Analysing Cultural Policy

8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy

1/36

ANALYSING CULTURAL POLICY: INCORRIGBLY PLURAL OR

ONTOLOGICALLY INCOMPATIBLE?*

CLIVE GRAY

Department of Public Policy

De Montfort University

Leicester LE1 9BH

United Kingdom

Email! c"g#dmu$ac$u%

&elep'one! ()**+ ()+11, -./ //0/

orld is cra2ier and more of it t'an 3e t'in%45ncorrigibly plural$ 5 peel and portion

6 tangerine and spit t'e pips and feel

&'e drun%enness of t'ings being various$

Louis Mac7eice (19,*4 p$ -,+
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/36

8My t'an%s to liver Bennett and Per Mangset for t'eir comments on an earlier

version of t'is paper4 and to :eir ;est'eim4 uestionsand to t'e anonymous revie3ers for t'eir criticisms

and support! responsibility for t'e final contents of it4 'o3ever4 rest 3it' me$


3/36

Abstract

6pproac'es to t'e study of cultural policy are currently tied to particular disciplines$

&'is can lead to a failure to appreciate t'e real differences bet3een t'ese disciplines in

terms of 3'at t'ey are investigating4 and 'o3 t'ey go about t'ese investigations$ &'e

differences t'at e?ist at ontological4 epistemological and met'odological levels

bet3een differing disciplines mean t'at it is not possible to simply adopt 3'at eac'

discipline is saying about cultural policy at face value$ it'out greater t'eoretical and

met'odological understanding of t'e tools t'at are available for t'e analysis of

cultural policy it is unli%ely t'at a more sop'isticated approac' to analysis 3ill be

generated$ &'e conse>uences of t'is for bot' t'e analysis of cultural policy and future

directions of analysis in t'e field are discussed$


4/36

Introduction

BennettAs (-))*+ cri de coeur concerning t'e incompatibilities t'at e?ist bet3een

different disciplinary4 t'eoretical and met'odological approac'es to3ards

understanding and analysing cultural policy identified a tension t'at is not sub"ect to

simple resolution or definitionalfiat$ &'at t'is tension is a real one can be seen in t'e

increasing number of publications t'at deal 3it' cultural policy4 many of 3'ic'

appear to be operating in a set of 'ermetically sealed analytical silos 3'ic' are

mar%ed by a degree of mutual incompre'ension 3'ere4 t'at is4 t'ey bot'er to pay

any attention to ot'er approac'es at all$ &'e lac% of understanding t'at is displayed

derives4 in t'e main from! a failure to compre'end t'e differences bet3een

met'odologies of analysis t'at are employed 3it'in and bet3een different disciplinesC

a failure to engage 3it' t'e broader literature arising from different disciplinesC and

t'e e?istence of stereotypical images concerning different t'eories4 disciplines4

ontologies4 epistemologies and met'odologies t'at are often4 at best4 misleading4 and4

at 3orst4 simply 3rong1$

&'e idea t'at seems to underlie many of t'ese failings is t'at t'ere is one trueA 3ay to

understand 3'at cultural policy is and 'o3 it may be analysed$ 6ny approac'es t'at

do not conform to t'is are4 conse>uently4 t'e e>uivalent of academic 'eresy and t'e

3riters of suc' 3or%s must be cast into t'e outer dar%ness and t'eir 3or%s can be

safely ignored because t'ey are >uite simply 3rong$ =uc' selfrig'teous arrogance

only ma%es sense if blin%ers are 3orn t'at cut analysis off from an acceptance of a

more open4 if not pluralist4 conception of alternative approac'es$ =tarting from suc'

an open position allo3s room to investigate 3'at t'e strengt's and 3ea%nesses of

differing approac'es to cultural policy researc' actually are$ Bennett (-))*+ clearly


5/36

identified some of t'e areas 3'ere positivist and interpretive met'ods of analysis are

as%ing different >uestions to eac' ot'er 3'ic' allo3 t'em to identify different points

of interest to t'ose 3it' an interest in cultural policy4 and e>ually t'ey identify areas

of 3ea%ness 3it'in ot'er analyses t'at limit t'eir opportunity to ans3er t'e >uestions

t'at are raised by alternative approac'es-$

6 modest proposal to address some of t'ese problems in t'e area of cultural policy

researc' 3ould involve an identification of t'e range of approac'es t'at tend to be

adopted to3ards t'e analysis of cultural policy itself$ n t'is basis t'e t'eoretical and

met'odological strengt's and limitations of differing approac'es could be more

clearly and analytically developed and4 it 3ould be 'oped4 t'is could correct some of

t'e grosser misappre'ensions concerning analysis t'at e?ist$ 6t t'e very least a greater

a3areness of t'e underlying ontological4 epistemological and met'odological bases

upon 3'ic' different approac'es to analysis rest could be developed4 and t'e potential

to not only permit t'e strengt's4 3ea%nesses and possibilities for current researc'4 but

also t'e development of ne3 pat'3ays for future analysis to pursue4 to be identified

(Hay4 -))-4 c's$ 1@C Moses Knutsen4 -))/+$ Earlier comparisons of approac'es to

t'e analysis of organisational sociology (Burrell Morgan4 19/9+ and t'e politics of

t'e state (6lford Friedland4 190.C Dunleavy ALeary4 190/+ 'ave demonstrated

t'e benefits of suc' an e?amination for clarifying t'e potential strengt's and

limitations of different t'eoretical startingpoints to t'e investigation of t'eir sub"ects

of study$ By e?tending t'is to t'e different disciplinary bases t'at 'ave been employed

in t'e analysis of cultural policy in t'e past a similar groundclearing e?ercise s'ould

be possible$


6/36

6n improved a3areness of t'e disciplinary bases t'at underpin different approac'es to

analysis s'ould also 'elp to limit t'e bifurcations 3it'in t'e sub"ect area t'at Bennett

(-))*+ identified4 3'ilst also 'ig'lig'ting t'ose areas 3'ere analysis can do more

t'an simply see t'ings from a different perspective$ :iven t'at t'ere are ma"or

differences bot' bet3een and 3it'in academic disciplines it is not t'e case t'at t'e

analyst can simply adopt t'e findings from one approac' (or set of approac'es+ and

apply t'em 3it'in a different ontological4 epistemological or met'odological setting$

5nstead a more rigorous and analyticallya3are approac' to analysis is li%ely to be

re>uired before effective lessons can be learned from t'e range of potential

approac'es t'at e?ist$

Comparing Approaches

&'ere are numerous 3ays in 3'ic' t'e proposed investigation could ta%e place$ &'e

comparisons of 6lford Friedland (190.+ and Dunleavy ALeary (190/+4 for

e?ample4 investigated t'e application of different t'eories to t'eir sub"ect of study$

Moses Knutsen (-))/+ and Burrell Morgan (19/9+4 on t'e ot'er 'and4 used

differing met'odologies t'at 'ad been employed to investigate social p'enomena as

t'eir basis for comparison$ 5n terms of t'e analysis of public policy in general =abatier

(-))/+ provides a comparison of bot' met'odologies and t'eories and models of t'e

policy process t'us combining bot' approac'es$

5n eac' case4 'o3ever4 t'e emp'asis is on a different set of >uestions t'an t'e current

paper is concerned 3it'$ &'e attempt to capture dominant vie3s and approac'es

3it'in particular academic disciplines inevitably tramples on t'e s'eer variety of eac'

discipline$ 5n t'e case of cultural studies4 for e?ample4 an attempt to develop a


7/36

co'erent overall picture of t'e sub"ect 3ould re>uire t'e ignoring of t'e substantial

differences bet3een t'e Foucaultian4 Habermasianand :ramscian approac'es and t'e

Britis' and 7ort' 6merican versions of it$ 6ny attempt to generalise 3ill be unfair to

some e?amples of 3or% 3it'in particular disciplines4 but failing to ma%e t'e effort to

do so 3ill simply leave t'e analysis of cultural policy in comparative limbo 3it' little

'ope of learning lessons from 3'at different disciplines can actually provide$

Unless analysts are 3or%ing from an purely inductive perspective (if suc' a t'ing

3ere possible+ t'eir 3or% 3ill al3ays be underpinned by a range of t'eoretical

assumptions t'at 3ill structure t'e >uestions t'at 3ill be as%ed4 'o3 t'ey 3ill be

as%ed4 and t'e s'ape of analysis t'at 3ould be re>uired to ans3er t'em@$ 'ile inter

disciplinary 3or% may provide an effective alternative to simply operating 3it'in t'e

constraints of any single approac' to analysis4 care must be ta%en to ensure t'at t'ere

is actually compatibility bet3een t'e structural c'aracteristics t'at t'e disciplines t'at

are involved display$ &'us4 attempts to utilise a neopluralist form of analysis from

political science in t'e conte?t of a rational c'oice perspective from economics 3ould

commit severe damage to bot' approac'es and 3ould not be capable of producing

anyt'ing ot'er t'an a t'eoretical and analytical mess$ Underlying t'eories are more

t'an simply a tasting menu 3'ere t'e analyst can pic% and c'oose bet3een 3'atever

attracts t'eir fancy4 and neit'er are t'ey simply an analytical toolbo? 3'ere t'e

researc'er is free to adopt 3'ic'ever piece of mac'inery or e>uipment is desired at

t'e instant*$

Bearing t'ese important strictures in mind4 t'e approac' t'at is adopted in t'is paper

re>uires some e?planation to demonstrate 3'y particular >uestions 'ave been


8/36

identified as being important for discussion$ &'ree areas of concern can be identified

as providing a basis for investigating t'e 3ays in 3'ic' particular disciplines

approac' %ey issues 3it'in t'e analysis of cultural policy!

Ho3 particular disciplines and approac'es attempt to define t'e essentially

contested concept (:allie4 19..G,C :ray4 fort'coming+ of cultureA$

Ho3 t'ey understand t'e idea of cultural policyA$

&'e dominant met'odologies t'at are employed in analysing cultural policy$

&'ese areas demonstrate t'at t'ere are real differences in understanding bet3een

different disciplines and t'at attempts to impose t'e preferences of one over t'e ot'ers

are li%ely to narro3 t'e potential for informative investigation$ :iven a tendency

to3ards a form of academic absolutism in some researc' (3it' definitive statements

about 3'at cultural policy4 and cultural policy researc'4 is and s'ould be.+ t'en an

acceptance and recognition t'at t'e field is 3ider t'an t'is opens t'e possibilities for

t'e development of multiple forms of analysis of multiple sub"ects of investigation$

:iven t'at cultureA is an essentially contested concept (:ray4 fort'coming4 discusses

t'e direct policy conse>uences of t'is+ capable of multiple definitions 3it' no

mec'anism for determining t'eir ade>uacy or accuracy4 t'en t'e manner in 3'ic' t'e

central 3ord in t'e sub"ect of analysis is defined assumes an importance t'at may not

be so evident for ot'er policy areas suc' as defence4 ta?ation or industrial policy4 eac'

of 3'ic' can be relatively unambiguously defined and identified$ 6 conse>uence of

t'is is t'at 'o3 different disciplines identify t'e sub"ect matter of cultural policyA 3ill

also need to be e?amined$ :iven t'at cultural policyA can be identified 4 from t'e

perspectives of sociology4 cultural studies4 political science4 urban planning and

economics4as including community cultural development4 cultural diversity4 cultural


9/36

sustainability4 cultural 'eritage4 t'e cultural and creative industries (rai%4 -))/+4

lifestyle culture and ecoculture (rai%4 -)).+4 planning for t'e intercultural city

(Bloomfield and Bianc'ini4 -))*+4 cultural planningper se(Evans4 -))1+4 support for

national languages (:ray Hugoson4 -))*+4 currently controversial issues in t'e

3ider societyA (Mc:uigan4 -)),4 p$ -)@+4 t'e culture 3arsA in t'e United =tates

(=ing'4 -))@4 especially c's$ 1-+4 t'e production of cultural citi2ensA (Le3is and

Miller4 -))@+4 as 3ell as being concerned 3it' representation4 meaning and

interpretationA (=cullion :arcia4 -)).4 p$ 11,+ and being a trans'istorical political

functionA (6'earne4 -))04 p$ -+ it is evident t'at 3'ile t'ere may be a lot of tal% about

cultural policy t'ere is no agreed4 clearly defined4 model of 3'at it actually consists

of$ &'is is important as t'e definition of 3'at t'e ob"ect of study is 'as a clear effect

on 'o3 it is to be studied! t'e tools to analyse and understand 3'ic'ever version of

cultural policy is employed need to be appropriate to t'e "ob in 'and (:ray4 199,+$

&'e e?tent to 3'ic' differences bet3een disciplines originate in different

understandings of 3'at t'ey see as t'e content of cultural policyA again points to t'e

need for an investigation of t'e meaning t'at is attac'ed to t'e title$

&'e t'ird >uestion to be e?amined concerning t'e met'odologies t'at are utilised by

t'e different disciplines in underta%ing analysis deals 3it' t'e >uestion of 'o3

%no3ledge is ac>uired about t'e sub"ect t'at is being investigated$ 6 simple

distinction can be dra3n bet3een positivist4 interpretivist and realist met'odologies in

t'is respect,4 and t'ese 3ill be used as t'e basis for t'e current discussion$ Different

disciplines inevitably 'ave 3it'in t'em e?amples of analysis based upon some4 if not

all4 of t'ese met'odologies but in general terms it 3ould appear t'at muc' of t'e

economics literature on cultural policy is positivist in nature4 muc' of t'e cultural


10/36

studies literature is interpretivist4 3'ile sociology and political science appear to be4

effectively4 more realist in scope$ &'e validity of t'is claim 3ill be discussed furt'er at

a later stage of t'e paper as 3ill t'e conse>uences of t'ese met'odological c'oices for

3'at can be satisfactorily investigated 3it'in eac' discipline$&'ese conse>uences are

important as t'ey mean t'at even if separate analyses are focused on t'e same topic

t'e manner in 3'ic' it 3ill be investigated can be suc' t'at t'ere is no simple basis on

3'ic' to compare t'e findings/$

&'e findings4 limitations and guides to furt'er researc' t'at eac' discipline identifies

are all affected by t'e c'oices of met'odology t'at are made by t'e analysts

concerned$ 5t is evident given t'e s'eer variety of findings4 met'odologies and areas

of analysis t'at are to be found across t'e disciplines involved t'at none of t'e

disciplinary approac'es t'at are adopted for analysis 'as all of t'e ans3ers to t'e

entire range of >uestions t'at may be as%ed of t'em! eac' discipline is effectively

operating 3it'in selfcontained arenas of analysis t'at ma%e little effective use of t'e

possibilities t'at are available 3it'in ot'er disciplines$ &'is problem e?tends far

beyond >uestions of simple met'odological difference and ultimately concern matters

of ontology and epistemology$ &o t'is e?tent it is unli%ely to be t'e case t'at analysts

can simply c'oose bet3een t'e interesting t'ings t'at differing disciplines 'ave to

offer eac' ot'er and unambiguously apply t'ese to t'eir o3n 3or%$ 5nstead analysts

need to develop a clearer picture of 3'at t'e possibilities for investigation are 3it'in

particular frame3or%s of analysis in t'e first place4 and it is only by understanding

3'at different disciplines actually offer t'at t'is can be developed 0$6n e?amination of

t'e cultural policy literature demonstrates t'at it is4 at least4 a multidisciplinary

endeavour! t'e follo3ing 'ave all been used in t'eir o3n 3ays to analyse dimensions


11/36

of cultural policy in t'e past and t'ere are probably ot'ers t'at t'e current aut'or 'as

simply not4 as yet4 come across! aest'etics4 ant'ropology4 cultural studies4 economics4

geograp'y4 'eritage studies4 'istory4 literary studies4 museum studies4 musicology4

p'ilosop'y4 planning4 political science4 sociology and urban studies$ &'e current paper

concentrates on only four of t'ese cultural studies4 economics4 political science and

sociology in an attempt to limit t'e argument to an appropriate lengt'$

Defining Culture

5f cultureA is an e?ample of an essentially contested concept t'en it s'ould be

anticipated t'at t'ere 3ill be multiple definitions of t'e 3ord to be found in t'e

literature$ 5t 3ould also be e?pected t'at t'ere 3ill be no unambiguous met'od4 and

certainly no empirical met'od4 available for determining t'e ade>uacy4 or ot'er3ise4

of t'ese definitions (:allie4 19..G,+$ &o t'is e?tent t'ere is no particular reason to

simply list t'e different definitions t'at are employed 3it'in differing disciplines!

3'at is potentially more useful is to demonstrate 'o3 t'ese definitions affect 3'at is

seen to be 3ort' studying 3it'in t'ese disciplines 3'en culturalA issues are at sta%e$

&'e multiplicity of definitions t'at 'ave been offered 3it'in eac' of t'e disciplines

being e?amined 'ere certainly contributes to t'e idea t'at cultureA is essentially

contested! none of t'e disciplines involved 'as a single definition contained 3it'in it

to 3'ic' all of its practitioners ma%e reference$ Iegardless of t'is4 'o3ever4 t'ere do

appear to be certain tendencies 3it'in t'e disciplines to give greater emp'asis to some

definitions rat'er t'an ot'ers$ &'us4 alt'oug' it is recognised t'at variants e?ist 3it'in

eac' discipline t'e common ground t'at seems to e?ist 3it'in eac' is 3'at 3ill be

discussed 'ere$


12/36


13/36


14/36

different notions of 3'at t'e culturalA actually consists of$ ne version of t'is is

concerned 3it' cultureA as a set of meanings4 symbols and structures (6le?ander4

-)),+ and involves a particular form of sociological (if not semiotic+ analysis$ 6

second version is t'at cultureA consists of particular arenas of action associated 3it'

particular goods andGor activities t'at are limited to4 for e?ample4 t'e arts4 cultural

industries and media sectorsA (Bennett4 -))/4 p$ @-+ (for e?ample4 involving t'e study

of culturalA consumption patterns amongst particular social groups as 3it' Bourdieu4

199@4 or t'e more recent Britis' ultural apital and =ocial E?clusionA pro"ect4 see

Bennett =ilva4 -)),+$ 6 t'ird version tends to conflate cultureA and social life4 3it'

no meaningful distinction bet3een t'e t3o(Bennett4 -))/4 p$ @-+$ &'is 3ould seem to

be similar to t'e 3ay of lifeA definition from illiams 3'ere culture is decidedly

ordinaryA even if 3'at it actually consists of is utterly opa>ue! at t'e 3orst cultureA

simply becomes so allinclusive t'at t'ere is no 3ay of determining 3'at ma%es

somet'ing specifically culturalA at all(see t'e comments on t'is in Bennett4 -))/4 p$

@-+$

5n t'e case of economics t'e greatest amount of 3or% in t'e area of cultural policy

deals 3it' t'e specific topic of arts economics (more recent e?amples of t'is being

AHagan4 1990C Frey4 -))@+$ Even 3'ile an increasing number of boo%s are appearing

t'at carry t'e 3ords cultureA and economicsA toget'er in t'e title t'ey tend to be

largely concerned 3it' t'e arts as t'eir sub"ect of en>uiry (see Heilbrun and :ray4

199@C o3en4 1990C &o3se4 199/a4 199/b4 -))@+$ 5ndeed4 &o3se (199/a4 p$ ?iii+

actually says t'e field of cultural economics4 previously %no3n as t'e economics of

t'e artsA indicating t'at t'e t3o are effectively synonymous alt'oug' going on to

argue (199/4 p$ ?v+ t'at culture is about s'ared norms of be'aviour and valuesA and


15/36

t'at t'ese are areas beyond t'e purvie3 of economics$ ultural goods4 'o3ever4 are

seen as being susceptible to economic analysis and t'ese goods are c'aracterised by

t'eir containing a creative or artistic elementA (&o3se4 -))@4 p$ -+$ &'rosby (-))14 pp$

@*+ repeats t'is distinction by identifying t3o uses of cultureA! t'e s'ared beliefs4

values and practices of societal groups (as in t'e illiams ant'ropologicalA version+

and4 secondly4 as a set of activities and t'e products of t'ose activities 3'ic' are

concerned 3it' t'e intellectual4 moral and artistic aspects of 'uman lifeA (&'rosby4

-))14 p$ *+$ 'ere &'rosby differs from &o3se is t'at bot' of t'ese versions of

culture are seen as being capable of being analysed (and are+ t'roug' t'e tools of

economic analysis$

learly t'ere is some commonality bet3een t'e disciplines in 'o3 t'ey generally tend

to define t'e core concept of cultureA$ 5n eac' of t'em a vie3 of culture as a form of

social glue t'at provides a common frame3or% of understandings for t'e members of

society to organise and interact around is present$ t'er versions of culture do e?ist4

'o3ever4 and it 3ould be a mista%e to overloo% t'ese variants as t'ey point to >uite

distinct ideas about 3'at a culture is and 3'at it does4 and 'o3 it may be used or lived

in 'uman terms$ &'e attempt to provide an overarc'ing version of cultureA t'at can

be found 3it' bot' t'e number one "ournal in t'e 3orld t'at deals 3it' cultural policy

(Dea%in University4 -))0+ (t'eInternational Journal of Cultural Policy (5


16/36

ant'ropologicalA versions of culture derived from illiams (19,1+4 indicating a

some3'at plural conception of 3'at cultureA can be ta%en to mean$

5t may seem t'at t'e analysis of cultural policy 3ould appear to be relatively

problematic in t'is instance! if eac' discipline 3ere actually tal%ing about t'e same

ob"ect of study (3'ic' t'ey are not+ t'en it s'ould be conceivable t'at a common

strategy for analysing t'e policies t'at are associated 3it' t'at ob"ect could be

developed$ 5n practice t'is 'as not occurred4 primarily because of t'e e?istence of

significant differences 3it'in4 let alone bet3een4 disciplines as to 3'at t'e ob"ect of

study actually is$ &'is definitional issue can be seen to generate differences in t'e

underlying ontological bases (or4 alternately4 is generated by t'ese differences+ t'at

underpin t'em4 and also4 conse>uentially4 to generate met'odological differences in

terms of 'o3 to underta%e analysis 3it'in different disciplines$ =ome of t'ese

differences can be more easily seen 3'en t'e approac'es t'at are ta%en in different

disciplines to cultural policyA (rat'er t'an "ust cultureA+ are investigated$

What is Cultural Policy?

&'e s'eer variety of forms of cultural policy t'at e?ist (:ray4 fort'coming+ indicates

t'at t'ere are li%ely to be many 3ays of analysing t'e p'enomenon concerned$ 6s

3it' defining cultureA t'e approac'es t'at 'ave tended to be adopted by different

disciplines place t'e emp'asis on a variety of policy practices and4 even 3'ere t'ere

are underlying similarities in 3'at is identified as being 3ort'y of study in t'is field4

t'e implied 3ays in 3'ic' t'ese ob"ects are to be studied4 analysed and understood

demonstrate clear differences bet3een disciplines as 3ell as 3it'in t'em$


17/36

5n t'e case of cultural studies t'e normal division t'at is presented is bet3een

approac'es t'at are derived from particular readings of :ramsci and Foucault$ 'at

gets investigated and 'o3 it gets analysed are clearly affected by t'e c'oices t'at are

made in t'is respect$ 5t s'ould also be noted4 'o3ever4 t'at t'ere is a t'ird approac'

3it'in cultural studies t'at derives from approac'es t'at concentrate on tec'ni>ues

from literary (or even psyc'oanalytic+ studies (being concerned 3it' readingA t'e

te?ts t'at are available+ (see Mc:uigan :ilmore4 -))-+$ 5n practice t'is tendency

'as favoured critical practices developed from t'e study of literature4 particularly in

t'e field of e?amining cultureA as recorded e?perience (once again generating te?tsA

for analysis+4 3it' t'e :ramsciGFoucault distinction being developed as an e?pressly

politicised reaction to t'is (Bennett4 199,4 1990+$

&'e division bet3een t'e :ramscian and Foucaultian strands of cultural policy

researc' in cultural studies is effectively one bet3een an emp'asis on ideology and

'egemony on t'e one 'and and t'e notion of governmentality on t'e ot'er$ ;ariants

around t'ese basic startingpoints do e?ist (Mc:uiganAs (199,4 -))*+ Habermasian

influenced approac'4 for e?ample+ but t'ese still tend to address t'e same distinctions

of focus$ 6t t'e e?tremes t'e :ramscian variant can be argued to adopt a populistA

agenda4 3'ere bottomup forms of cultural creation become identified 3it' a radical

form of resistance to dominant 'egemonic forces 3it'in society (Mc:uigan4 199-C

Hall uences for

causes 3'ere t'e creation of compliant4 managed individuals1)becomes t'e reason for

cultural policies rat'er t'an t'e outcome of t'em4 3'ic' is4 apart from being

teleological4 as Bennett (-))*4 p$ -@0+ notes4 a some3'at paranoid formulationA$


18/36

'ile t'ese e?tremes are overdra3n t'ey do identify t'e dominant arenas for

analysis 3it'in t'e t3o most common 3ings of t'e cultural studies approac'$ &'e

:ramscian 3ing concentrating on t'e meanings t'at are attac'ed to particular forms

of be'aviour and e?pression by t'e participants 3it'in t'em4 and t'e Foucaultian on

t'e imputation of meaning to be'aviours and e?pressions underta%en by ot'ers$ 5n

bot' cases4 'o3ever4 t'e ability of t'e analyst to identify t'e trueA meanings t'at are

attac'ed to t'ese t'ings depends upon t'eir ability to readA 3'at policies and t'eir

associated practices actually e?ist for$ 5t is t'is t'at connects t'ese dominant cultural

studies approac'es to policy bac% to forms of literary criticism4 3it' t'e educated and

s%illed critic being able to identify 'idden dept's to policy t'at t'e superficial

readings of ot'ers may not be able to compre'end11$ 6t t'is level cultural policyA

becomes a series of te?tsA t'at are sub"ect to t'e interpretations of t'e individual

analyst rat'er t'an a set of concrete organisational practices to be analysed4 even if t'e

latter are somet'ing t'at t'e policy s'ift in cultural studies 3as intended to address

(Bennett4 199,4 pp$ @)/0+$

&'is approac' is mar%edly different to t'at adopted by political science$ 'ilst t'e

content and significance of te?tsA is recognised 3it'in political science t'e general

approac' to t'e analysis of cultural policy tends to ta%e rat'er different forms (:ray4

fort'coming+$ 5n t'e first instance cultural policy can be simply seen as t'e range of

activities t'at governments underta%e or do not underta%e in t'e arena of cultureA$

&'e array of activities t'at governments deem 3ort'y of supporting can also be seen

to provide an image of t'e underlying values andGor ideologies t'at governments

support4 and are certainly t'e product of political c'oices amongst a range of potential

forms and levels of support t'at governments can provide$ 5n t'is form of analysis


19/36

cultural policy is simply 3'atever it is t'at governments say it is4 leading to a range of

countryspecific sets of actions4 organisations and c'oices as t'e focus of study (:ray4

199,4 pp$ -1*.+$

6 more comple? line of analysis can be seen4 'o3ever4 if t'e focus s'ifts from 3'at

governments label as being cultural policyA to one 3'ere cultural policy is defined as

being t'e actions t'at a state $$$ ta%e(s+ t'at affect t'e cultural life of its citi2ensA

(Mulca'y4 -)),4 p$ -,/+1-$ &'is broader version moves attention to3ards a range of

activities suc' as media and education policies t'at may not normally be

considered by governments t'emselves as being a part of t'eir o3n cultural policies

(see4 for e?ample4 t'e European Parliament (-)),+ report on state financing and

e?penditure in t'e cultural sector in European Union member states 3'ic' effectively

e>uated t'e artsA 3it' cultureA4 and cultural policy 3it' arts policy4 rat'er t'an 3it'

any 3ider notions of a public culture4 or4 indeed4 of any ot'er forms of cultural policy

3'atsoever+$

'ile t'e general focus in eit'er case tends to lie 3it' t'e actions and c'oices of

governments and public sector agencies t'ere is not'ing to say t'at t'ese serve as t'e

absolute limits to political science investigations of cultural policyA4 even if most of

t'e 3or% t'at is being underta%en 3it'in t'e discipline tends to stay 3it'in t'em$ 5n

t'is respect some learning from t'e cultural studies tradition4 3'ic' generally 'as a

muc' 3ider conception of t'e field4 may open up ne3 fields of en>uiry for political

scientists$ ertainly a concentration on t'e cultural component of governmental

policies t'at are not normally considered to be culturalA 3ould 3iden t'e political

perspective to t'e analysis of policy$


20/36

=ociological approac'es to cultural policy tend to be relatively underdeveloped4 3it'

muc' of t'e 3or% in t'e field of cultural sociology tending to be eit'er t'e

semiological analysis of individual and group meaning formation and usage

(6le?ander4 -)),+4 or t'e development of 3or% 3it'in t'e sociology of t'e arts

(6le?ander4 -))@+4 3it' neit'er paying a great deal of attention to policy issues in a

broader sense$ 'ere policyA does arise it appears to be related largely to t'e cultural

studies literature use of t'e term (3it' cultural policyA being roug'ly concerned 3it'

Mulca'yAs public cultureA+ (for e?ample4


21/36

3'ic' are utilised as a part of general governmental economic policy (suc' as ta?ation

policies+ to t'e case of various specific issues of cultural production (see4 for

e?ample4 AHagan4 1990C Frey4 -))@C &o3se4 199/4 -))@+$ 5n t'is respect t'e focus is

on t'e concrete economic policies t'at governments create and utilise for cultural

purposes or 3it'in t'e cultural arena4 rat'er t'an 3it' t'e cultural content of t'ese

policiesper se$

6 second t'eme4 'o3ever4 derives from t'e normative >uestions of 3'et'er state

involvement in creating and managing economic policies for t'e arts and cultural

matters is appropriate4 and normally involves t'e consideration of t'e public or merit

good status of t'e arts and culture4 or broader concerns 3it' >uestions of cultural

valueper se(o3en4 1990C &'rosby4 -))1+$ &'is argument is of a different nature to

t'ose t'at are commonly found in ot'er approac'es to t'e analysis of cultural policy

as it e?plicitly raises concerns about t'e underlying valuesystems t'at can be used to

"ustify4 or not "ustify4 state action in t'e field$ 'ile suc' normative concerns can also

be found 3it'in political p'ilosop'y and political science4 t'e attention t'at it receives

3it'in economics is noticeable4 not least for t'e s'eer vituperativeness of t'e

arguments t'at it can generate$

6s 3it' t'e issue of 'o3 cultureA is defined across t'e disciplines t'ere are some

similarities bet3een t'em in terms of 'o3 cultural policy itself is understood$ ne

general vie3 is t'at a %ey component of t'is understanding is concerned 3it' 3'at

governments actually do in terms of t'e policies t'at t'ey pursue4 even t'oug' t'ere is

no general agreement as to 3'et'er t'is simply incorporates 3'at governments

t'emselves define as cultural policiesA or 3'et'er is e?tends more broadly to t'e


22/36

cultural content of any policies t'at governments produce4 3'et'er e?plicitly

culturalA or not (6'earne4 -))0C Mulca'y4 -)),+$ &'ere is also a secondary vie3 of

cultural policy t'at is concerned 3it' t'e role of private sector4 religious and voluntary

organisations (as 3ell as individuals and general civil society groups+ in t'e field of

culture$ &'e developing interest in t'is arena of concern particularly in ant'ropology

and sociology may not be particularly ne3 as it 'as been a mainstay of cultural

'istorians for some time (see4 for e?ample4 see Bre3er4 199/C Bur%e4 -))0C Blanning4

-))-C Bas'ford Langley4 -)))C Blac%4 -)).+ but it serves to 3iden t'e scope of

cultural policy analysis beyond t'e relatively narro3 confines of state action andGor

inaction$ 5n bot' cases4 'o3ever4 t'e manner in 3'ic' t'e analysis of t'ese concerns is

to be underta%en is4 per'aps not surprisingly4 potentially open to a variety of

met'odologies t'at 'ave been developed for t'e specific disciplinary and analytical

approac'es t'at 'ave been adopted by researc'ers in t'e field$

Methodologies of Analysis

&'e division bet3een positivist4 interpretivist and realist met'odologies identified

earlier in t'is paper forms t'e startingpoint for t'e current discussion but alternatives

to t'is can e>ually be provided$ 'ile t'e general points about definitional positions

3it'in differing disciplines t'at 3ere made earlier caused some damage to specific

e?amples 3it'in eac' of t'em4 a general discussion of met'odology is li%ely to create

muc' more$ &'e general claim t'at muc' of t'e economics literature derives from a

positivist position4 t'e cultural studies literature from an interpretivist position4 and

sociology and political science from more realist positions is debatable and 'o3

eac' of t'e disciplines 3ould deal 3it' t'is claim 3ould probably be rat'er

enlig'tening in t'is respect but it is intended to serve as an indication of broad


23/36

similarities and differences 3it'in and bet3een disciplines rat'er t'an as a definitive

statement of t'e met'odological propensities of eac' discipline$

5n t'e case of bot' cultural studies and economics t'ere appears to be a clear

met'odological preference t'at is t'en capable of being used for all analysis 3it'in

t'e disciplines concerned$ it' cultural studies t'is preference is found in a distinctly

interpretive and >ualitative set of approac'es (for e?ample4 see 6lasuutari4 199.C

Murdoc%4 199/+ t'at is often allied 3it' a particular set of political preferences (see4

for an e?planation and an e?ample of t'is4 =tevenson4 -))*+$ 5n t'e case of

economics4 as an alternative4 a >uantitative and distinctly positivist cast of mind

concerned 3it' decidedly empirical concerns is a core c'aracteristic (see Frey4 -))@4

pp$ ,0+$ &'e reason for vie3ing sociology and political science as in'abiting a more

realist frame lies in t'e s'eer multiplicity of approac'es t'at eac' discipline

encompasses! bot' cover t'e gamut of potential approac'es from positivist to

interpretivist to social constructivist to normative 3it' t'e c'oice of met'odology to

be pursued being effectively determined by t'e >uestions t'at t'e analyst 3is'es to

pursue (3it' t'is being itself a core feature of met'odological realism! see =ayer4

-)))4 p$ 19+$ &'is cat'olicity of approac' allo3s for t'e potential development of a

3ide range of e?planations for particular cultural policies in bot' t'e sociological and

political science literature4 3it' t'e c'oice bet3een t'ese e?planations being a

conse>uence of 'o3 3ell t'ey ans3er t'e >uestions t'at t'e analyst 'as posed$

ertainly sociology and political science 3ould appear to ma%e use of a muc' 3ider

range of met'odological strategies t'an are commonly to be found in cultural studies

and economics$


24/36

learly t'ese differences at t'e met'odological level give rise to >uite distinct

understandings of 3'at cultural policies e?ist for4 'o3 and 3'y t'ey are created4

implemented and evaluated4 and 3'at lessons can be learned from t'e analysis of

particular policies (Iose4 199@+$ 6s suc' an a3areness of t'e precise met'odologies

t'at are employed in t'e study of cultural policies is re>uired to provide a basis for

understanding 3'at in particular 'as been uncovered by different analysts employing

different tools4 rat'er t'an a generalised summary of broad tendencies 3it'in t'e

disciplines$

5f it is accepted t'at eac' met'odology gives rise to findings t'at are not discoverable

by t'e use of ot'er approac'es to analysis t'en furt'er benefits may also be attainable$

6t t'e very least t'e development of a 3ider conception of cultural policy concerns

can be gained simply by e?amining t'e results of researc' underta%en t'roug' t'e use

of t'e met'ods of ot'er disciplines (or4 indeed4 different met'odologies 3it'in t'e

same discipline+$ 6 failure to recognise t'at t'e perceived 3ea%nesses of disciplines

are often to do 3it' t'e met'odologies t'at t'ey employ rat'er t'an t'e disciplines

t'emselves may also serve to limit t'e unfair criticisms of ot'er disciplines t'at are

sometimes made 3it'in t'e cultural policy field1@$ 5f it is accepted t'at no one

discipline 'as a monopoly of %no3ledge 3it'in t'e field of cultural policy analysis4

and if it is also accepted t'at met'odological differences e?ist bet3een4 and 3it'in4

disciplines in terms of 3'at t'ey are studying and 'o3 t'ey go about studying it t'en4

potentially at least4 a 3ider understanding of t'e entirety of t'e field of cultural policy

analysis could be developed$


25/36

&'e e?tent to 3'ic' t'is is a real issue 3it'in t'e 3orld of cultural policy analysis can

be demonstrated in t'e identification4 developed from bibliometric analysis of articles

in he International Journal of Cultural Policy4 of distinct sc'ools of approac' to t'e

sub"ect based around t'e creative industries4 cultural planning and cultural cities4

democracy4 t'e public sp'ere and culture4 and traditionalA cultural policy in bot'

Britis' and Frenc' variants (Frenander4 -))0+$ &'e strengt' of disciplinary boundaries

in academic researc' is li%ely to 'ave some impact in creating and reinforcing suc'

trends in so far as cultural economists 3riting for ot'er cultural economists in he

Journal of Cultural !conomics4 or cultural sociologists 3riting in Cultural "ociology

for ot'er cultural sociologists4 for e?ample4 are not particularly concerned 3it' 'o3

ot'er disciplines approac' similar issues as t'at is not t'eir prime audience (see t'e

discussion in Bec'er &ro3ler4 -))1 concerning academic tribalism+$ 5n t'is respect

t'ere is a selfgenerating academic purda' at play t'at may limit t'e attempt to t'in%4

and analyse4 more 3idely$ 6 conscious effort to develop beyond t'e limits of

individual disciplines 3ould4 potentially4 be of benefit for a 3ider understanding of

cultural policy t'an t'ese individual disciplines may provide$

Concluding Comments

&'is paper is only a preliminary e?amination of a sub"ect t'at s'ould be of

considerable concern for all t'ose toiling in t'e fields of cultural policy researc'$ &'e

s'eer variety of 3or% t'at can contribute to an understanding of cultural policy

matters raises a range of >uestions about appropriate met'odologies for analysing

3'at may appear to be4 at first sig't at least4 a common sub"ect of investigation$ &'e

differences bet3een disciplines in terms of 'o3 t'ey understand 3'at it is t'at t'ey

are investigating4 as 3ell t'e differences bet3een t'em in terms of t'eir preferred


26/36

met'odologies4 means t'at t'ere are some serious ontological and epistemological

concerns 3it' ma%ing use of t'e findings from one discipline in t'e conte?t of

anot'er$ 5t is certainly not t'e case t'at analysts can simply pic% and c'oose from t'e

range of met'odologies and researc' findings t'at are available 3it'out being a3are

of t'ese t'eoretical issues and 'o3 t'ey can serve to constrain t'e potential pat's to

analysis t'at are available to t'e analyst$

5n terms of t'e title of t'is paper it is certainly t'e case t'at t'ere is an incorrigibly

plural range of approac'es t'at canbe ta%en to t'e analysis of cultural policy and it

is e>ually t'e case t'at t'ere is no mec'anism for determining 3'et'er any of t'ese

approac'es are4 in some absolute sense4 betterA or 3orseA t'an any ot'ers$ &'e

decisions about 3'ic' disciplinary approac' and 3'ic' set of met'odological tools

3ill be adopted is4 in a realist sense4 determined by t'e sub"ect matter t'at t'e analyst

intends to investigate and t'e sorts of >uestions t'at t'e analyst 3is'es to as%$ &'e fact

t'at t'ese c'oices can e>ually serve to close off ot'er forms of analysis from

investigation indicates t'at t'ere isan element of incompatibility bet3een disciplines

and approac'es$ 'at 3ould be a loss to t'e analysis of cultural policy 3ould be to

allo3 t'ese considerable differences bet3een forms of analysis to lead to a continued

neglect of t'e researc' t'at is being underta%en using different tools and deriving from

different disciplinary bac%grounds t'at can be learnt from4 even if it cannot directly be

adopted for immediate use$ 6 better understanding of t'e underlying t'eoretical4

definitional and met'odological issues t'at t'is paper 'as indicated may be of greater

use to t'e analysis of cultural policy t'an t'e continued demarcation bet3een

disciplines and t'e continued failure to step outside of disciplinary boundaries t'at

appears to be becoming ever more deeply entrenc'ed$


27/36

6t t'e very least researc'ers may need to become far more t'eoretically and

met'odologically sop'isticated t'an t'ey currently are if t'e range of findings t'at are

being produced from differing disciplinary perspectives are to be made effective use

of$ Unless or until cultural policy becomes a distinct discipline in itself 3'ic' 3ould

re>uire a great deal more specific t'eoretical development t'at is e?plicitly directed at

t'e sub"ect of study t'an is currently ta%ing place t'en analysts are left to ma%e use

of t'e particular tools t'at are available to t'em from particular disciplinary conte?ts$

'et'er t'e development of suc' a specific disciplinary endeavour as cultural

policyA is necessary is anot'er >uestion altoget'er$ &'e strengt's of t'e current

plurality of disciplines and met'odologies t'at are employed in t'e analysis of cultural

policy include t'e development of forms of analysis t'at build on t'e essentially

contested nature of t'e core concept cultureA t'at is involved4 allo3ing t'e

potential to capture at least t'e multiple forms and dynamics of policy t'at are

contained 3it'in it4 rat'er t'an closing analysis do3n into more restrictive boundaries$

6longside t'is4 t'e development of policy ideas and models t'at derive directly from

t'e practice and study of cultural policy itself (suc' as policy attac'ment (:ray4 -))-+4

ritual cultural policy (Ioyseng4 -))0+and e?plicitGimplicit policies (6'earne4 -))0++

rat'er t'an being simply t'e transposition of ideas and models from different

particular4 individual4 disciplines to t'e cultural field demonstrates t'e potential for

creative analysis t'at e?ists from 'aving a relatively open researc' field$ &'e e?tent to

3'ic' t'ese developments 3ould 'ave been possible 3it'in any particular Ku'nian

(19/)+ researc' paradigm is an open >uestion4 and vie3ing current cultural policy

researc' as part of a La%atosian (19/)+ researc' programmet'at is open to a range of


28/36

t'eoretical and met'odological approac'es to analysis4 rat'er t'an as a singular

paradigm may per'aps be more 'elpful$

5n t'is respect a greater4 detailed4 %no3ledge of 3'at is available 3it'in t'ese

conte?ts4 t'e >uestions t'at t'ey may be useful in providing ans3ers for4 t'e types of

e?planations of 3'at is occurring 3it'in t'e field t'at t'ey produce4 and e?planations

of 3'y t'ese occurrences 'ave been ta%ing place4 and4 "ust as importantly4 t'e arenas

3'ere t'ese conte?ts are of limited4 if any4 use4 is re>uired$ 5t is only by being a3are

of t'e full range of possibilities for analysis t'at e?ist t'at development is li%ely to

ta%e place unless 3e prefer to stay 3it'in our o3n comfortable disciplinary s'elters

and ignore 3'at our fello3 analysts are saying to us$

#ootnotes


29/36

1&'us Le3is Miller (-))@4 pp$ - and *+ criticise approac'es t'at do not s'are t'eir o3n concerns as beingstraig'tfor3ardly elitistA$ 'ile t'is may score points for being politically on t'e side of t'e (radical+ angels it is by no

means t'e case t'at ot'er approac'es are as simply elitistA as is claimed$ Li%e3ise Hesmond'alg'As (-))-4 p$ 19+ mention

of public goodsA misunderstands t'e economistAs notion of indivisibility and refers to multiple usage instead! at best t'is is

simply inaccurate$ =imilar concerns can be found in ot'er cases and a more detailed investigation of t'is point could beinformative for understanding t'e conse>uences of t'is for t'e analyses t'at are t'en underta%en$

-&'e approac' adopted in t'is paper is an interpretative one on t'e basis t'at t'is is intended as a startingpoint for future

discussion 3it'in t'e cultural policy arena4 s%etc'ing in some %ey >uestions4 rat'er t'an an attempt to provide a definitiveans3er to t'ese >uestions$ t'er approac'es4 from t'e p'ilosop'ical to t'e bibliometric may be more useful in later

developments of t'e arguments t'at are presented 'ere$

@&'e e?tent to 3'ic' induction actually escapes from an underlying t'eoretical basis can be debated and 3'et'er t'e factsAcan simply spea% for t'emselves 'as yet to be convincingly demonstrated$

*Unless4 of course4 t'e analyst 3ould li%e to attempt to e?tract a scre3 3it' some sandpaper$

.=ee Le3is Miller4 -))@C =cullion :arcia4 -)).C Mc:uigan4 -)), as e?amples of t'is tendency to close off analysis$

,5deograp'ic and nomot'etic met'odologies could also be added to t'ese but a restriction of coverage4 for reasons of space4

'as been employed for t'e current paper$

/6 comparison of Mc:uigan :ilmore (-))-+ and :ray (-))@+ on LondonAs Millennium Dome is difficult to underta%e as

t'ey are effectively tal%ing about different t'ings! t'e former about t'e content and meaning of t'e Dome and t'e latter

about 'o3 t'e Labour :overnment managed t'e public relations disaster t'at t'e Dome became$06n e?amination of t'e cultural policy literature demonstrates t'at it is4 at least4 a multidisciplinary endeavour! t'e

follo3ing 'ave all been used in t'eir o3n 3ays to analyse dimensions of cultural policy in t'e past and t'ere are probably

ot'ers t'at t'e current aut'or 'as simply not come across as yet! aest'etics4 ant'ropology4 cultural studies4 economics4geograp'y4 'eritage studies4 'istory4 literary studies4 museum studies4 p'ilosop'y4 planning4 political science4 sociology and

urban studies$ &'e current paper concentrates on only four of t'ese approac'es cultural studies4 economics4 political

science and sociology in an attempt to limit t'e general argument to an appropriate lengt'$

9&'is difference is emp'asised 3'en consideration is made of t'e 6merican versions of cultural studies 3'ere t'e

distinction bet3een materialist and idealist is4 per'aps4 even stronger t'an in eit'er t'e Britis' or 6ustralian variants fore?ample$

1)6s in Le3is Miller4 -))@4 p$ 14 cultural policy is $$$ a site for t'e production of cultural citi2ens4 3it' t'e cultural

industries providing not only a ream (sic+ of representations about oneself and ot'ers4 but a series of rationales for particular

types of conductA4 or =cullion :arcia4 -)).4 p$ 1-.4 3'o see cultural policy researc' as concerning t'e Jpolicing (in

FoucaultAs terms+ of t'e state and combines an engagement in representation and formulationA$

11Mc:uigan (-))*4 p$ 9)+ sees t'e Britis' Millennium Dome as a disappointment in spite of t'e strenuous efforts made by

visitors to ma%e it better t'an it really 3asA$ 5n t'is case t'e analyst obviously %no3s better t'an t'e visitors 3'at t'e Dome

3as reallyA all about$ 6s an e?ample of t'e elitistA perspective t'at cultural studies are so intent on attac%ing4 t'is is 'ard tobeat$

1-5t could be argued t'at all governmental policies 'ave suc' a cultural effect in one 3ay or anot'er$ &'is 3ould effectively

ma%e all governmental policies cultural ones$ 6t t'is e?treme t'e ob"ection levied at some sociological researc' t'at it is soallinclusive t'at 3'at is specifically culturalA about suc' policies can become lost e>ually applies$

1@&'e common complaint from cultural studies4 for e?ample4 t'at disciplines li%e economics ignore >uestions of value isuntrue if approac'ed from t'e direction of economics 3'ere >uestions of value are actually central to 3'at t'e discipline

does particularly in Mar?ist variants$ 'at is meant by valueA in eit'er discipline remains4 'o3ever4 a matter of some

considerable debate and is as muc' a met'odological as a definitional issue$ 6gain4 t'e common complaints about elitismA

from t'e cultural studies literature are un'elpful in t'e conte?t of political science4 3'ere elitism and neoelitism is anareanalytical approac'esrat'er t'an a set of accusations$


30/36

$ibliography

6'earne4 < (-))0+4 Cultural Policy !%plicit and Implicit& A Distinction and "ome 'ses(Paper to t'e .t'

5nternational onference on ultural Policy Iesearc'4 5stanbul+

6lasuutari4 P (199.+4(esearching Culture& )ualitati*e Method and Cultural "tudies(London =age+

6le?ander4 < (-)),+4 he Meanings of +ife& A Cultural "ociology(7e3 or%4 ?ford University Press+

6le?ander4 ; (-))@+4 "ociology of the Arts(?ford4 Blac%3ell+

6le?ander4 ; M$ Iuesc'meyer4Art and the "tate& he ,isual Arts in Comparati*e Perspecti*e

(Basingsto%e4 Palgrave Macmillan+

6lford4 I I$ Friedland (190.+4Po-ers of heory& Capitalism. the "tate and Democracy(ambridge4

ambridge University Press+

6lmond4 : =$ ;erba (19,@+4 he Ci*ic Culture(Princeton4 Princeton University Press+

Baetens4 < (-)).+4 ultural =tudies 6fter t'e ultural =tudies ParadigmA4 Cultural "tudies4 ;ol$ 194 pp$

11@

Bas'ford4 L$ Langley (Eds+ (-)))+4Music and $ritish Culture. /0123/4/5& !ssays in 6onour of

Cyril !hrlich(?ford4 ?ford University Press+

Bec'er4 & P$ &ro3ler (-))1+4 Academic ribes and erritories(-nd Ed4 Buc%ing'am4 &'e =ociety for

Iesearc' into Hig'er Education and pen University Press+

Bennett4 (-))*+4 Ievie3 Essay! t'e &orn Halves of ultural Policy Iesearc'A4International Journal

of Cultural Policy4 ;ol$ 1)4 pp$ -@/*0


31/36

Bennett4 & (199,+4 Putting Policy into ultural =tudiesA4 pp$ @)/-1 in


32/36


33/36

:ray4 (-))@+4 &'e Millennium Dome! Falling From :raceA4Parliamentary Affairs4 ;ol$ .,4 7o$ @4

pp$ **1..

:ray4 (fort'coming+4 Managing ultural PolicyA4Public Administration

:ray4 I$ Hugoson (-))*+4 ultureA4 pp$ @,./- in H$ ompston (Ed+46andboo< of Public Policy

in !urope(Basingsto%e4 Palgrave Macmillan+

Hall4 = &$


34/36

Knill4 (1990+4 European Policies! t'e 5mpact of 7ational 6dministrative &raditionsA4Journal of

Public Policy4 ;ol$ 104 pp$ 1-0

Ku'n4 & (19/)+4 he "tructure of "cientific (e*olutions(-ndEd4 'icago4 University of 'icago Press+

La%atos4 5 (19/)+4 &'e Met'odology of =cientific Iesearc' ProgrammesA4 pp$ 9119, in 5$ La%atos

6$ Musgrave (Eds+4 Criticism and the ro-th of @no-ledge(ambridge4 ambridge University Press+

Lane4


35/36

Mulca'y4 K (-)),+4 ultural PolicyA4 pp$ -,./9 in B$ Peters


36/36

Documents

Analysing Cultural Policy