Tourism Knowledge Domains: A Keyword Analysis

Wu, Bihu; Xiao, Honggen; Dong, X. Dam; Wang, Mu; Xue, Lan

doi:10.1080/10941665.2011.628330

Cited by 61 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Prior research review articles have used a variety of measures to categorize the subject areas within article contents such as journal descriptions (editorial focus) (Cheng et al, 2011); subject indices of specific journals (Long, 1998;Swain et al, 1998;Xiao & Smith, 2006); contents from titles, abstracts, or whole articles (full script) (Ballantyne et al, 2009;Baloglu & Assante, 1999;Botterill et al, 2002;Tsang & Hsu, 2011); and authorselected keywords (Wu et al, 2012). Cheng et al's (2011) study, based on the editorial focus enunciated in journals' mission statements derived from Jamal et al's (2008) and Ballantyne et al's (2009) findings, elaborated on journals' missions and scope, and categorized each journal by disciplinary focus.…”

Section: Research Article Subject Categorization and Content Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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). Wu, Xiao, Dong, Wang, and Xue (2012) gathered method-related keywords and found that quantitative methods are mainly used in tourism research while qualitative methods are less frequently applied. The third approach is the analysis of article contents according to two different methods: one through meta-analysis of articles by examining them based on author type, statistical methods, and subject areas (Baloglu & Assante, 1999;Chon et al, 1989;Crawford-Welch & McCleary, 1992;Reid & Andereck, 1989); and the other by collecting and categorizing the topics, keywords, headwords, titles, and abstracts (Botterill, Haven, & Gale, 2002;Wu et al, 2012;Xiao & Smith, 2006).…”

Section: Review Of Previous Studies By Focus and Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wu et al (2012) suggested the analysis of author-selected keywords from a complementary approach. However, these authors only selected three tourism journals, making it difficult to generalize overarching tourism research characteristics and trends.…”

Section: Research Article Subject Categorization and Content Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Tourism System Research Categorization Framework

Park

Morrison

et al. 2015

Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research

Self Cite

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

Section: Research Article Subject Categorization and Content Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Review Of Previous Studies By Focus and Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Tourism System Research Categorization Framework

Park

Morrison

et al. 2015

Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Hassan et al (2014) used the term 'rural tourism' as one of the essential keywords for the concept of rural development in a study which identified sub-areas of sustainable development. ' Agriculture' was also identified as one of the core keywords of the subject area of 'Tourism industries and tourism attractions' by (Wu et al, 2012). Philip et al, (2009) presented an overview of the terms, where it becomes evident that Agritourism, Farm Tourism, Farm-based tourism, Agrotourism, and even Vacation Farms describe various aspects of rural tourism which are almost freely interchangeable.…”

Section: Choice Of Search Termsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agriculture vs. social sciences: subject classification and sociological conceptualization of rural tourism in Scopus and Web of Science

Hočevar

Bartol²

2016

AAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agriculture vs. social sciences: subject classification and sociological conceptualization of rural tourism in Scopus and Web of ScienceAgriculture and consumptive function of countryside (rural areas) are connected which should be reflected in scientific research. In order to test relationships, we selected the topic of rural tourism (also agritourism, agrotourism, agricultural tourism) considering sociological conceptualization (social sciences, sociology) and methodological approaches of information sciences (bibliometrics, scientometrics) in describing fields of science or scientific disciplines. We ascertained scatter of information in citation databases (Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar). Functionalities were evaluated, affecting search precision and recall in information retrieval. We mapped documents to Scopus subject areas as well as Web of Science (WOS) research areas and subject categories, and related publications (journals). Databases do not differ substantially in mapping this topic. Social sciences (including economics or business) occupy by far the most important place. The strongest concentration was found in tourism-related journals (consistent with power laws). Agriculture-related publications are rare, accounting for some 10 % of documents. Interdisciplinarity seems to be weak. Results point to poor inclusion of emerging social topics in agricultural research whereby agriculture may lose out in possible venues of future research.Key words: rural tourism; social sciences; agricultural sciences; science mapping; classification; interdisciplinary research; citation databases; sociological conceptualization Kmetijske in družbene vede: predmetna klasifikacija in sociološka konceptualizacija podeželskega turizma v zbirkah Scopus in Web of ScienceKmetijstvo in konzumptivna funkcija podeželja (podežel-ska območja) sta povezana, kar naj bi se odražalo tudi v znanstvenem raziskovanju. Da bi preverili razmerja, smo izbrali predmet podeželskega turizma (tudi kmečki turizem, agroturizem, agriturizem), upoštevajoč sociološko konceptualizacijo (družbene vede, sociologija) ter metodološke pristope informacijskih znanosti (bibliometrija, scientometrija) pri opisovanju znanstvenih področij oz. znanstvenih disciplin. Razkropitev informacij smo raziskovali v citatnih zbirkah (Web of Science, Scopus, Google Učenjak), kjer smo ovrednotili funkcionalnosti zbirk, ki vplivajo na odziv in natančnost pri iskanju informacij. Dokumente smo priredili širšim predmetnim klasifikacijskim kategorijam v zbirkah Scopus in Web of Science, ter ustreznim publikacijam (revijam). Zbirki se pri kartiranju oz. klasificiranju te tematike bistveno ne razlikujeta. Družbene vede (vključujoč ekonomiko) zasedajo daleč najbolj pomembno mesto. Največjo koncentracijo je najti pri turističnih revijah (v skladu s potenčnimi zakoni). Publikacije s področja kmetijstva so redke (kakih 10 %). Interdisciplinarnost se izkazuje dokaj šibko. Rezultati kažejo, da raziskave s področja kmetijstva le redko zajemajo novejše družbene tematike, zaradi če...

show abstract

“…However, "local experience" is not an academically established term. It is not among the research keywords in tourism literature [15], either. This is perhaps because locality is instilled in every aspect of travel.…”

Section: Literature Review and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Reality of Encounters with Local Life in Other Cultures

Kim

2017

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Equipped with mobile technologies, travelers increasingly seek opportunities to encounter the real lives of the people residing in the focal destination. With this trend of pursuing local life experience, this study investigated how international visitors recognize the lives of people in the focal destination, and whether this recognition is related to satisfaction. Reviews for Teheran's Grand Bazaar from an online review site, Tripadvisor, showed that visitors' local encounters were linked with favorable emotions (good, interesting, and worthwhile). To lend support to the contact hypothesis, which posits that intercultural experiences can lead to more favorable evaluations of the host community; the visitors who recognized direct and indirect encounters with local life indicated higher satisfaction. Even if brief, the experience of local life appeared to create more intimate feelings for the focal destination. Interestingly, the number of past travel experiences, which was captured by the number of reviews written by the reviewer, was found to have a negative association with satisfaction. We draw further implications for the travelers as well as the local community.

show abstract

Tourism Knowledge Domains: A Keyword Analysis

Cited by 61 publications

References 48 publications

The Tourism System Research Categorization Framework

The Tourism System Research Categorization Framework

Agriculture vs. social sciences: subject classification and sociological conceptualization of rural tourism in Scopus and Web of Science

The Reality of Encounters with Local Life in Other Cultures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About