Understanding everyday participation articulating cultural values

Trajectories and narratives of participationContext & orientation

The decontextualisation of value in cultural policy

• Cultural value trapped in a self-contained and self-referential debate

• Where is the value of publicly funded culture located & what is needed to demonstrate this? (Belfiore & Bennett 2008, (Bakhshi 2009, O’Brien 2010)

• Narrow focus on ‘high’ cultural practices obscures the ways in which the idea of cultural participation and its valuation is socially constructed and constructing (Bourdieu 1984)

• Cultural policy as ‘social inclusion’ - in fact operationalised around a polarizing ‘deficit model’ of participation (Miles and Sullivan 2012)

• Underpinned by methodological techniques that confirm a narrow and tendentious view of participation and participants

What, where and when is cultural participation?

• ‘Manchester’s Cultural Institutions’ project• Probe beyond the cultural indicator - participation narratives

of those identified in surveys as ‘users’ and ‘non users’ of formal cultural venues (Miles 2013)

• Non-users often have vibrant informal cultural networks defined by ostensibly mundane pursuits and social relationships

• ‘Ghostly’ participants hidden by lack of self-identification and alienation from mainstream contexts

Problematise participation - resist and examine the writing out of everyday participation by the official model of cultural participation and value

Project overview

What are we trying to do?

• Discover how people participate in their everyday lives and the ‘stakes’ they attach to their participation

• Understand how communities are communities rendered through participation

• Reveal and develop new articulations and measures of cultural value

• Explore the relationship between different cultural contexts – institutional, voluntary, informal

• Reconnect policy and practice with the everyday

Some theoretical background

• Project starts from Pierre Bourdieu…− participation is an important source of identity, power and value

− there are different forms of ‘capital’ – cultural and social as well as economic

• …but explores Bourdieu’s ideas further− by looking at the day-to-day practices of those who do not engage

with formal culture

− by exploring how participation relates to location and place

Our approach

• Not defining ‘culture’ or ‘value’ in advance

• Viewing participation as a social process, not just individual behaviour

• Participation practices are situated – they shape and are shaped by people’s relationship to place

• Mixed methods - combining historical, quantitative and qualitative work

• Interdisciplinary working – history, sociology, English literature, performance studies, cultural policy, cultural sector research

• Collaboration with communities, local authorities, voluntary organisations, cultural professionals and policymakers

Five work packages

1. Histories – discourses of cultural participation and value; cultural technologies; cultural policy, place and economy; representations of everyday life; community cultural practices

2. Reanalysis of survey data – how does participation vary by place and throughout people’s lives?

3. Cultural ecosystems research – local histories, mapping, in-depth interviews, ethnography and social network analysis in six contrasting locations

4. Application projects – working with communities and partners to develop projects in response to findings

5. Research-policy-practice nexus – reflecting on partnership and developing new models of collaboration

Progress to date

WP1: two histories under way

History of participation and value

• how has our understanding of cultural participation and value been shaped by key individuals and institutions?

• focus on Literary and Philosophical and Museum Societies

History of cultural indicators

• how have cultural participation and value been measured in recent years, why and with what consequences for understanding and policy?

• focus on the national Taking Part survey and local authority frameworks in Manchester and Aberdeen

WP2: identifying and exploring datasets

• What can existing datasets tell us about− informal participation

− local level participation

− participation over the course of people’s lives?

• Starting with Taking Part data− literature review, variable mapping, much data under-used including ‘free

time activities’

− rolling up of 6 years of quarterly waves allows detailed local analysis

• Additional datasets− Time Use Survey

− Scottish Household Survey

− Longitudinal Study of Young People in England

− 1958 National Child Development Study

WP3: discovering the ecosystems

• Manchester− rich cultural infrastructure with a history of civic engagement

− focus on Broughton and Cheetham – straddling the Manchester/Salford boundary

− diverse faith communities including a significant Orthodox Jewish presence, Tesco and parks as important neutral public spaces

• Dartmoor− areas of deprivation, incomer affluence and rural isolation

− partnership with Dartmoor National Park Authority, participatory practices that don’t want to be found

− rich in community practice, from Tavistock Arts Market to the Sticklepath Fireshow

WP3: discovering the ecosystems

• Gateshead− bottom 20% nationally for cultural participation despite major Quayside

investment in ‘culture-led regeneration’

− working with communities to understand everyday activities from the ground up and how these are recognised/accommodated by cultural institutions

• Peterborough− a cultural ‘cold spot’ and priority area for several national agencies

− engagement with more than 100 groups and practitioners to date, from artists and DJs to ‘Operation CAN-do’

− cultural dynamic is changing – rebellious ‘undergrounders’ striving to do things differently

WP3: discovering the ecosystems

• Aberdeen/shire− Fraserburgh – traditional fishing economy with social problems but a

culture of volunteering; informal practices range from writing clubs to surfing to ‘Fly Cup’

− contrast with Aberdeen city – a top-down, local authority-driven approach to cultural investment; potential to work with community groups such as Radio Schmu

• Eliean Siar – Stornoway− geographically isolated, aging community with an inclusive, bottom-up

culture and high levels of social enterprise

− vibrant grassroots cultural activity, often documenting and passing on cultural traditions

Organisation

Project Team

Principal InvestigatorDr Andrew Miles, Centre for Research on Socio-cultural Change, University of Manchester

Co Investigators Dr Eleanora Belfiore, Centre for Cultural Policy Studies, University of Warwick Dr Lisanne Gibson, School of Museum Studies, University of Leicester Dr Abigail Gilmore, Institute for Cultural Practices, University of Manchester Dr Felicity James, School of English, University of Leicester Dr Jane Milling, Department of Drama, University of Exeter Dr Kerrie Schaefer, Department of Drama, University of Exeter Policy and Sector Researchers Catherine Bunting, Arts Council England Sarah Stannage, Clore Fellow, MLA Living Places

Funded through the AHRC’s Connected Communities programme

Project Partners

Communications

• Website: www.everydayparticipation.org

• Twitter: @UEParticipation

• Website: www.everydayparticipation.org

• Twitter: @UEParticipation