This thesis describes and analyses how the leadership culture is constructed by the leadership discourse and leadership practices, in the Swedish non-profit organisation ABF, the Workers Education Association. The theoretical framework for the study is based on the practice theory by Swidler (2001) who claim that culture conceptualizes as practices in interaction with discourse. The empirical material consists of policy documents for the study of leadership discourse, and twelve qualitative interviews with leaders about their leadership practices. The empirical results show that the leadership discourse is based on three concepts: Carrying of idéas, Communicating and Developing. The leadership practice of the organisation is demonstrated through six leadership approaches: The communicative, The democratic, The stringent, The development focused, The situated and The positive. These approaches are used in internal and external activities. The conclusion of the study is that there is a clear stringency between the leadership discourse and leadership practices within the organisation which creates the leadership culture within ABF. The values and approaches expressed in the leadership discourse are also described in the interviews as practiced by the leaders.

Cultural leadership has been a key concept in cultural policy and training since 2002. Most closely associated with the UK’s Clore Leadership Programme, it has been developed through various courses and initiatives domestically and internationally, initially as a response to crises of financial management and governance within major cultural institutions. This emergence of cultural leadership coincided with growing political interest in the social benefits of the arts and the economic potential of the creative industries. However, the concept is rarely clearly defined or critically analysed, while the political and economic environment in which the cultural sector operates has been transformed since the term was coined. This research investigates the evolution of cultural leadership as a discursive formation in these contexts. It traces the short history of the term itself and situates it within longer trajectories of cultural policy. Through critical discourse analysis the research questions the relationship between ‘cultural leadership’ and ‘cultural leaders’, asking who creates the circumstances in which art is produced and culture shaped. Leadership itself is reconsidered theoretically as an aspect of political action. Detailed interviews with influential cultural sector professionals are analysed as an empirical complement to literature around cultural history, policy and artistic leadership. The analysis reconfigures cultural leadership as a dynamic process arising from relationships between creative practice and social, political and organisational development. Outlining the respective roles of government, the public and the sector, it proposes a framework for understanding leadership through the interplay of action and influence within and beyond the cultural workforce. Indicating that cultural leadership has a vital critical role to play in democratic society, the research argues for more effective engagement between sectoral leaders, including artists, and questions of policy and cultural value. Its findings are significant for the future study and development of cultural leadership nationally and internationally.

The Russian-Ukrainian relationship is inherently complex. Since the end of the Cold War, there have been several defining moments in this relationship, which have contributed to how Russia perceives any potential challenges to its security. Securitising discourse from Russian political leadership, namely the President, offers an insight into what aspects of this relationship are escalated so extensively that extreme courses of action may be deemed necessary (i.e., a full-scale invasion of Ukraine). Drawing on Buzan et al. (1998), this project identifies the key sectors that Russia politicises, and those that it securitises vis-à-vis Ukraine. In addition, this study highlights the key sub-themes within politicisation and securitisation that were found within these sectors. This is all within a timeframe where relations have moved from comparatively stable to a time of war (February 2019 – February 2023). There is some degree of overlap between the themes politicised and securitised, especially across the military, political, societal, and economic sectors of security. There were no cases of securitisation within the environmental sector. Overall, this study found a significant shift in Russia’s securitisation framing of Ukraine from mid-2021 onwards.