Annnlr sf Tourism Research, Vol. 15, pp.

l-28,
Printed in the USA
All rights reserved.

1988
Copyright

1988 Pergamon

0160-7383188
$3.00 + .OO
Journals Ltd. and J. Jafari

METHODOLOGY
IN TOURISM
RESEARCH
University

Graham Dann
of the West Indies, Barbados

University
James

Cook

University

of North

Dennison
of Connecticut,

Nash
USA

Philip Pearce
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. Contributions 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 prtliminaire 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 ambigues dont ont fait preuve les specialistes aussi bien que les profanes. Par
moyen dun modele 2 quatre quadrants,
on examine leffet rtciproque
entre la conscience theorique et la sophistication
mCthodologique.
11 ny a
quun quadrant oti lon puisse dire que ltquilibre
est suffisant. Alin de
justifier les conclusions de larticle, 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 cest que la conscience thtorique et la sophistication
methodologique.
II est evident que ces deux aspects nen sont quun seul au stade conceptuel dun travail de recherche.
On presente les autres articles de ce numero special de Annals, et on jette
un coup doeil sur quelques sujets oti lon 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, Bridgetown, 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.

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,
Boissevain (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

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.
social scientists are now well emDespite their initial reluctance,
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

METHODOLOGY

IN TOURISM

RESEARCH

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 characterizes 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 understandings that constitute
for them
an undoubted
reality
(Silverman,
1973: 183, 189). McHugh
et al (1974) re p resent this way of thinking in
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 already in place.)
The remaining
component
of research
is, of course,
theory:
that
body of logically
interconnected
propositions
which provides
an interpretative
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 interrelationoften falls into one of the following three
ship. As a result, research
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 emphasis 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 actors
motivation,
or subjective
meaning
state). Where the tension is unresolved, 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.

METHODOLOGY

A META-ANALYSIS

OF PAST

IN TOURISM

TOURISM

RESEARCH

RESEARCH

With these ideas in mind, it was thus decided to conduct

a metaanalysis 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 simultaneous 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
(not mutually exclusive)

Frequency in Journal
ATR
JLR

Descriptive: articles which do not test an

hypothesis or which do not empirically seek
to validate a research aim.

155

63

75

135

10
36

35
20

130

184

50

157

Conceptually Based: articles which are clearly

embedded in a tradition of previous work, i.e.,
linked by argument and logic to previous studies.
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.
Statistics8
percentages, frequencies,
Descriptive:
means, modes, rankings.
Inferential and Higher Level: data exploring
techniques and probability testing approaches.

DANN,

NASH AND PEARCE

Table 2. Academic Origins of Authors in

of Tourism
Research and Journal of Leisure Research
Subject

Area

Journal
ATR

Frequency
JLR

Anthropology

45

Business Studies

12

Economics

33

14

Family Studies

10

Forestry

33

53

1s

10

14

16

Geography
Health
Leisure

and Physical
Studies

Education

Marketing

Planning

17

10

12

15

and Parks

19

Management

10

16

14

Political

Science

Psychology
Recreation
Resource

sociology
Various Other

Totals

229

212

reanalysis of the data for Annals from 1980 on, compared to Annals pre1980, 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

METHODOLOGY

IN TOURISM

RESEARCH

Table 3. Percentage Comparisons of Conceptually-Based and Higher

Order Statistical Articles in the Two Journals
Annals of Tourism
Research
Pre 1980 Post 1980

Type of Article

Journal of Leisure
Research
1975 onwards

Percentage of Conceputallybased Articles

17

39

63

N on which Percentage Based

65

164

212

Percentage of Articles with

Higher Order Statistics

12

26

52

N on which Percentage

65

164

212

Based

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-ofthe-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.
there is a gradual
decline in descriptive
Regarding
data analysis,
accounts
(65.6 % , to 54.4 % to 45.2 % , respectively),
and corresponding 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

Official
Statistics

Data Gathering Mode

Question- Inter- Obser- Quali- Review Total
views vation tative of
naires
Lit.

Descriptivea

Comparativeb

Content Analysis

Factor Analysis

21

40

65.6

11

18.0

0.0

4.9

11.5

61

100.0

--

Total Freq.

11

15

22

Column %

18.0

24.6

6.5

3.3

36.1

Regression
Analysis

11.5

Row
%

100.0

aIncluding marginal frequencies, percentages.

bIneluding percentage differences, crosstabulations, comparative tests of significance.

DANN,

NASH AND PEARCE

Table 5. Type of Analysis by Data Gathering Mode in

Annals of Tourism Research (1981-1983)

Official
Statistics

5pe of
Analysis

Data Gathering
QuestionInternaires
views

Descriptivea

Comparativeb

Content
Factor

Analysis

Analysis

Regression
Analysis
Total

Preq.

Column %
aIncluding
bIncIuding

Mode
Obser
vation

QuaIitative

10

Review Total
of
Lit.
17

37

54.4

14

20.6

7.4

l--

4.4

13.2

11

17

68

100.0

16.2

7.4

25.0

24

35.3

2.9

13.2

marginal frequencies,
percentages.
percentage
differences,
crosstabulations,

Row
%

comparative

tests

100.0
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

Table 6. Type of Analysis by Data Gathering Mode in

Annals of Tourism Research (1984-1986)

Official
Statistics

Type of

Analysis
DescrIptivea

Comparativeb

10

Content

Factor

Analysis
Analysis

Regression
Analysis
Total

Preq.

aIncluding
bInchiding

Mode

Observation

Qua&
tative

Row
%

12

33

45.2

17

23.3

-_

--

10.9

5.5

--

11

15.1

22

13

73

100.0

30.1

6.9

17.8

2
-

marginal frequencies,
percentages.
percentage
differences,
crosstabulations,

Review Total
of
Lit.

Column %

Data Gathering
QuestionInternaires
views

12

12

12.3

16.4

16.4

comparative

tests

100.0
of significance.

10

METHODOLOGY

IN TOURISM RESEARCH

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). Moreover, 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 ideolo51, appear to demonstrate
low levels of theoretical
awareness.
Whether
this ideology
is located politically
to the left (e.g.,
tourism
is exploitative 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 comprehending
in terms of motive,
the typical meaning
context (sinnzusammenhung)
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

DANN,

NASH AND PEARCE

11

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 culturalstereotypical
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 greatest 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 minimum 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 minimum 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.

12

METHODOLOGY

IN TOURISM

RESEARCH

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 Cohens (1984:388)
subsequent 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. Cohens 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 illustrated 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-

DANN,

NASH AND PEARCE

13

ble, constitute the methodology

of this primary stage of the research process. Perhaps the most important
rule is that concepts should be clearly
social problem
apformulated
in problematic
terms. The alternative
proach simply yields statements
of equivalence
or tautology - unfalsifiable 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 invalidated, 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
is inadequately
matter what is meant by social class. Here happiness
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 communicated 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

14

METHODOLOGY

IN TOURISM

RESEARCH

overlap,
to the degree that they are no longer
mutually
exclusive.
Pearce (1982a)
a 1so 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
observes regretfully:

Third

World

tourism,

Harrigan

(1974:23)

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)
s p ea k 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.

DANN,

NASH AND PEARCE

15

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. Sometimes 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 reinforce 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.

16

METHODOLOGY

IN TOURISM

RESEARCH

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.
However, 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 plotted,
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 Weber, 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

DANN,

NASH AND PEARCE

17

away their findings. Apparently

oblivious of the shortcomings
of quantification
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
shortfalls and difficulties
in carrying
out such investigations.
For example,
there are the methodological
problems
of evaluating
effects of crosscultural 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 differentials
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 multicollinearity
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 discarded 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.
have shown how misleadMoscardo
and Pearce (1986), f or example,

18

METHODOLOGY

IN TOURISM

RESEARCH

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 (IsoAhola 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 reporting 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-

DANN,

NASH AND PEARCE

19

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.
Cohens
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
Towners 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
matters 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

20

METHODOLOGY

IN TOURISM

RESEARCH

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 contrast, 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 conclusively 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 Hartmanns
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 Canada 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. Hartmanns
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 nonresponse
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
to Collect Detailed
Tourist Flow
Gartner
and John Hunt, A Method
Information,
feel that they have developed
an efficient and cost-effective 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-

DANN,

NASH AND PEARCE

21

ological awareness.
Readers
wishing to pursue this line of inquiry will
find the major methodological
issues laid out for them in state-of-theart 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
Kottkes
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 Photogradiscuss several ways of getting at
phy: A Methodological
Approach,
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 TimeSampled
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

22

METHODOLOGY

IN TOURISM RESEARCH

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 tourisms
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 hosts 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.
Admittedly, 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
considerations
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.

DANN,

SUGGESTIONS

FOR

NASH AND PEARCE

FURTHER

23

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 underutilized 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 referred 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, reinterpretation 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 generations
(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 discussing this topic. Additionally,
if meta-analytic
reviews of areas of interest
are being published
frequently,
then researchers
can develop and extend 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-

24

METHODOLOGY

IN TOURISM

RESEARCH

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,
socalled secondary
analysis,
has not been featured
prominently
in Annuls. 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). Towners study in the present collection
discusses the viability of
this much neglected
approach.
One methodological
style which does appear on a number
of occasions 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 environments 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-

DANN,

NASH AND PEARCE

25

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 conversation 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 purchases 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 opportunities and overlooked possibilities that exist for students of tourism. This article has provided just a few ideas in the hope of galvanizing them into action and in order to encourage others.0 0

26

METHODOLOGY

IN TOURISM

RESEARCH

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.
Internationales 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 Differences 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
G. Dann, ed. pp. 7-37. Leiden: Royal
Barbados:
A Sociological
Perspective,
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. Communications 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.

DANN,

NASH

AND PEARCE

27

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. Journal 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 Methodology 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.

28

METHODOLOGY

IN TOURISM

RESEARCH

Ritchie, J.
1975 Some Critical Aspects of Measurement
Theory and Practice in Travel Research. Iournal of Travel Research 14(1):1-10.
Rosenthal,
R.
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 Behavioral 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.
Cambridge 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,
August, New Delhi, India.
Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman
1981 The Framing of Decisions and the Rationality
of Choice. Science 211:453458.

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. Chicago: 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.