Vulnerabilities in tourism scholarship – scholars’ plea for a viable future

Dedications

This special issue of Tourism Recreation Research (TRR) was proposed to celebrate the memory of Tej Vir Singh (Tej Vir), the founding editor of TRR who departed in April 2021. One way, among others, to offer tribute to academics is to celebrate their ideas through discourses and writings. The co-joined themes of vulnerability and viability encapsulate Tej Vir’s life-long attempt to approach the subject of tourism with a level-mindedness – i.e. applying the Goldilocks Principle. He used the principle in his own writings, in fulfilling his editorial responsibilities towards TRR and in his supervisory métier – tempering the yin with the yang and vice versa. In his sagacity, tourism and its ‘fate’ is in our hands – for us to mould and refine according to our ethos and in concurrence with tourism’s critical realities. Hence, his assertion that tourism was much sinned against than sinning – a belief that eventually became the focus of dialogue in Tourism Recreation Research (Research Probe section of Vol. 38(3), 2013) and summarized ahead. From this vantage point, tourism is just as vulnerable as is viable! (Singh, 2015).

The vulnerability–viability dichotomy is seen to be reflecting Keith Hollinshead’s perspectives in his (Keith’s) writings on tourism scholarship (on its realities and propositions), for which he was approached to join in this endeavour. My invitation for him to co-walk this path was graciously accepted. Thus, began our preparations and the actualization of this joint project. I have met Keith in his writings though never in person – and feel blessed for having known him albeit so briefly. For a scholar of much prominence and seniority to be so magnanimous in his interactions was an enrichment for me. We started our work with a clear understanding of each other’s forte to ensure efficiency and cheerfulness. Then, suddenly in late September of 2022, the tourism academic community was struck by the news of Keith’s demise. The subsequent stream of condolences and messages was simply numbing. Amidst honouring the memory of one stalwart (Tej Vir), we suffered the anguish of losing yet another (Keith) – the contributors and I felt impoverished mid-way. The effect was numbing, and the work on the theme issue came to a stand-still. Thus, it remained for several weeks, even though the responsibility of taking the special issue to fruition became imperative to honouring my collaboration with Keith. Encouragement and support to resume this task came from the contributors of this issue, whose quiet fortitude, reserve and resolve bespoke of their respect for and commitment to Keith and our collective cause (see ‘remembering Keith Hollinshead’ at the end). The contributors of this special issue of TRR join me in dedicating this outcome to Keith Hollinshead – our friend, colleague, mentor and inspiration …  … Om Shanti.

The unease in tourism scholarship

It cannot be claimed that the twin themes of vulnerability and viability within tourism studies deserves attention or that scholarly attention to this motive is lacking. The truth is quite the other way around. Much has been written and presented on the problem with tourism scholarship, including what needs to be and is being done about it. This theme issue is a link in the ongoing discourse on these themes from within tourism scholarship. But what legitimizes the labours invested in having a special issue of TRR on the theme of vulnerabilities and viabilities of tourism scholarship? The principal reasons that justify this are as follows: First, apart from dedicating the collection of essays in this issue to the two respected academics in tourism, Keith and Tej Vir, the themes reflect the confluence of these two mindsets – i.e. world-making and condemnation, by tourism literati. Second, irrespective of the extent of literature available on the theme, clearly the message of tourism’s problems and potentials has yet to spread far enough and/or take hold/effect. The articles of this issue attempt to provide some closure to the oft-repeated omissions in the study of tourism while providing critical forward-thinking options for consideration. Third, the compilation affords us yet another opportunity to reflect on our role and place as academics in launching/delivering the study of tourism to greener pastures as envisioned by Tej Vir and Keith. Fourth, this issue is also an attempt to enact the need for inclusiveness in tourism academia. Though not fully accomplished, the articles represent thoughts and ideas from major continents of the world. The fifth and final reason is the expectation that the readings herein shall give us a pause to reflect and question ourselves about our role, responsibilities, and rights as tourism academics and as tourists (as we sometimes also are).

The study of tourism has survived now for nearly a century, notwithstanding its fragmented and weak theoretical base (Echtner & Jamal, 1997; Tasci, 2020). If this, in itself, does not demonstrate the vulnerability and the vitality/viability of tourism studies, then what other evidence might convince us. Gluckman’s call (as early as 1960) for the scientific/systematic study of the tourism phenomenon and practice resonates to date, though with ever-increasing gusto, desperation, urgency and articulation. Apparently, the global pandemic situation of the past 2 years has made this calling even more pressing and imminent. For tourism scholarship to receive its due respect and flourish into the future, scholars emphasize the need for a sound academic foundation (Weaver, 2023). This essentially translates into a want for direction, meaning and transformation.

The investments of time and energy towards the envisioning of ‘new’ or ‘transformed’ ways for the business/practice and scholarship in tourism are gaining traction among a few academics, yet the uptake of this idea has been somewhat reserved. However, the relevant question is whether the tribe of tourism scholars really feels compelled or restless enough to exit the extant ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies? Are the tourism literati willing or even courageous to abandon the known paths, well-tracked means and conventional goals in tourism and its studies? This would require venturing into untested territories. Adopting an offbeat direction will require summoning up courageous resolve with a certain confidence.

Tourism as a ‘sinner’ or unjustly ‘sinned against'? The perpetrator–victim syndrome

The above caption is derived from a perspective held by Tej Vir, whose engagement with tourism studies led him to the assumption that those at the helm of tourism affairs are accountable for tourism’s inadequacies. To scrutinize this postulation, Tej Vir invited four academics, namely, Sharpley, Scott, Macbeth and Smith (2013), to a discourse which was subsequently published in the Research Probe section of Tourism Recreation Research (Vol. 38(3): 349–369). The first of the four discussants, Richard Sharpley (: 350–355), defends tourism as he points to its scholarship. He posits that tourism academics has been rather unfair in their one-sided perspective of the consequences of tourism development and growth whereby the problems have been overly hyped while downplaying the myriad goodness of the tourism phenomenon. Tourism, according to Sharpley, is not unlike other commercial activities which are invariably associated with costs and benefits. The devil is in the inappropriate planning and management of the phenomenon and its practices. Subsequently, Noel Scott (: 355–359) disagrees with the above argument as he asserts that even the best of thoughts and intents cannot ensure positivism. This arises from the fact that the nature and complexities of modern (also Western) tourism are not a mere challenge for management and development efforts but also that the outcomes are subject to sociocultural norms. Scott is of the opinion that it is the purpose and perspective of the actors or agents (tourists, industry, government and academic) that determines the outcome. Should perspectives and intents (pleasure, commercial or professional) of holidaymakers, businesses and academics, respectively, govern the interest in tourism, then a imbalanced handling would be inevitable. By that token, as academics, we are no less culpable in the good and the bad of the tourism phenomenon, including its study than other agents or actors. It is this point that will be elaborated further ahead. But for now, let us return to Macbeth’s ensuing rebuttal (: 359–362). Macbeth declines from going with the flow of the debate and applying a frame of reference for tourism which he acknowledges as holding myriad meanings for diverse groups and individuals. Penultimately, Peter Smith (: 367) iterates that the (mass) scale of tourism needs to be scrutinized for its blessings and blights. The editor (T.V. Singh) wraps up the debate with the remark, ‘tourism may not be a sinner, but that the jury remains out on whether it is sinned against’ (: 367). Having absolved tourism as the perpetrator, the agency of its academic community must be up for review and obligated to deliberate on the appropriate course forward.

The vigour and the potency of modern tourism processes and practices may sometimes seem to overwhelm academics making it difficult for us to keep pace. Nevertheless, there is ample literature that points to the shortfalls in the study of the subject matter. Early on these voices had remained in the margins. Having garnered attention over time, this question has gained enough momentum to be recognized and addressed. While it may be convenient to lay the blame on the rampant patterns of tourism business, industry and governance, this explanation would be only partly true. Part responsibility needs to be borne by its scholars. Some outstanding concerns are identified hereon, whereby an attempt is also made to indicate the inherent vulnerability and the viability within each.

The academic enterprise

Gössling et al. (2021) provide evidence from tourism scholarship on ‘dark forms of academic entrepreneurship with questionable outcomes for academia and science’ (:11). In that regard, the tourism phenomenon has been considerably maligned, perhaps victimized, by its own following of researchers and thinkers. As critics and scribes, most of us may be culpable for the potential disservice to the subject in one way or another (see Airey, 2015; Korstanje, 2023). Perhaps, tourism research needs respectability and regard for those who espouse it for life-long careers and living. Many scholars have complained of this lack quite openly (see Darbellay & Stock, 2012; Wallace, 2005). Scholars have documented and even advocated (Schweinsberg et al., 2022) the inevitable nexus between the tourism phenomenon with the capitalist imperative. Pritchard and Morgan (2007) relate to the dilemmas through a scrutiny of the publish–perish and/or the competitive environment (for funding and tenure) within which tourism scholars are required to perform. In measuring up to these expectations, compromises have occurred in granting tourism studies less than its dues of reflexive and critical thinking. In another example, Schweinsberg et al. (2022) espouse and even elaborate on the competitive environment within which tourism academia performs to legitimize its knowledge system as also the subject matter. On the positive side, this modelling exercise presents the truth of the environment within which tourism academia operates. However, in adapting and employing a market-force-based model to convince the readership, the authors perpetuate an industry-styled mindset in making recommendations for tourism scholarship! Given that tourism knowledge growth has occurred through a liberal approach, such expectations are antithetical!

The cause of an agenda

Juxtaposed with the previous point is yet another dimension of the nexus between tourism and capitalism – that of being driven by a utilitarian agenda. The so-called tourism growth models seem to have been particularly favoured by academics since the nascent years of their study. The din that tourism must be espoused for the cause of an/the economy continues to date. Jafari’s platforms (2001) of tourism knowledge tacitly reflect the coupling and decoupling treatments rendered over time and in locations around the globe. Since the launch of the sustainability paradigm, tourism is wrapped around the three pillars of society, economy and environment. The fact that even before tourism had a chance to reveal itself, it was subjugated into service! Fazito et al. (2016), among others, warn us of the peril of the chameleon guise of the alternative discourse. The result is confusion and contentions. And, there is no clear verdict yet. So, while the growth-obsessed ecocide (Savransky, 2022) continues to be the anomalous norm (Ateljevic, 2020) in tourism, simultaneous and corresponding calls to desist from this alliance are just as prevalent (see for instance Higgins-Desbiolles, 2021; Wallace, 2005). This split in perspectives clearly evinces, among other interpretations, that tourism is dominated, driven and shaped to fulfil an agenda for its own legitimacy. This explains the excessive criticism of the growth, development and consequences of tourism. Is it possible for us to free ourselves and tourism from the curse of functionalism?

The (De)centring approach

A second concern is that of localizing the study of tourism as an entity by itself or as part of a milieu within which tourism occurs. There is a certain measure of narrowness in arguments that favour (de)centring the study of the phenomenon. Knowing that tourism is not a stand-alone entity in and of itself, it is suggested that the study of context is undeniably crucial. This consistent delineation of tourism is detrimental in the determination of its nature or the inherent character of the phenomenon. Also, since tourism is enacted through and within a complexity of environments, institutions, resources and policies (Ma, et. al. 2020), the dependency factor on each aspect of these critical dimension deserves serious consideration, particularly for their potential to compromise our understanding. Darbellay and Stock (2012) address this concern somewhat radically, in that there is no necessity for a ‘paradigmatic organisation of the knowledge on tourism’ (:455) and that its research could benefit from the arrangement ‘around a research object whose manifestations exist in every element of contemporary society’. In their view, the touristic dimension of society forms the core of the study approach instead of tourism as an autonomous system in and of itself. Alternately, the context in which it exists and is studied needs to attending, if not foregrounded. Scholars, the likes of Sin et al. (2021), firmly believe that sociocultural and political-economic conditions particularly dominate the phenomenon (also the business of tourism) to such an extent that understanding and making recommendations to these contexts could be our best hope. In hindsight, the recommendation suggests looking for solutions to tourism ills within the larger system is a relatively viable option. Until such time, an unbiased determination of the nature of tourism emerges, and the decentring of tourism investigations would be an approach.

Persistent revelations of inconsistencies towards and within tourism studies, notwithstanding disagreements on the development trajectory of the sector, have swelled significantly. For those restless critics of tourism scholarship, the COVID pandemic, with its ensemble of administrative responses and public reactions, is seen as a windfall. Hence, despite opposing sceptic warnings against wishful thinking, they are convinced that the two years of lockdowns and travel restrictions allowed for much-needed pause and timeframe to set things right (see, for example, Ateljevic, 2020; Hall et al., 2020)! In a recent expose, Tzanelli (2021) has sought to come to grips with the ‘pessimistic and optimistic attitudes’ that imagine different tourism futures on the one hand and wishful thinking on the other. Recognizing that the ongoing dominant pre-COVID paradigms would continue to pose a challenge, their hope in ensuing ‘awakening’ inevitably translates into meaningful, ethical, prudent action. There is a palpable genuineness and enthusiasm in such thinking. Yet the cloud needs to be cleared on whether we need to pursue ‘recovery’ for continuation or ‘reform’ the past towards transformations for future development of tourism practices and philosophies. Such hope and enthusiasm will need to be balanced with the realities of the world-making, within which the study and the phenomenon of tourism are to be grounded. This interface is one of the crucial junctures of vulnerability (see Gössling et al., 2021). And then, there is vulnerability within – the context, the practice, the systems, and the processes of tourism. Both recommendations, of ‘recovery’ and ‘reform’, are accessed, investigated and narrated through tourism research, which is further influenced by world ordering. By that token, then, even if we are not certain of our direction ahead, we are at least well versed with the anomalies to guard against in moving towards a transformed knowledge system of tourism practices and perspectives.

Academic colonization

Aligned closely with – rather emanating from – the praxis of capitalism is the colonizing agenda through globalization. The colonization has been of Western influencers (through policies, agreements and researchers) and of corporate procreations. Furthermore, tourism is not only embedded in the ‘coloniality of power’ (Everingham et al., 2021). We have long understood that tourism growth and developments, specifically international, are a conduit of hegemony and control by some over ‘the other’, ‘them’ and ‘theirs’. Such political undertones generate vulnerabilities through authority, manipulations and machinations of ‘power’ – hegemonic, colonial and even institutional (Cole & Morgan, 2010). Vulnerability through colonization is an established reality not only in tourism practices but also in its research (Hall & Brown, 2010). Given that universities or institutions of higher learning are acknowledged entities of universality, colonization is an inevitable consequence (Wijesinghe et al. 2019). Additionally, the link between Centres of learning and international organizations, through data sharing, expertise consultations and agenda determination, consolidates the nexus comprehensively (evinced by Devine, 2017 and Gössling et al. 2021). Through the past decade or so, scholars have voiced, established and critiqued the colonization of tourism scholarship (see for instance Chang, 2021; Pritchard & Morgan, 2007). In fact, Butowski (2020) critiques the extant domination of the English language and Anglo-American traditions in the literature to explain the incomplete and imperfect ‘global picture’ (:13) of so-called achievements in tourism studies.

Sengupta (2021) argues that the new trend of open-access publishing entrenches prevailing ‘academic colonialism’ and furthers scholarship hierarchies for disadvantaged others. This notwithstanding, research shows the in-compatibility of global/universal agenda of colonial imperialists and local realities communities (see for instance Devine, 2017 and Boluk et al., 2019). In an interesting article, Wisman (2020) exemplifies an intern ethnographer who reflexively narrates and queries the process of privilege and power imbalances experienced in situ. Having ascribed the privilege as part tourist and part intern the student is confronted by the multi-layered meanings of hegemonies of imagination, tourist bubble and in situ privileges. Carr et al. (2016) raise a call for increased ‘research by, or in collaboration with, Indigenous researchers’ (:1067) so that their work as authors and editors would have a presence and effect much-needed impact and change. Institutional domination of tourism praxis and in tourism policies, decision-making and data availability are no less culpable in extending the colonial/imperial agenda (see Gössling et al., 2021), thus impeding efforts to decolonize. Calls to decolonize academia are rife elsewhere and among tourism academics (Russell-Mundine, 2012; Yan and Ong, 2020 among others) between and within global north and south communities.

The naming and framing of tourism scholarship

The quest for an appropriate, systematic and inclusive – rather wholesome – approach to the subject and the phenomenon of tourism is almost like searching for the proverbial ‘grail’. In all the years of imparting and experimenting with well-meaning thoughts concerning tourism, nothing seems to be promising. Is it that the order is too tall? Or that the ideas are not yet ripe for the time? Or is it that the principles of tourism practices are an antithesis to those of its study – the fleeting transience rebuffs a firm grounding in philosophy? Commercial enterprise and political interests have at best capitalized on the transience and further shrouded it from meaningful insights (see critique by Tzanelli, 2022). Nevertheless, the ‘hunt’ for the ‘grail’ is on – if modern tourism exists, then its existence is to be rationalized in all its manifestations.

Tourism is an extant phenomenon affecting culture(s), lives/livelihoods, spaces and places and holds much meaning to people who engage in it directly or indirectly voluntarily or involuntarily and legitimizes sufficient scholarly attention and knowledge creation and sharing. But that it ought to be labelled as or aligned with one disciplinary type or the other is of significance only to some tourism academics (Echtner & Jamal, 1997; Tribe, 2007, in particular). Convincing rationales and arguments have been elaborated in favour of and against assigning a disciplinary category to the study of tourism. One cannot but agree with Coles et al. (2006) on the debate of confining or liberating tourism from confining labels. Yet, the initiative to identify tourism in disciplinary terms has remained persistent as also more-or-less inconclusive (Butowski, 2016). The arguments for and against tourism as a discipline, or perhaps a field, have been tossed around as indiscipline; inter-discipline, multi-discipline; cross-discipline; pan-discipline; trans-discipline as such. After years of grappling, Tribe and Liburd (2016) offer a conceptualization of an all-encompassing tourism knowledge system of practices and perspectives. Six years hence, the birthing pains of a comprehensive approach to the study of tourism, with all its epistemological, ontological, axiological and methodological, await the scholarly verdict. Schweinsberg et al. (2021) ascribe this hiatus to ideological disagreements between scholars that preclude reasonable and responsible discourse. Any conclusion is still a way off. We have yet to decide on devising a feasible system based on the entirety of tourism practices and philosophies or separating the two to enable a plausible system for both separately (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2020). Butowski (2011) is convinced that the study of tourism can best be approached paradigmatically and that despite the absence of a disciplinary label, research on the subject will continue and perhaps even grow. This forebodes well for tourism studies for now – at least until properties of the phenomenon provide the building blocks for tourism.

Despite being a productive enterprise, tourism academia remains confounded by finding and/or defining a starting point or a framework which might have the potential to embrace the theories, practices, concepts and methodologies, associated with tourism research and education. The academic pursuit of such a pervasive and diverse phenomenon as tourism entails having to contend with the momentum of the phenomenon and the mutations of its various manifestations. The ensuing changes obfuscate a stable foundational stronghold. Discussions are still rife over aligning the subject with its professional practice or an academic pursuit – both of which received distinct attention. Henceforth, while in 2016, de Souza Bispo (2016) in Brazil determined that tourism could be examined with the aid of theories of practice, the same year Tribe and Liburd (UK) suggested tourism studies be handled with a ‘systems’ approach.

Recommendations from tourism scholarship have been mostly driven by an agenda or a needs perspective. For example, the need for development, the need to protect the environment, and the need for ethics, to fulfil sustainable development goals and the like (Brauer et al., 2019). Jafari’s platforms (2001) tacitly reflect this connection too. Such an approach is logical and hence accepted, by and large. Its reliance on the prevailing worldview has been its strength and inherent weakness. The strength of this approach affords the study of tourism life-expectancy and relevance owing to the utilitarian perspective. Yet, the utilitarian aspect limits the scope of study to serve specific interests while precluding a cogent understanding based on tourism’s elemental properties. Tourism studies have been fragmentary whereby the bulk of its literature serves as a blueprint of one agenda or another. If tourism is incapable of standing on its own (principles and philosophies), how can scholars claim any potency to effect any change in individuals, communities, policies and societies at large? How, then, might a cohesive disciplinary conduct of tourism, as an entity by itself, be envisaged?

Envisioning tourism futures

Tourism world-making

From Hollinshead’s viewpoint, the critical turn-around ought to start with the notion of world-making through questioning and decolonizing the prevalent and dominating notions (Vanden Boer, 2020) followed by imagining, critiquing, enacting and realizing the renewed/transformed perspective (Hollinshead & Suleman, 2018; Jamal & Hollinshead, 2001). A critical lapse in Hollinshead’s world-making through tourism is that he places undue responsibility on tourism to invent and correct the everyday world-making in tourism practices (Hollinshead, 2007, p. 166). The lapse arises from the fact of tourism’s dependence on the larger context within which it exists, and because of this is also constrained both in practice and its study. But this is not all. Hollinshead and Suleman (2018), among others, also admit to the prevalence of multi-layered and multi-directional world-making by scholars!! Thus, posing further impediments to the emergence of a comprehensive vision with which to understand tourism and study it.

The terms usually assigned to scholarly endeavours to effect radical turn-arounds in scholarships are ‘academic activism (Chang, 2021); transgressive/disruptive inquiry (Hollinshead et al., 2021); and transformative knowledge paradigm’ (Temper et al., 2021). Somehow, this seems to resonate with Krippendorf’s (1986) insistence on humanizing travel. And, of course, the humane aspect eliminated the ‘normalised greed, inequity, exhaustion, depletion’ and such (Taylor in Ateljevic, 2020, p. 2). In Krippendorf’s understanding, it is the tourist who truly possesses the agency to affect this radical and revolutionizing change! The goodness of such envisioning might be difficult to realize knowing that resetting the norm would entail an en masse uprising (Krippendorf, 1987, p. 107) of like-minded morally motivated multitudes. Utopian approaches are inspirational and allow for hope to be kindled. Perhaps, a less utopian version may be one that comes with some ‘give’. Lemke (2015) suggests founding tourism knowledge on ‘new materialism’ that acknowledges the realities of human existence in and interactions with the material. Later, Matteucci et al. (2021) foresee new materialism governance as the fusion of ontology and epistemology, owing to the dynamic relationship between humans and non-human. Both aspects of the human and the material are accorded at the par agency as the influencer/observer and the influenced/observed. Hence, the status of ‘domineering individuals’ is subsumed under networks and clusters.

Tourism Scholarship – Missing the axiological flair

Although researchers have engaged with an axiological dimension of tourism, it has been mostly for utilitarian purposes. These ideas have therefore been deemed archaic at best! So, what if these values were to occupy the centre-stage of tourism discourses? Ateljevic (2020) believes that a positive transmodern paradigm shift might enable holistic perspectives to be brought into focus. Apparently, Tribe (2006), Franklin (2004), and Fu et al. (2022), among others, have evinced shifts in tourism scholarship that raise hope for tourism research that would be humanizing, reflexive, realistic and beyond the confines of commercial interests.

At some point in time in our academic journeys, we may have queries ourselves on the perceived value(s) of tourism scholarship. If not, then perhaps we might as well ask now. This pertinent query may help us declutter and organize our thoughts towards refining tourism axiology. Of what value can tourism and its studies be to those who engage in it for various reasons and in diverse ways? Tourism scholarship has been less productive in terms of investigating tourism for itself – without an agenda. Maybe, the yesteryear assumptions in tourism studies that were developed in different times need to be questioned or revisited today. Or the concepts and notions abandoned since the early years of tourism studies need to be resurrected in our studies today. In calling for tourism transformation and/or transformation through tourism, it may be worthwhile to revisit its roots – the concepts of leisure, temporality, experience, mobility, expectation and non-ordinariness. These values in tourism, being at once subjective as also objective, make the phenomenon unique and enriching besides addressing the human condition.

In this issue

In calling for a range of critiques and commentaries on the current firmities and infirmities of tourism/Tourism Studies, this special issue of TRR has focused on investigating the persisting assumptions that drive (and so apparently trouble) the thinking of many Tourism Studies scholars today. Contributors have subsequently attempted to explore certain apparent fragilities and frailties in the contemporary condition of Tourism Studies that impair the health of the field. Their perspectives and critiques intend to encourage robust debate about how Tourism Studies can be refined and regenerated. Particular attention was given to ensuring the inclusion and representation of diverse perspectives from across the continents. The contributions can best be perceived as links in the long chain of ongoing efforts to fortify the study of tourism from within its scholarship.

For nearly half a century, tourism academics has participated in, more so than lamented, the devaluation of the seriousness of investigations and conceptualizations and theorizations needed to nourish and flourish the subject. Scholarship in tourism has been subjected to the vagaries of its own academy. The continuing lop-sided handling (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2010) of tourism scholarship; deficient academic foundations (Weaver, 2023), incoherent frameworks for its study (Echtner & Jamal, 1997), unresolved disciplinary proclivity and active participation in market-oriented scholarship are just the tip of the heap of transgressions wrought about by scholars. Schweinsberg et al. (2022) have comprehensively problematized the utilitarian contagion that victimizes our field only to employ a ‘for-profit’ market strategy model to recommend ‘competitive positioning’ of tourism academic knowledge to grant it legitimacy. Brauer, in this issue, invites readers to reconceptualize such dynamic as not inherent to tourism scholarship as such but to be symptomatic of greater issues facing all forms of academic scholarship at Western universities. The problem is, what factors consolidate the value hierarchy underpinning such concepts as good, relevant and responsible scholarship, and what factors influence the formation of facts? Brauer seeks to present the bigger picture – the tourism research ecosystem – within which the academy breeds and survives. He explores the Western model of knowledge production to make conscious of the compulsions and culpabilities of ‘research impact’-based scholarship. Brauer’s treatise on present-day normalization of the impact agenda in higher education affirms academic servitude to institutions at the cost of the subject or its scholarship. This understanding of the tourism knowledge ecosystem is studied and presented with the intent to tease out potential viabilities from within itself for a better future for the subject and its proponents from around the world.

Kadri, Lapointe, and Tachiret look particularly at the academic discourse published during the COVID-19 pandemic. Situating the tourism studies field in the continuity of the social science crisis that emerge in the 1970s of the later century, they address the vulnerabilities and viabilities of tourism through the expression of (re)thinking and (re)inventing tourism. While both sides of the question are related together, their opposition put the fields at risk of dispersion and autoreferential ontologies.

Fazito and Vargas introduce to us a different flavour of tourism vulnerability – that of free time. There is evidence that free time is a threatened concept in modern societies (Wajcman, 2020) and is scarcely and matter of investigation in leisure tourism. Through a critique of white/west-centric tourism knowledge, it intended to displace the pervasive hegemonic colonialization of tourism academia. In its own straightforward way, the authors compel academia to return to the basics of travel, i.e. leisure mobilities – a customary form of travel constituting measured amounts of consumption, waste, hedonism and excesses of all kinds. Perhaps, it may not be such a bad idea to pick up a few valuable lessons in being the ordinary human engaged in simple pleasures of life and a distinctive world-making of their own. In their investigations on indigenous peoples of Northeast Brazil, Fazito and Vargas attempt to destabilize established hegemonies within the leisure and tourism knowledge base and realities by contrasting the two (conceptual) worlds. What makes the article a unique contribution is that it presents ideas, practices and style of the global south, specifically the Latin American Indigenous ways of doing and being in Brazil. So, while being the ‘West’ the scenario bears semblance with developing nations!! It also demonstrates the confusions that are created by the mingling of North and South as also developed and developing nations and ideologies. The success of this attempt by Fazito and Vargas will depend on individual readers’ ability to imagine a world different from theirs where modes of engagement and knowledge creation seem to collide and repel!

Pernecky considers tourism studies as a crisis discipline and calls for more relational and sympoietic approaches. Apparently, tourism scholarship is at a juncture where the field needs a fresh wave of extra-disciplinary feeds. Hence, the idea of kinmaking – different from in-breeding and extends beyond multi-disciplinary – is indicative of vulnerability and viability. Scholars refer to this as transdisciplinary and/or pan-disciplinary. The author advocates for kinmaking as a strategy to dare, enrich, expand and invite alternatives of knowing and doing tourism knowledge. But he does not cease at ontologies and epistemologies. Instead, he understands the irrefutable relevance of axiology and methodology for a well-rounded advancement in/of the field of study. This seems to resonate with the idea of new materialism as a way to understand a system that interacts in relation to its components, human and non-human. This means that a much deeper and more nuanced engagement is needed for it to be pushed beyond the contemptible market dynamics. Pernecky envisions the scope of tourismology as an overflowing effervescence of knowledge creation. Even as seasoned critics could have a field day over such vitality, these ideas hold much excitement for the vibrant-minded and the new-to-the-field researchers.

The theme of vulnerability and viability of tourism and its scholarship must not remain confined to concept, theories and ideas alone. Notwithstanding ample theoretical heavy lifting, the theme has ramifications for higher education in tourism scholarship. Scholars are generally obliged to inspire and train students into torchbearers for the subject in time. Such obligation requires immense patience, skill and perception. Edelheim approaches the twin themes of vulnerabilities and viabilities through the frame of tourism education and educators. Most of us may have the answer to his question – Why is tourism taught? Yet, the more we dwell on it, the probe in the query becomes poignant and critical to tourism scholarship. The question confronts us with ourselves in the role of instructor and researcher in the subject; our personal convictions; our concealed and visible selves; our choices in approaching the content or in co-designing curriculum and so on. In all, we have a chance to come up against our personal values. It is this axiological dimension of tourism knowledge that Edelheim places much emphasis on as he advocates a ‘change of mindset’ for the operational philosophy of the field. He is absolutely convinced that our current beliefs concerning tourism education and study are probably at the root of many of the ills that plague the field and are the cause of discontentment, chaos and vulnerabilities. He prescribes a consistent inclusion of the inner self/voice to steer our ontologies and epistemologies in tourism scholarship. In truth, given the strong messages from the few scholars of late, Edelheim points to the deprivation of conscience/ethics/moral turn/values-based choices, decisions and knowledge. This is demonstrated through an examination of tourism curricula in the universities of five Nordic nations (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden). So, if the tourism world-making exercise is to be undertaken with sincerity, then we will need to tap into our principled selves to bring about the needed change. The ardency of his conviction in favour of the axiological dimension as ‘the way’ for tourism studies is evident in his arguments and proposition to rename the second platform in Jafari’s model as the conscience platform.

Hutnyk assumes that the current disciplinary inertia in tourism studies obliges academics, particularly tourism anthropologists, to save the day. The consequent vulnerability also brings with it the hope that tourism inherently carries – that of an experience, certain learning, perceptive enrichment and meaningful world-making – all of which are lucrative venues for engaging with the multi-pronged complexity of the tourism knowledge-based enterprise. His views present a critique of the ills of tourism, albeit as a backdrop, intended merely to remind us of our work ahead. Hutnyk’s plea to (re)new academic engagement with destinations is nuanced. By asserting that the tourism establishments at destinations invariably venture to ‘dictate’ the composition and development as well as determine and interpret the engagement and experience for tourists, he accentuates the point of weakness within destination development and management. Academic interest is called for to rectify this apparent ‘take-over’ so that matters may be reset to substantiate locale, local and tourist privilege over and above that of businesses. Hutnyk plays on the dictum of ‘look(ing)’ closely and personally to emphasize the significance of cultivated concurrence that ought not to be limited to anthropologists. In looking for himself at the state of post-pandemic tourism in Vietnam, Hutnyk seeks to convince his readers of the significance of domestic tourism in sustaining local values and locale attributes before embarking upon international outreach. In essence, in situ academic engagement over stretches of time is not restricted to identifying site-specific vulnerabilities in destinations but also assists researchers to unravel obscure viabilities. Somewhere in the recesses of my mind, I have come to understand that as tourism academics we assume the role of practising anthropologists during travels. Much wisdom is revealed to those who blend in or disappear amidst the rest to know the truth about tourists and tourism as it exists spatially and temporally.

No discussion can be considered wholesome in the absence of an esoteric dimension of the subject matter – tourism scholarship. It is the essence of being human. Schweinberg fulfils this purpose by discussing the importance of the spiritual and religious belief systems in tourism academia. Drawing inspiration from Barkathunnisha et al.’s (2019) proposition of a spirituality-based approach to knowledge in tourism higher education. Just as the self is not exclusive to society likewise one’s personal belief is reflected in our actions/doings. The essential acts of (a) finding meaning; (b) praxis – the enactment and engagement with reflexivity; (c) struggling with diverse and often contradictions, and (d) embodying and projecting one’s understandings through their work and living, constitute the gestalt of academic life, living and being. This is not just a tall order but also a challenge for all its abstractions and immensity, with both features being supersensory. Though it is also known that spirituality is not devoid of reasoning – at least not in the opinion of Radhakrishnan’s (1922) examination of the Hindu Dharma. Schweinberg reflects upon his Christian faith to illustrate the play out of spirituality in his belief in the tenets of sustainable tourism. He harkens us to explore for ourselves the basis of our knowledge and scholarly integrity in tourism scholarship.

Tzanelli contextualizes the vulnerabilities of/in tourism scholarship against the backdrop of the recent COVID pandemic crisis. She makes a bold, though successful attempt, to present a wide spectrum of tourism world-making as manifested through praxis and studies. Through her expose, she asserts the interconnectedness of the human, the biosphere and the sociopolitico webs. Accordingly, the material, social, political, and environment are so inextricably linked into a system that a disruption in any one part thereof triggers a ripple effect throughout the integrated existence. This amalgamate puts into question the very notion of ‘otherness’ whereby the dissimilar ought to dissipate by virtue of being ‘entangled’ in the web of interconnected dependencies. But tourism scholars have failed to perceive the schema in such a way and, for tourism is perceived as being vulnerable. The tragedy of this vast network of interconnectedness is truly a challenge to (tourism) researchers who are barely able to juggle a few such relationships. Resultantly, the remedial measures suggested barely remedy anything. This pessimistic note seems to echo a fair amount of tourism scholarship. Sharpley (2012) cautions the academia not to dwell on the message of vulnerability expressed thus, instead encourages us to approach the challenge with the optimism of possibilities – the possibility of varied approaches – holistic; systems; world-making; multi-pronged/-dimensional/-disciplinary and the like.

In closing

The papers published in this special edition and many other initiatives that are ongoing in the wider Academy assure us of the possibility for improvements ahead. Anticipating that efforts to discern the framework and discipline(ing) of tourism bear fruit, our work may still not be concluded! Turning these wheels carefully would be an equally important task. Would tourism entrepreneurs and/or government ministries be inclined to modify the course of their actions? Would the ideas and constructions of scholar/philosophic practitioners (Schultz, 2010; Tribe & Paddison, 2021) be deemed a feasible consideration/investment? Could the multi-dimensional and multi-layered approach become a reality in the near future? So far most of our strategies for alternative (improved) tourism practices have been capitalized upon commendably though with minimal success – rather limited enlightenment. Let the inspiration from the works of Tej Vir and Keith bring tourism scholarship to ‘blue skies’.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Shalini Singh

Shalini Singh is a Professor in the Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies at Brock University (ON). Her research explores aspects of leisure tourism with a focus on destination communities, domestic tourism and cultural heritage, spirituality and, place – people synergies. Her current engagement with the UNESCO heritage site Bodhgaya, India seeks to investigate the agency of such destinations in international diplomacy.