Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 19, page 1 of 4, e1c© The Authors 2012. doi 10.1017/jht.2012.2

Special Issue: Beyond the Margins (Critical Tourism and Hospitality)

Editorial Introduction: Beyond the Margins? The Relevanceof Critical Tourism and Hospitality Studies

Erica WilsonSouthern Cross University, Australia

Jennie SmallUniversity of Technology, Sydney,Australia

Candice HarrisAuckland University of Technology,New Zealand

This special issue expands discussion on the role and relevance of critical approaches in tourism and

hospitality studies. The goal of the issue was to reflect upon the opportunities, ambiguities and struggles related

to researching and teaching in the critical tourism and hospitality field. The complexities and entanglements of

working within ‘new’ and critical tourism knowledges have previously been noted (Ateljevic, Harris, Wilson, &

Collins, 2005; Tribe, 2005; Wilson, Harris, & Small, 2008).

To begin with, it is important to ground this editorial in-troduction in what we mean by ‘critical’ as it relates to thisspecial issue. A cursory search for the keyword, ‘critical’,in the tourism and hospitality literature reveals thatthis word can be interpreted in different ways. Thus, thereis often confusion when we describe our critical researchto others. For instance, ‘critical’ is often misunderstoodas critical issues in tourism/hospitality. The use of ‘critical’in this sense suggests a moral imperative or importancearound a particular topic (e.g., climate change may be de-fined as a critical tourism issue, or employee career pathsmay be a critical factor in hospitality research). Others havemistaken the term, ‘critical’, to refer only to critical think-ing and, in so doing, dubbed the critical group ‘arrogant’in implying that they are critical thinkers where others arenot.

While we hope that we are both critical thinkers studyinga critical issue, our specific meaning of ‘critical’ refers totourism and hospitality studies which engage critical the-ory. Those critical tourism and hospitality scholars whoengage such theory are driven by the need to unmaskand deconstruct the sociocultural politics and impacts oftourism/hospitality practices, research and teaching. We areconcerned with whose interests are served by different ide-ologies, the focus being emancipation and social justicein tourism and hospitality. In an earlier discussion arti-cle for this journal (Wilson, Harris, & Small, 2008), wenoted that there are multiple approaches and methodolo-gies employed under the umbrella of critical tourism andhospitality. These include postmodernism, poststructural-

Address for correspondenceErica Wilson, Senior Lecturer, School of Tourism and Hospitality Management,Southern Cross University, PO Box 157 Lismore NSW 2480, Australia. E-mail:erica.wilson@scu.edu.au

ism, critical theory, critical realism, feminist/gender the-ory and masculinities, race studies and also methodologieslike qualitative research, interpretivism, auto/ethnography,phenomenology, feminist research, memory-work, Indi-genist research and critical discourse analysis. As we havepreviously demonstrated (Wilson et al., 2008), those en-gaged in critical research are also often drawn to reflexivityas they reflect critically on the methods they use and theimpacts of their work on their own lives as well as the livesof others.

Given this plurality amongst those adopting a crit-ical theory approach, it is not surprising that differ-ences of thought are emerging as discussion widens.We now see ‘radical’ critiques of critical tourism studies(Bianchi, 2009), critical realists challenging the postmod-ern/poststructural critical tourism scholar (Botterill, 2007),the ‘academy of hopeful tourism’ (Pritchard, Morgan, &Ateljevic, 2011) being questioned by those favouring amore radical/Marxist pedagogy that underscores structuralconstraints (Higgins-Desbiolles, Powys Whyte, & Mian,2012), gendered/feminist critical tourism theory (Jordan &Aitchison, 2008; Small, Harris, Ateljevic, & Wilson, 2011),not to mention discussions around critical tourism versuscritical hospitality studies (Lashley, Lynch, & Morrison,2007; Lugosi, Lynch, & Morrison, 2009). While these in-ternal debates and discussions reflect a healthy journeydown the road, now that the ‘turn’ has occurred, whatholds us together are the central notions of critical theory,challenges to the status quo in methodology and knowl-edge production, exposure of inequalities and making thepolitical, personal.

This special issue is testament that we think the crit-ical project is enduringly important and that, as criticaltourism and hospitality scholars, we should continue to cri-tique, question, unmask and understand. Yet the projectis not finished, nor will it ever be. We must keep asking

1

Erica Wilson, Jennie Small and Candice Harris

questions, challenging and accepting divergent views. Asreflected in the first part of the title of this special issue, akey goal of the issue was to explore the supposed placeof critical tourism and hospitality studies on the ‘mar-gin’ and our relationship with the ‘mainstream’ researchagenda. There is no doubt that a critical turn has takenplace within tourism/hospitality studies, reflecting a shiftin thought that emphasises critical, interpretive, alterna-tive and often radical modes of inquiry (Ateljevic et al.,2005; Belhassen & Caton, 2011; Ateljevic, Pritchard, &Morgan, 2007; Pritchard, Morgan, & Ateljevic, 2011;Lugosi, Lynch, & Morrison, 2009; Tribe, 2008). The ques-tion remains: what happens once the turn has been taken?It has been an invigorating and exciting time for those work-ing towards the critical turn, but where does that leave usnow? To what extent are we still relegated to the peripheriesand margins, waiting for the mainstream to take notice aswe struggle to gain a foothold in tourism journals, books,curricula, conference proceedings and other productionsof knowledge? A number of critical authors have lamentedthe ongoing imperative to justify our paradigmatic choicesand our (usually qualitative) methodologies (Pritchardet al., 2011; Small, Harris, Wilson, & Ateljevic, 2011;Wilson et al., 2008). Using this special issue in a prominenttourism journal as a platform, we demonstrate how criticalapproaches continue to make an important contribution totourism and hospitality knowledge.

Our second aim with this special issue (reflecting the sec-ond part of the title) was to confront and probe the relevanceof critical approaches in tourism and hospitality. By rele-vance, we mean relevance to ourselves as academics, to theorganisations or institutions within which we work, to thecolleagues and students with whom we research and work,and to our wider communities. As Lugosi et al. (2009,p. 1475) argue in the context of critical hospitality man-agement research:

Rather than a narrow view of relevance in terms of an audience, thatis, to industry, management or even management researchers, [criticalhospitality management research] should also show some awareness ofrelevance to a broader set of stakeholders, including consumers, staff,suppliers, students, academics from diverse disciplines and members ofother communities affected by . . . research.

This special issue stemmed directly from a symposiumheld in November, 2010 in Byron Bay, Australia by theCouncil for Australian Tourism and Hospitality Education(CAUTHE) ‘Critical Approaches in Tourism and Hospi-tality’ Special Interest Group (formed in 2006). A call forpapers under the theme, ‘Beyond the Margins? The Rel-evance of Critical Tourism and Hospitality Studies’, wassent to the CAUTHE and Special Interest Group (SIG)e-mail lists. Manuscripts were invited around one or moreof the following topics:

� The relevance of critical tourism and hospitality: to us,to our communities, to the institutions within whichwe work, to the audiences to whom we communicate,to other stakeholders, to ‘the researched’, to society.

� Emancipation and resistance in critical tourism andhospitality studies: who really benefits?

� Non-Euro/western-centric or Indigenous approachesto critical research in tourism and hospitality

� Beyond the margins: feminist, gay/lesbian, accessibletourism research

� The ‘social lens’ approach in hospitality studies� Positionality, audiencing and reflexivity� Emotional dynamics of critical research� Social justice and social inclusion in tourism and hos-

pitality� Representation and ‘Othering’� Emerging epistemologies and methodologies in criti-

cal tourism and hospitality studies� Ethics and political action in critical tourism and hos-

pitality� Claims of our legitimacy and research ‘quality’� Tourism and hospitality as a force for social and po-

litical change� Future directions and pushing ‘beyond the margins’

in critical tourism and hospitality

Given that we did not want critical tourism and hospitalitystudies to be defined and constrained by any one approach,method or paradigm, other ‘relevant’ ideas for the specialissue were also invited and openly welcomed.

Not every author writing in this special issue attendedthe Byron Bay symposium. All submissions were sent fordouble-blind review and seven papers were ultimately ac-cepted. Overall, the papers show a diversity of approaches,methodologies and methods. Yet key themes are appar-ent; these are reflexivity, voice, methodology/method, theresearcher–participant relationship and the ultimate con-cern for social justice. Three of the articles deal specificallywith Indigenous tourism in Australia or with ‘doing’ In-digenous/Indigenist tourism research. It is interesting tonote that while the Byron Bay symposium and the spe-cial issue call for papers clearly included ‘hospitality’ as afocus, no hospitality articles were submitted. This is notto say that critical hospitality research is not taking placewithin Australia and New Zealand; many of the CATH SIGmembers are hospitality academics. However, it does revealthat more discussion and debate is needed in the criticalhospitality field as well as the overlaps between tourismand hospitality studies. New journals, such as Hospitalityand Society, will no doubt lead the way in opening furtheravenues for critical approaches in hospitality.

The opening paper, by Simone Fullagar and Erica Wil-son, is based largely on the keynote presentation at thesymposium by the first author. In this discussion, theauthors engage with the central theme of the special is-sue, arguing that as critical scholars we need to movebeyond the desire to simply occupy the dissenting posi-tion at the margins. At the same time, we also need totransgress the desire to become incorporated into ‘main-stream’ tourism and hospitality knowledge. Instead, Ful-lagar and Wilson look to multiple ways of problematis-ing and engaging with disciplinary truths in tourism andhospitality. One such way is through engagement in crit-ical pedagogies which underscore our teaching practices,

2 Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management

Editorial Introduction

relationships with our students and academe, and the de-velopment of curriculum. Using a reflexive voice to illus-trate, the authors draw on their own varying experiencesas teachers, curriculum developers and as academics inleadership roles.

Amie Matthews’s autoethnographic paper, titled‘“Write” Of Passage: Reflecting on the Fieldwork Processand Its Contribution to Critically Orientated Tourism Re-search’ provides an account of the fieldwork process, fo-cusing on the interplay between the academic as observerand the academic as observed. The article opens the field-work process to closer scrutiny, examining the emotional,corporeal and social dimensions of research. By exploringsome of the tensions that can emerge for the tourism stud-ies scholar occupying multiple roles and identities withinan individual research project, Matthews suggests that,when viewed through the methodological approach of au-toethnography, these tensions are in fact conducive to de-veloping a more reflexive and critically orientated tourismstudies.

Jo Ankor explores the important role of the Other in thetravel experience using Levinas’ notion of the face-to-faceencounter as a central theoretical platform. Playing inno-vatively with three different, yet interrelated, ‘voices’ (the-ory, critical-creative and narrative) she creatively demon-strates the challenges of researching and writing about thetravel experience. Ankor engages with the critical approachthrough a flexible and interpretive method that brings tothe fore the traveller’s interactive response to place andencounter. As Ankor concludes, ‘in the field of tourismstudies, the methodological challenge has been to find away of expressing the complexity and layered nature of thissituated yet individual travel experience’.

Noah Nielsen and Erica Wilson contribute to the dis-cussion and debate about Indigenous tourism researchthrough applying a critical, deconstructive lens to the as-sumptions underlying such research. They present a typol-ogy with the aim of exploring ‘the role, presence and en-gagement of Indigenous people in tourism research’. Theirtypology categorises Indigenous tourism research into fourtypes: invisible, identified, stakeholder and Indigenous-driven. While there is a chronological trend in this typol-ogy, it is not entirely so. The authors argue for Indigenous-driven research but, at the same time, recognise that theyare arguing from a non-Indigenous position.

‘De-marginalising tourism research’ is the focus ofthe next paper, by Andrew Peters and Freya Higgins-Desbiolles. Their specific imperative is the virtual absenceof any discussion on Indigenous Australians as tourists.Embracing the ethos of Indigenous critical theory, theychallenge the dominance of non-Indigenous research byarguing that all definitions of Indigenous tourism neglectto feature Indigenous people as tourists. This is despiteIndigenous Australians’ longstanding role as travellers andtourists, which Peters and Higgins-Desbiolles trace fromtheir pre-invasion movements through to post-invasionforced ‘travel’ through peoples’ removal from their ownlands. Ultimately, the authors determine that Indigenouspeople remain the ‘othered’ focus of various tourism mar-keting and branding strategies but are not positioned asactive and engaged tourists themselves. Several avenues for

further research in this important critical area are offeredat the end of the article.

Gabrielle Russell-Mundine examines the critical issueof non-Indigenous researchers studying Indigenous issues.She firstly outlines the principles that should be incorpo-rated into such research, concluding that reflexivity is re-quired to implement the principles. She continues to ex-plore the concept of reflexivity claiming that reflexivity re-quires the researcher to engage with ‘fundamental, andoften difficult, questions’. The researcher needs to knowabout themselves, about their own culture, society and sys-tems within which they are operating. Reflexivity can bea shallow tool if we are not challenging the fundamentalissue that our western knowledge continues to dominateand silence other knowledges. Russell-Mundine argues thatwe need to interrogate our Whiteness and challenge thestructures and systems that lead to exclusion of Aboriginalknowledges and voices. The difficulties of addressing In-digenous research principles when working in academe areaddressed.

In the final article, Simon Darcy examines the embod-ied air travel experiences of tourists with disability (TwD).Taking an ‘embodied ontology’ approach, he argues forthe expansion of the social model to recognise the im-portance of an individual’s embodiment as the subject ofthe lived experience. To explore passenger experiences, heemployed a mixed-method, interpretive approach. Analy-sis of the findings reveal multiple practices that contra-vene the accessibility of the air travel chain and that aredeemed discriminatory according to international and na-tional legislation. In reviewing the embodied experiencesof the tourists through the stages of air travel from preplan-ning to disembarking, Darcy found that ‘When discrimi-natory practices occur, the air travel experiences of TwDcreate a new (DIS)embodiment, resulting in heightened anx-iety, dependence, indignity and in some cases humiliationfor the duration of the air travel experience’. Greater em-bodied understanding by the industry will lead to improvedmanagement practices.

While we as critical scholars have questioned and crit-icised mainstream thinking, it is important that we alsocontinue to question ourselves. One current area of debateat the moment relates to the concept of ‘hopeful tourism’(Pritchard et al., 2011) that has emerged out of the Criti-cal Tourism Studies conference series (2005, 2007, 2009,2011). Hopeful tourism is described as a ‘values-led hu-manist approach based on partnership, reciprocity andethics, which aims for co-created learning and which recog-nises the power of sacred and indigenous knowledge andpassionate scholarship’ (Pritchard et al., 2011, p. 949). Asthe authors state, ‘this in turn impacts on its enquiry aim,methodologies, action, researcher position and voice andthe relationship between the “researcher” and the “partic-ipants”’ (Pritchard et al., 2011, p.949). Those critiquingthe concept of hopeful tourism, namely Higgins-Desbiolleset al. (2012), argue that it has abandoned key principlesof the critical theory paradigm. They complain that theadherents’ hopeful focus on ‘partnership, respect and reci-procity’ is ‘very tame and limited in the struggle against theviolent assertion of power and privilege in which we findourselves’ (p. 2). Instead, Higgins-Desbiolles et al. reclaim

Volume 19 2012 3

Erica Wilson, Jennie Small and Candice Harris

the principles of critical theory — ‘solidarity, resistance andrevolution’ and argue that true change can only come whenwe ‘“walk in the shoes” of the oppressed’ (p. 3). They arguethat hopeful tourism has not earned the right yet to claimit has made serious inroads into tourism as a force for thepromotion of human dignity, human rights and justice intourism policy and practice. In other words, the hopefultourism agenda, while offering an opportunity for a posi-tive contribution, may not always be as outwardly hopefulas it seems.

In summary, and as this special issue demonstrates, suchdebates are important in terms of the future direction ofcritical scholarship. While tourism continues to have a rolein perpetuating the oppression of many people, we mustcontinue to interrogate our relationship with the ‘main-stream’ and remain critical as we remain on the margins.Tourism is a significant force in society. It is both shapedby and shapes the world in which we live. While we can‘hope for’ a better world for all, we must not lose sight ofthe serious social injustices, inequalities and institutionalchallenges that surround us.

AcknowledgmentsErica, Jennie and Candice would like to acknowledge thesupport and financial assistance offered by the Councilfor Australian University Tourism and Hospitality Educa-tion (CAUTHE) and their Special Interest Group (SIG)scheme which allowed the Byron Bay Symposium to takeplace. The editors would also like to thank all of the refereeswho kindly offered their time to review the papers.

ReferencesAteljevic, I., Harris, C., Wilson, E., & Leo Collins, F. (2005). Getting

‘entangled’: Reflexivity and the ‘critical turn’ in tourism studies. TourismRecreation Research, 30(2), 9–21.

Ateljevic, I., Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N. (Eds.). (2007). The criti-cal turn in tourism studies: Innovative research methodologies. Oxford:Elsevier.

Belhassen, Y., & Caton, K. (2011). On the need for critical ped-agogy in tourism education. Tourism Management, 32, 1389–1396.

Bianchi, R.V. (2009). The ‘critical turn’ in tourism studies: A radical cri-tique. Tourism Geographies, 11(4), 484–504.

Botterill, D. (2007). A realist critique of the situated voice in tourism studies.In I. Ateljevic, A. Pritchard, & N. Morgan (Eds.), The critical turn intourism studies: Innovative research methodologies (pp. 121–131). Oxford:Elsevier.

Higgins-Desbiolles, F., Powys Whyte, K., & Mian, A. (2012, February).Abandon hope: The importance of remaining critical. Paper presented atthe 22nd Annual CAUTHE conference, Melbourne.

Jordan, F., & Aitchison, C. (2008). Tourism and the sexualisa-tion of the gaze: Solo female tourists’ experiences of genderedpower, surveillance and embodiment. Leisure Studies, 27(3), 329–349.

Lashley, C., Lynch, P., & Morrison, A. (Eds.) (2007). Hospitality: A sociallens. Oxford: Elsevier.

Lugosi, P., Lynch, P., & Morrison, A. (2009). Critical hospitality manage-ment research. Service Industries Journal, 29(10), 1465–1478.

Pritchard, A., Morgan, N., & Ateljevic, I. (2011). Hopeful tourism: Anew transformative perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 941–963.

Small, J., Harris, C., Wilson, E., & Ateljevic, I. (2011). Voices of women: Amemory-work reflection on work-life dis/harmony in tourism academia.Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 10(1), 23–36.

Tribe, J. (2005). New tourism research. Tourism Recreation Research, 30(2),5–8

Tribe, J. (2008). Tourism: A critical business. Journal of Travel Research,46(3), 245–255.

Wilson, E., Harris, C., & Small, J. (2008). Furthering critical approachesin tourism and hospitality studies: Perspectives from Australia andNew Zealand. Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management, 15, 15–18.

4 Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management