The Political-Aesthetics of Participation: A Critical Reading of Iceland’s National Cultural Policy

Sigurjónsson, Njörður

doi:10.18261/issn.2000-8325-2021-02-07

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In practice, however, even if a participatory shift in the social-political vocabulary is clear (Virolainen, 2016) and a plethora of methods of how to engage with specific forms of participation exist, it is not always defined on such a level of specificity that would make it meaningful in practice and save it from turning into an empty word. This applies to participation discourse in cultural policy (Sigurjónsson, 2021) and beyond (e.g., Egher, 2023). A parallel tendency in the discourse is to recognise active and to neglect hidden, informal and anti-normative forms of participation by omitting them altogether or categorising them, as Zvonareva and colleagues (2022) note, for example, as acts of vandalism.…”

Section: Participationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regimes of participation: theorising participatory archives from the outset of archivists' views on archival institutions and user participation in Scandinavia

Huvila

2024

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: In spite of the prominence of the notion of participatory archives, there is no consensus of what participation entails in archival contexts and a lack of theory to explain the mechanisms underpinning the diversity of views. Method: Norwegian and Swedish archivists were surveyed as a part of the international ALMPUB research project for their views on user participation and how these views relate to their understanding of the role and the raison d’être of archives and archival institutions. The survey findings were used as a basis for theory development. Analysis: The data were analysed using exploratory factor analysis and descriptive statistics. The results of the factor analysis theorised as subject positions relating to views pertaining to archival participation and the societal role of archival institutions. Results: The analysis shows that the professionals’ perceptions of the rationale and impact of participation and the societal role of archives and archival institutions forms clusters were interpreted as relating to regimes of participation. Conclusions: Drawing on the theorising of Boltanski and Thévenot, the alignments of the perceptions to archives’ raisons d’être and archival participation are explained in terms of four regimes of participation: 1) participation as an intrinsically valuable activity; 2) participation as a complement to professional work in the records continuum; 3) professional work as an auxiliary activity to participation of experts; and 4) participation as a means of producing additional value for archival institutions, i.e., arrangements of framing the justification and value of participation in, with and for archival institutions. It is, however, possible to imagine additional regimes that correspond with the social worlds of Boltanski and Thévenot not represented by them, including the inspired (participation as a source of inspiration) and domestic worlds (domiciliary participation), and the world by project (participatory project). The study suggests that inquiring into the justifications and regimes of worth attached to participation helps to refute simplistic assumptions of what participation entails and recognise the variety of participatory engagements and their diverging implications for different types of archival institutions and their diverse stakeholders.

show abstract

Section: Participationmentioning

confidence: 99%