The Experiential Aspects of Sport Stadiums: an Examination of Emotion and Memory

The Experiential Aspects of Sport Stadiums: An Examination of Emotion and Memory

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Kiernan Orion Gordon, M.S.

Graduate Program in Education

The Ohio State University

2013

Dissertation Committee:

Professor Sarah K. Fields, Advisor

Professor Brian A. Turner

Professor Timothy J. Curry

“For even now it is games which give us something to do when there is nothing to do. We thus call games ‘pastimes’, and regard them as trifling fillers of the interstices in our lives. But they are much more important than that. They are clues to the future. And their serious cultivation now is perhaps our only salvation.”

-Bernard Suits, The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia

Copyrighted by

Kiernan Orion Gordon

2013

Abstract

Sport stadiums have become important municipal and cultural landmarks within

American society. Although their primary function is to serve as the spaces within which our favorite athletes and teams compete, we often imbue stadiums with a level of significance beyond their primary function. As spaces intended for large social gatherings, sport stadiums have the potential to be sites of enjoyment, anger, anticipation, fear, and a host of other emotions and experiences. Moreover, as municipal landmarks, sport stadiums have the potential to be important to our identities as members of a city, community, or subculture. This project attempts to provide an explanation as to why, how, and to what degree sport stadiums are significant in peoples’ lives through an interdisciplinary examination of our interaction with them.

The interdisciplinary emphasis inherent within this examination integrates elements from sport sociology, sport geography, and sport management. Synthesizing elements from these sport subdisciplines promotes a theoretical and applied nexus, the result of which has the potential to promote future research and practice.

This project consists of three articles, where each subsequent article builds on the assertions and implications of the previous one. While the specific focus of analysis may differ from article to article, the general emphasis on the relationship between emotions,

ii memory, and the experiential aspects of sport stadiums is consistent throughout. An introduction and a conclusion surround these three articles to present a cohesive project.

The primary theoretical thread throughout this three-article project is a microsociological framework called ‘interaction ritual’, or ‘IR’, theory (Collins, 2004).

IR theory centers on the role that emotions and memory play in our choices to engage in various social situations every day. It emphasizes the interconnectedness of human relationships as the foundation of larger social structures and processes. IR theory is a grand unified theory that enables scholars to examine a variety of human experiences and institutions, such as love, conflict, education, government, and sport, through its emotionally- and memory-derived prism. As such, it appears in each article and does so differently, as its breadth allows for nuanced application to a variety of circumstances.

These three articles all complement each other and fill a niche not previously explored within the sport-based scholarship. Moreover, this project represents a new application of theory and methodology primarily to the field of sport management.

Through an interpretive, interdisciplinary approach, the results of this project have the potential to stimulate future scholarship.

iii

Acknowledgments

Many people influenced and contributed to the completion of this project. To them I owe a great deal of gratitude. I began my time in the sport humanities program at

The Ohio State University eager to study sport as holistically as possible and possessing a strong interest in microsociology. The faculty members with whom I came into contact during my time as a graduate student provided me with an academic experience that greatly challenged and shaped my understanding of sport in ways I never dreamed.

Dr. Sarah Fields, my advisor, has been supportive of me, and my ever-evolving interests, throughout my tenure as her doctoral advisee. She displayed a great deal of trust in me and my educational process, which allowed me to have a truly interdisciplinary experience. Her pragmatic sensibility and accessibility has also been encouraging and helped influence this work. Dr. Brian Turner exposed me to sport marketing and sport consumerism, and the chapter examining sportscape consumption is largely a reflection of his guidance. Dr. Timothy Curry was kind enough to indulge my desire to study with him and the emphasis of this project on the intersection of sport and microsociology is an extension of his influential scholarship on the topic.

I also received a great deal of support from the recently retired Dr. Melvin

Adelman. He facilitated my first introduction to sport history. That, along with his

iv corresponding guidance, has truly made the discipline valuable and enjoyable for me. Dr.

Susan Bandy’s course on the philosophical aspects of sport remains one of my favorite courses throughout my entire experience in graduate school. She, too, has always been willing to provide guidance regarding my work. My fellow graduate students, specifically Melissa Wiser, Lindsay Pieper, Ali Brian, Spencer Fee, Chris Torres,

Michelle Thall, Vince Lyons, Heather Preston, Andrew Linden, Dain TePoel, and the late

Beth Emery; as well as Drs. Drew Czekanski, Lauren Brown, Chris Barnhill, Amy Kim,

Ye Hoon Lee, and Maria Gies provided empathetic ears and encouraging advice at several points throughout these past four years.

The Ohio State University has been a wonderful place for me to learn and the opportunity to study sport at an institution that values it so highly, both academically and athletically, has enabled me to have a great experience. The opportunity and resources have been tremendous. I am grateful to the staff in the William Oxley Thompson

Memorial Library and the School of Physical Activity and Educational Services, particularly Darlene Oglesby, for their assistance in the process associated with this project, as well as to the individuals who participated in my research. Furthermore, throughout my four years as a graduate teaching associate, I have had the privilege of teaching hundreds of students who have challenged me to not only master the appropriate content, but to deliver it in an insightful and inspiring way. From them I learned much; I hope they found the experience mutual.

I was fortunate to have influential instructors prior to my experience at Ohio

State, as well. During my brief undergraduate tenure at the University of Rochester, Dr.

Thomas Smith first exposed me to microsociology and sparked my interest. Dr. Candace

West, my independent major advisor at my alma mater, the University of California at

Santa Cruz, embraced my passion for the interpersonal processes of interaction. Her work in ethnomethodology/conversation analysis and my related studies with her helped me to understand the depth inherent to everyday life, which became the precursor to this project. My advisor as I pursued my master’s degree at High Point University, Dr. Joe

Ellenburg, provided a friendly, supportive ear and much needed advice. His holistic understanding of sport and recreation administration encouraged my choice to pursue further graduate work.

As a long time collegiate basketball coach and administrator, I have had the incredible opportunity to influence and be influenced by dozens of former players.

Moreover, my involvement with a variety of camps and clinics all over the country have put me face-to-face with children of all ages. They, like my Ohio State students, have taught me a great deal and made the experience incredibly fulfilling.

Several members of my family have inspired, not just my love of teaching, learning, or sport, but the person I have become. Unfortunately, space does not permit me to acknowledge them all, though I am particularly proud to be a fifth generation educator on the paternal side of my family, and consider it to be both a wonderful honor and privilege to continue in ‘the family business’. The path to education for my great- grandmother, the late Dr. Audra Weber, has always been particularly inspiring. Her open-mindedness and love for learning still resonates with me. My late grandfather, Mr.

Richard Gordon, also took an unconventional path to education. His work ethic

vi continues to serve as a model for me and makes me proud to share his last name. I recalled the tenacity that both these people were known to display during their educational pursuits and was correspondingly motivated whenever I hit the proverbial

‘bump in the road’.

My father, Donald Gordon, facilitated my love and appreciation for sport at a young age and as a child, he always made time to ‘play catch’, ‘kick the ball’, or ‘shoot hoops’. He coached me in several sports throughout my life, including high school, and remains the best coach for whom I have played. My mother, Paula Page, has been a huge supporter of mine throughout my many sport and academic ventures and her interest in my work has meant so much to me. Among her many strengths, she is, undoubtedly, the best unpaid editor with which I have ever worked. My much younger sisters, Tory and

Dana Gordon, were unwittingly my first students and now I enjoy watching them pursue their own paths, as well.

My lovely wife, Lori, has been an incredible asset to my life and a wonderful partner. To whatever extent this project may be considered a success, however one defines the term, is a direct reflection of her love, support, and patience. I have no doubt whatsoever that this work could not have been completed without her affirming presence.

I am grateful for the influence and contributions of the aforementioned individuals and hope that they enjoy reading the final product as much as I have enjoyed my relationships with them. They should be credited for any and all notable insights that are present within this work and for none of its shortcomings.

vii

Vita

June 1997 ...... James Lick High School

June 2005 ...... B.A. Interpersonal Processes of Interaction, ...... University of California Santa Cruz

May 2007 ...... M.S. Sport Studies, ...... High Point University

September 2009 to present ...... Graduate Teaching Associate, ...... School of Physical Activity and ...... Educational Services, ...... The Ohio State University

Publications

Gordon, K. (2013). Las Vegas and sports betting. In M. Nelson (Ed.), American sports:

A history of icons, idols, and ideas. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Fields of Study

Major Field: Education Sport Humanities & Sport Management

viii

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii

Acknowledgments...... iv

Vita ...... viii

Table of Contents ...... ix

List of Figures ...... xii

Chapter 1: Sport Stadiums as Sites of Interaction: ...... 1

Laying the Foundation for the Constructs of Experience ...... 1

The Primary Framework: Interaction Ritual Theory ...... 2

Project Outline...... 4

References ...... 16

Chapter 2 Emotion and Memory in Nostalgia Sport Tourism: ...... 20

Examining the Attraction to Postmodern Ballparks through an Interdisciplinary Lens ... 20

Introduction ...... 20

Nostalgia Sport Tourism ...... 22

Interaction Ritual Theory ...... 26 ix

Place, Placelessness, and Topophilia ...... 32

Experiencing Place, Placelessness, and Topophilia in American Ballparks and Their

Connection to Emotional Energy and Memory...... 36

Conclusion ...... 43

Suggestions for Future Research ...... 46

References ...... 46

Chapter 3: Managing the Sportscape for Stakeholders: ...... 50

An Interaction Ritual Analysis of the Creation and Consumption of Facility Aesthetics 50

Introduction ...... 50

The Sportscape ...... 52

Stakeholder Theory ...... 55

Interaction Ritual Theory ...... 60

IR Theory, Firm-Stakeholder Interaction, and the Sportscape...... 65

Case Study One: AT&T Park and the Consumption of Ironic Nostalgia ...... 69

Case Study Two: GEO Group Stadium as a Symbol of D-Power ...... 76

Conclusion ...... 83

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research...... 84

References ...... 86

Chapter 4: Stadiums and ‘Emotional ‘Energy’: ...... 92

An Interaction Ritual Investigation of Fans’ Connections to Ohio Stadium ...... 92

Introduction ...... 92

Nostalgia Sport Tourism ...... 94

Interaction Ritual Theory ...... 95

Photo-elicitation Interviewing ...... 100

Research Subjects ...... 105

Findings ...... 107

Conclusion ...... 125

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research...... 126

References ...... 127

Chapter 5: Conclusion...... 132

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research...... 136

References ...... 139

References (Comprehensive List) ...... 141

Appendix A: Chapter Two Photographs ...... 152

Appendix B: Chapter Three Photographs ...... 160

Appendix C: Chapter Four Photographs ...... 165

List of Figures

A1. Wrigley Field: Spectator Perspective ...... 152

A2. Wrigley Field: Outfield Wall ...... 153

A3. Fenway Park: Spectator Perspective ……………………………………………....154

A4. Riverfront Stadium: Spectator Perspective ………………………………………..155

A5. Houston Astrodome: Aerial Exterior ……………………………………………...156

A6. Houston Astrodome: Spectator Perspective ……………………………………….157

A7. AT&T Park: Spectator Perspective ………………………………………………..158

A8. AT&T Park: Aerial Exterior Facing Northeast ……………………………………159

B1. AT&T Park: Aerial Exterior Facing Northwest …………………………………...160

B2. AT&T Park: Willie Mays Gate ……………………………………………………161

B3. AT&T Park: Brick Façade ………………………………………………………...162

B4. GEO Group Stadium Mock-Up: Aerial Exterior ………………………………….163

B5. GEO Group Stadium Mock-Up: Ground-Level Exterior ………………………….164

C1. Ohio Stadium Rotunda …………………………………………………………….165

C2. Fans Walk to Ohio Stadium ……………..………………………………………...166

C3. Ohio Stadium: Spectator Perspective ……………………………………………...167

C4. Ohio Stadium: Script Ohio ……………………………………………………...…168

C5. Ohio Stadium: Fan Ritual ………………………………………………………….169

xii

Chapter 1: Sport Stadiums as Sites of Interaction:

Laying the Foundation for the Constructs of Experience

Sport stadiums have become important municipal and cultural landmarks within

I will exclude those aspects of sport stadiums related to discourse involving finance or policy in my examination and will, instead, attempt this examination through an interpretive lens directed at those aesthetic and functional elements that make stadiums sites of personal and societal significance. The interdisciplinary emphasis inherent within this examination integrates elements from sport sociology, sport geography, and sport management. Synthesizing elements from these sport subdisciplines promotes a

1 theoretical and applied nexus, the result of which has the potential to promote future research and practice.

My dissertation will consist of three articles, where each subsequent article will build on the assertions and implications of the previous one. I have written each article for a specific publication location and, consequently, a different audience. While the specific focus of analysis may differ from article to article, the general emphasis on the relationship between emotions and the experiential aspects of sport stadiums is consistent throughout this dissertation. An introduction and a conclusion surround these three articles to present a cohesive project.

In the introduction, I provide an explanation of this project’s primary theoretical emphasis and describe its relevance. In addition, I furnish a brief overview of each article, its locus of analysis and relevant methodological approach, as well as a general explanation as to how this dissertation fills gaps in the current literature. The conclusion presents those themes common throughout this project and re-asserts this project’s value to the greater landscape of sport-oriented scholarship.

The Primary Framework: Interaction Ritual Theory

The primary theoretical thread throughout this three-article project is a microsociological framework called ‘interaction ritual’, or ‘IR’, theory (Collins, 2004).

IR theory centers on the role that emotions and memory play in our choices to engage in various social situations every day. In essence, Collins’ IR theory is a synthesis of other microsociological perspectives, including Durkheimian sociology, symbolic interactionism, dramaturgy, exchange theory, and the sociology of emotions. He argues

2 that macro-sociological phenomena are the aggregate of micro-social behavior formed by individuals’ decisions to seek out emotionally fulfilling, ritually-oriented interactions. It emphasizes the interconnectedness of human relationships as the foundation of larger social structures and processes. IR theory is a grand unified theory, in that it attempts to account for all social behavior. It enables scholars to examine a variety of human experiences and institutions, such as love, conflict, education, government, and sport, through its emotionally- and memory-derived prism. As such, IR theory appears in each article and does so differently, as its breadth allows for nuanced application to a variety of circumstances.

In terms of IR theory’s general application to sport stadiums, sport fans often choose to attend stadiums because of some degree of emotional attachment to a team or player involved in a contest, if not to experience the stadium itself. As such, there is often, if not always, some degree of emotion associated with attending; happiness, excitement, anxiety, hope, and fear are just some of these emotions. For Collins (2004), this ‘emotional energy’, or ‘EE’, fuels many of the social choices we make and we orient our activities and social interactions to seek out the kind of emotions we wish to experience. For many, attending sporting events allows them to experience the emotions associated with being present at the site itself, rooting for or against a particular team or player, spending time with loved ones, and/or being in the presence of many other fellow attendees.

IR theory infers that one’s presence amongst a large group of others creates a sense of ‘collective effervescence’ (Durkheim, 2008 [1912]) whereby the emotions

3 shared by all those in attendance and directed toward a specific symbol facilates social solidarity. Since going to the stadium to watch an athletic contest is typically not a daily occurrence and given the ritualistic nature of many of the sport-related activities that take place during such events, the sporting attendant experience has a certain level of sacredness–in the Durkheimian sense–that is further heightened by the situationally- driven emotions each individual shares with one another through their own emotional energy that they bring to the stadium. The stadium itself serves as a physical barrier denoting a spectator ‘in-group’ from a non-spectator ‘out-group’. The symbols and rituals embedded within the sporting attendant experience beget strong emotions for these attendees, who continuously seek out future occasions for similar experiences so that their hunger for EE can be satisfied.

Project Outline

The first article, chapter two, is situated within the sport management subfield of sport tourism to provide an introduction to the interpretive aspects of sport sociology and sport geography as they apply to those sport sites that appear to be created to engender feelings of nostalgia. Chapter three is the second article. It integrates the applied emphasis of sport management with some of the theoretical implications of the first article to explore ways in which stadium designers and managers can foster repeat spectatorship and generate future revenue through stadium attendance. The third article, chapter four, examines the extent to which sport stadiums serve as sacred spaces within the lives of attendees through a unique, qualitative, research methodology. Although

4 present to varying degrees and in different ways, IR theory is an important theoretical component throughout all three articles.

Nostalgia sport tourism is, perhaps, the most underdeveloped area of study within the sport management subdiscipline of sport tourism in the first article, in contrast to active sport tourism and event sport tourism (Fairley, 2003; Gibson, 2002, 2003; Ritchie

& Adair, 2004). Early research within nostalgia sport tourism had as its primary focus those sites built to honor the heritage of a particular sport, such as halls of fame and museums. Recent research, in contrast, has found that nostalgia can also emerge as a motivating factor for participation in activities related to sport tourism through small group interaction (Fairley 2003, 2009; Fairley & Gammon, 2006; Kulczycki & Hyatt,

2005). Consequently, the notion of nostalgia, as it relates to sport tourism, has been expanded to account for this development. The recent research trend within nostalgia sport tourism toward nostalgia as a group-derived emotion has yielded interesting qualitative data that stands in contrast to the quantitative research emphasis within active sport tourism and event sport tourism.

Sociology has emerged as a parent discipline of nostalgia sport tourism given the rise of qualitative analysis within it (Gibson, 2004; Harris, 2006). Moreover, much of this sociology has been interpretive and, in continuing this epistemology, IR theory

(Collins, 2004) is proffered as a useful device for scholars to arrive at those commonalities inherent to nostalgically-driven experiences for sport tourists, given its emphasis on emotions and memory.

While both emotions and memory account for individual social behavior, three additional constructs are posited to provide an explanation for those elements inherent to nostalgically-oriented sport sites. The sport geographical concepts of ‘place’,

‘placelessness’ (Relph, 1976), and ‘topophilia’ (Tuan, 1974) are introduced that provide scholars and practitioners with useful frameworks to consider the various aesthetic aspects of sport stadiums. These three constructs are also applied to the recent trend of retro ballpark construction and examined through IR theory to ascertain what common elements they possess to make them both nostalgic and popular among sport tourists and excursionists.

The evolution of the discipline of sport geography makes it an appropriate fit for the first article because of its emphasis on interpretation. Early sport geographical research was oriented toward matters of sport diffusion and player migration. Recent sport geographical emphases, however, have been on providing interpretive explanations for the significance of certain spaces and their constituent elements. Place and placelessness are phenomenological constructs that denote our sensory experiences with the built environment. For Relph (1976), the creator of these constructs, a place is an environment whose architectural style and building materials are unique and thus authentic to the space within which the built environment is located. In contrast, placeless environments are often those that mimic architectural styles or materials from other localities and/or are a part of a larger replication process. Buildings and structures that fit the latter description are often referred to as ‘cookie cutter’.

Tuan (1974) uses the term ‘topophilia’ to denote the strong affinity one has to a particular environment via sensory experience. While topophilia is a broad, descriptive term, there is one particular aspect of it that has specific relevance for sport environments: ‘carpentered’ and ‘noncarpentered’ spaces. Carpentered spaces are typically man-made while noncarpentered spaces are natural and undeveloped.

Individuals who are present within environments where the two elements are blended together in varying degrees often experience topophilia. Consequently, while neither

Relph nor Tuan ever wrote about sport in their respective discussions of place, placelessness, and topophilia, these constructs nevertheless have strong applicability to our understanding of sport’s increasingly technologized spaces.

Relph’s and Tuan’s constructs are applied to Ritzer and Stillman’s (2001) ballpark typology, which serves as a useful heuristic device to examine the role that place, placelessness, and topophilia play in our interaction with baseball parks. This typology includes ‘early modern’, ‘late modern’, and ‘postmodern’ ballparks.

Early modern ballparks are those built in the first half of the 1900s. These parks were typically in urban environments and had unique playing spaces by virtue of the idiosyncratic land plots they occupied. The use of local materials and combination of carpentered and noncarpentered elements present within these parks contributed greatly to spectators’ affinity toward them. Late modern ballparks were built from the middle to late 1900s and were often in suburban or rural locales. Many were built for multifunctional purposes and often included many artificial elements to allow for this multifunctionality. By contrast, postmodern ballparks represent a return to the urban

7 environment. These parks have been built from the 1990s through the present day and attempt to capitalize on the nostalgic elements within their early modern predecessors.

These ‘throwback’ ballparks represent a formulaic approach to stadium design, which, while increasing spectator comfort and leisure opportunities, often evokes a sense of kitsch.

Ritzer and Stillman’s ballpark typology, used in conjunction with Relph’s and

Tuan’s constructs and viewed through Collins’ interaction theoretical lens, aid scholars and practitioners within sport tourism in understanding those architectural elements necessary to facilitate sport attendees’ affinity with spectator spaces oriented toward nostalgia. Consequently, this article represents a first step toward providing nostalgia sport tourism with a unified approach to research and practice that can be further refined through data emerging from future scholarship. Moreover, it demonstrates the applicability of IR theory as a useful device for both the theoretical and applied aspects of sport-related studies. This article will be submitted to the Journal of Sport & Tourism for publication.

The second article argues that traditional management practices, which emphasize building value for a firm’s shareholders, ought to be re-framed to engender emotional attachment from fans and area residents toward facility aesthetics, the result of which can yield spectator consumption. IR theory is presented as a means to interpret the normative value of this paradigmatic shift in management principles, which is called ‘managing for stakeholders’ (Freeman, 2010 [1984]; Freeman, Harrison, & Wicks, 2007). Two case

8 studies are also examined with regard to the interaction that fans and community residents as stakeholders have with the facility aesthetic.

The ‘sportscape’ (Wakefield, Blodgett, & Sloan, 1996) and its constituent dimensions are introduced to illustrate the value of a stadium’s aesthetic elements for generating spectatorship and, consequently, fostering repeat business. Facility aesthetics are one of the seven dimensions of the sportscape (Wakefield, 2007; Wakefield et al.,

1996) and consumers’ perceptions of its functionality have been shown to be influential in fostering repeat consumption (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994, 1996). While the functionality of facility aesthetics appear to be important to the consumption experience, this article argues that the meaning consumers may associate with the facility aesthetic also has implications for repeat consumption (Tom, Barnett, Lew, & Selmants, 1987;

Wener, 1985).

Firms should engage in a dialogue with potential consumers, many of whom are fans and area residents, early in the management and design process to ascertain the meaning that they may ascribe to the facility aesthetic. This meaning may be derived from the use of building materials foreign or native to the area (Relph, 1976) or to various signs, symbols, or related décor associated with or located on the facility (Bitner,

1992). Recognizing that these individuals are stakeholders and that they have an interest in the aesthetic aspect of the sport facility beyond its functionality, along with engaging them in constructive discourse, have the potential to align their interests with those of the firm. Moreover, the facility aesthetic then has the capacity to become a significant group

9 symbol vis a vis IR theory. The emotional energy associated with it may facilitate these stakeholders’ engagement in future consumption experiences.

Two case studies involving facility aesthetics are presented and analyzed through the rubric of stakeholder management and the corresponding lens of IR theory, which is accomplished through an interpretation of related media discourse (Birrell & McDonald,

2000). The first involves AT&T Park, a postmodern ballpark (Ritzer & Stillman, 2001) built in San Francisco in 2000 (AT&T Park History). The second case study involves

GEO Group Stadium (The GEO Group names football stadium, 2013), the result of a recent stadium-naming rights deal between a controversial company and Florida Atlantic

University, an NCAA Division I institution (Antigua, 2013; Kurtenbach, 2013; Schultz,

2013).

AT&T Park is a postmodern ballpark, which represents a highly rationalized approach to stadium design through the attempted replication of nostalgic elements. This replication has the potential to facilitate a placeless experience for consumers, whom may reject the sportscape and related consumption as a function of the park’s inauthentic representation of the area in which it has been built. Despite this, AT&T Park presents a unique example of a ballpark whose aesthetic does not represent the place identity of community residents–who are stakeholders–and yet has managed to engender consumption. The extent to which area residents and fans are consumers of the sportscape illustrates the extent to which other aspects of the sportscape are more salient in producing an emotionally rewarding experience. An explanation as to how this facility’s aesthetic does not authentically represent the area in which it was built is

10 provided and IR theory is used to interpret the possible reasons for this ironic form of consumption through the interpretation of related media discourse.

In contrast to AT&T Park, the recent advent of GEO Group Stadium provides a much clearer example of the negative consequences associated with the lack of early firm-stakeholder interaction. The GEO Group is a private prison company that has been controversial for its business practices and the choice of Florida Atlantic administrators to align their university with its values in a recent stadium-naming rights agreement has led to animosity from university stakeholders, the most notable of which are students, toward the university administration and The GEO Group itself. Stadium-naming rights are a significant aspect of the sportscape considering the importance that a facility’s name has for consumer perception.

The fact that The GEO Group/FAU naming rights agreement is a recent event provides an opportunity for researchers and practitioners to follow the matter as it continues. Regardless of its recent emergence in the landscape of sport management, though, this case study illustrates well the value of firm-stakeholder interaction early in the management process. Moreover, while the examination of stadium-naming rights as an aspect of facility aesthetics has not yet appeared in the sportscape literature, viewing a facility’s name qua symbol has precedent within the servicescape literature (Bitner, 1992) from which the sportscape concept is derived (Wakefield et al., 1996).

This article provides a unique attempt at synthesizing IR theory and stakeholder management relative to the sportscape. Furthermore, it establishes precedent for IR theory as a helpful heuristic device to ascertain the success, or lack thereof, associated

11 with managing for stakeholders generally, and in an environment devoted to sport management specifically. Sport managers are encouraged to view community members as stakeholders, segment them appropriately, and seek out their input during the early stages of sportscape design. Viewing potential sport consumers as stakeholders and including them in key aspects of that process can facilitate emotional energy through the establishment of significant group symbols to increase revenue through consumption.

This article will be submitted to European Sport Management Quarterly.

The third article examines the extent to which sport stadiums serve as a conduit for emotion and memory, i.e. nostalgia, in the lives of attendees. In it, sport stadiums are considered to be ‘sacred’ places by virtue of the memories and emotions people attach to the rituals that take place in and around them. Data was obtained from three ‘big fans’ of the Ohio State University football team through semi-structured interviews that involved a visually-based, qualitative, research methodology. Interviews involved the use of

‘photo-elicitation interviewing’, or ‘PE-I’, which is a unique approach to qualitative research and was used as the methodological instrument by which to examine attendees’ relationships with Ohio Stadium, the home facility for the Ohio State University football team.

Three research subjects were obtained through ‘snowball sampling’ (Bernard,

2011) within the researcher’s personal network. The number of subjects is consistent with the interpretive tradition of microsociology, including microsociological research involving sport (Curry, 1998; Denison, 2007; Hockey & Collison, 2007; Jones, 2006), as well as the contextually-driven nature of PE-I research (Curry, 1986; Curry & Strauss,

1994; Harper, 1984). Moreover, these subjects established a highly specific criterion for other potential subjects in that they had each attended over one hundred football games at

Ohio Stadium throughout their lives, which made finding additional subjects who met this condition difficult. Including other subjects with a measurably less involved relationship with Ohio Stadium were avoided to maintain validity (Bernard, 2011), while no other subjects who met the newly established qualification for participation were able to be obtained.

Photo-elicitation interviewing is an important, yet underutilized, methodological approach to qualitative research. Situated within the larger field of visual studies, PE-I uses still photographs as a starting point to generate respondent data through interviews.

Respondents are then able to introduce and expound upon the assumptions that they as subcultural members possess, much of which may be overlooked by researchers who are not subcultural insiders.

Although photo-elicitation interviewing is not a common qualitative research approach, several scholars use it and argue for its usefulness as a methodological tool. In fact, PE-I has been used by several sport-oriented scholars, some of whom have argued strongly for its benefit as a research tool (Curry, 1986, 2008; Curry & Strauss, 1994;

Snyder & Kane, 1990). Its more cooperative nature has the potential to yield important subcultural information relating to the role of sport stadiums in one’s life.

Implicit in the use of photographs as a qualitative springboard during interviews is the significance of memory. A handful of scholars have further argued for the value of memory in understanding a particular subculture (Curry, 1986, 2008; Harper, 2002;

Healey, 1991; Kuhn, 2007). For this article, consequently, subjects were shown approximately five photographs each and their corresponding data was coded according to appropriate themes (Lofland, Snow, Anderson, & Lofland, 2006) and interpreted through the IR theory lens.

Sport stadiums and the sporting attendant experience consist of many elements that facilitate an emotionally-loaded experience, of which memory is an important component, and whose emphasis on symbol and ritual begets a sacred quality for attendees. This is exemplified by the fact that many people are able to mark important times in their lives, including those moments with loved ones, by events that have taken place in or around sport stadiums. The sacred nature of sport stadiums fosters social solidarity for those present at the site together and the highly emotional nature of the events that take place within each other’s co-presence can lead to a higher emotional state, the result of which keeps stadium attendees coming back for more. Sight, in particular, has a strong connection with memory, as previous sport-oriented, PE-I researchers have noted (Choi, Stotlar, & Park, 2006; Curry, 1986, 2008; Loeffler, 2004;

Snyder & Kane, 1990; Stiebling, 1999). As such, photographs of the inside and outside of stadiums helped respondents recall events in their personal histories that aid in our understanding of how and to what extent sport stadiums and the sporting attendant experience have been significant in their lives.

The interpretation of visually-stimulated and contextually-driven data provides researchers and practitioners with useful information for understanding larger social constructs such as nostalgia and morality, as well as matters more immediate to sport and

14 sport business, such as ritual and the sportscape. More generally, the cycle of symbol, ritual, emotional energy, and memory inherent to IR theory facilitates a strong sense of sacredness for the symbols and rituals that heighten emotional energy, including the site where that emotional energy is heightened: the stadium. Certain elements of the stadium and the people within it, then, evoke strong emotions for regular attendees who will remember those moments throughout their lifetimes. Consequently, this project has the potential to demonstrate the power of ritual in establishing sacredness and generating social solidarity through a nuanced understanding of the degree to which sport sites can ellicit emotion through human connectivity. This has important implications not just for an increased understanding of the role of sport spaces in our lives, but for the applied manner with which ritual can be used to generate social solidarity in the formation of small and large social groups, both in and out of the sporting arena. Moreover, the data yielded through this research will lend support to Collins’ IR theory as a useful construct for sport-oriented research. This article will be submitted to the Journal of Sport &

Tourism for publication.

Through an interpretive, interdisciplinary approach, the results of this project have the potential to stimulate future scholarship.

Sport stadiums are greater than the sum of their parts; they serve a purpose beyond mere functionality. The meaning that is attributed to sport stadiums perform an

15 important role in the life course of individuals and the identities of cities and citizens. A study that is oriented to how we interact with them can lead to a variety of implications, the results of which can move us toward a deep understanding of ourselves and our relationship with the world in which we live.

References

Antigua, J. (2013, February 26). FAU students protest naming stadium after prison operator. The Palm Beach Post .

AT&T Park History. (n.d.). Retrieved March 9, 2013, from The official site of the San Francisco Giants: http://mlb.mlb.com/sf/ballpark/information/index.jsp?content=history

Bernard, H. R. (2011). Research methods in anthropology (5th Edition ed.). Lanham, MD: AltaMira.

Birrell, S., & McDonald, M. G. (2000). Reading sport, articulating power lines: An introduction. In S. Birrell, & M. G. McDonald (Eds.), Reading sport (pp. 3-13). Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. The Journal of Marketing , 56 (2), 57-71.

Choi, J. A., Stotlar, D. K., & Park, S. R. (2006). Visual ethnography of on-site sport sponsorship activation: LG Action Sports championship. Sport Marketing Quarterly , 15 (2), 71-79.

Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Curry, T. J. (1986). A visual method of studying sports: The photo-elicitation interview. Sociology of Sport Journal , 3 (3), 204-216.

Curry, T. J. (1998). Beyond the locker room: Campus bars and college athletes. Sociology of Sport Journal , 15 (3), 205-215.

Curry, T. J., & Strauss, R. H. (1994). A little pain never hurt anybody: A photo-essay on the normalization of sport injuries. Sociology of Sport Journal , 11 (2), 195-208.

Curry, T. (2008). Where the action is: Visual sociology and sport. Social Psychology Quarterly , 71 (2), 107-108. 16

Denison, J. (2007). Social theory for coaches: A Foucauldian reading of one athlete's poor performance. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching , 2 (4), 369-382.

Durkheim, E. (2008 [1912]). The elementary forms of the religious life. (J. Swain, Trans.) Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.

Fairley, S. (2003). In search of relived social experience: Group-based nostalgia sport tourism. Journal of Sport Management , 17, 284-304.

Fairley, S. (2009). The role of the mode of transport in the identity maintenance of sport fan travel groups. Journal of Sport & Tourism , 14 (2-3), 205-222.

Fairley, S., & Gammon, S. (2006). Something lived, something learned: Nostalgia's expanding role in sport tourism. In H. Gibson (Ed.), Sport Tourism: Concepts and Theories (pp. 50-65). New York: Routledge.

Freeman, R. E. (2010 [1984]). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press.

Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2007). Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Gibson, H. J. (2004). Moving beyond the 'what is and who' of sport tourism to understanding 'why'. Journal of Sport Tourism , 9 (3), 247-265.

Gibson, H. J. (2002). Sport tourism at a crossroad? Considerations for the future. In S. Gammon, & J. Kurtzman (Eds.), Sport tourism: Principles and practice (pp. 123- 140). Eastbourne: Leisure Studies Association.

Gibson, H. J. (2003). Sport tourism: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Sport Management , 17, 205-213.

Harper, D. (1984). Meaning and work: A study in photo elicitation. International Journal of Visual Sociology , 2, 20-43.

Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies , 17 (1), 13-26.

Harris, J. (2006). The science of research in sport and tourism: Some reflections upon the promise of the sociological imagination. Journal of Sport & Tourism , 11 (2), 153-171.

Healey, J. (1991). An exploration of the relationships between memory and sport. Sociology of Sport Journal , 8, 213-227.

Hockey, J., & Collinson, J. A. (2006). Seeing the way: Visual sociology and the distance runner's perspective. Visual Studies , 21 (1), 70-81.

Jones, R. (2006). Dilemmas, maintaining 'face', and paranoia: An average coaching life. Qualitative Inquiry , 12 (5), 1012-1020.

Kuhn, A. (2007). Photography and cultural memory: A methodological exploration. Visual Studies , 22 (3), 283-292.

Kulczycki, C., & Hyatt, C. (2005). Expanding the conceptualization of nostalgia sport tourism: Lessons learned from fans left behind after sport franchise relocation. Journal of Sport Tourism , 10 (4), 273-293.

Kurtenbach, D. (2013, February 21). Group starts petition to remove GEO Group name from FAU stadium. South Florida Sun Sentinel .

Loeffler, T. (2004). A photo elicitation study of the meanings of outdoor adventure experiences. Journal of Leisure Research , 36 (4), 536-556.

Lofland, J., Snow, D. A., Anderson, L., & Lofland, L. H. (2006). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis (4th Edition ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson.

Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion Limited.

Ritchie, B. W., & Adair, D. (2004). Sport tourism: An introduction and overview. In B. W. Ritchie, & D. Adair (Eds.), Sport tourism: Interrelationships, impacts and issues (pp. 1-29). Buffalo, NY: Channel View.

Ritzer, G., & Stillman, T. (2001). The postmodern ballpark as a leisure setting: Enchantment and simulated de-McDonaldization. Leisure Sciences , 23, 99-113.

Schultz, R. (2013, March 1). FAU owes many answers on GEO Group stadium deal. The Palm Beach Post .

Snyder, E. E., & Kane, M. J. (1990). Photo elicitation: A methodological technique for studying sport. Journal of Sport Management , 4, 21-30.

Stiebling, M. (1999). Practicing gender in youth sports. Visual Sociology , 14 (1), 127- 144.

The GEO Group names football stadium. (2013, February 19). Florida Atlantic University.

Tom, G., Barnett, T., Lew, W., & Selmants, J. (1987). Cueing the consumer: The role of salient cues in consumer perception. Journal of Consumer Marketing , 4, 23-28.

Tuan, Y.-F. (1974). Topophilia: A study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Wakefield, K. L. (2007). Team sports marketing. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Wakefield, K. L., & Blodgett, J. G. (1994). The importance of servicescapes in leisure service settings. Journal of Services Marketing , 8 (3), 66-76.

Wakefield, K. L., & Blodgett, J. G. (1996). The effect of the servicescape on customers' behavioral intentions in leisure service settings. The Journal of Services Marketing , 10 (6), 45-61.

Wakefield, K. L., Blodgett, J. G., & Sloan, H. J. (1996). Measurement and management of the sportscape. Journal of Sport Management , 10, 15-31.

Chapter 2 Emotion and Memory in Nostalgia Sport Tourism:

Examining the Attraction to Postmodern Ballparks through an Interdisciplinary Lens

Introduction

Scholars argue that nostalgia sport tourism is the least researched of the three domains within sport and tourism (Fairley, 2003; Gibson, 2002, 2003; Ritchie & Adair,

2004). Despite this relative lack of research, insightful and thought-provoking scholarship has emerged within this growing sport and tourism domain. Sociology, one of sport and tourism’s parent disciplines, has influenced much of this scholarship

(Gibson, 2004; Harris, 2006). This epistemological orientation has yielded, among other things, the importance of emotion and memory to nostalgically-oriented experiences, and the result as prompted scholars to argue for a broader interpretation of nostalgia sport tourism than was originally established within the field (Fairley & Gammon, 2006;

Gammon, 2002; Ramshaw & Gammon, 2005).

In continuing this sociological emphasis, this paper considers the emergence of emotion and memory within nostalgia sport tourism and argues that a micro-sociological perspective–interaction ritual theory–can be used to provide scholars with a deep understanding of tourists’ and excursionists’ motivations for engaging in nostalgia- oriented experiences. Moreover, three additional constructs from the field of sport

20 geography–place, placelessness, and topophilia–are useful tools for sport and tourism scholars who wish to develop a more nuanced conceptualization of those elements within nostalgically-oriented sport sites. The combination of these interdisciplinary perspectives represents a manifestation of Gibson’s (1998) argument that sport and tourism studies

“should not limit themselves to a single theoretical domain” (p. 68).

This paper has two objectives. The first is to argue for the appropriateness of interaction ritual theory as an interpretive device in scholars’ attempts to understand the motivations of those who engage in nostalgia sport tourism. The second is to advocate for three sport geographical concepts as helpful devices in articulating those physical elements associated with sport stadiums that facilitate a nostalgic experience. To accomplish this, a brief overview of the previous literature within nostalgia sport tourism is required, as is a brief explanation of interaction ritual theory and place, placelessness, and topophilia. Interaction ritual theory will be combined with the sport geographical concepts of place, placelessness, and topophilia to examine the recent phenomena of

‘retro’, or ‘postmodern’ (Ritzer & Stillman, 2001), major league baseball parks in the

United States to arrive at a nuanced understanding of those elements that are inherent within an important phenomenon of nostalgia sport tourism. Thus, this paper’s intent is to address the ‘why’ of sport tourism (Gibson, 2004) particularly as it applies to nostalgia to aid in constructing “an edifice of sports tourism knowledge” (Weed, 2006, p. 23) through interdisciplinary analysis.

Nostalgia Sport Tourism

Scholars have generally accepted Gibson’s (1998) three forms of sport and tourism–active sport tourism, event sport tourism, and nostalgia sport tourism–as their dimensions for study. In contrast to Gibson's first two dimensions, nostalgia sport tourism has received little scholarly attention (Fairley, 2003; Gibson, 2002, 2003; Ritchie

& Adair, 2004). When scholars have studied nostalgia sport tourism, their early work has primarily examined the role that nostalgia has played in fans’ attendance at sport halls of fame (Redmond, 1973; Snyder, 1991) and, more recently, stadium tours (Gammon &

Fear, 2005) through qualitative and often interpretive means. Many scholars, though, have found that nostalgia plays a role in the sport and tourism experience beyond these parameters.

Fairley (2003, 2009), for example, found in her study of Australian football fans that nostalgia has a broader relationship to sport and tourism than Gibson (1998) originally posited. Nostalgia played a facilitative role in forming these fans’ group solidarity during their transportation experiences to and from their favorite teams' matches. Kulczycki and Hyatt (2005) also found that nostalgia was the impetus in fans’ decision to attend hockey games after their local National Hockey League franchise relocated to a different city. This prompted Kulczycki and Hyatt to argue that nostalgia sport tourism should also account for fans’ travel to live sporting events. Ramshaw and

Gammon (2005) took this argument a step further and asserted that ‘nostalgia’ is too narrow a term to describe the variety of sport tourism activities that appear to be related to it. Instead, they argue that ‘heritage’ is a broader, more inclusive term for these

22 activities, within which nostalgia is but one component. Ramshaw and Gammon posited four characterizations of sport heritage to aid scholars in classifying its presence within sport and tourism: tangible immovable, tangible movable, intangible, and goods and services with a sport heritage component. Fairley and Gammon (2006) also argued that there are two broad conceptualizations of nostalgia in sport and tourism research: nostalgia for place or artifact and nostalgia for social experience. These examples demonstrate that the notion of nostalgia and its relationship to sport and tourism studies remains undefined.

Despite arguments surrounding the definition and parameters of nostalgia sport tourism, several scholars have viewed nostalgia as a type of emotion brought about through the sport tourism experience and as an important component of individual and collective sport-related memory. Several examples exist within nostalgia sport tourism that elegantly exemplify the nexus of sport, emotion, and memory.

Snyder (1991) viewed nostalgia as an emotion in his research of attendees at the

Baseball Hall of Fame and his analysis revealed that nostalgia is a part “of the collective memories of a society as well as the lived emotion of individuals” (p. 229). Nauright

(2003) argued that sport is a “highly nostalgic practice” for remembering and reconstructing past achievements to forge individual and collective memory (p. 36).

Ramshaw and Gammon (2005) described nostalgia as a “powerful human emotion” (p.

239) that is a strong motivation for fans’ attendance. Kulczycki and Hyatt (2005) found in their research of fans who followed a relocated National Hockey League franchise that they were emotionally attached to objects associated with nostalgia. One fan described to

23 the researchers his feelings upon watching the relocated team play in their new arena as

“weird” because he “didn’t feel the emotion for the team” (Kulczycki & Hyatt, 2005, p.

285). Gammon (2002) demonstrated the importance of memory and emotion to the experience associated with nostalgia sport tourism through an analysis of a sport fantasy camp, which he referred to as a form of “commercial nostalgia” (p. 62). Slowikowski

(1991) argued that the Olympic flame ceremony demonstrates the value of ritual in initiating and perpetuating the emotions of a crowd of sport spectators to facilitate collective effervescence, promoting social solidarity through the establishment of collective memory. Fairley (2003, 2009) extended this notion of ritual to include bus travel to and from sporting contests for a small group of fans who reflect upon past group experiences, which heightens their collective emotion and serves as an important part of the group’s identity. These examples illustrate that nostalgia as a reflection of the past is not just simply linked with emotion, but is rather a memory-based, emotionally-laden form of experience, one that is felt on an individual level and reinforced through shared relationships with other members of a larger social group.

Nostalgia, then, appears to be an important element in fans' attraction to sport sites. Despite this apparent consensus, the word ‘nostalgia’ itself requires a more thorough definition if sport and tourism researchers are to fully grasp its constituent elements and their role in engaging sport tourists. As the above evidence suggests, that definition of nostalgia ought to be broadened to include the emergence of emotion and memory in a variety of sport and tourism contexts. The salience of emotion and memory in sport tourists’ and excursionists’ experiences enables sport and tourism researchers to

24 connect individual experience with that of the collective. Collins’ (2004) interaction ritual theory is particularly useful in accounting for emotions and memory and connects their presence in one’s personal experience to macro-phenomena; the result of which can aid researchers in understanding the attraction of nostalgically-based sport experiences to sport tourists and excursionists.

The salience of emotion and memory to the sport tourist experience, however, also requires a stronger understanding of those elements inherent to the nostalgically- based environments with which sport tourists interact. Relph’s (1976) constructs of place and placelessness, and Tuan’s (1974) concept of topophilia, are useful tools in understanding the elements inherent in those sport environments that attract the interest of sport tourists.

The emphasis of this paper is not to argue for a redefinition of nostalgia per se.

Rather, this paper is meant to delineate the importance of emotion and memory to the experience involved in nostalgia sport tourism through interaction ritual theory and the incorporation of place, placelessness, and topophilia as relevant environmental constructs. The current practice among American major league baseball teams to design and build parks that resemble the sport’s earliest facilities is an excellent example of how place, placelessness, and topophilia, when viewed through an interaction ritual theory lens, manifest to facilitate an emotion- and memory-laden experience that is meant to create feelings of nostalgia for attendees. Consequently, the broad view of nostalgia presented in this paper will closely resemble that of Snyder (1991), Fairley (2003, 2009),

Ramshaw and Gammon (2005), and Fairley and Gammon (2006).

Interaction Ritual Theory

Sport and tourism scholars have argued for the application of theory from sport and tourism’s parent disciplines to research (Gibson, 1998, 2002, 2004, 2006; Higham and Hinch, 2006). Within the domain of nostalgia sport tourism, theory from the field of sociology appears to be most prevalent. Several scholars have framed nostalgia-related phenomena within a sociological perspective. Harris (2006), for example, drew upon

Mills’ ‘sociological imagination’ to argue for an interpretive, reflexive approach to sport and tourism research. Snyder’s (1991) research exemplifies a Durkheimian (2008

[1912]) approach and is similar to other scholars’ work, much of which has analyzed ritual (Fairley, 2003, 2009; Slowikowski, 1991) and the sacred and the profane

(Gammon, 2004) as they relate to sport and tourism. Perhaps the best example of sociological analysis is MacCannell (1999) who, though viewing tourism in a more general sense, incorporated Durkheimian, dramaturgical, and ethnomethodological constructs in his analysis of the tourist experience. Scholars view these analyses with great importance in the literature and rightfully so, as they are thoughtful examples of sociology’s use within sport and tourism. Interaction ritual (IR) theory (Collins, 2004), though, incorporates these microsociological interpretations while also meeting researchers’ needs within nostalgia sport tourism by incorporating emotion and accounting for memory. Thus, IR theory is particularly well suited to aid sport and tourism scholars in their analyses of those phenomena arising within nostalgia sport tourism.

IR theory represents a synthesis of micro-sociological perspectives. It incorporates key elements from Durkheimian sociology, symbolic interactionism, dramaturgy, the sociology of emotions, and exchange theory. These perspectives have evolved historically to coalesce into Collins’ vision of a theory that connects micro- behavior to larger social phenomena.

For Collins, the key to the concept of interaction rituals is understanding that the situation, and not the individual, is the interactional starting point. That is, different situations require different ritualistic elements in order for interactants to achieve their desired results. Beginning with the situation as starting point allows for a contextualized understanding of situationally appropriate behavior. The term ‘interaction ritual’ is meant to account for the variety of rituals that take place within face-to-face interaction.

Consequently, Collins’ broad notion of ritual is more akin to that of Goffman (1982)– both of which are extensions of Durkheim’s conceptualization of the term–than that of many scholars within anthropology or religious studies whose focus on ritual has generally been restricted to formal ceremony (Collins, 2004).

The ritualistic elements inherent within these different interactions either reinforce or create shared symbols whose meaning to those persons involved enhance the feelings one has regarding that interaction. These symbols become infused with situational emotion that can be recirculated through future interaction rituals (IRs).

Ultimately, the importance of these symbols depends upon their frequency during future

IRs, as well as the level of emotional intensity that is reached during encounters when those symbols are used.

The use of a particular symbol or symbols throughout a given social network results in an IR chain. Variations in the intensity of rituals lead to variations in the patterns of social membership and their corresponding ideas. Thus, the social practices we witness on a large scale are not initiated at the macro level but rather have their origins in person-to-person situations. As Collins (2004) clarifies:

In a strong sense, the individual is the interaction ritual chain. The individual is the precipitate of past interactional situations and an ingredient of each new situation. An ingredient, not the determinant, because a situation is an emergent property. A situation is not merely the result of the individual who comes into it, nor even of a combination of individuals (although it is that, too). Situations have laws or processes of their own . . . (p. 5).

Symbols and the rituals that reinforce or create them are important ingredients, as well.

While their presence will emerge primarily through the course of face-to-face interaction, implicit in the argument of this paper is that symbols can and often are present in the material environment. These environmental symbols have the potential to elicit emotions from people and can facilitate meaningful IRs for those who engage with them.

The degree of emotional intensity an individual experiences in an IR, as well as the symbols used during it, influences the type and number of IR opportunities available to that individual throughout the social marketplace. For Collins, ‘good’ IRs facilitate a high level of emotional intensity, or ‘emotional energy’ (EE), which leaves the individual highly-charged and seeking other IRs where he or she can utilize his or her EE in the shared experience of the appropriate symbols. The experience associated with a large number of people engaging in an IR that is highly charged with EE is akin to Durkheim’s

(2008 [1912]) notion of ‘collective effervescence’. In contrast, ‘weak’ or ‘failed’ interaction rituals lower EE. Persons are often treated as outsiders, or perhaps even 28 victims, in these interactions. The social marketplace, then, is filled with individuals who are moving from one IR to another, seeking EE. The movement of persons throughout this EE-driven, IR-based social network is the foundation of various forms of social stratification, as well as the motivation for different forms of work, leisure, and consumption, according to Collins.

This treatment of Collins’ theory is brief and does not include all of the depth and nuance associated with his argument. It is sufficient, however, for the current piece. An even more succinct definition of Collins’ argument reads as follows: macro-phenomena are the aggregate of micro-behavior, which is formed by individuals' actions to seek out emotionally fulfilling, ritually-oriented interactions through their social circuitry.

Previous studies within nostalgia sport tourism share strong similarities when viewed through a Collinsian lens, despite the varying degrees with which nostalgia, emotion, and memory are discussed within this scholarship. For example, although he did not explicitly use Durkheimian terminology in his analysis of sport shrines,

Redmond’s (1973) assertion that “In the sports hall of fame, fan worship has been visibly transformed into real worship” (p. 46) could be interpreted as an example of Durkheimian

(2008 [1912]) totems, whereby fans’ ‘worship’ of past players is both a celebration of those individual athletes and teams as well as a celebration of the larger subculture within which both parties reside. Moreover, the act of experiencing the sport hall of fame with others is an important IR for parents and children. Parents are the precipitates of previous sport-oriented IRs, who use the hall of fame to pass along the same reverence for the sport experience to their children through the shared experience of sacred symbols. Thus,

29 the sport hall of fame IR is, for parents and children, a confluence of emotion and memory that will facilitate some degree of future EE-seeking behavior. This example is analogous to Fairley’s (2003) work on reliving social experience through nostalgia sport tourism and her broad conception of ritual is akin to that of Goffman and Collins.

Furthermore, Fairley (2003) argued that nostalgia sport tourism is a social group- derived experience of which memory is a key component, which demonstrates the application of IR theory to nostalgia sport tourism. Moreover, she discussed the value of rituals in reinforcing social solidarity through fanship. While she refers to this social solidarity as ‘communitas’, a Collinsian interpretation would view this as an IR-derived social group, whose symbols have provided high levels of EE for participants that lead them to engage in future activities that reinforce the group’s solidarity, as well as spawn future IRs that are centered around the group’s sacred symbols. Her analysis of the group’s travel to and from their favorite team’s contests further demonstrates the applicability of IR theory. Moreover, her analysis maintains the Durkheimian notion of ritual, as the trip to the sacred site or the trip to engage in the sacred ritual is a ritual unto itself.

The aforementioned research of Kulczycki and Hyatt (2005) exemplifies well the notion of EE as it pertains to the sport and tourism experience. One fan’s response regarding his connection to the relocated NHL franchise as ‘weird’ because the team is playing in its new arena can be interpreted through an IR lens. The sacred symbols that were present in the team’s old facility, as well as the rituals associated with the experience of attending a game in that facility, could not be associated with the team’s

30 new facility, rendering this different IR emotionless for the fan and, consequently, dampening his heretofore strong connection to the team.

Gammon’s (2002) work exemplifies IR theory in his description of a fantasy camp as collective nostalgia. In this setting, multiple persons organize together to achieve EE through the shared experience associated with interacting with sacred symbols, in a sacred space, with sacred persons. Moreover, the potential exists for future

IR chains with other participants.

An IR reading of Slowikowski’s (1991) analysis would affirm her interpretation of the Olympic flame ceremony as an important ritual that connects cultures through a shared sense of community. Yet, an IR reading would further add that such ritual, given the pronounced sacredness of the Olympic flame ceremony, facilitates a highly charged emotional experience that can, and does, prompt current spectators–be they present live or watching on television–to engage in future IRs through attending future Olympics and, in some cases, to be a participant in the Games themselves. This demonstrates how highly charged with EE some symbols can be, since the flame ritual occurs once every four years for each Olympic Games. Their predictable yet infrequent occurrence provides enough EE to influence some individuals to change the course of their entire life just to participate in them. Moreover, the Olympic flame ceremony can be viewed as a crucial component of Olympic culture, for its occurrence, coupled with the entrance of the Games’ participants by country, reinforces the meaning of the Games as a communal and participation-oriented event, even as the Games appear to take on greater nationalistic, political, and capitalistic emphases over time.

These examples illustrate the applicability of IR theory to nostalgia sport tourism.

Of particular note, though, is Collins’ notion of emotional energy, which may be the most important aspect of IR theory for sport and tourism researchers. If we apply Collins’ notion of the social marketplace to include those leisure pursuits that are at the root of sport and tourism, we must explore what it is about those particular pursuits that facilitates emotional energy for participants. Or more specifically for nostalgia sport tourism, what environmental or situational ingredients are common to those nostalgia- oriented sport experiences that facilitate high levels of emotional energy? Relph’s (1976) constructs of place and placelessness, along with Tuan’s (1974) concept of topophilia, enable sport and tourism researchers to better understand those elements present within nostalgically-oriented sport sites, such as halls of fame and, most specifically, stadiums.

Place, Placelessness, and Topophilia

Geographical concepts can prove useful for sport and tourism researchers in their analyses of individuals’ motivations to engage in sport tourism (Higham & Hinch, 2006).

The concepts of place, placelessness (Relph, 1976), and topophilia (Tuan, 1974) are central to humanistic geography and are key to understanding those environmental or situational elements that appear to be inherent to the sport and tourism experience.

To clarify, a place is one’s experience of an authentically conceived and implemented environment; one that consists of materials from that space (in the broad sense of the term, e.g. regional or local) and specifically used for that site. A place also allows an individual to engage with its constituent materials to facilitate a particular

32 sensory experience, one whose aesthetic looks and feels authentic to that particular locale. A place, then, is the ‘real thing’ (Relph, 1976).

For Relph (1981), rational approaches to place-making, while they make our environment more comfortable, facilitate a bland experience, a sameness, by virtue of increased replication. Materials, architectural styles, design, and spatial planning are all prey to an over-rationalized approach to their creation and implementation, which prevent us from experiencing the idiosyncrasies, the uniqueness, of a place. Relph considered those practices that result from this rationalistic paradox to be inauthentic representations of a particular place. Consequently, placelessness is present where ever inauthenticity reigns. Inauthentic places are the manifestations of Relph’s (1976) rationalistic paradox, or technique, which he described as “an overriding concern with functional efficiency, objective organization, and manipulative planning” (p. 81). This “functional” or

“manipulative” emphasis distances one from the unique aspects of his or her respective environment. Meshing these concepts and considering the relationships among them provides sport and tourism scholars with fruitful constructs that articulate the past, present, and future state of sport landscapes.

The use of Relph’s concepts in sport studies is not without precedent. Many scholars have explored, explicitly or implicitly, Relph’s concepts of place and placelessness in sport contexts. Bale’s work is most notable in this regard. He discussed, for example, the placelessness inherent within a simulated golf space, where participants hit balls into screens with video images of famous golf courses projected onto them, which occurs in a Canadian warehouse in the dead of winter (Bale, 1994).

Place and placelessness mark the significance, or lack thereof, of our experience within the sport landscape. They represent types of genius loci, or the mind’s distinct impression of a place. Genius loci can elicit a great deal of emotion by virtue of our interaction with those place or placeless elements within a particular sport site. Another type of genius loci that has the potential to generate emotion is Tuan’s (1974) notion of

‘topophilia’.

Topophilia is a broad term that is meant “to include all of the human being’s affective ties with the material environment” (Tuan, 1974, p. 93); that is, individuals experience topophilia through a strong affinity toward a particular place via our sensory experience. Implicit in Tuan’s notion of topophilia is the role that memory plays in establishing and strengthening genius loci.

An important concept that has general applicability to a variety of sport contexts, topophilia contains one key component that has particular relevance for sport places:

‘carpentered’ versus ‘noncarpentered’ space. In explaining this dichotomy, Tuan (1974) noted that, “The carpentered world is replete with straight lines, angles, and rectangular objects. Cities are rectangular environment par excellence. Nature and the countryside, in contrast, lack rectangularity” (pp. 75-76). In nature-based cultures, carpentered spaces–that is, those spaces that consist of hard angles or ‘orthogonals’–contain a sacred quality that facilitates a topophilic experience for cultural members. In contrast, curvilinear spaces and natural elements facilitate topophilia for city dwellers (Tuan,

1974). Consequently, topophilic sport landscapes often blend the carpentered with the

34 noncarpentered to establish positive genius loci that has the potential to elicit emotionally-charged experiences for attendees.

There are several explicit and implicit examples of topophilia’s emergence in the sport-related literature (Bale, 1993, 1994, 1996, 2003; Giulianotti, 2007). For example,

Bale (1994) referenced topophilia and its constituent elements implicitly in speaking to the importance of blending the carpentered with the noncarpentered in creating sport landscapes with the following excerpt:

To an extent, the sports landscape can be regarded as part of the human habitat, a conscious decision having been made for slopes, soils, elevations, sites and routes, fields, channels or relief features to be used as homes for sport. In such cases humans rearrange nature into various sport-related forms in a harmonious way – an adjustment to nature but not the overwhelming conquest of it; the sports landscape, therefore, becomes a blending of humanity and nature . . . (p. 10)

Gammon (2004), too, connected topophilia to the sport experience within nostalgia sport tourism in his exploration of sport tourism as a ‘secular pilgrimmage’, though he did not discuss carpentered and non-carpentered elements.

The evolution of the American baseball park is an excellent example as to how the confluence, or lack thereof, of place, placeless, and topophilic elements have the ability to facilitate an emotionally-charged experience that attracts sport tourists and sport excursionists. Ritzer and Stillman’s (2001) typology serves as a useful heuristic device for examining American ballparks, which consists of ‘early modern’, ‘late modern’, and

‘postmodern’ ballparks. Early modern parks are those built in the United States during the early 1900s. These were monofunctional, outdoor ballparks in urban locations.

Wrigley Field in Chicago and Fenway Park in Boston serve as good examples. Late modern ballparks were built in the United States during the mid-1900s. Often built in 35 rural or suburban locations, these parks had a multifunctional emphasis. Many late modern ballparks were also built with domed roofs and seemed to put a much stronger emphasis on the presence and employment of technology than did their early modern predecessors. Examples include The Houston Astrodome and the Hubert H. Humphrey

Metrodome in Minneapolis. Postmodern ballparks were built in the 1990s and early

2000s and represent a return to both monofunction and the urban setting. Ritzer and

Stillman (2001), though, used the term ‘postmodern’ to denote these parks’ emphasis on a total leisure experience. These “fun ballparks . . . simulated some of the surface charm of the classic parks and have added a range of amenities. . .” (pp. 101-102). Although these parks have been designed and built primarily for one sport, they contain other leisure opportunities, such as shopping and dining, or in the case of Chase Field in

Phoenix, a swimming pool over its outfield fence. Some examples of postmodern ballparks are Oriole Park at Camden Yards in Baltimore and AT&T Park in San

Francisco. This typology of ballparks–early modern, late modern, and postmodern– serves as a useful construct in examining the nostalgic draw these parks have for sport tourists and excursionists.

Experiencing Place, Placelessness, and Topophilia in American Ballparks and Their Connection to Emotional Energy and Memory

Many early modern ballparks’ use in contemporary society exemplifies the sense of place that participants and attendees experience when they are present within them; that is, these ballparks represent authentic sport place-making. Early ballparks, which were built within cities, were made to fit the often odd dimensions of the urban land plots they occupied (Neilson, 1986). These parks’ playing spaces were consequently 36 idiosyncratic and demonstrated a non-standardized approach to ballpark design. The idiosyncrasies of these parks, such as the ivy-covered, brick, outfield wall in Chicago’s

Wrigley Field, provide symbols and rituals that are unique to cities and communities.

These ballpark symbols and rituals act as situational ingredients that make the experience associated with attending a game at an early modern ballpark a sacred one for die-hard fans and interested tourists.

The significance of these ballparks as places have, in some cases, helped to distinguish these structures as municipal landmarks (Sheard, 2001). Moreover, the authentic use of materials and space in the construction of these ballparks and their presence within the city over a number of years can facilitate a strong sense of place for attendees. Trumpbour (2007) argued, for example, that Pennsylvania's steel industry facilitated the construction of Shibe Park in Philadelphia and Forbes Field in Pittsburgh, both of which have since been torn down. The use of in-state materials in these parks’ construction may have further enhanced their significance for attendees via topophilia.

The significance of these ballparks in their ability to facilitate a topophilic experience, though, also has a lot to do with what happens within these spaces. As Relph (1976) noted,

Much ritual and custom and myth has the incidental if not deliberate effect of strengthening attachment to place by reaffirming not only the sanctity and unchanging significance of it, but also the enduring relationships between a people and their place. When the rituals and myths lose their significance and the people cease to participate fully in them the places themselves become changeable and ephemeral. In cultures such as our own, where significant tradition counts for little, places may be virtually without time, except perhaps in terms of direct and personal experience. (pp. 32-33)

Here, Relph asserts a connection with the three key components of IR theory: ritual, emotion, and memory. Thus, Fenway Park and Wrigley Field are significant, perhaps even topophilic, places by virtue of the teams and players who have played within their respective spaces and the successes they have had (or, in the case of the Chicago Cubs whose home park is Wrigley Field, their storied lack thereof). The experience of being present within these spaces, combined with the collective memory of those who attend and identify with the IRs that take place within these spaces, evokes a nostalgic sentiment for many attendees. This nostalgic sentiment is the manifestation of place and topophilia and their interaction with these individuals’ emotional energy and memory, the latter of which is forged collectively yet experienced individually.

Early modern ballparks typify urban spaces that blend the carpentered and the noncarpentered, both elements of which are indicative of many topophilic landscapes

(Tuan, 1974). Relph (1976) asserted that the presence of both elements make for

‘complex landscapes’, in contrast to the ‘simple landscapes’ that “present no problems or surprises, [that] lack subtlety” (p. 136). Complex landscapes, then, are akin to what Raitz

(1987) called “the sport landscape ensemble” (p. 7). Generally speaking, the playing surface present within these ballparks–the outfield fence, the ballpark seats, the green grass, the dirt within the infield, and the open air–are inherent to the games themselves and thus make ballparks “potent sources” of topophilia (Bale, 1992, p. 77) and serve as excellent examples of the type of environmental ingredients necessary for strong IRs.

This helps us understand the appeal of early modern ballparks to the contemporary sport landscape, as many consist of carpentered and noncarpentered elements that are unique to

38 the larger space (i.e. city or region) within which the ballpark presides, thus lending an appearance of patina to their structure.

Wrigley Field (see Appendix, photograph A1) is an excellent example of a complex landscape, or sport landscape ensemble, whose authentically blended carpentered and noncarpentered elements within it denote a patina that facilitates a significant sense of place and serves as an excellent environmental ingredient for IRs.

Perhaps Wrigley’s most notable feature–its ivy-covered, brick, outfield wall–is the carpentered/noncarpentered sport structure par excellence (see A2). This wall is a unique characteristic of the ballpark, one that sets it apart from all ballparks including other early modern ones. Furthermore, Wrigley is distinct from other ballparks, including other early modern parks, in that it did not have any stadium lights that would allow for night games from its construction in the early 1910s until it finally added them in the 1980s.

All of these elements make Wrigley Field a significant and authentic, if not topophilic, place in the minds of sport tourists and sport excursionists. Wrigley’s historical tradition and ritualistic elements, such as the singing of Take Me Out To The Ballgame with Harry

Caray and other local celebrities, further strengthen the emotional bond that attendees have with the ballpark and one another.

In contrast to the authenticity and complex ensemble of early modern ballparks, late modern ballparks represent a turn toward the rational or technique (Relph, 1976).

These ballparks signify the placelessness inherent within the increasingly technologized sport landscape. Late modern ballparks’ move from urban monofunction to suburban or rural multifunction represented a dramatic shift in designers’ and architects’ mode of

39 thinking; these ballparks’ emphasis became one of mass spectacle, in which virtually every inch of playing and spectating space was rationalized to ensure maximum financial efficiency and performance heterogeneity.

Most characteristic of late modern ballparks was the prevalence of technique and, consequently, inauthenticity. Bale (1994) discusses the placelessness within late modern ballparks when he noted that, “The concrete bowl stadium with its plastic carpet and the fenced-in tennis court with its synthetic surface typify [placelessness]” (p. 52). Oriard

(1976) highlighted that, in contrast to early modern ballparks’ idiosyncratic playing spaces, late modern ballparks playing spaces lacked intrastadium variation. The outfield dimensions in, for example, Boston’s Fenway Park (see A3) are highly idiosyncratic, especially when compared to the symmetrical outfield in Cincinnati’s Riverfront Stadium

(see A4), which is considered a late modern ballpark. Thornes (1977) noted sport stadium designers’ increasing desire to control environmental variables that could affect performance outcomes in late modern ballparks. This increased emphasis on the control of performance variables explains technology’s ubiquity in the form of artificial turf, the late modern ballpark move toward domed stadiums, or, where natural grass is present, the increased presence and necessity of groundskeepers, tarps, and similar equipment for

“weather interference sports” (Thornes, 1977, p. 261) such as football and baseball.

The lack of noncarpentered elements in late modern ballparks is glaring in comparison to their early modern predecessors, leading Neilson (1986) to refer to them as

‘sports saucers’. Late modern ballparks’ emphases on financial efficiency and performance heterogeneity maximized seating and multifunctionality at the expense of

40 spectator sightlines and natural idiosyncrasy, the combination of which created a still, bland, sport vacuum for spectator and participant alike. Perhaps the only noncarpentered element in these spaces was the dirt in the baseball infield, and even that was minimized to the immediate areas surrounding the bases so as to make many ground balls bounce as predictably as possible. In essence, then, the placelessness elements that were characteristic of late modern ballparks did not provide attendees with the necessary type of environmental ingredients that yield high levels of emotional energy, save for the events that take place within the playing space.

The movement of late modern ballparks to suburban and rural settings is also important to consider. This locational shift created a sameness of landscape, whereby a ballpark attendee would almost not know where he or she was if they were transplanted in immediate proximity to, for example, the Houston Astrodome (see A5 and A6) or

Minneapolis’ Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome during baseball season’s spring or summer months. This is in contrast to Wrigley Field, whose presence in the Chicago neighborhood of Wrigleyville means that every home game is a community event, one in which some spectators will watch the game far beyond the ivy-covered, brick, outfield wall from neighboring residences’ rooftops. If one were transplanted there the scene would be unmistakably ‘Wrigley’.

The emergence of postmodern ballparks represents the return of major league baseball parks to both urban settings and monofunctionality. These ballparks are a hybridization of early modern ballpark and late modern ballpark characteristics. They contain idiosyncratic playing spaces and blended carpentered and noncarpentered

41 elements more characteristic of early modern ballparks, as well as the highly rational and technologized nature of late modern ballparks.

Ritzer and Stillman (2001) asserted that this popular ‘throwback’ ballpark model attempts to make the intentional presentation of its aesthetic and efficient workings of its personnel less evident than the late modern ballpark model. In so doing, ballpark designers and personnel attempt to simulate the elements of classic, early modern ballparks. The result demonstrates a hyper-rationalized approach to the attendant experience, one whose nostalgic, ‘old-fashioned’ appearance belies a higher tier of technique.

Postmodern ballparks each contain a multitude of leisure opportunities for ballpark attendees. These ballparks often consist of both carpentered and noncarpentered elements in hopes of facilitating a topophilic sentiment among sport tourists and excursionists. Moreover, the increased technical emphasis on leisure and evolution in stadium design have made postmodern ballparks more comfortable than both early modern and late modern parks. Attendees are exposed to topophilic elements in postmodern ballparks that are key IR catalysts through their nostalgic emphases, as well as other leisure elements that provide individuals with other opportunities to increase their EE and forge the ballpark as an important space for potential IRs.

AT&T Park in San Francisco (see A7 and A8) exemplifies the postmodern ballpark movement and its ability to engender high EE IRs through the rationalized approach to recreating nostalgia. Situated in San Francisco’s ‘China Basin’ area, the ballpark’s right field wall is flush against the San Francisco Bay. Home run balls that go

42 over the right field fence have the possibility of landing in ‘McCovey Cove’ (a small segment of the bay named for one of the team’s legendary players, Willie McCovey) and becoming known as a ‘splash hit’. The space behind the left field seats contains signs for corporate advertising and whose aesthetic is reminiscent of early twentieth century advertising. AT&T Park also has plenty of shopping and dining space for adults and playground space for children. The park’s structural elements and panoramic views of the bay from many of the ballpark’s seats allow for the potential of a topophilic experience for attendees. These panoramic views include the Bay Bridge, which connects San Francisco to Oakland. The end result is a highly rationalized and stylized urban space, one whose curvilinear structure, idiosyncratic dimensions, and complex landscape creates a topophilic yet placeless paradox with the potential for high EE IRs within ‘the city by the bay’.

Conclusion

Nostalgia sport tourism is the least researched domain within sport and tourism

(Fairley, 2003; Gibson, 2002, 2003; Ritchie & Adair, 2004). The growing body of knowledge dedicated to this aspect of sport and tourism, however, has yielded thought- provoking research and analyses. Scholars have invoked different sociological perspectives to aid in their analyses, the majority of which have been micro-oriented.

Interaction ritual theory, whose emphasis is on emotional energy and memory, is particularly well-suited to aid sport and tourism researchers in their examinations of nostalgia-oriented phenomena. The application of IR theory is bolstered through the employment of three sport geographical concepts–place, placelessness, and topophilia–

43 the presence of which can engender an emotionally-laden experience for sport tourists and sport excursionists regardless of what takes place on the field of play.

The evolution of American ballparks provides an example as to how certain elements inherent to sport sites can serve as key situational ingredients to IRs. Authentic carpentered and noncarpentered elements in early modern ballparks, for example, were combined to create complex landscapes that have facilitated a strong sense of place for many attendees over the years. During the late modern era, ballparks were no longer built in the city but in rural and suburban spaces, which created a placeless experience for attendees by virtue of their emphases on multifunctionality and performance heterogeneity. Postmodern ballparks’ emergence, in contrast, represents a renewed emphasis on intraurban development and authentic sport place-making, the result of which demonstrates a hyper-rationalized attempt toward recreating nostalgia that facilitates EE through the simultaneous presence of topophilic elements and increased leisure opportunities.

Teams’ and individuals’ past performances within these spaces also contribute to ballparks’ role in creating a genius loci as game attendees’ collective memory is forged by virtue of their co-presence at the event. This is especially true for early modern ballparks, whose legendary performers and performances foster ‘collective effervescence’ among attendees and reinforce their needs for future joint spectatorship, as well as contributing to the sacredness of the ballpark itself (Durkheim E. , 2008 [1912]).

This appears to exemplify what Relph (1976) means when he says, “places can be almost independent of time” (p. 33). This ritualized aspect of the attendee experience is not

44 exclusive to in-game events. Early and postmodern ballparks’ placement within urban environments makes them accessible by foot for many attendees, which serves as a ritualized aspect of the ballpark attendant experience itself (Durkheim, 2008 [1912];

Fairley, 2003, 2009).

Like many structures important to a space, be it a town, city, state, or country, urban ballparks serve as “structural postcards”, which highlight a city’s most noteworthy attributes, consolidating them to fill a single frame of one’s mental map (Tuan, 1974, p.

205). They serve as ‘place anchors’ in today’s increasingly transient society, allowing individuals to reflect on the memories and emotions they associate with them. This is particularly true in the case of early modern ballparks. The Bostonian who moves to

Phoenix, for example, may recall the experiences they had which involved Faneuil Hall or the Old North Church but may also, if not probably, recall Fenway Park’s Green

Monster during fond memories of his or her hometown. In contrast, postmodern ballparks have not yet reached the level of historical significance possessed by their early modern predecessors, nor the memory and emotion that goes along with that significance.

Yet the presence of carpentered and noncarpentered elements within these parks, along with their curvilinear, structural elements, may overcome the placeless characteristics of rationalized simulation within them to create another form of urban, topophilic, sport space that can yield high EE IRs for sport tourists and excursionists.

Sport sites are important to the experience of sport tourists and sport excursionists for a variety of reasons. Their form and function evolve as do other structures. Their significance, though, can be strongly linked to the emotions and memories that are forged

45 by tourists’ and excursionists’ experiences, some of which may be a result of the place and topophilic elements inherent within them. The relationship we have to these places is, as Relph (1976) asserts, key to our existence as social persons: “A deep relationship with places is as necessary, and perhaps as unavoidable, as close relationships with people; without such relationships human existence, while possible, is bereft of much of its significance” (p. 41).

Suggestions for Future Research

The nexus of place, placelessness, topophilia, and interaction ritual theory can be researched in a variety of ways to add to the growing body of knowledge within nostalgia sport tourism. Stadium designers, sport managers, and sport and tourism scholars could examine, for example, the influence that sportscape elements (Wakefield et al., 1996) such as stadium design, wayfinding signage, parking, and perceived crowding have in facilitating a topophilic or place experience to facilitate emotional energy for attendees and the role that plays in generating repeat attendance. Sport and tourism scholars could also explore the extent to which specific sport sites, such as stadiums, play a significant, if not sacred, role within the lives of attendees through an examination of individual and collective memory, perhaps by researching the increasingly popular practice of stadium tours (Gammon & Fear, 2005).

References

Bale, J. (1992). Cartographic fetishism to geographical humanism: Some central features of a geography of sport. Innovation in Social Sciences Research , 5 (4), 71-88.

Bale, J. (1994). Landscapes of modern sport. London: Leicester University Press.

Bale, J. (1993). Sport, space, and the city. London: Routledge. 46

Bale, J. (2003). Sports geography (2nd Edition ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Douglas, B. (1987). Fans rate major league baseball parks. Sport Place , 1, 36.

Durkheim, E. (2008) [1912]. The elementary forms of the religious life. (J. Swain, Trans.) Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.

Fairley, S. (2003). In search of relived social experience: Group-based nostalgia sport tourism. Journal of Sport Management , 17, 284-304.

Fairley, S. (2009). The role of the mode of transport in the identity maintenance of sport fan travel groups. Journal of Sport & Tourism , 14 (2-3), 205-222.

Fairley, S., & Gammon, S. (2006). Something lived, something learned: Nostalgia's expanding role in sport tourism. In H. Gibson (Ed.), Sport tourism: Concepts and theories (pp. 50-65). New York: Routledge.

Gammon, S. (2002). Fantasy, nostalgia, and the pursuit of what never was. In S. Gammon, & J. Kurtzman (Eds.), Sport tourism: Principles and practice (pp. 61- 72). Eastbourne: Leisure Studies Association.

Gammon, S. (2004). Secular pilgrimmage and sport tourism. In B. W. Ritchie, & D. Adair (Eds.), Sport tourism: Interrelationships, impacts and issues (pp. 30-45). Buffalo, NY: Channel View.

Gammon, S., & Fear, V. (2005). Stadia tours and the power of backstage. Journal of Sport Tourism , 10 (4), 243-252.

Gibson, H. J. (2004). Moving beyond the 'what is and who' of sport tourism to understanding 'why'. Journal of Sport Tourism , 9 (3), 247-265.

Gibson, H. J. (1998). Sport tourism: A critical analysis of research. Sport Management Review , 1, 45-76.

Gibson, H. (2006). Sport tourism: Concepts and theories. An introduction. In H. Gibson (Ed.), Sport tourism: Concepts and theories (pp. 1-9). New York: Routledge.

Giulianotti, R. (2007). Sport: A critical sociology. Malden, MA: Polity.

Goffman, E. (1982). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Pantheon. 47

Harris, J. (2006). The science of research in sport and tourism: Some reflections upon the promise of the sociological imagination. Journal of Sport & Tourism , 11 (2), 153-171.

Higham, J., & Hinch, T. (2006). Sport and tourism research: A geographic approach. Journal of Sport & Tourism , 11 (1), 31-49.

MacCannell, D. (1999). The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class. Berkeley, CA: University of California.

Nauright, J. (2003). Nostalgia, culture and modern sport. In V. Moller, & J. Nauright (Eds.), The essence of sport (pp. 35-50). Odense, Denmark: University Press of Southern Denmark.

Neilson, B. (1986). Dialogue with the city: The evolution of the baseball park. Landscape , 29, 39-47.

Oriard, M. (1976). Sports and space. Landscape , 21, 32-40.

Raitz, K. (1987). Commentary: Place, space, and environment in America's leisure landscapes. Journal of Cultural Geography , 8 (1), 49-62.

Ramshaw, G., & Gammon, S. (2005). More than just nostalgia? Exploring the heritage/sport tourism nexus. Journal of Sport Tourism , 10 (4), 229-241.

Redmond, G. (1973). A plethora of shrines: Sport in the museum and hall of fame. Quest , 19, 41-48.

Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion Limited.

Relph, E. (1981). Rational landscapes and humanistic geography. Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble.

Ritzer, G., & Stillman, T. (2001). The postmodern ballpark as a leisure setting: Enchantment and simulated de-McDonaldization. Leisure Sciences , 23, 99-113. 48

Sheard, R. (2001). Sports architecture. New York, NY: Spon Press.

Slowikowski, S. S. (1991). Burning desire: Nostalgia, ritual, and the sport-festival flame ceremony. Sociology of Sport Journal , 8, 239-257.

Snyder, E. E. (1991). Sociology of nostalgia: Sport halls of fame and museums in America. Sociology of Sport Journal , 8, 228-238.

Thornes, J. (1977). The effect of weather on sport. Weather , 32, 258-267.

Trumpbour, R. C. (2007). The new cathedrals: Politics and media in the history of stadium construction. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.

Tuan, Y.-F. (1974). Topophilia: A study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Wakefield, K. L., Blodgett, J. G., & Sloan, H. J. (1996). Measurement and management of the sportscape. Journal of Sport Management , 10, 15-31.

Weed, M. (2006). Sports tourism research 2000-2004: A systematic review of knowledge and a meta-evaluation of methods. Journal of Sport & Tourism , 11 (1), 5-30.

Chapter 3: Managing the Sportscape for Stakeholders:

An Interaction Ritual Analysis of the Creation and Consumption of Facility Aesthetics

Introduction

The ‘sportscape’ is an important theoretical construct for sport business that lies at the intersection of service and facility management, which, when managed successfully, can increase revenue through consumer repatronage and desire to stay (Wakefield, 2007;

Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994, 1996; Wakefield, Blodgett, & Sloan, 1996;). Key to the notion of successful management is managing for stakeholders, a concept that has gained increased scholarly attention in both the business and, more recently, the sport management literature (Freeman, 2010 [1984]; Freeman, Harrison, & Wicks, 2007;

Freeman, Pierce, & Dodd, 2000; Friedman & Mason, 2004; Hutchinson & Bennett, 2012;

Leopkey & Parent, 2009; MacIntosh & Spence, 2012; Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997;

Parent, 2008; Parent & Deephouse, 2007; Sallent, Palau, & Guia, 2011; Weed, 2007).

Managing the sportscape through stakeholder interaction can be mutually beneficial as both the firm and its stakeholders have an opportunity to have their various wants and needs met through the design process.

While the business literature has focused primarily on articulating the stakeholder concept (Freeman, 2010 [1984]; Freeman, Harrison, et al., 2007; Freeman, Pierce, et al.,

2000), constructing related typologies (Mitchell et al., 1997), and, in the case of sport 50 management, generating empirical data with regard to the attitudes of different stakeholders toward various processes associated with sport event and facility management (Friedman & Mason, 2004; Parent & Deephouse, 2007; Weed, 2007;

Parent, 2008; Leopkey & Parent, 2009; Freeman, 2010 [1984]; Sallent, Palau, & Guia,

2011; Hutchinson & Bennett, 2012; MacIntosh & Spence, 2012), no sport-related literature appears to address the interactional dynamic of the firm-stakeholder relationship at the micro level. Beyond simply recognizing and legitimizing the stakeholder voice, how can these interactions yield mutually beneficial results?

This paper argues that symbols highly charged with emotion have the potential to emerge within sportscape-oriented, firm-stakeholder interaction through the lens of a unique microsociological perspective called ‘interaction ritual’ theory (Collins, 2004).

Consequently, this paper represents an attempt to answer the above question and fill the gap within the current sport management literature through an analysis of how managing for stakeholders is beneficial for both parties–the firm and its stakeholders–at the micro- interactional level. Firm-stakeholder interaction will be examined as a function of social solidarity through the establishment of mutually shared and emotionally-charged symbols within the larger context of managing and designing the facility aesthetic aspect of the sportscape. Given the highly specific and nuanced nature of this analysis, a brief discussion of the three theoretical constructs at the heart of this paper–the sportscape, stakeholder theory, and interaction ritual–is necessary, as is an explanation as to how these constructs coalesce. Two case studies that involve the facility aesthetic dimension

51 of the sportscape and their implications for stakeholder management are also presented, as are conclusions, limitations, and suggestions for further research.

The Sportscape

The sportscape (Wakefield et al., 1996) is an extension of Bitner’s (1992)

‘servicescape’, which is the built environment inherent to any space oriented toward service consumption. Bitner, in essence, argues that there are three environmental dimensions inherent to the servicescape that influence an individual’s internal responses and behavior: ambient conditions; space/function; and signs, symbols, and artifacts.

Ambient conditions include such elements as temperature, air quality, noise, and odor while space and function include, among other qualities, layout and equipment. Signs, symbols, and artifacts are those qualities of signage, décor, etc. (Bitner, 1992). Her work has inspired other scholarship on the physical environments of service consumption, particularly that which is focused on how servicescapes elicit consumer emotion.

Ang, Leong, and Lim (1997) examined if two dimensions of the servicescape– layout and signage–could improve customer responses and behavior and found that they were important influences of both pleasure and arousal. Their findings demonstrate that a

“significant improvement resulting from a better servicescape suggests that its presence can substantially enhance customer response” (Ang et al., 1997, p. 22). In their examinations of holistic, or Gestalt, versus non-Gestalt service environments, Lin (2010) and Lin and Worthley (2012) found that Gestalt service environments influenced individuals’ emotional responses and behaviors via pleasure and arousal. These scholars concluded that hospitality firms should design spaces with an intent to utilize the Gestalt

52 effect of objective elements of a servicescape, particularly those involving color and music as they are two of the most salient determinants of atmospheric attributes (Lin &

Worthley, 2012).

Applying analyses of the servicescape to sport environments, Wakefield and

Blodgett (1994) explored the importance of servicescapes to leisure settings in their examination of two Major League Baseball stadiums: Cincinnati’s Riverfront Stadium and Cleveland’s Municipal Stadium. They found that the consumption of leisure services is driven by emotions. Focusing on functional aspects of the sportscape, Wakefield and

Blodgett (1994) asserted that the “servicescape is important because it can either enhance or suppress . . . emotions” (p. 67). Wakefield and Blodgett (1996) also examined the effect of the servicescape on perceived quality in three different sport and leisure settings: a major college football stadium, a minor league baseball stadium, and casinos. In their research, satisfaction with the servicescape had a positive effect on repatronage and consumers’ desire to stay. Moreover, they found that the primary determinant of perceived servicescape quality is the facility aesthetic and asserted that “Managers who focus on the servicescape, in addition to the primary service offering, have the greatest chance of maximizing current and long-term profits” (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996, p.

55).

In addition to the aforementioned scholarship connecting emotion with the servicescape, Wakefield et al., (1996), following the work of Bitner (1992) and

Wakefield and Blodgett (1994, 1996), have extended the concept of the servicescape to form their own sport-specific construct called ‘the sportscape’ that connects consumer

53 emotion with the sport service environment. The sportscape consists of seven elements: stadium access, facility aesthetics, scoreboard quality, seating comfort, layout accessibility, space allocation, and wayfinding signage. Each element has the potential to influence consumer repatronage and desire to stay. Of particular note, Wakefield et al.

(1996) found that the two most influential factors on consumer pleasure were perceived crowding and facility aesthetics. Feeling cramped or crowded makes enjoying the consumption experience frustrating and difficult and has a very strong influence on repatronage and desire to stay. The aesthetic quality of the facility directly influences consumer pleasure as well, and “is the object of constant observation and evaluation . . .

This implies that substantial investments may be necessary to ensure that the customer is pleased with how the sportscape looks” (Wakefield et al., 1996, p. 22). Though not present in scholarship relating to the sportscape, the notion of a facility’s or stadium’s name qua symbol may also be considered an aspect of the sportscape, since it is present within the servicescape literature (Bitner, 1992) from which the sportscape concept is derived. Consequently, the name of a facility and its representation within the facility aesthetic may also influence consumption.

Connecting consumer emotion–as demonstrated through repatronage and a desire to stay–with the sportscape, particularly the facility aesthetic, requires sport managers to ensure that consumers engage positively with that aesthetic. Managing the facility design process for the appropriate stakeholders by jointly creating an emotionally significant aesthetic can aid in reaching this objective, the result of which can generate greater revenue.

Stakeholder Theory

Originally conceptualized by Freeman (2010 [1984]), a stakeholder is “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” (p. 46). Freeman argues that conventional business practices are oriented toward building value for shareholders, which is usually in the form of dividends or marketplace capital. In so doing, he argues, such practices ignore potential challenges to the firm and its objectives from the internal or external environment, i.e. stakeholders.

Internal stakeholders can include employees, suppliers, and other individuals or groups involved in the firm’s operations. In contrast, external stakeholders can be comprised of customers, special interest groups, governments, the media, competitors, and other individuals or groups that impact, or are impacted by, the firm’s production and/or practices. Individuals and groups can occupy a variety of stakeholder positions.

Addressing the wants, needs, and/or interests of these internal and external stakeholders,

Freeman argues, can allow the firm to efficiently and effectively engage in its operations and production with little threat from the environment while simultaneously building value for corresponding stakeholders. The type and extent of this value may differ from stakeholder to stakeholder depending on his/her/their corresponding wants, needs, and/or interests.

Freeman’s notion of managing for stakeholders represents a conceptual shift in the management process and has been used as the theoretical foundation for a great deal of managerial scholarship and application, despite being criticized for its breadth and corresponding lack of specificity (Mitchell et al., 1997), as well as its arbitrariness

(Argandona, 1998). While a review of critical scholarship is beyond the scope of this current project, a brief discussion of refinements to the stakeholder argument that are relevant to sport management is appropriate, as is an examination of stakeholder-based scholarship within sport management.

Freeman, Harrison, et al. (2007) argue that business is a manifestation of

‘stakeholder interaction’, requiring the firm’s managers to understand the ‘legitimacy’ and ‘currency’ of various stakeholders. On a strategic scale, the effective management of stakeholders occurs at three levels: rational, process, and transactional (Freeman, 2010

[1984]). The rational level requires managers to map visually the firm’s current and potential relationship(s) to stakeholders, while simultaneously recognizing the current and potential relationships between the stakeholders themselves. To be successful, the rational level requires the process level, which consists of scanning both the internal and external environment for stakeholder relationships and potential challenges to the firm’s operations. The final level is transactional, which requires the firm’s managers to develop a plan of action for interacting with stakeholders. The transactional level may require managers to interact with stakeholders in a variety of ways and in a variety of settings, depending on their relationship with the stakeholders and the stakeholders’ perspective of the firm and its operations. Inherent to the effective management of stakeholders is the development and continued refinement of a typology of stakeholder segmentation, the qualities of which are dependent upon the firm (Freeman, Harrison, et al., 2007).

Mitchell et al. (1997) developed a useful typology based on qualities specific to different stakeholders to aid researchers and managers in identifying them. These scholars argue that classes of stakeholders can be identified by their possession or attributed possession of one, two, or all three of the following qualities: power, legitimacy, and urgency. Seven stakeholder types are comprised of combinations of these three attributes, all of which can be grouped into one of three classes: latent, expectant, and definitive. Latent stakeholders possess only one of the identifying attributes “and managers may not even go so far as to recognize those stakeholders’ existence” (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 874). Expectant stakeholders possess a combination of any two identifying stakeholder qualities and are thus moderately salient. The firm views them as ‘expecting something’; consequently, they take an active stance regarding their interests toward the firm. Definitive stakeholders are highly salient and possess all three of the qualifying attributes for stakeholders: power, legitimacy, and urgency. The process of stakeholder salience is a dynamic one, as stakeholders can become more or less salient depending upon their ability to access or yield these attributes.

While Mitchell et al. (1997) have refined stakeholder theory to establish stakeholder types and further articulate the nature of firm-stakeholder relationships, stakeholder-oriented scholarship within sport management has emerged that provides scholars and practitioners with a clearer understanding of stakeholders’ wants and needs in various sport-related activities. Weed (2007), for example, advocated the recognition of stakeholders and stakeholder relationships in both the scholarship and application of sport tourism. Sallent et al. (2011) examined the evolution of relationships within a

57 destination sport and tourism stakeholder’s networks by following the implementation of a sport event–the Calella Challenge–a long distance triathlon in a coastal summer tourist destination. These scholars asserted that the process associated with event management would benefit from training sport managers on stakeholder theory. Such managers must be proactive, Sallent et al. (2011) argue, in developing relationships with potential stakeholders and “should aim at ensuring the integration of diversity in points of view”

(p. 416) because managers’ relationships with external stakeholders were “weak” (p.

402).

Friedman and Mason (2004) analyzed stakeholders to assess and understand the policy environment relating to policy decision-making inherent to economic development. They used Mitchell et al’s (1997) typology to create a stakeholder map of those stakeholder groups involved in the subsidization and construction of major league sports facilities, which could be helpful for future scholarship and application. Parent and Deephouse (2007) also utilized the typology put forth by Mitchell et al. in their examination of managers’ identification and prioritization of stakeholders. They demonstrated empirically that the more attributes a stakeholder possesses, the more salient he/she/they are and that power is the primary stakeholder attribute necessary for firm recognition. Moreover, Parent and Deephouse argue that urgency may have a greater impact on the firm’s perception of stakeholder salience than legitimacy.

Parent (2008) concluded in her analysis of event organizing committees that, as temporary organizations, they have a relatively brief life span and are always evolving, due in large part to their interaction with the external environment. Given this

58 relationship with the external environment, Parent asserts that managers should consider stakeholders when organizing the committee. In their comparative case study analysis of risk management issues in large-scale sporting events, Leopkey and Parent (2009) found that risk management should also be more inclusive of stakeholder perspectives.

Hutchinson and Bennett (2012) asserted that a university’s brand essence is defined by values and how those values are exhibited to internal and external stakeholders. Their investigation of stakeholder attitudes regarding the behavioral congruency exhibited by athletic department members towards the university’s stated core values “made it clear that athletic department and university leadership were not actively considering the core values in decision-making processes” (Hutchinson &

Bennett, 2012, p. 445). MacIntosh and Spence (2012), also, examined the congruency of espoused versus enacted organizational values. They set out to uncover the perceived values of key stakeholders, whom they defined as critical for the leadership and operations of a sport development initiative.

With the possible exception of these last two research projects, the stakeholder- oriented scholarship within sport management has focused on meso or macro levels of analysis. In these research projects, stakeholders and/or managers are often asked to identify or describe their feelings or impressions about members of the other group or that group as a whole. While such analysis is helpful in providing insight into the organizational dynamics of the particular sport site under examination per stakeholder theory, as well as providing greater specificity for the rubric of stakeholder management, it does not provide insight as to how firm-stakeholder relationships become successful or

59 unsuccessful. Rather, such analysis asserts that these relationships are either successful or unsuccessful, weak or strong, and locates the explanation for these relationship results in the sport organization’s structural complexity or temporal nature. This project, in contrast, is concerned with arriving at an explanation–the ‘root cause’–for these successful or unsuccessful interactions by reducing the level of stakeholder analysis from the macro or meso levels to the micro level, particularly as it applies to a specific sport- oriented setting, the sportscape. Interaction ritual theory provides an interpretive explanation as to how firm-stakeholder interaction manages to ‘come off’ the way that it does and has implications for effective firm-stakeholder interaction as it pertains to the sportscape.

Interaction Ritual Theory

Since Freeman originally conceptualized and proposed stakeholder theory it has been further refined through the use of sociology. Implicit in the argument of Mitchell et al. (1997), for example, is their use of sociological theory to define the qualifying attributes of stakeholder identification. Their attempt to define power recognizes the historical difficulty amongst scholars in establishing a clear definition and note that “from a sociological perspective it is messy” (p. 865). This incorporation of sociology and recognition of its use in the discourse surrounding stakeholder theory sets an important precedent, as interaction ritual theory becomes another sociological construct by which to further refine the strategic approach to stakeholder management. While interaction ritual theory has been used in other sport-based scholarship (Cottingham, 2012; Gordon,

Chapter 2), a brief explanation of interaction ritual theory and its application to both stakeholder management and the sportscape is appropriate.

Collins’ (2004) interaction ritual (IR) theory is a synthesis of other micro- oriented, sociological perspectives. Drawing upon key elements from Durkheimian sociology, dramaturgy, symbolic interactionism, the sociology of emotions, and exchange theory, IR theory emphasizes emotions and their role in facilitating individuals’ choices to engage in different social behaviors. Collins argues that social behavior originates in face-to-face interaction: the situation, and not the individual, is the interactional starting point. This balance between social agency and microstructure can be further clarified through the description of four key elements to IR theory: ritual, symbols, emotional energy, and interaction ritual chains.

Goffman (1982) created the notion of ‘interaction ritual’, which Collins (2004) has further refined and formed as the basis for IR theory. Goffman and Collins have maintained the original scope of the word ‘ritual’ as Durkheim (2008 [1912]) utilized it.

Consequently, ritual is meant to have broad applicability to account for both the structure inherent to large scale, formal ceremony as well as the structural elements common to everyday, small group interactions. The use of ritual within these interactions, be they large or small, becomes “a mechanism of mutually focused emotion and attention producing a momentarily shared reality, which thereby generates solidarity and symbols of group membership” (Collins, 2004, p. 7).

Symbols emerge through interaction rituals (IRs) as words, emblems, objects, or, in some cases, persons become infused with some degree of situational emotion. The

61 mutual focus of those present on these symbols enables them to develop a strong importance, a sacredness, which becomes inherent to them. These symbols must be used frequently within future IRs to maintain their sacredness, or situational emotion.

This situational emotion begets ‘emotional energy’ (EE) for individuals through the establishment and employment of shared symbols that emerge by virtue of their participation in IRs. These individuals develop either high or low social solidarity with others present in the IR, which is a consequence of the amount of EE generated from their mutual focus on highly charged symbols. This EE directly influences one’s decisions to engage with other social persons and situations in the future. The extent to which an individual experiences, or does not experience, EE in an IR begets a chain of social choices for that person. Consequently, IR chains can be traced back to their interactional origins and are the root of social life (Collins, 1981, 2004).

Those IRs that heighten EE for the individual are considered ‘good’ and involve symbols that are highly charged with situational emotion. This strong sense of positive emotion prompts one to seek out similar interactions in the social marketplace. In contrast, ‘bad’ IRs drain EE and occur when symbols are not clearly defined; that is, they are not focused upon mutually by those present. Good IRs that are a consequence of large social gatherings have the potential to facilitate ‘collective effervescence’ for those present (Collins, 2004; Durkheim, 2008 [1912]), which is a byproduct of group members’ joint focus on symbols. These symbols become highly charged with situational emotion, which facilitates collective emotion and creates collective effervescence (Durkheim, 2008

[1912]). Collective effervescence establishes implicit norms and values for those present,

62 which are rooted in the high level of EE that individuals attribute to the group’s symbols.

That is, collective effervescence begets a sense of morality for group members.

Individuals believe that they are moral when they act with the energy derived from the group’s heightened experience. The EE generated from this experience influences the behavior of individual group members, which establishes appropriate moral expectations for their future behavior. In essence, ritual is the foundation of a group’s moral standards and sets in motion the expectations for individuals’ appropriate behavior in future social situations.

Individuals engage with certain social persons and situations within the marketplace of potential interaction opportunities based on the EE they derive from their experiences in previous IRs, which creates IR chains. IR chains, then, implicitly emphasize the importance of memory to interaction, as current interactional decisions are based upon the type and extent of EE generated through past IRs. Collins (2004) argues that forms of conflict, bureaucracy, social stratification, and other macrosociological processes are precipitates of face-to-face behavior and can be located along an IR chain.

These large-scale social processes are a function of the unequal distribution of EE in earlier interactions, as opposed to, for instance, the unequal distribution of material resources. This conclusion has powerful implications for effective management and leadership practices within an organizational setting and underscores the value of IR theory as an articulation of the face-to-face mechanism inherent to potential firm- stakeholder interactions.

Scholars have employed IR theory in their analyses of consumption-based research, although such research is sparse. Huggins, Murray, Kees, and Creyer (2007) argued, for example, that IR theory can help marketers understand how objects become important to consumers. They asserted that the emphasis on emotions within IR theory makes it appropriate as a new conceptual tool for marketers since consumers’ decisions are dependent on emotions. Brown (2011) used IR theory in his analysis of consumer behavior toward the business of free trade coffee. He argued that IR chains are a better tool for explaining how ethical consumers mobilize than consumer culture or mass consumption theories. Brown noted that, among other benefits, IR theory facilitates a predictive model of consumer behavior that is rooted in the emotional motivations of those involved.

Though not specific to IR theory, Illouz (2009) advocated for the awareness and accountability of emotions in consumption-based research through her assertion that “the volatility of consumers’ desires can be adequately accounted for only if we examine the emotional dimension of consumption” (p. 379). She argues that emotions are an essential mechanism for a full explanation of consumer behavior, yet it is not sufficiently acknowledged in consumer literature. Illouz’ differentiation between ‘background emotion’ and ‘situational emotion’ implicitly argues that tension exists between larger social structure and individual agency. Her normative emphasis on situational emotion as the primary focus of analysis attempts to locate the motivation for consumer behavior at the micro level of experience, which is similar to Collins. While the use of IR theory as a heuristic device in consumer research may be in its infancy, the interplay between it and

64 stakeholder management provides scholars with opportunities for deep analysis and fruitful application, particularly when it is applied to elements of the sportscape.

IR Theory, Firm-Stakeholder Interaction, and the Sportscape

Synthesizing IR theory with firm-stakeholder interaction and the sportscape provides sport managers with unique opportunities to strengthen relationship networks between firm managers and stakeholders, as well as facilitating consumption and increasing revenue. In fact, IR theory provides a different yet meaningful perspective for the effectiveness of stakeholder management.

Viewing firm-stakeholder interaction through the IR theory lens implies a focus on the transactional level of stakeholder management (Freeman, 2010 [1984]).

Furthermore, our analysis of IR theory as a useful tool when managing for stakeholders assumes that such stakeholders fit into either the expectant or definitive stakeholder classes (Mitchell et al., 1997). Two particularly important aspects of IR theory as they relate to firm-stakeholder interaction are deference-power (D-Power) and efficacy-power

(E-Power). Collins (2004) described D-Power and E-Power in relation to the more general presence of power, which can manifest in a variety of social situations. Thus, while power may exist in some situations, D-Power and E-Power and their respective locations within IR chains are not exclusive to those social occasions based in organizations or bureaucracies. For the purposes of this project, however, the D-

Power/E-Power dichotomy is a useful device for the interpretation of firm-stakeholder interaction and, as such, will be examined in organizational and bureaucratic circumstances.

D-Power refers to those situations in which power appears to be zero-sum. An employer or supervisor, for instance, gives orders and a subordinate obeys them. E-

Power, in contrast, refers to those occasions in which power is distributed and the larger collective accomplishes something it had not done previously (Collins, 2004). While both D-Power and E-Power can exist in both the micro and macro realms, persons will most likely experience E-Power as members of larger social groups. D-Power, however, can be experienced in a variety of situations and tends to be more ritualistic. The use of titles in speech (e.g. ‘Sir’, ‘Ma’am’, ‘Doctor’, ‘Your Honor’), the display of certain forms of clothing, and the bowing or kneeling when in another’s presence are all examples of

D-Power. Symbols of formality fill the content of these IRs to denote the respective status differences of those persons involved. This demarcation in status represents stratification in action. This has potentially troublesome consequences, for “any society in which there is much inequality in D-Power will be one in which there are sharp differences in social identities, and a good deal of smoldering resentment and suppressed conflict” (Collins, 2004, p. 284).

In terms of firm-stakeholder interaction, the firm’s managers exercise D-Power when they do not take into account or refuse to acknowledge the concerns, potential or otherwise, real or imagined, of internal or external stakeholders. Implicit in such action– or inaction–is the statement that these members of the internal and external environment, and their related concerns, are of no consequence to the firm. In contrast, providing stakeholders with opportunities to voice their concerns as they pertain to the firm and its related activities, and the firm’s genuine consideration of those concerns in ways clear to

66 stakeholders, supplies these stakeholders with heightened EE as manifested through E-

Power. This heightened EE per E-Power distribution can establish social solidarity among members of the firm and members of the stakeholder group, which, when stakeholder wants and needs are met, can turn them into allies of the firm, its operations, and its products. This is particularly true of external stakeholders. Should the firm’s management choose not to afford stakeholders the opportunity to express their concerns as they relate to the firm and its activities, however, the result could yield negative consequences. Shunned stakeholders, when and for whatever reason the firm rejects their

IR, may choose to seek out EE from other similarly situated stakeholders, such as the media or consumer advocacy groups, the combination of which can lead to negative publicity, litigation, and other negative effects. EE is of clear importance to the establishment of effective IRs within firm-stakeholder interaction. The sportscape, though, provides an opportunity for the emergence of EE among the external stakeholder segment of consumers, as well.

Although person-to-person interaction is the primary focus of IR theory, individuals can generate EE in other ways. To this point, Collins (2004) focuses primarily on the EE generated from IRs that involve, for example, forms of intellectualism and tobacco use. An implicit argument of this paper is that strong emotions that many people possess toward various environmental elements also demonstrates the potential for IRs with physical symbols in the built or natural environment. This supplements Collins’ position. Sportscape elements can provide

67 specific examples of people’s emotionally-driven relationships with the various components of built structures associated with specific athletes, teams, and/or events.

The aforementioned sportscape literature illustrates the presence of emotion in both leisure settings generally and the sportscape specifically. While this literature does not contain any scholarship related to the use of IR theory as a tool to arrive at the meaning of the sportscape for fans, Gordon (Chapter 2) expounds on this concept in his analysis of the literature within the sport tourism subfield of nostalgia sport tourism and offers IR theory as a normative device for understanding people’s attraction to postmodern, or ‘retro’ style, ballparks in the United States. Among other points, he argues that the use of materials that are unique to a particular locale in the construction of ballparks engender greater attachment from area attendees that is grounded in emotion, which facilitates a ‘place’ experience for them (Gordon, Chapter 2; Relph, 1976, 1981).

Given the potential for the generation of EE as a result of IRs with the sportscape and its consequent increase in revenue, understanding how managing for stakeholders can become effective at the micro level of analysis takes on great importance. The firm can address the wants and needs of stakeholders and jointly create sacred symbols that heighten EE for members of both parties when its personnel consider the management and design of the sportscape. These symbols can become sacred by virtue of the firm’s distribution of E-Power. The presence of E-Power among stakeholders facilitates social solidarity, the results of which increase attachment to sportscape symbols as sacred objects that are highly charged with EE and increase revenue through repatronage and

68 desire to stay. Thus, firm-stakeholder interaction is an important first step in establishing an E-Power derived IR chain for stakeholders that begets consumption of the sportscape.

Two case studies are presented that illustrate the importance of effective firm- stakeholder interaction within the IR theory framework. Data from media discourse related to these case studies were examined and interpreted through the use of content analysis, which can be used in either qualitatively- or quantitatively-driven projects

(Bernard, 2011). Birrell and McDonald (2000) argued that the analysis of media texts involving sport allow for a deconstruction of power. Consequently, these case studies follow Birrell and McDonald’s line of reasoning to examine the manifestation of D-

Power and E-Power through an analysis of texts obtained from online resources.

Cottingham (2012) also used content analysis in her IR theory-based examination of sport fandom, although she used it quantitatively to triangulate her ethnographic data.

Each case focuses on facility aesthetic elements of the sportscape, yet each possesses unique qualities and affects their respective stakeholders in different ways.

These case studies are significant examples of how sportscape elements factor into attendees’ experiences and consequent consumption.

Case Study One: AT&T Park and the Consumption of Ironic Nostalgia

AT&T Park is the home ballpark of Major League Baseball’s San Francisco

Giants. Built in 2000, it is the first privately financed ballpark in the Major Leagues since the completion of Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles in 1962 (AT&T Park History; see Appendix B, photograph B1). AT&T Park is similar to other Major League ballparks constructed from the early 1990s through the present day given its ‘retro’, or

‘throwback’, aesthetic and presence of multiple, on-site, leisure opportunities. The combination of these sportscape elements has prompted some scholars to refer to it as a

‘postmodern’ ballpark (Gordon, Chapter 2; Giulianotti, 2007; Ritzer & Stillman, 2001).

The retro aesthetic appears to be intended to evoke feelings of nostalgia for baseball fans, as postmodern ballparks’ asymmetrical playing space, location within a city’s downtown, and single use purpose are qualities that are similar to ballparks built during the early twentieth century. Many of these early twentieth century ballparks were supplanted by multi-use stadiums, such as The Astrodome in Houston and Fulton County Stadium in

Atlanta, that were built in rural or suburban locations and possessed symmetrical playing spaces.

In keeping with the aesthetic of postmodern ballparks, AT&T Park includes a brick veneer that lies on the ballpark’s exterior (see B2 and B3). Such an exterior aids in constructing the ballpark’s aesthetic as nostalgic, since “consumers use cues to identify and give meaning to products and brands” (Tom, Barnett, Lew, & Selmants, 1987, p. 24).

This use of nostalgia is clearly intended to evoke emotions through the fond remembrance of past, baseball-related events (Fairley, 2003, 2009; Fairley & Gammon,

2006; Gammon, 2004; Gordon, Chapter 2; Kulczycki & Hyatt, 2005), even if most of today’s consumers were not alive to experience those events firsthand (Gammon, 2002).

In fact, the franchise acknowledges that the ballpark was “Inspired by Wrigley Field and

Fenway Park and modeled after Oriole Park at Camden Yards, Jacobs Field, and Coors

Field” to promote the “old-time feel” of a “classic urban ballpark” (AT&T Park history).

While a brick façade may aid baseball consumers in constructing emotions for the game’s

70 bygone era, brick buildings have taken on a different meaning for many Californians, particularly those that live in the San Francisco Bay Area, since the construction of early twentieth century ballparks. Consequently, the emotions that a brick façade might yield for Bay Area consumers of the sportscape may have different consequences than the ballpark’s designers originally intended.

California has experienced several deadly earthquakes throughout its history.

These quakes are primarily attributed to the San Andreas Fault, which runs through

California and forms the boundary between the Pacific and North American tectonic plates. The Bay Area, in particular, has born a great deal of the destruction resulting from these earthquakes. The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, for example, was estimated to be a magnitude 7.9 earthquake (Earthquake FAQ) and over three thousand people were killed, when one takes into account the fires that resulted from the quake (Timeline of the

San Francisco earthquake: April 18-23, 1906). The 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake is another example. This quake was a magnitude 6.9 (USGS: Science for a changing world) and it killed sixty-three people, injured approximately four thousand, and left three thousand people homeless (USGS). Moreover, the Loma Prieta Earthquake occurred just prior to Game Three of the 1989 Major League Baseball World Series between the San

Francisco Giants and the Oakland Athletics. The game was scheduled to take place at the

Giants’ home facility, Candlestick Park, and the earthquake occurred with many of the fans in attendance.

The primary structural damage and resultant loss of life that have occurred from earthquakes are largely attributed to construction that involves the use of unreinforced

71 masonry (URM). Unreinforced masonry buildings (UMBs) in the United States have brick walls that do not contain steel bars, which tie the brick to the building’s frame

(Reitherman & Perry, 2009). Consequently, the construction of UMBs in California have been outlawed since 1933 and the Unreinforced Masonry Building Law of 1986 has required jurisdictions within the state to renovate or demolish them (Perkins, 2004). As of 2003, housing units within UMBs accounted for 1% of all the housing stock within the

Bay Area (ABAG shaken awake! Report - unreinforced masonry buildings). Given the danger associated with brick-based construction in the San Francisco area, and AT&T

Park designers’ and managers’ attempt to incorporate it as a means to evoke nostalgic sentiment, it is possible that area residents would not want to attend a game there.

Despite the potential threat that AT&T Park’s aesthetic represents, it has been popular among fans since the park opened in 2000. The San Francisco Giants were able to sell a high number of season and Charter Seat tickets early in the ballpark’s existence

(AT&T Park history) and the total number of season tickets, 28,000, sold prior to the park’s opening was the most in Major League Baseball that year (King B. , 2002).

Spectator consumption of a facility designed to represent an era of URM construction is ironic given the history of UMBs in California as spaces of potential danger for patrons.

This consumption of ironic nostalgia has implications for consumer identity salience as it pertains to sportscape elements. In constructing a postmodern ballpark, designers, primarily the facility’s architects, HOK Sport (AT&T Park, 2007), emphasized baseball’s historical roots, playing more to the sensibility associated with the identity of fans qua baseball fans, rather than as community citizens. The nostalgic aesthetic

72 exemplified by the brick appears to be an important symbol highly charged with EE for members of the baseball subculture, one whose emotional significance facilitates greater salience via ‘good’ IRs than fans’ potential identification with brick as a symbol of danger and EE-drainer within ‘bad’ IRs. Furthermore, while the ballpark’s façade may not reflect an aesthetic that is representative of its locale, and thus the potential interests of some community stakeholders, park designers and sport managers addressed other aspects of the sportscape, both functional and aesthetic, to facilitate ‘good’ IRs that accommodate the interests of different stakeholder segments.

Engineers from the University of California at Davis, for example, were consulted to help configure the park’s orientation in relation to the San Francisco Bay to minimize wind-related issues. The team’s former home, Candlestick Park, was known for its tremendous wind gusts and resultant discomfort for fans. UC Davis engineers recommended rotating the park ninety degrees from its original orientation to minimize wind effects and make for a more pleasurable spectator experience (Engineering: Taking the wind out of baseball, 1999), which the park’s architects accommodated.

In terms of accessibility, more public transportation serves AT&T Park than any other ballpark in the country (AT&T Park, 2007). In addition, the Paralyzed Victims of

America praised AT&T Park’s designers and managers for going above the guidelines established by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), pointing out the ballpark’s easily accessible seating throughout and the use of captioning on the scoreboard for the hearing impaired (Diamond). Managers upgraded the park’s aesthetic in 2007 through the installation of a new LED scoreboard in centerfield with a 32:9 aspect ratio, the only

73 one of its kind in Major League Baseball (Frembes, 2007). In 2010, the United States

Green Building Council praised AT&T Park’s sustainable design and management, awarding it with Silver Certification for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

(LEED). As the first major league ballpark to receive LEED certification (AT&T Park becomes the first major league ballpark to receive LEED certification, 2010), facility managers addressed the interests of environmentally-oriented stakeholders, which created the potential to facilitate consumption from this stakeholder segment as well as minimize operating costs (Freeman, Pierce, et al., 2000). Finally, while being criticized for certain sportscape elements during the park’s early stages, such as dimly lit concourses, AT&T

Park has been lauded for the presence of locally authentic items, such as a ‘real’ cable car permanently fixed behind the centerfield bleachers (King J. , 2012).

Consumer engagement with the sportscape through repatronage and desire to stay appears to be a product of sportscape elements beyond the aesthetic aspect of the park’s brick façade. Moreover, the design choices of ballpark managers appear to demonstrate a hierarchy of stakeholder prioritization that mixes both aesthetic and functional elements.

The emphasis on wheelchair accessibility, relative to other major league parks for example, prioritizes the wants and needs of members of this stakeholder segment above those that may have issues with the brick veneer of the park’s aesthetic. While the choice to provide a clearer LED scoreboard than other ballparks supplies spectators with improved sportscape functionality that also enhances the aesthetic experience.

The analysis of media discourse related to AT&T Park and its design and management appears to reflect the findings of Wakefield and Blodgett (1996) and Hall,

O’Mahony, and Vieceli (2010) in that positive consumer emotion related to the sportscape influenced repatronage and desire to stay. While their research results centered on the importance of the facility aesthetic to repatronage and desire to stay, this analysis establishes the importance of determining the meanings that stakeholders/consumers ascribe to various elements of the facility aesthetic. The facility aesthetic is comprised of constituent elements, the consumer engagement of which produces positive or negative IRs (Gordon, Chapter 2) that may be a result of their salience relative to consumer identity. In order to accurately understand the aesthetic salience/consumer identity relationship as an IR and its consequent influence on consumption, firms should attempt to segment potential stakeholder groups and engage in effective firm-stakeholder interaction with those groups whose identity salience vis a vis potential aesthetic elements influences consumption. This has the potential to distribute

E-Power through the joint establishment of sacred symbols inherent to the facility’s aesthetics, which can facilitate increased consumption through repatronage and desire to stay. Stakeholders develop an emotional attachment to the sportscape and a desire to include it as an important component of future consumption-driven IRs by taking part in the design of the facility aesthetic, which can increase revenue through repatronage and desire to stay.

The sportscape then can be viewed as a deeply nuanced, experiential construct for consumers, whose segmented perceptions of it have important consequences for firm- stakeholder interaction and subsequent consumption. Firms may need to prioritize stakeholder groups, as AT&T Park designers and managers appear to have done, and

75 address their wants and needs through effective IRs. The aesthetic of AT&T Park is a sound example of ironic consumption that demonstrates the importance of understanding what aspects of the facility aesthetic are more salient than others for consumers, ideally through effective firm-stakeholder interaction that emphasizes the distribution of E-

Power and the mutual creation of high EE-yielding symbols.

The primary challenge in this case study was finding media texts that explored firm-stakeholder interaction regarding the sportscape during the ballpark’s early conception and subsequent design. The issues involved in the next case study, by contrast, are much more recent and thus enable a clearer understanding of the importance of early firm-stakeholder interaction.

Case Study Two: GEO Group Stadium as a Symbol of D-Power

Florida Atlantic University (FAU) announced in February 2013 that it had sold the naming rights to its football stadium to a private firm, The GEO Group, Inc. The deal, which was for six million dollars to be paid over twelve years, was the largest one- time gift in FAU athletics history, the result of which would change the name of the facility to ‘GEO Group Stadium’ (see Appendix B, photographs B4 and B5). It prompted

FAU President Mary Jane Saunders to reply “It is so exciting to now have a name for our beautiful stadium. . . This gift is a true representation of The GEO Group’s generosity to

FAU and the community it serves”. She continued, “It is especially meaningful because .

. . GEO’s chairman is a two-time FAU alumnus and former chair of our Board of

Trustees”. The stadium opened in October 2011, seats approximately thirty thousand, and has a view of the Atlantic Ocean (The GEO Group names football stadium, 2013).

The GEO Group “is the first fully-integrated equity real estate investment trust specializing in the design, development, financing, and operation of correctional, detention, and community reentry facilities worldwide”, which includes “one hundred- one facilities, approximately seventy-three thousand beds, and eighteen thousand employees around the globe” (Welcome to The GEO Group, Inc.). Consequently, GEO is believed to be the first private correctional facilities company to purchase stadium- naming rights (Kurtenbach, 2013). The GEO Group, though, has been accused of several human rights violations (Antigua, 2013) because of its alleged mistreatment of inmates

(Kurtenbach, 2013) and has been involved in litigation relating to these allegations

(Schultz, 2013).

Not surprisingly, various stakeholder groups of FAU, including students, faculty, and community residents, vocalized their opposition to the deal. In less than twenty-four hours after the university, whose mascot is the Owl, announced the name change, students began a petition calling for the removal of The GEO Group’s name from their football stadium, which has since been nicknamed ‘Owlcatraz’ (Kurtenbach, 2013).

Shortly thereafter, dozens of students engaged in a two hour sit-in at the FAU president’s office, where they demanded that she rescind the agreement with the private prison firm

(Antigua, 2013). Moreover, members of the media accused FAU of being evasive in responding to stakeholder queries after the naming rights announcement and shared a rumor which alleged that a GEO executive deleted critical information about the company from its Wikipedia page after the deal with FAU became public (Schultz,

2013).

The GEO Group’s purchase of the naming rights for FAU’s football stadium and the inability of FAU’s executive administration to effectively scan both the internal and external stakeholder environment provides sport managers with a cautionary tale.

Moreover, it furnishes a clear illustration of the D-Power/E-Power dichotomy in action, as indicated by the president’s quote in the university’s announcement and the actions of affected stakeholders. Two aspects of the quote attributed to FAU’s president, Mary Jane

Saunders, are particularly indicative of D-Power. First, her proclamation that The GEO

Group’s donation represents the firm’s “generosity to FAU and the community it serves” demonstrates a thoughtful understanding of GEO’s previous philanthropic relationships with FAU community stakeholders, without mention of which members of the community have been served by GEO and in what capacity. While the lack of specifics in the president’s statement may be considered common to such press releases, they were clearly empty words said merely for the sake of public relations ceremony as she later admitted, “I don’t know everything about this company” (Antigua, 2013).

Second, the university president’s reference to The GEO Group’s chairman as both a two-time alumnus of the institution and former chair of the Board of Trustees indicates a deeply ingrained IR among the university’s administrative elite, one that has enabled the agreement to be “especially meaningful” (The GEO Group names football stadium, 2013). Given the lack of firm-stakeholder interaction in this matter as indicated by the president’s double-talk, affected stakeholders appear to have viewed the fate of a large university facility as a potential billboard for a private prison firm as being decided solely by institutional gatekeepers without stakeholder input. Thus, the agreement

78 worked out between The GEO Group’s executives and FAU’s administrators, as well as the subsequent announcement of the deal, mark a clear divide between the elite of these two organizations and FAU’s stakeholders as evidenced by the language employed by the university president and the students’ actions. As predicted through the IR theory model, the clear demarcation of D-Power as evidenced by the lack of firm-stakeholder interaction prior to the closing of the naming rights deal and the president’s expression of gratitude in the press release ritual prompted students into action.

As students were not given a stakeholder voice prior to the agreement, thus being denied an opportunity to generate EE through the firm-stakeholder IR, they attempted to generate EE through the mobilization of their own voices and through other communicative channels. Their sit-in provides an example of this, as does their creation of a petition. The sit-in was an attempt to access the organizational backstage that was clearly marked as a sacred space between the two firms’ executives. The students’ presence in the president’s office was intended to provide her with names and faces of affected stakeholders and force her to grant them deferential access by virtue of the interactional formalities common in face-to-face interaction. In other words, they intended to force FAU’s president into providing them with E-Power by acknowledging that they exist through the ritualistic pleasantries inherent to conversation (i.e. they are a group), that they have a voice (i.e. they are either expectant or definitive stakeholders), and that she will respond to it (i.e. they are worthy of the proper deference accorded such a group). Moreover, the sit-in and the petition were intended to reframe the president’s perspective of The GEO Group name as it pertains to the stadium. Whereas she appeared

79 to view it as a mutually beneficial symbol from which she attributed value, primarily in the form of annual revenue, the students intended to reframe it as a symbol of corporate greed, vis a vis the violation of human rights for profit, which does not, they wished to assert, reflect their collective identity. This demonstrates the importance of meaning that stakeholders who, as students in this case and thus potential consumers of the sportscape, attribute to the facility aesthetic.

Within two months of FAU’s announcement of the stadium-naming rights agreement, The GEO Group announced that the deal was off citing stakeholder resistance as an “ongoing distraction” for both The GEO Group and for FAU (Kirkham, 2013;

Ramadan & Chandeck, 2013). In her explanation as to why The GEO Group elected to put an end to the agreement, FAU President Saunders stated that, despite the online signatures of seventy-thousand people who petitioned to have the name removed from the stadium, the primary efforts of the protest could be attributed to a “core group of about twenty students” (Allen, 2013). Though not explicit, Saunders appears to be referring to the members of the student organized Stop Owlcatraz Coalition, which was formed with the specific intent to end the university’s contract with The GEO Group (Allen, 2013;

Ramadan & Chendeck, 2013).

The manner in which The GEO Group-FAU agreement ended demonstrates the influence of EE within an E-Power-fueled IR chain. A small group of students, as described by President Saunders, managed to mobilize the energy of thousands of other individuals through collective action, most notably through online petitions. The fact that members named the group the ‘Stop Owlcatraz Coalition’ is a significant aspect of the

80 group’s success. It provides an example of group members’ ability to reframe the stadium as an important symbol through the creative referent ‘Owlcatraz’. The stadium’s colloquial name change became a key group symbol that precipitated high levels of EE for members of the IR chain, which facilitated solidarity for group members and contributed to the group’s resolve.

The notion of stadium naming-rights as it pertains to the facility aesthetic does not appear to be present in the sportscape literature. Yet, while clearly not a functional component of the sportscape, stakeholders, including potential consumers, attributed a great deal of meaning to the sign that would go on the stadium to indicate the name of the facility. FAU officials’ decision to align the university with The GEO Group’s brand for athletic purposes had implications for the perception of both brands by virtue of the values that stakeholders attribute to each (Hutchinson & Bennett, 2012; MacIntosh &

Spence, 2012). Moreover, implicit in this case study is that students as stakeholders appear to have, as members of a larger university or college community, an emotional connection to their institution that is a salient part of their identity. The decision to introduce a corporation into the university community through the purchase of stadium- naming rights is to introduce another party into the student-university IR, which, if not deferentially handled, has the potential to escalate into conflict as students fight to maintain control over their sacred symbols and, thus, their collective identity. To have the football stadium named after The GEO Group is to have, in essence, the students’ values congruent with it as well.

In the first case study, the focus was on the meaning that a certain element of

AT&T Park’s sportscape–the brick façade of the park’s aesthetic–potentially had for stakeholders and consumers. Along the same vein, The GEO Group-FAU case study provides an example of the meaning stakeholders attributed to the company that purchased a stadium’s naming rights. Although neither case focuses primarily on a functional aspect of the facility aesthetic, both have implications for the meanings that stakeholders qua stakeholders and stakeholders qua consumers have for the sportscape, which can greatly affect the revenue generated from the facility. If firm-stakeholder interaction took place in both case studies, such interaction appeared to be minimal, which resulted in different consequences. In the case of AT&T Park, the use of materials in the aesthetic were inauthentic to the area in which the ballpark was located. Other aspects of the sportscape, be they functional or aesthetic, appeared to accommodate the wants and needs of other stakeholder segments, which were more highly valued than whatever issues stakeholders/consumers may have had with the ballpark’s façade. In terms of The GEO Group-FAU agreement for the purchase of the football stadium’s naming rights, stakeholders were denied a voice and sought one out through other channels out of concern for the actions and values they associated with the company with which their university was now aligned. Though no more than a sign on the building, physically speaking, the concern over the business practices of a private prison firm prompted action from a stakeholder group that was distressed over the university’s decision to align that company’s values with those of the university, and by extension the

82 collective identity of the student body. Both cases exemplify the sportscape-stakeholder nexus and its implications for consumption through the interpretive lens of IR theory.

Conclusion

Managing for stakeholders has the potential to generate a great deal of value for those parties involved in firm-stakeholder interaction. The genuine involvement and incorporation of the stakeholder voice during the design and management of the sportscape, particularly the facility aesthetic, can yield attachment from those stakeholders involved in firm-stakeholder interaction toward aspects of the facility aesthetic that can become symbols highly charged with emotional energy. These symbols then become authentic representations of the stakeholder experience and facilitate stakeholders’ decisions to consume the facility through repatronage and desire to stay.

Two case studies demonstrate the various consequences involved in omitting the stakeholder perspective in the design and management of the facility aesthetic. While the specifics of each case exemplify the nuance involved in stakeholder/consumer perspectives toward the facility aesthetic, both demonstrate the value of effective firm- stakeholder interaction through their varying ability to grant stakeholders power through collective efficacy early in their design and management processes. An important aspect of this project is that interaction ritual theory can be a useful heuristic device for scholars and practitioners in sport management to understand what makes firm-stakeholder interaction successful or unsuccessful, particularly as it applies to the facility aesthetic aspect of the sportscape.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Stakeholder management presents a variety of challenges and opportunities related to research. The methodology used to ascertain the presence and corresponding degree of firm-stakeholder interaction in this piece, content analysis, was limited. While a useful method for the interpretation of events via IR theory, it does not allow for real- time, physical access to the site and process of firm-stakeholder interaction.

Consequently, making larger judgments about the effectiveness of potential firm- stakeholder interaction is challenging.

The case studies themselves also possess complications. AT&T Park has been open since 2000 and has undergone various name changes–from PacBell Park, to SBC

Park, to its current name–which can make obtaining media texts relevant to the early design and management of the ballpark and its sportscape difficult. Capturing stakeholder voices through the media in retrospect was especially challenging.

Furthermore, fully understanding the park’s popularity throughout its existence is not easy to accomplish through content analysis. Its popularity early in its existence could be attributed to the ‘novelty effect’ (Roy, 2008) and its popularity in recent years might also be attributed to the San Francisco Giants’ on-field success. The discourse surrounding the case study involving GEO Group Stadium provided some level of access because so much of the debate after the stadium-naming rights agreement took place occurred in the local media. This case study was limited, however, because it began and ended recently.

In essence, these case studies are at different poles of the temporal spectrum.

Future research could attempt to measure E-Power in firm-stakeholder interaction within sport management. Moreover, locating the origin of E-Power, or lack thereof, in firm-stakeholder IRs within various forms of sport enterprise may be easier to accomplish than in more traditional business or organizational environments, given the relatively brief temporal nature of many of these initiatives (Collins, 2004; Friedman & Mason,

2004; Parent, 2008; Parent & Deephouse, 2007; Sallent et al., 2011). Additional research could examine various aspects of facility aesthetics as they pertain to stakeholder/consumer salience, which could result in greater efficiency of resource allocation for firms involved in sport business. For example, future research could examine the extent to which various aesthetic elements of a facility are more or less salient in relation to the various identities that stakeholders and consumers possess.

The application of IR theory to stakeholder and consumer practices remains an underdeveloped, yet potentially rich area of study (Brown, 2011; Gordon, Chapter 2;

Huggins et al., 2007). Future research in this area might involve an IR theory-based re- interpretation of Mitchell et al’s (1997) stakeholder classes as they apply to firm- stakeholder interaction within sport management, as well as an interpretation of the discourse surrounding specific cases and events within the realm of sport business through the IR theory lens. Furthermore, IR theory-based research could utilize a longitudinal study of sport firms that manage for stakeholders and examine their evolution of such practices and the resulting successes and/or failures through the mutual creation of EE-yielding symbols, the D-Power/E-Power dichotomy, etc.

References

ABAG shaken awake! Report - unreinforced masonry buildings. (n.d.). Retrieved March 7, 2013, from Association of Bay Area Governments: http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/shelpop/typ2_f.html

Allen, G. (2013, April 3). FAU's stadium naming deal turns into PR disaster. Retrieved April 15, 2013, from npr: http://www.npr.org/2013/04/03/176104596/company- withdraws-naming-rights-offer-for-fau-stadium

Ang, S. H., Leong, S. M., & Lim, J. (1997). The mediating influence of pleasure and arousal on layout and signage effects. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services , 4 (1), 13-24.

Antigua, J. (2013, February 26). FAU students protest naming stadium after prison operator. The Palm Beach Post .

Argandona, A. (1998). The stakeholder theory and the common good. Journal of Business Ethics , 17, 1093-1102.

AT&T Park. (2007, August). Retrieved March 17, 2013, from Ballparks by Munsey & Suppes: http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/index.htm

AT&T Park becomes the first major league ballpark to receive LEED certification. (2010, April 22). Retrieved March 13, 2013, from Centerplate: http://www.centerplate.com/newsroom/2010/04-22/att-park-becomes-first-major- league-ballpark-receive

AT&T Park history. (n.d.). Retrieved March 9, 2013, from The official site of the San Francisco Giants: http://mlb.mlb.com/sf/ballpark/information/index.jsp?content=history

Bernard, H. R. (2011). Research methods in anthropology (5th Edition ed.). Lanham, MD: AltaMira.

Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. The Journal of Marketing , 56 (2), 57-71.

Brown, K. R. (2011). Interaction ritual chains and the mobilization of conscientious consumers. Qualitative Sociology , 34, 121-141. 86

Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Collins, R. (1981). On the microfoundations of microsociology. The American Journal of Sociology , 86 (5), 984-1014.

Cottingham, M. D. (2012). Interaction ritual theory and sports fans: Emotion, symbols, and solidarity. Sociology of Sport Journal , 29, 168-195.

Diamond, J. (n.d.). Accessible stadium series: Giants' AT&T Park provides an accessible fan experience. Retrieved March 13, 2013, from Paralyzed Veterans of America: http://www.pva.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=ajIRK9NJLcJ2E&b=635011 1&ct=11516487

Durkheim, E. (2008 [1912]). The elementary forms of the religious life. (J. Swain, Trans.) Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.

Earthquake FAQ. (n.d.). Retrieved March 9, 2013, from Berkeley Seismological Laboratory Outreach Program: http://seismo.berkeley.edu/outreach/faq.html#1906strikeslip

Engineering: Taking the wind out of baseball. (1999). Retrieved March 13, 2013, from UC Davis Magazine: News & Notes: http://ucdavismagazine.ucdavis.edu/issues/win00/News_Baseball.html

Fairley, S. (2003). In search of relived social experience: Group-based nostalgia sport tourism. Journal of Sport Management , 17, 284-304.

Fairley, S. (2009). The role of the mode of transport in the identity maintenance of sport fan travel groups. Journal of Sport & Tourism , 14 (2-3), 205-222.

Freeman, R. E. (2010 [1984]). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press.

Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2007). Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Freeman, R. E., Pierce, J., & Dodd, R. H. (2000). Environmentalism and the new logic of business: How firms can be profitable and leave our children a living planet. New York: Oxford University Press.

Frembes, L. S. (2007). Giants create larger fan experience. Retrieved March 13, 2013, from Sound and Video Contractor Online: http://svconline.com/proav/audiovisual-equipment_giants-create-larger-fan- experience/

Friedman, M. T., & Mason, D. S. (2004). A stakeholder approach to understanding economic development decision making: Public subsidies for professional sport facilities. Economic Development Quarterly , 18, 236-254.

Gammon, S. (2004). Secular pilgrimmage and sport tourism. In B. W. Ritchie, & D. Adair (Eds.), Sport tourism: Interrelationships, impacts and issues (pp. 30-45). Buffalo, NY: Channel View.

Giulianotti, R. (2007). Sport: A critical sociology. Malden, MA: Polity.

Goffman, E. (1982). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Pantheon.

Gordon, K. O. (2013). The experiential aspects of sport stadiums: An examination of emotion and memory (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

Hall, J., O'Mahony, B., & Vieceli, J. (2010). An empirical model of attendance factors at major sporting events. International Journal of Hospitality Management , 29, 328-334.

Huggins, K. A., Murray, J. B., Kees, J., & Creyer, E. H. (2007). Collins's interaction ritual theory: Using interaction rituals to conceptualize how objects become sacred symbols. Advances in Consumer Research , 34, 335-336.

Hutchinson, M., & Bennett, G. (2012). Core values brand building in sport: Stakeholder attitudes towards intercollegiate athletics and university brand congruency. Sport Management Review , 15, 434-447.

Illouz, E. (2009). Emotions, imagination, and consumption: A new research agenda. Journal of Consumer Culture , 9, 377-413.

Weeks-Issue/SF-Giants-Built-Winning-Formula-Despite-Ballpark- Debt.aspx?hl=sf%20giants%20ticket%20sales&sc=0

King, J. (2012, October 5). AT&T Park a lesson in urban design. Retrieved March 13, 2013, from SF Gate: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/place/article/AT-T-Park-a- lesson-in-urban-design-3924277.php

Kirkham, C. (2013, April 2). GEO Group stadium deal is off; private prison company cites 'ongoing distraction' after protests. Retrieved April 15, 2013, from Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/02/geo-group-stadium- private-prison_n_2999133.html

Kurtenbach, D. (2013, February 21). Group starts petition to remove GEO Group name from FAU stadium. South Florida Sun Sentinel .

Leopkey, B., & Parent, M. M. (2009). Risk management issues in large-scale sporting events: A stakeholder perspective. European Sport Management Quarterly , 9 (2), 187-208.

Lin, I. Y. (2010). The interactive effect of Gestalt situations and arousal seeking tendency on customers' emotional responses: Matching color and music to specific servicescapes . Journal of Services Marketing , 24 (4), 294-304.

Lin, I. Y., & Worthley, R. (2012). Servicescape moderation on personality traits, emotions, satisfaction, and behaviors. International Journal of Hospitality Management , 31, 31-42.

MacIntosh, E., & Spence, K. (2012). An exploration of stakeholder values: In search of common ground within an international sport and development initiative. Sport Management Review , 15, 404-415.

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review , 22 (4), 853-886.

Parent, M. M. (2008). Evolution and issue patterns for major-sport-event organizing committees and their stakeholders. Journal of Sport Management , 22, 136-164.

Parent, M. M., & Deephouse, D. L. (2007). A case study of stakeholder identification and prioritization by managers. Journal of Business Ethics , 75 (1), 1-23. 89

Perkins, B. (2004, February 22). Quake shows danger of retrofit neglect. East Bay Business Times .

Ramadan, L., & Chandeck, M. (2013, April 9). A timeline recap of FAU's stadium deal with GEO Group. Retrieved April 15, 2013, from University Press: FAU's Student Magazine: http://upressonline.com/2013/04/a-timeline-recap-of-faus- stadium-deal-with-geo-group/

Reitherman, R., & Perry, S. C. (2009). Unreinforced buildings and earthquakes: Developing successful risk reduction programs. FEMA.

Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion Limited.

Relph, E. (1981). Rational landscapes and humanistic geography. Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble.

Ritzer, G., & Stillman, T. (2001). The postmodern ballpark as a leisure setting: Enchantment and simulated de-McDonaldization. Leisure Sciences , 23, 99-113.

Roy, D. P. (2008). Impact of new minor league stadiums on game attendance. Sport Marketing Quarterly , 17, 146-153.

Sallent, O., Palau, R., & Guia, J. (2011). Exploring the legacy of sport events on sport tourism networks. European Sport Management Quarterly , 11 (4), 397-421.

Schultz, R. (2013, March 1). FAU owes many answers on GEO Group stadium deal. The Palm Beach Post .

The GEO Group names football stadium. (2013, February 19). Florida Atlantic University.

Timeline of the San Francisco earthquake: April 18-23, 1906. (n.d.). Retrieved March 9, 2013, from The Virtual Museum of the City of San Francisco: http://www.sfmuseum.net/hist10/06timeline.html

Tom, G., Barnett, T., Lew, W., & Selmants, J. (1987). Cueing the consumer: The role of salient cues in consumer perception. Journal of Consumer Marketing , 4, 23-28.

USGS. (n.d.). Comparison of the Bay Area earthquakes: 1906 and 1989. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from San Andreas Fault: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1127/chapter1.pdf

USGS: Science for a changing world. (n.d.). Retrieved March 9, 2013, from The October 17, 1989, Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake - Selected Photographs: http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-29/

Wakefield, K. L. (2007). Team sports marketing. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Wakefield, K. L., & Blodgett, J. G. (1994). The importance of servicescapes in leisure service settings. Journal of Services Marketing , 8 (3), 66-76.

Wakefield, K. L., & Blodgett, J. G. (1996). The effect of the servicescape on customers' behavioral intentions in leisure service settings. The Journal of Services Marketing , 10 (6), 45-61.

Wakefield, K. L., Blodgett, J. G., & Sloan, H. J. (1996). Measurement and management of the sportscape. Journal of Sport Management , 10, 15-31.

Weed, M. (2007). Stakeholder relationships in sport and tourism. Journal of Sport & Tourism , 12 (3-4), 149-154.

Welcome to The GEO Group, Inc. (n.d.). Retrieved March 10, 2013, from The GEO Group, Inc.: http://www.geogroup.com/

Chapter 4: Stadiums and ‘Emotional ‘Energy’:

An Interaction Ritual Investigation of Fans’ Connections to Ohio Stadium

Introduction

Nostalgia sport tourism is one of the three widely accepted domains of sport and tourism, which also include active sport tourism and event sport tourism (Gibson, 1998).

It is also considered to be the least researched of the three sport and tourism domains

(Fairley, 2003; Gibson, 2002, 2003; Ritchie & Adair, 2004). While early research within nostalgia sport tourism focused on the way sport fans engaged with sport sites built to honor a sport’s historical lineage, such as halls of fame or museums, recent research has centered on the interpersonal creation of nostalgia as the prime mover in sport fans’ decisions to attend many traditional sporting contests and related events (Gordon,

Chapter 2). Given this more recent research stream, the aim of this project was to better understand individuals’ relationships with sport stadiums, specifically the home of The

Ohio State University’s football team in the United States, Ohio Stadium, and the role that relationship plays in everyday experiences.

Sport fans, tourists, and excursionists often choose to attend stadiums because of some degree of emotional attachment to a team or player involved in a contest, if not to experience the stadium itself. Sport stadiums consist of many elements that facilitate an

92 emotionally loaded experience for those who attend them, of which memory is an important component. This is exemplified by the fact that many people are able to mark important times in their lives, including those moments with loved ones, by events that have taken place in or around sport stadiums. The highly emotional nature of those sport- related events and activites that take place within each other’s co-presence can lead to a higher emotional state, the result of which facilitates social solidarity among attendees and prompts their future return to the stadium. This interaction between emotion, memory, and sport place are inherent to the experience associated with nostalgia sport tourism (Gordon, Chapter 2) and are key elements of this research.

This project examined the nexus between emotion, memory, and sport place through interviews with three ‘big’ fans of Ohio State football, each of whom attended several games throughout their respective lifetimes and consider themselves to be avid followers of the team. A unique qualitative methodology, known as ‘photo-elicitation interviewing’ (Wakefield, 2007), was utilized to generate interviewees’ responses to photographs of the activities associated with the experience of attending a game at Ohio

Stadium. These responses were interpreted through an emergent microsociological perspective, called ‘interaction ritual theory’ (Collins, 2004), to understand fans’ emotional connections to Ohio Stadium specifically and Ohio State football generally.

The interpretations provide insight into the type of activities that reinforce fans’ connections to sport teams and their respective stadiums, as well as the extent to which emotion and memory influence the decision to attend a sporting event and/or follow a particular team.

To effectively explain this research and its corresponding results, a brief discussion of the epistemological evolution of nostalgia sport tourism is appropriate, as is an explanation of both interaction ritual theory and photo-elicitation interviewing. A discussion of the research subjects and their respective relationships with Ohio Stadium and an analysis of the data that emerged from the three interviews will follow.

Suggestions for future research will be offered in conclusion.

Nostalgia Sport Tourism

Nostalgia sport tourism is, perhaps, the least researched of the three domains within the discipline of sport and tourism (Fairley, 2003; Gibson, 2002, 2003; Ritchie &

Adair, 2004). Sociology, considered to be one of sport and tourism’s parent disciplines

(Gibson, 2004; Harris, 2006), has had a particularly strong influence on the scholarship that has emerged within nostalgia sport tourism. Early scholarship within this domain has focused on the role of nostalgia in fans’ experiences at sport halls of fame and museums (Redmond, 1973; Snyder, 1991) and, more recently, in stadium tours (Gammon

& Fear, 2005) through qualitative research and interpretive analysis in accordance with the microsociological tradition.

Many scholars have found, however, that nostalgia plays a role in the sport and tourism experience beyond these original parameters (Fairley, 2003, 2009; Fairley &

Gammon, 2006; Kulczycki & Hyatt, 2005; Ramshaw & Gammon, 2005). In fact, the data that has emerged in much of this contemporary research within nostalgia sport tourism exemplifies how the process involved in participation and spectatorship enables fans to re-create nostalgia, most notably through the salience of emotion and memory

(Fairley, 2003, 2009; Fairley & Gammon, 2006; Gammon, 2004; Gammon & Fear, 2005;

Gordon, Chapter 2; Kulczycki & Hyatt, 2005). Consequently, ‘nostalgia’ has emerged as a broad concept within this sport and tourism domain (Fairley & Gammon, 2006;

Gammon, 2002; Ramshaw & Gammon, 2005), one that includes attendance at those sport sites created as a means to honor the past, as well as those activities where a person’s past experiences, illustrated through the nexus of emotion and memory, appear to be the motivation in choosing to attend a sporting contest or related activity. Interaction ritual theory (Collins, 2004) has the potential to account for this dynamism within nostalgia sport tourism because of its emphasis on emotion and memory as key elements in persons’ decisions to seek out various interactions and activities within the social marketplace (Gordon, Chapter 2).

Interaction Ritual Theory

Several sport and tourism scholars have argued for the application of theory from sport and tourism’s parent disciplines to research within the field (Gibson, 1998, 2002,

2004, 2006; Higham and Hinch, 2006). Sociology appears to be the most prevalent of these parent disciplines within the domain of nostalgia sport tourism. The interpretive, qualitative approach to social phenomena inherent to interaction ritual (IR) theory

(Collins, 2004), coupled with its emphasis on emotion and memory, make it an appropriate fit for the examination of data obtained within the research tradition of nostalgia sport tourism (Gordon, Chapter 2).

IR theory is essentially a synthesis of other microsociological perspectives and may also be referred to as the ‘mutual focus/emotional entrainment model’ (Collins,

2004). IR theory combines elements from Durkheimian sociology, symbolic interactionism, dramaturgy, the sociology of emotions, and exchange theory. While an appropriate treatment of Collins’ theory would be too long for the present piece, an explanation of IR theory’s key elements is necessary to understand its appropriateness for the current research project.

Social behavior originates in face-to-face interaction within IR theory. The situation, and not the individual, is the interactional starting point. Understanding how these micro situations beget larger group behavior requires the discussion of four important concepts and their constituent properties. These concepts are interaction ritual, symbols, emotional energy, and interaction ritual chains.

‘Interaction ritual’ is a phrase created by Goffman (1982) and whose construct has been further refined by Collins (2004) for the purposes of IR theory. Goffman and

Collins, in keeping with the microsociological tradition begun with Durkheim (2008

[1912]) have both maintained his original scope of the word ‘ritual’. Thus, ‘ritual’ within

IR theory is meant to be used in a broad sense, not, for example, in a manner exclusive to formal ceremony. Rather, ‘ritual’ in this sense denotes the common structural elements inherent to everyday interactions. All social encounters, be they small and momentary ones or large social gatherings, have a certain structure and the participants within them are expected to act a certain way that is contextually dependent. The use of ritual within interactions then becomes “a mechanism of mutually focused emotion and attention producing a momentarily shared reality, which thereby generates solidarity and symbols of group membership” (Collins, 2004, p. 7).

Symbols emerge within interaction rituals (IRs) by virtue of those present whose joint attention infuse them with situational emotion. They develop a strong importance, a sacredness, which becomes inherent to them. Symbols can be words, emblems, objects, or, in some cases, persons and must be used frequently within IRs to maintain their sacredness; that is, to maintain their ‘emotional charge’.

‘Emotional energy’ (EE) is felt by individuals as a result of participation in IRs with symbols. Individuals develop either high or low social solidarity with other group members as a consequence of the amount of EE generated from group members’ mutual focus upon highly charged symbols through the IR. This EE directly influences one’s decisions to engage with other social persons and situations in the future. The EE generated–or not generated–through an IR begets a chain of behavioral choices for the individual. These IR chains are the root of social life (Collins, 1981, 2004).

‘Good’ IRs, that is, those IRs that heighten EE for the individual involve symbols that are highly charged with situational emotion, make one feel exhilarated. This sense of exhilaration prompts one to seek out similar interactions in the social marketplace. In contrast, ‘bad’ IRs drain EE. Symbols are not clearly defined in these types of IRs and, therefore, are not focused upon mutually by those present. Good IRs that are a consequence of large social gatherings have the potential to facilitate ‘collective effervescence’ for those present (Collins, 2004; Durkheim, 2008 [1912]). Group members focus jointly on symbols that become highly charged with situational emotion, the result of which is a strong sense of collective emotion.

This high level of collective emotion, or collective effervescence, begets a sense of morality for group members. That is, individuals feel moral when acting with the energy derived from the group’s heightened experience. The EE generated from this experience influences the behavior of individual group members, the precipitates of which establish appropriate behavior along group-derived moral lines. In essence, then, ritual is the foundation of a group’s moral standards.

Ultimately, individuals engage in social behavior within the interactional marketplace. The interactional marketplace is the collection of potential interaction opportunities in the form of various social partners and situations available to a person, whose choices will be dependent upon his or her previous EE-derived experiences. That is, persons are driven to engage with certain social persons and social situations within the interactional marketplace based on their experiences in previous IRs, which creates

IR chains. Important to note is that memory is an implicit aspect of IR chains, where the current interactional decisions are based upon the type and extent of EE generated through past IRs. For Collins (2004), then, forms of conflict, bureaucracy, and social stratification are a function of the unequal distribution of EE, rather than the unequal distribution of material resources per se. A more succinct definition of IR theory is that macro-phenomena are the aggregate of micro-behavior, formed by individuals’ actions to seek out emotionally fulfilling, ritually-oriented interactions throughout the social marketplace.

Collins (2004) has briefly discussed sport as an IR, and refers to sporting events as ‘formal’ rituals, insofar as their procedures are predictable and ceremonial. Collins

98 also recognizes sport celebrities as sacred objects. Despite the formalized aspects of sporting events, he notes the value of sport events in generating EE for spectators when he asserts:

The overt intent of the game–to win victories by following certain rules of competition, or to display athletic skill–is merely the surface content. What motivates people to witness games is primarily the experience of being at a highly successful ritual: successful because it has been contrived so that the ritual ingredients will all be present to a very high degree, especially the occurrence of strong emotion in a setting where it can all be amplified by bodily interaction within the crowd focusing attention on the action of the game (Collins, 2004, p. 59).

While recognizing the tremendous potential inherent within these sporting events to generate EE and collective effervescence, Collins (2004) argues, however, that the group members involved in attending these events have no uniting elements other than to experience the emotional peaks associated with the sporting event IR itself. He has been criticized for this on the grounds that other IR factors may influence group membership both at the event itself and beyond it (Cottingham, 2012).

IR theory has not been used as a theoretical framework in sport-related scholarship with the exception of Cottingham (2012), who utilized participant observation and media content analysis to understand the elements inherent to the fandom

IRs associated with the Pittsburgh Steelers in the National Football League. Other similar work involves Durkheimian and Goffmanian analyses of sport, including that of

Ward (1998), Birrell (1981), and Birrell and Donnelly (2004). Ward (1998) examined the opening day advantages for home Major League Baseball teams through Durkheim’s notion of ritual and Goffman’s concept of ‘frontstage’ behavior. Similar to Ward, Birrell

(1981) examined sport more generally through Durkheimian and Goffmanian lenses of 99 ritual, while Birrell and Donnelly (2004) encouraged scholars to invoke Goffmanian theory in their analyses of sport.

This research seeks to provide empirical evidence to lend support to IR theory, which is itself an extension of Durkheimian and Goffmanian microsociology.

Consequently, this project adheres to the sport sociological tradition as demonstrated by

Ward (1998), Birrell (1981), and Birrell and Donnelly (2004). In contrast to Cottingham

(2012) whose focus was primarily on the real-time use of IR to create social solidarity and facilitate future IR chains among fans of an American professional football team, this research aimed more toward the temporal aspect of IR theory through an attempt at understanding the origin of fans’ IR chains as they related to a major American college football team and its corresponding stadium. Moreover, the research methodology in this project is unique by virtue of the use of visual media as an aid to conventional interviewing methods.

Photo-elicitation Interviewing

The methodology for this research project involved the use of photo-elicitation interviewing (PE-I), an important yet underutilized tool within qualitative research.

Situated within the larger field of visual studies, PE-I uses still photographs as a starting point from which to generate respondent data through interviews. Respondents are able to introduce and expound upon the taken-for-granted assumptions that they as subcultural members possess, much of which may be overlooked by researchers who are not subcultural insiders (Curry, 1986b). Although photo-elicitation interviewing is not a common qualitative research approach, several scholars use it and argue for its usefulness

100 as a methodological tool (Becker, 1974; Caldarola, 1985; Collier & Collier, 1986 [1967];

Harper, 1984, 1989, 2002). In fact, photo-elicitation interviews have been used by a variety of sport-oriented scholars to better understand a variety of sport subcultures through individuals’ lived experiences.

In keeping with the influence of sport and tourism’s parent discipline of sociology within nostalgia sport tourism, the emergence of PE-I is closely connected to sociology through the establishment of the International Visual Sociology Association. The

International Visual Sociology Association, or IVSA, was established at the Toronto meeting of the American Sociology Association in 1981 and its first international conference was held at the University of Windsor in 1983 (Curry, 1986a). The IVSA has become an organization comprised of scholars from a variety of disciplines, many of whom orient their scholarship and research methodology toward visual phenomena. The work published in IVSA's journal, entitled Visual Studies (formerly known as Visual

Sociology), incorporates a variety of visual media, congruent with the interdisciplinary focus of the organization. Examples of these visual media forms include still photography, motion pictures, and paintings.

Collier and Collier's Visual anthropology: Photography as a research method

(1986 [1967]) is arguably the most influential piece of scholarship within the visual studies subdiscipline. This book helped to establish the value of visual media to qualitative methodology. More specifically, it affirmed the usefulness of the still photographic approach to documenting the lives and experiences of various subcultural members within the social sciences. Although primarily focused on studying Native

101

Americans within the American southwest, Collier and Collier (1986 [1967]) used their research as a starting point in their broader argument for the benefit of documentary- style, still photography as a basis for qualitative methodology. Consequently, much of the subsequent visual studies scholarship has as its foundation Collier and Collier's (1986

[1967]) work, most notably that of Becker (1974) and Harper (1984, 2002).

In fact, Harper (2002) makes a compelling argument for the benefit of PE-I within qualitative research when he asserts that

photo elicitation mines deeper shafts into a different part of human consciousness than do words-alone interviews. It is partly due to how remembering is enlarged by photographs and partly due to the particular quality of the photograph itself. Photographs appear to capture the impossible: a person gone; an event past. That extraordinary sense of seeming to retrieve something that has disappeared belongs alone to the photograph, and it leads to deep and interesting talk. (pp. 22-23)

Harper points out that two important, albeit implicit, elements of research based on PE-I are memory and emotion. The emergence of these two elements during photo-elicitation interviews help the researcher to understand the significance of photographic content to the individual respondents and, possibly, to members of the larger subculture. Other notable work that involved PE-I includes that of Caldarola (1985), Harper (1989), and

Beilin (2005).

Many scholars have found PE-I to be a valuable qualitative research method for sport-related studies, as well. These scholars have come from a variety of physical activity perspectives, such as sport sociology, sport management, and recreation. While several scholars have used photo-elicitation interviews as the foundation of some of their research projects, no scholar has advocated for and regularly used PE-I in his or her work more than Curry (1986a, 1986b, 1998, 2004). 102

Curry was an early advocate for the broad use of PE-I, as he was a contributor to the first issues of Visual Sociology. His A brief history of the IVSA (1986a) and Form follows function in photography (1986c) outlined the visual sociological approach to the broader social science community. He first argued for the value of PE-I as a methodological tool in A visual method of studying sports: The photo-elicitation interview (1986b). In this article, Curry explored the early use of PE-I as a tool for researching culture, discussed the advantages and disadvantages of using it as a research tool, and ultimately asserted its usefulness in sport sociological research.

In discussing the advantages of PE-I, Curry (1986b) noted that

American athletes are used to performing in front of spectators, and the presence of a camera at a sport event is routine and not as obtrusive as it might be elsewhere. Moreover, the detailed information provided by the PE-I is useful in examining the techniques, norms and values found in sport subcultures. The concrete nature of the information garnered in a PE-I interview in sports can generate information about equipment, rules, and body movements that have special names and nuances an outsider would not know. (p. 205)

For Curry, PE-I contains a projective element that allows members of different sporting subcultures to share insider knowledge with interviewers. Photographs may also trigger emotions and memories among respondents that would not emerge through standard interviewing. Furthermore, the use of photographs can be flexible; they may be removed as the focal point of the interview and reintroduced to conversation as the situation dictates.

Curry highlighted two disadvantages of PE-I as well. One is that PE-I does not permit a large sample size from which to make generalizations about a particular population given its more intimate and context-specific nature. Consequently, he

103 advocates also using it as a means to triangulate data in mixed-method research projects or as a supplement to micro-focused, longitudinal research studies. The second disadvantage that Curry highlights is that producing and replicating photographs is challenging for most laypersons. Although this may have been the case when Curry published this article in 1986, contemporary technology has made the production, replication, and maintenance involved in the photographic process extremely accessible.

Today’s sport scholar only needs a digital camera or smart phone and access to a computer to take photographic images, store them, and show them to respondents during interviews.

In Where the action is: Visual sociology and sport (2008), Curry once again advocated the use of PE-I within sport sociological research. Here, he asserted the usefulness of PE-I as an important methodological component for micro-oriented researchers by connecting it with dramaturgical concepts like ‘spoiled identity’. Curry and Strauss’ (1994) use of photographs in their study of an NCAA Division I, intercollegiate wrestling team serves as a good example of photo-elicitation interviewing.

Through PE-I, the authors were able to learn about subcultural members’ attitudes towards, among other things, the spread of herpes throughout the team and the larger wrestling culture. Curry is not alone in his use of PE-I within a sport- or recreation- related setting. Other scholars have also used some form of photo-elicitation in their research (Choi, Stotlar, & Park, 2006; Gonzales, Jackson, & Regoli, 2006; Johnson,

Hallinan & Westerfield, 1999; Loeffler, 2004; Neumann, 1992; Snyder & Kane, 1990;

Stiebling, 1999).

104

Scholars from a variety of sport-related perspectives have found PE-I to be a beneficial qualitative approach to sport-oriented research. While the manner in which they incorporate photo-elicitation into their research may vary slightly, these scholars’ shared value of a visual approach to qualitative, sport-oriented research remains constant.

Their research foci has encompassed a broad spectrum of sport-related issues, such as community, gender, sponsorship, race, and landscape, which demonstrates the broad applicability of PE-I within sport-related studies. One dimension of sport studies that would also benefit from a visually-oriented research approach, especially that of PE-I, is nostalgia sport tourism.

Research Subjects

Three ‘big’ fans of Ohio State football were interviewed for this project, which required that they attended at least two games throughout their respective lifetimes and considered themselves to be avid followers of the team. The number of subjects is consistent with the interpretive tradition of microsociology, including microsociological research involving sport (Curry, 1998; Denison, 2007; Hockey & Collison, 2007; Jones,

2006), as well as the contextually-driven nature of PE-I research (Curry, 1986b; Curry &

Strauss, 1994; Harper, 1984). Originally, one of the qualifications of being a ‘big fan’ required that each subject attend a minimum of two home games throughout his or her lifetime. These subjects far surpassed this minimal condition that was necessary for participation and established a highly specific criterion in that they had each attended over one hundred football games at Ohio Stadium throughout their lives, which made finding additional subjects who met this criterion difficult. Including other subjects with

105 a measurably less involved relationship with Ohio Stadium were avoided to maintain validity (Bernard, 2011), while no other subjects who met the newly established qualification for participation were able to be obtained.

Interviews were semi-structured, consisting of a ten question interview guide

(Bernard, 2011) while allowing for additional questions to emerge through natural conversation, per PE-I. Respondents were shown five photographs each relating to Ohio

Stadium. These subjects’ corresponding data were coded according to appropriate themes (Lofland, Snow, Anderson, & Lofland, 2006) and interpreted through the IR theory lens.

Ohio State football fans and Ohio Stadium are appropriate for this research because of the multigenerational nature and relative permanence of college sport teams as compared to professional sport franchises, which have the potential to relocate to different cities. Ohio Stadium hosted its first contest in 1922, is listed in the United

States’ National Registry of Historic Places, has a current seating capacity of 102,329, and has hosted more than 36 million spectators throughout its existence (Facilities: Ohio

Stadium). Moreover, The Ohio State University and its football program both contain many rituals and related elements for fans of the team to experience, the result of which has the ability to yield many IRs for those who engage with them.

Subjects were obtained via snowball sampling (Bernard, 2011) through the researcher’s own social network. Three subjects were interviewed, as no other subjects who could meet the established attendance criterion of one hundred games were able to be obtained within that network. Pseudonyms were created for each of the subjects as

106 well as any other persons to whom they may have made reference. All of the subjects were Caucasian, heterosexual, and middle to upper middle class. At the time of their respective interviews, Rhonda was a female over sixty years old, Logan was a male over thirty-five years old, and Matt was a male over forty-five years old. The photographs used for this project are located in Appendix C and are numbered one (C1) through five

(C5), all of which were obtained through public record. These photographs will be referenced where appropriate.

Findings

All of the data were coded into five themes. In order from the most prevalent to the least prevalent, these themes were: family, band, attendance, mediated symbols, and

‘Horseshoe’ nostalgia. Much of the data fit within one theme, while some of the data overlapped thematically. Each theme will be discussed in turn and include exemplary quotes with corresponding analyses where appropriate. The data was transcribed in an effort to maintain the manner in which it was spoken so as not to normalize or misrepresent it. Consequently, quotes may contain the stops, starts, and utterances inherent to everyday conversation.

The most prevalent theme to emerge from the data was that of family. For

Rhonda and Logan, family IRs facilitated an IR chain for each of them that led to their connection with Ohio State football and, consequently, Ohio Stadium. Rhonda had a strong relationship with her mother growing up in Columbus, Ohio, which is where the university is located. Her parents were alumni and her primary IR with her mother revolved around the music associated with the football team. Logan’s IR chain can be

107 traced back to his grandparents who took him to his first games growing up as a child about an hour’s drive from Ohio Stadium. His grandmother was most notable in establishing this connection to the team.

In contrast to Rhonda and Logan, for whom their relationship with Ohio State football was engendered through a familial IR, the reverse was true for Matt. Growing up in Indiana and having a father who was an alumnus of a rival institution, Michigan

State University, Matt lacked the early familial connection to Ohio State that was characteristic of Rhonda’s and Logan’s IRs. Instead, he became a fan of Ohio State football during his teenage years and met his wife through a friendly relationship with others because of his attendance at Ohio Stadium many years later.

M: Um, and she also, um, kinda funny, she went to games too. It's kinda funny. The first year I dated her, um, found out that I was going to the Illinois game and she was too, with a friend. So, she did that type of activity also. Uh, she had gone, I guess, to a Bowl game or two before we met. . . K: That’s cool. If you don't mind my asking, um, was Ohio State football a big part of your courtship early on? I mean, were you, was that a way for you to kind of connect? M: Yeah, it sure was because, um, we got introduced by a friend and, um, I think the, uh, second date that we had actually was a Ohio State football game. And it was more memorable, not just because [laughing] I spent more time with my wife-to-be. K: Sure. M: But that was ‘98 when Ohio State, in my humble opinion, was the best team in the country. K: Uh-huh. M: And was ranked that way. But they lost to Michigan State, uh, here at home that year. And that was a painful loss cuz they were very good that year.

For Matt, family was facilitated through an Ohio Stadium-derived IR chain.

Moreover, the EE created during the second date between he and his wife strengthened memories that have become enmeshed with his recollection of the game itself and his fondness for that particular Ohio State team. While family was the most prevalent theme,

108 it overlapped with other themes the most; consequently, many examples within the following themes will contain familial undertones.

Band was the second most prevalent theme to emerge from the data and was an important ingredient for facilitating EE for Rhonda, Logan, and Matt. The Ohio State

University Marching Band, which is also referred to as ‘The Best Damn Band in the

Land’ or T.B.D.B.I.T.L., performs before and after the game, as well as during the game’s halftime. These performances are ritualistic and have been a part of the football game experience for many years. The ‘dotting of the i’ for example, which involves a sousaphone player marching to the top of the letter I during the performance of ‘Script

Ohio’ (see C4), has been done since the late 1930s and was named by Athlon Sports as the greatest college football tradition in the United States (Traditions: Ohio State

Marching Band Traditions).

While Logan enjoys the band, it is not his primary draw to engage with the Ohio

Stadium IR. Logan did mention, however, that other fans’ interest in the band spawned conversations between him and them, creating band-initiated IRs. For Matt, the band is especially important, as his wife’s father and grandfather were both members of the band during their time as students at Ohio State. Moreover, he, his wife, and their two children are fascinated with the band’s pre-game activities, including the band’s performance of

Script Ohio and ‘skull sessions’, which are spirit sessions held outside the stadium.

When discussing he and his wife’s desire to expose their children to the band’s post-game

IRs, he expressed that it was important for them to “experience the whole game”.

M: We just stay through the playing of Carmen Ohio at the end of the game, ‘til, you know, the team leaves then we leave. So we can experience the whole game. 109

The Ohio State football IR is incomplete for Matt and his family without the band’s post-game ritual, ‘Carmen Ohio’, which is the university’s school song. This post-game ritual involves the playing of Carmen Ohio while members of the football team–coaches and players–are united physically with their arms around each other and face the section where the current students sit. Both parties, students and football team members, sing the university song in unison as the band plays it. The purpose of Carmen

Ohio appears to be the distribution of EE to facilitate social solidarity by honoring students and team members, past and present. Doing so would have an important function for the larger group through the creation of collective effervescence, which would promote the students’ future presence at the games through their identification with the team and its history. Carmen Ohio is itself a sacred symbol and the singing of it after the game is an important IR for alumni too, which include Matt and his wife. Matt also touched at different points during our interview on the value of the band in indoctrinating he and his wife’s children into the Ohio Stadium IR. This demonstrates his perspective of the band as a symbol with the EE-generating capacity to facilitate an

Ohio State IR chain for his children.

Rhonda’s connection with the band is also interesting. She has kept her mother’s

Ohio State songbook, which dates back to 1923, and brought it to our interview to show me.

K: And you also have your, your Songs of Ohio State. May I grab that? R: Sure. K: [Reaches for the book, thumbs through pages] So, these are… R: This was my mother's book when she was in school and it has, the first song in here is Carmen Ohio. And there's the Across the Field, “Fight the team across the field". And 110 then there's some other ones that nobody knows. Here's the Buckeye Battle Cry, the other one that they play all the time. K: Now, um, R: And in the back there's all the Big 10 schools of the time, are in here. K: Is that right? R: Now, some of them have changed. Some have changed. Ours are still the same. K: Now, some of the songs have changed, but these are still the same? R: Yeah, their fight songs have changed. . . K: Were these kinds of books available to all students? R: No, I don't know. You know, I don't know whether it was something that anybody could get, or whether it was something she had because she played for things. K: Yeah. R: I, I probably would say that, yeah. Now, here in the front, what does it say about the… publishing… I think the first edition had come out in 1916 and came out again in ’23. So, they have revised it. K: And this, this particular copy is from 1923? R: Uh-huh. K: Well it's in good shape. That's incredible. And so, I can imagine that the songs themselves, and given your musical nature, were a big part of, maybe, your connection to Ohio State early on? R: I'm sure. K: Yeah. R: Yes. No, I, I knew those songs before I got to Ohio State, yes. Yeah. K: Oh is that right? R: Yeah. My mother used to play ‘em after I got, after I started playing piano, then I would play ‘em too.

Rhonda was quite proud of the fact that the school songs in the book have remained the same since the book’s publication while songs of other Big Ten Conference institutions, some of which were in the book as well, have changed. The timelessness of the university’s songs lend further emotional weight to the memory of her mother and thus further solidify her IR with her mother. Moreover, the pristine condition in which

Rhonda has kept the songbook over the years symbolizes the preservation of her relationship with her mother, from which she derives EE.

In addition to the songbook, Rhonda also brought with her a photo album that contained several pictures of her nephew, who was a member of the band in the 1980s. 111

As a sousaphone player, he was selected to ‘dot the i’ as a college senior, which is a significant honor within the football and band subcultures at Ohio State. She also brought his band yearbook, which chronicled the band’s history and contained several photographs of his ‘dotting the i’ performance. Rhonda showed me some of these photographs, including one which included her and her sister (her nephew’s mother) clothed in shirts with her nephew’s picture saying, “My Nephew Dotted the I”. Through the Ohio State IR, which originated with their mother, Rhonda’s nephew has emerged as a sacred symbol in his own right, becoming an emblem from which she and her sister derive EE, using him as a status marker within the larger subculture of Ohio Stadium attendees.

The third most prevalent theme to emerge from the data was that of attendance.

Of particular note is the fact that Rhonda, Logan, and Matt all discussed attendance as a process, rather than as the static experience of sitting down and watching the game. In fact, the detail with which the research subjects spoke about the attendance experience, specifically Logan and Matt, demonstrates the salience of elements in accordance with natural ritual versus those involved in the formal ritualistic aspects of attending a sporting event as Collins (2004) described. This is similar to Cottingham’s (2012) findings.

Rhonda’s attendance experience had much to do with ‘peoplewatching’. She has enjoyed arriving early to the stadium and seeing both fellow spectators and football team members prepare for the game.

R: I like, I like to get to the game, I like to get in and sit and watch other people come to the game. As I like to watch the beginning when the football, when the football team comes out and does their exercises [chuckling].

112

K: So, so, tell me a little bit about that. . . Um, when you say you like to get there early and watch people go to the game, what is it about that that you like? R: I just like to see all the people and, as I say, I like to see what's happening down on the field when, you know, before the game, cuz, you know, they always come out early and do their exercises and the coaches are talking, or, you know, talking. I just like to see all, the whole, the whole thing.

For Rhonda, the ‘peoplewatching’ IR promotes EE as a consequence of the entrainment she develops through her focus, not just on other fans, but on the interaction of football team members, who are themselves sacred symbols. Her ability to witness the team members’ backstage behaviors–players exercising and coaches talking–when they first venture onto the football frontstage–the field of play–gives her an emotional charge and facilitates the buildup of collective effervescence (Goffman, 1982; Ward, 1998).

Logan’s description of the attendance experience was rich in detail and narrative.

His recollection of walking around the university campus with his grandmother prior to games as a boy and need to purchase a game program prior to the contest illustrated that the actual act of watching the game was the final stage in a temporally and spatially significant IR.

L: So, I think growing up, you know, most of the games I went to were with my grandmother. So, it's just, you know, part of, you know, we lived a little over an hour away. So, it's like driving down, you know, going through, you know, doing, walking, we always parked, used to be a parking tower over by the old, uh, student union. K: Okay. L: So, we always parked in the same spot, walked clear across The Oval. It was almost, like, a tradition-type thing, you know? K: Sure. L: We could've found closer parking spots, or, you know, done other stuff, but it was just, just our tradition thing and we'd do that: walk across The Oval. K: This is you and your grandmother? L: Me and my grandma, you know, we would, she was always a big birdwatcher. She'd watch birds and squirrels. K: Really? L: We’d do different things and it just became more of a habit than anything, so. 113

K: How long do you think that lasted, that you and your grandmother going, and going in that way? L: Probably close to ten years. . . L: Yeah, but it's something I always like to do. Especially walking across The Oval in October, November, in the fall. K: Yeah, why is that? Tell me more about why you enjoy that. L: I don't know. I think it's part of the old, just the history, the architecture the, you know, some of the hundreds of thousands of people, you know, that take classes there, that walk through The Oval, and all that. So, I just think it's, just the history of it. K: Yeah, there's some really pretty, just some pretty spaces with the green space and Mirror Lake. L: Yeah, yeah. Mirror Lake’s another thing, you know, we kind of walk by there and, I guess, to me, it was never really that nice, but it's just the history and the ambience, for lack of a better term.

Parking away from the stadium and walking through The Oval, a very large and popular green space on campus, became an important IR for Logan and his grandmother that developed into a sacred “tradition-type thing” over the course of ten years.

Moreover, his fondness of walking around Mirror Lake, a large pond that is a prominent campus landmark, evokes a strong sense of nostalgia for Logan. His ability to recall with nuance his grandmother’s behaviors, for example, watching “birds and squirrels”, provides insight as to the high level of EE he derived from that pre-game experience. He and his grandmother’s mutual focus on the process of attending a game at Ohio Stadium with one another connected them emotionally, which both explains his ability to recall this IR with great detail as well as his high value for attending games at Ohio Stadium.

Now married and with his grandmother having passed away, Logan has tried to indoctrinate his wife into this pre-game IR. His wife has expressed negative feelings toward Logan regarding an early and spatially distant arrival for a game. She, in essence, rejected this IR and, thus, membership into, what was for Logan, an attempt at generating a small yet high-EE yielding IR chain that had become the precursor to the Ohio Stadium 114

IR. While she has made clear her feelings regarding this pregame IR, Logan’s wife has been a part of another attendance IR.

Prior to each game, Logan must purchase a game program. The process by which he must purchase this program has evolved over the years and has become quite systematic.

K: So tell me more about how you get your program. Do you get it before the game starts? Do you get it after the game? Is there, like, a set way you get it? Do you just get it when you get it? L: [Chuckling] I have to get it from the first person I see because there was one game that Sally [his wife] would not let me buy it yet, and then I missed one. K: Okay. You missed that particular program? L: Yeah. Cuz I went back to get it and I couldn't find one. And, uh, so that, it's always been a big joke from her. Usually, the first person I see, I have to buy it. And it's so bad now that, when I go, I take a one gallon Ziploc bag for me to put my program in. Cuz I've been to a few games where my program’s gotten wet. K: Right. L: You know, either somebody spilled something and it's run down, or it's just rained. So, that's kinda how anal I am about my programs. . . K: So, the fact that you preserve it so much, I think, is really cool. Now, do you, when you get home, do you take it out of the bag? Keep it in the bag? L: Um, eh, probably a little bit of both. Since now, like I said, I don't have a spot to put him. I think most of my, I just left them in the bag and put them in my Rubbermaid bins and go from there, so. K: That's really interesting. Wow. So, um, and do you have that practice as far as first person you see, you buy it from, you have the Ziploc bag? Do you do that for some of those other sporting events that you were telling me about? L: Yeah, I don't do the Ziploc bag thing. Only for Ohio State games. . . K: So, your need to go get it from the first person you see, that's not, necessarily, superstition so much as "I'm gonna get this now, so I don't have to worry about it later". L: Yeah. Cuz I, uh, cuz that one time I didn't get one. K: Did Ohio State win or lose that one time? L: Um, that didn't really stick in my mind. I mean, I'm guessing they won, cuz I don't think I've been to a losing game in several years, so. K: And you started getting programs, again, when you were, um, going with your grandmother when you were a kid? L: Yeah, about eight.

115

The act of obtaining programs is a significant IR for Logan. It originated as a boy when he attended games with his grandmother and has facilitated an IR chain between he and his wife, one about which they can joke. Consequently, Logan generates EE through this aspect of his attendance process. Of particular note is that the programs themselves are of little consequence; they go in a storage bin and are not displayed anywhere in his home. Moreover, the act of obtaining the programs is not about superstition. Logan could not recall the outcome of the game in which he was unable to obtain the program in advance, so his desire to obtain them is not a manifestation of a fetishistic need to evoke some sort of spectator ‘magic’ to influence the game’s outcome (Eitzen & Sage, 2012;

Gmelch, 1992). Rather, as focal points of his attendance IR with his grandmother and now the IR chain with his wife, game programs are significant symbols only insofar as they are contextual objectives. Logan derives EE from them through the process of obtaining them, much as he did as a child. Moreover, his need to preserve them in a plastic bag throughout the game demonstrates the value of this pre-game IR to his attendance experience and, by extension, the full Ohio Stadium IR.

Similar to Rhonda and Logan, Matt spoke about the excitement he derives from pre-game activities. He spoke briefly about walking to the stadium from his parked car with his family members and the buildup of excitement that accompanies that activity.

K: Um, all right. Let me show you the second picture. So, what's going on here? Anything jump out to you about what you see in this picture? [Referencing picture C2] M: Yeah. Well, obviously the tailgating that's going on. K: Okay. M: Although these people appear to be walking. K: Okay.

116

M: As opposed to actually seeing any, uh, tailgating specifically. But, it's kinda neat to see how people come from different areas all in. That's one of the things I've bragged about before to people: just how easy it is to get to the stadium from walking distance. K: Yeah. M: Because I've been to some other places that traffic, it almost seems like, it just seems like there are only two ways to get into the stadium area. And here, you can come all different types of ways. So, it's, it’d be really neat, I guess, to be in a helicopter or something to see how all the people come in.

Matt derives EE from the walk to the stadium, which he recognizes as a valuable ritual for himself and others. Moreover, the accessibility of the facility in which the group physically assembles–Ohio Stadium–is a ‘bragging right’ for him, a status marker from which he derives EE and denotes an Ohio State football spectator in-group versus non-Ohio State football spectator out-groups. The manner in which many of these fans assemble outside the stadium prior to the game was another significant topic for Matt.

He had several comments regarding ‘tailgating’–the gathering of friends outside the stadium to socialize. Many tailgaters bring food, beverages, and leisurely games to spend time with each other outdoors prior to the game. In fact, some tailgaters will just park their automobile near the stadium to ‘hang out’, even if they do not have tickets to the contest. Often, and primarily for many of the university’s students who are present, tailgating is an opportunity to socialize while drinking alcohol, a practice which Matt does not favor. Despite not having an interest in taking part in the tailgating IR, he does see the value in that IR for the larger group.

M: And all the people are there. I mean, I went to the Nebraska night game and it was clear that people had been there all day. K: Oh yeah. M: Massive amounts of people that, obviously, were not all going to go to the game. I still have the memory back in ‘95, the Notre Dame game. It was just unbelievable. They had as many people, they think, outside on Lane Avenue that never went to the game as, as there were in the game. 117

K: Sure. Why do you suppose people would go all the way down there to just kinda hang out and, like, not really, not to have, they don't have tickets, or whatever? M: Just the experience. K: Yeah. M: You know, just being part of that. Um, I've always had tickets when I've gone down, so I've never done that myself, where I just stay there and watch the game. Um, I think it's kind of interesting, you get to hear the roars of the crowd if you're just outside.

Matt is able to recall clearly the presence of tailgaters on two different occasions: the Nebraska game during the 2012 season and the Notre Dame game in 1995. While he otherwise condemned the tailgating IR because of its emphasis on alcohol as sacred symbol, Matt derives EE from tailgaters and appreciates their contribution to the group’s collective effervescence. Furthermore, he spoke about the value of the tailgating experience, despite not having access to watch the game from inside Ohio Stadium, by referring to tailgaters’ ability to “hear the roars of the crowd”. Tailgaters’ willingness to engage in pre-game IRs despite not having access to the facility in which the group assembles is significant. They sustain interest in the tailgating IR by experiencing the residual EE of the spectator in-group through the noise that those group members produce.

While comfortable with tailgaters as recipients of residual EE, Matt had a strong opinion about another subgroup of Ohio State fans. This opinion indicates the sense of morality Matt has generated through his commitment to Ohio State football and his attendance at many games.

M: I mean, you probably heard this last game against Purdue where people had left and we stayed. So, it was kind of interesting to see how much it had cleared out and these people came back, which you’re not allowed to do. Once you leave, you're not supposed to be able to come back. K: Is that right?

118

M: I guess there were so many people who wanted to get back in, they just let ‘em in. Um, and I talked to a few of ‘em and, yeah, they were outside walking away and they heard the roar of the crowd and knew something good was going on. K: Yeah. M: So, "let's turn around". K: And they started kicking themselves, I'm sure. M: [Laughing] Yeah.

Matt exhibits a desire to punish those group members who sought out other IRs in the social marketplace toward the end of a contest in which Ohio State was losing. Upon hearing “the roar of the crowd” as the team came from behind to win, many of these spectators were fueled by residual EE to return. His need to explain what should happen to group members that leave early–that they’re “not supposed to be able to come back”– suggests that he feels wronged as a faithful fan and adherer to group norms and that group members who departed the stadium prior to the game’s conclusion violated the IR and should not have been granted return entry. Matt’s sense of morality was a consequence of the EE derived from the group’s collective effervescence.

Data within the fourth most prevalent theme, mediated symbols, signified subjects’ connections with Ohio Stadium through symbols associated with the football program or stadium that were filtered through the media. Subjects spoke about using social networking websites and television to access Ohio State football information and display related symbols. For example, an important catalyst in each subject’s respective

Ohio Stadium IR was television and its related personalities. Television solidified the

Ohio Stadium IR for Rhonda and Logan, each of whom used to it as a means by which to maintain the levels of EE they originally obtained through that IR in person. While

Logan has lived within an hour’s drive of campus throughout his life and has used

119 television as an EE supplement for those occasions when he has been unable to attend games, Rhonda’s use of television has been different. Television afforded Rhonda an opportunity to maintain her Ohio Stadium IR while living in different parts of the country and facilitated an IR chain with other Ohio State football fans that followed the program from afar as well. For Rhonda and Logan, television supplemented the EE they were unable to generate because of their inability to attend games at Ohio Stadium.

In contrast to Rhonda and Logan, television enabled Matt the opportunity to connect with Ohio State football and fueled a desire to attend a game at Ohio Stadium.

As a child growing up a few hours away from the Ohio State campus in Indiana, Matt connected to Ohio State football through television, which aired a game almost weekly.

Using the fact that he was born in Ohio to legitimate his interest in Ohio State football to himself and, perhaps, his family members and friends in Indiana, he convinced a couple of friends to make the drive with him to Columbus when he was seventeen years old to watch a game in person. The television medium exposed Matt to the Ohio Stadium IR and motivated him to attend a game through an EE-inspired trip to the stadium, thus facilitating an Ohio Stadium-derived IR chain that prompted him to attend school at Ohio

State, meet his wife, and establish roots in Columbus.

Through television, Rhonda, Logan, and Matt were each able to maintain or establish IRs with Ohio State football and Ohio Stadium. Key to the success of television as an EE conduit for each of these subjects was the emergence of individual persons as sacred symbols within the IR. The presence of each of these individuals on television and their role in the media’s narrative portrayal of Ohio State football gave them

120 situational emotion and turned them into important symbols of the group. The consistent presence of each of these persons on television allowed them to maintain their emotional charge, which makes understanding the research subjects’ ability to recall moments of them understandable.

Matt referenced watching Ohio State games as a boy and seeing Woody Hayes, the football program’s legendary coach, walking the sidelines. For Matt, as is the case with many other members of the Ohio State football subculture, Woody Hayes has become a sacred, almost folkloric, symbol. Although a more recent recollection, Rhonda explained why she and her husband must watch televised games in different rooms of their house.

R: I get up and yell at the TV. K: Is that right? R: Yeah, I've got a big screen TV. K: Hopefully Urban [Meyer, the team’s current head coach] can hear you, you know. Um, R: He didn't want to hear me last game [laughing].

The television affords Rhonda the opportunity to yell at representations of the team’s head coach, which interferes with her husband’s ability to watch the game. In this instance, Rhonda engages in a surreal IR with a highly EE-charged, team symbol in hopes of influencing the team’s performance. For Rhonda, yelling at the coach’s representation on television affords her the experience of being present within the stadium and taking part in its IR.

Logan, too, has connected emotionally with team members and other personalities through television. His memory of attending a recent game helps to illustrate this.

121

L: Last year, I went with one of my best friends since junior high and we actually had seats down in 28B, which is like down underneath the deck, down five seats from that post (referring to photo A3). K: So, um, just for, um, recording’s sake, you're pointing, like, towards the… L: Tunnel where the team K: southeast. Yeah, okay. So, south in the B deck, so, okay. L: Yeah. K: Cool. L: So, we had tickets in that section, but he had a friend of a friend who had seats on, like, about the 45 yard line in the box seats on the west side. Um, so we’re in the second row in the box seats, um, you know, it's pretty amazing, the, uh, um, the Buck-I-Guy, if you've seen him on TV. K: Oh yeah. L: He was, like, four seats over and, um, my friend, friend of a friend, um, he was on the 1970, his dad was on the 1970 national championship team and is friends with John Hicks, who was a huge player for Ohio State in 1970. And he was sitting right in front of us. K: That's cool. L: So, you know, being in that group, is mainly the 1970 alumni section. So, we were in that, in that section and, I mean, just being that close, I mean, we were right here, you know, where the players are running by you, the, um, the Erin Andrews, the ESPN lady whose there, you know, standing in front of us, and it's just like… K: And this is when you were sitting, sort of, the west side, A deck area? L: Right. Right. K: And, again, behind, that's right behind the home team? L: Yeah. Yeah. So, that's pretty amazing. I've never been, I've had, you know, relatively to the 50 yard line, good seats, but never that close. K: Yeah. L: And being able to see, you know, guys less than 10 feet in front of you, see how big some of the guys are, you know, things like that is pretty interesting.

Members of the 1970 national championship are highly charged EE symbols for

Logan, as are television personality Erin Andrews and prominent spectator “Buck-I-

Guy”. Being in close proximity to these individuals is “pretty amazing” for Logan, and allows him to believe that he is successfully managing his impression in the eyes of his fellow group members–the other spectators–who are all taking part in the Ohio Stadium

IR. The EE yielded from this recollection of impression management through

122 conspicuous consumption is still charged with emotion for Logan, as his frequent and emphatic interruptions through this segment of our conversation illustrate. Moreover, his precise recollection of his close proximity to one of that team’s prominent players, John

Hicks, facilitated an emergence of EE for Logan, who was hoping to gain entry into an IR chain with Hicks given his proximity to the former player and increased status as a member of the stadium’s elite subgroup of box seat spectators.

Matt provided additional insight as to the value of television in facilitating EE for spectators. Once more, the band and its corresponding rituals play an important role in the Ohio State football IR.

M: So, that's been a complaint by people in the, all the way back from when I remember ‘til now, it's like, “oh, the TV doesn't show the band". So, the band's really respected by a lot of people around. So, you have, and when I was younger, I had to listen to these old people complain about how you can't watch the band on TV. K: [Laughing] Right! M: That's always been a complaint. You know, "why can't these TV stations at least show, you know, three minutes of the band highlights, or something? Instead of cutting to the studio show to show highlights of all these other games."

The band is clearly an important symbol of group membership, the frequent and predictable presence of which at Ohio State home contests has become an expected presence and formal ritual. Consequently, television coverage of the band provides a potential opportunity to generate some degree of EE for fans unable to attend games at

Ohio Stadium. Given the fact that the band is not covered, however–a practice about which fans have bemoaned, as Matt describes, for many years–the lack of band material in television coverage leads to dampened EE and, thus, failed IRs for long-time fans unable to travel to home games.

123

The least prevalent theme to emerge within the data was ‘Horseshoe’ nostalgia.

The three subjects called Ohio Stadium ‘The Horseshoe’ or, even more colloquially, ‘The

‘Shoe’, throughout the interviews, which is a reference to the stadium’s shape for many years prior to being refurbished in 2001 (Facilities: Ohio Stadium). The stadium was completely open on its south side until it was enclosed during the refurbishment to add additional seating, which has since been designated as student seating. Rhonda, Logan, and Matt each expressed some degree of attachment to Ohio Stadium’s former shape and a longing for some of its constituent elements through various memories of past experiences. Matt, for example, spoke about the value of Ohio Stadium as an important symbol, a point of pride, for group members.

K: So, is there any aspect of the stadium itself that has special meaning to you? I know you spoke a lot about, like, um, you know, the, the band and, and being present for all those kinds of activities. In terms of the actual, physical stadium, uh, is there any part of it that has special meaning to you? If so, why? M: I don't know if I can say there's anything specific, uh, in one area of the stadium, just the stadium overall. Once again, this pride of having Ohio State, just the Horseshoe, known as "The Shoe" across the country, one of the bigger stadiums. Uh, the atmosphere is usually pretty good, so it’s usually one of the best places to play according to, uh, independent experts. So, just, just the whole thing.

In addition to Matt’s general comments about the importance of Ohio Stadium, he, Rhonda, and Logan all had memories of the bleachers, which were located in the southern portion of the stadium prior to the refurbishment. Both Matt and Logan also spoke about their affinity for natural grass as the field turf, which has since been removed in favor of a synthetic turf. Matt was even more emphatic, expressing disappointment in the university’s athletic administration for removing natural grass. The subjects’ emotional connections to the stadium are understandable, not just because of their

124 recollections for past IRs within it, but because of the stadium’s unique structure. Its curvilinear shape and natural grass, amidst a campus and city replete with sharp angles and concrete, is indicative of ‘topophilia’, which is, essentially, a strong affinity for a particular place (Tuan, 1974) and is to be expected when examining fans’ connections to sport sites (Bale, 1993, 1996, 2003; Gordon, Chapter 2, Chapter 3).

Conclusion

Utilizing a microsociological framework, interaction ritual theory, and a unique qualitative research methodology, photo-elicitation interviewing, five themes emerged from data yielded through semi-structured interviews with three ‘big’ fans of Ohio State football. Those themes are: family, band, attendance, mediated symbols, and

‘Horseshoe’ nostalgia. Symbols emerged through Ohio Stadium IRs in accordance with these themes that facilitated EE for individuals, the result of which has created IR chains that have resonated throughout their lives. Each theme demonstrates the extent to which emotion and memory impact fans’ connections with the site where the football team plays its home games, Ohio Stadium, by virtue of the rich detail with which these subjects described their experiences, many of which took place years, if not decades, ago.

The results of this project confirm Cottingham’s (2012) and Gordon’s (Chapter 2) assertions of IR theory as a valid explanation for social interaction through the use of ritual in establishing sacredness and generating social solidarity, particularly in a sport setting. Moreover, this project affirms the use of PE-I as a fruitful qualitative methodology generally and in sport-oriented research specifically. The results of this research are similar to those of other contemporary projects within nostalgia sport

125 tourism, in which the process involved in attendance enables the re-creation of nostalgia, primarily through the salience of emotion and memory (Fairley, 2003, 2009; Fairley &

Gammon, 2006; Gammon, 2004; Gammon & Fear, 2005; Gordon, Chapter 2; Kulczycki

& Hyatt, 2005). Thus, nostalgia, as a function of emotion and memory, appears to be the prime mover in choosing to attend a sporting contest or related activity for many fans.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Limitations of this project include research sample size and the type of photographs used during interviews. While in accordance with many other PE-I projects, making inferences regarding the larger population of ‘big’ Ohio State fans is difficult considering the small sample size inherent to the methodology. The photographs were accessed through the public domain, which is in contrast to the photographs used in other

PE-I projects (Collier & Collier, 1986 [1967]; Curry & Strauss, 1994; Harper, 1984). In these projects, the researcher employed a documentary-style approach by taking photographs of the subject in action. Such an undertaking would have been difficult in this project, given the cost prohibitive nature of gaining access to multiple home games as well as photographing subjects in advance of their interview, who were accessed via snowball sampling. Consequently, these photographs lacked the capacity by which subjects were able to connect with them intimately relative to the aforementioned research examples within PE-I.

Future research could examine the role of emotion and memory in sport from an applied perspective. For example, sport scholars could examine the extent to which nostalgia, as a function of emotion and memory, influences ticket sales, merchandise

126 sales, and other consumption practices. Management-oriented scholars could also examine the notion of interaction ritual as it applies to sport organizations and its role in productivity. Both general forms of analyses could utilize PE-I as a research methodology, as well.

References

Bale, J. (1996). Space, place, and body culture: Yi-Fu Tuan and a geography of sport. Geografiska Annaler , 78 (3), 163-171.

Bale, J. (1993). Sport, space, and the city. London: Routledge.

Bale, J. (2003). Sports geography (2nd Edition ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Becker, H. (1974). Photography and sociology. Studies in the Anthropology of Visual Communication , 1, 3-26.

Beilin, R. (2005). Photo-elicitation and the agricultural landscape: 'Seeing' and 'telling' about farming, community, and place. Visual Studies , 20 (1), 56-68.

Bernard, H. R. (2011). Research methods in anthropology (5th Edition ed.). Lanham, MD: AltaMira.

Birrell, S. (1981). Sport as ritual: Interpretations from Durkheim to Goffman. Social Forces , 60 (2), 354-376.

Birrell, S., & Donnelly, P. (2004). Reclaiming Goffman: Erving Goffman's influence on the sociology of sport. In R. Giulianotti (Ed.), Sport and modern social theorists (pp. 49-64). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Caldarola, V. (1985). Visual contexts: A photographic research method in anthropology. Studies in Visual Communication , 11, 33-53.

Choi, J. A., Stotlar, D. K., & Park, S. R. (2006). Visual ethnography of on-site sport sponsorship activation: LG Action Sports championship. Sport Marketing Quarterly , 15 (2), 71-79.

Collier, J., & Collier, M. (1986 [1967]). Visual anthropology: Photography as a research method (Revised and Expanded ed.). Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.

127

Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Collins, R. (1981). On the microfoundations of microsociology. The American Journal of Sociology , 86 (5), 984-1014.

Cottingham, M. D. (2012). Interaction ritual theory and sports fans: Emotion, symbols, and solidarity. Sociology of Sport Journal , 29, 168-195.

Curry, T. (1986a). A brief history of the IVSA. Visual Sociology , 1 (1), 3-5.

Curry, T. (1986b). A visual method of studying sports: The photo-elicitation interview. Sociology of Sport Journal , 3, 204-216.

Curry, T. (1986c). Form follows function in photography. Visual Sociology , 1 (2), 20-21.

Curry, T. J. (1998). Beyond the locker room: Campus bars and college athletes. Sociology of Sport Journal , 15 (3), 205-215.

Curry, T. J., & Strauss, R. H. (1994). A little pain never hurt anybody: A photo-essay on the normalization of sport injuries. Sociology of Sport Journal , 11, 195-208.

Curry, T. (2008). Where the action is: Visual sociology and sport. Social Psychology Quarterly , 71 (2), 107-108.

Denison, J. (2007). Social theory for coaches: A Foucauldian reading of one athlete's poor performance. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching , 2 (4), 369-382.

Durkheim, E. (2008 [1912]). The elementary forms of the religious life. (J. Swain, Trans.) Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.

Eitzen, D. S., & Sage, G. H. (2012). Sociology of North American sport (9th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Facilities: Ohio Stadium. (n.d.). Retrieved February 3, 2013, from Ohio State Buckeyes Official Athletic Site: http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/facilities/ohio- stadium.html

Fairley, S. (2003). In search of relived social experience: Group-based nostalgia sport tourism. Journal of Sport Management , 17, 284-304.

Fairley, S. (2009). The role of the mode of transport in the identity maintenance of sport fan travel groups. Journal of Sport & Tourism , 14 (2-3), 205-222.

128

Gammon, S. (2004). Secular pilgrimmage and sport tourism. In B. W. Ritchie, & D. Adair (Eds.), Sport tourism: Interrelationships, impacts and issues (pp. 30-45). Buffalo, NY: Channel View.

Gammon, S., & Fear, V. (2005). Stadia tours and the power of backstage. Journal of Sport Tourism , 10 (4), 243-252.

Gibson, H. J. (2004). Moving beyond the 'what is and who' of sport tourism to understanding 'why'. Journal of Sport Tourism , 9 (3), 247-265.

Gibson, H. J. (1998). Sport tourism: A critical analysis of research. Sport Management Review , 1, 45-76.

Gibson, H. J. (2003). Sport tourism: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Sport Management , 17, 205-213.

Gibson, H. (2006). Sport tourism: Concepts and theories. An introduction. In H. Gibson (Ed.), Sport tourism: Concepts and theories (pp. 1-9). New York: Routledge.

Gmelch, G. (1992). Superstition and ritual in American baseball. Elysian Fields Quarterly , 11 (3), 25-36.

Goffman, E. (1982). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Pantheon.

Gonzales, L., Jackson, E. N., & Regoli, R. M. (2006). The transmission of racist ideology in sport: Using photo-elicitation to gauge success in professional baseball. Journal of African-American Studies , 10 (3), 46-54.

Gordon, K. O. (2013). The experiential aspects of sport stadiums: An examination of emotion and memory (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. 129

Harper, D. (1989). Interpretive ethnography: From 'authentic voice' to 'interpretive eye'. Visual Sociology , 4 (2), 33-42.

Harper, D. (1984). Meaning and work: A study in photo elicitation. International Journal of Visual Sociology , 2, 20-43.

Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies , 17 (1), 13-26.

Harris, J. (2006). The science of research in sport and tourism: Some reflections upon the promise of the sociological imagination. Journal of Sport & Tourism , 11 (2), 153-171.

Higham, J., & Hinch, T. (2006). Sport and tourism research: A geographic approach. Journal of Sport & Tourism , 11 (1), 31-49.

Hockey, J., & Collinson, J. A. (2006). Seeing the way: Visual sociology and the distance runner's perspective. Visual Studies , 21 (1), 70-81.

Johnson, D. L., Hallinan, C. J., & Westerfield, R. C. (1999). Picturing success: Photographs and stereotyping in men's collegiate basketball. Journal of Sport Behavior , 22 (1), 45-53.

Jones, R. (2006). Dilemmas, maintaining 'face', and paranoia: An average coaching life. Qualitative Inquiry , 12 (5), 1012-1020.

Loeffler, T. (2004). A photo elicitation study of the meanings of outdoor adventure experiences. Journal of Leisure Research , 36 (4), 536-556.

Lofland, J., Snow, D. A., Anderson, L., & Lofland, L. H. (2006). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis (4th Edition ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson.

Neumann, M. (1992). The traveling eye: Photography, tourism, and ethnography. Visual Sociology , 7 (2), 22-38.

Ramshaw, G., & Gammon, S. (2005). More than just nostalgia? Exploring the heritage/sport tourism nexus. Journal of Sport Tourism , 10 (4), 229-241.

130

Redmond, G. (1973). A plethora of shrines: Sport in the museum and hall of fame. Quest , 19, 41-48.

Snyder, E. E. (1991). Sociology of nostalgia: Sport halls of fame and museums in America. Sociology of Sport Journal , 8, 228-238.

Snyder, E. E., & Kane, M. J. (1990). Photo elicitation: A methodological technique for studying sport. Journal of Sport Management , 4, 21-30.

Stiebling, M. (1999). Practicing gender in youth sports. Visual Sociology , 14 (1), 127- 144.

Traditions: Ohio State Marching Band Traditions. (n.d.). Retrieved February 3, 2013, from Ohio State Buckeyes Official Athletic Site: http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/trads/band.html

Tuan, Y.-F. (1974). Topophilia: A study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ward, Jr. R. (1998). Rituals, first impressions, and the opening day home advantage. Sociology of Sport Journal , 15 (3), 279-293.

131

Chapter 5: Conclusion

This project has demonstrated that sport stadiums are sites of great importance individuals’ life experiences. They are more than simply buildings or athletic facilities.

Sport stadiums are partners in social experience. Their unique characteristics as municipal and cultural landmarks, symbols of group membership, and places of personal historical significance lie in the common thread of emotion and memory that people attribute to them.

Interaction ritual (IR) theory (Collins, 2004) was used as the instrument to explore the various relationships people have with sport stadiums. Its emphasis on emotion and memory as key qualities inherent to social experience made IR theory an appropriate construct to account for the varying degrees of emotional attachment and different types of relationships people have with sport stadiums, as well as with each other. IR theory allows for nuance of application in its ability to be synthesized with other interpretive constructs in order to provide a holistic interpretation of the experiential aspects of sport stadiums.

In chapter two, IR theory was synthesized with Relph’s (1976, 1981) and Tuan’s

(1974) respective notions of place, placelessness, and topophilia to account for the nostalgically-oriented aspects of contemporary ballparks in the United States. Their

132 constructs allow for a nuanced interpretation of sport sites potentially rich for both scholarship and application. Ritzer and Stillman’s (2001) ballpark typology also provided a useful framework to examine the evolution of these ballparks and their corresponding emphases on facilitating a nostalgic experience.

Emotional energy (EE) was introduced as the primary interactional element needed to motivate people to engage in various forms of engagement with sport stadiums, and the role of memory as a facilitator for the emergence of EE was discussed as a key byproduct of their experiences with postmodern ballparks. IR theory was also presented in this chapter as a unified approach to account for the various theoretical and methodological elements inherent to nostalgia sport tourism’s growing body of scholarship.

Chapter three expanded on the interpretation that people have with sport stadiums that was asserted in the second chapter by emphasizing the importance for sport managers to account for the needs and wants of relevant stakeholders. Stakeholder management (Freeman, 2010 [1984]) was posited as an increasingly popular and broadly beneficial approach for firms, which could be used to anticipate challenges from both the internal and external environment.

The notion of the sportscape (Wakefield, Blodgett, & Sloan, 1996) was introduced and the need to incorporate the stakeholder voice early in the design and management of sportscape elements was argued as a means to engender consumption.

Per IR theory, providing stakeholders the opportunity to engage in constructive dialogue with sport managers has the potential to engender their attachment to various aspects of

133 the sportscape, most notably its facility aesthetic, which can make them symbols of group membership that are highly charged with EE.

One aspect of IR theory that has particular relevance to the practice of stakeholder management is the dichotomy of deference-power (D-Power) and efficacy-power (E-

Power) (Collins, 2004). While both of these manifestations of power can exist in a variety of social circumstances, they are particularly useful hermeneutic devices for understanding how interactions within different levels of bureaucracy come to be successful or unsuccessful. Firm managers’ possession of D-Power is exercised through various IRs inherent to organizational interaction. Firm managers can distribute their power among stakeholders within these IRs through various deferential acts to generate

E-Power, such as providing stakeholders with an opportunity to express any concerns or interests related to the topic under discussion and taking steps that are clear to the stakeholder that address those concerns or interests. Stakeholder E-Power has the potential to generate EE, which, if stakeholder needs and/or wants are met, can stimulate consumption through the joint establishment of sacred symbols.

Two case studies were explored through the use of content analysis (Birrell &

McDonald, 2000) that provided interesting examples of stakeholder management, or the lack thereof, involving the sportscape. The matters involved in these case studies met with differing levels of success. The first, involving AT&T Park, appeared to involve stakeholders for some aspects of the project, but the facility aesthetic did not appear to be one of them. The second, involving GEO Group Stadium, demonstrated the degree to which not managing for stakeholders can damage the perception of the firms involved.

134

These case studies, although occurring at different times and in different locations within the United States, provided opportunities to examine stakeholder management as it related to the sportscape through the interpretive lens of IR theory, most notably D-Power and E-Power.

The fourth chapter examined the relationship that three ‘big fans’ have had with

Ohio Stadium, the home facility for the Ohio State University men’s football team.

These fans had each attended more than one hundred games throughout their lives and had forged a variety of emotional attachments to the space and the activities that have transpired in and around it. Photo-elicitation interviewing (PE-I) was used as the primary methodology by which to obtain the project’s qualitative data. PE-I involves the use of photographs to facilitate conversation within semi-structured interviews that can produce a more cooperative form of talk than is present in traditional interviews (Collier &

Collier, 1986; Harper, 1984), which also makes it conducive to sport-oriented research

(Curry, 1986; Snyder & Kane, 1990).

The data that emerged from these interviews were grouped into five different themes by virtue of their frequency in conversation: family, band, attendance, mediated symbols, and ‘Horseshoe’ nostalgia. These themes provided a glimpse into the relationships that these fans have had with Ohio Stadium, as their reflections on past events were rich with detail and yielded important symbols and rituals that have established previous IRs, and, in some cases, the growth of IR chains. The preservation of rituals were not just important for larger group cohesiveness, but they and their related symbols provided a link to the past and the loved ones who shared in those moments.

135

Through these IRs emerged origins of larger social processes, such as the establishment of collective identity and group morality. This chapter was framed within the recent literature associated with nostalgia sport tourism, which focused on nostalgia as an emergent property among groups involved in sport tourism (Fairley, 2003, 2009; Fairley

& Gammon, 2006; Kulczycki & Hyatt, 2005).

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

The aforementioned chapters have limitations that are rooted in their theoretical frameworks and research approaches. The emphasis in the second chapter on the notion of the stadium experience as a synthesis of theoretical constructs is a conceptualization that would be buttressed through qualitative or quantitative data. Such research would most likely need to be accomplished by scholars reasonably versed in microsociology, if not in these interpretive, interdisciplinary constructs specifically. Consequently, this chapter was situated within nostalgia sport tourism, a subdiscipline whose scholars appear to have a sound understanding of the interpretive aspects inherent to microsociology.

Given the applicability of IR theory as a theoretical framework and the growth of postmodern ballparks in the United States, future research could examine a variety of aesthetic elements as they relate to place, placelessness, and topophilia in the ballpark setting. More generally, these interpretive geographical constructs could be combined with IR theory to explore a variety of athletic and non-athletic spaces to determine common architectural or landscape elements that contribute to significant human experience vis a vis emotion and memory.

136

Stakeholder management, an important aspect of chapter three, presents a variety of challenges and opportunities related to research. This particular chapter was limited in its methodology, content analysis, which, while a useful method for the interpretation of events via IR theory, does not allow for real-time, physical access to the site and process of firm-stakeholder interaction. Consequently, making larger judgments about the effectiveness of potential firm-stakeholder interaction is challenging.

The case studies also possessed some challenges. AT&T Park, for example, has been open since 2000 and has undergone different name changes, which can make obtaining media texts related to the design and management origins of its sportscape difficult. In addition, the discourse surrounding the GEO Group Stadium matter provided some level of access because so much of the debate after the stadium-naming rights agreement took place occurred in the local media. Furthermore, the employment of the sportscape as a theoretical construct, particularly its dimension of the facility aesthetic, required interpretation through the synthesized lens of IR theory, place, placelessness, and topophilia where capturing stakeholder opinions during the initial design process would have been more desirable.

Should they be able to gain access, future researchers could examine firm- stakeholder interaction through the D-Power/E-Power dichotomous lens within IR theory.

Such interaction involved in the planning and management of sport events provides scholars with an opportunity to establish the origins of firm-stakeholder IR chains and determine the extent to which they facilitate EE and around what symbols and rituals that

EE is facilitated. Furthermore, future research could examine the various aspects of the

137 sportscape as they pertain to stakeholder/consumer salience. IR theory could also be used to examine stakeholder management and consumer behavior in more general contexts.

Limitations of chapter four include the number of research subjects and types of photographs used during the semi-structured interviews. While in accordance with a variety of other sport oriented projects involving a microsociological perspective or PE-I approach, the involvement of three subjects makes drawing larger inferences regarding the interpretations of their data difficult. In contrast, the small, deeply focused nature of this research did allow respondents to reveal the nuance of their experience, which was interpreted accordingly. Furthermore, the photographs used to elicit data from subjects in this chapter contrasted with similar projects that involved the PE-I approach. These projects often involved photographs that were taken of the respondents or were taken for the expressed purpose that they had some personal link to the respondents. In contrast, the photographs used in this project were general shots of spaces and activities associated with the Ohio Stadium experience that were obtained from the public domain, which, on occasion, appeared to make connecting intimately with the photographs difficult for some of the subjects.

Future research could examine the role of emotion and memory in sport from an applied perspective through the use of PE-I. Scholars could explore the extent to which nostalgia, as a function of emotion and memory, influences various forms of consumption such as ticket sales and merchandise sales. Also, PE-I could be used in a large, mixed method project to triangulate data relating to fans’ experiences at a stadium or with particular sportscape elements.

138

The use of IR theory as an interpretive tool has the potential to contribute to a great deal of research within sport management and other sport-oriented studies. Its emphasis on emotion and memory make it broadly applicable yet uniquely positioned to contribute to sport scholarship.

This dissertation is an attempt to establish that position through the examination of emotion and memory in a few of their possible manifestations relating to sport stadiums. Despite the limitations inherent to the projects presented in this dissertation, the interpretive constructs that have been used within it have tremendous potential to stimulate future scholarship and deepen our understanding of sport stadiums as places of personal and social significance.