SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turizm Akademik Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 12 Sayı: 2

Collective Memory Produced by a Gastronomy City: Example of Gaziantep

Bir Gastronomi Şehrinin Ürettiği Kolektif Bellek: Gaziantep Örneği

Dilara Bahtiyar Sarı(GAZİANTEP ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TURİZM VE OTELCİLİK MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU)0000-0002-0645-0585
Pages
357–370
Publication Date
2025-12-20
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

By strengthening the destination image and providing visitors with unforgettable experiences, the memories of tourists can be strengthened, which can facilitate their desire to revisit a destination or place.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this article is to explore what constitutes collective memory in the tourism context in Gaziantep province.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Since there are limited studies on collective memory applied in the tourism context, this article has identified the characteristics and dimensions of collective memory in the tourism context that will enable destination managers and marketers to formulate appropriate marketing strategies and provide practical recommendations for the industry to promote tourist destinations from a collective memory perspective.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:By strengthening the destination image and providing visitors with unforgettable experiences, the memories of tourists can be strengthened, which can facilitate their desire to revisit a destination or place.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Turizm · Kolektif bellek · Kolektif belleğin boyutları

Abstract

The aim of this article is to explore what constitutes collective memory in the tourism context in Gaziantep province. Since there are limited studies on collective memory applied in the tourism context, this article has identified the characteristics and dimensions of collective memory in the tourism context that will enable destination managers and marketers to formulate appropriate marketing strategies and provide practical recommendations for the industry to promote tourist destinations from a collective memory perspective. A qualitative study using in-depth interviews was conducted to identify and examine the meaning and characteristics of collective memory. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with tourism academics and tourists. This study contributes to the field of tourism studies by applying and expanding the Memory Sovereign Logic framework to a specific historical city, thus enriching the current understanding of how collective memory affects tourist experience and destination image. A conceptual framework of collective memory has been developed for the province of Gaziantep. Five dimensions of collective memory have been determined in the province of Gaziantep. These are; place, cuisine, history, memory and cultural identity. The reason Gaziantep cuisine has a place in collective memory can be explained by the fact that its dishes continue to be presented by connecting the past with the present. The reason Gaziantep mansions, which serve as tourist attractions, have a place in collective memory can be argued that these mansions are important places where connections are established with the past. By strengthening the destination image and providing visitors with unforgettable experiences, the memories of tourists can be strengthened, which can facilitate their desire to revisit a destination or place.

Özet

Bu makalenin amacı, turizm bağlamında Gaziantep ilinde kolektif belleği neyin oluşturduğunu ortaya çıkarmaktır. Turizm bağlamında uygulanan kolektif bellek üzerine sınırlı sayıda çalışma olduğundan, bu makale, destinasyon yöneticilerinin ve pazarlamacıların uygun pazarlama stratejileri formüle etmelerini ve endüstrinin turistik destinasyonları kolektif bellek perspektifinden tanıtması için pratik öneriler sunmalarını sağlayacak turizm bağlamındaki kolektif belleğin özelliklerini ve boyutlarını belirlemiştir. Kolektif belleğin anlamını, özelliklerini belirlemek ve incelemek için derinlemesine görüşmeler kullanan nitel bir çalışma yürütülmüştür. Turizm akademisyenleri ve turistlerle yüz yüze görüşmeler yapılmıştır. Bu çalışma, Bellek Egemen Mantık çerçevesini belirli bir tarihi şehre uygulayarak ve genişleterek turizm araştırmaları alanına katkıda bulunmakta ve böylece kolektif belleğin turist deneyimini ve destinasyon imajını nasıl etkilediğine dair mevcut anlayışı zenginleştirmektedir. Gaziantep ili için kolektif belleğin kavramsal bir çerçevesi geliştirilmiştir. Gaziantep ilinde kolektif belleğin beş boyutu belirlenmiştir. Bunlar; yer, mutfak, tarih, hatıra ve kültürel kimliktir şeklindedir. Gaziantep mutfağının kolektif hafızalarda yer edinmesinin gerekçesi olarak yemeklerinin geçmişle gelecek arasında bağlantı kurularak sunulmaya devam etmesi şeklinde açıklanabilir. Turistik mekanlar olarak hizmet veren Gaziantep konaklarının kolektif hafızada yer edinmesinin gerekçesi ise bu konakların geçmişle bağ kurulan önemli yerler olduğu söylenilebilir. Destinasyon imajının güçlendirilmesi ve ziyaretçilere unutulmaz deneyimler sunulmasıyla, turistlerin anıları güçlendirilebilir ve bu da onların bir destinasyonu veya yeri tekrar ziyaret etme isteklerini kolaylaştırabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Sarı, D. B. (2025). Collective Memory Produced by a Gastronomy City: Example of Gaziantep. Turizm Akademik Dergisi, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 2, 357–370. https://ajindex.com/articles/1327724

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (54)

  1. Aksoy, M., Türk, E. & Gökmen, V. (2014). Gaziantep Tarihi Tahmis Kahvehanesinin müşteriler tarafından tercih edilme nedenleri üzerine bir araştırma. Journal of Tourism & Gastronomy Studies, 2(3), 28-34.
  2. Akto, A., & Akto, S. (2017). Okul Öncesi Değerler Eğitiminde Kullanılan Yöntem Ve Teknikler (Nitel Bir Araştırma). Şarkiyat, 9(2), 1074-1095.
  3. Arslan, E. (2022). Nitel Araştırmalarda Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirlik, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 51(1), Ö395-Ö407.
  4. Assmann, J. (1999). Kollektives und kulturelles Gedächtnis. Zur Phänomenologie und Funktion von Gegen-Erinnerung. In Orte der Erinnerung. Denkmal, Gedenkstätte, Museum, Edited by: Borsdorf, U. & Grütter, H. Theodor, 13-32. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.
  5. Baltacı, A. (2018). Nitel Araştırmalarda Örnekleme Yöntemleri ve Örnek Hacmi Sorunsalı Üzerine Kavramsal Bir İnceleme. Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(1), 231-274.
  6. Bartoletti, R. (2010). Memory tourism” and the commodification of Nostalgia.In Tourism and visual culture, Edited by: Burns, P., Palmer, C. and Lester, J.-A. 23-42. Wallingford: CABI.
  7. Bendix, R. (2002). Capitalizing on memories past, present, and future: Observations on the intertwining of tourism and narration. Anthropological Theory, 2(4), 469-487.
  8. Boym, S. (2001). The future of nostalgia, New York: Basic Books.
  9. Browne, S. H. (1999). Remembering Crispus Attucks: Race, rhetoric, and the politics of commemoration. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 85(2), 169-187.
  10. Cao, Y. (2016). Memorable dining experiences: Formative index and model development. University of South Carolina. Erişim adresi: https://www.proquest.com/openview/9cba573bc06dc6bb8d804fab6557f0a3/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750 (Erişim tarihi: 30.01.2025).
  11. Clissett, P. (2008). Evaluating qualitative research. Journal of Orthopaedic nursing, 12(2), 99-105.
  12. Dabphet, S. (2013). The key stakeholders in the implementation of sustainable tourism development in two rural towns of Thailand. International Journal of Business Tourism and Applied Sciences, 1-11.
  13. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). The Landscape of Qualitative Research, New York: Sage.
  14. DePaolo, C.A. & Wilkinson, K. (2014) Get your head into the clouds: using word clouds for analyzing qualitative assessment data. Techtrends Tech Trends 58, 38–44.
  15. Erll, A. (2011). Memory in culture, London: Palgrave.
  16. Felasari, S., Setyabud, H., Setyohadi, D. B. & Dewi, S. (2017). Exploring collective memory and place attachment using social media data. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. Erişim adresi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/99/1/012015 (Erişim tarihi: 30.01.2025).
  17. Gaziantep İl Yıllığı 1968. (1969). Ankara: Ayyıldız Matbaası.
  18. Gedi N, Elam Y. (1996) Collective memory—what is it? Hist Mem 8(1), 30-44.
  19. Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1982). Epistemological And Methodological Bases of Naturalistic İnquiry. Educational Technology Research and Development, 30(4), 233-252.
  20. Halbwachs, M. (1980). The collective memory ( 1st editio). Harper & Row.
  21. Harrington, R. J., Hammond, R. K., Ottenbacher, M. C., Chathoth, P. K. & Marlowe, B. (2019). From goods-service logic to a memory-dominant logic: Business logic evolution and application in hospitality. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 76, 252-260.
  22. Huang, T., Juan, H. (James), Gau, H. & Lee, H. (2015). Discussing the value of collective memory and cultural heritage based on the Concept of Environmental Development in Taiwan. International Forum on Energy, Environment Science and Materials, 113-119.
  23. Jaworski, A., Pritchard, A.(2005). Discourse, communication and tourism, Edited by: Jaworski, A. & Pritchard, A. Buffalo, NY: Channel View.
  24. Khan, S. N. (2014). Qualitative research method-phenomenology. Asian Social Science, 10(21), 298-310.
  25. Kılıç S. (2015). Kappa Testi, Journal of Mood Disorders, 5(3), 142-144.
  26. Kirkwood, S. L. (2019). Food, nostalgia, and home on the US/Mexico border: The palimpsest of memory in the creation of home and imagined futures (Master's thesis, San Diego State University). Landis, J. R. & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174.
  27. MacCannell, D. (1999). The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class. University of California Press.
  28. Marschall, S. (2012). Personal memory tourism and a wider exploration of the tourism-memory nexus. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 10(4), 321-335.
  29. Noble, H. & Mitchell, G. (2016). What is grounded theory? Evidence-based nursing, 19(2), 34-35.
  30. Nora, P. (1984). Les lieux de mémoire (Realms of Memory). Gallimard.
  31. O’Connor, P. (2019). The unanchored past: Three modes of collective memory. Memory Studies, 15 (4), 634-649.
  32. Ocasio, W., Mauskapf, M. & Steele, C. W. J. (2016). History, society, and institutions: The role of collective memory in the emergence and evolution of societal logics. The Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 676-699.
  33. Pennebaker, J. W., Páez, D. & Rimé, B. (1997). Collective memory of political events: Social psychological perspectives ( 1st Editio). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  34. Phillips, K.R. (2004). Framing public memory. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
  35. Robinson, M. & Smith, M. (2006). Cultural tourism in a changing world: Politics, participation and (re)presentation, Buffalo, NY: Channel View.
  36. Saldana, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (Fourth edi). SAGE Publications Ltd.
  37. Schuman, H., Akiyama, H. & Knäuper, B. (1998). Collective memories of Germans and Japanese about the past half-century. Memory, 6(4), 427-454.
  38. Shi, Y., Bettache, K., Zhang, N. & Xue, L. (2021). Constructing nostalgia in tourism: A comparison analysis of genuine and artificial approaches. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 19, 100488.
  39. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage Publications.
  40. T.C. Gaziantep İl Kültür Turizm Müdürlüğü (2025). Erişim adresi: https://gaziantep.ktb.gov.tr/TR-52328/gastronomi-turizmi.html (Erişim tarihi: 30.01.2025).
  41. Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (2010). Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  42. Tian, D., Wang, Q., Law, R. & Zhang, M. (2020). Influence of cultural identity on tourists’ authenticity perception, tourist satisfaction, and traveler loyalty. Sustainability, 12(16), 6344.
  43. Uzun, B. (2023). Kolektif Bellek ve Medya ile İlgili Çalışmaların Bibliyometrik Analizi. Korkut Ata Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, (12), 1518-1532.
  44. Wertsch, J. V. (2002). Voices of collective remembering. Cambridge University Press.
  45. Wertsch, J. V. & Roediger III, H. L. (2008). Collective memory: Conceptual foundations and theoretical approaches. Memory, 16(3), 318-326.
  46. Yağar, F. & Dökme, S. (2018). Niteliksel araştırmaların planlanması: Araştırma soruları, örneklem seçimi, geçerlik ve güvenirlik. Gazi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(3), 1-9.
  47. Yakar, H. İ. V. & Pusat, Ü. G.Y. (2014). Antep savunması askeri iaşe defterleri açlığın günlüğü, Şehit Kamil Belediyesi Kültür Yayını, Gaziantep.
  48. Yankholmes, A. & McKercher, B. (2015). Rethinking slavery heritage tourism. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 10(3), 233-247.
  49. Zerubavel, Y. (1995). Recovered roots. The University of Chicago Press.
  50. Zhou, H., Ap, J. & Yang, H. (2023). An exploration of collective memory in the tourism context. Journal of China Tourism Research, 20(3), 676-707.
  51. Bartoletti, R. (2010). Memory tourism” and the commodification of Nostalgia.In Tourism and visual culture, Edited by: Burns, P., Palmer, C. and Lester, J.-A. 23-42. Wallingford: CABI.
  52. Bendix, R. (2002). Capitalizing on memories past, present, and future: Observations on the intertwining of tourism and narration. Anthropological Theory, 2(4), 469-487.
  53. Boym, S. (2001). The future of nostalgia, New York: Basic Books.
  54. Jaworski, A., Pritchard, A.(2005). Discourse, communication and tourism, Edited by: Jaworski, A. & Pritchard, A. Buffalo, NY: Channel View.