From Sustainability to the Anthropocene: Reflections on a Pedagogy of Tourism Research for Planetary Attachment

ABSTRACT

Though tourism research has become more value-laden in its scholarship and pedagogy, there is still a risk that tourism higher education curricula (re)produce uncritical views of society and sustainability. I argue that research methodology courses and assignments based on data collection can legitimize the use of sustainable tourism solutions based in generalizations and abstractions, rather than encourage the dialogue and reflectivity needed for major change in times of crisis. They also risk promoting a self-serving agenda where researchers (re)produce their success in the knowledge economy. In light of the limitations of the sustainability concept in time of planetary crisis, I look into the possibilities of a tourism research pedagogy in the Anthropocene by uncovering arguments for plurality and deliberation in knowledge production. Social scientists need to address questions of ethics in times of crisis. Conjointly, the Anthropocene highlights our planetary attachment, where human responsibility and social action are imminent.

KEYWORDS:

• Anthropocene
• critical pedagogy
• Paul Feyerabend
• philosophy of science
• sustainable tourism

1. Introduction

Research methods have become a common part of graduate and undergraduate curricula in a wide range of social science disciplines, and nonetheless in tourism education. For instance, in Sweden, where I have been evolving as a tourism scholar, it is nationally mandatory for undergraduate students in all disciplines to produce a minor thesis based in scientific research to obtain their degree. Furthermore, many courses related to destination development engage their students in the collection of data to have them propose sustainability solutions in report-like assignments. Higher education plays a crucial role in endowing students with the skills that will help them make balanced decisions based in evidence later in life, preparing them to become effective professionals, educators, researchers and scholars. As the reproduction of our social systems rest on the collection and analysis of data, it is evidently crucial that that we as tourism educators endow students with the skills to design and carry out research projects.

Exposing students to the praxis of social research is crucial for decision-making processes in the tourism industry and in tourism planning. Tourism is a major force altering landscapes and livelihoods worldwide, often in highly detrimental ways, and requires the attention of social researchers. In this regard, sustainability, as a major discourse of modernity, features in tourism programs in higher education institutions worldwide. However, the role of higher education programs in educating about sustainability is not always consistent among institutions and educators (Kearins & Springett, 2003; Sterling & Thomas, 2006). In its less critical sense, sustainable tourism education relates to the management of ineffective outcomes in order to protect the industry from criticism or failure (Belhassen & Caton, 2011; Boyle et al., 2015; Wilson, 2015; Wilson & von der Heidt, 2013). After all, critiques in all sorts of fields have accused the concept of sustainable development of promoting growth and technical solutions in light of sustained environmental degradation and climate change (Lélé, 1991; Redclift, 2005).

It is therefore worthwhile to consider the possibility that methodology courses and assignments based in data collection in tourism higher education curricula can (re)produce uncritical views of society and sustainability in the next generation of leaders, planners, entrepreneurs and educators. Of course, many tourism scholars interested in pedagogy and research epistemology have advocated various curriculum, models and approaches that link problem-based solutions with critical reflectivity to produce professionals that can both deliver efficient services and engage fully in the future of a socially acceptable tourism development (see Tribe, 2002; Tribe & Liburd, 2016; Wilson & Hollinshead, 2015). My concern is that sustainable tourism as a concept might be limited in its ability to translate into the paradigmatic change that we currently need in time of planetary crisis. Rightly, Belhassen and Caton (2009) outline that knowledge-production is a linguistic process that engages scholars in the communication of their interpretation of social reality, and which subsequently shapes future realties. I want to propose that it might be time to engage with another discourse than the one of sustainability if we want as educators to promote an understanding of tourism research amongst our students that embraces the major social shifts that we need in these critical times. This concept is the Anthropocene.

In the following pages, I begin by presenting a three-fold critique of scientific research methodologies and link these themes to my own reflections about the epistemological and institutional challenges of teaching social science research methodologies in tourism education, especially in relation to sustainability. I call these concerns: 1) conserving the status quo, 2) objectivity above all, and 3) self-serving individualism. The first theme relates to the current post-political context, which highlights that technocratic solutions have replaced any hope for real change in times of crisis. The second theme relates to the pervasive character of the nature-culture dichotomy and its way of positing the natural world as an object of study, mainly known to us through abstraction. Thirdly, I outline the role of higher education institution in contributing to the preservation of dominant systems and question our position as scholars in this system as we seek to reproduce our own success.

Next, I look into the possibilities of a tourism education anchored in the concept of the Anthropocene. The Anthropocene is an exciting concept for educating students about their role in the research, development and delivery of tourism because it presses, as Zalasiewic et al. (2010) concede, for an attachment, rather than detachment to the Earth and its planetary systems. Human responsibility and an urgency for social action are apparent in debates surrounding the Anthropocene (Huijbens & Gren, 2016; Zylinska, 2014), and will thus be a crucial discourse for young leaders to embrace in order to affect real change during difficult planetary times. Arguably, the type of value-laden social research we need to tackle the global environmental and climate crisis would merge more easily with the engagement, reflection and activism that the concept of the Anthropocene intrinsically proposes.

To make this argument, I find guidance in the work of philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend (2011, 1975)) on the tyranny of science and against rigid scientific methodologies. Feyerabend argued for more dialogue and reflectivity in the hard sciences, where objectivity and truth claims have long held epistemological primacy. Also significant, proponents of the Anthropocene concept see the role of social science researchers as one of mediation, working to address questions of ethics and justice in decisions pertaining to the adoption and application of scientific knowledge in times of crisis (N. Castree, 2017; Karlsson, 2013; Lövbrand et al., 2015). Concurrently, an increasing number of tourism scholars advocate embracing the value-laden character of the soft sciences and their openness to dialogue and reflectivity in the development of socially oriented research and pedagogy agendas (Belhassen & Caton, 2009; Caton, 2012; Wilson & Hollinshead, 2015). All of this is interesting in an exploration of the epistemic promise behind the concept of the Anthropocene for the pedagogy of tourism research.

2. Sustainable tourism education and research methodologies: A critique

The Anthropocene defines an epoch of significant human impact on the planet’s ecosystems, physical landscapes and global climate (N. Castree, 2014a; Zalasiewic et al., 2010). The Anthropocene brings with its progression apocalyptic sentiments on a global scale, often characterized by powerlessness and apathy, which urges each individual to face a future of destruction and loss, rather than one of progress and emancipation as promised by neoliberal economics. Tourism is a major force contributing to the Anthropocene with its global transport system and physical reordering of ecosystems and landscapes worldwide to accommodate human travel and enjoyment (Huijbens & Gren, 2016). Scholars have addressed the planetary changes that have led to the Anthropocene through different discourses, namely the discourses of sustainability and sustainable development. Sustainable development as a concept gained its popularity through the World Commission on Environment and Development report Our Common Future in 1987 (also known as the Brundtland Report after its chairwoman Gro Harlem Brundtland). As we all know, sustainable development seeks a balanced approach to anthropogenic growth and the preservation of earth systems. It ensures that humans use the earth’s resources wisely so as not to jeopardize the ability of future human generations to use these same resources for themselves (World Commission for Environment and Development (WCED), 1987).

Sustainable development has gained mainstream appeal worldwide amongst a broad range of stakeholders (Lélé, 1991; Redclift, 2005, 1987). The concept is currently part of policy discourses, planning documents and managerial strategies at all levels of governance, within the private and public sector. The concept gained popularity amongst tourism stakeholders and led to the development of various related concepts such as sustainable tourism, eco-tourism and pro-poor tourism, and opened discussions over matters such as carrying capacity, ethics and justice, and sustainability indicators in tourism practice and theory (Hall et al., 2015a; Saarinen, 2006). Sustainability has unsurprisingly become a common discourse in tourism education, where many programs at different levels feature courses devoted to sustainability and tourism, be it be from the perspective of the industry, the destination, community, cultural groups, planners or governmental officials. However, tourism scholars and educators have questioned the content of these courses, asking if their approach to sustainability is not just about endowing students with the skills to manage ineffective outcomes to protect the industry from criticism or failure (Belhassen & Caton, 2011; Boyle et al., 2015; Wilson, 2015; Wilson & von der Heidt, 2013).

Consequently, Boyle et al. (2015) differentiate between higher education courses on sustainable tourism taught within the weak paradigm of sustainability and those taught within the strong paradigm of sustainability (see also Kearins & Springett, 2003; Sterling & Thomas, 2006). On the one hand, tourism educators view sustainable tourism as good business practices that will improve efficiency. The weak approach provides industry-relevant skills, without applying a critical approach during the teaching of those skills. The strong approach to sustainable tourism education reflects an engagement from educators to teach students about social justice, ethics and environmental degradation in tourism. This form of education aligns with a critical tourism education, which seeks to teach critical-thinking, provoke in-depth reflection, and promote social emancipation and social activism for transformation amongst students, often on top of the skills they will need to manage, plan and service the industry effectively (Boluk & Carnicelli, 2019). Through this approach, educators use critical theory, teach alternative scenarios and ask students to reflect on their own and others’ actions, often in order to effect change and stimulate action amongst their students (Giroux, 2011, 1988). Concurrently, critical pedagogy is gaining traction in tourism studies as seen with the various outputs of the Tourism Education Futures Initiative and the publications and conference proceedings of the Critical Tourism Studies with a critical pedagogical dimension (Caton, 2012; Wilson & Hollinshead, 2015).

Important to higher education is the teaching of research methods skills. Currently, research methods are a common part of the curriculum of a host of social sciences programs at both the undergraduate and graduate level at higher education institutions around the world. This is of course even the case for tourism education, where many programs include research methods courses and data collection assignments, aiming to endow students with the skills to produce evidence-based results and consequently make evidence-based decisions later in their careers. The importance of endowing students with research methods skills is apparent in many institutional and national contexts. For instance, in Sweden, where I have been evolving as a tourism scholar, it is nationally mandatory for undergraduate students in all disciplines to produce a minor thesis based in scientific research to obtain their degree. Most of the courses related to destination development with which I have been involved seek to engage their students in the collection of data to have them propose sustainability solutions in report-like assignments. Many social science university programs offer opportunities for research such as projects and internships to their students in order to fast track them into research careers. Kilburn et al. (2014, p. 193) suggest that scientific methods training comes from a need for individuals to “keep abreast of an increasingly competitive global knowledge economy for social research”. In other words, research skills are necessary because research has become a priority in the knowledge economy, and individuals who wish to remain competitive on the market for research should develop advanced research skills.

My concern lies with the limitation of the concept of sustainable tourism to translate into the paradigmatic change that we currently need in time of planetary crisis. I want to challenge the relevance of some aspects of using sustainability goals as benchmarks to advocate solution oriented research projects in tourism studies. Here, I mean the reports, papers and theses of students that address sustainability and tourism based on data collection, or the type of work that eventually leads to the proposition of a host of solutions and ideas that the industry, policy-makers, planners and academics could use in the future. As sustainability is a controversial concept in itself, a number of questions emerge when it is the focus of research projects in higher education. To what degree do student research projects on sustainable tourism become assignments to learn the skills to accomplish a task? How relevant are these skills to the critical ethos and reflection process of a strong approach to sustainability that many believe necessary for social change? What happens when the focus on the structure of the research design and the adequacy of the data collection process, takes more importance than the relevance of a socially informed problem formulation? Concurrently, Lewthwaite and Nind (2016, p. 414) argue that generally in social research methods courses “there is a reliance on peers, trial-and-error and methodological know-how, rather than pedagogic knowledge informed by theory or research” (see also Earley, 2014; Kilburn et al., 2014). There is thus room to reflect on the challenges of educating about social relevance, deep reflection and emancipatory and transformative goals in research methodology courses and assignments related to sustainable tourism.

Tourism researchers such as Gössling (2002), Gössling and Peeters (2015), and Scott (2011) insist that tourism is globally more unsustainable than ever. Even if scholars and practitioners alike still rely on discourses of sustainability, the Anthropocene and its message of doom highlights that the notion of a sustainable future is unlikely. It becomes important to assess and illuminate the practices that we largely take for granted as either righteous or benign, which do in fact in their own subtle ways contribute to the demise of the planet and its people. In the next section, I present a three-fold critique of scientific research methodologies and link these themes to my own reflections about the epistemological and institutional challenges of teaching social science research methodologies in tourism education, especially in relation to sustainability. These categories will serve to outline how: 1) scientific approaches to sustainability often encourage the reproduction of the status quo by providing managerial solutions to complex issues. 2) A “pathological need for truth”, as Caton (2012, p. 1916) calls it, gives a false notion of control and produces abstractions that undermine other possibilities. 3) Scientific research often (re)produces itself through the self-serving agenda of the knowledge economy. If research in sustainability is in itself a self-serving concept for economic growth and the preservation of the status quo, it is worth questioning: how do scholars and educators leave the status quo unchallenged for their own career growth and preservation?

2.1 Conserving the status quo

The Anthropocene, as an evocation of human alteration of earth systems, implies a deep entanglement between the physical world of the planet and the actions and ethics of the human societies that inhabit it (N. Castree, 2014a; Zalasiewic et al., 2010). This is different from the sustainability concept, which suggests the continued use of the earth resources to sustain growth for the benefit of future generations. Many tourism scholars have criticized the concept of sustainability in tourism of being an oxymoron, where claims of environmental preservation and social justice through tourism development are in fact impossible to reconcile with the growth agenda of the industry and the global reach of the tourism system (Hughes et al., 2015; Liu, 2003; Sharpley, 2009, 2000). In this regard, Lapointe et al. (2018) see tourism as part of a global hegemonic order that promotes growth at all cost. In the name of sustainable development, tourism has integrated world cultures into the global capitalist system and now deprives them of their subjectivities by commodifying them. Ultimately, discourses of sustainability reflect a modernist Western-centric developmental paradigm that seeks to justify economic growth by claiming that it can continue flourishing without harming the environment and local cultures, if only done in an appropriate manner with the appropriate technological solutions (Lélé, 1991; Redclift, 2005, 1987).

It its most practical sense, sustainable tourism is thus about managing resources and governing destinations in a way to ensure the continuation of the industry in light of technical difficulties, not about findings solutions to shift towards a new socio-economic paradigm of planetary preservation (Hall, 2011; Hall et al., 2015b). Concurrently, Lapointe et al. (2018) argue that the hegemonic tourism growth discourse has consolidated into a post-political phase of management, where citizens and critics alike do not question the development and propagation of tourism worldwide, but rather focus on achieving consensus over its management and governance. Political critics Slavoj Žižek (1999) and Chantal Mouffe (2005) describe post-politics as a socio-political arrangement that replaces ideological debates and social struggles with techno-managerial solutions. It is a condition where normative consensus works to silence the articulation of divergent and conflicting voices. This type of consensus around global action occurs even in light of pending environmental catastrophe. For Swyngedouw (2013, 2010), disagreement only exists in the Anthropocene with respect to the choice of technologies, the specification of the managerial adjustments, and the urgency of their implementation. Consequently, any research seeking to make tourism more culturally sensitive, ethical, eco-friendly, pro-poor, etc., be it by our students doing assignments or writing their theses, is complicit in (re)producing the status quo by focusing on simple fixes.

In a climate of post-politics, there is thus a real possibility to sidebar questions of social power, disagreement and conflict to focus only on what is practically feasible in light of perceived current societal opportunities and constraints (N. Castree, 2017). Conceivably, in the age of post-politics, education often boils down to passing on to students the skills necessary to accomplish those managerial tasks that fall within the frame of the feasibly possible. Critical pedagogy scholar Henry Giroux (2011, 1988)) is a fierce critic of the current state of the education system in advanced neoliberal economies and how they churn out obedient clerks instead of critical thinkers and activists. Higher education institutions are increasingly prey to the concerns and interests of management experts, and therefore stand out as accomplice in the preservation of the status quo by creating spheres for the promotion of consensus where society (re)produces itself uncritically (Härnsten & Wingård, 2007).

In light of the neo-liberalization of higher education, there is a risk that the teaching of research methodologies and the use of data collection assignments ends up fostering the formation of an obedient class of clerks, operating within the boundaries of the possibly feasible. It is arguably for such reason that tourism scholars have turned to critical pedagogies and epistemologies to propose a perspective of social science that is collaborative, situational and dialogic (Boluk & Carnicelli, 2019; Wilson & Hollinshead, 2015). Through the application of such approaches in tourism education, students, teachers and various stakeholders can work collaboratively to reinterpret and reinvent social reality through rich deliberation. As such, social progress does not lie in the reproduction of the status quo through constant expert fine-tuning, but rather in the fruitfulness of communication and reflectivity within and between disciplines as well as beyond academia (Belhassen & Caton, 2009). An overwhelming focus on having students conform to rules that guide how one ought to perceive the world scientifically during research might fail at communicating the relevance of social science for the good of the world and its potential transformative power. This reflection comes to me when my bachelor students agonize over questions related to their data collection in order to know what would get them a certain desired grade on a minor research project, such as how many interviews or surveys are enough for a pass, or how long would the teacher like the methods chapter to be. To be fair, it is not that such concerns are not valid and that students should not ask these questions in order to produce good work. However, these questions can take the fore over other more complex methodological and philosophical questions that seem to matter less to them in their quest to produce what they perceive as good work. There are discourses at play that have a much stronger impact on my students’ perspective of education, sustainability and social science research than what I can convey within the framework of the curriculum I have to work with and the time I have with them at my institution.

2.2 Objectivity above all

Researchers and educators should question to what extent sustainable tourism research risks reproducing an uncritical consensus over the management of local resources and governance of destinations. Students, at least in the Western context, have likely grown accustomed to believe that scientific knowledge (i.e. knowledge derived from the data collection and experiments of experts) is an unquestionable source of truth. This is problematic when it comes to understandings of the natural world. The negative effect of an unconditional reliance on scientific observations and generalization is that it effectively detaches humans from the natural world, keeping them within a separate realm, the one of the socio-cultural (Braun, 2004; N. Castree, 2014b, 2003; Smith, 1984). Geographers Noel N. Castree (2014b) and Neil Smith (1984) have associated environmental destruction to the pervasive dualism that frames nature as detached from the socio-cultural realm. Similarly, scientific research that focuses on scrutinizing, measuring and inventorying, socially constructs the natural world as something outside of humanity that is there for humans to conserve, alter, manipulate and exploit (Smith & O’Keefe, 1980).

Social scientists know that nature is never solely a material reality existing outside of human subjectivities; rather, it comes into existence through the perceptions and related actions of the humans living in connection to it (Braun, 2002; Cronon, 1996). Many scholars in the soft sciences now propose embracing the socially constructed character of the natural. This acknowledgment opens the door to various improvements, possibilities, practices and relations, where we can imagine how the elements of the natural world would not solely be the object of human exploitation (N. Castree, 2014b). These voices echo in tourism studies (Grimwood et al., 2018). For instance, Chakraborty (2020, p. 2) advocates for the sake of the discipline: “[…] fluid and speculative approaches that challenge anthropocentric tendencies and uphold the complexity and multifariousness of non-human life and physical formations (and processes)”. In general, the soft sciences have contributed significantly to the advancement, adoption and acceptability of scientific paradigms that “reject the idolatry of control” and instead seek more creativity and criticality in its engagement with people and place (Wilson & Hollinshead, 2015, p. 33). Social scientists are now much more comfortable with advocating and producing value-laden knowledge in the hope of engaging more meaningfully with social reality (Tribe & Liburd, 2016). Concurrently, tourism studies underwent a moral turn in the last decades, which highlights its embrace of the production of value-laden knowledge through approaches such as critical pedagogy, alternative ontologies, feminist research, critical discourse analysis and indigenous epistemologies to name a few (Caton, 2018, 2012; Veijola et al., 2014; Wilson & Hollinshead, 2015).

However, as educators and researchers, we still have to deal with the discursive reality of what Feyerabend (2011) called the tyranny of science, within and beyond the walls of our classrooms and institutions. Similarly, Caton (2012, p. 1916) speaks of a “pathological need for truth” to outline the unchallenged importance that society accords to positivist science. It is undeniable that scientific observation has become the dominant paradigm through which most societies understand their reality. Feyerabend (2011), speaking of hard sciences like physics and astronomy, argues that science is very effective at establishing truths. This is because science provides convincing results steeped in objectivity and systematization. Through its prodigious power of performance, science is able to elevate theory into grand authoritative generalizations over the state of the world. The specific steps and language of scientific research implies an adherence to certain rules, where observations will lead to theories that will then become the taken for granted lens to understand future observations. As Feyerabend (1975) explains, this creates a circular mode of thinking that locks scientists into a normal science. Eventually, more observations will only serve to confirm what scientists already take for granted and ad hoc theories will protect the field of any shock to its legitimacy. This is why the inter- and extra-disciplinary dialogue and reflectivity of value-based knowledge is important; it serves to challenge the disciplinary claims that we take for granted. How do these claims produce a reality of their own? What interests were behind the productions of these claims? What kind of claims do we want to morally support, and for whose benefit?

The belief in the truth of generalizations is not only the affair of the hard sciences. A form of tyranny of science is evident in sustainable tourism research. Scholars such as Ruhanen (2008) have established that stakeholders, though they adopt the language of tourism sustainability in their planning documents and other materials, have very little conception of how to apply its formulations in practice (see also Prince & Ioannides, 2017; Sharpley, 2009; Xiao, 2006). A mentioned earlier, many critics have accused sustainable development of being a vague and impractical concept (Lélé, 1991; Redclift, 2005, 1987), and there is as such a real risk that research to study sustainability in tourism will only serve to reproduce grand generalizations that stakeholders will later struggle to put into practice. Student research project on sustainability and tourism can reflect this difficulty. Often, after collecting data, and upon reflecting on it, they present vague conclusions of the sort presented many times before in sustainable tourism research. Here are such typical statements: all stakeholders need to be involved in decision-making, the social dimension is important to consider, or economic leakage has to stop. If we accept these conclusions on assignment, is there not a risk that our students will go on later in their careers to believe that it is sufficient to offer vague answers to practical problems? As educators and mentors, we should be open to discuss the circular trap of normal science, its origins and risks, with our students. Working collaboratively to propose other discourses than the one of sustainability would be one way to sidestep some of the risks associated with an unchallenged reliance on normal science in tourism education.

2.3 Self-serving individualism

A criticism of the sustainability concept as serving growth purposes, preserving the status quo and diffusing an uncritical normal science must address what scholars and educators leave unchallenged for their own growth and preservation in academia. The power structures making an oxymoronic concept like sustainability prevalent in social discourse are arguably the same ones holding the neoliberal education system together. It is common knowledge that universities are increasingly becoming cogs of the neoliberal system. The rigid state control forcing teachers in higher education to follow specific curricula and grading schemes, while being steered by market forces and institutional budgets, creates the opposite of an inclusive and accessible creative learning environment (Härnsten & Wingård, 2007). Rather, it creates an environment where an individual’s ability to reproduce the status quo will equate to his or her success. Of course, research methods skills are necessary skills to acquire to become a professional in the knowledge economy (Kilburn et al., 2014). It is positive that students learn to decipher, produce and communicate social research, as it has become such a significant part of our collective understanding of the world. Nonetheless, it is worth being critical about the extent to which the knowledge economy recreates itself in its own self-serving way if we want to tackle questions of paradigmatic change.

For many critical scholars, under neoliberalism, higher education is used not to tear apart dominant systems like capitalism itself, through intellectual debate in order to propose alternatives, but, rather, it is used to make these systems more efficient through teaching people to become more competitive, opportunistic and individualistic (Binkley, 2007; Khoo, 2011; Pais & Costa, 2020). Under such circumstances, succeeding in the knowledge economy as a researcher means getting research funding and publishing results, and thus endowing students with research skills who can then collect data, write literature reviews, assist on projects and eventually lead their own projects will be essential to keep this system that researchers find so rewarding afloat. In other words, my concern is not that universities will produce more researchers who contribute more research, but that these researchers will be fixated on their individual success within the scientific system. People can be critical of a dominant system, being fully aware of its flaws and injustices, while their enjoyment of becoming successful within it leads them to participate in its reproduction nonetheless (Žižek, 1999). This matter arguably relates to Feyerabend’s (2011) tyranny of science, where researchers see people and places as abstract objects in order to proclaim truths about the world. These abstractions are necessary for the researcher’s success in the knowledge economy, because, by putting aside the experiences, particularities and tacit knowledge of these people under study, he or she can deliver the general theories that will make him or her stand out in a particular field.

In higher education, educators should reflect on the dynamics of self-serving individualism and on how their institution passes it down to them and their students. As research projects become unavoidable elements of higher education courses and programs, there is a risk that coordinators and educators simply create research projects as opportunities for their students to acquire course credits. S. Prince (2019a) identified this dynamic in service-learning programs, where the needs of students to acquire credits through project-based learning surpasses the interest of community-members in collaborative work. Should students go back to their villages of origin with a heightened sense of pride for community action, or as scientific observers who will extirpate information from community-members for their own career gain? There is something fundamentally wrong about convincing students that the data they will collect and the vague theories they will make about the people and places they will engage with under their studies will be what gets them praised as good students. This cannot be a good lesson for a future career as an agent of sustainable tourism development

Critical pedagogy scholars argue that educators should go beyond technical question of “how” to teach a program and ask themselves critical questions related to “why” a particular program takes precedence over others (Bamber et al., 2018; Giroux, 1988). By questioning the history of a program, we see in whose interests its diffusion is and can attempt to resist some of its more damaging elements. It would be useful to question the assumptions and structures behind courses and programs with curricula heavily based in positivist scientific research, seeing that this approach rests a lot in the unchallenged control of so-called experts. This proposition reflects Edelheim’s (2020) concern that educators and researchers do not usually take the time to describe the values behind the concepts, methods and theories they use. There is often little pressure, and thus little attempt, to question what it is that we value as a global society as we use terms such as “growth” and “sustainable development” in our lectures on tourism. To Edelheim (2020), these are value-laden concepts that shape the professional identities of students, and we should be critical of the realities they create.

It is refreshing that tourism scholars are increasingly embracing the various epistemological opportunities occasioned by the moral and qualitative turns in tourism research and adding such content to their courses and programs. However, as neoliberalism looms large over higher education, the “why” is also important to ask in these cases as well. At what point do matters of collaboration, dialogue and transformation only become buzzwords to attract students to a program or course, promising them exciting and valuable experiences out in the field? When does a course with a critical pedagogy approach merely become something to have on a CV to succeed in the knowledge economy? Tourism researchers have adopted such critical viewpoints towards volunteering and service-learning programs abroad, questioning in whose interest are these seemingly collaborative and transformative education programs (S. Prince, 2019a). It would be imminent to extend a critical perspective on all sorts of seemingly well-intentioned curricula in tourism education.

3. Tourism research pedagogy in the Anthropocene: Possibilities and attachment

Though scientific research effectively diffuse an aura of authority by positioning itself as the producer of objective truths, it is a myth that there really is unity and objectivity in the production of scientific claims. To Feyerabend (1975), that a theory gains popularity over another is thus not because it is objectively more factually true, but because its proponents have appealed to the logic or concerns for ethics of the members of their society. Similarly, Belhassen and Caton (2009) outline that knowledge-production is a linguistic process that engages scholars in the communication of their interpretation of social reality. Dialogic and reflective processes are necessary to evaluate the relevance of social interpretation of scientific results. In other words, instead of sweeping the complexity of the production of knowledge under the carpet in secrecy, pretending it is straightforward, researchers should appreciate and promote the expression of multiples claims to truth, reason, and ethics, and debate them openly even outside of academia to find the most socially acceptable ones. It is in this way that society can progress (Belhassen & Caton, 2009; Feyerabend, 1975).

This type of engagement is crucial for the formulation of socially relevant methodologies in tourism research, which would arguably avoid an overwhelming reliance on reproducing technical solutions, proposing vague generalization and pursuing selfish agendas. A socially relevant and engaged approach to tourism development is especially important in the Anthropocene, and calls for a serious reflection over the discourses that affect our disciplines, curricula and institutions. It might be time to engage with another discourse than the one of sustainability if we want as educators to promote an understanding of tourism research amongst our students that embraces the major social shifts that we need. I now propose the concept of the Anthropocene as this replacement. The Anthropocene conjures different imaginaries, and, in tourism, Mostafanezhad and Norum (2019) identify processes of commodification and last-chance tourism in light of the alienation and loss caused by the destruction of the planet. The authors nonetheless propose that there is always room for hope in the way we imagine reality (Mostafanezhad & Norum, 2019). It is in that vein that I next outline the role of the social scientist as a mediator of different possibilities in times of crisis and argue for social science research education that promotes a profound attachment to the Earth in the name of ethics.

3.1 Mediating possibilities

The natural sciences have effectively demonstrated the negative effects of humankind on the planet through their calculations, models and inventories of the climate, biosphere and physical world. However, it is important not to forget the role of the social sciences in the Anthropocene. Global environmental changes occur in relation to particular social settings, in a way that humans will feel them materially, psychologically and socially in different ways depending on their cultural context. With this in mind, it is absurd to impose the application of generalizable theories to respond to worldly issues. In this regard, I come back to Feyerabend (2011) who believes that the procedure leading to the adoption of a worldview is not in itself a proof of the validity of that worldview. It is rather the outcome of a decision based on preferences coupled with turns of events. In other words, ethical decisions do not stem from theoretical truths, but rather from the existence of certain truths, and the utility that society accords to them in light of its members’ ethical values (Belhassen & Caton, 2009). Social scientists have made similar comments in defense of socio-cultural groups faced with the dictates of scientific knowledge. Importantly, N. Castree (2017), speaking of the Anthropocene, holds that it is not up to geoscientists to impose an agenda dictating what is socially achievable in direct accordance to scientific research, but rather they should open up to the views, ideologies, faiths and political programs of society as they make their claims. Ultimately, geoscientists should acknowledge the struggles and wishes of the age, and welcome the support of scholars of social science and the humanities who can add substance to these articulations in order to let multiple possible futures come into existence (N. Castree, 2017).

Similarly, for Lövbrand et al. (2015), the role of the social scientists in the context of the Anthropocene is to question the privileged gaze of expert-centric empirical science and thereby open up the floor to multiple ways of knowing and experiencing the physical world. Karlsson (2013) argues for the restoration of an imaginative space in society where the solutions put forward should be psychologically and politically plausible for billions of human beings. He states that “it seems reasonable to ask that strategies for long-term sustainability take the pluralism of existing societies as their starting point and focus on constructing narratives that can bridge these differences rather than trying to assume them away through wishful thinking” (Karlsson, 2013, p. 6). In this regard, education in the social science in times of the Anthropocene will depend on endowing students with the skills to speak legibly and eloquently to multiple audiences as we advance into unknown territory together. Their social research methods skills will have to aim at identifying and working with specificity, critically reflecting on the production of generalizations and detached observations that lack empathy, in order to engage in socially relevant and even transformative action.

In tourism research, recent calls to engage with alternative ontologies reflect an awareness that scholars should explore what is messy and unruly about existing societies, rather than reject the incalculable that does not fit into expert categories (see Caton, 2018; Rantala et al., 2019; Ren et al., 2018; Veijola et al., 2014). In terms of education, as Veijola et al. (2014) urge, it will be about creating knowledge in the classroom and with multiple stakeholders, rather than manufacturing it within the limits and conditionality of the status quo. Ultimately, there will only be new possibilities and creativity in the Anthropocene if educators and scholars make room for them in their teaching and research. This will require the acknowledgment that we never fully know the others, people and places around us in a world of constant flux and multiplicities, and, consequently, we should open up to the infinite project of learning and unlearning with them (Caton, 2018; Rantala et al., 2019; Ren et al., 2018; Veijola et al., 2014). As such, critical tourism pedagogies and alternative ontologies will be crucial components of tourism education in the Anthropocene, as they will attune students to questions of morals and ethics as they learn to design and carry out research projects and assignments.

3.2 Planetary attachment

The Anthropocene implies a connection, rather than detachment, to the physical world. It recognizes that humans are no longer disengaged managers harnessing the great powers of the earth to their advantage, but rather coexist with its elements (Johnson & Morehouse, 2014). With this statement, Huijbens and Gren (2016, p. 6) make it clear that global environmental change is the result of continuous human action, and consequently humankind’s responsibility to resolve: “In the Anthropocene, the Earth humans inhabit and traverse is also the Earth which arises out of their own knowledge production and geo-forces. In other words, it is also an Earth partly of their own making”. As Zalasiewic et al. (2010) explain in their definition of the Anthropocene, we are facing an era where the fate of the earth system and humankind are deeply intertwined, which closes the divide between the natural and cultural realms, and puts pressure on humans to act in order to remain within planetary boundaries. It becomes doubtful that the procedures and discourses that disconnect us from the people and places of the world in order to understand them will be relevant enough to address the crisis of the Anthropocene.

The Anthropocene is an interesting concept because it calls for action in a time of crisis. Essentially, such actions will depend on a profound attachment to the Earth and its future, as it is ours to protect now that we are part of its unfolding. In this light, Zylinska (2014) proposes that the Anthropocene requires a new set of ethics that specifically recognizes that humans are not alone on Earth, but rather share its space and history with other non-human. Consequently, humans face an obligation towards these non-human elements of the Earth because of their entanglement in their existence and future (Kristoffersen et al., 2016; Whatmore, 2002; Zylinska, 2014). These new moral grounds are gaining traction in tourism studies as seen in the work of scholars such as Grimwood et al. (2018), Huijbens and Gren (2016), and Chakraborty (2020) who advocate for epistemologies that see connections with and promote responsibilities towards the elements of the natural world. Metaphors of dwelling that embed people in a material world also promote an ethics of attachment in tourism research (S. Prince, 2019b, 2018, 2017). Moreover, as Mostafanezhad and Norum (2019) contend, anthropocenic imaginaries have fostered truly interdisciplinary conversations between individuals from various fields, such as anthropology, biology, creative writing, the arts, communication and journalism to name a few. This highlights that there is a plurality of academic and professional voices involved in defining a picture of the Earth as our home (Mostafanezhad & Norum, 2019). We need more than ever our universities to offer programs that teach students to feel a deep sensitivity to the elements of the physical world and its inhabitants when they engage with various stakeholders such as community-members and experts within and outside of academia during their student projects.

5. Concluding remarks

Many tourism scholars and educators agree that higher education institutions should provide tourism education that goes beyond market-based efficiency, and even promote socio-political efficiency (Belhassen & Caton, 2011; Boyle et al., 2015; Wilson, 2015; Wilson & von der Heidt, 2013). Critical tourism scholars and educators have produced much work outlining the need for critical thinking, reflexivity, new epistemologies and social engagement to prepare students to tackle issues in their field beyond simple managerial solutions (Boluk & Carnicelli, 2019; Caton, 2012; Wilson & Hollinshead, 2015). A socially relevant and engaged methodological approach to tourism research is especially important in the Anthropocene, and calls for a serious reflection over the discourses that affect our discipline, curricula and institutions. The concept of sustainability, and concurrently sustainable tourism, has faced much criticism for its obsession with growth and technical solutions in light of sustained environmental degradation and climate change (Lélé, 1991; Liu, 2003; Redclift, 2005; Sharpley, 2000). It becomes increasingly difficult to imagine that this concept is effectively conducive to the type of paradigm shift needed for effective social change in time of planetary crisis.

Many authors writing about the Anthropocene see the role of the researcher in the social sciences as one of mediator, working to address questions of ethics and justice in decisions pertaining to the adoption and application of scientific knowledge in times of crisis (N. Castree, 2017; Karlsson, 2013; Lövbrand et al., 2015). The Anthropocene is an exciting concept for educating students about their role in the research, development and delivery of tourism because it presses, as Zalasiewic et al. (2010) concede, for an attachment, rather than detachment to the Earth and its planetary systems. Human responsibility and an urgency for action are apparent in debates surrounding the Anthropocene (Zylinska, 2014), and will be crucial discourses for young leaders to embrace in order to affect real change. As tourism educators and researchers, we have a responsibility to work towards the promotion of the production of knowledge based in ethics, activism and transformation for the sake of humans and non-humans in the Anthropocene. It is moreover crucial that we resist the temptations of the neo-liberal agenda, as it promotes individualist goals in academia and professional life. Most importantly, value-laden knowledge will come from the type of openness, dialogue, reflectivity and communication between disciplines and beyond academia that Feyerabend (1975) and researchers in tourism studies such as Belhassen and Caton (2011, 2009), Boluk and Carnicelli (2019), Caton (2018, 2012), Veijola et al. (2014), and Wilson and Hollinshead (2015) passionately advocate.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Dr. Lusine Margaryan at Mid-Sweden University for her helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Disclosure statement

This is to acknowledge that no financial interest or benefit have arisen from the direct applications of this research.