Item

Touristry or tourismology: the advancement of tourism knowledge

Wilson, Steve
Date
2007
Type
Dissertation
Fields of Research
ANZSRC::1506 Tourism , ANZSRC::130202 Curriculum and Pedagogy Theory and Development
Abstract
"If we accept the principle that science is not a question of numbers but of reasoning, a qualitative study can be as sound as a quantitative one" (Decrop, 1999, pp.160). The quest for more in-depth insights should fuel exploration of more innovative research practices and engagement with more sophisticated and contemporary debates surrounding epistemology, ontology and methodology which have gained momentum in other disciplines (Goodson & Hollinshead, 2004). This paper attempts to engage in this debate with particular concern with tourism research and knowledge production. The field of tourism needs to embrace a general recognition of the legitimacy of a variety of research tools. Tourism needs to forcefully articulate, in a general and universal way, that it is a broad and distinct field and that it embraces a variety of appropriate research strategies. Such observations lead to the realisation that a plurality of equally valid research strategies exists within tourism. Understanding what can be offered by doing research in different ways is the first step along the long journey towards greater acceptance and legitimisation of non-traditional techniques. Clearly, such an understanding will only emerge if researchers enable others to view the various decisions made throughout the research process, the justification and evaluation of decisions taken in light of their influence and epistemological standpoints. Through this opening up of process, it is hoped to encourage others to develop other innovative approaches and advance the state of qualitative research in tourism. Despite the prominence of anthropological and sociological influences in qualitative tourism research, there would appear to be few who have pushed the paradigmatic boundaries. While it is clear that qualitative methods have become more widely used and, arguably, more accepted as a legitimate approach to research, it would appear that many researchers are still operating within the boundaries of a limited range of epistemological, ontological and methodological frameworks (Goodson & Phillimore, 2004). Although tourism researchers have started to question the shortcomings of positivism and quantification on the grounds that they are not fully equipped to explore questions of meaning and understanding, they have yet to expose themselves to the wider range of qualitative approaches which will enable them to begin to tackle issues around the authority of interpretation and access the multiple realities associated with lived experience. There is hesitancy in tourism researchers to challenging the dominant inquiry paradigms (Phillimore & Goodson, 2004). In an effort to forward tourism research and knowledge, it is suggested that this research and the knowledge it produces becomes more reflexive, cohesive, contextualised, with theory generation becoming an important aspect to the building of tourism as a field of study. The issue of 'yield' emerges and mixed methods and multi-strategy is encouraged in responding to the research question(s) being investigated, while dealing with the limitations and issues of the 'real world' of research, rather than simply concerning oneself with epistemological, ontological and paradigmatic concerns. Academic and industry leadership needs to promote these changes and help break through structural forces that will inhibit the future methodological changes. Explicit justification in research is imperative so that the reasons behind and influences upon the research gaze can be understood. Knowledge management should play an important role in the formation of an integrative framework, ensuring the best use of an ever increasing amount of tourism research, and that future research is founded on a reasonably complete understanding of past research. Additionally, innovative methods of dissemination may promote the validity of qualitative methods to those who are pessimistic of such techniques.
Source DOI
Rights
https://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz/pages/rights
Creative Commons Rights
Access Rights
Digital thesis can be viewed by current staff and students of Lincoln University only. If you are the author of this item, please contact us if you wish to discuss making the full text publicly available.