Policy for sustainable and responsible festivals and events:

Institutionalisation of a new paradigm A Response

Dianne Dredge, Southern Cross University, Australia
Michelle Whitford, Southern Cross University, Australia
Published as Dredge, D. & M. Whitford. 2010. Commentary: Policy for sustainable and responsible festivals
and events- Institutionalisation of a new paradigm. Reply to Don Getz, Journal of Policy Research in Tourism,
Leisure and Events, 2(1): 1-13.

Abstract
There are increasing calls for the assumptions and values that underpin research in the social
sciences to be made explicit and for more critical attention being given to the way in which
knowledge is generated and validated. Inspired by such requests, this paper challenges some
propositions made by Donald Getz in the paper he wrote for the inaugural volume of Policy
Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events. In this paper Getz presents a vision for events
policy and proposes the development of events policy that embodies a sustainable and
responsible approach to public sector involvement in events. In the spirit of critical, engaged
academic debate, this paper challenges the following four propositions that emerge from
Getzs (2009) paper:
1) The state of existing event policy research is underdeveloped;
2) That it is possible to delimit the scope and substance of policy concerns within
event studies;
3) Neoliberalism has influenced governments to take a predominantly interventionist
role in events, principally to secure economic development and prosperity;
4) It is possible for governments to institutionalise an event policy paradigm;
Importantly, we recognise that Getz has made significant contributions to the events policy
literature, but arguably, it is important to engage more thoroughly with some of his ideas and
claims. Our contribution in this paper has been to argue that significant aspects such as
paradigm shifts in events policy, the role of government in events and the role of event policy
research require more nuanced understandings in order to account for, and accommodate, the
intricacies of event planning, management and policy. Our aim is to establish a broader
agenda on events policy research that embraces a wider range of epistemologies, ontologies
and methodologies than Getz proposes in his sustainable and responsible approach.

Introduction
In the first issue of the inaugural volume of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and
Events (PRTLE), Donald Getz presents a vision for the development of events policy that
embodies a sustainable and responsible approach to public sector involvement in events
(Getz, 2009). In the opening paragraphs of this article, Getz identifies the dual goals that
underpin the paper: to delimit the scope of public policy concerns in the field of public
events; and to advocate and explain the institutionalisation of a new paradigm for events
policy (p.62). Getz draws his inspiration from the available literature and [the] direct
experience of the author in many countries [to suggest] that policy pertaining to festivals and
other planned events is generally fractionalised, that it is not comprehensive and it fails to
integrate events effectively with all the relevant policy domains (2009, p. 62). His article
follows on from an earlier article in Tourism Management (Getz, 2008) wherein he reviews
event tourism as professional practice and as a field of academic endeavour and a book titled
Event Studies: Theory, Research and Policy for Planned Events (Getz, 2007) in which he
dedicates a chapter to events and public policy. Indeed, Getzs vision for events public policy
appears to emulate a set of values and assumptions that he has consistently articulated over
20 years. It is positivist perspective and therefore underpinned by a belief in a rationaltechnical approach to policy making and implementation. The abovementioned works sit
side-by-side and arguably, represent Getzs summative position on future directions for
events policy research and practice. The aim of this paper is to engage with Getzs ideas
drawing principally from the PRTLE article, but also from previous papers that focus and
expand upon certain aspects of his work.
In this most recent work, Getz argues for a more engaged form of public policy for
events wherein both the value of the event and its impacts should be evaluated using a triple-

bottom-line (TBL) approach. Whilst not wishing to diminish the contributions Getz has
made, we argue that his writings are dominated by a leaning towards essentialism about the
essence or nature of events and the role of government in managing them. That is, Getzs
(2008, p. 423) framework for knowledge creation and theory development in event tourism
proposes an approach for systematically studying and creating knowledge about event
tourism that privileges certain types of knowledge (i.e., around event experience and meaning
of events) and particular sources of that knowledge. We also detect an inherent belief that
governments can act as rational arbitrators, with the independence and capacity to implement
and act on TBL evaluations so consistently that the approach becomes institutionalised and
taken for granted (Getz, 2009, p.75). Whilst these broad observations underpin this
commentary, we specifically identify five key propositions made by Getz and on which we
focus our arguments. But before we identify these propositions, it is useful to clarify our own
approach to this commentary.
Approach to this Paper
This paper is formulated in the spirit of critical, engaged academic debate, taking up
two important challenges. First, it responds to increasing calls for the assumptions and values
underpinning social science research to be made explicit (e.g. Botterill, 2001; Flyvbjerg,
2001; Hollinshead, 1999) and for more critical attention to the way in which tourism
knowledge is generated and the way that propositions are transformed into truths and are
validated (Tribe, 1997; 2004). As a related field, events research could equally benefit from
greater scrutiny upon the way knowledge is generated, and the way in which the framing of
knowledge may privilege certain narratives, traditions and languages (Law, 2004). In order to
expose alternative perspectives, competing explanations or different ways of knowing, it is
therefore necessary to question even our common sense assumptions about the world, which

in this case is the context in which event policy research is produced. Second, this paper
responds to the call for greater engaged and reflective scholarship that builds upon the work
of others (e.g. Bramwell and Lane, 2005). Examples of engaged scholarship, where ideas and
values are debated, revised, improved or even discarded, are relatively uncommon in tourism
studies. Such debates form a crucial and formative role in enhancing critical thinking about
the foundations of knowledge in the broader field of tourism studies.
From this perspective then, we identify and discuss the following propositions that
emerge from Getzs call for a sustainable triple bottom line events policy paradigm shift:

Proposition 1: The state of existing event policy research is underdeveloped

(2009, p.62).

Proposition 2: That it is possible to delimit the scope and substance of policy

concerns within event studies (2009, p.64).

Proposition 3: Neoliberalism has influenced governments to take a predominantly

interventionist role in events, principally to secure economic development and
prosperity (2009, p.67)

Proposition 4: It is possible for governments to institutionalise an event policy

paradigm (p.74).

Before engaging in these propositions, it is important to briefly discuss three key

influences upon the way this paper is positioned within the theoretical and practical
landscapes of event tourism. First, critical engagement with the epistemologies of tourism
research and the ontological craft of researchers reveals a general tendency for researchers to
approach research from their home discipline, and to avoid probing too deeply into their
ontological assumptions about such things as power, culture, knowledge and place
(Hollinshead, 2004, p.65). Given that a large proportion of tourism and event programs are

housed within business and management schools, it is not surprising that a significant portion
of event research has tended to reproduce business and economic knowledge about events. A
further observation comes from Hall (2004) who, looking back at his own journey, highlights
the value laden nature of his own research, which has been shaped, by amongst other things,
disciplinary directions, academic performance criteria and personal attributes. Such an
applied philosophical awareness has the potential to move tourism and event research beyond
its concentration on relatively narrow economic and business dominated perspectives, to
explore and embrace alternative perspectives. This reflexivity in research can stimulate
researchers to move beyond what Foucault and Gordon (1980) call the regimes of truth that
tend to silence alternative understandings.
In his paper, Getz seeks to move beyond the business and management focus of
events literature by proposing a sustainable and responsible event policy framework that
effectively tries to balance business and community interests. In doing so however, he
privileges his own background and disciplinary perspective which arguably, is influenced by
the field of planning and in particular, positivist constructions of planning. These
constructions tend to reduce complex social systems into neat causal relationships and
produce normative how to solutions. Context specific issues and the intricacies of local
values can be, and too often are, lost in this universalising process.
In this paper, we seek to present an alternative perspective to these views about policy
and the role of government. But in doing so, it becomes important to declare our own
interests and subjectivities. Our starting point in this paper was the assumption that the world
is complex and messy, it defies overarching universal explanations and simple cause and
effect rules. Therefore for us, the prescription of an overarching event policy framework and moreover, one that can be institutionalised - is problematic. Like Getz, we draw from our

own eclectic professional backgrounds, academic journeys and the practical wisdoms that
emerge from prolonged engagement with diverse stakeholders and their ways of knowing and
doing. We also draw from extensive experiences inside and outside government and the
insights drawn from the way policy issues are framed and debated, knowledge is developed
and transformed into policy, stakeholders are engaged and implementation occurs or does not
occur. These experiences have led us to conceptualise government as existing within a shared
power world, where multiple and often competing institutions of government operate within a
framework of mongrel management (Dredge and Thomas, 2009). Ours is a post-structural
view of the world, where multiple approaches and perspectives are able to co-exist. Event
policy is necessarily influenced by its institutional setting, history and context and claims
underpinned by a propensity towards universalism should be treated with caution.
Finally, in the development of his knowledge constitutive theory, Habermas (1987)
once argued that research can never be interest free, but is underpinned by one of three sets of
human interest categories or motivations: a technical interest that seeks to control and
manage; a practical interest that seeks to understand; and an emancipatory interest that seeks
to offer alternative understandings and liberate knowledge from falsehoods and domination
(also see Tribe, 2004). Whilst critical discussion of Habermass knowledge constitutive
theory has revealed it to be over-generalised and Eurocentric (Reynolds, 2002), it
nevertheless empowers an alternative mode of thinking to that of positivism and technical
interests. Getz has framed his article around technical interests, proposing a policy triplebottom line framework for events (this is the first of the motivations above). In this paper, our
interests are aligned with the latter motivation, particularly a desire to expose alternative
perspectives and to liberate the event policy narrative from what we perceive to be a

normative orientation that has tended to discard more nuanced understandings about the role
of government, politics and power in events policy.
Proposition 1: The state of existing event policy research is underdeveloped.
In the opening part of the paper, Getz critiques the existing research arguing that
policy research in the events field is underdeveloped, and has not proceeded systematically
(p.62). He argues that research has tended to focus on management and marketing concerns,
economic impacts assessment and the planning and design of festivals and events. Whilst the
influences upon the authors identified in the previous section prompt us to question why
research needs to be systematic, this is perhaps a useful point to reveal much about the
contrasting perspectives of the authors. However, it is worth raising the issue of whether the
extent of event policy research to date, should be dismissed as underdeveloped.
In his earlier work (Getz, 2007) explores a vast landscape of events research and
highlights important studies that have revealed much about power, interest politics and
relationships between governments, event organisers and communities. In the article which is
the subject of this commentary, Getz reveals a rich landscape of events research that
investigates the power and politics of events (p. 62-63). Our position is that for such a claim
to be made, it is necessary to consider What is events policy research? and How does the
existing research inform event policy?. We contend that there are values about event policy
research that are embedded in Getzs claim that the area is underdeveloped, and that these are
relatively narrow.
Drawing from the public policy literature, event policy research can take a variety of
forms and be underpinned by a variety of epistemologies, ontologies and methodologies.
Moreover, there are two broad types of interrelated policy research which are relevant to
event policy research:

 research that is concerned with how, why, when, where and for whom the
policy was made (i.e., research of policy)
research that investigates the policy making procedures, processes, potential
policy options and furthers understandings of the characteristics of policymaking (i.e., research for policy)
Drawing from the diversity of literature covered in Getzs earlier review (2007) and
the current article, it would appear that there is significant body of research that builds
understandings about the way in which event policy is made, implemented and for whom it
has been made. That is, there is a diverse body of research of event policy but that the
research for policy is more limited. By corollary, the valuing of existing research for event
policy, that provides nuanced understandings of policy processes appears somewhat
undervalued by Getz because his focus appears to be on research of policy.
Indeed, Getz acknowledges that studying event policy requires knowledge of the
various actors and institutions involved, and how they interact and make policy (p.66). Yet
despite this observation, Getz appears to want to isolate normative research of event policy
(i.e., producing knowledge about how to frame, prepare and implement event policy) from
substantive research for event policy (i.e., policy advocacy). Getz touches on this distinction
in his claim that while events are often political in nature this line of research is not the
same as research on public policy (p.63). He clarifies his position suggesting that event
public policy research should focus on why governments should be involved, the potential
and ideal scope of policy and how the new paradigm of sustainable and responsible events
can be institutionalized (p.64). (This statement in itself demonstrates a pro-event position
that is taken up in Proposition 2 below).

Our argument in relation to Proposition 1 is that event policy research should include
socio-political interpretations of event policy problems and issues as well as research that
contribute to normative processes and frameworks. Knowledge about socio-political
relationships stimulates understandings about power, influence and values in event policy,
and cannot be isolated from normative research about what should or could be done. In
essence, the obvious focus on research of policy is much stronger than the lesser focus on
research for policy, so the claim that the field is underdeveloped is perhaps more a reflection
of an imbalance that has emerged during the development of the two types of event policy
research.
Proposition 2: That it is possible to delimit the scope and substance of policy concerns
within event studies.
Getzs article is based on the premise that a comprehensive event policy framework is
possible and that the proposed framework may be able to generate sufficient interest and
support for a new paradigm. However, Getz also observes that there is such a broad range
[of events], with so many issues and stakeholders, that it might never truly be amenable to a
single policy or strategy (p.65). Getz goes on to argue that a truly comprehensive public
policy domain covering planned events has to be very broad and dynamic. It will encompass
all the dimensions of the framework in an integrative manner, starting with the question why
do we want and value events? Even if this degree of comprehensiveness and integration is
impossible to achieve, for practical and political reasons, there is nevertheless the potential
for using the framework to better place events within the other pertinent policy domains
(p.66). In Tables 1 to 4 of his text, he outlines possible policy goals, policy initiatives and
performance measures that provide the framework for a sustainable and responsible approach
to event policy. To better understand how these dimensions of event policy have been

derived, it is necessary to examine the scope of policy concerns as identified in an earlier

diagram outlined in Getz (2007) and reproduced in the current article upon which we
comment.
A key concern in this diagram is the built in assumption that the planned event
experience is the core phenomenon around which an event policy framework can be built. A
reflective view of policy communities (Richardson and Jordan, 1979; Homeshaw, 1995) and
agency in particular, reveals this to be problematic. Different organisations and different
levels of government are involved in the planning, support, regulation, management and
implementation of events to different degrees. Each agency frames their involvement
according to different agendas, values and interests. For example, local governments are
concerned with servicing local communities, public health, economic development and
public safety. A state tourism agency would be keen to promote tourism potential while an
environmental protection agency might be less than keen to promote the event and provide
necessary permits, and may have no interest at all in the experience and meanings attached to
the event. The way that Getz frames his policy framework suggests that, for his framework to
be implementable, agencies would have a positive, facilitative position, and that consensus is
possible. However there is a plethora of research that illustrates consensus may be only
partial and commitment can vary. Agencies, operating with different agendas and values, can
work against each other overtly or covertly. Legislated roles and responsibilities of agencies
may work against consensus building.
Our position is, that for an event policy to be truly workable, it needs to start with an
alignment of the values of the agencies with an interest or mandated role in the event, and not
as Getz suggests, with a commitment to the event experience and meaning. In other words,
there is a need to define the policy space in which agencies can work together. Some policy

10

issues and problems might remain outside the common policy space, as might some agencies.
Returning to the second proposition then, it makes sense to argue for a networked and
adaptive (rather than comprehensive) policy approach that reaches across policy domains and
agencies tapping into their core agendas, roles and responsibilities, rather than trying to align
agencies via consensus around the event experience, which we see as highly improbable.
Proposition 3: Neoliberalism has influenced governments to take a predominantly
interventionist role in events principally to secure economic development and
prosperity
Getz discusses the justifications and approaches that government can adopt in their drive
to develop event policy. He identifies the reasons why governments get involved in events
including:
public good benefits
social equity
market failure
intangible benefits
Getz quite rightly points out that governments get involved in events for a variety of
reasons. They have different levels of involvement and use different justifications. Within
this context, a point worth addressing is Getzs statement Neoliberalism is the predominant
ideology in many developed countries, and governments in this frame have an interventionist
role to play in the events sector, mostly to secure economic development and prosperity
(p.67). This statement oversimplifies the debate around the neoliberalised state and
associated characteristics of government intervention. Neoliberalism is an economic
management philosophy inspired Adam Smiths 18th century arguments supporting the
capacity of the market to self-regulate. Simply put, where supply and demand operate with

11

limited government intervention, competition and self-interest become the mechanisms to

ameliorate negative externalities and the unintended consequences of growth. Twentieth
century neoliberalism adapted this earlier work to argue for a free market economy and noninterventionist government. More recently however, criticisms have emerged of this
universalising discourse about neoliberalism, drawing attention to the presence of different
phases in the role of government over time and across space. Peck and Tickell (2002), for
example, identify roll back and roll out neoliberalism. The former is characterised the
Thatcher and Reagan administrations and was exemplified in the withdrawal of government
involvement and concomitant strategies such as the selling off of state owned enterprises.
The latter is characterised by more targeted intervention via the introduction of new policies
and new institutions (such as statutory corporations and state owned corporations) targeted at
addressing the issues of those disaffected by roll back neoliberalism. It is outside the realm of
this paper to provide a nuanced discussion of Neoliberalism. However, it is important to
correct the misconception that Getz creates in his universalising statement that neoliberalism
is characterised by government intervention (p.67). Indeed, the level and direction of
government involvement varies throughout the planning and implementation of an event and
can also be influenced by the capacity of stakeholders and the political interest in the event
demonstrated at different levels of government.
Recent research suggests that governments are exercising more complicated
characteristics of involvement (Dredge, Ford, Lamont, Phi, Whitford & Wynn-Moylan,
2009). They are active at a political level in the bidding process but, once the event is
secured, they generally have less direct involvement in the staging of the event. Moreover,
this involvement is made more complex by the use of statutory or government-owned
corporations, removed from public scrutiny and accountability, as mechanisms to pursue and

12

secure events. These corporations have acted entrepreneurially, bidding on events and
bypassing many of the development requirements that private enterprise would normally be
subject to. Furthermore, governments have tended to demonstrate little interest or willingness
to incorporate the activities of such entities with sustainable (or any other form of) policy.
The issue of whether governments demonstrate more or less involvement in events is,
therefore, a moot point and worthy of further investigation in an effort to develop more
nuanced understandings of how neoliberalism affects government involvement in event
planning and management. Getzs comment only serves to marginalise the importance of this
work.
Returning to the third proposition then, we argue that Getzs observation about
Neoliberalism is overly simplistic and ignores the uneven cycle of involvement that different
levels of governments can have in event planning and management across scales and over
time. Moreover, Getz arguments are generalised to reflect provincial or national level
governments, yet the role of local governments in events can be quite different. For instance,
examining where the events directorate is situated in any local government will reveal that
events can be, and are, underpinned by economic, socio-cultural or environmental motives
(Whitford, 2004). Arguably then, there has been insufficient attention on developing nuanced
understandings of Neoliberalism, and as such it is impossible to make a universal claim that
governments have more (or less) involvement. Indeed, given that governments are
responding increasingly reflexively to the issues, challenges and vulnerabilities that confront
them, it is quite possible that governments have less control, not more..

13

Proposition 4: It is possible for governments to institutionalise a sustainable and

responsible event policy paradigm
Similarly, care should also be taken not to oversimplify sustainability and its capacity to
enhance event policy. Given the global push for sustainability and in particular, sustainable
tourism development since the early 1980s, it is not surprising that Getz is advocating the
need to institutionalize the principles of sustainability in event policy. The parent concept of
sustainable development has been a key driver of the social and political agendas of many
countries for many decades, while the correlated concept of sustainable tourism development
has been on the global agenda for over two decades (Jayawardena, 2003). Yet the
quintessence of sustainability remains ambiguous and continues to inspire much debate
(Bramwell and Lane, 1993; Butler, 1991; Clarke, 1997; Hall, and Lew, 1998; Jamal and
Getz, 1997; Simpson, 2001; Trousdale, 1999). On the one hand, Getz, as an apparent
advocate of sustainable development of events maintains sustainable events are not just
those that can endure indefinitely, they are also events that fulfill important social, cultural,
economic and environmental roles that people value (p. 70). On the other hand sceptics of
sustainability not only question the likelihood of sustainable requirements ever being met, but
they also doubt the likelihood of being able to undertake development that does not unduly
strain a regions environmental, socio-cultural or economic carrying capacities (Aronsson,
2000).
Not surprisingly then, the gap between sustainability doctrine and its real world
application continues to grow (Simpson, 2001; Trousdale, 1999). Yet the apparent solution
for the development of sustainable event policy, according to Getz, is based on the
assumption that sustainability can be achieved with a Triple Bottom Line Approach to event
policy evaluation. Accordingly, he provides some broad event policy goals, for example, to

14

foster event tourism and to foster environmental events. These goals are framed within
economic, socio-cultural and environmental categories.
Concomitantly, Getz calls for the development and institutionalisation of a sustainable
and responsible paradigm, demonstrating an ambition to move from what he sees as an
overemphasis on the economic value of events to a balanced, sustainable approach. We
identify two problems with this argument that are derived from the assumptions that Getz
appears to make about the nature of paradigms and paradigm shifts in tourism and events
policy. First, Getz assumes that events policy is already characterised by a particular
paradigm neoliberal economic management. Second, Getz assumes that there is an
alternative responsible and sustainable events paradigm waiting to be adopted. These
assumptions underpin Getzs arguments but misrepresent the nature of paradigmatic change
in the social sciences generally and in tourism and events studies in particular.
According to Kuhn (1962, p.4), the transition from one paradigm to another is a
reconstruction that changes some of the field's most elementary theoretical generalizations as
well as many of its paradigm methods and applications and demonstrates a decisive
difference in the modes of solution. Kuhns work has been both widely cited by those
wanting to justify their arguments for change, and criticized by those questioning his
generalized theory of the evolution of scientific knowledge. The application of his ideas in
the social sciences has been strongly debated. In the social sciences, particularly with the rise
of post-structural and post-modern movements, there is greater acceptance of the multiplicity
of theories, explanations and perspectives with no particular set of knowledge possessing
greater truth than other knowledge. Getz makes a call for a responsible and sustainable
development paradigm shift that balances social and environmental concerns against the
current neoliberal focus. In arguing this point, Getz conceptualises the current neoliberal

15

economic paradigm as opposing (or at least separate to) a responsible and sustainable
approach.
Whilst Kuhns ideas have been influential, they have also inspired much debate.
Dreyfus (in Flyvbjerg, 2001) insists that the social sciences do not encounter paradigm shifts
but rather they experience style changes where waves of intellectual fashion, such as
sustainability, dominate. They are not more or less truthful, they just reflect current values.
Furthermore, Dreyfus argues that the social sciences do not endure a Kuhnian state of crisis
like the natural sciences. Rather, they remain in a pre-paradigmatic state in anticipation of
achieving a cumulative, stable and predictive period. As previously discussed, the sustainable
tourism body of discourse is in a constant state of flux. Proponents of sustainability and
sustainable tourism in particular, have been challenging economic neoliberalism since the
early 1980s and social scientists continue to debate what constitutes sustainable tourism.
Furthermore, predictive theory and cumulative progress appear to remain elusive
achievements. Flyvbjerg (2001) says we should be comfortable with this and not seek to
claim paradigmatic status.
Returning to the fourth proposition, arguably then, Getz has been overzealous in his
call for the institutionalisation of a sustainable paradigm in event policy. Sustainable
development has long been the philosophy underpinning a plethora of research in the social
sciences but it remains open to interpretation and does not represent a higher truth or correct
way of doing things. Moreover, neoliberal economic values can and do co-exist within the
mantra of sustainability within many governments. In other words, a responsible and
sustainable events policy does not necessarily represent a paradigm in itself, but rather a
rebalancing of the social, environmental and economic values that characterise the
sustainability conundrum. On this basis, sustainability is in a pre-paradigmatic state, so a

16

sustainable and responsible approach to events policy does not represent a paradigm shift. It
is merely an alternative value statement about what is important. On this basis, Getz has not
only made an audacious claim about a new sustainable and responsible paradigm in event
policy, but he has arguably demonstrated a tendency towards universalised claims about the
state of knowledge in the events field.
Conclusions
In this paper we have sought to further critical discussions about events policy by
engaging critically with the ideas and arguments presented by Getz for a paradigm shift. The
key contribution of this response then, has been to question the mental software that
dominates thinking about event policy as normative, how to knowledge and the role of
government as central to the development of effective event policy.
In his paper, Getz transforms his propositions into truths using an expert voice and
supporting this with a framework for events policy. Indeed, this framework is more a list of
considerations to be addressed if events policy is to be publically accountable. Nevertheless,
Getz has made some important contributions to the events policy literature, but it is important
to engage more thoroughly with some of his ideas and claims. Our contribution in this paper
has been to argue that significant aspects such as paradigm shifts in events policy, the role of
government in events and the role of event policy research require a more nuanced
understanding in order to account for, and accommodate, the intricacies pertaining to events
and event policy. For instance, events policy needs to recognise the complexity of
stakeholder interests in events, and acknowledge that there are multiple motivations, needs,
expectations and attitudes with respect to the development and implementation and
management of events. Events policy cannot be developed and institutionalised without
critical assessment of the context, the stakeholders involved and the collective advantages

17

and disadvantages of staging events. In this context, good governance of events is critical and
this must be contextualised within the case at hand. Our preference is to establish a broader
agenda on events policy research that embraces a wide range of epistemologies, ontologies
and methodologies that can elucidate both policies of and policies for event planning and
management.
References
Aronsson, L. (2000). The development of sustainable tourism. London: Continuum.
Botterill, D. (2001). The epistemology of a set of tourism studies. Leisure Studies, 20(3):
199-214.
Bramwell, B, & Lane, B. (1993). Sustainable tourism: An evolving global approach. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 1(1), 1- 5.
Bramwell, B. & Lane, B. (2005). Editorial: Sustainable tourism research and the importance
of societal and social science trends. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(1), 1-3.
Butler, R.W. (1998). Sustainable tourism- looking back in order to progress. In C. Michael
Hall and Alan Lew (Eds.) Sustainable Tourism Development: Geographical
Perspectives (pp. 25-34). Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.
Clarke, J. (1997). A framework of approaches to sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism 5(3), 224-233.
Dredge, D. & Thomas, P. (2009). Mongrel management, Public interest and protected area
management in the Victorian Alps, Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17(2),
249-267.
Dredge, D., Ford, E., Lamont, M., Phi, T., Whitford, M., & Wynn-Moylan, P., (2009). Event
Governance: The rhetoric and reality of the World Rally Championship, Northern
Rivers, NSW. Proceedings from Challenging the Limits: Council for Australian
University Tourism and Hospitality Education. Hobart: University of Tasmania
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can
succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Foucault, M. & Gordon, C. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings
1972-1977. New York: Pantheon Books.
Getz, D. (2007). Event studies: Theory, research and policy for planned events. Oxford:
Elsevier
Getz, D. (2008). Event tourism: Definition, evolution and research. Tourism Management
29(3), 403-428.
Getz, D. (2009). Policy for sustainable and responsible festivals and events:
institutionalization of a new paradigm. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism,
Leisure and Events, 1(1), 61-78.
Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action, vol 2: Lifeworld and system: A
critique of functionalist reason, trans McCarthy, T. Cambridge: Polity
Hall, C.M. (2004). Reflexivity and tourism research. In J. Phillimore and L. Goodson (Eds.)
Qualitative research in tourism: Ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies. (pp.
137-155). Routledge: London & New York.

18

Hall, C.M. & Lew, A. (1998). Sustainable tourism: A Geographical Perspective. Harlow:
Addison Wesley Longman.
Hollinshead, K. (1999). Surveillance of the worlds of tourism: Foucault and the eye-ofpower. Tourism Management, 20(1): 7-23.
Hollinshead, K. (2004). A primer in ontological craft. In J. Phillimore and L. Goodson. (Eds.)
Qualitative research in tourism: Ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies. (pp.
63-82). London & New York, Routledge.
Homeshaw, J, (1995). Policy community, policy networks and science policy in Australia.
Australian Journal of Public Administration, 54(4), 520-533.
Jamal, T., & Getz, D. (1997). Visioning for sustainable tourism development: Communitybased collaborations. In P. E. Murphy (Ed.) Quality management in urban tourism,
(pp. 199-220). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Jamal, T. & Hollinshead, K. (2001). Tourism and the forbidden zone: The underserved power
of qualitative inquiry. Tourism Management 22(1): 66-82.
Jayawardena, C. (2003). Sustainable tourism development in Canada: Practical challenges.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15(7), 408-412.
Khan, S.A. (2002) Beyond the limits of sustainable growth: Earth on the market. Le Monde
Diplomatique (December), 8.
Kuhn. T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. London & New York:
Routledge.
Peck, J. & Tickell, A. (2002). Neoliberalising space. Antipode 34, 208-216.
Reynolds, M. (2002). In defence of knowledge constitutive interests: A comment on What is
this thing called CST? (Midgely, 1996). Journal of the Operational Research
Society, 53(10), pp. 11621165.
Richardson, J.J., & Jordan, A.G. (1979). Governing under pressure: The policy process in a
post parliamentary democracy. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
Simpson, K. (2001). Strategic planning and community involvement as contributors to
sustainable tourism development. Current Issues in Tourism, 4(1), 3-41.
Tribe, J. (1997). The indiscipline of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 638-657.
Tribe, J. (2004). Knowing about tourism: Epistemological issues. In J. Phillimore and L.
Goodson (Eds.). Qualitative research in tourism: Ontologies, epistemologies and
methodologies. (pp.46-62). London & New York, Routledge.
Trousdale, W.J. (1999). Governance in context, Boracay Island, Philippines. Annals of
Tourism Research, 26(4), 840- 867.
Whitford, M. (2004). Regional development through domestic and tourist event policies:
Gold Coast and Brisbane. Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure Science, 1(1):
1-24.

19