�ݺ�ߣ

Editor's Notes

• #5: Comparative cultural policy is rife with complications.Comparing any two things is difficult, but when we are discussing categories as complex and fluid as those involved in arts and culture, the attempt becomes particularly challenging.So, comparing things is hard – comparing cultural policy? Even more so.Even if we do decide to compare across policies, knowing WHAT to compare is hard. Although CP operates at every level of government and in every corner of society, the definitions for seemingly every manifestation of it seem to vary widely. When I began this work, I was focusing on international comparison, but on examination it appears that intra-nationally this holds true as well.People, organizations, intitutions mean different things while using the same words, or the same things even though they may be using different words, and teasing these definitions out is a research program unto itself.Furthermore, some categories seem to resist comparison, and tying them down to too-narrow definitions end up osbtructing the very truth we are trying to uncover. This is particularly true of some overly reducitonistquantitiative approaches which, as Geoffrey Herrera has pointed out, have a tendency to “suck the interest out of the most interesting things.”Finally, and this is particulary true in cultural policy, data sources are spotty and not always reliable. Different countries measure different thing in different ways, keep records in different formats and with different vairiables, making the work of a culturual policy comparativistparticlarly difficult.
• #7: What many of the current approaches have in common, then, is a focus on institutions, history, narrative and instruments as their analytical starting points.I propose turning this approach on its head by borrowing, once again, from Urban and Cultural studies, and drawing on the concept of Arenas.Arenas I lean heavily on the work of Ferman, Goldbard and Adams to develop a typology of arenas, and shift my focus to arenas from institutions, and from searching for core definitions to core functions
• #8: The arenas I outline here are named after modes of action in cultural policy outlined by Goldbard and Adams in 1995. What I have done is take their nomenclature and laid it on the concept of arenas, where it seems to work quite well. It is important to note that although I use their terms, for this to work in thinking about arenas my definitions are necessarily a bit different. I will explain each briefly, with a note on how each may be observed.
• #9: A key point here is that by using the idea of functional arenas, the basis for comparison is put firmly back in the hands of the researcher, who can then fill each category with such data as she deems reliable, and definitions as may be appropriate to each particular country case. Furthermore, the concept of arenas also solves a level of analysis problem for comparativists, as these categories can be assessed at the national, regional or urban levels (and, indeed, micro-levels as well).