Chapter 16-Operations Management

8/11/2019 Chapter 16-Operations Management

1/21

1

The future of events as a social phenomenon

Greg Richards and Marisa P. de Brito

Pre-publication version of: Richards, G. and de Brito, M.P. (2013) The future of events as a

social phenomenon. In Richards, G., de Brito, M.P. and Wilks, L. (eds) Exploring the Social

Impact of Events. London: Routledge.

The social impacts of events are significant, wide-ranging and complex. The current volume

demonstrates that there is still much research to be done on the relationship between

society and events of all kinds. This concluding chapter draws together some of the main

themes emerging from the volume, and identifies some of the key research challenges for

the future.

Events as a social phenomenon

The different contributions to this volume make it clear that the social role of events has

increased substantially in recent decades, as a broader range of social objectives are

pursued by policy makers, organizers and communities via events of all kinds. Events in

general now have a greater instrumental role, and are therefore laden with a growing range

of social agendas, as well as being vehicles for economic growth, cultural regeneration and

physical redevelopment of places. This reflects the usefulness of events as tools for

combating a range of challenges facing places across the globe, particularly in terms of

growing place competition, the need for repositioning in a global and/or local field and the

need for economic restructuring.

The social component of such configurations has also become more significant as a result offar-reaching changes in the social sphere. Communities have been subject to growing

individualization, the decline of traditional structures and symbols of identity and cohesion.

The old social structures are however being replaced by new ones. Allegiances of class,

family and religion are substituted or augmented by constellations of neo-tribes, sub-groups,

clans, etc. Face to face communication in localized communities now happens alongside

dispersed contacts with distant others through global networks. This is the network society

of Castells (1996), in which the rise of information technology supports the growth of

dispersed social networks. Apparently paradoxically, the increasing ease of virtual

communication has not diminished the desire for personal contact, but seems to strengthen


2/21

2

it. People want to meet their virtual friends in person, and to share networked moments with

groups of others as rituals of co-presence as well (Richards 2010).

The important point about the contemporary network society in relation to events is that

events are no longer simply a vehicle for attaining a range of externalities, but they have also

become a new space for socialization in themselves. The fact that spatial proximity is no

longer the only arbiter of social contacts means that there is a growing need to coordinate

agendas to ensure that people can find each other in virtual space in the same way they

used to encounter each other in physical space. Events provide one of the primary

coordination mechanisms for individualized agendas because they can attract the focussed

attention of groups of people. In other words, events can act as a catalyst for social

interaction in the network society. This creation of the social works at a small scale level

(such as the small groups who attend events together, discussed by de Geus in this volume)

as well as at a larger scale (in creating the collective co-presence that is so powerful in large

events) (Richards 2010).

In this sense, events become important physical and virtual spaces of socialization in the

contemporary network society. Events therefore provide an important basis for the

development of social capital, fomenting the growth of bonding and bridging capital by

stimulating contact between individuals and groups, but also as essential nodes and links

within networks themselves. As Misener and Mason (2006: 50) remark: new social

networks are being created through participation, planning, volunteering, and often

consumption of, events.

In this sense, as several of the contributions to this volume have indicated, events are not

just empty containers for social interaction, but can actually form an important part of the

process and structure of social intercourse and the growth of social capital. This is significant

because it forces us to think in new ways about the role and use of events in thedevelopment of social capital and as an essential practice of contemporary society. The

multifaceted nature of the social dimension of events is highlighted by the range of

approaches to the social in the current volume.

The growth of social capital

Some authors have concentrated on the more abstract concept of social capital in relation to

events. For example Bernadette Quinn and Linda Wilks show in their study of festivals in the

UK and Ireland that these events provide creative spaces in which bridging and bonding


3/21

3

capital can be developed through social encounters. The location of the festivals acted as a

means of embedding the social capital created in a specific place. Feelings of trust in

particular seem to be linked to festival places. They conclude that Colemans(1988) view,

which stresses the role of networks in creating social capital is more applicable to their

festival case studies, but Putnams(2000) concepts of bridging and bonding social capital

are also found to be useful concepts. There seems to be some argument for combining

these two theoretical perspectives in future events research.

Lidka Kania shows in her small-scale experiment related to the event together at the table

that an event can be effective in strengthening identification with place, and therefore

building social capital. However, rather than the social capital as a whole having a

significant effect, she found that the separate components of social capital (social network

structure, norms of trust and norms of reciprocity) each had a significant effect on the

attitude of participants. This shows that the concept of social capital is more complex than is

often assumed by those researching events (who tend to treat social capital as a holistic

concept), and it underlines the value of conducting experimental studies to highlight

particular aspects of the relationship between (elements of) social capital and event

participation.

In the case of sports events, Martin Hendriks and Vera Toepoel demonstrate that there is a

positive relationship between participation in street soccer and social capital measured in

terms of informal networks, personal trust, bonding capital and bridging capital. On the basis

of this they conclude that participation is more closely related to personal networks rather

than generalized social capital in society as a whole. This again tends to support Colemans

(1988) ideas on the value of networks in building social capital. However, Hendriks and

Toepoel also point out that the direction of causality is hard to establish; do children

participate because they have higher levels of social capital, or does participation cause

higher levels of social capital? Again, new research approaches are needed in order toclarify such issues.

Building networks

If, as the analyses of social capital building suggest, Colemans views on the importance of

networks is supported, then the analysis of network building and maintenance will become

increasingly important in events research. In the contemporary network society (Castells

1996) events arguably take on a more important role as a social space in which networks

can be formed and relational capital can be built (Richards 2010). To date, however, there


4/21

4

has been relatively little research on how events can be used to strengthen social networks.

Sirpa Lassila, Kaija Lindroth and Teemu Rantanen examine the effects of events in the

higher education sector in strengthening what they term the social infrastructure: Social

infrastructure represents the supporting social structures (i.e. formal or informal associations)

enabling interaction among community members and neighbourhood networks. (Misener

and Mason 2006:40).

Organizations are not often analysed as social actors, although from a practice approach

this is a logical formulation. Marisa de Brito shows in her analysis of a golf event in the

Netherlands that businesses can play an important role in increasing the sustainability, and

therefore the social acceptability, of events. Their research among spectators at a golf event

in the Netherlands shows, however, that there is a mis-alignment between the responsibility

message of corporate sponsors and the reading of such messages by the audience.

Perhaps the audience for such events are not really attuned to the link between sports

events and sustainability, which indicates a significant task ahead for event organizers in

terms of developing sustainable events as well as communicating their efforts to

stakeholders.

The role of community and place

Events clearly have an important role in building identity, place and community spirit. Chris-

Anne Verhoevens analysis of the development of a Brabant identity and community spirit

through the bid for the European Capital of Culture shows that local identity is an important

resource for supporting events. In her study she was unable to show an effect of the event

on local identity, but it may well be that a bid for an event is much less likely to have an

effect than the event itself. A more local event, the Hieronymus Bosch celebrations in the

Dutch city of Den Bosch, does however show a stronger link between the event, identity and

placemaking. In her analysis Lenia Marques shows that there is a very high level of

identification with Bosch as a local (and global) symbol, and this in turn strengthens links

with place and social cohesion. In a similar vein, Carlos Fernandes shows that the Festade

Nossa Senhora da Agonia in Viana do Castelo, Portugal, is a vital resource for community

rejuvenation as well as a major tourist attraction. Fernandes argues that the form of tourism

development is important, since more interactive forms of creative tourism that can link

tourists and locals together in meaningful social interaction can play an important part in

maximizing both the social and economic impacts of events.

The social impacts of events


5/21

5

There is already a large body of research on the effects of events on different social groups

and the perceptions that local people and visitors have of these impacts. In this volume a

number of contributions also followed this line of enquiry. In a South African context,

Siyabonga Mxunyelwa and Dimitri Tassiopoulos examined the social impact perceptions of

event spectators and participants in a sporting event. Sports events are widely used at

national and local level in South Africa as a means of stimulating the economy and building

local communities, and the impacts of such events is largely assumed to be positive.

However, the research found that in addition to improving the appearance of the local area,

increasing the number of tourists and providing opportunities to meet new people, negative

social impacts included littering, noise pollution and traffic congestion. They also note the

gap between local spectators and elite sports participants in the event, which is an

important issue, and underlines the fact that events may actually increase rather than

decrease feelings of equity.

Ana Trono and Katia Rizzello also examined the perceptions of residents in two small

communities in southern Italy and found that the development of cultural events have had a

range of positive effects, including increased learning, cultural appreciation, strengthening of

family ties, increased understanding and tolerance of others and a greater sense of cultural

identity. This suggests an increase in both bridging and bonding capital, as well as the role

of cultural events in providing a creative space in which artistic endeavour can flourish

alongside network-building. For small communities such events also provide an important

link to other cultures and creative influences which help to maintain local cultural dynamism.

Sjannett de Geus investigated the effect of group size on event experiences, and found that

bigger groups experience higher levels of hedonics/enjoyment during the Queens Day event

in the Netherlands. The experience of events therefore has a specific social dimension that

is linked to the number of people attending together. This empirical finding also points to thegrowing role of events as new social spaces in which co-presence is experienced. As

individuals become more isolated in other contexts by spending their leisure time online,

events will potentially play an even more important role as hotspots of social interaction.

In the case of the Adelaide Fringe Festival Eliza Hixson shows that active participation does

impact upon perceived identity salience of the festival. The participants were involved in

arts groups, and therefore demonstrated a higher level of involvement and interest in the arts.

This could also encourage them to view the Adelaide Fringe Festival more positively.

Linking events to young peoples interests of could hold the key to successfully engaging


6/21

6

young people. Participation in arts groups led to a more positive evaluation of the festival,

showing the important link between association participation and positive social outcomes.

Hixson argues that the spectators of the Adelaide Fringe Festival had fewer social

connections and networks with the event compared with participants, tending to suggest that

participation has more important social effects than spectation. But these days, the problem

is that the distinction between spectators and participants is increasingly thin. Some events

make this distinction very clear (field of play, stage), but in other cases the boundaries are

blurred, and the development of more interactive experiences (creative tourism, etc) will tend

to strengthen this effect.

If participation is important in generating positive outcomes, then the role of events in

stimulating participation and engagement becomes central. Steve Frawley shows that the

extensive range of evidence emerging on sports participation shows that the effects of major

sports events are mixed, although the picture tends to suggest that these events do not

stimulate more sports participation. If this is the case, then more consideration will need to

be given to the strategies of event programming, and particularly the tendency to focus on

major events which can generate a range of other externalities (economic impacts, tourism,

media coverage) but which may be less effective in generating social cohesion and

engagement. Perhaps the key, as Lnia Marques suggests, is to link the global space of

flows and local space of places via events.

Emancipatory Practices

The discussion around the social effects of events usually centres on the assumption that

participation and involvement will necessarily lead to positive outcomes. However, there is

usually very little discussion of the social content of the events themselves, or how they can

contribute to potential emancipatory outcomes. Graeme Evans, Peter Peters and Bas van

Heur discuss the issues of designing the European Capital of Culture (ECOC) as a majorcultural event which can maximize the emancipation of local communities. They discuss the

plans of the Dutch city of Maastricht in this context, examining the measures taken by the

city to ensure access and equity is inbuilt in the cultural programme. As this paper shows,

this is a far from simple process, and requires substantial planning and consultation. The

reality of many large-scale events, however, is that they are developed in a top-down fashion

that ignores the grass-roots development of social capital and the role of events in providing

creative spaces for local people. Such problems are evident in the growing body of literature

on the social effects of the ECOC, which lean towards the view that many editions of this


7/21

7

event have been exclusive rather than inclusive (Boyle and Hughes 1994; Connelly 2007;

OCallaghan and Linehan 2007).


8/21

8

Emerging agendas

The themes identified in this volume also point to a number of emergent themes relating to

the social dimension of events.

Events as generators of social capital

The basic argument that higher levels of social capital lead to more positive social and

economic outcomes (Putnam 2000) has placed attention on those mechanisms that can help

to generate increased social capital. Events have often been identified as suitable

mechanisms for increasing social capital, whether by increasing interaction (and therefore

stimulating feelings of cohesion, exchange of ideas, etc.), stimulating greater levels of

identification (with a specific group or place) or in terms of supporting social networks and

structures.

The evidence in the current volume does suggest that events have a role to play in all these

arenas of social capital development. What is clear, however, is that the form of the event,

the type of participation and the way in which events are managed can all have a significant

impact on social capital growth. In general, greater social capital building will occur in

situations where people are actively involved in events, where the outcomes of those events

are perceived as being positive for participants and the local community and where there is a

collective commitment to the objectives of the event. There is perhaps a tendency in much

events research to idealize the smaller, community-based event as being more effective in

generating social capital and positive social outcomes than major sporting and cultural

events such as the Olympic Games and the European Capital of Culture. However, at least

some of the evidence presented here suggests that even large scale events can effectively

increase social capital providing they are well planned and effectively executed.

Changing business models (events in the economic crisis)

The current global economic crisis has focussed growing attention on the economic or

business model of events. Until recently there was a fairly broad acceptance that events in

general would generate positive externalities (even in the face of little or no hard evidence).

But there are now increasing questions being asked about the various costs associated with

staging events, particularly as public sector budgets are slashed. Public authorities

increasingly want to know what specific outputs will be achieved and exactly how these will

impact on the local community (which is often paying to stage the event in the first place).


9/21

9

Discussions between the ATLAS Events Group and policy makers indicates that there is a

strong interest in gathering more information about the effects of events, but also in

developing new business models that can help them use scare resources more effectively.

Perhaps most significantly there are already signs that the language of public sector event

support is shifting from the idea of subsidy towards that of sponsorship. This also implies

an important shift in the relationship between different stakeholder groups, since it places

public and private sponsors on asimilar footing. This concept also makes a more direct link

between public sector investment and expected outputs. Commercial sponsors are usually

clear that their investment should generate a certain return in terms of brand exposure, etc.

For the public sector such equations may be more complex, since the returns tend to be

more generalized and are spread across the entire community (including the business

community). There is little doubt, however, that the search for new business models will

increase as public sector budgets decline and commercial sponsors also become more

demanding.

The political dimensionevents as politics and policy

Discussions about public sector investment in events also link directly to the political

dimension. Events are often used as a means of pursuing a political agenda, whether

emancipatory, dictatorial or economic. In most cases the form of political agenda and the

means used to pursue it depends on the type of regime involved(Stone 1989). In fact, it is

intriguing that a whole new area of policy enquiry emanated from an analysis of coalitions

related to an event; the Olympic Games in Atlanta, the bidding process for which was

launched by the city in 1987.

More recent studies of events have also underlined the importance of policy regimes to

provide the political will necessary to derive lasting benefits from events (Richards andPalmer 2010). In the case of the Romanian city of Sibiu, the staging of the 2007 ECOC was

made possible by the formation of a political coalition forged by the German Mayor of the city,

Klaus Johannis (Richards and Rotariu 2011). Klaus links with Germany allowed the city to

raise the funding needed to improve infrastructure, and also attracted new businesses to

locate in Sibiu. Political consensus around the event-led strategy of cultural regeneration

was reflected in high levels of public support for the event and in four successive election

victories for the Mayor. Interestingly, residents felt that the ECOC had led to a rise in social

cohesion and a higher quality of life in the years after the event. There is little doubt that this

strategy produced a synergy between the political ambitions of the Mayor and his political


10/21

10

regime, and the desire of the citizens to achieve economic growth, increased employment

and to feel part of Europe.

In many cases, however, such positive relationships between political goals and social

outcomes are not so evident. Particularly in the case of major events, political will is usually

required to mobilize the necessary resources, but these are not always deployed in ways

that benefit the local population. Even in relatively successful events, such as the Sydney

Olympic Games in 2000, many local people may feel that they have not benefitted from the

event, or that social injustice has been generated in the distribution of benefits (Waitt 2003).

Emerging management issues

Event organizers increasingly have to take account of the social dimension in designing,

imagineering (Nijs and Peters 2002; Hover 2007) and staging events. The issue of

corporate responsibility is discussed at some length by Marisa de Brito, who shows that in

designing events, communication strategies about the sustainability efforts of events need to

be strengthened at a early stage. In addition, sustainability can be a vehicle for memorable

experiences, where sponsors are key stakeholders, since sponsoring responsible events

can be part of a corporate social responsibility risk reduction strategy for many companies.

The growing scale of many events leads to increased impacts for local communities. There

have been a number of cases in which the effective carrying capacity of events seems to

have been exceeded (see Chapter 13). The desire to minimize the negative impacts of

events has led organizers and policy makers to commission more research into social and

other impacts. At present, however, it is still unclear to what extent the findings of such

research are incorporated into management practice.

The fact that many cities and regions are now staging increasing number of events has

stimulated a realization that there is a need for a more strategic approach to the

development, staging and appraisal of the portfolio of events as a whole (Getz1997). As

Richards and Palmer (2010) have pointed out, there is a growing number of eventful cities

which are beginning to manage their event portfolio strategically. Their definition of an

eventful city is one that purposefully uses a programme of events to strategically and

sustainably support long-term policy agendas that enhance the quality of life for all.In this

sense, the management of an event portfolio, or an eventful city as a whole is very different

from event management per se.


11/21

11

These differences also imply a different research approach that can capture the collaborative

advantages created by staging and managing a programme of events rather than the

individual outputs of the events themselves.

Co-creation

Although many events and events programmes are created top-down, there is growing

evidence of the importance of both producers and consumers co-creating events. Not only

do traditional event organizers increasingly implicate consumers in the design of events, but

the distinction between producers and consumers in becoming increasingly thin. Events are

emerging from mixed communities of producers and consumers, many of whom adopt both

roles at different times. For example Helsinkis pop-up restaurant day has developed into an

event that allows aspiring restaurateurs try out their skills running a temporary restaurant for

a day (http://www.restaurantday.org). This links to the ideas of Prahalad and Ramaswamy

(2004) about the development of the experience economy, which they see as increasingly

leading to the development of communities of producers and consumers around specific

experiences. This is already evident in the world of events, where co-creation is beginning to

be recognized as a useful strategy for a wide range of programmes and events. For example

in 2011 the City of Christchurch in New Zealand reacted to the earthquake devastation by

co-creating events with residents to redesign affected areas of the city centre. The Share an

Idea programme involved a mix of social media and roadshows, and won an international

award from the Co-Creation Association.

By analysing processes of co-creation, rather than assuming a strict division between the

roles of event organizers and participants and audiences, more attention can be paid to the

processes by which social interaction occurs within events. As Boydell (2011) has shown in

the case of dance, co-creation has great potential to develop creative processes, which are

particularly stimulated by the encounter between individuals and groups.

Research challenges

Problems of measurement

Various contributions to this volume have pointed to the difficulty of measuring the social

aspects of events, particularly where abstract concepts such as social capital are involved.

There is a need to develop more effective and easily applicable social indicators that can be

used with event visitors, participants, residents and other stakeholders.


12/21

12

Some authors have developed or refined social indicators in their chapters. For example

Lidka Kania and Chris-Anne Verhoeven both developed scales to measure the relationship

between social capital and the ECOC bidding process in Brabant. Their scales integrated

different dimensions of social capital in a single scale. Martin Hendriks and Vera Toepoel on

the other hand, used different scales to measure the individual dimensions of social capital.

The type of scale that is appropriate will depend on what needs to be measured aggregate

scales may be appropriate where the intention is to produce a general measure of social

capital, whereas individual dimensions should reveal the underlying processes of social

capital formation. Interestingly, Kania found more significant relationships in her study when

using measures of the underlying dimensions. This may indicate that creating a single

measure for social capital is more problematic than measuring the underlying elements such

as trust and networks.

The need for longitudinal research

Measuring the level of social capital, social cohesion or identification of an event is one thing.

But what is of far greater interest than current levels is the changes that can occur, and the

extent to which these changes can be attributed to event processes. As Frawley has

pointed out in his review of the sports events literature, identifying causality in changes in

participation or identification is difficult. Most studies are conducted at one moment in time

and therefore say little about change or causality. What seems to be needed is more

longitudinal research in order to trace changes in social effects over time. Such research

needs to be carried out before, during and after specific events to help determine causality.

The most effective means of achieving this is to use panels of respondents who can be

repeatedly surveyed over time. The changing experiences and attitudes of individuals can

therefore be monitored, and participants can be compared with non-participants. A start has

been made on such research in the case of BrabantStad in the Netherlands, where paneldata for the region have been used to establish a baseline for subsequent monitoring of the

social effects of the European Capital of Culture (van Bommel et al. 2011). Constructing

such panels specifically for events is probably not feasible except for the very largest events,

but existing panels (of commercial research organizations, universities or local authorities)

can be used for this purpose.


13/21

13

The social dimension of different types of events

The fact that events have differing social effects raises questions about the social role of

different types of events. Perhaps not surprisingly, most research on the social dimension of

events has been conducted on community festivals or sporting events. But there are also

other types of events that are very common that can also involve social consequences. As

Marisa de Brito points out in her review of golf events, there are many ways in which

businesses try and underline their social corporate responsibility, and that this can also be

done through business-related events such as conferences and product launches.

In a social context, business events are a relatively underdeveloped area of research. Most

research in this area relates to the use of events for marketing or motivation, or as a form of

business tourism. However there is clearly also a social dimension to these events, for

example in the creation of communities of producers and consumers and in the

development of corporate responsibility.

It also seems obvious that the type of event will have an influence on the social effects

produced. One might expect the social implications of a sporting event to be different from a

cultural event, or the involvement of local communities to be different in an elite sporting

event from a broad-based participatory event, as Siyabonga Mxunyelwa and Dimitri

Tassiopoulos suggest in this volume.

Collective vs individual experience

As Sjannett de Geus has pointed out, events can involve a range of different types of

experience. It is clear that the focus of much current experience research focuses on

individual experience (usually informed by a psychological paradigm), whereas the social

aspects of experiences are often overlooked. Her research suggests that a collectiveexperience of an event is different from an individualized experience, which has important

implications for event research. Most event research tends to relate to individuals attending

events. Even where the collective context of experience is taken into account (for example

by asking about group size) it is not usually seen as an explanatory factor. But intuitively a

collective experience of an event should be distinct from the individualized experience of the

same event. This has important implications, not least in terms of event marketing, since

much information about events passes by word of mouth, or increasingly through word of

network.


14/21

14

Using social media in research

Social media appears to present a vast range of opportunities for new research directions in

events. By linking to participants during the event itself, researchers can potentially chart

changes in mood and reactions to specific experiences or other participants. Social media

can also play an important role in investigating the communities that grow up around events.

One obvious application of social media would be to monitor changes in mood during the

course of events, replicating Csikszentmihalyis (1990) classic research on flow. In this way

the process aspects of experience could be better understood, and the ways in which the

collective dimension of events develops could also be analysed.

In order to make effective use of such information it is useful to develop multi-disciplinary

teams incorporating experts in sociology, psychology, networks, information systems and

digital media. Such a multi-disciplinary approach is also increasingly necessary as research

itself needs to become more networked in the network society.

The roles of different stakeholders

The contributions to the current volume reflect a general bias in event research towards

particular categories of stakeholders. By definition spectators and participants represent one

of the most important direct stakeholder categories, ad they are often the most accessible

group with which to conduct research. Very often, the views of participants are measured in

relative isolation, without comparing these to the views of other stakeholder groups

(residents, policymakers, organizers, etc). However, the findings of the current volume

indicate that more triangulation is needed in order to compare the views of different

stakeholder groups.

As the number and accessibility of stakeholders also varies considerably between groups,

this also implies the use of a mixed-methods approach, involving the use of surveys for

audiences and publics, as well as more qualitative methods for organizers, policy makers

and performers. More use could also be made of experimental methods, as illustrated by

some of the contributions to this volume.


15/21

15

Identifying the community

Very often the social dimension of events is related to a specific community. However,

Richards and Hall (2000) discuss the difficulties attached to using the term community

without a full examination of the meaning of this term. In recent years the growth of virtual or

cyber communities has made this issue all the more complex. In many cases event research

will have to take account of different networked publics and physically co-present audiences

in determining the agendas and effects of events. When designing event research, therefore,

account needs to be taken not just of event target groups, but also the wider publics of

(potential) users who may be influenced by, and influence, events.

Such a view is important in nuancing discussions about the positive social effects of events.

As outlined in the introduction, the ATLAS events research on the social dimension of events

was initiated to challenge the quasi-automatic assumption that events have positive social

impacts (usually in the absence of measurement). But as some of the contributions to the

current volume have pointed out, the assumed positive social effects are often not present or

difficult to identify. One potential reason for this is that many events are designed either to

appeal to specific audiences, or else designed to appeal to all. The context of the event then

becomes crucial. If the audiences of an event have a high level of social cohesion based on

physical proximity and high levels of bonding capital, then the event may have a positive

impact on local identity and raise levels of bonding social capital, but may exclude others

and do little to create bridging capital. On the other hand events designed to appeal to a

more physically dispersed, heterogeneous audience may attract cosmopolitan global

nomads and a warm fuzzy multi-culti glow, but may run the risk of alienating more

homogeneous local publics.

But there are other strategies that can be developed, both in terms of the development of

events, and also for research. For example, Lenia Marques identifies the emergence of aglobal community anchored around a local figure. What is the difference in the social effects

of a globally dispersed event (or virtual event) relative to a geographically concentrated and

physically embedded event?

Towards a research agenda for exploring the social dimension of events

In examining the different social dimensions of events it seems that much is to be gained

from analysing the development of social capital in the context of the networks that support

participation, trust, cohesion and creativity. Different authors have concluded that


16/21

16

Colemans view of enabling networks is more useful than the more widely-used social capital

framework of Putnam.

Perhaps this is not surprising if we really are living in a network society. The implication is

that we need not only to analyse processes of social capital formation within events, but also

the way in which social capital is distributed through networks. We can also conceive of

events as nodes or transformational spaces in networks that can have much wider and more

profound social impacts than the immediate context of the event itself.

In order to study capital and network formation processes, therefore, a number of points

seem important. In terms of social capital formation, for example, there is an important

discussion about where social capital originates. As Stepehen Frawley points out, there is a

big difference between trickle down effectsfrom elite sport or culture programmes, and the

stimulation of grass-roots action, as studied by Martin Hendriks and Vera Toepoel (Chapter

9). The research on the ECOC in Brabant by Lidka Kania (Chapter 4) and Chris-Anne

Verhoeven (Chapter 5) also indicates that top-down efforts to grow social capital may not be

very effective. There is clearly room for more structured research that examines the

processes of social capital formation in events and the subsequent distribution of capital

through associated networks. Is social capital mainly distributed among the elite (Bourdieu

1984) or throughout social networks (Coleman 1988)? Is social capital a private asset or a

social asset (Antoci et al.2004)? Social capital can be viewed as an accumulated

externality of participation that increases our enjoyment of relational goods. So event

participation not only increases social capital (as an abstract measure of our ability to enjoy

relational goods), but may also improve our ability to function in the contemporary network

society, where relational goods are increasingly important.

This research could also effectively link with emerging discussions about the organization of

leisure and cultural activities. Casual observation would tend to suggest a growth in

individualized experiences, mirroring Putnams analysis of participation in the United States.

However there is also evidence to suggest that processes of informalization are perhaps

more important than individualization (van Ingen and Dekker 2011). The important point

about informalization is that it implies the self-organization of activities, rather than relying on

formal organizational structures. The ability to self-organize events has grown significantly

with the arrival of Internet and social media. This has led to flash mobs and impromptu

gatherings in many parts of the world. The potential political power of such events was

evidenced by the Arab Spring in 2011. But in contrast to formally organized events,

relatively little is known about their creation, development, structure or effects. This is


17/21

17

perhaps not surprising as many definitions of events or special events deliberately exclude

impromptu events. But in an informal, networked society, this is likely to be an important

growth area for the future.

Taking a lead from theories relating to the network society, one might suppose that the role

of network mediators, or switchers will also become more important for events. Recent

decades have seen the professionalization of the events industry, with the growth of a wide

range of event organizing companies, large and small. But the growth of informal events

might also provide opportunities for switchers to use their own bridging social capital to

innovate new event concepts. In this sense, we may see an extension of social

entrepreneurship into the events arena.

The development of social capital also has an important relationship with the context of the

events themselves. This context can be physical (as in the creative spaces examined by

Quinn and Wilks) or it can itself be social. This also provides opportunities to develop

interesting research links between social capital, events and place. Research in Catalunya

(Gonzlez Revert and Miralbell, undated) has indicated a positive relationship between the

presence of social capital and the attractiveness and impact of events. High levels of social

capital in specific places such as Catalunya (Richards 2007) help them to develop a wide

range of attractive events which in turn have a positive social and cultural impact. There is

the possibility of a virtuous circle of event creation stimulated by high levels of social capital,

which in turn stimulates more social capital growth.

The role of place or context is also implied in the added value generated by events supply

networks, which is still an under-studied area. Event studies focus a lot on the experience of

the audience, but what lessons do the other stakeholders, such as policy maker or suppliers

learn? Richards and Palmer (2010) have examined the growth of what they term the

orgware of events, arguing that organizational capacity is vital for successful event

programming. Many cities and regions that have hosted events have subsequently used the

learning experience involved to successfully organize or bid for other events. Even

unsuccessful bidding cities have managed to use their learning experience in a positive way

(for example Manchesters failed Olympic bid, which led to a successful Commonwealth

Games). Events can often act as a catalyst or a means of focussing attention, bringing

stakeholders together not just for events themselves, but also in the wider social and

business life of places.


18/21

18

This discussion of research directions points to the need to embed event research in a

broader social context that incorporates not just the processes of event organization,

management and outcomes, but which also considers the context and content of the event,

or in many cases event programmes (see Bernadette Quinn and Linda Wilks, Chapter 2).

The event research field could therefore be conceived of as a triangle formed by the

perspectives of process, content and context, as indicated in figure 16.1.

Whereas much event management research concentrates on process, we feel it is important

to expand this view to incorporate issues of the narratives being created and supported by

events (content) and their relationship to the spaces and places they occur in (context). The

events research triangle suggests many fruitful future avenues for research that can

combine these different perspectives in different ways. For example one could examine the

linkage of place and narrative in the development of themed events, the globalization ofevents and or the translocation of events from one place to another. There is also a potential

link with the whole field of gaming and simulation, not just in terms of event content but also

as a tool for examining event decision-making (Stadhouders 2010).

Shifting the focus of events research

At present, most events research concentrates on a fairly narrow range of practice, generally

in the areas of event management, impacts and policy. The approach taken is to view events


19/21

19

as discrete entities, dealing with processes mainly internal to each individual event.

Sometimes this view is expanded through comparative case studies, or less frequently by

longitudinal research, but the focus tends to remain on the management of the event and its

effects. The social dimension of events is then often encapsulated as the benefits accruing

to the local community, either as direct or indirect stakeholders.

In our view, the social dimension of events deserves a wider perspective. In particular

capturing the social in relation to events requires seeing events as part of wider social

processes and structures. There is therefore an argument for supplementing the

predominant management-based approach with a broader social science view of how events

articulate with social process and structures. A practice-based approach to events research

(Richards 2010) is one means of achieving this articulation, creating greater attention for

processes of social interaction within and around events. These linkages also allow us to

see events not just as isolated phenomena in themselves, but as essential nodes and

creative spaces within social networks. Arguably the contemporary network society

increasingly needs events to act as a coordinating mechanism to synchronize dispersed

social agendas, to support policy regimes and to ensure that the quality of life benefits

promised by events are fully realized.

References

Antoci, A., Sacco, P.-L. and Vanin, P. (2004) Social capital accumulation and the evolution

of social participation. Faculty of Economics, University of Bologna, Working Paper no. 5.

Bommel, M. van, du Long, K., Luijten, J. and Richards, G. (2011) BrabantStads candidacy

for European Capital of Culture 2018. Baseline study: the main conclusions. Tilburg: PON.

Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. London:

Routledge.

Boydell K. M. (2011) Making Sense of Collective Events: The Co-creation of a Research-

based Dance. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12, No. 1, Art. 5January 2011

http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1525/3143(accesed July 2012).

Boyle, M. and Hughes, G. (1994) The politics of urban entrepreneurialism in Glasgow.

Geoforum 425 (4), 453-470.

Castells, M. (1996) The Network Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1525/3143http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1525/3143http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1525/3143


20/21

20

Coleman, J. (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital,American Journal of

Sociology, 94: 95-120.

Connelly, G. (2007) Testing governance - A research agenda for exploring urban tourism

competitiveness policy: The case of Liverpool 1980-2000,Tourism Geographies, 9: 84-114.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990) Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper

and Row.

Getz, D. (1997) Event management and event tourism(1st ed.). New York:

Cognizant Communications Corp.

Gonzlez Revert, F. and Miralbell, O. (undated) El paper del capital social en lorganitzaci

desdeveniments.

http://uoc.academia.edu/FrancescGonz%C3%A1lezRevert%C3%A9/Papers/1232441/El_pa

per_del_capital_social_en_lorganitzacio_desdeveniments (Accessed 27 June 2012)

Hover, Moniek (2008) Imagine your Event: Imagineering for the event industry,in Ulrich

Wnsch (Ed.) Facets of Contemporary Event Management-Theory and Practice for Event

Success. Bad Honne: Verlag K.H.Bock, pp. 37-62.

van Ingen, Erik and Dekker, Paul (2011) Dissolution of Associational Life? Testing the

Individualization and Informalization Hypotheses on Leisure Activities in The Netherlands

Between 1975 and 2005. Social Indicators Research, 100: 209-224.

Misener, L. and Mason, D. S. (2006) Creating community networks: Can sporting

events offer meaningful sources of social capital?,Managing Leisure, 11 (1): 3956.

Nijs, D. and Peters, F. (2002) Imagineering: Het creren van belevingswerelden. Amsterdam:

Boom.

OCallaghan and Linehan, D. (2007) Identity, politics and conflict on dockland development

in Cork, Ireland: European Capital of Culture 2005. Cities, 24(4): 311-323.

Prahalad, C. K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004) The Future of Competition: Co-creating Unique

Value with Customers, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
http://uoc.academia.edu/FrancescGonz%C3%A1lezRevert%C3%A9/Papers/1232441/El_paper_del_capital_social_en_lorganitzacio_desdevenimentshttp://uoc.academia.edu/FrancescGonz%C3%A1lezRevert%C3%A9/Papers/1232441/El_paper_del_capital_social_en_lorganitzacio_desdevenimentshttp://uoc.academia.edu/FrancescGonz%C3%A1lezRevert%C3%A9/Papers/1232441/El_paper_del_capital_social_en_lorganitzacio_desdevenimentshttp://uoc.academia.edu/FrancescGonz%C3%A1lezRevert%C3%A9/Papers/1232441/El_paper_del_capital_social_en_lorganitzacio_desdevenimentshttp://uoc.academia.edu/FrancescGonz%C3%A1lezRevert%C3%A9/Papers/1232441/El_paper_del_capital_social_en_lorganitzacio_desdeveniments


21/21

21

Putnam, R.D. (2000) Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New

York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.

Richards, G. (2007) The authenticity of a traditional eventthe views of residents andvisitors. Event Management, 11: 33-44.

Richards, G. (2010) Leisure in the Network Society: From pseudo-events to hyperfestivity.

Tilburg: Tilburg University.

Richards, G. and Hall, D. (2000 eds) Tourism and Sustainable Community Development.

Routledge: London.

Richards, G. and Palmer, R. (2010) Eventful Cities: Cultural management and urban

revitalisation. Routledge: London

Richards, G. and Rotariu, I. (2011) Ten Years of Cultural Development in Sibiu: The

European Cultural Capital and Beyond. ATLAS: Arnhem.

Stadhouders, B.P. (2010) Sustainable Olympic Games: A qualitative study on the decision-

making process towards sustainable Olympic Games. MA Thesis in Leisure Studies,

University of Tilburg.

Stone, C.N. (1989) Regime politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946-1988. Lawrence: University

Press of Kansas.

Waitt, G. (2003) Social Impacts of the Sydney Olympics.Annals of Tourism Research, 30

(1): 194215.

Chapter 16-Operations Management

Documents