Dr. Abigail Gilmore Abi gave a brief overview of the Arts and Humanities Research Council Connected Communities project Understanding Everyday Participation – Articulating Cultural Value, a mixed-methods, multisite research project in England and Scotland. This project aims to radically re-evaluate the relationship between participation and cultural value, and is producing new understanding of local governance of culture, its history and challenges through empirical research on the situated practices of everyday life. Her presentation focused on current research exploring museums and parks as public spaces for everyday participation, social cohesion and (inter)cultural integration.For Cultural Policy Observatory Ireland event, 23 Oct 2017, Queen's University Belfast

1. Understanding cultural value in the everyday:
museums and parks as the commons
AbigailGilmore -University of Manchester

2.  Understanding Everyday Participation – Articulating
CulturalValues – ‘upstart’ research in response to
deficit model and ‘crisis’ of participation
 What do people want to do in their everyday?
Manchester-Salford assets and their values
 The longer history of places, assets and ‘policy
attachments’ – parks and museums
 Commons, co-location and contact zones - early
thoughts on why look at them together

3.  Histories – discourses of cultural participation and value;
cultural policy, place & economy; representations of everyday
life; community cultural practices
 Reanalysis of survey data – time-use, patterns of participation
by place and through the life course
 Cultural ecosystems research – local histories, assets mapping,
in-depth interviews (life history & participation narratives),
ethnography & social network analysis in six contrasting
locations
 Application projects – working with communities and partners
to develop projects in response to findings
 Research-policy-practice nexus – reflecting on partnership and
developing new models of collaboration
Arts & Humanities Research Council Connected Communities
‘Understanding Everyday Participation – Articulating CulturalValues’
@UEParticipation www.everydayparticipation.org

4. Asset Frequency
Park/parks 380
Shop/shops 288
Club/clubs 252
Church/churches 233
Pub/pubs 204
Hospital 116
Doctor/doctors 85
Takeaway/takeaways 76
Theatre/theatres 68
Market/markets 62
Library/libraries 58
Museum/museums 57
Café/cafes 53
Mosque 51
Cinema/cinemas 46

5. 77% for fresh air
71% to take a walk
60% to look at trees, plants & flowers
54% for peace and quiet
54% to relax
43% for personal fitness
43% to see the wildlife
41% to take children to play
40% to meet friends and socialise
35% to attend organised events
n. 2,042 responses,
Manchester Parks Strategy Consultation
online survey 2016

6. And there’s a lot of other people that go there like, they’re all friendly
like, you know, to one another, they’ve all got their dogs and that, so
we generally have a chat there and passing a few hours away…But I
mean I used to go down the bottom there, to the Landslide, but there’s
a lot of other dogs and they’re fighting like, you know, so a bit what you
call it. (UEP-BR-IV1-PO2)
Interviewer: Right, okay. Does this park get--, does it get quite busy
then with kids, was it busy over the summer in the good weather?
Interviewee:Yeah it was alright yeah. I don’t really go around there
during the summer though like I said ‘cause it’s too many kids and with
my dog as well it’s, you know, I don’t want her like latching on to kids
because it’s encouraging them to come over and talk to me and, you
know, like I mean, I’ve heard some kids around here and they can be
downright cruel. (UEP-CH-IV1-P19)

8.  Parks’ public value is realised through participation but also
through their existence and potential value for others.These values
can contribute to policy agendas (and have done historically).
 Parks also have private benefits for individuals, for example, in
enhancing the value and the built environment of a particular
neighbourhood.
 Participation informed by ethnic and religious beliefs, and by sub-
cultural practices.These practices can impose distinct boundaries
and divisions onto public spaces.
 There are inequalities of access to parks, through physical location
but also through the divergent resources which different social
groups have that supports community engagement and stewardship
of parks.
 There remains a strong expectation that local authorities should
manage public parks and support the access of different user groups
equitably.
(Gilmore, 2017)

9. Contribution
to urban
strategies
through
policy
attachment

10.  Urban commons both ecological and civic (Gidwani & Baviskar,
2011) and located within sets of social relations: “the object of a set
of use rights, multiple owned and embodying or reflecting the fact
that communities have many interrelated members with many
interrelated needs” (Hyde 2012: 19).
 Extra-economic resource, collectively contributed to: a
generative rather than extractive social space linked to economic
production and place: the cultural commons (Hughes, 2016)
 A verb not a noun: “The activity of commoning is conducted
through labor [sic] with other resources; it does not make a division
between “labor” and “natural resources”.… it requires
participation. It must be entered into” (Linebaugh 2014: 13 -15).
 The tragedy of the commons suggests open access means over-
exploitation and depletion (Hardin, 1968). However, commons can
be regulated by commoners to avoid this (Ostrom, 1990)

11. Common-pool resources are not the same as common
property - common-pool property is a form of ownership.
 Commons can be a particular category of property rights
based on collective rather than state or private ownership.
 Can be unowned and accessed by all
 Can by owned and managed by a community
 Some property is owned by an individual or institution but be
accessible to others under certain conditions – so private
property can be used by commoners (Wall, 2014:6)

12. Common-pool resources & contact zones
museums as contact zones with communities: where the
negotiations between communities and the organising
structures of collections, of “ongoing historical, political moral
relationships” (Clifford, 1997 p.193) require recognition of
stewardship and reciprocity
Co-location: parks can extend & unsettle museums contact
zones and change the basis for participation which supports
the sharing of authority, of common use & ownership rights
and promote parks and museums as more inclusive public
spaces.
-> collaboration but also competition…

16. Francine Hayfron leading 3 year outdoor programme funded by
Esmée Fairbairn Foundation established in 2014.To date:
 74 public programmes/events engaging approximately 44,803
people
 worked with 259 volunteers, whom have contributed over 6,422
hours of support
 delivered 348 health and wellbeing sessions
 engaged 4,848 people in Health &Wellbeing activities (expected to
rise to approximately 6,000 by the end of this year)
 horticultural volunteering project calledGROW, aimed at
improving the mental wellbeing of its participants, engaging new
partners & funders
 Major events includingThe Big Wild Rumpus, WARP young
people’s festival, Frost Fair, and Circus Raj
 Key objective to increase diversity of audiences/participants for the
gallery through outdoor programming

17. Francine Hayfron leading 3 year outdoor programme funded by
Esmée Fairbairn Foundation established in 2014.
Key objective to increase diversity of audiences/participants for
the gallery through outdoor programming
Audiences for large outdoor reflect the diversity of the communities
in which the gallery sits.When asked what kinds of activities would
you like to see more of inWhitworth Park?” Over 90% of respondents
said that they would like to see "more free large events, that allow
people to come together."
However, smaller activities such as art and play sessions have lower
attendance from non-white British families.
Further research is needed to explore reasons (of culture, social
integration, religious convention) that prevent certain groups from
engaging in certain activities – threshold anxiety?

19.  Both parks and museums suffer from their non-
statutory nature and the surrounding context of
static/declining investment in public parks, and
concerns about creating sustainable management and
community engagement for the future
 Continuing pressures on galleries and museums to
change business models and to support wider policy
attachments (health and wellbeing, economic
development, engagement and learning)
 Concerns about the enclosure of these public and semi-
public spaces and/or their privatisation

21. Parks:
 Over half (57%) of UK adults use their local park once a
month or more (with 35% using it once a week).
 Certain groups are more likely users: 90% of households
with children under five most likely to use the park once a
month or more (and 54% once a week or more)
 20% of the most affluent groups have five times more access
to parks than the 10% least affluent and most deprived
(HCCLGC 2017 Select Committee report)
 Black and minority ethic (BAME) people are more likely to
use parks more frequently (45% once a week or more,
compared with 34% white residents) (Heritage Lottery Fund
2016c: 3)

22. Note: natural environment = all green open spaces in and around towns and cities
as well as the wider countryside and coastline

24. (DCMS, 2017)

25. (DCMS, 2017)

26.  UEP research suggesting complex reasons for
participation/non-participation in public parks
associating with life-course, family/friends, ethno-
cultural practices and urban fabric
 Rich practices and associations of meaning in
everyday participation not reflected in attitudes
towards civic/cultural institutions
 How can we develop inclusive cultural strategies for
places which acknowledge associations and
distinctions and which are generative common-pool
resources?

27. Clifford, J. 1997 ‘RoutesTravel andTranslation in the LateTwentieth Century’ London: Harvard University
Press
DCMS 2017 ‘Taking Part focus on report Engagement with museums and galleries’, London: Department
for Culture, Media and Sport
Gidwani,V. & Baviskar,A. 2011. ‘Urban Commons’ Review of Urban Affairs: Economic & Political Weekly,
Volume XLVI No. 50 December 10, 2011
Gilmore, A. 2017 ‘Valuing parks and their communities briefing report’ available from
www.everydayparticipation.org
Gilmore, A. & Doyle, P. forthcoming. ‘Histories of public parks in Manchester and Salford and their role in
cultural policies for everyday participation’, in Belfiore, E. & Gibson, L. Culture and Power: Histories of
participation, values and governance, Palgrave Macmillan
Hardin, G (1968) “TheTragedy of the Commons”, Science 162, pp. 1243-1248 in managing the Commons,
Ed. John Baden and Garret Hardin San Francisco: Freenan
Heritage Lottery Fund. 2016. State of the UK Public Parks II: Public Survey, Report prepared by Britain
Thinks, London: Heritage Lottery Fund
House of Commons Communities and Local GovernmentCommittee (HCCLGC) 2017. ‘Public Parks’
Seventh Report of Session 2016–1. HC 45 Published on 11 February 2017 by authority of the House of
Commons
Hyde, L. 2012.Common as Air: Revolution,Art andOwnership London: Union Books
Hughes, J. 2016. Art, devolution and economic justice – blogpost published June 2016, available from
http://blog.poortheatres.manchester.ac.uk/art-devolution-economicjustice/
Linebaugh, P. 2014. StopThief!The Commons, Enclosures and Resistance, Oakland,CA: PM Press
Ostrom, E (1990) ‘Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action’ Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Understanding Everyday Participation. 2017. Engaging Our Communities report:
Valuing Parks and their Communities available from www.everydayparticipation.org
Wall, D. (2015).The Commons in History: Culture, Conflict, and Ecology Cambridge, Massachusetts: The
MIT Press