Academic foundations for hospitality and tourism research: A reexamination of citations

Kim, Yong Hee; Savage, Kathryn; Howey, Richard M.; Hoof, Hubert B. Van

doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2008.11.016

Cited by 50 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, tourism does seem to be a field that is unusually reliant on related disciplines for its theory. Kim, Savage, Howey, & Van Hoof (2009) found that in 2003-2005, 12% of citations in top tourism journals were drawn from other tourism journals, 21% from hospitality and 67% from other sources. An earlier study of six leading hospitality journals (Howey, Savage, Verbeeten, & Van Hoof, 1999), found 14,605 citations from nontourism or hospitality sources, but from a restricted set of disciplines.…”

Section: Study Of Tourism: Origins Development and Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tourism research: building from other disciplines

Laws

Scott

2015

Tourism Recreation Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tourism as a field of study is challenged to identify a theoretical core and disciplinary boundaries. While the phenomena of tourism may be considered a system of interlinked parts, the scholarly body of knowledge of tourism may be described as a mosaic of knowledge. This paper identifies a number of methodological problems that tourism research must address. We further propose that future study should focus its attention on core issues of tourism related to the consumer's pursuit of difference in their travel. Further, these core issues should be addressed using the most appropriate disciplinary theory and methodology providing the data needed to produce a holistic picture for deeper analysis.

show abstract

Section: Study Of Tourism: Origins Development and Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tourism research: building from other disciplines

Laws

Scott

2015

Tourism Recreation Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We were wary of producing too large segregations which would hide changes by amalgamating over too long a period. We found little guidance in the literature on how to divide citation data to track changes, with ranges from 1 to 10 years being common Kim, Savage, Howey, & Van Hoof, 2009;Leydesdorff & Zhou, 2005;Pieters, Baumgartner, Vermunt, & Bijmolt, 1999;Pilkington & Teichert, 2006;Shibata, Kajikawa, Takeda, Sakata, & Matsushima, 2011). These periods allow us to identify and contrast IS discourse formation differences and see how interactions with other disciplines have expanded, contracted or changed.…”

Section: Time Periodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Research in information systems: a study of diversity and inter-disciplinary discourse in the AIS basket journals between 1995 and 2011

Bernroider

Pilkington

Córdoba

2015

Formulating Research Methods for Information Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper investigates how Information Systems (IS) has emerged as the product of interdisciplinary discourses. The research aim in this study is to better understand diversity in IS research, and the extent to which the diversity of discourse expanded and contracted from 1995 to 2011. Methodologically, we apply a combined citations/co-citations analysis based on the eight Association for Information Systems (AIS) basket journals and the 22 subject-field classification framework provided by the Association of Business Schools (ABS). Our findings suggest that IS is in a state of continuous interaction and competition with other disciplines. General Management was reduced from a dominant position as a reference discipline in IS at the expense of a growing variety of other discourses including Business Strategy, Marketing, and Ethics and Governance among others. Over time, IS as a field moved from the periphery to a central position during its discursive formation. This supports the notion of IS as a fluid discipline dynamically embracing a diverse range of adjacent reference disciplines, whilst keeping a degree of continuing interaction with them. Understanding where IS is currently at allows us to better understand and propose fruitful avenues for its development in both academia and practice.

show abstract

“…hospitality or tourism), as well as comparisons between research on tourism and hospitality (Baloglu & Assante, 1999;Hall, 2011;Hung & Law, 2011;Kim, Savage, Howey, & Van Hoof, 2009;McKercher, 2012;Park, Phillips, Canter, & Abbott, 2011). Several different approaches have been used for analyzing academic journals, particularly contributions, methods, and content analysis.…”

Section: Review Of Previous Studies By Focus and Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several different approaches have been used for analyzing academic journals, particularly contributions, methods, and content analysis. Contributions are studies producing rankings or ratings of authors, affiliations, geographical areas, as well as impact (citations) and bibliometric analysis of journals (Benckendorff & Zehrer, 2013;Chang & McAleer, 2012;Hall, 2011;Jamal, Smith, & Watson, 2008;Jogaratnam, Chon, McCleary, Mena, & Yoo, 2005;Kim et al, 2009;Park et al, 2011;Ryan, 2005;Zhao & Ritchie, 2007). The methods and statistical techniques applied in research have been another way to analyze articles (Crawford-Welch & McCleary, 1992;Reid & Andereck, 1989;Riley & Love, 2000).…”

Section: Review Of Previous Studies By Focus and Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Tourism System Research Categorization Framework

Park

Morrison

et al. 2015

Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This analysis produced a tourism system research categorization framework comprising mutually exclusive subject areas to classify the keywords in academic journal articles. The primary research goals were to develop this framework and then assess the frequency levels of specific tourism research subject areas in the 10-year period of 2002-2011. A database of 37,918 author-selected keywords from 9,588 research articles in 31 tourism, hospitality, and leisure journals was created. Using the proposed framework, the database was divided into six main categories (destination; demand; travel; marketing; geographical areas; and generic terms) and 61 sub-categories. The destination category captured the most keywords, followed by demand and then marketing.

show abstract

Academic foundations for hospitality and tourism research: A reexamination of citations

Cited by 50 publications

References 9 publications

Tourism research: building from other disciplines

Tourism research: building from other disciplines

Research in information systems: a study of diversity and inter-disciplinary discourse in the AIS basket journals between 1995 and 2011

The Tourism System Research Categorization Framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About