Cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
PROJECT DIRECTOR: DR. CATHERINE MURRAY
Centre for Policy Studies on Culture and Communities
Simon Fraser University
Letter of Intent (LOI) and
Invitation for Expression of Interest in Partnership and Collaboration
Submitted to the Major Collaborative Research Initiative Program (MCRI)
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
January 31, 2009
Centre for Policy Studies on Culture and Communities
Simon Fraser University
515 West Hastings Street, Office 3551
Vancouver, BC V6B 5K3
www.cultureandommunities.ca
+1-778-782-5322
murraye@sfu.ca
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
1. Summary of Proposed Research
The global financial crisis and recession are shaking, but not deterring, a widespread interest in theories of the
creative economy, creative cities and geographic distribution of cultural and creative production. The creative
economy is estimated to contribute 6%-8% of GDP in many countries, but there is scant consideration of how
artists’ changing work practices actually interact with the stretched urban infrastructure and social economy in
Canadian communities.
It is well known that labour markets play a pivotal role in urban competitiveness, cooperation and social
cohesion. However, conventional arts/culture/heritage policymakers have not presented a credible challenge to
the hegemony of social policy in the ‘discourse’ about urban growth, decline or regeneration or to the primacy
of economic policy in the creative industries.
The proposed seven-year collaborative research project, led by the Centre for Policy Studies on Culture and
Communities, will investigate past, recent and new evidence on “cultural labour” as a major factor in the
presence and future of Canadian cities and citizens. It builds on the findings of a three-year project on the state
of knowledge about Canadian cultural infrastructure and creative spaces. It will map artists, cultural workers
and entrepreneurs in selected Canadian cities to identify how policies related to cultural infrastructure, the
creative economy, labour, social and urban fields interact to affect cultural/creative working conditions, social
inclusion and equity. What policies best leverage innovation and creativity in developing sustainable
communities?
This study will use quantitative and qualitative methods in cross-sectional and longitudinal design to test
hypotheses about the changing nature of cultural work. It has five interlocking research components:
1) Four waves of an on-line survey of artists, with a minimum target of 2400 respondents in selected
communities; 2) Longitudinal life cycle studies of individual workers; 3) Ethnographies of arts, heritage and
cultural organizations; 4) Case studies of cultural spaces and socio-economic infrastructure pertaining to
cultural work; 5) Deliberative Policy Paper Calls on themes that complement the other components.
The urban cultural/creative experience in Canada will be compared to advanced theory, empirical research and
best policy practices in Europe, Australia and the United States. An international team of researchers leading
such inquiry in communications, visual art, history, geography, economics, labour studies, urban planning and
policy studies will advance understanding of culture and communities beyond current neo-liberal thinking,
inform and advance place-based cultural policy and planning in Canada and train a new generation of cultural
entrepreneurs, artists and scholars to lead in building sustainable creative communities. In recessionary times,
governments need insights and practical tools to contribute to individuals’ well-being, cultural expression and
communities.
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
2
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
2. Description of Proposed Research
Introduction
Scholarly interest in the creative economy1, creative cities and geo-spatial distribution of cultural/creative
production in urban labour markets is widespread, but there is scant consideration of what artists and other
cultural producers actually do, or of the multiple roles of cultural organizations from museums to media
industries. In particular, little is known about the changing work practices of artists and other creators, their
interaction with the social economy,2 and how their modes of self-organization blend into a stretched urban
infrastructure. The Under Construction project (Duxbury, 2008) of Simon Fraser University’s Centre for
Policy Studies on Culture and Communities (CPCC) confirmed a large gap in built cultural infrastructure in
many areas of Canada, with major facilities outdated, unsafe or simply unsuitable. Municipalities have taken
on more fiscal and policy responsibility for cultural communities and ensuring citizen access to cultural
services. The tendency to under-resource operating and maintenance costs jeopardizes public legacies and
cultural productivity. Building on these findings, this seven-year major collaborative research initiative, led by
the CPCC, will examine the complex and far-reaching human, social and economic infrastructure supporting
cultural/creative production. The goal is to identify how policies related to cultural infrastructure, the creative
economy, labour, social and urban fields interact to improve or worsen cultural/creative working conditions,
promote or impede social inclusion and equity.
What policies best leverage innovation and creativity
in developing sustainable communities? Cultural production is
widely recognized3 as a dynamic sector that is responding to
long- and short-wave economic restructuring (Hesmondalgh,
2007; Harvey, 2008). Comprehensive understanding of cultural
labour becomes especially critical in the context of the current
global economic and financial crisis (Hesmondalgh, 2007;
Cunningham, 2008; CBOC, 2008; ILO, 2008). At a time when
massive public investments as economic stimuli are taking
shape around the world, there is concern that an incomplete
evidence base may be used to frame policy choices, cultural
infrastructure may be excluded or the best type of stimulus
measures to increase the creative/cultural sector’s contribution
to productivity may be misunderstood. The recession of the
1930s witnessed a surprising degree of public investment in and
consumption of arts and culture in many countries. Keynes himself
had affinity for the cultural field (Throsby, 2008) and the New Deal had
large public art and artist employment programs (Adams and Golbard, undated).
This MCRI explores three main premises about the nature of cultural work: Cultural producers are increasingly
working in several areas of the economy, adding symbolic value to the production of goods and services;
cultural producers are modifying their vocations under the influence of new technologies of expression,
1
John Hartley, 2005; Richard Florida, 2006; and Charles Landry, 2005.
2
The social economy consists of association-based economic initiatives founded on values of: service to members of the
community rather than generating profits; autonomous management; and democratic decision-making. Various organizations
include social assets (housing, childcare, etc.), social enterprises including cooperatives, equity and debt capital for community
investment, social purpose businesses, community training and skills development, integrated social and economic planning, and
capacity building and community empowerment. See http://www.socialeconomyhub.ca/hub/index.php?page_id=9
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
3
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
leading to a blurring of amateur/professional, full/part-time, self-employed and collective work and a desire to
maximize the freedom to innovate; the conditions of creative production are based on a realization of value
from intellectual property, whether held in private or in common in new ways.
These and other hypotheses will be tested by a research design involving: 1) cross-sectional surveys of cultural
workers; 2) longitudinal life cycle studies; 3) selected institutional ethnographies; 4) analysis and case studies
of socio-economic infrastructure supporting cultural work, and 5) related policy papers. The goal is to advance
understanding of why some places thrive culturally while others don’t and produce recommendations to fill a
growing policy vacuum and improve coordination in multi-level cultural governance. This MCRI will
collaborate with colleagues in Europe (especially the UK), Australia and the United States, to construct a local
and global appreciation of the changing structure and substance of cultural/creative work.
Theoretical Framework
This research program begins primarily from creative economy theory as it intersects with new urbanism and
critiques of neo-liberal thinking about the creative city. An emerging intellectual consensus defines the creative
economy to include all activities that are based on the original expression of an idea and economic or gift
transaction of intellectual property held in private or in common (Strathern, 2006; Hartley, 2005;
Hesmondalgh, 2007; Cunningham, 2008). New techniques of measuring economic impacts are finding that the
creative economy is larger than supposed (Conference Board of Canada, 2008), is highly labour-intensive and,
according to the OECD and UNCTAD, is growing faster than many other sectors and showing sharp
agglomerative tendencies to “cluster” (Mommass, 2004). Disputes arise over what cultural activities are
included in the creative economy. For our purpose, cultural labour encompasses the entire arts and culture
industry and heritage sectors, attendant education and service sectors and, increasingly, urban planning, design
and architecture. This range is consistent with Professor David Throsby’s path-breaking concentric model of
the cultural/creative industries.4 It is somewhat wider than the Statistics Canada definition, but sufficiently
consistent with the Canada Council’s disciplinary categories to assist in historical comparison.
It is well known that labour markets play a pivotal role in urban competitiveness, cooperation and social
cohesion. They are still relatively place-bound despite the emergence of new virtual modes of work and mobile
networks, and labour appears to have become a more important factor in business location decisions as the
need for proximity to material inputs has diminished. The capacities for urban environments to spread
knowledge and generate “thick” labour markets that permit worker mobility through new business start-ups,
firms of differing scales, self-employment and informal networks are increasingly critical, but multiple
constitutional jurisdictions make them more difficult to effect (Gordon and Turok, 2005).
While slow to react to developments in global (Sassen, 2005) and ordinary cities (Robinson, 2006) in the
1990s, researchers have now produced a critical mass of literature on the creative economy (with Britain and
Australia as the acknowledged leaders) that provides an initial theoretical context for this proposed MCRI.
Several theorists have proposed a New International Division of Cultural Labour (Miller et al, 2005) or a
blurring in the division of labour between profit and not-for-profit sectors in the United States due to
increasing crossover activities (Di Maggio, 2006; Markusen, 2007), while others are exploring the difference
that place makes in clustering local and regional cultural labour markets (Scott, 2006; Evans, 2007; Bradford,
2007). The Innovation Systems Research Network in Canada (ISRN, Gertler and Wolfe, 2006), David
4
This model includes the “core” traditional or performing and visual arts and cultural industries, radiating outwards. It also allows for
a consideration of heritage, which is often completely excluded from the creative economy sector: a position which is logically
absurd, given the importance of trade in cultural artifacts. Dr. Throsby is an advisor to this MCRI. See, as well, Gollmitzer and
Murray, 2008.
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
4
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
Hesmondalgh (2007) and others have pioneered historical comparison as a means to understand new modes of
creative work in the cultural industries in the for-profit sector.
Typically, the public sector, the not-for-profit sector and self-organizing sole proprietors have been largely
ignored. The bridging of traditional arts and the new media in the academy are relatively unexamined. There
is, however, recent work (Rossiter, 2003) that contests workers’ actual interaction with intellectual property
regimes. The interplay of place and space in “bohemian” urban areas has long been of interest (Blau, 1989;
Zukin, 1995) and now researchers are exploring sociometric approaches to the study of dense “inner” artists’
networks and their productive interactions (Crossley, 2008; Curid, 2007), as well as creative destruction of
traditional art boundaries. At the same time, explorations of the cultural conditions of the new capitalism
(Boltanski and Chiapello, 2005; Sennett, 2006; Gollmitzer and Murray, 2008) suggest that the prevailing
system of income security in most advanced economies necessitates analysis of the concept of “flexicurity”
with respect to part-time labour, proposing the cultural sector should leave behind specific economic
protections through status of the artist legislation. Furthermore, the role of social capital, including the
contribution of voluntary labour to arts and cultural production, is only a very recent component of theories
about the creative economy (Dubinsky, 2005; Phillips, 2007; Anhieier, 2003). Finally, Richard Florida’s work
(2002, 2008) has gained widespread attention for its provocative thesis about the creative classes, but there is a
growing concern that it represents a lifestyle marketing category rather than dynamic social force, may
misunderstand the production of bohemians, and provide little guidance about the way social outcomes such as
unrestrained gentrification and sharper polarization of class fragments are measured or mitigated (Peck, 2005;
Donegan et al, 2008). Attention to the impact of recent immigration on urban labour markets suggests, for
example, that mobilization of cultural work may occur in more socially-segregated ways than earlier studies
suggested (Reitz and Banerjee, 2007), and a range of studies (Oakely, 2007; Evans, 2006; Murray et al, 2007)
are contributing to understanding new ethnic cultural enterprise.
While the extent of the creative economy is certainly recognized in Canada (Conference Board, 2008), federal
and provincial governments have been slow to adopt a conceptual and policy framework that explicitly reflects
this reality. Many Canadian cities have jumped on the creative city bandwagon. Toronto was recently
recognized as one of the top ten global cities, after twinning with London on basic research and development
initiatives (Gertler and Evans, 2005). Vancouver was pursuing a specifically socio-cultural approach to
creative city development as early as 1986. Montreal received City of Design recognition within UNESCO’s
Creative Cities Network established in 2004. Several small and mid-size cities have also adopted plans that
embrace creative city principles (London, Ottawa and others). Canada is globally acknowledged as a leader in
modernising its framework for cultural statistics, charting city growth, pioneering an International UNESCO
Convention on the Diversity of Cultural Expressions and developing new guidelines for the measurement of
decent5 work, labour underutilization and volunteer work (ILO, 2008). Yet, paradoxically, the last
comprehensive study of cultural work was done in 1993 — based on the precepts and structure of a traditional
industrial economy and insufficient to support urban labour market level analysis. Once a leader in evidencebased development of cultural policy, Canada risks falling behind.
Economic multiplier effect studies and statistical aggregates of various sectors are readily available but do little
to substantially capture the specific conditions and contexts of cultural labour at local, regional and national
levels. Research clusters such as the Metropolis project or ISRN either overlook the changing demographic
5
No worker should therefore receive a wage that is insufficient to live on; be deprived of the payment of wages or benefits to which
they are entitled; be subject to coercion, discrimination, indignity or unwarranted danger in the workplace; or be required to work so
many hours that he or she is effectively denied a personal or civic life. See Arthurs, 2006, and
www.ilo.org/global/About_the_ILO/Mainpillars/Whatis
DecentWork/lang--en/index.html. Dr. Arthurs was awarded the Intl. Labour Organization (ILO) Decent Work Research Prize in 2008.
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
5
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
composition of the cultural workforce or, typically, emphasize single cultural industries such as video games
or new media. Work by the Canadian Labour Market and Skills Network is generic, and while principles of
labour regulation have long recognized special classes of workers (Arthurs, 2005), little work has been done at
the intersection of urban policy, labour policy and the creative economy. Even less modelling has been done on
the interaction of creative work with social welfare services or other key determinants of human capital
(Nordic Innovation Centre, 2007). Immigrant labour has been particularly under-studied in the creative
economy. A recent CPCC study of ethnic media in the greater Vancouver region, for example, found systemic
under-representation of small ethnic media business start-ups in official directories. Work by the ISRN (with
David Wolfe and Meric Gertler) on clusters of innovation in new media and Robert Young at the University of
Western Ontario on new trends in municipal governance and policy provides important foundations for this
MCRI.
As for the policy considerations, Jon Vickery (2007) makes the tough argument that conventional
arts/culture/heritage policymakers have not presented a credible challenge to the hegemony of social policy in
the ‘discourse’ about urban growth, decline or regeneration, or to the primacy of economic policy in the
creative industries. In part, he says, this is due to a weak concept of culture and an under-theorised
understanding of the relation between culture, the economy and sustainable communities. Consequently,
cultural policy is either marginal, outside the mainstream of heavyweight urban, labour and social policy areas,
or appended as an afterthought. Many municipalities in Canada attach cultural planning, responsibility to
invent inducements to attract investment or labour force adjustment issues to recreational or economic
departments, with little coordination.
Challenging traditional premises about the nature of cultural production has profound implications for both
cultural and urban policy. Canadian cultural/creative policy research in the university is underdeveloped and, if
it occurs, focuses on specific policy areas.6 Insufficient attention is paid to the devolution of policy activity to
the local level, or to the horizontal migration of the cultural policy field to a range of other policy areas
requiring new disciplinary perspectives. Such trends challenge traditionally narrow aesthetic definitions of
culture as “specific.” Policy analysts in blinkers (in areas of immigrant adjustment, gendered exclusion or
labour union policy) can no longer ignore the cultural/creative innovation of the self-employed so-called
“precariat,” or part-time, self-employed creative worker. If artists and creators are more likely than the average
workforce to work part-time and be self-employed, as studies have shown, are they more or less likely to climb
out of the “precarity trap”? What strategies do they use? Are they the advance wave of the new creative
economy, or do they represent a paradigm shift for sustainable communities? Close observations of Canadian
public policy have found the “weakness of the urban dimension disquieting” (Andrew et al., 2002). Little is
known, for example, about the range of urban or provincial labour policies specific to the cultural/creative
sector, such as if or how well they attract and retain cultural labour, link social infrastructure and leverage
productivity. As American geographer Allen J. Scott perceptively observes: “the widening search for
instruments to harness the forces of creativity in order to promote local economic development … is deeply
problematical” (2006). Doubly so, we contend, during a sharp economic downturn.
Given the principal aim of this proposed project and the theoretical sources and reservations noted, the
research propositions are as follows:
6
There are sources on the cultural industries, or the arts, or heritage, but rarely on all. The last comprehensive policy review of the
sector was the Applebaum-Hebert Committee in the early 1980s. The 2005 report by the Auditor General on support for the cultural
industries called upon the Department of Canadian Heritage to develop more comprehensive policy coordination, yet the recent
restructuring by cabinet removed responsibilities for multiculturalism, causing more difficulties in coordination.
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
6
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
P1. Conceptual confusion exists about whether cultural work is distinctly different from other types
of work, if there is actual innovative content and if cultural work is a significant proportion of the
current economy.
P2. Public policy lacks a concept of culture that embodies both subject-specific values and sociallygrounded action (Vickery, 2007).
P3. Cultural work directly contributes to sustainable communities.
P4. New indicators are needed to measure community sustainability in ways that properly
accommodate the value of cultural productivity.
P5. The current intellectual property regime cannot accommodate changing work practices and
conditions.
P6. Cultural workers have not sufficiently acquired the multidisciplinary competencies required to
engage in effective work that bridges profit and not-for-profit sectors.
P7. The collapse of traditional aesthetic hierarchies (high/low art or professional/community) and the
tension between specialized skills and multidisciplinary practice are enhancing artistic mobility.
P8. Despite working conditions that appear to be more intermittent, precarious and difficult than in
other sectors, modes of self- and collective organization have not yet assembled sufficient
security supports.
P9. The voluntary work that has cross-subsidized the cultural/creative sector appears to be
transitioning or disappearing.
P10. The not-for-profit institutional form shows a surprising durability and salience in the social
organization of cultural work.
P11. Women stay in the creative sector at a lower rate than their education and training suggest, and
show sharply different success rates in ascending to creative control in different parts of the
cultural value chain (Ference Weicker, 2005).
P12. Studies of recent immigrants point to the persistence of an urban underclass, which suggests
continuing segmentation of cultural work.
Detailed research on these hypotheses/presuppositions will advance understanding of the relationship between
cultural work and class in Canada, particularly the easing or perpetuation of poverty or gentrification and
intersection of cultural and urban social policy such as affordable live/work spaces, federal welcoming
communities initiatives for immigrants, small business enterprise start-up assistance or policies to combat
social exclusion and build healthy communities (Gollmitzer and Murray, 2008).
Method/Research Design
The conceptual breakthrough of the proposed design is to place higher priority on operationalizing locational
factors than disciplinary specificity. The team proposes to look at a stratification of cities/city regions:
1. MTV (Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver);
2. Other city regions with populations of one million or over, and provincial capitals;
3. Edge/other mid-sized cities;
4. Small cities; and
5. Rural areas or small cities with rural catchment areas.
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
7
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
While the number is not yet set, the proposal envisions about 30 cities/areas representative of high, medium,
normal and low growth cultural work markets. A representative set of cities in Europe, Australia and/or the US
will be sought for comparative purposes should funding permit. The primary propositions guiding this design
are that original research must be place-based and worker-centred, not employment- or occupation-driven, and
must rely on self-described artistic content and practice. Classical labour force measurement at Statistics
Canada is not adaptable to these needs, necessitating new research and new meta-analysis of existing
secondary research using the dimension of time as follows:
1. An on-line cross-sectional survey of artists and other cultural producers in years one to four, focusing on
the conditions and contexts of practice across sectors and networks, in different stratified city samples each
year. The survey will probe time spent on work, remuneration, use of career resources, negotiation of the use
of intellectual property resources or exercise of rights, training and use of social policy and government
programs. Two major studies providing a framework for this investigation are Markusen’s U.S. study of work
crossovers (2006) and a U.K. study of innovation (Oakley et al.). Research questions include: How do we
build a more complex and flexible model of the cultural workforce that is not occupation-based but practicebased? (Throsby, 2001). What kinds of material supports — employment and benefits, grants and awards, and
space ― do artists need? Are artists' training programs preparing them for the environments they will
encounter? What kinds of connections and networks enable artists to pursue their careers? (Urban Institute,
2006). What are the characteristics, contexts and pathways associated with creative edge, i.e., ideas, styles,
designs and genres which subsequently may be converted into market-based opportunities? (Hannigan, 2008).
2. Longitudinal life cycle studies of individual workers undertaken throughout the project. The estimated
number is 250, subject to some inevitable drops over time but taking into account generational, gender and
racial factors. Career choices, migration, changes in practice, crossovers in the public, private and not-forprofit sectors, accrued value from intellectual property investment and the impact of social networking and
new forms of sociality in production will be explored in depth. Important qualitative precedents are an AHRCfunded project by David Harvey and Nicola Thomas at the University of Exeter that traces the biographies of
creative makers in South West Britain (2008) and a forthcoming AHRC study by David Hesmondalgh
comparing music making in Britain and Australia.
7
3. Institutional ethnographies of arts, heritage and cultural organizations in the profit, not-for- profit and
public sectors will be undertaken over the seven years. Already identified are shifts in musical practice that
are being mapped by new ethnographies of live music and recording studios elsewhere, and the continuing
persistence of many museums throughout rural and urban communities despite financial and infrastructure
constraints. Other possible avenues may include, but are not limited to, mapping the origins of new cultural
enterprises since 2000.
4. Specific studies of socio-economic urban infrastructure pertaining to cultural work will begin in the first
year and continue until completion. This strand explores the changing role of artists’ guilds, unions and
service organizations, the emergence of social networks, new alliances or lobbies, and the introduction of
capacity-building assistance by all levels of government. The last point considers changes in emphasis to triple
P-driven (public, private and not-for-profit) cultural development, new social enterprise development to crosssubsidize cultural organizations, or alternative funding mechanisms to sustain for-profit and not-for-profit
enterprises. This segment will examine the impact of academic and skills training on urban creative labour
markets, especially given the dramatic increase in programs and degrees in Canadian higher education in the
past 15 years (Canadian Art, Winter 2008).
7
This term is drawn from Dorothy Smith (2005). For sample studies see Druick’s analysis of the National Film Board (2008) and
Cole’s portrait of Canadian art museums and galleries (2006). Oral history methods like those employed by the Centre for Digital
History at Concordia University are promising for their application to institutional settings and lifecycle studies.
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
8
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
5. Deliberative Policy Paper Calls either internally generated or open ― based on an adaptation of the best of
the Metropolis Project model ― will be implemented annually. These include calls (produced out of
democratic deliberation by MCRI members) for papers on specific themes to complement those which arise
out of the first four components, to remain attuned to developments in the policy arena while the related
longitudinal and cross-sectional studies are proceeding. The proposed MCRI will seek advice and continually
inform partner organizations and other possible stakeholders, such as the Canada Council, about the policy
paper calls and other ongoing work.8
To integrate the historical evolution of the guild and craft traditions in social and cultural organization of the
arts, the research will address six simplified core sectors in a flexible and asymmetrical manner: Visual Arts—
video games, new media, film, TV including internet (cultural industries), art galleries (painting/prints/
sculpture/fibre/photography) design, architecture; Music—choral, orchestra, composers, sound recording,
music publishing, radio including internet podcasting; Performing Arts―theatre, improv, circus, dance;
Literary/Publishing Arts—writing, magazine and book publishing; Heritage—museums, archives,
collections, libraries; and Arts Schools and Faculties, Public Institutions, Intermediaries and Services. The
goal is to chart the factors and issues common to all cultural arenas, venues and communities of practice,
which remains exceedingly important to initial and potential community partners.
Program Outcomes
Each overlapping policy field suggests a range of possible influences on the development of policy advice. For
example, traditional labour policies have flagged the need for active labour market policies as championed by
the ILO, but the creative sector may generate different needs than the current models with respect to job
placement services or search support, and some provinces/ city/regions do better than others at this. The
overall intent is to contribute to the dialogue on changing cultural governance, coordination of disparate policy
fields and identification of areas of convergence and divergence at the intersection of labour, urban, creative
economy, infrastructure and social policy. Annual publications (Y1-4) will feature individual and co-authored
publications addressing each wave of the national survey and themes emerging from the life cycle studies and
the institutional ethnographies in progress with the aim of reaching a wide and diverse public in and beyond
academe. A set of case studies of municipal cultural/creative labour profiles (some 30) will provide the basis
for a collected edited book. Sectoral study on the changing nature of, for example, the visual arts labour force,
will draw on international comparative cases. A set of four to six strategic policy papers will be prepared and
presented at annual conferences, which may be conducted in partnership with the Conference Board of Canada
within its International Symposia on the Creative Economy should it be continued. Ongoing workshops and
salons, peer-reviewed scholarly publications, op eds, social media and other web-based dissemination will be
used to communicate research to cultural workers and organizations through and beyond the project partners.
Background on Applicant
Catherine Murray is Co-Director of the Centre for Policy Studies on Culture and Communities (CPCC) at
Simon Fraser University, which will lead this MCRI. Dr. Murray is a co-author of “Creative Spaces”
(forthcoming: Sage), From Economy to Ecology: A Policy Framework for Creative Labour (2008), Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Media in BC (2007), Researching Audiences (2003) and more than 70 other publications.
She has served on nine not-for-profit boards, including SFU, BC Film and the Canadian Broadcast Standards
Council. Dr. Murray was a member of the Mandate Review Committee exploring the future of the CBC, NFB
and Telefilm, an advisor to the Auditor General of Canada on programs in support of cultural industries and a
8
Project collaborators have already received many suggestions for commissioned papers such as the impact of pension/ tax law
changes on artists’ income and evaluation of retraction in cultural tourism on the extent, quality and location of cultural work. Given
this range, the project is aware of the unlimited possibilities for study and therefore, and even at this LOI stage, recognizes the need
for careful deliberation so that the overall initiative remains scholarly significant and policy-useful.
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
9
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
member of the Minister of Canadian Heritage’s Expert Advisory Council on the Instrument for Cultural
Diversity. She is currently a member of the International Advisory Board of the Cultures and Globalization
Series for Sage Publishers, which continues UNESCO’s World Cultures Reports. The network assembled for
this MCRI has evolved out of professional associations with the Canadian Cultural Infrastructure Project over
the past three years. Many of the members are known to each other, and have co-published. The Centre for
Policy Studies on Culture and Communities possesses the expertise and resources to undertake and coordinate
a program of this magnitude. During the past three years it has conducted a nation-wide consultation with more
than 100 policy analysts and stakeholders at three levels of government on the state of cultural infrastructure in
communities across Canada, commissioned extensive secondary data analysis and sponsored a major
international colloquium attended by 400 in the spring of 2008. Through this initiative, it has developed a
proven track record in knowledge outreach, a regular listserv of more than 5,500 subscribers, regular salons
and more than 30 publications in the field of creative space, infrastructure gaps and municipal, provincial and
regional planning approaches to cultural infrastructure. The CPCC’s current projects include a review of
cultural development planning in rural areas, an international comparison of cultural districts, a partnership in a
global review of women’s participation in film and TV production and an international comparison of
“flexicurity” initiatives to support cultural work.
Nature and Breadth of Collaboration
For this LOI, the CPCC has developed partnerships with researchers from 16 universities, across nine
disciplines and from four countries. We have assembled a stellar team of international partners and scholars
currently engaged in similar work, including Ann Markusen, Yudhishthar Raj Isar and David Throsby, David
Hesmondalgh, Graham Evans, Kate Oakley, Paula Hamilton and Stuart Cunningham, secured agreement to
license some survey protocols and located cases with a strong comparative potential. Canadian participants
include the Centre for Governance at the University of Ottawa, the Carleton Centre for Public History, INRS
and the major national cultural service organizations such as the Canadian Conference of the Arts, Canadian
Museum Association and the Canadian Art Directors’ Museum Association, as well as the Creative City
Network of Canada. Other Canadian collaborators will be sought, subject to the development of the research
design. Annual conferences for two of the seven years will alternate locations with our international partners.
We intend to expressly ask co-authors to tackle similar questions from different disciplinary, linguistic or
cultural perspectives and promote comment. All partners share an interest in generating long-term strategic
planning and relevant research to help construct sustainable communities, improve cultural/creative working
conditions and promote social inclusion and equity while leveraging innovation and creativity. RTS total
10/pa/7 years, may be rotated and are capped at 12% of the budget.
Project Governance Structure
SFU is the administering centre for the research program. The Applicant will serve as Director of the initiative
for its duration, less time off for an anticipated sabbatical leave, when she will be replaced by one of the
leading co-applicants at SFU. An executive committee of three will be appointed to oversee the project day-today, chosen to be representative of the research priorities and interests, with members serving on a rotating
basis. An international advisory committee (three international co-investigators including David Throsby, Ann
Markusen and Yudhishthar Raj Isar, three Canadian to be elected and the PI) will set the terms of reference,
guide the setting of research priorities and serve on the peer review panel if open calls are adopted. As the
entire project takes shape, there are also plans to create a stakeholders committee to help facilitate the
contribution of research to policy deliberations. In addition, there may be ad hoc working groups assembled,
coordinated by a full-time executive director by year three. Administration and the technical network support
represent 20% of the proposed budget.
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
10
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
Team Roles
Advisory Members are senior scholars who will provide intellectual leadership, advise on research direction
and participate in annual conferences. They meet twice annually to assess progress reports. Co-Investigators
are senior and junior scholars who will participate in co-design of the project, advise on the development of
common instruments for the survey and life cycle studies, propose and develop related work projects and
supervise students and research associates. Collaborators provide advice and specialist expertise and may
participate in workshops and conferences. Partners consult in all aspects of the design of the study, advise on
implementation and exchange representation at annual conferences. Stakeholders may enlist as MCRI
members, participate in public exchanges and attend conferences. Members may subscribe to listserv and other
informational services. Travel and conference costs account for 20% of expenses.
Student Training
About 30% of the budget is earmarked for students to assist in data gathering, inter-viewing, case studies and
analysis. The student training model evolves out of the CPCC’s experiments with salons and networking but is
indebted to the idea of the University of Waterloo’s Science Shop, which matches students to partners to
answer incoming queries, devoted to making research more accessible. As well, students handle project
responsibilities. The intent is to support 2 postdoctoral candidates/7 years, 2 doctoral students annually and
6 masters students most years across the country, designated by research sector and teamed with coinvestigators. Other commissioned work requiring advanced statistical skills will be considered from time to
time (for example, in secondary analyses of the 2006 census and labour force surveys). The CPCC, together
with participants, will deliver a graduate course in cultural work and cultural policy annually. Field internships
and student travel are planned.
Institutional Support and Budget Rationale
The total estimated costs of this proposal are $2.44 million over seven years. The remaining 18% of the
budget includes direct research expenses such as fair quantum for respondent honoraria, translation and
licensing to adapt survey protocols. Confirmed additional contributions of cash and in-kind funds from our
national partners total $525,000 over seven years or $75,000 per annum, representing 20% of the budget. We
are indebted to the CCA and the CMA for financial help to develop this proposal. SFU additionally confirms
four SFU/RTS (released time stipends for faculty) per annum ($20,000) and $50,000 office space, meeting
rooms, financial accounting services, archival space, web hosting and technical support. Commitment from the
other Canadian home institutions for six RTS/seven years (with total RTS capped at 12% of the budget) will be
secured for the next phase. In full, then, 44% of the proposed SSHRC budget is matched at this stage, before
other parties are approached. In particular, direct costs associated with the survey for Phase I will be sought
(estimated at $200,000 per wave, according to the US and other precedents).
Invitation for Expressions of Interest in Collaboration
There are a limited number of places for new collaborators from Canada to participate in the Second Phase of
this MCRI application design. Scholars, researchers, and policy analysts with expertise in the study of creative
work in Canada are invited to comment on the research design for this MCRI and develop a short (400 word)
description of a research prospectus they would like to present at the organizing conference to be announced
by May 30, 2009, subject to financing. It will be assumed that selected collaborators will be able to provide
matched institutional support for a released time supplement, or equivalent, according to SSHRC regulations if
successful in the next round of the competition. The deadline for proposals is May 15, 2009. Stakeholders and
other potential partners who may wish to develop specialized companion studies to extend or supplement the
main components of this research program are also invited to indicate research priorities. Expressions of
interest should be addressed to:
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
11
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
Dr. Catherine Murray
Principal Investigator, MCRI on Cultural Work and Cultural Infrastructure in the Creative Economy
Centre for Policy Studies in Culture and Communities
Simon Fraser University
515 West Hastings (Office 3551)
Vancouver, BC V6B 5K3
Or email to murraye@sfu.ca
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
12
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
Appendix 1: List of partners confirmed
Canadian Conference of the Arts (CCA)
National Director: Alain Pineau
804 - 130 Albert Street Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5G4
Phone: (613) 238-3561 Fax: (613) 238-4849
Email: info@ccarts.ca
Canadian Museum Association (CMA)
Executive Director: John McCavity
280 Metcalfe Street, Suite 400, Ottawa ON K2P 1R7 Canada
Phone: 613-567-0099 or 1-888-822-2907 Fax: 613-233-5438
General inquiries: info@museums.ca
Canadian Art Museum Directors’ Organization (CAMDO)
Executive Director: Rob Labossiere
280 Metcalfe, #400, Ottawa ON K2P 1R7
Phone: (613) 862-5035
Creative City Network of Canada
Executive Director: Elizabeth Keurvorst
408-402 West Pender Street, Vancouver BC V6B 1T6
Phone: (604) 688-2489
Email: info@creativecity.ca; elizabeth@creativecity.ca
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
13
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
Appendix 2: Possible stakeholders to be approached in Phase II
Canada Council for the Arts
Canadian Commission for UNESCO
Canadian Cultural Human Resources Sectoral Council
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Canadian Policy Research Network’s programs on Cities and Communities, Labour Market and Vulnerable
Workers, Education and Learning and Job Quality Research Areas
Cities with Cultural Planning Offices, or planners with responsibility for culture
Conference Board of Canada—Annual International Symposium on the Creative Economy
Department of Canadian Heritage, Strategic Planning Branch
Department of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism
Department of Industry
Infrastructure Canada
Provincial Ministries with Responsibility for Culture
Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Metropolis Project
Innovation Systems Research Network
Welcoming Communities Initiative
Unions or service organizations (national/provincial) representing various artists and arts areas such as:
ACTRA, Canadian Crafts Federation, Professional Association of Canadian Theatres, Regroupement
Quebecpose de la Danse, Writers Union of Canada
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
14
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
Appendix 3: Biographies of partners and participants in cultural work,
urban infrastructure and the creative economy (Spring 2009)
MCRI Principal Investigator: Catherine Murray (political science)
Catherine Murray is Professor in the School of Communication, Co-Director of the Centre for Policy Studies
on Culture and Communities and an associate of the Masters’ of Public Policy Program at Simon Fraser
University. She came to SFU in 1992 after a position as Vice President, Media and Telecommunications at
Decima Research, Toronto. Dr. Murray is a co-author of “Creative Spaces” (forthcoming: Sage), From
Economy to Ecology: A Policy Framework for Creative Labour (2008), Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Media
in BC (2007), Researching Audiences (2003), “BC’s Place Based Approach: Policy Devolution and Cultural
Self-Determination” in Cultural Policy and Cultural Public Administration in Provincial and Territorial
Governments in Canada (Forthcoming in 2008) and over 60 publications. She has served on nine not-for-profit
Boards in the cultural sector, and was a Member of the Minister of Canadian Heritage’s Expert Advisory
Council on the Instrument for Cultural Diversity. She is currently a member of the International Advisory
Board of the Cultures and Globalization Series for Sage Publishers, which continues UNESCO’s World
Cultures Reports (for further information, see www.sfu.ca/cmns/faculty/murray_c/).
MCRI Partner: The Canadian Conference of the Arts
The Canadian Conference of the Arts (CCA) is the national forum for the arts and cultural community in
Canada. It provides research, analysis and consultations on public policies affecting the arts and the Canadian
cultural institutions and industries. The CCA fosters informed public debate on policy issues and seeks to
advance the cultural rights of Canadians. The CCA represents the collective interests of over 250,000
individuals. Among CCA members and supporters are artists and cultural workers, arts organizations, labour
groups, arts educators, cultural industry organizations and concerned citizens from across Canada.
See www.ccarts.ca/en/about/mission/
MCRI Partner: The Creative City Network of Canada
The CCNC is an organization of people employed by municipalities across Canada working in arts, culture and
heritage policy, planning, development and support. Municipalities are playing an increasing role in the
development of arts, culture and heritage in Canada. The Creative City Network of Canada exists to connect
the people who share this working environment so we can be more effective in cultural development in our
communities. By sharing experience, expertise, information and best practices, members support each other
through dialogue, both in person and online. There are 150 members. The CCNC has had a three-year research
collaboration with the Centre for Policy Studies on Culture and Communities on the state of cultural
infrastructure in Canadian cities. See www.creativecity.ca/about-us/index.html
MCRI Partner: The Canadian Museum Association
The Canadian Museums Association (CMA) is the national organization for the advancement of the Canadian
museum sector, representing Canadian museum professionals both within Canada and internationally. The
CMA works for the recognition, growth, and stability of the sector. It was established by a small group of
people in Quebec City in 1947. There were 161 museums in Canada in 1951; by 1972 there were 838
museums, galleries and related institutions. As the quantity of Canadian museums increased, so did the need
for the CMA.The CMA has nearly 2,000 members, and supports them with training and professional
development programs, conferences, publications, networking opportunities, a body of knowledge, and a
dedicated staff. CMA members include non-profit museums, art galleries, science centres, aquaria, archives,
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
15
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
sport halls-of-fame, artist-run centres, zoos and historic sites across Canada.
See www.museums.ca/en/about_cma/history/
Advisory Committee Member: Yudhishthir Raj Isar (sociology and cultural anthropology)
Jean Monnet Professor of global communication at the American University of Paris, Dr. Isar is co-editor of
the Culture and Globalization Series (Sage), including the Cultural Economy (2008) and the forthcoming
Cultural Expression, Creativity and Innovation (2009). He has been principal planner of the Intergovernmental
Conference on Cultural Policies for Development (Stockholm, 30 March – 2 April 1998) and for the design
and implementation of follow-up to the report of the World Commission on Culture and Development at
UNESCO. He is president of the European Forum for Arts and Heritage and has served as Special Expert
Advisor to the National Task Force set up by the American Association of Museums for its Museums and
Community Initiative. See http://aup.fr/faculty/cv/isar.pdf
Advisory Committee Member: Ann Markusen (economics)
Dr. Markusen has been professor and Director of in the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the
University of Minnesota since 1999. She is principle author of the trilogy of studies The Artistic Dividend: the
hidden contribution of the arts to the regional economy (2003); Artist’s Centres: impacts on careers,
neighbourhoods and economies (2006) and Crossover: How Artists Build Careers across Commercial, Not for
Profit and Community Work (2006). Her theoretical work with Greg Shrock on the distinctive city, divergent
patterns in growth, hierarchy and specialisation is rewriting the framework for arts and culture in urban and
regional planning (forthcoming, Cornell, 2009). See http://www.hhh.umn.edu/people/amarkusen/
Advisory Committee Member David Throsby (economics)
Professor Throsby’s Economics of Culture (London: Cambridge, 2001) has been translated into five languages.
Dr. Throsby teaches economics at Macquarie University in Australia and has been a consultant to a number of
international organizations and NGOs, including the World Bank, UNESCO, OECD UNCTAD and the J. Paul
Getty Trust. He was elected a fellow off the Australian Academy of the Social Sciences in 1988, served as a
member of the UNESCO Experts Committee on the Cultural Diversity Convention, and is a member of the
editorial board for the Journal of Cultural Economics and the International Journal of Cultural Policy. He is
interested in the links between cultural and ecological sustainability. See
http://www.businessandeconomics.mq.edu.au/contact_the_faculty/staff2/alphabetical_list_of_staff/david_thros
by/research
Co-Investigator Caroline Andrew (political science)
Professor Andrew is director of the Centre for Governance at the University of Ottawa and past Dean of the
Faculty of Social Science (1999-2005). She is co-author of Accounting for Culture: thinking through Cultural
Citizenship (2005) and Urban Affairs: Back on the Policy Agenda (2002). She has been a proponent of the
importance of taking cities more seriously in Canadian politics, and has worked on the intersections of gender,
multiculturalism and social cohesion in the urban landscape.
See http://www.socialsciences.uottawa.ca/pol/eng/profdetails.asp?ID=90
Co-Investigator Alison Beale (communication)
Associate Director of the School of Communication at Simon Fraser University since 2009 and Co-Director of
the Centre for Policy Studies on Culture and Communities since 2007, Dr. Beale is best known for her
contribution to feminist analyses of cultural policy (editor of the Special issue on Cultural Policy in Feminist
Media Studies in 2007 and Ghosts in the Machine (1998). Her documentary on Harold Adams Innis (1990)
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
16
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
remains one of the few bilingual resources on Innis in the country, and a remarkable contribution to economic
history in Canada, and lent her an abiding interest in marginal women and men in communication theory.
See http://www.cmns.sfu.ca/people/faculty/beale_a/
Co-Investigator: Guy Bellavance (sociology)
An Associate professor in the Institut national de la récherche scientifique-Urbanisation, culture and société
program, Dr. Bellavance has conducted extensive research on technoculture and multimedia in Montreal,
changing modes of artistic creation, and professional art practices and the social concept of artistic standards.
His research interests traverse empirical production and consumption studies, and he has published numerous
refereed articles in French language journals such as Sociologie et societes, and recherches sociographique.
Guy Bellavance s'intéresse spécialement aux problématiques de main d'œuvre et de consommation dans le
secteur culturel. Ses recherches des dernières années ont principalement porté sur les conditions de vie et de
pratique professionnelle dans le domaine des arts, la participation des nouvelles élites aux activités culturelles,
l’action des pouvoirs publics en matière de culture et l'organisation socio-économique du secteur culturel.
Plusieurs de ses travaux mettent en œuvre une réflexion sur la fonction et le statut des arts et de la culture en
milieu urbain et en contexte métropolitain. Depuis 2002, une partie de ses travaux portent également sur le
travail de création dans le secteur des nouveaux médias numériques. Directeur du Laboratoire Arts et Sociétés,
Terrains et Théories (L’ASTT) et membre de la Chaire Fernand-Dumont sur la culture de l’INRS, il est aussi
l’un des représentants de la communauté universitaire à l’Observatoire de la culture et des communications du
Québec (Institut de la statistique du Québec). http://www.inrs-ucs.uquebec.ca/default.asp?p=bella
Co-Investigator: Stuart Cunningham (communication)
Director of Australia’s first Australian Research Council’s Center for Excellence for Creative Industries and
Innovation at Queensland University of Technology since 2005, Dr. Cunningham has conducted a wide range
of international and comparative empirical studies on cluster mapping, value chain analysis, creative digital
industries, and screen policy. He is best known for his defense of cultural policy in cultural studies (2003), his
interest in dynamic adjustment of regulatory principles in new diasporic cultural forms, and most recently was
the guest editor of The Cultural Economy, part of the culture and globalization series (Sage 2008). His recent
work on embedded cultural workers—that is artists who work outside of conventional arts and cultural
sectors—goes to the heart of the process of innovation, productivity and understanding “precarious labour” in
the creative economy. See http://www.creativeindustries.qut.edu.au/about_us/staffprofile/staffDetail.jsp?id=00001704
Co-Investigator: Lon Dubinsky (communication)
Professor Dubinsky is an adjunct professor at Concordia University and advisor to the Canadian Museum
Association. He has worked on a number of major collaborative projects including the mapping of the quality
of life and culture of Small cities CURA (2006), Canadians and their Past (2006) and The Learning Museum
(1999). He has published widely in Muse and the Museum Management and Curatorship journals, and
specializes in understanding how institutions, artists and citizens combine to create a culture of participation in
small communities. See http://www.youthsource.ab.ca/hyl/teacher_resources/LTH_workshop/dubinsky.htm
Co-Investigator: Nancy Duxbury (communication)
Dr. Duxbury is an adjunct professor in the School of Communication at Simon Fraser University and past
Executive Director of the Project on the State of Cultural Infrastructure in Canada conducted through the
Centre for Policy Studies on Culture and Communities. She has worked as a municipal cultural planning
analyst for the City of Vancouver for eight years, was editor of the Canadian Journal of Communication for
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
17
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
ten years, and served as director of research at the Creative City Network of Canada between 2003 and 2006.
She has published extensively on the topic of community indicator projects, municipal diversity initiatives and
most recently was the lead editor of Under Construction: The State of Cultural Infrastructure in Canada
(Infrastructure Canada, 2008). See www.cultureandcommunities.ca/. She is best known for her ability to
develop networks and adapt and disseminate information among researchers with affinity for specific
knowledge clusters.
Co-Investigator: Graeme Evans (urban planning)
Canada does not have a direct equivalent to Dr. Evans’ Cities Institute at the London Metropolitan University,
and it is an absence that is sorely missed. A full professor since 2003, Graeme Evans’ professional training
crosses arts management and urban planning. He has published extensively on cultural mapping and
sustainable communities, branding of the cultural city, and compared cultural industry quarters around the
world. He has two articles on creative spaces and the art of urban living forthcoming in Vernacular Creativity
and Urban Studies in 2009. Professor Evans is due to complete the sustainable cities project in Canada with a
visit to Montreal in the Spring of 2009. His book on Culture and Sustainability is forthcoming in 2010.
See http://www.citiesinstitute.org/staff/graeme-evans.cfm
Co-Investigator: Paula Hamilton (history)
An Associate Professor of the Australian Centre for Public History at the University of Technology, Sydney,
Dr. Hamilton has co-authored Oral History and Public Memories (2008), Memory and History in 20th century
Australia (2004) and is a collaborator on the international people and their pasts project. She has founded the
Public History Review, and has been a member of the Australian Journal of History and Culture since 2003.
Dr. Hamilton’s forthcoming book History at the Crossroads: Australians and their Past reports on the first
ARC funded linkage project which conducted a national survey on attitudes towards the past in collaboration
with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Tranby Aboriginal College, the Powerhouse Museum and the
History Teachers’ Association.
Co-Investigator: John Hannigan (sociology)
A professor at the University of Toronto at Scarborough, John Hannigan specializes in urban sociology culture
and urban development and creative economy theory. His text Environmental Sociology (Routledge, 2006) is
in its second edition, and his seminal Fantasy City: Pleasure and Profit in the Postmodern City (1998) was the
first Canadian intervention into the global cities debate. He has been a member of the national advisory group
on the CPCC’s study on the state of Canadian cultural infrastructure, and has been a member of the editorial
board of the Sociology Compass, and guest editor of a themed issue of the International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research on the entertainment economy and urban place-building.
See http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~socsci/faculty/hannigan/index.html
Co-Investigator: David Hesmondhalgh (media studies)
Dr. Hesmondalgh is professor at Leeds Metropolitan University and director of the Center for Media Industries
Research (CuMirc). He has led a major ESRC team studying creative work in the cultural industries, and his
book The Cultural Industries is in the second edition with Sage. He has more than five other co-edited books,
and extensive articles exploring the structural transformation of the music industries, production of celebrity,
and critical theory on music and youth culture. A forthcoming monograph with Sarah Baker on creative work
in music TV and magazine journalism will advance understanding of the changing nature of creative work.
Dr. Hesmondalgh is on the International Advisory boards of Popular Music, European Journal of Cultural
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
18
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
Studies, and the Chinese Journal of Communication, among others.
See http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/details.cfm?id=96
Co-Investigator: Tom Hutton (geography)
Dr. Hutton’s seminal “New Economy of the Inner City” in Cities:21 ranked the highest of its year among
Elsevier articles for web-access. A professor of the School of Community and Regional Planning at the
University of British Columbia, Dr. Hutton has co authored Service Industries and Asia-Pacific Cities: New
Development Trajectories (2005) and The New Economy of the Inner City: Restructuring, Regeneration and
Dislocation in the 21st Century Metropolis (2008). He is a member of the MCRI on Multilevel Policy in
Canada (SSHRC-sponsored) and worked on the social dynamics of industrial creation and innovation with the
ISRN (Innovation Studies Research Network). See http://www.scarp.ubc.ca/faculty%20profiles/hutton.htm
Co-Investigator: M. Sharon Jeannotte (public administration)
Adjunct professor and senior fellow at the Centre for Governance at the University of Ottawa since 2007, Ms.
Jeannotte has been a senior advisor to the Canadian Cultural Observatory and Manager of international
comparative research in the strategic research and analysis directorate of the Department of Canadian Heritage.
She has had a varied career spanning over 25 years in the federal public service. Ms. Jeannotte has co-edited
Accounting for Culture (2005) and has published on social capital, cultural citizenship, and indicators of social
cohesion, quality of life and transgenerational approaches to understanding culture in Canada. She is a member
of the pan-Canadian research consortium on provincial cultural policy, and advisor to the CPCC’s project on
the state of cultural infrastructure.
See http://www.socialsciences.uottawa.ca/governance/eng/profdetails.asp?id=424
Co-Investigator: Jan Marontate (sociology)
Jan Marontate is associate professor of communication at Simon Fraser University and past CRC II chair of
Technology and Culture at Acadia University. Her interest in the sociology of the arts and technology spans
visual arts, music, and museology. She has led SSHRC-funded projects on contested spaces, cultural networks
and sustainable communities, digital technologies, musical diversity and new entrepreneurial models, and has
done extensive research into association, networks and working lives in the Atlantic region. She has completed
guest editorships of Sociology and Society, Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society, and a foundational
piece on museums and the constitution of collective memory in The Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of
Culture. Dr. Marontate serves on the editorial boards of four journals in North America and Europe. Her
conceptualization of “singularities and the sociological imagination”(2001) contributes to the understanding
how innovators gain recognition instead of dismissal as anomalies, and her contribution to the field on rural
cultural production is central to the cultural economy policies of the Maritime provinces.
See http://www.cmns.sfu.ca/people/faculty/marontate_j/
Co-Investigator: Del Muise (social history)
Del Muise is Professor of History at Carleton University, a member of the Canadian and Their Pasts CURA,
and editor of The Atlantic Provinces in Confederation (1993), which won the prize in regional history from the
Canadian Historical Foundation. Dr. Muise has been a frequent contributor to Acadiensis, most recently on
“Tartan Tourism, Industrial Development and the Promise of Progress for Cape Breton” and contributor to
Labour and Working Class History in Atlantic Canada: A Reader. He has developed the masters program in
Public History at Carleton University. His current focus is the politics of public memory in connection with the
CBC documentary series Canada: A People's History. He is working on a proposal for a comparative
examination of the impact of federalism on museum reflections of national identity. He has a continuing
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
19
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
interest in heritage issues within Canada, particularly as related to museum policy over the past two decades,
but also in the broader area of "Uses of the Past" for political and other objectives. He has collaborated with
various NFB producers and directors on various media products in Canadian history and has an active interest
in web-based dissemination projects. See http://http-server.carleton.ca/~dmuise/about_prof_muise.html
Co-Investigator: Ross Nelson (geography)
Director of the Faculty of Arts at one of Canada’s newest universities, Thompson Rivers University, Dr.
Nelson’s research areas overlap with urban and regional studies, environmental studies, urban, rural and
regional economics and social/cultural geography. He was a member of the SSHRC-funded CURA on the
cultural future of small cities, has collaborated with the federal government on a community mapping project,
and was a central contributor to Becoming British Columbia: a Demographic History (2008). His interest in
peripheral communities spans Northern BC, Canada, Europe, and the Roma populations of the Slovak
Republic. His theoretical work is in the Innisian tradition, exploring staples economies, patterns of migration
and economic structure of BC. No stranger to interdisciplinary collaboration, Dr. Nelson has also pioneered an
international double degree program in geography and genomics.
Co-Investigator: Kate Oakley (policy studies)
Kate Oakley is a writer and policy analyst, specializing in the cultural industries, cultural policy and regional
development. She is a Visiting Professor at the Department of Cultural Policy and Management, City
University, and at the University of the Arts in London. Her recent publications in this field include London’s
Creative Economy: An Accidental Success? (2007), co-written with John Knell and published by the Work
Foundation, and Better Than Working For a Living? (2007), a study of labour markets in festivals and events,
published by City University. She has just completed a study of the changing working lives of fine arts
graduates entitled, The Art of Innovation, published by the National Endowment for Science, Technology and
the Arts (NESTA) in London, and frequently consults for BOP and Demos. Ms. Oakley’s current research
interests concern labour in the cultural industries, urban policy and art education.
See http://www.city.ac.uk/cpm/staff/koakley.html
Co-Investigator: Will Straw (communication)
Professor in the Art History and Communication Studies Department at McGill University, Dr. Straw has
completed a range of studies for the SSHRC, as co-applicant in networks including the Digital Commons,
Locating Public Space in New Urban Networks, the Culture of Cities and the Weight of the Past in
Contemporary Cultural Industries. He has written “Pathways of Cultural Movement” in his co-edited volume
Accounting for Culture, “Systems of Articulation, Logics of Change, Scenes and Communities in Popular
Music,” in Popular Music: Critical Concepts in Media and Cultural Studies edited by Simon Frith (2004), and
extensive analyses of Canada’s music industries. His best known work is the co-edited Cambridge Companion
to Rock and Pop, and Dr. Straw was a founding editor of Topia: A Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies. He
has curated an exhibition at the Andrew Roth Gallery in New York on Cyanide and Sin, and published a book
which has gained local and national attention. His new book, Circulation and the City, is forthcoming in 2009.
He is an Erasmus Mundus Scholar in the European MA program in the Spring of 2009.
See http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/ahcs/html/Straw.html
Co-Investigator: Paul Théberge (communication)
Professor Théberge is a CRC Chair in the Technological Mediations of Culture and professor in the Institute
for Comparative Studies in Literature, Art and Culture and the School for Studies in Art and Culture (music) at
Carleton University. Dr. Théberge’s work will examine the impact these developments are having on the music
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
20
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
industry, particularly in terms of legal, technical, economical and social concerns. A musician and composer
himself, Dr. Théberge’s previous studies have examined musicians, consumers and the music industry as a
whole. His current research looks at the Internet and how it promotes and distributes music, and what this
means for consumers and artists. He is also a co-investigator in a Major Collaborative Research Initiative,
headed by Dr. William Coleman of McMaster University, on “Globalization and Autonomy.” Within this
multi-disciplinary project, Dr. Théberge is researching the role of music in global culture. A recent work on
“technology, creative practice and copyright” was published in Music and Copyright edited by Frith and
Marshall (2004). His chapter, “Plugged In,” in the Cambridge Companion to Rock and Pop has been translated
into five languages, and Dr. Théberge continues his studies of Glenn Gould.
See http://www.carleton.ca/cu/research/chairs/canada_chairs/theberge.html
Co-Investigator: Owen Underhill (music composition)
Composer, conductor, teacher, flutist, Professor Underhill is professor of music in the School for
Contemporary Arts at Simon Fraser University and past winner of the Western Canadian Music Award for
Outstanding Classical Composition (2007) and Juno nominee for Best Classical composition (2001). He is a
frequent co-writer with Michael Bushnell for Orpheus (2002) for the flute, clarinet, horn, trombone, harp,
percussion and string quartet, The Faerie Queen Suite (2002) chamber orchestra, and Tristan and Isolde
(2002). The World of Light (2007) and was commissioned by the Vancouver Symphony for solo tenor and full
orchestra for World of Light (2007). Professor Underhill has been founder and artistic co-director of the
Turning Point ensemble, since 2001, and artistic director of Vancouver New Music (1987-2000) where he
helped in the premiere of 125 new works. A past director of the School for Contemporary Arts at SFU,
Professor Underhill is special advisor of the move to the Woodward’s building in the downtown eastside of
Vancouver, and collaborating with an artist led centre in community arts development. His research interest is
in the emergence of new artistic practices and young musical artists in the creative economy.
See http://www.owenunderhill.ca/.
Collaborator: Terry Cheney (English)
A member of the Statistics Canada Advisory Committee for the cultural statistics program, Mr. Cheney has
been a consultant in socio-economic statistics and writer of reports for the Cultural Human Resources Council.
He has advised the Federal–Provincial Ministers of Culture on the Economic Dimensions of the Cultural
Sector, and published on managing the cultural labour force in the 21st century in the International Journal of
Arts Management (1998). He has also advised on the development of a manual on the use of statistics by the
Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Collaborator: Monica Gattinger (public policy)
Professor Gattinger is associate professor in the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa, and
associate of the Centre for Governance, after working as a consultant to Telus Corporation and analyst in the
Industry Canada policy services branch. She won the Graduate Student Canadian Policy Research Award in
2000 and is a co-applicant in an international research collaboration on subnational cultural policy models, and
frequent researcher on multilevel governance. She has co-authored Power Switch: Energy Regulatory
Governance in the 21st Century (2003) and Accounting for Culture (2005). An article on comparative cultural
policy analysis is forthcoming in the Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society (Winter 2009). Dr.
Gattinger is past Co-ordinator of the Public Administration Program (2005-2007) and special adviser on
research to the Canadian Conference of the Arts.
See http://www.socialsciences.uottawa.ca/pol/eng/profdetails.asp?id=104
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
21
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
Appendix 4: List of references
Aigninger, Karl. “Towards a New European Model of a Reformed Welfare State: An Alternative to the United
States Model.” United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, 2002,
http://www.unece.org/ead/pub/051/051c7.pdf (accessed January 13, 2009).
Andrew, C. P., and A. Lapierre Armstrong. World Class Cities: Can Canada Play? Ottawa: Les Presses de
l’Université d’Ottawa, 1999.
Andrew, C. “Municipal Restructuring, Urban Services and the Potential for the Creation of Transformative
Political Spaces.” In Changing Canada: Political Economy as Transformation, edited by W. Clement
and L. Vosko, 311-334. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, 2003.
Andrew, C., K. Graham, and Phillips S., eds. Urban Affairs: Back on the Policy Agenda. Montreal: McGillQueen’s, 2002.
Anheier, Helmut K., and Anver Ben-Ner, eds. The Study of Non Profit Enterprise: Theories and Approaches.
New York: Springer, 2003.
Armitage, Andrew. Social Welfare in Canada. London: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Arthurs, Harry W. “Fairness at Work. Federal Labour Standards for the 21st Century. Report of the Federal
Labour Standards Review.” Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, 2006,
http://www.nupge.ca/publications/arthurs_report_canada_labour_code_30oc06.pdf (accessed
November 25, 2008).
Baumol, William J. and William G. Bown. Performing Arts, the Economic Dilemma: A Study of Problems
Common to Theatre, Opera, and Dance. New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1966.
Beale, Alison and Annette van den Bosch, eds. Ghosts in the Machine: Women and Cultural Policy in Canada
and Australia. Toronto: Garamond, 1998.
Beck, Ulrich. The Brave New World of Work. Translated by Patrick Camiller. Cambridge: Polity, 2000.
Blau, Judith. The Shape of Culture. London: Cambridge, 1989.
Boltanski, Luc and Eve Chiapello. Eve. The Spirit of Capitalism. Translated by Gregory Elliot. London: Verso,
2005.
Bradford, Neil. Place-Based Public Policy: Towards a New Urban and Community Agenda for Canada.
Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks, 2005.
Bradford, Neil. “Placing Social Policy? Reflections on Canada’s New Deal for Cities and Communities.”
Canadian Journal of Urban Research 16, no. 2 (2007): 1-26.
Brodie, Janine and Marjorie Griffin Cohen, eds. Remapping Gender in the New Global Order. London; New
York: Routledge, 2007.
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
22
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
Calabrese A. and J. C. Burgelman, eds. Communication, Citizenship, and Social Policy: Rethinking the Limits
of the Welfare State. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999.
Canadian Art. Art Schools: Special Issue 25, no. 4, Winter 2008.
Castells, Manuel and Martin Ince. Conversations with Manuel Castells. London: Polity, 2003.
Caves, Richard E. Creative Industries: Contracts Between Arts and Commerce. Cambridge; London: Harvard
University Press, 2000.
Chang, Elaine, Andrea Lalonde, Chris Lloyd, Steve Loft, Jonathan Middleton, Daniel Roy and Haema
Sivanesan. Decentre: Concerning Artist-Run Culture/A Propos de Centres d'Artistes. Toronto: YYZ
Books, 2008.
Christopherson, Susan. “The Divergent Worlds of New Media: How Policy Shapes Work in the Creative
Economy.” Review of Policy Research 21, no. 4 (2004): 543-558.
Catherine C. Cole and Associates. Portrait of Canadian Public Art Galleries and Museums.
CAMDO/l’ODMAC with funding provided by the Department of Canadian Heritage through CAHSP
and the membership of CAMDO, May 2005.
Cranford, Cynthia, Judy Fudge, Eric Tucker and Leah Vosko. Self-employed Workers Organize: Law, Policy,
and Unions. Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2005.
Crossick, Geoffrey. “Knowledge Transfer Without Widgets. The Challenge of the Creative Economy: A
Lecture to the Royal Society of Arts in Leeds.” Goldsmith College, University of London, 2006,
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/warden/creative-economy.pdf (accessed January 13, 2009).
Crossley, Nick. “Pretty Connected: The Social Network of the Early UK Punk Movement.” Theory, Culture &
Society 25, no. 6 (2008): 89-116.
Curid, Elizabeth. The Warhol Economy: How Fashion, Art and Music Drive New York City. New York:
Princeton University Press, 2007.
Day, Wan-Wen. “Commodification of Creativity: Reskilling Computer Animation Labor in Taiwan.” In
Knowledge Workers in the Information Society, edited by Catherine McKercher and Vincent Mosco,
85-101. Toronto: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.
Dempster, Douglas. “American Medicis: The Training and Patronage of Professional Artists in American
Universities.” Presented to the 104th National American Assembly: “Creative Campus”, March 11-13,
2004.
Deuze, Mark. Media Work. Malden, MA: Polity, 2007.
Dimaggio, Paul. “Nonprofit Organizations and the Intersectoral Division of Labour in the Arts.” In The
Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook, edited by Walter W. Powell and Richard Steinberg, 432462. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006.
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
23
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
—. “Cultural Entrepreneurship in Nineteenth-Century Boston Part I: The Creation of an Organizational Base
for High Culture in America.” Media, Culture and Society 4, no. 1 (1982): 33-50.
—. “Cultural Entrepreneurship in Nineteenth-Century Boston, Part II: The Classification and Framing of
American Art.” Media, Culture and Society 4, no. 4 (1982): 303-322.
Donald, Betsy and Douglas Morrow. “Competing for Talent: Implications for Social and Cultural Policy in
Canadian City Regions. A Report Prepared for the Strategic Research and Analysis Directorate,
Department of Canadian Heritage.” Arts Research Monitor, 2003,
http://www.artsresearchmonitor.com/article_details.php?artUID=50073 (accessed January 14, 2009).
Donegan, Mary, Joshua Drucker, Harvey Goldstein, and Emil Melizia. “Which Indicators Explain
Metropolitan Performance Best? Traditional or Creative Class.” Journal of the American Planning
Association 74, no. 2, (2008): 180-95.
Drake, Graham. “This Place Gives Me Space: Place and Creativity in the Creative Industries.” Geoforum 34
(2003): 511-524.
Druick, Zoe. Projecting Canada: Government Policy and Documentary Film at the National Film Board of
Canada. Montreal: McGill-Queens’ Press, 2007.
Dubinsky, Lon. “The Culture of Participation.” In The Small Cities Book: On the Cultural Future of Small
Cities, edited by W.F. Garrett-Petts, 65-84. Vancouver: New Star Books, 2005.
Duxbury, Nancy. “Under Construction: The State of Cultural Infrastructure in Canada. Report to Infrastructure
Canada.” SFU Centre for Policy Studies on Culture and Communities, 2008,
http://www.cultureandcommunities.ca/ (accessed January 13, 2009).
Duxbury, Nancy, and Catherine Murray. “Creative Spaces.” In Cultural expression, Creativity and Innovation,
edited by Yudhushthir Raj Isar and Helmut Anheier. Thousand Oaks: Sage, forthcoming 2009.
Evans, Graeme. “Creative Spaces, Tourism and the City.” In Tourism, Creativity and Development, edited by
G. Richards and J. Wilson, 57-72. London: Routledge, 2007.
Finnegan, Ruth. The Hidden Musicians: Music-Making in an English Town. London: Cambridge University
Press, 1989.
Flew, Terry. New Media. An Introduction. South Melbourne (Vic.): Oxford University, 2002.
Florida, Richard. The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and
Everyday Life. New York: Basic Book, 2002.
—. Cities and the Creative Class. London: Routledge, 2006.
—. Who’s Your City: Why the Place You Choose to Live is the Most Important Decision You Will Ever Make.
New York: Basic Books; Random House Canada, 2008.
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
24
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
Fudge, J., and Leah Vosko. “Gender Paradoxes and the Rise of Contingent Work: Towards a Transformative
Political Economy of the Labor Market.” In Changing Canada: Political Economy as Transformation,
edited by Wallace Clement and Leah Vosko, 183-212. Toronto: McGill-Queen's Press, 2003.
Gattinger, Monica. “Multilevel Governance and Cultural Infrastructure: A Review of Canadian and
International Experiences.” In Under Construction: The State of Cultural Infrastructure in Canada,
edited by Nancy Duxbury. SFU Centre for Policy Studies on Culture and Communities, 2008,
http://www.cultureandcommunities.ca (accessed January 11, 2009).
Gattinger, Monica and Diane St. Pierrre, eds. Cultural Policy and Cultural Public Administration in Provincial
and Territorial Governments in Canada. Toronto: Institute of Public Administration of Canada,
forthcoming 2009.
Gertler, Meric. S. “Creative Cities. What are They for, How Do They Work and How Do We Build Them?”,
Canadian Policy Research Networks, 2001, http://www.cprn.org/doc.cfm?doc=1083&l=en (accessed
January 8, 2009).
Giddens, Anthony. “Globalization and the European Social Model.” In Conflicts and Tensions, edited by
Helmut Anheier and Ydihishthir Raj Isar, 151-161. Los Angeles: Sage, 2007.
Gindin, S. and Jim Stanford. “Canadian Labour and the Political Economy of Transformation.” In Changing
Canada: Political Economy as Transformation, edited by Wallace Clement and Leah Vosko, 422-442.
Toronto: McGill-Queen’s Press, 2003.
Gollmitzer, Mirjam and Catherine Murray. “From Economy to Ecology: A Policy Framework for Creative
Labor.” A Report Prepared for the Canadian Conference of the Arts. SFU Centre for Policy Studies on
Culture and Communities, 2008, http://www.cultureandcommunities.ca/ (accessed January 13, 2009).
Gordon, Ian and Ivan Turok. “How Urban Labour Markets Matter.” In Changing Cities: Rethinking Urban
Competitiveness, Cohesion and Governance, edited by Nick Buck, Ian Gordon, Alan Harding and
Ivan Turok, 242-264. London: Palgrave, 2005.
Hall, Peter. ”Creative Cities and Economic Development.” Urban Studies 37, no. 4 (2000): 639-649.
Hankivsky, Olena. Social Policy and the Ethic of Care. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2004.
Hannigan, John. “From Fantasy City to Creative City.” In Tourism, Creativity and Development, edited by G.
Richards and J. Wilson, 48-72. London: Routledge, 2007.
Harder, L. “Whither the Social Citizen.” In Reinventing Canada: Politics of the 21st Century, edited by Janine
Brodie and Linda Trimble, 175-188. Toronto: Prentice-Hall, 2003.
Hartley, J. “Creative Industries.” In Creative Industries, edited by J. Hartley, 1-44. London: Blackwell, 2005
Harvey, David and Thomas, Nicola. “Negotiating the Cultural Politics and Poetics of Identity Within the
Creative Industries of South West Britain.” Department of Geography, Exeter University, 2008,
http://sogaer.exter.ac.uk/geography/creativeindustries.shtml/ (accessed December 4, 2008).
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
25
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
Haunschild, Axel. “Employment Systems and the Creative Industries: A Perspective for Studying ‘New’
Forms of Work and Organization.” Royal Holloway, University of London, 2005,
http://www.rhul.ac.uk/Management/News-andEvents/seminars/Axel_Haunschild_16March2005a.ppt#3 (accessed January 13, 2009).
Hesmondalgh, David and S. Baker. “Creative Work and Emotional Labour in the Television Industry.”
Theory, Culture and Society 25, no. 7-8 (2008): 97-118.
Hesmondhalgh, David. The Cultural Industries. Los Angeles; London: Sage, 2007.
Hesmondalgh, David. “Media and Cultural Policy as Public Policy.” International Journal of Cultural Policy
11, no. 1 (2005): 95-109.
Higgs, Peter, Stuart Cunningham and Hassan Bakshi. “Beyond the Creative Industries: Mapping the Creative
Economy in the United Kingdom.” ARC Centre of Excellence of Creative Industries and Innovation,
Queensland University of Technology, 2008, http://cci.edu.au/publications/beyond-creativeindustries-mapping-creative-economy-united-kingdom-0 (accessed January 13, 2009).
Higgs, Peter and Stuart Cunningham. “Embedded Creatives: Revealing the Extent and Contribution of
Creative Professionals Working Throughout the Economy.” Paper presented to the International
Forum on the Creative Economy. Lac Leamy, Quebec. March 17-18, 2008 .
Hill Strategies Research Inc. “Factors in Canadians’ Cultural Activities: Are the Arts Elitist?”,
http://www.hillstrategies.com/resources_details.php?resUID=1000256&lang=0 (accessed January 5,
2009).
Howkins, John. The Creative Economy. London: Oxford, 2001.
Howlett, Michael and M. Ramesh. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Don Mills
(Ont.): Oxford, 2003.
Hutton, T.A. The New Economy of the Inner City: Regeneration and Dislocation in the 21st Century
Metropolis. London: Routledge, 2008.
Hutton, T.A. “Cultural Production in the Transnational City: A Study of New Media in Vancouver.” In
Creativity, Innovation and the Cultural Economy, edited by P. Jeffcutt and A. C. Pratt. London; New
York: Routledge, forthcoming 2009.
Isar, Yudhushthir Raj and Helmut K. Anheier. Cultures and Globalization: The Cultural Economy. Thousand
Oaks: Sage, 2008.
Jackson, M. F. Kabwasa-Green, D. Swenson, J. Herr, K. Ferryman, C. Atlas, E. Wallner, and C. Rosenstein.
“Investing in Creativity: A Study of the Support Structure for U.S. Artists.” The Urban Institute, 2006,
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411311_investing_in_creativity.pdf (accessed January 11, 2009).
Jeannotte, M. Sharon. “Shared Spaces: Social and Economic Returns on Investment in cultural infrastructure.”
In Under Construction: the State of Cultural Infrastructure in Canada, edited by Nancy Duxbury.
SFU Centre for Policy Studies on Culture and Communities, 2008, www.cultureandcommunities.ca/
(accessed January 8, 2009).
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
26
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
Landry, Charles. The Creative City and the Art of City-Making. London: Comedia, 2005.
Landry, Charles. The Creative City. London: Comedia, 2000.
Layton, Robyn. Creative Labour Contracting. Presentation to the Industrial Relations Society of South
Australia, 2008, www.irssa.asn.au/ (accessed January 8, 2009).
Leadbetter, Charles. Living on Thin Air. London: Penguin, 2000.
Lloyd, Richard. Neo-Bohemia: Art and Commerce in the Postindustrial City. London: Routledge, 2006.
Markusen, Ann, Sam Gilmore, A. Johnson, T. Levi, and A. Martinez. “Crossover: How Artists Build Careers
Across Commercial Nonprofit and Community Work.” William and Flora Hewlet Work Foundation.
Humphreys Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, 2006,
http://www.hhh.umn.edu/projects/prie/aei_pubs.html (accessed January 13, 2009).
Markusen, Ann and Johnson, A et al. “Artistic Centres: Evolution and Impact on Careers, Neighbourhoods and
Economies.” Project on the Regional and Industrial Economies. Humphreys Institute of Public
Affairs, University of Minnesota, 2006, http://www.hhh.umn.edu/projects/prie/artists_centers.html
(accessed January 8, 2009).
Markusen, Ann. “Urban Development and the Politics of a Creative Class: Evidence from a Study of Artists.”
Environment and Planning A 38, no.10 (2006): 1921-1940.
Marontate, Jan and Catherine Murray. “Neoliberalism in Sub-National Cultural Policy Narratives?
Perspectives from Two Coasts.” Paper presented to the CPSA/ACCUTE/CCA Joint Session on
“Neoliberalism and Provincial Cultural Industries Development, Congress of the Humanities and
Social Sciences”, Vancouver, British Columbia, June 4, 2008.
McCann, Eugene. “Livable City/Unequal City: The Politics of Policy-Making in a Creative Boomtown.”
Interventions Economiques, no. 37 (January 2008),
http://www.sfu.ca/~emccann/Interventions%20Economiques.pdf (accessed January 8, 2009).
McKeen, W and A. Porter. “Politics and Transformation: Welfare State Restructuring in Canada.” In Changing
Canada: Political Economy as Transformation, edited by Wallace Clement and Leah Vosko, 109-134.
Toronto: McGill-Queen's Press, 2003.
McKercher, Catherine and Vincent Mosco. “Introduction: Theorizing Knowledge Labour and the Information
Society.” In Knowledge Workers in the Information Society, edited by Catherine McKercher and
Vincent Mosco, vii-xxiv. Toronto: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.
McRobbie, Angela. “Clubs to Companies.” In Creative Industries, edited by John Hartley, 375-391. Malden
(MA.): Blackwell, 2005.
Menger, Pierre-Michel. Le Travail Créateur. Paris: Hautes Etudes Gallimard Le Seuil, forthcoming 2009.
Menger, Pierre-Michel. Portrait de l’Artiste en Travailleur: Métamorphoses du Capitalisme. Paris: La
République des Idées, 2002.
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
27
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
Miller, Toby, Nitlin Govil, John McMurria, Richard Maxwell, and Ting Wang. Global Hollywood 2. London:
British Film Institute, 2005.
Molotoch, H. “LA as a Design Product: How Art Works in the Regional Economy.” In The City: Los Angeles
and Urban Theory at the End of the Twentieth Century, edited by A.J. Scott and E.W. Soja, 225-275.
Berkeley: U of California Press, 1996.
Mommaas, Hans. “Cultural Clusters and the Post-Industrial City: Towards the Remapping of Urban Cultural
Policy.” Urban Studies 41, no. 3 (2004): 507-532.
Mosco, Vincent and Catherine McKercher. The Laboring of Communication: Will Knowledge Workers of the
World Unite? Lanham: Lexington Books, 2008.
Mosco, Vincent and Andrew Stevens. “Outsourcing Knowledge Work: Labor Responds to the New
International Division of Labor”. In Knowledge Workers in the Information Society, edited by
Catherine McKercher and Vincent Mosoc, 147-163. Toronto: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.
Murray, Catherine. “Cultural Diversity and Civil Society in Canada.” A Briefing Paper Prepared as a Part of a
North American Consultation for the Second UNESCO World Cultural Diversity Report, May 2006.
Murray, Catherine, Alison Beale and Nini Baird. “British Columbia’s Place-Based Approach: Policy
Devolution and Cultural Self-Determination.” In Cultural Policy and Cultural Public Administration
in Provincial and Territorial Governments in Canada, edited by Monica Gattinger and Diane St.
Pierre. Institute of Public Administration in Canada. Toronto: U of T Press, forthcoming 2009.
Oakely, Kate, et al. “The Art of Innovation: How Fine Arts Graduates Contribute to Innovation.” National
Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, 2008, http://www.nesta.org.uk/the-art-ofinnovation/ (accessed January 8, 2009).
O’Connor, Justin and Gu Xin. “A New Modernity? The Arrival of ‘Creative Industries’ in China.”
International Journal of Cultural Studies 9, no. 3 (2006): 271-283.
Pal, Leslie A. Beyond Policy Analysis. Scarborough: Thomson & Nelson, 2006.
Peck, Jamie. “Struggling with the Creative Class. “ International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29,
no. 4 (2005): 740-70.
Phillips, Susan D. “Policy Analysis and the Voluntary Sector. Evolving Policy Styles.” In Policy Analysis in
Canada: State of the Art, edited by L. Dobuzinskis, M. Howlett & D. Laycock, 497-522. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 2007.
Pilati, Thomas and Diane-Gabrielle Tremblay. “Cite Creative et District Culturel: Une Analyse des Theses en
Presences.” Geographie, Economie, Societie, 9 (2007): 381-401.
Pratt, Andy C. “Creative Cities.” Urban design 106, no. 35 (2008).
Pratt, Andy C., Tim Hall, Phil Hubbard, and John Rennie Short. Innovation and Creativity. London: Sage,
2008.
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
28
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
Provonost, Gilles. “Statistics in the Wake of Challenges Posed by Cultural Diversity in a Global Context: A
Review of Surveys on Cultural Participation.” Institut de la Statistique Quebec, International
Symposium on Culture Statistics, 2002,
www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/observatoire/symposium2002/Pronovost_an.pdf (accessed January 13, 2009).
Reitz, Jeffrey G. and R. Banerjee. “Racial Inequality, Social Cohesion and Policy Issues in Canada.” In
Belonging? Diversity, Recognition and Shared Citizenship in Canada, edited by Keith Banting,
Thomas J. Courchene and F. Leslie Seidle, 489-546. Montreal: Institute of Research on Public Policy,
2007.
Robinson, Alan G. and Dean M. Schroeder. Ideas are Free: How the Idea Revolution is Liberating People and
Transforming Organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2006.
Robinson, Jennifer. Ordinary Cities: Between Modernity and Development. London: Routledge, 2006.
Roodhouse, S. and Mokre O.M. “The MuseumsQuartier Vienna. An Austrian Cultural Experiment.”
International Heritage Studies 10 (2004), 193-207.
Rosenstein, Carole. “How Cultural Heritage Organizations Serve Communities.” The Urban Institute, 2006,
http://www.urban.org/publications/311376.html (accessed January 14, 2009).
Rosenstein, Carole E. “Cultural Heritage Organizations: Nonprofits That Support Traditional, Ethnic, Folk and
Noncommercial Culture.” The Urban Institute, 2006, http://www.urban.org/publications/411286.html
(accessed January 14, 2009).
Rossiter, Ned. “Creative Labour and the Role of Intellectual Property.” Fibreculture: Internet theory &
Criticism & Research 1 (2003), http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue1/issue1_rossiter.html (accessed
January 8, 2009).
Sacco, Pier Luigi, Bob Williams and Elvy del Bianco. The Power of the Arts in Vancouver: Creating a Great
City. Vancouver: VanCity. January 2007.
Sassen, Saskia. Cities in a World Economy. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press, 2005.
Schafer, Paul D. “The Arts and Cities.” SFU Centre for Policy Studies on Culture and Communities,
http://www.cultureandcommunities.ca/downloads/Paul-Schaefer-arts+cities.pdf (accessed January 11,
2009).
Schlesinger, Philip. “Creativity: From Discourse to Doctrine?” Screen 48, no. 3 (2007): 377-387.
Scott, Allen J. “Creative Cities: Conceptual Issues and Policy Questions.” Journal of Urban Affairs 28, no. 1
(2006): 1-17.
Sennett, Richard. The Culture of New Capitalism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006.
Shaw, Phyllida. “Researching Artists’ Working Lives.” Arts Research Digest 30, no. 1 (2004),
http://www.caledoninst.org/Publications/PDF/566ENG%2Epdf (accessed January 13, 2009)
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
29
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
Slack, Enid, Larry S. Bourne, and Heath Priston. “Large Cities Under Stress: Challenges and Opportunities.”
A Report Prepared for the External Advisory on Cities and Communities, University of Toronto,
2006, www.utoronto.ca/mcis/imfg/pdf/Big%20cities%20report%20-%20March%203%202006.pdf
(accessed January 13, 2009).
Smith, Dorothy. Institutional Ethnography: A Sociology for the People. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2005.
Smith, R. and K. Warfield. “The Creative City: A Matter of Values.” In Location-Based Awareness: Research
on Local Systems of Innovation in the Greater Vancouver Region, edited by Florence Chee, 94-114.
Centre for Policy Research on Science and Technology. Vancouver: Simon Fraser University, 2007.
Stolarich, Kevin, Richard Florida, and Louis Musante. “Montreal: Ville de Convergences Creatives:
Perspectives et Possibilites.” Catalytix, 2005,
http://www.culturemontreal.ca/pdf/050127_catalytix_fr.pdf (accessed January 13, 2009).
Strathern, Marilyn. “Divided Origins and the Arithmetic of Ownership.” In Accelerating Possession: Global
Futures of Propsery and Personhood, edited by Bill Maurer and Gabrièle Schwab, 135-173. New
York: Columbia University Press, 2006.
Throsby, David. “Modelling the Creative/Cultural Industries.” Presented to the Royal Society of Edinburgh,
Scotland, January 11-12, 2007. London School of Economics and Political Science,
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/geographyAndEnvironment/research/Currentresearchprojects/CI%20
Presentation%20Prof.%20Throsby.doc (accessed January 13, 2009).
Throsby, D. and H. Hollister. “Don’t Give Up your Day Job: An Economic Study of Professional Artists in
Australia.” Australian Council for the Arts, 2003,
http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/publications/artists_and_employment/dont_give_up_your_day_jo
b_an_economic_study_of_professional_artists_in_australia (accessed January 13, 2009)
Throsby, David. “Keynes's Vision for Investment in Culture and Creativity for Tough Times.” The Australian,
December 19, 2008, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24820296-5001986,00.html
(accessed January 14, 2009).
Throsby, David. Economics and Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Vaillancourt, Yves. “The Social Economy in Co-Construction of Public Policy.” Occasional Paper Series 3
(2008), Canadian Social Economy Research Partnership, http://www.socialeconomyhub.ca/hub/wpcontent/ uploads/ (accessed January 11, 2009).
Vickery, Jon. “The Emergence of Culture-Led Regeneration: A Policy Concept and Its Discontents.” Centre
for Cultural Policy Studies, University of Warwick, Research Paper 9, 2007,
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/theatre_s/cp/publications/centrepubs/ccps.paper9.pdf (accessed
January 11, 2009).
Vosko, Leah. “‘Decent Work’: The Shifting Role of the ILO and the Struggle for Global Social Justice.”
Global Social Policy 2, no. 1 (2002): 19-46.
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
30
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
Vosko, Leah and Fuller, Sylvia. “Temporary Employment and Social Inequality in Canada: Exploring
Intersections of Gender, Race, and Immigration Status.” Social Indicators Research 88, no. 1 (2008):
31-50.
Vosko, Leah and Stanford, Jim. Challenging the Market: The Struggle to Regulate Work and Income.
Montreal: McGill University Press, 2004.
Zukin, Sharon. The Cultures of Cities. London: Blackwell, 1995.
Government Sources
Adams, Don and Goldbard, Arlene. “New Deal Cultural Programs: Experiments in Cultural Democracy”,
Webster’s World of Cultural Democracy, 1995, http://www.wwcd.org/policy/US/newdeal.html,
(accessed January 14, 2009).
Americans for the Arts. “Arts and Economic Prosperity III: The Economic Impact of Nonprofit Arts and
Culture Organizations and their Audiences,” 2007, http://www.artsusa.org/information_resources/
(accessed January 5, 2009).
Auditor General of Canada. “Report of the Auditor General on Support for the Cultural Industries,” 2005,
http://www.oagbvg.gc.ca/internet/English/mr_20051122_e_15370.html (accessed January 11, 2009).
Australian Government. “Creative Industries Cluster Study.” Australian Government, Culture and Recreation
Portal, 2003, http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/cics/ (accessed January 13, 2009).
BC–Alberta Research Alliance on the Social Economy. “The Balta Mapping Project.”
http://www.socialeconomy-bcalberta.ca/mapping.html (accessed January 14, 2009).
Braun, Erik and Marieangela Lavanga. “An International Comparative Quick Scan of National Policies for
Creative Industries.” European Institute for Comparative Urban Research at the Erasmus University,
2007,
http://www.cultuureneconomie.nl/_pdf/National_Policies_for_Creative_Industries_Quickscan.pdf
(accessed January 5, 2009).
Cheney, Terry. “Cultural Sector Fast Stats.” Cultural Human Resources Council, 2004,
www.culturalhrc.ca/research/ (accessed January 13, 2009).
Community Arts Network. Creative Economy Practitioner’s Toolkit.”
http://www.communityarts.net/readingroom/archivefiles/2007/08/the_creative_ec. php (accessed
January 11, 2009).
Conference Board of Canada. “Valuing Culture: Measuring and Understanding Canada’s Creative Economy:
Economic Performance and Trends.” The Ontario Rural Council, 2008,
http://www.torc.on.ca/documents/08-152_CanadasCreativeEconomy.pdf (accessed January 11, 2009).
Cultural Human Resources Council. “Face of the Future: A Study of Human Resource Issues in Canada’s
Cultural Sector.” http://www.culturalhrc.ca/research/ (accessed January 14, 2009).
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
31
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
Department for Culture, Media and Sport. “Creative Britain: New Talents for the Economy,”
http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_library/ (accessed January 11, 2009).
Department for Culture, Media and Sport. “Creative Economy Programme: Infrastructure Report.” 2006,
http://www.cep.culture.gov.uk (accessed January 11, 2009).
Department for Culture, Media and Sport. “Creative Industries Mapping Document,” 2001,
http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/publications/4632.aspx (accessed January 11, 2009).
Département des Etudes, de la Prospective et des Statistiques, Ministère de la Culture et des Communications,
France. “Generational Approach to Cultural and Media Practices,” 2006,
http://www2.culture.gouv.fr/deps/ (accessed January 11, 2009).
European Commission. “The Economy of Culture in Europe,” 2006, http://ec.europa.eu/culture/keydocuments/doc873_en.htm (accessed January 13, 2009).
Government of Canada. External Advisory Committee on Cities and Communities. “From Restless
Communities to Resilient Places: Building a Stronger Future for All Canadians.” Columbia Institute,
Center for Civic Governance, 2006, http://www.civicgovernance.ca/node/41 (accessed January 13,
2009).
Ference-Weicker & Company. “Women’s Labour Issues in the Film and Television Industry in British
Columbia.” BC Institute of Film Professionals, 2005, http://www.bcifp.com/pdf/bcifp_final_report.pdf
(accessed January 14, 2009).
Harvey, Jocelyn. “Creative Management in the Arts and Heritage: Sustaining and Renewing Professional
Management for the 21st Century. Final report phase 1.” Canadian Conference of the Arts, 2002,
http://www.ccarts.ca/en/advocacy/publications/conference/index.html (accessed January 13, 2009).
Institut de la statistique Quebec. “Répartition de l'Effectif des Professions de la Culture et des Communications
Selon le Sexe et la Région Métropolitaine de Recensement, 1996-2006.”
http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/donstat/societe/culture_comnc/professions/index.htm (accessed January
13, 2009).
International Labour Organization. “The Future of Work and Quality in the Information Society. The Media,
Culture, Graphical Sector.” 2004,
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/sector/sectors/media/publ.htm (accessed January 13,
2009).
International Labour Organization. “Countries Approve of Ground-Breaking Means to Measure Today’s
World of Work.” http://www.ilo.org/global/About_the_ILO/Media_and_public_information/INews/lang--en/WCMS_100962/index.htm (accessed December 7, 2008).
Leviten-Reid, Eric and Sherri Torjman. “Evaluation Framework for Federal Investment in the Social
Economy.” Caledonian Institute, 2006, 2008,
http://www.caledoninst.org/Publications/PDF/566ENG%2Epdf (accessed January 8, 2009).
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
32
cultural work & urban infrastructure in the creative economy
Mayor of London, the London Assembly and Greater London Authority. “London’s Creative Sector: 2004
Update,” 2004, http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/publications/economy.jsp#creative (accessed January
14, 2009).
Nordic Innovation Centre. “A Creative Economy Green Paper for the Nordic Region.” 2007,
http://www.nordicinnovation.net/prosjekt.cfm?Id=1-4415-272 (accessed January 11, 2009).
OECD, 2007. “Project on the International Measurement of the Social and Economic Importance of Culture.”
2007, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/26/51/37257281.pdf (accessed January 11, 2009).
Statistics Canada. “Economic Contribution of Culture in Canada.” 2004, www.statcan.ca/english/research/81595-MIE/81-595-MIE2004023.pdf (accessed January 11, 2009).
Statistics Canada. “Focus on Culture: Quarterly Bulletin from the Culture Statistics Programme, 15 (2).”
www.dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/Statcan/87-004-XIE.pdf (accessed January 14, 2009).
Statistics Canada. “Census Metropolitan Areas as Culture Clusters,” 2004, http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89613-m/89-613-m2004004-eng.htm (accessed January 14, 2009).
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. “Creative Economy Report 2008: The Challenge of
Assessing The Creative Economy: Towards Informed Policy Making.”
http://www.unctad.org/Templates/webflyer.asp?docid=9750&intItemID=2068&lang=1&mode=downl
oads (accessed January 14, 2009).
C. Murray: MCRI Letter of Intent 2009
33