Managing a World Heritage Site in Italy as Janus Bifrons: A “Decentralized Centralization” Between Effectiveness and Efficiency

Chapter
Part of the FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship book series (FGFS)

Abstract

Managing an archaeological, historical and cultural heritage is a challenging task, due to the outstanding universal value of such sites and the involvement of several organizations and multiple stakeholders in their management. The aim of the chapter is to carry out an analysis of the different challenges surrounding the managing of a cultural and historical World Heritage Site (WHS) and the difficulties stakeholders face in developing a coherent, integrated and pluralistic policy of governance. The authors present the case of Aquileia WHS to examine its complex governance and discuss practices to resolve conflicts in order to achieve a homogeneous and coherent management of the site and its universally recognized beauties. This study is based on field research (2009–2011 and 2012–2014), with data collected through participant observation, in-depth interviews, and analysis of official documents. The chapter provides readers with some of the challenges within the management of the cultural industry sector, especially in relation to a multidimensional cultural heritage WHS, thereby enriching academic discussion and providing practical implications for management within the cultural sector and within other industries.

Keywords

Cultural artifacts Institutional change Professional control Accountability Italian cultural system 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a grant from the Fondazione Aquileia, Italy (2009).

References

  1. Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Alvesson, M., Bridgman, T., & Willmott, H. (Eds.). (2009). The Oxford handbook of critical management studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bonini Baraldi, S. (2007). Management, beni culturali e pubblica amministrazione. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  4. Callon, M. (Ed.). (1998). The laws of the markets. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Carlile, P. R., Nicolini, D., Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (Eds.). (2013). How matter matters. Objects, artifacts, and materiality in organization studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Casini, L. (2016). Ereditare il futuro. Dilemmi sul patrimonio culturale. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  7. Chapman, C. S., Cooper, D. J., & Miller, P. B. (Eds.). (2012). Accounting, organizations, and institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Czarniawska, B. (1997). Narrating the organization. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice Hall, NJ: Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  10. Gherardi, S. (2012). How to conduct a practice-based study. Problems and methods. Chaltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1997). Sociality with objects: Social relations in postsocial knowledge societies. Theory Culture and Society, 14(4), 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Marcus, G. E., & Fischer, M. M. J. (1999). Anthropology as cultural critique. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Miller, P., & Power, M. (2013). Accounting, organizing, and economizing: Connecting accounting research and organization theory. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 557–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Miller, P., & Rose, N. (2008). Governing the present. Malden: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice theory, work & organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Nicolini, D., & Monteiro, P. (2016). The practice approach in organizational and management studies. In A. Langley & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), The Sage handbook of process organization studies (chapter 7). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Nicolini, D., Mengis, J., & Swan, J. (2012). Undestanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organization Science, 23(3), 612–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Olsen, B. (2013). In defense of things. Archaeology and the ontology of objects. Plymouth: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  20. Seo, M.-G., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 222–247.Google Scholar
  21. Settis, S. (2002). Italia S.P.A. Turin: Einaudi.Google Scholar
  22. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translation’, and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Zan, L. (2006). Managerial rhetoric and arts organizations. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zan, L., Bonini Baraldi, S., Lusiani, M., Shoup, D., Ferri, P., & Onofri, F. (2015). Managing cultural heritage. An International research perspective. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and StatisticsUniversity of UdineUdineItaly

Personalised recommendations