Creative collaborations on regional scale. A research about the experiences of regional collaboration of cultural and creative industries

(1)

I

Creative collaborations on regional

scale

A research about the experiences of regional

collaboration of cultural and creative industries

Brigitte Coorens

s4337786 January, 2020 Master Thesis MA Human Geography

Specialization: Urban and Cultural Geography

(2)

II

(3)

I

Preface

The thesis that lies before you is more than the finalization of my studies at the Radboud University Nijmegen. For as long as I remember, I have struggled with believing in myself. It was not different in the process of writing this thesis. So, this document embodies one of the greatest accomplishments that I achieved.

I decided to search for an interesting internship organization that corresponded to my interests with arts and culture after struggling to find a research topic. This resulted in five interesting and existing months at the Dutch Council for Culture (Raad voor Cultuur) in The Hague. This internship provided me with the opportunity to gain familiarity with arts and culture policy in the Netherlands from up close. Eventually this resulted in the main research theme in this study, regional collaborations of cultural organizations. I want to thank all my colleagues for this inspiring period. In particular, I want to thank Renske van der Zee and Pieter Bots for their guidance.

Conducting this research would not have been possible without the help of many others. At first, I want to thank my thesis supervisor Rianne van Melik for her endless patience and constructive feedback. She guided me through the periods that I felt lost in the research process. Also, I thank my friends Nina, who has been my library buddy and encouraged me to keep on going countless times, and Friso, for his feedback on my writings. They have been a great support during this process. And lastly, I want to thank all the participants for their time and interesting conversations. Without them, this study would not exist, and I hope this thesis brings them new insights.

I hope you enjoy reading my work.

Brigitte Coorens January 2020

(4)

(5)

III

Summary

Enormous cuts in the funding by the government in 2011 have had a tremendous impact on the CCIs in the Netherlands (Raad voor Cultuur, 2012). Traditionally, Dutch cultural policy was oriented on a national level. Cultural policy does not (yet) focus on the coherence of cultural facilities. This leads to competitive relations between cultural institutions and a lack of cooperation. One recent development in Dutch cultural policy is the refocus on the region and its potential. In November 2018, fifteen stedelijke cultuurregio’s (Urban Cultural Regions) had handed in their urban and cultural profile which were compiled by local authorities such as provinces, municipalities and cultural institutions. The emergence of these stedelijke cultuurregio’s identified a process of regionalization in the Dutch arts and cultural field.

An UCR can form a cultural ecosystem, in which artists, cultural institutions and governments work closely together and are able to respond to the needs of the population. The aim of this study is to gain qualitative insights into these relationships. To do so, the study makes use of different theoretical concepts about cultural ecology and collaborations. Furthermore, the fifteen cultural profiles of stedelijke cultuurregio’s and two policy documents are analyzed, along with interviewing eighteen stakeholders of stedelijke cultuurregio’s in Landsdeel Oost. In this study, Landsdeel Oost embodies the five stedelijke cultuurregio’s in the east of the Netherlands. The interviews explored the experiences from and views of these different stakeholders with regional collaboration within the UCR context and in general, as regional collaborations are not only bounded to emergence of UCRs. This study focuses on the motiviations and conditions that occur in collaborations. This answers the main research question: “How is regional collaboration of cultural and creative industries experienced by stakeholders within the stedelijke cultuurregio’s of Landsdeel Oost?”.

Thinking ecologically means taking a holistic view of various phenomena by viewing them as cultural ecosystems that consist of multiple networks with different connected nodes. Taking an ecological perspective places emphasis on the interdependency between the linkages in a system. Instead of looking at an individual species, it looks at the interactions of all of the organisms and how they are maintained by the overall flow of resources.

By creating cultural profiles, the stedelijke cultuurregio’s were forced to look at the strength of the region combined. The most prominent forms of collaborations in Landsdeel Oost were project-based, marketing & communication, back-office related and programming collaborations. The influences of place on the existence of mental borders is also discussed. In some regions, difficulties were raised between collaborative partners about the existence of policy borders in the UCRs. Furthermore, regional collaborations of CCIs are related to the different layers of governments

(6)

IV

(state, province and municipality). An overall alignment of the cultural policies of these governments is desired by various managing directors.

Furthermore, complementarity, budget cuts and chances in audience reach were the most prominent motivations to collaborate. In addition to the motivations, the relationship between the arts and other policy arenas such as the social sector and economic development is identified as an opportunity for regional collaborations to emerge. And lastly, the influences of various conditions on collaborative processes are identified, in which an organic development, trust-building and urgency were the most prominent elements.

As far as this study explored, regional collaborations should not be perceived as the overall solution to problems within the arts and cultural sector. Collaboration processes can be an enabling tool for the convergence of objectives (such as reaching more audiences) of CCIs within the same area. By meeting each other in formal and informal spheres in these processes, trust can be built which is a crucial part of collaborating. The emergence of UCRs embody a kind of urgency, through which more CCIs in the same areas have found each other. However, “collaborating for collaborating” is never the right motivation to work together.

(7)

V

List of Figures, Maps and Tables

Figure 1 Cultural and creative industries p. 6

Figure 2 Four interrelated dimensions of creative industries & place p. 13

Figure 3 Conceptual model p. 20

Figure 4 Geographical layers in this study p. 25

Figure 5 Route Oost p. 40

Figure 6 Pilot ArnhemNijmegen during the Nijmeegse Kunstnacht 2019 p. 52

Map 1 Visual representation five UCRs of Landsdeel Oost p. 23

Map 2 Observation UCRs by Council for Culture p. 33

Map 3 The fifteen UCRs on November 1st₂₀₁₈ _{p. 35}

Table 1 Phases of data-collection p. 26

Table 2 Partners of the fifteen UCRs in the cultural profiles p. 36

List of Abbreviations

CCIs Cultural and creative industries

OCW Ministerie voor Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap

(English: Ministery of Education, Culture and Science)

UCR Urban Cultural Regions

(Dutch: stedelijke cultuurregio’s)

UN United Nations

(10)

1

Chapter 1 The importance of regional thinking in the cultural and

creative sector

1.1|BLENDING THE URBAN AND THE REGIONAL

In November 2019, the Flemish minister-president Jan Jambon announced drastic cuts in budget for culture (as of January 2020) of the Government of Flanders, which left the Flemish cultural and creative sector in despair (NRC, 2019). This undoubtedly reminded their Northern neighbors, the Netherlands, of the major budget cuts (+/- 200 million euros) on arts and culture in 2011 (Algemene Rekenkamer, 2015). Fortunately, the impact of the budget cuts on the Dutch cultural and creative sector has been relatively stabilized, even though the negative repercussions can still be felt. However, the Flemish situation shows us how a cultural and creative field can derail from one day to the next through budget cuts of this size. A reoccurrence of the enormous budget cut situation in 2011 can also not be ruled out. For this reason, the cultural and creative sector has to be financially stable in a way that it can absorb unfavorable policy changes. This study explores how regional collaborations of cultural institutions can be a possible solution for this stability and what these collaborations influence.

However, this research is positioned in the field of urban geography, and urban-oriented research find their origin in the following numbers. In 1950, 30% of the world population lived in cities; in 2018, fifty-five percent of the world’s population resided in urban areas. This trend of increasing urbanization continues. The United Nations has estimated that by 2050, sixty-eight percent of the world population will live in urban areas (UN, 2018). Therefore, urban studies have a prominent position in today’s critical thinking about globalization. Dominant research areas in urban geography focus on, for example, the effects of urbanization in relation to housing problems (Musterd & van Kempen, 2009), tourism in the city (Maitland, 2014) and gentrification processes (Zukin et al., 2009). We now know the importance of investigating city life. However, a city is also connected to its direct environment and surrounding region. The focus on cities as individual functioning islands with their own difficulties is giving way to a perspective that looks beyond the city itself. As urbanist Edward Soja (2015) claims, regional approaches in urban studies are becoming increasingly important. The urban and the regional are increasingly blending together in theory, empirical analysis, social activism, planning and public policy.

This shift from “city-thinking” to “regional-thinking” is also apparent in the creative and cultural field. To establish a well-functioning cultural field in a city, one must remember to look beyond the city scale. Pratt (2008, 35) illustrates this by stating that “a creative city cannot be

(11)

2

founded like a cathedral in a desert: it needs to be linked to and be part of its existing environment”. This shift is also evident in the work of Rem Koolhaas, a well-known architect, urbanist and professor who has been writing about metropolises for more than thirty years. In his new research and planned exposition at the Guggenheim Museum in New York, he has decided to change his focus from cities to nonurban territories (Guggenheim Museum, 2017). In search for acknowledgment of nonurban territories, Koolhaas breaks with the common opinion that “everything” happens in cities by exploring the rapid transformations of the countryside. These examples show that the border between the urban/non-urban is starting to fade and that regional thinking is gaining more attention in today’s society. Regional thinking is therefore an important

element in urban studies.

The refocus on regions is also evident in the cultural field in the Netherlands. Traditionally, Dutch cultural institutions have had an individual character. Cultural institutions are focused on their own problems, and collaboration between them is very limited. Other institutions are seen as competitors rather than potential partners (Raad voor Cultuur, 2017). On June 14, 2018, Dutch Minister for Education, Culture and Science Ingrid van Engelshoven requested more cultural collaboration within regions in the form of urban and regional “cultural profiles” (OCW, June 2018). This request was the first step in an exploration of the values of collaboration of between cultural institutions and governments in specific regions in the Netherlands. These cultural profiles form the basis of the development of the so-called stedelijke cultuurregio’s (hereinafter referred to as Urban Cultural Regions [UCRs]).

By November 1, 2018, fifteen UCRs had handed in their urban and regional cultural profiles, which were compiled by local authorities such as provinces, municipalities and cultural institutions. The fieldwork for this research was conducted during a period (from March until August 2019) in which different layers of the Dutch government were exploring how to work with these UCRs and what their function should be. The future of these UCRs was not yet certain. Therefore, the goal of this research is not to reach a clear answer about how these UCRs function. Instead, it explores collaborations between stakeholders in the cultural field. The development of the Dutch UCRs functions as a case study of how regional collaboration happens and form the background where regional collaborations happen throughout this research.

First, it was necessary to gain familiarity with the concept of Urban Cultural Regions. Therefore, the first phase of the empirical research consisted of analyzing the fifteen profiles of the UCRs (as part of an internship of the Dutch Council for Culture) and one policy document by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. Five of the fifteen UCRs, namely 1) Zwolle, 2) Twente, 3) Stedendriehoek (Apeldoorn, Deventer and Zwolle), 4) Ede-Wageningen and 5)

(12)

3

two provinces of Gelderland and Overijssel and eight cities with the largest number of inhabitants. In the document “Route Oost” (2018) (an addendum in all five profiles), the five aforementioned UCRs are focused on the strength of these UCRs combined. They claim to have everything what needed for a complete cultural infrastructure, which is a precondition for a functioning regional “cultural ecosystem” (Holden, 2015). The second and third phases entailed explorative semi-structured interviews with provincial officials, municipal officials and managing directors from cultural organizations of the five UCRs.

In order to establish functioning ecosystems, the relationships of cultural and creative industries should be healthy. The aim of this study is to gain qualitative insights into the relationships and collaborations between cultural and creative industries on regional level. To do so, the study makes use of different theoretical concepts about cultural ecology approaches and collaborations.

So, the purpose of this case study is to understand regional collaboration of cultural and creative industries in the context of the UCRs (stedelijke cultuurregio’s) in the Netherlands.

In order to achieve an elaborate understanding, the study follows the next main question:

1.2|SCIENTIFIC RELEVANCE

More researchers are focusing on culture and creativity within urban and economic geography, and a large number of studies concerning the positive impact of culture on regional development have been carried out. Culture and cultural activities can strengthen the image of a region (Richards & Wilson 2004; Leriche & Daviet 2010) and create variety in the region’s economic functions (Ruoklainen 2011). When discussing culture and regional development, it is inevitable to discuss Richard Florida’s (2002) “creative class” thesis about culture, creativity, cultural policy and regional development. He emphasized the role of cultural consumption and cultural amenities in attracting a talented workforce to a region. However, these studies are focused on creativity itself and the impacts it can have on a geographical area.

Various academics have sought more holistic ways of understanding the cultural and creative industries (CCIs) and have advocated for a better understanding of the dynamics and interactions of various actors related to the cultural activities within a region. Scott (2006, 15) argues that making cities more attractive by concentrating on the consumption side is not enough. Culture

How is regional collaboration of cultural and creative industries experienced by stakeholders within Urban Cultural Regions of Landsdeel Oost?

(13)

4

is not something that can be imported; it is intertwined in a complex “interweaving of relations of production, work and social life”. Furthermore, Leriche & Daviet (2010) point out that, in order to understand the dynamics of the regional cultural economy, new angles of analysis are needed. Chapain & Comunian (2010) also mention that much attention has been paid to CCIs at the macro level—the positive impact of CCIs for the economy and how they stimulate the knowledge economy. They call for a better understanding of the relations between CCIs within a UCR and the dynamics between agencies and other actors at the micro (local) and meso (regional) level. It is important to focus “on the wider system that enables and supports the development of CCIs in a specific urban and regional context” (ibid., 7) in order to understand the complex relationships between CCIs and the wider UCR environments in which they are located.

Central to this research is collaboration between CCIs and other relevant actors. However, there is a lack of relevant studies that explore these collaborations with a focus on the advantages for CCIs themselves. Most studies examine the benefits to other organizations of collaborations with CCIs. For example, collaborating with CCIs is associated with a beneficial effect from the perspective of for-profit businesses (Weinstein & Cook, 2011), and collaborations with CCIs can empower community building processes (Ersing, 2009). While some research has been carried out on cultural collaborations, there have been few empirical investigations into collaborations between CCIs. Ostrower (2003) explores how cultural collaboration functions and how it could be used by CCIs as a tool to increase arts participation. However, much uncertainty still exists about the effect of collaboration on CCIs, and this study attempts to generate new insights.

One way to analyze the regional cultural economy of a specific area is by using the concept of “cultural ecology”. Cultural ecology is a term that has been used in the discipline of anthropology since the 1950s (Holden, 2015). In an anthropological sense, cultural ecology is the study of human adaptations to social and physical environments. However, the connection between cultural ecology and culture in the sense of products and activities in the wide fields of the arts (including architecture, visual art and design, films, literature and performing arts) and heritage (including archives, archeology, historic collections, monuments and intangible heritage) was not common discussed until Holden (2004) first coined the term in his discussion on capturing cultural value. Since then, scholars have started to examine the connection between cultural ecology and the culture and creative industries and how this concept benefits our understandings of CCIs.

Scholars in the field of cultural and creative economy have used ecological language when proposing “more networked approaches to cultural management” (Gross & Wilson, 2018, 7). Holden (2015) has made clear that there is much work yet to be done. Research to date has not yet determined if an ecological approach is valuable. Therefore, this research aims to contribute to a

(14)

5

new way of thinking about culture and the creative industries. It can add to the first steps that are being made in academia toward discovering whether ecology is applicable to the study of CCIs.

1.3|SOCIETAL RELEVANCE

The Netherlands is, mostly due to its cultural policy, a country with a lively cultural practice. Major social trends like urbanization, regionalization, globalization and digitization influence the way in which culture is being made, distributed and consumed. As the Dutch government is aware, these developments pose great challenges for the current cultural policy. The cultural field is also highly unpredictable. For instance, when budget cuts must be made, culture and the creative industries are typically the first to lose their finances and support. The budget for culture and cultural activities is seen as less important than expenditures on health and safety. This is apparent in the history of Dutch cultural policy. Enormous budget cuts by the government in 2011 have had a tremendous impact on the CCIs in the Netherlands (Raad voor Cultuur, 2012). In the following years, Dutch cultural institutions had to be creative in order to protect their existence.

The future is unknown, so a well-functioning cultural field that is not fully dependent on the government is needed. Traditionally, cultural policy was oriented on a national level. Cultural policy does not (yet) focus on the coherence of cultural facilities. This leads to competitive relations between cultural institutions and a lack of cooperation. One recent development in Dutch cultural policy is the previously described refocus on the region and its potential. In order to function effectively and survive financially, cooperation and co-creation between CCIs in the UCRs is needed. The Dutch Council for Culture is the most important body to advise the government on the principles and implementation of policy plans (ACPPT, 2019). The Council notes that makers and cultural institutions respond to the environment in which they live and work (Raad voor Cultuur, 2014). They seek connection with local audiences by making productions or exhibitions that refer to stories from the city and its surroundings. The ways in which cultural organizations collaborate have become more diverse. More connections are being made between actors in the city, between stages and companies, between culture and other social domains and between different disciplines (ibid., 16).

Collaboration between CCIs is improving, but these groups still are not always able to, or do not have the right tools or knowledge to work together properly. This research will contribute to strengthening these CCIs by exploring the relationships between them. In the process of unraveling these relationships, it tries to find areas that are problematic. It will supply insights that can be used for the development of a better cultural-ecological environment for CCIs. This will

(15)

6

enable the Dutch national, provincial and local government(s) to make better choices regarding policy implementations from which CCIs, the regional economy and local authorities can benefit.

1.4|DEFINING CULTURAL AND CREATIVE INDUSTRIES

There are many ways in which the cultural and creative industries can be defined (figure 1). Different concepts are used in different contexts. Therefore, it is necessary to be explicit about exactly what is meant by the term “cultural and creative industries” (CCIs). The terms “cultural industries” and “creative industries” are sometimes used interchangeably, and other times perceived to be distinctive in some way (Drake, 2003). UNESCO defines cultural and creative industries as activities “whose principal purpose is production or reproduction, promotion, distribution or commercialization of goods, services and activities of a cultural, artistic or heritage-related nature” (2010, 6). The cultural industries are regarded as those industries that “combine the creation, production and commercialization of contents which are intangible and cultural in nature. These contents are typically protected by copyright and they can take the form of goods or services” (Buitrago & Mo 2009, 6). An important aspect of the cultural industries, according to UNESCO (2010), is that they play a prominent role in advocating and preserving cultural diversity. The term “creative industries” is used is many different ways, but it is clear that the term goes beyond cultural industries. The term creative industries applies to “a much wider productive set, including goods and services produced by the cultural industries and those that depend on innovation, including many types of research and software development” (UNESCO & UNDP 2013, 20). In everyday life, however, the concept of creative industries does not have an umbrella

meaning. It refers to a specific niche in the creative sector, which mainly focuses on design and new media. Therefore, this research uses the broader concept of CCIs. In this way, no specific area

Figure 1. Cultural and creative industries

(16)

7

of the CCIs is excluded, which ensures a holistic view. Due to the explorative nature of this research, it does not focus specifically on the cultural or creative industry. Instead, it treats the concepts as one—cultural and creative industries (CCIs).

1.5|STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY

The overall structure of the study takes the form of six chapters. This chapter introduced to main topic, explained the relevance and examined the concept of cultural and creative industries Chapter two begins by laying out the theoretical dimensions of the research, and examines the concepts of cultural ecology and collaborations. The third chapter is concerned with the methodology used for this study. The fourth and fifth chapter embody the analysis of the data and findings. And the study is concluded in chapter 6, in which the main question is answered. Furthermore, the limitations and recommendations of the study will be presented.

(17)

8

Chapter 2 An ecological approach to cultural and creative

collaborations

This research builds on different concepts related to regional collaboration and CCIs. The following paragraphs elaborate on these concepts and provide a helpful base for the empirical part of this research. The Council for Culture claims that we should see the Dutch cultural field as a set of cultural ecosystems. Therefore, the concept of cultural ecology, which ecosystems build on, will be explored first (§ 2.1), followed by an examination of the motivations of CCIs to (not) work together and the conditions that influence a collaboration (§ 2.2). At last, the conceptual model of the study is presented (§ 2.3).

2.1|CULTURAL ECOLOGY

2.1.1 Thinking ecologically about arts and culture: current debates

In various debates about ecology (Sharpe 2008; Holden 2004, 2014), the term is framed in contrast to economy. Ecology is a way to describe biological systems, while economy is concerned with the world of markets and money. However, the concept of ecology finds its way into other fields of study. The following section explores the concept in terms of terminology and ongoing debates. In his first exploration of ecosystems and the cultural field, Sharpe (2008) states that we have a rich understanding on how market systems work. The foundation of markets is the concept of property, which can be owned and traded. However, he continues, only trading things is not how the world works. It is a complex system that requires the mutual support of parts and processes. Sharpe (ibid.) describes it with references to a creature, a car, a conversation or an ecosystem. In these phenomena, various things get exchanged at different point, but in order to thoroughly understand them, one must look at them at a deeper, qualitative level. In this way, the processes that make the whole system work could be revealed.

In recent years, the International Futures Forum (IFF) has dealt with the question of whether ecological thinking can help us to understand how arts function in society. They state that the notion of “value” is central to understanding how the cultural field works. The role of creativity and the cultural field in a society is inevitably connected with this notion. In this, questions like “why do creative and cultural industries matter?” and “why do cultural institutions need to be funded by the government?” are common issues in today’s society. This study about regional collaborations does not justify why culture is important in society but follows notions of the IFF, in which Bill Sharpe (2008; 2010) is a prominent researcher. He explores how this dilemma of value can be tackled with ecological thinking.

(18)

9

theory focuses on the connections and interactions between people and non-human things and wants to understand the world from there. ANT approaches people and non-human things as actors and equates them to each other, in the sense that they can both exert influence or interact with other actors (Bosco, 2006).

Ecology also sees the pattern of life as a connected whole. Instead of looking at an individual species, it looks at the interactions of all of the organisms and how they are maintained by the overall flow of resources. Our lives take place in one overall ecosystem, within which are many economies with different ways of sharing and exchanging things, knowledge and experiences (Sharpe, 2010). Instead of focusing on monetary values, ecological thinking sees economies as patterns of shared life. Thus, instead of assuming there is only one economy in life “the” economy, which is based on money—ecological thinking includes multiple different economies. Natural ecosystems work without the need for any money to circulate. However, a cultural ecosystem does interact with the economy. Viewing a research area as an ecosystem helps to understand it in its own terms.

The relation between organisms and their environment is also discussed by Howkins (2009 in UNESCO, 2010). He emphasizes how the ecological conditions of diversity, change, learning and adaption influence creativity. Different organisms live together in a cultural ecosystem. In Howkins’ view, a cultural ecosystem is a separate “niche” in the society in which “diverse individuals express themselves in a systemic and adaptive way, using ideas to produce ideas”(ibid., 19). This research, however, does not treat cultural ecology as a specific niche where ecosystems appear. Instead, it explores if an ecological approach improves the analysis in the whole field of regional collaborations of the cultural and creative industries.

Holden (2015) has also studied understanding the cultural field within an ecological context. He describes how culture concentrates on relationships and patterns within a whole system but goes further than Sharpe (2010). Holden (2015, 3) describes how cultural ecology focuses on flows between people, ideas, products and money, and can contribute to an understanding of the “dynamic ways in which cultural activities affect each other and are linked together”.

An UCR can form a cultural ecosystem, in which artists, cultural institutions and governments work closely together and are able to respond to the needs of the population. In this sense, cultural ecology and the connected concept of cultural ecosystems are ways to describe the dynamics of culture. A cultural ecosystem has open borders but forms a functioning habitat in which all the actors function in a specific way, connected to each other. Markusen (2011) supports this in her definition of cultural ecology:

(19)

10 “‘An arts and cultural ecology encompasses the many networks of arts and cultural creators, producers, presenters, sponsors, participants, and supporting casts embedded in diverse communities. Forty years ago, scientists and policymakers realized that treating plants, animals, minerals, climate, and the universe as endlessly classifiable, separate phenomena did not help people understand or respond to environmental problems. So, they created the integrated field of environmental ecology. In similar fashion, arts producers, advocates, and policymakers are now beginning to strengthen the arts and cultural sphere by cultivating a view of its wholeness and interconnectedness […] We define the arts and cultural ecology

as the complex interdependencies that shape the demand for, and production of arts and cultural offerings.” (8)

For Dovey et al. (2016), thinking ecologically requires that we look at “the assemblage of agents that constitute cultural ecosystems” (10). Furthermore, the authors discuss how there is little systematic analysis of cultural ecology as a practice and method. In his starting point in the exploration of a suitable framework, Holden (2015, 11) distinguishes three highly interconnected spheres in a cultural ecosystem; 1) the “publicly funded culture” sphere, 2) the “commercial culture” sphere and the 3) “homemade culture” sphere. This model of spheres is one way of looking at the whole of culture, but Holden argues that it does not “adequately capture the complexity of the cultural ecology”. It still treats culture more as an economy than an ecology. Treating culture as an ecology changes the viewpoint because an ecology is non-hierarchical. All parts in the ecosystem are equally important; one cannot function without the other. Thus, all parts are needed to make the whole. Additionally, in an ecological viewpoint, culture can be treated as a social process. In this process, culture makes us, and we make it. We are embedded in the network of the cultural ecology (ibid.). Wilson and Gross (2017) argue that “thinking about the cultural sector ecologically emphasizes interdependency, co-development, complexity and constant change” (10).

Much remains uncertain about the concept of cultural ecology. There is no commonly agreed-upon meaning. To illustrate, the Arts Council in England (2014) writes about “the” whole arts and culture ecology. England’s creative and cultural field is viewed as one ecology where the living, evolving network of artists, cultural organizations and venues cooperate in many partnerships. The country knows historical tensions between London versus the regions, so-called ‘elite art’ versus community art and rural versus urban. The Arts Council uses the concept to “make up the creative dialogue of a healthy cultural sector” (ibid., 5). In this debate, cultural ecology is something that has to be built, maintained and created. Borin and Donato (2015) use the concept of cultural ecology differently in an exploration of the ecosystem framework within the Italian cultural sector. In their study, cultural ecosystems are said to be “implemented” in multiple forms.

(20)

11

For Dovey, Moreton, Sparke and Sharpe (2016), cultural ecology is to be used as “an approach to managing networks” in the creative economy. In their research, cultural ecology is a way to assemble micro-businesses, small and medium sized enterprises in a network of relationships. There is no consensus about the concept of cultural ecology, and it is used in many different ways. But the previous discussions have tried to make clear what the central idea implies. Ecological thinking means taking a holistic view of various phenomena by viewing them as cultural ecosystems that consist of multiple networks with different connected nodes. Taking an ecological perspective places emphasis on the interdependency between the linkages in a system.

2.1.2 Network ideas in cultural ecology

Descriptions of cultural ecologies regularly include the concept of the network (Holden, 2015; Blackstone, Hage and Williams 2016; Courtney, 2018). A network can be described as a set of organizations that coordinate their joint activities through different types of peer-to-peer relations (Turrini et al. 2010, 529). O’Toole (1997) further defines networks “as structures of interdependence involving multiple organisations” (45) and underlines how “each unit is not the formal subordinate of others in some hierarchical arrangement, but is rather related to other partners in horizontal perspective” (ibid.). These ties between organizations are goal-directed and consciously organized. The relationships go beyond informal ties but are based on stabilization and formalization of their cooperation (Kilduff & Tsai, 2003 in Borin 2015, 29). The glue that holds all of the different actors in a network together is their shared mindset and commitment (Borin, 2015).

In economic geography, network concepts are used for analyzing regional economic development (Glückler, 2007). This allows for a relational view of the social context of economic action. Sociologist Granovetter (1973) also discussed the importance of ties within social networks. According to his “the strength of weak ties” theory, creativity can flourish when intergroup contact and cooperation within networks are encouraged.

The significance of networks in the cultural and creative field is becoming more apparent. There have been ongoing debates among academics and professionals in the cultural field on the need to rethink the models of cooperation and networking (Bonet & Donato, 2011). Networks and partnerships can help to overcome some of the traditional problems of the field, such as financial support and the elite attitude of culture. The cultural field needs to be creative in order to overcome the decrease in public funding. This view is supported by Bonet and Donato (2011), who also claim that networks have the potential to deal with the consequences of the economic and financial crisis within the cultural field. In the same vein, Borin (2015) discusses how sharing resources and skills through networking could “decrease costs related to common activities, enhance effectiveness in pursuing shared goals and unlock the innovative capacity of cultural organizations through innovative synergies” (28).

(21)

12

Robinson (2010) places the artist in the center of the cultural ecosystem. However, he stresses the importance of the connections between the various levels of the system and the fact that these connections work both ways. For example, he argues that “[…] what happens in a town or city […] impacts the arts sector. What happens in the arts or in an arts venue changes the city” (Robinson, 2010, 25). He links the health of an arts ecology and its power to keep functioning despite changes in the environment directly to connectivity and “networks of relationships enabling adaptive behavior and resilience” (ibid., 26). Howkins (2009 in Blackstone et al. 2016) writes that in creative ecologies, “our ability to develop ideas successfully depends on how we use networks; for example, knowing when to collaborate, when to compete, and when to go at it alone” (79). It is clear that collaboration in networks could have many advantages for the cultural and creative field. This could be in the form of an actual networking organization in a city or region, or it could be something more abstract. In this study, the network approach is viewed as a component of cultural ecology.

2.2|PLACE AND MOTIVATIONS IN CREATIVE COLLABORATIONS

The following part of this study moves on to describe the concept of collaboration. As Thomson and Perry (2006) claim, the ‘doing’ of collaboration is a ‘black box’. This research tries to look into this black box in relation to the collaborations of CCIs in two approaches. The first explores why CCIs consider to (not) collaborate, what are their motives? The second approach explores the process of collaboration itself. What structural, cultural and strategic conditions influence this process? In this exploration of two approaches to, the study adopts concepts that emerge from public administration studies.

Furthermore, this study tries to distance itself from the notion that collaboration is a ‘buzz’-word, which becomes meaningless through its widespread and varied usage. Although there is much variety in defining and understanding the meaning of collaboration, Thomas et al. (2007, 25) provide a multidimensional definition:

This definition views collaboration in its broadest sense, which ensures an holistic view. Moreover, the term collaboration is used interchangeably with the term cooperation and partnerships. Some theorists make certain distinctions between these concept, but this study treats the concepts as one.

“Collaboration is a process in which autonomous actors interact through formal and informal negotiation, jointly creating rules and structures, governing their relationships and ways to act or decide on the issues that brought them together, it is a process involving shared norms and mutually beneficial interactions.”

(22)

13 2.2.1 The role of place in CCIs and collaborations

One of the facets of an ecological approach is a focus on the interdependency of phenomena. This matter requires a theoretical concept that views collaboration in a relational approach. Cultural and creative industries are embedded in a geographical location. Therefore, the relationship between CCIs and the location in which they are placed is of relevance in this study. This embeddedness has an effect on the way CCIs operate in Urban Cultural Regions. Following Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh’s framework (2011), collaboration is embedded in, and interacting with, a larger environment. The (un)intentional choices that are made in collaboration processes are linked to several dimensions of place. Furthermore, this place-embedded view on collaboration adds the regional perspective in this study.

To ensure a relational approach to collaboration, this study adopts notions of Comunian, Chapain and Clifton (2010) about creative industries and place. Their study lacks clarification about the exact meaning of creative industries in their study, and therefore, their focus could be considered too restricted. But it does acknowledge the complexity on how CCIs are interwoven in certain places. Hence, their framework is suitable for exploring collaborations of CCIs in an ecological approach. The creative industries concept used in Comunian et al. (2010) is replaced with the broader concept of cultural and creative industries (CCIs) that is used throughout this research.

The authors try to understand why certain places are successful in “fostering and developing creative industries and creative economies” (ibid., 6). In their view, the ability of places to encourage growth of the creative economy is influenced by four interrelated dimensions. The first dimension, infrastructure, is very broad and embodies factors that are not particularly external to CCIs. It is concerned with matters such as the local availability of business spaces, the wealth of the local population or the tourism and/or transport infrastructure of a place can impact the development of local CCIs (ibid.). Governance is the second dimension. It includes aspects of policy strategies and initiatives, and integration between institutional and non-institutional actors at various scale-levels (the national, regional and local). CCIs connect with various policy arenas, such as regeneration, economic development and social inclusion (ibid.).

(23)

14

Soft infrastructure, the third dimension, includes networks, the specific image or identity of the place and the existence of traditions that might have an important impact on support for CCIs to develop and grow. The last dimension, markets, refers to the key role of demand and to interaction with clients and customers (ibid.). It is important to take the geographical scale into account in all these dimensions. Comunian et al. (2010) conclude by stating that “different creative businesses perceive and experience different levels of ‘embeddedness’ in relation to local infrastructure, networks, governance and markets.” (ibid., 7). This implicates that the experiences of different CCIs in the same location, or (in this study) Urban Cultural Region, can differ.

2.2.2 Influences on motives to (not) collaborate

There are many reasons why organizations engage in collaborations. Todeva & Knoke (2005) claim that there are four main elements that influence the formation of collaborations which are strongly linked to the four place dimensions of infrastructure, soft infrastructure, governance and markets. These elements focus specifically on the formation of collaboration. Firstly, at macro level, the general economic conditions and specific institutional frameworks of countries influences the business environment in which the CCIs operate. Secondly, specific industrials factors, like resource consumption levels, capital investment, labor scarcity, knowledge intensity and technological innovation (ibid., 131), influence the strategy of an organization in collaborations. Thirdly, organizations differ in size, assets, networks, and histories. These organizational factors also influence the formation process. And lastly, globalization also influences organizations to seek new ways of working together (ibid.). Rapid technological development influences every area of

Figure 2. Four interrelated dimensions of creative industries & place

(24)

15

production, and CCIs are no exception. Cultural and creative collaborations are thus heavily connected to their environment. Taken together, the studies of Comunian et al. (2010) in §2.2.1

and Todeva & Knoke (2005) in §2.2.2. support the interconnectedness of place in collaborations. The next section moves to a more specific approach on the formation of collaborations. Many theorists have analyzed the motivational factors for organizations to cooperate. For instance, organizations in the CCIs may be looking to expand their organizational capacity. This increases available resources and could help to “accomplish and expand on what you are doing” (Ostrower 2005, 36). Collaboration also helps to build organizational networks; this in turn stimulates future collaborations and a more open view to the arts world and, therefore, less isolation of organizations (ibid.). Iyer (2003) also states that the most important motive for collaboration is the expectation that organizations can achieve a better result when they work together than they could reach in isolation. Working together creates interdependence and brings new benefits to the organizations.

Todeva and Knoke (2005) claim that “while seeking partnerships, firms try to address internal organization problems, they consider economic benefits, engage in strategic positioning, or political manoeuvring with governments and competitors” (Todeva & Knoke, 2005, 6). The most relevant motives to collaborate in this research are enhancing productive efficiency, reducing uncertainties or risk, acquiring competitive advantages, seeking new markets, restructuring and improving performance, sharing costs, developing new products and co-specialization. Voss and Voss (2000) point out that increasing revenue and exchanging knowledge could be reasons to collaborate. Ostrower (2005) also identified increasing efficiency as a motive for collaboration. Furthermore, working together could also help organizations penetrate new geographical markets (Kossen et al., 2010).

The aforementioned motives for collaboration are applicable to all kinds of businesses and organizations. In the specific context of CCIs, a few more reasons can be distinguished. An organization that wants to reach new potential visitors could collaborate with a different organization in order to reach an audience that normally would not visit them. Collaborations can thus help CCIs enlarge and diversify their audiences or engage new ones (Ostrower, 2005; Sedita, 2008). On the programming side, working together could increase the quality of the artistic programming (Sedita, 2008), and different CCIs could merge their programming (Backer, 2002). Likewise, CCIs can join their arts marketing forces in order to expand their audience (Kossen et al. 2010). Financial factors could also motivate organizations to collaborate. In the cultural and creative sector, working together could lead to obtaining more grant funds (Ostrower, 2005). Lastly, collaborating is also a way to increase the CCIs’ contribution to the community (Sedita, 2008).

By contrast, Langeveld, Belme and Koppenberg (2014) examine motives to not collaborate. It is important that the collaborating organizations keep the main goal in mind. Working together

(25)

16

is a tool to realize a goal. When the focus is only on maintaining the collaboration and not the main goal, collaborating might not be the best option. Additionally, the organizational culture of the CCIs affects the collaborative culture. When the potential partners are highly different from each other, it can sabotage the collaboration in the long term (ibid., 18). While looking for collaboration partners, a CCI must take the importance of location into account. It may be favorable if the partner is situated nearby, because the partner may have a shared culture. They are familiar with the surroundings and might have the same work spirit. But when closely situated CCIs work together, the competition aspect must be considered. Organizations’ neighbors could be their biggest competitors (Richards & Duif, 2008). Collaboration can also be used as a tactic in some cases to delay action or avoid accountability, thus hindering real change (Backer, 2002). By all means, there are more reasons why collaborations could not be the best option, but this discussion shows the most relevant for this research.

2.3|THE PROCESS OF CREATIVE COLLABORATIONS

Having discussed the motives to (not) collaborate, the final section of this chapter addresses conditions that influence creative collaborations. Considerable amount of literature has been published on the mechanisms that influence the process of collaborations. The following exploration presents and combines relevant frameworks of collaboration in order to facilitate a clear structure. It categorizes the main components into three conditions in collaborative processes. These three conditions are discovered by Langeveld, Belme and Koppenberg (2014) in their research about collaboration between, and integration of, performing arts organizations in the Netherlands. The discovered conditions consist of various elements that all need to be present for a collaboration to be successful.

It is noteworthy to mention that this research does not define successful collaboration or provide a roadmap for organizations to reach it. Instead, the aim is to explore the influences that different stakeholders in collaborations need to consider. In addition to Langeveld, Belme and Koppenberg’s (2014) three pillared framework, notions of various other scholars (Bryson et al., 2015; Koschmann, Kuhn and Pfaffer, 2012; Child et al., 2005; Human & Provan, 2000) are touched upon. Relevant concepts of these studies are integrated in the three conditions to support the presented framework. Collaboration is a complex process. What works for one organization may not work for another. The presented concepts are related to the understanding of creative collaborations in general.

The proposed framework works as a guidance through the vast amount of elements that influence a creative collaboration. The elements do not embody certain checkboxes but help us to

(26)

17

know what is considered as important in collaborations. The categories of the three conditions are flexible and interference between them is possible.

2.3.1 Structural conditions

Structural conditions refer to those elements that embody the collaboration type itself and how organizations undertake collaborations. These conditions relate to the way collaborations are shaped. To begin with, a voluntary intention and organic development is an important condition for collaborations. When a collaboration starts on a small scale, it will have greater success in the long term. The chances of success are higher when collaborations are voluntary (Langeveld et al., 2014). A shared collaboration history is also referred to as shared collaboration history, also influences collaborations. It is clear that when different stakeholders already know each other and their work ethics, collaborations will be easier. Prior relationships also influences the judgement of trustworthiness and legitimacy of the collaborative partner (Bryson et al., 2015). If organizations want to optimize and maximize collaborative mechanisms, efficient communication and investment in one another is of high value. Communication must be clear, as it is the “complex process of meaning negotiation and construction” (Koschmann, Kuhn and Pfarrer, 2012, 335). Here, transparency can help partners build a well-functioning collaboration. The different stakeholders need to be clear about their plans, and no partners should have hidden agendas.

2.3.2 Cultural conditions

The cultural conditions of a collaboration refer to the collaborative culture and the way in which participants experience, value, view and frame the collaboration. The cultural conditions are more embedded in the individual organizations themselves than the structural conditions. It is more concerned with the characteristics of the participants in collaborations.

The first step in collaborating is making a commitment. All parties involved must feel responsible from the start of the process. Commitment is “crucial in the long-run and it helps to deal with emerging obstacles and difficulties during the implementation process” (Langeveld et al., 2014, 82). Another important condition is the building and maintaining of trust. Trust is a critical factor in relation to the success of a collaboration. Trusting relationships are regularly portrayed as the essence of collaboration (Lee et al., 2012). The concept of trust may be defined as “the willingness of one party to relate with another in the brief that the other’s actions will be beneficial rather than detrimental to the first party, even though this cannot be guaranteed” (Child et al., 2005, 50). Trust builds consensus, and communication will be more efficient than when two (or more) parties involved distrust each other. Trust builds on notions of reciprocity. Reciprocity means that “one party transfers a gift in the collaboration in the form of time, attention,

(27)

18

information or knowledge and it expects something in return from the other party” (Langeveld et al., 2014, 19). Collaboration can be voluntary or enforced. But even an enforced collaboration can become voluntary when the parties involved develop trust and reciprocity that goes further than the basic agreements that were made at first. A trust-based relationship evolves continuously. When the bond of trust breaks, the collaboration could come to an end. Another aspect of trust is its socially constructed nature. Trust-building happens mostly in the personal sphere among individuals. In order to strengthen trust, social interactions should be of high priority.

Collaborations require active participation and involvement. This brings us to the condition of mutual investment of time, money and resources. In particular, the start of a collaboration consumes extra time and resources from the organizations. This extra energy may deliver favorable outcomes in the long term as the collaborations start to work. Nevertheless, active involvement from the employees is necessary.

This active involvement is connected to a belief in the collaboration. All layers of the organizations involved must believe in the main goal; otherwise, the collaboration is likely to fail. This is also referred to as the internal legitimacy, in which collaboration members have to agree with the form and interactions of the process (Human & Provan, 2000). When the idea and implementation of a collaboration are created by the top layer of an organization, the importance of the collaboration must be explained to the employees. The willingness to give up privileges to realize a common vision is another cultural condition that influences collaborations. As mentioned earlier, collaborations take extra time and energy. If an organization is too self-interested, this might impair achievement of the main goal. The partners need to put the overall interest of the collaboration above their individual interests (Langeveld et al., 2014, 83).

The persons who carry out the project(s) need to work together with others with whom they normally do not interact. Therefore, the human element (working chemistry, match of experiences) is a crucial condition. It refers to the personal connection that the people involved should feel. Organizations could have the same interests on paper, but a lack of working chemistry could sabotage the collaboration.

When small organizations work together with large institutions, equality between partners is necessary. Unequal partnerships could lead to difficulties where the larger organizations are in charge. When the organizations are unequal in size, mutual respect from both partners must be present instead. Small and large organizations have their own strengths which must be recognized. The condition of equality is closely related to the homogeneity of partners. Certain similarities between partners can strengthen the collaboration. There are different areas in which organizations can match, such as type, value, workload, speed, capacity and number of inhabitants in service area. The type of organization can matter if, for instance, a governmental and a private

(28)

19

organization work together, because they are likely to have different work strategies. Differences in value and workload could also make the collaboration process more troublesome. Speed refers to “how fast a project can be implemented or how quickly organizations can react on changes” (ibid., 84). Larger organizations tend to have a more hierarchical structure, causing decision-making to be slower compared to smaller organizations. Finally, the number of inhabitants in the service area is also relevant. Organizations with significantly different numbers of inhabitants could have difficulty collaborating because of clashes of their main objectives.

Another important condition is scale. When a small number of organizations work together, there is a greater chance of succeeding in the long term because each feels more responsible. In collaborations with a large number of partners, the problem of free riding (benefiting from the efforts of others) could develop (ibid.).

The last cultural condition is the skill of listening and searching for commonalities. Organizations need to listen carefully to each other in order to recognize their common views about the collaboration. It helps if the organizations look at themselves and recognize their own strengths and shortcomings and, in this way, see how the collaboration could create value that the parties involved could not have reached alone.

2.3.3 Strategic conditions

Strategic conditions refer to the way in which the organizations view the collaboration and its prospects for the future. However, they also involve individual agendas and interests. External pressure and necessity can create urgency to start collaborations. As mentioned earlier, the field of CCIs is not always a financially stable one. Collaborating could be a tool for the organizations to keep on functioning even when the available budget has been reduced. In less fortunate times, organizations “need to become more creative on many levels within the organization” (ibid., 86).

Furthermore, having a clear identity before collaboration is essential to have an efficient collaboration. This refers to the individual organizations’ identities but also to the ‘joint’ identity of the involved organizations. How do the organizations want to present themselves to the public? If this is clear, the collaboration will likely yield better results.

The condition of identity is connected to having a well-defined common vision and clear objectives. What do the collaborating parties want to achieve? The partners must continue evaluating their project(s) throughout the process. Are the achievements in line with the outlined vision? Is added value being created by working together? A mutual gaining point also helps collaborations. If the situation is win-win for all organizations involved, there is a greater chance for the collaboration to succeed. The last structural condition is the alignment of values, goals and

(29)

20

missions. When the organizations involved want to reach something different, the chances of a collaboration succeeding are much less.

2.4|CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Figure 3 shows the conceptual model based on the previous described theoretical framework. The first part of this chapter examined a cultural ecological approach. The concept of cultural ecology functions as a way of understanding and examining regional collaborations. Regional collaborations are considered as one of the practical outcomes of the interdependency that cultural ecology focuses on. CCIs are embedded in places. Therefore, it is important to focus on the interdependency and constant change that occurs between the linkages in an environment.

The second chapter outlined four dimensions of infrastructure, governance, soft infrastructure and markets to examine these complex interdependencies. These dimensions have a certain influence on the motives to (not) collaborate and the structural, cultural and strategic conditions in collaborations. In this, regional collaborations embody the linkages between stakeholders. All these components eventually affect the experiences of regional collaborations stakeholders of UCRs in Landsdeel Oost.

(30)

21

Chapter 3 Research methodology

This chapter describes the qualitative research approach, using a case study, the research methods, participant selection and the way in which the acquired data was analyzed. Furthermore, it elaborates on the methodological limitations in this study throughout the whole chapter.

The purpose of this research is to explore collaborations between CCIs on the regional level. In order to do so, fifteen cultural profiles of Urban Cultural Regions and two policy documents are analyzed. Furthermore, eighteen stakeholders of UCRs in Landsdeel Oost are interviewed.

3.1|A QUALITATIVE RESEARCH APPROACH

This research is about interactions among organizations and people in the field of CCIs in regional collaborations. A qualitative research design helps to discover complex and detailed knowledge about an issue or problem. Therefore, statistical methods are not suitable in this study because they are not able to grasp these interactions thoroughly. The bottom-up approach in this study is focused on building patterns, categories and themes from the acquired data. In this way, it explores the relationships between CCIs and other relevant actors (such as the government) on a deeper level. The decision to employ a qualitative research design is based on the fact that it focuses on “people's social and material circumstances, their experiences, perspectives and histories” (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003, 22).

At the start of this research, there were many developments concerning Dutch cultural policy, the UCRs and the place of CCIs in both. How more attention should be paid to the more regional or local CCIs by the national government, and what their significance is in the whole Dutch cultural field. Collaborations of CCIs in UCRs should help to strengthen the cultural field. This research helps us to grasp governance structures in which the UCRs originated from through document analysis. The provincial and regional local point of view are explored through interviews. In the interviews, two provincial officials, five municipal officials, and eleven managing directors of CCIs shared their thoughts and experiences of regional collaboration in UCRs.

Using a qualitative research methods over quantitative ones is also suitable because the latter are more focused on finding patterns in, and testing hypotheses about, a research issue on a deductive level. Qualitative research is about exploring a problem or issue, and it allows the researcher to obtain in-depth insights into the participants’ motives and interpretations of the research subject (Ranshuysen, 2012). The emergent design makes this research flexible in such a way that the plans for investigating a research problem can change over time. Different aspects of the research (i.e. the questions, forms of data collection, the participants or sites) are not set in stone and develop throughout the study (Clissett, 2008). This aspect is of importance in the light

(31)

22

of this study, as the trends of UCRs and regional collaboration were developing rapidly. One should treat this study as an journey through the developments in the relationship between regional collaborations and UCRs in which the study has been shaped and adjusted to the current state of affairs. For instance, the focus on ArnhemNijmegen was formed during the exploration of the fifteen cultural profiles. This decision was not made in beforehand.

The starting point of this research was an internship at the Dutch Council for Culture for five months. In this internship I was introduced to the recent developments of UCRs which eventually resulted in the main research theme. Important to note is that this study is not carried out on behalf of the Council for Culture. All written statements are my own. During my time at the Council, I analyzed the fifteen cultural profiles of UCRs which I incorporated in this research. I used my acquired personal connections at the Council for Culture to come into contact with potential participants for the interviews. The interviews were conducted in the months after my internship, from April till the beginning of August 2019.

This situation is linked to another differentiating aspect of qualitative research, the personal relationship of the researcher with the research field. The researcher hears the voices of actors in the research area directly and tries to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Phenomena are studied in their natural setting (Creswell, 2007). However, the researcher must be aware that the main research instrument in qualitative research is him- or herself. The researcher makes “an interpretation of what they see, hear and understand” (ibid., 39); this method is known as interpretive inquiry. It should be noted that the world of the researcher (own background, history, context and prior understandings) cannot be dissociated from the interpretations the researcher makes. The Council for Culture advocated on behalf of the existence of the UCRs. This could have biased my view in favor of the UCRs and regional collaborations. Nevertheless, I was aware of this point of issue throughout the whole research process. Due to my background in Anthropology in which looking at situations with the least preconceptions as possible is important, I tried to avoid this potential bias by assuring a holistic view on the research theme and taking multiple perspectives into account.

3.2|A CASE STUDY DESIGN

The exploration of UCRs by the national government in the Netherlands was the catalyst for further research in this study; therefore, it is necessary to examine the Dutch cultural field as a whole. This was done through a document analysis of two policy documents and fifteen cultural profiles of the UCRs of the Netherlands. However, exploring the whole Dutch cultural field in-depth is too broad for the scope of this research, so the decision was made to focus on the eastern part of the Netherlands in the interviews. The first reason for this decision was based on the fact

(32)

23

that these five UCRs, 1) Zwolle, 2) Twente, 3) Stedendriehoek (Apeldoorn, Deventer and Zwolle), 4)

Ede-Wageningen and 5) ArnhemNijmegen, all of which submitted their cultural profiles in November 2018,

are also affiliated in Landsdeel Oost. These five UCRs are the only ones in the Netherlands that included a joint statement in the addendums of their individual cultural profiles called “Route Oost” (map 1). All five of these UCRs are touched upon to include multiple perspectives in this study. The intra-regional relationship between the five UCRs was the reason to focus on the east of the Netherlands. In the second place, the analysis of the fifteen cultural profiles of the first empirical part showed the many differences (i.e. actual size of the region, length of the cultural profile, themes and incorporated CCIs) between these five UCRs, even though they are all located in the east of the Netherlands. This made me curious about the different point of views of the stakeholders in these regions about regional collaborations.

Unfortunately, in the scope of this research, it was not possible to investigate every one of these five regions extensively. Focusing on every one of these UCRs would have possibly led to a fragmented view on regional collaboration. To get a grasp of the processes that emerge on a regional scale on a deeper level, the decision was made to pick one of the five UCRs to explore in depth. Therefore, a large portion of this case study focused on the UCR of ArnhemNijmegen. This decision was based on multiple informal conversations during my internship at the Council for Culture in The Hague. I came to the know that this particular UCR had developed its cultural profile from the bottom up, meaning that the CCIs themselves were in charge of developing the

Map 1. Visual representation of the five UCRs in Landsdeel Oost

Creative collaborations on regional scale. A research about the experiences of regional collaboration of cultural and creative industries