Annals ofTowism Research, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp.

868-883, 1997
0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
Pergamon zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCB
All rights reserved. PrInted in Great Britain
Olt?O-7383/97 $17.00+0.00

PII:SO160-7383(97)00060-l

THE DISCIPLINARY DILEMMA OF

TOURISM STUDIES zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZY
Charlotte M. Echtner
Tazim B. Jamal
University of Calgary, Canada

Abstract: Though tourism is a complex phenomenon crossing many disciplines, researchers

tend to approach tourism studies from within the specific boundaries of the main discipline in
which they have been trained. Existing tourism theory is thus fragmented and weak. This paper
looks at the potential for developing more holistic and integrated theories than currently exist,
and for tourism studies evolving into a distinct discipline. The current state of debate in this
area is introduced, and several disciplines impacting on tourism studies are examined. Insights
are drawn from two distinct philosophy of science perspectives, T. S. Kuhn and R. J. Bernstein.
Suggestions are made for advancing the evolution and integration of tourism studies.
Keywords: theory, discipline, philosophy of science, paradigm, philosophical perspectives,
methodology. 0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

R&urn& Le dilemme disciplinaire des etudes du tourisme. Bien que le tourisme soit un
phtnom&ne complexe 06 se croisent beaucoup de disciplines, les chercheurs tendent a abordcr
les etudes du tourisme & partir des dClimitations spCcifiques du discipline principal dam lequel
ils ont re~u leur formation. La thCorie qui existe actuellement pour le tourisme est done
fragmentaire et faible. Cet article examine les possibilitts de d&lopper des thtories plus
holistiques et inttgrCes que celles qui existent d6jjh et de faire tvoluer les etudes du tourisme
en un discipline stpart. On prCsente I’ttat actuel du dtbat A ce sujet, et on tire des id&s de
deux perspectives diffkrentes de la philosophie de la science, par T.S. Kuhn et RJ. Bernstein.
On fait des suggestions pour avanccr les Ctudes du tourisme de leur phase actuelle prt-
paradigmatique. Mot+cl&: thtorie, discipline, philosophie de la science, paradigme, per-
spectives philosophiques, mtthodalogie. 0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

INTRODUCTION zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFE
The study of the tourism phenomenon is a relatively recent addition
to academic endeavor. The terms used to describe the movement of
people for pleasure, “ tourism” and “ tourist” , were only coined at the
beginning of the 19th century (Smith 1989:17). The study of tourism
subsequently evolved during the 20th century and is currently housed
within a diverse range of disciplines. Jafari and Ritchie (1981) ident-
ified five main academic disciplines in tourism research: economics,
sociology, psychology, geography, and anthropology. Later, a review
by Jafari and Aaser ( 1988) f ound 15 main disciplines present in 157
doctoral dissertations regarding tourism. In a similar vein, a survey

Charlotte Echtner and Tazim Jamal are Ph.D. candidates in the Tourism Management
Program at the University of Calgary (Calgary AB., Canada TZN lN4. Email echtner@
acs.ucalgary,ca). Echtner’s area of concentration is tourism marketing, with a special interest
in destination image, Third World tourism issues, and alternative methodological approaches.
Jamal’s area of concentration is strategic destination management with a special interest in
multisectorial collaborations, sustainable development, and tourism in developing countries.

868
 ECHTNER AND JAMAL 869 zyxwvutsrq

of North American tourism and hospitality researchers by Sheldon

(1990) showed that journals from a wide variety of disciplines were
referenced by and published in by these researchers. These disciplines
included economics, business studies, marketing, psychology, anthro-
pology, and geography.
Despite the diversity of disciplines impacting on tourism studies,
according to Pearce (1993), it appears that tourism educators often
assume that there are core principles, facts, and methods to deliver
to students. This is an uncomfortable assumption in a new study area
like tourism. Pearce suggests that pre-paradigmatic study areas, such
as tourism, should have a greater tolerance for eclectic and diverse
approaches to investigation. Yet, many tourism researchers seem
unwilling to reach across disciplinary and methodological boundaries.
Noting these complexities, how then should one approach the study
of tourism? The purpose of this paper is to examine the area of
tourism studies, in order to stimulate a re-examination of this field’s
disciplinary dilemmas.

THE DISCIPLINARY DILEMMA

There is considerable discussion among tourism scholars con-
cerning methodological issues, research orientations, and the most
appropriate approaches to tourism studies (Comic 1989; Dann, Nash
and Pearce 1988; Jafari 1989, 1990; J ovicic 1988; Morley 1990; Pearce
1993; Pearce and Butler 1993; Ritchie and Goeldner 1994; Rogozinski
1985; Smith 1989; Witt, Brooke and Buckley 1991). These discussions
also reveal that tourism scholars are divided in their opinions as to
whether tourism should be studied as a distinct discipline or as an
area of specialization within existing disciplines.
Jovicic (1988) makes a plea for the establishment of “ tourismology” ,
or a distinct science of tourism. He argues that the study of tourism
as a complex phenomenon cannot be adequately addressed from
within anyone existing discipline. He further suggests that the various
disciplines that currently house tourism studies, including economics,
sociology, and geography, “ . . . fail to grasp the notion of the whole
and endeavor to explain the entity which is tourism by its individual
aspects” (1988:Z). A ccording to him, only the emergence of a distinct
discipline, such as tourismology, will allow for the development of an
integrated theory of tourism. Tourismology would facilitate the
merger of the specialized studies now occurring within diverse disci-
plines and would allow tourism to be examined as a composite
phenomenon. While Jovicic admits that tourismology does not yet
exist, he is optimistic that it “ will find its full assertion in the near
future” (1988:Z).
As Jovicic notes, “ . . . the observation of individual elements inde-
pendently of the whole has resulted in a mistaken definition of tourism
as a [solely] economic, geographic, or sociological phenomenon”
(1988:3). He concludes that this fragmentation has impeded, and will
continue to impede, the growth of theory in tourism. Certain scholars
agree with Jovicic (Comic 1989; Rogozinski 1985). They suggest that
the study of tourism will continue to suffer from a lack of depth and
870 DISCIPLINARY DILEM M A OF TOURISM STUDIES zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgf
zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

totality as long as research is fragmented among various disciplines.

It will only be through an integration of the various branches of
tourism research that general theories, models, and concepts will be
developed (Rogozinski 1985). These authors indicate that if tourism
is not studied as a whole, arguments will persist with regard to defi-
nitions, scope, and frameworks. These disagreements will stem mainly
from attempts to describe and define tourism from within various
disciplinary boundaries.
Other tourism scholars, while noting the lack of integrated frame-
works and concepts in tourism studies, have been unwilling to endorse
the development of tourism as a distinct discipline (Dann, Nash and
Pearce 1988; Jafari 1990; Pearce 1993; Pearce and Butler 1993; Witt,
Brooke and Buckley 1991). Instead, they stress the need for greater
crossdisciplinary research to overcome conceptual and methodological
difficulties. Dann, Nash and Pearce, in their discussion of methodology
in tourism research, suggest that tourism was “ discovered” by the
social sciences in the early 70s. However, they submit that whether
tourism will require unique conceptual approaches and methodologies
“ is still largely debatable” (1988:2). Witt, Brooke and Buckley main-
tain that it is unrealistic to expect tourism to have “ a single theoretical
underpinning” and argue that its research will remain “ dynamic,
variegated and at times internally conflictual” ( 199 1: 164). Pearce
(1993) maintains that the lack of major tourism theories is inherent
rather than being the temporary aberrant of an early study area. Thus,
these scholars seem doubtful that a distinct discipline of tourism, such
as tourismology, can or should be developed.
Jafari ( 1990:38) ar g ues that more systematic research is required
in tourism studies, but admits that he would have serious problems
with the development of a doctorate degree in tourism. While implying
that tourism education and research should remain grounded within
existing disciplines, he does, however, recommend that tourism sch-
olars strive to develop a crossdisciplinary “ knowledge-based platform”
based on a scientific foundation. Such a platform would place tourism
studies in a lzrger context and encourage the development of more
holistic, universally applicable definitions, models and theories. Other
tourism scholars appear to be in agreement that the solution lies
not necessarily in forming a distinct discipline of tourism but in
encouraging more crossdisciplinary research (e.g., Pearce and Butler
1993; Witt, Brooke and Buckley 1991).
A limited amount of such “ boundary spanning” , crossdisciplinary
research is beginning to emerge in the literature. Morley (1990)
tackles the very fundamental issue of developing a more encompassing
definition of the concept of tourism. He notes that previous attempts
to define tourism have been colored by the disciplinary backgrounds
of researchers and are not fully comparable. He argues that a model,
synthesized from the various disciplinary definitions and frameworks,
is the most general and inclusive way to define the basic concept of
tourism. “ Necessary complexities and relationships can be expressed
more clearly in a model which has a dynamic and multidimensional
capacity than in the static definitional form” (1990:6). While Morley’s
model may not completely succeed in providing an integrated defi-
 ECHTNER AND JAMAL 871 zyxwvutsrq

nition of tourism, it is, nonetheless, an important step in the right

direction. Jafari’s (1989) i d eas on the structure of tourism is another
insightful attempt to model tourism from a more holistic perspective.
The debate concerning the disciplinary development of tourism is
unlikely to be resolved in the near future, for the evolution of tourism
studies as a distinct discipline faces significant challenges. Some fur-
ther insight into these challenges may be provided by first examining
the zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
intradisciplinary conflicts prevalent within each of the diverse disci-
plines currently housing tourism studies and then moving on to
explore the interdisci$inaT issues arising among these various disci-
plines.

The Intradisciflinaly Perspective

The growth of the tourism industry after the second World War led
to an increase in academic literature and a concern about tourism
impacts. It was not until the 70s that tourism became a strong focus
of study for researchers and scholars in different disciplines. While
marketers examined promotion and tourism behavior, geographers
and ecologists studied carrying capacity, and sociologists and anthro-
pologists tried to decipher the nature of tourism pilgrimage, play and,
ritual (Graburn and Jafari 1991:4). Disciplines, as such, have the
effect of bounding and defining what aspects of tourism will be studied.
Such interdisciplinary isolation creates barriers for the development
of a more holistic understanding of tourism. In addition to grappling
with this challenge of disciplinary isolation, researchers and educators
also have to contend with the philosophical and methodological
debates within various disciplines. A sample of these perspectives can
highlight the types of discipline-based debates influencing the study
of tourism.

Sociology and Social Psychology

The sociology of tourism has generally come into prominence over

the last 2 to 3 decades and contains significant challenges in theor-
etical and methodological integration. Competing schools advocate
positivist, quantitative approaches and procedures, or interpretive,
qualitative approaches such as phenomenology, ethnomethodology,
and symbolic interactionism (Dann and Cohen 1991: 156, 166). While
noting that there is no single sociology of tourism, Dann and Cohen
(199 1) summarize three positions among researchers trying to con-
textualize the field: some argue for locating the sociology of tourism
within a “ sociology of migration” , others within a “ sociology of
leisure” , while a third group prefers to emphasize the travel dimen-
sions of tourism. Cohen offers an early observation that “ simplistic
and global views of the tourist and of the impact of tourism on
the host societies prevent one from developing a more sophisticated
approach to tourism. . . ” (1979:20). He points to the sharp reaction
against the accepted view of the tourist, initiated by MacCannell’s
innovative research (Cohen 1979:21). In addition to MacCannell’s
872 DISCIPLINARY DILEM M A OF TOURISM STUDIES zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgf

(1976) seminal book, other innovative perspectives are being intro-

duced into the sociology of tourism, such as Dann (1996) and Urry
(1990).
A major debate in social psychology (which contributes to leisure
studies in tourism) has been between controlled, experimental meth-
odologies versus the use of less regulated cultural settings for execut-
ing surveys, fieldwork, or humanistic studies (Mannell 1982). The
crisis for social psychology scholars, evident in the 7Os, has been
attributed to a number of factors, including charges of over-reliance
on the experimental methods typical of the physical sciences, and of
theories that are too behavioristic. Gunter (1987) points out the lack
of definitional consensus of leisure, and the difficulties associated with
developing empirical measurement methods. He notes that frus-
tration on these and other difficulties has led many scholars to suggest
a shift to examining the leisure experience as a beginning point for
leisure analysis. Mannell, for example, calls for a cognitive social
psychology of leisure experience that would “ focus on determining
the internal and external influences on the meaning, quality, duration,
intensity, and memorability of leisure experiences” (1982: 140). As
growing human populations and increasing global tourism impact on
natural and cultural resources, it will become increasingly important
to understand and to manage the leisure experience and its use of
these resources. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCB

Geography

Following World War II, dissatisfaction with the philosophies and

empirical-inductive methods guiding geographic research led to a
quantitative, theoretical revolution in the 6Os, stimulated by progress
in the natural sciences (Mitchell and Murphy 1991:58). Processes
were borrowed from the natural sciences and neoclassical economics
aiming to develop a general theory and common, objective research
tools (empirical, positivist). Since then, positivism has been coming
under increasing attack by scholars in human geography (focusing on
the studyofhuman and social behavior within geography). Humanistic
geography philosophy favors qualitative research based on subjective
perspectives, versus the objective, “ expert” view adopted by physical
geographers (Cloke, Philo and Sadler 1991). Another philosophical
backlash to positivism came to be called radical geography, where
concern for social issues, forgotten by the quantitative revolution of
the 6Os, followed a more relativist and critical approach. Today, both
the older traditions of physical geography and newer approaches (e.g.,
postmodern analysis) are followed by geographers in tourism studies.

Anthropology

This discipline’s interest in tourism has been manifest since the

70s and is now well established, using methodologies and theories
from its own and other disciplines (Nash and Smith 1991:13). Despite
the disciplinary overlap (especially with sociology), anthropology
 ECHTNER AND JAMAL 873 zyxwvutsrqp

offers a distinct point of view on tourism as an element of human

culture, where the “ main foci of attention are the forces that generate
tourists and tourism, the transactions between cultures or subcultures
that are an intrinsic part of all tourism, and the consequences for the
cultures and individuals within them” (Nash and Smith 1991:22).
From a methodological perspective, the holistic, qualitative con-
tribution of anthropology is quite widely acknowledged by tourism
scholars. The interpretive approach characterizing this field is eth-
nography, concerned with interpreting human behavior in its cultural
and social setting. A seminal work in this area is zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYX
Hosts and Guests: The
Anthropology of Tourism (Smith 1977). Since then, other methodological
approaches are bringing challenging insights into the anthropology of
tourism. For example, Errington and Gewertz’s (1989) ethnographic
study of tourists and anthropologists proposes the need a for a height-
ened awareness of the political distinctions between tourists and
anthropologists in the “ postmodern” study setting.

Organizational and Strategy Research

Within this study area, which impacts on tourism organizations,

conflict can be observed between interpretive and positivist
approaches, where the interpretive one is a relative newcomer on the
scene. These two positions seem to be held to be incommensurable,
with positivists claiming for only natural science methods to be applied
to research (Daft 1983), while interpretive scholars argue for
approaches such as phenomenology, hermeneutics, and ethnography.
Deshpande and Webster (1989) p rovide a historical perspective on
theory development in organizational culture, drawing from anthro-
pology, sociology, and organization behavior. They note the heated
debate between scholars who support techniques for statistical infer-
ence on survey data versus those who use ethnographic methods to
study organizational culture, and argue for the usefulness of employ-
ing both methods.
In the field of strategy research, conflict between planned versus
emergent strategic behavior (Mintzberg and Waters 1985), and about
the relationship between structure, strategy, and the environment,
has led authors like Ansoff (1987) to propose a paradigmatic meta-
model of strategic behavior, based on the Kuhn (1970) structure of
scientific paradigms. Ansoff s model attempts to integrate most of the
conflicting theories of strategy behavior within the boundaries of a
dominant paradigm. Acceptance by the academic community of such
a paradigm could permit housing both positivist traditions (as
embodied by formal strategic planning approaches) and relativist
concepts of strategic management (Smirch& and Stubbart 1985)
under a common umbrella. This could then provide a guideline for
strategic research in tourism and other areas. However, this inte-
gration has yet to occur (Jamal and Getz 1996).
Sustainable tourism planning and development requires integrated
and holistic approaches to strategy. But, effective tourism planning
and policy development at various levels (organizational, local,
874 DISCIPLINARY DILEM M A OF TOURISM STUDIES zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfe

regional, national, and global) tends to be impeded by poor under-

standing of the complexity of the tourism domain and the merits of
diverse methodological approaches to gaining knowledge. The close
interdependencies among the natural environment, host communi-
ties, governments, and organizations dealing with tourism, means
that organization and strategy researchers (and managers) of tourism
need to take many inter-related factors into consideration. Not only
do they need to understand the complex and differing perspectives
related to strategic behavior in their own field, they also should have
a good understanding of the research traditions and methodologies
used to address related issues in other disciplines. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZ

M arketing and Consumer Research

Two strong scientific philosophies have vied for dominance in mar-

keting: scientific or convergent realism (Cooper 1987; Hunt 1990,
1992) and critical relativism as defined by Anderson (1983, 1986,
1988). This debate is ontological and epistemological in nature, ques-
tioning truth, reality, and the demarcation between science and non-
science. The marketing researchers that advocate scientific realism
maintain that “ truth” be the goal of marketing research and argue
for a “ fallibilistic” and “ critical” realism where the job of science is
to develop genuine knowledge about the world. Such knowledge will
never be known with certainty (fallibilistic realism), but all knowledge
must be critically evaluated through “ intersubjective certification” to
determine the extent of its correspondence with the world (critical
realism) (Hunt 1990:9). This position of scientific realism and truth
objectivity is rejected by marketing researchers supporting critical
relativism (such as Anderson, 1983, 1986), who place the responsibility
of evaluating knowledge production on the consensus of the academic
community itself. As summarized by Laudan “ the fact that 2,400 years
of searching for a demarcation criterion has left us empty handed
raises a presumption that the object of the quest is non-existent”
(Laudan 1980:275).
Another similar debate can be observed in the consumer research
area within marketing, more focused on method (i.e., humanist/
interpretive versus positivistic techniques). The traditional view has
centered on positivism (Calder and Tybout 1987). On the other hand,
researchers such as Holbrook and O’Shaugnessy (1988) advocate an
interpretive approach, arguing that consumer research (as opposed
to the natural sciences), deals with understanding and explicating the
meanings embedded in human behavior. They also point out that
“ interpretation always admits and generally requires an intrinsically
empirical approach” via a hermeneutical process (Holbrook and
O’Shaugnessy 1988:40 1). Thomson, Locander and Pollio ( 1989: 139)
call for an existential-phenomenological approach, where under-
standing is attained by interpreting lived experience, using the her-
meneutical circle. Interestingly, even Hunt (1991:41) calls for greater
integration (“ rapprochement” ) and tolerance of different approaches,
while adopting a critical scrutiny (“ critical pluralism” ) in consumer
 ECHTNER AND JAMAL 875 zyxwvutsrq

research philosophy. Tourism scholars drawing on marketing and

consumer behavior research are well advised to understand the metho-
dological debates in these areas, and their influence on the study of
tourism and tourist behavior.
This discussion, drawing on perspectives from different disciplines,
illustrates some of the intradisciplinary conflicts that impact on tour-
ism studies and the development of major divisions of focus in its
research. For example, Buck (1978), as noted in Jafari (1990) and
Leiper (1990:19), identifies two major, relatively isolated camps in
tourism studies: the business-enterprise and development camp
(devoted to growth and profit), and the impacts and externalities
camp (concerned with effects of tourism on host nations and com-
munities). Buck suggested that theoretical and research foundations
needed to be laid to synthesize these two distinct areas. Though
some attempts have been made, especially with the imperative of
sustainable tourism development, researchers within the contributing
disciplines have generally tended to examine tourism from their own
fields of reference, based on their specific philosophical and metho-
dological preferences. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJI

The Interdisciplinary Perspective

The above review highlights some of the methodological and philo-

sophical conflicts occurring within several of the disciplines housing
tourism studies. These have contributed to the various discussions
and debates in the tourism field concerning appropriate definitions,
methods, models, research approaches, and theory zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcba
development. How-
ever, in addition to these frequently conflicting intradisciplinary per-
spectives, tourism studies is also confronted by some potentially
incommensurable viewpoints among the various disciplines. If tourism
is to develop into a distinct discipline these interdisciplinary conflicts
must somehow be overcome. But is this likely or even possible? Two
philosophy of science perspectives, Kuhn (1970) and Bernstein (1991),
can help in addressing this issue. While neither Kuhn nor Bernstein
discuss tourismperse, their discourses provide interesting insights into
the interdisciplinary dilemmas of tourism studies.

Kuhn? Perspective

Based on the philosophy of science described by Kuhn (1970) in The

Structure of Scien@ c Revolutions, tourism studies seems to be in a “ pre-
science” or “ pre-paradigmatic” phase. According to Kuhn, a pre-
paradigmatic science is “ . . . characterized by total disagreement and
constant debate over fundamentals . . . [t]here will be almost as many
theories as there are workers in the field and each theoretician will
be obliged to start afresh and justify his own particular approach”
(cited in Ch a 1mers 1982:92). The classic symptoms of a pre-science
include diverse and disorganized research, random fact gathering, a
lack of fundamental laws and theoretical assumptions, a scarcity of
exemplars and models, and deep debates over legitimate methods
876 DISCIPLINARY DILEMMA OF TOURISM STUDIES zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfe

(Chalmers 1982:90-l; Kuhn 1970). The struggle to define basic

concepts, such as tourism and tourist, and the continuing debates over
appropriate methodology, as already highlighted, best exemplify the
pre-paradigmatic state of tourism studies. But will tourism studies
eventually converge and develop into a distinct discipline?
Observing Kuhn’s perspective on the philosophy of science, this
may involve developing a distinct paradigm or disciplinary matrix
consisting of a “ shared constellation of beliefs, values,
techniques.. . models and examples” (1970: 175). Currently, tourism
studies is entrenched within various disciplines. Each of these areas
embraces a distinct disciplinary matrix, and researchers within the
discipline have acquired certain “ . . . theory, methods, and
standards.. . usually in an inextricable mixture” (1970: 109). For
example, the research questions, theoretical concepts, philosophical
approaches, and models and techniques guiding geography scholars
are usually quite different from those for researchers in economics
or psychology. Kuhn further indicates that issues arising between
competing paradigms are often difficult to resolve because different
disciplinary matrixes have been used to define problems, choose meth-
odologies and techniques, and set research standards. This results
in incommensurability, or an inability to communicate because of
incompatible, and even conflicting, paradigmatic points of view.
Crossdisciplinary research could be difficult, perhaps even impossible,
without significant abandonment of paradigmatic constraints. By fol-
lowing Kuhn, one would likely have little optimism for the devel-
opment of tourism as a distinct discipline. Based on his philosophy,
one might argue that the highly entrenched disciplinary paradigms
and approaches variously applied to tourism studies result in con-
siderable incommensurability. This could create almost insur-
mountable obstacles to the development of a new discipline of tourism,
which would require a synthesis and blending of the paradigms and
research from the various disciplinary areas.
Using Kuhn’s philosophy, it seems more likely that tourism will
remain an area of study within each discipline (such as psychology,
geography, anthropology, economics, marketing, etc.). Within each of
these disciplinary matrixes, tourism will continue to be studied as a
specialized research topic. In such circumstances, it will be difficult
for tourism studies to develop its own distinct paradigm, with the
accompanying “ shared constellation of beliefs, values, tech-
niques . . . models and examples” (Kuhn 1970: 175). The develop-
ment of a distinct tourism discipline will require a Kuhnian “ scien-
tific revolution” in which a group of researchers breaks away from
disciplinary boundaries and works to establish a distinct disciplinary
matrix for tourism. However, according to Kuhn, even if this did
occur, such a new discipline might be characterized by the “ triumph
of one of the pre-paradigm schools, which, because of its own charac-
teristic beliefs and preconceptions, emphasized some special part of
the too sizable and inchoate pool of information” (1970: 17). Thus, the
emerging tourism discipline might contain a decided slant towards
one of the more dominant founding disciplinary areas. Therefore,
Kuhn’s view of the philosophy of science seems to indicate that a
 ECHTNER AND JAMAL 877 zyxwvutsrq

distinct discipline of tourism studies is somewhat unlikely. Not only

is tourism a pre-paradigmatic phenomenon but it is also embedded
within various incommensurable disciplinary areas of study. This is
not a very enviable position for an aspiring new discipline.

Bernstein’s Perspective
Kuhn’s treatise suggests that incommensurability is a barrier to
the development of a distinct discipline of tourism studies (it must be
noted here that Kuhn’s graduate education was in theoretical physics
and his work provides arguments and examples based on the natural
versus the social sciences). However, the disciplinary dilemma takes
a different perspective when one applies Bernstein’s (1991) philosophy
of science. Using this approach, the principal problem impeding tour-
ism’s theoretical development seems not to be caused by incom-
mensurability but by an inappropriate, dominant philosophical and
methodological approach. Here, the evolution of tourism studies
might be seen to be plagued by the same phobia that dominates all of
the social sciences, namely the need to become more “ scientific” and
the resulting attachment to more traditional positivist methods.
Using the measures of science, the social sciences are often judged
as primitive and underdeveloped, or, as Kuhn suggests, pre-para-
digmatic. Bernstein argues against this point of view, stating that
“ the specific standards of rationality that may be appropriate for
scientific activity are not necessarily relevant for understanding the
standards.. . ” in alternate streams of knowledge (1991:103). In other
words, social scientists must guard against fallingvictim to the tyranny
of the scientific method-they must be “ liberated from the spurious
narrowing imposed by the model of the natural sciences” (Gadamer
1979, quoted in Bernstein 1991:39). Hence, drawing from Bernstein,
it appears that labeling tourism studies as a pre-paradigmatic science
might be inappropriate, since “ scientific” standards should not be
applied to all forms of knowledge.
Bernstein states that is it inappropriate to classify knowledge into
scientific and social scientific categories. He argues that there is no
solid boundary between the sciences and the social sciences-between
the Naturwissenschaften and Geisteswissenschaften. “ Many of the typical
contrasts between the Naturwissenschaften and the Geistes-
wissenschaften have been based on a false and discredited epis-
temological understanding.. . there are continuities and differences
among these various disciplines, and these continuities and dif-
ferences are shifting and pragmatic” (Bernstein 1991: 173-74). Preju-
dices therefore arise because of the desire to divide knowledge into
science and non-science and to judge the latter by the standards of
the former. Such a divisive approach only inhibits greater under-
standing for all forms of knowledge.
Bernstein suggests that incommensurability between the various
sciences and social sciences can be used to encourage understanding.
“ We seek to discover some common ground to reconcile differences
through debate, conversation, and dialogue.. .what matters is not
878 DISCIPLINARY DILEMMA OF TOURISM STUDIES zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfe

unanimity but discourse” (Bernstein 1991:223). He indicates that

alternate approaches (he favors hermeneutics and praxis) will allow
researchers to span across disciplines and to develop a comprehensive,
deeper understanding of all human activity. “ Incommensurability
does not get in the way of understanding and comparing the con-
cepts-it rather sets a challenge to us of finding out how to understand
and compare them, a challenge that is met by the artful employment
of hermeneutical skills” (Bernstein 199 1:96). It follows from this that
the interdisciplinary nature of tourism should not be viewed as a
burden or barrier, but as an opportunity to use debate, dialogue,
and interpretation to reach a deeper understanding of this human
phenomenon.
Hence, using Bernstein’s perspective, the disciplinary dilemma may
be a result of the inappropriate fixation on the need to emulate the
methods of the natural/ physical sciences. An ability to accept alternate
philosophical and methodological approaches could help to break
down some of the interdisciplinary barriers in studying the tourism
phenomenon and lead to the evolution of a distinct discipline. By
following Bernstein, one would argue that more progress in under-
standing the phenomenon in its entirety could be made through
alternate methodological approaches, such as hermeneutics and
praxis.

CONCLUSION

The current fragmentation of theory is an impediment to research

and education, as well as to the legitimacy of tourism studies. Perhaps
the integration of theories and philosophies from various disciplinary
areas could best be handled by developing a dominant paradigm in
tourism studies as described by Kuhn (1970). However, it is evident
that tourism’s development towards becoming a distinct discipline is
rife with difficulties. The majority of tourism researchers have been
educated within various disciplines, such as geography, sociology, mar-
keting, and anthropology. Hence, any tourism theory that is developed
forms within specific disciplinary paradigms and boundaries. This
leads to “ academic imperialism” , with each discipline treating tour-
ism from within their own terms of reference (Leiper 1990:17). This
academic imperialism is particularly evident between the two camps:
impacts-externalities and business-development. The alternate views
of the philosophy of science presented by Kuhn and Bernstein provide
conflicting views that further illuminate tourism’s disciplinary
dilemma.
In an attempt to overcome this dilemma, Leiper (1981, 1990) calls
for a clear framework for tourism studies, which is based on a core of
general tourism theory that has broad application across disciplines.
He distinguishes multidisciplinary studies from interdisciplinary ones.
A multidisciplinary approach involves studying a topic by including
information from other disciplines, but still operating from within
disciplinary boundaries. On the other hand, an interdisciplinary focus
involves “ working between the disciplines, blending various philosophies
and techniques so that the particular disciplines do not stand apart but
 ECHTNER AND JAMAL 879 zyxwvutsrq

are brought together intentionally and explicitly to seek a synthesis”

(Leiper 198 1: 72; emphasis original).
LikeLeiper (1981,1990), an interdisciplinary approach is advocated
in this paper, but a clear understanding of the methodological and
philosophy of science issues involved is essential to integrating the
multitude of theoretical developments from the various contributing
disciplines. The study of tourism is enriched and yet complicated by
this theoretical diversity. There are a number of descriptive, explana-
tory, and predictive models which form the “ building block of theo-
ries” and describe whole or subsystems (Getz 1986:23). Integrating
these theories, concepts, and models with appropriate definitions of
tourism and tourist (which are still controversial) under a broad
“ paradigmatic” umbrella could guide and facilitate the accumulation
of a cohesive body of knowledge in tourism. The intention here should
not be to create one philosophical approach. Rather, it should be
accepted that different research problems may require different philo-
sophical approaches. The evaluation of a research program should
include an understanding of its “ methodological, ontological, met a-
physical, and axiological commitments” , as well as its social and
cognitive aims (Anderson 1986: 167). C onsidering the high behavioral
content and diverse nature of tourism, both qualitative and quan-
titative methodologies must be tolerated.
According to Jafari, four tourism research platforms have emerged
chronologically but without replacing one another. These are the
Advocacy, Cautionary, Adaptancy and Knowledge-based Platforms.
The first two platforms focus on tourism impacts and the third on
forms of development. The last, the Knowledge-based Platform, aims
to study tourism as a zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHG
whole and strives for the formation of a scientific
body of knowledge in tourism, while “ maintaining bridges with other
platforms” (1990:35). It is evident that the objectives of the Knowl-
edge-based Platform are consistent with a move toward tourism as a
distinct discipline. In accord with the overall goals of this Platform,
in order to overcome theoretical fragmentation, the foundation of an
emergent tourism discipline needs to be based on an interdisciplinary
rather than a multidisciplinary approach. Furthermore, there needs
to be greater liberalism with regard to methodological approach and,
concurrently, greater attention to clearly explicated theory and meth-
odology. Therefore, as illustrated in Figure 1, some key dimensions
for the evolution of tourism towards increased credibility as a field of
study and towards disciplinary status include: holistic, integrated
research; the generation of a theoretical body of knowledge; an inter-
disciplinary focus; clearly explicated theory and methodology; and the
application of qualitative and quantitative methods, positivist and
non-positivist traditions.
However, while such a distinct new discipline would encourage the
development of integrated and holistic tourism theory and is a laud-
able goal for tourism researchers, there remain serious practical prob-
lems. For instance, where would such a discipline be housed? Since
many of the disciplines currently studying tourism fall within the
social sciences (sociology, anthropology, economics, geography, psy-
chology), should a discipline of tourism studies be located within the
880 DISCIPLINARY DILEM M A OF TOURISM STUDIES

Holistic, Integrated Research

I
Generation of
interdisciplinary
Theoretical
Body of
Knowledge

\ /“=-

Theory and Methodology \ Use of Diverse

Clearly Explicated Methodological
Approaches zyxwvutsrqponmlkj
Figure 1. Some Key Dimensions for the Evolution of Tourism Studies zyxwvutsrqponm

faculty of social sciences ? Political considerations (institutional and

others) aside, designating tourism studies as a distinct social science
could draw protests from those researchers studying tourism from a
more industry-based perspective, such as business administration,
marketing, and hospitality studies. Additionally, how should graduate
programs in tourism be tailored? Will interdisciplinary studies in
tourism be better served by ensuring that graduate students are
trained in one disciplinary foundation before providing an inter-
disciplinary period of study, or should a broad-based interdisciplinary
curriculum be implemented from start to finish?
It is evident, from both a philosophical and a practical perspective,
that the development of tourism as a distinct discipline is not a
certainty. However, the lack of a distinct tourism discipline at the
current time need not doom tourism research to fragmentation and
deficiency of development. A greater degree of collaboration across
disciplines is required at this point to further advance the study of
tourism towards a distinct discipline. Such a development may entail
adopting a philosophy of science more in line with that advocated by
Bernstein-a philosophy that moves beyond the incommensurability
issues emphasized by Kuhn. On a practical level, boundary spanning
research in tourism can be encouraged through the development of
more flexible degree programs that allow crossdisciplinary education
and through the establishment of multidisciplinary research and edu-
cation centers. As Pearce notes “ [slimply because the tourism field in
the 1990s is classified as soft, rural, pre-paradigmatic and specialist
does not mean we cannot make progress towards cumulative, cross-
situational generalities” (1993:29).
There are some indications that tourism is moving toward becoming
a distinct discipline. These include the emergence of textbooks, schol-
arly journals, professional associations, and specific programs of tour-
ism studies. However, while tourism studies could potentially develop
into a discipline, it is concluded that there are many practical and
philosophical reasons that hamper its evolution. What is urgently
 ECHTNER AND JAMAL 881

needed is greater
collaboration, crossdisciplinary and especially zyxwvutsrqponmlk
inter-
disciplinary research.
Such research will require expansion beyond the
confines of disciplinary paradigms and experimentation with alternate
methodologies. Whether tourism studies eventually achieves legit-
imacy as a discipline and whether its theoretical foundation is cohesive
and strong, or fragmented and weak, will be greatly determined by the
perseverance of tourism researchers to overcome disciplinary barriers
and to encompass diverse methodologies and philosophical
approaches. 0 0

REFERENCES

Anderson, P.
1983 Marketing, Scientific Progress and Scientific Method. Journal of Marketing
47(4):18-31.
1986 On Method in Consumer Research: A Critical Relativist Persnective. Iournal
of Consumer Research 13(2): 155-173.
1988 Relativism Revidivus: In Defense of Critical Relativism. Journal of Consumer
Research 15(3):403-406.
Ansoff, H. ’ ’
1987 The Emerging Paradigm of Strategic Behavior. Strategic Management Jour-
nal 8:501-515.
Bernstein, R.
1991 Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis (4th
ed.). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Buck, R. C.
1978 Towards a Synthesis in Tourism Theory. Annals of Tourism Research: 1 lo-
111.
Calder, B., and A. Tybout
1987 What Consumer Research Is.. . Journal of Consumer Research 14:136-140.
Chalmers, A.
1982 What is This Thing Called Science. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press.
Cloke, P., C. Philo and D. Sadler
1991 Approaching Human Geography: An Introduction to Contemporary Theor-
etical Debates. New York: Guilford Press.
Cohen, E.
1979 Rethinking the Sociology of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 6: 18-35.
Comic, D.
1989 Tourism as a Subject of Philosophical Reflection. Revue de Tourisme 44(2):6-
13.
Cooper, L.
1987 Do we need Critical Relativism? Comments on “ On Method in Consumer
Research” . Journal of Consumer Research 14:126-127.
Daft, R.
1983 Learning the Craft of Organizational Research. Academic of Management
Review 8:539-546.
Dann, G.
1996 The Language of Tourism: A Sociolinguistic Perspective. Wallingford: CAB
International.
Dann, G., and E. Cohen
1991 Sociology and Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 18: 155-169.
Dann, G., D. Nash, and P. Pearce
1988 Methodology in Tourism Research. Annals of Tourism Research 15:1-28.
Deshpande, R., and F. Webster
1989 Organizational Culture and Marketing: Defining the Research Agenda. Jour-
nal of Marketing 53:3-15.
Errington, F., and D. Gewertz
1989 Tourism and Anthropology in a Post-Modern World. Oceania 60:37-54.
882 DISCIPLINARY DILEMMA OF TOURISM STUDIES

Gadamer, H.-G.
1979 The Problem of Historical Consciousness. In Interuretive Social Science: A.
Reader, Paul Rabinow and William M. Sullivan, eds:, pp. 103-160. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Getz, D.
1986 Models in Tourism Planning: Towards Integration of Theory and Practice.
Tourism Management 7:21-32.
Graburn, N., and J. Jafari
1991 Tourism Social Science. Annals of Tourism Research 18:1-l 1.
Gunn, C. A.
1987 A Perspective on the Purpose and Nature of Tourism Research Methods.
In Travel, Tourism and Hospitality Research: A Handbook for Managers and
Researchers, J. R. Brent Ritchie and C. Goeldner, eds., pp. 3-l 1. New York:
Wiley.
Gunter, B.
1987 The Leisure Exnerience: Selected Prouerties. YIournal of Leisure Research
19:115-130. L
Holbrook, M., and J. O’Shaugnessy
1988 On the Scientific Status of Consumer Research and the Need for an Inter-
pretive Approach to Studying Consumption Behavior. Journal of Consumer
Research 15:398-402.
Hunt, S.
1990 Truth in Marketing Theory and Research. Journal of Marketing 54: l-15.
1991 Positivism and Paradinm Dominance in Consumer Research: Towards Critical
Pluralism and Rapprochiment. Journal of Consumer Research 18:32-44.
1992 For Reason and Realism in Marketing. Journal of Marketing 56:89-102.
Jafari, J.
1989 Structure of Tourism. In Tourism Marketing and Management Hand-
book, Stephen F. Witt and Lou bloutinho, eds., pp. 437-442. London: Prentice
Hall.
1990 Research and Scholarship: The Basis of Tourism Education. Journal of Tour-
ism Studies 1:33-41.
Jafari, J., and D. Aaser
1988 Tourism as the Subject ofDoctoral Dissertations. Annals ofTourism Research
15:407-429.
Jafari, J., and B. Ritchie
198 1Towards A Framework of Tourism Education: Problems and Prospects. Annals
of Tourism Research 8: 13-34.
Jamal, T., and D. Getz
1996 Does Strategic Planning Pay? Lessons for Destinations from Corporate Plan-
ning Experience. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research 2:59-78.
Jovicic, Z.
1988 A Plea for Tourismological Theory and Methodology. Revue de Tourisme
43(3):2-5.
Kuhn, T.
1970 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Laudan, L.
1980 Views of Progress: Separating the Pilgrims from the Rakes. Philosophy of the
Social Sciences 10:273-286.
Leiper, N.
1981 Towards a Cohesive Curriculum in Tourism: The Case for a Distinct Disci-
pline. Annals of Tourism Research 7:69-84.
1990 Tourism Systems: An Interdisciplinary Study. Occasion Papers: 1990, No.
2. Department of Management Systems, Massey University, Palmerston, New
Zealand.
MacCannell, D.
1976 The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Schocken Books.
Mannell, R.
1982 Psychology and Leisure Research. In Perspectives on the Nature of Leisure
Research, David Ng and Stephen Smith, eds., pp. 120-150. Waterloo: University
of Waterloo Press.
 ECHTNER AND JAMAL 883

Mintzberg, H., and J. Waters

1985 Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent. Strategic Management Journal
6257-272.
Mitchell, L., and P. Murphy
1991 Geography and Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 18:57-70.
Morley, C.
1990 What is Tourism? Definitions, Concepts and Characteristics. Journal of Tour-
ism Studies 1:3-8.
Nash, D., and V. Smith
1991 Anthropology and Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 18: 12-25.
Pearce, P. L.
1993 Defining Tourism Study as a Specialism: A Justification and Implications.
TEOROS International 1:25-32.
Pearce, D., and R. Butler, eds.
1993 Tourism Research: Critiques and Challenges. London: Routledge.
Ritchie, J. R. B., and C. R. Goeldner
1994 Travel, Tourism, and Hospitality Research. New York: John Wiley.
Rogozinski, K.
1985 Tourism as a Subject of Research and Integration of Sciences. Problemy
Turystyki 4:7-19.
Sheldon, P.
1990 Journals in Tourism and Hospitality. The Journal of Tourism Studies 1:42-
48.
Smirchic, L., and C. Stubbart
1985 Strategic Management in an Enacted World. Academy of Management
Review 10:724-736.
Smith, S.
1989 Tourism Analysis: A Handbook. New York: Longman.
Smith, V. L., ed.
1977 Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism (1st ed.). Philadelphia:
University of Philadelphia Press.
Thomson, C., W. Locander and H. Pollio
1989 Putting Consumer Experience Back into Consumer Research: The Philosophy
and Method of Existential-Phenomenology. Journal of Consumer Research
16:133-145.
Urry, J.
1990 The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London:
Sage.
Witt, S., M. Brooke and P. Buckley
1991 The Management of International Tourism. London: Unwin Hyman.

Submitted 9 July 1996

Resubmitted 8 October 1996
Accepted 2 1 March 1997
Refereed anonymously
Coordinating Editor: Neil Leiper