Section 2: Disciplines and Areas of Study
2.1 Jafari’s Interdisciplinary Model
Jafar Jafari1 is the founder of the scientific journal Annals of Tourism Research, which has been pub- lished in English since 1973 and in Spanish since 1999. He also edited two editions of the Encyclopaedia of Tourism (published by Routledge in 2000 and Springer in 2016) and is a co-founder of the International Academy for the Study of Tourism (http://www.tourismscholars.org) and the Tourism Research Information Network (TRINET, founded in 1988), an international online list for discussing tourism. He is probably one of the best- known tourism scholars in the world.
Jafari’s article ‘Toward a framework for tourism education – problems and prospects’, published with Brent Ritchie in 1981, contains a chart that attempts to explain how tourism knowledge is pro- duced at the university through interdisciplinarity.
Although the article was written by both authors, the model was conceived by Jafari in 1981.
According to the model, ‘tourism studies’ is the centre of discussion at a university tourism depart- ment (Fig. 10). The disciplines (sciences) that study tourism are located around that circle and originate in other departments, which contribute their analyses to the interpretation of the touristic phenomenon.
Thus, for example, the economics of tourism disci- pline would be located in the economics department, which would provide the theoretical foundation for studying the economic aspects of tourism.
Originally, in 1981, this chart presented 16 disci- plines. In a later study, however, Jafari (2005) added the departments of religion and history, bringing the number of disciplines studying tourism to 18 (Fig. 10).
Jafari and Ritchie (1981) considered it best to study tourism using a transdisciplinary approach.
However, given the many limitations implied by this approach (university costs, greater integration among professors, greater dedication from schol- ars), these authors suggested that it would be best to accept the multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary model in tourism studies. According to education
theorists, the forms of knowledge production, or rather, how an object can be scientifically studied (within the parameters of the discipline or disci- plines that are used to study this object), can be classified as follows:
● Disciplinary: only one discipline studies the problem or object, using its own foundations, and there is no interaction with other disciplines or sciences.
● Multidisciplinary: various disciplines study the problem with little or no integration.
● Interdisciplinary: various integrated disciplines study the problem and reach only one conclu- sion. They share and divide knowledge, and the work is done together.
● Transdisciplinary: beyond disciplines. Teach- ing begins with the problem, and disciplines are invited to answer questions. This is the deepest integration that can exist among disciplines.
● Extradisciplinary: this occurs when knowledge is produced in practice, in daily working life and outside academic circles, such as universi- ties. For example, consider the knowledge pro- duced in relationships between customers and travel agents within an agency, as noted by Tribe (1997).
Jafari (1990) is also known for a study on trends in tourism knowledge, which was updated in more recent publications (1994 and 2005). According to Jafari, since the 1950s, tourism has passed through five stages of study, which he termed platforms of tourism thought.
The first stage was the advocacy platform, which stated that tourism development brings foreign cur- rency, creates jobs and is good for the economy.
This platform addressed an initial period, when only the positive impacts of tourism were being emphasized. It spread through articles, books and documents from the World Tourism Organization (WTO), among other associations.
46 Chapter 2.1 The second stage was the cautionary platform,
which highlighted the negative and harmful sides of tourism, viewing it as a destroyer of local cul- ture and natural resources, caring only about tourists, overlooking the local community’s needs and causing conflicts. This platform spread pri- marily through publications that were not linked to tourism. This was the period when tourism’s
negative impacts were highlighted. A comparison between these first two platforms is shown in Table 4.
The third stage was the adaptancy platform. This was the period when good and bad stories about tourism had already been told; it was therefore a time when different forms of tourism could be cho- sen. Options such as adventure tourism, agritourism, Centre for
Tourism Studies
Sociology
Political science
Agricultur e
Ecology
Geography Anthropology Psychology
Economics
Sociology of tourism
A world without borders
Managementand recreation Parks andrecreation
Urban andregionalplanning Marketing
Law Tour
ism mar
keting
Department or discipline
Tourism programme Administration
Transpor t
Hotel and restaurant management
Education
Education f
or tour
ism centr
e
Managing tourism organizations
Hospitali ty in tour
ism Fundamentals
of transpor t
Tourism law
Development and planning t our
ism R
ural to urism
Projects in natur
e
Geography of tourism Host–guest
relationship Motiv
ation for t
ourism Economic
implications oftour ism
Fig. 10. Jafari’s interdisciplinary model of knowledge production in tourism. (From Jafari, 2005.)
Jafari’s Interdisciplinary Model 47 cultural tourism, ecotourism and nature tourism,
among others, gained prominence.
The fourth stage was the knowledge-based plat- form. Jafari identified this stage as the one in which a body of knowledge about tourism studies had been created, and thus many universities had opened their doors to the topic. Numerous aca- demic meetings took place, new tourism journals and books emerged, and the multidisciplinary approach began to be used in tourism studies.
The fifth and most recent stage was the public platform. In Jafari’s (2005) opinion, during this period of history, tourism gained visibility and occu- pied a place on the agenda of the non-specialized public because of the outbreak of severe acute res- piratory syndrome (SARS) and the terrorist attacks of 11 September, 2001 (New York and Washington, DC, USA) and 11 March, 2003 (Madrid, Spain).
Furthermore, the WTO had been transformed into a United Nations agency, further highlighting the importance of tourism in today’s society.
According to Macbeth (2005), an alternative fifth platform is emerging, although it is still in the early stages: sustainable development. Macbeth also considered the existence and reinforcement of a sixth platform: ethics. The current number of platforms and the number of platforms that will be created or identified in the future remain a subject of debate among experts in the field.
Operationalizing
John Urry (2002, p. 1–2) analysed how the tour- ist gaze is formed and how it has changed over time. His book is an excellent study that helps us understand what these changes were and how Table 4. Positions of advocacy and cautionary platforms on tourism’s impacts. (From Jafari, 2003, p. 8.)
Advocacy platform Cautionary platform
Economic examples Socio-cultural examples Economic examples Socio-cultural examples Tourism is labour intensive: Tourism broadens
education
Tourism causes inflation Tourism contributes to misunderstanding Full-time Promotes international
peace and understanding
Results in high leakage Generate stereotypes of the host and guest
Seasonal Breaks down: Has seasonality
and contributes to unemployment
Leads to xenophobia
Unskilled Language barriers Is susceptible to change, rumour, spread of diseases, economic fluctuation
Results in social pollution
Generates foreign exchange Socio-cultural barriers Results in unbalanced economic development
Commercializes culture, religion and the arts Can be built on existing
infrastructure
Class barriers Leads to extraneous dependency
Threatens family structure Can be developed with local
products and services
Racial barriers Increases demonstration effects
Contributes to prostitution Spreads development Political barriers Destroys resources and
creates visual pollution
Increases instances of crime
Complements production of other economic activities
Religious barriers Conduces conflicts in
the host society Has high multiplier affect Gender barriers
Reinforces preservation of heritage and tradition Promotes worldview/
membership in the global community
Enhances appreciation of one’s culture
48 Chapter 2.1 they occurred. The passage below illustrates this
topic:
There is no single tourist gaze as such. It varies by society, by social group and by historical period.
Such gazes are constructed through difference. By this we mean not merely that there is no universal experience that is true for all tourists at all times.
There are many ways of gazing within tourism, and tourists look at ‘difference’ differently. This is in part because tourist gazes are structured according to class, gender, ethnicity and age. Moreover, the gaze in any historical period is constructed in relationship to its opposite, to non-tourist forms of social experience and consciousness. What makes a particular tourist gaze depends upon what it is contrasted with; what the forms of non-tourist experience happen to be. The gaze therefore presupposes a system of social activities and signs which locate the particular tourist practices, not in terms of some intrinsic characteristics, but through the contrasts implied with non-tourist social practices, particularly those based within home and paid work.
Exercise
The population’s perception of the touristic phe- nomenon has changed over time. What factors have caused these changes? Has your opinion of the touristic phenomenon changed since you became interested in and began to study tourism? Try to explain how and why these changes have occurred.
Note
1 To learn more about Jafar Jafari’s contribution to tourism studies, see Xiao, H. (2013).
References
Jafari, J. (1990) Research and scholarship. The basis of tourism education. Journal of Tourism Studies 1, 33–41.
Jafari, J. (1994) La cientifizacion del turismo. Estudios y Perspectivas en Turismo 3, 7–35.
Jafari, J. (2003) Research and scholarship. The basis of tourism education. Journal of Tourism Studies 14, 6–16.
Jafari, J. (2005) Tourism Research: Revamping Old Challenges for Integrative Paradigms. Anais do VII Congreso Nacional y I Internacional de Investigación Turística, Guadalajara, Mexico.
Jafari, J. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (1981) Toward a framework for tourism education – problems and prospects. Annals of Tourism Research 8, 13–34.
Macbeth, J. (2005) Towards an ethics platform for tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 32, 962–984.
Tribe, J. (1997) The indiscipline of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 24, 638–657.
Urry, J. (2002) The Tourism Gaze, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, London.
Xiao, H. (2013). Jafar Jafari: the platform builder. Anatolia 24, 288–296.
Further Reading
Jafari, J. (1995) Structure of tourism: three integrated models. In: Witt, S.F. and Moutinho, L. (eds) Tourism Marketing and Management Handbook. Prentice-Hall, London, pp. 5–17.
Jafari, J. (2000) Introduction. In: Jafari, J. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Tourism. Routledge, London, pp. XVII–XXIII.
49
© G. Lohmann and A. Panosso Netto 2017. Tourism Theory (G. Lohmann and A. Panosso Netto) The common-sense use of the term ‘ethics’ is linked
to the distinction between what is right and wrong.
Because of the complexity of human relationships, individuals often use the word ethics to justify their choices and attitudes. The fact is, ‘ethics’ is a broad term. A more direct definition provides that ‘ethics is the theory or science of man’s moral behaviour in society. In other words, it is the science of a specific form of human behaviour’ (Vázquez, 2012, p. 23).
For Lalande (1999, p. 348), it is the ‘science that engages in the judgement of appraisal, as it applies to the distinction between good and evil’, while for Abbagnano (1999, p. 380), it is the ‘science of con- duct’. Although it is common in society at large for ethics to be confused with morals (behaviour), there is a consensus that ethics is the subject that studies such behaviours, along with value judge- ments about those behaviours, in a particular soci- ety and historical time.
Ethics is a discipline, a part of philosophy ‘that is dedicated to thinking about human actions and their foundations’, taking as a central axis for its considerations the recognition of the existence of an ‘other’ (Gallo, 2003 p. 54). Although the terms
‘morals’ and ‘ethics’ are often used interchangeably, they are distinct terms with different meanings (see Table 5). Ethics is the part of philosophy that analyses the conceptions, principles and values that guide human interactions in societies. Morals is the
‘set of norms or rules acquired through habits’ and refers ‘to the behaviour acquired or way of being achieved by man’ (Vázquez, 2012, p. 24). Morals is human behaviour, its norms and rules in a given society; ethics is the science that studies these ele- ments. From this perspective, ‘ethics is the science of morals’ (Vázquez, 2012, p. 23). A person is said to be moral if he or she acts in accordance with the customs, norms and rules of his or her social and cultural group. For Rios (2002), what is considered good or bad for a particular society is problema- tised within the domain of ethics. Values accepted
by this society are also questioned, and therefore, ethics is also exercised through critique.
Any and all practical ethical constructions are based on the assumption that they only emerge when the ‘other’ appears before us. This other can be the person themselves who looks within and analyses their conscience, capturing the appeals that manifest in themselves as hate, love, compassion, solidarity, and willingness to cooperate or to domi- nate, along with senses of responsibilities. This other can be a person who is in front of us at the moment: a family member, a friend, a co-worker or a tourism professional. The other can likewise be
‘others’, such as a social class, a community, society itself or, adopting a more comprehensive view, nature and the planet.
From this perspective, it must be acknowledged that all of our actions and their consequences affect not only us but also the other. Consequently, nobody escapes by remaining indifferent to the other. In other words, a person must take a posi- tion, and even if they do not position themselves, silencing or showing themselves to be indifferent, they are already standing in front of that other.
Ethics thus emerges from the manner in which a relationship is established with these different oth- ers; according to Boff (2003a, p. 1), they represent
‘a proposal that demands a response,’ and it is from this ‘confrontation between proposal and response that responsibility emerges’. When we either assume or absolve ourselves from our responsibilities, we
‘become an ethical being’.
Boff (2003a, p. 1) adds that the ‘other is deter- minant. Without passing through the other (which can be oneself), all ethics is unethical’. It is there- fore not without reason that all religions and ethi- cal traditions, regardless of their culture, have established as a founding rule the ethical phrase
‘Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.’ Stated more positively, ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’