Echtner - Disciplinary Dilemma in Tourism Studies

8/2/2019 Echtner - Disciplinary Dilemma in Tourism Studies

1/16

PergamonAnnals ofTowism Research, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 868-883, 19970 1997 Elsevier Science LtdAll rights reserved. PrInted in Great BritainOlt?O-7383/97 $17.00+0.00

PII:SO160-7383(97)00060-l

THE DISCIPLINARY DILEMMA OFTOURISM STUDIES

Charlotte M. EchtnerTazim B. J amalUniversity of Calgary, Canada

Abstract: Though tourism is a complex phenomenon crossing many disciplines, researcherstend to approach tourism studies from within the specific boundaries of the main discipline inwhich they have been trained. Existing tourism theory is thus fragmented and weak. This paperlooks at the potential for developing more holistic and integrated theories than currently exist,and for tourism studies evolving into a distinct discipline. The current state of debate in thisarea is introduced, and several disciplines impacting on tourism studies are examined. Insightsare drawn from two distinct philosophy of science perspectives, T. S. Kuhn and R. J. Bernstein.Suggestions are made for advancing the evolution and integration of tourism studies.Keywords: theory, discipline, philosophy of science, paradigm, philosophical perspectives,methodology. 0 1997 Elsevier Science LtdR&urn& Le dilemme disciplinaire des etudes du tourisme. Bien que le tourisme soit unphtnom&ne complexe 06 se croisent beaucoup de disciplines, les chercheurs tendent a abordcrles etudes du tourisme & partir des dClimitations spCcifiques du discipline principal dam lequelils ont re~u leur formation. La thCorie qui existe actuellement pour le tourisme est donefragmentaire et faible. Cet article examine les possibilitts de d&lopper des thtories plusholistiques et inttgrCes que celles qui existent d6jjh et de faire tvoluer les etudes du tourismeen un discipline stpart. On prCsente Ittat actuel du dtbat A ce sujet, et on tire des id&s dedeux perspectives diffkrentes de la philosophie de la science, par T.S. Kuhn et RJ. Bernstein.On fait des suggestions pour avanccr les Ctudes du tourisme de leur phase actuelle prt-paradigmatique. Mot+cl&: thtorie, discipline, philosophie de la science, paradigme, per-spectives philosophiques, mtthodalogie. 0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

INTRODUCTIONThe stud y of the tourism ph enomen on is a relatively recent add ition

to academic endeavor. The terms used to describe the movem ent ofpeop le for pleasure, tourism and tourist, were only coined at thebeginning of the 19th century (Smith 1989:17). The stud y of tourismsubsequently evolved during the 20th centu ry and is currently housedwithin a diverse ran ge of disciplines. Jafari and Ritchie (1981) iden t-ified five main academ ic disciplines in tourism research: economics,sociology, psychology, geograp hy, and anthropology. Later, a reviewby Jafari and Aaser ( 1988) f ound 15 main d isciplines present in 157doctoral d issertations regard ing tourism. In a similar vein, a survey

Charlotte Echtner and Tazim Jamal are Ph.D. candidates in the Tourism ManagementProgram at the University of Calgary (Calgary AB., Canada TZN lN4. Email [email protected],ca) . Echtners area of concentration is tourism marketing, with a special interestin destination image, Third World tourism issues, and alternative methodological approaches.

Jamals area of concentration is strategic destination management with a special interest inmultisectorial collaborations, sustainable development, and tourism in developing countries.

868


2/16

ECHTNE R AND J AMAL 869

of North American tourism and hospitality researchers by Sheldon(1990) show ed that journals from a wide variety of disciplines werereferenced by and pu blished in by these researchers. These d isciplinesinclud ed economics, business stud ies, marketing, psychology, anthro-pology, and geography.

Despite the d iversity of d isciplines imp acting on tourism stud ies,accord ing to Pearce (1993), it appear s tha t tourism edu cators oftenassum e tha t there are core pr inciples, facts, and meth ods to deliverto stud ents. This is an un comfortable assum ption in a new stud y arealike tourism. Pearce suggests tha t pre-parad igmatic stud y areas, suchas tourism, shou ld have a greater tolerance for eclectic and diverseapproaches to investigation. Yet, many tourism researchers seemunwilling to reach across disciplinary and method ological boundaries.

Noting these comp lexities, how then shou ld one app roach the stud yof tourism? The p urp ose of this pap er is to examine the area oftourism stud ies, in ord er to stimu late a re-examination of this fieldsdisciplinary dilemmas.

THE DISCIPLINARY DILEMMAThere is considerable d iscussion am ong tou rism scholars con-

cerning method ological issues, research orientations, and the mostapp ropriate app roaches to tourism stud ies (Comic 1989; Dann , Nashand Pearce 1988; Jafar i 1989, 1990; J ovicic 1988; Morley 1990; Pearce1993; Pearce and Butler 1993; Ritchie and Goeldner 1994; Rogozinski1985; Smith 1989; Witt, Brooke and Buckley 1991). These d iscussionsalso reveal tha t tour ism scholars are d ivided in their op inions as towh ether tourism should be stud ied as a distinct discipline or as anarea of specialization within existing d isciplines.

Jovicic (1988) makes a plea for the establishment of tou rismology ,or a d istinct science of tourism. He argu es tha t the stud y of tourismas a complex ph enomenon cannot be adequ ately add ressed fromwithin anyone existing discipline. He further suggests tha t the variousdisciplines tha t curren tly hou se tourism studies, includ ing economics,sociology, and geograp hy, . . . fail to grasp the n otion of the wholeand endeavor to explain the entity wh ich is tourism by its individu alaspects (1988:Z). A ccord ing to him, only the emergence of a d istinctd iscipline, such as tou rismology, will allow for the developm ent of anintegrated theory of tourism. Tourismology would facilitate themerger of the specialized stud ies now occur ring within diverse d isci-plines and wou ld allow tourism to be examined as a comp ositeph enomen on. While Jovicic adm its that tourismology does not yetexist, he is opt imistic tha t it will find its full assertion in the nearfuture (1988:Z).

As Jovicic notes, . . . the observation of individual elements inde-pend ently of the wh ole has resulted in a mistaken definition of tourismas a [solely] economic, geograp hic, or sociological ph enom enon (1988:3). He conclud es tha t this fragmentation has imp eded , and willcontinue to imped e, the growth of theory in tourism. Certain scholarsagree with Jovicic (Comic 1989; Rogozinski 1985). They suggest thatthe stud y of tourism will continue to suffer from a lack of dep th and


3/16

8 7 0 DISCIPLINARY DILEMM A OF TOURISM STUDIES

totality as long as research is fragmen ted among various d isciplines.It will only be throu gh an integration of the various branches oftourism research tha t general theories, mod els, and concepts will bedeveloped (Rogozinski 1985). These au thors ind icate tha t if tourismis not stud ied as a wh ole, argum ents will persist with regard to defi-nitions, scope, and framew orks. These d isagreements will stem mainlyfrom attemp ts to describe and define tou rism from within variousdisciplinary boundaries.

Other tourism scholars, while noting the lack of integrated frame-works and concepts in tourism stud ies, have been unwilling to endorsethe development of tourism as a distinct discipline (Dann, Nash andPearce 1988; Jafar i 1990; Pearce 1993; Pearce and Butler 1993; Witt ,Brooke and Buckley 1991). Instead , they stress the need for greatercrossdisciplinary research to overcome conceptu al and method ologicaldifficulties. Dann, N ash and Pearce, in their discussion of method ologyin tourism research, suggest that tourism was discovered by thesocial sciences in the early 70s. However, they submit tha t whethertourism w ill require un ique conceptu al app roaches and method ologiesis still largely debatable (1988:2). Witt, Brooke and Buckley main-tain th at it is un realistic to expect tou rism to have a single th eoreticalun derp inning and argue that its research will remain dyn amic,variegated and at times intern ally conflictual ( 199 1: 164). Pearce(1993) maintains tha t the lack of major tourism theories is inherentrather than being the temp orary aberrant of an early stud y area. Thus,these scholars seem doubtful tha t a distinct d iscipline of tourism, suchas tourismology, can or should be developed.

Jafari ( 1990:38) ar g ues that more system atic research is requ iredin tourism stud ies, bu t adm its that he wou ld have serious problemswith the development of a doctorate degree in tourism. While implyingthat tourism edu cation and research should remain groun ded withinexisting d isciplines, he does, how ever, recomm end tha t tou rism sch-olars strive to develop a crossdisciplinary know ledge-based p latformbased on a scientific found ation. Such a platform wou ld place tourismstud ies in a lzrger context and encourage the development of moreholistic, un iversally applicable definitions, mod els and theories. Othertourism scholars app ear to be in agreement that the solution liesnot necessarily in forming a d istinct discipline of tourism bu t inencouraging more crossdisciplinary research (e.g., Pearce and Butler1993; Witt , Brooke and Buckley 1991).A limited amou nt of such boun dary spann ing, crossdisciplinaryresearch is beginning to emerge in the literatu re. Morley (1990)tackles the very fund amental issue of developing a more encompassingdefinition of the concept of tourism. He notes that previous attemp tsto define tourism have been colored by the disciplinary background sof researchers and are not fully comparable. He argues that a mod el,synthesized from the various disciplinary definitions and frameworks,is the most general and inclusive way to define the basic concept oftourism. Necessary complexities and relationships can be expressedmore clearly in a mod el w hich has a dyn amic and mu ltidimensionalcapacity than in the static definitional form (1990:6). While Morleysmod el may not comp letely succeed in providing an integrated defi-


4/16


nition of tourism, it is, nonetheless, an imp ortan t step in the rightd irection. Jafaris (1989) d eas on the structure of tourism is anotherinsightful attemp t to mod el tourism from a more holistic perspective.

The debate concerning the disciplinary developm ent of tourism isun likely to be resolved in the near fu ture, for the evolut ion of tou rismstud ies as a d istinct d iscipline faces significant challenges. Some fur-ther insight into these challenges may be provided by first examiningth e intradisciplinary conflicts prevalent within each of the d iverse d isci-plines currently housing tou rism stud ies and then moving on toexplore the interdisci$inaT issues arising among these various disci-plines.

T he Int radisciflina ly PerspectiveThe growth of the tourism indu stry after the second World War led

to an increase in academic literature and a concern abou t tourismimpacts. It was not un til the 70s that tourism became a strong focusof study for researchers and scholars in d ifferent disciplines. Whilemarketers examined promotion and tourism behavior, geographersand ecologists stud ied carrying capacity, and sociologists and anth ro-pologists tried to decipher the natu re of tourism pilgrimage, play and ,ritual (Graburn and Jafari 1991:4). Disciplines, as such, have theeffect of bounding and defining wh at aspects of tourism will be stud ied.Such interd isciplinary isolation creates barriers for the developm entof a more holistic understand ing of tourism. In add ition to grapp lingwith this challenge of disciplinary isolation, researchers and edu catorsalso have to contend with the ph ilosophical and method ologicaldebates within various disciplines. A sample of these persp ectives canhighlight the types of d iscipline-based debates influen cing the studyof tourism.

Sociology and Social PsychologyThe sociology of tourism has generally come into prominence over

the last 2 to 3 decades and contains significant challenges in theor-etical and method ological integration. Competing schools ad vocatepositivist, quan titative app roaches and procedu res, or interpretive,qualitative app roaches such as ph enomenology, ethnom ethodology,and symbolic interactionism (Dann and Cohen 1991: 156, 166). Whilenoting tha t there is no single sociology of tou rism, Dann and Cohen(199 1) sum marize three positions among researchers trying to con-textualize the field: some argue for locating the sociology of tou rismwithin a sociology of migration, others within a sociology ofleisure, wh ile a third group prefers to emphasize the travel dimen-sions of tourism. Cohen offers an early observation tha t simplisticand global views of the tourist and of the imp act of tourism onthe host societies prevent one from developing a more sophisticatedapp roach to tourism. . . (1979:20). He points to the sharp reactionagainst the accepted view of the tourist, initiated by MacCannellsinnovative research (Cohen 1979:21). In ad dition to MacCannells


5/16

872 DISCIPLINARY DILEMM A OF TOURISM STUDIES

(1976) seminal book, other innovative persp ectives are being intro-duced into the sociology of tou rism, such as Dann (1996) and Urry(1990).

A major debate in social psychology (which contributes to leisurestud ies in tourism) has been between controlled, experimental meth-odologies versus the use of less regu lated cultura l settings for execut -ing surveys, fieldw ork, or hu manistic stud ies (Mannell 1982). Thecrisis for social p sychology scholars, evident in the 7Os, has beenattribu ted to a nu mber of factors, including charges of over-relianceon the experimen tal method s typical of the ph ysical sciences, and oftheories tha t are too behavioristic. Gun ter (1987) points ou t the lackof definitional consensus of leisure, and the d ifficulties associated withdeveloping empirical measurement method s. He notes that frus-tration on these and other d ifficulties has led many scholars to suggesta shift to examining the leisure experience as a beginning point forleisure ana lysis. Mannell, for example, calls for a cognitive socialpsychology of leisure experience that wou ld focus on determiningthe internal and external influences on the meaning, quality, du ration,intensity, and memorability of leisure experiences (1982: 140). Asgrowing hu man pop ulations and increasing global tourism imp act onnatu ral and cultural resources, it will become increasingly imp ortan tto understand and to man age the leisure experience and its use ofthese resources.

GeographyFollowing World War II, d issatisfaction with the ph ilosoph ies and

empirical-indu ctive methods guiding geographic research led to aquantitative, theoretical revolut ion in the 6Os, stimu lated by progressin the natu ral sciences (Mitchell and Mu rp hy 1991:58). Processeswere borrow ed from the natu ral sciences and neoclassical economicsaiming to develop a general theory and comm on, objective researchtools (empirical, positivist). Since then , positivism has been comingun der increasing attack by scholars in hu man geograp hy (focusing onthe stud yofhum an and social behavior within geography). Hu man isticgeograp hy ph ilosophy favors qualitative research based on subjectiveperspectives, versus the objective, expert view adop ted by physicalgeograp hers (Cloke, Philo and Sad ler 1991). Anoth er ph ilosoph icalbacklash to positivism came to be called rad ical geograp hy, whereconcern for social issues, forgotten by the quantitative revolution ofthe 6Os, followed a more relativist and critical approach. Today, boththe older traditions of physical geography and newer app roaches (e.g.,postm odern analysis) are followed by geographers in tourism stud ies.

AnthropologyThis d isciplines interest in tourism has been manifest since the

70s and is now well established , using methodologies and theoriesfrom its own and other disciplines (Nash an d Smith 1991:13). Despitethe disciplinary overlap (especially with sociology), anth ropology


6/16

ECH TNER AND J AMAL 873

offers a distinct point of view on tourism as an element of hu manculture, where the main foci of atten tion are the forces tha t generatetourists and tourism, the transactions between cultures or subculturestha t are an intrinsic part of all tourism, and the consequences for thecultures and individuals within them (Nash and Smith 1991:22).From a method ological persp ective, the holistic, qualitative con-tribution of anth ropology is quite widely acknowledged by tourismscholars. The interpretive approach characterizing this field is eth-nograp hy, concerned with interpreting hu man behavior in its culturaland social setting. A seminal work in this area is Hosts and Guests: TheAnthropology of Tourism (Smith 1977). Since then, other method ologicalapp roaches are bringing challenging insights into the anthropology oftourism. For examp le, Errington and Gewertzs (1989) ethn ograp hicstud y of tourists and anthrop ologists prop oses the need a for a height-ened awareness of the political d istinctions between tourists andanthropologists in the postm odern stud y setting.

Organizational and Strategy ResearchWithin this stud y area, wh ich impacts on tourism organizations,

conflict can be observed between interpretive and positivistapp roaches, wh ere the interpretive one is a relative newcomer on thescene. These tw o positions seem to be held to be incommensurable,with positivists claiming for only natu ral science method s to be appliedto research (Daft 1983), while interpretive scholars argue forapp roaches such as ph enomenology, hermeneutics, and ethnograp hy.Deshp and e and Webster (1989) p rovide a historical persp ective ontheory development in organizational culture, draw ing from anth ro-pology, sociology, and organ ization behavior. They note the heateddebate between scholars who sup port techniques for statistical infer-ence on survey data versus th ose who use ethnograp hic method s tostud y organizational culture, and argue for the usefulness of emp loy-ing both methods.

In the field of strategy research, conflict between planned versusemergent strategic behavior (Mintzberg and Waters 1985), and abou tthe relationship between structure, strategy, and the environment,has led au thors like Ansoff (1987) to propose a parad igmatic meta -model of strategic behavior, based on the Kuhn (1970) structure ofscientific parad igms. Ansoff s model attem pts to integrate most of theconflicting theories of strategy behavior within the bound aries of adominan t parad igm. Acceptance by the academic commu nity of sucha parad igm could perm it hou sing both positivist traditions (asembod ied by formal strategic planning app roaches) and relativistconcepts of strategic management (Smirch& and Stubbar t 1985)un der a common um brella. This could then provide a guideline forstrategic research in tourism and other areas. How ever, this inte-gration has yet to occur (Jamal and Getz 1996).

Sustainable tourism planning an d developm ent requires integratedand holistic app roaches to strategy. But, effective tou rism planningand policy developm ent at various levels (organizational, local,


7/16

874 DISCIPLINARY DILEMMA OF TOURISM STUDIES

regional, national, and global) tends to be imped ed by poor under-standing of the complexity of the tourism dom ain and the merits ofdiverse meth odological approaches to gaining know ledge. The closeinterdepend encies amon g the natu ral environment, host comm un i-ties, governments, and organizations dealing with tourism, meansthat organization and strategy researchers (and man agers) of tourismneed to take man y inter-related factors into consideration. Not onlydo they need to un derstand the complex and differing perspectivesrelated to strategic behavior in their own field, they also shou ld havea good understand ing of the research traditions and method ologiesused to address related issues in other d isciplines.

Marketing and Consumer ResearchTwo strong scientific ph ilosoph ies have vied for dominance in mar-

keting: scientific or convergen t realism (Coop er 1987; Hunt 1990,1992) and critical relativism as defined by Anderson (1983, 1986,1988). This debate is ontological and epistemological in natu re, ques-tioning truth , reality, and the dem arcation between science and non-science. The marketing researchers tha t ad vocate scientific realismmaintain that truth be the goal of marketing research and arguefor a fallibilistic and critical realism where the job of science isto develop genu ine know ledge about the world. Such know ledge willnever be know n with certainty (fallibilistic realism), bu t all know ledgemust be critically eva luated through intersubjective certification todetermine the extent of its correspondence with the world (criticalrealism) (Hu nt 1990:9). This position of scientific realism and tru thobjectivity is rejected by marketing researchers sup por ting criticalrelativism (such as Anderson , 1983, 1986), who place the responsibilityof evaluating knowledge produ ction on the consensus of the academiccomm un ity itself. As sum marized by Laud an the fact tha t 2,400 yearsof searching for a dem arcation criterion has left us emp ty han dedraises a presump tion tha t the object of the quest is non-existent(Laudan 1980:275).

Another similar debate can be observed in the consumer researcharea within m arketing, more focused on method (i.e., hu man ist/interpretive versus positivistic techniques). The trad itional view hascentered on positivism (Calder and Tybout 1987). On the other han d,researchers such as Holbrook and OShau gnessy (1988) advocate aninterpretive app roach, arguing that consumer research (as opp osedto the natu ral sciences), deals with understand ing and explicating themeanings embedd ed in hu man behavior. They also point out thatinterpretation always admits and generally requires an intrinsicallyempirical approach via a herm eneutical process (Holbrook andOShaugnessy 1988:40 1). Thom son, Locand er and Pollio ( 1989: 139)call for an existential-ph enom enological approach, where un der-stand ing is attained by interpreting lived experience, using the her-meneu tical circle. Interest ingly, even Hunt (1991:41) calls for grea terintegration (rapprochement) and tolerance of different ap proaches,while adopting a critical scrutiny (critical plu ralism) in consum er


8/16


research ph ilosophy. Tourism scholars draw ing on marketing andconsumer behavior research are well advised to un derstand the metho-dological debates in these areas, and their influence on the study oftourism and tourist behavior.

This d iscussion, draw ing on persp ectives from different disciplines,illustrates some of the intrad isciplinary conflicts tha t imp act on tou r-ism stud ies and the developm ent of major d ivisions of focus in itsresearch. For example, Buck (1978), as noted in Jafari (1990) andLeiper (1990:19), iden tifies tw o major, relatively isolated camps intourism stud ies: the business-enterprise and development camp(devoted to growth and profit), and the impacts and externalitiescamp (concerned with effects of tourism on host nations and com-mu nities). Buck suggested tha t theoretical and research foundationsneeded to be laid to synthesize these two distinct areas. Thou ghsome attemp ts have been mad e, especially with the imperative ofsustainable tourism development, researchers within the contributingdisciplines have generally tended to examine tourism from their ownfields of reference, based on their specific philosophical and metho-dological preferences.

The Interdisciplinary PerspectiveThe above review highlights some of the method ological and ph ilo-

soph ical conflicts occurring within several of the disciplines hou singtourism stud ies. These have contributed to the various d iscussionsand debates in the tourism field concerning app ropriate definitions,method s, mod els, research app roaches, and theory development. How-ever, in addition to these frequently conflicting intradisciplinary per-spectives, tourism stud ies is also confronted by some potentiallyincomm ensurable viewp oints am ong the various d isciplines. If tourismis to develop into a d istinct d iscipline these interdisciplinary conflictsmust someh ow be overcome. But is this likely or even possible? Twophilosop hy of science perspectives, Kuhn (1970) and Bernstein (1991),can help in addressing this issue. While neither Kuhn nor Bernsteindiscuss tour ismperse, their d iscourses provide interesting insights intothe interdisciplinary dilemm as of tourism studies.

Kuhn? PerspectiveBased on the ph ilosophy of science described by Kuhn (1970) in The

St ructure of Scien@c Revolut ions, tourism stud ies seems to be in a pre-science or pre-parad igmatic ph ase. According to Kuhn, a pre-parad igmatic science is . . . characterized by total disagreement andconstant debate over fund amentals . . . [t]here will be almost as manytheories as there are workers in the field and each theoretician willbe obliged to start afresh and justify his own particular app roach(cited in Ch a mers 1982:92). The classic sym ptom s of a pre-scienceinclude diverse and disorganized research, rand om fact gathering, alack of fund amental laws and theoretical assump tions, a scarcity ofexemp lars and mod els, and deep debates over legitimate methods


9/16


(Chalmers 1982:90-l; Kuh n 1970). The stru ggle to define basicconcepts, such as tourism and tourist, and the continu ing debates overapp ropriate methodology, as already highlighted, best exemp lify thepre-parad igmatic state of tourism stud ies. But will tourism stud ieseventu ally converge and develop into a d istinct d iscipline?

Observing Kuhns p erspective on the ph ilosophy of science, thismay involve developing a distinct parad igm or disciplinary matrixconsisting of a shared constellation of beliefs, values,techniques.. . models and examp les (1970: 175). Cur rently, tourismstud ies is entrenched within various d isciplines. Each of these areasembraces a d istinct d isciplinary matrix, and researchers within thediscipline have acquired certain . . . theory, methods, andstandards.. . usually in an inextricable mixture (1970: 109). Forexamp le, the research qu estions, theoretical concepts, ph ilosoph icalapp roaches, and mod els and techniques guiding geograph y scholarsare usu ally quite different from those for researchers in economicsor psychology. Kuhn further indicates tha t issues arising betw eencompeting parad igms are often d ifficult to resolve because d ifferentdisciplinary matrixes have been used to define problems, choose meth-odologies and techniques, and set research stand ard s. This resultsin incommensurability, or an inability to comm unicate because ofincompatible, and even conflicting, parad igmatic points of view.Crossdisciplinary research could be d ifficult, perh aps even impossible,withou t significant abandonm ent of parad igmat ic constraints. By fol-lowing Kuh n, one would likely have little opt imism for the devel-opment of tourism as a d istinct d iscipline. Based on his ph ilosophy,one might argue that the highly entrenched disciplinary parad igmsand app roaches variously app lied to tourism stud ies result in con-siderable incomm ensurability. This could create almost insur -mou ntable obstacles to the development of a new discipline of tourism,wh ich would require a synthesis and blend ing of the parad igms andresearch from the various disciplinary areas.

Using Kuhn s ph ilosophy, it seems m ore likely tha t tourism willremain an area of stud y within each d iscipline (such as psychology,geograp hy, anth rop ology, economics, m arketing, etc.). Within each ofthese disciplinary matrixes, tourism will continue to be stud ied as aspecialized research top ic. In such circumstances, it will be d ifficultfor tourism stud ies to develop its own distinct parad igm, with theaccompanying shared constellation of beliefs, values, tech-niques . . . models an d examp les (Kuh n 1970: 175). The develop-ment of a d istinct tou rism discipline will require a Kuhn ian scien-tific revolut ion in which a grou p of researchers breaks away fromdisciplinary bound aries and works to establish a d istinct d isciplinarymatrix for tourism. However, accord ing to Kuhn , even if this d idoccur , such a new discipline might be characterized by the trium phof one of the pre-paradigm schools, which, because of its own charac-teristic beliefs and preconceptions, emp hasized some special part ofthe too sizable and inchoate pool of information (1970: 17). Thus, theemerging tourism discipline might contain a decided slant toward sone of the more dom inant found ing disciplinary areas. Therefore,Kuhn s view of the philosophy of science seems to indicate tha t a


10/16


distinct d iscipline of tourism stud ies is somew hat un likely. N ot onlyis tourism a pre-parad igmatic ph enomen on bu t it is also embedd edwithin various incomm ensurable d isciplinary areas of study. This isnot a very enviable position for an aspiring new discipline.

Bernsteins PerspectiveKuhn s treatise suggests that incomm ensurability is a barrier to

the development of a distinct discipline of tourism stud ies (it mu st benoted here that Kuhns g radu ate edu cation was in theoretical physicsand his work provides arguments and examples based on the naturalversus the social sciences). However, the d isciplinary d ilemm a takesa d ifferent persp ective when one applies Bernsteins (1991) philosophyof science. Using this approach, the pr incipa l problem impeding tou r-isms theoretical developm ent seems not to be caused by incom-mensu rability but by an inapp ropriate, dom inant ph ilosophical andmethod ological app roach. Here, the evolution of tourism stud iesmight be seen to be plagued by the same ph obia that d ominates all ofthe social sciences, nam ely th e need to become more scientific andthe resulting attachment to more traditional positivist m ethods.

Using the measures of science, the social sciences are often jud gedas primitive and underd eveloped , or, as Kuhn suggests, pre-para-d igmatic. Bernstein argu es against this point of view, stating tha tthe specific standard s of rationality that may be app ropr iate forscientific activity are not necessarily relevant for und erstand ing thestandards.. . in alternate stream s of knowledge (1991:103). In otherword s, social scientists must guard against fallingvictim to the tyran nyof the scientific method -they mu st be liberated from the spu riousnarrow ing imposed by the mod el of the natu ral sciences (Gadam er1979, qu oted in Bernstein 1991:39). Hence, d raw ing from Bernstein,it app ears that labeling tourism stud ies as a pre-parad igmatic sciencemight be inapp ropriate, since scientific standard s should not beapp lied to all forms of knowledge.

Bernstein states that is it inap propriate to classify kn owledge intoscientific and social scientific categories. He argues that there is nosolid bound ary between the sciences and the social sciences-betweenth e Naturwissenschaften an d Geisteswissenschaften. Many of the typ icalcontrasts between the Natu rwissenschaften and the Geistes-wissenschaften have been based on a false and d iscredited epis-temological understanding.. . there are continuities and differencesamong these various disciplines, and these continuities and dif-ferences are shifting an d pragmatic (Bernstein 1991: 173-74). Preju-dices therefore arise because of the desire to divide knowledge intoscience and non-science and to jud ge the latter by the standards ofthe former. Such a divisive app roach only inhibits greater under-standing for all forms of knowledge.

Bernstein suggests that incomm ensurability between the varioussciences and social sciences can be used to encourage un derstand ing.We seek to d iscover some common grou nd to reconcile d ifferencesthrou gh d ebate, conversation, and dialogue.. .what matters is not


11/16


unan imity bu t d iscourse (Bernstein 1991:223). He indicates tha talternate approaches (he favors herm eneutics and praxis) will allowresearchers to span across disciplines and to develop a comprehensive,deeper understand ing of all hu man activity. Incomm ensurabilitydoes not get in the way of un derstand ing and comparing the con-cepts-it rather sets a challenge to us of find ing ou t how to un derstandand comp are them, a challenge that is met by the artful emp loymentof hermeneu tical skills (Bernstein 199 1:96). It follows from this thatthe interdisciplinary natu re of tourism should not be viewed as aburd en or barrier, bu t as an opp ortun ity to use debate, dialogue,and interpretation to reach a deeper un derstand ing of this hu manphenomenon.

Hence, using Bernsteins perspective, the d isciplinary d ilemm a maybe a result of the inapp ropriate fixation on the need to emu late themethod s of the natu ral/ physical sciences. An ability to accept alternateph ilosophical and method ological app roaches could help to breakdown some of the interdisciplinary barriers in stud ying the tourismphenomenon and lead to the evolution of a d istinct discipline. Byfollowing Bernstein, one wou ld argue that more progress in un der-standing the ph enomenon in its entirety could be mad e throu ghalternate method ological app roaches, such as hermeneu tics andpraxis.

CONCLUSIONThe current fragmentation of theory is an imped iment to research

and education, as well as to the legitimacy of tourism stud ies. Perhapsthe integration of theories and ph ilosoph ies from various d isciplinaryareas could best be hand led by developing a dom inant parad igm intourism stud ies as described by Kuhn (1970). However, it is evidentthat tourisms development toward s becoming a distinct d iscipline isrife with d ifficulties. The majority of tou rism researchers have beeneducated within various d isciplines, such as geograp hy, sociology, mar-keting, and anthropology. Hence, any tourism theory that is developedforms within specific disciplinary parad igms and bound aries. Thisleads to academ ic imperialism, with each discipline treating tou r-ism from within th eir own term s of reference (Leiper 1990:17). Thisacademic imperialism is particularly evident between the two camps:impacts-externalities and business-development. The alternate viewsof the ph ilosophy of science presented by Kuhn and Bernstein provideconflicting views tha t further illum inate tourisms d isciplinarydilemma.

In an attem pt to overcome this d ilemm a, Leiper (1981, 1990) callsfor a clear framew ork for tourism stud ies, which is based on a core ofgeneral tourism theory that has broad application across disciplines.He d istingu ishes mu ltid isciplinary stud ies from interd isciplinary ones.A mu ltidisciplinary app roach involves stud ying a topic by includinginformat ion from other d isciplines, bu t still operating from withindisciplinary bound aries. On the other hand , an interdisciplinary focusinvolves working between the disciplines, blending various philosophiesand techniques so that the particular disciplines do not stand ap art bu t


12/16


are brou ght together intentionally and explicitly to seek a synthesis(Leiper 198 1: 72; emphasis origina l).

LikeLeiper (1981,1990), an interdisciplinary app roach is advocatedin this pap er, but a clear und erstanding of the method ological andphilosophy of science issues involved is essential to integrating themu ltitud e of theoretical developments from the various contributingdisciplines. The study of tourism is enriched and yet complicated bythis theoretical d iversity. There are a nu mber of descriptive, explana-tory, and pred ictive mod els wh ich form the building block of theo-ries and describe whole or subsystems (Getz 1986:23). Integratingthese theories, concepts, and mod els with app ropriate definitions oftourism and tourist (which are still controversial) under a broadparad igmatic um brella could guide and facilitate the accum ulationof a cohesive bod y of know ledge in tourism. The intention here shouldnot be to create one ph ilosophical app roach. Rather, it should beaccepted tha t d ifferent research problems may require d ifferent ph ilo-sophical approaches. The evaluation of a research program shouldinclude an un derstand ing of its method ological, ontological, met a-ph ysical, and axiological comm itmen ts, as well as its social andcognitive aims (And erson 1986: 167). C onsidering the high behavioralcontent and diverse natu re of tourism, both qualitative and quan -titative method ologies mu st be tolerated.

Accord ing to Jafari, four tourism research platform s have emergedchronologically bu t withou t replacing one another. These are theAdvocacy, Cautionary, Adaptan cy and Knowledge-based Platforms.The first two platforms focus on tourism impacts and the third onforms of developm ent. The last, the Knowledge-based Platform, aimsto study tourism as a whole and strives for the format ion of a scientificbody of know ledge in tourism, wh ile maintaining bridges w ith otherp latform s (1990:35). It is evident that the objectives of the Know l-edge-based Platform are consistent with a move toward tourism as ad istinct discipline. In accord with the overall goals of this Platform,in order to overcome theoretical fragmentation, the found ation of anemergent tourism discipline needs to be based on an interdisciplinaryrather than a mu ltidisciplinary app roach. Furthermore, there needsto be greater liberalism with regard to method ological app roach and ,concurren tly, greater attent ion to clearly explicated theory and meth -odology. Therefore, as illustrated in Figure 1, some key d imensionsfor the evolution of tou rism toward s increased credibility as a field ofstudy and toward s d isciplinary status includ e: holistic, integratedresearch; the generation of a theoretical bod y of know ledge; an inter-disciplinary focus; clearly explicated theory and method ology; and theapp lication of qualitative and quan titative method s, positivist an dnon-positivist traditions.

How ever, wh ile such a distinct new discipline wou ld encourage thedevelopment of integrated and holistic tourism theory and is a laud-able goal for tourism researchers, there remain serious practical prob-lems. For instance, where w ould such a discipline be hou sed? Sinceman y of the disciplines currently stud ying tourism fall within th esocial sciences (sociology, anthropology, economics, geograp hy, p sy-chology), shou ld a discipline of tourism stud ies be located within th e


13/16


Holistic, Integrated ResearchIGeneration ofTheoretical interdisciplinaryBody ofKnowledge

\ /=-

Theory and Methodology \ Use of DiverseClearly Explicated MethodologicalApproaches

F igu re 1 . S o me Key Dimen s io n s fo r th e E v olu t io n o f T o u r ism S tu d ies

faculty of social sciences ? Political consideration s (institu tiona l andothers) aside, designating tourism stud ies as a d istinct social sciencecould draw protests from those researchers stud ying tourism from amore indu stry-based perspective, such as business adm inistration,marketing, and hospitality stud ies. Add itionally, how should graduateprogram s in tourism be tailored? Will interd isciplinary stud ies intourism be better served by ensuring that graduate stud ents aretrained in one disciplinary found ation before providing an inter-disciplinary period of stud y, or should a broad-based interdisciplinarycurriculum be implemented from start to finish?

It is evident, from both a ph ilosoph ical and a practical persp ective,that the developm ent of tourism as a distinct discipline is not acertainty. However, the lack of a d istinct tou rism discipline at thecurrent time need not doom tourism research to fragmentation anddeficiency of developm ent. A greater degree of collaboration acrossdisciplines is required at this point to further advance the stud y oftourism toward s a distinct discipline. Such a development may entailadopting a ph ilosophy of science more in line with that ad vocated byBernstein-a ph ilosophy that moves beyond the incomm ensurabilityissues emphasized by Kuhn. On a practical level, boundary spann ingresearch in tourism can be encouraged throu gh the development ofmore flexible degree program s tha t allow crossdisciplinary edu cationand throu gh the establishm ent of mu ltidisciplinary research and edu -cation centers. As Pearce notes [slimply because the tourism field inthe 1990s is classified as soft, rural, pre-parad igmat ic and specialistdoes not mean we cannot make progress toward s cum ulative, cross-situational generalities (1993:29).

There are some indications that tourism is moving tow ard becominga d istinct discipline. These includ e th e emergen ce of textbooks, schol-arly journals, professional associations, and specific program s of tou r-ism stud ies. H owever, w hile tourism stud ies could potentially developinto a discipline, it is concluded tha t there are many practical andph ilosophical reasons that ham per its evolution. What is urgen tly


14/16

ECHTNER AND JAMAL 881

needed is greater collaboration, crossdisciplinary and especially inter-disciplinary research. Such research will require expansion beyond theconfines of disciplinary parad igms and experimentation with alternatemeth odologies. Whether tourism stud ies eventu ally achieves legit-imacy as a discipline and whether its theoretical foundation is cohesiveand strong, or fragmented and weak, will be greatly determined by theperseverance of tourism researchers to overcome disciplinary barriersand to encompass diverse method ologies and ph ilosophicalapproaches. 0 0

REFERENCESAnderson, P.

1983 Marketing, Scientific Progress and Scientific Method . Jour nal of Marketing47(4):18-31.

1986 On Method in Consu mer Research: A Critical Relativist Persnective. Iourn alof Consu mer Research 13(2): 155-173.

1988 Relativism Revidivu s: In Defense of Critical Relativism. Journa l of Consu merResearch 15(3):403-406. nsoff, H.

1987 The Emerging Para d igm of Strategic Behav ior. Strategic Managem ent Jour -nal 8:501-515.

Bernstein, R.1991 Beyon d Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, an d Praxis (4thed.). Philadelph ia: University of Penn sylvan ia Press.

Buck, R. C.1978 Towar ds a Synthesis in Tourism Theory. Ann als o f Tourism Research: 1 lo-

111.Calder , B., and A. Tybout

1987 Wha t Consu mer Research Is.. . Jour nal of Consu mer Research 14:136-140.Chalmers, A.

1982 Wha t is This Thing Called Science. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press.Cloke, P., C. Philo an d D. Sadler

1991 App roaching Hu man Geography: An Introduction to Contemp orary Theor-etical Debates. New York: Guilford Press.Cohen, E.

1979 Rethinking the Sociology of Tourism. Ann als of Tourism Research 6: 18-35.Comic, D.

1989 Tourism as a Sub ject of Philosoph ical Reflection. Revue d e Tourisme 44(2):6-13.

Cooper, L.1987 Do we need Critical Relativism? Comm ents on On Method in Consum er

Research. Journa l of Consu mer Research 14:126-127.Daft, R.

1983 Learning the Craft of Organizational Research. Academ ic of Managem entReview 8:539-546.

Dann, G.1996 The Langu age of Tourism: A Sociolingu istic Perspective. Wallingford: CAB

International.Dann, G., and E. Cohen

1991 Sociology and Tourism. Ann als of Tourism Research 18: 155-169.Dann, G., D. Nash, and P. Pearce

1988 Method ology in Tourism Research. Ann als of Tourism Research 15:1-28.Deshp and e, R., and F. Webster

1989 Organizational Culture and Marketing: Defining the Research Agend a. Jour-nal of Marketing 53:3-15.

Errington, F., and D. Gewertz1989 Tourism and Anthrop ology in a Post-Modern World. Oceania 60:37-54.


15/16

882 DISCIPLINARY DILEMMA O F TOURISM STUDIES

Gadamer, H.-G.1979 The Problem of Historical Consciousness. In Interuretive Social Science: A.

Reader, Pau l Rabinow and William M. Sullivan, eds:, pp . 103-160. Berkeley:University of California Press.Getz, D.

1986 Models in Tourism Planning: Towards Integration of Theory and Practice.Tourism Managem ent 7:21-32.

Grabu rn, N., an d J. Jafari1991 Tour ism Social Science. Anna ls of Tour ism Research 18:1-l 1.

Gunn , C. A.1987 A Perspective on the Purp ose and Natu re of Tourism Research Methods.

In Travel, Tourism and Hospitality Research: A Han dbook for Managers andResearchers, J. R. Brent Ritchie and C. Goeldner, eds., pp . 3-l 1. New York:Wiley.

Gunter, B.1987 The Leisure Exnerience: Selected Prouerties. Iourn al of Leisure Research19:115-130. L Y

Holbrook, M., and J. OShaugn essy1988 On the Scientific Status of Consu mer Research and the Need for an Inter-

pretive App roach to Stud ying Consump tion Behavior. Journ al of Consum erResearch 15:398-402.

Hunt, S.1990 Truth in Marketing Theory an d Research. Jour nal of Marketing 54: l-15.1991 Positivism and Parad inm Dominan ce in Consum er Research: Towards Critical

Pluralism and Rapp rochimen t. Jour nal o f Consu mer Research 18:32-44.1992 For Reason an d Realism in Marketing. Journal of Marketing 56:89-102.

Jafari, J.1989 Structure of Tourism. In Tourism Marketing and Managem ent Han d-book, Stephen F. Witt and Lou bloutinh o, eds., pp . 437-442. Lond on: Prent iceHall.

1990 Research and Scholarsh ip: The Basis of Tourism Edu cation. Jour nal of Tour-ism Stud ies 1:33-41.

Jafar i, J., an d D. Aaser1988 Tourism as the Subject ofDoctoral Dissertations. Ann als ofTourism Research

15:407-429.Jafar i, J., and B. Ritchie

198 1Toward s A Framework of Tourism Education: Problems and Prospects. Annalsof Tour ism Research 8: 13-34.

Jam al, T., and D. Getz1996 Does Strategic Plann ing Pay? Lessons for Destinations from Corporate Plan-

ning Experience. Progress in Tourism and Hosp itality Research 2:59-78.Jovicic, Z.

1988 A Plea for Tourismological Theory and Methodology. Revue de Tourisme43(3):2-5.

Kuhn, T.1970 The Structu re of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed .). Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.Laudan, L.

1980 Views of Progress: Sepa rating the Pilgrims from the Rakes. Philosoph y of theSocial Sciences 10:273-286.

Leiper, N.1981 Towar ds a Cohesive Curr iculum in Tourism: The Case for a Distinct Disci-pline. Ann als of Tourism Research 7:69-84.1990 Tourism Systems: An Interd isciplinary Study. Occasion Papers: 1990, No.

2. Department of Managem ent Systems, Massey University, Palmerston, NewZealand.

MacCannell, D.1976 The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Schocken Books.

Mannell, R.1982 Psychology an d Leisure Research. In Perspectives on the Natu re of Leisure

Research, David Ng and Stephen Smith, eds., pp . 120-150. Waterloo: Universityof Waterloo Press.


16/16

ECHTNER AND JAMAL 883

Mintzberg, H., and J. Waters1985 Of Strategies, Deliberate an d Emergen t. Strategic Managem ent Jour nal

6257-272.Mitchell, L., an d P. Murp hy1991 Geograp hy an d Tourism. Ann als of Tourism Research 18:57-70.

Morley, C.1990 Wha t is Tourism? Definitions, Concept s and Characteristics. Jou rna l of Tour-

ism Stud ies 1:3-8.Nash , D., and V. Smith

1991 Anth ropology and Tourism. Ann als of Tourism Research 18: 12-25.Pearce, P. L.

1993 Defining Tourism Stud y as a Specialism: A Justification and Implications.TEOROS Interna tional 1:25-32.

Pearce, D., and R. Butler, eds.1993 Tourism Research: Critiques and Challenges. Lond on: Routledge.Ritchie, J. R. B., and C. R. Goeld ner1994 Travel, Tourism, and Hosp itality Research. New York: John Wiley.

Rogozinski, K.1985 Tourism as a Subject of Research and Integration of Sciences. Problem y

Turystyki 4:7-19.Sheldon, P.

1990 Jour nals in Tourism and Hosp itality. The Jour nal of Tourism Stud ies 1:42-48.

Smirchic, L., and C. Stubbart1985 Strategic Managem ent in an Enacted World. Academy of Managem ent

Review 10:724-736.Smith, S.

1989 Tourism Analysis: A Han dbook . New York: Longman .Smith, V. L., ed .

1977 Hosts a nd Guests: The Anth ropology of Tourism (1st ed.). Philad elph ia:University of Philad elph ia Press.

Thom son, C., W. Locand er and H. Pollio1989 Putt ing Con sum er Experience Back into Consu mer Research: The Philosoph y

and Method of Existential-Phenom enology. Journ al of Consum er Research16:133-145.

Urry, J.1990 The Tourist Gaze: Leisure an d Travel in Contem porary Societies. Lond on:Sage.

Witt, S., M. Brooke an d P. Buckley1991 The Managem ent of International Tourism. London : Unwin Hym an.

Submitted 9 July 1996Resubmitted 8 October 1996Accepted 2 1 March 1997Refereed anonymouslyCoord inating Editor: Neil Leiper

Echtner - Disciplinary Dilemma in Tourism Studies

Documents

Transcript of Echtner - Disciplinary Dilemma in Tourism Studies