Does Tourism Knowledge Really Exist - Assignment Example

1. Where Does the Knowledge Come From? Initially the only issue that mattered was about how and where to obtain scholarships. As far as gaining knowledge was concerned, way back in 1972 it depended mostly on a set of books, a single journal on tourism, an international scholarly organization in Switzerland and a research organization in the US. Thus from this account one would essentially conclude that knowledge was gleaned from and as referred by Tribe (1999:103) “extradisciplinary knowledge” got from “industry, government, think tanks, interest groups, research institutes and consultancies.” This could be otherwise worded as knowledge was got from outside the academic sources. This point is also noted in Burkart and Medlik’s (1974) reference list in their textbook which mainly contains reports from governments and other official places. Those who were involved in the initial course development found it difficult in the absence of previous literature and hence began to borrow from other study areas such as economics. The subsequent scholars who followed in the later years created a literature involving nearly 40 academic journals, textbooks, conference papers and organization reports. Thus the initial lack of academic sources did not hinder the progress of education on the tourism industry. 2. What are the Programmes For? The next concern is regarding the actual purpose of the programs. This did not appear to be a major issue in the beginning as the course had a limited and vocational focus. The course was part of hotel management programs and this served as an advantage. The subject was accepted at the degree level during the early 1960s and Cornell University it the United States played a significant role in this development. The degree program that was initiated in many hotel and catering institutes began as a vocational program and offered a lot of practical training through its industrial tie-ups. The tourism program was also established as a vocational course and this move was influenced by several early textbooks which had already set a defined curriculum for more than a decade. All these initial changes made to the design of the course can be observed in the curricula of the first undergraduate degree program which was framed in the mid 1980s (Figure 1) and in the program objectives of the mid 1990s (Figure 2). Despite the relatively simple beginnings for the course the actual story is quite complex. One of the early works done by scholars it the field noted that the tourism program could cause a lot of issues which were beyond the operation of the industry. However, as further research was conducted and a wider knowledge obtained about the different aspects of tourism industry, the courses offered went beyond the vocational stream and gained much higher recognition among scholars and academicians which began to realize its academic potential. This fact is also reflected in the benchmark statement which was put forth in 2000 (QAA, 2000) (Figure 3). These changes gave a different outlook for the tourism course which was by then seen beyond the vocational level. Many parts of the course allowed students to “stand back from their core course of studies” (Barnett, 1990:91) and “see it from various perspectives” (Stuart-Hoyle, 2003:51). However, the varying stands taken questioned the actual purpose of the course as to whether it was part of the vocational or non-vocational streams. As suggested by Stuart-Hoyle (2003:62) the “key purpose of the majority of undergraduate tourism programmes is claimed to be the preparation of graduates for a career in the tourism industry”. She also notes that “the extent to which institutions actually deliver the programmes which meet that aim varies significantly.” She also suggested that the perspective of the lecturers may itself vary from the objectives set for the vocational streams. All these issues have been however resolved in the curriculums set for the course which includes both the vocational aspects to initially attract students and also the more complicated aspects as demanded by the course. However, only further examination of the quality of courses offered will be able to ascertain the standard set for the course. 3. Is There a Core Curriculum? The core curriculum became on the widely debated aspects of the tourism education during the early 1990s. These debates began following a number of questions reported in the CNAA report (1993). The report was based on the fact that with growing recognition to the tourism program and increasing number of academics entering the field the absence of a set curriculum will only result in the inclusion of aspects desired by those who develop the program. The report also noted the dangers that lay ahead for the course such as fragmentation, creating a confused picture for the applicants, students and employers and the limited scope that would present in the absence of a common agreement. Thus the report led to formation of a core curriculum of which the QAA statement is a latest example. The works carried out by Tribe (1997) and Airey and Johnson (1999) have revealed that most of the tourism programs have more similarities than differences. They study reveals that a core curriculum already existed but was more vocational in nature and influenced by the interests of the academics who were involved in framing the curriculum and the competition put forth by other programs. The analysis carried out by Tribe (1997) revealed an important difference between the majority of programs which according to him had a “business disciplinary approach” and programs which did not support such an appraoch. The former group of programs had a common feature in that they had a business-like approach, but in his own words “there is no comprehensive aggregation of non-business tourism knowledge” (p654). The looming doubt about fragmentation seems to have been uncovered as most of the programs were found have a lot of similarity. It is only a small minority of programs that lack a general agreement with the core curriculum. Stuart-Hoyle (2003) also concluded from their study that: “the most common purpose of tourism undergraduate programmes is to prepare students to work in the tourism industry.” (p53). 4. Does Tourism Knowledge Really Exist? This paper has already made reference to the immense and quick growth of the tourism industry. With the knowledge about the subject gaining increasing acceptance among students and with its demand rising at a time when universities are accommodating more students, several disciplines are being incorporated into the tourism curriculum. An increasing number of scholars from the field of tourism have also entered into academics. All these developments have contributed to a rapid expansion of the knowledge base that vast knowledge about the tourism industry has been created within a span of less than a generation. However, it remains to be confirmed whether the knowledge gleaned can be considered as true ‘tourism knowledge’ and as a unique and collective source of information. This doubt is widely seen as a start for further enquiry into the subject. The distinction between the three forms of knowledge related to tourism as explained by Tribe can however enable us to understand the problem. At the onset Tribe points to the “extradisciplinary knowledge” as previously stated by him, which is gained from outside the academic sources. While this knowledge is required to understand the subject it cannot be taken to be a complete theoretical source. In the second point Tribe points to “multidisciplinary knowledge” which is obtained from a number of different disciplines. The tourism education has evolved from various roots and hence it cannot claim anything as its own. Tribe finally explains about “interdisciplinary knowledge” that originated from newly gained knowledge through the combination of one or more subjects in order to seek new answers. And tribe believes that the knowledge that we stand to gain from tourism education would best fit into this category. Thus despite several issues raised by tourism education, its growth as an interdisciplinary knowledge has seen a good growth and this has given a solid foundation for students to pursue a career in tourism. This growth shall continue though there are few examples to cite as for now. The Tourist Area Life Cycle by Butler (1980) can be cited as a reference and it is also one of the most cited papers in tourism as it is one of the few papers dealing with tourism education. Apart from this there are very few examples to state as tourism continues to be inspired academically from various disciplines. 5. Where Does Tourism Belong? The developmental curve of the entire tourism industry has changed for the better after having begun as a vocational stream that had initially attracted students. Universities later included academics from various other subjects. This growth can be observed in the Departments of Hospitality Management and other Business and tourism schools wherein the major programs pertaining to the course can be found. This is explained in Figure 4. It can be seen that over a period of 30 years that growth pattern has shown considerable changes. With the vocational core of the subject still intact the subject areas covered under the courses go beyond the vocational structure. The changes in growth is more specifically observed in tourism research as well as in the overall curriculum offered by the course. The growth also leads to questions pertaining to the locations of the tourism education. For instance, the course can very well be included in a business school but there are also aspects that do not normally come under the purview of a business environment. Such issues do have an important effect over the development of the tourism curriculum and for future research. For instance, business schools will want to publish papers in high ranking management journals and not in journals related to tourism. This would impose restrictions on the curriculum model that would give way to the development of a new curriculum as already stated. Howver, it should also be borne in mind that tourism is a multi-disciplinary course and had not originated from any single subject area such as geography, sociology or town planning. One of the consequences to this as pointed by Botterill (2002) is that tourism research will cease to evolve as a single body as it will encompass various subject areas. Thus when tourism ought to be known as a single course, which is vital for its continued development in the education scenario the existing view of a multi-disciplinary subject seems to take its course in the opposite direction and in the worst case only promoting the business aspects of the course. Despite such developments, tourism has been associated with various other related courses such as Hospitality, Leisure, Recreation and Sport. The QAA bench has also taken note of this development and has proposed the need for review in these subject areas. A point to be noted would be that all these subjects also involve human experiences and face similar concerns pertaining to the vocational and academic aspects of the course. But this does not provide any concrete answer to the question about the location of the tourism course and hence may be considered as a reason as to why the tourism education will fail to be noticed in such environments. 6. Where from Here? In more ways than one tourism education is seen as a victim of its initially earned success that had attracted students and scholars. Through collective effort they made the course successful by incorporating many topics for research from other related subjects which could essentially bring about changes to a major study area involving human relations. However, the very aspects which have contributed to the success of the course namely the vocational and multi-disciplinary approach might hinder further development and the due recognition that it may stand to gain as a serious study area. While the vocational aspect proved to be useful in initially attracting students irrespective of the reputation gained for the course, the multi-disciplinary approach helped to incorporate a wide range of programs which cannot be completely used in research. In addition to the above problems there are two further issues also needs to be addressed. Firstly, there has been a reduction in the applications for the tourism program as shown in the falling ratios from 11:1 in 1995 to 5:1 in 2003 (Stuart-Hoyle, 2004). If this trend continues it would result in the weakening of one of the main forces that holds the program together. The second aspect involves the present day pressures on research studies which have involved the inclusion of other subject areas has weakened the recognition and opportunities that the tourism education stands to gain. However, in such an environment of uncertainty two positive aspects have emerged which would help to contribute to further scope of the program and hence its successful growth. The increasing quality of scholarships provided by newly formed academic institutes provides a basis for increasing the reputation of the tourism course. In addition, the coming together of literature pertaining to tourism and the various related organizations for a formidable force that could be tapped for future growth. The need now is to keep watch on the tourism education and knowledge and seek to achieve a best scholarship to pursue the same. Read More