به عنوان یک بیان کلی چرا "صنعت گردشگری" گمراه کننده است : مورد مطالعه صنایع گردشگری
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|12618||2008||15 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 11748 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Tourism Management, Volume 29, Issue 2, April 2008, Pages 237–251
‘The tourism industry’ is a widely used expression referring to a supposedly single entity operating across all places where tourism occurs. However, for anyone wanting more than superficial knowledge, the singular expression is misleading as a generic, because many tourism industries exist, some large and some small, overlapping in many places and with diverse component organisations. They directly, but only partly, support tourism—a partly industrialised form of human activity. Several theories support the contention that there is not one tourism industry but many. In contrast, the contention that tourism is supported by one giant industry has no robust theoretical foundation. The issue has practical implications for researchers, educators, business managers, planners and policy makers. Questions are raised for schools of tourism in universities. Should we adopt ‘tourism industries’ as the generic term in research, teaching notes and lectures, and in the brochures advertising our courses? Or should we persist with ‘the tourism industry’? Should universities be leaders of knowledge, or should we passively and uncritically follow industrial associations and our own previous habits?
Innumerable articles begin with remarks such as “tourism is regarded as the world's largest industry” (Lee, Fayed, & Fletcher, 2002, p. 125) and “terrorism (or whatever …) presents major challenges to the industry” (Sonmez & Graefe, 1998, p. 112, parenthesis added). Via frequent repetition in research publications and in the mass media, the idea that a single industry supports all tourism has been imprinted in the minds of many persons. The aim of this article is to demonstrate that it is an overly simplistic, mistaken and misleading idea, which should be replaced, in generic contexts, by the plural term, ‘tourism industries’. The singular term should be restricted to specific cases, to particular examples. This is not merely a matter of semantics; substantial issues are at stake. Certainly there are difficulties in defining ‘industry’ in the context of tourism, compounded by apparent difficulties in defining ‘tourist’ and ‘tourism’. These have been noted by many writers. Stear, Leiper, and Maior (2005) took the discussion further, asserting that difficulties in understanding these central concepts should not be lazily relegated to a too-hard-basket and, noting that many academics do this, diagnosed DUDS—definitional uncertainty debilitating syndrome. Previously, Leiper (1979) and Stear (1981) themselves used ‘the industry’ as the generic but changed to ‘industries’ in the 1990s. Among academics, three positions can be discerned. Some reject the idea of any industry directly linked with tourism. The majority says that there is an industry, just one, a very large one. While a third alternative is catching on, to date relatively few writers refer to multiple tourism industries. King and Hyde (1989, p. 3) might have been the first to do so when, commenting on three broad categories of tourism involving Australia—domestic, inbound and outbound—they observed that “the industries which have developed around these three flows have distinct identities and have little in common”. Others who refer to ‘tourism industries’ in generic contexts include Leiper (1994) and Leiper (2004), Stear (2000) and Stear (2004), Tiyce, Dimmock, Douglas, and Knox (2000), Firth (2002) and Maior (2005). No problem exists in references to ‘the tourism industry’ as a generic expression in everyday communication; there, the singular form is benign, in a context where superficial information is adequate. Problems can arise when the same expression is applied as a generic in research, education and policy making where precision is desirable for important concepts. The present article argues that the concept of ‘the tourism industry’ as a single entity directly linked with all tourists is unrealistic, stemming from flawed perceptions and defective understanding of business and industries. Clearer vision, alongside deeper knowledge of business theories and practices, recognises multiple tourism industries. Professionals, in roles as managers, policy advisors, investment analysts, consultants, planners, researchers or educators, require knowledge of any industry or industries that their work involves. However, when tourism courses drill students with constant references to ‘the industry’ the students are easily misled. After graduation, working as professionals in tourism-related businesses, they might learn, if only implicitly, that multiple tourism industries exist, perhaps side by side in one town or region but, as King and Hyde (1989, p. 3) remarked, they can have “distinct identities and little in common”. Accordingly, to better inform students and anyone else with professional interests in the subject, researchers and educators should use the plural expression ‘tourism industries’ in general contexts. This would encourage the recognition and consideration of differences among these industries, differences that can be crucial for issues at the micro-level (e.g. business strategies) and also at the macro-level (e.g. policies for destinations). The proposal in this article follows a principle advanced by Cohen (1979) about another elementary topic in tourism research, i.e. tourists. For more than a century, a singular generic had been widely used in messages promoting countless venues (e.g. “Xanadu has much to offer the tourist”) and many researchers followed the custom. Cohen recommended that researchers avoid it, since the singular generic implies, falsely, that all tourists are the same in needs, motivations, interests and behaviour. By using the plural—‘tourists’—researchers are more inclined to look for differences. The plural generic also has value in relation to tourism industries, as the discussion below will demonstrate. The discussion begins by noting when and how the expression ‘tourism industry’ originated. It then identifies and considers seven possible approaches for identifying one or more industries directly linked with tourism. Four can be rejected. Three others support the argument in this article and, as a set, have the attributes of a robust theory. Misleading ideas flowing from the generic singular are noted. Two questions are explored: who benefits from the misleading idea that one large industry supports all tourism and who can gain if multiple tourism industries were widely recognised?
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
In tourism-related institutions, in the mass media and in academia, ‘the tourism industry’ is a commonly used expression referring to an apparently unitary entity that promotes and supports the activities of all tourists. A relatively small number of researchers and educators use the plural generic, referring to ‘tourism industries’, while a minority says there are no industries distinctively linked to tourism. This article has attempted to resolve this debate. Seven approaches were discussed, applying theories from various disciplines about industries to the issue. The conclusion is that multiple tourism industries exist and accordingly, the plural term is appropriate in generic contexts. In contrast, the idea of ‘the tourism industry’ as a generic term is an example of what Saul (1994, p. 304) calls “an abstraction applied piecemeal without reference to reality”. More than semantics is at stake, for the widespread use of the singular generic has shaped thinking by persons involved with many aspects of tourism and has had substantial effects. In particular, it has shaped the scale and direction of subsidies and other assistance flowing from governments. Words are powerful tools, and at the junction of economics, business, capital and government, the word ‘industry’ and the phrase ‘tourism industry’ have carried increasing power in recent decades. A contemporary philosopher has observed that (t)he moment a word or phrase begins to rise in public value, a variety of interest groups seek either to destroy its reputation or more often, to co-opt it. In this latter case, they don’t necessarily adopt the meaning of the word or phrase. They simply want control of it in order to apply a different meaning that suits their own purposes. Words thus are not free. They have a value. More than any commercial product they are subject to the violent competition of the emotional, intellectual and political market-place (Saul, 1994, pp. 104–105) Few persons interested in governmental policies would dispute that “a clear understanding of the scope and size of an industry is a prerequisite for identifying and measuring the industry's assistance and for permitting comparisons with the rate of assistance received by other industries” (Productivity Commission, 2005, p. ix). In the field of tourism, where the scale of governmental assistance has increased greatly over recent decades, instead of clear understanding, this issue has become clouded. Researchers and educators in universities have a primary responsibility to the public at large, to disseminate knowledge as a public good. The main way they discharge this responsibility is by educating and training students. Researchers and educators in universities should listen to representatives of industries, but should not feel obliged to accept everything they hear from this source and relay it uncritically to students. Popper (1959) demonstrated that knowledge advances by testing existing theories and rejecting those that do not stand up to scrutiny. The present article has followed that approach. The theory that all tourism falls within the ambit of one large industry is a false theory. Researchers and educators can, therefore, reject it and adopt a better one. As noted earlier, much of the material discussed in this article comes from research and observations in Australia. A question then arises: to what extent are the analyses, conclusions and implications relevant in other countries? Observations by the present writer in various countries indicate that Australia is not unique in regard to the theme of this article. Other researchers might decide to investigate the issue in various countries. This could not only test the international applicability of the theme, but could assess variations in different places.