UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA

Interpretation and Public Policy: the aesthetics of evidence

Panel 29
Caroline Agnew

While there have been advances in the field of critical policy studies in terms of incorporating
discourse analysis into the field, the use of interpretive methods has been under explored in the
literature. More specifically, I intend to explore the ideas of intertextuality and mimesis in
public policy. These concepts are drawn from the Gadamers study of aesthetics, as well as
Ricoeurs hermeneutic phenomenology, and are used to understand a text and its relationship to
its context. While they are more often associated with both anthropology and the study of
aesthetics, I argue that they are useful tools in understanding the true character of policy
problems.
With so much emphasis on empirical evidence in public policy, it is easy to overlook the
contextualized nature of policy issues. This is especially true in cultural policy, where policy
trends have been criticised for failing to take into consideration local cultures including traditions
and art practices. There is also a growing concern that despite the growing body of empirical
studies in cultural policy, the terms culture and art are often left ambiguous, despite the fact
that they are increasingly being used as policy instruments in social and economic development.
In addition, the instrumentalization of culture often overlooks the actual physical manifestations
of culture as art in favour of examining social conditions in which the art was made.
This ambiguity also raises ontological concerns for empirical research in policy studies.
Therefore, I would like to explore at the social construction of meaning in the policy process by
looking at the relationship between cultural policy and local aesthetics. I intend to do so by
looking at a series of four cultural policy documents from the City of Ottawa, and then relating
them to a selection of art works that were displayed in public galleries during that time.
Context of the Research
While the mainstream literature does acknowledge that policy analysis is ambiguous, there has
been a tendency to focus on using data more efficiently rather than attempting to understand the
contextualized meanings of policy issues. To be more precise, there has been an inclination
towards using bounded rationality as an approach rather than rational-comprehensive models of
decision-making, as many scholars have commented on the difficulties in applying this second
approach in policy practices. For example, Lindblom (1959) describes how policy makers
should not attempt to assume full knowledge of the roots of a policy issue (the rational
comprehensive model) and to begin from there, but should instead make small incremental
changes to policies and review them as time goes on. Etzioni (1967), on the other hand,
recognizes that incrementalism has its place in policy-making, but argues that there are some
problems that must be more closely and thoroughly examined. Furthermore, Forester (1984)
acknowledges context in decision-making processes, but limits it to bounded rationality and the
ability to act on information, rather than on the quality of the information itself or the ontological
foundations of the research.

1
Caroline Agnew

Furthermore, in the traditional literature, there is a conviction that the larger the pool of data, the
better policy decisions will be made. Lasswell (1955) and Simon (1976) both argue that the
growing computational capacity of computers would make it possible to include a wider set of
variables in decision processes. Interestingly, both Lasswell and Dror (1970) believe that both
context and culture are important factors in policy-making, and Simon goes on to illustrate how
organizational culture can shape how information is used. Dror even goes so far as to recognize
the role of common sense in the policy process. However, one thing that these authors share is
the belief that greater computational power will result in better, more neutral and more
comprehensive policy making than could be accomplished by humans alone. While they do
admit the importance of context, it would seem as though the rise of technocratic decisionmaking processes has increased the focus on instrumental rationality while neglecting the human
element in public policy.
More recently, to counter trends in New Public Management and technocratic governance, some
scholars are attempting to incorporate discourse into policy studies. These studies draw mainly
on Foucault and Habermas in order to better understand how identity and language shape policy
discussions. Frank Fischers (1998, 2003) work incorporates Foucaults argument that the
speaking subject has the power to shape how the object of study is perceived. His work
illustrates how policy-makers are able to frame the recipients of policy as deserving or
undeserving. In addition, other authors have described how indigenous knowledge is often not
seen as legitimate in policy debates (Juillet, 2007), and how mainstream policy discussions do
not take womens issues into account even though women make up half of the population
(Hawkesworth, 2010). These critiques of construction of knowledge and the ability to control
policy discussions indicate that the use of purely empirical evidence in the policy process can
indeed be problematic.
Habermas contribution to the use discourse analysis in policy studies is often drawn from his
work on deliberative democracy and ideal speech situations. Rather than focusing on rationality
and efficiency, Habermas argues that establishing means of open communication will create a
more democratic and level policy arena (Heysse, 2006). This work has led to some very
interesting cases in which attempts are made to create an open dialogue among policy actors.
These attempts have been met with mixed success, as Habermas work has been interpreted
differently in various countries as a result of their pre-existing institutions, both formal and
cultural (Dryzek & Tucker, 2008). However, when the deliberative model is used successfully, it
can open up lines of communication which facilitate learning and cooperation even between
competing interests (Innes & Booher, 2003).
While there has been a growing academic interest in critically examining policy analysis as well
as creating more bottom-up models of democratic participation, there is also a sense that
contemporary policy practices actually reflect an entrenched commitment to rational choice
methods. Over the past thirty years, countries and regions such as Britain, Canada, the United
States, and the European Union have seen increased reliance on technocratic decision-making.
2
Caroline Agnew

In Britain, this was begun under Margaret Thatcher, but was continued and expanded by New
Labour under Tony Blair (Syrett, 2003). While these strategies have, on the surface, the aim of
depoliticizing policy analysis and providing more efficient ways to make decisions, they have
also had the effect of reinforcing divisions between those who are considered experts and those
who are not (Callon, Lascoumes, & Barthe, 2001). In addition, there are questions that can be
raised about the types of expertise that are valued in technocratic processes. For example, in
Canada, at least, policy analysis is dominated not by experts in a variety of fields, each giving
input of equal weight, but by methodologies developed in the field of economics (Mintrom,
2007; Vining & Boardman, 2007).
This research seeks to challenge the continuing dominance of these methodologies by
introducing two concepts that have received relatively little attention in policy studies. The
reason for bringing in these ideas is to raise both ontological and practical questions about the
focus on instrumental rationality in policy analysis. For one thing, there are concerns about the
types of issues that can be studied in the instrumental rationality framework, and that issues that
can be easily measured will be placed higher on the policy agenda than phenomena that are less
tangible. The second question is concerned with how to use the interpretation of cultural
symbols and incorporate it into the policy process.
Why is this important?
Interpretation is not a new addition to policy studies, but it has yet to find traction within
mainstream policy analysis. While some authors acknowledge the importance of looking at the
flow of ideas, rather than events, there is still greater weight given to empirical rather than
interpretive data. However, there is also a growing belief that the ways in which evidence is
used in policy processes can add additional layers of obfuscation (Belfiore, 2009).
The critique of knowledge production in policy studies is especially relevant in the field of
cultural policy. While cultural policy studies originally stems from cultural studies and critically
examining the role of government in supporting cultural development, over the past decade there
has been an increased amount of research that either focuses on audience development or
proving the social benefits of the arts (Caust, 2003). In addition, with the rise of New Public
Management in the 80s, it became increasingly important for arts organizations to be able
provide evidence of the social benefits of culture (Belfiore, 2004). While the ability to prove that
the arts have a measurable impact has helped keep culture on the public agenda (Gibson, 2008),
there are scholars who believe that many of these studies leave art and culture with
ambiguous definitions (Belfiore & Bennett, 2007; Gordon, 2010).
In the context of New Public Management, the need for evidence has shifted the focus of cultural
policy from culture, which is inherently ambiguous, and more towards other, presumably more
measurable, phenomena such as taste and social capital. Bourdieus (1984) work on taste has set
the stage for a developing field of research that studies peoples artistic tastes (For example
3
Caroline Agnew

Ostrower, 2005; What People Want from the Arts , 2008). However, these studies often
frame art as a pleasant or otherwise socially positive pastime and tend to ignore the role that the
arts have played in social and political dissent. While it is commonly acknowledged that the
words art and culture are not interchangeable terms, many cultural policies continue to use
the arts as part of their strategies. The proliferation of studies that look at the presumed benefits
of the arts, such as developing social capital in different social groups (Buys & Miller, 2009;
Jeannotte, 2003), without looking critically at art as a manifestation of cultural identity or at the
symbolic meanings that lie behind art as a cultural expression.
In addition, much of the traditional policy literature aims to find the best ways of solving policy
problems, and focuses on how questions regarding how to analyze problems and how to solve
them. However, much of the critical literature looks at who questions of who is able to speak
within policy discourses. I would like to focus on what questions about what is actually being
studied, which I feel should be a central part of the policy process. This type of research was
initiated by Yanow (1996), who looked at the localized meanings of recreation centres in Israel
to see how they were used. I intend to follow in this tradition by exploring in greater depth the
ways in which to use the concepts of intertextuality and mimesis.
Main concepts
The concepts that I will be dealing with are intertextuality and mimesis. The first two concepts
come from the study of aesthetics, but I argue that they can be applied to policy studies as well.
Gadamer introduces the idea of intertextuality in Truth and Method, using the practice of art
criticism to explain how the social sciences are not the same as the natural sciences. He argues
that it is not always possible to understand social relationships through the physical senses, as
one would with the natural or physical sciences. He wrote that social relationships must be
understood through a process of interpretation and contextualization, which he drew from
Heideggers concept of DaSein. By using aesthetics as his object of study, he showed how taste,
or the enjoyment of a work of art, was not sufficient to understand its meaning or its role in the
society in which it exists. In other words, the physical senses alone are not enough uncover the
purpose of the work and its relationship to its context (Gadamer, 1975).
Next is Ricoeurs concept of mimesis, which was originally used in literary interpretation.
Ricoeur describes the three modes of mimesis, which include the speaker, the language of the
text, and the reader. When the writer creates a text, she must try and convey her ideas, which is
mimesis (1). The language that she uses is mimesis (2), and the readers interpretation of those
words and ideas is mimesis (3) (Ricoeur, 1991). In other words, the writer cannot impart her
thoughts directly into the mind of the reader. Instead, communication is always mediated
through language, and also through the experiences of the reader. For policy studies, this
concept can be applied in a number of different ways, including understanding the local context
during the process of policy transfer, as well as interpreting the ways in which evidence is being
used, and even manipulated, in the policy process.
4
Caroline Agnew

Both of these concepts deal with interpretation, but are different from discourse theory in subtle
but important ways. Foucaults discourse theory was a critique of the power relationship
between the speaking subject and the passive object. However, I am not looking at discourse,
but at interpreting culturally imbedded objects and texts. Unlike empirical approaches in policy
studies, interpretative approaches aim to understand how an object or text exists within its
context. For example, people use tools to physically do things, but those tools may also function
as a status symbol within a certain cultural group. Art, in particular, is a culturally embedded
phenomenon, and therefore its symbolic meanings must be examined within its frame of context.
In other words, one of the questions that I will be asking is what is art in the context of Ottawas
cultural policies? The policies themselves may well contain the answers to what is the art
supposed to do? However, my research will focus on what kinds of aesthetic forms and themes
predominate, and what they mean in this particular case. The policies themselves will be used as
a way of contextualizing the work, and the work itself will show how art is defined within those
policies. These two phenomena cannot be separated, as one provides the context for the other,
while the other provides the definitions.
Case Study
I have chosen Ottawa as a case study for a number of reasons. First, Ottawa is often described as
having a missing middle. This refers to the comparatively large number of federal cultural
institutions such as the National Arts Centre and the National Gallery of Canada, as well as
community centre-based arts programs. However, Ottawa is often critiqued for its lack of
municipally funded professional art spaces in the city (Agnew, 2010). One of the problems is
that the presence of these federal institutions has created the perception that there is a thriving
cultural scene in Ottawa, and therefore does not require additional municipal funding (Beninger,
2005). On the other hand, there is a relatively strong amateur arts scene in Ottawa, several of
which have contributed to the development of this citys cultural policies. In addition, during the
period in which these policies were written was also the time frame in which many of the
municipally-run galleries were founded. It is the relationship between the policies and the types
of art that are shown that is in question here.
One of the problems with contemporary cultural policy studies is that often the research focuses
on taste, rather than on the artworks themselves. Consequently, I will attempt to bridge that gap
by drawing on ideas from cultural studies and art criticism to read the artwork as well as its
policy context. There are a few considerations that must be taken into account in order to do
this. First, art and culture are related, but not interchangeable. Art is to be seen as a
manifestation of culture. Second, art theory and local cultural practices often intersect, but art
theory may not have a direct influence on local cultural practices. Instead, it is more likely to be
a trickle down effect, where ideas from the academic or professional art worlds may find their
way into local cultural practices without any direct reference. As a result, it is important to
remember that art theory is only one part of the cultural context along with other elements.
5
Caroline Agnew

Methods
In order to explore these art works and their relationship to public policies, I will be using the
concepts of mimesis and intertextuality. For Mimesis (1), I will try to discern what the artist is
trying to convey. I will do so by looking at the types of images that are present and how they are
used in the artwork. For mimesis (2), I will try to fit these symbols and conventions in with
ideas from art theory. What types of media does the artist use, and how does it help to convey an
idea? For mimesis(3), I will look at my own reaction and reflect upon my understanding of the
work.
I incorporate intertextuality by trying to contextualize the work. This will include looking at any
biographical information that is present about the artist, as well as any themes, symbols, or
images that might relate to the work of other local artists of the same time period. It will also
take account of the policy environment in which the artwork was created (if that information is
available) and shown. As this research questions the nature of the policy context of a social
phenomenon, it is important to see if there are any trends within that context. One other thing
that must be included will be to see if there are any contemporaneous themes or styles in the
broader art world that are not found in Ottawas municipal galleries. This will help to also
differentiate between the concepts of art and local culture.
This research will focus on the time period of the last three cultural policies, which occurred
between 1981 and 2012. I will be looking at the art on display at municipally-run galleries.
However, because of the thirty year time frame, I will be looking at catalogues and other records
as well as at the physical works of art. These three cultural policies represent a shift in thinking
that frames the arts in very similar ways, but with important differences as to their focus. In
addition, each one is influenced by cultural policy trends that were occurring internationally at
the time they were written.
I will be focusing my attention on four art galleries in the city
Preliminary Findings
The first document, Proposals for Development of Arts and Culture in the Ottawa-Carleton
Region, was published in 1980. It recommends the establishment of an arm-length arts council,
which is in line with similar contemporaneous arguments made regarding the role of the artist as
an agent of political or social voice. The second document, Ottawa 20/20 Arts Plan, was
published in 2003. During that time, Richard Floridas Creative Class argument (Florida, 2002)
was gaining traction in the economic development strategies in cities all over the world. This
document reflects this trend by highlighting the importance of the arts specifically as drivers of
the post-industrial economy. The third document, A Renewed Action Plan for Arts, Heritage
and Culture in Ottawa (2013-2018), is a ten year status report on the previous policy document,
but it holds a small but significant difference in that it highlights the role of the arts as the Fourth
6
Caroline Agnew

Pillar of Sustainability. There is also a larger focus on cultural identity and participation than in
any of the previous documents.
The first exhibition that I attended was entitled Nuances, which features art projects of children
and teens. While at first it seemed slightly unfair to try and critique the work of children, I found
that some interesting points were raised by the work. First, this art show comes after the
publication of the most recent cultural policy document, in which identity and pride of place are
featured quite prominently. There was one group of collages that seemed to be part of an
assignment, as they were all similarly constructed. These collages were self portraits of girls
around the ages of eleven to thirteen. One thing that struck me was the use of colour, as these
pictures contained a lot of pink, and were made up of pictures cut out of magazines. On the
surface, this assignment seems fairly standard, but raises questions about how the girls learned to
identify with the colours they were using. Could it be that looking at the magazines themselves
was in fact teaching these girls how to see themselves?
Another group of works were obviously inspired by cubist still lives. These works begged the
question of whether or not the children were asking the types of conceptual questions that were
asked by Picasso and Braque. While there is certainly merit to being inspired by past masters
and learning from their work, it is also important to understand the context in which they were
working. Were the children asked to think about how a painting relates to other media such as
photography, and what it means to create a painting in a time when photography is so
predominant? These were the types of questions that the cubists were asking themselves, but I
did not get the impression that the concepts of the cubists were included as part of the
assignment. This raises an important issue in regards to art education: is it enough to teach only
technical skills, or should critical thinking be part of childrens art classes?
Conclusion
Although the preliminary findings have raised more questions than they have answered, they do
highlight the fact that instrumentalizing art is not a straightforward task. The arts have been put
forward almost as a panacea to any number of social problems, but often without any recognition
of its history or function as a critical mirror of society. By raising these concerns, it becomes
apparent that attempting to find concrete and measurable indicators, such as taste or audience
participation, can in fact serve to obscure rather than clarify a policy problem.
Works Cited
Agnew, C. (2010). The Arts and Local Development in Ottawa. In R. Gomez (d.), The Local
Economic Infrastructure of Business Improvement Areas(BIAs) in the City of Toronto
(Vol. 1-Book, 1-Section). Toronto: Infrastructure Canada.

7
Caroline Agnew

Belfiore, E. (2004). Auditing Culture. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 10(2), 183202.
Belfiore, E. (2009). On bullshit in cultural policy practice and research: notes from the British
case. International journal of cultural policy, 15(3), 343359.
Belfiore, E., & Bennett, O. (2007). Rethinking the social impacts of the arts. International
journal of cultural policy, 13(2), 135151.
Beninger, A. L. (2005). The Politics of Culture in Ottawa: The Origins and Development of a
Municipal Cultural Policy 1939-1988 (Vol. Maser of Arts).
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press.
Buys, L., & Miller, E. (2009). Enhancing Social Capital in Schoolchildren via School Based
Community Cultural Development Projects: A Case Study. International Journal of
Education and the Arts, 10(3).
Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2001). Agir dans un monde incertain. Essai sur la
dmocratie technique. Paris: Seuil.
Caust, J. (2003). Putting the Art Back into Arts Policy Making: How Arts Policy Has Been
Captured by the Economists and the Marketers. International Journal of Cultural Policy,
9(1), 5163.
Dror, Y. (1970). Prolegomena to Policy Sciences. Policy Sciences, 1(1), 135150.
Dryzek, J. S., & Tucker, A. (2008). Deliberative Innovation to Different Effect: Concensus
Conferences in Denmark, France, and the United States. Public Administration Review,
68, 864876.
Etzioni, A. (1967). Mixed-Scanning: A Third Approach to Decision-Making. Public
Administration Review, 27(5), 385392.
8
Caroline Agnew

Fischer, F. (1998). Beyond Empiricism: Policy Inquiry in Postpostitivist Perspective. Policy

Studies Journal, 26(1), 129.
Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class. New York: Basic Books.
Forester, J. (1984). Bounded rationality and the politics of muddling through. Public
administration review, 2331.
Gadamer, H. G. (1975). Truth and method. New York: Seabury Press.
Gibson, L. (2008). In Defense of Instrumentality. Cultural Trends, 17(4), 247257.
Gordon, C. (2010). Great expectationsthe European Union and cultural policy: fact or fiction?
International journal of cultural policy, 16(2), 101120.
Hawkesworth, M. (2010). Policy discourse as sanctioned ignorance: theorizing the erasure of
feminist knowledge. Critical Policy Studies, 3(3-4), 268289.
Heysse, T. (2006). Consensus and power in deliberative democracy. Inquiry, 49(3), 265289.
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2003). Collaborative Policymaking: Governance Through
Dialogue. In M. A. Hajer & H. Wagenaar (d.), (p. 3359). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Jeannotte, M. S. (2003). Singing alone? The contribution of cultural capital to social cohesion
and sustainable communities. The International Journal of Cultural Policy, 9(1), 3549.
Juillet, L. (2007). Framing Environmental Policy: Aboriginal Rights and the Conservation of
Migratory Birds. In M. Orsini & M. Smith (d.), (p. 257275). Vancouver: UBC Press.
Lasswell, H. D. (1955). Current Studies of the Decisions Process: Automation Versus Creativity.
Western Political Quarterly, 8(3), 381399.
9
Caroline Agnew

Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The Science of Muddling Through . Public Administration Review,

19(2), 7988.
Mintrom, M. (2007). The Policy Analysis Movement. In L. Dobuzinskis, M. Howlett, & D.
Laycock (d.), (p. 145162). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Ostrower, F. (2005). Motivations Matter: Findings and Practical Implications of a National
Survey of Cultural Participation. Urban Institute,
www.urban.org/publications/311238.html.
Ricoeur, P. (1991). A Ricoeur Reader: Reflection and Imagination. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in
Administrative Organization (Vol. 3rd). New York: Free Press.
Syrett, K. (2003). A technocratic fix to the legitimacy problem ? The Blair government and
health care rationing in the United Kingdom. Journal of health politics, policy and law,
28(4), 715746.
Vining, A. R., & Boardman, A. E. (2007). The Choice of Formal Policy Analysis Methods in
Canada. In L. Dobuzinskis, M. Howlett, & D. Laycock (d.), (p. 4885). Toronto: The
Institute of Public Administration in Canada.
What People Want from the Arts. (2008),
www.artscouncil.org.uk/downloads/whatpeoplewant.pdf, March.
Yanow, D. (1996). How Does a Policy Mean: Interpreting Policy and Organizational Actions.
Washington: Georgetown University Press.

10
Caroline Agnew