Comm(unity)cation
I never really understood the importance of place to begin with, until attending my very first UNIV 298 class with Luis Sanchez and Sean Kelly. Reflecting back and seeing the place I grew up in, really got me thinking as to why place wasn’t highlighted in my education in the first place. I started to see that not just the place I grew up in, but how place in general is omniscient. After reading David Orr’s “Place and Pedagogy”article, and sitting in on our various discussions about these readings in class, I came to realize that place was always there as an overarching factor in my life, I just failed to acknowledge its presence. David Orr once said that, “A place cannot be understood from the vantage point of a single discipline or specialization. It can be understood only on its terms as a complex mosaic of phenomena and problems” (2013, 186). It’s easy to say I completely understand that quote, then again that would be a lie because place is constantly changing. Therefore my take on this would be completely different from yours; because depending on the backgrounds we each came from, which are directly dependent on the environment we grew up in and the culture we’re surrounded by, it’s difficult to come to the same conclusion. However, there is one commonality here in which we can both refer back to on a constant basis, and that is place. Place is a constant variable to everyone’s equation. And whether we’ve each been in multiple places or a couple, it’s important to recognize that, “Places are laboratories of diversity and complexity, mixing social functions and natural processes” (Orr, 2013, 186), on the same level as humanity.
Researchers Erik Braun, Jasper Eshuis, Erik-Hans Klijn, Laura N. Rickard, and Richard C. Stedman, are all moving forward in connecting their research in the communication field to the sense of place. In the article, “The effectiveness of place brand communication” by Erik Braun, Jasper Eshuis, and Erik-Hans Klijn, “…assesses whether three different strategies for place brand communication have a positive effect on attracting residents and visitors” (Braun, et. al, pg. 64). This article explores the main principles of how communication brings people together in different cities within the Netherlands towards using place branding, place brand communication, place image, place marketing, and place communications. The brand image of place represents how these researchers approach making connections towards how place branding and communication effects the total result of more populated areas. After researching these more “well-known” places and using specified target groups, “The empirical analysis shows that both physical place, brand communication, and word of mouth, place brand communication have similar positive effects, mediated by the place brand image, on attracting both residents and visitors” (Braun, et. al, pg. 64) . In other words, communication makes a positive attribution towards better defining the concept of place brand imagery being that,“all encounters with the city take place through perceptions and images” (Kavaratzis, pg. 66). Through the use of conceptual models, Braun and his team of researchers were able to reach a consensus that, “Overall, the conclusion of this study is that the impact of word-of-mouth and physical place brand communication on the place brand image differs significantly from that of traditional place branding” (Braun, et. al, pg. 70).
The easiest way to explain how communication does correlate directly within sense of place is through the use of the information presented in the article, “From Ranger Talks to Radio Stations” by the distinguished research professors Laura N. Rickard and Richard C. Stedman.The basic idea is that, “…this article examines how communication about national parks may contribute to visitor formation of meanings about and attachment to these places” (Rickard and Stedman, pg. 16). However, I saw that through these trials and tribulations in the experiences of each physical setting, the researchers of this forum came to resemble how communication is emphasized in directly impacting the quality of our experiences within sense of place in these National Parks. Rickard and Stedman simply demonstrated the mere fact that, “How people interact in places, such as through outdoor recreation, also effects the meanings and attachment they develop” (Rickard and Stedman, pg. 16). They did this through the use of survey data from the visitors of three different National Parks, and incorporated those findings into identity, socio-historical conditions and the meaning of place.
Interestingly enough, the articles selected for this linkage between Communication and place all came down to meaning. Communication gives place more meaning through the quality of the experiences within the place and being able to interpret the physical characteristics of the place itself. The articles previously discussed covered a lot of foreground and helped me to better understand why place matters in my discipline. In fact, it makes me want to become more disciplined in this field knowing how important my field of study is to the world around me. The use of GIS and embedding information into tables is a key aspect of learning more about that connection.
Works Cited
Braun, Erik, Jasper Eshuis, and Erik-Hans Klijn. “The Effectiveness of Place Brand
Communication.” Cities, 41 (2014): 64-70.
Rickard, Laura N, and Richard C Stedman. “From Ranger Talks to Radio Stations: The Role of Communication in
Sense of Place.” Journal of Leisure Research, 47.1 (2015): 15.
Orr, David. “Place and Pedagogy.” Place and Pedagogy 38.1 (2013): 183-88. Place and
Pedagogy. The NAMTA Journal, Winter 2013. Web.
