Sepideh Afsari Bajestani, Polly Stupples and Rebecca Kiddle
The purpose of this paper is to explore and clarify the relationship between creative developments and the concepts of place and placemaking.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to explore and clarify the relationship between creative developments and the concepts of place and placemaking.
Design/methodology/approach
This paper systematically reviews scholarly literature on the relationship between creative developments and the concepts of place, and critically analyzes the extent to which creative developments acknowledge different aspects of place.
Findings
The findings demonstrate that the relationship between creative development and place is multifaceted, and combines physical, cultural and social aspects of place. However, the literature also calls for the greater valuation of particular facets of place, including the daily experiences of communities and local cultural producers, alongside symbolic and imagined aspects of place, all of which inform either positive or negative perceptions of urban form. In addition, the authors argue that the cultural value of the creative industries needs to be better acknowledged in creative developments, implying support for a range of cultural practitioners.
Research limitations/implications
The authors argue that embracing a more holistic understanding of place in creative development has the potential to minimize the negative impacts sometimes associated with such developments (like gentrification and social displacement) while generating greater social and cultural benefits to people and place. The study findings raise questions that frame a critical research agenda for creative-led developments and creative placemaking in this context.
Originality/value
By examining the broader relationship between creative developments and place and identifying areas neglected by researchers, this research contributes to an articulation of “creative placemaking” that moves creative city policy toward enhancing community development.
Details
Keywords
Lorena Gibson, O. Ripeka Mercier and Rebecca Kiddle
In this chapter, we draw upon our experiences as members of Victoria University of Wellington’s Human Ethics Committee (VUW-HEC) to discuss some of the issues that arise when…
Abstract
In this chapter, we draw upon our experiences as members of Victoria University of Wellington’s Human Ethics Committee (VUW-HEC) to discuss some of the issues that arise when researchers are asked to discuss the Treaty of Waitangi1 in ethics applications. Victoria University of Wellington (VUW)’s Human Ethics Policy states that researchers have a responsibility to ensure that research conforms to the University’s Treaty of Waitangi Statute. This statute outlines the principle-based framework VUW has adopted to meet its obligations to the Treaty derived from the Education Act 1989 and other non-statutory sources. Accompanying the Human Ethics Policy is a Human Ethics Guidelines document providing researchers at VUW with information about how they can align their research with Treaty principles, such as those of partnership, protection, and participation. Researchers are encouraged to read these documents before completing the ethics application, which contains a mandatory question asking them to explain how their research conforms to the University’s Treaty of Waitangi Statute. During our time on VUW-HEC, we have observed that this question can be difficult for researchers to engage with in a meaningful way. In this chapter, we do not discuss the specifics of applications or VUW-HEC meetings; instead, we draw on our collective experiences to consider how well our university’s ethics application process creates space for researchers to engage with ‘that Treaty question’.
Details
Keywords
Lily George, Lindsey Te Ata o Tu Macdonald and Juan Tauri
This chapter provides an overview of the volume, beginning with anecdotes from the editors. These anecdotes demonstrate the range of issues facing Indigenous scholars and…
Abstract
This chapter provides an overview of the volume, beginning with anecdotes from the editors. These anecdotes demonstrate the range of issues facing Indigenous scholars and researchers who choose to work with Indigenous participants and/or communities. Reference is made to Indigenous research sovereignty, honouring the immense work undertaken by previous Indigenous scholars, enabling many today to work effectively with their own people as well as other Indigenous groups. This is considered a courageous act, given the vulnerability this opens Indigenous peoples up to in terms of the change that is engendered and the criticism from external non-Indigenous researchers that has often arisen. The organisation of the volume into three parts is discussed, and this chapter ends with synopses of the following 16 chapters.