Research Paradigms in Tourism Studies: A Comparative Analysis

Introduction: Research in Tourism Studies

For the study of tourism to work best and to succeed, it proceeds as all other fields must — namely through research. Research, however, is never homogeneous. It is comprised of various methodologies, ranging from the hard, empirical, quantitative type of study to the soft, more subjective, qualitative interpretation.

Not only are there different methodologies, but research often — or, rather, invariably — operates against a specific theoretical framework, and this theory depends on the researcher's inclinations. Some may be inclined to use positivist theory, whilst others employ feminist or grounded theory, or a phenomenological approach, among many others. These are all different perspectives — different ways of looking at data. The same piece of data, or the same situation, can be perceived and interpreted in various ways, resulting in a multi-faceted study.

The fascinating aspect of this is that one situation can be seen in diverse ways, with the same phenomena discussed and approached in a contradictory manner. This leads to different ways of interpreting outcomes and may, indeed, lead to different outcomes altogether. The fact that research can be interpreted in so many diverse ways depending on one's subjective Weltanschauung is the very stuff of the philosophy of science.

In the following essay, three articles on the subject of tourism are examined to show how each adopts a different approach to the same subject matter, and how each consequently discusses the topic in a different style and voice while employing different methodological tools. The three different epistemological, ontological, and methodological worldviews examined are, in turn: feminism, positivism, and the interpretive approach.

Defining Paradigm, Ontology, Epistemology, and Methodology

Paradigm refers to the way that we perceive the world. The term first came into wide use with Kuhn (1996), who argued that scientific paradigms are contingent on time and depend on the prevailing mode of thinking for their fixation. It is only when that prevailing thinking encounters irreversible difficulties and unsolvable problems that researchers are forced to seek solutions that may involve departures from prior ways of thinking. Hence a paradigm shift is created, followed by a new period of conformist thought. Examples include Copernicus's revolutionary model of the universe and Einstein's physics, which supplanted the Newtonian perspective.

The greatest impediment to paradigmatic shift is paradigm paralysis, which tends to impede people from progressing to new modes of thought. This is similar to confirmation bias, where people are simply disinclined to change their way of thinking and to view the science in a different manner (Nickles, 2002, pp. 1–4, 9).

The word originates from the Greek paradeigma, meaning "pattern, example, sample," from the verb meaning "to exhibit, represent, expose" and "to show, to point out" (Liddell & Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Perseus Digital Library).

The term "paradigm" has had various meanings throughout history but has currently assumed the philosophical and scientific connotation of the particular way in which one epistemologically interprets the world. The Merriam-Webster dictionary, for instance, defines it as: "a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated; broadly: a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind."

Returning to Kuhn, and a fact that will be evident throughout this essay, Kuhn comments that paradigms are generally incommensurable with one another — meaning that each has different standards and principles, and that their different treatments of the same subject cannot therefore be merged, because they may very often be contradictory. Each has a different way of looking at the same factor. Sometimes this different way may be utterly contradictory in kind. Taking this into consideration, it is difficult to arrive at any conclusive decision, since ultimately the approach to the subject is subjective rather than objective. However scientific its methodology may be, it is still based on the particular interpretation of the individual. No paradigm is therefore necessarily better than another, because each exists as a particular, unique way of perceiving the world (Slattery, 2003, pp. 151–155).

Ontology refers to the overall way that one sees the world. It is the philosophical term used for "being," "reality," or "existence" and, as such, refers to the way that a particular person philosophically views existence, reality, and being.

Questions of ontology include whether time is a concept that can be perceived; whether we exist or live in a dream (Descartes); whether reality effectively exists (Berkeley); how existence is related to time and space; what the "self" is; and what constitutes the identity of an object, among many others.

At one time, and still in many quarters, there was greater certainty about the world and about our cognitive ability as a tool to discover certainty. With the postmodernist trend of believing in the relativity of knowledge and the erroneousness of science as a methodology for proving "reality" or "truth," there is far less inclination to espouse any particular way as being definitively "true." Rather, each perspective possesses its own validity and truth based upon the social reality of its observer. According to Mead, for instance: "We do not assume there is a self to begin with. Self is not presupposed as a stuff out of which the world arises. Rather the self arises in the world" (Mead, 1982, p. 107).

Others, such as Heidegger and Wittgenstein, see ontological constructs as contingent on communication. It is our words that construct "reality," and words are created from the particular world in which we live.

Epistemology refers to the science of knowledge, or the philosophy of the nature and scope of knowledge. Its subject matter includes the following questions: What is knowledge? How can we know that we have acquired true and certain knowledge? And how is knowledge acquired?

There is a distinction among three categories of knowledge: "knowledge that" (i.e., knowledge of something or a subject); "knowledge how" (i.e., how to do something); and "knowledge by acquaintance" (e.g., of a friend or a place one lives in). This essay deals with the first category, namely "knowing that" (Knorr-Cetina, 1999, p. 1).

Epistemologists are divided into two camps: externalists and internalists. Externalists argue that knowledge comes mainly from extraneous elements — Aristotle, Locke, and Hume are examples. They argued that our building blocks of knowledge come from our acquaintance and experience with the outside world. Descartes and Kant (as well as Plato) are internalists who argued that knowledge emerges from internal categories and internal mental heuristics. Chomsky is a later example of someone who arrived at similar conclusions, albeit regarding grammar.

Epistemology contains at least four different branches:

Empiricism — otherwise known as positivism or realism, where knowledge comes from careful testing and verification of extraneous material.

Idealism — knowledge is a priori and innate, already existing before birth and lodged in reason.

Rationalism — merges empiricism with idealism and asserts that we can use our cognitive abilities to arrive at a certain construct of knowledge.

Constructivism — asserts that there is no one sure way of knowing things; rather, all is relative depending on the person's particular culture, way of thinking, and perspective (Raskin, 2002, p. 4).

Methodology refers to the set of tools and methods that a researcher uses to test their ideas and philosophical perspective on the subject they wish to investigate.

There are two main and overlapping categories of methodology: quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative research refers to laboratory-based, empirically minded, statistically calculated, and mathematically conducted studies that attempt to eliminate subjectivity as much as possible. Such studies are currently more widely accepted than qualitative ones. Their advantage lies in their general objectivity, or at least their attempt at it. Their disadvantage consists of the fact that they preclude the possibility of gaining rich detail.

The possibility of acquiring rich and exploratory detail is provided by the qualitative approach, which includes interviews, observation, text analysis, and so forth. Sometimes qualitative research is used to formulate a theory that then leads to a quantitative testing of hypotheses. Other times, the researcher conducts a triangulated study where qualitative and quantitative methods are merged in an attempt to arrive at conclusions (Creswell, 2000).

The Three Research Paradigms

The positivist paradigm holds that certain knowledge can only come about through the senses (Carr & Kemmis, 1986) and can be demonstrated to be causal in kind (Tribe, 2009). Its approach is purely scientific: conclusions are calculated on strict mathematical principles, and its tools must conform to scientific canons that have been tested and retested and almost unanimously accepted by the relevant scientific community. Research must also be reliable and valid, cohering to an internal and external scientific definition of reality that is physical in nature and eschews the metaphysical and the abstract.

Ontological Basis: Positivism accepts a certain reality of existence and insists that this reality can be discovered through universal and immutable scientific and mathematical principles (Tribe, 2009).

Epistemological Basis: The researcher must distance themselves as much as possible from their research in order to arrive at verifiable conclusions. The scientific approach facilitates this distancing.

An alternate rendering of this is the constructionist paradigm, where the approach depends upon the researcher in question and is often inductively created. It is avowedly subjective, and meaning, conclusions, and perspective are generated from one's particular experiences, way of thinking, and origin (Oakes & Minca, 2004, p. 30).

Ontological Basis: The researcher acknowledges the existence of multiple realities.

Epistemological Basis: The researcher sees themselves as one of the actors who possesses their own "take" on the subject. No perspective is particularly more true or false than another.

Feminism may be more of a political perspective than a philosophical one, although it combines both. Feminists see men as having dominated women and as attempting to oppress them. This mode of masculine conduct exists in overt and covert ways in many, if not all, cultures. Feminism therefore tries to bring these issues out into the open so that they may be addressed (Letherby, 2003).

Ontological Basis: Men dominate women in an unequally gendered world.

Epistemological Basis: There is a relationship among the knower, the known, and the issue. The knower (researcher) studies the female experience in order to point out existing injustice and to prompt reflection and, when necessary, corrective action.

Article 1: Feminist Paradigm — Brazil as a Sexual Playground

Ranjan Bandyopadhyay & Karina Nascimento (2010): "Where fantasy becomes reality": how tourism forces made Brazil a sexual playground. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(8), 933–949.

This article uses a feminist approach, as is evident in the tenor of the study. The paper examines the political economy of tourism representations and destination imaging in Brazil and their effect on tourism in the country. The central argument is that the way Brazil and its women are represented in tourist images has an important effect on how tourists relate to Brazil and to Brazilian women, and that tourist paraphernalia uses the female body to sell Brazil to the tourist. The study investigates the representation of Brazil and its women during colonial times by Europeans, by the Brazilian government, and by the contemporary Western media, and concludes that these representations have made Brazil a sexual playground for tourists. In other words, the researchers conclude that Brazil's image is not a direct outcome of tourism representations alone; rather, its tourist image is strongly connected with complex historical, political, and cultural processes.

Using the feminist approach that takes women as its subject and treats men's domination of women as the issue to be addressed, the authors see their research and findings as significant in correcting social injustice to women. They point out that:

"Sex tourism has not been seen as a subject for serious intellectual investigation, except for a few notable studies … Despite the considerable body of literature on sex trafficking and HIV/AIDS, scholars have paid little attention to the role of tourism in the transmission of HIV/AIDS in this era of sustainable development… The complex issues emerging from the interface of tourism and AIDS deserve an in-depth ethnographic study, which future scholars can delve into. Thus, this study has profound implications for the concept of sustainable tourism." (pp. 945–948)

Paradigm: The study uses a feminist paradigm, focusing on the plight of women in Brazil and on the tendency of tourist marketing to use women as a promotional asset.

Ontological Basis: The researchers see women as occupying the central perspective reality of tourism — meaning that all centers around the woman.

Epistemological Basis: The researchers examined primary and secondary historical sources and documents — including letters, brochures, books, and other material — in order to see how Brazil and Brazilians were portrayed and thought of throughout the centuries. Although their material appears to come from objective sources, their perspective is nonetheless biased, since they were selective in the type of material they accepted. There may conceivably be a quantity of material that shows differing or contradictory perspectives of Brazil that the researchers did not review or that they rejected from their study. This makes their epistemology biased and causes it to be defined as one that emerged from the specific interests of a feminist agenda and was slanted toward that end.

Methodological: The study is inductive — it starts with data that it analyzes and from which it arrives at conclusions (although it can also be called deductive in that the authors held prior presumptions). It is qualitative, being an examination of data and text: "Data were collected from several sources to answer the research questions. In order to examine how Brazil is represented in colonial travel writings, textual representations of Brazil and Brazilians were collected from books written during the nineteenth century." (p. 935)

Conclusion

These three articles compared the methodological approaches employed by the authors from three peer-reviewed tourism articles. The approaches examined were, in turn, feminism, positivism, and the interpretive approach. The analysis dissected each of these three perspectives, reviewing the research paradigms, underlying principles, and different epistemological, ontological, and methodological worldviews underpinning each perspective. Ultimately, one may agree with Kuhn that no one perspective is the same as another, and that all accord oftentimes contradictory assumptions and conclusions about the same subject or issue.

Sources

Armstrong, D.M. (1973). Belief, Truth and Knowledge. Cambridge University Press.

Bandyopadhyay, R., & Nascimento, K. (2010). "Where fantasy becomes reality": how tourism forces made Brazil a sexual playground. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(8), 933–949.

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research. Falmer Press.

Creswell, J.W. (2000). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage.

Hartmann, N. (1953). New Ways of Ontology. H. Regnery Co.

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Harvard University Press.

Kuhn, T.S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Letherby, G. (2003). Feminist Research in Theory and Practice. Open University Press.

Liddell, H.G., & Scott, R. A Greek-English Lexicon. Perseus Digital Library.

Marcel, G. (1960). The Mystery of Being. H. Regnery.

Marques, C., Reis, E., & Menezes, J. (2010). Profiling the segments of visitors to Portuguese protected areas. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(8), 971–996.

Masterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (pp. 59–89). Cambridge University Press.

Mead, G.H. (1982). The Individual and the Social Self: Unpublished Work of George Herbert Mead (D.L. Miller, Ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Nickles, L. (2002). Thomas Kuhn. Cambridge University Press.

Oakes, T., & Minca, C. (2004). Travels in Paradox: Remapping Tourism. Rowman & Littlefield.

Pollock, J.L. (1975). Knowledge and Justification. Princeton University Press.

Raskin, J.D. (2002). Constructivism in psychology: Personal construct psychology, radical constructivism, and social constructivism. In J.D. Raskin & S.K. Bridges (Eds.), Studies in Meaning: Exploring Constructivist Psychology (pp. 1–25). Pace University Press.

Slattery, M. (2003). Key Ideas in Sociology. Nelson Thornes.

Steenberghen, F. van. (1952). Ontology. J.F. Wagner.

Tao (Teresa) Chang-Hung, Eagles, P.F.J., & Smith, S.L.J. (2004). Profiling Taiwanese ecotourists using a self-definition approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(2), 149–168.

Tribe, J. (2009). Philosophical Issues in Tourism. Channel View Publications.