2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.annals.2009.11.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Constructing tourism research

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
83
0
12

Year Published

2012
2012
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 158 publications
(96 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
1
83
0
12
Order By: Relevance
“…It questions our departure point in 'tourism as the world's largest industry', seeing such a claim as an effect of specific and situated valuing practices (see also Latour 2013). To bring tourism research into conversation with the field of valuation studies destabilizes and blurs distinctions between managerial and critical tourism research (see also Ren et al 2010). It might also lead us to sorting attachments (Jensen 2007) in new ways.…”
Section: Entanglement Of Tour Ism and Valuationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It questions our departure point in 'tourism as the world's largest industry', seeing such a claim as an effect of specific and situated valuing practices (see also Latour 2013). To bring tourism research into conversation with the field of valuation studies destabilizes and blurs distinctions between managerial and critical tourism research (see also Ren et al 2010). It might also lead us to sorting attachments (Jensen 2007) in new ways.…”
Section: Entanglement Of Tour Ism and Valuationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, hermeneutic and phenomenological approaches are explored by Ren, Pritchard and Morgan (2010) and Pernecky and Jamal (2010) in the contexts of constructing research and producing knowledge, and by Sedgley, Pritchard and Morgan (2011) in their development of a transformative agenda for tourism and ageing research. In the same line of epistemic reflections and state-of-the-art reviews, Tribe (2010) critically analyzes the nature and structure of tourism studies as well as the formation of culture and networks amongst its academics; Racherla and Hu (2010) report on research collaborations on the basis of co-authorship patterns visible from tourism journals.…”
Section: Critical Tourism Studies From Paradigmatic Standpoints Maimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In particular, a number of articles in these two volumes adopt or apply actor-network theory in their interpretations. For example, Ren's (2011) Notably, in line with the orientations of critical tourism studies, a number of authors have adopted a critical theory approach to the scrutiny of tourism research and scholarship (Pernecky & Jamal, 2010;Ren, Pritchard & Morgan, 2010), and to their 8 interpretation of tourism as an encounter for individuals with vision problems (Richards, Pritchard & Morgan, 2010). From the consumer behavior perspective, a number of studies revisit behavior, tourist decision-making, and destination choice (Decrop, 2010;Krider, Arguello, Campbell & Mora, 2010;Smallman & Moore, 2010 …”
Section: Critical Tourism Studies From Paradigmatic Standpoints Maimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The use of ANT thinking is increasingly evident in tourism research [62], and related academic publication in this field [63,64] shows a focus on the development of the tourism industry ontology, where it has been used to explore relational concepts, such as Tourismscapes [65], cultural tourism areas [66], the wildlife tourism focusing on the role of non-human actors [53], tourism academic research [67,68], the mechanisms of tourism entrepreneurship and innovation [69][70][71] and the generation of destination perception [72,73]. When applied to tourism research, ANT better reveals the relationship between tourism and local development [74][75][76].…”
Section: Ant In Tourism Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%