The Network of Themes of Constructivist Strategies for Interpreting Cultural Heritage in the Context of Tourism | ||
| پژوهشهای جغرافیای انسانی | ||
| Volume 55, Issue 3, October 2023, Pages 139-154 PDF (1.37 M) | ||
| Document Type: Research Paper | ||
| DOI: 10.22059/jhgr.2022.342415.1008482 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Razieh Rabani* 1; Mostafa Mohammadi2 | ||
| 1Department of Tourism Management, School of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Associate Professor, Department of Tourism Management, Faculty of Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Extended Abstract Introduction It is evident that in the nature of tourism-oriented demand, with the intensification of the transformational force from the demand side and changing the role of the audience of interpretation, the nature and method of interpretation and the role of commentators in the present age must inevitably change. Reflecting on the practical consequences of changing attitudes towards heritage interpretation in the process, techniques, and common strategies of heritage interpretation and applications of this change in improving the quality of heritage-based tourism products is essential for a country like Iran, which ranks ninth in number cultural heritage sites and ranks tenth in terms of the number of intangible and oral cultural heritage registered in the world, among the richest countries in the world in terms of cultural heritage. Therefore, explaining the role of interpretation in tourism development is important. This study also examines the substantive process of heritage interpretation in the present age and the transition from positivist to constructivist interpretation and seeks to answer the following question: - What is the interpretation of heritage, and to what extent does this view correspond to the strategies of the constructivist approach to cultural heritage? Methodology The present study is a descriptive-exploratory research that has used the method of interpretive qualitative research and content analysis. Due to the need for the interviewees to master the subject of heritage interpretation, the statistical population of the study includes experienced guides active in the field of incoming tours and also dedicated guides to the Persepolis World Heritage Site who have at least five years of experience in the field of heritage interpretation. The snowball method was selected, and data collection was done in August and September 2021 through in-depth semi-structured telephone interviews with experienced tour guides and continued until theoretical saturation (fourteenth); the interviews were written, and the resulting text, using the usual thematic analysis method and MAXQDA software were analyzed. The questions in this section were designed based on past studies. Results and Discussion Comparison of the themes from the analysis of the interview text with the constructivist interpretation strategies extracted from the literature shows - Interpret the site as part of the whole The interviewees' awareness of the fact that the purpose of interpreting heritage, especially given the wider importance and social-value function of heritage in our time, is to accumulate the audience with a flood of information, although not scientific and documented, but the mission of its interpretation. To be a driving force to lead people in society to understand the message and values of cultural heritage and leave a lasting impact on the audience of interpretation. - Linking between the past and the present Regarding the content of the connection between the past and the present in the interpretation of heritage, it should be noted that along with the emphasis on a constructivist approach to interpretation based on creating links between elements throughout society and history, the process of interpretation should strengthen the sense of belonging, connection, and connection in the tourist. - Selection and adaptation of the content of the commentary to the previous knowledge, culture, and interests of tourists The guides' emphasis on the need to make comparisons in the tourist mind to emphasize the commonalities of the host culture and tourists to stimulate the tourist mind to connect with the site and not boast about excellence is significant. It shows the knowledge of experienced commentators on the need to emphasize commonalities and not distinctions between cultural and critique of excellence and pride in their interpretation. - Liven up the site for the tourist This means guides to things like the interpreter's duty to help the tourist touch the past and visualize current life scenes on the site through several. Such an approach is consistent with the prevailing approach of third-generation tourism empiricism and contemporary tourists' desire for lifestyle experiences. - Storytelling and narration using elements of intangible culture Constructivist interpretation emphasizes including historical facts in the heart of stories and narratives. However, slang allows the tourist to relate to heritage personally and emotionally. - Involvement of tourists in the process of interpretation and encouragement of discourse and self-interpretation The theme of tourists' participation in the process of interpreting and encouraging discourse and self-interpretation is one of the key themes in the transition from positivist to constructivist interpretation. - Stimulate the thinking and creativity of tourists instead of emphasizing information and education The emphasis of the interviewees on stimulating the thinking and creativity of tourists, instead of emphasizing information and education, was based on the belief that the tourist, in spare time, does not seek to receive a large amount of specialized information and creates mental challenges that engage the mind and interest. - Flexibility in the program and allowing visitors to discover Regarding the strategy of flexibility in the program and allowing the tourist to discover, there was not much agreement among the interviewees. Conclusion Based on the theoretical framework developed in the section on theoretical foundations in justifying the transition to the constructivist approach, the research seeks to translate these theoretical concepts into practical strategies used by heritage interpreters in action and real interpretation situations. According to the findings of the content analysis of interviews with cultural tourism guides, the interviewees considered eight main topics in the interpretation of heritage sites, which confirms the adherence of experienced commentators to constructivist interpretation principles and strategies, although unaware of the theoretical foundations of this transition. Funding There is no funding support. Authors’ Contribution Authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All of the authors approved the content of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest none. Conflict of Interest Authors declared no conflict of interest. Acknowledgments We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Cultural Heritage; Heritage Interpretation; Constructivist Interpretation; Heritage Tourism; Theme Network | ||
| References | ||
|
پورفرج، اکبر. (1398). میراث جهانی ایران. تهران: نشر الکا. خاکساری، علی. (1391). برنامهریزی توسعه گردشگری در ایران: ویژگیها و نقش برنامهریزان توسعه گردشگری در کشورهای اسلامی. فصلنامه علوم اجتماعی، 19(58)، 32-1. https://doi.org/10.22054/qjss.2012.6872
References Avrami, E., Mason, R., & de la Torre, M. (2000). Values and heritage conservation: research report. Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles. Ashworth, G. (2010). From History to Heritage – From Heritage to Identity. In G. J. Ashworth&P. J. Larkham (eds), Building a New Heritage: Tourism Culture and Identity in the New Europe, Routledge, London. Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic Networks: An Analytic Tool for Qualitative Research‖. Qualitative Research, 1)3(, 385-405. DOI:10.1177/146879410100100307 Banks, K., Snortland, S., & Czaplicki, J. (2011). The price we've paid: From salvage archaeology to cultural resource management and beyond in the Missouri River basin. Plains Anthropologist, 56(220), 371-385. DOI:10.1179/pan.2011.031 Bauman, Z. (1987). Legislators and Interpreters. Cambridge: Polity Press. Binkhorst, E.,& Den Dekker, T. (2009). Agenda for co-creation tourism experience research. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18(2-3), 311-327. DOI:10.1080/19368620802594193 Black, R., & Weiler, B. (2005).Quality Assurance and Regulatory Mechanisms in the Tour Guiding Industry: A systematic review. Journal of Tourism Studies, 16 (1), 24-36. Calver, S., & Page, S. (2013). Enlightened hedonism: Exploring the relationship of service value, visitor knowledge and interest, to visitor enjoyment at heritage attractions. Tourism Management, 39(2), 23-36. DOI:10.1016/j.tourman.2013.03.008 Campos, A., Mendes, J., Pinto, P., & Scott, N. (2015). Co-creation of tourist experiences: A literature review. Current Issues in Tourism, 15(4), 1-32. DOI:10.1080/13683500.2015.1081158 Carter, J. (2001), A Sense of Place: An Interpretative Planning Handbook. Tourism and Environment Initiative, Inverness. Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 15(3), 371–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(88)90028 Dey, B. & Sarma, M. (2010). Information source usage among motive -based segments of travelers to newly emerging tourist destinations, Tourism Management, 31(1), 341-344. Gray, D. (2006). Doing Research in the Real World. SAGE Publications, London. Hems, A. (2006). Introduction: beyond the graveyard – extending audiences, enhancing understanding. in Hems, Alison. and Blockley, Marion. (Eds), Heritage Interpretation, English Heritage/Routledge, London. Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res, 15(9), 1277–1288. DOI: 10.1177/1049732305276687 ICOMOS. (2008). The ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites. Khaksari, A. (2012), Tourism Development Planning in Iran: Characteristics and Role of Tourism Development Planners in Islamic Countries. Social Science Quarterly, 19(58), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.22054/qjss.2012.6872 [inPersian]. Moreno-Melgarejo, A., García-Valenzuela, J., Hilliard, I, & Pinto-Tortosa, A. (2020). Exploring Relations between Heritage Interpretation, Visitors Learning Experience and Tourist Satisfaction. Czech Journal of Tourism, 8 (1), 103–118. DOI:10.2478/cjot-2019-0007 Moscardo, G. (1996). Mindful visitors: Heritage and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), 376-397. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(95)00068-2 Pendlebury, J. (2009), Conservation in the age of consensus, Routledge, London. Pourfaraj, A. (2019). World Heritage of Iran. Tehran: Alka Publishing. [inPersian]. Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The future of competition: Co-creating unique value with customers. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Prentice, R., & Cunnell, D. (1997). Response to interpretative media as a basis of multivariate market segmentation for museums and heritage centres: the case example of the people’s story, Edinburgh, Museum Management and Curatorship, 16 (3), 233-56. Richards, G., & Wilson, J. (2006). Developing creativity in tourist experiences: A solution to serial reproduction of culture? Tourism Management, 27(6), 1209-1223. DOI:10.1016/j.tourman.2005.06.002 Ross, D., Saxena, G., Correia, F., & Deutz, P. (2018). Archaeological tourism: a creative approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 67(2), 37-47. DOI:10.1016/j.annals.2017.08.001 Rossa, D & Saxenab, G. (2019). Participative co-creation of archaeological heritage: Case insights on creative tourism in Alentejo. Portugal, Annals of Tourism Research, 79(4), 102790. DOI: 10.1016/j.annals.2019.102790 Saputra, B, Saragih, A, Lubis, S., & Muchtar, M. (2017). Study of the Interpreting Techniques used by the Tourist Guides in the Tourism Attractions of North Sumatra. Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 5(3), 14-20. Smith, L. (2007). Uses of Heritage. Routledge. Stiff, R. (2014). Re-imagining Heritage Interpretation: Enchanting the Past-Future. Routledge. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social Identity and Inter-group Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tilden, F. (1977). Interpreting our heritage. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Tilley, C. (1993). Introduction: Interpretation and a poetics of the past. In C. Y. Tilley (Ed.), Interpretative archaeolog. Providence: Berg. UNESCO. (2006). Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. Uzzell, D. (2006). The Interpretative Experience. in D. Canter, M. Krampen and D. Stea (eds.) Ethnoscapes, Volume II: Environmental Policy, Assessment and Communication, Aldershot: Gower. Weng, L, Liang, Z & Bao, J. (2020). The effect of tour interpretation on perceived heritage values, Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 16 (4), 100431. DOI:10.1016/j.jdmm.2020.100431 Wenwen, X. (2017). Cultural Factors in Tourism Interpretation of Leshan Giant Buddha, Canadian Center of Science and Education, 10 (1), 1-7. DOI:10.5539/elt.v10n1p56 Youngentob, K., & Hostetler, M. (2003). Environmental interpretation: How to communicate persuasively. Retrieved from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/uw182. DOI:10.13140/RG.2.1.3388.4560 | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 900 PDF Download: 330 |
||