Changing work patterns - Framing pictures: creative thinking about creative workers

The arts and cultural sector is characterised and driven by different types of personnel Janet Summerton offers some refreshing new perspectives.
In the past four years there have been various attempts to understand the scope and nature of the arts and cultural ?sector?. Although we know more as a result of these exercises, there is a gaping hole in the form of our knowledge about the people who work outside or alongside the more visible arts and cultural organisations. These people are variously categorised as the self-employed, the sole traders, the freelancers, the knowledge workers, the e-lancers, the specialists, the consultants, owner operators of micro-businesses ? the list goes on. Given that there is widespread recognition of the significance of these people, both in terms of estimated numbers and the extent of their activity, there is a desperate need for a fresh look at how and where they work. This requires some new perspectives.

New perspectives

First, three particular frames of reference hamper clear vision and understanding. These are our understandings of jobs and employment, organisations and management, and sectors within which work takes place.

Thinking around jobs and work still emanates from the concept of full-time employment being the norm. By implication all other working styles and patterns are atypical. Yet anyone involved with arts and cultural work knows that there is much evidence that contradicts this idea, but we have not yet seen serious investigation into the other styles of work. Part of the problem is the deep-seated thinking rooted in the idea of primary occupations ? people do or would like to do one kind of work. This is highly questionable in our context. In addition, employment patterns are generally viewed as falling into the three main categories described as being employed, self employed, or unemployed. Yet many people simultaneously are both employed and self-employed as well as investing unpaid time in developing ideas and projects alone or in conjunction with others. The work they do may have different labels in different contexts. Their situations challenge much of what we think we know, even in terms of how many people work in cultural activities, let alone the rich and complex details. I have coined the terms ?kaleidoscopic? work and ?chameleon? workers as a first attempt to signify the particularities of this condition. The kaleidoscopic element is hopefully self-explanatory, and the chameleon is meant to describe the complex situations, which do not exactly replicate what those in the business sector have labelled as ?portfolio-working?. Portfolio work seems to refer (much as ?freelance? does) to people who offer work of a fairly similar nature to a variety of organisations who are willing to pay for it. Chameleons, on the other hand, under take a variety of tasks and roles and, if you like, wear different hats in different situations. There is often the element of work that does not have fees or wages attached ? unpaid work. You might consider this a long-term investment of either a personal or professional nature.

Permeable boundaries

Similarly, understanding of organisational forms, shapes and sizes are inadequate, based as they are on outmoded and inappropriate models. For instance, these models usually have impermeable boundaries, within which are employees and, in some cases, ?owners?. In reality many arts and cultural organisations function with permeable boundaries and involve varying relationships and connections with a mix of people who may be described as staff, board members, consultants, specialists, casual workers, volunteers and so on. In its research report Arts and Entertainment Sector Workforce Development Plan, Metier says that ?in a recent survey of 100 organisations it was found that between them they employed approximately 9,000 workers, over 5,000 of whom were freelance, volunteer and short-term contract staff.? (In an earlier draft they reported that these hundred organisations involved 1,000 volunteers). Interesting evidence, but these emerging statistics are only tantalising unless followed up with some serious research based on new paradigms. It does point up that application of the designations of micro, small and medium-sized enterprise might be misleading in many cases. What then too of our understandings regarding management? Is there not now enough evidence, both from such research, audits and empirical sources to substantiate the argument that general management models, rooted in (and poorly adapted from) commercial business principles, are insufficient and inappropriate? The contracts between organisations and the people who contribute to making them function are extremely varied. This is compounded by the substantial numbers of new organisational forms ? the ad hoc, temporary, virtual and network, which are all much in evidence.

The third framework that does not serve us well is that of sectors. Again in the Workforce Development Plan, arts and cultural work is seen as inhabiting one of two sectors, the subsidised or the commercial. The label of ?subsidised? is surely increasingly lacking currency. Can the funding system claim to subsidise organisations in the true sense of the word? Does investment in a project or, as is often the case, in ever-reducing annual grants, have to label an organisation as subsidised? What too of those organisations that, for a host of reasons, are not chosen to be in receipt of public funds? Similar rhetoric is used elsewhere. We have seemingly lost the sense of much arts and cultural activity having a lot in common with what is called the ?voluntary? or ?not-for- profit? sector. Reinstating the term ?not-for-profit? and legitimising the concept of self-sustaining activity (which at the moment is the prerogative of the recently named ?social economy?) are likely to allow for more accurate depictions and understandings of much arts and cultural work. It also leaves us with nowhere to go in terms of developing and strengthening arts and cultural work, other than moving towards becoming more ?businesslike?.

Framing new initiatives

So why does all this matter? It matters because without a richer understanding of who does what, why and how and in what kinds of patterns and organisations and where, any attempts to develop and support arts and cultural enterprise are basically flawed. All the work under the new initiatives regarding education, training and continuous professional development might well serve those organisations and individuals who fit the frames. But initial estimates of the proportion of what might be called ?conventional? employment in arts and culture suggest that this accounts for less than 50%. This leaves us with probably a similar number not well served-outside the frame. What we need is bespoke frames, not ones that are second-hand and ?off the shelf?.

Once we do attend to these matters, and there are many positive indications that at least some of us will, there are much wider implications. In the diverse communities of arts and cultural work we have both operating and emerging models which could be beacons and signposts for others coming to terms with the knowledge based economy.

Dr. Janet Summerton is an independent researcher, writer and consultant, and convenes part-time programmes in Arts and Cultural Management at the University of Sussex. She conducted research for Southern Arts in 1999, reported as Artists at Work, and she is researching management models and development needs analyses. t: 01273 326693 e: jsum@powis.u-net.com