Methodology

In their article, Hall, Godrie, and Heck discuss the framework of Knowledge democracy for participatory research (2020). Putting into conversation their interpretations on knowledge equality, epistemic inequalities and participatory research practices, they ask themselves how we can, instead of speaking about or on behalf of someone, speak with someone. The framework they propose centers around 5 key concepts:

• Orienting oneself to ethics and values

• Understanding of power in partnerships

• Applying plural modes of inquiry

• Praxis (establishing a balance between theory and practice)

• Understanding the researcher as facilitator

(Hall, Godrie, and Heck 2020, page 39)

Second, they refer to Knowledge Democracy as one’s ability to ‘’produce, share and consume information and understanding acquired by education or experience’’, in both an academic and social-political context (2020, p35). This implies a plurality of knowledge both in how this knowledge is created and in its form or representation. Lastly, Hall, Godrie, and Heck point towards the importance of openness and the protection of ownership rights (2020).

In their book Beuving and de Vries cover the practices and key concepts of interpretivist or naturalist inquiry in social research. Instead of expecting law-like principles as assumed by a positivist way of thinking, naturalist inquiry ‘’adopts the view that social order follows from how humans understand their situation and act upon that’’ (Athens as cited by Beuving and de Vries 2015a, page 28). It aims to study social life as it happens, rather than controlling it (Beuving and de Vries 2015a). As a result, the selection of research participants follows as a result of looking into a topic and matching research participants accordingly, or theoretical sampling (idem.)

They point out the importance of awareness of language and the knowledge that language is not neutral. As they argue, language stems from the people’s everyday live, meaning it is not free from any issues related to everyday life. For research, they advocate for the differences in use of terminology as a place of entry rather than a trigger for terminological struggle. Regarding research methods that align with a naturalist line of thought, Beuving and de Vries conclude by asking themselves if ‘’not every day casual conversation the most naturalistic way of interviewing, or rather of not interviewing, but talking about society?’’ 2015b, page 110). Alan Bryman, covering the historic origin of conversation analysis, rooting in ethno-methodology, points to two main ideas that are central in this type of methodology, namely  that of indexicality and reflexivity ([2001] 2012).

Based on the frameworks and the concepts discussed above, I propose a methodology that aims for a participatory and a democratic nature based on conversation between researcher and research participants. This choice of method is made for three reasons. First of all, a conversational approach is aimed for in order to uphold democratic values within the research itself. Secondly, as the research deals with possibly risky consequences and potentially triggering themes for the research participants both on a personal and professional level, an open method based on casual conversation gives more ownership within the research and space for research participants to indicate boundaries. Third and lastly, I aim to take a more naturalistic approach towards investigating and understanding the research topic, as it puts emphasis on the importance of reflectivity and context which are important for the conclusion of the research, the research methodology and the researchers positionality within the project as it offers the possibility for a more nuanced understanding of the topics discussed.

Table 1 gives an overview of all the different key concepts per case study can be found. Marked in the different colours / underlined are some concepts that returned in the different cases.

For now, some observations on the results are included in this document. However, as this is not the core of the research for TFA, these observations are kept short.

There is a large variety in how festivals and cultural organizations are being targeted/ effected by undemocratic and anti-democratic policies, tendencies and societies. Interesting to point out how it is both directly in policies but also specially indirectly (either by non-cultural polices or e.g. proxies, un-democratic structures and ideologies in societies outside of pollical systems). There are, however, returning elements throughout the different cases such as; de-centralization/centralization, censorship (in its various forms), mobility issues, protest and (international) collaboration and especially the importance voiced to keep organizing spaces for critical conversation. Notably, these spaces are not necessarily public (e.g. for safety reasons) and in that way not ‘democratic’ themselves. Rather, we could understand them as semi-public spaces or half closed spaces.

De-centralization/centralization: the topic of centralization returns in most of the cases. This does not come as a surprise, as authoritarian or non-democratic systems are characterized by a centralization of decision making and power on a political level too.

Censorship: Censorship is also a much returning topic within the cases discussed. Interesting to note is how censorship can be understood within three main categories; governmental-, social- or self-censorship.

Mobility issues: the topic of mobility or rather the lack of it, is another re-occurring issue within un-democratic contexts. Mobility issues are present both due international travel restrictions or visa applications but also are present within countries (unsafe travel situations, check points between regions, regime controlled or opposition controlled areas etc.)

(International) collaboration: collaboration, either inside certain countries and regions or internationally is a crucial element within the organization of festivals who operate independently or aim to become less dependent on institutions and public/governmental funding.

Organizing spaces for (critical) conversation: much emphasis is on the importance to keep organizing spaces for conversation and critical reflection, regardless of challenges that come along with this. Many festival makers see this as an important role festivals and festival makers can take up or incorporate in their practices.

Nationalism / lack of (national) identity: Another interesting observation is the sense of lack of national identity, as expressed by research participants, in two of the cases (mainly Syria but also Iran) were strict authoritarian regimes are present, and a use of national identity or nationalism in the two European cases (mainly Serbia but also Poland historically) as tool for politicians in the populist or non-democratic arguments/actions. Which suggests a different approach and understanding of national identity and culture between these cases/contexts.

Currently, five case studies have been worked out, according to the five code groups/ headings, in order to give a more detailed understanding of the situation and context where the festivals operate. Not all research participants have given permission/approval yet for the publication of the articles. Hence not all of them are included here. The fifth case study (USA) is still in an early stage and will be added a soon as possible.

The case studies are writing in the form of an article, giving an introduction to the toolkit/body of knowledge, an introduction to the organization/festival, its social political context, an overview of the main issues in cultural policy and the cultural sector, the threats/struggles and challenges they face and their strategies and tools to overcome these. At the end of each paragraph, a short overview is given with a number of key concepts.

In order to support the articles an introduction and some key definitions are given at the start of the toolkit. The toolkit/body of knowledge will be published on a website, on various webpages. This means that the information in pdf form does not fully represent the final product.