Tourism, Marketing and Business - Essay Example

Tourism Studies Figure 3 illustrates a model for the study of tourism presented by Jafari and Ritchie in 1981 which presents tourism as a separate field of study. Also, the model by Jafari and Ritchie explains tourism as a multi-disciplinary field. But on the other hand, Tribe presented some modifications in the in this model impressed by the study of Hirst (1999). The model presented in the figure depicts two rings: first the outer ring i.e. shaded boxes shows major disciplines of study whereas the inner ring depicts the courses offered in the respective departments. The model somehow mixes the inner and outer sings as well as many disciplines which can be seen by explaining that sociology, psychology and economics are major disciplines whereas parks and recreation, agriculture and transport are not the fields of study but are included as major disciplines in the model. The model actually is a puzzle between major and minor disciplines (Tribe, 1999) Also, we can say that marketing and business represent themselves as a problem. Marketing in general is considered a business function, it uses principles and guidelines from sociology and psychology as well as uses some of the business principles. Marketing is studied as a sub major in business and also, law is included in the business studies. So we can include these two as sub majors in the major discipline of business. "techniques required in business studies are derivative partly from the disciplines that contribute to them and partly from the world of business practice." Henkel’s analysis clearly explains aforementioned theories and states that in an alternate form that the validation of a part of its knowledge is outside of its academy (tribe, 1999). Tourism and business studies are the two emerging fields of studies and both of these fields collide or cooperate with each other in one way or the other. Hence, Tribe forces on the fact that there needs to be a new formulation of re interpretation of the model presented by Ritchie and Jafari since we need to incorporate business and marketing in the their model.Accommodating all the disciplines and departments under one heading of tourism studies is rather confusing and very difficult. We can say that we now need to divide the field of tourism studies into multiple fields, at least two and one of these two fields can be called tourism business studies whereas rest are still to be identified or incorporated into other fields of tourism studies. A tourism business study is a field of study mainly inspired from business studies which have now grown into a major field of study by itself. Tourism business studies basically uses the same concepts and ideas of business studies but focuses more on the business aspects in relation to tourism. Hence it includes marketing, law, management and corporate strategy but related to tourism only. (TF) = TF1 + TF2 The above mentioned equation explains the field of tourism studies. Apart from tourism business studies, the other field of tourism studies contains all the other fields of tourism which are not related to business studies or in other words we can say that the second field includes non-business related fields. Tourism business studies can be called as TF1 whereas TF2 denotes the second field of study which explains the equation mentioned above. The second field of tourism studies is considered less important and useful to the tourism studies and also it lacks a proper framework. Although different, these two fields of tourism studies may have some correlation or overlapping since many factors affect both the fields at the same level such as environment which is included in TF2 but it also has a certain effect on the business related aspects of tourism. "doubts... (about) whether it does not constitute two distinct fields of machine and human communication, for which information theory cannot provide a unifying paradigm." (1990:45, italics in original) were the notes from Squires when he found out that similar problems occurred in different fields of study after they were thought of as a single entity or a were studied under the umbrella of a same discipline. The model presented by Jafari and Ritchie needs to adjust according to the continuously expanding field of tourism studies. We can make adjustments in the model using help form the studies f Hirst and include new disciplines and minor fields of study. Philosophy was presented by Hirst as a discipline of study and can be added into the model of Jafari and Ritchie, expanding and modifying it. Hiirst’s studies can also help us solve unanswerable questions raised by the so called puzzle of tourism if his disciplines are added in the model and solve the puzzle. Hence figure 3.2 demonstrates a new and modified model of tourism studies. The center of the circle TF1 + TF2 = TF explains the field of tourism studies whereas the outer larger circle depict different disciplines of this field of study. A space is left blank to incorporate an unknown or a new discipline in the field of tourism studies and is usually denoted the letter ‘n’. Text 12 Tourism knowledge Creation The newly modified depiction of the model of tourism studies can also be used to demonstrate new developments and progress in this field of study. Band K, a space between the core of the circle and the outer border depicts the illustration of different theories of this field of study. Band K is the area where we can say the all the knowledge related to tourism studies is created and new developments and progress is incorporated. Band K is the area of main activities in this field. Also, simply put, this area joins and creates a connection between different disciplines and departments of tourism studies. Also, it connects the disciplines with the field of tourism. For example: multiplier theory is born where economics enters the field of tourism hence we can say that an already existing and tested theory is being applied in the respective field or discipline. The knowledge thus obtained from Band K in such a manner is known as multidisciplinary knowledge which can be applied as different disciplines approaching a field with discretion. Also, here every discipline provides us with its own methodology to justify the claims. Band K do represent different discipline’s approach towards the field but fails to represent the approach of a single discipline. Band K is a powerful area which depicts and explains the interaction of different discipline with the field of study. Band K also helps analyzing how new developments in the external world would affect the field of tourism. Combining different disciplinary tools and create a new plan to find new ways for the improvements in the field explains an inter-disciplinary approach. Band K does not only incorporates inter and multi- disciplinary approaches to the field of tourism but also explains certain other activities. These activities are inspired from the real business world. Also, these activities help in the fields of marketing, finance and strategic planning related to tourism. These activities are also, to some part, inspired from the disciplines in the field of tourism and the incorporation of these activities along with business studies boosts the field of tourism. These activities are named as coordinated activities and usually considered a part of TF1. All these disciplines, multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary explain and affect the field of tourism in their own way and create the knowledge of tourism. Mode 1 as referred to this model of tourism knowledge by Gibbons et al. in 1994 is "generated within a disciplinary, primarily cognitive context" (p. 1). This knowledge of a respective field is usually created and nurtured in an institution. Band K is thus a part of higher education as well as a site of creation of knowledge for tourism studies. "The new mode operates within a context of application in that problems are not set within a disciplinary framework ... It is not being institutionalized primarily within university structures ... [and] makes use of a wider range of criteria in judging quality control." (1994:vii). Identified by Gibbons et al as a new way of creation of knowledge and they referred to it as mode 2. Also, Business inter-disciplinary has only a partial role to play in K band since its role also is in the practical world and it has deep roots there. The new model of tourism studies holds Mode 2 somewhere in the center i.e. which is the practical/external world of tourism and the application of its studies in the practical life. When the center of this circle is studied, we can say that the bulk of knowledge created by Mode 2 occurs in the upper half of the center which is related to the business aspects of tourism. This creation of knowledge in the upper half is due to the fact that Mode 2 uses industry, think tanks, and research institutes and different other ways such as consultancies for the production of knowledge and major portion of Mode 2 knowledge occurs in tourism business. Mode 2 knowledge production helps the field to adjust and modify according of the new developments as well as incorporate these new developments to increase the capacity of the field. Gibbons et al explain mode 2 knowledge in terms of transdisciplinarity that is "knowledge which emerges from a particular context of application with its own distinct theoretical structures, research methods and modes of practice but which may not be locatable on the prevailing disciplinary map." (1994:168). The previously used term Trans-disciplinary for the knowledge creation of Mode 2 has now been replaced with extra-disciplinary since trans-disciplinary was being continuously confused with the term inter-disciplinary. Mode 2 knowledge production occurs outside the disciplines hence a more appropriate term is introduced. Unlike Mode 1, Mode 2 creation of knowledge does not take place in a higher education institution which is a major difference of Mode 2 from Mode 1. Also, Mode 2 now is developing its own epistemology to define and explain different terms created by this mode. Talking about some more difference between these two modes of knowledge creation, Mode 1 is known for its authenticity because of the use of peer reviewed knowledge and quality control whereas Mode 2 focuses more on success and analyzes the ability to solve different problems under different conditions. Also, Mode 2 judges the costs and competitive advantage and more inclined towards the practical use of knowledge rather than putting it in theories. The results depicted by Mode 2 are used in specific contexts and for specific projects only. Analysis of Mode 2 epistemology should be considered incomplete if it lacks to consider Post-modernist analysis. Lyotards hypothesis in The Postmodern Condition is: "that the status of knowledge is altered as societies enter what is known as the post-industrial age and culture enters what is known as the postmodern age." (1984:3) The world is progressing, it is getting technologically advance and with new progress in the field of science, it demands more complex and authentic proofs. Lyotard focused and inclined on performance/performativity to be more important than any other thing if one desires to progress in complex scientific and technical knowledge. Nowadays, performativity dominates technology and everyone asks for something to get things done with minimal work hence for scientific progress to occurs, performativity and technology are the keys. The importance of this is that "an equation between wealth, efficiency and truth is thus established" (Lyotard, 1984:45). The field of business is an ever expanding field of study. Just like any other field of science, it is also affected by performativity and technology. Performativity decides what sort and type of knowledge is required and technology provides cost effective means of acquiring that knowledge. "The fact remains that since performativity increases the ability to produce proof, it also increases the ability to be right: the technical criterion, introduced on a massive scale into scientific knowledge, cannot fail to influence the truth critenon." (Lyotard, 1984:46).Hence we can incorporate Lyotard’s observation and analysis on the modified model and state that the creation of tourism knowledge is for profit purposes. Functionalism leads knowledge and the major purpose of knowledge production is not to find partial answers but to find something which makes this field better and more efficient. The post-modern era is summarized by Lechte and he states that "One in which power and knowledge come into contact with each other as never before." Text 13 Cooper et al regarded tourism as a small community. Usually something is called a community when it has its own groupings and gatherings. Tourism on the other hand has a little number of faculties around which the community is grouped. Also, we can say that the academics from a different disciplinary background in the community would identify themselves as similar and they would prefer the language of their original functional background since inter-subjectivity in tourism is more common. Hence the community called the tourism community is weak so far and has a little influence on other communities. "as yet, there is no one business studies community in higher education and the academic identity of the subject is very weak." Stated by Henkel’s (in boys et al 1988:189) supports the analysis. Figure 1. Model of Jafari and Ritchie for tourism studies (Jafari and Ritchie, 1981:23). Read More