Issue and argument: The contents of the discourses, the institutional instruments, and the management tools of cultural policies are often discussed from four different paradigms (Bonet & Négrier, 2018; Costa, 1997; Négrier, 2020; Neves, 2021). Among these, cultural democratisation and cultural democracy stand out as the most enduring and widely accepted frameworks, albeit with some nuances (Matarasso, 2019; Matarasso & Landry, 1999; Mulcahy, 2006; Neves, 2021; Romainville, 2014).
The cultural democratisation paradigm focuses on making access to culture more inclusive by bringing existing cultural practices to the population. At the basis of cultural democracy, on the other hand, is the right to culture and the understanding that every social group could have its cultural practices recognized. It emphasises cultural diversity and cultural expressions from all groups and communities and advocates for active participation and cultural co-creation (Négrier, 2020; Mulcahy, 2006).
Santerre (2000) suggests that cultural democratisation and cultural democracy can be interdependent across different political administrative levels. Both have evolved over time, although lately, policies have been progressively leaning towards the second paradigm. According to Belfiore et al. (2023), there has been a renewed focus on the distinction between the two paradigms.
Unlike other countries where academic debate on cultural paradigms is well-established (Donnat, 2007), the debate in Portugal is comparatively late (Lopes, 2007). The CRP and government explicitly (Ahearne, 2009) prioritize cultural democratisation, as its art. 73 states that “(…) the state shall promote the democratisation of culture by encouraging and ensuring access by all citizens to cultural enjoyment and creation”.
Neves (2021) clarifies that, despite the explicit absence of the term cultural democracy from central government texts, it is possible to identify implicit references in six different Constitutional Government programmes.
The first explicit mention of cultural democracy in central government documents and its debate only appears in “National Plan for the Arts: A Strategy, A Manifesto: 2019-2024” (Vale et al., 2019) and in the Porto Santo Charter (2021). Also, the document “Cultural Policies for Participation: An Open Draft for an Open Debate” (ADESTE+, 2021) informs that, although the tension between the two paradigms is addressed in the academic context, it is little explored at the political level, an exception being the Porto Santo Charter. However, the context and circumstances for this explicit incorporation into cultural policies in Portugal have not yet been studied (Neves, 2021).
The National Plan for the Arts (NPA), a mission structure of the governmental areas of Culture and Education in Portugal, was created with the intention of complying with the Constitution, which states that “everyone has the right to education and culture” (Vale et al., 2019, p.12).
The Social Impact Commitment of Cultural Organisations (CISOC) is a measure that integrates the Cultural Policy axis of the Strategic Plan (2019-2024) of the NPA. Its purpose is to contribute to cultural citizenship, to the full exercise of citizens' cultural rights, as agents and protagonists. Therefore, CISOC aims to be an instrument to try to resolve some challenges identified by the paradigm of cultural democracy.
In June 2021, a group of Portuguese civil servants began designing the CISOC. In this context, policy design refers to the deliberative process in which policy content takes shape by defining objectives, instruments, and target groups (Howlett, 2019).
The initiative resulted in a comprehensive set of instruments, including: guidelines; a roadmap model; objectives, impacts and indicators; operational guidelines; indicator reference sheets, and legal templates for formalizing the CISOC.
Those instruments were read, reviewed, and discussed with over twenty culture and education professionals, managers, specialists, mediators, teachers and leaders of associations and community projects. The indicators produced were tested in 34 cultural organisations.
The speeches of the members of the NPA, as well as their written output, often show the incorporation of the vocabulary of cultural democratisation as well as cultural democracy. However, how is this incorporation operationalised in the design of a public policy and the creation of its instruments? Since each one of these paradigms not only has different objectives but also different ways of thinking about and solving the problems identified, how does the process of designing a cultural public policy operate in a context of coexistence between the paradigm of cultural democratisation and that of cultural democracy?
Methodology: This research is an ongoing exploratory and interpretivist study. The primary objective is to describe and analyse the design process of the CISOC within a context marked by the coexistence of the paradigms of cultural democratisation and cultural democracy.
Given the qualitative nature of this inquiry, the study adopts an inductive approach. The research design relies on a single exploratory case study, the CISOC.
The analytical framework emphasises policy design as content (Howlett, 2019; Howlett & Lejano, 2013; Siddiki & Curley, 2022). The focus is on examining the constituent elements of public policies and understanding their logical structure.
This study leverages a multi-method approach informed by ethnography, as participant observation. The value of incorporating ethnographic work into public management research has been highlighted in the literature (Cappellaro, 2017). In this initial stage, documentary reviews and participant observation were employed as primary data collection methods.
Takeaway and results: Up to now, the findings indicate the challenges in designing CISOC and how they are influenced by the coexistence between cultural democratisation and cultural democracy paradigms. CISOC incorporates both paradigms in its guiding principles, making it the first explicit mention of cultural democracy in a central government document.
Also changes in terminology, such as its name, commitments and beneficiaries. The first change, from "contract" to "commitment," reflects a shift from a legalistic relationship to one built on trust and shared goals.
The original goal of "social relevance" is retained but rephrased as "actions promoting social impact." However, the objective to "increase the quantity and diversity of cultural audiences," aligned with the cultural democratisation paradigm, is removed. Instead, it is replaced by a commitment related to cultural democracy, emphasizing “transformative change and a commitment to educational, participatory, and creative actions”.
Regarding its potential beneficiaries, CISOC’s scope has expanded to include all cultural organisations striving for transformative change and a commitment to educational, participatory, and creative actions, not limited to those under the Ministry of Culture’s guardianship.
This work’s originality resides in analysing the design of a new cultural policy in the Portuguese scenario of coexistence between the paradigms of democratisation of culture and cultural democracy.

References
ADESTE+. (2021). Cultural policies for participation: An open draft for an open debate.
Ahearne, J. (2009). Cultural policy explicit and implicit: A distinction and some uses. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 15(2), 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286630902746245
Belfiore, E., Hadley, S., Heidelberg, B. M., & Rosenstein, C. (2023). Cultural Democracy, Cultural Equity, and Cultural Policy: Perspectives from the UK and USA. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 53(3), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2023.2223537
Bonet, L., & Négrier, E. (2018). The participative turn in cultural policy: Paradigms, models, contexts. Poetics, 66, 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2018.02.006
Cappellaro, G. (2017). Ethnography in Public Management Research: A Systematic Review and Future Directions. International Public Management Journal, 20(1), 14–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2016.1143423
Costa, A. F. da. (1997). Políticas culturais: Conceitos e perspectivas. Observatório das actividades culturais, 2, 10–14.
Donnat, O. (2007). Painel democratização cultural hoje: Histórico do conceito. (AAVV, Ed.; pp. 6–14). Instituto Votorantim.
Howlett, M. (2019). Designing public policies: Principles and instruments (2.a ed.). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Howlett, M., & Lejano, R. P. (2013). Tales From the Crypt: The Rise and Fall (and Rebirth?) of Policy Design. Administration & Society, 45(3), 357–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399712459725
Lopes, J. T. (2007). Da Democratização à Democracia Cultural: Uma reflexão sobre políticas culturais e espaço público. Profedições.
Matarasso, F. (2019). A restless art: How participation won, and why it matters. Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, UK Branch.
Matarasso, F., & Landry, C. (1999). Balancing act: Twenty-one strategic dilemmas in cultural policy. Council of Europe Publications.
Mulcahy, K. (2006). Cultural Policy: Definitions and Theoretical Approaches. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 35(4), 319–330. https://doi.org/10.3200/JAML.35.4.319-330
Négrier, E. (2020). Introduction. Em F. Dupin-Meynard & E. Négrier (Eds.), Cultural policies in Europe: A participatory turn? Occitanie en scène Éditions de l’Attribut.
Neves, J. S. (2021). Políticas culturais de museus em Portugal: Ciclos e processos de reflexão estratégica participada. Midas, 13. https://doi.org/10.4000/midas.2956
Porto Santo Charter. (2021). Culture and the Promotion of Democracy: Towards a European Cultural Citizenship. https://portosantocharter.eu/the-charter/
Romainville, C. (2014). Cultural diversity as a multilevel and multifaceted legal notion operating in the law on cultural policies. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 22, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2014.959510
Santerre, L. (2000). De la démocratisation de la culture à la démocratie culturelle. Em G. Bellavance, L. Santerre, & M. Boivin (Eds.), Démocratisation de la culture ou démocratie culturelle? Deux logiques d’action publique. Les éditions de l’IQRC.
Siddiki, S., & Curley, C. (2022). Conceptualising policy design in the policy process. Policy & Politics, 50. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16346727541396
Vale, P. P., Brighenti, S. B., Fernandes, M. A., Albergaria, M. E., & Augusto, C. F. (2019). National Plan for the Arts: A stratetgy, a manifest. Plano Nacional das Artes.

Argument
Although varying in interpretation, ethical concerns of equality, social justice and sustainability are increasingly present across discourses: leadership, business ethics, public/corporate policymaking, labour, sustainability studies (Bardy, 2018, Hörisch et al., 2020, Todnem By, 2021). However, more reflexive and informed understanding is needed of how ethical interpretation in decision-making changes based on individual managers, their contexts and organisational cultures (Carroll et al., 2020, Schreiber and Rieple, 2018).

Within arts and cultural industries, multiple responses to perceived ethical problems are proposed. These range from an ethics of care approach, to artist-centred processes, failure-informed approaches and attention to cultural governance (Belfiore, 2021, Campbell, 2021, Yan and Liu, 2023, FitzGibbon and Tsioulakis, 2022, Cartiere and Schrag, 2023, Jancovich and Stevenson, 2023, Ebewo and Sirayi, 2009). Yet little agreement exists on what an ethics of management might be (notwithstanding its global variations). It can be hard to see where responsibilities ‘fit’ within everyday management practices (Hazlett et al., 2007); or how theory can translate to (increasingly turbulent) everyday practices (Saintilan and Schreiber, 2023). This paper reports our exploration of these challenges in the study of arts and cultural industries management.

Existing research identifies ethical concerns of arts and cultural industries: climate emergency and turns to ‘responsible’ production; redress of historic inequities in workforce, value systems, cultural rights and the global cultural economy (De Beukelaer and Spence, 2019); the dilemmas prompted by increasing platformisation and rapidly evolving technologies (e.g., AI) (Murphy and Villaespesa, 2021); concerns about workplace behaviour, exploitation, abuses of power (Baltà Portolés and Bashiron Mendolicchio, 2021, Banks and O’Connor, 2020, Gu, 2022). Culture is proposed as a ‘fourth pillar of sustainability’ (Cvejić, 2015), yet UN Sustainable Development Goals lack tangible goals for ‘creative industries’ (Demartini et al., 2021). Meanwhile managerial responses to inequality are challenged as performative (Heidelberg, 2022). Although pre-existing, these issues are amplified post-COVID19 and better understanding of management responses to ‘extreme context’ are needed (Brammer et al., 2023, FitzGibbon, 2022).

These discourses lack direct attention to how managers negotiate and perceive ethical discharge of competing responsibilities in such turbulent times. We found many industry reports and toolkits on ethical concerns in different contexts, but few addressed the multi-level multi-issue multi-stakeholder context of professional arts and cultural managers. Ethical considerations need responses sensitive to ‘cultural’ challenges and the context-specific nature of cultural economy (Price, 2022, Duxbury et al., 2017). Culture (as a broad term) is often mobilised as a ‘messenger’ of social justice and sustainability (Freeman et al., 2015, Edeh et al., 2022) rather than examining its own failings. Managers are critiqued based on ego, self-protection and use of artistic practice as a proxy for ethicality (and moral freedom) (Johanson and Lindström Sol, 2021, Nisbett and Walmsley, 2016, Hernandez and Ortega, 2019). Yet they also make decisions in an increasingly complex mesh of competing agendas and interdependencies (FitzGibbon, 2021) amidst neoliberalising corporatism and technologising approaches to sustainability (Banks, 2020). Given managers’ significance in deciding what arts and culture gets made and the nature and norms of cultural work, this project focuses its attention on how they derive their perceived responsibilities and decision-making behaviours.

Methodology

This paper outlines the preliminary stages of collaborative work to inform an ‘ethics of management’ (focused on arts and cultural industries); highlighting theoretical challenges drawn from an interdisciplinary collaborative workshop at the 18th Corporate Responsibility conference 2022. It articulates the preliminary results of an exploratory literature review and draws from a first series of interviews exploring responsibility and obligation among arts managers in Northern Ireland.

Results

Preliminary findings show that while extensive business ethics research exists, little has investigated how managers make ethical decisions and little has explored the ethical frames of arts and cultural industries. By contrast, arts and cultural industries research has widely explored ethical dilemmas facing the field; yet few propose practice-oriented solutions or guidance.

Notwithstanding the challenges we report, an ethics of arts and cultural industries management is needed for both future theory and practice. This has an implied proposition for a wider ethics of management situated in business ethics and its convergences with leadership, management and strategic management.

References

BALTÀ PORTOLÉS, J. & BASHIRON MENDOLICCHIO, H. 2021. Culture, the environment and the climate emergency - How to act in the field of local cultural policies and management. Barcelona: Centre for Cultural Studies and Resources (CERC), Barcelona Provincial Council.
BANKS, M. 2020. Creative Economy, Degrowth and Aesthetic Limitation. Springer International Publishing.
BANKS, M. & O’CONNOR, J. 2020. “A Plague upon Your Howling”: art and culture in the viral emergency. Cultural Trends, 30, 3-18.
BARDY, R. 2018. Rethinking Leadership, Oxon, Routledge.
BELFIORE, E. 2021. Who cares? At what price? The hidden costs of socially engaged arts labour and the moral failure of cultural policy. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 25, 61-78.
BRAMMER, S., BRANICKI, L. & LINNENLUECKE, M. 2023. Disrupting Management Research? Critical Reflections on British Journal of Management COVID‐19 Research and an Agenda for the Future. British Journal of Management, 34, 3-15.
CAMPBELL, M. 2021. Reimagining the creative industries in the community arts sector. Cultural Trends, 1-20.
CARROLL, A. B., ADLER, N. J., MINTZBERG, H., COOREN, F., SUDDABY, R., FREEMAN, R. E. & LAASCH, O. 2020. What are responsible management? A conceptual potluck. In: LAASCH, O., SUDDABY, R., FREEMAN, R. E. & JAMALI, D. (eds.) The Research Handbook of Responsible Management. Edward Elgar Publishing.
CARTIERE, C. & SCHRAG, A. 2023. The failures of public art and participation, Routledge.
CVEJIĆ, S. 7 May 2015 2015. Culture – The Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development. SEEViews [Online]. Available from: https://www.cirsd.org/en/see-views/culture-%E2%80%93-the-fourth-pillar-of-sustainable-development#:~:text=Culture%20creates%20the%20thread%20that,respect%20of%20law%2C%20and%20democracy [Accessed 29/09/2020 2020].
DE BEUKELAER, C. & SPENCE, K.-M. 2019. Global Cultural Economy, Oxford, Routledge.
DEMARTINI, P., MARCHEGIANI, L., MARCHIORI, M. & SCHIUMA, G. 2021. Connecting the Dots: A Proposal to Frame the Debate Around Cultural Initiatives and Sustainable Development. Springer International Publishing.
DUXBURY, N., KANGAS, A. & DE BEUKELAER, C. 2017. Cultural policies for sustainable development: four strategic paths. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 23, 214-230.
EBEWO, P. & SIRAYI, M. 2009. The Concept of Arts/Cultural Management: A Critical Reflection. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 38, 281-295.
EDEH, E. C., ZHAO, C. C., OSIDIPE, A. & LOU, S. Z. 2022. Creative Approach to Development: Leveraging the Sino-African Belt and Road Initiatives to Boost Africa’s Cultural and Creative Industries for Africa’s Development. East Asia.
FITZGIBBON, A. 2021. Non‐profit theatre managers as multi‐stakeholder managers: The plate‐spinning of accountability. Financial Accountability & Management, 47, 440-459.
FITZGIBBON, A. 2022. The devaluation of the artist. Journal of Cultural Management and Cultural Policy / Zeitschrift für Kulturmanagement und Kulturpolitik, 8, 59-88.
FITZGIBBON, A. & TSIOULAKIS, I. 2022. Making it up: Adaptive approaches to bringing freelance cultural work to a cultural ecologies discourse. European Urban and Regional Studies, 29, 461-478.
FREEMAN, R. E., DUNHAM, L., FAIRCHILD, G. & PARMAR, B. 2015. Leveraging the Creative Arts in Business Ethics Teaching: JBE. Journal of Business Ethics, 131, 519-526.
GU, X. 2022. Of social protection, social value and social rewards. In: SEKHAR, A. (ed.) A crisis of sustainable careers? Examining working conditions for independent arts and cultural workers. IFACCA Federación Internacional de Consejos de Artes y Agencias Culturales Fédération Internationale des Conseils des Arts et des Agences Culturelles.
HAZLETT, S. A., MCADAM, R. & MURRAY, L. 2007. From quality management to socially responsible organisations: the case for CSR. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 24, 669-682.
HEIDELBERG, B. 2022. Trauma Entrapment: The Divide Between Black Artists, Black Arts Administrators, and those in power who claim to want to help. Arts Management Quarterly, 14-19.
HERNANDEZ, J. G. V. & ORTEGA, R. P. 2019. Bounded rationality in decision–making. MOJ Research Review, 2, 1-8.
HÖRISCH, J., SCHALTEGGER, S. & FREEMAN, R. E. 2020. Integrating stakeholder theory and sustainability accounting: A conceptual synthesis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 275, 1-12.
JANCOVICH, L. & STEVENSON, D. 2023. Failures in Cultural Participation, Springer Nature.
JOHANSON, J. Z. & LINDSTRÖM SOL, S. 2021. Artistic Freedom or the Hamper of Equality? Exploring Ethical Dilemmas in the Use of Artistic Freedom in a Cultural Organization in Sweden. Journal of Business Ethics.
MURPHY, O. & VILLAESPESA, E. 2021. Innovation, data and social responsibility. Routledge.
NISBETT, M. & WALMSLEY, B. 2016. The Romanticization of Charismatic Leadership in the Arts. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 46, 2-12.
PRICE, J. 2022. Ethics in Cultural Leadership: Relationships of Value. In: JUNG, Y., VAKHARIA, N. & VECCO, M. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Arts and Cultural Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
SAINTILAN, P. & SCHREIBER, D. 2023. Managing organizations in the creative economy: Organizational behaviour for the cultural sector, Taylor & Francis.
SCHREIBER, D. & RIEPLE, A. 2018. Uncovering the influences on decision making in the popular music industry; intuition, networks and the desire for symbolic capital. Creative Industries Journal, 11, 245-262.
TODNEM BY, R. 2021. Leadership: In Pursuit of Purpose. Journal of Change Management.
YAN, W.-J. & LIU, S.-T. 2023. Creative Economy and Sustainable Development: Shaping Flexible Cultural Governance Model for Creativity. Sustainability (2071-1050), 15, 4353.

1. Context and Issue
As the urban fabrics in Europe have been made more complex not only by uncertainty, but also by crises of various kinds (climatic, sanitary, social, terrorist, identity-related, etc.), the role of creative industries and in particular the role of Alternative Cultural Places (ACPs) in creating values has not been explored. Debates about the value of culture in society have, for two decades and more, been dominated by the paradigm of the “creative economy” and impacts on the urban fabric have
been captured by property developers (Oakley, K and Ward, 2018). Especially, culture-led urban regeneration has long been associated with initiatives and activities emanating from the creative class (Florida 2002). This classical approach has been challenged by many authors emphasizing the necessity of a well-balanced culture-based production system (Sasaki 2010). One of the main gaps and weaknesses of existing studies is related to the measure of value which is mainly expressed in city branding terms or economic values. As Evans (2005) noted, there are many methodological challenges: it is not easy to measure the actual contribution of arts and culture to urban regeneration despite the growing focus on methodological approaches likely to provide convincing empirical evidence. Today, Richards Florida’s model of the creative city is strongly criticized (Mould 2015) as it is associated with creative injustice, producing precarity in cultural actors and urban gentrification (Hollands 2023). Some critical researchers (Oakley, K and Ward, 2018; Hollands 2023) have called for a more “sustainability perspective” to understand and propose alternative visions about the value of culture in the urban fabric (Kagan and
Kirchberg 2013).
2. Argument
Our research focuses on a specific type of place where alternatives emerge: Alternative Cultural Places (ACPs) here defined as collectives or cultural actors (situated at the interstices) that through practices propose a possibility of resistance or counter-spaces that are not in direct confrontation (Bobadilla and al.,2023). Contrary to upperground institutions, ACPs act as protected and emancipated spaces (Bojovic et al., 2020; Cartel et al., 2019), catalysts for creating strong relationships (Courpasson et al., 2017), juggling with tensions and shaping public efforts. Cnossen (2022) argues that although spaces (art factories) may benefit creative production, their highest value is that they produce new possibilities for political organising. Our project builds on a critical perspective of values produced by culture (beyond economic terms) and calls for the development of other non-quantitative methodologies to grasp the values produced.
Therefore, our research first asks: What are the values produced by ACPs in Europe?
3. Key findings: Values produced in and by ACPs are aesthetic and political
- “Ambiance as values of use” in ACPs
Alternative cultural places, by being anchored in the territory and the uses they make possible within pre-existing spaces, create a unique value of use. In the stream of organizational aesthetics (Taylor & Hansen, 2005) suggest that any given spatial environment constitutes an aesthetic, its experience and appropriation are anchored in the apprehension of the sensible (Schaeffer 2015). This aesthetic dimension in the case of
ACPs results from particular architectural attributes (design, concept, structural materials, lighting), uses and appropriations (in terms of activities developed, behaviors enabled and expressed, participation required), creating a unique atmosphere. The specific ambiance of ACPs is reflected in this ensemble of physical attributes, uses, relationships and affects which transform a physical space into an anthropological place (Augé 1992) by being a space lived, practiced and inhabited by individual or collectives who appropriates it. ACPs offer unique urban experiences by transforming urban ambiance which informs about a unique value of use, like the value artists give to former industrial factories which are transformed by design and use into concert halls or in artistic residency spaces.
Therefore, ACP's value of use can be grasped by mobilizing the notion of ambiance in the sense that it refers to the situated, constructed, material and social dimension of the sensory experience in inhabited spaces (Thibaud 2015). Studying the ambiance generated and produced in these places provides information about the practice of space and the affect of participants in an experience in a given space-time (objective and subjective dimensions). Place-based practices produce affective atmospheres that give feelings of belonging (to a space, a community), security and well-being. Ambiances produced facilitate learning and creativity. ACPs’ workers developed specific skills in design and space appropriation which demonstrate attention paid to circulation, exchanges and practices within spaces, and trigger a real “value in use” for audiences and users.
- Political values
ACPs (Alternative Cultural Places) have become levers of political influence in a variety of ways: They encourage citizen participation and a rethinking of territorial dynamics in terms of
participation (the mobilisation of know-how), solidarity (welcoming LGBTQIA+ and BIPOC minorities, war refugees, climate change exiles…) and distribute justice (Banks, 2017a) in relation to cultural work (giving voice to emerging artists). These political values are produced as a result of ‘value struggles’ Angelis (2007), which connotes the way in which the value practices which also prevail in the city clash with the capital's regime of value. Thanks to “value struggles” experimented by ACPs that specific
alternative political practices emerge. The political value relates alternative to forms of property and social organization outside of the binary of public control and private property. Value arises from reusing the existing,
organising the means to meet the needs of the artists and the collective. ACPs become ‘free spaces’ in the political meaning of Polleta (1999), and it is from this freedom and the void that is left that third places are born. The collective reappropriation of spaces transforms waste lands into resources.
This reappropriation process involves the right to participate in decisions that relate to the use of space. The physical, economic and legal situation of the abandoned areas legitimises an inventive 'socialisation' (creation of new collectives, partnerships, open exhibition days) and new modes of artistic production outside the upper-ground institutions. By the mere
grasp of an empty space, these neglected places encourage groups that have themselves been ‘neglected’ to reintegrate into a social life. On the margins, social processes develop, thereby allowing artists and creative workers to resocialize the very urban fabric that dissocialises them.
4. Research Methods at a glance:
- Multiple case studies at different ACPs in Europe : La Station - Gare des Mines (Paris, France), Brunnenpassage (Vienna, Austria), Communitism (Athens, Greece). For Yin (2003), the evidence of multiple case studies is considered as being more robust. Moreover, this enables a comparative approach across the data collected in different contexts, which
provides keys for assessing the subjective elements that are difficult to identify in isolation. Data collection was carried as 3 days field immersion in each place.
- In each site, we used an embedded case study approach. A total of 42 interviews were carried. The participants from each organization were place founders, staff members, artists, technicians, members of associated collectives external to the organization, and users. Each interview lasted approximately 1 hour.
- An observation grid was created and used to capture the physical attributes of spaces and their appropriation.
- Photos were used to capture and illustrate the physical attributes and appropriation of spaces, and so the ambiance of ACPs.
- Secondary data was collected: sketches, annual reports, photos, etc.
5. References
Augé, M. (1992). Non-lieux. Introduction à une anthropologie de la surmodernité. Paris: Seuil Banks, M. (2017a) Creative Justice: Cultural Industries, Work and Inequality, London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Bobadilla, N., Cintas, C, Desplebin O. (2023). Becoming an alternative Cultural and Creative
Third Place through tensions between space and organising. M@n@gement. Forthcoming
Bojovic, N., Sabatier, V., & Coblence, E. (2020). Becoming through doing: How experimental spaces enable organisational identity work. Strategic Organisation, 18(1), 20-49.
Cartel, M., Boxenbaum, E., & Aggeri, F. (2019). Just for fun! How experimental spaces stimulate innovation in institutionalised fields. Organisation Studies, 40(1), 65-92.
Cnossen, B. (2022). Where are the organisations. Accounting for the Fluidity and Ambiguity of Organising in the Arts in The Routledge Handbook of the Communicative Constitution of Organisation. Taylor &Francis. Courpasson, D., Dany, F., & Delbridge, R. (2017). Politics of place: The meaningfulness of resisting places. Human Relations, 70(2), 237-259.
De Angelis M (2007) The Beginning of History: Value Struggles and Global Capital. London: Pluto.
Evans, G. 2005. “Measure for Measure: Evaluating the Evidence of Culture’s Contribution to Regeneration.” Urban Studies 42 (5–6): 959–983.
Florida, R. (2002) ‘The rise of the creative class’, Washington Monthly.
Hollands, R. (2023) Beyond the Neoliberal Creative City, Bristol: Bristol University Press.
Kirchberg, V. & Kagan, S. (2013). The role of artists in the emergence of creative sustainable
cities: Theoretical clues and empirical illustrations. City, Culture and Society 4(3): 137-152.
Mould, O. (2015) Urban Subversion and the Creative City, London: Routledge.
Oakley, K. and Ward, J (2018) ‘The art of the good life: Culture and sustainable prosperity’, Cultural Trends, 27(1): 4–17.
Polletta, F. (1999). “Free spaces” in collective action. Theory and society, 28(1), 1-38.
Thibaud, J.-P. (2015). En quête d’ambiances. Éprouver la ville en passant. Genève, Switzerland: MetisPresses.