Crafting professionals: entrepreneurial strategies for making a living through passionate work

ABSTRACT

Early-career crafts graduates often face a perceived dilemma, that of balancing passionate work with their need to make a living. This paper explores the negotiation undertaken by early-career crafts graduates and the entrepreneurial strategies they adopted which variably combine the logics of passion and economics. The paper draws on qualitative interviews with 25 early career crafts graduates in England conducted in 2018. Five strategies -support, streams, synthesis, segment and synergy – are identified, including the different income generation and creative production models they represent. The challenges associated with particular strategies are also considered. The identification of these strategies provides a more nuanced understanding of the organisation and management of craft practices, particularly during the early career period, that goes beyond the acknowledgement of portfolio working as prominent feature of creative work. The paper contributes to the literatures on the organisation of craft work and creative entrepreneurship by identifying ways in which craft practitioners structure and manage their work to sustain and develop their practice. It argues that the positioning of craft micro enterprises as hybrid organisational forms provides an opportunity to redress the binary opposition between passion and work in the creative economy in favour of a more balanced approach. A call for further research on craft production at the micro-enterprise and sole trader level is made to develop new knowledge and recommendations to support the growth and sustainability of the craft sector.

KEYWORDS:

• Craft
• creative entrepreneurship
• micro-enterprise
• logics
• strategies
• passionate work

Introduction

Early-career crafts graduates pursuing a professional creative practice are frequently faced with a perceived dilemma, that of balancing their need to make a living and the sustainability of their professional endeavour with their passion for making. This research aims to enhance our understanding of this experience by identifying the entrepreneurial strategies chosen by early-career makers to balance their passion for creative work and sustain their livelihoods.

The navigation of multiple worlds – art and the market – and the brokerage of their associated logics (Thornton et al., 2012) is central to cultural entrepreneurship and creative work (Eikhof & Haunschild, 2007; Khaire, 2019). The craft economy is equally acknowledged as requiring the mobilisation of both ‘passionate work’ (McRobbie, 2016) and entrepreneurialism (Luckman, 2015; Naudin & Patel, 2020). What remains limited is our understanding of the entrepreneurial strategies adopted by crafts professionals when negotiating this collision of logics (Khaire, 2019), particularly in the early stages of career development.

Addressing this, the paper identifies five strategies – support, streams, synthesis, segment, and synergy – which represent different hybrid entrepreneurial models. Each utilises logic combination and separation in order to retain creative integrity (Khaire, 2019) and capacity for innovation while also generating income. Strategies range from a separation of creative practice and income generation to the production of commercial¹ work.

In presenting these strategies and identifying the potential for organisational hybridity (Pache & Santos, 2013), the paper contributes to the growing literature on the management and organisation of craft work and entrepreneurship (Bell et al., 2018; Luckman, 2015; Luckman & Thomas, 2017; Naudin & Patel, 2020; Ocejo, 2017; Sennett, 2008) with insights into the particular ways in which early-career creatives combine and separate logics to sustain and develop their professional practice. This approach moves away from binary oppositions in creative entrepreneurship towards an understanding of what might be the right balance between creative autonomy and economics (Wilson, 2018). By doing so, this research seeks to both enhance academic knowledge and support sustainable craft career development by connecting with higher education training and graduate support programmes.

In practical contexts, it also shows how these strategies can support innovation, creative development and income generation. Identifying strategies through which crafts makers can sustain a professional creative practice and generate income through their work is important to support the development of more sustainable livelihoods in the craft sector. It is also argued that educating future and current crafts professionals about entrepreneurial opportunities and strategies that avoid binary oppositions between ‘being creative’ and making a living/earning an income can help to widen access to craft careers (Patel, 2020) by reducing reliance on pre-existing economic (and social) capital (Banks, 2017; Lindström, 2015).

Theoretical background

Craft entrepreneurship

This paper focuses on the early-career experience of crafts graduates pursuing a professional craft practice in the UK. It is acknowledged that defining what is meant by ‘craft’, ‘early career’ and ‘professional practice’ is a complex issue, particularly in light of increasing interdisciplinary practice within the sector (Harrod, 2018) and prevalence of portfolio working (Naudin & Patel, 2020). Definitions applied in this research largely follow those used by Crafts Council UK, the collaborative partner in this research, but they were also informed by wider literature on craft, creative graduates and cultural workers.

Here ‘craft makers’ are defined as those who produce primarily 3D contemporary objects and artefacts (Crafts Council, 2019). Craft disciplines included in this research are those identified as core craft subjects (Crafts Council, 2016): Craft; Ceramics; Furniture; Glass; Jewellery; Metal crafts; Silversmithing; and Textiles. This discipline-based approach was taken as it remains the dominant definition within the UK higher education system (Douglas, 2007). In the UK, higher education is a significant pathway into craft occupations and was the context for the wider research from which this paper is drawn (England, 2020a).

‘Early-career’ is defined here as the first four years after graduation from a BA programme, following the ‘emerging maker’ classification for the Crafts Council’s talent development programme (Crafts Council, 2019). It also relates to the definition of ‘craft careerists’ (Crafts Council et al., 2012, p. 5): ‘committed to the idea of craft as a career, they move to start their business shortly after finishing their first (or second) degrees in craft related subjects’. The study of this key period of career formation can aid our understanding of trajectories from higher education to creative work (Brook & Comunian, 2018). The definition of ‘professional practice’ taken here is fairly open, but concerns creative practice undertaken on a full-time, part-time or supplementary/spare time basis. This follows the approach taken in Oakley’s study of cultural workers (Oakley, 2009).

Motivations behind the pursuit of craft entrepreneurship and definitions of success within the crafts sector are diverse (Naudin & Patel, 2020), but it is commonly associated with a desire for autonomy and job satisfaction (Banks, 2010) or the preservation of craft practices (Tregear, 2003) rather than financial gain. Craft, and craft work, is often positioned as providing authentic, meaningful work (Bell et al., 2018), acting as a counter to standardised mass production and global mass consumerism (Dudley, 2014; Luckman, 2015). However, craft economies, and the work and experiences of craft entrepreneurs are also influenced by their relationship with production and consumption (Bell et al., 2018; Luckman, 2015; Naudin & Patel, 2020).

Research on craft entrepreneurship also highlights the precarity of sustaining a craft practice (Naudin & Patel, 2020), echoing wider reflections on the pursuit of ‘passionate work’ – precarious and uncertain work pursued for the personal reward of ‘being creative’, rather than traditional economic security and compensation (McRobbie, 2016). Overall, in craft, a dominant logic of passion is acknowledged (Ring, 2020) as entrepreneurial approaches tend ‘to come secondary to the love of making and a passion for the craft artefact causing an uneasiness with notions of entrepreneurship and business acumen’ (Naudin & Patel, 2020, p. 2). Tensions therefore emerge as the craft maker’s passion for making, their creative identity, motivation and sense of creative purpose collides with the demands of the entrepreneurial endeavour (Naudin & Patel, 2020, p. 2).

However, Brook and Comunian (2018) note that while vocational commitment transcends economic considerations, they are nevertheless related. Ring (2020) further states that ‘passionate work is not just about creating cultural objects, but also includes performing administrative duties, project management, human resources, event planning and so on’. This is particularly relevant for the sole traders and micro-entrepreneurs who dominate the craft sector (J. Bennett, 2020). It is nevertheless noted that creatives tend to downplay or hide such routine or administrative elements, sidestepping discussion of the actual practicalities (including ‘non-creative’ elements and/or work undertaken to supplement or in some cases fund creative endeavours) to imbue their work with a higher sense of value (McRobbie, 2016; Ring, 2020). While such dynamics of craft entrepreneurship (Bell et al., 2018; Luckman, 2015; Naudin & Patel, 2020) and pathways into creative working lives (Taylor & Luckman, 2020) are increasingly being attended to critically in the literature, there has been limited study of organisational strategies adopted by craft entrepreneurs in navigating this complex relationship, particularly during the early-career period. This paper therefore investigates how, in the pursuit of passionate work as a career, a collision of logics (Khaire, 2019) can give rise to the formation of hybrid business models and creative products (Dalpiaz et al., 2016; Pache & Santos, 2013). It is argued this has potential to reduce precarity in craft careers by reuniting concepts of ‘passion’ and ‘work’.

Logics and complexity in creative work

Institutional logics are ‘the socially constructed, historical patterns of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules by which individuals produce and reproduce their material subsistence, organise time and space, and provide meaning to their social reality’ (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999). Studies on institutional logics have focused on understanding the tensions arising from coexisting logics and how complexity – ‘the simultaneous operation of different logics that impose contradictory demands’ (Dalpiaz et al., 2016, p. 348) – influences individual and organisational behaviour (Thornton et al., 2012). While craft specifically has received limited attention, the literature does address these issues in the wider creative industries and cultural entrepreneurship (Austin et al., 2018; Eikhof & Haunschild, 2007; Glynn & Lounsbury, 2005; Gotsi et al., 2010). Here, conflict is primarily associated with contradictions between the dominance of cultural values in the construct of an artistic identity and the market demands of the creative industries or employing organisations (Gotsi et al., 2010; Patichol et al., 2014). As discussed earlier, this tension is also acknowledged in craft entrepreneurship (Naudin & Patel, 2020), although it has not yet been explored using the institutional logics perspective.

Economic and artistic logics are often presented as a categorical opposition whereby the adoption of economic logic ‘crowds out’ artistic logic (Eikhof & Haunschild, 2007). This follows a common assumption of a zero-sum game (Wilson, 2018), despite creative work and production being conducted within the boundaries of the economic context (Gotsi et al., 2010). Against this, Khaire (2019) highlights how design can act as a bridging mechanism between art/creative and market logics. This paper seeks to build on this idea of a coming together of seemingly opposing logics in the strategies of early-career professional practice, by exploring the associated income generation and production strategies arising from various prioritisations.

Entrepreneurial strategies and the institutional logic’s perspective

Studies on creative entrepreneurship and enterprises have identified various logic reconciliation and management processes in how individuals or organisations attempt to (successfully or unsuccessfully) blend aesthetic and economic values. Both (Glynn & Lounsbury, 2005) and Eikhof and Haunschild (2007) describe attempts to ‘blend’ economic and aesthetic influences in the context of a symphony orchestra and a publicly funded theatre respectively, which, they argue, puts artistic integrity at risk. This is a proposition that is well established in creative industries research (Howkins, 2002; Menger, 1999). In contrast, Gotsi et al. (2010), Harvey (2014), Dalpiaz et al. (2016), and Austin et al. (2018) present more successful efforts to manage tensions in creative work. Gotsi et al. (2010, p. 799) adopt a paradox perspective and present that tensions between ‘artist’ and ‘more business-like’ identities are managed through role segregation, but also by adopting a ‘practice artist’ identity. Meanwhile, Austin et al. (2018) theorise how organisational conflict can be managed by constructed sociality, employing the concepts of being conversant (or ‘living with’) with economic and aesthetic perspectives in order to nurture team cohesion.

Such tensions and their negotiation also manifest in products; Harvey’s (2014) ‘creative synthesis’ model explores how conflicting perspectives (art and technology) can combine in group work within a creative firm (animation firm Pixar) and manifest in outcomes (prototypes). Meanwhile, Khaire’s (2019) case study of two small scale Indian craft producers highlights how design can act as a method of meaning construction through which producers ‘bridge’ artistic/creative and market logics to imbue their cultural products with higher market value. Dalpiaz et al.’s (2016) study of design brand Alessi presents three strategies – compartmentalisation, enrichment and synthesis – for recombining logics of industrial production, cultural production and large-scale cultural production. These were consciously used by the brand in order to enter new markets and grow the business through the development of new design products. What is particularly important here is that the company was able to combine seemingly conflicting logics whilst retaining a strong brand identity, and that their approach to logic combination was both flexible and evolutionary (Dalpiaz et al., 2016).

These studies have however typically presented strategies for logic tension management and hybridisation in larger organisational contexts (Gotsi et al., 2010; Harvey, 2014), where team cohesion is important (Austin et al., 2018) or where managers create systems and structures to manage artists (Eikhof & Haunschild, 2007). There have been limited applications of the logics perspective to craft entrepreneurship and strategies, and it is argued that previous findings and observed strategies may also not translate effectively to the management of craft entrepreneurship where there is a high proportion of sole-traders and micro-enterprises (Luckman, 2015) who must navigate this tension independently.

These studies all indicate a degree of hybridity in identities, working practices and products which are relevant to this study, although it is noted that there has also been limited consideration of how both role segregation (Gotsi et al., 2010), market and product development (Dalpiaz et al., 2016; Harvey, 2014; Khaire, 2019) might come together in hybrid organisational forms as a result of different logic combinations. It is suggested that a focus on craft and the behaviour of individual sole traders, as taken in this study, can therefore provide vital sectorial insights. This can support the development of more sustainable craft businesses and enhance our understanding of how strategic logic combination and/or separation manifests in different outcomes (products and income generation) in the creative micro-enterprise context.

Methodology

The paper presents findings from research undertaken in England as part of a PhD on craft higher education (HE) and professional development (England, 2020a). This paper focuses on data collected from qualitative interviews with 25 crafts graduates conducted between October 2017–July 2018, reflecting on their early career experience and approach to sustaining a professional craft practice after university. While this discussion is informed by the broader learning from the project, the analysis presented here focuses specifically on these qualitative interviews as they provided a rich set of reflections specifically on the early-career experience.

Participant recruitment took place in collaboration with four HE providers in England (London, South West, Midlands and North East) involved in the wider research as case studies, through the author’s own network and independent desktop research of case study alumni. Snowball sampling was also used by following recommendations from participants. All participants were given an information sheet for the study and signed a consent for prior to taking part.

Participants had all graduated between 2014–2017 and worked across a number of craft disciplines including jewellery, glass, ceramics and wood. This disciplinary variety captured a wider range of business models than might have been achieved by focusing on specific craft discipline but retained a focus on material-based production. There were 6 male and 19 female graduate participants; 12 were interviewed within their first year after university and 13 had over a year of professional experience outside of university (up to four years). The sample included graduates working full-time or part-time as independent makers and those whose creative practice did not constitute a primary form of employment. This provided a more realistic understanding of the craft graduate experience and professional needs of makers pursuing non-commercial practice and/or portfolio practice including residences, teaching, freelance work etc. All participants consented to take part on a voluntary, anonymous basis and participants are therefore identified only by their material specialism.

Qualitative, semi-structured interviews formed the primary mode of data collection. These were conducted face-to face, lasting between 1–1.5 hours, during which graduates were asked to describe their practice, business model and their experience of establishing and sustaining their practice after university. An indicative interview guide was used, but discussion was guided by participant responses. Questions were developed through discussion with research partners at Crafts Council UK, academic supervisors, and a pilot study conducted in 2017. Verbatim transcripts of interviews were produced in full.

Interviews often took place in participants’ studios, in close proximity to their work, which enabled researcher observation of the products/artefacts they produced and indication of the activities they undertook in these spaces i.e., production, workshop delivery etc. When describing different styles of work or activities, participants often provided examples of products or artefacts as visual references, physically or in photographs. Visual images of work made by the participants are however not included here in order to retain their anonymity, as each maker has a distinct style which could be used to identify them (England, 2020b).

Analysis

In an initial stage of content analysis, all income and non-income generating activities (exhibitions, residences, retail, teaching, and non-creative employment etc.) articulated by each participant were identified from the transcript and categorised as ‘commercial production’ (i.e., selling products under their own name or brand either independently, through retail outlets, galleries or trade shows etc.); ‘non-commercial practice’ (i.e., exhibiting at non-commercial shows); ‘related creative work’ (i.e., teaching workshops related to their personal practice); ‘employment’ (i.e., fabrication for another maker, hospitality/retail job); or ‘other’ (i.e., grants, familial/spousal, private income) (see Table 1). This was done to establish the means by which graduates sustained their livelihood and creative practice. Activities were also checked against participants’ websites (where available) using online galleries, shops, ‘About’ pages and CVs. However, more activities were discussed during the interview than were represented on websites, which rarely alluded to multiple job holding (Throsby & Zednik, 2011) or non-creative employment (i.e., in the hospitality or retail sector). This made the interviews the best representation of the spectrum of activities undertaken during the early-career period and this data is therefore the focus of the analysis presented here. These categories, which provided description and supported organisation of the data set (Nowell et al., 2017), were then combined with more interpretive and integrative thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

Table 1. Activities and income sources.

Activity	Frequency
Commercial Production
Commissions	12
Gallery sales	8
Independent retail – studio sales, online, shows	12
External retail – sold by others, physical and online	6
Non-commercial practice
Exhibitions	7
Related creative work
Workshops – in studio and externally	6
Unrelated employment
Fabrication work	4
Working for another designer/maker	5
Teaching assistant (school)	1
Lecturer (university)	1
Technician (university)	1
Gallery assistant	1
Other (Retail, hospitality, admin)	6
Other
Unpaid work or internship	2
Family/Spouse	2
Hiring out studio space and equipment to others	1
Additional creative business	3

Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was used to construct the strategies and identify logic combination and separation within them. The principles and process of doing thematic analysis – coding and searching data sets for themes – are applicable to other qualitative methods such as grounded theory, although it is also an analytic method in its own right (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Here, the identification of codes and themes provided both organisational and classification labels to describe the data and tools for interpretation (Kiger & Varpio, 2020).

As the research was exploratory, thematic analysis was employed within an interpretivist framework. This places an emphasis on ‘the social, cultural, and structural contexts that influence individual experiences’ (Kiger & Varpio, 2020, p. 2) and seeks to understand common or shared meanings emerging from experiences, thoughts, and behaviours articulated across the data set (Braun & Clarke, 2012). This lent itself to the study of institutional logics as socially and historically constructed values, beliefs and material practices from which they are constituted (Thornton et al., 2012).

The data was interrogated specifically in relation to how interviewees structured their working practices/business models and how they articulated their motivations and ambitions for their work. A hybrid coding approach was taken, using both inductive or deductive coding (Braun & Clarke, 2012); codes were drawn mainly from the data itself, based on participants’ experiences (inductive) but theoretical constructs from institutional (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999) were also used (deductive) to render visible issues that participants did not explicitly articulate (Braun & Clarke, 2012).

After initial rounds of inductive thematic coding, themes around making a living, balancing passion/creativity and economic demands, the different forms of work and production engaged with, and concerns over legitimacy emerged. The language of institutional logics – ‘material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules’ (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999) – was identified within the data. Assisted by additional literature reviews and discussions with organisational/management scholars, this framework was then used to guide subsequent rounds of deductive coding focused on the articulation of logics, their combination and negotiation in how participants articulated their approach to professional creative practice. This was useful for focusing attention on a particular aspect of the data – the balance of logics within strategies – which could be best understood in the context of the pre-existing framework (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Codes were recorded in Nvivo and interpretations regularly discussed with supervisors (PhD). As part of this process, feedback on the findings was also sought and received from other academics and craft sector stakeholders, including the industry partner for this research. This provided informed, third-party expertise which helped to refine and validate the analysis and conclusions made.

Findings

Passion for making and making a living

Consistent with the literature on craft entrepreneurship (Naudin & Patel, 2020) and wider studies on creative work (T. Bennett, 2018; McRobbie, 2016), a dominant logic of passion was observable in the narratives and practices of all participants. This was primarily articulated as a passion for (or ‘love’ of) making – working with materials and making work that provided personal satisfaction (in the making process and final outcome) and was an expression of their skill, ideas and creative identity through their chosen medium. This passion was consistently positioned as the motivation for pursuing craft work as a professional practice and, as articulated in the quotation below, often traded for material rewards and an acceptance of precarity (McRobbie, 2016).

As soon as I walked into the hot glass studio, yea that was it. Done! I wish it was like something like accounting that had taken my love, do you know what I mean! And then I’d have a reasonable job and be able to eat! But anyway, it was hot glass! (Glass artist 1)

However, there was also a strong theme of attaining economic stability and of market considerations – the need to pay rent and bills, buy food etc. but also to facilitate the continuation of their creative practice. While there are low-cost methods of craft production, there can also be high costs associated with materials (glass, clay, precious metals, wood) and studio/equipment hire:

[…] in terms of the hot shop, it’s like this stuff costs so much money, that um, and the price of rental is so high that where’s the money gonna come from is something that keeps me up at night every day. (Glass artist 2)

This coexistence of a logic of passion alongside an economic one – the need to make a living by selling work or generating income – emerged as a central theme in how the early-career crafts entrepreneurs articulated their approach to establishing and maintaining their professional practice after university, as illustrated below.

[…] it’s finding that balance of making things that you know will sell, will make you happy while you’re making it, don’t feel like you’ve sold your soul, and are still a little part of you. (Ceramicist 7)

[…] it was like seeing that side of actually like if I wanna make a living out of this, what I’m gonna have to do to be able to you know keep my, my values, but also be able to make money off it. (Jeweller 1)

Despite the economic considerations and concerns raised, passion consistently dominated over economics. While there was some adaptation of the creative practice to market demands, there was a sense that if an economic logic overwhelmed the creative practice then it would no longer have worth or integrity. Some expressed how if they were making work specifically to sell (i.e., Christmas decorations) or using particular materials (i.e., precious metals) to increase the saleability of their work this resulted in an identity crisis and feelings of illegitimacy or selling out. Here there was a clearly articulated need to safeguard (Eikhof & Haunschild, 2007) their passion for making in addition to making work to sell. Interviewees also identified a tendency to make their work and then seek a market or audience post-production, rather than taking into consideration market trends and creating work for a specific market.

[…] for Christmas I made tea light holders and planters and I planted them with succulents. […] it just felt like I was just getting on the band waggon and I was making it because that was what I knew would sell. And that’s, that’s not who I am. […] I’ve got to make things to sell but I’ve got to enjoy making them. Otherwise I might as well just go and work in Tesco, I’d be guaranteed a wage. You know, I need to be able to enjoy what I’m doing. (Ceramicist 7)

I think it’s important to do stuff that you like and then see where that will sit in the market. I don’t think you can choose your market and then decide what you’re gonna do for it. (Jeweller 6)

Nevertheless, it was acknowledged that if their practice was not economically viable, they would be forced to abandon it as a professional practice. Financial concerns may therefore overwhelm creative practice and result in market exit or create barriers to entry. Below, a glass artist reflects on how they had reached a tipping point where their financial situation and associated emotional and physical wellbeing meant they were considering abandoning their profession.

As much as I absolutely 100% love glass, and I do not want to give it up, because the level of financial strain has been so much I have 200% considered retraining […] You have the investment and you’ve put your time and your money into that, it seems a shame to walk away from it, but at the same time it’s hard to survive in it. (Glass Artist 1)

It is therefore presented that craft work goes beyond the pursuit of ‘meaningful work’ (Bell et al., 2018) and forms a hybrid activity (Battilana & Dorado, 2010; Pache & Santos, 2013), whereby logics of passion and economics (making a living) are incorporated in order to make it sustainable.

Having identified how passion and economic logics co-exist in craft entrepreneurship, the remainder of this paper focuses on how graduates negotiated this potential logic conflict in their entrepreneurial approaches. Emphasis is placed on identifying how it influenced their business models and the concentration of their creative practice, but also their creative production.

Craft work strategies

It was observed how the two logics of passion (for making) and economics (making a living) were variably combined in the ways that early-career practitioners structured their working practices, resulting in hybrid forms of practice, business models and creative products (Dalpiaz et al., 2016; Pache & Santos, 2013). Five strategies were identified, some of which included portfolio working (Ashton, 2015; Throsby & Zednik, 2011) and engagement with both creative product (goods and services) and experience economies (Luckman, 2015). These strategies have been categorised as: support, streams, synthesis, segmentation and synergy (see Table 2). It was also identified that each strategy reflects a different approach to negotiating logic pluralism (Dalpiaz et al., 2016) and that this subsequently creates varied creative production outcomes and means of income generation, impacting the overall concentration of creative practice, as illustrated in Figure 1. Rather than relying on organisational embeddedness or group participation – as reported in other studies on logic complexity and identity management in creative organisations (Austin et al., 2018; Gotsi et al., 2010; Harvey, 2014) – this pluralism was individually negotiated by crafts graduates based on a combination of their style of practice and motivations for pursuing craft work, but also their personal situation (finances, health, family etc.).

Figure 1. Concentration of creative practice and income generation in craft work strategies.

Table 2. Craft work strategies and logic combinations.

Strategy	Creative production outcome	Income generation	Logic combination	Illustrative Quote
1. Support	One strand of non-commercial creative production	From employment or other financial support (i.e., family/spouse, private)	Economic logic separated from the passionate (creative) work	'I’m not interested in selling my work, I’m more interested in exhibiting my work. I don’t know how, how you make money like through exhibiting, but yea I know that you have to support it in other ways.' – Ceramic/Glass Artist 1
2. Streams	Multiple strands of creative production which may be commercial or non-commercial	From related creative work, employment, and sale of creative products, other sources	Passion + economic logics combined or separated in multiple streams of production	‘I need to be working on my one-off pieces so that there’s always fresh work for exhibitions, but I need to develop the saleable stuff so I’m earning a living. I also work in a gallery you see two days a week […] I’ve got two different named businesses, so I have kind of income from that old stream still.’ – Jeweller 3
3. Synthesis	One or multiple strands of creative production which may be commercial or non-commercial	From sale of products and related creative work	Passion + economic logics separated or combined in different strands of activity	‘The core is the handmade, being a maker and selling, making and selling, it’s that really, and sharing, so through the workshops.’ – Ceramicist 2
4. Segment	Two strands of creative production; different markets and price ranges; Single creative identity	From sale of products	Passion + economics separated or combined in different product ranges	I like having a balance, […] if they want to buy a one off like large scale sculptural works then they can, but people can like buy a little something like maybe buy a bowl or some plates – Ceramicist 1
5. Synergy	One strand of creative production	From sale of products	Passion + economic logics combined in product range	‘I’ve been able to quit my job because of this, because I do get a lot of commissions […] because I’m working in silver and gold, it is a lot of money. […] I’m now a full-time jeweller, and again with quitting my job I have took more commissions on and I can balance the time out and I can make more.’ – Jeweller 2

The support strategy (1) involves financially supporting a non-commercial creative practice through unrelated creative employment (i.e., arts teaching, fabrication, studio assistant etc.), non-creative employment (bar work, retail, admin, etc.), personal savings or support from family/a partner. Economic logic is the driver for this additional employment which is divorced from the creative practice; the creative practice is then driven solely by passion. This strategy tended to be adopted by those who identified strongly as ‘artists’ and created work for non-commercial gallery exhibitions. The support strategy was also used less intentionally by graduates in the very first stages of their post-university practice whose work was not (yet) commercially viable. These graduates relied on external income sources and/or family support in this early stage while they established their practice and potentially developed a more commercial range of work or service, subsequently moving to an alternative strategy or purposefully pursuing the support strategy.

The streams strategy (2) is where multiple practices and income generating activities are pursued. This included commercial and non-commercial production, and related or unrelated creative and non-creative employment, where each stream has a different market/audience. Each stream can be driven by passion, economics, or a combination of the two. Activities designed to generate regular income were often taken on with the aim of facilitating the less commercially viable elements of the creative practice. In this way income is funnelled back into the practice to support the development of creative work or the costs of creative practice. Graduates who followed this strategy often expressed that this was a temporary way of organising their work. Their goal was to move towards a more streamlined business model that focused on the production and sale of their products/artefacts, rather than continuing to supplement their creative practice with work for others or projects that did not enable sufficient creative expression.

The synthesis strategy (3) involves supporting non-commercial creative production (or production that doesn’t generate sufficient income) through related creative work (i.e., workshops) that come together under the banner of a single practice and brand. In this strategy, different markets for products and experiences are accessed (Luckman, 2015). Both the logic of passion and economics are brought together in this strategy, but each area has a different logic priority. Passion logic is prioritised in the creation of products/artworks, while the related creative work combines both passion and economics with priority given to market viability – it is creative work and enjoyable, but it would not be undertaken if it did not generate income.

The segment strategy (4) is observed where commercial products are made and sold for regular income alongside non-commercial artworks as part of a single creative practice and brand. Here the market is segmented to reach different audiences for different styles of work (Dalpiaz et al., 2016). As with synthesis, in a segment strategy the two logics of passion and the market are brought together in the overall practice, but they are either separated or combined in the different ranges. Commercial production combines passion and economic logics and economics is dominant, whilst non-commercial production is driven by passion logic. Passion also retains priority as the overall driver for the practice. This strategy tended to be adopted purposefully by graduates by adapting their non-commercial production to make it more ‘market friendly’ whilst still embodying the values and identity of the maker.

The synergy strategy (5) is observed where the whole income is generated from the sale of creative products that are an embodiment of the maker’s creative identity (Bell et al., 2018; Taylor & Littleton, 2012). In this strategy one strand of work is created that is saleable and retains a sense of core creative values. The two logics of passion and economics are combined in this strategy in a way that is compatible, although passion remains dominant as the driver for the creative practice. This strategy could be pursued intentionally or unintentionally. An unintentional synergy strategy occurred when makers found their work was saleable without needing to be adapted to the market or segmented into ranges. Others approached this strategy intentionally by establishing their practice with a paired down or commercialised version of work developed during their time at university.

Most graduates were aligned with a streams strategy or were transitioning to/from a streams strategy. This is likely a reflection of their early-career status. However, it was observed that the strategies used were not fixed – graduates would adopt different business models and strategies at different stages of their career, depending on their personal circumstances and the availability of opportunities that facilitated the development of their creative practice in a certain direction. In some cases, graduates moved from one strategy to another almost unintentionally, usually when they found they could or couldn’t achieve economic stability purely from their practice. Others had actively pursued their practice in a way that would enable them to minimise time spent on non-creative work by adopting a segment or synergy strategy. This was mostly observed in the practices of more experienced graduates (2–4 years of professional experience after university).

The greatest challenge experienced by graduates when adopting strategies where additional employment is taken on to support the creative practice was in achieving a balance in the time dedicated to creative practice and other work. As noted earlier in the paper, it is also important to note that financial concerns may overwhelm creative practice and result in market exit, or create barriers to entry, if a graduate’s financial situation and associated emotional and physical wellbeing makes pursuing a craft career untenable. This ‘danger zone’ is highlighted in Figure 1 and was a particularly prominent issue for those with a support strategy, as this usually required them to be in full-time work and pursuing their practice on the side. Exceptions to this were graduates supported by a partner or spouse, or other forms of private income, which reinforces dynamics of privilege in accessing creative careers (Banks, 2017). For those with a streams strategy, the demands of their additional employment or income generating activities sometimes prevented them from being able to dedicate themselves to what they considered their core creative practice. As articulated below, graduates who were reliant on employment to both support themselves and fund their practice also risked being unable to develop their creative practice or access further training without external capital investment (grant, loan or family support). Graduates also noted a reliance on family whilst undertaking multiple unpaid internships (particularly in London).

[…] post degree has been really difficult for me actually, because I find it difficult to kind of establish a practice, you know, the lack of time and money […] what I want more than anything is to do an MA in fine art, but I have to wait for a family member to die in order to pay for that! (Glass Artist 3)

Discussion

This paper presents that craft enterprises (sole trader and micro) should be seen as hybrid organisations – those that simultaneously combine elements from different logics (Pache & Santos, 2013). While graduates’ passion (for making and creative self-expression) was paramount to their ongoing pursuit of craft practice despite the challenges it posed, there was also consistent acknowledgement of the need to make a living and desire to financially support themselves through their creative practice. It is argued that such negotiation may require the adoption of a more commercially inclusive strategy in order to avoid removal from the professional field, but also to facilitate sustained practice in a field which rewards persistence and long-term participation.

Positioning professional craft work as a hybrid practice is an important development in our understanding of craft work as it challenges persistent assumptions that ‘all attempts to manage and market artistic practices following economic logics of practice endanger the resources vital to creative production’ (Eikhof & Haunschild, 2007, p. 536) and that creatives resist economic and external motivation (Amabile, 1988). It is argued that such a position perpetuates both a misconception of those who pursue craft as a profession and an elitist entry system to creative careers (Banks, 2017) whereby the capacity to preserve artistic integrity is reliant on pre-existing economic and social capital (Lindström, 2015).

In the early-career period, crafts graduates experiment with a range of approaches for logic combination and separation. The five strategies presented in this paper – support, streams, synthesis, segment and synergy – indicate that variable proportions of passion and economic logics are observed depending on the practices and industries an individual engages with. These strategies include elements of role segregation (Gotsi et al., 2010) but also market and product segmentation and synthesis (Dalpiaz et al., 2016; Harvey, 2014). The findings therefore show how different logic combinations can result in different organisational forms and concentration of creative practice, but also how this impacts product development and income generation. This allows us to go beyond the acknowledgement of portfolio working (Naudin & Patel, 2020) in the sector and provide a more nuanced understanding of the organisation and management of craft practices and product development, particularly during the early career period. It is suggested that by focussing on craft and the behaviour of individual sole traders, the sectorial insights gathered can support the development of more sustainable craft businesses and enhance our wider understanding of hybridity in working practices and products, particularly in the creative micro-enterprise context. Importantly, the paper emphasises how logics can be negotiated at an individual level rather than being influenced by larger organisational contexts, as documented in previous literature.

These findings also enrich research on hybrid organisations by highlighting challenges and opportunities associated with different types of hybrid arrangements. In particular, the paper presents examples of how both creative and economically viable models of craft practice can be developed, but it also highlights potential ‘danger zones’ (see Figure 1) where a graduate’s financial situation and associated emotional and physical wellbeing may make pursuing a craft career untenable, or create a reliance on external capital (grant, loan or family support). It is hoped that this more detailed analysis of early career practice may support a move away from promoting models of ‘success’ that reinforce binary opposition between creativity and economic rationality.

The financial concerns raised by graduates in pursuing a professional creative practice have significant implications for addressing inequalities in craft (Patel, 2020) and improving access to and diversity in creative careers more widely (Brook et al., 2020). In this instance, economic considerations can be seen to hinder creativity, not necessarily by impacting the content or perceived cultural legitimacy of the work, but by limiting who is able to pursue and sustain craft work itself. In this respect, safeguarding measures (Eikhof & Haunschild, 2007), or strategies, are required to make the pursuit of passionate work viable for more people, not just those from privileged backgrounds (Banks, 2017; Brook et al., 2020).

There are also practical applications of this research. In the wider study on craft HE and professional development education from which this paper is drawn, it was noted that there was a lack of transparency about viable approaches to craft career development (England, 2020a). In HE, pathway identification and career planning tends to rely on students identifying an existing business model or individual role model. Rarely is it evident (from the primarily desktop research carried out by students on other makers) how craft businesses are structured, particularly when also reliant on other forms of employment (as in a support and streams strategy). This was also apparent in comparing graduates’ accounts of income generating activities in interviews to what was publicly displayed on their websites (see methodology). This creates a significant challenge when graduates (and educators) seek out examples of viable business models on which to base their own approach. The strategies presented here, particularly segment, synthesis and synergy, therefore present practical examples of how craft entrepreneurship and professional practice can be approached in a more economically sustainable manner, specifically during the early-career period. They also indicate how innovation in creative production can be achieved in different ways within different forms of organisation and management of craft work. The insights presented on the different strategies used in creative self-employment and sustainable business development could therefore be used to create educational resources and inform the development of HE curricula and graduate support programmes.

Limitations and opportunities for further research

The strategies presented here have been constructed in relation to early-career practice (0–4 years after university). These strategies may or may not also be used by makers who are more established in their careers. They also reflect the types of employment, projects and strands of practice observed in the narrated strategies of the 25 graduates in the sample and as such may not account for all permutations of creative practice. It is also acknowledged that new entrants to the craft economy are not all university educated (Luckman, 2015). There are therefore limitations to the generalisability of this study, although by looking across the experiences of graduates from a range of crafts disciplines it is argued that the strategies identified provide key insights into the ways in which crafts professionals strategically and organisationally balance (Wilson, 2018) passionate work and economic rationality.

Further research on craft production at the micro-enterprise and sole trader level would be valuable as a means of developing new knowledge, theories and recommendations to support the growth and sustainability of the craft sector. A key contribution of this research is to our understanding of everyday management practices and entrepreneurial strategies adopted by crafts graduates in the early career stage. Extending the investigation to makers with more established careers could help to identify a wider range of strategies used to support the sustainable development of craft enterprise and explore how different strategies may be adopted at different career stages, or how they evolve as a business becomes more established. There are also opportunities for further research to investigate how and why creatives move between strategies and the factors influencing or enabling this trajectory, and how the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted craft entrepreneurs and their business models.

Conclusions

The contribution of these findings is primarily in developing a more nuanced understanding craft entrepreneurship (Naudin & Patel, 2020) in the early-career period. By positioning craft practice as a hybrid activity in which multiple logics are combined, it is argued that we can develop a better understanding of what is involved in establishing and sustaining a craft career. The paper has presented how passion and economic logics coexist in craft practice and how this is managed through the adoption of different entrepreneurial strategies. It is however important to note that while one logic may be more dominant than the other, they are not mutually exclusive. It is therefore proposed that there is an optimal balance (Wilson, 2018) between the pursuit of passionate work and meeting market demands in order to make a living through craft. The five strategies illustrate how different approaches to logic combination can result in different organisational forms and concentration of creative practice, but also how this impacts product development and income generation. These sectorial insights can support the development of more sustainable craft businesses, but also enhance our wider understanding of hybridity in working practices and products, particularly in the creative micro-enterprise context. Practically, these findings could be used to inform educational curricula and professional development programmes. It is hoped that, by moving away from models that position creative and market concerns as components in a zero-sum game, this would support sustainable career development and widen access to craft careers.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Dr Roberta Comunian and Dr Anna Woodham (King’s College London) for their support and guidance as my PhD supervisors and Julia Bennett at Crafts Council UK as my collaborative doctoral partner. I also thank King’s College London for supporting this work with a Professor Sir Richard Trainor PhD Scholarship (2016–2019). Special thanks go to my participants for sharing their experiences with me. Finally, I thank everyone who provided comments on this paper, both formally and informally, for their contributions to its development.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by a King's College London via a Professor Sir Richard Trainor PhD Scholarship (2016–2019) at King’s College London for a collaborative doctorate with Crafts Council UK.

Notes

1. The terms ‘commercial’ and ‘non-commercial’ are used to differentiate between creative products that are and are not intended to generate income respectively.