- Email: [email protected]
Additional observations on restaurants and dining out reply to Haywood
REJOINDERS AND COMMENTARY
Additional Observations on Restaurants and Dining Out Reply to Haywood Stephen L. J. Smith
Department of Recreation University of Waterloo, Canada “Restaurants and Dining Out” grew with the writing and with the revising for several reviewers. It eventually reached the rather unconventional length of 34journal pages. Despite this length much more needed to be said about the subject of the paper. Michael Haywood’s comment on the paper is a welcome addition to the information included in my original work. His insights as “a regular observer and student of the foodservice industry.” help to supplement my own geographic perspectives. In particular. his critique of the quality and definitional content of Statistics Canada’s data on the foodservice industry are worthy of note. Haywood carefully describes the limitations in any study that used Canadian census data: at a more general level, this same description serves as an indictment of the apparent lowly status census and other government officials assign restaurants and virtually every other sector of the tourism industry. As an illustration of the lack of government concern about providing current and adequate data on tourism, one can compare the number of Statistics Canada publications on restaurants with various other subjects. The most recent Statistics Canada Publications Catalogue index lists only three publications for restaurants. including the now out-of-date 1978 study I used in my paper. This is the same number of census publications on sewage and only l/5 of the number of publications on many individual agricultural products such as peas or beans. I do not intend to discount the contribution of sewage services or of peas to the gross national product or to the quality of urban life, but I am equally unwilling to see the restaurant business or any other sector of the tourism industry discounted. Haywood’s suggestions of alternative classifications of foodservice operations helps to highlight the delightful complexity of this particular tourism industry sector. One can add additional classification systems to his list. such as ones based on clientele characteristics. the age of the indivldual businesses or the number of employees. It all depends on the focus of one’s interest. My focus happens to be on a classification system that is intended to reveal meaningful aggregate patterns of urban restaurants. Haywood’s observations on the complexity of site selection process raises many issues that are of great relevance to both entrepreneurs and to researchers. Although he is correct in noting that I did not consider a number of important site variables, I would suggest that many actual site selection decisions are based on even slimmer evidence and virtually no formal analysis. It is, of course, as easy for me to criticize how real entrepre-
102
1985 ANNALS
OF TOURISM
RESEARCH
REJOINDERS
AND COMMENTARY
neurs make real decisions as it is for any reviewer to criticize someone else’s research design at the abstract level possible in ‘Comments” and “Rejoinders” communications to research journals. It is another matter to actually be able to obtain data on many of the variables that Haywood identifies as important. For example, data on profitability, operating costs, and management strategies and problems are usually not available to an independent researcher. As a final point, one needs to be clear about the perspective used in any particular research design. Many of Haywood’s suggestions apply more directly to questions about how individual entrepreneurs do (or should1 select the best site for their business. This is a different issue than my concern about the identification and analysis of aggregate spatial patterns among urban restaurants. Both are legitimate topics; both have some relevance to the other; but both are fundamentally independent questions. In closing. Haywood’s comments will be of assistance to other researchers who examine the foodservice industry in the context of tourism. I hope our brief dialogue will help to stimulate further inquiry and will improve the quality of future research on restaurants and dining out. Submitted 24 May 1984 Accepted 4 June 1984
An Alternative to an Alternative Comment on Uzzell Richard
Chalfen
Department of Anthropology Temple University, USA Uzzell’s recent paper. “An Alternative Structuralist Approach to the Psychology of Tourism Marketing” (Annals 11:79-99. 1984) proposes and demonstrates a semiotic analysis of 1983 brochures published by six package holiday companies. The author discovers that tour operators “focus on locations which promote self-actualization, social interaction, sexual arousal, and excitement. . . . furthermore these media reinforce predominant sexual, racial, and national stereotypes , . . (and they) contribute to the creation of a mythology which treats holidays as adiberating. constraint-free, annual escape.” Uzzell primarily relies on a framework suggested by Roland Barthes (1977). that is contextually located within a construction of social reality perspective suggested by Berger and Luckmann (197 1) and Goffman (1959. 1979). among others. My favorable reaction to the paper was based on its contribution to a blind spot in the general field of tourism research. With the exception of papers by Albers and James (1983). Buck (1987). Chalfen [ 1979). Jackie (198 1). Turnbull (1982). relationships between pictorial imagery and tour1985 ANNALS
OF TOURISM
RESEARCH
103
Additional Observations on Restaurants and Dining Out Reply to Haywood Stephen L. J. Smith
Department of Recreation University of Waterloo, Canada “Restaurants and Dining Out” grew with the writing and with the revising for several reviewers. It eventually reached the rather unconventional length of 34journal pages. Despite this length much more needed to be said about the subject of the paper. Michael Haywood’s comment on the paper is a welcome addition to the information included in my original work. His insights as “a regular observer and student of the foodservice industry.” help to supplement my own geographic perspectives. In particular. his critique of the quality and definitional content of Statistics Canada’s data on the foodservice industry are worthy of note. Haywood carefully describes the limitations in any study that used Canadian census data: at a more general level, this same description serves as an indictment of the apparent lowly status census and other government officials assign restaurants and virtually every other sector of the tourism industry. As an illustration of the lack of government concern about providing current and adequate data on tourism, one can compare the number of Statistics Canada publications on restaurants with various other subjects. The most recent Statistics Canada Publications Catalogue index lists only three publications for restaurants. including the now out-of-date 1978 study I used in my paper. This is the same number of census publications on sewage and only l/5 of the number of publications on many individual agricultural products such as peas or beans. I do not intend to discount the contribution of sewage services or of peas to the gross national product or to the quality of urban life, but I am equally unwilling to see the restaurant business or any other sector of the tourism industry discounted. Haywood’s suggestions of alternative classifications of foodservice operations helps to highlight the delightful complexity of this particular tourism industry sector. One can add additional classification systems to his list. such as ones based on clientele characteristics. the age of the indivldual businesses or the number of employees. It all depends on the focus of one’s interest. My focus happens to be on a classification system that is intended to reveal meaningful aggregate patterns of urban restaurants. Haywood’s observations on the complexity of site selection process raises many issues that are of great relevance to both entrepreneurs and to researchers. Although he is correct in noting that I did not consider a number of important site variables, I would suggest that many actual site selection decisions are based on even slimmer evidence and virtually no formal analysis. It is, of course, as easy for me to criticize how real entrepre-
102
1985 ANNALS
OF TOURISM
RESEARCH
REJOINDERS
AND COMMENTARY
neurs make real decisions as it is for any reviewer to criticize someone else’s research design at the abstract level possible in ‘Comments” and “Rejoinders” communications to research journals. It is another matter to actually be able to obtain data on many of the variables that Haywood identifies as important. For example, data on profitability, operating costs, and management strategies and problems are usually not available to an independent researcher. As a final point, one needs to be clear about the perspective used in any particular research design. Many of Haywood’s suggestions apply more directly to questions about how individual entrepreneurs do (or should1 select the best site for their business. This is a different issue than my concern about the identification and analysis of aggregate spatial patterns among urban restaurants. Both are legitimate topics; both have some relevance to the other; but both are fundamentally independent questions. In closing. Haywood’s comments will be of assistance to other researchers who examine the foodservice industry in the context of tourism. I hope our brief dialogue will help to stimulate further inquiry and will improve the quality of future research on restaurants and dining out. Submitted 24 May 1984 Accepted 4 June 1984
An Alternative to an Alternative Comment on Uzzell Richard
Chalfen
Department of Anthropology Temple University, USA Uzzell’s recent paper. “An Alternative Structuralist Approach to the Psychology of Tourism Marketing” (Annals 11:79-99. 1984) proposes and demonstrates a semiotic analysis of 1983 brochures published by six package holiday companies. The author discovers that tour operators “focus on locations which promote self-actualization, social interaction, sexual arousal, and excitement. . . . furthermore these media reinforce predominant sexual, racial, and national stereotypes , . . (and they) contribute to the creation of a mythology which treats holidays as adiberating. constraint-free, annual escape.” Uzzell primarily relies on a framework suggested by Roland Barthes (1977). that is contextually located within a construction of social reality perspective suggested by Berger and Luckmann (197 1) and Goffman (1959. 1979). among others. My favorable reaction to the paper was based on its contribution to a blind spot in the general field of tourism research. With the exception of papers by Albers and James (1983). Buck (1987). Chalfen [ 1979). Jackie (198 1). Turnbull (1982). relationships between pictorial imagery and tour1985 ANNALS
OF TOURISM
RESEARCH
103