Chapter 6 Discussion – VFR Tourism Behaviour, Host–Guest Relationship, and
6.2 Understanding VFR Behaviour of International PhD Students
The VFR tourism behaviour of international PhD students in this study was examined from both guest and host perspectives. This inclusive approach provides a comprehensive understanding of the breadth of the students’ involvement in VFR tourism. In the current study, friends featured more frequently in VFR tourism of the online survey respondents than did relatives. The dominance of friends underscores the importance of friendship in international PhD students’ VFR tourism experiences, and potentially other aspects of their life, in the host country. It also suggests that certain categories of VFR tourism (VF, VR, or VFR) may be more or less dominant in the behaviour of different groups.
This study found a number of distinctive characteristics of VFR tourism behaviour of international PhD students. First, their participation in VFR tourism varied across different stages of their study. There were occasions that were mainly reserved for doctoral students, including field trips and attending conferences, during which they engaged in VFR tourism as a by-product of their trips. Moreover, not many students participated in VFR tourism at the beginning of their study. This is likely to be related to the limited number of connections within the country during the initial phase, and to the extent of study commitments involved at the beginning of a PhD degree. More generally, it may be that during the establishment phase in the study country, students preferred to settle into their immediate locations instead of travelling to visit friends and relatives, or receiving visits from them. However, as they established more connections over time, the foundation of a network for VFR tourism was expanded and, consequently, their likelihood of engaging in VFR tourism increased.
According to Choi and Fu (2018), some migrants may want to explore certain tourist attractions in order to prepare for hosting their friends and family. International PhD students, as a specific group of migrants, might be reluctant to host their friends and relatives during the initial phase (i.e., just after their arrival) because they might not have sufficient knowledge and familiarity with their immediate location in terms of day-to-day logistics, transport, activities and nearby tourist attractions or amenities.
Consequently, they may judge themselves unable to provide positive hosting experiences for their friends or relatives. This provides additional explanation for the delay in engaging in VFR tourism at the beginning of the students’ stay in the host
The above observation may imply that the desire to engage in VFR tourism of international PhD students is multiply motivated and ambivalent. That is, at the start of their study abroad experience, their desire for VFR experiences (seeing friends and relatives, especially immediate family members) might be higher in order to help overcome homesickness and social isolation. However, at the start of their study abroad experience, they might also be less capable of hosting visits from friends and relatives (e.g., lacking in local knowledge). As such, there might exist, arguably, the potential for conflicted feelings regarding the personal need for, and at the same time, perceived lack of capability to adequately host VFR visitors. Such conflict may influence the motivation and participation in VFR tourism by international PhD students, especially during the early period of their stay in the study country.
Second, the current study noted a potential relationship between VFR tourism behaviour of international PhD students and their family status, especially with the presence (or absence) of a partner or a child. This finding is consistent with the results of previous literature (Backer & Lynch, 2017; Tham & Racitia, 2018). As an example, Backer and Lynch (2017) found that family status might have an impact on VFR tourism behaviour in terms of level of participation and length of VFR trips.
Being influenced by family status can be one of the factors that distinguish the VF tourism behaviour of international PhD students from other groups of students. Along with a higher level of maturity than other student cohorts, international PhD students are more likely to have diverse family status profiles. With other groups of students–
undergraduates, for instance–who are likely to have less diverse family status profiles, this factor could be less influential on overall VF tourism.
Moreover, Bierwiaczonek and Waldzus (2016) stated that lack of interest in family-related factors in student research is often due to the young age of the target population making them less likely to be accompanied by their families while abroad.
This view may be less applicable to international PhD students who are normally more mature in age and family status compared to undergraduate students and, thus, more likely to have the company of family members. Arguably, international PhD students who are in the host country without families may come to rely more heavily on VF tourism experiences (even if they are ‘only’ excursions or day-trips) as surrogate VR tourism. That is, the circle of friends represents a substitute family for
PhD families during their programme of study. The role of family status in VFR tourism of international PhD students is worth further investigation.
Third, the VFR tourism behaviour of international PhD students can be influenced by particular cultural and socioeconomic factors. Cultural factors (including cultural norms and sociocultural expectations), for example, could have an impact on the frequency of VFR travel and the level of participation in VFR tourism. Some cultures may expect family gatherings in certain times of the year, or during special occasions such as weddings, birthdays, and traditional family gatherings. In such instances, the students would be expected to participate in VFR tourism to fulfil their social obligations. The influence of cultural factors is also expressed through hosting and guesting experiences in VFR tourism, especially in terms of the mutual expectations between hosts and guests as discussed in Section 5.3.
In addition, this study found that housing situations in the host country played an important role in the students’ choice of accommodation when participating in VFR tourism. With the housing crisis in New Zealand for the past decade (Johnson et al., 2018), it can be challenging for students to rent a place that has enough space to be able to host visitors comfortably. Moreover, the housing needs of international PhD students who are in the study destination with family members is likely to be different from those who do not have family. In such personal and economic conditions, it may also be more difficult to find a place that is close to the urban centre, which was found as one of the reasons that friends and relatives were attracted to stay. This is consistent with the relationship between VFR tourism of immigrants and urban areas examined in other studies (Griffin & Dimanche, 2017; Griffin & Nunkoo, 2016).
They argued that cities and nearby regions that are accessible by various forms of transports could become more appealing for urban VFR visitors and their hosts. In other words, the housing situation and the urbanisation of the host’s place can be important factors in both the ability to host at all and in the quality of the hosting experience of international PhD students.
The influence of the housing situation on VFR tourism is also associated with economic contribution. The economic contribution to the accommodation sector is dependent on whether the students stay at their friends’ (or relatives’) place when visiting them, and whether or not their own visitors stay with them. Factors that can
to be concerned with the relationship between the students and their friends or relatives, decisions to stay could also be influenced by the location where friends/relatives live, or where the students lived if they were the host. The guests were more likely to stay with the hosts if the hosts lived in urban central areas, because it was more convenient to get around. Accordingly, if students can be supported to find accommodation in the central city or areas that are close to key attractions, it would likely encourage their participation in VFR tourism.
Fourth, throughout Chapter 4 and Chapter 5, the nature of the relationship between the host and the guest (‘the relationship’) was often mentioned as an important factor that can influence the students’ VFR tourism behaviour. If the relationship was close, it helped form a strong foundation for VFR tourism to happen and the resulting VFR tourism experiences then, in turn, potentially strengthened the relationship further (if the VFR experience was positive); or, conversely, weaken the relationship which discouraged participation in VFR tourism with the same friends/relatives in the future (if the VFR experience was negative). On the other hand, if the relationship was not close, it might take more effort from both sides (the host and the guest) to engage in VFR tourism. In this case, the guest might be reluctant to travel to visit or to stay with the host; and the host might be hesitant to offer to host the guest. However, if a VFR tourism experience did occur in such cases, and was a positive experience, it would likely improve the relationship and, consequently, encourage more VFR tourism experiences in the future.
It is worth noting that the increasingly complex dynamics of migration patterns has expanded the geographical and behavioural boundaries of VFR tourism, as has the use of new technologies to influence co-present experience between people. The recognition of VFR tourism in a third place and VFR in transit are specific examples of such boundary expansion identified in the current study. Incidents of these emerging forms of VFR tourism have the potential to increase among international PhD students. With VFR in third places, both visiting friends/relatives and leisure motivations coexist and, since the participants are likely to be in vacation mode, their expectation of the resulting experience could be different from experiences of
‘traditional’ VFR tourism. The location of the friends/relatives could be a determining factor for the travel patterns of VFR tourism in a third place. If all participants reside in the same country, the third place is more likely to be domestic. On the other hand,
if the participants reside in different countries, international travel patterns, or a combination of both domestic and international patterns, would be more likely.
In relation to VFR tourism in transit, it can occur either domestically or internationally. Means of transport might play a role in the undertaken patterns of VFR tourism in transit. With air transport, for instance, judging from the trip distance and the time involved, VFR in transit may be more likely to happen with international long-haul flights than domestic short-haul flights. Further research examining VFR tourism in transit in depth would be able to confirm, or reject, such hypotheses.
Nevertheless, the recognition of these VFR forms acknowledges the evolution of VFR tourism in the context of increasing global mobilities.