Complex cultural ecologies: capturing value through connections between public, private and not-for-profit organisations in the creative economy

我提出的是一种植根于复杂性思维框架(Comunian，2011)的方法，丰富了泛政府主义模式(Holling，2001)，我认为这将保证对伦敦城市及其艺术家的文化生态、他们聚集的平台以及他们对城市社会和经济组织的影响和影响有一个具有挑战性但又完整的理解，特别关注每个元素是如何形成的，以及它是如何被其他网络塑造的，以及CT充分描述微观、中观和宏观维度的交换和重叠。网络的多层网络--无论它是否如泛层结构模型所述由嵌套的适应循环组成--是唯一能够对生态给予重大洞察的网络，远离确定性的、机械性的、因此有限的“链”的框架和概念，这在全球生产网络的制造文献中已经受到了质疑(Gereffi，Korzeniewicz，1994)。不止一位作者(ChaPain&Comunian 2010；Grahber 2002；Holden，2015)已经经验地表明，摒弃过时的、孤立的关于文化生产过程的阶段、层次和社会网络的观点，可以解释使文化生态成为一个生命系统的所有关系的动机和方向。作为倾向于这种整体方法的另一个原因，该项目的最终目的是理解PFCO和CI之间的关系，以及广义地说，当前公共资金在整个生态系统中的影响。即使溢出的概念已经受到质疑(Holden，2015)，但仍然不清楚哪些动态得到了加强，哪些受到了公共资金分配的阻碍。在无法一概而论的情况下，鉴于地方性在文化生产生态中的中心地位，上述伦敦生态系统的地图是理解这种动态的唯一有效方式。正如项目说明中所说，主要的全氟甲烷化合物将是首先研究的主题。“文化生态学”报告(Holden，2015)以及Pratt(2015)和Holling(2001)的工作为论文提供了经验证据，证明健康的生态系统是灵活的、适应性的，最终是具有弹性的生态系统。这项研究应该回答的问题是，当前和过去的公共资金政策是否将伦敦人的文化生态引向了僵化或有弹性的局面。霍林和报告作者都给出了一系列具有弹性的生态系统的指标--或“生命体征”--例如不同类型的文化参与者的种类和数量，它们是增加还是减少，新的形式是否正在出现，供应网络是否在较长一段时间内可持续，以及生态是否被证明是生产性的，其复杂性随着时间的推移而增加。虽然这些措施不是一个严格的处方清单，但我认为它们是一个很好的参考点指数，研究应该基于这些网络和公共资金政策在避免Holling所说的“僵化陷阱”(Holling，2001)的有效性的基础上，避免一个动态、流动和创造性的地方文化生态系统的相反情况。方法已经被检验，从所有引用的研究中获得了极好的结果。方法是基于半建构的访谈，适合于了解活跃生态的行为者的精神，他们与机构和组织之间的关系的性质，他们的用户，参与者和观众；当地资助者和政府、基金会和信托基金的性质；观众体验和对所提供工作的批判性反应。

What I propose is an approach rooted in the Complexity Thinking framework (Comunian, 2011), enriched with the Panarchy model (Holling, 2001), which I think would guarantee a challenging yet complete comprehension of the cultural ecology in the city of London and its artists, the platforms they aggregate in and the impact and influences they have on the social and economic tissues of the city, with a particular focus on how each of the element shape and it is shaped by the other networks, with the exchange and overlapping of the micro, meso and macro dimension the CT fully describes.This holistic approach at the complex, multi-layered web of networks - whether it is composed of nested adaptive cycle as the Panarchy model states or not - is the only one capable of giving a significant insight in an ecology, far distant from a deterministic, mechanistic, and therefore limited, framework and concept of the "chain", already questioned in the manufacture literature with the Global Production Network (Gereffi, Korzeniewicz, 1994). More than one author (Chapain & Comunian 2010; Grahber 2002; Holden, 2015) has already empirically showed that abandoning the dated, siloed vision of processes in the cultural production, in its phases, levels and social networks, can explain motivations and directions of all the relationship that make a cultural ecology a living system.As a further reason to prefer this kind of holistic approach, the ultimate aim of the project is to understand the relationship between PFCOs and CIs and, broadly, the effects of the current public funds through all the ecosystem. Even if the concept of spill over has already been doubted (Holden, 2015) it is still unclear which dynamics are enhanced and which are hampered from the distribution of public money. In the impossibility of making a generalisation, given the centrality of locality in a cultural production ecology, the beforementioned mapping of the London ecosystem is the only valid way to understand this kind of dynamics. As said in the project description, main PFCOs would be the first subjects to be studied. Central hubs of the whole city-network, they would give most the "spatial" information needed to reconstruct the dense relationships between different PFCOs and between PFCOs and CIs.The "Ecology of Culture" report (Holden, 2015), as well as the work of Pratt (2015) and Holling (2001), brings empirically proof to the thesis that a healthy ecosystem is a flexible, adaptive and, ultimately, a resilient ecosystem. The question this research should answer is if the current - and past - public funding policy has led the Londoner cultural ecology toward a rigid or a resilient situation.Both Holling and the Report authors give a series of indicators - or "vital signs" - of a resilient ecosystem, such as the variety and numbers of different types of cultural actors, whether they are increasing or decreasing, whether new forms are emerging, if the supply network is sustainable in extended period of time and if the ecology is proving to be generative, with its complexity increasing in time. Though not taking these measures as a strict list of prescription to follow, I think they are a good index of reference points on which the research should base the evaluation of the networks and the effectiveness of the policy of public funding in avoiding what Holling calls a "rigidity trap" (Holling, 2001), opposite situation of a dynamic, fluid and creative local cultural ecosystem.The methodology that has already been tested with excellent results from all the quoted researches is based on semi constructed interview suitable to understand the ethos of the actors animating the ecology, the nature of the relationships between them and institutions and organizations; their users, participants and audience; the nature of local funders and government, foundations and trusts; the audience experience and the critical response to the work on offer.