Training in cultural policy and management: international ... - Encatc

Survey on institutions and centers ...
knowledge (awareness) about the interdisciplinary field would be received not through parallel
sessions of different disciplines, but through specific modules which are interdisciplinary in
themselves.
The previous lingua franca in the region, Russian, greatly influenced thinking and teaching. The new
lingua franca, English, has encouraged the adoption of approaches, models and standards that are
often more American than English, but is definitely not adequately adapted to the transitional
circumstances of those countries, or to European concepts of cultural policies and their implications for
arts management. Therefore, it was an enormous leap from ideologically oriented “culturology” toward
pragmatically oriented “management”. However, both concepts are inadequate and inappropriate as
such unless they are put into a regional socio-political and economical context.
The level and quality of arts management curricula and training in the region are hardly ever
discussed. The majority of the training courses do not have any European links, and they are not even
classified in the official directory of the training centers of the Council of Europe (many university
departments and centers have never even heard of it). Further, there is no national
accreditation/assessment of the programmes (they often depend of the rector’s or dean’s good will)
and externally accredited programmes are also rare (MSSES program is accredited by Manchester
University), so their quality can be seriously called into question.
To conclude – there are only few countries without any arts management education or training course
(Bosnia, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and, paradoxically, Slovenia). In the majority of countries
training is still offered within the traditional university structure (in “Russian language”) and in art
schools (in “English language”). This means that the studies are under the control of the Ministry of
Education, and that the Ministry of Culture is usually completely absent from discussions that define
the aims of the courses, the target groups, or curriculum.
That is why there is still a great need for training-of-trainers seminars at every level, as well as for
educational policy seminars in this field.
It is also important to stress that the necessity of educating art managers and cultural administrators
(policy makers) is increasingly emphasized in reports and papers about cultural policy and
development, especially in Central and Eastern Europe (not yet in Central Asia and Caucasus),
although there are great differences in viewpoints, not least of all, what to call the profession
practiced by cultural development specialists.
The diverse nominations have included: cultural manager, producer, entrepreneur, organizer or art
manager, cultural program coordinator, program editor, and art coordinator. Absent are old names
that include words like “administrator,” “worker,” and “officer”. Proposed labels like “cultural
animator”, and “socio-cultural animator” signify that this profession in Central and Eastern Europe is
still evolving from the old to the new system, with the partial understanding at least that a need exists
for systemic changes, and for linking art management education more to market demands than to
policy issues.
Systematic evaluation and quality assurance are still unknown terms in most of the training courses,
as well as ECTS, participation in student exchange programmes, etc. In spite of the fact that a
majority of training centers are interested in an international dimension, topics such as networking,
EU cultural policy, intercultural management, etc. are still absent, as is a systematic practice of
professors and student exchange. A majority of the universities and schools are not members of
ENCATC, ELIA or EUA , which shows a certain lack of vision and absence of development strategies.
12