Society is not yet sufficiently exploiting the potential of creative research  

New research of the Boekman Foundation and CWTS shows potential and bottlenecks of cooperation between creative practice and science 

The imagination of artists, designers and makers can make an essential contribution to social issues. New research shows that cooperation between the creative sector and research institutions is still structurally deficient, due to a system that prevents equal cooperation.

The study In search of equality and recognition combines five focus groups with more than 30 experts and a survey of 550 respondents. It was conducted by the Boekman Foundation and the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) at Leiden University, commissioned by the Stimuleringsfonds Creatieve Industrie, Fonds voor Cultuurparticipatie and Regieorgaan SIA.

What the research shows 

Creative practice has something essential to offer research: artists and designers bring a way of thinking that dares to go beyond the familiar. Yet within research collaborations, they are still too often used as performers with a predetermined goal, rather than as equal partners who help formulate the questions.

When creative knowledge is not recognised as a fully-fledged form of knowledge, its potential remains unexploited. Artistic research and creative practice are autonomous forms of knowledge production, with their own methods and their own criteria. They are not an instrumental tool for existing science but have their own form of knowledge development.

Three persistent bottlenecks 

The study identifies three recurring barriers to equal collaboration:

Funding and policy do not match. Cultural parties are regularly accommodated in research applications in the materials budget rather than recognised as substantive partners. Smaller organisations and individual creators structurally fall by the wayside because subsidies are often only possible for multiannual subsidised cultural institutions.

Knowledge is fragmented. Many projects are temporary and small-scale, but have great impact. There is hardly any infrastructure to secure and share what is learned. A knowledge centre specifically for interdisciplinary collaboration is seen as a possible solution.

Impact cannot always be measured. Grant systems steer towards predefined outputs. But many valuable results of creative research cannot be captured in figures, such as sustainable networks, mutual understanding or public knowledge sharing. This calls for a different perspective on accountability.

Examples that work 

The survey also describes what is going well. Doctor in Health built a national agenda and showed that structural cooperation is possible if you deliberately invest in networks and knowledge sharing. The department Art & Mind of ROC Amsterdam connects art and culture education with mental well-being of MBO students. Bureau Ruimtekoers developed a methodology for social art that takes assurance of impact as its starting point. Each of these examples shows: it can be done, but requires time, trust and structural resources. 

What is needed now 

The results of research are clear: society is not yet sufficiently exploiting the potential of creative research. To change that, three things are needed: fairer funding and policy frameworks, structural infrastructure for knowledge sharing, and equality in resources, control and recognition.

Who are the appropriate funders? Which coalitions are needed? And which collaborations deserve structural support? Those questions are now on the table.