Beyond the “Tourist Environmental Bubble”: Encounters with Locals and Destination Experiences of Business Travelers

Abstract

The current study explores the destination experiences of business travelers by focusing on their social contacts with local colleagues. By crossing out of the local “tourist environmental bubble” (TEB), as conceptualized by Erik Cohen, business travelers are expected to experience difficulties associated with the strangeness of the visited destination but to gain an authentic experience in return. Based on in-depth interviews (n = 28) and a quantitative survey (n = 231) of Israeli business travelers, this mixed-methods study confirms that the supposedly inconvenient extra-TEB experience (particularly confronting strangeness) turns out to be rewarding, and the assumed benefits of crossing out of the bubble (mainly experiencing authenticity) are limited. By focusing on business travelers, the current study provides insight into guest–host interactions and the subjective experiences of travelers who cross out the TEB, mainly with respect to the complex and multidimensional sense of authenticity.

Keywords

tourist-bubble business travel social contact experiences authenticity

Introduction

By arguing that in modern tourism “hosts are no longer hosts, just service providers, and guests are no longer guests, just customers,” Aramberri (2001, p. 746) calls into question the use of the terms “host” and “guest” in the host–guest paradigm. His statement reflects the conventional assumption that most cross-cultural contacts in tourist destinations are those between leisure tourists and “professional hosts” (Maoz 2006). With contacts with the locals being confined to professional hosts and tourist experiences being confined to familiar settings provided by the local tourism industry, the vast majority of leisure tourists experience the visited destination within a “tourist environmental bubble” (TEB), as conceptualized by Erik Cohen (1972). This TEB functions as a “protective wall,” shielding the traveler from the risks and inconveniences associated with the “strangeness” of a particular destination, but also erecting a barricade separating the visitor from an authentic experience of that destination (Cohen 1972). Cohen (1972) associates the interactions and experiences inside the TEB mainly with the “institutionalized” tourist roles that capture much of the attention in tourism studies. Research on supposedly less institutionalized leisure tourists, such as backpackers, has revealed that they, too, tend to gather in ghettos or enclaves that provide them with the sort of bubble developed specifically for this segment of leisure tourism (Cohen 2003; Maoz and Bekerman 2010; O’Reilly 2006). In the current paper, we do not challenge these observations regarding the commodification of hospitality and the institutionalization of most leisure tourists, but we do seek to throw light on the contemporary tourism that includes travelers who often want, or have the opportunity, to experience the destination beyond the TEB through interactions with locals who are not “professional hosts.”

The latest official statistics of the World Tourism Organization indicate that only about one half (55 %) of the international tourism market is composed of tourists who travel for leisure/recreation/holiday (UNWTO 2018). Of the remaining 45% of international travelers, 13% reported traveling for business and 27%, for other reasons, such as visiting friends and relatives (VFR), religious practices, health treatment, volunteering activities, etc. (with the remaining approximately 5% being unaccounted for). For these travelers, key features of the tourist experience, such as recreation, sight-seeing, and pleasure, are combined with conventional everyday-life experiences, including family obligations, work requirements, religious practices, and ideological commitments. Such travelers who were previously “labeled” part-tourists (Cohen 1974) are now referred to as hybrid travelers (Unger, Uriely, and Fuchs 2016). Compared with leisure tourists, these hybrid travelers are more likely to interact with locals who are not professional hosts and to experience the destination beyond the TEB. Even though they will engage in short and superficial encounters with professional hosts (Maoz 2006), such as cab drivers, hotel receptionists, and waiters, hybrid travelers are more likely to experience longer and possibly more profound interactions with local residents, who might be their colleagues, clients, relatives, friends, physicians, or spiritual leaders. By interacting with locals such as these, hybrid travelers will gain entry to local sites that are less accessible to leisure tourists, such as homes and shops in residential neighborhoods, workplaces in industrial or financial districts, and bars and restaurants outside the tourist area.

The subjective experiences of hybrid travelers have received some attention in various areas of tourism scholarship, including VFR tourism (Ashtar, Shani, and Uriely 2017; Shani 2013; Shani and Uriely 2012; Uriely 2010), business travel (Cohen and Gossling 2015; Cohen, Hanna, and Gossling 2018; Unger, Uriely, and Fuchs 2016), political tourism (Belhassen, Uriely, and Assor 2014), health tourism (Abubakar and Ilkan 2016), and volunteer tourism (Mclntosh and Zahra 2007; Proyrungroj 2017). Yet, the interactions of these tourists with the locals and their experiences beyond the TEB require further conceptualization and more empirical research. This gap is clearly evident in the study of business travelers, in which guest–host interactions and their impact on the subjective experiences of the traveler have been neglected. For example, the recent study of Unger, Uriely, and Fuchs (2016) portrayed the destination experience of business travelers mainly as a work-related experience, but did not address the nature of the interactions of the business traveler with local colleagues and the ways in which the interactions shaped the traveler’s experiences. In this context, we note that while the issue of relationships between business travelers and local colleagues did indeed receive theoretical attention in the study of Urry (2003), the literature lacks empirical evidence of Urry’s depiction of periodic face-to-face meetings between business travelers and their hosts. To address this lacuna with regard to business travelers, the current study aims to explore how business travelers view their interactions with local colleagues and how these encounters shape their destination experience.

Based on an interpretative analysis of 28 in-depth semi-structured interviews and a quantitative survey of 231 Israeli business travelers who undertake a minimum of six international trips a year for work purposes, this mixed-methods study examined various aspects of tourist–local interactions and experiences beyond the TEB. In particular, we examined the impression management required while interacting with locals of equal status but different culture, the intensity and nature (professional vs. social/personal) of the travelers’ contacts with local colleagues, and the way in which these contacts shaped the travelers’ perceptions of their familiarity with the destination and their traveler/tourist identity. These issues are discussed with reference to the relevant theories in the study of tourism and mobilities, including John Urry’s notion of “meetingness” in his work on social networks, travel and talk (Urry 2003), George Simmel’s seminal concept of “sociability” (Hughes 1949), and Ning Wang’s analysis of objective, constructive/symbolic, and existential authenticity in tourism (Wang 1999).

Applications of Cohen’s Tourist Environmental Bubble (TEB)

E. Cohen’s conceptualization of the TEB has prompted several studies attempting to understand tourists’ destination experiences and social contact with locals (Cohen 1972). One research direction centers on the territorial dimension of tourist zones, distinguishing between “closed” and “open” tourist bubbles (Jaakson 2004): In closed tourist bubbles, such as resort enclaves (Freitag 1994) and cruise ships (Jaakson 2004), the entry of local people is restricted, whereas in open tourist bubbles, such as the ports of the cruise ships sector (Jaakson 2004), theme parks, and urban tourist precincts (Judd 1999), facilities and activities are shared by tourists and local residents. This line of tourism research derives from the field of human geography, in which attention is given to planning and to the features and usage of spaces in tourist destinations and sites. In this context, the notion of TEB can be applied to elucidate the relations between tourist zones and their surrounding areas or to compare different kinds of TEB.

Another direction of research that relies on E. Cohen’s theoretical construct of the TEB (1972) focuses on social contacts between tourists and local residents. For example, E. Cohen and Avieli (2004) have presented the idea of a “culinary environmental bubble” that provides tourists with protection from the difficulties associated with the consumption of “foreign” food and drinks, including problems identifying and ordering local dishes, lack of familiarity with the ingredients and their names on the menu, and suspicions of being cheated and overcharged. This type of relational approach has also been adopted in a recent study that builds on E. Cohen’s notion of tourist “roles” and “bubbles” to develop a fivefold typology of tourist–host social contact (Fan et al. 2017). By analyzing various dimensions of social contact, such as purpose, intensity, and impact of interactions, the study identified five types of tourists: dependents, conservatives, criticizers, explorers, and belonging seekers. Similar to Cohen’s original theory, this typology spans the entire range of tourists, from those whose contacts with locals are limited and whose experiences hardly ever cross secure familiarity boundaries to tourists who seek more intensive and less superficial encounters with locals as part of their quest for novel and authentic experiences.

The relational approach of using the “bubble” concept is also evident in a study that explored the social contacts between Israeli tourists and Egyptian service providers in the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt (Uriely, Maoz, and Reichel 2009). In that study, the concept of a “bubble of serenity” was applied to reveal how both parties managed to interact in ways that constructed a peaceful ambiance despite the geopolitical conflict and the threats of terror in that region. Uriely, Maoz, and Reichel (2009) maintained that the use of the term “bubble” corresponds to Cohen’s metaphor of TEB but stressed that unlike Cohen’s bubble, the “bubble of serenity” refers only to social contacts and includes the local hosts. Furthermore, unlike Cohen’s bubble that contains familiar features from the home environment, the “bubble of serenity” removes the negative impact of home environment (hostility toward past enemies) from the relaxing ambiance of the tourist resort in Sinai, Egypt.

The current study follows the relational approach in which Cohen’s notion of the TEB is utilized to examine tourist–local encounters and their role in shaping destination experiences. In this respect, the study addresses the premise that “as a fundamental work, Cohen’s (1972) tourist typology was not receiving sufficient attention regarding its contribution to understanding tourists’ social contact with locals” (Fan et al. 2017, p. 358). Thus, in contrast to the above studies that examined leisure tourists, the aim of the current investigation was to explore beyond-the-bubble interactions and experiences of hybrid travelers in general and business travelers in particular.

Interactions and Destination Experiences of Business Travelers

The World Tourism Organization officially considers people traveling for business or professional purposes as tourists, with the business travel segment comprising 13% of the international tourism market, as mentioned above (UNWTO 2018). A different description of business travelers has been given by Gustafson (2012a), who defined them as individuals who engage in long-distance and overseas travel for various work-related activities—but without reference to the length of such trips. Since the definition of tourists in terms of trip length is to some extent ambiguous, as widely discussed in E. Cohen’s seminal paper titled “Who Is a Tourist?” (1974), and the definition of “long-distance” is equally ambiguous, the current study uses business trips abroad as the factor characterizing the business traveler.

Previous studies reveal that the typical business traveler is male, highly educated, high earning, and senior in terms of workplace status (Aguilera 2008; Doyle and Nathan 2001; Gustafson 2006, 2012a; Lian and Denstadli 2004; Mallett 1999). The literature suggests that the underrepresentation of women in the population of business travelers derives from expectations that women are highly involved in family life (Casinowsky 2013; Aguilera 2008; Gustafson 2006). In terms of seniority and prestige in the workplace, recent studies suggest that business trips are currently more common than previously among middle-range management and are thus no longer considered as indicators of prestige (Gustafson 2014; Kesselring and Vogl 2010).

Some studies have sought to characterize the heterogeneity/homogeneity of the segment of business travelers in terms of motives and forms of travel. For example, a recent typology delineated five types of “bleisure travelers” who combine tourism motivations with work obligations: experimental learners, escapers, working vacationers, altruistic knowledge sharers, and research-active trailblazers (Lichy and McLeay 2018). In contrast, a better-recognized typology suggests that business travelers can be divided into two main categories: groups of coworkers who travel together—whether occasionally or often—for meetings, incentive trips and/or corporate hospitality, conferences and exhibitions (designated MICE), and individual business travelers whose work requires frequent trips to various distant destinations (Davidson and Cope 2003). The business travelers interviewed and surveyed in the current study were those whose business trips constituted part of their routine daily lives, and they thus fall into the latter category.

The continuous growth in the number of business travelers is often explained by the need for face-to-face interaction, despite the increased usage of information technologies, such as e-mail, WhatsApp, Skype, Facebook, and other advanced communication platforms (Bergstrom 2010; Gustafson 2012b; Jones 2013; Julsrud, Denstadli, and Hjortho 2014; Lian and Denstadli 2004; Lorentzon 2003). Specifically, various studies stress the importance of face-to-face interaction in generating business relationships that are based on personal familiarity and mutual trust (Gallaud and Torre 2005; Julsrud, Denstadli, and Hjortho 2014; Urry 2003). Among these studies, Urry’s analysis of travel, communication, and social networks provides important observations that are relevant to the attention given in the current study to the interactions and destination experiences of business travelers (Urry 2003). First, Urry argues that periodic face-to-face meetings, which he conceptualizes as “meetingness,” is important in sustaining networks of weak ties, such as business-related relationships. Second, he highlights the inclusion of pleasure-related activities before, during or after formal business meetings as a norm that serves the quest for sociability. In this regard, we argue that the applicability of Simmel’s concept of sociability (Hughes 1949) in the context of business travel is open to question and demands empirical inquiry. Specifically, we note that the concept of sociability was originally coined by Simmel (Hughes 1949) as the art or play form of association that is completely oriented about the personalities of the participants. According to Simmel, sociability is a prototype of interaction between equal participants who come together for the sole purpose of enjoying one another’s company. Thus, one must ask whether this personal form of association, which usually takes place within social circles of friends and relatives, can occur in the context of business meetings and relationships.

Closely related to the quest for sociability is Urry’s (2003) mention of the opportunity to experience new places as one of the privileges inherent in “meetingness.” In keeping with Urry’s conceptual observation, empirical studies reveal that the destination experience of business travelers involves beneficial intercultural encounters that lead to cosmopolitan identities, a broadened understanding of cultural differences, increased open-mindedness, and enhanced professional status (e.g., Cohen and Gossling 2015; DeFrank, Konopaske, and Ivancevich 2000; Doyle and Nathan 2001; Gustafson 2009, 2014; Lassen 2006; Westman, Etzion, and Chen 2009). However, the literature also indicates that key components of the tourist experience, such as the desire for pleasure, novelty, and authenticity, are marginal parts of the business travel experience. Unlike leisure tourists, the minds of business travelers are oriented toward “home” even though they are physically “away” (Willis et al. 2017). Rather than practicing a pleasurable “tourist gaze,” they devote their stay at the destination to work-related obligations, which may include a stressful schedule of business meetings and challenging intercultural encounters with locals (e.g., Doyle and Nathan 2001; Espino et al. 2002; Gustafson 2012b, 2014; Unger, Uriely, and Fuchs 2016). In addition to these difficulties, Cohen and Gossling (2015) remind us of feelings of disorientation, loneliness, and isolation that business travelers may experience during their stay at the visited destination.

The above literature reveals that business travelers experience difficulties associated with their need to operate in a foreign cultural setting but also gain what many tourists wish for—a familiarity with other cultures. In the context of the current study, the literature on business travelers implies that crossing out of the TEB (E. Cohen 1972) involves exposure to inconveniences associated with “strangeness” but adds authenticity to the destination experience. Since authenticity is a slippery concept that is widely discussed in tourism scholarship, a short clarification regarding its usage here is required. To clarify the meaning of authenticity in the tourism context, the current study implements Wang’s distinction between objective, constructive/symbolic, and existential authenticity (Wang 1999). Objective authenticity refers to the originality of the visited objects (Wang 1999, p. 531). Consequently, authentic tourist experiences derive from encounters with visited objects that are recognized as original. Constructive/symbolic authenticity refers to the authenticity projected by tourists or tourism producers onto visited objects. Thus, the visited—or other—objects are experienced as authentic not because they are original or real, but because they are perceived as signs or symbols of authenticity (Wang 1999, p. 536). In contrast, existential authenticity has no relation to the visited objects but rather to a subjective state of being in which one is “true to oneself” (Wang 1999, p. 538). Wang’s notion of existential authenticity relies on the premise that self-realization is more likely to be achieved within the liminal domain of tourism than under the constraints of work and everyday routine. In line with this premise, he points out two dimensions of existential authenticity that might be activated in tourism contexts: (a) intrapersonal (existential) authenticity that involves “bodily feelings,” such as relaxation, diversion, recreation, or “self-making” through adventures, and (b) interpersonal (existential) authenticity, in which the experience of “true self” is gained through association with other tourists, such as in the case of family tourism or in situations of solidarity (cummunitas) between pilgrims.

The objective of this study is to characterize the encounters between business travelers and their local colleagues that take place outside the TEB, with the aim of exploring the unique destination experience of business travelers. In terms of the literature reviewed above, the study questions the very existence of Simmel’s “sociability” (Hughes 1949) in business travel “meetingness” (Urry 2003) and examines the experiences of business travelers in light of Wang’s notion of objective, constructive/symbolic and existential authenticity (Wang 1999).

Methods

Since the current study aims to explore the destination experience of business travelers, the research population was defined as business travelers whose positions in their companies require a minimum of six international trips a year for work purposes.

For the qualitative part of the study, data were obtained from 28 in-depth interviews. The interpretive analysis of this qualitative data was designed to provide valid insights about the experiences of the interviewees. The preliminary findings of the qualitative analysis were then used to construct a questionnaire for quantitative analysis. This questionnaire was administered to 213 respondents with the aim to provide external validity for the observations derived from the qualitative analysis. Note that the emphasis placed on the interpretive analysis of qualitative data derived from the lack of research on experiences of hybrid tourists beyond the TEB. In such cases, where a mixed-method study is explorative in nature and needs to develop conceptual insights, the reliance on qualitative research as the leading approach appears to be most appropriate, with the quantitative analysis often being used as a supplement to examine the validity of the insights derived from the interpretive analysis of the qualitative data (Finn, Walton, and Elliott-White 2000). The mixed-method approach of the current study, described in greater detail below, allowed a broad view of the travel experience beyond the TEB.

Qualitative Analysis

The qualitative phase was based on an interpretative analysis of 28 in-depth semistructured interviews. The interviewees were recruited by snowball sampling. The initial three interviewees (two men and one woman) were middle-rank managers in leading Israeli high-tech firms with extensive international activity. These interviewees were identified by utilizing personal ties with people who met the criteria for the study population. The “snowballing” was initiated by asking the initial three interviewees asked to provide the researchers with the names of other potential interviewees who met the requirement of traveling at least six times a year for work purposes. This procedure was very useful and productive in terms of both the number of names given by those who had already been interviewed and the willingness to participate on the part of those who had been recommended by the former. To overcome the inherent limitation of snowball sampling—remaining within a close and homogeneous circle of acquaintances—we sought to recruit an interview population that was as diverse as possible. The study population thus comprised employees of both hi-tech and low-tech companies and included salespeople, senior managers, and professional field personnel of various ages and levels of seniority. The common denominator among the participants was multiple annual flights as an integral part of their jobs.

The in-depth interview guide covered seminal issues from the existing literature on business travelers and included questions relating to eight primary subjects: trip characteristics; the nature of the stay at the destination; encounters with the local culture and population; influence of travel on changing attitudes; feelings of “foreignness” and “feeling at home” in the travel experience; national and cosmopolitan belonging and identity; influences of travel on spouses, family, and the immediate surroundings at home; and national and political angles of business trips. Interviewees were encouraged to speak at length about these topics as well as about other related or unrelated issues. The interviews were conducted until the overall picture was clarified, which enabled us to understand the experiences of the interviewees. The length of the interviews ranged from an hour and a quarter to two and a half hours (an average of an hour and a half). The interviews were recorded and fully transcribed. The decision to stop interviewing was made when a sense of saturation was created, and the additional information produced was a repetition of the previous interviews.

As mentioned above, the business traveler population is predominantly characterized by elevated company status, middle-upper socioeconomic status, an academic education (Doyle and Nathan 2001), and a higher prevalence of men (Gustafson 2012a). These characteristics of the general population of business travelers were also clearly evident in our sample drawn from the subcategory of individual business travelers (Davidson and Cope 2003) (in this case whose positions require an annual minimum of six international business trips): of the 28 interviewees, 23 were men and only 5 women, 24 held academic degrees, and 18 held senior managerial positions. The age range of the interviewees was 29–64 years (average 42 years), 23 were married, 3 were divorced, and 1 was single.

To interpret and understand the significance of the data, the interviews were broken down and reassembled according to grounded theory methodology (Glaser and Strauss 1967). The purpose of the data analysis was to identify common patterns in the study population and to identify and understand the unique characteristics of the intercultural encounters and the destination experiences of the business travelers.

The analysis process was divided into two main stages. The first stage located the guiding principles within the data and looked for themes that emerged from them. The researchers then composed a list of primary categories that characterized the data (in this case a long list). The names of the categories were taken mainly from the interviewees’ words; for example, “I’m not a tourist”—the business traveler’s self-perception; “I work intensively”—tight schedules and intensive work at the destination; “meet ‘real’ local people”—encounter with locals who are not employed in the tourism and hospitality sectors; “I meet people like me”—encounters with counterparts with an equal professional status; “the need to be ‘personal’”—the importance of personal contact in a business relationship; “exposure to another culture”—intercultural encounters; and “behave accordingly”—the need to adapt to the local culture.

The second stage of the analysis included a focused analysis. This process comprises dividing the primary categories into three themes: (1) Work and Tourism—I am not a tourist, I come to work. (2) Exposure to Other Cultures—You have to know and understand the local culture. (3) Interactions and Relationships—I meet real local people.

The analysis was carried out concurrently with and after the data collection, and a triangulation of researchers was implemented. Specifically, the data were analyzed first by each researcher alone and then together by the three researchers of the study with the aim to reach a broad consensus as to the interpretation of findings.

Quantitative Analysis

Based on the qualitative findings and a literature review, a quantitative questionnaire was designed. The questionnaire contained 76 questions and addressed the following eight main issues: (1) travel characteristics, such as frequency and length of business trips, trip objectives, and class of flight ticket (business vs. economy); (2) personal characteristics, such as gender, family status, and experience as a business traveler; (3) the nature of encounters with the local population and culture and the degree of exposure to local cultures; (4) the influence of exposure to local cultures on changing attitudes; (5) the implications of frequent travel on the lives of the travelers, with reference to marital and familial aspects; (6) feelings of belonging versus foreignness; (7) questions relating to national and cosmopolitan identity; and (8) amount of time spent at work (vs. leisure time). The responses for all 8 issues mentioned above were measured on a Likert-type scale of 1–7, where 1 = “not at all” and 7 = “to a high degree.” We note that while the questionnaire was designed to addresses various issues (such as experiences throughout the different stages of the business trip, the split between work and leisure, and hypermobility as a way of life), the current study focuses on interactions with the “locals” and destination experiences of business travelers.

Data collection in the quantitative stage was also conducted by snowball sampling. At the beginning of this stage, the researchers used their contacts with the interviewees from the qualitative stage of the study to reach potential respondents for the quantitative stage. We note here that the sample for the quantitative stage did not include interviewees from the qualitative study. In addition, the researchers made contact with travel agencies that work with organizations whose routine business practices include international travel as well as with in-house travel operators within these organizations. Similar to the snowball sampling used in the qualitative study, survey respondents were asked to provide the researchers with potential future respondents.

Since the target research population was characterized by highly educated, high-income, senior executives who lead very busy and stressful lives, direct contact was necessary with almost every potential respondent to explain the research and to obtain his or her consent to participate in the study. The subjects received an invitation to participate in the study through a personal e-mail. Those who agreed to participate then accessed the questionnaire (in either Hebrew or English) through a Qualtrics website. The final study population comprised 231 residents of Israel with the following characteristics: 165 men and 55 women (11 did not respond), 123 employees who held senior managerial positions and 108 who did not, 202 who hold Israeli citizenship and 29 who do not. Note that the sample did not include interviewees from the qualitative study presented above.

Comparative tests were performed (t-test and analysis of variance) between groups according to the following characteristics: number of trips per year, experience in business travel, length of a typical business trip, seniority of role, gender, and family status. The data was processed and analyzed using SPSS software.

Findings

As noted earlier, the qualitative analysis of the in-depth interviews constitutes the core of the study, with the qualitative survey providing supplemental results and validation. The study’s findings shed light on business travelers’ interactions and experiences beyond the TEB by characterizing the direct encounters between them and their local counterparts. To provide a broad, in-depth, and reliable depiction of these interactions and experiences, the qualitative findings and quantitative analysis (shown in parentheses as the mean Likert-type scale score ± standard deviation [SD]) are presented below in tandem, followed by the conclusions drawn from the statistical analysis (comparative tests between groups).

Work and Tourism—I Am Not a Tourist, I Come to Work

In keeping with the business-travel literature (Unger, Uriely, and Fuchs 2016; Willis et al. 2017), the interviewees claimed that they were not tourists and that most of their time at the destination was dedicated to work, as is evident in the following account provided by an operations manager at a planning and construction company (interviewee 14, man, age 49):

I am not a tourist, I am a businessman who comes to work. I’m looking for convenience, the right surroundings that will allow me to carry out the task for which I came: work and only work. I don’t have time to be a tourist. I land and start to work.

Similarly, the survey respondents mostly asserted that they were not tourists (mean Likert-type scale score 3.25 ± 1.62), as obtained from the response to the question: “To what extent do you feel yourself as a tourist?”

The intensity of work at the destination was exemplified in the words of a regional sales manager at a high-tech company (interviewee 18, man, age 56):

There is always a tight schedule. I have meetings back to back without any spare time. The goal is to achieve as much as possible and we work very hard during those trips. It’s not vacation, I come to work and that’s it.

The difficulties arising from the intensity of such an intensive schedule was illustrated in the words of a vice president of a high-tech company (interviewee 9, woman, age 38):

I go to many different places around the world. Work and work, going from meeting to meeting, running around like a mouse. I generally arrive at the hotel late at night . . . these trips are very exhausting. I am always tense . . . even to go out for a business dinner causes even more tension. It’s not my natural environment and I have to be alert all the time. There is no fun here; it only looks shiny from the outside.

In support of these quotations, the results of the survey (Table 1) revealed that the stay at the destination was mostly dedicated to work (6.22 ± 0.95) and much less to leisure and recreation (2.84 ± 1.28) and to tourism (2.49 ± 1.36). In addition, the quantitative analysis revealed that work-related requirements at the destination generated intensive (5.70 ± 1.26) and long (4.92 ± 1.71) interactions between business travelers and their local colleagues.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics^a: Work and Tourism.

	No. of Respondents	Score
Question	No. of Respondents	Mean	SD~
To what extent are you busy with work?	228	6.22	0.95
To what extent are you occupied with leisure and recreation?	230	2.84	1.28
To what extent are you occupied with tourist activities?	230	2.49	1.36
To what extent are your business meetings with local colleagues intensive in relation to work matters?	223	5.70	1.26
To what extent does the interaction with local colleagues deviate from accepted work hours	221	4.92	1.71

Measured on a Likert-type scale of 1–7, where 7 denotes “to a great degree” and 1 denotes “not at all.”

Exposure to Other Cultures—You Have to Know and Understand the Local Culture

Despite the reduction in cultural heterogeneity that characterizes the contemporary global era, business travelers are still exposed to large culture gaps both in business and nonbusiness environments of the destination country, and the need to perform in a foreign culture is indeed recognized as a stress factor among business travelers (DeFrank, Konopaske, and Ivancevich 2000; Westman 2004). Out study confirmed that despite the globalization processes, cultural gaps are still experienced by business travelers, as explained by an engineer working for a construction company (interviewee 5, man, age 34):

Regarding cultural differences, we have become closer to each other and the world is indeed more global. But there are many deep-rooted aspects that you can see only when you are close to your colleagues, not only in work-related areas. These include, for example, drinking habits and types of food and hospitality that change from culture to culture.

The above quotation indicates that the encounters of business travelers with the local culture also involves a departure from the “culinary environmental bubble” (Cohen and Avieli 2004) that usually mediates between tourists and local colleagues. Unlike leisure tourists, business travelers have to adjust to local culinary and dinning practices that are often foreign to them, as told by the head of development at a media company (interviewee 4, man, age 43):

Sometimes I come across quite a few situations where I have to deal with real local food. For example, on one of our trips to China we were visiting a governmental institution and at lunchtime we went to the general dining room. There was a round dining table with all the members of the management already seated. More and more dishes arrived at the table and half of the things that came I couldn’t even look at, let alone eat. There was no choice but to eat something . . . you certainly do not want to offend your hosts. . . . I do not believe that in other circumstances I would have experienced such things.

The need to function in a strange culture adds an additional challenge to the “hard work” experienced during business trips, as can be seen in the words of a technical support engineer (interviewee 13, man, age 35):

From my perspective, work abroad is much more difficult and challenging. There are differences between different people in different countries and cultures, and you must adapt yourself anew every time. You must be careful not to make mistakes, and everything is in English, which is not my mother tongue. You invest efforts even in things that at first glance appear simple, and sometimes this is very exhausting.

Often, the purpose of the visit for business travelers is to sell, market, negotiate, and provide services. In many cases, the satisfaction of their hosts with their behavior can influence the success of a business trip. Thus, business travelers need to adapt themselves to the accepted codes at their destination, as told by a marketing director at a fashion products company (interviewee 27, man, age 41):

It is important to adjust yourself to the hosting culture and be familiar with its cultural codes. Beyond manners, it is sometimes crucial on a business level. You have to know and understand the [local] culture in order to know how to behave and to succeed in business.

The awareness of cultural differences and their impact on business success was also expressed in the words of the co-CEO of an entrepreneurial company working mainly in Africa (interviewee 11, man, age 45):

One of the reasons we succeed in business is that we developed, within our company, a “cultural translation” tool. Anyone can translate French for me, but it is more complex to understand the culture as well as the mindset of the local colleagues . . . any mistake might overthrow a deal of millions. It is that serious and sometimes you need to walk on eggshells.

In support of these quotations, the results of the survey (Table 2) reveal that business travelers are exposed to large culture gaps both in the business (4.52 ± 1.59) and nonbusiness (4.19 ± 1.59) environments of the destination country. In addition, business travelers need to adjust themselves to the local culture (5.43 ± 1.44).

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics^a: Exposure to Other Cultures.

		Score
Question	No. of Respondents	Mean	SD
Are you exposed to large gaps in business culture?	223	4.52	1.59
Are you exposed to large culture gaps, unrelated to business?	221	4.19	1.59
To what extent do you cope with the cultural gaps and adjust yourself to the local culture?	223	5.43	1.44

Measured on a Likert-type scale of 1–7, where 7 denotes “to a great degree” and 1 denotes “not at all.”

While the encounter with foreign cultures is challenging and difficult, it also provides business travelers with enriching benefits, such as a broadened acquaintance with other cultures, increased open-mindedness, and the acquisition of a cosmopolitan identity (S. A. Cohen and Gossling 2015; Gustafson 2014). The reward of becoming acquainted with the local culture was described by a purchasing director of a high-tech company (interviewee 2, woman, age 42):

I spend many hours with these people. The work abroad does not end at 5:00 p.m., and due to the nature of things, we get to know each other. I learn about their culture and the way they live, not only relating to work. That is the interesting part of these trips.

This benefit of the business travel experience was illustrated in the words of a research and development employee at a pharmaceutical company (interviewee 22, man, age 29):

This job opened my eyes to lots of different cultures and different people. . . . I think there are significant differences between different places around the world in the way people welcome you and the way you should behave wherever you visit. These encounters with different people around the world are the sort of experiences that I collect and remember from my travels.

Interestingly, these accounts suggest that despite their self-perception as nontourists, business travelers receive what leisure tourists often seek—an interesting and valuable encounter with another culture.

Interactions and Relationships—I Meet Real Local People

Generally, leisure tourists meet locals who are employed in the tourism and hospitality sector (Aramberri 2001; Maoz 2006). Business travelers, too, interact with tourism hosts, but they also have encounters with “real” local people, as indicated in the following account of a regional sales director working in a high-tech company (interviewee 3, man, age 35):

I am not like a tourist whose connection with the locals is shallow and mainly with those who provide him with services. . . . I do business and meet with “real” local people . . . the dynamics between people creates the business and in the sales world, it is people who sell to other people . . . the direct encounter between us is very important.

The interaction between host and guest in tourism is often characterized by hierarchical differences in social status between the two sides; that is, leisure tourists usually meet locals of a lower social status, who are employed in the tourism and hospitality sector (Aramberri 2001; Maoz 2006). In contrast, the interaction between business travelers and their local counterparts is characterized by an equal professional status, as indicated in the survey (“Are your local counterparts generally of the same level of employment and seniority as yourself?” 5.15 ± 1.43) and illustrated in the words of a regional sales team director employed in a high-tech company (interviewee 16, man, age 41):

I’m an executive in the company, and therefore the people whom I meet will be on the same level. This is how it generally happens: you meet with your parallels and in general we have a shared language.

As part of their work duties, business travelers occasionally meet their colleagues outside the workplace, and the interaction is supposed to be “personal.” The inclination to add a personal flavor to business relationships was evident in the following account of a regional sales manager in a high-tech company (interviewee 17, man, age 48):

As part of my work, I am sometimes invited to the homes of my colleagues and meet their families. You learn a lot about their culture and how they behave not only at work. To close a deal, we need to know each other on a personal level. I would say that personal contact is a crucial component of a business relationship.

However, it appears that the degree of exposure to the personal lives of local colleagues varies across destinations and cultures, as explained by a graphics director of a media company (interviewee 8, man, age 41):

It varies greatly from place to place. There are places and cultures that host you with eagerness, even after work hours, in which people take you and invite you to all sorts of places and tell you everything about their lives, and there are places in which at the end of the workday, you go to the hotel and the relationship is only business. It is a matter of mentality, and you learn what to expect.

A similar perception about the role of culture in shaping the relations with local hosts was evident in the following account provided by a member of a research and development team at a media company (interviewee 1, man, age 36):

I was recently in Mumbai and was hosted as I would expect the President to be hosted. They did not allow me to do anything myself, and, of course, not to pay for anything. During this visit, they took me on Sunday, their day off, to the Taj Mahal, and I was also able to get to know them better. It was a great day. In my experience, primarily in the Far East and South America, I am taken care of outside of working hours. It is nice because you go around with locals who know where to go and you learn about their lives. There are places where it is less accepted, and that’s fine, I very much understand it.

These statements suggest that although the need for the “personal” is addressed as an important feature in the relationships between business travelers and their colleagues, the requirement for “personal” relations is not always fulfilled but depends upon the local culture. Furthermore, in opposition to the statements about the supposedly personal acquaintance with local colleagues, the quantitative data revealed that business travelers are rarely exposed to the local population’s private lives (“Are you exposed to the personal lives of local colleagues?” 2.87 ±1.82), and the relationships of business travelers with the local population that go beyond the bounds of business matters are limited (“To what extent do your relationships with the local population exceed business matters?” 2.97 ± 1.84).

Finally, previous studies indicate that various travel characteristics, such as frequency and length of travel, have different effects on the way business travelers experience their trips (e.g., DeFrank, Konopaske, and Ivancevich 2000; Welch and Verner 2006; Westman and Etzion 2004). Personal characteristics, such as family status, experience in travel, and gender might also affect the ways business travelers cope with various issues that often accompany multiple business trips (e.g., Gustafson 2006; Makela et al. 2014; Westman, Etzion, and Gattenio 2008). It is therefore essential to examine whether there are differences among different groups regarding the various characteristics of the business travelers’ destination experiences as presented above. Thus, comparative tests were performed (t-test and analysis of variance) between groups according to the following characteristics: number of trips per year, experience in business travel, length of typical business trip, seniority of role, gender, and family status. The few significant differences that were found were related to the number of trips, seniority of the role, and the gender of the traveler, as detailed below.

Number of Trips per Year

Table 3 presents the results of t tests giving significant differences for the comparison between “frequent business trips” (6–8 international trips per year) and “business trips as part of daily routine” (9–35 international trips per year). As may be seen in Table 2, for business travelers whose business trips are part of their daily routine, encounters with local colleagues exceeded accepted work hours, and these travelers were significantly more intimately connected and exposed to the local population beyond work matters compared to business travelers who are required to make “frequent business trips.”

Table 3.

t-Test Results: Differences in the Characteristics of the Encounters between “Frequent Business Trips” and “Business Trips as Part of a Daily Routine.”

	Frequent Business Trips		Business Trips as Part of a Daily Routine		t-Test
Question	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	t
To what extent does the interaction with local colleagues deviate from accepted work hours?	4.60 (n=94)	1.83	5.17 (n=127)	1.59	−2.4.6*
To what extent do your relationships with the local population exceed business matters?	2.67 (n=94)	1.73	3.20 (n=128)	1.89	−2.12*
Are you exposed to the personal lives of local colleagues?	2.57 (n=95)	1.65	3.09 (n=128)	1.92	−2.14*

Note: Measured on a Likert-type scale of 1–7, where 7 denotes “very much” and 1 denotes “not at all.”

Significant at the p <.05 level.

Senior Role

Table 4 presents the results of t-tests giving significant differences for the comparison between business travelers who hold senior managerial positions and those who do not. As may be seen in Table 3, business travelers with senior managerial positions adapt themselves to the local culture and meet local colleagues of the same professional rank significantly more often compared to business travelers who do not hold senior managerial positions.

Table 4.

t-Test Results: Differences in the Characteristics of the Encounters between “Business Travelers Who Hold Senior Managerial Positions” and “Business Travelers Who Do Not Hold Senior Managerial Positions.”

	Business Travelers Who Hold Senior Managerial Positions		Business Travelers Who Do Not Hold Senior Managerial Positions		t-Test
Question	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	t
To what extent do you cope with the cultural gaps and adapt yourself to the local culture?	5.70 (n=123)	1.23	5.09 (n=93)	1.45	3.59**
Are your local colleagues generally of the same professional rank as you?	5.42 (n=123)	1.23	4.82 (n=91)	1.46	3.12**

Note: Measured on a Likert-type scale of 1–7, where 7 denotes “very much” and 1 denotes “not at all.”

Significant at the p <.01 level.

Gender

Table 5 presents the results of t-tests giving significant differences for the comparison between men and women. As may be seen in Table 4, men are significantly more connected to the local population beyond work matters and are also significantly more exposed to large cultural gaps, unrelated to business, compared with women.

Table 5.

t-Test Results: Differences in the Characteristics of the Encounters between Men and Women Business Travelers.

	Men		Women		t-Test
Question	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	t
To what extent do your relationships with the local population exceed business matters?	3.13 (n=164)	1.82	2.47 (n=55)	1.78	2.33*
Are you exposed to the personal lives of local colleagues?	3.10 (n=165)	1.89	2.20 (n=55)	1.43	3.21**
Are you exposed to large cultural gaps, unrelated to business?	4.39 (n=164)	1.56	3.69 (n=54)	1.51	2.90**

Note: Measured on a Likert-type scale of 1–7, where 7 denotes “very much” and 1 denotes “not at all.”

Significant at the p <.05 level.

Significant at the p <.01 level.

Overall, the findings of this study indicate that (a) business travelers associate their destination experience with intensive work rather than with leisure and tourism activities; (b) their exposure to the local culture beyond the TEB is challenging and difficult but at the same time enriching and rewording; and (c) their exposure to the personal lives of their local colleagues is limited and varies across culture. The random differences presented above do not change the overall picture of the encounters between business travelers and local populations, as revealed in the current study. Overall, the personal characteristics of the business travelers investigated in this study and features of their trips appear to play a small role, if any, in shaping their social contacts and experiences at the visited destination.

Conclusions

The current study explored the destination experience of business travelers by focusing on their interactions and relations with local colleagues. In view of E. Cohen’s (1972) conceptualization of the TEB, the premise of the study was that business travelers would experience the destinations they visit in a unique and distinctive way, since they interact with locals and visit places outside the TEB. In accordance with this perspective, the findings presented above indicate that the destination experience of the business traveler is associated mainly with long and intensive meetings with colleagues on work matters rather than with leisure- and tourism-related activities. This observation is congruent with previous studies that depicted business travel as a work-related experience (e.g., Doyle and Nathan 2001; Gustafson 2012b, 2014; Unger, Uriely, and Fuchs 2016). However, our findings also indicate that the destination experience of business travelers diverges from what is expected to occur outside the TEB. Specifically, E. Cohen (1972) suggested that the TEB shields tourists from aspects of strangeness but prevents an authentic experience of the visited destination. Thus, by crossing out of the TEB, business travelers are supposed to experience difficulties associated with their strangeness but gain an authentic experience in the visited destination. Interestingly, the findings of the current study imply that supposed inconveniences outside the TEB (particularly confronting strangeness) turn into rewarding experiences, and the presumed main benefit (experiencing authenticity) of crossing out of the bubble is limited, as explained below.

In terms of experiencing strangeness, the business travelers examined in the current study described their encounters with local colleagues as demanding situations that require cross-cultural sensitivity. Their accounts confirm the assumption that crossing out of the TEB might involve exposure to difficulties associated with strangeness. However, they perceived the need to cope with cultural differences as a challenge rather than a problem. Moreover, they appeared to be proud of their proficiency in dealing with situations that involve cultural differences and to perceive such experiences as rewarding. These findings support recent studies that portray business travel as a mixed experience, in which stressful obligations, such as the need to communicate in a different culture, coincide with enriching benefits, including a broadened acquaintance with other cultures, increased open-mindedness, and the acquisition of a cosmopolitan identity (S. A. Cohen and Gossling 2015; Gustafson 2014). Specifically, the current study reveals how this mixed experience is shaped through encounters between business travelers and local colleagues.

With respect to authenticity, our findings appear to be inconclusive when analyzed in line with Wang’s conceptualization of authenticity in the context of tourism (Wang 1999). Specifically, the business travelers’ sense of familiarity with the visited destination was evident in their accounts of exposure to “real people” and “local culture.” In this respect, it seems that business travelers get what they do not necessarily seek, whereas leisure travelers seek what they do not necessarily get. The statements above reflect a subjective perception of who is “real” and what is originally “local.” Thus, the sort of authenticity experienced by the business travelers seems to comply with Wang’s notion of “constructed symbolic authenticity,” in which the visitor’s subjective perception of what is authentic matters. However, the destination experience of these business travelers appears to be inauthentic in terms of Wang’s notion of “existential authenticity” that refers to a subjective state of being in which one is true to oneself (Wang 1999). Specifically, the business travelers’ sense of inauthentic self was evident in their accounts of the need to perform impression management in work-related interactions, rather than allowing themselves intuitive behaviors that reflect personal desires.

In keeping with the business travelers’ sense of inauthentic self, their interactions and relationships with local colleagues were characterized by impersonality. Although many of the interviewees claimed that face-to-face interactions and personal contacts with local colleagues were crucial components of business relationships, they also admitted that the level of personal exposure in these relations varies across cultures. Moreover, the respondents to the quantitative survey acknowledged that their encounters with local colleagues seldom went beyond business matters and provided little exposure to the personal lives of their colleagues. Thus, it seems that the interviewees’ statements about the importance of “personal contact” reflect a conventional discourse about business meetings and relationships rather than their actual quality. This interpretation is based on the theory of “sociability,” a concept that the sociologist Simmel (Hughes 1949) coined for the most personal form of association. As noted earlier in the article, Simmel suggested that sociability is the art or play form of association that is completely oriented about the personalities of the participants, being a prototype of interaction between equal participants who come together for the sole purpose of enjoying each other’s company. Accordingly, the current study suggests that the encounters between business travelers and their local colleagues represent the reverse of “sociability.” Business travelers and their counterpart colleagues are of equal status, but their supposedly personal relations are the means rather than the goal of the association. The participants interact for practical (work-related) interests rather than for the pleasure of being together. Thus, their relations are characterized by the attempt to enhance the workability of the tasks they try to accomplish rather than by the sociability of their associations.

Furthermore, the study findings regarding interactions and relationships established between business travelers and their local colleagues complies with Urry’s observation (2003) that periodic face-to-face meetings (“meetingness”) are essential for weak ties, such as business relationships. As mentioned above, the interviewees of the qualitative study stressed the importance of face-to-face meetings, but the results of the quantitative survey indicate that these meetings involve limited exposure to the personal lives of local colleagues or, in Urry’s terms, generate only weak ties. Yet, the current study contradicts Urry’s claim that “meetingness” serves the quest for “sociability,” a concept that is considered by Simmel as the most personal form of association. Evidently, the relationships established between the business travelers examined in this study and their local colleagues cannot be regarded as a personal form of association. Thus, Urry’s conceptual use of the term “sociability” in the context of “meetingness” is questionable.

In conclusion, the analysis of business travelers presented above provides a glance of visitor–local interactions and destination experiences beyond the TEB. Further empirical investigation is required with respect to the inconclusive findings regarding both the depth of visitor–local contact and the heterogeneity found within the group of business travelers examined in this study. Moreover, we note that the study covers only one segment of hybrid travelers and relies on a limited population and sample within this segment. Compared to business travelers, other types of hybrid travelers, such as VFR or volunteer tourists, might experience more significant personal interactions with the locals and less detachment from their individual desires and intuitive behavior. In addition, the current study focuses on a subsegment of Israeli business travelers whose work requires frequent individual travel. Other types of business travelers, including MICE businesspersons who travel with coworkers to meetings, are not included in this study. Further research about interactions and experiences beyond the TEB needs to address other segments of hybrid travelers and additional subsegments of business travelers.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Galia Fuchs

Author Biographies

Orit Unger is a PhD student in the Department of Hotel and Tourism Management at Ben-Gurion University in Israel. Her PhD examines the subjective experiences of business travelers.

Galia Fuchs is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Hotel and Tourism Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel. Her main research interest is consumer behavior in tourism and leisure and service marketing and management.

Natan Uriely is a Professor in the Department of Hotel and Tourism Management at Ben-Gurion University in Israel. His research covers various issues in tourism studies, mainly from a sociological perspective.

References

Abubakar

Mohammed

Ilkan

Mustafa

. 2016. “Impact of Online WOM on Destination Trust and Intention to Travel: A Medical Tourism Perspective.” Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 5 (3): 192–201.

Aramberri

Julio

. 2001. “The Host Should Get Lost: Paradigms in the Tourism Theory.” Annals of Tourism Research 28 (3): 738–61.

Ashtar

Lirit

Shani

Amir

Uriely

Natan

. 2017. “Blending ‘Home’ and ‘Away’: Young Israeli Migrants as VFR Travelers.” Tourism Geographies 19 (4): 658–72.

Aguilera

2008. “Business travel and mobile workers”. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 42 (8): 1109–1116.

Belhassen

Yaniv

Uriely

Natan

Assor

Ortal

. 2014. “The Touristification of a Conflict Zone: The Case of Bil’in.” Annals of Tourism Research 49:174–89.

Bergstrom

Gunilla

. 2010. “Consequences of Overnight Work Travel for Personal Social Relations: Problems, Promises, and Further Repercussions.” Mobilities 5 (3): 369–86.

Casinowsky

G. B.

2013. “Working life on the move, domestic life at standstill? Work-related travel and responsibility for home and family”. Gender, Work & Organization 20 (3): 311-326.

Cohen

Erik

. 1972. “Toward Sociology of International Tourism.” Social Research 39 (1): 164–89.

Cohen

Erik

. 1974. “Who Is a Tourist? A Conceptual Clarification.” Sociological Review 22 (4): 527–55.

10.

Cohen

Erik

. 2003. “Backpacking: Diversity and Change.” Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change 1 (2): 95–110.

11.

Cohen

Erik

Avieli

Nir

. 2004. “Food in Tourism—Attraction and Impediment.” Annals of Tourism Research 31 (4): 755–78.

12.

Cohen

Scott A.

Gossling

Stefan

. 2015. “A Darker Side of Hypermobility.” Environment and Planning A 47 (8):1661–79.

13.

Cohen

Scott A.

Hanna

Paul

Gossling

Stefan

. 2018. “The Dark Side of Business Travel: A Media Comments Analysis.” Transportation Research 61 (Pt B): 406–19.

14.

Davidson

Rob

Cope

Beulah

. 2003. Business Travel: Conferences, Incentive Travel, Exhibitions, Corporate Hospitality and Corporate Travel. New York: Pearson Education Limited, Financial Times.

15.

DeFrank

Richard S.

Konopaske

Robert

Ivancevich

John M.

2000. “Executive Travel Stress: Perils of the Road Warrior.” Academy of Management Executive 14 (2): 58–71.

16.

Doyle

Nathan

2001. Wherever Next: Work in a Mobile World. London: The Industrial Society.

17.

Espino

C. M.

Sundstrom

S. M.

Frick

H. L.

Jacobs

Peters

2002. “International Business Travel: Impact on Families and Travelers.” Occupational & Environmental Medicine 59 (5): 309–22.

18.

Fan

Daisy, F. X.

Zhang

Hanqin Qiu

Jenkins

Carson L.

Tavitiyaman

Pimtong

. 2017. “Tourist Typology in Social Contact: An Addition to Existing Theories.” Tourism Management 60: 357–66.

19.

Finn

Mick

Walton

Mike

Elliott-White

Martin

. 2000. Tourism and Leisure Research Methods: Data Collection, Analysis, and Interpretation. New York: Pearson Education.

20.

Freitag

Tilman G.

1994. “Enclave Tourism Development: For Whom the Benefits Roll?” Annals of Tourism Research 21 (3): 538–54.

21.

Gallaud

Delphine

Torre

Andre

. 2005. “Geographical Proximity and Circulation of Knowledge through Interfirm Relationships.” Scienze Regionali 1:5–25.

22.

Glaser

Barney

Strauss

Anselm L.

1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.

23.

Gustafson

Per

. 2006. “Work-Related Travel, Gender and Family Obligations.” Work, Employment & Society 20 (3): 513–30.

24.

Gustafson

Per

. 2009. “More Cosmopolitan, No Less Local.” European Societies 11 (1): 25–47.

25.

Gustafson

Per

. 2012a. “Managing Business Travel: Developments and Dilemmas in Corporate Travel Management.” Tourism Management 33 (2): 276–84.

26.

Gustafson

Per

. 2012b."Travel Time and Working Time: What Business Travellers Do When They Travel, and Why.” Time and Society 21 (2): 203–22.

27.

Gustafson

Per

. 2014. “Business Travel from the Traveller’s Perspective: Stress, Stimulation and Normalization.” Mobilities 9 (1): 63–83.

28.

Hughes

Everett, C.

1949. “The Sociology of Sociability.” American Journal of Sociology 55 (3): 254–61.

29.

Jaakson

Reiner

. 2004. “Beyond the Tourist Bubble? Cruiseship Passengers in Port.” Annals of Tourism Research 31 (1): 44–60.

30.

Judd

Dennis, R.

1999. “Constructing the Tourist Bubble.” In The Tourist City, edited by Judd

Denis R.

Fainstein

Susan S.

, 35–53. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

31.

Jones

Andrew

. 2013. “Conceptualising Business Mobilities: Towards an Analytical Framework.” Review in Transportation Business and Management 9:58–66.

32.

Julsrud

Tom Erik

Denstadli

Martin

Hjortho

Randi Johanne

. 2014. “Business Networking, Travel Tiredness, and the Emergent Use of Video Conferences.” International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 8:262–80.

33.

Kesselring

Vogl

2010. “Travelling, where the opponents are: Business travel and the social impacts of new mobility regimes.” In International Business Travel in the Global Economy, edited by Beaverstock

J. V.

Derudder

Faulconbridge

Witlox

, 145–162. Farnham: Ashgate.

34.

Lassen

Claus

. 2006. “Aeromobility and Work.” Environment and Planning A 38:301–12.

35.

Lian

Jon Inge

Denstadli

Jon Martin

. 2004. “Norwegian Business Air Travel—Segments and Trends.” Journal of Air Transport Management 10 (2): 109–18.

36.

Lichy

Jessica

McLeay

Fraser

. 2017. “Bleisure: Motivations and Typologies.” Journal of Travel& Tourism Marketing 35 (4): 517–30.

37.

Lorentzon

Sten

. 2003. “Changes in the Flows and Means of Information Exchange: Business Uses of ICT in Sweden in the 1990s.” Journal of Urban Technology 10 (1): 89–110.

38.

Makela

Liisa

Bergbom

Barbara

Tanskanen

Jussi

Kinnunen

Ulla

. 2014. “The Relationship between International Business Travel and Sleep Problems via Work-Family Conflict.” Career Development International 19 (7): 794–812.

39.

Mallett

W. J.

1999. “Long-distance travel by low-income.” Households Transportation Research Circular. E-C026, 169–177.

40.

Maoz

Darya

. 2006. “The Mutual Gaze.” Annals of Tourism Research 33 (1): 221–39.

41.

Maoz

Darya

Bekerman

Zvi

. 2010. “Searching for Jewish Answers in Indian Resorts: The Postmodern Traveler.” Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2): 423–39.

42.

Mclntosh

Alison J.

Zahra

Anne

. 2007. “A Cultural Encounter through Volunteer Tourism: Towards the Ideals of Sustainable Tourism?” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15 (5): 541–56.

43.

O’Reilly

Camille Caprioglio

. 2006. “From Drifter to Gap Year Tourist: Mainstreaming Backpacker Travel.” Annals of Tourism Research 33 (4): 998–1017.

44.

Proyrungroj

Raweewan

. 2017. “Orphan Volunteer Tourism in Thailand: Volunteer Tourists’ Motivations and On-Site Experiences.” Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 41 (5): 560–84.

45.

Shani

Amir

Uriely

Natan

. 2012. “VFR Tourism: The Host Experience.” Annals of Tourism Research 39 (1): 421–40.

46.

Shani

Amir

. 2013. “The VFR Experience: ‘Home’ away from Home?” Current Issues in Tourism 16 (1): 1–15.

47.

Unger

Orit

Uriely

Natan

Fuchs

Galia

. 2016. “The Business Travel experience.” Annals of Tourism Research 61:142–56.

48.

Uriely

Natan

. 2010. “‘Home’ and ‘Away’ in VFR Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 37 (3): 854–57.

49.

Uriely

Natan

Maoz

Darya

Reichel

Arie

. 2009. “Israeli Guests and Egyptian Hosts in Sinai: A Bubble of Serenity.” Journal of Travel Research 47 (4): 508–22.

50.

Urry

John

. 2003. “Social Networks, Travel and Talk.” British Journal of Sociology 54 (2): 155–75.

51.

Wang

Ning

. 1999. “Rethinking Authenticity in Tourism Experience.” Annals of Tourism Research 26 (2): 349–70.

52.

Welch

Denice E.

Worm

Verner

. 2006. “International Business Travelers: A Challenge for IHRM.” In Handbook of Research in International Human Resource Management, edited by Stahl

Gunter K.

Bjorkman

Ingmar

, 283–300. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

53.

Westman

2004. “Strategies for Coping with Business Trips: A Qualitative Exploratory Study.” International Journal of Stress Management 11 (2): 167–176.

54.

Westman

Mina

Etzion

Dalia

. 2004. “Characteristics of Business Trips and Their Consequences: A Survey of Recent Finding.” The Israel Institute of Business Research, Tel Aviv University.

55.

Westman

Mina

Etzion

Dalia

Gattenio

Etty

. 2008. “International Business Travels and the Work–Family Interface: A Longitudinal Study.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 81:459–80.

56.

Westman

Mina

Etzion

Dalia

Chen

Shoshi

. 2009. “Crossover of Positive Experiences from Business Travelers to Their Spouses.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 24 (3): 269–84.

57.

Willis

Cheryl

Ladkin

Adele

Jain

Juliet

Clayton

William

. 2017. “Present Whilst Absent: Home and the Business Tourist Gaze.” Annals of Tourism Research 63:48–59.

58.

UNWTO (World Tourism Organization). 2018. “UNWTO Tourism Highlights.” https://www-e--unwto-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284419876