By Annukka Jyrämä & Kaari Kiitsak-Prikk
Professor of Cultural Management (EAMT) & Senior Lecturer of Cultural Management (EAMT)
/ANGLES
Supporting the mindset of tech-savvy arts managers: How to build a technology mindset in cultural management?
Technological change and digitalization cannot be ignored by art organisations and arts management education. Artificial intelligence (AI), digital tools, platforms, augmented and virtual reality, streaming etc are everyday items in all sectors, arts and culture no exception. In education, the use of digital tools or services is common, yet educating a use of tools becomes easily obsolete even during the few years of master programs. In the field of cultural management, we build our study programmes and syllabuses on the knowledge from the past, current practices and presumptions of the future. We, teachers, rely on methods proven to be effective and constantly adapt to new innovations and ideas for teaching approaches and tools to facilitate learning. Yet the recent revolution in digital technologies and the boom of AI tools can make us perplexed and wonder what is still relevant in higher education and what is not. Teachers, as well as the students, are in agitation, somewhat confused, somewhat excited and facing new dilemmas. In the current article, we wish to share our perspective of cultural management educators’ everyday practice, challenges, and standpoints in these terms, building on our experience at the Estonian Academy of Music and Theatre (EAMT). Let us tell you a story.
Casts in the shifting acts
Lisa and John applied for the EAMT Cultural Management MA program in Estonia.
They have backgrounds in distinct fields and different academic experiences but were eager to join the studies. Lisa felt a bit uneasy about how she would cope as her previous studies did not include much academic content, but luckily her friend had shown her how to use AI and that helped her to create an excellent entrance essay, praised by the selection committee.
John had good academic experience, it was rather the practical skills that worried him.
The versatile background of student candidates and students is a challenge, but more of an opportunity to build a community where students actively also learn from each other, sharing knowledge in the classroom and in peer-to-peer mentoring (Kiitsak-Prikk, Zemite & Dumpe 2023, 58). The joint learning includes sharing recent updates in technology and reversed mentorship models throughout the studies.
The usage of technology and AI at the admission exams raise the need for equal treatment, as the ones not familiar with these opportunities, should not be left aside. Also, reconsidering the format of the exams tests our creativity as the ones eagerly using these technologies might not reveal their real capabilities and competencies in essays, not only in terms of academic writing but also in thinking and reading. So, both students and educators face the need to recognise the shift in the educational setting. There is a need to move the focus from finding the “misuse” to developing ways to see new technologies as tools for advancement rather than fraud.
The fast adoption requires a growth mindset (Dweck 2006) and an entrepreneurial attitude to turn the complexity into new solutions. The growth and entrepreneurial mindsets are supporting ways to cope with change (Kiitsak-Prikk 2022, 172; Gulati and Reaiche 2020), and we propose a technology mindset to be added as a way to tackle the need to adopt new technologies with ease. Thus, we propose that education should focus on building a mindset rather than skills for specific technology tools. The learning process can be designed accordingly, using formats which take students slightly out of their comfort zone yet still safe space to learn. [2]
Applying Design Thinking
Lisa and John were excited as their studies started with an intensive Bootcamp in a small village in Estonia to connect with each other and the field of study. The other students were a good bunch and Lisa and John felt right at home. However, John felt that some of the activities were a bit too “playful” for his taste, whereas Lisa excelled in the group work with her creative ideas. They shared ideas, co-created new perspectives and searched for new information, using AI tools as well. It turned out to be a bit difficult to understand what and how should be reported on the use of the tools and information used in the background to work on the group assignments
To cultivate the “hunger” for knowledge, challenge-based learning leads the process of getting used to the unknown, openness to innovation and curiosity for new ways and innovation (Leijon et al. 2022; Johnson et al. 2009; Nichols and Cator 2008). Applying the design thinking approach, we have successfully piloted the master’s program following the logic of double diamond[3] where challenge solving is the backbone of the learning journey of each student. Bootcamp outside regular academic environments, where the students develop a group spirit, proves to be an excellent tool to nurture a safe learning environment, openness to versatility and readiness for unexpected quick changes. The form of Bootcamp imitates the logic of two years of double diamond process[4] by engaging students in a path of solving a mini-challenge in groups over a few days.
The overall study structure evolves around the student’s individual challenge, a question or a theme they are intrigued by. The aim is to connect all learning activities towards solving the chosen challenge. We aim to adopt diversity in teaching methods that enable the use of a variety of digital tools in flipped classroom settings. The connectedness to challenge and future orientation enables building self-responsibility, openness towards new; growth, entrepreneurial and technology-oriented mindsets. Students are assigned tutors, who facilitate learning rather than provide answers and support an open mindset by triggering questions and encouraging the usage of emerging digital tools.
Drowning…
Lisa and John get various tasks and are encouraged to explore different tools and ways to use AI. But they are both uneasy with several digital tools. They share these with others and quickly figure out the benefits of using AI for visualisation, categorization, creating summaries, editing texts, creating videos and presentations, finding various sources of information, and detecting projects with relevancy. Still, they constantly struggle to decide which content created with AI is relevant and of good quality.
Facing the practical challenges of arts management they struggle to decide “what is the correct way”. They are confused without ready-made formulas to integrate new learnings and knowledge from various subjects to serve their specific focus problem, both in terms of practical solutions as well as in academic writing. Lisa runs into concerns with research integrity and ethics, asking: “Why bother when the AI can do all faster and better than me?!” John struggles with correct referencing and using loads of new information to make sense of practical aspects of his arts management challenge. They are lost, worried and drowning in the sea of different digital platforms and AI tools.
The intensive bootcamp at the beginning of studies facilitates building a community of learning, which is further enhanced during the joint intensive sessions of learning once a month. The students have self-created joint platforms in social media for communication and for sharing knowledge. In addition, group work and classroom activities encourage students to share, analyse and make sense of their experiences through joint discussion but also with AI tools and other digital solutions. Many of the classroom activities build on “learning by doing”-methodologies.
The use of recent AI tools has, however, created challenges in enabling ethical academic practices to ensure proper referencing and use of other people’s ideas. One solution is the close connections between students and teachers, dialogues with tutors and the smallness of the groups, where responsibility for the research integrity is shared. In order to use AI and other digital tools with integrity, the issues on research integrity and their basis are thoroughly discussed, while encouraging to use of the AI tools and providing ways to be open and transparent. The aim is to build a self-directed wish to work with integrity – provide guidance on “How” rather than forbidding the use of AI tools.
Even though we claim to build the mindset of use with integrity, it needs to be noted that sometimes the teachers’ capacity to know all AI outcomes remains limited in the rapid development of these tools.
Finding a way
Over the four semesters, Lisa and John learn to accept and cope with the “chaos” they face in their studies and professional life. They find strength in regular check-in rounds with the whole group sharing and supporting each other. Lisa gets used to discussing her fears and struggles during regular individual tutoring sessions. John realises the mentorship programme integrated into their studies provides him with a “real life” approach to be able to crucially assess the ideas he developed in virtual spaces.
They both seek advice from their teachers and mentors during many online sessions and eye-to-eye discussions. Right before graduation, they find themselves suggesting the candidates for the next master’s group to bring their open minds, critical approach with curiosity, creativity and laser-sharp focus.
In sum, the tools to build students with growth, entrepreneurial and technology openness mindset are building on simple choices such as small groups, using a variety of teaching methods, building a learning community and adopting an individual challenge as a central point for each student to connect their learnings. We have the support of facilitation tutors, capable teachers informed on the overall model of the program and mentors to bring the practice into the learning. We aim to enable students to take self-responsibility in their learning and develop a critical mindset. However, how well we succeed depends on the individuals; students, individual teachers, tutors and mentors, and sometimes just luck.
To conclude we wish to point out the following questions for further reflection:
- How to enable students to take self-responsibility for their learning; and at the same time provide support and knowledge? Where is the balance?
- How to maintain students’ learning mindset when all info can be found so easily? Do we build lazy minds? Are we drowning in a sea of existing knowledge and not finding the island of “new ideas and own contribution”?
- How to avoid providing tips and models; but move towards building a learning mindset for the future professional life?
[2] Created in the context of E4TLI; Education for technological literacy and inclusion, E4TLI (e4tli7.com).
[3] Framework for Innovation – Design Council
[4] Organisation of Studies | Estonian Academy of Music and Theatre (eamt.ee)
References
Dweck, C.S. (2006) Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
Gulati, R. and Reaiche, C.H. (2020) Soft skills: A key driver for digital transformation. In Proceedings of the ICDS.
Johnson, L.F., Smith, R.S., Smythe, J.T. and Varon, R.K.(2009) Challenge-based learning: An approach for our time (pp. 1-38). The New Media Consortium.
Kiitsak-Prikk, K., Zemite, I., Dumpe, V. (2023) Mentoring, university education programmes and the cultural and creative sector. In Jyrämä, A., Ranczakowska, A.(eds). Perspectives on Mentorship–Reinventing Mentoring in Arts and Creative Industries Management (pp. 55-71). Estonian Academy of Music and Theatre Press, Tallinn.
Kiitsak-Prikk, K. (2022) Supporting cultural managers facing the future. In Jyrämä, A., Kiitsak-Prikk, K. (eds.) Managing the Arts 4 (pp.160−179). EMTA Kirjastus, Tallinn.
Leijon, M., Gudmundsson, P., Staaf, P. and Christersson, C.(2022) Challenge-based learning in higher education – A systematic literature review. Innovations in education and teaching international, 59(5), 609-618.
Nichols, M. and Cator, K. (2008) Challenge-Based Learning White Paper. Cupertino, California: Apple.
Authors
Prof. Annukka Jyrämä is the academic leader of the cultural management master’s programme in EATM, and her research interests include knowledge creation processes and the role of mediators from institutional and network theory perspectives. Previously she has conducted studies in suchcontexts as culture, city and business, and has extensive experience in the field of arts management research and education. Annukka’s research has focusedmainly on arts marketing and management. Her currentresearch projects include co-creation in the context of the art field and the interplay of identities between the arts organisation and creative members of staff. She holds the position of trust on the advisory board of the Foundation for Cultural Policy Research. Her research articles have been published in several journals such as the International Journal of Arts Management, Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, and Management Learning.
Kaari Kiitsak-Prikk PhD is a senior lecturer and chief coordinator of the Department of Musicology, Music Pedagogy and Cultural Management at the Estonian Academy of Music and Theatre. Being a graduate of the same MA programme she has been involved in cultural management education for two decades and has been committed to developing the curriculum content and the organisation of studies. She primarily teaches project management, career planning, creative entrepreneurship and leadership not only to cultural managers but also to music students and arts practitioners. Her research focuses on governance and the institutional setting in the cultural sector, the societal impact of the arts, societal engagement of HEIs, entrepreneurial training, and mentorship in the cultural sector. She is a career counsellor at the academy and a member of the Society of Estonian Career Counsellors.