Evaluation by Dominique Danau

Each of the seminars needs to be considered as a step in the process addressing the development and the concretisation of a 'Europe of cultures'. Not only the seminars need to be evaluated on the basis of the conceptual framework, but also the process leading to the seminars (i.e. preparation and the follow-up of the seminars). To be able to do this, it is important that it is clear what the conceptual framework is (content, approach, etc.) and what the status is of the conceptual framework (guidelines, directives, evolving, static, etc.)

Furthermore, it is important that there is a common logic underlying each of the seminars. This common logic is not only related to the content, but also to the approach and the philosophy behind it. During the seminar it became clear that there are two dynamics underlying the 'Europe of cultures': a bottom-up approach and a top-dwn approach. In the top-down approach, political entities are defined and afterwards an image is shaped for them. In the top-down approach, use is made of existing dynamics and initiatives to build 'Europe of cultures' on. My question is how both dynamics are operationalised and given shape in the seminars.

If we want to realise the 'mission' of these seminars (as I understand it), these seminars need to have broad foundations. With this I mean that not only policy makers play a role in the seminars, but also actors involved in 'grass-root' movements (e.g. movements of unemployed, movements of ethnic minorities, etc.).

A limited conceptual framework can, according to me, be made concrete through a matrix in which two streams are situated (economic and social) from which we can look at culture on the one hand and different domains giving meaning to these streams on the other hand (media, language, education, training, arts,....)

This matrix can serve different purposes, can have different functions:

to categorise the existing initiatives and actions;
to categorise the initiatives and actions proposed at the seminars;
to identify priorities for the content of each of the semianrs.

In the identification of priorities, a choice has to be made:

is the point of departure a project launched by the Flemish Government

whereby one want to look at the European dimension of culture?

is the starting point Europe with different cultures, of which Flanders and its cultures is one of them?

According to me, it is essential to make an evaluation of the total project. If this is taken seriously, it is necessary to define evaluation objectives and criteria not only focusing on the products (the seminars) but also on the other dimensions involved in the process of which the products are only one part (the actors involved the objectives of the project and seminars, etc.).

I do agree with Hatto Fischer that the choice made by Kris Rogiers of having three 'pilars' to work on in the next seminar, is maybe a too early choice. First of all, we should analyse the outcomes of the Athens Seminar. Secondly, having three working domains is not representing anymore the complex field of culture.

I really think that there is a strong potential in some of the ideas underlying this project. Maybe we should seriously think about it to exploit these more and to 'use' the enthusiasm of so many people present there. By this I do not in the first place mean that we have to involve the media, but that we think about 'real' actions that would show evidence of what is happening.

^ Top

« Evaluation Athena - Preparation Munich - by Kris Rogiers for the Flemish Government | Poetic conclusion and linked to Savina Yannatou’s “In Search of the Human Voice” »

Ποιειν Και Πραττειν - create and do

Navigation

Evaluation by Dominique Danau