Back of report

Defining tourists

Rong Huang

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.

The University of Plymouth Colleges (UPC)

Higher Education Learning Partnerships (HELP) Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL)

Defining Tourists

Dr. Rong Huang

These learning materials have been prepared with the following in mind:

1 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 Links to modules

Level 1 Introduction to Tourism;

Level 2 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 3S’s, 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.

Cohen’s typology of tourists (1974, 1979)

One of the earliest and best known is Erik Cohen’s (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 all-

inclusive, 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: Cohen’s 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 Cohen’s classification?

However, Cohen’s 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; Cohen’s 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 Cohen’s 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.

Plog’s 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 Plog’s typology? Source: Time Out New York’s 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 Plog’s model, would normally

attract allocentrics. Thus, there is a real problem for Plog’s 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 Plog’s contention that destination choice could be

predicted according to personality types.

Urry’s 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 Urry’s

(1990) metaphor of the ‘tourist gaze’. In Urry’s 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 Characteristics

Romantic 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 body-

practice 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 two-

dimensional 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:

MacCannell’s ‘authentic’ experience searching tourists

The first comprehensive attempt to approach tourism from the perspective of the social

sciences was provided by Dean MacCannell’s 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 Boorstin’s account who describes tourists have

become passive onlookers who travel in organised groups, enjoy contrived, pseudo-events.

He regards Boorstin’s 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

person’s 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.

MacCannell’s 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 Goffman’s 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 (Goffman’s front region): the setting which tourists attempt to penetrate 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

Goffman’s 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 MacCannell’s 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 person’s everyday life.

But the logic of MacCannell’s 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 MacCannell’s 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 New tourists

Search for the sun Experience something different

Follow the masses Want to be in charge

Here today, gone tomorrow See and enjoy but do not destroy

Just to show that you had been Just for the fun of it

Having Being

Superiority Understanding

Like attractions Like sports

Precautious Adventurous

Eat in hotel dining room Try out local fare

Homogeneous Hybrid

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

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 Configuration

Pre-capitalism Organised exploration

Liberal capitalism Individual travel be the rich

Organised capitalism Organised mass tourism

Disorganised capitalism The ‘end of tourism’

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

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 multi-

dimensional 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 Cohen’s (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 Goffman’s 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: Butterworth-Heinemann

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: upc@plymouth.ac.uk 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: das@plymouth.ac.uk