Analysing Cultural Policy
-
Upload
arturo-costa -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of 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] -
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
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$
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
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$
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
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
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
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$
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
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
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
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
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
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
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
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
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
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$6n e?amination of
t'e cultural policy literature demonstrates t'at it is4 at least4 a multidisciplinary
endeavour! t'e follo3ing 'ave all been used in t'eir o3n 3ays to analyse dimensions
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
11/36
of cultural policy in t'e past and t'ere are probably ot'ers t'at t'e current aut'or 'as
simply not4 as yet4 come across! aest'etics4 ant'ropology4 cultural studies4 economics4
geograp'y4 'eritage studies4 'istory4 literary studies4 museum studies4 musicology4
p'ilosop'y4 planning4 political science4 sociology and urban studies$ &'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$
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
12/36
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
13/36
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
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
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
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
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
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$
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
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$
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
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
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
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$
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural 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
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
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
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
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
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
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$
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
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$
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
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
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
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$
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
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
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
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
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
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$
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
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
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
31/36
Bennett4 & (199,+4 Putting Policy into ultural =tudiesA4 pp$ @)/-1 in
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
32/36
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
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 = &$
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
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
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
35/36
Mulca'y4 K (-)),+4 ultural PolicyA4 pp$ -,./9 in B$ Peters
-
8/10/2019 Analysing Cultural Policy
36/36