Lauristin, Marju, juhendajaAllikmäe, Kadri2010-10-212010-10-212003http://hdl.handle.net/10062/15446The purpose of this paper was to construe the the problems of today, set before the Cultural Endowment of Estonia (CEE) as an expert system representing the field of cultural production, in both the theoretical sense and taking into account the characteristics of the creative sphere. The paper analyzed the public expectations set for the CEE and how the organization meets them today. Thus, the work combined four different theoretical standpoints: Pierre Bourdieu's theory of fields (more specifically, the theory of the cultural field), the theory of social capital created by James Coleman and Robert Putnam and their research, Anthony Giddens' theory of the consequences of modernity (which encompassed both the dimensions of trust and expert systems) and trust theories which, in this paper, relied mostly on the theories of Russel Hardin, Mark E. Warren, Ronalt Inglehart and Piotr Sztompka. The paper analyzed perceptions of the operators in the cultural field to determine how legitimate they hold the activities of the CEE in the redistribution of symbolic and cultural capital. Since the cultural field operates on the opposite basis in comparison to the economic field, the CEE was treated an organization representing the cultural field. In order to construe the organization, the paper analyzed the internal principles of the cultural field which also affect the activities of the CEE. The paper proposed a hypothesis, that, due to organizational and societal changes, heightened role expectations towards CEE exist among both the internal and external target groups. The fact that CEE has not been able to meet these expectations may endanger the institutional trustworthiness of the organization. In order to verify the hypothesis, the paper analyzed the CEE's institutional trust to determine the expected conduct of the CEE, also, to determine how the CEE meets these expectations today in its activities. In addition, the paper analyzed the evaluations of the CEE procedural trust, the work of expert committees in terms of culturally fair decision-making, the trustworthiness of the bureaucratic structure. To answer these questions, two sources were consulted: The first source were 18 semi-structured in-depth interviews carried out with the organizations key figures in the autumn of 2002 in the CEE, within the framework of the communication strategy practice of Tartu University's department of journalism and communication. The reasearch mapped the internal expected institutional and procedural conduct of the organization. The second source for the paper were 150 semi-structured in-depth interviews carried out with the CEE's applicants in the spring of 2003 by the III year students of Tartu University's department of journalism and communication. The research mapped the expected conduct of the organization on the cultural field. Due to the volume of the second source, it was used more than the first source and it also provided the coded empirical material. In parallel with the two sources, there were also reference to a quantitative research carried out in parallel with the CEE's applicants interviews. As the expected conduct of the CEE, the research showed the existence of political independence, cultural continuity, elimination of depence on the market mechanisms and functions related to recognition. The CEE's independence was generally rated in a positive manner. At the same time, the ratings were high mostly in the sense that such an independent funding source actually exists. The capability of eliminating the dependence of the real creative sphere on political and market economy's mechanisms was still considered to be weak, since funding security expectations have not been met as completely as required by the public expectations. In the evaluation of meeting the cultural continuity expectations, a very strong claim states that the CEE has not been able to adequately value the creative person in the transition to market economy, since the general living conditions of the cultural field have fallen since the CEE was created. A big problem is also seen in the lack of priorities, the disproportionately large percentage of social support and small percentage of cultural youth support. An expectation emerges, sta ting that the CEE should attempt to increase the dignity of the creative sphere. A third important expectation of the CEE was the resistance to market pressure, this could help the professional artists to concentrate on their work. The expectation was regared, in the view of resources, as optimal: there is criticism towards the lack of balance between the funds and the unequal position of the applicants. There is a sentiment that the CEE should not be a social welfare organization. Also, it is claimed that the lack of organizational policy increases instability, the lack of money leads to the dependence of market mechanisms. In short, the CEE is seen in the future as an organization that seeks additional resources for culture. The fourth important expectation was that the CEE should ensure public attention and recognition in the creative circles and other fields of the society. It was admitted that the organization's role in recognizing the creative person is high, but here, also, there are additional resources to be found. Half of the respondents expect the CEE, in case additional resources are created, to coordinate research to construe the cultural field and to market the supported projects in order to increase the symbolic value of the cultural production. The additional functions are considered to be important because they ensure that the generally valued works will reach both the people who are interested and also those, who are not aware that they could be interested. These suggestions therefore suppose that, in this way, it would be possible to reduce the dependency of creative persons on the market mechanisms. While the evaluations of how the organization meets institutional expectations are fairly mild and, instead of criticizing, maintain that the CEE has done all it could do, the evaluations of procedural expectations revealed more negative viewpoints. In the conditions of an unspecified creative person's status and lack of resources, the organization was expected to determine the balancing points of funding: alternative and experimental projects vs. stable projects of known quality; social support vs. achievements and quality; professionals vs. folk culture; cities or counties; small amounts or large-scale funding (100% of amount requested); state institutions or non-state institutions; local or international; short-term or long-term; complete funding or partial funding. The organization's practice to support all has come from the needs of the cultural field. Though today there is no clearly communicated cultural policy on the national level and the cultural expenses in the GDP are extremely low, a situation of many balance points has emerged. Due to the lack of money, it is expected that the CEE will set priorities based on the specifics of the fields. In future, the CEE should react to the situation so that funding would not only occur “due to circumstances”. There is also a lack of satisfaction concerning the transparency of social order and the justification of decisions. Since the procedural trust depends on the transparency of social order, normative coherence and also the incumbencies of responsibility and report, the CEE is expected to determine the most critical needs as priorities in the framework of meagre resources. Though the organization's transparency of procedures receives criticism, the results still show that despite the lack of finances, the CEE's institutional trustworthiness is extremely high. On the whole, the research result analysis showed that the CEE's expected conduct is seen as: ensuring political independence and the possibility of creation (eliminating the dependancy on market mechanisms); supporting a very wide range of cultural phenomena; ensuring the public attention and recognition, flexibility, continuity and the attention of the cultural field; searching for funding stability and additional financial resources and ensuring the dignity of the creative sphere. the multitude of definitions show that the CEE is seen to have a large role related to the continuity of the cultural field. Thus, on the basis of the reserarch results, it can be said that the organization wears the burden of heightened expectations, since the organization has not, due to the environment and lack of finances, been able to meet the expectations as required by the public expectations. As a result of the bachelor's degree paper, it was found that the CEE wears the burden of heightened expected conduct, due to organizational and societal changes, in the eyes of both the internal and external target groups, since the organization has not, due to the environment and lack of finances, been able to meet the expectations as required by the public expectations. In the long run, it is therefore impossible to keep the trusting atmosphere in the Estonian cultural field without further investments. As one possible solution to increase trust, it was suggested that the CEE might try to invest sensibly in the organization's symbolic capital and look for support for that according to the internal and external logic of the cultural field. It was suggested that the organization invest more in the creation of social capital through communication management to increase the organization's transparency and ensure support in both the eyes of the cultural field and other fields of the society, in order to ensure the long-term compensation of the lack of development in the cultural field compared to the other fields of the society.application/pdfH Social Sciences (General)bakalaureusetöödThesis