It's been a week now and the Olympic Torch Relay has been in the South of England and now finds itself in Wales.  I wrote a blog post for the project I'm leading, #citizenrelay, last week about television coverage of the first day and here I'd like to reflect on some of the isuses that have arisen in the days since that post and their relationship with the values associated with the Torch Relay.  

The Torch Relay is said to represent peace, unity and friendship.  How have these values been expressed this week in the context of the Torch Relay? It's certainly been peaceful in the sense that there's been little evidence of expressed resistance, violence or obvious antagonism as the flame has passed from Torchbearer to Torchbearer and community to community.  Perhaps the peaceful scenes are to be expected as LOCOG has carefully staged the Torch Relay as a sort of rolling carnival across the UK, encouraging villages, towns and cities to outdo each other as the (lengthy) cavaldade passes through.  On Wednesday, I watched the BBC Torch Relay highlights programme in Bristol and was impressed with the numbers of people attending the evening celebration but also disappointed at the uncritical coverage of the Olympics.  Apparently the nation was being united each day as the Torch Relay passed through and it was the most inclusive event the country had seen for some time.  Unity was the name of the game and the Torch was said to be serving its purpose to encourage peace, unity and friendship. 

However, although the Torch has undoubtedly been a 'success' thus far, in terms of the number of flag waving spectators and positive media coverage for Olympic organisers, we can't forget that the event is an expression of the interests of sanctioning bodies (IOC and LOCOG) and that all 'official' participants are expected to accept all branding conditions, commercialization interests and security demand imposed upon them.  It is here where the peace, unity and friendship begins to unravel, illustrated this week in a few small, but significant, encounters.  

The Torch Relay began in Cornwall and this week we saw an expresion of Cornish national identity (see Gordon Hunt's interview for more background) being curtailed by Olympic organisers in Saltash.  Not perhaps that much of a big deal for those outside of the region, but the flag grab nonetheless provided an illustration of the concern of Olympic organisers to avoid disunity, division and alternative narratives taking over their event. Yet, the 2012 Olympic Games has been sold to the nations and regions of the UK on the baiss that it would be there Games too, benefitting all.  The UK, after all, has within it a number of devolved governments and strong associations with flags and other national symbols.  In Scotland, there has already been an outcry at the Saltire flag being banned from Hampden Park (The National Football Stadium) during the Olympics Games.  When the Torch Relay arrives in Scotland on the evening of the 7th June, we can surely expect to see scores of Saltire flags flying to welcome the Olympics onto Scottish soil - will these be confiscated in the name of national unity?

Finally, the branding police have also been busy during the first few days of the Torch Relay, shutting down the Twitter account of Space Hijackers, a protest group which parodies the commercial imperatives of LOCOG.  Even in the small village of Tomintoul in the North East of Scotland, villagers have been warned by their local authority that wearing an unofficial sponsors logo as the Torch Relay passes through will lead to sanctions including the wearing of a white t-shirt to hide the offending garment.  Here more about this from a local resident.  Organisers retort that the Olympics would not be in the UK without the investment made by corporate sponsors and other forms of private capital but the Torch Relay is promoted as being about friendship - yet watching coverage of the cavalcade travelling through you will see a host of vehicles participating in what I've termed the 'corporate relay'.  Throbbing music, free samples and a captive audience at the evening celebrations allow corporate sponsors privileged access to the public realm (and public spaces) to sell their wares under the banner of so-called universal values of peace, unity and friendship.  

I'm looking forward to seeing how this jamboree develops as it encounters parts of the UK with their own story to tell. 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I'm going to spend a little time talking about a project that you've heard me talking about before - our #media2012 in Scotland project #citizenrelay.  The project is funded by Creative Scotland and carries with it a series of 'deliverables' (a phrase many of you will recognise!) but I want to talk about how this project is snowballing into much more than originally envisaged, producing a wide range of conversations and connections which have developed relatively organically to produce a community of interest with great potential for the future.  As my colleague, Jennifer Jones, blogged last week, 'Scotland we need you!' And help we have received.  Two examples from this week illustrate just what can be achieved by engaging the right people and having them work as advocates.  Both Education Scotland and Games Legacy Scotland connected with the #citizenrelay project through social media (we have Twitter and Facebook presences) and this led to conversations (f2f and online) where common interests were found and shared understandings of the project's potential formed.  Within the space of two days, blog posts on #citizenrelay were produced by both organisations, drawing in a whole new audience from the educational sector and the wider legacy agencies involved in the 2012 Olympic and 2014 Commonwealth Games.   

What really interests me about t

hese examples is the process of building a community of interest around this citizen media project.  #CitizenRelay works on the basis of a distributed model of organisation and delivery.  It is not controlled at the centre with standardised procedures implemented in a consistent manner across the country. It does not prescribe what stories the people of Aberdeen, Aviemore or Ayr should tell about the Torch Relay.  It will not be staffed by a crew of professional journalists.  #CitizenRelay is about local circumstances, diverse interests, unique stories, accessible technologies and, most importantly, participatory cultures. And that's why the project has attracted the attention of such a diverse range of individuals and organisations.  In Wester Hailes, Edinburgh, an invitation to WHALE Arts to meet one person spawned into a meeting of seven and involvement in a network of dozens.  A chance interaction with the Station House Media Unit in Aberdeen led to the recruitment of an intern and access to a number of volunteer community media participant.  A retweet to Young Scot is leading to the recruitment of seven Youth Legacy Ambassadors as #citizenrelay reporters.  And perhaps most interestingly, my interactions with WHALE Arts led to a conversation with the Scottish Government's Community Empowerment Unit about their forthcoming Community Empowerment and Renewal Bill.  

#Citizenrelay, building on the vision of #media2012, is an approach, a methodology for enabling participation in a widening media landscape which just happens to be focused on the Olympic Games.  It need not, however, be restricted to those ambitions.  Building on the momentum formed by other community media organisations, including last week's launch of the Institute of Community Reporters, there are significant legacy opportunities which our diverse collaborating individuals and agencies can help take forward towards Glasgow 2014 and the Commonwealth Games.  If #CitizenRelay can be the catalyst to get people involved in being their own media producers then their host communities can harness this capacity to build, or renew, the sort of participation they so desire.  

If you want to get involved or would like to nominate someone from your community to become a #citizenrelay reporter, there is still time to register and attend one of our training days in Inverness (3rd May), Aberdeen (4th May), Glasgow (5th May) and Edinburgh (6th May).  Perhaps this prezi produced by Cameron King, one of our interns will encourage you - watch and share!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

2012.02CitizenRelayInterns.pdf Download this file

We're using social media actively to push the message about #CitizenRelay (@CitizenRelay) and this approach has also borne fruit in what I would describe as the 'sister event' that I'm also heavily involved in at the moment. UWSInteractive Festival (@UWSInteractive), directed by our very own Jennifer Jones runs across UWS' four campuses at the start of March and within the programme I'm responsible for co-ordinating a set of social media surgeries for students.  These surgeries are being staffed by staff and students, a community of practice around social media in the university.  Student champions, working closely with the UWS Student Association and staff from service departments including the UWS Library (@UWSlibrary) and Careers (@UWSElink, demonstrate that innovation and collaboration is possible across a multi-campus institution. Which brings me to the last phrase in the title of this post. The involvement of students in the initiatives discussed here reflects the commitment of a group of staff ay my institution to embrace the ethos behind student as producer.  Rather than be passive consumers of the educational products we provide, the CitizenRelay and UWSInteractive Festival are build on the foundation of student empowerment and creativity - allied to the liberation of staff from their restricted frame of reference too.  We're affecting the conditions of possibility - get involved if you can. 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Having posted two articles towards the end of 2011, it's been a rather slow start to 2012. Anyway, that's all past now and there's a lot to look forward to this year, especially with the Olympic Games circus arriving in London in the summer.  I've talked about the Olympics a few times before on this blog in relation to #media2012, new media and the media festivals that my colleagues Andy Miah and Jennifer Jones and I hope to be involved in this year.  The focus of this post is the Scottish #media2012 agenda and, specifically, a project that has been successful in securing Creative Scotland backing to report on the Olympic Torch Relay as it winds it way around the length and breadth of Scotland.  

Provisionally titled CitizenRelay this project has been conceived to link London 2012 Cultural Olympiad activity and participatory media across Scotland.  The UWS Skillset Media Academy will work closely with individuals and groups around UWS campuses and those colleges and universities part of the Scottish Skillset Network to aggregate content relating to the Cultural Olympiad.  My vision is to provide a space for the oral and visual recording of Scotland’s citizens views on the London 2012 Olympic Torch Relay.   

The project will provide training for student interns from across the Academy network and these interns will then work with a cohort of between 10-15 citizen journalists in each of four geographical areas (Glasgow and the West, Edinburgh and the East, Inverness and the North West and Dundee and the North East).  Each cohort of citizen journalists will receive training on reporting techniques including blogging, photojournalism, interviewing, radio and video.  These sessions will prepare participants technically and raise their awareness of the wider context within which citizen media operates at the Olympics.  Much of the reporting will be undertaken in a mobile fashion. The central activity of CitizenRelay (or #CitizenRelay as it will become) is the Torch Relay, which enters Scotland from Ireland in early June 2012.  Participating groups will participate in a Torch Relay Roadtrip, following the torch around Scotland and developing an alternative narrative to that created by other ‘official’ media organisations.  Citizen reporters will produce video, audio, blogs, short films and other creative content which will then appear on a Scottish sub-domain of the UK-wide, #media2012 space.

There's lots do do before the project ambitions are realised in the middle of 2012, but the possibilities are significant. We're talking mobile apps, film, documentary, blogs and the like.  If you'd like to know more, volunteer support, provide citizen reporters or give us a vehicle to take us around the country then please get in touch! 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I thought I'd sign off 2011 with a short post reviewing the way that I have been immersed in the debates and discussions about the 'social' over the last year since making the move to the University of the West of Scotland.  The last 12 months represents by far the most 'social' experience I've encountered in Higher Education, largely because of a culture that was already in existence at UWS and specifically in the School of Creative and Cultural Industries.  In using the term social I'm referring to an environment that encourages conversation (online and off), creative thinking, collaborative working and sharing.  The other key feature of the social 'turn' that I've experienced is that it's strategic rather than ad hoc and by chance.  To deliver on a social strategy in HE it is imperative that the structures in place enable (and actively encourage) meaningful conversation to take place.  These structures may be physical or virtual but they need to provide a framework within which individual staff members can enjoy a creative license whilst at the same time allowing the unit (whether department, research group, School, Faculty or University) to aggregate and amplify content for greater internal and external impact.

Taking inspiration from the integrated digital identities fostered by my colleagues Andy Miah, Jennifer Jones and Graham Jeffery, I have spent 2011 trying to develop a presence which allows me to communicate with others about ideas beyond the restricted space of academic journals, books and conferences. Utilising social tools and technologies, including blogs, Twitter, academia.edu and Google docs has revolutionalised the way I function as an academic - for the good.  I still focus on publishing in 'traditional' academic outlets (the REF requires it!) but this is supplemented with much more frequent commentaries on social media channels and via this blog. As a result, my work has become more public facing, primarily due to the power of the social in the form of retweets, comments, recommendations and the like.  Although a crude measure of impact, this blog alone has secured more views than I could ever have imagined receiving from other traditional academic practices. Of course, developing a social strategy in HE (whether at the individual or collective level) requires investment in time and a clear sense of purpose as to what you're trying to achieve - but if done well, the rewards come in the form of greater interaction with academics and others from outside the sector and more meaningful conversations which can lead to a myriad of interesting new directions.  

One new direction that grew out of my investment in the social was the Social Media in the South of Scotland project that Jennifer Jones and I have delivered within predominantly rural communities at the latter end of 2011. This project has been about making businesses understand that to be social can be a real strength in managing their activities, despite how counter-intuitive this feels.  We created a sociable setting for our social media surgeries and provided 1-2-1 support around everything social media, working to personalise advice where possible.  

The model has been tremendously successful and we're now being asked to devise similar projects for a variety of business sectors.  Here, the social in HE is less about individual academic connectedness and the production of greater impact on the basis of developing a clear communication strategy.  Instead, this is a social strategy that connects the University with one of its main audiences and debunks the myths about the academic ivory towers.  Perhaps even more importantly, the project aligns closely with the expertise of staff in the School of CCI and is, therefore, part of a wider vision to embed the social in every area of academic practice. 

Naming 2011 as the Year of the Social also refers to the way that those involved in the delivery of learning, teaching and assessment have begun to embrace the possibilities of social media for students and staff alike. Having a learning and teaching role, I am now pursuing, with a community of interest developed predominantly through Twitter, a institutional-wide initiative which aims to utilise the resources of committed, interested and enthusiastic staff (rather than external providers) to embed social media surgeries into the University system.  Rather than fearing the impact of social media in educational settings, I want to use proactive staff and students to integrate good practice by stealth, using core University spaces (e.g. libraries and cafes).  Thinking strategically, this approach will allow the University to promote its new Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy through actions rather than just words.  Two years ago, these debates would not have been possible because (the) social theory was poorly understood.  My esteemed colleagues in CCI have demonstrated, through action, what is possible and it is now affecting change at the institutional level. 

Sorry for being a little more lengthy than originally promised!  As I look forward to 2012, it may be that we will be talking about the intensification of the social.  If that's the case, let's participate in an informed debate on whichever channel or platform you prefer.  Last week, I participated in a meeting with a company in Canada whilst sitting in my home and over the course of an hour I used skype, go to meeting, join.me, email and Twitter.  The limits of geography are well and truly eroded but other impediments remain in place - especially the obstacle of attitude which limits what is possible in 2012 and beyond.  I'll be back in touch in 2012.  Enjoy an extremely sociable festive period!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Just in time. As we near the end of 2011, I was asked to submit an article to the online journal Culture@the Olympics, edited by Professor Andy Miah and Dr Beatriz Garcia. In the past, several prominent academic colleagues have advised never to say 'no' to requests of this sort so I worked to a tight turnaround and produced an article focused on my research with Matt Frew (aka @graffiticloud) on Olympic Live Sites and World Cup Fan Parks in the lead up to the London 2012 Olympic Games.  I hope you enjoy and would welcome your comments here before or after the festive period. Here's the article in full and for other recent Culture @ the Olympics resources go here. 

Mixed_Reality_Mega_Event_C@tO.pdf Download this file

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

The event format was interesting because of the variety of participants invited. There was academic representation (cultural policy, literature, publishing, events and festivals) alongside a healthy number of practitioners, and a policy maker or two. Stimulated by an open set of questions about opportunities and challenges for literary festivals, the ensuing discussion was rich, passionate and insightful. There were no quirky 'post-it' note shenanigans - the more traditional discussion and debate format lent itself to a meaningful set of what us academics might call 'research questions' - formed 'with' rather than 'for' the practitioner community. For example, Alistair Moffat was in attendance, representing Bookfestival Scotland (http://www.bookfestivalscotland.com/), a collaboration of 41 literary festivals across the length and breadth of Scotland. For us researchers, being able to hear of the challenges faced by literary festivals on the ground helps to ensure our subsequent generation of research problems is informed, based on already-existing evidence and in tune with the needs of the research users.

So, the format worked well - discussions had to be curtailed rather than stimulated. What if the content? Well, for this post it is worth articulating the issues of relevance in two ways - 1) those common to other festival genres and 2) those specific to the field of literary festivals.

As I listened to the impassioned debate around the value of literary festivals to Scottish society, I was struck by the degree of commonality between all festival types. To summarise, the issues appear to be:

i) how to 'make the case' effectively for the value of these events - tied into an unsatisfactory set of criteria (largely economic) which merely scrape the surface of the meaning of literacy festivals to their stakeholders (authors, publishers, audiences, communities)

ii) how to reach into new markets and addressing new policy agendas whilst flat out delivering the festival itself

iii) diminishing sponsorship and increased competition for the audiences' attention (whether from other festival types or from other firms if entertainment)

iv) how to secure the right balance between star attractions (signature events) and emerging and/or niche interest artists. The economic imperative drives festivals towards big hitters but at what cost to the ethos of the event? Is the participation objective conceded to ticket sales and profile raising?

Although these issues might be relatively common across festival types, the event also highlighted a few unique features/research problems for literary festivals:

i) the role of literature (and literacy) in narrowing the democratic deficit which exists in a de-politicised civic realm

ii) why Scotland has one of the highest number of literacy festivals per capita in the world

iii) what impact digital innovations have on the status of the book and on the practice of book readings at the heart of the literacy festival template

iv) the extent to which the literary festival has been influenced by the trend towards an experience economy and its impact on the nature of event production and consumption, thereafter.

Whilst not an exhaustive list (many more issues were discussed today) I think these research questions/problems encapsulate the general thrust of the event and its outcomes. This the start of a process which could lead to a series of research enquiries into the status of the literary festival in the nation that made such a significant contribution to the Enlightenment. Any other views?

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

The London 2012 Olympic Games will involve fan participation in a number of ways, with Live Sites around the UK and the Torch Relay being the most obvious. These two initiatives encourage (at least superficially) spectators to move from a passive to an active role, involving them more meaningfully in the outcome of the event itself. Moreover, these events are also perceived to represent 'authentic' encounters with the spirit of the Games through a call for community involvement. Because the Live Sites and Torch Relay have avoided the charge of exclusivity made against sporting events (i.e. Ticketing), they have also been viewed as attractive vehicles for Olympic sponsors looking to secure greater reach into the wider population - to justify the significant spend many have committed to the London 2012 megaspectacle.

One pertinent example of this approach is Lloyds TSB, an official sponsor that has been extremely successful at exploiting locality and community to raise awareness of its Olympic sponsorship and to secure positive PR for the company at time when banks are facing unheralded public condemnation. Lloyds claims it's 'bringing the Games closer to you' - emphasising its community focus as an antidote to the vagaries of global capitalism. Social media campaigns have been instrumental in creating widespread awareness of Lloyds TSB as an Olympic sponsor and this takes me back to the experiential dimension which provided the motivation for this post. Whereas the (Corporate) Olympics and other major sporting events are regularly criticised for being detached from those they are intended to benefit, moves towards greater spectator engagement gives the impression of interest in sustainable, collaborative models of working. However, experiential initiatives are invariably framed by the language of commerce (activation, monetization, comms), using the terminology of engagement, interaction and ownership to give the impression of a conscious capitalism (or capitalism with a conscience). The problem with the prescribed spaces of experiential consumption (i.e. The Live Sites) is that they are too often seen as an extension of Olympic brand management rather than being a space for creative engagement with the Games themselves. Securitised, dressed with official sponsor imagery and broadcasting adverts for official sponsors in controlled spaces - the opportunity for meaningful two-way interactions are lost.

There's more to say on this topic and I'm involved in a couple of projects that will hopefully evaluate the outcomes of both the Torch Relay and UK-wide Live Sites. Maybe I'll be convinced.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

It's taken me a few days to blog about a Research and Knowledge Exchange event I attended last week at Creative Scotland's swanky Waverley Gate premises in Edinburgh.  The title of the event was research and knowledge exchange in the Creative Industries: Impact and Effect and it was a joint effort on behalf of the Institute for Capitalising on Creativity (St Andrews University) and Strathclyde University.  The running order is available here:

Sept_30.pdf Download this file

It's important to stress that the audience was not naive to the requirement to 'measure', or even to demonstrate an economic return for the investment of public resources into the arts and cultural sector.  Rather, there was a sense that increasingly standardised 'checklist' models of assigning value were too blunt a tool. Although presenting findings on the economic impact of the Edinburgh Festivals, Ulrike Chouguley of BOP Consulting provided an interesting angle on the 'value' of these internationally renowned events, suggesting that cultural experience emerged as the most important driver of economic impact.  She also challenged existing conventional wisdom in relation to the concept of additionality because, for small festivals, local spend (which is important to their activities) is not captured and, yet, might be of fundamental importance to the contribution of the festivals socially and culturally.  That discussion led me to comment that we should be focusing more on return on objectives (ROO) rather than return on investment (ROI) as a more holistic method of evaluating the success of a particular event or cultural activity.  Of course, for this to be possible, there needs to be a productive dialogue with those policy makers and political leaders who shape the meta-narrative around the value of any public investment and I'm not suggesting that will be easy - particularly in a period of intense scrutiny on public resources. That said, if arts and cultural organisations are currently unable to make their case effectively because the language and method of legitimation is alien to it, then something needs to be done. With the marketisation of arts and culture and just about everything else, it cannot be a surprise to anyone that we are tied into a phrase regime of ROI.  

However, one presentation at the event provided an alternative way of looking at the role of arts, culture and creativity - one that foregrounded the importance of people, place and community as a means of (eventually) providing a sustainable economic model.  Professor Alan Pert, of the University of Strathclyde's Centre for Community Practice (CCP) and NORD talked eloquently of a local campaign to save the Govanhill Baths in the Southside of Glasgow.  Most striking was the way in which research, arts and culture and policy makers interacted in the course of a successful campaign to re-open this historic community resource despite originally being the victim of the test of ROI by Glasgow City Council.  By demonstrating the centrality of this communal space to the people of this ward and working closely with them to develop the capacity and confidence to overturn the original decision to close the pool, a bright new future is being 'created'.  Art, music, festivals and other creative practices are at the heart of the Govanhill project and, somewhat ironically, the local council is now contracting with the CCP to provide services in the area - perhaps a demonstration that cultural institutions need to play the long game in persuading governments of their value to people and to places. 

All in all, the event was thoroughly enjoyable and left me with a set of questions that I hope you can help answer:

1. How can arts and cultural organisations influence the criteria upon which they are judged by funders and policy makers?
2. How can arts and cultural organisations make the case that they should be judged on their objectives and not simply on narrow judgements of return on investment?
3. How can arts and cultural organisations secure greater public understanding of the value of their activities in light of competing calls for public resources and the prevailing economic imperatives

Note the absence of a checklist to capture your responses...

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Having participated in a few 'events' relating to social media over the last week or so, I thought it necessary to blog about the status of social media use in HE and how we can learn from what is happening outside of the ivory towers that we (apparently) occupy. Two main events motivated this post - first an internal university workshop on social media in HE and second, attendance at Glasgow's social media week (@socialmediaweek, #SMWgla).

The first event was an internal one and involved @grahamjeffery and I delivering an informal, relaxed and discursive workshop on social media in HE with senior colleagues in the Faculty of Business and Creative industries (see slides).  In a two-hour session we were able to de-mystify the social media phenomenon, drawing attention to its potential rather than emphasising the 'risks' associated with Twitter, Facebook and blogs.  As you'll see from the slides, there are a number of ways that HE institutions can utilise social media (learning & teaching, communication, b2b activity and knowledge exchange).  However, few institutions have a coherent strategy for their use of social media and this is why it is so important to ensure people at every level of the organisation are informed about the good and bad of various tools and techniques. In my own institution, there are pockets of real expertise and we need to harness this for the benefit of other Faculties if we are to effectively use social media. 

Social_media_in_BCI.pptx Download this file

At the second event, social media week in Glasgow, I sat through (and contributed to) a very engaging session on CNN and Nokia's engagement with social media for breaking news. Peter Bale (@PeterBaleCNN) and Craig Hepburn (@craighepburn) discussed the implications of social media for news organisations and I think their advice is something that HE institutions can certainly learn from if they are to successfully harness the power of social media as a learning and promotional tool.  To quote some of the phrases used by Peter and Craig, they urged organisations to 'listen', to 'cede control', to 'accept that the audience makes you more accountable' and to 'manage the flow of information' (rather than discouraging it).  The key thrust of this session was that traditional journalism practice is being transformed by social media and the journalist is increasingly 'decentred' - a phrase that was also used in the 'social media for HE' session I hosted the previous week.  In HE, it is the academic (and their knowledge claims) that is being decentred.  He institutions seem to be in a mindset to dismiss Peter Bale's advice to 'cede control' and 'accept that the audience makes you more accountable', yet surely educational establishments should be the ideal place for conversation, connecting, critique and communication.  

One of my roles is to promote innovation in learning and teaching (hence my participation in an awareness raising workshop for senior staff) and that brings with it a responsibility to consider how we can embrace available technologies to deal with identified needs across my Faculty.  I've been playing with the potential of Audioboo for recording short audio and sharing this in learning and teaching contexts. Why not use this 'free' tool for recording general feedback on a bundle of essay scripts?

Why not utilise the 5 minute podcast available to provide oral feedback to those students who prefer that medium, or those studying at distance?  It's more personal, it could well be more efficient for staff and it can be recorded and uploaded directly from a smart phone device or sitting at your computer.  Like Voicethread, students could also record their own reflections to be shared with the rest of the class, or even to be assessed formatively (e.g. a five minute presentation on a key concept).  

Audioboo is also a really cool tool for recording your thoughts and sharing them when perhaps you have little time to create a blog post.  I'll leave you with an example of my shorter audio version of this blog post, created yesterday.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Let's just say it took a while to complete...!  Today is a bit of a watershed for me having finally received delivery of two shiny new copies of my first full (co) authored book, Event Policy: From Theory to Strategy.  If you've just clicked on the link, you will find that the publishers website is yet to include an image of the book cover (perhaps if you're reading this in a few weeks time that will have been sorted), so I've gone to the bother of taking my own photograph to provide you with a visual aid to assist in your purchasing decision:-)

1. The proposal.  Coming up with the initial 'idea' for a book is pretty easy -  developing the proposal in a format likely to impress a potential publisher is much more difficult.  When pitching the idea for Event Policy (Amazon link this time!), my co-authors and I had to provide a 30-page document with a detailed synopsis and chapter headings, market demand (evidence based), likely competitors, a example chapter and the names of five reviewers who could give an informed perspective on the suitability of the proposal.  Suffice to say, the process was extremely rigorous and, to be honest, pretty scary.  Thankfully, the outcome of the review process was a book commission with Routledge (@Routledgebooks)
2. Writing.  Everyone has some advice for you on this issue. 'you'll need a sabbatical', 'write 500 words a day', 'always leave a sentence half complete when you finish for the day' etc, etc.  Anyway, for what it's worth, I went for the low-tech, convenient option of taking to my local public libraries (Langside and Giffnock).  Here I diligently read and wrote, arriving at opening time and departing when the lights went out. The silence was off-putting at first, but looking back, I now miss the simplicity of it all.  My advice on writing is make sure you stop on a high - having produced a sentence or paragraph you're proud of.  Oh, and maintain momentum - don't concede the precious day or half day easily..
3. Interaction with publisher.  At the outset, you think (I thought) there will be monthly meetings, high pressure summits, detailed discussions over style and substance. The reality was that interaction was light touch, I hope because my co-authors and I were conscientious and industrious, but more likely because publishers simply don't have time to check up on progress at regular intervals.  In effect, I solicited discussion with Routledge and asked of them the questions I'd expected them to ask of me.  I think this worked - so my advice would be, don't wait for the call thinking that there's plenty of time to work on the manuscript.  Take the bull by the horns and challenge them to help make the final product as good as it can be.
4. The end game.  It should be the most exciting part of publishing a book, but it was probably the most frustrating element.  Submitting the manuscript was fine - a temporary release when someone else takes responsibility for that 'thing' for a few weeks.  However, the waiting around, the proof reading, the corrections, the acknowledgements, the foreword...where does it end?  Well, I guess it should only really be the start. So what if we think it's a good read, makes a contribution to the field or has a cool cover - others ultimately decide.  Conventional publishing practice around library recommendations, reviews, conferences and the like are great, but my sense is that we need to do more (publishers and authors) to allow people to interact with our publications.  We need to generate 'buzz', show a willingness to engage in conversation with potential readers (or purchasers) about the content we've produced (@dgmcgillivray if you want to test this out!) and then hope that the publication of a new text (in whatever field) generates debate and discussion, rather than just another pretty cover on a disused library shelf.

Of course, working in academia at this time, there is little time to sit back and enjoy the results of your endeavours - it's onto the next output, looking for the right star rating and trying to make the 'impact' our institutional leaders expect. But, back to my original question, it is worth it in the end, if only for the bubble-coated Aquatic Centre cover (thanks to @andymiah!)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Reading a blog post entitled, 'The Olympic Super Brands take over London' by former BBC sports editor Mihir Bose, got me thinking about one of the main arguments in my Event Policy: From Theory to Strategy book which is published by Routledge at the end of this month.  Within the post, Bose talks about the IOC's clean-city policy, whereby host cities sign up, contractually, to ensure that advertising is controlled across the city during Games time. The organising committee gets control of the sites and makes them available to the sponsors and third party advertising is prohibited.  You don't win the rights to host an Olympic Games unless you sign the Host City Contract (HCC) which lays out the rights and responsibilities of all partners in delivering the Games, but the general public know very little about exactly what the host (i.e. London) is actually signing them up for and the practicalities of living in the host city during Games time.  In this post I want to draw attention to the sheer scale of sacrifices that host cities have to make during Games time and link these trends to a more general 'privatisation of space' which urban dwellers have experienced over the last two decades - in neoliberalised economies at least.   

As Bose articulates in his post, the HCC requires that the major Olympics sponsors have (essentially) a blank canvas to work with at Games time and existing advertising space must be removed to permit this takeover of urban space.  This urban space includes civic sites (e.g. squares, parks etc) and not just advertising hoardings.  Olympic sponsors can, almost at will, dress the city with their corporate logos and transform the cityscape completely for the duration of the event - well that's what they're paying for, after all.  As citizens (well, consumers), we are limited in what we can purchase in (previously) open 'public spaces' and once we get near the Olympic venues, we have to check whether we've inadvertently kitted ourselves out in the attire of a non-Olympic sponsor - if that is the case, then expect to to asked to remove said item of clothing by the brand police (who will quite possibly be volunteers!).  In the name of product protection, the entire city of London will be cleansed, not just of litter or graffiti but of inappropriate free riders of all sorts.  Now, whilst the extent of this urban cleansing is unprecedented, the trend towards our urban environments becoming branded spaces is clear for all to see.  Naomi Klein famously drew attention to the colonising effects of global capitalism in her seminal text, No Logo in 2000, but she was by no means the first (or the last) theorist to express concern at the implications of global brand proliferation for the urban dweller. Drawing on some excerpts from the aforementioned Event Policy book, it is clear that the clean-city concept is a logical outcome of a trend towards consuming cities.  Referring to the role of events and festivals, we argue that:

In the last decade of the twentieth and the early part of the twenty-first century in the developed West, it can be argued that events and festivals have been accorded significant value predominantly because of their contribution to economic development and place promotion. The outcome of the post-industrial commitment to consumption and experiences is that urban environments are now open to marketing activity in the same way that product promotion is understood. Events or festivals – whether mega sporting (Roche, 2000) or cultural – have become one of the key strategic tools in re-packaging a city for tourism consumption. They focus attention, kickstart or showcase image enhancement projects, galvanize local political actors and pressurizes governments to ensure the watching and visiting world leaves with positive impressions of the locale.  The extreme cases, of the Olympic Games or World Cups are clearly about accumulation strategies disconnected from the specificities of the ‘local’, parachuting in global brands to transform a living, breathing urban metropolis into a Truman Show-like set.

In the name of 'progress' (economically-speaking), planning regulations can be fast-tracked, new legislation must (as part of the HCC) be passed to protect sponsor investments and cities spaces are zoned and secured to ensure the gaze of spectators is fixed only upon the 'official' partners offerings.  Of course, there are many (including myself) that are critical of the extent of this shift to consumption, arguing that cities are perhaps ‘over-determined by the provisions they make for consumers’ (Miles and Miles, 2004: 2). Again from our Consuming Cities chapter:

There is a problematic emanating from the local state’s commitment to branded events designed primarily to attract affluent mobile capital. Whilst these events may satisfy the lifestyle aspirations of the sought-after tourist audiences, they may also exacerbate the exclusionary processes that exist within the urban milieu of post-industrial cities – in essence, the consumption-led events city may divide as much as it provides.  Instead of opening up the city and its civic spaces to a wider section of the population, corporate culture can colonize, mark space and define who belongs and who does not. As private capital is accepted, and welcomed, by civic authorities, the cultures of cities become contested as sites of conflict about who has the right to use them. Events are increasingly choreographed and involve major sponsors looking to secure international profile from media exposure. However, these events now essentially colonize civic space and then proceed to make this space like a gated community where barriers are erected, security guards are employed and CCTV cameras are ubiquitous.  If there is little tangible benefit to the local arising from explicit place promotion activity and local actors represent mere props on the theatre stage, which is designed for incoming visitors then there is a danger that the consuming city becomes merely and abstract concept that generates impressive returns to the few (e.g. hotels, retail, PR, financial services) as opposed to the many.

I certainly have fears that the clean-city concept so integral to the commercial agreements in place around Olympic Games are simply an extension of a more generalised trend towards the privatisation and securitisation of public space in our urban environments.  How many of realise what securing the 'rights' to host an Olympic Games means for a host city?  Does it matter that one advertisement is taken down to replaced by another during Games time?  We're told, 'there is no other way', 'it's not something we can control' and, to the extent that our commitment to urban entrepreneurial forms of government is all pervasive, I agree. I think we need a more transparent debate long before we bid for global megaspectacles to ensure we know what we're giving up by 'winning' an Olympics or other event - enhancing the public understanding of the value of events and festivals.  Few of us would disagree with the notion of a clean city - but once we know what this means in Olympic terms, then perhaps we would think differently.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

It's been a while...my self-imposed break from blogging about all things #highered, #socialmedia and #olympics has now come to an end and I have new content to share with you all today.The motivation for this post came from a blog post I read earlier today by Patrick Powers about Why Google+ will work for HE.  It got me thinking about some of the reactions I've received in my own institution as I eulogise about the possibilities for social media in transforming the way academics and academic institutions engage with their students and other stakeholders.  Patrick emphasises the potential of Google+ to provide the HE sector with a more effective means of interacting with students, whilst also protecting their privacy and the reputation of the institution.  With these points I agree. However, I'm a little less sure about how this will work in practice.  It is unhelpful to talk about the HE institution as a homogenous unit - instead, we need to consider that the interests of the corporate body, academic and support staff, students, alumni, industrial partners differ significantly. Scanning the HE environment as part of my interest in the use of social media in learning and teaching, I see a real disparity between the interests of marketing departments serving the needs of the 'university as brand' and the instincts of academic staff looking to explore the possible uses of social media in (and outside of) the classroom.  Patrick Power's blog post tends to reduce the role of social media to unidirectional communication 'messaging' to what he calls 'targeted audiences'.  His claims for the potential of Google+ are invested primarily with the language of commerce, overlooking the pedagogical possibilities that social media permits.  I experienced a similar discourse whilst chairing two sessions on social media for learning and teaching at my institution's annual Learning & Teaching conference.  The predominant critical narrative was what i would term the regulatory urge, concerned with the development of responsible use guidelines covering social media in the university context.  The argument goes that use of these freely available spaces needs to be regulated, that students cannot be trusted to use them sensitively and that anarchy will prevail - leading to the inevitable reputational damage which does no-one any good.  If I were working in a corporate marketing role and had spent considerable time and financial resources to build a credible brand then I would probably agree with this regulatory urge and seek to control the messages coming out from the institution in a systematic way.  I also agree that it is necessary for institutions to develop some guidance for the responsible use of Twitter, Facebook, Google+, but this should be the outcome of an educational process (for staff, students, support departments, senior managers) so that social media is demystified and the resulting guidelines are co-created rather than being imposed.  

This process of dymystification was started at the aforementioned Learning and Teaching conference where 6 presenters focused on the innovative use of social media to enhance the student experience, secure greater engagement, facilitate greater connectivity, produce an enriched information resource (for staff and students), create more personalised forms of learning and teaching (e.g. Zite for Ipad), foster networked learning and place students as producers (as opposed to just consumers) of their own learning.  There was broad agreement that we need to start with pedagogical principles and then select the most apposite tools, ensure ‘support’ is provided and then empower students to run with it.  WIth over 25 people attending each social media session, it is clear that there is interest in exploring the possibilities brought about by new ways of thinking about learning and the freely available tools to turn this into action.  Of course, there are also legitimate areas of concern, including lack of knowledge and time (perceived) to effectively exploit social media in a L&T environment, definitional difficulties and ethical isses, the blurring of public/private lives and worries about the managing multiple forms of communication.  These are legitimate worries which can(and should) be addressed in a wider debate about pedagogy and practice, rather than being used as a rationale to support the regulatory urge.  If anything social media is about sociality, conversations, collaborations, connections and immediacy.  The HE sector needs to be careful not to fall prey to a moral panic over the dangers of social media, but instead embrace the possibilities and take a mature and measured approach to the integration of these tools and techniques to enhance learning (rather than just communication) experiences.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

This week I had the pleasure of attending the Play the Game "Challenges for Football" conference at Aarhus University.  Hosted by the Active Institute, I was invited to present a keynote on the theme of mega events and new media, with a particular focus on the #media2012 initiative which UWS colleagues Professor Andy Miah, Jennifer Jones and I are leading on in the UK.  My presentation was located within a tract titled Innovation/Technology and I will talk here predominantly of the discussions which took place between participants in those sessions.  You can access my presentation here, but it is worth summarising my main arguments, via the conclusions.  I argued that "boundaries are blurring between new and mainstream media as each extends reach into others’ territory. There is evidence of the (successful) appropriation of new media by the corporate sport-media nexus and the resultant tsunami of narratives serves to reduce ‘space’ for alternative discourses. Yet, conversely, controlling the mega event message is increasingly difficult as established broadcast media strategies collide with the networking capacity of web 2.0 (and 3.0) and the popularity of social software to communicate alternative readings of events quickly. Initiatives like #media2012 provide an alternative ‘space’ (and platform) to report mega events, free of 'imposed' guidelines and restricted editorial control – but these initiatives also need to avoid falling into new media silos or bubbles whereby they reside only within restricted frame and reify online spaces to the detriment of other ways of being”.  I think we're seeing the ethos of new media (or social media) for citizen use being contested by powerful corporations and federations that fully understand the potential of these platforms whilst underestimating the problematic of 'control' within these new spaces.  

Aarhus_presentation.pdf Download this file

(Thanks to Alexander Zolotarev for the photo!)

Kristian Strobech (@kstrobech) & Nils Mulvad along with Rasmus Johnsen (@rjohnsen1) (see us all in the photo) are involved in a fascinating experiment which takes those aspiring to be professional journalists into the world of social media to report news about the U21 European Championships in Denmark 'as it happens'.  Students were granted exemptions from their studies for a month to cover the championships and embraced various social media tools and platforms to produce interactive, immediate and, most importantly, quality coverage of the event.  Kristian and Nils illustrated the innovative nature of the project during their presentation.

.

They have also developed a rather cool Storify site which curates the content being produced by students and, again, provides lessons for how our #media2012 project can come to fruition through our interactions with FE and HE media/journalism centres. I really liked the idea that trained 'professional' journalists had recognised the transformative power of social media and, rather than reject it out of hand, they embraced it and developed a unique approach that we can all learn from.  I'm looking forward to working with these guys in the near future...

To close, the conference was advertised as being about the challenges of football but I was fortunate enough to be part of two sessions which were more concerned with the challenges created by, and facing, social media for journalists, mega events, citizens and corporations. International networks can only be sustained if there is a reason for being together and a shared commitment to pursue meaningful projects for all partners.  I think we've got the potential to use the ease of connectivity that social media provides to make this emerging network very real for all concerned.  Thanks to beautiful Aarhus for bringing us together.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I'm talking about both mega events and looking to compare how (and why) they differ in terms if their new media presence. Both event owners have certainly embraced new media (relatively recently), though I will argue that their use of these platforms remains restricted by a focus on read-only, as opposed to read-write, forms of communication - based on a desire to control the message in a uni-directional manner. Whilst keen to 'appear' to look more participatory, open and willing to listen, I will suggest that these supranational organisations (an their principal commercial backers) have appropriated new media channels (especially their 'ethos') to secure greater reach and financial return.

I'll also be talking about the different mega event phases (pre- event, during, post) and their importance in understanding the construction of new (potentially alternative) media narratives. During the FIFA World Cup in South Africa, for example, media coverage (inc social media) did focus on economic, political and social dimensions i.e.non-sport but during the tournament sporting coverage dominates across every media platform and social media power is certainly not yet strong enough to compete with rights paying media in amplifying socio-political messages for the unvoiced.

That said, an event owner like the IOC has shown signs, since 2009, of loosening its tight grip on the unaccredited media blackout on 'official' Olympic content (e.g.photo sharing). It now has a new media guru (@balf) and recognises the growing power and influence of these channels.

The final theme I'll be emphasising is around the notion of a 'tsunami of narratives', a phrase coined by an ex-colleague, Matt Frew (http://bit.ly/grW8Kl). It applies perfectly to the new media and mega events topic as a host of actors try to get themselves heard using the latest in read-write technological platforms. The problem is that the powerful media producers are invading the spaces of what has recently been described as the 'peoples media' to capture greater market share - leaving a quandary for proponents of independent journalism or citizen media. Is there a discrete space for all? If people choose mainstream media producers masquerading as citizen media adherents is this not simply an illustration of informed choice? Should oppositional stances be softened to find a middle ground where the cacophony of voices can be heard while not threatening the existing order of things? Hopefully these questions will be the focus of discussions next week - and I'll be back with more thoughts on the matter then...

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

We were, of course, emphasising the positive features of the surgery model - short appointments, drop-in facility, one-to-one attention with a resident 'expert' etc, etc. People are used to surgeries we thought and will be comfortable mingling with others whilst they wait for Dr McG to be free. The CCA provided the ideal ambience for these informal sessions and the personal touch certainly eliminated many of the barriers that are erected when you mention the term 'social media'. As a means of gathering end user data on what they need, how they want to use social media and their skill gaps this is an effective model. We are told that to be 'scalable', to borrow from the discourse of business, requires a less time intensive approach and more standardised delivery format's. However, I would argue that the strength of social media (philosophically as well as practically) is its openness, fluidity, immediacy, playfulness and powerful ability of create being innovations forth. To stifle that in the name of standardisation, systematisation, regulation, 'training' and risk management could, in the long run, be counterproductive. In the medical world there has been a shift towards a discourse of patient-centred care, empowerment and choice. Let's enshrine similar principles to the collaborative pursuit of digital literacies in the HE sector.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Anyway, I'd like to share some thoughts with you in the hope that I'll get some ideas in response! Firstly, at the end of July this year, it will be 'one year to go' for London 2012 and 'three years to go' for Glasgow 2014. Events are being held across Scotland celebrating these milestones, coordinated by EventScotland. For these events to 'work' effectively to promote Games' messages across the country, there needs to be a 'buzz' created, from Stornoway to Stranraer. It is relatively easy to generate activity in Glasgow and for this content to be communicated on the web and through social media channels. However, what about promoting content generated in Renfrewshire, Ayrshire, Lanarkshire and the like? Glasgow 2014 needs active citizens on the ground to report on the 'Games for Scotland' events which will take across all 32 local authorities, securing greater 'participation' and 'ownership' from the resident population. How do universities, colleges, community groups and others go about participating? Here's a few ideas:

1. Media teams (coordinated through universities, colleges, etc) in each area, trained to use accessible equipment (e.g flip cameras) uploading content to a national platform (#media2014)
2. Official media outlets link with #media2014 both for 'hyper-local' content and to share their own locally generated stories
3. Initiative is piloted at 'three years to go' in five locations involving UWS (Renfrewshire, South Ayrshire and North Lanarkshire), Edinburgh Napier (Edinburgh and the East and RGU (Aberdeen and North East)
4. Link in with Young Scot programme for training young people to use media equipment - contributing to human and (potentially) social capital legacies
5. Funding bid to support roll out of initiative for 'two years to go' so that structures well embedded in advance of 2014.

Ideally, universities and colleges would handover (or help train) citizen reporters in the final two years, developing capacity and resilience to participate in reporting local stories well beyond 2014.

So there's some thoughts. How would this be funded? What guidelines would govern participation, what training would be necessary, how would local content aggregated and would it be micro site of Glasgow 2014 or completely independent? Over to you.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

This post is motivated by my experiences over the last few days with two academic membership associations I'm affiliated with. Both experiences were generally positive, but I was left thinking that they could have been so much better had we been able to introduce some new thinking into the way they engage their members (or affiliates).  The first experience I want to share with you was my (long) trip to London last week to attend a Leisure Studies Association Executive Committee meeting.  I was elected to the Executive Committee last year and had, until last Wednesday, made a less meaningful contribution to the activities of the LSA than I would have wished.  The LSA has been in existence since 1975 and is an established learned association for the study of all things non-work (sport, entertainment, tourism, media etc).  I presented my first conference paper at the LSA annual conference and have always felt that the Association provided a welcome community of critical scholars addressing an area of study previously deemed frivolous by many.  The LSA has played a significant role in legitimating the serious study of leisure and, for that reason it is held in high regard by many.  However, as with a number of other academic associations, threats to the ongoing sustainability are increasing.  These threats, some internal, some external, can be summarised as:

1. A growing specialisation within the study of leisure which has led to new associations and a movement away from the more 'general' interests represented by the LSA
2. An internal uncertainly over the purpose and role of the LSA in light of the emergence of new associations and the decline in named academic awards in 'Leisure Studies' (there are very few of these now in existence in the UK)
3. New networks formed around common interests and operating through the use of contemporary communication techniques (e.g. digital marketing)

At Thursday's meeting I was to speak on the potential use of social media as a means of re-energising the 'message' that the LSA had to communicate to existing members and new recruits.  I argued that the LSA (like other associations of its type) need to be clear on the 'offer' it makes to members - what members gain from signing up annually (in tangible and symbolic terms).  Moreover, it needs to be proactive in getting that message out to the wider audience of leisure-related scholars and other governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. I was duly volunteered to work on the LSA's digital media strategy - taking the excellent content produced by its members (in terms of publications, public roles and excellent conferences) and turning this into positive messages to attract the attention of the wider world.  The LSA already has a presence on some social media channels (Facebook and Twitter), but we need to develop a more coherent strategy whereby being a member of the LSA also carries with it a responsibility to participate in the promotion of its activities, on the basis that the LSA will also work to promote the work of its members and shape the debate around the importance of leisure provision for the economy, policy, consumption and inclusion.  Crucially, we need to encourage members to be more than 'affiliated' to the LSA - we need active members, proselytising about the Association and its activities.  

My other experience, which links to the theme of Associations and Affiliations is the Association for Event Management Education (AEME) which is a member-based association for HEIs and FE colleges delivering event management education.  This is a younger organisation than the LSA but it faces some of the same challenges.  Since its establishment, AEME has successfully signed up most of the UK HEIs delivering event management or related programmes of study (over 40 institutions), but I wonder whether this early success indicates an active group of innovators wanting to shape the future of the sector or a group of institutions wanting to ensure they are part of the club so as not to be left behind.  There is a difference here.  With finances tightening across the UK HE sector, resource managers will increasingly question the added value accrued from institutional membership and it is up to our academic associations to communicate this to members. And communication is the key word. Whilst others race ahead in their use of the web, social media and other digital marketing strategies to strengthen affiliations with their customers, I would argue strongly that the academic community needs to wake up and embrace the world of new new media (Levinson 2009) if they are to be sustainable within an increasingly crowded market.  As Digital Media Strategist for the LSA, I need to walk the talk too!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Over recent months, I've been involved in a number of research projects that have, at their core, a concern with the way the events policy terrain has developed in the last decade and, perhaps more importantly, where it is headed.  Projects involving research on the Delhi 2010 Commonwealth Games, the successful Qatar 2022 FIFA World Cup bid and, more recently the role of mega events in strategic global leadership have occupied my 'minimal' research time.  This post draws on a set of thoughts which will be drawn together for publication soon (hopefully!) but I want to generate some commentary and debate before this process is completed.  The ideas expressed here are not (all) my own either, so I will do the right thing and acknowledge the contribution of Professor Gayle McPherson (@gmp01) and Professor Malcolm Foley for their contribution to these debates!

As we think about the changing dynamic of event policy, especially around major sporting spectacles, it is worth thinking about the drivers for dramatic changes which will result in Russia, Brazil and Qatar hosting these mega events in the foreseeable future.  Demand is a key issue.  More nations now realize the value of mega sporting events to ‘fix’ their destination aspirations in the minds of potential investors, residents and visitors alike. The emergence of new global competitors to the events circuit is connected to the pre-eminence of the neoliberalized order, with its associated urban entrepreneurial activity as the dominant discourse governing economic development globally.  When thinking about the specific context of event policy, neoliberalism - as a modality of governance - provides the parameters for appropriate choices around what the function of events is in the early twenty-first century.  There are remarkably similar discourses adopted across the globe, whereby events are deemed valuable only insofar as they contribute to economic restructuring or growth.  What is also relatively consistent is that the institutional arrangements flowing from a neoliberal framework must also enable growth coalitions to form and public-private partnerships to flourish in the name of place making and promotion.  In those nations with alternative governance systems in place (e.g. China or Qatar) the means of achieving the outcomes desired are different but the underlying rationale for event policy remains very similar. The achievement of economic imperatives is the primary rationale for bidding for peripatetic sporting events.  And, increasingly, as recent bid announcements confirm, the emerging BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and those in the Middle East (e.g. Qatar, Dubai, Bahrain) are succeeding over their western counterparts.  This success can, in part, be put down to the absence of democratic processes and the presence of alternative social contracts between rulers (or leaders) and their populations, whereby resources and legitimation are far less of a problem than for the nations of the west.  For example, in the liberal democracies of the west, decisions on whether to bid and the policy formation process thereafter can be laborious, subject to extensive consultation, consensus building and accountable to citizens (in theory, at least). In some of the nations that have been successful of late in winning the rights to host the two main sporting mega events (the soccer World Cup and the Olympic Games) the processes of decision-making and the distribution of power are much more streamlined and driven by the singular interests of all-powerful rulers (whether the ‘party’ in China’s case or the monarchical regime in Qatar).  It appears that, the strengths of democracy and the associated need for accountability on behalf of political leaders can, in effect, work against those nations competing for the mega event prize against others. 

In sum, I want to argue that the agenda for major events has moved from a concern with being (capable, economically wealthy, culturally advanced) to one of becoming (democratic, developed, culturally rich).  Whereas the mega sporting events of the 1980s through to the early part of the 2000s were (primarily) awarded to those with a proven capacity to deliver on economic return (for event owner and host), the mega event terrain of the next few decades might will be defined by a more developmental agenda – part economic (because that remains crucial), part social (human rights, environment, democracy) and part political (reaching out to the world on emotional level).  So, what for the hopes of the old guard?  Is it likely that they will have a long wait to regain their pre-emimnent position in the global mega event order?  Thoughts?

Permalink | Leave a comment  »