The Cov’Culture participatory research project brings together a team of researchers with multi-disciplinary skills* and arts and culture professionals from the Nouvelle-Aquitaine region, including the Agence culturelle du département de la Gironde, the association familiale laïque de la Bastide, the Confolens festival, les araignées philosophesand l’Avant-Scène (Cognac). The aim of this program is to analyze, in the field and in co-construction with these professionals, the creative and operational approaches they have demonstrated in adapting to the health crisis.
More generally, the research team aims to assess how this crisis reveals deeper changes in practices and relationships with audiences, linked to the cultural, environmental and digital mutations that the cultural sector is undergoing.
As part of Cov’Culture, a study day was organized at the Maison des Suds at the Université de Bordeaux Montaigne on Friday, January 20, 2022. It brought together the various participants in this project and other listeners interested in the participative approaches at work in this initiative. On the basis of various feedbacks, the day’s events helped to identify the motivations of each participant in this collective work, and to define the collaboration modalities to maintain everyone’s commitment and valorize the results.
This article looks back at the various reflections that emerged from this collaborative day, and proposes a number of avenues for co-constructing a cultural and research project.
* Sarah Montero, Jessica de Bideran, Aurélie Chêne and Laetitia Devel
1. WHY GET INVOLVED IN A COLLECTIVE RESEARCH PROJECT? EXPECTATIONS AND MOTIVATIONS OF EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THE COV’CULTURE PROJECT.
The study day began with a time for sharing expectations and motivations. These multi-faceted expectations are essential to understanding and then collectively defining the levers of mobilization.
Within the research team, the participatory approach has been asserted by the various researchers, as it forces them to be more operative and to question their own postures and positions. Observing and contributing to a participatory process means accepting to be destabilized and displaced, and the diversity of the group forces us to open up to others in order to do science together. Co-construction therefore seems an essential ingredient in refining research and analysis.
Among the professionals associated with the project, each structure is already involved in participative approaches with their audiences or partners. Each of the professionals spoke of their own expectations of the Cov’Culture process, while emphasizing their own specific approaches.
As Delphine GARD, communications manager for the Confolens festival, reminded us, participative approaches are at the heart of the event’s DNA. Nevertheless, organizers often feel isolated. A participatory project therefore has many virtues: it can open up the field of possibilities, provide an opportunity to meet other players and discover other working methods. After 3 years of crisis, a research project of this kind also makes it possible to gain a better understanding of the impact of the health crisis on audiences and funding, and to “move to the meeting side” to receive support and guidance in finding very concrete solutions, thanks to the creation of working groups.
For Laetitia Devel, head of innovation and cultural economics at the Agence culturelle du département de la Gironde, working with researchers is a necessary step in promoting participation between professionals and scientists. By working together, we can open up to different issues and constraints, better understand and decompartmentalize approaches, identify elements for reflection and data for the agency, and objectify observations.
According to Stéphane Jouan, director at l’Avant-Scène, we need to take some time out after this crisis (although other crises are sure to follow…). This downtime would enable us to assess the compensatory phenomena implemented by professionals, without necessarily tackling the structure of these problems. Confrontation and questioning are now essential if we are to understand these changes and dynamics in greater depth, and identify the corrective and structuring actions we need to implement.
For Bérénice Santana and Meryl Chaumont, mediators and social workers at L’association familiale laïque de la Bastide, there is a general lack of motivation on the part of both professionals and the public, who have been severely affected by the health crisis. A diagnosis, via a joint survey protocol, now seems necessary to gain a better understanding of its audiences, their cultural practices, their points of view and their needs. This diagnostic phase would then enable us to find ways to better support them.
The Araignées Philosophes association (represented by Jessica de Bideran at this study day) points out that this shift reveals other changes and fragilities, and requires a return to basics in order to regain one’s place within the institutional structures with which they work. It therefore seems essential to question one’s own practices in order to rethink and reposition one’s support role in a more social dimension, and to train oneself in the face of these changes.
These various testimonials highlight the diversity of approaches in terms of diagnosing and analyzing the impact of this health crisis. Nevertheless, a desire to work together emerged, with specific expectations to better diagnose the effects of the health crisis, conduct collective reflection and share common courses of action. Marta Severo, a lecturer and researcher at Paris Nanterre University (Laboratoire Dicen-IDF), extended this initial sharing session, positioning the Cov’Culture project among other participatory cultural projects.
2. HOW DOES COV’CULTURE COMPARE WITH OTHER PARTICIPATORY CULTURAL PROJECTS? A BRIEF HISTORY OF THESE PROJECTS AND THE ISSUES THEY RAISE.
Marta began by setting the Cov’Culture project in a broader context. She reviewed the origins of participatory science. She then shared concrete feedback from participatory cultural projects and recalled some of the issues that could be taken into account.
Historically, participatory science is a relatively old phenomenon. It emerged in the 1970s in the English-speaking world under the term “citizen science”. The aim of these projects is to involve the general public in research and to promote exchanges with scientists, so that the results can be of benefit to society. In the 90s, Alan Irwin contributed to the popularization of this notion, demonstrating that in crisis situations, such as the mad cow crisis, the gathering of knowledge from professional non-scientists can strongly support a research approach (to find out more, see his talk at the Joint Research Center).
In France, in the cultural sector, Muséum national d’histoire naturelle has played a pioneering role in the development of participatory projects such as Vigie Nature. This participatory science program is “open to all those curious about nature, from beginners to the most experienced”. In 2016, it already boasted over 14,000 participants.
The legitimacy of these approaches was, moreover, reinforced by the publication in 2016 of a report on participatory sciences in France – State of play, best practices and recommendations. This survey, fundamental in its contribution (although no projects with a cultural dimension are highlighted), defines participatory sciences as a set of “forms of scientific knowledge production in which non-scientific actors intervene”.
In 2016, the Ministry of Culture made it a priority in its 2017-2020 research strategy, wishing to “encourage research into new societal challenges with a participatory approach”.
Thus, in 2017, the French Ministry of Culture launched a call for expressions of interest in “Cultural research and participatory sciences”, in which it invited researchers, professionals and representatives of civil society to join forces in a network to cross cultural research practices and participatory practices. Some thirty researchers and professionals from the cultural sector (archaeology, urban planning, linguistics, arts, musicology, communication, heritage, etc.) joined forces in a network called ” Particip-Arc “, coordinated by the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle (MNHN), to carry out joint projects.
After this brief history, Marta mentioned some of the issues that would seem necessary to take into account in Cov’Culture:
- When can we talk about participatory “research”? Participation promotes the production of new scientific knowledge. To do so, it requires a clear protocol that encourages the learning of skills and the collection of “standardized” data, while guarding against a range of methodological biases.
Qui sont les « non-scientifiques » professionnels ? Le portail culturel Mémoire des Hommes impulsé par le ministère des Armées a fait l’objet d’un défi collaboratif sans précédent pour indexer plus d’un million de fiches documentaires en un an via l’opération 1 jour / 1 poilu. Un tel projet met en avant la diversité de ces participants et ouvrent un ensemble de questions sur :
- Their legitimacy: are they amateurs or non-professionals? And is the information they provide of the same quality?
- Their status: are they voluntary or involuntary digital volunteers? What kind of communication and transparency do they bring to data processing?
- Traceability of collected information: If contributors are known or anonymous (under a pseudonym), how can we ensure the reliability of this information?
- To what extent can these non-professionals be mobilized? Where can they be found (in physical spaces or online)? How can we mobilize them according to their calendar constraints (whether professional or amateur)?
- How can their expertise be translated? Because of their heterogeneous origins, the knowledge gathered is at different levels and requires a cross-fertilization of approaches.
While the contributions of participatory approaches are essential, the questions they raise are both fascinating and numerous. Such questions need to be taken into account to structure the scientific approach of the Cov’Culture project.
3. HOW CAN WE WORK TOGETHER? IDENTIFYING WAYS OF WORKING TOGETHER
On the basis of this particularly inspiring testimony, the participants in this study day reflected in a workshop on the different levels of participation possible at each stage of a research project such as Cov’Culture.
Depending on the phase of the research, a greater or lesser number of participants are required to encourage exchange and broaden viewpoints. Intra-cluster meetings between professionals and researchers can help gather precise information based on interviews. Inter-cluster meetings can be used to cross-reference information, identify common positions or share complementary approaches and practices. Presentations to the scientific community and to a wider public can not only enhance the results of this participatory research, but also enrich it with a range of additional points of view.
This concentric, successive circles approach has enabled us to determine meeting times at each stage of the research. As the project takes shape, the fruits of these encounters can be promoted within the project team, but also more widely to professional partners, the scientific community and any interested parties (students, researchers, professionals or amateurs) who may wish to have access to the results of this project.
While defining the modalities of participation seems essential, so too is defining the productions to be proposed. Their format, editorial content and communication methods can encourage dissemination and new forms of sharing and participation with a wider public (partners, scientists, the general public, etc.).
4. WHERE TO? PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER
The study day then opened with two feedback sessions on the formats for restitution and valorization that can be envisaged as part of participative approaches. The first was proposed by Marcelle Dubé, a university student from Chicoutimi, Quebec, on the basis of a project on cultural accessibility, and the second by Agnès Henry, a university student from Paris 8, on the basis of a particularly original artistic and creative restitution.
A. Feedback on participatory approaches implemented for a project on cultural accessibility in Quebec.
TheObservatoire des médiations culturelles was created over 15 years ago by a group of researchers and practitioners. This observatory promotes participative projects (cultural mediation and digital normativities, OMEC publications, etc.) and tools (bibliography, reports and resources).
The health crisis has transformed the way both institutions and researchers work. With this in mind, a project was launched in 2020 to study how cultural mediation continues to promote the social inclusion of marginalized groups. This study was carried out by a team of student researchers (Maïlys Hervé (UQAM) and Alexandra Tourigny-Fleury (UQAM) under the supervision of Ève Lamoureux (UQAM), Noémie Maignien and Marcelle Dubé (UQAM-OMEC).
A first phase was held from May to October 2020 to identify various accessibility projects carried out in the 17 administrative regions of Quebec. 45 projects were documented (24 in the Montreal region, 21 in the rest of Quebec). These particularly varied projects took the form of mediation actions, workshops or co-creation residencies with underprivileged audiences, aboriginal communities or incarcerated populations. Their objectives? To develop links between cultural institutions, artists, community organizations, municipalities and mediators in all fields of culture.
In the second phase, from November 2020 to December 2022, a tool was developed for mediators to help them implement these inclusion projects. Despite the limited financial resources available, the research team targeted 10 projects in particular. On the basis of this corpus, the researchers conducted individual interviews and workshops with the mediators behind these initiatives. These meetings enabled us to gain a better understanding of the participatory strategies and mechanisms implemented in these different types of projects.
These various iterations have thus initiated and fostered the formation of a genuine community of practice with the 45 partner organizations, meeting in May 2021 to revisit the various issues underlying these initiatives:
- What types of projects were carried out?
- How did the activities unfold?
- What was the impact?
- What are their strengths?
From autumn 2021 onwards, these various meetings were followed by a period of drafting. This resulted in the publication of a tool in June 2022. This tool highlights the practices identified to transform the relationships of domination that structure our society, taking into account the challenges of inclusion, the logics of power sharing, the reality of territories, the precariousness and sustainability of projects and the levers for improving such approaches in the cultural sector.
This project has thus helped to affirm that culture is a formidable tool for individual and collective transformation, promoting well-being and living together. Action principles were also defined to better define the roles of each person in a project, the relational dynamics at work, and the impacts, conditions and challenges targeted.
In one of her feedbacks, Marcelle Dubé reminds us that it’s essential to “start from what people do, not from what we think they do”.
B. Feedback on artistic renditions of participatory approaches.
Agnès Henry, a teacher at Paris 8 in charge of steering the extrapole association, a laboratory for artistic and cultural experiments, took the floor for the final presentation of the study day.
The development of participative approaches in the field of artistic practices is difficult to implement. Faced with the precarious logic of production and distribution, artists find it difficult to take the time to exchange ideas. Even so, nurturing an artistic practice requires experimentation, but the pressure exerted by this precariousness on artists makes it difficult to maintain a participatory dynamic over time.
Based on this observation, Agnès spoke about a survey conducted in 2017-2018 with the collaboration of Emmanuelle Segura on the evolution of artistic and cultural action. This survey focused on 3 cultural structures whose 3 directorships had recently been renewed: the CCN2 – Grenoble’s national choreographic center, the Magasin des horizons- national contemporary art center and the Pacifique – national choreographic development center. This “trilogy” of institutions (as they were referred to in the project) were determined to become more firmly rooted in the region, and to work in close proximity to give visibility to the invisible.
1.5 years of participant observation were therefore carried out to identify common dynamics of action on the part of these institutions in their territories. Strongly inspired by Bruno Latour’s methodology of controversy mapping, the aim of this project was to co-narrate with the institutions their needs and the problems they face. In the final analysis, the researcher is not the sole owner of the object that is built up over the course of the survey.
Based on this investigation, author Emilie Notéris was invited to produce a fictional work in 2018. In 2021, Le nœud de Prusik will be published. A work with an evocative title (Prusik’s knot is a self-locking knot) that can be read from the back or the front, highlights the various institutional blockages that cultural institutions’ ambitions for accessibility and inclusion can face in their relationship with their guardians and audiences.
Agnès’s testimonial was particularly rich, going beyond the discovery of a beautiful transformation of an academic study into a creative and original work. She spoke of :
- The difficulty of keeping everyone mobilized over time, when research is not necessarily rooted in everyday life. The various departments were in a state of permanent crisis, and had real difficulty freeing up time. Delays in responses from the various participants thus contributed to distending the process and the work dynamic. Setting up an agenda and a roadmap are therefore essential to mark out time for reflection, to move forward and to constantly fuel a highly fluid co-construction process.
- The “fragile position” and precariousness of research, when everything revolves around the institution, sometimes without daring to question and formalize certain very informal moments of work. According to Agnès, both the institutional weight and the logic of production and distribution in force in the performing arts contribute to the fact that “customs sometimes weigh on practices, and not in the same way for everyone”. It would therefore seem necessary for the research framework to be formally established, in the same way as a charter of commitment proposed by structures to volunteers.
Lastly, the fact that the project was mainly aimed at management played a part in the low level of participation by artists, who identified the project as a commission. Even so, the writing workshops were an opportunity to exchange ideas with the teams from the 3 venues and the artists. Nevertheless, the artists remained in a position of institutional criticism, while Agnès had a forward-looking ambition. This discrepancy in approach means we have to face up to the injunction of the impossible, where research is asked to be in all places.
The alternation of workshops, testimonials and feedback on participatory research projects during the course of this study day gave rise to numerous exchanges between participants. It seems to have emerged from this rich day that the motivations for taking part in such a project are manifold. Between the desire for openness, decompartmentalization and even confrontation, participatory approaches seem to encourage the definition of reflections or sketches of solutions based on a shared diagnosis. However, these approaches are not free of questions and difficulties. The openness they imply would seem to require a shared framework, a controlled timeframe and the coordination of different contributions with multiple statuses and legitimacies. The outcomes of these initiatives are particularly varied, and can take forms as diverse as a tool for professionals or an artistic and creative proposal. The Cov’Culture project, like other participatory research projects, is in the process of defining its path among its many challenges and possibilities.
