A culture of creativity: design education and the creative industries Billy Matheson Centre for Creative Industries, Wellington Institute of Technology, Wellington, New Zealand Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe the in? uence of the creative industries on design education in New Zealand. Design/methodology/approach – A range of contemporary literature is presented to help de? e the term “creative industries”, and to locate this new “culture of creativity” within a wider global trend of creative cultural theory. Findings – Cultural policy initiatives from Britain, Canada and New Zealand are reviewed and used to demonstrate how creative industries theory has sought to combine social, cultural and economic development. Research limitations/implications – This paper is primarily concerned with recent changes to design education and the ways in which universities and polytechnics are attempting to meet the challenges of this new holistic approach to creativity and innovation.
Practical implications – In the ? nal section the concept of interdisciplinary study of design is explored. This new model is developed through the example of a new interdisciplinary programme structure developed by the Wellington Institute of Technology in New Zealand. Originality/value – In conclusion the concept of a “virtuous cycle” is used to describe the relationship between design education and the creative industries. This paper argues that, if this cycle continues, the creative industries will expand to become the model for a new economy based on social, cultural and economic entrepreneurship and change.
Keywords Design, Education, Entrepreneurialism, New Zealand Paper type Literature review A culture of creativity 55 The rise of the creative industries As Western nations move away from the production of goods and services and concentrate instead on the production of ideas and knowledge, the creative industries have become the subject of an increasing amount of research and theoretical development (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Landry and Bianchini, 1995; O’Connor and Wynne, 1996; Robinson, 2001). The term “creative industries” was initially broadly used to describe design, advertising, ? m, fashion, interactive technologies, popular music, and a host of other professions. In recent years cultural theorists have argued that these professions are driving more than simply economic growth, but that they necessarily encompass social and cultural development as well. This view places the creative industries at the centre of civic and commercial life (Gans, 1999; Kunzmann, 1995; Volkerling, 2000). The emergence of a “new paradigm” of creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship is the subject of two recent publications: The Cultural Creatives (Anderson and Ray,
Journal of Management Development Vol. 25 No. 1, 2006 pp. 55-64 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0262-1711 DOI 10. 1108/02621710610637963 JMD 25,1 2001) and The Rise of the Creative Class (Florida, 2002). Both texts describe how the creative industries are leading to a new economy that includes social, cultural, and environmental priorities: The deep and enduring changes of our age are not technological but social and cultural. These changes have been building for decades and only now are coming to the fore (Florida, 2002, p. 7). 56 In New Zealand, as in other countries, books such as these are helping to popularise the term creative industries to describe broadly the ways that many professional people are contributing to the cultural, social, environmental and economic life of our country. People who work in these diverse environments can now identify simply as “creatives” without feeling the need to be de? ned in disciplinary or more traditional professional terms, and increasingly are being recognised as innovative entrepreneurs in their own right.
While the work Anderson, Hay and Florida might represent the popular end of discourse about the Creative Industries their work is based on the ? ndings of many contemporary writers on social, economic and cultural development and policy making. British academics Justin O’Connor and Derek Wynne have similarly identi? ed a new lifestyle trend among 18-35 year olds that is “driving changes in patterns of cultural production and consumption”. To differentiate this new demographic from historical examples of “artistic, bohemian and counter-cultural” development, O’Connor and Wynne (1996) describe the in? ence that creative industries practitioners exert over contemporary cultural life through an increased involvement in popular culture. It is this distinction between popular and elite culture that de? nes the creative industries. The kind of culture that is available to most, if not all people, is often highly commercial in nature, comprised of varying kinds of popular music, advertising, magazines, posters, ? lm, video games and so on, and are all created in order to return a ? nancial pro? t.
James Cornford, and his team at the University of Newcastle on Tyne in England develop this idea of the “relative availability of culture” further: Creative Industries activities can be placed along a continuum from those that are wholly reliant on bringing the audience to content (most kinds of live performance and exhibition including festivals) and which tend to be labour intensive and often grant aided, at one end of the continuum and with generally more commercially oriented informational activities based on the reproduction of original content and its transmission to (often distant) audiences (publishing, recorded music, ? m, broadcasting, new media) at the other end of the spectrum (Cornford and Charles, 2001, p. 17). Cornford’s analysis provides a useful description of the way that popular culture goes out to meet people through a range of new media technology and mass marketing. Cornford’s team also introduces another key issue, that of funding. Where the commercial end of the creative industries is massively pro? table, the “purely cultural” end of the spectrum relies on high levels of funding and often struggles to break even.
And, it is in this area of cultural policy has seen creative industries theory develop most rapidly in recent years. The creative industries as “third way” policy agenda In Britain, Canada and New Zealand creative industries policy initiatives have been highly visible additions to the political landscape, and an important part of the election campaigns that brought the respective Blair and Clark Labour governments to power. “The creative economy” was of? cially launched in England through the 1997 cultural policy manifesto Create the Future.
According to Chris Smith, Minister of Culture in Blair’s Labour government, one of the main reasons that New Labour won the 1997 election was “a simple realisation that culture and art are vital parts of the social life” and that there is a “responsibility on government” to develop them (Smith, 1998). As a political programme, this approach translates into the following broadly stated goals: “Access for the many and not just the few, the pursuit of excellence and innovation, nurturing of educational opportunities, and the fostering of creative industries” (DCMS, 1998, p. ). In Canada, cultural policy has taken a similar direction. In 1999, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, released A Sense of Place, a Sense of Being (SCCH, 1999), making a similar distinction between pro? t making creative industries and the performing arts, however it also points out that the arts and creative industries are interdependent and complementary: Visual artists, like many other creators . . . work in both settings. Their works or performances can be seen in commercial as well as not for pro? t venues.
This makes for a highly ? exible, mobile and entrepreneurial work force whose adaptability and mobility may well serve as a model for other sectors of [the] labour force (SCCH, 1999, Ch. 4). A culture of creativity 57 In New Zealand, our Labour government released the Heart of the Nation (HOTN, 2000) report in 2000. It was commissioned to provided a detailed arts and culture policy which would convey the government’s vision for vibrant arts and cultural sector at the “heart of the nation” as well as a “strong . . . reative industry sector” (HOTN, 2000). After the British example of “Cool Britannia” (an expression coined by a Newsweek journalist), this report quickly became known in the New Zealand media as “Hot Nation”. In line with the British and Canadian examples, Heart of the Nation describes “the cultural sector” as comprising “two diverse but inter-related spheres of productive activity”: Cultural Enterprises – the arts sector, in its broadest de? nition, where creativity embraces expressive and communicative purposes and where pro? or commercial gain is not a primary motivator; and, Creative Industries – a range of commercially driven businesses whose primary resources are creativity and intellectual property and which are sustained through generating pro? ts (HOTN, 2000, p. 5). While the report clearly delineates between the cultural and creative sectors it also acknowledges that both “domains of productive activity” are “symbiotic” and advocated their integrated development. In a paper summarising recent changes in New Zealand’s cultural policy, Michael Volkerling has described our Government’s somewhat confused response to the Heart of the Nation report: [. . ] having commissioned a sweeping review of the sector, the government rejected most of its ? ndings, complaining that the report did not include any strategic recommendations and that the proposed structural reforms were inappropriate. Despite this, the government has JMD 25,1 simultaneously initiated a variety of reforms that were recommended in the report – providing increased backing for the local ? lm and recording industry, setting up a circuit for performing arts touring and initiating a new programme of cultural policy research (Volkerling, 2000, p. 7). 58
While critical of the limited ways in which our Government has embraced creative industries policy, Volkerling also points out that the “creative industries” model still manages break new ground, even if it is policy that has not been enacted: Arguing against the tendency of arts-based cultural policy to bene? t only the educated and af? uent, Gans proposed introducing support for the full array of popular cultural forms under a “policy . . . of cultural pluralism” that would allow diverse “taste publics” to achieve “incremental aesthetic reward” from their preferred cultural experiences (Gans, 1999: 170/175).
In the new cultural order, which promotes participation within a sector that embraces not only opera and ballet but also computer games and interactive digital software, these opportunities now abound (Volkerling, 2000, p. 11). Creative industries theory offers us a way to better understand contemporary cultural production. In particular it presents us with a new appreciation of the democratic aspects of commercial or popular culture that are often overlooked by conservative, ? elitist notions of high culture, and does so as much to celebrate the ideals of diversity and participation as pro? and commerce. Creative industries practitioners have to work within commercial realities, but often prefer to understand their work in terms of cultural and social development. It is these “culture makers” that best characterise the new creative class. Design education as an academic discipline Educational institutions have a con? icted role in cultural development. According to French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (Bourdieu and Passeron (1990)), the role of educational institutions is to see to the “reproduction” of culture as it is, rather than promoting innovation or cultural change.
This analysis may be confusing in the context of capitalist societies where there is a strong tradition of invention and innovation. As I have described elsewhere, there is a constant process of “change”, which sustains capitalist patterns of production and consumption, primarily through the mechanisms of technological innovation and aesthetic fashion (Matheson, 2002). Design education, with its emphasis on industry and commerce has an obvious role to play in this process of cultural reproduction.
In New Zealand design education has, until recently, been thought of as vocational training, not as a cultural activity and consequently it has been the job of technical colleges or polytechnic’s to teach design. Only in the last ten years have degree level quali? cations in Design become available in this country, compared to degree level quali? cation s being available in architecture, ? ne arts, art history and music. The Wellington Polytechnic School of Design led this new trend by offering a Bachelor of Design (BDes) accredited through Victoria University in Wellington, with the ? rst group of students graduating in 1996.
This collegial relationship developed further with the establishment of a purpose built School of Architecture and Design co-owned by the two institutions. One of the immediate consequences of this new approach to design education was the need to meet academic requirements of degree programmes by providing design students with (often compulsory) courses in the history of design and critical theory. While this has contributed to a new appreciation of the importance of the creative industries in our social and economic life, it has also had the effect of creating a distinct, and arguably arti? ial, separation between theoretical and practical aspects of design education. Such education places students in a unique position to join the Creative Industries, with an understanding that they are able to make signi? cant choices about their own futures, and that they are also part of larger cultural and historical systems. Graduates from such programmes have the ability to conceive of and implement exciting new cultural projects in the wider, and often popular, cultural domain.
However, this transition has not been a smooth one. A forum held in 1997 to discuss the vision and philosophy of the School of Design came to the conclusion that the school did not have a “clearly de? ned vision and philosophy for its educational programmes” including the Bachelor of Design, and seemed “unsure how to balance its traditional vocational strengths with the intellectual opportunities” provided by the new undergraduate and postgraduate degree courses (Wellington Polytechnic School of Design, 1997, p. 2).
Ray Thorburn who established the Design Degree Programme at Wellington Polytechnic has remained a staunch critic of the conservative direction assumed by the new University regime: They (we) are too narrow in their (our) thinking, too mono-cultural/Euro-centric in outlook, too conformist, too comfortable to want to change their (our) ways of doing, thinking, and disseminating knowledge about art and art making other than through studio practice and art history slide lectures (Thorburn, 1999, p. 2). A culture of creativity 59
While many of our design schools have been repositioning themselves according to this traditional distinction between vocational and academic study, considerable work has been done to develop other models more appropriate for creative industries education. Daniel Boyarsky, professor of Design at Pittsburgh’s Carnegie Mellon University, puts forward a similar critique of conventional design education: We are currently constrained by an antiquated educational structure, one built on courses offered over semesters or quarters; on autonomous departments; and an emphasis on individual (faculty or student) achievements.
As a result, barriers exist to building courses outside of existing structures, to team-teaching across departments, to supporting a range of teaching styles for a range of topics, and to partnering with industry in the pursuit of collaborative projects. Those faculty that have successfully overcome these barriers point to enlightened participants from within academia, design ? rms, and industry – enlightened in that they see the value of collaboration and the potential for new ways of teaching (Boyarski, 1998, p. 2).
These views are also supported by recent developments in educational theory in this country. In his article “Autonomy, accountability in adult education and the politics of of? cial knowledge”, New Zealand education theorist Nick Zepke points to the need to distinguish between “operational” knowledge and “academic” knowledge when considering recent changes to tertiary education. Operational knowledge being generally concerned with the acquiring of skills and closely associated with vocational learning, while academic knowledge needs to be sanctioned and made of? ial by institutions like universities (Zepke, 1999). JMD 25,1 Zepke describes this as a third kind of knowledge that has been absent in the debate to this point. This is a kind of knowledge that seeks to empower people to take more initiative in deciding how they learn. Zepke believes that today’s adult learners require a signi? cant degree of control over the learning process. This approach would seem to ? t well with the new creative industries: The kind of learning that Cultural Creatives like is intimate and engaged knowledge, that is imbued with the rich visceral sensory stuff of life.
The kind of action that particularly appeals to them is what Margaret Mead called “whole process,” where they can be involved in creating something from the beginning, middle, end and through to the new beginning (Anderson and Ray, 2001, p. 9). 60 Taken together, these ideas provide the basis for a new model of creative education. First, students need to develop skills and technical competencies relative to their chosen profession. Second, students need the academic resources necessary in order to understand the theoretical and historical context for their work.
But more than this, students need to practise the art of making decisions, and what better way to do this than to become more responsible for creating their own learning environments. Interdisciplinary approaches and creative education So while most educational institutions offer a range of elective programmes that give students a certain degree of ? exibility and choice, there is typically no ? exibility when it comes to studying between departments and disciplines, and blurring the boundaries between learning and working professionally.
The need for educational institutions to develop a more innovative approach to creative education, has been promoted by North American design educator Robert Fritz (2000, p. 169): Many well-meaning people think that they have asked their children or students what they want to create, but they haven’t really. They have asked a subtle variation: “of the things we’ve made available to you, what do you want? ” . . . What if the goals and dreams they truly want aren’t on the menu? An interdisciplinary approach seems to offer a way forward.
The traditional way of structuring design education is to start with a generic study basic practical skills and abstract design principles, and then to start specialising in a particular design discipline. This emphasis on specialisation has been the hallmark of modern education and indeed of the modernist project general. While this approach has been useful in developing rational and instrumental knowledge it is of limited use when it comes to developing holistic understandings and knowledge of more complex systems such as creativity and innovation.
Thomas Bley, an internationally recognised designer and creative educator, has recently accepted a position at New Zealand’s Otago University. He has been openly critical of creative art, design and media courses where “content is chopped into little pieces and offered in small portions for easier digestion”; where “curricula are built sequentially to make individuals ? t certain specialised professional pro? les”; and where this specialisation “focuses even more on particular areas” at advanced levels. In his article announcing the establishment of his International Design Network ? Institute (IDNI) Bley (2004, p. ) urges us to recognise that: Almost all design development today is a team oriented integrated process. This convergent process requires people with a broader perspective towards the problems . . . of what a complex society, the industry and the environment requires. A culture of creativity This provides a useful articulation of the dilemma facing educators interested in creative industries theory. On the one hand Bley (2004) accepts the need for some specialist, discipline speci? c design education to “provide prospective designers to be able to perform in a particular work environment”.
The solution he puts forward an interdisciplinary masters programme delivered by the IDNI. However, he admits that such programmes have little appeal to design students: There are 450,000 graduate students studying in the US. Of those almost a quarter (110,000) are studying for a MBA, while only a few (an estimated number of about 1,500) subscribing to MFA programs in Design (Bley, 2004, p. 2). 61 While Bley’s proposal clearly articulates the need for interdisciplinary study of design, it fails to engage with the problematic nature of specialist undergraduate design education.
Having already completed 13 years of primary and secondary education, most young people wanting to enter the creative industries are unlikely to consider more than four years of undergraduate study. Once in the workforce it they ? nd it dif? cult to make the time or see the incentive in undertaking further study. An alternative structure for design education is being developed at New Zealand’s Wellington Institute of Technology. The Institute’s recently launched Centre for Creative Industries currently offers students a new quali? cation designed to acknowledge the need for students to acquire specialised skills in speci? creative disciplines during the ? rst years of their studies without the distraction of a wide range of electives courses that are not relevant to them at that time. Having completed their two-year diploma quali? cation students can apply for a further two years of interdisciplinary study working with other graduates from the diploma courses towards a new quali? cation, the Bachelor of Creative Industries. This programme requires students to work initially in multidisciplinary teams of students that bring together a range of perspectives and skills bases to illuminate a problem.
Students then move into a more genuinely interdisciplinary mode of learning where there is les distinction between individual knowledge and shared understandings. This strategy is supported by a growing bogy of literature from around the world. As Richard Buchanan and Craig Vogel, also at the Carnegie Mellon University, explain: It may be relatively easy to assemble a multidisciplinary team, but to ask the participants to work constructively and ef? ciently over a period of time demands an interdisciplinary attitude. This suggests integrating approaches from other disciplines.
Allowing for “multiple sightings” on a problem (Buchanan and Vogel, 1994). In implementing this new programme structure the Centre for Creative Industries hopes to address many of the problems that have been preventing the development of creative industries education. Interdisciplinary design education has required us to overcome an important paradox. First, the Centre has to achieve a certain degree of integration and cohesion across all the creative disciplines in order to make a range of approaches and understandings available to our students. Second, and of equal importance, is the need for educators and the institutions to be ? xible enough in our approach to encourage experimentation and new ideas, and not prescribe our vision of JMD 25,1 what interdisciplinary design is. It is this exchange of ideas that facilitates creativity and innovative thinking, or what Boyarski (1998) calls “innovations that spawn innovations”. Conclusion Creative industries theory, with its emphasis on innovation, creative networks, communication and teamwork, and self-determination is demanding a more sophisticated understanding from today’s creative practitioners, and design education has had to grow and change in order to meet this challenge.
In New Zealand educational institutions increasingly consult and seek formal partnerships with the business sector to keep up with technological developments and to make sure that their graduates are as work ready as possible. New designers entering today’s work place have at their disposal an increasingly powerful set of tools for the production, the distribution of cultural product, and an ability to conceive of and implement new projects. Thanks largely to the in? ence of their academic educations these works combine the latest technology with sophisticated visual imagery to articulate complex and thought-provoking cultural content and commentary. Recently, creative industries theorists in Australia have pointed out that it is not simply the technological innovation that is driving growth in the creative industries, but precisely this kind of creative cultural content. According to Stuart Cunningham, professor and director of the Creative Industries Research and Applications Centre at the Queensland University of Technology this can be attributed directly to “. . the growth and integration of creative arts courses and staff into the university system over the last decade” (Cunningham, 2004). In a recent report from The Australian Academy of the Humanities, which includes the creative arts and “new humanities” like advertising, media, cultural and communications studies, the humanities are “the only discipline cluster that specialises in training and research that underpins both creative production and cultural consumption in the modern economy”.
In this way the humanities provide training and research not only for the technical production of multimedia and digital media industries, but more importantly the generation and design of content as well. More importantly to the purpose of this paper, it is the in? uence of the humanities that has led to the exploration of “ethics and aesthetics of image manipulation” that is essential for us to understand the social, cultural importance of the new creative industries and the implications that its continued growth has for audiences, user groups, and society as a whole (AAH, 2003).
If educational institutions are to meet the challenges described in this paper, I suggest that it is bene? cial to not think of education and industry as separate or discrete processes. Educational institutions are in fact a vital part of the new creative industries, and as I have described in this paper have been largely responsible for its growth and development. A more creative way to conceptualise this relationship between education and industry is as a virtuous cycle, which describes the way that each part reinforces and promotes the development of the other.
This model extends the interdisciplinary approach I described earlier and asks us to apply a far more holistic approach to both our learning and working lives. 62 While this kind of alternative philosophy is becoming increasingly popular within educational and creative industries theory, it remains to be seen how these will translate into new institutional structures and innovative systems. David Orr, professor of Environmental Studies Program at Oberlin College, in Ohio has written extensively on the creative processes and education.
He asks: What would it mean for educational institutions to meet this challenge? For one thing, it would mean fostering, in every way possible, a broad and ongoing dialogue about concentrated economic power and the changes that would be necessary to build a sustainable economy. I know no safe way to conduct that conversation that would not threaten the comfortable, or risk loosing some of the institutions ? nancial support, a sensitive topic when the cost of a college education is becoming prohibitively expensive (Orr, 2002, p. 96). A culture of creativity 63
Orr is pointing out some basic challenges involved in moving our society towards a more sustainable economy, one that values social, cultural and environmental development, not simply gross domestic product. If we accept that there are a range of dif? cult challenges facing the human race at present, including: climate change, massive population growth, access to resources, increasing urbanisation, habitat destruction and so on, then every effort should be made to empower the next generation of social, cultural, environmental and economic entrepreneurs to reinvent the world.
The emergence of a coherent creative industries theory is a very exciting step in this direction. While there are some obvious points of tension and internal contradictions to be explored, the simple idea that we can express ourselves through the creation of knowledge and identity, rather than through material production and the consumption of physical resources would appear to have considerable potential. References Anderson, S. and Ray, P. (2001), The Cultural Creatives: How 50 Million People Are Changing the World, Three Rivers Press, New York, NY. The) Australian Academy of the Humanities (AAH) (2003), The Humanities and Australia’s National Research Priorities, AAH, Canberra, pp. 9-10. Bley, T. S. (2004), A New Graduate Programme in Design, International Design Network and Institute, Dulles, VA, available at: http://new. idsa. org/webmodules/articles/article? les/ ed_conference02/04. pdf Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J. (1990), Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture, Sage, London. Boyarski, D. (1998), “Education: designing design education”, SIGCHI Bulletin, Vol. 0 No. 3, available at: www. acm. org/sigchi/bulletin/1998. 3/education. html Buchanan, R. and Vogel, C. (1994), “Design in the learning organization: educating for the new culture of product development”, Design Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 7-10. Cornford, J. and Charles, D. (2001), Culture Cluster Mapping and Analysis: A Draft Report for ONE North East, Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, available at: www. campus. ncl. ac. uk/unbs/ hylife2/lib/? es/4731report. pdf Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996), Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention, HarperCollins, New York, NY. JMD 25,1 64 Cunningham, S. (2004), “The humanities, creative arts, and the information agenda”, in Wissler, R. , Haseman, B. , Wallace, S. -A. and Keanne, M. (Eds), Innovation in Arts, Media and Design, Flaxton Press, Brisbane. Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) (1998), The Comprehensive Spending Review: A New Approach to Investment in Culture, DCMS, London.
Florida, R. (2002), The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life, Basic Books, New York, NY. Fritz, R. (2000), “Teaching structural tension”, in Senge, P. (Ed. ), Schools that Learn: A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, and Everyone Who Cares about Education, Doubleday, New York, NY. Gans, H. J. (1999), Popular Culture and High Culture: An Analysis and Evaluation of Taste, Basic Books, New York, NY (originally published 1975).
Heart of the Nation Project Team (HOTN) (2000), Heart of the Nation: A Cultural Strategy for Aotearoa New Zealand, McDermott Miller, Wellington. Kunzmann, K. R. (1995), “Developing the regional potential for creative response to structural change”, in Brotchie, J. , Batty, M. and Blakely, E. (Eds), Cities in Competition: Productive and Sustainable Cities for the 21st Century, Longman Australia, Melbourne, pp. 286-94. Landry, C. and Bianchini, F. (1995), The Creative City, Demos, London. Matheson, B. 2002), “Creative pedagogies: content, structure and process in futures education”, Journal of Futures Studies, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 125-38. O’Connor, J. and Wynne, D. (1996), From the Margins to the Centre: Cultural Production and Consumption in the Post-industrial City, Arena, Aldershot. Orr, D. W. (2002), The Nature of Design: Ecology, Culture, and Human Intention, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Robinson, K. (2001), Out of Our Minds: Learning to be Creative, Capstone Publishing, London. Smith, C. (1998), Creative Britain, Faber & Faber, London.
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage (SCCH) (1999), A Sense of Place, a Sense of Being. The Evolving Role of the Federal Government in the Support of Culture in Canada, 9th Report of the SCCH, SCCH, Ottawa, available at: www. pch. gc. ca/ Thorburn, R. (1999), “Why art and design in higher education will fail to meet society’s needs in 2000 and beyond”, paper presented at Global Arts beyond 2000, Auckland, 12 October. Volkerling, M. (2000), “From cool Britannia to hot nation: creative industries policies in Europe, Canada and New Zealand”, International Journal of Cultural Policy, Vol. No. 3, pp. 2-11. Wellington Polytechnic School of Design (1997), School of Design Forum, Wellington Polytechnic Press, Wellington. Zepke, N. (1999), “Autonomy, accountability in adult education and the politics of of? cial knowledge”, New Zealand Journal of Adult Learning, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 31-44. Corresponding author Billy Matheson is the corresponding author. To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] com Or visit our web site for further details: www. emeraldinsight. com/reprints