Tourism Research Paradigms : Critical and Emergent Knowledges 9781783509300, 9781783509294

Citation preview

Tourism Social Science Series Volume 22

Tourism Research Paradigms: Critical and Emergent Knowledges

Tourism Social Science Series

Series Editor: Jafar Jafari

University of Wisconsin-Stout, USA Universitat de les Illes Balears, Spain Email: [email protected]

The books in this Tourism Social Science Series (TSSSeries) are intended to systematically and cumulatively contribute to the formation, embodiment and advancement of knowledge in the field of tourism.

The TSSSeries’ multidisciplinary framework and treatment of tourism includes application of theoretical, methodological, and substantive contributions from such fields as anthropology, business administration, ecology, economics, geography, history, hospitality, leisure, planning, political science, psychology, recreation, religion, sociology, transportation, etc., but it significantly favors state-of-the-art presentations, works featuring new directions, and especially the cross-fertilization of perspectives beyond each of these singular fields. While the development and production of this book series is fashioned after the successful model of Annals of Tourism Research, the TSSSeries further aspires to assure each theme a comprehensiveness possible only in book-length academic treatment. Each volume in the series is intended to deal with a particular aspect of this increasingly important subject, thus to play a definitive role in the enlarging and strengthening of the foundation of knowledge in the field of tourism, and consequently to expand the frontiers of knowledge into the new research and scholarship horizons ahead.

Published TSSSeries titles:

Volume 21: Volume 20: Volume 19: Volume 18: Volume 17: Volume 16: Volume 15: Volume 14: Volume 13: Volume 12: Volume 11: Volume 10: Volume 9: Volume 8: Volume 7:

Tourism Education: Global Issues and Trends, Pauline J. Sheldon and Cathy H. C. Hsu Tourism Research Frontiers: Beyond the Boundaries of Knowledge, Donna Chambers and Tijana Rakić Geographies of Tourism: European Research Perspectives, Julie Wilson and Salvador Anton Clavé Tourism Social Media: Transformations in Identity, Community and Culture, Ana María Munar, Szilvia Gyimóthy and Liping Cai Culture and Society in Tourism Contexts, A-M. Nogués-Pedregal The Discovery of Tourism Economics, Larry Dwyer The Study of Tourism: Foundations from Psychology, Philip Pearce Modern Mass Tourism, Julio R. Aramberri The Discovery of Tourism, Stephen L. J. Smith The Sociology of Tourism: European Origins and Developments, Graham M. S. Dann and Giuli Liebman Parrinello Explorations in Thai Tourism: Collected Case Studies, Erik Cohen Identity Tourism: Imaging and Imagining the Nation, Susan Pitchford  The Study of Tourism: Anthropological and Sociological Beginnings, Dennison Nash  Contemporary Tourism: Diversity and Change, Erik Cohen  Empowerment for Sustainable Tourism Development, T. H. B. Sofield

Volume 6: Volume 5:

 Exporting Paradise: Tourism and Development in Mexico, Michael Clancy  Tourism and Modernity: A Sociological Analysis, Ning Wang

Tourism Social Science Series Volume 22

Tourism Research Paradigms: Critical and Emergent Knowledges ANA MARÍA MUNAR Copenhagen Business School, Denmark

TAZIM JAMAL Texas A&M University, USA

 United Kingdom – North America – Japan India – Malaysia – China



Emerald Group Publishing Limited Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK First edition 2016 Copyright © 2016 Emerald Group Publishing Limited Reprints and permissions service Contact: [email protected] No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-78350-929-4 ISSN: 1571-5043 (Series)

Contents

Chapter 1 What are Paradigms for? Ana María Munar and Tazim Jamal Chapter 2 Heritage Tourism and Conservation: A Cultural Resilience Bridge? Carolina Manrique, Tazim Jamal and Robert Warden Chapter 3 A Humanist Paradigm for Tourism Studies?: Envisioning a Collective Alternative to Epistemic Literalism Kellee Caton Chapter 4 When is a Paradigm not a Paradigm? Graham M. S. Dann Chapter 5 Toward a Critical Ecofeminist Research Paradigm for Sustainable Tourism Blanca A. Camargo, Tazim Jamal and Erica Wilson Chapter 6 Embodying Cosmopolitan Paradigms in Tourism Research Margaret Byrne Swain Chapter 7 The Paradigmatic Tourist The Paradigmatic Tourist Chapter 8 The Paradigmatic Tourist The Systemic Paradigm The Systemic Paradigm Chapter 9 A Logical Step to Tourism Science Kazuyoshi Takeuchi Chapter 10 An Approach to Tourism Research in Spain José-Antonio Corral-Marfil and Gemma Ca`noves-Valiente Chapter 11 “Paradigmatic” Reflections and Looking Forward Tazim Jamal and Ana María Munar

References About the Authors

Chapter 1

WHAT ARE PARADIGMS FOR? Ana María Munar Copenhagen Business School, Denmark

Tazim Jamal Texas A&M University, USA

INTRODUCTION “Celebrating and Enhancing the Tourism Knowledge-Based Platform: A Tribute to Jafar Jafari” (www.jafaritribute.org) was organized by the University of the Balearic Islands (Spain) and Copenhagen Business School (Denmark), gathering over hundred tourism academics from 34 different nationalities in Palma de Mallorca on October 23–25, 2013. The event honored the life and work of Professor Jafari and his contribution to tourism research and education. The presentations at the tribute analyzed and expanded his legacy in the areas of tourism paradigms, research frontiers, and education. The chapters compiled in this volume are a selection of the presentations and dialogues on the topic of research paradigms. This book completes the tribute collection published in the Emerald Tourism Social Science Series, which also includes two other books: Tourism Research Frontiers: Beyond the Boundaries of Knowledge (Donna Chambers and Tijana Rakić, Eds.) and Tourism Education: Global Issues and Trends (Pauline J. Sheldon and Cathy H. C. Hsu, Eds.). The idea of paradigm has been, since its introduction by Thomas Kuhn in his classic The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1970), the focus of multiple studies about the evolution of scientific knowledge. Controversial from its very beginning, the popular use of the paradigm concept goes hand-in-hand with the diversity of opinions and interpretations about its meaning (Delanty & Strydom, 2003). The use of the term in tourism studies has mirrored this general tendency in the social sciences. Tourism scholars have applied the term in such a large variety of ways that its usefulness can be rightly questioned (Botterill & Platenkamp, 2012). Facing this confusion, it is relevant to ask when introducing a book on this topic What Are Paradigms for? But before moving to the analyses guided by this question, let us briefly touch on what can be achieved by this discussion. The study of paradigms allows for a better understanding of the history of science and scientific change. It constitutes a lens to examine complex and conflictive processes of scientific knowledge formation in a field. It can enhance self-

reflection and self-understanding in scholarship, similar to placing a torch inside the black box of knowledge production. What follows presents an analysis that addresses this question, examines some of the most common understandings of the word paradigm in tourism studies, explores the paradigmatic in Jafar Jafari’s scholarship, and introduces the contribution of the authors of this volume to this ongoing debate.

PARADIGMS IN CONTEXT To understand the importance of Kuhn’s idea of paradigm, it is necessary to mention the controversy that his thesis generated in relation to the ahistorical and idealizing view of science based on the positivist and post-positivist approaches present at the time (e.g., those represented by Popper’s ideas of science as a continuous process of confirmation and falsification). Kuhn’s thesis showed that science was not the result of a linear process of accumulation of validated knowledge, but instead the result of a more controversial and conflictive scenario characterized by agreements and defensive strategies (competition among segments of the same scientific community), normal and revolutionary aspects, “commitments” and accepted practices of a research community in a specific historical time and context. He introduced the term “paradigm” in his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), as a tool to explain these conflicting evolutionary practices, and later expanded on it in the second edition (1970), with an additional postscript in the third edition in 1996. Paradigms, he wrote, are “universally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners” (1970, p. viii). Here the word “achievement” does not imply its traditional meaning (from the Oxford dictionary: A thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage). It instead refers to “the achievements that some particular scientific community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice” (1970, p. 10). He further specifies that these include the body of accepted theory and the legitimate problems and methods of a research field. Furthermore, these achievements are “unprecedented to attract an enduring group of adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity” and “sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of problems for the redefined group of practitioners to resolve” (1970, p. 10). Therefore, paradigms entail the body of knowledge, methods, and practices adopted and cherished by a research community and include disruptive elements of novelty and change. That is why Kuhn argues that the study of paradigms is also a tool for younger scholars to access membership of an academic community and to attain specific academic identities. This is one of the answers to the question of what paradigms are for—they act as sense-making, identity-crafting tools of scholarly communities. They also help to position oneself in a complex research landscape, defining “us” and “the other(s)” in the community of researchers in tourism studies. Or, as stated by Botterill and Platenkamp, the understanding of paradigms “can increase your selfunderstanding of the identity of the research selections you are trying to make” (2012, p. 135).

As the contributions in this volume attest, it is the emphasis on the idea of community of practice which has turned out to be the most fruitful aspect of Kuhn’s conceptualization, and one that has been successfully adopted and expanded by other scholars from inside and outside the tourism domain. Pernecky in his entry about Paradigms in the Encyclopedia of Tourism (2nd edition) states that: The contemporary use of the term paradigm suggests that it plays a specific role in the research process. As a system of views and beliefs, it is interconnected with ontology, epistemology, and methodology. Taken together, these form the research design: setting the parameters for what it is possible to know, while acknowledging researchers’ philosophical assumptions about reality, and their attitude towards the research problem. To determine under which paradigm they operate, it is thus necessary to immerse themselves in the underpinning ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions, which in turn guide the researchers’ actions. (Pernecky, forthcoming) Tribe, Dann, and Jamal (2015) reflect on this topic in a research article that adopts a trialogical approach and results from the tribute to Jafari. At the tribute, Tribe presented a keynote address on paradigms, while Dann and Jamal formed part of the final panel of the symposium, which took up the discussion of tourism research paradigms. Each of their analyses of paradigms and the evolution of tourism knowledge differs in a number of aspects. However, they all stress the “cultural” component of the paradigm concept. Tribe defines it as “the constellation of beliefs values techniques and so on shared by the members of the tourism academy” (2015, p. 30) and Jamal follows Kuhn’s conceptualization. Dann (2011a, 2011b) combines his own definition with the contributions of Guba (1990) and Ford (1975) (both cited by Dann, part D, in Tribe et al., 2015, pp. 38–39), specifying that paradigms “are conceptual frameworks based on shifting meanings in changing space and time” (Dann, part D, in Tribe et al., 2015, p. 38) and that they “comprise basic beliefs, figurations or facts, rules of reasonableness and kept knowledge” (Dann, part D, in Tribe et al., 2015, p. 39).

Insights and Polemics Kuhn’s thesis on scientific paradigms hides at its core several deep insights. The evolution of science (and its claims on scientific truths) depends on a series of arbitrary elements (specific scientific cultures and power); the accomplishments of science do not necessarily build on each other and may at times, in fact, stand in radical opposition and negate each other. Additionally, another major insight inspired by Kuhn’s work is that: the practice of social science and philosophical reflection are not separate activities occupying different levels but are rather intrinsically connected with one another. […] The social scientist—the sociologist, the historian, the

anthropologist—is not simply a practitioner of a scientific discipline, but is at the same time also a philosopher of social science. […] In this view, the philosophy of social science is a reflective discourse on the practice of social science. […] The social scientist does not simply engage in doing or practicing his or her discipline, but at the same time also thinks about or reflects upon how the process unfolds and is structured and that this thinking has an influence on the conduct of research and the way in which it is embedded in its larger social context. (Delanty & Strydom, 2003, pp. 2–3) The idea of paradigms helped to prove the connection between the philosophy of science and the sociology and history of science. Furthermore, it has generated interest in the question of the cognitive practices and processes in which science is carried out and communicated. Engaging and studying paradigms in tourism knowledge provide a philosophical awareness to the researcher’s work. In this sense, it helps to create “philosophical researchers.” What is often considered problematic about Kuhn’s theory presented in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is his model of scientific change. His thesis of change is that a “paradigm” eventually becomes “universally” accepted in a specific scientific field and replaces an older one. This seems to suggest that scientific evolution happens in episodes with older paradigms being replaced by newer ones. Additionally, a lack of a universally adopted paradigm in a field (a pre-paradigmatic situation) equaled a lack of maturity. Therefore, paradigms are also used to examine the level of maturity of a field of study. In his early work, Kuhn (problematically) equates maturity with “coherence” or “adhesion” to a common theoretical body. In the periods Kuhn calls “normal science,” he resorts to the idea of the existence of a “foundational” (however temporary) scientific body that is universally accepted. Fragmentation and a lack of universal consensus tends to be characteristic of a preparadigmatic phase indicating a poor level of scientific development, and indeed this is the thesis that Pearce (1993), Tribe (2006), and others adopted in their evaluations of paradigms in tourism research. “We would largely agree with Tribe and suggest that a comparison with Kuhn’s pre-paradigmatic phase in which different schools compete, seems a more appropriate way to describe the correct application of the concept of paradigm in tourism research in the early 21st century” (Botterill & Platenkamp, 2012, p. 136). A similar emphasis on the universal acceptance of a singular paradigmatic understanding is also present in Cohen’s contribution (1988, 2012). To him, key theoretical ideas in tourism studies are only paradigmatic as long as they are “universally” accepted by the academic community—as in the case of MacCannell’s (1999) staged authenticity or Urry’s (2002) tourist gaze. Once they are challenged by alternative understandings, they also lose their paradigmatic nature (like the introduction of existential authenticity in the first case or multisensorial tourism in the second). Somehow, this focus on the “universal” acceptance of a concept comes across as a form of nostalgia or longing after the certainty of “general laws” that have characterized specific periods in the natural sciences. However, Kuhn presented a more nuanced view on this issue in the preface to the 1970 edition of his work, where he stated that:

My distinction between the pre- and the post-paradigm periods in the development of a science is, for example, much too schematic. Each of the schools whose competition characterizes the earlier period is guided by something much like a paradigm; there are circumstances, though I think them rare, under which two paradigms can coexist peacefully in the later period. (1970, p. ix) The assumptions made by Pearce, Tribe, and later by Botterill and Platenkamp are problematic because they presuppose the existence of periods of foundational coherence in science (or normal science), taking for granted that coherence equals maturity or that coherence (universal consensus) shows the level of advancement in a field. What if the opposite is actually the case in social sciences? What if it is the embracing of difference and cacophony, the existence of multiple “bodies” of knowledge, and a rich network of multiple theoretical frameworks and communities (as opposed to one) that indicates maturity of a social research field? This is not a novel idea; the awareness of complexity and the recognition of the limits and fallibility of knowledge as a higher state of cognition/reflexivity is a recurrent theme in philosophy. Additionally, the very idea of pre-paradigmatic science is harder to defend in fields of knowledge that are a result of the mixing and re-formulating of disciplinary knowledges, and instead result from the scientific production of interdisciplinary (Darbellay & Stock, 2012) and/or postdisciplinary communities (Munar, Pernecky, & Feighery, forthcoming). The historical-cultural turn, one of the major epistemic shifts that took place in the 20th century, presented science as a historically and socially shaped cultural artifact (Delanty & Strydom, 2003). The conflicts and dynamics that exist within cultural practices and models can be equally extended to the scientific endeavor (e.g., the level of maturity of a democratic society may be measured by its tolerance and nurturing of diversity instead of its success in enforcing homogeneity). This also entails an opening into more relativistic, contradictory, or competing perspectives of scientific production and its possibility to yield truth claims. Diversity and the dialogical tension among the different bodies of knowledge and methodological traditions have come to exemplify a higher level of maturity in the field of tourism studies. Therefore, the tourism knowledge field is not pre-paradigmatic and immature, but multi-paradigmatic and displaying a significant level of maturity instead. It is important to note that Kuhn attempted to clarify the concept of paradigm in his later work after observing the debates and confusion over its meaning. He used a “disciplinary matrix” when referring to paradigms in a broader sense, and “exemplars” to illustrate paradigms operating within this larger matrix: As he stated in his 1969 postscript in Kuhn (1996), a paradigm in the larger sense governs a group of practitioners, a “disciplinary matrix” consisting of a group of scholars, an entire culture with possibly sub-communities within it, engaged in activities characteristic of an immature or mature science. (Jamal, part C, in Tribe et al., 2015, p. 35)

In Kuhn’s later clarification, the “universal” consensus that was a precondition of mature science paradigms is more nuanced, as the “disciplinary matrix” comprises a range of operative paradigms, exemplars, within which research on various dimensions is being engaged in by various communities of scientists. Jamal (part C, in Tribe et al., 2015) thus advances the idea of tourism studies as a “disciplinary matrix,” a proposal Echtner and Jamal (1997) originally began to put forward from an interdisciplinary perspective. Darbellay and Stock (2012) have also applied, but rejected, the idea of disciplinary matrix. In their analysis, they use only one of the possible conceptualizations of paradigm (the disciplinary matrix) and, based on this reductionist strategy, they conclude that “the concept of paradigm, since it is related to disciplinarity and standardisation of knowledge, does not allow to describe the dynamics of interdisciplinary knowledge in the relatively complex and heterogeneous domain of tourism studies” (2012, p. 448). Instead, they propose Foucault’s concept of “episteme,” which “refers to a field of formation and transformation of knowledge that cannot be reduced to an accumulation or a simple stage of the different bodies of knowledge at any moment of scientific development” (Darbellay & Stock, 2012, p. 448). However, Darbellay and Stock’s understanding of paradigm seems too limited. As can be seen in previous explanations of Kuhn’s work, the concept of paradigm is interlinked but different to the idea of discipline. While, as it has been argued in the sections earlier, the idea of paradigm is a fruitful one, the concept of a disciplinary matrix can be questioned as it implies that all scientific knowledge production is monopolized by disciplines to start with, and this is far from being the case. The frailty of the “disciplinary” thesis of scientific advancement can be easily seen in the examples that appear in the introduction to the special issue Postdisciplinary Approaches to Tourism: In “The Tourist” MacCannell (1999) builds his popular theory of staged authenticity on the work on of Lévi-Strauss and Goffman (see MacCannell, 1999, pp. 39–59). Lévi-Strauss, a central figure of anthropology, was highly influenced by the methods of linguistics and his own work (e.g. on myths) had a major impact in the humanities. “The Tourist Gaze” from Urry, a geographer, is inspired from Foucault (philosopher, social theorist and philologist) and his theory of the medical gaze. This should not be surprising. Often what characterizes major thinkers throughout history (Weber, Marx, Freud, Smith, Habermas, Bourdieu among others) is that the influence of their work cannot be claimed by only a few specific disciplinary structures and not others. (Munar, Pernecky, & Feighery, forthcoming) Other scholars have also pointed to the historical contingency the formation of academic disciplines, which are relatively recent, emerging in the period from 1750 to 1850 (Carter, 2007), and to the limitations of disciplines in understanding society and addressing wicked problems (Sayer, 2001). Chambers (2015) highlights the need to deconstruct disciplinarity and to the contribution of decolonial scholars to this topic, who have argued that “disciplinarity is a Western construct, is inherently imperialistic, and serves as a system of normalization which

colonizes our minds but also our imaginary i.e., knowledge and being” (2015, p. 17). The contributions in this edited volume offer diverse insights that can help advance the idea of tourism studies as an inter- or postdisciplinary matrix—a space where the dynamic negotiation between paradigms (and the different processes and practices of knowledge) belonging to the field can unfold. The consensus that takes place in such a matrix is of a different nature to the one advocated by Kuhn, as the matrix here is a social science-based one, not a scientific one. The recognition of these processes and practices does not entail an acceptance of the “validity” of the specific theoretical body of thought, or methodological approach of each single paradigm, but of their legitimate presence in the practices of knowledge production. It is possible to say that what is universally agreed upon is a form of embedded diversity. For example, a tourism researcher may not agree with research paradigms, such as constructivism, realism, critical scholarship, mobilities, feminism, or postcolonialism. Yet, the same researcher will contend that these different paradigms are entitled to co-existence within a field and attribute a high value to the existence of this multiplicity. It is this recognition of the validity of diversity (and not the striving for homogeneity) that exemplifies epistemic maturity in a social science research field. This volume, with its wide variety of voices and applications of the idea of paradigm, is an example of this maturity. The following section examines a range of ways in which paradigmatic understandings can be applied to the field of tourism studies, while reflecting on the contribution made by Jafar Jafari’s scholarship to this topic.

Paradigm Diversity in Tourism The overview of the literature on tourism research paradigms shows that the use of the term has been applied, among other ways, in accordance with the following five perspectives: First, it sees the paradigm as a new conceptual/theoretical lens to understand what tourism is and its role in the world. The works of Aramberri and Cohen provide some interesting examples of the use of the term “paradigm.” Aramberri in his article, “The Host Should Get Lost,” identifies three paradigms as being the most fertile: the host–guest paradigm, tourism as nonordinary behavior, and the theory of the lifecycle of attractions (2001). The contribution of Jafari “Tourism Models: The Sociocultural Aspects” (1987) has a key influence on the second of these paradigms: “tourism as nonordinary behavior.” In this conceptual paper, the tourismanimated world is conceptualized as “a distinctly nonordinary outer time and space” (1987, p. 151). His theoretical proposal also takes into consideration the interdependence of the ordinary and nonordinary worlds and advances a tourism model where “the two worlds of ordinary (generating system) and nonordinary (receiving system) appear as an integrated whole. They together form a megasystem or interconnected structure” (1987, p. 158). Two other interestingly related paradigmatic proposals are “tourism as an ordering force” (the capacity of tourism of remaking the world a new as a touristic world) (Franklin, 2004) and tourism as “Worldmaking” (Hollinshead, 2009):

The percept of worldmaking stands as an approach (or set of approaches?) or an angle of vision (or panoply of visions?) that can help draw attention to the rich and varied sorts of things in which tourism is involved or “does”, or which are advanced in some fashion or other through what tourism “is” or “can be”. […] In this sense (as a force majeure), the worldmaking enactments of tourism are collaborative and cumulative: they are axial and additive. Thus, the worldmaking influence of tourism not only has a constitutive role over what we know about populations and destinations across the geographical world, but that role (in its collaborative and cumulative force) can become contextually sovereign in its normalizing and naturalizing effect—in each instance—over time. […] tourism does not just axiomatically reproduce some given realm of being (be it a projected “people”, a promoted “place” or a propelled “past”), but commonly makes, demakes or re-makes those very populations, destinations and heritages. (Hollinshead, Ateljevic, & Ali, 2009, p. 428) Another example of this use is the “Tourism as System” paradigmatic proposal. This theoretical framework was successfully introduced by Leiper (1979) and then further developed by Farrell and Twining-Ward (2004) with tourism as a complex adaptive system. Cohen uses a similar application of paradigm as a concept or theoretical lens, which offers a novel understanding of tourism, in several of his contributions to this theme. He mentions that the tension between “‘strangeness and familiarity’ provided a useful point of departure from Boorstin’s paradigm of the tourist” [italics added] (1988, p. 35) and further explains as a paradigmatic transition the change in the understanding of “authenticity.” According to Cohen, this change was pioneered by Gottlieb and her proposal of “authenticity” as a personal emergent emic process that moves away from MacCannell’s proposal of authenticity as a given unchanged quality (Cohen, 1988, pp. 37–38). In a later article by Cohen and Cohen (2012), MacCannell’s (1999) theory of “staged authenticity” and Urry’s (2002) “tourist gaze” are portrayed as unsuccessful paradigmatic proposals that failed to obtain universal acceptance and instead resulted in a multitude of fragmented interpretations of authenticity (in the first case) and in a movement away from the visual that spurred increased research in multisensorial tourism (in the second). Second, the paradigm as a specific philosophical/methodological tradition or school of thought that acts as a models/exemplar for what and how to research. This is a popular application of the paradigm concept in tourism scholarship and in the social sciences in general. Authors applying this perspective usually apply the term paradigm to broader philosophical/social-science traditions (e.g., critical theory or constructivism), which act as an umbrella and include several theoretical and conceptual frameworks within them. To be multitheoretical is seen as a key feature of what can be considered paradigmatic. For example, Belhassen and Caton specify a list of “alternative paradigms” which include: interpretivism/constructivism (Bochner, 2005; Gergen & Gergen, 2003; Schwandt, 2000), pragmatism (Noddings, 2005), feminism (Oleson, 2005), critical theory

(Adorno & Horkheimer, 1944; Kincheloe & McLaren, 2002; Ladson-Billings & Donnor, 2005), poststructuralism (Peters & Burbules, 2004), and deliberative democratic theory. (2009, p. 336) A similar application of the term is included in Hollinshead (2004) and Pernecky’s (forthcoming) encyclopedia entry on this topic. The trialogue article of Tribe et al. (2015) mentions others examples such as positivism, post-positivism, phenomenology, and behaviorism. Other examples include Heimtun and Morgan’s (2012) “transformative paradigm,” which is a methodological idea that allows critical tourism scholars (such as feminists) to embrace mix-method approaches, but still pursue “the emancipatory imperative of research and places importance on marginalised groups, asymmetric power relations and social change” (2012, p. 288), and the analysis of the shortcomings of a “quantitative paradigm” as a hegemonic methodology in the study of tourism’s social impact (Deery, Jago, & Fredline, 2012, p. 65). There are also studies that use the concept of paradigm to represent a relevant methodological and/or theoretical tradition of a discipline which is then applied into tourism studies. Examples include the “economic paradigm” (Eadington & Redman, 1991), “the semiotic paradigm” (Echtner, 1999), the “new marketing paradigm” (Li & Petrick, 2008), and others such as neocolonialism and dependency theories from development studies (Jamal, in part C of the trialogue, in Tribe et al., 2015). Third, the paradigm as proposals that combine different philosophical/theoretical traditions and/or different knowledge fields to provide the foundation of new research agendas. Some of the most relevant contributions to this tradition are the mobilities paradigm, “hopeful tourism,” and “sustainability.” The mobilities paradigm has been proposed by Hannam, Sheller, and Urry (2006) as a new research agenda in social sciences: “the emerging mobilities paradigm challenges the ways in which much social science research has been relatively ‘a-mobile’ until recently. Accounting for mobilities in the fullest sense challenges social science to change both the objects of its inquiries and the methodologies for research” (2006, p. 5; see also Mavric & Urry, 2009). Hopeful tourism is a paradigmatic proposal from Pritchard, Morgan, and Ateljevic (2011). This paradigm reflects, on the one hand, the traditions, theoretical frameworks and contributions of a community of scholars (an academy of hope) who share a common background on critical theory, a deep concern for issues such as inequality or injustice and often participate in the “Critical Tourism Studies” conference series. On the other hand, it is a “new perspective which combines co-transformative learning and action to offer a distinctive approach to tourism knowledge production” (Pritchard et al., 2011, p. 942). Sustainability often appears in the literature as a paradigm or meta-paradigm opposed to neoliberalism. It has been emerging as a global imperative since the 1980s, but its conceptualization with various terms such as “sustainable development” and “sustainable tourism” has yet to be clearly defined, particularly as its earlier drivers in environmental sustainability (WCED, 1987) has evolved over time to incorporate economic, social, and cultural sustainability (Jamal, Camargo, & Wilson, 2013).

Fourth, the paradigm as a sub-domain of tourism studies research. In what can be considered a more problematic use of the term “paradigm,” a group of studies use the concept to introduce and justify a particular sub-domain in tourism studies. For example, the proposal of a new paradigm for “dark tourism” in the work by Stone and Sharpley (2008) or “wildlife tourism” in the work by Rodger, Moore, and Newsome (2009). Fifth, the paradigm as stages/phases in the history of tourism knowledge production. There are some examples of studies that have combined one or several of these applications of the paradigm to propose a theory of scientific change in tourism. For example, Tribe (2001) combines the understanding of paradigm as a specific philosophical/methodological tradition or school of thought (scientific-positivist, interpretivist, and critical) with the different stages in the evolution of tourism curriculum. Jafari’s (2001, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c) much cited theory of the platforms of tourism’s evolution belongs to this tradition. According to this theory, the progression of knowledge production in tourism resembles a journey of scientification with different platforms that appear and develop over consecutive time periods. The first platform was the “advocacy platform” (in the 1960s), which held an optimistic view of tourism and responded to the emergence and increased economic relevance of this industry. The “cautionary platform” (in the 1970s) increased the disciplinary breath of this field of knowledge and highlighted the negative impacts of tourism. The “adaptancy platform” (in the 1980s) favored alternative forms of tourism (ecotourism, rural tourism, etc.) with some types being more beneficial than others. The “knowledge-based platform” (in the 1990s) was characterized by a multidisciplinary holistic treatment of tourism and by an exponential growth in the number of published journals and books. Finally, in a chapter devoted to his personal journey, Jafari introduced an emerging fifth phase, the “public platform” (2005a, 2005b, 2005c). This last platform reflects the tendency in the new millennium of tourism being increasingly influential and being “spoken of by people, groups and institutions outside of what used to be its normal areas of operation” (2005c, p. 111). Other scholars have searched for inspiration in recent developments in qualitative methodologies, and have mapped the evolution of qualitative research (“new” moments of development) as stages in tourism epistemology. Examples of this kind of scholarship are the thesis presented by Lynch (2005) in his article on “Sociological Impressionism,” and the analysis of soft science in Wilson and Hollinshead (2015).

CONCLUSION This chapter began by asking what paradigms are for. The subsequent analysis reveals four distinct answers: First, the study of paradigms are used to gain a better understanding of the history and sociology of knowledge and the processes behind knowledge formation and how it changes in a field. Second, an examination of past and current paradigmatic tendencies can help to facilitate self-reflection and self-understanding in scholarship. To analyze paradigms

provides an awareness of the cognitive practices and processes in which science is generated and communicated and of the role that each individual researcher plays in those processes. Third, paradigms can act as sense-making, identity-crafting, and community-building tools. Finally, they can help to examine the level of maturity of a field of study. All of these ways of applying paradigms to tourism research make its study a highly relevant endeavor and it should not come as a surprise that researchers keep returning to this concept. The analysis also shows that researchers’ interest in paradigms is combined with a heterogeneous and varied use of the term. The emergent and contemporary studies presented in this book confirm this general pattern. Chapter 2 by Carolina Manrique, Tazim Jamal, and Robert Warden centers on the concept of “resilience” and combines different knowledge from other fields to provide the foundation of a new research agenda. They offer a new angle to sustainability by proposing a resilience-oriented, rather than a sustainability-based paradigm, for heritage conservation and tourism studies. They examine how this currently popular term (resilience) is used in various domains of academic research. Their literature excavation suggests a need for greater attention to be paid to cultural dimensions, especially intangible cultural aspects and relationships. Based on this, they believe “cultural resilience” can act as an integrative bridge between heritage conservation and heritage tourism. Several contributions in this volume, including Chapter 3 (humanism), Chapter 5 (ecofeminism), and Chapter 6 (feminism and cosmopolitanism), provide examples of understanding the paradigm as a specific philosophical tradition that can guide knowledge production. Kellee Caton (Chapter 3) seeks a different way to explore what a paradigm means, and argues that the way in which this term is taken up in other fields of study insufficiently addresses its relevance and use in tourism studies. She puts forward a way to imagine a humanist paradigm, more specifically, of humanism as a philosophical position and as a lived cultural practice. She presents examples of various works that might be seen to support or even sow the seeds of a humanist paradigm, and offers reflections on various aspects relevant to the envisioning of such a humanism-oriented approach to tourism studies, for instance, commenting on epistemology. In Chapter 5, Blanca A. Camargo, Tazim Jamal, and Erica Wilson observe that despite increasing resource scarcity and sustainability challenges (including climate change), there appears to be a continuing lag in detailed research- and theory-building in areas related to ethics, justice, fairness, and equity in tourism. Proposing that ecofeminist critique offers some insights into this gap, they identify some historical antecedents in enlightenment-driven discourses and positivistic approaches that facilitate the control and use of nature and women. Following from this, they propose to re-situate sustainable tourism within an embodied research paradigm that attends to intangibles such as emotions, feelings, and an ethic of care. In Chapter 6, Margaret Byrne Swain highlights embodied cosmopolitanism(s) as a promising way forward in tourism studies. The shared ethics of social justice, equality, and diversity in cosmopolitan and feminist paradigms of knowledge production offer an opportunity for an integrated approach: the former explores the dialectics of cultural diversity and universal rights, while the latter addresses gender and sexuality equality and difference within this intersection. She also points out that the researcher’s own embodied

cosmopolitanism affects research questions, ethics, and praxis toward transformation in research communities and the academy. Chapters 4, 8, and 10 offer different examples of how paradigms can be used to examine the evolution and the conditions of tourism knowledge production. Graham M. S. Dann (Chapter 4) provides a meta-analysis of the paradigm in tourism by exploring its meaning and giving examples of paradigms and paradigm shifts. This chapter raises a very important issue that challenges the distinction between theoretically driven scholarship and applied research. He looks at two major approaches to the study of tourism: theoretical perspectives driving analyses aimed at understanding “why” certain types of questions are asked about things and events, and more practically driven studies interested in the “what” and “how” types of investigations. He brings into this discussion two respective protagonists (Tribe and Aramberri). His chapter also examines how “paradigm” is used in relation to conferences, research and, major perspectives such as authenticity, strangerhood, play, and conflict. In Chapter 8, Ana María Munar introduces a metaphor—the house—and applies the critical theoretical views of philosopher Jurgen Habermas to examine the environment of knowledge production. The analysis demonstrates the dominance of a systemic paradigm, characterized by increased bureaucratization and commercialization, which has adverse consequences for universities. The chapter argues for addressing the political dimension of the epistemic endeavor and presents a series of initiatives that could help advance tourism scholarship, reclaiming the personal and subjective, promoting multiple knowledges, and building alternative platforms of knowledge production, cooperation, and dissemination. A different methodological approach is applied in Chapter 10, where José-Antonio CorralMarfil and Gemma Cànoves-Valiente offer insights into the evolution of a knowledge base in tourism developed Spanish speaking researchers that is generally inaccessible to non-Spanish speakers. They examine archived proceedings of the 17 editions of the Conference of the Spanish Association of Scientific Experts in Tourism using a bibliometric analysis of the 17 editions (1994–2012) according to the origin of the research (countries, regions, institutions, and authors), as well as the kinds of themes dealt with, geographical areas researched, methodologies, knowledge domains, and attitudes towards tourism. Based on this study, they discuss implications for Spanish research in terms of knowledge contributions and the shaping of various tourism research traditions. In Chapter 7, the authors use the concept of the paradigm as a new lens through which tourism and its role in the world can be understood. Richard Ek and Mekonnen Tesfahuney argue that researchers have not dwelled on the tourist as being worthy of intellectual and philosophical deliberation. In this chapter, they explore why the figure of the tourist elicits derision and negative reactions from researchers. They ask, “Do the sentiments perhaps imply something else, or is the tourist a doppelgänger, not anomalous or marginal but normative—a paradigmatic figure? If so, then what can be said of the poetics and politics of the tourist conceptualized as a paradigmatic subject?” They go on to explore how the tourist is situated in a paradigmatic form in studies. In Chapter 9, Kazuyoshi Takeuchi offers an alternative look at the tourist as well, but

draws from scientific disciplinary areas to inform a new way to address the tourist in a paradigmatic form. He applies perspectives from environmental psychology, genetics, and a theory of information energy in elementary particle physics, toward this end. He argues that the study of tourism, while not a distinct disciplinary field, must provide a grand theory. In this chapter, Takeuchi focuses on the concept of tourist in order to provide some ideas on how best to amend its definition, which may then help to inform the overall view of touristic phenomena. These diverse chapters offer a kaleidoscope of insights, ranging from identifying ongoing difficult questions facing those in the “academy” of tourism studies, to arguing for new paradigmatic approaches and imperatives in the academic and personally situated research context of the researcher. The concluding chapter reflects on these, recognizing that many topics and issues that may have been of interest to readers and contributors alike are not within the limited scope of this book and the tribute to Jafari’s knowledge base platforms. We briefly provide a short, critical discussion of paradigmatic knowledge-related interests and hope that the platform of tourism knowledge will continue to be enrichened by contributors from the Western and non-Western worlds, bringing diverse voices, perspectives, methodologies, and worldviews to tourism studies. It is our hope that this book will nurture critical thinking and self-reflection; foster a deeper understanding of the processes and practices that influence knowledge production; and encourage researchers to be courageous and explore in their further work some of the many inspiring and emerging paradigmatic proposals presented here.

Chapter 2

HERITAGE TOURISM AND CONSERVATION A Cultural Resilience Bridge? Carolina Manrique University of Idaho, USA

Tazim Jamal Robert Warden Texas A&M University, USA

Abstract: This chapter offers a new sustainability-oriented paradigm for cultural and heritage tourism studies: an integrated approach to heritage tourism and heritage conservation based on resilience. Its extensive literature review examines resilience in a range of disciplinary areas, including heritage conservation and tourism studies. An important aim is to “make visible” often neglected parameters in the interactions among social, cultural, economic, and environmental dimensions of heritage conservation and tourism. Within the broader concept of resilience, “cultural resilience” was identified as a crucial bridge between conservation and tourism. The study argues that resilience in general and its cultural forms in particular offer a potentially valuable framework vital for an integrated approach between the two in the common pursuit to manage change and uncertainty in cultural and heritage destinations. The chapter concludes with directions for further development of sustainability-oriented paradigm studies. Keywords: Heritage; conservation; tourism; resilience; sustainability; culture

INTRODUCTION Resilience is becoming an increasingly important concept of academic study in a range of disciplinary areas and fields of study. As defined by Walker, Holling, Carpenter, and Kinzig, it refers to “the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks”

(2004, p. 2). Resilience in a tourism context has been defined as the “ability of social, economic, or ecological systems to recover from tourism induced stress” (Tyrrell & Johnston, 2008, p. 16). A key priority here is managing change and uncertainties associated with economic fluctuations, political instabilities, environmental hazards, climate change, and related impacts in destinations. Heritage conservation (located within architecture generally) and heritage tourism studies have also made the connection with the concept of resilience and use it commonly in relation to climate change and environmental hazards, including disaster planning and recovery (Ritchie, 2009; Spennemann, 2007). Social and living systems are constantly challenged by change, uncertainty, and increasingly complex issues, such as climate change and global mobilities. Change constitutes an inevitable natural process of transformation due to the dynamic interactions among environmental, social, economic, human, and cultural systems through time. Approaches to dealing with change and uncertainty have evolved with the development of knowledge in each discipline and with the cross-disciplinary efforts to establish new links and insights. One approach that is being developed in order to deal with the increasing uncertainty and change that challenge long-term sustainability is the notion of resilience. This chapter is situated in the interdisciplinary areas of heritage conservation and heritage tourism. Drawing on an extensive review of the literature, it argues for a new sustainability-oriented paradigm to cultural heritage and tourism management where resilience (discussed later) provides an integral bridge toward sustainability. The chapter aims to advance conceptual development for an integrated approach to resilience in both areas. Of special interest in this interdisciplinary study is to examine not only how material and physical built heritage is being addressed in resilience-related management and planning but also how intangible parameters are addressed, such as social, political, cultural, and ethnic values (Groat & Wang, 2002). The chapter commences with a careful excavation and discussion of the use of resilience in a range of disciplinary areas and study fields, including heritage conservation and tourism. An important aim of this exploration is to understand and “make visible” often neglected parameters in the interactions among social, cultural, economic, and environmental dimensions in cultural heritage and tourism. Various academic and disciplinary approaches to resilience are then examined and relevant items are identified to holistically inform the notion of destination resilience. Based on this literature review of resilience, the chapter identifies and proposes an important yet missing concept integral to sustainability in both heritage tourism and heritage conservation and offers common ground between them: the notion of cultural resilience. Addressing both tangible and intangible aspects of culture and cultural heritage in the resilience context, it argues that this is a vital bridging concept that jointly influences heritage tourism and conservation and is mutually beneficial. An integrated approach to the two (historic preservation being a close synonym) is proposed where resilience in general, and cultural resilience in particular, are integral to manage change and uncertainty in heritage places and spaces. The chapter concludes with directions for further development of this newly proposed sustainability oriented paradigm in tourism studies.

DISCIPLINARY USE, PERSPECTIVES, AND APPLICATIONS OF RESILIENCE “In January 2013, Time magazine declared ‘resilience’ the buzzword of 2013” (Brown, 2013, p. 1). Currently, it is a concept used in diverse disciplines in order to understand and manage change. Its development is a consequence in the development of knowledge in diverse disciplines which have contributed to understand the complexity of dynamic systems and their interactions. Current efforts in each discipline include identifying parameters and establishing indicators for measuring resilience.

Notions of Resilience Resilience as a concept has evolved from technical definitions that describe properties of materials (Haswell, 1860) and ecological systems (Holling, 1973) to notions that recognize the capabilities of dynamic systems and their interactions to cope with change (urban planning, disaster management, heritage tourism, historic preservation, etc.). A good example of how the concept of resilience evolves within a disciplinary area is the case of material science and structural engineering. In the work by Haswell, resilience refers to a property of materials that result from a combination of two apparently opposing characteristics: “the resilience or toughness of a body is a combination of flexibility and strength” (1860, p. 386). This concept today is used in structural design. A specific example referring to the design of shear connections states that “The resilience of a connection refers to its ability to withstand destructive loading conditions that accompany a column removal (caused by accidental events such as explosion, impact, and fire) without premature rupture. Providing connection resilience is considered essential to mitigating the progressive collapse in steel frameworks” (Gong, 2010, p. 1). Here the notion of resilience has been translated from a generic characteristic of materials to a specific component under defined conditions; however, the essence of its meaning is still present. Pickett, Cadenasso, and Grove (2004) draw the technical meaning of resilience from Holling (1973), who describes two different kinds of behavior of ecological systems: One can be termed stability, which represents the ability of a system to return to an equilibrium state after a temporary disturbance; the more rapidly it returns and the less it fluctuates, the more stable it would be. But there is another property, termed resilience, that is a measure of the persistence of systems and of their ability to absorb change and disturbance and still maintain the same relationships between populations or state variables. (Holling, 1973, p. 14) Holling refers, on the one hand, to the example of a budworm forest community as highly unstable, and it is because of this instability that it has an enormous resilience. On the other

hand, he also refers to the case of “more benign, less variable climatic regions” where “the populations are much less able to absorb chance climatic extremes even though the populations tend to be more constant” (high degree of stability and a lower resilience). This use of resilience as applied to ecological systems by Holling challenged classical worldviews that focus on equilibrium states (stability) and self-contained closed systems. Related notions in Holling make reference to recognizing that the natural world is heterogeneous. He explains that the association of stability to systems behavior has been related to the influence of mathematical analyses where “stability has assumed definitions that relate to conditions very near to equilibrium points” due to the simple convenience of this approach as opposed to “the enormous analytical difficulties of treating the behavior of nonlinear systems at some distance from equilibrium” (1973, p. 17). Pickett et al. (2004) focus on the definition of resilience in ecology using the nonequilibrium paradigm defined by Holling (1973) and refer to the equilibrium paradigm as a conceptual apparatus that “has suffered greatly in the past 30 years, to the point of being reduced to a special case or unusual situation among real ecological systems.” Insights using resilience as a link between ecology and planning include natural and physical parameters (spatial heterogeneity, ecological functions, linking structure with function or process). In addition, from an urban planning perspective, other dimensions are required, such as human perception, learning, and resultant actions as part of the human ecosystem; measuring and communicating ecological consequences from planning and management interventions as a tool for monitoring “the effects, not only in aesthetic or design terms, but also in terms of biogeophysical and social processes” or “the learning loop” (Pickett et al., 2004, pp. 373, 378); and establishing mechanisms to promote participatory actions by multidisciplinary teams. Pickett et al. recognize additional gaps in an ecology-sourced approach based on structure and function. They also identify other factors that must be included in human ecosystems, such as social resources (information, human population, financial capital, and labor), social processes and cultural resources (beliefs and myths). Further, they refer to other scholars who have shown “how the unequal allocation of critical biogeophysical, social, and cultural resources is significantly affected by social order as expressed in social identity (ethnicity, age, gender, class, etc.), norms of behavior, and hierarchies of wealth, power, status, knowledge, and territory” (2004, p. 377).

Disaster Management Using the technical definition of resilience from ecology, disaster management modified its approach focused in the vulnerability of communities. This concentrates on weaknesses to be improved in order to resist the impact of natural events toward community resilience (which considers the strengths and proactive capacity for recovery after natural events impact) (Mayunga, 2009). This shift opens new perspectives on the social dimension in disaster

management, as it recognizes the value of societal constructs, such as the relationship among people and places, sense of community, and identity. Disaster management is making contributions toward measuring the relationship between community and resilience. Theoretical models are being developed that establish an interaction among biophysical systems, social systems, and the built environment. Furthermore, attention is being drawn toward establishing how these indicators can be measured in order to become an operative tool for decision-making in all stages of hazard management. The approach in disaster management considers natural hazards as dynamic phenomena where human actions play a role, both as victims and as contributors. It considers five forms of capital that a community can utilize in building resilience (Mayunga, 2009): social, economic, physical, human, and natural. The capital approach is focused on an economic view of sustainable community development and has been widely used “in sustainable development and poverty alleviation programs” and is taken as a central focus in understanding and assessing community disaster resilience in disaster management (Mayunga, 2007). In this approach, each “capital” is defined as a parameter of resilience under the following definitions based on an economic perspective: social capital refers to features of social organization (networks, norms, and social trust) “that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit”; economic capital “denotes financial resources that people use to achieve their livelihoods” (savings, income, investments, and credit); physical capital refers to the built environment (housing, public buildings, dams, etc.), lifelines (electricity, water, telephone, etc.), and critical infrastructure (hospitals, fire, police stations, etc.); human capital is defined “as the capabilities both innate and derived or accumulated, embodied in the working-age population that allow it to work productively with other forms of capital to sustain the economic production”; natural capital “refers to natural resources, such as water, minerals and oil, land which provides space on which to live and work, and the ecosystems that maintain clean water, air and a stable climate” (Mayunga, 2009, pp. 59–61).

Heritage Tourism and Conservation The broad area of tourism studies shares some common planning and managing interests and approaches with disaster management, such as assessing vulnerability (environmental, social, and economic) and risk; developing adaptation and mitigation strategies; and using resilience, recovery, and scenario planning (Jamal, 2013). Furthermore, in the same way, disaster management made the conceptual shift from focusing on vulnerability of communities. Tourism recognizes that “although determining the causes of vulnerability is helpful, the notion of resilience enables seeking the factors that might facilitate renewal of a damaged or disrupted system” (Cochrane, 2009; Jamal, 2013). As stated by Cochrane (2009, p. 7), “Theories of resilience include ‘analyzing the factors which cause vulnerability in systems and, by extension, the factors which can enhance their capacity to absorb disturbance’” (Jamal, 2013, p. 505). Cochrane (2009) recognizes that even though the notion of resilience “is not widely

used in tourism,” its “dependency on natural resources, its cross-cultural characteristics, and its international linkages are indicative of complex social-ecological systems” (Jamal, 2013, p. 505). Jamal refers to Farrell and Twining-Ward (2004) who discuss the notion of complex adaptive tourism system as “early conceptual discussion of resilience in tourism” (2013, p. 505). Resilience in tourism studies is defined as the “ability of social, economic or ecological systems to recover from tourism induced stress” (Tyrrell & Johnston, 2008, p. 16). In an overview of major challenges and uncertainties facing by destinations (climate change, economic crisis, natural, and anthropogenic hazards), Jamal (2013) explores the interactions between systems and their capacity to recover from these changes. Resilience is considered by her to be a positive characteristic to be enhanced while uncertainty and adverse impacts are to be reduced or mitigated. Beyond the environmental imperatives, both Jamal (2013) and Tyrrell and Johnston (2008) acknowledge the importance of approaching sustainability goals in terms of the relationships among environmental, social, and cultural aspects of resilience. Cultural resilience is an important but ignored aspect of resilience. It offers a vital bridge and common ground between heritage and conservation and tourism—both of which must be managed from an integrated approach if long-term sustainability is desired.

Heritage Conservation Heritage tourism and conservation (also known as “historic preservation”) share common interests in terms of heritage management. An integrated approach is seen to be integral to the overall sustainability of cultural heritage destinations, from the past to the present and the future (Hall & MacArthur, 1998; McKercher & Du Cros, 2004; Rabady & Jamal, 2006). Heritage conservation deals with “deciding what’s important, figuring out how to protect it, and passing along an appreciation for what was saved to the next generation” (National Park Service, 2011). Specifically, “the definition of objects and structures of the past as heritage” and various preservation related policies have evolved together with modernity, and are currently recognized as an essential part of the responsibilities of modern society. Since the 18th century, the goal of this protection has been defined as the cultural heritage of humanity. Gradually, this has included not only ancient monuments and past works of art but even entire territories for a variety of new values generated in recent decades (Jokilehto, 1999, p. 1). Furthermore, as Jokilehto explains, the concept of physical cultural heritage of humanity has a clear intangible dimension, as it is seen to result “from long developments and traditional transfer of know-how in particular societies, as well as through influences and ‘cross fertilization’ between different cultures and civilizations” (1999, p. 1). Within the category of physical (tangible) cultural heritage, specific threats affect the built version, such as being subjected to deterioration, ageing processes, consumption by use, new functions (tourism and impacts from tourism growth), evolution in taste or fashion, natural and human risks, and economic or political fluctuations. Dynamic approaches to resilience for addressing change in heritage structures, such as the produced by the effects of natural hazards, climate and time, are being proposed (Melnick, 2009). Here, heritage conservation uses the notion of resilience based on the ecological approach as developed by disaster management and urban planning.

Issues related to both tangible and intangible heritage arise from dynamic processes of change and are very important to understand in the integrated domain of conservation and tourism. One challenging issue, for instance, is the concept of age value, which is associated with the natural process of degradation in materials and to cultural aspects, such as perception, interpretation, and values. Complex considerations arise related to both tangible items and intangible interests, as well as values and beliefs. For example, the decision if decay is patina, rust, mildew, or dirt is considered by some studies as related to the material at hand and the perspective of the viewer which in the heritage tourism domain can include the interests and perspectives of a wide range of stakeholders, such as destination marketing organizations, promoters, public sector (local government), private sector (tourism service providers and tourists). Wells and Baldwin (2012) refer to the classification of decay into positive and negative categories as related to personal values; one person’s “damage” is another’s “romantic ruins” and such a determination is ultimately a subjective process. Furthermore, Wells and Baldwin establish differences among historical and age values: “historical value rests on a scientific basis and thus can only be achieved through intellectual reflection,” whereas age value “addresses the emotions directly” (2012, p. 385). Such conflicting issues, as already noted, require evaluation and management approaches from a broad range of theoretical and empirical approaches in the social sciences and humanities. Efforts in this direction include the use of a phenomenological approach regarding heritage conservation, significance, and age value in order to provide “empirical evidence about how everyday people actually value, perceive, and experience age as an intrinsic part of an urban environment” (Wells & Baldwin, 2012, p. 384). Not surprisingly, therefore, economist Rypkema and other authors view the role of heritage conservation in sustainable development from an integrated approach that calls upon environmental, economic, and social/cultural responsibility: For a community to be viable there needs to be a link between environmental responsibility and economic responsibility; for a community to be livable there needs to be a link between environmental responsibility and social responsibility; and for a community to be equitable there needs to be a link between economic responsibility and social responsibility. (Rypkema, 2009) Political and Psychological Considerations In heritage conservation, “the management and conservation of our built heritage” (Columbia University, 2013), the preservation of tangible and intangible heritage has been recognized as having a decisive role in the formation of a national consciousness, in national unity, and economic and social development. Edson refers to the “act of preserving heritage resources (real or imagined) as an expression of resilience” (2004, p. 344). Aspects connecting “community’s emotional links” with resilience are related to population wellness “defined as high and non-disparate levels of mental and behavioral health, functioning, and quality of life” (Norris, Stevens, Pfefferbaum, Wyche, & Pfefferbaum, 2008, p. 127). Furthermore, the importance of including heritage conservation in the initial states of disaster recovery (in relation to the value of societal constructs in Disaster

Management) has been identified, once it has been determined that the “community’s emotional links with place are resilient” (Spennemann, 2007, p. 998).

Other Perspectives on Resilience In addition to approaches based on ecological, disaster management, and tourism and heritage conservation perspectives, resilience is studied by researchers from psychology, psychiatry, sociology, and, more recently, genetics, epigenetics, endocrinology, and neuroscience. The study of resilience in these areas began with the study of maltreated children, the central question being “how some girls, boys, women, and men withstand adversity without developing negative physical or mental health outcomes” (Herrman et al., 2011, p. 259). In the work by Herrman et al., resilience is recognized as a concept that has evolved over time as scientific knowledge has increased and that lacks consensus regarding an operational definition. However, it is fundamentally understood “as referring to positive adaptation or the ability to maintain or regain mental health, despite experiencing adversity.” Furthermore, it recognizes “personal, biological, and environmental or systemic sources and their interactions” as considerations. Key conclusions provided are the recognition of “the dynamic nature of resilience throughout the lifespan; and the interaction of resilience in different ways with major domains of life function including intimate relationships and attachments” (Herrman et al., 2011, pp. 258–259). In general, disciplines understanding resilience in mental health strive with the relationship between “levels of stress associated with excessive, persistent or uncontrollable adversity” and the “disruptive effects on brain function (and multiple organ systems) that can lead to lifelong disease and behavioral problems” (Herrman et al., 2011, p. 259). The contribution of this approach is the connection of intangible (situational) aspects and their effects in tangible (physical) conditions, which promotes an approach focusing on “prevention strategies” to address vulnerability of target population groups (such as young children and their parents). Prevention strategies either focus on “reducing significant stressors affecting everyday life” or “ameliorating the effects of these stressors.” The latter approach is the focus under the notion of resilience (Herrman et al., 2011). Differences among mental health related discipline approaches refer on conceptualizing resilience as “a personality trait (e.g. ego resilience), whereas others portray it as a dynamic developmental process” (Montpetit, Bergeman, Deboeck, Tiberio, & Boker, 2010, p. 631). Montpetit et al. make reference to changes of perspective in the research on resilience, where earlier approaches “identified individual and support characteristics that appeared to protect children from poverty, abuse, low socioeconomic status, and other traumatic circumstances that lead to heightened risk for detrimental outcomes” and more recently the focus would be to consider “more common processes that allow individuals to adapt well, not only to major life events, but to daily hassles as well.” With this change in approach what has been recognized is that “dealing with difficult life circumstances results from the normal functioning of human

adaptational systems” rather than from rare “ordinary magic” (Montpetit et al., 2010, p. 631). Herrman et al. also address “the range of factors understood as contributing to resilience” (personal, biological, and environmental-systemic factors) and their interactions. The former include personality traits, internal locus of control, mastery, self-efficacy, self-esteem, cognitive appraisal, optimism, intellectual functioning, and the like. Demographic factors, social relationships, and population characteristics also refer to this category. Biological factors refer to “recent explosion of research in biological and genetic factors in resilience” that “indicate that harsh early environments can affect developing brain structure, function and neurobiological systems,” physical changes that can “substantially exacerbate or reduce vulnerability to future psychopathology.” Environmental-systemic factors refer, in a microenvironmental level, to social support (relationships with family and peers) and in a macrosystemic level to community factors (good schools, community services, sports and artistic opportunities, cultural factors, spirituality and religion, and lack to exposure to violence). Herrman et al. also developed a model in order to understand the “dynamic interaction and interactive models of resilience” using personal, biological, and environmental factors (2011, p. 260). Contributions of understanding interactions among factors refer to the fact that even though “the development of mental disorders has been known for some time to be related to genetic predisposition in combination with the person’s past and current life experiences and environments,” evidence of the interaction of genes with the environment shows “that social experiences can lead to substantial and enduring changes in gene expression that can in turn affect later behavior in a person and be transmitted to the next generation.” Furthermore, Herrman et al. also highlight the role of government in creating “environments conducive to mental capital (cognitive and emotional resources) and wellbeing (a dynamic state that refers to a person’s ability to develop their potential, work productively and creatively, build strong and positive relationships with others, and contribute to their community), and that failure to act could have severe consequences” (2011, pp. 261–263).

Cultural Resilience in a Resilience Framework As already indicated, the notion of resilience is evolving and encounters numerous challenges that are conceptual and operational in developing a framework of resilience. In reference to conceptual challenges, the lack of consensus on the definition of resilience has stimulated the development of “working definitions” by various researchers. This process is necessary in the initial stages of development and understanding of a concept when the complexity of its meaning is being determined and its operative potential recognized. Table 1 summarizes the key approaches identified within different disciplinary areas in reference to resilience. Operational challenges refer to the identification of components and indicators that describe the interaction among parameters from the perspective of each discipline. Establishing how these components and indicators are measured, as well as establishing how they interact with

each other, is also defined according to the approaches and methods specific to each disciplinary area. Table 1. Some Key Academic Approaches to Resilience Discipline

Concepts

References

Physics (resilience in material properties)

Combination of flexibility and strength Haswell (1860) Efficiency, control, constancy, and Ecology (engineering discourse on predictability; stability and equilibrium; Folke et al. (2002) resilience) self-contained closed systems; homogeneity Persistence, adaptiveness, variability, and Ecology (ecological resilience) unpredictability; non-equilibrium; open Folke et al. (2002) systems; heterogeneity Structural engineering (structural Properties to withstand destructive loading Gong (2010) resilience) conditions without premature rupture Natural and physical parameters from ecology. In addition includes human Urban planning (resilience-oriented policy ecosystem, social processes, and Herrman et al. (2011), Pickett et al. (2004) and planning) participatory mechanisms in planning and policymaking Economic view of sustainable community development (capital approach); five Disaster management (community disaster Mayunga (2007), Islam, Merrell, and Seitz forms of a capital community can utilize resilience) (2010) in building resilience: social, economic, physical, human, and natural Positive adaptation; dynamic developmental (Mental) Health (emotional and process; protective factors; recognizes Herrman et al. (2011), Montpetit et al. psychological resilience) personal, biological, and environmental(2010) systemic factors and their interactions Social, economic, and ecological systems; Farrell and Twining-Ward (2004), Tyrrell other approaches include humanTourism (resilience in travel and tourism) and Johnston (2008), Cochrane (2009), environmental relationships that include Jamal (2013) ethnic and cultural aspects Environmental, economic, and social aspects. Recognizes the value of Historic preservation (resilience oriented Milligan (1998), Edson (2004), culture, heritage, community’s towards conservation) Spennemann (2007), Rypkema (2009) emotional links, societal constructs, identity and wellness

Disciplinary contributions, such as the ones summarized in Table 1, offer a preliminary start and support for an integrated cross-disciplinary approach to destination resilience. Table 2 offers further support to this important endeavor. The components, items, and indicators shown are drawn from the well-established literature on resilience in disaster management studies, where extensive research has been undertaken in terms of developing resilience to increasing environmental impacts and threats from climate change. This area of disaster management is important to draw upon to inform a framework of destination resilience (in addition to drawing from other areas such as noted in Table 1). It should be stated here that many items in Table 2 that are drawn from the disaster management literature tend to be addressed from an economic and quantitative (measurable) perspective and do not reflect the meaning and qualitative impact on resilience, or even ethical issues that may be related to it. For example, in the work by Mayunga (2009), the component “religious participation” is

measured using as indicator the amount (number) of “religious organizations”; or “community attachment” is measured using as indicator the amount (number) of “owner-occupied housing units.” Table 2. Destination Resilience-I: Using the Capital Approach from Disaster Management Resilience Parameter Natural

Physical

Social Economic Human

Key Items Natural resources (water, minerals, and oil), land to live and work, ecosystems that maintain clean water, air, and a stable climate Construction services (building construction establishments; heavy and civil engineering constructions; highway, street, and bridge construction establishments; architecture and engineering establishments); environment; land and building regulations; planning; property insurance Volunteerism; sociability; civic and political participation; religious participation; community attachment; connections in work place (professional organizations, business organizations); networks; norms; social trust Income; employment; home value; business; health insurance; financial resources: savings, income, investments, and credit Working capabilities of population to sustain economic production; education; health; construction services; environment; land and building regulations; planning (population employed in landscape architecture and planning services); property insurance; mitigation plans

Table 2 highlights key items from the literature that can be used as components and indicators to address each key parameter of resilience (natural, physical, social, economic, and human) that were also identified on resilience. It should be noted that Table 2 does not include general items common in the tourism literature, but that it solely shows items conducted on resilience only. “Culture” is added as a new parameter to consider in Table 2. This examination thus far uncovers the importance of addressing an understudied, missing parameter (culture) and offers a start toward exploring the notion of cultural resilience as vital to destination resilience (Table 3 notes some illustrative components to address this parameter). Here, the term cultural resilience is used broadly at present to encompass cultural, historic, and heritage aspects of the destination, noting that (as mentioned before) definitions of the notion of resilience are currently a work in progress, both within and outside of tourism studies. Table 3 indicates that tangible and intangible aspects must be addressed, not just physical measurable items but also cultural, relationships, values, and the meaning held by cultural sites, places, things, and relationships. Table 3. Destination Resilience-II: Including Culture as a New Parameter of Resilience Resilience Parameter

Cultural



Some Key Dimensions and Process Considerations Dimensions: Ethics; values; aesthetics; beliefs, symbolic meanings and myths; knowledge; conceptions of nature; interpretation; built and natural heritage; tangible (architecture, arts, etc.) and intangible (living culture, lifestyles, etc.) heritage; human-environmental relations; social practices; meaning; identity; belonging; sense of place Processes Participatory processes; collaborative planning; local control; involvement in decision-making; cultural equity; cultural justice; cultural change; conservation of built structures; visitor walkways; way

finding signs; management interpretative exhibits; education

It can be argued that resilience overall, and cultural resilience specifically, are vital bridges for an integrated approach to sustainability in heritage conservation and tourism. The relationship of cultural resilience to sustainability is seen in terms of contributing to the capacity (as process) of the site to respond to change over time, where change is considered not only in terms of tangible, quantitative items, and values (what is being sustained in physical terms, economic costs, and tourist revenues) but of also intangible, qualitative aspects (meaning, relevance, significance, pertinence, ethnic, community, and national identity). Through this, the often conflicting values of diverse heritage, multiple stakeholders (who may hold divergent views and interests), ethnic conflicts, embodied knowledge, issues of right and belonging, and the like, become more visible aspects of decision-making and management of the cultural and heritage tourism site, in the same way economic, physical, and natural components are considered. Parameters, such as shown in Table 2 and the preliminary items proposed in Table 3, thus need to be considered in order to inform decision-making in management, planning, and design of these sites.

CONCLUSION This chapter argues for a new sustainability paradigm that focuses on destination resilience, which, in the domain of heritage tourism (the topic of concern here), involves an integrated, resilience-oriented approach to heritage conservation and heritage tourism. Culture and its heritage share common ground in tourism and conservation (historic preservation), and sustainability requires an integrated approach to development, planning, and cultural heritage management. Resilience offers a potentially valuable framework toward this mutual goal of sustainability in heritage conservation and tourism. Furthermore, the cultural resilience notion offers a particularly valuable bridge (link) in this integrated approach. The preliminary and cross-disciplinary excavation of research literature will require much further theoretical and empirical study. Future research is also needed to identify and establish a clear set of indicators to operationalize resilience in the context of cultural heritage (conservation and tourism) and relate it to the other parameters of destination resilience (also to be further developed in terms of items and indicators). While this is work in progress, the exploratory study identifies a potentially important new sustainability paradigm in tourism studies: an integrated approach to heritage conservation and tourism that is based on destination and cultural resilience. Resilience, a nonlinear process of responding to change, depends on understanding natural, physical, economic, human, social, and cultural parameters and their interactions. Each disciplinary area examined has been identifying components as well as mechanisms to operationalize resilience for decisionmaking. A close look at these efforts indicates that the notion of resilience is an important concept and consideration in sustainability from the local to the global, from the individual to

the collective (community/society/destination). This exploratory study calls for incorporating destination resilience and intangible as well as tangible dimensions of cultural resilience into an integrated approach to heritage tourism and conservation. This may help to identify a robust research paradigm for integrated heritage management that addresses threats, such as climate change and disease mobilities, as well as other economic-political uncertainties associated with globalization and a growing world of tourism.

Chapter 3

A HUMANIST PARADIGM FOR TOURISM STUDIES? Envisioning a Collective Alternative to Epistemic Literalism Kellee Caton Thompson Rivers University, Canada

Abstract: This chapter explores the potential for and value of imagining a humanist paradigm for tourism studies. It explores how the idea of a “paradigm” in tourism can be conceptualized, arguing that dominant thoughtlines in other fields regarding the meaning of a paradigm are not sufficient for making sense of this idea in the context of tourism studies. The chapter introduces humanism as a philosophical position in the academy and as a lived cultural practice, explores examples of extant work in tourism studies that might be seen to provide the seeds of a humanist paradigm, and offers reflections on the value of imagining such a paradigm for our field. Keywords: Pragmatist humanism; paradigm; epistemology; relationality; inclusivity

INTRODUCTION Does it make sense to speak of an emerging humanist paradigm in tourism studies? In the first instance, it depends on what one means by a paradigm. In the next instance, it depends on whether one can spot seeds of such a paradigm in the contemporary body of thought on tourism, and more importantly, whether calling these works into conversation with each other holds catalytic promise. What new vistas could be opened on the tourism world through such an exploration? This chapter considers these sorts of queries, in the quest to explore the idea of a humanist paradigm for tourism studies. It begins by considering the notion of a paradigm in a complex, multidisciplinary social research field like our own. Having offered thoughts on how knowledge advances in tourism studies, and how an understanding of the same can help us to conceptualize what paradigms might look like in our field, it then turns more directly to a discussion of humanist philosophy itself, offering an overview of this perspective, along with a

discussion of criticisms that have arisen around it. It follows by undertaking a search for work in tourism studies that might provide the ingredients for a humanist paradigm, and finally concludes by offering thoughts on the value of imagining such a paradigm in our field.

WHAT IS A PARADIGM IN TOURISM STUDIES? A few years back, Airey (2008) made the clever point that, for tourism studies, life begins at 40. He meant by this that after 40 years of development of subject-specific journals, book series, and conference networks, which house increasingly sophisticated discussions of our phenomenon of study, plus the steady expansion of educational programming, ever increasing in both its horizontal complexity (in terms of the sub-specialties students may pursue, such as hospitality or event studies) and its vertical complexity (in terms of the levels of credentials offered, which now stretch up to the PhD), we may have finally reached a point of institutionalization as a field in which it is possible to wrap our heads around this collective enterprise we are engaged in and name it as a body of knowledge in its own right. A logical part of this maturation process of tourism studies is undoubtedly the recent interest in projects of collective reflexivity about our field—sometimes dubious, in the case of the everproliferating league tables of “top tourism programs” and “most-cited tourism academics,” and sometimes enormously welcome, as in analyses like that presented by Munar et al. (2015), who map gender and power in tourism studies; Tribe (2006, 2010), who considers the forces that shape knowledge production in our field, and describes its structure and culture; and Réau (2014), who offers us tools for engaging in acts of reflexivity at the level of our field. The inclination to speak of paradigms in our field is part of this striving—a sort of desire for collective metacognition that allows us to make sense of the larger project we are dedicating our energies to and put our work into perspective—and one which potentially has political advantages as well (Belhassen & Caton, 2009), as we jockey for our place in the contemporary university, among the mighty and towering traditional disciplines that seem often to be viewed as having a more natural claim to the territory of higher education than we latercomers do. But how to make sense of the idea of a paradigm in our context? As members of the broader social research or social science family, tourism scholars may be most familiar with talk of paradigms in a research philosophy and methods context. In this domain, the work of scholars like Lincoln, Guba, and Denzin looms large for its valuable contribution in teasing out the different philosophical approaches that undergird much current social research and exploring the points of convergence and confluence between them (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003; Lincoln & Guba, 2003). These scholars use the term “paradigm” to refer to a set of basic ontological and epistemological beliefs that guide a researcher in her methodological engagement with the phenomena she studies (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). This work on social research philosophy is no doubt valuable for tourism scholars, for the same reason it is helpful to anthropologists, geographers, sociologists, psychologists, and so forth,

who study other domains of sociocultural life besides tourism. But it is of limited utility for our present purposes precisely because of this generality. It is equally applicable to all social research fields and works at the level of how knowledge about the social world is created: it cannot tell us anything about what knowledge is created, and thus does not usefully orient us if our task is to analyze and understand the unique knowledge content of our field. Likewise, tourism scholars may be familiar with the notion of a paradigm set forth by Kuhn (1962) in his celebrated work on the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, in which he argued that scientific progress does not occur through the linear accumulation of facts and understandings generated by adherence to a pure and unchanging method, but rather is a thoroughly human process conditioned by the ever-evolving circumstances and possibilities available at the time inquiry ensues. Kuhn uses the term “paradigm” to refer to a coherent framework of thought within which understanding of a particular scientific phenomenon can be pursued. (To take what is probably his most commonly cited example, the Ptolemaic positioning of the earth at the center of the cosmos constituted a paradigm that, for nearly 15 centuries, governed the kinds of questions asked by European astronomers and the kinds of observations and calculations they made to answer these questions.) As anomalies that do not fit the prevailing coherent thought framework’s set of assumptions occur and begin to accumulate (in the previous example, observations that cannot be explained by calculations derived from a geocentric model), the assumptions of the underlying thought framework begin to be called into question. Alternative conjectures then begin to arise, but generally have little power as one-off explanations of a given anomaly. Once a sufficient volume of alternative conjectures arises, however, and more importantly, once those conjectures are able to be integrated to form a new coherent framework, then a new paradigm takes form. There is then typically a transition period in which the original paradigm and the new paradigm rival each other for adherents, and in the end, the paradigm with more explanatory power wins out, with the other one falling to the wayside to be relegated to the annals of scientific history as a quaint footnote about the old-fashioned way of doing things. Kuhn’s conceptualization thus emphasizes not only the basic beliefs of a researcher that guide the approach she takes to her subject matter but also something of the body of knowledge that is accepted about that subject matter, which tends to condition what kinds of questions will be asked. This focus on a body of knowledge, and the changes that happen within it as the result of collective, communally held understandings, makes Kuhn’s notion of a paradigm in some ways more useful to us than Guba and Lincoln’s (1994) conceptualization. The latter, in taking the individual researcher as its point of departure and abstracting itself from the concrete context of knowledge production in any particular field, lacks an orientation toward both content and collectivity, and both of these are needed if the goal is to analyze knowledge production in our field. But Kuhn’s conceptualization is problematic, too. Anchored as it is in the realm of natural science, it cannot be neatly applied to social research, because knowledge about human phenomena doesn’t progress in the same way as knowledge about natural phenomena. In the social world, there is no lodestar of objective truth toward which we can confidently point our ship; there is no equivalent of atoms or gravity about which we can securely author universal

laws. Thus, a conceptualization in which it is in the nature of paradigmatic activity for each in a succession of competing frameworks to supersede the one that came before, by virtue of its superior explanatory ability, cannot ultimately go very far in explaining intellectual activity in a field where reality and truth are plural and dynamic—a field like our own. If the notion of a paradigm is to be useful in a field like tourism studies, then in order to conceptualize it in a fruitful way, we must begin with the more basic question of how knowledge advances in a field like ours. Together, Yaniv Belhassen and I have written previously about this matter (Belhassen & Caton, 2009), setting forth what we characterized as a linguistic approach to knowledge development in tourism studies. In this piece, we drew on Nietzschean thought to argue that the distance between any human conceptualization of a scientific truth and an ultimately secure foundation for that truth (assuming any such foundation even exists) will never be fully bridged. Human understanding about the world is linguistically constrained, such that the assertions we produce are, at rock bottom, no more than metaphors for describing the world we encounter. The language systems we create are what allows for communication among individuals, and between larger groups of individuals, about the phenomena we encounter. Bodies of literature, such as that of tourism studies, are best read as the living record of that communicative process. They are the dynamic, ever-evolving corpuses of the series of metaphors we create for describing the world in ways that help us to better cope with it. There are no grounds for holding a correspondence theory of truth in knowledge production, because we will never have unmediated access to a referent for our conceptualizations that exists outside of language (Rorty, 1989). This is not to say that there is no real, material world beyond our own thoughts; rather, it is to say that we will never be able to fully cross the “theory gap” that separates that reality from our mental conceptions of it. Thus, the value of knowledge lies not in an unachievable capturing of the truth of the world as it really is, but rather in the generation of conceptions that allow us to function better in the world. In fields that center on understanding social phenomena like tourism, large swaths of that which is to be studied could be argued to lack any underpinning of objective reality at all. What is the objective truth of a pilgrim’s faith experience? Of a sightseer’s ethical obligations? Of the role of researcher identity in tourism knowledge creation? In this case, a linguistic approach, which sees tourism knowledge production not as the quest to capture and reflect objective truth, but as a “complex negotiated communicative project, containing a multitude of paradigmatic, historical, methodological, and disciplinary influences … in which scholars from different backgrounds engage together”—and moreover as a process which is “always conditioned by power, by the institutionalized setting under which it occurs, and by the rhetorical and textual constructions utilized by its producers”—becomes all the more useful (Belhassen & Caton, 2009, p. 337). It is the best answer I have yet found for making overall sense of how knowledge can be seen as progressing in such a complicated, fragmented domain, composed of so many diverse research themes, disciplinary influences, and paradigmatic allegiances. Following this grounding, then, Yaniv and I proceeded to offer three guiding dimensions

through which knowledge progression in tourism studies can be viewed. The first is the development of tourism morphology, or the creation, expansion, refinement, and overhaul of terms, concepts, metaphors, and models about our subject matter. Morphology is important because the concepts we create are the flashpoints around which intersubjective exchanges can ensue. Words are our common meeting ground—the realization notwithstanding that this ground will always be shaky because meaning is never fixed or permanent (Hall, 1994). Words, as the vehicles of conceptual connections, carry moral baggage as well, a point which will become important later in this chapter. The second dimension through which knowledge progression in tourism can be viewed is the creation and propagation of new interpretations and understandings of tourism phenomena. Concepts and empirical observations (and other forms of data gathering) amalgamate to become (more or less) insightful frameworks or theories about how different aspects of our tourism world work. Again, different disciplines, different paradigms within and across disciplines, and so forth will have their own rhetorical norms and their own politics of evidence. But at the end of the day, what all scholars (in tourism or otherwise) are doing is interpreting data and using language to make a case for the value of a particular way of imagining some aspect of the world. Such interpretations are discursive profusions that carry even more moral weight than the words/concepts that compose them, by virtue of the more highly organized projections of the world they weave. The third dimension through which epistemological movement in tourism studies can be registered is the mobilization of concepts and frameworks toward the purpose of practical problem solving by those in the tourism field, such as industry practitioners and policymakers. It is in this realm that our creative discursive activity rises up and walks off of the page, to participate in shaping an external world in its own image. Such a conceptualization of what we are doing when we do tourism knowledge production demands a notion of paradigm that does not rest on the search for a singular truth; as such, it cannot be imagined as a singular set of assumptions that governs a field (near) totally until it is overthrown by a succeeding set of assumptions, which in turn do the same. Multiple sets of assumptions must be able to co-exist. Instead, in keeping the focus on consequences rather than truth—on usefulness rather than correspondence to some external reality—a paradigm can be seen as an orientation to a field of study that highlights particular problems as being worth solving and goes about solving them in particular ways, based on an underlying set of beliefs and values, which govern both problem selection and solution. The fruits of that orientation can be located as particular outputs in the body of knowledge (in this case, tourism knowledge) which are traceable back to the underlying assumptions that spurred them. (In this way, Lincoln & Guba’s, 2003, style of work becomes more helpful, in reminding us of the kinds of assumptions—ontological, epistemological, methodological, and axiological, for example— that are working, often behind the scenes, to drive the shape of knowledge produced.) It is thus through this sort of conceptualization that a paradigm can become a useful organizing concept for a field like tourism studies, helping us to analyze the knowledge we’ve produced in an historicized way that does not require us to accept any particular truth standard, but which is capable of shedding light on important patterns and meaningful differences in the way our

subject matter is being addressed. In keeping with this understanding of a paradigm, the goal of this chapter is to explore one branch of philosophy—pragmatist humanism—and to search for the seeds of work within the tourism corpus that would allow us to imagine it as a paradigm in our field. To do this, let us first consider humanist philosophy itself, exploring its contours, considering some of the criticisms that have been leveled at it, and imagining it in its most robust light as a tool for thinking about contemporary intellectual action in tourism studies.

Humanist Philosophy Humanism is an antifoundational philosophical movement that, at its core, ascribes positive value and worth to human beings. It emphasizes the unique character of humans as moral creatures and is optimistic that we can use our moral capacity to make improvements in the world around us. Humanism is not merely a descriptive perspective, but a normative one, emphasizing that with our capacity for moral reasoning comes the responsibility to use this capacity for the greater good. Although some who would consider themselves adherents to a humanist perspective also consider themselves to be religious or spiritual, humanism holds that religion is not necessary as a moral basis for society. We need not (necessarily) look to metaphysical forces for guidance; rather we come naturally equipped to negotiate life’s moral terrain, thanks to our capacity for compassion and empathy. This capacity is viewed by humanists as requiring no further justification beyond itself: We need not science, nor intellectual arguments, nor religious convictions as means of “proof” in order to choose to accept this point of departure. As is probably already becoming obvious, humanism is a pragmatic philosophy. Rorty (1989), one of the 20th century’s most famous voices in humanist philosophy, describes the figure of the humanist-pragmatist as the “liberal ironist”—with the label of “liberal” referring to “one who believes that cruelty is the worst thing we do,” and the notion of “ironist” referring to (if I may amalgamate his more subtle descriptions into a single broad stroke) an acceptance of the irony that there are no secure foundations of truth for even our most deeply held beliefs—including those about the worth of compassion and the horrors of cruelty. In true pragmatist form, ends and processes are judged as good or bad based on their outcomes: specifically, on whether or not they increase the happiness and decrease the suffering of human beings and other living creatures, including future generations. Thus, consequences trump truth as humanism’s central concern. We do not need epistemological criteria (i.e., truth foundations) to prove that happiness is good and suffering is bad; instead, we can make these judgments simply based on the outcomes of shared human experience (although certainly not everyone’s definition of pleasure and pain will be the same). Humanism’s pragmatic orientation naturally leads its affiliates to emphasize contextual reasoning and situation-based judgments, rather than blanket rules, for moral choices and behaviors, and this is another reason that the movement often asserts itself as existing in opposition to religious-based forms of morality, when the

latter are generalized as constituting codified systems of relatively inflexible rules. It is probably most accurate to say that humanism as we know it in the modern sense only arose after the mid-18th century with the Enlightenment, but tracing the intellectual and cultural roots of this movement is a more complex undertaking, not least for the reason that the term has been used in many senses, in many times and places in recorded history, and these various connotations are not unrelated to the present philosophical movement under discussion. During the Renaissance, humanism was associated with valuing the intellectual and artistic contributions of the humanities—literature, music, visual art, and philosophy, for example— and the term was adopted in a curricular sense in higher education after that time to indicate a stance promoting the liberal arts. The term has also been used to connote a love or appreciation for that which is human, a position which casts an optimistic gaze on our species and its works and potential. Similarly, the specific ideas embraced by humanist philosophy, as noted above, in particular its emphasis on compassion-based morality that derives from human beings without need of being undergirded by supernatural forces and on the human call to moral responsibility, also have deep roots regardless of whether the word “humanism” was used to describe this way of thinking or not. In this sense, humanistic reasoning can be traced to Renaissance thought, as well as to much earlier traditions as diverse as Buddhism, Confucianism, and ancient Greek and Medieval Islamic thought. These traditions all emphasized one or more central humanist principles, such as tolerance; the call to “do unto others”; the value of reason, science, and other forms of scholarship in serving as a basis for understanding the world and forming sound decisions; the importance of individual free thought; and the need to work in service of social progress and the greater good. In the modern era, humanism began to find more formal and institutionalized expression in the “ethical culture movement” that arose in Great Britain and the United States. Early ethical societies in London were generally affiliated with liberal religious traditions like Unitarianism and were central hubs for championing social reforms in areas such as women’s equality, worker’s rights, and public health (Law, 2011). Their American counterparts would take another hundred years, until the end of the 19th century, to spring up, and when they did, under the leadership of fallen-away rabbi-in-training turned university professor Felix Adler, they took the movement further on its trajectory away from religious affiliations and toward establishing its own independent identity. The ethical societies formed under Adler’s vision emphasized the possibility of (indeed the need for) morality to exist independent of theology; the responsibility of human beings to engage in philanthropic activities and work for social progress; the need to continuously strive for self-improvement (in keeping with the transcendentalist sentiments so en vogue in the American Northeast at that time); and the importance of judging others based on their actions rather than on ascribed characteristics like gender or religion (“deed not creed”) (Radest, 1969). Humanism had much to show for itself in the 19th and 20th centuries, serving as a driving force behind a variety of successful progressive social causes, including slavery abolition, labor rights, women’s suffrage, civil rights for racial and ethnic minority groups, disease eradication, and universal education for children in many parts of the world. As these activities evidence, key to the philosophy of

humanism is the belief that human beings have the power—through scholarly inquiry, logical reasoning, empathy, communication, and many other important capacities—to improve our own lives and the lives of those around us: the status quo is not inevitable. It is perhaps the destiny, especially in our current “information age,” of all loose coalitions of ideas, in philosophy or elsewhere, to eventually become more codified than many of their adherents might prefer. Certainly, this is the case with humanistic thinking, which as noted earlier, has incredibly diverse roots and is united only by a handful of very simple principles, such as a belief in the moral capacity of human beings; a view that theology is not necessary as a basis for morality and that human compassion is instead the best starting place; the placing of a high value on free thought, reason, and scholarly inquiry as tools for social improvement; and the belief that human beings hold a duty to improve themselves and their societies. Indeed, if the publishing industry is any indication with its spate of humanism “guides” and “handbooks” (e.g., Cave, 2009; Hancock, 2011; Herrick, 2005), this philosophical perspective is faring no better than any other in escaping the ossification process. Such a reality makes discussion of the scholarly and political criticisms and controversies surrounding humanism difficult, as it is easy to generally assume a sort of standard, garden-variety version of the thing, when of course there are many strands of humanism and much internal disagreement about the particulars. Thus, any given criticism may be applicable to some conceptualizations of humanism but not others. (As both Pernecky, 2014, and Munar (Munar, Pernecky, & Wheeler, forthcoming) would put it, humanism has “many shades of grey.”) Political criticism of humanism has come in both popular and scholarly forms, and from both the right and the left, although often the arguments of its detractors do not strike me as wholly coherent. The philosophy’s emphasis on secularism has unsurprisingly rendered it a target for conservative religious groups, and in the United States for the political right, which has become increasingly aligned with such groups (Baumgartner, Francia, & Morris, 2008; Jelen, 1994). Those on the right tend to equate humanism with moral relativism. This critique misses the mark, because although humanism advocates a flexible and contextual approach to moral reasoning, recognizing as it does that life’s inevitable complexity often presents in the form of dilemmas for which there are no easy solutions, it holds certain fundamental principles about human dignity and care for others to have irrefutable value and to be at the core of moral decision-making; thus, it is anything but relativistic. Humanism is also not synonymous with Romanticism, although it is often confused as such, in what, from my lived experience, I might call the “popular academic imagination.” Romanticism was a movement that arose predominantly in the first half of the 19th century in Europe, in response to and critique of the Industrial Revolution and its concomitant rationalization of many aspects of modern life. The Romantic Movement held the figure of the individual in high regard, as well as the notions of free artistic expression and emotional indulgence. Nature loomed large in the world of Romanticism, and Romantics were often suspicious of the synthetic human world, viewing human life to be perhaps at its most authentic when individuals were able to contemplate the natural world in solitude. Thus, although Romanticism shares with humanism a positive view of the capabilities of humankind and a

belief that humans should aspire to greatness, the former lacks the profoundly social character of the latter, as well as the latter’s admiration of some aspects of science and modernity. In humanism, it is not primarily the individual’s quest for experience of the world, but rather his or her capacity to grow, improve, and contribute to social good, that is defining. Humanism is also not romantic in the sense of naïvely believing that there are easy answers to the moral conundra any individual will inevitably face in his or her life course. To act with compassion is the goal, but just how to best exercise compassion in any given situation is a perennial question in any human life, and many times an easy answer is not forthcoming. Humanism does not seek to gloss this reality, but rather holds it directly at heart. The misconception of humanism as romantic in a naïve sense strikes me as parallel to Higgins-Desbiolles and Whyte’s (2013) (arguably misplaced) critique of Pritchard et al.’s (2011) notion of “hopeful tourism,” in the sense of operating at the wrong level of analysis. Just as we can be hopeful for the creation of a better tourism world precisely because we have scholars like Higgins-Desbiolles and Whyte to help us see what the necessary preconditions are (i.e., justice) for actualizing it, so too can hope for engaging in a more effective way with life’s moral terrain reasonably arise, so says humanism, precisely by virtue of humans being willing to seek a clear-eyed view about the realities of life’s moral complexity. Likewise, criticism of humanism has come from the scholarly left in a variety of stripes. The most codified of these is “posthumanism,” a movement that arose via feminist theorists in literary criticism in the 1980s and 1990s, to then be taken up by cultural studies, and ultimately by philosophy (Ferrando, 2013). Posthumanism reacts to what it perceives as the anthropocentrism and speciesism of humanism, which is seen to embrace both a human–other dualism and a sense of human primacy. As such, it aims for “post-exclusivism: an empirical philosophy of mediation which offers a reconciliation of existence in its broadest significations. Posthumanism does not employ any frontal dualism or antithesis, demystifying any ontological polarization through the postmodern practice of deconstruction” (Ferrando, 2013, p. 29). According to Wolfe’s (2010) exegesis in his appropriately titled What Is Posthumanism?, this perspective holds that humanism is problematic because at its heart lies the individual subject (who it seems from Wolfe’s description has traditionally been imagined as having, for example, capacities like rational thought, agency, and linguistic expression). That subject is the bearer of rights. Thus, how we define the subject bears on what we think we owe it, in terms of these rights. We can keep redefining the subject more and more inclusively (e.g., perhaps we take a capacity like linguistic expression out of the equation to capture people or other animals who do not have that ability), and this helps us in practical terms to recognize a greater sphere of entities as falling within the zone of those to whom we are accountable, but that process will only allow us, at best, to de-imperialize asymptotically, as we bestow on ever more entities the privilege of subjecthood. If we want to completely de-imperialize, then the only path is to get rid of the subject completely. (Wolfe also seems to feel that this de-imperializing process is important even for those already included in the sphere of “humans,” and hence already owed full rights, because imagining them as coherent subjects does epistemic violence to their

complexity, given that none of us are coherent wholes.) Again, however, it is hard to see a direct line of engagement for this critique. Humanism, on my reading, is not so concerned about the status of the entity to whom a particular type of moral behavior is owed. Instead, its focus is on the person doing the behaving—the human as a moral actor. Pragmatist humanists, to be more specific, are those who are united in their (foundationless) view: one, that compassion (whatever that means in a particular context, and people will disagree) is good, and cruelty (whatever that means in a particular context, and people will disagree) is bad, and two, that the obligation is incumbent on any being with the ability to act and to think about right and wrong to use those abilities to uphold the compassion good–cruelty bad principle (whatever that looks like, and we won’t all agree—even with ourselves from time to time, as we grow and change in our thinking). Confessing to being quite a novice to the body of literature on posthumanism, my first instinct was actually to assume that the posthumanism of scholars like Wolfe must obviously be referring to a different version of humanism than the one I knew. In reading further, however, I was able to locate a discussion by Wolfe (1998) in a more obscure publication, referring specifically to the pragmatist humanism of scholars like Rorty (1989) and West (1989), in whose work my own understandings of humanism are grounded. In this discussion, he appears to bundle Rorty’s humanist arguments about compassion and avoidance of cruelty as the preferred basis for moral engagement together with Rorty’s liberalist arguments about the value of communication in a democratic public sphere as the best pragmatic mechanism humans have found so far for living together in a way that decreases cruelty. But humanism and liberalism advance separate claims (although they do often seem to load together, in terms of who their adherents are). Wolfe, in the main, directs his criticisms against Rorty’s liberal public sphere as hegemonic to those who do not want to live in this mode of discursive engagement and decision-making, but how his critique extends to the humanism part of the argument is unclear, especially given that he quite surprisingly closes his discussion in a rather humanist fashion. In these concluding remarks, he positions his own ethical project as being founded on us ridding ourselves of the catalogue of characteristics (most notably, agency) that we use to qualify someone as a fitting liberal subject bearing rights, and instead adopt a position in which compassion is given freely to all that is outside of ourselves, with no sense of reciprocity or a “contract between moral agents.” He quotes a beautiful passage from Derrida about how we have confused the purpose of the eye, thinking that its value lies in being something to see with (which presumably allows us to make sense of the world outside and think we have mastered it), when really its value is in being something to cry with, as we are moved by a sense of care for the other. This compassion-based stance, which has everything to do with how a person should behave, and nothing whatsoever to do with the question of who or what does or doesn’t qualify to receive that compassion, is precisely what humanism is on about. So posthumanism’s critique here seems clumsy, bundling as it does the arguments of humanism and liberalism together, when they are actually separate claims, as well as mislocating humanism’s arguments as pertaining to the object who should receive care, rather

than to the subject who should give it. (Although liberalism can certainly be defended too, and one is left to wonder how, in advocating compassion without dialogue, Wolfe intends to avoid what Tucker, 2016, conceptualizes as empathic imperialism—assuming oneself to have the epistemic righteousness to correctly put oneself in another’s shoes, and therefore to give compassion without asking what compassion might look like for the recipient.) Indeed, many of humanism’s most famous faces are explicitly antifoundational when it comes to who the subject is, eschewing Platonistic reality–perception dualisms in favor of what Rorty (1989) calls a plurality of “vocabularies,” precisely because embracing plurality over dualism removes humanity’s most powerful and dubious tool for creating exclusions: us– them thinking. (In tourism studies, this position is highly reminiscent of Bryan Grimwood’s work in the Arctic, discussed in the subsequent section.) And as for the charge of speciesism, surely, even for posthumanists, this issue is a matter of degrees. Those who would fall under the label of “popular humanists” appear to hold great care toward Gaia as a whole, if the popular guidebook descriptions of the movement are any indication. And it is difficult to imagine that all those who would count themselves as posthumanist academics would offer the same right to life to the bacteria that inhabit their lungs during a case of pneumonia as they would to themselves, to the war refugees evoking grave concern halfway around the world, or to the cocker spaniel down the street. In the end, humanism is, more than anything else, a standpoint theory that suggests a moving out from, without necessarily needing to theorize about the essence of the place where one started. It is a becoming. “Human” is a convenient vernacular word to describe those having the conversation, and exclusive as this word may be in a technical sense, this exclusivism doesn’t seem capture the spirit of the perspective—neither as adumbrated by philosophers nor as practiced by everyday folks—so it’s important not to confuse the signifier with the signified. For these reasons, the spirit of posthumanism’s arguments seem to stand not in opposition to humanism, but rather to fall within humanism and to offer explications that help it to better meet its own inclusivist goals.

A Humanist Paradigm for Tourism Studies? Of late, there has been a tremendous flourishing of conceptual work that, when collected, begins to look like something we could imagine as a humanist paradigm. Given the necessarily brief nature of discussion that can occur in the space allowed here, this chapter merely seeks to highlight a handful of instances of thought expression that are particularly important in this regard, keeping in mind that there are many other wonderful examples which could also have been included. As such, this discussion is more idiosyncratic and (if I might invent a word that is the individual and personal equivalent of “historicized”) “biogratized,” than it is comprehensive and analytical—in light of the goal of this chapter, which is to spur discussion rather than to attempt to reach a definitive state of finishedness in any claims made. As I have argued elsewhere (Caton, 2012), what Guba and Lincoln (1994) call the

“received view” of social research has had a profound impact on tourism studies (see also Hollinshead, 2006). Notwithstanding several important exceptions, it seems fair to say that the taken-for-granted ontological perspective in much of tourism research’s 40-year history has been to work from a correspondence-based theory of truth, such that there has been seen to be a reality “out there” for researchers to attempt to capture, as well as a comfort level with the assumption that attempts to apprehend it are objectively verifiable. Although there seems to be a broad diversity of opinion on how best to produce valid knowledge (i.e., disagreement at the methodological level), it has historically been relatively rare for empirical pieces in tourism studies to question the idea that—with the correct methods in hand—we can get the correct answers. To take an analogy from the hardhat type of construction site, there has been a keenness to argue about building methods but a corresponding evasiveness on the question of foundations, and therefore a lack of consideration for, what the implications might be if there turn out to be no foundations at all. I will call the perspective that arises from this confluence of ideas—a stance that perceives a legible coherence flowing between an external reality and the production of verifiable knowledge about that reality courtesy of simply using the right tools—epistemic literalism. Epistemic literalism has spurred strong critique in tourism studies from many angles. Notable within this body of critique is Tribe’s (2006) piece “The Truth about Tourism”, in which he conceived the idea of a knowledge force-field, through which our inquires about our tourism world are refracted, thus making it impossible to know whether we have ever captured any tourism world that might exist external to our own conceptions of it. Conclusions like Tribe’s implicitly beg the practical question of whether, if tourism reality can never be directly apprehended, there is any point in thinking about it objectively in the first place. In other words, who cares if there is a reality out there, if we can never capture it literally anyway? Pernecky (2012) spells out this problem explicitly, in his discussion regarding how social constructionism has tended to be misunderstood as necessarily implying adherence to a relativist ontology—the view that there is, in fact, no reality independent of mental conceptualizations of it—when this characterization is actually more of a stereotype and is not representative of what most who work under the constructionist banner genuinely believe. He thus makes it clear that constructionism, for many of its adherents, is not an ontological position, but rather an epistemological one, which does not necessarily feel the need to concern itself with ontological matters at all. It is possible, scholars like Pernecky argue, to remain ontologically agnostic, and to simply take up the story at the point of the individual and collective conceptions of reality people hold, which have consequences for themselves and others. Botterill (2014), in a commentary responding to Pernecky, invests effort in rebutting Pernecky’s claim that constructionism can be both realist and relativist (i.e., believing both that phenomena exist independently of our knowledge of them and that our knowledge of them can only ever be relative to ourselves as knowers); but the piece ultimately succeeds more in quite helpfully distinguishing constructionism from Botterill’s own position of philosophical commitment, critical realism. In another paper, Botterill, together with Platenkamp, explicates

this intriguing perspective, characterizing critical realism as making a distinction between transitive and intransitive domains of the social world, with the former consisting of our concepts, theories, and understandings about phenomena, and the latter referring to the structures and properties of phenomena which are largely enduring (but not immutable) and which exert constraints on human agency (Platenkamp & Botterill, 2013). Critical realism, as he explains in the commentary, is distinguished by its ontological commitment to recognizing these distinct domains (or “layers” of reality) and exercising the methodological approach of “retroduction,” wherein researchers observe the present state of things and then search for the structural-level features that enable that state (and in some cases make alternative states less likely, or even near impossible). This process continues, in practical terms essentially without limit, as deeper enabling layers are uncovered for the conditions that rest atop them. Thus, to extrapolate from Botterill’s own example (Botterill, 2014), a person’s ability to fly across an international border as a tourist is contingent in part on that person holding a passport; which in turn is contingent on humanity embracing an organizing system of the population into citizens of nation-states; which in turn is contingent on ideologies about inclusivity and exclusivity of social contracts; which in turn may be contingent on historical (and possibly contemporary?) ideologies about race, ethnicity, and identity or perhaps on material circumstances of historical human contact patterns and linguistic distributions; which in turn may be influenced by geographical conditions; and so forth. Botterill locates the power of critical realism in its explanatory potential, arguing that constructionism is concerned only with the transitive domain, and hence is infinitely trapped in an epistemological hall of mirrors, with only the “processes and protocols of the relevant social scientific discipline communit[y]” to serve as arbiters of validity—though he never makes it clear what truth standard there is for critical realists to appeal to in order to demonstrate that they have gotten their retroductions right, beyond those same “processes and protocols” that govern constructionist (or any other) knowledge production acts (Botterill, 2014, p. 294). What appears to be so valuable about critical realism, however, is the overt emphasis on consequences that it adds to the realist portion of the constructionist scene characterized by Pernecky. Phenomena (like passports) have the power to produce effects. Whether or not we can always properly apprehend those effects, they nevertheless exist. And what we apprehend them to be—correctly or incorrectly—also produces effects of its own. We, as knowers (and moreover as embodied knowers), are bound within the system of phenomena producing effects (Gadamer, 1975). This is very much akin to what could be called pragmatist humanism’s contingency-based ontology (discussed further below), as well as its claim that holding an antifoundational epistemology does not absolve us from accepting that our actions produce effects. What humanism would add to this picture, however, is a specific axiological claim: namely, that the consequential nature of our existence and actions results in moral obligations. We must seek to understand the effects produced by the contingencies in our world, in the interest of promoting the flourishing and decreasing the suffering of humans and other beings. Furthermore, the lack of a secure truth standard does not render us impotent for making

progress, as measured by the standard of our collective, negotiated articulations of what a good life would look like. There is no GPS system to definitively confirm that we are on the right path, but we can still watch the landmarks around the horizon and make reasonable judgments about whether we are headed toward or away from them, although this is sometimes more straightforward than others, and two hikers traveling together may have different visibilities or read the same landscape in different ways. Belief in the reality of cause and effect also opens transformative potential. If we believe in consequences and hold hope that we may sometimes be able to understand where they came from, then we may sometimes be able to change them by doing things differently. Sometimes we succeed in doing things differently by engaging with the intransitive domain, as when Higgins-Desbiolles (2012) deconstructs the forces of global capitalism that produce mainstream tourism services in a particular form and explores how things could be different, through an on-the-ground analysis of the example of Argentina’s Hotel Bauen, which was taken over from bankruptcy by workers who revitalized the property and began to run it as a worker cooperative. Through this work, Higgins-Desbiolles follows the call of Giroux (2008, p. 141) to “make visible alternative models of radical democratic relations” (cited in HigginsDesbiolles 2012, p. 625), thereby challenging the dominant neoliberal model, with its effects that tend to be taken as natural, rather than recognized as contingencies of their causes. Similarly, Munar’s (2010) work on critical digital studies engages with the intransitive domain in the context of identity, social interaction, and power, exploring how new technologies (such as social media) are impacting both individual and social life. Through this work, Munar recasts contemporary communications technologies and travel experiences, from tools and practices in the hands of subjects, to entities which can each unleash productive powers latent in the other, when the two are joined together—powers which can ultimately turn back on the subject (Munar, 2013). Other times we succeed in doing things differently by engaging with the transitive domain —by questioning our own discourses. While much work in this regard in tourism studies has been deconstructive in nature, there are also examples of creative energy manifested to catalyze new ways of thinking and being. Grimwood’s (2015a) soulful project to launch the construction of a “moral morphology” for tourism studies, through his work in Nunavut, illustrates the power that lies in casting our metaphorical redescriptions of landscapes and human engagement with them in relational ways. Through a mobile ethnography, traveling through the Thelon riverscape both with indigenous inhabitants and with groups of tourists, Grimwood redescribed the area as a space of emplacement, wayfaring, and gathering: relational and inclusive metaphors that, “in their fluidity, hybridity and indeterminacy … refuse absolute, universal or divisive expressions of value,” and which thus help us to transcend dominant discourses of Arctic spaces as “empty nature” to be conserved for tourist use, rather than as spaces that, in actuality, do and should host a multiplicity of engagements and meanings (Grimwood, 2015a, p. 3). Similarly, in her contribution to her new book with colleagues on Disruptive Tourism and Its Untidy Guests, Veijola (2014) attempts to radically redescribe the notion of community, doubting as she does that our traditional conceptualization of this idea as

rooted in shared identity, place possession, and so forth will continue to be robust and relevant given contemporary mobilities. She explores the alternative possibility of community as an “embodied being-with” that does not impose on either hosts or guests in a way that compromises plurality, and which gives rise to the ethical possibility of “mobile neighboring” (pp. 71–72, 87). What both Grimwood and Veijola emphasize is the need to explore ethical ways of being together without being the same, and both powerfully illustrate the generative capabilities that lie within the transitive domain, demonstrating that not only phenomena, but also the ways we understand those phenomena, can be consequential. They both represent inspiring examples of scholars who move beyond the task of deconstruction to work on actively building better discursive futures—a move very much in harmony with Pritchard et al.’s (2011) project of “hopeful tourism.” Work that takes up the task of creating better futures without simultaneously needing to seek solid truth foundations is very much in line with the spirit of humanism, especially as captured in Rorty’s (1989) work Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. In this volume, Rorty first makes a case for antifoundationalism, offering a sweeping characterization of reality (including language, the self, and community) as contingency-based, stoking his argument with such diverse intellectual nutrients as Freudian psychology and the fiction of Proust. He then posits that taking an ontological view of a world characterized by contingency and always in process constitutes not an impediment to, but rather the background condition against which, we can pursue our moral commitments (see also Veijola, Germann Molz, Pyyhtinen, Höckert, & Grit, 2014, p. 7). But there is more to humanism than epistemological and axiological claims, of the type so beautifully articulated by Rorty and others, about functioning well in an antifoundational world. Humanism is also a popular movement. It is a collective practice by people seeking a way of being in the world that does not require foundations beyond their own epistemic power. The people who gather in “ethical societies” around the globe to explore good ways of acting toward their neighbors and their planet, and to celebrate life’s passages and share communally in its joys and sorrows, are implicitly arguing that there can be magic and mystery—and life purpose—without foundations like religion or science. And contemporary humanism is also on some level descended from Renaissance humanism, revisionist as it has been and continues to be, and as such it captures some of the optimism and wonder of that era regarding human capacity for beautiful and virtuous creative acts. Thus, it is a standpoint to speak from, but also one to celebrate, as our window, which opens onto a world rich for engagement. Near the end of his life, Foucault was quoted in an interview, as he expressed his musings about art, saying “What strikes me is the fact that in our society, art has become something which is related only to objects and not to individuals, or to life. That art is something which is specialized or which is done by experts who are artists. But couldn’t everyone’s life become a work of art? Why should the lamp or the house be an art object, but not our life?” (reported in Rabinow, 1984). For many of us in tourism studies who hold antifoundationalist leanings; who think that knowledge production is (consequence-laden, yes) human redescription all the way down, flowing, as Gadamer (1975) might conceptualize it, from the back-and-forth push

between ourselves and the world; and who see value in art as a tool to enhance empathic capacity and moral imagination, to cope with complexity, and to promote liberatory thinking (Caton, 2015a, 2015b), it seems increasingly difficult to resist Foucault’s invitation. So are you one who suspects that the world is not merely a figment of your imagination? Do you lean toward antifoundationalism, finding yourself unconvinced that there is any definitive truth standard against which we can securely measure our understandings of this notsolely-in-our-mind world? Does metaphorical redescription sound good to you, as a characterization back to yourself of what you are doing, as you are creating and conveying your own understandings of that not-solely-in-your-mind world, using whichever methods you feel allow you to process it in a compelling and productive way? Do you believe that the features of our world and our attempts to make sense of them produce consequences? Do you come in hope, bearing a transformative ontology, accepting reality as in the making, and to some degree ours for the changing? Do you sense a moral obligation (possibly one you cannot rationally explain) for yourself and others to do our best to untangle the world’s features, happenings, and consequences in a quest to promote flourishing and decrease suffering? And do you harbor a sense of awe and wonder about the world? Do you experience the world in a way that transcends and defies complete sense-making and articulation—and feel grateful for the grace of being, in a realm where comprehensibility shades into mystery? And do you find yourself craving art in your lived experience, as a strategy to evade closure and the tyranny of certainty? If so, then, in addition to whatever else you may call yourself, you might also be a humanist.

CONCLUSION So what is the cash value of imagining a humanist paradigm for tourism studies? While I would be the last to argue that philosophical explorations always need to pay for their ticket through the practical outcomes they produce, there nevertheless is value in considering this question. From where I sit, I can see two key interventions that become possible by conceptualizing the diverse work discussed above (along with many other cognate projects!) under a larger philosophical umbrella. First, and unsurprisingly given the gendered history of academia, it is the tendency of scholarly discourse to proceed in a masculinist style, where the mode of engagement is to deconstruct others’ arguments, searching for holes in one’s interlocutor’s work that open a space for oneself to say something important. Although the new argument offered indeed often has much value, its positioning as oppositional to what has come before is frequently nothing more than an unnecessary distraction, drawing both the writer and the reader’s energy away from what is actually at stake in the discussion. It is as though knowledge production were a sport, with rules, referees, winners, and losers, rather than a serious undertaking, rooted in the purpose of making the world a bit better off, and one practiced with respect, care, and an orientation of helpfulness toward one’s fellow travelers engaged in the same journey.

This means when pockets of resistance begin to arise to the perspective currently carrying the day—in our case, epistemic literalism—that scholars championing alternatives tend to position their work not only in opposition to that dominant perspective but also in opposition to the alternatives others are offering, in order to carve discursive space for themselves at the field day. While I am in no way an advocate of polishing out the beautiful pluralism that exists across the tourism academy (and with particular pertinence to this context, the pluralism among those of us who reject epistemic literalism), I do believe that (with rare exceptions like the towering oeuvre of Hollinshead) our intellectual energy spent searching for distinctions has vastly outstripped that which we have expended on syncretic efforts that could illuminate not just our differences, but our relations to each other. Thus, any move in the opposite direction— any effort to articulate relationality—intrinsically stands as an intervention to masculinist academic discourse in tourism studies. At the same time, however, a mode of engagement that focuses almost exclusively on delineating distinctions also eventually bears consequences in the realm of epistemological politics. Just as a disorganized and fractionated left has frequently led to the election of rightwing governments in the North American context from which I write, so too does a fractionated (and at its worst, cantankerous) alternative tourism academy create an even greater struggle for itself in challenging the received view of knowledge production in our field. This is important because, in the age of the neoliberal university (Caton, 2014b; Dredge et al., 2012b; Munar, 2007), our ability to successfully challenge epistemic literalism as the only game going has consequences for the ways we can do scholarship, the kinds of knowledge we can create, and ultimately—if we buy our own arguments—the kinds of interventions we can make in our world. We need not be the same as one another, nor hide from discussions about our differences. But we do need to expend more creative energy in thinking about our connections. Paradoxically, exercising our syncretic imagination may be one of the most powerful tools in our arsenal for succeeding in carving out more space to be ourselves.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT I dedicate this chapter to my dear friend and colleague Ana María Munar, with deep gratitude for her gift of rigorous, creative, graceful, and inspiring dialogue—about tourism, about epistemology, and about life. Much of the description of humanism in the first half of the section entitled “Humanist Philosophy” is reprinted from Caton (2014a).

Chapter 4

WHEN IS A PARADIGM NOT A PARADIGM? Graham M. S. Dann The University of Tromsø – The Arctic University of Norway, Norway

Abstract: After briefly discussing the two major approaches to the study of tourism (theoretical “why” and practical “how”), and two of their respective protagonists (Tribe and Aramberri), the focus of this chapter turns to the use of paradigms by the former group. First, the meaning of paradigm is explored and examples are provided of paradigms and paradigm shifts in tourism research. However, Aramberri challenges this theoretical position by asserting that such ideological frameworks are not paradigms at all, and are, at best, postmodern mantras. He further argues that such muddled thinking can be overcome once tourism becomes a scientific discipline, a stance firmly rejected by the theoreticians. Thereafter, the use of the word “paradigm” is examined in relation to conferences, research, and shifts, as well as such major tourism perspectives as authenticity, strangerhood, play, and conflict. Keywords: Disciplinarity; paradigm conceptualization; tourism theory

INTRODUCTION According to Tribe (1997), tourism research is conducted by two opposing camps: those who are chiefly concerned with the practicalities of tourism, such as specialists in management and marketing, and theorists who prefer to focus more on understanding, explaining, and predicting the phenomenon. While Tribe identifies with the second group comprising such social scientific “golden oldies” as MacCannell (1976), Cohen (1979a, 1979b), and Urry (1990), Aramberri (2001, 2010) sides with the first. Aramberri seeks to reinforce his position by claiming that he is interested in facts and how tourism operates for the majority of people under the democratic banner of modern mass tourism. Thus, for him, the so-called paradigms employed by the élitist intellectuals of anthropology and sociology, and cited favorably by Tribe, are far from original exercises in causality dealing with the whys of tourism. Instead, and in reality, says Aramberri, they are little more than postmodern (pomo) mantras. Since I find myself included by Aramberri (2010) in the same category as the pomos, I attempt to

justify my position as a response to his tantalizing invitation to do so. In undertaking such a task, I ultimately have to confront the issue as to which faction bases its knowledge on genuine paradigmatic analysis by asking the question: “when is a paradigm not a paradigm?” This chapter revolves around the issue of whether or not there is a multi-theoretical, social-scientific base to those pseudo-theoretical models that unduly rely on the assertion of an ideology which is far from theoretical, and consequently of limited value in tourism research. These a-paradigmatic models in turn are typically featured in conference themes, twofold aspects of methodology and unsubstantiated claims of paradigm shift. They are contrasted with such frameworks as those of authenticity and the language of tourism, sufficient to merit the status of paradigm, as well as corresponding and derivable instances of paradigm shift.

THE MEANING OF PARADIGM In this presentation, I argue, as I have done previously (Dann 1996a, 2011a, 2011b; Tribe et al., 2015) that a social scientific paradigm is a multi-theoretical, open-ended framework, which goes beyond (παρα) first-order sensate reality so as to reach a second-order realm of connoted meaning, thereby attempting to reveal or demonstrate (δɛικυύμί) a partial and relative, interpretive understanding of that reality which cannot be captured by Positivist or Post-Positivist methods alone. As such, a paradigm is eclectic in nature, containing the most appropriate offerings drawn from diverse, though compatible, theoretical perspectives, and initially limited only by its conceptual boundaries. From the foregoing it should be noted that a paradigm comprises two or more theories (thus, e.g., critical theory and constructivism are paradigms rather than single theories); the theoretical pluralism underpinning paradigms often depends on and leads to multidisciplinarity, both within and without the social sciences: paradigms are open-ended and inherently changeable: paradigmatic understanding is naturally emic and based on generalizable, ideal typicality (see, e.g., Weberian motivation as the core of explanation) rather than on idiosyncrasy: and such understanding is interpretive and necessarily incomplete; it constitutes less than the absolute knowledge derived from a belief system or metaphysical worldview; instead, it is based on relative (non-absolute) truth and shifting meanings. Guba (1990) takes the argument one stage further. In terms of accommodation, he maintains that paradigms are based on theories which are compatible in aim rather than in ideology. As far as knowledge accumulation is concerned, no given paradigm has all the explanatory answers; hence the need for a Kuhnian (1962) “paradigm shift.” With respect to values, these reside not so much in the research topic as in the research act which is trans-subjective in nature and consequently predicated on breaking out of paradigms via sociological imagination (Mills, 1971). It thus follows that all social scientific paradigms are potentially, if not actually, open to paradigm shift. Yet such change, however dramatic, can never be total, because if it were completely different, it would be unrecognizable. For this reason, it is treated as an

instance of social scientific evolution rather than scientific revolution (Tribe et al., 2015). Cohen (1979a), in so many words, endorses paradigms in tourism research, when he maintains that there is no single approach to the study of tourism and the tourist. Instead, the relevant research strategy must be processual, contextual, comparative, and emic, as well as pluralistic and eclectic (i.e., based on a choice from a variety of theories and their cumulative insights). These qualities produce a kaleidoscope, or jigsaw, of understanding. I agree, and have co-authored a paper with him to this effect (Dann & Cohen, 1991). It thus follows that, by drawing upon insights from Weber and Schutz and applying them to tourist motivation; for example, we can add ideas drawn from such diverse thinkers as Marx, Habermas, Simmel, Baudrillard, and Durkheim. Thus, beginning respectively with social action and phenomenology, these standalone perspectives can be paradigmatically enhanced. Another scholar who supports the use of paradigms in tourism research is Pernecky. According to him: The contemporary use of the term paradigm suggests that it plays a specific role in the research process. As a system of views and beliefs, it is interconnected with epistemology, ontology, and methodology. Taken together, these form the research design: setting the parameters for what it is possible to know, while acknowledging researchers’ philosophical assumptions about reality, and their attitude towards the research problem. To determine under which paradigm they operate, it is thus necessary to immerse themselves in the underpinning epistemological, ontological, and methodological assumptions, which in turn guide the researchers’ actions. (forthcoming, n.p.) Pernecky adds that: Under the premise of qualitative inquiry, the notion of ‘alternative paradigms’ emerges as a response to positivist/post-positivist approaches to research, and gives rise to new research paradigms such as constructionism/constructivism, interpretivism, critical theory, and the transformative paradigm. Mainly inspired by scholars advancing qualitative research, efforts have been made to delineate the differences between various paradigms. (forthcoming, n.p.) However, it is Pernecky’s linkage between paradigms and disciplines that is particularly interesting when he observes: Different disciplinary foci allow for new paradigms to emerge at a disciplinary level (for example: Psychology: imagery paradigm, Sociology: symbolic interaction, Anthropology: instrumentalism, Cognitive Science: enaction, etc.). Although most tourism research draws on paradigms grounded in qualitative research, Tourism Studies is showing signs of maturity by engaging in novel conceptualizations and understandings of what tourism is and does. Here there are

two leaders in the field of tourism: Worldmaking which speaks of the transformative power of tourism and its ability to re-make and de-make worlds (Hollinshead et al., 2009), and the Mobilities Paradigm that seeks to understand tourism in terms of the movements of objects and things, but also relationships, meanings, and performances (Urry, 2000). These new theoretical perspectives are promising, for they have the ability to advance the knowledge of tourism beyond conventional wisdom. (Dann, forthcoming) These sentiments have also been endorsed by Tribe et al. (2015) notwithstanding a cited, though untreated, significant opposing point of view.

An Alternative View of Paradigms For a different position on the use of paradigms in tourism studies, and as we have initially seen to a limited extent already, the most salient counterarguments have been articulated by Aramberri (2001, p. 740). Here he gives as examples of such paradigms: tourism as nonordinary behavior and the lifecycle of tourism attractions. However, the idea of tourism as an encounter between hosts and guests or the linkage between tourism as authenticity are reckoned by Aramberri not to be paradigms at all since, according to him, they overlook the fact that most tourism is of the mass variety. Additionally, interestingly, and with tongue firmly in cheek, Aramberri suggests three ways that theory can be generated in the now burgeoning realm of tourism studies. He imaginatively labels them “spicing the nominative/genitive,” “brew your own,” and “let’s split the difference.” Aramberri notes that the first strategy allows academics to insert any discipline that takes their fancy (e.g., the sociology of tourism); the second approach refers to multi-disciplinarity where, for example, scholars in the gin cocktail mold of James Bond can blend one part structuralism and three parts semiotics with a twist of political science, stirred not shaken; and the third permits analysts of tourism to discover a grain of truth in all theoretical positions, thereby encouraging them to cross embrace a whole array of differing standpoints irrespective of the realization that they might originally have been mutually exclusive (2001, pp. 739–740). Yet, as previously seen, it is precisely this third position that I favor (Dann & Cohen, 1991), since it is in reality based on an approach of eclecticism which denies a monopoly on the truth of any given theory while retaining insights that can be usefully combined with others. Thus, Durkheim on anomie can be usefully amalgamated with Veblen on conspicuous consumption in order to better understand tourist motivation, yet without having to subscribe to the otherwise functionalist position adopted by these two thinkers. However, for Aramberri, such ludic eclecticism is simply reducible to a postmodern game and that for him is beyond the pale. Yet, strangely, Aramberri in earlier years was nevertheless one of the leading participants in the famous Vienna project on comparative cultural tourism (Bystrzanowski & Beck, 1989) in which he must surely have engaged in some form of eclectic interdisciplinarity.

More recently, Aramberri has renewed his challenges to the foregoing pro-paradigmatic positions with which he disagrees. By attaching the label of postmodern to its main adherents (“pomo,” as he calls it, is a “matrix,” rather than a paradigm (Aramberri, 2010, p. 78) because it is more encompassing and less stringent than a paradigm (Aramberri, 2010, p. 21)), he believes that he can then confront each of his pomo adversaries separately. According to him, MacCannell’s (1976) approach to tourism is one of two main postmodern paradigms seeking to explain modernity in tourism, Turner’s (1969) being the other (Aramberri, 2010, p. 105, 152). As far as Aramberri (2010, p. 21) is concerned, MacCannell attempts in vain to gain an understanding of tourism by treating the tourist as a metaphor, while Cohen (1979a, 1979b) (as a liberation theologian! (exclamation added)) claims that tourism can and does free humans from alienation. Unfortunately, Aramberri argues, MacCannell does not know exactly what modernity (or modern mass tourism) is, and the semiotic analysis he employs to make his theoretical points is hardly original. Neither, for that matter and despite its massive citation, is Urry’s (1990) “tourist gaze” a path-breaking insight (Aramberri, 2010, p. 105). Nevertheless, Aramberri (2010, p. 302) does concede that what he calls my “hypothesis” (sic) on tourism as language (Dann, 1996a) has become widely accepted as paradigmatic, even if it would be more accurate to speak of several languages of tourism rather than just one. Thus, for Aramberri, the world of tourism research falls into two main camps in a veritable “battleground of paradigms” (Aramberri, 2010, p. 15), one in which he regards himself OK as a voice crying in the wilderness while pitted against the rest of tourism academia. The latter engages in why research, the former in how research; the latter adopts an interpretative approach by deconstructing power relations through such disciplines as sociology and anthropology (Aramberri, 2010, p. 14), while the former helps solve real management problems via economic, historical, and political facts (Aramberri, 2010, p. 26). Thus, for him, tourism research becomes a conflict between postmodernists and modernists—there is no shared or agreed paradigm (Aramberri, 2010, p. 11) because the pomos do not just believe that post-modernity is that which merely follows modernity, but rather something that critiques it (Aramberri, 2010, p. 10). Yet, these pomos, although happy to point out the flaws of modernity, do not even mention how they are to be rectified or indeed feel it necessary to say how this modernity came about. They simply do not analyze the ways that tourism markets operate; instead they normatively indicate from their moral high ground how tourism providers are to behave (Aramberri, 2010, p. 10). Nevertheless, while Aramberri talks of this conflict of paradigms, he controversially suggests that “it is but a transient phase which will be overcome as the discipline [of tourism] becomes a science!” (Aramberri, 2010, p. 28; exclamation added). Indeed, he even halfapprovingly cites Jafari (1987) as a rare ally by saying in so many words that, on account of his multiplatform approach to development, “tourism research is on its way to purge the conflicting and limiting paradigms of the past, reaching a more harmonious state where scientific discussion will make them obsolete” (Aramberri, 2010, p. 30). He thus feels able to conclude that “we can discard our previous paradigms if we find them useless, but as long as we accept them we have to put up with their logical strictures” (Aramberri, 2010, p. 41). At

last the cat is out of the bag. It is now evident that Aramberri’s case rests on the huge undemonstrated assumption that tourism is a discipline and that sooner or later it will become a science. But surely that instance of wishful thinking is to turn the clock back to the tourismology days of Jovičić (1972), and more recently Hoerner (2002, 2005), and to entertain the muddled thinking of those recent conferences that cannot or will not distinguish between tourism as a discipline and as a field (Tribe, 1997). The act of reductionism is complete. The paradigmatic baby has been thrown out with the bathwater. Nevertheless, and in spite of Aramberri’s attacks, the counter-indications are that paradigmatic thought is alive and well in tourism research and that it does not depend on intellectually subscribing to some woolly variant of postmodernism or avant-garde French theorizing under the inspiration of such thinkers as Baudrillard and Lyotard. Rather, and as Guba (1990) observed some time ago, the main paradigms in sociology are those of (neo/post-) positivism, constructivism and critical theory, respective standpoints that have been expanded (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000) and applied by a number of tourism researchers and have led for example to a series of recent Croatia-based conferences focusing on the critical turn. A few years after Guba’s conference, I identified four basic paradigms (identified later) that I said were then dominating the field (Dann, 1996a). My position was subsequently endorsed by the research committee on international tourism (RC 50) of the International Sociological Association’s 2008 interim meeting in Jaipur. That same research committee had earlier also been the first to organize an in-between Congress symposium on paradigms in tourism research that was held in Jyväskylä, Finland, in 1996, and reported one year after (Dann, 1997). At that gathering, I introduced my colleagues to the tourism as language paradigm by applying that unique discourse to the highly successful promotion of an international hotel chain in the pages of Business Week (Dann, 1996b, 2011a, 2011b). The campaign, under the strap-line of Take Me to the Hilton, enabled the exploration of various theoretical insights that had contributed to an understanding of the print media publicity targeting potential customers at that time (Hilton, 1995a, 1995b, 1995c, 1995d, 1995e). Since then, of course, tourism promotion has undergone fundamental change as it has entered the electronic age; indeed some would say a paradigm shift has taken place. Such progress was also discussed at an important graduate seminar on paradigms in tourism theory held at the University of Tromsø in November 2011, and is dealt with later. Hence, due to these changes and Aramberri’s critique (which jointly call for its revisitation), the paradigmatic framework is arguably still as valid today as when it was initially articulated (Dann, 2011a, 2011b). We thus have apparently reached the extreme situation where either everything or nothing is a paradigm, thereby opening the logician’s door to a third possibility (addo tertium) that some things are paradigms and some are not. However, in order to explore this possibility further, we need to first ask whether everything is a paradigm. Under the descriptor of “paradigms in tourism research,” a Google internet trawl reveals that there are apparently 27,934 articles featuring the word “paradigm” in their titles. Even allowing for the item-repetition that such search engines typically reveal, almost 28,000 is still a large number; even half that figure would seem to indicate that by now the term is ubiquitous.

Yet its widespread and, seemingly unthinking, use today should alert us as to a possible lack of critical awareness, a lacuna sufficient to merit the question: “when is a paradigm not a paradigm?” For a negative answer, it is useful to examine briefly some related claims as instanced in: tourism conferences, theory and tourism research, methodological changes in tourism research, and paradigm shifts. I argue that only the last category provides a positive response since only it comprises various examples that adequately fit the criteria of a paradigm.

Tourism Conferences Although there have been some conferences either in whole or in part devoted to the application of paradigmatic thought to various tourism-related topics, here are three of these typical offerings where the goal may not have been entirely met: Hemmington’s (2009) paper “From Service to Experience: The New Hospitable Experience Paradigm”; a (2012) conference dedicated to “Changing Paradigms in Sustainable Mountain Tourism Research: Problems and Perspectives”; and two successive conferences (2011, 2013) on “Emerging Research Paradigms in Business and the Social Sciences.” Arguably these three conference themes represent a misuse of the term “paradigm.” The first of these, the hospitable experience, like so many other examples of alleged paradigmatic change is accompanied in a-theoretical publicity by the quasi-mandatory epithet, “new,” an over-utilized weasel word paradoxically connoting its humdrum opposite. Moreover the term “new,” found ubiquitously in advertising, is an adjective claiming by association that a significant mutation has undoubtedly taken place or is about to occur. Cynically and unsurprisingly, there seem to be very few good “old” paradigms on offer (i.e., ones that have stood the test of time, unless of course that claim is a contradiction in terms); even so, it still remains to be demonstrated in the present instance that an alteration of emphasis from supply toward experience is a real transformation. As for the case of sustainable mountain tourism, the notion of sustainability is surely an example of ideological wishful thinking rather than a theoretical position requiring justification and adoption. That there is an increasing movement toward sustainability is reflected, for example, by Jamrozy (2007) who maintains that today there is a transition in tourism from capitalistic profit-making to more altruistic considerations like social equity, environmental protection, and the quality of life of host communities. Yet such a rosy situation requires solid demonstration rather than mere assertion. An equally pro-sustainability stance is also echoed in a study by Bosetti, Cassinelli, and Lanza (2007) and to be found in dozens of other similar works. Regarding emerging paradigms in business and the social sciences, it can be argued, as Tribe (1997) has demonstrated and Aramberri has attempted to show, that these two realms are in fact quite disparate, and hence incompatible; the former is practical (i.e., anti-intellectual) and hence unable or unwilling to include paradigms in its repertoire; the latter is theoretical

and open to paradigmatic thought. The descriptor “emerging” or “emergent” is only suitable in this last instance.

Theory and Tourism Research Turning to theory and tourism research, there are two typical cases of reference to paradigms: Paskaleva-Shapira’s (2007) article “New Paradigms in City Tourism Management: Redefining Destination Promotion”; and Medojevic, Milosavljevic, and Punisic’s (2011) article “Paradigms of Rural Tourism in Serbia in the Function of Village Revitalisation.” The first paper is actually a-paradigmatic, as it is an example of “how” practice linking the two domains of management and marketing that are supposed to be based on social science disciplines, yet in reality do not share this presumed common attribute on account of their missing “why” dimension. The second article assumes a developmental perspective in which residents are empowered by dint of their ability to attract tourists into their homes in exchange for cash. Interestingly all this takes place in a country (Serbia) where everything was once centrally controlled under the ideology of Communism and where the equally centralized metadiscipline of tourismology was born. But does such a change in the body politic mark a complete overthrow of what existed previously, or is the new situation dependent on the old as a conditio sine qua non?

Methodological Changes in Tourism Research Some, however, prefer to stress paradigmatic methodology in their publications, such as: Pansiri’s (2005) article “Pragmatism: A Methodological Approach to Strategic Alliances in Tourism”; Echtner’s (1999) article “The Semiotic Paradigm: Implications for Tourism Research”; and Heimtun’s and Morgan’s (2012) article “Proposing Paradigm Peace: Mixed Methods in Feminist Tourism Research.” In the first of these papers, Pansiri argues that pragmatism is a paradigm since it exists to solve problems. Thus, it does not matter whether positivist or anti-positivist methods are used; rather a mixed methods approach is advocated. Hence, the old division between management and quantitative methods on the one hand, and understanding and qualitative methods on the other evaporates. However, it remains to be demonstrated that the employment of quantitative and qualitative methods in the same project constitutes a paradigm or merely a research technique of the similar a-paradigmatic order as a grounded theory approach to data collection and analysis. In the second paper, Echtner (1999) maintains that because tourism itself is replete with signs, attempts to understand them should rest on a parallel semiotic base. She thus agrees with MacCannell (1976) that tourism as sightseeing is constituted by a series of markers requiring semiotic investigation. Nevertheless, in order for such a framework to be comprehensive it

must surely undergo a far-reaching change that takes in the remaining senses other than just the ocularcentric. In the third paper, Heimtun and Morgan echo Pansiri’s approach to mixed methods, the main difference being that they adopt a qualitative approach for their study of women aged between 35 and 55 and a quantitative approach for those aged between 18 and 30. The proffered reason for these twofold mixed methods is that the younger group is predominantly single while most of the latter have been or are currently in one or more relationships. Since the notion of a gendered relationship lies at the heart of feminist research, the mixed method strategy can in itself be considered transformative and hence paradigmatic. The only caveat to this conclusion (and this would also apply to the two foregoing papers) is that a paradigm is essentially multi-theoretical rather than multi-methodological, a position adopted by the 1966 Jyväskylä symposium (Dann, 1997).

Paradigm Shifts As the name suggests, and as its originator, Kuhn (1962) maintained, because scientific explanation mutates as a result of manifold change in the external world, the corresponding patterns, models, and frameworks that constitute paradigms must themselves shift and give way to other forms of explanation. Although he did not discuss whether such paradigm shifts were either pseudo or genuine, here is an opportunity to do so. Two examples of pseudo paradigm shifts are presented in Broeska’s (2013) online article “Turning Medical Tourism into Medical Research: The Paradigm Shift” and Bandyopadhyay’s (2013) paper “A Paradigm Shift in Sex Tourism Research.” The first of these research publications makes the point that medical tourism has not only benefited from stem cell treatments, but from the realization that the United States has shown little interest in adopting such technology on moral grounds. The change, however, can hardly be termed paradigmatic since, like Paskaleva-Shapira’s earlier cited 2007 article, it relates to “how” rather than to “why” and, in that sense, remains largely a-theoretical. The second article takes an existing Orientalist situation whereby tourists from the West engage in relationships with denizens of the East because of the latter’s stereotypical imaging as erotic and exotic (Said, 1991). However, with patterns shifting from host to guest and huge increases in tourist numbers from countries such as China, will there not also be a reverse Orientalism where Westerners become the object of touristic sexual attention and exploitation? Yet, however radical this change, it still is simply an undemonstrated innovation of an Alice through the Looking Glass variety however titivating and dramatic that might initially appear to be. In reference to genuine paradigm shifts, the first instance of when a paradigm actually is a paradigm, and where a real paradigm shift is discernible, is provided, as we have seen, by the 1989 Chicago sociology conference devoted to The Paradigm Dialog, which produced a book of the same title edited by Guba (1990). Here Guba identifies three (master) paradigms in the

social sciences. The model that originates as a generality in the discipline of sociology subsequently acts as a useful inspirational framework for the three earlier mentioned symposia specifically dedicated to paradigms in tourism research. Applying the notion of paradigm shift in general to the domain of tourism in particular, Tourism Intelligence International (2012) has over the last three decades, and under the inspiration of its charismatic director and tourism futures specialist, Auliana Poon, prepared a dossier outlining the whole situation. According to its outline: A paradigm shift is taking place in travel and tourism. There is a shift in thinking away from the notion that mass tourism (standardized and rigidly packaged forms of tourism) with its eternal path of destruction, will continue to be “the only” or “the best” way of doing business in travel and tourism. There is a movement towards a more individual, flexile, customised and caring tourism. (2012, p. 6) The report goes on to compare analogically (and in the same vain as Urry) the Fordist process of assembly line car production with the old mass tourism. Without referring to Aramberri and his similar vision of modern mass tourism, Tourism Intelligence International goes on to explain that a paradigm is a conceptual framework for making sense of the world. As such it is an entire constellation of beliefs, values, and techniques shared by members of a community. It thus follows that a paradigm shift marks a substantial change to this framework. What makes all this possible, it says, is the notion of difference. Things are never simply right or wrong; they are different. It is part and parcel of a paradigm to constantly change and be different, to be in a perpetual state of shift, overthrowing the old with the new. Butler’s (2012) article “Engaging the New Mobilities Paradigm in Contemporary African Tourism Research” is another tourism example of where there is genuine difference. The paper takes one of the most recent tourism paradigms, that of mobilities (Cohen & Cohen, 2012; Pernecky, forthcoming; Urry, 2000) and attempts to examine it in an area of the world where there is scant mobility and relatively very little tourism. However, with a change in the latter, there can be a fundamental mutation in the former, a transition from colonial to postcolonial relationships that is arguably a genuine paradigm shift. Moreover, the scenario can be extended to show that a new paradigm is necessary in order to encompass all non-Western forms of tourism, especially those of an Oriental variety (a point discussed at a panel session of the Mallorca conference where these issues were debated). Without this necessary paradigm shift, scholars would surely be wrong in continuing to treat vastly increasing non-Western tourists, along with their different motivations, experiences, and needs, as if they were the same as those from the West (Cohen & Cohen, 2015). As we have already seen, that was the assumption underpinning the undemonstrated assertion that a quest for guest/host sex could be transferred from tourists from the West to tourists from the rest. Other instances where there is a (qualified) positive answer to paradigms in tourism research, comprise, for example, the four major tropes of authenticity, stranger-hood, play, and conflict, mentioned, though not identified, earlier. Several years ago in The Language of Tourism, I referred to these mega-themes as “perspectives” (Dann, 1996a, 1996b, pp. 6–29) in

a similar way that Functionalism or Marxism, for example, could at that time be accurately described as such. Perhaps the nearest equivalent in those days would have been the term “school” or, on account of some of their suffixes, denoted as an “ism,” even an ideology. However, I now believe that a more precise moniker should be the notion of paradigm in spite of the inherent problems that such a concept can bring. The point is developed in reference to authenticity, while considerations of space must postpone analysis of stranger-hood, play, and conflict to another occasion. MacCannell was the first to examine authenticity as paradigmatic, even though, strictly speaking, he was more interested in “staged authenticity” (Cohen, 2007) as being emblematic of tourism in the era of modernity where the presence of markers rendered a sight (site) inauthentic. As a result of his preoccupation with tourists thwarted in their quest for authenticity by the machinations of the tourism industry, MacCannell never really explained what authenticity was, thereby leaving that task as an inspirational duty for the likes of Bruner, Olsen, and Wang. Part of the difficulty lay in the polysemic notion of authenticity itself, with Cohen (2007) identifying at least six different meanings of the term, ranging from origins, genuineness, pristinity (sic), sincerity, and creativity, to flow of life. Thus for Cohen, the notion of authenticity was at best only emergent. Moreover, when it was contextualized as part of the postmodern condition, argued Cohen, MacCannell’s paradigmatic approach somehow became less relevant in a currently postmodern Las Vegas world of genuine fakes that were capable of becoming authentic Americana if they had not already been so. Indeed Reisinger and Steiner (2006) even went as far as suggesting that the concept of authenticity had strayed so far from its Heidegger philosophical origins (Jamal & Hill, 2002) that it should be abandoned. But if they are right, then surely what they are saying is that a paradigm shift has taken or is taking place, one that is capable of responding to those problem issues of the contemporary world like justice, sustainability, disaster, terrorism, embodiment, and mediatization, that are tackled by such new paradigms as those based on mobilities, performativity, and actor network theory (Cohen & Cohen, 2012).

CONCLUSION Finally, I believe that I am entitled to blow my own trumpet (within the relatively new framework of reflectivity) by referring to my personal contribution to the development of paradigms in tourism studies in The Language of Tourism (Dann, 1996a, 1996b). There I stated that the early perspectives of Heidegger, Schutz/Simmel, Huizinga, and Said subsequently leading to the respective paradigms, of authenticity (MacCannell), stranger-hood (Cohen), play (Urry), and constructivism (Bruner), also had sociolinguistic correlates. Here, it must be emphasized that the advocated sociolinguistic framework was paradigmatic to the extent that it was social science based and multi-theoretical, as evidenced for instance in its key symbolic interaction micro-theories relating to “the tourist as child” and “tourism as an

agency of social control.” However, with the coming of the digital age and the advent of the internet, along with their (at least partial) replacing of the traditional media of communication, my sociolinguistic model and its academic roots have had to undergo a corresponding paradigm shift if they were to respond satisfactorily to contemporary challenges (Dann, 2011a, 2011b, forthcoming). The main reason why such radical change became and becomes mandatory is because, without it, yesterday’s language of tourism simply remains buried in its status quo ante, as a mono-logic, top-down discourse whose ex cathedra pronouncements from unchallenged, anonymous speakers require no possibility of answering back and a solely unquestioning obedience from listeners. Today, however, because it involves the opening up of communication among the three parties to the touristic encounter: the tourism industry, the tourist, and the touree, a fortiori the whole situation becomes one of trialog (Tribe et al., 2015). This new state-ofaffairs, like its antecedent is a total transformation, a paradigm shift that renders all that has gone before virtually irrelevant. Indeed such conventional wisdom has by now passed its “sell by” date and is hence intellectually hazardous. Maybe that is a final point on which Julio Aramberri and I can ironically agree.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT This chapter is a substantially revised version of a paper entitled “Paradigms in Tourism Theory,” presented to a graduate seminar at the University of Tromsø, November 16–17, 2011.

Chapter 5

TOWARD A CRITICAL ECOFEMINIST RESEARCH PARADIGM FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM Blanca A. Camargo Universidad de Monterrey, Mexico

Tazim Jamal Texas A&M University, USA

Erica Wilson Southern Cross University, Australia

Abstract: Pressing sustainability issues face the 21st century, as identified by the Millennium Development Goals and its post initiatives, and ethical principles related to fairness, equity, and justice are increasingly important to address climate change and resource scarcities. Yet, such ethical dimensions remain surprisingly little addressed in the tourism literature. Ecofeminist critique offers insights into this gap, identifying historical antecedents in patriarchal, Enlightenment-driven discourses of science where positivistic approaches facilitate the control and use of nature and women. This chapter draws from this critique to propose a preliminary, justice-oriented framework to resituate sustainable tourism within an embodied paradigm that covers intangibles such as emotions, feelings, and an ethic of care. Keywords: Sustainable tourism; ethics; ecofeminism; justice; embodiment; situated knowledge

INTRODUCTION The Millennium Development Goals and its post initiatives have made a call to address the pressing sustainability issues of the 21st century. Such issues include the interrelated challenges of poverty alleviation, biodiversity conservation, and gender equality and empowerment for women. Issues of fairness, equity, and justice with respect to the global south

will be increasingly important to address in order to enter into a previously uncharted era of climate change, extreme weather events, and geopolitical landscapes of uncertainty driven by socio-political and economic instabilities and neoliberal intrusions in the public and private sphere (Harvey, 2005). Yet, since the emergence of the sustainability-oriented tourism paradigms in the 1980s, much of the research in this area has focused on developing scientific, tangible, and measurable criteria and indicators to monitor environmental, and to a lesser degree, economic and sociocultural impacts (Choi & Sirakaya, 2006; Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005; Twining-Ward & Butler, 2002). Issues related to political empowerment, women and gender, justice and fairness, equity, and diversity, are being addressed slowly, but the emerging knowledge base shows some troubling gaps, to be identified and situated within a historical and ethical discussion. This chapter aims to build on some of the critiques raised about the scientific and Eurocentric/Western-centric colonization of natural and cultural spaces (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1979; Hall, 1994). Dominant research and theoretical paradigms that emerged during the Enlightenment approached the human and non-human world as disembodied objects of study or use (instrumental value). Universalizing, grand theories eschewed the local and the particular, and interrelated issues of gender and nature arose. Subsequent feminist and ecofeminist critiques prove immensely useful to help understand these, and alert us to the importance of regaining equitable ground in research and knowledge production. Therefore, this chapter argues for an embodied research paradigm that does justice to Other spaces (postcolonial spaces) and Other voices and values—historically marginalized ethnic and gendered ones, for instance. Promising theoretical and methodological avenues that facilitate the development of such a more “just” paradigm for tourism and tourism research are explored briefly in the latter part of the chapter, based on an argument for ecocultural justice and a feminine ethic of care. The chapter raises the question: What would an ecofeminist approach to sustainability-oriented tourism research look like?

SUSTAINABLE TOURISM AND ECOTOURISM As with the Enlightenment, paradoxes are evident in the domain of sustainable development and tourism. The Brundtland Commission’s report on sustainable development (World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED], 1987) was influential in shaping the evolution of “sustainable tourism” and managing biodiversity fragmentation and resource conservation. However, a range of criticisms hone in on the instrumental and utilitarian discourses enmeshed in this UN initiative, such as the long-term “balancing” of use and conservation, attending to inter-generational and intra-generational equity in how resources were used. Attempts were made subsequently to better reconcile sustainable tourism with the broader WCED paradigm of sustainable development (Hardy, Beeton, & Pearson, 2002; Hunter, 1995, 1997), but little has been done to constructively address the emerging criticisms

of this WCED paradigm. In particular, it has been argued that “sustainable development” as forwarded by WCED (1987) is entrenched in Enlightenment-driven notions of progress enabled by rapid innovations and growth of scientific knowledge, instrumentality, and technological rationality (Peterson, 1997). A narrow understanding of “science,” centering on the tenets of scientific rationality, became the driving force of knowledge production in the modern period, marginalizing and eschewing other forms of knowledge such as traditional knowledge. Positivistic research approaches (paradigms) and discourses such as ecological modernization strove to both conserve and use nature “sustainably” (Hajer, 1995). Not surprisingly, the technologically driven market capitalism that subsequently developed had little room for other than instrumental, managerialist discourses and quantifiable measures of success, which have suffused both tourism and tourism research. Among others skeptics, Holden (2003) identified lack of attention in tourism studies to intrinsic values (of people, nature, wilderness). Font and Harris (2004) observed the paucity of other than environmental indicators, for example social indicators in sustainability-oriented certification schemes. Approaches like pro-poor tourism and community-based tourism, in addition to ecotourism and community-based natural resource management (Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2009), attempt to draw upon principles of empowerment, local control, and community participation (Scheyvens, 1999). However, few have challenged the continued adherence to modernization’s ideological pillars, particularly in the developing world (Mowforth & Munt, 1998; Sharpley, 2000; Sharpley & Telfer, 2008). The critical role of gender and women in a wide range of nature–culture relationships that affect development and conservation has also gained momentum only recently. Ecofeminist and feminist perspectives have slowly arisen worldwide to address vital often ignored aspects (intangible cultural and heritage relationships with land and nature), and develop counter discourses to domination, further informing critical perspectives such as political ecology (Salleh, 1984; Shiva, 1988). Similar omissions and gaps exist in tourism research—a handful of publications have led the way in the area of gender and tourism, but these remain few (Kinnaird & Hall, 1994; Momsen, 1994; Swain, 1995). While space does not permit a detailed elaboration, we touch briefly below on a couple of issues that illustrate the imperative for reinventing “sustainable tourism” toward a more just, fair, and feminine perspective (feminine rather than feminist in the sense of incorporating emotions and values such as care).

Twin Domination and the Loss of the Intangible Lack of substantive critique of important intangible dimensions such as the historical context and geopolitical domain, power relations and inequalities, gender equity, and human– environmental relationships have slowed our understanding of the domination of nature, culture, and women. Merchant’s influential work The Death of Nature (1980) and other ecofeminists like Warren (1997) discussed extensively a key thesis of ecofeminism: the twin domination of nature and women. They argue that the oppression of nature follows the same

logic of the domination of women; that is, they are both viewed as inferior to what has traditionally seen as superior, rational, and objective (civilization = men (as “knowers”), nature = women (as what is “known”)). Warren (2001, p. 323) argues that “any environmental ethic which fails to take seriously the twin and interconnected domination of woman and nature is at best incomplete.” Ecofeminists endorse the view that an “adequate understanding of the nature of the connections between the twin dominations of women and nature requires a feminist theory and practice informed by an ecological perspective and an environmentalism informed by a feminist perspective” (Sturgeon, 1997; Warren, 1987, pp. 4–5; cited in Warren & Cheney, 1991). As discussed by Merchant (1980) and Warren (1997) among others, along with the Enlightenment came androcentric and anthropocentric views that put man (men) in opposition with nature (women) and created an ontological shift from living with nature and nature’s law to becoming its master. Modernity and the modern sciences lay the foundation for modern thought, aided by Francis Bacon, who was seen as the father of the modern sciences (Klein, 2012). He was a strong advocate of empiricism and the scientific method, which favored observation plus quantifiable and measurable outcomes which were enmeshed a positivistic research paradigm. His views of science’s aims and accomplishments revolved around the use and control of nature, and he was a strong advocate of facilitating technological applications from scientific discoveries in order to enable civilization’s “progress.” The objectification and essentializing of women = nature (the twin dominations noted above) dovetailed well with these views, supplanting intangible aspects and other hard to measure cultural aspects. Phallogocentrism and patriarchy established a strong foothold as the men of science and modern capitalism joined forces, beginning a long march of global colonialism emanating from various Western, imperial centers. A number of environmental justice and social justice issues that arose subsequently can be related to the subjection of women and nature, and to the hegemony of scientific and technological rationality that drove the scientific capitalism and neoliberal policies that undergird globalization (Shiva, 1997). The domination of nature and women became the norm, the “death of nature” has arrived (Merchant, 2001, p. 281, cited in Torgé, 2007, p. 39). Not surprisingly, the traces of these historical antecedents pervade economic and social structures today, and academic spaces are not exempt. Positivistic paradigms favoring scientific methods, quantitative analysis and quantifiable, measurable indicators have long enjoyed dominance in social research—these approaches have only recently (over the past couple of decades) encountered challenges from alternative research paradigms (Dann, 1997; Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Walle, 1997). New directions in knowledge production and critical methodologies are arising that attempt to redress the Eurocentrism and do justice to the Other (Cohen & Cohen, 2015; Denzin, Lincoln, & Tuhiwai Smith, 2008; Jafari, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c). Similarly, feminist and ecofeminist perspectives, such as those noted above, offer hope and possibility to enact resistance to such entrenched discourses. Swain and Swain (2004) proposed to bring ecofeminism to tourism development in order to address a range of inequalities and recover key aspects such as agency, gender awareness, and equity. Ecotourism

and ecofeminism, they observe, “share a similar vocabulary and are linked by gender matters in the analysis and practice of ecotourism” (2004, p. 2). Feminist and ecofeminist perspectives offer the potential to assist in developing more critical awareness of the nature-culture, naturewomen divide, and the associated injustices. Improved understandings of these historically engrained relationships and dominant narratives offer a basis from which new knowledge production and new forms of gendered resistance, fairness, and justice can emerge in touristic spaces and places, and in the lifeworld of travel and tourism. In the next section, we commence a preliminary discussion on theoretical and methodological directions and issues that may usefully inform a critical ecofeminist approach to sustainability-oriented tourism and tourism research.

Counter-Discourses for a “Just” Tourism Those advocating for a critical, ethical, or feminist tourism studies argue that spaces and places are social as well as physical constructions, shaped by complex gendered, cultural, racial, and power relations. Low income, ethnic minorities, and the poor are especially vulnerable, and even more so if they face unfair discrimination due to historical or structural conditions, for example, by dominant groups in a postcolonial or post-civil war context. A number of studies using a political ecology lens to examine Caribbean populations and tourism brought to light tourism-related environmental discrimination (Burac, 2005), as well as environmental risks and harms stemming from other sources such as industrial pollution that were endangering public health among the working poor (Valdés Pizzini, 2006). Stonich (1998) and Cole (2012) grappled with inequality and equity issues related to the distribution of limited water resources among tourist and the low income, poorer population in the Honduras and Bali. In A Small Place, the voice of postcolonial author Kincaid (1988) can be heard speaking out angrily at tourism neocolonialism in Antigua—its impacts exacerbated the interrelated issues of globalization and neoliberalism, free trade and debt repayment, that were severely affecting the island’s poorer residents. As ecofeminist Shiva (1997, p. 2) describes, “economic globalization as we are seeing it unfold is not a process of ever widening circles of inclusion. It is a process of ascending hierarchies that concentrate power and exclude people from participating in the political and economic life of their societies.” She goes on to state that ecological feminism “sees in the current trend the ultimate concentration of capitalist patriarchy and its violence against nature and women” (1997, p. 4). A small of group of tourism scholars have also started arguing for social justice and a tourism that is more responsible, more conscientious, more just and equitable, and more spiritually rewarding (Fennel, 2006; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2010). Critical and concerned voices are emanating from postcolonial destinations that are addressing neocolonialism, commodification, and exclusionary, exploitative policies (Akama, Maingi, & Camargo, 2011; Bunten, 2010; Peters & Higgins-Desbiolles, 2012). Unpacking these interrelated issues requires close attention to processes and approaches to development, planning, and

policymaking that address not only racial inequalities in relation to tourism but also unequal power relationships in a local-global domain, as well as cumulative environmental-social effects of various forms of development and growth, including tourism, on diverse and disadvantaged populations, in particular, women and the working poor (Gössling, 2003; Jeffreys, 1999). The issues involved include environmental and social justice, indigenous knowledge, local communities, protection, empowerment, human rights, and democracy (Swain & Swain, 2004). Poststructural and postcolonial feminist researchers as well as ecofeminists have much to contribute here (Hooks, 2003; Shiva, 1988, 1997; Spivak, 1988).

Insights and Omissions Addressing these issues requires attention not only to issues of environmental discrimination, racism, equity, and distributive justice but also issues of procedural justice and voice for disadvantaged individuals, communities, and populations. As Schlosberg (2013) observes, the trend of environmental justice in both theory and practice has expanded into new spaces, and across many boundaries, bringing into focus the examination of issues such as the global nature of environmental injustices, postcolonial environmental justice, global waste management and disposal issues, etc., in relation to diverse, low-income groups and the poor. Getches and Pellow (2002) emphasize that “it is the additional factor of group disadvantage that merits the heightened attention of the environmental justice movement. Thus, the claims of poor people and of people of color, including tribal communities, are uniquely issues of environmental justice” (Getches & Pellow, 2002, p. 17; cited in Schroeder, 2008). Jamal and Camargo (2014) drew on and adapted earlier works on environmental justice to propose four criteria that could help address equitable tourism development at the destination level, particularly with respect to diverse, minority, low-income, and disadvantaged groups. The major principles they propose focus on procedural and distributive justice, as well as issues related to discrimination and racism, which comport well with Rawlsian principles of fairness and justice (following Rawls, 1971, 2001). Attempting to bridge the nature-culture divide and refocus attention to human–environmental relationships, they use the term “ecocultural justice” rather than environmental justice. Ecocultural justice with respect to matters of procedural justice enables the active involvement of a destination’s resident stakeholders (including indigenous, low-income, diverse, and minority groups) in the development and marketing of their ecocultural goods for tourism purposes. Ecocultural equity pertains to issues of distributive justice and equitable, fair distribution of development, marketing and promotion initiatives among different groups, with particular attention to the needs of disadvantaged populations, low income, diverse, and minority groups. Ecocultural discrimination refers to the exclusion of individuals, groups, and disadvantaged populations from participating in tourism development, marketing planning, and decisionmaking related to the use and distribution of ecological and cultural goods and services. It includes exclusion due to ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and disability,

among others. Ecocultural racism refers to discrimination and unfair treatment due to race or ethnicity. It is manifested in acts such as disrespect, marginalization, and exclusion of the destination’s ethnic group and their ecocultural goods (particularly disadvantaged, diverse, and minority groups and individuals) from benefiting from tourism development and marketing. It also includes the accruing of disbenefits such as negative, problematic, and stereotypical representation of these groups in tourism-related advertising and promotion.

An Ethic of Care and Flourishing Missing from this growing body of counter-discourses and perspectives are the important intangible values of care, love, compassion and friendship found in ecofeminist discourses (Merchant, 1980; Warren, 1997) that can guide sustainable tourism development so that they accomplish their goals of equity, local participation, and well-being of local residents. Jamal and Camargo (2014) acknowledge that Rawlsian principles of distributive and procedural justice tend to be mainly rights-based and oriented toward capitalistic values. Justice alone, they argue, is not sufficient to guide destination development and marketing. They therefore draw upon Aristotelian and Kantian philosophical traditions to address the social and cultural well-being of disadvantaged populations, particularly that the poor are made better off through development. A joint ethic of justice and care should guide tourism development, marketing, and policymaking in the Just Destination, they argue. The notion of care in their framework draws on Kantian views on respect and Aristotelian ethics on the good life and its accompanying individual, social, and political virtues. However, their Just Destination framework, admittedly preliminary and a work in progress, does not adequately take in consideration issues pertaining to, for instance, gender awareness and emotions such as love, different understanding of nature, and connectedness to land and people. These values, often associated with women, are ignored in the technocentric, post-positivistic, and managerialist practices and research on sustainability. Feminist and ecofeminist perspectives offer valuable insights to bridge this lacunae, reintroducing intangibles such as emotions (love, concern, friendship, Torgé, 2007), plus attention to human– environmental and Other cultural relationships, as well as to intangible, oppressive, and exploitative economic structures and power relationships (West & Carrier, 2004; West, Igoe, & Brockington, 2006).

Resituating the Body in Tourism As the editors of Tourism and Gender: Embodiment, Sensuality and Experience state, before turning to explain why issues of gender, sexuality, and embodiment matter in tourism, “we first need to consider today’s gendered world and our own gendered academic collectives so that we may better understand the power dynamics and discourses which shape tourism theory and

practice” (Pritchard, Morgan, Ateljevic, & Harris, 2007, p. 1). There is still the missing “the body” in tourism, as Veijola and Jokinen (1994) observed in their initial critique from the late 1990s. That is, we are still missing in much of (sustainable) tourism research the situated subject and the emotional and personal voice in tourism research (noted later; Jamal et al., 2013); in addition, their critique reveals a reliance on essentialist categories of tourism/tourist, particularly on the host as the objectified Other. Fortunately, good progress is being made in social research: in feminist theory, women’s studies, ethnic and postcolonial studies, since Veijola and Jokinen’s (1994) critique of the lack of “body” in tourism research.

Situated Knowledges and the Critical Embodied Turn In tourism’s “critical turn,” scholars seek to deconstruct the sociocultural politics and impacts of tourism research, often focused on emancipation and social justice in tourism and hospitality (Ateljevic, Pritchard, & Morgan, 2007; Wilson, Harris, & Small, 2008). Critical feminist theory suggests that feminist research should have an emancipatory aim to create social change and improve the lives of women (Armstead, 1995; Lather, 1991). In addition to changing and politicizing the lives of women, feminism has also—like others working within a critical approach—worked to emancipate the academic research act and made it political (or, rather, explicitly revealed the inherently political nature of all academic inquiry). This resulted in fundamental changes to how social scientists “do” research (Gatenby & Humphries, 2000; Olesen, 2011). As Reinharz (1992, p. 268) has noted: “feminists are creatively stretching the boundaries of what constitutes research.” In this way, feminist/gender research has been at the forefront of broadening tourism methodologies, helping to revise how we understand the nature of tourism and the tourist experience (Aitchison, 2005). Perhaps one of the most profound implications of the feminist approach to research is the recognition of personal and emotional influences on the research process (Johnston, 2001; Small, 1999). Feminists have been particularly vocal in challenging the positivistic stance which views the role of the researcher, both as a person and in relation to participants, as irrelevant (Reinharz, 1979). From a feminist perspective, this notion is turned around with the epistemological assumption that the researcher interacts and relates with the study participants. Furthermore, the researcher as human instrument becomes embodied and his or her biases, life experiences, and insights are readily acknowledged and incorporated. Taking a critical, ecofeminist approach to sustainable tourism research—and to tourism research more generally—is inherently a reflexive and embodied project. In all matters of the research process, the sustainable tourism researcher is inextricably linked to the politics and power within the “production” of knowledge, and particularly with regard to the relationship between researcher and “the researched” (Ateljevic, Harris, Wilson, & Collins, 2005). Thus, this brings into question the embodied role of not only the researcher, but of all involved—we cannot propose a just, ecofeminist approach to sustainable tourism research without bringing back the “I,” if it ever was there in the first place.

We must thus make ontological, epistemological, and methodological choices and statements to allow for Other voices to be explicitly heard in sustainable tourism discourse. We must also make a political decision to write ourselves “in” and embody ourselves also as the researchers, or “producers” of academic “knowledge.” To allow for the researcher’s voice and the voices of the Other, of the minority, of women, we must allow for personal histories and for emotion in the research process. Reflexivity and subjectivity are usually not accepted in the conventional, positivist paradigm, where the researcher must remain as distant and as objective as possible so as not to “contaminate” the study (Mies, 1993). As tourism research supposedly moves toward an increasing acceptance of alternative, qualitative and mixed methodology research, the writing styles and conventions associated with conventional paradigms may not be as fitting or as relevant as they once were. While the adoption and enforcement of local to global policies, rules, and regulations is imperative to justice and environmental justice, the focus of our discussion, so, too, are changes in philosophies and attitudes, in order to shift environmental discrimination and patriarchal structures (Newton, 1996). Of particular importance in addressing the geopolitical landscape of neocolonial and postcolonial issues are academic-community collaborations that bring in alternative research perspectives as well as the reflexive voices of the Other (Baver & Lynch, 2005). Slowly and steadily, tourism researchers are emerging to contest patriarchal, phallocentric, and Eurocentric domination of tourism studies. Slowly, qualitative research approaches are also contesting power dynamics and resituating the body in tourism and the voice of the researcher in tourism-related research—the reflexive “I” that Swain (2004), Torgé (2007), Pezzullo (2007), and others advocate, as well as the postcolonial Other (researcher, resident, and tourist, as Mkono, 2011 illustrates). Not surprisingly, Warren (2001) advocates a first person narrative as being a valuable tool for feminism and ecofeminism, and in ethical decisionmaking. Theoretical and empirical research on gender, tourism, and feminism is emerging, but there is still progress to be made toward a fully gender-aware tourism scholarship (FigueroaDomecq, Pritchard, Segovia-Perez, Morgan, & Villace-Molinero, 2015). There is potential for ecofeminist tourism researchers to bring back agency and difference, gender awareness, and diversity, as well as attend to intangible cultural relationships with land, people, and the Other of nature and human societies. Situated knowledges (Haraway, 1988; Humberstone, 2004) and an embodied rhetoric of resistance, as put forward by Pezzullo (2007) in her research on toxic tours, are needed to counteract dominant discourses that create exploitative power relationships. Greater efforts should also be made to encourage increased participation from the “South” and other settings where tourism researchers are grappling directly with issues such as neocolonialism, postcolonialism, and dependency, and can bring Other much needed voices to craft a fair, equitable, and caring paradigm for sustainability-oriented forms of tourism. Poststructural and postcolonial advances in the social sciences (Denzin, Lincoln, & Tuhiwai Smith, 2008; Smith, 1999) have laid bare the racial, ethnic, gendered, cultured, and politicized nature of scholarly inquiry. However, in tourism research, the voices heard have

still predominantly been those of the Western-White researcher. Nielsen and Wilson (2012) have called for a more Indigenist approach to sustainable tourism research, one which sees Indigenous people writing for themselves, and driving the research process. Swain and Swain (2004) also discuss the importance of agency in bringing ecofeminist approaches to eco and sustainable tourism research.

CONCLUSION Sharpley (2000) argues that sustainable tourism development policies do not fully embrace the three fundamental principles of sustainable development, holistic perspective, futurity, and equity, and therefore unable to achieve sustainability. Especially lacking in sustainable tourism discourses and programs are principles and continued actions toward achieving the UN Millennium Development Goals, such as the promotion of gender equality and empower of women (Goal 3) (United Nations, 2000). Like Sharpley (2000), we call for the adoption, among others, of a new paradigm for sustainability-oriented tourism research. The proposed research paradigm nudges the field of tourism studies to consider a critical ecofeminist paradigm based on ecocultural justice and an ethic of care and flourishing that addresses the gendered body, embodied situated knowledges, and relationships between human-nonhuman world. The focus here is especially on several tenets. First, recovering the missing “body in tourism” (Aitchison, 2005; Veijola & Jokinen, 1994), and bridging a persistent nature-culture divide that inhibits attending to intangible aspects such as human-environmental relationships, environmental discrimination, and environmental racism. Second, considering diversity and difference, including the situated body of the postcolonial Other, particularly in the “South” and other settings where Indigenous and local tourism researchers are grappling directly with issues such as neocolonialism, postcolonialism, and dependency, as rural and subsistence livelihoods experience the increasingly mobilities of globalization and the consequences of climate change and other environmental hazards. Third, addressing the persistent nature-culture divide in ecotourism and sustainable tourism, where intangible cultural aspects such as human– environmental relationships, continue to receive little attention as the twin domination of nature and culture continue through a primarily phallocentric, androcentric lens. Fourth, bringing the “I” into an embodied, just and reflexive sustainable tourism research agenda. A critical ecofeminist approach as proposed here aims to resituate sustainability-oriented tourism research, including sustainable tourism and ecotourism, toward a just form that is multiply gendered, historical situated (cognizant of the geopolitical landscape), and guided by a framework of ecocultural justice and care. Critical ecofeminist theories, and non-positivistic methodologies and “situated knowledges” (Haraway, 1988) contribute toward research on sustainability-oriented forms of tourism. Such a joint approach to research and practice may help to overcome the twin dualisms of domination of women and nature and nature and culture.

It may also help to guide those pressing sustainability—and sustainable tourism—issues into the 21st century. These include issues pertaining to women and gender, diversity, and disability, as identified by the Millennium Development Goals and the post initiatives (Ferguson, 2011). While further work is needed to develop a just framework or paradigm as proposed here, the preliminary explorations undertaken in this chapter show that it would at the very least address situated and traditional knowledge as a sources of expert knowledge, care and attention towards intangible cultural relationships and cultural heritage, empowerment of women and minorities, postcolonial sensibilities and the Other (both with respect to the human and non-human world), celebration of diversity and difference, and resistance to phallocentrism, patriarchy, essentialism, and the twin domination of nature and culture.

Chapter 6

EMBODYING COSMOPOLITAN PARADIGMS IN TOURISM RESEARCH Margaret Byrne Swain University of California, Davis, USA

Abstract: This chapter engages cosmopolitan and feminist paradigms of knowledge production through their shared ethics of social justice, equality, and diversity, promoting integration into an emerging postdisciplinary focus on embodied cosmopolitanism(s) as a promising way forward in tourism studies. Cosmopolitan paradigms theorize the dialectics of cultural diversity and universal rights, while feminist cosmopolitanism focuses on gender and sexuality equality and difference within this intersection. An embodied approach combines work on “the body” and “situated embodiment” with the cosmopolitan to embrace all human differences and acknowledge that the researchers’ own embodied cosmopolitanism affects research questions, ethics, and praxis toward transformation in research communities and the academy. Keywords: Embodied cosmopolitanism; ethics; feminism; gender equality; researcher and researched

INTRODUCTION Building from my 2004 work on (dis)embodied experience and power dynamics in tourism research, and harking back to personal proto-feminist 1974 conference paper published in Hosts and Guests (Smith, 1977), this chapter will explore the positioning of “embodied cosmopolitanism” as a way forward, as a practice of researchers and perspective in tourism research. For these purposes, this term is defined as a paradigm in its own right, based in cosmopolitan ethics and values, embodied in research positions and relationships. Drawing on a number of scholars, especially Appiah (2006) and Delanty (2006), cosmopolitanism can be understood as ethical systems for negotiating the glocalized world. As such, cosmopolitan theory lies at the intersection of seemingly opposite human needs for cultural diversity and universal rights, a highly contested location, asking what it is, who they are, and, more recently, how cosmopolitanism occurs. Among a plethora of cosmopolitanisms used to theorize

global mobilities, imaginings, and governance, one promising approach is to combine these theories with work on the body and embodiment. This chapter advocates for an embodied cosmopolitanism paradigm in tourism studies, engaging these distinct literatures and recent work in feminist cosmopolitanism within this intersection of diversity and universal rights. Following a glocalization approach (Robertson, 1995), some cosmopolitan and feminist theories share an ontology addressing both local diversity and global processes and concerns. Working from an understanding that academic knowledge is constructed through synergies of the researcher and the researched, this discussion covers both how embodied cosmopolitanism may affect research questions, ethics, and praxis, as well as its occurrence within the tourism research field. Beginning with a brief overview of earlier work on feminism and (dis)embodied paradigms, our narrative moves to a few stories from personal experience. This is followed by reviews of the literatures on embodiment and cosmopolitanism in tourism studies, and a combination of these ideas in the growing field of feminist cosmopolitanism. An embodied cosmopolitan paradigms is argued to be a good fit of theories and subject to address enduring questions of ethics, equality, and social justice in tourism’s global neoliberal economy and cultural milieu. As explained later in the chapter, a “situated co-researchers” approach is a useful methodology, to acknowledge and analyze how power relations shape knowledge produced by researchers and the many people of tourism we study.

FEMINISM AND (DIS)EMBODIED EXPERIENCE A stealth topic in this chapter’s title, the unspoken, is a feminist focus on women in tourism studies: as researcher as well as research subject-producer (host), consumer (guest), and other stakeholder. Feminism here defers to Hooks’ (2000) classic definition to mean a social/cultural “movement to end sexism” or inequality based on gender and sexuality. Feminism has led this writer to see feminist and cosmopolitan theories as linked paradigms, or worldviews, contributing to good and necessary shifts toward a critical tourism studies. Social justice foci on equality, diversity, and equity may counter postcolonial conditions and neoliberal aspects of globalization. From the early days of tourism studies, there has been a noticeable lack of women researchers, despite anthropologist Valene Smith being the founder of the field, fabulous role model, and mentor. Sequential editions of her iconic edited collection Hosts and Guests (Smith, 1977) reflect trends of the times in social sciences literature. In her first edition, counting single and co-authors, there are four women and 12 men; in the 1989 edition, three women and 13 men; while the third iteration Hosts and Guests Revisited (Smith & Brent, 2001) published work by eight women and 15 men. As rounds of discussion on the tourism studies listserv TRINET show, a lack of gender parity for tourism researchers continues to be noticeable, despite the efforts to promote change. In 2014, The Tourism Education Futures Initiative (TEFI) published a code of good practice entitled “Recommendations for Promoting

Gender Equity and Balance in Tourism Publication,” reproduced in Munar et al. (2015), to encourage gender equality, the greater participation and recognition of women, in tourism academia. Subsequently TEFI published this pioneering collective report, “The Gender Gap in the Tourism Academy: Statistics and Indicators of Gender Equality, by While Waiting for the Dawn” that quantifies the gap in unequivocal terms. The nonprofit women’s network Equality in Tourism (Ferguson & Alacrón, 2013) provides another venue for feminist academics and industry professionals to address gender equality in all aspects of tourism work. Links can be drawn between a paucity of senior women researchers in tourism studies, and lack of “gender aware” publications in the field that previously reflected at best a genderneutral focus (Figueroa-Domecq, Pritchard, Segovia-Perez, Morgan, & Villace-Molinero, 2015). Hosts and Guests (Smith, 1977) collections again provide an example, where the chapter by this writer (Swain, 1977) was the only one to address women’s experiences in the first edition. By the 1989 edition, this analysis had developed into “Gender Roles in Indigenous Tourism,” while three more of the 15 chapters mention “sex roles” or “women.” In the 2001 edition, seven of the 29 chapters mentioned women. The term “gender” was not indexed, but “sex tourism” and “sexual minorities” were (Swain, 2015, p. 345). In general, feminist tourism studies mirrored other social science fields, though arguably at a considerable lag (Gibson, 2001, p. 21; Pritchard et al., 2007, p. 5; Swain, 1995, p. 254). Building from the 1970s’ global women’s movement second wave, gender analysis developed in academia, moving beyond an empirical focus on sex roles describing what women and men do, to dynamic understanding of cultural ideas differentiating women and men in a given society. Feminist theory experienced a paradigm shift from making women visible, the add women and stir approach, to the politics of representation and relationship. Concepts of reflexivity and positionality grew from qualitative research questions about identity politics. Feminist researchers reflected on how their individual identities influence results, then thought about how such identities intersect with the researcher’s positionality, or social standings relative to the people she is researching. Feminist standpoint theory emphasized that one’s position as a woman is fundamental to understanding women. A number of politicized standpoints (such as Marxist, radical, or socialist) arose to address specific power imbalances based in race, sexuality, and class relations. From the late 1980s onward, postcolonial analysis, poststructuralism, postmodernism, and the rise of Third World women and women of color critiques challenge standpoint theory assumptions that shared positions of difference and diversity (gender, race, class, and many others) automatically translate into common understandings. Haraway’s (1988) seminal work on “situated knowledges” offers a way forward by situating the researchers’ position with that of location (place/nation, time/history, and generation) in knowledge production. Positionality then becomes relational, not fixed, allowing for, in her words, “partial, locatable, critical knowledges sustaining … webs of connections called solidarity in politics and shared conversations in epistemology” (Haraway, 1988, p. 584). Global feminist scholarship encourages one to approach work in terms of intersectionality, a reminder that people are complex beings of many identities, limitations,

resources, influences, positions, and perceptions, studying equally complex situations located in multiple truths. Parsing these truths as research knowledge is built hinges on the diverse facts that shape motivations and power to challenge the injustices found along the way. As Haraway (1988) so sagely observed, people in their lived experience are located in multiple situated positions that give rise to distinct understandings of difference. It is the uses of these perceived differences that so profoundly link tourism studies to feminist inquiry. Gender analysis is a powerful tool informing how tourism images, demands, and work patterns are shaped globally, transnationally, and locally. Enloe’s (1989) remarkable chapter on gender in tourism’s global political economy has set a high standard for next generations of scholars to follow. This quick tour is just one view of the development of gender analysis and feminist theories applicable to tourism studies, which has been interpreted in various ways. A brief survey of the 1973–1994 cumulative index of Annals of Tourism Research (Swain, 1995, p. 254) showed correlation with Henderson’s (1994) feminist review of gender analysis in leisure studies into five distinct phases: no women noted, add women, descriptive differences, feminist women centered, and gender analysis. As in leisure studies, while Annals publications could be grouped into phases, there was no chronological trajectory, rather an accretion of approaches within a small total of publications. These various eras and theoretical interpretations are documented in a number of survey essays, including the introductions to edited collections by Kinnaird and Hall (1994), Swain (1995), Swain and Momsen (2002), and Pritchard et al. (2007); and specific articles by Norris and Wall (1994), Gibson (2001), Aitchison (2005), Heimtun and Morgan (2012), and Pritchard (2014). The flow has been much more from women and gender studies to tourism studies, rather than the other way around in terms of citations, with some exceptions in the literature from feminist studies, such as Brennan’s stunning ethnography What’s Love Got to Do With It? (2004). Gender analysis in tourism studies by the 1990s was taking a variety of approaches, applying ideas such as the intersections of sex/gender/sexuality, sites of desire, standpoint theories, queer theory, the body, performance, hegemonic masculinities, and consensual patriarchy. An important point is that empirical, standpoint, and poststructural research persists while the influence of Haraway’s (1988) concepts of situatedness grows, along with ideas such as a theoretical umbrella of a transformative paradigm proposed by Mertens (2012) and potential paradigm shifts including those highlight here, drawn from work on embodiment and cosmopolitanism.

A Personal View Over the years my work has reflected these trends in tourism studies around feminist questions, developing new research interests, researcher values, and knowledge bases. A few stories about places visited and research undertaken would suffice. When Valene Smith sent out the call for her innovative 1974 American Anthropological Association sessions on tourism, I was

just about to set off from Seattle with husband Walt in our VW van to my dissertation fieldwork project in an indigenous Kuna community in San Blas, Panama, where tourism was and continues to be a big issue. It was thrilling to be included in the hosts and guests project. Once in the field, unanticipated gender issues complicated my research experience. I recently unearthed an unpublished piece from 1976. Written in the language of the times, here is an excerpt from “But I left that back home: X-cultural sexism in the field”: My research seemed well defined until I had to consider the influence of my own changing concepts and the choices I would have to make while in the field… I lost sleep and research time, gained ungainly pounds, and drove my everunderstanding husband to distraction as I attempted to work out my own path in a bewildering array of sexist and non-sexist values for female and male behavior. I use the word “sexist” here as a construct similar to “racist” to indicate prejudicial belief in innate superiority of a given group. I found that cultural relativism can be the creed and the bane of an anthropologist’s existence… A distinct set of American values that I had thought were left safely back home, [were] expressed by a group of fundamentalist missionaries also living on this 10 acre island, who found my motives as an anthropologist and my personal values very threatening to their work in the same community. If I had not had personal support and a sense of humor, I might have dropped my research project and run. I did ultimately drop out of academia for 10 years, and it was Valene Smith’s call for a second edition of Hosts and Guests that quite literally saved my academic life, for better or worse, as a feminist anthropologist of tourism. When researching what had happened in the past decade, I was astounded to find that some people had actually cited me. While rewriting my chapter on the Kuna, I was also embarking on a very different direction, study of Chinese language and society because, well, it is China. The 1990s for me brought a return to fieldwork in Yunnan China, situating myself again in feminist analysis. While there on a research grant for the whole of 1993, and note this was before email access in China, I began editing the Annals of Tourism Research special issue published in 1995 on Gender in Tourism. Jafar Jafari, founding Editor-in-Chief of Annals, was cautious but willing to risk a paradigm shift that was happening around us. That was evident in a 1991 synergistic moment when two calls went out for papers in edited collections: one from the United Kingdom by Kinnaird and Hall (1994), Tourism: A Gender Analysis, and the other for my Annals issue. Both projects had many more papers submitted than we could use. Grappling with paradigms soon became a related interest. For the 1996 International Sociological Association Research Committee on International Tourism (RC50) Paradigmatologie held in Jyväskylä Finland, my assigned task was to talk about feminism, but the meeting’s organizers’ understanding of feminism was quite distinct from my own. They grouped feminism as a sub-type of the “critical theory master paradigm” (enormous irony there), thus supporting hierarchies of inquiry and specifically not acknowledging postpositivist and constructivist feminisms using distinct epistemologies. This seemed to be a very

masculinist perspective as best, relegating feminism(s) to a secondary status. My attempt to unravel feminism’s ontology and epistemologies at the Paradigmatologie led me to argue at the time that feminism is paradigmatic, in the sense that the questions raised in feminist studies relate to an identifiable ontology of what is known. This fits within the wide parameters of what a paradigm is, as explicated by Kuhn (1962) and others (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). I framed feminisms’ ontology as non-androcentric, asking what phenomena mean in terms of women’s, as well as men’s, experiences. It is political when asking how to promote gender equality, and incorporates a range of perspectives that strive to be simultaneously objective, reflexive, and political (Haraway, 1988, p. 579). Significant variations in feminist approaches cross-cut the so-called “master paradigms” of post-positivism, critical theory, and constructivism posited by the Jyväskylä Paradigmatologie. Feminism can range from critical realist (there is a real world to know) to relativistic (it is only real in our heads). I saw variation in feminisms’ epistemology that may strive to be objective in knowing the real world (as in post-positivism), or subjective and value driven, to know what is constructed by our minds. Feminism’s methodologies are also highly varied, including empirical scientific methods, hermeneutic/dialectic study of ideas (of constructivism) and transformative praxis, applying research to achieve social change. For me, it was this plurality of ontologies, epistemologies, and methodologies that forms feminist inquiry as a paradigmatic challenge to the old perceived truths, providing new, diverse answers to how the world works. It was some years later, when reading Jennings (2001) and Aitchison (2005) on feminist paradigms in tourism studies, that I saw agreement with both of their interpretations. What seems like a significant difference in the location of perspectives or standpoints (such as Marxist, radical, or socialist) in ontology or epistemology can be understood as expressions of this plurality, as can their distinct framings of postmodern versus poststructuralist theory. I am also struck by how Jennings (2001, pp. 44–48) stresses that the researcher and the researched together generate knowledge, and Aitchison (2005, p. 218) highlights the impact of the research process on the researcher and research participants. Recent work on the transformative paradigm as a general philosophical framework that engages researchers in mixed methods to achieve social justice goals (Mertens, 2012) and as specifically applied in tourism studies (Heimtun & Morgan, 2012) continue this trajectory. Mertens’s (2012, p. 3) addition of Guba and Lincoln’s (2005) fourth aspect of paradigms, ethics and morals or axiology, is of particular note for my interest in cosmopolitanism, feminism, and embodiment in tourism studies. Ultimately, as these scholars and many others (Pritchard et al., 2007, pp. 1– 2) have eloquently expressed, gender inequality, oppression, and violence against women motivates feminist researchers to understand and create change. In 1997, I co-convened the Gender/Tourism/Fun? Conference at the University of California at Davis, which drew scholars from around the world presenting more than 30 papers, and resulted in a collection published in 2002. Gender/Tourism/Fun?, edited by Swain and Momsen with a forward by McCannell, featured 16 chapters, with a wide range of theoretical stances, including phenomenological, constructivist, and post-positivist. For the third iteration of Hosts and Guests, Revisited, Valene Smith convinced me to write about my

applied project of promoting doll crafting among indigenous tourism women vendors in China that raised questions about research ethics, praxis, and provided data on the gender dynamics of producing for tourism. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, I began to focus on cosmopolitan and embodiment theories. My first publication, as a kind of cultural practice ideal for tourism providers and consumers in the context of a global/local industry, was in a 1999 conference volume on Tourism, Anthropology and China (Tan, Cheung, & Yang, 2001). My chapter in the Phillimore and Goodson (2004) book, Qualitative Research in Tourism Studies, lies at the heart of this chapter now. I focused on the disembodied researcher’s power in knowledge production, contrasted to an embodiment model that would engage researchers in thinking beyond empirical description, embodying themselves within the conditions they are studying. During this time, I was also developing ethnography on ethnic tourism in Shilin, Yunnan, China, taking an embodied cosmopolitan approach combining paradigms to push along an agenda for a critical, ethical study of tourism.

Embodiment in Tourism Studies Research on “the body” takes on a theoretical task to push beyond conceptual frameworks that objectify individuals as research subjects and insist on a positivist, detached gaze. Researchers are challenged to think within and outside of own bodies, be they corporal and/or institutional, about the critical importance of equity in daily world. Embodiment theory is closely aligned with ideas about reflexivity, positionality, and situatedness and has developed a significant literature in tourism studies, writing about the researched and the researcher. Responding to Edensor’s (2001) work on tourist performance and reflexivity, I questioned his understanding of an “unreflexively embodied” performance, asking if embodiment could ever be fully unreflexive (Swain, 2004, p. 107). Rather, reflexivity may be understood as a continuum varying in intensity of feeling and awareness. Veijola and Jokinen’s (1994) seminal article on the embodiment of researchers challenges the old boy’s network that constructed an uncritical, unreflexive basis to knowledge construction in tourism studies. Complementary views of the embodied researcher and researched in tourism studies can be found in my work on (dis)embodied experience and power in research (Swain, 2004) and Crouch’s (2005) work, written in the same timeframe, on “embodied semiotics.” We are focused on embodiment and power-relations, Crouch within the phenomenon of tourism, and myself within research. Both reference substantial literatures, including the work of Haraway (1988, 1991), Csordas (1994), and Wearing and Wearing (1996). Crouch draws from his own considerable work on the geography of space and embodiment, as well as on many other theorists including de Certeau (1984), while I reference feminist scholars on ethics and the body, including Butler (1990) and Grosz (1992). Crouch (2005, p. 26) proposes an “embodied semiotics” to frame exploration of everyday practices and mutual relationships that shape the power dynamics of tourism. I argue to acknowledge the researchers’ as well as the researched

“subjects’” corporal selves as primary factors shaping power relations. We both are concerned with the multidimensional contexts of these embodied power relations. For Crouch, “[d]oing tourism, touring, being the tourist, encountering space, it is suggested, amounts to more than mental engagement and reflexivity; instead, it is all of these and embodied encounter” (2005, p. 28). To this could be added doing tourism research as well.

Cosmopolitanism and Tourism Studies This section begins with an abbreviated overview of recent cosmopolitanism theorizing, and then moves on to a discussion of cosmopolitan paradigms in tourism studies. Most scholars offer a pedigree of sorts on cosmopolitan theory in the Western cannon developing from ancient Greece and the European Enlightenment, especially Kantian philosophy, in an attempt to establish the authority to address such a complex, weighty, and voluminous literature. This writer is no exception, having drawn from a number of edited collections over the years, including Cheah and Robbins (1998); Pollack, Bhabha, Breckenridge, and Chakrabarty (2000); Featherstone (2002); Vertovec and Cohen (2002); and more recently Werbner (2008); Rovisco and Nowicka (2011); Delanty (2012); and Kaunonen (2014); as well as standalone work by various theorists, including Appiah (2006) and Nussbaum (1996). Essays that specifically address gender dimensions of cosmopolitanism are increasing, as indicated in a later section of this chapter on embodiment and feminist cosmopolitanism for tourism studies. Cosmopolitanism, meaning literally citizens of the world, has strong ties to globalization, which underlies its rise in academia as something to name and document. While globalization can be analyzed without mentioning cosmopolitanism, the reverse is less likely (Swain, 2009, pp. 208–209). Contemporary globalization flows, forces, and imaginings of resources, knowledge, relationships, and mobilities circulating the globe, set the stage for cosmopolitanism as critical sets of human values, political action, and identities to make sense of the glocal, or the “striving for universal ideals and local multiculturalisms within a particular field … [Although] the conjunctural dialectic between particular and universal is never, it seems, resolved” (Werbner, 2008, pp. 13, 16). These contradictory ideas fuel current debates about cosmopolitanism, resulting in numerous taxonomies, and the naming of a plethora of cosmopolitanisms such as vernacular, rooted, subaltern, aesthetic, visceral, elite, critical, and yes, embodied. Rovisco and Nowicka (2011) map out a configuration of cosmopolitan theory around three intersecting strands of thought: as cultural, political, and moral approaches, which Kaunonen (2014, pp. 2–3) notes is a consolidation of earlier attempts including a sixfold approach by Vertovec and Cohen (2002, pp. 8–16): a sociocultural condition, a “philosophical” or “worldview”; a political project to build transnational institutions (from above and below), and/or for recognizing multiple identities/subject positions; a mode of orientation to the world, and a set of competencies to negotiate/translate other countries and cultures from consumerism to learning and practice. As devised by Pieri (2014), a three from six reading of this

cosmopolitanism(s) taxonomy can also be unpacked as an epistemic and analytical project, a progressive political agenda addressing global injustices, or a mode of practice or competence. Theoretical concerns have become less about asking what is cosmopolitanism and who fall in this category, than about analyzing how its cultural, political, and moral aspects are experienced by different groups and individuals in everyday life interactions. This shift asks how some cross-cultural engagements and practices, but not others, become cosmopolitan and how agents at the grassroots level enact moral politics in informal transnational networks. Issues of human agency and power relations are now at the heart of a call— especially from postcolonial scholars—for cosmopolitan approaches to be sensitive to the plurality of modes and histories that enable cosmopolitan identities, memories, and discourses in both Western and non-Western historical contexts. (Pollack et al., 2000, p. 584) Worldview and syncretism are key concepts for understanding cosmopolitanism, drawn from decades of anthropological theory on what constitutes culture change. We can see cosmopolitanism as an ontology, a cross-cultural paradigm of “belonging to the world” with multiple epistemologies expressed in worldviews, such as those from various indigenous, hegemonic non-Western such as Chinese or Hindu, postcolonial, or Western cultures. Worldviews enact world relations or practices of how to relate to Others and negotiate changing ideas. Kaunonen tackles actual difficulties in engaging the Other, suggesting that cosmopolitan ethics can succeed if we engage its limitations. She calls for “a patient pursuing of the transformation of subjectivities towards cosmopolitan reflexivity and practice on both sides of the difference” (2014, p. 12). Or in other words, there is need for individuals to embody cosmopolitan ethics, to overcome their resistance to Otherness. Werbner expands on how connections work when she notes that in some cases we can see “emotional, embodied, phenomenological groundings of cosmopolitanism in the flow of feelings of unboundednesss in relation to an Other” (2008, p. 21). At the same time, as Appiah (2006, p. 78) points out, cosmopolitan conversations sometimes lead to protagonists only agreeing to disagree. The bottom line for Werbner is that “endemic ethnic conflict, gender inequalities or imposed religious dogma do require a committed and genuine attempt to arrive at agreed strategies for living in amity without denying differences” (2008, p. 21). This is where the governance part of cosmopolitanism comes in, regulation of power relations, and stewardship of shared resources, or cosmopolitics (Cheah & Robbins, 1998), which is neither benign nor a given as humanitarian when tied to global capital (Pieri, 2014, pp. 23–26). Earlier understandings of its types as elite identities and practices in tension with vernacular or subaltern cosmopolitanisms have moved to more grounded “investigations of practice and actual relations and structures of domination … as a more pervasive condition of the global world, … as an outlook, competence, aesthetic stance or consumption practice” globally, through time” (Rovisco & Nowicka, 2011, pp. 5–7). In sum, multiple strands of

cosmopolitan theory, including cultural (mobilities, consumption, hybridities, networks, aesthetics), political (citizenship, democracy, civil society), and moral (universal rights, multiculturalism, diversity), play out in global transnational flows of ideas, power/capital, and imaginings.

Cosmopolitanisms in Tourism Research Links between cosmopolitanism and tourism are many, starting with the Kantian call for “kindness to strangers.” Featherstone expands on hospitality and strangers in the following passage, arguing that theorists should: move beyond the preconceived duality of host and guest to a recognition that they are mutually constitutive—something which … should lead to a solidarity with strangers, an acceptance of the political challenge of those who resist categorization …. This means disrupting the seduction of home as a safe space and resisting ‘being at home with oneself’. Ultimately, this rethinking of the boundaries between hosts, guests and strangers points to a form of hospitality which goes beyond the interests and authority of the state. It suggests that a cosmopolitics itself depends upon the maintenance of open spaces in which hospitality can develop. (2002, p. 7) Paradoxically, some cosmopolitan locations, such as 19th century world expos, and many contemporary tourism sites, are both “vehicles for the anti-cosmopolitan ideologies of nationalism and imperialism” (Rovisco & Nowicka, 2011, p. 6), as well as cosmopolitan values, imaginaries, and experiences. As Rovisco and Nowicka warn “less reflexive forms of cosmopolitan consumption, end up reproducing a range of symbolic and material inequalities and as such sit uneasy with the cosmopolitan ethics” (2011, p. 7). Tourism has been well parsed as a global industry that engages cosmopolitan issues confronting us as glocal citizens, articulating dialectical tensions between universal and specific ideals, such as world cultural heritage with national cultural sovereignty. Understandings of cosmopolitanism in tourism studies draw primarily from Western philosophy to encompass ideas about world citizenship, and ethical, political, and transcultural issues, including diversity, rights, mobility, environmental protection, and consumption, which interconnect our worldviews through globalization. This is beginning to change with a more transnational literature and greater attention to diverse understandings, for example, the Chinese cosmopolitan construct of tianxia guan (Confucian, heritagebased worldview, “all under heaven”) which structures some of China’s tourism policies and citizen practices. Questions of if and how tourism can meet its cosmopolitan potential as a phenomenon, and as a research field relate back to the neoliberal push of global its capitalism development. Focusing in on Western cosmopolitan theory helps us see its articulations with Western,

globalized ideas about tourism development and consumption. Cosmopolitan practices that play out in tourism experience and research include mobility and the means to travel; openness to other people and cultures; reflexivity about one’s identities and willingness to risk change; civil society engagement in innovations, citizenship, and NGO involvement; and public, political discourse through global forums and regulatory regimes. Cosmopolitan tourism consumption encourages the hopes of post capitalism for local solidarity, international civil society, and citizenship in the face of daunting inequalities. Non-elite local or transnational workers are unlikely cosmopolitan subjects with numerous labels in the literature, including rooted or subaltern cosmopolitans. Issues of authenticity further shape cosmopolitan conditions, expectations, and practices. Potential cosmopolitan practices arise within the people and institutions of tourism, such as local ethnic groups’ responses to its challenges, as well as their consumers, operational folks, and those of us who study the subject. Mobility runs through all tourism, as do issues of openness and imaginaries; reflexivity in civil society and/or public political discourse, including social equity, poverty reduction, care for the environment, and valuing local heritage. Ethnographers Salazar on tourism guides, Germann Molz on tourists, and Mostafanezhad on the neoliberal underpinnings of volunteerism all situate themselves firmly within the questions of cosmopolitan ethics and identities, practices and beliefs that they investigate. Salazar’s understanding of cosmopolitanism “requires not only tolerance, respect, and enjoyment of cultural difference, but also a concomitant sense of global belonging, a kind of global consciousness that can be integrated into everyday life practices.” This cosmopolitan outlook constitutes “a desirable form of contemporary cultural capital–largely acquired through experience, especially through travel. International travel is thus a prime example of cosmopolitanism-as-practice, enabling the accumulation of knowledge” (2010, pp. 78–79). Salazar focuses his ethnography on how many successful guides in developing countries are “prototypes of imaginative cosmopolitan mobility.” Although not all “have cosmopolitan aspirations and not all guide settings and professional roles are equally conductive to enacting cosmopolitan values” (2010, p. 107). He sees the tour as a liminal space where guides can build up their cosmo capital from interactions with tourists, while paradoxically in his experience, most tourists do not take the opportunity to expand their cosmopolitan experience beyond the tourism imaginary. Cosmopolitanism then is not the sole prerogative of the tourist, but rather is sought after not only by those who travel or … feel at home in several parts of the world, but also by those who stay at home. [O]ne becomes cosmopolitan not only through travel and direct contact, but through exposure to the rapid circulation of global signs and images. (2010, p. 108) Molz, writing on cosmopolitanism and consumption, highlights the complications of gender and other axis of difference for cosmopolitan cultural identity production and consumption. She notes the “complex articulation of difference in the realm of cosmopolitan consumption, especially as cosmopolitan desires are negotiated alongside the commodification of

difference” (2011, p. 37) engendering tensions and paradoxes. Her rich analysis of an embodied approach to cosmopolitan tourism consumption is discussed below. Mostafanezhad sees the volunteer tourist’s “cosmopolitan empathy [as] an emotional response to the plight of the poor in the Global South, … a [transnational] commoditized concern largely acted upon through consumer choice” (2014, p. 70). She argues that .

volunteer tourism … is a specific kind of product within emerging moral economies in the West that stretches our imagination about the possibility of how neoliberalism articulates with new social movements as well as how it simultaneously limits the radical horizon of our activism. From the host community members perspectives’ as well, volunteer tourism reflects new forms of cosmopolitanism in an increasingly transnationalized world, … with important implications [for] global justice agendas. (2014, p. 80) Given a widespread belief that tourism can foster world peace, Mostafanezhad acknowledges “that travel does not always contribute to greater intercultural understanding, … particularly true when volunteer tourists and host community members come from highly disparate social, cultural and economic backgrounds” (2014, p. 83). While cosmopolitan empathy “builds on the ideals of world peace that mediate earlier versions of alternative tourism, … [it] is a corollary of the cultural logic and economic policies of neoliberal global capitalism that have given rise to alternative, responsible and ethical consumption markets.” Volunteer tourists “unwittingly contribute to the expansion of the cultural logic and economic policies of neoliberalism—the very logic and policies they seek to contest … [because their] genuine desire for community, mutual aid and cosmopolitan sociality cannot be accommodated by neoliberal governments other than as a luxury commodity” (2014, p. 86). Various scholars (Swain, 2009, pp. 506–507) have observed that Critical Tourism Studies emerged to engage inequalities, but our emancipatory solutions remain elusive. Mostafanezhad (2014, p. 143) sees volunteer tourism as an example of this conundrum: It is a 21st century materialization of popular humanitarianism where the geopolitics of hope are remapped … onto sentimental geographies of care without structural support for more systemic, structural change … The cultivation of hope through consumerism requires both a de-historicization as well as an apolitical structuring of uneven development economic inequality … [contributing] to an international discourse on the appropriate response to uneven development and economic inequality … The kind of change that is required for volunteer tourism and other forms of popular humanitarianism to work include, among other reforms, the expansion of social services, debt forgiveness, and a more general redistribution of global wealth through trade policies and agreements.

Feminist Cosmopolitanism for Tourism Studies Important aspects of popular humanism for the researcher and the researched in tourism studies are related to an ethics of care and the moral economy. Feminist cosmopolitanism provides useful axiology, ontology, epistemology, and methodology, drawn from complementary paradigms, to apply to research, addressing embodiment of power and equity issues in knowledge production. For example, embodied cosmopolitanism helps researchers understand the deployment of intangible heritage as an economic development strategy. It clarifies the conundrum of tangible material intangible heritage for sale—it’s not just the stuff, the commodities, but the embodied knowledge, the how, that engages cosmopolitan consumption, appreciation, and potentially equity. Within the feminist cosmopolitanism literature, we can find a number of approaches that inform tourism studies. These range from an analysis (Kaplan, 2001) that resonates with elite aspects of volunteer tourism, and sees no critical potential for social justice transformation, to work on feminist cosmopolitanism and “cosmofeminism” in general (Reilly, 2007, 2011; Vidmar-Horvat, 2013), looking at politicethical rights of the researched and cultural ethics in praxis of the researcher. Specific work on embodied cosmopolitanism, derived in part from feminist questions (Leinius, 2014), is particularly useful for efforts to embody the cosmopolitan in tourism studies. Located firmly in an elite cosmopolitan analysis of the “what and who” variety, Kaplan’s (2001) portrayal of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s pro-women humanitarian travel resonates with some aspects of the new cosmopolitan theorizing exemplified by Mostafanezhad’s critique of volunteer tourism. Kaplan sees no emancipatory potential for cosmopolitanism, rather it is all about the feel-good feedback for the elite cosmopolitan tourist. She writes that in the context of transnational capital and feminist politics, travel to underdeveloped or third world countries promotes both the service of good works (as in volunteer tourism) as well as ‘knowledge retrieval and subject formation’….[T]he new feminist orientalisms meet the new feminist cosmopolitanisms in specifically charge encounters as liberated subjects travel in differentiated spaces of the global economy. (2001, pp. 225–226) While the cosmopolitan right to travel freely is an integral part of many feminist discourses “[t]hat travel is never innocent … Feminist travel enacts its own imperialisms often in the name of personal or gender liberation.” Kaplan finds that “recourse to cosmopolitanism is a troubling sign of links to the colonial discourses of the past” (2001, p. 236), including nongovernmental organizations relationship to capitalist expansion. She concludes “we need a transnational frame of analysis to move feminist practices away from the celebration of travel and cosmopolitanism and toward the critical study of the asymmetrical formations created by global capitalism’s expansionary moves” (2001, p. 220). Many other feminist scholars argue that there is more to cosmopolitanism.

Feminist Cosmopolitanism/Cosmofeminism Both Reilly (2007, 2011) and Leinius (2014) address cosmopolitan rights and worldview issues in transnational women’s movements with conclusions that contrast with each other and with Kaplan. As the writer has previously noted (Swain, 2009), such analysis has led to an understanding of “cosmopolitan feminism” that does not assume women are united by common identities or experiences of patriarchal oppression. Rather, the direction and content of this feminist practice is determined in trans-border dialogue within and across women’s movements. As shown in Reilly’s work, cosmopolitan feminism forms a dialectic between universal values and standpoint positions, critically reinterpreting universal values including rule of law, rights, and secular democratic politics. At the meta-level, cosmopolitan feminism engages organizations and policy, but individual participation in gender-specific social justice work (violence against women, for example, or volunteer tourism) may engage people to become cosmopolitan citizens (Reilly, 2007, pp. 191, 193). Reilly (2007, 2011) established how leading scholars of cosmopolitanism are often gender-blind, having failed to notice “the gendered power dynamics at play in forms of neoliberal globalization, but also [a] lack of feminist approaches to issues of cosmopolitan democracy and citizenship” (Rovisco & Nowicka, 2011, p. 11). Furthermore, the literature on neoliberal globalization documents “unprecedented policy challenges [to states and global governance] in the form of mass migration, disease pandemics and health crises, environmental destruction, and transnational crime” without interrogating gendered power dynamics. To address this lack of gender analysis, she proposes a “cosmopolitan feminism” processoriented, transformative political framework to examine cross-boundaries dialogue within and across women’s movements (Reilly, 2011, pp. 368, 371–372). Whether there are meaningful distinctions between the terms “cosmopolitan feminism,” “feminist cosmopolitanism,” or “cosmofeminism” remains to be seen. Reilly’s model has these six dimensions: One, a critical engagement with public international laws and global norms, integral to advancing women’s human rights claims, such as freedom from violence, economic equity (equal pay for equal work, and equal resource access); and equality as citizens in terms of legal protections and punishments. Two, a global feminist consciousness: “that challenges the systematic interplay of patriarchal, capitalist, and racist power relations is integral to contesting false universalization and neo-imperialist manifestations of supposedly cosmopolitan values.” Three, recognition of intersectionality and a commitment to cross-boundary dialogue. Four, collaborative advocacy strategies around concrete issues. Five, utilization of global forums as sites of cosmopolitan solidarity and “citizenship.” Six, a commitment to democratic governance and accountability from local to global levels—transnational feminist human rights advocacy as an emerging cosmo-civil society. Her model recognizes that the false universalization of human rights, from privileged, male, neo-liberal, Western, and state-centric perspectives—continues to undermine the radical of oppression across economic, social, cultural, and political domains, must be

promise of human rights. At the same time, the intersectionality of different forms fully taken into account by any feminist project. (Reilly, 2011, p. 372) Vidmar-Horvat looks to feminist cosmopolitanism as a potentially “valuable critical perspective on how to make cosmopolitan ethics a basis for women’s social action” if scholars acknowledge women’s actual experiences and the “social relations of power which determine the conditions of women’s solidarity.” She contrasts two strands of feminist cosmopolitanism. One discourse draws from the West, aimed against “modern nationalism and its patriarchal models of brotherly inclusions/exclusions from the bonds of citizenship and belonging.” The other postcolonial discourse emphasizes the “position of/identification with the oppressed of the non-Western world.” Not mutually exclusive, the first strand challenges Western democracies’ social contracts based on territorialized citizenship, that ignores the displaced “aliens” and all “Others” when home is within a national territory with contested borders. The second strand focuses on the “subaltern whose home is a global setting, where borders are collapsing.” “The first group’s concern is how to deconstruct and reorganize the center that has been built and sustained by patriarchal rule, the second group asks how to move the center, how to decenter the center itself” (2013, p. 1). Vidmar-Horvat points to pitfalls of cosmopolitan feminism that risk being an “academic endeavour with no practical and/or political effect … in the lives of women who suffer the consequences of national or postcolonial violence” (2013, p. 9). She calls for a multiperspective cosmopolitan ethos to embody “the social vulnerability of the world’s most deprived” (2013, p. 10), and argues that “cosmofeminism counters the state-controlled cosmopolitan world order [of ordered universal values] through the ethics of care, which include care for ourselves, our bodies, and our environment” (2013, p. 6). She sees the body as a site for cosmopolitan connections, while “body politics” promotes an ethics of the interdependence of human beings as world citizens through our bodies’ awareness of our common ground for peace. “Care stands at the center of a moral and political order, which recognizes ‘others’ beyond existing boundaries and borders” (Vidmar-Horvat, 2013, p. 6).

Embodied Cosmopolitanism In his critique of an “unworldly” universal cosmopolitan, Robbins noted that part of the problem of this analysis was due to disembodiment, and then endorsed “actually existing cosmopolitanisms” that are “located and embodied” (1998, pp. 2–3). His insight gives us the language and direction to take up an “embodied cosmopolitanism” project. The “how” of cosmopolitanism as performance and power relations leads us to an embodiment analysis. Leinius (2014) provides an in-depth analysis of what she calls “embodied emancipatory cosmopolitanism” evoking an embodied feminist analysis in cosmopolitan studies while avoiding the labels of either “feminist cosmopolitanism” or “cosmopolitan feminism.” Parallel to a number of researchers, including some working in tourism, she calls for the study of

nuanced cosmopolitanisms, to embrace non-Western, non-elite practices rather than previous one-size-fits-all disembodied cosmopolitanism analysis. Leinius notes that decolonial scholars have put forward cosmopolitanism as a decolonial political project, challenging Western hegemony. She analyzes how feminist scholar activists have overcome a “binary polarization between cosmopolitanism as imperial monologue or as privileged positionality of the subaltern, [to develop] knowledge-practices for dialogic encounters that offers a reading” (2014, p. 39) of embodied emancipatory cosmopolitanism for self-transformation. Leinius argues for rethinking the political potential of cosmopolitanism as openness to the Other, drawing from postcolonial feminist insights into the new cosmopolitan debate. She sees possibilities and limitations of cosmopolitanism as an emancipatory consciousness in her ethnography of embodied practices by feminist activists engaged in the World Social Forum’s global spaces where “an-other possible world is formed.” Some scholars use the term “decolonial” to denote cosmopolitanism characterizing “those possessing an awareness of their subaltern position in the current geo-political distribution of epistemic power … [T]he subaltern is understood as those whose epistemologies and world views have been constitutes as Other to Western modernity” (2014, pp. 41, 46). From my perspective, this construct is tied to Western cosmopolitanism, not multicultural hegemonic cosmopolitanisms, as it is a way to unpack power relations in Western postcolonial contexts (e.g., not Chinese). Rather than treating the decolonial/subaltern as a unitary identity per se, which Spivak (1988) also argued against, I would argue with Leinius to give it an active, transformative potential by seeing how this situated knowledge is embodied, although she does not use situated analysis. Leinius concludes that “in order to further cosmopolitan aspirations of global conviviality, the impossibility of achieving cosmopolitan openness in a world in which the difference of the racially and gendered Other is still marked as inferiority has to be taken as the starting point for the emancipatory political struggle” (2014, p. 59). Combining practice with personhood leads us to the analytical tool of embodiment, how the person performs and practices their orientations, identities and power through their body (Swain, 2009). Feminist analysis of embodied cosmopolitanism provides new understandings of mobility, consumption, curiosity, risk-taking, mapping, openness, and semiotic skills. Asking how experience is gendered, sexed, raced, classed, aged, allows fuller understanding of how cosmopolitan people negotiate their worlds of place, space, and meaning. Social systems construct the body’s significance in terms of values, ethics, and laws, so that embodiment becomes an analytical framework inscribed through our bodies. We know that ideas, objects, and images, as well as people themselves, are mobile, but these many kinds of human capital are valued through bodies.

Embodying the Cosmopolitan in Tourism Research Cosmopolitanism has been understood as a philosophical, moral, or cultural perspective, but scholars are now developing a material analysis of how cosmopolitanism is performed in people’s everyday lives (Molz, 2006, p. 2) to understand how it is embodied. The questions

asked here have to do with how we embody cosmopolitanism through engagement with tourism, the commoditization of difference, the Other, and its consumption, and what might cosmopolitan practice, theory and methodology have to offer a critical Tourism Studies of the people in tourism? Molz (2005, 2006, 2007) has taken an interest in the tourist as an embodied cosmopolitan subject. She mines a rich database of narratives from round-the-world tourists in their own websites and interviews, constructing ethnographies of the flexible eye and cosmopolitan citizenship (2005), cosmopolitan bodies (2006), and the culinary tourist (2007). Her thesis is that these mobile individuals perform a kind of cosmopolitanism that embodies a cultural disposition and a physical orientation toward the world. Molz (2006, p. 6) asks how her tourists embody their mobility, tolerance, and openness to difference, a sort of biopolitics, finding their round-the-world mobility enabled by physical markers of cosmopolitanism, which in turn, constitutes a flexible, adaptable, and cosmopolitan body. These tourists perform cosmopolitan citizenship of risks, rights, and responsibilities at both national and global registers of belonging, while displaying a cosmopolitan competence, knowing how to consume goods, places, and cultures. They are able to translate between cultures using their flexible eye, attained through embodied and emplaced attachments, particularly to the nation (Molz, 2005). They show awareness of risk factors, their home imagined as “safe,” while fitting in where they are at the moment. Most of Molz’s subjects are elite, privileged Western, white, and English speaking. We can complicate her analysis by applying her methods to other groups of back-packers found in the literature, such as Israelis or Chinese, who are “passing through, not ‘passing’ for locals” with bodies marked off by distinct criteria of color and nationality as well as gender and sexuality (2006, p. 15). Molz shows how this cosmopolitan mobility is reproduced, not by abstract universal theories, but through an orientation to the world, articulated through embodied practices (2006, p. 18). Applying an embodied cosmopolitan analysis to other categories of people in tourism, for example, subaltern cosmopolitan tourist guides (Salazar, 2010) or volunteer tourism host community members (Mostafanezhad, 2014), promises to yield insights into how they endure and change, strive for cosmopolitan goals of equality, knowledge of the Other, and claim global citizenship through their daily lives as embodied subjects in an unequal world.

CONCLUSION This chapter uses a variation of the label “paradigm” applied to assorted ideas, theories, and over-arching constructs. This is a problem mirrored in the literatures on cosmopolitanism and feminism. One may talk about ethics, ontology, episteme, and methods, but rarely in an organized fashion in the context of unpacking a paradigm as explicated by Guba and Lincoln (2005) or Mertens (2012). The term “paradigm” is often used as a given, as in VidmarHorvat’s (2013) essay about cosmopolitanism as a wandering paradigm for feminist analysis. Part of this imprecision may be due to the fluid natures of cosmopolitanism and feminism in the

very questions they both raise about the dialectics of universal rights and cultural diversity. As illustrated in the earlier exploration of feminisms in the context of tourism studies, what may be one person’s ontology may be another’s epistemology. If a research goal is to transform, promote change, for example, gender equality, then we can advocate that a paradigm should include specific aspects. Drawing from Mertens on transformative paradigms (2012, pp. 3–8), we can make similar claims for what constitutes an embodied cosmopolitanism paradigm: Axiology: The meaning of cosmopolitan ethics and moral behavior, to respect cultural histories and norms, cultural competency, in the context of promoting social justice, human rights, and cultural diversity. Ontology: There are multiple realities or truths, culturally imagined and socially enacted, being mindful of differential access to power, control, and embodiment of these realities. Epistemology: The nature of knowledge, in multiple, named theories asking how to know and experience realities, to embody the situated, interactive relationship between researcher and the researched. Methodology: Systematic inquiry, using multiple qualitative and quantitative methods in partnerships with research communities. What might researchers gain from using an embodied cosmopolitan paradigm? It is their own embodied experience that leads them to the questions they ask, ethics deployed and methods used. Molz (2005, 2006, 2007, 2011), for example, can be seen as an exemplar of an embodied cosmopolitan researcher pursuing embodied cosmopolitanism research in tourism studies. Writing this made me think about situating myself as an embodied cosmofeminist subject. What are the advantages, pitfalls, and contradictions of this approach? How does the paradigm parallel the phenomenon of tourism as a glocal industry with potential for cosmopolitan governance, practice, and subjectivities of individuals (in the academy, as researcher/researched; tourists/toured/all stakeholders)? I have only partial answers, relating back to my 2004 chapter on (dis)embodied experience and power dynamics. What I think was missing or needed then? What has happened in the past decade? How might one approach questions of embodiment, ethics, equity, and difference? I asked what might we learn in tourism studies from acknowledging our intersecting positionality of researched and researcher to promote more equitable conditions in knowledge production (2004, p. 102)? The author was also concerned with how to operationalize embodiment theory in tourism studies to analyze differences and diversity in tourism practices, regimes, and discourses (2004, p. 108). My subsequent focus on embodied cosmopolitanism paradigms could lead to some answers. To embody cosmopolitan paradigms in tourism studies, we bring together the axiology of feminist and cosmopolitan studies, ethics for negotiating the tensions between cultural diversity and human rights; ontology to embody and promote equality; the epistemology of various theoretical perspectives studied with situated co-researchers, using transformative mixed methods. We study the processes and results of Othering and may find answers in embodied

cosmopolitan paradigms, to understand differences and promote transformation toward more equitable conditions through our research. If we embrace embodiment theory and methods, we acknowledge the corporal selves of researchers and the researched as a way of knowing, leading to basic research questions. We can address ethical concerns about power dynamics in research, among researchers in the academy, and in the field, where the researcher often speaks for others and interprets research results. There is thus a fit between an embodied cosmopolitan perspective, and the call for feminist praxis, for gender equality in our field. Munar et al. (2015) have documented intense gender gaps among researchers in the field of tourism studies, attributed to complex combinations of how women’s lack of agency is acculturated and socialized, as well as entrenched gender discrimination practices of patriarchal cultures and structures in the academy and society at large. In terms of gender disparities in the global tourism industry and/or local sustainable developments, Ferguson and Alacrón (2015) ask why our decades of research on the gender dimensions of tourism have led to little actual transformation of unequal power relations. One way forward could be to incorporate ethics of care and equality into the core principles of academic organization, research design, and implementation. If we have unequal gender relations in the academy, can we expect to have significant impact on transforming gender relations toward equality within tourism? This chapter has argued for adapting embodied cosmopolitan paradigms in tourism research to address enduring question of ethics, equality, and social justice in tourism’s global neoliberal economy and cultural milieu. In tourism studies, we can also challenge ourselves to think beyond empirical description by embodying ourselves within the conditions we are studying. Given my own feminist roots, I am drawn to these kinds of reflexive practices to address these kinds of social justice questions. Postcolonial feminists “hold that selftransformation (from cosmopolitan dialogue) must include acknowledgement of one’s dominating practices, as well as a strategy for creating non-dominant practices of collective contestation, to be truly emancipatory” (Leinius, 2014, p. 58). We may acknowledge and analyze how power relations shape knowledge produced by researchers within the tourism academy, thus answering, for example, why do more women than men study gender; and by researchers in the field, among the many people of tourism we study. In tourism research I advocate for a “situated co-researchers” (Swain & Swain, 2015) approach as a useful methodology to operationalize embodied cosmopolitanism. Building from a situated knowledges perspective (Haraway, 1988), tourism researchers may push the boundaries of our thinking to acknowledge our personal locations within the academy and with research participants in a co-researching process in varied power fields. If we embrace an embodied cosmopolitan emancipatory project in tourism research, establishing situated coresearchers is one way forward to pursue the methodological how of cosmopolitan goals ranging from gender justice to racial equality in our neoliberal times. Embodied cosmopolitanism is good to think, providing a coherence of ethical, political, cultural concerns for the researcher personally, and for the framing of study design and questions asked. This kind of cosmopolitan paradigm has roots in feminist studies and speaks clearly to my own

interest in gender. As we have seen, embodied (Crouch, 2005) and cosmopolitan (Salazar, 2010) analyses in tourism studies can be standalone research, or address cosmopolitan concerns without this paradigm framing, such as the ethics of care and justice in sustainable tourism (Jamal & Camargo, 2014). I am not advocating for a feminist only application of embodied cosmopolitanism. Equality issues at the intersections of cultural diversity, human rights, and the glocal distribution of resources are readily studied in the world’s tourism industry from this critical, transformative, paradigmatic perspective.

Chapter 7

THE PARADIGMATIC TOURIST Richard Ek Department of Service Management and Service Studies, Lund University, Sweden

Mekonnen Tesfahuney Department of Geography, Media and Communication, Karlstad University, Sweden

Abstract: In the Western thought tradition, the tourist has not been a subject worthy of intellectual musings and philosophical deliberations. Indeed, the tourist has been portrayed in primarily derisive ways. Nietzsche’s remark, “Tourists—they climb mountains like animals, stupid and perspiring, no one has told them that there are beautiful views on the way,” epitomizes the dominant attitude. Why does the figure of the tourist elicit such negative reactions? Do the sentiments perhaps imply something else, or is the tourist a doppelgänger, not anomalous or marginal but normative—a paradigmatic figure? If so, then what can be said of the poetics and politics of the tourist conceptualized as a paradigmatic subject? Keywords: Paradigm; political philosophy; post-politics; Agamben

INTRODUCTION The tourist is a figure of widespread contempt, the butt of street jokes, the subject of ridicule, and the censure in (Western) popular culture and literary imagination. Mark Twain’s epithet of the tourist as “a consummate ass” (1985, p. 233), or disdainful comments of the tourist as mediocre, dirty, shameless, badly behaved, or graffiti stating tourists who are not welcome, are a few examples. In the Western thought tradition, the tourist has long been treated a subject not worthy of intellectual musings and philosophical deliberations, and has been portrayed in primarily derisive ways (Wang, 2000, p. 1). Nietzsche’s remark, “Tourists—they climb mountains like animals, stupid and perspiring, no one has told them that there are beautiful views on the way” (1996, p. 360, aphorism 202), exemplifies the dominant attitude. Nietzsche is in good company in this regard. Perhaps the interesting question here is what is it in the figure of the tourist that elicits such negative reactions? What does this aversion among

scholars and laymen alike speak to? Is it perhaps a case of déjá vu: a recognition of the tourist inside us, the realization that we are all tourists? That the tourist is not anomalous, but rather normative—a paradigmatic figure? This chapter argues that the tourist is not a fringe figure but a paradigmatic one in three senses. We do not deploy the understanding of a paradigm as a dominant order of knowledge or hegemonic way of doing science Kuhn (1962) understanding of a paradigm as a dominant order of knowledge or hegemonic way of doing science. Rather, we take as our point of departure the conception of paradigm based on the analytical schematics of the political philosopher Giorgio Agamben, or the paradigm is that which “shows itself beside” (from the Greek para meaning “beside” and deiknynai, “to show”). The paradigm can thus be seen as a part, a fragment of the whole, excluded from the whole in order to show that it belongs to it (Agamben, 2009), offering an alternative problematization to the literature that has tried to define and conceptualize what a tourist is (McCabe, 2005). First, the tourist is a paradigmatic figure in the sense that s/he is the sovereign (mobile) subject that decides the exception (Agamben, 1998). Conceived in this way, the tourist has power over normative mobile subjectivities. The tourist is the exception that reveals the rule, the paradigmatic figure that establishes the norm. The tourist subject is not marginal to, but integral to everyday (social) life (Edensor, 2007; Franklin, 2003; Hannam, 2007; Pernecky, 2010). As a sovereign subject, the tourist decides over spaces of inclusion and exclusion, inside and outside, touristic and non-touristic spaces and activities. As such, tourism spaces represent “not so much a spatiotemporal suspension as a complex topological figure in which not only the exception and the rule but also the state of nature and law, outside and inside, pass through one another” (Agamben, 1998, p. 37). The second sense in which the tourist is theorized as paradigmatic is in terms of politics. It is argued here that, far from being the apolitical and a fringe figure of politics, the tourist is the political subject par excellence. In Agamben’s reasoning (1998), polis as a spatial ordering principle for sovereign rule has its double in another spatial ordering principle—the camp. This chapter contends that the tourist, as a paradigmatic figure and, in some respects, the inhabitant of the camp, likewise stands beside the political subject, the citizen of the polis, as the post-political figure par excellence. The tourist is in this sense an agent of de-politicization or side-lining of politics: the reductions of politics to management and the administration of difference. Tourism elevates leisurely consumption and enjoyment as worthy values. Therefore, it is central to biopolitical technologies of power and care of the self (Foucault, 1978), a key dimension of the re-workings of citizenship and political subjectivity in our postpolitical times. In the Kuhninan sense, the term “paradigm” in tourism studies denotes the major “constellation of beliefs, values shared by members of the tourism studies community” (Ayikoru, 2009, p. 65). Tourism is understood mainly as jouissance, as an extraordinary event or practice that offers a pleasant break from the humdrum of ordinary life. It is innocent fun, leisure, and amusement (Mowforth & Munt, 2003). The tourist is seen as the symbol or embodiment of escapist logic—an exception to the normative, sedentary order of everyday life,

a paradigmatic conception of the tourist from the standpoint of a non-tourist’s life-worlds (Franklin, 2007). Conceptual dichotomies in tourism studies between leisure and work, tourist and non-tourist spaces, tourism as the seasonal or brief suspension of everyday life and work, and so on, derive from hegemonic conceptions of the sedentary life as the norm, where the wanderer, the mobile or the tourist are exceptions to the rule. In all of this, it is as if the tourist is not even remotely political. Tourism and the tourist have, for the most part, been conceived as being beyond/outside of politics, as apolitical (for alternative conceptualizations, Bianchi & Stephenson, 2014; Richter, 1996). Politics is incidental or ancillary to tourism—a mobile, narcissistic, pleasure seeking and consuming creature (Kingsbury, 2005). The tourist as a political subject and the politics of jouissance become, if not entirely ignored by scholars (with some exceptions, like Bianchi & Stephenson, 2013, 2014; Kingsbury, 2005; Malone, McCabe, & Smith, 2014), then at least side-lined within the research field. The sedentary, the fixed and rooted is equated with the space or realm of politics proper—citizenship, rights, identity, the polis, nation, and community. As such, the exterritorial and mobile are consigned to the spaces of the non-political, the space outside of politics proper. The tourist has not been theorized as a political figure—witness Hall (1994) bemoaning the dearth of research on tourism and politics, or the tourist as a political subject. Yet, the tourist is a storm trooper of sorts, a member of a mobile army of political subjects driven by enjoyment or jouissance (Kingsbury, 2005, p. 113). Conceptions of the tourist as apolitical are prevalent in philosophy and political theory as well. In this literature, the tourist is not considered a member of the polis, is not a citizen and is, therefore, outside of the political order (Simpson, 2016). Here, the tourist is again conceived as a mobile, marginal subject without political stakes or engagement and lacking in political interest in the places and societies s/he sojourns in and/or passes through. However, the very conception of the tourist subject as outside of or beyond the political is, in fact, a supremely political act (Žižek, 1999). With notable exceptions (Kingsbury, 2005; Richter, 1983), tourism studies fail to see the politics of and the political in enjoyment or jouissance. In other words, paradigmatic conceptions of tourism as jouissance and tourists as apolitical subjects are examples of the de-politicization of the subject. Yet, such conceptions are deeply political per se and ipso facto the conduct of politics by other means. The third sense by which the tourist figure can be conceived as paradigmatic is by a reference to Lefebvre’s conceptualization of “counter-spaces, qualitative differential spaces” that transcend “divisions between social and mental, between sensory and intellectual, and also the division between the everyday and the out of the ordinary (festival)” (1991, p. 385). Tourist spaces are thus potentially generative of alternative ways of being and living to the exchange-value maximization logic of capitalism, the space-times of non-work (unproductiveness), the spaces of desire and play, of creativity, art and festival or jouissance (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 384). Just think of the motives behind and ambitions of backpacker tourism (Elsrud, 2004). The tourist subject can also be the agent that opens up spaces of becoming and alternative ways of being that run counter to or negate the dominant spatialization and social system. The “celebration” and “ludic” eruption of intensity and desire that underlie tourism

mark the type of rupture that could convert a dominated leisure spatialization into focused resistance and revolt through a sudden re-spatialization’ (Shields, 1999, p. 185). Yet, the tourist and tourism symbolize the appropriation of the carnivalesque—the commodification of leisure. Therefore, leisure spaces are arenas of continual tensions and contradictions, where the struggles between “abstract” and “differential” spaces, between logos (mind) and eros (body), between Apollo and Dionysus, are played out (Wang, 2000, pp. 32–33; Shields, 1999, p. 185). The triadic analytical lens used above aims to accomplish three things. One is that adopting an alternative view of the paradigm concept enables us to draw out the dialectical relationships between the tourist and the political citizen in nuanced ways. Another is that the elaboration of this relationship makes it possible to place tourism at the center of politics proper, as a political subject in his/her own right. The third is that it is possible to argue that the tourist has always already been a doppelganger of the citizen, of the oikos and polis. The tourist is, thus, not (only) a modern figure, as argued by Wang (2000) among others, but someone with a (political) biography as old as Western metaphysics itself.

THE PARADIGM IDEA IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES AND TOURISM STUDIES The paradigm is one of the most renowned and used concepts in the whole social sciences. This is only to be expected given that Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) is deemed as one of the most important contributions in the philosophy of science in the 20th century. The book not only undermined the dominance of logical positivism but also problematized the very idea of scientific progress as a linear, piece-meal accumulation of scientific knowledge, through the introduction of the idea of paradigmatic shifts in science disciplines (Kuhn, 1962; Rosenberg, 2012). But Kuhn’s empirical examples of paradigm shifts are from the natural sciences, which raises the question of whether the concept can be applied to the social sciences and humanities (Holland, 1990). One crucial objection is that the social sciences and humanities are characterized by the presence of a double hermeneutic in contrast to the single hermeneutic of the natural sciences (Dryzek, 1986). For some scholars, Kuhn’s ideas have rather been mobilized to hold certain research perspectives as paradigmatic and marginalize others (Stephens, 1973, p. 468). The paradigm idea has thus been used to distinguish the relative worth of different approaches within social science. As Flyvbjerg argues: The social sciences do not evolve via scientific revolutions, as Kuhn says is the case for the natural sciences. Rather … social sciences go through periods where various constellations of power and waves of intellectual fashion dominate, and

where a change from one period to another, which on the surface may resemble a paradigm shift, actually consists of the researchers within a given area abandoning a “dying” wave for a growing one, without there having occurred any collective accumulation of knowledge. (2001, p. 30) Following Hultman and Ek’s (2011) critique of how the paradigm is used in marketing theory, we argue that the idea of the paradigm, as it is generally understood, has little relevance to social science except as its own form of mimicry. The social sciences should not be seen as being organized paradigmatically in the traditional (Kuhnian) sense of the term (Schram, 2006). This is not necessarily to say that the concept of paradigm shift is non-sensical in social science, but we should not use the word in a cavalierly manner. For sure, shifts in problem formulations, methodologies, and models change not only the vocabulary used but also the kind of knowledge particular disciplines strive for as well. Shifts take place when the ontologies and epistemologies of the new paradigm are incompatible with the old, which is not the case in the social sciences and humanities. Rather, there is a plethora of “turns” (often contemporaneous) taking place in and across different social science disciplines. “Paradigm shift” has been used in tourism studies in relation to all sorts of actual or impending change of significant importance. It has, for instance, been used to denote the emergence of new forms of tourism such as dark tourism (Wight, 2006); or wider societal changes that have significantly bearing on the epistemologies and ontologies of tourism studies, knowledge and practices, such as the Web 2.0 (Liburd, 2012); tourism marketing (Jamrozy, 2007); or tourism planning (Costa, 2001). It has also been used to denote appeals or calls for alternative ways of producing knowledge and doing research in tourism focusing on decommodified research (Wearing, McDonald, & Ponting, 2005), or to overhaul established ways of inquiry, for instance by studying Eastern male tourists’ objectification of Western women instead of Western male tourists’ objectification of Easter women (Bandyopadhyay, 2013). Of greater interest in this context are the various attempts to capture the “essence” or the richness of tourist studies, as well as the directions or various strands in contemporary tourist studies through the notion of the paradigm. Prentice (2004) identifies three paradigms within tourist studies: the romantic paradigm (stressing individual tourists’ search for personal enlightenment), the mass tourism paradigm, and the practice and performance paradigm (based on lifestyle formation). Aramberri (2001) also identifies three paradigms in tourism theory: the host-guest paradigm, tourism as nonordinary behavior, and the theory of the lifecycle of attractions. Panosso Netto (2009) discusses tourism as a paradigm through a temporal schedule as the preparadigmatic phase, the systems phase, and the new approaches phase (including a transition stage between phase two and three). Panosso Netto (2009) and Ayikoru (2009) also discuss the ontologies, epistemologies, and methodologies of three research philosophies or paradigms in tourism studies and research (positivist, constructivist, critical theory). Tribe has contributed with several papers that address the issue of paradigms in tourism studies. He has laid out three research paradigms in tourism studies (the scientific-positivistic

and two “alternative” paradigms, the interpretative and the critical) and the implications of using these in tourism curricula (Tribe, 2001). In The Indiscipline of Tourism, he (1997) argues, based on the categorical model of tourism studies as a field (Jafari & Ritchie, 1981), that tourism should not be regarded as a paradigmatic science, but as two tourism fields (business and non-business). In The Truth about Tourism, Tribe dismisses the relevance of the Kuhnian paradigm concept in “an age where patronage and the monopolization of knowledge were rife and the communication of ideas was tightly controlled” (2006, pp. 366–367). Tourism is in this regard a post-modern field of knowledge. Following Foucault’s notion of the episteme, Darbellay and Stock (2012) come to the same conclusion and view tourism studies as an epistemic order rather than a paradigmatic one. Tourism studies’ interdisciplinary character hinders it from becoming a paradigmatic science. Rather, it is a field that is a coconstituted practice through interaction, cross-fertilization, and circulation of different disciplinary knowledge. Apparently, the habitual use of Kuhn’s paradigmatic schematics is increasingly being questioned in the field of tourism, and we believe this tendency to be a fruitful one. Still, we argue that rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater, one needs to maintain the paradigm concept but imbue with a new meaning by conceptualizing it in radically different ways. Therefore, this chapter turns to the alternative conceptualization and elaboration of the paradigm concept offered by the Italian philosopher Agamben.

Working Politico-Philosophically with Paradigms Agamben’s oeuvre is a critique of the metaphysics of Western political philosophy and political practice, anchored in both German existentialism (through Heidegger) and French post-structuralism (through Foucault). He relies on various theorists in order to lay out, spatially and figuratively and spatially, the inherent splits in Western metaphysics or philosophy, of which homo sacer, the camp and the state of exception are the most well-known (Murray, 2010). Agamben’s famous, yet controversial, analytical conclusion is that “[t]oday it is not the city but rather the camp that is the fundamental biopolitical paradigm of the West” (1998, p. 181). A Kuhnian understanding of paradigm would lead one to conclude that the city, the idea of polis, and its different political institutions (liberal democracy, the territorial state, the citizen, the public-private divide, and so on), have been supplanted by the camp as the foundational (political) principle, of which the concentration camp is the most controversial example. The attendant paradigm shift thus implies a radical recasting of the biopolitical order of how sovereign power relates to and organizes the life of its subjects. This shift is actually the sovereign power showing its true face (in the ontological and ontic sense), given that the original political relation between sovereign power and its subjects is that of abandonment rather than care; an injunction or ban rather than community or belonging. The problem is that simplistic readings of Agamben’s thesis surmise that the camp is the sole model and foundational (ontological) principle of society and concentration camps are its ontic

manifestations. However, to Agamben the camp is an example. The “example is truly a paradigm in the etymological sense, para-deiknymi: it is what is ‘shown beside’” (1998). The paradigm is thus not compatible with inductive or deductive logic or reasoning, but with analogical logic; the logic of the example (the paradigm concept thus problematizes the hermeneutic circle of the part and the whole as well). Since analogy is opposed to the dichotomous principle of Western logic (either/or, inside or outside), it points out a third option that in the process simultaneously dis-identifies the parts of and dissolves the dichotomy, A and B, for instance (Agamben, 2009, p. 20). To Agamben, “a paradigm entails a movement that goes from singularity to singularity and, without ever leaving singularity, transforms every singular case into an exemplar of a general rule that can never be stated a priori” (2009, p. 22, original emphasis). Better still, “[w]hat the example shows is its belonging to a class, but for this very reason the example steps out of its class in the very moment in which it exhibits and delimits it (in the case of a linguistic syntagm, the example thus shows its own signifying and, in this way, suspends its own meaning)” (1998, p. 22, original emphasis). Given that the paradigm is that which places itself alongside, its intelligibility is thus a category or class of that which it constitutes. The paradigm articulates the relation between the intelligible and the sensible and thus makes knowledge possible through a schedule of dialectics (ibid.). It is in this sense that one can argue that dialectics uses hypotheses as paradigms and that the hermeneutic circle should properly be understood as a paradigmatic circle (Agamben, 2009, pp. 25–27). Intelligibility is not given a priori and is not prephenomenological. Nor is it a posteriori. Rather, it is that which stands beside (para) the phenomenon. It is in this sense that the dialectical can be described or understood as a movement from the singular to the singular (Agamben, 2009, pp. 27–28, see also Dickinson, 2011). The paradigm in Agamben’s philosophical account is thus not so much about radical breaks, definitive changes or shifts, in that the new replaces the old in a sequential manner. Rather an epistemological and perhaps pedagogical procedure, whose purpose is to make a broader problematic intelligible (DeCaroli, 2011). The paradigm is, epistemologically speaking, more akin to the case, in the case study approach. This chapter aims to apply Agamben’s methodology and reflect on the tourist subject as a paradigmatic figure from a politico-philosophical perspective, or, more precisely, the tourist as the ideal post-political figure of our time. The same cautionary remarks apply here. The paradigmatic figure of the tourist as post-political does not mean that the tourist is the harbinger of the post-political order, nor of the neoliberal (global) state of exception and technocratic rule or management of the social. Rather, the tourist as a paradigmatic figure has all the while been with us, standing beside us. Thus, in our (metaphysical) account, the tourist is not simply a modern or post-modern figure, but a pre-modern one as well, the doppelganger of the citizen, of the oikos and polis. What is Hermes, the God of travel, exploration, communication, and the transgressor of boundaries, if not the deity of the tourist? Whereas the Goddess Hestia reigns over the oikos

(the hearth), polis and is emblematic of the home, her twin or companion deity Hermes reigns over the realm of the mobile, transient, and fickle (Tesfahuney & Schough, 2009). The tourist is, thus, not (only) a modern figure, as argued by Wang (2000) among others, but also someone with a (political) biography as old as Western metaphysics itself. Attending to the touristcitizen nexus in dialectical terms reveals the inherent political dimension of the tourist subject. The tourist has been a central figure in Western metaphysics, albeit a silent, overlooked and disparaged one. Against conventional perceptions, we claim that the tourist is paradigmatic in at least three ways. First, as a figure that decides the exception. Second, as inherently political, and third, as a one that opens up qualitatively different spaces and alternative ways of being. The first two claims are based on Agamben’s theorizations of the subject, whereas the third takes its cue from Lefebvre’s conceptualization of leisure and differential space (1991). The three claims are fleshed out in more detail below, by placing the tourist in the post-political present.

The Paradigmatic Tourist as Post-Political HUMAN CIRCULATION considered as something to be consumed—tourism—is a by-product of the circulation of commodities; basically, tourism is a chance to go and see what has been made trite. The economic management of travel to different places suffices in itself to ensure those places’ inter-changeability. The same modernization that has deprived travel its temporal aspect has likewise deprived it of the reality of space. (Debord, 1994, p. 168) Post-politics does not signify the end of politics, nor an era after or beyond politics. By postpolitics, we mean specifically the conduct of politics by other means. Politics “is re-cast as problematizing activity, one that shifts the focus away from social conflicts and toward the management of social life” (Ong, 2006, p. 178). Political alternatives, conflicts and struggles are reduced to issues that can be resolved via “consensual ‘good’ techno-managerial governance” (Swyngedouw, 2011, p. 371). In post-politics, manifestly political issues are recast as economic, managerial (administrative or technocratic), and moral problems. The “technicalization of politics” implies that politics becomes equated to the “expert administration of social affairs” and finding technocratic solutions to structural problems (Žižek, 1999, p. 353). Politics is subordinated to the logic of the market via twin processes of the “economization of politics” and “radical de-politicization of the sphere of the economy,” whose combined effect precludes “the sphere of the economy from politicization”—in itself “a political gesture par excellence” (Žižek, 1999, p. 353, 182). The state apparatus does not seek political dialogue with its inhabitants, but post-political legitimization. Politics is “reduced to institutionalized social management, whereby all problems are dealt with through administrative-organizational technical means and questioning of things as such disappears” (Nancy, 1992, p. 389). Thus, since the political sphere is

foreclosed and agonism (conflicts), struggles over who gets what, the where, how, and why are defused. The primary task of politics is to facilitate the smooth working of the market economy, to attend to the needs and interests of investors, finance capital, multinational corporations, and other economic entities and interests. The state’s role is reduced to “a mere police-agent serving the (consensually established) needs of the market forces …” (Žižek, 1999, p. 199). Citizens are no longer the premise and goal of politics, rather ancillary to the calculus of utility maximization, efficiency, and economic growth (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, p. 462). Rights and duties are not given but earned and tend to be (differentially) allocated according to the logic of the market (Ong, 2006). The post-political contemporary is an era where the maxims of utility maximization have colonized almost all walks of life and “have begun to threaten the very survival of (social) civilization” (Berardi, 2012, p. 210). The “postpolitical … is the regime of the non-event … [the era] of The Last Man” (Žižek, 1999, p. 209) —the apogee of nihilism. What is the place of the tourist in the post-political contemporary? We propose that the tourist is the paradigmatic post-political subject and a model figure of our times. Here we single out two facets of that illustrate as post-political, vis à vis the tourist as the wandering stranger and itinerant hedonist. The tourist bears several of the attributes Simmel ascribed to the figure of the stranger: “If wandering considered as a state of detachment from every given point in space, is the conceptual opposite of attachment to any point, then the sociological form of ‘the stranger’ presents a synthesis, as it were, of both these forms” (1971, p. 143). The tourist cum stranger embodies the synthesis of proximity and distance, the familiar and alien. Mobility defines the tourist’s formal status or position in relation to places and the politics that unfold in places. Mobility is a common and defining attribute of the tourist cum stranger, one that distills the tensions inherent in relations defined by attachment and remoteness. The relations of the tourist with the places and people visited are transient and fleeting. As noted by Simmel, the “purely mobile person comes into contact with every single element but is not bound up organically, through established ties of kinship, locality, or occupation, with any single one” (1971, p. 143). The tourist is not bound up organically with the goings of the polity, the polis. The tourist subject may physically be in a place, but is not of it—in but not really a part of the local society or the places visited (Bauman, 1993). A relation implying, in the words of Simmel, “… one who is close by is remote, but his strangeness indicates that one who is remote is near” (1971, p. 143). Akin to Simmel’s stranger, the tourist is not the wanderer who comes today and goes tomorrow, but the one who comes today and stays tomorrow—the potential wanderer, an unclassifiable anomaly, not really one of “us” or one of “them” (Andersson Cederholm, 1999, p. 106). To the extent that “the state of being a stranger is … a completely positive relation; a specific form of relation” (Simmel, 1971, p. 143), the relation between the tourist and the places he/she sojourns in is almost always on the terms or conditions set by the stranger cum tourist (Andersson Cederholm, 1999). As such, the tourist subject enjoys the status of immunis, one who is exempt from duties, liabilities, taxes, and commitments (Derrida, 2005, p. 58). Moreover, munis connotes the common, the polity, the community and the tourist as a figure exempt from the munis

(communal burdens, tasks, responsibilities), is the bearer of special privileges. To exempt, to take out, remove or make an exception is etymologically related to the example “that which is taken out,” or an exemplar of a general rule and, in short, the paradigm. The tourist is akin to sovereign subject that decides the rule, the one who is not of munis, yet a privileged figure that lays claim to the munis (commons). The tourist is the in/visible addressee and agent spurring various place branding and marketing strategies, spectacular architecture and urban renewal, as well as the consumerist logic of the experience economy. Places, landscapes, regions, and nations are being designed to win the hearts and minds of tourists. A whole world is now being molded to suit the real or imagined desires and whims of the tourist subject. Places, cities, cultures, societies, and histories are laid out and played out to satisfy the pleasures of the tourist. The tourist is at the heart of spectacle society (Debord, 1994). Wherever they go, hedonism is sure to follow. Hedonism is no longer a choice, but has become an imperative, an injunction—Enjoy! (Žižek, 2000). “No constraints, no obligation. Barefoot, dressed in shorts, a sarong, bathing trunks if you like, you completely forget the socalled civilized life”—as a Club Med advertisement succinctly puts it (Littlewood, 2002, p. 210). For the tourist self, “a change in place becomes a justification for the change of in morals” (Littlewood, 2002, p. 37). Being a tourist entails that accepted conventions, norms and values —duties, tasks, and commitments—are suspended. It is precisely the absence of binding ties and commitments that is defining for the economy of jouissance and hedonism. The economy of jouissance also involves de-humanization of the tourist self and the potential objects of his/her enjoyment. The transient nature of tourism implies that tourist spaces obtain the qualities of non-places and enhance hedonistic drives. Simmel’s dictum that “spatial relations not only are determining conditions of relationships among men, but are also symbolic of those relationships” (1971, p. 143) is at work here. Personal ethics and social proscriptions are, so to speak, abandoned. Moreover, events and experiences not included in the prearranged array of “must do or see” festivities, enjoyments, and activities, like street musicians outside the mall, are banished as persona non-grata (MacCannell, 2000, p. 69), leaving one with the nagging feeling of being trapped rather than free and happy—trapped in the bubble of the market-based hedonistic imperative. The all-inclusive resort tourism is one ample example of this paradox, as it is a touristic non-place in which pleasure is reduced to a lifestyle protocol. The tourist moves in secured and protected environments that exclude all forms of alterity (MacCannell, 2000). Even in its most beautiful form (as in Onfray, 2011), hedonism is still a philosophy that is dependent on contraceptives and high doses of repression. The tourist’s educational ideal is still there but in emptied-out form, no more than a rhetorical prosthesis to prop hedonism: a clean conscience and proper ethics can be bought. The tourist embodies what Nietzsche (1992a: aphorism 260) labeled the herd animal mentality, thus tourism is slave morality in its mobile form. Ironically, the imperative to enjoy that is the core of the hedonistic spirit—to achieve lust and happiness—is undermined and hollowed-out because pleasure is ordered, conditioned,

and provided in pre-packaged manner in non-spaces set-up by the market. The post-political tourist is a creature of the market (while the political citizen is a creature of the polis). She/he gets her needs and desires defined and fulfilled via the market: the tourist is thus a homo economicus of sort, yet not in the sense of optimal return on invested capital or selling one’s labor to the highest bidder. Rather, the tourist’s economic rationality is tied to bodily needs and conditions; she wants to experience maximum enjoyment and wellbeing, tickling, and excitement or some other experience. The tourist is the antithesis of the conscientious worker (Löfgren, 1999), as she does not measure success or progress in terms of living up to social ideals and mores, but acts or behaves like an autonomous creature. Capitalism as a societal order makes it possible for the tourist to give full expression of hedonistic desires within the scope of mass consumption. The market offers goods and services packaged in different forms of moral philosophy (green consumption, fair-trade, and so on), but the moral that primarily applies in the case of tourist market logic is the hedonistic. We could say that tourism is the spatiotemporal and logistical organization of activities that abides by the hedonistic consumption logic; tourism is the combination of mobile consumption and hedonistic practices. The hedonistic urge implies that tourists, like a herd, wander in predestined paths from one meadow or touristic place to another in search of happiness, consuming stylized pleasures, and the voluptuousness offered by the tourist industry. Rather than appease their hunger, the consumption culture increases it. Thus, the tourist is also mocked by the hedonistic pleasure paradox, because he or she cannot find tranquility, as happiness and pleasure cannot be reached within the restrictions of utility maxim. Hedonism has a close relationship with the rationality of utilitarianism—they both obey the utility maxim and have individual and collective pleasure or happiness as goal (Debord, 1994; Žižek, 1996). Hedonism and utilitarianism coalesce in the logic of society of spectacle. Pleasure is a marketable commodity on offer, not the least under the sign of tourism. The commodification of experiences, pleasures, and leisure time make possible hedonistic consumption (Wang, 2000, p. 188), often in abundance; also that incorporated in the touristic maxim (Diken & Laustsen, 2004, p. 100). The tourist is a mobile post-political figure who is free to roam the market for whatever she/he desires; an agent and symbol of a societal nomos (order) that is tailored to suit hedonistic consumption on the move. The tourist is the new ideal (cosmopolitan) subject that over-codes and territorializes the world under its sign. Forget the political world citizen— make way for the post-political tourist with an insatiable appetite for consumption and experiences. Thus, it is not surprising that the “war on terror” is increasingly about securing events and maintaining peace in cities—ensuring the flow of tourists and securing the mobility of tourists globally.

CONCLUSION This chapter has aimed to offer three alternative conceptualizations of the tourist subject as

paradigmatic. The tourist is not the antithesis of the everyday but its distillation. The tourist is paradigmatic as the embryo of conceptions of the ideal typical citizen subject of our times (mobile, consuming, and hedonist subject) or the post-political subject of our times par excellence. The tourist is paradigmatic as the agent of contradictory spaces that are potentially generative of alternative ways of being and living to the exchange-value maximization logic of capitalism, the space-times of non-work, and symbolic of the non-alienated life styles. The tourist subject is a doppelgänger of the citizen subject and as such evokes a sense of déjà vu or self-recognition. Yet, the tourist is also a figure that can transcend the non-spaces of “liquid modernity” and point to alternative spaces of being, than the crass logic of the “cash nexus” (Marx & Engels, 1848/1967). It is in this sense that the tourist is a subject that occupies Lefebvre’s contradictory space. Contrary to Bauman’s view of the tourist as “a spatial metaphor of liquid modernity” (Franklin, 2003; Heimtun, 2007, p. 275), the chapter has tried to go beyond the allegorical and place the paradigmatic tourist at the center of not only tourism, but also of social theory. It is thus a plea to accord the tourist subject its proper due in the philosophical as well as in the political sense. The tourist is not the marginal figure that political philosophy and social theory make out to be. It is instead the subject that haunts polis, the community and the citizen. Indeed, the tourist is the symbol of the post-political condition and the epitome of its “highest” values: hedonism, blithe existence, and jouissance consumption. In a world that has become more or less thoroughly touristified, the tourist becomes its ideal subject. Increasingly, territories, societies, and economies are ordered by and coded under the sign of tourism, with the tourist subject as axiomatic for ways of being and living. This has major implications not only for tourism theory, but also political theory, not least notions of the commons, citizenship, rights, and responsibilities. The tourist subject is the uncanny of the post-political condition; the already familiar that has come home to roost (so to speak), to haunt and disturb the polis. If the tourist epitomizes the carefree, hedonistic life, forever looking for new pastures to consume, then are we not all tourists now? No wonder the tourist subject evokes a sense of a déjà vu, for do we not live “for the day, live very fast, very irresponsibly” and believe this to be “freedom” (to paraphrase Nietzsche) too? The estheticization of politics, whereby politics proper is more or less reduced to showbiz, emptied out of conflicts and struggles over alternative ways of ordering the polity has the tourist subject as its precursor. Is not then the tourist the paradigmatic nihilist subject, “one that wills nothing but the tranquilizing and passive existence” (Diken, 2009, p. 5), that the society of spectacle offers as well? If the post-political is the era beholden to the dogma and ideology of the marketplace, then the tourist is its very incarnation. So what can be said of the poetics and politics of the tourist conceptualized as a paradigmatic nihilistic subject? In the post-political contemporary, nihilism is actualized in both its passive and active forms. Passive or reactive nihilism is articulated in the injunction to enjoy and has the jouissance (pleasure principle) and hedonism as it chief values. Passive nihilism, hedonistic flight, is actualized and ordered in, for instance, the by now well-known urban and rural

experience spaces, theme parks, and places attuned to the sensitivities of a “new” global leisure class (tourists) and the “creative class.” Spaces that do “not feature people involved in manual labor … that exclude visible evidence of poverty, and that give people opportunities for entertainment and officially sanctioned fun” (MacCannell, 2000, p. 69). Put differently, passive nihilism obeys the injunction “Enjoy!” The interests and wishes of the “new” leisure class, forever in search of luxuriant pastures of ease and glee, epitomized by spectacular architectures speckling the global city, the world of the last men, as it were. Paradise regained in the eternal kingdom of enjoyment, pleasure and abandon on earth. Christianity sublimated via the moral of the herd animal (Nietzsche, 1966). Passive nihilism is based on the premise that there are no higher values, meanings, or authority other than the Creator or God. In this meaningless condition—a world without values—there is no reason to take responsibility or have a goal. Active nihilism, on the other hand, has risk-taking, the profit drive and immediate returns as its core values. Active nihilism is actualized in the realm of credit, of speculation and “flexible normalism” (Deleuze, 1995), and upholds ceaseless renewal or makeover as its core values (Diken, 2009; Ek, 2011; Tesfahuney & Dahlstedt, 2008). The marketing and branding of cities to service the needs and whims of tourists is increasingly based on arguments stressing surveillance, security, and resilience, not only against terrorist attacks, but toward everything that may disrupt business, leisurely consumption, and the urban middle class (Coaffee, 2005; Newburn, 2001). At the same time, city marketing and branding have become recurrent elements of tourism development projects and tourism planning apparatus, not least via various mega-events, showrooms, and other marketing strategies used in city development processes (Ek, 2011). The result is a struggle at several levels over the appropriation and access of public spaces of the city—struggles over the nature and meaning of urban commons, such as deepened commercialization, exclusion. and more or less materially manifested boundary practices (Bowers & Manzi, 2006; Brunn, 2006; Kärrholm, 2008), as public space increasingly is privatized, commercialized, and touristified. Thus, nihilism, in both its passive and active guises, typifies anti-terra, anti-life, and antihuman values; “hatred of the human and even more of the animal, and more still of the material, this horror of the senses of reason itself …—all this means—a will to nothingness, an aversion to life …” (Nietzsche, 1992b GM III: aphorism 28). Nature, life, and humanity thus become mere appendages to the logic of the market, credit, speculation, and consumerism. Nietzsche argued that nihilism is the triumph of “slave morality” and its credo of utility maximization (Nietzsche, 1992a, BGE 260). It is expressed in conspicuous indifference to all living things, to nature and human life, so long as these cannot be appraised in monetary value, economic growth, and returns—ideals unworthy humanity, the environment, and life itself. Post-politics is another name for the political economy in our nihilistic times, when “everything becomes a matter of spending and saving, of calculation, speed, political economy” (Derrida, 1998, p. 1). Post-politics is nihilism sublimated and the tourist is one of its primary protagonists. The tourist subject is the paradigmatic nihilist of our times.

Chapter 8

THE HOUSE OF TOURISM STUDIES AND THE SYSTEMIC PARADIGM Ana María Munar Copenhagen Business School, Denmark

Abstract: This chapter introduces a metaphor—the house—and applies Habermas’ philosophy to examine the environment where knowledge production takes place. The analysis shows the dominance of “the systemic paradigm,” which is characterized by increased bureaucratization and commercialization. This paradigm has severe consequences for two core features of universities: the open-ended search for deeper understanding and the principle of autonomy. The chapter advances the idea of reclaiming the political dimension of the epistemic endeavor and presents a series of initiatives which help to advance tourism scholarship by non-conforming to the steering conditions of this paradigm and instead reclaiming the personal and subjective; promoting multiple knowledges; and building alternative platforms of knowledge production, cooperation, and dissemination. Keywords: Epistemology; Habermas; higher education; dissent

INTRODUCTION The idea for this chapter emerged from the presentations and discussions that took place during the Tribute to Jafar Jafari seminar (October 23–25, 2013, Palma de Mallorca, Spain). His writings (such as his platforms covering the evolution of tourism knowledge production), his endeavors to enhance a broad social science understanding of the field, his longstanding editorial leadership through Annals of Tourism Research, and, not least, his work as a creator of academic platforms and networks have all contributed to evolving paradigmatic understandings in tourism. While listening to the keynotes, panel debates, and presentations, it became clear that there was a level of analysis that was poorly explored in the way the tourism academics tried to comprehend research paradigms and the production and evolution of tourism knowledge. This chapter addresses this absence with the help of a metaphor: The house. The scholarly debate on paradigms tends to focus on the interior decoration of the academic house of tourism knowledge: How we have styled and placed the furniture, how we

have painted the walls, how we could extend it by building extra rooms, and what is the most popular and populated room? This chapter expands the analysis by paying attention to the relevance of the house’s architecture and the overall environment in which it is built.

Paradigmatic Dialogues Besides the references to Jafari’s work, a key element of the discussions that took place during the tribute was how to conceptualize the idea of the scientific or research paradigm and how it applies to the field of tourism studies. Despite its popularity, there is no unequivocally accepted definition of the term paradigm. This should not come as a surprise. Social sciences and humanities are characterized by their contested concepts—culture, power, discourse, structure, self, and authenticity are only a few of many examples. Despite the variety of understandings of “paradigm,” a common point of departure is often the discussion on the usability (or not) of Kuhn’s conceptualization as presented in his classic work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn advanced the thesis that paradigms are “universally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners” (1970, p. viii). Paradigms are characterized by two forms of achievement: an unprecedented level of novelty that departs from competing modes of scientific activity in a field and manages to attract an enduring group of adherents, and a level of openness that sufficiently leaves “all sorts of problems for the redefined group of practitioners to resolve” (1970, p. 10). Instead of a model of scientific progress by accumulation, Kuhn introduced the idea of scientific progress as stages or episodes, where one stage of “normal science” is eventually replaced by another. The process of replacement happens through a revolutionary crisis (a period of revolutionary science). Whereas in the beginning paradigms are characterized by novelty, they ultimately become “universally” accepted (Kuhn, 1970, pp. 13–14), establishing the basis of a specific research tradition that implies common rules and standards for scientific practice. Kuhn insisted that his paradigmatic theory was not suitable for the social sciences, and many of the presenters at the tribute agreed that there is no “pure” Kuhnian paradigm in tourism research. Instead, scholars have pragmatically adapted some of Kuhn’s ideas regarding the nature of scientific evolution and communities of practice, thereby re-conceptualizing the idea of the paradigm to fit the more fluid academic endeavor that characterizes the field of tourism studies. As Jamal explains in her inspiring essay on this topic, “there are no paradigms in the strictly Kuhnian sense in tourism research […] However, if there are no paradigms there are discernible discourses, traditions, a tourism knowledge system, and a discernible canon” (Jamal contribution in Tribe et al., 2015, p. 34). Or as suggested by Tribe et al., a research paradigm in tourism can be seen as “the constellation of beliefs values techniques and so on shared by the members of the tourism academy” (2015, p. 30). Others (scholars such as Graham M. S. Dann, Kellee Caton, or Keith Hollinshead) adopt the conceptualizations of paradigms as formulated in the works of Lincoln, Guba, and Denzin. This perspective departs

from Kuhn’s ideas on revolutionary science while agreeing with him on the aspects of research tradition and community; and the existence of shared norms, conceptual frameworks or research traditions that characterize specific academic communities. A review of the scholarship on tourism epistemology shows that the concept of paradigm(s) has often been applied to examine the emergence, development, co-existence, and/or replacement/decay of diverse topics and schools of thought attached to specific philosophies and methodological traditions (positivism, constructivism, critical research, humanism, and feminist philosophy). Examples of this evolutionary (more cumulative than radically revolutionary) perspective include Jafari’s (2003) platforms theory, Tribe’s (1997) model of fields of study, the qualitative-quantitative debate as portrayed in Jamal and Hollinshead (2001), Belhassen and Caton’s (2009, p. 336) “alternative paradigms” in their linguistic approach to tourism epistemology, Pernecky (2012, 2014) and Botterill’s (2014) constructivist/realist polemic. Dann’s recently proposed (Tribe et al., 2015) that paradigms such as postpositivism, constructivism, or critical (following Guba), may co-exist, while still showing contradictory and ideologically distinct features. What these studies show is that the interior decorating of the house of tourism is increasingly eclectic, plural, and complex. It is characterized by a cumulative pattern, both in extensity (the house is now larger, more populated, and heterogeneous; new topics are studied, new theoretical frameworks, and new methodologies and disciplines enter the field) and in intensity (the house is more solid and visible; there is a higher level of maturity and reflexivity in the academic community with processes of canonization and institutionalization of knowledge in the field, including international handbooks, reputed journals and institutions, and other academic practices). “The knowledge progression” (Belhassen & Caton, 2009, p. 335) experienced resembles a post-foundational situation with representation of multiple paradigms or “epistemes” (Darbellay & Stock, 2012). It is worth mentioning that besides the predominant discourse on paradigmatic evolution and pluralistic co-existence, a number of scholars, such as Dann (see his contribution to the trialogue in Tribe et al., 2015) and Chambers and Buzinde (2015), argue that this diversity is only partial and it hides persistent linguistic (Anglo-Saxon) and Western-centric hegemonies. Additionally, Jamal offers the original suggestion that we may be approaching something similar to a change in “episode” or “stage.” Inspired by the late Kuhn’s works, she suggests that the co-existence of different paradigms with multiple value-systems also implies that some of these paradigms (such as postpositivism) are suffering a legitimization crises due to the raise of alternative paradigmatic approaches (such as sustainability, feminism) and that these may have the potential to act as a “revolutionary scientific” catalyst.

THE SYSTEMIC PARADIGM Alongside the dominant conceptualization of “paradigm” (shared norms, practices, beliefs

among of scholars) coexists another perspective that takes its point of departure at a broader societal level. At this macro-level, a paradigm refers to the set of values, beliefs, and ideologies that are taken for granted in a specific time and space and that act as the environment in which knowledge production is embedded. This meta-conceptualization appears briefly in some works, but is never fully explained or analyzed. For example, it can be seen in Tribe’s description of the disciplining power of “the overarching paradigm of neoliberalism” (2010, p. 30), and in Jamal’s characterization of our epoch as an “entrenched paradigm” or “paradigm blockage” (neoliberalism dominance) that holds the potential and the promise of a shift towards the paradigm of sustainability. At this macro-level, what is paradigmatic goes beyond the specific scholarly community level and reminds us of the power of social structures. Its influence may be noticed at a more subconscious, covert or tacit manner. While the adoption of a specific philosophical orientation or methodological choice (such as constructivism) is expected to respond to individual reflexive choice and the scholarly preferences of a research community, living under the conditions of an overarching paradigm resembles at times a non-questioned “second nature” and it may be more difficult to notice and, especially, to challenge. These different levels—the macro-level and the academic community level—have blurred boundaries. There is a great interconnectivity between agency and the structures, and taken-forgranted practices and value-systems, which sustain and penetrate daily operations in contemporary higher education institutions. This interconnection among different levels of paradigmatic influence is addressed by Belhassen and Caton in their thesis of knowledge production as a linguistic process—a complex negotiated communicative project, containing a multitude of paradigmatic, historical, methodological, and disciplinary influences —in which scholars from different backgrounds engage together (see also Chase, 1956). This linguistic process is always conditioned [emphasis added] by power, by the institutionalized setting under which it occurs, and by the rhetorical and textual constructions utilized by its producers. (2009, p. 337) The concept of “conditions” is worth highlighting. What is meant by the conditions that influence this communicative process? These are far from being only the constellation of beliefs, values, techniques, and so on, shared by the members of the tourism academy (what is often understood as paradigm). As the following sections will explain, “conditions” are shaped by the societal value-systems, ideologies, institutional settings, policies and regulations, economic frameworks, technologies and material affordances, and physical and psychological conditions through which tourism knowledge production takes place. This includes the environment, the landscape, the climate, and the foundation of the house.

Embodiment and Positionality Conditions are not only communicative or linguistic, but also embodied. A majority of epistemological production in tourism, with the notable exception of feminist approaches (Margaret Byrne Swain, Soile Veijola, Stroma Cole, Annette Pritchard,

Nigel Morgan, and Irena Ateljevic, among others), disregards the body as if knowledge was produced by disembodied minds. This is far from surprising considering that the history of scientific production is a patriarchal one, and that academic leadership shows a clear hegemony of the affluent white man from a developed country (Strid & Husu, 2013). In this context, the “body” of an academic is often assumed to match this hegemonic typology. The successful social media hashtag campaign #Ilooklikeaprofessor (Pritchard, Koh, & Moravec, 2015), which aims to visualize diversity in science, is a good example of how difficult it is to change ingrained professional stereotypes. Academics engage in this linguistic process with their bodies and are conditioned by their gender, age and, physical and psychological circumstances. A more diverse and inclusive epistemology must not only refer to a larger variety of schools of thoughts, but to a wider variety of persons that engage in academic knowledge production. To examine the relationship of embodiment and paradigms demands asking to which extent the inhabitants of the house of tourism knowledge voice the plurality of the world. How permeable to difference are the walls; how willing are the house’s residents to engage with multiple worldviews?

Plural Knowabilities. Additionally, “conditions” can also be understood as addressing classical epistemic questions: What is knowledge? What should be considered as tourism knowledge? What kinds of knowledge are allowed to be part of this linguistic interchange? These paradigmatic questions challenge the limits of canonized or “scientific” knowledge. The literature often points to the relationship between academic knowledge and knowledge produced by the tourism industry, but this question goes beyond this dualistic reduction. It implies a more inclusive view of knowledge and the imprecise boundaries among selfknowledge, tacit, common-sense or taken-for-granted knowledge, everyday knowledge, wisdom, artistic knowledge, and scientific knowledge—pragmatic, instrumental, critical, etc. (Delanty & Strydom, 2003). This is not a question of the specific theoretical and methodological tradition adopted in a subject matter, as it is an acknowledgment of some of the other key problems in epistemology that engage with the possibility, origin, and limits of knowledge. It addresses the question of what kind of knowledge has the right to enter and reside in the house and also, what kind of knowledge(s) receives a privileged, institutionalized, and canonized status by society.

Political, Sociocultural, and Economic Conditions. Interestingly, while the paradigmatic macro-level is poorly explored in tourism’s epistemological and philosophical literature, it has received increased attention in tourism education research where scholars have examined the implications of the political, economic, and sociocultural conditions of higher education These contributions reflect a tourism academic take on a much larger debate about universities and their place in modern society (see Collini, 2012; Giroux, 2014 for an overview of this debate). Relevant critical scholarship includes studies about the impact on higher education of neoliberal and public management policies, standardization and globalization processes, managerialism, metrics and ranking systems, among others (Ayikoru 2014; Ayikoru, Tribe, & Airey, 2009; Dredge et al., 2012a; Munar, 2007). While acknowledging the relevance of this

effort, it is pertinent to ask why the epistemological and paradigmatic perspectives have not been more central in these crucial debates. As this discussion suggests, scholars concerned with the study of paradigms are moving among very different levels of analysis; the first (tourism studies knowledge production) belonging to much larger and complex sociocultural spatio-temporal systems and structures in which the producers of knowledge (and tourism education) are embedded. The discussion of paradigms in scholarship, while having provided many relevant and worthwhile contributions at the level of understanding paradigmatic influences at micro/scholarly community level (the interior of the house), still appears underdeveloped in two dimensions: the meta-level of larger societal paradigmatic forces and the level of the multiplicity of knowledges about tourism (Where is the house placed and how it is affected by its environment? What architecture is possible?). The task of addressing both of these gaps is beyond what can be accomplished in a single book chapter, but what follows is an attempt to qualify this discussion by applying a political philosophy to examine the meta-level of societal forces. Later, the chapter will present a series of initiatives currently unfolding in tourism as an alternative emerging paradigm.

The Systemic Paradigm and the Colonization of Tourism Knowledge The evolution of knowledge and/or of science does not take place in closed communities separated from the rest of the world, but it is time and space contingent and deeply embedded in the larger processes of change experienced by contemporary societies. “Embedded epistemology” is a philosophical endeavor that connects epistemic production to major social evolution. Habermas’ work is exemplary of a philosopher who has attempted to make this connection. His contribution ranges from political science to sociology and epistemology, and it has been vastly applied across diverse disciplines. In the Theory of Communicative Action, Habermas (1983, 1989) provides a detailed thesis of the drivers behind modernity processes, the consequences that such processes have for human cognition, and for the ways in which humans can define and live their lives. Society is simultaneously constituted by “systems” and “lifeworlds,” and modernity processes take place due to the evolving relationship between them. Habermas defines the taken-for-granted universe of social activity, a set of forms of life where our daily conduct unfolds and where “human reflexivity is constituted” (1989, p. 236), as “the lifeworld”: as an intuitively known, unproblematic and unanalyzable, holistic background […] The lifeworld forms a horizon and at the same time offers a store of things taken for granted in the given culture from which communicative participants draw consensual interpretative patterns in their efforts of interpretation. The solidarities of groups integrated by values and the competences of socialized individuals belong, as do culturally ingrained background assumptions, to the components of

the lifeworld. (1989, p. 298) “Systems,” on the contrary, operate and impact on social evolution with a very different logic. They are reproduced not because of communicative practices, but due to their power to steer human behavior. At the systemic level it is possible to direct human action without using communicative rationality or pursuing mutual understanding among participants, for example, through monetary and financial means (the market capitalist system) or by applying regulations and law enforcement (the state bureaucratic system). “Modern societies attain a level of system differentiation at which increasingly autonomous organizations are connected with one another via delinguistified media of communication” (Habermas, 1989, p. 154), such as money. There are two key arguments of his theory that are relevant for this chapter’s analysis: first, the thesis that contemporary modern societies appear as the result of a “decoupling/differentiation process” among systems and lifeworlds, which has taken place in the course of social evolution and second, this social evolution is characterized by a “process of colonization,” which entails the increasing steering capacities of systems (the state and the market) and the diminishing of the lifeworld and the times, spaces, and social environments where communicative action and reflexivity can unfold. The differentiation process happens between systems and the lifeworld, but also internally through an increase in the complexity of the systems and the level of rationality of the lifeworld. What characterizes “modern” understanding is that cultural traditions and values belonging to the lifeworld can be exposed, thematized, and questioned through communicative practices, and this allows for the formation of differentiated worldviews. Additionally, systemic evolution, as conceptualized in Habermas’ work, is characterized by the increase of society’s steering capacity. Systems reproduce themselves through processes of reification by which persons are addressed as consumers and producers (in the case of the market) or members (in the case of bureaucratic organizations) with the result that in modern societies, economic and bureaucratic spheres emerge in which social relations are regulated only via money or power. Norm-conformative attitudes and identity-forming social memberships are neither necessary nor possible in these spheres; they are made peripheral instead. (Habermas, 1989, p. 154) In Moral Blindness, Bauman and Donskis (2013) denounce the betrayal that these colonization processes entail. We constantly “betray” our fellow human being by “treating him or her just in terms of the workforce, a statistical unit, or merely as part of the majority of a majority and ‘the electorate’” (2013, p. 76); as a number in a system. Post-political philosophers, such as Jacques Rancière or Slavoj Žižek, also see the increase of systemic power as a decrease of the political. Here the political is not to be understood as the narrow world of governments; something that is apart from society, culture, or the economy. The political is a universal dimension of human life, which is expressed when humans negotiate or struggle over the use and distribution of resources, and it is embedded in all the social relations that take part in the reproduction and production of life in society. It is this human

condition that is increasingly challenged by processes of colonization—“the monetary redefinition of goals, relations and services, life-spaces and life-times, and […] the bureaucratization of decisions, duties and rights, responsibilities and dependencies” (Habermas 1989, p. 322). The focus is instead on the technical machinery of the exercise of power, the tailoring of lifestyles, and a redefinition of societal problems as individual problems that belong to the market rather than to the realm of the political (Žižek, 2000).

Creating Knowledge under a Systemic Paradigm The “overarching paradigm” that determines the environment in which the house of tourism knowledge is placed is conceptualized here as “the systemic paradigm” (a paradigm whose key feature is the enactment of systemic dominance). Knowledge production is affected by differentiation (a separation of our personal identities, private lives, and professional academic lives) and colonization processes (academic relations and activities either being translated into monetary/financial terms or being bureaucratized/regulated). Higher education institutions have undergone some major transformations over the last 200 years and there is a large variety of models. As Collini (2012) explains in What Are Universities For?, the expansion of the university has been very intense, both in numbers of students and scholars, and programs and subjects offered, and it can be difficult to find a common denominator. Among a large number of causes, the fast expansion of universities corresponds to the increase in subjects and disciplines, the advancement and recognition of technical colleges, or similar, and the social and political will to “democratize” higher education (providing access to higher education for a much larger proportion of the population) and foster social mobility. These global processes behind university expansion go hand-in-hand with the evolution of tourism scholarship (Dredge, Airey, & Gross, 2014). Despite this diversity, Collini argues that it is possible to identify absolute minimum criteria that a university needs to possess if it is to be considered as such and not a corporation, a governmental agency, a consultancy firm, or a think-tank. These are to provide post-secondary-school education (“education,” signaling more than professional training); to further advance scholarship/research whose character is not wholly dictated by the need to solve immediate practical problems; and to enjoy some form of institutional autonomy as far as its intellectual activities are concerned. A good way to characterize the intellectual life of universities [or in this case of the production of tourism knowledge] may be to say that the drive towards understanding can never accept an arbitrary stopping-point, and critique may always in principle reveal that any currently accepted stopping-point is ultimately arbitrary. (Collini, 2012, p. 55) Although these minimum criteria may seem very basic, it becomes immediately obvious that two of the characteristics of universities are problematic in relation to the systemic

steering (bureaucratization and commercialization) of contemporary societies. These characteristics are the principle of autonomy and the open-ended search for deeper understanding. Universities (and academics) can easily become somewhat of a problem as they cannot easily be utilized as direct instruments by the market or by governments without losing their very nature and one of the main reasons for their existence. Universities hold the promise of being places where “non-conformative attitudes” and “identity-forming social memberships” can unfold and be appreciated. This is precisely what the university is for. From this perspective, the question is which societal conditions underpin the academic enquiry that takes place inside the house of tourism knowledge. In which ways do limitlessness of knowledge give primacy over a series of practical steering demands established either by markets or by bureaucratic organizations? An answer to these questions may tell us something about the architecture of our house—how broad it is, how high the ceiling is, how much space there is for experimentation, creativity, for rebellion, and dissent. Returning to Habermas, how much is critical emancipatory rationality encouraged and nurtured by the environment of such a house? Is the tourism academy something that increasingly resembles a hybrid of a corporation-consultancy-think-tank competing in an international higher education “marketplace”? The urge for deeper understanding is not the only key feature that may turn out to be inconvenient for systemic steering dominance. There is also the characteristic of “autonomy,” which refers to “the political” dimension of academic life—“the capacity of social agents, agencies and institutions to maintain or transform their environment, social or physical. It is about the resources that underpin this capacity and about the forces that shape and influence its exercise” (Held, 1987, pp. 275–277). The principle of “autonomy” means that: Individuals should be free and equal in the determination of the conditions of their own lives; that is they should enjoy equal rights (and, accordingly equal obligations) in the specification of the framework, which generates and limits the opportunities available to them, so long as they do not deploy this framework to negate the rights of others. (1987, p. 271) It becomes vital to look not only to what the principle of autonomy (at both personal level and institutional level) entails, but to the “conditions of enactment” of this principle. In his excellent study of democratic models, Held explains that “a consideration of principles, without an examination of the conditions for their realization, may preserve a sense of virtue, but it will leave the actual meaning of such principles barely spelt out at all” (1987, p. 273). So while many of our higher education institutions still preserve a discourse of the scholar’s autonomy and an appreciation of the limitlessness of research enquiry, the ever-increasing demands, tasks, and procedures that scholars have to comply within their daily lives and the expansion of the academic precariat tell another story. On one side, academics are burdened like never before by a constant demand of documentation to justify that they are complying with what a large bureaucratic system of administrators/managers/politicians wants them to do, and on the other, they are bound to justify their existence on the basis of being useful to a series of

economic goals. Unfortunately, it seems that despite the optimism related to the growth and diversity of tourism knowledge production, the environment in which the house is located is becoming increasingly toxic. The systemic paradigm of knowledge production promotes the expansion of professionalization and expert systems (often non-transparent, large systems of administrative expertise that have as their tasks the management and optimization of research and educational activities). In this scenario the dominant paradigm is that of an increasing steering capacity and loss of political agency. The dilemmas posed by steering colonization processes are a recurrent theme in literature about work-life balance in HE. The following is an excerpt of one of the conclusions of a recent workshop organized at the Critical Tourism Studies Conference (Croatia on June 26–30, 2015) where participants reflected on their careers: Some persons seemed to be drawing a division between their professional and personal lives in terms of the “good life.” It appeared that it was expected that there would be unhappiness in professional life while happiness was the domain of the personal life. The good life in the professional world was about ticking all the boxes in terms of career progression although these achievements might not necessarily lead to happiness. (Chambers, personal communication, July 15, 2015) These stories are reflections of the decoupling of the lifeworld. Systemic dominance can also be seen in linguistic terms; academic communities talk about students as consumers, academics/researchers as producers, academic leadership as managers, and higher education institutions as corporations (Giroux, 2014). This impacts on what is perceived as a desirable academic identity, which is increasingly less about being an engaged public intellectual and more about being a productive employee that matches a set of standards of “excellence”—the ticking of boxes. Systemic dominance can be seen as a process of zombiefication (Ryan, 2012, p. 3). Zombie (the living dead) is used to describe a person who has lost consciousness but is still able to respond to stimuli. These stimuli are steered and designed either by the need to meet global quality standards and metrics, which are bureaucratically enforced by universities’ management, or to meet market needs such as efficiency, profit maximization, and the tailoring of degrees and education to meet the demands of market actors. What follows is a lack of consideration of the “public good” nature of education and knowledge production and a poor understanding of their positive externalities. Besides zombification, probably one of the most problematic signs of the decrease in autonomy is the emergence of the academic precariat: Precarity has become a weapon both to exploit adjuncts, part-time workers, and temporary laborers and to suppress dissent by keeping them in a state of fear over losing their jobs. Insecure forms of labor increasingly produce a “feeling of passivity born of despair.” […] This issue is not simply about restoring the balance between labor and capital, it is about recognizing a new form of serfdom that kills the spirt as much as it depoliticizes the mind. (Giroux, 2014, p. 26)

Additionally, the last decades have seen an increase of the establishment and enforcement of quality standards and regulations in a global expansion of new public management ideologies that rely on systems of documentation and monitoring. These systemic bureaucratic structures have different spatial levels of influence, from global standards of quality metrics (the journal citation index, international rankings systems, quality accreditation agencies, etc.) to national and local rules and procedures (Marginson & van der Wende, 2007). The reliance on publicly scrutinizable procedures as a substitute for reasoned argument involves an endless deferral of judgement, or at the very least its burial under layers of ostensibly value-neutral bureaucratese. (Collini, 2012, pp. 108– 109) Ooi presents a reflection of this state of affairs in his work “Listen Carefully” (Figure 1) with a series of posters, which are a meme of the motivational poster “Keep Calm and Carry On,” produced by the British government during the Second World War.

Figure 1. Listen Carefully Source: Can Seng Ooi, 2015, artwork presented at the 2nd Tourism Postdisciplinarity Conference: Freedom, Art, Power. Paradoxically, while the house environment is characterized by a narrow quantitative understanding of the value of scholarship (if it is not quantifiable/measurable, it is not valuable), at the level of our interior decoration, tourism research enquiry is experiencing the expansion and greater recognition of qualitative methodologies. This tendency, for example, characterizes the latest “platforms” in Jafari’s (2005a, 2005b, 2005c) theoretical model of the

evolution of tourism knowledge production. Counting and benchmarking, however, are the norms of macro quality management systems. One of the most clear (and absurd) examples of this tendency is what Collini calls the “no standing still” conception of excellence: Standards must always be “driven up.” Benchmarks exist to be surpassed. It becomes difficult, as these phrases insinuate themselves into our thinking, to insist that if something is already being done very well, then the right thing may be to go on doing it like that […] vacuity is now rendered more vacuous still by the requirement that the “excellent” must become “yet more excellent” on pain of being exposed as complacent or backward looking or something equally scandalous. (2012, p. 109)

De-Colonizing Epistemology In what ways can academics advance tourism scholarship under the conditions of a systemic paradigm? Paraphrasing Habermas’ fighting systemic dominance entails applying communicative action and emancipatory/reflexive rationality to the redefinition of academic goals, relations and services, life-spaces and life-times, and decisions, duties and rights, responsibilities and dependencies. It demands reclaiming the political dimension (the capacity to transform the world) of the epistemic endeavor. What follows presents a series of initiatives, networks, and conferences that act as different counter-dynamics to the power of systemic steering and therefore aim at changing not only the interior decoration of the house of tourism studies, but also at impacting on the overall environment where academic lives unfold. These are Postdisciplinarity, Critical Tourism Studies, While Waiting for the Dawn and the Tourism Education Futures Initiative (TEFI). While these are not the only possible examples, they are all representative of epistemological practices that question the dominant systemic meta-paradigm. They configure a fluid academic movement that provides communicative spaces and encourages dissent and autonomy in tourism knowledge production. This takes place in a multitude of ways, but the following sections discuss three key features of this decolonization movement: first, claiming the personal and the subjective; second, promoting and celebrating multiple knowledges and genres; and third, building alternative non-bureaucratized and non-marketized platforms of knowledge production, cooperation, and dissemination.

Claiming the Personal and the Subjective The colonization of spaces for reflexive communication in academia happens through the technocratization and quantification of academic work and how this work is evaluated. Therefore, a way to advocate for spaces of communicative reflexivity is by recovering the personal and the subjective. To acknowledge the complexity of the personal unique voice in knowledge production is to recognize that academic work cannot, and should not, be reduced to a number. While the question “What do we write about?” has received a lot of scholarly attention, effort is seldom made to understand how research is performed and what the structural and systemic conditions in which our

academic lives enfold are. Furthermore, how do gender, age, nationality, friendships, animosities and love relations, recruitment and promotion practices, and the cultures of work environments play a role in knowledge production? Epistemic examinations remain worryingly impersonalized, disembodied, and unemotional. However, knowledge production, sensemaking, and interpretation happen always in the flesh: “Thought requires a body—not in the trivial sense that you need a physical brain to think with, but in the profound sense that the very structure of our thoughts comes from the nature of the body” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999), and cognition is always autobiographical and emotional. Any research activity starts with a personal research act. The topic and problematization presented in this chapter could have easily been adopted by another researcher. However, the final outcome of the text would turn out to be quite different. Entering into a critical reflexive dialogue (through the defining of problems, interpreting writings, or other forms of research production) brings not only the specific instrumental knowledge that a scholar has on a subject but also her whole understanding—her personal complex cognition—and this is not replicable. Nietzche’s words remind us how important it is to celebrate the personal and unique: “every human being is a unique wonder […] he is beautiful and worth contemplating, as novel and incredible as every work of nature, and by no means dull.” Botterill and I reflected on the need to recover this existential perspective during the dialogue keynote entitled “On Being an Academic” at the annual conference of the Association of Tourism Higher Education (Edinburg, December 2014), noticing that academic careers are about who we are: “They run deep inside our bodies. They are nothing like a nicely structured CV or the operational tales of team collaboration and networking. It is often about power, interests, and passions. Sometimes (many more times that we will ever dare to recognize) what makes people optimistic about their field it is not the ‘field’ itself, it can be things like being in love with someone and feeling that life is worth living and fighting for” (Munar & Botterill, 2014). A simple example of academic daily life that shows the relevance of the subjective and dialogical is that, for researchers, a question that is at least as crucial as what to write about is who to write with. In a similar vein, the 2nd Tourism Postdisciplinarity Conference: Freedom, Art, Power (Copenhagen June 22–24, 2015) was a call to recover personal freedom and experimentation in knowledge production: In these times of academic obsession with rankings and performance metrics, we aim to recover playfulness, regain freedom and independence, the joy of reconnecting our personal existence with our knowledge production and academic life. This is an invitation to follow your individual passion and take risks. There are multiple paths to achieve excellence and rigor in research. It is a call to recover the experimental and unconventional in our writings, our teaching and in our interpretations. (Munar et al., 2015) To recover and appreciate what is subjective, non-quantifiable, and unique is an act of rebellion against systemic dominance. This is a central theme in several of the contributions to the special issue on Tourism Postdisciplinarity in Tourism Analysis (forthcoming):

Emotive subjectivity has, I believe, a vital, pivotal role to play in subject development. Research is molded by prosaic resource and temporal considerations. And, of course, the researcher’s personality, profile and perspectives are paramount. Acknowledging and accepting this, surely we can accommodate (and celebrate) “the personal” as a positive. Our sources should not be limited, blinkered and restricted to academe alone. I contend we wholeheartedly embrace and interweave other eclectic points of reference, preferably from popular culture, into our work thereby, hopefully, enhancing “accessibility” of both thought and message. Underlying all this has, of course, been my own background and associated values. Clearly, my upbringing and social life have been instrumental in determining my way of looking at “things.” (Wheeller’s personal narrative in Pernecky, Munar and Wheeller, forthcoming) Prichard, Morgan, and Ateljevic are among the scholars who have provided a series of academic reflections based on their lived research choices. The founders of the Critical Tourism Studies conference series and network entitled their epistemological vision “hopeful tourism” (Pritchard et al., 2011). For years, through their scholarly engagement, these scholars wrote about hopeful tourism and made it happen. Hales, Dredge, Higgins-Desbiolles and Jamal have used their personal reflexive narratives to examine how “on the one hand, academics are required to conform to neoliberal performance regimes, but on the other hand, they work hard to fulfill their ideals of activism, often incurring significant personal and professional costs” (2014, p. 169). In a similar way, it is not possible to comprehend Jafari’s ideas of the “knowledge platform” or the “tourismification” of tourism education without looking at his long-life dedication to creating the necessary institutional networks and platforms that could make that knowledge platform and the reality of a more cohesive education landscape for tourism studies a realistic objective (for a short biography of Jafar Jafari’s life and work see Xiao, 2013). Promoting and Celebrating Multiple Knowledges and Genres “The necessity for ‘plural knowability’ in tourism studies” (Hollinshead, forthcoming) is at the core of a series of academic dialogues and contributions that have been presented at Critical Tourism Studies, TEFI and the Postdisciplinarity conferences. Inspired by the pragmatic humanism of Rorty, Caton has emphasized the relevance of contextual reasoning and situationbased judgments (see the chapter “A Humanist Paradigm for Tourism Studies?”). Chambers has called for the need for a change in our “epistemic groundings” and to dare to re-think a “more inclusive tourism curriculum, which recognizes the legitimacy of worlds and knowledge otherwise which might not fit within a particular disciplinary straightjacket” (Chambers, 2015). Hollinshead, in his keynote “Postdisciplinarity and the Rise of Intellectual Openness: The Necessity for ‘Plural Knowability’ in Tourism Studies,” suggests that: individual thinkers / researchers / activists have to learn to not just rely upon removed, etic, and clinical assessments of cultural being and becoming which

have been in the van of academic social science over the last century, but to know how to blend such ‘academic forms of insight’ with local and contextual “nonacademic”/“communal”/“collateral” ways of knowing. (Hollinshead, forthcoming) Grimwood (2015b) challenges the academic need to find meta-narratives and allencompassing disciplinary frameworks and invite us to embrace “the incompatibility of worldviews, knowledge, and experiences (i.e., choosing to honor and work with difference).” To open up to a wider understanding of knowledge production entails a rethinking of the role that emotions play in cognitive processes. The relevance of empathy and the ethics of care were a central element of Jamal’s keynote at the TEFI8 conference entitled “Progressive Service Learning and Destination Justice: New Directions for Sustainable Tourism Pedagogy and Transformative earning.” This idea has been taken further by the recent call for the conference of TEFI9 in June 2016 entitled “The Power of Caring” as explained by Caton: Caring is rarely given serious attention. It tends to be associated with emotionality rather than rationality, weakness rather than strength. Talking about it publicly, in professional contexts, is likely to land you with the charge of naïveté́ for optimism. But it is precisely care—for our students, our communities, our planet —that unites our efforts at knowledge production and transmission with a larger sense of purpose. Knowing what we care about and working in service of it moves us away from a sense of inevitability for the status quo and toward alternate futures where tourism education can help to advance the good life for humanity, in the context of the ecosystem that sustains us. (Caton, 2015b) The need for a more diverse and inclusive knowledge production is also at the core of the initiative, “While Waiting for the Dawn.” This initiative was established by 11 tourism academics to study the role that gender and sexism play in the evolution and the present situation of women academics and students in tourism research and education. While Waiting for the Dawn encourages open and free sharing of knowledge production and distribution. It fosters knowledge and reflective activism as means of creating a better future for tourism academia and for the world. It explores collaborative ways of knowledge production and encourages novel ways of knowledge expression, such as artistic or non-textual documentations. Their report “The Gender Gap in the Tourism Academy” (Munar et al., 2015) aims to increase awareness about the hegemonic role patriarchal systems play in knowledge production. Besides mapping gender equality through a series of key indicators that reflect leadership in the field, the authors state that: we need to acknowledge gender as a complex, multifaceted construct and to better promote research that focuses on the intersectionality between gender and other indicators such as race, ethnicity, language, and other socioeconomic factors. This report is also a call to rethink what it is to be an academic and how academic

careers can be lived. We need to expand the indicators of leadership and excellence, and this includes challenging patriarchal stereotypes and starting a critical discussion about what a successful academic career might look like and what academic leadership entails. In this sense, we need to include, for example, broader scholarship responsibilities such as teaching, educational development, and community service, when imagining the picture of a successful academic. We also need to go beyond the league tables of most cited authors and the like, in defining the value of leadership in academic work. (Munar et al., 2015, p. 17) Postdisciplinary and critical scholars examine and challenge what has been considered as “right” or “valid” academic knowledge. They address the paradigmatic question of which topics, methodologies, or scholarly traditions are usually examined in tourism research. They also question the genres and formal limitations through which academics are requested to express themselves. The last decades have seen a decay in the value of books and other forms of scholarship (lectures) and the dominance of “the research article.” The research article is a genre with clear limitations and rules on structure, size, submission, review, and publication processes and tools, copyright regulations, citation systems, and language—such as English as the only language in the most important journals in our field. It has become “the” means to express, share, and evaluate tourism knowledge. The research article has paradigmatic dominance because it is a scholarly technique and practice that is taken for granted and canonized by our academic communities. This paradigmatic genre is increasingly challenged by, for example, the establishment of the Visual Tourism Studies Network, coordinated by Rakić and Chambers, the evolution in the field of digital humanities; the establishment of multimedia open-source journals, like “Vectors,” and platforms of knowledge production and communication, like “Scalar” (a free, open-source publishing platform created by The Alliance for Networking Visual Culture to make it easy for authors to write long-form, borndigital scholarship online); and by epistemic contributions that intertwine art with scholarly performances, such as the works of Schmidt and Bødker (2015) (see a demo of their Resonant Tourism installation at https://www.dropbox.com/s/h7um2300evm59z8/TouristResonance Demo.mp4?dl=0), Barry (2015) and Ooi (2015) (Figures 1 and 2), among others.

Figure 2. Diagraming the Packing Process Source: Kaya Barry, artwork presented at the 2nd Tourism Postdisciplinarity Conference: Freedom, Art, Power. The “Walking Workshop” of TEFI organized by Danielle is an example of novel designs of knowledge sharing and communities of practice. This workshop in Nepal was a 10-day event in the rural villages of Bupsa and Bumburi in the Lower Solu Khumbu region of the Himalayas which aimed to provide an alternative to traditional academic conferences experiences that can be perceived as “being quick and often soulless, PowerPoint-driven presentations” and instead providing a “chance of real reflection, interaction and discussion, immersed in the issues of the region” (Tourism Education Futures Initiative, 2014). Moving the epistemological conversation out of traditional institutionalized practices, these events focus on the value of the personal, deep conversation between colleagues and the embodied experience of place. Building Alternative Platforms of Knowledge Production, Cooperation, and Dissemination Postdisciplinarity, While Waiting for the Dawn, Critical Tourism Studies, and TEFI provide examples of liquid, non-hierarchical, and non-bureaucratized forms of scholarship, which act as an alternative to the increasingly formalized and marketized academic institutions: TEFI is not a membership-based organization, but rather a liquid organization that

seeks to be inclusive, regardless of age, gender, rank, experience, or origin. The common thread that binds TEFI members is that the network provides an inclusive space for dialog and reflection about what it means to educate for a better world and what it means to be an academic. (Dredge et al., 2015, p. 342) The hopeful tourism network can trace its origins to 2004. Since then it has generated the Critical Tourism Studies conference series (2005, 2007, 2009, 2011) and several publications (e.g., Ateljevic, Pritchard, & Morgan, 2007, in press; Pritchard, Morgan, Ateljevic, & Harris, 2007). The project encapsulates “a commitment to tourism enquiry which is pro-social justice and equality and antioppression: it is an academy of hope” (Ateljevic et al., 2007, p. 3) founded in an inclusive environment and encompassing a range of interpretative, critical and emancipatory approaches. (Pritchard et al., 2011, pp. 947–948) These communities get together in fluid and multiple ways, across national and institutional memberships, through the organization of events, co-production of academic content, curriculum development, and so on, nurtured by relationships that are not formalized, but based on trust, cooperation, creativity, friendship, and personal feelings of belonging. What founders and activists of these initiatives have in common is that they are “entrepreneurial dreamers” or “engaged visionaries.” Beliefs and values hold promises of possible or impossible futures. This eclectic movement reclaims paradigmatic spaces of academic production outside the influence of steering systems. Paradigms become enacted realities in the form of personal choices, actions, and events. A paradigmatic community is not only the one that exists today but also the one that is becoming.

CONCLUSION The thesis presented in this chapter is not suggesting that universities and academics should be disconnected or unaccountable to their societies. It actually argues the contrary: that the defense of open-ended enquiry is a social duty aimed at preserving communicative and emancipatory spaces for present and future generations. Tourism scholars should recognize the deep embeddedness of the house of knowledge production in society while claiming the need to enact autonomy, reclaim the political, empower reflexivity, and nurture environments where non-steered human relationships can flourish. A culture of extreme accountability (or mistrust?), dominated by a discourse on universities, that is largely utilitarian is unable to provide the necessary levels of autonomy and open-ended research enquiry for academic environments to thrive. Paradigmatic discourses provide a vision of what is understood as the “good” or the “excellent.” They encapsulate an ethical dimension that lies beneath the surface of truth(s)

claims. While it is justifiable to ask academic institutions for their contribution to the common good, it is equally justifiable to question what the “good” is, who has the right to define it, and to warn against automatically equating the “good” to anything that may have an immediate return on investment or match a set of established standards. While it is admirable to encourage a culture of service to others in HE, it is equally necessary to ask what the purpose of service is and whose interests need to be served. In an époque of systemic colonization of lifeworlds to nurture a culture of dissent in the house of tourism studies may be one of the core missions of scholarship.

Chapter 9

A LOGICAL STEP TO TOURISM SCIENCE Kazuyoshi Takeuchi Department of English Communication, Jissen Women’s Junior College, Japan

Abstract: The purpose of this chapter is to propose a theory which may lead to a holistic description of the mechanism of touristic phenomena. In so doing, the central discussion is to provide descriptive answers to basic questions. It will not be a sociological or anthropological discourse. Instead, it will use perspectives from environmental psychology, genetics, and a theory of information energy in elementary particle physics. The study of tourism, though it is not a distinct disciplinary field, must provide a grand theory. In this chapter, the discussions mainly focus on the concept of tourist to provide several ideas to amend its definition, which may directly correspond to an overall view of touristic phenomena. Keywords: Tourist locomotion; physical visit; mental visit; information energy

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this chapter is to propose a theory which may lead to a holistic description of the mechanism of touristic phenomena. In so doing, the central discussion is to provide descriptive answers to basic questions, not with a sociological or anthropological approach but from a notion of environmental psychology, genetics, and a recent theory of information energy in elementary particle physics. Just as physics is to describe the mechanism of natural phenomena or biology is to explain the mechanism of life phenomena, the study of tourism is considered to describe the mechanism of touristic phenomena. Physicists have tackled Mother Nature for centuries through a variety of subdomains, such as statics, dynamics, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, electromagnetics, optics, and elementary particle physics and have never given up on a holistic description, no matter how complicated or diverse Mother Nature is. In 1927, an unimaginable idea changed the world. It was the “uncertainty principle,” which later established a field of quantum mechanics. It totally changed the accepted knowledge that the future can be predicted with sufficient and detailed information, but it confronted all the physicists with a theory that the future stays in probability, because the world is ruled by the

uncertainty of wave-particle duality. The point here is that the idea has been created to describe a new phenomenon that cannot be explained with the previous description, such as Newtonian mechanics or classic physics. The environment changes from time to time. A description that once looked reliable may have to be altered to a better one. If a theory does not explain a phenomenon, then it must be replaced by a broader one. The following is a good example of such a shift from the Galilean transformation to the Lorentz transformation or a shift from Newton to Einstein. In the Galilean transformation, as shown below, the coordinates of an object’s position do not change if the object moves from position to in a uniform linear motion with constant velocity . When the object travels with the speed of light , however, the Galilean transformation must be modified to the Lorentz transformation as follows (1961, p. 37).

If the light speed in the equations (1b) and (2b) of the Lorentz transformation turns into a normal velocity , the equations of the Lorentz transformation become those of the Galilean transformation. If the square root in the denominator of Eq. (1b) becomes 1 (one), Eq. (1b) becomes Eq. (1a). In order to gain a value of one out of the square root, divided by must be zero. Compared to light speed in vacuum space, which is 299,792,458 meters per second, the velocity of sound is 343.2 meters per second in dry air at 20°C or 68°F, which is approximately 0.0000011% of light speed, and an orbital flight on earth needs around 7,890 meters per second at an altitude zero, which is 0.0000263% of light speed. The speeds of sound and space rockets are close to nothing compared to the speed of light. So if the square of normal velocity is divided by the square of light speed , the approximation of zero can be gained. With the same process, Eq. (2a) can be gained out of Eq. (2b). Thus, the advancement of science can be made by creating a variation from a basic theory in order to appropriate it for a new phenomenal situation, without changing the basic theory every time a new phenomenon emerges. The Galilean transformation applied in Newtonian mechanics has been partly altered to adapt it to the Lorentz transformation in Einstein’s Special Principle of Relativity (Einstein, 1961), which deals with the speed of light in uniform linear motion. The role of the researcher is to explain the mechanism of the target phenomenon, no matter how complicated or diverse the target may be. The role of the physicist is to

demonstrate the clear descriptions of natural phenomena, and the role of the biologist is to research the system of living organisms. The role of the tourism researcher is no exception. It may be difficult to propose a description of touristic phenomena because they seem to be too diverse or complicated. It would be unimaginable to claim that physics cannot be established in a distinct discipline, due to the diversity or complication of its research target. The same line of thought can be applied to the study of tourism. Diversity or complication cannot be the reason to give up on a holistic description of the mechanism of the phenomena. One of the fundamental issues here is tourist locomotion. If the study of tourism is to analyze the phenomena, it is natural to expect it to describe the mechanism of why tourists travel. It is a basic question which researchers, if they contribute to the study of tourism, must answer, since the phenomena begin with the emergence of tourists. Researchers from a variety of disciplinary fields could have approached this question ever since humans started traveling or at least when the concept of tourist was first discussed. The answer, however, to this very basic question has not been provided. In other words, the answers discussed in the study of tourism so far have not yet provided the consensus among researchers in explaining the reason why tourists travel. Boorstin explains a motive for travel as follows: One of the most ancient motives for travel, when men had any choice about it, was to see the unfamiliar. Man’s incurable desire to go someplace else is a testimony of his incurable optimism and insatiable curiosity. We always expect things to be different over there. “Traveling,” Descartes wrote in the early seventeenth century, “is almost like conversing with men of other centuries.” Men who move because they are starved or frightened or oppressed expect to be safer, better fed, and more free in the new place. Men who live in a secure, rich, and decent society travel to escape boredom, to elude the familiar, and to discover the exotic. (1992, p. 78) What Boorstin meant here is that one of the first motives for travel was to see the unfamiliar and visit a place away from home. However, this does not provide a detailed description of the mechanism of tourist locomotion. It does not explain how human’s incurable desire originates nor does it describe how the desire stimulates the action of locomotion. Even textbooks written for students who are studying touristic phenomena do not clarify the answer to the basic question. Goeldner and Ritchie argue that: Why do tourists travel?” is not a good question. Instead, we need to ask why certain groups of people choose certain holiday experiences, because this more specific question focuses attention on the similarities and differences among groups of people and the kinds of experiences they seek. (2012, p. 197) If a widely accepted textbook revised more than 10 times, which is considered to introduce a summary of major theories, does not provide a fundamental reason of tourist locomotion, how do students learn about basic concepts of the phenomena? More importantly, is it an academic or scientific attitude that such a basic question is not argued? A role of researchers is

to describe a fundamental phenomenon, no matter how unspecified or uninformative the target phenomenon seems to be. An answer to a basic question, such as why tourists travel, must be proposed by so-called tourism researchers based on whichever field they belong to.

DEFINITION OF THE TOURIST Leiper introduces two benefits in employing heuristic definitions. One is that the exercise of formulating the definitions concentrates the researcher’s thinking, and the other is that a definition helps readers to better understand the content, because different readers may infer different meanings or connotations (1993, p. 541). Although there are benefits in employing heuristic definitions, there is also a risk that there will be too many variations of such heuristic definitions created by researchers. There have been a myriad of treatises in the study of tourism ever since statistical analyses of the phenomena were first attempted in the late 19th century. Yet a consensus has not been reached, even on the definition of a tourist. Takeuchi and Nakamura found that researchers have a tendency to use the terms tourist, traveler, and visitor interchangeably as if they have the same meaning (2002, pp. 95–106). The terms should be defined differently, but some researchers seem to employ a traditional technique of equivalence or variation in stylistics. The tendency may be based on an indulgency in refined or esthetic prose style, rather than concentrated in academic descriptions. In order to discuss the mechanism of tourist locomotion, the definition of tourist must be discussed to gain a consensus among researchers. At a time when digital transactions were not yet discovered, drawing an object or taking a picture of it was the only option for people to recognize the object in a distant area by sight without visiting it. It would be difficult for people to recognize an object clearly or to appreciate to a satisfactory extent only by looking at the drawing or picture. Therefore, people have traveled to the area where they could observe the real object in front of them. Nowadays, people are able to observe a stereographic projection of it on a three-dimensional display through the internet or a three-dimensional image projected in the air just as if it were a vision captured on the retina of a human eye. Both reflections on a retina or display come from the same source and should be treated as the same phenomenon since the nature of both phenomena are identical. There are no differences between a graphic image on a display and a captured vision on a retina, except that a vision on a retina requires visiting the object located in a distant area. In terms of the definition of a tourist, are people who visit the object only defined as tourists, or can people watching the graphic image at home be also defined as tourists? Previous discussions have so far only defined people who visit the object as tourists, as the internet and three-dimensional devices did not exist at that time. Does the notion of tourist require travel or a visit to an object in a distant area, or does it include a vivid experience of observing an object in a distant area through the internet at home? If the first definition is only applied to the study of tourism, which disciplinary field deals with the latter one? The author

proposes a theory that both cases are touristic phenomena and both types of observers are tourists—one takes a “physical visit” and the other a “mental visit.” This will then suggest that the study of tourism should be divided into two aspects dealing with on-site and off-site tourists. The correlation of the two phenomena can be illustrated as in Figure 1. In an on-site area or in a destination, tourists on a “physical visit” observe the reflections of an object captured on the retina of an eye while in an off-site area or at home, potential tourists on a “mental visit” observe the reflections of an object received on a three-dimensional display or in the air.

Figure 1. Illustration of the Tourist Experience

The Nature of Locomotion Humans, as do all life forms on earth, need energy to maintain their life and hand over their genes to the next generation. They gain energy from food by locomotion. In order to move around to search for food, humans must perceive the environment in which they are living for survival. In order to perceive the environment, they utilize their sensory organs to collect information from the environment. Each sensory organ has a system in which a receptor responds to a stimulus from the environment. Some photoreceptors, for example, activate in response to light, while some activate in the absence of light. Thus, the visual image of environmental information is perceived. The function of the sensory receptor is to respond to specific stimulus modalities, and the modality to which a receptor responds is determined by the receptor’s adequate stimulus. Gibson explains that: animal locomotion is not usually aimless but is guided or controlled—by light if the animal can see, by sound if the animal can hear, and by odor if the animal can smell. Because of illumination the animal can see things; because of sound it can hear things; because of diffusion it can smell things. (1986, p. 17) Gibson’s argument suggests that an animal’s locomotion is influenced by environmental stimuli. Light, for example, stimulates animals’ eyes and they respond to the stimulus. In a broader sense, it is possible to mention that animals, including humans, can recognize the

environment through their senses. In particular, humans must receive various information about their environment to recognize things or events through the five faculties of sense—vision, audition, olfaction, gustation, or tactition as follows (Table 1): Table 1. Faculties of Five Senses Faculty Vision Audition Olfaction Gustation Tactition

Information Sources Panel captions, labels, maps, etc. Announcement, audio guides, etc. Museums of perfume and fragrance, etc. Wine-tasting tour, pizza-tasting event, etc. Braille, hands-on exhibitions, etc.

Here, an object, including attractions, means all the entities, ideas, or imaginations that may be recognized through the five senses. In a discussion on the genetic instruction of deoxyribonucleic acid, Dawkins explains that: DNA molecules are replicators. They generally, for reasons that we shall come to, gang together into large communal survive machines or “vehicles.” The vehicles that we know best are individual bodies like our own. A body, then, is not a replicator; it is a vehicle. I must emphasize this, since the point has been misunderstood. Vehicles don’t replicate themselves; they work to propagate their replicators. Replicators don’t behave, don’t perceive the world, don’t catch prey, or run away from predators; they make vehicles that do all those things. For many purposes it is convenient for biologists to focus their attention at the level of the vehicle. For other purposes it is convenient for them to focus their attention at the level of the replicator. Gene and individual organism are not rivals for the same starring role in the Darwinian drama. They are cast in different, complementary and in many respects equally important roles, the role of replicator and the role of vehicle. (1989, p. 254). Borrowing Dawkins’s idea that the function of the gene should be separated from the function of the human body, it can be effective to express that the function of tourist locomotion and the function of environmental perception should be separated. Whether there is a locomotion or not, people can still perceive a reflection of an object. This means that the study of a tourist can be pursued separately as a study of locomotion and a study of environmental perception. If this idea is accepted, the discussion of whether observing an image on a display at home is touristic behavior can be solved and separated from the state of tourist locomotion. Jafari’s Encyclopedia of Tourism describes tourism as follows: For example, tourism is defined as the study of man (the tourist) away from his usual habitat, of the touristic apparatus and networks responding to his various needs, and of the ordinary (where the tourist is coming from) and nonordinary (where the tourist goes to) worlds and their dialectic relationships. Such

conceptualizations extend the frame beyond the earlier trade-oriented notions or definitions mostly devised to collect data and calculate tourist arrivals, departures, or expenditures. Significantly, it is this holistic view which accommodates a systematic study of tourism: all its parts, its interconnected structures and functions, as well as ways it is influenced by and is influencing other forms and forces related to it. (2000, p. 585) Tourism includes the worlds of the ordinary (where the tourist is coming from) and nonordinary (where the tourist is going to). Within this very definition is a case to be discussed. When a famous attraction lies next to Jane’s house in her hometown, for example, is she displaying touristic behavior, which means tourism, if she visits the attraction during her daily chores? She does not leave her ordinary zone for a nonordinary zone. Or when a friend visits Jane and asks Jane to guide her around the attraction next door, are they both counted as tourists or is only the friend counted as a tourist? The contents of their behavioral patterns are exactly the same. If tourism concentrates on nonordinary zones, Jane should not be considered as a tourist. However, it is logical to treat both of them as tourists since the results would be the same if both were separately analyzed. Both phenomena are identical in nature and both of them enjoy visiting the neighboring attraction. If the previous definition does not explain the phenomena logically, amending the definition is recommended. Here is another case to be discussed. When a salesperson takes a break between two meetings on his business trip and visits an attraction near a branch of his company in a foreign country, is his visit to the attraction recognized as tourist behavior? When he enters this country, the purpose of his visit must have been registered as “business,” but the moment he visits an attraction he is demonstrating touristic behavior, which is illustrated in Figure 2 as Touristic Mode between Business Modes.

Figure 2. Single Mixed Modes When the salesperson on his business trip takes two breaks between three meetings and visits two attractions near the office after he finishes the first and second meetings, are his visits to the attractions recognized as touristic behavior (Figure 3)? The point of the discussion here is if the definition of “tourist” cannot be applied to the present phenomenon or be fixed in a logical description, it must be revised.

Figure 3. Multiple Mixed Mode

Information Energy In human society, a stimulus has developed into a more sophisticated message system called language. This system enables humans to deliver their message to each other freely whenever they need to. Just as a beam of light reflected from the environment activates a photoreceptor of a human body and generates an adequate reaction, it is convenient to set up a theory that a beam of linguistic information activates a receptor of human memory system and generates a touristic locomotion. Language has a power and can sometimes move people emotionally. If a beam of linguistic information is strong enough to activate a receptor with a corresponding memory in the memory system and unlock it, an emotional story will be recurred, which may generate a touristic locomotion. Toyabe et al proclaim that information can be exchanged with energy by the proper process of experimentation (2010, pp. 988–992). The experiment provides a supportive concept to the study of tourism. According to the experiment, a microscopic particle on a spiral staircase-like potential in an electric field can be made to do work simply by receiving information, rather than receiving energy, without violating the second law of thermodynamics. What the researchers did to a particle that moves up and down was to place a metaphorical barrier behind it every time it climbed up a spiral staircase-like potential exerted by an electric field in order to isolate it from the other particles that fell down the staircase. It is known that placing a barrier requires no energy in an ideal situation so the experiment consequently enabled a particle to climb up to a higher level of the field without consuming energy by tracking the particle’s motion. By gaining the information on the motion with a real-time feedback control, the particle was made to climb up the electric field. It means that a conversion from information to energy is possible. Supported by the experiment of information-energy conversion, the reason why tourists travel can be explained by an assumption that a beam of information energy delivered with a linguistic message activates a receptor that corresponds to the memory system and lets the stored content of the past narrativity (story sources) out of the memory system. Then the content in a form of linguistic message stimulates the brain to take an adequate reaction, such as locomotion. The assumption does not deny Boorstin’s description but can integrate it into a broader frame that provides a more detailed explanation. Thus, a clue to the mechanism of tourist locomotion is a stimulus which is a beam of information energy delivered with a message.

CONCLUSION The study of tourism, though it is not a distinct disciplinary field, must provide a holistic description of the mechanism of the phenomena. In this chapter, the discussions mainly focus on the concept of the tourist and provide several theories to amend its definition, based on the supportive notions from environmental psychology, genetics, and elementary particle physics. Tourism researchers, regardless of the difficulty or diversity of the target phenomenon, must provide, without being timid, a theory to explain the core functions of the tourism system or at least an answer to a fundamental question of the research target. Just like physics, one of the oldest academic disciplines, deals with the diversity of natural phenomena or biology searches for the secrets of life forms on earth or even on other planets, the study of tourism must confront the complications of the phenomena with a spirit of overall visions. If the meaning of “tourist” is questioned, researchers must introduce a widely acceptable definition in simple and clear words, not in abstract or big words from a viewpoint of academic affectation.

Chapter 10

AN APPROACH TO TOURISM RESEARCH IN SPAIN José-Antonio Corral-Marfil University of Vic – Central University of Catalonia, Spain

Gemma Cànoves-Valiente Department of Geography, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain

Abstract: The proceedings of the 17 editions of the conference of the Spanish Association of Scientific Experts in Tourism constitute a valuable archival resource within the research on Spanish tourism. But so far their contents have not been analyzed. The aim of this chapter is to examine the research that has been presented at its conference by means of a bibliometric analysis of the proceedings of 17 editions. The study focuses on the origin of the research (countries, regions, institutions, and authors), as well as its characteristics in terms of themes dealt with, geographical areas researched, methodologies, disciplinary areas, and attitudes toward tourism. Implications for the evolution of the research are discussed in terms of knowledge contributions and the shaping of major tourism research traditions. Keywords: Tourism research; bibliometric analysis; conference proceedings; AECIT; Spain

INTRODUCTION The meta-analysis of tourism research is gaining importance for several reasons. First, tourism has become consolidated as one of the principal industries in the world in terms of wealthcreation and employment. Despite the economic crisis, the volume of international arrivals set a new record in 2012, surpassing one billion tourists (World Tourism Organization, 2013). In this context, it should also be noted that the negative impacts of tourism are also substantial, such as, for example, in terms of environmental damage caused. Second, tourism research is also growing. The last decade has witnessed spectacular growth in the accumulated knowledge in the field, and the tourism education sector and the

research community have also grown considerably (Benckendorff & Zehrer, 2013; Park, Phillips, Canter, & Abbott, 2011; Wu, Xiao, Dong, Wang, & Xue, 2012). Tourism research refers to the systematic study of all its aspects, structures, and interrelated functions, as well as to the way in which it is influenced by, and in which it casts an influence over, other forces which are related to tourism (Jafari, 2003). The dynamism within the sector is illustrated by the exponential growth in the launch of new scientific journals in English (Cheng, Li, Petrick, & O’Leary, 2011). This trend in increased recognition for tourism research has risen sharply in recent years, as evidenced by the fact that of the 14 tourism and hospitality journals listed in the ISI Web of Science database, 11 were added between 2006 and 2011 (Chang & McAleer, 2012). Third, meta-analysis of tourism research—the study of tourism research—has become a key area of interest within this field (Tribe & Xiao, 2011). Research output is studied from diverse perspectives: Rankings are developed for journals, authors, universities, and countries (Hall, 2011; Jamal, Smith, & Watson, 2008; Park et al., 2011); methodologies and research techniques are examined (Dann, Nash, & Pearce, 1988; Svensson, Svaeri, & Einarsen, 2009); research themes are investigated (Tian, Lee, & Law, 2011; Xiao & Smith, 2006); collaboration between researchers is analyzed (Corral & Cànoves, 2014; Ye, Li, & Law, 2013), and so on. Some studies are circumscribed within certain disciplinary areas, such as psychology (Barrios, Borrego, Vilaginés, Ollé, & Somoza, 2008) or marketing (Bigné, Andreu, Sánchez, & Alvarado, 2008). Others focus on specific countries, such as China (Huang & Hsu, 2008) or Spain (Albacete & Fuentes, 2010). The majority of bibliometric studies of tourism research are based on the analysis of journal articles, with some examining doctoral theses. However, there are very few studies that focus on “grey” literature: informally published, not widely accessible, written material, such as reports and conference papers. No study appears to have analyzed the contributions made at the conference of the Spanish Association of Scientific Experts in Tourism (AECIT). This oversight means that an important part of Spanish tourism research is missing from the accumulated knowledge in the field. This is particularly relevant in light of the fact that there are few Spanish journals that are exclusively dedicated to tourism (Pulido, 2006). AECIT was founded in 1994 by 24 members of the International Association of Scientific Experts in Tourism (AIEST). Its purposes are to research, study, and disseminate the sciences and techniques related to tourism activity (AECIT, 2014a). The AECIT conference has been held annually since 1994 and is attended by scholars and practitioners from the whole of Spain. This is one of the most important Spanish tourism academic meetings. Three other Spanish-significant conferences are the Colloquium on Tourism, Leisure and Recreation Geography, organized by the Association of Spanish Geographers; the International Conference of Tourism, University and Business, organized by the Jaume I University; and the National Conference of Tourism and Information and Communication Technologies, organized by the University of Málaga. The objective of this chapter is to analyze the origin and characteristics of the research published in the AECIT conference proceedings. In terms of the origin of research, the aim is

to investigate which countries, regions, institutions, and authors presented work at the conference. And regarding characteristics, the objective is to analyze which themes were dealt with, which geographical areas were researched, from which academic disciplines research was carried out, which methodologies were followed, and what attitudes toward tourism were displayed. In this vein, a bibliometric (quantitative, study of 17 AECIT conference proceedings, published between 1994 and 2012) was carried out. Following the bibliometric analysis of the proceedings is a discussion on the direction of the emerging knowledge base and the shaping of tourism research traditions.

ANALYSIS OF THE CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS There are various works studying tourism research in Spain. Eight literature reviews from diverse areas were published in Estudios Turísticos (1996), covering economic development, policy, economic analysis, companies, demand, marketing, quality, and geography. Some works have also studied academic output by analyzing doctoral theses (Agència Valenciana de Turisme, 2006; Esteban, 2000; Ortega & Rodríguez, 2004). Several recent bibliometric studies have posed the question of whether tourism research in Spain is as important as the country’s sector, and have analyzed Spanish research output through different samples of articles. For instance, Vargas (2011) analyzes articles published in indexed journals in the ISI Web of Knowledge database. Hernández, Campón, and Folgado (2011) examine articles on tourism management published in Spanish journals on business management. Further, Moreno and Picazo (2012) analyze published articles from a sample of 31 tourism journals (15 international journals in English, six Spanish journals, seven from Brazil, and three from Hispano-American countries). Albacete, Fuentes, and Haro (2013) study Spanish research by means of an analysis of 26 foreign tourism and hospitality journals. Their findings show that between 1997 and 2011 annual output has increased constantly and that total output stands at 372 articles. Of this output, 4% corresponds to authors from within the field of business economics, 36% from economics, and 23% from other areas. The six most productive universities account for half the output and are located in areas with a strong tourism industry, either on the coast or on islands. The most productive university is the University of the Balearic Islands, the most prolific researcher is Joaquín Alegre, and the most cited researcher is José Enrique Bigné. In an earlier study, Albacete and Fuentes (2010) find that the most frequently used tourism keywords between 1998 and 2009 are destination, management, development, economics, market, behavior, hotels, satisfaction, quality of service, and perception. However, while the studies by Albacete and Fuentes (2010) and Albacete et al. (2013) focus on tourism journals, a significant part of research is published in non-tourism journals (Corral & Cànoves, 2013). González-Albo, Moreno, Aparicio, Morillo, and Bordons (2009) examine tourism and other journals in order to analyze Spanish research. They divide their study into two parts in

terms of the database from which documents are taken: the ISI Web of Science international database (referred to as ISI henceforth) and the Spanish national database Summaries ISOC (Social Sciences and Humanities). Their findings show a considerable increase in output between 1998 and 2008 in both databases, though the indexed output in ISOC was four times that of the ISI. The Spanish self-governing regions that have produced most published works in ISI are Madrid (21%), Catalonia (20%), Valencia (14%), Balearic Islands (12%), Andalusia (11%), and the Canary Islands (11%). The corresponding figures for ISOC are Madrid (21%), Andalusia (15%), and Valencia (12%). The most productive universities in ISI are the University of the Balearic Islands and the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, while in ISOC the most productive institutions are the Complutense University of Madrid and the University of the Balearic Islands. In general, the most productive faculties in ISI are those of economics and business studies, whereas for ISOC, the faculties of arts and philosophy, geography, and history are most prolific. In both databases, the proportion of occasional authors was high: in ISI 81% of published only a single document, and for ISOC the corresponding figure was 71%. The most prolific authors in each database are not the same in most cases, which suggests that there are two groups of researchers which differ in terms of the national and international focus of their published works. The predominant academic disciplines in ISOC are geography (48% of output) and economics (29%). Apart from the studies that have analyzed articles or doctoral theses, two have examined research through analyzing the proceedings of two Spanish tourism conferences. Miralbell, Lamsfus, Gomis, and González (2012) analyze the proceedings of the first eight editions (1999–2010) of the National Conference of Tourism and Information and Communication Technologies (TURITEC), which is organized by the Faculty of Tourism at the University of Málaga. They trace the origin of the papers (regions and institutions), the degree of collaboration, and the thematic areas covered. In the second study, Corral and de San Eugenio (2013) analyze the proceedings of the 13 editions of the Colloquium on Geography of Tourism, Leisure and Recreation (1990–2012), which is promoted by Working Group 10 of the Association of Spanish Geographers. The authors analyze the origin of papers (regions, organizations, and authors), as well as look at the geographical areas researched, methodologies followed, and themes dealt with. Regarding the thematic areas covered, Tian et al. (2011) examine the themes approached in articles published in four tourism journals between 2000 and 2010: Annals of Tourism Research, Tourism Management, Journal of Travel Research, and Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing. The authors use a classification system of 20 categories in order to research the distribution of topics in each journal and in overall terms. The main five themes are psychology and behavior, theory and research development, destination image and marketing, sociology and culture issues, and others. In addition, two further works focus on the study of methodologies. Svensson et al. (2009) investigate the “empirical characteristics” of works published between 2000 and 2007 in six prestigious international tourism journals. The authors examine the percentages of empirical and non-empirical studies, and the distribution of types of methodology, with the following

results: quantitative (39%), qualitative (9%), triangular (10%), review (15%), commentary (5%), and book review (21%), and the geographical origin of the empirical data. The second of these works, by Huang and Hsu (2008), describes the panorama of research in China, analyzing articles published between 2000 and 2005 in its most important tourism journal: Tourism Tribune. They examine the themes, the methodologies, the profiles of the authors, and the institutions and regions which contribute to the journal. With respect to methodologies, the results show that 83% of the articles do not provide information on the methodology followed (they are commentaries) and that 15% use quantitative methodologies (basically, the calculation of descriptive statistics).

Study Methods In light of this chapter’s aim of analyzing the research presented at the AECIT conferences between 1994 and 2012, a bibliometric study was carried out of the proceedings of the 17 editions that have been held. The papers are refereed. Table 1 lists the 17 conferences together with their venues, dates, and titles. Initially, the 17 proceedings documents were obtained, and, given that no public library or documentation center possessed the complete collection, these were acquired on a one-by-one basis. The proceedings that had been published were borrowed from university libraries, and those that had not been were requested from AECIT itself, which responded diligently to the request. The bibliographic references of the 17 proceedings are available through AECIT (2014b). Table 1. The 17 AECIT Conferences



The next stage of research involved combing through the proceedings to select the keynote papers, communications material, and posters that represented proper works of research. Other contents (such as prologues, conference conclusions, and session summaries) were discarded. In the proceedings in which it was not possible to distinguish keynote papers from communications, all contributions were considered as communications. In total, the database for the study comprised 572 contributions, and these were entered into the RefWorks bibliographic reference management program. Following this process, each paper was classified according to eight dimensions: institutional origin, geographical origin, author, thematic area, geographical area researched, methodology, disciplinary area, and attitude toward tourism. Each paper was analyzed by both authors independently, and discrepancies were discussed until a consensus was reached. RefWorks’ “user definable fields” made it an appropriate data organization tool for this task. For each paper, the following steps were conducted to organize the data, in accordance with the dimensions listed above, before undertaking statistical analysis. The institutional origin was obtained through the affiliation of the author, with a distinction being drawn between three types of institution: university, public entity, and private company. Universities and private companies were recorded at their most general level; for example, in the case of companies, the parent company was listed rather than the subsidiary, and universities were listed and not faculties, departments or affiliated institutions. However, in the case of public

entities, the center or department was listed, so Turespaña (the Spanish Tourism Institute) is listed and not the Spanish government. The geographical origin of the paper was obtained from the affiliation of the author(s), and the country was recorded (and in the case of Spain, the selfgoverning region as well). The full name of the authors and their gender were recorded. A thematic area was assigned to each paper from the 20 classifications developed by Tian et al. (2011). Where a paper covered various themes, the principal thematic area was chosen in terms of the objectives set out by the paper. To define the geographical area researched, the country was listed and, in the case of Spanish papers, the self-governing region and the geographical level of the ambit of the research: municipal, intermediate, self-governing region, state, or supra-state (Vera, López-Palomeque, Marchena, & Anton, 1997, p. 318). In cases where a paper did not refer specifically to any geographical area—either because it was a non-empirical work or because it was a general, conceptual study—it was categorized as “non-georeferenced.” A type of methodology was attributed to each work from a taxonomy of methodologies developed from the classification systems of Huang and Hsu (2008) and Svensson et al. (2009). Two principal categories and five sub-categories were identified: empirical work— based on observed primary or secondary data about the object of study (quantitative, qualitative, or triangulation), and non-empirical work (review or commentary). Quantitative works were considered to be ones that used quantitative survey data collection methods, statistical techniques of analysis (descriptive or inferential, univariate or multivariate), and/or quantitative software (such as SPSS). Qualitative works were those that used qualitative data collection methods (interviews, focus groups, or other well-documented methods), data analysis techniques (content analysis), or software (Atlas.ti, NVivo). Triangular works were those that combined quantitative and qualitative methods or techniques. Non-empirical works were divided between reviews and commentaries. Among the former included general reviews, literature reviews, research agendas, and conceptual or theoretical constructions. Work that were considered to be commentaries were “those with simply narrative and descriptive discussions to disclose a “real” situation or “truth” based on authors’ personal experience and/or their interpretation of other related texts. Usually, articles in this category did not explicitly state the research methods used” … “[T]hese articles resembled the format of an essay or opinion piece more than that of a research paper” (Huang & Hsu, 2008, p. 273, 276). Where a study did not give any information regarding the type of methodology, it was placed in the sub-category of “commentary.” A disciplinary area was assigned to each paper from the list of 29 fields of study developed by Cheng et al. (2011). A disciplinary area was only assigned where the paper was clearly framed within theories or concepts, or in cases where the authors are strongly linked with a particular area. Where a paper lacked theoretical references, it was classified as “without theory.” In cases where a paper cited theoretical literature, but could not be clearly identified in terms of a particular field of study, it was classified as “disciplinary area not identifiable.” Finally, each work was placed in one of the four platforms developed by Jafari (2005a, 2005b, 2005c) in terms of its attitude toward tourism: advocacy, cautionary,

adaptancy, and knowledge-based. A study was classified in the advocacy platform where the author exhibited an attitude which was clearly favorable toward tourism. This often involved highlighting the benefits of tourism and advancing its promotion, development, or improvement, while ignoring the drawbacks that come with it. In contrast, a study was included within the cautionary platform when it reflected a posture that was fundamentally opposed to tourism and focused on its negative aspects. Studies were placed in the adaptancy platform where they assessed the pros and cons of tourism with a certain degree of balance. The knowledge-based platform was reserved for works which were neutral toward tourism and which focused on better understanding an aspect of it without being in favor or against it. Once the contributions had been classified, the next phase of the research involved analyzing the works by means of a univariate descriptive statistical study. Contributions were recorded by country, regions, institutions, and authors, and the instance counting method was applied. In cases where contributions were signed by two authors, each was given one point (one for authorship and one for signature), rather than awarding half a point to each, and these points were then passed into the statistics for origin of the research: country, region, and institution (Severt, Tesone, Bottorff, & Carpenter, 2009). However, one point was awarded to each contribution in the calculation of the frequency of thematic areas, geographical areas, disciplinary areas, methodologies, and attitudes. The terms “signatures” and “authorships” have been used without distinction, as well as the terms “contributions,” “papers,” and “works.”

Origins and Characteristics of the Research Geographical and Institutional Origins of the Papers In total, 572 contributions were made to the 17 editions of the conference, which is an average of 34 contributions. The lowest number recorded was 15 (Gijón, 1996), and the highest 85 (O Carballiño, 2012), with a variation coefficient of 55%. There was a steady increase in the number of works per conference over time. Within this growth, four phases can be distinguished: In the first five editions around 20 contributions per conference were presented; in the following eight, this figure rose to about 30; in the XIV, XV, and XVI editions, this figure rose to around 50; and in the most recent edition, 85 contributions were made. Of these, 75% were communications, 20% were keynote papers, and 5% posters. The most prevalent language was Spanish (92% of contributions), though there were also works presented in Portuguese (5%), English (2%), and Galician (0.4%). The authors who participated in the conference were affiliated to 170 institutions, 68% of which were Spanish, with the remaining originating from 16 different overseas countries. In terms of authorship, Spain was the most prevalent source country, representing 87% of authorships, with the remaining 13% coming from abroad. Brazil was the foreign country which contributed the most (40% of foreign authorships), followed by Portugal (26%), Mexico (15%), Cuba (6%), and Chile (3%). The remaining 12 countries, which contributed 1% each,

were Germany, United States, Peru, Australia, Colombia, Ecuador, Greece, Guatemala, Holland, Italy, United Kingdom, and Switzerland. The most recent conference featured 56% of foreign authorships and 63% of Brazilian authorships (O Carballiño, Ourense; 2012). Figure 1 shows the contributions of Spanish self-governing regions. The numbers marked show the percentage that each region contributed to the total of Spanish authorships, and the different shades of gray indicate the relative contribution of each region, with a greater relative share shown by a darker shade of gray. Thus, Andalusia appears in black because it was the region that contributed most authorships. Despite the differences between regions, the output was spread fairly evenly. The conference has been held in 10 of Spain’s 17 regions and in one city.

Figure 1. Geographic Origin of the Research Of the 170 institutions present, over half (54%) were universities, though a significant number of public entities (24%), and private companies (22%) were also present. The participation of public entities and private companies was constant, with at least one private company participating in 16 of the 17 conferences and at least one public entity in 15 of the 17 conferences. Nevertheless, in terms of authorship, universities predominated, accounting for 88% of all authorships. When this percentage is broken down further, it shows that 46% of institutions only contributed one authorship, 16% two authorships, another 16% between three and five, 8% between six and nine, and 14% over 10. From another perspective, 78% of institutions contributed five or less authorships and 22% contributed over five.

Authors From the 572 papers, there were 1,088 signatures (authorships) from 604 different authors. Therefore, each author contributed an average of 1.8 signatures. The minimum was

one signature per author, the maximum was 17, and the variance coefficient was 91%. There were few authors who contributed many signatures and many who did few. The authors can be divided into three groups, each accounting for approximately a third of the total signatures: The authors with just one signature (66% of authors) contributed 37% of the signatures; those with two or three signatures (23% of authors) contributed 31% of the signatures; and the authors with four or more signatures (11% of authors) contributed 33% of the signatures. Of the 604 different authors who participated in the conference, 43% were female and 57% male. In terms of signatures, females contributed 39% and males 61%. Besides this, 75% of authors participated in just one conference, 11% in two, 7% in three, and a further 7% in four or more editions. José Antonio Fraiz Brea, of the University of Vigo, was the most prolific author, with 17 authorships. Marcelino Sánchez Rivero, of the University of Extremadura, was the researcher who made contributions to most conferences (9). Of the 572 works, 295 were signed by more than one author and 277 by a single author. This represents a co-authorship incidence (Laband & Tollison, 2000) of 52%. The mean number of signatures for co-authored works was 2.75 per paper (extension of co-authorship). Of the 295 co-authored works, 48% were signed by two co-authors, 34% by three, 14% by four, and 4% by between five and seven co-authors.

Thematic and Geographical Areas Figure 2 shows the distribution of works by thematic area. Themes such as resort development and planning and psychology and tourist behavior received great attention, whereas others were practically ignored, such as gaming, transportation, and host-guest relationships. The prevalence of “resort development and planning” highlights the level of interest in understanding the processes that determine the way in which destinations evolve. Specific destinations were studied in many works. In some cases, a descriptive analysis was carried out of the current situation or the growth of tourism in a city, county, or region. More often, prescriptive guidelines were laid out regarding how to develop tourism in a destination.

Figure 2. Distribution of Papers by Thematic Areas The second-most researched topic was “psychology and tourist behavior.” This includes general studies of the tourist demand for certain destinations (influxes, geographical origin of incoming tourists, motivations for choosing a destination), market segments, studies of certain types of tourism (cultural, nature, gastronomic), causal analyses of behavior (expenditure, choice of accommodation, length of stay) and tourist satisfaction. The third-most studied area was “heritage and environment issues.” This included studies on cultural heritage as an attraction, such as case studies on the rehabilitation, communication, and management of monumental cities and their development as cultural tourism destinations. This area also included studies on natural heritage, such as the design of indication systems for the assessment of environmental impact and sustainable management, especially in coastal regions. The topic of “destination image and marketing” also received plenty of attention. The theme of destination image was frequently examined and it was approached from diverse angles: image perception, measurement and management, assessment and positioning of place brands, and new communication and promotion tools that are often linked to the Internet. The theme of “park and recreation management” included studies on the management of protected areas and natural parks, as well as works focusing on types of tourism associated with specific leisure and sporting activities, such as nautical, health, walking, and vinitourism.

In regard to the geographical areas researched, 73% of the 572 contributions analyzed parts of Spain, 10% foreign countries or regions, 5% areas of different countries simultaneously, and 12% were non-georeferenced works. Of the contributions which researched foreign countries or regions, 41% analyzed Brazil, 19% Portugal, and 14% Mexico. Peru, Chile, Cuba, Kenya, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Hungary, and Nepal were all researched by three or fewer works. Of those that researched Spain, 30% referred to the country as a whole and 70% to geographical areas at the sub-state level. Figure 3 shows the distribution of works at the sub-country level. The figures shown indicate the percentage of works at the sub-level for each region, with darker shades of gray representing a larger percentage of the total. Taken together, Andalusia, the Canary Islands, Catalonia, Galicia, Asturias, and the Balearic Islands accounted for 69% of these works. The distribution of contributions in terms of the five geographical ambits established was as follows: municipal (18%), intermediate (19%), region (27%), state (28%), and supra-state (7%). Although there was a degree of evenness in this spread, there was a prevalence of research at the level of the State and region.

Figure 3. Regions in Focus

Academic Disciplines, Methodologies, and Attitudes When looking at the structure of the papers, 18% lacked a theoretical framework (“without theory”); 28% were framed within prior research but did not demonstrate a specific disciplinary approach, maybe due to their multidisciplinary nature (“disciplinary area not identifiable”); and 54% were framed within prior research and conveyed a specific disciplinary approach. Figure 4 shows the distribution,

in terms of disciplinary areas, of papers that exhibited a theoretical framework and specific disciplinary areas or fields of study. The top three disciplinary or study areas accounted for about two-thirds of all papers (67%): marketing, business management, and economics. A second group of study areas was much less prevalent, though it did have a certain weight (21%): geography, law, environmental studies, urban and regional planning, and sociology. The remaining fields were largely absent in terms of representing a specific knowledge field.

Figure 4. Academic Disciplines of the Papers The distribution of the types of methodology employed include quantitative (32%), qualitative (8%), triangulation (7%), review (9%), and commentary (43%). There was a predominance of commentary and quantitative studies. In relation to attitudes displayed toward tourism (Jafari, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c), most contributions were either in the advocacy platform (38%) or the adaptancy platform (36%); 24% were classified as knowledge-based, and a mere 1% were cautionary.

Research Origins, Characteristics, and Traditions

Origins of the Research One of the key objectives of this chapter is to examine the origins the research held within the proceedings of AECIT conference. With regards to the origins of this research, there was a certain degree of concentration in terms of institutions (14% of the organizations contributed 69% of authorships) and of authors (11% contributed 33% of authorships and 7% participated in more than three editions). The flipside of this is that there was also a dispersion of a large part of research output over a multitude of organizations and authors (86% of institutions contributed 31% of authorships and 93% of authors participated in three or less conferences). The results reflect the fact that there are only a few institutions and authors that are frequent contributors to the conference, alongside whom are a plethora of occasional participants. Nevertheless, there was an even spread of research from around Spain. Aside from the predominance of the coastal regions and Madrid, there were contributions from all of Spain’s self-governing regions. There appears to be a certain correlation between the volume of output from any particular region and the importance of its tourism sector. There also seems to be a relation between the geographical proximity to the city in which the conference is being held and the degree of participation of each region. This is seen in the case of Andalusia, the region in which the conference has been held the most times (four times, plus once in Ceuta, which is close to Andalusia) and the region from which most papers have proceeded. Similarly, Galicia, where the conference has been held twice, was the second-most productive region in terms of contributions. The Basque Country represents an exception to this rule, as it has held the conference twice but is one of the regions that has made the fewest contributions. The fact that 87% of authorships were from Spain indicates that, in general, the conference was not very international. Only Brazil, Portugal, and Mexico participated to a relevant degree. However, three peculiar features of the most recent conference (XVII, O Carballiño, 2012) would seem to indicate the eagerness of AECIT to increasingly internationalize the conference: 56% of the overseas authorships from all editions were presented at O Carballiño; the adjective “international” was added to the name of the conference; and, for the first time, the scientific committee included members from foreign universities, these representing 56% of committee members. In reference to individual researchers, only one of the 18 authors who made the most contributions (José Enrique Bigné) was also one of the most prolific contributors to international tourism journals (Albacete et al., 2013). However, 10 of the 18 most prolific authors made some contributions: José Enrique Bigné (eight contributions), Luisa Andreu (five contributions), José Francisco Molina (five contributions), Jorge Pereira (five contributions), María Jesús Such (five contributions), and a further five authors (three or fewer contributions). Characteristics of the Research Although nearly all of the thematic areas were dealt with to some degree, some were researched more deeply while others received less attention. There was no coverage of themes related to events that had been widely spread by the media. For example, given the lack of studies on gaming, the development of the Eurovegas complex in Spain seems to have caught academics in tourism off guard. The absence of studies on

transportation of tourism is also in sharp contrast to the public interest shown in themes such as the development of Spain’s high-speed rail network, the proliferation of airports, or the growth in cruise tourism. Likewise, studies on host–guest relationship are conspicuous by their absence in a country which receives over 50 million international tourists a year. There is a surprising lack of works on tourism arising from meetings, incentives, conventions, and exhibitions in light of the economic interest resulting from business tourism. The study by Tian et al. (2011) can be taken as a guiding reference in terms of the themes covered by international tourism research. The hierarchy of themes obtained by Tian et al. (2011) and the hierarchy of themes dealt with at the AECIT conference were similar though there were some differences. The main divergences were in the themes of “sociology and culture issues” and “theory and research development,” which occupied higher positions on international tourism research than in the AECIT conference proceedings. Conversely, the themes of “tourism education and training,” “resort development and planning,” and “park and recreation management” were more prevalent at AECIT conference than in international tourism research. The geographical areas that were most researched were coastal regions (with the exception of Cantabria and the Basque Country) and islands, where tourism is most developed. In general, there was a positive correlation between geographical areas researched, regions which produced the most research, and regions with the most important tourism industries. There were some slight exceptions to this rule, with Madrid, for example, producing more research than it received; that is to say that more research was produced from Madrid than on Madrid, making it a region which “exports” research. In contrast, the Canary Islands received more research than it produced, making it an “importer” of research. The likely cause of this is that when the research capacity of a region (measured, for example, by its number of universities) exceeds the demand for research on its tourism, it tends to “export” its research activities to regions in the opposite situation. In terms of academic disciplines and fields of study, marketing (28%), management (21%), and economics (18%) accounted for two-thirds of the papers that showed a disciplinary orientation. This contrasts with work by González-Albo et al. (2009), who note that these areas account for 29% of all research on tourism published in Spanish journals between 1998 and 2008. Therefore, it seems that the distribution of study areas within the contributions to the AECIT conference displays a certain disciplinary bias. The most notable difference with respect to the work by González-Albo et al. (2009) is the importance of geography, which is the predominant discipline (48%) within research published in Spanish journals, whereas it only represents 5% of works with a disciplinary orientation presented at the AECIT conference. There are various explanations for such a marked difference. One is that it is possible that a large number of geographers carrying out research chose to present their work at another important academic event held in Spain: the Colloquium on Tourism, Leisure and Recreation Geography. Another is that it is possible that part of the 46% of works that were not assigned a disciplinary area in this study (works without a theoretical framework or identifiable field of study) may have been considered geographical, according to González-

Albo et al.’s (2009) study, if they had been published in a geographic journal. Of the rest of the papers, 29% were assigned to 16 disciplinary areas other than marketing, management, economics, and geography. The most prevalent of these other areas were law, environmental studies, urban and regional planning, and sociology. In addition, a further 12 areas had a residual presence. These results confirm the belief that tourism is a multidisciplinary research field, although the relative weights of different disciplinary areas are highly varied. In terms of methodologies, the fact that 43% of contributions were “commentary” indicates that methodological sophistication was not particularly high. “Commentary” refers to works which lacked a minimal explanation of the methodology followed (search for information, measurement of variables, and data analysis) and, as it is not possible to replicate the studies where a methodology is not specified, these resemble essays more than works of academic research. A large number of quantitative studies were descriptive, and there was a low incidence of well-established qualitative methodologies and theoretical constructions. Comparing the methodologies used in the AECIT conference papers with those of articles published in the six principal international tourism journals (Svensson et al., 2009), the main difference observed is the proportion of commentary works, which are almost completely absent from the journals. The main similarity between the conference papers and international tourism journals is the predominance of quantitative methodologies over their qualitative counterparts. Nevertheless, the significance of commentary in the proceedings was less than in the principal Chinese tourism journal between 2000 and 2005 (Huang & Hsu, 2008). These comparisons signal that the methodological sophistication of the papers was significantly below that demanded by most prestigious journals, though it was above that of China, whose tourism research was at an early stage of development between 2000 and 2005 (Vargas, 2011). Regarding attitudes toward tourism, in terms of the categorization system developed by Jafari (2005a, 2005b, 2005c), 38% of works fitted into the advocacy platform; that is, they displayed a favorable attitude toward tourism. A further 36% were also favorable, though with some reservations in that they recognized that tourism can be damaging if it is not developed in a sustainable manner (adaptancy platform). There were almost no works that were clearly against tourism (1%, cautionary platform), and 24% adopted a neutral position towards tourism (knowledge-based platform). These results show that within research in Spain there was a predominantly developmentalist, posture toward tourism, although a position which advocates research aimed at better understanding the phenomenon is also emerging. Developmentalism is the name given to the period of rapid economic growth that took place in Spain during the second half of Franco’s dictatorship (1959–1973). Tourism was one of the engines of the growth, together with emigration and foreign investment.

Tourism Research Traditions in Spain? The purpose of this chapter, and its main value is to provide empirical evidence on tourism research in Spain as demonstrated by AECIT conference proceedings. It appears that there have been no previous empirical tests of Jafari’s theory of platforms. Although the purpose of the paper is not theoretical but empirical, its results can provide a basis for epistemological and philosophical discussion. What philosophical characterization of Spanish tourism research can be deduced from the analysis of

the proceedings? Is it possible to identify research traditions from the results? Although the study undertaken above does not enable one to theorize about the production of knowledge in the field of tourism, it attempts a brief speculation drawing on this research. As summarized later, the proceedings examined suggest the existence of three research traditions. The term “research traditions” is used very broadly here to encompass clusters of reference disciplines, primary research paradigms, preferred methodologies, Jafari’s platforms and researched subjects (Table 2). Table 2. Tourism Research Traditions in Spain

The main research tradition revolves around the disciplinary areas of “marketing and business management,” as together they represented two-thirds of the papers that showed a disciplinary orientation. In the mid-1990s, the official university tourism degree was established in Spain. Since then, business professors have found in the booming tourism industry a convenient field of research for applying marketing and management concepts, models, and theories. The implicit epistemological assumptions of this tradition might correspond to those of positivism: realism and objectivism. The methodology used is quantitative but, in general, of low mathematical sophistication. Additionally, most studies show a favorable attitude to tourism development, so they would lie in Jafari’s advocacy platform. The second research tradition draws on the sources of “economics,” both micro and macroeconomics (18% of the papers). It also accepts the positivist paradigm tacitly: reality driven by immutable natural laws, context-free generalizations, distant posture of the inquirer,

exclusion of values (Pernecky & Jamal, 2010). Although, somehow, it shares researched topics with the first tradition (tourism supply and demand), the economic approach is more formal and the quantitative methods are more sophisticated: statistical inference and econometrics. Maybe the Jafari platform that best fits the economic tradition is the knowledge-based one, given its efforts in advancing the understanding of the tourism phenomenon from a neutral position, without positioning itself for or against tourism. The third tradition is rooted in “geography,” in addition to “environmental studies” and “urban and regional planning” (13% of the papers). Epistemologically, the assumptions of the post-positivist paradigm are the best fit in this tradition: critical realism (reality exists but can never be fully apprehended) and modified objectivism (objectivity can only be approximated). Methodologically, the post-positivist paradigm best describes the geographical tradition: critical multiplism, inquire in more natural settings, qualitative methods, grounded theory, and the like (Pernecky & Jamal, 2010). However, the use of well-documented qualitative methods is not common to this tradition, but rather the typical methodology is closer to a “comment” or essay: the development of a topic, confined to an area, with abundant data on a wide number of variables, for example, physical, demographic, historical, economic, and legal. Moreover, the adaptancy platform best describes the geographical tradition, which recognizes advantages and disadvantages in tourism, and searches for forms of development that minimize negative impacts, environmental in particular.

CONCLUSION The objective of the chapter was to analyze the origin and characteristics of the research published in the proceedings of AECIT conference. In this vein, it carried out a bibliometric study of its 17 proceedings (1994–2012). These have promoted the creation of knowledge on tourism in Spain, as well as bringing together academics from within the field. Furthermore, in light of the regular participation of private and public agents in the conference, it has also promoted the triple helix of innovation based on scientific knowledge, as it has encouraged relations between universities, industry, and government (Leydesdorff & Etzkowitz, 2001). The results regarding the origin of research indicated that the sources of contributions were fairly evenly spread over Spain, in spite of the absence of some regions. Output was slightly more concentrated in terms of the authors and, more notably, the organizations. Foreign participation was low, with the exception of Brazil, Portugal, and Mexico. However, the sharp increase in foreign contributions in the most recent edition of the conference highlighted the desire of AECIT to internationalize the event. The results with respect to the characteristics of research showed that the research principally dealt with the development, planning, management, and marketing of tourism, especially in coastal regions and islands. In methodological terms, there was a certain overuse of commentary. The predominant disciplinary areas were marketing, management, and economics, and there was a

predominantly favorable attitude toward the development of tourism, though with some reservations in some cases. Three main research traditions result from the attempt to characterize Spanish tourism research through the analysis of the AECIT conference proceedings. They are distinguished mainly by the disciplinary areas from which they derive: marketing and management, economics, and geography.

Chapter 11

“PARADIGMATIC” REFLECTIONS AND LOOKING FORWARD Tazim Jamal Texas A&M University, USA

Ana María Munar Copenhagen Business School, Denmark

INTRODUCTION The chapters gathered in this volume under the title of Tourism Research Paradigms reflect the eclectic, multidisciplinary, and rich field of tourism studies that has been emerging over the past few decades. Contributors to this volume from the seminar-tribute to Jafar Jafari held in Mallorca in October 2013 range from anthropologists to sociologists and architecture/heritage conservation, offering enriching perspectives and approaches, reflecting on the knowledge base being built in this young field of study, and debating on a range of issues and topics within it. This final chapter presents a series of reflections on the learnings and major insights presented in this volume. While not all of the conference chapters made it into this volume, the editors made a particular effort to include a couple of chapters that reflect the type of “other” discourses that are struggling to be heard. They stem from different cultural, educational, and linguistic backgrounds, as well as diverse research, methodological training, and geographic regions representing different voices, standpoints, and interdisciplinary perspectives. The chapter begins with an examination of contributions that provide original views and peripheral voices on the topic of research paradigms. It then discusses some key insights and methodological approaches presented in a number of chapters, noting that some have common foci, such as feminism and nature/ecological perspectives. To close, it offers a few considerations of avenues that are important, but often omitted, when building the knowledge base in tourism studies.

ECLECTIC PARADIGMATIC REFLECTIONS

Exclusionary barriers preventing entry into Western “thinking” and writing/publications are multifold. Some of the more evident ones include language and scientific tradition. Many contributions to the literature and knowledge base in tourism studies are being made in so many ways that are unknown and unseen by “Western,” English speaking journals and related academic practices; these deserve special attention. Hence, one important editorial focus of this volume was to include diverse perspectives from non-English speaking countries.

Paradigmatic Perspectives and the “Other” A good example of the above-noted situation is the empirical study by José-Antonio CorralMarfil and Gemma Cànoves-Valiente, “An Approach to Tourism Research in Spain.” This chapter shows how the primary contributions to the proceedings of 17 editions of the conference of the Spanish Association of Scientific Experts in Tourism (AECIT), which has been held annually since 1994, were mostly from Spain and in Spanish, and most remain untranslated into English—the language of the “West” that dominates in tourism journals. The chapter by Corral-Marfil and Cànoves-Valiente also illustrates how knowledge bases accumulate in different countries and the types of tourism research traditions that are emerging. Besides the English language dominance in tourism studies, there is also a privileging of research skills, expertise, and experience based on Enlightenment and scientific traditions spanning 400 years in Western Europe. These have primarily been grounded in rationalism, realism, and objectivism, driving postpositivistic research paradigms in both the physical and social sciences. New research paradigms emerging in the 20th century, especially over the past few decades, and the “postmodern turn” are relatively young counterpoints (including social constructivist, interpretive or phenomenological research, and critical research). AECIT’s empirical study explored the origin of the contributions, disciplinary area, theoretical, and methodological foci, and linked this evolution to the theories of various platforms (adaptive, cautionary, knowledge) proposed by Jafari (2005a, 2005b, 2005c). Based on this categorization, they identified three major research traditions; the main one revolved around marketing and business management. Their study also showed that many of the conference proceedings were highly descriptive rather than theoretically or empirically driven. Additionally, Corral-Marfil and Cànoves-Valiente’s contribution reflects the importance of time and space dimensions for the study of knowledge production. The acknowledgment of the longitudinal historical perspective of scientific evolution, which characterizes this chapter’s methodology, illustrates one of the major insights of Thomas Kuhn’s work on the history and evolution of science (Kuhn, 1996). By contrast, Kazuyoshi Takeuchi’s chapter attempts a study of tourist motivation based on physics to inform tourist locomotion, among others. This unusual chapter calls to attention by tackling the phenomenon in a different discursive context and raising a series of key questions (such as what constitutes a tourist in everyday life) that have been addressed from multiple perspectives in tourism literature to date. Kazuyoshi Takeuchi’s chapter, “A Logical Step to

Tourism Science,” is inspired by the natural sciences and adopts the perspective of paradigms as universally accepted concepts and grand theories belonging to a specific knowledge field. His proposal challenges the belief that natural and social sciences research call for different epistemic and methodological approaches. While accepting the complexity of the social sciences phenomena, Takeuchi points to the existence of a similar heterogeneity and adaptability in the natural world. The argument advanced in his chapter is that if scientists have been able to establish a series of key explanatory principles to reveal the inner dynamics of complex natural worlds, scholars studying social worlds should aim for a similar accomplishment. As Takeuchi states: “Diversity or complication cannot be the reasons to give up on a holistic description of the mechanism of touristic phenomena.” The author makes an original proposal of what a grand theory of “the tourist” could look like and suggests that a common understanding of the tourist could be the corner stone to further advance the paradigmatic in this field of study. Takeuchi’s chapter is a novel take on the topic of paradigms that has a different point of departure from the established scholarship, as well as the main perspective of the introductory chapter to this volume. This also raises the question of whether this author is encountering the subject from the location of an “other” who is unfamiliar with the “Western” literature and discourses, or whether the literature is being interpreted differently by non-Eurocentric “others” with different understandings of knowledge and “truth”; or whether it is an attempt to re-raise provocative questions on concepts related to tourist, motivation, and “locomotion” (as the author puts it)? Honing in on a similar subject as in Takeuchi’s chapter, the tourist, Richard Ek and Mekonnen Tesfahuney offer a “paradigmatic” discussion as an alternative way to problematize and understand the tourist. They adopt the conceptualization of “paradigm” advanced by the political philosopher Giorgio Agamben, whose scholarship is rooted in a critique of the Western philosophical tradition (Agamben, 2009). “The Paradigmatic Tourist” chapter is highly original, as Agamben’s approach appears to seldom enter the existing tourism scholarship on this topic. According to Agamben, a paradigm can be understood as the “exemplar”: “the example is truly a paradigm in the etymological sense, para-deiknymit: it is what is ‘shown beside’” (1998, p. 22; cited in Chapter 6). In this way, the paradigm appears as the example that reveals the rule (it is what belongs to the group as well as being differentiated from the group). A paradigm acts as the tool that sheds light on the taken-for-granted of the sociocultural fabric. Inspired by a series of authors, including postpolitical thinkers, they argue that, far from being a marginal or unimportant figure, the tourist represents this paradigmatic dimension and is integral to everyday life and to matters of citizenship, political subjectivity, and biopolitics. The tourist as a paradigmatic figure goes beyond the concept of the individual holidaymaker/traveler and instead becomes a central figure—the exemplar—of social evolution. He/she represents ways of being and performing in contemporary postpolitical societies. Most epistemic scholarship in tourism-related studies has failed to address the political in the understanding of the tourist, resulting in a form of depolitization of this field of

knowledge. In their chapter, Ek and Tesfahuney point out how this absence (the negation of the political) is in itself a political act. Pointing out that conceptualizations of tourism as jouissance have traditionally dominated the literature, drawing on dichotomies such as work/leisure and everyday life/vacation time, the authors present a paradigm shift of the tourist as a (post)political subject, even politicizing jouissance, and generating alternative ways of being and doing.

Feminism, Humanity, and Nature The book chapters from diverse geographical, linguistic, and cultural locations suggest the need for greater acknowledgment of traditional and local “academic” positionalities in addition to scientific narratives (both social scientific and physical/biological/mathematical sciences) and traditional/local knowledges in the public sphere (see Smith, 1999 on decolonizing methodologies, for instance). Margaret Byrne Swain’s “Embodying Cosmopolitan Paradigms in Tourism Research” adds an important dimension here, an embodied cosmopolitanism paradigm informing a local-global tourism system influenced by globalization, transnationalism, and mobilities that support a cosmopolitan approach to tourism studies. Her chapter raises important considerations for researchers in terms of tourism knowledge, gender, ethics, praxis, and positionality, as her self-reflexive narrative demonstrates. It adopts a varied conceptualization of “paradigm” as inspired by the works of Guba and Lincoln (2005) and Mertens’ (2012) idea of transformative paradigms. Swain’s creative and highly personal chapter makes a number of key contributions. It presents a critical account of two major paradigmatic traditions—feminism and cosmopolitanism—and introduces a third paradigmatic proposal that she hopes may inspire future scholarship in this field. Her research and engagement have been central to the advancement of feminism and gender studies in tourism, and it is through this personal and embodied account that Swain reveals the paradigmatic evolution of this field. Therefore, her chapter is also an embodied review of the evolution of feminism scholarship in tourism studies, as seen by one of the protagonists of this knowledge production. It is representative of a methodological approach to the study of the paradigm that is embedded in the subjective and the biographical. The importance of drawing on history and personal experience is also present in Caton’s chapter, where she specifies that her essay on the humanist paradigm is “biogratized,” a word that she expresses, “is the individual and personal equivalent to ‘historicized.’” Additionally, Swain’s chapter interlinks the focus that feminism has had on the relational, ethical, and embodied dimensions of research production with the paradigm of cosmopolitanism. She reveals how there are multiple linkages between cosmopolitanism and tourism scholarship (e.g., caring for strangers), but also how its emancipatory and ethical dimensions often remain elusive in an industry where growth, neoliberalism, and consumerism are still dominant practices. Swain ends her contribution by presenting her proposal of “an

embodied cosmopolitanism paradigm.” She raises the query here of whether tourism as a phenomenon meets its cosmopolitan potential, and what the role of cosmopolitanism in tourism studies might be. Cosmopolitan consumption and empathy, feminist travel and cosmofeminism, human rights, and the moral economy are among the issues Swain explores as she moves toward a paradigmatic claim to embody the cosmopolitan in tourism research and foster “situated co-researchers” (Swain & Swain, 2015). Complementing Swain’s chapter and Blanca A. Camargo, Tazim Jamal, and Erica Wilson’s chapter “Towards a Critical Ecofeminist Research Paradigm for Sustainable Tourism” argues for a critical (eco)feminist approach and situated, embodied knowledge to address injustices and omissions in sustainability and tourism studies. It is time to recover the missing “body in tourism” (Aitchison, 2005; Veijola & Jokinen, 1994), and also to bridge a persistent natureculture divide that marginalizes attending to intangible aspects such as human–environmental relationships. It is worth noting that aside from authors addressing empirical issues in ecotourism or sustainability, tourism scholarship has traditionally given limited attention to ontological and epistemological issues related to nature, or in the context of human– environmental relationships (rare exceptions include Fennel, 2006 and Holden, 2003). A key contribution of this chapter is its examination of the linkages between social and environmental justice (e.g., with respect to water and tourism consumption), and related epistemological considerations. Camargo et al. call for a critical analytical framework that facilitates “situated knowledges” (Haraway, 1988) and identifies (eco)cultural principles to guide pressing sustainability issues in the 21st century. The chapter identifies a series of counter-discourses to neoliberalism, neocolonialism, commodification, and exploitative practices of tourism. It also presses for greater efforts to encourage scholarship from the “South” and other settings where tourism researchers are grappling directly with issues such as neocolonialism, postcolonialism, and dependency. Not to be forgotten here are the voices of women, minority populations and ethnic groups who lack participation and standing in terms of rights and justice (Jamal & Camargo, 2014). This can be at the community or national level, as well as in terms of academic participation, both locally and in the journals and dominant discourses and narratives of the “West.” Nature, the ecological dimension, and the interdependency of social and living systems are also central to Carolina Manrique, Tazim Jamal, and Robert Warden’s chapter, “Heritage Tourism and Conservation: A Cultural Resilience Bridge?”. This contribution explores the concept of “resilience” as a novel paradigmatic approach for tourism studies. Its main argument follows a long-standing exploration in scholarship that relates to key concepts (such as systems and life cycles) in order to advance new paradigmatic understandings. The authors show that the concept of resilience is addressed in diverse ways within different fields of study. It is generally understood as the “ability of social, economic, or ecological systems to recover from tourism induced stress” (Tyrrell & Johnston, 2008, p. 16). Resilience, the authors suggest, can be used as a theoretical bridge between two well-established study areas in tourism research: sustainability and heritage/conservation. This contribution exhibits a similar approach to Ek and Tesfahuney’s chapter, which uses a paradigmatic concept to question pre-

established dichotomies (such as home-away, tourist-citizen, and public-private). In this case, Manrique et al. introduce the concept of resilience in general, and “cultural resilience” in particular, to bring attention to the dichotomy between the tangible/physical and the intangible in cultural/natural heritage and conservation. To achieve this, the chapter expands the “traditional” understanding of heritage, centered on objects, places, and structures of the past, to encompass multiple understandings of social, biological, political, or psychological considerations among others.

The Intellectual Activist Paradigm of Tourism Studies? Is there a pre-paradigmatic phase in tourism studies (Echtner & Jamal, 1997), and is the field evolving toward a Kuhnian paradigm, as discussed by Jamal in Tribe et al. (2015)? If there is such an entity, how does it situate the role of the academic in relation to public well-being and the good of tourism? What is the role of intellectual work/academic work, and what forms constitute legitimate research (note the politics of legitimation here, as per Habermas’s knowledge constitutive interests)? Graham M. S. Dann’s chapter tackles the question “When Is a Paradigm not a Paradigm?”, specifically exploring whether there is a multi-theoretical base to such frameworks as authenticity, strangerhood, the gaze, and the language of tourism, which are sufficient to merit the status of being paradigms. He contrasts these with modernist models that draw on broad terms like sustainability which, to him, is “far from theoretical and consequently of limited value in tourism research.” As he puts it, “sustainable” (as in the case of sustainable mountain tourism) is a buzzword and an example of “ideological wishful thinking” and solid demonstration is needed in this area of study. Manrique et al.’s chapter is perhaps worth noting in the context of Dann’s chapter. Two of the three authors in this chapter are based within a college of architecture and specialize in historic preservation/heritage conservation. The chapter attempts to show how a related, and increasingly popular, “buzzword” (to use Dann’s term), resilience, is being addressed throughout many inquiry areas in academia, with a resulting proliferation of concepts and terms, and significant omissions pertaining to intangible culture and heritage. Primarily a descriptive approach, the chapter argues for an integrated approach that draws upon “cultural resilience” (described as containing intangible and tangible dimensions) as a cultural bridge between heritage conservation and tourism (parallel pathways that are not often well integrated). Paradigms in business and the social sciences are quite disparate and incompatible, Dann indicates, the former being practical (anti-intellectual) and the latter theoretical and amenable to paradigmatic thought. There are a range of researchers in business schools that successfully engage in theoretical endeavors, drawing from various social science areas. For example, based in critical accounting studies, Jeff Everett has drawn exhaustively on theoretical concepts employed by the contemporary sociological theorist Pierre Bourdieu (see, e.g., Everett & Jamal, 2004). Rather than an either/or scenario, sociologists in tourism research can

perhaps work actively and collaboratively to theoretically ground the “practical knowledge” generated by applied researchers in tourism studies. Kellee Caton puts forward a clearly theoretical and philosophical chapter on humanism in tourism studies. Classical humanism tends to have been self-oriented, but as variations have emerged within this tradition, one form that Caton appears to be advocating is that of a more pragmatic and civic-oriented humanism (see Moulakis, 2011, for a concise elucidation of “civic humanism”). Kellee Caton’s chapter, “A Humanist Paradigm for Tourism Studies? Envisioning a Collective Alternative to Epistemic Literalism,” advances the idea of the pragmatic humanist paradigm as a “living cultural practice.” Humanism “is a collective practice by people seeking a way of being in the world that does not require foundations beyond their own epistemic power.” Caton takes the point of departure in some of her most important earlier contributions to this topic (a linguistic approach to tourism epistemology and the moral turn in tourism studies), but expands her ideas further by proposing a new paradigmatic framework. Inspired by Rorty’s humanist philosophy, she explores the diversity of humanist understandings, but concludes that there are a series of core principles such as “tolerance; the call to ‘do unto others’; the value of reason, science, and other forms of scholarship in serving as basis for understanding the world and forming sound decisions; the importance of individual free thought; and the need to work in service of social progress and the greater good.” To the common critique of those that equate humanism with moral relativism, she answers by indicating “the compassion-based stance” and the strong focus that this philosophy has on the fundamental principles of care for others and human dignity as the core of moral decisionmaking. A key contribution from Caton’s chapter is that, using the lenses of humanist philosophy, she challenges a deeply ingrained belief in tourism scholarship (a correspondence-based theory of truth) which implies that “with the correct methods in hand—we can get the correct answers.” To better describe this state of affairs, she introduces “epistemic literalism” (“a stance that perceives a legible coherence flowing between an external reality and the production of verifiable knowledge about that reality courtesy of simply using the right tools”). She questions what the point of epistemic endeavor is if the external reality cannot be captured literally anyway, but asserts that “the lack of secure truth standard does not render us impotent for making progress, as measured by the standard of our collective, negotiated articulations of what a good life would look like.” The realism tradition has pointed to the importance of the consequences embedded in external realities. Caton states that consequences are not only the result of phenomena, but of the ways we understand those phenomena. Her chapter links with the idea of a living-paradigm, as not only as a tool for knowledge, but as a way of being in the world. Other researchers have tackled similar concerns, such as the liberal individual practitioner tradition versus progressive paradigms embedded in community service learning (Jamal, Taillon, & Dredge, 2011). The embodied researcher is a crucial dimension here, but equally important is being embedded in the everyday life-world of practice (Dredge & Jenkins, 2011).

Critical Tensions and Contestations Critical praxis and greater creativity, critique, and critical paradigms are much needed, as Ana María Munar’s “The House of Tourism Studies and the Systemic Paradigm” indicates. She asks how much critical emancipatory rationality is encouraged and nurtured in the house of tourism studies, and wonders whether the academy is increasingly resembling “a hybrid of a corporation-consultancy-think-tank” that is competing in an international higher education marketplace. Her concerns about academic autonomy and critical inquiry draw upon critical theorists like Habermas, and echoes Jamal and Everett’s (2004) worries about the colonization of the academic life-world. Drawing on Habermas’s work on knowledge constitutive interests (Habermas, 1978, 1989a), they explain: Elaborating on the relationship between knowledge and human activity, Habermas sets the constitution of knowledge within the historical material conditions of human society. These conditions produced a form of knowledge known as “technical knowledge” and a whole realm where such knowledge is valorized, the “systems-world”. Against this form of knowledge exists “practical knowledge” and the realm which Habermas calls the “life-world” (lebenswelt). Each of these two forms of knowledge is supported by a respective “knowledge constitutive interest” and a respective form of scientific inquiry: “empirical-analytical science” in the realm of the systems-world, and “historical-hermeneutic science” in the realm of the life-world. (Jamal & Everett, 2004, pp. 7–8) Problems arise when technical interests are used to influence practical interests, gain technological control over society, and colonize the life-world. A third form of knowledge, supported by an “emancipatory interest,” is needed. This “critical knowledge” valorizes selfreflection, critical apprehension, and rational action, and to understand the conflict that occurs among economic, technical, scientific, and practical interests in touristic spaces and places. As Munar’s chapter also indicates, emancipatory interests in Habermas’s frameworks offer a paradigmatic antidote with respect to not only those who live in and visit destinations, but also those who research and study it. The systematic dominance of technocratic interests and technical knowledge colonizes spaces for reflexive communication in academia, and calls for building alternative or new platforms of critical inquiry, knowledge production, and emancipatory praxis (Table 1). Furthermore, poststructuralist positions are emerging to lend further support for critical inquiry and theory building in tourism studies (see Dredge & Jamal, 2015 for a poststructuralist perspective on tourism knowledge, power, and the notion of “progress” in tourism planning and policy). Table 1. Research Interests and Habermas’s Knowledge Constitutive Interests

CONCLUSION The compilation of chapters in this book is a small foray into how a range of scholars view certain dimensions and concepts among the multitude of research paradigms and activities that inform the knowledge base of tourism studies. There are many topics, methodological perspectives, and debates about tourism research paradigms that this volume is unable to address. One of the questions at the crux of this debate lies in the purpose and function of tourism studies: Is it teleological, or should it enact critical praxis and foster emancipatory interests in knowledge production? Is there an emerging “meta-paradigm” of tourism studies in addition to smaller exemplars containing multiple, theoretically driven research positions, as Jamal voices in the trialogue between Tribe et al. (2015)? To Dann, paradigms in tourism

research are multi-theoretical, as he argues in his chapter in this book. However, paradigms of practice and politics seem to mean little to this scholar, while it is clearly important to others like Ek and Tesfahuney; Caton, Munar, and Swain. Social and political critiques are increasingly interrupting the managerialist paradigms and discourses that have led the field since the 1970s. On one other issue that has tended to receive short shrift in tourism studies is related to critiques of capital, labor, and globalized free trade. Stacked against the market capitalism and capitalistic discourses that drive much (most?) of tourism research is a scant number of scholars who attempt to tackle tendentious economic and social issues, and offer alternative theoretical perspectives and paradigms to examine tourism, political economy, and Marxism (Bianchi, 2009; Britton, 1982). The cultural geographer, Harvey (2010), argues for developing new institutions and structures that are situated in anti-capital modes, but also acknowledges the challenge of doing so. Critical scholarship is a challenge that the large majority of tourism studies has generally eschewed, but must take up if it is to engage meaningfully in issues related to environmental and social justice, community well-being, sustainability, and so on. The chapters in this volume, stimulated by the tribute conference held in Mallorca, Spain, in October 2013, offer a small glimpse into this complex domain of research paradigms and approaches to inquiry in tourism studies, and the various critical, political, philosophical, and sociocultural approaches adopted by the contributing authors. Perhaps new avenues may be found by paying more attention to the challenging epistemological, ontological, methodological, and theoretical issues raised here, and to better including the voice and knowledge of the “other” to help construct non-Eurocentric knowledge in tourism studies.

References   Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (1979). Dialectic of enlightenment. New York, NY: Continuum. AECIT. (2014a). Presentación. Retrieved from http://www.aecit.org/presentacion.php AECIT. (2014b). Actas de congresos. Publicaciones de AECIT. Retrieved from http://www.aecit.org/publi_actas1.php Agamben, G. (1998). Homo sacer. Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Agamben, G. (2009). The signature of all things. On method. New York, NY: Zone Books. Agència Valenciana de Turisme. (2006). Análisis de las tesis doctorales de turismo realizadas en universidades españolas. Papers de turisme, 40, 111–116. Airey, D. (2008). Tourism education: Life begins at 40. Téoros, 27, 1–12. Aitchison, C. (2005). Feminist and gender perspectives in tourism studies: The social-cultural nexus of critical and cultural theories. Tourist Studies, 5(3), 207–224. Akama, J., Maingi, S., & Camargo, B. (2011). Wildlife conservation, safari tourism and the role of tourism certification in Kenya: A postcolonial critique. Tourism Recreation Research, 36, 281–291. Albacete, C., & Fuentes, M. (2010). Difusión de la investigación española sobre turismo en revistas internacionales. Revista de Análisis Turístico, 9, 14–29. Albacete, C., Fuentes, M., & Haro, M. (2013). La investigación española en turismo con impacto internacional (1997–2011). Una perspectiva desde la economía y la dirección de la empresa. Cuadernos de economía y dirección de la empresa, 16, 17–28. Andersson Cederholm, E. (1999). Det extraordinäras lockelse: luffarturistens bilder och upplevelser. Lund: Arkiv. Appiah, K. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. New York, NY: Norton and Company. Aramberri, J. (2001). The host should get lost: Paradigms in tourism theory. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(3), 738–761. Aramberri, J. (2010). Modern mass tourism (Vol. 14). Tourism Social Science Series. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Armstead, C. (1995). Writing contradictions: Feminist research and feminist writing. Women’s Studies International Forum, 18(5–6), 627–636.

Ateljevic, I., Harris, C., Wilson, E., & Collins, F. L. (2005). Getting ‘entangled’: Reflexivity and the ‘critical turn’ in tourism studies. Tourism Recreation Research, 30(2), 9–21. Ateljevic, I., Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N. (Eds.). (2007). The critical turn in tourism studies: Innovative research methodologies. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Ayikoru, M. (2009). Epistemology, ontology and tourism. In J. Tribe (Ed.), Philosophical issues in tourism (pp. 62–79). Bristol: Channel View Publications. Ayikoru, M. (2014). Neoliberalism and the new managerialism in tourism and hospitality education. In D. Dredge, D. Airey, & M. Gross (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of tourism and hospitality education (pp. 118–129). London: Routledge. Ayikoru, M., Tribe, J., & Airey, D. (2009). Reading tourism education. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(2), 191–221. Bandyopadhyay, R. (2013). A paradigm shift in sex tourism research. Tourism Management Perspectives, 6, 1–2. Barrios, M., Borrego, Á., Vilaginés, A., Ollé, C., & Somoza, M. (2008). A bibliometric study of psychological research on tourism. Scientometrics, 77, 453–467. Barry, K. (2015). Diagramming the packing process. (Artistic exhibition/installation). In A. M. Munar., T. Pernecky, & T. M. A. Vahr (Eds.), 2nd tourism postdisciplinarity conference: Freedom, art, power, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg (pp. 47–48). Retrieved from http://openarchive.cbs.dk/bitstream/handle/10398/9260/Proceedings_2nd_Tourism_Postdisciplin sequence=1. Accessed on March 10, 2016. Bauman, Z. (1993). Postmodern ethics. Oxford: Blackwell. Bauman, Z., & Donskis, L. (2013). Moral blindness: The loss of sensitivity in liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Baumgartner, J., Francia, P., & Morris, J. (2008). A clash of civilizations? The influence of religion on public opinion of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Political Research Quarterly, 61, 171–179. Baver, S., & Lynch, B. (Eds.). (2005). Beyond sun and sand: Caribbean environmentalisms. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Belhassen, Y., & Caton, K. (2009). Advancing understandings: A linguistic approach to tourism epistemology. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(2), 335–352. Benckendorff, P., & Zehrer, A. (2013). A network analysis of tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 121–149. Berardi, F. (2012). Reactivating the social body in insurrectionary times: A dialogue with Franco ‘Bifo’ Berardi. Berkeley Planning Journal, 25(1), 210–220. Bianchi, R. V. (2009). The “critical turn” in tourism studies: A radical critique. Tourism Geographies, 11(4), 484–504. Bianchi, R. V., & Stephenson, M. L. (2013). Deciphering tourism and citizenship in a

globalized world. Tourism Management, 39(1), 10–20. Bianchi, R. V., & Stephenson, M. L. (2014). Tourism and citizenship: Rights, freedom and responsibilities in the global order. Abingdon: Routledge. Bigné, J., Andreu, L., Sánchez, I., & Alvarado, A. (2008). Investigación internacional en marketing turístico: Análisis de contenido sobre temas y metodologías. PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 6, 391–398. Boorstin, D. J. (1992). The image: A guide to pseudo-events in America. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Bosetti, V., Cassinelli, M., & Lanza, A. (2007). Benchmarking in tourism destinations: Keeping in mind the sustainable paradigm. In A. Matias, P. Nijkamp, & P. Neto (Eds.), Advances in modern tourism research (pp. 165–180). Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag HD. Botterill, D. (2014). Constructionism: A criticalist reply. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 292–295. Botterill, D., & Platenkamp, V. (2012). Key concepts in tourism research. London: Sage. Bowers, B. S., & Manzi, T. (2006). Private security and public space: New approaches to the theory and practice of gated communities. European Journal of Spatial Development, (November), Article 22, 1–17. Brennan, D. (2004). What’s love got to do with it? London: Duke University Press. Britton, S. (1982). Tourism, capital and place: Towards a critical geography of tourism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 9, 451–478. Broeska, D. (2013). Turning medical tourism into medical research: The paradigm shift. Retrieved from http://www.regenetek. Accessed on October 21, 2013. Brown, K. (2013). Global environmental change I: A social turn for resilience. Progress in Human Geography, 38(1), 1–11. Brunn, S. (2006). Gated minds and gated lives as worlds of exclusion and fear. GeoJournal, 66(1), 5–13. Bunten, A. C. (2010). More like ourselves: Indigenous capitalism through tourism. American Indian Quarterly, 34, 285–311. Burac, M. (2005). The struggle for sustainable tourism in Martinique. In S. L. Baver & B. D. Lynch (Eds.), Beyond sun and sand: Caribbean environmentalism (pp. 65–73). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Butler, G. (2012). Engaging the new mobilities paradigm in contemporary African tourism research. African Insight, 42(2), 120–135. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and subversion of identity. London: Routledge. Bystrzanowski, J., & Beck, G. (Eds.). (1989). Tourism as a factor of change: A sociocultural study. Vienna: International Social Science Council, European Coordination Center for Research and Documentation in the Social Sciences.

Carter, M. (2007). Ways of knowing, doing, and writing in the disciplines. College Composition and Communication, 58(3), 385–418. Caton, K. (2012). Taking the moral turn in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 39, 1906–1928. Caton, K. (2014a). Humanism and tourism: A moral encounter. In M. Mostafanezhad & K. Hannum (Eds.), Moral encounters in tourism (pp. 185–198). Surrey: Ashgate. Caton, K. (2014b). Underdisciplinarity: Where are the humanities in tourism education? Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 15, 24–33. Caton, K. (2015a). On the practical value of a liberal education. In D. Airey, D. Dredge, & M. Gross (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of tourism and hospitality education (pp. 43–54). London: Routledge. Caton, K. (2015b). Call for contributions, tourism education futures initiative (Conference). Celebrating the disruptive power of caring. Retrieved from http://www.tourismeducationfutures.org/2016-tefi9. Accessed on October 5, 2015. Cave, P. (2009). Humanism. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. Chambers, D. (2015). Inclusivity in tourism higher education: Accessing worlds and knowledges otherwise. In A. M. Munar, T. Pernecky, & T. Hvar (Eds.), 2nd tourism postdisciplinarity conference: Freedom, art, Power, Copenhagen (p. 17). Chambers, D., & Buzinde, C. (2015). Tourism and decolonisation: Locating research and self. Annals of Tourism Research, 51, 1–16. Chang, C., & McAleer, M. (2012). Citations and impact of ISI tourism and hospitality journals. Tourism Management Perspectives, 1, 2–8. Changing Paradigms in Sustainable Mountain Tourism Research: Problems and Perspectives. (2012). Conference held in Brixen/Bressanone, October 25–28. Cheah, P., & Robbins, B. (Eds.). (1998). Cosmopolitics: Thinking and feeling beyond the nation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Cheng, C., Li, X., Petrick, J., & O’Leary, J. (2011). An examination of tourism journal development. Tourism Management, 32, 53–61. Choi, H. C., & Sirakaya, E. (2006). Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism. Tourism Management, 27, 1274–1289. Coaffee, J. (2005). Urban renaissance in the age of terrorism: Revanchism, automated social control or the end of reflection. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(2), 447–454. Cochrane, J. (2009). Resilience and recovery: Tourism in Sri Lanka after the Asian tsunami. Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute, Project Report. Cohen, E. (1979a). Rethinking the sociology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(1), 18–35. Cohen, E. (1979b). A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology, 13, 179–201.

Cohen, E. (1988). Traditions in the qualitative sociology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 15(1), 29–46. Cohen, E. (2007). Authenticity in tourism studies: Après la Lutte. Tourism, Recreation Research, 32(2), 75–82. Cohen, E., & Cohen, S. (2012). Current sociological theories and issues in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(4), 2177–2202. Cohen, E., & Cohen, S. (2015). Beyond Euro-centrism in tourism: A paradigm shift to mobilities. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(2), 157–168. Cole, S. (2012). A political ecology of water equity and tourism: A case study from Bali. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 1221–1241. Collini, S. (2012). What are universities for? London: Penguin Books. Columbia University. (2013). Historic preservation. Retrieved from http://www.arch.columbia.edu/programs/historic-preservation. Accessed on January 30, 2013. Corral, J., & Cànoves, G. (2013). La investigación turística publicada en revistas turísticas y no turísticas: análisis bibliométrico de la producción de las universidades catalanas. Cuadernos de Turismo, 31, 55–81. Corral, J., & Cànoves, G. (2014). La colaboración científica en turismo: grupos y redes de investigación en Cataluña. Documents d’Anàlisi Geogràfica, 60, 57–86. Corral, J., & de San Eugenio, J. (2013). La investigación de la geografía del turismo en España a través del análisis bibliométrico de las actas del Coloquio de Geografía del Turismo, Ocio y Recreación (1990–2012). Boletín de la Asociación de Geografos Españoles, 63, 535–549. Costa, C. (2001). An emerging tourism planning paradigm? A comparative analysis between town and tourism planning. International Journal of Tourism Research, 3(6), 425–441. Crouch, D. (2005). Flirting with space: Tourism geographies as sensuous/expressive practice. In C. Cartier & A. Lew (Eds.), Seductions of place: Geographical perspectives on globalization and touristed landscapes (pp. 23–35). New York, NY: Routledge. Csordas, T. (1994). The body as representation and being-in-the-world. In T. Csordas (Ed.), Embodiment and experience: The existential ground of culture and self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dann, G. (1996a). Take me to the Hilton: Tourism as language – An eclectic multi-theoretical paradigm. Paper presented to the symposium on Paradigms in Tourism Research, held by the research committee on international tourism (RC 50) of the International Sociological Association, University of Jyväskylä, Finland, July 4–7. Later revised and published as Dann (2011b). Dann, G. (1996b). The language of tourism: A sociolinguistic perspective. Wallingford: CAB International.

Dann, G. (1997). Paradigms in tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 472– 474. Dann, G. (2011a). Take me to the Hilton: The language of tourism paradigm. Folia Turistica, 25(1), 23–40. Polish version: Zabierz mnie do Hiltona. Paradymat Języka Turystyki, 25(1), 23–42. Dann, G. (2011b). Paradigms in tourism research revisited. Paper presented to the symposium on Paradigms in Tourism Theory, University of Tromsø, Norway, November 16–17. Dann, G. (forthcoming). The language of tourism. In J. Jafari & H. Xiao (Eds.), Encyclopedia of tourism. New York, NY: Springer. Dann, G., & Cohen, E. (1991). Sociology and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(1), 155–169. Dann, G., Nash, D., & Pearce, P. (1988). Methodology in tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 15, 1–28. Darbellay, F., & Stock, M. (2012). Tourism as complex interdisciplinary research object. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 441–458. Dawkins, R. (1989). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. de Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Debord, G. (1994). The society of the spectacle. New York, NY: Zone Books. DeCaroli, S. (2011). Paradigm/example. In A. Murray & J. Whyte (Eds.), The Agamben dictionary (pp. 144–147). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Deery, M., Jago, L., & Fredline, L. (2012). Rethinking social impacts of tourism research: A new research agenda. Tourism Management, 33(1), 64–73. Delanty, G. (2006). The cosmopolitan imagination: Critical cosmopolitanism and social theory. The British Journal of Sociology, 57(1), 25–47. Delanty, G. (2012). Introduction: The emerging field of cosmopolitanism studies. In G. Delanty (Ed.), Routledge handbook of cosmopolitanism studies (pp. 1–8). London: Routledge. Delanty, G., & Strydom, P. (2003). Philosophies of social science. The classic and contemporary readings. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Deleuze, G. (1995). Negotiations, 1972–1990. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus. Capitalism and schizophrenia. London: The Athlone Press. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., & Tuhiwai Smith, L. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of critical and

indigenous methodologies. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Derrida, J. (1998). Paper or myself, you know … (New speculations on a luxury of the poor). Paragraph, 21(1), 1–27. Derrida, J. (2005). Lagens kraft: “auktoritetens mystiska fundament”. Eslöv: Östlings Bokförlag Symposion. Dickinson, C. (2011). Agamben and theology. London: T & T Clark International. Diken, B. (2009). Nihilism. Abingdon: Routledge. Diken, B., & Laustsen, C. B. (2004). Sea, sun, sex and the discontents of pleasure. Tourism Studies, 4(2), 99–144. Dredge, D., Airey, D., & Gross, M. J. (Eds.). (2014). The Routledge handbook of tourism and hospitality education. London: Routledge. Dredge, D., Beckendorff, P., Day, M., Gross, M. J., Walo, M., Weeks, P., & Whitelaw, P. A. (2012a). Influences on Australian tourism, hospitality and events undergraduate education. Dredge, D., Beckendorff, P., Day, M., Gross, M. J., Walo, M., Weeks, P., & Whitelaw, P. A. (2012b). The philosophic practitioner and the curriculum space. Annals of Tourism Research, 39, 2154–2176. Dredge, D., & Jamal, T. (2015). Progress in tourism planning and policy: A post-structural perspective on knowledge production. Tourism Management, 51, 285–297. Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J. (2011). Stories of practice: Tourism planning and policy. Surrey: Ashgate. Dredge, D., Schott, C., Daniele, R., Caton, K., Edelheim, J., & Munar, A. M. (2015). The tourism education futures initiative. Anatolia, 26(2), 340–346. Dryzek, J. S. (1986). The progress of political science. The Journal of Politics, 48(2), 301– 320. Eadington, W. R., & Redman, M. (1991). Economics and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(1), 41–56. Echtner, C. (1999). The semiotic paradigm: Implications for tourism research. Tourism Management, 20(1), 47–57. Echtner, C. M., & Jamal, T. B. (1997). The disciplinary dilemmas of tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(4), 868–883. Edensor, T. (2001). Performing tourism, staging tourism: (Re)producing tourist space and practice. Tourist Studies, 1, 59–81. Edensor, T. (2007). Mundane mobilities, performances and spaces of tourism. Social and Cultural Geography, 8(2), 189–215. Edson, G. (2004). Heritage: Pride or passion, product or service? International Journal of Heritage Studies, 10(4), 333–348.

Einstein, A. (1961). Relativity: The special and the general theory (R. W. Lawson, Trans.). New York, NY: Three Rivers Press. Ek, R. (2011). Creating the creative post-political citizen? The showroom as an arena for creativity. Culture Unbound, 3, 167–186. Elsrud, T. (2004). Taking time, making journeys. Narratives of self and other among backpackers. Lund: Lund University Press. Emerging Research Paradigms in Business and the Social Sciences. (2011). First conference held on November 22–24, 2011, Middlesex University, Dubai. Emerging Research Paradigms in Business and the Social Sciences. (2013). Second conference held on November 26–28, 2013, Middlesex University, Dubai. Enloe, C. (1989). Bananas, beaches and bases: Making feminist sense of international politics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Esteban, Á. (2000). La investigación turística en la universidad española. Estudios Turísticos, 144–145, 155–180. Everett, J., & Jamal, T. (2004). Multistakeholder collaboration as symbolic marketplace and pedagogic practice. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(1), 57–77. Farrell, B. H., & Twining-Ward, L. (2004). Reconceptualizing tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 274–295. Featherstone, M. (2002). Cosmopolis: An introduction. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(1–2), 1–16. Fennel, D. (2006). Tourism ethics. Clevedon: Channel View Publication. Ferguson, L. (2011). Promoting gender equality and empowering women? Tourism and the third millennium development goal. Current Issues in Tourism, 14(3), 235–249. Ferguson, L., & Alacrón, D. (2013). Integrating gender into sustainable tourism projects. Equality in tourism: Creating change for women. Retrieved from http://equalityintourism.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/10/Integrating-gender-intosustainable-tourism-projects_F_Oct_13.pdf. Accessed on November 1, 2014. Ferguson, L., & Alacrón, D. (2015). Gender and sustainable tourism: Reflections on theory and practice. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(3), 401–416. Ferrando, F. (2013). Posthumanism, transhumanism, antihumanism, metahumanism, and new materialisms: Differences and relations. Existenz, 8, 26–32. Figueroa-Domecq, C., Pritchard, A., Segovia-Perez, M., Morgan, N., & Villace-Molinero, T. (2015). Tourism gender research: A critical accounting. Annals of Tourism Research, 52, 87–103. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Folke, C., Carpenter., S., Elmqvist., T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C. S., & Walker, B. (2002). Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of

transformations. Ambio, 31(5), 437–440. Font, X., & Harris, C. (2004). Rethinking standards from green to sustainable. Annals of Tourism Research, 31, 986–1007. Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality – Vol. 1: The will to knowledge. London: Allen Lane. Franklin, A. (2003). The tourist syndrome. Tourist Studies, 3(2), 205–217. Franklin, A. (2004). Tourism as an ordering: Towards a new ontology of tourism. Tourist Studies, 4(3), 277–301. Franklin, A. (2007). The problem with tourism theory. In I. Ateljevic, A. Pritchard, & N. Morgan (Eds.), The critical turn in tourism studies: Innovative research methods (pp. 131–148). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Gadamer, H. (1975).Truth and method (2nd rev. ed., J. Weinsheimer & D. Marshall, Eds. & Trans). New York, NY: Continuum. Gatenby, B., & Humphries, M. (2000). Feminist participatory action research: Methodological and ethical issues. Women’s Studies International Forum, 23(1), 89–105. Getches, D. H., & Pellow, D. N. (2002). Beyond “traditional” environmental justice. In K. M. Mutz, G. C. Bryner, & D. S. Kenney (Eds.), Justice and natural resources: Concepts, strategies, and applications (pp. 3–30). Washington, DC: Island Press. Gibson, H. (2001). Gender in tourism: Theoretical perspectives. In Y. Apostolopoulos, S. Sönmez, & D. Timothy (Eds.), Women producers and consumers of tourism (pp. 19–43). Westport, CT: Praeger. Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Giroux, H. A. (2008). Against the terror of neoliberalism: Politics beyond the age of greed. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Giroux, H. A. (2014). Neoliberalism’s war on higher education. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books. Goeldner, C. R., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2012). Tourism: Principles, practices, philosophies (12th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Gong, Y. (2010). Analysis and design for the resilience of shear connections. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 37, 1581–1589. González-Albo, B., Moreno, L., Aparicio, J., Morillo, F., & Bordons, M. (2009). La investigación española sobre turismo a través de publicaciones científicas de difusión nacional e internacional. Madrid: CSIC. Gössling, S. (Ed.). (2003). Tourism and development in tropical Islands: A political ecology perspective. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Grimwood, B. (2015a). Advancing tourism’s moral morphology: Relational metaphors for just and sustainable arctic tourism. Tourist Studies, 15, 3–26.

Grimwood, B. (2015b). Tourism and the promise of incommensurability: A photo essay. In A. M. Munar, T. Pernecky, & T. Vahr (Eds.), 2nd tourism postdisciplinarity conference: Freedom, art, power, Copenhagen (p. 32), June 22–24. Groat, L., & Wang, D. (2002). Architectural research methods. New York, NY: Wiley. Grosz, E. (1992). Bodies-cities. In B. Colomina & J. Bloomer (Eds.), Sexuality and Space (pp. 241–254). New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press. Guba, E. (1990). The paradigm dialog. London: Sage. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging conflicts. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191–216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Habermas, J. (1978). Knowledge and human interests (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Beacon. Habermas, J. (1983). The theory of communicative action 1 (Vol. 1). Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Habermas, J. (1989a). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (6th ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Habermas, J. (1989b). Theory of communicative action (Vol. 2). Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Hajer, M. (1995). The politics of environment discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Clarendon. Hales, R., Dredge, D., Higgins-Desbiolles, F., & Jamal, T. (2014). Academic activism in tourism studies: A philosophical justification by four academics. In C. Schott, K. Caton, & C. Herzog (Eds.), 8th annual conference tourism education futures initiative. Conference proceedings, Transformational learning: Activism, empowerment and political agency in tourism education, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada (pp. 167–186), June 4–7, 2014. Hall, C. M. (1994). Tourism and politics. Policy, power and place. Chichester: Wiley. Hall, C. M. (2011). Publish and perish? Bibliometric analysis, journal ranking and the assessment of research quality in tourism. Tourism Management, 32, 16–27. Hall, M. C., & MacArthur, S. (1998). Integrated heritage management: Principles and practice. London: Stationery Office. Hancock, J. (2011). Jen Hancock’s handy humanism handbook. Retrieved from www.JenHancock.com Hannam, K. (2007). Tourism geographies, tourism studies and the turn towards mobilities. Geography Compass, 2(1), 127–139. Hannam, K., Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). Editorial: Mobilities, immobilities and moorings. Mobilities, 1(1), 1–22.

Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. New York, NY: Routledge. Hardy, A., Beeton, R. J. S., & Pearson, L. (2002). Sustainable tourism: An overview of the concept and its position to conceptualizations of tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10, 475–496. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harvey, D. (2010). The enigma of capital: And the crises of capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haswell, C. H. (1860). Strength of materials. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 70(6), 385– 391. Heimtun, B. (2007). Depathologizing the tourists syndrome: Tourism as social capital production. Tourist Studies, 7(3), 271–293. Heimtun, B., & Morgan, N. (2012). Proposing paradigm peace: Mixed methods in feminist tourism research. Tourist Studies, 12(3), 287–304. Held, D. (1987). Models of democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hemmington, N. (2009). From service to experience: The new hospitable experience paradigm. Paper presented to the conference on Best Practices for Creating a Motivated and Productive Tourism Workforce, May 27–29, Curaçao. Henderson, K. (1994). Perspectives on analyzing gender, women, and leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 26, 119–137. Hernández, J., Campón, A., & Folgado, J. (2011). La investigación en turismo en España a través de las revistas de dirección de empresas. Revista de Análisis Turístico, 12, 1–9. Herrick, J. (2005). Humanism: An introduction. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Herrman, H., Stewart, D. E., Diaz-Granados, N., Berger, E. L., Jackson, B., & Yuen, T. (2011). What is resilience? La Revue canadienne de psychiatrie, 56(5), 258–265. Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2010). Justifying tourism: Justice through tourism. In S. Cole & N. Morgan (Eds.), Tourism and inequality: Problems and prospects (pp. 194–211). Wallingford: CABI. Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2012). The Hotel Bauen’s challenge to cannibalizing capitalism. Annals of Tourism Research, 39, 620–640. Higgins-Desbiolles, F., & Whyte, K. (2013). No high hopes for hopeful tourism: A critical comment. Annals of Tourism Research, 40, 428–433. Hilton. (1995a). Advertisement. Business Week, March 20, pp. 6–7. Hilton. (1995b). Advertisement. Business Week, April 3, pp. 42–43. Hilton. (1995c). Advertisement. Business Week, May 22, p. 17.

Hilton. (1995d). Advertisement. Business Week, June 5, pp. 32–33. Hilton. (1995e). Advertisement. Business Week, June 2, p. 12. Hoerner, J. (2002). Traité de Tourismologie: Pour une Nouvelle Science Touristique. Collection Études [Treatise on tourismology: For a new tourism science. Studies Collection]. Perpignan: Perpignan University Press. Hoerner, J. (2005). Encore un Pas vers la Tourismologie [Another step towards tourismology]. Espaces (Spaces/Places), No. 227, June. Holden, A. (2003). In need of new environmental ethics for tourism? Annals of Tourism Research, 30, 94–108. Holland, R. (1990). The paradigm plague: Prevention, cure, and inoculation. Human Relations, 43(1), 23–48. Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1–23. Hollinshead, K. (2004). A primer in ontological craft. In J. Phillimore & L. Goodson (Eds.), Qualitative research in tourism: Ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies (pp. 63– 82). London: Routledge. Hollinshead, K. (2006). The shift to constructivism in social inquiry: Some pointers for tourism studies. Tourism Recreation Research, 31(2), 43–58. Hollinshead, K. (2009). The “worldmaking” prodigy of tourism: The reach and power of tourism in the dynamics of change and transformation. Tourism Analysis, 14(1), 139–152. Hollinshead, K. (forthcoming). Postdisciplinarity and the rise of intellectual openness: The necessity for “plural knowability” in tourism studies. Tourism Analysis. Hollinshead, K., Ateljevic, I., & Ali, N. (2009). Worldmaking agency—Worldmaking authority: The sovereign constitutive role of tourism. Tourism Geographies, 11(4), 427– 443. Hooks, B. (2000). Feminism is for everybody: Passionate politics. London: Pluto. Hooks, B. (2003). Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope. New York, NY: Routledge. Huang, S., & Hsu, C. (2008). Recent tourism and hospitality research in China. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 9, 267–287. Hultman, J., & Ek, R. (2011). Can there only be one? Towards a post-paradigmatic service marketing approach. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 3(2), 166– 180. Humberstone, B. (2004). Standpoint research: Multiple versions of reality in tourism theorizing and research. In J. Phillimore & L. Goodson (Eds.), Qualitative research in tourism: Ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies (pp. 119–136). London: Routledge. Hunter, C. (1995). On the need to re-conceptualize sustainable tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 3, 155–165.

Hunter, C. (1997). Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm. Annals of Tourism Research, 24, 850–867. Islam, T., Merrell, W., & Seitz, W. (2010). Galveston futures: Developing a disaster resilient community. Journal of Geography and Regional Planning, 3(1), 1–7. Jafari, J. (1987). Tourism models: The sociocultural aspects. Tourism Management, 8, 151– 159. Jafari, J. (2000). Encyclopedia of tourism. London: Routledge. Jafari, J. (2001). Scientification of tourism. In V. Smith & M. Brent (Eds.), Host and guests revisited: Tourism issues of the 21st century (pp. 28–41). Elmsford: Cognizant Communication Corporation. Jafari, J. (Ed.). (2003). Encyclopedia of tourism. London: Routledge. Jafari, J. (2005a). Bridging out, nesting afield: Powering a new platform. Journal of Tourism Studies, 16(2), 1–5. Jafari, J. (2005b). El turismo como disciplina científica. The scientification of tourism. Política y Sociedad, 42, 39–56. Jafari, J. (2005c). Entry into a new field of study: Leaving a footprint. In D. Nash (Ed.), The study of tourism: Anthropological and sociological beginnings (Vol. 9, pp. 108–121). Tourism Social Science Series. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Jafari, J., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1981). Toward a framework for tourism education: Problems and prospects. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(1), 13–34. Jamal, T. (2013). Resiliency and uncertainty in tourism. In A. Holden (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of tourism and the environment (pp. 505–520). New York, NY: Routledge. Jamal, T., & Camargo, B. A. (2014). Sustainable tourism, justice and an ethic of care: Toward the just destination. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(1), 11–30. Jamal, T., Camargo, B. A., & Wilson, E. (2013). Critical omissions and new directions for sustainable tourism: A situated macro–micro approach. Sustainability 2013, 5(11), 4594– 4613. Jamal, T., & Everett, J. (2004). Resisting rationalization in the natural and academic lifeworld: Critical tourism research or hermeneutic charity? Current Issues in Tourism, 7(1), 1–19. Jamal, T., & Hill, S. (2002). The home and the world: (Post)-touristic spaces of (in)authenticity? In G. Dann (Ed.), The tourist as a metaphor of the social world (pp. 77– 107). Wallingford: CABI. Jamal, T., & Hollinshead, K. (2001). Tourism and the forbidden zone: The underserved power of qualitative inquiry. Tourism Management, 22(1), 63–82. Jamal, T., Smith, B., & Watson, E. (2008). Rankings, ratings and scoring of tourism journals: Interdisciplinary challenges and innovations. Tourism Management, 29, 66–78. Jamal, T., Taillon, J., & Dredge, D. (2011). Sustainable tourism pedagogy and academiccommunity collaboration: A progressive service-learning approach. Journal of Tourism

and Hospitality Research, 11, 133–147. Jamrozy, U. (2007). Marketing of tourism: A paradigm shift toward sustainability. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 1(2), 117–130. Jeffreys, S. (1999). Globalizing sexual exploitation: Sex tourism and the traffic in women. Leisure Studies, 18(3), 179–196. Jelen, T. (1994). Religion and foreign policy attitudes: Exploring the effects of denomination and doctrine. American Politics Quarterly, 22, 382–400. Jennings, G. (2001). Tourism research. London: Wiley. Johnston, L. (2001). (Other) bodies and tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 28, 180–201. Jokilehto, J. (1999). A history of architectural conservation. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Jovičić, Ž. (1972). Turizmologija (Tourismology): Collected papers. Beograd: Faculty of Geography, University of Belgrade. Kaplan, C. (2001). Hillary Rodham Clinton’s orient: Cosmopolitan travel and global feminist subjects. Meridians: Feminism, Race, Transnationalism, 2, 219–240. Kärrholm, M. (2008). The territorialisation of a pedestrian precinct in Malmö: Materialities in the commercialisation of public space. Urban Studies, 45(9), 1903–1924. Kaunonen, L. (2014). Introduction. In L. Kaunonen (Ed.), Cosmopolitanism and transnationalism: Visions, ethics, practices (Vol. 15, pp. 1–13). COLLeGIUM: Studies across Disciplines in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Helsinki: Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies. Retrieved from http://www.helsinki.fi/collegium/journal/volumes/volume%2015/index_15.htm Kincaid, J. (1988). A small place. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kingsbury, P. (2005). Jamaican tourism and the politics of enjoyment. Geoforum, 36(1), 113– 132. Kinnaird, V., & Hall, D. (Eds.). (1994). Tourism: A gender analysis. West Sussex: Wiley. Klein, J. (2012). Francis Bacon. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/francisbacon/. Accessed on July 10, 2014. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Philosophical review (2nd ed., Vol. II). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Laband, D., & Tollison, R. (2000). Intellectual collaboration. Journal of Political Economy, 108, 632–662. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its

challenge to western thought. New York, NY: Basic Books. Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York, NY: Routledge. Law, S. (2011). Humanism: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell. Leinius, J. (2014). Decolonizing cosmopolitanism in practice: From universalizing monologue to intercultural dialogue? In L. Kaunonen (Ed.), Cosmopolitanism and transnationalism: Visions, ethics, practices (Vol. 15, pp. 39–65). COLLeGIUM: Studies across Disciplines in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Helsinki: Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies. Retrieved from http://www.helsinki.fi/collegium/journal/volumes/volume%2015/index_15.htm Leiper, N. (1979). The framework of tourism: Towards a definition of tourism, tourist and the tourism industry. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4), 390–407. Leiper, N. (1993). Defining tourism and related concepts: Tourist, market, industry, and tourism system. In M. A. Khan, M. D. Olsen, & T. Var (Eds.), VNR’s encyclopedia of hospitality and tourism (pp. 539–558). New York, NY: Wiley. Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (2001). The transformation of university–industry– government relations. Electronic Journal of Sociology, 5(4). Retrieved from http://sociology.org/content/vol005.004/th.html Li, X., & Petrick, J. F. (2008). Tourism marketing in an era of paradigm shift. Journal of Travel Research, 46(3), 235–244. Liburd, J. J. (2012). Tourism research 2.0. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 883–907. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (2003). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 253–291). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Littlewood, I. (2002). Sultry climates: Travel and sex. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo. Löfgren, O. (1999). On holiday: A history of vacationing. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press. Lynch, P. (2005). Sociological impressionism in a hospitality context. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(3), 527–548. MacCannell, D. (1976). The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class. New York, NY: Shocken Books. MacCannell, D. (1999). The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class (3rd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. MacCannell, J. F. (2000). Urban perversions. Third Text, 14(51), 65–74. Malone, S., McCabe, S., & Smith, A. P. (2014). The role of hedonism in ethical tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 44(1), 241–254.

Marginson, S., & van der Wende, M. (2007). To rank or to be ranked: The impact of global rankings in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 306–329. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848/1967). The manifesto of the communist party. Moscow: Progress Publications. Mavric, M., & Urry, J. (2009). Tourism studies and the new mobilities paradigm (NMP). In T. Jamal & M. Robinson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of tourism studies (pp. 645–657). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mayunga, J. S. (2007). Understanding and applying the concept of community disaster resilience: A capital-based approach. Working Paper. Summer Academy for Social Vulnerability and Resilience Building, 22–28 July, Munich, Germany. Mayunga, J. S. (2009). Measuring the measure: A multi-dimensional scale model to measure community disaster resilience in the U. S. gulf coast region. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University. Mbaiwa, J., & Stronza, A. (2009). The challenges and prospects for sustainable tourism and ecotourism in developing countries. In T. Jamal & M. Robinson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of tourism studies (pp. 333–353). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McCabe, S. (2005). Who is a tourist? A critical review. Tourist Studies, 5(1), 85–106. McKercher, B., & Du Cros, H. (2004). Attributes of popular cultural attractions in Hong Kong. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 393–407. Medojevic, J., Milosavljevic, S., & Punisic, M. (2011). Paradigms of rural tourism in Serbia in the function of village revitalisation. Human Geography, 5(2), 93–102. Melnick, R. Z. (2009). Climate change and landscape preservation: A twenty-first-century conundrum. Journal of Preservation Technology, 40, 35–42. Merchant, C. (1980). The death of nature: Women, ecology, and the scientific revolution. San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row. Merchant, C. (2001). The death of nature. In M. E. Zimmerman, J. B. Callicott, G. Sessions, K. J. Warrant, & J. Clark (Eds.), Environmental philosophy: From animal rights to radical ecology (pp. 273–286). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Mertens, D. (2012). Transformative mixed methods: Addressing inequalities. American Behavioral Scientist, 20(10), 1–12. Mies, M. (1993). Feminist research: Science, violence and responsibility. In M. Mies & V. Shiva (Eds.), Ecofeminism (pp. 36–54). Halifax: Fernwood Publications. Miller, G. A., & Twining-Ward, L. (2005). Monitoring for a sustainable tourism transition: The challenge of developing and using indicators. Wallingford: CABI. Milligan, M. (1998). Interactional past and potential: The social construction of place attachment. Symbolic Interaction, 21(1), 1–33. Mills, C. (1971). The sociological imagination. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Miralbell, O., Lamsfus, C., Gomis, J., & González, F. (2012). Estudio de las TIC y el turismo en España. Análisis de las ponencias del congreso TURITEC entre 1999 y 2010. In A. Guevara, A. Aguayo, J. Caro, & A. Cerezo (Eds.), TuriTec 2012. Málaga: Facultad de Turismo, Universidad de Málaga. Mkono, M. (2011). African as tourist. Tourism Analysis, 16, 709–713. Molz, J. (2005). Getting a “flexible eye”: Round-the-world travel and scales of cosmopolitan citizenship. Citizenship Studies, 9(5), 517–531. Molz, J. (2006). Cosmopolitan bodies: Fit to travel and travelling to fit. Body & Society, 12(3), 1–21. Molz, J. (2007). Eating difference: The cosmopolitan mobilities of culinary tourism. Space and Culture, 10(1), 77–93. Molz, J. (2011). Cosmopolitanism and consumption. In M. Rovisco & M. Nowicka (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to cosmopolitanism (pp. 33–52). Surrey: Ashgate. Momsen, J. H. (1994). Tourism, gender and development in the Caribbean. In V. Kinnaird & D. Hall (Eds.), Tourism: A gender analysis (pp. 106–120). Chichester: Wiley. Montpetit, M. A., Bergeman, C. S., Deboeck, P. R., Tiberio, S. S., & Boker, S. M. (2010). Resilience-as-process: Negative affect, stress, and coupled dynamical systems. Psychology and Aging, 25(3), 631–640. Moreno, S., & Picazo, P. (2012). Difusión de la investigación científica realizada por instituciones españolas en revistas de turismo. Revista de Análisis Turístico, 14, 33–52. Mostafanezhad, M. (2014). Volunteer tourism: Popular humanitarianism in neoliberal times. Surrey: Ashgate. Moulakis, A. (2011). Civic humanism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter Edition). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/humanism-civic/. Accessed on September 30, 2015. Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (1998). Tourism and sustainability: New tourism in the third world. London: Routledge. Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (2003). Tourism and sustainability. Development and new tourism in the third world (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Munar, A. M. (2007). In the Bologna Process globalizing tourism education? The Journal of Hospitality Leisure Sport and Tourism, 6(2), 68–82. Munar, A. M. (2010). Digital exhibitionism: The age of exposure. Culture Unbound, 2, 401– 422. Munar, A. M. (2013). Paradoxical digital worlds. In A. Munar, S. Gyimóthy, & L. Cai (Eds.), Tourism social media: Transformations in identity, community and culture (Vol. 18, pp. 35–53). Tourism Social Science Series. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Munar, A. M., Biran, A., Budeanu, A., Canton, K., Chambers, D., Dredge, D. Gyimóthy, S.,

Jamal, T., Larson, M., Lindström, K. N., Nygaard, L., & Ram, Y. (2015). The gender gap in the tourism academy: Statistics and indicators of gender equality, while waiting for the dawn. Tourism Education Futures Initiative (TEFI), Report I. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/tourismeducationfutures/about-tefi/gender-equity-in-thetourism-ac. Accessed in April 2015. Munar, A. M., & Botterill, D. (2014). On being an academic. Edinburg: Annual Conference Association of Tourism Higher Education. Munar, A. M., Pernecky, T., & Feighery, W. (2015). Call for papers: 2nd tourism postdisciplinarity conference: Freedom, art, power. Retrieved from http://ammint.wix.com/postdisciplinarity2#!call-for-presentations/cjg9. Accessed on June 10, 2015. Munar, A. M., Pernecky, T., & Feighery, W. (2016). An introduction to tourism postdisciplinarity. Tourism Analysis (forthcoming). Munar, A., Pernecky, T., & Wheeler, B. (forthcoming). Postdisciplinarity through personal reflection: Journeys into art, freedom, and tourism. Tourism Analysis. Murray, A. (2010). Giorgio Agamben. Abingdon: Routledge. Nancy, J.-L. (1992). La compuration/the comparance. From the existence of ‘communism’ to the community of ‘existence’. Political Theory, 20(3), 371–398. National Park Service. (2011). Preservation. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/history/preservation.htm. Accessed on December 7, 2012. Newburn, T. (2001). The commodification of policing: Security networks in the late modern city. Urban Studies, 38(5–6), 829–848. Newton, D. E. (1996). Environmental justice: A reference handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Nielsen, N., & Wilson, E. (2012). From invisible to indigenous-driven: A critical spectrum of indigenous tourism research. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 19, 67– 75. Nietzsche, F. (1992a). Beyond good and evil. In W. Kaufmann (Ed.), The basic writings of Nietzsche. New York, NY: Random House. Nietzsche, F. (1992b). The genealogy of morals. In W. Kaufmann (Ed.), The basic writings of Nietzsche. New York, NY: Random House. Nietzsche, F. (1996). Human all too human. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nietzsche, F. (1966). The basic writings of Nietzsche. New York, NY: The Modern Library. Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F., & Pfefferbaum, R. L. (2008). Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 127–150. Norris, J., & Wall, G. (1994). Gender and tourism. Progress in Tourism, Recreation, and Hospitality Management, 6, 57–78.

Nussbaum, M. (1996). For love of country. Boston, MA: Beacon. Olesen, V. (2011). Feminist qualitative research in the millennium’s first decade: Developments, challenges, prospects. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 129–146). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Onfray, M. (2011). Manifeste hédoniste. Paris: Autrement. Ong, A. (2006). Neoliberalism as exception: Mutations in citizenship and sovereignty. Durham: Duke University Press. Ooi, C. S. (2015). Listen carefully. (Artistic exhibition/installation). 2nd tourism postdisciplinarity conference, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, June 22–24. Ortega, E., & Rodríguez, B. (2004). La investigación turística a través de tesis doctorales. Un análisis comparativo entre españa y Francia. Estudios Turísticos, 159, 5–27. Panosso Netto, A. (2009). What is tourism? Definitions, theoretical phases and principles. In J. Tribe (Ed.), Philosophical issues in tourism (pp. 43–61). Bristol: Channel View Publications. Pansiri, J. (2005). Pragmatism: A methodological approach to strategic alliances in tourism. Tourism and Hospitality Planning and Development, 2(3), 191–206. Park, K., Phillips, W., Canter, D., & Abbott, J. (2011). Hospitality and tourism research rankings by author, university, and country using six major Journals: The first decade of the new millennium. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 35, 381–416. Paskaleva-Shapira, K. (2007). New paradigms in city tourism management: Redefining destination promotion. Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 108–114. Pearce, P. (1993). Defining tourism as a specialism: A justification and implications. Téorors International, 1(1), 25–32. Pernecky, T. (2010). The being of tourism. Journal of Tourism and Peace Research, 1(1), 1– 15. Pernecky, T. (2012). Constructionism: Critical pointers for tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 39, 1116–1137. Pernecky, T. (2014). Realist and constructionist shades of grey. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 295–298. Pernecky, T. (forthcoming). Paradigm, tourism. In J. Jafari & H. Xiao (Eds.), Encyclopedia of tourism. New York, NY: Springer (Quoted with permission from the author). Pernecky, T., & Jamal, T. (2010). (Hermeneutic) phenomenology in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 37, 1055–1075. Peters, A., & Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2012). Demarginalising tourism research: Indigenous Australians as tourists. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 19, 76–84. Peterson, T. R. (1997). Sharing the earth: The rhetoric of sustainable development. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Pezzullo, P. (2007). Toxic tourism: Rhetorics of pollution, travel, and environmental justice. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press. Phillimore, J., & Goodson, L. (Eds.). (2004). Qualitative research in tourism: Ontologies, epistemologies, and methodologies. London: Routledge. Pickett, S., Cadenasso, M. L., & Grove, J. M. (2004). Resilient cities: Meaning, models, and metaphor for integrating the ecological, socio-economic, and planning realms. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, 369–384. Pieri, E. (2014). Contested cosmopolitanism. In L. Kaunonen (Ed.), Cosmopolitanism and transnationalism: Visions, ethics, practices (Vol. 15, pp. 14–38). COLLeGIUM: Studies across Disciplines in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Helsinki: Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies. Retrieved from http://www.helsinki.fi/collegium/journal/volumes/volume%2015/index_15.htm Platenkamp, V., & Botterill, D. (2013). Critical realism, rationality, and tourism knowledge. Annals of Tourism Research, 41, 110–129. Pollack, S., Bhabha, H., Breckenridge, C., & Chakrabarty, D. (2000). Cosmopolitanisms: Introduction to special issue. Public Culture, 12(3), 577–589. Prentice, R. (2004). Tourist motivation and typologies. In A. A. Law, M. C. Hall, & A. M. Williams (Eds.), A companion to tourism (pp. 261–279). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Pritchard, A. (2014). Gender and feminist perspectives in tourism research. In A. Lew, C. M. Hall, & A. Williams (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to tourism (pp. 314–324). Oxford: Wiley. Pritchard, A., Morgan, N., & Ateljevic, I. (2011). Hopeful tourism: A transformative approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 38, 941–963. Pritchard, A., Morgan, N., Ateljevic, I., & Harris, C. (2007). Editors introduction: Tourism, gender, embodiment and experience. In A. Pritchard, N. Morgan, I. Ateljevic, & C. N. Harris (Eds.), Tourism and gender: Embodiment, sensuality and experience (pp. 1–23). Wallingford: CABI. Pritchard, S. B., Koh, A., & Moravec, M. (2015). We look like professors, too. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2015/08/10/essay-explains-new-hashtagcampaign-draw-attention-diversity-professors-and-their Pulido, J. (2006). Debate: Validez de las fuentes de información del turismo español. Revista de Análisis Turístico, 2, 56–69. Rabady, R., & Jamal, T. (2006). An integrated approach to heritage management: The case of Hearne, Texas. Presented by T. Jamal at the Sustainable Tourism conference, Wessex Institute of Technology (UK), Bologna, Italy, September 6–8, 2006. Rabinow, P. (1984). The Foucault reader. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Radest, H. (1969). Toward common ground: The story of the ethical societies in the United States. New York, NY: Ungar.

Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University. Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University. Réau, B. (2014). The historical social science of tourism. Journal of Tourism History, 6, 210– 222. Reilly, N. (2007). Cosmopolitan feminism and human rights. Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, 22(4), 180–198. Reilly, N. (2011). Cosmopolitanism and feminism. In M. Rovisco & M. Nowicka (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to cosmopolitanism (pp. 313–328). Surrey: Ashgate. Reinharz, S. (1979). On becoming a social scientist. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York, NY: Oxford University. Reisinger, Y., & Steiner, C. (2006). Reconceptualizing object authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1), 65–86. Richter, L. K. (1983). Tourism politics and political science. A case of not so benign neglect. Annals of Tourism Research, 10(3), 313–335. Richter, L. K. (1996). The Philippines. The politicization of tourism. In Y. Apostolopoulos, S. Leivadi, & A. Yiannakis (Eds.), The sociology of tourism: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 233–264). London: Routledge. Ritchie, B. W. (2009). Crisis and disaster management for tourism. Bristol: Channel View Publications. Robbins, B. (1998). Actually existing cosmopolitanism. In P. Cheah & B. Robbins (Eds.), Cosmopolitics: Thinking and feeling beyond the nation (pp. 1–19). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Robertson, R. (1995). Glocalization: Time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity. In M. Featherstone, S. Lash, & R. Robertson (Eds.), Global modernities (pp. 25–44). London: Sage. Rodger, K., Moore, S. A., & Newsome, D. (2009). Wildlife tourism, science and actor network theory. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(4), 645–666. Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rosenberg, A. (2012). Philosophy of social science. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Rovisco, M., & Nowicka, M. (2011). Introduction. In M. Rovisco & M. Nowicka (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to cosmopolitanism (pp. 1–16). Surrey: Ashgate. Ryan, S. (2012). Academic zombies a failure of resistance or a means of survival? Australian Universities’ Review, 54(2), 3–11. Rypkema, D. (2009). Economics of historic preservation. Retrieved from http://blog.prcno.org/economics/. Accessed on July 25, 2012.

Said, E. (1991). Orientalism. Western conceptions of the orient. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Salazar, N. (2010). Envisioning Eden: Mobilizing imaginaries in tourism and beyond. New York, NY: Berghahn Books. Salleh, A. K. (1984). Deeper than deep ecology: The eco-feminist connection. Environmental Ethics, 6, 339–345. Sayer, A. (2001). For postdisciplinary studies: Sociology and the curse of disciplinary parochialism/imperialism. In J. Eldridge, J. MacInnes, S. Scott, C. Warhurst, & A. Witz (Eds.), For sociology, legacies and prospects (pp. 83–91). Durham, NC: Sociology Press. Scheyvens, R. (1999). Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tourism Management, 20(2), 245–249. Schlosberg, D. (2013). Theorizing environmental justice: The expanding sphere of a discourse. Environmental Politics, 22(1), 37–55. Schmidt, K. D., & Bødker, M. (2015). Resonant tourism (artistic exhibition/installation). In A. M. Munar, T. Pernecky, & T. Hvar (Eds.), 2nd tourism postdisciplinarity conference: Freedom, art, power, Copenhagen (pp. 49–50), June 22–24. Retrieved from http://openarchive.cbs.dk/bitstream/handle/10398/9260/Proceedings_2nd_Tourism_Postdisciplina sequence=1. Accessed on March 10, 2016. Schram, S. F. (2006). Return to politics: Perestroika, phronesis, and post-paradigmatic political science. In S. Schram & B. Caterino (Eds.), Making political science matter. Debating knowledge, research, and method (pp. 17–32). New York, NY: The New York University Press. Schroeder, R. (2008). Environmental justice and the market: The politics of sharing wildlife revenues in Tanzania. Society and Natural Resources, 21, 583–596. Severt, D., Tesone, D., Bottorff, T., & Carpenter, M. (2009). A world ranking of the top 100 hospitality and tourism programs. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 33, 451– 470. Sharpley, R. (2000). Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the theoretical divide. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8, 1–19. Sharpley, R., & Telfer, D. (2008). Tourism and development in the developing world. London: Routledge. Shields, R. (1999). Lefebvre, love and struggle: Spatial dialectics. London: Routledge. Shiva, V. (1988). Staying alive: Women, ecology, and development. London: Zed Books. Shiva, V. (1997). Economic globalization, ecological feminism and sustainable development. Canadian Woman Studies, 17(2), 22–27. Simmel, G. (1971). On individuality and social forms: Selected writings. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Simpson, T. (2016). Tourist biopolitics and the genealogy of the post-world tourist city. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(1), 27–59.

Small, J. (1999). Memory-work: A method for researching women’s tourist experiences. Tourism Management, 20(1), 25–35. Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books. Smith, V. (1977). Hosts and guests: The anthropology of tourism. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Smith, V. (1989). Host and guests: The anthropology of tourism (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Smith, V., & Brent, M. (Eds.). (2001). Hosts and guests revisited: Tourism issues of the 21st Century. New York, NY: Cognizant. Spennemann, D. H. (2007). The importance of heritage preservation in natural disaster situations. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, 7(6–7), 993– 1001. Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 271–313). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Stephens, J. (1973). The Kuhnian paradigm and political inquiry: An appraisal. American Journal of Political Science, 17(3), 467–488. Stone, P., & Sharpley, R. (2008). Consuming dark tourism: A thanatological perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(2), 574–595. Stonich, S. C. (1998). Political ecology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 25, 25–54. Strid, S., & Husu, L. (Eds.). (2013). GEXcel work in progress report Volume XVIII. Proceedings from GEXcel themes 11–12 visiting scholars: Gender paradoxes in changing academic and scientific organization(s) (pp. 17–26). Retrieved from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/sociology/staff/academicstaff/mariadomarpereira/gexcel.pdf Accessed on April 1, 2015. Sturgeon, N. (1997). Ecofeminist natures: Race, gender, feminist theory and political action. London: Routledge. Svensson, G., Svaeri, S., & Einarsen, K. (2009). ‘Empirical characteristics’ of scholarly journals in hospitality and tourism research: An assessment. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28, 479–483. Swain, M. (1977). Cuna women and ethnic tourism: A way to persist and an avenue to change. In V. Smith (Ed.), Hosts and guests: The anthropology of tourism (pp. 71–82). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Swain, M. (1995). Gender in Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(2), 247–267. Swain, M. (2004). (Dis)embodied experience and power dynamics in tourism research. In J. Phillimore & L. Goodson (Eds.), Qualitative research in tourism: Ontologies, epistemologies, and methodologies (pp. 102–118). London: Routledge. Swain, M. (2009). The cosmopolitan hope of tourism: Critical action and worldmaking vistas.

Tourism Geographies, 11(4), 505–525. Swain, M. (2015). Tourism and cultural landscapes of gender in developing countries. In A. Coles, L. Gray, & J. Momsen (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of gender and development (pp. 341–352). London: Routledge. Swain, M., & Momsen, J. (Eds.). (2002). Gender/tourism/fun(?). Elmsford, NY: Cognizant Press. Swain, M. B. (1995). Gender in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 22, 247–266. Swain, M. B. (2004). (Dis)embodied experience and power dynamics in tourism research. In J. Phillimore & L. Goodson (Eds.), Qualitative research in tourism: Ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies (pp. 102–118). London: Routledge. Swain, M. B., & Swain, M. T. B. (2004). An ecofeminist approach to ecotourism development. Tourism Recreation Research, 29(3), 1–6. Swain, M. B., & Swain, M. T. B. (2015). Delicate flower?! Mother-daughter reflections as situated co-researchers in Southwest China. In C. Cornet & T. Blumenfield (Eds.), Doing fieldwork in China … with kids! The dynamics of accompanied fieldwork in the people’s republic. Copenhagen: NIAS Press. Swyngedouw, E. (2011). Interrogating post-democratization: Reclaiming egalitarian political space. Political Geography, 30(7), 370–380. Takeuchi, & Nakamura (2002). An analysis of the primary terms in tourism research. Japanese Journal of Tourism Studies, 1(November), 95–106. (published in Japanese). Tan, C., Cheung, S., & Yang, H. (Eds.). (2001). Tourism, anthropology and Chinese society: In memory of Professor Wang Zhusheng (English volume). Bangkok: White Lotus Press. Tesfahuney, M., & Dahlstedt, M. (2008). Maze of camps: (Im)mobilities, racism and spaces of exception. In M. Holmgren Troy & E. Wennö (Eds.), Space, haunting, discourse (pp. 170– 199). London: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Tesfahuney, M., & Schough, K. (2009). Postpolis. In G. Graninger & C. Knutshammar (Eds.), Samhällsbyggande och integration: Frågor om Assimilation, Mångfald och Boende (pp. 119–148). Linköping: Linköping University. Tian, Y., Lee, H., & Law, R. (2011). A comparison of research topics in leading tourism journals. International Journal of Tourism Sciences, 11, 108–126. Torgé, M. (2007). Ecotourism in Donsol—Ecofeminist perspectives. Master’s thesis, Linköping University, Sweden. Tourism Education Futures Initiative. (2014). Walking workshop, Nepal. Retrieved from http://www.tourismeducationfutures.org/2014-walking-conference-nepal. Accessed on September 10, 2015. Tourism Intelligence International. (2012). The Paradigm shift in travel and tourism: Win or die. Santa Cruz: Tourism Intelligence International. Toyabe, S., Sagawa, T., Ueda, M., Muneyuki, E., & Sano, M. (2010). Experimental

demonstration of information-to-energy conversion and validation of the generalized Jarzynski equality [Electronic version]. Nature Physics, 6(Dec), 988–992. Macmillan Publishers Limited. Tribe, J. (1997). The indiscipline of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 638–657. Tribe, J. (2001). Research paradigms and the tourist curriculum. Journal of Travel Research, 39(4), 442–448. Tribe, J. (2006). The truth about tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 33, 360–381. Tribe, J. (2010). Tribes, territories and networks in the tourism academy. Annals of Tourism Research, 37, 7–33. Tribe, J., Dann, G., & Jamal, T. (2015). Paradigms in tourism research: A trialogue. Tourism, Recreation, Research (40th anniversary ed.), 40(1), 28–47. Tribe, J., & Xiao, H. (2011). Developments in tourism social science. Annals of Tourism Research, 38, 7–26. Tucker, H. (2016). Empathy and tourism: Limits and possibilities. Annals of Tourism Research, 57, 31–43. Turner, V. (1969). The ritual process. Structure and anti-structure. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Twain, M. (1985). The innocents abroad: Or the new pilgrim’s progress. London: Collins. Twining-Ward, L., & Butler, R. (2002). Implementing STD on a small island: Development and use of sustainable tourism development indicators in Samoa. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(5), 363–387. Tyrrell, T., & Johnston, R. (2008). Tourism sustainability, resiliency and dynamics: Towards a more comprehensive perspective. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 8, 14–24. United Nations. (2000). Millennium development goals and beyond 2015. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/. Accessed on October 4, 2013. Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze. Leisure and travel in contemporary societies. London: Sage. Urry, J. (2000). Sociology beyond societies: Mobilities for the twenty-first century. London: Routledge. Urry, J. (2002). The tourist gaze (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Valdés Pizzini, M. (2006). Historical connections and future trends in the coastal zone, the environment movement of Puerto Rico. In S. L. Baver & B. D. Lynch (Eds.), Beyond sun and sand: Caribbean environmentalism (pp. 44–64). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Vargas, A. (2011). ¿Los principales destinos son también las principales potencias en la investigación en turismo? Estudios Turísticos, 188, 91–111. Veijola, S. (2014). Towards silent communities. In S. Veijola, J. Germann Molz, O. Pyyhtinen,

E. Höckert, & A. Grit (Eds.), Disruptive tourism and its untidy guests: Alternative ontologies for future hospitalities (pp. 68–95). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Veijola, S., Germann Molz, J., Pyyhtinen, O., Höckert, E., & Grit, A. (2014). Disruptive tourism and its untidy guests: Alternative ontologies for future hospitalities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Veijola, S., & Jokinen, E. (1994). The body in tourism. Theory, Culture & Society, 11(3), 125–151. Vera, F., López-Palomeque, F., Marchena, M., & Anton, S. (1997). Análisis territorial del turismo: una nueva geografía del turismo. Barcelona: Ariel. Vertovec, S., & Cohen, R. (2002). Introduction: Conceiving cosmopolitanism. In S. Vertovec & R. Cohen (Eds.), Conceiving cosmopolitanism (pp. 1–24). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vidmar-Horvat, K. (2013). A wandering paradigm, or is cosmopolitanism good for women? QBJ Querelles. Jarbuch für Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung. Retrieved from http://www.querelles.de/index.php/qjb/article/view/3/5 Walker, B., Holling, C., Carpenter, S., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5 Walle, A. H. (1997). Quantitative versus qualitative tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 524–536. Wang, N. (2000). Tourism and modernity: A sociological analysis. Oxford: Elsevier. Warren, K. J. (1987). Feminism and ecology: Making connections. Environmental Ethics, 9, 3–21. Warren, K. J. (1997). Ecofeminism—women, culture, nature. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press. Warren, K. J. (2001). The power and promise of ecological feminism. In M. E. Zimmerman et al (Eds.), Environmental philosophy: From animal rights to radical ecology. New Brunswick, NJ: Prentice Hall. Warren, K. J., & Cheney, J. (1991). Ecological feminism and ecosystem ecology. Hypatia, 6(1), 179–197. Wearing, B., & Wearing, S. (1996). Refocusing the tourist experience: The Flâneur and the choraster. Leisure Studies, 15(4), 229–243. Wearing, S., McDonald, M., & Ponting, J. (2005). Building a decommodified research paradigm in tourism: The contribution of NGOs. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(5), 424–439. Wells, J. C., & Baldwin, E. D. (2012). Historic preservation, significance, and age value: A comparative phenomenology of historic Charleston and the nearby new-urbanist community of I’On. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32, 384–400.

Werbner, P. (2008). Introduction: Towards a new cosmopolitan anthropology. In P. Werbner (Ed.), Anthropology and the new cosmopolitanism: Rooted, feminist and vernacular perspectives (pp. 1–29). New York, NY: Berg. West, C. (1989). The American evasion of philosophy: A genealogy of pragmatism. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. West, P., & Carrier, J. G. (2004). Ecotourism and authenticity: Getting away from it all? Current Anthropology, 45(4), 483–498. West, P., Igoe, J., & Brockington, D. (2006). Parks and people: The social impact of protected areas. Annual Review of Anthropology, 35, 251–277. Wight, A. C. (2006). Philosophical and methodological praxes in dark tourism: Controversy, contention and the evolving paradigm. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 12(2), 119–129. Wilson, E., Harris, C., & Small, J. (2008). Furthering critical approaches in tourism and hospitality studies: Perspectives from Australia and New Zealand. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 15, 15–18. Wilson, E., & Hollinshead, K. (2015). Qualitative tourism research: Opportunities in the emergent soft sciences. Annals of Tourism Research, 54, 30–47. Wolfe, C. (1998). Critical environments: Postmodern theory and the pragmatics of the “outside”. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Wolfe, C. (2010). What is posthumanism? Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our common future. New York, NY: Oxford University. World Tourism Organization. (2013). UNWTO annual report 2012. Madrid: UNWTO. Wu, B., Xiao, H., Dong, X., Wang, M., & Xue, L. (2012). Tourism knowledge domains: A keyword analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 17, 355–380. Xiao, H. (2013). Jafar Jafari: The platform builder. Anatolia, 24(2), 288–296. Xiao, H., & Smith, S. (2006). The making of tourism research: Insights from a social sciences journal. Annals of Tourism Research, 33, 490–507. Ye, Q., Li, T., & Law, R. (2013). A coauthorship network analysis of tourism and hospitality research collaboration. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 37, 51–76. Žižek, S. (1996). For they know not what they do: Enjoyment as a political factor. London: Verso. Žižek, S. (1999). The ticklish subject: The absent centre of political ontology. London: Verso. Žižek, S. (2000). The fragile absolute: Or, why is the Christian legacy worth fighting for? London: Verso.

About the Authors Blanca A. Camargo is Associate Professor in the International Tourism Program at Universidad de Monterrey, Mexico. She received her doctoral degree from Texas A&M (USA) University and her research is oriented toward sustainable tourism with a focus on ethics and justice in tourism development, marketing, and management. She is also interested in examining aspects of cultural relationships with nature, accessibility for tourists with disabilities, and sustainable tourism and ethics pedagogy. She is now a member of Mexico National System of Researchers and has won several awards for her academic contributions in tourism. Gemma Cànoves-Valiente is Professor at the Department of Geography, Autonomous University of Barcelona (Spain). Her research interest includes interaction of tourism with culture, religion, and heritage, rural, and inland areas. She is the head of the research group Tudistar (Tudistar.com/es) and has published several books and articles in academic journals. She is on the editorial board of the main tourism journals in Spain, has occupied different positions in academic bodies, and earlier was Head of Research at the School of Tourism in the Autonomous University of Barcelona. Kellee Caton is Associate Professor of Tourism Studies at Thompson Rivers University in Canada. She holds a PhD from the University of Illinois (USA). Her research focuses on how tourism can be understood as a sociocultural phenomenon and how it can reshape the world. In particular, she is interested in the moral dimensions of these two epistemic processes. She co-chairs the Critical Tourism Studies network, sits on the editorial boards of Annals of Tourism Research and Tourism Analysis, and serves on the executive team of the Tourism Education Futures Initiative. José-Antonio Corral-Marfil is Lecturer at Economics and Business Department, University of Vic – Central University of Catalonia (UVic-UCC). He holds a degree in business economics and a PhD in geography, both from the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB). Besides tourism research analysis, his current research interests are related to destination management, management education, sports marketing and sponsorship, roller hockey, agro-ecological entrepreneurship, and ecomuseums. He is a member of research group Emprèn—Entrepeneurship Studies (UVic-UCC) and collaborator of research group Tudistar—Tourism and New Socioterritorial Dynamics in Rural Areas (UAB). Graham M. S. Dann , PhD, DLitt, is a founding member of the International Academy for the Study of Tourism and the Research Committee on International Tourism of the International Sociological Association. From the mid-1970s onward, many of his publications deal with tourist motivation and the corresponding semiotics of tourism

promotion, the most well-known of which is The Language of Tourism: A Sociolinguistic Perspective. After spending 21 years teaching and researching in Barbados, followed by an appointment as Professor of Tourism at the University of Bedfordshire (UK), he is currently Emeritus Professor of Tourism at the Arctic University of Norway. Richard Ek is currently Associate Professor in Human Geography at the Department of Service Management and Service Studies, Lund University (Sweden). His research deals with topological space, mobilities, biopolitics and power, as well as geophilosophy and political philosophy, and addresses empirical fields as tourism, social media, and planning. His latest contributions are chapters in the anthologies Tourism Encounters and Controversies: Ontological Politics of Tourist Development (Jóhannesson, Ren, & van der Duim, Eds.), Planning against the Political. Democratic Deficits in European Territorial Governance (Metzger, Allmendinger, & Oosterlynck, Eds.), and The Routledge Companion to Global Popular Culture (Miller, Ed.). Tazim Jamal is Associate Professor at Texas A&M University (USA). Her primary tourism research areas are related to sustainability, collaborative planning, and cultural heritage management. She also addresses theoretical, applied, and methodological issues in tourism research, with particular interest in justice and ethics, critical pedagogies, and interpretive research. She has conducted community-based tourism research internationally in various countries including Canada, Mexico, and Australia, and locally in Texas. She is the co-editor of The SAGE Handbook of Tourism Studies (2009) and is on the editorial board of several academic journals. Carolina Manrique is Assistant Professor at University of Idaho (USA). She holds a PhD in Architecture from Texas A&M University (USA). Her dissertation aimed toward an integrated approach between heritage conservation and tourism. Topics included causes and consequences of preservation material decisions in cultural and heritage sites. She is an architect with a Master’s degree in building technology and another advanced degree in structural analysis of monuments and historical constructions. Her current research focuses on developing the notion of resilience in architecture through the relationships between building technology and design. Ana María Munar is Associate Professor at Copenhagen Business School, (Denmark). With research interests in digital technologies, epistemology, higher education, and gender, her latest publications focus on postdisciplinarity in knowledge production, novel approaches to integrate the field of digital technologies in the curriculum and academic gender equality in tourism. She is on several international boards and teams, including the Diversity and Inclusion Council, the Association of Faculty Staff, Tutors for the Assistant Professors Pedagogical Program, the Tourism Education Futures Initiative, and many multidisciplinary tourism journals.

Margaret Byrne Swain is an anthropologist and an Emerita from Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies, University of California, Davis (USA). She continues to stitch together cosmopolitan theory, tourism studies, and the ethnography of Southwest China with feminist threads, constructing and attempting to answer questions with mended methods and embroidered epistemologies from various disciplines. Her concerns focus on ethical and praxis issues around gender equality, situated in the glocalized world. Earlier publications include conceiving and editing the Annals of Tourism Research Special Issue on Gender in Tourism (1995) and co-editing the collection Gender/Tourism/Fun(?) (2002). Kazuyoshi Takeuchi is Chair and Professor of the Department of English Communication at Jissen Women’s Junior College (Tokyo). He is a member of the board of executive directors on the Japan Institute of Tourism Research. With a licence as a national tourist guide of Japan, he holds an MA and a PhD in the Study of Tourism from Rikkyo University, Niiza. His research focuses, from a sociolinguistic approach, on the quality control of onsite labels or signage at tourism attractions. Based on a foundation of natural sciences, he studies the holistic description of the mechanism of touristic phenomena. Mekonnen Tesfahuney is Associate Professor in Human Geography, Department of Geography, Media and Communication at Karlstad’s University (Sweden). His research deals with space, mobilities, power, geo-media, and geo-philosophy. He has published articles on a wide variety of topics such as post-politics, nihilist planning, space, and racism. He is the co-editor of the Swedish anthology dealing with biopolitics, citizenship, space, and power The Best of All Possible Worlds? (2008). He is also the coeditor of a forthcoming anthology Privileged Mobilities: Tourism as World Ordering (2016), which examines tourism as an agent of de- and re-territorialization. Robert Warden is Professor in the Department of Architecture and Director of the Center for Heritage Conservation in the College of Architecture at Texas A&M University (USA). He has been a member of this faculty for 20 years. With a BS in Electrical Engineering from Purdue University, MArch professional degree in Architecture from Texas A&M, and an MA in Philosophy from University of New Mexico, he teaches courses in Design Theory, Historic Preservation, and Architectural Design. His primary research interests focus on recording techniques of historic structures and how those techniques aid analyses in Engineering, History, Archeology, and Architecture. Erica Wilson is Associate Professor and Deputy Head in the School of Business and Tourism at Southern Cross University (Australia). Her PhD studies at Griffith University explored the experiences of solo women travelers. Her academic scholarship revolves around the use of critical theory to understand—and to challenge— tourism studies. She is particularly interested in how critical and “alternative” methods present challenges to the current ways of knowing in the (tourism) social sciences. This critical thread

runs through her core academic areas, including tourism and gender, sustainability, protected and World Heritage areas, as well as qualitative and feminist methodologies.