Description
The article’s aim is to provide an overview of articles in this issue.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
International tourist behavior: an IJCTHR special issue
J oseph O'Leary Tzung-Cheng Huan
Article information:
To cite this document:
J oseph O'Leary Tzung-Cheng Huan, (2012),"International tourist behavior: an IJ CTHR special issue", International J ournal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 6 Iss 1 pp. 3 - 7
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181211206289
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:18 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 1 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 954 times since 2012*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Antónia Correia, Metin Kozak, J oão Ferradeira, (2013),"From tourist motivations to tourist satisfaction", International J ournal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 4 pp. 411-424http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-05-2012-0022
Metin Kozak, Levent Karadag, (2012),"Who influences aspects of family decision making?", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 6 Iss 1 pp. 8-20http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181211206216
Fang Meng, Yingjiao Xu, (2012),"Tourism shopping behavior: planned, impulsive, or experiential?", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism
and Hospitality Research, Vol. 6 Iss 3 pp. 250-265http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181211246401
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Guest editorial
International tourist behavior: an IJCTHR
special issue
Joseph O’Leary and Tzung-Cheng Huan
Abstract
Purpose – The article’s aim is to provide an overview of articles in this issue.
Design/methodology/approach – The article gives summary information and perspectives on the
articles that appear in the issue and provides information helping readers.
Findings – The article ?rst discusses three articles showing what three journal editors see as topics and
?nd acceptable as research methods. The other three articles appear because they have important
implications that receive limited attention in the literature. These articles address innovative treatment of
problems with information commonly collected on return (repurchase), vague units of count and
ineffective data collection.
Originality/value – This research provides insights on what three journal editors research, and the
priorities and innovative work on the need for better return data, for better terms for units (e.g. of
analysis) and for more effective data collection.
Keywords Return intentions, Effectiveness, Units, MICE visitors, Decision criteria, Tourismmanagement
Paper type General review
Overview
One is never certain what the submissions will look like when a special edition is being
prepared. But this special issue is not what the editors expected when the call was sent out.
What one ?nds in the issue is a dichotomy. Half the articles have journal editors as
co-authors. Kozak is the editor of Anatolia, a journal that recently celebrated its 20th
anniversary. King is a co-editor of Tourism, Culture and Communication, a journal in its tenth
year. Uysal is co-editor of Tourism Analysis, a journal with a 15-year history. The article of
Metin Kozak and Levent Karadag on ‘‘Who in?uences aspects of family decision making’’
follows lines of research that Kozak has pursued for some time. Over the years Kozak has
been concerned with international travel and decision making. Kozak has typically restricted
attention to certain destination and origin countries (e.g. areas of Spain and Turkey and visits
by speci?c types of tourists). This particular research addresses British families coming to
Turkey.
The article of which Brian King is a co-author addresses MICE tourism to Taiwan. The
concern of the article with marketing to MICE tourists, their motivations and their impact
re?ects on matters which King has consulted for international tourism agencies over and on
which he has dealt in books he has written.
Uysal has a diverse enough background that in 2008 he was elected to the Academy of
Leisure Sciences. With Uysal’s expansive background, being involved in a paper on
‘‘Cross-cultural differences in purchase decision-making criteria’’ is not surprising.
DOI 10.1108/17506181211206289 VOL. 6 NO. 1 2012, pp. 3-7, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 3
Joseph O’Leary is
Professor and Dean at
Warner College of Natural
Resources, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins,
Colorado, USA.
Tzung-Cheng Huan is Dean
of the College of
Management, National
Chaiyi University, Fort
Taiwan, China.
Received: September 2009
Revised: April 2010
Accepted: July 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The other three articles in this issue are by Taiwanese authors. The articles can be classed as
methodological. However, these articles appear as much because of having thought
provoking implications as well as because international tourism is considered.
Summary information on articles
The Kozak and Karadag article is one of a few studies addressing both internal and external
factors affecting family decision making in purchasing vacations. Consideration is of family
decisions on travel regarding duration, budget, choice of destinations and accommodation
facilities. Analysis of association between each factor group and the overall satisfaction and
intentions to repeat visit occurs. This quantitative study uses questionnaire data collected in
a departure lounge of a Turkish destination area airport. Data are for British family groups
visiting Turkey in the summer of 2007. The study reinforces ?ndings showing the in?uence of
parents and children over family decision-making. Additionally, the study suggests that a
respondent and the children of a party have a greater in?uence over the intention of family
groups to revisit Turkey than other in?uences considered. The study has implications for
destination managers and travel agencies understanding the in?uence of internal and
external factors affecting families’ vacation decison making.
The Chiang, King and Nguyen study examines MICE visitors to Taiwan. Segmentation is
used to understand socio-demographic characteristics and motivational differences. The
research identi?es three motivation-based MICE segments, namely: value seekers,
‘‘no-value’’ seekers, and education seekers. Also, ?ndings explain the decisions of MICE
visitors on the basis of business, education and leisure- related motives. Analysis results in
identifying signi?cant socio-demographic differences between the segments. The authors
argue that an understanding of the motivations of MICE visitors has the potential to give a
competitive edge for destination marketers. Discussion includes consideration of the
development of prospective tourism strategies for Taiwan, targeting the retention of existing
MICE visitors.
The Ozdipciner, Li and Uysal investigation investigates the effects of culture on purchase
decision criteria. Speci?cally, research is to determine if differences exist between local
tourists, European tourists, and Asian tourists. Convenience sampling was used to collect
906 usable questionnaires from local Turkish tourists, European tourists, and Asian tourists.
Analysis reveals that the three cultural groups differ signi?cantly in their demographic
composition (except education level) and travel preferences. Factor analysis of the decision
criteria attributes result in four factor groupings. Signi?cant differences are found between
the three groups on all four factors. The authors argue that their results are useful for
destination promoters and marketing managers because of showing the need for different
promotion and marketing strategies for different cultural segments.
In the paper by Wang, Huan and Kan concerning learning about return, the key matter
addressed is showing responses like yes or very likely for inbound visitors returning to a
destination can lead to misleading and unreliable information. The paper also pursues
clarifying the kind of return (repurchase) information that should be collected. Government
survey data fromTaiwan’s inbound visitors on intention to return are examined by modeling in
an effort to extract meaningful quantitative information from data. Although 95 percent of
non-VFR leisure visitors indicate returning, the rate is to be inconsistent with 90 percent
actually returning. Actually, the ?nding is that 33 percent returning is consistent with
information collected, other than intention to return. The inconsistency just mentioned is
used in discussing questions asked yielding highly unreliable information. Discussion
pursues changing data collected. Convincing evidence is presented that return data should
be more realistic. A case is made that better information will result from collecting data on
when return is likely and how likely return is.
In the Wu, Dai and Liu article examining effective data collection, the thesis is that unless the
nature of change is being established using speci?c variables, repeated collection of
variables from a population (e.g. annual collection from inbound visitors) results in
accumulation of data with less and less value for academics and practitioners. The idea is
PAGE 4
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 6 NO. 1 2012
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
accepted that collection of general information is valuable for establishing segments and
criteria for sampling to get information that is needed and adequately accurate. Arguments
are illustrated using three years of Taiwan Tourism Bureau’s data collected from inbound
visitors to Taiwan. One sees that collecting detailed information on travel companions,
activities, accommodation, and expectations being met can be useful (e.g. in recognizing
segments and generating statistics). However, the researchers show that too much detail
presents problems. Response burden and problems drawing conclusions are matters
discussed. A basic idea is that careful consideration of who should answer particular
questions can be necessary so that lists of responses do not include responses that are
misinterpreted. Part of the argument being made about being effective is that asking people
appropriate questions limits what is asked and contributes to the quality of data collected.
In the units of observation and analysis article, Liang et al. address the need for tourism
research articles to clearly identify units of observation and measurement. The article relates
using proper units in tourism research to using dimensional analysis in the physical
sciences. Examples focus on international tourism but discussion shows how terms
commonly used can be vague, ambiguous or invalid whether for formulating theory, in
describing analysis or measurement; or in presenting research results. A case is made that a
best practice is needed regarding identifying units of populations and measurement. The
best practice is needed so ambiguous or invalid use of person, visits, visitor and travelers
does not occur. Speci?c terms, such are described as necessary. What is achieved is
showing the necessity of using terms like person-visit and person-visit days.
Discussion
The purpose of focusing attention on articles with co-authors who are journal editors is to
bring attention to work with which these people associate. A problem with tourism research
today is that the diversity of topics and approaches to research can cause dif?culties in
deciding what merits study. Clearly, by being party to the articles that bear their names,
Kozak, King and Uysal show that they consider certain research areas important. The
co-editors of this special issue have their own interests. However, they are pleased to make
available research endorsed by Kozak, King and Uysal without musings or re?ections on the
research.
While not pursuing discussion of articles with editors as co-authors, discussion of the
Taiwanese authored articles clari?es some of the co-editors perspectives on these
articles. The articles can be classed as methodological. However, these articles appear
as a result of thought provoking implications. Consideration of international tourism is
secondary. For example, Wang and his coauthors pursue the matter of intention of
international travelers returning to Taiwan with surprising consequences. Most
international visitors responding to a survey run for the government by a university
statistical institute report they will be returning.
The methodological challenge addressed is how to assess the data if the return is high.
Huan et al. (2003) have reviewed modeling literature on modeling return. However,
examination of the kind of data that Taiwan is collecting from international tourists, and which
is commonly collected, is found wanting for formulating a model that can be estimated in a
straight forward way. Nevertheless, given the data available, a model is formulated and the
estimation shows that instead of the almost 100 percent return respondents suggest, the
return is under 50 percent. Given that being 50 percent out and not knowing if return will be
soon, the result has serious implications both for the value of asking about intent and for use
of information in planning and managing. The authors raise some interesting concerns about
the need for better data (i.e. data that allow meaningful and reliable understanding of
behavior).
Given intention information may be highly unreliable, the research has implications for
theoretical work (e.g. on loyalty) as well as for applied work on marketing or
managing (e.g. for appropriate allocation of resources). The research has broad
implications in two respects. First, return intentions should not be taken as a re?ection
VOL. 6 NO. 1 2012
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 5
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
of reality. Appropriate consideration of return intentions is important generally and not
just for a particular Taiwan data set. Second, recognize that return intention has to do
with a ?ow. Thus data collected should allow understanding that ?ow has general
implications because data are not being collected on when and the likelihood of
return, nor are data being collected (e.g. from Taiwan entry exit records) to allow
checking how intentions relate to reality.
The second article in this group is ‘‘Effective information collection on international inbound
visitors.’’ An article being about effective data collection may evoke the idea of better survey
methodology. In fact, the concern is not with data collection but with what is collected. Given
the presentation by Wang et al. and the article being about what is collected, one might
expect that Wu et al. could be covering matters like intention of returning being out by 50
percent or more. Even though Wu et al. are using the same data on international visitors to
Taiwan as used by Wang et al., they are not involved in comparing data from different
sources or developing quantitative models to determine if a response is inaccurate. In other
words, the effectiveness of concern is not just with getting responses that are more accurate.
Wu et al. make the case that unless the nature of change is being established, repeated
collection (e.g. year after year) of general data from a population (e.g. inbound visitors)
results in accumulation of data with less and less value for planning, marketing and
managing. The argument made is that general data collection should be used in developing
effective data collection. A central idea in the research is that recognizing segments to which
planning and management applies shows different information is needed from different
segments.
Much information collected from all international visitors is only appropriate for a certain
segment while data for a segment may be too detailed or not focused enough to be useful.
Though the study concentrates on data collected from international visitors to Taiwan, the
authors contend that the same results arise with data collected for governments of other
countries (e.g. USA and Canada). An interesting consideration raised is making use of data
collected from international visitors on entry and exit (e.g. by customs and immigration) to
calibrate survey data or to learn if bias exists in estimates from survey data. Wu et al. note
that checking using border crossing data has been done. They also note that if categories
are not coordinated between entry/exit forms and surveys, cross checking becomes
meaningless. The article is published because important research issues are raised that,
particularly for government surveys, have broad implications.
The third article, Liang et al. on units in data collection and analysis, addresses a matter
with broader rami?cations for applied and theoretical research. The authors build a case
that terminology in use in many tourism research articles is inadequately precise and can
lead to confusion. For example, demographics based on person-visits in a year are not
that of the market of unique persons visiting a country in a year. The point is made that
analysis sometimes proceeds on person or party-visits when person or party-visit-days is
more relevant to service delivery. The article ?ows from an article published in the 1990s
that concentrated on data weighting. Need for more thinking on the matters raised
continues. The article is published because issues introduced need to be the subject of
research. The co-editors accept the article’s suggestion that a best practice guideline is
needed. The article takes a step toward providing content for a guideline or set of
guidelines.
Conclusion
Readers may have legitimate concerns about ideas and conclusions in articles in this issue.
However, the publication of the articles has been put in context. Having articles with editors
as co-authors shows work the editors’ support. On the other hand, the co-editors support the
publication of the Taiwanese articles because they contain valuable research. Yes, room for
discussion and challenge remains. For example, while Wang et al. show data on return
intention collected in Taiwan are misleading, what they see as learned may be open to
challenge. The co-editors feel that Wu et al. scratch the surface on important matters. One
PAGE 6
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 6 NO. 1 2012
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
can hope constructive discussion follows. Finally, the co-editors fully expect disagreement
about matters covered in the third article. Debate is expected even though loose use of
terminology is occurring and, in some cases, careful consideration of about the unit of
analysis that is appropriate in particular circumstances would result in more use of units such
as party and person-visit-days.
Reference
Huan, T.-C., Beaman, J.G. and Kozak, M. (2003), ‘‘Implications of models of repeat travel for the concept
of destination loyalty’’, Leisure and Society, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 183-207.
Corresponding author
Joseph O’Leary can be contacted at: [email protected]
VOL. 6 NO. 1 2012
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 7
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Mathilda van Niekerk, Melville Saayman. 2013. The influences of tourism awareness on the travel patterns and career choices
of high school students in South Africa. Tourism Review 68:4, 19-33. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Avital Biran, Kenneth F. Hyde. 2013. New perspectives on dark tourism. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality
Research 7:3, 191-198. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_688214816.pdf
The article’s aim is to provide an overview of articles in this issue.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
International tourist behavior: an IJCTHR special issue
J oseph O'Leary Tzung-Cheng Huan
Article information:
To cite this document:
J oseph O'Leary Tzung-Cheng Huan, (2012),"International tourist behavior: an IJ CTHR special issue", International J ournal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 6 Iss 1 pp. 3 - 7
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181211206289
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:18 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 1 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 954 times since 2012*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Antónia Correia, Metin Kozak, J oão Ferradeira, (2013),"From tourist motivations to tourist satisfaction", International J ournal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 4 pp. 411-424http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-05-2012-0022
Metin Kozak, Levent Karadag, (2012),"Who influences aspects of family decision making?", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 6 Iss 1 pp. 8-20http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181211206216
Fang Meng, Yingjiao Xu, (2012),"Tourism shopping behavior: planned, impulsive, or experiential?", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism
and Hospitality Research, Vol. 6 Iss 3 pp. 250-265http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181211246401
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Guest editorial
International tourist behavior: an IJCTHR
special issue
Joseph O’Leary and Tzung-Cheng Huan
Abstract
Purpose – The article’s aim is to provide an overview of articles in this issue.
Design/methodology/approach – The article gives summary information and perspectives on the
articles that appear in the issue and provides information helping readers.
Findings – The article ?rst discusses three articles showing what three journal editors see as topics and
?nd acceptable as research methods. The other three articles appear because they have important
implications that receive limited attention in the literature. These articles address innovative treatment of
problems with information commonly collected on return (repurchase), vague units of count and
ineffective data collection.
Originality/value – This research provides insights on what three journal editors research, and the
priorities and innovative work on the need for better return data, for better terms for units (e.g. of
analysis) and for more effective data collection.
Keywords Return intentions, Effectiveness, Units, MICE visitors, Decision criteria, Tourismmanagement
Paper type General review
Overview
One is never certain what the submissions will look like when a special edition is being
prepared. But this special issue is not what the editors expected when the call was sent out.
What one ?nds in the issue is a dichotomy. Half the articles have journal editors as
co-authors. Kozak is the editor of Anatolia, a journal that recently celebrated its 20th
anniversary. King is a co-editor of Tourism, Culture and Communication, a journal in its tenth
year. Uysal is co-editor of Tourism Analysis, a journal with a 15-year history. The article of
Metin Kozak and Levent Karadag on ‘‘Who in?uences aspects of family decision making’’
follows lines of research that Kozak has pursued for some time. Over the years Kozak has
been concerned with international travel and decision making. Kozak has typically restricted
attention to certain destination and origin countries (e.g. areas of Spain and Turkey and visits
by speci?c types of tourists). This particular research addresses British families coming to
Turkey.
The article of which Brian King is a co-author addresses MICE tourism to Taiwan. The
concern of the article with marketing to MICE tourists, their motivations and their impact
re?ects on matters which King has consulted for international tourism agencies over and on
which he has dealt in books he has written.
Uysal has a diverse enough background that in 2008 he was elected to the Academy of
Leisure Sciences. With Uysal’s expansive background, being involved in a paper on
‘‘Cross-cultural differences in purchase decision-making criteria’’ is not surprising.
DOI 10.1108/17506181211206289 VOL. 6 NO. 1 2012, pp. 3-7, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 3
Joseph O’Leary is
Professor and Dean at
Warner College of Natural
Resources, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins,
Colorado, USA.
Tzung-Cheng Huan is Dean
of the College of
Management, National
Chaiyi University, Fort
Taiwan, China.
Received: September 2009
Revised: April 2010
Accepted: July 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The other three articles in this issue are by Taiwanese authors. The articles can be classed as
methodological. However, these articles appear as much because of having thought
provoking implications as well as because international tourism is considered.
Summary information on articles
The Kozak and Karadag article is one of a few studies addressing both internal and external
factors affecting family decision making in purchasing vacations. Consideration is of family
decisions on travel regarding duration, budget, choice of destinations and accommodation
facilities. Analysis of association between each factor group and the overall satisfaction and
intentions to repeat visit occurs. This quantitative study uses questionnaire data collected in
a departure lounge of a Turkish destination area airport. Data are for British family groups
visiting Turkey in the summer of 2007. The study reinforces ?ndings showing the in?uence of
parents and children over family decision-making. Additionally, the study suggests that a
respondent and the children of a party have a greater in?uence over the intention of family
groups to revisit Turkey than other in?uences considered. The study has implications for
destination managers and travel agencies understanding the in?uence of internal and
external factors affecting families’ vacation decison making.
The Chiang, King and Nguyen study examines MICE visitors to Taiwan. Segmentation is
used to understand socio-demographic characteristics and motivational differences. The
research identi?es three motivation-based MICE segments, namely: value seekers,
‘‘no-value’’ seekers, and education seekers. Also, ?ndings explain the decisions of MICE
visitors on the basis of business, education and leisure- related motives. Analysis results in
identifying signi?cant socio-demographic differences between the segments. The authors
argue that an understanding of the motivations of MICE visitors has the potential to give a
competitive edge for destination marketers. Discussion includes consideration of the
development of prospective tourism strategies for Taiwan, targeting the retention of existing
MICE visitors.
The Ozdipciner, Li and Uysal investigation investigates the effects of culture on purchase
decision criteria. Speci?cally, research is to determine if differences exist between local
tourists, European tourists, and Asian tourists. Convenience sampling was used to collect
906 usable questionnaires from local Turkish tourists, European tourists, and Asian tourists.
Analysis reveals that the three cultural groups differ signi?cantly in their demographic
composition (except education level) and travel preferences. Factor analysis of the decision
criteria attributes result in four factor groupings. Signi?cant differences are found between
the three groups on all four factors. The authors argue that their results are useful for
destination promoters and marketing managers because of showing the need for different
promotion and marketing strategies for different cultural segments.
In the paper by Wang, Huan and Kan concerning learning about return, the key matter
addressed is showing responses like yes or very likely for inbound visitors returning to a
destination can lead to misleading and unreliable information. The paper also pursues
clarifying the kind of return (repurchase) information that should be collected. Government
survey data fromTaiwan’s inbound visitors on intention to return are examined by modeling in
an effort to extract meaningful quantitative information from data. Although 95 percent of
non-VFR leisure visitors indicate returning, the rate is to be inconsistent with 90 percent
actually returning. Actually, the ?nding is that 33 percent returning is consistent with
information collected, other than intention to return. The inconsistency just mentioned is
used in discussing questions asked yielding highly unreliable information. Discussion
pursues changing data collected. Convincing evidence is presented that return data should
be more realistic. A case is made that better information will result from collecting data on
when return is likely and how likely return is.
In the Wu, Dai and Liu article examining effective data collection, the thesis is that unless the
nature of change is being established using speci?c variables, repeated collection of
variables from a population (e.g. annual collection from inbound visitors) results in
accumulation of data with less and less value for academics and practitioners. The idea is
PAGE 4
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 6 NO. 1 2012
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
accepted that collection of general information is valuable for establishing segments and
criteria for sampling to get information that is needed and adequately accurate. Arguments
are illustrated using three years of Taiwan Tourism Bureau’s data collected from inbound
visitors to Taiwan. One sees that collecting detailed information on travel companions,
activities, accommodation, and expectations being met can be useful (e.g. in recognizing
segments and generating statistics). However, the researchers show that too much detail
presents problems. Response burden and problems drawing conclusions are matters
discussed. A basic idea is that careful consideration of who should answer particular
questions can be necessary so that lists of responses do not include responses that are
misinterpreted. Part of the argument being made about being effective is that asking people
appropriate questions limits what is asked and contributes to the quality of data collected.
In the units of observation and analysis article, Liang et al. address the need for tourism
research articles to clearly identify units of observation and measurement. The article relates
using proper units in tourism research to using dimensional analysis in the physical
sciences. Examples focus on international tourism but discussion shows how terms
commonly used can be vague, ambiguous or invalid whether for formulating theory, in
describing analysis or measurement; or in presenting research results. A case is made that a
best practice is needed regarding identifying units of populations and measurement. The
best practice is needed so ambiguous or invalid use of person, visits, visitor and travelers
does not occur. Speci?c terms, such are described as necessary. What is achieved is
showing the necessity of using terms like person-visit and person-visit days.
Discussion
The purpose of focusing attention on articles with co-authors who are journal editors is to
bring attention to work with which these people associate. A problem with tourism research
today is that the diversity of topics and approaches to research can cause dif?culties in
deciding what merits study. Clearly, by being party to the articles that bear their names,
Kozak, King and Uysal show that they consider certain research areas important. The
co-editors of this special issue have their own interests. However, they are pleased to make
available research endorsed by Kozak, King and Uysal without musings or re?ections on the
research.
While not pursuing discussion of articles with editors as co-authors, discussion of the
Taiwanese authored articles clari?es some of the co-editors perspectives on these
articles. The articles can be classed as methodological. However, these articles appear
as a result of thought provoking implications. Consideration of international tourism is
secondary. For example, Wang and his coauthors pursue the matter of intention of
international travelers returning to Taiwan with surprising consequences. Most
international visitors responding to a survey run for the government by a university
statistical institute report they will be returning.
The methodological challenge addressed is how to assess the data if the return is high.
Huan et al. (2003) have reviewed modeling literature on modeling return. However,
examination of the kind of data that Taiwan is collecting from international tourists, and which
is commonly collected, is found wanting for formulating a model that can be estimated in a
straight forward way. Nevertheless, given the data available, a model is formulated and the
estimation shows that instead of the almost 100 percent return respondents suggest, the
return is under 50 percent. Given that being 50 percent out and not knowing if return will be
soon, the result has serious implications both for the value of asking about intent and for use
of information in planning and managing. The authors raise some interesting concerns about
the need for better data (i.e. data that allow meaningful and reliable understanding of
behavior).
Given intention information may be highly unreliable, the research has implications for
theoretical work (e.g. on loyalty) as well as for applied work on marketing or
managing (e.g. for appropriate allocation of resources). The research has broad
implications in two respects. First, return intentions should not be taken as a re?ection
VOL. 6 NO. 1 2012
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 5
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
of reality. Appropriate consideration of return intentions is important generally and not
just for a particular Taiwan data set. Second, recognize that return intention has to do
with a ?ow. Thus data collected should allow understanding that ?ow has general
implications because data are not being collected on when and the likelihood of
return, nor are data being collected (e.g. from Taiwan entry exit records) to allow
checking how intentions relate to reality.
The second article in this group is ‘‘Effective information collection on international inbound
visitors.’’ An article being about effective data collection may evoke the idea of better survey
methodology. In fact, the concern is not with data collection but with what is collected. Given
the presentation by Wang et al. and the article being about what is collected, one might
expect that Wu et al. could be covering matters like intention of returning being out by 50
percent or more. Even though Wu et al. are using the same data on international visitors to
Taiwan as used by Wang et al., they are not involved in comparing data from different
sources or developing quantitative models to determine if a response is inaccurate. In other
words, the effectiveness of concern is not just with getting responses that are more accurate.
Wu et al. make the case that unless the nature of change is being established, repeated
collection (e.g. year after year) of general data from a population (e.g. inbound visitors)
results in accumulation of data with less and less value for planning, marketing and
managing. The argument made is that general data collection should be used in developing
effective data collection. A central idea in the research is that recognizing segments to which
planning and management applies shows different information is needed from different
segments.
Much information collected from all international visitors is only appropriate for a certain
segment while data for a segment may be too detailed or not focused enough to be useful.
Though the study concentrates on data collected from international visitors to Taiwan, the
authors contend that the same results arise with data collected for governments of other
countries (e.g. USA and Canada). An interesting consideration raised is making use of data
collected from international visitors on entry and exit (e.g. by customs and immigration) to
calibrate survey data or to learn if bias exists in estimates from survey data. Wu et al. note
that checking using border crossing data has been done. They also note that if categories
are not coordinated between entry/exit forms and surveys, cross checking becomes
meaningless. The article is published because important research issues are raised that,
particularly for government surveys, have broad implications.
The third article, Liang et al. on units in data collection and analysis, addresses a matter
with broader rami?cations for applied and theoretical research. The authors build a case
that terminology in use in many tourism research articles is inadequately precise and can
lead to confusion. For example, demographics based on person-visits in a year are not
that of the market of unique persons visiting a country in a year. The point is made that
analysis sometimes proceeds on person or party-visits when person or party-visit-days is
more relevant to service delivery. The article ?ows from an article published in the 1990s
that concentrated on data weighting. Need for more thinking on the matters raised
continues. The article is published because issues introduced need to be the subject of
research. The co-editors accept the article’s suggestion that a best practice guideline is
needed. The article takes a step toward providing content for a guideline or set of
guidelines.
Conclusion
Readers may have legitimate concerns about ideas and conclusions in articles in this issue.
However, the publication of the articles has been put in context. Having articles with editors
as co-authors shows work the editors’ support. On the other hand, the co-editors support the
publication of the Taiwanese articles because they contain valuable research. Yes, room for
discussion and challenge remains. For example, while Wang et al. show data on return
intention collected in Taiwan are misleading, what they see as learned may be open to
challenge. The co-editors feel that Wu et al. scratch the surface on important matters. One
PAGE 6
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 6 NO. 1 2012
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
can hope constructive discussion follows. Finally, the co-editors fully expect disagreement
about matters covered in the third article. Debate is expected even though loose use of
terminology is occurring and, in some cases, careful consideration of about the unit of
analysis that is appropriate in particular circumstances would result in more use of units such
as party and person-visit-days.
Reference
Huan, T.-C., Beaman, J.G. and Kozak, M. (2003), ‘‘Implications of models of repeat travel for the concept
of destination loyalty’’, Leisure and Society, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 183-207.
Corresponding author
Joseph O’Leary can be contacted at: [email protected]
VOL. 6 NO. 1 2012
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 7
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Mathilda van Niekerk, Melville Saayman. 2013. The influences of tourism awareness on the travel patterns and career choices
of high school students in South Africa. Tourism Review 68:4, 19-33. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Avital Biran, Kenneth F. Hyde. 2013. New perspectives on dark tourism. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality
Research 7:3, 191-198. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
8
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_688214816.pdf