Everyday Creativity Research Network: Home and Placemaking Sandpit. Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, England, September 7, 2023, organized by the Arts and Humanities Research Council Everyday Creativity Research Network

Abstract: In this conference essay, we reflect on a sandpit, organized by the AHRC Everyday Creativity Research Network on the theme of place-making and everyday creativity. We begin by introducing the Everyday Creativity Research Network and the problems faced in defining everyday creativity, which was a key objective of this sandpit. We then discuss the program and major themes identified during the event. We distinguish between the concepts of "space" and "place," with particular consideration into how these concepts shape policies on everyday creativity. "Spaces of opportunity" is proposed in this context as a potential term that offers a framework to understand subjective and collective uses of creativity. We also identify constraints that hinder everyday creativity, including limitations on resources and lack of access. We explore how present models of creative initiatives are restricted by bureaucratic procedures that necessitate a focus on output as a measure of impact. We conclude by reflecting on future actions for this Network to propose alternative models of creative initiatives that encourage everyday creativity in a way that minimizes judgments and barriers while respecting local understandings of creativity.

Key words: everyday creativity; policy making; placemaking; space; arts-based research methods

On September 7, 2023 the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) Everyday Creativity Research Network (ECRN) hosted the second of four sandpits aimed at exploring understandings and applications of everyday creativity (EC), and developing an international, interdisciplinary, cross-sector network of academics, creative practitioners, and others with an interest in this endeavor. The network aims to: broaden the academic base for the field; develop existing understandings of EC through a transdisciplinary lens; develop, articulate, and interrogate the potential of creative methods in the context of EC; and inform policy in relation to EC (ECRN, 2023, §14). Its work is structured around four guiding themes:

The network committee planned a series of sandpits, which are intensive discussion forums, on each of the themes. Participants at this day-long sandpit, at Edge Hill University focused on the second network theme. We participated in this in our roles as postgraduate representative (MITRA) and principal investigator of the AHRC Network development project (JOHNSON). JOHNSON also organized the first sandpit, a large, hybrid event at the University of Brighton in April 2023, which considered the intersection between EC and creative research methods. The possibilities, considerations and challenges of arts-based research methods have been previously extensively covered in FQS (see for example JONES et al., 2008). The "creative methods" sandpit showcased key voices in poetic inquiry (such as Sandra FAULKNER and Helen JOHNSON; see FAULKNER, 2022; JOHNSON, 2022a, 2022b, 2022c; JOHNSON, CARSON-APSTEIN, BANDEROB & MACAULAY-RETTINO, 2017), feminist autoethnography (including Liz MACKINLAY; see MACKINLAY, 2019, 2022) arts and creativities in education (including Pam BURNARD; see BURNARD & COLUCCI-GRAY, 2020; RANDLES & BURNARD, 2023) and creative evaluation (Jane WILLIS & Norma DAYKIN; see DAYKIN, WILLIS, McCREE & GRAY, 2015), as well as from across the creative, community and public policy sectors. Participants drew on this work to explore three core provocations:

The "home and placemaking" sandpit was a much smaller, more focused meeting than the first, comprising fourteen invited participants from higher education institutions, local government and the third sector. In this second Network event, we concentrated on how EC may be connected to specific places and what policymakers and arts funders need to consider when formulating strategies to support EC. We also picked up on challenges raised in the April event, including the difficult task of creating a working definition of EC. [3]

In the invitation letter for the event, Owen EVANS, event organizer and co-investigator for the ECRN development project, outlined the nature of the challenge represented by defining EC: "It is clear that the challenge is in finding a useful definition of what everyday creativity is, a definition in other words that might be useful and practical for different people or bodies in different contexts." This sense of "context" was central to the conversations at Edge Hill, where we wrestled with the complex connections between people's everyday environments and forms of EC. [4]

The term "everyday," in itself, holds a dual meaning. On the one hand, it alludes to the ordinary and quotidian aspects of life, while on the other, it embodies a democratic and non-elitist ethos. Thereby, EC as a concept has the potential to transcend exclusionary boundaries, enabling us to remove creativity solely from the domain of the "creative genius" (MANSFIELD, DAYKIN, GOLDING & EWBANK, 2022, p.3). Creativity can be further understood in three dimensions: the act of creating, observing creative work, and experiencing creativity within a particular space. These dimensions apply to both individual and collective contexts, highlighting the multifaceted nature of creativity. As MANSFIELD et al. observed, to fully unlock its potential, it is essential to deconstruct limiting binaries that impose constraints on creative expression. [5]

The term "EC" is thus still very much in development. Broadly, however, it can be said to refer to day-to-day activities that are experienced by those who engage in them as being both novel, and useful or purposeful. The term further focuses on creative processes over creative products, on active creative participation rather than passive consumption, on creativity in the amateur, or grassroots rather than professional sphere, and on intrinsic over extrinsic value (ECRN, 2023). [6]

The organizer of the home and placemaking sandpit garnered a diverse cross-section of voices, including creative and healthcare practitioners, academics, doctoral students, representatives of local government, and people working in the third sector. We began the day by each sharing an image of a place that was important to us and our sense of creativity. Although intended to be an icebreaker, our conversations during this exercise proved to be rich, emotive and deeply thought-provoking, setting the tone for the whole day. Each place had a story attached, stimulating wide-ranging interpretations from participants. Some focused on places that offered sanctuary and separation from others, while others were spaces presented in terms of connectivity and relationality. Sharing our personal connections to creative places in this way demonstrated how our backgrounds shape our understandings of EC, and its role within our communities. The activity also evoked for us MASSEY's (2005) contention that space is alive, dynamic and a point of connection with others or with one's place in the world. [7]

In the session that followed, we broke into smaller groups to discuss five core provocations:

Each group recorded the discussions that emerged from these provocations as mind-maps, and we have used these to construct the word cloud shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Provocation discussions Word cloud (The size of each word corresponds to the number of recorded mentions.) [9]

As indicated in this figure, a number of common issues were highlighted in the discussions. One core concern that arose was that of "access" as something which played a significant role in enabling or restricting the extent to which people are able to engage in EC (JOHNSON & MONNEY, 2021). The problems identified around access were closely tied to availability of "time" and "place" as essential resources for creativity, both of which also appear large in the word cloud. [10]

As a counterpoint, we considered what it means to build "opportunities" for EC that supports its accessibility across different contexts and communities. We explored the role that policy-makers play in creating these opportunities, with some critical discussion around the present models of cultural support that are dominant in the UK context. This led smoothly into a talk from James WINTERBOTTOM, Director of Strategy and Innovation at Wigan Council. WINTERBOTTOM considered how policymakers can support EC in their local communities and the challenges inherent in making the case for EC in a policy setting. As he highlighted, different organizations and local authorities have different approaches and priorities that need to be taken into consideration and it may not be possible or desirable to adopt a "one size fits all approach" to EC policymaking. Some participants in the sandpit were opposed to instrumentalizing EC in this way. This echoes broader debates in the arts and creativity literature. LADKIN in his contribution to the Cultural Value Project (CROSSICK & KASZYNSKA, 2016, p.63), for example, argued that a focus on demonstrable outcomes could result in less tangible outcomes being obscured, and the potential and integrity of arts and culture being suppressed, by forcing practitioners to predict outcomes in funding applications. [11]

In exploring the intricate dynamics between space and place through our conversations, it became clear to us that these concepts are not interchangeable, but are closely connected through the act of placemaking. "Space" exists in a physical realm, including digital spaces, whereas "place" resides within people's minds. Placemaking then is a continuous endeavor to create meaning of spaces, either individually or as a collective. So, an individual may view a space as a safe space, or a local community may view a space as a heritage site. This links to the Welsh concept of "cynefin," which event host, Owen EVANS introduced. BROWNETT and EVANS (2020, p.2) defined "cynefin" as reflective of "the sense of local pride and belonging emanating from history and heritage within communities, as well as the memories and stories of those who live there." With this broader discussion on language and terminology in mind, EVANS proposed the concept of "spaces of opportunity," as something which enables us to focus on subjective meaning and active placemaking within and beyond specific physical places, and to capture space as fluid potentiality. [12]

Within the context of spaces of opportunity, creativity emerges as a potent instrument for enhancing a place, through official or unofficial means, whether intentionally or unintentionally. However, as alluded to previously, several significant constraints can hinder people's capacity for creativity and participating in placemaking. One such constraint is time, as people increasingly juggle multiple responsibilities in their everyday lives to cope with ever-mounting pressures. As one participant noted, in a capitalist society that demands productivity of all participants, many people are struggling just to survive. Indeed, the prevailing "task-and-finish" model of creativity within today's capitalist framework encourages us to fixate on an end product which can stifle the creative process (see for example LADKIN in CROSSICK & KASZYNSKA, 2016, p.63). [13]

Thus, while local government officials may recognize the value of creative and arts-based initiatives for fostering the wellbeing of their local communities, in the context of the UK at least, they are constrained by brutal budget cuts in the current cost-of-living crisis. Furthermore, officials work under a burgeoning legacy of standard of evaluation and bureaucratic procedures that restrict the shape of these creative programs. Even programs laid out with the best of intentions may lead us to unintentionally instrumentalize the creativity of communities by measuring the success of these initiatives in terms of a reductionist focus on end products or outputs. Moreover, as these measures are flattened across contexts, regardless of the needs and specificities of local communities, they inevitably privilege the communities that produce only "recognized" or "legitimized" forms of creativity. To promote EC, it is important to implement strategies that open doors for all individuals, transcending the constraints imposed by capitalism and resource disparities; but, as the discussion at this sandpit revealed, this can be a deeply challenging prospect. [14]

The ECRN's home and placemaking sandpit proved to be a rich and stimulating event, provoking wide-ranging discussion on issues related to EC, place/space, and policy making in the creative sphere. Central to our discussions were the opportunities and restrictions that impact the extent to which people are able to engage with and benefit from EC. Many of us spoke fondly about the revival of a childlike creativity that allows for free expression without fear of judgment. This sentiment drove much of our conversation, as we questioned what makes creativity flourish in our everyday lives. We recognized a need to consider alternative models of creative initiatives that limit barriers to access, and are informed by local individual and collective senses of creativity, rather than values and judgments that are imposed from outside. We left the sandpit too with the challenge to consider the potential of the term "spaces of opportunity" in generating new models of working with communities that break away from place-based restrictions, and with the ongoing task of providing an effective working definition of EC. [15]

These are considerations for the ECRN, going forward, as they work towards building an adaptable framework that policy makers can refer to when designing, supporting and evaluating creative programs. Any such framework clearly needs to avoid becoming a top-down model that can become oppressive and exclusionary including the methodological approach that these frameworks may be based on. This is no easy task, and requires drawing on the expertise of creative academics, practitioners, and community leaders to provide policy makers with a wide range of solutions to address their constituents' needs across the board. We look forward to seeing how these discussions evolve through the continued development of the ECRN, in particular the two remaining sandpits on "EC in health and wellbeing" and "interfaces across arts, science and technology," and in the concluding conference which is due to be held in autumn 2024. [16]

Interested readers can find out more about the ECRN's activities, including the 2024 conference, and sign up to join a Jisc email discussion group on the network website. [17]

The Everyday Creativity Research Network is funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council. We would also like to thank all those who contributed to the sandpit event, and the Network Steering Group for their continuing support: Sonia CONTERA (University of Oxford), Alexandra COULTER (National Centre for Creative Health), Norma DAYKIN (University of the West of England), Owen EVANS (Edge Hill University), Nick EWBANK (Nick Ewbank Associates), Lewis HOU (Science Ceilidh), Victoria HUME (Culture, Health and Wellbeing Alliance), Tony KALUME (Diversity Lewes), Louise MANSFIELD (Brunel University) and Robin SIMPSON (Creative Lives).

Brownett, Tristi & Evans, Owen (2020). Finding common ground: The conception of community arts festivals as spaces for placemaking. Health & Place, 61, Art. 102254.

Burnard, Pamela & Colucci-Gray, Laura (Eds.) (2020). Why sciences and arts creativities matter. (Re-)configuring STEAM for future-making education. Leiden: Brill.

Daykin, Norma; Willis, Jane; McCree, Mel & Gray, Karen (2015). Creative and credible. How to evaluate arts and health projects, https://creativeandcredible.co.uk/ [Accessed: November 7, 2023].

Faulkner, Sandra L. (2022). Poetic inquiry. Craft, method and practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Gauntlett, David (2018). Making is connecting: The social power of creativity, from craft and knitting to digital everything (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Johnson, Helen (2022a). Embracing the mosaic: Crafting collaborative poetics research for critical resilience. In Kip Jones (Ed.), Doing performative social science (pp.179-194). London: Taylor & Francis.

Johnson, Helen (2022b). Ten incitements to rebellion: Spoken word as a social scientific research tool of, and for, rebellious research. In Pamela. Burnard, Elizabeth. Macklinay, David Rousell & Tatjana Dragovic (Eds.), Doing rebellious research: Performance in and beyond the academy (pp.34-53). Leiden: Brill Sense.

Johnson, Helen (2022c). Beyond disciplines: Spoken word as participatory arts-based research. International Review of Qualitative Research Inquiry, 15(3), https://doi.org/10.1177/19408447211052667 [Accessed: December 16, 2023].

Johnson, Helen & Monney, Nicole (2021). Using the arts to support the arts: A creative, community-university partnership approach to building arts inclusivity in economically-deprived communities. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 22(3), Art. 2, https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-22.3.3650 [Accessed: December 16, 2023].

Johnson, Helen; Carson-Apstein, Emily; Banderob, Simon & Macaulay-Rettino, Xander (2017). "You kind of have to listen to me": Researching discrimination through poetry. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 18(3), Art. 6, https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-18.3.2864 [Accessed: December 16, 2023].

Jones, Kip; Gergen, Mary; Guiney Yallop, John J.; Lopez de Vallejo, Irene; Roberts, Brian & Wright, Peter (Eds.) (2008). Performative social science. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(2). https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/issue/view/10 [Accessed: December 12, 2023].

Mackinlay, Liz (2019). Critical writing for embodied approaches: Autoethnography, feminism and decoloniality. Cham: Palgrave.

Mackinlay, Liz (2022). Writing feminist autoethnography: In love with theory, words and the language of women writers. Abingdon: Routledge.

Mansfield, Louise; Daykin, Norma; Golding, Alex & Ewbank, Nick (2022). Understanding everyday creativity: A framework drawn from a qualitative evidence review of home-based arts. Annals of Leisure Research, https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2022.2089183 [Accessed 16 December 2023].

Randles, Clint & Burnard, Pamela (2023). The Routledge companion to creativities in music education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Laharee MITRA is a doctoral researcher at the University of Brighton and the postgraduate research representative for the Everyday Creativity Research Network. In her doctoral research, she examines how museum learning and engagement practitioners perceive and enact decolonization in UK based museums. She has previously worked at Dr. Bhau Daji Lad Museum, Mumbai as a curatorial assistant and has volunteered with Kew Gardens, London, Centre of World Environmental History, University of Sussex and V&A, London. Her research interests include public engagement with heritage, emotional experiences in museums, and cultural management.

University of Brighton
School of Humanities and Social Science
Mithras House, Lewes Road, Brighton, East Sussex, BN2 4AT, UK

Helen JOHNSON is a principal lecturer in psychology, co-director of the Centre for Arts and Wellbeing at the University of Brighton and principal investigator for the Everyday Creativity Research Network. In her work, she focuses on participatory and arts-based research innovations, applications of the arts in enhancing health and wellbeing, and exploring spoken word communities and practices. Current research projects include enriching understandings and applications of everyday creativity, decolonization in the context of everyday creativity and creative research methods, and community-university partnership work exploring collaborative processes and resource development. She is also a spoken word artist and stage manager for Glastonbury Festival's Poetry&Words stage.

University of Brighton
School of Humanities and Social Science
Mithras House, Lewes Road, Brighton, East Sussex, BN2 4AT, UK

Mitra, Laharee & Johnson, Helen (2024). Conference Essay: Exploring spaces of opportunity for everyday creativity [17 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 25(1), Art. 10, https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-25.1.4159.

Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research (FQS)

ISSN 1438-5627

Funded by the KOALA project

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License