methodology in tourism research

Annnlr sf Tourism Research, Vol. 15, pp. l-28, 1988 0160-7383188 $3.00 + .OO Printed in the USA All rights reserved. Copyright 0 1988 Pergamon Journals Ltd. and J. Jafari

METHODOLOGY IN TOURISM RESEARCH

Graham Dann University of the West Indies, Barbados

Dennison Nash University of Connecticut, USA

Philip Pearce James Cook University of North Queensland, Australia

Abstract: This exploratory article attempts to highlight some areas of tourism research which are believed to lack sufficient methodological sophistication. The origin of such research is outlined, together with the ambivalent attitudes displayed by practitioners and outsiders alike. By means of a four quadrant model, the interplay between theoretical awareness and methodological sophistication is explored, but only in one quadrant is sufficient balance said to be achieved. To substantiate these points, examples are drawn from tourism research and from a meta-analysis of articles featured in two leading journals. Theoretical awareness and methodological sophistication are then spelled out in more detail and are seen to coincide at the conceptualization stage of the research process. Contri- butions to this special issue ofAnnals are introduced and possible areas for further research are briefly examined. Keywords: theoretical awareness, methodological sophistication, meta-analysis, tourism research.

R&urn&: la mtthodologie des recherches en tourisme. Cet article prtlimi- naire cherche a identifier quelques sujets dans la recherche touristique qui semblent manquer un degre suffisant de sophistication methodologique. On donne un apercu des origines de ces recherches et des attitudes ambi- gues dont ont fait preuve les specialistes aussi bien que les profanes. Par moyen d’un modele 2 quatre quadrants, on examine l’effet rtciproque entre la conscience theorique et la sophistication mCthodologique. 11 n’y a qu’un quadrant oti l’on puisse dire que l’tquilibre est suffisant. Alin de justifier les conclusions de l’article, on tire des exemples de la recherche en tourisme et dune mttanalyse de grands articles de deux revues de pointe. Ensuite, on fournit des precisions de ce que c’est que la conscience thtori- que et la sophistication methodologique. II est evident que ces deux aspects n’en sont qu’un seul au stade conceptuel d’un travail de recherche. On presente les autres articles de ce numero special de Annals, et on jette un coup d’oeil sur quelques sujets oti l’on pourrait faire des recherches plus approfondies. Mots clef: conscience theorique, sophistication methodologique, mttanalyse, recherches en tourisme.

Graham Dann (Faculty of Social Sciences, University of the West Indies, Bridge- town, Barbados) has research interests in tourist motivation and the semiotics of its manipulation. Dennison Nash has undertaken a number of studies of permanent tourists (expatriates), and has helped pave the way for the establishment of an anthropology of tourism. Philip Pearce has focused his attention on the social-psychological aspects of tourism, and has written extensively in this area.

2 METHODOLOGY IN TOURISM RESEARCH

INTRODUCTION

As any science grows, it develops new specializations. Sometimes these specializations are simply a matter of a more efficient division of labor. As the discipline becomes more complex, it makes more sense for different practitioners to handle several specialized areas where one existed before. Thus, in sociology, the founding fathers once covered a vast array of topics in all embracing theories. Today their successors confine themselves to more narrowly circumscribed domains.

At other times, specialization in a science is not the result of a naturally evolving division of labor, but rather of some theoretical breakthrough that establishes at least two theoretical camps where one existed before. One thinks, for instance, of the theory of evolution and its influence on biology, where an alternative perspective began to replace the static taxonomic approach of earlier times.

Yet again, specialization may follow the discovery of fresh topics for study which can require novel theoretical perspectives and methodological procedures. So it was with the emergence of psychoanalysis in the field of psychology. Freud became convinced that there was an area of the human psyche that, until then, had not been taken into account. He created new theories and methodologies to deal with the influence of the unconscious on everyday behavior.

This last example is analogous to the emergence of tourism research in the social sciences. The field of tourism was discovered by social scientists in the early 197Os, and has become a legitimate area for systematic investigation. Whether it will require new conceptual approaches and methodologies is still largely debatable, and certainly beyond the scope of this essay.

It is instructive to follow the development of this new field of inquiry. Something akin to tourism has existed for a long time. In the West, it can be found among the ancient Romans and Greeks, as well as in the simplest kinds of contemporary societies that serve as models for the earliest hunters and gatherers (Nash 1977). Moreover, since at least the 193Os, when mass tourism emerged in France and other places, it has become a salient social fact of the contemporary world. Yet social scientists have shown a strange reluctance to consider the phenomenon. Richter (1983:314), f or instance, points out that, though tourism is only surpassed by oil as an item in world trade, “Political science has scarcely a clue [about it].” Additionally, Mitchell (1979) maintains that, though research on tourism has been conducted by geographers for about fifty years, there is still a dearth of publications in the geographic literature on the subject.

In anthropology and sociology, early studies of tourism usually came about as a spin-off from other research (Nuiiez 1977). Thus, Boisse- vain (1977), who was conducting a study on Malta, and Greenwood (1972), who was investigating the Basques, began to examine tourism as a factor in development. Yet, considering the ubiquity of tourism in the world, social scientists seem to have been reluctant to take it seriously (Cohen 1984).

In a previous issue of Annals devoted to political science and tourism, Matthews (1983:304) argued that one of the reasons why social scientists were reluctant to turn to tourism was lack of financial support.

DANN. NASH AND PEARCE 3

This does indeed seem to have been the case as far as traditional academic aid was concerned. At the same time, it should be noted that some funding for applied research was available from governmental and supra-governmental agencies, and that social scientists could tap these funds by adjusting their academic routines, and possibly by becoming consultants.

However, absence of funding would seem to be only part of the problem. Tourism often has a frivolous side, and Matthews (1983) argues that social scientists tended to avoid it in order to maintain their image as serious scholars. Personal comments from a number of people who have made contributions to the study of tourism suggest that there is some substance to this remark.

Despite their initial reluctance, social scientists are now well em- barked on the study of tourism. As their work has proliferated, the full extent of this large and intricate field is beginning to unfold. As Nash (1981) has pointed out, tourism can be seen as a complex process that includes not only a host situation where tourists and their hosts come together, but also a home situation where visitors are generated and drawn to particular destinations. They travel to these destinations and engage in a variety of activities. Their hosts, some of whom greet and serve them, are affected directly or indirectly by the tourists in their midst, while the tourists themselves are influenced by their odysseys which, in turn, can affect their home societies. Such a process, once established, can become an elaborate domestic or international system with many interconnections.

Tourism is also a multidimensional phenomenon that can be looked at from a number of points of view. In this journal, the approaches of different kinds of social scientists have been assessed from time to time. There have been special issues on the geography of tourism (Mitchell 1979), the anthropology of tourism (Graburn 1983), and so forth. Through such issues and the growing body of other literature on the subject, scholars have been made aware of the different approaches to the study of tourism. As a result, they should now be not only better acquainted with the field, but also with the different ways in which it can be conceived and investigated.

This special issue of Annals is intended to further this awareness by raising what is believed to be some of the important methodological issues of tourism research, assessing the state-of-the-art in this field, and proposing some items for a methodological agenda that will be appropriate for carrying on the study of tourism in the future. The discussion is organized under six headings: modeling the interplay of theory and method; a meta-analysis of past tourism research; theoretical awareness; methodological sophistication; current contributions to the methodology of tourism research; and suggestions for further research.

MODELING THE INTERPLAY OF THEORY AND METHOD

“Methodology” is etymologically derived from the Greek ~E~(Y-‘o~o{- Xoyo{. It thus literally means a rational way or journey undertaken in pursuit of some specified goal. In the social sciences, methodology


has since come to signify the acceptance of standardized procedures, according to which research is carried out and evaluated. Even though there are minor differences within separate disciplines, nevertheless there is overriding consensus within the social scientific community that a set of ground rules is necessary to the logic of social inquiry. Awareness of, and careful adherence to, these ground rules thus char- acterizes sophisticated methodology. (However, an important minority view sees little virtue in undertaking empirical investigations until the philosophical assumptions underpinning socially constructed reality are thoroughly explored. Thus, methodology comes to signify “a means of generating abstract views of social scenes” whose task is “to uncover participants’ rules for applying the meanings, labels and understand- ings that constitute for them an undoubted reality” (Silverman, 1973: 183, 189). McHugh et al (1974) re resent this way of thinking in p relation to the study of tourism.)

On the other hand, techniques of investigation (e.g., interviewing, participant observation, etc.) and of analysis (e.g., comparison, regression, etc.) are seen as the means or instruments of research, subject to the rigors of methodology. (Iso-Ahola (1980) further distinguishes investigation into “experimental” (laboratory and field), where the researcher controls the independent variables, and “non-experimental” (field studies, surveys, etc.), where the independent variables are al- ready in place.)

The remaining component of research is, of course, theory: that body of logically interconnected propositions which provides an in- terpretative basis for understanding phenomena. Both theory and method are clearly essential to any mature research and constantly interact with each other.

However, in the relatively new sphere of tourism research, which is conducted under the aegis of a number of behavioral disciplines, there has been an unfortunate tendency to gloss over questions of theory and method, and a concomitant failure to acknowledge their interrelation- ship. As a result, “research” often falls into one of the following three categories: theoretical discourse without empirical foundation; descriptive essays which assemble a collection of impressionistic and anecdotal material; and data analyses devoid of theoretical content.

Simply stated, the various possibilities combining theory and method may be depicted in a two dimensional four quadrant diagram, as in Figure 1. Research that falls into Quadrant 1 may be described as placing the accent on meaning. Theoretical awareness is said to be high to the extent that it emphasizes the interpretation of phenomena from a given perspective (e.g., conflict, symbolic interactionism, etc.), and a number of middle-range theories (Merton 1957) consonant with that perspective.

Quadrant 2 comprises various ethnographic approaches typically favored by many anthropologists, historians, and political scientists. However, where these are limited to pure description, they offer little scope for understanding the dynamics of tourism.

Research that falls into Quadrant 3 is frequently the kind practised by economists and market researchers. It is also on occasion favored by

DANN, NASH AND PEARCE

Low on Methodological Sophistication

High on Methodological Sophistication

Figure 1. Theory and Method in Tourism Research

psychologists, sociologists, and human geographers. Here the empha- sis is placed on the establishment of signz&znt findings and causal connections. In its most exaggerated neopositivistic form, scant attention is paid to questions of theory or meaning. Instead there is an obsession with transforming reality into variables and a cultivation of statistical techniques for their own sake (Dann 1979:22-23). In this connection, one is aptly reminded that:

Empirical inquiry, even if it is organized by a high powered research methodology, is not in itself sufficient for a scientific study of tourism. Theory is also needed (Nash 1981:467).

Quadrant 4 is naturally the desired optimum in which there is a correct balance of theory and method. Generally speaking, the sophistication of any piece of research may be gauged by the degree to which it has attained this harmonious blend. Weber (1968:99) describes this situation as the coincidence between “causal adequacy” and “adequacy on the level of meaning.” This is the balance by which he attempted to establish sociology as a midway branch of knowledge between science of nature (based on causally adequate probabilities from observational understanding) and science of spirit (based on the grasp of the actor’s motivation, or subjective meaning state). Where the tension is unre- solved, the two extreme positions of neopositivism (Quadrant 3) and phenomenology (Quadrant 1) result.

According to this model, if there has been any marked progress in tourism research, one would expect an identifiable transition from Quadrants 1 and 2, via Quadrant 3, to 4. On the basis of this model, one should, therefore, be able to trace the development of tourism research and to say something about its current state.


A META-ANALYSIS OF PAST TOURISM RESEARCH

With these ideas in mind, it was thus decided to conduct a meta- analysis of the 229 articles published in Annals of Tourism Research from 1974, volume l(1) to 1986, volume 13(3), and to compare them with the 2 12 articles featured in the Journal of Leisure Research from 1976, volume 8(l) to 1985, volume 17(3). Meta-analysis is a technique for summarizing or synthesizing investigations of like phenomena by adopting one or more objective procedures (e.g., measuring effect size, summarizing probabilities of results, counting within categories), in preference to the subjectivity often associated with traditional literature reviews (Cooper 1979; Glass 1977; Pillemer and Light 1980; Rosenthal 1980). The findings are presented in Table 1.

An examination of the two sets of articles shows that, in comparison with Annals, JLR is more quantitative in approach, more specific in terms of testing research aims, and more “sophisticated” in terms of data treatment. It can be argued that this simply reflects the academic origin of the authors, since there are many more geographers and anthropologists writing for Annals (Table Z), and these researchers tend to contribute high quality, though more descriptive, articles. However, one also notes the relative lack of models in Annals, and the simultane- ous presence of many more “one off,” or single pieces of research, which tend to be noncumulative in nature, failing to profit from earlier studies.

Significantly though, Annals does seem to be changing in the direction of JLR, even though the composition of authors is not altering. A

Table 1. Style of Articles in Annals of Tourism Research and Journal of Leisure Research

Style Category Frequency in Journal (not mutually exclusive) ATR JLR

Descriptive: articles which do not test an hypothesis or which do not empirically seek to validate a research aim. 155 63

Conceptually Based: articles which are clearly embedded in a tradition of previous work, i.e., linked by argument and logic to previous studies. 75 135

Models: articles which contain reference to or extension of a model for systematizing tourist leisure behavior:

Mathematical Models: formulae, algebra, etc. Non-mathematical Models: typologies, spatial models, etc.

10 35 36 20

Statistics8 Descriptive: percentages, frequencies, means, modes, rankings. Inferential and Higher Level: data exploring techniques and probability testing approaches.

130 184

50 157

DANN, NASH AND PEARCE 7

Table 2. Academic Origins of Authors in of Tourism Research and Journal of Leisure Research

Subject Area Journal Frequency ATR JLR

Anthropology 45 1

Business Studies 12 7

Economics 33 14

Family Studies 0 10

Forestry 0 33

Geography 53 1s

Health and Physical Education 1 10

Leisure Studies 14 16

Marketing 4 6

Planning 1 17

Political Science 10 1

Psychology 12 15

Recreation and Parks 2 19

Resource Management 2 10

sociology 16 14

Various Other r 2

Totals 229 212

reanalysis of the data for Annals from 1980 on, compared to Annals pre- 1980, andJLR as a whole, shows that articles in Annals are becoming less descriptive and beginning to assume a more conceptually based and statistical style (Table 3). This observation does not imply that case studies and descriptive articles are of limited value, since they continue to provide a reservoir of ideas for conceptual tapping as well as being intrinsically interesting. Nor should one assume that complex statistics are the basis of good research. It is simply that such data have been used to provide an index of change in Annals, and the direction of that change has been towards more complex analysis.

In order to evaluate the transition more precisely, and to introduce mutual exclusivity into the categories, it was decided to analyze the 202 articles published in Annals from 1978 to 1986 by dividing them into three equal time periods. This division yielded 61, 68, and 73 articles in the periods 1978-80, 1981-83, and 1984-86 respectively.

Since it is not an easy matter to evaluate accurately the degree to which contributions from different disciplines have adhered to their various canons of inquiry, papers were consequently only analyzed along two allied dimensions of technique: the principal data gathering


Table 3. Percentage Comparisons of Conceptually-Based and Higher Order Statistical Articles in the Two Journals

Type of Article

Percentage of Conceputally- based Articles

N on which Percentage Based

Percentage of Articles with Higher Order Statistics

N on which Percentage Based

Annals of Tourism Journal of Leisure Research Research

Pre 1980 Post 1980 1975 onwards

17 39 63

65 164 212

12 26 52

65 164 212

mode and the main type of data analysis. Tables 4, 5, and 6 provide the respective bi-variate distributions.

In terms of data gathering , one notes a steady decline in “state-of- the-art” papers focusing on literature reviews in the three periods from 36.1% , to 25.0%) to 16.4%, respectively. At the same time there has been a parallel increase in the use of other qualitative sources (brochures, guidebooks, etc.) and in the employment of official statistics. Fluctuating trends are recorded in the traditional areas of interviewing, questionnaires, and observation.

Regarding data analysis, there is a gradual decline in descriptive accounts (65.6 % , to 54.4 % to 45.2 % , respectively), and correspond- ing slight increases in the use of bi-variate, multi-variate and content analytical techniques.

Within categories, the most noteworthy technical advance has taken

Table 4. Type of Analysis by Data Gathering Mode in Annals of Tourism Research (1978-1980)

Type of Analysis

Data Gathering Mode Official Question- Inter- Obser- Quali- Review Total Row Statistics naires views vation tative of %

Lit.

Descriptivea

Comparativeb

Content Analysis

Factor Analysis

Regression Analysis

Total Freq.

Column %

8 1 4 4 2 21 40 65.6

1 3 6 - - 1 11 18.0

- - - - - - 0 0.0

- 1 2 - - - 3 4.9

2 2 3 - -- 7 11.5

11 7 15 4 2 22 61 100.0

18.0 11.5 24.6 6.5 3.3 36.1 100.0

aIncluding marginal frequencies, percentages. bIneluding percentage differences, crosstabulations, comparative tests of significance.



5pe of Analysis

Data Gathering Mode Official Question- Inter- Obser QuaIi- Review Total Row Statistics naires views vation tative of %

Lit.

Descriptivea

Comparativeb

Content Analysis

Factor Analysis

Regression Analysis

Total Preq.

Column %

6 1 2 10 1 17 37 54.4

9 1 3 l-- 14 20.6

- - 1 - 4 - 5 7.4

1 - 2 - - - 3 4.4

8 - 1 - - - 9 13.2

24 2 9 11 5 17 68 100.0

35.3 2.9 13.2 16.2 7.4 25.0 100.0

aIncluding marginal frequencies, percentages. bIncIuding percentage differences, crosstabulations, comparative tests of significance.

place with respect to official statistics. Whereas in earlier days, the majority of the analyses tended to report marginal distributions only, in later periods there is a discernible movement towards cross-tabulation and regression. While little or no change is recorded within the observation and literature review categories, interviews and questionnaires appear to show the most versatility with respect to variety of analytical technique.

With reference to the previously outlined model (Figure l), there has indeed been a movement away from Quadrants 1 and 2, consonant


Type of Analysis

Data Gathering Mode Official Question- Inter- Obser- Qua& Review Total Row Statistics naires views vation tative of %

Lit.

DescrIptivea 5 - 1 9 6 12 33 45.2

Comparativeb 10 2 4 - 1 - 17 23.3

Content Analysis - - 3 -_ 5 -- 8 10.9

Factor Analysis - 1 3 - - - 4 5.5

Regression Analysis 7 2 2 - - -- 11 15.1

Total Preq. 22 5 13 9 12 12 73 100.0

Column % 30.1 6.9 17.8 12.3 16.4 16.4 100.0

aIncluding marginal frequencies, percentages. bInchiding percentage differences, crosstabulations, comparative tests of significance.


with declines in theoretical literature reviews and descriptive accounts. Coterminously, there have been modest gains in Quadrant 3, with a greater use of statistical analysis.

However, and subject to the limitations of the foregoing summary analysis, it would be premature to argue that tourism research has reached the happy state of Quadrant 4. This position is maintained because there is still too much reliance on theorizing and description without the necessary empirical referents (Quadrants 1 and 2). More- over, whatever advances have been made in statistical technique have been limited by their inadequacy on the level of meaning (Quadrant

3). The research model set forth here is based on two continua which

range from low to high levels of methodological sophistication and theoretical awareness. So far they have been treated in a cursory way only. Now an attempt is made to clarify them and to provide a few illustrations.

THEORETICAL AWARENESS

The theoretical awareness of a piece of research can be assessed in terms of the criteria of understanding, prediction, and falsiliability. (The last criterion is more controversial. For differing views, see, for example, Popper (1959) and Kuhn (1974).) Graphically depicted, levels of theoretical awareness are represented in the model by points on the continuum moving in a left-right direction.

It seems that in studies of tourism relatively low levels of theoretical awareness are displayed by those who employ analogy as a basis for understanding. In some studies, tourism has been likened to play, for example, or to undertaking a sacred journey. Yet in both cases the articles simply tell what tourism is like, rather than what it is. Similarly, accounts of tourism which replace analytical understanding with ideolo- 51, appear to demonstrate low levels of theoretical awareness. Whether this ideology is located politically to the left (e.g., tourism is exploit- ative in a framework of dependency), or to the right (e.g., tourism provides the basis for universal brotherhood), it still does not explain the phenomenon. (According to Weber (1968:94-5), Understanding is of two varieties: rational-observational (aktuelles Verstehen) or explanatory (erklarendes Verstehen). The latter (i.e., Explanation) involves compre- hending in terms of motive, the typical meaning context (sinnzusam- menhung) of social action. Thus for Weber “Verstehen” is a method, or way of “doing” sociology.)

More worthwhile attempts to comprehend the dynamics of tourism can be found in early typologies and classificatory schemes, since the very basis for categorization or coding requires the establishment of theory related criteria for item discrimination. At the same time, however, typologies may be limited in terms of explanatory power, since in essence they are simply heuristic devices based on ideal constructs. Nevertheless, the fact that an attempt has been made probably justifies locating such research somewhere slightly to the right of center on the theoretical awareness continuum.

Theoretical awareness is also displayed by those comparatively few researchers who recognize that there are d&f erent types of social scientific


explanation, ranging from “genetic” to those based on “intention,” “reason,” and “function” (Brown 1963), and who subsequently opt for that founded on “disposition.” Unfortunately, however, while examples can be readily found for the former modes of explanation (e.g., research investigating the origins and development of tourism, studies examining decision taking, etc.), there are relatively few instances of disposition explanations, which focus on variation in either individual or group attitudinal and behavioral tendencies.

The only exception to this last remark seems to occur in the field of tourist motivation research. Yet this is an area still fraught with theoretical problems. For instance, Lundberg (1972: 107) cautions that:

What the traveler says are his motivations for traveling may be only reflections of deeper needs, needs which he himself does not understand nor wish to articulate.

Pearce (1982b:5, 5 1) also points out that the evaluation of tourists’ motives may only be post hoc theorizing by experts who are simply projecting their own choices. Additionally, while both de Sola Pool (1958) and Iso-Ahola (1980) warn against the acceptance of cultural- stereotypical answers from tourists and recreationists, the latter also stresses the need to appreciate that there are various points of reference and levels of causality when looking at motivation. Whether or not these difficulties can be surmounted, attempts to tackle them represent theoretical progress. In this regard, Ritchie (1975:344) notes that:

Our understanding of the why and how of individual travel processes and the influence of different variables on them represents the great- est challenge to all researchers in the field.

While the criteria of prediction and falsifiability are not universally accepted, they nevertheless may be considered important hallmarks for evaluating progress in the realm of theory. A theory that does not predict is one which fails to identify the strength and direction of relationships within a framework of probability propositions. As a min- imum requirement for theory, surely one needs to know that if “A” is present, then it is likely that “B” will occur. Even if “A” is only a necessary (rather than a sufficient) condition of “B,” at least it has been identified as an independent variable with certain consequences for “B .” Yet there are some instances of tourism research where even this mini- mum requirement has not been satisfied.

Similarly, a theory which is not falsifiable is really of little value, given that it rests at the level of untestable conceptual assertion. Such a position is surely quite untenable in tourism research since it is based on insufficient evidence. Indeed, Pearce (1982b: 19) has remarked elsewhere:

Unless some point is worked out whereby evidence may be used to substantiate or reject a sociological perspective, then all accounts of tourists’ experiences, motivations and perceptions of tourist space remain equally valid and hence inadequate.


In this regard, Cohen (1984) notes that although there has been a variety of conceptual approaches in the study of tourism, many are simply field studies lacking in theoretical orientation. Perhaps more related to the topic of this paper, however, is Cohen’s (1984:388) subse- quent comment that “none [of these theoretical approaches] has yet withstood rigorous empirical testing.”

METHODOLOGICAL SOPHISTICATION

Methodology can be located on a continuum with respect to the procedures of conceptualization, operationalization, measurement, data gathering, and data analysis. Where these various stages of research are all consonant with the ground rules of their respective disciplines, one can speak of methodological sophistication. Although they should be considered as a whole, forming the total research process, here for analytical purposes, they are treated separately.

Conceptualization

Of all the stages of research, undoubtedly the conceptual stage is the most important, for it is at this point that the research problem is identified and contextualized within a body of theory. Cohen’s concern with this issue is covered in his contribution to the present collection of articles.

However, it is precisely at this juncture that there appears to be a great deal of misunderstanding, since many investigators fail to distinguish adequately between a social problem and a theoretical problem. In this regard, Berger (1963) points out that, whereas divorce, for instance, constitutes a social problem, what is surely more problematic and worthy of consideration is the fact that two persons can pledge themselves in marriage ‘til death do they part. Moreover, he argues that it is the latter more normal situation which requires a full understanding before one can truly appreciate deviation from the norm, and that obtaining such an understanding requires a theoretical basis.

With respect to tourism, the social problem approach can be illus- trated by the case of low hotel occupancy, where supply has clearly outstripped demand. Yet this social problem for the hotelier and his employees has probably not been studied in problematic terms beyond a discussion of a decline in the so-called tourism “product.” Arguably, had the debate been refocused instead on what makes potential guests wish to travel in the first place, and to seek out accommodation such as his in the second, then the hotelier might begin to appreciate the human underpinnings of the market forces.

Concepts, of course, are not things. Rather, they are subjective mental constructs of objective and socially defined reality. Similarly, theories which seek to interpret and illuminate this reality are to be found within, not outside, the human mind. They contain and order abstracted universal ideas in such a way that the understanding of patterned existence becomes somehow enhanced, and, within certain limits of probability, allow one to make predictions about phenomena. The rules for ordering concepts, whereby reality becomes more intelligi-


ble, constitute the methodology of this primary stage of the research process. Perhaps the most important rule is that concepts should be clearly formulated in problematic terms. The alternative social problem approach simply yields statements of equivalence or tautology - unfalsi- fiable propositions; hence the intimate connection between theory and method at this initial stage.

Operationalization

However, it soon becomes necessary to operationalize concepts in such a way that the theory which embraces them can somehow be tested, or, more correctly, that hypotheses derivable from the theory can be tested. Should these hypotheses subsequently become invalidat- ed, this outcome in turn causes doubt about the original theory.

Furthermore, in order to avoid the logical “fallacy of affirming the consequent, ” hypotheses should be tested by separating them into null and research hypotheses (Blalock 1960:92-96). If the null hypothesis can be rejected (within a certain pre-stated margin of error), the alternative research hypothesis can be accepted. (In other words, one cannot assume that where A+B, A is true because B is true. Rather A may be true, since there can be a number of alternative explanations for B. For this reason one concentrates on rejecting A when B turns out to be false. A more radical phenomenological perspective rejects the foregoing “rhetoric of verification” by insisting that one first needs to demonstrate that A and B exist (cf. Silverman, 1973:187, 198).)

Naturally, the terms of the hypothesis (the variables) have to be unambiguously defined so as to make this testing procedure viable. Suppose, for instance, that there is a middle range theory which indicates that touristic happiness is a function of social class. It is not immediately obvious what is intended by “happiness,” nor for that matter what is meant by “social class.” Here happiness is inadequately operationalized, since it can signify anything from a feeling of elation to one of morale or satisfaction. The concept of social class is similarly imprecise since it may range from speaking with a certain accent to owning property or even to type of occupation.

Clearly, terminological confusion at this stage can only result in greater chaos at the level of hypothesis, that level which is necessary to test the theory. Consequently, researchers are generally in agreement that one must define precisely the meaning and limits of the variables employed, and that some form of consensus is desirable. If, on the other hand, researcher A has one definition, researcher B another, and researcher Z yet another, and neither A, B, or Z have effectively communi- cated these various idiosyncracies to each other, the understanding of the common phenomenon under investigation is unlikely to progress.

It is for this reason that the call for standardization of terminology is often heard. In relation to tourism research, McIntosh and Goeldner (1984), for example, are loud in their request for greater standardization of definitions, while Lanfant (1980) makes the point that standardization becomes all the more necessary due to the international nature of tourism. Similarly, Cohen (1974) indicates a need to clarify “fuzzy sets,” particularly where types of tourists and their accompanying roles


overlap, to the degree that they are no longer mutually exclusive. Pearce (1982a) 1 a so stresses the necessity for greater care in the operationalization of variables in tourism research.

Measurement

By way of corollary, it follows that if the hypothesis is to be tested empirically with reference to factual data, the research variables should also be somehow measurable. Naturally, the “level” of measurement (nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio) will very much depend on the type of data at hand. Returning to the earlier example of happiness and social class, even if these concepts are adequately operationalized, it is still necessary to be able to measure them in some way that finds a modicum of acceptance among the community of researchers.

Unfortunately, in the study of tourism, this ideal state of affairs is far from satisfactory. Ritchie (1975), for example, identifies the area of measurement as one of the two major deficiencies in tourism research. Then again, Young (1974:659) laments that:

In the present state of the art, it is not possible to produce a single measure of rigid tourism, another for flexible tourism, and to use these in an analysis with equally compact measures of social context.

In relation to Caribbean Third World tourism, Harrigan (1974:23) observes regretfully:

It is time to develop something that measures the relationships between the socio-economics of tourism and the psycho-cultural well being of the person living in an island system dependent on tourism. At present we do not even know what elements to combine in order to make a sensible measurement.

At the level of measurement, there thus seems to be a technical lag between theoretical awareness and methodological sophistication. Take, for instance, the theoretical debate about the staged authenticity of touristic events, a topic investigated by Cohen in this special issue. All well and good, argues Pearce (1982b: 145), but who has managed to measure authenticity or its converse satisfactorily? Elsewhere, Pearce (1982a:28) p k s ea s about the theoretical differences between pre-and post-travel attitudes. Yet, at the same time, he laments the fact that these have still not been measured systematically. In relation to impact studies, Hills and Lundgren (1977) introduce the notion of touristic irritation, but almost immediately ask themselves who, apart from Doxey (1976), h as attempted to design such an index. Then again, one has Mayo and Jarvis (1981), having established the salience of family lifecycle as an important factor in understanding the dynamics of tourist behavior, reluctantly admitting that few seem to have thought of operationalizing and measuring this key predictor variable. The list is seemingly endless. What is evident, however, from these accounts and others is that, with respect to measurement, tourism as a legitimate field of inquiry appears to have fallen a good way behind other areas of social scientific investigation.


Data Collection

Clearly, the stages of conceptualization, operationalization, and measurement will necessarily influence the manner in which data are collected ultimately with a view to testing hypotheses. Once more methodological ground rules appear on the scene, this time to inform the data gathering process.

One such rule relates to the problem of generalization. In this regard, there is, for example, the case study approach to the collection of data. De Sola Pool (1958) adopts such an approach in compiling accounts of what American travelers learn from experiencing foreign cultures. He claims that it is a useful strategy for comparing culturally structured responses. While there is undoubtedly a certain legitimacy to such a claim, it nevertheless appears to sidestep the more central methodological issue concerning the typicality of the respondents, and hence the generalizability of the information gleaned from them.

The same sort of problem seems to afflict those engaged in content analytical studies of tourism brochures and travelogs. Although this is obviously a rich technique for examining promotional literature, in that it extends to both written and iconographical material (Gritti 1967), one is often still left wondering about the criteria employed in selecting one batch of qualitative data at the expense of another. Some- times the impression is conveyed that researchers have a number of substantive points to make, and, on that basis, choose only those items which facilitate their argument.

Again, there are some scholars who indulge in some form of reflection upon their impressions of travel in the company of tourists, whether on board a cruise ship, in a tour bus, or on a trekking holiday. Observations are recorded and anecdotes assembled which jointly rein- force the various hunches they entertain. Yet it is difficult to see how the account of a single journey, even though comprising a multiplicity of experiences, can be generalized inductively from all observed cases of a phenomenon to all cases of a phenomenon.

One way around the foregoing difficulty might be to adopt some form of situational analysis, so characteristic of the work of Erving Goffman (1959). Another solution offered by those who undertake survey work is recourse to some form of sampling. In order to ensure the standard criteria of representativeness and adequacy, the methodology texts outline a number of precautionary measures to be adopted. Yet, in the course of presenting their findings to others, many seem to gloss over the procedural steps they should have taken in generating a random sample. Then there are others who opt for some form of quota sampling and who proceed to make claims of statistical significance, apparently oblivious of the fact that probability requirements have not been satisfied. At the risk of appearing cynical, one may conclude that in many such presentations, where the methodology of sampling has been given a cursory treatment, there is a strong likelihood that this deficiency also reflects a similar inadequacy in the fieldwork.

Another problem encountered at the data gathering stage has to do with data validity. As one of the contributors to this special issue, Towner spells out the difficulties of dealing with historical tourism material, particularly where this is constituted by personal documents.


Citing Gottschalk et al (1945), the question ultimately turns on the motivation of the authors of these records. Letters, autobiographies, and diaries are notorious sources of bias stemming from such varied desires as prestige, literary delight, orderliness, and catharsis. In order to discern such tendencies, and to be in a better position to evaluate the content of these qualitative data, Gottschalk et al (1945) supply a number of recommendations for discriminating truth from falsehood. How- ever, even these demythologizing guidelines may not be completely foolproof, and there is the added danger of throwing out valid information along with invalid material.

Of course, a mixture of valid and invalid data is also gathered in interviews, both from verbal and nonverbal behavior, and even from questionnaires. In this connection, tourism researchers may be sometimes insufficiently aware of the possibility of collecting invalid data. Yet, in other areas of social scientific investigation, evasion and simple denial have been noted as standard responses in ego threatening situations, or those in which there is a perceived etiquette barrier between interviewer and interviewee (Gordon 1969). As previously observed, nowhere is the likelihood of gathering invalid data greater than in tourism motivational studies. Yet cliche replies, while usually masking deeper realities, are often later taken to form the basis for the entire marketing of a destination.

Then there is the whole area of participant and nonparticipant observation. But again, how many tourism researchers are prepared to adhere to the established guidelines followed by their colleagues in other fields of specialization, and how many are ready to introduce innovative procedures in order to ensure data validity? The questions raised in relation to data collection cannot hope to be exhaustive in such a brief presentation. Nevertheless, they should alert colleagues that all in the tourism methodological garden is far from rosy.

Data Analysis

The advent of computer technology at last made it possible to test vast batteries of variables for interassociation and significance. Thanks to packages, such as SPSS, distributions and scalograms could be plot- ted, correlation matrices and crosstabulations generated, and multivariate analyses conducted at the levels of varimax rotation and path models. Not only could chi-square analyses be obtained instantly, but eigenvalues and F-values could be calculated with similar ease and speed. Tourism researchers also joined the bandwagon, as is evident from the brief survey of articles in Annals and JLR, and the growing salience of Quadrant 3 type studies based on increasingly refined statistical techniques.

Unfortunately, there has not been a parallel methodological sophistication accompanying several of these studies. The carefully observed ground rules which had characterized the works of Durkheim or We- ber, for example, appear to have been abandoned in favor of printouts and files stored on disk or tape. Many researchers now simply hand their codesheets to technicians and reappear a few hours later to carry


away their findings. Apparently oblivious of the shortcomings of quan- tification without qualification, some academics still do not hesitate to communicate results to their similarly afflicted colleagues.

Take the area of comparative research, for instance, one clearly of relevance to the study of tourism. There are, for example, investigators calling for comparative studies of attitude change with respect to social and environmental preferences (Pearce 1982b), for comparative studies of social stress in space (Husbands 1986), or for

systematic comparative studies which are specifically designed to examine the differential dynamics and impact of different types of tourism under different sets of conditions (Cohen 1979a: 7).

But researchers often seem to be unaware of the methodological short- falls and difficulties in carrying out such investigations. For example, there are the methodological problems of evaluating effects of cross- cultural experiences and conducting laboratory experiments with tourists (Pearce 1982a, 198213). Nash (1981) also observes that a method of differences is required in impact studies.

However, while most of these comments seem to be legitimately directed towards the all important aspect of research design, few, if any, demonstrate equal concern about data analysis. Instead, the ubiquitous crosstabulation, and the occasional t-test to measure differences in central tendency, are provided unquestioningly to make comparisons between different sets of profile variables. (For an additional critique of the explanatory power of such variables, see Iso-Ahola (1981:5).) One thus learns, for example, that vacations are separate functions of dif- ferentials in income, social class, occupation, and education. At the same time, relatively few researchers seem prepared to examine the interassociation of such variables, or to test for spuriousness or multi- collinearity in the established bivariate relationships. Yet any standard methodology textbook (e.g., Cole 1975) would tell them of the need to identify test factors and to distinguish intervening from genuine independent variables.

Allied infelicities occur in correlation analysis, where investigators focus uncritically on the magnitude of computed coefficients, possibly without realizing that the strength of association so yielded is simply due to skewness in distribution. Conversely, when coefficients are dis- carded for their near zero size, researchers may have overlooked the possibility that failure to attain a preset level of significance may equally be due to the cancellation effect of a bi-modal distribution. Had they taken the elementary precaution of plotting a sample of the replies to their questionnaire 6~ hand (cf. Potter and Coshall in this issue), and of making a simple test for linearity, arguably they would have a greater feel for their data, and not so readily commit such errors. Then again, when comparing the degrees of association between predictor variables and the object of their inquiry, relatively few tourism researchers seem prepared to test for spuriousness by utilizing the simple technique of calculating partial correlation coefficients. Yet these are standard procedures in other areas of social scientific investigation.

Moscardo and Pearce (1986), f or example, have shown how mislead-


ing a simple reliance on correlation coefficients can be. They examined the research conducted on visitor behavior in visitor centers by the Countryside Commission in England. Seventeen centers were studied and the original findings concluded, on the strength of a correlation, that there was a relationship between visitor enjoyment and visitor learning. Moscardo and Pearce reanalyzed these data with a set of partial correlation coefficients and some improved indices of visitor learning, notably a measure of visitor mental activity or mindfulness. On the basis of their recalculations they demonstrated that a significant positive relationship did exist for enjoyment and (broadly defined) learning, once other confounding variables had been statistically eliminated.

Naturally, those who have graduated to multivariate analyses of touristic phenomena feel that they are not guilty of the foregoing methodological crimes, since they at least know how to control for the separate effects of variables simultaneously. Those who employ factor analysis, for example, reckon that they can identify co-influences on a given dependent variable, and at the same time account for an exact percentage of variance. Yet relatively few possessing such methodological gnosis seem to heed the warning that the same factors will emerge from their analyses as those variables which were originally put in (Iso- Ahola 1980); or equally that:

The naming of factors is always a problematic exercise, and whatever validity the labels have depends entirely on the variables that go into the analysis (Young 1974:658).

Nowhere are these deficiencies so glaring as in the study of tourist satisfaction. Here some researchers appear quite content to define the object of their inquiry in terms of differences between previously identified pre-and post-attitudes to dimensions of a vacationing experience. However, the factors emerging from their studies are simply the same sets of attitudes in clustered format, in which the only form of explanation seems to be of the variety, “an attitude is an attitude is an attitude.”

Then again, those who turn to path analysis as the ultimate panacea for simultaneously analyzing strength and direction of variables, often appear to do so without following the requirements of causal modeling, namely logical and temporal sequencing, Furthermore, while report- ing the amount of variance explained in the dependent variable, they sometimes tend to overlook the analysis of the residuals, thereby failing to come to grips with the often equally large portion of variance not explained by the factors in their model.

Those who seek to replace quantitative by qualitative procedures, by turning, for instance, to content analysis, sometimes do not realize that their preferred technique is encompassed by the equally rigorous methodology of coding, whose ground rules are similarly demanding. Yet if they are to transcend the ideography of description, and if they wish to establish generalizable trends from their research, then clearly they will have to confront, rather than bypass, questions of methodology.

Hence, whatever mode of data analysis is employed, it surely cannot rest purely at the level of technique alone. Without a coherent method-


ology, and, by implication, theory as well, the pursuit of technique for its own sake can only be a self-defeating exercise.

The remainder of this exploratory article switches from the past to the present and the future. Attention now moves from what one can learn from previous mistakes to what can be done about them. This also includes reflecting on the experience of producing this special issue on the methodology of tourism research and introducing the contributors. In regard to the future, without access to a crystal ball, attempts are made to indicate further relatively unexplored areas of tourism research and the parallel use of appropriate techniques.

CURRENT CONTRIBUTIONS

The various contributions to this volume provide some indication of current methodological applications in tourism research. Since they are of varying length, they are treated respectively as articles and research notes. Though they do not cover all methodological issues, nor the range of contexts in which tourism research is being carried out, they do come to critical grips with a number of aspects of the methodology of tourism research. Thus, a glance through any one of them should certainly raise methodological awareness in this fascinating field.

The first article by Erik Cohen, “Traditions in Qualitative Sociology of Tourism,” underscores the contention that methodology ought always to be considered in the context of theory. Cohen analyzes three “theories” of tourism that have excited people in the field. But these “theories,” stimulating as they are, rarely have been wedded to appropriate methodologies that would permit some assessment of their validity. No doubt, they are applicable to some tourists somewhere, but until strategies are established that will permit some rigorous empirical testing, the “theories” will lack the methodological underpinning that allows them to be scientifically constructive. Cohen’s article conveys the euphoria of these ideas about tourists and tourism. One wonders, however, when the persons who use them uncritically are going to be called to methodological account.

John Towner’s paper, “Approaches to Tourism History,” introduces various approaches that have been used to study Western tourism, historically. He points out that historians and social scientists, using a number of converging theoretical and methodological approaches, have begun to expand the knowledge of tourism into the past. Of particular interest is his comprehensive treatment of data sources that pertain to tourism specifically. Although he delves only slightly into the pre-history of tourism in the.West, and does not treat the history and pre-history of tourism in other regions of the world, his work nevertheless opens up tantalizing possibilities for future research and social scientific multidisciplinary dialogue.

Tourists, and their subjective and objective behavior, are clearly central to any discussion of tourism. It is not surprising, therefore, that most of the papers in this special issue deal with methodological mat- ters pertaining to these important actors on the touristic stage. Robert Potter and John Coshall, “Sociopsychological Methods for Tourism Research,” emphasize that tourists, like people everywhere, develop


worldviews that can be rendered statistically in terms of multivariate cognitive data sets. One way of handling such information is simply to turn it over to some computer program. This undoubtedly has the effect of distancing researchers from the data they are using. By con- trast, Potter and Coshall offer a “hands on” method of analysis that is not only statistically efficacious and theoretically grounded, but permits researchers to stay close to their data. This venture into “appropriate methodology” would seem to have great value not only for mapping tourists’ minds, but also the minds of other participants in the tourism scenario.

In “Visitor Survey versus Conversion Study,” Richard Perdue and Martin Botkin raise the important question of the convertibility of diverse procedures for gathering information about tourists and their behavior. Can one technique be used to supplement another? Is it simply a case of the more the merrier? Perdue and Botkin show conclu- sively that findings from one line of inquiry are different from those of another. They further indicate which strategy is the more appropriate for different types of investigation. In effect, they provide an empirical test for discriminating between various procedures which seek to derive tourist data.

What do tourists do? Where do they go? Such questions about touristic pursuits can have great theoretical and practical significance. A number of strategies have been developed to find out how tourists spend their time. Rudi Hartmann’s paper, “Combining Field Methods in Tourism Research,” reports on a variety of techniques which he and his associates used to monitor the activities of young people from Cana- da and the United States in Munich. According to him, interviews and a variety of observational techniques produce complementary information, with one procedure helping to fill out another. This rosy conclusion is something of the kind one is accustomed to hearing from anthropological fieldworkers who adopt similar data gathering techniques. No doubt, there is a good deal of truth to the statement that different methods complement each other. But there are also reasons to question such a conclusion. Different procedures probably produce consistent and inconsistent results. One needs to know which is the method of choice in certain circumstances, which procedures will complement that method, and which are beyond the pale. Hartmann’s paper opens up broad vistas, but takes one only a little way in this regard.

All researchers who ask people questions have to deal with non- response and recall biases. Whether this is more or less the case with mobile populations, such as tourists, remains to be demonstrated; but such biases certainly are important issues in tourism research. William Gartner and John Hunt, “A Method to Collect Detailed Tourist Flow Information,” feel that they have developed an efficient and cost-effec- tive method for minimizing these biases and obtaining valid information about tourists’ behavior. They believe that the diary and personal interview, used in tandem, are appropriate instruments in this sphere of tourism research. Douglas Pearce, “Tourist Time-Budgets,” employs similar techniques for analyzing the ways in which tourists use their time. Both of these papers, by critically evaluating the merits and disadvantages of specific techniques, show a high degree of method-


ological awareness. Readers wishing to pursue this line of inquiry will find the major methodological issues laid out for them in state-of-the- art fashion by these authors.

A good deal of research in tourism has focused on the conditions for tourism development and its consequences for a given host population, The notion of “carrying capacity,” for example, raises the question of how many tourists a given area can sustain. A government might like to know whether or not it has the resources to initiate a particular program of tourist development, or, if it embarks on such a program, what kind of additional resources will be necessary. A number of procedures have been developed for making estimates of this nature. All of them require making a number of assumptions, some of which are more applicable than others to certain situations. Marvin Kottke’s paper “Estimating Economic Impacts of Tourism,” offers one such procedure for consideration. He discusses the pros and cons of the linear programing approach, and illustrates its use by applying it to a specific case.

A number of writers on tourism have virtually equated modern tourism with sightseeing. What is seen is, of course, a selective matter. Tourists’ views of hosts are objectified in the photos they take and the postcards they buy. The forces that generate these objectifications are complex and ultimately involve an interplay of tourist-generating and host situations. Patricia Albers and William James, “Travel Photogra- phy: A Methodological Approach,’ discuss several ways of getting at the meaning of the visual messages contained in postcards. Though their consideration of content, semiotic, and critical analysis is valuable in itself, it acquires added depth from their analysis of the photograph as a way of seeing and by their location of photographs in the context of ideology. In this substantial paper, therefore, methodology and theory come together in a particularly interesting way.

For those who wish to move into the electronic future in their research on tourist behavior, there is the Bleeper Recorder described by van der Wurff, Wansink, and Stringer, “‘In Situ’ Recording of Time- Sampled Observations.” This apparatus, which appears to eliminate recall bias and possibly non-response bias, extends the kind of control that laboratory scientists cultivate into the real world. It is too early to say how tourists, or anyone else involved in the touristic process, will react to such controls. Also, the technique probably is better suited to certain kinds of data gathering than others. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the Bleeper Recorder could be useful in a variety of types of tourism research.

The various contributions to this special issue thus, to a greater or lesser extent, perform a double service. On the one hand, they undertake a pedagogic task by introducing or re-emphasizing procedures within the context of past and present tourism research. On the other, they provide a partial glimpse of the future by pointing to likely methodological issues which lie ahead.

However, while the scope and critical depth of the contributions are gratifying, one realizes that there are notable lacunae that still require attention. Earlier, the nature of the touristic process was laid out. That process includes the generation of tourism and tourists in some home


society, the touring of those tourists to and in the place away from home, the contact of the tourists (directly and indirectly) with hosts, and the consequences of all of this for the hosts, their society, and environment, and the tourists and theirs. It is obvious that certain aspects of this process have been left unattended in this special issue.

First, hosts and their societies have hardly been considered. As a result, hosts remain shadowy figures, not the kind of flesh-and-blood human personalities that anthropological studies of tourism have portrayed. A good deal of early research in tourism was rather negative about tourism’s impact on hosts and their societies. Some studies, on the other hand, concluded that tourism could have a beneficial impact on hosts. The carefully executed research conducted on tourists in this issue still does not provide a very clear picture of the host’s viewpoint. Nor, for that matter, does it resolve the issue of whether impacts are positive or negative. For this one needs a cross-cultural awareness that seems to be generally absent in the contributions. With few exceptions, notably the paper by Hartmann, the authors pay scant attention to the issue of cross-cultural applicability. Consequently, the volume has an Anglo-American tone about it that is rather disquieting. Further consideration will have to be given to the question of the cross-cultural applicability of the procedures discussed. Obviously, this is necessary in doing research on a subject in which cross-cultural contact figures so prominently. Moreover, the days when tourism can be considered as simply confined to Westerners seem to be gone.

Another aspect of the touristic process that is slighted by the papers in this volume is the home situation which generates tourism and tourists, and one which is further affected by their odysseys. Admitted- ly, some research has been concerned with tourists’ plans, choices, reactions, and their predilection for viewing host situations in certain ways, but their various social implications have yet to be explored. Why do people become tourists in the first place? Why do they “flow” in one direction rather than another? Why do they become this or that type of tourist with differing worldviews? Why do they react the way they do? How does tourism relate to other institutions in the home society? These basic questions, which are implied in the approach adopted by Albers and James in this issue, have barely been tackled by tourism researchers. Consequently, there is little mystery why they have been generally ignored at the methodological level. In the future, however, such omissions will have to be confronted.

Since the beginning, the study of tourism has moved forward on a number of fronts. Tourism researchers have drawn on a variety of research traditions. In this special issue, several well established methodological procedures are discussed. Very few are new. What is perhaps more novel is their application to tourism problematics, and the kind of critical awareness that researchers in any field must cultivate in order to carry on innovative scientific work. Certainly, aspects of the touristic process have been overlooked, and some important methodological con- siderations which were discussed previously have not been illuminated by the contributions. But taken as a whole, they represent a significant first step in promoting the kind of methodological awareness that tourism researchers must possess if their work is to be taken seriously.


SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

As mentioned earlier in this article, meta-analysis was applied to the back numbers of Annals and JLR to highlight various methodological trends in those journals. This is a technique which has been underuti- lized in tourism research, and here is as good a place as any to examine some of its advantages.

In the first place, some of the proponents of meta-analysis argue that the approach can reduce the errors typically made by reviewers, since it demands that all relevant literature be covered, that each contribution be given equal weight, and that objective (rather than subjective) summaries result from the review process (Cooper 1979). It is further maintained that reviewers cannot, therefore, overemphasize the work of any particular “in-group,” highlight work supporting their own studies, or downplay any contradictory evidence. Additionally, studies which have produced very unusual results can be identified, and differences between the findings of most studies and the results of “outhers” can be systematically explored. Pillemer and Light (1980) have re- ferred to this as “benefiting” from the variations in study outcomes.

Provided that the analysis is performed on similar phenomena, the technique also permits the building of a body of knowledge which is cumulative, rather than haphazard or disjointed. In tourism research, there are typically one or two pioneering studies in an area, followed by periods of relapse, rediscovery, sudden growth, blind alleys, reinterpre- tation of the original phenomenon, and sometimes abandonment. One might argue that all of this is in the nature of scientific inquiry, but at least one factor behind the chaos is the repeated failure by each cohort of researchers to build effectively and systematically on previous gener- ations (Rosnow 1981). As Tversky and Kahnemann (1981) have shown, people are ineffective at logically summarizing probabilities and calculating the best decisions in the face of complex information. Researchers may also tend to gloss over much of the work of the past in favor of the academic rewards of completing a new article of their own. Meta-analysis has a role here in keeping researchers attuned to the cumulative efforts of their colleagues, past and present.

For example, if one knows from a meta-analysis count of tourist guide research that twelve of the fifteen previous articles have dealt with role conflict, one is less likely to claim some originality in discus- sing this topic. Additionally, if meta-analytic reviews of areas of interest are being published frequently, then researchers can develop and ex- tend the field more readily, since the information base available to them is comprehensive and exacting. If a meta-analysis of tourism multiplier effects, for instance, has established a range of economic benefit indices ranging from 0.07 to 2.50, then one has a truly cumulative base with which to assess a multiplier of 2.0.

A final advantage of meta-analysis is its ability to highlight significant omissions in a given body of knowledge, and, by implication, to suggest that the noted deficiencies be pursued with greater diligence in the future. An examination of the articles featured in Annals, for instance, reveals that there is a great deal of missing material in the area of methodology. For example, there are no studies which have em-


ployed unobtrusive measures as even an ancillary device in tourism research. Yet, arguably, accretion and erosion analyses would be quite useful in establishing patterns in such varied phenomena as the optimal positionings of tourism displays in exhibitions or cultural artifacts in museums, participation in tourist resort activities, the usage of travel literature in public libraries, types of food and drink items consumed by tourists in self-catering apartments, and (with infrared equipment) the effect of promotional films on select audiences. Then again, less obvious sources of tourism data could be fruitfully explored, such as diaries, travel letters, postcard messages, holiday photographs, and souvenirs. As Webb et al (1966) have pointed out, unobtrusive measures carry the distinct advantage of reducing to zero the respondent contamination and interactive effects associated with interviewing and participant observation, and the halo effect associated with questionnaire design (Sechrest and Phillips 1979). Yet few seem prepared to adopt the procedure in tourism research. Fortunately, the contributions of Albers and James and van der Wurff et al in this issue are exceptions to the foregoing generalization.

An extension of unobtrusive measurement is the examination of archival material. The re-analysis of existing tourism statistics, so- called “secondary analysis,’ has not been featured prominently in An- nuls. Yet there is a wealth of information collected on tourists all over the world, which is often poorly reported by government sources, and which contains much to interest the student of tourism. Similarly, many tourist organizations collect their own statistical profiles. Few researchers seem to gain access to this material, thereby losing another opportunity for exploring existing records (Pearce and Moscardo 1985). Towner’s study in the present collection discusses the viability of this much neglected approach.

One methodological style which does appear on a number of occa- sions is that of participant observation, but most of these studies have been opportunistic rather than carefully planned pieces of fieldwork. It is not surprising, therefore, also to observe the lack of detailed behavior recording devices where the investigator links time, space, and behavior together in an integrated set of field notes (Canter 1977). The contribution by van der Wurff, Wasink and Stringer in this issue is a notable exception to this remark.

Then again, there are almost no experiments or field experiments reported in Annals. Admittedly, the idea of studying tourists in a laboratory might strike some as being somewhat ludicrous. Nevertheless, the use of simulation techniques and the manipulation of tourist environ- ments to assess preferences, behaviors, and social interaction are both possible and desirable. Tourist scholars could pursue these lines of inquiry with some of the techniques used by urban planners, environmental psychologists, and others to assess pre-and post-event behavior in specific settings.

Despite earlier calls by Cohen (1979b) for tourist research to be “emit, processual, contextual and time based,” few researchers have managed to compare two tourist settings or to study differences in two tourism cultures. While the historians have addressed the time dimen-


sion in an earlier special issue of Annals, few studies focus on change in the last five to ten years, or have a planned program of research to monitor social change in an area in the next decade. Attention to the temporal dimension of tourism would seem advisable, and the statistical treatment of time based data (e.g., time series analysis) could be an exciting direction for future research.

Another data gathering technique which has often been neglected is the diary method. (For a fuller discussion of time budgeting within the broader field of leisure research, see Staikov (1986).) Yet, as is evident from the articles by Gartner and Hunt, Hartmann, and D. Pearce in this issue, such an approach can enhance the validity of both quantitative and qualitative tourism data. Ritchie (1975) also feels that its adoption would facilitate the detailing of travel expenditure. Reime and Hawkins (1979), concentrating on time budgeting, reckon that the use of diaries can tell a great deal more about how tourists make temporal allocations, while Vogt (1976) believes that such an approach has the advantage of bringing a greater spirit of reflection to the interview situation. If the latter is correct, then possibly the diary method could also help reduce the number of stereotyped replies in focused discussions with tourists.

Validity of data can additionally be enhanced by the use of mental maps (e.g., Gould and White 1974; Williams and Zelinsky 1970). The technique is particularly powerful in the area of destination desirability, as the current article by Potter and Coshall testifies. Yet how many other tourism researchers, especially those outside the discipline of geography, are prepared to enhance the quality of their own work by the adoption of this and allied procedures?

Finally, and without allowing the collective imagination to run completely riot, one can think of a couple of possible investigative devices, which perhaps have never been employed in tourism research. For instance, there has apparently been no study which has utilized conver- sation sampling. Yet, in spite of the alleged accompanying high “dross rate,” such a technique could prove most worthwhile in assessing tourist satisfaction on a whole array of items, ranging from consumer pur- chases to accommodation or variety in menus. Furthermore, freely uttered words spoken outside the formal setting of an interview might very well have greater validity than the responses to a structured questionnaire with all its traditional in-built biases.

“Systematic lurking” is another possibility for the imaginative researcher with plenty of surrogate observers at his command. Suitable personnel, such as bartenders, lifeguards, hostesses, and games masters could be co-opted to monitor tavern behavior, interaction on beaches, or even the capers associated with Club Med. Of course, a number of ethical questions might present themselves, but then so they do when other methodological devices are employed. As a matter of fact, that topic itself constitutes another much neglected area in tourism research.

There is a seemingly endless list containing the various missed op- portunities and overlooked possibilities that exist for students of tourism. This article has provided just a few ideas in the hope of galvaniz- ing them into action and “in order to encourage others.“0 0


REFERENCES

Berger, P. 1963 Invitation to Sociologv. New York: Doubledav.

Blalock, H. 1960 Social Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill

Boissevain, J. 1977 Tourism and Development in Malta. Development and Change 8:523-538.

Brown, R. 1963 Explanation in Social Science. London: Routledge.

Canter, D. 1977 The Psychology of Place. London: Architectural Press.

Cohen, E. 1974 Who is a Tourist? A Conceptual Clarification. Sociological Review 22:527-555. 1979a The Impact of Tourism on the Hill Tribes of Northern Thailand. Interna-

tionales Asienforum 10(1/2):5-38. 1979b Rethinking the Sociology of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 6: 18-35. 1984 The Sociology of Tourism: Approaches, Issues and Findings. Annual Review

of Sociology 10:373-392. Cole, s.

1975 The Sociological Orientation: An Introduction to Sociology. Chicago: Rand McNallv.

Cooper, H. ’ 1979 Statistically Combining Independent Studies: A Meta-Analysis of Sex Differ-

ences in Conformity Research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37:131-146.

Dann, G. 1979 Understanding Everyday Life: A Sociological Perspective. In Everyday Life in

Barbados: A Sociological Perspective, G. Dann, ed. pp. 7-37. Leiden: Royal Institute of Linguistics and Anthropology.

De Sola Pool, I. 1958 What American Travelers Learn. Antioch Review 18(4):431-446.

Doxey, G. 1976 A Causation Theory of Visitor-Resident Irritants: Methodology and Research

Inferences. In The Impact of Tourism, pp. 195-198. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference of the Travel Research Association, San Diego, California.

Glass, G. 1977 Integrating Findings: The Meta-Analysis of Research. Review pf Research in

Education 5:351-379. Goffman, E.

1959 The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday. Gordon, R.

1969 Interviewing: Strategv. Techniaues and Tactics. Homewood IL: Dorsey Press. Gottschalk, L., C. kluckhohn, and R.‘Angell

1945 The Use of Personal Documents in History, Anthropology and Sociology. New York: Social Science Research Council.

Gould, P., and R. White 1974 Mental Maps. London: Pelican

Graburn, N. 1983 The Anthropology of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 10(1):9-33.

Greenwood, D. 1972 Tourism as an Agent of Change: A Spanish Basque Case. Ethnology 11:80-91.

Gritti, J. 1967 Les Contenus Culturels du Guide Bleu: Monuments et Sites “a Voir.” Commu-

nications 10:51-64. Harrigan, N.

1974 The Lecracv of Caribbean History and Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 2( 1): 13-25‘: ’

Hills, T., and J. Lundgren 1977 The Impact of Tourism in the Caribbean: A Methodological Study. Annals of

Tourism Research 4(5):248-267.


Husbands, W. 1986 Periphery Resort Tourism and Tourist-Resident Stress: An Example from

Barbados. Leisure Studies 5: 175-188. Iso-Ahola, S.

1980 The Social Psychology of Leisure and Recreation. Dubuque IA: Brown. 1981 The Social Psychology of Recreational Travel. Paper presented to the 12th

annual general meeting of the Travel Tourism and Research Association, June 8, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Kuhn, T. 1974 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lanfant, M. 1980 Tourism in the Process of Internationalization. International Social Science

Journal 32(1):14-42. Lundberg, D.

1972 The Tourist Business. Chicago: Institutions/Volume Feeding Management Magazine.

Matthews, H. 1983 On Tourism and Political Science. Annals of Tourism Research 10(3):303-305.

Mayo, E., and L. Jarvis 1981 The Psychology of Leisure Travel. Boston: CBI.

McHugh, P., S. Raffel, D. Foss, and A. Blum 1974 Travel. In On the Beginning of Social Inquiry, pp. 137-153. London:

Routledge. McIntosh, R., and C. Goeldner

1984 Tourism: Princioles. Practices, Philosoohies. Columbus OH: Grid. Merton, R.

1957 Social Theorv and Social Structure. London: Free Press Mitchell, L. ’

1979 The Geography of Tourism: An Introduction. Annals of Tourism Research 6(3):235-244.

Moscardo, G., and P. Pearce 1986 Visitor Centres and Environmental Interpretation: An Exploration of the

Relationships Among Visitor Enjoyment, Understanding and Mindfulness. Jour- nal of Environmental Psychology 6:89-108.

Nash, D. 1977 Tourism as a Form of Imperialism. In Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of

Tourism, V. Smith, ed. pp, 33-47. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 1981 Tourism as an Anthropological Subject. Current Anthropology 22(5):461-468.

Nuiiez, T. 1977 Touristic Studies in Anthropological Perspective. In Hosts and Guests: The

Anthropology of Tourism, V. Smith, ed. pp. 207-216. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Pearce, P. 1982a Tourists and Their Hosts: Some Sociological and Psychological Effects of

Intercultural Contact. In Cultures in Contact, S. Bochner, ed. pp. 199-221. Oxford: Pergamon.

1982b The Social Psychology of Tourist Behavior. Oxford: Pergamon. Pearce, P., and G. Moscardo

1985 Visitor Evaluation: An Appraisal of Goals and Techniques. Evaluation Review 9:281-306.

Pillemer, D., and R. Light 1980 Benefiting from-Variation in Study Outcomes. New Directions for Methodolo-

gy of Social and Behavioral Science 5: l- 11. Popper, K.

1959 The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge. Reime, M., and C. Hawkins

1979 Tourism Development: A Model for Growth. The Cornell HRA Quarterly 20(1):67-74.

Richter, L. 1983 Tourism, Politics and Political Science: A Case of not so Benign Neglect.

Annals of Tourism Research 10(3):313-335.


Ritchie, J. 1975 Some Critical Aspects of Measurement Theory and Practice in Travel Re-

search. Iournal of Rosenthal, R.

‘Travel Research 14(1):1-10.

1980 Summarizing Significance Levels. New Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science 5:33-46.

Rosnow, R. 1981 Paradigms in Transition: The Methodology of Social Inquiry. Oxford: Oxford

University Press. Sechrest, L., and M. Phillips 1979 Unobtrusive Measures: An Overview. New Directions for Methodology of Be-

havioral Science 1: 1- 17 Silverman, D.

1973 Methodology and Meaning. In New Directions in Sociological Theory, P. Filmer, M. Phillipson, D. Silverman, and D. Walsh, eds. pp. 183-200. Cam- bridge MA: MIT Press.

Staikev, Z. 1986 Time Budget: Method, Tool, Instrument of Leisure Study. Paper presented to

RC 13, 1 lth World Congress of the International Sociological Association, Au- gust, New Delhi, India.

Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman 1981 The Framing of Decisions and the Rationality of Choice. Science 211:453-

458. Vogt, J.

1976 Wandering: Youth and Travel Behavior. Annals of Tourism Research 4:25-41. Webb. E.. P. Camnbell. R Schwartz. and L. Sechrest

1966 UnobtrusiGe Measures: Non Reactive Research in the Social Sciences. Chica- go: Rand McNally.

Weber, M. 1968 The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, trans. A. Henderson and

T. Parsons. New York: Free Press. Williams, A., and W. Zelinsky

1970 On Some Patterns of International Tourist Flows. Economic Geography 46(4):563-566.

Young, R. 1974 The Structural Context of the Caribbean Tourist Industry: A Comparative

Study. Economic Development and Culture Change 25(4):657-672.

methodology in tourism research

Documents

areas of tourism research

tourism research introduction

research interests

research process

methodological sophistication

annnlr sf tourism research

sophistication methodologique

sophistication mcthodologique