This document outlines a research project examining cultural intermediation in the creative economy. It aims to identify ways to enhance how cultural intermediation connects different communities. The project will study how cultural intermediation develops historically and currently functions. It will explore how intermediation links communities to cultural resources and opportunities. The research questions focus on measuring intermediation's value, examining governance and communities. It proposes practice-based interventions and participatory evaluation with stakeholders to improve intermediation and measure its impact on connecting people.

1. Cultural intermediation in
the creative urban economy
Phil Jones
School of Geography, Earth & Environmental Sciences
University of Birmingham
28 February 2013
Cultural Value Project Workshop, Birkbeck

2. Background

3. The research problem we
identified
• Florida, DCMS, AHRC etc. all tell us how
important the creative economy is
• If the ‘creative economy’ is significant, then
who is benefiting from it?
• How is the creative economy connected to
different communities?
• What processes of ‘cultural intermediation’
operate to make these connections?

4. What is ‘cultural
intermediation’?
• Bourdieu’s (1984): intermediaries as agents
who tell communities what cultural
phenomena to passively consume
• Hesmondhalgh (2006) argues that the ways of
thinking through production-mediation-
consumption need to evolve
– Reflects changes in these relations through the
rise of the creative industries

5. Intermediation as connection
• Implicit assumption that connecting more people
to the creative economy will reduce inequality
• Cultural intermediation already exists
• But
– Is cultural intermediation the best way to make
connections?
– Does it function in the most effective fashion?
– Can modes of working be found that improve this
‘connecting’ role?

6. Overall aim
To identify means of enhancing the
effectiveness of cultural
intermediation as a mechanism for
connecting different communities
into the broader creative economy

7. Project

8. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
WP0 Scoping & Theory Building
WP2 Historic
WP3 Governance
WP1 Valuation & Mapping
WP4
Communities
WP5 Interventions

9. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
WP0 Scoping & Theory Building
WP2 Historic
WP3 Governance
WP1 Valuation & Mapping
WP4 Communities WP5 Interventions

10. Research Questions
• To develop techniques to capture the value of cultural
intermediation (WP1)
• To examine how cultural intermediation has developed
historically, whose interests it has served and what lessons
this provides for understanding best practice today. (WP2)
• To critically evaluate the role of intermediaries in the
changing governance of cultural economy initiatives and
how different actors undertaking cultural intermediation
operate within the sector (WP3)
• To explore how intermediation connects communities into
the creative economy and how this can be enhanced to
break down the tension between hard-to-reach
communities and inaccessible cultural resources. (WP4)

11. Research Questions
• To design and deliver practice-based interventions with
local stakeholder panels of academics, policy-
makers, community groups and artists to improve the
effectiveness of cultural intermediation. (WP5)
• To contribute to academic, policy and practitioner debates
on the value of cultural intermediation in shaping creative
economy initiatives (WP6)
• To reflexively examine and evaluate the process of
interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary working through
innovative project design and delivery (WP6)
• To produce high-quality academic, policy and artistic
outputs based on best practice in knowledge exchange
(WP0-6)

12. Birmingham

13. Manchester

14. Ten:8 magazine
1975-1985 (1979)
• Founded by Bishton, Brian Homer and John
Reardon in 1979. Title derived from the
standard size of photographic paper. Initially
funded by WM Arts later Arts Council GB.
Inspired by Camerawork, East London
photographers' collective.
• Aim was ‘to represent the working class and
migrant communities’ (Brittain in
Dewdney, 2011, p.263) of Birmingham.

17. Interventions
• Using a practice-based approach to engage
participant creativity
• BUT it’s the participants who commission the
practice in the first place
• Most flexible part of the project
– Part of the budget not predefined except earmarked
for commissions by local panels
• How do we measure the value of these?
– (against our aim of connecting communities into the
creative economy)

18. Evaluation

19. evaluations of cultural
projects: general problems
• Data collection, statistics and evidence are a
longstanding issue in the cultural sector
• Reflects the problems of defining culture (e.g. Gray 2006,
Miles and Sullivan forthcoming)
• And defining what cultural policy is for
• ‘the sector is hindered by its failure to clearly articulate
its value in a cohesive and meaningful way, as well as by
its neglect of the compelling need to establish a system
for collecting evidence around a set of agreed indicators
that substantiate value claims’ Scott (2009:198)

20. Impact measurement
• Social impact (Matarrasso 1997)
• Economic impact (ACE 2013)
• Cultural impact (WolfBrown 2008)
• ....all of which have been critiqued
• Economic valuation (O’Brien 2010)
• ....is both expensive and controversial in the
cultural sector

21. Proposed evaluation
• Participatory evaluation
• Based on work with young people (Sabo Flores 2008, Miles et
al 2013)
• Training sessions for artists, community participants and
academics
• Aiming to understand what the participants value about the
projects....
• And to help them to capture it....
• Whilst providing robust data for academic discussions
• Shared ownership and co-creation of research