El magisterio Latinoamericano y su lectura de las CEBs

[Sociological intervention] starts from the idea that the nature of a collective behaviour can be best known by interpreting the work performed by a group of actors as it analyses its own actions under conditions created by researchers and managed by both parties. (Touraine 1978, p. 296) The sociological intervention method, unlike other types of group interviews aimed at discovering actors’ feelings, seeks to discover the social relations and cultural orientations that shape collective action, as well as differentiating between the various logics of collective action (Dubet & Wieviorka 1996, pp. 56, 63). This method and its adaptation for the purposes of this research is outlined in the sections below.

5.4.1 Background to SI

Alain Touraine (1978) developed SI as an analytical method for the sociology of action, and the technique was aimed at ensuring general conceptions, not only about social action but also about society. The method responded to both theoretical and historical motivations (ibid). Touraine interpreted the societal changes by testing hypotheses and discovering the signs of the social movements he observed, as well as the struggles played out on the social stage (Dubet & Wieviorka 1996).225

The method of SI aims to observe the work performed by groups and their evolution, beyond noting what has been said by the members, but rather by focusing on the analytical attitude of the group (Dubet & Wieviorka 1996, p. 61). In this context, the group members share the objective of producing knowledge and increasing effectiveness, although the type of knowledge pursued by the research might be different (ibid). Touraine and Melucci were the main advocates for this method of research, and centred their methodology on the usage of focus groups as a complement for traditional ethnographic approaches, longitudinal studies and interview-based research (see, for a practical example, North 1998).

Similarly, Munday reflects on the intervention method as a tool to research the interactions between participants in the formation of collective identities in social movement theory (Castells

225 _{Similarly, Touraine wanted to study the role of the sociologist as a researcher in his study of identity formation in}

114

1997; Melucci 1996), emphasising both content and context in the ‘process of interaction, negotiation and affirmation through which such an identity is produced and sustained’ (2006, p. 90).226 _{The rationale behind the choice of the SI method lays in the fact that it allows engaging} discussions with no practical consequences, ensuring that participants have the freedom to voice their opinions.227 _{In the SI method, ‘groups have to be sheltered from everyday issues and} activities so that members enjoy maximal freedom’ (Dubet & Wieviorka, 1996, p. 61). Therefore, an SI group is not a ‘real group’ and the interlocutors do not necessarily have contact with the members in everyday life.

5.4.2 The link between SI and participatory place branding

[SI is an] active, analytical method for discerning the logics of action within a social struggle in which the social scientist proposes analyses to the actors and involve them in analysing their action. (Dubet & Wieviorka 1996, p. 57) The method of SI acts not only a tool to collect data, but also as the basis for collective action, requiring participants to be willing to consider social change.228 Touraine’s method is based on his social theory of the struggle over information of the programmed society in the cultural arena (Brincker & Gundelach 2005, p. 366). This is in line with Castells’ (1996) arguments on the structure of the network society in the information age, and is relevant to this case study because it focuses on the collective creation of group identities, which can be linked to Hatch and Schultz’s paradigm of brand co-creation adapted to place branding by Kavaratzis and Hatch (2013).

The method, however, has been criticised by its lack of theoretical clarity about how to achieve change (Bourdieu 1999 in Brincker & Gundelach 2005).229 In this research project, I am interested in identifying the interactions that could potentially lead to change, as opposed to recording particular outcomes. Beyond the pure analysis of their reflections, the SI method allows participants to realise their potential to enact social change, unlike other sociological methods, such as focus groups (ibid). In addition, this process of realisation, through knowledge-sharing, dialogue, conflict and contestation are key to helping tease out group patterns (Brincker & Gundelach 2005).

226 _{In the field of place branding, little research has been devoted to observing the interaction between different}

stakeholder groups through focus group discussions.

227 _{In reality, stakeholders operate in highly constraining contexts, in which place branding processes respond to short}

term crisis of image and reputation about a particular place (Anholt 2009).

228 _{The method was used in sociology, and considering that sociologists’ work is not only bounded to mapping out}

aspects of society, but can also be aimed at creating social change (Brincker & Gundelach 2005).

115

In Touraine’s view, the definition of an actor’s identity places him against his opponents and helps identify the issues that both bring actors together and sets them at odds (Dubet & Wieviorka 1996, p. 56).230 _{This is particularly relevant to this research, since the aim is to capture action,} both related to the struggles and processes underlying place branding practices.231 By applying the SI method I aim to unlock the hierarchical restrictions among the different stakeholders involved in the process of branding places, to then explore their views on an alternative, non- linear, collaborative network governance approach.232 Furthermore, I argue that the intervention process assists, not only in observing the interactions, but also enhances practical knowledge sharing and collaboration, ultimately supporting positive actions and alignments in place branding practices. ‘Together, researchers and actors try to develop a working method for bringing to light the hierarchy of meanings that shape a collective action’ (Dubet & Wieviorka, p. 57). Such an analysis, however, can bring about tension, and draw apart the different parties. The SI method represents an interesting new approach to the way the phenomenon of place branding has been previously researched, leading way to new findings and hypotheses to be tested in further post-doctoral work. As Munday argues, ‘rather than a blueprint for research, their [Touraine and Melucci’s] work is best seen as a basis for developing group based research’ (2006, p. 94). Therefore, the method was adapted to the particularities of this research project. In particular, the role of the researcher and the research stages were adapted to the aims and resources of this thesis. Such changes are explained in the sections following.

230 _{Touraine’s (1978) analytical theory of social action considers that orders or levels of meaning and social relations}

are organised and ranked in a hierarchy within, for instance, any social struggle. Touraine formulates this as the interplay between the principles of identity, opposition and totality.

231 _{Touraine (1981) developed the SI method to provide a dynamic account of social processes, as opposed to historical}

and static factual accounts.

232 _{The method of SI has since its origins evolved from studying a social movement or collective action towards the}

conditions for increasing the capacity for individuals to act autonomously. SI now focuses on social problems rather than organised struggles, although the main principles remain, since ‘action is placed in the context of social relations; actors are deemed to be capable of performing a specific sort of work to obtain knowledge about their behaviours; and sociologists must intervene and become ‘involved’ (Dubet & Wieviorka 1996).

116