Experiencing local Turkish hospitality in Istanbul, Turkey

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate tourists’ experiences of local hospitality and offer a typology of Turkish hospitality based on perspectives of international tourists. Design/methodology/approach Semi-structured interviews were conducted with tourists visiting Istanbul, Turkey. Interview transcripts were content-analyzed and -coded under different themes that characterize local hospitality. Findings The research findings revealed 64 items describing local Turkish hospitality. These were grouped under four distinct themes: sociability, care, helpfulness and generosity. Research limitations/implications Using the factors of local Turkish hospitality identified in this paper, future studies might measure the impacts of these antecedents of local hospitality on tourist satisfaction and positive behaviors such as loyalty and word of mouth in a quantitative study. Exploring local hospitality in different destinations with different characteristics might also reveal valuable insight into variance and intensity of local hospitality. Practical implications The research findings have implications for both commercial hospitality and destination management. By leveraging the local hospitality elements in their operations and human resources management practices, the commercial hospitality firms might create strong emotional bonds with their guests and create loyalty through these relationships. Destination planning and management might also adopt the findings to facilitate interactions between the hosts and tourists for more positive experiences for both sides to emerge. Social implications Destinations exposed to heavy visitation may not have the same level of hospitableness toward visitors. Hence, impact of tourism activity on local quality of life should be monitored and managed. Originality/value Despite hospitality having been researched in numerous previous studies, local hospitality has not yet been fully explored in tourism. This study presents and discusses empirical findings and offers a typology of local Turkish hospitality.

Philoxenia offered to tourists? A rural tourism perspective

“…The purpose of this study was to explore whether philoxenia is still offered in an age when people may have no longer strong obligations to act hospitably. It was undertaken in response to calls for additional research (Cetin & Okumus, 2018) and for further philosophical insights into the notion of hospitality, which is highly influenced by commercial domains. As Lashley (2017, p. 412) suggests, 'It is necessary to focus more on the development of (hospitality) graduates who are at least reflective, if not philosophical, practitioners'.…”

“…Based on the above findings, this study yields certain managerial implications. First, the important role of service providers in shaping the hospitable experiences of guests (Cetin & Okumus, 2018;Dekker, 2014;Telfer, 2013) is once more acknowledged and strengthened.…”

“…The irony lies in the fact that in presenting to the world an idea of 'hospitality management' there is little evident understanding of what hospitality 'is' in historical or philosophical terms and little consistency in its application in terms of the delivery of hospitality services. (Brotherton & Wood, 2008, p.37) In their study, Cetin and Okumus (2018) identify four general components of traditional local hospitality, these being: sociability (willing to talk, welcoming and outgoing); care (trustworthy and caring); helpfulness (attentive and the desire to assist); and generosity (open to giving and thoughtful). In contrast, Lashley (2008) proposes a three-domain model as an initial means of comprehending the concept of hospitality; illustrated as a Venn diagram, this is a useful tool for considering hospitality experiences (Gehrels, 2017;Ruiter, 2017).…”

“…Hence, attempts have long been made to understand and explore the relationship between host and guest (Griffiths & Sharpley, 2012;Tussyadiah & Park, 2018) which lies at the heart of both tourism and hospitality (Cetin & Okumus, 2018;Germann Molz & Gibson, 2007). In particular, Tucker and Lynch (2005) highlight the central role that host-guest interaction plays in the guest experience, whilst the concept of hospitality more generally has also been addressed from a social perspective with the research providing us with interesting insights regarding its place and importance within societies (e.g.…”

“…A question that inevitably arises is, then: to what extent does philoxenia continue to be offered given that contemporary hospitality tends to be characterized by commercialization, automation (Lashley, 2008;Ritzer, 2017) and egocentric tendencies (Christou, 2018)? Putting it another way, destinations that experience high levels of visitation may not, according to Cetin and Okumus (2018), demonstrate the same degree of hospitableness as smaller, more 'intimate' destinations, while Brotherton and Wood (2008) suggest that the nature of hospitality has varied over time and continues to do so in different contemporary environments. Yet, it remains unclear as to what extent contemporary service providers are able or, indeed, willing to provide generous or 'altrusitic ' hospitality, given that commercial imperatives that may interfere in this process.…”