The Internationalization of Tourism Research

Abstract

This article examines the internationalization of tourism research in the context of the worldwide growth in tourism and a marked increase in tourism studies. Its goal is to stimulate debate, to encourage further analysis of the directions tourism research is taking, and to foster discussion of the implications of the trends identified. The article is based on a systematic and wide-ranging review of the literature. Five major questions are addressed: what is meant by internationalization; what patterns are emerging; what is driving internationalization; what is the role of language in internationalization; and what is the significance and impact of internationalization? The types and levels of internationalization of tourism research vary considerably but overall levels are rather low. The benefits and disadvantages of internationalization are then discussed in terms of the underlying tension between standardization and diversity. Finally, ways forward are outlined.

Keywords

internationalization knowledge creation transfer of experience research assessment language

Introduction

The worldwide growth in tourism in recent decades has been accompanied by a marked increase in tourism research throughout the globe and a proliferation in specialized tourism journals and other publications. The global patterns of tourism and the reasons behind this growth are well researched but to date there has been little examination from an international perspective of the nature and the significance of this increased research activity. Interest in the internationalization of tourism has essentially focused on the internationalization of tourism firms (Altinay 2007; Williams and Shaw 2010) rather than on the internationalization of tourism research per se (P. Pearce 2004; Dann 2011). This is in contrast to the well-established interest in internationalization in fields such as marketing and management (Calof and Beamish 1995), education (Knight 2004), and science (Ponds 2009; Edler and Flanagan 2011) where the importance of examining how research is evolving internationally and the ways and extent to which research and researchers in particular fields are connected has been recognized for some time. It is in this context that this article seeks to provide a more comprehensive account of the internationalization of tourism research with the goal of stimulating debate, encouraging further analysis of the directions research in this field is taking and fostering discussion of the implications of the trends identified.

The article is based on a systematic and wide-ranging review of the literature as presented through the lens of a tourism researcher with substantial international experience. While data are provided to illustrate some basic patterns, this is not a bibliometric or scientometric analysis as favored by some studies of the internationalization of research in other domains (Milkov 2012; Murad and Tomov 2012) or those beginning to deal with tourism (Benckendorff 2009). Rather, in line with studies such as those by Knight (2004), the article identifies and discusses some key underlying or emerging issues relating to the internationalization of tourism research. In particular, the study addresses the following five questions:

What is meant by internationalization?

What patterns are emerging?

What is driving internationalization?

What is the role of language in internationalization?

What is the significance and impact of internationalization?

The article concludes by suggesting ways forward.

What Is Meant by Internationalization?

Internationalization is a term that has evolved over time, and is used in different ways in different fields by different people and thus subject to much debate. Key works portray internationalization as a process, one with international dimensions. For Calof and Beamish (1995, p. 116), internationalization is “the process of adapting firms’ operations (strategy, structure, resource, etc.) to international environments.” They suggest the term can be applied to a variety of elements such as strategy, structure, modes, and products. In the field of international education, Knight (2004, p. 11) redefines internationalization as “the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education.”

Both broad coverage and narrower operational definitions are used with respect to the internationalization of science, a field to which tourism research might be related. According to Milkov (2012), science internationalization includes not only “direct research interaction between single scientists from different countries and their teams” but a whole series of other components. These include the creation of international societies and the holding of international conferences, publication in foreign journals, translation of works by foreign authors, unlimited dissemination of research through new technologies and overcoming traditional barriers to interpersonal communication. Likewise, Edler and Flanagan (2011, p. 8) observe: “the modes of international research are numerous, ranging from mobility (at individual, institute and firm levels) and physical cooperation to virtual cooperation, cross-border contract research, participation in international research organizations and, finally, to various levels of coordination and joint programming at the level of policy and funding organizations.” In view of this diversity, Edler and Flanagan call for the development of multiple indicators to support the internationalization of science policies. In practice, scientometric or bibliometric analyses are usually limited by the narrower range of parameters available in the databases used, such as the Web of Science or Scopus. Milkov (2012) and Murad and Tomov (2012), for example, focus on analyzing outputs in terms of journals, authors, and institutions broken down by country or countries while Ponds (2009) and Abramo, D’Angelo, and Solazzi (2011) use international collaboration or co-publication as indicators of internationalization.

In terms of tourism research, internationalization might be viewed as a process whereby components of the design and execution of the research and its subsequent dissemination and use are international in nature. These interrelated components include

the subject of the research and how it is framed—as an ideographic or stand-alone study or with regard to some broader theory, question or problem;

where the research is being done—in one or more countries or in the researcher’s home country or elsewhere;

international collaboration involving researchers or institutions from two or more countries;

the theories, concepts, and methods used (whether commonly employed elsewhere or developed by the researcher(s) themselves);

where the research is published or disseminated (in national or international outlets); and

the extent to which the research is integrated into the wider literature and/or is shaping research, policies, or industry practice in other countries.

Differing degrees of internationalization might be expected based on the particular international dimensions of the research process incorporated in any given study or on any specific theme. At one extreme, Butler’s (1980) article on the tourist area life-cycle is clearly strongly internationalized as a well-established part of the canon of tourism research. The article was published in the Canadian Geographer at a time Butler was based in Canada; it addressed a wider issue; drew on a range of international examples and other studies; has been referred to in numerous publications; and replicated and tested in a wide range of countries. At the other, a local case study published in a regional or national journal in Spain by a Spanish researcher with little or no reference to literature from elsewhere and which is not picked up and cited by non-Spanish scholars might not be considered internationalized at all. Intermediate cases of partial internationalization are more common whereby the research exhibits some but not all of the above dimensions, for example, a collaborative study involving authors from two countries published in a national journal or the use of a widely accepted technique in a single country where the findings are not linked back to the wider literature or the broader implications of the research are ignored.

What constitutes national or international is not always clear cut. Studies involving the analysis of data or the participation of researchers from two or more countries might be considered international research. But what determines whether a journal is international—the origin of the content, its contributors, readership, citations of its articles or inclusion in some multicountry index such as SciELO? At what point does it become truly international? Svensson, Svaeri, and Einarsen’s (2009) analysis of the empirical contributions published in six major English-language hospitality and tourism research journals over the period 2000–2007 showed the geographical origin of the research data across the six publications to be 41.2% in North America, 27.1% in Europe, 22% in Asia, 12.8% in Australia, 2% in Africa, and 1.2% in South America. Such a widespread coverage, while unequal geographically, suggests these journals are indeed international. In two of them, however, the large majority of the contributions were from North America: the Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Association Quarterly (72.7%) and the Journal of Hospitality Tourism Research (64.8%). Might these two be considered essentially American journals?

Patterns of Internationalization

Some dimensions of internationalization can be operationalized and measured more readily than others. Tables 1 and 2 contain measures of international collaboration or copublication and indicators of the extent to which papers on tourism research focus on a single or multiple countries. Table 1 presents a breakdown of papers published in the Journal of Travel Research by origin of authorship and country(ies) studied over the period 2007–2011. The classification for the countries studied is based on where the data were collected; for example, a survey of Japanese visitors in Sydney is classified as Australia not Japan. It should also be noted that the data are for papers published; the distribution of submissions may be different. Table 2 provides a comparable analysis of the major Latin American tourism journal Estudios y Perspectivas en Turismo for the period 2005–July 2012.

Table 1.

Papers Published in Journal of Travel Research by Country of Author and Countries Studied (2007–2011).

	Countries Studied
	Single Countries																										Multiple Countries
Countries of author(s)	United States	Aus	Spn	Isr	NZ	United Kingdom	Chin	HK	Can	Neth	Nor	Switz	Thai	Germ	Nic	Viet	Taiw	Egypt	Cub	Port	Jpn	Slov	Kor	Fin	Austria	Sth Kor	Sth Africa	United States, Can	Aus, NZ	HK, United Kingdom	Turk, Cyp	Fran, Can	2 + countries	Non empirical studies	TOTAL	%
Single country																																				70%
United States	52	1				1		1							1				1														3	7	67	32%
Australia	2	13										1				1																	2	2	21	10%
Spain			7																																7	3%
Israel				6														1																	7	3%
New Zealand					5																													1	6	3%
United Kingdom						5																											1	1	7	3%
China							3																												3	1%
Hong Kong	2							3									1																1	2	9	4%
Canada									3																										3	1%
Netherlands										2																									2	1%
Norway											2																								2	1%
Switzerland												1																							1	0.5%
Thailand													1																						1	0.5%
Germany														1																				1	2	1%
Greece																																	1		1	0.5%
Finland																																		1	1	0.5%
Turkey																																		1	1	0.5%
Austria																																		5	5	2%
Multiple countries																																				30%
United States-other countries	12	2				1	1	1	1								1			1	1	1	1				1	1			1		3	1	30	14%
Australia-other countries		2				2	1	1				2																	1				1		10	5%
Other combinations			1	1	2	1	3	3						1						1				1	1	1				1		1	4	2	24	11%
Total	68	18	8	7	7	10	8	9	4	2	2	4	1	2	1	1	2	1	1	2	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	16	24	210	100%
	78%																										11%							11%

Table 2.

Papers Published in Estudios y Perspectivas de Turismo by Country of Author and Countries Studied (2007–July 2012).

	Countries Studied
	Single Countries																Multiple Countries
Countries of authors	Bra	Arg	Mex	Chi	Cub	Col	Uru	Per	Spn	Por	Alb	Nor	Tur	Cyp	Fiji	Pan	HK, Cyp	Brz, Chi	Cub, Mex	Brz, Esp	Arg, United States	Brz, Arg	Spn, Ger	2 + countries	Non empirical studies	Total	%
Latin American countries																											81%
Brazil	136						1		1									1				1		1	17	158	52%
Argentina		32						1													1				1	35	12%
Mexico			14																					1	9	24	8%
Chile				13																						13	4%
Cuba					7																					7	2%
Colombia						3																				3	1%
Uruguay							2																		1	3	1%
Peru								1																		1	0.3%
Venezuela									1																1	2	1%
Other countries																											14%
Spain		1							20						1								1	2	2	27	9%
Portugal	1								2	5						1									2	11	4%
Germany											1															1	0.3%
Norway												1														1	0.3%
United Kingdom						1																				1	0.3%
Turkey													1													1	0.3%
Malaysia																	1									1	0.3%
Taiwan																									1	1	0.3%
Multiple countries	2	1		1		1			2					1					1	2				2	1	14	5%
Total	139	34	14	14	7	5	3	2	26	5	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	1	1	1	6	35	304	100%
	84%																5%								11%

Of the 210 papers analyzed in the Journal of Travel Research, 87% were classified as empirical; the remainder were more theoretical papers. The vast majority (92%) of the empirical papers analyzed data from a single country. Of the 26 different single countries studied, the United States (37%) and Australia (10%) were the most popular. The multicountry papers covered a range of usually two or three country combinations. Overall, 70% of the papers were written by researchers from a single country; the proportion of single country authors was marginally less (68%) for the empirical papers but somewhat higher (88%) for the small number of nonempirical ones. Multicountry studies were carried out more frequently by cross-national collaborative research but still constituted a minority of the papers (12% compared with 6% by single-country authors). Half of the single-country papers were written by researchers based in the United States, with a further 17% coming from Australia; the remainder were spread among 16 other countries. Most of the collaborative papers involved researchers in pairs of countries. Combinations involving the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Hong Kong were the most common. The clustering of the results along the diagonal in Table 1 clearly demonstrates that single-country researchers focus, not surprisingly, on tourism within their own countries: American research is based on the United States, Australians focus on Australia, and so forth.

Similar patterns are found in the 304 papers in Estudios y Perspectivas en Turismo: 88% were empirical in nature and dominated by single-country studies (95%), all bar a handful of which were in Latin America. Authorship of the papers in the journal was overwhelmingly concentrated in single countries; only 4.6% involved cross-national collaborative research (usually within the region). The vast majority (81.9%) of the single-country contributors were Latin American: 54% were from Brazil and 12% from Argentina. Most of those from outside the region came from the linguistically related countries of Spain (9%) and Portugal (4 %). All bar one of the nonempirical papers came from single-country authors. Multicountry authorship essentially involved collaborative research between scholars from within Latin America; single countries were as much a focus of their research as multiple countries. In Table 2 there is a similar clustering of the results along the diagonal: Brazilians study Brazilian problems, Argentines those in Argentina, etc. When it does occur, internationalization here is Ibero-American rather than global in nature. Latin American researchers can of course publish in other outlets but the data from Svensson, Svaeri, and Einarsen (2009) suggest that it is not in the major English-language tourism and hospitality journals.

What Is Driving the Internationalization of Tourism Research?

Studies in the related areas of the internationalization of science and higher education suggest research internationalization is driven by multiple interrelated goals and rationales such as knowledge generation, improving quality standards and enhancing reputation and recognition (Knight 2004; Edler and Flanagan 2011). These occur at a range of scales: sectoral, institutional, and individual. Similar factors appear to be driving the internationalization of tourism research.

Creation of Knowledge and Transfer of Experience

For several decades, recognition of the international nature of tourism has led to internationalized research as a means of developing a broader and deeper understanding of this global phenomenon. Two main approaches might be identified here:

Research that seeks to develop a more integrated approach by analyzing particular aspects of tourism across international boundaries;

Research that endeavors to identify or test the generality of patterns and processes of tourism either through empirical studies in multiple countries or by contextualizing a problem with reference to some broader theory, framework, or model.

As the following examples show, both approaches might be undertaken in theoretical, empirical, or applied studies and might be carried out either to transfer experience from one part of the world to another or to generate new knowledge.

Early studies on tourism in developing countries were among the first to suggest that tourism development in such places might best be understood in terms of broader international processes that connect destinations to markets and by taking account of the forces and factors that control or influence the links and flows between them (Cazes 1980; Britton 1982). More recently, this line of inquiry has continued using concepts of globalization to examine how tourism in particular locales is shaped by the interaction of global and local forces (Teo and Li 2003; Agarwal 2005) or by adopting the framework of commodity chains to show how impacts at destinations are subject to issues of control and governance elsewhere along the chain (Clancy 1998; Mitchell and Faal 2007; Lapeyre 2011).

Other research has used the related framework of distribution channels to investigate the marketing linkages between countries (Buhalis and Laws 2001; Alcázar Martínez 2002; Pearce, Tan, and Schott 2007). Pearce, Tan, and Schott (2007), for example, undertook a comparative cross-national analysis of distribution channels from New Zealand’s three largest markets (Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom) that enabled them to develop a generalized model of international distribution systems and to identify practical marketing implications. Such cross-national research is resource intensive. In contrast, the use of new technologies has not only generated new research problems but also resulted in comparative international online studies, such as website analysis, that do not require expensive fieldwork in multiple countries (Giannopoulus and Mavragani 2011; Diekmann and Cloquet 2012).

By their very nature, various major topics attracting much attention at present demand internationalized research. The impacts of global climate change may be experienced and examined on a local or regional level but this is clearly an issue warranting more worldwide research and responses as shown by the work of the IPCC. Research on tourism and climate change has not yet been structured to the same degree but international collaborative efforts and larger-scale studies are beginning to show what might be done in this field and to demonstrate the value of taking a bigger picture (Schott 2010). On a rather different topic, that of destination competitiveness, Enright and Newton (2004, p. 781) observe that “competitiveness cannot be assessed in a vacuum.” While destination competitiveness can be examined within countries (Barbosa, Oliviera, and Rezende 2010), much of this growing body of research involves cross-national studies evaluating the position of a focal country relative to a set of competitors, for it is in the international market that competition is often the most intense (Pearce 1997; Enright and Newton 2004). Enright and Newton (2004), for instance, evaluated the competitiveness of Hong Kong on a range of attributes relative to the destination’s competitors in the Asia-Pacific region.

The transfer of experience—the desire to learn from what has happened elsewhere—has been a key practical rationale for instituting, undertaking, and disseminating research in multiple countries. Such research may be internationalized along several dimensions. An early example of such a project was the major research program to develop policy guidelines on tourism and the environment organized by the Environment Secretariat of the OECD from 1977 to 1979. The project was carried out under the aegis of this international body; it involved the preparation of 20 case studies in 12 member states, dissemination of the results at an international forum, followed by the synthesis of the key findings (OECD 1981a, 1981b). In a similar fashion, an ambitious cross-national study into the role of tourism as a factor of change was organized though the Vienna Centre (Bystrzanowski 1989). Much of the research prepared by the UNWTO or other international organizations is also of this nature; general principles in the recent report on destination management, for instance, are illustrated by boxed examples from various destinations (UNWTO 2007). In other cases, comparative international research is less institutionalized: Cottrell and Cutumisu (2006) compared aspects of a verified Protected Area Network (PAN) Park in Sweden with a candidate park in Romania in order to share lessons between the two.

The tourism special edition of the Brazilian journal Revista de Administração Pública contains papers presented at the Tourism in Rio de Janerio International Seminar held in January 2010. The emphasis here was on drawing Brazilians’ attention to international experiences at a time when the city was preparing to host the 2014 football World Cup and the 2016 Olympic Games (Macedo-Soares and de Queiroz Brunelli 2010). As well as articles on or from Brazil, the issue includes a paper by Ritchie and Crouch (2010) offering Brazilian perspectives on their earlier study of destination competitiveness; another (Delener 2010) on global tourism trends as seen from an American standpoint (“the United States constitutes an important benchmark for Brazil”); and a third on best practice for sustainable urban tourism drawing on examples from Australia (Scott and Cooper 2010).

Studies that contextualize a problem with reference to some broader theory, framework, or model may also play a significant role in demonstrating or contesting their generality by applying them in different situations or by elaborating on them from new perspectives. Reference to some broader theoretical or conceptual framework not only helps shape the individual piece of research but in so doing also links the study to larger questions and the wider literature. Subsequently, the results can also be interpreted in this context and the contribution of the study and new understanding resulting from it can be demonstrated and communicated more clearly (D.G. Pearce 2012). This can of course occur within countries, which is why particular schools of research may develop (Lazzarotti 2002; Kreisel 2004). Much of the large body of tourism research in the United States, such as that on decision making, is essentially based on studies of domestic tourism due to the large scale of that sector there. However, the wider use of theories and frameworks provides a better appreciation of the generality of the ideas and is a critical dimension of the internationalization of tourism research. As Warwick and Osherson (1973, p. 30) asserted, “All theory aims at generality in the relationships postulated between variables. Cross-cultural comparison is essential, for there is no other way to determine the generality of findings than to test them in all relevant cultural settings.”

Dann (2011) argues that four major variants of sociological theory embedded in the Anglophone tourism literature—authenticity, stranger-hood, play, and constructivism—all have European origins that he traces respectively to the work of Durkheim, Simmel, Veblen, and Said. Whether the Anglophone researchers Dann cites actually drew directly on such seminal studies is less clear. In other instances, there is a more direct and explicit use of concepts and theories around the world. Porter’s (1998) concept of clusters has been applied in a range of tourism studies outside of the United States, such as Australia (Jackson and Murphy 2002), Latin America (Varisco 2004), and Paris (Fabry 2009). In terms of more specific tourism models, Butler’s (1980) tourist area life cycle model has now been applied in more than twenty countries. This research shows both support for the model as well as variations on and exceptions to it (Lagiewski 2006). Much of the debate over Plog’s (1973) destination development model results from attempts to test its applicability in a range of cultural settings (Smith 1990; Litvin 2006). In a similar way, techniques and methodologies also become internationalized as they are adopted and applied to tourism problems throughout the world, for example, the Boston Consulting Group’s growth/share matrix, importance–performance analysis, network analysis, and the use of scenario planning (D.G. Pearce 2012).

The Internationalization of Education

The internationalization of education, including tourism education, has led to a growth in postgraduate studies by foreign students. Much of this growth has been out of Asia and from developing countries to universities in North America and the United Kingdom and to other countries such as France that have well-established tourism programs or active international recruitment policies. In this way, tourism research is internationalized along several dimensions. Postgraduate research by international students frequently, but not always, involves fieldwork in their home country under the supervision of a supervisor or committee from their host university. To meet the expectations and standards of the degree, the theoretical basis, research design, methodology, and presentation of the thesis normally follow the norms of the degree-granting university. Subsequent joint publication of papers resulting from the research may be in international journals rather than in publications in the student’s home country. If the student returns home on graduation, then it is likely future research will be influenced by the experience he or she has obtained while abroad, that they will maintain links with their host country and continue to access, refer to, and publish in those literatures to which they have been exposed. Such a process may bring many advantages in terms of increasing expertise, bringing new ideas, and raising standards.

The internationalization and mobility of tourism faculty tourism appears to vary widely. In countries such as France, recruitment policies have tended to favor nationals. P. Pearce (2011) comments on the relatively low input of international figures in Australia and notes that “the Australian research diaspora is also minimal.” Conversely, international faculty appear to be relatively more numerous in places such as Hong Kong and New Zealand. Significant variation occurs in factors affecting mobility, for example, entitlement to research and study leave—the norm in Australia and New Zealand but not in France or the United Kingdom. Such factors facilitate or limit opportunities to build up international networks, collaborate with foreign scholars, or carry out research abroad.

Assessment and Improvement of Quality Standards

In parts of the world, tourism research is subject to broader sectoral policies aimed at improving the quality of research, especially that funded by public monies. International benchmarking may form part of such policies and be incorporated in evaluating the research design or assessing the research output. Applications to research funding bodies such as the Czech Science Foundation, the Israel Science Foundation or the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong include evaluations by international referees. This may in part be because the pool of national referees in such fields as tourism may be small but more generally such input is sought to ensure the applications funded meet international standards. The Czech Science Foundation, for instance, requests referees to

evaluate the project’s quality by applying the same standards that are used internationally in your scientific discipline or at the main grants agency in your country. The Foundation’s aim is to support projects with high potential to produce internationally competitive results, namely publications in the profession’s best outlets such as journals with high impact factors in applicable fields.

Wide variation occurs elsewhere in the use of international reviewers: international evaluation happens often with the Swiss national research foundation; in Spain, government agencies assess applications internally using national experts; review panels in the United States may or may not include international scholars; and in Latin America little use is made of international reviewers.

National research assessment exercises based on an evaluation of research outputs may also be used to allocate public research monies and aim to lift quality by providing strong institutional incentives to obtain such funding. New Zealand’s Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF) was introduced in 2003 by the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) as a means of allocating research funding to tertiary institutions. Individual researchers are subject to a “quality evaluation” of their output, peer esteem, and contribution to the research environment expressed in terms of an A, B, C, or R category. Institutions are then ranked based on the aggregated scores of the researchers and funds allocated accordingly. The highest output scores are those based on “a platform of ‘world-class’ research that includes highly original work that ranks with the best of its kind” (TEC 2003, p. 10). In defining world-class, TEC emphasizes that the term “denotes a standard, not a type or focus of research” and does not necessarily include other components noted above:

The use of “world-class” . . . is not intended to suggest that those research outputs should relate to international themes, cross-national research comparisons, or are the focus of international interest. Nor does world-class imply research outputs generated by international collaborations.

While various characteristics of world-class research are noted, in practice the quality of the publications based on journal rankings and impact factors would appear to be a critical parameter. In terms of contribution to the research environment, leading researchers are expected “to demonstrate a contribution to New Zealand and/or international environments, for example, through extensive research networks and or collaborations.” Peer esteem is categorized hierarchically into “world-class” recognition, recognition “within New Zealand or elsewhere,” or “developing recognition.” In 2012, 4 of the 21 members of the Business and Economics Panel, which includes tourism, were international.

Other forms of international assessment of the quality of research outputs and researchers may also occur. In most New Zealand universities, for example, an international examiner is routinely included in the examination of PhD theses. More commonly, as in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, Spain, and Latin America, international examiners may be included but generally are not. In the latter two, cost, language, and lack of familiarity with foreign scholars may be constraining factors. In the United States, PhD committees are involved from the outset rather than just at the examination stage; this limits the engagement of international scholars in the process. Assessment from international referees may form part of the process for higher-level university promotions. At the author’s university, for example, promotion to professor is based on “evidence of international standing in research and scholarship, quality of teaching and service.” Applications must include the names of “6 referees of international standing in the discipline.” In many countries, promotions and appointments is essentially done internally: the international engagement and standing of candidates may be taken into account and input may be sought from international referees, but other factors such as strategic direction and internal politics often prevail. Insularity and national conceit may also play a role, that is, academia in some countries may feel international validation is not needed as their own standards are what matter.

These policies in turn increase the pressure on individuals to submit their research for publication in those journals recognized as the best in the field and, by extension, to produce work of the highest standards. In this way, internationalization as a policy and process of assessment contributes to the internationalized dissemination of research. Most tourism journals do have an international editorial board, though in some cases, especially with some foreign-language journals, they may be there to give an international cachet rather than provide editorial direction or actively serve as referees. In other cases, publication lists of referees indicate a truly international evaluation of submissions. In the period September 2010 to August 2011, papers in the Annals of Tourism Research were reviewed by more than 400 different referees whose origin was as follows: Europe 21%; United Kingdom 18%; United States 18%; Australia 15%; Asia 12%; New Zealand 5%; Canada 4%; rest of the world 7%.

Size

The size of a country, its tourism sector, and its scholarly community also influence the drive for and degree of internationalization through the range of opportunities available nationally. Large countries such as the United States will have a greater range of publication outlets, whether specialized journals or book publishers, a larger community of researchers with whom to exchange ideas, and a bigger pool of referees and reviewers to draw upon. In contrast, tourism researchers in smaller nations or where tourism research is in an early stage of development may have little option but to publish abroad (the editors of several international tourism journals are based in New Zealand but no national tourism journals are published there) or to seek reviewers from elsewhere, especially when conflicts of interest may arise because of a small pool of experts. This may explain the prominence of researchers from such places as Hong Kong and New Zealand in the international tourism literature and the importance institutions there attach to external reviewers in their assessments.

What Is the Role of Language in Internationalization?

Language plays a major role in the dissemination of research findings and in the uptake of ideas and techniques; it can both facilitate access and act as a major barrier. This in turn influences what is studied and how research is carried out, presented, and interpreted and thus the degree of internationalization that occurs. In a rather caustic account of Anglophone hegemony in tourism studies, Dann (2011) presents a series of measures relating to tourism researchers, research centers, members of international societies, book publishers, and journals to argue convincingly that the field is dominated by Anglophone scholars and English-language publications. As Xiao, Su, and Li (2010) note, this is not uncommon in the social sciences. Dann (2011, p. 5) speaks of the “vicious circle of de facto Anglo-Saxon control of tourism studies in English for Anglophones” and claims (p. 15) “tourism research seems to be dominated by monoglot Anglophones who are either unwilling or unable to learn another language, and hence are blissfully unaware of what is taking place elsewhere in the world.” However, tourism researchers speaking languages other than English also naturally come together to share research within their own linguistic community. The biennial Rendez-vous Champlain, for example, was established in 2006 by institutions in la Rochelle, Angers, and Quebec “to reinforce collaboration between researchers on either side of the Atlantic . . . these Rendez-vous are largely open to all those who use the language of Molière for scientific communication” (Le Masson and Violier 2009, p. 111).

In this context, the translation of key works can break down barriers and promote greater internationalization. Lazzarotti (2002, p. 141) writes that the French edition of D.G. Pearce’s (1993a) book on the geography of tourism “facilitated awareness of alternative approaches” amongst geographers in France while Vera et al. (2011, p. 53) observe that the same edition “was an event marked by the diffusion in the Latin world of the Anglo-Saxon point of view.” In their review of the development of tourism research in Latin America, Schlüter and Bertoncello (2010) also comment on the role and importance of translated books from international authors in the early 1990s when studies of the sector were just beginning.

Schlüter and Bertoncello then outline (p. 140) some of the benefits and difficulties with including translated contributions from English-speaking writers and articles from specialists from Spain in Estudios y Perspectivas en Turismo:

Even though these contributions did not reflect the problems of the region, they made an important theoretical contribution towards the knowledge of tourism. . . . Later these contributions were not encouraged so often, since the main libraries in the USA, in the United Kingdom and Spain threatened to cancel their subscriptions on the grounds they expected a Latin American journal to deal with Latin American matters written by Latin Americans.

This latter influence helps explain the patterns shown in Table 2. In contrast, other regional journals such as the Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research and the Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism are published in English, as is the Journal of China Tourism Research. Other journals publish articles in two or more languages, such as the recently established Caribbean journal Ara Journal of Tourism Research that accepts articles in English and Spanish. Some journals still have abstracts in a second language, though this practice may be dying. The desire to increase exposure beyond a particular linguistic community is evident in the special Master Class edition of a Polish tourism journal where the editor expressed the hope that “an English-language publication of Folia Turistica combined with the publication of so many outstanding foreign names, should mark out a ‘Polish presence’ in the international tourism arena (something which Polish researchers seldom manage to achieve regrettably)” (Alejziak 2011, p. 9). The special issue, he suggested, might also mark the first step in making the journal an English-language or bilingual publication. The newly launched online journal Via@international Interdisciplinary Review of Tourism has taken the initiative to publish versions of all papers in English and two European languages. The rationale for this approach is given in the editorial of the first issue in 2102:

Everyone can write in his/her native language, which allows for the expression of more nuance than in a more or less well controlled foreign language, and yet be read in a great number of countries. Indeed, to be published in German, Catalan, Spanish, French, Italian or Portuguese, as well as in English and in a third language is an exceptional opportunity that this journal offers. Our objective [is] of a better distribution of works of research in a field too exclusively dominated by the use of English. The Anglo-American world will gain access to an often ignored literature and to other ways of thinking which, in the field of humanities and social sciences, can only improve the quality of research and the objective of general interest.

Is this the future of disseminating research? It marks a significant innovation but it is too early to say whether such a multilingual approach will improve international uptake and whether the additional resources required can be maintained as only the first issue had appeared at the time of writing.

In an age when literature reviews are now largely based on online searches, the language(s) of the databases play a significant role in accessing studies. While Google Scholar includes references and citations in languages other than English, others, such as Scopus and Tourism and Hospitality Complete, are limited to English; this can create the generally misleading impression that no other research on the topic searched has been published. The rankings of league tables of researchers, citations, and so forth are also open to question when based solely on English-language sources or journals as is commonly the case.

Xiao, Su, and Li’s (2010) analysis of citations of foreign sources in the three leading tourism journals in China provides some interesting measures and insights into the extent to which tourism knowledge is diffused across linguistic communities, in this case in a country that has emerged as a major destination and market in recent years, where there has been a substantial growth in tourism research and where there is a very large and distinctive language community (or communities). Two thirds of the articles in the Tourism Tribune and Tourism Science used foreign-language references compared to 42% in Tourism Forum. English references dominated, constituting 95% of all foreign sources in the three journals. Reference to foreign references was highest in articles introducing a new method or concept to Chinese researchers, in those dealing with an overseas phenomenon and in review articles. Factors contributing to the increasing use of foreign sources included online access, greater foreign-language proficiency, postgraduate study abroad, and international research collaboration. In a related article on the behavioral aspects of Chinese academics citing foreign-language sources, Xiao, Xiao, and Li (2012) identified perceived quality as the key factor for using these references.

Without going into such a detailed quantitative analysis, a scan of foreign-language tourism journals such as Estudios y Perspectivas en Turismo would suggest a marked asymmetry in the flow of knowledge as evidenced by citations; articles in these journals cite English-language works more frequently than the leading English tourism journals refer to foreign works.

Publication in a well-regarded English language journal may enhance the reputation of speakers of other languages but the reverse may also occur; language barriers may constrain internationalization by the lesser recognition that publishing in a foreign language may bring. Part of the nomination process for election to the International Academy for the Study of Tourism, for example, involves submission of a résumé listing major publications. That these cannot be evaluated effectively by members who cannot read them might limit the diversity of the Academy’s membership (Dann 2011).

What Is the Significance and Impact of Internationalization?

What then are the theoretical and practical implications of this internationalization? A fundamental issue is the underlying tension between the greater uniformity and standardization that internationalization can bring and the diversity that may be required to respond to or result from local and national contexts and needs. Do we imitate or innovate? This tension exists at different levels and manifests itself in various ways.

The earlier discussion on the generation and transfer of knowledge has highlighted the positive benefits of increased internationalization, such as the work on development, globalization, commodity chains, distribution, and tourism and global climate change. International studies on these topics have extended the dichotomous investigation of markets and destinations through more integrated investigation into the processes and forces that link the two sets of places or consider problems in a more global fashion. The use of comparative cross-national studies has also enabled commonalities and peculiarities to be identified in the various impacts tourism may bring and has been fundamental to research on destination competitiveness. Though much remains to be done, the international application of theories and concepts in a variety of international settings has enabled their generality to be tested to some degree. The increased and widespread use of techniques such as importance–performance analysis has often led to more rigorous critiques and subsequent refinement (Oh 2001).

The search for universality and the development of robust methodologies is a basic characteristic of positivism but the greater uniformity that may result runs counter to the development of pluralism and the generation of multiple insights into tourism. Writing of his compatriot Australian tourism researchers, P. Pearce (2011, p. 199) suggests “they are usually associated with a kind of tourism interest rather than with the badge of conceptual innovation . . . we are a fusion culture with truly little indigenous fare.” However, in reference to the return home of American-schooled postgraduate Asian students, P. Pearce earlier (2004, p. 62) went so far as to argue this scenario “effectively amounts to a form of academic neo-colonialism where some of the brightest students from Asia are educated in the traditions of Western social science thinking and if they return to Asia transmit these ideas in their own setting. Viewed in this way, innovation in the theoretical realm is difficult.” In particular, he laments the loss of opportunity to develop new theoretical perspectives drawing on Asian cultural traditions.

In a similar vein, Xiao, Su, and Li (2010, p. 329) reported: “In light of tourism as an arena of social sciences largely dominated by western research paradigms, Yu (2009) eloquently articulated a case in which he urged Chinese scholars to embark on and embrace traditional Chinese philosophy and Chinese Studies . . . to tackle the epistemic and methodological dilemma in China tourism research.” Elsewhere, the emergence of tourism studies in developing countries, particularly in Africa, by a new generation of indigenous researchers, means that research in this field is no longer solely the realm of Western (and some Japanese) scholars and that these new researchers through their language and culture may be better placed to investigate many topics or express and interpret them in their own terms.

It is not just culture that differs throughout the world; tourism itself may take on various forms that are more evident in some places than others with a corresponding variation on the significance of associated issues and research problems. The strength of academic traditions in particular countries may also contribute to variations in internationalization by discipline and theme. Albacete-Sáez and del Mar Fuentes-Fuentes’s (2010) analysis of publications by Spanish researchers in leading English-language tourism journals revealed a predominance of papers on economics and business and the use of quantitative methods. In contrast, Benckendorff’s (2009) social network analysis of citations by Australian and New Zealand tourism researchers found their work to be driven by theories from sociology, anthropology, and psychology while the attitudes, perceptions, and motivations of tourists appeared as a key theme. The most influential scholars were either from Australia and New Zealand or the United States and the United Kingdom.

If researchers slavishly follow international trends in tourism research or agendas developed elsewhere, issues that are important locally or nationally may be overlooked or neglected. In addition, focusing on national issues may generate new insights and lead to conceptual, theoretical, or methodological developments. For instance, in contrast to the dominant research focus on the distribution of resort-based mass package tourism coming out of Europe (Buhalis and Laws 2001; Alcázar Martínez 2002), the recent body of work from New Zealand has drawn attention to the need to examine the way tourism products are distributed to and accessed by independent tourists engaged in circuit travel, a major segment in that country. This new strand of research contributed to the development of a more comprehensive needs–functions model of tourism distribution that incorporates packaged, independent, and customized segments (D.G. Pearce 2008) and also led to the elaboration of a method for evaluating multichannel performance that emphasizes the breadth of revenue streams and cost categories that needs to be taken into account (Pearce and Taniguchi 2008).

Similar considerations apply in terms of the transfer of experience, whether for policy-making or industry applications. Learning from the experience of others, as in the OECD (1981a, 1981b) environment project or the Rio de Janeiro conference (Macedo-Soares and Brunelli 2010), may be efficient and effective. Looking to the experience of others elsewhere may be particularly attractive before embarking on new directions or undertakings of our own. Wheatcroft (1988), for example, drew parallels between the American experience of deregulation in the 1980s and likely changes in the European airline industry in the 1990s. Can policy makers involved in tourism in the transitional economies of Asia today learn from examining what happened in Eastern Europe of the 1990s? Care and caution are needed when looking to make comparisons and transfer experiences. The critical issue here is that of equivalence (D.G. Pearce 1993b). To what extent are concepts, data, and methodologies equivalent? Can policies, practices, and results be transferred from one country to another in a meaningful way? After systematically examining tourist organizations in six countries D.G. Pearce (1992, p. 200) concluded: “There is no single best type of organization nor inter-organizational network, rather each country must evolve a system which best reflects local, regional and national conditions.”

A further critical question is to what extent has internationalization produced better tourism research? As the preceding discussion has shown, this depends on one’s perspective and on what is considered to be good or better research but in the areas outlined above some progress can be attributed to internationalization. As to whether internationalization is raising standards in particular countries there is as yet little evidence from which conclusions might be drawn? Analysis of the general impact of the PBRF in New Zealand suggests some impact on research productivity but the effect on research quality is less clear (Gibson, Tressler, and Anderson 2008; Smart 2009). A survey of recent research on tourism in China revealed that studies published in the top Chinese journals were less sophisticated methodologically than papers on China published in the six leading English-language tourism and hospitality journals; the former were characterized by a much greater dependence on lower-level qualitative research, a single method of data collection, and less varied forms of data analysis (Hsu, Huang, and Huang 2010). The survey’s authors concluded (p. 159): “The limited but promising publications by researchers from mainland China in English journals and by those from overseas scholars in Chinese journals suggests increasing academic exchange and collaboration across geographic regions.” The reservations expressed by Xiao, Su, and Li (2010) in this regard have already been noted.

Discussion and Conclusions

This review has shown the types and levels of internationalization of tourism research vary considerably throughout the world. There are indications that this process is increasing (Albacete-Sáez and del Mar Fuentes-Fuentes 2010; Xiao and Smith 2006; Xiao, Su, and Li 2010) but if the patterns shown in Tables 1 and 2 are indicative, overall levels are still rather low. As discussed in the previous section, there are benefits to the separate development of national schools of research in terms of relevance and plurality but at the same time progress in tourism research in general would appear to be slowed and constrained by the low levels of cross-fertilization taking place. This is particularly explicit in the frustration expressed by the editors of non-English-language journals cited earlier but more commonly it is seen in the limitations sections of journal articles where disclaimers are issued about the extent to which the results can be generalized beyond an often restricted sample or context. How often are calls to extend the research to other settings followed up let alone tested by comprehensive, cross-national studies? To what extent has the pace of tourism research been slowed by the inefficient transfer of ideas and findings between language groups or from one part of the world to another? The proliferation of international conferences and the spread of open access online journals suggest this situation may be improving but language issues remain and the tyranny of distance still prevails for those with limited travel grants.

What then are the ways forward? The fundamental issue is the need for a more general recognition of the importance of internationalization and an explicit acknowledgement that studies being done in different parts of the world may be of value and contribute to our greater understanding of tourism. This requires a more open mindset amongst tourism scholars and the institutions to which they are affiliated and more research on the process and implications of internationalization. In terms of the former, this article has endeavored to show some of the benefits of broadening our horizons. From a practical perspective, the use of integrative frameworks to bring together work on given themes within particular language-based literatures might facilitate bridging divides between linguistic communities. These syntheses could serve as the basis for more efficient and effective transfers of knowledge across the globe as it would reduce the amount of translation required and enable researchers to focus on the essence of the findings.

With regard to further research, tourism might be subjected to studies similar to those being carried out on the internationalization of science, for example, those examining the links between the different dimensions of internationalization and the quality of tourism research. In the broader field of science, Abramo, D’Angelo, and Solazzi (2011, p. 630) report that various studies show that “the products originating from research collaborations are characterized by better quality” (as measured by citations or the impact factors). This was especially the case with international collaborations. However, their own bibliometric study of individual researchers in the hard sciences at Italian universities showed that while productivity and collaboration were strongly correlated, there existed only a weak relationship between the intensity of international collaboration and the quality of a scientist’s research output.

Recent research on tourism research collaboration (Racherla and Hu 2010) might be extended to include closer analysis of its international dimensions as well as the impact of such collaboration on the quality of the research being done. Likewise, work on knowledge management and transfer in tourism (Cooper and Sheldon 2010) might be enlarged to include a stronger international component and that on the innovation and internationalization of tourism firms (Williams and Shaw 2010) could be broadened to tourism research centers and the behavior of individual researchers. Research on the publishing and citation behavior of English-language scholars comparable to that being done in such places as Spain and China (Albacete-Sáez and del Mar Fuentes-Fuentes 2010; Xiao, Xiao, and Li 2012) would shed more light on the asymmetric transfer of knowledge between English and other literatures.

The underlying tension between the specific and the general will persist but might be addressed by using frameworks that take more explicit account of cultural, political, economic, and physical conditions by incorporating micro- and macroenvironmental factors in their research design and analysis (D.G. Pearce 1992; Crouch and Ritchie 1999; Flagestad and Hope 2001; Jamal and Lee 2003; Zhao and Ritchie 2007). Such frameworks and approaches accommodate the broader problematization of an issue while recognizing the role of context (D.G. Pearce 2012).

More generally, researchers in many parts of the world, especially where case studies prevail, need to make a greater effort to engage the interest of scholars elsewhere by demonstrating more explicitly why particular studies done in Latin America, Asia, or in any other region might be of value to them. The key here lies in the way in which research problems are formulated, the way in which they are shown to address a bigger question, relate to a particular theory or offer some methodological refinement or development. These factors in turn subsequently enable the broader significance of the findings and the overall contribution of the study (whether theoretical, methodological, or applied) to be demonstrated more clearly. If this is done well, it matters less whether the empirical research is done in China or Brazil, Australia or the United States.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Cesar Guala Catalan assisted with the compilation of Tables 1 and .

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author received funding assistance from Victoria Research Trust Research Grant 8-113873-2309 for the research of this article.

Author Biography

Douglas G. Pearce is Professor of Tourism Management in the School of Management at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. He received his doctorate from the Université d’Aix-Marseille II and has undertaken tourism research in New Zealand, Europe, South-East Asia, Belize, Hawaii, and the South Pacific.

References

Abramo

D’Angelo

C. A.

Solazzi

(2011). “The Relationship between Scientists’ Research Performance and the Degree of Internationalization of Their Research.” Scientometrics, 86: 629-43.

Agarwal

(2005). “Global-Local Interactions in English Coastal Resorts: Theoretical Perspectives.” Tourism Geographies, 7: 351-72.

Albacete-Sáez

C.A.

del Mar Fuentes-Fuentes

(2010) “Difusión de la investigación española sobre turismo en revistas internacionales.” Revista de Análisis Turístico, 9: 14-20.

Alcázar Martínez

B. del

. (2002). Los Canales de Distribución en el Sector Turístico. Madrid: Editorial ESIC.

Alejziak

(2011). “To the Reader.” Folia Turistica, 25: 7-9.

Altinay

(2007). “The Internationalization of Hospitality Firms: Factors Influencing a Franchise-Decision-Making Process.” Journal of Services Marketing, 21: 398-409.

Barbosa

L. G. M.

de Oliviera

C.T. F.

Rezende

(2010). “Competitiveness of Tourist Destinations: The Study of 65 Key Destinations for the Development of Regional Tourism.” Revista de Administração Pública, 44: 1067-95.

Benckendorff

(2009). “Themes and Trends in Australian and New Zealand Tourism Research: A Social Network Analysis of Citations in Two Leading Journals (1994-2007).” Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 16: 1-15.

Britton

(1982). “The Political Economy of Tourism in the Third World.” Annals of Tourism Research, 9: 331-58.

10.

Buhalis

Laws

, eds. (2001). Tourism Distribution Channels: Practices, Issues and Transformations. London: Continuum.

11.

Butler

(1980). “The Concept of a Tourist Area Life Cycle of Evolution: Implications for Management of Resources.” Canadian Geographer, 24: 5-12.

12.

Bystrzanowski

, ed. (1989). Tourism as a Factor of Change: A Sociocultural Study. Vienna: European Coordination Centre for Research and Documentation in Social Sciences.

13.

Calof

J. L.

Beamish

P. W.

(1995). “Adapting to Foreign Markets: Explaining Internationalization.” International Business Review, 4: 115-31.

14.

Cazes

(1980). “Les avances pionnières du tourisme international dans le Tiers Monde: réflexions sur un système décisionnel multinational en cours de constitution.” Travaux de l’Institut de Géographie de Reims, 43-44: 15-26.

15.

Clancy

(1998). “Commodity Chains, Services and Development: Theory and Preliminary Evidence from the Tourism Industry.” Review of International Political Economy, 5 (1): 122-48.

16.

Cooper

Sheldon

(2010). “Knowledge Management in Tourism: From Databases to Learning Destinations.” In Tourism Research: A 20-20 Vision, edited by Pearce

D. G.

Butler

R. W.

Oxford: Goodfellow, pp. 215-27.

17.

Cottrell

Cutumisu

(2006). “Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy in WWF Pan Parks: Case of a Swedish and Romanian National Park.” Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality & Tourism, 6(2): 150-67.

18.

Crouch

G. I.

Ritchie

J. R. B.

(1999). “Tourism, Competitiveness and Societal Prosperity.” Journal of Business Research, 44: 137-52.

19.

Dann

G. M. S.

(2011). “Anglophone Hegemony in Tourism Studies Today.” EnlighteningTourism: A Pathmaking Journal, 1: 1-30.

20.

Delener

(2010). “Current Trends in the Global Tourism Industry: Evidence from the United States.” Revista de AdministraçãoPública, 44: 1049-66.

21.

Diekmann

Cloquet

(2012) “How ‘Capital’ Are Capital Cities on the Internet?” Current Issues in Tourism, 15 (1/2): 19-33.

22.

Edler

Flanagan

(2011). “Indicator Needs for the Internationalisation of Science Policies.” Research Evaluation, 20: 7-17.

23.

Enright

M. J.

Newton

(2004). Tourism Destination Competitiveness: A Quantitative Approach.” Tourism Management, 25: 777-88.

24.

Fabry

(2009). “Clusters de tourisme et compétivité des acteurs: une solution pour conforter le tourisme d’affaires et événementiel parisien?” In Destinations et Territoires: Co-présence à l’œuvre, edited by Lemasson

J.-P.

Violier

Québec: Editions Téoros/ Presses de l’Université de Québec, pp. 55-68.

25.

Flagestad

Hope

C. A.

(2001). “Strategic Success in Winter Sports Destinations: A Sustainable Value Creation Perspective.” Tourism Management, 22: 445-61.

26.

Giannopoulus

A. A.

Maavragani

E.P.

(2011). “Traveling through the Web: A First Step toward a Comparative Analysis of European National Tourism Websites.” Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 20: 718-39.

27.

Gibson

Tressler

Anderson

D. L.

(2008). “Do Research Assessment Exercises Raise the Returns to Publication Quality? Evidence from the New Zealand Market for Academic Economists.” Department of Economics Working Paper in Economics, University of Waikato, 11/08.

28.

Hsu

C. H. C.

Huang

(2010). “Tourism and Hospitality Research in Mainland China: Trends from 2000-2008.” In Tourism Research: A 20/20 Vision, edited by Pearce

D. G.

Butler

R. W.

Oxford: Goodfellow, pp. 147-60.

29.

Jackson

Murphy

(2002). “Tourism Destinations as Clusters: Analytical Experiences from the New World.” Tourism & Hospitality Research, 4: 36-52.

30.

Jamal

Lee

J. H.

(2003). “Integrating Micro and Macro Approaches to Tourist Motivations: Toward an Interdisciplinary Theory.” Tourism Analysis, 8: 47-59.

31.

Knight

J. K.

(2004).“Internationalization Remodeled: Definition, Approaches, and Rationales.” Journal of Studies in International Education, 8: 5-31.

32.

Kreisel

(2004). “Geography of Leisure and Tourism-Research in the German-Speaking World: Three Pillars of Progress.” Tourism Geographies, 6: 163-85.

33.

Lagiewski

R. M.

(2006). “The application of the TALC model.” In The Tourism Area Life Cycle, edited by Butler

R. W.

Clevedon: Channel View, pp. 27-50.

34.

Lapeyre

(2011). “For What Stands the ’B’ in the CBT Concept: Community-Based or Community-Biased Tourism? Some Insights from Namibia.” Tourism Analysis, 16: 187-202.

35.

Lazzarotti

(2002). “French Tourism Geographies: A Review.” Tourism Geographies, 4: 135-47.

36.

Lemasson

J.-P.

Violier

(2009). “Avant-propos.” In Destinations et Territoires: Co-présence à l’œuvre, edited by Lemasson

J.-P.

Violier

Québec: Editions Téoros/Presses de l’Université de Québec, pp. iii-v.

37.

Litvin

S. W.

(2006). “Revisiting Plog’s Model of Allocentricity and Pyschocentricity…One More Time.” Cornell Restaurant and Hotel Administration Quarterly 47: 245-53.

38.

Macedo-Soares

T. D. L. V. A.

Brunelli

(2010) “Tourism Special Edition.” Revista de Administração Pública, 44: 1047-48.

39.

Milkov

(2012). “Internationalization of Pediatric Sleep Apnea Research.” International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 76: 219-26.

40.

Mitchell

Faal

(2007). “Holiday Package Tourism and the Poor in the Gambia.” Development Southern Africa, 24: 445-64.

41.

Murad

A. A.

Tomov

D. D.

(2012). “Institutionalization and Internationalization of Research on the Applications of the Geographical Information Systems in Health Planning.” Scientometrics, 91: 143-58.

42.

OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). (1981a). The Impact of Tourism on the Environment. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

43.

OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). (1981b). Case Studies of the Impact of Tourism on the Environment. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

44.

(2001). “Revisiting Importance-Performance Analysis.” Tourism Management, 22: 617-27.

45.

Pearce

D. G.

(1992). Tourist Organizations. Harlow: Longman; New York: Wiley.

46.

Pearce

D. G.

(1993a). Géographie du Tourisme. Paris: Nathan.

47.

Pearce

D. G.

(1993b). “Comparative Studies in Tourism Research.” In Tourism Research: Critiques and Challenges, edited by Pearce

D. G.

Butler

R. W.

London: Routledge, pp. 20-35.

48.

Pearce

D. G.

(1997). “Competitive Destination Analysis in Southeast Asia.” Journal of Travel Research, 35 (4): 16-24.

49.

Pearce

D. G.

(2008). “A Needs-Functions Model of Tourism Distribution.” Annals of Tourism Research, 35: 148-68.

50.

Pearce

D. G.

(2012). Frameworks for Tourism Research. Wallingford: CABI.

51.

Pearce

D. G.

Tan

Schott

(2007). “Distribution Channels in International Markets: A Comparative Analysis of the Distribution of New Zealand Tourism in Australia, Great Britain and the USA.” Current Issues in Tourism, 10: 33-60.

52.

Pearce

D. G.

Taniguchi

(2008). “Channel Performance in Multi-channel Tourism Distribution Systems.” Journal of Travel Research, 46: 256-67.

53.

Pearce

(2004). “Theoretical Innovation in Asia Pacific Tourism.” Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 9:57-70.

54.

Pearce

P. L.

(2011). “Respecting the Past, Preparing for the Future: The Rise of Australian Academic Tourism Research.” Folia Turistica, 25: 187-205.

55.

Plog

S. C.

(1973). “Why Destinations Rise and Fall in Popularity.” Cornell Restaurant and Hotel Administration Quarterly, 28: 43-45.

56.

Ponds

(2009). “The Limits of Internationalization of Scientific Research Collaboration.” Journal of Technology Transfer, 34: 76-94.

57.

Porter

M. E.

(1998). On Competition. Boston: Harvard Review Press.

58.

Racherla

(2010). “A Social Network Persective of Tourism Research Collaborations.” Annals of Tourism Research, 37: 1012-34.

59.

Ritchie

J. R. B.

Crouch

G. I.

(2010). “A Model of Destination Competitiveness/Sustainability: Brazilian Perspectives.” Revista de Administração Pública, 44: 1049-66.

60.

Scott

Cooper

(2010). “Innovation for Sustainable Urban Tourism: Some Thoughts on Best Practice.” Revista de Administração Pública, 44: 1171-90.

61.

Schlüter

Bertoncello

(2010). “Tourism Research in Latin America: Past and Future Challenges.” In Tourism Research: A 20/20 Vision, edited by Pearce

D. G.

Butler

R. W.

Oxford: Goodfellow, pp. 135-46.

62.

Schott

, ed. (2010). Tourism and the Implications of Climate Change: Issues and Actions. Bingley: Emerald.

63.

Smart

(2009). “The Impact of the Performance-Based Research Fund on the Research Productivity of New Zealand Universities.” Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 34:136-51.

64.

Smith

S. L. J.

(1990). “A Test of Plog’s Allocentric/Pyschocentric Model: Evidence from Seven Nations.” Journal of Travel Research, 28 (4): 40-43.

65.

Svensson

Svaeri

Einarsen

(2009). “Empirical Characteristics of Scholarly Journals in Hospitality and Tourism Research: An Assessment.” International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28: 479-83.

66.

Teo

L. H.

(2003). “Global and Local Interactions in Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research, 30: 287-306.

67.

Tertiary Education Commission. (2003). Performance-Based Research Fund—Quality Evaluation: Assessment Guide. Wellington: Tertiary Education Commission.

68.

UNWTO. (2007). A Practical Guide to Tourism Destination Management. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.

69.

Varisco

(2004). “El cluster turístico de Miramar.” Aportes y Transferencias, 8(2): 61-88.

70.

Vera

J. F.

López Palomeque

Marchena

M. J.

Anton Clavé

(2011). Análisis Territorial del Turismo y Planificación de Destinos Turísticos. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.

71.

Warwick

D. P.

Osherson

(1973). Comparative Research Methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

72.

Wheatcroft

(1988). “European Air Transport in the 1990s.” Tourism Management, 9: 187-98.

73.

Williams

A. M.

Shaw

(2010). “Internationalization and Innovation in Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research, 38: 27-51.

74.

Xiao

Smith

S. L. J.

(2006). “The Making of Tourism Research: Insights from a Social Sciences Journal.” Annals of Tourism Research, 33: 490-507.

75.

Xiao

(2010). “Diffusion of Knowledge across Linguistic Communities: The Case of Using ‘Foreign’ Sources for Tourism Research in China.” Journal of China Tourism Research, 6: 326-42.

76.

Xiao

(2012). “The Citing Behavior of Citing: A Persepctive of Science Communication across Languages.” Journal of China Tourism Research, 8: 334-56.

77.

(2009). “Chinese Tourism Researchers Should Enhance Their Levels of Chinese Studies” (in Chinese). Tourism Tribune, 24 (7): 10-11.

78.

Zhao

Ritchie

J. R. B.

(2007). “Tourism and Poverty Alleviation: An Integrative Research Framework.” Current Issues in Tourism, 10: 119-143.