[Commlist] CFP: What forms of creativity does the University system really permit? RGS-IBG 2025

2nd Call for papers RGS-IBG AC2025, University of Birmingham (26-29 
August 2025)

DEADLINE FOR ABSTRACTS: Tuesday 4th March 2025 (with apologies for late 
circulation)

Session Title: What forms of creativity does the University system 
really permit?

Session convenors: Simon Moreton (UWE Bristol) and Liz Roberts (UWE Bristol)

This session contends that there is much to be celebrated in creative 
geographies and geographies of creativity, but that researchers should 
be attendant to and wherever possible resist the triumphalist policy 
rhetoric of ‘creativity’ and give specific attention to the nuances, 
limits and challenges of creativity in and beyond the university context.
The emergence of ‘creativity’ as a central driver in Western societies 
has been a complicated and multivalent phenomenon. It has happened 
partly as a consequence of specific strategies driven by the belief that 
innovations in knowledge production and exploitation are key to 
post-industrial economic growth, but also through the production of a 
broader socio-economic imaginary that encompasses (but is not limited 
to) logics of placemaking and urban redevelopment led by cultural 
activities, the co-option of often transgressive cultural practices into 
the commercial mainstream, the elision of social and economic policy, 
and the rise of ‘creative’ lifestyles and subjectivities, all under the 
assertion that creativity can solve both social and economic crises 
simultaneously  (Mould 2018). Creativity has consequently become part of 
a regulatory and rationalising grammar reconfiguring subjectivities and 
practices of contemporary life, changing and structuring ‘the world it 
assumes to explain’ (Dzudzek and Lindner, 2015 p. 2; also Bill 2016, 
Osborne 2003).
In universities, creativity has ‘come into focus as an object of 
university governance which extends to staff, students, its civic duty 
to regional populations, and its contribution to the national economy’ 
(Bill (2016 p. 61; Moreton 2021). One expression of this is the 
significant investment (£276m thus far) made by the UK government since 
2012 in programmes that give universities responsibility to deliver 
economic development in the creative sector through R&D and knowledge 
exchange (Moreton 2016). Flagship university-creative economy 
programmes, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) 
and Innovate UK, include Knowledge Economy Hubs for the Creative Economy 
(2012-2016), the Creative Industries Clusters Programme (CICP, 
2018-2024), Convergent Screen Technologies and Performance in Realtime 
(CoSTAR 2023-2029) and XRtists (2024-2027). This funding has emerged 
alongside a strategic devaluing and defunding of the arts and humanities 
in higher education, and an increase in calculative practices around 
‘impact’, student employability, earnings, and ‘value for money’. This 
further instantiates creativity as an instrumental tool to underpin 
knowledge production, technological innovation, industrial productivity, 
competitive regions and national growth.
This context poses challenges to those of us seeking to conduct research 
that builds on the progressive potential of an alternative reading of 
creativity. There has been an uptake in creative methods in geography 
and the social sciences, specifically, and for inter- and 
trans-disciplinary research more widely. However, if not being framed as 
economically generative, creativity can sometimes be understood as the 
translational or ‘impact’ component that makes the ‘real research’ 
accessible to public(s) (Roberts and Phillips 2018; Roberts et al. 
2022). Creativity risks becoming a by-word for participation and 
inclusion, with funders and universities still expecting measurable 
outputs foremost and failing to understand the value of, and 
time-resource required, to build the necessary relationships and trust 
to develop truly participatory creative processes. This means creative 
research endeavours sometimes result in exclusionary or unequal 
relationships with communities (Hawkins 2019; Phillips et al 2024; 
Stephenson 2004).

As such, we are looking for papers addressing:

•	the temporalities and spatialities of creativity and creative policies 
as they extend from/into the university •	how institutional 
infrastructures and mechanisms shape creativity in universities and/or 
the types of creativity that university infrastructure make 
easy/difficult •	the inclusive and exclusionary impacts on staff, 
students, and communities of creativity in the university including if 
or where creativity is censured.
•	The impact of an economic model of creativity on the university •	The 
relationship between risk and creativity in the university
•	Examples of radical or transgressive creativity within the university 
context
•	Possible models for a future university model that addresses these 
challenges

Please send abstracts of no more than 300 words, and details of the 
author(s) including institutional affiliation, to Simon Moreton 
((simon.moreton /at/ uwe.ac.uk)) and Liz Roberts ((Liz3.Roberts /at/ uwe.ac.uk)) by 
5pm (GMT) Tuesday 4th March (with apologies for short notice!)

References

Bill, A. (2016) ‘Counter-conduct in creative university research: 
Deliberations on freedom’. Higher Education Research & Development, 36 
(2), 241–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1208 158.

Dzudzek, I. and Lindner, P. (2015) ‘Performing the creative-economy 
script: Contradicting urban rationalities at work’. Regional Studies, 49 
(3), 388–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.8 47272.

Hawkins, H. (2019). Geography’s creative (re) turn: Toward a critical 
framework. Progress in Human Geography, 43(6), 963-984

Moreton, S. (2016) ‘Rethinking “knowledge exchange”: New approaches to 
collaborative work in the arts and humanities’. International Journal of 
Cultural Policy, 22 (1), 100–15. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2015.1101081.
Moreton, S. (2018) ‘Contributing to the creative economy imaginary: 
Universities and the creative sector’. Cultural Trends, 27 (5), 327–38. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2018.1534575.
Mould, O. (2018) Against Creativity. London: Verso.

Phillips, O. R., Harries, C., Leonardi-Bee, J., Knight, H., Sherar, L. 
B., Varela-Mato, V., & Morling, J. R. (2024). What are the strengths and 
limitations to utilising creative methods in public and patient 
involvement in health and social care research? A qualitative systematic 
review. Research Involvement and Engagement, 10(1), 48.

Roberts, L., & Phillips, K. (Eds.). (2018). Water, Creativity and 
Meaning: Multidisciplinary understandings of human-water relationships. 
Routledge.

Roberts, L., Liguori, A., McEwen, L., & Wilson, M. (2022). The challenge 
of engaging communities on hidden risks: co-developing a framework for 
Adaptive Participatory Storytelling Approaches (APSA). Journal of 
Extreme Events, 9(02n03), 2341002

Stevenson, D. (2004). “Civic gold” rush: Cultural planning and the 
politics of the third way. International journal of cultural policy, 
10(1), 119-131.

---------------
The COMMLIST
---------------
This mailing list is a free service offered by Nico Carpentier. Please use it responsibly and wisely.
--
To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit http://commlist.org/
--
Before sending a posting request, please always read the guidelines at http://commlist.org/
--
To contact the mailing list manager:
Email: (nico.carpentier /at/ commlist.org)
URL: http://nicocarpentier.net
---------------