Maastricht’s application for European Capital of Culture 2018

Research Proposal

Supervisors: Participants:
Giselle Bosse Bosch, Yvette
Bas van Heur Deckers, Thijs
Ketterer, Hanna
Klooker, Marie
Miethe, Jakob
Mueller, Oliver
Stromberg, Charlotte von

First draft research proposal

March 14, 2010
Table of content:

I. Research question and sub questions.................................................................2

II. Aims of the project.............................................................................................2

III. Literature review............................................................................................... 4

IV. Justification and relevance................................................................................8

V. Methodology.....................................................................................................10

VI. Timetable .......................................................................................................12

VII. Budget ...................................................................................................13

VIII. The researchers.............................................................................................13

IX. References...................................................................................................... 13

1
I. Research question and sub questions
The core research question of this project is:

What are the aims and expectations of the groups involved in and concerned by the ECOC Maastricht
application?

It is based upon the following sub-questions.

• Are the elite discourses in accordance with the public’s expectations?

• Do actors consider the long-term economic and cultural impact of the ECOC?
• How does Maastricht include the local population in the planning phase for the event of
ECOC 2018? How will be ensured that the local population can identify with the city image
which will be created?
• Which institutions are involved in the ECOC initiative? Is the cultural setup exclusive (by
focusing on the art-industry and the well established institutions as happened in Linz and
Graz) or can it be inclusive (by opening the decision making process, the
structure and the funding of the initiative to small scale and local projects)?
• Is gender equality considered in the project Maastricht ECOC 2018, the organization and
visitors aiming to attract? Do the expectations of men and women of a Capital of Culture
differ and are these differences considered by the organization?
• Do actors across the border give consideration to the European dimension of the ECOC? What
is their understanding thereof?
• What can be the final image created through the various character traits of the EUREGIO
promoted by ECOC applicants? What is then the general outline for a suitable approach for
the creation of cultural activities that should aim to represent both the common and unique
cultural elements of each city in a unified manner?

II. Aims of the project

The city of Maastricht is currently under way of preparing its application for the European Capital of
Culture (ECOC) 2018. So far, concrete ideas about what the ECOC should look like have not
crystallized. Given the great variety of parties involved in the application process, such as policy
makers, the artistic team, cultural institutions, the branding team not to mention the local community,
the formulation of common expectations and aims seems to be complicated. The situation is even
more complex as not only a city but a whole region, the Euregio (comprising Maastricht, Aachen,
Genk, Hasselt, Liège, Heerlen, Sittard/Geleen), is applying, which ultimately multiplies interests at
stake. The particularities of Maastricht’s bid mentioned above constitute both challenges and prospects
2
for the creation of a ‘city image’ that takes due account of diverse sections of society and might
increase the chances for a successful bid. Indeed, the final shape of the ECOC Maastricht will
essentially depend on how interests and aims will be discursively framed, gain public salience and,
hence, come to be perceived as priorities by the ECOC organization. In this process the allocation of
diverse interests on both local and regional level will play a primary role, whereby cross-border
cooperation in the organization of common (cultural) events will be determinant for the scope of the
event with particular regard of its pan-national character.

This project examines aims and expectations of various actors involved in and concerned by
the ECOC Maastricht 2018. The objective of this research is three-fold. First of all, to identify and
classify aims, hopes and expectations. The need for identification is of particular importance since as
yet ideas are rather diffuse and there seems to be little awareness of the ECOC on the part of the
participants involved. Therefore, we propose a holistic approach aimed at creating an overall picture of
all expectations at stake by looking at the local populations and the decision-makers as defined above.
A closer look at long-term and short-term economic and cultural goals appears necessary with regard
to prospects for a sustained long-term impact of the ECOC in terms of urban regeneration and regional
cohesiveness. As far as the latter is concerned, it is inevitable to take into consideration the European
dimension of the ECOC as discernable at this stage. Moreover, a great deal of this research will focus
on issues of power relations, inclusiveness and exclusiveness of culture, in order to identify potential
“winners” and “losers” of the ECOC. In this context, we want to shed light on the role that gender
equality and “mainstreaming” plays and analyze in how far the ECOC organization intends to put
them into practice.

Secondly, to examine and compare differences in expectations involved. We want to establish

discrepancies and overlaps in expectations across different groups of participants in order to detect
potential stalemates and possibilities for successful joint ventures. A particular emphasis is given to
the question of what kind of ‘city image’ is aimed at, which culture is going to be represented, how
and for which purposes (economic, cultural, tourism).

Thirdly, contrasting and comparing expectations with previous experiences of other ECOCs
(e.g. Luxembourg 2007, 9 ECOCs 2000). We want to take due account of possible difficulties that
could arise during the final event and prevent discontent among the participants. Hence, this research
aims at developing a tentative outline for a strategy capable of offering a ‘city image’ that reconciles
specificities of both Maastricht and the Euregio. This ‘city image’ should be as inclusive as possible
and represent cultural, economic and political ‘diversities’ in a unified manner. The objective is hereby
to provide a ‘city image’ that will be viable in the long-run and bring real advantages for all parties
concerned. The underlying theoretical outline will be provided to organizers and is supposed to assist
them in the planning out of single projects.

3
III. Literature review
An increasing volume of literature has dealt with EU cultural policy and related fields: from
discrepancies concerning aims and expectations between elites and local populations, short-term and
long-term impact of ECOCs, urban regeneration, the creation of a certain ‘city image’, its viability and
its fit with social reality to considerations of gender issues and the European dimension. Applying
theoretical tools and insights gained from the existing literature, this research project aims at filling in
the apparent lack of empirical data on the ECOC Maastricht and on the basis of this, generating
analytical tools that help understand constellations of expectations and aims. These observations form
the analytical backdrop of the developed research question.

A dominant bulk of the literature in this field suggests that there exists a gap between the aims
and expectations expressed in the elite discourses and the aims of communities within the city. Jones
and Wilks-Heeg (2004) have pointed out that culture-led urban renewal strategies with a strong
emphasis on boosting tourism and attracting investment by the creation of a refurbished ‘city image’
have led to the ignorance of social reality and had detrimental effects on the development of local
grass-roots cultural production and endangered cultural spaces of free expression. Instead, as Richards
(2000) emphasizes, cultural events need to be integrated into the overall cultural policy of a city in
order to provide long-term sustainable effects. Therefore the event needs to focus on local cultural
creativity. This is only possible by including the local cultural facilities and artists.

Furthermore, Mooney (2004) has critically examined the proclaimed benefits for Glasgow
resulting from the ECOC event. He states that hallmark events like the ECOC in the context of
Glasgow were used to gloss over major structural problems and served as a tool to divert attention
away to a more favorable city image, which was not in accordance with social reality. Mooney could
not observe the proclaimed economic benefits, which should accrue to the local population by a
trickledown effect. Moreover, Boland (2010) has pointed to the fact that urban regeneration strategies
in the case of Liverpool 2008 were spatially biased and favored the city centre, with its retail, tourism
and leisure facilities to the detriment of the mainly suburban residential areas.

The empirical evidence that these case studies provide does not fit with the employed notion
of culture. Flowing from the EU criteria for the creation of a bid book, applicant cities departed from a
broad and inclusive notion of culture and the bid of Liverpool claimed to “embrace the whole of the
city” (Griffiths, 2006; Boland, 2010, p. 1). However, as these case studies suggest, the European
Capital of Culture event was mainly used as a driver of short-term economic growth and was
consequently catering the needs of the middle to upper classes with a special emphasis on tourism
(Richards, 2004; Garciam, 2004, Sjoholt, 1999). Consequently, it tended to be exclusive towards the
local population, especially its most disadvantaged communities. In this context, Griffiths (2006)
4
underlines the fact that EU cultural policy establishes a close nexus between cities and European
culture, whereby it is likely that the representation and involvement of local culture falls short. All in
all, previous ECOCs failed to establish long lasting legacies, be they in form of an improved cultural
infrastructure, generated workplaces or the betterment of living conditions.

Springing from the observations above, a first concern among authors focuses around the
instrumentalization of culture. In times of globalization and manufacturing decline, place marketing
culture is used as a tool to generate urban development (Evans, 2005; Garcia, 2004; Griffiths, 2006;
Sjoholt, 1999). Garcia (2004) criticizes that culture is often instrumentalized for the purpose of short-
sighted oriented economic regeneration without being supported by a properly developed urban
cultural policy. Hence, decisions are not based on community development and self-expression, but on
short-term economic boost and tourist attraction. Furthermore, there is an imbalance between
investments in activities present during the year when the ECOC is actually held and those targeted at
the city’s sustainable development (Garcia, 2004, Griffiths, 2006), which is evidenced by the ECOC
Glasgow.

According to Sjoholt (1999), the use of cultural events such as the ECOC in order to generate
urban development is part of the marketing of a city. What we observe here is the manipulation of
culture intended to arouse interest in the city on the parts of different target groups that are constituted
by prospective ‘buyers’ of the ‘product’, the city. The key of such a marketing strategy is the creation
of a certain ‘city image’. (Sjoholt, 1999) According to Evans (2003), brands play a crucial role for a
city as not only do they lead to differentiation but also to identification, recognition, continuity and
collectivity. Cultural events have the power to create and shape a ‘city image’, thereby expressing a
specific identity. Those who create the images can stamp a collective identity (Zukin in Evans, 2003).
In order to enable the local population to be part of the collective identity of their city it is crucial to
involve them.

A second concern among experts in the field relates to the process of ‘city image’ building and
how expectations formed during the application process of the ECOC were transformed over time and,
hence, resulted in very different final outcomes. In other words, experience proved that the original
effect of re-imaging a city observed during the year of holding the title loses its effect in the years
following the event of ECOC (Garcia, 2004).

In its original sense, a ‘city image’ is a representation of reality which aims at symbolizing and
reflecting specific characteristics of a place to the outside. The actual implementation of such an image
is likely to be distorted, meaning that its representation often fails to include all components that add
up to a unified image but rather treats them on a superficial basis. Various authors agree that the
reason for a non-holistic reflection upon a city is due to the complex nature of the concept ‘image’
itself (Garcia, 2004; Kokosalakis, Bagnall et al., 2006; McCarthy, 1998; Mooney, 2004). An image
5
projection is very dynamic so that its impacts can hardly be determined. On the other hand, according
to Beerli and Martin (2004), the problem lies in the basic approach of dealing with image creation.
They state that only few previous empirical studies actually aimed at how to analyze an individual’s
image of a destination. Their own case study examined image perception of a sample place. They
designed a conceptual model that investigated factors which create post-visit images or factors
influencing the image assessments made by individuals.

Hence, this literature suggests that there is a need for a new destination positioning strategy
(McCarthy, 1998; Echtner & Brentie, 2003). It has been singled out that for a strategy to be successful,
the consumer must be able to favorably differentiate a destination from competing destinations. Thus,
the key component of a positioning process is the creation and management of a distinctive and
appealing image of the destination. Image satisfaction depends on comparison with images previously
held and the actual reality at the destination. According to the majority of the authors, an image is not
only about its individual traits or qualities but also about the overall impression it leaves on the minds
of others (Garcia, 2004; Kokosalakis, Bagnall, et al., 2006; Mooney, 2004; Richards, 2004).
Moreover, Echtner and Brentie (2003) criticize that existing research has overemphasized functional
attributes of destination images (events, features etc) and excluded psychological traits, such as a city's
aura. In general, the main criticism is that there is as yet no satisfying strategy available to researches
as to how to conceptualize and operationalize a destination image.

Therefore, our research attempts at advancing a new theoretical outline for a strategy of ‘city
image’. This ‘city image’ has to reconcile specificities of both Maastricht and the Euregio. In doing so,
we build our strategy upon existing models that operationalize ‘city image’, while giving utmost
priority to a balanced representation of all elements involved. In a first step, the dynamics of an image
(i.e. character traits of a city and its specific cultural components) have to be assessed, while in a
second step the attempt is made at generating a unified projected image of a place.

A third concern of the literature relates to gender equality in EU cultural policy. Two aspects
are of prime importance with regard to the ECOC scheme: firstly, the EUs gender equality policy and
secondly, general differences in the perception and reception of culture between men and women.
Firstly, the EU pursues a gender equality policy mainly focused on mainstreaming gender based on the
“integration of gender equality considerations in all levels and activities” (Bretherton, 2001, p. 60). All
governmental institutions and actions should consider gender issues (Pollack & Haffner-Burton, n.d.),
which is, however, often neglected, as Bretherton explains at the example of EU enlargement. At those
instances gender equality drops down on the policy agenda, whereas economic issues gain priority.
Moreover, there is no consensus on the question of whether mainstreaming gender constitutes a
suitable strategy at all and whether it is considered in the ECOC scheme (Pollack & Haffner-Burton).

6
 Secondly, quantitative research has found evidence for gender-based differences in
consumption of culture. A study in Sweden has shown that women consume more highbrow culture
than men (Bihagen & Katz-Gerro, 2000), whereby leisure and watching television were considered
examples of lowbrow, while watching documentaries, visiting theaters and museums were considered
as highbrow culture. It is further shown that this gender difference is not influenced by other socio-
economic factors such as class or education. Dumais’ study (2002) of girls and their participation in
high culture activities drew similar conclusions. Hence, real difference between men and women
seem to exist when it comes to consumption of culture and the understanding of what constitutes
culture. This allows for the assumption that there might be different expectations towards the ECOC
between men and women. However, based on intersectionality theory it must be retained that an
individual is not only a certain gender or sex, but is characterized by different ‘sections’: gender, class,
ethnicity, religion etc. (Crenshaw, 2005) that all contribute to shape expectations and understandings
of culture.

A fourth concern of the literature lies with the European dimension of the ECOC scheme.
Previous experiences with the ECOC scheme have shown that the European dimension of this EU
cultural policy has been rather neglected. In general, ‘Europe’ merely hovers in the background and
serves like a totemic tool in the ECOC project. Instead, cities have primarily aimed at promoting local
city culture through the ECOC scheme, e.g. in Glasgow, 1990(Mooney, 2004, Richards & Wilson,
2004). In the wider academic context of EU cultural policy and the debate around European identity, it
is commonly assumed that European identity can be considered an “open project” based on social
constructivist theories (Castells, 1998; Giddens, 1991). EU cultural policy is often compared with
“explicit exercises of consciousness-raising” (McDonald, 1996) aimed at making people aware of their
European belongingness (heritage, origins, culture, history). Leaving aside the disputes around the
actual substance of a European identity, instruments to do so often involve visual and textual
discourses rich in symbols and capable to evoke collective memory (Giorgia & Thurlow, 2006;
Delanty & Jones, 2002).

Yet, cross-border cooperation has increasingly gained in importance. Today, candidate cities
are explicitly asked to highlight the European dimension, hence, to promote cross-border cooperation
in order to make a successful bid (Decision 1622/2006 EC). Examples are the 2007 ECOC
Luxembourg and the Greater Region and the 2000 ECOCs, when nine cities - spread all over Europe -
aimed at creating a “European cultural space” (Sassatelli, 2002) and fostering an ‘imagined
community (Anderson, 1983). In this sense, there seem to be real prospects for a future strengthening
of the European dimension of the ECOC through the institutionalization of cross-border cooperation in
joint (cultural) projects. In recent years, Habermasian theories of deliberative and participative
democracy have contributed to this understanding and strongly pushed for a postmodern identity. The

7
latter is no longer based on a common cultural legacy, but develops through citizens’ participation and
communicative and informative practices of exchange (Habermas; 1981, 2001).

Our proposed research will generate a set of unique and valuable data on expectations and
aims on the ECOC Maastricht regarding both elites and public opinion. One of the strengths of this
project is that, by taking advantage of specific skills (language, and expertise in quantitative methods)
and potentials (already existing networks in the Euregio) of every participant in the group and by
combining those individual forces, we will have access to institutions, administrations, artistic groups
and the like that are otherwise rather closed to the outside. In the absence of comparative data sets, our
project will make a unique contribution to research on the ECOC Maastricht and significantly better
the understanding of the current state of expectations and aims, so important a benchmark for a
successful ECOC 2018. The particularity of our research rests on the embracement of a holistic
approach which aims at taking due account of the interests of all parties involved in the ECOC
Maastricht.

IV. Justification and relevance

Former European Capitals of Culture seldom reached their long term goals. After a short term
economic growth the impact was hardly noticed. The question can be raised, whether the program of
European Capitals of Culture is useful at all if in the long run no improvement can be identified.
Bearing in mind the pitfalls in the organization of former European Capitals of Culture it is crucial to
ensure that Maastricht does not make the same mistakes. By means of being European Capital of
Culture the city of Maastricht can improve its image. The image of a city is the key for a long term
success. It needs to be found out how Maastricht plans to ensure the improvement of its image and
through that a long term success in order to identify possible pitfalls that policy makers need to be
aware of.
The success of a cultural hallmark event such as ECOC can only be measured in relation to the
expectations on its outcome. Hence, expectations play a fundamental role. There is a great variety of
expectations with regard to the desired outcomes of the different parties. Not only do they differ
between Maastricht itself and the partner city’s but also between elite discourses and the public.
Furthermore short-term and long-term goals need to be differentiated as well.
Maastricht will only have an overall success as European Capital of Culture if all differing
expectations are taken into consideration. In order to do so elite discourses need to be identified and
their opinion needs to be compared to that of the public. By this community incorporation and
engagement in the process of transforming the cultural landscape of Maastricht are ensured. A better
balance between the need to offer lighthouse events for tourists and an enhanced city image to attract

8
investment on the one hand, and the importance to create long lasting cultural legacies and cultural
facilities for local cultural production and access to culture on the other hand, can be achieved.
Furthermore, Maastricht’s expectations and those of its partner cities need to be contrasted. It needs to
be found out in what way all participants aim to profit from the event. Former ECOCs proved a short
term economic growth. Yet, such success is limited to the tourism industry. Only if all parties profit
from the event an overall success is achieved. Hence, it is essential to identify the long-term goals of
Maastricht ECOC 2018.
Long-term success calls for a long-term target group. Case studies on former ECOCs show
that the event was mostly aimed at attracting tourists. Yet, they are only ‘part’ of the city for a very
short amount of time. Steadily part of the city is the local population therefore they need special
attention. By means of mega events such as ECOC the city creates a certain image which then imposes
a collective identity of the city’ population. To provide a sustainable effect the local population needs
to be able to identify with its city, hence to identify with the image created. Consequently it is of high
interest what role the population plays in the event and whether possible profit for the local
community can be achieved.
Being the center of the event, the planned cultural setup must be assessed as well. Most
importantly, it needs to be investigated which institutions are participating in the ECOC initiative. This
will give insight whether the small scale, local art scene is included in the process or if it is exclusively
designed to support tourism and cultural industry. Within the local population there are clear
differences. In order to enable the whole population to identify with the image, differences need to be
taken into consideration. The foremost is between genders. The ECOC competition is part of the
European Union’s cultural policy. According to the Union’s mainstreaming gender principle, gender
equality should be considered in ECOC competition as well. The literature has shown, by illustrating
the enlargement policy of the EU, that this is not always the case. Mainstreaming gender equality
doesn’t have the number one priority and is often overshadowed by other issues. This gives reasons to
assume that gender equality might not be considered in the ECOC project. The literature also indicates
that women experience and consume culture in a different way than men do. They might have a
different idea of what culture is. It is interesting to see if the people of Maastricht also have a different
opinion according to gender. When making a plan to become capital of culture, there is an idea of what
culture is, of what is necessary to become this capital. Are the different experience of men and women
considered when planning the event? If the organization process consists mainly out of men, what is
the consequence for the project? Will they reach both men and women? What if they only plan to do
high brow activities, (research has shown that this is more often visited by women) what kind of
visitors will they attract and what does this say about mainstreaming gender equality? Therefore it will
be looked at the people involved in the organization process of ECOC 2018 and connect this do the
expectations of men and women of Maastricht.

9
 With reference to identity it is crucial to investigate the role of European identity in the event
of ECOC. The European dimension has become is an important part of being a European Capital of
Culture. Therefore it cannot be neglected, especially considering the event taking place in the Euregio.
The question whether actors across the border give consideration to the European dimension of the
ECOC is crucial in this aspect. Furthermore it is fundamental to define what their understanding of the
European dimension is. An investigation into the current state of deliberations seems fruitful what
regards the possible success of the bid for ECOC 2018. This research potentially increases the issue
salience, unveil insufficient respect paid to the European dimension or open possibilities of
cooperation across the border.
Assuming that a strategy to ensure a positive long lasting image for Maastricht ECOC 2018 is
not yet finalized, an attempt to provide a general outline for a suitable strategy to operate a realistic
final image for Maastricht and the region will be included in the overall research. Since experiences
show that an actual implementation of such an image is likely to be distorted due to several factors (as
midterm instead of long term planning for a positive image change, difficulties with the evaluation of
the impact of image formation, and failure in analyzing individual's perception of a destination but
rather focusing on long established cultural heritages as only representations of a city image), the
general outline will aim to include both the common and unique cultural elements of each city in a
unified manner. This theoretical evaluation will target to assist the organizers of any planned cultural
activity for promoting the unified image.
To conclude, information gained on the different topics all together could effectively be used
by policy makers at this early stage to avoid mistakes made by former ECOCs and in the long term
ensure a successful outcome of Maastricht European Capital of Culture 2018.

V. Methodology
The following part will outline the design of the research project and elaborate on the envisaged
methodology as well as its implementation in order to illustrate the aptitude of the chosen approach
with regard to the achievement of the research proposals aims and objectives. For this purpose,
reference to the general research question and the resulting sub-questions is made. This research will
approach the issue of Maastricht’s candidacy to become European Capital of Culture in 2018 from a
range of different perspectives and levels. This is reflected in the broad character of the general
research question:

(i) What are the aims and expectations of the groups involved in and concerned by the ECOC
Maastricht application?
Based on this general research question, the following sub-questions were formulated:

(i) How are the elite discourses perceived by the public?

10
 (ii) Do actors consider the long-term economic and cultural impact of the ECOC?
(iii) What is the role of Maastricht’s population in the event of ECOC 2018? How can the local
population profit from the event?
(iv) Which institutions are involved in the ECOC initiative? Is the cultural setup exclusive or
can it be inclusive?
(v) Is gender equality considered in the project Maastricht ECOC 2018, the organization and
visitors aiming to attract? Do the expectations of men and women differ, and are these
differences considered by the organization?
(vi) Do actors across the border give consideration to the European dimension of the ECOC?
What is their understanding thereof?
(vii) What can be the final image created through the various character traits of the EUREGIO
promoted by ECOC applicants? What is then the general outline for a suitable approach
for the creation of cultural activities that should aim to represent both the common and
unique cultural elements of each city in a unified manner?

By looking at the outlined sub-questions it becomes clear that the role of actors involved at various
levels and their awareness about the event is central to most of the questions. Thus, the identification
of those who have a say or a qualified view on the subject matter is the first step that has to be taken in
order to effectively steer the methodology. Another aspect that becomes evident is that, because of the
early stage of the process, a broad awareness about the event has not been created. Consequently,
specific actors have to be targeted to obtain the desired data. Thus, qualitative interviewing, in the
form of semi-structured interviews or focus groups will serve as a starting point for the bulk of the
sub-questions, such as (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) and will be carried out in a joined effort. Among
the identified actors are elites represented by leading municipal politicians, established cultural
producers of high-brow culture, the artistic team developing the content of the bid as well as business
partnerships such as the Maastricht Region branding agency.
Furthermore, local community representatives, small-scale art producers and grass-roots
initiatives form the pole representative of the “public”. Another strand of research will be a combined
public survey with relevance to sub-questions (i), (iii), (v) and (vii). Finally, discourse and content
analysis of homepages (VIA2018), promotional materials (e.g. brochures, city clips), official
documents (e.g. statement of cooperation) and visual sources (e.g. use of European symbols) will
inform the research process of (i), (vi) and (vii).

11
VI. Timetable
March

Making 14.03 Draft 24.03 Final

connections for Research Research
the field Proposal Proposal +
research, working
identifying packages
actors, requests

April

Field Research From 20.04 on 25.04

transcription of
Interviews (elite Completion of
the interviews +
and public) the
development of Carry out survey Carry out survey
questionnaires
 Carry out the
until 20.04 questionnaires

May

By latest 10.05
interpretation of
the results
Results Results 20.05 20.05-02.06
Presentation
Writing

June

02.06 Deadline

12
VII. Budget
Declaration of Public transportation costs to cities like Aachen Liege,
Maastricht, Heerlen,etc.
Voicerecorders for taking interviews (4)
Copy card for photocopying at the university
Declaration of telephone costs

VIII. The researchers

Who will do what is firstly based on language proficiency. Thijs and Yvette are the Dutch speakers of
the group and will therefore be responsible for conducting interviews with Dutch people.
Hanna and Oliver are fluent in French and will interview people in Liège. There are four German
speakers in the group, who can all conduct interviews in Aachen. Thijs is involved in a political party
in Heerlen. He knows some municipalities personally in Heerlen and Maastricht. He will interview
policy makers. Oliver, Jakob and Hanna have evaluated surveys before. They will for a great deal be
responsible for analyzing the surveys. Because cultural institution are important in his research
question, Oliver will focus on identifying cultural and established institutions and prepare and arrange
interview appointments with them. Yvette works for a student radio show and has experience in
interviewing which can be useful. Through this radio show and other (volunteer)work experiences she
might have some useful contacts.

IX. References
Beerli, A. & Martin, J.D. (2004). Factors influencing Destination Image. Annals of Tourism
Research, 31:3, pp. 657-681.

Bihagen, E. & Katz-Gerro, T. (2000). Culture consumption in Sweden: The stability of gender

13
 differences. Elsevier 27, pp. 327-349.

Boland, P. (2010). “Capital of Culture – You must be having a laugh!” Challenging the official
rhetoric of Liverpool as the 2008 European Cultural Capital. Retrieved March 14, 2010 from
http://groups.google.nl/group/ecoc-2018/files

Bretherton, C. (2001). Gender mainstreaming and EU enlargement: swimming against the

tide? Journal of European Public Policy 8:1, pp.60-81.

Castells, M. (1998). Communal heavens: Identity and meaning in the network society. M.
Castells The power of Identity. Malden, MA: Blackwell. pp.5-67.

Delanty, G. & Jones, P.R. (2002). European Journal of Social Theory. 5:4 , pp. 453-466

Dumais, S.A. (2002). Cultural Capital, Gender and School Success, The Role of Habitus.
Sociology of Education, 75:1, pp. 44-68.

Echtner, C. M. & Brentie, R. J.R. (2003). The Meaning and Measurement of Destination
Image. The Journal of Tourism Studies. 14:1.

Evans, G. (2003). Hard-Branding the Cultural City – From Prado to Prada. International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27:2, pp. 417-440.

Evans, G. (2005). Measure for Measure: Evaluating the Evidence of Culture’s Contribution to
Rgeneration. Urban Studies, 42:5/6, pp. 959-983.

Garcia, B. (2004). Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration in Western European Cities:
Lessons from Experience, Prospects for the Future. Local Economy, 19:4, 312-326.

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-identity. Cambridge: Polity.

Giorgia, A. & Thurlow, C. (2006). Symbolic Capitals: Visual discourse and Intercultural Exchange in
the European Capital of Culture Scheme. Language and Intercultural Communication. 6:2.

Griffiths, R. (2006). City/Culture Discourses: Evidence from the Competition to Select the
European Capital of Culture 2008. European Planning Studies, 14:4, pp. 415-430.

14
Habermas, J. (2001b). The Postnational Constellation. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Habermas, J. (1981). The Theory of Communicative Action. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Kokosalakis,C., Bagnall, G., Selby, M. & Burns, S. (2006). Place image and urban
regeneration in Liverpool. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30, 4, pp.389–397.

McCarthy, J. (1998). Reconstruction, Regeneration and Re-Imaging – The Case of Rotterdam

Cities, 15:5, pp. 337-344.

Mooney, G. (2004). Cultural Policy as Urban Transformation? Critical Reflections on

Glasgow, European City of Culture 1990. Local Economy, 19:4, 327-340.

Pollack, M.A. (n.d.). Mainstreaming gender in the European Union. Journal of European
Public Policy 7:3 Special Issue, pp. 432-456.

Richards, G. (2000). The European Cultural Capital Event: Strategic Weapon in the Cultural
Arms Race?. Journal of Cultural Policy, 6:2, pp. 159-181.

Richards, G. (2004). The Impact of Cultural Events on City Image: Rotterdam, Cultural
Capital of Europe 2001. Urban Studies,41:10, 1931-1951.

Sassatelli, M. (2002). Imagined Europe. The Shaping of a European Cultural Identity through
Cultural Policy. European Journal of Social Theory. 5:4, pp. 435-451.

Sjoholt, P. (1999). Culture as a Strategic Development Device: The Role of ‘European Cities
of Culture’, with Particular Reference to Bergen. European Urban and Regional Studies; 6;
339.

Wilks-Heeg, S. & North, P. (2004). Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration: a Special
Local Economy 19:4, 305-311.

15