Jenny Phillimore and Lisa Goodson
Part I of this book has focused on some of the issues that influence the research process, ranging from philosophical debates to practical concerns. In this first part of the book we have taken some of the concepts now frequently discussed in social science research and considered them in some detail in relation to the study of tourism. Together, the chapters in Part I make a strong argument for tourism researchers to consider emergent thinking emanating from research in other disciplines and fields, and to progress towards taking on board a much broader range of approaches to research. A more embracing approach calls for greater consideration of epistemological, ontological and methodological issues in relation to the researcher as an individual, to the research problem and the research setting, and to how the different elements of the research process can fit together in a complementary fashion. In addition, contributors are calling for much greater levels of transparency in tourism research, with researchers being more open about their personal biography and their experiences in the field, and how these two interact and evolve over time to impact on the different phases of the research process.
Jenny Phillimore and Lisa Goodson showed in their review of post-1996 tourism research that research in the field is still largely based in Denzin and Lincoln's (1998) first to third 'moments' of qualitative research and underpinned by positivist and postpositivist inquiry paradigms. They identified overemphasis of the use of the third person to write depersonalised research accounts and, in relation to this, the tendency for many authors to write using an 'expert' voice that offered a single unifying interpretation of events, places, perceptions and identity without considering the wide range of different perspectives that Keith Hollinshead argues are very much a feature of tourism research. With some notable exceptions, they found that tourism research almost completely lacked any critical reflection of methodological issues, and indeed on occasions lacked even a basic insight into the methodological approach adopted. While there was emphasis on gathering the views of host communities using qualitative