Production of Scottish Open Gardens: differences in perception of power
dc.contributor.advisor
Nicol, Robbie
en
dc.contributor.advisor
Beames, Simon
en
dc.contributor.author
Shimoyamada, Sho
en
dc.date.accessioned
2017-08-29T13:02:02Z
dc.date.available
2017-08-29T13:02:02Z
dc.date.issued
2017-07-06
dc.description.abstract
Open Gardens are those in private homes that have been opened as visitor attractions,
where a proportion of money charged for entry is given to charity. Whilst there is a
body of literature on garden visiting, there is little empirical research into garden
opening. In addition, the existing studies, which were largely based on quantitative
methods, do not differentiate between the roles and perspectives of the various agents
who produce garden openings. This research investigates how Open Gardens, under
the auspices of the charitable organisation Scotland’s Gardens, are collaboratively
produced by garden openers, their helpers, volunteers and salaried staff of the
organisation.
The principal method of data collection was fieldwork that included participant
observations from 39 site visits and 41 semi-structured interviews with the four kinds
of producers. Supplementary data were generated from archival documents that
record the historical development of Open Gardens. Data collected from fieldwork
were analysed and categorised according to themes emerging by means of domain
analysis. Each theme was carefully defined and described by creating thematic codes.
After the preliminary data analysis, ongoing reading of various social theory
literatures drew me towards using concepts of power to more deeply understand the
nuanced ways in which the four kinds of producers work together. Hearn’s (2012)
theoretical framework was employed to examine how power which differs in
perception between the various agents in a given social situation operates in the
production of Scottish Open Gardens.
The data suggest that the meaning of legitimate power exercised by the producers of
Scottish Open Gardens is often highly subjective. Some volunteers were reluctant to
fully exercise their power to instruct garden openers because they assumed their
request would not be accepted or that it would lead to unwanted conflict. Some
garden openers concealed their intentions to show off their horticultural
achievements through engagement with Scottish Open Gardens, because they
perceived that others would regard pursuing such personal interests to be egocentric.
The data also suggest that the production of Scottish Open Gardens is partly
dependent on non-human forces such as nature or materials. The quality of gardens,
the number of visitors and the amount raised for charity were determined by weather
conditions, public transportation and even the refreshments on offer. The findings
highlight the role of such non-human elements in the production of Scottish Open
Gardens, and challenges the conventional premise that human-intentionality alone
defines agency.
The thesis concludes that the production of Scottish Open Gardens can be more
deeply understood by considering the highly fluid, subjective and non-human ways
in which power operates. There is no definitively powerful agent present, as the locus
of power is continually contested between a rich and complex mixture of human and
non-human agents. An implication for practice is that Scotland’s Gardens should
clarify which agents may be more or less empowered in given aspects of Open
Garden production, and the ways in which his or her power can and should be
legitimised. The thesis also offers a broad theoretical framework which may help to
more deeply understand the subtle power operations present in the co-production of
outdoor leisure and tourism pursuits.
en
dc.identifier.uri
http://hdl.handle.net/1842/23439
dc.language.iso
en
dc.publisher
The University of Edinburgh
en
dc.subject
power
en
dc.subject
Open Gardens
en
dc.subject
leisure
en
dc.subject
tourism
en
dc.title
Production of Scottish Open Gardens: differences in perception of power
en
dc.type
Thesis or Dissertation
en
dc.type.qualificationlevel
Doctoral
en
dc.type.qualificationname
PhD Doctor of Philosophy
en
This item appears in the following Collection(s)

