See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/256406857

Introduction: Tourism social science

Article in Annals of Tourism Research · January 1991

DOI: 10.1016/0160-7383(91)90035-A

CITATIONS READS

104 1,259

2 authors:

Nelson Graburn Jafar Jafari

University of California, Berkeley University of Wisconsin - Stout
146 PUBLICATIONS 2,387 CITATIONS 138 PUBLICATIONS 2,525 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Tourism, Art and Modernity: Anthropology 250V Postgraduate seminar View project

Anthropology of Tourism in Central and Eastern Europe. Bridging Worlds View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nelson Graburn on 15 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

And~ofToun~mRmnrrh. Vol 18. pp I-11. 1991 0160-7383191 $3 00 + 00
Prmred in the USA. All nghrs reserved. Copyright @ 1991 Pergamon Press plc and J, Jafan

INTRODUCTION
Tourism Social Science

Nelson H. H. Graburn
University of California, Berkeley, USA
Jafar Jafari
University of Wisconsin-Stout, USA

TOURISM AND SCHOLARSHIP IN RETROSPECT

The development of scholarship on tourism is intertwined with the

long history of tourism itself. Studies of tourism have often been under-
taken by people who have experienced tourism, and were often a reac-
tion to the nature of tourism at that time. Though most studies have
taken place since 1970, perhaps 50% of them since 1980, it is important
to consider the historical background to present tourism scholarship,
and to highlight the concerns and styles of reporting, paradigm shifts,
and contributions of the social science disciplines to the present state of
tourism studies.

up to the Twentieth Century

Mankind has always traveled, but only the early civilizations in the
Middle East, Asia, and the Mediterranean left written records of their
experiences. These records show that as Greece, Rome, and China
expanded for trade and conquest, their upper classes often traveled for
pleasure or diplomacy. Some, such as Herodotus, wrote about travel-
ing and sojourns, much as one might today. This long tradition of
dmriptiue humanistic literature tells of the art and psychology of travel,
and strangers and their manners, languages, religions, gift giving,
lodging, and hospitality.
The Age of Expansion and Exploration, by Arabs (800 AD on) and
Europeans, such as Marco Polo (1200 AD on), left many travel ac-
counts. Japanese travelers from the Edo period, such as the poet Bas-
sho, wrote memoirs which still serve as cguides for today’s tourists in

Nelson Graburn is Professor of Anthropology and curator of North American

Ethnology at the Lowie Museum, University of California (Berkeley CA 94720, USA).
He has published extensively in the area of kinship, ethnic and tourist arts, and the
anthropology of tourism. He is currently engaged in projects involving Eskimo arts,
Japanese tourism, and Canadian studies. Jafar Jafari is a faculty member of Universi-
ty of Wisconsin-Stout where he teaches undergraduate and graduate tourism courses.
He is the President of International Academy for the Study of Tourism. His research
interest includes tourism and culture change, domestic and international tourism, role
of tourism in developing countries, and tourism training and education.
1
2 INTRODUCTION

Japan. However, until the fifteenth century, most tourism was not for
sightseeing, but to encounter important people and civilizations and to
visit sacred places (Adler 1989).
From the fifteenth century, European expansion was enhanced by
cartographic and sailing technologies, and the rise of the merchant
classes, while travel documents multiplied through the newly invented
printing press. According to these documents, from the mid-sixteenth
century onwards, Northern Europeans regularly traveled to spas in
their own countries, to centers of learning and to the ruins of the great
classical civilizations of southern Europe. At first confined to nobles
and diplomats, this circuit became commonplace. It became known as
the tour by the mid 17OOs, and soon, according to the 1989 edition of the
Oxford English Dictionary, the term tourist was coined to describe par-
ticipants in such pleasurable, educational journeys.
Taking two to three years at first, the tour gradually shortened as the
number of tourists grew. The tourist (usually a young man) was accom-
panied by a tutor, and many of them wrote about their travels in
memoirs, travelogues, or guide books. These were literary as well as
descriptive and educational works, perhaps best exemplified by
Goethe’s descriptions of Italy in 1786-88.
The records further show that in the nineteenth century, the Indus-
trial Revolution and the social revolutions of imperialism, evangelism,
and socialism brought vast social changes. Thomas Cook, an English
Methodist reformer, used steam trains to take the urban poor to the
countryside and to expositions and rallies. Seeing the commercial pos-
sibilities of mass tourism, he is credited for inaugurating the modern
tourist industry: travel agencies, reserved seats, booking hotels. accom-
modations classification, travelers’ cheques, timetables, and compre-
hensive guidebooks. Mass tourism became an international enterprise.
perhaps best described in Mark Twain’s 1869 parody Innocents Abroad.
This age of scientific progress, increased record-keeping, and the de-
mocratization of institutions emancipated the bourgoisie both for lei-
sure and travel and the organized pursuit of knowledge (see Towner
and Wall).

Th Ear+ Twentieth Century

By the turn of the century, research was no longer the province of

broad “philosophers” or lone individuals such as Darwin, Spencer or
Marx: knowledge was organized into “disciplines.” The foundations of
the modern social sciences were being laid by Weber, Durkheim and,
most germaine here, Veblen’s (1973) Theol-y of the Leisure Class, which
emphasized conspicuous consumption, and van Gennep’s (1960) Les
R&s & Passage, which outlined the ritual dimensions of social and geo-
graphical “passages” (see Nash and Smith).
However, as the social sciences became fragmented, the study of
tourism, itself a “total social phenomenon,” became more difficult; most
studies analyzed narrow aspects of tourism, such as economic impacts,
spatial movements, or psychological motivations. Only geography and
sometimes anthropology have tried to maintain a more holistic view.
 INTRODUCTIOiK 3

This Special Issue shows each of the narrow disciplines’ other ways of
approaching tourism to stimulate more cross- and multidisciplinary
research.
However, the tradition of humanistic travel literature was kept alive
by the elite, who traveled ever further to avoid the new mass tourists in
Europe and North America. World War I put an end to the power of
the aristocracy and brought about a new revolution in tourism- the
appreciation of nature in the face of rapid industrialization. Sun-
bathing, indeed sea bathing itself, became popular, along with moun-
taineering, hiking, skiing, and boating, trends which have continued to
the present day.
At this time, much of the scholarship on tourism was historical,
concerning itself with grand tourism or the fortunes of particular re-
sorts. Historians were the main contributors, as exemplified by the
works on the Romans, on the Grand Tour, on Niagara Falls (Towner
and Wall) or on seventeenth century England (Parkes 1925). This his-
torical research, often neglected by other social scientists, continued
well into the 196Os, focusing either on case studies of resorts and spas
(e.g., on Coney Island) or on broad topics such as resorts in general,
the Romans, the English and the Grand Tour (Fairburn 1951; Hibbert
1969; Trease 1967), or even the whole history of recreation and tourism
(Duchet 1949; Sigaux 1966).
It was not until the 1930s that other disciplines began to make contri-
butions. One theme, in leisure and recreation studies, was the histori-
cal and ideological nature of leisure (Smith and Godbey). Geographers
produced serious but descriptive works on both domestic tourism,
stemming from the growth of automobile usage, and on overseas tour-
ism (Mitchell and Murphy). In North America, pioneer works includ-
ed Ogilvie (1933), Geogmphzkf Review (1936), and Eiselen (1945). Even-
tually Smith (1953) argued the need to teach courses in this field. In
Europe, especially Germany, research expanded with the founding of
Archiv fuer Fremdenverkehr in 1930, and the ensuing works of Poser (1939)
and Christaller (1955).

Post-Colonialism and Development

In the decades following World War II, most tourism research func-
tioned as an instrument for development, particularly in the post-
colonial nations. The expansion of overseas travel was boosted by the
introduction of jet travel in 1952. North American research focused on
domestic tourism (e.g., Alexander 1953), or on the nation’s Hispanic
sphere of influence (e.g., Eiselen 1955; Mings 1969). Most research
was left to planners and economists, many of whom worked for organi-
zations such as the United Nations (Krapf 1963), the World Bank, and
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (Pouris
1963), but with some exceptions (e.g., Carone 1959). The European
periodical, Revue de Tourisme/Zeitschrift fuer Frema!envedehr/The Tourist Re-
view (founded 1946) attested to growing French as well as German
research interests.
In the 196Os, the benefits of tourism were unquestioned. Research
assumed that tourism was a labor intensive growth industry, beneficial
4 INTRODUCTION

to both the Third World and the hinterlands of metropolitan countries.

This “Tourism = Development” philosophy claimed that tourism
brought in foreign exchange, employed more people, and that tourist
expenditures had a large “multiplier effect,” stimulating the local econo-
my and raising the standard of living. The massive tourist flows and
projects that came into being were analyzed and occasionally criticized.
Sociologists such as Knebel (1960) and Forster (1964) saw both the
theoretical and applied importance of tourism research (Dann and
Cohen). Psychologists such as Farber (1954) and Reason (1964) exam-
ined the psychology of travel (Pearce and Stringer). Interest in tourism
and heritage grew (Tilden 1957; UNESCO 1966) and the parallel topic
of tourism and ecology emerged (Farrell and Runyan).
Soon, reactions against mass tourism asserted themselves on two
fronts. In popular criticism, a set of snobbish, nostalgic views was
articulated (Barthes 1957; Boorstin 1964; Mitford 1959), as they were
and later (Haden-Guest 1972; Turner and Ash 1975, see also Dann and
Cohen). A more serious critique emerged in economics, which showed
through detailed studies (cf. Bryden and Farber 197 1; Sargent 1967)
that the multiplier effect was lower than anticipated and that “leakage”
and local inflation often nullified the supposed economic advantages of
the tourist industry (Eadington and Redman).
A burst of scholarship in many disciplines then examined the nega-
tive impacts of tourism in non-economic spheres. In anthropology,
Smith edited a collection of case studies (1977) following Finney and
Watson’s more regional focus (1975), as did de Kadt (1979) in sociology
(Nash and Smith; Dann and Cohen). In ecology, similar concerns were
voiced (Lawson and Baud-Bovy 1977), as well as interests in conserva-
tion and parks and the all important concept of “tourist carrying capac-
ity” (Farrell and Runyon; Mitchell and Murphy). Similarly, leisure
studies also demonstrated a broad set of concerns (Smith and Godbey)
as did psychology (Pearce and Stringer) and political science (Mat-
thews and Richter). There was a common interest in certain subject
matters of mutual interest zig-zagged back and fourth among disci-
plines which might have cited each other’s data, and sometimes, re-
sults, but rarely their methods. In sociology, little was forthcoming save
the works of Cohen, and in marketing the concern remained with
understanding travel demand and promotion (Calantone and Ma-
zanec), rather than impact. Economists continued their penetrating
impact analyses (Young 1973) which have remained a focus up to the
present (Eadington and Redman).

Maturity of the Field

So far, the study of tourism emerged only as a sideline to other “more

serious” research topics; rarely was tourism taught “as a subject” and
tourism data were not gathered systematically. The maturity of tourism
as a research topic was marked when researchers set out to specifically
study tourism and when it emerged as a prime focus for discussion and
scholarly meetings in the 1970s.
The growth of the subject was also signaled by the establishment of
research journals, often multidisciplinary or combining academic and
 INTRODUCTION 5

applied research, for example, Journal of ?iavel Research (founded 1962)

and Annals of Tourism hkearch (founded 1973) in North America; The
Tourist Review (founded 1946), Berner Studitn zum Fwmdenverhzhr (founded
1966) and Tourism Management (founded 1980) in Europe; Tourism Recrea-
tion Research (founded 1977) in Asia; and the latest, The Journal of Tourism
Studies (founded 1990) in Australia. Also signaling the growth of the
subject is the increasing number of thematic bibliographies and source-
books devoted to tourism t’Jafari, Sawin, Gustafson and Harrington
1989) and the growing popularity of tourism as the subject of doctoral
dissertations Uafari and Aaser 1988).
As articles in this issue show, certain topics became foci of research in
related disciplines, for example, the rise and fall of resorts, starting in
history with Plog’s 1974 article, then in economics, and finally in geog-
raphy. Similarly, the concept of carrying capacity arose in both geogra-
phy and ecology. Since then, concern for the impact of tourism on the
physical environment has been expressed in many disciplines and in
the press (Towner and Wall; Eadington and Redman; Murphy and
Mitchell; Farrell and Runyan).
In both sociology and anthropology basic works on the nature of
tourism itself, and its relation to pilgrimage, ritual, play, and the life
cycle appeared in the 1970s. These works drew upon stimuli outside of
tourism studies, such as the works of the anthropologist Victor Turner
(1969) on ritual and pilgrimage and the sociologist Csikszentmihalyi
(1875) on “flow” (Smith and Godbey). MacCannell (1976), drawing
upon sociology, anthropology, and semiotics has had the most cross-
disciplinary influence. Graburn (1983a) stimulated cross-cultural stud-
ies of tourism in the face of a pervasive European-North American
research bias (Nash and Smith).
A further stimulant to research has been the negative reactions to
tourism on the part of the Third World host peoples themselves. Force-
fully stated in Hawaii (Finney and Watson 1975), powerful objections
to mass tourism for its trail of prostitution (Graburn 1983b), crime,
cultural, and environmental debasement, and multinational control
have been articulated particularly by Asian and Pacific peoples espous-
ing Christian values: e.g., the Ecumenical Council on Third World
Tourism in Bangkok, the Christian Conference of Asia, Singapore, and
the Institute of Pacific Studies, Fiji (Rajotte and Crocombe 1980) and
socialist views in Africa (Shivji 1973). This supply-side critique, com-
bined with the demand-side status-based nostalgic denigration of mass
tourism, led to the promotion and to multidisciplinary discussions of
alternative, appropriate, soft-path or ecotourism by UNESCO in 1982,
by the International Academy for the Study of Tourism in 1989, and by
the World Tourism Organization in 1980, 1985 and 1989.
In the past decade, because of shared research foci, each discipline
has increasingly become aware of, and borrowed methods and results
from, related disciplines. This is more common between closely related
disciplines such as political science and sociology, economics and mar-
keting, or ecology and geography. While marketing has remained fo-
cused on selling, promotion, and market segments, it is increasingly
concerned with advertising (Calentone and Mazanec) and the psychol-
ogy of motivation, topics which are also studied in sociology (Dann and
 6 INTRODUCTION

Cohen), anthropology (Nash and Smith), psychology (Pearce and

Stringer) and leisure (Smith and Godbey). Environmental concerns,
while still a major focus of ecology (Farrell and Runyon), have been
researched in the above disciplines and especially in geography (Mit-
chell and Murphy). The latter, along with other disciplines, has focused
on tourism to special areas such as mountains, coasts, islands, and
urban centers. The interactions of hosts, guests, and culture brokers
(guides, entrepreneurs, middlemen) have been examined in sociology
and anthropology, as well as in psychology (Pearce and Stringer), histo-
ry (Towner and Wall), and political science (Matthew and Richter).
Two topics remain of shared interest to most of the social science
disciplines. One is the study of impacts of tourism and the related
needs of tourism policy formulation, topics of both theoretical and
applied interests, especially in economics, ecology, political science,
and geography. The lessons of history and the case studies of anthropol-
ogy provide much of the data for formulating general propositions.
Second, at a more abstract level, the study of representations in and of
tourism, in advertising, photographs and diaries, brochures, film, tele-
vision and souvenirs, while well developed in anthropology (Crick
1989; Graburn 1976) h as also emerged as an important concern in
psychology, sociology, and marketing. While these topics will remain
central, others will arise from further multidisciplinary research.

Organizational and Institutional Contributions

The development of tourism studies can also be traced through the

formation and contributions of organizations concerned with its com-
mercial and theoretical aspects. Most tourism organizations promote it
as an industry. Internationally, the World Tourism Organization (WTO,
founded 1924), a UN-affiliated intergovernmental agency, gathers and
disseminates data, provides technical assistance, and sponsors training
programs and conferences. The European Travel Commission (ETC,
founded 1951), Pacific Asia Travel Association (PATA, founded 1957),
and Caribbean Tourism Organization (CTO, founded 195 1) are exam-
ples of regional-level organizations functionally similar to WTO. At the
national level, most countries have governmental tourism offices, e.g.,
U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration, Egypt’s Ministry of Tourism,
as well as quasi-governmental agencies such as the Korea National
Tourism Corporation. Government and commercial representation is
also found at state, provincial, and local levels.
Since early in this century, (inter-) governmental agencies and entre-
preneurial groups have fostered the industry as it grew to its present
position of worldwide socioeconomic importance. Only recently, how-
. ever, have they undertaken tourism research, albeit applied, to meet
the mostly commercial goals of their constituencies. There are, howev-
er, some organizations with little or no commitment to tourism as a
business. Concerned with the development of tourism, the Association
Internationale d’Experts Scientifiques du Tourisme (AIEST, founded
1951), Travel and Tourism Research Association (reorganized as
TTRA in 1970) and the International Academy for the Study of Tour-
ism (founded 1988) are examples of early and recent efforts with research
 INTRODUCTION 7

(applied and/or basic) as their raison d’etre. Among such international

and national organizations, the Academy is one of the few fully devoted
to multidisciplinary tourism research (Butler and Wall 1988). Among
university-based organizations, the Centre des Hautes Etudes Tourist-
iques (CHET, Aix-en-Provence, founded 1964) welcomes numerous
international scholars and students and maintains perhaps the world’s
largest tourism research library (Baretje 1988).
Closely related are the contributions made by social science associa-
tions worldwide, especially during the last two decades. Several major
disciplinary groups, such as the American Anthropological Association
(AAA), International Geographical Union (IGU), and International
Sociological Association (ISA) regularly or sporadically organize ses-
sions at their congresses. Most significantly, the last two have created
formal tourism research groups, e.g., in 1990 the ISA formed its the-
matic group on “Sociology of International Tourism” (Lanfant 1989).
Still other effects are adding to the growing stream of research and
scholarship on tourism. For example, in 1982, the European Centre for
Coordination of Research and Documentation in Social Sciences
(known as the Vienna Centre) initiated and supported a multidisci-
plinary cross-cultural investigation of “Tourism as A Factor of Change:
A Sociocultural Study.” Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Spain, United
Kingdom, United States, and Yugoslavia participated in the first cycle
(1982- 1989) of this project (Bystrzanowski 1989). Plans are proceeding
with the second cycle so that the diachronic findings can shed light on
tourism and sociocultural change for the host countries (Safari, Pizam
and PrzecIawski 1990).
Ensemble, several types of organized efforts have continued to en-
hance the position of tourism worldwide. Since the early part of this
century, and especially since World War II, a large assortment of gov-
ernmental and entrepreneurial agencies have strengthened and reaf-
firmed tourism’s prominent global position. But responses to tourism’s
research needs and scholarly treatments are of newer vintage - a thrust
evolving from a mostly economic focus to a now multidisciplinary
investigation of the subject (Safari 1990). Tourism research and scholar-
ship is slowly, but surely, coming of age.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SPECIAL ISSUE

Several factors are unique to this Special Issue. First, all papers were
invited. Due to the intended scope and nature of the theme, certain
topics had to be included; an open submission system would have
risked omitting contributions on some of them. Second, the invitations
were only extended to the editors of the journal. Since they are among
the leaders in their respective fields, it was only natural to take this
“short-cut” and turn to those who have made Annals the leading journal
in the field of tourism (Sheldon 1990). Moreover, this allowed the
journal to publish its first “in-house” special issue.
Third, while multidisciplinary perspectives on a given theme were
offered in previous special issues, the “multidisciplinarity” of tourism is
the very design of this Special Issue. No single discipline alone can
accommodate, treat, or understand tourism; it can be studied only if
a INTRODUCTION

disciplinary boundaries are crossed and if multidisciplinary perspec-

tives are sought and formed. Because many disciplines or fields relate
to the study of tourism (‘Safari and Ritchie 1981) the scope of this
special issue had to be defined and carefully designed at the outset in
order to ensure the thematic treatment. Since tourism is, foremost, a
socioeconomic phenomenon and an institution in its own right, and
since social sciences have collectively made significant contributions to
its study, Tourism Social Science was selected as the theme. This theme is
developed here by utilizing the basic building blocks of anthropology,
economics, geography, and more. Papers on such fields as ecology and
marketing - because their present research on tourism is greatly influ-
enced by social science theories and methods-were also solicited for a
fuller thematic development. Of course, other disciplinary topics were
considered, but space limitations narrowed the total number of topical
papers to ten.
The fourth unique factor is that all of the articles are co-authored.
Because disciplinary training varies between countries and because
scholarly treatments on tourism appear in many languages, it was
thought that by distancing the authors of each article, broader orienta-
tions and richer resources could form the bases of each submission.
However, despite these attempts, success was only partial. Many edi-
tors invited to contribute had prior commitments, could not meet the
deadlines, or later had to change their plans. Thus, the outcome re-
flects a predominantly North American social science perspective,
based almost entirely on literature in English. While disciplinary
boundaries are crossed in this and other issues of Annals, unfortunately
the linguistic gaps have scarcely been bridged.
Finally, this Special Issue is intended as a sourcebook on the study of
tourism, Almost everyone in tourism begins with a certain disciplinary
orientation. As they start expanding their grasps of tourism, they are
inevitably led to other disciplines. This Special Issue is envisioned as an
outreach tool, as a multidisciplinary reference source for those involved
in tourism research. In particular, it is anticipated that this volume may
become required reading for all tourism graduate students- the future
professionals, professors, and scholars in this emerging field.
As to the development of this Special Issue, in July 1986, twenty
editors (two for each article) were invited to contribute. The invitation
letter gave “Tourism Social Science” as the theme, described the pur-
pose, delineated the thematic components, and gave the timetable. The
potential authors were informed on the contents and flow of the papers:

First, to define the field assigned to [each paper] by also elaborat-

ing on its main concerns, methods of investigation, boundaries with/
or linkage to other fields. Second, to place tourism in the context
of the assigned field, to examine its application to tourism.
Third, to discuss other applications of and contributions from the
field to the study of tourism. Fourth, to tie together all that has
been discussed. . A retrospective view should lead to a prospective
commentary which sheds light on and guides the reader to uncharted
explorations in that field. Finally, to have at least twenty-five contex-
tualized references representing the best contributions that the
discipline has made to the study of tourism.
 INTRODUCTION 9

Later the consenting contributors were asked to include in their respec-

tive papers a brief history of the discipline and its major concerns, as
well as brief accounts of the discipline’s entry into the study of tourism.
To encourage cross-fertilization among the contributions, all authors
received copies of each others’ working papers months prior to the final
submission deadline. However, not all final submissions as published
here were developed in the same fashion and hence the contents and
flows are somewhat varied. This lack of uniformity is due to the ten-
dencies of individual authors, to the disciplinary orientations, to the
early or late entry of tourism into the field, to the level of development
of tourism within each discipline, to the reviewing processes, and/or to
the tight schedule for final submission.
This Special Issue’s ten disciplinary articles on tourism-and anthro-
pology, ecology, economics, geography, history, leisure/recreation,
marketing management, political science, psychology, and sociology
(which appear in alphabetical order) - together contain the breadth,
depth, richness, and potential that one can expect at this early stage in
the formation of knowledge in the field of tourism research. The two
editors of this volume thank the twenty authors and the more than
thirty anonymous reviewers who made this special issue on “Tourism
Social Science” possible. 00

REFERENCES
Adler, J.
1989 Origins of Sightseeing. Annals of Tourism Research 16:7-29.
Alexander, L. M.
1953 The Impact of Tourism on the Economy of Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Eco-
nomic Geography 29:320-326.
Baretje, R.
1988 Centre des Hautes Etudes Touristiques: Rapport d’Activites. Aix-en-Provence:
CHET.
Barthes, R.
1957 Mythologies. Paris: Editions Seuil.
Bryden, J., and M. Faber
1971 Multiplying the Tourist Multipier. Social and Economic Studies. 20:61-82.
Bystrzanowski, J., ed.
1989 Tourism as a Factor of Change: A Sociocultural Study. Two Volumes. Vienna,
Austria: The Vienna Centre.
Carone, G.
1959 II turismo nell’economia internazionale. Milan: Giuffre
Christaller, W.
1955 Beitrager au einer Geographie des Fremdenverkehrs. Erdkunde 9: l-19.
Crick, M.
1989 Representations of International Tourism in the Social Sciences: Sun, Sex,
Sights, Savings, and Servility. Annual Review of Anthropology 18:307-344.
Csikszentmihalyi, M.
1975 Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
de Kadt, E., ed.
1979 Tourism: Passport to Development? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Duchet, R.
1949 Le tourisme a travers les ages. Paris: Vigot
Eiselen, E.
1945 Tourist Industry of a Modern Highway. Economic Geography 21:221-230.
1955 A tourist-geographer visits Iquitos, Peru. Journal of Geography 55:176-182.
Fairburn, A. N.
1951 The Grand Tour. Geographical Magazine 24:118-27.
 10 INTRODUCTIOS

Farber. M.
1954 Some Hypotheses on the Psychology ofTravel. Psychoanalytic Review 41:X-
271.
Finnev, B. R., and K. A. M:atson eds.
1975 A New Kind of Sugar: Tourism in the Pacific. Honolulu: East-Mest Culture
Learnine Institute.
Forster, J. ”
1964 The Sociological Consequences of Tourism. International Journal of Compara-
tive Socioloev 5~2 17-227
-‘.
Geographical Rewew
1936 Some Geographical Aspects of Tourism. Geographical Review 25:507-509.
Graburn, N. H. H.
1983a To Pray, Pay and Play: the Cultural Structure of Japanese Domestic Tourism.
Aix-en-Provence: CHET.
1983b Tourism and Prostitution; A review article. Annals of Tourism Research 10:
437-456.
Graburn, N. H. H., ed.
1976 Ethnic and Tourist Arts. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Haden-Guest, A.
1972 Down the Programmed Rabbit Hole. London: Hart-Davis. McGibbon.
Hibbert, C.
1969 The Grand Toter. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
Jafari, Jafar
1990 Research and Scholarship: The Basis of Tourism Education. Journal of Tour-
ism Studies 1(1):33-41.
Jafari, J. and B. Ritchie
1981 Towards a Framework for Tourism Education. Problems and Prospects. Annals
of Tourism Research 8( 1): 13-34.
Jafari, J. and D. Aaser
1988 Tourism as the Subject of Doctoral Dissertations. Annals of Tourism Research
15(3):407-429.
Jafari, J., P. Sawin, C. Gustafson. and J. Harrington, eds.
1989 Bibliographies on Tourism and Related Subjects: An Annotated Sourcebook.
Boulder, CO: University of Colorado Business Research Division.
Jafari, J., A. Pizam, and K. Przecratvski
1990 A Sociocultural Study of Tourism as a Factor of Change. Annals of Tourism
Research 17(3):469-472.
Knebel, H. J.
1960 Sociologische Strukturwanderlungen im Modernen Tourismus. Stuttgart:
Enke
Krapf, K.
1963 Tourism as a Factor of Economic Development. Rome: U.N. Conference on
International Travel and Tourism.
Lanfant, Marie-Francoise
1989 World Tourism: Unity and Diversity. Annals of Tourism Research 16(4):591-
592.
Lawson, F., and M. Baud-Boy?
1977 Tourism and Recreational Development. London: Architectural Press.
MacCannell, Dean
1976 The Tourist: A New Theorv of the Leisure Class. New York: Shocken Books.
Mings, R. C.
1969 Tourism’s Potential for Contributing to the Economic Development in the
Caribbean. Journal of Geography 68: 173-l 77.
Mitford, N.
1959 The Tourist. Encounter 13:3-i.
Ogilvie, F. W.
1933 The Tourist Movement: .4n Economic Study. London: Staples.
Parkes, J.
1925 Travel in England in rhe Seventeenth Century. London: Oxford.
Perpiflou, A.
1966 Quelques etudes recentes sur les problemes geographiques du tourisme. An-
nales de Geographie 75:341-345.
 INTRODUCTION 11

Plog, s. c.
1974 Why Destination Areas Rise and Fall in Popularity, Cornell Hotel and Restau-
rant Association Quarterly 14(4):55-58.
Poser, H.
1939 Geographische Studien uber den Fremdenverkehr im Riesengebirge.
Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaft zu Gottingen 20: 1-l 73.
Pouris C., and C. Beerli
1963 Culture and Tourisme. Paris: OECD.
Rajotte F., and R. Crocombe, eds.
1980 Pacific Tourism: As Islanders See It. Fiji: South Pacific Social Sciences Associa-
tion and Institute of Pacific Studies.
Reason, J.
1964 Man in Motion: The Psychology of Travel. New York: Walker.
Sargent, J. R. et al.
1967 The Limits of Tourism as a Growth Generator. Development Digest 5:82-86.
Sheldon, Pauline J.
1990 Journals in Tourism and Hospitality: The Perceptions of Publishing Faculty.
Journal of Tourism Studies 1(1):42-48.
Shivji, I. G.
1973 Tourism and Socialist Development. Dar es Salaam: Tanzania Publishing
House.
Sigaux, G.
1966 The History of Tourism. London: Leisure Arts.
Smith, V., ed.
1977 Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Smith, V. L.
1953 Travel Geography Courses for a New Field. Journal of Geography 52:68-72.
Tilden, F.
1957 Interpreting Our Heritage. Chapel Hill NC: University of North Carolina
Press.
Trease, G.
1967 The Grand Tour. London: Heinemann.
Turner, L., and J. Ash
1975 The Golden Hordes: International Tourism and the Leisure Periphery. Lon-
don: Constable.
Turner, V.
1969 The Ritual Process. Chicago: Aldine
UNESCO
1966 Resolution on the Preservation and Presentation of the Cultural Heritage in
Connection with the Promotion of Tourism. Paris: UNESCO.
Van Gennep, A.
1960 [1908] The Rites of Passage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Veblen, T.
1973 [1899] The Theory of the Leisure Class. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Young, G.
1973 Tourism: Blessing or Blight. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

View publication stats