Participant-driven processes in public organizations, Department of Culture and Recreation, Gothenburg city.
The purpose of this study is to increase the theoretical and empirical knowledge on issues of participation in the sphere of arts and culture, in the context of the city of Gothenburg, Sweden. Participation can be understood as a perspective belonging to a larger discourse on the need for cultural institutions to become more dialogical, more in sync with the changing society, and to respond to political "hot topics" such as migration, political violence and climate change. In its first phase, the project aims to understand what kinds of measurements have been undertaken towards increased participation in the institutions and cultural activities related to the Culture and Creation department in Gothenburg. The second phase will determine how the concept of participation has been used and understood in these institutions and activities, what methods have been used and with what consequences for relations of power among different actors in the field? The analysis will strive to understand different perspectives, subject positions, power- and powerlessness in those positions, as well as understanding patterns of interaction and the new forms of knowledge that may emerge in those patterns.
Final report
In Gothenburg, the Cultural Administration has implemented participant-driven processes and user dialogues within their institution as part of cultural policy aims. The administration wished to increase and systematize the knowledge on these processes to develop its operations. The Flexit project Participatory processes in public administration, the Cultural Cultural Administration in Gothenburg city, aimed to provide such knowledge.
During the project's first two years, the administration board and I collaboratively agreed upon the aim and research questions. These years were spent collecting data material for the analysis. During my last year at the University of Borås, the Swedish school of library and information science (SSLIS), I have compiled two research reports and authored four peer-reviewed research articles published in international journals.
The research reports, one focusing on existing knowledge, the other on results of the project, are compiled according to common questions posed by respondents who work in the administration’s institutions and operations.
The study’s methodology has varied from reviews of relevant policy documents and interviews with managers and officials at the administration’s operations, focusing on those operations that meet with and engage with audiences, visitors, and users. The study initially posed broad questions regarding participation as a concept and approach, with the ambition to map the understanding and experiences of participatory processes in professional cultural work. These questions were, for example, what is participation, and what is it not? What is at stake when engaging in participatory artistic work? What is considered valuable, doable, problematic, or unthinkable in participatory projects and processes?
The analysis of the material centers on statements, strategies, and experiences among the professionals to understand institutional norms around the concept of participation. During the project process, officials in the administration and I have collaborated to create and present the material in seminars and conferences. As a result of the Flexit project, Gothenburg city’s cultural administration is a stakeholder in an EU-funded project on the arts’ role in addressing social issues of marginalization in Europe. The collaboration also continues in 2021 to spread the result of the project, and discussions are held around future research projects to understand cultural participation in the city during the covid-19 pandemic.
During the project, the officials working in the cultural administration requested opportunities for sharing knowledge and experiences; through seminars, workshops, and talks held during the Flexit-project, this dissemination of knowledge across sectors and operations within the administration was possible. I have also held workshops for institutions and actors outside the administration, such as Malmö Art Gallery, on the participatory work in Gothenburg and presenting the project in several international research conferences.
The analysis points to co-existing but contrasting norms in the cultural policy of the city. Participation as a policy norm results in shifts in other norms regarding what culture can and should be, what a cultural institution can and should do, what a producer and/or consumer of culture is, ultimately, what democratic institutions are and should be. The norms that are, above all, challenged by the participation norm are professionalism and artistic quality. Participation as a cultural policy norm challenges professional norms and known conduct of culture professionals.
In the Cultural Administration of Gothenburg, participation is done through various limit-making practices that relate to needs to control processes and results, often to secure professionally-defined norms of quality. As culture can be instrumentally used by policy, so can participation be used to reach legitimacy. Participation is also used to enable the institution to create qualitative products, such as exhibitions, where the definition of quality can provide the public with a variety of perspectives on, for example, history and art. All operations accept the participation goal in cultural policy, but not all agree that it is part of their core values. They may “do” participation secondary to other purposes or “do” participation in ways that disallow any threats to the institution’s core values. There is dissensus in consensus.
Institutions can also define their core value according to participation norms in the sense of inviting users and audiences to influence the operation’s content and procedures. Yet, these institutions may struggle with aspects of participation that relate to, for example, equality. Institutions that understand their purpose as being in the service of citizens can ambition levels of participation that stop at the notion of attracting visitors. Conversely, operations that understand participation as threatening their core values can implement and realize ambitious participatory projects. However, these projects are often reliant on the interest and energy of individual professionals.
Depending on the overarching norms of the institution, participation can be made meaningful as a prerequisite for and a threat to quality. It can be conceived of as a democratic goal and a populist threat against other democratic norms, such as the autonomy of the arts. Boundary work among professionals is about protecting something; the audience, objects, artists. Variations of trust to participants rely on the understanding of how they can contribute to the quality and legitimacy of the institution.
The answer to the question of what is participation in the cultural administration of Gothenburg city? is intertwined with several perspectives relating to purpose, procedures, values, and trust.
- Participation as a goal in itself or a means to an end.
- A focus on processes or products.
- A focus on the field or the audience/users of the institution.
- High or low trust in the participant’s ability to contribute to the values of quality and legitimacy.
These norms; participation, quality, and expertise/professionalism, are all highly valued in cultural policy. Various focuses on these norms relate to trust in participants, and this trust relates to the ability to value participation as a cultural policy goal.
To implement participation further as an overarching cultural policy norm, the administration can define concepts for clarity. For example, the administration can agree on a definition of participation, such as user involvement, in cultural policy documents. Another recommendation is to establish structures to exchange knowledge and experiences within the administration and uphold and expand the collaboration between other administrations and welfare institutions in the city.
In individual projects, I propose a model for developing methods within the operations, rather than adopting methods for participation from other operations. This model includes the steps of conceptualization, facilitation, and assessment to integrate participation as a norm, granting participants influence and leverage without losing responsibility and a cooperative base as a cultural institution.
The research object of this study turned out to be cultural policy change and shifts in democratic values and norms. At the core of cultural policy is a balancing act between democratic values that may conflict or cooperate - this balancing act is what democracy is; challenging but important.
During the project's first two years, the administration board and I collaboratively agreed upon the aim and research questions. These years were spent collecting data material for the analysis. During my last year at the University of Borås, the Swedish school of library and information science (SSLIS), I have compiled two research reports and authored four peer-reviewed research articles published in international journals.
The research reports, one focusing on existing knowledge, the other on results of the project, are compiled according to common questions posed by respondents who work in the administration’s institutions and operations.
The study’s methodology has varied from reviews of relevant policy documents and interviews with managers and officials at the administration’s operations, focusing on those operations that meet with and engage with audiences, visitors, and users. The study initially posed broad questions regarding participation as a concept and approach, with the ambition to map the understanding and experiences of participatory processes in professional cultural work. These questions were, for example, what is participation, and what is it not? What is at stake when engaging in participatory artistic work? What is considered valuable, doable, problematic, or unthinkable in participatory projects and processes?
The analysis of the material centers on statements, strategies, and experiences among the professionals to understand institutional norms around the concept of participation. During the project process, officials in the administration and I have collaborated to create and present the material in seminars and conferences. As a result of the Flexit project, Gothenburg city’s cultural administration is a stakeholder in an EU-funded project on the arts’ role in addressing social issues of marginalization in Europe. The collaboration also continues in 2021 to spread the result of the project, and discussions are held around future research projects to understand cultural participation in the city during the covid-19 pandemic.
During the project, the officials working in the cultural administration requested opportunities for sharing knowledge and experiences; through seminars, workshops, and talks held during the Flexit-project, this dissemination of knowledge across sectors and operations within the administration was possible. I have also held workshops for institutions and actors outside the administration, such as Malmö Art Gallery, on the participatory work in Gothenburg and presenting the project in several international research conferences.
The analysis points to co-existing but contrasting norms in the cultural policy of the city. Participation as a policy norm results in shifts in other norms regarding what culture can and should be, what a cultural institution can and should do, what a producer and/or consumer of culture is, ultimately, what democratic institutions are and should be. The norms that are, above all, challenged by the participation norm are professionalism and artistic quality. Participation as a cultural policy norm challenges professional norms and known conduct of culture professionals.
In the Cultural Administration of Gothenburg, participation is done through various limit-making practices that relate to needs to control processes and results, often to secure professionally-defined norms of quality. As culture can be instrumentally used by policy, so can participation be used to reach legitimacy. Participation is also used to enable the institution to create qualitative products, such as exhibitions, where the definition of quality can provide the public with a variety of perspectives on, for example, history and art. All operations accept the participation goal in cultural policy, but not all agree that it is part of their core values. They may “do” participation secondary to other purposes or “do” participation in ways that disallow any threats to the institution’s core values. There is dissensus in consensus.
Institutions can also define their core value according to participation norms in the sense of inviting users and audiences to influence the operation’s content and procedures. Yet, these institutions may struggle with aspects of participation that relate to, for example, equality. Institutions that understand their purpose as being in the service of citizens can ambition levels of participation that stop at the notion of attracting visitors. Conversely, operations that understand participation as threatening their core values can implement and realize ambitious participatory projects. However, these projects are often reliant on the interest and energy of individual professionals.
Depending on the overarching norms of the institution, participation can be made meaningful as a prerequisite for and a threat to quality. It can be conceived of as a democratic goal and a populist threat against other democratic norms, such as the autonomy of the arts. Boundary work among professionals is about protecting something; the audience, objects, artists. Variations of trust to participants rely on the understanding of how they can contribute to the quality and legitimacy of the institution.
The answer to the question of what is participation in the cultural administration of Gothenburg city? is intertwined with several perspectives relating to purpose, procedures, values, and trust.
- Participation as a goal in itself or a means to an end.
- A focus on processes or products.
- A focus on the field or the audience/users of the institution.
- High or low trust in the participant’s ability to contribute to the values of quality and legitimacy.
These norms; participation, quality, and expertise/professionalism, are all highly valued in cultural policy. Various focuses on these norms relate to trust in participants, and this trust relates to the ability to value participation as a cultural policy goal.
To implement participation further as an overarching cultural policy norm, the administration can define concepts for clarity. For example, the administration can agree on a definition of participation, such as user involvement, in cultural policy documents. Another recommendation is to establish structures to exchange knowledge and experiences within the administration and uphold and expand the collaboration between other administrations and welfare institutions in the city.
In individual projects, I propose a model for developing methods within the operations, rather than adopting methods for participation from other operations. This model includes the steps of conceptualization, facilitation, and assessment to integrate participation as a norm, granting participants influence and leverage without losing responsibility and a cooperative base as a cultural institution.
The research object of this study turned out to be cultural policy change and shifts in democratic values and norms. At the core of cultural policy is a balancing act between democratic values that may conflict or cooperate - this balancing act is what democracy is; challenging but important.