Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp.

1116–1137, 2012
0160-7383/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Printed in Great Britain
www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures
doi:10.1016/j.annals.2011.12.010

CONSTRUCTIONISM
Critical Pointers for Tourism Studies
Tomas Pernecky
Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand

Abstract: This paper critically examines the application, pitfalls and prospects of construc-
tionism in Tourism Studies. It explains what constructionism is and how it can be utilised
in the study of tourism. The article debunks some of the myths associated with this approach
to knowing and argues that enquiry embedded in constructionist epistemology is both realist
and relativist. The reader is guided through possible methodological challenges and con-
cerns and is offered a mind map of promising constructionist directions for future research.
It is hoped that the conceptual and philosophical nature of this paper encourages further
constructionist explorations into tourism. Keywords: constructionism, constructivism, episte-
mology, realism, relativism. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION
Tourism researchers are in the business of generating knowledge,
and constructionism is one theory of knowledge. It is an epistemology,
telling us about the nature, possibility and scope of knowledge (Crotty,
1998). In recent years, however, the constructionist ‘‘tag’’ has been
increasingly appearing across social sciences and in a range of research
approaches: it has become expansive and unstructured (Holstein &
Gubrium, 2011). Kukla (2000) draws on the work of Hacking (1999)
and opens his text Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Science by
noting the heterogeneous list of items described as socially con-
structed; some examples include Japan, gender, illness, emotions, real-
ity and the self. It has been depicted as a paradigm (Denzin & Lincoln,
1998, 2000a, 2003b, 2011; Guba & Lincoln, 1989, 2004; Lincoln &
Guba, 2003; Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011), as a method of scientific
inquiry (Loseke, 1999), as a technique (Haimes & Williams, 1998), as a
methodological matter (Golinski, 1998; Heiner, 2002), as epistemology
(Crotty, 1998), and more recently as a ‘‘mosaic of research efforts’’
which are bound by certain philosophical, theoretical, methodological,
and empirical understandings (Holstein and Gubrium, 2011, p. 341).
In addition, construction analyses are said to have been motivated by
both socio-political and metaphysical aims (Hacking, 1998). The key

Tomas Pernecky’s (Auckland University of Technology, School of Hospitality and Tourism,

Faculty of Applied Humanities, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand. E-mail
<tomas.pernecky@aut.ac.nz>) research focuses mainly on knowledge production of and
theoretical inquiries into tourism and events, hermeneutic phenomenology, sustainability,
and the critical exploration of issues surrounding peace.

1116
 T. Pernecky/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1116–1137 1117

task ahead of this paper is to navigate through this maze and offer con-
ceptual scaffolding for readers in Tourism Studies.
Constructionism comes by different names and in various combina-
tions, most commonly encapsulated by the term social constructionism
(see for example Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Burr, 2003; Gergen,
2001, 2009), but also constructivism (some of the thinkers operating
with this term include Denzin & Lincoln, 2000b; Kukla, 2000; Lincoln,
1990; Schwandt, 1994), and the label adopted in this paper construction-
ism (used for instance by Crotty, 1998; Holstein & Gubrium, 2008,
2011). There are also other variations such as Goodman’s (1978)
self-invented term constructionalism. The long list of adjectives available
in the literature: radical, critical, cultural, social, material, cognitive,
scientific, realist, naturalistic, post-modernist, feminist, discursive,
strong, very strong, contextual; further signals that the claims and
use of constructionism are neither universal, nor that it is something
which transcends disciplines. This issue remains unresolved in tourism,
leaving the field with a greater need for theoretical and methodologi-
cal sophistication. The scarcity of philosophical discourse in tourism
has been noted by Tribe (2004), and others have commented on the
lack of philosophical clarity and researchers’ vagueness in regard to
the explication of the underlying assumptions of their work (Jamal &
Hill, 2002; Pernecky & Jamal, 2010).
This article aims to cast more light on the fuzzy and partial under-
standing of constructionism in tourism academia. The overarching
goal is to establish a firmer ground and install philosophical and meth-
odological building blocks, upon which future constructionist research
can be erected. The paper starts with a review of existing construction-
ist literature in tourism, then highlights potential methodological
pitfalls, and concludes with a preliminary mind map of possible direc-
tions in the field. In order to fully appreciate the diverse approaches
united under the constructionist rubric, a strong emphasis is placed
on untangling the available stances towards reality and the mistaken
view that constructionism collectively proposes that things are not real,
or that there is no reality at all. To establish a sense of consistency
throughout this article, the term ‘‘constructionism’’, as opposed to
‘‘constructivism’’, is used by the author as it is shown later that each
label can signify different things. However, the references to the works
of other scholars discussed in this paper will remain accurate as per the
terminology used by the original authors.

Constructionism in Tourism Literature

In the Sociology of Tourism: European Origins and Developments, Dann
and Parinello (2009) outline three major contributors to constructivist
work in tourism: Said’s (1978) text Orientalism, Bruner’s ethnographic
work (see for example Bruner, 1996), and Hollinshead (1993) thesis
The Truth about Texas: A Naturalistic Study of the Construction of Heritage.
The majority of notions of and references to constructionism and con-
structivism in the tourism literature appear in the last decade (see for
1118 T. Pernecky/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1116–1137

example Ballantyne & Hughes, 2006; Belhassen & Caton, 2009;

Bornhorst, Ritchie, & Sheehan, 2010; Causevic & Lynch, 2011; Dredge,
2010; Iwashita, 2003; Koivunen, 2011; Kolar & Zabkar, 2010; Lima,
2009; Lynch, 2005; Medina, 2003; Small, 1999, 2008; Sorensen, 2003;
Uriely & Belhassen, 2006; Wang, 1999). It has been equated with dis-
course theory (e.g. Lau, 2010), grasped as a methodological concern
(the work of Hunter, 2009; Jamal & Hollinshead, 2001), as favouring
qualitative methods (Dredge, 2010) and depicted the researcher as
an interpreter throughout the research process (Ryan & Gu, 2010),
but also described as ‘‘hegemonic ontology’’ in Tourism Studies
(Hannam & Knox, 2010, p. 70). In addition, some contributions have
stimulated discussion between various academics (see for example
Shepherd’s, 2011 critique of Ryan & Gu’s paper, 2010, and Ryan &
Gu’s response, 2011).
In the assessment of references to constructionism and its variants in
tourism literature, scholars can be divided into two clusters. First, there
are the conceptual thinkers and commentators such as Hollinshead
(2006), who demonstrates a commitment to different ways of knowing
in the field. Hollinshead opens much of this debate in his paper The
Shift to Constructivism in Social Inquiry: Some Pointers for Tourism Studies,
where he identifies ten shifts in interpretative understanding in
Tourism Studies, some of which are: perspectivity (or intersubjective
understandings, as opposed to objectivity), relativism (as opposed to
realism), justification through science (as opposed to verification), situated
research (as opposed to objectivity and rigour), value stated research (as
opposed to value-neutral), and tacit understanding (an inductive and
implicit approach to understanding). Hollinshead joins the forces of
thinkers who challenge the traditional Western worldview (positivist/
natural science) and introduces the tourism reader to what he calls
the ‘‘turn towards constructivist/interpretivist thought and practice’’
(2006, p. 43). Other researchers who treat constructionism conceptu-
ally are for instance Ayikoru (2009), Chambers (2007) and Jamal and
Hollinshead (2001).
The second cluster represents researchers who apply construction-
ism in the study of tourism. Small (1999) for instance lays out the guid-
ing assumptions of social constructionism and explains how it features
in her study on women’s tourist experiences; Uriely and Belhassen
(2006) deploy it as a perspective to argue that people’s assessment of
risk is mediated through social and cultural frameworks of understand-
ing. There are studies that utilise constructionism in a methodological
sense: Ryan and Gu’s (2010) paper examines the different perspectives
of the stakeholders involved in the fourth Buddhist Festival in Wutai-
shan, China—here the authors demonstrate the various understand-
ings of this event. Then, however, there are cases where it is not very
clear as to how constructionism is utilised or what role specifically it
plays in the research process or how it informs it. Examples include
the work of Jennings et al. (2009) who state they draw on a social con-
structionist approach to studying Quality Tourism Experiences and claim
to have engaged in ‘‘careful interpretation’’ and ‘‘careful reflection’’,
but leave the reader eager to know how to achieve this carefulness and
 T. Pernecky/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1116–1137 1119

what precisely it means in constructionist terms. Kyat (2002) adopts

what he calls a constructionist research paradigm, describing it as a
‘‘naturalistic inquiry’’, but does not go into any more details to explain
what it means for the research or how it shapes the study.
Constructionism is not self-explanatory for there are too many orien-
tations as highlighted in the introductory section. And therefore unless
we are told by the author what it means and how it features in the re-
search, constructionist notions will remain ambiguous. One of the key
problems Tourism Studies is currently facing is that not enough
researchers are prepared to critique and challenge the established
views in social science. There is a mechanical approach to research dri-
ven by the ease of borrowing uncritically from other disciplines. A fit-
ting example can be found in the first philosophically oriented
publication Philosophical Issues in Tourism, where the chapter on tour-
ism ontology and epistemology by Ayikoru (2009) merely contrasts
constructivism with positivism. Ayikoru largely follows the work of
Guba, Denzin, Lincoln and Schwandt, but paints only a narrow picture
of constructivism. The reader is directed to approach constructivism as
a paradigm, which Ayikoru explains is condensed by certain ontologi-
cal, epistemological and methodological tenets. But there is no critical
assessment of this approach to knowing, and the author’s conclusions
are drawn from a small pool of thinkers. For instance Ayikoru neglects
to discuss scholars who object to this view (e.g. Crotty, 1998, and others
listed in this paper), resulting in a superficial synopsis of the term she
employs: constructivism. The chapter therefore bears the properties of
a generic and uncritical reproduction of limited ideas about what con-
structivism means.
Another important observation, and perhaps a major road block to
the application of constructionist epistemology in tourism, is that some
researchers are of the view that constructionism dismisses reality com-
pletely. For example Chambers (2007, p. 109) in her overview of criti-
cal approaches to tourism, bundles constructivist and interpretivist
approaches together and depicts their ontology as ‘‘essentially relativ-
ist’’. Chambers questions the critical capacity of constructivism and
states that it ‘‘must acknowledge that the belief in a better world nec-
essarily implies the existence of a real reality’’ (p. 109). This paper
demonstrates that constructionism does that. Although it is not
uncommon to see relativist claims underpinning the critique of con-
structionism, objections built on assertions that constructionism dis-
cards the ‘‘real’’ are based on a misunderstanding of constructionist
arguments (Gergen, 2009). Such limited understandings of construc-
tionism are contested in this article. It is shown in the next section that
not all constructionists would have us believe that we live in an ‘‘imag-
inary’’ world. In fact the bulk of the work under the banner of
constructionism is not concerned with the physical world per se (onto-
logical focus) but with how we understand (epistemological focus) the
world (Loseke, 1999). The following section therefore delves deeper
into the ‘‘messy’’ areas of constructionism which tend to be the source
of much confusion.
1120 T. Pernecky/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1116–1137

PROBLEMATIC AREAS OF CONSTRUCTIONISM

Inconsistency in Terminology
To begin to untangle the knotty web of constructionism, it is impor-
tant to first address the inconsistency in terminology, which adds to the
confusion of what precisely (social) constructionism and constructiv-
ism signify. It is not uncommon to see researchers (both in social sci-
ence in general and in Tourism Studies in particular) use these
terms interchangeably. This was a concern more than a decade ago
to Crotty (1998), who proposed a distinction between the terms con-
structivism and constructionism: suggesting that the first should pertain
to epistemological considerations which examine the meaning-making
activity of the individual mind, while the latter, constructionism,
should be employed in the study of collective generation and transmis-
sion of meaning. While this distinction is fundamental—for to say that
meaning is generated by an individual disregards its social generation
and transmission—Crotty (1998) himself acknowledges that it is not
adhered to consistently across social science, with the exception of a
few academics such as Schwandt (1994). As far as Glasersfeld’s
(1984) constructivism is concerned, knowledge is actively constructed
by the cognising subject. In the field of Tourism Studies, this discrep-
ancy continues to remain unaddressed and authors use these terms
without making a distinction. For example Medina (2003) in her work
Commoditizing Culture: Tourism and Maya Identity utilises a ‘‘constructiv-
ist’’ approach but discusses Mayan culture as a social construction (not
individual as per the distinction above). The point pressed here, is that
the terms used are often coloured by philosophical concerns, and tour-
ism researchers ought to treat these with caution and care.
To emphasise the social origin of meaning, the adjective ‘‘social’’ is
often employed, however, a clear and uncontested formulation of what
this term entails is yet to be produced (Velody & Williams, 1998).
Golinsky (1998, p. 10) for instance observes that there is no agreement
as to how the ‘‘social element in the making of scientific knowledge
should be specified or what explanatory role should be ascribed to
it’’. For Hacking (1998, p. 49), the epithet ‘‘social’’ is a tautology as
most items claimed to be socially constructed could be constructed
only socially. Hacking’s stance leads to the fact that constructionism
is contingent on the notion that meaning is created out of something
collectively and therefore the social element is embedded in this epis-
temology. Gergen (1998) maintains that there is no unified construc-
tionist/constructivist position, and Lynch (1998, p. 23) concludes
that ‘‘although it may be impossible to define what adherents to the
various constructivist approaches hold in common, at least they have
the word ‘‘construction’’’’. This stance is mirrored by tourism academ-
ics also, and Hollinshead (2006, p. 53) for example notes that there
probably never will be ‘‘any singular academic approach or conceptual
movement that will emerge or coalesce under constructivism/
constructionism’’.
The implications for Tourism Studies are that it will continue to be
a problematic issue as long as researchers are vague about the
 T. Pernecky/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1116–1137 1121

philosophical underpinnings and the use of constructionism/vism in

their work. The exploration of the individual construction, sometimes
referred to as cognitive constructionism, may eventuate in the adoption of
the work of Jean Piaget (1896–1980) and Ernst von Glasersfeld (1917–
2010), however, their philosophy is vastly different to Denzin, Lincoln
and Guba’s interpretation of constructivism. One of the few works in
the field that respects this distinction is Sigala’s (2002) study The Evolu-
tion of Internet Pedagogy: Benefits for Tourism and Hospitality Education,
which uses the term constructivism to examine mental constructions
in e-learning strategies in the context of tourism and hospitality educa-
tion. By way of summing up the main points, while (social) construc-
tionists do not believe that understanding comes directly from an
individual person’s mind and does not occur within the individual at
all (Slife & Williams, 1995), it has been the focus of some constructiv-
ists such as Glasersfeld (1984). Whereas the term ‘‘social’’ does not
reduce constructionism to something less social, the term ‘‘constructiv-
ism’’ has been interpreted by various authors to signify different
things. A very fashionable way to portray constructionist thinking is
to dress it as a ‘‘paradigm’’, a predicament addressed in the following
section.

Why Constructionism Does Not Work as a Paradigm

Denzin and Lincoln (2000a), (2003b) together with Guba (see for
example Guba, 1990; Guba & Lincoln, 1989, 2004), are well known
contemporary commentators on the subject of research paradigms
and prominent figures in the area of qualitative research. These pro-
lific minds gave rise to a number of influential texts such as Lincoln
and Guba’s (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry and The Landscape of Qualitative
Research (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998) and continue to make a significant
impact on social science researchers. Many have embraced these views
(such as Greene, 1990; Lincoln, 1990; Skrtic, 1990), and have taken
constructivism to be a paradigm presented by Guba and Lincoln
(1989) as the logical successor to the conventional or positivist para-
digm. All paradigms are said to include three major foci (Guba &
Lincoln, 2004). These are: ontology (assertions about reality and the
entities and things that exist or may exist), epistemology (the nature,
origins and limits of knowledge), and methodology (the strategies to
achieving what one sets out to do in a research project). While meth-
odology is better understood as an approach, methods refer to the
tools, techniques and procedures for collecting and analysing data
(for a clear distinction see for example Blaikie, 1993).
The description of constructionism as a paradigm, however, poses
philosophical and methodological conundrums. Because paradigms
have boundaries which are determined by certain ontological and
epistemological assumptions, and are often accompanied with a hand-
ful of recommended methodologies and methods, they cannot possibly
accommodate the complex constructionist philosophy. Paradigms, as
they are described by Denzin and Lincoln (2000a, 2003b, 2011) are
1122 T. Pernecky/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1116–1137

too rigid, plus the authors’ blurring of boundaries between the inter-
pretivist, the hermeneutic and the constructivist paradigms can be
misleading. While constructionism ought not to be divorced from
other philosophical movements such as phenomenology, hermeneu-
tics and poststructuralism (Golinski, 1998); for it was founded within
these intellectual traditions (Blaikie, 1993); to converge these into a
paradigm creates an avalanche of challenges and concerns. Schwandt
(2000) for example posits that there are vast ontological, epistemolog-
ical and methodological differences between both interpretivism and
social constructionism. According to him, ‘‘interpretivists argue that
it is possible to understand the subjective meaning of action (grasping
the actor’s beliefs, desires, and so on) yet do so in an objective
manner’’ (p. 193). In his view, interpretivists reconstruct the self-
understandings of actors while social constructionists reject the naı̈ve
realist view of representation. Thus a constructionist constructs knowl-
edge, whilst an interpretivist gains knowledge about the meaning of
human action.
To further demonstrate the shortcomings of approaching construc-
tionism as a paradigm, it is valuable to look at developments in
different fields. If we were to investigate the current literature in Inter-
national Relations Theory, Barkin (2010) does the seemingly incon-
ceivable and combines realism with constructivism to create a hybrid
he labels Realist Constructivism. Barkin suggests that a realist worldview
can benefit from constructivist research methods, and in turn, con-
structivist research is compatible with realism. Although this amalgam-
ation may at first appear somewhat mistaken, the connection between
constructionism and realism demands further scrutiny. Realism, taken
as the ontological doctrine asserting that reality exists outside of the
mind and that the world exists independently of our knowledge of it,
has been by some thinkers assigned to positivistic and post-positivistic
approaches (Guba & Lincoln, 2004; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Construc-
tivism, as we are told by Denzin and Lincoln (2000b), (2003a) demands
relativist ontology, subjectivist epistemology and hermeneutic method-
ology. Realism, however, must not be confused with objectivism. Objec-
tivism is an epistemological notion which posits that meaning exists in
objects independently of consciousness (for detailed explanations see
for example Crotty, 1998).
Thus whilst it is reasonable to say that many constructionists discard
objectivism, the connection between constructionism and realism is far
more knotty and is prone to confusion. What this highlights, is that
when working with Denzin and Lincoln’s conceptualisation of con-
structivism as a paradigm, Barkin’s (2010) realist constructionism ceases
to have a place on their paradigm continuum, as in their view, realism
has no place in constructivist enquiry. But this is not to say that Barkin
got the wrong end of the stick. Crotty (1998, p. 63) makes a very bold
statement by asserting that constructionism in epistemology is compat-
ible with realism in ontology. Similarly, Slife and Williams (1995) see
social constructivist ontology as falling into the realist category and ex-
plain that the focus of a constructionist is not on an ‘‘imaginary’’ world
but a world in which we all take part and make sense of. Patomaki and
 T. Pernecky/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1116–1137 1123

Wright (2000, p. 223) reach the conclusion that all theories of knowl-
edge work with some sort of assumption about the world, hence ‘‘the
question is not of whether to be a realist, but of what kind of realist to
be’’. Other constructionist writers even draw similarities between logi-
cal positivism and social constructionism (e.g. the work of Hibberd,
2005). To make this point very clear, the following quotations gathered
from constructionist thinkers and commentators further suggest the
ontological similitude between constructionism and realism with
regard to the existence of reality:
Social constructionists are principally concerned with explaining how
people experience and describe the world in which they live. Social
constructionists look for common forms of understanding, common
‘‘constructs’’, or views of the world, that are created and shared by
most people in a society (Slife & Williams, 1995, p. 78).
Burr (1998) takes a more direct approach towards combating the
mistaken criticism of constructionism:
Critics of constructionism appear to be contesting the idea that the
world is a figment of our imaginations and has no materiality, which
was never constructionism’s claim (Burr, 1998, p. 23).
In her later writings, Burr (2003) further explains that there is no
unified denial of a physical world congregated under the term con-
structionism; she highlights that language, symbols or science cannot
offer complete, all-encompassing understandings:
The material world certainly exists, but it is not simply reflected in our
talk or other forms of signification (Burr, 2003, p. 92).
Weinberg (2008) touches on the plurality of understanding and
underscores our situatedness in, and relationship with, the world:
To my mind, constructionist research is not about evading the pre-
sumption to have validly described the world. It cannot be. Instead,
constructionism is about the recognition that things could be other-
wise and that we might make them so. It is about recognising that that
our theories are answerable to our common lives before, during, and
after their answerability to our common world (Weinberg, 2008, p.
35).
Finally, Gergen (2009) notes that constructionists are not in the busi-
ness of dismissing reality (or the existence of objects, people, nature)
but question the objective existence of meaningful reality:
Constructionism makes no denials concerning pollution, poverty, or
death. Constructionists don’t say, ‘‘death is not real’’, for example;
nor do they make any affirmations . . . constructionism doesn’t try to
rule on what is or is not fundamentally real. Whatever is, simply is
(Gergen, 2009, p. 161).
The above statements do not dismiss what is commonly called the
world, nature, environment, materiality, or what is often broadly
termed ‘‘reality’’. Many constructionists would not object to the claim
that we are surrounded by objects which exist, are tangible, and visible
to the human eye. Apart from the extreme cases of solipsism (the view
1124 T. Pernecky/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1116–1137

that the world exists only in our imagination), both realists and
constructionists would acknowledge that experiencing a turbulent
flight over the Atlantic Ocean: the burning sensation of hot coffee that
just landed on the knees of a passenger, the flashing ‘‘fasten your seat-
belt’’ sign, and the bags falling from the luggage compartment; are not
a fantasy or a mere product of the imagination. Constructionists do not
necessarily dispute reality per se, what many a constructionist does re-
ject, is the possibility of objectivism and ‘‘objective knowledge’’: a view
that truth and meaning dwell in phenomena independently of con-
sciousness, and thus knowledge independent of the inquirer, the social
processes, and culture (Crotty, 1998). The crux of misunderstanding, it
appears, rests on the fact that one must distinguish between reality on
the one hand, and construction of meaning on the other. Loseke
(1999, p. 13) makes this clear by stating that ‘‘humans live in two
worlds: the physical world and the world of meaning’’. The implica-
tions of what has been said thus far are that constructionism is at once
realist and relativist, and ‘‘those who contrast constructionism and real-
ism are wide of the mark’’ (Crotty, 1998, p. 64). The next section casts
more light on the different types of realities we can distinguish in a
constructionist discourse.

Physical and Social Realities

Constructionism is diverse in scope and just like social researchers in
general, ‘‘constructionists carry with them favoured orientations to the
scale of reality’’ (Gubrium & Holstein, 2008, p. 6). It is important to at
least in broad terms discern between physical reality (a rock, a tree, an
airplane) and social reality (marriage, soccer game, political rally), as
claims can be made either with regard to the first, the second, or both
(e.g. physical and social reality). A helpful insight is offered by Kukla
(2000, p. 25) who makes a distinction between scientific facts (invented
by the institution of science), social facts (facts produced by social sci-
ences), everyday facts (facts outside science), and noumenal facts (possi-
ble facts about the world inaccessible by any method). In his view, it
is by the denial or assertion of a combination of these facts that we
get the variants of very strong constructivism, strong constructivism and weak
constructivism. The label very strong constructivism is the strongest thesis
and proposes that there is no independent reality at all. However,
claims of this type are neither the premise of this paper nor particularly
valuable to tourism researchers. The extreme notions of reality existing
only in the mind of the individual ought to be captured under the can-
opy of solipsism. Schwandt (2000, p. 198) further connects weak con-
structionism to feminist philosophies, contextual empiricism and
modest empiricism (acknowledging that an objective world exists),
whilst strong constructionism or radical constructionism is character-
ised by the incommensurability of language games and epistemological
relativism. The main point of interest to tourism scholars is that the
range within the possible constructionist orientation is commanded
by the fact that some constructionists take only social realities as having
 T. Pernecky/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1116–1137 1125

social origin (Crotty, 1998). Figure 1 allows for this movement by using
the terms weak and strong constructionism.
It is also important to carefully examine what motivates the construc-
tionist enquiry as it can vary in terms of the scope, level or empirical

Figure 1. Possible Constructionist Perspectives

1126 T. Pernecky/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1116–1137

register of analysis (Gubrium & Holstein, 2008). With regard to

Figure 1, examples of social reality in the context of tourism may be:
a passenger on a cruise ship, an eco-tourist, the portrayal and market-
ing of places as tourist destinations, and also one’s birth into a country
with constructed geographic boundaries, language, identity and a
political ideology. What ought to be emphasised is that even when con-
structionists speak of social reality, not all necessarily attack it on meta-
physical grounds: instead, they challenge the inability of social realities
to stand on their own, independently of the actors and the systems
which sustain social realities. In other words our understanding of
someone as an eco-tourist would cease to exist if there were nobody
to construe one as an eco-tourist, or sustain and reproduce this inter-
pretation through social life as well as the systems of orderings (e.g. the
tourism industries). Therefore it must be reinforced that ‘‘to say that
meaningful reality is socially constructed is not to say that it is not real’’
(Crotty, 1998, p. 63). It is also important to at least briefly note that his-
torically, one can distinguish between the groupings of scholars con-
cerned largely with the construction of facts about the physical world
(e.g. gravity waves) and who have examined the construction of scien-
tific facts—these have been for example called ‘‘science constructivists’’
(see Kukla, 2000 and Collin, 1997 for a detailed explanation), and
other thinkers, who have been more interested in the generation of so-
cial facts (see for example the work of Berger & Luckmann, 1966).
The focus of a constructionist enquiry can take different directions
depending on the discipline or field which informs it. Sociology, cul-
tural anthropology and the history of science have mainly produced
critiques of scientific knowledge. The Strong Programme (70s) and
Sociology of Scientific Knowledge movement (80s) arose from the
position that scientific knowledge should be treated as other aspects
of human culture (Golinski, 1998). Thinkers in the disciplines of
philosophy and psychology have been drawn (although not solely) to
issues of meaning, understanding, language, identify, and the self.
The sub-discipline of Sociology of Social Problems for instance is
concerned with the construction of popular social problems, often
propagated by media and reflective of the interests of society’s elite
(see Heiner, 2002). In the field of International Relations, researchers
may focus on the social construction of international politics. In the
field of Tourism Studies, we are yet to witness the full bloom of con-
structionist thought and practice and the emergence of new directions.
The following section outlines some areas which have and may yield
further constructionist enquiries.

Future Constructionist Research in the Study of Tourism

The promising future of constructionism is underpinned by the
increasing calls for the need to understand the construction of mean-
ings in touristic experiences (Jaworski & Pritchard, 2005). We are re-
minded by Ren, Pritchard, and Morgan (2010, p. 885) that the field
must develop ‘‘conceptualisations of tourisms that encompass multiple
 T. Pernecky/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1116–1137 1127

worldviews and cultural differences as well as research praxis that

recognises and reflects the plurality of multiple positions, practices
and insights’’. Tourism scholars are invited to ‘‘disturb and critique
hegemonic socio-political practices (Pritchard, Morgan, & Ateljevic,
2011). In this regard, constructionism contributes another important
dimension to tourism. As a theory of knowledge, it offers an additional
perspective, and it also tells us how to approach and present data. As
noted in the review of tourism literature, constructionist thinking is al-
ready at work in Tourism Studies with gender researchers taking the
lead (Aitchison, 1999, 2007; Crouch, 2000; Henderson, 1994; Pritchard
& Morgan, 2000a; Rojek, 1997). Amongst some of the recent inquiries
are those which have focused on the social-cultural construction of
tourism space (McCabe & Marson, 2006), the socially constructed iden-
tity of backpackers (Sorensen, 2003), and the semiological production
of space (Hughes, 1998). However, in the overall scheme of tourism re-
search, these works are sparse and form a minority cluster.
The possible constructionist perspectives summoned in Figure 1
show that there are at least two interesting scenarios with regard to
knowledge construction: weak constructionism and strong construction-
ism. To demonstrate the different stances towards physical and social
reality in the context of tourism, consider an airline ticket. Until re-
cently, most tickets have been composed of physical material such as
paper (made of plant fibres, dyes, and other additives) and ink (which
includes other physical substances such as alcohol, oils, and resins).
The existence of a ticket is reliant on various machines, including those
which printed the ticket, and its usefulness on other types of machines,
such as those that can process the ticket and ‘‘read’’ it. For many con-
structionists, the physical material—the things we call paper, com-
puter, or ink is not a matter of dispute. Put another way, holding a
physical ticket is not an act of imagination as there is something phys-
ical in my hand, something that has a meaning to a number of people.
While weak forms of constructionism may acknowledge that knowledge
acquired about physical facts (e.g. knowledge in the discipline of chem-
istry) is objective, and therefore the chemical structure of the ticket can
be objectively known, the concept of a ticket remains a social construc-
tion. Strong forms of constructionism, on the other hand, argue that
both the physical facts as well as the social facts about the ticket are
constructed.
Consider as well that all future airline tickets will take an electronic
form and will be created, processed and transported to individuals elec-
tronically and without the need for a tangible, physical copy. The field
of Tourism Studies may then witness more arguments embedded in
stronger forms of constructionism. For example, if an airline ticket is
reduced to a passenger’s name or a series of letters and numbers,
one must then decide whether the letters and numbers are objective
facts or social facts as there would be nothing physical to ‘‘speak’’
for the ticket. The usefulness and implications of constructionism,
however, does not stop there. The pivotal point of constructionism is
the claim that the phenomenon under scrutiny, tourism, is socially
constructed. It has been built on the meanings given to objects (e.g.
1128 T. Pernecky/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1116–1137

airline ticket, passport, souvenir) and places (e.g. tourism destination,

a resort, a travel agency), the roles we have assigned one to another
(e.g. host, guest, tour guide, events coordinator), and is dependent
on the structures and systems that create, re-create, and sustain tourism
(e.g. hotel reservations systems). Despite some claims that ‘‘construc-
tion once formed is likely to maintain itself’’ (as proposed by Guba
& Lincoln, 1989, p. 145), meanings are inherited, maintained and
shared through activities, traditions, languages, and symbols. Tourism
therefore cannot stand on its own and maintain itself, for without
being meaningfully constructed and transmitted as such, it would cease
to exit.
It can be argued that some of the emerging paradigms in the field
already resemble the qualities of constructionist thought. Worldmak-
ing, a recent and underestimated tourism prodigy, draws our attention
to the transformative power of tourism or what Hollinshead (2003,
2004a, 2004b, 2009) calls the projective worldmaking authority. In
his opinion tourism not only routinely makes worlds (including con-
texts, localities, symbolic representation of peoples and places) but also
de-makes and re-makes them. What worldmaking underscores in con-
structionist terms, is that the socially constructed tourism realities have
a tremendous power to create new ways of being. Worldmaking is
therefore a promising contender which shows a different yet powerful
side of tourism. The Mobilities Paradigm (Hannam, 2009; Hannam,
Sheller, & Urry, 2006; Urry, 2000, 2006) challenges the reader to think
about places in a novel way, different from traditional tourism text-
books. Urry does not depict places as authentic ‘‘entities’’ that are al-
ways there waiting to be visited by tourists. Instead, places are
entangled with people who produce performances of that place. The
Mobilities Paradigm directs our awareness not just to the movements
of things, but also to the performances, relationships, and meanings:
. . . there are such mobile objects as fish, stones, and mussels at the
shore or on the beach that may have travelled thousands of miles,
waiting for their starring role. The tools for building, such as buckets
and spades, are brought in the family car (maybe from abroad) but
will have been manufactured and transported from a low-wage coun-
try (Urry, 2006, p. xiii).
In a subtle way, this leads to the physical dimension of tourism: the
objects and places in/of tourism. As already explained, the tourism
phenomenon takes place in a physical world. Tourism is relationally
linked to objects, machines, texts, spaces and systems (Franklin,
2004). Van Der Druim (2007, p. 151) argues that whether it is material
resources, objects, spaces and/or technologies, these are more than a
mere protrusion of human intention and action because ‘‘they struc-
ture, define and configure interaction’’. This is of great interest to con-
structionism because we sustain the touristic realities on a daily basis,
we re-affirm our roles and relationships and there is now emerging
work in the field that examines the ‘‘whats’’ and ‘‘hows’’ of tourism.
More importantly, ‘‘we not only construct together, we also live out
the implications of these constructions’’ (Gergen, 2009, p. 44). All
 T. Pernecky/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1116–1137 1129

the objects, sites, attractions, landmarks, destinations, and land-

scapes—all of that which constitutes tourism, is also inseparable from
issues of power, identity, meaning and behaviour. Tourism is therefore
negotiated and re-negotiated with respect to socio-cultural dynamics
(Pritchard & Morgan, 2000b).
Figure 2 is a mind map of possible constructionist directions in the
context of tourism. It provides visual scaffolding of some areas where
further research may be conducted, however it ought not to be taken
as a complete representation, for indeed the map will grow with cri-
tique and future constructionist work in the field. There are two note-
worthy directions in the map. The first direction, with arrows pointing
to the left, focuses on possible understandings and theoretical perspec-
tives of tourism. Examples here include the Worldmaking Paradigm
and the Mobilities Paradigm, discussed above. The second direction,
with arrows pointing to the right, suggests more specific constructionist
research which is framed within the conceptual boundaries of what we

Figure 2. Constructionist Directions in the Study of Tourism

1130 T. Pernecky/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1116–1137

already understand tourism to be. Enquiries here may more specifically

target the construction of various experiences, performances, and
behaviour, and extend to a range of (meaningfully interpreted) actors
and roles: tourists, hosts, employees, educators and so forth.
An important area captured in Figure 2 concerns the social problems
in tourism. Tourism is intertwined with an increasing list of social prob-
lems which themselves, in constructionist terms, are socially con-
structed. Examples include race, gender, poverty, sustainability, as
noted in the mind map. Tourism researchers interested in this area
may welcome the work of Heiner (2002) and Loseke (1999) which of-
fer a general reading of the construction of social problems. Tourism
specific enquiries can be directed to not only exposing how tourism so-
cial problems are constructed and by whom, but also examine the con-
struction of victims and villains in tourism. Loseke (1999) explains that
for there to be social problems, there must also be victims and villains.
Homeless people, taxi drivers, various addictions (shopping, gambling,
alcohol, and food to name a few) take part in the tourism phenome-
non. The airline industry and the cruise ship industry for example,
are both recognised as one of the largest environmental villains. The
important issue in the study of social problems is that audiences must
be persuaded by the legitimacy of a social problem. And if communi-
cated effectively, such as by the use of media, these can lead to action
and even changes in policy and legislation. Related to this discourse
are also the subject of ‘‘stereotypes’’ and the examination of the pre-
existing categories and images of types of peoples in tourism. Another
pertinent way to study social problems is to approach them as the pre-
requisite to new types of tourism. Volunteer tourism and poverty tour-
ism would lose their conceptual grip without the existence of social
problems.
Enquiries under the constructionist rubric can look into how other
social phenomena become touristic phenomena, and to what extent
they shape tourism. For instance, Facebook, a social networking
service, was only launched in 2004. Today, it has more than 750 million
active users and continues to grow in size. It is utilised to market des-
tinations, to promote tourism products and services, it allows people
to make reservations and enter competitions, and above all, it is a great
communication tool. Facebook and other social media are powerful
agents in the construction of touristic realities. There is of course a
long list of other already recognised social phenomena that intersect
tourism, yet these are mostly approached in a post-positivist manner.
Economics, for example, is a socially constructed phenomenon but
its use in tourism is largely the reflection of the dominant business
orientation of the field. Not enough research is underpinned by
constructionist philosophies that may further unmask, probe, and
question the ‘‘unshakables of tourism’’. The budding promise of con-
structionism is that there are different ways of looking at the objects
and subjects of tourism, and it may well be that by opening new doors
to ‘‘seeing’’ the world, more just and harmonious social realities can
emerge. This is of increasing importance to some tourism scholars
and has been recently conceptualised as hopeful tourism (Pritchard
 T. Pernecky/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1116–1137 1131

et al., 2011). Loseke (1999, p. 178) states that constructionist outlooks

on social life ‘‘encourage us to always be aware of the importance of
how we categorise ourselves, others, and the world around us’’.
The last area in Figure 2 pertains to knowledge within the framings
of tourism. There seems to be only a small number of tourism thinkers
interested in tourism epistemology. Some (e.g. Botterill, 2007) carry
the banner of critical realism, and others such as Tribe (2006), propose
that tourism knowledge cannot provide a faithful representation of
reality. Tribe for example argues that the canon of knowledge is ‘‘heav-
ily contingent on the power of those who speak for tourism, their spa-
tial and temporal situatedness and the social practices that sustain their
position of authority’’ (2006, p. 376). Research is often underpinned
by the academics’ personal interests, motives, and other regulatory
mechanisms such the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). In this re-
gard, he points out that research is ‘‘forced into units of assessment
supplied by the RAE’’ (p. 373), and notes that in 2008, these included
business and management studies, geography, environmental studies,
and anthropology, but not tourism. The point Tribe makes, and that
is of value to constructionist discourse, is that RAE dictates what kind
of knowledge is constructed so it fits the RAE’s own structuring of
knowledge. The point this paper makes in general, is that construction-
ism ‘‘sees’’ the significant role of institutions in the construction of
knowledge, and it alerts us to the issues of freedom and control
(Gergen, 2009).

CONCLUSION
This paper has explored constructionist thought and practice across
a range of disciplines and fields in an attempt to highlight the scope
and complexity associated with this approach to knowing. The direc-
tion of this article is philosophical and conceptual, and was motivated
by the aim of broadening the partial understanding of constructionism
in tourism. By way of conclusion, there are several points that deserve
to be highlighted for the tourism reader.
First, scholars can navigate through different lines of reasoning,
and their constructionist explorations may be underpinned by various
interests. Much of the discourse on constructionism, including unfa-
vourable viewpoints, seems to have fixated on the issues of reality,
and in this regard the paper argues that parallels can be drawn be-
tween constructionism and realism in ontology. A distinction was
made between social facts and physical facts, objectivism and realism,
and the article puts forward that tourism researchers can move be-
tween its weak and strong forms. Notions disputing the existence of
reality which have been by some termed very strong constructivism
(e.g. Kukla, 2000) are not widely utilised in contemporary construc-
tionist work and fall into the category of solipsistic claims. This distinc-
tion is vital, as constructionism does indeed present a viable option
for tourism researchers; while its far-flung brunch (solipsism) is less
likely to yield much interest.
1132 T. Pernecky/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1116–1137

Second, the review of literature has shown that constructionism is

not a universal movement, and that there are discrepancies in regard
to terminology and the interpretation of what constructionism means
and how researchers can go about it. Tourism scholars are guided to
use appropriate terminology when engaging in constructionist re-
search and it may prove useful to employ the term constructivism to
examine the meaning-making activity of individuals, and reserve the
term constructionism for the study of the collective generation and trans-
mission of meaning in tourism. The paper also makes a case for cau-
tious portrayal of constructionism as a paradigm, which has been
shown to be problematic. The act of dressing constructionism in the
cloak of a paradigm gives it strict boundaries which will result in failing
to accommodate the complex constructionist philosophies. On this
note, it is important to acknowledge that the present article was written
and tailored with the readership audience of this journal in mind; con-
sequently there are limitations with regard to its scope and depth. It is
not a finite review of constructionist philosophy, and researchers ought
to examine other works to produce philosophically and methodologi-
cally robust constructionist studies in the field.
Third, the overarching implications for tourism can be summoned
by the view that meaningful touristic realities are constructed through
our engagement with the world. In this regard, many constructionists
would not protest against the existence of experiences, objects and
machines. ‘‘The world and objects in the world may be in themselves
meaningless; yet they are our partners in the generation of meaning
and need to be taken seriously’’ (Crotty, 1998, p. 44). A large part of
what constructionism can do for tourism is to bring about new under-
standings of how something becomes ‘‘of tourism’’. In this regard, it is
significant that billions of people see the world through a tourism lens.
The touristic thought continues to spread around the globe and it will
eventually leave no one untouched by it. Tourism is constructionism in
action. There is a lot we can learn about how and why worldly objects,
places, and people become touristic. There is also a lot we can learn
about the values and voices in tourism, as well as the motivations that
underlie them. Constructionism thus adds a valuable dimension to
tourism by allowing for new constructions to emerge. It comprises both
a critical and a hopeful aspect because of its ability to expose and chal-
lenge prevailing understandings.

Acknowledgements—The author wishes to thank Professor Keith Hollinshead, the coordinating

editor, and anonymous referees for helpful insights and comments.

REFERENCES
Aitchison, C. (1999). Heritage and nationalism: Gender and the performance of
power. In D. Crouch (Ed.), Leisure/tourism geographies: Practices and geographical
knowledge (pp. 59–73). London: Routledge.
Aitchison, C. (2007). Marking difference or making a difference. Constructing
places, policies and knowledge of inclusion, exclusion and social justice in
 T. Pernecky/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1116–1137 1133

leisure, sport and tourism. In I. Ateljevic, A. Pritchard, & N. Morgan (Eds.),

The critical turn in tourism studies: Innovative research methodologies (pp. 77–90).
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Ayikoru, M. (2009). Epistemology, ontology and tourism. In J. Tribe (Ed.),
Philosophical issues in tourism (pp. 62–79). Bristol: Channel View Publications.
Ballantyne, R., & Hughes, K. (2006). Using front-end and formative evaluation to
design and test persuasive bird feeding warning signs. Tourism Management,
27(2), 235–246.
Barkin, S. (2010). Realist constructionism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Belhassen, Y., & Caton, K. (2009). Advancing understandings: A linguistic
approach to tourism epistemology. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(2), 335–352.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the
sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Blaikie, N. (1993). Approaches to social enquiry. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bornhorst, T., Ritchie, J. R. B., & Sheehan, L. (2010). Determinants of tourism
success for DMOs & destinations: An empirical examination of stakeholder’s
perspectives. Tourism Management, 31(5), 572–589.
Botterill, D. (2007). A realist critique of the situated voice in tourism studies. In I.
Ateljevic, A. Pritchard, & N. Morgan (Eds.), The critical turn in tourism studies:
Innovative research methodologies (pp. 121–130). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Bruner, E. (1996). Tourism in Ghana: The representation of slavery and the return
of the black diaspora. American Anthropologist, 98(2), 290–304.
Burr, V. (1998). Realism, relativism, social constructionism and discourse. In I.
Parker (Ed.), Social constructionism, discourse and realism (pp. 13–26). London:
SAGE Publications.
Burr, V. (2003). Social constructionism. New York, NY: Routledge.
Causevic, S., & Lynch, P. (2011). Phoenix tourism: Post-conflict tourism role.
Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 780–800.
Chambers, D. (2007). Interrogating the ‘critical’ in critical approaches to tourism
research. In I. Ateljevic, A. Pritchard, & N. Morgan (Eds.), The critical turn in
tourism studies: Innovative research methodologies (pp. 105–120). Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Collin, F. (1997). Social reality. London, UK: Routledge.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the
research process. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd.
Crouch, D. (2000). Places around us: Embodied lay geographies in leisure and
tourism. Leisure Studies, 19, 63–76.
Dann, G. M. S., & Parinello, G. L. (2009). Setting the scene. In G. M. S. Dann & G.
L. Parinello (Eds.), The sociology of tourism: European origins and developments
(pp. 1–63). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories
and issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000a). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.).
London: SAGE Publications, Inc..
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000b). Strategies of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y.
S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: SAGE
Publications Ltd..
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003a). The discipline and practice of qualitative
research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research
(2nd ed., pp. 1–46). London: SAGE Publications, Inc..
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003b). Paradigms and perspectives in transition.
In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research:
theories and issues (pp. 245–252). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). Introduction: The discipline and practice of
qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook
of qualitative research (pp. 1–20). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Dredge, D. (2010). Place change and tourism development conflict: Evaluating
public interest. Tourism Management, 31(1), 104–112.
Franklin, A. (2004). Tourism as an ordering: towards a new ontology of tourism.
Tourist Studies, 4(3), 277–301.
1134 T. Pernecky/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1116–1137

Gergen, K. J. (1998). Constructionism and realism: How are we to go on?. In I.

Parker (Ed.), Social constructionism, discourse and realism (pp. 147–155). Lon-
don: Sage Publications.
Gergen, K. J. (2001). Social construction in context. London: SAGE Publications.
Gergen, K. J. (2009). An invitation to social construction (2nd ed.). London: SAGE
Publication Ltd.
Glasersfeld, E. v. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. In P.
Watzlawick (Ed.), The invented reality: how do we know what we believe we know?
(contributions to constructivism) (pp. 17–40). New York, NY: W. W. Norton &
Company.
Golinski, J. (1998). Making natural knowledge: Constructivism and the history of science.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Goodman, N. (1978). Ways of worldmaking. Indianapolis, IN: Hacket Publishing
Company.
Greene, J. C. (1990). Three views on the nature and role of knowledge in social
science. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 227–245). London:
SAGE Publications Ltd.
Guba, E. G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The
paradigm dialog (pp. 17–27). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. London: SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2004). Competing paradigms in qualitative research:
Theories and issues. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Approaches to
qualitative research (pp. 17–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2008). The constructionist mosaic. In J. A.
Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionistnist research. New
York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Hacking, I. (1998). On being more literal about construction. In I. Velody & R.
Williams (Eds.), The politics of constructionism (pp. 49–68). London: SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what?. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Haimes, E., & Williams, R. (1998). Social constructionism and the new technol-
goies of reproduction. In I. Velody & R. Williams (Eds.), The politics of
constructionism (pp. 132–146). London: SAGE Pulications Ltd.
Hannam, K. (2009). The end of tourism? nomadology and the mobilities
paradigm. In J. Tribe (Ed.), Philosophical issues in tourism (pp. 101–113).
Bristol: Channel View Publications.
Hannam, K., & Knox, D. (2010). Understanding tourism. London: SAGE Publications
Ltd.
Hannam, K., Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). Editorial: Mobilities, immobilities and
moorings. Mobilities, 1(1), 1–22.
Heiner, R. (2002). Social problems: An introduction to critical constructionism. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press, USA.
Henderson, K. (1994). Perspectives on analyzing gender, women, and leisure.
Jouranl of Travel Research, 26(2), 119–137.
Hibberd, F. J. (2005). Unfolding social constructionism. New York: Springer.
Hollinshead, K. (1993). The Truth about Texas: A Naturalistic Study of the Construction
of Heritage. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Texas A & M University, USA.
Hollinshead, K. (2003). Symbolism in tourism: Lessons from ‘‘Bali 2002’’ - Lessons
from Australia’s dead heart. Tourism Analysis, 8(2), 267–295.
Hollinshead, K. (2004). ‘‘Worldmaking’’ and the transformation of place and
culture: The enlargement of Meethan’s analysis of tourism and global change.
In I. Atlejevic, N. Morgan, & A. Pritchard (Eds.), The critical turn in tourism
studies: Innovative research methodologies (pp. 165–193). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hollinshead, K. (2004a). Tourism and the making of the world: the dynamics of
our contemporary tribal lives. Imperium Retrieved 31 July, 2006, from <http://
www.imperiumjournal.com/index.html>.
Hollinshead, K. (2006). The shift to constructivism in social inquiry: Some pointers
for tourism studies. Tourism Recreation Research, 31(2), 43–58.
 T. Pernecky/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1116–1137 1135

Hollinshead, K. (2009). The ‘‘Worldmaking’’ prodigy of tourism: The reach and

power of tourism in the dynamics of change and transformation. Tourism
Analysis, 14(1), 139–152.
Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2008). Handbook of constructionist research. New
York: The Guilford Press.
Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2011). The constructionist analytics of
interpretive practice. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE
handbook of qualitative research (pp. 341–357). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Hughes, G. (1998). Tourism and the semiological realization of space. In G. Ringer
(Ed.), Destinations: cultural landscapes of tourism (pp. 17–33). London:
Routledge.
Hunter, W. C. (2009). A typology of photographic representations for tourism:
Depictions of groomed spaces. Tourism Management, 29(2), 354–365.
Iwashita, C. (2003). Media construction of Britain as a destination for Japanese
tourists: Social constructionism and tourism. Tourism and Hospitality Research,
4(4), 331–340.
Jamal, T., & Hill, S. (2002). The Home and the world: (Post)touristic spaces of
(In)authenticity. In G. M. S. Dann (Ed.), The Tourist as a metaphor of the social
world (pp. 77–108). Wallingford, Oxon: CABI International.
Jamal, T., & Hollinshead, K. (2001). Tourism and the forbidden zone: The
underserved power of qualitative inquiry. Tourism Management, 22, 63–82.
Jaworski, A., & Pritchard, A. (2005). In Discourse communication and tourism.
Cleveland: Channel View Publications.
Jennings, G., Lee, Y.-S., Ayling, A., Lunny, B., Cater, C., & Ollenburg, C. (2009).
Quality tourism experiences: Reviews, reflections, research agendas. Journal of
Hospitality Marketing and Management, 18(2), 294–310.
Koivunen, E.-R. (2011). Creating your own Shetland: Tourist narratives from
travelogues to blogs. In R. Sharpley & P. R. Stone (Eds.), Tourist Experience.
Contemporary perspectives (pp. 157–170). Abingdon, OX: Routledge.
Kolar, T., & Zabkar, V. (2010). A consumer-based model of authenticity: An
oxymoron or the foundation of cultural heritage marketing?. Tourism
Management, 31(5), 652–664.
Kukla, A. (2000). Social constructivism and the philosophy of science. London:
Routledge.
Kyat, K. (2002). Power, social exchanges and tourism in Langkawi: Rethinking
resident perceptions. International Journal of Tourism Research, 4(3), 171–191.
Lau, R. W. K. (2010). Revisiting authenticity: A social realist approach. Annals of
Tourism Research, 37(2), 478–498.
Lima, I. (2009). Utilitarian and abstract rhetorics in ecotourism and social
constructionism: the power of language. International Journal of Management
and Decision Making, 10(3/4).
Lincoln, Y. S. (1990). The making of a constructivist: A remembrance of
transformations past. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The Paradigm Dialog (pp. 67–87).
London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2003). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions,
and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The
landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues. London: SAGE Publications
Ltd.
Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies,
contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisted. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 87–127). London:
SAGE Publications Ltd.
Loseke, D. R. (1999). Thinking about social problems: an introduction to constructionist
perspectives. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Lynch, M. (1998). Towards a Constructivist Genealogy of Social Constructivism. In
R. Williams & I. Velody (Eds.) (pp. 13–32). London: SAGE Publications Ltd..
Lynch, P. (2005). Sociological impressionism in a hospitality context. Annals of
Tourism Research, 32(3), 527–548.
1136 T. Pernecky/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1116–1137

McCabe, S., & Marson, D. (2006). Tourist constructions and consumptions of

space. Place, modernity and meaning. In P. M. Burns & M. Novelli (Eds.),
Tourism and social identities: Global frameworks and local realities (pp. 91–108).
Kidllington, Oxford: Elsevier.
Medina, L. K. (2003). Commoditizing culture: Tourism and maya identity. Annals
of Tourism Research, 30(3), 353–368.
Patomaki, H., & Wright, C. (2000). After postpositivism? The promises of critical
realism. International Studies Quarterly, 44(2), 213–237.
Pernecky, T., & Jamal, T. (2010). (Hermeneutic) phenomenology in tourism
studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4), 1055–1075.
Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N. (2000a). Constructing tourism landscapes: Gender,
sexuality and space. Tourism Geographies, 2(2), 115–139.
Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N. (2000b). Privileging the male gaze: Gendered tourism
landscapes. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(4), 884–905.
Pritchard, A., Morgan, N., & Ateljevic, I. (2011). Hopeful tourism: A new
transformative perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 941–963.
Ren, C., Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N. (2010). Constructing tourism research: A
critical inquiry. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4), 885–904.
Rojek, C. (1997). Indexing, dragging and the social construction of tourist sights.
In C. Rojek & J. Urry (Eds.), Touring cultures: Transformations of travel and theory
(pp. 52–74). London: Routledge.
Ryan, C., & Gu, H. (2010). Constructionism and culture in research: Understand-
ing of the fourth Buddhist festival, Wutaishan, China. Tourism Management,
31(2), 167–178.
Ryan, C., & Gu, H. (2011). The allure of the post-modern - A response to Robert
Shepherd. Tourism Management, 32(1), 191–192.
Said, E. (1978). Orientalism: Western conceptions of the orient. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry.
In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research
(pp. 118–137). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry:
Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N. K. Denzin & Y.
S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (pp. 189–213). London:
Thousand Oaks.
Shepherd, R. J. (2011). Historicity, fieldwork, and the allure of the post-modern: A
reply to Ryan and Gu. Tourism Management, 32(1), 187–190.
Sigala, M. (2002). The Evolution of internet pedagogy: Benefits for tourism and
hospitality education. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education,
1(2), 10.3794/johlste.3712.3794.
Skrtic, T. M. (1990). Social accommodation: Toward a dialogical discourse in
educational inquiry. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 125–135).
London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Slife, B. D., & Williams, R. N. (1995). What’s behind the research?: Discovering hidden
assumptions in the behavioral sciences. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Small, J. (1999). Memory-work: A method for researching women’s tourist
experiences. Tourism Management, 20(1), 25–35.
Small, J. (2008). The Absence of childhood in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism
Research, 35(3), 772–789.
Sorensen, A. (2003). Backpacker ethnography. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(4),
847–867.
Tribe, J. (2004). Knowing about tourism: Epistemological issues. In J. Phillimore &
L. Goodson (Eds.), Qualitative research in tourism (pp. 46–62). London:
Routledge.
Tribe, J. (2006). The truth about tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(2),
360–381.
Uriely, N., & Belhassen, Y. (2006). Drugs and risk taking in tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 33(2), 339–359.
Urry, J. (2000). Sociology beyond societies: mobilities for the twenty-first century. London:
Routledge.
 T. Pernecky/Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1116–1137 1137

Urry, J. (2006). Places and performances. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,
Inc.
Van Der Druim, R. (2007). Tourism, materiality and space. In I. Ateljevic, N.
Morgan, & A. Pritchard (Eds.), The critical turn in tourism studies: Innovative
research methodologies (pp. 149–164). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Velody, I., & Williams, R. (1998). The politics of constructionism. London: SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism
Research, 26(2), 349–370.
Weinberg, D. (2008). The philosophical foundations of constructionist research.
In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research
(pp. 13–40). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Submitted 22 April 2011. Resubmitted 26 August 2011. Resubmitted 24 November 2011.

Resubmitted 1 December 2011. Final version 19 December 2011. Accepted 22 December 2011.
Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Chaim Noy.