Most destination branding studies concentrate on how brand images and messages are formulated and presented. Their approaches stem mainly from general marketing, and deal narrowly with the poetics of branding. They leave many social and cultural issues embedded in the branding campaign unexamined. To overcome this shortcoming, this paper delves into the social complexity and multiplicity behind a branding campaign, that is, the politics of destination branding. Using a dialogic perspective, this paper identifies various functions served by a destination brand, the divergent agendas of different tourism stakeholders, and how different interest groups persuade, coerce and negotiate with each other so as to make the brand and the branding campaign serve their own individual needs. The case of Denmark was studied. And contextual differences between destination and corporate branding are eventually identified, stressing the need for critical reflection when applying conventional marketing ideas into destinations. Among others, the types of resources available to win over stakeholders towards the brand, local attitudes towards tourism and political support for the brand are factors that may determine the success of the destination branding campaign. This paper thus offers a more holistic and dynamic approach to destination branding research.

Purpose: Researchers rarely present accounts of their awkward encounters in ethnographies. Awkwardness, however, does matter and affects the ethnographic accounts we write and our understanding of social situations. The purpose is to bring these hidden sides of organizational ethnography to the fore, to discuss the consequences of ignoring awkward encounters, and to improve our understanding of organizational realities.Design/methodology/approach: This paper presents awkward ethnographic encounters in the field: encounters with evangelizing ethnic Chinese business people in Indonesia (Koning), and visiting an artist village in China (Ooi). Based on analysing their awkwardness, and in the context of a critical assessment of the reflexive turn in ethnography, the authors propose a more inclusive reflexivity. The paper ends with formulating several points supportive of reaching inclusive reflexivity.Findings: By investigating awkward encounters, the authors show that these experiences have been left out for political (publishing culture in academia, unwritten rules of ethnography), as well as personal (feelings of failure, unwelcome self‐revelations) reasons, while there is much to discover from these encounters. Un‐paralyzing reflexivity means to include the awkward, the emotional, and admit the non‐rational aspects of our ethnographic experiences; such inclusive reflexivity is incredibly insightful.Research limitations/implications: Inclusive reflexivity not only allows room for the imperfectness of the researcher, but also enables a fuller and deeper representation of the groups and communities we aim to understand and, thus, will enhance the trustworthiness and quality of our ethnographic work.Originality/value: Awkwardness is rarely acknowledged, not to mention discussed, in organizational ethnography.