Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 1228–1233

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Seeing further: Honoring John Urry's contributions to tourism and

hospitality research
Tzung-Cheng T.C. Huan
Department of Marketing and Tourism Management, National Chiayi University, 580, Hsin-Ming Rd., Chiayi 60054, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper considers ways John Urry's contributions influence scholarship in tourism and hospitality research.
Accepted 1 September 2015 This paper includes a limited analysis of abstracts, a review of certain of Urry's publications relating to the
Available online 16 October 2015 author's research and implications of Urry's research for the author's research. This article also provides particu-
lar perspectives on why John Urry has made very important contributions to tourism and hospitality research.
Keywords:
This study finds that Urry has introduced ideas that are important to innovative formulation and execution of
Complexity theory
Decision-making
tourism and hospitality research. Specifically, the paper addresses “Gaze 3.0” and complexity ideas impacting
Tourist gaze theory development and research on personal and management consumption/production decisions regarding
Urry tourism and hospitality.
© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Gaze 3.0” is a reconceptualization of performance and practice. Even

This essay explores aspects of John Urry's wide-ranging contribu-
tions to the field of tourism and hospitality. The essay develops a general
consideration of Urry's contributions to the social science literature.
However, to provide particular perspectives in relation to tourism and
hospitality, the author's general area of research, the vehicle adopted
is looking at how Urry's work relates to the work of the author. This
study concludes with some general reflections on the significance of
John Urry's contributions as addressed in the article.
2. Literature—an overview relating to this article
Urry's work of concern in this paper appeared since about 1990. Urry
(1990) is an important work on the ‘consumption’ of tourism. One can
find ideas on consumption extended into a book (Urry, 2003). However,
many of the ideas on consumption are becoming encompassed in Urry's
well-known concept of the tourist gaze (Urry, 1992). The key assump-
tion within early gaze related writings is tourists' visual consumption
of places. This has been important in furthering tourism knowledge on
how places are consumed still work based on the tourist gaze was crit-
icized from various perspectives, particularly in relation to relating to a
single sense (Rakić & Chambers, 2012). However, matters that have
been raised have been addressed in “The Tourist Gaze 3.0” (Urry &
Larsen, 2011).
By 2014 Urry acknowledged the sensual, corporeal, and perfor-
mance nature of both gaze and tourists' place consumption. “The Tourist
E-mail address: tchuan@mail.ncyu.edu.tw.
going back to 2004, on Tourism Mobilities (Sheller & Urry, 2004) one
is told that places are not just physical but include performance involv-
ing play. In words commonly used in the literature Urry's most recent
work rests on what is called the ‘mobilities paradigm’ (Urry, 2007). Re-
garding performance, the “performance turn” has been identified as
presenting causality issues (Dirksmeier & Helbrecht, 2008) but is also
the basis for books (see the introduction in Haldrup & Larsen, 2009).
Ideas have continued to evolve (Larsen & Urry, 2011). Regardless, a gen-
eral view in the works mentioned in this paragraph is expressed by
Tilley (2006, p. 7) in stating that a place can be experienced differently
by different people at a moment. Also, a person can experience the
same place differently at different moments.
The commentary mentions the mobilities paradigm. John Urry
directs the Centre for Mobilities Research (http://www.lancaster.ac.
uk/fass/centres/cemore/). Still, this paper does not pursue Urry's mobil-
ity paradigm as the paper can be developed without directly consider-
ing the paradigm. This is not to suggest that the paradigm is not
important. Cohen and Cohen (2012) identify the mobilities paradigm
as one of the three important current sociological theories relating to
issues in tourism.
The author's research interests and thrusts relate to management
and consumer decision making in hospitality and tourism. Urry's work
on consumption and gaze has been mentioned. That work makes clear
that complexity in social processes is an issue. A key article on complex-
ity is “The complexity turn” (Urry, 2005). Urry has gone beyond ap-
proaching complexity as a social science issue. Recognizing that the
attention to complexity in the physical science needs the same consid-
eration in the social sciences is an important part of his rationale for ad-
vancing complexity.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.09.010
0148-2963/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 T.C. Huan / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 1228–1233
3. Some perspectives on Urry's publications being important
3.1. Publication scale and scope
As of 2014 Urry has over 600 publications that have received over
45,000 citations. This corresponds to an h-index of 74 and an i10-
index of 171. A big leap has occurred since 2009. In that year 22,016 ci-
tations resulted in an h-index of 56 and an i10-index of 130. From 2009
to 2013, his publications received average annual citations of approxi-
mately 3700. One of his more recent publications entitled “The Tourist
Gaze 3.0” (Urry & Larsen, 2011) has received over 7000 citations. Albeit
only 2600 were tourism related citations (McKercher, 2008). The
indices provided by Google Scholar are informative. Given they are
objective (Harzing & Ron, 2009), they show that Urry's works have
been actively appreciated and their influence has grown.
Another way to measure Urry's contribution is by emphasizing the
multi-disciplinary nature of its applicability. Tourism and hospitality
are subjects that involve knowledge of many disciplines and many in-
dustries. Tribe (2004) identifies disciplines associating with tourism
and hospitality research. These include business, law, psychology, eco-
nomics, geography, and sociology. Urry's theories relate to these. This
is likely one reason his theories have been widely adopted in tourism
and hospitality research.
Other literature also documents the importance of Urry's work in a
macro way. Benckendorff and Zehrer (2013) use network analysis to
determine the contribution of pioneering scholars in the tourism field.
Urry is listed as one of the top 25 authors cited by leading journal pub-
lications such as Annual of Tourism Research, Journal of Travel Research,
and Tourism Management. Furthermore, McKercher (2008) has ranked
Urry as the second most frequently cited tourism scholar.
3.2. An analysis of abstracts
Automation of text provides interesting analysis options. Abstracts
provide a condensed view of what papers are about and are available
in electronic form. For papers with text in electronic form, one not
only has abstracts, one has references and thus can identify if, for exam-
ple, Urry is cited. Data were collected using Google Scholar to search for
journal articles from 2010 to 2014 that cited Urry. The abstracts of the
first 50 papers identified were input into Excel. This made them usable
Marketing/consumer Medical Culture/authentic Hospitality/lodging
Green
Culture/arch
Tourism
Hospitality/F&B
Social
Landscape
Hospitality/transport
Behavior
Countries/UK
Visual
Fig. 1. Theme of publications related to Urry's contribution.
1229
by SPSS so that Modeler 14.1 could be used for text analytics. The results
of the analysis appear in Fig. 1.
Consider a number of observations from Fig. 1. As the size of “dots”
in the figure indicates, the word “tourism” is the most frequently recog-
nized word, one can say theme. Approximately 40 abstracts out of the
50 refer to tourism. The next two words in prominence are places and
social. These each appeared in approximately 20 abstracts. Actually, a
wide array of topics appears in the 50 abstracts. As one sees in the figure,
the topics include culture, hospitality, marketing, media used in tour-
ism, medical tourism and environmental (green) concerns. In terms of
countries, U.K. and China are the two most frequently mentioned places
of research but there is mention of Taiwan, Norway, India and Australia.
Fig. 1 shows interrelationships between the themes/topics. For
example, the word “tourism” has a strong association with “social”
(n = 14). This indicates that the 50 papers that follow Urry's work
tend to investigate tourism from a social science perspective. Other re-
lations that can be seen from the analysis could be written about how-
ever without any further analysis one can see that analysis of abstracts
provides clear evidence of the broad influence of Urry's work.
3.3. Urry's research impacting tourism and hospitality research
By 1990 Urry was impacting the examination of the consumption of
tourism (Urry, 1990). He describes a holiday as involving matters that
are difficult to grasp and open to interpretation. As of 2014, his theory in-
volves complexity and that perceptions varying depending on the per-
ceivers' cultural background, companions, and idiosyncrasies (Urry &
Larsen, 2011). What tourists perceive and how they come to those
perceptions are recognized as complex and thus present challenges to re-
searchers, entrepreneurs and marketers. In fact, part of the complex pro-
cesses intersecting is marketers helping to shape how tourist perceive
tourism commodities (Watson & Kopachevsky, 1994). Urry makes clear
that decisions being the result of a dynamic and interrelated process
make understanding tourism and hospitality related behavior difficult.
Urry's recognition of complexity in matters he was studying seems
to be what motivated presenting complexity theory (Urry, 2005). Urry
provided justification for the appropriate analysis of much social related
phenomena requiring moving to consider what physical sciences some-
times address using the term chaotic. For example, understanding com-
plexity means going beyond linear models to recognize why rapid
change can occur when a linear model would, at most, suggest much
Culture
#Docs
50
40
30
Geography 20
10
Hospitality
0
Culture/ethno
Culture/farm
Countries/China
Media #Share Docs
20
Management
Places 15
10
5
Marketing/brand 0
Marketing
1230 T.C. Huan / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 1228–1233

more gradual change. Relationships between variables can relate to and Lysonski (1989) as well as other work of Woodside, some cited sub-
abrupt changes occurring, with the non-intuitive consequence that a sequently, were important in motivating the flow of ideas presented.
“cause” can, in particular circumstances, result in different effects Actually, for this paper an important matter is that works by Urry,
(Urry, 2005). Adopting complexity theory has for example led to proof DeCrop and Woodside were moving along the same line. If one
that in some given circumstances, low service-quality assessment can looks at Urry's work, DeCrop and Snelders (2005) and Woodside,
unexpectedly contribute to high return intention (Wu, Yeh, Huan, & MacDonald, and Burford (2004), one sees some common thrusts and
Woodside, 2014). Urry (2005, p. 3) writes: ideas in research in which authors are not citing each other. For example
Sheller and Urry (2006, pp. 217–219) presented methodological areas
Complex systems analyses investigate the very many systems that
that are important that include: analysis of the patterning, timing and
have the ability to adapt and co-evolve as they organize through
causation of face-to-face co-presence; having subjects record what
time. Such complex social interactions are likened to walking
they are doing, at what times and in what places; and study of experi-
through a maze whose walls rearrange themselves as one walks
ences and feelings (i.e., use long interviews). One finds similar ideas in
through; new footsteps have to be taken in order to adjust to the
DeCrop and Woodside. Tipping points are a topic in Woodside et al.
walls of the maze that are adapting to each movement made
(2004) and Urry (2005). Urry cites Gladwell (2002) regarding tipping
through the maze. Complexity investigates emergent, dynamic and
points as does Woodside. Anyway, some ideas of Urry, DeCrop and
self-organizing systems that interact in ways that heavily influence
Woodside relating to complexity date back to the 90s or earlier. However,
the probabilities of later events.
by about 2005 all three are clearly recognizing the need to deal with com-
plexity. Still, Urry is the one that fostered formalizing what it means to
deal with complexity.
4. John Urry's work in relation to the author's
The relation of Huan and Beaman (2004) to complexity, particularly as
it relates to Urry, DeCrop and Woodside, may not be clear. And, this is not
4.1. Recently published work applying complexity theory
seen as the place for much detail. However, to facilitate presentation of
some ideas Fig. 2 was prepared. As you see from the first heading, the
The author, along with others, recently published research on “Ap-
figure is for “a person to ‘repeat’ a trip she/he (person 1) made alone.”
plying complexity theory to deepen service dominant logic” (Wu
The figure refers to a person that is on their own not a family person
et al., 2014). The research involves analysis of customer experience
that took some trip alone. In writings cited, Urry, DeCrop and Woodside
and outcome assessments in relation to professional services. The re-
all acknowledge that being a single person, receiving a media message
search employs Boolean algebra and asymmetric analytics rather than
and repeating affect decision making. They also recognize family and un-
using matrix/linear algebra symmetric analytics. This allows testing te-
related groups as important. One can see Kozak and Karadag (2012) on
nets of complexity theory, for example, by comparing symmetric testing
family trip decision making. Regarding Urry recognizing cultural influ-
results with asymmetric alternatives. As mentioned earlier in the article,
ences (Urry, 2005), one just needs to look at some Taiwan statistics
a finding is that low scores based on complex antecedent conditions are
where group travel of friends is prominent (Wu, Dai, & Liu, 2012).
associated with both low and high outcome scores.
Group travel of friends presents a challenge because many trip partici-
Some important complexity theory matters addressed are the follow-
pants can participate because of the group and their responses in check
ing. Firstly, a proposition is that a few (not just one) of multiple possible
lists about motivations and answers about returning can be misleading.
paths can lead to the same outcome; “equifinality” occurs. This relates
Fig. 1 supports studies by Urry, DeCrop, and Woodside for all the con-
to alternative asymmetric combinations of indicators allowing prediction
nections appearing in the figure. Fig. 1 shows that Person 1 can pursue a
(are sufficient) but no one combination alone is appropriate for accurately
variety of options once an urge occurs. Firstly, the person can consider
predicting customers' highly positive ratings of service performance and
returning based on a gaze formed from recall and can seek new informa-
strong intentions to use a service provider. Urry is specifically relevant re-
tion regarding changes in prices and environment change. However, such
garding “Relationships between variables can be non-linear with abrupt
consideration may cause asking another or others to think about going on
switches occurring, so the same ‘cause’ can, in specific circumstances, pro-
the trip. Consider that a new boy/girlfriend thinks the trip is or is not a
duce different effects” (Urry, 2005). This relates to, for example, cus-
good idea. The positive or negative feedback may be the tipping point
tomers' high intentions to return being associated with high overall
for a decision. Person 1 may want to go but stop consideration to please
service-quality assessments in specific conditions while demand may re-
the friend. A person's primary or secondary relations can matter.
sult in low overall service-quality assessments in other specific contexts.
Someone who reads Huan and Beaman (2004) may see an elaborate
Urry's introduction of complexity theory includes the tipping-point
figure and some mathematical symbolism but not see that figures like
tenet (Urry, 2005). Urry credits Gladwell (2002) for recognizing that if a
Fig. 2 guided thinking. The author can assure you that they did but
system passes particular thresholds minor changes in some variables
also that plans to implement the mathematical notation in a computer
can give rise to unexpected structures and events (Urry, 2005). Tipping
program never occurred. Regardless of whether programming occurred,
can involve replacing a negative with a positive response so a big apathet-
the model recognizes that decisions can follow a multitude of paths. In
ic segment may tip with significant consequences.
so far as the outcome of an urge is Person 1 going or not, 1 or 0 in com-
You can read the paper if you want details. Here, the point is that
mon linear modeling, a linear model is a poor approximation to what is
Urry's complexity theory formulation has significantly influenced re-
going on. Furthermore, if you had information relevant to the multiple
search on service demand. What is important about the influence is
paths that can be followed, formulating and estimating a better linear
that the research shows that to understand what is happening one
model become a questionable exercise. When a potential companion
needs to think about, theorize about and analyze some matters in
not being interested in going does not pre-empt Person 1 from going
ways that are not conventional; that are not linear and appropriately
but may dissuade him/her if the companion is against Person 1 going,
address complexity.
modeling and data collection are not trivial. In fact, Liu, Lin, Wang, and
Wu (2012) are suggesting the use of diagrams like Fig. 2 to define ap-
4.2. Complexity in trip decision making propriate data collection. They assert that having thought through con-
siderations using diagrams can be useful even if data are being collected
Urry's writing on the consumption of tourism (1990) could have been in long interviews with limited structure.
an important reference in my own research (Huan & Beaman, 2003). As for data collection and the need for long interviews, note the fol-
However, the paper was written with a response disposition strongly in- lowing points. Recommendations by Sheller and Urry (2006) on meth-
fluenced by exposure to other researchers. DeCrop (2001) and Woodside odological areas include analysis of the patterning and other non-
 T.C. Huan / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 1228–1233
Fig. 2. The kind of structure that Huan and Beaman (2004) considered their model encompassed.
structured questionnaire data collection. Material in DeCrop and
Snelders (2005) gives insights into DeCrop's selection of 25 Belgian
households for year-long data collection, data collection strategy and
into analysis. In Woodside et al. (2004) you read, “Theoretical sampling
in comparative analysis does not attempt to plan for a representative
sample of respondents from a population but rather considers the theo-
retical possibilities of all unique combinations of case profiles typically
across 4 to 7 attributes.” Sampling addresses complexity. If ordinary
sampling is not likely to get useful data on theoretical possibilities, log-
ically one needs to pursue options that will. Incidentally, in Woodside
et al. (2004) diagrams are an integral part of analysis that is distinctly
not linear.
What has been presented introduces the author's work and that
of Urry, DeCrop and Woodside to show that Urry addressing com-
plexity as he did was a logical and valuable. What he was seeing in
his work and that of others showed the need to move beyond linear
models. Segments having different models and a companion tipping
what a person does link directly to Urry's statements about tipping,
feedback and nonlinearity (Urry, 2005). The bottom line is that if
Huan and Beaman (2004) is ever updated, Urry's work will be relied
on and referenced.
1231
4.3. Scales and the inadequacy of linear conceptualizations
The final relation to the author's research being reported involves in-
troducing work that the author and a colleague, who chooses not to be
identified, started around 2005. Very interesting results were derived
but neither person has seen fit to move forward with publication. The
general idea and some simulation results are presented here as an
open invitation for someone to take up such research.
As with the work on applying complexity theory introduced above
(Wu et al., 2014), much research that the author has been involved in
has involved scales and causal/path models. However, publication of
Urry's (2005) ideas about complexity prompted concern. Urry referring
to linearity possibly being inadequate and the need to consider triggers
raised concerns because path/causal modeling can be described as a lin-
ear method. Also forming additive scales and justifying them involve
matrix algebra and linearity assumptions.
Because much of scale use of my own work employs bipolar ratings,
the research that has been done was for responding on bipolar item
scales. Common thinking addresses forming bipolar additive scales for
a concept, C, by selecting a collection of items relating to C for which re-
sponses for a respondent are, xi,r (e.g., see). Think of responses for
1232 T.C. Huan / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 1228–1233

analysis as −3 to 3. The scale value for a respondent, r, for C can is taken
to be sr = Σxi,r. Let deviations in the di,r = xi,r + xi,t,r where xi,t,r is the
response without random or other concept variation. Generally, the
idea is that item responses may be influenced by other concepts, say in-
cluding C′, or randomness but influences must occur so that the di,r is
not correlated across items. Randomness implies not being correlated
but having two or more items that related to both C and C′ means that
sr would be measuring C and C′.
Common linear algebra based procedures exist to see that a scale is
OK (e.g., see Fogarty, Cretchley, Harman, Ellerton, & Konki, 2001).
Some people just compute Cronbach's α and see if it, for example, ex-
ceeds .7 or some larger value. Others go a step further and perform a
principal components analysis to see if only one factor has an eigenvalue
greater than 1. And, more can be done (Patil, Singh, Mishra, & Todd
Donavan, 2008). If there is one factor with an eigenvalue greater than
1 with appropriately large loadings on all items, the conclusion usually
accepted is that the scale is OK. Given that a scale is OK, articles are typ-
ically written as if the scale applies to all respondents and analysis using
data for all respondents.
Consider stepping out of the linear world into a world only slightly
different. In this world, consider respondents coming from 2, 3 and 5
segments and persons in different segments using different scales.
Urry might refer to value or cultural differences resulting in the seg-
ments. For whatever reasons, different groups may interpret item ques-
tions differently than was considered in designing a questionnaire.
However, segments may really see the concept differently. In this con-
text, can you have segments that should be considered and still have
α N .7 and only one component with an eigenvalue greater than one?
In other words, can a complex situation exist and be inappropriately
ignored.
Table 1 was created using simulation. For six items, segments
were associated with patterns (1,1,1,1,1,1), (− 1,2,− 1,2,− 1,2),
(2,− 1,2,− 1,2,− 1), (− 1,− 1,− 1,2,2,2) and (2,2,2,− 1,− 1,− 1).
The program allowed for scaling of the vectors by multiplying by a
constant, adjusting the mean value. Consider scaling was 2/3. For a
respondent, r, a “random” value, nr, was generated from a normal distri-
bution with a specific standard deviation (set in simulation). For person
r in a segment, say using the second vector, the value of xi,t,r is deter-
mined by adding the scaled vector value for an item (for i = 4 adding
to 2 ∗ 2/3), to an increment associated with the person, ri, to nr. The re-
sult was rounded to an integer. Rounded values outside −3 to 3 were
set to their appropriate bound. For 2 segments the first two vectors
were used, for three the first 3 and for 5 all vectors were used.
Looking at Table 1 you see results that may be surprising. For conve-
nience, the term deviant respondents refers to respondents using scales
different from the one taken as correct. For the simulation for up to 20%
of respondents being deviant respondents, whether one, two or four dif-
ferent scales are being used, one has both an acceptable α and only one
eigenvalue greater than one. In fact, for using one and four different
scales up to 30% of respondents can be deviant. In other words, one
could be accepting a single scale as valid when 20% or even 30% of re-
spondents are not using that scale. If one is just concerned with α, you
see that 60% of respondents can be deviant. Of course, for “just α” some-
one who recognizes a problem with a scale when two or more compo-
nents have eigenvalues over 1 would take some appropriate action.
Results in Table 1 are a consequence of parameters used in the sim-
ulation. Still, if one can have one or more deviant response segments
and persons involved can be 30% of respondents, the need exists to be
confident that one is not treating a particular scale as applying to the
population when it does not. In complexity terms, the 30% may be the
group that causes taking action based on linear analysis results to fail
(e.g., analysis using the scale in a path/causal model). Nevertheless, no
claim is being made that in general one will find deviant segments.
Nevertheless, before the author and colleagues put their research on
deviant segments on hold, segments of significant size were found for
real data.
One analysis approach used to find segments relates to the simula-
tion in that the scale assumed to be correct was associated with a vector
like (1,1,1,1,1,1). Searching was for a segment, a significant number of
respondents, associated with a vector like (2,2,2,− 1,− 1,− 1). This is
because, for a bipolar scale some response that mix positive and nega-
tive values can be expected by chance. However, when some item
responses are − 3, − 2, 2 or 3 and a pattern exists for a number of
persons not expected under reasonable statistical assumptions, one
has found evidence of complexity. Having found a segment, elimi-
nating members from data is an option. However, Urry's work sug-
gests that, dealing with complexity involves figuring out why a
segment is there.

Table 1
Simulation results for different percentages of 1000 respondents using 1, 2 or 4 scales (being in 2, 3 or 5 groups) other than the one taken to be correct⁎.

Number of groups (1 uses “the” scale other groups use different scales)

2 (1 using other scale) 3 (2 using other scale) 5 (4 using other scale)

% of respondents Eigen Eigen Eigen Eigen Eigen Eigen

using different scales value value value value value value

Alpha 1 2 Alpha 1 2 Alpha 1 2

10% 0.98 5.36 0.44 0.97 5.32 0.45 0.97 5.24 0.38

20% 0.95 4.83 0.79 0.95 4.79 0.81 0.94 4.68 0.67

30% 0.93 4.52 0.90 0.90 3.97 1.44 0.91 4.09 0.92

40% 0.89 3.91 1.24 0.85 3.45 1.78 0.87 3.59 1.21

50% 0.86 3.53 1.36 0.79 2.91 2.12 0.78 2.85 1.54

60% 0.80 3.03 1.52 0.71 2.45 2.44 0.71 2.46 1.73

⁎Darker shading is for α and principal components results being OK; lighter is for just α being OK.
 T.C. Huan / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 1228–1233
Anyway, the purpose of this example is not to expound on the
author's work on deviant segments. Urry's idea, in this case particularly
relating to linear model inadequacies, was a motivator. In fact, when
one recognizes that deviant segments can exist, addressing why they
exist, how they can be detected and what detection might lead to just
seems like part of good science. In this context, note that finding deviant
segments in questionnaire pilot studies may not happen because of
small numbers. Getting relevant details ahead of major data collection
is where Urry's emphasis on getting in depth data or Woodside's em-
phasis on long interview data (see Woodside & Wilson, 1995 and refer-
ences there) is important. Still, today with computer assisted surveys,
one can establish ongoing processing that will recognize potentially de-
viant response patterns in data accumulate. Once recognized, when a
pattern occurs, a respondent can be asked about why she/he responded
in the particular way. Regardless, as Urry has made clear ignoring com-
plexity can have undesirable consequences.
5. Conclusion
This paper addresses the value and significance of Urry's work from
some different perspectives. The author agrees that gaze, whether 1.0 or
3.0, has been important in tourism and hospitality studies. Still, while
recognizing the mobilities paradigm as important in the tourism and
hospitality literature, the author sees addressing complexity, whether
involving gaze, mobilities or performance, as Urry's most important
contribution. That is why, in relation to research, the paper has focused
on complexity.
In the three examples introduced, you see different particular ways
that Urry's thinking is relevant to the author's research. Since becoming
aware of Urry's work, that work is having an increasing influence. The
fact that only one of the examples of impacting the author's work in-
volves completed research reflects the so called “turns” that Urry is in-
volved being important in the present and future. Regardless, that
Urry's complexity ideas influenced the author's research is documented.
How specific ideas of Urry will influence the author's future develop-
ment of analysis, theory and methods relating to management, travel
decisions segments employing different scales is yet to be seen.
Urry's idea that complex systems analysis is the study of systems
that can involve tipping and various other manifestations of nonlinear-
ity is the general focus of the paper. Nevertheless, other ideas of Urry
provide the basis for addressing complexity. Social interactions occur
among people that is nonlinear and supply systems influence demand.
People may feel they are organized but marketers can affect what they
do by understanding how to affect people's organization. When one ac-
cepts that dynamic and self-organizing systems interact in ways that
heavily influence the probabilities of later events (Urry, 2005), moving
ahead involves identifying systems and their interactions. Urry's gaze,
mobilities and other work has entered into this paper because those
works help in recognizing what is involved in complexity and address-
ing what happens when complexity occurs.
References
Benckendorff, P., & Zehrer, A. (2013). A network analysis of tourism research. Annals of
Tourism Research, 43(4), 121–149.
1233
Cohen, E., & Cohen, S. A. (2012). Current sociological theories and issues in tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research, 39(4), 2177–2202.
DeCrop, A. (2001). The antecedents and consequences of vacationers' dis/satisfaction:
Tales from the field. In J. A. Mazanec, G. I. Crouch, J. R. B. Ritchie, & A. G. Woodside
(Eds.), Consumer psychology of tourism, hospitality and leisure (pp. 203–209). NY:
CABI Publishing.
DeCrop, A., & Snelders, D. (2005). A grounded typology of vacation decision-making.
Tourism Management, 26(2), 121–132.
Dirksmeier, P., & Helbrecht, I. (2008). Time, non-representational theory and the “perfor-
mative turn”—Towards a new methodology in qualitative social research. Forum
Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(2) (Art 55).
Fogarty, G., Cretchley, P., Harman, C., Ellerton, N., & Konki, N. (2001). Validation of a ques-
tionnaire to measure mathematics confidence, computer confidence, and attitudes
towards the use of technology for learning mathematics. Mathematics Education
Research Journal, 13(2), 154–160.
Gladwell, M. (2002). Tipping points: How little things can make a big difference. Boston, MA:
Little, Brown and Co.
Haldrup, M., & Larsen, J. (2009). Tourism, performance and the everyday: Consuming the
orient. New York: Routledge.
Harzing, A. W., & Ron, V. D. W. (2009). A Google Scholar h-index for journals: An alterna-
tive metric to measure journal impact in economics and business. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(1), 41–46.
Huan, T. C., & Beaman, J. G. (2003). Contexts and dynamics of social interaction and infor-
mation search in decision making for discretionary travel. Tourism Analysis, 8(2),
177–182.
Huan, T. C., & Beaman, J. G. (2004). Contexts and dynamics of social interaction and infor-
mation search in decision-making for discretionary travel. Paper presented at the Third
Symposium on the Consumer Psychology of Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure, La Trobe
University, Melbourne.
Kozak, K., & Karadag, L. (2012). Who influences aspects of family decision making?
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 6(1), 8–20.
Larsen, J., & Urry, J. (2011). Gazing and performing. Environment and Planning Part D,
29(6), 1110.
Liu, H. L., Lin, Y. J., Wang, Y. W., & Wu, W. C. (2012). Improving survey research using
diagrams of data structure. Journal of Business Research, 65(1), 51–58.
McKercher, B. (2008). A citation analysis of tourism scholars. Tourism Management, 29(6),
1226–1232.
Patil, V. H., Singh, S. N., Mishra, S., & Todd Donavan, D. (2008). Efficient theory develop-
ment and factor retention criteria: Abandon the ‘eigenvalue greater than one' criteri-
on. Journal of Business Research, 61(2), 162–170.
Rakić, T., & Chambers, D. (2012). Rethinking the consumption of places. Annals of Tourism
Research, 39(3), 1612–1633.
Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2004). Tourism mobilities: Places to play, places in play. New York:
Routledge.
Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). Mobile technologies of the city. New York: Routledge.
Tilley, C. (2006). Introduction: Identity, place, landscape and heritage. Journal of Material
Culture, 11(1/2), 7–32.
Tribe, J. (2004). Knowing about tourism: Epistemological issues. In J. Pillimore, & L.
Goodson (Eds.), Qualitative research in tourism: Ontologies, epistemologies and method-
ologies (pp. 46). New York: Routledge.
Urry, J. (1990). The ‘consumption’ of tourism. Sociology, 24(1), 23–35.
Urry, J. (1992). The tourist gaze and the ‘environment’. Theory Culture & Society, 9(3),
1–26.
Urry, J. (2003). The ‘consumption’ of tourism. In C. David, D. Marcus, & H. Kate (Eds.), The
consumption reader (pp. 117–121). New York: Routledge.
Urry, J. (2005). The complexity turn. Theory Culture & Society, 22(5), 1–14.
Urry, J. (2007). Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity.
Urry, J., & Larsen, J. (2011). The tourist gaze 3.0. London: Sage.
Watson, G. L., & Kopachevsky, J. P. (1994). Interpretations of tourism as commodity.
Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 643–660.
Woodside, A. G., & Lysonski, S. (1989). A general model of traveler destination choice.
Journal of Travel Research, 27(4), 8–14.
Woodside, A. G., & Wilson, E. J. (1995). Applying the long interview in direct marketing
research. Journal of Direct Marketing, 9(1), 37–55.
Woodside, A. G., MacDonald, R., & Burford, M. (2004). Grounded theory of leisure travel.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 17(1), 7–39.
Wu, P. L., Yeh, S. S., Huan, T. C., & Woodside, A. G. (2014). Applying complexity theory to
deepen service dominant logic: Configural analysis of customer experience-and-
outcome assessments of professional services for personal transformations. Journal
of Business Research, 67(2014), 1647–1670.
Wu, W. C., Dai, Y. D., & Liu, H. H. (2012). Effective information collection on international
inbound visitors. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research,
6(1), 54–69.