Vol. 5, No. 2. ISSN: 1473-8376 www.hlst.heacademy.ac.

uk/johlste

ACADEMIC PAPER

Rethinking Tourism Education: What Should Schools Teach?

Yuka Inui (yinui@uni.edu), Daniel Wheeler (dwheeler@uni.edu) and Samuel Lankford (sam.lankford@uni.edu) University of Iowa, Division of Health, Physical Education and Leisure, 1227 West 27th Street Cedar Falls, IA 50614, USA. DOI:10.3794/johlste.52.122 Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education

Abstract
Tourism education at universities tends to focus on enabling students for future careers in the industry. Little attention has been devoted to the meaning of tourism education. This paper attempts to promote awareness of overlooked perspectives and critical issues in tourism education by examining two possible approaches to educating future tourism professionals. It discusses tourism education from the perspective of employability as the primary goal. The paper also elaborates on the perspective of providing students with a philosophical and sociological foundation for decisionmaking strategies, as well as for professional preparation. Keywords: Philosophical Foundations, Sociology, Tourism Education, and Travel Industry.

Introduction
Tourism has been described as the worlds largest industry (Goeldner and Richie, 2003). Economic impacts of tourism have been a dominant theme for government, business and academics. Early academic studies focused on economic impacts of tourism development, but beginning in the 1970s, Yuki Inui holds an MSc in Tourism industry Management from the University of Hawaii at Manoa. She is currently a Doctoral student at the University of Northern Iowa. Her research interests include tourism education, host residents perception toward tourism development and sustainable tourism Daniel Wheeler holds an MA in Recreational Management from Brigham Young University. He is also a Doctoral student at the University of Northern Iowa. His research interests are management and development of commercial recreation teaching strategies Samuel Lankford is a professor and director of the Sustainable Tourism and Environment programme at the University of Northern Iowa. He previously taught at the University of Hawaii in the School of Travel Industry management and the Kinesiology & Leisure Science Department. In addition he also taught on the MSc programme, Wageningen Agricultural University in the Netherlands.

Inui, Wheeler and Lankford (2006) Rethinking Tourism Education social, cultural, political and environmental implications have also become prominent as research topics. The academic field has been ahead of the industry in emphasising the social and environmental impact of tourism and the need for sustainable development (Morgan, 2004: 97). As a result, sustainable tourism became a common curriculum topic. Busby (2003) addresses sustainability, in the sense of viability of programme, through the use of internships and Flohr (2001) offers a content analysis of course titles which emphasise sustainability at universities in the UK, indicating a substantial increase in offerings. Increasingly since 1994, researchers have further explored social impacts of tourism by focusing on sociological issues such as tourist sight, tourism culture, tourist gaze, gendered views and bodily display (e.g. Urry, 2002; Wang, 2000; Rojek, 1997; Craik, 1997; and Kinnaird and Hall, 1994). A content analysis of coursework offered in tourism degrees (Busby and Fiedel, 2001) indicates a strong vocational focus with relatively little emphasis on sociological or philosophical issues. Churchward and Riley (2002) noted we are too focused on vocational training and have minimised sociological issues. Finally, and important to this paper, Tribe (2001: 447) suggests that: to design a curriculum to include non-vocationalist aspects, questions of meaning and purpose of the curriculum arise. It is here that an emphasis on reflective philosophical method becomes necessary.

History of Tourism Education

Tourism education began as a development of technical/vocational schools in Europe. These schools emphasised training in core competencies such as hospitality, hotel management and related business skills (Butler, 1999; Morgan, 2004). Interest and demand from the public and private sectors impelled rapid growth of tourism studies and the development, and establishment, of departments of travel and tourism at institutions of higher education in addition to technical schools (Butler, 1999). While these programmes meet actual needs in training and education, there have been discussions on the proper place of such programmes. Debates over tourism programmes at universities appear to centre on the balance between vocational and academic focus. Tourism courses in higher education are often referred to as vocational (Busby, 2001) with educators focusing on producing skilled and knowledgeable managerial personnel for the industry. This emphasis has given short shrift to the value or meaning of tourism education. This paper examines two approaches to educating future tourism professionals, defined as (1) vocational, and (2) philosophical, and argues for one approach over the other in academically oriented institutions.

Educating University Level Students in Tourism

Balancing the vocational and liberal aspects of tourism education is vital to producing a well-rounded graduate. This balance develops students who are broadly educated and knowledgeable about, and responsible in, tourism development as well as occupationally functional in tourism (Lewis, 2005). Concentrating on just the vocational impoverishes students and renders them less likely to be able to respond to stakeholders in a developing tourist society. Originating from technical training schools in Europe as a result of perceived need for trained workers, tourism curriculum has been dominated by a focus on specific occupational skills. Growth of these programmes in higher education has been driven by developments in the tourism industry. Busby (2003) noted that internships and apprenticeships in the industry, as well as academic subjects closely related to specific needs in the field such as: marketing; finance; management; and human resources; improve student development and competence. Schools have developed strong connections with the industry as a result of internships and industry specific education. Students have benefited because they are very employable, with management knowledge, experience and related interpersonal skills. Students have the expectation of high employability because of the vocational

Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 5(2), 25-35.

26

Inui, Wheeler and Lankford (2006) Rethinking Tourism Education emphasis in tourism programmes. Internships also increase the ability of students to critically reflect on the tourism business (Tribe, 2001). This success in vocational training and emphasis is at the core of debate in tourism pedagogy (Morgan, 2004). Many researchers suggest tourism educators develop courses specifically to meet the needs of students and practitioners (e.g. Dale and Robinson, 2001; Morgan 2004). This is a trend toward, in Illichs (1990) words, the creation of a packaged certificate. Schools package what the industry seems to need and deliver the package to students so they are ready to function in the industry upon graduation. It is when we question the needs of the tourism industry that some concerns become apparent. These questions include the viability of maintaining the status quo, of uncritical reproduction of present practice, and future needed skills of the tourism professional. Examination of trends in the provision of the packaged certificate may help to illustrate these issues.

Present Status of Tourism Education

In an effort to meet the needs of the tourism industry, Business Enterprises for Sustainable Travel (BEST), a think tank comprised of educators and industry professionals, sought to develop a set of curriculum modules to teach students the relevance among principles of sustainable tourism and specific management techniques, and how to apply such knowledge. These modules teach students to identify, understand and address how current and future sustainability issues might impact their operation and their stakeholders (Jurowski, 2002: 544). Sustainable tourism modules have been incorporated in the UK (see Busby, 2003) and (Flohr 2001: 512) recommends that the education sector shouldincorporate sustainable core units into the broad range of all courses on offer, rather than confining the sustainability debate to just specially designed tourism courses. Other tourism programmes incorporate practical vocational experience such as internships (Tribe, 2001, Busby, 2003), student work experiences (Leslie and Richardson, 2000), or a sandwich placement (Busby, Brunt, and Baber, 1997), and practicums (Ernawati, 2003). Croy and Hall reported on a successful example of a partnership between a university and a rural area Omaru, New Zealand in developing tourism knowledge in the students and for the community. Students conducted a destination analysis as a capstone activity for a tourism degree, providing them with the skills, abilities and crucial understanding and appreciation of the tourism environment required by the industry (2003: 22). This interdependency of academia and industry typically results in production of employable students. According to Busby (2001), the relatively high employment rate of tourism graduates can be attributed to acquisition of useful skills and practical experience in the industry as a result of curriculum. Practitioners may also have influence on courses. Examination of the tourism degree module at the University of Plymouth revealed that tourism practitioners in the UK could exert implicit influence on curriculum content. The tourism degree modules were tailored to accommodate vocational as well as intellectual skills (Busby, 2001). Dale and Robinson (2001) propose that three domains should emerge in tourism education. Their model suggests that education programmes should offer: generic degrees that provide broad understanding of the tourism and interdisciplinary skills; functional degrees that focus on particular areas of tourism such as marketing, information systems, or planning; and market/product based degrees that focus on the development of a particular product or market, requiring expertise in the area. All three programmes claim to provide students with the body of knowledge and skills that enable them to function effectively in the industry (Dale and Robinson, 2001).

Contrarian Views
It is questionable whether the goal of tourism education is reducible to solely vocational education directly applicable to daily operations in the tourism industry. Whether skill development and field experiences are successful or not, these vocationally focused tourism education programmes raise

Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 5(2), 25-35.

27

Inui, Wheeler and Lankford (2006) Rethinking Tourism Education questions regarding the role of tourism education. In the midst of the vocational focus of tourism programmes, schools are sending out professionals who could influence the host communities culture and society. Morgan (2004) suggests shifting the educational focus from a rigorous vocational framework to a liberal reflective approach in order to address this issue. Paradoxically, vocational higher education in tourism may need to rediscover these humanistic values in order to fulfil its managerial objectives of creating successful business managers (Morgan, 2004: 98). Is training a primary purpose of tourism education? As tourism educators, should our only responsibility be simply preparing and training students for their future careers?

Research on Tourism Education

Some researchers interests have led to the evaluation of tourism education programmes. Churchward and Riley (2002) examined the relevance of academic tourism education to the occupation as a whole. Their study determined that the majority of industry professionals indicated the relevance of academic subjects to their career. They state that generic academic knowledge such as marketing, recreation, business, economics and others, can be applied to context specific work. However, jobs in tourism are not necessarily similar tourism includes a variety of jobs that require the application of different types of academic knowledge bases, suggesting that tourism education includes a variety of transferable subjects (Churchward and Riley, 2002). Some researchers argue that curriculum studies in tourism are not yet well established, addressing a tension between educators and the tourism industry (Tribe, 2002; Cooper, 2002). Hjalager (2003) found that the students in a Masters Degree programme in Sweden expected schools to qualify them for a particular future career, while they lacked intrinsic motivation to pursue their own goals. Students did know the skills and knowledge contained within the purchased package, but they did not know how to use them in creative or novel ways. That is, they did not learn to reflect upon their body of knowledge. This typically leads to the criticism that most tourism curricula are designed by educators, with minimal representation of the industry (Ernawati, 2003). One solution to involvement on the part of students is a programme based at the University of Northern Iowa the Sustainable Tourism and the Environment Programme, or STEP. This programme involves students in the research process, formulating researchable questions, gathering data and analysing results. These students gain first hand knowledge of the process and value of research. The above examples indicate how tourism education is caught in the dilemma of transferability of the body of knowledge between academia and industry. Conventional tourism education seems to consider employability as a means-end goal, which short-changes students in addressing long range sustainability, and moral and ethical decision making functions.

Need for Sociological Understanding

There is a need to link specific sociological issues to tourism pedagogy. The commonly held view of tourism influences the nature and interpretation of questions (Gramann and Allison, 1999); hence, how we define tourism influences how we perceive and examine tourism. While tourism is widely perceived as a set of business activities or movements of people, it is also a social phenomenon; people travel from place to place, and so do their cultures (Rojek and Urry, 1997). At the same time, tourists and hosts activities, behavioural patterns, and motivations are situated in socially specific contexts (Kinnaird et al., 1994). Tourism influences, and is influenced by, macro level societal ideology, that is, culturally determined expectations and attitudes (Shaw, 1999: 273). The cultures of travellers influence the host communities, and they are circulated and re-circulated within the host communities and (re)produce new values in the host region. Additionally, development of transportation options and media exposure contributes to the popularisation and growth of travel destinations, while the real cost to the host destination is left largely unexplored (Butler, 1999). Early tourism research was likely to focus on economic impacts on different regions or specific aspects of operations, and to consider socio-cultural impact as a part of development. Butler (1999: 99) argued that such fragmentation of the focus creates considerable confusion and

Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 5(2), 25-35.

28

Inui, Wheeler and Lankford (2006) Rethinking Tourism Education inconsistencies with respect to the economic valuation of tourism and its impact, and in academic fields such as marketing and motivation studies. The economic focus of tourism education can be attributed to manipulation on the part of interests of funding bodies as well as the industry. Much attention is paid to positivistic values rather than intangible but real impacts on language, culture, crime, attitudes and behavioural patterns (Butler, 1999). The impact of tourism encompasses broad aspects of both the visitor and host societies. Wang (2000: 9) calls tourism a marginal branch of applied sociology, but tourism does not have a clear legitimate territory which defines the field of study, whereas the sociological disciplines facilitate inquiry and understanding of social aspects of tourism. Such inquiry may be effective in identifying the humanistic values that are required in tourism education. However, little attention and effort is being exerted to expose tourism students, who determine the future of the industry, to sociological issues. In the 1990s, tourism researchers began to suggest an epistemological inquiry of tourism knowledge. Rojek (1997: 71) indicated that, tourism must be primarily approached in terms of epistemology. Edensor (2000) suggests that there is a need for more empirical research in order to further explore and understand the sociology of tourism. Aitchison (2001: 134) argues that, tourism needs to be considered not just as a type of business or industry, but as a powerful cultural arena and process that both shapes and is shaped by gendered presentations of places, people, nations and cultures. Tourism occurs within societies, and therefore like any social phenomenon should be subject to examination in terms of human interaction, or in relation to other social phenomena, the wider context of social trends, social structures, or social demography (Wang, 2000: 9). Wang (2000) acknowledges that the sociology of tourism may look impractical relative to the conventional tourism management literature, yet it also reveals the core issues of tourism practices. Unless students, as well as researchers, critically examine the epistemological issues behind the social phenomena of tourism, they may overlook the true characteristics of tourism impacts. The following examples show how the vocational focus driven by economic consideration could obscure the non-economic impacts of tourism, and suggest a need for a sociological understanding to develop humanistic values among tourism graduates. Two areas of concern serve to illustrate potential problems and conflicts that may be faced by tourism graduates. These two areas are that of authenticity and gender based perceptions. Although a number of sociological issues are mentioned, gender and sight/site inquiry appears to stay within the research field, and is largely absent in dialogue about tourism curricula. Therefore, these topics are used to illustrate the need for sociological background in tourism education.

Sight and Site

Authenticity has become a common and important concept of destination management. Destinations are increasingly focusing on creating a sense of place. The marketing of tourist destinations often employs bodily images to promote tourism attractions. A given tourist attraction is not a random collection; it is organised as if it is authentic (MacCannell, 1999). As represented by the word sightseeing, the base of tourism is visual attraction and viewing. The viewing and the being viewed relationships do not happen by accident. Although tourists think that they want authenticity, most want some degree of negotiated experiences which provide a tourist bubble (a safe, controlled environment) out of which they can selectively step to sample predictable forms of experiences (Craik, 1997: 115). MacCannell (1999: 91) has labelled this behaviour seeking as staged authenticity, rather than pure authenticity. MacCannell (1999: 106) states that, tourists often do see routine aspects of life as it is really lived in the places they visit, although few tourists express much interest in this. It can be said that tourists tend to seek commodified sites, and thus, what they consider as authentic may not necessarily be consistent with the genuine way of living in the host regions. He explained the development of tourism in four phases: naming, enshrinement, mechanical reproduction, and social reproduction. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 5(2), 25-35. 29

Inui, Wheeler and Lankford (2006) Rethinking Tourism Education

In the naming phase, the attractions are identified within the region. This is followed by the enshrinement stage, which frames, displays, and often protects the identified objects. The next stage of the construction of tourist sites is mechanical reproduction. This is when the objects are artificially reproduced and commodified, for example, through photographs, souvenirs, videotaping, and other means. Rojek (1997) calls this indexing of the image. The final stage, social reproduction, includes changes in the host communities social elements; for example, a site or region may be named after the identified attractions. Interestingly, Rojek (1997) adds that such changes could give new value to the site or society, calling the phenomena a dragging of the value of the site from authenticity to commercial. Illustrating these concepts, production of a movie may give new value to a site; people may associate the image of the movie with the site, which is derived from a different or indirect source of interpretation of the site, not a direct representation. For example, a beach may be identified; access and boundaries are created around the area; and it may be photographed for promotion. In fact, Busby and Klug (2001) identified that television programmes and films direct visitors to certain areas. Such movie-induced tourism may have impacts on representation of the site and on the reaction of local residents, because tourists are motivated by various factors that are featured in media (Busby and Klug, 2001). Moreover, the pictured image, such as a gendered bodily image (attractive women, for example), may communicate other artificial images of the site, creating a new value for the beach. Sexual imagery is often used to depict the desirability of places, reflecting the gendered nature of the marketing agents and their fantasies: the sexualised fantasies in tourism promotional materials construct images in the minds of tourists which they subsequently attach to the place. The motivations behind travel are constructed out of the social realities of the lives of those who participate in tourism-related activity (Kinnaird and Hall, 1994: 212). For example, Desmond (1999) argues that the image of Hawaii as a tourist destination is a rendered Hawaii that is pseudo authentic. The act of female hula dancers of Hawaii is mechanically reproduced through pictures, magazines, brochures and other methods, and creates new values that are circulated extensively as if they are original. Cohen supports commodified attractions, because the circulation and reproduction of new values may contribute to sustain the few and disappearing real, genuine or original environmental or cultural attractions, without thereby impinging on the desired experiences of tourists (2002: 272). He also notes that the simulated objects may facilitate the desire of visiting the real ones, rather than curbing the demand. The knowledge of embodied practices of tourism how history and heritage are remembered by people, how initial enthusiasm is turned into a social practice, and how it is converted into commodified sites (Rojek and Urry, 1997) has significant implications to tourism curricula, and the attraction tourists feel toward these sites. Thus, these commodified sites can serve as effective tools to evaluate the appropriate format, content, and design of the promotional messages (Sirakaya and Sonmez, 2000: 353).

Gendered View
The social relationships in tourism are more than just the host or the guest dichotomy (Aitchison, 2001). As discussed, socio-cultural change due to tourism typically includes the commodification of culture and changing value systems of family structures, all of which have central gender considerations (Kinnaird et al., 1994). Some researchers criticise the fact that tourism is a gendered, engendered, sex-segregated, or sex-role stereotyped industry (Jordan, 1997; Aitchison, 2001, 2003; Momsen, 2001; Selnniemi, 2001). Sirakaya and Sonmez (2000) analysed images in each of the US state tourism brochures and found that women are depicted in a traditional stereotypical role more often than men; the brochures portrayed women as feminine, dependent, and subordinate beings. Tourism is constructed out of societies where cultural representations are clearly gendered and are communicated through the structures of the tourism industry (Aitchison, 2001: 108). Consequently, Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 5(2), 25-35. 30

Inui, Wheeler and Lankford (2006) Rethinking Tourism Education tourism is a gendered social action, and it will not be sustained without the enhancement of traditional feminine and masculine roles (Enloe, 1990). Moreover, the social expectations about appropriate gendered behaviours and gender-based power relationships within societies are constantly being (re)negotiated or (re)created (Aitchison, 2003; Shaw, 1999). This gendered component of the process of tourism development is an overlooked subject (Kinnaird et al., 1994). Gender affects tourism while tourism affects ideologies and societal views of gender. The nature of tourism is a visual consumption, which is based on the masculine gaze that views various displays of bodies (Urry, 2002). Tourism is an ego-centric pursuit involving a fascination with self-indulgence and self-delusion through simulacra (Craik, 1997: 114). The hosts also provide visitors with bodily display and bodily actions (Desmond, 1999: 252). The gender-power relationship between the hosts and guests of tourist destinations, and the interaction of the two, often results in changes in the power dimensions of traditional gender roles within the host community. For example, development of tourism may influence traditional family structure or gender roles by providing new employment opportunities; work may enable women to be more economically independent, or create conflict regarding domestic work between men and women. Yet the types of work available in the tourism industry are often gender specific. While womens jobs are characterised as traditional caring roles such as flight attendants, receptionists, and room keepers; the jobs of porters, doorpersons, pilots, or drivers are predominantly male. Since the types of job are stereotyped, when one tries to go beyond the socially defined gender domain they may face limited opportunities or social pressures. The ideology of the gendered view also prevails behind the interaction between tourists and residents. Interaction of local women with female tourists may recreate and change the self-perception of the local women (Selnniemi, 2001; Small, 2001). Moreover, Kinnaird et al. (1994) state that inherent gendered power relations between the hosts and the guests are embodied in tourist activities, such as prostitution. Gender, however, is merely one of the many social aspects of tourism there are other diverse issues that crosscut gender (Rojek and Urry, 1997; Shaw, 1999). There is a need for empirical research and theoretical development regarding inter-gender relationships that occur within the host region and intra-gender relationships that go beyond the gender relationship, intersected by class, race, ethnicity, economic power, political influence and other aspects of social categories (Kinnaird and Hall, 1994). All such social ideologies and societal constructs separately, and jointly, influence gendered perception (Shaw, 1999). Educators need to align their work with other groups and movements as an important part of their involvement in and responsibility for the continuing development and creation of community, culture and society (Purpel, 1998: 361). Social norms determine the concept of making sense or giving meaning. It is educators responsibility to guide students to step outside of their cultural and social comfort zone in order to look at the issues from a new perspective.

Need for Philosophical Foundations

Tourism educators and industry professionals are aware of the interconnectedness between education and the tourism industry. They appear to agree that industry needs and expectations dominate, since they are rooted in practice and application. However, this perception that education is to suit only the employment requirements of the industry may not be the most effective or desired purpose of a college education, nor provide qualified individuals as contributors not only as tourism professionals, but also as thoughtful participants in a global society. Illich (1970: 1) warns that both society and schools confuse teaching with learning, grade achievement with education, a diploma with competence and fluency with the ability to say something new. Putting this in the context of tourism, teaching the packaged tourism education course appears to promise that our students learn the knowledge. A high grade point average means that they are educated, a tourism degree means that they are competent to work, and those who can talk about tourism have a broad body of knowledge.

Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 5(2), 25-35.

31

Inui, Wheeler and Lankford (2006) Rethinking Tourism Education These perceptions, Illich (1970: 11) says, facilitate the packaging instruction with certification, but do not promote true learning and social justice: one of the avowed purposes of a liberal education. Rojek (1997) argues that the field has not thoroughly explored the epistemological view of tourism. The discussion that takes an epistemological approach enquires what we know, experience, and the way we interpret things (Gramann and Allison, 1999). Ryan (1995) notes that educators should cease saying that tourism courses are a required precursor for a job in the industry. The schools role of enhancing employability, Litteljohn and Watson (2004: 412) argue, is more than just providing students with a skill base; it is about educating them for appropriate attitudes and aspirations to guide their career trajectories and industry vision. Similarly, Illich (1970: 17) states that an insistence on skill drill alone could be a disaster; equal emphasis must be placed on other kinds of learning. This does not mean that tourism education should focus on academic subjects at the expense of internships or field experience. It is certainly more than a simple matter of vocational vs. academic education discourse. Tribe (2002: 339) argues that: It may be thought that the purpose of vocational curriculum is self-evidently to equip graduates to operate in their chosen career. But this overlooks an important feature of big industries like tourism. In addition to generating consumer satisfaction, employment, and wealth, these industries leave their imprint on the world on other ways, by forging a distinctive industrial landscape and causing profound change in patterns of social and economic relationships. Tribe (2002) further attempts to theoretically integrate the vocational and academic aspects of tourism education. Accordingly, curriculum should aim at educating philosophic practitioners. The underlying idea of this term is that tourism courses should provide both liberal and vocational education, while developing students ability to reflect and act. Consequently, curriculum should be designed to respond to the needs of the tourism industry to satisfy customers and to produce economic benefits. At the same time, the curriculum should educate students to be reflective individuals who are capable of examining and questioning the social responsibilities of the industry. Morgan (2004) also suggests going beyond vocational education, and states that there is a need for degree-level tourism programmes that enable students to think critically about the future of the industry, as well as to train them for required skills and knowledge. Students need to develop selfawareness and motivation, imagination and creativity. Overall, tourism researchers and educators must discover what Apple (1990: 124) calls the taken for granted perspectives, and they must investigate what constitutes common sense in the development of tourism curricula and the tourism industry. In North American and European countries, students are academically processed to be happy only in the company of fellow consumers of the product of the education machine (Illich, 1970: 34). This narrows their perspective. Students see university education as an investment for a future career and desire its monetary return. Diplomas and certificates offer economic value to the graduates, giving them the power to define and respond to the expectations of society (Illich, 1970). Tourism educators need to ask if employability is the only important end product of tourism education. Constructing meaning is learning, and learning is a social phenomenon. Bruner (1996) states that meaning resides in ones mind, but reflects the cultural context in which one is situated. Giving eventual meaning to employability is merely a reproduction of the contemporary societys dominant ideology. Illich calls such reproduction of social norms as addiction and states that institutions should support personal growth rather than addiction (Illich, 1970: 53). Educational institutions should serve a society that does not yet exist. That is, we should educate students who can create and manage the future. Educators should guide students to go beyond their native predispositions (Bruner, 1996: 17), and the curriculum should be a bundle of planned meanings, a package of values (Illich, 1970: 41), rather than skills. We should guide students in a way to create meanings from and about what they learn through reflection. So how is that possible? How can we influence students to think reflectively? In Bruners (1996) words, it is about enabling students to see themselves outside in not Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 5(2), 25-35. 32

Inui, Wheeler and Lankford (2006) Rethinking Tourism Education inside out, it is about providing a toolkit to critically examine what constitutes their culture. Part of that toolkit is composed of curricula that challenge commonly held understandings of the dominant culture.

Conclusion Rethinking Tourism Education

Tourism is a relatively new field of study that emerged from vocational education. The nature of tourism education seems to contribute toward tourism pedagogies, driven by business and economic considerations. At the same time, this makes tourism education susceptible to social manipulation by these same forces. However, most discussions by educators and developers of tourism curricula tend to centre on a balance between a vocational and an academic focus. The discussion is often merely about efficient and effective transferability of school curricula to daily operations, overlooking the value of learning and the intangible impacts of tourism. It is clear that a focus on employability is at odds, or in conflict with, the goal of producing graduates capable of critical thinking. Tribe (2002: 354) suggests that the philosophic practitioner seeks to develop: practical wisdom and action in the wider world at the same time as earning a living in, and contributing to the economic development of, a specific business domain of tourism. This is working in tourism while taking responsibility for stewardship of its developing world. This paper attempts to suggest that sociological and philosophical perspectives should be addressed in curriculum development at the university level. It serves as an introductory exploration of the nonvocational portion of tourism pedagogy in higher education. It suggests the significance of philosophical foundations and sociology of tourism in going beyond vocational or academic education dichotomies. The discussion may provide insight into the role of higher education in tourism, and suggests the need for creating both skilled and reflective graduates of programmes. Skilled individuals are necessary to the industry, but it is the reflective ones who have the insight to question and improve common practice in the context of tourism development. The brief review of sociology, in the examples of tourism presented, reveals layers of epistemological issues. One of the impacts of tourism is that it is a social phenomenon that (re)creates and (re)produces societal ideologies. The economic impact of tourism is but a simplistic representation of reality, but other realities, among them the complex construction of society, are obscured by this simplistic view. Tourism development and marketing have the potential to reinforce ideological images of the sites and result in stereotyped gender roles. In pursuit of sustainable tourism development, epistemological inquiry should play an increasingly important role in future of tourism education. If tourism programmes are geared toward creating managers, lack of critical inquiry may lead to managers who unintentionally employ gender images that are damaging and oppressive in the interests of marketing. By relying on traditional views of tourism education, professionals and educators may be overlooking questionable practices in the tourism industry and, subsequently, the quality of tourism education. Students are concrete persons with whom they have real ties in the process of cultural and economic reproduction (Apple, 1990: 133). Hence, the role of tourism education is clearly more than processing or enabling students so that they are employable. The sociology of tourism should be integrated into tourism curriculum. Philosophical foundations of tourism would provide students with the basis to address epistemological issues by thinking critically about tourism. Such knowledge would be valuable to practitioners in articulating existing social issues related to tourism, and foreseeing potential consequences of their practices. As educators, we are partners in the process of tourism development. We do not exist in a vacuum; our knowledge and activities represent our own ideological configurations of a preferred society. Without reflective consideration on our priorities, we can easily be reduced to a reproductive force for existing ideologies in society (Apple, 1990). Apple further argues that educators are political beings, Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 5(2), 25-35. 33

Inui, Wheeler and Lankford (2006) Rethinking Tourism Education and thus they should determine where to stand and understand the influence and the consequences of their actions; it is the hidden curriculum that poses moral questions. Educators may take a natural stance that supports common sense, or they could take a theoretic stance that studies the nature of common sense and our understanding of it (Apple, 1990). Giroux (1993) recommends educators provide students with intellectual and moral leadership. Taking the natural stance, our role as educators should be in preparing students to be employable, while the theoretic stance would require educators to facilitate critical thinking and moral decision making in our students. Educators are more than skilled experts in classrooms; they are social leaders, cultural advocates, and moral visionaries, spiritual directors who choose to do their leading, advocating, visioning and directing (Purpel, 1998: 361). Consequently we, as tourism educators, need to revisit the focus of the education that we provide for our future professionals and scholars.

References
Aitchison, C. C. (2001) Theorizing other discourses of tourism, gender and culture: Can the subaltern speak (in tourism)? Tourist Studies, Vol.1 (2), 133-147. Aitchison, C. C. (2003) Exploring Engendered Education and Research: Adapting Models form the Sociology of Education for Leisure, Sport and Tourism in Higher Education. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, Vol. 1(1), 19-28. Association of American Colleges and Universities (2005). Educating for Personal and Social Responsibility. Retrieved November 8, 2005 from http://www.aacu.org/templeton/index.cfm Apple, M. W. (1990) Ideology and Curriculum (2nd Ed.). New York: Routledge. Bruner, J. (1996) The Culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Busby, G., Brunt, P., and Baber, S. (1997) Tourism Sandwich Placements: an Appraisal. Tourism Management, Vol. 18(2), 105-110. Busby, G. (2001) Vocationalism in Higher Level Tourism Courses: the British perspective. Journal of Further and Higher Education, Vol. 25(1), 29-43. Busby, G. and Fiedel, D. (2001) A Contemporary Review of Tourism Degrees in the United Kingdom. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, Vol. 53(4), 501-521. Busby, G. and Klug, J. (2001) Movie-induced tourism: the challenge of measurement and other issues, Journal of Vacation Marketing, 7 (4) 316-332 Busby, G. (2003) Tourism degree internships: a longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, Vol. 55(3), 319-333. Butler, R. W. (1999) Understanding Tourism. In E. L. Jackson and Burton, T. L. (Eds.), Leisure Studies: prospects or the twenty-first century, (pp97-116). State College, PA: Venture. Churchward, J. and Riley, M. (2002) Tourism Occupations and Education: An Exploration Study. International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 4, 77-86. Cohen, E. (2002) Authenticity, Equity and Sustainability in Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 10(4), 267-276. Cooper, C. (2002) Curriculum Planning for Tourism Education: From Theory to Practice. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, Vol. 2(1), 19-38. Craik, J. (1997) The Culture of Tourism. In C. Rojek and J. Urry (Eds.), Touring Cultures: Transformation of travel and theory (pp113-136). New York: Routledge. Croy, W. G. and Hall, C. M. (2003) Developing a Tourism Knowledge: Educating the Student, Developing the Rural Area. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, Vol. 3(1), 3-24. Dale, C. and Robinson, N. (2001) The Theming of Tourism Education: a Three-domain approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 13(1), 30-34. Desmond, J. C. (1999) Staging Tourism: Bodies on Display from Waikiki to Sea World. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Edensor, T. (2000) Staging Tourism: Tourists as Performers. Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 27(2), 322-344. Enloe, C. (1990) Making Feminist Sense of International Politics: Bananas, Beaches, and Bases. Berkley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 5(2), 25-35.

34

Inui, Wheeler and Lankford (2006) Rethinking Tourism Education Ernawati, D. B. (2003) Stakeholders Views on Higher Tourism Education. Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 30(1), 255-258. Giroux, H. A. (1993) Teachers as transformative intellectuals. In H. S. Shapiro and D. E. Purpel (Eds.), Critical issues in American education: Towards the 21st century. New York: Longman. Goeldner, C.R. and Ritchie, J. R. B. (2003) Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies (9th ed). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Gramann, J. H. and Allison, M. T. (1999) Ethnicity, Race, and Leisure. In E. L. Jackson and Burton, T. L. (Eds.), Leisure Studies: Prospects or the Twenty-first Century. State College, PA: Venture. Hjalager, A. M. (2003) Global Tourism Careers? Opportunities and Dilemmas Facing Higher Education in Tourism. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, Vol. 2(2), pp26-37. Illich, I. (1970) Deschooling Society. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc. Jordan, F. (1997) An Occupational Hazard? Sex Segregation in Tourism Employment. Tourism Management, Vol. 18(8), pp525-534. Jurowski, C. (2002) BEST Think Tank and the Development of Curriculum Modules for Teaching Sustainability Principles. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 10(6), pp536-545. Kinnaird, V. and Hall, D. (Eds.) (1994) Conclusion: The Way Forward. In Tourism: A Gender Analysis. Chichester, West Sussex, England: John Wiely and Sons. Kinnaird, V., Kothari, U. and Hall, D. (1994) Tourism: gender perspective. In V. Kinnaird and D. Hall (Eds.), Tourism: A Gender Analysis. Chichester, West Sussex, England: John Wiely and Sons. Leslie, D. and Richardson, A. (2000) Tourism and cooperative education in UK undergraduate courses: are the benefits being realized? Tourism Management, Vol.21, pp489-498. Litteljohn, D. and Watson, S. (2004) Developing Graduate Managers for Hospitality and Tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 16(7), pp91-99. Lewis, A. (2005) Rationalising a Tourism Curriculum for Sustainable Tourism Development in Small Island States: A Stakeholder Perspective. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education, Vol. 4(2), pp4-15. MacCannell, D. (1999) The Tourist: A New Theory of The Leisure Class. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Momsen, J. H. (2001) Conclusion. In Swain, M. B. and Momsen, J. H. (Eds.), Gender/Tourism/Fun(?). Elmsford, NY: Cognizant Communication Corporation. Morgan, M. (2004) From Production Line to Drama School: Higher Education for the Future of tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 16(2), pp91-99. Purpel, D. E. (1998) Social transformation and holistic education: Limitations and possibilities. In H. S. Shapiro and D. E. Purpel (Eds.), Critical Issues in American Education: Transformation in a Postmodern World. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Rojek, C. and Urry, J. (Eds.) (1997) Transformations of Travel and Theory. In Touring Cultures: Transformation of Travel and Theory. New York: Routledge. Rojek, C. (1997) Indexing, Dragging, and The Social Construction of Tourist Sights. In C. Rojek and J. Urry (Eds.), Touring Cultures: Transformation of travel and theory. New York: Routledge. Ryan (1995) Tourism Courses: a New Concern for New Times? Tourism Management, Vol. 16(2), 97-100. Selnniemi, T. (2001) Couples on Holiday: (En) Gendered or Endangered Experiences? In Swain, M. B. and Momsen, J. H. (Eds.), Gender/Tourism/Fun(?). Elmsford, NY: Cognizant Communication Corporation. Shaw, S. M. (1999) Gender and Leisure. In E. L. Jackson and Burton, T. L. (Eds.). Leisure Studies: Prospects or the Twenty-first Century. State College, PA: Venture. Sirakaya, E. and Sonmez, S. (2000). Gender Images in State Tourism Brochures: An Overlooked Area in Socially Responsible Tourism Marketing. Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38, 353-362. Small, J. (2001) Good and Bad Holiday Experiences: Womens and Girls Perspectives. In Swain, M. B. and Momsen, J. H. (Eds.), Gender/Tourism/Fun(?). Elmsford, NY: Cognizant Communication Corporation. Tribe, J. (2001) Research Paradigms and the Tourism Curriculum. Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 39, 442-448. Tribe, J. (2002) The Philosophic Practitioner. Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29(2), 338-357. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 5(2), 25-35. 35

Inui, Wheeler and Lankford (2006) Rethinking Tourism Education Urry, J. (2002) The Tourist Gaze. City Road, London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Wang, N. (2000) Tourism and Modernity: A Sociological Analysis. Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier Science.

Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 5(2), 25-35.

36