Textbook Asian Qualitative Research in Tourism Ontologies Epistemologies Methodologies and Methods 1St Edition Paolo Mura Ebook All Chapter PDF

Asian Qualitative Research in Tourism
Ontologies Epistemologies
Methodologies and Methods 1st Edition
Paolo Mura
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/asian-qualitative-research-in-tourism-ontologies-epist
emologies-methodologies-and-methods-1st-edition-paolo-mura/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Qualitative Methods in Social Work Research Deborah K.

Padgett
https://textbookfull.com/product/qualitative-methods-in-social-
work-research-deborah-k-padgett/
Social Research Methods Qualitative Quantitative and

Mixed Methods Approaches 1st Edition Sigmund Grønmo
https://textbookfull.com/product/social-research-methods-
qualitative-quantitative-and-mixed-methods-approaches-1st-
edition-sigmund-gronmo/
Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism Anthony James

Veal
https://textbookfull.com/product/research-methods-for-leisure-
and-tourism-anthony-james-veal/
Qualitative Research Methods Monique Hennink & Inge

Hutter & Ajay Bailey
https://textbookfull.com/product/qualitative-research-methods-
monique-hennink-inge-hutter-ajay-bailey/
Qualitative research methods for the social sciences
Ninth Edition Berg
https://textbookfull.com/product/qualitative-research-methods-
for-the-social-sciences-ninth-edition-berg/
Empirical Political Analysis Quantitative and

Qualitative Research Methods Richard C. Rich
https://textbookfull.com/product/empirical-political-analysis-
quantitative-and-qualitative-research-methods-richard-c-rich/
Qualitative Research Methods in English Medium

Instruction for Emerging Researchers Theory and Case
Studies of Contemporary Research 1st Edition Curle
https://textbookfull.com/product/qualitative-research-methods-in-
english-medium-instruction-for-emerging-researchers-theory-and-
case-studies-of-contemporary-research-1st-edition-curle/
Data Science and Social Research II: Methods,

Technologies and Applications Paolo Mariani
https://textbookfull.com/product/data-science-and-social-
research-ii-methods-technologies-and-applications-paolo-mariani/
Qualitative Methodologies in Organization Studies:

Volume I: Theories and New Approaches 1st Edition
Malgorzata Ciesielska
https://textbookfull.com/product/qualitative-methodologies-in-
organization-studies-volume-i-theories-and-new-approaches-1st-
edition-malgorzata-ciesielska/
Perspectives on Asian Tourism
Series Editors: Catheryn Khoo-Lattimore · Paolo Mura
Paolo Mura
Catheryn Khoo-Lattimore Editors
Asian Qualitative
Research in
Tourism
Ontologies, Epistemologies,
Methodologies, and Methods
Series editors
Catheryn Khoo-Lattimore
Griffith University
Nathan, Queensland, Australia
Paolo Mura
Taylor’s University
Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
While a conspicuous body of knowledge about tourism in Asia is emerging, Western
academic ontologies and epistemologies still represent the dominant voice within
tourism circles. This series provides a platform to support Asian scholarly production
and reveals the different aspects of Asian tourism and its intricate economic and
socio-cultural trends.
The books in this series are aimed to pave the way for a more integrated and
multifaceted body of knowledge about Asian tourism. By doing so, they contribute
to the idea that tourism, as both phenomenon and field of studies, should be more
inclusive and disentangled from dominant (mainly Western) ways of knowing.
More specifically, the series will fill gaps in knowledge with regard to:
• the ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions behind Asian
tourism research;
• specific segments of the Asian tourist population, such as Asian women, Asian
backpackers, Asian young tourists, Asian gay tourists, etc;
• specific types of tourism in Asia, such as film-induced tourism, adventure tour-
ism, beauty tourism, religious tourism, etc;
• Asian tourists’ experiences, patterns of behaviour, and constraints to travel;
• Asian values that underpin operational, management, and marketing decisions in
and/or on Asia (travel);
• external factors that add to the complexities of Asian tourism studies.
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/15382

Paolo Mura • Catheryn Khoo-Lattimore
Editors
Asian Qualitative Research

in Tourism
Ontologies, Epistemologies, Methodologies,
and Methods
Editors
Paolo Mura Catheryn Khoo-Lattimore
Taylor’s University Griffith University
Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia Nathan, Queensland, Australia
ISSN 2509-4203 ISSN 2509-4211 (electronic)

ISBN 978-981-10-7490-5 ISBN 978-981-10-7491-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7491-2
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018931372
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. part of
Springer Nature
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721,
Singapore
Acknowledgement
The editors – Paolo and Catheryn – would like to gratefully acknowledge the fol-
lowing scholars for the time and effort spent to review the chapters:
• Michiyo Yoshida, Wakayama University, Japan
• Eunice Tan, Murdoch University, Singapore
• Barkathunnisha Abu Bakar, Murdoch University, Singapore
• Elaine Chiao Ling Yang, Griffith University, Australia
• Joo Ee Gan, Taylor’s University, Malaysia
• Faith Ong, William Angliss Institute, Australia
v
Contents
1 Locating Asian Research and Selves in Qualitative

Tourism Research..................................................................................... 1
Paolo Mura and Catheryn Khoo-Lattimore
Part I The Move Away Towards an Asian Research Paradigm

2 Tourism Studies and the Metaphysics of Presence:
Matters of Ontology and the Enlightened Eye...................................... 23
Keith Hollinshead and Rukeya Suleman
3 Tourism Studies and the Lost Mandates of Knowing: Matters
of Epistemology for the Inscriptive/Projective Industry...................... 51
Keith Hollinshead and Rukeya Suleman
4 Beyond Theorising: Distinguishing Between the Limitations
of Critical Theory and the Researcher................................................... 81
Joo-Ee Gan
5 Situating Asian Tourism Ontologies, Epistemologies
and Methodologies: From Colonialism to Neo-colonialism................. 97
Sarah N. R. Wijesinghe and Paolo Mura
6 How Could We Be Non-Western? Some Ontological
and Epistemological Ponderings on Chinese
Tourism Research..................................................................................... 117
Jundan (Jasmine) Zhang
Part II Researching the Asian Way: Methodologies and Methods

7 Qualitative Research Skill Training: Learning Ethnography
in the Field................................................................................................ 139
Stuart Hayes and Hazel Tucker
vii
viii Contents
8 Working and Traveling in New Zealand: A Reflective Narrative

in the Field................................................................................................ 153
Hongrui Zhu, Hazel Tucker, and Tara Duncan
9 The Qualitative Other: An Autoethnography....................................... 173
Matias Thuen Jørgensen
10 Understanding Ethnography: An ‘Exotic’ Ethnographer’s
Perspective................................................................................................ 185
Mayukh Dewan
11 Utilising Collaborative Autoethnography in Exploring
Affinity Tourism: Insights from Experiences in the Field
at Gardens by the Bay............................................................................. 205
Josephine Pryce and Hayley Pryce
12 Co-construction in the Study of Trade Union Movements
in the Nepalese Tourism Industry Using a Grounded
Theory Approach..................................................................................... 221
Sandeep Basnyat
Part III Asian Introspection and Reflexivity in Research

13 Qualitative Research in Tourism: Reflections
of an Asian Researcher............................................................................ 241
Sushila Devi S. Rajaratnam
14 Black on Brown: Research Paradoxes for Black
Scholars Working in Ethnic Communities............................................ 255
Samuel Adeyinka-Ojo and Catheryn Khoo-Lattimore
15 Prophet or Profit? Emotional Reflections
on Indonesian Tourism............................................................................ 271
Dini Mariska and Eric Jacob Shelton
16 “When in Rome Do as the Romans Do”? A Reflective
Account on Methodological Approach During PhD Journey.............. 289
Vahideh Abaeian
Vignettes............................................................................................................ 305
Contributors
Vahideh Abaeian Taylor’s Business School, Taylor’s University Lakeside Campus,

Subang Jaya, Malaysia
Samuel Adeyinka-Ojo Department of Marketing, Faculty of Business, Curtin
University, Miri, Malaysia
Sandeep Basnyat Tourism College, Institute for Tourism Studies (IFT), Macao,
China
Mayukh Dewan Faculty of Hospitality, Food and Leisure Management, Taylor’s
University, Subang Jaya, Malaysia
Tara Duncan School of Technology and Business Studies, Dalarna University,
Falun, Sweden
Joo-Ee Gan Monash University Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Malaysia
Stuart Hayes Department of Tourism, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Keith Hollinshead Business School, The University of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK
Matias Thuen Jørgensen Department of Social Sciences and Business, Roskilde
University, Roskilde, Denmark
Catheryn Khoo-Lattimore Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia
Dini Mariska Ministry of Tourism, Jakarta, Republic of Indonesia
Paolo Mura Taylor’s University, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
Josephine Pryce James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia
Hayley Pryce James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia
Sushila Devi S. Rajaratnam Faculty of Hospitality, Food and Leisure Management,
Taylor’s University, Subang Jaya, Malaysia
ix
x Contributors
Eric Jacob Shelton Independent Scholar, Jakarta, Republic of Indonesia

Rukeya Suleman Business School, The University of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK
Hazel Tucker Department of Tourism, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Sarah N. R. Wijesinghe Faculty of Hospitality, Food and Leisure Management,
Taylor’s University, Subang Jaya, Malaysia
Jundan (Jasmine) Zhang Department of Geography and Economic History,
Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
Hongrui Zhu Department of Tourism, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
About the Editors
Paolo Mura holds a PhD in tourism from the University of Otago, New Zealand.
An Italian by passport, he has lived in Germany, Greece, the USA, New Zealand and
Malaysia. He is currently an associate professor and programme director of the
postgraduate programmes in the Faculty of Hospitality, Food and Leisure
Management at Taylor’s University, Malaysia. He is also the head of the Centre for
Research and Innovation in Tourism, Hospitality and Food Studies (CRiT). Overall,
his research interests are on tourist behaviour, with a focus on young tourists’ expe-
riences, gender, qualitative methodologies and Asia/ASEAN. Paolo serves on the
editorial board of Tourism Recreation Research, Current Issues in Tourism, Journal
of Vacation Marketing, Tourism Management Perspectives and the Annals of Leisure
Research. He is the editor-in-chief of Asia-Pacific Journal of Innovation in
Hospitality and Tourism (APJIHT). His scholarly work has been published in top
tourism journals, including Tourism Management, the Annals of Tourism Research
and Current Issues in Tourism. Paolo enjoys supervising postgraduate students, and
so far he has supervised to completion 3 PhD students (2 as principal supervisor and
1 as co-supervisor) and more than 20 master’s students.
Catheryn Khoo-Lattimore is a senior lecturer in the Department of Tourism,
Sport and Hotel Management, Griffith University, Australia. She holds a PhD in
marketing from the University of Otago, New Zealand, and researches in the areas
of guest and tourist behaviour, services marketing, family tourism and women as an
emerging tourist segment. Catheryn was recently nominated a Fulbright scholar and
spent 6 months at the University of Florida, USA.
xi
About the Authors
Vahideh Abaeian completed her PhD (business) at Taylor’s University (Malaysia),

MBA in Multimedia University (Malaysia) and BA in Shiraz University (Iran). Her
research outcome is presented in both national and international conferences,
received the best paper award and was published in academic journals. During her
PhD journey, she has taught various subjects in business and management including
organisational, marketing and consumer behaviour. Her research interests centre on
corporate social responsibility, hospitality management, services marketing and
consumer behaviour.
Samuel Adeyinka-Ojo holds a PhD in hospitality and tourism from Taylor’s
University, Malaysia. He is head of the Department of Marketing at Curtin
University, Malaysia. He teaches hospitality, marketing and tourism courses at the
undergraduate programmes and project quality management at the postgraduate
level. Samuel researches in tourism destination branding, hospitality marketing,
guest behaviour, food festivals, social media marketing in hospitality and tourism,
visitor memorable experience, health tourism and sustainable practices in rural and
ecotourism destinations.
Sandeep Basnyat is an assistant professor at Tourism College at the Institute for
Tourism Studies, Macau, China. Sandeep’s major areas of interest include tourism
and work, tourism labour, human resource management in tourism and hospitality
industry and sustainable development of tourism. Prior to joining IFT, Sandeep
worked as a lecturer at Nepal Academy of Tourism and Hotel Management in Nepal.
Sandeep has also served in the tourism industry in Nepal for several years. Sandeep
can be reached at sandeep@ift.edu.mo
Mayukh Dewan is a lecturer at Taylor’s University, Malaysia. He obtained his
hotel and catering management diploma from his homeland India. His BA (Hons)
in international hospitality management was later awarded by Queen Margaret
University in Edinburgh. Here, he conducted a qualitative research on the changing
balance between the old world wine and new world wine sales in Edinburgh hotels
and restaurants. He then went on to attain his professional master’s in international
xiii
xiv About the Authors
tourism and hospitality management from the University of Toulouse. His master’s
research focused on the factory-farmed poultry consumption of chefs of various
religions in Malaysia. Presently, he is in the midst of his doctoral studies in tourism
and hospitality management.
Before joining the hospitality academia, Mr. Mayukh was involved in an expan-
sive range of work in the hospitality and gastronomic industry. He worked as a hotel
night manager at the King George Thistle Hotel in the heart of historic Edinburgh
City, UK. Before Thistle, he worked as an operations manager for a group of an
award-winning chain of Indian speciality restaurants, Suruchi Innovative
Restaurants, in Edinburgh. He has also worked as a chef for hospitality catering,
industrial catering and hospital catering. He started his career in the Taj Hotel
Kolkata (5 stars), India, as a supervisor/captain in food and beverage service.
Tara Duncan is a senior lecturer and researcher in the Centre for Tourism and
Leisure Research (CeTLeR) at Dalarna University, Sweden. Her research focuses
on the mobilities paradigm and tourism. Tara’s recent publications investigate inter-
sections between tourism, migration and work, and she has a growing focus on how
mobilities within tourism can have contemporary relevance to social and policy
debates about the nature of tourism movements. Tara is the lead editor of Lifestyle
Mobilities: Intersections of Travel, Leisure and Migration (Routledge, 2013) and is
on the editorial advisory board for the journal Social and Cultural Geography.
Joo-Ee Gan is a senior lecturer at Monash University Malaysia. She teaches
employment law and business law at the Department of Law and Taxation, School
of Business. Her research interests include occupational health and safety standards
and industrial disputes in the hospitality industry. She has also written on tourism
governance and sustainable tourism practices. Joo Ee was formerly a solicitor who
specialized in corporate matters. She obtained her Bachelor of Law from Queen
Mary College, University of London, pursued her Master of Law at the University
of Cambridge, and obtained her PhD from Taylor’s University, Malaysia.
Stuart Hayes is a PhD student in the Department of Tourism, University of Otago.
His doctoral research focuses on investigating contemporary postgraduate tourism
education, with a particular emphasis on notions such as global citizenship and criti-
cal thinking and the relevance of these to the curriculum and student learning out-
comes. In order to develop a wider appreciation of the flow on effects of tourism
education, Stu is also committed to understanding more about what tourism stu-
dents actually do with their learning.
Keith Hollinshead is a critical analyst of our received inheritances … of the agency/
authority of tourism to project (and mis-project) ourselves, and our places/pasts/
presents, today. Having worked in Wales, USA, and (principally) Australia, he
inspects the representational repertoires through which traditions are normalised
(consciously or unconsciously) for particular ‘political’, ‘institutional’ or ‘tribal’
advantage. Having strong interests in Indigenous outlooks, he frequently analyses
how Indigenous and non-Indigenous cosmologies of being/becoming tend to smash
into each other during our contemporary age of hurtling capitalism.
About the Authors xv
Described as one of the ‘new wave’ thinkers of late decades in tourism studies
and related fields – i.e. of the symbolic connectivities of tourism and parallel projec-
tive industries – he is distinguished professor of the International Tourism Studies
Association (based at Peking University, China) and serves as vice president (for
International Tourism) of the International Sociological Association. Keith has been
one of the long-standing masthead editors for both Tourism Analysis and Tourism,
Culture and Communication since their foundation in New York. Originally, gradu-
ating in Romano-British frontier history (Leeds University in Yorkshire), his
research portfolio at the University of Bedfordshire (England) nowadays inspects
the worldmaking politics and poetics of tourism and the declarative mythmaking
apparatuses of cousin mediating industries.
Matias Thuen Jørgensen works as assistant professor at Roskilde University,
Denmark. He has a PhD in Tourism Management from the School of Hotel and
Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. He holds a Cum
Laude Master’s degree in Tourism from the Tourism Elite Programme at Aalborg
University, Denmark, and a Bachelor’s degree in Information Science from the
same institution. His current research interests include development of novel con-
ceptual approaches to the study of tourism. Within this frame, he has investigated
subjects relating to emerging markets, destination management, and tourism
distribution.
Heesu Lee is a Korean honours student in the Department of Tourism, Sport and
Hotel Management of Griffith Business School. Having completed an honours the-
sis on the meta-stereotype of Asian academics, her research interests include gen-
der, cross-culture, destination marketing and digital marketing in tourism contexts.
She has been a sales coordinator for an events and wedding company, a wedding
dress designer and a florist in Korea prior to Australia. She can be contacted at
heesu.lee@griffithuni.edu.au.
Dini Mariska graduated with a master of tourism from the University of Otago,
New Zealand, in 2016. She is presently working at the Ministry of Tourism, Republic
of Indonesia, in the focus area of international marketing development. She has
been nurturing deep interest to qualitatively study tourism, in particular to explore
spiritual aspects of Indonesian tourism changes. In collaboration with one of her
best teachers, Eric J. Shelton, she attempts to reflect dilemmatic sides on Indonesian
tourism from a civil servant point of view.
Giang Thi Phi is a project officer at Griffith Centre for Sustainable Enterprise. She
holds a PhD in Tourism Management from Griffith University, Australia, and
researches in the areas of event and tourism management, social entrepreneurship,
and social innovation and development. Her work has recently been published in
Tourism Management, Current Issues in Tourism, and Tourism Recreation Research.
Brooke Porter is an aquatic anthropologist. Her current work investigates tourism

as a development and conservation strategy in lesser-developed regions, with
emphasis on surf and adventure tourism. She is focused on developing simple and
xvi About the Authors
effective development and marine conservation strategies for coastal communities.

She has worked in various capacities with NGOs, international aid agencies, and
educational institutions in Maui, New Zealand, Italy, the Philippines, and Africa.
She is a postdoctoral research fellow at AUT in NZ and serves as scientific adviser
to The Coral Triangle Conservancy, an NGO that focuses on reef protection and
restoration in the Philippines. Brooke is also an adjunct professor of environmental
science at Umbra Institute in Perugia, Italy.
Hayley Pryce is a postgraduate scholar in primary teaching and learning at Griffith
University. She has also completed studies in English literature and visual arts at
James Cook University. Hayley is interested in the way in which theatrical and dra-
matic visual artistry can be used to enhance natural landscapes. Sculpture, architec-
ture, botanical arrangements, colour and texture are elements she has explored
during her studies and in her broader research work. In her educational research,
Hayley has a strong interest in understanding the psychology of learning and what
drives individuals to learn. She has developed research interests that include qualita-
tive research methodologies and critical approaches.
Josephine Pryce is a senior lecturer at James Cook University (JCU). Josephine’s
PhD was in the context of the hospitality industry, focusing on the organisational
culture of hotels and its influence on the attitudes of workers with respect to the
provision of service. She also has master of education (tertiary teaching) and BSc
(Hons) in botany. Josephine has substantial business and management experience,
with her portfolio including management of a post office on an RAAF base and over
10 years’ experience working in the hospitality industry, especially in the tropical
region of Far North Queensland. Josephine’s research interests focus on the work-
ing lives of people, particularly in relation to people working in service industries.
She has a growing interest in the role played by attractions in drawing volunteers,
especially with regard to gardens and heritage rail. This is complimented by her
strong interest in research methodologies, especially qualitative approaches to
research.
Sushila Devi S. Rajaratnam holds a PhD in management from Multimedia
University Malaysia and is a Malaysian. She is currently a senior lecturer in the
Faculty of Hospitality, Food and Leisure Management at Taylor’s University,
Malaysia. Her research interests are on human resource management and organisa-
tional behaviour, with a focus on the hospitality industry.
Eric Jacob Shelton has written on and taught various aspects of tourism ontology,
epistemology and methodology as these concepts relate to what often is called
nature and the natural world. Contributing to this volume jointly with Dini Mariska
provided Eric an opportunity to learn about the complexities of tourism administra-
tion praxis involving Indonesia, a populous developing country.
Rukeya Suleman is a cultural geographer schooled at the University of Cambridge

who now works as a lecturer in tourism studies at the University of Bedfordshire,
England. Currently completing a doctorate on the changing identity of British
About the Authors xvii
Muslim women through travel, she is deeply interested in matters of Islamic moder-
nity. Rukeya’s other research interests concern geopolitical issues as they relate to
the traditional/transitional use of space and place today, and she has published arti-
cles and chapters in the realm of public culture and indigeneity. She is a keen thinker
on the application of emergent critico-interpretive/soft science approaches in the
humanities (in general) and on spirituality (in particular).
Nicholas Towner focused his doctoral research on surf tourism in the Mentawai
Islands of Indonesia and sustainable community development. An enthusiastic
surfer, who owned and operated a surfing tour company in New Zealand, Nick has
traveled extensively throughout the Asia-Pacific chasing the endless summer. Along
with researching in the emerging field of surfing tourism and its future opportuni-
ties, Nick also has study interests in sustainable tourism management, the role that
tourism plays in shaping local communities and Pacific tourism.
Hazel Tucker is associate professor in tourism at the University of Otago, New
Zealand, and specialises in the area of tourism’s influences on sociocultural rela-
tionships and change. Originally from the UK, Hazel conducted her PhD research
(social anthropology, University of Durham, UK) on tourism development in
Cappadocia, central Turkey. Since then, Hazel has continued to be engaged in a
longitudinal ethnographic study in that region of Turkey, exploring issues concern-
ing gender and women’s involvement in tourism work, host-guest interaction and
tourism representations and identity in relation to World Heritage. Other areas of
Hazel’s research and publishing include colonialism/postcolonialism, tours and tour
guiding, the social dynamics of commercial hospitality and emotional and affective
dimensions of tourism. She has more recently been engaged in a project on the
relationship between tourism and apocalypticism. Along with a number of pub-
lished articles in refereed journals and books, Hazel is author of Living with Tourism:
Negotiating Identity in a Turkish Village (Routledge 2003) and coeditor of Tourism
and Postcolonialism (Routledge 2004) and Commercial Homes in Tourism
(Routledge 2009). Hazel is engaged in curriculum development at the postgraduate
level and teaches courses on tourist culture and research methodologies, as well as
leading a master’s level ethnographic field school course in northern Thailand.
Along with serving on the editorial board of several journals, Hazel is a resource
editor for Annals of Tourism Research and co-vice president of the RC50
International Tourism Research Committee of the International Sociological
Association.
Sarah N. R. Wijesinghe is currently pursuing her doctoral studies diving deep into
understanding the colonial and neocolonial effects on the production and dissemi-
nation of tourism knowledge outside the Anglophone centres. She is an enthusiast
into critically uncovering the many ways colonialism has left a deep unhealed
wound in the former colonies. Having been taught to be obedient for too long, she
breaks away from such societal ideologies and finds her voice (sometimes too sassy)
through writing. She is inspired by both women and men who fiercely stand for
injustice. She is the 2016 postgraduate candidate of the prestigious Taylor’s
xviii About the Authors
University World Fellowship Scholarship. Previously, she pursued her master of

tourism at the University of Surrey. Having gotten a sweet taste of the world of
research, specifically qualitative research, she now pursues into experimenting on
critical research methods and approaches to tourism. Her current research interests
include exploring Asian tourism knowledge, colonial and neocolonial structures of
power and indigenous knowledge and methodologies.
Mona Ji Hyun Yang is a Korean student of bachelor of business (Hons) in the
Department of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management of Griffith Business School.
Her research interest includes family tourism and cultural differences in tourism.
She completed a bachelor in international tourism and hotel management from
Griffith University. She is currently based in Australia and can be contacted at
jihyun.yang@griffithuni.edu.au.
Ryan Yung is a Malaysian PhD candidate in the Department of Tourism, Sport and
Hotel Management of Griffith Business School. Having completed an honours the-
sis on virtual reality’s influence on families’ destination selection, his research inter-
ests include technological innovations in tourism such as virtual, augmented or
mixed realities and their utilisation in tourism contexts. Before deciding on a return
to academia, Ryan held various positions in the hotel industry, having lived and
worked in Malaysia, Singapore, Japan and New Zealand. He is currently based in
Australia, where you can contact him at ryan.yung@griffithuni.edu.au.
Jundan (Jasmine) Zhang is a postdoc researcher in the Department of Geography
and Economic History, Umeå Unviersity, Sweden. In the past, she has conducted
long-term research in Shangri-La County, Southwest China, adopting a poststruc-
turalist political ecology approach. Currently, her research interests include envi-
ronmental discourse and subjectivity, creative and critical thinking across cultures
and histories and research methodologies.
Hongrui Zhu is a PhD candidate from the Department of Tourism, University of
Otago. His doctoral research looks at Chinese working holiday makers in New
Zealand. His research interest focuses on working holiday makers, backpacking,
youth travel and mobility. His email address is hongrui.zhu@postgrad.otago.ac.nz.
Chapter 1
Locating Asian Research and Selves
in Qualitative Tourism Research
Paolo Mura and Catheryn Khoo-Lattimore
Abstract The main aim of this chapter is to “set the scene” of this book, which
attempts to provide an overview of the ontologies, epistemologies, methodologies,
and methods constituting Asian qualitative tourism research. The following chapter
is organized around three main parts. In the first part, we will discuss the notion of
qualitative research in general. More specifically, with a journey through selected
episodes of Western history, we will provide an overview of the main beliefs that
have informed the development of qualitative research in the social sciences from
classical antiquity to the current times. We believe that this part is important as sev-
eral episodes of Western history influenced (and still influence) the development of
both tourism qualitative research and Asian qualitative tourism research. In the sec-
ond part, the current scenario concerning qualitative research in tourism will be
presented. In this part, we will place emphasis on the various “turns” (e.g., the
“critical turn,” the “narrative turn,” etc.) that have shaped the scholarly production
of qualitative tourism scholars. Finally, in the third part, we will review and criti-
cally assess Asian qualitative tourism research, with the intent to critically evaluate
its current status quo and the challenges faced by Asian tourism scholars and tour-
ism scholars working in/on Asia. Based on the epistemological studies conducted
by tourism scholars on Asia, we will highlight the existing gaps in knowledge con-
cerning Asian qualitative tourism research and how the following chapters in the
book attempt to address them.
Keywords Asia · Qualitative tourism research · Tourism research paradigms ·

Reflexivity
P. Mura (*)
Taylor’s University, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
e-mail: paolo.mura@taylors.edu.my
C. Khoo-Lattimore
Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia
e-mail: c.khoo-lattimore@griffith.edu.au
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018 1

P. Mura, C. Khoo-Lattimore (eds.), Asian Qualitative Research in Tourism,
Perspectives on Asian Tourism, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7491-2_1
2 P. Mura and C. Khoo-Lattimore
This book is about Asian qualitative tourism research. Yes, it is exactly about these
four words – “Asian”, “qualitative”, “tourism” and “research”. Can four words, just
four words, be powerful enough to inspire the composition of approximately
150,000 more words that constitute this book? Can four words be powerful enough
to attract the attention of 23 authors and 2 editors scattered around the world and
then convince them to think, struggle and write about those four words? Can four
words be powerful enough to initiate contentious debates amongst groups of acade-
micians? The answer, as Malaysians would say in Manglish (and this is a fascinat-
ing sociolinguistics phenomenon on its own), is can.
As we have found, these four words have been powerful enough to command the
attention of a group of tourism scholars based in different corners of our planet. It is
not just because qualitative research in tourism is no longer the Cinderella she used
to be a few years ago, when her quantitative/positivist stepdaughters enjoyed their
status of “proper research”. It is not just because discussions concerning paradig-
matic, methodological and reflective ways of knowing tourism (as a phenomenon)
in tourism (as a field of inquiry) are becoming more legitimised and visible in the
current academic scenario. It is because these four words constitute the pieces of a
puzzle that has not yet been solved. Indeed, although in the last 20 years calls for
more qualitative, less positivist, more inclusive, less Western(ised) ways of
approaching research in tourism have been consistent (see Phillimore and Goodson
2004; Ateljevic et al. 2007; Pritchard et al. 2011), Asian ways of producing and
representing research have not taken up much space in the tourism academy (Mura
and Pahlevan Sharif 2015).
As such, this book attempts to provide an additional understanding of this com-
plex puzzle, surely not its ultimate solution but a step further in the comprehension
of the nature and meanings of Asian qualitative tourism research. It aims at explor-
ing tourism scholars’ ways of being and knowing Asia(n) and Asianness, the para-
digmatic stances underpinning Asian qualitative tourism research, its paradoxes and
complexities. It attempts to give voice to Asian and non-Asian scholars’ bodies/
selves/emotions/minds. It encourages Asian and non-Asian scholars to reflect upon
their own selves and the power structures around them, which directly or indirectly
shape tourism knowledge and its related methodologies (Khoo-Lattimore 2017).
Overall, the main aim of this chapter is to “set the scene” of this book, which
attempts to provide an overview of the ontologies, epistemologies, methodologies
and methods constituting Asian qualitative tourism research. The following chapter
is organised around three main parts. In the first part, we will discuss the notion of
qualitative research in general. More specifically, with a journey through selected
episodes of Western history, we will provide an overview of the main beliefs that
have informed the development of qualitative research in the social sciences from
classical antiquity to the current times. We believe that this part is important as sev-
eral episodes of Western history influenced (and still influence) the development of
both tourism qualitative research and Asian qualitative tourism research. In the sec-
ond part, the current scenario concerning qualitative research in tourism will be
presented. In this part, we will place emphasis on the various “turns” (e.g. the “criti-
cal turn”, the “narrative turn”, etc.) that have shaped the scholarly production of
1 Locating Asian Research and Selves in Qualitative Tourism Research 3
qualitative tourism scholars. Finally, in the third part we will review and critically
assess Asian qualitative tourism research, with the intent to critically evaluate its
current status quo and the challenges faced by Asian tourism scholars and tourism
scholars working in/on Asia. Based on the epistemological studies conducted by
tourism scholars on Asia, we will highlight the existing gaps in knowledge concern-
ing Asia qualitative tourism research and how the following chapters in the book
attempt to address them.
1.1 nderstanding Qualitative Research: A (Western)

U
Historical Perspective
What is qualitative research? And what makes us qualitative researchers? We have

decided to answer these questions by recalling our professional experiences as stu-
dents, lecturers and researchers throughout the years. As undergraduate and gradu-
ate students making the first steps in the research world about 20 years ago, we
recall our lecturers using the terms “quantitative” and “qualitative” to indicate two
distinct approaches to research design (Denzin and Lincoln 1998; Creswell 2002).
In general, alongside the textbooks we were reading at the time, our educators
tended to define quantitative and qualitative research by comparing and contrasting
the relative strengths and weaknesses of the two designs. Patton’s (1990) words
encapsulate the main ideas we were exposed to:
[t]he advantage of a quantitative approach is that it’s possible to measure the reactions of a
great many people to a limited set of questions, thus facilitating comparison and statistical
aggregation. This gives a broad, generalizable set of findings presented succinctly and par-
simoniously. By contrast, qualitative methods typically produce a wealth of detailed infor-
mation about a much smaller number of people and cases. This increases understanding of
the cases and situations studied, but reduces generalizability (p. 14).
By highlighting the main differences between quantitative and qualitative

research, Patton’s (1990) stance offered us the foundational tenets of these two ways
of orchestrating research, those basic assumptions that many of us may have learnt
in a quasi-religious fashion at the beginning of our research journeys. In simple
terms, we were taught that quantitative approaches employ numbers and statistical
data, target large samples of populations, attempt to generalise findings and report
results in an objective manner. In contrast, we quickly memorised that qualitative
research deals with words/texts rather than numbers, focuses on smaller samples
than quantitative approaches, privileges depth over breadth and produces informa-
tion that not necessarily can be applied to other contexts. Overall, by acquiring these
basic notions about research methods (at the time emphasis was placed more on
methods rather than approaches and methodologies) 20 years ago as students, we
were sure of our clear understanding of qualitative research, and we regarded its
fundamental tenets as dogmas that did not need to/could not be questioned. It is only
when we began “doing” our own research and teaching research-related courses to
undergraduate and postgraduate students, and doing so especially in Malaysia, that

we started to realise the complexity of the term “qualitative research”.
Phillimore and Goodson (2004, p. 3) refer to qualitative research as “an enigma”,
something that is complex to define and that has been operationalised in several dif-
ferent ways by researchers belonging to different disciplines and fields of inquiry.
And we agree with them. Indeed, qualitative research is a tradition that encapsulates
multiple, and often contrasting, paradigms, approaches, methodologies, methods,
audiences, procedures, strategies, practices and rhetorical assumptions (Denzin and
Lincoln 2011; Creswell 2007). As Denzin and Lincoln (2011, p. 3) have further
emphasised, “a complex, interconnected family of terms, concepts, and assump-
tions surround the term qualitative research”. The complex and fragmented array of
meanings attached to qualitative research can be partly explained through a concise
review of the main historical events of European history. More specifically, it is
important to take into consideration the historical events that have played a role in
the development of the different forms of qualitative research.
Historically, qualitative ways of conducting research have been employed since
classical antiquity. Indeed, some of the literary work produced by Greek and Roman
philosophers and writers, such as Aristotle, Plato and Caesar, represent primordial
forms of ethnography (Mura and Pahlevan Sharif 2015). In De Bello Gallico, for
example, Gaius Julius Caesar reports and analyses compelling narratives about the
Gallic Wars, which even include moments of researcher’s reflexivity! With the dis-
solution of the Roman Empire (500 A.D.) and the beginning of the Middle Ages
(approx. 500–1500 A. D.) in Europe, part of the knowledge produced in classical
antiquity was lost or restrained by religious and superstitious beliefs. It is only with
the advent of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment Project that knowledge is
reorganised around less theocratic and more anthropocentric perspectives. Driven
by the motto “homo faber ipsius fortunae” (man is the architect of his own destiny),
modern knowledge began to take more secular shapes and started to be conceived as
less dependent on metaphysical forces. Propelled by the scientific revolution, the
causal order of nature and the role of science in discovering the laws of nature
became crystallised tenets for scholars. Determinism, rationalism and secularism
paved the way for the establishment of positivist thought, a set of beliefs that since
the eighteenth century has influenced the production of knowledge and the episte-
mological assumptions of knowledge creation. Following the ideas of the French
philosopher Auguste Comte, positivism is an ideology that regards social phenom-
ena as laws governed by the principle of causation. Importantly, as positivism con-
templates the causal order of society, it supports the idea that social phenomena can
be approached and investigated scientifically, through techniques similar to those
employed to study natural phenomena.
Importantly, the tenets of positivism have influenced the ways of conducting
qualitative research from the eighteenth century until the current times. Perhaps one
of the most compelling and detailed historical analyses of qualitative research exist-
ing in the current literature is that provided by Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln.
In mapping the history of qualitative research in North America, Denzin and Lincoln
(2005, 2011, 2017) have identified and discussed the main historical periods or
moments of qualitative research. Despite its rather narrow territorial focus on North
America, the multiple points of criticism raised by other scholars (see Denzin and
Lincoln 2011, 2017 for a detailed explanation and critique of the moments and how
this criticism was addressed) and the fact that other “histories” of qualitative
research in English-speaking and non-English-speaking countries do exist in the
literature (see Mura et al. 2017; Tashakkori and Teddlie 2010), Denzin and Lincoln’s
imaginary historical continuum remains a solid anchor to have an in-depth under-
standing of the development of qualitative research in the twentieth and twenty-first
centuries. In their own words, “These historical moments are somewhat artificial;
they are socially constructed, quasi-historical, and overlapping conventions.
Nevertheless, they permit a “performance” of developing ideas […]” (Denzin and
Lincoln 2011; p. 1).
According to Denzin and Lincoln (2005, 2011, 2017), at the beginning of the
twentieth century, during the first two periods or moments they referred to as the
Traditional Period (1900–1950) and the Modernist or Golden Age (1950–1970), the
way of producing qualitative research was dominated by positivist and postpositivist
paradigms. Accordingly, the qualitative studies conducted by ethnographers (mainly
white, Western, male scholars) during these moments tended to produce (perceived)
“objective” forms of knowledge, in which non-Western peoples were often por-
trayed as the “exotic others”. Importantly, both positivism and postpositivism
attempted to produce rigorous qualitative studies that emphasised objectivity and
impersonal ways of knowing. Furthermore, the type of knowledge produced in this
era was also driven by colonial and postcolonial structures of power, which still
influence the creation of knowledge in the current academic scenario (see Mura
et al. 2017; and Wijesinghe and Mura in Chap. 5 of this book).
It is only with the advent of the third moment (Blurred Genres, 1970–1980) that
less impersonal and more reflective ways of conducting qualitative research began
to emerge. However, the third moment also led to the so-called Paradigm Wars
(1980–1985), a period in which debates between positivist and anti-positivist schol-
ars became more pronounced and led to “academic wars” between supporters and
opponents of positivism (Gage 1989). This general climate of scepticism for posi-
tivist thought saw its climax with the crisis of representation (1986–1990), a
moment that represented a major rapture with the past positivist tradition as it
encapsulated three types of crisis, namely, of representation (how should qualitative
research be represented?), legitimation (who/what does legitimate qualitative
research?) and praxis (how can qualitative texts propel change in society?). To a
certain extent, all the moments following this period (Postmodern period, 1990–
1995; Postexperimental Inquiry, 1995–2000; Methodologically Contested Present,
2000–2004, Paradigm Proliferation, 2005–2010, the Fractured Future, 2010–2015,
and the Uncertain, utopian future, 2016–) (Denzin and Lincoln 2017) have to con-
front these crises and struggle to make sense of them.
Importantly, the aftermath of the crisis of representation saw the emergence of
new, alternative forms of qualitative research, which were shaped by new, non-
positivist paradigms, such as interpretivism, constructivism, critical theories, queer,
feminist and participatory paradigms among others. Departing from naïve realism,
qualitative researchers operationalise new ontological stances, including critical

realism, historical realism, relativism and participatory reality. Likewise, traditional
epistemological assumptions based on dualist/objectivist stances are replaced by
transactional/subjectivist ways of knowing. These ontological and epistemological
revolutions have paved the way for new methodological approaches in which quan-
titative/experimental methodologies and methods are replaced by dialectical and
dialogical qualitative approaches.
Among the various revolutionary aspects that the crisis of representation and its
subsequent moments have initiated, one cannot overlook the increasing importance
placed on reflexivity in qualitative research. In contrast to positivist and postpositiv-
ist accounts, which reflect impersonal, detached and “value-free” ways of produc-
ing knowledge, reflexivity contemplates the “situatedness” of research/researchers.
Reflexivity, defined by England (1994, p. 82) as “a self-critical sympathetic intro-
spection and the self-conscious analytical scrutiny of the self as researcher”, reposi-
tions researchers’ bodily and emotional selves to the core of the research process. It
emphasises the idea that researchers’ personal biographies, genders and ethnicities
cannot be silenced in the research journeys. Rather, they need to be voiced by the
researchers as they represent tools to understand how/why knowledge was pro-
duced. As such, reflexivity accentuates the importance of the “I” in the production
and representation of knowledge. Within this line of thought, since the 1980s,
examples of reflective ways of constructing knowledge have appeared in different
disciplines, such as anthropology (Rosaldo 1989), sociology (Adler 1993), geogra-
phy (England 1994) and leisure studies (Dupuis 1999).
Despite the various novel practices in qualitative research introduced by the cri-
sis of representation, the extent to which such a revolution has occurred is a subject
of debate within academic circles. Looking at the present and possible future sce-
narios, Lather and St. Pierre (2013, p. 629) have contended that “post-qualitative”
research is characterised by two types of new trends, namely, the “the old new”
(updated and/or revised already existing methodological beliefs and approaches)
and the “new new” (approaches and beliefs that break from the tradition and are
able to rethink humanist qualitative methodology). In other words, like other schol-
ars (e.g. Denzin and Lincoln 2011, 2017) Lather and St. Pierre (2013) emphasise
that the current scenario in which qualitative researchers operate, although regarded
by many as non-positivist, is still strongly linked to positivist thought. Therefore, in
order to operationalise forms of qualitative research that break this link with the
tradition, “post-qualitative” researchers need to embrace “post”-ontologies capable
of challenging the current ways of producing and representing qualitative research.
Overall, history has shaped (and continues to shape) the development of qualita-
tive research and has produced a myriad of diverse ways of conducting qualitative
research. As such, to answer our initial question – what is qualitative research? – is
problematic. Likewise, to identify who qualitative researchers are and what makes
us qualitative researchers is equally complex. Based on the assumption that those
working within the qualitative research tradition try to make sense of the intricacies
and inconsistencies of social realities and phenomena, Denzin and Lincoln (2011)
identify qualitative researchers as quilt makers, montage makers, jazz players, inter-
pretive bricoleurs and story tellers. Although these terms refer to a diverse array of
social actors, they encapsulate the main duties and challenges of qualitative
researchers. Like quilt makers, qualitative researchers employ different strategies
and methods to weave the different “patches” of social realities. Like montage mak-
ers, qualitative researchers have to create a “logical flow of reality” by putting
together the different and fragmented images that constitute social phenomena. Like
jazz players, qualitative researchers cannot necessarily follow a predetermined path
in the process of meaning-making of realities but need to constantly improvise new
ways of cocreating realities. Like bricoleurs, qualitative researchers need to assem-
ble the different parts of social phenomena in cohesive fashions. Like story tellers,
qualitative researchers tell stories about realities to different audiences. As Denzin
and Lincoln (2011) further point out, qualitative researchers need to be able to
embrace and confront the tensions and contradictions of our social existences.
These tensions need to be confronted by all the scholars operating in the social sci-
ences, including tourism academicians.
1.2 Qualitative Research in Tourism
Issues concerning the role of qualitative research in tourism studies have been sub-
ject of debate among scholars in the last 30 years (see Cohen 1988; Jamal and
Hollinshead 2001; Hollinshead 1996; Phillimore and Goodson 2004; Riley and
Love 2000; Walle 1997). During the 1980s, in line with an overall academic envi-
ronment that tended to privilege positivist ways of conducting research, the use of
qualitative methods in tourism research was underestimated by tourism scholars. At
the time, Cohen (1988) regarded the scarce importance given to qualitative research
by sociologists of tourism as paradoxical as most of the seminal work in tourism
(e.g. Boorstin 1964; Graburn 1976; MacCannell 1976) was the result of qualitative
approaches or methods. Likewise, Peterson (1987) pointed out that qualitative
research, despite being employed in the marketing world, was not particularly privi-
leged by tourism marketing researchers. Also, a review of the articles published in
the Annals of Tourism Research conducted by Dann et al. (1988) at the end of the
1980s supported this trend, although it also highlighted a gradual increase in the use
of qualitative methods in the years 1978–1986.
During the 1990s, as a result of the crisis of representation and its subsequent
moments, qualitative research began to gain momentum in tourism studies, and
debates concerning the nature of qualitative research appeared more frequently in
the literature (see Decrop 1999; Walle 1997). However, although non-positivist/
qualitative studies in tourism saw their appearance in the literature (see Markwell
1997; Ryan 1995; Squire 1994; Tucker 1997), most of the qualitative studies pro-
duced during this decade were still anchored to the tradition as they seemed to privi-
lege positivist and postpositivist ways of thinking. Walle (1997), for example, points
out that in the 1990s qualitative tourism scholars were mainly concerned in creating
and operationalising “rigorous” and “scientific” approaches to research, which were
perceived as capable of providing “evidence” of the “facts” investigated. Within this
scenario, the notion of triangulation was commonly employed to justify the validity/
trustworthiness of tourism qualitative research (see Anderson and Shaw 1999;
Decrop 1999). Also, grounded theory was often privileged by qualitative scholars as
at the time it provided a rather systematic and legitimised path to conduct qualitative
research (see Connell and Lowe 1997). In addition, some scholars, such as McIntosh
(1998) and Hall and Rist (1999), emphasised the importance of using and integrat-
ing multiple qualitative methods to obtain “better results”. In other words, rather
than challenging positivist ways of assessing research, qualitative tourism research-
ers in the 1990s were forced to find explanations/solutions for their methodological
choices within positivist/postpositivist frames. Within this scenario, researchers’
positionality and reflexivity in tourism research were relatively neglected. As Riley
and Love (2000, p. 180) reported in their study assessing the state of qualitative
tourism research until the end of the 1990s, “there is little doubt that the “dominant”
paradigm is positivism”.
Despite this, by the end of the 1990s, non-positivist thought began to emerge and
became more visible. By criticising the notion of “rigour” in qualitative research,
Walle (1997), for instance, encouraged qualitative tourism scholars to refer to other
disciplines, such as marketing and anthropology, as exemplars of fields that have
been partially able to go beyond their “scientific”/positivist boundaries. Moreover,
Dann’s (1996) report of the outcomes of the second interim conference of RC 50
(International Tourism) of the International Sociological Association, “Paradigms
in Tourism Research”, held in Jyväskylä, Finland, on July 4–7, 1996, and attended
by 40 scholars, highlighted debates about non-positivist paradigms.
As a result, in the 2000s, more impersonal and reflective ways of “doing”
research started to appear in the tourism literature. Undoubtedly, the edited book
published in 2004 by Jenny Phillimore and Lisa Goodson, entitled Qualitative
Research in Tourism – Ontologies, Epistemologies and Methodologies, represents
one of the most influential scholarly work encouraging this partial paradigm shift.
As a collection of chapters authored by prominent voices in tourism qualitative
research, Phillimore and Goodson’s (2004, p. 5) work aimed “to encourage tourism
researchers to adopt a more sophisticated attitude to thinking about and using quali-
tative research”. More specifically, the book is important as it encourages a recon-
ceptualisation of tourism qualitative research, one which contemplates a shift from
methods/techniques to the beliefs, ideologies and approaches underpinning research
production and dissemination.
Overall, the scholars contributing to this work debate old and new ontological
and epistemological stances informing tourism qualitative research in an attempt to
present new ways of “doing” and representing research. Hollinshead (2004a, b), for
example, in two chapters encourages scholars to clarify their ontological stances
while approaching the study of tourism due to its diverse and international nature.
More specifically, he persuades the readers to consider “ontological concerns of
being, meaning and identity” (2004a, p. 63) in selecting methodological strategies.
Likewise, Tribe (2004) evaluates the status of tourism research from an epistemo-
logical perspective and discusses the cultural and ideological structures of power
shaping tourism knowledge. Also, other commentators, such as Swain (2004) and
Hall (2004), reassert the importance of producing more personal forms of tourism
knowledge, which should not transcend bodily and emotional researchers’ selves.
Importantly, in Phillimore and Goodson (2004), discussions concerning the nature
and existence of reality/realities and its implications in the production/diffusion of
tourism knowledge are also linked to research practices. Indeed, the last part of the
book is devoted to provide examples of qualitative studies in which paradigmatic
beliefs reflect ways of conducting research (see Belsky 2004; Cole 2004; Jordan and
Gibson 2004; Small 2004).
An important turning point for tourism qualitative research in the 2000s occurred
with the organisation of the first Critical Tourism Studies (CTS) Conference in
2005 in Dubrovnik, Croatia. Launched by Irena Ateljevic, Annette Pritchard and
Nigel Morgan and organised every 2 years since then, the conference propelled the
so-called “critical turn in tourism studies” and the emergence of an “academy of
hope in tourism studies”, namely, “a way of being, a commitment to tourism inquiry
which is prosocial justice and equality and anti-oppression” (Ateljevic et al. 2007;
p. 3). As a result of this initiative and new line of thought, two books were published
(both edited by Irena Ateljevic, Annette Pritchard and Nigel Morgan) – one in 2007
entitled The Critical Turn in Tourism Studies: Innovative Research Methodologies
and another in 2013 entitled The Critical Turn in Tourism Studies: Creating an
Academy of Hope. One of the main tenets of the supporters of the critical turn in
tourism was to expand the existing limits of knowledge in order to include less
privileged forms of knowledge and give voice to oppressed ways of knowing, such
as indigenous science and cosmologies. In other words, as the critical turn contem-
plates plurality and diversity over artificial dichotomies, it reiterates the existence of
multiple paradigms and epistemological values. Furthermore, the critical turn also
encouraged alternative and less impersonal ways of representing research, which
paved the way to the legitimisation of the use of “I” in scholarly publications. This
was also the result of a “narrative turn” in the social sciences (see Riessman 2008),
which has advocated the abandonment of positivist ways of representing research
and paved the way for researchers’ presence in the text.
Importantly, as the critical turn recognises the need for emancipation, it also sup-
ports the idea of emancipating ourselves, as tourism scholars, from the neo-liberal
economic constraints of the academic world. Indeed, as Ateljevic et al. (2007, p. 3)
clearly point out, “most universities today are straight-jacketed by institutional and
governmental research assessment exercises and most academic appointments, ten-
ures and promotions are determined by publications and/or citation indices”. These
assessment practices tend to homogenise the whole academic environment and do
not encourage creativity and critical thought. As a result, they jeopardise the possi-
bilities of looking beyond the boundaries created by the so-called knowledge force
fields. Within this line of thought, researchers’ reflexivity becomes crucial.
While reflexivity has found its place in other disciplines such as anthropology
and sociology since the end of the 1980s (see Rosaldo 1989; Van Maanen 1988),
tourism scholars’ reflective accounts have been rather limited until the first decade
of the twenty-first century. Reflexivity contemplates the recognition and situated-
ness of researchers in the research process (England 1994). It requires scholars to
scrutinise their bodily, emotional, gendered, and ethnic selves in order to understand
how they influence all the steps of the research journey. There are several instances
within the tourism literature in which scholars have embraced reflexivity. Hall
(2004), for example, takes an introspective turn to explain how personal occur-
rences played a role in his career choices and developments. By doing so, he also
discusses the sociocultural and institutional practices that frame (and at times limit)
his/our research journeys. Likewise, Tucker (2009) expresses her own discomfort
and shame after reflecting upon her postcolonial identities during a tourist encoun-
ter in Turkey. Also, issues related to tourism researchers’ positionality and role in
the field have been discussed by a number of scholars in Hall’s (2011) edited book
Fieldwork in Tourism – Methods, Issues and Reflections.
Overall, the critical turn in tourism studies has been acknowledged as an impor-
tant milestone for qualitative tourism research as it encouraged more reflective and
inclusive ways of knowing; yet, it has also been a subject of debate and criticism
among scholars. Some commentators, such as Finlay (2002, p. 212), have pointed
out that “when it comes to practice, the process of engaging in reflexivity is p erilous,
full of muddy ambiguity and multiple trails”. More specifically, Finlay (2002)
warns us about the importance of finding a balance between our researchers’ voices
and the participants’ voices as too often the former tend to overshadow the latter.
Likewise, Higgins-Desbiolles and Powys Whyte (2014) have reiterated this point of
criticism by contending that since the critical turn and the academy of hope have
been excessively focused on researchers’ reflexivity, they have failed to give voice
to those who most of the times are oppressed by tourism, such as indigenous com-
munities and the locals in general. In their own words, “methodologies such as
auto-ethnography are innovative and offer creative and liberating insights, but they
may also become self-indulgent without grounding in the key goals of critical the-
ory, social justice, liberation, and equity” (Higgins-Desbiolles and Powys Whyte
2014; p. 137). The focus on reflexivity and hope has also been regarded as insuffi-
cient to initiate more practical implications for those affected by tourism develop-
ment. In this respect, authors like Bianchi (2009), for example, have questioned
whether and how researchers’ hopes and reflective journeys can in fact produce
societal changes.
What is the aftermath of the crisis of representation and the current scenario
concerning qualitative tourism research at the end of the years 2010s? The most
recent reviews about the state of tourism qualitative research (see Wilson et al.
2017) seem to indicate that tourism scholars are beginning to go beyond positivist
horizons. Indeed, progresses in qualitative tourism research, especially in terms of
paradigmatic and methodological choices, have occurred in the last 10 years. In this
respect, Airey’s (2015, p. 8) claim that “tourism research is no longer purely positiv-
ist” cannot be denied. This is also reiterated by the fact that some of the highly
ranked journals publishing tourism research, such as the Annals of Tourism Research,
have tended to privilege qualitative approaches over quantitative strategies
(Ballantyne et al. 2009; Tribe and Xiao 2011). However, to what extent the field of
qualitative tourism research has reached methodological maturity, as argued by
Airey (2015) and Tribe (2006), is a contentious matter. Recent bibliometric studies
have shown that besides the fact that the number of qualitative studies is still lower
than that of quantitative articles (Ballantyne et al. 2009), tourism scholars who have
employed qualitative approaches are still hesitant in embracing the crisis of repre-
sentation and alternative forms of knowing (Wilson et al. 2017). Also, from a meth-
odological point of view, Wilson and Hollinshead (2015, p. 31) have contended that
although non-positivist approaches to qualitative research are becoming more legiti-
mised among tourism scholars, “the retreat from logical empiricism in tourism
research is still hampered by the ‘hard science’ tenets of positivism, postpositivism,
and neopositivism”. In other words, tourism research and the production/dissemina-
tion of tourism knowledge are still dominated (directly or indirectly) by traditional/
positivist power structures.
Another issue related to the assumed maturity of tourism (as a field of inquiry)
concerns the level of inclusiveness of tourism qualitative research. The so-called
“academy of hope” has contemplated the idea of more inclusive ways of knowing.
Yet, to what extent “other voices”, mainly non-Western/non-male/indigenous
voices, are represented in tourism qualitative research is a subject of debate (see
Chambers and Buzinde 2015). For many qualitative tourism scholars who began
their research journeys in the 2000s (including ourselves), there is no doubt that
publications like Ateljevic et al. (2007, 2013), Phillimore and Goodson (2004) and
Tucker (2009), among others, metaphorically represented a very important and
legitimised springboard to dive into the complexities of thinking surrounding quali-
tative research (to a certain extent, the inspiration for this book is based on these
sources). However, as Asian (Catheryn) and non-Asian scholars based in Asia
(Paolo), we have soon realised that much of the seminal work on qualitative tourism
research is heavily reliant on Western thought/scholars and does not give voice to
the alternative “other” (e.g. Asia/Asian scholars but also scholars in Africa, Latin
America, East Europe). Therefore, in the next paragraph (and in the remaining part
of the book), we will provide an overview of the current state of Asian qualitative
research in tourism and its gaps, issues and challenges, which we (ourselves and the
contributors of this book) hope to address.
1.3 Asian Qualitative Research in Tourism
Providing an overview of Asian qualitative research in tourism is far from being an

easy task. The sequence of words “Asian qualitative research in tourism” itself is
indeed problematic as it raises conceptual issues concerning its meanings and scope.
In the first part of this chapter, we have devoted ample space to discuss the terms
“qualitative research” and “qualitative research in tourism”. Overall, the diversity of
historical events, paradigms, approaches, methodologies and methods that we have
tried to highlight to present the two universes constituting “qualitative research” and
“qualitative research in tourism” leads us to conclude that, despite being used

unquestioningly, the term “qualitative” may vary differently to different scholars.
The puzzling nature of these terms – “qualitative research in tourism” – becomes
even more problematic when the terms “Asian” and/or “Asia” are associated to
them. As we contended in our previous work (see Khoo-Lattimore and Mura 2016;
Yang et al. 2017), “Asia” is a vast continent whose borders are politically and socio-
culturally constructed and imagined. In metaphorical terms, it is a sort of a big
container that includes many items, not always similar and/or homogenous. Indeed,
the countries/nation states officially belonging to Asia represent a mosaic of cul-
tures that have been shaped by different historical events and diverse sociocultural
practices. As such, we request the readers to imagine Asia through an intellectual
effort that not necessarily takes into account existing politically and socially con-
structed geographical conventions.
We believe that many of the authors of this book who responded to our calls for
contributions have imagined Asia while responding to us. Some of them are Asians,
who live in Asia or outside Asia. Others are non-Asians, who also live in Asia or
outside Asia. Most importantly, none of them questioned the term “Asia” and/or
their relationships with “Asianness”, and responded to our call for chapters claim-
ing/assuming an Asian identity or an identity associated to Asia. Perhaps many of
our contributors are not aware that “Asian”, as Yang and Mura (2016; p. 9) have
pointed out, “is not an identity developed by Asians but a label put on them”. Indeed,
“Asian identities are socially constructed, invented and imagined by Westerners to
describe what they believe exists in the East”. In other words, the West has played
(and is still playing) a pivotal role in producing Asia.
Importantly, the West has also played (and is still playing) a role in constructing
knowledge, tourism knowledge, Asian tourism knowledge and ways of producing
these forms of knowledge (Chambers and Buzinde 2015). As such, Asian qualitative
tourism research cannot be disentangled by Western historical events, such as colo-
nialism (Liu 2011). Although it is a phenomenon occurring since ancient history
(see, e.g. the Roman Empire and its colonies), in modern European history, the term
colonialism refers to the expansionist agenda of some Western powers, which led
them to gain full or partial political and economic control over other countries in
Asia, Africa and South America from the sixteenth to the twentieth century (Kohn
2006). Here it is important to emphasise that besides the fact that not all the Asian
territories that represent the current Asian nation states have been officially colo-
nised (e.g. China, Japan, Thailand), Asian countries were colonised by different
colonial powers. While Indonesia was colonised by the Dutch, for example, the
French exerted their power over Vietnam and the British over India, Malaysia and
Singapore. Also, countries like Malaysia were occupied by different colonisers,
such as the Dutch, the Portuguese and the English. This means that the conse-
quences of colonisation vary according to the coloniser and its “colonising style”.
As such, the ways the different education models and conventions about knowledge
were transferred/imposed on the different Asian realities were multiple and hetero-
geneous. Despite this complex nexus of colonial, non-colonial and global forces,
Altbach (1989, p. 11) has pointed out that “in all countries, regardless of ideology,
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
of Germinal, 271;
of Prairial, 272;
of Vendémiaire, 281.
Intendants, position of, 7-10;

decline of, 47;
fall of, 62.
Isnard, 184, 266.
Issy l'Evêque, priest of, 138.
J.
Jacobin Club, origin of, 105,106;

organisation of, 142-145;
attitude of, in summer of 1791, 150-154;
protests against war, 167;
share of, in elections of 1792, 182, 183;
under the Terror, 213;
parties at, in 1793-94, 241-246;
under Robespierre, 255, 259;
close of, 263, 265.
Jacobins, rise of the, 129-154;

theory of the, 137-140, 209;
numbers and organisation of the, 142-147, 199;
leaders of the, 143, 229-235;
in the Constituent, 105, 149-153;
in the Legislative, 163, 164;
opposed to war, 166, 167;
attitude of, towards Prison Massacres, 178, 179;
in the Convention, 182-183;
attitude of, on question of Louis' death, 191;
struggle with Girondists, 189-206;
Government of, 212-216;
principles applied, 218-229;
character of, 187, 216, 217, 229-235, 283;
schisms and struggles among, 237-260, 262-273.
Jansenists, the, 103.
Javogues, 217, 231.
Jemappes, Battle of, 180.
Jeunes Gens, the, 264, 272, 279.
Jeunesse Dorée, the, 264.
Jews, attacks on the, 61.
Joseph, Emperor, 42, 156-158.
Jourdan, 206, 274, 275.
Journal de Paris, the, 106.
Journal des Débats, 108.
Journal des Etats-Généraux, Mirabeau's journal, 107.
Journal Général de la Cour et de la Ville, Reactionary journal, 112.
K.
Kellermann, 255.
King. See Louis XVI.
Kléber, 274, 276.

Kosciusko, 277.
L.
Labourers. See Peasants and Artisans.
Laclos, 113, 144.
Lacombe, Proconsul in Bordeaux, 217;

Rose, 186.
Lacretelle, 264.
Lacroix, 237.
Lafayette, and the National Guard, 67, 68, 118, 153;

on 5th October, 70;
Marat and, 111;
Orleans and, 114;
character and views of, 116-118;
Mirabeau and, 73, 121, 122;
party of, 131, 135, 150, 153, 163;
at Massacre of Champ de Mars, 151;
not elected Mayor, 165;
policy of, in spring and summer, 1792, 166-173;
flight of, 177.
Lakanal, 216.
Lally-Tollendal, 100.
La Marck, 121, 123.
Lameths, the, in the Constituent, 104;

party of, 131, 135, 150.
Landes, District of the, 217.
Languedoc, one of the Pays d'État, 6.
Lanjuinais, 103, 184, 266.
Laon, distress in, 270.
Laplanche, 231.
Lebon, 143, 217, 232, 273.
Lecarpentier, 216.
Lecointre, 237, 263.
Legendre, 237, 263, 265.
Legislative Assembly, meeting of, 163;

parties in, 163, 164;
policy of, 165, 167, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 178, 179.
Le Mans, Battle of, 276.
Leopold II, succeeds Emperor Joseph, 157, 158;

policy of, 159-163;
death of, 168.
Lepelletier Section, the, 281.
Lindet, 214, 215, 234, 273.
Linguet, 107.
Local Government, new system of, 75-79.
Locke, 110
Loire, war on the, 205.
London, Journalism in, 107.
Longwy, surrender of, 177.
Louis XI, 5.
Louis XIV, 14.
Louis XVI, Court of, 44;

emancipates serfs, 44;
charities of, 44, 45;
character of, 45;
early reforms of, 45-47;
States-General and, 53, 55, 57, 58, 67;
visit to Paris, 67;
on 5th and 6th October, 69, 70;
Constituent Assembly and, 73, 74, 87, 150, 152;
flight to Varennes, 149;
army under, 81;
deposition demanded, 150;
Legislative Assembly and, 165-173;
Lafayette and, 70, 172;
the Allies and, 173, 174;
Girondists and, 167, 171, 174, 175, 191;
dethroned, 175;
executed, 191, 194.
Loustallot, 108, 109.
Louvet, 184, 266.
Lyons, troubles at, 61, 134, 141;

declares against Jacobin Government, 205, 216, 217;
trade of, ruined by Revolution, 224;
distress in, 225, 270.
M.
Maignet, 217, 258.
Mallet du Pan, 107, 112, 173, 174.
Malmesbury, 277.
Malouet in Constituent Assembly, 64, 100, 101, 152;

his estimate of the Jacobins, 143;
Louis and, 173.
Manfredini, 42.
Marat, editor of Ami du Peuple, 109;

early career and character of, 109-111;
in July, 1791, 150, 151;
protests against war, 167;
approves, September Massacres, 178;
in the Convention, 182, 190, 197, 210;
assassination of, 206.
Maréchaussée, the, 8.
Maret, 108.
Marie Antoinette, character of, 48;

political influence of, 48, 58, 125, 162, 165, 186;
execution of, 207.
Marseilles, disorder in, 141;

declares against Jacobin Government, 205;
under the Terror, 216, 217, 225;
reaction at, 279.
Massacre, of Champ de Mars, 151;
of September, in the prisons, 178.
Masséna, 274.
Maury, 99.
Maximum, the, established, 198, 222, 223;

repealed, 266-270.
Mayence, emigrants at, 159;

retaken by Allies, 205.
Mercure, Constitutional journal, 106, 112.
Méricourt, Théroigne de, 186.
Merlin, of Douai, 105, 263;

of Thionville, 263, 274.
Mesmerists, the, 42.
Messidor, 228.
Métayers, position of the, 20, 21, 132.
Middle classes, under Ancien Régime, 16, 17, 18, 43;

gainers by Revolution, 132;
cease to support Revolution, 202, 203;
Jacobin measures against, 222, 223;
in the Reaction, 264.
Milhaud, 274.
Militia, the, 22, 23.

Mirabeau, Comte de, in the Constituent Assembly, 57, 63, 64, 65,
72, 73,
74, 84, 89, 90, 91, 92, 103, 106, 122, 123;
as journalist, 107;
political aims, 118, 119, 120;
Lafayette and, 121, 122;
notes for the Court, 123-127;
pensioned by the Court, 127, 128;
character of, 128;
death of, 128, 147;
Marquis de, 44;
Vicomte de, 99.
Molleville, Bertrand de, 166.
Momoro, 237; Sophie, 186.
Monasteries, abolition of the, 84, 85.
Monciel, Terrier de, 172, 173.
Moniteur, the, 107, 108.
Monsieur. See Provence.
Montaubon, religious troubles at, 141.
Montesquieu, 31, 32.
Montmartre, relief works at, 69.
Montmorin, 122, 126, 166, 173.
Montreuil-sur-Mer, distress at, 270.
Moreau, 274.
Morelly, 36.
Mounier, 50, 100, 101.
Mountain, the, 197, 198;

after Thermidor, 262, 263, 271.
See Jacobins.
Municipality of Paris. See Commune.
Muscadins, the, 220, 264.
Mysticism, revival of, in eighteenth century, 42.
N.
Nancy, mutiny at, 82;

distress at, 270, 271.
Nantes, Vendéans at, 206;

Carrier at, 217;
decline of commerce at, 224.
Napoleon, at the capture of the Tuileries, 175.

See Bonaparte.
Narbonne, 166, 167.
National Agents, 213.
National Assembly, title taken by Commons, 57.

See Constituent Assembly.
National Debt. See Finance.
National Guard, creation of the, 62, 76, 78;

Lafayette and the, 67, 68, 118, 153, 172;
action of the, 136, 140, 141, 179;
reorganised as battalions of the Sections, 199;
under Hanriot, 204, 205, 212, 256, 260;
changes in the, after Thermidor, 262, 271, 273;
on 13th Vendémiaire, 281.
Necker, reforming ministry of, 14, 42, 46;

fall of, 47, 48;
recall of, 51;
vacillation of, 53, 56;
dismissed again, 58;
finance of, 88, 89;
failure of, 114, 115;
Madame, 185.
Neerwinden, defeat of Dumouriez at, 194.
Newton, 110.
Ney, 274.
Nice, French successes at, 194.
Nîmes, religious troubles at, 141.
Nivôse, 227.
Noailles, Vicomte de, 104.
Nobles, under the Ancien Régime, 11-14, 44;

in States-General, 56, 57.
Notables, of 1787, 49;

of 1788, 53.
Notre Dame, Goddess of Reason installed in, 227.

O.
Orange, tribunal of, 258;

Prince of, 277.
Orateur du Peuple, Fréron's journal, 263.
Orleans, high court at, 80;

Duke of, 12, 14, 69, 112-114, 150, 207.
P.
Pache, minister of war, 190, 192, 193;

Mayor of Paris, 193, 212, 236;
proscription of, 273.
Palais Royal, meetings in, 60, 69, 113, 264.
Panckoucke, 106, 107.
Panis, 178, 212, 273.
Paris, excitement and distress in, 26, 51, 58, 59, 60, 67, 68, 69,
133,
136, 171, 173;
influence of, on finance of Constituent Assembly, 89, 95;
clubs in, 105, 106, 144;
numbers of Jacobins in, 143;
government of, 145-147;
Prison Massacres in, 175-179;
agitation against Louis, 171, 173, 191;
the Girondists and, 193, 196-205;
under the Terror, 222-228, 242, 260;
Reaction in, 263, 264, 271, 272, 273, 279, 281.
Paris, Parlement of, 49, 50.
Parlements, the local, 6, 7, 79.
Parties, in Constituent Assembly, 98-105;

in Legislative Assembly, 163, 164;
in Convention, 183, 184, 237, 240, 259, 262, 263, 273, 279.
Patriote Français, Brissot's journal, 108.
Payan, 256.
Pays d'Élection, provincial assemblies created in, 46.
Pays d'État, the, 6.
Peasantry, condition of, under Ancien Régime, 19-27;

outbreak of, in 1789, 58-62;
disappointed with the Revolution, 132, 133, 136, 137, 139, 141;
under the Terror, 217, 219, 220, 223, 224, 225;
in the Reaction, 270, 282.
Père Duchesne, Hébert's journal, 231.
Pétion, in Constituent Assembly, 105, 106, 153;

Mayor of Paris, 165, 179, 184, 190.
Petit Gautier. See Journal Général de la Cour et de la Ville.
Philippe Egalité. See Orleans.
Philippeaux, 237, 245.
Philosophers, the, in eighteenth century, 28-36.
Physiocrats, the, 36.

Picardy, distress in, 270.
Pichegru, 271, 274, 275, 276.
Pillnitz, conference of, 159-162.
Pitt, policy of, 42, 156, 157, 194;

Robespierre on, 252.
See England.
Pluviôse, 228.
Point du Jour, Barère's paper, 108.
Poland, influence of, on European politics, 157-159, 277;

Kosciusko's revolt in, 277.
Police of Paris, under Ancien Régime, 60;

during Revolution, 199, 200, 202.
Poll-tax, 12, 24, 95.
Pombal, 42.
Pope, the, alienated by Constituent Assembly, 86, 87;

rule of, at Avignon, 141.
Prairial, 228.
See Insurrection.
Press, the, controlled by Church, 15, 33;

new power of, 106-112;
during the Reaction, 263.
Prieur (of the Côte-d'Or), 214, 215.

Prieur (of the Marne), 214, 215.
Provence, Comte de, policy of, 115, 116;

Mirabeau and, 126;
Emigrants and, 161, 165, 279.
Provincial Assemblies, in 1787, 46.
Prudhomme, 106, 107.
Prussia, policy of, 156-162, 276-278.

See Allies.
Q.
Queen. See Marie Antoinette.
Quesnai, 36.
Quiberon, Emigrants at, 279.
R.
Rabaut de St. Etienne, 103.
Reason, worship of, 186, 227, 237.
Representatives on mission, 195, 213, 215-217, 274.
Republic, talk of, 150;

proclamation of, 189.
Réveil du Peuple, Reactionary song, 264.
Révolutions de France et de Brabant, Desmoulins' paper, 109.

Révolutions de Paris, Democratic paper, 107, 108.
Revolutionary Army, the, 199, 212, 233.
Revolutionary Government, the, 212-217.
Revolutionary Tribunal, the, established, 195;

reorganised, 212, 257, 258;
abolished, 273.
Rewbell, 105, 274.
Reynaud, 217.
Rhine, war on the, 194, 276, 277.
Richard, 274.
Richelieu, policy of, 5.
Rights of Man, declaration of the, 66.
Robespierre, in the Constituent Assembly, 105, 106, 147-153;

the typical Jacobin, 41, 143, 147;
policy and position of, in 1791, 147-153;
opposes war, 167;
action on the 20th June, 172;
elected to the Convention, 182;
attacks of Girondists on, 190;
in Committee of Public Safety, 213, 214, 220, 221, 226, 228, 229,
230, 234;
attacks the Commune, 241-246;
deserts Danton, 247;
ascendency of, 248-260;
character of, 148, 248-255;
review of his career, 249-255;
power of, in 1794, 255, 256;
his belief in the Terror, 255-257;
his action when in power, 257, 258;
his fall, 259, 260.
Rochefoucauld-Liancourt, Duc de, 100.
Rohan, Cardinal de, 16.
Roland, Minister of the Interior, 167;

dismissal of, 171;
return of, to office, 175;
and September Massacres, 179;
carries dissolution of Insurrectionary Commune, 189;
resignation of, 192;
Madame, 164, 171, 184, 185, 207.
Romme, 263, 273.
Ronsin, 232, 236, 243.
Rosicrucians, the, 42.
Rouen, Archbishop of, 15, 99;

rising at, 61;
Mirabeau advises the King to retire to, 121;
distress at, 225.
Rousseau, influence of, 31, 34, 36-41.

See Contrat Social.
Rühl, 212, 273.
Russia, policy of, 156-159, 277, 278.

See Catherine and Allies.
S.
Sabran, Madame de, 185.
Sainte-Amaranthe, Mme de, 185.
Santerre, 172.
Sardinia, policy of, 160.
Saverne, Cardinal de Rohan's palace at, 16.
Savoy, war in, 194.
Sections, organisation of the Parisian, 145-147, 199, 200, 212, 213,

242;
insurrections prepared in the, 174, 175, 198, 201, 203, 204, 205,
260, 281;
committees in the, 146, 195, 200, 212, 213;
battalions of the, 199;
police of the, 146, 199, 200;
reaction in the, 264, 271.
Seigneur, rights of. See Feudal.
Sémonville, 126.
Sentinelle du Peuple, Democratic paper, 107.
Serfdom, extinction of, 20, 44.
Sergent, 178.
Servan, 170, 171, 254.
Sieyès, Abbé, writings of, 51;

in the Constituent Assembly, 84, 102;
the Girondists and, 164;
in the Convention, 211;
during the Reaction, 263, 280.
Social Compact. See Contrat Social.
Socialism, beginnings of, 36, 218-226.
Soho, Marat in, 110.
Soubrany, 263, 273.
Soult, 274.
Spain, policy of, 156, 160, 278.
St. André, Jean Bon, 214, 234, 273.
St. Antoine, Faubourg, insurrection of, 174;

disarmed, 273.
St. Domingo, trouble in, 71.
St. Etienne, Terror at, 217.
St. Hurugues, Marquis de, 113.
St. Just, among the Jacobin leaders, 143;

in Committee of Public Safety and Convention, 213, 214, 220,
221,
222, 226, 229, 234, 241;
on mission, 216, 274;
relations with Danton and Robespierre, 245, 246, 255, 256, 257,
259, 260.
Staël, Madame de, 166, 185.

States-General, elections to the, 31-54;
opening of the, 55-57.
See Constituent Assembly.
Strasbourg, Bishop of, 16;

rising at, 61;
plots at, 161;
decline of trade in, 224;
working men imprisoned in, 225.
Subdelegates, powers of, 9, 47.
Suvórof, 277.
Sweden, policy of, 156, 160.

See Gustavus.
Swedenborgians, the, 42.
T.
Taille, the, 23, 24.
Talleyrand, 102, 106.
Tallien, on mission, 216;

in Thermidor, 259;
during the Reaction, 263, 264;
Madame, 186.
Talma, Madame, 185.
Talon, 126.
Tarascon, Reaction at, 279.

Target, 103.
Taxes, under Ancien Régime, 23-25;

of the Constituent Assembly, 93-96;
resistance to, 139, 196, 267;
on the rich, 198, 220.
See Finance.
Tennis Court Oath, the, 57.
Tenures, of the Ancien Régime, 19-21.
Terror, establishment of the, 170, 195, 206, 212;

government of the, 212-217;
principles of the, 218-230;
character of the leaders of the, 230-235, 283;
Danton and the, 238, 240, 242;
Robespierre and the, 256, 257, 258, 261;
end of the, 261, 262, 273.
Thermidor, 228;
insurrection of, 259, 260.
Thermidorians, the, 263, 279.
Thibeaudeau, 263.
Thouret, 103, 126.
Three Hundred, the, 145.
Thugut, 276.
Thuriot, 263, 271.
Tiers-État, importance of the, 51, 52, 53;

constitutes itself the National Assembly, 57.
Toulon, declares against Jacobin government, 205, 216, 217;
capture of, 244.
Toulouse, Archbishop of, 15, 49;

distress in, 134.
Trèves, Emigrants at, 159.
Trianon, the Queen at, 44.
Tronchet, 103.
Troyes, Bishop of, 15;

rising at, 61;
distress in, 270.
Tuileries, attacks on, 172, 175.
Turgot, observations of, 23, 26;

contributes to Encyclopaedia, 34;
one of the economists, 36;
Comptroller-General, 45;
fall of, 47.
Turkey, critical position of, 157.
Turreau, 'Hellish Columns' of, 278.
V.
Vacheron, 231.
Vadier, in Constituent Assembly, 105;

in Committee of General Security, 212, 232;
fall of, 265, 271.
Valenciennes, captured, 205.
Valmy, Battle of, 180.
Varennes, Louis' flight to, 149.
Vaucluse, Terror in the, 217.
Vendée, la, nobles of, 13;

rising in, 199, 205, 206, 276, 278, 279.
Vendémiaire, 227;
insurrection of, 281.
Ventôse, 228.
Verdun, surrender of, 177, 178.
Vergniaud, in the Legislative, 164;

in the Convention, 183, 184;
on the execution of the King, 191;
death of, 207.
Versailles, King's Council at, 7, 9;

Court at, 12, 13;
States General at, 55-58, 63-67;
Parisian mob at, 69;
suggested meeting of Convention at, 201.
Veto, debates on the, 67.
Victor, 274.
Vieux Cordelier, Desmoulins' paper, 242-245.
Vincent, 236, 243.

Vingtièmes, the, 12, 24.
Vizille, Assembly of, 50.
Volney, 107.
Voltaire, 31-33, 110.
W.
War, desired by Girondists, 164;

opposed by Jacobins, 166, 167;
declared against Austria, 168;
effects of, 168, 169, 170, 181, 224;
progress of, 170, 173, 177, 180, 181, 194, 205, 206, 235, 273-
279;
in La Vendée, 199, 205, 206, 276, 278, 279.
Warsaw, Polish revolt at, 277.
Wattignies, Battle of, 206.
Westermann, 237.
West Indies, trade of, affected, 224.
Women, part played by, in the Revolution, 184-186.
Worms, Emigrants at, 161.
Y.
Young, Arthur, observations of, 19, 43, 224.

Ysabeau, 216.
THE END.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE FRENCH
REVOLUTION ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information

Textbook Asian Qualitative Research in Tourism Ontologies Epistemologies Methodologies and Methods 1St Edition Paolo Mura Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Textbook Asian Qualitative Research in Tourism Ontologies Epistemologies Methodologies and Methods 1St Edition Paolo Mura Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Textbook Asian Qualitative Research in Tourism Ontologies Epistemologies Methodologies and Methods 1St Edition Paolo Mura Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asian Qualitative Research in Tourism

Qualitative Methods in Social Work Research Deborah K.

Social Research Methods Qualitative Quantitative and

Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism Anthony James

Qualitative Research Methods Monique Hennink & Inge

Empirical Political Analysis Quantitative and

Qualitative Research Methods in English Medium

Data Science and Social Research II: Methods,

Qualitative Methodologies in Organization Studies:

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/15382

Asian Qualitative Research

ISSN 2509-4203 ISSN 2509-4211 (electronic)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018931372

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Printed on acid-free paper

1 Locating Asian Research and Selves in Qualitative

Part I The Move Away Towards an Asian Research Paradigm

Part II Researching the Asian Way: Methodologies and Methods

8 Working and Traveling in New Zealand: A Reflective Narrative

Part III Asian Introspection and Reflexivity in Research

Vahideh Abaeian Taylor’s Business School, Taylor’s University Lakeside Campus,

Eric Jacob Shelton Independent Scholar, Jakarta, Republic of Indonesia

Vahideh Abaeian completed her PhD (business) at Taylor’s University (Malaysia),

Brooke Porter is an aquatic anthropologist. Her current work investigates tourism

effective development and marine conservation strategies for coastal communities.

Rukeya Suleman is a cultural geographer schooled at the University of Cambridge

University World Fellowship Scholarship. Previously, she pursued her master of

Paolo Mura and Catheryn Khoo-Lattimore

Keywords Asia · Qualitative tourism research · Tourism research paradigms ·

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018 1

1.1  nderstanding Qualitative Research: A (Western)

What is qualitative research? And what makes us qualitative researchers? We have

By highlighting the main differences between quantitative and qualitative

undergraduate and postgraduate students, and doing so especially in Malaysia, that

qualitative researchers operationalise new ontological stances, including critical

1.2 Qualitative Research in Tourism

1.3 Asian Qualitative Research in Tourism

Providing an overview of Asian qualitative research in tourism is far from being an

“qualitative research in tourism” leads us to conclude that, despite being used

Intendants, position of, 7-10;

Isnard, 184, 266.

Issy l'Evêque, priest of, 138.

Jacobin Club, origin of, 105,106;

Jacobins, rise of the, 129-154;

Jansenists, the, 103.

Javogues, 217, 231.

Jemappes, Battle of, 180.

Jeunes Gens, the, 264, 272, 279.

Jeunesse Dorée, the, 264.

Jews, attacks on the, 61.

Joseph, Emperor, 42, 156-158.

Jourdan, 206, 274, 275.

Journal de Paris, the, 106.

Journal des Débats, 108.

Journal des Etats-Généraux, Mirabeau's journal, 107.

Journal Général de la Cour et de la Ville, Reactionary journal, 112.

King. See Louis XVI.

Kléber, 274, 276.

1 Locating Asian Research and Selves in Qualitative

8 Working and Traveling in New Zealand: A Reflective Narrative

1.1 nderstanding Qualitative Research: A (Western)

1.2 Qualitative Research in Tourism

1.3 Asian Qualitative Research in Tourism