Tourism Recreation Research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtrr20

The ‘misplaced’ vulnerability of tourism studies:

towards a relational ontology, epistemological
pluralism and affirmative ethics

Jaume Guia & Marlisa Ayu Trisia

To cite this article: Jaume Guia & Marlisa Ayu Trisia (2023) The ‘misplaced’ vulnerability of
tourism studies: towards a relational ontology, epistemological pluralism and affirmative
ethics, Tourism Recreation Research, 48:4, 616-626, DOI: 10.1080/02508281.2023.2230542

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2023.2230542

Published online: 24 Jul 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 153

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtrr20
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH
2023, VOL. 48, NO. 4, 616–626
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2023.2230542

The ‘misplaced’ vulnerability of tourism studies: towards a relational ontology,

epistemological pluralism and affirmative ethics
a,b
Jaume Guia and Marlisa Ayu Trisiaa
a
Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Tourism, University of Girona, Girona, Catalonia, Spain; bSchool of Tourism and Hospitality,
College of Business and Economics, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

As the closing article of the Special Issue of TRR, ‘Vulnerabilities and Viabilities in Tourism Studies’, Received 11 June 2023
the paper takes each one of the articles in the issue as reference and looks in them at Accepted 25 June 2023
concurrences and diffractions concerning claims of vulnerability and viability proposals for the
KEYWORDS
field of tourism studies. The paper problematizes current practices of tourism research, and Vulnerability;
focuses on the vulnerability of tourism scholarship; postdiciplinarity in tourism studies; onto- postdisciplinarity; relational
ethico-epistemological enrichments for the field and futuring as worldmaking in the search of ontology; indigenous
new viabilities. As a result, the meaning and placement of the field’s vulnerability is overturned knowledges; affirmative
and new viabilities for a ‘more-than-tourism’ field of tourism studies are proposed. ethics

Introduction
The special issue of TRR on the Vulnerabilities and Viabil-
ities in Tourism Studies, in which, this article provides its
closing remarks, examines some apparent fragilities in
the current state of tourism studies. In order to spark a
lively discussion on how tourism studies might be
improved and rejuvenated globally, the special issue
tries to critique some of the newly recognized instabil-
ities and impairments in the vigour of current tourism
scholarship.
The term ‘tourism’ is used to describe a broad range
of spontaneous behaviours, actions and reactions,
brought on by people’s desire to travel, experience
and learn about the world. It has been noted,
however, that even the best intentions and objectives
for or resulting from tourism have frequently been
undermined (Mowforth & Munt, 2015). Therefore,
according to recent discourses on the vulnerabilities of
tourism, it is necessary to reshape destinations, visitors
and visited so that a more thriving and empowering
tourism industry and system can be imagined and rea-
lized (Hall & Brown, 2010; Matteucci et al., 2021).
However, according to many observers, tourism and
tourism studies continue to be ‘developed’ in a narrow
and constrained manner in order to profit only specific
well-positioned individuals and organizations. Moreover,
the same types of ‘band-aid’ techniques and other
relatively superficial remediations are supplied and
replicated all over the world, despite the complex
socio-spatial variations found across geographies and
cultures (Fennell, 2008; Mason, 2007). From all the
above, we can postulate that the so-called vulnerability
issue might be found embedded in the assumptions
underlying daily practices of tourism as also in the
field’s constricted, bland and prosaic scholarship.
Time has, therefore, come for researchers in and
around the field to call into question, in terms of rel-
evance and redundancy, the axiologies, i.e. the prevail-
ing values, that seem to have hardened into ruling
practices throughout tourism and into the subject’s
main scholarship. In the early days of tourism studies,
at the end of the twentieth century, principles from
more stable disciplines were brought in. Later some of
these have been questioned, changed or thrown out,
but certain fundamental (mis)conceptions about what
tourism is and may be, continue to persist (Grimwood
et al., 2018).
Tourism studies is, according to Hollinshead (2010,
2021), in urgent need to review the enduring assump-
tions that keep driving, and ostensibly troubling, the
thinking of many tourism studies’ scholars today, with
the purpose of advancing novel theorizations about
tourism. This must be done, the paper contends,
through posthuman awareness, rather than just
through narrow humanistic cognition; and through
broader-reach and postdisciplinary ways of seeing/
feeling/knowing, rather than through preponderately
narrow micro-calculations. With this in mind, the paper

CONTACT Jaume Guia jaume.guia@udg.edu

© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

takes on the critiques and comments made in the
articles of the special issue, and synthesizes what the
different authors make of the vulnerability of current
tourism scholarship, the postdisciplinary of the field,
ways of potential enrichment and its future viabilities.
Problematizing current approaches and
understandings of tourism
In order to problematize current approaches and under-
standings of tourism and tourism scholarship, the special
issue was conceived to enquire about and give voice to
the following four issues:
(i) The vulnerability of current tourism practice and
tourism scholarship: are tourism studies indeed
commonly in a state of continuing vulnerability as
an academic field, and as an industry-relevant
field, and what could be done about it?
(ii) The (post)diciplinarity of tourism studies: how can
the field of tourism studies be more propitiously
aligned towards a richer and beneficial blend of
outside disciplines and other imbricative fields of
inquiry?
(iii) The onto-ethico-epistemogolical enrichment of the
field: how can or ought the servicing of tourism
studies be enriched ontologically, epistemological
and axiologically today?
(iv) Futuring as worldmaking in the search of new viabil-
ities: how can the field of tourism studies be other-
wise restructured to catalyse other culturo-natural
gains, other global possibilities, other psychic
viabilities, whatever they may be?
The problematization of each of these issues is made
below through the exploration of 10 aperçus in the form
of open questions, as follows.
Regarding the vulnerability of current tourism prac-
tice and tourism scholarship, the questions posed are:
what are the sources and rationales of these vulner-
abilities and who has introduced the concept of vul-
nerability in tourism studies? Whom does the
vulnerability of tourism studies affect the most?
When has the vulnerability concept received most
attention and generated more interest? And why has
vulnerability been presented as a negative, disempow-
ering concept?
As for the postdiciplinarity issue, the concerns are on,
what disciplinary approach has dominated tourism
studies? And which avenues are there to move
towards postdisciplinarity?
For the issue of the onto-ethico-epistemological
enrichment of the field, the relevant questions are: how
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 617
can the onto-ethico-epistemic foundations of current
tourism understanding be enriched? Where can we
find the inspiration for such a mammoth enrichment
programme?
Finally, in what concerns futuring as worldmaking and
the identification of new viabilities, the aperçus are:
WHOW! … and if, instead of setting boundaries and
defensive walls, tourism studies moved forward into an
open onto-ethico-epistemological space and kept
filling this space through experimental or exploratory
trajectories and a plurality of knowledges? Why not,
foster an ontologically relational, epistemological plural
and ethically affirmative approach to tourism and
tourism studies?
In what follows, these questions are answered or
confronted using as a reference the stories, critiques,
propositions and imaginations developed in each of
the papers in the special issue and taking into
consideration concurrences and diffractions across
their contributions, and other interesting points they
make.
The vulnerability of current tourism practice
and tourism scholarship
This special issue reminds us how the tourism industry
and tourism studies have entered a period of multiple
vulnerabilities, consistent with the need to profoundly
reconsider tourism operations, systems and philos-
ophies (Gössling et al., 2009; Pernecky, 2023; Scott
et al., 2012), particularly after the Covid-19 pandemic
and its potential for transformation (Lew et al., 2020).
What are the sources and rationales of this
vulnerabilities and who has introduced the
concept of vulnerability in tourism studies?
In the editorial of the special issue, Singh (2023) reflects
on the inherent vulnerabilities of tourism studies, which
are found to be of four main types: (i) institutional
hurdles to the academic production of knowledge; (ii),
political battles among researchers (identity politics)
pertaining either to one or the other of opposite ‘disci-
plinary’ bands; (iii) reified ‘ontological assumptions’
regarding the defense of well-delimited fields, with
calls for more clear boundaries and (iv) a taken-for
granted dualist and binary way of thinking, and its con-
comitant axiology where one of the dual term always
dominates onto the other, e.g. colonialism’s binariza-
tions (privileged vs oppressed).
Regarding institutional forms of vulnerability, Pritch-
ard and Morgan (2007) scrutinized the competitive
environment for research’s funding and for tenure,
618 J. GUIA AND M. A. TRISIA
within which tourism scholars are required to perform,
e.g. the publish–perish principle, as an effect of the inevi-
table nexus between tourism and the capitalist impera-
tive; and warned that tourism studies have produced
less than its due share of reflexive and critical thinking,
as a result.
As for the political sources of vulnerability, these
can be found in the increasing subjugation of
tourism to ‘service’ (Ateljevic, 2020), which keeps
feeding the ongoing growth-obsessed ecocide (Sav-
ransky, 2022). Calls to desist from this alliance and its
devastating effects are just as prevalent (Higgins-Des-
biolles, 2020; Wallace, 2005). There is, therefore, a
split in perspectives where each of the two opposed
camps seem to have been primarily driven and
shaped to fulfil their own agendas and their own
legitimacy (Singh, 2023).
Concerns about ontological and disciplinary types of
vulnerability have also been raised. On one hand,
convincing rationales and arguments have been elabo-
rated in favour of and against assigning a single
disciplinary category to the study of tourism (Coles
et al., 2006). However, the efforts to define tourism in
scholarly terms have persisted despite being mostly
fruitless (Butowski, 2016). Tourism has been called an
‘indiscipline’, ‘inter-discipline’, ‘multi-discipline’, ‘cross-
discipline’, ‘pan-discipline’ and ‘trans-discipline’ by pro-
ponents and detractors of the concept (Singh, 2023:
p. 517). On another hand, the attention of tourism
research has often been directed by the societal
agendas and needs of the moment: sustainable develop-
ment goals, environmental protection, ethics, etc.
(Brauer et al., 2019), in which cases there is a tendency
in research to conform to the prevalent status quo.
This ‘utilitarian’ method gives the field of tourist research
a sense of longevity and purpose, but at the cost of nar-
rowing the focus of research to fulfil certain interests and
preventing a sound comprehension of the phenomenon
as merely grounded in its fundamental characteristics.
As a consequence, we argue, novel theorizations in the
field and a sound exploration of alternative ontological
frameworks are obstructed, thus making the field more
vulnerable, instead of less.
Finally, regarding axiological vulnerabilities, Evering-
ham et al. (2021) remind us, how contemporary
tourism is embedded within a colonial structure of
power, where tourism growth and development serve
as the conduit for hegemony and control by some
over ‘the others’. These undercurrents create vulnerabil-
ities via authority, manipulations and other machina-
tions of power (Cole & Morgan, 2011), which is a well-
established fact in both tourist practices and study
(Hall & Brown, 2010).
Whom does the vulnerability of tourism studies
affect the most?
Building on the four categories of vulnerability described
above, those most affected would be the ones who are
institutionally, disciplinarily, onto-epistemologically and
axiologically excluded. As an instance, Brauer (2023) in
this special issue focuses on the institutional exclusion
of junior researchers and those others whose critical
voices place them either in the ‘wrong’ political divide,
or advocate for novel ontological and axiological
approaches, which may be seen as a threat to the nor-
malized status quo of the tourism research ecosystem.
He also denounces the imposed ‘research impact’
agenda, and its detrimental outcomes in the form of
workload pressures on researchers, and the mental
health risks that they produce in them. We should not
however dismiss the effects of this situation on students
who are deprived of novel and more encompassing
types of knowledge, and more experimental and critical
thinking capacities; as well as to practitioners and
society who are much less exposed to innovative and
potentially more inclusive managerial and behavioural
knowledge and practices.
When has the vulnerability concept received
most attention and generated more interest in
tourism studies?
Tzanelli (2023) in this special issue reminds us that it is at
times of major societal disruptions, such as terrorism,
climate and pandemic crises, when scholarship has paid
the most attention to the vulnerability of tourism
studies. In what concerns terrorism-induced crises,
tourism studies has put its main focus on economic
effects and destination image management including
policies of terrorism prevention, and only to a much
lesser extend on other threatened social groups and land-
scapes. As for pandemic crises and the abrupt disruption
of tourism mobilities that ensues, focus has been put on
the resilience of the tourism industry, and on the oppor-
tunity to ‘reset’ the ways in which tourism is performed
and catered for (Brouder, 2020), towards more sustainable
solutions. Finally, in what concerns climate crises, the
focus of some scholars is grounded on a presupposed
shared interest with that of future generations, even if
unfounded; while others call for ‘degrowing tourism’
(Higgins-Desbiolles et al., 2019) and ‘regenerative
tourism’ (Scheyvens & van der Watt, 2021) even if they
may lead to unintended associations with some known
‘colonial tropes of patronage’ (Tzanelli, 2023).
Under these three cases of disruption, tourism studies
seems to be ready to become more multi-disciplinary,

and more open to novel theorizations even if only in a
limited and restricted way. What is needed has been
pointed out by Kadri et al. (2023) in this special issue,
when they note that beyond these crises which affect
individuals and their way of being in the world, there is
another major and more invisible crisis, that of ‘our way
of being in the world and in time’. Are the tourist ecosys-
tem and the tourists ready to participate in responding to
this invisible crisis, which requires the desire to become
instead of simply to be, and the search for the different
instead of for the same? We argue, thus, that disruptions
in tourism produce feelings of vulnerability in tourism
scholarship, which has so far been dealt with through
an increased attention to new theorization and to multi-
disciplinarity, albeit with a rather myopic view of this
‘major crisis’ mentioned above. As a result, it can be
adduced that the vulnerability of the field has to be
found in its closedness, its disciplinarity and the low
value given to novel theorizations, instead of in the oppo-
site cases, as it is reckoned.
Why is vulnerability presented as a negative,
disempowering concept?
Looking back to the three types of tourism crisis ana-
lysed above, Tzanelli (2023), unearths some deep
moral codes infused in the responses given to the
crises. Terrorism’s impacts on tourist destinations are
explored in terms of material losses, cultural isolation
and psychic/cultural traumas. Scholarship in climate
crisis places the emphasis on the human costs of
climate disasters or on the entangled effects over the
Earth’s systems (Grimwood et al., 2018). Along the
same vein, pandemic effects construct arguments
about the need to preserve human life, even if the
rational of the preservation is clearly traced back to
human avarice and capitalist exploitation of both
nature and human populations (Lew et al., 2021).
These suffused moral codes that Tzanelli (2023)
unearths in the vulnerability discourses above are
grounded, we argue, in the ubiquitous and dominant,
Platonic, essentialist ontology of ideal forms, i.e. the
ontology of ‘the same’, the standard, the ideal, the
‘true’, which explains the ‘negativity’ of the discourse
on crises as ‘deviations’ from an assumed and ‘cherished’
status quo or ‘ideal’. This position can be contradistin-
guished from alternative positions, such as that of
Brauer (2023) in this special issue, who advocates for a
focus on worldmaking (Hollinshead, 2009); or that of
Kadri et al. (2023), who advocate for individuals and
organizations to take a different posture of ‘being in
the world and time’, one grounded on a Deleuzian ontol-
ogy where the focus shifts from the ideal and the same,
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 619
to difference and the differential. As a result, ‘crises and
‘vulnerability’ can be reconceptualized, from negative
moral codes of deviations to affirmative desire of
difference.
The (post)diciplinarity of tourism studies
What ‘disciplinary’ approach can we observe as
dominating the field of tourism studies through
time?
According to Pernecky (2023) in this special issue, tourism
studies has grown dramatically since its inception in the
1970s as a new social science with a distinct set of foci
formed largely by multi- and inter-disciplinary thought
from economics, sociology, psychology, geography and
anthropology (Jafari & Ritchie, 1981). After World War II,
its main aim was economic revitalization, employment
creation and growth, and tourism knowledge was there-
fore approached from an industrial and managerial per-
spective and a lack of criticality (Xiao et al., 2013).
Researchers began studying the negative effects of
tourism a decade later, after which Tribe (1997) argued
that tourism studies should be understood as two distinct
interdisciplinary fields: business studies and non-business
tourism studies. This conception started later to be
deemed as limiting, because as Hutnyk (2023) mentions
in this special issue, ‘tourism studies must study tourism
alongside other contextual factors, such as national
economy, international diplomacy, soft power disguised
as “development”, heritage as historical revisionism, deco-
lonisation, global recalibrations, environmental crisis, and,
frankly, the threatened end of the planet’ (p. 584).
In this context some scholars started to call for post-
disciplinary approaches that transcend any divisionary,
narrow and disciplinary-bound thinking (Chambers,
2018; Coles et al., 2005, 2006, 2016; Hollinshead, 2010,
2012; Hollinshead et al., 2009; Munar et al., 2016; Per-
necky, 2020). For them, the field of tourism studies has
become, despite the embracing of interdisciplinarity,
too ontologically narrow with the restricted notions of
what tourism is, i.e. essences instead of flows and
relations; too epistemologically narrow, with the stub-
born resistance to epistemic diversity and too slow in
accommodating the axiological shifts that are changing
tourism (Pernecky, 2023).
Which avenues do we have to move towards
postdisciplinarity in tourism studies?
Building on the above discussion, the articles in this
special issue point to some avenues for tourism studies
to become more postdisciplinary, such as the adoption
620 J. GUIA AND M. A. TRISIA
of indigenous knowledges (Fazito & Vargas 2023), phil-
osophy and religion (Hutnyk, 2023; Schweinsberg,
2023) and posthumanism (Pernecky, 2023). After all,
science, faith and philosophy may all have something
to say about what we know and what there is
(Gooding & Lennox, 2019), to which we would like to
also add art, whose value for a postdisciplinary under-
standing of tourism studies has been highly neglected
so far. No one single discipline should force its point of
view on any of the others out of simple self-interest.
There is much potential for tourism studies to embrace
and explore viewpoints beyond itself, what Pernecky
(2023) refers to as a ‘more-than-tourism’ perspective,
which may be fundamental if we want to realize
ethical, equitable and sustainable futures.
In what concerns indigeneous knowledge, and as
noted by Fazito and Vargas (2023), social and human
scientists must listen to and respect the wisdom of
native peoples and other extranational minorities, who
nevertheless resist the ‘modernizing blender of the
West’ (Viveiros de Castro, 2015). In this respect, scholars
have started to view the ‘praxis of indigenous knowl-
edge’ from theoretical paradigms such as counter-
anthropologies, interculturality, indianity, decoloniza-
tion and decoloniality, indigenous feminist theories,
otros saberes, epistemologies of the South, etc.
(Solano, 2015), and also as a source of novel political
ontologies and cosmo-histories, e.g. ‘buen vivir’, as a
full-dignified and righteous way of life (Acosta, 2008).
Despite this, the prevailing colonialist underpinnings of
the human and social sciences in tourism studies
makes it still difficult for tourism scholars to acknowl-
edge indigenous intellectual activity.
Similarly, Hutnyk (2023) and Schweinsberg (2023), see
the adoption of philosophical thinking difficult, as long
as tourism is merely seen and practised as a selfish, con-
sumerist, recreational and commercial activity. As noted
by Pernecky (2023), when tourism is naively and enthu-
siastically promoted, it entails an unethical represen-
tation of both human and nonhuman interests, e.g.
minority groups, marginalized communities, nonhu-
mans and the environment. Accordingly, adopting and
experimenting with post-humanist approaches are pre-
sented as promising avenues for the field.
The onto-ethico-epistemological enrichment
of tourism studies
How can the onto-ethico-epistemic foundations
of current tourism understanding be enriched?
There are both major concurrences and diffractions of
perspectives within the contributions in this special
issue, particularly those concerning avenues to enrich
onto-ethico-epistemologically the field of tourism
studies. Edelheim and Tillonen (2023) proposes using
Jafari’s platform model, a re-evaluation of the field’s pre-
mises, and identifies ways forward via concepts like
Pitchard et al.’s (2011) ‘hopeful tourism’; Tribe’s ‘philo-
sophic practitioner’ (2002); Hollinshead ‘worldmaking’
(2004); Sheldon et al.’s (2011) ‘values-based’ education;
Macbeth’s ‘ethics platform’ (2005); Caton’s ‘moral turn’
(2012) and Barkathunnisha et al.’s (2017) ‘spirituality-
based platform’, all of which share emphasis on how
values need to be overtly incorporated into the
tourism curriculum.
Fazito and Vargas (2023) recommend that we start by
explaining why the alleged core of tourism development
potential as an income and wealth generator and distri-
butor is demonstrably false, and why the current way of
doing science prevents knowledge production from
crossing certain ‘lines’ into the ‘forbidden zone’ (Jamal
& Hollinshead, 2001). This proposition assumes, that a
deeper understanding of life on Earth would contribute
to a kind of tourism as a producer of human encounters
with otherness, and ‘to increase the activities of dream-
ing, sharing, caring, loving, learning, creating, belonging,
and to retake the passion and joy for living’ (Fazito &
Vargas, 2023, p. 548).
Hutnyk (2023) urges us to have ‘a look for ourselves’; to
look at as many views, read as many versions and talk to
as many visitors as possible, but to also always try to make
our own way (Crick, 1989). The point is that all references
and prior experience are merely advisory, are only
interpretations, and that places are never the same
forever, but instead always in a state of becoming. He
also notes that the only suitable method to solve the
various problems that make it unwise to return to
tourism as we knew it is to hear and start with what
local participants view as their essential concerns, have
them say what qualifies as knowledge, and have them
lead the quest for it.
Kadri et al. (2023) reflect on the philosophical enrich-
ment of the field from debates about the ‘new normal’
after the COVID pandemic, and point at recommen-
dations focusing on a reconnection with host commu-
nities, the need for a tourism reset and transformation,
and a revamp of the economic model through a
degrowth strategy. The complexity of these transform-
ations towards new types of tourism, such as justice,
regenerative and responsible tourism is well noted by
the authors, who call for more theoretical and concep-
tual groundwork, the adoption of new paradigms that
support a shift in both perspective and practice, and a
philosophical rethinking of how relationships between
people and places (Ateljevic, 2020) and hosts and

guests (Cheer, 2020) are conceived, operationalized and
commodified.
Tzanelli’s (2023) arguments go one step further by
showing how even the most critical strands of tourism
studies with their catastrophist imaginary that forewords
scholarly political commitment to a better world, con-
tinues to be biopolitical even when it pronounces its
support of pro-environmental causes. Unfortunately,
the promise of holistic philosophies that drive post-
humanist communitarianism (i.e. we are part of a
larger-than-us totality) may also conceal ecofascistic
traps that recover totalizing ideologies. Being eco-
friendly can also be exclusionary and dangerous if
tourism solutions could reproduce less biodiverse
environments (Fuller, 2006). Moreover, these critical
strands of tourism research have an ambivalence
towards globalization, as Tzanelli (2023) claims. There-
fore, regardless of its best intentions to contribute to a
better world, these positions continue to be primarily
humanist. Therefore, if these entrenched limitations,
that even the most critical positions have, are to be over-
come, it is the exploration of post humanist ontologies
what we contend is more needed.
Finally, Pernecky (2023) explains how the discipline of
tourist studies has entered a phase of multiple vulner-
abilities, one where the academic community must
react to environmental and planetary problems while
simultaneously considering the well-being of nonhu-
mans and multispecies, and where vulnerability shifts
to refer to the inability of tourism studies to embrace
ontological, epistemological and axiological innovations
to deal with these novel and wicked problems. Calls are
made for a tourism ontology grounded on relational
assemblages; a tourism studies’ knowledge not deter-
mined as much by universal rigour and objectivity but
by openness to a multiplicity of situated knowledges
able to deal with the ever-dynamic, ever-flowing
nature of tourism; and an approach to tourism and
tourism research which is axiologically affirmative
(Guia & Jamal, 2020; Pernecky, 2023).
Where can we find the inspiration for such a
mammoth enriching programme for the field?
Some of the papers of the special issue identify several
sources of inspiration for an eventual enrichment of
the onto-ethico-epistemological foundations of current
tourism research (Fazito and Vargas, 2023; Pernecky,
2023; Tzanelli, 2023).
Pernecky (2023), inspired by Haraway’s (2016) scho-
larship on broader planetary matters, proposes ‘kinmak-
ing’ as a disruptive conceptual instrument for
transitioning into ‘more-than-tourism’ studies. Here,
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 621
kinmaking is an invitation to think and act relationally
and existentially about the interconnectivity, fragility
and dependency of many things in the greater scheme
of existence. As a critical examination of how we are
with each other and the world, kinmaking has the poten-
tial to establish new architectures of social and natural
realities that are less oppressive, violent and exploitative;
and calls for the dislodgement of human-centric/
tourism-centric conceptual, theoretical and empirical
worldviews that have so far presided over the planet,
its communities and its multispecies. Similarly, as
noted by Fazito and Vargas (2023) Western principles
have failed to govern our modern society, while indigen-
ous concepts have started to spread to social move-
ments all over the globe. Moreover, such movements
and indigenous knowledge have, according to post-
development scholars (Escobar, 1995; Peet & Watts,
1996; Santos, 2004; Santos, 2011) the potential to gradu-
ally dismantle the dominant neoliberal discourses of
development and introduce novel theorizations. On a
similar vein, Tzanelli (2023) advocates for a ‘postpheno-
menological’ approach that attends to invisible pro-
cesses of feeling, knowing and valuing, which
eventually can shape and be shaped materially by the
world around us.
What we find here is an invitation to an onto-ethico-
epistemologically enriched post-disciplinary field of
tourism studies, by way of process, relational and post-
humanist ontologies. Thinkers such as Deleuze (1994)
and Barad (2007), as well as other strands of new materi-
alism (Benson, 2019; Braidotti, 2011; Haraway, 2016)
have emphasized the dynamic, event-based nature of
reality and challenged the notion of matter as a
passive substance. Therefore, their ontologies agree
well with those recently suggested as promising
avenues for the field (Guia & Jamal, 2020; Guia, 2021;
Guia & Jamal, 2023; Matteucci et al., 2021; Stinson
et al., 2022).
Futuring as worldmaking: in search of new
viabilities for tourism studies
WHOW! … and if, instead of setting epistemic
boundaries and defensive walls, tourism studies
moved forward into an open onto-ethico-
epistemological space?
Pernecky (2023), in this special issue, shows how there is
a conservative stream of tourism researchers that fear a
more ‘open’ field, which would, according to them, make
tourism studies less and less relevant. In their view
(McKercher & Tung, 2015, p. 313), ‘as long as we con-
tinue to “do” tourism, research tourism issues from a
622 J. GUIA AND M. A. TRISIA
tourism perspective and explore issues with the goal of
understanding better the phenomenon and practice of
tourism, the field will thrive’. These concerns are a reflec-
tion of the meta-epistemological problems that arise
when academic subjects and disciplines develop.
Rather than focusing on upkeeping what has been
built, we should be asking instead whether it is still ade-
quate for its intended use. Continuing to ‘do’ tourism
and investigating tourism issues from a ‘tourism per-
spective’ is not a viable pathway for thriving commu-
nities and multispecies when our past tourism ‘doings’
have contributed to the types of tourism increasingly
seen as problematic (Pernecky, 2023). Instead, ‘progress’
is achieved when we understand tourism at an ontologi-
cal level and investigate alternative, more practical ways
of interpreting the phenomenon. Development cannot
just mean maintaining the status quo of established epis-
temic apparatuses; rather, it must denote a revitalization
of the mind via the cultivation of new perspectives and
ways of thinking. If we want to ensure a hopeful plane-
tary future, we must be looking for more conceptually,
theoretically and philosophically flexible ways of navi-
gating tourism, for a ‘more-than-tourism studies’, and
for ‘other-than-tourism perspectives’ (Pernecky, 2023).
Along these same lines, Fazito and Vargas (2023)
stress the fact that even tourism ‘critical studies’ have
failed to provide a viable alternative to Eurocentric
development and knowledge discourses, and alerts
about their inability to counter their repeated contri-
butions to hegemonic epistemologies and dominant
development discourse, despite their best intentions.
When most people throughout the globe declare that
another world is feasible, tourism studies have been
unable to envision a situation in which ‘another
tourism’ is possible. Against this backdrop, it is critical
to stay not just aware and reflective about such
issues, but also to actively seek for more epistemologi-
cal and ontological openness, greater intellectual inno-
vation and a larger variety of thought in and around
tourism.
But how can we achieve this transformation, and
what may it lead to? In the articles of this special issue,
we find three propositions. In the first place, Pernecky
(2023), following Hollinshead (2021, p. 151) reminds us
how important it is that ‘those senior incumbents in
the field take reflexive Deleuzian considerations on the
worldmaking power they routinely exercise’. Then,
Fazito and Vargas (2023) identify Andrade’s (1991) Cul-
tural Anthropophagy as a decolonizing philosophy
based on the re-emergence of Indian American cosmovi-
sions and on reflections upon indigenous attitudes
toward nature and a playful and joyful leisure; and as a
stimulating and promising contribution to the
production of a counter-discourse about modernity, an
assault on the Western epistemological hegemony,
and an extremely potent line of thought about decoloni-
ality. Finally, Hutnyk (2023) emphasizes that all the
above is done as an action of intellectual repair, as ‘an
obligation to get to know, talk with, understand and
study with and among the local historians, artists,
writers, journalists, performers, workers, agents, archi-
tects and scientists of the local community’ (pp.587–
588), as a means of habit transformation.
Why not, foster an ontologically relational,
epistemologically plural and ethically affirmative
approach to tourism and tourism studies?
Ontological relationality
Regarding ontology, Pernecky (2023) advocates for more
relational, sympoietic and post-humanist approaches,
whereby ‘sympoiesis is about making-with, becoming-
with, rather than self-making through appropriation of
everything as resource’ (Haraway, 2018, p. 68), thus
emphasizing the interconnectedness, interdependence
and entanglement of entities and phenomena; and shift-
ing the focus towards ‘the ways in which people, places
and entities are connected/in relations, which take pre-
cedence over the study of substances and essences’
(Pernecky, 2023, p. 561). In emphasizing that people
are accountable to one another and to the world, Har-
away’s concept of kinmaking, as proposed by Pernecky
(2023), refers to the unwavering determination to think
and behave in ways that allow humans, nonhumans
and multispecies to have a chance; and because of its
intrinsic frankness in facilitating conversation with and
on behalf of multiple people and organizations, and its
desire to transcend ‘the human-centric/tourist-centric
worldviews that have dominated tourism’ (p. 562), it
has much to offer as a relational and posthumanist
approach.
In its turn, Tzanelli (2023) emphasizes the affective
nature of relational ontologies and contends that
‘taking affective discourse seriously can shed alterna-
tive light on ‘vulnerability’ and ‘viability’ with regards
to the academic field of tourism studies’ and enrich
ontologically the field. This emphasis on affect empha-
sizes Hollinshead and Vellah’s (2020) contention that
worldviews are not factual but virtual, and that they
rely on hopeful affect so that what becomes a reality
emerges. Therefore, they can be hoped and planned,
but never predicted with any assurance or precision.
In all, what relational and posthumanist ontologies
can productively advance in tourism studies, is ‘the
necessity to think cooperatively, not

anthropocentrically; relationally, not self-centrically’
(Pernecky, 2023, p. 561).
Epistemological plurality
Fazito and Vargas (2023) and Schweinsberg (2023) advo-
cate for improving the academic debate of tourism
studies by means of an epistemological plurality that
enables the emergence of new knowledges from
which science can learn from. On a different line, Per-
necky (2023) shows how academic pioneers and innova-
tive scholars ‘are not always easily discernible, not
always communicating in the English language, not
always publishing in highly-ranked journals, and not
always recognised by performance matrices and by
those in seats of power’ (p. 560). There is, therefore, a
call to questioning the monolithic and taken-for-
granted idea that the ‘Western’ epistemology is the
unique criteria of social analysis. It is, we contend, this
lack of epistemic diversity what makes tourism studies
vulnerable, as opposed to our advocated epistemic plur-
ality. As argued by Hollinshead (2021), the danger of an
overt commitment to epistemic essentialism about
tourism is that it can turn into blind orthodoxy, particu-
larly if left unchecked and unquestioned.
Towards an affirmative ethics
Edelheim and Tillonen (2023), in this special issue,
overtly advocates for an axiological enrichment of
tourism studies, as also do Fazito and Vargas (2023),
when they refer to Hollinshead’s (1992) idea of ‘cosmovi-
sion’ (worldviews) as the seat of specific axiologies.
However, as they note, indigenous values are still
usually presented in the tourism literature as simply
innovative ways of addressing hegemonic Western con-
cerns, e.g. resilience, sustainability and environmental
justice. As a result, tourism, as a modern neoliberal
endeavour remains deeply rooted in a history of depen-
dency on Western industries and development practice,
while the indigenous labourers continue being
exploited. Therefore, even this literature has failed to
challenge the Eurocentric system of values that domi-
nate the globe in the name of modernization, economic
growth and neoliberalism.
In its turn, Hutnyk (2023) explores the moral and
charitable aspects of the dominant axiology of tourism
studies:
how is it that those with the economic privilege of being
able to shift locations with relative ease, trading their
middle-income jobs for purchasing power in the low-
wage peripheries of capitalism, then think that resol-
ution of their residual, largely unexamined, guilt at this
disparity means they can offer good works out of chari-
table magnanimity? (p. 586)
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 623
An axiology, he contends, must not be conceived of in
terms of rigid norms, because these have been
grounded in power asymmetries in the first place.
Instead, it must be nurtured as a relational tool for
reconfiguring the ways of relating to other peoples
and entities, and the world at large vis-à-vis tourism.
Finally, Pernecky (2023), by putting the focus on the
‘more-than-human’, calls for the adoption of a post-
humanist axiology, with which, nonbiological relations
would be included in a newly forming axiological land-
scape of tourism.
Despite the above contributions, the papers in this
special issue are not explicit on what ethical approach
fits best to overcome the vulnerabilities of the field and
the ontological and epistemological viabilities shown in
this paper. We argue that the more promising and
needed approach is that of an affirmative ethics (Braidotti,
2013), an ethics of willing that which occurs inasmuch as
it occurs, neither with resignation nor resentment, but
simply with affirmation (Guia & Jamal, 2020).
Conclusion
The very question of how tourism studies can contribute
to improve people’s life in society remain under-concep-
tualized and dominated by simplifications of complex
problems (Fazito & Vargas, 2023) thus revealing a
major vulnerability of these studies. In Hutnyk’s (2023)
words, how can we ‘address dilemmas of employment,
exploitation, opportunism, over-tourism, exoticism,
charity, ego-investment, development, heritage, social
media, fashion trends, time squeeze, and strained collab-
orations, all of which seem to have reached a peak
moment of critical criticism?’ (p. 584).
So far tourism studies amount to a well-established
body of knowledge that must be maintained and safe-
guarded, otherwise, it has been claimed, would lead to
disintegration. However, in the face of the many
societal threats, as shown above, the future of this stag-
nated and rather inflexible understanding of tourism
studies is one of increased vulnerability, contrary to
the initial believe. Conversely, for tourism intelligences
to remain vibrant, relevant and enriching, it is inevitable
to foster thinking and ‘doing’ that goes beyond the
already well-mapped and well-trekked territories
(Fazito & Vargas, 2023). Whereas the first approach
may seek to resist inevitable ontological, epistemologi-
cal and axiological ‘vulnerabilities’, the latter would
likely embrace them and will build upon them. There-
fore, the viabilities sought to overcome real vulnerabil-
ities must be found in the intensification of
postdiciplinarity and the embracing of new ontological,
epistemological and axiological frameworks, as
624 J. GUIA AND M. A. TRISIA
Pernecky (2023) and Edelheim and Tillonen (2023) have
noted in this special issue.
The vulnerability of the dominant essentialist onto-
logical framework can be articulated by embracing an
affective, post-humanist and relational type of ontology,
whereby actual entities are produced by processes of
individuation without the need for transcendent genera-
tive principles, and where with every relational rep-
etition the individuation mutates. Similarly,
epistemological vulnerability lies in the limitations of
the dominant framework, which fails to acknowledge
that knowledge is always partial, embodied and
embedded and therefore plural, and dismisses the
value of indigenous, and other more-than-human epis-
temologies. Finally, axiologial vulnerability has to be
found in the reification of moralistic and universal under-
standings of ethics, thus calling for another ethics, one of
meeting others in response-ability and without domina-
tion, an affirmative ethics, an amor fati.
As a note of conclusion, it is worth noting that this
reflections on ontological, epistemological and axiologi-
cal approaches to tourism research, which are empha-
sized in this special issue, and which overturn the
traditional and ‘misplaced’ sense of vulnerability in
tourism studies, agree with the Deleuzian post-humanist
onto-ethico-epistemic framework that Guia and Jamal
(2020) propose for tourism research. We would therefore
like to envisage a promising and hopeful future for
tourism studies, where calls for more conceptual, philo-
sophical and theoretical developments in the field must
persist, and the increasing acceptance of qualitative and
soft science approaches to research continue to be
encouraged.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributor
Jaume Guia is a Professor at the University of Girona, Spain,
programme director of the Erasmus Mundus European
Master’s in Tourism Management (EMTM), and Visiting
Researcher at the School of Tourism and Hospitality, University
of Johannesburg, South Africa. His academic publications have
covered a large variety of tourism research topics e.g., destina-
tion management, destination branding, destination govern-
ance, cross-border tourism, place making, traveller’s
experiences and new mobilities and forms of tourism. Recently,
he has been involved in introducing posthumanist, Deleuzian
and new-materialist approaches in tourism research, and
reconceptualizing its dominant understandings of justice,
coordination, cosmopolitanism, and hospitality.
Marlisa Ayu Trisia currently holds a position of postdoctoral
fellow at the Institute of Tourism Research, and the Depart-
ment of Business Administration and Product Design,
University of Girona, Spain. She obtained her PhD in Rural
Development from Ehime University, Japan and was postdoc-
toral fellow at Nagoya University, Japan with the main research
topic on rural development. She has worked in various huma-
nitarian organizations, including Plan International, GIZ and
UNDP where she gained experience in practical cases of rural
development and community development. Currently, her
research interest has moved towards the role and impacts of
tourism in rural development from the lens of posthumanist
and new-materialist approaches.
ORCID
Jaume Guia http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6039-4393
References
Acosta, A. (2008). El Buen Vivir, una oportunidad por construir
[Good living, an opportunity to build]. Revista Ecuador
Debate, pp. 1–12. https://base.socioeco.org/docs/ecuador_
debate_dic.2008.pdf
Andrade, O. D. (1991). Cannibalist manifesto. Latin American
Literary Review, 19(38), 38–47. https://www.jstor.org/stable/
20119601?origin=JSTOR-pdf
Ateljevic, I. (2020). Transforming the (tourism) world for good
and (re)generating the potential ‘new normal’. Tourism
Geographies, 22(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.
2020.1759134
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics
and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke
University Press.
Barkathunnisha, A. B., Lee, D., & Price, A. (2017). Transcending
towards a spirituality-basedplatform in tourism higher edu-
cation: A contemplation of the pedagogical implications.
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education,
21, 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2016.11.003
Benson, M. H. (2019). New materialism: An ontology for the
anthropocene. Natural Resources Journal, 59(2), 251–280.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26800037
Braidotti, R. (2011). Nomadic theory. Columbia University Press.
Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Polity.
Brauer, R. (2023). Tourism studies and the changing research
ecosystem. Tourism Recreation Research. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02508281.2023.2188707
Brauer, R., Dymitrow, M., & Tribe, J. (2019). The impact of
tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 77, 64–78.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.05.006
Brouder, P. (2020). Reset redux: possible evolutionary pathways
towards the transformation of tourism in a COVID-19 world.
Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 484–490. https://doi.org/10.
1080/14616688.2020.1760928
Butowski, L. (2016). The issue of disciplinarity and non-discipli-
narity of tourism studies. Téoros, 35(1), 1–22. http://journals.
openedition.org/teoros/2899
Caton, K. (2012). Taking the moral turn in tourism studies.
Annals of Tourism Research, 39(4), 1906–1928. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.05.021
Chambers, D. (2018). Tourism research: Beyond the imitation
game. Tourism Management Perspectives, 25, 193–195.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2017.11.010

Cheer, J. M. (2020). Human flourishing, tourism transformation and
COVID-19: A conceptual touchstone. Tourism Geographies, 22
(3), 514–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1765016
Cole, S., & Morgan, N. (2011). Introduction: Tourism and
inequalities. In S. Cole, & N. Morgan (Eds.), Tourism and
inequality: Problems and prospects (pp. xvii–xxv). CABI.
Coles, T. E., 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
Coles, T. E., Hall, C. M., & Duval, D. T. (2006). Tourism and post-
disciplinary enquiry. Current Issues in Tourism, 9(4-5), 293–
319. https://doi.org/10.2167/cit327.0
Coles, T. E., Hall, C. M., & Duval, D. T. (2016). Tourism and post-
disciplinarity: Back to the future? Tourism Analysis, 21(4),
373–387. https://doi.org/10.3727/108354216X14679788636
113
Crick, M. (1989). Representations of international tourism in the
social sciences: Sun, sights, sex, savings and servility. Annual
Review of Anthropology, 18(1), 307–344. https://doi.org/10.
1146/annurev.an.18.100189.001515
Deleuze, G. (1994). Difference and repetition. Columbia
University Press.
Edelheim, J. & Tillonen, M. (2023). Is an axiological turn viable
for tourism studies? Reinvestigating the platforms model.
Tourism Recreation Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02508281.2023.2191469
Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering Development: The making and
unmaking of the third world. Princeton University Press.
Everingham, P., Peters, A., & Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2021). The
(im) possibilities of doing tourism otherwise: The case of
settler colonial Australia and the closure of the climb at
Uluru. Annals of Tourism Research, 88, Article 103178.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2021.103178
Fazito, M., & Vargas, S. (2023). Free time as a central issue of
Tourism Studies: A genealogy of leisure/idleness based on
the indigenous cosmovisions of Latin America. Tourism
Recreation Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/10.1080/
02508281.2023.2223472
Fennell, D. A. (2008). Tourism ethics needs more than a surface
approach. Tourism Recreation Research, 33(2), 223–224.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2008.11081309
Fuller, S. (2006). The new sociological imagination. SAGE.
Gooding, D., & Lennox, J. (2019). Questioning our knowledge:
Can we know what we need to know. Myrtlefield House.
Gössling, S., Hall, C. M., & Weaver, D. (2009). Sustainable tourism
futures: Perspectives on systems, restructuring and inno-
vations. Routledge.
Grimwood, B., Caton, K., & Cooke, L. (2018). New moral natures
in tourism. Routledge.
Guia, J. (2021). Conceptualizing justice tourism and the
promise of posthumanism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
29(2-3), 503–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.
1771347
Guia, J., & Jamal, T. (2020). A (Deleuzian) posthumanist
paradigm for tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research,
84, Article 102982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.
102982
Guia, J., & Jamal, T. (2023). An affective and posthumanist
cosmopolitan hospitality. Annals of Tourism Research,
100, Article 103569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2023.
103569
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 625
Hall, D., & Brown, F. (2010). Post-colonialism’, Responsibility
and Tourism Academics: Where’s the connection? Tourism
Recreation Research, 35(3), 291–297. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02508281.2010.11081645
Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the
Chthulecene. Duke University Press.
Haraway, D. (2018). Staying with trouble for multispecies
environmental justice. Dialogues in Human Geography, 8
(1), 102–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820617739208
Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2020). The “war over tourism”:
Challenges to sustainable tourism in the tourism academy
after COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(4), 551–
569. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1803334
Higgins-Desbiolles, F., Carnicelli, S., Krolikowski, C., Wijesinghe,
G., & Boluk, K. (2019). Degrowing tourism: Rethinking tourism.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(12), 1926–1944. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1601732
Hollinshead, K. (1992). White” gaze, “red” people-shadow
visions: The disidentification of “Indians” in cultural
tourism. Leisure Studies, 11(1), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02614369100390301
Hollinshead, K. (2004). Tourism and new sense - Worldmaking
and the enunciative value of tourism. In C. M. Hall, & H.
Tucker (Eds.), Tourism and Postcolonialism - Contested dis-
courses, identities and representations (pp. 25–42). Routledge.
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. (2010). Tourism studies and confined under-
standing: The call for a “new sense” postdisciplinary imagin-
ary. Tourism Analysis, 15(4), 499–512. https://doi.org/10.
3727/108354210X12864727693669
Hollinshead, K. (2012). The under-conceptualisations of
tourism studies: The case for postdisciplinary knowing. In I.
Ateljevic, N. Morgan, & A. Pritchard (Eds.), The critical turn
in tourism studies: Creating an academy of hope (pp. 55–
72). Taylor & Francis.
Hollinshead, K. (2021). Thinking imaginatively via generative
vitality in tourism studies (after Deleuze). Journal of
Tourismology, 7(2), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.26650/jot.
2021.7.2.943900
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
Hollinshead, K., & Vellah, A. B. (2020). Dreaming forward:
Postidentity and the generative thresholds of tourism.
Journal of Geographical Research, 3(4), 8–21. https://doi.
org/10.30564/jgr.v3i4.2299
Hutnyk, J. (2023). Going to have a look for yourself? Problems
in the post-pandemic reboot of tourism anthropology in
Vietnam. Tourism Recreation Research. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02508281.2023.2201755
Jafari, J., & Ritchie, B. J. R. (1981). Toward a framework for
tourism education: Problems and prospects. Annals of
Tourism Research, 8(1), 13–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0160-7383(81)90065-7
Jamal, T., & Hollinshead, K. (2001). Tourism and the Forbidden
Zone: The undeserved power of qualitative inquiry. Tourism
Management, 22(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-
5177(00)00020-0
626 J. GUIA AND M. A. TRISIA
Kadri, B., Lapointe, D., & Tacherifet, S. (2023). Rethinking or
Reinventing tourism? Ontological and epistemological
conflicts of tourism in times of pandemic. Tourism Recreation
Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2023.2224705
Lew, A. A., Cheer, J. M., Brouder, P., & Mostafanezhad, M. (2021).
Global tourism and COVID-19. Routledge.
Lew, A. A., Cheer, J. M., Haywood, M., Brouder, P., & Salazar, N. B.
(2020). Visions of travel and tourism after the global COVID-19
transformation of 2020. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 455–466.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1770326
Macbeth, J. (2005). Towards an ethics platform of tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 962–984. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.annals.2004.11.005
Mason, P. (2007). No better than a band-aid for a bullet wound!:
The effectiveness of tourism codes of conduct. In R. Black
and A. Crabtree (Eds.), Quality assurance and certification
in ecotourism (pp. 46–64). CABI. https://doi.org/10.1079/
9781845932374.004
Matteucci, X., Nawijn, J., & von Zumbusch, J. (2021). A new
materialist governance paradigm for tourism destinations.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 30(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09669582.2021.1924180
McKercher, B., & Tung, V. (2015). Publishing in tourism and hos-
pitality journals: Is the past a prelude to the future? Tourism
Management, 50, 306–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2015.03.008
Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (2015). Tourism and sustainability:
Development, globalisation and new tourism in the third
world. Routledge.
Munar, A. M., Pernecky, T., & Feighery, W. (2016). An introduction
to tourism postdisciplinarity. Tourism Analysis, 21(4), 313–347.
https://doi.org/10.3727/108354216X14600320851578
Peet, R., & Watts, M. (1996). Liberation ecologies. Routledge.
Pernecky, T. (2020). An unintroduction to postdisciplinary
knowledge. In T. Pernecky (Ed.), Postdisciplinary knowledge
(pp. 1–21). Routledge.
Pernecky, T. (2023). Kinmaking: toward more-than-tourism
(studies). Tourism Recreation Research. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02508281.2023.2207154
Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N. (2007). De-centring tourism’s intel-
lectual universe, or traversing the dialogue between
change and tradition. In I. Ateljevic, A. Pritchard & N.
Morgan (Eds.) The critical turn in tourism studies (pp. 11–
28). Routledge.
Pritchard, A., Morgan, N., & Ateljevic, I. (2011). Hopeful tourism: A
new transformative perspective. Annals of Tourism Research,
38(3), 941–963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.01.004
Santos, B. (2004). The WSF: toward a counter-hegemonic glo-
balization (Part 1). In J. Sen, & P. Waterman (Eds.), World
social forum: Challenging empires (pp. 235–245). The Viveka
Foundation.
Santos, M. (2011). Por Uma Outra Globalização: Do pensamento
único à consciência universal [For another globalization: from
single thought to universal consciousness]. Record.
Savransky, M. (2022). Ecological uncivilisation: Precarious
world-making after progress. The Sociological Review,
70(2), 367–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380261221
084782
Scheyvens, R., & van der Watt, H. (2021). Tourism, empower-
ment and sustainable development: a new framework for
analysis. Sustainability, 13(22), Article 12606. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su132212606
Schweinsberg, S. (2023). Religion, spirituality, and the for-
mation of tourism knowledge. Tourism Recreation Research.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2023.2208464
Scott, D., Hall, C. M., & Gössling, S. (2012). Tourism and
climate change: Impacts, adaptation and mitigation.
Routledge.
Sheldon, P., Fesenmaier, D. R., & Tribe, J. (2011). The tourism
education futures initiative (TEFI): activating change in
tourism education. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism,
11(1), 2–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2011.548728
Singh. (2023). Tourism is just as vulnerable as is viable. Tourism
Recreation Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.
2023.2222359
Solano, X. L. (2015). Prácticas otras de conocimientos(s): Entre
crisis, entre guerras (tomo I) [Other practices of knowledge
(s): Between crises, between wars. Volume I]. La Casa del
Mago.
Stinson, M. J., Hurst, C. E., & Grimwood, B. S. R. (2022). Tracing
the materiality of reconciliation in tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 94, Article 103380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
annals.2022.103380
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. (2002). The philosophic practitioner. Annals of Tourism
Research, 29(2), 338–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-
7383(01)00038-X
Tzanelli, R. (2023). Economies of attention and the design of
viable tourism futures. Tourism Recreation Research.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2023.2188708
Viveiros de Castro, E. (2015). Metafísicas Canibais:
Elementos para uma antropologia pós-estrutural [Cannibal
Metaphysics: Elements for a Post-structural Anthropology].
Cosac Naify.
Wallace, T. (2005). Tourism, tourists, and anthropologists at
work. Napa Bulletin, 23(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1525/
napa.2005.23.1.1
Xiao, H., Jafari, J., Cloke, P., & Tribe, J. (2013). Annals: 40–40
vision. Annals of Tourism Research, 40, 352–385. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.10.003