Consideraciones éticas

Case studies are the preferred strategy when ‘how or ‘why’ questions are being posed, when the investigator has little control over events, and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real-life context. (Yin 2003, p. 1) When designing this research, I took into consideration a need for research and scholarly observations on the methodologies and methods utilised in place branding research. The aim was to present a research design that not only suited the aim of this dissertation, but supports advancing research (Chan & Marafa 2013). The dominant approach to research in place branding is qualitative, although scholars have recognised a need for advancing quantitative and mixed methods (Chan & Marafa 2013; Lucarelli 2012; Lucarelli & Berg 2011; Zenker 2011).212 Furthermore, research on stakeholder relationships often include qualitative in-depth explorations of attitudes, usually conducted through focus groups or in-depth interviews (see, for instance, Hankinson 2001; Ooi & Pedersen 2010). This is in part because garnering information on place identity requires an analysis of place culture alongside researcher’ observations (Andersson 2007).

In addition, current issues around stakeholder engagement on place branding are mainly explored through case studies in academia, (Gernter 2001; Zenker 2011; Lucarelli & Brörstrom 2013), and meta-surveys (Eshuis et al 2011), or qualitative interviews (Hankinson 2001). This study therefore responds to a need for academics to develop larger state-wide studies (Jorgensen 2015, p. 69). Therefore, the choice of ‘case study’ as the methodology to consider the phenomenon and process of place branding has two justifications (Yin 2003). Firstly, the method is well- established and recognised in social research and is extensively used in the social sciences, including anthropology, political science, public policy and sociology (Gilgun 1994 in Yin

109

2003). Secondly, it is the most used method in the existing literature on place branding (Chan & Marafa 2013).

As Yin (2003) explains, case studies provide analytical generalisation based on theoretical propositions, whereas other methodologies offer statistical generalisations.213

The main strength of case studies is their ability to deal with different forms of evidence, such as interviews, observations and so forth, beyond historical accounts of phenomena (Yin 2003). Despite its widespread use in the literature, concerns around this method need to be observed, including the scholarly debate on the validity of action research linked to the role and presence of researchers in relation to traditional positivistic or naturalistic approaches based on the observation of a phenomenon through cause-and-effect (Herr & Anderson 2005).All concerns are addressed and further explained through the description of the method in the sections to come.214

Within the case study, I situate my interest in participatory action research (PAR), focusing not only on building or testing theory, but also in enacting social change and developing collaborative solutions to complex or ‘wicked problems’. In line with Maklan et al (2008), I argue that change can be generated as a result of self-reflection. In this setup, action research has ‘the merit of privileged access to reality’ (Perry & Gummesson 2004, p. 318), particularly in ‘turbulent environments’ (Daniel & Wilson 2004).215 _{Furthermore, I adopt a PAR methodology not only to} observe a social setting in isolation to develop new theoretical knowledge, but also to broaden the scope and encourage social action as a result of enhancing collaboration and learning in social contexts (Freire 1970 in Herr & Anderson 2005). I do this while monitoring stakeholder dynamics and governance arrangements for place branding. This participatory approach focuses on collaboration, empowerment, change and the political aspects of the phenomenon under

213 _{Case studies can often be combined with ethnography and participant-observation data to make sense of the data}

collected (Yin 2003). Examples of criticism to the method include: from a positivist position (Díaz Andrade 2009), Yin (2003) reflects on the validity of case studies in informing theory and practice and the apparent lack of rigour of research in case studies, and suggests bias and a lack of basis for scientific generalisation as the main concerns in case study research; furthermore, Gertner is concerned with qualitative studies of place branding being based on ‘personal opinions and presented in an essay and editorial fashion’ or being ‘overtly factual and prescriptive’, and ‘do not advance testable models’ (2011b, p. 101).

214 _{Yin (2003) suggests that this might be caused by the confusion between case study teaching and case study research.}

In case study teaching the materials are altered to aid demonstrations.

215 _{Daniel & Wilson (2004) argue the appropriateness of action research in such context because of the focus on}

immediacy of outcomes, future orientation respect for practitioner as co-producers of knowledge and the cyclical nature of the process. Other approaches might vary, according to their focus and purpose, whether the aim is to create or test knowledge (post positivism and constructivism), effect practice (pragmatism) or effect social interactions and relationships (participatory) (Creswell 2009; Yin 2003).

110

study.216 _{The diagram below outlines the elements of my research approach linked to the various} components of the research design:

Figure 11. Research Design for Inclusive Place Branding (author’s own elaboration).

The choice of PAR for this case study also follows the realisation of the limitations of purely collecting information around ‘what has been done’, and led to the choice of other options of more dynamic and social knowledge-producing techniques, such as focus groups, and the method of sociological intervention (Barbour 2007, Touraine 1978). Furthermore, the case study methodology allows for more holistic approaches to design, data collection and analysis (Yin 2003, p. 14).

The sociological intervention (SI) method was developed to observe social movements as ‘a conflict between actors over the social management of a cultural issues which is never completely reducible to the self-interest of one party or the other’ (Touraine 2000, p. 113).217 The SI method and my analysis are therefore situated in the critical tradition of action research, since it focuses

216 _{Action research is rarely used in the study of place branding. This may be due to the fact that ‘published academic}

studies using action research in the scholarly marketing literature are rare, possibly due to lack of reflective practice and organisational barriers’ (Kates & Robertson 2004 in Merrilees et al 2009). In fact, there are many contrasts between marketing and action research. While marketing research focuses on the present in obtaining representative samples in subjects as the objects of the study and active and highly specialised researchers (Maklan et al 2008), action research is ‘values-laden and interdisciplinary’, aiming at improving practice towards the future.

217 _{Brincker & Gundelach (2005) argue that this notion is similar to Bordieu’s concept of ‘social field’, defined as ‘…}

a network or configuration of objective relationships between different positions. The positions are defined… on the basis of their current and potential place in relation to the distribution of various forms of power (or capital)’ (Bordieu & Macquant 1992, p. 84 in ibid, p. 368). The social field is considered the network in which relationships between actors lead to collective action.

RESEARCH DESIGN