ABSTRACT
As we saw in Chapter 1, the development of Event Studies has generated a great deal of debate over how we understand events. One of the key themes of the debate relates to the categorisation of events and the construction of event typologies. This chapter seeks to explore this theme and begins by asking, ‘What is a typology and why are they constructed?’ The term ‘typology’ is examined through several definitions, offered from the domains of sociology, marketing, management and events. An analysis of existing event typologies will be offered along with a case study which will be used to suggest an alternative approach to developing a typological framework for the reader to consider so as:
to understand the general purpose and methods behind the construction of typologies; to critically evaluate current event typology frameworks; to develop their own typological frameworks in the event domain. What do we mean by the term ‘typology’? Lewin and Somekh (2005: 349) suggest it is ‘the term used for a list or table which organises phenomena into categories and hierarchies. Typologies are often used as an organising framework in research, or the development of a typology may be an outcome of the research.’ This, it would seem, is not controversial. Indeed, Winch (1947: 68) suggests typologies are
created, ‘to perceive order in the “infinite complexity” of the universe … for the purpose of discovering systems’. Furthermore, Winch contends that typologies may be classified as either heuristic or empirical,1 suggesting that a heuristic typology has the following characteristics:
(a) Insofar as it is distinguishable from theory, it is deduced from theory. (b) It is constructed for the purpose of enhancing the vision of the research, i.e. by facilitating
the statement of hypotheses, the conception of testing situations, the ordering of observations. (c) It represents the voluntary distortion of empirical phenomenon by positing the extreme
forms of relevant characteristics. (d) In the logical order of things it stands between theory and the test of theory.
