Affective subjectivation or moral ambivalence? Constraints on the promotion of sustainable tourism by academic researchers

Abstract

This paper examines an increasingly pervasive aspect of neoliberal research funding regimes, namely the expectation that academic research should influence non-academic policy and practice. More specifically, it explores the reaction of British academic researchers with an interest in sustainable tourism to what has become known as the impact agenda. How do they conceptualise impact? Do they moralise impact (perhaps in relation to the limits of their expertise or the veracity of their claims)? Does this aspect of research policy affect their approach to academic work? The findings of a qualitative study reveal a constituency of academic researchers primarily concerned with their own performativity. There is seemingly limited moral framing of research impact and a suggestion of moral hypocrisy. Widespread affective subjectivation provides a plausible explanation for current academic behaviour. The paper concludes by arguing that without a collective re-thinking of how sustainable tourism research might gain influence beyond academia, it is probable that performative practices will continue to characterise academic responses to the impact agenda.

The contribution of tourism towards a more sustainable and inclusive society: key guiding principles in times of crisis

“…They include difficulties in all stakeholders’ involvement and lack of clarity on their roles and responsibilities, lack of information and data, contested leadership, the high fragmentation of the sector and the usual lack of understanding of the benefits of working together and sharing experiences. Besides these limitations, there are frequently financial constraints and some problems when it is assumed that “one size fits all” without considering the real inequalities in development opportunities amongst tourism players (Caiado et al , 2018; Leal Filho, 2019; Thomas, 2020). Therefore, the challenges and calls for stakeholders to adopt these principles are even greater.…”

Mobilising knowledge: an action design research case study of using technology to safeguard an endangered nature-based tourism attraction

“…Cole, 2006, Wray, 2011. Moreover, Thomas (2020) warns that claims of impactful research through practitioner-research engagement are often overstated, and are more likely tied to academic agendas of career promotion, than true progress towards greater sustainability.…”

“…The need for impactful research on tourism's sustainability has never been greater than in 2020, when COVID-19 is threatening the long-term viability of much of the tourism sector. While there is a strong call from academics to support sustainable tourism plan for a recovery, it is not clear what that help will look like, particularly as there is an argument that many tourism academics are highly disconnected from the business of tourism, limiting their practical contributions to a sector in crisis (Haywood, 2020, personal communication, April 6, 2020, or worse still, only interested in the appearance of impactful research (Thomas, 2020). In Australia in particular, investment into research and development linking academics to industry represents approximately 1.9% of GDP and is considered "far off pace" with the rest of the world (Rynne in Bagshaw, 2019).…”

Digital Generation Y and Z in the Field of Tourism: Psychological Dimensions of Morality

“…In addition, morality and responsibility as a prerequisite for the protection of human rights and an important vector of tourism development are increasingly frequently a major focus of interest of scientists from around the world (Butcher, 2015;Caton, 2015;Cornelisse, 2020;Fennell & Malloy, 1999;Marnburg, 2006;Thomas, 2020). The scientists emphasize that these indicators help to improve skills in the ability to constructively resolve problems related to complaints, maximize positive impressions and satisfaction with the quality of customer services, as well as the ability to share such experiences with colleagues (Huang, Wu, & Zhang, 2019;Kim, & Qu, 2019).…”

“…The problem of psychological peculiarities of the representatives of digital generations is actively considered in modern science and international practice; however, the views of the scientists are quite contradictory in this regard (Bondarenko, et al, 2020;Caton, 2015;Cornelisse, 2020;Marnburg, 2006;Thomas, 2020). The researchers focus on both the positive and negative characteristics of the digital generation.…”