Global Review of Research in Tourism, Hospitality and...

Global Review of Research in Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure Management (GRRTHLM)

An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2311-3189)

2016 Vol: 2 Issue: 1

354 www.globalbizresearch.org

Knowledge Base and Flow of Major Tourism and

Hospitality Journals

Yulan Yuan, Department of Travel Management,

Jinwen University of Science and Technology,

Taiwan, Republic of China.

E-mail: [email protected]

Yuen-Hsien Tseng,

Information Technology Center,

National Taiwan Normal University,



Chaang-Iuan Ho,

Department of Leisure Services Management,

Chaoyang University of Technology,



______________________________________________________________ Abstract

Knowing the disciplinary compositions of the knowledge bases will enrich the

understanding of knowledge creation of tourism and hospitality fields as well as provide a

baseline for adjusting curriculum. The references in journal articles provide empirical data

on examining knowledge bases and flow of tourism and hospitality fields. This study took

bibliographic coupling approach to investigate knowledge bases and flows of six leading

tourism and hospitality journals. The five most common origins of references were

Management, Business, HLST, Sociology/Social Science and Psychology for tourism. The

knowledge of Hospitality was mainly based on Business and Management. Furthermore,

the climate change, sustainability, and technology have influence on the every perspective

of tourism and hospitality industry, while limited attention was paid to

Planning/Development, Political Science/Policy and Geography and Computer

Science/Technology. Thus, efforts should be made to reconsidering the content of tourism

and hospitality curriculum in reflecting the real world changes.

_________________________________________________________________________

Key Words: Tourism education, Knowledge base, Disciplinary focuses, Bibliometric

approach





1. Introduction

Knowledge is growing rapidly in the fields of tourism and hospitality. Studies have found

that there is a remarkable degree of specialization (Cheng, Li, Petrick, & O'Leary, 2011) and

derived knowledge from various knowledge bases (Yuan, Gretzel, & Tseng, 2014). Academic

scholars and practitioners will face the challenge of monitoring, gathering, analyzing, and

utilizing the growing volume of literature. Airey, Tribe, Lashley and Morrison (2000)

observed that the real challenge for tourism and hospitality education is identifying the

disciplinary compositions of the knowledge bases, which should reflect on curriculum

planning and design. As increasing number of college programs incorporate both ‘tourism’

and ‘hospitality’ in their titles, the disciplinary composition of knowledge bases of tourism

and hospitality fields remains unclear. For example, a recent study identified that tourism and

hospitality are two closely related but distinctive fields based on bibliographic coupling,

which suggests that they derived knowledge from different bases (Yuan, Tseng, & Chang,

2014).

The resolution of clarifying the knowledge bases of two fields not only has significant

implications for the curriculum design (Airey et al., 2000), but also leverages the

understanding of knowledge evolution (Yuan, Gretzel, et al., 2014), and identifies appropriate

research methodology (Yuan, Tseng, et al., 2014). To elucidate the disciplinary compositions

of the knowledge bases, two perspectives could be examined, namely field-based and

interdisciplinary orientation (Jacobs, 1989). The field-based perspective focuses on

delineating the divisions of knowledge bases. The focus of interdisciplinary orientation is on

examining the directions of knowledge flows between given fields. Allowing scholars to

acquire scientific knowledge with systematic attention to “the progressive mastery of closely

related concepts and patterns of reasoning” (Hirst & Peters, 1974).

Scientific knowledge generation builds upon earlier research to replicate and expand

incrementally fashion. In other words, scholars cite previous articles to lay the ground

knowledge for current research. To acknowledge the cited works, each journal article contains

citations, which suggest “the origins of a body of knowledge”. (1997, p. 46). Citations also

reflect knowledge links between previous researches and present ones (Baker, 1990). Those

links indicate a knowledge flow from the cited entity to the citing entity (Jafie, Trajtenberg, &

Fogarty, 2000; van Leeuwen & Tijssen, 2000). Additionally, links to previous research form a

paper trail that enables scholars to glean empirical evidence on the knowledge exchanges





between fields and disciplines, and to identify knowledge bases for knowledge production in

a scholar community.

Previous studies on knowledge development in tourism were based on subjective

professional judgment (see, for example, Crouch and Perdue (2014); Cheng et al. (2011)).

Taking an epistemological perspective, Yuan, Tseng and Chang (2014) found that tourism

and hospitality are two closely related fields, indicating that the study of knowledge

development of tourism should also incorporate that of hospitality. Therefore, this study

objectively examines the knowledge base that serves as the foundation of tourism and

hospitality. As the knowledge volume of academic studies continues to grow substantially,

automatic content analysis offers two advantages over previous studies: (1) the data-driven

approach reduces the potential bias of subjectivity, and (2) the computer-supported content

analysis software allows researchers to analyze the vast amount of published works in a

timely manner (Tseng, Chang, Tutwiler, Lin, & Barufaldi, 2013). This study builds on

previous research efforts by uncovering the knowledge bases of two fields to understand and

evaluate the disciplinary compositions of their building blocks. This work also examines the

knowledge flow between major tourism and hospitality journals in order to identify the

influence of the two fields on each other.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Review Knowledge Bases in Tourism and Hospitality

The disciplines reflect the problem that our knowledge of the world is divided into a larger

number of branches of knowledge. Tourism and hospitality are multidisciplinary in nature,

drawing from a wide range of disciplines to create knowledge. The work of Jafari and Ritchie

(1981) in tourism provides a primary disciplinary classification framework for investigating

the knowledge bases for both tourism and hospitality. They found that the study of tourism

borrowed theories and techniques from sixteen disciplines, namely Sociology, Economics,

Psychology, Anthropology, Political Science, Geography, Ecology, Agriculture, Parks &

Recreation, Urban and Regional Planning, Marketing, Law, Business, Transportation, Hotel

& Restaurant Administration, and Education.

Based on this Tourism Disciplinary Focus (TDF) framework, Jafari (1981) examined the

dissertation works from 1951 to 1987, and found that 15 disciplines helped shape the

dissertation works. Of those, Economics, Anthropology, Geography, Recreation, Business

Administration, Education, Sociology, Urban & Regional Planning, and Political Science





were proposed by TDF. Other relevant disciplines were Fine Arts, Social Work, Theology,

History, Mass Communication, and Public Relations.

As the number of tourism and hospitality research expands, the body of knowledge grows,

and new subject areas emerge. Studying tourism and hospitality requires greater

epistemological breadth than that suggested by Jafari and Ritchie (1981). Goeldner and

Ritchie (2006) expanded the original list of Jafari and Ritchie to cover 21 academic

disciplines. Six disciplines were added, namely Entrepreneurship, Architecture, History,

Kinesiology, Gaming, and Environmental Studies, while Ecology was delected. Tribe (2004)

noted out that not all disciplines listed in the work of Jafari and Ritchie (1981) are traditional

academic disciplines. Among those listed disciplines, hospitality, park, recreation, and

tourism are recognized as professional fields rather than academic disciplines (Tribe, 1997).

To make this list more comprehensive and to avoid the ambiguity of the concept of

discipline, Cheng et al. (2011) adopted the term “disciplinary focus”, which refers to “a

specific body of knowledge that does not necessarily have independent research methods or

theories (p. 55). Taking from this perspective, they extended the list of disciplinary areas

more to included eight disciplinary focuses that suggested by National Center for Education

Statistics (NCES, 2002). Those disciplinary focuses are Culture/Heritage Study, Management

& Administration, Finance, Computer Science/Technology, Gerontology, Literature,

Medicine, and Philosophy/Religion (see Table 1).

<<Insert Table 1 Here>>

Crouch and Perdue (2014) employed a systematic random sampling method to select

sample of 152 articles from 15 tourism journals published in 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2010. The

classification of disciplinary focuses was developed based on the Australian Research Council

(ARC) to identify the trend of tourism knowledge development. These disciplinary focuses

are Studies in Human Society, Psychology and Cognitive Sciences, Economics, Build

Environment & Design, Environmental Sciences, Multidisciplinary, Earth Sciences, Medical

and Health Sciences, Mathematical Sciences, Biological Sciences, Information & Computing

Sciences, Engineering, Agriculture & Veterinary Science, Philosophy & Religious Studies,

Language, Communication, Culture, Education, History & Archaeology, Law & Legal

Studies, Studies in Creative Arts, Writing and Physical Sciences.

Tribe (1997) observed that Sociology, Geography, Political Science, Law, Psychology,

Philosophy and Economics are typically identified as fundamental disciplines. The growth of

knowledge creation leads to the emergence of new disciplinary focuses. Thus, each discipline





classification framework is slightly different from other frameworks. The problem of defining

disciplinary focuses is that concise concept exists of the discipline, and no single disciplinary

classification framework encompasses all disciplines. Additionally, how to associate the

subdivided branches of knowledge with the disciplines proposed by the existing disciplinary

classification framework is unclear. Moreover, the classification of published works is based

on judgments of the authors. Even based on the same disciplinary classification framework,

different scholars may classify the same set of published works using different classification

schemes.

The above review demonstrates that the tourism and hospitality fields comprise broad and

diverse disciplines. A dynamic approach is required to reflect the continuous changes of

knowledge bases of the two fields. This study presents a bibliometric approach improving the

comprehensiveness of disciplinary classification framework to capture the breadth of

knowledge of tourism and hospitality.

2.2 Citations Signal Knowledge Flow and Reveal Knowledge Base

Citations are footprints by which the development of knowledge in a profession can be

followed. Authors provide citations to establish evidence in support of the arguments of their

later research. Thus, a citation is a link between the ideas and concepts expressed in scholarly

works (Baker, 1990). Citations are “the signal posts left by scholars in their published

research or intellectual debates” (Van Dalen & Henkens, 1999, p. 230). Additionally, citations

in journal articles represent the base of archival knowledge from which scholars apply

established ideas and, in turn, create new research ideas. Jamal, Smith and Watson (2008)

observed that the links between tourism and hospitality could be reflected on articles

published in tourism and hospitality-related journals. Therefore, citations indicate knowledge

flow among scholarly journals.

Bush et al. (1997) noted out that examining the collective patterns of journal citations

reveals the development of knowledge in a discipline or profession. Citing a work in a paper

establishes the linkage between the citing and cited literatures. Such links among literature

can be extended to the journals that publish those studies. The patterns of citations are a

“means for characterizing a field of study, defining its boundaries, and identifying its ties with

other areas” (Goldman, 1979, p. 485). Citation analysis thus reveals the knowledge bases of

the journals and the disciplines that they represent (Biehl, Kim, & Wade, 2006).





3. Methodology

3.1 Journals Data

Six journals were selected for this study. Three hospitality journals were used, namely

International Journal of Hospitality Management (IJHM), the Cornell Hospitality Quarterly

(CHQ), and the Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research (JHTR). CHQ was called

Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly (CHRAQ) and changed its name in

Year 2008. Three tourism journals were used, Annals of Tourism Research (ATR), Journal of

Travel Research (JTR) and Tourism Management (TM). All of them are top-rated journals

(Ferreira, DeFranco, & Rappole, 1994; McKercher, Law & Lam, 2006; Sheldon, 1990), and

are assigned to a subject category called ‘Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism’ (HLST) in

Journal Citation Reports (JCR).

3.2. Categorization of Knowledge Base

The journals analyzed in this study were restricted to those covered by the Journal Citation

Reports (JCR) and Web of Science (WoS) database, both published by Thomson Reuters.

JCR is a multidisciplinary journal database, covering more than 8,000 journals in Science

Citation Index (SCI) and 2,600 journals in Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), both indexes

being parts of WoS. A journal can be classified under different subject categories in the JCR.

However, journal papers in this study are uniquely classified into 22 Essential Science

Indicators (ESI) standard fields of Thomas Reuters (Pudovkin & Garfield, 2002).

No consensus exists on how to delineate academic discipline. The disciplinary focuses of

ESI include both natural science and social science, providing much more comprehensive

coverage than the TDF framework modified by Cheng, Li, Petrick, and O’Leary (2011).

Additionally, the disciplinary focuses of ESI vary slightly from the TDF framework. The

disciplinary focuses of ESI were clarified and adjusted to associate with the TDF framework

to ensure the classification result to be meaningful. First, some disciplinary fields presented in

the TDF framework, such as Architecture, are regarded as subject areas in ESI. In contrast,

‘Kinesiology’ is listed in the TDF framework as a major disciplinary focus, but it is not listed

in ESI. Second, some subject areas can be grouped into a disciplinary focus. For example, the

three subject areas Finance, Entrepreneurship, and Marketing are treated as separated

disciplinary focuses in the TDF framework, but are classified together as ‘Business’ in ESI.

This study adopted the broad disciplinary categories in ESI, such as Business, Linguistics,

and Management. Third, neither framework includes disciplinary focuses of Gaming and Park

& Recreation, nor a single journal with ‘Gaming’ or ‘Park and Recreation’ in its title.





Therefore, these two disciplinary focuses proposed by Goeldner et al. (2000) were assigned to

HLST in our list of disciplinary focuses for analysis. Finally, Nature Science,

Statistics/Mathematics and Engineering/Material Science were added to the classification

scheme.

3.3 Data Analysis Tool

Content Analysis Toolkit for Academic Research (CATAR), an automatic scientometric

tool, was employed for citation analysis to reveal the knowledge flow and classification of the

cited references to understand knowledge bases of tourism and hospitality. A corpus of WoS

data of interest was processed to obtain arrays of summarized background of the research

field, as well as citation analysis of selected journals. The detailed explanation of the method

and algorithms can be found in the works of Chang, Chang & Tseng (2010) and Tseng &

Tsay (2013).

To gather a corpus for the citation analysis, bibliographic data were downloaded from the

online WoS service on April 27, 2012. The data consisted of 1,362 full-length articles

published during the calendar years 2008 to 2011 by these six selected journals. Research

notes, reports, editor comments and other sections of the journals were excluded.

The journal classification procedure was as follows. First, all 72,157 cited references from

the 1,362 articles were classified into ‘Journal Citation’ and ‘Non-journal Citation’. For

journal citation, the cited journals were looked up according to the disciplinary classification

system of JCR to identify the subject areas. The 56,517 journal citations (78.3% of total

citations) covered a wide range of subject areas, 196 subject areas in JCR 2012. To further

identify the disciplinary focuses of each journal, the cited journals were assigned to one of 23

discipline categories (See “Other Disciplinary focus” in Table 2). Only cited journal

references were employed in this work; references from other types of sources, such as books,

conference proceedings were excluded.


4. Results

4.1 Knowledge Flows of Tourism and Hospitality

Table 3 provides an overview of the citation analysis for the 4-year period. In total, six

journals cited 72,157 references. The six tourism and hospitality journals draw 78.3% of their

citations from journals, and 21.7% from non-journal sources, such as books, conference

proceedings, reports, government documents, newspapers, and magazines. Five out of six

journals draw over 70% of their citations from journals, except ATR which only draws 67.4%





of its citations from journals. This finding indicates that journals are primary knowledge

sources utilized by scholars from both fields.


Table 4 presents the knowledge flows between the six selected journals. The rows

correspond to the cited journals, while the columns correspond to the citing journals. For

instance, ATR is cited 825 times by JTR, whereas ATR cites JTR 365 times. As revealed in

Table 4, cross citation between the selected hospitality and tourism journals is relatively low.

Both tourism and hospitality journals are more likely to cite materials from their fields.

Restated, tourism journals were cited significantly more by tourism journals than by

hospitality journals, while hospitality journals were cited more by hospitality journals than by

tourism journals. In addition, the cross citation rates between these two fields are not equal.

The likelihood for the three hospitality journals to cite materials from the three tourism

journals is slightly higher than the likelihood for the three tourism journals to cite materials

from the three hospitality journals.

Table 4 also indicates that ATR is cited most by the six journals over the four-years period

(3806), followed by TM (3533). JHTR, with 587 total cited counts, is the journal cited the

fewest times. However, one of the reasons could be the number of the articles published by

JHTR is less than other selected journals. Among the six journals, ATR is the journal most

referenced by tourism scholars, while CHQ is the premier journal referenced by hospitality

scholars. Neither are the largest journals in their fields (in terms of the number of published

articles), but they receive the most citations by all six journals. Comparing the self-citation

rates, Table 4 reveals that ATR, JTR, TM and CHQ have highest percentage of citations from

journals in their own field. The two premier journals have the highest self-citation rate in their

own fields. In general, tourism journals have more self-citation rates than hospitality journals.


Table 5 lists the aggregate counts of citations to tourism and hospitality sources

across three different time periods. Both tourism and hospitality journals cited a substantial

number of references from non-tourism and non-hospitality sources. Citations of tourism

journals derived from tourism sources accounts for 36.5% of total citations in the 2008–2011

time frame, but only 3.5% of citations derived from hospitality sources. Citations of

hospitality journals drawn from hospitality sources made up 16.7% of total citations within

2008–2011 time frame, but only 9.3% of cited references were drawn from tourism sources.

The interrelatedness of the tourism and hospitality fields in this study was slightly lower than

in the findings of Kim et al. (2009). The number of citations by the hospitality journals to





tourism sources fell from 12.6% to 9.3% from 2003–2005 to 2008–2011. The number of

citations by the tourism journals to hospitality sources also fell from 4.3% to 3.5%. These two

fields still draw knowledge heavily from other disciplinary focuses.


4.2 Disciplinary Composition of Knowledge Bases

Figure 1 displays the disciplinary composition of the tourism knowledge base, in which

90% of the cited references belonged to one of the 22 disciplines. The five most common

origins of references were HLST (21.2%), Sociology/Social Sciences (18.4%), Management

(14.7%), Business (10.7%) and Psychology (4.8%), accounting for 69.8% of citations, while a

very small proportion of citations came from Agricultural Sciences (0.3%), Anthropology

(0.4%), Education (0.3%), Engineering/Material Sciences (0.7%), Gerontology (0.1%),

History/Philosophy (0.1%), Linguistics/Literature (0.0%), Medicine (0.4%), Political

Science/Policy (0.6%), and Transportation (0.9%). These least common disciplinary focuses

account for only 3.8% of total citations.

Additionally, Management, Business, and Economics are three closely related disciplinary

focuses. The total number of citations to these three disciplinary focuses represents a

substantial influence of 29.3 % on the knowledge creation of the six journals. This finding

was close to the results of Van Doren et al (1994) who found that Management, Economics,

and Business accounted for 31.2% of total citations. The work of Kim et al. (2009) also

identified a similar citation pattern, in which 34.8% of citations were drawn from these

disciplinary focuses.

<<Insert Figure 1 Here>>

Figure 2 illustrates the disciplinary composition of knowledge base in hospitality.

Citations concentrated around two disciplinary focuses Business (25.0%) and Management

(22.5%). References from these two disciplinary focuses were cited more heavily by the

hospitality than by tourism. Psychology (13.1%) and Sociology/Social Sciences (11.5%) also

contributed many citations. Eleven disciplinary focuses contributing less than 1% of citations

each, namely Anthropology (0.0%), Linguistics/Literature (0.0%), Engineering/Material

Sciences, Gerontology (0.1%), History/Philosophy (0.1%), Political Science/Policy (0.2%),

Transportation (0.2%), Medicine (0.3%), Education (0.4%), Geography (0.1%), and

Planning/Development (0.6%) were the least cited disciplinary focuses, accounting for only

2.8% of total citations.

<<Insert Figure 2 Here>>





Considerable differences in the knowledge bases were found between tourism and

hospitality journals. Notably, knowledge derived from six disciplinary focuses, namely

Environmental Studies, Natural Science, Planning/Development, Geography, Transportation,

and Anthropology, were cited significantly more by tourism than by hospitality. Additionally,

Agricultural Sciences was less cited by tourism than by hospitality. Nevertheless, both fields

rarely derived knowledge from Education, History/Philosophy, Gerontology and

Linguistics/Literature.

5. Discussions and Conclusion

The analysis of knowledge bases and flows allows scholars for empirical observations

regarding the linkage of the two fields. Cross-citation analysis also reveals the knowledge

bases of the two fields. The percentage of citations to hospitality field from (cited by) tourism

journals was very low at 4.3%, while citations to tourism journals only account for 1.3% of

total citations from hospitality journals. This citation pattern implies a limited knowledge

flow between the tourism and hospitality fields. Analytical results also indicate that journals

are the chief means of communication among tourism and hospitality scholars, ahead of

books and other transmitters. Both tourism and hospitality journals draw knowledge from a

wide diversity of disciplinary focuses.

Each reference in an article can be regarded as a building block in the construction of

knowledge of a field. The original disciplinary focus of a reference therefore indicates the

intellectual influences of other disciplines to tourism and hospitality. The frequency of the

citations reflects the links of tourism and hospitality fields to other disciplines. Different

disciplines did not contribute to tourism and hospitality fields identically. As indicated in Figs

1 and 2, the knowledge bases of tourism and hospitality were similar in that both had

Management, Business, HLST, Sociology/Social Science and Psychology as the five major

contributing disciplinary focuses. However, the different knowledge composition of

disciplinary focuses made up of “building blocks” for the two fields. Both tourism and

hospitality scholars were found to cite many works from two disciplinary focuses, Business

and Management. In particular, Business and Management account for 47.5% of its total

citations for hospitality, clearly revealing that hospitality discipline is mainly based on

Business/Management with a prominent secondary base on Psychology (with 13.1% of

citations). Hospitality journals draw only 9% of references from HLST, while receiving

considerable influence from Sociology/Social Sciences (11.5%).





In comparison with hospitality, tourism draws significantly knowledge from HLST

(21.2%). It is strongly inspired by Sociology/Social Sciences (18.4), and is less influenced by

Psychology (4.8%). However, Business and Management remains a prominent influence on

tourism, with 25.4% of knowledge derived from these two disciplinary focuses. In other

words, the knowledge composition of disciplinary focuses primary divided into two parts: the

business of tourism and non-business of tourism as identified by Tribe (2005). Geography and

Anthropology, which were once recognized as two of major contributing disciplinary focuses

by tourism scholars (Jafari & Ritchie, 1981; Przechlawsk, 1993; Tribe, 1997), have weakened

their influences on tourism and hospitality. Among three newly emerging disciplinary focuses

after 90s identified by Cheng et al. (2011), Computer Science/Technology received more

citations (1.6%) than Linguistic/Literature and Medicine (0.4%), which coincided with the

findings of Cheng et al. (2011). Additionally, a diverse range of journals was cited from a

wide range of disciplinary focuses, supporting the point made by scholars from both fields

that tourism and hospitality are interdisciplinary research fields (Darbellay & Stock, 2012).

This study shows a rebound on citations from non-tourism and hospitality sources when

compared to the works of Howey et al. (1999) and Kim et al. (2009). Both fields of tourism

and hospitality still incorporate a high proportion of references from other disciplines,

revealing that the two fields are capable of drawing on and synthesizing a wide range of

disciplines. This finding suggests that the intrinsic nature of tourism field is gradually

evolving from an object studied in multiple disciplines without interactions to a phenomenon

studied by fusing interdisciplinary efforts. As pointed out by Darbellay and Stock:

Tourism as a complex object is co-constructed within this interdisciplinary

process on the basis of existing disciplinary competences. Therefore, the

knowledge produced is not reducible to the disciplinary perspectives, but has a

new quality. It creates new concepts by assembling the different disciplinary

elements (2012, p. 454).

Significantly, knowledge creation in tourism and hospitality can be scrutinized from the

perspective of contributing disciplinary focuses. The origins of references derived from

diverse disciplinary focuses indicate the inter-disciplinarity of tourism and hospitality.

Scholars in tourism and hospitality help create interdisciplinary knowledge to resolve a real-

world problem (Fidgeon, 2010).

These real-world issues involve social change, environmental sustainability, globalization,

and rapid advances in technology (Go, 1998; Ring, Dickinger, & Wöber, 2009). Although

Morgan (2004) claimed, “【 the academic field】…has been ahead of the industry in





emphasizing the social and environmental impact of tourism and the need of sustainable

development” (Morgan, 2004: 97), still the majority of knowledge was created on the basis of

“Management’ and ‘Business’. Sustainable tourism policy, planning and development is

considered the least important component in curriculum design (Ring et al., 2009). Tourism

education emerges as a result of the recognition of the economic significance of the tourism

industry by the public and private sectors and ought to reflect changes. Climate change is the

common challenges facing by both public and private sectors, while the insufficiency of

present knowledge calls the needs for building links between academic scholars and the world

of tourism practice. Efforts should be made to incorporate the concept of sustainability into

curriculum in order to nourish the mind of future-to-be practitioners. Furthermore, the

growing significance of IT in tourism did not lead to the increased usage of knowledge drawn

from ‘Computer Science/Technology’ in our analysis. IT/eCommerce/eTourism are largely

neglected in undergraduate curriculum (Ring et al., 2009).

The world is becoming increasingly interconnected as new issues and complex problems

emerge. The important areas of study are continuously evolving to resolving those problems.

The knowledge bases have massively expanded and changed (Airey, Dredge and Cross 2015).

Additionally, none of these complex problems can be understood from the sole perspective of

management and business (Coles, Hall, & Duval, 2009). Tourism and hospitality educators

have to open their minds to the newly created knowledge derived from disciplinary focuses

not previously recognized, and restructure the curriculum to enrich its knowledge breadth.

Restated, a tourism and hospitality curriculum is best designed as an interdisciplinary object

of study in which creation and dissemination of knowledge of tourism and hospitality should

and must go beyond disciplinary boundaries.

References

Airey, D., Tribe, J., Lashley, C., & Morrison, A. (2000). Education for hospitality. In search of

hospitality: Theoretical perspectives and debates, 276-291.

Dredge, D., Airey, D., & Gross, M.J. (2015). The Routledge Handbook of Tourism and Hospitality

Education. New York: Routledge.

Baker, D. (1990). Citation analysis: A methodological review. Social Work Research & Abstracts,

26(3), 3-10.

Biehl, M., Kim, H., & Wade, M. (2006). Relationships among the academic business disciplines: a

multi-method citation analysis. Omega, 34, 359-371.

Bush, I., Epstein, I., & Sainz, A. (1997). The use of social science sources in social work practice

journals: An application of citation analysis. Social Work Research, 21(1), 45-56.

Chang, Y.-H., Chang, C.-Y., & Tseng, Y.-H. (2010). Trends of Science Education Research: An

Automatic Content Analysis. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(4), 315-331.





Cheng, C.-K., Li, X. R., Petrick, J. F., & O'Leary, J. T. (2011). An examination of tourism journal

development. Tourism Management, 32(1), 53-61.

Coles, T., Hall, C., Michael, & Duval, D. T. (2009). Post-disciplinary tourism. In J. Tribe (Ed.),

Philosophical Issues in Tourism (pp. 80-100). Clevedon: GBR: Channel View Publications.

Crouch, G. I., & Perdue, R. R. (2014). The Disciplinary Foundations of Tourism Research 1980-2010.

Journal of Travel Research, 0047287514559036.

Darbellay, F., & Stock, M. (2012). Tourism as complex interdisciplinary research object. Annals of

Tourism Research, 39(1), 441-458.

Ferreira, R., DeFranco, A., & Rappole, C. (1994). Rating the hospitality journals. International Journal

of Hospitality Mangement, 13(3), 209-218.

Fidgeon, P. R. (2010). Tourism education and curriculum design: A time for consolidation and review?

Tourism Management, 31(6), 699-723.

Geoldner, C. R., Richie, J. R. B., & McIntosh, R. W. (2000). Tourism: Principles, Practices,

Philosophies. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Go, F. M. (1998). Globalization and emerging tourism education issues. In W. F. Theobald (Ed.),

Global Tourism (Second ed., pp. 447). Oxford: Routledge.

Goeldner, C. R., & Ritchie, J. B. (2006). Tourism: Principles, practices, philosophies: John Wiley &

Sons.

Goldman, A. (1979). Publishing Activity in Marketing as an Indicator of Its Structure and Disciplinary

Boundaries. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(4), 485-949.

Hirst, P. H., & Peters, R. S. (1974). The Curriculum. In E. W. Eisner & E. Vallance (Eds.), Conflicting

Conceptions of Curriculum. Series on Contemporary Educational Issues. Berkeley, California:

McCutchen.

Howey, R. M., Savage, K. S., Verbeeten, M. J., & Van Hoof, H. B. (1999). Tourism and hospitality

research journals: cross-citations among research communities. Tourism Management, 20, 133-139.

Jacobs, H. H. (1989). The growing need for interdisciplinary curriculum content. Interdisciplinary

curriculum: Design and implementation, 1-11.

Jafari, J., & Ritchie, B. J. R. (1981). Toward a framework for tourism education: Problems and

prospects. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(1), 13-34.

Jafie, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Fogarty, M. S. (2000). Knowledge spillovers and patent citations:

Evidence from a survey of inventors. NBER/Sloan, 21.

Jamal, T. B., Smith, B., & Watson, E. (2008). Ranking, rating and scoring of tourism journals:

Interdisciplinary challenges and innovations. Tourism Management, 29, 66-78.

Kim, Y., Savage, K. S., Howey, R. M., & Van Hoof, H. B. (2009). Academic foundations for

hospitality and tourism research: A reexamination of citations. Tourism Management, 30(November),

752-758.

McKercher, B., Law, R., & Lam, T. (2006). Rating tourism and hospitality journals. Tourism

Management, 27(6), 1235-1252.





Przechlawsk, K. (1993). Tourism as the subject of interdisciplinary research. In D. Pearce & R. Butler

(Eds.), Tourism Research: Critiques and Challenges (pp. 9-19). London: Routledge.

Pudovkin, A. I., & Garfield, E. (2002). Algorithmic procedure for finding semantically related journals.

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(13), 1113-1119.

Ring, A., Dickinger, A., & Wöber, K. (2009). Designing the ideal undergraduate program in tourism:

Expectations from industry and educators. Journal of Travel Research, 48(1), 106-121.

Sheldon, P. J. (1990). Journals in tourism and hospitality: The perceptions of publishing faculty. The

Journal of Tourism Studies, 1(1), 42-48.

Tribe, J. (1997). The indiscipline of tourism. Aannals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 638-657.

Tribe, J. (2004). Knowing about tourism. Qualitative research in tourism: Ontologies, epistemologies

and methodologies, 46.

Tribe, J. (2005). New tourism research. Tourism Recreation Research, 30, 5-8.

Tseng, Y.-H., Chang, C.-Y., Tutwiler, M. S., Lin, M.-C., & Barufaldi, J. P. (2013). A scientometric

analysis of the effectiveness of Taiwan’s educational research projects. Scientometrics, 95(3), 1141-

1166.

Tseng, Y.-H., & Tsay, M.-Y. (2013). Journal clustering of library and information science for subfield

delineation using the bibliometric analysis toolkit: CATAR. Scientometrics, 95(2), 503-528.

Van Dalen, H. P., & Henkens, K. (1999). How influential are demography journals? Population and

Development Review, 25(2), 229-251.

Van Doren, C. S., Koh, Y. K., & McCahill, A. (1994). Tourism research: A State-of-the-art citation.

Tourism Research, 308-315.

van Leeuwen, T., & Tijssen, R. (2000). Interdisciplinary dynamics of modern science: analysis of

cross-disciplinary citation flows. Research Evaluation, 9(3), 183-187.

doi: 10.3152/147154400781777241

Yuan, Y., Gretzel, U., & Tseng, Y. H. (2014). Revealing the nature of contemporary tourism research:

Extracting common subject areas through bibliographic coupling. International Journal of Tourism

Research.

Yuan, Y. Y., Tseng, Y.-H., & Chang, C.-Y. (2014). Tourism subfield identification via journal

clustering. Annals of Tourism Research, 47, 77-80.

Table 1: Disciplinary Focuses Framework Adopted in Previous Studies

Disciplinary Focuses

Jafari and Ritchie (1981) Cheng, Petrick, and O’Leary (2011) Crouch and Perdue (2014)

Sociology Sociology Studies in human society

Economics Economics Economics

Psychology Psychology Psychology and cognitive

sciences





Anthropology Anthropology History and archaeology

Political science Political science Multidisciplinary

Geography Geography Earth science

Ecology Environmental studies Environmental studies

Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture and veterinary

science

Park and recreation Park and recreation Mathematical sciences

Urban and regional planning Urban and regional planning Engineering

Marketing Marketing Studies in creative arts and

writing

Law Law Law and legal studies

Business Business Physical sciences

Transportation Transportation

Hotel and Restaurant

Administration

Hotel and Restaurant

Administration

Education Education Education

Architecture Built environment and design

Computer science/technology Information and computing

sciences

Literature Language, communication, and

culture

Medicine Medical and health sciences

Philosophy/religion Philosophy and religion studies

Culture/heritage study

Entrepreneurship

Finance

Gaming

Georntology

History

Management/ Administration

Kinesiology

Table 2: Disciplinary Focus Classification Framework Adopted in this Study

Agricultural Sciences Geosciences Planning/Development

Business Gerontology Political science/Policy

Computer

Sciences/Technology

History/Philosophy Psychology

Economics Hospitality, Leisure,

Sport & Tourism

Sociology/Social

Sciences

Education Linguistics/Literature Statistics/Mathematics

Engineering/Material

Science

Management Transportation

Environmental studies Medicine Other disciplinary focus

Geography Nature Science





Table 3: Overview of Six Selected Journals (2008-2011)

Citing Journal ATR JTR TM CHQ IJHM JHTR Grand Total

Cited Source NC % NC % NC % NC % NC % NC % NC %

Total Journal Citation 8264 67.4 7378 74.2 17916 80.6 4504 97.1 13893 79.1 4426 78.2 56517 78.3

Total Non-journal Citation 3992 32.6 2564 25.8 4304 19.4 136 2.9 3680 20.9 1236 21.8 15640 21.7

Total Citation 12256 100 9942 100 22220 100 4640 100 17573 100 5662 100 72157 100

Table 4: Cross-Citation Analysis of Six Selected Journals (2008-2011)

Tourism Journal Hospitality Journal Grand Total

Citing Journal ATR JTR TM CHQ IJHM JHTR

Cited Journal NC % NC % NC % NC % NC % NC % NC %

ATR 1438 11.7 825 8.3 1248 5.6 20 0.4 173 1 102 1.8 3806 5.3

JTR 365 3.0 903 9.1 974 4.4 31 0.7 171 1 111 2 2555 3.5

TM 563 4.6 555 5.6 1818 8.2 61 1.4 395 2.2 141 2.5 3533 4.9

CHQ1 24 0.1 57 0.6 98 0.4 468 10.4 484 2.8 155 2.7 1286 1.8

IJHM 34 0.3 50 0.5 177 0.8 81 1.8 781 4.4 103 1.8 1226 1.7

JHTR 21 0.2 37 0.4 84 0.4 35 0.8 233 1.3 177 3.1 587 0.8

Other Tourism Sources2 2253 18.4 1510 15.2 3793 17.1 267 5.9 828 4.7 289 5.1 8940 12.4

Other Hospitality Sources3 191 1.6 243 2.4 526 2.4 293 6.5 1385 7.9 444 7.8 3082 4.3

Other Sources4 7367 60.1 5762 58.0 13520 60.8 3248 72.1 13123 74.7 4140 73.1 47142 65.3

Total citations 12256 100 9942 100 22220 100 4504 100 17573 100 5662 100 72157 100

Note: 1the former name of CHQ was Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly

2 Other Tourism Sources refer to the tourism journals other than ATR, JTR, and TM.

3 Other Hospitality Sources refer to the hospitality journals other than CHQ, IJHM, and JHTR.

4 Other Sources refer to all sources excluding the six selected journals and other tourism and hospitality journals.





Table 5: Aggregate Citation Percentages to Tourism and Hospitality Sources across Three Different Periods of Time

Citing Tourism Journals1 Hospitality Journals2

Cited 1994-1996a 2003-2005 a 2008-2011 1994-1996 a 2003-2005 a 2008-2011

Tourism sources 21.8 51.0 36.5 3.6 12.6 9.3

Hospitality sources 1.7 4.3 3.5 17.4 21.5 16.7

Non-Tourism and Non-Hospitality Sources3 76.5 44.7 60.0 79.0 66.9 73.9

Note: 1 Tourism journals include ATR, JTR, and TM

.

2 Hospitality journals include CHQ, IJHM, and JHTR.

3 Non-Tourism and Non-Hospitality Sources refers to the sources excluding tourism and hospitality sources

a Data adopted from Kim et al. (2009)





Figure 1: Knowledge Compositions of Disciplinary Focuses in Tourism

Management 14.7%

Business 10.7%

Economics 3.9%

Hospitality, Leisure, Sport

& Tourism, 21.2%

Sociology/Social

Sciences 18.4%Gerontology, 0.1%

Anthropology, 0.4%

Psychology 4.8%

Geography 1.7%

History/Philosophy 0.1%

Linguistics/Literature

0.0%

Environmental Studies

3.0%

Natural Science; 2.9%Planning/Development 1.9%

Agricultural Sciences

0.3%

Statistics/Mathematics

1.5%

Computer Science/Technology 1.6%

Engineering/Material Sciences 0.7%

Transportation 0.9%

Medicine 0.4% Education

0.3%

Political Science/Policy

0.6%

Other

Disciplines,

10.0%





Figure 2: Knowledge Compositions of Disciplinary Focuses in Hospitality

Management

22.5%

Business

25.0%

Economics

4.1%

Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism

9.0%

Sociology/Social

Sciences

11.5%

Gerontology

0.1%Anthropology

0.0%

Psychology

13.1%Geography

0.1%

History/Philosophy

0.1%

Linguistics/Literature

0.0%

Environmental Studies

1.0%

Natural Science

1.0%

Planning/Development

0.6%

Agricultural Sciences

1.0%

Statistics/Mathematics

1.0%

Computer Science/Technology

1.3%

Engineering/Material Sciences

0.8%

Transportation

0.2%Medicine

0.3%

Education

0.4% Political Science/Policy

0.2%

Other Disciplines

6.8%

Global Review of Research in Tourism, Hospitality and...

Documents

Transcript of Global Review of Research in Tourism, Hospitality and...