Does relevance matter in academic policy research? A comment on Dredge

This section of the journal encourages discussion between several authors on a policy-related topic. The same question may, therefore, be addressed from different theoretical, cultural or spatial perspectives. Dialogues may be applied or highly abstract. The Dialogue in this issue starts with Dianne Dredge's contribution here: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19407963.2014.990661

I agree with many of the comments that Dianne Dredge has made and yet find the results of her argument deeply dissatisfying. I follow the logic but despair of the outcome. I think my dissatisfaction is because there is an unstated assumption that what academics produce is valuable and therefore the problem is one of communication of results. The solution then is that academics should be rewarded by their universities for communicating the products of their exhaustive labors to a thirsty audience. This is a ‘system blame’ argument that is only partially true in my opinion. In addition, there is also an ‘individual blame’ component related to the differences in perceived value that an academic puts on their own work and that which the industry perceive, a difference not just related to problems of communication.

Dredge's argument begins referring to Wilhelm von Humboldt's model for the University of Berlin. A similar and perhaps more relevant approach for English audiences is discussed by Arthur Herman in his 2001 book ‘The Scottish Enlightenment' (Fourth Estate, London). Here, Herman also emphasizes the importance of a progressive and critical education system for the Scottish economic and socio-cultural development of the eighteenth century and argues that this led to a pervasive influence of Scottish ideas throughout the modern world. Scottish Universities and academics of the time were characterized by a logical and empirical approach and engagement with society through dialogues in various fora. Today, our society and environment are undergoing similar radical changes to that of the eighteenth century but the vigorous dialogue with tourism stakeholders appears missing in the tourism field (at least).

In order to progress, I suggest a need to evaluate the outputs and outcomes of academic policy research in tourism in terms of their relevance to industry stakeholders and to other academics. As Dredge indicates, there are many different types of outputs from research on tourism policy. It is also clear that different stakeholders evaluate these outcomes in their own way. Consistent with my realist view of the world, it would seem to me that any attempt at evaluating relevance must start with some agreed evidence base. I do not agree that it is impossible to judge the value of research, merely difficult.

We can examine past academic policy research outputs both as a body of knowledge in aggregate and also in terms of specific papers. In examining tourism policy research in aggregate, we might ask whether this body of knowledge is vibrant and innovative compared to other areas of policy outside tourism. Can we identify evidence of a significant contribution made by tourism policy scholars to the wider academic policy research community? Such questions can be answered through a cross-citation study determining the number of citations from tourism papers in non-tourism journals and vice versa (McKercher, 2012). It is likely that we will find that theories used in tourism policy are derived from other areas.

Let us consider the concept of sustainability. This concept was introduced to the tourism literature due to debates in other areas; the Brundtland Report is commonly noted as a seminal point in this discussion. Thereafter, we might summarize the tourism discussion as focusing on ecotourism as a potential solution then nature tourism, followed by examination of a broader interpretation of sustainability to include social impacts of tourism and discussion of community tourism. Once we have a broad overview of the academic ideas of sustainability in tourism, we may ask what the role of academics in tourism was in developing the sustainability debate. To me the answer is – mostly derivative. Further, we may ask the impact of our academic discussions on the tourism sector, a question which is not often addressed. Ecotourism is one area which has been subject to such scrutiny (Buckley, 2009, 2010; McKercher, 2010). Buckley (2010) contends that: ‘There is little evidence of information flow from academia to industry’ (p. 312). This interpretation is consistent with the general tenor of Dredge's discussion where she laments academics being ignored by a callous and uncaring industry stakeholder.

Secondly, we may seek to evaluate specific papers for their contribution and indeed this is an accepted necessity for academic articles. Dredge appears to dismiss the need for instrumental outcomes from a paper and indicates:

This instrumental view of relevance is narrow and fails to acknowledge a range of externalities (e.g. environmental impacts) and the management of public goods (e.g. natural resources) that policy must deal with.

An alternative view would be that many policy organizations are desperate for information on how to deal with wicked policy problems. However, they must deal policy that can be implemented rather than the policy which should happen. Dredge also argues that:

Radical researchers tend to argue for more critical intellectual research that seeks to understand issues of power, the challenges of marginalized voices and silenced groups, the findings of which can be disseminated through education (Bramwell & Lane, 2006). In this radical view, policy change has a longer timeframe rather than the short-term focus of praxis researchers.

What Dredge may ignore is that such radical views both describe a situation and additionally provide the academics’ view as to what should be done about it, whether or not such an approach is feasible. This advocacy of a particular type of solution is found in papers concerning such topics as ecotourism, community-based tourism, and sustainability. Policy-makers may agree with the assessment of the current situation provided in such papers but may disagree with the feasibility of implementation or the likelihood of success of a particular policy option that should happen. Often researchers seek to implement their idealized policies in particular locations with limited success.

So where to from here? Some academics of a radical bent may continue to pursue the strategy of seeking to influence localized policy outcomes for wicked problems such as sustainability. In my opinion, the most effective approach to address such society-wide issues of sustainability in the required timeframe is to change the regulatory system (taxation, laws, etc.) not through individual self-induced behavioral change. Focusing on localized transformational policy change is possibly useful but not efficient.

Of course how we judge our own outputs is our own business. But as an academy, it is important to develop a view of our successes and failures. I would argue that most tourism policy research is derivative from other disciplines and debates external to tourism (as in sustainability). In addition, impacts are localized and not influential. This type of output may be important in the long term through its educational impact on future generations. But we cannot ignore a need for instrumental policy guidance.

My own approach to this wicked problem is to think about where I can, as an academic, obtain the greatest output from my efforts. I feel able to let academics and industry participants judge my work and evaluate it. I have no problem with instrumental policy. I feel that relevance to policy in both the short term and long term matters.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.