دانشگاه مازندران

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات28
تعداد شماره‌ها427
تعداد مقالات4,151
تعداد مشاهده مقاله6,723,809
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله4,978,436
ضیایی, محمود, عباس پور, نیلوفر. (1394). جایگاه نظام علمی گردشگری: از رویکرد رشته ای تا میان رشته ای. پژوهشنامه مدیریت اجرایی, 4(13), 8-28.
محمود ضیایی; نیلوفر عباس پور. "جایگاه نظام علمی گردشگری: از رویکرد رشته ای تا میان رشته ای". پژوهشنامه مدیریت اجرایی, 4, 13, 1394, 8-28.
ضیایی, محمود, عباس پور, نیلوفر. (1394). 'جایگاه نظام علمی گردشگری: از رویکرد رشته ای تا میان رشته ای', پژوهشنامه مدیریت اجرایی, 4(13), pp. 8-28.
ضیایی, محمود, عباس پور, نیلوفر. جایگاه نظام علمی گردشگری: از رویکرد رشته ای تا میان رشته ای. پژوهشنامه مدیریت اجرایی, 1394; 4(13): 8-28.

جایگاه نظام علمی گردشگری: از رویکرد رشته ای تا میان رشته ای

برنامه ریزی و توسعه گردشگری
مقاله 1، دوره 4، شماره 13، شهریور 1394، صفحه 8-28    اصل مقاله (428.72 K)
نوع مقاله: علمی-پژوهشی
نویسندگان
محمود ضیایی* ؛ نیلوفر عباس پور
دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی
تاریخ دریافت: 06 مرداد 1394،  تاریخ بازنگری: 21 شهریور 1394،  تاریخ پذیرش: 25 شهریور 1394 
چکیده
انسان برای سهولت مطالعه­ی جهان به طبقه­بندی دانش پرداخته و این طبقه­بندی امکان انباشت و بازیابی دانش را برای وی فراهم می­کند. قرارگیری انواع دانش در مرزهای مشخص به تدریج رشته­های دانشگاهی را برای مطالعه­ی نظام­مند پدیده­های جهان به وجود آورده است. گردشگری، به عنوان یکی از پدیده­های دنیای معاصر، موضوعی پیچیده و چندوجهی است که بررسی آن عبور از مرزهای رشته­های رایج دانشگاهی و اتخاذ رویکرد تلفیقی را می­طلبد. در این مقاله، جایگاه مطالعات گردشگری در میان رشته­های دانشگاهی و رویکردهای مطالعاتی آن بررسی شده است. بررسی­ها نشان می­دهد که ماهیت پدیده­ی گردشگری به گونه­ای است که شناخت آن نیازمند مطالعات میان­رشته­ای و چندرشته­ای است و تلاش برای ارتقای جایگاه آن از یک حوزه­ی مطالعاتی به یک رشته شاید ناشی از فقدان اعتماد به نفس آکادمیک و غلبه­ی دیدگاه وحدت علوم باشد. در نهایت، موضوع رشته بودن گردشگری با توجه به معیار الگوهای هرست، کوهن و برنشتاین نیز مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. سرانجام، پس از بررسی جایگاه رشته­ای مطالعات گردشگری با اتخاذ این الگوها، گذر از محدودیت­های پارادایم­های رشته­ای و اتخاذ و تلفیق روش­شناسی رشته­های مختلف برای انجام پژوهش­های تلفیقی به عنوان راهکارهای توسعه و تقویت مطالعات گردشگری پیشنهاد شده است.
کلیدواژه‌ها
رشته؛ حوزه ی مطالعاتی؛ الگوی هرست؛ پارادایم علمی کوهن؛ الگوی برنشتاین
عنوان مقاله [English]
The Position of the Scientific System of Tourism: From a Disciplinary Approach to an Interdisciplinary One
نویسندگان [English]
Mahmoud Ziaee؛ Niloofar Abbaspoor
چکیده [English]
Extended Abstract
In order to facilitate the study of the world, human beings have tried to classify knowledge. Such a classification allows for accumulation of knowledge and making it more accessible. Putting knowledge within certain borders has gradually created academic disciplines for the systematic analysis of the world's phenomena. Tourism, as a phenomenon of the contemporary world, is a complicated and multidimensional topic the study of which necessitates crossing the borders of common disciplines and adopting a hybrid approach. This paper explores the position of tourism studies among academic disciplines and their study approaches. The analyses show that tourism phenomenon is of a nature whose understanding needs interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary studies; and trying to promote its position from a field of study to a discipline may be due to a lack of academic self-confidence and the dominance of the thesis of unity of science. Then, the disciplinarity of tourism studies has been analyzed against the criteria of Hirst, Kuhn and Bernstein's models. Finally, having analyzed the disciplinary position of tourism studies using these models, crossing the limits of disciplinary paradigms, adopting and integrating the methodologies of different disciplines in order to conduct hybrid researches are presented as the key to develop and enrich tourism studies.
 Introduction
Knowledge has long been classified into different branches and has been ranked accordingly. Aristotle, for example, has ranked knowledge in his Nicomachean Ethics; and Al-Farabi, too, ranked knowledge as theoretical, intellectual, moral, and practical, respectively (DavariAradakani, 2011:192) . Previously, scholars mastered all branches of science (Zarghami, 2009), while in modern world an expertise in a certain science is needed. Today, scholars break down natural and social phenomena into smaller parts in order to be studies more precisely and deeply. Thus, different branches as knowledge are formed. This classification, known as Technologies of Normalization by Foucault, is believed to be a powerful and insidious form of domination (Dreyfus and Rabinow, 1983:198). Apart from Foucault, other postmodern intellectuals such as Rutherford, Lyotard and Derrida have criticized the artificial classification of knowledge and have considered it to be hindering the understanding the natural order of phenomena. In order to overcome this limitation, they propose interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary studies. Taking such approaches not only does solve the problems of expertizing in a certain field, but also creates new research potentials for different scientific fields (Barzegar, 2009).
The two terms of multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary are often used interchangeably. Fundamentally, they are not synonymous. Multi-disciplinary studies imply simplythat more than one discipline is brought to bear on some topic. Inter-disciplinary studies imply something extra, that the methodology involves working between the disciplines, blending various philosophies and techniques so that the particular disciplines do not stand apart but are brought together intentionally and explicitly to seek a synthesis. With inter-disciplinary studies there is an anticipated synergistic outcome stemming from the combined insights (Leiper, 1981).
Tourism, as a phenomenon of the contemporary world, is a complicated and multidimensional topic the study of which necessitates crossing the borders of common disciplines and adopting a hybrid approach. Several discussions have been formed so far regarding the methodological issues of tourism studies and its research approaches. Reviewing these discussions shows two general stands towards tourism studies: tourism studies as a discipline and as a field of study. Therefore, following questions are raised:
-            Is tourism studies currently a discipline or a field of study?
-            Will tourism theories eventually become rich and coherent enough in order to be considered a discipline?
-            What is the appropriate study approach for tourism subjects?
 Materials and Methods
Having analyzed the viewpoints of tourism scholars regarding the disciplinarity of tourism, this paper incorporates the models of Hirst, Kuhn and Bernstein in order to examine the qualities of tourism studies. None of these models are about tourism specifically, yet this paper checks the features of tourism against the criteria presented in these models to see whether it qualifies as a discipline or a field of study.
 Discussion and Results
The analyses and the qualities attributed to tourism studies show that tourism is essentially a field of study rather than a discipline. Specifically, according to Hirst’s model, it has none of the four criteria needed to be a discipline. Adopting the science development path of Kuhn, tourism can only be considered a pre-science due to the presence of numerous discussions about its principles, various disordered studies, random data collection, lack of theoretical assumptions, lack of models and frameworks, etc. Using Bernstein’s approach, however, the main problem impeding tourism’s theoretical development seems to be caused by an inappropriate, dominant philosophical and methodological approach (Echtner and Jamal, 1997).
 Conclusion
Both philosophically and practically, it seems that development of tourism studies into a coherent and independent discipline is not likely. Today, a collaboration among disciplines and conducting multidisciplinary and preferably, interdisciplinary researches is recommended in order to develop and enrich tourism as a newly emerged field of study.

References:
Alavipour, M. and Nematpour, Ali (2009). The psycho-political: Erich fromm and the crisis in modern world, Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities, 1(3): 141-167. (In Persian)
Barzegar, E. (2009). History, quality, and philosophy of interdisciplinary sciences, Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities, 1(1): 37-56. (In Persian)
Bernstein, R.J. (1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism: Science, hermeneutics, and praxis, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Blaikie, N.(2003) Analyzing quantitative data, London: SAGE Publications Inc.
Botterill, D. (2001). The Epistemology of a set of tourism studies, Leisure Studies, 20 (3), 199-214.
Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What is this thing called science? (3rd ed.) Queensland, Australia : University of Queensland Press.
Botterill, D. (2001). The Epistemology of a set of tourism studies, Leisure Studies, 20 (3), 199-214.
Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What is this thing called science? (3rd ed.) Queensland, Australia : University of Queensland Press.
Christaller, von. Walter. (1955). Beiträge zu einer Geographie des fremdenverkehrs (Contributions to a Geography of theTourist Trade), Erdkunde, 9 (1), 1-19.

10. Coles, T., Hall, C. M. and Duval, D. T. (2009). Post-disciplinary tourism. in J. Tribe, Philosophical Issues in Tourism (pp. 80-100) Bristol: Channel View Publications.
11. Coles, T., Hall, C. M. and Duval, D.T. (2006). Tourism and post-disciplinary enquiry, Current Issues in Tourism, 9 (4-5), 293-319.
12. Dale, C. and Robinson, N. (2001) The theming of tourism education: A three-domain approach, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13 (1): 30-34.
13. Dann, G., Nashh, D. and Pearce, P. (1988). Methodology in tourism research, Annals of Tourism Research, 15, 1-28.
14. Davari Ardakani, R.  (2011). Humanities and development planning (2nd ed.), Tehran: Fardaee Digar (Another Tomorrow). (In Persian)
15. Donald, J. (1986). Knowledge and the university curriculum, Higher Education, 15, 267-282.
16. Dreyfus, H. and Rabinow, P. (1983). Michel foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (2nd ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17. Echtner, C.M., and Jamal, T.B. (1997). The disciplinary dilemma of tourism studies, Annals of Tourism Research, 24 (4): 868-883.
18. Fadaei, G.  (2010). Science (LIS), a discipline or an interdiscipline?, Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities, 2(2): 1-18. (In Persian)
19. Franklin, A. and Crang, M. (2001). The trouble with tourism and travel theory?, Tourist Studies, 1 (1): 5-22.
20. Graburn, N. and Jafari, J. (1991). Introduction: tourism social science, Annals of Tourism Research, 18 (1), 1-11.
21. Hall, M. and Page, S. (2006). The geography of tourism and recreation: Environment, place and space (3rd ed.), London, Routledge.
22. Hall, M., Williams, A. and Lew, A. (2004). Tourism: Conceptualizations, institutions, and issues. In A. A. Lew, C. M. Hall, & A. M. Williams, A Companion to Tourism (pp. 3-21), Malden, MA, USA: Blackwell Publishing.
23. Heidari Chianeh, R., Nasrollahzadeh, Z. and Abdollahi, M.(2012). An Analysis on the Higher Education System in Iran, based on SWOT, Journal of Tourism Planning and Development. 1(1): 129-152. (In Persian)
24. Hirst, P. (1965). Liberal education and the nature of knowledge. In R.D. Archambault, Philosophical Analysis and Education, (pp. 76-93) Oxford: Routledge.
25. Hirst, P. (1974). Knowledge and the curriculum, London: Routledge.
26. Holden, A. (2005). Tourism studies and the social sciences, London: Routledge.
27. Jafari, J. (2003). Research and scholarship: the basis of tourism education, The Journal of Tourism Studies, 14 (1), 6-16.
28. Jafari, J. and Aaser, D. (1988). Tourism as the subject of doctoral dissertations, Annals of Tourism Research, 15 (3): 407-429.
29. Keat, R. and Urry, J. (2010). Social theory as science. London: Taylor & Francis e-Library.
30. Kreisel, W. (2004). Geography of leisure and tourism research in the german-speaking world: Three pillars to progress, Tourism Geographies, 6 (2): 163-185.
31. Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
32. Leiper, N. (1981). Towards a cohesive curriculum in tourism: The case for a distinct discipline, Annals of Tourism Research, 8 (1): 69-84.
33. Leiper, N. (2000). An emerging discipline, Annals of Tourism Research, 27 (3): 805-509.
34. Semmens, K. (2005). Seeing hitler's germany: tourism in the third reich, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
35. Tierney, W. and Sallee, M. (2008). Praxis. In L. M. Given, The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 675-679), Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
36. Toulmin, S. (2001). Return to reason, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
37. Tribe, J. (2004). Knowing about tourism: Epistemological issues. In J. Phillimore, & L. Goodson, Qualitative Research in Tourism: Ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies (pp. 46-62), London: Routledge.
38. Tribe, J. (2006). The truth about tourism, Annals of Tourism Research, 33 (2), 360-381.
39. Veal, A.J. (2006). Research methods for leisure and tourism: A practical guide (3rd ed.), Essex: Prentice Hall.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
tourism studies؛ discipline؛ field of study؛ interdisciplinary؛ multidisciplinary, Hirst’s model, Kuhn’s paradigm of science, Bernstein’s model
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 2,943
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,880


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب