Time to reconsider tourism geographies?

Having attended many conferences of the International Geographical Union during the last 20 years, it is easy to note that tourism geographies are at the core of these events when it comes to numbers of participants and organized sessions. This is in contrast to the otherwise often mentioned marginality of tourism geographies in relation to mainstream geographies as it is exercised at geography departments or reported on in generic text books, as C. Michael Hall notes in his ‘notes from the underground’ (Hall, 2013). Similar accounts on the status of tourism geographies and tourism geographers from various parts of Europe are also featured in Wilson and Clavé's collection (2013). Even contributors to Tourism Geographies are increasingly affiliated with other than geography departments (Müller, 2014) and hence, in many places tourism geographers are institutionally ‘homeless’ or alternatively, found a new home. Of course, this does not have to be a problem. Post-disciplinarity has also been seen as a way to tackle complex societal problems (Coles, Hall, & Duval, 2005, 2006).

Independent of which position one may take in this debate, it is obvious that the situation of tourism geographies is contested and that many desire a more prominent and influential position of tourism geographies within geography and the social sciences (Hall, 2013; Ioannides, 2006). However, breaking out from the cages of academic routine is not an easy endeavor, not least since academic disciplines come along with paradigms and strict set of traditions about what problems have to be researched and in what ways (Coles, Hall, & Duval, 2006; Hellström, Jacob, & Wenneberg, 2003). In relation to tourism it can be noted that this usually implies focus on tourism as a leisure activity, independent whether this is seen from a demand-side or supply-side perspective. Certainly, there are exceptions addressing for example business tourism or generic assessments of tourism impacts without accounting for travel motivations, but at least my impression is that tourism research too often equals studies of the tourism industry. And as Coles et al. (2006, p. 304) note

Some journals find certain research methods or approaches more acceptable than others either because of conscious editorial policy; a certain journal style developed over the years; or, alternatively, the selection of editorial boards and the particular breadth of views represented.

Of course, tourism geographers are aware that definitions of tourism do not limit research to the narrow idea of tourism as an industry. However, industry funding and political pressure on university management to outreach to industry and produce results enhancing economic growth certainly push tourism research into the direction of industry studies. Furthermore, even academic journals requiring, for example, discussions of management implications disqualify tourism research that is off the beaten track.

In this context, tourism geographers have played an important role and challenged the narrow practice of tourism research as the study of an industry. Hall's (2005) book ‘Tourism: Rethinking the Social Science of Mobility’ expresses already in the title an ambition to move beyond an understanding and practice of tourism research that mainly aims at providing the industry with knowledge and workforce. And as Coles et al. (2006) note, there is already a tradition within tourism geographies to address complex problems that require insights from different bodies of knowledge, and they point at medical tourism, second home tourism, diaspora tourism, and tourism and climate change as fields where this applies.

However, I think Hall's ambition to rethink tourism as the social science of mobility opens another avenue of reasoning, too. Academic disciplines transform for various reasons, but not least because of societal demand. Within geography, a descriptive tradition and a mapping of the world has been exchanged for more analytical approaches defining geography not as the object of study but rather as a perspective on society and environment as objects of study (Johnston & Sidaway, 2016; Livingstone, 1993). Analogous, even tourism and tourism geographical research can be re-thought and re-developed. Instead of thinking of tourism research as the study of tourism as a societal phenomenon, tourism geographers should consider applying tourism as a perspective on society; rather than studying tourism, research should study societal and environmental change and analyze the integrated role of tourism as an agent and outcome of that change.

To a certain degree, the post-disciplinary research mentioned by Coles et al. (2006) already commits to such an approach, and thus I think my suggestion is far from revolutionary. But in many cases, even these studies seem to be impregnated by tradition, focusing mobility rather than the role of mobility. A shift towards tourism as perspective would open up new and exciting avenues of research. For example, I can envision projects analyzing the integrated role of tourism for research and knowledge production, for performance in various industries, for urban and rural change, for various types of environments and so on and so on. By doing so, my hope would be that the knowledge already now available in tourism research also enriches other academic fields that are struggling with acknowledging mobility and its consequences.

Hopefully, Tourism Geographies will be able to accommodate this kind of contributions as well.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.