Analysis and Theory Development – Sensemaking

The experience economy is a newly emerging and rapidly evolving research field, spanning a number of disciplines that provide a magnitude of possibilities and connecting points, a mix providing numerous joys as well as frustration. In addition, the research questions, the literature consulted, and the empirical data collected, all aimed at spawning large variations and matters wide in scope and rich in detail. Such a breadth in interest and richness in detail can create a wonderful sense of ability to see many things relevant to a particular issue.

However, such excessive breadth and depth of material also risks becoming outright paralyzing (Abbott 2004), and at times it was. To move forward, I tried throughout the study to work in line with viewing theory construction as sensemaking rather than problem solving (Astley 1985), besides accepting that very little of the final answers would be had and to tolerate a large degree of ambiguity. I was guided by an intention to stay with what appeared interesting and to use this as a guiding line and a substitute for validation during theory construction in line with Weick (1989).

In the analysis I triangulated the data from a number of sources. This included 1) the observations (and field notes and photos) of the activities and facilities of the experience providers, and their employees, 2) another being the observation of other participants and their reactions to the events, 3) reflections on my own participation and reactions, and of course 4) the material in the interviews themselves. Transforming the material from its empirical base as data and into theory development involved taking the text material, both from the interviews and the field notes, through coding and analysis. This I did by identifying and sorting the data into themes and sub-themes, as well as searching for the patterns beneath

all the “noise”, and then organizing and re-analyzing the material to extract some more fundamental principles. In numerous comparisons – and by contrasting them against each other and the literature – the concepts and structures emerged. Weick (1989) calls for seeing theory construction as “disciplined imagination” and that theories must be built by designing, conducting and interpreting imaginary experiments, or “thought trials”. Throughout the research and analysis, during numerous “thought trials” and continuous evaluation, I worked my way through the process of theory development. It has been said that “a mental copy of the world makes deduction possible”, Weick citing March (Weick 1989, 528). I have used such a copy, a universe created by my knowledge of the material in the study (as well as from precious work experience in the industry) for this purpose quite extensively. I have mentally tried out assumptions in fairly detailed representations of concrete contexts and scanned and evaluated what might be interesting, relevant, unique and plausible in the material, whether that material has been contributions in external literature, elements in the empirical data I collected, or my own conjectures. Science can be viewed as a conversation between rigor and imagination (Abbott 2004). In my effort I found imagination to be crucial, not only in the analysis part, but maybe even more so in the process of synthesis. To synthesize – to seek to put together the elements again in new and imaginative ways, to visualize models that convey elements and connections in a meaningful manner – was another vital part of this study.

Throughout this study I have also alternated between different roles at different stages to facilitate the research. During my participation in the events on-site, I have let the subjective customer, the one just having fun in trying out new things, take the front seat. Even so, the researcher has clearly been lurking pretty close beneath the surface. Shortly after the event I stepped out of the role as a mere participant in these situations, to quickly sum up and reflect on my feelings and impressions. Subsequently I have gone back and forth through the interviews, my notes/photos and description of events, and reevaluated my own impressions as an acting subject at the events. In the latter stages, the researcher role has obviously been in front, but surly here as well, the fun, excitement or confusion I felt myself as a visitor at these attractions and activities has been in the back of my mind as well. My opinion is that it is indeed possible to consciously and cautiously jump in and out and between these different levels, to bring these other roles along in the backpack, and to have the overall theory development benefit from this, rather than to try to stand on the outside of it all.

As a theory generating case study, this research could only provide outlines and starting points, suggesting framework and propositions, but not give comprehensive and final answers. Maybe the hardest part in this research has been the sense of continually having to leave so many noteworthy and important matters only partially answered, before having to draw the focus back to the larger picture and overreaching matters. This was necessary because most of the elements I went through were just intended to be explored to the point where their relevance in a larger picture was justified, (and not for their own sake).

Frequently, elements discussed are not intended to provide conclusive and complementary answers on their topic; rather they are intended as tools and clues for presenting plausible answers to the two main research questions.

Lastly, I am grateful for – and the study has benefitted from – the fact that I have had the opportunity to present, share and utilize the findings and the framework and models repeatedly throughout my research and in a variety of settings. The material has been discussed with my supervisor and colleagues at department seminars, with students in my own lectures and those of colleagues, at international research conferences, at business and industry conferences, as well as in consulting contexts where I have undertaken presentations, workshops, evaluations and development projects for business organizations, exhibition designer firms and tourist attractions¹. The feedback has been remarkably valuable and encouraging and has indeed made a difference.

The next chapter will be an introduction to, and containing short presentations of, the settings where the data was collected. In this first presentation of the empirical material I will present brief, direct and forthright descriptions of the facilities and the activities I participated in.

There I will seek to describe rather than to evaluate, leaving room for just taking in the facts and the atmosphere of these settings, and to make room for the reader to make up his own first impressions before a more in-depth analysis is brought in. However, I have selected what to describe and what to emphasize as typical and special about these experience offerings, and I will furthermore at times bring my own subjective thoughts as a participant into the description.

1Aspects of the study have been presented and used at various venues and in a number of contexts. To mention some: internal institute seminars, lectures, brown bags at BI and Bond University, The 11th APacCHRIE Conference, Macau, the 22nd Nordic Symposium in Tourism and Hospitality Research, various industry conferences for NHO Reiseliv, (The Confederation of Norwegian Enterprises - Norwegian Hospitality Association), Virke (The Enterprise Federation of Norway), Sixsides (exhibition designer), UMB; Liv Levende - Vitenparken in cooperation with Ernst and Young, and most recently, the Star Experience model was utilized for a project to evaluate the visitor experience at the Nobel Peace Center in Oslo.