New perspectives on instrumentalism: an empirical study of cultural diplomacy

Nisbett, Melissa

doi:10.1080/10286632.2012.704628

Cited by 54 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Re-orientating research towards what people in museums actually do in their work, and the particular social, political, economic and professional contexts informing how they do what they do is aligned with recent developments in Museum Studies (e.g. Nisbett 2013, McCarthy 2015. The emphasis on methodologies, however, distinguishes our project.…”

Section: Museum Methodologies: Back Stages Interpretative Proximitymentioning

confidence: 97%

Special Issue Editorial: Methodologies for Researching the Museum as Organization

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Museum Methodologies: Back Stages Interpretative Proximitymentioning

confidence: 97%

Special Issue Editorial: Methodologies for Researching the Museum as Organization

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this sense, Isar provided an apt starting point to approaching CD as a process of 'state actors engaging in accrual of symbolic capital in the international economy of cultural prestige through exercising cultural policy as display' (Isar 2010). As such, CD as a form of contemporary diplomacy involving the process of construction and representation of national identity (Pigman 2010), requires a more nuanced examination of its instrumentality (Nisbett 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contemporary cultural diplomacy in South Korea: explicit and implicit approaches

Kang

2015

International Journal of Cultural Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that in the case of Korea, cultural diplomacy (CD) has been explicitly implemented in a top-down and unilateral approach by government to enhance national prestige abroad, underpinned by the institutional legacy of a 'developmental state' model of governance. Yet, an implicit approach has also emerged, associated with capacity building of the domestic cultural industries through promoting 'international cultural exchange'. Whilst the top-down unilateral approach has persisted, a disarray of policy rhetoric and institutional fragmentation surrounding CD, as well as the blurring of cultural industries development policy with the CD agenda has led to gradual convergence of both explicit and implicit approaches.

show abstract

“…This does not mean that the concepts of cultural policy instrumentalism and instrumentalisation have become redundant, only that they require elaboration if they are to contribute anything meaningful to the analysis of cultural policy itself. Recent discussions of the uses of policy instrumentalisation in cultural policy have stressed the ways in which cultural policy-makers have shifted from being people to whom instrumentalism happens to being active agents who manage instrumentalisation for their own ends (McCall, 2009;Nisbett, 2013;Gray, 2014), with this often taking place through processes of 'defensive instrumentalism' (Belfiore, 2012) or 'policy attachment' (Gray, 2002).This shift in focus has made it clear that in many, if not all, cases instrumentalisation is a contested process and that cultural policy actors are not as helpless in the face of exogenous policy demands as some of the original literature implied, and as most of the instrumental/intrinsic binary continues to assume.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%