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

Survey on institutions and organisations ...
the arts and entertainment sector, including much of the performing arts such as theatre, concert hall,
music and media technicians and performers as well as arts managers, has indicated that in
accordance with what is now established government policy they will in due course be following
CHNTO in adopting the Management Charter standards and competences as core elements in all its
future cultural sector professional and management qualifications and course validations.
Findings of the UNESCO/ENCATC survey
This new survey and database details 153 institutions, centres and organisations in 35 European and
Caucasus countries, which have reported that they are providing training relevant to the needs of
cultural development personnel. This is more than double the number covered by European surveys of
the late 1990s, making the new study a most important new resource for informing governments, the
professions and actual and potential students about the range of cultural administration and
management programmes now available.
The survey demonstrates the rapid growth in professionally related courses and programmes in the
field. At one extreme these cover short courses and workshop sessions which last no more than a few
hours and which offer no formal qualification other than a certificate of attendance, through to
university qualifications. At the other extreme, there is a very wide range of university degree and
diploma programmes, together with doctoral and postdoctoral research opportunities in relation to
cultural policy, management and operations research, as for example at City University London, which
currently has more than 40 research students (in addition to over 100 on taught postgraduate
courses, mostly at Master’s degree level).
This is a rapidly changing scene, with a considerable number of new programmes being launched
every year at the present time (though with a smaller number being temporarily or permanently
suspended for one reason or another).
Perhaps the survey has been viewed by institutions primarily as a marketing opportunity, so that
those programmes that are already heavily oversubscribed did not see the need for further publicity
through listing in the database.
There seem to have been significant differences from country to country in the criteria used to identify
possible organisations and courses to be surveyed. It is well known that the rapid moves towards
decentralisation of responsibility for culture in many European countries (and not just in those
traditionally constituted as Federal States) is making it difficult to maintain even the most basic
national cultural statistics, let alone central registers or directories of university and professional
programmes. (It has recently been argued that because of such decentralisation and devolution we
now have a European Union that comprises nearly sixty autonomous regions and territories, at least in
relation to cultural policy, management and action nations, rather than the nominal Member States of
the EU.)
Despite the limitations, this new survey and database offer a detailed insight into the actual
curriculum of many of the courses and programmes surveyed. It is therefore doubly regrettable that a
smaller, though still significant proportion, chose not to submit the requested detailed information on
their curriculum, course content and standards. Persuading them that they have nothing to fear from
the open publication of such details of their programmes should be another priority of the continuing
programme for future maintenance of the present survey. The openness already demonstrated for a
number of years by the longer-established ENCATC and AAAE members in publishing curricula details
in the AAAE or ENCATC membership directories is a commendable example to which such doubters
could be referred.
21