A Market Approach to Tourism Knowledge

View/ Open
File version
Accepted Manuscript (AM)
Author(s)
Scott, Noel
Griffith University Author(s)
Year published
2015
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Chris Copper begins his discussion by writing: ‘Quite simply the tourism sector does not engage with tourism researchers: indeed the sector could be seen as a research-averse (Cooper and Ruhanen 2002).’ This statement has a number of parts. Firstly, there is a lack of engagement, and secondly the attributed reason given for the lack is that the sector ‘could be seen as risk-adverse’. To me this is the ‘pot calling the kettle black’. The engagement between academics and industry is a two way street. Some academics may decide not to engage with industry for a number of logical reasons and they may also be thought of as ...
View more >Chris Copper begins his discussion by writing: ‘Quite simply the tourism sector does not engage with tourism researchers: indeed the sector could be seen as a research-averse (Cooper and Ruhanen 2002).’ This statement has a number of parts. Firstly, there is a lack of engagement, and secondly the attributed reason given for the lack is that the sector ‘could be seen as risk-adverse’. To me this is the ‘pot calling the kettle black’. The engagement between academics and industry is a two way street. Some academics may decide not to engage with industry for a number of logical reasons and they may also be thought of as risk-adverse. I do agree with Chris Cooper that lack of engagement between researchers and the tourism sector is a real phenomenon, a serious problem, and not one that tourism academics should dismiss. Indeed a lack of engagement has caused, in Australia at least, a marginalisation of university tourism academics and at least in part a loss of support for university tourism departments which are then either closed or absorbed into a business school. I consider that the reasons for a lack of engagement are not only the risk-adverse nature of parts of the tourism sector, but that this is one of a number of antecedents. In effect, I am attributing a portion of the blame to tourism researchers.
View less >
View more >Chris Copper begins his discussion by writing: ‘Quite simply the tourism sector does not engage with tourism researchers: indeed the sector could be seen as a research-averse (Cooper and Ruhanen 2002).’ This statement has a number of parts. Firstly, there is a lack of engagement, and secondly the attributed reason given for the lack is that the sector ‘could be seen as risk-adverse’. To me this is the ‘pot calling the kettle black’. The engagement between academics and industry is a two way street. Some academics may decide not to engage with industry for a number of logical reasons and they may also be thought of as risk-adverse. I do agree with Chris Cooper that lack of engagement between researchers and the tourism sector is a real phenomenon, a serious problem, and not one that tourism academics should dismiss. Indeed a lack of engagement has caused, in Australia at least, a marginalisation of university tourism academics and at least in part a loss of support for university tourism departments which are then either closed or absorbed into a business school. I consider that the reasons for a lack of engagement are not only the risk-adverse nature of parts of the tourism sector, but that this is one of a number of antecedents. In effect, I am attributing a portion of the blame to tourism researchers.
View less >
Book Title
Challenges in Tourism Research
Publisher URI
Copyright Statement
© 2015 Channel View Publications. This is the author-manuscript version of this paper. It is reproduced here in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the publisher’s website for further information
Subject
Tourism not elsewhere classified