Changing places and identity construction: subjective introspection into researcher’s personal destination experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to draw on a subjective personal introspection (SPI) approach and Breakwell’s identity process theory (IPT) principles to show how elements from different cultures are performed by an individual to form a unique patchwork identity, and how this patchwork identity will contribute to deepen tourist gaze and, thus, achieving and maintaining authentic destination experience. Design/methodology/approach – The use of SPI gives the researcher an easy access to data collection of his personal, daily experiences related to changing destinations and consuming different places in Europe (France, UK and Italy), North America (USA and Canada) and North Africa (Algeria, Morocco and Egypt) for unlimited 24-hour access from an insider’s ongoing lived experiences. Findings – The results show that Breakwell’s IPT four principles are an integral part of patchwork identity construction when living and experiencing several places. Patchwork identity encompasses the individual’s ability to cross different social and symbolic boundaries when experiencing different destination. Each cultural context contributes to the bricolage and the assemblage of individual patchwork identity revealing one or more IPT dimensions. Practical implications – This paper serves to emphasize the importance of SPI-based research to patchwork identity construction in understanding the impact of cultural identity on tourist gaze. This approach can help marketers and tourism professionals to understand how consumers select the cultural elements that fit their identity and how the patchwork identity formed will contribute to deepen tourist gaze and destination experience of authenticity. Originality/value – The use of IPT and SPI-based research to explore tourist gaze offers a comprehensive framework based on a personal introspective approach where the starting point is the meaning individual provides to his hyphenated identity as coping mechanism to respond to social, psychological, ideological, cultural, symbolic, functional, structural, etc., aspirations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".