Several events, one collective case

I originally conceived the study’s methodological setup as separate case studies of the six sport events. However, as the study progressed this composition of separate cases mor-phed into one “collective case study”. Instead of analysing each of the events, the aim changed to be an analysis of sport events in general in Denmark and Norway based on material collected across several events (Stake, 2000, p. 437). With this approach, I pre-sume the similarities across the events are bigger than their differences and that for an-swering the thesis’ question, it is more relevant to show these similarities than to point out the differences.

An excessive focus on the differences could easily have turned the thesis into an analysis of the effects of certain causal relations around specific cases within fixed limits in space and time. Considering the causes across several events instead shows the range of possi-bilities for legitimising events in Denmark and Norway and a more general picture of the role events play (cf. Flyvbjerg’s idea of cases of maximal variation as a way to generalise from case studies, Flyvbjerg, 1991). On the one hand, the distinction in typical and atypi-cal cases could seem to counter this. On the other, my claim is all the more valid if the similarities are pregnant even across these cases. In addition, a study of multiple cases enables me to consider more subtle incentives to host. If for instance I am right in assum-ing the interest in events has led to the formation of an event field, it should be possible to show how the stakeholders across events draw on similar logics and mutually reinforc-ing ideas which would not have been the case if each event was considered on its own.

These ideas could for example be the implementation of event policies or that stakehold-ers base their expectations on global ideas and trends (cf. chapter 2). In this way, the collective approach blurs the lines between the specific causal relations and the general findings in the research and makes the thesis a study of a general phenomenon – the bidding for international sport events. This does not mean the study presents any laws on events; rather, the study gives an insight and understanding of events ‘today’ (cf.

Koselleck, 1979/2004, p. 82) and produces an “analytical” generalisation inviting the reader to co-judge its relevance and develop new hypotheses (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2015,

___

115

pp. 291–292; cf. critical realism and generalisation in Danermark et al., 2001, p. 77;

Flyvbjerg, 2015; Schwandt & Gates, 2018, p. 348).

On this collective basis, I expect the causes found to be comparable and conjunctural.

Being conjunctural means that the outcome, the bid, and possible staging of one or in this project several events stems from a confluence of global and local factors in a cluster of causes necessary and sufficient for the event to take place, but without requiring a law like generalisation (Danermark et al., 2001, p. 187). A general example of such a cluster would be the idea that a better longevity of policies stems from a combination of demo-cratic institutions and a well-educated population or an authoritarian regime with a strong bureaucratisation (Ragin, 1989, pp. 24–27). In this project, the causes could be especially effective external arguments either towards the owners or for instance the public on a local level. The effectiveness of an argument is however also likely to be re-lated to another form of cause, namely the structures as described in the theoretical chapter. This further distances the project from the alternative, i.e. an analysis of causes as “additive” which presumes that each cause independently adds to the probability of an outcome and is therefore sufficient (e.g. that democratic institutions add to the lon-gevity of policies regardless of other variables) (Ragin, 1989, pp. 59–63). For this project, the task is to “trace” these conjuring causes across the cases and explain them using the given theories (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017, p. 8).

The collective approach necessarily leads to the missing out of nuances and details around the specific events as I do not tell their story. I do not for instance explain in detail why the Oslo process failed but only what possibly went wrong when justifying the bid.

As described in the previous section, I see the bidding process as a time for the develop-ment of discourses which are reliant on the context. I consider few actions besides the stakeholders ‘speech actions’ concerning the formation of the discourse. Moreover, I do not go into detail about how specific persons behaved or the exact decisions they took unless these actions were related to the justification of the event. The world champion-ship in Bergen is a good example of what this approach misses. As it in the aftermath became clear that the event had a severe financial deficit, I often met people who wanted

___

116

to discuss the case with me as an event researcher. Unfortunately, I had very little to say about why the event went wrong in economic terms. What I could talk about, based on my analyses of the event discourse, was why the proponents justified the event in the way they did and why they wanted it to take place. This may have disappointed those who asked me about Bergen and in general it may seem like a limited aim; however one needs a limited aim to make a precise and manageable study.

Altogether, I find the project relevant for three reasons despite its limits. Firstly, as men-tioned, presuming I am right in seeing the similarities as more prevalent than the differ-ences, sacrificing the nuances provides a broad insight. Instead of understanding the whole of one event, we come to understand events broadly. Both aims could be consid-ered relevant. However, and this is my second point, there is a lack of collective case studies and the broader view is needed for a new perspective in research different from current focus on single events (cf. section 1.1.1). The increase in event strategies and thus the fact that practitioners see events in series makes it logical that research should follow.

Thirdly, there is the pragmatic reason of space and the desire to keep a focus in the thesis.

Undertaking both specific case studies and a collective study at the same time could very well have ruined both.

This does not mean I have not considered the nuances during the analysis. I only claim that the similarities are bigger than the differences and that it is useful to focus on the former. I do not say that there are no differences. As mentioned in the previous section, I have selected the cases with the aim of investigating whether for instance the space for the event and tradition of the sport influenced the arguments. The most obvious example is section 8.2 on the bid for the Winter Olympics. As the only case, it gives an insight into how the debate around the event moved into a public space.

___

117

Finally, I nuance the collective case study by discussing its results in two broader contexts.

Although the case study is the main focus and I do not intend to conduct a full compara-tive analysis it is still relevant to put the case study results into perspeccompara-tive (see Table 6).

The collective case first of all took place in the context of two similar and yet different countries. These two countries then lie in a region participating in global networks, in-cluding that of sport. The analysis of these regional and global levels draws on the con-cepts of Most Different and Most Similar System Designs (MDSD/MSSD) (cf. Przeworski

& Teune, 1970, pp. 31–39).⁷⁵

An MSSD based on Denmark and Norway focuses on the relevance of a formal strategy as a motivation for hosting events. Both countries host events (and have a similar output)

75 This combination of a most similar and most different system design has previously been used to study the construction of various sport facilities in the Oslo Municipality (an MSSD). In a national context this becomes an MDSD because Oslo is an atypical municipality because of its size, status as capital, etc. which nevertheless has a similar output in terms of sport facilities (Tangen & Rafoss, 2009, Chapter 7).

MDSD

Global sport Scandinavian countries

MSSD

Denmark Norway

Collective case study UCI Road World Champi- onship, 2017 IIHF Ice Hockey World Championship, 2018 IHF World Handball Cham- pionship 2015 (women), 2019 (men) The bid for the Winter Olympics 2022 IAAF World Halfmarathon Championship, 2014

Table 6: The thesis’ case study, MSSD and MDSD.

___

118

with generally very similar conditions, aside from one potentially crucial factor: a national event strategy. ⁷⁶

An MDSD setup is a study of two cases with similar outputs on different backgrounds; in this project, it would be hosting sport events with the backdrop of markedly different national contexts. The task is then to identify the similarities which could explain this un-likely but existing similar output. Denmark and Norway are two small Western welfare states, “atypical cases” in the sport event field (and research) (Flyvbjerg, 1991, p. 150. Cf.

also chapter 2). However, despite their difference in terms of soft power credibility, pop-ulation sizes, form of government, etc., they produce outputs similar to the BRICS coun-tries (Grix et al., 2019a, p. 113). It is for instance interesting to discuss whether two edi-tions of the same event, e.g. the Winter Olympics in Beijing (2022) and a future edition in Norway, would actually be the same event despite of the difference in society and the accumulated symbolic capital (cf. Dayan & Katz, 1996, pp. ix–x).

4.4 Summing up

This chapter has presented the main sources of the project, discussed their limitations, and presented the analytical methods I will use to couple the data with the theoretical framework. It has also introduced the case study approach of a “collective case” along-side the criteria for my case selection.

The empirical data for the analysis originated from different sources collected in two rounds. The first round focused on press material with the purpose of outlining the main arguments in the public and their senders. In the second round, I interviewed a selection of representatives of these senders supplemented with referrals from the informants and archival material from the informants’ organisations. Finally, the contextual chapters add an additional dimension of data-triangulation to the empirical material (Johnson et al.,

76 The case of Denmark and Norway in an MSSD also attaches the project to the existing general research on sport policies, which has made initial discussions on similarities and differences between either Denmark vis-à-vis Norway directly (Eichberg, 2012) or the two countries from a Scandinavian perspective (Kulturmin-isteriet et al., 2014).

___

119

2007, p. 114). The data provides two sets of information: the first is a testimonial set, which is concerned with what happened when; and the second constitutes material for the discursive content analysis.

This chapter has introduced the basis the latter, DHA, which takes its departure at the analysis of “semiotic practices” but also emphasises the dependency of this practice on the context. The testimonial set of information is thus also relevant for the discourse analysis (Wodak, 2015, p. 5). In concrete terms, this means that I have read the various sources for arguments and further linked them with both their senders and the wider context presented in the contextual chapters and interview data. Subsequently, this re-lation has been explained in more depth using the relevant part of the theoretical frame-work (field theory for global-local relations, pragmatic sociology for local relations, etc.).

In this way, the analysis of the discourse relates to the theoretical frame and lays the foundations for a deeper engagement with the empirical data in an abductive and retro-ductive process (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012, p. 171).⁷⁷ This link between the structures and the discourse is also crucial for coupling the justification of a single event to the big-ger picture and explaining both single events and the agents’ lasting interest.

Altogether, this approach gives the thesis the form of a “collective case study” based on data from six recent international sport events. All of these events were/would have been

“dramatic, popular, international and temporary sport occurrences” and one-off (to en-sure that the decision to host this event was a new decision). The selected cases would also show the widest possible range of arguments and motivations for sport events in Denmark and Norway, within three main parameters: space, infrastructure, and history.

The events' sports for instance have different traditions in Denmark and Norway, use dif-ferent facilities, and they either take place across several communities or just one.

77 Cf. critical realism’s “theoretical redescription” (Fletcher, 2017, p. 188) and discussions around the po-tential for using the field theory and the pragmatic sociology outside of a French context. A careful herme-neutic approach is required to make data and theory fit (cf. G. Andersen, 2016; Lamont, 2010).

___

120