Table 7: A Comparison of Old and New Paradigm Perspectives
6.4. Challenges for the Researchers
Although the network approach acknowledges the role of the individual and the influence of the social relationships (Easton and Araujo, 1994), management research has concentrated on commercial relations. (Jyrämä 2002, 53)
Expanding the research focus from institutions to networks differs from examining individuals or organizations. The most obvious reason is that networks are not legal entities; instead they are cooperative endeavours comprised of autonomous actors, institutions and organizations.
Therefore, the legal imperative for governance or collecting data is simply not present as it is for legal organizational entities. One solution could be focusing on projects for a reason that much of the creative work is project-based, although this angle does not help in analyzing or building long-term goal-directed organizational networks with a distinct identity and proper network governance system.
Whereas in individual projects management can operate through recruiting and brokering relationships, in the networks this kind of activity is much more complex as networks are open forms. Even still, in networks some form of governance is necessary to ensure that participants engage in collective and mutually supportive action, and that network resources are acquired
and utilized efficiently and effectively. The modes and systems of good network governance would be a good research topic to examine further.
Another challenge for the researchers of organizational development relates to the paradox is that organizational change is not the same thing as organizational growth. As organizations expand, they become less likely to change, as there is no reason to change something proven to be successful. For example in Finland, for several arts organizations the road to growth has been getting into legally public-funding. This system is protected by the orchestra and theatre act, and the funding targets are typically national or regional public institutions, although more recently even successful private groups, such as Tero Saarinen Co has been adopted to the system. The management problems of these institutions are various, from Baumol’s cost disease to finding it extremely difficult for the new groups to enter the system. Changing the system itself has proven to be rather difficult as people resist change for various reasons, even while acknowledging that there are fundamental problems in it.
Unfortunately, national and regional governance models do not answer the network coordination problems with relation to the heightened complexity, interdepency, globalization and new organizational forms. Also several research and statistical providers, such as Statistics Finland is built as a system to serve the needs to follow the development of stiff institutions, and therefore, the statistical measures and systems of how data is collected overemphasizes the focus to public cultural service providers, and information about the creative networks is rather difficult to get.
This research is the size of a master thesis, and therefore deeper analysis about the design actions we might take to improve the efficiency of information transfer within a network could be linked to creating hubs, or adding new links, or acting as artificial shortcuts between otherwise distant regions. Mapping social networks and an analysis of the topology of communication links within a network may help identify where such interventions are needed.
Equipped with this information, future arts managers might be able to adjust to the network architecture, create clusters of linked individuals, or put together groups with complementary expertise.
be based on processes or systems rather than on the search of a singularly gifted individual. In a network, individual creativity for self-expression has a lot of room, as the creative work is built around individual personalities and their relationships in a field where much of the work is project-based. Even though we tend to see creative people as specialists and obsessive individuals, because of the nature of their skills and talents, many of them need to be generalists, with a broad range of organizational skills and connections. I believe that there is need to open up experts for new thinking, and this can be done via various research methods.
There is a lot of space for development as most literature on organizational networks does not explicitly address management and governance challenges. This new thinking must critically approach the dominant modes, adjusting the limiting perspectives in the field of arts and culture. One of these is the challenge of participation, which is a natural evolvement of the cultural field in this complex world. In this world, the change is constant, and therefore, research should be able to evolve with it, such as through organist thinking.
Organicism, and those who adhere to this worldview (organicists), explain ambiguity as a result of the fact that people, systems, events and things develop. They do not stay static.
To distil the ambiguity and wrestle the problem to the ground, organicists seek to delineate predictable stages of development, trends or trajectories. Organicists’ root metaphor depicts the answer to problems in the understanding of sequences in which change is explained in terms of growth or regression. Life and events within it evolve.
Some aspects regress, others evolve. (Hargrove & Owens 2003, 3)
.,/,',-0,$1(23$
J6;105E=! C6E! [#**)\2!@9%)96%$ '3$ /'6'""'1.$ !$ C+"#94($ <+%*9%%+'-"! S10<10=! F"! [1G4"\!
O44/14! ,E! J/7./067! AB1509! W"! S55R! >10,14"! J1E.10! :50! L0.! 6EG! Z,4/67! J/7./01! dFSJ"!
]14160-B!J1E.10!HNe11::1!F/41/;2!Y150<,6"!$
Y06?B10=!Y"![#**#\2!&''($E"'[)*#%L$J'"+-5$>-%+#9#+'-%.$/)67'"4"F$&'((4K'"4#+'-$+-$G'*+4($
e6E<64=! LE,.6! [#**$\2!&9(#9"4($ E'(+*F$ +-$ H+-(4-8.$AB1! P50G,-! J/7./067! F5G17"! P50G,-!
J/7./067!+57,-9!,E!A06E4,.,5E"!C/17/EG=!+1.10![1G"\"!P50G,-!J/7./067!OE4.,./.12!J5I1EB6<1E=!
!
F,1<1=!S"!['&(&\2!/0)$*9(#9"4($*'66'8+#F.!F1G,6=!J/7./01!6EG!>5-,1.9L$'!I"!#&(U$''"!!F,1<1=!S"!['&W(\2!/0)$('5+*%$4#$1'"2$+-$#0)$-)1$*9(#9"4($+-89%#"+)%.$F1G,6=!J/7./01!6EG!
!+5..4=!bf!J/EE,E<B6;=!>f!360.719=!b!c!H0;105G=!+![#**W\2!G'*+4($-)#1'"2$64"2)#%:$4$-)1$
S054,5=!Y"!['&&)\2!&9(#9"4($)*'-'6+*%$4-8$*9(#9"4($7'(+*+)%.!e7/Q10!6-6G1;,-!I/?7,4B1042!
Dickie, George (1974): Art and the Aesthetic: An institutional Analysis. Cornell University Press: Ithaca.
36<550.=!Y"![#**%\2!!"#$@4-45)6)-#:$D-#")7")-)9"+4($G#F()"!a?/05E!+/?7,4B1042!C17:."!!
!!
!@06V,10=!b1::![#**(\2!!E"'#)*#+-5$4-8$G#")-5#0)-+-5$G'*+)#+)%.$J,4-5!OE.10E1.!S/4,E144!
!HaJC![#**K\2!E4"#+*+74#+,)$;)K:$b%)"W&")4#)8$&'-#)-#.!]1I50.!?9!C,01-.506.1!:50!>-,1E-1=!
A1-BE575<9!6EG!OEG/4.09"!J5;;,..11!:50!OE:50;6.,5E=!J5;I/.10!6EG!J5;;/E,-6.,5E4!
+57,-9"!<G/>S>&&ES>DNOPPmRZSH>_!=:$111.')*8.'"5S84#4')*8SXZSVjSaUaQaVVX.783L$
4**)%%)8$a.VP.OPPQ.$
+5..4=!bf!J/EE,E<B6;=!>f!360.719=!b!c!H0;105G=!+![#**W\2!G'*+4($-)#1'"2$64"2)#%:$4$-)1$
8)3+-+#+'-$'3$#0)$*")4#+,)$+-89%#"+)%.!b5/0E67!5:!J/7./067!a-5E5;,-4"!>I0,E<102!#**W"!
B..I2kkQQQ"I6/750;105G"-5;kIG:k+5..4o#*1.o#*677o#*>PFo#*64o#*I/?7,4B1G"I G:=!6--1441G!,E!'*"'*"#*'*"!!
!+5571=!P,-R![#**&\2!&9(#99"$O.P.$E9K(+*4#+'-%"!Z,0./117!+76.:50;2!L;4.10G6;"!!
B..I2kkQQQ"D,0./117I76.:50;"E7k1Ek=!6--1441G!,E!'"'*"#**&"!!
!>57,4=!S0,6E![#**(\2!<)3+-+-5$G'*+4($@)8+4.$S75<<!I54.!b/E1!#W.B!#**W"!_1?!45/0-12!
B..I2kkQQQ"?0,6E457,4"-5;k#**(k*KkG1:,E,E<U45-,67U;1G,6=!6--1441G!,E!'&"'"#*'*"!!
!A,0RR5E1E=!A/5;5![#**&\2!/9'##4[4$)--)-$[4$-F#.$![4-[42%'$VQmUWOPPQ.$A^AU76R,I,4.1!HT"
!
B..I2kkQQQ"R/7..//0,D10RR5":,k:,714kR/7..//0,D10RR5U:,714kA/5..6^6q1EE1Eq^6qE9.[#\"IG:=!
6--1441G!,E!'*"'*"#*'*"!!
!A5,D5E1E=!>6E../![#**(\2!;)K$'-$#0)$@',).$=4-8%*47)%$'3$@'K+()$G'*+4($@)8+4"!C//$OPPZ.$
/OjPa.$111.,##.3+S+-3S783S#+)8'##))#SOPPZS/OjPa.783L$4**)%%)8$+-$O.O.OPPQ.$!