistic director Elinor stated initially that she wanted to perform the piece outside of the Anglican Cathedral. However owing to the close proximity of the cathedral to Tmesis’ base (on the same street), Open Culture ‘said we really want to get you somewhere else, your people will go’ (Elinor, Tmesis Theatre Artistic Director, March

2018). As partners of the festival, Marketing Manager for Royal Albert Dock Liverpool

(hereafter RADL) Debbie explains that they are thus ‘essentially commissioning Open

Culture…they come back with a commission that they think will work here’ (Debbie,

RADL Marketing Manager, April 2018). Open Culture decided to place Tmesis at RADL, an outcome which Elinor was pleased with, ‘it’s actually in quite a good visible location…if you’re coming into the dock, you couldn’t miss it.’

The commission for LightNight was regarded as a success by Elinor and representatives at RADL, both attesting to each other’s ease to work with, justifying Open

Culture’s decision to place the commission there. In post-LightNight interview, RADL events coordinator Jason stated that they had subsequently reached out to Elinor in regards to working together again in future as a way of engaging local audiences, ‘we’re definitely looking at ways that we can do that with Tmesis’ (Jason, RADL Events

Coordinator, June 2018). Surprised at the potential continuation of the initial one-off collaboration for LightNight, Elinor concluded that ‘we’ve created a new relationship that just wouldn't have even crossed my mind.’ In this way, a potential longer relationship between these two participants emerged ‘as collateral, (an) unintended consequence of interaction’ (Torche and Valenzuela, 2011:183), and showcases how involvement in arts festivals can create lasting social capital (Adongo and Kim, 2018; Arcodia and Whitford,

164

2006). Reflecting on Tmesis’ experience of being commissioned for LightNight, Elinor concluded that Open Culture ‘had the right level of involvement…it feels much more like a partnership’ (Elinor, Tmesis Theatre Artistic Director, July 2018). Herein the level of dependency required by Tmesis Theatre from Open Culture found a balance between embeddedness and autonomy, in line with the work of Campbell et al (2008) on the characteristics found within optimal levels of social capital. The following section will examine the relationships between Open Culture and those participants who required additional support in delivering their LightNight events, emphasised through the experiences of two artists taking part in the festival for the first time.

Open Culture as producer: Providing additional support

Participants within LightNight sometimes require Open Culture’s support in relation to both securing a suitable location or venue, alongside assistance with the delivery of their proposed event. These participants are often artists or performers appearing at the festival for the first time such as Catherine with her LightNight piece, a

UV light installation. Utilising their knowledge of available organisations and venues within the city, the directors of Open Culture placed Catherine in an appropriate space, which she initially stated made her ‘a bit wary…on the pictures it looked really small’

(Catherine, Visual Artist, May 2018). Part of Open Culture’s decision to place Catherine here however was their existing relationship with Hayley, the marketing and event officer who oversees the space, and would provide the hands on support required for the production of the event. Open Culture showcase here how in some instances they specifically target their distribution of support to be as functional as possible to the requirements of the participant, aligning with the work of Torche and Valenzuela (2011) on the sources of trust and reciprocity, and Korte and Lin (2013) on integrating newcomers.

Director Christina alludes to how Open Culture apply their expertise according to circumstance, stating ‘sometimes we guide through the whole process of that collaboration and sometimes we’ll just back somebody and watch from afar’, in this instance, trusting Hayley to provide the necessary support which Catherine required

(Christina, Open Culture Director, January 2018). Catherine reflected post-LightNight that

165

‘(Hayley) was so understanding when I was talking to her about what I wanted to do with the space, she was so supportive and helpful’ (Catherine, Visual Artist, July 2018).

Catherine’s experience here highlights the role of arts festival programmers in providing artists with learning opportunities, in line with the work of Comunian (2017). Director

Christina concludes that in Catherine’s experience, placing artists ‘into an unknown venue with a new person’ can be a crucial component of their ongoing professional development (Christina, Open Culture Director, July 2018). Considering Bourdieu’s

(1986) analysis that holding existing cultural capital is a prerequisite for developing social capital ties, the experience of Catherine illustrates how cultural knowledge, resources and skills can be attained through participation in LightNight, rather than be a requirement for initial inclusion.

One of the commissioned pieces for LightNight was John Elcock’s proposal

‘Stanza’, which featured a Variable Messaging Sign (most commonly found on the side of main roads, hereafter VMS) acting as a light installation, with John’s poetry forming the basis of the messages on display. The relationship between the directors of Open Culture and first-time participant John saw the organisers present the artist with practical advice, support and mentoring to plan and deliver his proposed installation. The detail provided through the interviews with John and Elinor from Tmesis Theatre (both participants within the category relating to commissions) provided a significant amount of evidence to contribute towards the interview data theme ‘Open Culture’s reputation and LightNight’s legitimacy’, particularly in relation to the organisers proficiency as artistic producers.

In particular, location was a point of repeated discussion between John and Open

Culture, with divergent ideas for the siting of the VMS between artist and organisers.

Originally John intended for the installation to be located within the Baltic Triangle area of the city, relating his reasoning in part to the overriding theme of the festival,

‘Transformation’, and the recent regeneration and gentrification of this area of the city

(Martin, 2018). Open Culture’s knowledge of potential locations within the city centre however, coupled with their aims for commissioned works to be as high profile as

166 possible, resulted in the siting of the installation on the plaza of Lime Street Station at their behest.

Figure 20 – 'Stanza' as it appeared on LightNight, facing away from the station entrance (Source: Image by the author).

As can be seen in Figure 20, the VMS was positioned to face away from the entrance to the station; however this was not the original intention, and once again, was a decision made at Open Culture’s discretion. The original siting of ‘Stanza’ had the VMS facing towards the entrance of the station, with the decision made to ‘flip’ the installation

180 degrees to face away from the station made only a couple of days prior to LightNight.

John recalls that ‘it was quite late in the day…and I have to say that was probably a really good decision’, citing the ‘money shot’ with the backdrop of the station (John,

Commissioned Artist, June 2018). Key for Open Culture here was ‘thinking about the audience flow and how they’ll perceive the work juxtaposed in that building or in that space’ (Christina, Open Culture Director, January 2018). Open Culture’s expertise in producing events was also utilised in advising John against his desire to keep the installation hidden, with his initial intention being ‘to do like a big reveal on the night.’

Reflecting upon this advice, John concluded that ‘I think that was a good call…Charlotte’s clearly got a lot of experience and she was good with that.’ 167

These examples of Open Culture utilising their expertise in producing events in relation to the location and orientation of the VMS provides evidence to align with

Leonard’s (2004) conclusion that leaders are best placed to distribute support based upon their experience and knowledge. John’s trust in the judgement of Open Culture through the changes made to his initial proposal reaffirms their reputation as artistic producers (McCarthy, 2006). John concluded that his LightNight experience showcased how ‘you’ve got to trust and rely on other people to create,’ which in many ways characterises the approach of Open Culture to programming the festival, as this sub- section has showcased. The discussion surrounding the siting of John’s commission acts as a wider introduction to the following section, which considers the significance of place to the festival.

In summary, Open Culture’s concurrent roles as programmer, intermediary and producer provide prominent examples of the necessity of attributes of social capital to their mode of governance within LightNight. Being a third sector festival, where participants (unless commissioned) are not paid for their inclusion, significant responsibility falls upon Open Culture to successfully manage and deliver LightNight each year. What the case study illustrates is that the relationships between each participant and organisers Open Culture demonstrate conceptions of social capital. As programmer for example, Open Culture are tasked with trusting participants (the majority of whom they have an existing relationship with) to deliver their proposed events, aligning with

Coleman’s (1988) explanation of strengthened bonds based upon previous association.

As intermediary on the other hand, Open Culture utilise their extensive network of contacts (many external to the festival structure), to facilitate bridging ties between participants, albeit at a scale far smaller than Putnam (2000) originally envisaged. In some instances within LightNight, particularly evidenced through the experiences of those involved for the first time, participants develop increased cultural knowledge, resources and skills, going against Bourdieu’s (1986) belief that holding existing cultural capital is necessary in developing social capital ties.

In comparison to festival studies which incorporate social capital into their analysis from the sole outlook of organisers (Mykletun, 2009) or participants (Glow and

Caust, 2010; Misener, 2013), the thesis provides an abundance of evidence through 168 framing social capital as a relational concept, and investigating the theory from both perspectives. What this section has showcased is that the inter-sum of relationships between organisers Open Culture and the participants of LightNight provide fertile research ground regarding the applicability of social capital theory to arts festivals, owing to their reliance upon collaboration, reciprocity and trust to function effectively.

6.5 – The significance of place to LightNight

Contemporary arts festivals commonly hold a significant relationship with the place in which they are located. As Chalcraft et al (2014) detail in their study of the variety of modern-day arts festivals; there has been a recurring finding that arts festivals and the cities which host them elicit comparable feelings of ownership from local people. These festivals can become so closely identified with their location that they come to define a place, for example with the Edinburgh festivals (Carlsen et al, 2007; Jamieson, 2004). For

Open Culture, they frame the purpose of LightNight and its location concurrently, stating in the festival guide that arts and culture represent ‘the fabric of our city’ (Open Culture,

2018a). Key to achieving this feeling of ownership from local people is for place to be repositioned, away from being ‘a passive backdrop’ of the festival, towards being ‘an active ingredient in both the production and consumption’ (Chalcraft et al, 2014:116). By paying closer attention to the specific place(s) of the festival, rather than simply categorising the festival in relation to an all-encompassing genre (such as arts, music or food), analysis of the impact upon local communities can occur.

For the first five iterations of LightNight, the festival guide was ordered according to event category, such as ‘exhibitions’, ‘open studios’, ‘performance’ and ‘words and debate’. The ordering of events by category did not lend itself to logical planning of routes around LightNight for audiences however, with the festival footprint incorporating a number of existing and recognisable creative communities and cultural quarters.

Subsequently since 2015, events have been ordered within the festival guide according to location (see Figure 21). Director Christina explained that they attempted to ‘cluster areas of the city…the city’s kind of almost divided up into quarters now’ (Christina, Open

Culture Director, January 2018), referencing the Baltic Triangle, Hope St Quarter and St

George’s Quarter as already established areas within LightNight. One of Open Culture’s

169

aims here in regards to

the audience Christina

continues, is to ‘get them

to think more (about)

how they’re moving

geographically around

the city’, and explore

distinct areas of the city

which house existing

creative communities

and cultural quarters. As Figure 21 – Since 2015 the LightNight Festival Guide Johansson and has been ordered according to location rather than event category, solidifying a sense of place for both audiences Kociatkiewicz and participants alike (Source: Open Culture, 2015). (2011:394) conclude within their study on city festivals ‘it is not any random ‘undiscovered features’ of the city that emerge, but rather those that the festival organizers wish to emphasize.’

Open Culture’s integration of existing creative communities and cultural quarters located around the central city here aligns with the research of Waterman (1998:60) who concludes that ‘arts festivals have as much to do with place as with art, and this concerns not just where they are held but why.’ Open Culture apply principles of bonding social capital here, illustrating their understanding of the overriding commonality held between these differing areas relating to their shared community of practise within the local arts and cultural sectors. The significance of place to the festival is inherently linked to conceptions of social capital relating to scale. Despite social capital within LightNight being explored at the scale of individuals and small groups within the thesis as conceived by Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman (1988), the scale of the festival encompasses around one hundred events each year. Furthermore, the number of events at which the festival operates is completely purposeful. The size of LightNight thus remains at an optimal scale for Open Culture, to ensure they have the sufficient organisational capacity to continue to provide the necessary support required by each participant.

170

The focus upon the existing creative communities and cultural quarters of the city helps to solidify a sense of place for audiences and participants within LightNight, supporting the analysis of Pine and Gilmore (1998; 1999) on the value of creating notable experiences. Participants within LightNight spoke of their affinity for the festival based on its integration of multiple established areas of the central city, with Louise stating that

‘LightNight stands out as you know like the annual event that’s truly city-wide’ (Louise,

Arts Studio Manager, July 2018). This particular claim does seem to have some basis looking at the locations of other major festivals and events within the city’s cultural calendar. Liverpool Sound City was located across the Baltic Triangle for its 2018 edition, whereas Africa Oye and LIMF take place annually in Sefton Park, located away from the city centre. Although larger arts festivals and events such as Liverpool Biennial and The

Giants have incorporated a wider city centre footprint, these do not occur annually.

LightNight’s annual incorporation of multiple city centre locations increases its legitimacy amongst both audiences and participants in comparison to the majority single-site festivals listed above, with this also impacting positively upon civic pride.

In which ways does the design of LightNight attempt to engender civic pride?

For analysis of whether civic pride can be generated through LightNight, the perceptions of both the audience and participants have to be taken into account. As

Smith (2012:137) explains in his study of the strategic use of events, ‘civic pride is strongly related to community consciousness.’ Traditional conceptions of community would predominantly relate to a geographically bound group of people (Cochrane, 2007;

Day, 2006). However living in close proximity to others does not necessarily result in people being connected to one another (Gupta and Ferguson, 1992; Lee and Newby,

1983; Valentine, 2008). Contemporary conceptions of community therefore relate to groups of people who hold something in common beyond geographical proximity, which distinguishes them from others, creating a distinct identity (Cohen, 1985; Colombo and

Senatore, 2005; Jenkins, 1996). In this way community can contribute positively to creating a sense of belonging for those directly involved (Crow and Allan, 1994).

Community consciousness within the thesis thus refers to the local audience the festival generates alongside the participants of LightNight, with the vast majority of these

171 being locally based too, holding a collective community of interest and practise through the city’s arts and cultural sectors (Warren and Jones, 2015a). Sennett (1970:34) concludes that community relates to ‘a pleasure in recognising “us” and “who we are.”’

Arts festivals in particular are often associated with celebration, closely related to the culture of the specific communities in which they are based (Arcodia and Whitford, 2006;

Carlsen et al, 2007; Macleod, 2006). The success of arts festivals can come down to whether communities perceive them ‘as emerging from within rather than being imposed on them’ (Derrett, 2004:33), which can often relate to whether the focus of the event represents a celebration of local culture, or is economically focussed (Larson et al, 2015;

Wood, 2006). For LightNight, Open Culture have framed the festival as a celebration of local arts and culture, offering a confined time and space in which audiences and participants can reaffirm their collective identities (Derrett, 2003; Jaeger and Mykletun,

2013).

Since LightNight was first held in 2010, the organisers have sought to build notions of civic pride for those communities who attend or participate in the festival each year. Referencing this bond with other participants taking part in LightNight, Donna, the founder of a creative learning organisation stated ‘we want to be recognised as part of this community, that’s important to us’ (Donna, Creative Learning Organisation Founder,

May 2018). This search for recognition within the LightNight community which Donna references, aligns with Putnam’s (2000:358) analysis that participating in festivals ‘bonds us with others like us.’ Louise goes further, referencing the commitment to LightNight which goes beyond the participants of the events programme, explaining ‘it’s not just artists doing it out of the love of it, it’s everybody, technicians, venue operators, everybody’ (Louise, Arts Studio Manager, May 2018).

The sense of civic pride referenced by the two participants above illustrates that a situation has arisen within LightNight for some whereby ‘the dependence between the festival and its stakeholders turns mutual’ (Getz et al, 2007:120). These findings provide a base level of empirical evidence to illustrate social capital within the LightNight community, something which Leonard (2004) criticised Putnam’s (2000) analysis for failing to exhibit sufficiently within large collectives beyond census and survey data.

Donna continues that ‘if they didn’t do it, I think there’d be an outcry, you know if one year 172 it was like “no LightNight!?”’ stating her belief that the local community would ‘see what they could pull together’ in order to support the festival’s survival. These views evidence that LightNight has gained support from participants (Finkel, 2010), who share ‘a common sense of belonging and shared vision’ (Jiwa and Coca-Stefaniak, 2009:159) which is encapsulated through the festival. These findings align with the analysis of Dooghe

(2015) into Rotterdam as a festival city, that it is these local communities of practise which are key to the continuity of such events. LightNight further marks differentiation in relation to other festivals through the way in which events are programmed with the intention of altering atmospheres, incorporating characteristics of light festivals alongside the use of symbolic buildings and outdoor spaces.

How does atmosphere inform experience within LightNight?

Atmosphere is defined as ‘a quality of environmental immersion that registers in and through sensing bodies whilst also remaining diffuse, in the air, ethereal’

(McCormack, 2008:413). Much like the conception of civic pride, atmosphere is marked by its intangibility, making it difficult to measure (Böhme, 2013). Festivals too hold aspects of intangibility, in that they are experiential events and exist for a limited period of time (Allen et al, 2005). In particular for LightNight, the compressed time period of the festival was cited by participants as an influential factor upon audience experience. This perception shows commonality with the analysis of Reckitt (2013:43) in her study of curating nocturnal events, that ‘the one-night-only premise creates an atmosphere of drama and urgency, requiring the expenditure of artistic and audience energy.’ In her study relating to the festival gaze of the Edinburgh Fringe, Jamieson (2004:65) references an atmosphere of ‘alerted energy and velocity’ which audiences can experience during the duration of a festival. Additional factors which can alter atmosphere include the time of day, sounds, lighting or architectural form (Edensor, 2015a; 2017).

Regarding how atmospheres are altered within LightNight, this primarily comes from immersion, when multiple senses are stimulated simultaneously (Pine and Gilmore,

1998). One example of immersion within LightNight came from artist collective In Atoms with their light installation ‘The Imago’ at the Anglican Cathedral (see Figure 22). The prominence of the installation increased within the cathedral as darkness fell, with light

173 beams, electronic sounds and imagery on screens engaging multiple senses concomitantly. For commissioned artist John, he felt that the atmosphere around his light installation

‘Stanza’ changed ‘in that golden hour’ (referring to twilight), stating that it

‘really came into its own then, I think it got better and better as the day (night) progressed’ (John,

Commissioned Artist, June Figure 22 – ‘The Imago’ by In Atoms at the Anglican Cathedral utilised light, sound and imagery to engage 2018). John reasoned that multiple senses simultaneously (Source: Image by the author). the brightness of the light installation increased as daylight faded around it, drawing people towards the VMS to read the poetry displayed, as was his original intention.

Open Culture also look to play upon local history and memories within LightNight through the use of culturally significant buildings and spaces for festival events

(Sumartojo, 2016). The previous or predominant histories of these buildings and spaces are encompassed into the experience of LightNight events for audiences, as their established functions are challenged. For example, both of the city’s cathedrals, the

Bombed Out Church (a symbol of the Blitz) and the waterfront (evoking memories of the port as detailed in Chapter 4) have been regularly utilised as venues for LightNight.

Although as Pine and Gilmore (1998:99) attest ‘experiences are inherently personal…no two people can have the same experience’, such culturally significant buildings and spaces within the city can embody examples of shared collective memories (Relph, 1976;

Williams et al, 1992). Lee et al (2012) argue that festival organisers could make more of the symbolic places in which events take place, attempting to play further on civic and

174 emotional ties. For each edition of LightNight, Open Culture have looked to enhance these ties through their use of light installations and illuminations. For the 2014 edition of

LightNight, the festival theme contributed to national and global commemorations of the centenary anniversary of the outbreak of WWI. As part of these commemorations within

LightNight, two large scale light installations, projected onto the facade of the Bluecoat and Metropolitan Cathedral, displayed images of how the war was reported in Britain (Art in Liverpool, 2014: Online). These projections not only served to ‘defamiliarize familiar places’ (Edensor, 2017:115), but engendered shared memories and emotional ties to the city’s wartime history.

Through LightNight, new memories and experiences of places are created for audiences, which differ from their pre-existing day-to-day functions (Graham et al, 2009).

Influence over audience preconceptions of places can particularly be evidenced through the integration of outdoor spaces, which for LightNight equates to events being held in squares and streets. By incorporating performances into these spaces, Open Culture achieve a situation whereby these events ‘disrupt the habitual perceptive patterns of passers-by, alter their standard routes and enliven their experience of negotiating the public space of the city with surprising, even provocative encounters’ (Klaic, 2014:69).

Hannah agreed that Open Culture’s use of outdoor spaces for LightNight provided ‘an opportunity to surprise’ (Hannah, Artist, April 2018), with Charlotte stating that their intention herein is to ‘catch people unawares’ (Charlotte, Open Culture Director, January

2018).

The use of outdoor space is thus particularly encouraged by Open Culture as squares and streets represent the predominant locations of meetings and encounters within the city (Murzyn-Kupisz and Działek, 2013). Free to attend outdoor events are popular in Liverpool owing to their accessibility (Liu, 2014; 2019), encouraging participation from those watching with the perceived barrier between performers and audience significantly reduced (Jordan, 2016). One example of an outdoor event at

LightNight 2018 was the ‘Carnival Parade’ by Batala Mersey which took place on St

George’s Hall plaza (see Figure 23). Audience members moved with the parade, looked for vantage points to take photographs and became part of the overall performance with this engagement. Through the lack of boundaries between performers and audiences 175

Figure 23 – ‘Carnival Parade’ by Batala Mersey on St George’s Hall Plaza. The parade aspect of the performance encouraged the audience to follow the performers and interact with their drumming rhythms (Source: Image by the author). within these outdoor events, LightNight guards against an oft-cited criticism of contemporary urban arts festivals as only affording spectating roles for their audiences

(Quinn, 2005).

6.6 - Conclusion

This chapter has detailed how resources are distributed and support is allocated within LightNight by Open Culture depending upon participants’ individual requirements.

Section 6.2 explained how Open Culture’s existing reputation helped build trust in the festival, acting as a precursor to social capital (Torche and Valenzuela, 2011). Without this initial basis of trust in Open Culture and their governance of LightNight, it is my belief that social capital within the festival would be compromised. Section 6.3 analysed how the guaranteed audience and publicity of the festival leads to participants’ purposefully applying to be a part of LightNight. The expectation of reciprocity from Open Culture regarding participants promoting their own events (evidenced through netnography) shows how utilising social media can be interpreted as investing in relationships (Xu and

Saxton, 2018). Section 6.4 showcased Open Culture’s distribution of support to participants based upon their specific programming requirements through their concurrent roles as programmer, intermediary and producer. What is clear from the empirical evidence is that Open Culture’s experience, networks of contacts and production expertise are critical to the successful planning, programming and delivery of LightNight

176 and provide a wealth of evidence towards the pertinence of social capital theory to the governance of arts festivals.

The final part of this chapter (section 6.5) looked at the importance of place to the festival. Referring back to differing conceptions of social capital relating to scale, relations formed within LightNight were explored predominantly in alignment with the conceptions of Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman (1988) who focussed upon individuals and small groups. The integration of existing creative communities and cultural quarters into

LightNight heightens the civic pride of audiences and participants alike as collective identities are reaffirmed (Derrett, 2003; Jaeger and Mykletun, 2013). Yet the scale of the festival in regards to the number of events held is also managed carefully, with the organisers limiting the size of LightNight to ensure they can continue to provide the support necessary for each participant. The use of light installations alongside symbolic buildings provided evidence of altered atmospheres and audience experience through playing upon collective memories (Edensor, 2017). Finally the addition of outdoor spaces into the events programme also helps change attendees’ perceptions, looking to surprise the public and change preconceptions surrounding the dominant functions of squares and streets.

To conclude, this chapter highlighted how trust in Open Culture affords legitimacy to the organisation’s governance of LightNight. This trust acts as a basis for the conceptions of social capital embedded within the festival, particularly evident through how they manage the requirements of each participant through their concurrent roles as programmer, intermediary and producer. Furthermore the scale at which LightNight operates is intrinsically linked to Open Culture’s understanding of their own organisational capacity to facilitate optimal levels of social capital for the benefit of participants, as will be discussed further in Chapter 7.

177

Chapter 7 – Conclusion

7.1 Introduction

Although conceptions of social capital have been debated for some time since the founding arguments concerning differing scales by Bourdieu (1986), Coleman (1988) and Putnam (1995; 2000), over the past decade the resonance of the theory to understanding processes of governance within festivals has increased significantly. This pertinence of social capital theory to festival studies is strengthened through both being anchored in conceptions of place. The use of the theory is therefore particularly applicable to festivals that do not hold an economic focus, those which are not-for-profit third sector events for example. Studies of these festivals illustrate that the capacity found within local communities can be particularly valuable, incorporating attributes of collaboration, reciprocity and trust to successfully deliver events (Brownett, 2018; Finkel,

2010; Mair and Duffy, 2018; Quinn and Wilks, 2013).

In Liverpool’s case, social capital has been utilised to analyse the legacy of the city’s experience as ECoC in 2008 (Fitzpatrick, 2013; Garcia et al, 2010; Liu, 2017). As this thesis argues however, Liverpool’s ECoC designation was predominantly sought after by the city council as a panacea for culture-led regeneration imperatives. Parts of the major events programme of the ECoC year were marked as explicit examples of festivalization processes, with the active involvement of local creative communities side- lined. LightNight was explicitly designed by Open Culture to overcome some of these shortcomings, with emphasis upon access and inclusion for practitioners through an open call for applicants, alongside the engagement of local audiences. With the festival being third sector and not-for-profit, LightNight presented an established case study to explore the wider resonance of social capital theory to arts festivals, under the scope of culture- led regeneration, festivalization processes (linked to the significance of place) and arts austerity.

This thesis has examined theoretical, methodological and empirical propositions, first stated in Chapter 1, utilising LightNight as an exploratory case study. In theoretical terms, the thesis has analysed how conceptions of social capital theory can be utilised to understand and explain the governance of urban arts festivals. Methodologically 178 speaking, the thesis has utilised netnography as part of the mixed-methods approach, with few comparable strategies within festivals literature. The development of a hybrid sampling strategy to assist in categorising prospective research subjects provided an additional methodological contribution. Finally relating to empirical propositions, the thesis has presented LightNight as an illustrative example of Liverpool’s culture-led re-branding of the city, particularly invigorated by the ECoC designation in 2008.

As this thesis has explored, since the election of the Conservative government in

1979 with their commitment to implementing a course of urban entrepreneurialism, there has been a marked increase in inter-urban competition in the UK (Harvey, 1989). This shift towards urban entrepreneurialism can be seen through the increasing commitment to culture-led regeneration approaches in order to catalyse economic development

(Britton, 1991; Eisinger, 2000; Loftman and Nevin, 1995; Strom, 2002). In Liverpool, as detailed within Chapter 4, the nationally imposed MDC instigated multiple culture-led projects, most prominently regenerating the Albert Dock and hosting the IGF in 1984.

However since the city council embraced urban entrepreneurialism during the 1990s

(Cocks, 2009), by far the most prominent culture-led project the city has hosted is the

2008 ECoC award. Since the ECoC designation, Liverpool City Council has committed to capitalising upon the economic potential of culture-led regeneration as a way of attracting further tourism revenue. This primarily economic focussed commitment to culture is best illustrated through the expanding major events programme of Culture Liverpool (Liu,

2014; 2019). As discussed within Chapters 5 and 6, the most prominent of these major events showcased hallmarks of festivalization, replicating formats which have been successful elsewhere. The most high profile of these major events saw street theatre company Royal de Luxe commissioned to bring their famous marionette giants to the city on three separate occasions across the 2010s.

Beyond this major events programme, the city council have subsequently transitioned to mediated engagement with local communities through the arts post-ECoC, creating the CLIP. Open Culture helped to fill this service gap relating to direct engagement with local communities by creating LightNight, an event which celebrates the city’s arts and cultural offer. LightNight is framed around providing value at the individual level, whether for participants within the events programme relating to opportunity, or 179 audience members regarding access to art. Although LightNight participants are not paid for their inclusion (unless commissioned), finding ways to ‘offset’ costs aligns with the day-to-day working practises of many local arts and cultural practitioners. When financial reimbursement is removed or limited, practitioners must look to create value through their combined expertise, experiences and ability to mobilise networks and resources

(Lindqvist, 2012; Rimmer, 2018; Thelwall, 2015).

Summarising the chapter structure, Chapter 1 introduced the scope of the thesis enquiry relating to the case study LightNight before explaining the theoretical focus, predominantly relating to social capital, festivalization and place. Chapter 2 analysed the founding conceptions of these theories and processes, alongside their contemporary relevance to arts festivals. A conceptual framework was outlined to explain in which ways social capital theory would be utilised to investigate the governance of LightNight within the thesis. Chapter 3 detailed the methodological approach applied to the research, combining documentary analysis, netnography and semi-structured interviews. Utilising a netnography to evidence social capital was in particular marked as innovative, owing to the lack of precedence for such a strategy within the festivals literature.

Chapter 4 evaluated Liverpool’s economy and politics over recent decades, explaining the former prominence of the city’s port and subsequent detrimental impact of deindustrialisation. After a period of political militancy, the city council fully embraced urban entrepreneurialism during the 1990s, leading to a contemporary position whereby culture-led regeneration has become a primary policy strategy best illustrated through the decision to bid for the 2008 ECoC designation. Chapter 5 began with an explanation of the formation of Open Culture and their early responsibilities within the CCP as cultural intermediaries. Upon becoming independent, Open Culture’s use of bonding and bridging social capital within the newly created LightNight was evaluated, to populate the festival with arts and cultural organisations and venues and appeal to non-traditional arts audiences respectively. The format of LightNight was subsequently analysed under the scope of festivalization, borrowing from late openings and light festivals, with differentiation cited through theming the programme each year and introducing commissions. The chapter concluded with an investigation into how the festival is funded

180 alongside an overview of how participants offset their inclusion, set within a discussion of arts austerity.

Chapter 6 began with an analysis of participants trust in Open Culture, and how this has afforded legitimacy to LightNight based on their reputation and track record. This trust acts as a precursor to social capital within the festival, and provides a base context to explain Open Culture’s concurrent roles as programmer, intermediary and producer.

The significance of place to LightNight was subsequently examined, explaining how the festival has heightened the civic pride of audiences and participants through its local specificity. The integration of existing creative communities and cultural quarters is an intentional design by Open Culture, with the size of the festival limited so that the scale remains manageable for the organisers to continue to provide sufficient support to all participants. Further differentiation within LightNight is achieved through events which attempt to alter atmospheres, play upon conceptions of memory and incorporate outdoor spaces to help inform experience. What follows is a discussion of the main findings of the thesis, relating specifically to the theoretical propositions outlined in Chapter 1 and how these were characterised through LightNight.

7.2 Main findings and contribution to knowledge

The overriding research aim of the thesis, as stated in Chapter 1, was to investigate the ways in which the use of social capital theory can further understandings of the governance of arts festivals. There were further aims stated, theoretically to determine how a focus upon place could distinguish LightNight from processes of festivalization, methodologically relating to the application of netnography to measure social capital and empirically focussing on LightNight as an example of Liverpool’s ongoing culture-led re-branding since the turn of the century. LightNight had been selected as the case study, a third sector, not-for-profit festival, as it was envisaged that the lack of payment to participants would heighten the prominence of attributes of collaboration, reciprocity and trust to ensure the successful delivery of events. There were four main findings directly related to the theoretical propositions presented in

Chapter 1, as well as a number of contributions to knowledge.

181

Firstly within the thesis, it was found that Open Culture’s role within the festival was pivotal regarding the resources and support which they provided for participants, marking the study as different from those which Leonard (2004) referenced underplaying the importance of leaders within the social capital literature. The most prominent examples of Open Culture’s utilisation of attributes of collaboration, reciprocity and trust were through their concomitant roles as programmer, intermediary and producer. These interactions with participants provided clear evidence of the organisers implementing bridging social capital at the scale of individual relations to best make use of their limited time, often through mobilising their extensive network of contacts. As director Christina explained from the outset of the first interview, ‘everything that we do is in collaboration because we’re a team of three people…it’s out of necessity’ (Christina, Open Culture

Director, January, 2018).

Although often hands on in providing practical and artistic guidance, the directors of Open Culture look to delegate where possible. Utilising their extensive network of contacts, the directors pair artists and performers with specialist staff in organisations and venues who can provide them with their own expertise, looking to make the support they provide as functional as possible to the requirements of participants. As previously iterated, owing to Open Culture’s network of contacts, some of which are external to the festival, LightNight presents an open structure, rejecting Coleman’s (1988) framing of closure being vital in sustaining social capital norms and obligations. Given Open Culture is a small organisation, as detailed earlier, with directors Charlotte and Christina taking on the majority of work, their experience and knowledge of the local arts and cultural sectors represents perhaps their biggest asset, allowing them to act as the supporting infrastructure for relationships formed within the festival.

This framing of Open Culture’s knowledge of the local arts and cultural sectors is certainly one which John agrees with, stating that ‘the assets of their organisation are their little black book, the relationships they’ve fought hard for over many years. I would imagine these relationships are probably the most important aspect of their organisation’

(John, Commissioned Artist, June 2018). As Christina states, ‘we’re probably two of the most knowledgeable people in the city to know what event could work in all these venues’

(Christina, Open Culture Director, January 2018). The directors of Open Culture indicate 182 their understanding here that they are best placed to distribute collective resources within the festival owing to their experience and contacts, aligning with the analysis of Leonard on the responsibility of leaders (2004) and Coleman on strengthened bonds based on previous association (1988).

The second main finding relates to Tzanakis’ (2013) criticism of Coleman (1988) and Putnam’s (2000) horizontal framing of social capital which ignores the potential for vertical inequalities within networks, relevant to how this may impact upon how collective resources are accessed or distributed within the festival. Although Open Culture as organisers are in a position of control within the festival, their organisational aims relating to access, opportunity and inclusion would appear to indicate the intention of equality for all participants within LightNight. This conclusion is backed up by Open Culture nurturing a dedicated audience for the festival which each participant can benefit equally from, alongside the promotion each event receives from the organisers through their website and social media platforms. In relation to the selection of commissions also, this process has been professionalised through the introduction of a panel of expert local arts and culture practitioners to assist the two directors in deciding which proposals receive subsidy. The focus upon the experiences of first-time participants further illustrated a general consensus of integration through the support received, showing how Open

Culture look to provide equal opportunities and resources to newcomers within LightNight

(Korte and Lin, 2013).

The third main finding again relates to social capital, specifically regarding the proposition by Coleman (1988) that social capital ties can be strengthened based on previous association. Coleman built upon the original conceptions of the theory which

Bourdieu (1986) stated represent a network of relationships which allow each member access to the collective resources of the group. The findings of the thesis revealed that previous association did strengthen ties between Open Culture and participants within the festival, with a variety of outcomes. Director Charlotte admitted that on occasion, programming decisions can come down to previous knowledge of and experience with participants, ‘if we feel that they need a platform’ (Charlotte, Open Culture Director, July

2018). However Open Culture’s favouring of a commission proposal for example does not automatically result in the entire panel backing the application. 183

In the majority of cases, participants who had taken part in LightNight before or had an existing relationship with Open Culture referenced the trust apparent in their interactions through the festival. In practical terms relating to social capital, this trust would result in a reduction of support and resources provided to the participant, as Open

Culture placed faith in their ability to deliver their proposed event if they specified self- sufficiency from the outset. Therefore this thesis advances that aspects of social capital, whether resources or support, can be targeted at those who require it most (often first- time participants), with a significant proportion of LightNight participants self-sustaining through interdependency in this instance. The reciprocal nature of trust did not always result in successful events though. Evidenced through the example included in section

6.1, director Charlotte held an existing working relationship with tourist attraction curator

Paul, however her trust in his ability to deliver a high-profile commission was damaged by the compromised audience experience on LightNight. Therefore despite the basis of strengthened ties owing to their previous working relationship, in this instance Open

Culture subsequently felt that Paul was unable to reciprocate their trust in him, potentially compromising their ongoing association.

The final main finding of the thesis relates to the process of festivalization and how differentiation can be achieved through a focus upon place. LightNight presents a hybrid example of festivalization processes, as evidently it borrows from the popular formats of late openings and light festivals, yet not with the intention of benefitting economically from these, owing to its not-for-profit status. Within the LightNight events programme, Open Culture have increased the festival’s link to place through incorporating venues with significant emotional and civic attachment to local people. As indicated within Chapter 6, the inclusion of both of the city’s cathedrals (places of communal worship, mourning and celebration) and the Bombed Out Church (St Luke’s, a signifier of the Blitz), bring together local history and collective memories into the experience of the events programme (Lee et al, 2012; Massey, 1994). These venues are often repurposed with light installations, musical performance or art for the festival, to challenge preconceived notions as to the dominant functions of these buildings (Klaic,

2014). Open Culture have also integrated outdoor spaces into the events programme

184 such as city streets and squares, furthering the accessibility of the festival for audiences, breaking down perceived barriers to participation.

The most prominent way the festival is marked as different relating to place however is through how LightNight is framed as a celebration of the arts and cultural offer of the city. In comparison to ECoC 2008, which suffered criticism relating to the content of the major events programme, Open Culture have instigated aspects of bonding social capital to bring together existing creative communities and cultural quarters within the city under the overarching festival banner and into the performativity of LightNight. Through organising the events programme guide based upon location, rather than event type, these areas within the festival have been highlighted, heightening the civic pride of audiences and participants alike, as collective identities based upon ‘their’ area of the city are reaffirmed. These findings indicate the potential for reframing festivalization arguments, away from the predominant focus upon the replication of formats or content which has been successful elsewhere. In future, discussions of festivalization may be better served through closer analysis of a festival’s relationship with place and whether the local specificity on display is sufficient enough to provide necessary distinction.

The significance of place to the festival also brings in arguments pertaining to the scale at which social capital is conceived within LightNight. The conceptions of social capital explored within the festival are predominantly at the scale envisaged by Bourdieu

(1986) and Coleman (1988) relating to individuals and small groups. Important in the scale of the festival regarding the number of events held each year however is that this is purposefully controlled by Open Culture. The directors explicitly state that they limit the size of the festival as a means to ensure it remained manageable for them as organisers.

Open Culture’s concern is that if the festival was to increase in size, the effectiveness of the resources and support which they provide to participants would be diluted, potentially compromising the trust on which their organisation and governance of LightNight is based.

Informed by the main findings of the thesis and gaps within the literature identified in Chapter 1, there are also a number of contributions to knowledge that the research makes. Broadly speaking, the thesis contributes to the festivals literature, and

185 finds differentiation in having a third sector not-for-profit festival as its central case study.

Furthermore, and as referenced within Chapter 3, the main contribution to knowledge of the thesis is that there are limited examples of festival case studies which incorporate social capital theory into their analysis. Existing studies base their enquiry from the perspective of festival organisers (Mykletun, 2009), event attendees (Arcodia and

Whitford, 2006; Devine and Quinn, 2019; Wilks, 2011) or local communities (Murzyn-

Kupisz and Działek, 2013; Raj and Vignali, 2010). What these existing studies showcase is that there is a lack of focus upon the relationships between organisers and participants, with no comparable study framing analysis in this way. Placing the participants at the centre of enquiry aligns with the study of Brownett (2018), who found that they are best positioned to provide the necessary detail pertaining to their festival experience.

Therefore the thesis principally contributes to knowledge through presenting a festival case study with a focus upon the relationships between organisers and participants as evidence of social capital theory.

The thesis also contributes to knowledge within the methodological literature. The application of netnography as part of the mixed-methods approach within the fieldwork utilises the social media posts and interactions of participants concerning their festival involvement as evidence of how relationships can play out online to support social capital arguments. Employing a netnography over an elongated period of time, both preceding and following the festival, only finds comparison with the studies of Comunian (2015) and

Laurell and Björner (2018) currently. The combination of netnography alongside semi- structured interviews also allowed the opportunity to question participants about their social media use, providing further insight into their intentions when posting content online. Matching with Leonard’s (2004) analysis that enduring social capital is best realised through mobilising the resources of others, netnography was utilised to examine whether participants followed through on Open Culture’s request to promote their own events, something which an interview question alone would not have been able to corroborate.

The development of hybrid sampling strategies to assist in categorising research subjects within festival studies provides a further contribution to knowledge. Wanting to garner a range of views from participants of LightNight, alongside primary stakeholders 186 and cultural intermediaries, a suitable sampling technique which could help replicate this variance was sought. Existing sampling typologies though only related to entire festivals based upon content, longevity or ownership model (Andersson and Getz, 2009; del Barrio et al, 2012; Finkel, 2009; Williams and Bowdin, 2007) or stakeholders categorised one dimensionally without further distinction (Getz et al, 2007; Reid and Arcodia, 2002; Van

Niekerk and Getz, 2016). Finding support through the purposive strategy applied by

Devine and Quinn (2019), Olsen (2013), Quinn and Wilks (2013) and Wilks (2011), a hybrid sampling typology informed empirically by existing categorisations of participants within LightNight, alongside theoretical considerations relating to social capital was created. The presence of both empirical and theoretical considerations within sampling typologies is an approach not previously replicated within festival studies. This allowed for an exploration of possible hierarchies (Tzanakis, 2013) based upon capacity or being commissioned, alongside the potential for strengthened bonds based upon previous association (Coleman, 1988) relating to longevity within the festival. The following table

(Table 1) summarises the five sampling categories, alongside the number of research subjects that were interviewed within each. There were a total of thirty-two research subjects interviewed, with some of these fitting within multiple sampling categories.

Table 1: Research subjects interviewed within each sampling category

Sampling Category Number of research

subjects interviewed

Primary Stakeholders (Organisers, funders, sponsors) 3 research subjects

Intermediaries (Local arts and culture publications and 3 research subjects

national bodies)

Commissioned (For 2018 or previously) 9 research subjects

Capacity (Space to host more than one event) 12 research subjects

Longevity (Specifically relating to first-time participants) 7 research subjects

The thesis contributes to the substantial literatures pertaining to Liverpool’s contemporary focus upon culture as part of a longer strategy of culture-led regeneration since the turn of the century. A large quantity of this literature focusses upon Liverpool’s

187 experience as ECoC, both before the hosting year relating to the bidding process, governance issues and potential impacts (Cocks, 2009; Connolly, 2013; Griffiths, 2006;

O’Brien, 2010) and since, relating to outcomes and legacy (Campbell and O’Brien, 2017;

Garcia et al, 2010; Impacts 08, 2009; Shaw et al, 2009). This thesis contributes to both of these literatures, but best represents an example of the path dependency created for local arts and culture practitioners within the city since 2008. Despite the thesis focussing on LightNight as its case study, the research speaks more widely to not only the experience of arts and culture practitioners within the city, but also interrelated issues such as arts funding in the age of austerity.

Finally, and outside of academia, Open Culture have discussed drawing on the findings of the thesis to inform their future work and strategy for funding bids. The organisers are particularly interested in portraying LightNight’s wider social value beyond their aims of engagement, access and opportunity, looking to promote their model of governance as an example of leading-edge practise for third sector, not-for-profit arts festival management. If the thesis were to be beneficial in supporting Open Culture’s ongoing funding for LightNight, the participating artists, performers, organisations and venues, alongside an annual average of 15,000 members of the public (Wilson et al,

2017) will continue to benefit from the opportunity to produce and consume art which the festival provides.

7.3 Recommendations for future study

Looking at opportunities for future research, extending the fieldwork over three or more annual cycles of LightNight would provide pertinent opportunity for a more in-depth enquiry, particularly with the resonance of strengthening relationships over time to social capital. Such a longitudinal perspective would align with the recommendations of Glow and Caust (2010) and Xu and Saxton (2018) into the impacts of festival participation upon longer-term career development. This longer study could better conclude as to how social capital can be converted into tangible benefits such as an increased network of contacts, receipt of grants or enhanced creative capacity as part of the ongoing professional development process for participants.

188

Although predominantly focussed upon the relationships between organisers and participants as in this thesis, an extension of the research to encompass three or more iterations of LightNight would also allow further opportunity to speak with participants about other festivals and events which they had partaken in during the intervening period.

These discussions would allow for a comparative element to the research, based on the relationships formed through a mixture of public and private sector festivals and events alongside LightNight. This comparable element would also help to strengthen arguments pertaining to Open Culture’s mode of governance through LightNight and the elements it holds in common, and difference, with the organisation of other major arts and cultural events in the city. In a similar vein, the research could be strengthened through incorporating participants who had taken part in LightNight previously, then purposefully decided not to apply to take part again. Although as indicated in Chapter 3 targeting participants previously included within LightNight caused some difficulties, a reframing of the purpose of the research would be helpful to better iterate why they were being contacted. The inclusion of past participants would allow for a deeper analysis of social capital within LightNight to take place, and perhaps uncover experiences of negative bonding manifestations of the theory.

7.4 Implications of the research

To conclude, the following section will specify the theoretical, methodological and empirical implications of the research. The main theoretical implication, aligned with the research aim, is that social capital theory can be utilised to further understandings of festival governance. In particular, those festivals which are third sector and not-for-profit increase the prominence of social capital attributes of collaboration, reciprocity and trust necessary for events to be successfully delivered. As detailed within the case study, the ability of leaders to provide access to resources and mobilise networks of contacts is crucial to the available social capital within the festival. Furthermore, social capital theory and festivals are also both anchored in place, which link together through the analysis of festivalization processes. The way organisers seek to overcome calls of festivalization is through a focus upon the local specificity of the event (Derrett, 2003; 2004). As the case study showcased, this can be achieved through the integration of existing creative communities and cultural quarters, which represent localised social capital networks 189 based on the close proximity of practitioners and their wider community of practise relating to art and culture. The role of festival organisers here is to align these established areas under one unifying banner, applying aspects of bonding social capital, to ensure that they do not become isolated from the overarching event. Despite conceptions of social capital within LightNight relating to the scale of individuals and small groups stated by Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman (1988), organisers Open Culture purposefully limit the number of events held each year to ensure they can continue to provide sufficient support to all participants.

The empirical implications of the research relate to the specificity of Open Culture and the LightNight festival. Although the use of LightNight as a case study indicated that social capital theory can be applied to the governance of arts festivals, the potential transferability of these findings may be limited. Owing to Open Culture’s organisational aims of access, inclusion and opportunity, the festival is regarded as being developed from within the local arts and cultural sectors, rather than being directly imposed upon it.

This implication of LightNight showcases how third sector organisations with strong links to place can utilise local networks to further frame conceptions of social capital. There appears to be an interdependency between LightNight and the local creative communities and cultural quarters in which the festival takes place. Multiple participants highlighted the prominence of a collective feeling to the festival, with Louise stating that ‘one night a year there’s that camaraderie of all the arts and cultural organisations in Liverpool’ (Louise,

Venue Manager, July 2018). Lucy added that ‘I think it almost feels like we all kind of pull together to make it happen’ (Lucy, dot-art Managing Director, May 2018). These examples showcase how the local focus of the festival acts as the anchor between the organisers and participants relationships (Quinn and Wilks, 2013), with communal trust built through the purpose of the festival as a celebration of the arts and cultural offer of the city. In this way, Open Culture’s strategy for the festival enhances the reputation of

LightNight, owing to how the festival contributes to the locality (Finkel, 2009) and elicits feelings of ownership from local communities (Chalcraft et al, 2014).

A further empirical implication of the thesis is that despite a single iteration of

LightNight being utilised as the exploratory case study, the research can be readily applied to the wider day-to-day working practices of many artists and performers within 190 the local arts and cultural sectors, particularly under the scope of austerity. These sectors align equally as well with conceptions of social capital as the governance of LightNight, as at their core each are based upon relationships and interactions formed purposefully for mutual benefit, rooted in local specificity. A lack of available funding exacerbated by national austerity measures necessitates an increase in collaboration, reciprocity and trust to achieve both individual aims and collective projects within these sectors.

LightNight thus presents a snapshot of much wider trends within Liverpool’s arts and cultural sectors, with social capital theory merely legitimising these ways of working. A path dependency for some practitioners has been formed through their increased awareness of resources and capability within local arts and cultural sectors since the

ECoC year. This mentality has been strengthened and legitimised through involvement in

LightNight, based upon the collective resources and support afforded by Open Culture.

The methodological implications of the research relate to the mixed-methods approach applied to investigate participants experiences within festivals, or indeed any event. Specifically, the application of a combination of semi-structured interviews and netnography, both before and after the event in question allows for a narrative to be built for each participant, and for clear trends to appear relating to common or divergent experiences. Specifically relating to social capital, an episodic interviewing strategy recognises that relationships do not remain static, with second interviews after the event illustrating the development of the associations between organisers and participants over time. The application of netnography as part of the methodological strategy owes to the increasing prominence of relationships and interactions that play out online via social media. In relation to festival studies in particular, the implication of utilising netnography is that it allows for situated evidence to be recorded without my physical presence in the field at that exact moment. For instance during LightNight itself, many participants posted images or recordings of events in real time, with netnography allowing an analysis of this data to take place at my own convenience.

Therefore, to conclude, this thesis has showcased how social capital theory can be utilised to further understandings of festival governance, and created pertinent ground for future study. Through focussing upon the relationships between organisers and participants within the festival, this provided situated evidence of interactions and their 191 subsequent impact upon the delivery of programmed events. What this research emphasised is how the role of organisers is critical to the successful delivery of events, with the collective social capital of LightNight contained in Open Culture’s ability to mobilise others to extend the communal support available within the festival. Conceptions of social capital within LightNight are purposefully maintained at a manageable size by

Open Culture, ensuring that the existing resources and support available through the festival are protected, showcasing an understanding of the scale at which their mode of governance must operate to be successful.

192

References

Abdullah, A., Khadaroo, I. and Napier, C. J. (2018) Managing the performance of arts organisations: Pursuing heterogeneous objectives in an era of austerity. The British

Accounting Review. 50(2). pp174-184.

Adams, W. (2015) Conducting Semi-Structured Interviews. In: Newcomer, K., Hatry, H. and Wholey, J. (eds.) Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. 4th ed. pp492-505. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass & Pfeiffer Imprints, Wiley.

Adcock, B. (1984) Regenerating Merseyside Docklands: The Merseyside Development

Corporation 1981-1984. The Town Planning Review. 55(3). pp265-289.

Adongo, R. and Kim, S. (2018) The ties that bind: stakeholder collaboration and networking in local festivals. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality

Management. 30(6). pp2458-2480.

Ahmed, U. J. (2010) Documentary Research Method: New Dimensions. Indus Journal of

Management & Social Sciences. 4(1). pp1-14.

Alcock, P. (2016) From partnership to the Big Society: The third sector policy regime in the UK. Nonprofit Policy Forum. 7(2). pp95-116.

Alexander, V. (2007) State support of artists: The case of the UK in a New Labour environment and beyond. Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society. 37(3). pp185-

200.

Alexander, V. (2014) Art and the Twenty-First Century Gift: Corporate Philanthropy and

Government Funding in the Cultural Sector. Anthropological Forum. 24(4). pp364-380.

Alexander, V. (2018a) Enterprise Culture and the Arts: Neoliberal Values and British

Art Institution. In: Alexander, V., Hagg, S., Hayrynen, S. and Sevanen, E. (eds.) Art and the Challenge of Markets Volume 1. National cultural politics and the challenges of marketization and globalization. pp67-93. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Alexander, V. (2018b) Heteronomy in the arts field: State funding and British arts organizations. The British Journal of Sociology. 69(1). pp23-43.

193

Allen, J., O’Toole, W., McDonnell, I. and Harris, R. (2005) Festival and special event management. 3rd ed. Queensland: John Wiley & Sons.

Alves, T. (2007) Art, Light and Landscape New Agendas for Urban Development.

European Planning Studies. 15(9). pp1247-1260.

Andersson, T. D. and Getz, D. (2009) Festival ownership: Differences between public, nonprofit and private festivals in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and

Tourism. 9(2–3). pp249–265.

Andres, L. and Round, J. (2015) The creative economy in a context of transition: A review of the mechanisms of micro-resilience. Cities. 45. pp1-6.

Arcodia, C. and Whitford, M. (2006) Festival Attendance and the Development of Social

Capital. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism. 8(2). pp1-18.

Art in Liverpool. (2009) The Long Night of the AND Festival. [Online]. Available at: http://www.artinliverpool.com/the-long-night-of-the-and-festival-24-sep-09/ [Accessed

20th November 2017].

Art in Liverpool. (2014) LightNight Projections Announced at the Bluecoat and

Metropolitan Cathedral. [Online]. Available at: https://www.artinliverpool.com/lightnight- projections-announced-at-the-bluecoat-and-metropolitan-cathedral/ [Accessed 28th June

2019].

Art in Liverpool. (2018) LightNight 2018, Artist Previews. 2. p16. [Online]. Available at: https://www.artinliverpool.com/art-in-liverpool-magazine/ [Accessed 27th June 2019].

Arts Council England. (2017) Light festivals brighten up the North. [Online]. Available at: https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/news/light-festivals-brighten-north [Accessed 15th

February 2019].

Arts Council England. (n.d.-a) Grants for the Arts data. [Online]. Available at: https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/grants-arts-0#section-4 [Accessed 15th February 2019].

Arts Council England. (n.d.-b) Project grants data. [Online]. Available at: https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/arts-council-national-lottery-project-grants/project-grants- data [Accessed 15th February 2019].

194

Arvidson, M. and Lyon, F (2014) Social Impact Measurement and Non-profit

Organisations: Compliance, Resistance and Promotion. Voluntas. 25. pp869-886.

Bagwell, S., Corry, D. and Rotheroe, A. (2015) The future of funding: Options for heritage and cultural organisations. Cultural Trends. 24(1). pp28-33.

Bailey, N. (2012) The role, organisation and contribution of community enterprise to urban regeneration policy in the UK. Progress in Planning. 77(1). pp1-35.

Barron, P. and Leask, A. (2017) Visitor engagement at museums: Generation Y and

‘Lates’ events at the National Museum of Scotland. Museum Management and

Curatorship. 32(5). pp473-490.

BBC News. (2003) ‘Liverpool named Capital of Culture.’ [Online]. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/2959944.stm [Accessed 21st November 2018].

Belfiore, E. (2002) Art as a means of alleviating social exclusion: Does it really work? A critique of instrumental cultural policies and social impact studies in the UK. International

Journal of Cultural Policy. 8(1). pp91-106.

Belfiore, E. (2015) ‘Impact’, ‘value’ and ‘bad economics’: Making sense of the problem of value in the arts and humanities. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education. 14(1). pp95-110.

Bennett, A., Taylor, J. and Woodward, I. (2014) The Festivalization of Culture. Aldershot:

Ashgate.

Bennett, C. (2012) ‘Comment: Not all roads lead to London when it comes to culture:

Three giant marionettes in Liverpool left more of a legacy than any Olympiad, sporting or otherwise.’ The Observer, 29th April. [Online]. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com

/commentisfree/2012/apr/29/catherine-bennett-liverpool-cultural-olympiad [Accessed 18th

October 2018].

Bertelli, A., Connolly, J., Mason, D. and Conover, L. (2014) Politics, management, and the allocation of arts funding: Evidence from public support for the arts in the UK.

International Journal of Cultural Policy. 20(3). pp341-359.

195

Bertilsson, J. (2014) Critical Netnography: Conducting Critical Research Online. In:

Jeanes, E. and Huzzard, T. (eds.) Critical Management Research: Reflections from the

Field. pp135-152. London: Sage.

Binns, L. (2005) Capitalising on Culture: An Evaluation of Culture-led Urban

Regeneration Policy. Dublin: Futures Academy, Dublin Institute of Technology.

Bloor, M. and Wood, F. (2006) Keywords in Qualitative Methods. London: Sage.

Böhme, G. (2013) The art of the stage set as a paradigm for an aesthetics of atmospheres. Ambiances Reviews.

Boland, P. (2010) 'Capital of Culture—you must be having a laugh!' Challenging the official rhetoric of Liverpool as the 2008 European cultural capital. Social & Cultural

Geography. 11(7). pp627-645.

Booth, P. (2011) Culture, planning and path dependence: some reflections on the problems of comparison. Town Planning Review. 82(1). pp.13-28.

Bourdieu, P. (1980) The Logic of Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1986) Forms of capital. In: Richardson, J. (ed.) Handbook of Theory and

Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press.

Bowen, G. A. (2009) Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative

Research Journal. 9(2). pp27-40.

Boyle, M. and Hughes, G. (1994) The politics of urban entrepreneurialism in Glasgow.

Geoforum. 25(4). pp453-470.

Britton, S. (1991) Tourism, capital, and place: towards a critical geography of tourism.

Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 9(4). pp451-478.

Brown, A. and Richards, D. (2011) Intrinsic Impact: How Audiences and Visitors are

Transformed by Cultural Experiences in Liverpool. Baker Richards Consulting and

WolfBrown.

196

Brownett, T. (2018) Social capital participation: The role of community arts festivals for generating well-being. Journal of Applied Arts and Health. 9(1). pp71-84.

Brownhill, S., Razzaque, K., Stirling, T. and Thomas, H. (1996) Local Governance and the Racialisation of Urban Policy in the UK: The Case of Urban Development

Corporations. Urban Studies. 33(8). pp1337-1355.

Bullen, C. (2013) European Capitals of Culture and Everyday Cultural Diversity: A

Comparison of Liverpool (UK) and Marseilles (France). European Cultural Foundation:

Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Bunnell, T. (2008) Multiculturalism’s Regeneration: Celebrating Merdeka (Malaysian independence) in a European Capital of Culture. Transactions of the Institute of British

Geographers. 33(2). pp251-267.

Bunnell, T. (2016) From World City to the World in One City: Liverpool through Malay

Lives. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Burghes, A. and Thornton, S. (2017) The Social Impact of the Arts in Liverpool 2015/16:

A Review of the Culture Liverpool Investment Programme. Liverpool City Council.

[Online]. Available at: https://www.cultureliverpool.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06

/Appendix-1-The-Social-Impact-of-the-Arts-in-Liverpool-FINAL.compressed.pdf

[Accessed 14th February 2019].

Camarero, C., Garrido, M. and Hernández, C. (2018) The mixed effects of organization’s and manager’s social capital: Evidence from the case of museums. Journal of

Management and Organization. pp1-24.

Campbell, A., Hughes, J., Hewstone, M. and Cairns, E. (2008) Social Capital as a mechanism for building a sustainable society in Northern Ireland. Community

Development Journal. 45(1). pp22-38.

Campbell, P. (2011) Creative industries in a European Capital of Culture. International

Journal of Cultural Policy. 17(5). pp510–522.

Campbell, P. (2018) Liverpool: A Case Study in Persistent Creativity. In: Campbell, P.

(ed.) Persistent Creativity. pp183-233. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

197

Campbell, P. and O’Brien, D. (2017) Whatever happened to the Liverpool Model? Urban cultural policy in the era after urban regeneration. In: Bevir, M., McKee, K. and Matthews,

P. (eds.) Decentring Urban Governance: Narratives, Resistance and Contestation. pp139-157. Routledge: London.

Carlsen, J., Ali-Knight, J. and Robertson, M. (2007) Access – A Research Agenda for

Edinburgh Festivals. Event Management. 11. pp3-11.

Carlsen, J., Andersson, T. D., Ali-Knight, J., Jaeger, K. and Taylor, R. (2010) Festival management innovation and failure. International Journal of Event and festival

Management. 1(2). pp120-131.

Carroll, D. A. and Stater, K. J. (2009) Revenue diversiﬁcation in non-proﬁt organizations:

Does it lead to ﬁnancial stability? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.

19. pp947–966.

Caust, J. (2003) Putting the “art” back into arts policy making: how arts policy has been

“captured” by the economists and the marketers. International Journal of Cultural Policy.

9(1). pp51-63.

Chalcraft, J., Delanty, G. and Sassatelli, M. (2014) Varieties of Cosmopolitanism in Art

Festivals. In: Bennett, A., Taylor, J. and Woodward, I. (eds.) The Festivalization of

Culture. pp109–130. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Chung, T-L., Marcketti, S. and Fiore, A. M. (2014) Use of social networking services for marketing art museums. Museum Management and Curatorship. 29(2). pp188-205.

Cochrane, A. (2007) Understanding Urban Policy: A Critical Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.

Cocks, M. (2009) Governance Arangements from a Regulationist Perspective: The Case of Liverpool. Local Economy. 24(6/7). pp456-472.

Cocks, M. (2013) Conceptualizing the Role of Key Individuals in Urban Governance:

Cases from the Economic Regeneration of Liverpool, UK. European Planning Studies.

21(4). pp575-595.

Cohen, A. P. (1985) The Symbolic Construction of Community. London: Tavistock.

198

Coleman, J. S. (1988) Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. The American

Journal of Sociology. 94. pp95-120.

Colombo, M. and Senatore, A. (2005) The Discursive Construction of Community Identity.

Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. 15. pp48-62.

Comunian, R. (2015) Festivals as Communities of Practise: Learning by doing and knowledge networks amongst artists. In: Newbold, C., Maughan, C., Jordan, J. and

Bianchini, F. (eds.) Focus on Festivals: Contemporary European Case Studies and

Perspectives. pp53-65. London: Goodfellow.

Comunian, R. (2017) Temporary Clusters and Communities of Practice in the Creative

Economy: Festivals as Temporary Knowledge Networks. Space and Culture. 20(3). pp329-343.

Connelly, G. (2007) Testing Governance – A Research Agenda for Exploring Urban

Tourism Competitiveness Policy: The Case of Liverpool 1980-2000. Tourism

Geographies. 9(1). pp84-114.

Connolly, M. (2013) The ‘Liverpool model(s)’: cultural planning, Liverpool and Capital of

Culture 2008. International Journal of Cultural Policy. 19(2). pp162-181.

Cook, I. R. and Ward, K. (2011) Trans-urban Networks of Learning, Mega Events and

Policy Tourism: The Case of Manchester’s Commonwealth and Olympic Games Projects.

Urban Studies. 48(12). pp2519-2535.

Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Costello, L., McDermott, M-L. and Wallace, R. (2017) Netnography: Range of Practices,

Misperceptions, and Missed Opportunities. International Journal of Qualitative Methods.

16. pp1-12.

Couch, C. (2003) Urban regeneration in Liverpool. In: Couch, C., Fraser, C. and Percy, S.

(eds.) Urban Regeneration in Europe. pp34-55. Oxford: Blackwell.

Couch, C. and Dennemann, A. (2000) Urban regeneration and sustainable development in Britain: The example of the Liverpool Ropewalks Partnership. Cities. 17(2). pp137-147.

199

Couch, C. and Farr, S-J. (2000) Museums, Galleries, Tourism and Regeneration: Some

Experiences from Liverpool. Built Environment. 26(2). pp152-163.

Coulson, A. (1990) Flagships and ﬂaws: Assessing the UDC decade. Town and Country

Planning. 59(11). pp299–302.

Cox, K. R. and Mair, A. (1988) Locality and community in the politics of local economic development. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 78(2). pp307-325.

Cox, T. and O’Brien, D. (2012) The “scouse wedding” and other myths: Reflections on the evolution of a “Liverpool model” for culture-led urban regeneration. Cultural Trends. 21(2). pp93-101.

Craik, J. (2013) Re-Visioning Arts and Cultural Policy: Current Impasses and Future

Directions. Canberra: ANU Press.

Crang, M. and Cook, I. (2007) Doing Ethnographies. London: Sage.

Creative Tourist. (2018) Manchester After Hours 2018. [Online]. Available at: https://www.creativetourist.com/event/manchester-after-hours/ [Accessed 30th May

2018].

Cresswell, T. (2004) Place: A Short Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

Crow, G. and Allan, G. (1994) Community Life. An introduction to local social relations.

Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Culture Liverpool. (2013) Liverpool Cultural Action Plan. [Online]. Available at: https://issuu.com/cultureliverpool/docs/culture_liverpool_web_file_signle_p [Accessed

29th July 2020].

Culture24. (2017) Home Page. [Online]. Available at: http://www.weareculture24.org.uk/

[Accessed 20th November 2017].

Culture24. (2018) A Culture of Lates. Culture24. [Online]. Available at: https://weareculture24.org.uk/lates-research/ [Accessed 14th February 2019].

Davy, T. (2018) Transform The Night. Bido Lito Magazine. May. p24.

Day, G. (2006) Community and Everyday Life. London: Routledge.

200

Debenedetti, S. (2006) The Role of Media Critics in the Cultural Industries. International

Journal of Arts Management. 8(3). pp30-42.

Debord, G. (1994) The Society of the Spectacle. Originally published in 1967. Translated by Nicholson-Smith, D. New York: Zone Books. de Certeau, M. (1984) The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California

Press. del Barrio, M. J., Devesa, M. and Herrero, L. C. (2012) Evaluating intangible cultural heritage: The case of cultural festivals. City, Culture and Society. 3. pp235–244.

Delanty, G. (2011) Conclusion: On the cultural significance of arts festivals. In: Giorgi, L.,

Sassatelli, M. and Delanty, G. (eds.) Festivals and the Cultural Public Sphere. pp190-

199. London: Routledge.

Denscombe, M. (2014) The Good Research Guide: For small-scale social research projects. 5th ed. Open University Press.

Derrett, R. (2003) Making sense of how festivals demonstrate a community’s sense of place. Event Management. 8. pp49-58.

Derrett, R. (2004) Festivals, events and the destination. In: Yeoman, I., Robertson, M.,

Ali-Knight, J., Drummond, S. and McMahon-Beattie, V. (eds.) Festival and Events

Management: An International Arts and Culture Perspective. pp32-52. Oxford: Elsevier.

Devine, A. and Quinn, B. (2019) Building social capital in a divided city: the potential of events. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 27(10). pp1495-1512.

Diack, H. (2012) Sleepless nights: Contemporary art and the culture of performance.

Public. 23(45). pp9–22.

DiGaetano, A. and Lawless, P. (1999) Urban Governance and Industrial Decline:

Governing Structures and Policy Agendas in Birmingham and Sheffield, England, and

Detroit, Michigan, 1980-1997. Urban Affairs Review. 34(4). pp546-577.

Donington, K., Hanley, R. and Moody, J. (2016) Britain’s History and Memory of

Transatlantic Slavery: Local Nuances of a ‘National Sin’. Liverpool: Liverpool University

Press. 201

Dooghe, D. (2015) Festival City – Rotterdam. In: Newbold, C., Maughan, C., Jordan, J. and Bianchini, F. (eds.) Focus on festivals: Contemporary European case studies and perspectives. pp147-157. Oxford: Goodfellow.

Dumbrăveanu, D., Todoricu, A. and Crăciun, A. (2014) The Night of Museums – A Boost

Factor for the Cultural Dimension of Tourism in Bucharest. Human Geographies. 8(1). pp55-63.

Dunn, K. (2016) Interviewing. In: Hay, I. (ed.) Qualitative Research Methods in Human

Geography. pp149-188. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Durrer, V. and Miles, S. (2009) New perspectives on the role of cultural intermediaries in social inclusion in the UK. Consumption Markets & Culture. 12(3). pp225-241.

Edensor, T. (2015a) Light design and atmosphere. Visual Communication. 14(3). pp331-

350.

Edensor, T. (2015b) The gloomy city: Rethinking the relationship between light and dark.

Urban Studies. 52(3). pp422-438.

Edensor, T. (2017) From Light to Dark. Daylight, Illumination and Gloom. Minneapolis:

Minnesota University Press.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1991) Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and comparative logic. Academy of Management Review. 16. pp620–627.

Eisinger, P. (2000) The Politics of Bread and Circuses: Building the city for the visitor class. Urban Affairs Review. 35(3). pp316–333.

Evans, G. (2010) New Events in Historic Venues: A Case of London. Rivista di Scienze del Turismo. 2. pp149-166.

Evans, G. (2011) Cities of Culture and the Regeneration Game. London Journal of

Tourism, Sport and Creative Industries. 5(6). pp5–18.

Evans, G. (2012) Hold back the night: Nuit Blanche and all-night events in capital cities.

Current Issues in Tourism. 15(1-2). pp35-49.

202

Evans, R. (1996) Liverpool’s urban renewal initiatives and the arts: A review of policy development and strategic issues. In: Lorente, J. P. (ed.) The Role of Museums and the

Arts in the Urban Regeneration of Liverpool. pp11-25. Leicester: University of Leicester.

Fainstein, S. S. (1991) Promoting economic development urban planning in the United

States and Great Britain. Journal of the American Planning Association. 57(1). pp22-33.

Falk, N. (1986) Baltimore and Lowell: Two American approaches. Built Environment. 12. pp145-152.

Finkel, R. (2006) Tensions Between Ambition and Reality in UK Combined Arts Festival

Programming: Case Study of The Lichfield Festival. International Journal of Event

Management Research. 2(1). pp25-36.

Finkel, R. (2009) A picture of the contemporary combined arts festival landscape. Cultural

Trends. 18(1). pp3-21.

Finkel, R. (2010) "Dancing Around the Ring of Fire": Social Capital, Tourism Resistance, and Gender Dichotomies at up Helly Aa in Lerwick, Shetland. Event Management. 14(4). pp275-285.

Fitzpatrick, S. (2013) Creative Communities and everyone else: Towards a dialogic understanding of creativity after Liverpool’s Capital of Culture year. In: Breitbart, M. (ed.)

Creative economies in post-industrial cities: manufacturing a different scene. pp209-234.

Surrey: Ashgate.

Flick, U. (2008) Managing quality in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Flora, J. L. (1998) Social Capital and Communities of Place. Rural Sociology. 63(4). pp481-506.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006) Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative

Inquiry. 12(2). pp219-245.

Foley, M. W. and Edwards, B. (1999) Is It Time to Disinvest in Social Capital? Journal of

Public Policy. 19(2). pp141-173.

203

Foskett, N. (2010) Markets, government, funding and the marketisation of UK higher education. In: Molesworth, M., Scullion, R. and Nixon, E. (eds.) The marketisation of higher education and the student as consumer. pp39-52. London: Routledge.

Froelich, K. A. (1999) Diversification of revenue strategies: Evolving resource dependence in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 28. pp246-268.

Frost, D. and North, P. (2013) Militant Liverpool: A City on the Edge. Liverpool: Liverpool

University Press.

Fukuyama, F. (2001) Social capital, civil society and development. Third World Quarterly.

22(1). pp7-20.

Ganz, A. (1985) Where has the urban crisis gone? How Boston and other large cities have stemmed economic decline. Urban Affairs Quarterly. 20(4). pp449-468.

Garcia, B. (2004) Urban Regeneration, Arts Programming and Major Events: Glasgow

1990, Sydney 2000 and Barcelona 2004. International Journal of Cultural Policy. 10(1). pp103-118.

Garcia, B (2005) Deconstructing the City of Culture: The Long-term Cultural legacies of

Glasgow 1990. Urban Studies. 42(5/6). pp841-868.

Garcia, B. (2013) London 2012 Cultural Olympiad Evaluation: Final Report. Liverpool:

Institute of Cultural Capital. [Online]. Available at: http://iccliverpool.ac.uk/wp- content/uploads/2013/08/London_2012_Cultural_Olympiad_Evaluation_ICC.pdf

[Accessed 15th February 2019].

Garcia, B. (2017) ‘“If everyone says so…” Press narratives and image change in major event host cities’. Urban Studies. 54(14). pp3178–3198.

Garcia, B., Melville, R. and Cox, T. (2010) Creating an impact: Liverpool’s experience as

European Capital of Culture. Liverpool: Impacts 08.

Gartland, M. (2005) Interdisciplinary views of sub-optimal outcomes: Path dependence in the social and management sciences. The Journal of Socio-Economics. 34(5). pp686-

702.

204

Getz, D. (2012) Event Studies: Theory, Research and Policy for Planned Events. 2nd ed.

London: Routledge.

Getz, D. and Andersson, T. (2008) Sustainable Festivals: On becoming an institution.

Event Management. 12. pp1-17.

Getz, D. and Andersson, T. (2010) Festival Stakeholders: Exploring Relationships And

Dependency Through A Four-Country Comparison. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism

Research. 34(4). pp531-556.

Getz, D., Andersson, T. and Carlsen, J. (2010) Festival Management Studies. Developing a framework and priorities for comparative and cross-cultural research. International

Journal of Event and Festival Management. 1(1). pp29-59.

Getz, D., Andersson, T. and Larson, M. (2007) Festival Stakeholder Roles: Concepts and

Case Studies. Event Management. 10. pp103-122.

Gibson, W. J. and Brown, A. (2009) Working with Qualitative Data. London: Sage.

Gilmore, A. (2014) Evaluating legacies: Research, evidence and the regional impact of the Cultural Olympiad. Cultural Trends. 23(1). pp29-41.

Giordano, E. and Ong, C-E. (2017) Light festivals, policy mobilities and urban tourism.

Tourism Geographies. 19. pp699-716.

Glass, R. (1964) London: Aspects of Change. London: McGibben and Kee.

Glow, H. and Caust, J. (2010) Valuing Participation: Artists and the Adelaide Fringe

Festival. The International Journal of the Humanities. 8(2). pp413-423.

Goddard, J., Coombes, M., Kempton, L. and Vallance, P. (2014) Universities as anchor institutions in cities in a turbulent funding environment: Vulnerable institutions and vulnerable places in England. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society. 7. pp307-325.

Goldblatt, J. (2012) The current and future impacts of the 2007-2009 economic recession on the festival and event industry. International Journal of Event and Festival

Management. 3(2). pp137-148.

205

Gordziejko, T. (2015) Belonging and Unbelonging: The cultural purpose of festivals. In:

Newbold, C., Maughan, C., Jordan, J. and Bianchini, F. (eds.) Focus on Festivals:

Contemporary European Case Studies and Perspectives. pp265-275. London:

Goodfellow.

Goss, J. (1996) Disquiet on the Waterfront: Reflections on nostalgia and utopia in the urban archetypes of festival marketplaces. Urban Geography. 17(3). pp221-247.

Graeff, P. (2009) Social capital: The dark side. In: Svendsen, G.T. and Svendsen, G. L.

H. (eds.) Handbook of Social Capital. The Troika of Sociology, Political Science and

Economics. pp143-161. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

Graham, H., Mason, R. and Newman, A. (2009). Literature Review: Historic Environment,

Sense of Place, and Social Capital. Newcastle Upon Tyne: English Heritage.

Griffiths, R. (2001) ‘Neighbourhood renewal: the contribution of arts and culture’. Danish

Building and Urban Research/European Urban Research Association Conference. ‘Area- based initiatives in contemporary urban policy’. Copenhagen, Denmark, 17th-19th May.

Griffiths, R. (2006) City/Culture Discourses: Evidence from the Competition to Select the

European Capital of Culture 2008. European Planning Studies. 14(4). pp415–430.

Griffiths, R., Bassett, K. and Smith, I. (2003) Capitalising on culture: Cities and the changing landscape of cultural policy. Policy & Politics. 31(2). pp153-169.

Grodach, C. and Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2007) Cultural development strategies and urban revitalization: A survey of U.S. cities. International Journal of Cultural Policy. 13(4). pp349–70.

Grunwell, S., Ha, S. and Martin, B. (2008) A Comparative Analysis of Attendee Profiles at

Two Urban Festivals. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism. 9(1). pp1-14.

Gupta, A. and Ferguson, J. (1992) Beyond "Culture": Space, Identity, and the Politics of

Difference. Cultural Anthropology. 7(1). pp6-23.

Gustafsson, J. (2017) Single Case Studies vs. Multiple Case Studies: A Comparative

Study (Thesis). Halmstad, Sweden: Halmstad University.

206

Hall, P. (1999) Social Capital in Britain. British Journal of Political Science. 29. pp417-

461.

Hall, T. and Hubbard, P. (1996) The entrepreneurial city: new urban politics, new urban geographies? Progress in Human Geography. 20(2). pp153-174.

Harris, M. and Holley, K. (2016) Universities as anchor institutions: Economic and social potential for urban development. In: Paulsen, M. (ed.) Higher Education: Handbook of

Theory and Research. pp393-439. New York: Springer.

Harriss, J. and de Renzio, P. (1997) ‘Missing link’ or analytically missing? The concept of social capital: An introductory bibliographic essay. Journal of International Development.

9(7). pp919-937.

Harvey, D. (1989) From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism: The Transformation in

Urban Governance in Late Capitalism. Geografiska Annaler. 71B. pp3-17.

Haughton, G. and While, A. (1999) From Corporate City to Citizens City? Urban

Leadership After Local Entrepreneurialism in the United Kingdom. Urban Affairs Review.

35(1). pp3-23.

Hausmann, A. and Poellmann, L. (2013) Using social media for arts marketing: theoretical analysis and empirical insights for performing arts organizations. International

Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing. 10(2). pp143-161.

Herbert, I. (2006) ‘Liverpool's city of culture plans in tatters as boss quits.’ The

Independent, 5th July. [Online]. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this- britain/liverpools-city-of-culture-plans-in-tatters-as-boss-quits-6096259.html [Accessed

11th September 2018].

Heseltine, M (1981) It Took a Riot. Minute to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. 13th

August.

Hesmondhalgh, D., Nisbett, M. and Oakley, K. and Lee, D. (2015) Were New Labour’s cultural policies neo-liberal? International Journal of Cultural Policy. 21(1). pp97-114.

207

Hess, M. (2017) Networks, social capital and development. In: Richardson, R., Castree,

N., Goodchild, MF., Kobayashi, A., Liu, W. and Marston, RA. (eds.) The International

Encyclopedia of Geography. pp1-9. Oxford: Wiley.

Hetherington, S. (2017) Arm’s-length funding of the arts as an expression of laissez-faire.

International Journal of Cultural Policy. 23(4). pp482-494.

Hewitt, A. (2011) Privatizing the public: Three rhetorics of art’s public good in ‘Third Way’ cultural policy. Art & the Public Sphere. 1(1). pp19-36.

Hibbitt, K., Jones, P. and Meegan, R. (2001) Tackling Social Exclusion: The Role of

Social Capital in Urban Regeneration on Merseyside — From Mistrust to Trust?

European Planning Studies. 9(2). pp141-161.

Hine, C. (2015) Ethnography For The Internet: Embedded, Embodied And Everyday.

London: Bloomsbury.

Holden, J. (2007) Publicly Funded Culture and the Creative Industries. London: Demos.

Holden, R. (1989) British Garden Festivals: The First Eight Years. Landscape and Urban

Planning. 18. pp17-35.

Horton, J., Macve, R. and Struyven, G. (2004) Qualitative research: Experiences in using semi-structured interviews. In: Humphrey, C. and Lee, B. (eds.) The Real Life Guide to

Accounting Research. pp339-357. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Impacts 08. (2009) Liverpool Arts Sector, Sustainability and Experience. Liverpool:

Impacts 08. [Online]. Available at: http://iccliverpool.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014

/12/Liverpools_Arts_Sector.pdf [Accessed 14th February 2019].

Iqbal, N. (2008) ‘Liverpool culture venues welcome 15m visitors in 2008.’ The Guardian,

11th December. [Online]. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2008/dec

/11/liverpool-capital-culture [Accessed 26th November 2018].

Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of the Great American Cities. New York: Random

House.

Jaeger, K. and Mykletun, R. J. (2013) Festivals, Identities and Belonging. Event

Management. 17. pp213-226. 208

Jakob, D. (2012) The eventification of place: Urban development and experience consumption in Berlin and New York City. European Urban and Regional Studies. 20(4). pp447-459.

Jamieson, K. (2004) Edinburgh The Festival Gaze and Its Boundaries. Space & Culture.

7(1). pp64-75.

Jancovich, L. (2017) The participation myth. International Journal of Cultural Policy.

23(1). pp107-121.

Jenkins, R. (1996) Social Identity. London: Routledge.

Jiwa, S. and Coca-Stefaniak, J. A. (2009) Light Night: an “enlightening” place marketing experience. Journal of Place Management and Development. 2(2). pp154-166.

Johansson, M. and Kociatkiewicz, J. (2011) City festivals: Creativity and control in staged urban experiences. European Urban and Regional Studies. 18(4). pp392-405.

Johnson, J. (2019) ‘Arts Central: Open Culture.’ Bido Lito Magazine. February. [Online].

Available at: https://www.bidolito.co.uk/feature-arts-central-open-culture-uncover/

[Accessed 6th February 2019].

Johnson, M. (2008) ‘50,000 flock to Liverpool for Capital of Culture launch.’ Liverpool

Echo, 11th January. [Online]. Available at: https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news

/liverpool-news/50000-flock-liverpool-capital-culture-3494851 [Accessed 23rd November

2018].

Jones, C. (2012) Events and Festivals: Fit for the future? Event Management. 16. pp107-

118.

Jones, G., Meegan, R., Kennett, P. and Croft, J. (2016) The uneven impact of austerity on the voluntary and community sector: A tale of two cities. Urban Studies. 53(10). pp2064-2080.

Jones, P. and Evans, J. (2008) Urban Regeneration in the UK. London: Sage.

Jones, P. and Warren, S. (2016) Time, rhythm and the creative economy. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 41(3). pp286-296.

209

Jones, P. and Wilks-Heeg, S. (2004) Capitalising Culture: Liverpool 2008. Local

Economy. 19(4). pp341-360.

Jordan, J. (2015) Festival leadership in Turbulent Times. In: Newbold, C., Maughan, C.,

Jordan, J. and Bianchini, F (eds.) Focus on Festivals: Contemporary European Case

Studies and Perspectives. pp107-117. London: Goodfellow.

Jordan, J. (2016) Festivalisation of cultural production: experimentation, spectacularisation and immersion. Journal of Cultural Management and Policy. 6(1). pp44-55.

Judd, D. R. and Parkinson, M. (1989) Urban revitalization in the United States and the

United Kingdom. In: Parkinson, M., Foley, B. and Judd, D. R. (eds.) Regenerating the

Cities: The U.K Crisis and the US. Experience. pp1-8. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and

Company.

Kavaratzis, M. and Ashworth, G. J. (2005) City branding: an effective assertion of identity or a transitory marketing trick? Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie. 96(5). pp506-514.

Keating, W. D. (1986) Linking Downtown Development to Broader Community Goals: An

Analysis of Linkage Policy in Three Cities. Journal of the American Planning Association.

52(2). pp133-141.

Kemp, E. and Poole, S. M. (2016) Arts Audiences: Establishing a Gateway to Audience

Development and Engagement. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society.

46(2). pp53-62.

Kinsley, S. (2013) Beyond the Screen: Methods for Investigating Geographies of Life

‘Online’. Geography Compass. 7/8. pp540-555.

Klaic, D. (2014) Festivals in Focus. New York: Central European University Press.

Knell, J. and Taylor, M. (2011) Arts Funding, Austerity and the Big Society: Remaking the case for the arts. Royal Society of Arts.

Korte, R. and Lin, S. (2013) Getting on board: Organizational socialization and the contribution of social capital. Human Relations. 66(3). pp407-428.

210

Kozinets, R. V. (2010) Netnography. Doing ethnographic research online. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kozinets, R. V., Dolbec, P-Y. and Earley, A. (2014) Netnographic Analysis:

Understanding Culture through Social Media Data. In: Flick, U. (ed.) Sage Handbook of

Qualitative Data Analysis. pp262-275. London: Sage.

Kruger, M., Saayman, M. and Ellis, S. M. (2010) Does loyalty pay? First-time versus repeat visitors at a national arts festival. Southern African Business Review. 14(1). pp79-

104.

Kvale, S. (2007) Doing Interviews. London: Sage.

Landry, C. (2000) The Creative City – A Toolkit For Urban Innovators. London:

Earthscan.

Larsen, L., Harlan, S. L., Bolin, B., Hackett, E. J., Hope, D., Kirby, A., Nelson, A., Rex, T.

R. and Wolf, S. (2004) Bonding and Bridging: Understanding the Relationship between

Social Capital and Civic Action. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 24. pp64-

77.

Larson, M., Getz, D. and Pastras, P. (2015) The Legitimacy of Festivals and Their

Stakeholders: Concepts and Propositions. Event Management. 19(2). pp159-174.

Laurell, C. and Björner, E. (2018) Digital Festival Engagement: On the Interplay Between

Festivals, Place Brands, and Social Media. Event Management. 22. pp527-540.

Lawless, P. (1991) Urban policy in the Thatcher decade: English inner-city policy, 1979-

90. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy. 9. pp15-30.

Lee, D. and Newby H. (1983) The Problem of Sociology: An introduction to the discipline.

London: Unwin Hyman.

Lee, J., Kyle, G. and Scott, D. (2012) The Mediating Effect of Place Attachment on the

Relationship between Festival Satisfaction and Loyalty to the Festival Hosting

Destination. Journal of Travel Research. 51(6). pp754-767.

Leeds BID. (2016) Light Night 2016. [Online]. Available at: https://www.leedsbid.co.uk

/light-night-2016 [Accessed 20th November 2017]. 211

Leeds City Council. (2017) About Light Night. [Online]. Available at: https://whatson

.leeds.gov.uk/lightnight/about [Accessed 20th November 2017].

Lees, L. and Melhuish, C. (2015) Arts-led regeneration in the UK: The rhetoric and the evidence on urban social inclusion. European Urban and Regional Studies. 22(3). pp242-

260.

Legard, R., Keegan, J. and Ward, K. (2003) In-depth Interviews. In: Ritchie, J. and Lewis,

J. (eds.) Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and

Researchers. pp138-169. London: Sage.

Leitner, H. and Garner. M (1993) The limits to local initiatives: A reassessment of urban entrepreneurialism for development. Urban Geography. 14. pp57-77.

Leonard, M. (2004) Bonding and Bridging Social Capital: Reflections from Belfast.

Sociology. 38(5). pp927-944.

Levine, M. V. (1987) Downtown redevelopment as an urban growth strategy: A critical appraisal of the Baltimore renaissance. Journal of Urban Affairs. 9(2). pp103-123.

LightNight Liverpool. (2018a) BIG NEWS: For this year’s #LightNight after party we’re returning to Constellations with DANCE4MATION, presented by the phenomenal Cartier

4 […]. [Facebook]. 4th April. [Online]. Available at: https://m.facebook.com

/story.php?story_fbid=1744287335638815&id=139437732790458 [Accessed 28th July

2020].

LightNight Liverpool. (2018b) Explore the States of Play: Roleplay Reality exhibition after hours and experience a whole host of interactive workshops, showcases and […].

[Facebook]. 7th May. [Online]. Available at: https://www.facebook.com

/LightNightLiverpool/posts/1777034362364112 [Accessed 6th March 2020].

LightNight Liverpool. (n.d.) Home Page. Open Culture. [Online]. Available at: http://lightnightliverpool.co.uk/ [Accessed 14th March 2019].

Lindqvist, K. (2012) Museum finances: challenges beyond economic crises. Museum

Management and Curatorship. 27(1). pp1-15.

212

Liu, Y-D. (2014) Socio-Cultural Impacts of Major Event: Evidence from the 2008

European Capital of Culture, Liverpool. Social Indicators Research. 115(3). pp983-998.

Liu, Y-D. (2017) The impacts of cultural event on networking: Liverpool’s cultural sector in the aftermath of 2008. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 35(2). pp118-127.

Liu, Y-D. (2019) The Cultural Legacy of a Major Event: A Case Study of the 2008

European Capital of Culture, Liverpool. Urban Science. 3(3). p79.

Liverpool City Council. (2013) Culture Liverpool Investment Programme (CLIP). [Online].

Available at: https://culturecdn.fra1.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/2017/01

/clipframeworkv32013.pdf [Accessed 15th June 2020].

Liverpool Culture Company. (2005) Liverpool Culture Company Strategic Business Plan

2005-2009. Liverpool Culture Company. [Online]. Available at: https://www

.cultureliverpool.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Strategic-Business-Plan-2005-

2009.pdf [Accessed 14th February 2019].

Liverpool Culture Company. (2009a) Liverpool Culture Company: Final Report 2003-

2008.

Liverpool Culture Company. (2009b) Liverpool ‘08 European Capital of Culture: The impacts of a year like no other. [Online]. Available at: https://issuu.com/cultureliverpool

/docs/the-impacts-of-a-year-like-no-other [Accessed 14th February 2019].

Liverpool Culture Company Limited. (2002) “The World in One City”: Extract from

Liverpool’s Bid Document.

Liverpool Echo. (2004) ‘Culture chief resigns from role.’ 8th April. [Online]. Available at: https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/culture-chief-resigns-from-role-

3544950 [Accessed 22nd November 2018].

Liverpool Echo. (2005) ‘Creativity thriving in city communities.’ 1st December. [Online].

Available at: https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/creativity-thriving-in- city-communities-3523824 [Accessed 29th January 2019].

213

Liverpool Echo. (2006) ‘Revealed: Why culture director really quit.’ 5th July. [Online].

Available at: https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/revealed-culture- director-really-quit-3516064 [Accessed 22nd November 2018].

Liverpool Echo. (2007a) ‘Mathew Street Festival Axed.’ 2nd August. [Online]. Available at: https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/mathew-street-festival-axed-

3505120 [Accessed 22nd November 2018].

Liverpool Echo. (2007b) ‘Warren Bradley: Culture chief Jason Harborow must go.’ 21st

August. [Online]. Available at: https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool- news/warren-bradley-culture-chief-jason-3506337 [Accessed 22nd November 2018].

Liverpool Echo. (2013) ‘Mathew Street Festival axed and replaced by new Liverpool

International Music Festival.’ 7th May. [Online]. Available at: https://www.liverpoolecho.co

.uk/news/liverpool-news/mathew-street-festival-axed-replaced-3322839 [Accessed 12th

June 2020].

Liverpool Echo. (2015) ‘LightNight Liverpool 2015 heritage buses on the road.’ 23rd April.

[Online]. Available at: https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/whats-on/arts-culture- news/liverpool-lightnight-2015-heritage-buses-9099993 [Accessed 26th April 2019].

Liverpool Echo. (2018) ‘Whatever happened to the Mathew Street Festival?’ 16th

December. [Online]. Available at: https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool- news/whatever-happened-mathew-street-festival-15542831 [Accessed 12th June 2020].

Loftman, P. and Nevin, B. (1995) Prestige Projects and Urban Regeneration in the 1980s and 1990s: A review of benefits and limitations. Planning Practice and Research. 10(3/4). pp299-315.

Loftman, P. and Nevin, B. (1996) Going for Growth: Prestige Projects in Three British

Cities. Urban Studies. 6. pp991-1019.

Lorente, J. P. (1996) Museums as catalysts for the revitalisation of ports in decline:

Lessons from Liverpool and Marseille. In: Lorente, J.P. (ed.) The Role of Museums and the Arts in the Urban Regeneration of Liverpool. pp36-60. Leicester: University of

Leicester.

214

Luonila, M., Suomi, K. and Johansson, M. (2016) Creating a stir: The role of word of mouth in reputation management in the context of festivals. Scandinavian Journal of

Hospitality and Tourism. 16(4). pp461-483.

Macleod, N. E. (2006) The Placeless Festival: Identity and Place in the Post-Modern

Festival. In: Picard, D. and Robinson, M. (eds.) Festivals, Tourism and Social Change:

Remaking Worlds. pp222-237. Clevedon: Channel View.

Mair, J. and Duffy, M. (2018) The role of festivals in strengthening social capital in rural communities. Event Management. 22. pp875-889.

Martin, B. R. (2011) The Research Excellence Framework and the ‘impact agenda’: are we creating a Frankenstein monster? Research Evaluation. 20(3). pp247-254.

Martin, D., Schafran, A. and Taylor, Z. (2018) From Problems in the North to the

Problematic North: Northern Devolution Through the Lens of History. In: Berry, C and

Giovannini, A. (eds.) Developing England’s North: The Political Economy of the Northern

Powerhouse. pp215-236. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Martin, M. (2018) Perspectives, positions and responses to the temporary use of land in

Bristol and Liverpool. Manchester: University of Manchester.

Martin, N. (2007) ‘Problems for year of culture in Liverpool.’ The Telegraph, 31st

December. [Online]. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574107

/Problems-for-year-of-culture-in-Liverpool.html [Accessed 23rd November 2018].

Mason, J. (2002) Qualitative Researching. 2nd ed. London: Sage.

Mason, M. (2010) Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews.

Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 11(3). pp1-19.

Massey, D. (1994) Space, Place and Gender. Cambridge: Polity Press.

McCarthy, B. (2006) Building and sustaining trust in networks: Lessons from the performing arts. Irish Marketing Review. 18(1/2). pp47-57.

McClinchey, K. A. (2008) Urban Ethnic Festivals, Neighborhoods, and the Multiple

Realities of Marketing Place. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing. 25(3/4). pp251-264.

215

McCormack, D. (2008) Engineering affective atmospheres on the moving geographies of the 1897 Andre Expedition. Cultural Geographies. 15. pp413–430.

McIntosh, M. J. and Morse, J. M. (2015) Situating and constructing diversity in semi- structured interviews. Global Qualitative Nursing Research. 2. pp1-12.

McKinney, J. (2013) Scenography, Spectacle and the Body of the Spectator.

Performance Research. 18(3). pp63-74.

McNicholas, B. (2004) Arts, Culture and Business: A Relationship Transformation, a

Nascent Field. International Journal of Arts Management. 7(1). pp57-69.

Meegan, R. (2003) Urban regeneration, politics and social cohesion: The Liverpool case.

In: Munck, R. (ed.) Reinventing the City? Liverpool in Comparative Perspective. pp53-79.

Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

Meegan, R., Kennett, P., Jones, G. and Croft, J. (2014) Global economic crisis, austerity and neoliberal urban governance in England. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society. 7. pp137-153.

Meho, L. I. (2006) E-mail interviewing in qualitative research: A methodologic discussion.

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 5. pp1284–

1295.

Messy Lines (2018a) ‘Messy Lines goes to LightNight 2018.’ 19th May. [Online].

Available at: http://messylines.com/home/messy-lines-goes-to-light-night-2018/

[Accessed 18th May 2018].

Messy Lines (2018b) ‘Let’s Talk About: Liverpool’s Giant Dreams.’ 7th October. [Online].

Available at: http://messylines.com/home/lets-talk-about-liverpools-giant-dreams/

[Accessed 22nd October 2019].

Miles, S. (2010). Spaces For Consumption: Pleasure And Placelessness In The Post-

Industrial City. London: Sage.

Misener, L. (2013) Events and social capital. In: Finkel, R., McGillivray, D., McPherson,

D. and Robinson, P. (eds.) Research themes for events. pp18-30. Wallingford: CABI.

216

Mohan, G. and Mohan, J. (2002) Placing social capital. Progress in Human Geography.

26(2). pp191-210.

Molotch, H. (1976) The city as a growth machine: Toward a political economy of place.

American Journal of Sociology. 82(2). pp309-332.

Mooney, G. (2004) Cultural Policy as Urban Transformation? Critical Reflections on

Glasgow, European Capital of Culture 1990. Local Economy. 19(4). pp327-340.

Morey, Y., Bengry-Howell, A. and Griffin, C. (2011) Public Profiles, Private Parties: Digital

Ethnography, Ethics and Research in the Context of Web 2.0. In: Heath, S. and Walker,

C. (eds.) Innovations in Youth Research. pp195-209. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Morgan, M. (2007) Festival spaces and the visitor experience. In: Casado, D. M., Everett,

S. and Wilson, J. (eds.) Social and Cultural Change: Making Space(s) for Leisure and

Tourism. pp113-130. Brighton: Leisure Studies Association.

Moscardo, G. (2007) Analyzing the role of festivals and events in regional development.

Event Management. 11. pp23-32.

Murray, S. A., Kendall, M., Carduff, E., Worth, A., Harris, F. M., Lloyd, A., Cavers, D.,

Grant, L. and Sheikh, A. (2009) Use of serial qualitative interviews to understand patients’ evolving experiences and needs. British Medical Journal. 339(7727). pp958-960.

Murzyn-Kupisz, M. and Działek, J. (2013) Cultural heritage in building and enhancing social capital. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development.

3(1). pp35-54.

Museum of Liverpool. (2018) Our Shop and Café are both open late tonight for

#LightNight2018 with every purchase supporting National Museums Liverpool! Grab something […]. [Facebook]. 18th May. [Online]. Available at: https://www.facebook.com

/135169335951/posts/10155346144380952/?substory_index=0 [Accessed 6th March

2020].

Museums at Night. (2015) Manchester After Hours. [Online]. Available at: http://museumsatnight.org.uk/festival-resources/news/manchester-after- hours/#.WxUQq0xFxMs [Accessed 30th May 2018].

217

Museums at Night. (2017) About the Festival. [Online]. Available at: http://museumsatnight.org.uk/about-the-festival/#.Wh1AEUbLKJU [Accessed 20th

November 2017].

Mykletun, R. J. (2009) Celebration of Extreme Playfulness: Ekstremsportveko at Voss.

Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism. 9(2/3). pp146-176.

Négrier, E. (2015) Festivalisation: Patterns and limits. In: Newbold, C., Maughan, C.,

Jordan, J. and Bianchini, F. (eds.) Focus on festivals: Contemporary European case studies and perspectives. pp18-27. Oxford: Goodfellow.

Negus, K. (2002) The Work of Cultural Intermediaries and the Enduring Distance between Production and Consumption. Cultural Studies. 16(4). pp501-515.

Newman, A. (2004) Understanding the social impact of museums, galleries and heritage through the concept of capital. In: Gerard, C. (ed.) Heritage, Museums and Galleries: An

Introductory Reader. pp252-262. London: Routledge.

Nurse, A. (2017) City Centre Regeneration to Drive Economic Competitiveness? The

Case Study of Liverpool One. LHI Journal of Land, Housing and Urban Affairs. 8. pp91-

102.

Oatley, N. (1995) Competitive urban policy and the regeneration game. The Town

Planning Review. 66(1). pp1-14.

Oatley, N. (1998) Cities, Economic Competition and Urban Policy. London: Paul

Chapman.

O’Brien, D. (2010) ‘No cultural policy to speak of’ – Liverpool 2008. Journal of Policy

Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events. 2(2). pp113-128.

O’Brien, D. (2011) Who is in charge? Liverpool, European Capital of Culture 2008 and the governance of cultural planning. The Town Planning Review. 82(1). pp45-59.

O’Brien, D. and Miles, S. (2010) Cultural policy as rhetoric and reality: A comparative analysis of policy making in the peripheral north of England. Cultural Trends. 19(1). pp3–

13.

218

O’Callaghan, C. (2012) Urban anxieties and creative tensions in the European Capital of

Culture 2005: ‘It couldn’t just be about Cork, like’. International Journal of Cultural Policy.

18(2). pp185-204.

Olsen, C. S. (2013) Re-thinking festivals: A comparative study of the integration/marginalization of arts festivals in the urban regimes of Manchester,

Copenhagen and Vienna. International Journal of Cultural Policy. 19(4). pp481-500.

One Latin Culture. (2018) #LUMACreations & @olcproductions performance as part of

#lightnight18 in front of Metropolitan cathedral as one of the 11 best moments […].

[Twitter]. 22nd May. [Online]. Available at: https://twitter.com/olcproductions/status

/998856024021983232?s=19 [Accessed 20th July 2020].

Open Culture. (2012) LightNight Liverpool Festival Guide 2012.

Open Culture. (2015) LightNight Liverpool Festival Guide 2015.

Open Culture. (2017a) Be part of LightNight 2018: Transformation.

Open Culture. (2017b) Open Call: LightNight 2018 – Transformation Artist Commissions.

Open Culture. (2018a) LightNight Liverpool Festival Guide 2018.

Open Culture. (2018b) Be part of LightNight 2019: Ritual. [Online]. Available at: https://openculture.wufoo.com/forms/be-part-of-lightnight-2019-ritual/ [Accessed 10th

October 2018].

Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark. (2018) On Friday, Andy & Paul played a secret show at dot-art as part of LightNight Liverpool. John Petch (pictured here […]. [Facebook].

22nd May. [Online]. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/omdofficial/posts

/10155719495873651 [Accessed 6th March 2020].

Paddison, R. (1993) City Marketing, Image Reconstruction and Urban Regeneration.

Urban Studies. 30(2). pp339-350.

Parkinson, M. (1988) Urban Regeneration and Development Corporations: Liverpool

Style. Local Economy. 3. pp109-118.

219

Parkinson, M. (1989) The Thatcher Government’s urban policy, 1979-1989: A review.

Town Planning Review. 60(4). pp421-440.

Parkinson, M. (1990) Leadership and Regeneration in Liverpool: Confusion,

Confrontation, or Coalition? In: Judd, D. and Parkinson, M. (eds.) Leadership and Urban

Regeneration. pp241-257. Newbury Park, California: Sage.

Parkinson, M. and Bianchini, F. (1993) Liverpool: a tale of missed opportunities? In:

Bianchini, F. and Parkinson, M. (eds.) Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration: The West

Europe Experience. pp155-177. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Picard, D. (2016) The Festive Frame: Festivals as Mediators for Social Change. Ethnos.

81(4). pp600-616.

Picard, D. and Robinson, M. (2006) Festivals, tourism and change: remaking worlds.

Clevedon: Channel View.

Pinder, D. (2000) ‘Old Paris is no more’: geographies of spectacle and anti‐spectacle.

Antipode. 32(4). pp357-386.

Pine, J. and Gilmore, J. (1998) Welcome to the Experience Economy. Harvard Business

Review. 76. pp97-105.

Pine, J. and Gilmore, J. (1999) The Experience Economy: Work Is Theatre & Every

Business a Stage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Portes, A. (1998) Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology. Annual

Review of Sociology. 24. pp1-24.

Portes, A. (2000) The Two Meanings of Social Capital. Sociological Forum. 15(1). pp1-

12.

Portes, A. and Landolt, P. (2000) Social Capital: Promise and Pitfalls of its Role in

Development. Journal of Latin American Studies. 32. pp529-547.

Pratt, A. C. (2010) Creative Cities: Tensions within and between social, cultural and economic development. A critical reading of the UK experience. City, Culture and

Society. 1(1). pp13-20.

220

Pratt, A. C. and Hutton, T. (2013) Reconceptualising the relationship between the creative economy and the city: Learning from the financial crisis. Cities. 33. pp86-95.

Prior, L. (2008) Repositioning documents in social research. Sociology. 42(5). pp821-836.

Purdue, D. (2001) Neighbourhood Governance: Leadership, Trust and Social Capital.

Urban Studies. 38(12). pp2211-2224.

Putnam, R. (1995) Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital. Journal of

Democracy. 6(1). pp65-78.

Putnam, R. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.

New York: Simon and Schuster.

Qu, S. Q. and Dumay, J. (2011) The qualitative research interview. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management. 8(3). pp238-264.

Quinn, B. (2005) Arts Festivals and the City. Urban Studies. 42(5/6). pp927-943.

Quinn, B. (2010) The European Capital Culture Initiative And Cultural Legacy: An

Analysis of the Cultural Sector in the Aftermath of Cork 2005. Event Management. 13(4). pp249-264.

Quinn, B. (2013) Arts festivals, tourism, cities, urban policy. In: Stevenson, D. and

Matthews, A. (eds.) Culture and the City: Creativity, Tourism, Leisure. pp69-84. Oxon:

Routledge.

Quinn, B. and Wilks, L. (2013) Festival connections: people, place and social capital. In:

Richards, G., de Brito, M. P. and Wilks, L. (eds.) Exploring the Social Impacts of Events. pp15-30. London: Routledge.

Quinn, R-B. M. (1997) Distance or intimacy?—The arm's length principle, the British government and the arts council of Great Britain. International Journal of Cultural Policy.

4(1). pp127-159.

Raj, R. and Vignali, C. (2010) Creating Local Experiences of Cultural Tourism through

Sustainable Festivals. European Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and Recreation. 1(1). pp51-67.

221

Reason, M. and Garcia, B. (2007) Approaches to the newspaper archive: content analysis and press coverage of Glasgow’s Year of Culture. Media, Culture & Society.

29(2). pp304-331.

Reckitt, H. (2013). Because the Night: Curating One-Off Noctural Events. Art Papers.

May/June. pp42-45.

Reid, S. and Arcodia, C. (2002) Understanding the role of stakeholder in event management. Journal of Sport and Tourism. 7(30). pp20-22.

Reinharz, S. (1992) Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford.

Relph, E. (1976) Place and Placelessness. London: Pion.

Reynolds, G. (2008a) ‘Liverpool: European Capital of Culture.’ The Telegraph, 5th

January. [Online]. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3670288/Liverpool-

European-Capital-of-Culture.html [Accessed 23rd November 2018].

Reynolds, G. (2008b) ‘Sir Paul McCartney rocks Anfield stadium.’ The Telegraph, 2nd

June. [Online]. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/2063298

/Sir-Paul-McCartney-rocks-Anfield-stadium.html [Accessed 26th November 2018].

Richards, G. (2015) Festivals in the Network Society. In: Newbold, C., Maughan, C.,

Jordan, J. and Bianchini, F. (eds.) Focus on Festivals: Contemporary European Case

Studies and Perspectives. pp245-254. London: Goodfellow.

Rimmer, M. (2018) The art of survival: community-based arts organisations in times of austerity. Community Development Journal. pp1-18.

Rodwell, D. (2008) Urban Regeneration and the Management of Change: Liverpool and the Historic Urban Landscape. Journal of Architectural Conservation. 14(2). pp83–106.

Rokka, J. (2010) Netnographic inquiry and new translocal sites of the social. International

Journal of Consumer Studies. 34. pp381–387.

Rose, G. (2016) Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials. 4th ed. London: Sage.

222

Rubin, H. J. and Rubin, I. S. (2005) Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. 2nd ed. London: Sage.

Saldana, J. (2003) Longitudinal qualitative research: Analyzing change through time. New

York: AltaMira Press.

Sanders, H. T. (1998) Convention center follies. Public Interest. 132. pp58-72.

Sassatelli, M. (2011) Urban festivals and the cultural public sphere. Cosmopolitanism between ethics and aesthetics. In: Delanty, G., Giorgi, L. and Sassatelli, M. (eds.)

Festivals and the Cultural Public Sphere. pp12–28. London: Routledge.

Schaller, R. (2011). Planning and Navigational Assistance for Distributed Events. 2nd

Workshop on Context Aware Intelligent Assistance. Berlin, Germany, 4th October. pp44-

56.

Schoenberger, E. (1988) From Fordism to flexible accumulation: Technology, competitive strategies and international location. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 6. pp245-262.

Schulenkorf, N., Thomson, A. and Schlenker, K. (2011) Intercommunity Sport Events:

Vehicles and Catalysts for Social Capital in Divided Societies. Event Management. 15. pp105-119.

Scott, C. (2014) Legacy evaluation and London, 2012 and the Cultural Olympiad. Cultural

Trends. 23(1). pp7-17.

Scott, J. (1990) A Matter of Record: Documentary Sources in Social Research.

Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Sennett, R. (1970) The Uses of Disorder: Personal Identity and City Life. New York:

Knopf.

Sensor City. (2018) We’ve got a packed programme of exhibitors for #LightNight including @LJMUeRacingTeam who design, build and race single-seat, open-wheeled race cars […]. [Twitter]. 10th May. [Online]. Available at: https://twitter.com/SensorCityUK

/status/994523635363799042?s=19 [Accessed 20th July 2020].

223

Shaw, D., Sykes, O. and Fischer, B. (2009) Culture, Regeneration and Urban

Renaissance in Liverpool: Reflections of Liverpool’s experiences as ‘European Capital of

Culture’ in 2008. Raumplanung. 143. pp122-127.

Shaw, R. (1993) The Spread of Sponsorship: In The Arts, Sport, Education, The Health

Service And Broadcasting. Northumberland: Bloodaxe Books.

Shucksmith, M. (2000) Endogenous Development, Social Capital and Social Inclusion:

Perspectives from LEADER in the UK. Sociologia Ruralis. 40(2). pp208-218.

Sin, H. L. (2015) “You’re Not Doing Work, You’re on Facebook!”: Ethics of Encountering the Field Through Social Media. The Professional Geographer. 67(4). pp676-685.

Smith, A. (2012) Events and Urban Regeneration: The Strategic Use of Events to

Revitalise Cities. London: Routledge.

Smith, M. (2010) Arts funding in a cooler climate. Subsidy, commerce and the mixed economy of culture in the UK. London: Arts & Business.

Smith, N. (1982) Gentrification and Uneven Development. Economic Geography. 58(2). pp139–155.

Stake, R. E. (2000) Case Studies. In: Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.) Handbook of

Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. pp435-453. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stevens, Q. and Shin, H. (2014) Urban Festivals and Local Social Space. Planning

Practice & Research. 29(1). pp1-20.

Stevenson, N. (2016) Local festivals, social capital and sustainable destination development: Experiences in East London. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 24(7). pp990–1006.

Strom, E. (2002) Converting Pork into Porcelain: Cultural Institutions and Downtown

Development. Urban Affairs Review. 38(1). pp3-21.

Sumartojo, S. (2016) Commemorative atmospheres: Memorial sites, collective events and the experience of national identity. Transactions Of The Institute Of British

Geographers. 41(4). pp541-553.

224

Swain, N. (2003) Social Capital and its Uses. European Journal of Sociology. 44(2). pp185-212.

Sykes, O., Brown, J., Cocks, M., Shaw, D. and Couch, C. (2013) A City Profile of

Liverpool. Cities. 35. pp299-318.

Symons, J. (2016a) Shaping the Flow: Ethnographic Analysis of a Manchester Parade

Event. Ethnos. 81(4). pp697-711.

Symons, J. (2016b) Untangling creativity and art for policy purposes: ethnographic insights on Manchester International Festival and Manchester Day Parade. International

Journal of Cultural Policy. 24(2). pp1-15.

Tallon, A. (2013). Urban regeneration in the UK. London: Routledge.

Tellis, W. M. (1997) Introduction to Case Study. The Qualitative Report. 3(2). pp1-14.

The Bombed Out Church. (2018) Here’s one of our first fabulous traders that will be joining on Friday 18th May for LightNight meet the team at […]. [Facebook]. 25th April.

[Online]. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/events/813572592171617

/permalink/847616865433856/ [Accessed 6th March 2020].

The Guardian. (1985) ‘Kinnock rounds on left's militants.’ 2nd October.

The Guardian. (2003) ‘Liverpool named European Capital of Culture.’ 4th June. [Online].

Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/jun/04/communities

.politicsandthearts1 [Accessed 21st November 2018].

The Independent. (2003) ‘Liverpool named as European Capital of Culture.’ 4th June.

[Online]. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/liverpool- named-as-european-capital-of-culture-107516.html [Accessed 21st November 2018].

The Telegraph. (1981) ‘People in balaclavas were handing out petrol bombs.’ 7th July.

The Telegraph. (2003) ‘Liverpool wins European Capital of Culture bid.’ 4th June. [Online].

Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1431941/Liverpool-wins-European-

Capital-of-Culture-bid.html [Accessed 21st November 2018].

225

Thelwall, S. (2015) Benchmarking non-profit arts organisation business models: what it reveals about innovation in the face of austerity. Cultural Trends. 24(1). pp85-90.

Thomas, H. and Imrie, R. (1997) Urban Development Corporations and Local

Governance in the UK. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie. 88(1). pp53-

64.

Tmesis Theatre. (2018) Brilliant audience for our first performance, catch us again at

7,8,9 @LightNightLpool #walkingupright. [Twitter]. 18th May. [Online]. Available at: https://twitter.com/TmesisTheatre/status/997534418670637056?s=19 [Accessed 20th

July 2020].

Torche, F. and Valenzuela, E. (2011) Trust and reciprocity: A theoretical distinction of the sources of social capital. European Journal of Social Theory. 14(2). pp181-198.

Tretter, E. (2008) Scales, Regimes, and the Urban Governance of Glasgow. Journal of

Urban Affairs. 30(1). pp87-102.

Tzanakis, M. (2013) Social capital in Bourdieu’s, Coleman’s and Putnam’s theory: empirical evidence and emergent measurement issues. Educate. 13(2). pp2-23.

Unger, P. (2007) The flow of events. In: Wray, I (ed.) Mersey: The River that Changed the

World. pp120-129. Liverpool: Bluecoat Press.

Vainio, A. (2012) Beyond research ethics: anonymity as ‘ontology’, ‘analysis’ and

‘independence’. Qualitative Research. 13(6). pp685-698.

Valentine, G. (2008) Living with difference: reﬂections on geographies of encounter.

Progress in Human Geography. 32(3). pp323–337.

Vallely, P. (2008) ‘Only in Liverpool: The extrovert and quirky Liverpudlian spirit.’ The

Independent, 15th September. [Online]. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts- entertainment/art/features/only-in-liverpool-the-extrovert-and-quirky-liverpudlian-spirit-

930524.html [Accessed 26th November 2018].

Van Aalst, I. and van Melik, R. (2012) City festivals and urban development: Does place matter? European Urban and Regional Studies. 19. pp195-206.

226

Van Niekerk, M. and Getz, D. (2016) The Identification and Differentiation of Festival

Stakeholders. Event Management. 20. pp419-431.

Van Winkle, C., Bueddefeld, J., MacKay, K. and Halpenny, E. (2018) Engaging Festival

Audiences through Social Media. e-Review of Tourism Research.

Vincent, K. A. (2013) The advantages of repeat interviews in a study with pregnant schoolgirls and schoolgirl mothers: piecing together the jigsaw. International Journal of

Research & Method in Education. 36(4). pp341–354.

Waltl, C. (2006) Museums for visitors: Audience development – A crucial role for successful museum management strategies. Intercom Conference Paper.

Ward, D. (2006a) ‘City of tattered dreams.’ The Guardian, 9th March. [Online]. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/mar/09/communities

.europeancapitalofculture2008 [Accessed 22nd November 2018].

Ward, D. (2006b) ‘Resignation leaves capital of culture in disarray.’ The Guardian, 6th

July. [Online]. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/jul/06/communities

.europeancapitalofculture2008 [Accessed 11th September 2018].

Ward, D. (2008) ‘Ringo stars as Liverpool kicks off its year of culture.’ The Guardian, 12th

January. [Online]. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jan/12/mainsection

.uknews4 [Accessed 23rd November 2018].

Ward, K. (1996) Rereading urban regime theory: a sympathetic critique. Geoforum. 27(4). pp427-438.

Ward, S. (2005) Selling places: The marketing and promotion of towns and cities 1850-

2000. London: Routledge.

Wardrop, M. (2009) ‘Cities to compete for British culture capital status every four years.’

The Telegraph, 7th January. [Online]. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news

/4145229/Cities-to-compete-for-British-culture-capital-status-every-four-years.html

[Accessed 27th November 2018].

Warnaby, G. (2013) Synchronising retail and space: Using urban squares for competitive place differentiation. Consumption Markets & Culture. 16(1). pp25-44.

227

Warren, S. and Jones, P. (2015a) Introduction. In: Warren, S. and Jones, P. (eds.)

Creative Economies, Creative Communities. Rethinking Place, Policy and Politics. pp1-

22. London: Routledge.

Warren, S. and Jones, P. (2015b) Local governance, disadvantaged communities and cultural intermediation in the creative urban economy. Environment and Planning C:

Government and Policy. 33. pp1738-1752.

Waterman, S. (1998) Carnivals for elites? The cultural politics of arts festivals. Progress in Human Geography. 22(1). pp54-74.

Wiid, R. and Mora-Avila, P. (2018) Arts marketing framework: The arts organisation as a hub for participation. Journal of Public Affairs. 18(2). pp1-18.

Wiles, J., Rosenberg, M. and Kearns, R. (2005) Narrative analysis as a strategy for understanding interview talk in geographic research. Area. 37(1). pp89-99.

Wilks, L. (2011) Bridging and bonding: social capital at music festivals. Journal of Policy

Research in Tourism, Leisure & Events. 3(3). pp281-297.

Wilks-Heeg, S. (2003) From world city to pariah city? Liverpool and the Global Economy,

1850–2000. In: Munck, R. (ed.) The City in Transition? Liverpool in Comparative

Perspective. pp36–52. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

Wilks-Heeg, S. and North, P. (2004) Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration: a Special

Edition of Local Economy. Local Economy. 19(4). pp305-311.

Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E. and Roggenbuck, J. W. (1992) Beyond the Commodity

Metaphor: Examining Emotional and Symbolic Attachment to Place. Leisure Sciences.

14. pp29-46.

Williams, M. and Bowdin, G. (2007) Festival evaluation: An exploration of seven UK arts festivals. Managing Leisure. 12. pp187-203.

Wilson, G. (2014) Community resilience: path dependency, lock-in effects and transitional ruptures. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 57(1). ppp1-26.

Wilson, K., Whelan, G. and Crone, S. (2017) Evaluation of LightNight 2017: Executive

Summary. Liverpool: Institute of Cultural Capital. 228

Wintour, P. (2009) ‘In Liverpool's footsteps: now every city can aim to be Britain's capital of culture.’ The Guardian, 7th January. [Online]. Available at: https://www.theguardian. com/culture/2009/jan/07/british-capital-of-culture [Accessed 27th November 2018].

Wood, E. (2006) Measuring the social impacts of local authority events: A pilot study for a civic pride scale. International Journal of Non-Profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing. 11. pp165-179.

Wynn, J. R. Yetis-Bayraktar, A. (2016) The Sites and Sounds of Placemaking: Branding,

Festivalization and the Contemporary City. Journal of Popular Music Studies. 28(2). pp204-223.

Xu, W. and Saxton, G. (2019) Does Stakeholder Engagement Pay Off on Social Media?

A Social Capital Perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 48(1). pp28-49.

Yin, R. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and methods. 3rd ed. London: Sage.

Zukin, S. (1987) Gentrification: Culture and Capital in the Urban Core. Annual Review of

Sociology. 13(1). pp129-147.

Zukin, S. (1995) The Cultures of Cities. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Zukin, S. (2010). Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. New York:

Oxford University Press.

229

Appendix 1: Interview Request Flyer

230

231

Appendix 2: Pre-LightNight Interview Questions Example

232

233

Appendix 3: Post-LightNight Interview Questions Example

234

235

Appendix 4: Consent Form

236

Appendix 5: Research Participants Report

237

238

Appendix 6: LightNight Audience Survey

239

240