Tourism research quality: Reviewing and assessing interdisciplinarity

Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla https://idus.us.es/ This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Elsevier in Tourism Management, 2016 Vol. 52, on February, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.08.011 Copyright 2016 Elsevier. En idUS Licencia Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 1 TOURISM RESEARCH QUALITY: Reviewing and Assessing Interdisciplinarity Abstract Tourism is by definition an interdisciplinary research area in the framework of the social sciences. There is however an identifiable gap in inter-disciplinary collaboration, which otherwise has the potential to generate new concepts and methods and, by doing so, new knowledge in tourism. Beginning with a review of the definitions of interdisciplinary research, this study centres on an evaluation of the importance and the peculiarities of interdisciplinary research quality. The quality assessment of tourism research is a key issue with particular challenges, as it often simultaneously involves more than one discipline, each with its own notions of research quality. Hence, this review of practical guidelines for interdisciplinary research evaluation advocates real interdisciplinarity in tourism research. Keywords: tourism; interdisciplinary research; interdisciplinary research quality assessment; narrative literature review INTRODUCTION The particularly complex features of tourism mean that it is unlike other areas of research (Darbellay and Stock, 2012). At present, tourism studies include a varied group of institutions, networks, actors and academic territories (Tribe, 2004, 2010) in a nonparadigmatic organization with different epistemological styles. These discrepancies are due to differences between disciplines and their methodologies, between implementation and theory, and the very definition of tourism itself (Darbellay and Stock, 2012). Interdisciplinary research is acknowledged as an essential means to address societal concerns, through an integrated approach (Lyall, 2014). There have been calls for greater interdisciplinarity from both academic institutions and funding bodies, such as Horizon 2020, in Europe. In policy discourse, interdisciplinary research often proves more successful at achieving breakthroughs and relevant outcomes, for both innovation and economic growth, as well as for social needs (Rafols and Meyer, 2010). Academic interest in tourism research has risen dramatically since the 1980s (Benckendorff and Zehrer, 2013), to produce a fragmented and eclectic research corpus. Chronologically, Darbellay and Stock (2012, p. 448) distinguished three phases in a scientific approach to tourism. 1) A holistic approach to tourism as a system. 2) Disciplinary fragmentation and specialization (with the emergence of tourism geography and tourism economics, psychology and anthropology since the 1970s). And, 3) a more recent interdisciplinary cross-fertilization over the period 1995-2000. It is therefore not uncommon to hear claims that tourism is an inter-disciplinary field of study (Tribe, 1997, 2010), in spite of its unified theoretical approach (Echtner and Jamal, 2 1997), partially perhaps due to the broad range of academic backgrounds. For example, the Center for Entertainment and Tourism encourages interdisciplinary studies, research, and education (Bernick and Boo, 2013). According to Walton (2009), the dominant discourses in tourism studies, mainly from the disciplinary perspectives of economics and business administration, but also sociology, anthropology and cultural geography, tend to be focused on the present, adopting instrumental and schematic approaches. Therefore, there appears to be more of a multidisciplinary approach to tourism studies than real interdisciplinarity, in spite of the wide acknowledgement of its importance. The different disciplinary approaches to tourism are a consequence of the difficulties arising from satisfactory descriptions, explanations and understandings of tourism, which when unified can result in an interdisciplinary approach (Darbellay and Stock, 2012). Therefore, the need to integrate distant knowledge has led to a situation where the ability to work across disciplinary boundaries is basic and challenging, as well as cumbersome and difficult to manage (Hacklin and Wallin, 2013). However, to date, tourism has been approached through a multidisciplinary field, as the research object is broken down into its various dimensions and perspectives (Darebellay and Stock, 2012). For example, Hall and Page (2009, p. 4) stated that tourism has usually been “lost” in interdisciplinary spaces between the disciplines of business and social science, while more than a few important contemporary issues in tourism (environmental change, destination management, and human mobility) have links to the discipline of geography. Nevertheless, if we are to understand how society’s touristic dimensions are constructed (Darbellay and Stock, 2012), interdisciplinarity has to be an aim. So, it is necessary to advocate and to find ways of building bridges between disciplines in the study of tourism and therefore essential to find a way to assess the quality of interdisciplinary tourism research. First, this paper conducts a review of the interdisciplinarity research concept. It then goes on to focus on interdisciplinary research quality assessment, with the aim of fostering real interdisciplinary research that might show promising results in the area of tourism. A DEFINITION OF INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH Before looking at the conceptualization of interdisciplinary research, it is necessary to clarify the meaning of a discipline. Although difficult to delimit in a conceptually and empirically precise way, it is normally constituted by groups of people who amass knowledge in a particular area (Huutoniemi, Klein, Bruun and Hukkinen, 2010). Wagner et al. (2011, p.15) defined a discipline in terms of a central problem “with items considered to be facts relevant to that problem and with explanations, goals, and theories related to the problem”. A discipline therefore creates “an intellectual structure, denotes a set of codified rules, beliefs, perceptions and procedures with regard to producing and evaluating knowledge” (Huutoniemi, 2012, p. 898). As Huutoniemi (2012) stated, the tacit standards of a discipline practically rule the canon that to become part of a community of scholars, the scope of the problems that are worth facing, the most appropriate research methods, as well as the norms to accept new knowledge must be accepted; in fact, those rules provide the milestones to evaluate the achievement within a discipline. Disciplinary specialization makes its experts highly proficient 3 in what they do know, even though they may know very little about each others’ skills (Hacklin and Wallin, 2013) or knowledge areas. Although it appears clear that interaction between different bodies of knowledge or research practice generates interdisciplinarity (Huutoniemi et al., 2010), a debate of over 40 years has yet to reach a consensus that would provide us with a single detailed definition (Lyall, Meagher and Bruce, 2014) and contribute to more consistent use of the word (Lyall et al., 2014). This failure is probably due to the complexity of interdisciplinary research (Huutoniemi et al., 2010). For example, multidisciplinarity is sometimes incorrectly used as a synonym for interdisciplinarity and it is worth noting the difference (Alvargonzález, 2011; Choi and Pak, 2006): multidisciplinarity simply refers to a juxtaposition of disciplines, without any of the interchange or the integration that is key to interdisciplinary research. Therefore, multidisciplinarity refers to the traditional juxtaposition of several authorities which are part of faculties, departments, sub-fields, and laboratories, all with relative autonomy (Darbellay and Stock, 2012, p. 453), in such a way that multidisciplinary research is additive, while interdisciplinary research is interactive (Choi and Pak, 2006) and analyses, summarizes and harmonizes the connections between disciplines, so that they become a coordinated and coherent whole (Alvargonzález, 2011). In multidisciplinary research, such as research into global warming and in medical practice, which requires the collaboration of biologists, chemists and pharmacists, among others, disciplinary perspectives are compared rather than changed (Choi and Pak, 2006), (Alvargozález, 2011). Porter et al. (2006) defined interdisciplinary research as a mode of research by teams or individuals that integrates a) perspectives/concepts/theories and/or b) tools, techniques and/or c) information/data from two or more bodies of specialized knowledge or research practice, with the aim of either advancing a fundamental understanding or solving problems, the solutions to which are beyond the scope of a single field of research practice. So, an interdisciplinary approach arises when distinct theories, constructs, methods and disciplinary data become integrated generating a common understanding (i.e, a holistic view) of a complex issue, question, or problem (Wagner et al., 2011). Interdisciplinary research may be characterized by collaboration and the integration of concepts and methods, which in turn may lead to the creation of new concepts and knowledge (Lyall et al., 2014). It is of paramount importance that interdisciplinarity in research should demonstrate an integrative synergy that is different from, and greater than the sum of its parts. This synergy may by monitored by indicators such as (Wagner et al., 2011, p. 16): “a) Micro-combinations of models or global schemes that unify disparate approaches; b) Consulting and partnering modes, not multidisciplinary contracting of services; c) Coordinated and collaborative inputs and an organizational framework; d) Formation of a new community of knowledge holders with a hybrid interdisciplinary language; e) Generation of new insights and disciplinary relationships; f) A larger, more holistic understanding of the core problem or question; and g) Altered perspectives and revised hypotheses”. 4 Integration between disciplines or specialized knowledge areas, at the core of interdisciplinary research, should be purposeful (i.e. a means to an end) and based on validated expertise, in such a way that integration allows the different areas of expertise to relate to each other and to achieve the goal, as pointed out by Boix Mansilla (2006). Integration is therefore a means to serve the specific research purpose, more than it is an end in itself. Darbellay and Stock (2012, p. 453) defined interdisciplinary research into tourism as “the organization of an interface between different disciplines and bodies of knowledge, in order to analyze the manifestations and the existing complexities of society’s touristic dimensions”. Accordingly, interdisciplinary research in tourism requires organized coordination within the research process, to achieve collaboration, integration and knowledge coproduction. Darbellay and Stock (2012) specifically identified three important characteristics of interdisciplinary research in the field of tourism: 1) The “mediation space”, a new space that is created by interaction between different knowledge domains. New notions and constructs emerge from the problems/questions that are raised, because they require more than just a disciplinary view. The newly presented concepts come from fitting the pieces of the jigsaw of different disciplinary elements together. 2) Capitalizing on the different bodies of knowledge by their connections with the aim of reaching a better understanding of tourism. Different epistemological backgrounds among researchers will raise different ways to approach the research object (i.e. different theories, concepts and methods) that may be conflicting. Nevertheless, an understanding of those differences will enrich the skills of researchers in tackling the research object. 3) The circulation of concepts and practices from one discipline to another and viceversa, which should help clarify a set of common terms drawn from various disciplines within the field of tourism. Examples of interdisciplinarity are biochemistry, bioinformatics and geophysics, where the convergence of disciplines have produced both practical and theoretical integration, as in the case of electromagnetism which integrated light, optics, radiant heat, electricity and magnetism (Alvargonzález, 2011). Interdisciplinary research in tourism Interdisciplinary research has the potential to bring the benefits of reliability, power and explanatory efficacy to research, although it requires the interaction of specialists from different fields, who will add different visions and perspectives to a certain research problem (Benckenderoff and Zehrer, 2014). The evolution of tourism has been analyzed by considering the disciplines through which it has been studied. Xiao and Smith (2006), in their analysis of the subject index of the Annals of Tourism Research (from 1973 to 2003) and the development of its content, identified sociology as one of the pioneering disciplines that has contributed to theoretical constructs in tourism and expanded interdisciplinary research in combination with other disciplines. The authors affirmed that the publication of numerous special issues in the journal dedicated to 5 methodological aspects in various areas (such as sociology, geography, anthropology, social psychology, semiotics and gender/feminist studies) greatly assisted progress towards interdisciplinary research, contributing to the development of new constructs and methodologies. However, Xiao, Li and Lin (2011, p. 406), in an analysis of the dissemination of intellectual connections in tourism and its patterns, affirmed that tourism is a “multidisciplinary research community”. They pointed to an approximate split of “5:3:2” between “economics/business professionals; geographers, planners, and environmentalists; and scholars in socio-cultural studies”. It is true that the limits between disciplines are fuzzy as tourism evolves from a multidisciplinary phase into an inter-/trans-/post-disciplinary stage. It also has an increasingly better model of convergence in the subject domains that analyze which type of tourism may be considered the most appropriate for a given theoretical advance (Tribe and Xiao, 2011). Similarly, Benckendorff and Zehrer (2014) explored the three leading tourism journals (Annals of Tourism Research, Journal of Travel Research and Tourism Management) over the period 1996-2010, through a network of co-citations. They identified an important weight of sociology, anthropology, psychology, geography and consumer behavior in tourism, while attaching a far lower weight in tourism research to disciplines in the humanities (such as philosophy, literature, history, religion and linguistics), in areas of applied sciences (media studies, communication, business strategy and law, among others), and in the natural sciences (with an enormous potential to contribute to the fields of tourism). Integration of knowledge in terms of perspectives and theories, techniques, information and data, from all these disciplines is necessary, so that, by overcoming the postdisciplinary fertilization phase, tourism may be considered a fractionally coherent field (Coles, Hall and Duval, 2006; Darbellay and Stock, 2011; Ren, Pritchard and Morgan, 2010), that from a mosaic of topics, theories and methodologies (Laws and Scott, 2015), arrives at true interdisciplinarity. Consequentially, it is a slow process during which tourism researchers have to learn how to assimilate knowledge from other disciplines. As Mair (2006, p. 201) urged, “researchers journeying through the disciplines should take time to investigate the contexts into which they are entering, treat those they meet in those contexts with respect and interest, keep their minds open for new understandings and perspectives and […] be fundamentally changed by their journeys”. Therefore, interdisciplinary research in tourism needs researchers with wide and rich multidisciplinary knowlege, as Li, Buhalis and Zhang (2013) argued when referring to interdisciplinary research on information science and tourism. Unfortunately, turning into a multidisciplinary researcher can leave one open to criticism, although it can, equally, train the researcher to confront the theoretical and the methodological bias that underlies a single discipline (Becken, 2011). Hence, tourism studies even leads to applied tourism studies that examines effective destination management for the enhancement and well-being of the residents at a tourist 6 destination, thereby conveying a theoretical understanding of tourism to tourism science (Brent Ritchie, Sheedan and Timur, 2008). The examples of truly interdisciplinary research are scarce and many of those few examples make that claim. However, they are all in the area of multidisciplinarity, lacking the necessary, fertile integration, such as Kabat et al. (2012) in the area of sustainable development, of these different disciplines. However, the study of tourism destinations deserves a separate mention. Tourism destinations may be considered complex adaptive systems, in which we find different components (the stakeholders), of different sizes and functions, connected in many possible ways, mutually dynamic and nonlinear, with almost unpredictable behavior (Baggio, 2009). Tourism destinations are therefore complex dynamic systems, as they include innumerable, natural resources (da Fontoura Costa and Baggio, 2009), the nature of which cannot be easily explained by a linear relationship between the behaviors and the features of the system components (Baggio, 2009). As early as 2004, Farrel and Ward claimed that their research of complex adaptative tourism systems, from the perspective of adaptative management principles, was interdisciplinary. This same research stream, fostered by Rodolfo Baggio PhD. (Tourism Management), allows us to understand both the general behavior and the dynamic evolution of a tourism destination. It is an appealing line of research, both from a theoretical and from a practical point of view, because it provides “the destination management organization with suggestions for more effective governance of the system” (Grama and Baggio, 2014, p. 92); a line of research with abundant works (Baggio, 2007, 2009, 2014; Baggio, Scott and Cooper, 2010; da Fontoura Costa and Baggio, 2009; Del Chiappa and Baggio, 2015; Grama and Baggio, 2014; Jeeva and Tran, 2014; Madarász and Papp, 2013; Scott, Cooper and Baggio, 2008). One possible approach would be to place researchers from different disciplines in contact with each other, to achieve integrated delivery of academic courses. Thus, a course in international tourism, designed with the aim of integrating various approaches into one course, would mean that teachers could learn from each others’ backgrounds and approaches to tourism. It would facilitate the establishment of new links between different topical areas, as well as prompting ideas for collaborative research projects (Gretzel, Jamal, Stronza and Nepal, 2008). We expect that the recent call for the integration of scientific information in the field of tourism (Li et al., 2013), the works of Becken (2011) on tourism and oil, of Frenzel and Koens (2012) on slum tourism, of Getz (2008) in the field of tourism events, and of Giulianotti and Klauser (2010) on mega-events in sports, may followed up in the research community and may generate true indisciplinarity: integration, interaction, links and focus (Alvargonzález, 2011). INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH QUALITY ASSESSMENT There seems to be a consensus among research councils and administrators at a conceptual level over what interdisciplinary research is, but no consensus over how to measure interdisciplinarity in a practical way (Huutoniemi, 2012). The assessment of a hybrid 7 compound of more than one discipline, which is by definition interdisciplinary research, is no easy task (Huutoniemi, 2012). It involves more than one discipline with various (and sometimes, conflicting) notions of quality, leading to heterogeneous criteria at each level in a research context. These disciplines differ in terms of the knowledge domain, the institutional location as well as the purpose and the forms of their integration (Klein, 2006), generating a complex management framework. The range of epistemological backgrounds, scientific aims and theoretical, conceptual and methodological instruments (Darbellay and Stock, 2012) contribute to these difficulties in an environment, where interdisciplinary tourism research has to strive to achieve quality. However, interdisciplinary research assessment is, at the same time, an inescapable duty, whether at a research funding level or at a journal level. Peer-Review Evaluation Peer review is typically applied to the evaluation of projects and their outputs, the academic performance of individuals, and the assessment of research results, their value and their merit (Molas-Gallart, 2012). When academic work is assessed in a peer-review process, the work of a researcher is evaluated by colleagues with a proven track record; a commonly accepted indicator of ‘inter-rater reliability’ (i.e. the degree of agreement between raters) (Huutoniemi, 2012). The underlying assumption is that the experts will certify proposed or completed works using the so called “yardstick” of rational and “objective” decision-making (Klein, 2006). However, as interdisciplinary research is a new synthesis of expertise, peers in the strict sense of the word do not exist, as no one but those conducting the interdisciplinary research are competent in all aspects of the new combinations of knowledge (Laudel, 2006). And the tendency of the peer evaluators to favour research in to their own fields may cause bias in decision-making against interdisciplinary research. According to Huutoniemi (2012), two cognitive tendencies can be identified as especially detrimental in interdisciplinary research evaluation. First, “cognitive homophily” can occur, when those who evaluate are likely to perceive merit, if the assessed work reminds them of or is similar to their own research. Second, the “gate keeping” tendency takes place when, out of a sense of self-protection, evaluators are inclined to be conventional, refusing new perspectives or approaches to protect their epistemic area. Both tendencies may explain why peers tend to favour research in their own field (Laudel, 2006). The features of a high-quality peer-review process are reliability (referring to different reviewer’s agreement level), no-bias (i.e. fair) and validity, that is, recognition of the “best” research. However, reliability in a scientific work assessment context is virtually impossible to achieve (Cole, 2000). In the case of interdisciplinary research, a high degree of agreement between the reviewers could be an indicator of an inappropriate review process, given that an excessive degree of agreement might be due to little diversity in the selection of reviewers and might therefore show an inappropriate review process in the case of interdisciplinary research (Bailar, 1991). Additionally, the analysis of bias influenced by mother tongue preferences and gender has shown how researchers mistakenly see a similar level of quality in all of the various works under evaluation (Lee, Sugimoto, Zhang and Cronin, 2013). Finally, predictive validity is 8 usually inferred through bibliographic criteria, such as the number of times a publication appears in a citation, as an indicator of the impact of that investigation. However, it is broadly accepted that a panels of experts 1 of varied backgrounds is better equipped to assess the quality of interdisciplinary research than any individual authority, since the collective deliberations of its members generate a more comprehensive and unbiased assessment than a review by a handful of unconnected evaluators (Boix Mansilla et al., 2006; Langfeldt, 2006). Lamont (2009) and Lamont et al. (2006) analyzed peer-review panels on multidisciplinary research and found that both institutional bias avoidance and the promotion of methodological pluralism can be achieved in a group context (considering that when reviewers plead for their field too powerfully their credibility is weakened). Therefore, the selection process of the reviewers of an interdisciplinary study is a key factor. So, in the case of the evaluation of interdisciplinary research projects for funding, Laudel (2006) highlighted the importance of the discussion group both between reviewers and between publishing authors and reviewers. More recently, Pohl et al. (2011) proposed a set of questions to assess interdisciplinary research in the scope of research project evaluation: the composition of the panel of evaluators, the inclusion of that panel of specialists and generalists, and the design of a review process adapted in accordance with the purpose of the type of research to evaluate. Discussion between authors and reviewers on the evaluation of interdisciplinary research for publication purposes takes place through the exchange of comments and responses to authors at different stages of the review processes. However, there is no interaction between reviewers, who should share a moderate degree of interdisciplinarity, due to the importance of shared standards for communication and consensus. Additionally, Li, Buhalis and Zhang (2013) prudently stated that it is vital for scholars “to get informed about state-of-the-art knowledge assessment, especially for those with a single disciplinary background who want to enter the interdisciplinary domain” (p. 302). Similarly, journal referees should acquire the same skills, in order to assess an interdisciplinary manuscript and editors may, at the very least, try to find referees from the different disciplines who are involved, to gain a complete picture. And then, ideally, communication between those reviewers should ensue, so as to exchange point of views regarding the manuscript content. Furthermore, this last type of action would in itself, over time, improve the skills of referees at assessing interdisciplinary manuscripts. These proposals are supported by the results of Huutoniemi (2012) on peer-review deliberations among the members of four different evaluation panels, which concluded that deliberation helps to resolve disagreements, due to epistemological differences between the different disciplinary expertise involved in the research. Hence, the role of the editor in the selection of the reviewers and in the establishment of norms, which guide the communication between them, is an important pillar in the evaluation of interdisciplinary research. 1 Names may vary, for example, in AIFR (Academy of Finland Integrative Research)- joint panelsor in US National Academies of Sciencematrix evaluation (combining separate discipline-based reviews with a full panel review involving both disciplinary and interdisciplinary members). 15 Laudel, G. (2006). Conclave in the Tower of Babel: how peers review interdisciplinary research proposals. Research Evaluation, 15(1), 57-68. Laudel, G. (2006). Conclave in the Tower of Babel: how peers review interdisciplinary research proposals. Research Evaluation, 15(1), 57-68. Laws, E. and Scott, N. (2015). Tourism research: building from other disciplines. Tourism Research Recreation, 40(1), 48-58. Lee, C.J., Sugimoto, C.R., Zhang, G., Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2-17. Li, N., Buhalis, D. and Zhang, L. (2013). Interdisciplinary research on information science and tourism. In L. Cantoni and Z. Xiang (eds.), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism (pp. 302-313), Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. DOI: 10.1007/978-3642-36309-2. Lyall, C., Meagher, L. and Bruce, A. (2014). A rose by other name? Transdisciplinarity in the context of UK research policy. Futures, DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2014.08.009. Lyall, C., Tait, J, Meagher, L., Bruce, A. and Mardsen, W. (2011). A short guide to evaluating interdisciplinary research. ISSTI Briefing note (number 9). http://www.ei.udelar.edu.uy/resources/1/9/0/1/0_0d69f2c521bb166/19010_c3bef21aec0471 d.pdf Madarász, E. and Papp, Z. (2013). Delimiting the “Balaton Riviera” tourist destination by using network analysis. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin, 62(3), 289-312. Mair, H. (2006). The potential of interdisciplinarity for leisure research. Leisure Sciences, 28, 197-202. Mollas-Gallart, J. (2012). Research governance and the role of evaluation: a comparative study. American Journal of Evaluation, 33(4), 583-598. Pearce, P.L. (1993). The study of tourism: Foundations from psychology. London: Emerald. Pohl, C., Perrig-Chiello, P., Butz, B., Hadorn, G.H., Joye, D., Lawrence, R., Nentwich, M., Paulsen, T., Rossini, M., Truffer, B., Wastl-Walter, D., Wiesmann, U., Zinsstag, J. (2011). Questions to evaluate interand transdisciplinary research proposals. Working paper, td-net for Transdisciplinary Research, Berne. Porter, A.L., Roessner, J.D., Cohen, A.S. and Perrault, M. (2006). Interdisciplinary research: meaning, metrics and nurture. Research Evaluation, 15(3), 187-195. Rafols, I., and Meyer, M. (2010). Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics, 82(2), 263-287. Ren, C., Pritchard, A. and Morgan, N. (2010). Constructing tourism research: A critical inquiry. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4), 885–904. 16 Ren, C., Pritchard, A. and Morgan, N. (2010). Constructing tourism research: A critical inquiry. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4), 885–904. Research information network (2010). Peer review. A guide for researchers. http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/peer-reviewguide-researchers Schwartz, S.J. and Zamboanga, B.L. (2009). The peer-review and editorial system. Ways to fix something that might be broken. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1), 54-61. Scott, N., Cooper, C. and Baggio, R. (2008). Destination networks: four Australian cases. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(1), 1269-188. Tribe, J. (1997). The indiscipline of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 638657. Tribe, J. (2004). Knowing about tourism. Epistemological issues. In J. Phillimore & L. Goodson (Eds.), Qualitative research in tourism: Ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies (pp. 46–62). London: Routledge. Tribe, J. (2010). Tribes, territories and networks in the tourism academy. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(1), 7-33. Tsang, E.W.K. (2014). Ensuring manuscript quality and preserving authorial voice: The balancing act of editors. Management and Organizational Review, 10(2), 191-197. Tsang, E.W.K. and Frey, B.S. (2007). The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their ideas. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6(1), 128-136. Wagner, C.S., Roessner, J.D., Bobb, K, Klein, J.T., Boyack, K.W., Keyton, J, Rafols, I and Börner, K. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 14-26. Walton, J.K. (2009). Prospects in tourism history: Evolution, state of play and future developments. Tourism Management, 30 (6), 783-793. Weiler, B., Moyle, B. and McLennan, C. (2012). Disciplines that influence tourism doctoral research. The United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(3), 1425-1445. Weiller, B., Moyle, B. and McLennan, C. (2012). Disciplines that influence tourism doctoral research. The United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(3), 1425-1445. Xiao, H. and Smith, S.L.J. (2006). The making of tourism research. Insights from a Social Sciences Journal. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(2), 490-507. Xiao, H., Li, M. and Ki Lin, E. C. (2011). Diffusion patterns and knowledge networks: An inductive analysis of intellectual connections in multidisciplinary tourism studies. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 28(4), 405– 422. 17 Zhao, W. and Brent Ritchie, J. R. B. (2007). A supplementary investigation of academic leadership in tourism research: 1985-2004. Tourism Management, 28(2), 476-490.