Abstract
In this paper, we draw on a relational ontology to explore what collaborative ways of knowing might mean in the field of tourism research. Using tourism as a prism to explore the messy realities of collaborative knowledge production, we argue that knowledge is always co-created through situated practices. By focusing on collaboration and co-creation of research and based on a discussion on what, how and where to know we suggest four orientations of research practices that clarify what collaborative research can be about and how it is of value. Research collaboration should capture the situated practices, strive for critical proximity, be interventionist and seek to come to matter in new ways.
Introduction
During the last two decades, increasing concerns have been voiced about the relationship between science and society and the perceived ‘gap between the production and use of knowledge’ (Turnhout et al., 2013: 354). In and outside universities, it is argued that universities are cut off from wider society, act too slowly or respond too vaguely to direct needs of society. This rising discourse on societal impacts of academia highlights the importance of science and research for solving new and complex societal issues while at the same time lamenting the weak connections between academia, often framed as an isolated and archaic ‘ivory tower’, and the dynamic society ‘surrounding it’. To meet the challenges of the present era, the solution often advocated is collaboration and co-creation with so-called ‘end users’.
But what does this increasing strain on demonstrating societal impact through collaboration mean when it comes to doing and valuing research? In this paper, we draw on a relational ontology to explore what collaborative ways of knowing might mean in the field of tourism research. In order to appreciate the value and importance of collaboration we argue it is necessary to move beyond a particular model of knowledge production upon which much academic practice has been based and the recent calls for collaboration speaks to. This is the model of positivist science, which sees scientific practice as taking place in a separate field from the everyday life of the researcher. The role of the scientist is to mine data, analyse it and represent reality ‘out there’. This view of scientific practice is probably one reason for the sticky image of academia as an ivory tower, a confined space within knowledge is produced about the society outside.
The call for collaboration can indeed be read as an intensified demand that academia performs for economy and provides particular service to a market with the subtext being that hitherto collaboration has been lacking. Not only should academia discover things like laws of nature but it should come up with solutions and couple them to the cogwheels of society to contribute to progress and growth. In this sense, the urge for collaboration can be seen as one of the manifestations of the increasing corporatization of higher education and intensified managerialism within universities that affects the evaluation of what constitutes quality research or education (Airey et al., 2014; Ayikoru et al., 2009). Critics argue that the intensified managerialism has also translated into powerful forms of competition and ranking of academic performance (e.g. scientific and societal impact, student numbers) which are differentiating and serve to index and facilitate the neoliberalization of the academy (Berg et al., 2016). This view implies that academia is a company producing knowledge that needs to be transported as efficiently as possible to the market. What results is a felt bifurcation of expectations of academic scholarship: on the one hand, increasingly pressing expectations to engage with and extract funds from ‘external’ actors and stakeholders to prove that research has value to society or economy. On the other, very concrete ‘publish or perish’ requirements that focuses on scientific excellence usually measured through publications, which are translated into an h-impact-factor and secures prestige in academia but often go unnoticed in public debate or policy or have little relevance to the everyday lives of people.
It is against this backdrop that we seek to trace an alternative trajectory for knowledge production and for making research matter, moving beyond the image of academia as detached from society and of collaboration as the instrumental process of transporting scientific knowledge to society. Drawing on a relational ontology we describe more messy realities of collaborative knowledge production, arguing that knowledge and its value is accomplished through relations and is thus always a collaborative achivement. The process is neither straightforward nor politically neutral. It involves various negotiations, struggles and controversies, which underlines the importance of critically examining what, how and where to know. In order to destabilize a tendency to instrumentalize collaboration, we explore these questions in the following inquiry as we seek to create paths for collaborative knowing and mattering. We take the field of tourism research as exemplary for a broader discussion and argue that (tourism) knowledge is always co-created through situated research practices (Ren et al., 2017). The critical question is therefore not if we, as academics, should collaborate with others or co-create knowledge or not, but rather how.
We initiate our discussion by revisiting the discussion on Mode1 and Mode 2 type of knowledge, situating the discourse on collaboration and the claimed gap between academia and society. We then propose a relational ontology as a way to cut across views and discussions of tourism research as a detached way of knowing. Instead, we offer a view of research practices as always already situated in the midst of things. We further elaborate this discussion with focus on four orientations of research practices that clarify what collaborative research can be about and how it is of value.
Tracing science/society relations
In formulating policies to achieve stronger links between society and research, a central source of inspiration is the Mode 2 thesis put forth by Gibbons et al. (1994). In their contribution to The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies (Gibbons et al., 1994), the authors argue that the traditional and discipline-based mode of knowledge production, Mode 1 – which takes place within homogeneous, academic communities outside of ‘the real world’ – is unable to address current societal challenges. The authors argue that the Mode 1 paradigm should be succeeded – although not substituted – by a new paradigm of knowledge production (‘Mode 2’), which is socially distributed, application-oriented, transdisciplinary and subject to multiple accountabilities (see also Nowotny et al., 2002, 2003).
As ‘knowledge is being produced through a process of continuous negotiation of needs, interests and specifications of all the involved actors’ (Jacob, 1997: 38), a multiplication of knowledge production sites and actors is required. Proponents of the Mode 2 thesis argue that the resulting products of knowledge are socially robust as they are inherently recognized and considered useful by a broad and heterogeneous set of societal actors. Hence, this kind of knowledge production serves as a public good (Jacob, 1997).
Some authors have argued that a dramatic, concrete influence on scientific practices is yet to be seen (e.g. Irwin, 2006). Others (Berg and Seeber, 2016; Sanders and Stappers, 2008) argue that the growing demands for research collaboration across the traditional boundaries of academia and the urge for researchers to take on new roles and engage in new activities display a discursive and practical move towards Mode 2 in policies of scientific governance, economic incentives and concrete research set-ups and practices underpinning managerialism and the corporatisation of higher education.
Responding to criticisms, 8 years later, Nowotny et al. (2002) refined their arguments stating that Mode 2 knowledge is not simply applied research in the sense of having clear predefined or normative goals but takes on meaning through diverse kinds of relations. Related to the fuller explication of contextualization, they introduce the concept of the agora, a ‘problem-generating and problem-solving environment in which the contextualization of knowledge production takes place’ (Nowotny et al., 2003: 192). Framed as a meeting place facilitating the encounter of two separate, clearly delimited entities, the agora reproduces however a view of universities as homogeneous communities, somewhat disconnected from wider society, in ways similar to the metaphor of the ‘ivory tower’, home of purified scientific knowledge. Question is, however, whether academic knowledge has ever been disconnected from what we tend to call ‘the outside world’, has ever been ‘decontextualized’ or detached from the constant negotiation of needs, interests and specifications of all the involved actors?
Historically, universities have had to fulfil two basic demands: First, to preserve and develop theoretical knowledge, securing its transmission from one generation to the next and encouraging innovative thinking. Second, to provide education that is useful to the society and produce knowledge to establish, develop and operate institutions and firms that sustain society and culture (Skúlason, 2014). Thus, universities have always had to prove their worth to the wider community and scholars have also had to steer between various and sometimes diverging rationalities. Coming back to the notion of agora, Nowotny et al. (2002: 15) argue that [c]oevolution denotes an open, and certainly more integrated, system of science-society interaction which enhances the generation of variety, whether in the choice of scientific problems, colleagues or institutional designs, or the selective retention of certain choices, modes or solutions. Increasing permeability provides the basis for greater contextualization, by opening up the number of routes along which society can ‘speak back to science’.
While we agree with the interactionist mind-set proposed by Nowotny et al. (2002, 2003), we argue that the impermeable and independent ‘ivory tower’ is, and perhaps always has been, an ideal rather than a fact. Academic knowledge has always emerged through relational, situated and distributed processes deeply entangled with markets, publics and politics. Academic practice has always, we argue, entailed balancing between different actions and relations that together perform what we call academia (Law, 1994).
Four of the major tasks of accomplishing academia is to do education, do research, do publishing and do collaboration with ‘external’ actors. These are not pure and distinct forms of academic practice, not exclusively belonging to a particular Mode 1 or 2, but rather, bundles of entangled and often incoherent negotiations and activities. Together, they are part of constructing, in our case tourism, research that can be ordered in diverse ways and thus come to matter in different ways. Indeed, ‘the production of tourism knowledge and the continuous construction, challenging and reinforcement of the tourism research network is a simultaneously mundane, practical, discursive and material undertaking’ (Ren et al., 2010: 891). To explore this further, we now turn to tourism research and ways to think through co-creation of knowledge in tourism.
Co-creating knowledge in tourism
Tourism studies is a relatively novel discipline within academia and has found itself at the lower end of the hierarchy of disciplines (Fidgeon, 2010; Tribe, 2010). In the current climate of efficiency and legitimacy of education and research, tourism studies has had to prove its worth to cement its status within academia (Airey et al., 2014). To some extent, this work has proved successful as tourism studies generally manage to attract a healthy number of students and, thus, generate much-needed income for university departments. In terms of research, tourism studies may, however, be struggling. Tourism is grounded in vocational work, which has some implications for the research being undertaken. Tourism research has often been criticized for being too light on theory, too managerial and not being able to produce its own theoretical underpinnings (Franklin & Crang, 2001).
Tribe (1997) conceptualized the field of tourism as consisting of ‘the business of tourism’ and ‘the non-business of tourism’ with research in both domains occurring in diverse relations within, across and outside of traditional disciplinary boundaries. Later, Tribe described tourism knowledge creation as taking place through a force field where both institutional and individual interests played a role in the knowledge-making process (Tribe, 2006). Most recently Tribe and Liburd (2016) introduced the idea of the tourism knowledge system to grasp the complexity and variety of tourism research. The model of the tourism knowledge system aims at describing the multiple relations between the world of tourism and tourism knowledge. Central to the process is the form of knowledge production, which takes the form of disciplinary knowledge - that is research situated within academic disciplines - or of extra-disciplinary knowledge, such as problem-centred or value-based knowledge.
Discursive formations surely underpin and structure academic work and teasing them out and relating them in an organized way along the lines of the tourism knowledge system is of crucial importance. However, dividing the community of tourism scholars into business of tourism or non-business of tourism or into disciplinary, problem-centred and value-based knowledge is too static and reductionist when it comes to thinking through potential ways of collaborative knowledge production. Distinctions such as the above draw up an image of tourism research as a relatively straightforward movement between a more or less stable reality of tourism to a related but a clearly demarcated field of tourism knowledge that represents that reality. Instead, we propose to see tourism research and its production of knowledge as continuous, mutable and relational undertakings whose continuous network of effects ‘works in multiple and poly-directional ways in and with its actors in a mutually constituting fashion’ (Ren et al., 2010: 886). This conceptualises the field of tourism as a network of fractional coherence, continually shaped through local processes of ordering of people, practices, discourses and technologies (Law, 1994) in which highly diverse knowledges and ways of knowing are assembled, enacted and practiced.
This approach entails seeing tourism research as engaged in what Anne Marie Mol has termed ontological politics (Mol 1999, see also Jóhannesson et al., 2015). When we as researchers engage in research, we are busy enacting realities and are ‘participants in the “becoming world” where everything is interconnected and learning happens in a stumbling, trial and error sort of way’ (Gibson-Graham, 2011: 9), which further underlines that we are firmly situated in the midst of the ‘things’ that we are studying. By providing a vision of tourism research as a heterogeneous and continuously negotiated entity, we partake in ‘creating and challenging the constant production of discourses on knowledge, usefulness and positions of insiders and outsiders, protagonists and adversaries’ (Ren et al., 2010: 886). Rather than there being one (or two) hegemonic centre(s) of tourism research or dominant paradigms, tourism research is enacted and made valuable in multiple versions through the practices and performances of different knowledge collectives.
Doing tourism research is not (only) a matter of being ‘at the office’ or ‘in the field’ or of representing ‘the field’ within imaginary walls of the ivory tower, but also a matter of involvement and creativity and moving around diverse networks. It involves, almost by necessity, engagement and interventions but also multiple dwellings. The focus on collaboration and co-creation provides an opportunity to appreciate the messiness, unruliness, contradictions and more-than-human entanglements of tourism that do not fully fall into neat categories of academic disciplines or usual definitions of what is ‘tourism proper’. Below we will explicate this by discussing the motions of collaborative knowledge production in tourism in more detail.
What to know
Although often reduced to an industry, Franklin (2004, 2012) suggest that tourism is perhaps best described as an ordering. It is a process of becoming that we, as researchers, participate in making. We have argued elsewhere that tourism is materially heterogeneous, distributed and entangled with not to other activities (Van der Duim et al., 2012; Jóhannesson et al., 2015, Ren et al., 2017) in socio-material configurations consisting of people, organizations, objects, technologies, and spaces. This movement towards a de-centring of tourism entails seeing it as something less solitary and less stable and, rather, as proposed by Haraway, as an ongoing process of ‘becoming with many’ (Haraway, 2003; see also Briassoulis, 2017). It raises questions of who are the possible collaborators in tourism research and how to describe the value of tourism research.
By rhetorically posing the question of ‘What does it mean that something is “about tourism’?”, we argue that tourism is not a contained activity or sector but, rather, a heterogeneous (Van der Duim et al., 2012), distributed (Jóhannesson et al., 2015), multiple (Briassoulis, 2017) and collaborative achievement. This approach not only allows us to pay more attention to the overspills into and from other domains of the social – and beyond – but also to the networks and rhizomes through which tourism knowledge is co-created and to the variously assembled, choreographed (Franklin, 2012) and divided collectives from which these activities emerge. We can then start to consider tourism as an effect of – and addition to – a world ‘continually on the boil’ (Ingold, 2010: 8), coming together thanks to – and reversely leaping into – many corners of the social the more-than-human and the Anthropocene (Gren and Huijbens 2016).
In this inclusive description of tourism, what Haraway (2008) has termed, ‘messmates’ abound. Haraway (2008) deployed the concept to address the close, but often unacknowledged ties between humans and non-humans. A growing body of work within tourism studies has drawn attention towards the material and the non-human for tourism. These range from the early works of Veijola and Jokinen (1994) on the body to the Earth (Gren and Huijbens, 2016), gorillas (Van der Duim et al., 2014), lice (Benali & Ren, 2019) and mosquitoes (Valtonen et al., 2020), to name a few examples. These and other messmates in tourism, have to a large extent been made invisible or absent in tourism research. Their impacts, roles and stories have been left out of the models, metrics and accounts of tourism for far too long and should participate in our tourism knowledge production – our thinking practices – as making-with.
The notion of making-with as well as the idea of becoming with many, which originates from the work of Donna Haraway (2008, 2016) help us challenge the world of tourism as a holistic, coherent or knowable whole. The world of tourism is not a coherent field waiting to be discovered and represented through research or fixed with knowledge products imported from the field of academia. From this approach, things are un-confineable, never conclusive or unequivocal, never singular or static. Haraway’s approach allows for deconstructing tourism as a stable, holistic or coherent whole and to rethink it as an incessant becoming with – and of – many. Tourism emerges as constantly under (re)construction and as co-composed of and with a multitude of inconspicuous and often unacknowledged builders and building stones. This is relational tourism world building, where knowledge co-creation emerges as a taxing and troubling task of drawing boundaries and ordering, which forces us to critically engage, to be concerned and to care, but also to be held mutually response-able in new, and for academics often uncertain, ways. Our subject matters do not rest stable, waiting for us to unravel or map them with our tools but are emergent through a collaborative process of making-with. To become and think together requires a commitment to stay with the trouble, for better and for worse.
How to know
If we accept this description of tourism, we stand confronted with the question of how to create knowledge of and in dynamic and unfolding realities? And how do we break the pre-occupation of research(ers) with representation, that is to represent a reality that comes across as distinct from the life and work of the researcher (Vannini, 2015). As also aptly pointed out by Law (2016: 20) ‘social science realities are made to be austere and moderate’. As an example he points to the fact that social science research has had difficulties with issues of passion, feeling, bodies (and the way in which the body can be a part of a method), material heterogeneity, excess, specificity, formlessness and performativity. Some of those ‘issues’ are partly allowed into academic research, but others, like excess, are more or less ‘othered’. As social science in general, tourism research has strived to live up to the ideal type of Science, producing knowledge in and for academia in such ways which distance it from the field it describes as well as from the researchers that are responsible for its creation (Flyvbjerg, 2001).
Haraway’s idea of tentacular thinking offers a possible methodological procedure for exploring tourism by encouraging us to explore it not as a contained activity or sector but, rather, as a tense, messy, distributed and collaborative achievement. The etymology of tentacles is the Latin tentare, to feel, to try, and subsequently, tentacular thinking is ‘tentative’ and unsure but also tangling, responsive and many-armed: ‘The tentacular ones make attachments and detachments; they ake [sic] cuts and knots; they make a difference; they weave paths and consequences but not determinisms; they are both open and knotted in some ways and not others’. (Haraway, 2016: 31) Tentacularity is about lines and entanglements, rather than points and confined spheres. As opposed to seeing tourism as processes of interaction between closed units or enabled by ‘bounded (or neoliberal) individualism’ (p.33), tentacular thinking proposes making-with, becoming-with and thinking-with a much larger collective of messmates.
As argued by Haraway, ‘it matters what thoughts think thoughts’ (p. 35). The question thus remains how to translate tentacular thinking about tourism realities into practice, what kind of ideas and methods do we use to make, become and think collaboratively? In his critique of ethnography, Ingold (2013) describes it as almost an instrumental practice of numbering, counting and representing. Ethnography comes across as not being-in-the world or not being responsive to a becoming world as it produces static accounts of a static reality, much in the same sense as mainstream social science does. Anthropology, on the other hand is according to Ingold (2013: 3), more akin to tentacular thinking in practice. Ingold stresses that anthropology should be something more than documentary accounts extracted from the field. It is ‘studying with and learning from; it is carried forward in a process of life, and effects transformations within that process’.
Ingold may be critizised for re-producing a well-worn dichotomy between a positivist approach that leads to bird’s-eye-view accounts of reality and the more messy qualitative accounts that may produce more poetic and open ended stories of the same. We argue that it is crucial to by-pass the binary thinking of quantitative and qualitative research and neither would we contend that anthropology provides a somewhat easy solution. As Woodward et al. (2010) argue in relation to studying on the base of flat ontology, we do not necessarily need new methods, rather to open up room for diverse ontologies and recognizing that we are in many ways responsible for producing multiple versions of realities. In that sense, Ingold’s version of anthropology may be an inspiration for new or alternative ways of knowledge production even though we may rely on the usual toolbox of social science.
Some sort of combinations of methodological tools can be used. It is however crucial to situate those methods and account for their premises and remember that they cannot stand alone as innocent representations of stable reality. Sometimes quantified snapshots of reality may be useful to describe and draw attention to situations but they come with the price of reducing complexity and messiness ‘that marked the situation’s specificity in the first place’. (Woodward et al., 2010: 274). Their usefulness may be that they can produce strong, although limited accounts of a given situation. As such they can be one step on the way to create results that correspond to reality and they do, as we have discussed above, produce a particular version of reality. Qualitative approaches are more apt to grasp mobility and messiness but they are not innocent in themselves. Doing research is about ordering and every ordering excludes and moves some things out of the way for the benefit of others. Hence, qualitative methods are not an escape route in and of themselves. ‘As a result, research is experimentation, an ongoing process whose results are never a matter of stable states, but rather commentaries on relationality, affects and conditions of dynamic relation’. (Woodward et al., 2010: 276).
Where to know
From what we have established so far, tourism research is not only a distinct academic practice undertaken by researchers and guided by scientific principle. Rather, it is an entangled and mundane set of practices shaped for and together with those living off and with tourism. We may refer to this bundle of actors and practices as tourism knowledge collectives. Bypassing the boundaries of the world of tourism and tourism knowledge underlines that there is no safe ‘view from afar’ for the researcher and one may ask how it is possible to engage in critical knowledge creation when the researcher is always implicated and entangled within their field of study. From where can the researcher construct his or her critical accounts if not from a distance?
According to Latour (1996: 377) a lack of distance should not lead us into despair, quite the opposite:
The observer – whatever it is – finds itself on a par with all the other frames of reference. It is not left to despair or navel-gazing, since the absence of privileged status has never limited the expansion and intelligence of any actor. World builder among world builders, it does not see a dramatic limit on knowledge in its abandonment of Galilean frames, but only resources. To extend from one frame of reference to the next it has to work and pay the price like any other actor. In order to explain, to account, to observe, to prove, to argue, to dominate and to see it has to move around and work (or even better: it has to “network”).
This stance underlines a shift in the positionality of the researcher from a privileged position on the outside to an entangled moving-along through relations. Instead of attempting to construct critical distance, we, rather, need to tend to critical proximity. Critical proximity can take many forms but implies staying empirically close to the subject matter, opening up ‘matters of fact’ and acknowledging the creative potential of a distributed research process by ‘reappropriating methods used by other actors’ (Birkbak et al., 2015: 24). In those entanglements do we find the researcher. Not critically distant, not hovering above the waters, but exposed, tarnished but, first and foremost, composing together with other actors: busy with ‘world making’ and ‘staying with the trouble’.
Haraway’s notion of staying with the trouble offers a valuable lesson to how we might engage with co-creating tourism knowledge as it asks us to abstain from the temptation:
[T]o address trouble in terms of making an imagined future safe . . . Staying with the trouble requires learning to be truly present, not as a vanishing pivot between awful and endemic pasts and apocalyptic or salvific futures, but as mortal critters entwined in myriad unfinished configurations of places, times, matters, meaning (Haraway, 2016: 2).
Staying with the trouble means resorting to the situated as opposed to the abstract, balancing effects of dystopic despair and politics of mindless indifference. Collaborative ways of knowing tourism can open up avenues for engaging in more respons(e)able research, it can encourage us as researchers to stay close, keep coming back to the subjects of our research and tend to ties rather than cut them when initial research funding runs dry. It is however clear that collaboration as such, can be instrumentalised and ordered in such ways as closing off those opportunities.
Concluding remarks – collaborative orientations
Following Latour (2010), Jensen argues that we as researchers ‘should forgo our ambitions to critique others by revealing some sort of underlying logic; instead, the role of the social sciences should be to engage in the composition of a common world’ (Jensen, 2012: 15). Based on the discussion above on collaborative ways of knowing tourism, we outline in conclusion a set of four orientations to adhere to in order to clarify what collaborative research can be about and how it is of value.
First, research collaborations should capture the situated practices of which it is part. Each pathway to societal impact should start with society and its challenges and interests and not with the research results. Research projects should not only emerge from a genuine interest in understanding and engaging with various tourism practices, realities and values, but tourism research should engage itself and come to matter in the many places and situations where tourism is enacted into being. Paraphrasing Flyvbjerg (2001), tourism research needs to be responsive and done for the public to intervene, creating new understandings and deliberating about the future. As we already stipulated in the first part of this article, tourism research is always being-in-the-world. It is a situated and contingent process of engagement with the environment. Doing tourism research is, above all, a matter of practising tourism and practising through tourism.
Second, research collaboration entails an interest and determination in working together in ways which strives for critical proximity. The notion of critical proximity grasps the ways of engagement by staying close to the issues, controversies and problematics, acknowledging that we are always in the midst of things. It can take many forms but implies staying empirically close to the subject matter, opening up ‘matters of fact’ and connecting with ‘matters of concern’.
Third, research collaboration is interventionist; research is always a situated endeavour, and our research practices take part in creating particular realities over others, in making particular versions of reality more or less present. Preferably, research designs should integrate moments of experiential learning and intervention with current practices or ways of operating.
Fourth and final, research collaboration should seek to come to matter in new ways. Research projects should not only be concerned with problem solving or critiquing (although such research positions are important), but also with balancing and interfering with tourism realities and futures. In that way, tourism research may contribute to finding new or alternative ways to future development that matter, not only within the locality their study is taking place in, but for other places as well.
Using tourism as a prism to explore the messy realities of collaborative knowledge production, we have argued in the present article that knowledge is always co-created through situated practices. The question is therefore not if we, as academics, should collaborate with others or not but rather to make room for different ways of collaboration. We proposed tourism research as an ongoing process of ‘becoming with many’ that places the researcher in the midst of the things on the boil. By bringing forward felt incoherencies and speculative futures and by tinkering with often pragmatic strategies for steering a troubled ocean of academic demands, tourism researchers come to matter beyond or perhaps, rather, in-between the purified confines of ‘h-factor’ and ‘Mode 2’.
We argue that new requirements to engage as co-creators necessitate a wider understanding of the collaborative knowledge collective of tourism research and new tools for co-creating tourism knowledge. Indeed, this means that there is no simple answer for how to make tourism research matter. It remains a matter of concern – situated in currents of life and earthbound. We are, however, certain that by attending to and appreciating the multiple relations and mundane activities through which knowledge (and tourism) is created, we are able to engage in careful research practice, making way for more relevant critique to help maintain and tinker with our world through change.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
