Australian contributions--papers from CAUTHE fellows.
The three papers in this special issue of the CAUTHE journal represent a different kind of attempt to provide a service to Australian tourism scholarship, and beyond that to the international tourism research community. The idea underlying the development of the three CAUTHE Fellow papers presented in this issue of the journal was to bring together the flavour and style of work which has been and is being conducted in Australia on broad ranging topics. It is anticipated that further review papers by CAUTHE Fellows will appear in subsequent issues of the journal.
The concept of nationality in the context of tourism research efforts warrants close examination. In deconstructing the increasingly important topic of the relevance of research, several nationality and geographically linked observations can be made. It can be argued that the outcomes of a single study, or more realistically the cumulative outcomes of a set of studies, can have an influence at different scales. Often work is of interest at a local or a regional level. Some programs of work may be of national import and occasionally have far reaching international significance. Typically the work with the largest and most distant reach is conceptually innovative or novel. Such work applies key concepts or mini-theories to the immediate setting with a view to the development of the field. At other times, researchers with a strong pragmatic orientation are content to see their work applied to a local setting with no clear vision of its import to international colleagues. For the purposes of proselytising an Australian contribution to international tourism research, the chief interest must lie in those studies where the research articles, books and conference presentations have arguably enough substance and power to be of generative interest. Nevertheless, for Australian located researchers there is also value in reviewing the existing array of work done in this country which pursues predominantly Australian themes.
Sometime ago, Dann (1993) criticized the very concept of nationality in tourism studies. His argument was that each national setting exhibits much diversity, that ethnicity underlies internal differences and mobility keeps changing the guidelines of what it means to belong to any one country. It might therefore appear to be a retrograde step to introduce nationality as a way of thinking about research in tourism. Nevertheless, while commonalities abound in University administrative systems, and the flow of ideas should ideally be borderless, each political and ideological system has its own impact on scholars and each region its own variants of the tourism phenomenon (Tribe, 2009). It is perhaps not useful to argue that nationality and the national effort in tourism research is a limited way to examine tourism research, but rather to see it as an idea which strengthens our need as researchers to be aware of context and position as we conduct our work and seek to contribute.
A different point of clarification about the role of CAUTHE Fellows and their contribution to Australian based research can also be drawn from the biographies of the three scholars undertaking these review tasks in this issue of the journal. The individuals represent several variants of the theme of being Australian based researchers. While all work in Australia, Dwyer, an Australian, was educated and has spent his life in Australian Universities, Pearce, an Australian, was educated in England and has spent his career entirely in Australia, and Weiler, a Canadian by birth, and educated in that country, has built her career in her adopted homeland. These small biographical insights draw attention to something rather uncommon about Australian scholars. With relatively few exceptions, Australian tourism and hospitality academics have tended to stay in Australia (Pearce, 2011). Only a relatively few Australians have left the country's shores to spend time in other continents. Australian scholars do attend many international tourism conferences but it can be suggested that researchers in other countries may be less familiar with Australian work than is perhaps deserved because the immediacy of working with Australian colleagues on a daily basis is quite rare. It is hoped therefore that these contributions by the three CAUTHE Fellows may serve to boost the familiarity with Australian derived work.
Dann, G. (1993). Limitations in the use of "nationality" and country of residence variables. In D. Pearce, & R. Butler (Eds.), Tourism research: Critiques and challenges (pp. 88-112). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Pearce, P. L. (2011). Respecting the past preparing for the future; the rise of Australian academic tourism research. Folia Turistica, 25(1), 187-205.
Tribe, J. (2009). Philosophical issues in tourism. In J. Tribe (Ed.), Philosophical issues in tourism (pp. 3-22). Bristol, UK: Channel View.
Philip L. Pearce, Margaret Deery * Centre for Tourism and Services Research, Victoria University, PO Box 14428, Melbourne, Victoria 8001, Australia
* Corresponding author. University of Surrey. Tel.: +61 3 99194626.
E-mail address: email@example.com (M. Deery).
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||Council for Australasian Tourism and Hospitality Education|
|Author:||Pearce, Philip L.; Deery, Margaret|
|Publication:||Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management|
|Date:||Mar 1, 2016|
|Previous Article:||Tourists' perceived value and satisfaction in a community-based homestay in the Lenggong Valley World Heritage Site.|
|Next Article:||Australian contributions to tourist behaviour studies.|