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 of far-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 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 the development 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 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 Coleman’s (1988) view, which stresses the role of networks in creating social capital is more applicable to their festival case studies, but Putnam’s (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 Coleman’s (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 to clarify such issues. Building networks If, as the analyses of social capital building suggest, Coleman’s 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 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 Verhoeven’s 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 Festa de 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 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 Queen’s 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 the growing 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 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 Lénia 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 major cultural 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 event have been exclusive rather than inclusive (Boyle and Hughes 1994; Connelly 2007; O’Callaghan and Linehan 2007).  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). 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 a similar 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 dimension – events 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 and Palmer 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 ‘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 (Getz 1997). 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. 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 Helsinki’s 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. 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 panel data 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.  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 collective experience 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. 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 Csikszentmihalyi’s (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.  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 a global 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 Coleman’s 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’ effects from 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 Putnam’s 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 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 (González Reverté 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 Manchester’s 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. 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 of events 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 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) BrabantStad’s 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. 5 – January 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. 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. González Reverté, F. and Miralbell, O. (undated) El paper del capital social en l’organització d’esdeveniments. http://uoc.academia.edu/FrancescGonz%C3%A1lezRevert%C3%A9/Papers/1232441/El_paper_del_capital_social_en_lorganitzacio_desdeveniments (Accessed 27 June 2012) Hover, Moniek (2008) ‘Imagine your Event: Imagineering for the event industry’, in Ulrich Wünsch (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): 39–56. Nijs, D. and Peters, F. (2002) Imagineering: Het creëren van belevingswerelden. Amsterdam: Boom. O’Callaghan 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. 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 event – the views of residents and visitors’. 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): 194–215. 20