Archive for July 2015

[Previous message][Next message][Back to index]

[ecrea] CFP: Diversifying the creative: Creative work, creative industries, creative identities

Sat Jul 18 15:11:58 GMT 2015

Call for papers— Special Issue of /Organization/ – Deadline for full
papers 1 December 2015

*Diversifying the creative: Creative work, creative industries, creative

Special issue edited by:
Deborah Jones, Kate Sang, Naomi Stead, Rebecca Finkel, Dimi Stoyanova

Links to full call: Via Organization


To diversify the creative is to ask how certain bodies, certain work
practices and certain identities come to be counted as ‘creative’, while
others are excluded. Creativity and creatives have become desirable,
socially and economically, as creativity has been rebranded as the
engine of post-industrial ‘creative economies’ over the last decade or
so. The rhetoric of creativity encompasses specifically designated
‘creative industries’ and ‘creatives’ (Caves, 2000), as well as a much
wider idea of ‘the creative’ at work in all kinds of organisations and
occupations (Bilton, 2006). Creativity is conceptualised in a wide range
of forms, in which traditional and new are spliced together. For
instance, a romantic framing of arts and artists, based on a distinction
between the creative and the industrial, is linked with ideas of art as
a vocation and of the artist as a distinctive kind of individualised
genius (Becker, 1974). A more recent, 21st-century vision is linked with
the idea of innovation as the key to economic success so that workplaces
are specifically designed to attract and affirm creative talent
(Hesmondhalgh, 2012). Here, the ideal ‘creative’ may be imagined as a
member of smoothly functioning team of passionate and diverse talents, a
member of a new, ‘creative class’ (Florida, 2002). Contemporary
governmental policies—national, regional, industry-driven—have set out
to extend, evaluate and monetise it (Department of Culture, Media and
Sport (DCMS), 2001; Flew, 2012).

Creative work has increasingly been recognised as /work/, with
governmental technologies accounting for creative subjects—artists,
technicians, entrepreneurs—in data sets where earnings and occupations
can be surveyed. In oppositional mode, critical scholars have
increasingly paid attention to creative labour and have raised questions
about the forms of exploitation and exclusion with which it is
associated (Nixon and Crewe, 2004). They frame creative work in relation
to other kinds of exploitative or precarious work, while maintaining a
focus on the distinctive features of the creative (Gill, 2002). In
particular, such research recognises that struggles over the creative
are also struggles over the control of cultural production (Dean, 2008;
Hesmondhalgh and Saha, 2013).

But people working in creative fields often refuse such analyses.
Identifying as artists with a vocation, they often work in what they see
as non-creative jobs, perhaps part-time or intermittently, to fund their
creative practice (Menger, 1999). The distinctions between paid and
unpaid work are blurred (Hesmondhalgh and Baker, 2011), and unpaid
positions such as internships may be institutionalised as a way to get a
foot in the door of a creative industry (Siebert and Wilson, 2013). The
language of workplace rights is frequently marginalised or silenced
altogether, and forms of collective organising such as unionisation are
often unavailable or rejected (Blair et al., 2003). Some government
initiatives to develop creative industries also attempt to address
social diversity in terms of equal access to work and of cultural
inclusion and exclusion, but there is not much evidence of success
(Proctor-Thomson, 2013).

In this context, it can be very difficult to articulate claims about
diversity and (in)equalities within creative work. For example, it is
nearly impossible for women to find a forum or space to raise issues of
creative work and gender equality, such as pay, status, recognition or
acknowledgement of family responsibilities (Thynne, 2000). Even if they
are in paid creative work, creatives may accept low pay, extremely
demanding working conditions and precarious employment (Haunschild and
Eikhof, 2009). Such patterns are also seen within established
professions such as architecture, where members often reflect on
architecture as a lifestyle and persona rather than as a job or career.
The construction and negotiation of personal and professional
identities, as well as the performance of creativity through dress and
demeanour, bodily comportment and body art, compound the complex
understanding of what it means to be a creative ‘worker’.

The construction of identities takes varying forms in relation to the
creative. For instance, the creative is typically constructed so that
women do not become the creative stars or geniuses, do not have equal
access to creative work, are not equally rewarded and are subject to
various forms of occupational segregation that reinforce these
inequalities of both recognition and reward (Sang et al., 2014).
Intersecting with gender are constructions of class, ethnicity, age,
disability and sexuality, which complicate and extend privilege and
inequality (Grugulis and Stoyanova, 2012). However, less is known about
how other marginalised identities experience creative work, and in
particular how gender may intersect with other identities to construct
these experiences. Furthermore, there is poor understanding of how these
intersecting identities may affect who or what is considered creative.
Economic development rhetoric has been influential in claiming that
cities ‘tolerant’ to diversity will attract the ‘creative classes’, but
this claim is frequently undercut by continuing patterns of class,
gender and racial inequalities (Leslie and Catungal, 2012). At the same
time, new creative spaces can operate as sites where claims to cultural
citizenship can be contested by marginalised identities such as sexual
minorities (Yue, 2007) and people with disabilities (Darcy and Taylor,
2009). A critical examination of creativity and diversity therefore
allows us to interrogate and denaturalise both of these concepts: we can
ask how the ‘creative’ comes to be seen as a kind of essence inhabiting
particular kinds of bodies, and also how the ‘diversity’ that is
supposed to generate the creative works seems to rewrite traditional
relations of power.

The special issue invites empirical, theoretical or methodological
papers critically exploring creative work and, in particular, the ways
in which it is diversified. For instance, the gendered construction of
creativity can be seen in analyses of women’s employment within creative
industries and in the ways in which creativity is imagined or
represented in a range of occupations and practices. Intersectional
perspectives regarding how gender intersects with class, ethnicity,
disability and sexual orientation for those working in the sector also
can be explored. Although the special issue is open to any discussion of
diversity in creativity or creative work, explorations of specific work
settings or contexts, for example, architecture, film and television,
comedy, literature, music and design, will be prioritised. An
inter-disciplinary approach is welcome, acknowledging that the
literatures of work in the creative industries, like the sector itself,
have developed in and across a range of disciplines, including cultural
studies, sociology, geography, management and organisational studies.
Contributions also could include explorations of innovative
methodologies for studying and understanding the creative industries,
creative identities and creative labour, such as those employing visual
and ethnographic methods. Research may open up new discourses for
imagining, re-negotiating and managing diversity in creative work,
opening up in turn new opportunities for marginalised groups to lead,
collaborate and develop skills in creative spaces of greater equality.


  * /Embodying the creative/: How is creativity embodied as gendered,
    racialised, aged and able? How do organisations do support or
    discourage these embodiments, implicitly or explicitly?

  * /Imagining and organising diversity in creative work/: What would
    decent work in the creative sector look like for women and other
    marginalised groups? How do minorities organise in guilds,
    professional groups, unions or lobby groups to raise issues of
    equality in this sector? How do they organise creative projects with
    across or within boundaries of difference?
  * /Experiences of women and other marginalised groups in the creative
    industries/: Autobiographical and third-party accounts of
    experiences in various creative fields can ask questions such as
    follows: How is equality approached and negotiated? What challenges
    have been faced and what kinds of approaches taken to varying
    outcomes and successes?
  * /Intersectional analyses of working life in the creative
    industries/: The complex intersections between different identity
    categories sometimes create unexpected effects, both negative and
    positive. How does the compounding or intersection of diversity
    categories in single cases add to a study of working life in the
    creative industries?
  * /Claiming the creative/: How are ‘creative’ identities allocated and
    recognised? How is the ‘super-creative core’ constituted in relation
    to the ‘below the line’ people, that is, the ‘crew’, support workers
    and administrators? What systems are there of awards, grants,
    training and networks, and how are they diversified? Who are the
    gatekeepers to these resources and who receives them? Who in a
    profession or occupation actually gets to be creative at all, and why?
  * /Personal branding and the benefits of difference/: In the creative
    industries, standing out as distinct from peers can sometimes be
    advantageous in the construction of a creative persona, even when
    this difference stems from being part of a marginalised group. How
    can it sometimes be beneficial to be in a minority? How does
    difference link with constructions of originality and uniqueness in
    such cases?
  * /Authorship, attribution and credit in collaborative work/: Creative
    work is very often collaborative, yet the credit is often attributed
    to one individual. This is not just a case of unscrupulous
    individuals stealing credit, but publications and awards and
    organisations insisting on a single creative figurehead. What
    implications and effects does this practice have in terms of equality?
  * /Exceptionalist discourses/: How do some creative professions frame
    themselves as unlike any other profession and entirely incomparable?
    What are the unequal consequences of this framing?
  * /Anti-management/: There are tendencies in creative professions
    actively to resist perceived managerialism, including any kind of
    official equity initiatives. How is this resistance exploited by
    employers to increase their own profit at the expense of their
    workers or to prevent equity interventions?
  * /The creative profession as cult/: Colleagues may become the
    creative’s only friends, romantic and business partners and family.
    How does this exclusive culture engender inequalities?
  * /Creativity and vocation/: There is often a sense of ‘calling’ to
    the creative professions. What are the effects of such
    quasi-metaphysical ideas? For example, are people willing to put up
    with exploitation and precariousness because they are dedicated to a
    larger ideal, one which frames economic and business imperatives as
    dishonourable and low-minded?
  * /Methodologies for studying gendered creativity/: Explorations of
    innovative methods for studying and understanding the creative
    industries and creative labour. What methods are most appropriate or
    interesting (e.g. visual, ethnographic) for understanding diversity
    and creative labour?


Papers for the special issue must be submitted electronically between 31
October and 1 December 2015 (please note dates) to SAGETrack at Papers should be no more
than 8000 words, excluding references, and will be blind reviewed
following the journal’s standard procedures. Manuscripts should be
prepared according to the guidelines published in /Organization/ and
on the journal’s website:


The special issue editors are planning a writing workshop for authors
interested in submitting papers to the special issue to be held at
Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh (Scotland) in the first week of
September 2015.  We will also be offering a skype workshop in September,
date to be advised.  Please contact Kate Sang: (K.Sang /at/
<mailto:(K.Sang /at/>  for details.

Early abstract submission

The editors have requested that (where possible) authors send abstracts
of their proposed papers *by 31 October 2015*. This will ensure that
potential reviewers for these papers are identified prior to paper

Special Issue Editor contact details

For further information, please contact one of the guest editors:

Deborah Jones: (Deborah.Jones /at/ <mailto:(Deborah.Jones /at/>

Kate Sang: (K.Sang /at/ <mailto:(K.Sang /at/>

Naomi Stead: (n.stead /at/ <mailto:(n.stead /at/>

Rebecca Finkel: (RFinkel /at/ <mailto:(RFinkel /at/>

Dimi Stoyanova Russell: (StoyanovaRussellD /at/
<mailto:(StoyanovaRussellD /at/>

*Naomi Stead* /PhD, BArch/
Associate Professor
Deputy Director, Research Centre ATCH
Research Higher Degree Coordinator
School of Architecture
The University of Queensland
St Lucia, Q, 4072

Co-Editor: /Culture Unbound: Journal of Current Cultural Research/

Associate Editor: /Parlour: Women, Equity, Architecture/

e. (n.stead /at/ <mailto:(n.stead /at/>

ECREA-Mailing list
This mailing list is a free service offered by Nico Carpentier and ECREA.
To subscribe, post or unsubscribe, please visit
To contact the mailing list manager:
Email: (nico.carpentier /at/
ECREA - European Communication Research and Education Association
Chauss�de Waterloo 1151, 1180 Uccle, Belgium
Email: (info /at/

[Previous message][Next message][Back to index]