Current Issues in Tourism

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcit20

Tourism imagination: a new epistemological

debate

Maximiliano E. Korstanje

To cite this article: Maximiliano E. Korstanje (2023) Tourism imagination: a

new epistemological debate, Current Issues in Tourism, 26:2, 199-211, DOI:
10.1080/13683500.2021.2023481

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.2023481

Published online: 12 Jan 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 539

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcit20
CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM
2023, VOL. 26, NO. 2, 199–211
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.2023481

REVIEW ARTICLE

Tourism imagination: a new epistemological debate

Maximiliano E. Korstanje
University of Palermo, Buenos Aires, Argentina

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The present CIT review letter explores the ebbs and flows of tourism Received 8 September 2021
theory and practice. With a focus on tourism etymology and Accepted 17 December 2021
epistemology, I stress on the urgency and obsession for tourism
KEYWORDS
theorists to calibrate efforts to make a substantiated discipline that has Epistemology of tourism;
lost sight of the tourism nature. Over years, scholars have tourism; methodology;
enthusiastically theorized on the tourism nature as a growing industry, authentic tourism;
associated with a complex socio-economic background. Citing Tribe, citizenship; consumption
the managerial gaze not only monopolized a whole portion of
published material but also set the agenda in tourism epistemology.
From its inception, tourism research was based on three clear
paradigms which today should be at least revisited.

Introduction
In 1959, the American sociologist Charles Wright Mills published his seminal book which entitles The
Sociological Imagination. In this trailblazing work, he concentrates efforts on describing the state of
stagnation that classic sociology was facing in his days. Per his viewpoint, the mid-term theories have
invariably lead sociology into a conceptual gridlock. As he notes, this happens simply because soci-
ologists were bogged down in a set of empirical information saying nothing about the real problems
of society. Per Wright Mills, sociological imagination refers to a term that evokes the urgency to open
new critical paths in sociology and social sciences. He exerts a damning critique against functional-
structuralism which postulates the quantitative-related method as a one-size-fits-all approach
(Wright Mills, 2000). At a closer look, Wright Mills coins the term intellectual craftsmanship to
denote the sociological curiosity which leads social scientists to find new epistemological paths in
a context of crisis (Burawoy, 2008; Kaufman, 1997). Although his legacy sits on the margins of intel-
lectual life to interrogate furtherly the status quo, now it remains with us for many decades. Critical
sociology deciphers the methodological problems as well as the crisis faced by classic positivism
during the 60s decade (Loy & Booth, 2004). What would say Wright Mills of tourism research today?
As the vexed question is given, in the constellations of tourism research, much imagination is
needed to overcome the current obstacles the discipline comes across with (Laws & Scott, 2015).
What is more important, scholars strongly believed that the maturation of discipline was given by
the number of scientific publications, doctoral dissertation or even books. For more than four
decades, tourism research has extensively advanced in knowledge production (Ballantyne et al.,
2009; Butler, 2015; Smith, 2010). However, this prolific state of production has no bounds or
simply stagnates without a clear object of study. Tourism epistemology failed to situate tourism
as a consolidate discipline (Korstanje, 2017). Over the recent years, some voices have alerted on
the epistemological crisis of tourism research, in which case such a crisis was accelerated by the
so-called irreversible knowledge dispersion (Ayikoru, 2009; Botterill, 2001; Ivanova et al., 2021). As

CONTACT Maximiliano E. Korstanje mkorst@palermo.edu

© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
200 M. E. KORSTANJE

John Tribe puts it, the empirical research not only faces a much deeper indiscipline but also the Aca-
demia shows a type of apathy for what is being produced. As a result of this, knowledge production
is ultimately patchy and invariably fragmented (Tribe, 1997, 2010). Having said this, the present essay
review explores the advances and limitations of the specialized literature in tourism epistemology as
well as the challenges posed over the tourism industry in the years to come (Thirkettle & Korstanje,
2013). Echoing Wright Mills, Tourism Imagination offers a fertile ground to resolve the gap between
theory and practice as well as reaching consensus about the nature of tourism. The goals of present
essay review are threefold:

. To describe the current discussion about the semantic origin of tourism in etymology.
. To explain the nature of tourism as well as the main limitations and problems the discipline goes
through today
. To proffer an all-encompassing model that explains the nature of tourism while giving fresh
guidelines for applied research in the years to come.

The first section discusses shortly the different disputes among the academic schools that devoted
efforts to precise the origin of tourism etymology. Far from reaching consensus, three academic
schools dispute the etymological roots of tourism. Complementarily, the second section dissects
the studies which looked to respond about the nature of tourism over more than four decades.
At the same time, the limitations of tourism research are carefully assessed in a third section. A
fourth last section delves into the hegemony of quantitative methods—as well as the economic-
based doctrine—and what Adrian Franklin dubbed as tourist-centricity. Tourism imagination lays
the foundations towards a new fresh insight that expands the understanding of tourism (re-thinking
the problem outside the box).
One of the limitations of this letter review lies in the fact that much has been written and said
about the tourism epistemology, its historical evolution as well as the current methodological pro-
blems, but no less true seems to be that far from being resolved, the discussion about the nature of
tourism and the future of tourism research remains at least open to date. This point inactivates us to
discuss critically part of the three conceptual axioms in tourism theory which include the etymology
of tourism, the epistemology of tourism and the critical turn.
The etymology of tourism is in part a sub-discipline orientated to understand tourism through the
semiotic legacy the name leaves. The dispute in the three academic schools to precise the nature of
tourism still is far from being closed. This begs an interesting point revolving around why some
similar social issues have different names in history. By this side, the tourism epistemology gives a
fresh insight into the contributions of different theorists to define what tourism is. Lastly, the critical
turn focuses strictly on the methodological and conceptual limitations of the discipline offering a
new all-encompassing model to understand tourism research. In the conclusion, we add further
material that helps understanding Tribe’s tourism indiscipline while lay the foundations towards a
new re-definition of tourism in its role in ancient history, citing Krippendorf, tourism as an all-pervad-
ing social institution.

The etymology of tourism: a short introduction

The etymology of tourism seems to be subject to a great discrepancy. Henceforth scholars do not
agree about the etymology of tourism. To date, three clear-cut theories dispute the origin of the
term tourism (Korstanje, 2007). For Neil Leiper and the Onomastic School, tourism comes from the
name of a French aristocrat family Della tour who originally organized the first trip of English mer-
chants to France. Under the auspices of Charles V (Carlos V), the first contract for monopolizing
the commercial transport between England and France is monopolized by the Della Tour family
(Leiper, 1983). Rather, the Anglo-Saxon school suggests that the term comes from ancient Saxon
term torn used to denote a round-trip expedition. The word, which describes the situation of a
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 201

person who manifested his intention to come back home, extends to Torn-us (what gives turns) and
Torn-are (to give turns). By the eighteenth century, the Latinization of English changes torn-er while
substituting by Latin Iste and Greek Isme, giving as a result tour-ism and tou-rist. By the way, Arthur
Houlot who is the head of Semitic school understands that the term stems from old Aramaic Tur
invoked to refer to any trip mainly marked by the needs of exploration. Per Hulot, we find firm evi-
dence of this word in Mosses’ explorations to the lands of Canaán (Houlot, 1961).
As the previous backdrop, tourism etymology still remains an obscured field of research even to
date (Korstanje, 2007). To fill the gap, Hunt and Layne (1991) discuss the evolution of tourism voca-
bulary and terminology, as well as, its commercial applications. A whole portion of tourism terms
come from the preference for travel and tourism commercial niches. Hall and Page (2010) continue
Leiper’s discussion finely enrooted in his passion for tourism history. His influence not only was well
versed in the conceptualization of tourism but also in his endeavours to offer an all-encompassing
model to understand the phenomenon. As Belhassen (2020) observes, tourism should be studied or
understood only through the use of conceptual paradoxes. One of the troubling aspects of etymol-
ogy is certainly linked to the disparity the activity has in different languages. There is no clear basis
for how Torn-are, Tur or Della tour have evolved to influence the formation of the current tourism
meaning. Furthermore, the idea of circular explorations was widely present in many cultures. All
the more astounding, tourism is inferred through countless metaphors and allegories which look
to answer what are the sociological factors that motivate tourists. For some reason, which is hard
to precise here, neither etymology nor exegesis (the interpretation of myths) occupies a central pos-
ition in applied tourism research (Korstanje, 2014, 2018).

The epistemology of tourism

The question of whether etymologists of tourism fruitlessly scramble to define the origin of tourism,
epistemologists turn their attention to another direction (Jafari, 1987, 2003; Pearce, 2019; Tribe et al.,
2015). In perspective, they look to answer to what extent tourism research is a consolidated (if not
serious) option (Belhassen & Caton, 2009; Botterill, 2001; Tribe, 2004). This raises a more than inter-
esting point, is tourism a consolidated science or discipline?
One of the pioneering studies that tried to respond to this was originally published by Charlotte
Etchner & Tazim Jamal in 1997. In this paperwork, the authors hold the thesis that tourism should be
approached as a complex phenomenon that crisscrosses many sub-disciplines. The dispersion of
tourism knowledge production rests in a state of confusion about its nature; echoing Jovičić
(1988) term tourismology, Etchner & Jamal acknowledge an emerging all-pervading model, which
is derived from an autonomous discipline, should define what tourism ultimately means. Otherwise,
the discipline leads gradually to a stage of knowledge fragmentation. It is difficult to resist the
impression that social sciences missed the opportunity to offer a coherent understanding of this
much-deep seated issue. Far from being resolved, other voices applauded the introduction of multi-
disciplinary methods borrowed from different disciplines such as geography, psychology or even
sociology; the debate not only seems to be open but far from being resolved to date. The interdis-
ciplinary perspective articulated not only the interplay between theory and practice but also the
logic of consumer research with social sciences (Echtner & Jamal, 1997).
John Tribe & Janne Liburd introduce readers to the importance of tourism epistemology while
adding new interesting discussions to the nature of tourism. Authors mention that there are
many attempts to define tourism but many of them fall in a partial description of their object of
study. Tribe & Liburd understand tourism ontology and epistemology as an inherent and compres-
sive model of the tourism knowledge system. Since knowledge is culturally constrained and deter-
mined, as the authors say, tourism ontology should be deciphered as layers of an onion of a complex
system. Tribe and Liburd distinguish the interdisciplinary from the extra-disciplinary tourism knowl-
edge. While the former signals to the synthesis of data, theories and information to answer a ques-
tion or solve a practical problem the latter refers to the knowledge production deriving from outside
202 M. E. KORSTANJE

traditional disciplines. It is important to mention that scholars misjudge the fact that key players as
government, global capital or knowledge networks impact directly on the knowledge co-production.
Doubtless, from its inception tourism research debated between two clear-cut poles. On one hand,
some scholars accept that the significance of tourism research helps to identify those hazards which
place the industry in jeopardy (Cooper & Hall, 2007; Smith, 1994; Xu, 2010). On another, the critical
approach showcases the ontological backlash of tourism as a social institution (Cohen, 1979; Dann &
Cohen, 1991; Graburn & Barthel-Bouchier, 2001; MacCannell, 1976). What is important to discuss, the
advance of industrialism paved the ways for the rise of global forces which shaped modern tourism.
Following this reasoning, the capital-owners invest considerable resources to absorb the workforce’s
surplus. Investors who come from tourist-delivering countries repatriate the amassed profits to their
metropolis leaving the periphery in a difficult economic position. To put the same in other terms,
tourism and development theory continues the centre-periphery dependency originated in the colo-
nial expansion. The so-called mobility is reserved only in favour of the privileged ruling elite (Bianchi
& Stephenson, 2013, 2014; Tzanelli, 2006, 2015; Tzanelli & Korstanje, 2020). The critical turn revolves
around the contradictions of the academic circles creating a new hope to break the dominant para-
digms. Doubtless these studies advocate for a critical pedagogy to conduct research in a global
world in crisis. The material asymmetries generated in the developing economies—far from being
resolved—are aggravated by the advance of global capitalism. The expansion of tourism is based
on the exploitation of non-renewable resources ushering the planet into an unparalleled ecological
crisis. Tourists are becoming in consumers who sacrifice their critical thinking leaving the current
ecological crisis as business as usual. Not only the nation state is gradually losing its capacity to
control global capital but also education plays a leading role to legitimate such as financial inequal-
ities (Ateljevic et al., 2013; Bianchi, 2009; Hollinshead, 2009; Hollinshead et al., 2009). This raises a
more than pungent question: is academic knowledge part of the problem or the solution?
As the previous backdrop, Jafar Jafari distinguishes four platforms in the evolution of literature:
advocacy, precautionary, adaptancy and scientific. His main goal was oriented to discover a new
model of rationalization which leads to efficient planning. As he remarks,
the purpose of this theoretical work is to provide retrospective and perspective view on tourism’s scientific
journey. More specifically, the aim is to identify some of the past conditions that have helped tourism to
assume its present scholarly dimension and depth; to sketch the formation of this landscape of knowledge to
selectively extract from this context emerging central socioeconomic issues; to suggest research crossroads
for advancing in new frontiers; to sample the richness of the state of knowledge … that in turn can guide
present and future planning and operation of this diverse mega-industry. Conceptually informed and practically
enriched sustainable strategies, now rooted in this body of knowledge, can and will benefit those directly and
indirectly involved in tourism. (Jafari 2005, p. 28)

In this vein, Jafari toys with the belief that tourism evolves according to four cyclical stages. The
advocacy platform refers to the unlimited economic benefits created by the tourism industry and
foreign investment in communities. Tourism not only attracts foreign investors who enrich the inter-
action with locals but also generates a fairer wealth distribution. Just after the 60s decade, some
scholars alerted on the negative effects of tourism in the local communities. Some emerging
reports, which emphasize on negative aftermaths of tourism such as contamination, poverty and
real-estate speculation without mentioning other social maladies, are part of the precautionary plat-
form. Rather, the adaptancy platform surfaced in the mid of 80s decade goes for the prescribed strat-
egies to mitigate negative consequences while optimizing community-cantered tourism. The
scientific platform, ultimately, speaks us of a principle of objectivity derived from an evolved superior
form of knowledge. With the benefits of hindsight, Jafari coins the term scientifization of tourism to
denote a new stage towards a stage of professionalization where tourism is studied as a well-inte-
grated object where its parts interact harmonically (Jafari, 1990, 2005). In this way, the scientifization
of tourism would resolve the so-called knowledge fragmentation that the multidisciplinary insight
accelerates (Xiao, 2013). Per his viewpoint, the scientifization of tourism revolves around the need
of adopting strategies and policies that make more sustainable destinations. In a nutshell,
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 203

sustainability has an important place in Jafari’s legacy (Korstanje 2019). Some decades later, some
path-breaking studies lament tourism has not been situated as a maturated scientific discipline
because of its greater levels of dispersion (Benckendorff & Zehrer, 2013; Cohen & Cohen, 2012;
Macbeth, 2005; Tribe, 2004, 2010). As John Tribe eloquently notes, the applied tourism research
debates between what he dubbed as the managerial gaze, and a state of indiscipline given by
the apathy of Academia to set agenda on what is being published in leading journals. The manage-
rial gaze, strongly associated with the economic-based paradigm, educates professionals such as
tour operators, guides, managers or policymakers instead of professional researchers. As a result
of this, tourism-led scholars adopt an economic viewpoint that prioritizes profits and business
over other issues. The economic-based paradigm monopolizes a whole portion of what is being pub-
lished worldwide changing not only the curricula but also the Academia (Airey et al., 2015; Tribe,
2006, 2009). A second more critical position centres on the fact that the discipline faces a stage of
dispersion and indiscipline in the configuration of a clear epistemology. For Tribe, this indiscipline
explains because of main factors. On one hand, the lack of interest to set a clear agenda that
guides researchers coming from different cultural backgrounds. On another, Tribe argues that the
indiscipline of tourism derives from the interests of social scientists educated in different disciplines
for tourism as their main object of study. Far from being integrated, the worldly high-education
system is certainly formed by islands where their researchers develop their agenda. Tourism epistem-
ology is based on countless frameworks, theories even definitions about the phenomenon that
obscure more than they clarify (Tribe, 1997, 2004, 2010). To this end, Coles, Hall & Duval (2005)
offer a more than an interesting diagnosis of the problem. They review the already-existent
debates as well as the different discrepancies about the tourism nature. The authors depart from
the premise that tourism is not changing in the threshold of time, simply because we witness
similar trends of behaviour: rather, epistemologists are failing to calibrate efforts to define
tourism. Unlike other voices, Cole, Hall and Duval conclude that a multidisciplinary approach—
mainly marked by paradigms from other disciplines—does not fragment the tourism epistemology.
The problem lies in the fact the idea that tourism should be contemplated as an autonomous dis-
cipline rests on shaky foundations. In the strict sense of the word, tourism is neither a discipline
nor a science whether researchers scrutinize it under the principles of applied science. It is safe to
say that tourism is an object of study. Also for these specialists, the question to what extent
tourism is a maturated (sub) discipline is at the least incorrectly formulated. Coles, Hall & Duval
go on to write: ‘in this respect, a post-disciplinary approach has clear potential by mobilizing
tourism research towards considerations of other forms of human movement. Here, concepts and
techniques originally developed in geography and sociology’ (Coles et al., 2005, p. 38).
Last but not least, Chambers & Rakic (2015) call attention to the urgency to continue Jafar Jafari’s
efforts in enhancing a specific methodology for tourism research. The authors use the term frontiers
as a liminoid fringe between what is known and unknown. As fieldworkers often recognize at the
time some light is shed on one point, another issue remains obscure. These frontiers—and of
course their evolution—explain why some disciplines consolidate while others fail to situate as a
maturated option. The multiplication of books, journals, papers and Ph Doctorate theses do not
suffice to say a discipline is consolidated. The dominant paradigm of tourism research punctuates
in long-dormant colonial narratives revolving around the figure of the ‘Other’. But this does not
mean that the epistemological background of tourism should be dismantled. Disciplines, as well
as paradigms, are frequently negotiated by their borders. Hence, the epistemological borders of
tourism should be reconstructed according to new emerging paradigms and theories. Of course,
the discipline faces no fewer problems and limitations (Belhassen & Caton, 2009; Phillimore &
Goodson, 2004), a point which will be discussed in the next section. The discussion includes the
obsession for quantitative methods (Walle, 1997), as well as extensive sampling (Decrop, 1999; Phil-
limore & Goodson, 2004), the hegemony of English as lingua franca (Aramberri, 2018; Dann, 2011;
Korstanje, 2020), the tourist-centricity (Franklin, 2007) without mentioning the culture of metrics
and the stagnation of applied research (Ertaş & Kozak, 2020; Hall, 2011).
204 M. E. KORSTANJE

Limitations and problems of tourism research

Over the recent years, the critical turn, a new theory emanated from critical studies stated that
tourism research is at a standstill because of the recent digital tech revolution which mechanizes
the applied research (Franklin, 2007). Research should be imagined as an ongoing process with
varying objects of study. The lack of permeability to these shifts leads invariably the discipline
towards a facet of stagnation. To this problem, one must add the divorce between theory and prac-
tice (Butler, 2015; Laws & Scott, 2015). One of the first points of entry in this discussion seems to be
associated with the tension between quantitative and qualitative-led methods (Davies, 2003; Walle,
1997).

Qualitative vs. quantitative methods

Quantitative and qualitative methods are applied for different objects of study and contexts.
However, in tourism fields, quantitative instruments were widely preferred by researchers than
other methods (Baggio & Klobas, 2017; Martin & Witt, 1989). At a closer look, the qualitative tech-
nique is undermined as less predictable than forecasting methods (Decrop, 1999; Ivanova et al.,
2021). Over years, leading journals accepted applied research which is drawn in larger samples
accompanied by complex logarithms and statistics (Davies, 2003; Decrop, 1999). This does not
mean that tourism research is overrun from quantitative methods, because there are many interest-
ing qualitative-led investigations but they take the lead in the most reputed journals (Franklin, 2007;
Jennings, 2007; Jennings & Junek, 2007). Without going into further detail, both methodologies are
fruitful and combinable in tourism research. From its outset, tourism studies were mainly based on
measuring—instead-of-describing logic. Quantitative methods not only supported governmental
planning but also contributed directly so that policymakers can optimize their decision-making
process. Hence, management and tourism marketing and quantitative methods seem to be inextric-
ably intertwined (Smith, 2014; Xin et al., 2013). In this respect, Dwyer et al. (2012) acknowledge that
quantitative research has been historically prioritized by tourism scholars because of its rigour in
measuring trends. The application of quantitative research is more pronounced in the circles of pol-
icymakers. But each technique—no matter how complex is—has advantages and disadvantages.
The qualitative insight corresponds with a more engaging instrument to understand a deep
reality that otherwise remains inexpugnable to fieldworkers. The discussion between qualitative
vs. quantitative is still futile. Rather, the researcher should go towards a balanced argument that
accepts mixed methods. In consonance with this, Mehmetoglu (2004) laments that the obsession
for quantitative methods constitutes a dominant approach for researchers while relegating qualitat-
ive research to a peripheral position. It is difficult to resist the impression that qualitative methods
are often associated with low sophistication on methodological issues. For some voices, qualitative
methodologies are not being valorized simply because they are intended to describe or explain
theoretical issues. Swayed ideologically by the legacy of positivism, tourism researchers enthusiasti-
cally embraced forecasting and statistical information as reliable sources of information. The process
was certainly influenced by what Franklin (2007) dubbed as tourist-centricity which evinces excessive
attention for what the tourist has to say. Therefore, applied scientific research was not only carefully
designed to draw larger samples of participants but also the figure of the tourist was placed as the
only source of valid information. This paradigm invariably pushed many other agents and voices to
the margins of tourism research. As Korstanje and George (2022) put it, one of the main methodo-
logical limitations of published research consists not only in the lack of familiarity for qualitative
methods but in tourist-centricity. Based on marketing and management as main sub-disciplines,
tourism research is today elaborated using a large sample of tourists who are interviewed at airports,
bus station hubs or tourist destinations. The gathered information is later subject to complex algor-
ithms which obscure more than they clarify. These studies are aimed at measuring global trends to
enhance the organic image of the tourist destination or knowing further about consumers’
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 205

psychologies. Here, two assumptions should be made. On one hand, the correlation of variables does
not mean a scientific explanation. To set a clear example, studies in risk perception often shows that
females perceive more risks than males. This does not authorize that genre correlates directly to risk
perception. Contrariwise, a qualitative viewpoint suggests that females are culturally educated to
protect their families expressing their feelings overtly while the archetype of masculinity leads
males to repress their disrupting emotions. On another hand, sometimes interviewees lie to
protect their interests or simply are not familiar with their inner world. What would a gangster
respond if I ask: what is your profession? Surely he will answer: I am an honourable businessman,
but is he really an honourable businessman?
Lastly, quantitative research ushers academicians on the brink of a deadlock where the infor-
mation is saturated with unnecessary information gathering. Because of the uncertain scenario as
well as the major challenges posed by the industry, new path-breaking methods should be
thought of in the next decades (Korstanje & George, 2022).

Tourist-centricity
The word tourist-centricity was originally used by Adrian Franklin to connote the current methodo-
logical problems of applied research in tourism. Per his viewpoint, the relevance of tourism in the
world has captivated the attention of many social scientists who take tourism as their object of
study. Nonetheless of this fact, tourism has serious troubles to situate as a consolidated sub-disci-
pline. Some of the problems, which Franklin grasps, include the lack of ontology of tourism, as
well as the focus on subject matters in tourists rather than the social. Tourists are never considered
as separable from their cultural backgrounds while they are treated as a universal category of study.
This suggests that for understanding what tourism is the field workers need to be close—if not trans-
forming—to tourists. Another second problem is the obsession for the tourist site (destination) as
valuable in itself. In fact, tourist research was extremely oriented to focus on the impacts that tourists
have on the site. Ultimately, Franklin traces back the inception of the modern tourism industry to the
nationhood and nation-state formation process. Tourism not only organizes labour conditions but
also human relations. On a global scale, tourism should be imagined as an ordering of the geographi-
cal space mainly marked by a cultural reproduction. The successive failures to define tourism seem to
be proportional to the knowledge fragmentation, claimed by different scholars, as Franklin adheres.
The current crisis of tourism research is given by the multidisciplinary approach embodied in Acade-
mia. To put the same in bluntly, tourism research has widely dedicated to explaining the economic
origin and development of tourism while focusing on its direct long-lasting impacts on society; in so
doing, the tourism growth, which was associated with the expansion of the globalization process,
explains through a combination of complex factors that should be traced back to industrialism
(Franklin, 2014). This begs an interesting methodological dilemma: may an object of study be
studied and described by its impacts?
Two of the senior researchers who devoted their efforts to respond to this point were Jost Krip-
pendorf & Erik Cohen. From different angles, both toys with the belief that society keeps united
through tourism consumption.

The discussion that never ends: what is tourism?

In his seminal book, which entitles The tourist: a new theory of leisure class, Dean MacCannell draws a
parallelism between the tribal totem and modern tourism. Based on the earlier Emile Durkheim’s
comments on the totem, he argues convincingly that the tribal totem is the ultimate source of auth-
ority from where emanates not only the religious life but also politics. Totem revitalizes social frus-
trations keeping the tribal organization well-integrated. The advance of secularization in modern
societies constrains the religious life to the private sphere. As a result, tourism consumption takes
the lead in organizing social life. In a nutshell, tourism acts as a tribal totem in modern society.
206 M. E. KORSTANJE

He makes a caustic critique of Urry’s position about the role played by the local agency in host–guest
encounters. Unless the ethics to be introduced to regulate human relations tourism threatens to era-
dicate (cannibalize) local cultures (MacCannell, 1976, 2001a, 2001b, 2002, 2011; MacCannell & Mac-
Cannell, 2002). In consonance with this, John Urry, who has never replied directly to MacCannell,
goes in the opposite direction. Urry agrees with MacCannell the nature of tourism should be
traced to the roots of global capitalism. There was nothing like ancient tourism in the pastime, or
at the best, he never gives back further details on this point. As Urry eloquently notes, the tourist
gaze not only mediates between citizens and their institutions but also engages with what tourists
can be gazed at or not. The tourist-gaze intersects with a much deeper cultural matrix which opens
the doors to a decentralized form of production, a type of economy of signs that ultimately exhausts
local resources. The tourist gaze evolves according to time and culture taking many shapes accord-
ing to the gazers. This point goes in sharp contrast with MacCannell’s structuralism. Urry is strongly
convinced that tourism intersects with two contrasting logics, leisure and labour. Centred on the
idea—as MacCannell does—that tourism is a modern phenomenon, Urry says the tourist gaze expro-
priates and resignifies the current norms of socialization introducing specific and externally fabri-
cated signs to understand human relations. Each sign moulds an added value to exchanged
commodities and the ways these exchanges are performed and interpreted. The multiplication of
international travels mainly marks how society evolves to a globalized and mobile version. Unlike
other epochs, workers are not only trained to work but to consume (adopting leisure practices).
Having said this, what support the high-mobilities culture seems to be the curiosity for the
‘Other’. Therefore, the tourist gaze organizes geographical spaces while greasing the rails for the
global economy successfully works. The power conferred by the tourist gaze associates with the
need of possessing ‘The Other’ laying the foundations to civilized and wilder zones of contact
between tourists and locals. While the former signals to privileged circuits of consumption, charac-
terized by stability and safety the latter refers to zones of low mobility where tourists’ security is not
granted (Lash & Urry, 1993; Urry, 1992, 2001; Urry & Larsen, 2011). Although MacCannell and Urry
shed light on the dark waters of tourism origin both say little about the pre-modern forms of
tourism, at least some of them which were widely documented by archaeologists and historians.
Are we really sure is tourism a modern phenomenon?

Tourism as a rite of passage

Unfortunately, the sociology of tourism—at least as it was imagined by its founding parents—devel-
oped a negative and pejorative definition on tourism. For Marxists tourism serves as an imperial
instrument of domination which alienates the workforce, while cultural theorists emphasize on
the global forces that shaped modern tourism. Sooner than later, these globalizing forces cannibalize
and commoditize the local cultures and non-renewable resources (Bianchi, 2009; Douglas, 2014;
Vidon & Rickly, 2018). These singled out arguments come from the first days of French sociology,
in the hands of L’Année du Sociologique, an academic circle that overtly condemned leisure as a
banal object of study. Over years, classic sociology has shown some resistance to study tourism
and leisure as serious objects (Korstanje & Seraphin, 2017). It is safe to say that both sides see
only a part of the problem. In the present section, we shall explain why.
Without any doubt, Jost Krippendorf has shed light on the paths for many epistemologists and
theorists who were certainly interested in defining and understanding the nature of tourism. His
legacy has endured the test of time proving to be useful for methodological issues that today
remain open (Korstanje, 2015). Krippendorf is moved to offer an all-encompassing model that
explains tourism scientifically. Per his viewpoint, tourism was something more complex than a
mere industry or commercial activity. Tourism was a historical and social institution that determines
not only human actions but also social ties. Lay citizens are daily subject to countless psychological
deprivations. To regulate inter-class conflict, tourism revitalizes workers’ frustrations ushering their
needs towards the political institutions. In this vein, modern tourism cannot be dissociated from a
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 207

nation-state or national symbols. At a closer look, tourism is neither good nor bad, as Krippendorf
alludes. Like leisure, tourism resonates and echoes in the mainstream cultural values of society. Con-
ceptually speaking, he distinguishes the tourism industry which emerges after the industrial revolu-
tion and holidays which are a human creation (a type of anthropological drive common to all
cultures). For Krippendorf, scientists should not focus on the impacts of industry in the environment
but on the cultivated values of the society that invariably lead to the present state of ecological crisis
(Krippendorf, 1982, 1986a, 1986b, 2010). A safe bridge between MacCannell/Urry and Krippendorf is
anthropologist Erik Cohen. He never intervenes directly in the quandary of knowledge fragmenta-
tion or the methodological problems of tourism research. Instead, Cohen pays attention to the cycli-
cal role of tourism in society. Above all, tourism should be contemplated as a rite of passage that
sanitizes all psychological frustrations that happened during the working time. As a rite of
passage, evasion helps in creating an ontological rupture with the territory and with others. Similarly
to the function of dreams, rites of passage optimize new forms of play that balances inter-class
conflict. In this way, tourism enhances societal cohesion keeping the system well-integrated. One
of the aspects that characterize rites of passage is the liminoid states opened by physical displace-
ment. Each community conserves its rites of passage where members, roles and gifts are continu-
ously exchanged. The efficiency of these rites consists in detaching a person for the in-group
rules while integrating him later in a renovated state. Erik Cohen adopts a new innovative
approach—unlike Urry or MacCannell—which punctuates the nature of tourism corresponds with
a type of commercialized hospitality where there is given a temporal dislocation between the self
and the societal rules. Having said this, tourism not only subverts the logic of work but societal
rules leading the self towards a new liminoid—and temporal—state of pleasure-maximization. In
the process, the concept of play is vital to understand and define tourism with more accuracy
(Cohen, 1972, 1979, 1988).
For some reason which is very hard to precise here, historians and tourism theorists have system-
atically overlooked the role of travels and tourism in ancient history. This happens because historians
were unfamiliar with Latin and other dead languages. For them, the feudalization process that
characterized medieval life was defined as a low-mobility epoch. In fact, they are correct. Medieval
life was marked by great political atomization and inter-feuds conflicts. But beyond this reality,
ancient cultures developed similarly-based forms of tourism. During the days of the Roman
Empire, free citizens were endorsed of a lease for 3 months after working one elective year. This
release was known as feriae. In this respect, the feriae has a double purpose. On one hand, it stimu-
lated Roman citizens to visit their families enhancing the connection between Rome and its periph-
ery. On another, feriae activated a set of cultural industries to boost the commerce. The feriae has not
disappeared, the term remains culturally enrooted in modern languages as German or Portuguese to
refer to the holidays (die ferien, das ferias). Similar observations can be found in other ancient civi-
lizations such as Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Romans and the Abbasid Caliphate—only to
name a few. This point suggests two important things. At a first glimpse, tourism and holidays
appear to be the maiden of imperial structures. Second, the same phenomenon (so to speak, the
object of study) may very well receive different terms and names in the threshold of time (Korstanje
& George, 2022).

Conclusion
As discussed in earlier sections, the urgency and obsession for tourism theorists to calibrate efforts
to make a substantiated discipline has lost sight of the tourism nature. Over years, scholars have
enthusiastically theorized on the tourism nature as a growing industry, associated with a complex
socio-economic background. The tourism imagination, a term originally coined by American soci-
ologist Charles Wright Mills, helps us to introduce the critical analysis to decipher not only
the nature of tourism but offering valid guidelines for applied research. As Wright Mills puts it,
imagination leads us towards a liminoid space where the dominant paradigms can be upended,
208 M. E. KORSTANJE

negotiated or simply updated. Imagination plays a leading role to focus on the real significant pro-
blems of tourism research (Tribe & Liburd, 2016). Citing Tribe, the managerial gaze not only mono-
polized a whole portion of published material but also set the agenda in tourism epistemology.
From its inception, tourism research was based on three clear paradigms which today should be
at least revisited.
Unless otherwise resolved, the imposition of quantitative methods helps to measure the global
trends of the industry. Some voices who embraced this paradigm alluded to the importance of
rational planning and territorial organization to locate and eradicate those risks which place the
industry in jeopardy. Based on the economic-based doctrine, these studies applauded the impor-
tance of understanding the impacts of tourists and tourism in society. Methodologically speaking,
this managerial viewpoint leads gradually to a second paradigm: tourism-centricity. Without going
into further detail, tourist-centricity speaks to readers of exaggerated importance for the figure of
the tourist as the only methodological source of reliable information. Of course, the tourists, follow-
ing this paradigm, echo what the consumers want, their expectancies and fears. The architecture of
tourism management, which takes the lead in what is being published in leading journals, centres on
the capacity of policymakers to infer consumers’ preferences. Tourist-centricity relegated other valu-
able voices and methods to a peripheral condition. With the recent COVID19 outbreak, we live in a
world without tourists. Precisely, the conception of tourist-centricity starts to be questioned and frac-
tured by some critical scholars.
The third paradigm explores the tourism nature under the critical lens of sociology, but critical
here does not mean the correct lens. Notably bequeathed by the French sociology which developed
a negative image of leisure, tourism sociologists traced back the origin of tourism to industrialism.
Steering their argument, they continue a hot debate left by tourism historians. We have outlined the
significance of two senior social scientists (Jost Krippendorff & Erik Cohen) agreeing with them
tourism should be defined as a rite of passage. In so doing, we have introduced readers into the fas-
cinating world of etymology, epistemology and the ancient nature of holidays. As Krippendorf
reminds, one of the main methodological problems of scholarship to define tourism comes from
the lack of dissociation between tourism—as an industry—and holidays—as a sacred social insti-
tution—which traverses the industrial world. Holidays have accompanied greater ancient civilization
with a two-pronged purpose. On one hand, it revitalized the social frustration of society balancing
inter-personal conflict. On another, the imperial cities consolidated and maintained a strong com-
mercial and military influence over the periphery.
Last but not least, the current state of fragmentation lamented by Tribe is not given by the
indifference of the Academia or the multidisciplinary methods adopted by the academic circles.
Two factors played a leading role in the fragmentation of knowledge production. Students often
select tourism degrees to get a rapid job opportunity to position themselves better in the labour
marketplace. Besides, universities adopt tourism and hospitality as fashionable and prospering
careers to attract new overseas students. The increasing interest in tourism during the 90s decade
triplicates the programmes and syllabuses worldwide creating a bottleneck for the professional
scholarship. Many tourism research centres study tourism but using different paradigms. At the
same time, tourism emerges in the mid of the 70s decade a moment of epistemology where meth-
odological relativism impacts directly the formation of new methodologies. The introduction of rela-
tivism not only affected negatively the tenets of Enlightenment but also questioned the sense of
reality as never before. In consequence, emerging discipline during this period has many problems
to fixate their object of study (Korstanje et al., 2016). In addition, interesting new approaches should
be traced back to tourism in ancient history or civilization leading readers to a new unexplored world
which was historically overlooked by tourism epistemologists.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 209

References
Airey, D., Tribe, J., Benckendorff, P., & Xiao, H. (2015). The managerial gaze: The long tail of tourism education and
research. Journal of Travel Research, 54(2), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287514522877
Aramberri, J. (2018). Why tourism research in non-English speaking systems is ignored? Tourism Recreation Research, 43
(3), 400–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2018.1460524
Ateljevic, I., Morgan, N., & Pritchard, A. (2013). The critical turn in tourism studies: Creating an academy of hope. Routledge.
Ayikoru, M. (2009). Epistemology, ontology and tourism. In John Tribe (Ed.), Philosophical issues in tourism (pp. 62–79).
Channel View Publications.
Baggio, R., & Klobas, J. (2017). Quantitative methods in tourism. Channel view publications.
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Axelsen, M. (2009). Trends in tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(1), 149–152.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2008.07.001
Belhassen, Y. (2020). Metaphors and tourism paradoxes. Tourism Management, 79, 104095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2020.104095
Belhassen, Y., & Caton, K. (2009). Advancing understandings: A linguistic approach to tourism epistemology. Annals of
Tourism Research, 36(2), 335–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.01.006
Benckendorff, P., & Zehrer, A. (2013). A network analysis of tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 43(1), 121–149.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.04.005
Bianchi, R., & Stephenson, M. (2014). Tourism and citizenship: Rights, freedoms and responsibilities in the global order.
Routledge.
Bianchi, R. V. (2009). The ‘critical turn’in tourism studies: A radical critique. Tourism Geographies, 11(4), 484–504. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14616680903262653
Bianchi, R. V., & Stephenson, M. L. (2013). Deciphering tourism and citizenship in a globalized world. Tourism
Management, 39, 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.03.006
Botterill, D. (2001). The epistemology of a set of tourism studies. Leisure Studies, 20(3), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02614360127084
Burawoy, M. (2008). Open letter to C. Wright Mills. Antipode, 40(3), 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2008.
00602.x
Butler, R. (2015). The evolution of tourism and tourism research. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(1), 16–27. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02508281.2015.1007632
Chambers, D., & Rakic, T. (2015). Tourism research frontiers: Beyond the boundaries of knowledge. Emerald Group
Publishing.
Cohen, E. (1972). Toward a sociology of international tourism. Social Research, 1, 164–182.
Cohen, E. (1979). Rethinking the sociology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(1), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0160-7383(79)90092-6
Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 15(3), 371–386. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0160-7383(88)90028-X
Cohen, E., & Cohen, S. A. (2012). Current sociological theories and issues in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(4),
2177–2202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.07.009
Coles, T., Hall, C. M., & Duval, D. T. (2005). Mobilizing tourism: A post-disciplinary critique. Tourism Recreation Research, 30
(2), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2005.11081471
Cooper, C., & Hall, C. M. (2007). Contemporary tourism. Routledge.
Dann, G. M. (2011). Anglophone hegemony in tourism studies today. Enlightening Tourism. A Pathmaking Journal, 1(1),
1–30.
Dann, G., & Cohen, E. (1991). Sociology and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(1), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0160-7383(91)90045-D
Davies, B. (2003). The role of quantitative and qualitative research in industrial studies of tourism. International Journal of
Tourism Research, 5(2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.425
Decrop, A. (1999). Triangulation in qualitative tourism research. Tourism Management, 20(1), 157–161. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0261-5177(98)00102-2
Douglas, J. A. (2014). What’s political ecology got to do with tourism? Tourism Geographies, 16(1), 8–13. https://doi.org/
10.1080/14616688.2013.864324
Dwyer, L., Gill, A., & Seetaram, N. (2012). Handbook of research methods in tourism: Quantitative and qualitative
approaches. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Echtner, C. M., & Jamal, T. B. (1997). The disciplinary dilemma of tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(4), 868–
883. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(97)00060-1
Ertaş, M., & Kozak, M. (2020). Publish or perish: The proportion of articles versus additional sections in tourism and hos-
pitality journals. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 43, 149–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.03.
001
Franklin, A. (2007). The problem with tourism theory. In I. Altejvic, A. Pritchard, & N. Morgan (Eds.), The critical turn in
tourism studies: Innovative research methodologies (pp. 131–148). Elsevier.
210 M. E. KORSTANJE

Franklin, A. (2014). Tourist studies. In P. Adey, D. Bissell, K. Hannam, P. Merriman, & M. Sheller (Eds.), The Routledge
Handbook of mobilities (pp. 94–104). Routledge.
Graburn, N. H., & Barthel-Bouchier, D. (2001). Relocating the tourist. International Sociology, 16(2), 147–158. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0268580901016002001
Hall, C. M. (2011). Publish and perish? Bibliometric analysis, journal ranking and the assessment of research quality in
tourism. Tourism Management, 32(1), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.07.001
Hall, C. M., & Page, S. (2010). The contribution of Neil Leiper to tourism studies. Current Issues in Tourism, 13(4), 299–309.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2010.482652
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. https://doi.org/10.3727/108354209788970162
Hollinshead, K., Ateljevic, I., & Ali, N. (2009). Worldmaking agency–worldmaking authority: The sovereign constitutive
role of tourism. Tourism Geographies, 11(4), 427–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616680903262562
Houlot, A. (1961). Le Turisme et La Biblie. Revue l’Académie Internationale du Turisme.
Hunt, J. D., & Layne, D. (1991). Evolution of travel and tourism terminology and definitions. Journal of Travel Research, 29
(4), 7–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759102900402
Ivanova, M., Buda, D. M., & Burrai, E. (2021). Creative and disruptive methodologies in tourism studies. Tourism
Geographies, 23, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1784992
Jafari, J. (1987). Tourism models: The sociocultural aspects. Tourism Management, 8(2), 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0261-5177(87)90023-9
Jafari, J. (1990). Research and scholarship: The basis of tourism education. Journal of Tourism Studies, 1(1), 33–41.
Jafari, J. (2003). Research and scholarship: The basis of tourism education. [Reprint of original article published in v. 1, no.
1, 1990: 33–41]. Journal of Tourism Studies, 14(1), 6–16.
Jafari, J. (2005). Bridging out, nesting afield: Powering a new platform. Journal of Tourism Studies, 16(2), 1–5.
Jennings, G., & Junek, O. (2007). Grounded theory: Innovative methodology or a critical turning from hegemonic meth-
odological praxis in tourism studies. In Álvaro Matias, Peter Nijkamp, & Paulo Neto (Eds.), The critical turn in tourism
studies (pp. 219–232). Routledge.
Jennings, G. R. (2007). Advances in tourism research: Theoretical paradigms and accountability. In Álvaro Matias, Peter
Nijkamp, & Paulo Neto (Eds.), Advances in modern tourism research (pp. 9–35). Physica-Verlag HD.
Jovičić, Ž. (1988). A plea for tourismological theory and methodology. Revue de Tourisme, 43(3), 2–5.
Kaufman, P. (1997). Michael Jordan meets C. Wright Mills: Illustrating the sociological imagination with objects from
everyday life. Teaching Sociology, 25(4), 309–314. https://doi.org/10.2307/1319299
Korstanje, M., & Seraphin, H. (2017). Revisiting the sociology of consumption in tourism. In K. Dixit (Ed.), The Routledge
handbook of consumer behaviour in hospitality and tourism (pp. 2–16). Routledge.
Korstanje, M. E. (2007). The origin and meaning of tourism: Etymological study. E-Review of Tourism Research, 5(7), 100–
108.
Korstanje, M. E. (2014). Exegesis and myths as methodologies of research in tourism. Anatolia, 25(2), 299–301. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2013.823877
Korstanje, M. E. (2015). A portrait of Jost Krippendorf. Anatolia, 26(1), 96–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2014.
921206
Korstanje, M. E. (2017). Ethnography on tourist spaces. International Journal of Tourism Anthropology, 6(1), 18–20. https://
doi.org/10.1504/IJTA.2017.088022
Korstanje, M. E. (2018). The lost paradise: The religious nature of tourism. In Hatem El-Gohary, David John Edwards, &
Riyad Eid (Eds.), Global perspectives on religious tourism and pilgrimage (pp. 129–141). IGI Global.
Korstanje, M. (2019). Towards an anthropological insight of sustainable tourism. Athens Journal of Tourism, 6(2), 109–
122.
Korstanje, M. E. (2020). Unspeakable discrimination: Underlying concerns in instrumentalizing English as Lingua Franca
in tourism research. Academic Journal of Studies in Society, Sciences and Technologies–Geplat Papers, 1(2), 1–9.
Korstanje, M. E., & George, B. (2022). The nature and future of tourism: A post COVID19 context. Apple Academic Press.
Korstanje, M. E., Mustelier, L. C., & Herrera, S. (2016). Understanding the indiscipline of tourism: A radical critique to the
current state of epistemology. In Nikolaos Pappas, & Ilenia Bregoli (Eds.), Global dynamics in travel, tourism, and hos-
pitality (pp. 208–221). IGI Global.
Krippendorf, J. (1982). Towards new tourism policies: The importance of environmental and sociocultural factors.
Tourism Management, 3(3), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177(82)90063-2
Krippendorf, J. (1986a). The new tourist-turning point for leisure and travel. Tourism Management, 7(2), 131–135. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177(86)90025-7
Krippendorf, J. (1986b). Tourism in the system of industrial society. Annals of Tourism Research, 13(4), 517–532. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(86)90001-0
Krippendorf, J. (2010). Holiday makers. Taylor & Francis.
Lash, S. M., & Urry, J. (1993). Economies of signs and space. Sage.
Laws, E., & Scott, N. (2015). Tourism research: Building from other disciplines. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(1), 48–58.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2015.1005926
 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 211

Leiper, N. (1983). An etymology of “tourism”. Annals of Tourism Research, 10(2), 277–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-
7383(83)90033-6
Loy, J., & Booth, D. (2004). Consciousness, craft, commitment: The sociological imagination of C. Wright Mills. In Richard
Giulianotti (Ed.), Sport and modern social theorists (pp. 65–80). Palgrave Macmillan.
Macbeth, J. (2005). Towards an ethics platform for tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 962–984. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.annals.2004.11.005
MacCannell, D. (1976). The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class. University of California Press.
MacCannell, D. (2001a). Remarks on the commodification of cultures. In V. L. Smith & M. Brent (Eds.), Hosts and guests
revisited: Tourism issues of the 21st century (pp. 380–390).
MacCannell, D. (2001b). Tourist agency. Tourist Studies, 1(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879760100100102
MacCannell, D. (2002). Empty meeting grounds: The tourist papers. Routledge.
MacCannell, D. (2011). The ethics of sightseeing. University of California Press.
MacCannell, D., & MacCannell, J. F. (2002). Social class in postmodernity: Simulacrum or return of the real? In Chris Rojek,
Bryan S. Turner, & Bryan Turner (Eds.), Forget Baudrillard? (pp. 124–146). Routledge.
Martin, C. A., & Witt, S. F. (1989). Forecasting tourism demand: A comparison of the accuracy of several quantitative
methods. International Journal of Forecasting, 5(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2070(89)90059-9
Mehmetoglu, M. (2004). Quantitative or qualitative? A content analysis of Nordic research in tourism and hospitality.
Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 4(3), 176–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250410003889
Pearce, P. L. (2019). Are tourists interesting? In P. Pearce (Ed.), Tourist behaviour. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Phillimore, J., & Goodson, L. (2004). Progress in qualitative research in tourism: Epistemology, ontology and method-
ology. In David Airey & John Tribe (Eds.), Qualitative research in tourism (pp. 21–23). Routledge.
Smith, S. L. (1994). The tourism product. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 582–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383
(94)90121-X
Smith, S. L. (2010). Practical tourism research. Cabi.
Smith, S. L. (2014). Tourism analysis: A handbook. Routledge.
Thirkettle, A., & Korstanje, M. E. (2013). Creating a new epistemiology for tourism and hospitality disciplines.
International Journal of Qualitative Research in Services, 1(1), 13–34. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJQRS.2013.054342
Tribe, J. (1997). The indiscipline of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 638–657. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-
7383(97)00020-0
Tribe, J. (2004). Knowing about tourism: Epistemological issues. In Lisa Goodson & Jenny Phillimore (Eds.), Qualitative
research in tourism (pp. 64–66). Routledge.
Tribe, J. (2006). Tourism, knowledge and the curriculum. In D. Airey & J. Tribe (Eds.), An international handbook of tourism
education (pp. 59–72). Routledge.
Tribe, J. (2009). Philosophical issues in tourism. In J. Tribe (Ed.), Philosophical issues in tourism (pp. 3–22). Bristol: Channel
View Publications.
Tribe, J. (2010). Tribes, territories and networks in the tourism academy. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(1), 7–33. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.05.001
Tribe, J., Dann, G., & Jamal, T. (2015). Paradigms in tourism research: A trialogue. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(1), 28–
47. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2015.1008856
Tribe, J., & Liburd, J. J. (2016). The tourism knowledge system. Annals of Tourism Research, 57, 44–61. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.annals.2015.11.011
Tzanelli, R. (2006). Reel western fantasies: Portrait of a tourist imagination in The Beach (2000). Mobilities, 1(1), 121–142.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17450100500489296
Tzanelli, R. (2015). Mobility, modernity and the slum: The real and virtual journeys of ‘Slumdog millionaire’. Routledge.
Tzanelli, R., & Korstanje, M. (2020). Introduction: Critical thinking in tourism studies. Tourism Culture & Communication, 20
(2–3), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.3727/109830420X15894802540133
Urry, J. (1992). The tourist gaze and the Environment’. Theory, Culture & Society, 9(3), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/
026327692009003001
Urry, J. (2001). Globalising the tourist gaze. Tourism Development Revisited: Concepts, Issues and Paradigms, 150(1), 160.
Urry, J., & Larsen, J. (2011). The tourist gaze 3.0. Sage.
Vidon, E. S., & Rickly, J. M. (2018). Alienation and anxiety in tourism motivation. Annals of Tourism Research, 69, 65–75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2018.02.001
Walle, A. H. (1997). Quantitative versus qualitative tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 524–536. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(96)00055-2
Wright Mills, C. (2000). The sociological imagination. Oxford University Press.
Xiao, H. (2013). Jafar Jafari: The platform builder. Anatolia, 24(2), 288–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2013.
813354
Xin, S., Tribe, J., & Chambers, D. (2013). Conceptual research in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 41, 66–88. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.12.003
Xu, J. B. (2010). Perceptions of tourism products. Tourism Management, 31(5), 607–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2009.06.011