Expertise, the academy and the governance of cultural policy
Expertise, the academy and the governance of cultural policy
复制标题
专业知识、学术和文化政策的治理
DOI：
10.1177/0163443712464555
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Philip Schlesinger
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Philip Schlesinger
我对英国文化政策制定和所谓的创意经济的研究使我考虑专家在创造性话语中的作用（Schlesinger，2007，2009 a）。迄今为止，批评家解构创意经济的努力对其作为政策制定焦点的突出性几乎没有影响（Bustamante，2011）。此外，关于这一主题的研究正在增加，它在学习和教学中日益制度化。斯图尔特·坎宁安（Stuart Cunningham，2009：375）是创意经济的长期倡导者，他认为批评学者对创意经济的强烈反对是“政策和批评之间存在缺陷的教科书案例”。然而，与其说学术界构成了两个对立的阵营--“政策”和“批评”阵营--倒不如说，在现实中，一种更为微妙的情况占了上风。围绕创意经济的争论背景使其成为讨论学术在“文化治理”中的作用的一个特别恰当的案例。托尼·班尼特（Tony Bennett，2007：12）将这种做法的一个关键特征描述为“制作可能对实际存在的文化政策产生影响的作品”。尽管班尼特赞成学者们的这种干预，但他强调，在值得批评的地方，他们不应该停止“对这些政策的批评”。作为一个评论家和一种局内人，提出了一个很难的问题，一个人是否真的可以同时骑两匹马。同时期的批评可能会受到游戏规则的限制，例如遵守官方保密法或保密协议。或者--更微妙的是--接受在获得访问权和行使保持该领域开放的自由裁量权之间出现的权衡。
My research into British cultural policy-making and the so-called creative economy has led me to consider the role of experts in producing the discourse of creativity (Schlesinger, 2007, 2009a).1 To date, the efforts of critics to deconstruct the creative economy have had little effect on its salience as a focus of policy-making (Bustamante, 2011). Moreover, research on the topic is growing and it is increasingly institutionalized in learning and teaching. One long-standing advocate of the cause, Stuart Cunningham (2009: 375), sees the depth of opposition to the creative economy among critical scholars as ‘a textbook case of the disabling gap between policy and critique’. However, rather than academics constituting two opposed camps – those of ‘policy’ and ‘critique’ – in reality, a much more nuanced situation prevails. The polemical context that dogs the creative economy makes it a particularly apt case for a discussion of the role of academics in ‘cultural governance’. Tony Bennett (2007: 12) has characterized one key feature of this practice as that of ‘producing work that might have an impact on actually existing cultural policies’. Although favouring such interventions by academics, Bennett emphasizes that they not should cease ‘to be critical of such policies’ where criticism is merited. To be a critic as well as a kind of insider raises hard questions about whether one can actually ride two horses at once. Contemporaneous criticism may be limited by the rules of the game into which one has entered – for instance, by observing official secrecy laws or confidentiality agreements. Or – much more subtly – by accepting the trade-offs that arise between obtaining access and exercising the discretion that keeps the field open.