The University of Plymouth Colleges (UPC) Higher Education Learning Partnerships (HELP) Centre for Excellence in Teaching and

Learning (CETL)

The HELP CETL was part of a national network of 74 CETLs funded by HEFCE to reward excellence in learning and teaching and to promote educational research. The HELP CETL was funded [2005-2010] to support higher education (HE) in further education (FE) development. It built on the existing excellence of the UPC partnership within the South West region and sought to work with individuals, groups and institutions in the development of HE in FE practice. The UPC Faculty was established in 2003 and supports a network of 19 partner institutions delivering higher education to students in their local area. Provision has grown to more than 9,500 students in 2008. Those studying on Foundation Degrees also have the opportunity to progress to the University of Plymouth where they can progress to an Honours Degree. Development Activities within the HELP CETL The Development Activity strand was introduced to take forward the strategic priorities of UPC, funding projects ranging from short studies with a small number of participants to large scale work stretching over more than one academic year. This resource was developed for this strand.

Defining tourists

Rong Huang

Back of report

Defining Tourists Dr. Rong Huang These learning materials have been prepared with the following in mind:

Links to Subject Benchmarks The nature and characteristics of tourists Explain and challenge theories and concepts which are used to understand tourism Explain and challenge the definitions, nature and operations of tourism

2 Level 1 Level 2

Links to modules Introduction to Tourism; Regional Tourism

LEARNING OUTCOMES

After reading these learning materials and answering the questions, students should be able to:

Understand the domestic and international nature of tourists Explain and challenge typologies which are used to understand tourists.

OVERVIEW These materials attempt to define tourists. However, the task of defining tourists is not as easy as it may appear. Within most tourism books, articles now assume either a standard definition or interpretation of the concept of tourism, which is usually influenced by the social scientists perspective (i.e. geographical, anthropological, sociological approach or other disciplines). They are not only from the micro approach which concentrates on the tourist as an individual, but also from the macro approach which considers the extent which tourist types are socially constructed. These materials firstly define tourists from both technical and also conceptual aspects. Then they summarise some of the main contributions about defining tourists from the social scientists perspective. A summary for these materials is also followed.

TOURISTS DEFINED: Many authors (Cooper, et al., 2005; Ritchie et al., 2003; etc) have pointed out that one of the problems that students of tourism studies face is that there is no commonly accepted definition of the tourist and tourism. Van Harssel sets a useful context with the following: It is difficult, and perhaps misleading, to generalise about tourism and tourists. We lack a commonly accepted definition of tourism partially because of the complexity of tourist activity and partially because different interests are concerned with different aspects of tourist activity. (1994:3) According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first appearance of the term tourist in the English language was in the late eighteenth century, and it was used as a synonym for traveller. Thus, the meaning of tourist during this early period of time was neutral. Yet while this neutral meaning is still current, by the middle of the nineteenth century, tourist had acquired a negative connotation, as against the term traveller that contains the positive meaning. The tourist, as opposed to the traveller, not only became associated with mass forms of travel but also with a particular mentality or approach to the travel experience. In effect, high culture, the culture of the traveller, saw itself as the polar opposite of low culture, the culture attributed to the tourist (Rojek, 1993), a distinction immortalised, perhaps, by Henry James description of tourists as vulgar, vulgar, vulgar (cited from Sharply, 2003). While he may have despised tourists and the tourist industry in general, this aversion never stopped James from visiting foreign countries. In fact, by the time of his death in 1916, he had published numerous travel books--Portrait of Places (1883), A Little Tour in France (1884), English Hours (1905), Italian Hours (1909)--which chronicled his trips throughout Europe and America. James's disgust with "vulgar" tourists, combined with his own touristic forays, suggests a seemingly contradictory position. That is, James often took on the identity of the tourist which he so despised, while concurrently attempting to distinguish himself from the mob of his fellow travellers. The boundary that James

attempted to construct separating himself (as travel writer) from other tourists was employed by numerous authors. However, such distinctions are normally self-imposed labels (Sharpley, 2003); nevertheless, the discussion of the definition of the tourist below will take a neutral meaning. That is, it is used in a totally neutral sense to describe a person who was touring for the purpose of pleasure or leisure. While an all-embracing definition of a tourist is desirable, in practice tourists present a heterogeneous, not a homogeneous, group with different personalities, demographics and experiences. In an historical context, Medlik (2003) identified the historical development of the term tourism, noting the distinction between the endeavours of researchers to differentiate between the technical and conceptual definitions of a tourist. So the following section critically discusses tourists from both aspects of definitions. Technical Definitions of Tourists From a technical point of view, attempts to define tourist have been led by the need to isolate tourism trips from other forms of travel. They have evolved through time as researchers modify and develop appropriate measures for statistical, legislative and operational reasons implying that there may be various technical definitions to meet particular purposes. The following is a typical example of the World Tourism Organisation (WTO) definition as amended in 1993 which is now widely accepted: The temporary visitors staying in a place outside their usual place of residence, for a continuous period of at least 24 hours but less than one year, for leisure, business or other purposes (World Tourism Organisation, 1993)

International tourist

A visitor who travels to a country other than that in which he/she has his/her usual residence for at least one night but not more than one year, and whose main purpose of visit is other than the exercise of activity remunerated from within the country visited

International excursionist

A visitor residing in a country who travels the same day to a country other than that in which he/she has his/her usual environment for less than 24 hours without spending the night in the country visited and whose main purpose of visit is other than the exercise of an activity remunerated from within the country visited

Domestic tourist Any person, regardless of nationality, resident in a country and who travels to a place in the same country for not more than one year and whose main purpose of visit is other than following an occupation remunerated from within the place visited. Such a definition includes domestic tourists where an overnight stay is involved and domestic excursionists who visit an area for less than 24 hours and do not stay overnight Table 1: Based on the above definition of tourists, the WTO develops a series of relevant definitions Source: WTO, 1991 These technical definitions demand a person has to pass certain tests before they count as tourists. Such tests include the following:

Minimum length of stay one night (visitors who do not stay overnight are termed day visitors or excursionists) Maximum length of stay one year Purpose of visit categories

A distance consideration is sometimes included on the grounds of delineating the term usual environment

However, such technical definitions are all-encompassing, more or less counting everyone who travels (with the exception of paid workers, migrants etc.), and often dismissed by some academics of tourism studies as not catching the essential features of the tourist.

As Rojek and Urry (1997) say: One response to those who point to the problematic nature of tourism as a theoretical category is to seek to operationalise it but the problem with this is that it ignores whether these stays have in any sense the same significance to visitors. Another response to the problematic character of tourism is deliberately to abstract most of the important issues of social and cultural practice and only considers tourism as a set of economic activities. (Rojek and Urry, 1997: 2) Conceptual Definitions of Tourists According Medlik (2003), the conceptual definition of tourism refers to the broad notional framework, which identifies the essential characteristics, and which distinguishes tourism from similar, often related, but different phenomena. As this kind of definitions is usually influenced by the social scientists perspective, therefore next, these materials critically summarise some of the main contributions about defining tourists from the social scientists perspective. KEY LITERATURE FOR UNDERSTANDING TOURISTS John Urry (2002) argues that making theoretical sense of fun, pleasure and entertainment has proved a difficult task for social scientists. But many scholars have made contributions to the understanding of tourists not only from the micro approach (Cohen, 1974, 1979a, 1979b; Plog, 1977; Urry, 1995, 2002; Coleman and Crang, 2002; Crouch, 1999, 2002), but also from the macro approach (MacCannell, 1999, 2001; Poon, 1993; Urry, 1995, 2002). This section summarises some of the main contributions to the understanding of tourists. One of the earliest attempts to distinguish between different types of tourists was made by Gray (1970) who coined the terms sunlust and wanderlust tourists. Sunlust tourists are resort based and motivated by the desire for rest, relaxation and the 3Ss, whereas wanderlust tourists are based on a desire to travel and to experience different peoples and cultures. As the two terms imply, sunlust and wanderlust are essentially categorisations based upon the purpose of the trip. Since then a number of typologies, concentrating on the tourists themselves, have been developed. Some of these concentrate on tourists behaviour whilst others adopt a more socio-psychological approach.

Cohens typology of tourists (1974, 1979) One of the earliest and best known is Erik Cohens (1974) tourist typology which was the first to propose a typology of tourists based upon sociological theory (Sharpley, 2003). This is showed in Table 2. Organise d mass tourist Highly dependent on an environmental bubble created, supplied and maintained by the international tourism industry. Characterised by allinclusive, fully package holidays. Familiarity dominates; novelty non-existent or highly controlled. Individual mass tourist These will use the institutional facilities of the tourism system (scheduled flights, centralised bookings, transfers) to arrange as much as possible before leaving home; perhaps visiting the same sights as mass tourists but going under their own steam Explorer The key phrase here is off the beaten track perhaps following a destination lead given by a travel article rather than simply choosing from a brochure. They will move into the bubble of comfort and familiarity if the going gets too tough Drifter This type of tourist will seek novelty at all costs; even discomfort and danger. They will try to avoid all contact with tourists. Novelty will be their total goal; spending patterns tend to benefit immediate locale rather than large companies Table 2: Cohens tourist typology (1974) Source: adapted from Sharpley (2003) Cohen develops his typology of tourists on the basis of their relationship to both the tourist business establishment and the host country. All tourists can be located along a familiarity strangerhood continuum, they travel in an environmental bubble; importantly, however not all tourists are equally constrained by this bubble (Sharpley, 2003; Urry, 2002). Progressing from the familiarity to the strangerhood position, four different types of tourist are identified.

Image 1: These tourists are on an excursion on the Amazon River. Source: photo by Howdy Howard, published in Saved by Bedbugs (2004 What type of tourist are they, using Cohens classification? However, Cohens typology does not allow for variable tourist behaviour over time; the implication is once an explorer, always an explorer; whereas tourists frequently take different types of holiday from one year to the next or even within a year ( see coming learning materials on factor affecting tourism demand). Also, his categorisation is based on observable tourist behaviour but gives no indication of the reason for that behaviour. Building upon his earlier work in distinguishing between different types of tourist, Cohen addresses some of the inherent weaknesses of his typology in his phenomenology of tourist experiences (Cohen, 1979). Recognising that tourism is a multi-dimensional phenomenon, Cohen proposed that a micro approach is equally valid in developing an understanding of different tourist types and roles (see Table 3 below), concentrating not on observed behaviour but on different desired tourist experiences.

Recreational

Whose centre is located in the home society seeks recreational experiences and has little or no interest in learning about or experiencing the society and culture in which the recreational experience is taking place

Diversionary

Although alienated to an extent from his or her own society, the individual does not seek authentic experiences elsewhere. In a sense, the purpose of a holiday or trip is to temporarily forget about home

Experiential

The modern, alienated individual who seeks authentic experiences elsewhere. Although seeking to experience alternative cultures and societies, they neither identify with them nor reject his or her own society. The trip

thus compensates for the lack of authenticity in the home life to which the tourist inevitably returns. Experimental Seeking to relocate his or her centre but lies midway between the centre at home and an identified centre elsewhere. Authenticity is essential but they does not become totally immersed in any one culture Existential Alienated from their home society, their centre is firmly located elsewhere, and becomes fully immersed in the local, foreign culture and society, finding meaning and belonging in the new chosen centre Table 3; Cohens typology of tourist (1979) His starting point is to ascertain where the spiritual centre of the individual tourist is located; different individuals identify with and accept (to a greater or lesser extent) their home culture and society. Based upon this, Cohen identifies the above five categories of tourist experience. But Cohens typology still does not allow for the different needs or requirements of an individual tourist. Nor is it based on any empirical research. It is a theoretical categorisation within which different tourists may be located but, as with other typologies, it considers tourists per se rather than in their broader social context. Plogs psychocentrics and allocentrics Stanley Plog (1977) coins the terms allocentric travellers (referring to those who actively seek out the exotic or untouched destinations) and psychocentric types (who are not risk takers and tend to go to well-established tourist destinations). In between the two extremes lie the categories of near-psychocentric, mid-centric and near-allocentric. Mid-centrics, the most used category, take their holidays in places, which offer the experience of a new yet sufficiently similar culture. This whole approach comes under the framework of psychographics, where people are categorised according to life-style, self-image, attitudes towards life and social institutions etc. However the problem with attempting to link tourist type with destination in this way is that it is a static model.

Image 2: : This image contains a "Field Guide" for New Yorkers to spot the different types of tourists they're likely to spot roaming the streets of Manhattan this summer.From left to right: The German Free Spirit, The Midwestern Dad, The Upscale Italian Tourist, The Japanese Hipster Chick, and the Lesbian Thrill seeker. So what kind of categories does New York belong to according to Plogs typology? Source: Time Out New Yorks Tourist Issue On the other hand, the parameters of each category of tourist may also change or become vague. For instance, as technology develops rapidly, and long haul flights become more available and more destinations are packaged, then psychocentrics might be found travelling to destinations that, according to Plogs model, would normally attract allocentrics. Thus, there is a real problem for Plogs model in practice (Sharpley, 2003). Indeed, Smith (1990) tests the model against a number of different countries and finds that the results do not support Plogs contention that destination choice could be predicted according to personality types. Urrys tourist gaze (1990, 2002) In the history of Western societies, sight has long been regarded as the noblest of the senses. According to Jay (1993) sight has been viewed as the most discriminating and reliable of the sensual mediators between people and their physical environment. There can be little doubt that the visual component of tourism, sightseeing, is a major element in tourist consumption. In 1976, MacCannell wrote: sightseeing is a ritual performed to the differentiations of society (1976:3); a formulation which was later developed in Urrys (1990) metaphor of the tourist gaze. In Urrys The Tourist Gaze, the fundamentally visual nature of the tourism experience was analysed (Urry, 1990). Gazes organise the encounters of visitors with the other, providing some sense of competence, pleasure and structure to those experiences. The gaze demarcates an array of pleasurable qualities to be generated within particular times and spaces. In The Tourist Gaze, Urry (1990) draws out the distinctions between tourists in terms of desired experiences as romantic and collective, and generates the forms shown in the following Table 4

Categories Romantic

Characteristics Solitary; Sustained immersion; Gaze involving vision, awe, aura

Collective

Communal activity; Series of shared encounters; Gazing at the familiar

Spectatorial

Communal activity; Series of brief encounters; Glancing at and collecting of different signs

Environmental

Collective organisation; Sustained and didactic; Scanning to survey and inspect

Anthropological

Solitary; Sustained immersion; Scanning and active interpretation

Table 4: Forms of the tourist gaze However, the existence of these dominant gazes is problematic. It is the split of a complex phenomenon into another either/or binary distinction (Meethan, 2001). Whereas in the past it could be argued that, as tourism was a pre-dominantly western phenomenon, one exported as it were to the rest of the world, then these gazes may have some form of historically contingent universality. However, in terms of the global system, this no longer holds true. The newly industrialised countries of Asia are themselves becoming net exporters of tourists. There is no evidence or reason to suppose that, for example, the gaze of other cultures is intrinsically the same as that anywhere else. There is more than enough ethnographic evidence to make a convincing case otherwise (e.g. Martinez, 1998). Even if we allow for the fact that there are different gazes situated in different cultures, the interesting questions, then, are what the basis is on which they are formed, and in a globalised world, how do they interact? Furthermore, most holiday experiences of tourists are said to be physical and are not merely visual. Jay (1993) argues that it is necessary to acknowledge vision in the wake of an over concentration on the purely mental processes of knowledge. We would not want to undermine the significance of the visual or of the tourist gaze itself, but this is not enough, tourism is not confined to visual repertoires of consumption. In addition, MacCannell (2001) argues that although the idea of the tourist gaze is illuminating in some respects, it fails to identify a kind of second gaze, one that knows that looks can deceive, that there are things unseen and unsaid, and that each gaze generates its own beyond. Tourism as an embodied practice Cloke and Perkins (1998) acknowledge the general lack of attention to practice and bodypractice in tourism discourse. More recently, some academics from geographical

perspectives address tourism as engaged through discussions emerging from notions of performance (Coleman and Crang, 2002). Being a tourist is to practice, as Crouch (2002) argues that the tourist is considered in terms of mental and physical reflexive practices, where the individual participates as a multi-dimensional human being, the individual emerges as a subject, as an active (but not free) agent doing tourism. He goes further to emphasise that tourism is considered in terms of the tensions between holding on and going further in terms of the self. For a start, it does not reduce tourism to images that cover or obscure, but allows us to be sensitive to the practices through which tourism occurs. According to Crouch (2002) tourism as an embodied practice emphasises a collective, combined way in which space is practised: touching, smelling, hearing, tasting and seeing. This is a very informative and a welcome enlargement of analysis beyond the familiar twodimensional detachment of the gaze onto scripted surfaces by a non-involved bystander. Vision is not sensed and made sense of separately from other senses but in interrelation and tension with them. Even vision becomes more complex than the gaze would suggest. Gazing at particular sights is inflected by all sorts of other visual as well as multi-sensual awareness. However, although tourism as an embodied practice has a profound influence in the tourism field, and is very informative and a welcome enlargement of analysis, it also seems to make less clear who tourists are. The above tourist typologies or arguments are from the micro approach. But from a sociological point of view, a typology of tourists should be based upon both a microanalysis of tourists themselves, and a macro structural approach which locates actual tourist behaviour and experiences with a broader social context. Therefore, it is necessary to consider some socially determined tourist typologies. Sharpley (2003) argued that when a structural perspective is applied to the analysis of tourists, it becomes evident that categories of tourists emerged which have more to do with the values of society as a whole towards to tourists, rather than with the behaviour or lifestyle of individual tourists. There are several following contributions:

MacCannells authentic experience searching tourists The first comprehensive attempt to approach tourism from the perspective of the social sciences was provided by Dean MacCannells book The Tourist (1976). This book effectively opened up tourism to a more generalised and theoretically informed analysis than had previously been the case. He disagrees with Boorstins account who describes tourists have become passive onlookers who travel in organised groups, enjoy contrived, pseudo-events. He regards Boorstins arguments as reflecting a characteristically upper-class view that other people are tourists, while I am a traveller (MacCannell, 1999).

All tourists for MacCannell embody a quest for authenticity, and this quest is a modern version of the universal human concern with sacred places. The tourist is a kind of contemporary pilgrim, seeking authenticity in other times and other places away from the persons everyday life. Of central importance to the consideration of the authenticity of tourist experiences is the notion of staged authenticity (MacCannell, 1999). In other words, he argues that although tourists may believe they are witnessing authenticity, in fact, tourists experiencing only what local people or the tourism industry are allowing him to see. MacCannells concept of staged authenticity is based upon the work of Goffman (1959) who divides the structure of social establishments into what he terms as the front region (where the social interaction takes place, where hosts meet guests or where servers attend to customers) and back region (where members of the home team retire between performances to relax and to prepare). In adapting Goffmans work to tourist setting, MacCannell (1989:101) proposes that there are six different stages on from the front to the end as follows: Stage one (Goffmans front region): the setting which tourists attempt to pe netrate or get behind; Stage two: although it is still in a front region, this stage has been given the superficial appearance of the back region by, for example, having wine racks on display in a restaurant; Stage three: this stage is still firmly embedded in the front region but it is totally organised to resemble a back region; Stage four: moving into the back region, tourists are permitted to see this stage. For example, tourists may be taken into the workshops to see the production process of local goods; Stage five: this is a back region to which tourists are occasionally permitted entry such as the flight deck on an aeroplane; Stage six: this is Goffmans back region, the ultimate goal of the tourist but one which is rarely, if ever, reached.

Image 3; What characterises this image as an example of staged authenticity? Source: www.northamptonshire.co.uk As far as MacCannells tourist is concerned, he/she embodies a quest for authenticity, and this quest is a modern version of the universal human concern with the sacred. The tourist is a kind of contemporary pilgrim, seeking authenticity in other times and other places away from the persons everyday life. But the logic of MacCannells argument is that, increasingly, the back regions are put on show and staged. In this sense, tourism is a genre error where one group is staged for the entertainment of another (Coleman and Crang, 2002). Such transformation from the back to the front may change and perhaps threaten the very authenticity sought in the first place. So we might say that MacCannells idea of the tourist as a modern figure questing for authentic knowledge fits academic opinion rather better than empirical evidence of tourists behaviour, including examples from international student life experience. Old tourists & new tourists There is a type of tourist that has emerged from the present concern for the five key forces of change which created mass tourism in the first place: this is the so-called new tourist (Poon, 1993). He summarised the differences between old and new tourists as shown below in Table 5: Old tourists Search for the sun Follow the masses Here today, gone tomorrow Just to show that you had been Having Superiority Like attractions Precautious Eat in hotel dining room Homogeneous Table 5: Old and new tourists compared This kind of new tourists recognises that the solution to the undoubted problems caused by tourism lies not only in new approaches in the development, planning and management of tourism, but also in the adoption of more appropriate behaviour on the part of tourists themselves. These new tourists are conversely asked to work at tourism: and thus to adopt New tourists Experience something different Want to be in charge See and enjoy but do not destroy Just for the fun of it Being Understanding Like sports Adventurous Try out local fare Hybrid

fundamentally different approaches and interpretations of the tourism experiences as mass tourists. However, this typology still does not allow variable tourist behaviour over time. Possibly, over a short period of time, tourists can change between old tourists and new tourists. So it is not surprising Wheeler (1992) argued old and new tourist differentiation is nothing but an attempt to attach an explorer/drifter image to certain tourism products and to develop a niche market for aware tourists. It is no more than a marketing ploy, a green mantle (Wheeler, 1992).

The Post Tourists Lash and Urry (1994) argue that capitalism moved through a series of historical stages: liberal, organised and disorganised. Each of these appears to be associated with a particular dominant configuration of travel and tourism. These are set out below, together with the patterns identifiable in pre-capitalist to disorganised capitalist societies, in Table 6. Stage Pre-capitalism Liberal capitalism Organised capitalism Disorganised capitalism Table 6: Capitalism, tourism and travel According to the above connection, it may be argued that tourism and tourists have come of age. In other words, the distinction between the traveller and the tourist is, in fact, no more than a manifestation of the first two stages in the evolution of travel and we have now reached the third stage, the era of the post tourist (Feifer, 1985). Firstly, the post-tourist finds it less and less necessary to leave home; technologies now allow people to gaze on tourist sites without leaving home. Secondly, tourism has become highly eclectic; a pastiche of different interests visiting sacred, informative, broadening, beautiful, uplifting, or simply different sites. The post-tourist simply has a lot more choices. Thirdly, the post-tourist recognises and understands the fundamental change that has occurred in the nature of tourism. Armed with a mass of information and images, the post-tourist knows that it is no longer possible to experience authenticity because nothing is new. Tourism has become a kind of game, or rather a whole series of games with multiple texts and no single, authentic tourist experience (Urry, 1990) and the post-tourist understands the role he or she plays in that game. Sometimes they choose to be a mass tourist, sometimes an independent traveller and sometimes not to be a tourist at all; and accept the conditions and constraints of each role. Above all, the post-tourist is aware of being a tourist, of being an outsider, not a time traveller when he goes somewhere historic; not an instant noble savage when he Configuration Organised exploration Individual travel be the rich Organised mass tourism The end of tourism

stays on a tropical beach; not an invisible observer when he visits a native compound (Feifer, 1985). For the post-tourist then, the traveller/tourist dichotomy is irrelevant. The traveller has matured and evolved into an individual who experiences and enjoys all kinds of tourism, who takes each at face value and who is in control at all times. In effect, the post-tourist renders tourist typologies meaningless.

SUMMARY These learning materials have introduced the conceptual issues associated with the study of tourists, highlighting some of difficulties which students and researchers need to be aware of when attempting to define tourists. Different attempts which have been made by tourism scholars to create typologies of tourists from both micro and macro approaches. From the discussion above, it appears that developing a tourist typology that incorporates a multidimensional approach might be proved to be impossible. However, given the limitations of existing typologies, locating tourists in a social context seems to provide a clearer picture and better explanation of tourist roles, contributing to a better understanding of the demand for tourism. It also provides the foundation for a more detailed analysis of tourist behaviour.

MULTIPLE CHOICE:

1. According to Medlik (2003) observation, definitions of tourists provided by different researchers can be differentiate between:

(A) technical and conceptual definitions (B) theoretical and practical definitions (C) scientific and non-scientific definitions (D) eastern and western definitions

2. According to the WTO (1993), the following requirement does not need to be considered for a person to be called a tourist:

(A) Minimum length of stay one night (B) Maximum length of stay one year (C) Purpose of visit categories (D) A distance consideration

3. According to Erik Cohens (1974) tourist typology based upon sociological theory, which choice does not belong to his typology?

(A) Organised mass tourists (B) Individual mass tourists (C) Explorer (D) New tourists

4. According to Plog (1977), allocentric travellers refer to

(A) Those who actively seek out untouched destinations (B) Those who go to well-established tourist destinations (C) Those who go to Las Vegas (D) Those who enjoy man-made parks such as Disneyland

5. According to John Urry (1990), what characteristics does romantic gaze have?

(A) Communal activity; series of brief encounters; glancing at and collecting of different signs (B) Solitary; sustained immersion; gaze involving vision, awe, aura (C) Solitary; sustained immersion; scanning and active interpretation (D) Communal activity; series of shared encounters; gazing at the familiar

6. In adapting Goffmans work to tourist setting, MacCannell (1989) proposes that there are different stages from the front to the end. How many stages did he propose?

(A) 4 (B) 6 (C) 7 (D) 8

7. According to Poon (1993), tourists can be differentiated as

(A) Mass tourists and independent tourists (B) Explorers and backpackers (C) Old tourists and new tourists (D) International tourists and domestic tourists

8. In the following statements, which statement does not relate to new tourists?

(A) Experience something different (B) Want to be in charge (C) See and enjoy but do not destroy (D) Search for the sun

9. According to Lash and Urry (1994), which type of tourists does fit in organised capitalistic societies?

(A) Organised explorers

(B) Individual travellers (C) Organised mass tourists (D) Post-tourists

10. Whose tourist typology is from a macro approach to defining tourists?

(A) Plog (B) Cohen (C) Poon (D) World Tourism Organisation

Answers: (1) A (2) D (3) D (4) A (5) B (6) B (7) C (8) D (9) C (10) C

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

1. Demonstrate your understanding of the domestic and international nature of tourists with examples 2. What are drawbacks to use technical definitions of tourists? 3. What are advantages and disadvantages of using tourist typologies? 4. What are key researchers and research which contribute to the understanding of tourists? 5. Present your understanding of post-tourists with examples from your own country

FURTHER READING Sharpley, R (2003) Tourism, Tourists & Society, 3rd edition, Huntingdon: ELM Publications

REFERENCES Cloke, P. and Perkins, H (1998) Cracking the Canyon with the Awesome Foursome: representations of adventure in New Zealand, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 16 Cohen, E. (1974) Who is a tourist? A Conceptual Clarification, Social Research, Vol. 39(1), pp164-182. Cohen, E. (1979a) A Phenomenology of Tourism Experience, Sociology, Vol. 13, pp179-201. Cohen, E. (1979b) Rethinking the Sociology of Tourism, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 6(1), pp18-35 Coleman, S and Crang, M (eds.) (2002) Tourism: between place and performance, Oxford: Berghahn Books Crawshaw, C and Urry, J (1997) Tourism and the photographic eye, in Rojek, C and Urry, J (eds.) Touring Cultures, London: Routledge, pp. 238 256 Crouch, D (1999) (ed.) Leisure/Tourism Geographies: Leisure Practices and Geographic Knowledge, Routledge, London

Crouch, D (2002) Surrounded by place: embodied encounters, in Coleman, S and Crang, M (eds.) (2002) Tourism: between place and performance, Oxford: Berghahn Books Feifer, N (1985) Going Places, London: Macmillan Frow, J (1997) Time and Commodity Culture: essays in cultural theory and postmodernity , Oxford: Clarendon Press Gray, H (1970) International Travel International Trade, Lexington: DC Health Inglis, F (2000) The delicious history of the holiday, London : Routledge Jay, M (1993) Downcast Eyes, Berkeley: University of California Press MacCannell, D. (1979/1999) The Tourist: A New Theory of The Leisure Class, Basingstoke: MacMillan Marx, K. (1973) Grundrisse, Harmondsworth: Penguin Martinez, D.P (1998) Introduction: gender, shifting boundaries and global cultures, in Martinez, D.P. (ed.) The Worlds of Japanese Popular Culture: gender, shifting boundaries and global cultures, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Medlik, S (2003) Dictionary of travel, tourism and hospitality, 3rd ed., Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann

Meethan, K (2001) Tourism in Global Society: Place, Culture, Consumption, Basingstoke and New York: PALGRAVE Plog (1977) Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity, in E. Kelly (ed.) Domestic and International Tourism, Wellsley, Mass: Institute of Certified Travel Agents Poon, A. (1993) Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies, Wallingford: CABI Publishing Ritchie, B.W., Carr, N and Cooper, C (2003) Managing Educational Tourism, Clevedon. Buffalo. Toronto. Sydney: Channel View Publications Rojek, C and Urry, J. (eds.) (1997) Touring Cultures: Transformation of Travel and Theory, London: Routledge. Urry, J. (1990) The consumption of tourism, Sociology, 24, pp. 23 -35 Urry, J. (1995) Consuming Place, London: Routledge Urry, J (2002) The Tourist Gaze, 2nd edition, London: SAGE Wheeler, M (1992) Applying ethics to the tourism industry, Business Ethics, 1(4), pp: 227 235 World Tourism Organisation (1983) Definitions Concerning Tourism Statistics, Madrid: World Tourism Organisation World Tourism Organisation (1991) Resolutions of International Conference on Travel and Tourism, Ottawa, Canada, Madrid: World Tourism Organisation

Target Audience This resource was developed for HE and HE in FE professionals and students engaged in tourism and hospitality. The content has four key audiences: HE and HE in FE academic and support service practitioners engaged in level 1 and 2 modules in tourism and hospitality; HE and HE in FE academic staff involved in curriculum design; Students and staff looking for learning materials linked to QAA subject benchmarks for hospitality and tourism.

Contact University of Plymouth Colleges University of Plymouth Drake Circus Plymouth PL4 8AA tel: +44 (0) 1752 587500 email: [email protected] web: www.plymouth.ac.uk/upc

If you require any part of this report in larger print please contact: Disability ASSIST Tel: +44 (0) 1752 587656 Email: [email protected]