The Role of Stakeholders in Cultural Entrepreneurship Management

Open access

Abstract

The skills and knowledge of the owners and employees of cultural enterprises on economic use of financial resources do not guarantee valuable artistic results. Therefore, a substantiated question has arisen: how to evaluate management in enterprises with bad financial ratios and outstanding artistic indicators. The existing definitions of cultural management (Aageson, 2008; Hagoort, 2007; Klamer, 1999; Stam, 2006; Nordman, 2003) also do not provide precise suggestions for determining the most important indicators in the evaluation of cultural management. The question is how to evaluate management in cultural entrepreneurship by determining the most important indicators for a cultural enterprise’s performance improvement. In order to define the goal of the stakeholders’ (artists, clients, media, arts scholars, third parties providing funds, cooperation partners) engagement, it is necessary to analyse the area of an enterprise’s activities, and in what way and by what kind of activities it is possible to engage the stakeholders. During the course of empirical research, it is planned to disclose, analyse and interpret the subjective reasons of pursuit. Although a numerical evaluation of stakeholders was obtained during the research and data analysis performed by Spearman’s rho correlation calculations, the obtained results during the interpretation have not been generalised. The research results reveal the role of the cultural enterprise’s stakeholders’ engagement in the evaluation of management, point to the importance of the goals’ analysis as well as the analysis of each stakeholder’s engagement, and define the criteria for evaluating the activities in cultural entrepreneurship.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Aageson T.H. (2008). Cultural Entrepreneurs: Producing Cultural Value and Wealth. The Cultures and Globalization Series: The Cultural Economy. London: Sage Publications pp. 92-107.

  • AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard (2015). [Accessed 20.02.2016]. Available from http://www.accountability.org/standards/aa1000ses.html

  • Baggio R. Klobas J. (2011). Quantitative Methods in Tourism: A Handbook. Aspects of Tourism Series. Bristol UK: Channel View p. 255.

  • Baumol W.J. (1993). Formal Entrepreneurship Theory of economics: Existence and Bounds. Journal of Business Venturing 8 pp.197-210.

  • Baumol W.J. (2003). On Austrian analysis of entrepreneurship and my own. Austrian Economics and Entrepreneurial studies. UK: Elsevier Science pp.57-66.

  • Brannen J. (2004). Working qualitatively and quantitatively. Qualitative Research Practice. Seale C. Gobo G. Gubrium J.F. Silverman D. (eds.). London: Sage Publication pp. 312-326.

  • Carroll A.B. (1996). Business and Society - Ethics and Stakeholder Management (3rd ed.). Cinncinati:South - Western Publishing p. 560.

  • Cohen L. Manion L. (1994). Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge pp. 718.

  • Deakins D. (1996). Entrepreneurship and small firms. London: McGraw-Hill p. 248.

  • Freeman R.E. (2010). Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press p. 279.

  • Gill J. Johnson P. (2010).Research methods for managers. Los Angeles: Sage p. 270.

  • Haagoort G. (2000). Arts management entrepreneurial style. Eburon: Delft pp. 214-215.

  • Harrison J.S. Freeman R.E. (1999). Stakeholders social responsibility and performance: empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal 4 (5) pp. 479-485.

  • Hoks Dž. (2007). Ilgstpējīgas attīstības 4. pīlārs. Kultūras nozīme valsts attīstības plānošanā. Cēsis: Culturelab 51.-52. lpp.

  • Jagersma P.K. (2009). The strategic value of sustainable stakeholder management. Business Strategy Series 10 (6) pp. 339-344.

  • Johnson R.B. Onwuegbuzie A.J. Turner L.A. (2007). Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 1 (2) pp. 112-133.

  • Klamer A. Veldhuis O. (1999). Cultureel ondernemerschap: wat is dat eigenlijk? NRC Handelsblad 23.

  • Kroplijs A. Raščevska M. (2010). Kvalitatīvās pētniecības metodes sociālajās zinātnēs. Rīga: SIA “Izdevniecība RaKa” 190 lpp.

  • Lindlof T.R. Taylor B.C. (2002).Qualitative communication research methods (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks CA: Sage p. 357.

  • Morgan D.L. Krueger R.A. (1997).The Focus Group Kit. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage p. 692.

  • Noordman D. (2003). Kunstmanagement. Den Haag: Elsevier pp. 13-17.

  • Stam E. (2006). Coaching for Cultural Entrepreneurship. Rotterdam: Rotterdam Erasmus University 126 lpp.

  • Philips R. (2003). Stakeholder Theory and Organizational Ethics. CA: Berrett-Koehler San Francisco 200 lpp.

  • Post J.E. Preston L.E. Sachs S. (2002a). Redefining the Corporation Stakeholder Management and Organizational Wealth. Stanford: Stanford University Press p. 320.

  • Post J.E. Preston L.E. Sachs S. (2002b). Managing the extended enterprise the new stakeholder view. California Management Review 45 (1) pp. 1.-23.

  • Punch K.F. (2005). Introduction to social research: quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: Sage Publications p. 320.

  • Reņģe V. Austers I. (2004). Kvalitatīvās metodes sociālo priekšstatu pētījumos. Latvijas Universitātes raksti 682: 29-40.

  • Vondal P. (2010). Conducting Mixed-Option Evaluations Performance Monitoring & Evaluation TIPS.

  • Washington DC USAID Center for Development Information and Development Evaluation. [Accessed 20.02.2016]. Available from http://transition.usaid.gov/policy/evalweb/documents/TIPSConductingMixedMethodEvaluations.pdf

  • Walliman N. (2006). Social research methods. London: Thousand Oaks p. 224.

  • Waddock S. Bodwell C. (2002). From TQM to TRM: emerging responsibility management approaches.Journal of Corporate Citizenship 7: 113-126.

  • Zemīte I. Janovs V. Luka I. (2011). Quality benchmarking methodology: Case study of finance and culture industries in Latvia. Acta univ.agric.et silvic.2: 385-390

Suche
Zeitschrifteninformation
Metriken
Gesamte Zeit Letztes Jahr Letzte 30 Tage
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 569 169 1
PDF Downloads 302 111 1