View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by OpenGrey Repository Which Cultural Policy? Whose Cultural Policy? Players and Practices in a Scottish Context Bridget McConnell Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Education Institute of Education University of Stirling March, 2009 LIST OF CONTENTS PAGE Acknowledgements (iii) Abstract (iv) Chapter 1 Introduction 1 : Historical Context 3 : Shifting Meanings of Culture 8 : The Symbiosis of Policy and Practice 11 Chapter 2 Literature Review 17 : What is Cultural Policy? 17 : Who are the Audiences for Cultural Policy? 18 : Economic Impacts 19 : The Social Policy Impacts 26 : Creating a Cultural Policy Academe 33 : Elisions and Outsiders 39 : Gaps in Cultural Policy Research 45 Chapter 3 Methodology 48 : The Research Perspective 48 : Setting the Scene 49 : Participants 50 : Instruments Used for Data Collection 55 : Design of Research 56 : Data Analysis 60 : Theoretical Perspectives 65 : Reflexivity 74 Chapter 4 Scotland’s Cultural Policy Community 79 : Introduction 79 Part One: Identity Construction in the Cultural Policy Community 81 : Citizens, Experts and Cultural Policy Heroes 81 : Status and Hierarchies 90 : Intertextuality: The Significance of ‘Others’ 95 Part Two: The Role of Narrative and Representation 104 : Fact, Fiction, Ficciones and the Self 105 : Imagery and Metaphors 110 : Representation of Social Event 116 Part Three: The Discourses of Cultural Policy 120 : Shared Knowledge, Understandings and Language 121 : Assumptions, Alignments and Aporias 124 i Chapter 5 Where Cultural Policy Is Made 135 : Introduction 135 Part One: Texts 135 : Genre Chains and the Movement of Meaning 136 : Perceptions, Opinions and Interpretations 142 : The Social Life of Texts 146 Part Two: Networks 152 : Trust, Membership and Social Capital 152 : Gossip 160 : Experience and Experiences 163 Part Three: Other Abstract Spaces 167 : State Space: Knowledge and Power 168 : The City and the Nation 172 : The Public Domain 174 Chapter 6 How Cultural Policy Is Made 179 : Introduction 179 Part One: Performances and the Production of Cultural Policy 179 : Performing in the Public Interest 179 : Mythologising 187 : The Artifice of Consensus 192 : Exchanges: Knowledge and Activity 196 Part Two: Practising Power 200 : Productive Misreadings and Acting Outside the Norm 201 : Knowledge, Desire and Becoming 212 : Smoothing Spaces 219 : Unintended Consequences and Unexpected Outcomes 226 : Accidental Happenings, Serendipity & the Incubation of Ideas 230 Chapter 7 Conclusions 234 : Reflections on My Research Experience 236 : Main Outcomes 242 : Implications for Practice and Research 246 References 256 Appendix 1 277 Appendix 2a 278 Appendix 2b 282 ii Acknowledgements The production of this thesis has in every sense been a marathon and the finishing line would never have been crossed without the assistance and indulgence of a number of people. Firstly, my principal supervisor, Professor Julie Allan whose non-negotiable quality standards, intelligent and engaging candour, combined with sage advice and adroitly timed encouragement, ensured that new routes round brick walls were divined and that this thesis was finally completed. In doing so, Professor Allan was ably assisted by my second supervisor, Dr. John I’Anson, who interpolated new perspectives and clarity into my often opaque and convoluted presentations. I am enormously grateful to them both. I am of course indebted to my fifteen interviewees whose time, commentary and insights made this thesis possible. You know who you are and I hope I have done justice to your generous and hugely appreciated contributions – and that you are comfortable with the pseudonyms I bestowed on you all. Having undertaken this doctoral thesis whilst continuing to work full-time has led me to a new appreciation of the word ‘challenging’! I am thankful to my work colleagues for their support and understanding and in particular Shirley Park who assisted me in transcribing over one hundred thousand words of taped interviews, and Jean Finlayson whose ICT skills made sure my writing was saved, filed, retrieved and presented appropriately. Thanks also to Cassy Livingstone and her colleagues at the Mitchell Library who managed my book and journal orders so timeously and effectively. iii I would also like to thank my long-suffering family and friends, who too many times have endured conversations dominated by the latest thesis crisis, holidays and social events curtailed or rearranged, whole rooms and even houses commandeered and stacked with research books and papers and consequently their good humour and patience severely tried! To them all, but especially my husband Jack, children Hannah and Mark, a heartfelt thank- you for all your forbearance and love. I could not have done it without you. iv Abstract This research is concerned with how cultural policy is made in contemporary Scotland. Focussed on deciphering and understanding the actions, behaviours, meanings and performances of those involved in cultural policy making and how a cultural policy community is created and maintained, a qualitative research approach was adopted. As such, the research is based on semi-structured interviews with fifteen key players from the cultural policy community The influence and application of a range of theoretical perspectives shaped my data analysis and research outcomes in significant ways, leading me away from an initial positivist approach - where I had hoped for a ‘cultural policy making toolkit’ to emerge from the data - to a more nuanced understanding of the complex and unpredictable dynamics at play in cultural policy making. In particular, writings broadly defined as within the postmodern camp - namely those of Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze and Guattari - provided the possibility of new paradigms for the discussion and understanding of cultural policy making, leading me to unexpected insights into cultural policy making processes. Key findings relate to the characters and their performances within the cultural policy community as well as the spaces where cultural policy is created. Firstly, the significance and impact of key players emerged as having less to do with their perceived status, influence or professional positions, than their ability to construct a ‘cultural policy’ identity, attune themselves to, engage with and affect an ever changing and fluid policy environment. Paradoxically, the data revealed that those who appeared at first sight to be the most powerful and influential often emerged as the least so. Notably, the most effective players seemed to be those who invested in their sense of self and social identities v and roles, clearly articulated values, principles and beliefs, bringing an authenticity to their performances in the cultural policy sphere. In addition these players demonstrated an almost intuitive understanding of the power of myth and storytelling in the construction of cultural policy. Similarly, the most significant cultural policy spaces were not where I had thought them to be - for example, public agency boards and political committees - but rather in the more amorphous spaces of gossip, ‘off-the-record’ comments, newspaper commentary and opinions, networks and the assumed meanings in both the said and unsaid. My data also reveal an active engagement in the ‘public domain’ by the cultural policy community, a space that is constructed and defined by meanings, signs and values - the substance and language of cultural policy. Finally, it is the performances of actors in the cultural policy spaces that bring cultural policy into being. The data disclose the power of speaking and writing in shifting and disrupting perceptions, views and interpretations, and in creating different spaces of encounter and creativity, leading to new understandings and unintended cultural policy directions. Indeed, my data suggest that it is more often than not the accidental happenings, productive outcomes of inadvertent actions, incubation of ideas and serendipity, that lead to the most effective and affective cultural policy outcomes - rather than the formulaic and process driven approaches required of local and national government and its agencies in the name of public accountability. The main implications of my research and recommendations for future action include: the desirability of wider dissemination of cultural policy research to practitioners, and an vi increase in practitioner-led research; recognition of the diversity and potential of atypical and informal cultural policy spaces; and the need for professional development opportunities and programmes to take cognisance of the latent resource inherent in practitioners who, with some encouragement, confidence-boosting and on occasion guidance in developing themselves as ‘readers’ of cultural policy discourse, could contribute to a more active and engaged cultural policy community. vii Chapter 1: Introduction This thesis presents the outcomes of my research into, and analysis of, the processes involved in establishing cultural policy at both national and local levels in Scotland. It has sought to identify how political and professional influences impact on cultural policy and how a cultural policy community is formed and maintained. Although my research questions were concerned primarily with the development of the Scottish Executive’s 2000 National Cultural Strategy and Cultural Policy development within Glasgow City Council since 1998, the primary focus of my research