ECLN Report -The State of Play: The Cultural and Creative Learning Sector in Europe

October 2013

ECLN RESEARCH REPORT

The State of Play:The Cultural and Creative Learning Sector in Europe

ECLN RESEARCH REPORT 2

European Cultural Learning Network (ECLN) No: 2012-3657 / 001-001 © 2013 Dr Denise Stanley, Collage Arts UK and VIA University College Denmark with contributions from all ECLN partners from all

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. therein


1. ExecutiveSummary

2. Introduction

3. ResearchMethodologyandCharts

4. Results i).ArtistsandCreativeFreelancersin

PartnershipCountries ii).RepresentativesofCulturalOrganisationsin

PartnershipCountries

5. TheCurrentEnvironmentforCulturalLearning

6. TypesofEvaluationStrategiesCurrentlyUsed forCulturalLearning

7. Culturallearningentrepreneurship:anintroductoryLiteratureReview

8. Conclusion

Contents

pg 4

pg 9

pg 10

pg 20pg 20

pg 53

pg 80

pg 92

pg 94

pg 105

TheStateofPlay:TheCulturalandCreativeLearningSectorinEuropeTheCulturalandCreativeLearningSectorin


1. Executive Summary

The European Cultural Learning Network (ECLN) was established to explore the Vocational Education and Training issues that are relevant to ‘Cultural Learning’ practitioners, and the organisations that employ them. By ‘Cultural Learning’, we mean the whole range of artistic and cultural learning that is delivered by artists and creative people, as freelancers or within cultural organisations. Cultural learning (CL) includes the whole range of artistic and cultural learning delivered or led by artists and creative people in any social, educational or professional situation. ECLN has been funded by the LEONARDO European Lifelong Learning Programme to explore and pilot new ways of supporting people and organisations working in the CL sector across Europe. ECLN will endeavour to increase the profile and connectivity of the sector as well as supporting its vocational education and training (VET) needs. The first stage of this work is this research, which maps Artist-Freelancers and Cultural Organisations and their work practices and other stakeholders in the sector.

Background: Artists and Creative Freelancers (AFs) and Cultural Organisations (COs), participating in this highly qualitative research, were selected from the country networks of the partner organisations. The research took place between July and September 2013 and was carried out by ECLN partners from 11 Countries: Association Prostor Plus (Croatia), Hope for Children (Cyprus), VIA-UC (Denmark) Kau Academy (Estonia), Dimitra (Greece), Associazione Culturale Mulab (Italy), New Arts (Netherlands), Fundacja Arteria (Poland), MItra (Slovenia), CEPS (Spain), and Collage Arts (UK). The partners were requested to select a sample that was diverse in age range, art-forms and gender.

Profile:The AF sample consisted of 147 individuals of approximately equal gender balance. The CO representatives were from a particularly small sample from 41 organisations and the majority were female. Despite being a small sample in each country, the COs included a range of different incorporation models including non-governmental organisations (NGOs), institutions, associations, charities/non-profit organisations, companies, cooperatives, centres and studios or ‘other’.

There is a definitive drop in the workforce profile for both AFs and COs in the age-range 36-45. This decline could be in the actual workforce sample which could indicate that people of this age-group were less available to participate in the research possibly because of other commitments e.g. family or because the workforce are leaving the sector after age 36. The sector, as a whole, tends to be low paid with little long-term security and younger people may be more prepared to give their energy for non-financial rewards and accommodate the riskiness of the sector than people from their mid-thirties onwards. However, the workforce rises again slightly to 19% at 46-55 with people perhaps being more available to participate in the research or moving into the sector to begin a second career with 8% staying on at work until aged 65 and 4% staying on beyond 65 years of age. There are more young people, aged 16-25, in the workforce in Cyprus and Slovenia and more older people, aged 56-65, in the workforce in Poland.

Highly Qualified:The AFs are very highly qualified. 86% of them are graduates or have certification equivalent to the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) level 6 and 39% having post-graduate qualifications, including Masters Degrees and Doctorates. 14% of AFs give their highest qualification level as EQF level 5 or below and only 4 out of 147 AFs have qualifications below level 3.

Artists Not Teachers:AFs average about 40% of their working time used in delivering Cultural Learning Support and over 60% of their working time used on their own Artistic or Creative Practice. COs across all countries present an average ratio of approximate 3:7 of time spent on their own practice compared to the time spent delivering Cultural Learning Support. This indicates that also in an organisational context Cultural Learning Support is also predominantly delivered in the context of Artistic Practice. Cultural Learning Support in AF and CO contexts can be conceived as ‘Practice-based’ or ‘Artist-led’ learning.

THE EUROPEAN CULTURAL LEARNING NETWORK: A NETWORK OF PEOPLE AND ORGANISATIONS THAT DEVELOP TALENT AND OTHER POTENTIAL THROUGH CREATIVE AND ARTISTIC ACTIVITIES WORKING ACROSS EUROPE


Job Contracts And Roles:

163 types of employment status are recorded by 147 AFs. The majority are freelancers, with a significant number employed and a small minority are unemployed, semi-retired and retired. There is a wide range of job types reported by the CO representatives when describing their own job contract. These job-types include temporary and permanent contracts, full-time and part-time contracts, voluntary and paid work and employment and freelance contracts. The majority of the cultural organisation representatives are employed and full-time. 37% of these representatives are employed, 22% are volunteers and 14% are freelancers.

People in these jobs in the Cultural Learning sector inspire, motivate, identify, nurture and develop talent of people by engaging them in Cultural and Artistic activities.

Who Pays For Cultural Learning:The 41 COs report that they are delivering Cultural Learning Support in 96 contexts across 10 countries in more than 14 art-forms.

The average range of income sources for COs is 45% public, 21% private, 22% earned and 12% ‘other’. The costs of delivering cultural learning support are shared between the unpaid or voluntary contribution of COs, cultural learners and others. COs provide up to 42% of cultural learning support in unpaid contexts compared with AFs who provide slightly less at 40%. The beneficiaries of cultural learning support from AFs contribute 20% whereas those supported by COs contribute slightly more at 26% and the ‘Others’ fund 40% for AFs and 32% for COs. A clear rationale for carrying out unpaid work appears to be similarly shared between the AFs and the COs which could indicate talent-development priorities or a combination of social-artistic-learning goals that are upheld and delivered alongside sustainable economic goals.

Art-Forms And Current, Historic And Cultural Learning Practice:

There is a significant trend in the sample showing that AFs engage in 1-4 art-forms, most with an average of around 2-3. This shows the versatility of the AFs and their engagement in multi-art-form practice. The 2 most popular art-forms practiced by the AFs in the sample were Music with 25% of the total art-forms identified and Visual Arts with 18%.

AFs have a repertory of different art-forms and different contexts, and are operating a context type of portfolio as well as an art-form portfolio. They are practising simultaneously as Professionals, Specialists and Generalists with one or more art-forms. The conceptual boundaries between these 3 types of contexts do not restrict AFs from freely admitting to be currently practising in many contexts, for many reasons. Strongly held differentials between practitioners for social or leisure reasons, i.e. hobbyists, amateurs and professionals does not seem to apply to this group who see themselves as being able to move fluidly between these different types of location as part of their current practice. They apply their practice for different purposes including to undertake paid work, to specialise or deepen their knowledge and experience, and to have fun, be sociable and play. There is additional evidence to support this from a historic view of the AFs journey in which they develop a repertory of art-forms and cultural learning contexts consisting of between 3 -10 different types.


AFs are working in both individual and group contexts historically but the group contexts diminish and the individual contexts increase as they move forward in their careers in accordance with professional opportunities and aspirations. There is the same level of engagement historically and currently with community contexts and this is of particular interest to a potential European Association.

The opportunity to develop the skills, knowledge and experience required for the Professional contexts then clearly comes from both Generalist as well as Specialist contexts. This has implications for policy-makers and others wishing to support the development of creative talent to enterprise.

Cultural Learning is not viewed as a replacement for formal education, since 86% of the AFs are graduates and highly qualified, but rather as an ecology of artistic practice development with its knowledge networks, informal systems, journeys and opportunities. The mix of informal, non-formal and formal learning activities that are delivered, shared or experienced via other AFs and COs within 9 Cultural Learning contexts equip aspiring artists to develop their practice organically and in multi-directions. It is by experiencing this ecology and by undertaking a continuously negotiated role within the community of practice that a novice artist navigates the Generalist, Specialist and Professional roles as well as the Individual, Group and Community contexts of their practice in organic and flexible ways over time. The cultural learning sector can be viewed both as an ecology and as a community of practice that individuals move through, learning informally, non-formally and formally to build their portfolios or art-forms, roles and contexts.

COs and AFs generally serve different communities

within the 9 cultural learning contexts. The organisation mission and stakeholders of the COs influence their priorities, whereas the AFs are likely to be freer to respond to opportunities, paid or otherwise.

A Core Curriculum For Cultural Learning:

Through the research a broad ECLN shared Core Curriculum has been developed from Core-Competences which are considered by AFs and COs as essential to developing and equipping the Cultural Learning Support Practitioner for working in the 9 cultural learning contexts.

This ECLN Core Curriculum consists of competences in the following:

A. Creative ProcessesB. Artistic TechniquesC. CommunicationD. TeamworkE. CoachingF. TrainingG. Cultural ContextsH. MentoringI. Self-Awareness

The least valued competencies of both the COs and the AFs were ‘Employability’, ‘Self-Employment’ and ‘Self-Management’ potentially expressing that this type of learning experience is focused more expansively on human potential rather than being solely concerned with using the arts as a purely instrumental tool to develop the economic production of individuals.


Resources For Cultural Learning:The top 5 recorded resources used in the delivery of Cultural Learning Support across all countries clearly indicates the importance of dedicated space and the importance of contacts when engaging within a community of practice. It also highlights the position of the AFs and COs as current practitioners with ‘live’ contacts that can be used as a resource to enable Cultural Learners to access further learning and opportunities to develop their practice.

Evaluation:

Across all countries 81% of AFs use self-evaluation, 85% of AFs have their work evaluated by cultural learners or the people they support and 67% of AFs have their work evaluated by others whereas 80% of COs use self-evaluation, 93% of COs have their work evaluated by Cultural Learners and 73% of COs have their work evaluated by others.

Potential Roles For A European Cultural Learning Association:

‘Connecting’ and ‘Training’ were the clear front-runners as potential roles for a European Cultural Learning Association with both COs and AFs but then COs preferred ‘Researching’, ‘Lobbying’, ‘Monitoring’ and ‘Recognising’ compared with the AF preferences of ‘Lobbying’, ‘Recognising’, ‘Researching’ and ‘Monitoring’.

Conclusion:The ECLN research project has provided an overview of a very diverse sector that has 2 main constituencies: the first is the Artist Freelancers that share their practice through formal, non-formal and informal contexts and strategies; the second, is the Cultural Organisation that delivers Cultural Learning for different reasons.

There is a very diverse set of work contracts and organisational structures for this type of work according to the research participants, however, there is a remarkable consensus about the competences and resources needed to do this work and there is a highly qualified work-force to do this. The sector has been operational for at least 30 years yet it is fluid, structurally under-resourced with low financial returns and minimal security for workers.

Despite the sector context, it has been able to sustain itself using the goodwill, creativity and entrepreneurship of its creative community work-force together with the supportive public, private and other stakeholders.

There is very little public recognition and validation for this work which exists as a cultural learning ecology and consists of a networked within a community of practice who transfer creative and cultural knowledge to each other as a means of developing talent and other human potential.


2.1 The European Cultural Learning Network (ECLN) has been established to explore the vocational education and training issues that are relevant to ‘Cultural Learning’ practitioners, and the organisations that employ them. By ‘Cultural Learning’(CL), we mean the whole range of artistic and cultural learning that is delivered by artists and creative people, as freelancers or within cultural organisations, across 3 different situations:

i) informal situations e.g. through the ad-hoc sharing of knowledge and skills between people within informal artist and cultural networks;

ii) non-formal situations e.g. occurring in cultural or art centres or through cultural and community associations; within arts-based projects and programmes targeted at specific communities or groups; or to promote, support and develop specific cultural or artistic practice outside formal education;

iii) formal situations e.g. occurring in classes, workshops, lectures or seminars as part of a formal learning programme in school, college, adult education, university or elsewhere;

Cultural Learning (CL) includes the whole range of artistic and cultural learning delivered or led by artists and creative people in any social, educational or professional situation. During the period October 2012 to September 2015, ECLN aims to explore and pilot new ways of supporting people and organisations working in the CL sector across Europe. ECLN will endeavour to increase the profile and connectivity of the sector as well as supporting its vocational education and training (VET) needs.

2.2 The first stage of the ECLN project aimed to research the CL Sector in each partner’s country and to map and identify any new organisations and stakeholders in the sector. This document is concerned with this research, which was envisioned, designed, tested and carried out between March and October, 2013. More information can be obtained about the ECLN partnership and the individual founding partners and their networks from the ECLN website (http://ecln-network.com).

2. Introduction

By ‘Cultural Learning’(CL), we mean the whole range of artistic and cultural learning that is delivered by artists and creative people,


3.1 This report explores relevant issues and examines indicative trends in this particular type of context in Europe using a small and highly focused sample of 138 Artists or Creative Freelancers (AFs) and 35 Representatives of Cultural Organisations (COs) in 10 countries. The results published here are from Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Spain and United Kingdom. Further results may be added in due course.

3.2 Each partner was enabled and supported to explore and examine this type of CL using a shared research framework with toolkit. This research toolkit was used with people and organisations working in this sector within partners’ own national networks. This research toolkit consisted of a set of customised charts developed through a research methodology ‘testing laboratory’ held at the Kau Academy in Estonia with ECLN partners and a group of 20 Estonian Artists and Creative Freelancers in March, 2013. The feed-back gained from partners, artists and a specialist external evaluator, led to the design and creation of a set of research charts that aimed to collect a mix of qualitative and quantitative data from Artists and Creative Freelancers (AFs) and the Representatives of Cultural Organisations (COs).

3.3 The research tool-kit consisted of seven charts, which were devised so that partners, with minimal research experience, could engage and facilitate a structured but in-depth dialogue with AFs and COs. This demanded a significant time resource from both the researching partner and from the participants, which was only considered possible and viable because of their networked relationship. The charts were designed to be visually attractive with individual characteristics

and a coherent style to hold the interest and attention of both the researcher and participant whilst they engaged together in the process, which took approximately 1-2 hours to work through.

3.4 Partners were requested to invite up to 20 specific AFs to participate so that they could ensure the spread of different art-forms and a range of demographics. They were also requested to invite up to 5 representatives from Cultural Organisations so that different art-forms were represented. The ECLN partner facilitated the research participants to reflect on their past and current practices and to stimulate the sense of a networked community of practice within their own country and to suggest the possibility of such a network across Europe. This suggestion was useful for some initial testing of the feasibility for a European Cultural Learning Association exploring potential roles and obtaining suggested roles.

3.5 Partners captured and recorded aspects of the dialogue relating to CL practices, perceptions about CL and some individual narratives of significant characteristics of individual and organisational journeys into and within the sector. Participants were also able to share their insights about how CL is affected by their specific and current country-context and to engage in a focus group with their peers to discuss this further to reach shared conclusions. A key focus of the research was to identify Core Competences for Cultural Learning (CCCL) and researchers were able to capture AF and CO perspectives about CCCL by asking them what key 5 skills they use for delivering CL; what key resources are used and who provides investment for CL.

3. Research Methodology and Charts


3.6 Research findings were shared with partners in the ECLN meeting in Poland so that analysis could be carried out together and a shared picture of issues and trends within CL in a European context could be developed.

3.7 The 7 Charts that made up the Research Tool-kit of the European Cultural Learning Network aimed to investigate what CL looks like in a European context. The Charts do this by asking the following questions:

Chart 1: Where does Cultural Learning happen?

Charts 1, 2&7: Who engages in Cultural Learning?

Charts 1&2: What is the content of Cultural Learning?

Chart 2: How is Cultural Learning resourced?

Chart 2: How is Cultural Learning evaluated?

Charts 1&3: What pathways do people take into Cultural Learning?

Charts 1&3: How do people and organisations progress over time in the Cultural Learning field?

Chart 3: What examples of positive and negative forces are evident in the narratives of individuals and organisations involved in Cultural Learning?

Chart 3: What are the education and training trends evident among Cultural Learning workers?

Chart 3: What examples of recognition are evident among Cultural Learning workers?

Charts 3&5: Are there examples of a shared underlying logic within the narratives of individuals and organisations involved in the Cultural learning sector?

Chart 4: What potential roles and functions of a European Association do Cultural Learning workers consider important for them and for others in the sector?

Chart 5: What difference does the specific country context make to the Cultural Learning sector and to the Cultural and Creative sector of that country?

Chart 6: How does the concept of Cultural Learning and its terminology transfer across countries In Europe?

Chart 7: What are the characteristics of some individuals and organisations working in the Cultural Learning sector?

This research toolkit consisted of a set of customised charts developed through a

research methodology ‘testing laboratory’ held at the Kau Academy in Estonia


3.7.1 Chart One: Mapping Cultural Learning

Chart 1: Mapping Cultural Learning Zones

P

S

G

I G C

CGI

E.G. Freelancer, Consultant, PA Facilitator, Artist, Sole Director, Entrepreneur

E.G. Contracted, Employed, Partnership, Company, Ensemble, Commercial Enterprise

E.G. Industry Associations, Professional Networks, Communities of ‘Professional’ Practice

E.G. Social/Cultural Associations, Communities of ‘Specialist’ Practice

E.G. Volunteers, Trustees, Directors, Specialist Ensemble, Small Social Enterprises

E.G. Independent, Hobbyist, Soloist, Enthusiast, Artist

• Identity• Commitment• Depth of Experience

(technical, creative, places)• Self-awareness (Knowledge, Skills,

Qualities, Objectives)• Progression

• Vision/Leadership• Collective Identity• Culture (Rituals)• Synergies• Group Dynamics• Dialogue/Negotiation• Sustainability

• Recognition (Peers, Audience)

• Field of Practice• Including/Excluding• Language (jargon)• Network/Community Identity

• Recognition (Awards, Earnings)

• Advocacy, Representing• Influencing, Lobbying• Promoting• Supporting• Sustaining

• Sector/Market Location• Competitor Awareness

& Differentiation Strategy• Managing Professional Relationships• Contractual Responsibilities• Stakeholder Management

• Marketability• Employability• Professionalism• Vision for Career

CGIE.G. Lifelong Leaning, Social Networks using Cultural/Creative Activities, Communities of Interest

E.G. Attenders, Participants, Social and Learner Groups using Cultural/Creative activities

E.G. Explorer, Witness, Discoverer, Creator

• Experience• Expression• Engagement• Energy/Passion• Enjoyment• Achievement

• Shared Experience• Collaboration• Participation• Challenge• Thrill/Buzz/Reward

• Recognition (Mentoring)• Connection• Cohesion• Resilience• Generation/Regeneration

How to use this Mapping Device:-Please answer the following questions:1) Current zones, previous zones and art-forms

a) Which of the 9 zones are you currently located in? Which art-form or art-forms did you practice in these current zones?

b) Which of the 9 zones of the chart have you previously been located in from your first cultural learning experience? Which art-form or art-forms did you practice in these previous zones?

c) If you support or help other people to develop their arts/cultural practices in any of the 9 zones then you are supporting cultural learning. Mark any of these zones with a ‘SCL’ in the appropriate box together with the art-form supported.

There is a small 6-box grid in the right-hand corner of each zone of the chart. The 3 boxes on the top line are the location boxes and the 3 boxes immediately below these are the art-form boxes. Please add the appropriate letters to each zone using the codes below:

LOCATIONS BOXES:

C = currently located; H = historically or previously located; SCL = have supported cultural learning for others in this zone;

ART-FORM BOXES:

Add the relevant art-form code or codes in the box below when you identify your current locations, historic locations and zones in which you supported cultural learning.

Key to art form codes: (If Other please write art-form)

Music, Theatre, Dance, Circus, Film, Visual Arts, Photography, Animation, Comedy, Sculpture, Design, Craft, Performance Art, Cuisine, Other

2) Please list the route or sequence of your journey through any of the 9 zones from your first cultural learning experience to your current locations adding the relevant art-form codes. If you are involved in learning 2 or more art-forms then put a ‘+’ between these to show that they are happening simultaneously. For example: IS(M) GS(M) + GG(Da) IP(M)+GG(Da). If you would prefer to draw this as a flow chart, please do so overleaf.

Prof

essi

onal

Lea

rner

sSp

ecia

list Le

arne

rsGen

eral

ist Le

arne

rs

Group Development (-meso)Individual Development (-micro) Community Development (-macro)

Locations

Art-form

Locations

Art-form

Locations

Art-form

Locations

Art-form

Locations

Art-form

Locations

Art-form

Locations

Art-form

Locations

Art-form

Locations

Art-form

Collage Arts © 2013

Generalist Learners primarily use cultural and creative experiences to learn about themselves, others and culturesSpecialist Learners primarily use cultural and creative experiences to learn about artistic forms, practices and techniquesProfessional Learners primarily use cultural and creative experiences to learn about work and working in the cultural and creative industries

ECLN partner name Participant code number

Learning about

Learning about

Learning about

Learning about

Learning about

Learning about

Learning about

Learning about

Learning about

This Chart is a matrix which connects 3 different key types of learning rationales with 3 key different types of learning context in order to provide an ecological view of Cultural Learning (CL) practices. The thinking that led to the designing of Chart 1 proposes that:

a) CL occurs with 3 main types of individual rationale or motivation for engaging in it. These 3 rationales are classified in Chart 1 as Generalist, Specialist or Professional.

-Generalists engage in CL primarily for non-art-form related reasons e.g. well-being, social, physical, leisure, fun etc.

-Specialists engage in CL primarily to learn about cultural forms, creative processes, artistic techniques and develop and further their artistic practice.

-Professionals engage in CL primarily to learn about how to further their work or career within the cultural and creative industries.

b) CL occurs in 3 main types of context. People can engage in CL on their own, within groups or as part of a community. These 3 contexts are classified in Chart 1 as Individual, Group and Community.

-Individual CL contexts include unsupported individual on-line learning, individual tuition , self-tuition etc.

-Group CL contexts include group activities or workshops, ensembles, collectives, formal or non-formal classes, organisations, companies etc.

-Community CL contexts include community and professional associations, networks, multi-group projects and committees that involve more than one group at a time etc.

This approach connects these different learning rationales and different contexts to form 9 zones of Cultural Learning practice. These 9 CL zones enable individuals to map their past history and current CL practices. This facilitates the tracing of individual journeys through the CL Landscape from the place in which they first felt the spark of interest or passion for an art-form or genre as a beginner through to the aspiring or dedicated specialist and finally to the dedicated professional worker. It is able to identify the depth and range of experience of an individual in a specific art-form and also those who engage simultaneously in a breadth of diverse art-form practices and the spectrum between both these extremes.Chart 1 is also able to map the availability of CL support within these 9 CL zones and to be able to compare this with current and historic practices. This is useful to identify and compare trends and to monitor access to CL for different types of motivation and for preferred CL contexts.

3.7 The 7 European Cultural Learning Network Research Charts


3.7.2 Chart Two: Supporting The Cultural Learning Of Others

Chart Two is solely concerned with Supporting the Cultural Learning of Others. It enables:

a) The identification of financial models underpinning CL activities and the impact of stakeholder relationships in this area.

b) A core-curriculum of the most important skills and knowledge types used in CL support to be compiled.

c) A map of CL support referenced to the 9 CL zones of Chart 1 over the last 5 years.

d) A menu of evaluation strategies used by CL supporters to evaluate the quality and usefulness of their CL support from their own perspective as CL practitioners and from the perspective of their beneficiaries and other stakeholders.

Chart 2: Supporting The Cultural Learning Of Others

My Supporting work is mostly: Unpaid or Voluntary Paid for by those supported Paid for by others than those supported

How have you supported others in the last 5 years?

Who have you supported in the last 5 years?

How is the quality and usefulness of your support currently evaluated & recognised?

I have supported the Cultural Learning of others using:

My Skills and Knowledge

Creative Processes

Artistic Techniques

Cultural Forms

Cultural Contexts

Coaching

Mentoring

Training

Self-awareness

Self-management

Team Work

Communication

Life-skills

Employability

Self-Employment

Others:

My Resources

Creative Space

General Space

Equipment

Materials

Money

Contacts

Other:

I Spend On Average

Hours per week

Hours per month

Hours per year

Supporting the Cultural Learning of others

I Spend On Average

Hours per week

Hours per month

Hours per year

On my own artistic/creative or cultural practice

I have supported

Professional Cultural Learners

Developing personal and professional skills and knowledge for employment or enterprise within the creative and cultural industries.

Individual Professional Learners

A group of Professional Learners

A community of Professional Learners

Specialist Cultural Learners

Developing creative process, artistic techniques, cultural forms and contexts through creative and cultural activities.

Individual Specialist Learners

A group of Specialist Learners

A community of Specialist Learners

Generalist Cultural Learners

Using Creative and Cultural Learning activities as a Catalyst for broad educational or/and social outcomes e.g. Confidence, well-being, engagement, cohesion.

I Supported

Individual Generalist Learners

A group of Generalist Learners

A community of Generalist Learners

How is the quality and usefulness of your support currently evaluated and recognised?

By Yourself?

If so, how?

By the people you support?

If so, how?

By others?

If so, who and how?


(please give the % of each type)

(circle 5 types of skills and knowledge you consider to be most important for your supporting role)



3.7.3 Chart Three: Some Characteristics Of Your Individual Journey

Chart Three is concerned with collecting narratives concerning the Cultural and Creative journey of the individual AF or the CO along a flexible time-line. It has 6 prompt lines that run parallel to the time-line for the participant to use if they wish. These prompt lines ask people to reflect, recall and note-down significant or important:

a) people or organisations that supported individuals or organisations on their journeys;

b) people or organisations that blocked or hindered individuals or organisations on their journeys;

c) spaces or places in the journey; d) pieces of work, artefacts or projects carried out;e) achievements, types of recognition or awards gained on the

journey;f) events that have impacted the creative journey;

These narratives will be analysed at a later stage of the ECLN project and so are not recorded within this document.

SBPWAE

0 ( )

Chart 3: Your Cultural and Creative Journey: Influences, Experiences and Achievements

Please use this Chart to identify significant influences, experiences and achievements against the time line using the colour prompt lines. You may use arrows, words, drawings etc. Please label the time-line years with the appropriate calendar years e.g. 2013, 1997, 1980 etc.

Individual Journey

Organisational Journey

S Important People & Organisations “Supporters” Name (role/relationship)

B Important People & Organisations “Blockers” Name (role/relationship)

P Important Places & Spaces Where (role/function/other)

W Important Work, Artefacts, Projects What (started/completed)

A Important Achievements, Recognition, Prizes What (attempted/outcome)

E Important Events What (impact/outcome)

Collage Arts © 2013ECLN partner name Participant code number

year

s

1 ( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( )SBPWAE

5 ( ) 6 ( ) 7 ( ) 8 ( ) 9 ( )SBPWAE

10 ( ) 11 ( ) 12 ( ) 13 ( ) 14 ( )SBPWAE

15 ( ) 16 ( ) 17 ( ) 18 ( ) 19 ( )SBPWAE

20 ( ) 21 ( ) 22 ( ) 23 ( ) 24 ( )


3.7.4 Chart Four: Exploring The Need For A Cultural Learning Association

Chart Four invites AFs and COs to consider the need for a European Cultural Learning Association. It presents potential roles for such an association and asks for other suggestions. It invites people to offer their own opinions about these roles and also to predict the viewpoints of others. Finally, it asks for a star-rating of 1-5 (low to high) for each of the roles to determine the high priority roles.

Chart 4: To what extent is there a need for a European Cultural Learning Association?

1 Connecting

Important for you

Important for others

Important to Cultural Learning Sector in Europe

Yes

Yes

Connecting:i) Artists/Cultural Learning Supporters to each other

ii) Artists/Cultural Learning Supporters to Cultural and Creative Employers

iii) Artists/Cultural Learning Supporters to Public or Private Investors

2 Monitoring/Filtering

Important for you



Yes

Yes

Monitoring/Filtering:i) Trends that affect people in The Cultural

Learning Sector

ii) Trends that affect organisations in The Cultural Learning Sector

iii) Trends in Public/Private Investment

iv) Trends in National Government and European policy that impact The Cultural Learning Sector

3 Researching

Important for you



Yes

Yes

Researching/publishing:i) Collective & analytic data and statistics about

the sector, its workers beneficeries, sustainability and trends

ii) Publish the ‘Body of Knowledge’ and good practice of the sector to all its stakeholders through an annual conference and other appropriate public output

4 Lobbying/Advocating

Important for you



Yes

Yes

Lobbying/Advocating i) In public debate concerning all aspects of the

Cultural Learning Sector using the collective research, networks as a negotiating tool

ii) The work of the sector to private and public investors

5 Recognising/Validating

Important for you



Yes

Yes

Recognising/Validating:i) Through a European Framework for Cultural

Learning Support with a peer evaluation process and accreditation recognised throughout Europe

ii) Through three recognised awards for the Cultural Learning worker at trainee, competent & proficient levels.

iii) Through an annual directory/register of validated cultural learning workers in Europe

6 Training

Important for you



Yes

Yes

Training:i) Responding to training needs and providing training

courses and workshops or sharing information about training or workshops run by others in the Cultural Learning sector or elsewhere

ii) Setting up a peer review system for training courses and workshops for the cultural learning sector

7 Other: (give details below)

Important for you



Yes

Yes

Do you think any of the following roles are important for you or for others?If so, how would you rate the importance of this role to the Cultural Learning Sector in Europe? shade in as appropriate

HighLow

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Collage Arts © 2013ECLN partner name Participant code number

8 Who do you think would be interested?

If you have suggested that one or more of these roles might be important for others, give the names, descriptions, roles or types of ‘others’ that you are referring to in the space below or overleaf:


3.7.5 Chart Five: Country Context And Impact On Cultural And Creative Sector

Chart Five is in 2 parts: 5a –for individual AFs or COs; 5b –for a facilitated group of up to 5 AFs or COs and is concerned with CL in the current context of their particular country. Individuals are invited to identify current ‘trends’ or ‘patterns’ or ‘changes’ that they are aware of within their own country (Social, Government, Economic, Technology, and Environmental/Ethical) and to consider the impact of these trends, patterns or changes on the Creative and Cultural sector in their country including: Creative Businesses, Cultural and Social Enterprises, Artists and Creative Freelancers, Arts Audiences and Participants, Public and Private Investors in the sector and Cultural Learning. The individual that has completed Chart 5a then joins a small group of 4 others supported by a group facilitator and a scribe. The facilitator reviews the individual charts as presented by the 5 individuals who completed them and the scribe synthesizes this content into 1 collective country context .

Chart 5a: Country Context Map and the Cultural and Creative Sector (Individual)

IMPACT ON

Social Trends Ethical & Environmental TrendsTechnology TrendsEconomic TrendsGovernment Trends

Creative Businesses

Cultural & Social

Enterprises

Artists & Creative

Freelancers

Audiences & Culture

Participants

Public Investors In Cultural Work

Private Investors In Cultural Work Cultural Learning

ECLN partner name Participant code number Collage Arts © 2013


3.7.6 Chart Six: Developing A Visual Glossary For Cultural Learning

Chart Six aims to create a European Cultural Learning Network Visual Glossary which captures the terminology and concepts of Cultural Learning and examines how terminology travels across different European countries. Partner Organisations will complete this, adding to it by consulting with people in their own organisation and the research participants throughout the ECLN project. This will be compiled at a later stage of the ECLN project and so is not recorded within this document.

Chart 6: Developing a European Cultural Learning Glossary


English National Language 1 National Language 2 Visual ImageAccreditation

Achievement

Artist

Artistic Process

Artistic Techniques

Assessment

Attitudes

Breadth

Circus


3.7.6.1 Chart 7A): Artist And Creative Freelancer Profiles

Chart Seven is in two parts - Chart 7a is for each Partner Organisation to insert the personal profile data of all individual AFs who are research participants and to link each participant with an allocated individual/country code.


Research Participant Code

Full name (First name) (Middle name) (Family name)

Date of birth (day/month/year)

Gender (female/male)

Address(house number or name)(Street)(Town/City)(Country)(Postcode)

Mobile/cellphone number:

Email address:

Age:

Art-form(s)

Highest academic qualification achieved, subject(s) studied and date of award:

Professional memberships or accreditation:

Profession/employment status:


Chart 7a: Data collection for Research Participants (Individual Artists/Creative Freelancers)


3.7.6.2 Chart 7B): Representatives Of Cultural Organisations

Chart 7b is for each Partner Organisation to insert the organisational data and some personal data of all representatives from cultural organisations who are research participants and to link each participant with the allocated individual/country code. All participants whose details have been entered into Charts 7a and 7b will have completed consent forms to engage in the ECLN research with additional forms from those individuals consenting to be recorded on video with respect to Charts 3 and 5b.

3.8 This document will report on the findings from Charts 1,2,4,5 and 7. The results from Charts 3 and 6 will be analysed and utilised during a later stage of the project as part of feasibility study for a European Cultural Learning Association.


Research Participant Code:

Name of cultural organisation:

Type of cultural organisation:

Public investment sources:

Private investment sources:

Earned income sources:

Income sources: Public %; Private %; Earned %; Other (give details) %

Art-form(s):

Address(house number or name)(Street)(Town/City)(Country)(Postcode)


Chart 7b: Data collection for Research Participants (Representatives of Cultural Organisations)

Cultural organisation representative details:

Job Title:

Type of contract (select from options): Employed Freelance Paid Voluntary Full-time Part-time Permanent Temporary Other (give details)

Full name (First name) (Middle name) (Family name)

Date of birth (day/month/year)

Gender (female/male)

Mobile/cellphone number:

Email address:

Age:


4. Results

i). Artists and Creative Freelancers in Partnership Countries

A.Pan-European Artist Freelancers

Chart 7a The Artists and Creative Freelancers who participated in the research

Fig. 1: Gender of Artists/Creative Freelancers by country

1.1 The sample of Artists and Creative Freelancers AFs who participated in this research were selected and invited by ECLN partners because they were members of their networks. The partners were asked to select a sample that is diverse in age range, art-forms and gender. The AF sample of 147 individuals includes 72 women and 75 men.


Fig. 2: Age-groups of Artists/Creative Freelancers by country

1.2 The majority of the AF sample, 37%, is aged between 26-35 years, with 19 % aged between 46-55 years and just 17% aged between 36-45 years and 16% aged between 16-25 years. Only 7% is aged between 56-65 years and only 4% is aged between 66-75years. No-one is aged over 75. The highest proportion of younger people is evident in Italy and Cyprus and the highest proportion of older people is evident in the UK and Poland. (One person did not give their age). It is interesting to note that this is a very young workforce with 53% aged under-35 and only 30% of the workforce is currently over 46. There is a definitive drop to just 17% at age 36-45. This decline could be in the actual workforce sample which could indicate that people of this age-group were less available to participate in

the research possibly because of other commitments e.g.

family or because the workforce are leaving the sector after age 36. The sector tends to be low paid with little long-term security and younger people may be more prepared to give their energy for non-financial rewards and accommodate the riskiness of the sector than people from their mid-thirties onwards, who need to be able to sustain themselves, any potential dependents and more comfort or quality in their lifestyle beyond the age of 36. Then the workforce rises again slightly to 19% at 46-55 with people perhaps being more available to participate in the research or moving into the sector to begin a second career with 8% staying on at work till aged 65 and 4% staying on beyond


Fig. 3: Art-form types of Artists/Creative Freelancers by country

1.3 There is a significant trend in the sample showing that AFs engage in more than one art-form in each country context except in the Netherlands and Estonia. Poland shows that their AFs engage in an average of 4 art-forms followed by Greece and Spain with an average of 3 art-forms and then Croatia, UK, Slovenia, Italy and Cyprus with an average of around 2. This is striking as it shows both the

versatility of the AFs and their engagement in multi-art-form practice. The 2 most popular art-forms practiced by the AFs in the sample were Music with 25% of the total art-forms identified and Visual Arts with 18%. These two were followed by Theatre, Dance and Photography with a significant drop to 9% each and then Design and Writing with 7% each and finally Performance Art and Film with just 6% and other art-forms combined at just 4%.


Fig. 4: Highest Qualification of Artists/Creative Freelancers by country

1.4 The AFs are very highly qualified. 86% of them are graduates or have certification equivalent to the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) level 6 and 39% having post-graduate qualifications, including Masters Degrees and Doctorates. 14% of AFs give their highest qualification level as EQF level 5 or below and only 4 out of 147 AFs have qualifications below level 3. Three of these AFs are located in the Netherlands and 1 is located in the UK.


Fig. 5: Highest Qualification of Artists/Creative Freelancers across all countries

1.5 AFs working in Cultural Learning tend to work predominantly in informal and non-formal situations and as a result of the informal nature of their working contexts, some investors and agencies have made incorrect assumptions about the qualifications and expertise of the practitioners working in the sector. This is due, primarily, to a lack of knowledge about the high levels of qualification of AFs and the significant amount of unrecognised work-based experience gained by the cultural learning workforce. The sector has taken on or been assigned various roles for which it is funded directly and indirectly. These tasks include: -developing people, particularly young people, with no or low qualification levels -enabling individuals to engage or re-engage in society, education, employment or training-retaining young people in learning activities to

accommodate and address inability or unwillingness to ‘fit’ into formal education structures -engaging people of all ages and abilities in cultural and creative leisure activities for cultural and social reasons -developing aspiring creative amateurs and potential creative professionals The sector is rarely appreciated for all these different contributions; Cultural Learning being for all aspiring artists and creatives, at whatever stage of their personal journey, in whatever personal, social or economic circumstances and particularly for those individuals who prefer or need to learn in non-formal and informal contexts with practicing professional and highly qualified artists and creative freelancers, rather than with professional qualified teachers in a formal setting.


Fig. 6: Professional Membership of Artists/Creative Freelancers across all countries

1.6 Professional Membership seems to be common across countries, although, there was little information about this from the sample in the Netherlands or Estonia.


Fig. 7: Professional Accreditation of Artists/Creative Freelancers across all countries

1.7 Professional accreditation is held but less commonly than membership, except within AFs in Croatia, Italy, Poland and Slovenia. Types of professional membership and accreditation need to be further explored by ECLN as there is a tendency for these to relate to specific art-forms or cultural practices. There is a need to discover more about generic Associations, which may be concerned with facilitating non-formal or practice-based learning.


Fig. 8: Employment Status of Artists/Creative Freelancers by Country

1.8 163 types of employment status are recorded by 147 AFs. The majority are freelancers, with a significant number employed and a small minority are unemployed, semi-retired and retired. There is some indication of the existence of ‘Portfolio Careers’ or at least, ‘Portfolio Working’ in which the individuals undertake different types of employment. This is slightly evident in Spain, Cyprus, Netherlands and more pronounced in Greece and the UK. In Croatia, Poland, Slovenia, Estonia and Italy the AFs refer to just one form of employment status.


Chart 1: Towards an Ecology of Cultural Learning

2.1 Chart 1 constructs an ecological map of Cultural Learning contexts and classifies forms of Cultural Learner engagement. AFs map all the art-forms that they are engaged with, as practitioners and as cultural learning facilitators and COs to map the art-forms they provide as Cultural Learning opportunities. The completed ECLN Chart One depicts the individual AF journey engaging with art-forms in one or more of 3 different Practitioner Roles: that of a Professional, earning income from artistic or cultural practices; that of a Specialist, engaging in an artistic or cultural practice for its own sake; or that of a Generalist, engaging in artistic or cultural practices for the pursuit of other priorities including social, leisure, philosophical, educational or other non-artistic goals. The chart also depicts the Cultural Learner Contexts of the AF’s own cultural learning history, current cultural practices and cultural learning facilitation activities. These Cultural Learner Contexts are as an Individual; in a Group;

in a Community involving more than one group; The chart forms an ecological map containing 9 Cultural Learning Zones (CLZ), in which all Cultural Learning occurs. AFs can make a number of different journeys through these 9 Cultural Learning Zones (CLZ) engaging with Cultural Learning in different roles and different contexts. They can make a linear progression with one particular art-form moving from Generalist to Specialist to Professional and they can undulate in a non-linear journey collecting experience and developing a portfolio of art-forms by engaging simultaneously as Generalist, Specialist and Professional. The 9 CLZ are Professional Individual (PI); Professional Group (PG); Professional Community (PC); Specialist Individual (SI); Specialist Group (SG); Specialist Community (SC); Generalist Individual (GI); Generalist Group (GG); and Generalist Community (GC).


Fig. 9: Average number of Current locations by country

3.1 147 AFs recorded a significant 936 current locations on ECLN Chart One. The AFs national average ranged from a modest 3 current locations in Italy to an expansive 14 in Croatia. The research showed an average of 6 current locations for each individual representing a broad portfolio of current art-forms and/or practice contexts. The current locations recorded by AFs indicate that they have a repertory of art-forms and different contexts rather than working with just one particular art-form in just one specific context. The research indicates that AFs are operating another type of portfolio: that of the practice context. They are practising simultaneously in

Professional, Specialist and Generalist contexts with one or more art-forms. The conceptual boundaries between these 3 types of contexts do not restrict AFs from freely admitting to be currently practising in many contexts, for many reasons. Strongly held differentials between practitioners for social or leisure reasons, i.e. hobbyists, amateurs and professionals does not seem to apply to this group who see themselves as being able to move between these different types of location as part of their current practice. They apply their practice for different purposes and objectives including to undertake paid work, to specialise and to have fun, be sociable and play.

3 The Current Locations of Artist/Creative Freelancers (AFs) in the 9 Cultural Learning Zones (CLZ):


Fig. 10: Current locations across all countries

3.2 AFs in the sample report that 46% of these current locations are in Professional contexts. 21% of these as Professional Individual (PI) i.e. practising as a professional freelancer, 16% in Professional Group (PG) i.e. practising in a professional ensemble or company and 9% locations in Professional Community (PC) i.e. practising as part of a professional association or multi-group professional project. 32% are in Specialist contexts, of which 16% are in Specialist Individual (SI) i.e practising as a specialist artist in a non-professional context, 9% in Specialist Group (SG) i.e. practising in an amateur ensemble or group and 7% in Specialist

Communities (SC) i.e. practising as part of a specialist non-professional association or multi-group specialist project. Generalist contexts are also reported and 22% of the current locations reported by the AFs are in Generalist locations. 12% in Generalist Individual (GI) i.e. practising as an individual for leisure, entertainment or fun, 7% in Generalist Groups(GG) i.e. practising in an social, leisure or learning group for exploration, entertainment or fun, and just 3% in Generalist Communities(GC) i.e. practising as part of any non-specialist non-professional association for social, leisure, learning, fun etc.


Fig. 11: Top 5 Current locations across all countries

3.3 The most frequently recorded or top 5 Current Locations(CL) of AFs for each country clearly indicate an Individual focus with only Cyprus presenting a group context. 6 of these contexts are Professional, with one Specialist and one Generalist in Croatia and the Netherlands, respectively. The top 3 AF Current Locations have 19 Individual contexts, 9 Group contexts and only 2 Community contexts, one in Italy and one in the UK, both of which are Professional.


Fig. 12: Average number of Historic locations by country

4.1 147 AFs recorded 869 historic locations, slightly less than the 936 current locations. The profile of the AF historic location is different from the AF current locations, as one would expect since it records the individual pathway of the AF to their current locations. The average number of historic contexts ranges from between 2-3 in Greece, 10-11 in Croatia, 9 in Slovenia and 5-7 in Cyprus, UK and Poland with an average of 6 across all countries. This provides additional evidence to support that AFs have a portfolio of art-forms and/or practice contexts and indicates that AFs also begin their journey with a repertory of art-forms and cultural learning contexts consisting of between 3

-10 different types. In UK, Greece, Netherlands and Spain the average number of historic locations is less than the average number of current locations demonstrating a growth in the AF portfolio as they progress with their journey or career. However, in Cyprus, Italy, Poland, Slovenia and Estonia the average number of current locations is less than the average number of historic locations demonstrating a reduction or concentration in the AF art-form/context portfolio. This may be a result of local market conditions, a trend towards specialisation in certain types of creative or cultural employment and the degree of specialisation within learning and early career opportunities.

4. The Historic Location of Artist/Creative Freelancers (AFs) in the 9 Cultural Learning Zones (CLZ)


Fig. 13: Historic locations across all countries

4.2 The AFs record their historic locations with a majority of 42% as Specialist with 18% as Specialist Individual (SI), 14% in Specialist Group (SG) and 10% in Specialist Community (SC). The next most popular historic context was the Generalist contexts which made up 34% of those recorded with 18% in Generalist Individual (GI, 12% in Generalist Group (GG) as 4% in Generalist Community. Unsurprisingly, the least common context in the historic location was the Professional with 24%, just under half that of the total for the current locations reported in this type. 10% in Professional Individual (PI) 9% in Professional Group (PG) and just 4% in Professional Community.


Fig. 14: Top 5 Historic locations across all countries

4.3 The most frequently recorded 5 Historic Locations by the AF sample in each country indicate the primary importance of the Individual context but there is also a significant trend of the importance of the Group context in some countries where this is ranked highest like in the UK, the Netherlands, Cyprus, and Estonia. The top 3 Historic locations across countries have 16 Individual contexts, 10 Group contexts and only 4 Community contexts, one in Italy, one in Greece, one in Slovenia and one in the UK, all of which are Specialist.


4.4 In conclusion, Historic locations include a majority of 46% Individual contexts, followed by 35% Group contexts and 19% Community contexts. The research indicates that 42% of these are in Specialist roles, 34% in Generalist roles with only 24% in Professional roles.

4.5 The historic contexts when compared to the current contexts of the AF sample indicates that AFs are working in individual and group contexts historically but that the group contexts diminish and the individual contexts increase as they move forward in their careers, potentially in line with professional opportunities and career and economic aspirations. It also shows the same level of engagement historically and currently with community contexts and this is of particular interest to a potential European Association. The number of professional contexts increases from 24% to 46% and the number of Specialists contexts reduces from 42% to 32% and the number of Generalist context reduces from 34% to 22%. This signifies a general movement from Generalist and Specialist into Professional and a recognition by AFs of the importance of both the Generalist and Specialist contexts for gaining experience, learning and professional and career development. The opportunity to develop the skills, knowledge and experience required for the Professional contexts then clearly comes from both Generalist as well as Specialist contexts. This has implications for policy-makers and others wishing to support the development

of creative talent to enterprise. This cultural learning ecology is not viewed as a replacement for formal education, since 86% of the AFs are graduates and highly qualified. The specialist arts and music schools, colleges and universities of Higher Education are just one part of this ecology which extends beyond, before and after their contribution. The ecology of artistic practice development that comes into focus by the AFs recording their historic and current practice on Chart One indicates the field of artistic practice development with its knowledge networks, informal systems, journeys and opportunities. The mix of informal, non-formal and formal learning activities that are delivered, shared or experienced via other artists and artist-resource brokers and advisors within these 9 cultural learning zones equip aspiring artists to develop their practice organically and in multi-directions. It is by experiencing this ecology and by undertaking a continuously negotiated role within the community of practice that a novice artist adds the professional context to their practice in organic and flexible ways over time. It is therefore, important to view the cultural learning sector both as an ecology and as a community of practice that individuals move through, learning informally, non-formally and formally to build their portfolios of General, Specialist and Professional contexts and to experience Individual, Group and Community opportunities to practice and learn.


Fig. 15: Average number of Supporting Cultural Learning locations by country

5.1 A different pattern to the historic and cultural contexts becomes apparent in the cultural learning support locations as 40% of these locations are in Group contexts and only 36% of these are in Individual contexts and there is a slightly increased recording of Community contexts of 24%. Given the preference for Individual contexts in most countries present in current and historic locations, this trend is particularly interesting. The average number of cultural learning support locations ranged from an average of 1 location in Greece, Spain and Estonia to 4-5 in Netherlands, Italy and Poland and then to a broad 8 in Croatia and a massive 11 in the UK giving an average of all

AFs of between 5-6 cultural learning support locations. Only Italy and the UK record more cultural learning support locations than either their historic or current locations. This indicates that AFs usually have a smaller portfolio of art-forms and/or practice contexts that they use for cultural learning support than for their current or historic practice. This actually varies quite widely across the countries, and especially in the UK AF sample which has an average of 3 cultural learning locations higher per AF than in any other country represented here.

5. Supporting Cultural Learning Activities of Artist/Creative Freelancers (Afs) in the 9 Cultural Learning Zones (CLZ)


Fig. 16: Supporting Cultural Learning locations across all countries


Fig. 17: Top 5 Supporting Cultural Learning Locations of Artists/Creative Freelancers across all countries

5.2 The most frequently recorded or top 5 supporting cultural learning locations indicates primarily a Group context but there is also an Individual context presented in the top place by AFs in 3 countries: Italy, Cyprus and Slovenia. There is a spread of Professional (16) Specialist(14) and Generalist(10) across both Individual and Group contexts. The top 3 Cultural Learning Support Locations have 15 Group contexts, 12 Individual contexts and only 3 Community contexts, in Italy, Slovenia and Spain, 1 Professional and 2 Specialist.


5.3 In conclusion cultural learning support locations present a slightly new trend with a majority of 40% in Group contexts and 37% Individual contexts, followed by 24% in Community contexts. The research indicates that the majority of these cultural learning support contexts (37%) are in Specialist contexts, followed by Professional contexts 33% and then 30% in Generalist contexts. This supports the earlier idea that the AFs value the importance of both the Generalist and Specialist contexts for gaining experience, learning and professional and career development.


Fig. 18: Art-forms of Artists/Creative Freelancers across all countries

6.2 presents the total art-forms being practiced in all locations for AFs across all countries giving the relationship between the historic locations or the past, the current locations or the present and the supporting cultural learning locations for the future. This can be used to identify learning needs for past and current practices as well as identifying demand for learning that is not based on current or historic practice.

6. Total of all activities of Artist/Creative Freelancers (AFs) in the 9 Cultural Learning Zones

6.1 When considering all the activities located on ECLN Chart One, the Specialist zones account for 37%; the Professional zones account for 34% and the Generalist zones account for 29%. The Individual activities account for 44%; the Group activities account for 36% and the Community activities account for 20%. The AF most frequently reported location zones were Individual zones:

1st Specialist Individual (SI) 2nd Professional Individual (PI) and 3rd Generalist Individual(GI) then 2 of the Group zones 4th Professional Group(PG) then 5th Specialist Group(SG) and then 6th Professional Community followed by Generalist Group (GG) and finally the Specialist and Generalist Community locations.


Fig. 19: Art-forms of Artists/Creative Freelancers across all countries

6.3 The two most recorded of the top 10 art-forms of AFs within Chart 1 are Music and Visual Arts, which are significantly higher than the other art-forms of Theatre, Dance, Photography, Design, and Writing, Performance Art, Film/Video and Other.


Chart 2: A Core Curriculum for Delivering Cultural Learning Support (Artists/Creative Freelancers)

Fig. 20: How have you supported others in the last 5 years by country

7.1 ECLN Chart Two enables Artist/Freelancers (AFs) to reflect on the last 5 years of their practice in delivering cultural learning support to others. It invites AFs to identify what they consider to be the top 5 skills and knowledge or Core-Competencies that they use to deliver Cultural Learning Support. The chart also requests that they select the resources that they use in delivering Cultural Learning Support and asks them to identify who currently invests in Cultural Learning Support and by which percentage of the total delivered. The chart provides AFs with the

opportunity to estimate the ratio of their own artistic or creative practice work in relation to their work delivering Cultural Learning Support. It also asks AFs about how they quality assure their work or ensure the usefulness of this work to cultural learners. There is also a check-list on the chart that provides a way of testing the robustness of the entries made by research participants in Chart One relating to the contexts in which their Cultural Learning Support takes place.


Fig. 21: A core-curriculum across country

7.2 The reflection on the Core-Competencies used in delivering Cultural Learning Support by AFs presented by country and across all countries provides a striking near consensus on the most popular 2 competences for delivering cultural learning support. These 2 competences are ‘Creative Processes’ and ‘Artistic Techniques’, with the exception of Poland, who have ‘Artistic Techniques’ and ‘Life-skills’ and Estonia who have ‘Mentoring’ and ‘Creative Processes’ as the most popular answers. The 3rd most popular competence was ‘Teamwork’, the 4th was ‘Communication’, the 5th ‘Mentoring’ these were followed by ‘Self-awareness’, ‘Coaching’, ‘Training’ ,’ Cultural Forms’, ‘Life-skills’ and ‘Cultural Contexts’.


Fig. 22: A core-curriculum across countries


Fig. 23: Resources for Delivering Cultural Learning Support by country

8.1 The reflection by AFs on the resources used in delivering cultural learning support by country presented here shows less of a consensus than with the competences needed for delivery. Only AFs in 4 out of 10 countries indicated that ‘Creative Space’ was the most highly recorded resource used, alongside ‘Contacts’. AFs in 3 Countries also identified ‘General Space’. ‘Money’ and ‘Other’ were the least recorded resources used in the delivery of Cultural Learning Support by AFs.

8. Resources for Delivering Cultural Learning Support (Artists/Creative Freelancers)


Fig. 24: Resources for Delivering Cultural Learning across all countries

8.2 The top 5 recorded resources used in the delivery of Cultural Learning Support across all countries were ‘Creative Space’, ‘Contacts’, ‘Equipment’, ‘Materials’ and ‘General Space’. This clearly indicates the importance of dedicated space to the delivery of Cultural Learning Support, and the importance of contacts when engaging within a community of practice. It also highlights the position of the AFs as current practitioners because they have ‘live’ contacts that can be used as a resource to enable Cultural Learners to access further learning and opportunities to develop their practice.


Fig.25: Quality Assurance Strategies for Cultural Learning by country

9.1. The reflection by AFs on how they evaluate the quality and usefulness of the cultural learning support that they deliver is recorded in Chart Two and presented here. This indicates that AFs in all countries engage in evaluation at 3 levels: the reflected practice of the AF; the feedback of the people to whom they deliver cultural learning support; and the feedback of ‘Others’ who may hold them accountable e.g. investors, governors or other stakeholders.

9. Quality Assurance Strategies for Delivering Cultural Learning Support (Artists/ Creative Freelancers)


Fig. 26: Quality Assurance Strategies for Cultural Learning across all countries

9.2 Across all countries 81% of AFs use self-evaluation, 85% of AFs have their work evaluated by cultural learners or the people they support and 67% of AFs have their work evaluated by others.


Fig. 27: Current Practitioners Delivering Cultural Learning by country

10.1 The reflection by AFs on the ratio of their own practice to the delivery of cultural learning support is recorded here. This indicates that AFs in all countries are current practitioners with a diverse range of ratios but with a minimum of 34% of their time spent on their own practice in Greece, compared to as much as 81-82% in Spain or Slovenia. AFs across all countries present an average ratio of just over 3:2 of their own practice to delivering cultural

learning support. This means that on average less than 40% of their working time is used in delivering Cultural Learning Support and over 60% of their working time is used on their own current practice. This clearly indicates that cultural learning support is delivered by Artistic and Creative Practitioners rather than full-time professional teachers or trainers. This type of cultural learning support can be conceived as ‘Artist-Led’.

10. Artists/Creative Freelancers as Current Practitioners Delivering Cultural Learning Support


Fig. 28: Current Practitioners Delivering Cultural Learning support paid by:

11.1 The costs of delivering Cultural Learning Support are shared between the unpaid or voluntary contribution of AFs, the cultural learners and ‘Others’. Artists/Creative Freelancers record their own significant investment in Cultural Learning Support, from a minimum of 18% in the Netherlands to a maximum of 69% in Spain. Cultural learners, who are the direct beneficiaries of this Cultural Learning Support fund a moderate amount by comparison with a minimum of 4% in Estonia to a maximum of 48% in Cyprus. This must in some part be due to cultural learners being unwilling or unable to pay or to be able to take up the opportunity of cultural learning support that is funded by others. ‘Other’ investors, who may be the

parents of the cultural learner, public or private investors or other stakeholders make a significant investment from a minimum of 16% in Spain to 55% in Poland. The average investment in Cultural Learning Support is divided between AFs who fund almost 40%, and the beneficiary Cultural Learners who fund just over 20% and the ‘Others’ who fund slightly more than AFs at almost 40%. This indicates that AFs may provide up to 40% of Cultural Learning Support in unpaid contexts. The rationale for this unpaid work needs to be explored further but is likely to include the sharing of Cultural Learning with peers and developing protégés for no remuneration and unpaid experimentation and innovation.

11. Investment in the Delivery of Cultural Learning Support by Artists/Creative Freelancers, Cultural Learners and Others.


Chart 4: A potential role for a European Cultural Learning Association

Fig. 29: 5 star roles for a European Cultural Learning Association

12. 1 AFs were asked to provide a star-rating for 6 different roles for a potential European Cultural Learning Association and to suggest any others. These roles included ‘Connecting’, ‘Monitoring’, ‘Researching’, ‘Lobbying’, ‘Recognising’, ‘Training’ and ‘Other’. There was a mixed response with some real differentiated response to the roles and others more general across the board reaction. ‘Connecting’ was the clear front-runner and showed an indication of being considered useful for the AFs and others. ‘Monitoring’ and ‘Researching’ had very similar profiles and ‘Lobbying’, ‘Recognising’, and ‘Training’ were given 5-star ratings for others rather than for the AFs undertaking the survey.



4. Results

ii). Representatives of Cultural Organisations in Partnership Countries

A.Pan-European Artist Freelancers

Chart 7b The Cultural Organisations that were represented in the research

Fig. 1: Types of Cultural Organisations by country

1.1 The sample of Cultural Organisations (COs) who participated in this research were also selected and invited by ECLN partners because they were members of their networks. Despite being a small sample in each country, the COs included a range of different incorporation models including non-governmental organisations (NGOs), institutions, associations, charities/non-profit organisations, companies, cooperatives, centres and studios or ‘other’. Each country includes 1-5 different type of cultural organisation. The majority of COs are incorporated as charities/non-profits, or NGOs.


Fig. 2: Types of Cultural Organisations across all countries


Fig. 3: Income sources of Cultural Organisations by country and across all countries

1.2 All the countries show that the COs have a different mix in their portfolio of income sources including ‘earned’, ‘private’, ‘public’ and ‘other’. ‘Earned income’ consists of any income earned by the organisation through sales, tickets, fees, rentals etc. ‘Private income’ consists of any income given to the organisation by private individuals or organisations, philanthropists or non-public or governmental sources. ‘Public income’ consists of any income given to the organisation by private individuals or organisations, philanthropists or non-public or governmental sources. ‘Other income’ consists of any income of the organisation that doesn’t fit within the

other 3 categories. This might include bank loans, money invested that belongs to the business owner etc. The range of ‘public funding’ for COs ranges from 20% in Greece to 91% in Spain. ‘Earned income’ ranges from 6% in Croatia to 64% in Italy. ‘Private income’ ranges from 0% with Italy COs to the Polish COs which show as much as 40%. ‘Other income’, which is not from public or private investors nor earned, ranges from 0% in Italy, UK, Netherlands, Spain and Slovenia to 33% in Greece. The average range of income sources for COs is 45% public, 21% private, 22% earned and 12% ‘other’. The income figures from the Estonia CO were not given.


Fig. 4: Art-forms of Cultural Organisations by country

1.3 The 41 COs are recorded delivering cultural learning support in 96 contexts across 10 countries. COs deliver cultural learning support in a range of art-forms from 4 in Estonia and 5 in Croatia, Greece, Poland and the UK to 9 in Spain and 10 in


Fig. 5: Art-forms of Cultural Organisations across all countries

1.4 The most common art-forms delivered in the CO sample are Theatre, Digital Media/Film, Music, Other (unspecified art-forms), Dance and Visual Arts.


Fig. 6: Job-Type of Cultural Organisations by country

1.5 There is a wide range of job types reported by the CO representatives when describing their own job contract. These job-types include temporary and permanent contracts, full-time and part-time contracts, voluntary and paid work and employment and freelance contracts. Most countries show a different mix of job types except in Estonia presenting just one organisation. In Greece and Poland the business owner is also included as ‘other’ and Croatia has a mix of employment and voluntary staff.


Fig. 7: Job-Types of Cultural Organisations across all countries

1.6 Despite the range of different job-types across the 10 countries, the majority of the cultural organisation representatives are employed and full-time. 37% of these representatives are employed, 22% are volunteers and 14% are freelancers.


Fig.8: Gender of Cultural Organisations Representatives across all countries

1.7 The CO representatives are a particularly small sample from 41 organisations but they are predominantly female unlike the much larger sample of AFs.


Fig. 9: Age-groups of Cultural Organisations Representatives by country

1.8 Of the Cultural Organisation representatives that gave their age, approximately one third are aged between 26-35 years, approximately a third are aged 46-55 years, and approximately one quarter are aged 36-45, with a small minority aged 56-65, 16-25 years or over 65. There are more young people, aged 16-25, in the workforce in Cyprus and Slovenia and more older people, aged 56-65, in the workforce in Poland.


Fig. 10: Age-groups of Cultural Organisations Representatives across all countries

1.9 The trend in age-groups is strikingly similar to the AFs indicating a fall in numbers between ages 36-45 years. This, too, could be the result of people being unable to participate in the research or evidence of people leaving the sector to join a more highly paid or different sector by the age of 36 and people aged 46-55 changing to second careers coming into the sector. COs show 10% staying on till aged 65 and unlike the AF population, none are shown as staying on beyond 65 years of age in this sample.


Fig. 11: Locations in which Cultural Organisations Support Cultural Learning by country

2.1 Chart 1 constructs an ecological map of Cultural Learning contexts and provides a similar opportunity for representatives of Cultural Organisations(COs) to identify where they currently engage in Cultural Learning Support. There is a difference in emphasis of contexts for Cultural Learning support across the 10 countries. The COs in the sample from 4 of the 10 countries, reported delivering Cultural Learning Support to all of the 9 cultural learning contexts. These were in the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the UK. Italy COs reported delivering in 8 contexts; Croatia, Slovenia and Estonia reported delivering in 6 contexts and Cyprus, in 5 and Greece, in 3. The highest delivery context in each country is as follows: Specialist Individual (Netherlands), Generalist Group (Poland) and Generalist Individual (UK), Specialist Group/Generalist Community (Cyprus), Professional Group (Spain and Croatia), Professional Group/Specialist Group/Specialist Community (Greece), Generalist Group/Generalist Community (Italy), Professional Individual (Slovenia)and Generalist Group and Specialist Group (Estonia).

2.2 The COs in Italy report no delivery to Professional groups. COs in Croatia report no delivery to Professional or Specialist Community nor to Specialist Group. COs in Cyprus report no delivery recorded to Professional Individual and Group, nor Specialist or Generalist Individual. COs in Greece only record Cultural Learning Support delivery in 3 contexts: Professional Group, Specialist Group and Specialist Community and do not record delivery to Generalist Individual, Group or Community, nor Professional or Specialist Individual, nor Professional Community. COs in Slovenia report no delivery to Specialist Community, Generalist Groups and Community. The CO in Estonia reports no delivery to Specialist and Generalist Community or Generalist group. This represents quite a diverse delivery pattern likely to be based on the country industry structure and the specific mission of the cultural organisation.

Chart 1: Towards an Ecology of Cultural Learning (Cultural Organisations)


Fig. 12: Locations in which Cultural Organisations Support Cultural Learning across all countries

2.3 The COs in all countries, except the Netherlands, Slovenia and the UK, record a highest Cultural Learning Support delivery context for groups. The Netherlands and the UK record a highest Cultural Learning Support delivery context for Individuals, the Specialist Individual in the Netherlands, the Professional Individual in Slovenia and the Generalist Individual in the UK. 45% of the Cultural Learning Support delivered by COs happens in Group contexts, while 36% happens in Individual contexts and just 19% in Community contexts. 20.5% of this Cultural Learning Support happens in Generalist Groups and 17.5% happens in Specialist Groups. Only 19.5% of this Cultural Learning Support is delivered to the Professional Individual, Professional Group or Professional Community whereas 36.6% is delivered to Specialist Individual, Specialist Group or Specialist Community but the majority 43.9% is delivered to the Generalist Individual, Generalist Group or Generalist Community.


2.4 The research indicates a different profile in CO from the Cultural Learning Support delivery by AFs in every country except Greece and Spain. The highest delivery context for COs in the Netherlands is the Specialist Individual and for the AFs it is the Professional Group. The highest delivery context for COs in Poland is the Generalist Group and for the AFs it is the Specialist Group. The highest delivery context for COs in the UK is the Generalist Individual and for the AFs it is the Specialist Group. The joint highest delivery contexts for COs in Italy are the Generalist Group and Generalist Community and for the AFs it is the Generalist Individual. The highest delivery context for COs in Croatia is the Professional Group and for the AFs it is the Generalist Group. The joint highest contexts for COs in Cyprus are the Generalist Group and the Specialist Community and for the AFs it is the Professional Individual. The joint highest contexts for COs in Greece are the Professional Group, Specialist Group and the Specialist Community and for the AFs it is the Professional Group. The highest delivery context for COs in Slovenia is the Professional Individuals and for the AFs it is the Specialist Individual. The highest delivery for the CO in Estonia is the Specialist Group and Generalist Group and for the AFs it is Professional Group.

2.5 This indicates that COs and AFs generally serve different communities within the 9 cultural learning contexts and it is possible and likely that the organisation mission and the requirements of the investing stakeholders influence the priorities and/or limit the contexts in which these COs work, whereas the AFs are likely to be freer to respond to opportunities, paid or otherwise, in any of the 9 contexts. There is also a different emphasis between the highest reported CO Group contexts and the highest reported AF Individual contexts in Italy and Cyprus and the reverse trend between highest CO Individual and highest AF Group contexts in the Netherlands and the UK. Perhaps, both of these shifts are based on different models of enterprise in relation to the structure of the markets and issues for individuals to access the resources to work in groups without the support of a CO. These access issues may be present in Italy and Cyprus but are not present in the Netherlands and the UK.


Chart 2: A Core Curriculum for Delivering Cultural Learning Support (Cultural Organisations)

3.1 ECLN Chart Two enables Cultural Organisations(COs) to reflect on the last 5 years of their practice in delivering Cultural Learning Support to others. It enables COs to identify what they consider to be the top 5 skills and knowledge or Core-Competencies that they use to deliver Cultural Learning Support. The chart also requests that they select the resources that they use in delivering Cultural Learning Support and asks them to identify who currently invests in Cultural Learning Support and by which percentage of the total delivered. The chart provides COs with the opportunity to estimate the ratio of their own artistic or creative practice work in relation to their work delivering Cultural Learning Support. It also asks COs about how they quality assure their work or ensure the usefulness of this work to Cultural Learners.


Fig. 13: A Core Curriculum for Cultural Learning by country (Cultural Organisations)(

3.2 COs reported a different emphasis in the top 5 skills and knowledge or Core-Competencies that they use to deliver Cultural Learning Support. If the top 10 competencies are considered,COs share the first two core-competencies with AFs: Creative Processes and Artistic Techniques but then the COs preferred Training, Communication, Cultural Contexts, Mentoring, Teamwork, Cultural Forms and Coaching competences compared to the AF preferences for Teamwork, Communication, Mentoring, Self-Awareness, Coaching, Training, Cultural Forms and Life-skills.


Fig. 14: A Core Curriculum for Cultural Learning by country (Cultural Organisations)


Fig. 15: A Core Curriculum for Cultural Learning across countries (Cultural Organisations)

3.3 The most striking aspect of the core competences identified, particularly, given the use of the arts and cultural learning for a range of different contexts, was the least valued competencies which were shared by the COs and the AFs: Employability, Self-Employment and Self-Management. This may indicate a specific value statement from both the artists and cultural organisations in relation to arts and cultural learning that expresses that this type of learning experience is focused more expansively on human potential rather than being solely concerned with using the arts in a purely instrumental tool to develop the economic production of individuals.


3.4 It is possible to develop a broad ECLN shared Core Curriculum from these Core-Competences which are considered by AFs and COs as essential to developing and equipping the Cultural Learning Support Practitioner for working in the 9 cultural learning contexts.

This ECLN Core Curriculum is then as follows:A. Creative ProcessesB. Artistic TechniquesC. CommunicationD. TeamworkE. CoachingF. TrainingG. Cultural ContextsH. MentoringI. Self-Awareness

3.5 This identified and shared Core Curriculum will be used as a competence menu for ECLN to develop learning resources, recognise, accredit and certificate learning for the Cultural Learning Support Practitioners working within the ECLN Network.


Fig. 16: Resources for Delivering Cultural Learning Support by country (Cultural Organisations)

4.1 The reflection by COs on the resources used in delivering Cultural Learning Support by country presented here indicates a different picture to the AFs.

4. Resources for Delivering Cultural Learning Support (Cultural Organisations)


Fig. 17: Resources for Delivering Cultural Learning Support by country (Cultural Organisations)

4.2 The top recorded resources used in the delivery of Cultural Learning Support for COs across all countries are ‘Equipment’, ‘Creative Space’, ‘Contacts’, ‘Materials’, ‘General Space’ and ‘Money’ compared to the AF top resources of ‘Creative Space’, ‘Contacts’, ‘Equipment’, ‘Materials’, ‘General Space’ and ‘Money’. This suggests the importance to COs of offering collective access to expensive, large or less common professional artistic

equipment e.g. sound systems, film-editing software and hardware and lighting rigs. It also suggests the COs value is in offering collective access to dedicated creative space e.g. stage, sound and dance studios. COs, similarly to the AFs, give a high rate to ‘Contacts’, which suggests that the CO workers are also current practitioners, with ‘live’ contacts that can be used as a resource to enable cultural learners to pursue further opportunities.


Fig. 18: Resources for Delivering Cultural Learning Support by country across all countries (Cultural Organisations)

4.3 It is also of interest to note that ‘Money’ and ‘Other’ share the last two places with COs and with the AFs, although Cyprus, the Netherlands and Slovenia actually rate this as high. The role of the COs and the AFs can be assumed generally as being not to invest financially or directly in the work of cultural learners but rather by supporting them with the provision of equipment, creative space, contacts, materials or general space.


Fig. 19: Quality Assurance Strategies for Cultural Learning by country (Cultural Organisations)

5. 1 The reflection by COs on how they evaluate the quality and usefulness of the Cultural Learning Support that they deliver is recorded in Chart Two and presented here. This indicates that COs in all countries engage in evaluation at 3 levels: the internal self-evaluation of the CO using staff; the feedback of the people to whom they deliver Cultural Learning Support; and the feedback and evaluation of ‘Others’ who may hold them accountable e.g. investors, governors or other stakeholders.

5. Quality Assurance Strategies for Delivering Cultural Learning Support (Cultural Organisations)


Fig. 20: Quality Assurance Strategies for Cultural Learning across countries (Cultural Organisations)

5.2 80% of COs use self-evaluation, 93% of COs have their work evaluated by Cultural Learners and 73% of COs have their work evaluated by others. This is consistent with the pattern found with the AFs of which 81% undertake self-evaluation, 85% have their work evaluated by Cultural Learners and 67% have their work evaluated by others. However, the COs report that they are more particularly concerned with the evaluation by the people that they support and also obtain more evaluation by ‘others’.


Fig. 22: Current Practitioners Delivering Cultural Learning by country/across all countries (Cultural Organisations)

6.1 The reflection by COs on the ratio of their own practice to the delivery of Cultural Learning Support is presented here. This indicates that COs in 9 of 10 countries carry out their own artistic cultural practices as well as deliver Cultural Learning Support. COs in the Netherlands and Poland have an almost 100% focus on delivering Cultural Learning Support. Among the other COs, there is a minimum of 25% in the UK to 60% focus on delivering Cultural Learning Support in Slovenia. COs across all countries present an average ratio of approximate 3:7 of time spent on their own practice compared to the time spent delivering Cultural Learning Support. This means that on average 70% of their working time is used in delivering Cultural Learning Support and approximately 30% of their working time is used on their own Artistic or

Creative Practice. This is significantly different to the AFs average of 40% of their working time used in delivering Cultural Learning Support and over 60% of their working time used on their own Artistic or Creative Practice. This indicates that in an organisational context Cultural Learning Support is also predominantly delivered in the context of Cultural Learning Support Practitioners. These cultural organisations can, collectively, be can be conceived as ‘Practice-based’, with a possibility of some organisations being, also, ‘Artist-led’, similar to the AF community of practice. This is supported by the high recording of ‘Contacts’ as a resource within both these research participant groups.

6. Cultural Organisations Delivering Cultural Learning Support


Fig. 23: Who pays for Cultural Learning by country/across all countries

7.1 The costs of delivering cultural learning support are shared between the unpaid or voluntary contribution of COs, cultural learners and others. COs record unpaid or voluntary work as their investment in cultural Learning support that is reported at a minimum of 15% in the UK to a maximum of 58% in Slovenia and 60% in Estonia. Cultural Learners who are the direct beneficiaries of this fund a moderate amount by comparison with a minimum of 3% in Italy to a maximum of 45% in the UK. This is similar to what occurs within the AF context and must be due to cultural learners having the unwillingness or the inability to pay or being able to take up the cultural learning support that is funded by others. ‘Other’ investors, who may be the parents of the cultural learner or public or private investor, and other stakeholders also make a significant investment from a minimum of 0% in Estonia or 10% in Cyprus to a significant maximum of 68% in the Netherlands. The average investment in Cultural Learning Support is divided between COs

who give or invest an average of 42% of unpaid work or innovation work, and the beneficiary cultural learners who fund an average of just 26% and the ‘Others’ who fund slightly more than cultural learners but less than COs at an average of 32%. This indicates that COs provide up to 42% of cultural learning support in unpaid contexts compared with AFs who provide slightly less at 40%. The beneficiary Cultural Learners supported by AFs contribute 20% whereas those supported by COs contribute slightly more at 26% and the ‘Others’ fund 40% for AFs and 32% for COs. The indication of a significant trend that AFs and COs provide an average of 41% of cultural learning support in unpaid contexts needs to be further examined. A clear rationale for carrying out unpaid work appears to be similarly shared between the AFs and the COs and this needs to be explored further in order to clearly articulate the rationale for this. It could indicate artistic or a combination of social-artistic-learning goals that are upheld and delivered alongside sustainable economic goals.

7. Investment in the Delivery of Cultural Learning Support by Cultural Organisations, Cultural Learners and Others.


Fig. 24: 5 star roles for a European Cultural Learning Association (Cultural Organisations

8.1 COs were asked to provide a star-rating for 6 different roles but in which these 6 roles were ‘useful for self’ and ‘useful for others’, giving 12 options for a potential European Cultural Learning Association and to suggest any other roles. These roles included ‘Connecting’, ‘Monitoring’, ‘Researching’, ‘Lobbying’, ‘Recognising’, ‘Training’ and ‘Other’. ‘Connecting’ and ‘Training’ were the clear front-runners for both COs and AFs but then COs followed on with ‘Researching’, ‘Lobbying’, ‘Monitoring’ and ‘Recognising’ compared with the AF preferences of ‘Lobbying’, ‘Recognising’, ‘Researching’ and ‘Monitoring’.

6. Cultural Organisations Delivering Cultural Learning Support




Fig. 25: Potential roles for a European Cultural Learning Association by country (Cultural Organisations)

8.2 There was a slightly more concentrated response to the roles with COs than with AFs, although COs was clearly a smaller sample. The COs had a range of responses to the roles with a minimum of 1 role out of 12 identified as useful from the UK to a maximum of 11 from Spain and 9 from Cyprus, Italy and Slovenia with an almost consensus.


Chart 5 AFs and COs

Pest Analysis

5. The Current Environment for Cultural Learning





Analysis of IMPACTS








Chart 5 tables show the shared political landscape of Europe and the impact of this on the Cultural Learning sector.

The top 5 drivers for change in the European Landscape are:Public Funding CutsHigh UnemploymentEcology and Sustainability New TechnologyFunding biased to larger established organisations

The top 5 Impacts for the Cultural Learning Sector are:Lack of Government Policy on Cultural and Creative WorkLess funding for new, small and medium organisationsNo assistance with brokering relationships or getting access to private investorsUse of Social Media levels playing field and increases reachLess work as high unemployment and so people are unable to afford to engage in culture and the arts


6. Types of Evaluation Strategies Currently Used in Cultural Learning

Cultural Learning Evaluation Strategies:

a) Reflective Practice e.g. the use of reflection to monitor, measure and develop individual performance in cultural learning support, constant introspection, questioning, brain-storming, self-education, check-lists, to do lists, using video as a tool for reflection, work progress, reconsider decisions, staying aware, regular, self-appreciation, using photographs, save time by working effectively, gaining more experience in specific areas, watch footage and criticise, self-evaluation videos etc.

b) Setting and achieving goals e.g. historical accuracy, planning and up-dating plans, goals related to needs, high levels of attainment, finished work, successful production, completing assignments and task, achieve artistic success, high assessment of students for pleasure, volunteering or for profession,

c) Distance travelled e.g. measuring before and after, improvement of art-work, performance, art product or/and improvement in skills and technique, new horizons, personal development, experience gained, increased self-esteem, new ideas, using questionnaires, witnessing results and development, witnessing participants making art, changing processes, learning new materials and getting a different perspective of myself, individual experiences, using photographs, survey of changes, humility, life-long learning, continuing professional development, observable changes of positive behaviour, etc.

d) Community (Personal Satisfaction and Mutual Support) e.g. positive and optimistic feelings, joy and energy to develop, satisfaction from work, satisfaction surveys, people are becoming open and connected to self and others, learning from each other, collaboration, support for other artists, communities, festivals, depth of contact between artist and learners, mutual support and friendly environment, cooperation and sharing knowledge, growth of community, collaboration, get to help, appreciation of group and individual thanks, gratitude, recommendations, request for further work, excitement, requests for more, enjoyment, fun, good response, happy to learn something new, appreciation for learning and for social involvement, great time, improved mood, confidence, still dancing, thanks, customer satisfaction, request for deepening study, quality, enthusiasm and growing interest in audio-visual media, letters of support, thank you letters, monitoring forms, focus groups, questionnaires, online surveys, people talk about their experiences, spontaneous reactions, evaluation

forms, meetings with friends, listening sessions, participants rate workshops and leaders, optional classes, feedback after every event, survey, evaluation forms, social media, more relaxed, open-hearted people, connecting people, opportunity for further work, positive gossip, support from parents of young learners, awareness and appreciation, happiness etc.

e) Self-monitoring e.g. Using visual media as an expressive and a reflective tool, daily evaluations, diary, notes, self-estimation of how interested and engaged, what am I learning?, communication skills, we do our best, making a CV of portfolio of work, project contracts or roles,

f) Conversations and Dialogue: e.g. feed-back from with others who are involved in the work, participants, audiences, feedback through a chance meeting years later, listening to opinions and criticism, ask for feedback from colleagues, shared review with colleagues, weekly meetings, feedback from colleagues, networks, partners, participants and viewers and visitors, requesting feedback on their performance, on-going conversations because assimilation of learning takes time, request for deeper knowledge, exchange of ideas, request more information, contact and feedback from project leader, reflect together after lessons, talks with students every lesson, immediate feedback verbal and written, feedback interactive sessions, feedback from friends and colleagues, peer feedback, cultural mediators feedback, informal meetings, talking to senior supervisor, 6 monthly conversation points of improvement/achievements, with clients, evaluation with organisations, with organisations who hire me, feedback on what can I do better, evaluation friends, family, artists, youth etc.

g) Performance of Participants e.g. participants in cultural learning demonstrating achievement in cultural learning, exam results, improved techniques, consistency of performance, high levels of attainment, successful production, high assessment of students, acknowledgement by parents, productivity of people supported, progress of participants and learners etc.

h) Commitment of Participants e.g. completing a project, a programme, a qualification, attending over a period of time, learner interest, stay and work in same groups, returning audiences, self-estimation of how interested and engaged, public participation, attendance of participants, returners, deeper involvement, stay on to the next level or the next project, positive interest to explore creative


and artistic activities, increased motivation, time invested to complete the tasks, change in orientation towards professionalism, learners send emails with tips, demonstrate interest in art, growth in number of trainees, attendance, participation, participants involvement, continuous engagement of participants etc.

i) Paid Work e.g. paid work achieved through recognition or recommendation, bonus, promoter bookings, pay, future work, renewal of contract, etc.

j) Added Value e.g. recognising what is of value about specific cultural learning activities, perceiving good quality, positive changes, measuring and identifying ‘usefulness’, recognition of quality, quality time spent, professional participation for all, skills are appreciated, opinions asked for, Knowledge, contacts, professionalism, productivity of people supported, usefulness/used artefacts, future commissions, being an inspiration to the young, public participation, 3rd party clients etc.

k) New Opportunities e.g. the application of learning to new situations, taking up new opportunities, new horizons, self- expression, wishes, using modern technology, learning new techniques, acquire practical skills that enable work experience, further engagement in education, allocation of specific jobs etc.

l) Formal Review e.g. annual or quarterly review, make future plans, make a list of improvement, internal and external reviews, appraisals, audits, reviews, project reports, annual reports, testing, quality assurance process, etc.

m) External Recognition e.g. positive social media, friends on facebook, website traffic, increased networks, increased visibility, acknowledged quality of art-form, performance, product, successful productions, professionalism, reach of exhibition, reviews in magazines, networking, proposals for future collaboration, good contacts, viewpoints of critics, journalists, professionals, academics, audits, funders-monitor/evaluation, committee, reviews from peer group, public and private sectors, awards, private and public funding, roundtable discussions, credit for achievement, media coverage, employer support, encouragement, community seen as knowledge sharing, professional body support, audiences, reviews, reemployment, exhibitions offered, extended network, greater responsibility, continued collaboration, marvelling at results, applause, Doctorate, finance, appreciation, demand for collaboration, compliments, cheers, recommendations, other work, media and press coverage, visibility, funding, government policy, competitions, awards and medals, festival awards, industry success, local and regional government success etc.

n) Trial and Error e.g. make immediate changes as you go based on immediate feedback etc.


Content• Introducing the field• Methodology for literature review• The concept of cultural learning

entrepreneur/ship• Main themes, advantages and challenges that

the literature points at, regarding the praxis of cultural entrepreneur/ship

• The learning of cultural entrepreneurs• Cultural entrepreneurs generating learning• Selling out?• Culture or art?• References

Introducing the field

Since creativity and knowledge have been seen as central to human development and economy, the Western world engaged in a large number of studies and initiatives focusing on how to understand creativity and learn creatively. Creativity studies trace the turning point for this interest in the Fifties, when the post-world-war-II imposed to a wretched world a specific need: to find new solutions to development and growth (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2010). This need, together with other socio-historical changes such as the post-Fordism economy and the commodification of culture and arts, have generated the praxis of cultural entrepreneurship. According to literature, this consists in the fact that individuals and organisations that actively produce cultural artefacts or experiences sell their “goods” in an organised setting. Potts, & Cunningham (2008) propose though the definition of creative industry, which tends to be broader, and describe it as “a new analytic definition of the industrial components of the economy in which creativity is an input and content or intellectual property is the output” (p. 233).

In recent years (Jones, 2009 and Oakley, 2009), this tendency has been conceptualised as the orderly building of industry. Cultural commodities can spread from gardening and sports to arts and performances, nevertheless the most consistent British reviews in this field (Jones, 2009 and Oakley, 2009) focus on the work facilitated by artists or organisations employing artists. Hesmondhalgh (2008) points at the need of empirical studies that describe in detail the work of a cultural entrepreneur. In order to address this need, a group of European cultural entrepreneurs associated into a European project that started in 2011. The present review is part of this documentation effort as formulated within this project.

The European Cultural Learning Network (ECLN) was initiated as a research and development project funded by the European Commission and aimed at the establishment of a European network of cultural entrepreneurs who are working in the field of cultural learning. Defining cultural learning as the learning experiences that cultural entrepreneurs design for themselves and a given target group by means of cultural experiences (“artists support their own learning and the learning of others by engaging in creative and cultural experiences”; Stanley, 2013), the ECLN research group inquired the profile of the European cultural learning entrepreneur. In order to do so, the ECLN project established a network of cultural learning entrepreneurs, which consisted of a core group of 12 partners from 11 countries (UK, Italy, Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Poland, Netherland, Slovenia, Croatia, Estonia, and Denmark). The network members had the triple function of informants about own practices, respondents about cultural learning practices in each own country, and of co-researchers in an action research setting. Each partner engaged its own network of cultural learning entrepreneurs in the research and facilitated focus group discussions at national level. The systematic documentation of these conversations is the core of the ECLN research project.

Summing up, by launching a research and development project, the ECLN had the two-folded ambition of:

1. Collecting data on cultural learning entrepreneurs in order to map the field of cultural entrepreneurship and non-formal learning environments

2. Enabling entrepreneurs in this field to reflect on their own and their peers’ experiences, and to establish an active community of learners within the network. The guiding questions turned around a definite kind of cultural industry: the one involving learning outputs and/or experiences. Moreover, the main interest of ECLN was to portrait individuals, contexts and practices within cultural learning. The overall ECLN research aimed at finding out what a cultural learning entrepreneur looks like in a European context. In order to do so, several original empirical data have been collected in an action research setting. The present review has the ambition of framing the context, which these data can be analysed into, by offering an international state-of-the-art study in the field of cultural learning industries or entrepreneurship.

7. Cultural learning entrepreneurship: an introductory Literature Review


The leading research questions for the present review are:

How is the concept of cultural learning entrepreneur/ship understood within international literature?Which are the main themes, advantages and challenges that literature points at, regarding the praxis of cultural learning entrepreneur/ship?

Methodology for literature review

The purpose of this review is to validate the original empirical data collected by the ECLN and the conceptualisation of cultural entrepreneurship as applied to learning objectives. The approach we follow is Maxwell (2006), who stresses the relevance argument as central to academic reviews. Systematic reviews, in this perspective, shouldn’t only be long lists of contributions, but should be critically edited. In our review the key words that guided the skimming of literature contributions were the ones defining the field of study: cultural, learning, entrepreneur, industry.

The present review proceeds through the following steps:• Survey and identification of contributions that are

central to the understanding of cultural learning• Description and discussion of contributions• Indication of how the ECLN study moves beyond

these contributions

The following databases have been used for the systematic survey: EBSCOERICTeacher Reference Centre

A first search, limited to peer-review contributions in journals, gave the following results:

This first survey selected some pertinent contributions that were sorted out manually, because frequently they appeared in several (or all) the search fields. This is the reason for visualising them as an overall total sum. Consequently to that, we proceeded with the method of “citation tracking”: the relevant publications referred to other possibly relevant contributions that have been investigated on their turn. In a second stage, members of the ECLN research group, who are experts in cultural learning entrepreneurship, contributed by suggesting further relevant publications.

The concept of cultural learning entrepreneur/ship

As the research methodology shows, the object of our attention, the field of cultural learning entrepreneurship, has been investigated by means of related concepts: the cultural/creative industry and the artist teacher. We are aware of the fact that the object of our research is a new conceptualisation, and that the “learning” beholds a big deal of ambiguity because it can both relate to the cultural entrepreneur’s own learning or to the services the entrepreneur offers: learning opportunities and apprenticeship by means of cultural experiences.

However, the cultural learning entrepreneur has been an active profile for a long time, defined by other “labels”. Therefore, we started the present review by including the “labels” that could share a close proximity with our “cultural learning entrepreneur” and by asking our sources: How long has this entrepreneurial profile been active?

Raffo, O’Connor, Lovatt, & Banks (2000) go back to the post-Fordist crisis of the big industries as the socio-economic event that paved the way to the growth and development of SMEs, including the ones that work with culture, creativity and learning. Potts, & Cunningham (2008) maintain that the term creative industry was first introduced in the DCMS 1998 template.

The term culture industry was originally coined by Horkheimer & Adorno (2002) with a pejorative meaning. The authors’ Marxist perspective looked at the phenomenon of cultural industries as commodification of culture. Cultural models were subjugated to industrialisation and capitalism, with the consequence of missing quality and independence. By imposing the industrial production model to

Search Refined by key words

Refined period Hits Relevant

Cultural + learning + entrepreneur

Study and teaching, training of, history and criticism, services for, 1945-, 1991-

1950-2013 413 (total) 17

Cultural + learning Education, learning, teaching

1950-2013 342

Cultural + learning + industry

Education, learning, culture, cultural industry

1950-2013 622

Artist + teacher Education, learning, teaching, art-study & teaching, artist as teacher

1950-2013 350


culture, capitalism was giving the same standards to material and immaterial goods, and taking away authenticity from cultural production.

The critical approach to culture industry, which was commonly shared within the Frankfurt school, e.g. Marcuse (1964) pointed at the ideological significance of the growing gap between leisure and work, and the subsequent cultural production of pure entertainment for the masses in order to pacify and manipulate them (see also Shorthose, 2004).

The Marxist positions have successively developed into two different theoretical approaches: the first one is enthusiast of an industrial model that provides affordable cultural goods to a growing mass of consumers, the second one expects governmental support to cultural industries, with the pay-off of a large socioeconomic return in terms of creativity, personal growth, employment and wealth (Jeffcutt, Pick, & Protherough, 2000, pp. 132-133). To these catastrophic views on culture industry Jeffcutt, Pick, & Protherough (2000) add what they call the romantic view: culture as an antidote to industrialism and as a positive means to democratisation. This involves cultural learning as content that is related through culture or cultural experiences or is about these, as the ECLN practitioners seem to do.

Definitional issues are challenged by a further semantic complexity or “thickness”: the adjectives cultural or artistic do not simplify the conceptual exercise, in order to introduce cultural learning entrepreneurship.

Jeffcutt, Pick, & Protherough (2000, p. 129) quote Williams (1983) in order to explain that culture is one of the most complicated words in the English language, and “art” or “artist” also provides no conceptual clarity or unity. Oakley (2009) for instance reviews the field of cultural entrepreneurship focusing on artists as members of the cultural labour market. This contribution depicts a cultural entrepreneur, which is very similar to the profile of a cultural learning entrepreneur and common challenges are contained within the two definitions.

Recently, within the field of creative industry studies a new definition emerged: Potts, Cunningham, Hartley & Ormerod (2008) propose to turn to the new definition: Social network markets, which, in their opinion, catches the systemic complexity and relational essence of the phenomenon.

As the visualisation below shows, defining cultural learning entrepreneurship demands a large effort of navigating through a cross-disciplinary and multi-faceted field.

Last but not least, the term entrepreneurship in connection with cultural fields raises few questions and cross-cultural comparisons. Mulcahy (2003) underlines the etymology of the word entrepreneur as originally linked to the semantic field of cultural production: he is surprised that the Oxford English Dictionary reports as first meaning of the word “director of musical production”. What happened to this semantic undertone? Mulcahy addresses the “American model” of cultural entrepreneurship, built at the intersection of three different functions: 1) the bottom-line and profit-generating, 2) the not-for-profit and patronage, 3) governmental subvention. The cultural entrepreneur administrates and balances all the three functions. Mulcahy challenges the gap of different support systems, as in Europe this is mostly covered by governmental support (see UK lottery) and in the US by private patronage. In reality, because of the tax deduction system, the US model is much more similar to the European one than is apparent at first.


Main themes, advantages and challenges that the literature points at, regarding the praxis of cultural entrepreneur/ship

Mulcahy (2003) addresses one of the central issues in the field of cultural entrepreneurship: the issue of funding and patronage. As mentioned above, Europe and the United States seem to follow two different models, which are context related and perhaps not replicable in other contexts. He raises worries about privatization in this sector, which might lead to strategic choices that over-prioritise blockbuster solutions. As an example he brings the tendencies in the museum sector, where blockbuster solutions spin-off democratisation but also deliver less quality. However, the topic of funding is applicable to just one model of cultural or creative entrepreneurship.

Potts, & Cunningham (2008) propose four models for the rapidly growing creative industries and describe the importance of adequate policy attention.

Studies highlight that the economic value of the creative industries may extend beyond just the manifest production of cultural goods or the employment of creative people, but may have a more general role in driving and facilitating the process of change across the entire economy, holding a “dynamic significance” rather than a static one (Potts, & Cunningham, 2008, p. 233). They propose the following models and related policies:

• Welfare model, supported by welfare subsidy. This model drains the economy against the background of low incomes and productivity. It offers low growth;

• Competition, supported by standard industry policy. In this perspective the creative industries sector is just one of many industry sectors and has a neutral effect on the whole economy. It does not require any special policy;

• Growth, supported by investment and growth. When a positive relationship is measurable between creative industries and the aggregate economy, growth is associated with the generation of jobs, commodities, services, but also with new types of the above.

• Innovation, supported by innovation policy. In this model creative industries are not “an industry per se, but rather [...] an element of the innovation system of the whole economy” (Potts, & Cunningham, 2008, p. 238). They support change.

Peters (2009) proposes a different taxonomy, based on the intrinsic role of the cultural entrepreneurs more than their economic value. He conceptualizes two educational roles: the one associated with “personal anarcho-aesthetics” and the one associated with the “design principle” (Peters, 2009, p. 42). The former is generated by myths about creativity, Romanticism and cultural inheritance (the passionate, unique genius) and the latter is relational and attuned to educational theories that value networks, communities of practice and peer exchanges.

Whichever taxonomy, the definitional task complicates any conceptualisation. As mentioned above, literature offers several definitions of the same phenomenon, and each one is associated with a specific interpretation of the entrepreneur’s role and function. O’Connor, J. (2009) tries to sum up the differences in definitions and paradigms and to provide a critical view on them. In any case, what Gibson (2003) addresses seems to be a general rule of thumb: ‘culture’ matters in research on the ‘cultural’ industries. In the sense that, when defining or trying to define the phenomenon of cultural or creative industries, what matters is the cultural construction shared by a given community of practitioners and/or scholars.

The learning of cultural entrepreneurs

One fundamental issue to address in this field is: how, when and where do the cultural entrepreneurs learn their profession? Raffo, O’Connor, Lovatt, & Banks (2000) address the reason why cultural entrepreneurs rarely engage in formal business training and support. They argue that these specific kinds of entrepreneurs are rather motivated through their activities and jobs by means of activities embedded in their environments. In spite of the economic relevance of cultural entrepreneurship (Raffo, O’Connor, Lovatt, & Banks, 2000, p. 215), documented by several government White Papers and commentators, research findings still point at a skill gap and training needs.

The cultural industries sector, looked upon as a potential champion for future developmental solutions to national and international growth and prosperity, still thrives against the background of non-formal training settings and does not thrive in formal training situations. The reason seems to be that these entrepreneurs regard reflection within their community of practice or with other practitioners as


most valuable for their own learning about providing their business with successful outputs. They have concrete problems to solve and they regard their peers as their preferred learning sources, rather than formal business training. Raffo, O’Connor, Lovatt, & Banks (2000) mean that this must be taken in consideration, if policies want to find ways to support the growth of this sector, for instance by eliminating inadequate formal business training offers, or by proposing different models of learning, or by allowing learning to happen in communities of practice within the context of specific business activities. For instance thy propose that the latter could be addressed by “culturally sensitive mentors who are from, or have an in-depth knowledge of the sector [mentors that] appear to be given particular importance by cultural entrepreneurs” (p. 218).

Last but not least, cultural entrepreneurs seem to need more dialogic and discursive environments, where they can interact with each other, and with experts or mentors, in a situated context.

The literature consulted focuses on two kinds of learning for cultural learning entrepreneurs: the entrepreneurial and the pedagogical. Absent is the achievement of skills pertinent to the artistic modality or cultural domain of choice. One explanation can be that this type of learning is included in the professional learning journey of the individual entrepreneur, either in formal paths or in non-formal trajectories, or a combination of the two. Nevertheless, contributions on cultural learning entrepreneurship only highlight the above-mentioned topics.

Cultural entrepreneurs generating learning

As the definitions above and the economic views on cultural/creative industries show, the concepts of industry and entrepreneurship are tightly associated with generation of profit. However Sterngold (2004) calls for more caution. The outputs of creative/cultural entrepreneurship are not only of economic nature: these activities enrich a community in a wide variety of ways that arts advocation supports and communicates. Especially when creative industry consists in cultural or artistic events or products, the outputs can be intangible but highly valuable, such as learning, entertainment, community building, facilitation of change and so forth.

The economic perspective is even more critical when considering that in fact many artists or cultural

entrepreneurs do not earn a considerable amount of money, or enough money, or money at all. The first case is the one of low wages that, in spite of everything, allow a sustainable living, the second is the case of artists or cultural entrepreneurs who are forced into part-time jobs in order to provide the necessary earning besides their artistic activities, the third and last one is the case of artists or cultural entrepreneurs that work for free. This paradox, inacceptable in a radical conservative business perspective, draws from ideals of community service, social engagement (or entrepreneurship), participatory and educational arts activities (Reiss & Pringle, 2003). Participatory ideals date back to the 30ies and to the Frankfurt School, but educational ideals based on playfulness and creativity date even longer back: Rousseau was the first to translate the Romanticism view on creators to education, becoming the background for most of the child-centred pedagogy (Peters, 2009, p. 49).

The purpose of art and arts education changed radically with the ideology of progressive education (Jones, 2009, pp. 17-19) that brought the child at the centre of the educational attention. Hall (2010) explores the concept and praxis of artists-teachers, as the contribution Making Art, Teaching Art, Learning Art: Exploring the Concept of the Artist Teacher clearly states. As this article and the many contributions in specialized journals such as the Teaching Artist Journal document, the work of teaching artist needs the active effort of balancing two different professions and identities. In 2004 McCaslin, G., Cohen, M., & Booth, E. addressed systematically the topic of professional development for teaching artists by collecting a significative sampling. However the authors conclude that a larger study of this field is needed on a larger scale. In 2009, Saraniero partly addressed this need by publishing a contribution on the topic of training and preparation of teaching artists. Even though only related to a sample of Californian teaching artists, the findings and methodology of this study show interesting results. For instance, most of the artists report that they have been trained at universities and colleges, even thought they value the hands-on approach and they put together their education in individual ways. The fundamental role of mentors is also reported and as well the need of training the art form at the same time as the pedagogical one. The credentialing process is critical and still without solution.

Among the reports that compile major studies that provide new evidence of enhanced learning and achievement when students are involved in a


variety of arts experiences we can quote Champions of change edited by Fiske (1999) that covers seven major studies, and Critical Links edited by Deasy (2002). This Compendium summarizes and discusses 62 research studies that examine the effects of arts learning on students’ social and academic skills. The research studies cover each of the art forms and have been widely used to help make the case that learning in the arts is academic, basic, and comprehensive.

One of the most relevant contributions in this theme is Cultural Learning Alliance. (2011). ImagineNation. The Case for Cultural Learning. UK: Cultural Learning Alliance. Retrieved from www.culturallearningalliance.org.

This contribution strongly advocates for the social and economical function of cultural learning, stressing the transformative element of learning through the arts and culture. The subject of cultural learning “constitute a body of knowledge, skills and understanding that has intellectual depth and critical rigour” (Cultural Learning Alliance, 2011, p. 9). The fundamental role of cultural heritage in the building of learning, identity and to foster development, especially for children and youth is not to be ignored at any time. On the contrary is to be fully exploited. The dominating discourse is here, again, the essentiality of the arts and culture for fostering the creativity nations (here UK, but can be extended to EU see reports) must live of in the future. Here the economic discourse has an easy entrance with arguments taken from the fact that the practices of cultural learning sustain cultural businesses, such as museums or cultural institutions.

Exceptionally, in this contribution is possible to find a definition of cultural learning: “is an active engagement with the creation of our arts and heritage” (Cultural Learning Alliance , 2011, p. 15). The publication stresses the making part of participation in a cultural heritage. Gardner (1994), on the contrary has conceptualised a different attitude: the participation in the arts (can be extended to cultural experiences in general), which includes both the making and the assisting to artistic experiences as audiences, seers, listeners, readers. Personally I wish to add to Gardner’s taxonomy a third level of participation: arts appreciation, which involves an expert level of cognitive and affective participation, but not necessarily in the making of works of arts or cultural artefacts.

The arts defined as a broad range of artistic activities; cultural heritage is the understanding of

the individual as being part of a cultural tradition, “material culture and the world around them” (Cultural Learning Alliance, 2011, p. 15).

Selling out?

One of the recurring topics in literature about cultural entrepreneurship is the perceived gap between money and art or culture. Jeffcutt, Pick, & Protherough (2000) explain that some theoretical positions contribute to describing this complexity. Poststructuralists, for instance, deny any distinction between high culture and mass culture, as the whole applecart is nothing but commercial. Postmodernism and pop art replicate and reproduce the logic of consumer capitalism, in fact reinforcing the capitalist mindset.

However the concept of cultural industry might be imprecise and over-simplifying, because the cultural industry rather than selling goods is more often offering experiences. Moreover, economic and artistic success does not necessarily coincide.

In spite of all this, in recent years a new field related to cultural entrepreneurship has emerged and gained attention: the field of organisational aesthetic (or arts-in-business) is a term for a practical collaboration between artists and industry. A form of creative alliance between two divergent worlds, which, on the basis of mutual differences, find it interesting to empathize with each other.

Background for these experiments is often describes as globalisation and knowledge economy. These socio-economical changes have made it necessary for sustainable businesses to target focus on innovation and creativity. Fierce competition and paradigm shift from production (often outsourced) to knowledge has actualized organizations interested in creative ways, innovative strategies and alternative learning. Topics discussed at the expert level (such as systemic thinking, change readiness, change management, chaos management, knowledge management, etc.) are now on the agenda in all innovative companies that are able to adapt to the rapid changes in society and tomorrow’s market challenges.

In order to address these needs, some British companies began in the 70s to seek out the artistic creativity to inspire new ways of thinking. With roots in contemporary aesthetic theories that experimented much with the role of art in the social, the area arts-in-business reached a leading position in the global media around the year 2000 while the world’s hectic


interest in innovation (Ferro-Thomsen, 2005).

Despite a long history, the concept of arts-in-business is still characterized by uncertainty and are used in different contexts. Generally one can say that this involves a contact between artists and businesses with varying degrees of synergy. Among them are here specifically dealt with the concept of arts-in-business is Darsø and Taylor. The first uses a professional psychological approach and focuses on innovation in groups, the latter is co-author of the most comprehensive literature review in the field (Taylor & Hansen, 2005). Both have tried to formalize the various forms of synergy arts profession.

Darsø (2004) have described four categories of synergy art / profession:

1 Art as decoration (e.g. when you hang paintings on the wall)

2 Art as an event (e.g. employees events or similar)3 Art as a tool (e.g. when actors teach body language

to sales offices)4 Art as a process of change (i.e. a tool for radical

innovation and organizational learning).

In 2009 Taylor and Ladkin developed a categorization as follows. The role of art in a business context can be:

1 skills transfer (equivalent to Darsø 3rd category)2 projection (e.g. when creating an aesthetic product

as visual design of its meaning)3 illustration (e.g. when explaining an organizational

theme using artistic metaphors)4 making (“artistic making draws upon the richness

of the inner life and allows it to flourish and contribute to our experience of more fulsome living”, Taylor & Ladkin, 2009, p. 15).

A cross-disciplinary field as art used in non-artistic communities cannot fail to attract critiques from several sides. The most common comments are gathered and partially documented in Chemi 2007. Some of these critiques refer to cooperation arts occupations and not necessarily to the concept. Prejudices by the artist: I will not sell myself; business interests is only about money, business will also steer clear art, organisational aesthetic means reducing public support for the arts.

Prejudice by industry: The outputs of art cannot be measured, therefore it should not be used; art is unstructured; artists cannot teach us anything about creativity, arts-in-business is superficial and passé.

Several dilemmas are linked to the activities of organisational aesthetic, for instance the fact that business might have a too strong influence on the arts’ cultural and ideological independence: “Business sponsors of the arts help to shape decisions about what artists may do” (Jeffcutt, Pick, & Protherough, 2000, pp. 134).

However the precariousness of the jobs in the field of cultural or creative entrepreneurship in general is well documented (Gill & Pratt, 2008; Throsby & Zednik, 2011): Banks & Hesmondhalgh (2009) address the challenges of finding a job in this field where employability issues include insecurity, inequality and exploitation. What seems to be a reconceptualization and proposition for future studies is Wilson’s (2010) definition of social creativity. With its focus on social justice and empowerment (Wilson, 2010, p. 374) social creativity seems to bypass issues of commodification, exploitation and instrumentalisation of the arts and culture, by associating the field of cultural entrepreneurship to social innovation and change.

Culture or art?

During the research project following the development and establishment of ECLN the research group has been growing aware of several conceptual discrepancies. One of them is the use of the word “culture” for a practice that mostly involves professional artists. Both the European partners in the ECLN study and their networks had a background in artistic professions involving learning as precondition of work or as goods to sell. Similarly the reviewed literature tends to use the word culture even though the entrepreneurial practices appertain to the fields of the arts. Reasons for this semantic discrepancy can be several. One can be the gap between high/low art, where high art tends to be exclusive and excluding. This gap might, on its turn, be the reason for semantic misunderstandings about the concepts of art and culture.

The word art has a long history that confirms its complexity. Its linguistic modern use has to be located in the Latin ars, meaning art, skill, craft. Most European languages borrow the Latin lexeme: English, French and Dutch art; Italian, Spanish and Portuguese arte. Others adopt a semantically similar root, originally coming from the Germanic “to can”: German, Danish, Norwegian translate it as kunst, Swedish, konst. A peculiar difference in origin but not in meaning is represented by the Greek τττττ (“tekne”), meaning, once again, skill, craft. The latter


is most significantly the origin of the modern word technique and its derivatives, technical, technology, and so on. All of them are related to the semantic field of practical skills.

We can then infer that, in our culture, art historically refers to what is “made” by human beings requiring skills, crafts and capabilities, and that is at the same time meaningful, meaning-generating and to be shared with others. Still today, in spite of the many challenges of the avant-gardist experiments of cross-contaminations, art is in our linguistic perception something linked to the noble tradition of “handicraft”, something made with hands or whole body, which at the same time is meaningful and is to be shared in a given community.

If the lexeme “art” is semantically actualised in the meaning of skill, on the other side is the word “culture” a stem of Latin colere, meaning “tend, guard, cultivate, till”. The figurative meaning the words gained over the years stretch from “cultivation through education” (first attested in 1510); “the intellectual side of civilization” (1805); and “collective customs and achievements of a people” (1867) . Nowadays we understand culture as the product of social and historical network of knowledge.

Generally, the term culture designates the sum total of knowledge, attitudes and values which inform a society or characterize an individual. In this sense, culture is the product of human achievements and directly related to the human power of transformation. The arts belong to culture, as do thought products in general or, for that matter, anything produced by human beings. (Bronwen & Ringham, 2000, p. 46)

Semiotics tends to distinguish what is natural from what is artificial, or better made by art (arti-ficial). This permits us to attempt a distinction in the definition of art and culture: consensually, Western cultures understand art as something made by the application of skills, by the drive of a project and targeted to the production of a meaningful artistic product, which is at the same time material and metaphoric and is to be shared with someone else. The artistic process, as any other flow of communication, is accomplished when a maker produces “something” (a work of art, a performance, an event, a happening, a display), which is purposely made to be perceived, understood and metabolised by a receiver. In semiotic terms a sender produces a message to be sent by means of a medium to a receiver. This basic process of communication is the outcome of several concurrent elements and occurs within the frame of a given

culture. It can be constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed socially and individually, but always in dialogue with a tradition. In recent decades this sender-receiver-model has also been questioned, and other views on communication have appeared, e.g. from more systemic and relational approaches where communication is seen as a more circular process, as an ongoing reciprocal feedback-loop.

Living in a given culture and society, the artist is influenced by the external world, his/her acknowledgment of reality is at the base of his/her work as an artist, and the perceivable outcome of this process is the artistic product which has the function of expressing or negating reality as it is. The opposition between Realism and Symbolism, both as diachronic trends and as synchronic attitudes, is the best example of the two positions. In Realism the artist is expected to be nothing but an instrument through which reality can manifest itself: Realist artists construct their artistic role by attempting to disappear in their works, in order to produce art which seems to be born without a creator. The role of the artist is merely the one of passing on real data, and the opposite is that of Symbolism, where the artist manipulates reality, filling it up with own impressions and symbols.

In both cases the process does not change but for the value judgment the artist applies to the personal representation of the world, and therefore for the ideology behind the artist’s choice.


References

5 New Steps. (2003). Denmark in the Culture and Experience Economy – 5 new steps, Danish Government. Retrieved from www.kum.dk/graphics/kum/downloads/Publikationer/Publikationer_ENGELSKE/experience_economy.pdf

Austin, Robert & Devin, Lee. (2003). Artful Making. What Managers Need to Know About How Artists Work, New York, Pearson Education

Banks, M., & Hesmondhalgh, D. (2009). Looking for work in creative industries policy. International Journal Of Cultural Policy, 15(4), 415-430.

Barry, David & Meisiek, Stefan. (2004). NyX Innovation Alliances Evaluation Rapport. Learning Lab Denmark, 15 September 2004.

Baumol, W.J. & Bowen W.G. (1966). Performing arts: The Economic Dilemma. New York: M. I. T. Press.

Casacuberta, Carlos & Gandelman, Néstor (2012). Multiple job holding: the artist’s labour supply approach. Applied Economics Vol. 44, Iss. 3.

Caves, R. E. (2003). Contracts Between Art and Commerce. Journal Of Economic Perspectives, 17(2), 73.

CBI. (2011). Skills for the Creative Industries: Investing in the Talents of Our People. London: CBI. Retrieved from http://www.cbi.org.uk/media/1055419/2011.09-cbi-creative-skills-brief.pdf.

Chemi, Tatiana. (2006). Artbased Approaches. A Practical Notebook to Creativity at Work. Fokus Forlag.

Chemi, Tatiana. (2007). Once Upon a Time, in the Enchanted Kingdom of Denmark. A Fairy Tale on the Meeting Between the Arts and Organisations, conference papers European Conference for Creativity and Innovation (ECCI X), 14. October 2007, Copenhagen.

Cultural Learning Alliance. (2011). ImagineNation. The Case for Cultural Learning. UK: Cultural Learning Alliance. Retrieved from www.culturallearningalliance.org.

Cunningham, Stuart D. (2002) From cultural to creative industries: Theory, industry, and policy implications. Media International Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy: Quarterly Journal of Media Research and Resources, pp. 54-65.

D’Angelo, Francesca, Furia, Donatella, Crociata, Alessandro & Castagna, Alina. (2010). Education and culture: evidence from live performing arts in Italy

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 9. 1373–1378.

Darsø, Lotte. (2004). Artful Creation. Learning-Tales of Arts-in-Business. Samfundslitteratur.

DCMS. (1998). Creative Industries Mapping Document. London: DCMS.

Deasy, Richard J. (ed.). (2002). Critical Links: Learning in the Arts and Student Academic and Social Development. Arts Education Partnership. Denmark’s Creative Potential. (2001). Denmark’s Creative Potential. Culture and Business Policy Report 2000. The Ministry of Trade and Industry and The Ministry of Culture.

Di Maggio, Paul. (1987). Classification in Art, American Sociological Review, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Aug., 1987), pp. 440-455

Education Through Art, Creative Industries Special Issue. Retrieved:http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/ijeta/issue/view/182478/showToc

Evans, G., & Foord, J. (2008). Cultural mapping and sustainable communities:planning for the arts revisited. Cultural Trends, 17(2), 65-96.

Ferro-Thomsen, Martin. (2005). Organisational Art: A Study of Art at Work in Organisations. Copenhagen: Learning Lab Denmark Publication.

Fiske, Edward B. (ed.) (1999) Champions of change. The impact of the arts on learning.

The Arts Education Partnership

Florida, Richard. (2004). The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life, New York, Basic Books (I ed. 2002)

Florida, Richard. (2005). The Flight of the Creative Class. The New Global Competition for Talent, New York, HarperCollins

Florida, Richard & Tinagli, Irene. (2004). Europe in the Creative Age. Retrieved fromwww.demos.co.uk/catalogue/creativeeurope/

Frey, Bruno. (2003). Arts And Economics: Analysis And Cultural Policy. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Gapinski, J. H. (1980). The Production Of Culture. Review Of Economics & Statistics, 62(4), 578.

Gardner, Howard. (1994). The Arts And Human Development. New York: Basic Books.

Gibb, A. (1993) “The enterprise culture and education”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol.11 No.3 pp11-34

Gibson, C. (2003). Cultures at work: why ‘culture’ matters in research on the ‘cultural’ industries. Social & Cultural Geography, 4(2), 201.

Gill, R. & Pratt, A. (2008). In the Social Factory?: Immaterial Labour, Precariousness and Cultural Work. Theory, Culture & Society December 2008 25: 1-30

Guile, David. (2006). Access, Learning and Development in the Creative and Cultural Sectors: From “Creative Apprenticeship” to “Being Apprenticed”. Journal of Education and Work, Vol.19(5), p.433-453

Guillet De Monthoux, Pierre. (2004). The Art Firm. Aesthetic Management and Metaphysical Marketing, Stanford, Stanford Business Books.

Hall, J. (2010). Making Art, Teaching Art, Learning Art: Exploring the Conceptof the Artist Teacher. International Journal Of Art & Design Education, 29(2),103-110.

Hansen, Peter J. et al. (2000). Den kreative alliance. En analyse af samspillet mellemkulturlivet og erhvervslivet. Advice Analyse, September 2000.

Hartley, J. (Ed.) (2005). Creative Industries. Oxford: Blackwell.

Heartfield, J. (2000) Great Expectations: The Creative Industries in the New Economy.

Heilbrun, J. & Gray, C. (2001). Economics of Art & Culture . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hesmondhalgh, D. (2008). Cultural and Creative Industries pp. 552-570. In T. Bennet & J. Frow (Eds.) The Sage Handbook of Cultural Analysis. London: Sage.

Horkheimer, M. & Adorno, T. A. (2002). The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception, 94-137. In Horkheimer, M. & Adorno, T. A. Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments. Stanford University Press.

Howkins, J. (2001). The Creative Economy: How People Make Money From Ideas. London: Penguin.

Jeffcutt, P., Pick, J., & Protherough, R. (2000). Culture and Industry: Exploring the Debate. Studies In Cultures, Organizations & Societies, 6(2), 129-143.

Jones, K. 2009, Culture and creative learning: a literature review, Creativity, Culture and Education, London.

Johnson, L. (2006). Valuing the Arts: Theorising and Realising Cultural Capital in an Australian City. Geographical Research, 44(3), 296-309.


Kaufman, J.C. & Sternberg, R.J. 2010, The Cambridge handbook of creativity, New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.

Leadbeater, C. & Oakley, K. (1999) The Independents: Britain’s New Cultural Entrepreneurs, DEMOS

Linstead, Stephen & Höpfl, Heather (Eds.). (2000). The Aesthetics of Organization. London: SAGE.

Lynch, Robert. (2008). Creating a Brighter Workforce with the Arts. School Administrator. vol.:65 iss:3 s.:26 -28

Marcuse, H. (1964). One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Routledge.

Marsh, Richard, Mosca, Irene & Zuleeg, Fabian. (2006). Arts and Employability. Scottish Executive Social Research. Edinburgh: DTZ Consulting and Research. Retrieved from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/160095/0043607.pdf.

Martin, Bronwen & Ringham, Felizitas. (2000). Dictionary of Semiotics. London: Cassell.

Maxwell, Joseph A. 2006, Literature Reviews of, and for, EducationalResearch: A Commentary on Boote and Beile’s “Scholars before Researchers”. Educational Researcher, Vol. 35, No. 9, pp. 28-31

McCaslin, G., Cohen, M., & Booth, E. (2004). Professional Development for Teaching Artists: A Sampling. Teaching Artist Journal, 2(1), 4-11.

Mulcahy, K. V. (2003). Entrepreneurship or Cultural Darwinism? Privatization and American Cultural Patronage. Journal Of Arts Management, Law & Society, 33(3), 165-184. O’Connor, J. (2009). Creative industries: a new direction? International Journal Of Cultural Policy, 15(4), 387-402.

Oakley, K. (2009). ‘Art Works’-cultural labour markets: a Literature review, Creativity, Culture and Education, London.

Peters, M. A. (2009). Education, Creativity And The Economy Of Passions: New Forms Of Educational Capitalism. Thesis Eleven, 96(1), 40-63.

Potts, J., & Cunningham, S. (2008). Four models of the creative industries. International Journal Of Cultural Policy, 14(3), 233-247.

Potts, J., Cunningham, S., Hartley, J. & Ormerod, P. (2008). Social network markets: a new definition of the creative industries. Journal of cultural economics, (32)3, 167 -185.

Power, D. (2009). Culture, creativity and experience in Nordic and Scandinavian cultural policy. International Journal Of Cultural Policy, 15(4), 445-460.

Power, D. (2002). “Cultural Industries” in Sweden: An Assessment of Their Place in the Swedish Economy. Economic Geography , Vol. 78, No. 2 (Apr., 2002), pp. 103-127

Rae, David. (2004). Entrepreneurial Learning a Practical Model from the Creative Industries. Education + training vol.:46 iss:8 s.:492 -500

Raffo, C., O’Connor, J., Lovatt, A., & Banks, M. (2000). Attitudes to Formal Business Training and Learning amongst Entrepreneurs in the Cultural Industries: situated business learning through ‘doing with others’. Journal Of Education & Work, 13(2), 215-230.

Reiss, V., & Pringle, E. (2003). The Role of Artists in Sites for Learning. International Journal Of Art & Design Education, 22(2), 215-221.

Saraniero, P. (2009). Training and Preparation of Teaching Artists. Teaching Artist Journal, 7(4), 236-243.

Scott, A. J. (2006). Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Industrial Development: Geography and the Creative Field Revisited. Small Business Economics, 26(1), 1-24.

Shorthose, J. (2004). A more critical view of the creative industries: Production, consumption and resistance. Capital & Class, 28(84), 1-9.

Stanley, Denise. (2013). The European Cultural Learning Network: A Research Tool-kit for Partner Organisations. ECLN. Retrieved from www.ecln-network.com/index.php?sid=CV-9601-1267-9711&sessiontag=page&data=2.

Sternberg, R.J. 1999, Handbook of creativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Sterngold, A. H. (2004). Do Economic Impact Studies Misrepresent the Benefits of Arts and Cultural Organizations?. Journal Of Arts Management, Law & Society, 34(3), 166-187.

Strati, Antonio. (1999). Organization and Aesthetics, London, SAGE

Strati, Antonio. (2003). Knowing in Practice: Aesthetic Understanding and Tacit Knowledge. In Gherardi, Silvia, Nicolini, Davide & Yanow, Dvora (eds.), Knowing inOrganizations: a Practice-based Approach, Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 53-75

Strati, Antonio. (2007). Sensations, Impressions and Reflections on the Configuring of the Aesthetic Discourse in Organizations. Aesthesis, 1(1), 14-22

Taylor, Steven & Ladkin, Donna. (2009). Understanding Arts-based Methods in Managerial Development. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8 (1):55-69.

Taylor, Steven & Hansen, Hans. (2005). Finding Form: Looking at the Field of Organizational Aesthetics. Journal of Management Studies, nr. 42, 6th September 2005, pp. 1211-1231

Throsby, David. (Mar, 1994). The Production and Consumption of the Arts: A View of Cultural Economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 32(1), 1-29.

Throsby, D., & Zednik, A. (2011). Multiple job-holding and artistic careers: some empirical evidence. Cultural Trends, 20(1), 9-24.

Turnbull, M., Littlejohn, A., & Allan, M. (2012). Preparing Graduates for Work in the Creative Industries: A Collaborative Learning Approach for Design Students. Industry And Higher Education, 26(4), 291-300.

Wilson, N. (2010). Social creativity: re-qualifying the creative economy. International Journal Of Cultural Policy, 16(3), 367-381.

Youth, education, competencies, arts, (postmodern) society: Boys-Reymond, Manuela du and Blasco, Andreu López (2003): Yo-yo transitions and misleading trajectories: towards integrated transition policies for young adults in Europe. In Young people and the contradictions of inclusion, towards integrated transition policies in Europe. Ed. By Andreu López Blasco,Wallace McNeish, Andreas Walther, Bristol Gadsden, Vivian L (2008) : The arts and education: knowledge, pedagogy, and the discourse of learning. In: review of Research in Education 32:29 Gale, Richard (2005): Aesthetic Literacy and the “living of lyrical moments”. In: Journal of cognitive affective learning 2 (1) Haynes, F. (2008). What counts as a competency in the arts? Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference. Retrieved march 2010 from http://www.aare.edu.au/93pap/haynf93103.txt Jacobs, Rachel (2009): Measuring Aesthetic development: A national dialogue. Paper presented at the 2009 AC SA National Bienniaal Conference. Curriculum: a national conversation (Australia). Retrieved 11-3-2010 athttp://www.acsa.edu.au/pages/page484.asp Langager Søren (2003): Social pedagogy and “at risk” youth: societal changes and new challenges in social work with youth. In: The diversity of social pedagogy in Europe, ed. Jakob Kornbeck and Niels Rosendal Jensen Miles, Steven: the art of learning: empowerment through performing arts. (2003). Young people and the contradictions of inclusion, towards integrated transition policies in Europe. Ed. By Andreu López Blasco,Wallace McNeish, Andreas Walther, Bristol


Mørch, S, Stalder, Barbara S.(2003): Competence and employability. In:Young people and the contradictions of inclusion, towards integrated transition policies in Europe. Ed. By Andreu López Blasco,Wallace McNeish, Andreas Walther, Bristol Owen-Smith, Patricia (2008): rescuing the affective: teaching the mind and the heart. In: Journal of cognitive affective learning 4 (2) Pais, José Machado, Pohl, Axel (2003): Of roofs and knives: the dilemmas of recognising informal learning. Young people and the contradictions of inclusion, towards integrated transition policies in Europe. Ed. By Andreu López Blasco,Wallace McNeish, Andreas Walther, Bristol Russell, Robert L. and Hutzel, Karen: Promoting social and emotional learning through service-learning art projects. In: Art Education, 60:3 Literature about EU / frameworks for competencies Bjørnavold, Jens, and Coles, Mike (2008): Governing education and training; the case of qualification frameworks. In. European journal of vocational training 42/43.

Cedefop (2009): European guidelines for validating non-formal and informal learning. Retrieved 6-04-2010 at: http://www.nvr.nu/files/European%20guidelines_2009.pdf

Cedefop (2007): (valid)ation of non-formal and informal learning in Europe. A snapshot 2007. Retrieved 11-03-2010 at: http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/EN/publications/12954.aspx Cedefop (2009) : European guidelines for validating non-formal and informal learning.Retrieved 11-3-2010 at: http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/etv/Upload/Information_resources/Bookshop/553/4054_en.pdf DG Education and Culture (EU) (2007): Key Competences for lifelong learning. European reference framework European Commission (2008) : Explaining the European Qualifications framework for lifelong learning. Found on 11-3-2010 at: http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc/eqf/brochexp_en.pdf How can the EQF be used as a reference point for all qualifications -including those developed by industry sectors, enterprises and professions. Background note for the discussion in workshop 3 at the “Implementing the European Qualification Framework” conference 3-4 June 2008 in Brussels. Retrieved 11-03-2010 at http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc2076_en.htm Otero, Manuel Souto, Jo Hawley and Anne-Mari Nevala (eds): European Inventory on Validation of Informal and Non-formal Learning. 2007 Update. A final report to DG Education and Culture of the European Commission. Retrieved on 11-03-2010 at http://www.ecotec.com/europeaninventory/publications/inventory/EuropeanInventory.pdf


8. Conclusion

The ECLN research project has provided an overview of a very diverse sector that has 2 main constituencies: the first is the Artist Freelancers that share their practice through formal, non-formal and informal contexts and strategies; the second, is the Cultural Organisation that delivers Cultural Learning to different people for different reasons.

There is a very diverse set of work protocols and organisational structures for this type of work according to the research participants ranging from small, new network-type loose-structure organisations to more tight established organisations. However, there is a remarkable consensus about the competences and resources needed to do this work and there is a highly qualified work-force to do this. The sector has been operational for at least 30 years yet is fluid, structurally under-resourced with low financial returns and minimal security for workers. Yet is has been able to sustain itself using the goodwill, creativity and entrepreneurship of its work-force together with earned income from fees, projects and programmes and from supportive public, private and other investment sources. There is still very little public recognition and validation for this work which operates within a cultural learning ecology and a networked within a community of practice who transfer creative and cultural knowledge to each other.

The sector has been operational for at least 30 years yet is fluid, structurally

under-resourced with low financial returns and minimal security for workers.


Design by JS [email protected]

Documents

ECLN Report -The State of Play: The Cultural and Creative Learning Sector in Europe