Places Of Excellence: How Master’s Programs Build Reputability [1st Edition] 3658332824, 9783658332822, 9783658332839

Citation preview

Edition WÜRTH Chair of Cultural Production

Martin Tröndle · Johanna Schindler

Places of Excellence How Master’s Programs Build Reputability

¨ Edition WURTH Chair of Cultural Production Series Editor Martin Tröndle, Friedrichshafen, Germany

Die Reihe untersucht das breite Themenfeld, das sich rund um die Produktion und Rezeption von Kunst und Kultur aufspannt: Besucherforschung, inszenatorische Fragen, Fragestellungen zu Kulturorganisationen und der Kulturverwaltung, sowie kulturpolitische Analysen. Wesentlich an den interdisziplinären Monographien und Herausgeberschaften der Edition ist, dass sie forschungsbasiert sind. Die Bände richten sich an interessierte Praktiker, Wissenschaftler und Studierende im Feld von Kulturpolitik und Kulturmanagement sowie den angewandten Kulturwissenschaften. The book series deals with various topics concerning the production and reception of the arts and culture: audience and visitor studies; curatorial aspects in museum, theater and concert studies; topics concerning art administration and cultural organizations; and the legal, political, and discursive aspects that form cultural policies. Central to the book series are an interdisciplinary approach, critical analyses, and a profound research orientation. Prof. Dr. Martin Tröndle WÜRTH Chair of Cultural Production Zeppelin Universität Fallenbrunnnen 3 88045 Friedrichshafen Germany

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/16383

Martin Tröndle · Johanna Schindler

Places of Excellence How Master’s Programs Build Reputability

Martin Tröndle Department of Communication and Culture Zeppelin University Friedrichshafen, Germany

Johanna Schindler Department of Communication and Culture Zeppelin University Friedrichshafen, Germany

ISSN 2662-334X ISSN 2662-3358 (electronic) Edition WÜRTH Chair of Cultural Production ISBN 978-3-658-33282-2 ISBN 978-3-658-33283-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33283-9 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer VS imprint is published by the registered company Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH part of Springer Nature. The registered company address is: Abraham-Lincoln-Str. 46, 65189 Wiesbaden, Germany

Acknowledgments We would like to extend our utmost gratitude to all the professors and students as well as the universities that participated in this study. Only through their friendly cooperation was this book made possible. Our thanks also goes to Jaclyn Arndt for her careful copyediting of the texts and to Nico Stockmann for his thoughtful design of this volume. We were enabled to conduct explorative field research in Canada, the US, and the UK thanks to the generous financial support of the Stifterverband and the Baden-Württemberg Foundation. We are also grateful to the WÜRTH Foundation, which has been supporting and enabling the teaching and research at the WÜRTH Chair of Cultural Production at Zeppelin University for many years. —Prof. Dr. Martin Tröndle and Dr. Johanna Schindler WÜRTH Chair of Cultural Production

Preface

Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic that we are experiencing globally as this publication goes to print, the only thing we can say with certainty is that the future is highly speculative—except for the fact that it is clear the coming years will be marked by the strongest economic crisis since World War II. In terms of global economics, both private industry as well as the public sector are facing a tremendous challenge, and clearly this situation will also have an impact on the funding structures of universities. Within only a few weeks of the crisis, face-to-face learning and teaching came to a halt, the international exchange of students and academics stopped for the most part, in-person interaction on some campuses was put entirely on pause, and online teaching has been implemented globally. The current modus operandi everywhere seems to be one of assessing the situation day by day and week by week, adapting to regulations and finding new forms of life, sociality, and working together on a continuous basis. Sadly, some governments are using the pandemic to strengthen their (illiberal) regimes, impacting academic life and the freedom of speech in yet another way. In view of these developments, it seems to be outdated or even au­dacious to ask how excellence or innovation in higher education can be fostered. Still, in a world changing this fast, being daily confronted with disruptions and ambiguities, one needs to ask what and how students should learn to be able to deal with situations like these. Starting on a very fundamental level: What kinds of working environments do students need to be prepared for? Which theoretical and practical competences do students need to understand

VIII

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

and work in this world, in which contexts and people are interdependent and social, political, and economic injustices as well ecological problems are glaringly present? And, finally, how can universities provide these skills and offer an open and inspiring learning environment while putting themselves on financially and operationally stable grounds? At least in Germany, where the researchers of this book are based, a massive debate started to form in the 2010s on the question of learning and teaching environments, and both national and regional governments are now investing hundreds of millions of euros into fostering innovation in higher education.1 This volume is the outcome of one of many research projects that received such funding in order to develop excellence in higher education; specifically through the kind support of the Stifterverband, a German association for the promotion of innovation in the sciences and humanities,2 we were given the opportunity to pursue our research question: How do excellence and reputation in higher education emerge? As a starting point to answering this question, we first take a critical look at the key terms forming the debate around “excellent higher education,” namely, “excellence,” “ranking,” and “reputation.” This is followed by a brief description of the project’s methodological setup in chapter 2. The six core chapters of this book, which together constitute chapter 3, offer insights into various strategies aimed at creating very specific learning and teaching environments through which universities are able to build an international reputation. This part of the book lays out our ethnographic field experiences and outlines six analyses of the institutions and degree programs that were examined in the field. These descriptions encompass the results of the interviews that were carried out with students and professors as well as documentation photographs and field notes taken during the research stay. Afterward, a short excursus is presented to complement these qualitative analyses with an interpretation of the quantitative data we gathered. Finally, a cross-case analysis, in chapter 4 points to a metastructure of drivers that we found to be important for the formation of excellence and reputation in higher education institutions. A discussion of the use and general applicability of these concludes the book.

Preface

IX

Due to our own academic experience, we believe that the study will be insightful for current and future program directors and department heads as well as professors who are interested in different ways of strategically mana­ ging their university’s and department’s or chair’s resources to develop a financially viable, tailor-made teaching environment that gains international attention. Our results also serve prospective master’s students by allowing them to take a step back from university rankings and to ground their decisions about which degree programs they will pursue in a more nuanced analysis of the information available. In addition, current and prospective students might become aware of aspects of their programs that they are able to influence and change, in order to benefit from and contribute to the environment of which they are a part during their studies. ­ Notes 1

The Stiftung Innovation in der Hochschullehre (Foundation for Innovation in Higher Education Teaching) is intended to promote the exchange and networking of relevant actors within postsecondary education and to facilitate the transfer of knowledge for successful teaching and of new results and findings. To provide continuous incentive to design tea­ching innovations, the foundation financially supports the development of innovative study and teaching formats. See the webpage “Innovation in der Hochschullehre” on the website of the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung at www.bmbf.de/de/innovation-in-der-­ hochschullehre-9166.html.

2

In addition to the support of Stifterverband, this research project was funded by the Baden-Württemberg Stiftung through its Exzellenz in der Lehre (Excellence in Higher Education) fellowship program.

Contents

Acknowledgments....................................................................... V



Preface.. .................................................................................. VII

1

Excellence and reputation in higher education: What is it about?....... 1

2

Research setting and methods.................................................... 17

3

Notes from the field................................................................. 29 3.1 University of Warwick: Master of Arts in International Cultural Policy and Management........................................... 29 3.2 Goldsmiths, University of London: Masters offered by the Institute for Creative and Cultural Entrepreneurship............ 63 3.3 School of the Art Institute of Chicago: Master of Arts in Arts Administration and Policy .. ...................................... 103 3.4 Ohio State University: Master of Arts in Arts Policy and Administration........................................................... 139 3.5 New York University: Master of Arts in Visual Arts Administration and Master of Arts in Performing Arts Administration........................................................... 173 3.6 HEC Montréal: Master of Management in International Arts Management........................................... 211 3.7 Excursus: Quantitative results from the questionnaires............. 241

4

Analyzing the cases: Drivers to excellence and reputation............. 255



Appendix............................................................................... 297.



Questionnaire professors. . ................................................... 297



Questionnaire students....................................................... 302



Tables. . .................................................................................. 309



Figures.. ................................................................................. 311



Author biographies.................................................................. 315

1 Excellence and reputation in higher education: What is it about? “Excellence” is a buzzword used to generate attention rather than being a clear-cut characteristic. Still, university executives are focusing more and more on the “excellence” of their programs and institutions and pointing toward other “excellent” role models as benchmarks for their own achievements. Undoubtedly, in a highly competitive environment, universities are trying to build reputability and urge their research and teaching faculty as well as their administration staff to attract international students and outstan­ ding professors, to cooperate with other renowned institutions on interdis­ci­ plinary research projects, to raise public and private funding, to publish with renowned journals and publishing houses, to attain media coverage, and to implement thorough quality-management criteria and evaluation processes. At best, all these efforts become reflected in high positions in the international rankings, or—at least in Germany—in being nominated as an “excellent” university. Excellence seems to be a key goal to attain, or perhaps excellence is rather considered to be the amalgamation of the above-listed achievements. This drive for excellence and the quest for the constant evaluation of academic performance need to be discussed critically, because the interplay of insti­ tutional competition, individual careers, and higher education policy is taking place on terminologically vague grounds. To shed light on how the notion of “excellence” emerged in academic contexts, Peter (2018) reconstructed how the narratives around this term have evolved since the 1950s. Through a discourse analysis of scientific and ma­nage­ment literature, policy texts, and self-descriptions from “excellent” © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 M. Tröndle und J. Schindler, Places of Excellence, Edition WÜRTH Chair of Cultural Production, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33283-9_1

2

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

higher education institutions, he distilled four moments that had an impact on how excellence has been understood, constructed, and produced in academia, which are: the introduction of excellence as the programmatic term of a meritocratic conception of society; the neoliberal loading of the concept of excellence; its rise as the key concept of a research policy that is globally and competitively oriented; and, ultimately, its establishment as a concept of university policy to promote elites and excellence. (p. 35)

Even though this conception reads rather like a standard post-Marxist critique, it is worth taking a closer look at his chapter. Going into more detail, Peter found that, through the global competition for scientific leadership during the Cold War, research clusters emerged in Germany and beyond as policy instruments to create environments that attract even more excellent researchers, thereby promoting and strengthening the leadership positions of the individual countries hosting these clusters (p. 36ff.). Then, spurred by the 1968 social movements around the world, individuals and their competences (as opposed to institutions) became the primary resource of knowledge society and the economic sphere, with smaller university units becoming key to a neoliberal understanding and entrepreneurial handling of higher education financing structures. With this focus on scarce resources, differentiation, specialization, and flexibility, the market was introduced as a dictating voice in the strategic development of higher education, according to Peter’s inter­pretation (ibid.). Peter goes on to show that, as a means to face the challenges of globalization, the EU adopted higher education funding policies in the 1990s and early 2000s that introduced new scales of measurement to assess excellent research in terms of its social relevance. This led to an increased number of networks of excellence in science and technology research, enabling the EU to compete with the US, China, and others on the world market (p. 40ff.). In this international competition for the “best minds” and for innovation, and to protect against so-called brain drain (p. 43ff.), Germany adopted the Excellence Initiative in 2005, extended as the Excellence Strategy in 2017.1 Nonetheless, this discourse and the subsequent political action have focused primarily on “excellence” in research, and seldom on teaching and learning.

1 Excellence and reputation in higher education: What is it about?

3

While Peter’s study clearly traces how excellence in research emerged as a political means to succeed in the international competition for knowledge and economic leadership, definitions of the notion itself and criteria to assess the quality of research remain unclear.2 With a hint of irony, Peter argues that without mediocrity as a counterbalance, “the term ‘excellence’ would be reduced to absurdity” (p. 48). In this “game” of being excellent, rankings take on a pivotal role through setting up the rules that the players have to follow. Rankings Over the past two decades, increased attention has been paid to university rankings such as the German CHE, the Research Assessment Exercise, the Times Good University Guide, the World University Rankings, and the World Reputation Rankings. Being subjected to these evaluations, higher education institutions follow the same logic used to determine the rankings, which make things comparable by focusing on a certain number of specific attributes. Consequently, higher education institutions often aim at permanently optimizing those attributes being assessed. This idea clearly stems from the field of new public management, which focuses on giving decision-makers highly compressed information. Zembylas (2017) therefore critically comments: “the credibility of the associated implicit promise of objective, evidence-based decision-making processes starts to crack as soon as one gains an insight into how evaluation studies are created and manipulatively applied” (p. 13). Still, when the term “excellence” is used in ranking reports, it is often synonymous with “outstanding,” “extraordinary,” or “cutting edge.” But when taking a closer look, it becomes obvious that the various rankings follow distinct logics and produce varying results (see also Overton-de Klerk & Sineart, 2016). In an international comparison of university systems (France, Germany, UK, and Italy), Rostan and Vaira (2011b) also found different definitions of the term in line with each country’s system. They found just two denominators for excellence common to all the systems they investigated, namely, research and the internationalization of the schools (69f.). Neither marker, however, gives any information about the quality of teaching. Mittelstraß (2007) additionally raises concerns about striving to achieve the “extraordinary” based on indexes, impact factors, rankings, reviews, eval-

4

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

uations, and other means of quality assurance. He criticizes that rankings and evaluations are often used merely as tools for legitimization instead of a means to actually implement long-term measurements to enhance the quality of education and research. Taylor and Braddock (2007) similarly question the limited idea of rankings and the self-referential nature of such an understanding of excellence: a variety of “criteria might interest potential students, from the vibrancy of university social life and the quality of campus eateries to the university’s standing as a center of teaching and research. [But ] we are concerned with systems that rank universities specifically according to their excellence as universities” (p. 246). Rostan and Vaira (2011a) follow the same line of argument. Their edited book encompasses diverse critical perspectives on excellence and rankings based on international comparative analyses. In their view, rankings strengthen the strong and weaken the weak: since evaluation processes mostly only look at parts of the system instead of taking a holistic approach, Rostan and Vaira argue that each institution’s contribution to the system remains undisclosed. A vast amount of literature criticizing the process and logic of rankings in academia can be found; some focus on the “managerialization” of academia, while others critique the ideology of new public management, and still others detect “neoliberal” thinking. Also, similar to Rostan and Vaira (2011a), the methodical approach of rankings is criticized for how it attempts to quantify individual aspects and thereby largely loses sight of a holistic perspective. Besides rankings, reputation seems to play an important role when talking about excellence. Interestingly, in the field of higher education, most often research is at core of the debates on excellence; teaching and learning environments are seldom discussed. Reputation What has already come to light alongside the fact that the dimension of “excellence” emerged from university rankings assessing (research) performance is that the perception of excellence is influenced by the reputation, image of, and awareness of an institution. While the frequency of ranking and evaluation exercises determines the longevity of a university’s official status as

1 Excellence and reputation in higher education: What is it about?

5

“excellent,” its reputation (as being “excellent”) does not have such an expiration date. On the contrary, considering that reputation is a general, public, or personal judgment, which might be based on experiences, recommendations, or marketing strategies, a university’s reputation might live on well beyond the decline of any ranking position or other quality assessments. In this context, Overton-de Klerk and Sineart (2016) suggest that universities need to find a niche and focus on the social relevance of their research activities to strategically build up a reputation as an excellent university that is capable of dealing with real-world challenges. To do so, the institution needs to address and communicate purposes that are in line with the opinions and views of the university’s stakeholders. In their volume Mission and money: Understanding the university (2008), Weisbrod, Ballou, and Asch state the following about a university’s strategic brand management: Because a strong reputation often shows that the college or university has been successful in pursuit of its mission, a reputation once developed is a potential revenue good that can be profitably exploited. … Critical to success in higher education, however, is the perception that the school’s primary priority and mission is the welfare of the student and the production and dissemination of knowledge and not merely money. … Thus, “successful” brand management involves a trade-off between leveraging the brand—making use of it to generate revenue—and simultaneously sustaining its value. (p. 175)

This quote raises several questions: How do universities build their reputability? What are their distinct missions and the values they can communicate to address a specific target market of students? How does this mission comply with different dimensions of excellence? And, more provocatively put: Is the idea a university communicates “excellent” in order to guarantee high visibility in the competitive higher education market, or is it the implementation of that idea that makes for an excellent studying experience? Let us furthermore shift the spotlight onto the students and their role in the discussion about excellence. What do students consider to be valid criteria for excellence? Bleiklie (2011) provides one of the rare examples of research on

6

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

excellence in higher education that actually examines the students’ perspectives. He asked students in the UK about their conceptions of the term “excellence” and found that each student’s expectation compared to their experience influenced their individual perception of excellence (48f.). One can therefore continue this line of thought by asking: How does a reputation of “excellence” influence the students’ decision to choose one university over the other? What is the added value they gain from rankings, which mostly assess research performance, if the most frequent encounters they will have with the university and their professors are in the classes they attend? And, furthermore, how are excellence and reputation mirrored in the teaching and learning situations? These are some of the questions we raised in our study. Teaching and learning environments Against the background of the above-outlined questions, we investigated how excellence is understood and how reputation is formed, performed, and perceived at highly renowned international higher education institutions. During the research project “Places of excellence: How master’s programs build reputability,” we ethnographically analyzed seven master’s programs that carry a reputation of “excellence” in the field of arts management, cultural production, and cultural policy in the UK, US, and Canada. We interviewed professors and students, visited lectures and seminars, and discovered the specific interplay of the university’s environments and the programs on offer. The central question of our study was, therefore, not which departments and master’s programs have achieved notable reputations, but rather how they have done so, and how these reputations have affected the everyday academic lives of their students and faculty. We did not want to repeat a quantitatively driven ranking logic; rather, we aimed at developing a holistic, ethnographically grounded understanding of reputation and excellence. To do so, we attached special value to the teaching and learning environments and their staging as well as to the motivational, emotional, and social aspects of the learning situation. That this research focus does not represent an arbitrary shift in the area under investigation, but is rather of public interest, has already been put forward by Wilhelm Krull, the former president of the Volk-

1 Excellence and reputation in higher education: What is it about?

7

swagen Foundation, which is a non-profit organization dedicated to research and education in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities in Germany. He has called for a “culture of creativity” in teaching contexts in order to achieve excellence (Krull, 2008, p. 245). Consequently, Krull suggests that the basic conditions within which the education of students and doctoral candidates takes place is particularly in need of examination (p. 246). We found only a small number of ethnographic field studies in higher education research that combine dimensions of both institutional ways of working and notions of excellence, and that also examine the particular social practices and dispositions of a department or the teaching and learning situations at universities (see also Pabian, 2014). This holds true for programs in arts and cultural management as well as in other disciplines. Looking through issues published in 2010–20 and 2015–20 of journals such as the Journal of Educational Change, European Journal of Education, Culture and Organization, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, Journal of Higher Education, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, and even Ethnography and Education, and searching the databases for keywords such as “reputation and excellence,” “higher education and excellence / performance / reputation / assessment,” “educational ethnography,” “studying higher education,” and “future of higher education” in combination with “ethnography” yielded only a few ethnographic studies in English (or other languages we are able to understand)3 that tackled questions as we did. In fact, only Robinson and Blenker (2014) carried out a comparable study to ours at a summer school at a Danish university to examine how different notions of entrepreneurship are mirrored in teaching methods used in entrepreneurship education.4 Their course descriptions mainly draw on a curriculum analysis interspersed with quotations from the interviews they carried out with the students and professors prior to and after the summer school as well as on ethnographic field notes. Even though the criteria used for the interview analysis remain unclear, the study reveals that the teaching ideal of the Danish university relied on entrepreneurship as a creative and reflective practice, which was mirrored in “education as an emancipatory process, where learning is central to the development of both students and teachers and the institutions in which they work” (p. 90). The authors compare this finding to

8

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

problem-based learning models, which foster the students’ learning processes and self-reflection—a finding that might have been broadened beyond a mere reflection on the course content and purpose, if the authors had carried out a multiple case study. Such multiple case studies looking at how students learn were carried out by Nespor (1994) in the field of physics education and Mertz (2007) in the field of law, both in the US. Ethnography, in these cases, enabled the authors to observe what professors and students were doing in the classrooms, rather than merely relying on the reports they give during the interviews (see also Pabian, 2014, p. 9). Although they have a focus on learning processes, these studies do not, however, provide a multisited ethnographic understanding of the specific teaching and learning environments outside the classroom. Concerning higher education research in the fields of arts management, cultural production, and cultural policy, only very few studies have analyzed questions of teaching and learning, and none have looked at the question of excellence.5 A contribution to teaching and learning research in cultural management in a broader sense is a study by Chandler (2000), which investigated case studies as a teaching method. All in all, one can say that, although the term “excellence” is widely used in higher education institutions that offer programs in arts management, cultural production, and cultural policy, very little research can be found on the question of excellence, what it might mean, or how it emerges, let alone studies that use an ethnographic approach. Hurdles for ethnographic studies in higher education research The lack of ethnographic studies in higher education research can be explained by the fact that such a qualitative examination of individual learning processes and outcomes based on observations of practices and processes rather than on interviews is time consuming, often expensive, and furthermore raises important ethical questions. Especially when field observations and interviews are made public, scientists have a special responsibility toward the interviewees and the institutions investigated. It is our duty to protect the interviewed students and faculty, which is why this book has been published a few years after the actual field research. The students have received their degrees and have had

1 Excellence and reputation in higher education: What is it about?

9

time to establish themselves professionally, and some of the professors have retired. However, little has changed in regard to the topicality of the issue in question. It goes without saying that national specificities of the studied programs’ curricula, such as cultural particularities, educational systems, and higher education policies, are taken into account. Differences of course exist, as our case descriptions will reveal, but these differences are only partially influenced by the specific national and cultural environments. The professors and lecturers whose classes we visited belong to the same academic community. The professionals in this community deal with similar problems and challenges, often favor the same theories, and publish in the same journals; according to Meyer and Scott (1992), one could say that they form their own academic world. Additionally, their students work in the same types of organizations (theaters, museums, festivals, film, foundations, civic cultural administration departments, etc.) or are self-employed. Therefore, it seems self-evident that it is necessary for researchers to have specialist and subject-related competencies to examine the departments we visited—which is true of any specialized teaching environment in the field of higher education—to understand which difficulties and challenges exist on-site and which solutions are being developed and how. Such strategic development processes cannot be understood from reading documents; they can only be learned about through discussion and observation on-site. Even though we “only” analyzed departments and programs in the field of arts management, cultural production, and cultural policy, our findings are also relevant to other disciplines in the social sciences and humanities. No observation can be made without an observer.6 This phrase is at the core of any ethnographic field study. Through their academic socialization and personal points of view, researchers determine what is perceived and how it might be analyzed and interpreted. In acknowledgment of this “bind spot,” we would like to provide a brief introduction to our working environment to clarify our perspective on the programs we examined. Zeppelin University (ZU) is a small-sized university in Friedrichshafen, Germany, and one of the few private German universities that, on the recommendation of the German Council of Science and Humanities in 2011, was given the right to award

10

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

doctoral degrees. In Germany, this privilege is typically only given to state universities. Around 1,200 students are enrolled in ZU’s various bachelor’s, master’s, executive master’s, and PhD programs, which are offered in the fields of business and economics, communication and culture, and political and social sciences.7 Teaching and learning concepts are of high importance at ZU, of which we will name a few by way of illustration. A key feature of teaching at ZU is that it usually integrates research, theory, and practice from an interdisciplinary perspective and puts a strong focus on students’ research and practice projects. This means that classes are often oriented toward field cases and carried out in cooperation with local and national cultural institutions, allowing students to work on a problem or question in detail over the course of one or even two semesters. The syllabi and methods of these classes are adapted to these real-world situations to strengthen the students’ learning outcomes and reflection processes. Furthermore, students are asked to suggest guest lecturers as well as topics they would like to address and teaching formats that could be implemented to deal with that topic; they have their own budget to do so. The students also contribute to the development of the university, its programs, and curricula. To name just a few examples, a student vice president (with funding and an office) takes part in the decision-making processes of the university’s presidential board; students take part in and have voting rights in all commissions for strategic development and for the appointment of new professors and even of the president of the university; and each class is subject to a standardized teaching assessment, and if the evaluation results are low, a guest lecturer will no longer be invited to teach. ZU class sizes are kept small, from a minimum of four up to a maximum of 35 students, and the individual participation of students is very important. In this way, ZU guarantees a high teaching quality while remaining open toward new topics and formats that are in line with the students’ ideas and interests. At the same time, learning and teaching take place on an even playing field between the professors and the students. Another feature of ZU is the “tandem coaching” format: in the first semester, each student choses one academic and one practitioner as coaches, whom they continue to meet with once per semester for an exchange on their questions and ideas in relation to their studies and career path. Not only does

1 Excellence and reputation in higher education: What is it about?

11

this format serve networking, but it is also a means of accompanying the student through their professional and personal development. By sketching out these above-described specifics of the ZU teaching and learning situation (and many more could be addressed), our motivation to analyze the “excellence” of teaching and learning environments might become obvious. Both researchers of this study, Martin Tröndle (WÜRTH Chair of Cultural Production) and Johanna Schindler (postdoctoral researcher in the chair), teach and research in the field of arts management and cultural policy, broadly described as the “cultural sector.” A variety terms are used to denote the specific foci of the master’s programs in the cultural sector that are available internationally: cultural policy and management, arts administration and policy, arts education, arts management, cultural management and communication, arts and media management, cultural management and leadership, and more. There is no single term used to describe this field, which generally tackles issues of cultural production and cultural policy in for-profit and nonprofit organizations, such as theaters, galleries, museums, festivals, cities, ministries, foundations, and endowments. Some of these higher education programs offer applied management, business, and administration competences, while others are more focused on theoretical and research-based analysis, and still others approach the field of the arts from a sociological angle or foster an educational, aesthetic, or entrepreneurial perspective.8 In the programs analyzed in this book, topics of management, politics, art, aesthetics, sociology, marketing, financing, and more were part of the curricula. This multidisciplinary approach to program development is related to a continuous tension between academic standards and applicable practical knowledge as well as between in-depth disciplinary specialism and interdisciplinary competence that is inherent to the field of arts management. In response to the interdisciplinary and often applied character of arts management research and practice, most programs do not focus on one specific art form. Rather, they attempt to train students to solve real-world problems that cannot be examined from one single discipline and require a variety of perspectives and skills to be solved. In terms of “employability,” students of these programs receive a generalist education that enables them to look at the bigger picture, examine organizational structures and decision-making pro-

12

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

cesses, and understand artistic practices and aesthetic perception as well as the business side of cultural production, ultimately allowing them to draw connections between different roles and systems and to become leaders of arts organizations. This tension between specific academic disciplinary perspectives on the one hand and an interdisciplinary, problem-based approach on the other is what we as the researchers and authors of this book also have to deal with in our day-to-day operations in teaching situations. Due to the inherent interdisciplinarity of this field as well as to our holistic methodological approach, we expect that our findings will be applicable to and insightful for other disciplines as well. References Bleiklie, I. (2011). Excellence, quality and diversity of higher education systems. In M. Rostan & M.Vaira (Eds.), Questioning excellence in higher education. Policies, experiences and challenges in national and comparative perspective (pp. 21–35). Sense. Brkic, A. (2009). Teaching arts management: Where did we lose the core ideas? Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 38(4), 270–280. Byrnes, W. J., & Brkić, A. (Eds.). (2020). The Routledge companion to arts management. New York: Routledge. Chandler, K. A. (2000). Rethinking the use of the case study in the arts management classroom. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 29(4), 244–270. Chong, D. (2000). Re-readings in arts management. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 29(4), 290–303. Dewey, P. (2004). From arts management to cultural administration. International Journal of Arts Management, 6(3), 13–22. Dewey, P. (2005). Systemic capacity building in cultural administration. International Journal of Arts Management, 8(1), 8–20. Dewey, P. (2008). A comparative approach to art education policy research. Studies in Art Education, 49(4), 277–293. Dewey, P., & Wyszomirski, M. (2007). Improving education in international cultural policy and administration. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 36(4), 273–293. Federal Ministry of Education and Research. (2020). Excellence strategy. Retrieved October 6, 2020, from https://www.bmbf.de/en/excellence-strategy-5425.html. Hua, F. (2019). Arts and cultural management: A brief, comparative in curricular design: Cases from the UK, USA, and China. In C. Devereaux (Ed.), Arts and cultural management sense and sensibilities in the state of the field (pp. 13–38). Taylor & Francis.

1 Excellence and reputation in higher education: What is it about?

13

Klein, A. (2009). Gesucht Kulturmanager. Springer VS. Krull, W. (2008). Die Exzellenzinitiative und ihre Folgen. Deutsche Hochschulen vor neuen Herausforderungen. In B. M. Kehm (Ed.), Hochschule im Wandel. Die Universität als Forschungsgegenstand (pp. 243–252). Campus Verlag. Lin, Y.-H. (2018). Pursuing teaching excellence or fallacy? Institutional ethnography of performance management in higher education reform in Taiwan. Taiwan Sociology, 35, 59–107. Mandel, B. (2007a). Zusammenfassung Auswertung Befragung Lehrende Kulturmanagement. Stiftung Universität Hildesheim. https://www.uni-hildesheim.de/media/_migrated/content_ uploads/Auswertung_Befragung_Lehrende_Kulturmanagement.pdf Mandel, B. (2007b). Zusammenfassung der Experteninterviews: Neue Herausforderungen und Kompetenzen im Kulturmanagement. Stiftung Universität Hildesheim. https://www.uni-hildesheim. de/media/_migrated/content_uploads/Auswertung_Experteninterviews_Herauforderungen_im_Kulturmanagement.pdf Maturana, H. R., & Francisco Varela (1984). The tree of knowledge: Biological basis of human understanding. Shambala. Mertz, E. (2007). The language of law school: Learning to “think like a lawyer”. Oxford University Press. Meyer, J., & Scott, R. (1992). Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality. Sage Publications. Mittelstraß, J. (2007, September 14). Begegnungen mit Exzellenz [Introductory talk]. Symposium “Exzellenz – was fördert und was hindert sie?”, University of Basel, Switzerland. Retrieved July 4, 2014, from http://www.euler-2007.ch/doc/RefMitte.pdf Nespor, J. (1994). Knowledge in motion: Space, time and curriculum in undergraduate physics and management. Falmer. Overton-de Klerk, N. & Sienaert, M. (2016). From research excellence to brand relevance: A model for higher education reputation building. South African Journal of Science, 112(5–6). http://dx.doi. org/10.17159/sajs.2016/20150365 Pabian, P. (2014). Ethnographies of higher education: Introduction to the special issue. European Journal of Higher Education, 4(1), 6–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2013.864569 Peter, T. (2018). Excellence: On the genealogical reconstruction of a rationality. In R. Bloch, A. Mitterle, C. Paradeise, & P. Tobias (Eds.), Universities and the production of elites: Discourses, policies, and strategies of excellence and stratification in higher education (pp. 33–52). Palgrave Macmillan. Robinson, S. & Blenker, P. (2014). Tensions between rhetoric and practice in entrepreneurship education: An ethnography from Danish higher education. European Journal of Higher Education, 4(1), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2013.853621 Rosenstein, C. (2013). The MFA in arts management. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 43(2), 106–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2013.781970 Rostan, M. & Vaira, M. (Eds.) (2011a). Questioning excellence in higher education. Policies, experiences and challenges in national and comparative perspective. Sense. Rostan, M. & Vaira, M. (2011b). Structuring the field of excellence: A comparative view on policies, actors, interests and conflicts in four European countries. In M. Rostan & M. Vaira (Eds.), Ques-

14

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

tioning excellence in higher education: Policies, experiences and challenges in national and comparative perspective (pp. 57–74). Sense. Sikes, M. (2000). Higher education training in arts administration: A millennial and metaphoric reappraisal. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 30(2), 91–101. Strohschneider, P. (2008, February 1). Über Voraussetzungen und Konzeption der Exzellenzinitiative. [Introductory talk]. Tutzinger Hochschultag 2008 “Leuchttürme der Wissenschaft. Was folgt aus der Exzellenzinitiative für die Hochschulen?” , evangelische Akademie Tutzing, Germany. Retrieved July 4, 2014, from http://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/download/Exzellenzinitiative__ Analyse/Tutzing.pdf Taylor, P. & Braddock, R. (2007). International university ranking systems and the idea of university excellence. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(3), 245–260. Tröndle, M. (2008). Restart. Paradigmen und Paradigmenwechsel im Kunst- und Kulturmanagement. In C. Hatz et al.: Spiel plan: Schweizer Jahrbuch für Kulturmanagement 2007/08 (pp. 61–74). Haupt. Van den Berg, K. (2009). Postaffirmatives Kulturmanagement. In Fachverband Kulturmanagement (Ed.), Jahrbuch Kulturmanagement 2009: Forschen im Kulturmanagement (pp. 97–126). transcript. Varela, X. (2013). Core consensus, strategic variations: Mapping arts management graduate education in the United States. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 43(2), 74–87. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2013.781561 Weisbrod, B. A., Ballou, J. P., & Asch, E. D. (2008). Mission and money: Understanding the university. Cambridge University Press. Zembylas, T. (2017). Evaluation im Kulturbereich. Journal of Cultural Management, 3(1), 13–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.14361/zkmm-2017-0102

Notes 1

Federal Ministry of Education and Research (2020) and Strohschneider (2008).

2

Peter (2018) concludes that this strategy resulted in German universities promoting a few strong performers in the context of clusters and so called “elite universities” (p. 44). Yet, he acknowledges that the Excellence Initiative has fostered a mindset in professors and university leaders that has caused them to now focus on “making a mark, concentration and constant improvement” (p. 46).

3

The researchers mainly work in English and German. One article whose abstract alone was published in English was a Taiwanese case study by Lin (2018).

4

The authors distilled two predominant understandings of entrepreneurship: a narrow definition that considers the entrepreneur to be someone who starts a business and strives for economic growth and profit, and a broader definition that considers entrepreneurship to be a method or practice to identify or create opportunities while closely observing and reflecting on current social structures and issues (Robinson and Blenker, 2014, p. 83).

1 Excellence and reputation in higher education: What is it about?

15

5

Several authors have, however, written dedicated articles on aspects of higher education and arts management: Both Mandel (2007a; 2007b) and Klein (2009) asked professionals about the qualifications students should gain during their studies. Dewey (2004; 2005; 2008) and Dewey and Wyszomirski (2007) discuss changing challenges in the cultural sector and how these could be faced in curricula. Rosenstein (2013) examined several Master of Fine Arts programs in North America in order to question whether they can be considered to be a useful educational foundation for future arts administrators, and Varela (2013) compared the curricula of 44 arts management programs to look for similarities and differences in the skills conveyed to the students. Rosenstein’s and Varela’s studies were both published in the Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 43(2), which was a special issue dedicated to arts management education. More recently, Hua (2019) compared the arts management curricula of several degree programs in the US, UK, and China.

6

The observer effect is important not only in physics but also in the social world, where meaning is constructed by the observer (Maturana and Varela, 1984).

7

Tuition fees for the programs in the Communication and Cultural Studies Department at ZU range from €8,280 per year for a bachelor’s degree (€ 33,120 total for the full eight-semester program) and €8,760 per year for a master’s degree (€17,520 total for a two-year program, and €12,080 for a one-year program). While in an international context this might seem relatively inexpensive, these fees are quite high compared to public universities in Germany, which offer to a large extent free education and only charge fees of €600 per semester maximum for an additional second degree or long-term students. The tuition fees charged by ZU compensate for about a third of what students usually cost the university. A large body of local and regional industrial funders as well as numerous private donors contribute to ZU’s funding model. To remain a promising investment for these donors, to comply with the government’s higher education policy, and to persists as an outstanding “elite university” that attracts dedicated professors and students, ZU is constantly working on its portfolio of degree programs, research projects, and teaching methods.

8

The flexibility of the concept of “cultural management,” its connection with different notions of art, culture, and management, and the resulting teaching content has been dealt with and criticized often (see, e.g., Chong, 2000; Sikes, 2000; Tröndle, 2008; Van den Berg, 2009; Brkić, 2009; and Byrnes and Brkić, 2020). Nonetheless, in recent years it has become increasingly apparent that various discourses—often about the same topic, such as, for example, “the visitor”—have emerged in connection to a specific academic context or disciplinary framework. That is, the discourses have a focus on cultural sociology or cultural studies; political science or economics and management; or artistic disciplines like museum studies and music. This impression is conveyed by the most important peer-reviewed journals in the field such as the Journal of Cultural Management and Cultural Policy, Cultural Sociology, International Journal of Cultural Policy, Journal of Arts Administration, Law and Society, International Journal of Arts Management, Museum Management and Curatorship, and Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Certainly, “the visitor” may be analyzed through one of the named disciplinary lenses, but a real-world orientated perspective requires tackling the question of the visitor with an interdisciplinary approach.

2 Research setting and methods

To investigate how reputation in higher education is achieved as well as the ways in which excellence is assessed and mirrored in the development of graduate programs, we examined seven internationally renowned master’s degrees offered at six different universities. Given our own academic backgrounds, our research departed with an analysis of master’s programs dealing with questions of arts management, cultural production, and cultural policy. It is important to create a relationship of trust and mutual understanding when undertaking ethnographic research, especially in interview situations. Therefore, we benefited from our own research and teaching expertise in these fields, as it enabled us to engage in in-depth discussions with the interviewees. Despite this thematic focus, we believe that the findings developed from the case analyses are generalizable and therefore of interest for higher education in the humanities and social sciences at large. Case selection To initiate the selection of cases to study, we asked ten professors teaching and researching in the field of cultural production and cultural policy in Germany (4), Austria (1), Switzerland (1), the United Kingdom (2), and the United States (2) to name a maximum of three master’s programs they considered to be “excellent.” The selected professors were colleagues that we met at various international conferences such as the European Sociology Association conference, the International Conference on Cultural Policy Research, the © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 M. Tröndle und J. Schindler, Places of Excellence, Edition WÜRTH Chair of Cultural Production, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33283-9_2

18

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

European Network of Cultural Administration Training Centres (ENCATC) conference, and the Jahrestagung des Fachverband Kulturmanagement (the annual conference of the association for arts management professionals of the German-speaking countries). Some of these colleagues did not ask what exactly was meant by the term “excellent” and immediately named several institutions, while others requested a more specific explanation of the notion. In these cases, we answered that the master’s programs should be “excellent or outstanding in research and teaching.” One condition we set was that the program should not be located in the German-speaking countries (Germany, Austria, Switzerland), because we wanted to avoid a conflict of interest with other master’s programs in these countries that more or less compete with each other. The result of this expert consultation was a list dominated by master’s programs in the US and the UK, along with one program each in Canada, Finland, and the Netherlands. The last two were mentioned only once, and therefore they were not included in the further considerations. Following this first collection of “excellent” master’s programs, we consulted the individual websites of the programs. With the aim of studying these programs’ “excellence” both in depth and breadth, we limited the cases to seven universities and tried to achieve a wide variety of curricula, research interests, institutional backgrounds (business school, art school, etc.), and so on to be represented in the sample (see also Flick, 2002). | University of Warwick (UK), Master of Arts in ­International Cultural Policy and Management | Goldsmiths, University of London (UK), Master of Arts in Arts Administration and Cultural Policy | School of the Art Institute of Chicago (US), ­ Master of Arts in Arts Administration and Policy | Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US), ­Master of Science in Art, Culture and Technology | Ohio State University (US), Master of Arts in Arts Policy and Administration

19

2 Research setting and methods

| Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development, New York University (US), ­Master of Arts in Visual Arts Administration | Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human ­Development, New York University (US), ­ Master of Arts in Performing Arts Administration | HEC Montréal1 (CA), Master of ­Management in International Arts Management In each case, a professor or the director of the program was contacted by email with an official request to participate in our study. All programs consented after a follow-up telephone conversation, in which the motivation for the study was sketched out. Only at Massachusetts Institute of Technology Table 2.1: Overview of the selected cases Institution

Department2

Focus

Tuition fees (full-time study)

University of Warwick

Centre for Cultural Policy Studies

Cultural policy

£9,460 (EU)– £21,280 (overseas)

Goldsmiths, University of London

Institute for Creative Cultural Entrepreneurship

Arts and entrepreneurship

£10,450 (EU)– £18,900 (overseas)

School of the Art Institute of Chicago

Arts Administration and Policy

Arts administration, critical practice

US$72,660

Ohio State University

Arts Administration, Education and Policy

Cultural policy, community development

US$36,333

NYU Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development

Art and Art Professions

Visual arts

US$100,677

NYU Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development

Art and Art Professions

Performing arts

US$100,677

HEC Montréal

Arts Management

Arts marketing

US$45,000

20

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

(MIT), which was supposed to be the eighth case, was an additional step (CITI – Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative) required to be performed by the visiting researcher as well as the inviting professor. Due to the time-consuming preparation to succeed in this step, the MIT professor had to refuse official participation in the research project. So, while we were invited to MIT, we were not allowed to interview students or professors officially. Therefore, these observations and conversations are not part of our sample. Nonetheless they strongly support the findings. The study’s final sample thus consisted of seven programs located at six universities in Canada, the US, and the UK. In addition to the above-listed master’s programs, the entire department was analyzed in each case to examine the course offerings in relation to their institutional embedding; as such, the case descriptions of Warwick University, Ohio State University, and New York University (chapters 3.1, 3.4., and 3.5.) describe more than one master’s degree program. The fact that all these programs are taught in the English language may be coincidental. It is more likely, however, that they have a higher international visibility because of this and were therefore more likely to be recommended as cases to study. Data collection: Observation, field notes, and interviews To carry out an in-depth and holistic analysis, we integrated qualitative and quantitative methods into our research setting. Qualitative interviews (Atteslander, 2000; Flick, 2002; Mayring, 2002), document analyses, and detailed field notes (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2007) were used as tools for organizational research (Kühl, Strodtholz, & Taffertshofer, 2009) in an academic environment. In detail, this approach encompassed: | a website analysis (course offerings, self-­description, teaching staff, publications, etc.); | an examination of each professor’s CV (online as well as via documents provided to us); | a detailed curriculum analysis;

2 Research setting and methods

21

| observations of classes and of the general ­learning environment, the latter being documented via ­photographs as well as detailed field notes; | an in-depth interview with several students and professors at each institution; and | a standardized questionnaire to be filled in by the interviewees. A detailed website analysis was carried out for each of the selected cases. In addition, we analyzed the professors’ CVs and drafted brief profiles of each of them to get a better idea of their research interests, professional background, and recent activities in the field. The following categories informed these analyses, which served both as preparation for the field research phase and as an examination of each institution’s communication strategy. 1 Communication: keywords, key phrases, idea of excellence via rankings, teaching, etc., target group, internationality, institutional history, year of initiation (program), financial ­support, program brochure evaluation, website evaluation. 2 Niche or specificity: city, institution, ­collaboration with other universities, network, teaching and research, research and the arts, arts and culture. 3 Disposition or attitude: teaching ideals, aims of study, scope, curriculum, skill set, idea of art and culture, idea of ­cultural policy, (theoretical) self-conception, link between theory and practice, interdisciplinarity, assessment formats (­teaching and research), studying abroad, work placement. 4 Faculty and professors’ profiles: number of full- and part-time teaching staff, external faculty, research and ­professional activities, innovation in teaching formats. 5 Atmosphere: infrastructure, campus life, ­relationship with students, further activities.

22

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

In parallel, two questionnaires, one for the students and one for the professors, containing around 30 open and closed questions each were developed and pretested with students and professors from Zeppelin University, Friedrichshafen, Germany. Subsequently, a four-month field research phase was carried out, with a minimum stay of two weeks per program. Visiting these various departments for several hours every day, visiting classes, speaking to various professors and students, sitting in the cafeteria, going to the library, wandering around, and so on gave the opportunity to dive into the department and to get an understanding of the teaching environments and institutional structures. As described by Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw (2007), detailed field notes were taken to capture the impressions from each of these research stays, including, for example, the architectural surroundings and accessibility of the institutions, the spatial setup and assessments of classes, and the location and arrangement of office spaces. Photographs were taken to complement the written notes. With the generous support by Stifterverband, Martin Tröndle was able to carry out the field research and interviews on-site (hence the personal pronoun “I” found in the ethnographic descriptions throughout the following chapters). Tröndle was in close exchange with co-researcher Johanna Schindler during the research phase to complement the “on-site” perspective with a more distanced “off-site” interpretation of the collected data. This way, both perspectives were able to enrich the case descriptions we developed based on the field notes to paint a multilayered picture of the seven learning and teaching environments encountered in the field (chapters 3.1 to 3.6). In addition to the ethnographic field notes, several students and professors of each program were interviewed. The questions for the interviews were based on literature on organization theory that deals with, for example, organizational culture, organizational learning, decision-making processes, strategy finding, and so on (see Tröndle, 2006; Badelt, 1999). Consequently, the questionnaires we used included questions about the history and development of the program. In addition, they tackled aspects of “excellence” in teaching and learning that we retrieved from the questionnaire of the Centre for Higher Education (CHE) University Ranking3 and included in our pretests. The professors were asked, for example, about their role in the program or department and about the topics they taught as well as at which level (BA,

2 Research setting and methods

23

MA, or PhD). We also asked them how they spent their working time, what they did before they began their academic careers, if they still held other positions besides that of professor or lecturer, and so on. We further asked questions about the initiation of the program and its actors: | | | | |

Who founded the program? What does it stand for? What are the goals of the program? Is there a specific idea or “culture”? What is the biggest challenge facing the ­current and future development of the program? | How would you define success in the program and how could it possibly be measured? We also asked questions regarding the teaching in the program, such as what the professors considered to be major difficulties in relation to teaching and how they coped with them, as well as: | How does the selection of students work? | How do you improve the teaching quality in the program? | What competences should the students acquire during their time at university? Finally, we asked them about the organization of the program and its position within the university or school: | How are the program and department integrated into the university? | How does the program gain support from, for example, the institution’s marketing, fundraising, or public relations departments? | Does the program have support from any ­external or internal research-funding body? | How are new professors appointed? | How are strategic decisions made? | How is the program’s budget composed?

24

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

With these questions we aimed at analyzing perspectives that are usually conditioned by organizational culture (Tröndle, 2006; Tröndle & Stahl, 2019). The professors’ answers were therefore not supposed to describe general didactic or curricular aims. Rather, we asked them to characterize the institutional environments and the specific ways they positioned themselves in it. The students were asked about the degree level at which they studied (MA, PhD), what they did before starting their current degree, and why they chose the program. To analyze the departmental culture, what the teaching ideal was and whether it was being reached, and the students’ self-images, we also asked them: | | | |

What did you expect from the program? What was your experience of the admissions process? What does this program stand for, or what makes it “unique”? How would you complete the sentence when talking about the program: “We are … ” (e.g., “cultural workers”)? | What profession would you like to attain after finishing your studies? | What are the three most important things you learned during the program? We furthermore asked the students to assess the teaching units on scales ranging between, for example, “overtaxing – subchallenging,” “consistent – chaotic,” and “inspiring – inhibiting,” and to rate their overall university experience. Possible answers were “happy,” “focused,” and “intense,” among others. Finally, we asked the students about how they organized their leisure time: | How many cultural events (exhibitions, concerts, etc.) do you attend per month on average? | How many cultural events would you like to attend per month on average? | What are the reasons for this discrepancy (if applicable)?

2 Research setting and methods

25

The questionnaires also contained several questions that both the students and the professors were asked. These standardized questions were targeted at assessing the atmosphere of the department, the teaching quality of each program, and the overall competences professors should possess, as well as the shared concerns of the students and professors, how often these were discussed between them, and their motivation to change something. This part of the questionnaires enabled us to directly compare the seven programs and departments we visited and to read the professors’ and the students’ answers against each other. While every question contained in the questionnaires was touched upon in each interview, the questions were not followed one after the other. Rather, an attempt was made to establish an interview situation that resembled a conversation on the topic of academia and teaching (see also Flick, 2002). All interviews started with a short introductory text, and the participant was asked for permission to have the interview recorded and afterward transcribed. In total, 51 interviews were carried out that each lasted between 54 and 83 minutes. With the aim of integrating the results from the interviews into the detailed case descriptions, clean verbatim transcripts of the interviews were produced and the subjects were anonymized. Data analysis Revisiting the categories that had served our preparatory analysis and discussing them in light of the field notes, we could reveal a first set of drivers that we found to be manifest in all seven examined programs as a means to build and communicate the programs’ excellence or reputation. These drivers were therefore used to code the transcribed interviews: passages from the open-questions part of the interviews that corresponded to these criteria were extracted, gathered for each institution, and analyzed in a qualitative manner (see also Flick, 2002). The professors’ and students’ statements were then integrated in the single case descriptions either as quotations, in order to maintain the original semantics, or as references, in order to underline a result. Quotations from the interviews were in some cases shortened and lightly edited to facilitate the readability of the text. We proceeded in the same way with the

26

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

website of each institution in order to analyze the communication strategy.4 In addition, the observations of both regular staff and guest lecturers of the visited classes were quoted in order to give a deeper insight into the actual learning and teaching environments. The standardized part of the interviews was used for a quantitative analysis (chapter 3.7). Even though the number of the sample is rather small (­NS­tudent = 27, NProfessor = 24), and thus allows for only limited statements, the results of the quantitative analysis underlined some of our findings and revealed a few unexpected aspects. Via this integrative approach of qualitative and quantitative data analysis, we were able to further develop the preliminary set of drivers into a more encompassing metastructure, which will become apparent in the single case descriptions. In the fourth chapter of the book, we apply this structure once more to the analyzed cases and discuss the drivers’ individual representation at each institution. A note on ethnographical research The plurality of approaches to research and analysis furthermore allowed for different levels of involvement, from the bird’s-eye view to the in-depth interview, in order to generate various levels of ethnographic description and translation of what was found in the field. It enabled us to productively deal with the relationship between the observer and the observed, between hypothesis-led research and openness toward unexpected findings, between on-site experience and off-site interpretation—which were both always informed and “cultured” by our own academic and institutional perspectives (see also Kalthoff, 2003). In the following pages, we describe the seven cases from various perspectives: that of the students, the professors, and us as the researchers behind this study. In this way, we are able to go beyond comparing curricula and learning objectives to figure out why and how these programs achieved notable reputability.

2 Research setting and methods

27

References Atteslander, P. (2000). Methoden empirischer Sozialforschung. 9th rev. and extended ed. Erich Schmidt Verlag. Badelt, C. (Ed.). (1999). Handbuch der Nonprofit Organisation. Strukturen und Management. 2nd trans. and extended ed. Schäffer-Poeschel Verlag. CHE Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung. 2020. Ansatz und Umsetzung. https://methodik.che-ranking.de/ansatz/ Emerson, R., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (2007). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. University of Chicago Press. Flick, U. (2002). Qualitative Sozialforschung. Eine Einführung. Rowohlt Verlag. Kalthoff, H. (2003). Beobachtende Differenz. Instrumente der ethnografisch-soziologischen Forschung. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 32(1), 70–90. Kühl, S., Strodtholz, P., & Taffertshofer, A. (Eds.). (2009). Handbuch Methoden der Organisationsforschung. Springer VS. Mayring, P. (2002). Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung. 5th ed. Beltz. Tröndle, M. (2006). Entscheiden im Kulturbetrieb: Integriertes Kunst- und Kulturmanagement. h.e.p. Tröndle, M. & Stahl, J. (2019). Toward a practical theory of managing the arts. In: DeVereaux, C. (Ed.), Arts and cultural management: Sense and sensibilities in the state of the field (pp. 247–266). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315164205.

Notes 1

Formerly known as the École des Hautes Études commerciales de Montréal.

2

For consistency, we have listed the names that the departments and programs were using at the time of our study.

3

The CHE University Ranking is Germany’s most prominent ranking system: “The primary goal of the CHE University Ranking is to inform first-year students and those changing universities about the study opportunities and conditions in various subjects by means of a comparative presentation of study opportunities and conditions. … Objective data on the study situation as well as subjective assessments of students and professors are analyzed and presented” (CHE Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung, 2020; authors’ translation).

4

It should again be stressed that the information we used to compile the profiles stems from 2015 and might be dated. To allow for maximum anonymity for the professors and to maintain consistency within our descriptions of the different research and teaching settings, we decided to stick with the wording that was used at the time of our study.

3 Notes from the field 3.1 University of Warwick: Master of Arts in International Cultural Policy and Management

University of Warwick One could assume that the name of the University of Warwick stems from the fact that it is the university located in Warwick, England. That’s not quite the case. The University of Warwick is in fact not located in Warwick, but rather on the outskirts of Coventry, an hour’s train ride away from its namesake city. Some say that the reason for choosing this name for a university in ­Coventry is that the city of Warwick, with its impressive castle and many picturesque buildings from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, already had an international reputation due to its cultural heritage. Coventry, on the other hand, was heavily bombed during World War II, largely because several aircraft and car engine manufacturers had their headquarters Figure 3.1.1: Warwick Castle

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 M. Tröndle und J. Schindler, Places of Excellence, Edition WÜRTH Chair of Cultural Production, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33283-9_3

30

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

there, including Coventry Morris Engines and Armstrong Siddeley Jaguar— and so, it shared the fate of many German cities: it was completely rebuilt in the 1950s and ’60s. Thus, the story goes that the historical importance of Warwick was used to give a rather young university, established in 1965, greater significance. If this is truly the case, the outcome of this ploy would count as a major PR win, since the university has achieved an impressive international reputation over the past few decades—regardless of whether this reputation was promoted by the name Warwick or by its highly ranked departments and researchers. A further reason for its success could be the relatively young university’s ability to respond to societal demands in a changing postwar Britain, as one of the interviewed professors expressed: I think the single most important thing is the Warwick brand. We managed it through innovation. We didn’t have the historical traditions of other universities. So it became a university that was open to change, which was socially diverse. The British university system, until very recently, was based on the English social class system and dominated by the middle and upper middle classes. Students from other backgrounds—minorities and working-class students—found universities very intimidating, very difficult. Ironically, Warwick was both left leaning [and] very socially inclusive, but also entrepreneurial and very innovative. (P4: 208ff.)

When talking about the University of Warwick, one has to mention that Coventry has another, more established postsecondary institution: Coventry University, which was founded in 1843 as the Coventry School of Design. Although Coventry University has the upper hand as far as history and student population (30,000), the University of Warwick comes out on top in international reputation and across various university rankings, thanks to its world-leading research.1 The University of Warwick self-confidently boasts this leading research strategy on its website:

3.1 University of Warwick

31

Warwick is justifiably proud of the reputation it has earned for the quality of its research and has ambitious goals for continuing growth. Although Warwick is already clearly one of the UK’s leading research-led universities, the strategy has the goal of enhancing its research profile to yet higher levels of international excellence. It aims, no less, at us becoming a top fifty world-ranked university.2

The 32 departments and various research centers of Warwick are organized in four faculties: Arts, Medicine, Science, and Social Sciences. Today, the university population numbers around 27,000 full-time students and 2,600 academic and research staff.3 When one arrives on campus, the functional architecture of the approximately 80 buildings is immediately striking. Figure 3.1.2 conveys the impression left by Library Road, where the Department of Chemistry, the School of Engin­ eer­ing, the library, and the sciences and humanities’ complexes can be found.

Figure 3.1.2 (left): Library Road on the campus of the University of Warwick Figure 3.1.3 (right): Warwick University House

Warwick University House sits at the center of campus. It comprises the university administration and student services as well as a restaurant and coffee bar. With its brick exterior and a style of architecture adapted from residential houses, the building resembles the housing developments for workers in the surrounding neighborhood.

32

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Figure 3.1.4 (left): Coffee bar in the atrium of Warwick University House Figure 3.1.5 (right): View into the cafeteria at lunchtime

Inside the building, the atrium is dominated by a tall white wall, shaped like an oversized tombstone or memorial. One could say that the wall even asks for an artistic intervention; instead, it displays white emptiness. Despite the central wall’s dominance, the atrium is light and luminous, as its glass-paneled roof opens up to the sky. Still, after wandering through the building, the impression of Anglo-Saxon efficiency becomes even more entrenched. The office spaces, at least, strongly call for such an interpretation (see figs. 3.1.6 and 3.6.8). Millburn House, which is only a five-minute walk from Warwick University House, is the home for some of the art-related programs, including the School of Theatre, Performance and Cultural Policy Studies, the History of Art Department, and the Warwick Writing Programme, in addition to the Centre for Cultural Policy Studies. The building itself is located on the edge of campus; its architecture is rather demure. The combination of the out-of-the-way location and the sober architecture mean Millburn House attracts little attention to itself. Inside the building, the Centre for Cultural Policy Studies seems somehow even more hidden away, as a short extract from the field notes shows:

33

3.1 University of Warwick

During my first visit to ­Millburn House, I had difficulties finding my way. Firstly, the door was locked and I had to wait for someone to let me in. Secondly, I had to pass several doors and hallways and turn many times, until I finally arrived at the Centre for Cultural Policy Studies. In the end, a student helped me find my way. [One often needs a security card to get access to university buildings. But at Warwick—unlike at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and New York University where students are given security passes—the staff manually facilitates access. However, here the entrance door was locked and no security staff was around to open it.]

Interestingly, the metaphorical resonance of this mixture of efficiency and nondescriptness was not only made concrete in the center’s architectural environment. It was also addressed by Professor 2: I mean all of the strategy for the center was initially to be invisible. Do the work and be very effective and don’t let them ask too many questions. If you put your head above the parapet, you will get shot at. Keep out of the way. (P2: 354ff.)

Figure 3.1.6 (top): Office space for the staff on the first floor of Warwick University House Figure 3.1.7 (center): Millburn House in the Science Park Figure 3.1.8 (bottom): The entrance area of the School of Theatre, ­Performance and Cultural Policy Studies

34

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

The remote location and modest presence of Millburn House as well as the labyrinthine pathfinding required to navigate the building might have supported that strategy. Centre for Cultural Policy Studies A survey of the content of the center’s offered MA programs could lead one to assume that the Centre for Cultural Policy Studies (CCPS) is located in the Faculty of Social Sciences. However, it is actually part of the Faculty of Arts. A possible effect of this affiliation is that the center developed more independently than it would have if it had been attached to a seemingly more closely related discipline, such as sociology or political science. In addition to a few research centers, the Faculty of Arts includes six departments: Classics and Ancient History; English and Comparative Literary Studies; Film and Television Studies; History of Art; the School of Theatre, Performance and Cultural Studies; and History. A short extract from the CCPS website gives a good indication of what the center’s overall philosophy is: Established in 1995, the Centre provides a focus for teaching and research in cultural management, cultural policy, media and communications, social enterprise and the creative and media industries. Our distinctive approach is to engage with the practical realities of working in the cultural and media industries while having critical oversight of the ideological, strategic and conceptual questions, which lie behind professional practice. This approach is shaped by an ongoing commitment to preparing postgraduate students for careers in the culture, media and communication industries.4

It is probably worth emphasizing that the CCPS neither qualifies students for a specific career path nor is it especially hands on in its teaching methods. Rather, it prepares them by inhabiting and promoting a reflective approach. But let us take a look at the development of the center. It was only in the early 1990s that the master’s degree in International Cultural Policy and Management was initiated at the University of Warwick. Professor 3 had

3.1 University of Warwick

35

been developing this program since the late 1980s at Leicester Polytechnic, which was the first school in the UK to offer a degree in the field of cultural policy. They then put the program into practice at the University of Warwick in 1993 and directed it until 2008 (P1: 205ff.). With the establishment of the CCPS in 1999, the expertise in this field, and the reputation of the University of Warwick by extension, was strengthened: There weren’t that many programs and it was very unusual to talk about this thing called “cultural policy.” It felt impossibly exotic to be talking about France, Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands—these countries, which, for somebody working in the arts in the UK, you thought had proper cultural policies and which funded theaters, operas, and music. It was all very exciting and I decided to do that. (P2: 34ff.)

This quote not only illustrates the center’s entrepreneurial spirit and the original faculty’s excitement at creating something new, but it also shows that the mindset has spread to the younger generation of professors. Professor 2, for example, is a former PhD student who was convinced to become a professor at the CCPS by Professor 3. (This phenomenon is investigated in further detail in the “Professors’ profiles” section.) Embedding: “It is a very entrepreneurial culture”5 In various professors’ accounts about the center’s development strategy, a distinct entrepreneurial spirit was identifiable. Alongside the above-mentioned pragmatism and innovative environment, entrepreneurship seems to be a main driver for the CCPS’s successful establishment, as becomes evident in Professor 4’s description of the evolution of its various programs: We set up these programs, which were very much out of our personal experience, both intellectual and industry experience. And the whole of the center is developed around the problem of theory and practice. … But after the third program … it started to become much more structured. More heavily staffed and a lot of new regulations came in. Particularly the fees

36

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

went up; more international students came in. It just became much more administered and professionalized in many ways, which meant that we had to bring in more backup staff to help us run the program. So we ended up with two people on each program: the course director and the lecturer. But the three programs operated like three small businesses. They had their own budget, their own recruitment, their own professors. They stood alone as three separate areas. (P4: 353ff.)

This passage emphasizes that the programs at the CCPS are built around the staff’s knowledge and experience. Such an entrepreneurial model of individualized master’s programs run by a course director and a lecturer who are together responsible for one program in academic as well as in economic terms not only leads to a decent income for the center but furthermore fulfills the students’ expectations. According to the CCPS website, “91% of [its] students are satisfied with the teaching quality on their courses.”6 This statement seems to be supported through our analysis. We found that in general students experience the teaching units with their professors as “interesting,” a little “overtaxing,” and very “inspiring” (see appendix WW, table 3.1.1). An important characteristic of an entrepreneur is the ability to abandon an idea, and even an entire project, if it is not (going to be) successful. This attitude is also evident in the history of the CCPS: It became clear that the way that Warwick works is that if you have an academic project and you can make it work financially, the university will usually back you. It is a very entrepreneurial culture. And so the best way for me to become employed at the university was to develop a project and funding. And the best way to do that was to run an MA program. Because we knew from the MA [in International Cultural Policy and Management] that Professor 3 already ran that this was a model that worked. You could get 20 to 25 students, and that was more than enough to pay a salary. So I thought about running an MA around community arts and cultural development and so on, but came to the conclusion back in 1998 that this wasn’t going to fly. There wasn’t going to be a market for us. (P2: 120ff.)

3.1 University of Warwick

37

The drive to develop something new and the high amount of attention the professors pay to the quality of their programs and to the satisfaction of their students is mirrored in both the students’ and the professors’ answers regarding the wish to change something in the department (see appendix WW, table 3.1.2). While the students in the CCPS master’s programs seemed to be generally satisfied with their program,7 the professors made use of nearly every option on the scale the questionnaire provided them in relation to changes they wanted to make at the center (ranging from “very often” to “never”). One professor provided an apt statement to sum up these widely varying results: “We are all working with passion on the improvement of the department, even if we do not always agree” (P1: 952ff.). In terms of the current funding structure of the program, the CCPS has to largely sustain itself and is thus dependent on student fees (which are £7,050 for UK and EU students and £15,880 for international students for one year on a full-time basis). Since the center does not offer any bachelor’s degrees,8 it does not receive regular core funding. Nonetheless, the established self-supporting model enables the CCPS faculty to conduct research and teaching at a high level: Profit is now calibrated in a different way. There is no profit, but you have a greater power of negotiation to plan your financial strategy. So if last year we met our targets—we have targets because we have to measure income against costs; effectively, we make a profit—we can then submit another budget saying that next year we want another staff member, we want to fund a research project, we want to fund a conference, or something like that. Money has never been the problem. We have always had more money than we could spend. (P4: 96ff.)

This entrepreneurial strategy for running the various master’s programs has led to a relative financial independence, which in turn has enabled the staff to develop programs according to their individual research interests and knowledge resources. Yet, with regard to funding opportunities for students, neither the University of Warwick nor the CCPS offer any specific grants; the scholarships of three out of four of the interviewed students were awarded by the government or other external sources (S2, S3, and S4).

38

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Ethos: “The whole of the center is developed around the problem of theory and practice”9 When we asked the students why they chose their program, three reasons were predominant: the general reputation of the university; the program’s and department’s orientation; and the teaching and research foci of one or several professors (see appendix WW, table 3.1.3). That tuition fees were not considered to be important could be explained by the fact that—as mentioned above—three out of the four students (S2, S3, and S4) received scholarships. On the one hand, thanks to these scholarships these students did not need to look for job opportunities to finance their studies. On the other hand, the students stated that they had no desire to work in parallel to their studies either. To complement these answers, we also asked the students for the exact reasons why they chose the University of Warwick and the study program. Among the answers were: “I wanted time to reflect, time to read” (S1: 139); “I need new academic knowledge or some theoretic base for my next challenges” (S4: 60); “I wanted something more related to creative media” (S2: 113); and “I wanted to go towards cultural policy” (S3: 93). Such content-related motives are congruent with the professors’ educational ideal, which we asked for in each of the analyzed cases, and which at Warwick is namely to “develop thinking managers” (P1: 571 and 849). It seems that the CCPS is able to attract students that are driven by motivations similar to those of the professors; the center’s website states: “Public engagement is at the heart of our research and our teaching. Our research seeks to inform policy and to engage with industry and communities.”10 In combination with its theoretical and critical approach, the CCPS aspires to always be grounded in the analysis of current practices: Students participate in projects to solve real business problems for clients including the BBC, GfK NOP Media Research and Association for Independent Music. Staff contribute to projects on aesthetic practice, digital innovation, heritage management, arts impact and the management of creativity through commissioned research, collaborative projects, industry seminars, conferences and workshops and by creating partnerships and networks with key institutions and agencies both nationally and internationally.11

3.1 University of Warwick

39

The combination of theory, practice, teaching, and research is key for the courses taught in the CCPS’s four master’s programs. Resources for this type of combined teaching approach include the Warwick Arts Centre. It opened in 1974 and has subsequently been expanded. It contains the Mead Gallery for contemporary visual art, a cinema, the university bookshop, a restaurant, and stages for music and theater performances. The Warwick Arts Centre reports that it presents about 1,300 events and performances of music, theater, dance, film, visual arts, and literature per year, 12 and is one of the largest performing and visual arts complexes in the UK outside London. Situated at the very center of campus, it links the University of Warwick to “the local people in Coventry and Warwickshire by providing a first class arts resource ‘on the doorstep’ in a green field environment.”13 The Warwick Arts Centre also has established relationships with a number of academic departments and programs, such as the MA in International Cultural Policy and Management. Despite these clear benefits, one also has to mention that the Warwick Arts Centre is the only art institution in proximity to the university. The next closest cities are the much larger Birmingham and London, where manifold theaters, museums, and so on are located. Since the CCPS is not really able to engage with art institutions to a great degree (unlike the cases in New York, Chicago, and London described in the following chapters), the strategy of the center in its somewhat remote Coventry locale is to instead focus more

Figure 3.1.9 (left): Warwick Arts Centre Figure 3.1.10 (right): Mead Gallery, at Warwick Arts Centre, with a view of the exhibition The World Turned Upside Down (2013)

40

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

on theory and academic work. In response to the problem of being located in a region with very few art institutions, the center created its specific course DNA and its particular model of the “thinking manager.” As Professor 1 put it: It’s not necessarily having the hands-on technical competences of “this is how I go about doing an audience development strategy,” but it’s being able to think about what it involves to be doing an audience development strategy. It’s understanding the underlying principles that they have. I think [the students] need to understand the idea that culture can be used in multiple ways for multiple purposes. (P1: 853ff.)

Two important factors further emphasize this research strategy: the establishment of both a journal and an international conference. Being a pioneer by forming the field Founding members of the Centre have helped define the field of cultural policy studies, notably through the International Journal of Cultural Policy and the International Conference on Cultural Policy Research (ICCPR). In recent years, we have extended and redefined the research of culture and creativity through our interdisciplinary research.14

The International Conference on Cultural Policy Research (ICCPR) is a biannual conference that can be considered the most important conference in this field: The main function of ICCPR … is to promote, in association with the International Journal of Cultural Policy, a biennial research conference of high academic standards in different parts of the world. The conference provides an opportunity for researchers to present papers that reflect on cultural policy from any relevant discipline, provided they make an original academic contribution to the field.15

Each iteration is hosted in a new city under the auspices of the journal, ­attracting around 300 researchers from all around the globe. The first con-

3.1 University of Warwick

41

ference was held in Bergen, Norway, in 1999, and the 2020 conference was to be held in Kyoto, Japan. The conference is not just a unique networking platform for the CCPS and its professors and students, but—in combination with its editorship of the corresponding journal—it also enables the faculty to effectively form the field by championing and promoting current research topics, methods, and theories. The professors’ profiles, which are outlined in detail in the next section, show how the CCPS influences the field of cultural policy at an international level. It should be mentioned that through its continuous and respected research output, the CCPS has been able to develop a distinct profile within the competitive environment of the University of Warwick itself. This international and intra-institutional standing is communicated in a rather matterof-fact way on the center’s website: We have an outstanding reputation for the quality of our research. In the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise it was found that 30% of the research in our School was judged to be world leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour (4*), and a further 45% was judged to be internationally excellent (3*).16

Professors’ profiles In this section, we take a look at the academic staff, their experiences, and their competences. According to the information found on the program’s website and in the professors’ CVs that were sent to us or that we could find online, we outlined brief profiles for each professor. These profiles give an overview of the faculty’s research orientation and their individual responsibilities for the various master’s programs. It should be stressed again that the information we used to compile the profiles in the first stage of our study in 2014–15 might now be dated. To allow for a maximum of anonymity for the professors mentioned and to maintain consistency within our descriptions of the different research and teaching settings, we decided not to update the information to the year of publication (2020).

42

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Professor 1 is associate professor in cultural policy studies and course director of the MA in International Cultural Policy and Management. They hold a PhD and their research interests include structure and agency in the museum and gallery sector; ontology, epistemology, and methodology in cultural policy research; forms of cultural policy; and the organization and management of cultural policy by the state. They have published articles in journals such as the International Journal of Cultural Policy, Cultural Trends, Public Administration, Parliamentary Affairs, and Public Policy and Administration. They are currently doing field research on policy making in the museum and gallery sector throughout England, with support from the British Academy. Since 2008, Professor 2 has been director of the CCPS, from which they received their PhD in 1998. They also initiated and directed the MA in Creative and Media Enterprises from 1999 to 2011 and have worked in the cultural sector for 10 years as a writer, performer, and manager with a theater company and the City of Westminster Arts Council in London. Since 1997, they have been a lecturer at the CCPS and have also given workshops at Warwick Business School, Copenhagen Business School, and the Roads Academy and Highways Agency. Professor 2 frequently participates in international conferences and publishes in journals such as the International Journal of Cultural Policy (where they are also a member of the editorial board), the monthly magazine strategy, and Management Today. Their research interests include management of creative and media businesses; alternative approaches to organization, employment and strategy formation in the cultural sector; cultural democracy; and community arts. Professor 3 is the founder of the Centre for Cultural Policy Studies, which they started in 1999 and directed until 2008. They have published on cultural policy, intellectual history, and cultural politics and are the founding editor of the International Journal of Cultural Policy as well as a founding member of the Scientific Committee of the ICCPR. Professor 4, who is an associate professor, founded the MA in Arts, Enterprise and Development. They hold a BA in History of Art and Architecture from the University of East Anglia, Norwich, and did postgraduate studies in the Department of Art History and Theory at the University of Essex, where they undertook both a master’s degree and a PhD (awarded in 1999)

3.1 University of Warwick

43

on modernist aesthetics and contemporary art. Since 2001, they have been teaching modern and contemporary art in the History of Art Department at the University of Warwick and, since 2004, also at the CCPS. Professor 4 has organized international conferences, was on the Scientific Committee for the Art of Management and Organisation Conference in Kraków in 2006, and was chair of the non-profit Art of Management and Organization (2013– 16). They were a Peer Review College member of the Arts and Humanities Research Council (2009–16) and on the editorial and advisory boards of four peer-reviewed journals. Along with the professors’ individual expertise, their cumulative international research and networking activities are revealed in these profile descriptions. Each of the professors actively and frequently publishes articles in major journals of the field. In addition, each of them is an editorial board member of one of these journals or a board member of a professional organization, or both. Hence it can be said that the CCPS contributes significantly to the formation of the field of cultural policy at large, influencing both its local and its international development. Since the research activities of the center are based on individuals’ interests, it is not surprising that the professors described the atmosphere among themselves to be “individualistic” but also “cooperative” (see appendix WW, table 3.1.4). However, something we found to be similar to the other programs examined in this study is the special role of the “founder.” Unlike at the other analyzed departments, the succession from founding director to the following directors has already taken place at the University of Warwick. In 2008, founding director Professor 3 passed the directorship on to their former PhD student, Professor 2, and then, only six years later, in 2014, the title was again passed on to another professor, who this time came from outside the department. This professor had realized several projects with Professor 3, so Professor 2 considered them to have an excellent understanding of the ethos of the CCPS. Professor 2 described the succession this way: There has been a little bit of disquiet about it, because it wasn’t democratic. I talked to people individually; I said that this would be a good idea and asked whether people agreed. I didn’t give them much alternative, and then

44

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

I announced it. For me it was very important to keep the flame. This is a quite precious and unique place—the ethos of this combination of providing an autonomous space for people to pursue individual research projects [and] the link between teaching and research being central to what we do. This is Professor 3’s project, and I wanted them to feel that their legacy or project was still there. And [this ethos and focus] is something that I really value. (P2: 494ff.)

This ethos of a strong research focus can once more be linked to the location of the CCPS: the city of Coventry enables the CCPS to concentrate on academic work by being not as “arts vibrant” as New York or London. Professor 4 stated the following in relation to mobility and the location of the university: It is a campus, but we have got faculty who live in Amsterdam or Italy or wherever. There is an international airport just 15 minutes away, so international travel is very quick. We are in the middle of England; some of my colleagues live in London, Nottingham, Leicester, Stratford—so it is also a very mobile university. People are free to move around and spend time at other universities. There is lots of new staff coming and going. It is a very fluid environment. Nothing is ever the same. (P4: 240ff.)

In addition to the international student body—a feature all examined programs showed, and which is discussed in more detail in the “Student profiles” section—the staff’s mobility contributes to an ongoing refreshment of ideas for the curriculum and promotion of the center’s ethos, since they’re constantly coming and going. Curriculum: “Our MA courses have been built around the needs of students”17 In 2015, the Centre for Cultural Policy Studies offered four taught master’s degrees: Creative and Media Enterprises, Global Media and Communication, International Cultural Policy and Management, and Arts, Enterprise and Development.

3.1 University of Warwick

45

In this section, we look at one of the offered degrees in more detail, namely the MA in International Cultural Policy and Management, which the school describes in this way: The Core Modules [form] the foundation of the MA programme which examines the concept of cultural policy, the context and practices of cultural production and the intellectual history and framework of ideas relating to culture and policy. As a student on the MA in International Cultural Policy and Management you will complete two core modules: Cultural Policy examines the relationship between government, the public cultural sector and the cultural industries and how these actors shape cultural policy. Cultural Theory engages with the work of a variety of commentators on the subject of the nature and function of the arts and culture and explores how their ideas inform cultural policy debates.18

The website goes on to briefly describe each module, which is further complemented by an example reading list.19 Along with the faculty members’ publications related to the content of the courses, these sample syllabi include classics of academic literature, such as Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer (1947), Dialectic of Enlightenment and Howard S. Becker (1982), Art Worlds. In addition to the above-described two modules, students choose three elective modules for the spring and summer terms. The selection of electives is discussed with the student’s advisor, who can also decide whether the student is allowed to choose a course from a different department in the Faculty of Arts.20 The optional modules at the CCPS span the umbrella of topics included under “critical analysis,” which includes the courses Art, Culture and Society; Cultural Policy; Cultural Policy outside Cultural Policy; Culture in Development; The Dynamics of Cultural Change and the Global Audience; Culture in Practice, which includes the subcourses Brands and Meaning: Theory and Practice; Cultural Entrepreneurship; Marketing and Markets; Managing Cultural Organisations and Audience Development and Digital Media Strategy; and Applied Management, which includes the subcourses Creative Business Project, Placement and Case Study, and Applied Communication Project.

46

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

A thesis project is the final component of the core curriculum. On top of this, if time allows, students are also able to audit or participate in any course offered at the university. During the first term, teaching takes place only on Monday; the rest of the week is reserved for the students’ reading workload. Even though this one-year study program comprises only five taught modules and a dissertation, the students stated that they did not at all or only rarely audited or participated in extracurricular classes. This was partly explained by a lack of time, largely due to the amount of reading they had to do for the CCPS classes, and partly by an infrastructural mismatch between the different departments. As one student stated: The departments and the schools have very different ways of offering lectures. For example, the Warwick Manufacturing Group, they offer modules which last for a week, and you have them from nine in the morning until eight in the evening. That’s one module, so I could not go. That wouldn’t work. (S3: 703ff.)

The overall picture of the students’ assessment of how their time was spent was positive (see appendix WW, table 3.1.5). Generally, they experienced their time at the university as very “activating and stimulating” and were very “happy.” One student felt challenged by the return to studying after several years of working (S1: 78ff.); another would have liked the core curriculum to include more classes (S4: 158). At the same time, Student 4 appreciated the high number of extracurricular offerings, such as guest speakers, museum visits, and career development advice (S4: 164 ff.). One statement made by Professor 2 offers insight into the CCPS’s course listing, and additionally serves to reinforce the center’s ethos: I think it is important that I get the students to think about ideas and ideologies, not just about pragmatics of how we do things. And I think [it’s also important] that our MA courses have been built around the needs of students and what you need to know in order to work in the sector— and I interpret that to be not just what skills you need, but what kind of thinking and ideas you need to acquire. We have tried to build a coherent

3.1 University of Warwick

47

curriculum around that from the ground. So it is not as if I have got a set of things that I would like to teach; it is more “here is a program that needs to be taught, how can I acquire the skills and knowledge to teach that?” I think that is unusual, and it reflects the backgrounds of certainly myself, Professor 3, Professor 5, and Professor 4. I am shaped by whatever I feel is happening in the sector that I need to import into the program. And that, in terms of what I am offering the students, allows me to say, “What you are getting is what is built for you—not built for me to be able to develop my research interests and explore them.” Although, hopefully I can do that as well. And I think that is a selling point compared to [other programs]. (P2: 591ff.)

The programs at the University of Warwick are grounded in field ex­pe­ riences—a feature shared by the other master’s programs analyzed in this book. The professors sincerely care about what is going on in the field and try to adapt their curricula to these current issues. At the same time, they do not follow only their own interests. Instead, to an even greater extent, they think about what the students need to be successful. From a resource-management point of view, it is an obvious yet intelligent strategy to build one degree around each professor’s individual competences. Although the programs are highly and specifically individualized, every degree still mirrors the center’s overall ethos—that is, the idea of developing “thinking managers” and the commitment to coupling theory with practice and research with teaching. The MA in Arts, Enterprise and Development (established in 2014 and at the time of our study the most recently developed program) shows that the CCPS continues to follow this tradition, by again attempting to fill a niche by innovating a timely and specific program; this latest master’s program invites the students to “Explore the power of arts and culture,” “Create new ideas,” “Learn to innovate,” and “Extend [their] skills”—as the catchphrases on the website suggest.21

48

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Student profiles Each of the programs examined in this book had a high number of international students: in general, more than half of the student body was international. At the University of Warwick, this percentage seems to be even higher. Student 3 stated that four out of 18 students were from the UK and the rest were from other European and Asian countries (S3: 237ff.).22 To guarantee varied perspectives in the classes, the center places an emphasis on the diversity of the students’ backgrounds; or as Professor 3 put it: “The other important aspect about our center is its internationalism” (449f.). Furthermore, three of the four students we interviewed had accomplished several years of professional experience before undertaking their master’s degrees, one at a contemporary art museum, one in broadcasting, and one at a film production company they had founded. During our interview with Professor 1, they elaborated on the students’ career options and backgrounds: They’re going for a range of things, like central government departments, local authorities, performing arts organizations. Some go into culture and creative industries. We fully expect that most of the ICP [International Cultural Policy and Management] students will end up working for forms of government, or perhaps for things like NGOs. Most of them have a background in humanities. I’m always looking for people with a very different background, because that can lead to interesting ideas. So we get students who have done things like arts administration, history, history of art, or art performance studies. (P1: 870ff.)

This heterogeneity as far as the cultural diversity of the students and their educational and professional experiences fosters a cross-learning approach. The fact the CCPS attracts such a large number of international students not only indicates the reputation of the university, but it furthermore ensures that the program will continue to develop its reputation internationally, when these students begin to work in cultural professions back in their home countries. To complement the professors’ idea of the students’ future, we asked the students to describe their self-perception:

3.1 University of Warwick

49

We are the future leaders of creative industries. (S1: 360) I think we are cultural entrepreneurs-enthusiasts. (S2: 468) Here, you’re encouraged to keep thinking, to keep questioning, to keep developing yourself, and everyone seems to be really happy to support you in that process. And the fact that most of the students come here for the very subject—as for example cultural policy in Russia, or film production in Latin America. They wanted to be here. Most of them are really motivated. You have very fruitful discussions among the student body as well. (S3: 819ff.) And your responsibility—this is really important. You have to choose what exactly you want to do. You have a lot of freedom, but at the same time responsibility for your own decision. (S4: 231f.)

It is interesting to see that at the CCPS, students seem to be shaping their ideas for their future careers during the year of study rather than coming into it with clearly defined goals (which differs from the students’ career goals and self-images in the following case studies). The programs offered at the CCPS neither suggest nor require a specific job profile, and the center doesn’t operate under a framework that demands the students to acquire specific skills. Rather, the programs at the CCPS offer students enough time and space to be inspired, to mature, and to develop their own ideas about their professional futures. The teaching approach, and outcome, is about “thinking” and “questioning.” Nonetheless, most of the students are convinced they will have a prosperous future and express enthusiasm about what they do. This attitude was described as the program’s specificity by one of the students: I think what is special about it is the general atmosphere. You have only a small number of staff, not that many students. There are regular social activities like a Christmas party, the welcome reception, or film screenings in the center. We have only one seminar room, which also has sofas and all the major projects of students who graduated in the past years. You can

50

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

just sit down and read. There’s a little kitchen where you can heat up your food or cook some tea. It’s a very nice and cozy atmosphere in the center. Everyone is happy to talk to you, to give you advice. It’s very friendly, it makes you feel welcome, and it makes you feel you’re welcome to express your thoughts. (S3: 809ff.)

Although the students have very heterogeneous backgrounds, they describe the atmosphere as “collegial” and “cooperative” (see appendix WW, table 3.1.4), which might be an indicator of a well-accomplished group formation. Another question that arises regarding the international makeup of the student body is integration into the classes. At the University of Warwick, one tool used to respond to a heterogeneous body of students is a specific teaching model: Teaching in the Centre is based on a “Warwick model” of small class sizes, close contact between students and staff, an integrated, coherent curriculum and individualised attention to student needs and aspirations. Unlike many Masters courses at other UK universities our courses feature a coherent curriculum designed to fit professional as well as academic criteria. We do not run large lectures. Core modules are taught in classes of 20–30; classes for option modules are sometimes smaller. This is vital to enriching the student experience and ensuring critical and creative thinking at postgraduate level. We seek to enhance the student experience through pastoral care, bespoke learning and tailored professional development.23

Despite the implementation of this teaching model across the entire university, the students’ assessment of the teaching units was quite diverse with regard to the consistency of classes. Comparing these results to the interviews, one can say that the students are generally very satisfied with the center’s teaching quality. The students’ varying answers (see appendix WW, table 3.1.1) could be explained by their discontent with a particular guest lecture, which had taken place just before the interviews were carried out. External speakers are invited to give a guest lecture on only an irregular basis. The researcher sat in on one of these guest lectures, which differed greatly from the regular classes both in format and content.

3.1 University of Warwick

51

In class In addition to the observations of two regular courses, this section additionally describes a guest speaker’s class on independent record labels and copyright. The excerpted field notes are complemented by the observer’s comments and impressions, which are differentiated using square brackets. On Wednesday at 2 p.m., 23 students (three male, 20 female) from various countries follow the speech of a guest speaker, who is talking about the independent label market and copyright. The speaker sits behind the table, with arms crossed, and they speak freely about their topic. The average age of the students is around 25; two are obviously older. Before the class starts, I have the opportunity to speak to two young women from India and Malaysia. I also hear Russian and Chinese; other students come from Colombia, Spain, and France. The students sit around four large tables or “islands,” each composed of three tables facing each other. This classroom has a low ceiling; fluorescent lights and air-conditioning tubes are attached to it. A red-purple-gray carpet, tables made from laminate, brown aluminum window frames, purple curtains, and two red sofas at the back of the room create an informal atmosphere. All in all, the color concept and the materials seem to be a bit outdated. The first question the speaker puts forward to the class is: “Who wants to see copyrights being marginalized?” A student answers: “Artists.” Guest speaker: “No. Who else could have an interest?” There is no answer for a long time, then the speaker answers the question: “Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple.” They continue: “If politics and law cannot be aligned with the interests of the artist, who is next? Who wants to go into the creative industries if you know no one will give you a dime? In former days, creative industries were called ‘copyright industries.’ Nowadays, the lines are blurry.” The guest speaker jumps from power politics to users, shareholders, autonomous driving, and talks about big corporations that would like to get rid of states and all controls to raise their profits. There is no reference, statistics, or other sources mentioned to underline their arguments; it is just a narrative. Some students seem to be bored; at least four around me start checking their phones and social media pages.

52

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

I think the guest lecturer recognized that the class was becoming more and more absent, so they suddenly switch the topic to DIY (do it yourself ) and the recording market. A video is shown, which is around eight minutes long. It is an interview with a novelist who has written on copyright. The comments of the students on the video and piracy are quite good; a student from Colombia in particular is bringing in interesting ideas about how to tackle the problem of piracy. It is now 3:45 p.m. and the guest speaker is still monologuing. Only the Colombian student sometimes answers the lecturer’s (rather rhetorical) questions; the others have resigned. We are back to a very general critique. The guest speaker states: “So what is the purpose of politics, if they are not able to deal with these international companies?” Now the professor steps in and tries to end the class with a concluding comment, but the guest just goes on, now talking about Machiavelli, men, and power. It is 3:56 p.m. and the class is over. Very little applause is given. Making eye contact with the professor who invited the guest speaker reveals that they are also quite unhappy with how the lecture went. Everyone heads out for coffee.

After this guest lecture, two regular classes, led by CCPS professors, were vi­sited. Here, the different national backgrounds of the students came into play.

Figure 3.1.11 (left): The classroom used by the Centre for Cultural Policy Studies Figure 3.1.12 (right): Room 1.15 in the Ramphal ­Building, with its small class sizes and variable tables

3.1 University of Warwick

The Ramphal Building is the home of the Sociology Department. I am sneaking into the room—it is 2:12 p.m., and the end-of-semester presentations have already started. [I had a hard time finding the Ramphal Building, which is surrounded by many other buildings on the main campus.] The same body of students that was in the class I first visited are present: 19 women, four men. The room is “up to date” design-wise, with dark-green walls, trendy gray steel chairs, and eight slim tables of different heights for sitting and standing. The tables are organized in little U-shaped islands that face the front of the room; the last row is made up of higher tables, where students stand or sit on high chairs. Some of the chairs still have plastic-covering residue on their steel parts. The first presentation on independent film companies has almost finished. While the group answers some questions from the students and the two professors, the next group sets up for their presentation on fashion in a globalized world. 2:36 p.m.: five young women and one man are standing in a group; everyone is holding a piece of paper (letter size). After a short introduction on what the presentation is about, they introduce Diana Crane’s model of globalization (cultural imperialism) and illustrate it with various examples from the fashion industries in India, China, and South America. Like the previous group, this group is internationally composed, with the students appearing to come from at least four different continents. The group next tries to theorize the strategies of Western fashion companies using Crane’s model by sketching out how companies invade local markets around the world. The keywords are: diversity, globalization/regionalization, cultural colonization. 3 p.m.: short applause, and again the lecturer starts the discussion. The next presentation, at 3:12 p.m., is about consumption. “Homo consumericus”—a keyword everyone in the class has to laugh about—is the opener for how to understand contemporary influences on consumers. A video made by the students shows a re-reenactment of Slavoj Žižek’s film The Pervert’s Guide to Cinema (2006). The self-made film on the dilemma of choice and the role of the consumer gets spontaneous applause. Unfortunately, the next speaker of the group has difficulties speaking English and is hard to understand. Attention drifts away; I see six students getting

53

54

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

out their smartphones and tablets to check emails, and another student is rolling his cigarette for the coming break. In hindsight, the sentence “Watching TV series is a social act enforced by social media” is the only aspect I remembered from the last 15 minutes. At 3:31 p.m., applause and questions follow. Questions address participation, creation, crowdfunding, international similarities and differences, and ownership. What’s interesting to me is that the questions also include examples and perspectives from many different TV-series cultures, due to the very international student body. 3:42 p.m.: break. [The presentations are on quite a “standard” level, but slightly more in depth and a bit more informed by theory than those observed at the other studied universities. Also, here at the University of Warwick, the varying English abilities are noticeable and certainly must pose a challenge to teaching these multinational classes. At the same time, this truly international student body brings forward manifold cross-learning opportunities and various perspectives to the discussion of cultural production and policies.]

The last class attended aimed at preparing the students for research and academic work. It is Wednesday; the class takes place from 4:30 to 6 p.m. It is about raising the students’ awareness about issues of academic research. This class is intended to prepare them to develop a proposal that has to be submitted in about eight weeks. It is the same body of students as observed previously, and the class takes place in the same room in the Ramphal Building. The professor starts by asking if any of the students already have an idea about the subject of their thesis. They collect them, writing keywords on the whiteboard. After about 12 minutes of warming up and engaging the class by asking questions, a PowerPoint presentation on principles of academic research begins (the students get a handout showing the slides of the presentation). The first slide says: “Some principles … research projects always require an accommodation between curiosity and practical necessity.” As we go through the slides, several aspects of academic research are brought forward. General terms are discussed to make the students un-

3.1 University of Warwick

55

derstand the difficulties of (social) research, such as ethnocentrism, ethical issues, language, access to resources and data (e.g., being able to interview people), and others. The next slide is on possible topics; “no restriction, but novelty” is one of the phrases that catches my interest. “From topic, to questions, to method” is the title of another slide, which discusses motivations and reasons for asking different questions and from what angle. Problems with research questions can, for example, be that they are “weak,” “not very well defined,” “too broad,” or “too closed.” Manifold examples are given and discussed with the students in order to raise their sensitivity to research settings. At 5:20 p.m., the class is divided into four groups. One group works at each of the four tables in the classroom. They are asked to apply what they just learned in the last half-hour by developing a real research question out of a general topic. The topic is: “The economic impact of the creative industries.” At 5:45 p.m., the lecturer asks the four groups to present their solutions. The first group starts by presenting their solution: “To what extent did the creative industries contribute to British employment during the financial crisis in 2008?” The refinement done by the group toward a good research question is discussed by the class. The professor gives a detailed critique and annotations to the various answers and the traps that are hidden in them. Although it is now almost 6 p.m., the class seems to be quite concentrated and students are still actively participating. The professor continues their PowerPoint presentation by laying out the idea of a literature review. A short video is shown and a short summary of it is given: “play with ideas, be ambitious, be personal, make it relevant.” At 6:12 p.m. the class ends. [This was the only class I attended during the entire field research phase that dealt with questions of research. It was well structured and the professor used different didactic methods to involve the students in the questions and topics. Overall, it could have been more detailed and differentiated into the individual topics, but maybe this will follow in the coming classes.]

Looking back once more at the students’ assessment of the teaching units, one can see that the units’ quality is viewed as being rather variable. In regard to the professors’ competences that we asked the students and profes-

56

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

sors to assess in the questionnaire (see appendix WW, table 3.1.6), we found that, at the CCPS, the professors considered “pedagogic competence” to be an important feature, followed by “appreciative treatment of the students,” and “professional qualification.” The students mentioned “enthusiasm for the subject they are teaching,” “interdisciplinary orientation,” and “professional qualification” most often. Both the students and the professors considered “frequent publishing or professional activities” to be an important qualification. Overall, the fit between students and professors is highest in their expectations of “professional qualification.” Conclusion In this case study, we showed that the Centre for Cultural Policy Studies at the University of Warwick strongly focuses on academic work. The students are embedded in a rural setting that provides them with time and space to read and to develop their thoughts and ideas about their own futures as well as the future of their professional field. In this manner, they become “thinking managers”—a teaching ideal that is promoted by the faculty. The small classes constituted of an international student body enrich the discussions of current issues in the field of arts and cultural policy. With their different backgrounds, the students offer a variety of perspectives on these issues and learn from each other both in class and through student projects. Coupled with in-depth theoretical discussions of the course readings, this learning environment creates a very unique and fruitful student experience. As the CCPS is located in a rather remote place and at quite some distance from bigger art institutions, the center’s founding figure took the pragmatic, but also entrepreneurial and resource-based decision, to focus on research. Even though theory and practice are always linked in the courses, the emphasis is put on developing research questions and methods. Research is not only emphasized in the classes. Throughout the entire website, rankings of research and teaching at the center as well as at the University of Warwick at large are underlined as evidence of the institution’s high academic standing. In this way, the university communicates an idea of excellence that is mirrored in its ranking positions. Keeping in mind the “Warwick model” of teaching (small

3.1 University of Warwick

57

classes, close contact, coherent curriculum) as well as the idea of the “thinking manager,” one could say that the CCPS’s spirit and emphasis on professional qualification is clearly mirrored in these assessment results. At the CCPS, the academic entrepreneurial attitude can be considered one of the main driving forces of the master’s programs offered at the center. The four degrees were each developed around the expertise of one specific professor, who initiated and directs the program. Since the programs are independently funded and thus dependent on tuition fees, the professors are required to develop programs that accommodate the students’ needs in order to attract a sufficiently large student body to ensure economic stability. On a very practical level, this strategy implies that the CCPS will abandon programs or ideas if they turn out to be unsuccessful, in order to free up resources to create new programs. The fact that the CCPS is behind both the International Journal of Cultural Policy and its attendant biannual conference, the International Conference on Cultural Policy Research, is one more factor contributing to the center’s international reputation and—even more importantly—its influence in the field. In addition to having established the most important conference in the field of cultural policy, the CCPS’s faculty members are part of international networks and sit on many editorial boards, enhancing the center’s place as a pioneer in the field even further, and thereby also serving as role models for those students who would like to pursue academic careers. Notes 1

University of Warwick. (2020). Research Excellence. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https:// warwick.ac.uk/research/excellence/; Guardian Staff. (2012, May 21). University guide 2013: University league table. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/education/table/2012/ may/21/university-league-table-2013.

2

University of Warwick. (2014). Research strategy. Retrieved April 22, 2014, from http://www2. warwick.ac.uk/research/strategy/.

3

University of Warwick. (2020). People. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/about/profile/people

4

University of Warwick. (2014). Centre for Cultural Policy Studies – About. Retrieved April 22, 2014, from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/theatre_s/cp/about/

5

Interview with P2 (121).

58

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

6

University of Warwick. (2014). Faculty of Arts. Retrieved April 7, 2014, from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/

7

For this case study, we interviewed two students enrolled in the MA in International Cultural Policy and Management and two students enrolled in the MA in Creative and Media Enterprises.

8

“When I started the cultural policy program, which was the first one we started, it seemed to me that the MA level was a more appropriate level” (P3: 11ff.).

9

Interview with P4 (354f.).

10

University of Warwick. (2014). Centre for Cultural Policy Studies – About. Retrieved April 22, 2014, from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/theatre_s/cp/about/

11

University of Warwick. (2014). Centre for Cultural Policy Studies – About. Retrieved April 22, 2014, from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/theatre_s/cp/about/

12

Warwick Arts Centre. (2013). Annual report 2012/13. http://warwickartscentre-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/File/2269.pdf

13

Warwick Arts Centre. (2020). About. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from http://www.warwickartscentre.co.uk/about-us/history/

14

University of Warwick. (2014). Centre for Cultural Policy Studies – About. Retrieved April 30, 2014, from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/theatre_s/cp/about/. For a history of the conference, see Stadtgame. (2014). Rückblick auf die 8th International Conference on Cultural Policy Research. Retrieved April 30, 2014, from http://iccpr2014.de/history-of-iccpr/. The third edition of the conference was organized at HEC Montréal by the Carmelle and Rémi Marcoux Chair in Arts Management.

15

Executive Committee of ICCPR. (2020). Mission statement. Retrieved October 12, 2020, from https://www.gakkai.ne.jp/ICCPR2020/mission_statement.html

16

University of Warwick. (2015). Centre for Cultural Policy Studies – About. Retrieved December 31, 2015, from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/theatre_s/cp/about/

17

Interview with P2 (592f.).

18

University of Warwick. (2014). Modules. Retrieved April 26, 2014, from https://warwick.ac.uk/ fac/arts/scapvc/ccmps/applying/taught/internationalcp

19

University of Warwick. (2014). MA European Cultural Policy and Management. Core Module 1: Cultural Policy. Retrieved April 26, 2014, from

20

University of Warwick. (2014). MA European Cultural Policy and Management Option Modules. Retrieved April 26, 2014, from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/theatre_s/cp/applying/ taught/internationalcp/about/content/options/

21

University of Warwick. (2014). MA in Arts, Enterprise and Development. Retrieved April 26, 2014, from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/theatre_s/cp/applying/taught/aed

22

With an IELTS English test result of 7 required from prospective students, the entry requirements are generally quite ambitious in comparison to other universities, which ask only for 6.5 (P1: 713ff.).

23

University of Warwick. (2014). Centre for Cultural Policy Studies – About. Retrieved April 3, 2014, from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/theatre_s/cp/about/

59

3.1 University of Warwick

Appendix WW

Table 3.1.1: Visualization of students’ assessment of the teaching units Interesting

Boring

Overtaxing

Subchallenging Suppressing or inhibiting

Inspiring Consistent

Chaotic

S4 gave two different answers on the “consistent”–“chaotic” scale.

Legend:

mentioned once

mentioned twice

mentioned three times

mentioned four times

Table 3.1.2: Visualization of the change of and openness to teaching matters Professors Very often

Often

Sometimes

Students Rarely

Never

Never … ­motivated to change something. … changed something. … have an impact on the development. … teaching quality is discussed among colleagues … teaching ­quality is discussed with students or professors … this leads to concrete changes.

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Very often

60

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Table 3.1.3: Visualization of the students‘ rating of ­important criteria for choosing their program Very important

The general reputation of the university Friends or ­acquaintances ­already studying here The program’s or department’s orientation Family reasons One or several professors and their teaching and research foci The city and its cultural activities The ranking of the university and program The environment and what it offers The alumni network Future professional options The fellowship options Tuition fees The possibility to work while studying

Important

More or less important

Unimportant

Absolutely important

61

3.1 University of Warwick

Table 3.1.4: Visualization of the students’ and ­professors’ ­ratings of their respective atmospheres Professors’ rating of the ­atmos­phere among themselves Applies fully

Applies

Applies up to a point

Does not apply

Students’ rating of the ­ atmos­phere among themselves

Does not apply at all

Does not apply at all

Does not apply

Applies up to a point

Applies

Applies fully

Collegial Compe­titive Cooperative Harmonious Inspiring Indivi­dualistic* Moti­vating *Individualistic in the sense of “everyone for themselves”

Table 3.1.5: Visualization of students’ assessment of the time spent at school Too

Very

A little

Not

Insuf­­ficiently … intense. … focused. … activating and stimulating. … happy. … challenging. … burdening.

62

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Table 3.1.6: Visualization of qualifications for a professor in this ­program according to the professors and students Professors

Students Professional academic or artistic qualification Pedagogic competence Frequent publishing or ­professional activities Practical experience Humor or spirit Appreciative treatment of the students Enthusiasm for the ­subject they are teaching Availability and approachability The ability to grasp or ­recognize the students’ professional ­difficulties or uniqueness Practical orientation Interdisciplinary orientation Interested personality Motivating personality

Missing items are “empathy” and “committed personality,” which were not named by either group.

3.2 Goldsmiths, University of London: Masters offered by the Institute for Creative and Cultural Entrepreneurship

Evolution: “We had to compete with them to grow”1 How can a department composed of 15 faculty members (the director, three program directors, one professor, four lecturers, five associate lecturers, one senior lecturer)2 manage one bachelor’s degree, one graduate diploma, 13 master’s degrees, and one PhD program, as well as a short course? This question immediately arises when looking at the program options of the Institute for Creative and Cultural Entrepreneurship at Goldsmiths, University of London.3 The names of the master’s programs point to one possible answer: intersections. There are five master’s programs that offer various “pathways,” and thus result in 13 different degrees: | MA in Arts Administration and Cultural Policy (without and with a music pathway) | MA in Creative and Cultural Entrepreneurship (eight degrees without and with pathways in music, fashion, design, computing, etc.) | MA in Cultural Policy, Relations and Diplomacy | MA in Social Entrepreneurship | MA in Tourism and Cultural Policy

64

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

At first glance, it would appear there is a mismatch between the number of staff and the number of degrees on offer—that is, too few staff for too many degrees. Or, instead of a mismatch, can we identify a strategy supporting the differentiation of the department’s master’s programs? To answer that question, we need a deeper understanding of what it is that the department offers. Further, an examination of the Institute for Creative and Cultural Entrepreneurship’s (ICCE) history and of the development of the different postgraduate courses is crucial. To this end, we asked Professor 4, the director of ICCE, for a description of the institute’s beginnings. They gave an account of the complex interplay of personnel, time, finances, and structures that underlie program development at all universities, but here specifically discussing Goldsmiths: What existed in about 1994 was a single MA in theater. And it had about six strands: there was writing, design, production management, etc. After trying it for a year or two, we decided to separate it out into six MAs, which shared a number of courses. We had a bunch of actors, writers, designers, and dramaturges. We call it disaggregating. In other words, it was one MA, then you pull it apart. And each [of the six new MAs] had a small number of students. I started with ten. That grew to being about 40 students. Also I became head of that department. … The reason that we called that an MA in Arts Administration was because City University [London] was already doing a cultural management or arts management [degree]; they were the first. We wanted to differentiate ourselves, and that [“arts administration”] was the American term. We had to compete with them to grow. (P4: 214ff.)

Then, in 2009, the program in Creative and Cultural Entrepreneurship was added, and was followed in 2010 by SYNAPSE, which is effectively a further means of creating revenue via business classes “sold” beyond ICCE to the entirety of Goldsmiths. Afterwards, the faculty established the MA in Social Entrepreneurship in 2010–11 (P1: 199), and then two MA programs with a focus on cultural policy were started in 2013 (P1: 112ff.). The creation of these two more recent strands was carried out in response to both the changing nature of the field and an increase in enrollment figures:

3.2 Goldsmiths, University of London

65

One of the reasons why we decided to go ahead with these two new MAs One of the reasons why we decided to go ahead with these two new MAs was that the previous existing MAs recruit extremely well. We have on average eighty students in [Arts Administration and Cultural Policy], and fifty or sixty in the [Creative and Cultural] Entrepreneurship. I started offering the module Cultural Relations and Diplomacy two years ago as an option to this MA. And we have had a very good response in terms of students wanting to do this module. Also, there was a lot of discussion around cultural relations and cultural diplomacy. And we thought, well, maybe then … many people would be interested in [these MA specializations]. That is why we went ahead and differentiated, and now we have this new MA [in Cultural Policy, Relations and Diplomacy]. … These three MAs share the module Cultural Policy and Practice, but then we have other core modules that differentiate them. (P1: 117ff.)

One can say that ICCE releases products at a high frequency, which might be due to the entrepreneurial spirit Professor 4, the director, stands for: Professor 4 has been the driving force in the institute’s development for nearly 20 years. However, the competitive environment of London has also had a clear effect on ICCE’s high rate of program production. That is, in order to distinguish its programs from those offered at King’s College London; City, University London; and Birkbeck, University of London and stay competitive, ICCE needs to carry out regular adaptions: ICCE is Goldsmiths’ response to the growing significance of the creative industries and cultural sector in the UK’s economy. Figures have shown that the creative industries account for eight per cent of the UK’s GDP and a rising part of its export trade and total employment. Business skills, management skills and entrepreneurial skills with a specific understanding of the sector are needed to support its continued growth.4

There is a constant drive that can be characterized as pragmatic and entrepreneurial. We assume that this is also due to the founder’s professional experience: the director of ICCE has a background in theater with a focus on

66

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

lighting, set design, and production management (P4: 170ff.). The constantly changing nature of theater—in which fresh productions and stage settings are regularly required—might contribute to Professor 4’s matter-of-fact perspective on what arts management is. In the next section, we take a closer look at the teaching situation and how the curricula of ICCE’s five MA programs are structured. Curriculum: “Disaggregation” and “differentiation” [Teaching takes place on] Monday, Tuesday half-day, Wednesday [in the first term]. Second term we do two days. Third term we do one day a week. So we are frontloading all the college work to start with, and then getting the students doing their dissertations, to do placements, and getting them out. (P3: 174ff.)

The specific structure outlined in the above quotation allows students to combine courses and internships in one year of study. In the MA in Arts Administration and Cultural Policy, for example, the first term includes four courses: Cultural Policy and Practice; Introduction to Audience Development; Introduction to Fundraising; and Seminar Series, which comprises guest lectures from practitioners in the field (museum marketing, heritage management, etc.). During the spring term, three more courses are taught, and in the third and final term, teaching is reduced to one day per week. This term includes classes on “contemporary arts management issues such as: copyright and performing rights; touring; cultural leadership and diplomacy.”5 To complete their studies, students are required to write a thesis, which is supposed to build on the previous two semesters’ coursework and practical experiences. In addition to its master’s programs, ICCE also offers a short course called Museums and Galleries as Creative Entrepreneurs. This course takes place two hours per week for one term and costs £1,280 for UK and EU students and £2,790 for international students.6 In the larger environment of Goldsmiths, there are a handful of other master’s programs that seem to share content in common with the ICCE programs, namely the MA in Anthropology and Cultural Politics7 and the

3.2 Goldsmiths, University of London

67

MA in Art and Politics.8 Though only one core course is shared between these degrees—Cultural Policy and Practice—they cover closely related issues in art, cultural studies, politics, management, and entrepreneurship. As we noted earlier, ICCE’s curriculum is based on five MA programs resulting in 13 degrees. The keywords that Professor 4 used to describe this very specific internal resource management strategy were “disaggregation” and “differentiation.” ICCE offers business, management, and entrepreneurship skills with the aim of educating students to work in the arts sector and the creative industries. Though each of the ICCE programs offers one or several specific thematic “pathways,” for example in music or fashion, they all share “the same story” and are similarly built (P4: 282f.), which we have visualized in graph form (see p. 68). Though there is a small amount of available resources as well as staff, these various master’s programs demonstrate differentiated areas of expertise that also cover a large amount of ground, thereby attracting a variety of students. The subsequent exchange that takes place between the MAs amounts to a cost-sensitive strategy, allowing ICCE to develop a broad program that doesn’t require too many resources to run. ICCE shows a virtuosic combination of resources to build its teaching capacities. Indeed, ICCE’s staff seems to be composed of “academic entrepreneurs”; each individual program directors is responsible for their own program and are invested in its success.

68

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Creative Entrepreneurship Professor 1: Creative Entrepreneurship (program director) Professor 2: Marketing Professor 3: Cultural Policy Professor 4: Arts Administration Professor 5: Community Development

Cultural Policy Professor 1: Creative Entrepreneurship Professor 2: Marketing Professor 3: Cultural Policy (program director) Professor 4: Arts Administration Professor 5: Community Development

Arts Administration Professor 1: Creative Entrepreneurship Professor 2: Marketing Professor 3: Cultural Policy Professor 4: Arts Administration (program director) Professor 5: Community Development

Figures 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3: Authors’ illustrations of ICCE’s internal resource management model. Each professor is responsible for the content and financial management of one program. In this manner, the department can offer different programs specifically tailored to the professors’ competences and the students’ needs. These graphs relate directly to Goldsmiths’ resource management; however, we found a similar strategy in other departments (see chapter 4: Analyzing the cases).

3.2 Goldsmiths, University of London

69

Financial resources: High-output, low-cost model In light of this high-output, low-cost model, the question of financial resources, and more precisely tuition fees, quickly arises. The one-year, fulltime programs at ICCE cost £8,000 for national and EU students; international students, who currently constitute the majority of ICCE’s student body, pay nearly twice that, at £15,000 per year.9 If a student enrolled in an ICCE degree audits or is assessed for a course in a different department, the tuition fees are redistributed accordingly, as outlined here by Professor 4: Professor 4: On the Arts Administration and Cultural Policy they do three of their four courses in the department, in ICCE. Even their option might be in ICCE. So all the money is coming in to us. Interviewer: And if they have a music path, one-fourth is going to the music department. Professor 4: Or one-sixth because of the dissertation we still do. With the ICCE degree, they are doing up to three courses in another department. And [students from other schools] are only doing entrepreneurial modeling in this department of their four courses. Therefore, we have to push out a lot of money to pay the other departments. Interviewer: So strategically it is better not to have too many students in the entrepreneurship masters. Professor 4: What we are looking at the moment is—unless we can be given another financial model—what is the point in sending them out to another department? If they teach them, they will also get the money. What we are looking into is if they can do more options within ICCE. (496ff.)

This passage underlines that entrepreneurship is not only a spirit conveyed by or a concept integrated into the curriculum; entrepreneurial thinking is also one of the strategies underlying program development at ICCE. The origin of

70

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

this strategy can be traced back to the tuition fee distribution model. It forces the individual departments at Goldsmiths to come up with means of earning money—that is, to create and offer as many courses as possible and to sell them. Then not only can these courses be chosen by the departments’ own students, but they can be offered to the whole university (as noted earlier in regard to the SYNAPSE curriculum). One can definitely state that with more than a hundred different master’s programs and specializations (eight of which are located within ICCE),10 Goldsmiths offers an impressive academic and artistic environment. This offer suggests a high level of expertise both in the school in general and in the individual departments. However, one might argue that this focus on cost efficiency and revenue through the differentiation of programs might also cause an overwhelming workload for the staff and enforce a cannibalization trend within Goldsmiths, whereby everyone is trying to recruit students from other departments. It starts to become apparent that ICCE is an extreme example of economizing higher education. Nonetheless, ICCE finds itself in a dilemma. On the one hand, the UK model forces institutions like ICCE toward a strong market orientation, without the possibility of benefiting from the conditions of a free market. They cannot ask for the high tuition fees of the US universities, which exclude or indebt people who cannot pay them. On the other hand, British universities are not as heavily state subsidized as German universities, where education is essentially free of charge (although certainly with the drawback of higher tax rates). The “neoliberal” approach of the British model thus results in insufficiently financed schools, especially in the humanities, enforcing the configurations and strategies described above. As of 2017, the tuition fees in the UK were limited to £9,250 per year;11 in 2020 the MA tuition fee at Goldsmith’s was £10,450 for a one yearlong full-time degree (approximately US$13,000) as compared to the School of the Art Institute of Chicago’s US$70,000 per master’s degree. In the past five years, these fees have become the most important source of income for UK institutions, as they move further away from state funding.12 However, the income generated is minimal compared to ICCE’s free-market American counterparts, while performance expectations remain similar.13

3.2 Goldsmiths, University of London

71

A further consequence of the dependence on tuition fees is the rising number of students admitted in order to make up the numbers. This, in turn, has an impact on the teaching quality. One professor here refers to a supermarket chain to describe the transformation of the higher education system in the UK: No, it’s not ideal. I’d prefer many fewer students. We have got 60 to 70 students. I just think it’s too many; but you know, it is all about money. This is the “Tescoization” of education. It’s McDonaldization with education. But that’s where British higher education is going. (P3: 283ff.)

Exploring the Goldsmiths campus The London Overground stations New Cross and New Cross Gate are both in walking distance of Goldsmiths’ South East London campus, which is located in a multicultural, inexpensive area in a formerly industrialized neighborhood that is in the process of gentrifying. In 1889, the building of the Royal Naval School (built in 1843) was bought by the Worshipful Company of

Figure 3.2.4 (left): View from the New Academic Building upon the Richard Hoggart Building, with the buildings of the financial district in the background Figure 3.2.5 (right): Hatcham House with the Ben Pimlott Building visible behind

72

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Figure 3.2.6 (left): The cafeteria and entranceway of the New Academic Building Figure 3.2.7 (right): Staircase leading the way up to ICCE

Goldsmiths.14 In 1891, the building was given to the University of London. The original Royal Naval School is still in use today as the main building of Goldsmiths, University of London, although it is now known as the Richard Hoggart Building. Due to the rapid growth of Goldsmiths, the campus today encompasses more than 40 buildings, comprising a mixture of old industrial buildings, former residential homes, and newly built complexes. Figure 3.2.5 shows Hatcham House, one of several row houses on St. James Road that have been converted into campus buildings. The Goldsmiths campus at large, with its trees and greenery, offers a calm oasis away from the hectic pace of London. There is no security check when entering the campus, creating the impression that the school is approachable and less formal, in contrast to the universities visited in New York City and Chicago. On the opposite side of Goldsmiths’ very first location, the Richard Hoggart Building, stands the New Academic Building (NAB)—so titled because no sponsor had yet been found to name it after.15 Here, on the third floor of the building, is where the Institute for Creative and Cultural Entrepreneurship is located.

73

3.2 Goldsmiths, University of London

The NAB is highly functional, and after stepping through the door, the first thing one interacts with is the cafeteria. The orange and yellow color concept somehow inspires optimism. However, the seemingly low-cost furniture has the opposite effect. On a wall, a poster of a cup of black coffee reads: “Everyone has an opinion. The most important one is your own. Come and discuss your dream business idea over a free cup of coffee. ICCE Coffee.” Beyond the cafeteria, the NAB provides several working spaces and computers for the students to use, along with an exhibition space in the basement. A dominant element of the building is the staircase, which allows a view into the various working spaces and through the glass facade. The working spaces around the staircase that connects the individual institutes and centers give the opportunity to meet outside of the usual context and foster exchange between students of various programs and institutes. The rooms of ICCE, on the third floor of the NAB, are grouped at the end of a corridor. The main office, in which the director, pro-

Figure 3.2.8 (top): The ICCE ­office from the outside Figure 3.2.9 (center): The corridor/waiting area between the teaching room, the ICCE office, and other ICCE facilities Figure 3.2.10 (bottom): Classroom NAB 326

74

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

gram coordinators, and lecturers work, has a large glass front, which all the students have to pass by to reach their lectures. The director’s desk is placed so that they can overlook the space and see the interactions of the professors and students, who are invited into the office through the usually open door, as well as view everyone who walks by. The main classroom, NAB 326, is located across the corridor from the ICCE office. The room is structured by six rows of six slim gray tables, with two light-gray plastic chairs per table. Although there are windows, the fluorescent light was often turned on. The tables and chairs combined with the gray-blue carpet create an office-like atmosphere; it seems that rather than style, the driving factors of the design were usability, practicality, and price. This businesslike atmosphere is emphasized even more in the seminar rooms, which could easily serve as training spaces for an insurance company or business school. This relatively standard interior design neither conveys being in an art school nor does it represent an institution with a high reputation. In addition, the design of the classrooms does not facilitate a participative atmosphere conducive to discussions and group work. Instead, the setup of the ICCE classrooms demands that one person performs at the front while the others listen. In class Not only do program directors and professors have to deal with increased enrollment numbers when managing and developing the programs on offer, but professors—and students—additionally have to work with heterogeneous student bodies. This situation requires taking into account the students’ diverse backgrounds during the conception phase of the curricula and classes. Professor 5 and Professor 1 both touched on this challenge during the interviews: The biggest challenge I think is bringing them in the beginning to a sort of common point in which we start the further learning. That’s why I find it extremely important in the beginning to have a more lecture-based approach, where I will try to define an area from which we then are able to

3.2 Goldsmiths, University of London

75

start discussions and furthering our learning both as a group and in personal terms. Also in terms of being very diverse—not just in terms of culture/ language, but also the academic backgrounds we come from. (P1: 887ff.) Professor 5: We think really carefully about structuring classes. So today was atypical, because I would normally also have a theoretical element in it, much more theory. Today it was much more playful. And we would normally have a half-an-hour talk element for the people that need that security that we are not just free falling into play. We try to structure it very much. So the more reflective learner gets the theory, the activist gets the action, and then the theory. We move between one-to-one, one-to-many, one-to-few teaching. All within three hours. So any three-hour chunk should fit most learning types and most personality types. Interviewer: And if the students have suggestions for improvements about the idea of the class, how does this work, how do they bring these things in? Professor 5: That’s the problem of working with entrepreneurs: they keep telling you their opinions (laughter). So we [the professors] will adapt midway through a session, we will adapt things for another time. We have a rule that people that come early to a class can influence the way that class is delivered. We [the professors] try to be in the classroom ten to fifteen minutes before it starts. So if somebody has got a great idea or didn’t think it would particularly work the week before, they come and see us in advance. Then we are trying to adapt it to what they need. Or we’ll explain to them why it was done in a certain way. (P5: 480ff.)

As a method of coping with ICCE’s heterogeneous student body, the teaching concepts are—at least in some classes—student centered. The faculty tries to adapt to the students’ needs and interests, as the above quotations show. Additionally, the students are considered to be entrepreneurs whose drive contributes to the development of the classes. To gain deeper insight into the courses and the implementation of pedagogic ideas at Goldsmiths, we attended several classes. Field notes taken

76

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

during a course with Professor 6—one of the few professors who is more active in terms of research—are quoted below; the topic of the day’s class was social entrepreneurship. The notes are complemented by the observer’s comments and impressions, which are differentiated using square brackets. I am ten minutes late; the lecturer just invited me to the class during lunch in the cafeteria. We wanted to meet this afternoon for a coffee anyway. Entering the classroom, the lecturer asks me to introduce myself. Afterwards, the class briefly discusses a text. Eleven students are taking part in this class (three of them are male; all are from ethnically different backgrounds; their ages range from 25 to 45). The students had to prepare texts from various journals and books (e.g., P. S. Adler and C. Heckscher (2006), The Firm as a Collaborative Community; P. N. Bloom and J. G. Dees, Cultivate Your Ecosystem; C. Shirky, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations). They took written notes while studying the texts. Most of them have these notes in front of them; only two laptops are on the tables. Due to the small group size and the informal behavior of the lecturer, the atmosphere is quite intimate. It is a nice and sunny November day. Looking out of the window, I can see some trees with their colorful leaves and the impressive skyline of London at the horizon. Generally, the class is about social organizational studies and looks at social entrepreneurship and theories to understand the underlying models; keywords include collaborative logic, Gemeinschaftslogik and Gesellschaftslogik [community logic and society logic], community, coordination, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, production networks, online-offline synergies, communities of practice, and open-solution society. The discussion moves forward with readings of passages of the text that the class then transfers to everyday experiences. Questions addressed include, for example, “What are the boundaries of a network of social innovation such as Wikipedia?”; “How is power, or authority, organized or created?”; “If you do not have a boss in an egalitarian network and someone does a really bad job, who can fire them?” The class also discusses topics such as the commodification of values and disseminating values. The students come up with interesting neologisms like “anarchosyndicalism,” a combination

3.2 Goldsmiths, University of London

77

of “anarchy” and “syndicalism.” More than half of the students actively take part in this lively discussion; students listened carefully and participated actively. Time went fast; there is no conclusion or preview of the next class. At 2:04 p.m. the class ends. [This was one of the few classes, of all schools visited, that had quite a high participation rate and was based on academic texts. It was obvious that only students who were interested in the topic and who enjoyed the style of the lecturer took this course.]

It is noteworthy that despite the strong focus on teaching at ICCE, the teaching quality does not seem to be consistent. The interviewed professors seem to put a lot of effort into the structure and pedagogic concept of the courses; however, these efforts do not seem to fully come to fruition. In response to our surveys, the students evaluated the courses as more “interesting” than “boring” and “inspiring” rather than “inhibiting.” While the workload seems to have met a nearly perfect balance between being overtaxing and subchallenging according to the students, there was disagreement on the effectiveness of the course structure: some considered their classes to be consistent, while others assessed them as rather chaotic (see appendix GS, table 3.2.1). These varying responses on course structure could be linked to the different teaching formats of each class. In addition to students going out into the field for site visits, guest speakers from art institutions come to ICCE to give lectures. Furthermore, the theoretical background provided in class is coupled with case studies to foster practical insights into the diverse career paths students might pursue. One student criticized the practice of inviting professionals from the arts field as guest speakers; another student expressed their discontent about the superficiality of an interdepartmental class: But even that part [the practice orientation] is more storytelling. It’s neither/nor. It’s not properly academic in a sense, but neither is it proper hard skills. It’s more like: “Yes, let’s get someone in, and he tells us some stories from his real everyday work for one or two hours.” (S5: 267ff.)

78

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Cultural Policy is characteristic for the quality of this program. It is really interesting, but it is not completely my thing. Especially I would have found it more interesting, for example, if you take a case study and you go in-depth. We are presented the cultural policy of one state in one hour, because there are two countries per hour. That does not make sense. My impression was that it was interesting, but it stays on the surface. And the surface we can find at a lot of places [other universities]. The professor is an expert, but we are not really taking benefit from this expert. (S2: 120ff.)

The second class attended at ICCE was about marketing and audience development. The field notes from this course illustrate the differences in teaching format and teaching style across the institution’s classes, as well as the overall impression these classes leave. I am a few minutes late; the class has already started. I sneak in and take a seat in the last row, next to the door. In the room there are around 60 students, out of whom approximately seven are male, with an age from 25 to 30 (some are maybe a bit older). Today, project presentations are given from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. and from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. Most groups are made up of four or five students. In every group, each student gives a five-minute PowerPoint presentation about one art institution. The general topic of the group currently presenting is “diversity.” The students analyzed art institutions in Great Britain in respect to their diversity policy and how these policies are put into practice. Topics on which they focus include disability, gender, ethnicities, social status. After presenting their results, the group gives a two-minute conclusion on their findings. A short applause follows, and the audience asks some questions, such as “Can a strong diversity policy lead to positive discrimination?” and “What are the expenses of a strong focus on inclusion?” These questions are followed by a rather short discussion. The lecturer follows the students’ discussion for a few minutes and then also makes comments on the issue of diversity and their own perspective: “Until you get the board diverse, nothing gets diverse” and “There is a book which should send you to sleep very fast, because it is so dense with many cases and numbers; it is written by Robert E. Page. The book proves that

3.2 Goldsmiths, University of London

diverse groups are producing better results.”16 The lecturer asks for a last question. It is 2:30 p.m. and the next group has to start. Five women and one man are presenting. The first speaker, who is slightly difficult to understand, presents the National Theatre of Scotland. Again, PowerPoint is used. They generally introduce the theater. The second speaker focuses on the theater’s accessibility practices as well as its environmental impact. Another speaker compares the National Theatre of Scotland to the National Theatre in England and a theater in Croatia, asking what the various roles and ideas of a “national theater” are: “Defining Scotland’s role in Europe without limiting itself to one role.” The presentation is over at 3:07 p.m. and the lecturer asks for questions. Only one question is raised, so the lecturer takes over, stands up from their chair and walks up to the front of the class; their question is: “How will the theater be used for the political referendum [for Scottish independence]?” There is some murmuring in the class, but since no one really answers, the lecturer gives the answer themselves. The third group starts its presentation on “artists in residence” at 3:12 p.m. All presenters are female; only one out of five is a native English speaker. The art institutions that are portrayed are located in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and others. Again, the group focuses on how the institutions interact with and include various specific audiences (children, farmers, etc.). This presentation ends at 3:40 p.m. and is followed by a very short applause. The lecturer asks, “Thoughts? Comments?” One critical comment is made about the politics of residencies: having to pay for your own studio, materials, etc., implies not really having a residency. It is now 3:45 p.m. and the students around me start to pack up their stuff. Final applause. One group will be shifted to tomorrow because it did not fit into today’s schedule. [All in all, I did not get much out of the last presentation. Some of the others were more profound, especially the one on the National Theatre of Scotland. Due to the fact that the whole group concentrated on one institution, they could analyze various aspects. The others had just a few minutes to draw a picture of the various institutions and their policies and practices. No presentation used statistics, charts, or literature references; handouts were not distributed either. There was no academic reflection on the policies nor any questions asking how they are implemented and could be developed further.]

79

80

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

The concept of this class, being entirely based on student presentations, led to some disappointment, as Student 2 mentioned above. Student 5 even reported that several students failed a course, which was—in their opinion—linked to a deficiency within the department: I thought it would be good to go to a further department in terms of what I could do on top of the core program. And that was absolutely the case. It was totally worth it, because the teaching outside the ICCE program was really good. However, the ICCE program itself was rather a disappointment than a success. I think what all those programs try to offer is to bridge the entrepreneurial or management skill set with the artistic mindset. But that was something that they [the ICCE faculty] couldn’t do, because they lacked in skills that they could pass along when it comes to proper business skills, like accounting for example, which is really important. We were, for example, asked to write a business plan. For that you have to be able to sort of play with the numbers and come up with a proper, solid business plan. And you can only do this when you know something about accounting. … So out of fifty [students], twenty failed the business plan. … All the people who passed had some form of experience of having worked for a company before where they had to deal with numbers. But the proper artists that came into the prohgram, like designers or painters, basically all failed because they [ICCE professors] didn’t teach them the skills. (S5: 137ff. and 164ff.)

This criticism is in marked contrast with Professor 4’s account of how teaching is supposed to inform practice (see also the first two quotations of the “In class” section): We have a course next term, called Management 1 and Management 2. One of them is an internship course and the other one is a business plan for an existing arts organization. That is where students will go out for two to three days a week working with that organization. And they will write a sixthousand-word essay. What we do is teach before they go in January. They have a three- to four-week session to give them the language to write about

3.2 Goldsmiths, University of London

81

the culture of management. So it is partially taught and partially experienced. The essay at the end is more about them analyzing the organization. The key question is: Does their structure deliver their mission? (P4: 7ff.)

Obviously, the students’ and the professors’ opinions about the learning situation of that particular course differ. This discrepancy was also mirrored in the evaluation practice. Class evaluations and evaluation practices Professors hold varying opinions and knowledge about the paper evaluations students are asked to fill out at the end of each module. While two professors were aware of evaluation procedures, two other professors either stated their disinterest in or lack of knowledge about the results of the evaluations, which summarize students’ criticisms and suggest changes to courses. Yes, we have student evaluation, but I might never look at them (laughter), because I am never shown them. I honestly don’t care. If there is a problem, students tell me, that’s fine. A lot of these evaluation processes are quite stage-managed. Sometimes, if students want certain things, I talk to them about what’s going on. (P3: 355ff.) They evaluate it at the end of the module and that is written. It is all filed and collected. I think Professor 4 deals with that, because there is a quality assurance. I am not familiar with the procedure because I am new to running the program. That is available on our VLE [virtual learning environment] for the students. So they can see by program how the performance has been evaluated and the feedback. (P1: 999ff.) We have absolute serious monitoring and evaluation meetings for the programs, so there are forms that [the students] fill out, there are meetings to come to, there are course representatives. (P5: 501f.)

82

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

We do a course evaluation which is a written document at the end of each course and that is specific to that course. It asks a number of questions about what [the students] find most valuable and about resources. The very first thing that happens is that the faculty get those 60 forms. They write a quick five- to 10-line resume of the key points. That goes to the head of department. If there are problems that can be dealt with immediately, they can be dealt with. The conveners, because they have open tutorial, are always available if people have immediate concerns. You then have program meetings where you get to look at the program overall. That is for student representatives. You combine those two together into an annual report and you have the external examiners’ report. (P4: 727ff.)

Taking these four statements into consideration, a question regarding course development can be raised: ICCE proclaims well-thought-through courses and very strongly emphasizes teaching. But how can its teaching concepts be improved if half of its staff ignores evaluations? Professor 4, the founder and director of the program, seems to have both a powerful position and to be one of the few staff members who holds in-depth knowledge of interdepartmental processes. Despite a strong focus on teaching, the evaluation practices informing the improvement of programs and courses do not (only) rely on factors included in standardized paper or online evaluation forms. Rather, they seem to be based on personal communication between students and faculty as well as on individualized evaluative statements the students hand in (something we found to be similar in other programs). As some interviews showed, Professor 4 is constantly asking for adjustments of programs, contents, and the teaching situation based on their impression, rather than according to analyses of the written evaluations. Students’ perspectives The interviews carried out in parallel to the on-site observations asked students to assess their teaching units, and both professors and students were asked to rate the atmosphere among themselves. Despite the above-quoted opposing opinions on the teaching quality, the students and professors we interviewed

3.2 Goldsmiths, University of London

83

described the atmosphere as rather collegial, cooperative, inspiring, and motivating (appendix GS, table 3.2.3). Although students want to change things at the university and only rarely think they have an actual impact on curriculum decisions (appendix GS, table 3.2.2), they are happy during their time spent at the institute (appendix GS, table 3.2.4). This may be due to their experience of the teaching units as rather interesting and inspiring, not too overtaxing, and not insufficiently challenging either (appendix GS, table 3.2.1). One reason for this assessment might be that ICCE students have the opportunity to partake in courses in other departments and centers at Goldsmiths; a further reason could be that, with the help of the disaggregation model, ICCE offers classes tailored to the students’ interests. The courses do not primarily address questions of academic work; rather, they are adapted to the students’ needs in terms of professional, hands-on qualifications. In this context, a further explanation for the students’ overall satisfaction could be related to time: these master’s degrees are one-year programs focusing on entrepreneurship at an institution that practices short product-release cycles, so to speak. The students come from all over the world to spend a year in London and to learn business and management skills that enhance the students’ employability in the field of art administration and will allow them to quickly enter the professional field after graduation. Disposition: “We are creative and radical and we are going to change the world”17 The students’ diverse interests, backgrounds, and career ambitions are difficult to address in a department offering one MA program per faculty member. It’s up to the students to make use of the resources on offer throughout the entire university and to benefit from the one-year study program in the best possible way. It is obvious, however, that such a self-driven manner of study depends on the students’ personalities as “entrepreneurs” and “explorers.” Self-confidence, idealism in terms of social change, and innovation characterize the self-image of the student quoted in the title of this section. These characteristics can also be found on ICCE’s website, as well as in the descriptions Student 4 and Professor 5 provided of the department’s disposition:

84

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

ICCE delivers enterprise, cultural management and policy education to the creative and cultural sectors, and supports research into new approaches to business, financial models and management in the Creative Economy. It delivers a range of academic programmes and presents activities and events to promote an environment in which creative and cultural entrepreneurship can flourish. Our approach is to integrate entrepreneurship within the development of creative practices, and to take a creative approach to the development of new businesses and the infrastructure that supports them. … ICCE takes the view that Entrepreneurship is the creation of value, this value could be social, aesthetic or financial, and that when entrepreneurial activity is strong the three strands are interwoven.18 There is a societal responsibility. … It starts really simply with “How can I help people to maximize their potential and to reach their ambition?” … When I first started here, Professor 4 asked me to come up with a definition of entrepreneurship. And I have been really clear that it is a creation of value—aesthetic, social. and financial value. Because even if it is not a piece of creative work for societal change, the audience is society and the audience gets value from it. (P5: 308ff.) I think that the department is … being quite flexible in the sense that you are not really pushed. I think it’s probably a part of the vision that you basically have to make what you want to make from the course, and also this whole entrepreneurship thing. I guess they want to try to make you be creative in an entrepreneurial sense. (S4: 462ff.)

Without a doubt, one can say that “entrepreneurship” is the key aspect of ICCE. It forms the structures of and crossovers between the offered programs, the positioning of the institute within the university, and the school’s curriculum. In addition, it manifests in the self-understanding of the students and professors: they truly believe in “entrepreneurship” as being the answer to current issues facing the arts and culture market. It is noteworthy, however, that despite the strong and clear statements published on the ICCE website in regard to its ambitious entrepreneurial

3.2 Goldsmiths, University of London

85

vision, the students expressed only general thoughts on the departmental culture. They simply considered the department as stimulating and promoting a friendly atmosphere: “It is all very free and encouraging and passionate and people strive to innovate, which I think is fantastic. People are open-minded” (S1: 325ff.). Even though the notion of “creative entrepreneurs” was used by students without deeper reflection on the term and its implications, terms and phrases like “being creative,” “changing the world,” “entrepreneurship,” “exploring,” and “thinking outside the box” are key for the students’ self-understanding. This is also mirrored in the following short quotations on students’ self-images: We are “cultural enablers.” (S1: 309f.) We’re a group of international students aspiring to have a great career in the arts world. (S4: 433ff.) I think what we all had in common was this creative and open-minded—maybe, “you think outside the box”—mindset. We are explorers. (S5: 420ff.)

Yet, this attitude of enabling and exploring seems to stand at odds with the dominant role of Professor 4: Things are very centered on Professor 4. And I think on their vision. And they have a clear vision of how they want to develop the department. I think they are extremely good at identifying people that can help them in their vision. They kind of see the potential in you. Obviously, they use it in the advantage of their vision for the department, but also give the opportunity to the person to develop in their individual capacity. I always felt that they give a lot of opportunities to staff. (P1: 672ff. and 715ff.)

Clearly, the central figure of the department is its founder, Professor 4. They are omnipresent and seem to be involved in every decision—big or small—

86

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

regarding the institute’s development. In addition, other professors further stated that Professor 4 was an entrepreneur themselves (P5: 288) and had built “the team around themselves” (P2: 635). As discussed earlier, this somewhat paternalistic role is mirrored in the architecture: from their desk in the ICCE office, the director can not only watch over their staff but also look through the blinds and observe what is going on in the hallway and near the main classroom (see fig. 3.2.8). Professors’ profiles The sections investigating the students’ dispositions showed that the students aim at becoming entrepreneurs in the arts field, rather than at achieving academic positions. In examining where the influence for these career paths comes from, the professors’ profiles provide interesting insights. Nearly all staff members have impressive work experience at various art organizations. Many of them also have international experience and do consultancy work in parallel to their university positions. However, almost none of them have pursued an academic career, and their overall publication activity is rather low, especially when it comes to peer-reviewed articles. The ICCE professors’ networking and consulting activities, on the other hand, can be considered very strong. Below we list the profiles of the professors interviewed in the context of this study. Professor 1 holds a PhD in Cultural Policy and Management from City, University of London, an MA in Arts Management also from City, and a bachelor’s degree in International Relations, with specialization in Cultural and Political Relations from Instituto Superior de Ciências Sociais e Políticas, Lisbon. They are program director of the MA in Cultural Policy, Relations and Diplomacy and of the MA in Tourism and Cultural Policy. They are a member of several networks, including ENCATC, the European network on cultural management and policy; its American counterpart, the Association of Arts Administration Educators; and two UK-based networks called Understanding the Role of Cultural Products in Cultural Diplomacy and Diplomatic Cultures. They are also one of the editors of the Journal of Cultural Management and Policy.

3.2 Goldsmiths, University of London

87

Professor 2 is an associate lecturer who has given classes on European cultural policies at Goldsmiths since 2002. They are founder and director of a consultancy in the field of culture, and were director of the European Cultural Foundation in the UK (2002–12) as well as a visiting lecturer on international cultural policies at City, University of London (1984–2007). They have work experience in information and research, cultural and leisure management, and international affairs, for example at Arts Council England. They cofounded the international cultural research network CIRCLE and chaired the European Task Force on Culture and Development that produced the seminal report In from the Margins for the Council of Europe (1994–96). Professor 3, a lecturer at ICCE, holds a PhD in Cultural Policy from City University, London, and teaches classes in arts and cultural policy. Recently, they have lectured on cultural theory and policy as well as popular culture and community arts for the Open University, London; Birkbeck, University of London; and London Metropolitan University. Their professional experience includes work with excluded communities, teaching in adult education, youth work, teaching disturbed prisoners, and moderating and evaluating arts programs. They also work as a visual artist. The director of ICCE, Professor 4, is also founder and director of the postgraduate program in Arts Administration and Cultural Policy. They originally trained in visual arts and as an art teacher and theater designer. They have also taught arts management training courses including in arts marketing, arts education, fundraising, copyright, and strategic planning for the British Council and other agencies in Russia, Romania, Korea, the Philippines, Cyprus, France, Hong Kong, Vietnam, and India. They are a fellow of the Royal Geographical Society, a trustee of the Royal Victoria Hall Foundation, and a council member of the British Centre of the International Theatre Institute. In 2002, they were awarded an honorary doctorate by the Academy of Performing Arts in Bratislava, Slovakia. They are a member of the editorial advisory board of the Journal of Cultural Management and Policy. Professor 5 is the program director of the MA in Creative and Cultural Entrepreneurship and the deputy director of ICCE. In parallel, they are a trainer, facilitator, coach, and consultant. They have hands-on experience of running creative businesses as well as being a lecturer in creative enter-

88

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

prise, cultural policy, and management. Their work experience includes organizations such as Indian Institute of Management Bangalore, Arts Council England, Nesta (the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts), and Cultural Enterprise Office, Scotland. The faculty profiles confirm that practical experience and consultancy work outweigh research and publishing activity at ICCE. Tellingly, none of these profiles include exact information on the staff’s education, that is, the universities or years they graduated. However, the biographies also confirm an observation made during the research stay: the faculty members participate in international conferences, do consultancy work for various governments, and sit on boards of international associations, with all professors contributing to the development of the fields of cultural policy and entrepreneurship. ENCATC and the International Association for Arts and Cultural Management (AIMAC) are just two of the organizations ICCE faculty are involved with, and each of these organizations is linked to an annual or biannual conference as well as to the Journal of Cultural Management and Cultural Policy. Partaking in these international networks not only enhances ICCE’s visibility but further allows the center to maintain contact with current players in the field and to closely follow their academic work. Moreover, being heavily involved in the field as consultants and board members allows ICCE faculty to take up the role of gatekeepers and to actively form the field they operate in—without having to invest too much in doing their own research. In light of these insights, it does not come as a surprise that several professors considered good word-of-mouth to be crucial to attracting future students. Put differently, Professor 4’s declared aim was to “get a virtuous circle going” (P4: 531). The idea behind this expression is to successfully place graduates in institutions or organizations that can then be integrated into the curriculum. This could, for example, take the form of giving lectures as a guest, providing site visits, or taking interns, and at the same time such an arrangement could work as an advertisement of the institute and its programs:

3.2 Goldsmiths, University of London

89

60 to 70 percent of all applications know an alumnus. So the alumni are our greatest advertisers. And that works. For example, in Chile we have probably got five or six people either working in the government or the opera house or the regional arts areas. They all know each other and have come over the last four years. (P4: 582ff.)

This pragmatic attitude coupled with the entrepreneurial setup of the center and the interest in hands-on knowledge is emphasized on the website19 and becomes evident in the following quotation from Professor 2: You can [teach out of the textbook], but it is not actually very helpful to your students, because things move on. And I think one of the reasons why some universities, like City [University of London], and perhaps Goldsmiths, bring in external people is that they are in the field and they are more up to date with things. (P2: 714ff.)

Networking is key for budget-friendly resource management in terms of attracting new students as well as guest lecturers to the center. Or, in other words: ICCE’s diversity of engagement goes beyond the academic disciplines. … ICCE also engages directly with external partners from the creative industries and from other specialist higher education institutions. … Through their direct engagement, all of them ensure that ICCE’s courses and other activities address the priorities and needs of the growing creative and cultural sector itself.20

90

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Why Goldsmiths? The interviews with professors and the program marketing materials all point toward the efforts of ICCE, and Goldsmiths in general, to integrate field experience with in-class instruction. Even though the invitation of guest lecturers sometimes leads to superficial “storytelling” classes, it also enables students to establish direct contact with actors 3.2.11: The British Museum from London’s institutions. During Figure at 11 a.m. on a Sunday morning. the interviews, students were asked for the reasons they chose their programs. We were able to identify three main reasons: 1) the university’s reputation; 2) the city of London and its cultural activities; and 3) future professional opportunities. It is surprising that neither the fellowship options nor the tuition fees seemed to play an important role in the students’ decision-making process, especially considering the annual amount of £8,000 for national and EU students and £15,000 for international students. Even though students identified ICCE’s general orientation—that is, entrepreneurship—as an important factor to consider, the professors’ teaching and research foci were not taken into account (see appendix GS, table 3.2.5). Since we’ve already undertaken an in-depth examination of the first factor of consideration—the university’s reputation—at the outset of this chapter and in the “Professors’ profile” section, let’s now take a look at the second: the city and its cultural activities. What are the typical impressions of London? What, for example, would be the most likely things one would encounter during a day out in the city? The answer is multifaceted: heritage, parks, and royalty; representation, protectionism, and colonialism, as illustrated by famous monuments like the Tower Bridge and musealized collections; and a stronghold for financial capital, mirrored in the City of London district.

3.2 Goldsmiths, University of London

91

In addition to architecture that testifies to the nation’s colonial history and the city’s (former) leading economy, London is home to internationally known museums and auction houses. The city’s entrepreneurial spirit is omnipresent, as is the legacy of a money-driven Thatcherite society. Entrepreneurship can be identified as an optimistic way of promoting self-organization in a neoliberal society, in which subsidies for the arts are increasingly becoming marginalized and art institutions are first and foremost considered as tourist attractions. Even the independent art scene in London seems to be driven by the entrepreneurial spirit: the city is expensive, and one has to create one’s own business and market. This businesslike atmosphere is illustrated in the following field note: One evening I was taken out by the students to see an opening, which was—in their opinion—an important event to attend. We went to Bargehouse, an abandoned industrial building, and saw a group show, organized by Zealous, an agency that artists can join to promote their work. Business cards were positioned beside every artwork and label. This very pragmatic model—treating artworks as goods to be sold in quite an everyday manner—was rather surprising to me. As a practice of exclusivity, one only could get in with a personal invitation.

Cultural consumption opportunities are infinite in a city like London. The great accumulation of arts organizations attracts an international student body to ICCE, with each of these students hoping to get a good job after graduation via the program’s job placement strategy— a hope ignited by Goldsmiths’ marketing materials and career services for students. Take, for example, this 2008 statement by Geoffrey Crossick, Warden of Goldsmiths, published on the ICCE website: Goldsmiths has demonstrated its strengths at the cutting edge of the creative industries. Its teaching programmes and research engage with some of the leading areas of the sector. The College’s students in the key subjects are much in demand by employers once they graduate, although many of them

92

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

choose to set up freelance enterprises of their own, while its research and knowledge transfer activities are of increasing importance in a fast-growing creative economy where new knowledge and its transmission is fundamental to key elements in the value chain. Goldsmiths academics and students have been increasingly involved with the business sector in the creative industries. … London is a very specific location for such a new institute, and its location would make the resources of what is arguably the world’s most dynamic creative and cultural global city available to the students and programmes of ICCE. There is no better city in which this new venture could be located.21

Despite the somewhat self-promoting tone and the overly optimistic outlook on the job situation in the cultural industries, the Warden’s statement, and others like it, seems to attract a large international student body to Goldsmiths. However, opportunities to gain secure employment in the cultural industries are not readily available in a highly competitive market like London’s. This becomes a high-stakes issue especially for international students who come to London on a study visa and who, if they want to stay in the country, are required to gain employment immediately after graduation—and after just one year in the city under ICCE’s twelve-month master’s program model. Professor 1 is aware of this situation and considered it a challenge that the department needs to deal with, and Student 5 spoke of some fellow students they knew who had to leave London shortly after graduation: Well, the problem is visas. If they are EU, it is not a problem. But the professional environment in London is very competitive, because they can pick and choose really whomever they want. They will go for top people with the best qualifications and a lot of experience. So cultural organizations in London are spoiled for choice. I know some examples of students from last year—they are still in London, but they are doing little jobs here and there. I think most of them will go back to their countries. Obviously, if visas are an issue, they are here for one year and that is it. (P1: 537ff.) The job market in London is ridiculous. It’s really hard to get jobs. I think four out of 50 people in my program were able to stay. The rest had to go

3.2 Goldsmiths, University of London

93

back wherever they were from, and we had people from 25 countries in the program. … Some maybe got internships where they were not paid anything, but proper jobs that actually pay your rent and your bills—definitely not. Most of them didn’t get jobs. And if you’re not from a European country, which I think maybe 20 out of those 50 were, you also have to get a visa, and that’s an extra hurdle obviously. (S5: 28ff. and 86ff.)

With regard to the students’ future professional options, it is important to mention that none of the students explicitly stated that they chose the program to benefit from the possibility of a job placement facilitated by the institute’s existing network. Rather, they were interested in the subjects discussed and skill sets offered. Some of the interviewed students were already working or wanted to work on the “management side” of the arts (S1, S4), and others were aiming at a self-employed future (S2, S4, S5). It is interesting to compare these career visions to the professors’ and students’ assessment of the competences that ICCE professors should possess. While the students agree on their priorities (“enthusiasm,” “professional qualification,” “motivating personality”), the professors mentioned further qualities that are important to being successful in teaching environments (“empathy,” “appreciative treatment,” etc.). Both groups agreed on two competences an ICCE professor does not need to have: an “interested personality” (being interested in the students) and “frequent publishing” (see appendix GS, table 3.2.6). The fit between assessment and reality in this case is spot on, since, indeed, only two of the faculty members recently published articles or books. Furthermore, ICCE’s characteristic pragmatism comes into play once more: in order to be self-employed or to succeed in the arts, education does not necessarily need to be academic. ICCE provides hands-on skills and capacities the students can put into practice during their placement and in future employment. Another answer that stood out is the fact that all students unanimously named “enthusiasm” as a competence expected of the professors. This could be linked to the entrepreneurial spirit, which—if indeed indicative of the students’ future career paths—requires idealism, motivation, and initiative. Again, the fit with the department’s philosophy seems to be good.

94

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Conclusion Through the observations and analyses of the field notes and interviews, we could conclude that the Institute for Creative and Cultural Entrepreneurship has adjusted well to its environment: on a microlevel, it adapts to Goldsmiths, University of London by bringing the ideas and skills of the cultural entrepreneur into other art disciplines. But ICCE does not just fill a niche at Goldsmiths, as the center also gains valuable resources from its host institution: students from other programs buy into ICCE’s programs, and ICCE profits from an inspiring environment that allows students the option to take diverse classes and access teaching staff available in the other departments and institutes at Goldsmiths. On a macrolevel, ICCE profits from the various resources London offers: its manifold art institutions (museums, concert halls, opera houses, heritage sites, parks), commercial art industry (auction houses, galleries, music and fashion industries), and the nexus of London itself as a cultural capital. Additionally, ICCE manages to transform these resources into opportunities for students and thereby generate an added value for the program itself. That is, the staff bring in practitioners from various institutions who offer internships to the ICCE students (which they pay for through their tuition fees), and thus London’s status as an international hot spot for the creative industries is injected directly into the program. In a nutshell: ICCE is excellent at developing and bundling resources and capabilities to meet its needs. The practical connection to the arts field fostered through the strong networking activities of all ICCE faculty members was also emphasized in the teaching units observed during the on-site research. That is, only a few of the faculty members were involved with larger research projects and none has pursued an academic career path. Rather, they are highly professionally and practically experienced, and this is what they convey through their lectures. Secondly, most of the professors participate in international conferences, work as consultants, and are members of advisory boards, simultaneously enhancing their own and ICCE’s visibility. Networking seems to be key for achieving reputation, attracting students, and gaining resources from art organizations. In the case of ICCE’s strategy,

3.2 Goldsmiths, University of London

95

academic expertise was not necessary to gaining a reputation or being successful (in terms of attracting students and making money), which is opposite to what was shown in the case of the Centre for Cultural Policy Studies at the University of Warwick. No ICCE staff member had a specific academic career mirrored in outstanding research and publications. Nor did the students who were interested in the program have any particular academic interest. It is also obvious that the ICCE has a distinct profile: it is all about the idea of “entrepreneurship.” Maybe it would be too extreme to call that a departmental ideology, but clearly it is a strong disposition. “Entrepreneurship” is included in the names of both the ICCE itself and some of its master’s programs in order to distinguish its offerings from competing programs in London. Along with this being a characteristic of the institute’s ethos and spirit, entrepreneurial skills are directly conveyed to the students to prepare them for a professional career in the creative industries. Furthermore, the differentiated portfolio of master’s degrees can be called entrepreneurial: the programs ICCE offers are all similarly structured and feed into each other, even though each has a specific thematic focus. One faculty member is responsible for each program’s administrative and financial management. In this manner, ICCE can accommodate diverse interests, offer an impressive portfolio, and attract a large number of students, who pay tuition fees. Since ICCE also sells its courses to other schools and departments at Goldsmiths, the center is able to access several income sources while using few of its own resources. The idea of entrepreneurship is further mirrored in the role of Professor 4. They founded and for ten years have been director of ICCE, and Professor 4 continues to be responsible for innovation and change at the institute. In any case, it is important to mention that the center was more or less started from scratch and that the founder seems to have had significant autonomy in forming the institute according to their idea of entrepreneurship in the arts—which was unique and visionary. At least from a German perspective, this autonomy is outstanding: strategic decisions at German universities have to pass several boards to become effective, and very often this is a lengthy and arduous process. At ICCE, on the contrary, the entrepreneurial character also seems to permeate its decision-making processes.

96

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Notes 1

Goldsmiths, University of London. (2020). Study with ICCE. Retrieved March 18, 2014, from http://www.gold.ac.uk/icce/our-degrees/

2

Goldsmiths, University of London. (2020). Staff in ICCE. Retrieved March 18, 2014, from http:// www.gold.ac.uk/icce/staff/

3

Goldsmiths, University of London. (2020). Study with ICCE. Retrieved March 18, 2014, from http://www.gold.ac.uk/icce/our-degrees/

4

Goldsmiths, University of London. (2020). About ICCE. Retrieved March 18, 2014, from http:// www.gold.ac.uk/icce/aboutus/

5

Goldsmiths, University of London. (2014). MA Arts Administration & Cultural Policy. Retrieved March 17, 2014, from http://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-arts-admin-cultural-policy/

6

Goldsmiths, University of London. (2020). Short Course—Museums and Galleries as Creative Entrepreneurs. Retrieved October 2, 2020, from https://www.gold.ac.uk/short-courses/museums-and-galleries-as-creative-entrepreneurs/

7

“The MA Anthropology and Cultural Politics is an exciting interdisciplinary programme in anthropology, directed at students from a wide range of disciplines in the humanities and social and political sciences.” Goldsmiths, University of London. (2020). MA Anthropology & Cultural Politics. Retrieved October 2, 2020, from https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-anthropology-cultural-politics/

8

“Innovative and dynamic, the MA in Art and Politics was launched in 2009 and has already become a leader in its field. It was inspired by appeals to situate ‘practice’ in terms of a variety of contemporary discourses and the increased incorporation of political and social agendas into art. Our program is one that views both art and politics differently—ie in relation to a central dynamic of change. … Working with a mixed constituency of students from Art; Politics; International Studies; Philosophy; Cultural Studies as well as numerous other disciplines, we take up the challenge to develop frameworks and spaces which are mixed and mobile and which can operate in trans-disciplinary settings.” Goldsmiths, University of London. (2014). MA Art & Politics. Retrieved March 17, 2014, from https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-art-politics/

9

An overview of the current tuition fees for all programs available at Goldsmiths College can be found here: Goldsmiths, University of London. (2020). Postgraduate Fees 2020–21, Retrieved October 2, 2020, from https://www.gold.ac.uk/media/docs/students/pg-fees-2020-21.pdf

10

Goldsmiths, University of London. (2020). A–Z list of our postgraduate programmes. Retrieved October 2, 2020, from https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/a-z/

11

For an ongoing discussion on the raising of maximum fees, see Wikipedia. (2020). Universities in the United Kingdom—Funding. Retrieved October 2, 2020, from https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Universities_in_the_United_Kingdom#Funding;



Wikipedia. (2020). Tuition fees in the United Kingdom. Retrieved October 2, 2020, from https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuition_fees_in_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-84.

12

Universities UK. (2020). The funding environment for universities: An assessment. Retrieved October 2, 2020, from https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Doc-

3.2 Goldsmiths, University of London

97

uments/2013/funding-environment-for-universities.pdf#search=Funding%20environment%20for%20universities. See p. 57 for trends on income generated at UK universities. 13

In which ways Brexit will impact the funding structures of British universities in the long run has yet to be indicated. While as of 2020 the status and eligibility for home tuition fees and grants remains unchanged for both students and staff from the EU, larger EU-related funding applications might become more difficult in the future. Universities UK. (2020). Brexit FAQs. Retrieved October 2, 2020, from https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/brexit/ Pages/brexit-faqs.aspx

14

Wikipedia. (2020). New Cross. Retrieved March 6, 2014, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ New_Cross

15

In 2014, the building was renamed the Professor Stuart Hall Building. Goldsmiths, University of London. (2020). Goldsmiths renames academic building after Professor Stuart Hall. Retrieved April 24, 2020, from https://www.gold.ac.uk/news/professor-stuart-hall-roundup/

16

The correct title is: Page, S. E. (2010). How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton University Press.

17

(S2: 314.)

18

Goldsmiths, University of London. (2020). Institute for Creative and Cultural Entrepreneurship (ICCE). Retrieved March 18, 2014, from http://www.gold.ac.uk/icce/

19

Goldsmiths, University of London. (2020). About ICCE. Retrieved March 18, 2014, from http:// www.gold.ac.uk/icce/aboutus/

20

Excerpt from the mission statement, the current version can be found here Goldsmiths, University of London. (2020). ICCE Research Strategy 2016–2018. Retrieved September 1, 2020, from https://www.gold.ac.uk/icce/research/

21

Goldsmiths, University of London. (2020). About ICCE. Retrieved March 18, 2014, from http:// www.gold.ac.uk/icce/aboutus/

98

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Appendix GS Table 3.2.1: Visualization of students’ assessment of the teaching units Interesting

Boring

Overtaxing

Subchallenging Suppressing or inhibiting

Inspiring Consistent

Chaotic

Legend: mentioned once

mentioned twice

mentioned three times

mentioned four times

mentioned five times

Table 3.2.2: Visualization of the change of and openness to teaching matters Professors Very often

Often

Sometimes

Students Rarely

Never

Never … ­motivated to change something. … changed something. … have an impact on the development. … teaching quality is discussed among colleagues … teaching ­quality is discussed with students or professors … this leads to concrete changes.

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Very often

99

3.2 Goldsmiths, University of London

Table 3.2.3: Visualization of the students’ and ­professors’ ­ratings of their respective atmospheres Professors’ rating of the ­atmos­phere among themselves Applies fully

Applies

Applies up to a point

Does not apply

Students’ rating of the ­ atmos­phere among themselves

Does not apply at all

Does not apply at all

Does not apply

Applies up to a point

Applies

Applies fully

Collegial Compe­titive Cooperative Harmonious Inspiring Indivi­dualistic* Moti­vating *Individualistic in the sense of “everyone for themselves” Professor 4 did not fill in this table.

Table 3.2.4: Visualization of students’ assessment of the time spent at school Too

Very

A little

Not

Insuf­­ficiently … intense. … focused. … activating and stimulating. … happy. … challenging. … burdening.

100

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Table 3.2.5: Visualization of the students‘ rating of ­important criteria for choosing their program Very important

The general reputation of the university Friends or ­acquaintances ­already studying here The program’s or department’s orientation Family reasons One or several professors and their teaching and research foci The city and its cultural activities The ranking of the university and program The environment and what it offers The alumni network Future professional options The fellowship options Tuition fees The possibility to work while studying

Important

More or less important

Unimportant

Absolutely important

101

3.2 Goldsmiths, University of London

Table 3.2.6: Visualization of qualifications for a professor in this ­program according to the professors and students Professors

Students Professional academic or artistic qualification Pedagogic competence Practical experience Humor or spirit Appreciative treatment of the students Enthusiasm for the ­subject they are teaching Availability and approachability Empathy The ability to grasp or ­recognize the students’ professional ­difficulties or uniqueness Practical orientation Interdisciplinary orientation Committed personality Motivating personality

Missing items are “frequent publishing or professional activities” and “interested personality,” which were not named by either group.

3.3 School of the Art Institute of Chicago: Master of Arts in Arts Administration and Policy

Urban environment: The city of Chicago Incorporated as a city in 1837 with a population of just over four thousand, Chicago still had a population of fewer than fifty thousand people more than seventy years later, in 1910. Today, however, Chicago is the third most populous city in the United States, totaling about three million inhabitants. When climbing the stairs of the Monroe subway station to get to the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (SAIC), the first thing that strikes one’s view is the architecture. Not only was the world’s first skyscraper using steel-skeleton construction built in Chicago in 1885, but this tendency toward adventurous architecture has marked the city’s entire development since. Wandering through the streets, one is surrounded by an impressive number of twentieth-century icons from the history of architecture. Every view reveals another perspective on the rhythm of the facades in their manifold formats and materials. One can safely say that SAIC is embedded in one of the world’s Figure 3.3.1: Surrounded by twentieth-­ icons of architecture history, SAIC most impressive and refined archi- century is ­located in the heart of the city, hidden tectural landscapes. Several of the behind the trees in the center of this image.

104

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

school’s buildings are located on Michigan Avenue, Monroe Street, and State Street, which are all lively and in the neighborhood of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Millennium Park, the Chicago Cultural Center, and the Art Institute of Chicago. Additionally, the city gave birth to the influential Chicago school of economics, which promotes the idea of economic liberalism and self-regulating markets. It has thus been strongly criticized for promoting the increase in economic inequality in the United States as well as for the financial crisis of 2008. In Chicago, economics are mirrored in the everyday environment. The beauty, power, and presence of historic buildings such as the Standard Oil Building, the Trump Tower, the Sears Tower, the Crain Communications Building, and the Prudential Tower symbolize the immense accumulation of corporate and private capital. The people sitting on the streets and rattling coins in their otherwise empty to-go coffee cups show the other side of the equation. To an outsider, especially one from a country with a strong welfare system, this socioeconomic tension is noticeable in the city’s public space. Art and architecture do not only affect public space as urban or architectural elements—their symbolic and political power implicitly influences everyday life. This is something highly present in Chicago’s downtown. Ideology and self-conception: “This program is based on critical thinking about arts ecologies”1 Taking a critical approach to the use of art in the city’s environment in terms of creative industries, new economic strategies, tourism, and urban and neighborhood development is central to SAIC’s Arts Administration and Policy master’s program. In the various classes observed, the impact of architecture and urban development on communities was often discussed. The program’s self-conception of arts administrators can be seen in the following quotes: The School of the Art Institute of Chicago’s (SAIC) Master of Arts (MA) in Arts Administration and Policy program provides a teaching and learning

3.3 School of the Art Institute of Chicago

105

environment in which the role of the administrator and manager is understood as critically engaged and proactive.2 I think we are taking a much more integrated and proactive approach to thinking about what the role of an administrator is, e.g., that the administrator has agency. (P4: 645f.) We are very aware that we are cultural developers. We are the people who work with cities, trying to figure out public spaces. We are working with larger civil institutions to have a wider impact over communities. (S4: 251ff.) “Don’t blindly accept the system!” That is the kind of faculty I am looking for. (P2: 283ff.) I was not in academia before I came here. I was not interested in a career in academia because I don’t like schools. I don’t like museums either (laughter). But it felt to me like a school that was really about taking a chance. There have been loads of tricky dynamics over the years. (P3: 214ff.)

These statements, taken from the program’s website as well as from interviews with professors and students, reflect the “critical thinking” woven into various levels of SAIC. The school provides the environment in which students encounter the self-conception of critically engaged cultural managers. Not only is this emphasized by headings on the website, such as “Empower Yourself ”3 and “Provocative Thinking and Making,”4 this model is also incorporated by faculty members working on social art projects in parallel to their academic careers. They both practice and teach this model, which the students further adapt and perform in community projects, supposedly leading to societal development. Another aspect of the program these statements reveal is the broader scope that the professors and students include as part of their aims: the program’s idea is to seed political critical thinking and a specific point of view on the impact the arts can have on societal development. Evidently, the projects the students initiate and the topics they and the professors discuss in class are

106

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

based on individual interests to a certain degree. Still, the common ground has a more socio-cultural-political character: the professors attempt to foster the students’ critical analysis of the structures that exist in the arts field. On this basis, the students are enabled to fully engage with and utilize the arts’ potential to elicit social change. The other guiding ethic of the program is that we are all very idealistic. We feel the potential of the arts is always yet to be discovered. So we are not interested in people who are going to figure out how to make a concert come off absolutely smoothly. We are interested in people who are going to think about how the concert hall could look five years from now. What could the environment be? And how is the music changing? And how is the audience changing? What is the social media, new technologies? And how does that impact everything? It is really a much more fluid model. (P3: 198ff.)

This quotation sums up the program’s very distinct strategic position. Based on a specific idea of professional ethics and idealism for the arts as outlined above, the program developed its niche in the diverse field of arts management and cultural production study programs. Turning back once more to the title of this section, one question remains unanswered: What exactly does the notion of “being critical” signify in the specific environment of SAIC? Since this term came up in each interview (“I teach them the critical side of the curriculum only,” P1: 38f.), the interviewer tried to get at a deeper understanding of the expression’s meaning. Interviewer: Which practical competences should the students have learned upon terminating their degree? Professor 4: Self-promotion, self-reliance, practical competences around confidences, critical thinking. Interviewer: May I ask you something? Everyone in this university promotes “critical thinking.” How exactly do you make people think critically?

3.3 School of the Art Institute of Chicago

107

Professor 4: You put them in a situation where they actually have to practice critique. Everything I do with my students in the studio department is currently about the questions: “What do you think?,” “Why are you thinking that?,” “What are you going to say about it?,” and “When somebody tells you one thing, how do you respond to that?” It is really about the critical stance that one takes. And you might take a critical stance not because you believe it, but because you want to experiment with that. Interviewer: But how do you do it? Do they have to read a text and then come back to class? Professor 4: It is connected to reading. It is a combination of things. To me, it is the students’ responsibility to position and to locate themselves. And that is what I always say to people: “I want you to read these things, but there are many other things that you must understand. And you must bring yourself to them, bring your understanding of what you are looking at to a discussion, try this out. Take a stance, even if you don’t believe in it, but you just want to experiment with it and see where it takes you.” So that you see how what, for example, [Jean] Baudrillard is saying changes what we are thinking about. (P4: 581ff.)

In this extract of the interview with Professor 4, the importance of reflecting upon opinions and practices is explicitly emphasized. The fact that the term “critical” is used rather than “reflection” could be explained by the program’s close connection to the visual arts; “critique” and “criticism” are terms frequently used in the fields of socially engaged artistic practice and community arts,5 which the master’s program focuses on.

108

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Uniqueness: “Being in an art school is very, very significant”6 The Arts Administration and Policy master’s program is not advertised in an intense manner. Little information can be found on its website, and neither the professors nor the students use promotional language to talk about the program. Still, its location in an art school is constantly highlighted, especially in the answers to the question about the program’s uniqueness: I think that this program has very special opportunity, because there are just artists around here all the time. So the students in our program are not learning in a vacuum. They are in the firepit with the creative process— the complexity of managing that and negotiating those conversations and relationships all the time. I think that this is a very special aspect of the program. (P2: 139ff.) [What is unique is] the fact that art is in the center of it, that there is a commitment to contemporary art, that there is a commitment to close collaboration with people inside and outside of the arts, that there is a very dynamic understanding of what culture is and what is inside of our field. The location in the art school is obvious. (P3: 159ff.) I was always attracted to the program, personally, because of its situation in an art school. That was always a very important thing for me, the notion that arts administration and its thoughts are [engaged] in a very contiguous manner with art making and thinking and writing about art as well. (P4: 188ff.) I think that its location within an art school gives it a specificity or a uniqueness that I didn’t see in other programs that were out there. I felt like it allowed a closeness to art production that you would not necessarily have at a state university or somewhere else. (S2: 121ff.)

These quotations add a further layer to the above-mentioned notion of “critical thinking,” namely the continuous exchange between artists and art mana­ gers. The idea is that creative or artistic practice should always be integrated in

3.3 School of the Art Institute of Chicago

109

the analysis of existing cultural and political structures and the development of new ones. Such close collaboration fosters empathy for and understanding of each other’s ideas, aims, and actions. In addition to critical thinking and the exchange with arts producers, a third trait of the master’s program is linked to the arts: a liberal, open-minded attitude. It becomes visible in, for example, the openness of the curriculum, which can be adapted to the current students’ needs and can thus take various paths. Furthermore, the professors put effort into adapting the program to current discourses, so that a class might be repeated in a new semester but have an entirely different syllabus (see, for example, P4: 406ff.). This attitude also manifests in constant change and thus activity, as underscored by keywords characteristic of the language used by professors, students, and the program website, such as agency, challenge, creating, creative, developing, dynamic, flexibility, incubate, progressive, provocative, question, and transition. This is mirrored in the curriculum design and description, which can be found on the website: Contemporary culture is a dynamic context that incorporates the arts, popular culture, politics, economics, technology, and critical theory. In a rapidly changing and globalizing society, arts organizations are called to respond to new audiences, ethical challenges, and economic difficulties. The Master of Arts (MA) in Arts Administration and Policy program provides an academic structure within which students can master specific sets of skills while building a critical perspective toward issues of contemporary arts administration. By combining theory with practice, the program offers students the critical, quantitative, and administrative skills needed to assume positions of leadership within the next generation of cultural organizations.7

One professor’s statement—“It is keeping on top of what the debate is” (P4: 412)—underlines that the program is based on contemporary discourses in art and cultural theory. How does this translate into the curriculum? According to the course requirements,8 students have a maximum of four years to complete their studies. However, official enrollment requires at least two semesters of full-time studying (i.e., taking nine credit hours). Afterward,

110

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

part-time studying is possible with at least six credit hours to be earned per semester. In addition to a study trip, the obligatory classes are Arts Organizations in Society, Colloquia, Law, and Politics and the Arts.9 Alongside these courses, there are manifold interactions with the city: Not only from the desire from loads of faculties, but now from the leadership of the school, there is a commitment to actually be a citizen of the city. Which is completely natural for this department anyhow, because of the work that we do. From the earliest years on we organized collaborations with other art schools, with the city government, the department of cultural affairs. (P3: 272ff.)

An internship and two thesis classes complete the core curriculum. Electives can be chosen from a nonspecified pool of classes. Except for colloquia, each class runs three hours per week. Furthermore, the newly developed class Management Studio has to be followed across three semesters: it takes place during one week at the end of each semester, called “critique week,” and brings together professors, external guests, and students from the program itself in in-depth panel discussions. With regard to the evaluation of classes, students are asked to fill in a questionnaire at the end of the year. Furthermore, the students are constantly asked for their feedback and preferences regarding the curriculum, and group discussions also occasionally take place (P2: 500ff.). One professor stated, “At the end of every class, students fill out the evaluation of the class and we listen very carefully to them” (P4: 508f.). This professor self-critically added, “I think it needs more than addressing. I think it needs to be acted” (P4: 511). Another professor stated a similar mode of assessment with reference to the no-grade system: “I think evaluations need to be conversational and individual. It can be a mutual feedback” (P1: 850). Against the background of the briefly described Management Studio class, it is interesting to see that teaching and practicing sustainable criticism do not seem to go hand in hand. Our quantitative analysis opened up a further perspective. We asked the interviewed students to assess the following questions: “Are teaching and teaching quality discussed among colleagues?,” “Are teaching and teaching qual-

3.3 School of the Art Institute of Chicago

111

ity discussed with the students?,” and “Does this lead to concrete changes?” Possible answers were “very often,” “often,” “rarely,” and “never.” Although all students claimed to discuss the teaching quality “very often,” they only sometimes discussed the teaching quality with the professors directly. Students think that this type of discussion rarely leads to concrete changes (for a statistical analysis, see chapter 3.7). This contradiction between discussion taking place and obvious results might be due to the students’ eagerness to learn and initiate change in the arts field, as well as the fact that their recommendations and critiques only have effect for the next cohort. At least, the following statement would support this interpretation: We have faculty meetings at various intervals, sometimes every two weeks, sometimes every four weeks; we do it differently every year. And we have discussions in class and ask them [the students] what they would like. “What works better?” “Do you want to work in large groups or in small groups?” We tell them what the previous students told us, so it’s quite democratic. (P1: 396ff.)

It is also noteworthy that nearly every class is designed as project work, introduced by a guest speaker, and carried out in cooperation with leading art institutions. This became clear in the course descriptions10 and through the observations carried out at SAIC. The idea for a project is either developed together with the students or based on a specific idea, as determined by the collaborating director, that the students are supposed to work on. By cooperating with local and international institutions, the integration of theory and practice, direct exposure to practical fieldwork, networking, and working in a real-world setting are guaranteed.

112

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Professors’ profiles The integration of real field scenarios into classes can be directly linked to the professors’ profiles. After analyzing them in detail, it becomes apparent that every staff member has worked or is still working in the field of cultural management or art production. Professor 1 has been associate professor of arts administration since 1996. They graduated from the Düsseldorf Academy of Fine Arts in 1986 with a master’s degree in fine arts and participated in several art exhibitions internationally. Their interests include hybrid art practices and mechanisms and policies that shape the art world. Professor 2, a visiting professor, received a bachelor’s degree in history and English from Hamilton College in Clinton, New York (1985–89) and a master’s degree from SAIC’s Arts Administration and Policy program (2006– 08). Their work experience includes leading positions in the field of jazz and improvised music, and their fields of expertise encompass, among other things, cultural management and policy, performing arts programming, and non-profit administration. According to our research, they do not have any academic publications. Professor 3 has been professor of arts administration and policy since 1994. After receiving a bachelor’s degree from Marlboro College, in Guilford, Vermont, in 1976, they graduated from Boston’s Massachusetts College of Art and Design with a Master of Fine Arts. They have published several books, book chapters, and journal articles in, for example, Art Journal, Visual Arts and Culture, and the Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society. Their research interests include cultural policy, civil society, Latin American contemporary art, and the history of exhibitions. Professor 4 has been associate professor of arts administration and policy since 2003. They studied craft at Crewe and Alsager College of Higher Education in Cheshire, England (graduating in 1986), and received a higher diploma in fine art (media) in 1989 from Slade School of Art, University College London. They have participated in several exhibitions and performances internationally and have published several books and articles on art education discourses and on several emerging European artists.

3.3 School of the Art Institute of Chicago

113

The professors’ teaching experience and professional expertise enables them to focus on creating constant exchange between the theoretical content and the artistic practices investigated in the classes. At the same time, against this backdrop it is little surprising that the classes are focused on critical thinking: practitioners in the arts—be it artists, arts managers, or art critics—are continuously criticized by their peers. Thus, they need to develop a critical perspective on both practices of criticism and practices of cultural production and arts management. Architectural environment The importance of the architectural environment and its influence on the attitude of the Arts Administration and Policy program were underlined at the beginning of this chapter. This effect is even more pronounced within SAIC’s internal spaces and teaching environments. The architectural design of these spaces can be identified as a distinct feature that emphasizes an atmosphere of “being in an art school.” The school’s various entranceways display a high degree of miseen-scène, using valuable materials and chic design. Being located in this architecturally significant, obviously prestigious and expensive, but also lively and vibrant area creates a specific atmosphere. Strict entrance controls in each building of the school, which require a new entrance pass Figure 3.3.2: The Art Institute of ­Chicago, Michigan Avenue every day, enforce the feeling of The collection comprises masterpieces of arts being at a special place and some- and crafts from Asia, Europe, India, and America, how belonging to a special group. from ancient ritual objects to contemporary art. Because the school is spread across The new building of the SAIC, designed by Renzo Piano, is located behind the several buildings, the design of the museum (not visible in this image). rooms is heterogeneous.

114

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Figure 3.3.3 (left): Right across the street from the Art Institute: The School of the Art Institute of Chicago, its name written in golden capitals, at Michigan Avenue Figure 3.3.4 (right): Around the corner from Michigan Avenue: SAIC at Monroe Street

As the photographs of the various internal spaces and classrooms show, fundraising is key to maintaining the school’s infrastructure and operations. The struggle for resources, space, and competent staff, as well as the effort to raise the program’s internal and external visibility and thus recognition, constitute major tasks for the professors: There is a fund that keeps the school … running basically. But it is small. Most of our money comes from tuition. … It is always a private thing. It is always based on a lot of discussions and negotiations. (P4: 739ff.) The budget problems we are having right now are for things like one of the projects Professor 2 is working on. It is in the South Side of the city and there is no good public transportation there. We have no funds to transport students. So, just like program funds to make things happen—I think those were the main issues. We need more space than we have. We need better space than we have. (P3: 341ff.)

3.3 School of the Art Institute of Chicago

Figures 3.3.5 (left) and 3.2.6 (right): The entryways from ­Monroe Street (left) and Michigan Avenue (right)

Figures 3.3.7 (left) and 3.3.8 (right): Elevators in marble, granite, and gold (left) and elevators with an artistic intervention (right)

115

116

Figure 3.3.9 (top): Sitting in the student lounge on the first floor. Outside, the subway passes by. Figure 3.3.10 (center): The newly renovated Sharp building on Monroe Street, with mobile desks and chairs, a large bright room with big windows, daylight, and up-to-date technology Figure 3.3.11 (bottom): A sixth-floor ­classroom in the unrenovated building at 112 ­Michigan Avenue; no daylight, low ceilings

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

One can see that in the case of the Arts Administration and Policy program, its independence from other departments and potential funding bodies results in the faculty taking on as a major task developing funds and attracting students to the program. Since they’re dependent on tuition fees, the staff stated that they are in a constant struggle to keep the program up to date in relation to current discourses but also to appeal to the students’ needs and interests. The program’s central location, in downtown Chicago, is beneficial for external visibility and creating connections with donors as well as cooperating institutions, which could explain the distribution of the professors’ working hours on tasks like curricu­lum development and the aquisition of external funds (see appendix SAIC, table 3.3.1). This easy access to actors in the art field enables the program to fulfill its mission of closely interrelating artists and art administrators. This, in turn, helps the students develop a critical stance on the role of the arts and artists in society.

3.3 School of the Art Institute of Chicago

117

In class To get deeper insight into the teaching situation at SAIC, several classes were observed. Two are described in more detail; the first was held mainly by two guest lecturers, and the second was part of the core curriculum. Descriptions of the classes and their contents are complemented by the observer’s comments and impressions, which are differentiated using square brackets. Class with guest lecturers Today is my first time in class. It’s 4:15 p.m.; we’re on the seventh floor. Somehow, this part of the school looks rather more like a prison than like an art school: low ceiling, various tubes and cables for electricity, air, heating, etc., everywhere. The color concept is minimized to some kind of neutral beige, dirty yellow, slightly greenish (walls and ceiling), and somehow the carpet has the same color. The door frames are olive green and the doors are dark violet. [This kind of interior design indeed shocked me when I first came here, which was yesterday. It is unpleasant, but has an intensity that one cannot escape.] Class starts five minutes late, around 25 students, mostly female, are sitting in the room chatting with each other. As soon as the professor starts speaking, the noise goes down to zero, and it is very quiet. After a short introduction to the topic by the faculty professor, a guest artist takes over. Two people sneak in and there’s a small pause in the guest’s speech—then they go on. Most students do not use their laptops, but just pen and pencil to take notes while the artist is speaking about their artistic and exhibition practice. Somehow the atmosphere seems very concentrated. The artist talk continues. They show various pictures and videos displaying different projects. Thirty minutes of the talk have passed. Some students yawn, maybe due to sitting in this rather dark room following the presentation (the guest artist has shown some websites from various institutions where they have realized projects) or because of the rather monotonous speaking style. [The content of the talk—artistic research on the social impact of architecture in (mostly) Chicago—is interesting, but somehow I feel like falling asleep. It is hard to keep listening.]

118

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

After 50 minutes total, the lights go on. The last minutes were interesting: a documentation video was put on, the voices were more lively (they spoke with some impetus), and it was nice to get this information on the guest artist’s work. The video introduced the artist’s work well, and it seems to have some sociopolitical relevance. Now, the director of the Chicago Cultural Center takes over, sitting in a corner in front of the class, which is why I (and most of the other students around me) cannot see them properly. They talk about the history of the building, the Chicago Cultural Center, and how it turned into the institution it is today. They state that it is intimately tied to Chicago’s (cultural) politics—“my boss is the mayor.” This is very different to most other North American art institutions. Built in 1892 for the Grand Army of the Republic. Much more information follows … 65 minutes have passed. [I did not know that being a student could be this exhausting.] The professor intervenes, asking the two guests (artist and director) to speak more specifically on the project that was chosen for this collaboration. [For the first time, I find out why the two people are presenting their work. It is about the artist who has a show in that institution, and who the students could collaborate with. It is an artistic investigation on the spatial design of the Chicago Cultural Center, disclosing not only the history but also the current spatial concepts and how they could be transformed.] This project will be realized through an exhibition of the artist involving a collection of slides found in the center’s archive. Now the presentation/talk has finished. “Any questions?” asks the professor. Q1: The first student asks what the students will actually be asked for, what their role in the project will be. A1: “We will give some guidance, but the possibilities are really open-ended.” [Is this a paradox?] Q2: “How open are you for the audience also interacting with the work, e.g., bringing one’s own slides?”

3.3 School of the Art Institute of Chicago

A2: “I do not do interactive art, but I think this show is very interactive.” [Is this another paradox?] A2 continues: “We are open in terms of widening the audience for the Cultural Center.” “Create opportunities …” “We are really open.” [My impression is they do not really take the students seriously. Their idea about the work and how it is installed seems to be fixed, and it seems the students are expected to just take over the audience development and marketing part.] Q3: Another student takes another try: “What shall we do in the project— marketing, wayfinding, writing texts, organizing lectures?” A3: Now the artist starts to open up. The artist encourages the students to think about how their investigation into and cooperation in the project could look. Quite abruptly the discussion is closed. The professor announces that the course will meet in the Chicago Cultural Center next time and leaves. [After being a bit stunned at first, it became clear to me that all four parties—the professor, the artist, the director, and the students—were interacting with each other for the first time in this situation. Surely a lot of negotiation will have to be done to bring collaboration to a successful end. But for the students, it will also be an important lesson to learn not just how to set up a show and attract an audience, but furthermore how to understand and balance various parties’ interests.] Core curriculum class It is hot outside. Inside, on the ninth floor, a small group of highly diverse students from Asia, North and South America, and Europe (ten women and one man) meet for the three-hour class Arts Organization in Society (1–4 p.m.). [The fluorescent light directly above me is doing a seriously loud cricketing noise.]

119

120

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

The introductory class if this course discusses art institutions in society, reflecting on their roles and their problems. After an opening discussion, five institutions are decided upon to be cases for further work. Students are divided into groups, with each tasked with delivering a more detailed analysis on one of these institutions. Their results will be presented several weeks from now. Six texts were required reading for today’s class: (1) G. Yúdice (2004), The Expediency of Culture: Uses of Culture in the Global Era; (2) K. Vuyk (2010), “The arts as an instrument? Notes on the controversy surrounding the value of art,” International Journal of Cultural Policy, 16(2), 173–183; (3) J. McGuigan (2011), “Contra Economistic Cultural Policy”; (4) D. Harvey (2007), introduction to A Brief History of Neoliberalism; (5) M. C. Nussbaum (2010), chapter 1 of Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities; and (6) Peter Weibel, Andrea Buddensieg, Hans Belting (Eds.) (2013), introduction to The Global Contemporary and the Rise of New Art Worlds. The professor starts with a short inquiry about the reading load. “Was it too much? Too little? How much time did you need to read that?” etc. Although these texts are not easy to digest, no discussion or analysis of any of the texts follows. Instead, a presentation by the professor starts. For the presentation, the lights are turned down. The professor speaks with a very low voice. Around twenty slides are shown rather fast. Each covers a specific aspect of the relationship of an art organization to its related society. They include a classical music concert in Kashmir, covering music as an instrument of peace or in an ambassador role; land art [I did not get where the example derived from]; some art and technology festival in Germany, etc. Then a concluding chart is shown, outlining various categorizations: art for the nation’s sake, art for the citizen’s sake, art for art’s sake (experience of transcendence), art’s impact on problems (economic or social), art’s impact on the creative industries (… the new economy, … peacemaking, … placemaking, … regeneration, etc.). [Somehow a historical perspective is missing. The embedding of the arts in society is reflected in a rather one-sided way (e.g., Pierre Bourdieu, cultural capital; Michel Foucault, culture as dispositive of behavior).] The presentation goes on. Various slides are shown: the Rothko Chapel; a show displaying artworks from the Vatican; the Venice Biennale; works

3.3 School of the Art Institute of Chicago

by the Young British Artists; some information on an art symposium in Dakar, Senegal. … Everything is passing by quickly. Now, an initiative of the Culture and Art program of the Open Society Foundations, funded by the Soros Economic Development Fund, is shown, but it is not analyzed, just mentioned and followed by the example of abstract expressionist artworks used as propaganda for the US Secret Service in the early 1960s. After this slide, we enter the “War on Culture” of 1989, and some censored artists’ works are displayed. Without explanation, the e-flux website is shown. Interestingly, the site itself [which would be an interesting example in the context of the class] is not discussed, except for a single project of e-flux’s that showed public art on the US-Mexican border. After this monologue going alongside the presentation, the professor stops and asks: “Is this making sense?” There is no reaction in the class. The professor takes another try and asks: “Is art nothing else than a form of colonization?” Again, no reaction from the students. [These examples from various countries of the last hundred years are very heterogeneous, and, at least for me, the choice as well as the interpretation seems somewhat arbitrary. Furthermore, we just talk about visual arts and always call this “culture” in the class.] The professor goes on with the monologue. Keywords and phrases are: globalization; flattening of art shows; symptoms of neoliberalism. On a slide, “the death of the worker” is shown with an image of a worker with knives in their back and an axe in their head. Now talking about unemployment and the loss of unions, the professor comments to themselves: “We do not need to go into that very much.” Now it is 2:30 p.m. A discussion starts on the term “neoliberalism” and the role that culture plays within the neoliberal movement: “The least state intervention possible allows the markets to do their job.” Now we somehow jump to one private museum—Museo Soumaya in Mexico City—and its collection. [This class seems to me highly unstructured, superficial, and the opposite of informed and critical.] A fifteen-minute break is called. Class starts again at 3 p.m. Two students do a presentation on Kees Vuyk’s text “The Arts as an Instrument?,” which had to be read in preparation for class. The slides use white type on a pink background. [Is this

121

122

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

ironic, or did they not think about the color concept?] They start with a short discussion about the definition of art; terms they use are: experience, beauty, meaning, etc. No concepts from aesthetics or cultural sociology are mentioned; a rather intuitive argumentation follows. It is 4 p.m. The class ends, although the students’ presentation was not finished. No summary or wrap-up of the contents follows, nor is any feedback on the presentation of the two students provided. Everyone hurries to leave the class. [I am still sitting here, not exactly knowing what to think about the class I just attended.]

Upon reflection of the experience, the didactic methods of the two attended classes could likely be improved. Both classes displayed a specific attitude on how to talk about art and its role as a critical tool in society. Being “critical” or “political” was used as a stand-in for how to see things in the “right way,” as opposed to undertaking an in-depth analysis of texts, exhibitions, or site-specific projects. Keeping in mind that the program is located in an art school, it makes sense that teaching is more about activating the students and giving them the possibility to try things out in practice than about being academically rigorous. In this case, the enactment of criticality and politics mirrors the culture of the program, which is more about developing a specific mode to see and talk about things than about distinct methodological or theoretical approaches. When asked about their take on the classes, the students considered the integration of cultural policy into the curriculum as a specific characteristic of the program. The following statements underline that this is one of the main reasons some students chose this degree: The other aspect of it is the focus on cultural policy, which like I said is there in the title. I am here to encounter it in my courses, but that makes a huge difference to me and my work back home. Cultural policy gives it weight other programs do not have. And this was a huge factor for me. (S1: 287ff.) I was particularly looking for a program that could combine my interests in research and art history, and the kind of questions that I was having

3.3 School of the Art Institute of Chicago

123

about the function of cultural institutions and cultural policy. I came to this program because I felt the dual degree allowed me to do both things. (S2: 43ff.) I knew about the reputation of the program, and that was something that meant a lot to me, with the policy being attached to it. Administration is administration. But policy was very important to me, because I wanted to make sure that it wasn’t only about running things, but also about developing ways to think about how to run things. (S4: 104ff.)

In this last statement, the idea of critical thinking becomes apparent once more. It is interesting to note the good fit between the students’ and the professors’ ideas of the program. On the one hand, this might seem trivial. On the other hand, this match can only occur and be fostered via a thorough selection process, which is done at SAIC. Without a personal interview, for example, a student’s true motivation might remain undisclosed, eventually leading to frustration for both the student and the professors if their respective expectations are not met. Internal environment: “It’s kind of being in a bubble here”11 The students’ strong identification with the department is reflected in the departmental atmosphere. In interviews with both students and professors, several descriptions of the school as a “microcosm” (S1: 296) or “bubble” (S4 and P3, see below) were given: I can talk about the school in general much better than just the department, because we are very small. A small department is always driven by the personalities in there, and it could change as soon as somebody drops out. (P1: 220ff.) Four or five years ago, the school came up with its set of core values.12 And “Chicago” is one of those. The art institute has also lived in its own bubble for a hundred and fifty years: downtown, no presence in neighborhoods that are not educated and financially viable. So it is this weird kind of

124

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

contradiction that we have a very progressive faculty, very involved in social practice, and we work at an institution that has been largely bunkered for its entire history. (P3: 266ff.)

The bubble metaphor can be connected to the school’s founding myth and its historical development, as well as to its current representation of itself. Artistic entrepreneurship and a struggle for autonomy from other universities were the driving forces behind the establishment of what are today known as the Art Institute of Chicago and the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. This, at least, is the success story visitors are told via the website of SAIC.13 In 1866, 35 artists wanted to “run a free school with its own art gallery,” and subsequently founded the Chicago Academy of Design. A few years later, in 1882, the academy was renamed the Art Institute of Chicago to “accommodate a distinct museum and school,” namely the SAIC. Still today, the school and the museum are one organization. The Arts Administration and Policy program is one of 16 master’s degrees the school offers, spanning the fields of architecture, art education, art therapy, design, fine arts, arts journalism, visual and critical studies, and more.14 The current head of the master’s program in Arts Administration and Policy is Professor 3. They developed the program from its beginning stages, as described in the following quotations: It was a very informal beginning. It was roughly twenty years ago. It was started by a part-time professor, who was an economist and who teaches in our liberal arts section. And they put it together with an interest to support artists. I don’t know exactly how it moved from there; it really started to kick into gear when my colleague, Professor 3, was hired with the intent to formalize it more. (P1: 87ff.) As I understand it from spending a lot of time with Professor 3, who really was the initiator of the program, the original idea was simple in the sense that the school wanted to have some students that would be able to administer in the school. … When Professor 3 started working on it, the idea expanded vastly to the sociopolitical questions around management of culture, the shape of priorities, resources, institutional frameworks, and the

3.3 School of the Art Institute of Chicago

125

relationship to the question of how society functions. Its initial goals were very much, and continued to be—even though it is much richer now— very theoretical and policy oriented. (P2: 112ff.) [The Arts Administration and Policy program] basically didn’t exist when I came. It had been started the year before, but there was no faculty in place, no real curriculum, and no presence in the school, no vision, no nothing. … There was a dean and a faculty that were committed towards a very purist relationship between art making and social dynamics and political dynamics. … It was a good moment for me to do something different, and that’s why I came. But the idea has always been that it’s an arts admin program that is in an art school; that is, in the context of art making and that the two were indivisible. To be a good arts administrator, you need many of the same attributes and commitments that you need as an artist, that have to do with creativity, a kind of ethical commitment, and also a political awareness about where you sit in a larger context and how you want to interact with that. (P3: 66ff.)

Several points are mentioned in these foundation narratives that explain the program’s current mode of operation. As an art school, SAIC provided a fertile ground for an entirely new arts administration program to be created by a recently hired professor. The artistic spirit of SAIC not only enabled a focus on creative practices and the role of the arts in society, but also allowed for a constant exchange between artists and administrators, which was central to the program from the very beginning. In this manner, both groups developed a thorough understanding of each other’s needs and an ability to support each other with regard to content, (infra)structures, and, most importantly, policies. The idea of criticality enables both artists and administrators at SAIC to take a reflexive stance in relation to current practices of cultural production, administration, and policy. Criticism might even foster a common baseline for working in the field.

126

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Networking, visibility, and self-organization Besides the program’s connection to the arts, another reason for its emphasis on critique could be the fact that the Arts Administration and Policy master’s program has to legitimize its existence and activities in relation to two other departments: namely that of the art historians and critics and that of the art practitioners. If there is any challenge at all, it’s that we have to make ourselves visible internally, because the artist and art history side has a very hard time understanding what arts administration is. (P1: 309f.) As a department we are very autonomous. We are not directed by anybody to do particular things, which is one of the reasons nobody understands what it is we are doing. (P1: 727ff.)

If the program educated mere “managers,” it would be respected neither by artists nor by the more academically oriented art historians. By being “critical,” the graduates can bridge the gap between these two other groups. On the one hand, this tension demands constant effort to improve the program and to adapt it to fulfill the requirements of the students’ potential future professions. On the other hand, the idea of bridging a gap between two or more fields could result in an interdisciplinary program fostering exchange and collaboration between arts administration and policy, art history, and art practice—a further feature of the program’s niche. Apart from the idea of criticism, self-organization is central to the program’s culture. The idea of making things and activating students is noticeable, for example, when looking at the Arts Administration and Policy students’ initiatives to establish connections between themselves and the curators working at the Art Institute of Chicago and between themselves and the Master of Fine Arts students (see also S1: 332ff.). As one professor notes: Our students are well served. What does happen is they self-organize. They call it “speed dating,” where the MFAs and the MAs can do things together.

3.3 School of the Art Institute of Chicago

127

For example, if the MFAs create a show, somebody helps them to write a statement. So the students are trying to go in and get their own connections. (P1: 625ff.)

Beyond students’ self-organization, the faculty can also make decisions about the program’s content independent of the school’s administration, which is why they are able to integrate the students’ needs and ideas. We are not really constrained in terms of what we do with the curriculum, how we teach, who we hire. There is nobody who says, “No, no, that’s too radical. That’s not the art that we want to support.” Nobody bothers us. So we can do what we want. (P3: 360ff.) They [the students] can be critical of the program. So the program changes along with the students. They are always encouraged to tell us what they like and what they don’t like and if they need something else, and we’re trying to grow around that. So we’re looking at the larger field. We are trying to be flexible and reactive and see our students as peers or future peers. (P1: 184ff.)

Further, the students are involved in the realization of the curriculum through organizing colloquia, exhibition programs, and so on themselves. It is up to them to make use of the school’s resources—such as studios, libraries, collections, and the surrounding institutions—and to pursue their individual paths. The students put together this amazing set of programs that corresponded to and built on the installation and that brought new publics in to see it. They did a yoga or meditation workshop in there, so it was a very meditative kind of environment. They brought in a really wonderful jazz drummer, who did an improvised concert in relation to the music that the piece was making. And they had a round table. They did all kinds of stuff and everyone [the audience] was blown away. They said, “Well we had no idea that you did that.” And we said, “Now you know.” (P3: 234ff.)

128

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Maybe take advantage of your resources. … I feel one of the things that I did, but that I don’t see a lot of students do now, is really fully exploiting everything that this school has for them, whether it’s using this special collection, connecting with famous faculty, working interdisciplinary, or using the museum. I see those all as resources. Really taking advantage of those things helped me both in my intellectual and professional development. (S2: 263ff.)

The last quotation can be read in connection with the students’ rating of the time spent at school and the workload they have to cope with. In our quantitative analysis, we asked the students to assess each of the following attributes in relation to that aspect: “intense,” “focused,” “activating and stimulating,” “happy,” “challenging,” and “burdening,” on a scale of 1 (too much) to 5 (too little). Since the program is strongly based on self-organization, it is not surprising students unanimously rated their time in the program as “very intense” and that they considered “approachability” and “practical orientation” to be among the most important professors’ capacities (see appendix SAIC, table 3.3.2). In terms of networking strategies, students are required to become active. Some students stated that the faculty members put them in contact with their personal, international networks: I think we touched a little bit of the international side of it. … They are really trying to expose the students to a lot of connections and networks outside of Chicago and outside of the US. There are a lot of internationally focused history classes, and the professors seek to have conference calls or conversations with scholars in other parts of the world during class time, introducing the students to people personally. (S3: 163ff.)

However, the students’ own initiative and tenacity seems to have an even larger effect on the success of their professional careers than their professors’ introductions do (S1: 341f.). Since nearly every class takes place in cooperation with highly renowned cultural institutions, the students are exposed to myriad opportunities to network and to prove their competence to potential professional contacts.

3.3 School of the Art Institute of Chicago

129

In light of this, one can conclude that in addition to benefiting from the program’s offers, the students actually contribute to the program’s and the department’s activities and visibility. They organize and curate shows in the school’s various gallery spaces, such as in the graduate studios located in the Sullivan Center, which includes a large exhibition space for students on the seventh floor.15 The galleries are supposed to foster students’ involvement in the art discourses of today; according to SAIC’s website, “With shows and projects often led by faculty or student curators, the School’s exhibition spaces are teaching galleries that engage process as a pedagogical model and mode of research.”16 SITE Galleries (formerly known as Student Union Galleries), is another student-run exhibition space.17 It is located near the entrance of the main building, on the ground floor, and therefore receives a lot of attention. In addition to mounting exhibitions (see fig. 3.1.12), the students create and regularly publish online and print magazines, in addition to those edited by SAIC itself.18 The physical publications are highly designed, printed on high-quality paper, and contain interesting articles. Together, these publications create an impression that the program is valuable, up to date, and fresh.

Figure 3.3.12: Immense exhibitions possibilities are available to the students through the school’s studio and gallery spaces in the Sullivan Center, in downtown Chicago.

130

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Although the students appear to be very self-sufficient, one can also conclude that the faculty integrates the students into the program’s activities and development. In this way, the students are given a certain responsibility. Additionally, the faculty view the students as “future peers,” and thus treat them as being on an equal footing. This is reflected in the department’s atmosphere, which both the students and the professors described as rather individualistic, but also as rather collegial, cooperative, inspiring, and motivating (see appendix SAIC, table 3.3.3). A further aspect connected to the general culture of self-organization is the image of the types of students that enroll in the program. Several interview excerpts are quoted below to demonstrate the broad range of both external and self-images of the students, as well as the students’ conceptions of their potential professions. I look for students that are really critically engaged with the field. Not just going into the arts because they like art. That they actually have some good questions about power structures, about cultural hierarchies, about the systems that exist. And I am looking for students who have at least a nascent willingness to take risks and to experiment, to accept the complexity of the environment that they are in. I am not looking for bureaucrats. (P2: 257ff.) [We students were] very eager to engage, ask questions, elicit change, do projects, go beyond what was happening in the classroom, especially if it didn’t seem to fit with the questions we were having. So that meant curating things outside, organizing screenings, speakers’ series. For me there was this small group of very likeminded, very aggressive—but not in a negative way—[students]. (S2: 188ff.) I think of myself more as an entrepreneur type. So the initiatives that I would like to be involved with will probably end up being a little bit more creative in terms of their structure. (S3: 47ff.) Generally people want to go into museums. Although it turns out that we have created a completely new breed of—I don’t know what they are:

3.3 School of the Art Institute of Chicago

131

art historians, arts administrators—who are interested in experimental approaches to art historical reading and writing. (P4: 721ff.) It can be a specialist degree or a generalist degree. I think [the students are prepared to work at] any kind of cultural organization, of any size. They are certainly prepared for entry level at major large institutions with hierarchies and a lot of structure. They are certainly prepared to be very self-sufficient and self-organized in situations where there are smaller organizations and less resources. Some people will be program managers and marketing managers, fundraising, and development, and some people are going to be curators or working directly with artists or in the fields of design. (P2: 590ff.) I would like to continue working as an arts manager, and also create a similar MA program in India. (S1: 484) We are very aware that we are cultural developers. We are the people who work with cities in order to figure out public spaces. We work with community organizations, develop their style rather like historians, or curators. We are working with larger civil institutions to have a wider impact over communities. Rather [than] people coming to us, we are going up to them, helping them out, developing their sense of identity, sense of place, their role in society. I feel that is kind of the disposition of the program. (S4: 251ff.)

Even though the term “specialist degree” was mentioned, these statements strongly confirm—again—that the students’ future prospects and professions depend largely on their own initiative in developing the necessary skills and experience. Being creative, critical, self-sufficient, willing to take risks and to experiment, and able to accept an environment’s complexity are all skills detached from the program’s content. They rather operate on a metalevel— that is, via a critical and reflexive stance in regard to existing structures. By adopting such a stance, students will be able to achieve their aims of initiating social change, of helping communities pursue different ways of operating. They will be able to become arts administrators who do not merely manage

132

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

the arts, but who support the arts in accordance with the needs of the field. This “metaskill” is also mirrored in the idea of working in “any kind of organization” or “being anything.” The students’ activities are supported by the teaching formats outlined earlier, which are based on project work in realworld settings. One can conclude that, although the integration of theory and practice is communicated as a specific characteristic of the program (P1, P2, S1), practice-based learning is fostered without a distinct theoretical grounding. But despite this general external and self-image of the students—that is, as independent and individualistic—it is noteworthy that the expression “we are” was used frequently and in a natural manner throughout the different conversations with the interviewees. Hence, there seems to be a strong feeling of community, involvement, and identification with the school. These emotional aspects of cohesion and responsibility become especially relevant with regard to the tuition fees of the Arts Administration and Policy master’s program: SAIC is one of the four most expensive art schools in the United States. Pursuing their master’s programs indebts students to the amount of approximately US$68,000 per year, and so collectively realizing projects to create job prospects is key. The professors would like to change the current situation and create more scholarship possibilities in order to waive the tuition fees. Moreover, the following statements show that both students and professors consider job placements and general career options after graduation to be a crucial component of the program, especially in light of the high costs: I think since we have this vocational aspect, we are doing quite well: our students are getting jobs, they are needed. An artist gets out of school and they don’t really have anything, but our [students] have actual skills and a network in the job market they are entering. So in opposition to the rest of the population of the art school, we are actually very well situated. (P1: 432ff.) It is incredibly expensive to go to grad school. So the external threats are the fact that the students pay so much money, and when they get out of

3.3 School of the Art Institute of Chicago

133

here, the entry-level jobs pay terribly, so they have those horrendous student loans. … On occasion you can find them a little precious about their expectations of what grad school is supposed to be. They can get into this transactional mentality, when they think, “I am here, I paid something, I am supposed to get something from you.” And so I am constantly working to improve the dialogic nature of the courses so that this is minimized. Because I don’t see it as transactional at all. I think there is a reciprocal conversation. And because I am a practitioner, I want them to get jobs. I want them to be OK after they have left here. I am really concerned with their careers. (P2: 440ff. and 520ff.) Having the pragmatic career placement or creation of positions as the aim is really important to me. It is a professional program. We should be able to survive after we graduate. (S3: 520f.)

The notion of “vocation” emphasizes a certain awareness of the professors’ responsibility for, as well as their commitment to, the students’ professional future. Indeed, SAIC’s job placement, which helps to relieve students of their debts, seems to be rather successful: “It is rare that we cannot place the students where they want to be” (P2: 240). Conclusion As explored above, the Arts Administration and Policy program’s visibility and reputation is largely part based on being part of the renowned Art Institute of Chicago and the school connected to it. It is located in Chicago’s city center, near numerous arts institutions, and contributes to a lively arts scene that provides potential collaborating partners for the program. It is noteworthy that one single person developed the program from scratch. Seeing the possibility to create something new and negotiating with the management of the School of the Art Institute of Chicago to persuade them to establish a new program is evidence of a strongly engaged and entrepreneurial spirit. Our analysis shows that not only the staff but also the students are highly committed to the program. The professors interviewed expressed having to constantly fight for internal visibility and resources. In addition, they took care

134

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

to update the program to incorporate into the curriculum current topics and the students’ interests and requirements. This helped the professors to secure tuition fees and to sustain the program. Further, they gave students access to their networks and took care of the students’ professional placements. Still, the students interviewed had to show a certain eagerness and responsibility as well. It was up to them to exploit the resources the university put at their disposal and that could help enable them to work in the field, build a network, and initiate and implement new projects. In turn, the students’ exhibition and publication projects helped increase the program’s visibility significantly. Moreover, each interviewee promoted the idea of “critical thinking”— one of the most important skills of the type of arts manager that SAIC educates. The program fosters continuous exchange between the artists who study at the school, prominent actors working in the field, and the Arts Administration and Policy students themselves. In this manner, the students develop an attitude in accordance with the program’s school of thought: they are not supposed to learn how to smoothly manage an exhibition or theater play; rather, a mutual understanding between artists and administrators will enable the students to change malfunctioning structures in order to support the arts and contribute to societal development. The program aims at igniting and developing the students’ commitment to act in service of the arts and society. Notes 1

Interview with P1 (115).

2

School of the Art Institute of Chicago [henceforth “SAIC”]. (2020). Master of Arts in Arts Administration and Policy. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://www.saic.edu/academics/ departments/arts-administration-and-policy/master-arts-arts-administration-and-policy

3

SAIC. (2013). Graduate degrees. Retrieved December 22, 2013, from http://www.saic.edu/academics/graduatedegrees/

4

SAIC. (2013). About. Retrieved December 22, 2013, from http://www.saic.edu/about/

5

See, for example, Van den Berg, K., & Pasero, U. (2013). Art production beyond the art market? Sternberg.

6

Interview with P2 (234).

7

SAIC. (2020). Master of Arts in Arts Administration & Policy. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://www.saic.edu/academics/departments/arts-administration-and-policy/masterarts-arts-administration-and-policy

3.3 School of the Art Institute of Chicago

135

8

SAIC. (2020). Curriculum overview and courses. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://www. saic.edu/academics/departments/arts-administration-and-policy/courses

9

Up until the time of our research, study trips were carried out in countries like Mexico and Cuba. According to one interviewee, these trips were canceled because the financial imposition on students was too high.

10

SAIC. (2020). Curriculum overview and courses. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://www. saic.edu/academics/departments/arts-administration-and-policy/courses

11

Interview with S4 (373).

12

SAIC. (2014). Core values. Retrieved January 3, 2014, from http://www.saic.edu/about/corevalues/

13

SAIC. (2020). History and quick facts. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://www.saic.edu/ about/history-and-quick-facts

14

SAIC. (2020). Graduate degrees. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from http://www.saic.edu/academics/graduatedegrees/#saic

15

SAIC. (2020). Current and upcoming exhibitions and programs. Retrieved October 12, 2020, from https://www.saic.edu/saic-galleries/exhibitions

16

SAIC. (2020). The Department of Exhibitions and Exhibition Studies. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://www.saic.edu/exhibitions

17

SITE Galleries. (2020). SITE Galleries | Student run. Student work. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://sites.saic.edu/sitegalleries/

18

SAIC publications include fnewsmagazine, an online publication edited by SAIC students, available online at http://fnewsmagazine.com. At the time of our study, SAIC E+D was a high-quality, 45-page magazine, printed in color, on quality paper, and with a fresh and refined design, and it included articles, reports, and a calendar for upcoming exhibitions and events. Additionally, individual student groups have created their own magazine, such as the Korean Student Association; see EngageSAIC. (2014). Korean Student Association (KSA). Retrieved January 3, 2014, from https://engage.saic.edu/organization/ksa). All such student initiatives can be found on the regularly updated webpage EngageSAIC, https://engage.saic. edu/organizations.

136

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Appendix SAIC

Table 3.3.1: Visualization of the average amount of ­working time professors spent on different activities Professors

Teaching

Curriculum development

Research / Art production

Student supervision

Administration

Acquisition of external funds

(program head)

Professor 1

9

8

50

8

25

0

Professor 2

35

35

10

15

5

0

Professor 3

20

15

40

15

10

0

Professor 4

30

10

25

10

25

0

In percentages; 100 percent total.

137

3.3 School of the Art Institute of Chicago

Table 3.3.2: Visualization of qualifications for a professor in this ­program according to the professors and students Professors

Students Professional academic or artistic qualification Pedagogic competence Frequent publishing or professional activities Practical experience Humor or spirit Appreciative treatment of the students Enthusiasm for the ­subject they are teaching Availability and approachability Empathy The ability to grasp or ­recognize the students’ professional ­difficulties or uniqueness Practical orientation Interdisciplinary orientation

Missing items are “committed personality”, “interested personality” and “motivating personality,” which were not named by either group.

Legend: mentioned once

mentioned twice

mentioned three times

mentioned four times

138

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Table 3.3.3: Visualization of the students’ and ­professors’ ­ratings of their respective atmospheres Professors’ rating of the ­atmos­phere among themselves Applies fully

Applies

Applies up to a point

Does not apply

Students’ rating of the ­ atmos­phere among themselves

Does not apply at all

Does not apply at all

Collegial Compe­titive Cooperative Harmonious Inspiring Indivi­dualistic* Moti­vating *Individualistic in the sense of “everyone for themselves”

Does not apply

Applies up to a point

Applies

Applies fully

3.4 Ohio State University: Master of Arts in Arts Policy and Administration

Local embedding: The city of Columbus Columbus never came here, but when the city sleeps, what our dreamers discover is that we have always created our own collective inside joke, one still looking for a punch line, that begins with “Columbus was never here, but …” That’s why our city, if you want it to, will wake up with the Santa Maria floating down the Scioto, and our bronze Christopher shouting, “Better late than never!”

One can find these sentences written on a wall in downtown Columbus, Ohio, close to Main Street and Grant Avenue. But what exactly do they mean? Are they metaphorically referring to the city of Columbus still being asleep? Do they reveal a problem of identity for the city, or its difficulty in establishing its reputation? Or is it just a funny tale? It’s easy to imagine this paragraph was stumbled upon as a small bit of graffiti sprayed on a backstreet wall, but it is a large inscription—about five-stories tall and almost as wide—in the middle of the city. Located on the Scioto River, the city was named after Christopher Columbus. In 1816, only four years after Columbus was founded, it became the capital of the Midwestern state of Ohio. Nowadays, the city has around 800,000 residents, which makes it the 15th largest city in the United States. Surrounding cities include Cleveland and Cincinnati, both in Ohio; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Indianapolis, Indiana.

140

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Figure 3.4.1 (left): The Ohio Theatre, viewed from the Ohio Statehouse grounds Figure 3.4.2 (right): The audience waits in the theater hall at the Vern Riffe Center for Government and the Arts.

Downtown Columbus is dominated by streets, cars, parking spaces, parking garages, and corporate buildings. Despite the city’s young age, some historical buildings can be found, such as the Ohio Statehouse, which also contains a museum about the Ohio government and its history. Another such building is the Ohio Theatre, known as the “Official Theater of the State of Ohio,” initially built as a movie theater in 1928. Today, it is home to the Columbus Symphony Orchestra, BalletMet, and other cultural organizations and is operated by the Columbus Association for the Performing Arts, a nonprofit arts management organization.1 Along with the arts institutions located on the Ohio State University (OSU) campus, Columbus’s city center is home to the Vern Riffe Center for Government and the Arts, opened in 1989 and operated by around 2,000 state employees.2 It contains a gallery and two theaters,3 as well as the Ohio Veterans Hall of Fame. Last but not least, the Columbus Museum of Art has to be mentioned as another important art institution in downtown Columbus, founded in 1878 as the Columbus Gallery of Fine Arts.

3.4 Ohio State University

141

Ohio State University: “I knew that the university had a lot of ­opportunities”4 Ohio State University was founded in 1870 as the Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College and was renamed not long after, in 1878. Already by 1880, a Department of Art had been established, and four decades later, “the university became the first of the state universities to offer graduate programs for the creative artist, art historian, and specialist in art education.”5 Entering the extensive OSU campus and experiencing the infrastructure set up just for its operations (including a bus system, the Central Campus Security Services, and more), as well as observing the numerous opportunities to spend time on campus outside of classroom hours, the description of the campus that the OSU students consistently offered begins to take shape. They mentioned that, within the city of Columbus, OSU is considered to be a bubble for lively and intellectual stimulation. With nearly 65,000 students enrolled in the 2013/14 year, OSU is considered the largest university in the United States. More than 12,000 courses in 175 areas of study and 475 specializations were offered in 2012. And with around 6,000 academic staff and over 20,000 nonacademic employees working at the university, OSU is a little city of its own. Several maps posted around campus show where various buildings as well as ATMs can be found. It is within this context that one can also begin to comprehend the self-description of the Department of Arts Administration, Education and Policy: Today, the Department of Arts Administration, Education and Policy’s Graduate Program is generally acknowledged to be among the best nationally. The scope of graduate study in art education at The Ohio State University is the most comprehensive in the world. With 12 full time faculty, one part-time faculty and over 100 graduate students in various programs of study, it is also one of the largest existing graduate programs in Art Education. This department offers a Bachelor of Art Education, Bachelor of Arts Management, Master of Arts, and Doctor of Philosophy degrees.6

142

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Figure 3.4.3 (left): The Oval is the center of the university Figure 3.4.4 (right): Browning Amphitheater and Mirror Lake, with its fountain visible in the back

Similarly, the sheer number and size of the university’s buildings is immediately impressive, with further grandiosity imposed by the various eye-catching historical buildings. Around the center of the university—known as the Oval—there is a large park, the Thompson Library (see fig. 3.4.5), an amphitheater, and multiple other buildings constructed during the late 19th century, which have been thoroughly renovated since.7 On the Oval’s edge, one finds the College of Arts and Sciences, which contains the Department of Art; Department of Design; Department of Art Administration, Education and Policy; School of Music; and Barnett Center for Integrated Arts and Enterprise, among others.8 Within the College of Arts and Sciences, majors are offered in fields and disciplines such as arts, design, art education, arts management, anthropology, dance, film studies, music (instrumental or vocal) and musicology, sociology, and theater.9 In the autumn of 2012, most of OSU’s undergraduate students were enrolled in the College of Arts and Sciences, at 37.5 percent, followed by the College of Engineering, with 18.1 percent.10 Another of the campus’s eyecatchers, the Ohio Stadium—which holds over 100,000 spectators of American football—is temporarily hosting the Department of Arts Administration, Education and Policy. The department was scheduled to move into the Sullivant Hall in the Barnett Center, which is an impressive, newly built, classicistic building.11 However, when the field research was undertaken at the department, it was still based in the stadium.

3.4 Ohio State University

143

Department of Arts Administration, Education and Policy: Community development is at its heart The interviewed students and professors acknowledged the manifold opportunities presented above. When speaking to them, they either emphasized how many cultural activities were going on in the city (in comparison to other cities in the state of Ohio) or they said that Columbus was not very exciting (in this case, the city was often compared to Chicago). There are all kinds of things going on in Columbus. And everybody is migrating to Columbus from other cities in Ohio and nearby places. (S4: 173f.) Columbus seems very ideal in that. It is a large city; it also has a really strong arts foundation here. The city has very strong arts organizations, the people here support the arts. The Columbus Museum of Art downtown has one of the largest docent programs in the country. (P3: 26ff.)

Figure 3.4.5 (left): Entrance to the newly renovated Thompson Library Figure 3.4.6 (right): Back side of Ohio Stadium

144

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

I figured that when I came here, I would be able to work with professors who had a more intimate and in-depth knowledge of arts organizations. Because Columbus is very different to Chicago, I figured that there would be more intimate relationships and more possibilities for in-depth professional development. With Columbus being a smaller city, I thought that more people would know each other and that is why connections would be able to happen. And it works out. (S1: 69ff.)

These quotations reveal that interaction with art institutions in Columbus is a valuable resource for the examined department. The students expected to have close cooperation with these institutions; they even chose the program specifically to gain a deeper understanding of and access to the local field. And their expectations seem to have been met: the program’s proximity to these art institutions benefits their career and network development. In addition, the students acknowledged the greater personal interaction with the professors that the smaller department fostered. Aims and scope We are very focused on social justice in this department; that is like a cornerstone. It is about what is going on in the world and whose voices have been silenced for whatever reason. I think that is probably stronger in [the faculty of ] Art Education than it is in [the faculty of ] Arts Policy and Administration, but it crosses over. Sometimes the Arts Policy and Administration focuses on for-profit, where you have to know what kind of bad things have happened in order to prevent them from happening in the future. But there is also a huge emphasis on non-profit cooperation, non-profit arts cooperation, and service to communities. (P1: 209ff.)

In addition to mentioning the focus on social justice and community development, Professor 1 alluded to the department’s slogan: “Understand the past, shape the future” (P1: 200f.). The idea of “shaping,” of taking action, and of developing future communities or art institutions is directly linked to the aims and scopes of the program. The skills students of the program are supposed to make use of after graduation closely mirror the department’s idea of social engagement:

3.4 Ohio State University

145

Graduates of the program will have the practical skills required to manage an arts or cultural organization and will understand the important relationships of the arts to education, education to government, and government to the arts. The program seeks to educate cultural policy makers and administrators who can: 1. critically assess the value and impact of arts-related legislation and ­ public arts programming 2. recognize conflicts of policy and practice and seek solutions to these problems 3. understand the concept and importance of comprehensive arts education as it relates to cultural policy and public education 4. participate fully and effectively in the public policy arena, whether at the federal, state or local level 5. educate arts leaders who are prepared to develop new genres of arts ­ programming and more inclusive, interactive relationships between the public and the arts12

This is also congruent with the department’s scope as described on the website: The Department of Arts Administration, Education and Policy prepares educators, researchers, administrators and policy makers for research and practice in the interdisciplinary field of art education through its integrated, multifaceted programs and collaborations within and outside the University. Key goals are to prepare students to lead through the arts, to function as a critical and informed citizenry, to advance the public interest with regard to opportunity, diversity, effective public policy, social justice, and creativity. Through these endeavors the Department maintains its position of excellence at the local, state, national and international levels in the areas of research, teaching and service.13

In summary, the key phrases and buzzwords are: participate fully and effectively in the public policy arena; develop new genres of arts programming; interactive relationships between the public and the arts; critical and

146

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

informed citizenry; advance the public interest with regard to opportunity, diversity, inclusion, social justice, creativity, and arts leaders. One could speak of a clearly set agenda. The vision for the department and the students is equally clear-cut. The goals outlined are demanding, with regard both to the students’ accomplishments and to the department’s activities. Within the broader context of this publication, it is noteworthy that at OSU “excellence” is defined through the department’s listed “endeavors.” The Department of Arts Administration, Education and Policy not only claims its excellence on the local, national, and international levels but also states it can be maintained through its educational visions. A touchstone for the strong interdisciplinary focus of the graduate programs is the philosopher and pedagogue John Dewey, whose theories on education intertwine ethics, aesthetics, politics, education, and democracy.14 How are these ideas transformed into degrees? As summarized on the department’s website, the curriculum itself has three component parts: 1) public policy and the arts; 2) arts management; and 3) arts education policy and program management.15 Concretely, the department offers a Bachelor of Art Education, including an Arts Management major as well as some minors at the undergraduate level, alongside the following Master of Arts programs: Art Education, Art Education Online, and Arts Policy and Administration, with optional specializations in Art Education, Museum Education and Administration, and Analysis of Material Culture (interdisciplinary). Finally, the department offers a PhD in Arts Administration, Education and Policy.16 Taking a look at the curricula of the Fall 2013 and Spring 2014 semesters revealed that the MA in Arts Policy and Administration, which we will focus on in the subsequent sections, offers a broad range of classes, including Histories and Policies of Arts Education; Research Methods; Non-profit Arts Institution Governance; Concepts, Theories, and Issues in Arts/Culture Policy; and Public Policy Process and Economics.17 The required 51 credit points are nearly met by the mandatory classes alone, leaving room for only one elective during the whole program of study. An internship and the thesis complete the course. Site visits and classes from other OSU programs have to be carried out on top of the regular curriculum. Considering the above, the students’ rating of their time spent at school is not very surprising: they experience the time

3.4 Ohio State University

147

spent at university as very intense, very focused, very stimulating, quite challenging, and also burdening (see appendix OSU, table 3.4.1). The curriculum analysis allows for further insight into the department’s resources. Its financial management is mirrored in the breadth of offered classes and degrees at all three degree levels. A PhD program can be nurtured with the help of undergraduate degrees, and vice versa. That is, PhD students can teach BA students, and BA students might continue in the same department until the completion of their PhDs. However, in order to attract a sufficient number of students for the BA and MA programs, the department needs to accommodate a certain range of interests and needs—hence the wide range of classes, from the arts administration and museum courses to classes in policy and economics. In class The on-site research stay allowed us to complement the above analyses with concrete insights into the spaces and classes of OSU’s Department of Arts Administration, Education and Policy, specifically in the Arts Policy and Administration master’s program. These insights are outlined in the following notes. Descriptions of the classes and their contents are complemented by the observer’s comments and impressions, which are differentiated using square brackets. Visiting the Department of Arts Administration, Education and Policy for the first time and climbing up the industrial stairways of the backstage offices of the stadium, I was slightly irritated. Could it be that a department for aesthetic education and cultural policy is located in such an environment? Soon I was told that this was only a temporary solution and that the department was supposed to be moved into the newly renovated Barnett Center for Integrated Arts and Enterprise.

The irritation was largely provoked by the fact that the department’s rooms are located underneath the stadium (see fig. 3.4.6). Hence, there was no daylight. The huge concrete building and the corridors (see fig. 3.4.7)

148

Figure 3.4.7 and 3.4.8 (top and center): A corridor and a classroom in the temporary location for the Department of Arts Administration, Education and Policy Figure 3.4.9 (bottom): Posters on a pinboard decorated with colorful fabric to brighten up the underground corridor.

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

looked very similar—both a yellowish beige color—the ceiling was rather low, fluorescent lights were visible everywhere, and the air-conditioning was always audible. Further, the corridors and rooms were quite chilly. In a way, the feeling of being in a cave was evoked. To attempt to “warm up” this atmosphere, many professors have turned their offices into “living rooms,” with sofas, floor and table lamps, artworks, and other such items, creating a familiar, homey atmosphere. The corridors were decorated with posters, announcements (see fig. 3.4.9), and so on. The offices are directly beneath the classrooms. Teaching even takes place in the professors’ offices on a regular basis, which contributes to a familiar atmosphere. This assessment can be confirmed by the students’ rating of the atmosphere among themselves. Additionally, the professors’ overall assessment of the atmosphere reaches to the positive extreme; more specifically, they agreed on a harmonious atmosphere among themselves (see appendix OSU, table 3.4.2). To assess not only the structure of the classes but also their content, several classes were attended during

3.4 Ohio State University

149

the research stay: Arts/Cultural Institutions, Management Practice, Arts Leadership; Public Policy in the Arts; Museum History; and Arts and Cultural Organizations: Resource Management and Revenue Streams. In all the classes, the professors provided rich examples from the field, as the following detailed observations of two classes demonstrate. Wednesday, 12:30 p.m. The class Arts/Cultural Institutions, Management Practice, Arts Leadership is given by Professor 4’s teaching assistant, since Professor 4 is on a trip to London and Paris, developing international partnerships for the program. We—12 MAs and PhDs (from the US, South Africa, Korea, and China), the teaching assistant (TA), and me—are sitting at a big, square table, in a rather basically equipped room [see fig. 3.4.8]. It is cold due to the air-conditioning; the room has fluorescent lights and no windows. In previous classes, the students visited three art institutions and had the opportunity to talk to various directors and other actors, learning about their ideas and getting a feel for the problems of these institutions. These were the Columbus Museum of Art, the Columbus Foundation, and ProMusica Chamber Orchestra. For this class, the students had to come prepared with a paper reflecting on what they discovered at the three institutions. Several questions about the papers are raised and discussed. Then, around 12:50 p.m., a discussion starts about the visit to the Columbus Museum of Art. There, the students were able to talk to three different people: the director, an art education representative, and a development representative. Questions discussed were: Are they curating for the art or for the people (including the issue of “the transformation of visitors”)? How and what do visitors experience when being in the museum? How does the museum create mystery? When discussing the institution’s education program, one student asked: “Why is there no or only very little outreach action for our age group, 20s and 30s? We are the next individual donors.” This statement is heavily debated; afterward the question is posed whether it is necessary for kids to have access to museum experiences in order to become donors. The focus takes a turn from the education program to the organization itself and its funding model. The role of the

150

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Columbus Foundation, a professional community-based foundation that collects money from donors to distribute to arts organizations, is critically analyzed. [The discussion is very civilized; everyone waits until the other is finished speaking. After a short pause, another person feeds in their ideas. There is no real need for a moderator.] After nearly one hour of talking through the various observations and reflections the students made on the Columbus Museum and the Columbus Foundation, we switch to the ProMusica Chamber Orchestra. There, the students were able to observe the two new directors of a local ballet giving a presentation of their plans to the donors, founders, board members, and cultural representatives of Columbus. In this presentation, “collaboration” was the buzzword. Now we are talking about this event as well as the idea and consequences of collaborations. We discuss how outreach could be accomplished via collaboration between the orchestra and the ballet, which seemed “posh” and “somehow distant” to the students. At around 2:20 p.m., the TA wraps up some core findings of today’s class and gives a short overview of the next meeting in the field. Then the class ends. [After the class, I speak to several students. They generally praise this teaching format and consider the field experience, and especially the opportunity to talk with various actors in those institutions and to do case-specific but also cross-institutional comparisons, to be “priceless.” The discussions about the institutions were entirely based on individual observations and experiences. In my opinion, there could have been a deeper interpretative reflection through the use of theoretical perspectives on the phenomena that were observed and on the questions raised.]

After visiting this standard-format class, another class that was hosting a guest lecturer was attended. The class Arts and Cultural Organizations starts at 4:30 p.m. with an invited guest. They are the development director at BalletMet Columbus, the city’s dance company. The title of their presentation is “How to Successfully Steward Donors in Our Town.” The quite lengthy presentation starts by listing the most general facts about BalletMet, such as how many shows

3.4 Ohio State University

they produce, how much money they raise (US$2.1 million a year), which software they use (Raiser’s Edge), etc. In the end, a person is talking about their everyday work, without reflecting on it very much. The students around me are on Facebook or are sending messages on their mobile phones, as am I. Somehow the guest is going on and on, telling everyday stories about several donors, how they met them, during which event, and how they try to convince them to donate to BalletMet. “Always say thank you by phone, by a personal card, or if you see them at a show. Make it personal, even if they only gave you 10 bucks.” The professor leading the class sits beside the guest speaker, and positively affirms the presentation from time to time. “Surprise your donors”—that is key (written on a slide, showing a picture of dancers sitting on the ground, having a break). [This is boring. It is one of these “I’ll tell you what I do” presentations, which are just and only descriptive, without any critical reflection. The speaker also praises themselves and their institution remarkably often.] At 5:50 p.m. the presentation ends and questions start. At 5:54 p.m., the guest speaker hands out business cards to every student personally, saying, “I love what I do, and my job is the best.” It is 6 p.m., and the next unit starts. Students had to individually visit an art institution and analyze what they saw and what strategy this institution uses to raise donations. 6:04 p.m.: students’ presentation on BalletMet Columbus. 6:13 p.m.: presentation ends, no questions. 6:15 p.m.: the next presentation is about a theater piece two students attended at the Vern Riffe Center entitled bobrauschenbergamerica. 6:25 p.m.: presentation ends, no questions. [Also, with this assignment, the professors try to make the students go into the field and encounter various art presentations and shows. Even if the feedback is very short, it accumulates a general interest in the arts.] Now the discussion on the topic of this class—fundraising—is initiated: “Why is it hard to ask for money?” The professor reflects on and wraps up the talk given by the guest development director and puts it into context of the readings the students were assigned for the seminar. They also ask for feedback about what the students thought about the presentation. 6:50 p.m.: The professor uses PowerPoint again to go over 11 questions about fundraising. The take-home ideas are: “Why me?,” “Why are you

151

152

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

asking me?,” “Do I respect you?,” “How much do you want,” “Why your organization? (history, overview, mission, telling stories),” “Will my contribution make a difference?,” etc. 7:12 p.m.: The next class is organized; three presentations have to be shifted to next class. The students are asked to take a look at the following websites to inform themselves about giving in the US: www.givingusareports.org, www.americansforthearts.org, www.nea.org.

The second class described above was well structured and had a clear pedagogic aim. Also, it was good to bring in the guest speaker as real-world practitioner. Nevertheless, the talk stayed at a very practical level and the reflection on donating and giving was quite shallow. No academic text was read or analyzed in depth. Sending the students out to arts institutions and events and making them reflect on their experiences in class was a good tactic. Although a more critical and theoretically informed analysis was somehow missing, discussing fundraising practices was well accomplished in this class. The importance of professors having a practical perspective as well as the ability to convey to the students a well-substantiated idea of the fields they will be working in becomes evident in a statement about hiring processes by Professor 4: I wanted to make sure that [the department] hired a [particular] person without a PhD, but they had an MFA, they had been in New York, produced theater, they had a very, very, very exciting entrepreneurial career. But the university doesn’t permit a person with an MFA to teach PhD courses, even though they are much better, they know the field, they have experience, and they are internationally known. That makes me crazy, because I want the very best person. If I find a banker who has been working with loans to arts institutions for 30 years, I want him or her to be able to be hired to teach arts administration financial responsibility. Instead, I have to hire somebody with a certain level of credentials, which is good in most cases. But we have got to break down some of these barriers. (P4: 490ff.)

3.4 Ohio State University

153

As a complement to such concrete field experience and applied knowledge, the department offers and realizes a focus on academic education. Even though theory and practice are not necessarily interwoven within individual classes, they are both offered in the curricula. In addition to this, a very effective practice-theory ping-ponging set up by Professor 2 and Professor 4 became obvious during the course of the observations: Professor 4 will not be teaching forever. They are going to retire. So finding ways to maintain a lot of that contact, that interaction with the community is needed. And again, we divided it up. They do much more community contact. I do much more field contact. I am constantly pushing our students to present and publish. They are always pushing them to present as well, but more to the practitioners. (P2: 385ff.)

The juxtaposition of theory and practice is predominant in OSU’s Department of Arts Administration, Education and Policy and its master’s programs. It is represented by the two professors identified in the above quote, it is mentioned among the reasons why the students chose the program, and it is visible in the professors’ qualifications (see appendix OSU, table 3.4.3) as well as in the careers the students would like to pursue. Professors’ profiles Taking a look at the professors—or “driving forces”—behind the program requires an examination of each professor’s profile. Professor 2 received an MA in Political Science from the State University of New York at Binghamton in 1973 and a PhD in Government from Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, in 1979. Before becoming a professor at OSU in 1998, they worked for the National Endowment for the Arts in Washington, DC. They are currently directing the MA in Arts Administration and Policy and are executive editor of the Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society, in which they have also published several articles. Professor 2’s main research interests are cultural policy and the arts, philanthropy and the arts, and public policy processes.

154

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Their counterpart, Professor 4, received an MA in English Literature in 1966 and a PhD in Theater in 1972, both from OSU. From 1975 to 2006, they worked for the Ohio Arts Council and were responsible for international cooperation projects. Additionally, Professor 4 served as a board and panel member for the National Endowment for the Arts, and participated in committees that, for example, were tasked with finding new directors for Columbus’s art institutions. Currently, they are on the boards of the Columbus Museum of Art and the national Alliance of Artists Communities. Comparing these two profiles reveals the broader contrast of but also exchange between theory (P2) and practice (P4), or academic and field work, in the Department of Arts Administration, Education and Policy at large— an interplay that, in this department, generates fruitful results. Professor 4 described this interplay in terms of a “mission,” while Professor 2 used the term “partnership” to explain the “ping-pong” the two professors are constantly performing: I think the mission—again, this comes back to Professor 2 and to me—and we are preparing our students to go into one of two directions. Professor 2 has more of a tendency to push the students into academia, and I push them out into the practical world of arts administration. I think, when you have that, you have a strength that a lot of schools don’t have. And I think that’s important for our students. We also demand that our students work in internships in different kinds of institutions, so they are getting that experience before they graduate. (P4: 222ff.) I have a really very productive partnership with Professor 4. We do this: We come at things from two different ends, but we end up in the same middle point. [Professor 4] started out in theater and comparative literature in academia. They were in fact the department chair here, then went into the state arts agency for 20 years. So they have done academics to practice. I am more grounded in the academic side, but I have had enough practice in government. So, both of us have a sense of what the other’s strength is like. So we can really converge. Professor 4 is constantly keeping me grounded and applied, and I am constantly taking what they are doing and conceptualizing and modeling it. (P2: 361ff.)

3.4 Ohio State University

155

This effective interplay is not only noticed by the professors in question; the students also consider it to be enriching, as can be deduced from the following statement: Student 1: My opinion is that this program mixes industry and academia. Interviewer: By “industry” you mean experience in the field? Student 1: Yes, because we have Professor 4, who would say that they are the practitioner side of the program. They definitely have a lot of experience in that arena. And we have Professor 2, who has extensive knowledge and has written extensively about cultural policy. And so you have a mix of these two. That really provides a rich experience for students. (168ff.)

Later on in the interview, the student more generally stated an appreciation of “the applicability of the studies” and the transfer of what is learned in class to the field (S1: 388f.). Nonetheless, a point of critique comes from the observation that the theoretical side of the discussions sometimes remains weak. The overall impression gained through observing the attended classes was that the texts the students had to prepare were not always analyzed in depth. Rather, the texts were used to assist in the consideration of other topics. Instead of theoretically informed discussions, the lecturers tended to present practical “how-to” advice that the students could apply in future professional contexts. Still, the professors seemed to care about interweaving theory and practice in the various classes, and the students seemed to appreciate this. It was obvious that the ultimate aim is to foster the students’ development of distinct and wellfounded positions and opinions. Returning to the professors’ qualifications, the profiles of the two other interviewed Arts Administration and Policy professors will now be examined. Professor 3, an assistant professor, received their BA (1990), MA (2006), and PhD (2009) in Art Education at OSU. They were visiting assistant professor of art education in 2011–12 and were appointed assistant professor for art education in 2012. Their major fields of interest, in which they fre-

156

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

quently publish, are gender and popular visual culture, feminist pedagogy, media literacy, reflective practice, and arts-based inquiry. Professor 3 is currently a member of several associations, including the International Society for Education through Art, the National Art Education Association, and the Women’s Caucus. The main research interests of Professor 1, who is both a professor and the department chair, encompass feminist theory and semiotics, in which they also received a PhD in 1992. Before coming to OSU, they were professor in and head of the Art Education Division of Northern Illinois University, DeKalb. Their practical experience encompasses positions at art magazines (associate art director) and galleries (director). Professor 1’s current memberships and positions include, among others, vice president of the International Society for Education through Art, advocacy chair for the World Alliance for Arts Education, and elected member of the Council for Policy Studies in Art Education. They frequently publish articles in journals such as Visual Culture and Gender, International Journal of Arts Education, International Journal of Education through Art, Journal of Social Theory in Art Education, and Visual Arts Research. These two profiles reveal two common subjects: feminism and gender diversity. Professor 1 and Professor 3 are not the only professors interested in these topics: 12 of the department’s professors are interested in gender and LGBT studies, as well as other subaltern and counterhegemonic fields such as critical multicultural art education; visual culture and critical race theory; anti-bias education; and disability studies. This shows that a strong concern for social value, social justice, and the impact of arts on community development dominates the department’s culture and activities. In addition, these professor profiles underline once more the combination of academic and practical professional experience in the cultural sector that characterizes the overall program. Combining the above profiles—particularly that of Professor 3, who completed their entire education in the examined department—with the previous assessment of the program’s aims and scopes supports one of the conclusions outlined earlier. Namely, the offered degrees are designed in a way that they attract students to stay at OSU for all three degree levels (and beyond), which is ultimately financially beneficial for the university. This model also

3.4 Ohio State University

157

enhances a strong departmental disposition and cohesion that informs the shape of the curricula and teaching impetus. Strategic use of resources Having alluded to the department’s resource management several times in the preceding paragraphs, we will now look more closely at its various resources. First of all, OSU is a state university; this means it is less expensive than most private universities in the United States. The tuition fee (per academic year, full-time enrollment) is approximately US$10,000 for Ohio residents and US$26,000 for nonresidents, which is a comparatively low amount. Through the interviews, it became clear that the major factors influencing the students’ decision to enroll in the program were the tuition fees and the scholarship options (see appendix OSU, table 3.4.3). Secondly, as mentioned above, OSU is the largest university in the US in terms of enrollment figures and offers almost every kind of study imaginable. The manifold cultural and art studies (music, theater, art, design, literature, etc.) generate bachelor students who end up looking for master’s programs— often in the school’s own College of Arts and Sciences. Therefore, OSU itself is an important resource for the Department of Arts Administration, Education and Policy: I think we have enough strength, and we have enough support through the Barnett endowment, to make sure that they [the university administration] are going to continue the [Arts Administration and Policy master’s] program. … Now, we have this new undergraduate, the Bachelor of Arts Administration. That’s a big step, and I think that is going to be a driver. You have these parents who say, “My child wants to study music, theater, art. There is no money in it, I don’t feel good about it. I want my child to have the ability to run an organization.” So, they push the students into the undergraduate degree, which is going to feed into the graduate degree. So you have the Barnett, you have the new undergraduate degree, and then you of course have the higher-level kids, who are coming from other schools. I think it will—whether Professor 2 and I are there or not—continue as one of the biggest programs for arts administration. (P4: 308ff.)

158

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Thirdly, in terms of financial resources, OSU offers attractive stipend options, thanks to one couple, Lawrence and Isabel Barnett, who have given generous donations to OSU and the department itself (as also mentioned in the above quotation). In January 2012, the Barnetts donated US$6 million to OSU’s College of Arts and Sciences to establish the multidisciplinary Barnett Center for Integrated Arts and Enterprise, which opened in 2014.18 It was built to house the Department of Arts Administration, Education and Policy; Department of Dance; Billy Ireland Cartoon Library and Museum; and Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and Design.19 Not only did the Barnetts finance the renovation of a building, but they also created the Barnett Fellowship, which covers two years of tuition fees and living expenses for one or more PhD fellows.20 On top of this, there is a biannual Barnett Symposium on the Arts and Public Policy. The couple’s influence doesn’t end there: Professor 4 stated that the Barnetts “really encouraged me to come into the department, because I am paid as the Barnett Distinguished Professor. My salary comes from the Barnett body” (P4: 283ff.). A fourth resource the department draws from is the personal and professional networks many professors bring to the program and to the students: Many of us have leadership roles in international organizations. Many of us are editors of various journals. So we are kind of the gatekeepers of the field in many ways. (P1: 141ff.)

Figure 3.4.10: Lawrence and ­Isabel ­Barnett Center for Integrated Arts and ­Enterprise (under renovation)

If one of my students wants to meet somebody, I can pick up the phone, and say, “I need you to meet my student next week,” and they can get in to do their research immediately. (P4: 118f.)

3.4 Ohio State University

159

I go to Washington, DC, every year to advocate for the arts, and everyone knows who Professor 2 is. I’ve been able to have conversations with very important people because I can say, “I am Professor 2’s student. Hello, how are you?” And they say: “Oh, Professor 2. How are they?” (S2: 97ff.) Since I have been here, my biggest challenge has been promoting our department university-wide. Because a lot of time you are not known in your own university, whereas you are known in the whole world. And I found that to be my most significant challenge. But I have been very fortunate to get this center going, get the $6 million. So I am just out there. What I am doing a lot is cross-advertising. “The arts are important! Pay attention!” And so I spend a lot of my time being an advocate for the arts. I do that internationally as the vice president of the International Society for Education through Art and the advocacy chair for the World Alliance for Arts Education—that is where the UNESCO organizations are. I am forever doing advocacy stuff. That is something that I have to do. (P1: 238ff.)

One aspect mirroring the department’s resource orientation is the way in which the Department of Arts Administration, Education and Policy manages its degree and specializations offers. Looking at the foundation of its MA in Arts Policy and Administration, narrated by Professor 2 in the following paragraph, it is astonishing to see that the program was developed from scratch and that the current diversity of offered degrees evolved through the strategic use of the department’s resources. I am the institutional memory (laughter). The Arts Policy and Administration program was founded in the middle of the 1990s, when at least in the United States there was this sudden awareness that arts management wasn’t sufficient to handle the political controversies. That was a response to environmental concerns. It was too organization specific. It didn’t know how to deal with system[ic] problems policy sets up. We were one of the first programs that actually had a policy focus within arts administration. That created an oddity in many ways. Most of the arts administration programs in the States are about management and add

160

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

a course on law or ethics or public policy. We really developed an early strength in policy and have had to build the management components over time. I think the [Ohio] Board of Regents actually approved it [the program’s curriculum] in 1996. And when I came in, there was a cohort of master’s students and one doctoral student doing a policy topic as their dissertation topic, but there wasn’t a support curriculum. It was an arrangement with a particular professor. (P2: 84ff.)

The story continues as follows: since the Department of Arts Administration, Education and Policy was not able to cooperate with the John Glenn School of Public Affairs and the Fisher College of Business as was originally planned, it tailored its curriculum and courses to the students’ specific needs in the fields of cultural policy and arts administration. In this manner, the department was also able to develop a unique selling proposition (USP), namely its arts policy focus. The first thing I did was spending a lot of time developing the policy curriculum. Because the program was set up as a partnership between the Glenn School for Public Policy and the College of the Arts, I was the natural bridge. I could speak policy, speak to the Glenn School, but I could [also] speak arts, speak to the arts. The Glenn School was originally supposed to provide not only basic policy process knowledge but also a lot of the public management curriculum. And you have to realize that when this was set up, we did not have a public management school and a business school. We had a management school that did everything. … We brought in the Fisher School of Business on the undergraduate level. When I came in, our assumption was that we could get business management, non-profit management, and public management in one place. Within a year of my getting here, the Fisher School broke off and spent the next 10 years intensely developing the business school culture. At about the same time, the Glenn School wasn’t even a school. It started positioning itself to develop as a public policy school—just public policy. And so a lot of our management curriculum, if it is going to be arts specific, we have to develop. … And on top of that, the Glenn School dropped

3.4 Ohio State University

161

most of its non-profit curriculum for about 10 years. So we couldn’t pull it in that way and had to create a lot of it inside the [Arts Administration and Policy] program. (P2: 124ff., 148ff.)

With a total of 13 professors and associate professors and one visiting associate professor who all contribute their varied research interests—art’s impact in society, arts-based research, community-based art, gender studies, disability studies, contemporary art, and semiotics—the department is able to offer five degrees across the BA, MA, and PhD levels, including three specializations (see the earlier “Aims and scopes of the program” section). The ability to offer such a diverse range of specific education paths while having so few resources at the department’s disposal is impressive. Through a combination of the department’s USP and very careful curriculum development, the Department of Arts Administration, Education and Policy is able to address students who are as strongly interested in the above-listed areas of study as the professors themselves. In addition, the department’s ability to attract students who would like to proceed with advanced degrees in the same department not only provides support financially via tuition fees but also represents a qualitative contribution when these students go on to work as teaching or research assistants. To achieve the aim of continuously attracting students, the curricula need to be constantly updated. According to Professor 2, this is done in a rather informal fashion; it is more about enabling new classes and finding ways to do so than about formalizing evaluation procedures: I try to keep an ear to the ground so I hear what the students are talking about. And sometimes they come and talk to me and tell me what they would like to do. I am always gathering information from them in an informal way about what they need or want. (P2: 527ff.)

Even though the students formally evaluate the professors after each class at the end of the semester (P1: 285f.), the informal development process fostered by the close relationship between students and professors seems to be more effective.

162

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Student profiles and perspectives When evaluating different aspects of the program, students ranked the university’s reputation, the scholarship options, and the tuition levels as “very important” reasons to choose the program at OSU; further, both research and practice (“future professional options”) were also given this label (see appendix OSU, table 3.4.3). These reasons are consistent with their assessment of the qualifications a professor in the program should have: they considered theory (“frequent publishing or professional activities”) and practice (“professional qualification”) to be the most important competences. The professors’ ratings, in comparison, resulted in a rather uniform distribution of the 15 items (see appendix OSU, table 3.4.4). When it comes to the students’ ideas of their future professions, they have rather clear visions: It is whatever will pay me the best and give me the best lifestyle at that moment. I am trying to be as prepared as possible to go into academia. So I make sure I publish, but I also want to make sure that I can go into industry as well. (S1: 316ff.) I don’t want to teach at the academic level. I want to work in the industry. I would like to run an arts council. But I feel that the knowledge and experience that I am getting in the program is necessary in the field. I would really like to work at Ohio Arts Council, or be a researcher in the field. I really enjoy qualitative evaluation of programming and how to measure impact, especially how it pertains to receiving funding. A lot of support organizations are looking for proof that the arts are important. (S2: 30ff.) To be a professor would be my ideal goal. But I am also interested in working at a government agency. (S3: 160) I would rather have a job managing a large company, an arts organization, a culture organization—those kinds of things. This degree will immediately give me access to those jobs. (S4: 98ff.)

3.4 Ohio State University

163

Only Student 4 was enrolled in the MA program; the others were PhD candidates. It is noteworthy that each student considered a dissertation to be both an additional qualification for a practical professional career and a “door opener” for a career path in academia. Even so, two of the PhD students thought the program should put a stronger focus on internships, which would enable the department to strengthen its external connections with renowned institutions. (S1: 406; S2: 184f.; S4: 552ff.) It is remarkable that, despite the strong focus on community development in the department’s courses, a social component does not play an important role in the students’ career planning. Rather, the dualism of theory and practice, in the sense of either working as an academic or as a practitioner in the field, takes central focus. When asked how the students see themselves, they expressed the following: We are facilitators of cultural production and cultural experiences. (S1: 300) We are the future of the culture industry. We are the future leaders. We are the architects of what is going to happen. (S4: 333f.)

These are very clear and confident self-images and visions. The quotations further show that the students exactly fit the mindset proclaimed on the website (“prepare students to lead through the arts;” see quotation above). They also clearly share the agenda that the department sets with its aims and scopes (as outlined in the beginning of this chapter) and fit into the professors’ visions for the futures of their students. That is, the students learn to see the bigger picture and become sufficiently educated to take up leading positions in academia or in the arts field. As Professor 2 explains: They kind of break up into a number of things. The PhDs increasingly want to teach or they go into work for government. … A number of them would like to work for a national professional association, like the League of American Orchestras or the American Alliance of Museums, because they have been schooled to see the big picture, and that is where they can see the big picture. Then we have some people who go into regular orga-

164

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

nization management. Some of them are very entrepreneurial and they go out and turn themselves into consultants. Some of them work for local or state arts agencies. (P2: 585ff.)

This teaching ideal furthermore aligns with the overall department’s pioneering role and gatekeeping function in the field of arts administration and policy. On this front, the professors are very convinced of what they do and clearly communicate their opinion: In some ways I think it is the best place in the United States to understand what cultural policy is and how it affects management. (P2: 181f.)

This stance, as articulated by Professor 2, emphasizes that the department, faculty, and students all aim for leading positions in teaching, research, and practice, on both national and international levels. It is obvious the department defines its excellence through its clear-cut ideas for the students’ professional futures as well as through its commitment to social development. One can conclude that the agenda set by the Department of Arts Administration, Education and Policy at OSU is not only strong, but successful. Both the professors and the students have high expectations of each other and of themselves. Despite the successes of the Arts Administration and Policy master’s program, a conversation with Professor 5 revealed a certain dissonance in the department. They mentioned a lack of interaction between the education and the art administration tracks and stated that there was not a clear vision of how to bring these two together. Additionally, they wished for more initiatives to increase cooperation with the other departments and schools on campus, such as the theater school, the music school, the art school, and others, as well as with the arts institutions located on the OSU campus. They argued that moving into the Barnett Center, renovated to house multiple art schools, might bring about change and enable new dynamics between the mentioned schools as well as increase visibility for the program. One student also commented on the lack of collaboration with other departments and schools by metaphorically describing the department’s situation as “silo-like” due to “complete ignorance” about the department on the part of other faculties (S2: 226f.).

3.4 Ohio State University

165

The 2013 “Note from the Chair” touches on the above criticisms of the separation between the different faculties, which eventually manifested in a decision to rename the department, after a long period of internal discussion: After months and years of discussion and compromise, we are now officially the “Department of Arts Administration, Education and Policy.” We continue to put Education at the center of what we do, but the new name [with the addition of “Education”] represents more accurately our courses, scholarship, and practices to educate art teachers, arts administrators, and arts policy makers.21

Although this reveals there are some disharmonies in the department, one has to acknowledge that the teaching body tries to balance them out. Or, as Professor 2 put it: “We agree to disagree, but it is very interesting to watch the discussion” (P2: 175). Further to this point, the seeming competition between the two “branches” of policy, social justice, and administration on the one hand and art education on the other possibly raises their respective performances in research and teaching, as each program clearly tries to be “ahead” of the other. Conclusion Departing from its location in the somewhat remote but vibrant city of Columbus, with its spot among the enormous campus of Ohio State University, the Department of Arts Administration, Education and Policy has two clear central aspects: firstly, the personal relationship between the students and the professors, as well as close interactions with local art institutions, and secondly, the juxtaposition of theory and practice. In addition to these core characteristics, philosophical ideas on education through the arts are mirrored in the department’s commitment to the arts and belief in their role in social justice, community development, education, and policy. The relatively smaller size of Columbus, as well as its geographical position of being more or less equidistant from the major centers of Chicago and New York, forces—but also enables—the students to establish their own

166

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

networks, both with OSU professors and with directors of external art institutions. Guest lecturers from these institutions are often invited to classes or students travel to meet with them on site visits. In this manner, the students get in-depth insight into the field and a better impression of their future professional options. Since OSU and specifically the Department of Arts Administration, Education and Policy offer the possibility of becoming a research or teaching assistant, the students have the opportunity to complement their practical experiences with forays into academia. During the research visit, it became obvious that the department was able to develop outstanding characteristics, or a USP, that support its current leading position in the field of arts administration. Besides being the first university department to offer an arts policy focus, it also offers various programs on the BA, MA, and PhD levels. With these specialized degrees and tailored classes, the department is able to address students with equally specific interests in arts administration, education, policy, and its various strands (museum studies, non-profit management, public policy, etc.). The accommodation of all three academic levels provides evidence of efficient resource management. The interdisciplinarity of the Department of Arts Administration, Education and Policy attracts BA students from OSU schools outside of the College of Arts, and it is also successful at retaining undergraduate students who stay in the department through to MA and even PhD level. Furthermore, through OSU’s proximity to art institutions and individuals committed to the arts, such as Lawrence and Isabel Barnett, the department faculty was able to secure internship options, several scholarships, and, more importantly, the renovation of an entire building. In this manner, the program is able to firstly secure its finances on the basis of tuition fees, secondly promote its spirit and agenda via a long-term attraction of students, and finally feed the competences conveyed in the classes back to future students through faculty recruitment from within the program. The development of the department’s USP is mirrored in a strongly self-confident attitude. The professors avowedly claim the school’s leading position and the students aim for leading positions either in academia or in the practical arts field, which is congruent with the professors’ idea of the students’ futures. Not only is this dialogic of theory and practice represented in

3.4 Ohio State University

167

the students’ professional visions, but the professors’ professional profiles and program curricula also integrate a (theoretical) reflection of practices. Most importantly, the theory-practice ping-ponging that takes place between Professor 2 and Professor 4 nurtures this combination: between them, they are able to help the students develop their professional career either in the practical field (P4) or in academia (P2). However, during the research stay, the department left the impression of not having any concrete vision for its future development and of seeming rather trapped in its current configuration. Interestingly, this was mirrored in the architecture and interior design of its (temporary) location: buried below Ohio Stadium, the offices did not have any windows, so that the professors and students were deprived of daylight. The color concept in the corridors did not provide any orientation; rather, it felt like being in a labyrinth in which one could get lost easily. A possible solution to this situation is identifiable in the renovated Barnett Center for Integrated Arts and Enterprise. Metaphorically speaking, this center represented a “silver lining” for several of the professors, who saw the department’s new home as a first step to becoming more visible to and connected with other OSU faculties and departments. Despite these surroundings, the atmosphere between the students and professors was harmonious, thanks to their shared visions and mindsets; their relationships were obviously close. Classes taking place in the professors’ offices created a homey and familiar ambiance, transforming the program’s location underneath the stadium into a more informal, familiar setting. Notes 1

Columbus Association for the Performing Arts. (2014). Columbus Association for the Performing Arts. Retrieved February 17, 2014 from http://www.capa.com/

2

Ohio Department of Administrative Services. (2014). Riffe Center. Accessed February 17, 2014, from https://das.ohio.gov/Divisions/General-Services/Properties-and-Facilities/Riffe.

3

CAPA. (2014). Riffe Center Theatre Complex. Retrieved February 17, 2014, from http://www. capa.com/venues/riffe-center-studios

4

Interview with S1 (27).

5

Ohio State University. (2020). AAEP: An abbreviated history | Arts, Administration, Education and Policy. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://aaep.osu.edu/about/history.

168

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

6

Ohio State University. (2020). About – Arts, Administration, Education and Policy. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://aaep.osu.edu/about; Ohio State University. (2020). AEEP: An abbreviated history. Retrieved October 12, 2020, from https://aaep.osu.edu/about/history.

7

Ohio State University. (2014). Regional campuses. Retrieved February 17, 2014, from http:// undergrad.osu.edu/our-campuses/learn-more.html

8

For a campus map, see Ohio State University. (2020). Campus map. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from http://www.osu.edu/map/google.php

9

Ohio State University. (2014). Majors. Retrieved February 18, 2014, from http://undergrad.osu. edu/majors-and-academics/majors

10

For a comparison of select colleges and schools applicable to the researched semester, see Ohio State University. (2014). Quick facts. Retrieved February 18, 2014, from http://undergrad. osu.edu/admissions/quick-facts.html

11

Ohio State University. (2015). About – Barnett Center. Retrieved December 28, 2015, from http://barnettcenter.osu.edu/about

12

Ohio State University. (2020). Arts Policy & Administration. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://aaep.osu.edu/academics/arts-policy-administration

13

The Ohio State University. (2020). Outreach – Arts Administration, Education and Policy. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://aaep.osu.edu/about/outreach

14

Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. Southern Illinois University Press.

15

Ohio State University. (2020). Master degree. Retrieved October 12, 2020, from https://aaep. osu.edu/academics/arts-policy-administration/ma

16

Ohio State University. (2020). Academics. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://aaep.osu. edu/academics

17

Current study plans are available at Ohio State University. (2020). Student resources. Retrieved October 12, 2020, from https://aaep.osu.edu/resources

18

College of Art and Sciences. (2019). Sullivant Hall. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from https:// artsandsciences.osu.edu/facilities/sullivant-hall

19

College of Arts of Sciences. (2020). $6 million gift to create Lawrence and Isabel Barnett Center for Integrated Arts and Enterprise. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from http://artsandsciences. osu.edu/barnett-6-million-dollar-gift-arts-enterprise-center

20

Ohio State University. (2020). Awards & scholarships – Arts Administration, Education and Policy. Retrieved October 11, 2020, from https://aaep.osu.edu/resources/funding/awards-scholarships

21

The source has been intentionally left out to preserve anonymity.

169

3.4 Ohio State University

Appendix OSU Table 3.4.1: Visualization of students’ assessment of the time spent at school Too

Very

A little

Not

Insuf­­ficiently … intense. … focused. … activating and stimulating. … happy. … challenging. … burdening.

Legend: mentioned once

mentioned twice

mentioned three times

mentioned four times

170

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Table 3.4.2: Visualization of the students’ and ­professors’ ­ratings of their respective atmospheres Professors’ rating of the ­atmos­phere among themselves Applies fully

Applies

Applies up to a point

Does not apply

Students’ rating of the ­ atmos­phere among themselves

Does not apply at all

Does not apply at all

Collegial Compe­titive Cooperative Harmonious Inspiring Indivi­dualistic* Moti­vating *Individualistic in the sense of “everyone for themselves”

Does not apply

Applies up to a point

Applies

Applies fully

171

3.4 Ohio State University

Table 3.4.3: Visualization of the students‘ rating of ­important criteria for choosing their program Very important

The general reputation of the university Friends or ­acquaintances ­already studying here The program’s or department’s orientation Family reasons One or several professors and their teaching and research foci The city and its cultural activities The ranking of the university and program The environment and what it offers The alumni network Future professional options The fellowship options Tuition fees The possibility to work while studying

Important

More or less important

Unimportant

Absolutely important

172

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Table 3.4.4: Visualization of qualifications for a professor in this ­program according to the professors and students Professors

Students Professional academic or artistic qualification Pedagogic competence Frequent publishing or professional activities Practical experience Humor or spirit Enthusiasm for the ­subject they are teaching Availability and approachability The ability to grasp or ­recognize the students’ professional ­difficulties or uniqueness Practical orientation Interdisciplinary orientation Committed personality Interested personality Motivating personality

Missing items are “appreciative treatment of the students” and “empathy,” which were not named by either group.

3.5 New York University: Master of Arts in Visual Arts Administration and Master of Arts in Performing Arts Administration

Location: “New York City makes it different”1 In this chapter, two master’s programs at the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development, part of New York University (NYU), are examined. One common feature of these two programs is their location: the specific metropolitan environment of New York City. The numerous arts organizations in the city not only provide internship possibilities for the students of NYU but can also be integrated into the courses, offering a real-world setting to complement the in-class tuition, which facilitates students’ encounters with their prospective professional field(s). As one student noted: One thing I loved about the NYU program was that it is in New York City. It makes a difference, because I have the Lincoln Center, I have the Kennedy Center. I was very interested in understanding how these two institutions work. And NYU is going to give me an open door for this. Also, when I considered it, NYU offered a good balance between business and arts administration. And that is why I chose New York over the other cities. (S1: 49ff.)

When trying to describe NYU in more detail, there is at least one aspect that is exceptionally notable. Some might consider it trivial, but after visiting the rather self-contained campuses of the University of Warwick and

174

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Goldsmiths, University of London, it was astounding to see that NYU is a university “without walls” and without a campus. Its center is the public space of Washington Square Park. The park is located directly next to the university’s Elmer Holmes Bobst Library, the Kimmel Center for University Life, the Jeffrey S. Gould Welcome Center, Figure 3.5.1: The view of the city from inside the Stern School of Business, and the Kimmel Center, where the students have the NYU Steinhardt Education workspaces; the Washington Square Arch, with the Empire State Building directly behind it Building, among other buildings, and as such the park is frequented by NYU students and professors, who go there to read or to have a coffee in the sun. Furthermore, the park is a meeting point for New Yorkers as well as for tourists. At any time of the day, musicians, actors, and other artists busk on the plaza. All in all, it is a lively, vibrant place connecting NYU with and locating it in its environment of Lower Manhattan. By virtue of its location, NYU is truly a university in the city, close to where “things are happening.” The showpiece of Washington Square Park is the Washington Square Arch, built in 1895, which marks the starting point of Fifth Avenue (see fig. 3.5.1). Through the arch, the Empire State Building is visible. This iconic view was even used as the landing image on the Music and Performing Arts Professions website at the time of our study. The “University Life” page of the NYU website describes the experience the university’s location and layout elicits: NYU’s campus is literally without walls, drawing its spirit from a global city with an entrepreneurial bent, a diversity of human life, and resources that include some of the world’s most famous cultural institutions and most valued professional opportunities. Albeit untraditional, NYU is primarily located in Manhattan’s Greenwich Village and downtown Brooklyn where there’s no doubt that the neighborhoods feel like a community. Many of

3.5 New York University

175

NYU’s academic and administrative buildings and freshman residence halls border Washington Square Park. The sidewalks are full of students on their way to class, and members of the NYU community fill the restaurants, shops, and other businesses.2

The MA in Performing Arts Administration (PAA), which focuses on music, theater, and dance administration, and the MA in Visual Arts Administration (VAA), which focuses on contemporary art administration, are both located in historical buildings; however, teaching also takes places in various other buildings and schools. The architecture of the buildings used for the PAA and VAA is diverse, although not particularly outstanding. The middle-sized buildings, averaging 15 stories high, span the styles of neo-Gothic (the 12th floor of the Education Building, 35 West 4th Street); more neoclassical (Tisch School, 721 Broadway); industrial (Barney Building, 34 Stuyvesant Street); and rather functional postmodern (Kimmel Center, 60 Washington Square, and the Bobst Library, 70 Washington Square S). The lively and urban atmosphere enhances a “down to earth” feeling at NYU, which is in strong contrast to the stiff and enclosed feeling of the uptown campus of another New York City institution, Columbia University

Figure 3.5.2 (left): The waiting area of the Kimmel Center Figure 3.5.3 (right): A second-floor classroom in the Kimmel Center, on Thompson Street, which is functional and well equipped. It has a view of Washington Square Park and the cityscape.

176

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Figure 3.5.4 (left): The Education Building (left-hand side) and the Welcome Center (on the right) Figure 3.5.5 (right): The campus of Columbia University. View from the Low Memorial Library, which overlooks the College Walk and the Nicholas Murray Butler Library. This self-contained setting creates a very different atmosphere from the embedded city campus of NYU.

(see fig. 3.5.5). Columbia seems to be located in a world of its own, with its highly representative campus that feels almost like a sort of gated community. This observation corresponds to one NYU student’s statement comparing the two universities: NYU is downtown, so it seems maybe a little more connected to the non-profit arts, non-profit theater. We are here in West 4th Street, and if you go over to East 4th Street, there is the corridor of all those major non-profit theater companies, [including] New York Theatre Workshop, the mama of all those organizations. So it feels like you are really close to where those things are happening. … This is where this movement started. I would not have that same sense, I would not feel that kind of same energy, if I were at Columbia. (S2: 201ff.)

3.5 New York University

177

Program in response to the field In line with its close proximity to a large variety of local art institutions, NYU as a whole, including the examined master’s programs, is future oriented. Program faculty constantly looks at the most recent developments occurring in their disciplines and integrates them into the curriculum: “NYU has another ethos about being ahead of the curve. What’s next. We are always talking about this in the department. What should they [the students] be ready for next” (P1: 313f.).3 One professor considered the program to be a response to “what is going on in the art field” (P6: 557) and derived the following implication: We are constantly tinkering and upgrading the curriculum. I think that is the crux of what we have—our product, so to speak. We just put on a course about art analysis and investment because it is a big part of what is going on in the marketplace today. We are constantly adjusting to what is going on in the field. We also have a colloquium that we run three nights [per] term. (P6: 527ff.)

As stimulating an environment as New York might be, it is also highly competitive. For the PAA and VAA to remain attractive to students, profitable as autonomous programs, and distinguishable in the mass of other arts administration programs available, regular adjustments are required at various levels. First of all, the curriculum demands constant development and adaptation to both the current discourses of the field and students’ interests. Second, with regard to the high tuition fees (approximately US$92,000 for the entire program),4 faculty has to be mindful of the job market and its requirements, so that students are equipped with useful tools and experiences to succeed in that saturated situation. According to the students’ prospective professions and interests, the programs need to be able to expand so as to accommodate and enhance students’ individual skills. All of these demands require a highly entrepreneurial spirit. The programs’ marketability and profitability need to be combined and balanced with the available resources and with the students’ needs and requirements.

178

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Curriculum: Business combined with practice The entrepreneurial spirit is not only apparent in the PAA and VAA programs’ flexible nature, but it is also mirrored in the offered classes. At first glance, an orientation toward business is obvious in the curricula of both programs, which are similarly structured. Along with a foundation course in either performing or visual arts administration, a law course, and a class called Environment of Visual / Performing Arts Administration (which gives an overview of the field and its development), classes on finance, accounting, marketing, leadership, and development make up the core of the two master’s programs.5 One professor considered this focus to be a distinct feature of the programs: What distinguishes it [the VAA program] is the business spine that runs through it. So everything that is offered will give students a business perspective on the arts. And I think that they see that as their core string. (P4: 300ff.)

In addition to the mandatory courses, electives can be chosen from among all classes available at NYU, including those at the Tisch School of the Arts, the Stern School of Business, and the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service. This is a unique strength that benefits both programs. Two students named the business focus and the variety of offered courses among the reasons to enroll in either program: I thought that I would emerge from it with a better understanding of the ins and outs of the art world, the business side of it, which was really a mystery to me before. (S4: 42f.) I want to learn how to run an arts organization as a business, and NYU focuses on that. You can take a lot of courses at the business school, and I did look at business schools as an option. (S3: 82ff.)

On the one hand, the different schools of NYU constitute an enormous pool of resources the students can benefit from. On the other hand, there are certain structural hurdles one has to circumvent in order to make use of these

3.5 New York University

179

opportunities. For example, one has to keep in mind that only two elective classes are included as part of the PAA program, and three for the VAA program. Every course a student takes on top of the basic curriculum requirements is outside the programs’ tuition fees, and so costs around an additional US$1,800 per credit (speaking of how to run a business!). Furthermore, it appears to be necessary for the faculty to develop a separate agreement for each course that takes place outside the programs’ school: First of all, with Stern and Wagner [Schools], we make a deal. They have to give me a certain number of seats because it is required. I don’t have to pay; I just go over and negotiate with them. I say, “Give me Wednesday nights,” because my students are taking a course every other Wednesday night. So I want Stern Financial Accounting on Wednesday nights. And they give me that. It used to be that my students get into their courses, and now I [have] made a special section. Professor 1, Professor 9,6 and I did it. Stern requires you to have 60 seats in a classroom. Most of our classes are 20 to 25 students. So Professor 1, Professor 9, and I give 20 students each. And we guarantee Stern, we negotiate it. (P6: 222ff.)

It’s not just that the PAA and VAA programs are about teaching students how to turn an arts organization into a business—this focus on commodification is also mirrored in the relationship between the program and the students, as well as between the program and other schools and programs. How resources can be turned into commodities, or how one can survive in the commodity-driven environment of New York City, seems to be a key characteristic. But before delving into our interpretations of the programs, let’s take a closer look at the curriculum. In comparison to the wholly business oriented PAA program, several artistic or art theory courses, such as Curatorial Practice and Exhibition and Display of Art and Material Culture, are integrated into the VAA program; furthermore, the VAA requires a final thesis. Although business training is a dominant focus, both programs are also designed to provide the students with practical insights, as the following students’ statements confirm:

180

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

You could really say that it is more of a hands-on program than an academic program. This is not a program for PhD or research studies. (S1: 485ff.) It is two years. If I was going the curatorial road, I feel I needed to go for a PhD. It was a choice between a PhD program and something more practical and quicker that would just get me into something. … And I am also in the Stern School of Business, taking courses at one of the top business schools in the world. It is just a confluence of all of these wonderful opportunities in one place. (S4: 135ff.) I think the curriculum allows a flexibility of interest to develop. There is some customization that we can offer people who have particular interests. (P3: 320f.)

Nearly all interviewees stressed the programs’ flexibility and customization, using expressions such as “tailoring” (P6: 367; S2: 346; S3: 90) and “curating” (S5: 173). This adaptability is enabled by the cooperation between the two Arts Administration programs, through which business and governance courses can be designed especially for their students. In addition, students are able to choose specializations within the programs (namely within the VAA program, where both a for-profit and a not-for-profit track are available). Despite this fact, one can say that both programs are highly specified in their concentration on the business side of contemporary visual or performing arts. They are designed to provide the students with concrete ideas and opportunities for their professional futures, in that they combine business classes with practical competences in the field. Another means of preparing students for future professional life is a mandatory internship. According to Student 1 and Student 3, not one but two internships had to be accomplished, each spanning one semester (S1: 321ff.; S3: 513ff.), which ultimately translates to studying part-time for one year. The internships are similar to other required courses in that they are valued at three credits. That the internships are credit courses creates a sticking point—the fact that the students must pay to be interns—which was discussed with three students (S1: 164f. and 337f.; S3: 527ff.; S4: 272ff.). In general, internships

3.5 New York University

181

are rather poorly paid, if they are paid at all. The present internship-credit model basically obliges students to spend the money earned during the internship on the credits granted for the internship—which is quite a paradoxical situation. When looking at the examined programs’ milieu—that is, at NYU programs outside of but related to the field of arts administration—it becomes clear that other NYU schools use the same model. The MA in Arts Politics at Tisch7 and the Graduate Program in Museum Studies at NYU8 are such examples, which also similarly combine theory and practice in the field. As one professor from the Museum Studies program described that degree: We have three courses everyone takes: History and Theory of Museums, Museum Exhibitions and Collections, and Museum Management. Then there are four electives. Those electives are of two kinds. One are … collections management, fundraising—the more hands-on courses. The others are the more theory- or history-based courses. Students can decide themselves which one they want to emphasize, and two of their four electives may be outside museum studies. Then we have a research seminar where people prepare their thesis plan, and then they write it in the second term or their second seminar. The research seminar is in the first term. And then they have an internship that is required. It is 300+ hours. It cannot be project based. It cannot be done before they finish a year of coursework. So most do it in the summer, some do it next fall. But many of our students are doing other internships the whole time during the year, and we encourage that. Students can take as many courses as they want until they graduate, but it is expensive. (P7: 211ff. and 228)

Although the internships provide direct practical experience, the classes are also designed to acquaint students with their future professional fields: We have a lot of guest speakers from other institutions as well. You can have the president of BAM [Brooklyn Academy of Music] or you could have the director of the Metropolitan Opera Guild. You can get all these people to come and speak to your students (P1: 264ff.)

182

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Almost everyone brings guests into the classroom, and we also take them [the students] out. In my exhibition course, I have one speaker come in and then we do four site visits. So out of 15 classes, five are other perspectives. (P3: 733ff.) Our faculty is very fragmented, because a lot of them are people who are in the field right now. So we basically run on adjunct professors. (S1: 612f.) I have a class right now where I have to do three exhibition reviews per week. So we are not going with the class as a field trip, but we have to go on our own. (S6: 89ff.)

These statements reveal the orientation toward the professional field, which is driven to a high degree by the school’s business focus. This is supported by teaching outside the classroom and by inviting leading experts from diverse renowned institutions to teach a class, as well as hiring them as adjunct professors. As explored above, NYU’s embedded location within the city and its connection to manifold art institutions enforce a rather practical, businesslike atmosphere in the programs. The programs are well adapted to make use of the opportunities offered by the school’s environment. The VAA program even used its access to these manifold institutions to create two streams: the for-profit and the not-for-profit tracks. Both VAA specializations represent a specific attitude toward modes of cultural production: either swimming within the “capitalist” stream of the commodification of art, or taking a more critical stance within the non-for-profit scene. Both sell well in the environment of New York City. As shown above, tuition for the entire program costs about US$92,000 (51 credits for two years of full-time study, at US$1,795 per credit hour). It is the most expensive MA program in this study, followed closely by the Master of Arts in Arts Administration and Policy at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (US$83,000 for the entire program, with 48 credits required, at US$1,730 per credit hour).9

3.5 New York University

183

In class To gain insights into the teaching situation, we will provide more details on the specific courses that make up the two programs. Notes from the field are interspersed with the observer’s comments, which are differentiated using square brackets. I am late. I was sharp on time, but did not get registered with the security. After a 10-minute-long discussion with the two security people showing emails, passport, etc., they finally let me into the building. At 9:45 a.m., I sneak into the classroom on the eighth floor. I am sitting next to the door in the last row. About 26 female and three male students are in the class, maybe between 25 and 40 years old. The air-conditioning is making a loud noise, rattling above me. The room has no windows, just fluorescents and some warmer halogen lights. The wall color is white-beige, a black-gray-brown carpet on the floor, and the same colors on the chairs, which gives a very office-like or sterile atmosphere. Having no windows within the concrete walls evokes a feeling of sitting in a bunker. The lecturer of this Arts Policy class is talking freely—or you could say talks in a monologue—sitting on a chair behind a desk, facing the students. The topic is war and the US (Vietnam and Iraq). They analyze the official rhetoric on these and other “wars,” such as the War on Crime, War on Drugs, cultural wars, etc. The question is: What does this reveal about contemporary American society and its self-image. What are the artistic positions on this? It seems that in the beginning, they showed several works responding to these issues, given the notes on the whiteboard. Keywords are: governmentality, state power, agency, apparatus of knowledge, etymology of policy, Michel Foucault, subcultures, Raymond Williams, commodity-based society … During this monologue, at least eight students go in and out of the classroom. 10:15 a.m.: This introduction to the lecturer’s general thoughts on today’s topic took 30 minutes. Now they are becoming more concrete, pointing out things they wrote on the whiteboard. The atmosphere feels more attentive; no one leaves the room anymore. Somehow we jumped topics

184

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

and are now discussing youth culture. The lecturer puts forward the thesis that hip-hop was enforced by budget cuts. Pupils did not have instruments in school anymore and therefore used sources of music as instruments of music, thereby creating a whole new aesthetic. Suddenly, the lecturer is talking about Ferdinand de Saussure and uses his semiotic model of “sign, signifier, signified” to argue how the music industry takes over emerging new aesthetics (hip -hop) using the same form but changing the content: What does commodification mean for art and culture? Students go in and out again. A discussion on the street artist Banksy is followed by one on Pierre Bourdieu. Concepts of “distinction” and “taste” are quoted in order to build a bridge to subsidies for art and farming. This is followed by some statements on cultural policy in Canada, as a bi- or even multilingual country. [Generally I am able to follow the class, but it is complicated to get to the bigger question or the intended learning outcome. I experience this teaching setting as rather chaotic.] One of the two Chinese students in front of me fell asleep; the other is on Chinese Facebook (Renren.com) and their smartphone in parallel. Some more charts are shown, but somehow not really interpreted. It is a rather “critical reading” of the charts, which implies reading the numbers in a specific manner, and really reading the percentages and trying to understand the interdependencies: “So let me give a rich guy’s view.” We are now hearing about philanthropy, starting with John D. Rockefeller. To introduce the idea of philanthropy, three videos are played. 11:50 a.m.: I have to leave for an interview; the class is due to end in a few minutes anyway. [During this lecture, the professor first developed some ideas on various subjects. The rather associative thinking provoked quick switching between very diverse subjects and theories. The lecturer definitely had vast knowledge in regard to the critical reading of arts and cultural politics. This competency could be fruitful for an in-depth analysis of the questions raised and hypotheses put forward.]

3.5 New York University

185

Class with a guest lecturer

Since in both the Visual Arts Administration and Performing Arts Administration programs at NYU guest lecturers are invited on a regular basis, one of these guest-lectured classes was also attended as part of the field research. Below, the field notes are excerpted in order to provide a comparison to the above-described faculty-taught class. On Monday at 6:45 p.m., we are in the Global Center for Academic and Spiritual Life for a class on marketing the live performing arts. The professor quickly summarizes the last week’s session. Then they give a preview of next week: reports on marketing books. Every student has to present one book report in five minutes (24 reports in total). The goal is to give their fellow classmates a good sense of the book. Now, they briefly introduce today’s guest lecturer: the vice president of marketing of one of the top symphony orchestras in the US, who is giving a lecture entitled “The Marketing Plan” (as the PowerPoint slide indicates). The guest lecturer introduces themselves and gives an overview of their career; this takes about two to three minutes. Around 26 students (20 females and six males) are now sitting in a room on the second floor of the Kimmel Center. Nice temperature, no noises, windows with the lights of the New York City night outside and a very atmospheric skyline. The guest lecturer makes the students laugh often. They start asking the students where they work (many have part-time jobs in various New York City music institutions). Presented PowerPoint slides: Introduction: general idea of marketing Several slides outline a marketing concept introduced by the guest

186

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

These slides are followed by an overview of visitor research of American symphony orchestras, which includes points such as: | The top 10 orchestras in the US lost 25 percent of their ­audience in the last 10 years (2.05 million to 1.57 million). | According to a study in Pittsburgh, 94 percent of people have no interest in classical music; 5 percent are interested but will not go; and 1 percent will attend (New York City: 0.4 percent). | A telephone and email survey of 2,000 households ­categorized New Yorkers as: having conventional lives: 19 percent; being “busy in the burbs”: 25 percent; quiet ­intellectuals: 17 ­percent; socials: 21 percent; culturals: 18 percent. Key question being raised: Why do these possible attendees not go to musical events? What type of marketing campaign would attract the potential attendees? The guest lecturer delivers a lot of charts with numbers on their organization’s visitor research and the various strategies and politics it has developed to reach out to these audiences. Subsequently case studies are introduced to repeat and exemplify what has been said. No one goes in or out of the room. [Compared to other classes, this could be an indicator that the students’ attention has been attrac­ ted.] After four more examples, the lecturer asks for the students’ questions, but only three are raised (this takes five minutes). Following this, we watch a film about the attendees of classical concerts who have subscribed for longer than 50 years. It is about emotional connection, connecting to the audience via storytelling. The class ends at 8:45 p.m., with final applause. [The second class attended with the guest lecturer was more structured than the faculty-led one, and the examples seemed to catch the students’ attention more than in the first class. This lecture was based on real field experience and provided the students with business skills to establish marketing strategies in cultural organizations.]

3.5 New York University

187

In the context of these two in-class sessions, it is interesting to look at the students’ assessment of the lectures with their professors. Even though the students seem to be quite interested in the content of the courses and inspired by them, their assessment of the classes’ structure was rather widespread. Further, they do not seem to be challenged in a consistent manner by each of the courses (see appendix NYU, table 3.5.1). In the conducted interviews, the students and professors told us that an online evaluation of each class was carried out at the end of the semester (P3: 634; S2: 483; S3: 453ff.), but this formalized assessment strategy has not seemed to produce any perceived enhancements of the lectures to date. Idea of success The focus of Steinhardt’s two Arts Administration programs is enabling students to get well-paying jobs after graduation. For many students from the US and around the world, New York as an art center is the place to be—but it is also a highly competitive environment. This explains the idea equating the students’ “future success” with “finding a good job” (P6: 458ff.): People go into this program to have a job. And from the beginning it was about what you want to do with this, or where you want to go from there. And that was probably [the focus] earlier than other programs, I would imagine—the focus on the job and the importance that you will have a job after you graduate. And you have a variety of possibilities that you can do. I think this is not only job related, that it’s also personal development. In terms of where do you want to go. … It is not only: “I want to have this job and therefore I go there and I will have this job afterwards.” I think it also allows you to say: “OK, what do I want to be?” That was an issue for me. … And [the VAA program] definitely helped me finding it, but through practice. (S6: 320ff.)

On the Music and Performing Arts Professions website, “success” is explicitly linked to the department’s location in New York City: “We believe that the training, energy and opportunity in the performing arts at NYU

188

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Steinhardt is like no other place. We hope that NYU Steinhardt will be a part of your success story.”10 The PAA program, initiated in 1971, is communicated as one of the best and most well-known arts administration programs in the world, whose graduates hold positions in highly reputable institutions. The marketing language used on the website is composed of expressions that elevate the program’s standing (“the first,” “throughout the world,” “legendary”) and that conjure an air of exclusivity (“like no other”). In contrast to the rather direct marketing strategy of the PAA, the features of the VAA program are communicated in a subtler manner. Though the program is described as successful in preparing cultural administrators and as the first in the US to offer such an education in the visual arts, details to underline and support these strengths are sparse. The general aim of the program is to train future cultural managers for the rapidly changing field of the visual arts and to prepare students so that “the administrator becomes a powerful educator, helping to shape cultural values.”11 When the subject of success was addressed in the interviews, the conversation revolved around the students. The professors’ success was seldom a topic of discussion. One student explicitly stated their opinion on the reasons for the success of the program: This is Professor 1’s baby. They know everybody working, every institution, large or small, in New York City related to the arts. So if today I go to them and tell them: “Can you connect me with someone who is working at BAM?” Immediately, there is a connection there. They really have connections everywhere, and a lot of them have graduated from this program. That is one reason why this program has done really well. (S1: 95ff.)

This quotation demonstrates that the PAA program revolves around a head who—in the case of Professor 1—has been directing the program for nearly 40 years. Over such a long time, they have been able to establish a large and strong network that serves the students’ future careers. Though long-standing directorships can imply personal dominance, here one needs to stress the networking and career advancement Professor 1 (and also Professor 5) personally enables as well as the care and support they offer the students.

3.5 New York University

189

Reputation: “The brand of NYU helps you”12 The stated reasons for choosing the PAA and VAA programs reveal that the students of both MAs almost unanimously agreed on the importance of three aspects, namely the city the school is located in, the future professional prospects provided, and the school’s international reputation (see appendix NYU, table 3.5.2). Following these three primary reasons, the students also underlined the importance of the programs’ embedding in NYU, the university’s history, and its renowned brand, as the following selection of quotations shows: My sense is we are really known for creating or helping to form people who become organizational leaders within four or five years of graduating. So the sense I get from the field is that our graduates are prized, very well known, and people hope to get them to work for their organization. (P1: 225ff.) The program has always had a global outlook. Our program is 20 years old in this coming June. We’ve always had international students, and, of course, the population shifts as economic situations change globally. And we have alumni all over the world. I think the challenge for globalization is to have students understand how these forces are acting on the visual art world. (P3: 518ff.) The brand “NYU” itself has given me the job that I have today. That is what this university has done. It is education—I have learned a lot in my two years, but at the end of the day all my internships happened because I had an “NYU” stamp on my resume. (S1: 83ff.) I didn’t want to go to Brooklyn College because outside of New York nobody knows what it is, and it doesn’t sound as good. So, I pay for the name. (S3: 71f.)

190

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

What I think is best about NYU is first of all it is in New York. So, my internship options are best. I’ve worked for some of the best organizations, and we have a reputation, so we get in the door for those interviews. (S3: 309ff.) It [the VAA program] has a wonderful reputation. In the New York art world it is sort of the program to go to if you want to end up at a senior administrative position at a gallery or at any leading arts institution. I have several friends who have been through it. Even before I had come here, I knew people who had been through the program. (S4: 151ff.) I chose NYU because my instinct told me. I really liked the way the program was structured. And obviously being in New York was a big plus as well. I like that it also gives you flexibility to focus on what you want to do. The alumni encouraged me to come to this program. … I also had friends at this university who only said good things about it. So it was like a general push. (S5: 70ff.) I just feel that the pace in this city is unlike many other cities. If you gain certain experience from certain institutions within this city, it serves almost as a stamp that people understand throughout the world. (S5: 109f.)

These statements clearly reveal that it is not only the students that benefit from NYU’s reputation. The students’ satisfaction with the program and— even more importantly—their success after graduation, thanks to the doors opened by NYU’s reputation, create good word-of-mouth within the field, which is in turn essential to attracting prospective students to the PAA and VAA programs. This guarantees the profitability of the programs and contributes to the maintenance of their international reputation. Closely linked to NYU’s reputation are the individual networks of the professors, which are used to secure guest speakers and to place the students for internships. Through this continuous contact with players from the field, the students are enabled to build their own networks. The alumni network is an additional resource for the students to exploit. The various networks thus provide valuable resources both for the programs as well as for the students in order to “make up their field” (P2: 142).

3.5 New York University

191

Networking: “I am in New York, I can get the best people”13 Networking as a means of enhancing career opportunities in New York City is central to both the PAA and the VAA programs. Each program has a strong alumni network, which has a separate section on the program’s respective websites: The Alumni Council is composed of committed alumni of the New York University Visual Arts Administration M.A. Program who work to increase their professional knowledge and expertise, promote and further the status and visibility of the Program and its students and alumni, and advance the field of visual arts administration.14

The alumni profiles displayed on these websites demonstrate that NYU has created a broad international network of alumni working in the arts.15 As a way of promoting the VAA program and its alumni network, the website features an interview with David Strauss, then director of external affairs at the Queens Museum.16 In the video, he states why he chose to enroll in the MA program, from which he graduated in 2004, after already having worked in the field for several years. He explains that his work experience was mainly in the field of public relations, and he wanted to situate this experience in a broader context: I was taking development courses, taking strategic planning courses, understanding exhibition design and really understanding how all three of those and everything else intertwined, worked towards putting the product on the wall, giving the visitors the experience they needed. Going beyond that, to think about ways in which the museum of the future would be readdressing each of those and other topics.17

Strauss’s account not only stresses the program’s quality, but additionally emphasizes his own engagement in the Alumni Council and the fact that NYU graduates continuously contribute to the program’s reputation. He explains that, as a student, he benefited from the guest lecturers’ experience,

192

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

which he is now passing on to the current students by acting as a guest lecturer. In his opinion, this is a beneficial situation for both sides, since the Queens Museum can integrate the students’ ideas into its programming and the students are able to work in a real-world setting connected to their desired field of work through case studies initiated in collaboration with the museum. Furthermore, Strauss explains that being part of the Alumni Council enabled him to get to know prospective students before they started studying at NYU and to stay involved in the program by helping the students find jobs. He continues by saying that he thinks about how we can better the program with each coming class. … If 10 years down the road the program isn’t doing as well as it did when I graduated, my degree is worth less, so there is a vested interest. But I have the utmost confidence that our reputation is going to continue to grow as more and more of our graduates are in the field. If you looked at the field in general, you’d see that we are in museums, galleries, auction houses, alternative spaces, and beyond the art world, as well playing major roles in foundations, development operations all over the country and all over the world. I think that’s really a mark to how well the program is thought out, improved, and re-evaluated.18

In the concluding remarks of his statement, Strauss addresses the relationship between the professors and the students. He says that it is only after graduating that one becomes aware of the “strong NYU family” of students and professors who have contributed to one’s knowledge and who now are one’s peers in the field. His engagement in the alumni network and the program further works to his own economic advantage in the sense that maintaining the program’s reputation via the thoughtful recruitment of new students helps to enforce the high status of the “NYU brand,” to the benefit of his and other alumni’s CVs. During the research stay in New York, it was possible to achieve a personal, direct impression of how the statements found on the programs’ websites manifested in the field. This included attending an NYU alumni event called “Meet the Mentor,” which took place on a Friday evening at the Stein-

3.5 New York University

193

hardt Pless Hall Lounge. Being present at this event provided valuable insights into the network culture of the examined programs, as discussed in field notes from the day: It is Friday, 6 p.m. After having registered at the entrance of the NYU building, I can see a crowd of around 40 women and one man already waiting inside the Pless Hall Lounge. Once a year, the head of the alumni network, also a former student, organizes the event “Meet the Mentor” to enable networking between alumni and students. The program announces a group discussion with several alumni. The event starts with a so-called social hour. Upon entry, everyone had to write their own nametag with a thick felt pen and stick the label onto their chest. Wearing nametags makes it easy to start talking to someone, because it indicates that the wearer is there to ask and to be asked questions about everyone’s professions. In only 50 minutes, I talked to seven alumni and students. It was a nice and open atmosphere, which made it very easy to meet and talk to several people. This first part went by really fast. Now it is 7:02 p.m. People move to their seats and sit down, and the director of the Visual Arts Administration program welcomes the students and alumni. Five alumni sit in the front with microphones (all of them are executive directors or managers of art institutions in New York City or nearby). They graduated in different years (2010, 2007, 2005, 1999, 1988). Each introduces themselves for about 10 minutes and gives a (critical) insight into their career path. Most of the biographical accounts start with the school the person did their undergraduate studies at, followed by their various considerations about what to study or work on next, before opting for NYU. Then each alumni addresses NYU and explains why this program was the right decision for them and what the next steps, risks, and hurdles they encountered were. Although the topic of trying to achieve what one wants is a serious one, the audience laughs rather often, which creates an open and welcoming atmosphere.

194

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

In nearly every speech, the important role of internships and of being in New York—as the hot spot in the arts and art market—is emphasized, as is networking itself. One speaker advised the listeners to “personalize and capitalize our network; you never know who they know.” Afterward, at 7:50 p.m., questions are asked by the audience. At around 8:10 p.m., I leave.

Through observing this social hour and alumni panel discussion, it became obvious that not only do such events serve as socializing and connection-building exercises between current students and alumni but that some students attended the event to assure themselves of their activities (class selection and internships), seemingly looking for a “guarantee” of professional success. During the interviews carried out with the NYU students, one question addressed the expectations they had before starting their programs. The below quotations from three students uncover that contact with alumni of the program influenced their decisions to enroll in the programs. However, their primary networking expectations concerned not the alumni’s but the professors’ connections in the art field, and the possibilities of benefiting from these personal networks. The alumni are in so many awesome leadership positions throughout the US and all over the world. And very well connected. Just seeing the level of success of the alumni who I talked to and who I researched, and the degree and the time in which they received that success, was also a big factor. (S5: 189ff.) I think [the reason] for me [to choose the program] was because I knew that I would want to and have to do internships while being here. This is one of the things why I don’t regret my choice here, because I realized that all the professors we have are really connected in the arts scene. … And I think that is one of the really rewarding things to New York: the city is such a large scene and there is such a large cultural sector here that it is rewarding, because everybody somewhere has their fingers spread out wide. It was really a positive experience to realize how connected the professors are; that

3.5 New York University

195

was really great to know. Because of my specific background in economics and art history, it was really the big university that was the expectation. I also had a scholarship for Chicago that was bigger than here. So it was a big decision whether [to go] there or not. And in the end, my decision was made [for NYU], because it is a large university. (S6: 47ff. and 161ff.) I think the only expectation that I did have, or that I hoped for, is that [the program] would give me connections and enable me to transition to a career in the arts. But I do not know that I had expectations for what the academic experience would be like, necessarily. It was rather about getting immersed in the field in a way. (S2: 71ff.)

By reading these statements, one could get the impression that students attend the program, get to know the professors, and are provided with contacts for the specific organization or field they would like to work in after graduation. However, in the interviews, the students emphasized that self-organization and initiative are required in order to achieve their aims—a feature that was apparent at the School of the Art Institute Chicago as well. For example, one student explained their perspective in the following way: I feel that you see the reward from such a program when you are placed in the field and you have a role in which you exercise what you were actually learning. … I feel that in order to really gain something from this program, you have to be a real go-getter. … Because there is a vast majority of opportunities out there and major institutions. It is not always about the name—it is about the experience itself. (S5: 291ff.)

Looking at the students’ experience of their time spent at university, the surveys as a whole reflect the sentiments stated in this quotation. Feeling “activated” and “stimulated” are predominant descriptors in the students’ evaluations of their time at NYU (see appendix NYU, table 3.5.3). Overall, following either of the two programs seems to be considered a rather positive experience by the students. Further, the idea of connecting course content to real-world experience— taking the learning outcomes out of the classroom and into the professional

196

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

field—is congruent with the learning model that the professors put forth. This strong link between academia and professional practice is unsurprising, as the classes of the PAA and VAA programs are informed by the professors’ own extensive work experience: In my life I’ve read 20,000 grants, probably. It makes me somehow qualified to teach people how to write better grant proposals. And I teach them: read the question people are asking, because all these people got paid a lot of money and they spent a lot of time developing their question. Don’t just write about what you want—answer the question. (P4: 149ff.)

During their studies, the students become acquainted with the professors’ ways of handling professional tasks and coping with practical challenges. In accordance with the professors’ ambitions and expectations for them, the students see the need to be a “go-getter” in order to be successful. Furthermore, the students’ own expectations are mirrored in considering themselves to already be “cultural leaders” (S1: 414)—yet more evidence of the emphasis both students and professors place on interweaving the classroom and the field. Professors’ profiles An in-depth examination of the professors’ profiles reveals that, while their collective research and publication output is rather small, their various career paths demonstrate a strong influence, experience, and competency in the field. For example, Professor 1, who has been director of the PAA program since 1976, has also served as executive director of the New Jersey State Council on the Arts and as president of the Coalition for the Arts and Humanities of New Jersey, the Association of Arts Administration Educators, and the Princeton Ballet. They have been a consultant for the Rockefeller Foundation, the National Endowment for the Arts, and several state arts councils. For nine years, they were executive editor of the Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, in which they have also published.

3.5 New York University

197

Professor 1’s colleague Professor 8 is a marketing consultant specialized in new media outreach for classical music. They are currently working as a consultant at one of the world’s leading online classical music retailers and in the PAA program as adjunct professor of marketing for the performing arts. They have also done consulting work for Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts as well as several radio stations. Previously, Professor 8 was senior director of marketing for Universal Classics Group, director of promotion and product management for Deutsche Grammophon, and director of public relations and marketing for the Pittsburgh Opera. Professor 3, who directed the VAA program from 1991 to 1998, is an art historian specialized in modern and contemporary art and material culture, and they have previously worked as an art museum curator (deCordova Sculpture Park and Museum, Lincoln, MA), gallerist, independent curator, and non-profit management consultant (Trademark West!, New York). Currently, Professor 3 is a board member of the Committee on Museum Professional Training, is on the standing committee of the American Alliance of Museums, and is acting vice president of Trademark West!, a historical preservation advocacy organization. In addition to spending eight years as a program officer at the New York State Council on the Arts, Professor 4, who is a professor in the VAA program, was associate curator at Exit Art in Manhattan and head of adult and community programs at the Brooklyn Museum. They have written on the subjects of photography, art, and art management. Professor 4 received an undergraduate degree in art and design from Drexel University in Philadelphia and went on to graduate studies at the International Center of Photography at NYU. They were scholar-in-residence at the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, New York, with funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities, and they also received a research grant from the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC, in relation to their National Museum of African American History and Culture project. Professor 5 is director of the VAA program and has extensive experience in both non-profit and for-profit organizations. Formerly, they worked as administrative director of the Art Advisory Service at the Museum of Modern Art and as executive director of Independent Curators International, both

198

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

located in New York. They have advised corporations and non-profit organizations on administration, programming, and fundraising matters. These short biographies help to reinforce two essential and defining factors about the teaching staff of NYU Steinhardt’s two Arts Administration programs. First of all, the current directors (Professor 1 for the PAA and Professor 6 for the VAA) have been in their positions for more than 10 years and can be identified as the programs’ heads. Secondly, the breadth of the faculties’ professional experience and gatekeeping functions in their fields is outstanding. Through these high-level, decision-making positions, they are able to influence and even form the field of arts administration. Additionally, the professors convey a specific entrepreneurial and ambitious spirit to the students they teach. With regard to the university’s available resources, it is obvious that the professors constitute one of the most valuable assets. When one compares the qualifications that the PAA and VAA professors are presumed to have according to both the students and the professors (see appendix NYU, table 3.5.4), one finds they are entirely congruent with the current professors’ profiles. In sum, the three most important professorial qualities are, according to the professors, “professional qualification,” “pedagogic competence,” and “frequent publishing or professional activities”; in the students’ view, “professional qualification,” “practical experience,” and an “interdisciplinary orientation” are most essential. The students’ image We have thus far covered that, in addition to having extensive practical experience prior to joining the PAA and VAA faculties, the professors have and continue to contribute to the development of the art administration field by chairing associations and holding other influential academic positions. For example, both Professor 3 and Professor 5 were or still are board members of the Association of Art Administration Educators, and Professor 1 was part of the editorial board of the Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society. These gatekeeper roles as board members emphasize the professors’ influence in the field. This seems to be mirrored in the student body. Firstly, the selection

3.5 New York University

199

process for incoming students, which requires them to have previous experience in the field, mirrors the importance placed on practical experience in both programs. Although students are accepted directly from undergraduate studies as well, Professor 3 explained that “we actually prefer to take people in this program who have some work experience, with the idea being that you have an idea of what you’re getting into in the field” (P3: 389f.). To apply for a place in the program, students must write an outline of their “understanding of their pasts,” answering questions like “What would you like to achieve in your future?” and “How can this program help you achieve it?” (S1: 236f.). Two further requirements are professional training in the arts (S1: 41f.) and mastery of the English language, both spoken and written. To determine the students’ suitability in regard to these factors, instead of being required to take standardized tests such as the GMAT or TOEFL, the candidates are interviewed by at least one faculty member (P6: 632ff.). When asked to describe the types of students admitted to the program, two VAA professors offered opposing statements: We have people who really go into a very broad range of arts jobs from those in development departments in big museums, then people going to alternative spaces, community-orientated places, artists’ spaces … and art auction houses, art galleries, etc. People start in consultancies. So it’s all visual arts orientated, but it’s a very broad number of options that they have. We encourage people to be inventive. … Also we want to prepare students who will help to shape the field, as opposed to just fitting into it. (P3: 321ff. and 496ff.) Our program attracts mostly students that want to fit into the systems that already exist. They don’t want to start something new, they want to be part of something that is already started. [The program] is a way to train you to fit into the American paradigm—a kind of corporate paradigm—to fit you into the areas of non-profit management that are more businesslike, like gift shops, membership, fundraising. … I think if you talk to students— not all of them—but I think you will find out they just want to come, they want their ideas affirmed, they don’t necessarily want to be challenged too much. (P4: 307ff. and 331f.)

200

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

To understand how these two statements, which seem to be contradictory, can coexist within the VAA program’s self-image, it is helpful to look at the students’ assessment of their own image. Professor 3’s comment is reflected in expressions such as “We are innovative leaders” (S1: 414f.); “We are nonprofit volunteers. Non-profit innovators” (S2: 254); “We are arts businesswomen” (S4: 356); “[We are] creative, entrepreneurial changemakers” (S5: 371); and “[We are] art entrepreneurs” (S6: 289). The students clearly adhere to the above-described competitive and entrepreneurial model, which is in line with Professor 3’s opinion rather than Professor 4’s. All in all, the dominant mindset in the two programs seems to be future oriented and pushes a strong self-confidence. Furthermore, the idea of being a “go-getter,” as was discussed earlier, underlines that the PAA and VAA programs demand initiative and ambition from the students. All in all, the important difference is not if the programs focus on the non-profit or for-profit field; rather, it is the idea of being a go-getter—an innovator creating one’s own possibilities for getting a better job, be it for top-tier pay or for self-fulfillment. The programs are therefore understood by students as a tool to achieve this goal, in whatever specific capacity each student defines for themselves, through learning skills and building networks. Atmosphere It would be easy to imagine that the constant need for and confrontation with entrepreneurship required to survive the New York job market fosters a competitive, tense atmosphere among the students. However, the students’ evaluations of the atmospheres of the PAA and VAA programs clearly show that they experience their colleagues as being cooperative and motivating (see appendix NYU, table 3.5.5). One student even put special emphasis on the congenial atmosphere of the program as one factor contributing to its uniqueness: I would say my colleagues, my fellow classmates [are what make this program special]. I think it is a very unique chemistry that we have. Half of our class is international, so you get very different perspectives of the European art world and the Asian art world, primarily. Also nationally, our

3.5 New York University

201

students are from everywhere, so those perspectives come into play. And also I would say the age range—anywhere from 21 to a little over 30. That gives a breadth of experience when it comes to discussing topics. All these factors combined give us this unique relationship, both inside and outside the classroom. It is not such a stoic relation as I feel other programs have. Not in the arts, just in general graduate programs. It feels more like being friends with very similar interests. (S5: 204ff.)

The professors’ answers about the atmosphere among colleagues also show that they unanimously considered it to be cooperative. Indeed, the subject of competition was addressed only in terms of enrollment figures, as far as the two Arts Administration programs versus the Master of Arts in Arts and Public Policy at the Tisch School of the Arts and the Graduate Program in Museum Studies at NYU. Interestingly, a program farther away was identified as the main competitor of the VAA program: One of my biggest competitors is the [School of the] Art Institute of Chicago, the arts management program [the MA in Arts Administration and Policy]. It is not in a university but it is in an art school. And we are in an arts school. So students who are very interested in visual arts like these two programs. (P6: 42ff.) The School of the Art Institute in Chicago, their art management program and ours—that’s the big competitor. And they also have some money to give; they have some kind of endowment. (P4: 272f.)

As far as elements of the programs that professors would like to see changed, the main one commented upon was procuring financial resources in order to give scholarships to students (P3: 844ff.; P6: 493). Except for Student 6, none of the interviewed students had a scholarship or benefited from other methods of reducing tuition fees. Given this and the quotations above, one can conclude that a higher number of scholarships would increase NYU’s competitiveness.

202

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Conclusion The most outstanding characteristic for both the Performing Arts Administration and Visual Arts Administration master’s programs is the location. New York City’s art institutions and the various NYU schools are highly valuable resources for the programs’ courses as well as for the students’ internships. At the same time, the competitive pace of the city influences the programs’ disposition, that is, their strong focus on business. The two master’s—both still run by their founders—play their “business orientation card” in a significant manner: firstly, the programs and their faculty convey an understanding of the field in which they and the students operate in terms of economics and markets; secondly, the curriculum focuses on management skills and on applying management concepts to cases in the field; and thirdly, the students and the staff constantly bolster their personal capital by expanding their professional networks. It could be concluded that, through participation in the programs, a student can turn themselves into a valuable commodity for a specific niche. Although this approach might increase students’ employability in the art world, competences related to academic research and publishing are not part of the programs’ focus. In line with that, the opportunity to do academic work was not mentioned among the reasons why the students chose the programs. Furthermore, the business orientation of the interviewed professors might also be the reason why no PhD program is offered at the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development: a PhD program cannot be turned into a business. Too little income is generated by PhD fees, and the current students’ employability is connected to networking and being in the field, not to writing a PhD thesis. Indeed, the various extracurricular networking activities take place for the PAA and VAA programs were found to be a major asset. It was stated several times that, in addition to the professors’ contacts, the broad and international alumni network of NYU proved to be very beneficial for the current students. Also, the students are committed to their (future) professions and are ambitious with regard to their careers. Since the students commit to high tuition fees, they feel great pressure to find a job after graduating from either the PAA or VAA program, and further expect that the professors will help them become highly employable.

3.5 New York University

203

It can further be concluded that both programs are tailored with marketing considerations in mind, in the sense of attracting students through a curriculum of specific and always evolving classes. Finally, the entrepreneurial attitude of the PAA and VAA programs is mirrored in New York University’s catchphrase of “What’s next?,” which emphasizes the need to keep up with the quickly changing arts field and to “train people to have a broad perception of the [arts] ecosystem” (P3: 290f.). The professors’ vast combined professional experience as program directors, consultants for arts councils, board directors, and more helps them focus the programs on these practical issues. Internships at and the proximity to the manifold art institutions in New York City strengthen this practical perspective. All in all, the two programs show precise aims, well-developed curricula according to their unique selling propositions, a strong businesslike disposition, and a talent for transforming the resources in their Manhattan location into commodities. In this manner, both Arts Administration programs strengthened the fit between their environment, the conveyed contents of their curricula, and their spirit, enhancing their competitiveness and attractiveness to prospective students. Notes 1

Interview with S1 (362).

2

New York University [henceforth “NYU”]. (2014). University life. Retrieved January 21, 2014, from www.nyu.edu/life.html#above

3

P1 and P8 are representatives of the Performing Arts Administration program, and P3, P4, and P6 teach in the Visual Arts Administration program.

4

NYU. (2020). Graduate study tuition and fees | NYU Steinhardt. Retrieved August 20, 2020, from https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/admissions/tuition-and-fees/graduate-study-tuition-and-fees

5

For VAA classes, see NYU | Steinhardt. (2020). The curriculum. Retrieved October 14, 2020, from http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/art/admin/degree_requirements; for PAA classes, see NYU | Steinhardt. (2020). MA in Performing Arts Administration curriculum. Retrieved October 14, 2020, from https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/degree/ma-performing-arts-administration/curriculum.

6

P9 was not interviewed as part of the study, but was mentioned as a cooperation partner by P6. They are the director of the MA in Music Business at NYU.

7

NYU | Tisch. (2014). Art & public policy. Retrieved April 28, 2014, from http://app.tisch.nyu.edu/ object/artspolitics.html

204

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

8

NYU | Arts & Science. (2014). Program in Museum Studies. Retrieved April 28, 2014, from http:// museumstudies.as.nyu.edu/page/graduate_program

9

School of the Art Institute of Chicago. (2020). Post-bacc and graduate student budget. Retrieved October 4, 2020, from https://www.saic.edu/tuition/figure-your-costs/post-bacc-graduate-student-budget

10

NYU | Steinhardt. (2014). Music and Performing Arts Professions. Retrieved February 4, 2014, fromt https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/departments/music-and-performing-arts-professions

11

This was how the department phrased their teaching goals at the time of our study. The current mission statement for the program can be found at NYU | Steinhardt. (2020). MA, Visual Arts Administration. Retrieved October 14, 2020, from http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/art/admin/

12

Interview with S1 (368).

13

Interview with P6 (437f.).

14

NYU | Steinhardt. (2014). Visual Arts Administration alumni. Retrieved January 30, 2014, from http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/art/admin/alumni. The PAA alumni website is: NYU | Steinhardt. (2020). Performing Arts Administration alumni. Retrieved October 14, 2020, from https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/programs/performing-arts-administration/alumni

15

NYU | Steinhardt. (2020). Alumni in action. Retrieved October 14, 2020, from https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/programs/visual-arts-administration/alumni-action-0

16

Strauss, D. (2012, October 23). David Strauss, MA in Visual Arts Administration alum, 2004 [Video], YouTube. https://youtu.be/0YfNDcbBeMY

17 Ibid. 18 Ibid.

205

3.5 New York University

Appendix NYU Table 3.5.1: Visualization of students’ assessment of the teaching units Interesting

Boring

Overtaxing

Subchallenging Suppressing or inhibiting

Inspiring Consistent

Chaotic

Legend: mentioned once

mentioned twice

mentioned three times

mentioned four times

mentioned five times

206

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Table 3.5.2: Visualization of the students‘ rating of ­important criteria for choosing their program Very important

The general reputation of the university Friends or ­acquaintances ­already studying here The program’s or department’s orientation Family reasons One or several professors and their teaching and research foci The city and its cultural activities The ranking of the university and program The environment and what it offers The alumni network Future professional options The fellowship options Tuition fees The possibility to work while studying * two students were unsure, so only 7 answers were counted here

Important

More or less important

Unimportant

Absolutely important

207

3.5 New York University

Table 3.5.3: Visualization of students’ assessment of the time spent at school Too

Very

A little

Not

Insuf­­ficiently … intense. … focused. … activating and stimulating. … happy. … challenging. … burdening.

208

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Table 3.5.4: Visualization of qualifications for a professor in this ­program according to the professors and students Professors

Students Professional academic or artistic qualification Pedagogic competence Frequent publishing or professional activities Practical experience Humor or spirit Enthusiasm for the ­subject they are teaching Availability and approachability Empathy The ability to grasp or ­recognize the students’ professional ­difficulties or uniqueness Practical orientation Interdisciplinary orientation Interested personality Motivating personality

Missing items are “appreciative treatment of the students” and “empathy,” which were not named by either group.

209

3.5 New York University

Table 3.5.5: Visualization of the students’ and ­professors’ ­ratings of their respective atmospheres Professors’ rating of the ­atmos­phere among themselves Applies fully

Applies

Applies up to a point

Does not apply

Students’ rating of the ­ atmos­phere among themselves

Does not apply at all

Does not apply at all

Collegial Compe­titive Cooperative Harmonious Inspiring Indivi­dualistic* Moti­vating *Individualistic in the sense of “everyone for themselves”

Does not apply

Applies up to a point

Applies

Applies fully

3.6 HEC Montréal: Master of Management in International Arts Management

The cases examined thus far—University of Warwick, Goldsmiths, the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, Ohio State University, and New York University—all offer study programs for the same market, that is, students who would like to work in art institutions and organizations such as theaters, opera houses, festivals, record labels, dance companies, museums, galleries, and so on and so forth. We also examined how each program occupies a specific niche in the broader field of cultural production and cultural policy. In the case of HEC Montréal, the single institution we visited in Canada, it soon became apparent that the niche of its Master of Management in International Arts Management program lies in its strong focus on marketing in the arts. Specificity: Marketing and arts management The Carmelle and Rémi Marcoux Chair in Arts Management is embedded in the environment of HEC Montréal (previously known as École des hautes études commerciales de Montréal, or Business and Economics School of Montréal), a traditional business school. The chair was founded by Professor 1, who still acts as its head. One of the foundational components of the master’s program is the chair’s focus on arts marketing, as Professor 1 stated in their interview: “Here, at HEC Montréal, we’re very, very strong in marketing. In the marketing department, we are twenty-eight professors interested in arts management” (171ff.). The number of staff researching and teaching in arts marketing emphasizes the program’s niche and creates a specialization

212

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

for the students. In the case of the International Arts Management master’s degree, the chair and various professors from the department and university at large contribute to its teaching expertise. The professors’ research interests include marketing of creativity and cultural industries; sponsorship; marketing of culture and the arts; consumer behavior and methodology; business models and strategic marketing processes; leadership in cultural organizations; management of creativity; and cultural event logistics1—making for a rich variety of topics on offer to the students. Below, we look at the profiles of the chair and other interviewed faculty members in more detail. Overall, they show that research and teaching are strongly intertwined at HEC Montréal. Additionally, the professors all have practical work experience and can complement their teaching with specific insights from the field. Professors’ profiles Since 1991, the Chair in Arts Management has been held by Professor 1. From 1995 to 2003, they were vice president of the Canada Council for the Arts, and since 1997 have been the founder and executive director of the International Journal of Arts Management. Their most influential publication in the field of arts marketing is Marketing Culture and the Arts (1994), and their main research interests are marketing the arts, culture, branding, and consumer perception. Professor 1 furthermore served as a consultant for various arts organizations on the topic of marketing the arts. After working as a manager for a professional theater company, Professor 2, an associate professor, received their PhD in Management with a concentration in Marketing from McGill University, Montréal. Their research focuses on longitudinal dimensions of consumer behavior, temporal perceptions, arts marketing, sales promotion, and sponsorship. Professor 3, another associate professor, undertook studies in cello performance and received a Bachelor of Arts in Music History and Literature, an MBA, and a PhD in Organizational Behavior. The bring with them to the department more than twenty years of professional experience, including positions with the Toronto Symphony Orchestra and the Centre Canadien

3.6 HEC Montréal

213

d’Architecture, Montréal. Their research interests include leadership, governance, non-profit (arts) organizations, and trusts. Similarly, Professor 4, also an associate professor, has extensive work experience in the field, through membership on advisory boards and steering committees, including those of the Regent’s University London, the Société d’habitation et de développement de Montréal, and Théâtre du Rideau Vert, Montréal. They hold an MBA from HEC Montréal and a PhD from University of Warwick. Professor 4’s research spans topics such as the film industry, internationalization, international distribution, the creative process, and film production. Aims and scopes The aims and scopes of the program, as articulated by the professors, are congruent with the learning objectives communicated to prospective students on the program’s website, which insists that a strong emphasis is put on analytical skills, such as understanding and identification of core concepts, which can then be applied or transformed into strategic problem-solving and decision-making processes. More specifically, International Arts Management master students will be trained to have a: | mastery of the fundamentals of arts management, including ­financial management, marketing, consumer behaviour, fundraising, operations, contracting and negotiating, governance and strategy | firm grasp of how arts and cultural industries impact the ­values, norms and cultures of societies around the world | understanding of how cultural policy influences the ­structure, priorities and decision-making of arts and ­cultural organizations and the communities they serve | ability to use creative problem-solving techniques that place the emphasis on environmental factors | understanding of cultural economics and the ­fundamentals of international law as they relate to arts industries

214

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

| competency in identifying the key ­drivers of ­success in global arts industries | ability to measure and track the economic impact of the arts on society, both locally and globally2 We examined how these learning objectives manifested in the teaching and learning experience. In the interviews with students and professors, we asked them to describe the course content and teaching ideals. Basically for the class in marketing, every time somebody comes into class, I have to teach the basic concept that we have in marketing. You have to do it. And then in the other half of the course, we ask: How does it apply? What are the peculiarities or the particularities within the arts? So if you are talking about pricing in marketing, what is special about the arts? Let us think about it. And so we have articles and we discuss it. (P2: 100ff.) Even if you looked at what we are teaching and at was is taught in an MBA class, it’s exactly the same, meaning that we’re talking about concepts, but always about how to apply them. (P1: 118f.) All the papers we studied were related to arts or cultural industries, so it was really interesting to get this level of specialization, which is why I came here. The second interesting point is that the professors always insist on why it’s interesting to do research on arts marketing. (S1: 257ff.)

Apart from the distinction between “classical” and “arts” marketing, these statements show that the professors strongly cultivate the application of wellknown concepts and the development of practical managerial skills. They put an emphasis on the practical, hands-on qualities of otherwise abstract marketing theories and concepts, so students will become sensitive to artistic work: We want them to know what the artist is feeling. We want them to know what it is to be an artist, because from my experience in the field, I know that artistic companies are very reluctant to hire somebody who is not from

3.6 HEC Montréal

215

the field. They are not looking for a manager, but for a manager that has experience in the arts field. (P1: 223ff.)

One can say that the academic work is grounded in real-world experience. However, because admission to the program requires either an artistic career or professional experience in the arts field, it is obvious that the school does not view itself as responsible for conveying this sense of empathy for artists. Rather, having a certain understanding of the arts field and artistic practices is a precondition for being admitted to the program (similarly, when assessing the professors’ most important competences, the students mentioned professional qualification most often; see appendix HEC, table 3.6.2). Provided that students already have experience in the field of cultural production, HEC Montréal can add value to the students’ portfolios via its staff, who bring specialization in marketing, as confirmed in this interview: Professor 2: But our greatest strength is that our program is nested in a business school, because we can talk beyond ideology, beyond our artistic positions. Interviewer: Do you think economics is not an ideology? Professor 2: It is indeed, but traditionally when you have a business class within an arts school, there are few people teaching in it and they have to spread out a lot. Here, it is a business school and we pick people from business who can talk about culture. So we have a very good depth of expertise. (250ff.)

This mention of the “depth of expertise” holds true both for the faculty and for the selection of students. The former contributes to the department with its specific expertise in marketing, while the latter are asked to name their fields of expertise and interest during the application process. One could argue the chair found or created a specific niche; others might counter that the program is one-sided.

216

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Teaching methods During the field research, it became evident that the practical-theoretical grounding of the school—namely, the application of theoretical concepts in the field—is connected to the teaching formats used in classes. The statement “I don’t teach what you should do, I teach what is” (P3: 434) mirrors the main method deployed throughout the program and used by all professors: the examination of case studies (P1, P2, P3, P4). The various professors and PhD students working under the umbrella of the program develop cases. Each case draws a picture of an institution or project and a specific problem, such as the production of a film. These outlines are very detailed and can span 10 to 40 pages. HEC Montréal maintains its own “Case Centre,” where professors can download the material they would like to use in their classes.3 Students have to analyze the cases according to specific questions or theories (“case notes”), which are given alongside the case description. Many cases, especially those developed by professors who work within the Chair in Arts Management, are also published in the International Journal of Arts Management, which is edited by the chair (Professor 1). One PhD student referred to this teaching method as HEC Montréal’s distinction; another criticized it as not in-depth enough: The main thing I learned here is how research works, how teaching works, how it feels to teach. During the first year, we studied a lot of papers that were published in A-ranked journals, like the Journal of Marketing. The professors really insisted on how to get published, in which papers we should get published according to which university we aim at [getting work at], and how the review process for conferences works. This is the main thing, because during my master’s I already learned how to do research, but here I’m more in the business and get to know how it really works within the community. (S1: 157ff.) We don’t go [in]to the depths of the papers. We don’t discuss how the writer has written this paper, how he managed the concepts, methodology, or resources of the paper. We just talk about whether we think it is a good paper or not. So it is superficial. (S2: 136ff.)

3.6 HEC Montréal

217

All in all, these quotations indicate a well-considered way of combining practical orientation with teaching and publishing. Also, this teaching method is an effective strategy to use and develop the resources of the Chair in Arts Management: PhD students have to contribute to the body of cases, they give the department a larger visibility via the publications of the cases, and the cases can be used for teaching the master’s units. Student body It is noteworthy that the selection process for the Master of Management in International Arts Management is based on the analysis of files. That is, prospective students are asked to provide their résumés and letters of recommendation, and they need to pass both GMAT and TOEFL tests as well, since it is an English-speaking program, despite being located in a French-speaking province. No personal interviews are carried out. The selection process is explained in more detail in the following quotations: In the master’s we ask … the students to write essays about what they think they bring to the cohort. Why they chose the program, they have to explain that. And I think it’s a good thing that you tell the person who will discuss your admission what you will bring to the program. So it puts you in an active participation. An active attitude. (S1: 685ff.) We look at their academic results—the higher the better. Then, we look at their experience. We don’t interview. We ask for recommendations. (P1: 383f.) What I am looking for is somebody who has training in the arts. If the person doesn’t have a bachelor’s degree or equivalent, they have to have a lot of experience. And I am searching for people who have experience. I am searching for a sensibility for the arts—so an understanding of the arts. So somebody who comes with an accounting degree won’t make it into the program. And then I am trying to search for constancy. Do I have an indication that this person will be able to graduate from this program? (P2: 599ff.)

218

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

The fact that the students are selected on the basis of their grades creates a homogeneity among the students, which manifests as a general commitment to and enthusiasm for the program. In other programs we studied, group cohesion was founded on common topics of interest or on social development. The students at HEC Montréal, by contrast, come together around an interest in practical aspects related to the program’s marketing focus: People know why they are doing this program; they are eager to learn. They are very imaginative. When you ask a question, if you have thirty students, at least half of them will raise their hands. Everybody teaching in this program prefers this program, because the students are lively, they are creative, and they make connections. They are passionate about the product, about their arts, and about the field. It gives a spirit in the class, an atmosphere, that you don’t find in any other program. And I’ve taught in every program here [at HEC Montréal]. (P1: 207ff.)

While each student chose the school and program for very specific reasons—to become a consultant (S2, S4) or director (S3) in the field; to find and work with well-structured research teams (S1); to have the institution’s name appear on their résumé (S3); to pursue careers at universities (S1, S2, S3)—and expect their needs to be met, the professors considered themselves to be responsible both to provide an equal level of learning for each student (P3) and for the development of the program in the long run. The professors try to accommodate the students’ interests so that their experiences match their expectations. In this context, the main challenge mentioned by the professors was maintaining the program’s topicality and attractiveness for current and prospective students (P1, P4). Consequently, the atmosphere among both students and professors is rated as individualistic, yet harmonious and collegial (see appendix HEC, table 3.6.1).

219

3.6 HEC Montréal

Figure 3.6.1 (top left): Vitrines with peer-reviewed publications in front of the professors’ offices. Some are behind glass just to be admired, while others can be taken out and read, which serves, alternately, the valorization and the dissemination of knowledge among colleagues. Figure 3.6.2 (top right): A “showcase” of books published by the Chair Figure 3.6.3 (bottom): A display of the Inter­ national Journal of Arts ­Management, the journal edited by the Chair in Arts Management

Publish or perish? As the preceding section explored, teaching at HEC Montréal is not only linked to research but is also strongly focused on what comes after research: that is, successfully placing one’s results in a (high-ranked) journal and building a reputation in the field. To this end, PhD students are required to practice writing articles aimed for publication in renowned journals. On the one hand, as one professor described, this focus has an impact on the spirit of the program: “When you talk about the spirit, it is getting [into] publications. Within this school that is something important. Overall in this school, it is ‘publish or perish.’” (P2: 348f.) On the other hand, this results in an enormous workload, as mentioned by one of the students:

220

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

I think I like the level that teachers are expecting from the students. The level of excellence. When you are here, you need to work. You cannot be lazy. There is a big amount of work, and I like that. (S3: 339ff.)

Another student expressed their thoughts about this expectation in a more drastic way, saying that they felt “like a machine” during one semester where they had to read and comment on up to six papers per class per week (S4: 260). They were overwhelmed by the amount of reading to accomplish, but also reflected on their achievements: They focus on writing papers so much, and I think I learned how to do it. I improved a bit at least. The American spirit of research [as compared to France, where S4 studied previously] is much more about publications. You have much more pressure. (S4: 139; 385f.)

Publications were a frequent topic of conversation, not only in the interviews but also in general conversation. The idea of measuring success by output was physically visible in the hallways of HEC Montréal, where many awards and achievements are displayed (see figs. 3.6.1–3.6.3). One student referred to the professors’ self-promotional activities as follows: I think they all have big egos. I am starting to understand that it is linked to the job. You have to do your research and you have to promote it. You have to be proud of what you published. (S3: 467ff.)

Remembering once more Professor 2’s statement of “Overall in this school, it is ‘publish or perish’” (348f.), one might say that one strategy of the professors is to increase their own as well as the department’s publication output by using the PhD students as a resource, be it through the case descriptions they provide or research articles they publish as students affiliated with the department.

3.6 HEC Montréal

221

The right topic at the right time One can say that the book Marketing Culture and the Arts, published by Professor 1 in 1994, was key to gaining visibility for the program. It was the right topic assessed at the right time, which created and occupied a specific niche. This is why Professor 1’s publication is considered a milestone in arts marketing and still contributes to the department’s standing. The International Journal of Arts Management (IJAM), which was founded in 1997, can similarly be identified as another milestone in building the program’s reputation. Besides making an impact in the environment of the university itself, the Chair in Arts Management has made significant forays into the field and international community of arts management. This position was further emphasized through founding the International Association of Arts and Cultural Management (AIMAC) in 1991, an international network of researchers in arts and cultural management that supports the publication of IJAM. Since the establishment of IJAM, the Chair in Arts Management (Professor 1) has been its executive director. Professors from HEC Montréal’s International Arts Management program continue to dominate the journal’s editorial board in comparison to those from other institutions and countries.4 Networking and visibility The importance of networking activities, which serve to help form the field and establish professional networks, was addressed by the interviewees on various occasions. For many, this aspect was considered to be the specificity of the program (P3, P4, S3); one of the most important things learned or still to be learned (P3, S1, S2); and essential for fundraising activities (P3). In addition to belonging to the professional association AIMAC, which fosters exchange within the research community, the professors and students are members of other networks. Some of these connections developed through internships and symposia, and thus depend on the individuals involved. However, the basic structure underlying most of these connections seems to be the alumni network of HEC Montréal:

222

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

The students themselves find that it is an extraordinary experience: learning from each other, networking with each other. There is support. People get jobs because they know each other coming out of the program. We have close to three hundred students [alumni] in our program. (P3: 136ff.) The premier of this province is an alumnus of this program. And the former minister of finance is an alumnus. Because we [HEC Montréal] are more than a hundred years old, most of the senior managers [in various industries] are from HEC. And usually we have two or three ministers that are from HEC in any [political] party. (P1: 541ff.)

Prospective students of the International Arts Management program certainly benefit from this well-established network of alumni inhabiting diverse positions in various countries. This thesis can be supported by studies focusing on the French education system of grandes écoles. For example, in 2011, Dudouet, Grémot, Joly, and Vion showed that 45 percent of the executive officers of listed French companies graduated from one of three French elite schools, among them HEC Paris.5 Against this background and considering the different years the executives graduated from both HEC Paris and Montréal, the alumni office gains in significance for the students. The alumni office enables current students to establish important connections with former students who might be helpful with regard to professional perspectives. In marketing terms: Launching a new product The most recent coup of the Chair of Arts Management at HEC Montréal was the foundation of the Master of Management in International Arts Management, which clearly and strongly focuses on network building. This focus is evident in several facets of the program. Firstly, it takes place on three campuses of (according to the website) world-leading universities in Montréal, Dallas, and Milan. The uniqueness of the International Arts Management master’s is constituted by the integration of three cities, countries, and cultures into one year of studies, with four months spent in each location. In the first trimester, students study at Southern Methodist University (SMU) in Dallas

3.6 HEC Montréal

223

and concentrate on non-profit management and the private sector; the second part takes place at HEC Montréal, with a focus on arts marketing; and, for the final part, students go to SDA Bocconi (Scuola di Direzione Aziendale, or School of Management), where the central topic is the cultural industries.6 Secondly, students have the possibility to establish “privileged contacts with renowned cultural organizations in several countries,”7 through, for example, the help of the program’s international advisory committee, which includes directors of world-famous cultural institutions and helps students find jobs after graduation.8 A third facet that demonstrates the program’s focus on network building is the emphasis on international networking and its integration into the teaching formats: Teaching methods used in the program include theoretical courses, case studies, field work, lectures by world leaders in international cultural management, and visits to well-known cultural organizations and facilities. A 10-day campus abroad in a fourth country, in South America or Asia, will eventually be added if warranted by the number of students.9

Along with the establishment of international networks, two other core objectives of the master’s program are the professional training “of the next generation of cultural managers”10 and cooperation with internationally renowned institutions. In correspondence with the program’s research focus, its website is steeped in economics and marketing language, underlined by keywords such as ensuring, leadership, market, mastery, selling, and uniqueness. One can note that instead of the actual content, it is the structure and mission of the International Arts Management master’s that are advertised to prospective students online. Semantically emphasized by expressions such as “presents them to the world,” “mastery,” and “frontline cultural managers,” the program’s mission suggests that both current and prospective students are and will be leading figures in arts management: At the end of the program, you will have competency in four areas that are essential to the work of any cultural organization, based on the perspective

224

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

that it is the artist who creates works of art and the manager who presents them to the world. These four competencies are: | | | |

designing and implementing a cultural project selling a cultural product in domestic and foreign markets ensuring the financial stability of the organization mastery of the tools that support the organization11

And further: The [International Arts Management program] is designed for those with an undergraduate arts degree and those who are frontline cultural managers (tour managers, managers of travelling exhibitions, heads of film co-productions, international marketing managers, artist managers).12

The first cohort of 14 people started in fall 2013, with students able to choose from among multiple courses included in the curriculum. The first semester, spent in Dallas, has the core theme of “Management of Non-profit Arts Organizations and Private-Sector Funding” and comprises classes such as Comparative International Cultural Policy; Cultural Economics and the International Art Market; and International Law and the Arts. The second semester, which is spent at HEC Montréal, focuses on “Marketing”—in line with the professors’ profiles and expertise presented above. Classes are, for example, Accounting Management in Cultural Organizations (Film, Publishing, Recording); Marketing and Consumer Culture; Leadership in the Context of Cultural Organizations; and International Marketing of the Cultural Industries. In the final semester, in Milan, the classes are organized around the main topic of “Cultural Industries” and are complemented by the master’s thesis. The three classes offered are Creative Entrepreneurship and Business Planning; International Consulting Management in the Arts; and International Arts Production Systems. This tripartite curriculum shows a strategic use of resources. The international master’s program was built in such a way that HEC Montréal can offer an entire study program and use its expertise in marketing in a highly efficient manner. Because the students’ time at HEC Montréal is strongly focused on

3.6 HEC Montréal

225

marketing in both a specific and a broad range, as well as on the development of their own competences and networks, they are able to benefit from the comparably little resources in a very distinct and individual way. Perhaps most importantly: International Arts Management is the first program in the field offering such an international approach, where one studies in three countries. This uniqueness bolsters the reputation of the Chair of Arts Management. Additionally, setting up such a program shows a highly entrepreneurial spirit. It is important to note that the initiation of the new master’s degree, the networking activities, and the strong focus on publication do not only serve the chair’s contribution to the formation of the field on an international level; these factors also show that the chair tries to establish and maintain internal visibility. Or, in the words of Professor 3: “Professor 1 comes from a time when they were establishing the program and really fighting for its presence in this big business school, and so they would go to accept as many students as possible” (P3: 481ff.). In addition to this focus on the founding figure of the program, a wider perspective on the institution HEC Montréal and the city of Montréal may also help us to understand this strategic behavior. The environment of the program The statement about the university and its development included on the landing page of HEC’s website offers a comprehensive impression of what HEC Montréal is about, in terms of environment: HEC Montréal is a university business school whose reputation as a leader in teaching and research is recognized in Québec, Canada, and around the world.13 HEC Montréal was Canada’s first business school, founded in 1907. It has been active and committed to the academic and business communities right from the very beginning, continuing a tradition of excellence in management teaching and research, with a constant focus on innovation. … Even today, HEC Montréal is a leader, … proud to hold the most

226

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

prestigious rankings and certifications in its field. … Innovation is truly part of the School’s DNA. HEC Montréal’s reputation is built on the opportunities it offers its students to expand their horizons, thanks in part to the work of its some fifty research centres and chairs and its impressive student exchange program, with over 100 possible destinations. Today HEC Montréal has over 12,000 students, 280 professors and several hundred lecturers, a staff of more than 850 and close to 71,000 alumni. All in all, it forms a dynamic family, deeply rooted in the local and international communities it serves, and with its gaze fixed firmly on the future. HEC Montréal is proud to honour the values that have made it a success in all areas of academia—rigour, relevance, daring, commitment and respect—and intends to continue making a valuable contribution to the development of our society. I invite you to learn more about this unique business school that is such a source of pride for Quebeckers and whose vitality, I can assure you, makes it the envy of many international universities.14

Montréal, founded in 1642, is the second largest French-speaking city in the world. In the Canadian province of Québec, the debate about English dominance over the French-speaking minority within the nation at large continues to be a central issue. The foundation of HEC Montréal was a direct reaction to this point of contention, with this rationale clearly stated in golden letters on a red background near the main entrance: HEC Montréal (École des hautes études commerciales de Montréal) was founded to raise “positions of influence” for francophones in the Canadian economy by “training an intellectual elite.” The aim was to create a “distinctive interventionist school of thought”—a quotation found on a plaque next to the school’s entrance. It was in a similarly entrepreneurial yet less political spirit that the English-speaking Master of Management in International Arts Management was founded. What is important for me about how Professor 1 founded [the program] and what remains distinctive is that it is [for] artists. It is a postgraduate program for artists who are either working as artists or want to supplement their role as an entrepreneur. And so I am sitting in a business school, but

3.6 HEC Montréal

227

I talk about art and the problems of art production with the students all day. (P3: 90ff.)

The above quotation discloses two of the main characteristics of the examined master’s program that were already discussed above: only candidates with significant professional experience in the arts are admitted as students, and the studies focus on marketing in the arts. In addition, Professor 3 alludes to the initiator of the International Arts Management program. In the interviews carried out at HEC Montréal, Professor 1 was unanimously considered founder and continuing head of the program by all professors and students. For example, Professor 2 reported that many administrative aspects “relied on one entrepreneur,” and that, still today, “it would be a huge blow to the program” if Professor 1 left, “because they are quite the leader” (P2: 166ff.). Since not only the program’s existence is linked to this protagonist—its “spiritus rector”—but also its focus of study, Professor 1’s account of the genesis of the International Arts Management master’s is important to recount: In 1988, I was offering short-term seminars for art managers. … I knew the field very well. I knew that to work in this field you must know the arts. … The goal was to give management tools so that the art managers could serve the artists whom they were working with better. The goal was to improve the management of arts organizations in this province. Then, five years ago, I was thinking that with increasing globalization, even arts organizations have to be on the international market. There were no real master programs focusing only on the international market. I thought that to prepare a manager for the international market, it would be interesting to have an international program. It would be nice if we could have the students travel to different countries to study and to have people from different countries in class. … That’s why I created the program. As partner institutions, I chose what I think are the two other best programs in the world: Dallas and Bocconi. … Instead of preparing somebody to work in the box office tomorrow, we’re preparing people to think, people that are able to see ahead and to make decisions in a context of uncertainty and in a context where things are changing. Those two universities are known [as] among the best of the world. And I wanted the American expe-

228

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

rience, the European experience, and [the] Canad[ian experience], which is in between. (P1: 95ff.)

This genesis story reveals Professor 1’s pursuit of distinct aims. By folding SMU Dallas and SDA Bocconi into the mix, Professor 1’s initiative resulted in a master’s program strategically positioned in a niche of the market—that is, the field of arts management. It was the first program in Canada to transfer management skills to trained artists and arts managers on an international level. Professor 1’s function as the head and decision-maker is underlined by expressions such as “As partner institutions, I chose what I think …” and “That’s why I created the program.” It is obvious that the program’s foundation not only benefited from but depended on Professor 1’s knowledge about, experience in, and networks within the field. As one student explained, “They are the one who more or less created the field of arts marketing, so they are like a pioneer” (S1: 348; see also S3: 142ff.). Another pioneering move by Professor 1 is the foundation of the International Journal of Arts Management, the only internationally renowned peer-reviewed journal “about management applied to the arts in general.” About its development, Professor 1 stated, “There was a niche, that’s why I created it” (P1: 577ff.) This journal, closely connected to Professor 1 personally and to HEC Montréal on the institutional level, can be considered a further strategy to position the school as one of the leading—if not the only—institution in the field of education programs in cultural production with a focus on international arts marketing.15 Though many professors and students stressed the importance of Professor 1 to the institution and describe their influence in the field in a positive manner, dissenting voices can be quoted as well: They have a specific view, a specific vision of this field, so that has an impact on the whole program, which is at the same time very nice and frustrating. (S1: 121ff.) It could also be interesting to get someone like [Professor 1] but maybe with fresher ideas. Since they have strong ideas and is important in this field, they are sure that their ideas are the only ones that count. (S1: 349ff.)

3.6 HEC Montréal

229

In addition, the existence of such a strong lead figure is connected to a challenge in terms of succession, which will be necessary after the retirement of the current chair and some other faculty members. In this context, two main questions are to be dealt with: Who will (be able to) function as program director, and in which ways will this affect the continuation of the program? And, how can the continuous adaption of the program to changing market conditions be assured? But in the long run there is a succession issue, because Professor 1, myself, and Professor 4 are all in our 60s. There are some younger people, but … I mean there are not many people out there in the market that have a huge experience, are willing to do a doctorate, and to bring that to a program. Professor 4 and I are the only ones I know in Canada who have done that, in the arts and field of cultural management. (P3: 226ff.) I guess the challenge is to always make sure that the program is up to date and adapted to the changing environment of the arts organization. We have to adjust all the time, because the market is changing. For me, that’s the biggest challenge. And my personal challenge is to find somebody to replace me at some point, because I’m 65. (P1: 278ff.)

Comparing the above statements on continuation and adaption to student evaluation sheds light on another discrepancy. In the context of the teaching units, we asked the students and professors about the strategies used to evaluate the classes. Nearly all students and professors mentioned the end-of-semester evaluation, which is carried out via questionnaire. The professors stated that they encourage students to add comments, to fully make use of the questionnaires (e.g., P2: 463ff.): As far as I know the students do not have a clear instrument or tool to affect the quality of the program. … There are some evaluations at the end of the semester. … I have never seen any remarkable change in the program. You can say that those evaluations are just some useless formalities. (S2: 445ff.)

230

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

At HEC, to be promoted you have to be a good teacher. Every professor … it’s compulsory, we are evaluated by students with a questionnaire that has been built by people from the University of Montréal pedagogic department. It serves as a continuous feedback. … And because we have this mentality, I think that we not only look at the result of the questionnaire but we’ll ask the students in class: How do you find the class? Is there anything you would like … ? So we are very attentive to what the students are saying. We are always using those evaluations to adapt. (P1: 328ff.)

These statements can be interpreted in a twofold way. While one is presented with the official and institutionalized interpretation of students’ evaluation and the giving of continuous feedback, the statement of the PhD student frames this in a different way. Even though Professor 1 seems to truly care about what the students are saying, as far as deciding on what kinds of action to take in shaping the program, it could be assumed that the survival of the program itself is the utmost interest and not so much pedagogic enhancements; this in turn would be the reason why S2 did not see remarkable changes. Additionally, it is noteworthy that the professors take care of and are actively involved in the students’ professional futures—which is again a different focus than that of developing teaching methods further. In the words of Professor 4: “I think the challenge is making sure that, at the end, the students are satisfied with what they have learned, that the added value was there, because that will create a good word-of-mouth” (198ff.). One could even say that a certain preoccupation with the students’ (professional) needs is a core part of HEC Montréal’s self-conception and has an impact on the organizational culture of the school. Organizational culture: “We are expected to make profit”16 In this section, we investigate four aspects of organizational culture: service orientation, external legitimization of the chair and program toward students and donors, internal legitimization toward colleagues, and decision-making processes.

3.6 HEC Montréal

231

With regard to service orientation, the following aspects need to be taken into account. First of all, teaching takes place in small groups, and academic advising is carried out on an individual basis. Professors and administrators care about the students’ needs: one PhD student said they had a weekly meeting with their supervisor (S2: 116), and the master’s students are also advised during their studies. According to one student, who works for the program’s administration in parallel to their studies: To be honest, I am quite proud of what we are doing with the International [Arts Management] master’s. I really take care of the students. I make sure they have everything they need, that there is no problem, and if they have any questions, if something goes wrong, I would do whatever I can to help them. I nurse them, you know. (S3: 710ff.)

Secondly, students receive assistance in support of their professional careers. Every PhD student in the examined faculty has the opportunity to work as a teaching or research assistant, or both, and to thereby start to pursue an academic career at HEC Montréal and beyond. In addition, HEC Montréal has established an international advisory committee17—constituted by the directors, presidents, and CEOs of world-leading cultural institutions such as the New York Philharmonic and the State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg—which offers internships and job placements to the students. Finally, the strong service orientation is visible in the high quality of the public spaces, such as the cafeteria, including its design and the large range of products offered. One can also find a TV room with sofas (known as the “press room”) for the students to relax in. The Master of Management in International Arts Management is the third private program to be created at HEC Montréal, which means that it is not subject to state content requirements and it also does not qualify for state subsidies. The flip side of this is that it is entirely dependent on private funding and student tuition fees (which are set at US$40,000 per year). Hence this statement from Professor 1: “We are expected to make profit” (P1: 570ff.). According to Professor 2, the school pays attendance costs for one conference per professor per year; further conference visits need to be covered

232

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

independently (P2: 648ff.). Professors holding a chair position also receive money to hire research and teaching assistants on a rolling basis. For all further research activities, external funding needs to be acquired: You are an entrepreneur; you have to find money. (P2: 577ff.) In terms of research funds, we all individually have access to big government research foundations that we apply to, and the school seriously encourages us and gives us recognition for that. Internal funds like the chair’s money are not used to support our research. But there are a lot of other sources of research. So we are all out there networking. (P3: 625ff.)

The professors’ individual dependence on external funding—be it governmental or private—implies the need for a publicity strategy to attract donors. Publishing research in well-ranked journals is one manner of proving the institution’s professional competence while simultaneously creating awareness for its activities on an international level. Reaching the largest possible audience could lead to an increased number of applications and admissions, so that researching and publishing have a knock-on effect on profit levels as well. Moreover, networking with other schools, government institutions, and cultural organizations is key for the acquisition of external funding, which might also result in additional student bursaries and placement opportunities. The importance of fundraising activities is clearly visible in the institution’s buildings themselves. Almost every classroom of this international management school is named after an enterprise (IBM, PricewaterhouseCoopers, etc.); the remaining rooms are named after famous world cities. In addition to a greater external legitimization via the communication of institutional excellence and the promotion of fundraising activities, internal legitimization is attended to through providing evidence of success through a display of published articles, located in front of the professors’ offices (see figs. 3.6.1–3.6.3). The professors also touched on this in the interviews: One of the very important aspects with installing a master’s is that you have to earn legitimacy within your school. And to be legitimate within the

3.6 HEC Montréal

233

Figure 3.6.4 (left): The list of HEC Montréal donors, classified into ­categories of platinum, gold, and silver, for both businesses and individuals Figure 3.6.5 (right): The entire ground floor is fitted with tiles that each display the name of a regular HEC Montréal donor.

school, especially in our organization, you have to do good-level research. Publishing in the arts is very heterogeneous in terms of quality. So if you want to publish “A papers” in very good publications, you have to be a very good researcher. I come from the arts, I did a bachelor’s degree in cinema, I worked in theater—but to earn legitimacy, I decided to not constrain myself only with the arts. And it pays hugely because it allows me to gain legitimacy within the school. (P2: 333ff.) One of the main drivers of what we do is that there is a structure of internal entrepreneurship. The professors are very driven and they are allowed to follow their entrepreneurial endeavors. (P2: 137ff.)

The above quotations focus on external and internal legitimization in terms of delivery, competition, and success through publication in top-ranked journals and the acquisition of third-party funding. As in these descriptions, a distinct semantic framing can be noticed throughout all the interviews. Terms like deliver, earning, entrepreneurship, funding, money, market, profit, and

234

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

resources appear frequently in every transcript, and as such indicate the program’s broader context of economics and marketing. This ideology carries into the visual framing of HEC Montréal—it is inscribed in the school’s architecture and interior design through explicit historical references to engineering and construction. The institution’s branding, which carries a distinctly high self-esteem, is found all over HEC Montréal. Walking from the entranceway into the cafeteria—the “heart” of the building—one encounters a large screen displaying a loop of information on the school and its achievements. Figure 3.6.9 shows the latest rankings of its MBA program: best in Québec, second in Canada, and number 29 in the world. New books by the professors, recent award recipients, and some practical information for students and visitors are also displayed as part of the loop.

Figure 3.6.6 (left): Stairs leading to the main entrance of the main building of HEC Montréal, where the International Arts Management program is located Figure 3.6.7 (right): A stairway from the second floor to the third floor. ­Materials such as the aluminum-checkered plates on the floor and the iron-­girder ­stairways evoke the impression of a building undergoing construction.

3.6 HEC Montréal

235

Figure 3.6.8 (top): When walking up the stairs (pictured in fig 3.6.6) and opening the entrance door to the main building, one ­recognizes the HEC Montréal brand carved into the steel. The doors to the university do not open automatically but require physical action. Figure 3.6.9 (right): A screen in the ­cafeteria displays the school’s latest rankings.

Management Here at HEC the institution will always support you to innovate. But you have to deliver. Everything I started has worked. I mean it’s a big risk, because this program is a private program—we don’t get subsidies from the government. But the director trusted me. … I must admit that this program creates a lot of anxiety for me, more than any other project I’ve started. Because it’s an expensive program for the students and we have to recruit on the international market, with small resources. (P1: 518ff.)

In addition to emphasizing the important role of the program’s initiator once more, this statement alludes to the fourth studied aspect of HEC Montréal’s organizational culture: its decision-making processes. Although formerly characterized by a rather informal, “spoken contract” tradition and a lighthanded organizational structure (“the director trusted me”), HEC Montréal is a growing business school that requires ever greater managerial and administrative efficiency (P2: 128ff., 150ff.). This is achieved and improved through two processes: centralization and decentralization. Decentralization describes

236

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

how the program is rather autonomously run as a business unit on its own within a specific framing. Decisions like how to design the curriculum, with whom to cooperate, how to advertise the program, and so on are made with a large degree of autonomy by the chair, which—as was shown above—fosters the head’s leadership position and the prioritization of their perspective and sometimes inhibits changes in the program. As for the centralizing aspect, the program has to fit to the overall university’s strategy (marketing and management) and live up to the criteria of the school’s pedagogic council (conseil pédagogique), which has to approve new programs. Conclusion Several major characteristics of HEC Montréal and the Master of Management in International Arts Management were revealed during the field research. Most immediately, one can almost breathe in HEC Montréal’s entrepreneurial character: the whole program seems to rely on the entrepreneurial endeavors of the founding figure, Professor 1. Through the Carmelle and Rémi Marcoux Chair in Arts Management, they had the chance to create the field of arts management at HEC Montréal and frame it specifically around arts marketing. Departing from the idea of marketing the arts, a large number of professors interested in this subject contribute to the program’s content and visibility. In the environment of HEC Montréal, this became a perfect resource strategy: internationally, it created a specific profile—a niche that the program continues to be renowned for. From the statements given by the various professors and students, it can be determined that the competitive environment of the university at large was a factor that supported the development of the emerging entrepreneurial departmental culture as well as its focus. But “marketing” is not just an academic discipline; it rather seems to be the lens through which everything is viewed. It is a lived disposition at the Arts Management Chair, but also throughout the university. It is the video displayed in the cafeteria, the publications listed in vitrines, the donor-inscribed floor tiles, the international networking undertaken to gain more visibility, and countless other aspects. The idea of steadily creating and forming a market seems to be omnipresent.

3.6 HEC Montréal

237

It is a driving factor behind the creation of the program’s environment. One could even say that the chair developed a school of thought—one that the International Arts Management master’s now stands for. This disposition is communicated through the journal IJAM, through the international conference AIMAC, and through the staff’s and students’ teaching and publishing. A reasonable explanation for the success of HEC Montréal’s International Arts Management program comes from its strong publication efforts, with particular focus on marketing. The expression “publish or perish” is put into practice in the classes, too: writing publishable papers is the main skill students learn to become successful in academia. The program’s associated journal and international conference are perfect forums to accomplish that. Both are likewise ideal vehicles through which to further develop the niche the program stands for: marketing the arts. In addition, the chair focuses on international collaborations, promotion, and networking via the international advisory board. Rather than adapting to the field, these means serve to form the field and to set a particular agenda. From a resource-orientation perspective, partnering with SMU Dallas and SDA Bocconi to establishing the International Arts Management master’s program reveals a wise strategy. The chair needs to invest in only one-third of a program but gets international visibility via collaboration with its partner schools. Offering such a unique international program raises the chair’s reputation as “leader.” In terms of student-based concerns, several findings might be of interest as well. Since the program is rather costly, the students’ interests and needs are well respected. Because of the small classes, there is a high level of personal interaction, or, as one PhD student put it, the students “are nursed.” Another important factor seems to be that all the students are individually selected and must have working experience in the field of art. This ensures they have a similar intention (a career in the arts) and similar professional socialization. Furthermore, the program’s focus on connecting teaching and research to current topics and practical experiences has proven to be successful. As stated in the interviews, students show a high motivation to dedicate time to their studies. At the same time, the dominant role of Professor 1 has allowed little room for change within the program. Their thematic focus and the conviction of measuring success via a high number of publications dominates the pro-

238

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

gram and its curriculum, and the students reported seeing hardly any changes in terms of pedagogical approaches. All of these features can easily be linked back to the field of marketing, where technicality (in the sense of applying specific tools), a service-oriented approach, branding, strategic communication, and resource allocation play important roles. The Chair of Arts Management fits well into its environment, and HEC Montréal at large appears to have created an environment largely driven by the ideas and techniques it teaches. Notes 1

Carmelle and Rémi Marcoux Chair in Arts Management. (2020). Chair. Retrieved October 14, 2020, from https://gestiondesarts.hec.ca/en/about-us/chair/

2

Master of Management in International Arts Management [henceforth “MMIAM”]. (2013). Program. Retrieved December 19, 2013, from http://www.master-in-international-arts-management.com/program/

3

HEC Montréal. (2013). Case Centre. Retrieved December 9, 2013, from www.hec.ca/en/case_ centre

4

Carmelle and Rémi Marcoux Chair in Arts Management. (2020). International Journal of Arts Management (IJAM). Retrieved October 14, 2020, from https://gestiondesarts.hec.ca/en/ijam/

5

Dudouet, F.-X., Grémot, E., Joly, H. & Vion, A. (2011). Radiographie des comités exécutifs du CAC 40 au 31.12.2009. Les Analyses de l’OpesC n°14. Retrieved February 3, 2014, from http://www. opesc.org/analyses/doc/diplomes%20comex%20CAC%2040%202009.pdf

6

MMIAM. (2013). Program. Retrieved November 2, 2013, from http://www.master-in-international-arts-management.com/program/#tabs-2

7 Ibid. 8

MMIAM. (2020). Vision and goals. Retrieved October 14, 2020, from https://www.master-in-international-arts-management.com/program/

9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12

This teaching objective has been slightly updated. See ibid.

13

HEC Montréal. (2013). HEC Montréal | Business School | Montréal, Québec, Canada. Retrieved December 9, 2013, from http://www.hec.ca/en/

14

HEC Montréal. (2013). Message from the director. Retrieved December 9, 2013, from http:// www.hec.ca/en/governance_departments/director/index.html

239

3.6 HEC Montréal

15

Professor 2 stated that HEC Montréal is the only institution “providing a degree in arts management in Québec” (214f.).

16

Interview with P1 (575).

17

MMIAM. (2020). Vision and goals. Retrieved October 14, 2020, from https://www.master-in-international-arts-management.com/program/

Appendix HEC Table 3.6.1: Visualization of the students’ and ­professors’ ­ratings of their respective atmospheres Professors’ rating of the ­atmos­phere among themselves Applies fully

Applies

Applies up to a point

Does not apply

Students’ rating of the ­ atmos­phere among themselves

Does not apply at all

Does not apply at all

Does not apply

Applies up to a point

Collegial Compe­titive Cooperative Harmonious Inspiring Indivi­dualistic* Moti­vating *Individualistic in the sense of “everyone for themselves”

Legend: mentioned once

mentioned twice

mentioned three times

mentioned four times

Applies

Applies fully

240

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Table 3.6.2: Visualization of qualifications for a professor in this ­program according to the professors and students Professors

Students Professional academic or artistic qualification Pedagogic competence Frequent publishing or professional activities Practical experience Appreciative treatment of the students Enthusiasm for the ­subject they are teaching Availability and approachability The ability to grasp or ­recognize the students’ professional ­difficulties or uniqueness Practical orientation Interdisciplinary orientation Committed personality Interested personality Motivating personality

Missing items are “humour or spirit” and “empathy,” which were not mentioned by either group.

3.7 Excursus: Quantitative results from the questionnaires

On the previous pages, we outlined detailed within-case descriptions that derived from the qualitative part of the interviews and the observations carried out in the field. During the interviews with students and professors, we integrated a “standard survey” that asked both open and closed questions (Questionnaire professors and Questionnaire students, p. 297 and 302). Through the combination of these open and closed questions and field observations, we were able to triangulate our research questions to complete our analyses. In this chapter, by looking at the results of the standard survey, we will take a first step toward a cross-case analysis and toward an overarching framework that synthesizes the different strategies the programs used to build their reputability. For this quantitative part of the questionnaire, we used similar questions for students and professors to examine the two groups’ perspectives on the teaching situation, the atmosphere among each group, and the qualifications and capacities of professors in each program. In addition to this, we integrated questions addressed only to the students. These included, for example, the factors influencing their decisions to undertake a specific program and their experiences of the teaching units. One question specifically addressed to the professors examined their use of time for different tasks such as student supervision, research, and administration. Taken all together, the questions covered aspects from university rankings, to the assessments of university courses, to social organization theory more generally. In two pretests with students and professors from Zeppelin University, in Friedrichshafen, Germany, we tested the questions in German to make sure they covered aspects relevant to our

242

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

survey and were easy to understand. Afterward, the questions were translated into English. This procedure was chosen since, at the time of our study, there was no validated questionnaire that covered all aspects of our investigation on how excellence or reputation is created. In the following, we summarize the quantitative results. Due to the small number of participants (NProfessor = 24, NStudent = 27), it is self-evident that the results and their interpretation remain limited; however, they still shed light on similarities and differences in the students’ and professors’ perception of their learning environment and provide a first idea of the aspects contributing to “excellence.” What drives students to choose a program? To find out more about the reasons why students chose a specific program, we asked them to rate 13 items concerning academic and career opportunities as well as financial and personal issues on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very important, 5 = absolutely unimportant). Out of these 13 items, only the following 4 achieved a mean between 1 and 2, and can therefore be considered as very important: “The general reputation of the university,” M = 1.56 “Future professional options,” M = 1.59 “The program’s / department’s orientation,” M = 1.74 “The city and its cultural activities,” M = 1.96 With a mean of M = 2.07, “One or several professors and their teaching and research foci” was also an important aspect for the students’ decision-making. It is noteworthy that neither “scholarship options” nor “tuition fees” were found to be strong drivers for choosing the program of study. Against the background of each program’s relatively high tuition costs, one might have expected a different result. Yet, then again, choosing a study program in the US or UK, where tuition fees are known to be considerably high, implies an awareness of and perhaps also financial ability to pay these fees. However, “fellowship options” shows the highest standard deviation, indicating that this

243

3 Notes from the field

is an important issue for some of the interviewees. “Friends or acquaintances already studying here” and “family reasons” were the least important influential factors. The most remarkable result is that “general reputation of the university” is the most important driver for the students’ decision, M = 1.56 (SD = .641), whereas “ranking of the university or school” is much less important, M = 2.44 (SD = 1.086).

Table 3.7.1: When choosing this program, how important were the following aspects? 1 = very important, 2 = important, 3 = more or less ­important, 4 = unimportant, 5 = absolutely unimportant N

Min

Max

Mean

SD

The general reputation of the university

27

1

3

1.56

0.641

Friends or acquaintances already studying here

27

1

5

3.74

1.228

The program’s or department’s orientation

27

1

4

1.74

0.859

Family reasons

27

1

5

3.67

1.209

One or several professors and their teaching and research foci

27

1

5

2.07

1.141

The city and its cultural activities

27

1

4

1.96

1.192

The ranking of the university or school

27

1

5

2.44

1.086

The environment and what it offers

27

1

4

2.41

0.931

The alumni network

27

1

5

2.85

1.231

The future professional options

27

1

4

1.59

0.888

The scholarship options

27

1

5

2.52

1.312

The tuition fees

27

1

5

2.89

1.121

The possibility to work in parallel to studying

27

1

4

2.56

1.121

Legend: SD = Standard deviation

244

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Professors’ qualifications and capacities With the following question, we wanted to discover “What qualifications and capacities are important for a professor in this program?” in the eyes of both the students and the professors. Both groups were asked to select 5 out of 15 possible options as being the most important. A list with the items was handed over to the interviewees, who did not rank or order these selections, but only chose them. Interestingly, the three top-ranked options were the same for both groups. These were: “Professional qualification” “Enthusiasm for the subject they are teaching” “Pedagogic competence” Table 3.7.2: Professors’ qualifications and capacities Professors

Students

17

Professional qualification

21

15

Pedagogic competence

13

10

Frequent publishing

6

13

Practical experience

11

6

Humor or spirit

3

7

Appreciative treatment of the students

2

16

Enthusiasm for the subject they are teaching

14

7

Availability and approachability

13

5

Empathy

2

8

The ability to grasp or recognize the students’ professional difficulties or uniqueness

10

2

Practical orientation

12

13

Interdisciplinary orientation

10

2

Committed personality

3

1

Interested personality

3

4

Motivating personality

7

Legend: Bold = important for at least 50 percent of each group (named 9 times or more by professors (NProfessor = 24) and 11 times or more by students (NStudent = 27))

245

3 Notes from the field

Additionally, both groups considered “interdisciplinary orientation” as important. For students, “availability and approachability” as well as “practical orientation” were important qualities; professors often named “frequent publishing.” “Practical orientation” reveals the largest discrepancy, named by 12 students and only 2 professors. How are the teaching units experienced? When inquiring with the students about how they experienced the teaching units with their professors, we asked them to assess the effect of the teaching units on them. Again, a 5-point Likert scale was used. Table 3.7.3: Teaching units Please classify the effect of the teaching units on you between the two alternatives: N

Min

Max

Mean

SD

1 = Interesting to 5 = Boring

26

1

4

2.27

0.778

1 = Overtaxing to 5 = Subchallenging

26

1

4

2.87

0.715

1 = Inspiring to 5 = Suppressing or inhibiting

26

1

4

2.27

0.962

1 = Consistent to 5 = Chaotic

26

1

4

2.87

1.035

Legend: SD = Standard deviation

In all four categories, a rather consistent, mediocre picture is drawn. The students were not enthusiastic about the teaching units they experienced in the different programs. Considering that no one rated the professors badly (at 5)—maybe due to the interview situation or politeness—values were only given in the range of 1 and 4. The categories “interesting” and “inspiring” show an average of 2.27. Also, the teaching units tend toward being rather “subchallenging” (2.87). How is the time at university experienced? This balanced picture of the student experience is further enhanced when looking at the next table. We asked the students to rate their general experience of the time they spent at university in six categories on a 5-point Likert scale.

246

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Table 3.7.4: Time spent at university In general, I experience the time I spend at university as … 1 = too, 2 = very, 3 = a little, 4 = not, 5 = too little N

Min

Max

Mean

SD

… intense.

26

1

4

2.35

0.745

… focused.

26

1

4

2.54

0.647

… activating and stimulating.

26

1

3

2.08

0.484

… happy.

26

2

4

2.46

0.647

… challenging.

26

1

3

2.50

0.583

… burdening.

26

1

4

3.23

0.863

Legend: SD = Standard deviation

Once more, ratings were given only from 1 to 4, while category 5 was ignored. The rather low standard deviation indicates quite coherent ratings from the students. Taken all together, it can be stated that the students neither experienced their time at university as very intense, focused, challenging, or happy, nor did they feel burdened. The highest rating was achieved for the atmospheric attributes “activating and stimulating” (M = 2.08, SD = 0.484), which might be explained by the students’ individual interests and the benefits they were able to generate from the programs for their personal and professional development. Professors’ working time The question “Looking back at the past five years, how much working time do you spend on these activities on average (in percentages, 100 percent in total)?” elicited responses from the professors that had almost all of them working more than 100 percent. On average, the professors of the various programs spent their working time on “teaching” (26 percent), almost on par with “research or art production” (24 percent), followed by “administration” (20.8 percent), “curriculum development” (12.6 percent), “student supervision” (12.7 percent), and “acquisition of external funds” (3.6 percent). “Teaching,” “curriculum development,” and “student supervision” make

247

3 Notes from the field

Table 3.7.5: Professors’ working time

Min

Teaching

Curriculum Development

Research or art production

Student supervision

Administration

Acquisition of external funds

9

5

5

5

5

2

Max

65

35

60

30

80

5

Mean

27.91

13.48

26.09

13.68

22.38

3.9

107.44

25.97

12.55

24.30

12.74

20.84

3.63

100.04

14.17

7.33

15.35

7.82

17.58

1.86

SD

Legend: SD = Standard deviation

up almost 52 percent of the professors’ time, and the remaining three categories (“research or art production,” “administration,” and “acquisition of external funds”) comprise 48 percent. Overall, the professors’ time is dedicated to the students. But this might be linked to the need to constantly develop and redefine the curricula to students’ needs and market niches. In comparison, the time devoted to “acquisition of external funds” was found to be considerably low, with less than 4 percent. Either the programs are very efficient in gaining funds (or do not need money for research and staff), or—which is most likely, considering the interviews—the programs finance themselves by attracting enough students to become self-sufficient and financially stable. The latter explains the orientation toward the students and the entrepreneurial habitus. The effect of teaching units on the experience of the time spent at university To reveal possible correlations between the effect of teaching units and the general experience of the time spent at university, we performed a bivariate correlation between the students’ assessments of the corresponding questions “In general, I experience the time I spend at university as … (1 = too, 5 = too little)” and “Please classify the effect of the teaching units on you between the two alternatives: (interesting vs. boring; overtaxing vs. subchallenging; inspiring vs. suppressing or inhibiting; consistent vs. chaotic).”

248

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Table 3.7.6: Correlation between teaching units and the general experience

Interesting

r

Interesting

Overtaxing

Inspiring

Consistent

1

0.068

0.434*

0.345

0.742

0.027

0.084

Significance N Overtaxing

26

26

26

26

r

0.068

1

0.026

-0.174

Significance

0.742

N Inspiring

r Significance N

Consistent

1

0.460*

0.901

0.018 26

26

0.460*

1

Significance

0.084

0.395

0.018

26

26

26

0.033

0.137

-0.066

0.3

0.0874

0.513

0.755

0.145

r

26

25

25

25

25

r

0.168

0.035

0.24

0.374

Significance

0.421

0.867

0.247

0.065

25

25

25

25

0.474*

-0.257

0.22

0.112

0.017

0.215

0.292

0.595

r N

25

25

25

25

r

0.132

-0.029

0.403*

0.32

Significance

0.529

0.891

0.046

0.119

25

25

25

25

r

0.302

0.262

0.285

-0.011

Significance

0.143

0.205

0.168

0.958

N

N Burdening

0.026

0.027

26

Significance

Challenging

0.434*

-0.174

N

Happy

26

26

N

Stimulating

26

0.345

Significance Focused

0.395

26

r N

Intense

0.901

26

r Significance N

25

25

25

25

-0.101

0.181

-0.022

-0.134

0.632

0.387

0.919

0.522

25

25

25

25

Legend: Bivariate correlation used in means comparisons. * the correlation is significant < 0.05; ** the correlation is strongly significant < 0.01. r = Pearson correlation. The strength of a relationship (-1 to +1) is larger than typical if the r-value is 0.25 or higher, and it is much larger than typical if it is 0.49 or higher (Cohen J. (1988). Statistical power and analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.)

3 Notes from the field

249

Only rarely did the students’ ratings of how they were affected by their teaching units show considerable influence on how they generally experienced the time they spent at university. These correlations were: | The more “interesting” they assessed their teaching units to be, the more “stimulated” (0.474*) they felt. | The more “inspiring” they assessed their teaching units to be, the more “happy” they were (.403*). In addition, a correlation could be found between the different assessments of the teaching units. | The more “consistent” they assessed their teaching units to be, the more “inspiring” (0.460*) they assessed their teaching units to be. | And the more “interesting” they assessed their teaching units to be, the more “inspiring” they assessed their teaching units to be (0.434*). One could say that these results seem to be rather predictable. Nonetheless, it is astounding that out of 36 possible correlations, only these 4 could be found to be significant. Atmosphere among the professors and the students We asked the professors and the students to describe the atmosphere among their respective colleagues via a rating of the same items (“competitive,” “cooperative,” etc.) on a 5-point Likert scale. Both the students and the professors rated their atmospheres as very “collegial” and very “cooperative.” In contrast to this, “competitive” was rated last by both groups. All in all, it is noteworthy that only in one out of seven means did professors and students differ more than 0.5 in describing the atmosphere in their respective group (“individualistic”: MStudent - MProfessor = 2.93 - 2.22 = 0.6). One can thus conclude that the fit in departmental culture, mindset, or common behavioral understanding in both groups is remarkably good.

250

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Table 3.7.7: Atmosphere How would you describe the atmosphere among the professors / the ­students? Please rate the following items according to your experience. 1 = applies fully, 2 = applies, 3 = applies up to a point, 4 = does not apply, 5 = does not apply at all

Collegial Competitive Cooperative Harmonious Inspiring Individualistic Motivating

Group

N

Mean

SD

Student

27

1.85

0.770

Professor

23

2.13

0.815

Student

27

3.15

0.907

Professor

24

3.21

0.932

Student

27

1.74

0.764

Professor

24

2.00

0.722

Student

27

2.22

0.698

Professor

24

2.38

0.770

Student

27

2.30

0.912

Professor

24

2.27

0.921

Student

27

2.93

0.997

Professor

24

2.33

1.09

Student

27

2.41

0.636

Professor

24

2.17

0.917

Legend: SD = Standard deviation

Relationship between students and professors: Wavelength, ­concerns, and the will to change To investigate the intensity of cooperation among professors and among students, we asked both groups to rate the following questions on a 5-pointLikert scale. Possible answers were: 1 = very often, 2 = often, 3 = sometimes, 4 = rarely, 5 = never. When comparing the students’ and professors’ ratings, some means obviously differ. The performance of a t-test to compare the two groups’ means revealed significant differences in the following aspects. The professors are more often on the same wavelength as their students (MStudent = 2.77)

251

3 Notes from the field

Table 3.7.8: Wavelength, concerns, and the will to change Group

N

Mean

SD

Student

26

2.77

0.652

Professor

24

2.08

0.974

Student

26

2.31

0.618

Professor

24

1.92

0.83

Student

26

2.35

0.846

Professor

24

2.38

0.924

Do you meet other colleagues of the program in your spare time as well?

Student

26

2.58

0.945

Professor

24

2.88

1.076

Are you motivated to change something at your department?

Student

26

2.38

1.134

Professor

24

2.17

0.963

Do you have an impact on the development of the program?

Student

25

3.48

1.194

Professor

24

2.25

0.944

Students: Is the quality of teaching discussed among fellow students?

Student

26

1.85

0.967

Professors: Are teaching and teaching quality discussed among colleagues?

Professor

24

2.04

1.042

Students: Is the quality of teaching discussed with the professors?

Student

26

3.40

0.895

Professors: Are teaching and teaching quality discussed with the students?

Professor

24

2.21

0.932

Student

26

3.83

0.812

Professor

24

2.38

0.875

Are you on the same wavelength as your fellow colleagues? Do you share common concerns? Do you work together with them?

Does this lead to concrete changes? Legend: SD = Standard deviation

(SD = 0.65) and MProfessor = 2.08 (SD = 0.97), t(39.69) = 2.90, p = 0.006).1 They also share common concerns more often (MStudent = 2.31 (SD = 0.62) and MProfessor = 1.92 (SD = 0.83), t(48) = 1.90, p = 0.063). Furthermore, the professors perceived themselves as having a greater impact on the development of the program than the students considered their impact to have (MStudent = 3.48 (SD = 1.2) and MProfessor = 2.25 (SD = 0.94), t(47) = 3.99, p < 0.001). Both the professors and the students discuss teaching issues often in their peer group (MStudent = 1.85 (SD = 0.97) and MProfessor = 2.04 (SD = 1.04)).

252

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

But when it comes to talking to each other, professors and students show differing opinions in how often this happens (MStudent = 3.4 (SD = 0.89) and MProfessor = 2.21 (SD = 0.93), t(47) = 3.99, p < 0.001). An even greater difference can be noticed in the assessment of concrete changes that the discussion of teaching quality is supposed to generate (MStudent = 3.83 (SD = 0.81) and MProfessor = 2.38 (SD = 0.87), t(48) = 4.63, p < 0.001). Clearly, professors agree more. This reveals a significant difference in the perception of professors and students when it comes to the development of the curricula or the teaching situation. In summary, one could say that the students still see a potential in developing the teaching situation and the curricula. They are not enthusiastic about the teaching and also not very inspired or focused on their studies. The students would like to have more changes, and respectively have a bigger say on the direction of the program. It was interesting to see that the teaching units only influenced the general student experience to some extent. The influential attributes were “interesting,” “consistent,” “inspiring,” and “stimulating.” This finding is congruent with the ranking of the professors’ qualifications, where “professional qualification,” “enthusiasm for the subject they are teaching,” and “pedagogic competence” were ranked first. Conclusion In respect to our general examination of “excellence” and reputation, the results of the statistical analysis are rather limited. In the end, only a few findings could be made. Firstly, the students did not consider the teaching quality to be “excellent” at most of the universities visited. The overall image remains rather average, even though in the individual programs both more positive and more negative manifestations were found. Secondly, the ranking of the university was not an important factor in the students’ decision-making process in choosing a program. Rather, the “general reputation of the university,” “the program’s or department’s orientation,” and individual needs and wishes such as “future professional options” seemed to constitute driving factors for the students’ choice. Rankings of universities usually imply a professional, transparent examination of hard facts, which are

3 Notes from the field

253

assessed via surveys on research and teaching quality carried out in line with predetermined criteria. Therefore, such rankings are often reliable sources and indicators for excellent research and teaching in the current discourse on excellence in higher education. In contrast, reputation is often constructed, communicated, and enhanced by word-of-mouth. Thus, one could have assumed that the ranking, rather than an atmospheric attribute such as reputation, would be a predictor for the “excellence” of a program, and therefore an important factor for students in choosing that program. However, this was not the case. Thirdly, students and professors rated the atmosphere among their respective groups as very “collegial” and “cooperative,” not as “competitive.” In addition, they often seemed to share “common concerns.” This could be an indicator of a rather homogenous departmental culture in the respective universities, as well as of a high potential for identification between the students and the faculty. Both professors and students coherently assessed “professional qualification,” “enthusiasm for the subject they are teaching,” and “pedagogic competence” to be of major importance, which hints at shared values between both groups. Notes 1 The p-value indicates the probability of the achieved statistical result within the analyzed sample.

4 Analyzing the cases: Drivers to excellence and reputation The aim of the research project “Places of excellence” was to investigate the formation of “excellence” in higher education programs in the fields of cultural policy, cultural production, and arts management. To this end, we examined seven international programs renowned for their “excellence” or at least notable reputation—two in the UK, four in the US, and one in Canada—and described the results of our surveys, interviews, and observations in detail in the preceding chapters. In the course of this analysis, we were not interested in or trying to establish best-practice examples and benchmarks. Rather, we were looking for distinct characteristics of the examined programs that could explain their reputability. In this chapter, we turn our efforts to considering the data all together. Before pointing out the patterns we have found, we will first provide short summaries of the research results. Summing up the seven cases University of Warwick: Master of Arts in International Cultural Policy and Management At the University of Warwick, we visited the Centre for Cultural Policy Studies (CCPS) (see chapter 3.1, pp. 29ff.). The four master’s degrees the center offers were built around the professors’ individual research interests and adapted to the students’ needs at the same time. We examined the MA in International Cultural Policy and Management in more detail. Among the six © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 M. Tröndle und J. Schindler, Places of Excellence, Edition WÜRTH Chair of Cultural Production, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33283-9_4

256

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

cases examined during the research project, this one was the only one located in a city with a population of less than half a million. It was also the only program entirely focused on research; for example, the International Journal of Cultural Policy and the conference linked to it, the International Conference on Cultural Policy Research (ICCPR), were founded at the center. While the faculty actively influenced the academic field on an international level via these and further academic activities, and even though the CCPS was well positioned in national rankings, the center still needed to fight for recognition inside the University of Warwick itself. This lack of intra-institutional recognition might be explained by the CCPS’s former strategy to remain invisible within the university in order to be able to test its programs. Classes at the CCPS took place just one or two days a week, allowing the students to use the rest of their time to read and discuss texts. The small class sizes (we observed 12 to 20 people per class) allowed for in-depth discussion of the required readings. The center successfully integrated the students’ diverse backgrounds into the teaching environment, in regard to both their nationalities and their professional experience. This was congruent with the center’s mission to “develop thinking managers.” We also found that the students appreciated the friendly atmosphere and personable environment the center’s spaces provided. Goldsmiths, University of London: Masters offered by the Institute for Creative and Cultural Entrepreneurship At Goldsmiths, University of London, we examined the Institute of Creative and Cultural Entrepreneurship (ICCE) and its MA in Arts Administration and Cultural Policy (see chapter 3.2, pp. 63ff.). Here, entrepreneurship was not merely a part of the institute’s name but rather fully inscribed in its disposition. At the time of our study, ICCE offered five MA degrees, with one faculty member responsible for each of these programs and their promotion. On top of these degrees, the institute frequently launches new master’s programs to accommodate increasing enrollment figures in a cost-efficient manner. Classes in the examined programs at ICCE took place only two or three days a week, giving students the possibility to work in parallel to studying

Analyzing the cases: Drivers to excellence and reputation

257

or to undertake an internship. Faculty members displayed entrepreneurial qualities in the sense that they were part of professional networks such as ENCATC (the European network on cultural management and policy) and the International Association for Arts and Cultural Management (AIMAC); participated regularly in international conferences; and did consultancy work for several government agencies. These activities enabled the professors both to influence the development of the academic field, even though research was not their main focus, and to create strong networks that proved to be a valuable resource for student placements. Every interviewed student stated that the director of ICCE was well connected and was their go-to person for questions or advice regarding internship opportunities. School of the Art Institute of Chicago: Master of Arts in Arts Administration and Policy The next case we examined was the MA in Arts Administration and Policy at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (SAIC) (see chapter 3.3, pp. 103ff.). Begun as an informal program, the master’s was professionalized by the current director of the program when they arrived at in 1995, just two years after the program had started. Our research uncovered a high degree of fit between the department’s orientation and its environment; specifically, the department is located in downtown Chicago, in proximity to all the city’s major art institutions, and is embedded in an art school. Thus, it was not surprising to find that this MA had integrated critical thinking and social development into its ideology. For example, one of the core curriculum classes was entitled Arts Organization in Society. In line with this, we found the department’s conception of the arts administrator was based on the idea of the manager’s agency—that is, a person enabling cultural and social change through their engagement with the arts and culture. The students saw themselves as being self-organized “cultural developers.” The teaching at SAIC was constantly adapted to the environment. Firstly, the curriculum was found to be managed in a flexible manner, so that courses could be regularly changed in order to familiarize students with current discourses and relevant topics in the arts field and to integrate the students’ needs and interests. Secondly, the art institutions in proximity to SAIC served as

258

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

talent pools from which to pull guest lecturers, who were invited to speak on a regular basis, and as collaborators for project-based classes. The faculty also took care of the students in terms of helping them with professional placement. It was further revealed that the students were given the freedom and responsibility to initiate projects on their own. In this proactive manner, the students used the school’s resources and contributed to the department’s visibility as well as to development of their professional careers. Ohio State University: Master of Arts in Arts Policy and Administration The Department of Arts Administration, Education and Policy at Ohio State University in Columbus (see chapter 3.4, pp. 139ff.) offers, among other degrees, an MA in Arts Policy and Administration. Its content has been built around the interplay between theory and practice. One of the program’s two lead professors was mainly dedicated to the practical field and helped the students with internship placements, and the other was involved with research and prepared the students for a career in the academic field. Additionally, the program’s courses were both research and practice oriented, with the latter mostly facilitated by guest lecturers. This dual theory and practice orientation was inscribed in the faculty members’ philosophy, with a strong focus on community development. Evidence of this community-minded focus came from the fact that several of the professors were involved in consultancy work in the field of cultural policy and many undertook research in minority studies. Even though certain tensions were tangible inside the department due to the different research topics and the role of the “education” aspect of the degree versus its “administration” and “policy” foci, the staff were all committed to the department’s cohesive development and the students’ well-being. OSU is the largest public school in the US in terms of enrollment numbers and the only examined institution to offer programs at all three levels of study (undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate). Even though the tuition fees at OSU were considerably lower than at the other US-based universities we studied, the department took great care to allocate external resources to help fund the students’ study and to support the overall infrastructure of the

Analyzing the cases: Drivers to excellence and reputation

259

programs. They did so successfully through, for example, the help of private donors, who financed the Barnett Center for Integrated Arts and Enterprises as well as several scholarships for the students. New York University: Master of Arts in Visual Arts Administration and Master of Arts in Performing Arts Administration Strategic partnerships were also at the heart of the two programs we examined at the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development at New York University (NYU), which used New York-based art institutions as resources for their course offerings (see chapter 3.5, pp. 173ff.). Through the integration of these institutions into its programming, the university has literally developed a “campus without walls.” In this manner, a direct connection between the faculty, students, and the professional arts field was established and continually nourished. Both the Performing Arts Administration and Visual Arts Administration master’s programs focused on practical and entrepreneurial skills; additionally, the Visual Arts Administration degree offered a non-profit and a for-profit track. In line with these foci, the programs were designed to educate “entrepreneurial changemakers” and “non-profit innovators.” While these somewhat lofty expressions represented the students’ self-images, the professors’ main objective was to help the students find “good jobs” in the competitive environment of New York City. This was firstly achieved through a strong focus on networking activities, such as hosting guest speakers, carrying out classes on-site at art institutions, and organizing networking events with practitioners from the field and NYU alumni, in addition to the core requirement of an internship. Secondly, the curricula of both programs focused on business classes and emphasized practical skills in order to prepare the students for their future professional careers. A practical orientation was also mirrored in the professors’ profiles. All faculty members had many years of professional experience in the arts field, as curators, arts administrators, consultants, and more. Consequently, they displayed more dedication to practical expertise than to academic research. Finally, some classes took place in the evening, so that students were able to work in parallel to studying.

260

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

HEC Montréal: Master of Management in International Arts Management In the Department of Marketing at HEC Montréal, more than 20 professors concentrate specifically on marketing, and some specialize in marketing in the arts (see chapter 3.6, pp. 211ff.). Additionally, the Carmelle and Rémi Marcoux Chair in Arts Management edits the International Journal of Arts Management (IJAM). This is one of the most relevant scientific journals in the field, in which most of the HEC Montréal faculty members regularly publish research articles. Due to the department chair’s publications, they can be considered the “founding figure” of arts marketing. It is noteworthy that the same professor, who is still acting as the head “entrepreneur” of the program today, has directed this department for the past 25 years. Teaching at HEC Montréal was focused on the transfer of the skills needed for students to successfully publish in peer-reviewed journals, such as IJAM. Each class was based on the analysis or editing of a case study that dealt with real-world scenarios from the arts field. In terms of networking, the faculty was engaged in associations such as AIMAC, the ICCPR, and the Association of Arts Administration Educators (AAAE), providing various possibilities for HEC Montréal to influence the development of the field on an international level. Alongside this academic strand of the program, students’ internship placements were facilitated by an advisory board composed of the directors of major international art institutions, where the students worked as consultants or in the institutions’ management. The latest achievement of the Chair in Arts Management was creating the International Arts Management master’s degree. This program is carried out in collaboration with Southern Methodist University in Dallas and SDA Bocconi. Each of the partnering institutions contributes to the program with its particular field of expertise, which is why the trimester carried out at HEC Montréal focuses strongly on arts marketing, in both its teaching and its research. One could say that marketing is not merely a research topic in the context of this master’s degree: it can be considered the ideology of the department. As it is located in a business school, the examined department has adapted its course offerings and mentality to this environment.

Analyzing the cases: Drivers to excellence and reputation

261

These short summaries show that, despite the examined programs’ similar orientation in the fields of cultural policy, arts administration, and cultural production, each has developed distinctive features and individual approaches to specific aspects of these subject areas, such as non-profit arts management, creative entrepreneurship, arts marketing, critical practice, and so on. Therefore, considering these programs to be best-practice examples or benchmarks does not make much sense. The seven cases are both too different and too specific to be compared. However, the question of why these programs have been considered to be “excellent” and how they have attained such notable international reputations still remains open to inquiry. Are there distinct factors that might explain the “excellence” of these programs? The data we have collected offers the ability to identify characteristics that promote excellence and reputation. These characteristics can be considered as “drivers” leading to the formation and communication of an excellence that is specific to each program. These drivers can be loosely grouped under the categories of 1) program development, 2) resource administration, 3) students, 4) teaching and learning, and 5) international impact. The next sections outline these categories and drivers in detail. Similarities and patterns in building a reputation The following drivers can be grouped under the category “program development.” Fresh beginnings All of the examined programs were developed from scratch. At each university, a window of opportunity opened that allowed a faculty member to create a new position for themselves and to start a new program. As the head of the MA in Arts Administration and Policy at SAIC put it: “there was no faculty in place, no real curriculum, and no presence in the school, no vision, no nothing. … It was a good moment for me to do something different, and that’s why I came” (SAIC, P3: 66ff.) This is similar to the story at Warwick: “I felt I had gone as far as I could [at my previous institution]. So I came to this university, which had a reputation for being open to new ideas” (WW,

262

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

P3: 219f.). Each of the examined programs sprung up in places and at times that held the possibility of doing something different than the already existing programs within an institution or at competing universities. And then Professor 3 came up with this idea for a master’s in cultural policy. It was through their talking to people in continental Europe, in particular the Scandinavians. It was when all of their interest in cultural policy was starting to kick in. (WW, P1: 205ff.) Five years ago, … there were no real master programs focusing only on the international market. I thought that beside courses on international management, to really have an international program, it would be nice if we could have the students travel to different countries to study. (HEC, P1: 129ff.)

These excerpts show that the time was right not only in regard to the institutional environment but also with respect to current discourses in the field, around which new programs were woven. At Goldsmiths, a new program has been initiated nearly every year since the creation of the ICCE, allowing the institution to develop a master’s around the qualifications of one particular professor, who is then responsible for that program (see p. 68 – GS). Existence of a lead figure The descriptions of the programs’ development revealed that each program— and sometimes even the entire departments under which the programs fall— was founded by one of the current professors, who, in most cases, continued to act as its head during the time of our study. The nature of the directors’ roles differed from program to program, functioning variously as leader and even creator of the field (HEC, WW); as a parental figure watching over and caring for their staff and students (GS, HEC); and as a duo who split responsibility for two aspects of the students’ future, the academic and the practical (OSU). In all cases, comments like “this is their baby” (see p. 188 – NYU) and “they have been here forever” (see p. 227 – HEC) reinforce that the founding figures

Analyzing the cases: Drivers to excellence and reputation

263

have ongoing influence on and investment in their respective programs. The heads have been directing their programs for up to 30 years and are approaching retirement. One consequence of this long-term involvement—which each program was already dealing with (GS, HEC, NYU, OSU, WW) or will have to deal with in the near future (SAIC)—is the question of succession. At Warwick, the directorship has already been handed down twice. Notably, each new director took care to “keep the flame” and “legacy” that the founding figure had established (see p. 44 – WW). Thus, even in cases where the founding figure is no longer in the director’s seat, it is clear that these authorities who gave distinction to the programs still shape them today and continue to hold a strong position in the background. Disposition and school of thought The founding professors were able to choose and collect individuals around them to support their initiatives, thereby creating a faculty that thinks alike. All the examined programs presented a specific idea of what the program should be about and of how its students and faculty should approach and see their professional fields: A fundamental aspect of the program … is a constant intersection between the concepts of cultural management … with the art makers themselves … because there are just artists around here all the time. So the students in our program are not learning in a vacuum. They are in the firepit with the creative process—the complexity of managing that and negotiating those conversations and relationships all the time. (SAIC, P2: 133ff.)

The above-mentioned “disposition” does not necessarily imply a content-related concept, like the ones centered at HEC Montréal (arts marketing), Goldsmiths (entrepreneurship), and SAIC (critical thinking and community development). It could also encompass a shared point of view regarding structural aspects or the role of teaching and research, as shown in the analysis of Warwick.

264

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

We also found evidence of this set of shared values across the teaching body in the quantitative analyses. In all programs, the atmosphere among the faculty was rated as cooperative (2.00),1 collegial (2.13), motivating (2.17), and only minimally competitive (3.21) within their program or center. The professors shared common concerns (1.92) and were on the same wavelength as their colleagues (2.08), and all showed great will to change something at the department, such as improving classes or departmental structures (2.17) (see chapter 3.7: Excursus, p. 241). When we asked the professors about the qualifications and capacities they considered important for their fellow professors, they agreed highly on three out of 15 possible answers: “professional qualification” (17), “enthusiasm for the subject they are teaching” (16), and “pedagogic competence” (15) (n = 24). This result bolsters the idea that team building as well as faculty cohesion via shared values and beliefs are further drivers for the development of excellence. The following two findings also contribute to the validity of this dimension of excellence, which one could term “coherent egoism.” Strong departmental culture We observed a strong departmental orientation toward and passion for the content of the programs. This holds true for all examined cases. Each faculty member is dedicated to their work for the respective department, including teaching as well as nurturing the students’ needs and their individual careers. Below is a sample of the statements we collected that explain how dedication manifests itself in the examined programs. People know why they are doing this program; they are eager to learn. … The students are lively, they are creative, and they make connections. They are passionate about the product, about their arts, and about the field. It gives a spirit in the class, an atmosphere that you don’t find in any other program. (HEC, P1: 207ff.)

Analyzing the cases: Drivers to excellence and reputation

265

The other guiding ethic of the program is that we are all very idealistic. We feel the potential of the arts is always yet to be discovered. … We are interested in people who are going to think about how the concert hall could look five years from now. What could the environment be? And how is the music changing? And how is the audience changing? (SAIC, P3: 198ff.) We have identified this [departmental spirit] through our faculty meetings, and it is now in the hallway on the wall so that nobody will forget it. It is called: “Understand the past, shape the future.” It is that you can’t do anything without knowing where you are, the history of the field, the history of the arts and culture. We are very focused on social justice in this department; that is like a cornerstone. (OSU, P1: 209ff.) We are constantly tinkering and upgrading the curriculum. I think that is the crux of what we have—our product, so to speak. … We are constantly adjusting to what is going on in the field. (NYU, P6: 527ff.) There is a societal responsibility. … It starts really simply with “How can I help people to maximize their potential and to reach their ambition?” (GS, P5: 308ff.) It’s not necessarily having the hands-on technical competences … , but it’s being able to think about what it involves to be doing an audience development strategy. It’s understanding the underlying principles. (WW, P1: 853ff.)

These statements aptly sum up what is at stake and at the core of each program, and what it is the interviewed professors care about. At the same time, they exemplify once more the entrepreneurial attitude of the staff members as well as the programs’ specificities. Our interpretation is that the passion the professors display for their programs’ topics and their (social) relevance as well as the passion with which they convey content and also care for students of the programs is what results in these institutions being experienced as “authentic” places. They stand for specific topics and mindsets. This authenticity and specificity, in turn, is what attracts the students who find these aca-

266

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

demic niches and attitudes appealing. It is a strong driver for the construction and communication of excellence. The outlined conception of the entrepreneur relates to Robinson and Blenker’s (2014) study on teaching methods in entrepreneurship degree programs (see chapter 1: Excellence and reputation in higher education: What is it about?), but it differentiates this concept further and brings forth many other aspects of what it means to be an “academic entrepreneur.” Highly specific curriculum The distinct ideas and dispositions of the programs lead to curricula that are similarly specific. Although all the programs educate students for similar markets (that is, employment in the field of arts and culture), it becomes obvious through our detailed case descriptions that they each focus on one specific topic, which provided the basic framework for the curriculum development. These “flashpoint” subjects at each institution are: arts marketing at HEC Montréal; community development at SAIC; arts and cultural policy at both OSU and Warwick; performing and visual arts management at NYU; and cultural entrepreneurship at Goldsmiths. Using these topics as their starting points, the programs were each able to fill a niche and to distinguish themselves from the various other programs offered in the fields of cultural production, cultural policy, and arts management. Of equally importance is the fact that the departments were able to develop a high level of expertise around these topics. It is noteworthy that this content specificity—the program’s niche—was communicated by each program as its unique selling proposition (USP). These departments also attain exclusivity in another manner: all of the examined departments mainly offered master’s degrees. Except for OSU, none of the examined departments offered programs in these subject areas at the bachelor’s level. Additionally, only the more academically driven programs— at HEC, OSU, and Warwick—operated at the doctoral level.2 At this stage, a first conclusion can be drawn with regard to the establishment of reputation. The contributing aspects mentioned thus far—that is, the disposition of the program, the importance of the founding figures, a clear-cut and specific curriculum, and a coherent teaching body with a strong disposi-

Analyzing the cases: Drivers to excellence and reputation

267

tion—strengthen each program and its reputation. Through the integration of these drivers into the creation of the examined programs, each institution was able to fill a robust niche, bolstering its competitiveness in what is these days an often fragile academic environment. Amid the increasing number of programs in the fields of arts management, cultural policy, and cultural production that are being offered internationally, distinct features are required to stand out from the masses, and these programs accomplish that feat. Architectural correspondences An unexpected side observation made during our analysis was that the architecture and interior design of each institution often seemed to mirror the attitude of the respective programs. For example, at both Goldsmiths and HEC Montréal, the program heads were clearly at the top of the hierarchy, evidenced by their physical position within their departments’ space: located in a place of dominance and supervision. They were “protected” by secretaries and assistants and yet could still observe the goings-on of their domains from their prominently located offices. In the cases of Goldsmiths, OSU, and Warwick, the locations had a “campus” feel. They were part of academic villages that gave the impression of not just visiting a university but of visiting a specific place that emits an individual atmosphere and has its own identity. The studied departments at Warwick and OSU were difficult to find, since they were located in a sort of labyrinth (OSU) or in a remote place (WW). While one could easily get lost inside the building of OSU, which mirrored the department’s unclear idea of the future, Warwick represented a rather concentrated, focused attitude on academic output, represented in how its building was tucked away. This produced a very different atmosphere and spirit than was experienced at Steinhardt in downtown New York City. Although the security standard was high (as it was at SAIC), Steinhardt was very open to its environment in terms of being a “campus without walls” (see p. 259 – NYU). This was reflected in the program’s practical orientation and manifold relationships with local art institutions. In contrast to this, the examined department at SAIC—even though it is located in downtown Chicago—was hidden away inside its uni-

268

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

versity building. That department could be described as insular, maintaining a critical approach toward the cultural sector and different arts scenes. We found these correlations between the schools’ architectural forms and what it revealed about the behavioral aspects and the mindsets of the department members to be surprising. In retrospect, it might seem obvious that the faculties sought to establish their programs in spaces that created the environments in which they liked to work, that is to say, to set up spaces that facilitated close cooperation or that offered more distance between individuals. In some cases, like at OSU, the program had to make the best of a temporary location and be inventive in creating a welcoming atmosphere. Whether obvious or not, this correlation between space and attitude is an interesting aspect to consider in regard to the strategic development of a department’s operating modus, its mission, and its self-understanding, as well as its need to successfully fill its niche. The following five drivers can be grouped under the category of “resource administration.” Departmental autonomy In addition to the departments’ and centers’ heads, who held quite influential roles, many other staff members had initiated an MA program that they were then responsible for. These professor-driven programs were either built around the respective faculty members’ interests or the faculty members were specifically selected to fit the programs’ niches. One could say that the capability of the individual had to fit closely, or complement, the capabilities of their respective department in order to foster its position in the field. In some cases, this responsibility also included promoting the program in order to attract a sufficient number of students to “break even”—that is, to run the program in a cost-efficient or even self-perpetuating manner (NYU, GS, WW, HEC). The internal responsibility for each program’s financial management also led to a high degree of autonomy within the larger university.

Analyzing the cases: Drivers to excellence and reputation

269

On top of relative financial independence, the professors were quite independent in terms of curriculum development and the integration of partner institutions and guest lecturers. Of course, certain bureaucratic and decision-making processes nevertheless had to be followed: at every institution, a board, committee, or dean had to approve major changes in the current degrees as well as the initiation of new programs (including, for example, approval of the budget, student numbers, and pedagogic approach; see p. 236 – HEC, OSU, GS). Certainly, external qualitative and quantitative standards had to be met both in teaching and research. At Goldsmiths and the University of Warwick, for example, external examiners evaluated the teaching standards by anonymously grading student exams that had been prepared by faculty members. Student evaluations were also a common tool in each of the examined cases, although their results did not always seem to be analyzed in depth (see p. 82 – GS). More important than standardized questionnaires, however, was that the close relationship between the students and the professors resulted in a highly efficient form of evaluation; that is, regular and informal discussions between the students and professors about the students’ needs and requirements shortened communication channels and enabled the professors to implement changes very quickly, including as soon as the following semester in some cases (see p. 161 – OSU). Depending on the university’s overall evaluation from the previous year, the program directors might be prompted to devise a new budget, which could, for example, include hiring an additional staff member (GS, WW). In this manner, the examined programs were found to be—and had to be—economically self-supporting to a high degree. This financial autonomy fed into each program’s strong self-confidence and into an equally strong belief that they were doing the “right thing.” The professors displayed an awareness of the market by identifying the type of student they could accommodate in their programs. Proof of their success could be observed in the programs’ increasing student numbers (HEC, GS).

270

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Internal resource orientation Over the course of our research, it became obvious that each of the programs readily integrated the resources available to it within its respective university. This became visible especially when examining the offered degrees. ICCE at Goldsmiths, for example, offered five degrees, which enabled Goldsmiths to display a very diverse portfolio. These degrees shared several courses with or included classes that could be taken through other departments (see p. 83 – GS). Similarly, OSU offered a two-pronged path in art education and cultural policy, and at NYU a non-profit and a for-profit specialization were available (see pp. 160 and 180 – OSU, NYU). The CCPS at the University of Warwick also offered several degrees that, even with a small pool of resources and staff, each presented a high level of expertise (that is, filled a specific niche) and thus attracted a sufficient number of students to maintain so many strands of study. Not only do the departments benefit from their staff members’ individual capacities to create niche-specific and expert-driven programs, but they also simultaneously take advantage of resource-oriented strategies offered by the universities and environments in which they are embedded, allowing them to enrich their range of offerings and the students’ experiences. For example, NYU negotiated to have business classes offered specifically to their students at NYU’s Stern School of Business. SAIC, OSU, NYU, Goldsmiths, and Warwick allow their students to individualize their curricula by integrating courses from other departments (these so-called option courses are not part of the core curriculum). External resource orientation We also observed a niche-specific external resource orientation in each of the programs. In terms of strategic partnerships, SAIC made use of the various art institutions based in Chicago for course collaborations, guest speakers, and student placements. HEC Montréal and OSU had the ability to waive the tuition fees of some MA and PhD students, and OSU was further able to integrate some students as well-paid teaching and research assistants, contributing to a further perspective in the undergraduate classes as well as promoting the

Analyzing the cases: Drivers to excellence and reputation

Entrepreneurship Focus Professor 1: Creative Entrepreneurship (program director) Professor 2: Marketing Professor 3: Cultural Policy Professor 4: Artistic Practices Professor 5: Community Development

Cultural Policy Focus Professor 1: Creative Entrepreneurship Professor 2: Marketing Professor 3: Cultural Policy (program director) Professor 4: Artistic Practices Professor 5: Community Development

Artistic Practices Focus Professor 1: Creative Entrepreneurship Professor 2: Marketing Professor 3: Cultural Policy Professor 4: Artistic Practices (program director) Professor 5: Community Development

Figures 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3: Illustration of the internal resource-management ­model, ­adapted from the Goldsmiths case; many of the other cases used such a model. Each ­professor is a program director responsible for the content and financial management of one ­program. In this manner, one department can, for example, offer five different ­programs specifically tailored to the students’ needs, with only five professors on staff.

271

272

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Cooperation HEC Montreal SDA Bocconi SMU Dallas

Guest lecturers Department

Consultancy

Museum

NGO

Concert Hall

Gallery

Theater

Figures 4.4 and 4.5: External resource management models. Each department makes use of external resources, whether through alliances with other ­higher ­education institutions or by bringing in subject-related guests from arts organizations, in order to complement its own capacities and competences.

careers of young instructors and researchers. HEC Montréal developed an international degree in which each of the three participating institutions, in Canada, Italy, and the US, provides the content in its field of expertise. This exploitation of external resources was especially noticeable in the institutions located in London, Chicago, and New York, where in almost every class attended during the field research a guest from a local art institution was visiting or lecturing. The internship possibilities were also enormous in these programs—another benefit of the cultural resources offered by the three cities. Institutional partnerships proved especially beneficial for the students (see pp. 223, 180, and 191 – HEC, SAIC, NYU), since the departments were able to

Analyzing the cases: Drivers to excellence and reputation

273

initiate long-term project collaborations with major art institutions with international reputations. Many of the guest lecturers at NYU, SAIC, and Goldsmiths were directors or had other leading positions in companies or arts organizations, thus making these programs especially attractive to students with a strong interest in achieving employability and professional progress (see p. 196 – NYU). In addition, these programs can be interesting for and beneficial to the art institutions who partner with them. The guest lecturers have the ability to promote their institutions to prospective employees and to get to know them better via these course collaborations. However, as many of the external lecturers did not hold a PhD, meaning they were not appointed professors and published rarely, an academic approach including discussion and applications of theories and methods was seldom observed in the attended classes. Location This external resource orientation was made use of in an astute and exemplary fashion by the two UK-based programs. Both Warwick and Goldsmiths were able to diversify their portfolios with four and five MA programs, respectively, and both additionally allowed students to take classes with other departments in the university. Where they differed is that, while Goldsmiths used the resources offered by the London art scene—and therefore had a more practical orientation—Warwick transformed the lack of art institutions in its location into its cornerstone, instead turning inward to become the most research-focused institution among the examined cases. As the surveys and interviews with the students show, the city in which a program is located and that program’s subsequent practical or research orientation was another factor the students were attracted by in choosing their course of study. The students rated “the city and its cultural activities,” “the program’s or department’s orientation,” and “one or several professors and their teaching and research foci” as the most important aspects leading to their application to one of the programs (see table 3.7.1). A strategic research orientation or practice orientation has to be founded in accordance with the niche and the environment a program operates in. In the long run, an intelligent strategy respecting the niche a program fills, which

274

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

thereby allows the gaining of resources and capabilities for it to develop and continue, seems to be crucial for sustaining a program. Entrepreneurial attitude and competitive environment I guess the challenge is to always make sure that the program is up to date and adapted to the changing environment of the arts organization. We have to adjust all the time, because the market is changing. (HEC, P1: 278ff.)

The drivers we have outlined in this “Resource administration drivers” section are features of the overall attitude displayed by a department, which we found to be highly entrepreneurial in all the examined cases. With the term “entrepreneur,” we are not following Schumpeter’s (1934/1997) idea of a person who founds a company and strives for economic success. Rather, we use “entrepreneur” as according to del Junco and Brás-dos-Santos (2009), whereby entrepreneurs are able to promote innovation via a flexible (re-)combination of resources and by putting ideas into practice. As such, with “entrepreneurial attitude” we are alluding to practices such as finding and filling niches, distinguishing oneself from other (competing) programs, achieving financial stability, using various kinds of resources in an intelligent manner, and promoting the program’s USP. These aspects were part of each department’s strategic orientation. As described in the detailed case studies, Goldsmiths frequently initiated new programs to cope with increasing student numbers and to accommodate new markets; the CCPS at the University of Warwick decided to abandon a degree that did not work out as planned; and the departments at SAIC, OSU, and NYU were continuously competing for recognition and funding within their universities. A sentence that exemplifies this attitude and the situation it springs from is: “You can do anything you want, but you have to deliver”; a sentiment along these lines was mentioned during both interviews and informal conversations at Warwick, Goldsmiths, SAIC, OSU, NYU, and HEC Montréal, —that is, at all the examined institutions. It can be assumed that the entrepreneurial attitude we identified across all six institutions is key for developing the programs’ specificity and the ability to occupy a niche in the long run, through the constant and astute adap-

Analyzing the cases: Drivers to excellence and reputation

275

tation of the programs to environmental changes. At the same time, this entrepreneurial mindset plays into the aspect that was most often mentioned as the programs’ greatest challenge: that the universities’ environments are quite competitive in terms of staffing, classroom and office space, and the distribution of money. Because of this, all examined programs were constantly promoting themselves inside their respective universities to gain visibility and recognition from other departments. In many informal discussions with professors, three reasons for this attitude were mentioned. Firstly, most of the departments we analyzed had to be run completely or almost completely self-sufficiently. Funding from the university largely depended on the number of students the program could attract. Secondly, in almost all the cases, the “young departments” teaching cultural policy and arts management had to make an effort to keep up with the high standards set by their universities’ other departments and other programs in the field they were competing with. Cultural policy and arts management studies were often critically observed by the other departments in the universities as being a hybrid of policy studies, management, marketing, sociology, cultural studies, and art education—and sometimes considered as not being worthwhile or as superficial. More traditional single-discipline departments were often skeptical toward such an interdisciplinary mix (as was explicitly mentioned in the interviews at SAIC, OSU, and WW). Last but not least, the analyzed departments were too small to be of strategic importance to the general development of the university. Hence, they were not funding foci for the universities’ administrations. Therefore, the departments had to continuously lobby at various levels to create visibility in order to gain university resources. Carrying out such activities sits firmly in the realm of the entrepreneur‚ which was an attitude we found aptly described every program head.

276

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

The following drivers can be grouped under the category “students.” Student-centered approaches Although the programs were formed around professors’ interests and are driven by these individuals, they were not primarily designed to foster the professors’ careers. Rather, the programs were specifically tailored for certain target groups interested in the topics discussed and skills conveyed via the courses. It is these students and their individual success that one could say is at the heart of the programs; this is what the professors deeply cared about. The students of the examined programs were not just considered “clients,” because they paid their tuition fees. Instead, rather close relationships seemed to exist between the faculty and the students. We observed at OSU and Warwick that the students’ theses were listed on the universities’ websites and sometimes even published online, and at HEC Montréal, SAIC, NYU, and Goldsmiths that the students’ professional success and direct placement after graduation was considered to be the most important goal. At HEC Montréal and Warwick, teaching and research rankings were prominently communicated (on a screen in the cafeteria at HEC Montréal, on the website of Warwick). If the students had a problem or question—be it regarding course selection, their academic or professional future, or personal matters—they immediately knew whom to seek for the answer (see p. 188 – OSU). They could talk to their student advisor (see p. 45 – WW); arrive early for class if they wanted to discuss a teaching matter with the lecturer (at Goldsmiths, professors were in the classroom 10 minutes before the classes started); or ask a professor for their opinion about an internship opportunity or a research idea (HEC, SAIC, OSU, NYU, GS). At each of the examined institutions, the professors offered one-on-one consultation. Furthermore, in most cases teaching took place in small groups (HEC, SAIC, OSU, WW) so that in-depth discussions could be initiated. Nearly all of the professors knew every student personally and followed an open-door policy. With regard to the classes that were sat in on, several commonalities were found, including the fact that most teaching units were three hours long and

Analyzing the cases: Drivers to excellence and reputation

277

that the rather small groups of four to 14 people (HEC, OSU, SAIC, WW) allowed for a great deal of personal interaction with the professors as well as intimate teaching situations.3 The student-centered spirit, overall small class sizes, and familiarity between the students and professors fostered the observed social coherence in the departments and helped to attract future students via current students’ word-of-mouth recommendations, in addition to reinforcing the departmental culture and the disposition of the programs. Carefully selected student cohorts Although admitting a sufficient number of students in order for the program to be financially viable was important in each case, this did not mean that every applicant was admitted to the programs. On the contrary, statements like “you need to be a real go-getter” (see p. 195 – NYU) were expressed in at least one of the student interviews in each case in regard to being successful in the program. In five out of six of the programs, students had to successfully complete an application procedure and convince the professors to accept them based on their previous grades, a personal motivation statement, and a personal interview, as well as a letter of reference from a professor in a few cases. One can assume that the competitive selection process fostered the students’ self-organization and tenacity. Additionally, once admitted to their programs, the students were required to be self-guiding in following their own interests, by initiating collaborations with arts institutions and organizing symposia (SAIC, NYU); auditing classes in other departments to complement their core curriculum (NYU, WW); and thinking about and creating a professional career based on the skills learned (GS). The relatively high tuition fees of all the programs might have provided further motivation for students to work to get the most out of their studies. The students’ self-descriptions as having “eager” personalities might explain the rather average ratings of their programs—their assessments of the teaching units and overall experience rarely reached the highest ratings possible (see table 3.7.3 and table 3.7.4). In general, each program was committed to attracting the “right” students: the ones with a high interest in and affinity to the topics taught in the program as well as to the departments’ dispositions. The faculty considered it important to be able to handpick the students so as to compose a cohort that

278

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

fit the program and its mode of operation. The creation of an ideal student cohort seemed to be a crucial aspect for the formation and (future) communication of the programs’ excellence. Shared visions and corresponding mindsets Against the background of the programs’ various departmental cultures and specificities, it was interesting to see that the “idea” of the students—both the students’ self-images and the professors’ teaching ideals—also matched the departmental culture to a high degree. While the CCPS at the University of Warwick was eager to develop “thinking managers” (see p. 38 – WW), HEC Montréal sought to educate “the future generation of leaders” able to work “on an international market” (see p. 223 – HEC). One OSU student stated, “We are the future of the culture industry. We are the future leaders. We are the architects of what is going to happen” (OSU, S4: 333f.)—a declaration that clearly stresses OSU’s and its graduates’ active involvement in the structural development of cultural fields and policies. In contrast to this sentiment, one student at NYU considered themselves and the rest of their cohort to be “creative, entrepreneurial changemakers” (NYU, S5: 371), underlining the necessity of an entrepreneurial attitude in the competitive environment of New York City. At SAIC, “critical thinking” was emphasized as part of that department’s goal to educate arts administrators willing to challenge existing structures (see p. 104 – SAIC), and one GS student stated with great self-confidence, “We are creative and radical and we are going to change the world” (GS, S2: 314), putting an emphasis on the idea of creative entrepreneurship. All of these statements exemplify the departmental cultures that the students were embedded in. It is little surprising to see that what we identified as the “coherent egoism” of the programs’ faculties—that is, the professors’ shared dispositions and visions for their respective programs—is also mirrored in the students’ self-images and behaviors. We have already shown that professors tend to choose students whose attitude and spirit correspond to their mindset in order to achieve a good cultural fit within the department. In addition to reflecting this good fit between department and student cohort, the above statements

Analyzing the cases: Drivers to excellence and reputation

279

once more emphasize the students’ high level of eagerness. The metaphor of a “virtuous circle” (see p. 88 – GS) can also be transferred to this context: During the admissions process, the professors select students who fit into the departmental culture. Then, the individual department’s mindset is conveyed to the students and emphasized during their studies, in a process of socialization. After graduation, the alumni disseminate this mindset through their positions in the professional field and through conversation with prospective students of their alma mater. In this manner, the programs’ profiles and reputations are strengthened and become well known. With an ever growing alumni network, reputation is spread even further, and students as well as international professors with the same mindset are attracted to the programs and their parent institutions. Even though not explicitly discussed in the interviews, a further method of attracting potential new faculty members could be the initial recruitment of students. That is, at SAIC and Warwick, former MA and PhD students were offered teaching positions within the programs they graduated from. These positions have now developed into program directorships (see p. 43 – WW). This way of securing professors is appealing for departments because it guarantees the professors’ responsibility for a program and its curriculum, which is developed around the professors’ individual research interests and thus implies a particular motivation to keep the program up to date. Furthermore, bringing former students back on as faculty is of interest to the departments, since it fosters and strengthens the departmental culture. However, we’d also like to offer a different interpretation of such a homogenous mindset. In one program, frustration was expressed in regard to the founder still occupying the driver’s seat and flattening the interdepartmental potential for change. In another two cases, the students were enthusiastic about their fellow students’ different national and professional backgrounds, because this variety of perspectives facilitated exchange and learning experiences for everyone involved; however, this variety was not mirrored in the faculty. So, while a great fit and alignment between students and professors serves the continuation of a vision and disposition, it seems that innovation might rather be fostered and a program’s vision further developed by having a greater diversity of perspectives within the program.

280

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

The following drivers are organized under the category of “teaching and learning.” Real-world orientation In the “Professors’ profiles” section of each case study, we described which professor directed which program as well as each faculty member’s research interests. Additionally, we listed memberships in associations and the practical work lecturers realized in parallel to their teaching. Through this research it became obvious that nearly all the professors still followed professional interests outside the university, be it via individual project engagements, directorships in cultural enterprises, consultancy, curating, artistic production, or cultural policy making. Because of the faculties’ strong and continued links to the field of arts and culture, it was unsurprising to find a focus on a practical, real-world orientation. Furthermore, all professors integrated their personal research or practical work, or both, into their teaching, which is why many courses were project- or case-oriented and were often carried out in collaboration with partners outside the university (HEC, SAIC, OSU, NYU). Especially when taking into consideration the field notes taken during the observed classes, it becomes obvious that practical questions were often at the basis of the courses, such as “How to market a new CD,” “How to fundraise for an art exhibition,” and so on. Such classes addressed and thereby sensitized students to questions and problems they might encounter in the field, offering a real-world orientation (instead of a disciplinary orientation) and a hands-on approach. However, after being presented, the real-world scenarios were then only rarely investigated through an academic, theoretically grounded lens, which seems to point to a lack within the offered education (the exception being Warwick, which displayed a strong academic focus). In the six institutions we examined for this study, all imaginable teaching formats—from lecture to site visit to project-based learning—were implemented. The great exception was, however, that none of the programs used online learning and teaching environments. On the contrary, all focused on on-site face-to-face learning and teaching, which—especially given the recent push toward and need for distance-learning platforms and formats accelerated

Analyzing the cases: Drivers to excellence and reputation

281

by the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, beginning in early 2020—seems anachronistic. One could assume that, going forward, any existing as well as newly developed degree program would try to integrate hybrid forms of in-person, on-site, and remote learning, as well as both synchronous and asynchronous teaching. Despite the variety of teaching formats used in the examined programs, the qualitative and quantitative analyses showed that the students were not entirely convinced or inspired to a high degree by any of these teaching approaches. Rather than being one of the stronger aspects of the programs, one could say that, overall, the teaching environments contained the greatest potential for further development and improvement (again, except for Warwick). It was revealed, however, that the long duration and small size of the classes played an important part in the conveyance and discussion of the course contents. Practice vs. research Our research shows that the acquisition of external funding, frequent publishing by professors, and a thoroughly research-based curriculum contributed to the success of only three of the programs. In the German-based discourse, the three above-listed aspects are usually considered to be the main indicators that measure excellence in relation to research clusters and initiatives. However, our data reveals that, for the studied programs, accommodating the students’ needs and assisting them on their path toward a professional career were used as indicators of success more often. Both the professors and students used this indicator as a means to evaluate the programs. Given the programs’ emphasis on real-world training and familiarization, the professors’ practical orientation and experience were unsurprisingly similarly emphasized both in their profiles and in the students’ assessment of the professors’ competencies, while research experience was hardly mentioned or promoted. This impression was confirmed during the interviews. In each case study, we asked the students to name three authors and theories that they dealt with during the course of their program and that they found impressive or useful. Few of the students were able to answer this question, thus mak-

282

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

ing it obvious that a broader theoretical framework for in-depth reflection and discussion of the course content was not at the core of these programs (primarily SAIC, GS, and NYU). Though this was to be expected in some of the programs, even the students of the more research-oriented programs (at HEC, OSU, and WW) had difficulty naming the requested number of authors and theories. While from the perspective of a strongly theory- and research-oriented teaching environment this is a rather surprising finding, we need to interpret it in light of the researcher’s experiences in the field. Having observed that classes were centered on practical and managerial skills and that, in most cases, the discussion of texts was rather shallow, this finding leads us to conclude that either the amount of reading to be accomplished overwhelmed the students due to a lack of guidance in assessing the literature, that the students were assigned too little reading, or that theory was ultimately not considered an important focus by most of the students and professors. Personal learning environment When we asked professors and students which qualifications and capacities are important for a professor in their respective programs, both groups put weight on rather soft, yet personalized, answers (see the quantitative analysis in chapter 3.7: Excursus). These were “professional qualification,” “enthusiasm for the subject they are teaching,” and “pedagogic competence.” All these answers highlight the importance of personal interaction between professors and students. The results pointed in the same direction with regard to the atmosphere among professors and students; both groups considered a collegial and cooperative atmosphere to be of utmost importance (see table 3.7.7). This finding goes hand in hand with another outcome of the quantitative analysis: we found that the teaching experience itself and the time spent at university were not rated as very “satisfying” (see table 3.7.3 and table 3.7.4). Nevertheless, it was important for the students to feel “activated” and “stimulated.” Furthermore, students identified “being inspired” and “being interested” as the most important aspects when analyzing how the time at university was experienced. Both of these results correlate with feeling “happy” and “stimulated.” This outcome emphasizes once more the programs’ emphasis

Analyzing the cases: Drivers to excellence and reputation

283

on addressing the students’ individual needs (see table 3.7.6). Small class sizes allowed for manifold cross-learning experiences between the students, and the opportunity for personal interaction with the professors enabled the students to find and follow their individual interests. Instruction is in English The dissemination and activities of the programs are only able to take place at an international level because each program communicates, teaches, researches, and publishes in English. This might seem trivial, especially with regard to the selection of the examined programs, since they were all located in English-speaking countries (except for HEC Montréal, located in the francophone Canadian province of Québec, although Montréal is a largely bilingual city). However, it is noteworthy that an advanced level of English is key both to attracting an international student body and to achieving an international reputation in the field. In all of our research cases, the number of international students was high; in fact, in some cases they made up 80 percent of the student body. Students from India, Russia, China, the Middle East, and Central and South America who receive MAs and PhDs from these prestigious programs will likely find themselves on an accelerated career track back in their home countries. Additionally, once back in their countries of origin, they represent the program and contribute to its international recognition. In terms of a resource strategy, operating in the English language seems to be financially efficient: potential students can come from all around the world, because English is learned as a second language in a majority of countries. Contrary to this, most European programs run in national languages like German and French are only able to attract a few international students, since they draw from a much smaller pool of second-language speakers. Producing a program in English, a language that is spoken in vast parts of the globe, allows for enhanced cross-cultural learning, enables a lived international perspective on art and culture, and promotes the development of intercultural competencies among students.

284

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

The last grouping of drivers is called “international impact.” Forming the (academic) field Each professor interviewed for this study has significantly contributed to the development of the field in which their respective program operates. This influence on the field manifested itself in a variety of forms within the programs. Firstly, most of the professors made use of their academic and professional (“practical”) networks, both local and international, and were members of professional associations, both national and international, which served as the springboard for long-term collaborations with external institutions operating in the field (HEC, OSU, SAIC, NYU, GS). On top of this, two of the examined schools contributed to the academic professionalization of the field through the creation and continued publication of internationally renowned journals: the International Journal for Cultural Policy (WW) and the International Journal of Arts Management (HEC). Goldsmiths, in collaboration with ENCATC, developed similar sway through its Journal of Cultural Management and Policy. Through their professors publishing articles in these and other journals, the programs disseminated their research activities and results to an international audience. Further, some professors were on the editorial boards of journals relevant to the field (HEC, OSU, WW) and on the board of directors of societies such as ENCATC, AAAE, AIMAC, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and others. Furthermore, HEC Montréal and Warwick even founded societies and international conferences to strengthen their positions in the field (see pp. 40 and 221 – WW, HEC). This might also be said for Goldsmiths, where ICCE played a key role in ENCATC’s development. In addition to this, the professors regularly took part in international conferences (HEC, OSU, GS, WW) and some were also involved in curating exhibitions and other art-related projects (OSU, SAIC, NYU), thus increasing the reputation of their respective programs in both the academic and the practical fields. Another observation has to be made about the aforementioned cases that published an academic journal and organized a

Analyzing the cases: Drivers to excellence and reputation

285

(bi-)annual conference (or at least were an important actor in such a network): that is, HEC Montréal, Warwick, Goldsmiths, and OSU. The international communities that comprise the fields of arts management, cultural policy, and art sociology move from conference to conference, read and quote from the journals, and aim to publish in these journals and present at these conferences as well. To attain a presence at these conferences, it is important to engage in networking activities and to build international relationships. This creates a somewhat closed, circular system, as more and more academics follow this pull and strive to hop onto the wave. Another way in which the interviewed professors contributed to their fields was through consultancy work, which they undertook in parallel to their teaching. This means they gave strategic advice to, among other organizations, governments in various countries (NYU, GS) and consulted on such initiatives as the establishment of new master’s programs, the allocation of research funds, and the evaluation of funding strategies in the arts. In this manner, the professors were not only able to establish a gatekeeping role, but as journal editors and creators of discipline-specific societies, they furthermore functioned as leaders and agenda setters within the academic field. They thus each contributed to implicitly or explicitly forming the environment in which they operated. Promotion and networking During their studies, the students contributed to the promotion of their programs via their work in institutions in the field and their contact with prospective students, and alumni continued to function in this role after their graduation from the programs. Good word-of-mouth recommendations were considered crucial for the development of reputation in each of the examined cases (see pp. 230, 190, and 88 – HEC, NYU, GS). However, the programs did not rely solely on the students’ networking activities. On the program websites as well as through their networks in both the academic and the professional fields, the professors marketed the programs they worked for in quite an active manner. The websites communicated the programs’ USPs (the international arts marketing focus at HEC Montréal,

286

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

the manifold job opportunities after graduating from NYU, etc.; see pp. 224 and 174 – HEC, NYU); their resources and in what way the students could benefit from them (for example, tuition waivers and the possibility of working as a teaching or research assistant at OSU, collaborating with art institutions at SAIC; see pp. 109 and 166 – SAIC, OSU); and the programs’ strengths (such as, at Warwick, highly ranked research experiences; see p. 41 – WW). By being very clear and specific in their communication of their programs’ attributes, the professors were more likely to attract students interested in exactly those themes, specializations, and opportunities. Both in the interviews and our reviews of the websites, we found “network” to be a key term in nearly all examined programs and that networking was considered an essential activity of both the students and the professors. At Goldsmiths, HEC Montréal, OSU, NYU, and SAIC, the professors and students established individual as well as institutional networks via excursions, project collaborations, alumni services, association memberships, journal and society boards, consultancy work, and committees, among other avenues. The strategy of placing students at cultural, political, and academic institutions for internships in combination with the work on alumni networks also contributed to all the programs’ international prominence. Lastly, strategic student placements (HEC, SAIC, NYU, OSU, GS) allowed the programs to raise the awareness and reputation of the programs internationally. This was evidenced in, for example, alumni returning to their home countries and occupying leading positions in arts organizations and in the field of cultural policy. Global outlook One driver that could be found in all cases, without being strategically played out by the professors or students, could be termed a “global outlook.” “What is the global impact?” was a question regularly raised after the student presentations that were observed as part of this study. These presentations were often given by groups of students made up entirely of people from different countries, which also strongly contributed to a multinational and multidimensional perspective in the discussions. Or, as two of the interviewed professors put it:

Analyzing the cases: Drivers to excellence and reputation

287

The program has always had a global outlook. Our program is 20 years old in this coming June. We’ve always had international students, and, of course, the population shifts as economic situations change globally. And we have alumni all over the world. I think the challenge for globalization is to have students understand how these forces are acting on the visual art world. (NYU, P3: 518ff.) Instead of preparing somebody to work in the box office tomorrow, we’re preparing people to think, people that are able to see ahead and to make decisions in a context of uncertainty and in a context where things are changing. (HEC, P1: 95ff.)

Considering the international environment in which all the examined programs were embedded, and the international makeup of each student cohort, a global outlook was a permanent feature of any discussion that took place within the institutions. Recap Over the course of the research project, we were able to distill the above-outlined drivers from our observations and interviews. Both in the qualitative and in the short quantitative analyses, we found these drivers to be highly influential in each of the examined programs. We consider these factors to be advantageous to the process of building up reputability. Our analyses also revealed weaknesses in the implementation of these drivers, which is why the drivers we identified cannot be taken as a practical manual for the development of new study programs. The fact is that we analyzed only seven master’s programs, and all of them specialize in the field of cultural production and cultural policy. Nevertheless, we have found it convincing to see how this set of drivers could be detected and traced at least partially in all of the examined programs. As the five groupings of drivers—program development, resource administration, students, teaching and learning, and international impact— showed, the drivers are rather general and can be transferred to other master’s programs in the humanities, social sciences, and economics. To help form our

288

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

theoretical perspective, we have applied the terms “niche,” “environment,” and “resource” to our discussion of these empirical findings. In summary, we can say that: | The departments and the professors had an entrepreneurial attitude. Also, the professors had the will, the energy, and the endurance to run such programs for several years as responsible heads. | Furthermore, the heads of each program were able to make decisions when creating their programs’ profiles. The universities allowed these departments and institutes a degree of freedom to develop their own programs, and thereby to specify and specialize the product they offered. Still, one must keep in mind that these strategies had to be financially successful to be allowed to continue. | In each case, a niche was found, created, or developed further. Having a unique position developed through a specific topic, individual approach, or other distinctive program features was valuable to the ability to attract potential students. | Each niche corresponded to the resources of the university, aligned with the university’s capabilities as well as its environment, and allowed for a resource-oriented and sustainable development of the program. | The urban or remote environments that the programs were embedded in afforded and supported niche-specific modes of operation. | The head of each program mostly developed their niche and gathered people around them who shared the same academic ethos and fit in well on an interpersonal level. The niche became a lived vision that the students could experience and that they considered to be authentic. This situation created a distinct departmental culture, attracting students who were interested in the same topics and ideas as the professors. | The programs’ dispositions or ideas became a “meme”—an idea that spread into the academic and cultural environments. This is how the departments and programs developed their international reputa-

Analyzing the cases: Drivers to excellence and reputation

|

|

|

|

|

289

tion—by “standing for something.” More specifically, each program represents a specific idea and departmental culture, something that distinguished them from already existing programs. The internal integration of the niche into the university was important to allow resource allocation. Externally, the formation of the field was crucial as well: each program achieved strong visibility via active networking, placing students in professional environments, integrating alumni, and establishing gatekeeping positions and academic vehicles such as journals and societies. This was important to enhance the departments’ and their professors’ reputation since this, in turn, attracted and will continue to attract students. The various programs constantly observed what others in the university and the competitors in the field were doing and adapted to these changes and innovations. This adaptability resulted in a continuous adjustment of the curricula to the academic and professional fields. That students have to be willing and able to pay the program’s relatively high tuition fees is noteworthy. The drivers thus pointed toward a student-centered learning experience. One could criticize this situation as being too market oriented, but it seems to be an effective strategy toward building reputation. It also seemed to push the programs toward an innovative and entrepreneurial attitude. A small and selectively composed body of international students fostered cross-cultural learning, which complemented classes’ overall Anglo-Saxon model of cultural production and policy. Students were self-organized and eager to achieve not only good results but to get the best out of the offered programs. In addition, smaller student numbers enabled a close relationship between the professors and the students, who knew exactly which professors to address with regard to questions of teaching, research, internships, and other matters of concern. Communication channels were short and easy to maintain.

In conclusion, one can say that self-organization and academic entrepreneurship strongly supported the program heads’ and their departments’ ability to

290

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

think and act according to resource-oriented strategies as well as to develop new academic niches. Building programs around people and their competencies—that is, around both students and professors—while at the same time focusing on relevant topics and unique features allowed for variety in thinking as well as for the development of specific departmental cultures within each institution. These were the most important factors contributing to the rise of the programs’ reputation. Conclusion: Driving toward reputation and excellence What does it mean to establish and to maintain an “excellent” status? How does an institution need to proceed to achieve this? The synonymous use of the terms “excellence” and “reputation” above shows that, even with a thorough examination of various master’s programs in three different countries, we could still not solve the terminological challenge the notion of “excellence” poses. Even though—at least in German-speaking countries—“excellence” is still a buzzword serving the allocation of financial resources from national funding bodies, its implications and criteria remain unclearly defined. Through our analysis, we were able to contribute to a more distinct idea of how the process of reputation building can be initiated and carried out in a strategic and intelligent manner. Indeed, it is important to note that we could only examine programs that survived the competitive academic environment and were able to establish a notable international reputation over a longer period of time—a finding that we think is not limited to the field of cultural production, cultural policy, and arts administration but can be transferred to other academic fields. It has to be critically noted that we could not find a definite explanation as to why these programs’ reputations did not correspond to the students’ assessment of the teaching quality, which was average at best. In general, one could say that the students still saw more potential for developing the teaching situation and the curriculum of their programs. They were not enthusiastic about the classes, and neither were they very inspired by nor focused on them. They expressed that they would have liked to have had more influence on the modifications that were to be implemented in their departments. It is

Analyzing the cases: Drivers to excellence and reputation

291

noteworthy, however, that the teaching units influenced the students’ overall experience to only a small extent. The students’ eagerness to make the best of their studies and to start a career in academia or in the practical cultural field could be added as an explanation as to why they spoke highly of the programs. To sum up, one can say that the observed departments developed various strategies to succeed in their respective academic environments and to obtain a reputation of excellence. Excellence in teaching, however, is still to be developed in many of the examined cases. A future scenario Are we supposed to conceive of the future university as being composed by very small and highly specific institutional units that quickly and constantly adapt to their continuously changing environment? Will these institutes operate on more of a project basis than was the case in the examined programs, in order to always update their thematic foci in accordance with the students’ interests, who are to be chosen through a highly selective application process? Will there be future entrepreneurs able to follow in the current program heads’ footsteps? Or is it perhaps necessary to start from scratch from time to time, to keep “academic freshness”? Whatever the future university might look like, professors will have to deal with social trends, and these are temperamental. One could criticize that a teaching situation under a strict market orientation—measured by the number of students that a program attracts—might focus only on applicable skills and thus any long-term research focus will be lost. Such a situation might have a negative impact on sustained and in-depth knowledge production, and even on academia itself. Additionally, it is the case that an “entrepreneurial” type need not be an outstanding researcher or pedagogue. This became clear in our study. Rather, someone who is good at gaining various resources and capabilities and at bundling those in a strategic, visionary way seems to characterize the lead figures we found in the examined cases. In contrast to a huge, rather slow university apparatus coping with hundreds or even thousands of students, small institutes that develop a specific school of thought that includes both a set of methods and a thorough theo-

292

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

retical framework might be able to solve social issues in a quicker and more efficient manner. They could initiate direct exchanges with their target groups and audiences, leading to close collaboration and a potentially high-quality and sustainable outcome that benefits both sides. At the same time, students would be socialized in a strongly entrepreneurial, market-oriented context. In terms of employability, this could have both negative and positive implications: potential employers still seem to have difficulties with the broad range of degrees that have arisen as a result of the Bologna reform, especially interdisciplinary study programs in the social sciences and humanities that offer widely varying content under the same label. More specialized degrees could lead to even more insecurity with regard to the qualifications and competencies graduates attain. On the other hand, we saw that small classes and project-based work led to highly personalized environments with close interaction between students and professors, which enhanced the students’ employability. This situation was a result of both shorter communication channels and the use of personal and professional networks to the students’ benefit. Through their close relationships with the students, the professors were able to assess the students’ qualifications on a well-substantiated basis and to confidently recommend them to prospective employers. Compared to anonymous lectures with 250 or more students listening to one professor, an entirely different quality of university and study systems could be reached through the widespread growth of the small, adaptable institute model. This final question regarding the quality of teaching, research, and practice leads us back to the beginning of our study. Quality—let alone “excellence,” as it were—is a highly subjective matter. We saw that the rather unremarkable experience of the teaching units influenced the students’ overall experience of their programs to only a small degree. Rather, they assessed their study time according to the projects they initiated, the content they dealt with, and the networks they were able to build. That is, their initial motivation for undertaking their programs of study—be it to pursue a strongly research-oriented program like the one Warwick offers or to support artists via the arts administration degree available at SAIC—is crucial to their commitment to the offered content. The application processes we found in each program supported the selection of eager students who fit the professors’ vision. This does

Analyzing the cases: Drivers to excellence and reputation

293

not mean, however, that the studies turned out exactly as the students and professors planned or imagined. Some potential for frustration remained on both sides, especially against the background of the constant updating that the programs’ niches both allow for and require. We are not able to propose a final overall formula to achieve good quality in teaching, research, and professional practice. Nevertheless, paying heed to the above-mentioned drivers and to the overall strategies of program-specific resource management, niche orientation, and entrepreneurship seems a promising path to follow. Resources in and of higher education In looking for an appropriate theory that would suit the analyses of our six cases and the data we collected, we found that the resource-based theory allows an interesting perspective on our findings. Such a resource-based view is well known in economics (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978) and has since made its way into higher education research.4 Already in 1959, Penrose argued for an understanding of an organization as a bundle of resources that has to be managed. But, instead of focusing on cash flow, financial standing, human resources, productivity, or technologies, our findings show that resources could be identified as the environment (the university the program is hosted at) and what it affords; a unique idea and the themes the program stands for; the network the faculty offers; and the competencies the professors bring in, as well as their attitude and disposition. As we were able to show, such a systemic understanding of resources brings forward unique propositions in an academic market by creating singularity. Labaronne and Tröndle (2020) further note: Resources is a broad term to describe assets that can be classified either as tangible (such as technology) or intangible (such as reputation) (Penrose, 1959), or that can be categorized as physical, human, or organizational (Barney, 1991). Capabilities refer to the ability of an organization to deploy resources “to the greatest end possible” (Peteraf, 1993, p. 189).

294

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Not only does focusing on resources and capabilities enable us to look at the university and its reputation, the administration of a program and its hurdles, and the entrepreneur as a “heroic” figure, but this perspective also creates a more holistic view that brings together various factors such as the personalities of teaching staff, departmental culture, students’ dispositions, and thematic orientation. The capability to manage site-specific resources is a key driver for the programs we analyzed, and it seems key for the emergence of reputation. Nonetheless, in all our cases there was a specific window of opportunity and a founder who had the motivation and competence to develop the resources according to their vision. As mentioned, we found an entrepreneurial attitude in all of these programs, with faculty constantly looking at how to improve the program and its orientation in respect to altering factors such as the target market of students and the features of employability. Teece, Pisano, and Shuen (1997) coined the term “dynamic capabilities” to describe the ability to constantly recombine and use existing but also newly developed resources in order to cope with a competitive market. This dynamic reconfiguration through the integration of internal and external resources creates new potentials for research and teaching. Reputation has to be developed to have access to these resources (e.g., via cooperation with arts organizations, academic institutions, or individuals working in the cultural sector), and reputation is increased as more of these resources are allocated. Financial advantages can be achieved by, for example, developing intersections between and thereby cross-feeding programs (see figs. 4.1–4.3), increasing student fees, increasing student numbers, or inviting guest lecturers from esteemed art institutions (as an alternative to hiring expensive full-time faculty). All of these strategies were found in our study. According to Barney (1991), resources offer an advantage if they are hard to imitate, valuable, and scarce. This situation characterizes all our cases. The programs are hard to imitate, because they rely on the personalities of their founders and faculty; the departments follow and stand for a strong idea; the professors have access to valuable networks of either art or academic institutions and individuals, which they bring with them to their programs; the programs developed a highly specific niche that their environment fostered; and the fa­ culty constantly update their curricula and allocate new financial resources.

Analyzing the cases: Drivers to excellence and reputation

295

It becomes obvious that this process of regular reconfiguration is only achievable in an environment where the university gives the center or department a high degree of freedom to actually take strategic and sometimes risky decisions. Autonomy was thus another driving factor we found. Applying such a theoretical perspective to higher education research might be surprising at first glance. Yet, it aligns well with our empirical findings, discussed via the terms “niche,” “environment,” and “resource.” The novelty, then, is always the specific idea (arts marketing, cultural policy, critical practice, etc.) within a specific environment. The founding figure is the “carrier” of this idea, and their entrepreneurial attitude is important for this idea to become effective. An advantage of this theoretical concept is that the founder remains an important, albeit sometimes overly dominant, figure, even after succession, but is at the same time not characterized as a “heroic” manager within academia. Rather, the founders had the right idea at the right time, at the right place, and used this specific moment successfully. In the end, we have to conclude that in order to achieve excellence or to gain an excellent reputation, students and teaching and learning are only two out of several clusters of applicable drivers. The quality of teaching, unfortunately, only plays a minor role when it comes to the formation of “excellence” and “reputation.” The key to excellence seems to be the ability to continuously reconfigure and to communicate this reconfiguration as the uniqueness of a program to potential students and stakeholders. References Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. Del Junco, J. G. & Brás-dos-Santos, J. M. (2009). How different are the entrepreneurs in the European Union internal market? An exploratory cross-cultural analysis of German, Italian and Spanish entrepreneurs. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 7(2), 79–162. Labaronne, L. and Tröndle, M. (2020): Managing and evaluating the performing arts: Value creation through resource transformation. Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society. https://doi.or g/10.1080/10632921.2020.1815612 Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. John Wiley and Sons. Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191.

296

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Pfeffer, J & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row. Robinson, S. & Blenker, P. (2014). Tensions between rhetoric and practice in entrepreneurship education: An ethnography from Danish higher education. European Journal of Higher Education, 4(1), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2013.853621 Schumpeter, J. (1997). Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Eine Untersuchung über Unternehmergewinn, Kapital, Kredit, Zins und den Konjunkturzyklus, 9th ed. Duncker & Humblot. Original work published 1934. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)10970266(199708)18:73.0.CO;2-Z Weisbrod, B. A., Ballou, J. P., & Asch, E. D. (2008). Mission and money: Understanding the university. Cambridge University Press.

Notes 1

1 = applies fully, 5 = does not apply at all.

2

The reasons for this were both economic and academic. While the head of the MA in International Cultural Policy and Management at the University of Warwick stated that a master’s degree seemed to be the most appropriate academic level to them when starting the program, professors from SAIC, NYU, and Goldsmiths explained that running a BA program would require PhD students who could function as teaching assistants, which implies different financial structures. In contrast to this, the only resources required to run MA degrees were tuition fees. Thus, this academic level was more economically beneficial to the university, and also to the department itself in situations where its students attended a maximum of courses within the department, meaning that all tuition fees were fed directly back into the program.

3

Only at NYU did the classes differ significantly in length, running between 100 and 120 minutes, depending on the number of credits assigned to a course. At NYU, the groups were also slightly larger. In one course at Goldsmiths, the number of students went up to 100. Despite these larger classes, professors at both Goldsmiths and NYU offered one-to-one consultations for their students, just as in the other examined programs.

4

A detailed overview and understanding about economic dimensions and the marketization of higher education is given by Weisbrod, Ballou, and Asch (2008).

Appendix

Questionnaire professors Dear Professors, Thank you all very much for supporting the research project Places of Excellence. Places of Excellence is a field research project comparing internationally leading master’s programs in the fields of cultural management, cultural policy, and cultural production. The research looks toward stimulating teaching and learning situations. The focus is not particularly on specific pedagogic formats or on what is actually taught; rather, we are interested in “cultures of excellence” and in how teaching takes place. The Association for German Science is funding Places of Excellence under its mandate to improve teaching and learning situations in universities. The following questionnaire will take approximately 60 minutes to complete. Please feel free to provide brief answers, since we are quite aware of your busy schedules as professors. All information will be handled anonymously and we sincerely thank you in advance for your cooperation. To begin, we would like to ask you some questions regarding your role in the program or department: 1

Do you teach students at BA, MA, or PhD level? Bachelor

Master

PhD

2

Which classes do you teach?

3

Approx. how many teaching hours is this per week (without preparation or out-of-class work)?

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 M. Tröndle und J. Schindler, Places of Excellence, Edition WÜRTH Chair of Cultural Production, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33283-9

298 4

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler Are the(se) classes repeated? per semester

annually

biannually

never

5

How often do you have the possibility to take a sabbatical?

6

Looking back at the past five years, how much working time do you spend on these activities on average (in percentages, 100 percent in total):

Teaching

Curriculum development

Research or art production

Student supervision

Administration

Acquisition of external funds

Other (specify)

7a

Before beginning your university career, did you work at an organization other than a uni-versity; if so, where and for how long?

7b

Are you or have you previously been the editor of a journal or on the editorial board of a journal, or have you been a board member of an academic or artistic society or institution?

In the following, we would like to ask you some questions about the initiation of the program and its actors: 8

How and with what goals was the program created? Who were the founders of the program, and what did/do they stand for?

9

What aspect makes the program stand out? What is its unique selling proposition (USP)?)

10

Is there a specific spirit, culture, or disposition or something like a “departmental ideolo-gy”? Are there specific keywords (terminology) used in the department or program?

11

How and why did those specific aspects emerge over the years?

12a In your opinion, what is the biggest challenge facing the current and future development of the program? 12b How would you define success in the program and how would it best be measured? We would now like to ask you some questions regarding the teaching in the program: 13

In your opinion, what are the major difficulties when it comes to teaching, and how do you cope with them?

5 Appendix

299

14

In what ways do you try to improve the teaching quality in the program? What instruments and forums are used to this end (evaluations, etc.)? In what ways are students integrated into the development of the curriculum?

15

What are the three most important authors, books, or theories the students should know or learn about, and why?

16

What practical competences should the students have learned upon completing their degree?

17

What professions are the students being prepared for with the knowledge and competencies gained through your program?

18

How does the selection of students work, and what aspects do you consider important in this process?

19

What should the students learn or experience in the first weeks of the program? Are there special events or seminars? Now we would like to look at the organization of the program and its position within the university by asking the following questions: 20

In what way is the program or department integrated into the university?

21

Is the program supported by other departments of the university (for example, ­research funding, public relations, marketing, or fundraising departments)?

22

How are new professors appointed? Who makes decisions about positions and faculty?

23

When making decisions about the strategic orientation and development of the ­program, what criteria need to be met?

24

Who needs to be included in such a decision-making process and who makes the final decision?

25

What are the major hurdles to innovations within the program?

26

How is the program’s budget composed? (student fees, fundraising, etc.)

300

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Finally, we would like to ask you some questions regarding the professoriat of your program: 27

What qualifications and capacities are important for a professor in this program? Please choose a maximum of five of the following items: Professional qualification Pedagogic competence Frequent publishing or professional activities Practical experience Humor or spirit Appreciative treatment of the students Enthusiasm for the subject they are teaching Availability and approachability Empathy The ability to grasp or recognize the students’ professional difficulties or uniqueness Practical orientation Interdisciplinary orientation Committed personality Interested personality Motivating personality

28

How would you describe the atmosphere among the professors in the program? Please rate the following characteristics according to your experience. Applies fully Collegial Competitive Cooperative Harmonious Inspiring Individualistic Motivating

Applies

Applies up to a point

Does not apply

Does not apply at all

301

5 Appendix 29

Please place a checkmark for the corresponding answer to the following questions: Very often Are you on the same “­wavelength” as your fellow colleagues? Do you share common concerns? Do you work together with them? Do you meet with colleagues of the program in your spare time as well? Are you motivated to change something in your program? Have you already done this? Do you have a significant impact on the development of the program? Are teaching and teaching quality discussed among colleagues? Are teaching and teaching quality discussed with the students? Does this lead to concrete changes?

Often

Some­ times

Rarely

Never

302

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Questionnaire students Dear Students, Thank you very much for supporting the research project Places of Excellence. Places of Excellence is a field research project comparing internationally leading master’s programs in the fields of cultural management, cultural policy, and cultural production. The research looks toward stimulating teaching and learning situations. The focus is not particularly on specific pedagogic formats or on what is actually taught; rather, we are interested in “cultures of excellence” and in how teaching takes place. The Association for German Science is funding Places of Excellence under its mandate to improve teaching and learning situations in universities. The following questionnaire will take approximately 60 minutes to complete. All information will be handled anonymously and we sincerely thank you in advance for your cooperation. To begin with, we would like to ask you some questions regarding the choice of the program in which you are studying: 1

Are you studying at the MA or PhD level? Master

PhD

2

Which semester are you in?

3

What did you do before starting your current studies?

4a

Why did you choose this program?

4b

What did you expect from the program?

5

In what way did you experience the admissions selection process? How did you feel about this process?

6

6 How did you experience your first weeks in the program? Please give a short description on your “period of arrival.”

7

What aspect makes the program stand out? What is its unique selling proposition (USP)?

8a

Is there a specific spirit, disposition, or something like a “departmental ideology”? Is there a common goal?

8b

Are there specific keywords (terminology) used in the department?

303

5 Appendix 8c

How would you complete the following sentence when talking about the program (where “we” refers to “you and your classmates”): “We are … ” (for example, “cultural workers”)

9a

When choosing this program, how important were the following aspects: Very impor­tant

Impor­tant

The general reputation of the university or school Friends or acquaintances already studying here The program’s or department’s orientation or profile Family reasons One or several professors and their teaching and research foci The city and its cultural activities The ranking of the university or school and the program The program’s environment and what it offers, or everything besides the core curriculum (e.g., the library, cafeteria, events)

The alumni network Future professional options The scholarship or funding options Tuition fees The possibility to work in parallel to studying 9b

Are you studying at your preferred university? Yes

No

More or less important

Unimportant

Absolutely unimportant

304

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

10

10 What profession would you like to attain upon finishing your studies?

11

11 What are the three most important (academic) things you have learned here? And who taught you them? 1: 2: 3:

12

And what would you like to learn that you haven’t yet?

13

What are the three most interesting authors, books, or theories you have gotten to know here?

14

What specific aspects of yours studies do you appreciate?

15

And what would you like to change?

We would now like to ask you some questions regarding the professors: 16

Which qualifications and capacities are important for a professor of this program? Please choose a maximum of five among the following items: Professional academic or artistic qualification Pedagogic competence Frequent publishing or professional activities Practical experience Humor or spirit Appreciative treatment of the students Enthusiasm for the subject they are teaching Availability and approachability Empathy The ability to grasp or recognize the students’ professional difficulties or uniqueness Practical orientation Interdisciplinary orientation Committed personality Interested personality Motivating personality

305

5 Appendix 17

What do the professors of this program stand for? Do they represent a specific scientific, theoretical, methodological, or ethical position?

18

With the following pairs of characteristics, we would like to assess the effects of the teaching units on you. Please classify where you fall between the two alternatives.



How do you experience the teaching units with your professors? 1

2

3

4

5

Interesting

Boring

Overtaxing

Subchallenging

Inspiring

Suppressing or inhibiting

Consistent

Chaotic

With the following questions, we would now like to look at the relationship between you and your fellow students and at the time you spend at university. 19

How would you describe the atmosphere among the students in the program? Please rate the following characteristics according to your experience. Applies fully Collegial Competitive Cooperative Harmonious Inspiring Individualistic Motivating

Applies

Applies up to a point

Does not apply

Does not apply at all

306 20

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler In general, I experience the time I spend at university as ... Too

Very

A little

Not

Insuf­­ ficiently

… intense. … focused. … activating and stimulating. … happy. … challenging. … burdening. 21

Please place a checkmark for the corresponding answer to the following questions: Very often Are you on the same “wavelength” as your fellow students? Do you share common concerns or interests? Do you work together with them? Do you meet with students of the program in your spare time as well? Are you motivated to change something in your program? Do you have an impact on the development of the program? Is the quality of teaching discussed among students? Is the quality of teaching discussed with the professors? Does this lead to concrete changes?

Often

Some­ times

Rarely

Never

307

5 Appendix 22

In what manner do you or the university try to improve the quality of teaching in the program? What instruments and forums are used to this end (evaluations, etc.)? In what way are students integrated into the development of the curriculum?

Now we would like to ask you to answer three questions regarding the organization of your leisure time: 23

How often do you go to cultural events (exhibitions, concerts, etc.) per month on average? 0–1

24

5–10

11 or more

And how often would you like to go to cultural events per month on average? 0–1

25

2–4

2–4

5–10

11 or more

If applicable: What are the reasons for this discrepancy?

Tables

2.1

Overview of the selected cases

19

3.1.1

Visualization of students’ assessment of the teaching units

59

3.1.2

Visualization of the change of and openness to teaching matters

59

3.1.3

Visualization of the students‘ rating of ­important ­criteria for choosing their program Visualization of the students’ and professors’ ­r­atings of their respective atmospheres Visualization of students’ assessment of the time spent at school

60

62

3.2.1

Visualization of qualifications for a professor in this ­program according to the professors and students Visualization of students’ assessment of the teaching units

3.2.2

Visualization of the change of and openness to teaching matters

98

3.2.3

Visualization of the students’ and professors’ ­ratings of their respective atmospheres Visualization of students’ assessment of the time spent at school

99

Visualization of the students‘ rating of ­important ­criteria for choosing their program Visualization of qualifications for a professor in this ­program according to the professors and students Visualization of the average amount of working time professors spent on different activities Visualization of qualifications for a professor in this ­program according to the professors and students Visualization of the students’ and professors’ ­ratings of their respective atmospheres Visualization of students’ assessment of the time spent at school

100

3.1.4 3.1.5 3.1.6

3.2.4 3.2.5 3.2.6 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.4.1

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 M. Tröndle und J. Schindler, Places of Excellence, Edition WÜRTH Chair of Cultural Production, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33283-9

61 61

98

99

101 136 137 138 169

310

3.4.2

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

Visualization of the students’ and professors’ ­ratings of their respective atmospheres Visualization of the students‘ rating of ­important ­criteria for choosing their program Visualization of qualifications for a professor in this ­program according to the professors and students Visualization of students’ assessment of the teaching units

170

Visualization of the students‘ rating of ­important ­criteria for choosing their program Visualization of students’ assessment of the time spent at school

206

208

3.7.1

Visualization of qualifications for a professor in this ­program according to the professors and students Visualization of the students’ and professors’ ­ratings of their respective atmospheres Visualization of the students’ and professors’ ­ratings of their respective atmospheres Visualization of qualifications for a professor in this ­program according to the professors and students When choosing this program, how important were the following aspects?

3.7.2

Professors’ qualifications and capacities

244

3.7.3

Teaching units

245

3.7.4

Time spent at university

246

3.7.5

Professors’ working time

247

3.7.6

Correlation between teaching units and the general experience

248

3.7.7

Atmosphere

250

3.7.8

Wavelength, concerns, and the will to change

251

3.4.3 3.4.4 3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.3 3.5.4 3.5.5 3.6.1 3.6.2

171 172 205

207

209 239 240 243

Figures

3.1.1

Warwick Castle

29

3.1.2

Library Road on the campus of the University of Warwick

31

3.1.3

Warwick University House

31

3.1.4

Coffee bar in the atrium of ­Warwick University House

32

3.1.5

View into the cafeteria at lunchtime

32

3.1.6

Office space for the staff on the first floor of Warwick ­University House

33

3.1.7

Millburn House in the Science Park

33

3.1.8

The entrance area of the School of Theatre, ­Performance and Cultural Policy Studies Warwick Arts Centre

33

Mead Gallery, at Warwick Arts Centre, with a view of the ­exhibition The World Turned Upside Down (2013) The classroom used by the ­Centre for Cultural Policy Studies

39

52

3.2.4

Room 1.15 in the Ramphal Building, with its small class sizes and variable tables Authors’ illustrations of ICCE’s ­internal resource ­management model (Creative Entrepreneurship) Authors’ illustrations of ICCE’s ­internal resource ­management model (Cultural Policy) Authors’ illustrations of ICCE’s ­internal resource ­management model (Arts Administration) View from the New Academic ­Building upon the Richard Hoggart Building

3.2.5

Hatcham House with the Ben ­Pimlott Building visible behind

71

3.2.6

The cafeteria and entranceway of the New Academic Building

72

3.2.7

Staircase leading the way up to ICCE

72

3.1.9 3.1.10 3.1.11 3.1.12 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 M. Tröndle und J. Schindler, Places of Excellence, Edition WÜRTH Chair of Cultural Production, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33283-9

39

52

68 68 68 71

312

Martin Tröndle, Johanna Schindler

3.2.8

The ICCE office from the outside

73

3.2.9

73

3.2.10

The corridor/waiting area between the teaching room, the ICCE office, and other ICCE facilities Classroom NAB 326

3.2.11

The British Museum at 11 a.m. on a Sunday morning.

90

3.3.1

Surrounded by twentieth-century icons of ­architecture ­history, SAIC is located in the heart of the city, ­hidden ­behind the trees in the center of this image. The Art Institute of Chicago, Michigan Avenue

103

114

3.3.4

Right across the street from the Art Institute: The School of the Art Institute of Chicago Around the corner from Michigan Avenue: SAIC at Monroe Street

3.3.5

The entryway from Monroe Street

115

3.3.6

The entryways from Michigan Avenue

115

3.3.7

Elevators in marble, granite, and gold

115

3.3.8

Elevators with an artistic intervention

115

3.3.9

Sitting in the student lounge on the first floor

116

3.3.10

The newly renovated Sharp building on ­Monroe Street, with mobile desks and chairs A sixth-floor class- room in the ­unrenovated ­building at 112 Michigan Avenue. Immense exhibitions possibilities are available to the ­students through the school’s studio and gallery ­spaces in the Sullivan Center, in downtown Chicago. The Ohio Theatre, viewed from the Ohio Statehouse grounds

116

140

3.4.3

The audience waits in the theater hall at the Vern Riffe Center for Government and the Arts. The Oval is the center of the university

3.4.4

Browning Amphitheater and Mirror Lake, with its fountain visible in the back

142

3.4.5

Entrance to the newly renovated Thompson Library

143

3.4.6

Back side of Ohio Stadium

143

3.4.7– 3.4.8 3.4.9

A corridor and a classroom in the ­temporary location for the ­Department of Arts Administration, Education and Policy Posters on a pin- board decorated with colorful ­fabric to brighten up the underground corridor Lawrence and Isabel Barnett Center for ­Integrated Arts and Enterprise (under renovation) The view of the city from inside the Kimmel Center

148

3.3.2 3.3.3

3.3.11 3.3.12

3.4.1 3.4.2

3.4.10 3.5.1

73

113

114

116 129

140

142

148 158 174

313

Figures

3.5.2

The waiting area of the Kimmel Center

175

3.5.3

A second-floor classroom in the ­Kimmel Center, on Thompson Street

175

3.5.4

176

3.5.5

The Education Building (left-hand side) and the Welcome Center (on the right) The campus of Columbia University

3.6.1

Vitrines with peer-reviewed ­publications in front of the professors’ offices

219

3.6.2

A “showcase” of books published by the Chair

219

3.6.3

A display of the International ­Journal of Arts Management, the journal edited by the Chair in Arts Management The list of HEC Montréal donors

219

The entire ground floor is fitted with tiles that each ­display the name of a regular HEC Montréal donor. Stairs leading to the main entrance of the main building of HEC ­Montréal, where the ­International Arts Management program is located A stairway from the second floor to the third floor

233

When walking up the stairs (pictured in fig 3.6.6) and ­opening the entrance door to the main building, one ­recognizes the HEC Montréal brand carved into the steel. A screen in the cafeteria displays the school’s latest rankings.

235

271

4.4

Illustration of the internal resource-­management model, adapted from the ­Goldsmiths case (Entrepreneurship Focus) Illustration of the internal resource-­management model, ­adapted from the ­Goldsmiths case (Cultural Policy Focus) Illustration of the internal resource-­management model, adapted from the ­Goldsmiths case (Artistic Practices Focus) External resource management model (Cooperation)

4.5

External resource management model (Guest lecturers)

272

3.6.4 3.6.5 3.6.6 3.6.7 3.6.8

3.6.9 4.1 4.2 4.3

176

233

234 234

235

271 271 272

Author biographies

Johanna Schindler is a postdoctoral researcher at the WÜRTH Chair of Cultural Production at Zeppelin University, Friedrichshafen, Germany, and Ma­naging Editor of the peer-reviewed Journal of Cultural Management and Cultural Policy. Previously, she worked as a curatorial assistant at Kunst­ museum Liechtenstein, Vaduz; a manager of the International Association of Curators of Contemporary Art; and a researcher and coordinator at Haus der Kulturen der Welt, Berlin. Martin Tröndle is the WÜRTH Chair of Cultural Production at Zeppelin University, Friedrichshafen, Germany. He is a principal investigator of Experi­ mental Concert Research, a project that investigates aesthetic experience in classical concerts. He is also Co-Editor in Chief of the peer-reviewed Journal of Cultural Management and Cultural Policy. Previously, he was the principal investigator of eMotion – mapping museum experience (2008–14), a project that experimentally analyzed the experience of the museumgoer.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2021 M. Tröndle und J. Schindler, Places of Excellence, Edition WÜRTH Chair of Cultural Production, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33283-9