- Email: [email protected]
An authorship analysis of tourism research
Ann& o/7-ourum Research, Vol. 18, pp. 473-484, Printed in the USA. All rights reserved
1991 Copyright
0
0160-7383191 $3.00 + .oo 1991 Pergamon Press plc and J. Jafari
AN AUTHORSHIP ANALYSIS TOURISM RESEARCH
OF
Pauline J. Sheldon University of Hawaii, USA
Abstract: This article analyzes the authorship of tourism research published in Annals of Tourism Research, Journal of Travel Research, and Tourism Research during the decade of the 1980s. It reports on the academic and nonacademic contributions, the ranks and positions of the authors, and the proportion of authors from various geographic regions of the world. Institutions that produced the most research, and the repeat contributions of authors, are also investigated. The article also discusses trends over the decade that point to a maturing of the study of tourism-the most noticeable one being the overall increase in published research on tourism. Keywords: tourism research, tourism journals, authorship, universities. R&umi: Le present article analyse la repartition des auteurs des articles sur le tourisme qui ont paru dans Annals of Tourism Research, Journal of Travel Research, et Tourism Research pendant les an&es 80. L’article prend en consideration les articles par des intellectuels et par des professionnels, le poste et le rang des auteurs et la proportion des auteurs des diverses regions geographiques du monde. On examine aussi quelles universitts ont produit la plus grande quantitt de recherches et quels auteurs ont contribue plus d’un article. Le present article discute aussi des tendances au tours de la dtcennie qui indiquent la maturation de la discipline du tourisme, la tendance la plus tvidente Ctant celle de l’accroissement ginera1 des articles publies sur le tourisme. Mots-cl&: recherche en tourisme, revues de tourisme, auteurs, universitts.
INTRODUCTION Tourism is both a rapidly growing sector of world economy and a maturing field of study. Research is important to both by extending knowledge of the tourism phenomenon, and by contributing to the field’s academic stature - an important consideration for a maturing field. Academic journals, the major outlets for tourism research, are increasing in number and are publishing more diverse research. A few investigations into the nature of this research have been done.
Pauline Sheldon is Associate Professor of Tourism at the School of Travel Industry Management, University of Hawaii (Honolulu HI 96822, USA). Her doctorate is in economics and management information systems, and her research interests are in tourism information systems, and tourism demand modeling and forecasting. She has also published articles on the status of tourism as an academic discipline and as a profession. 473
474
AN AUTHORSHIP
ANALYSIS
OF TOURISM
RESEARCH
Dann, Nash, and Pearce (1988) have summarized the methodologies of this research using a meta-analytic approach. A regional analysis of Caribbean tourism research has classified characteristics of this research, such as the territorial focus, the thematic emphasis, and the level of sophistication (Dann 1988). The subjects and institutions that produce research in the form of doctoral dissertations have been analyzed by Jafari and Aaser (1988). An analysis of the authorship of research in tourism journals, however, has never been done, and yet can provide important insights into the development of the field. Van Over and Nelson eloquently explain this importance: The vitality of the media of scholarly communication becomes the focus of intense interest within the development years of an academic discipline. In a relatively new field it is periodically necessary to identify and evaluate major research contributions. Such an exercise serves not only to document the historical evolution of a discipline, but to give it a sense of its future as well (1987: 1). This article examines the research contributions in the major tourism journals. It identifies authors by institutional affiliation, the position or rank of the authors, which regions of the world produce most tourism research, which universities have contributed most to the tourism body of knowledge, and the percentage of authors that continue to contribute over the decade. The two halves of the decade are also analyzed separately to investigate changes from the beginning to the end of the decade. To do this, the study analyzes the authorship of tourism journal articles - a methodology used by authors in other fields to assess the growth of a discipline’s research. It has been used by Allen and Vellenga (1987) in transportation, Van Over and Nelson (1987) in management information systems, and Stahl, Leap, and Wei (1988) in management. The results will be of interest to faculty and students identifying potential institutions at which to teach, research, or study tourism.
METHODOLOGY The 1980- 1989 issues of the three tourism journals Annals of Tourism Research (Annals), J ournal of Travel Research (JTR), and Tourism Management (TM) formed the basis of the analysis. Even though tourism research is published in a diversity of publications, these three journals concentrate solely on tourism research. These are considered as the highest-quality and most referenced tourism journals, ranked on the bases of perceived quality (measured by rigor of the review process, and contribution to the field), frequency of referencing by the respondents, and frequency of publishing in the journals (Sheldon 1990). For the purposes of the current study, a data base was created of full-length articles published in all issues of the three journals for 10 years from 1980 to 1989. Research notes, reports, and other sections of the journals were not included. Fields in the data base included author’s name and position or rank, their institution, the country in which the institution is located, and a weight representing contribution
J. SHELDON
PAULINE
475
to coauthored articles. The number of pages attributable to each author has been included in similar studies (e.g., Niemi 1988), but was not included here, as quantity of words was not perceived to translate necessarily into quality or impact. Contributions of researchers from different disciplines were also not included because of the difficulty of obtaining the information; however, a similar analysis can be found elsewhere (Sheldon 1990). Two measures of research contributions were calculated and will be reported in the results. The first is the number of instances. This is the number of times an author from a given region or institution contributed to a research article either partially or wholly. The second measure is the wei’/& instances. This prorates the partial contribution of coauthors. Equal weight was given to each coauthor, assuming that each contributed equally to the research. (In some cases, the first named author may have contributed more than other authors; but this could not be verified from the article.) Therefore, if two authors from the same institution coauthored an article, the institution would receive two instances (1 + 1) but only one weighted instance (0.5 + 0.5). A ratio of these two variables (instances : weighted instances) is a measure of the degree of collaboration between authors for a given affiliation. A ratio of one implies that all articles from that institution were solely authored, whereas a ratio of two implies that articles with two coauthors were the norm. RESULTS The results are presented in four parts: percentage of authors afliliated with academic and nonacademic institutions, the geographic contributions of authors, the research contributions of different universities, and the degree to which repeat authorship exists. All results are reported for each journal and for the entire data base. The literature differs on whether instances or weighted instances is the best measure of contribution. Both measures are reported here to provide the reader with a choice of measure. Academic/Nonacademic
Authorship
Academic authors receive career incentives and rewards for publishing research and so would be expected to contribute most of the research articles. The results in Table 1 confirm this expectation but also show that contributions from nonacademics are also significant. Annals
Table
1. Academic
Versus
Non-Academic
Academic Journals
Instances ew
AnIl& JTR TM O”eAl
93.5 81.1 15.9 85.8
Weighted (%I 93.2 85.0 73.4 83.7
Instances
Authorship
Non-Academic Instances Weighted (40) Cm 6.5 12.9 24.1 14.2
6.8 15.0 26.6 16.3
Instances
476
AN AUTHORSHIP
ANALYSIS
OF TOURISM
RESEARCH
of Tourism Research has the highest percentage of academic authors (93.5%), Journal of Travel Research has the next highest (87.1%), and Tourism Management has the least (75.9%), with the average being 85.8 % . Overall, nonacademics represent 14.2 % of authors when instances are used as a measure and 16.3% when weighted instances are used. The difference in these percentages suggest that there is less coauthoring of articles by nonacademics than by academics, perhaps because coauthors are more available to academics. The ranks and positions of contributing authors are shown in Table 2. To accommodate both US and UK titles of academic authors, British titles were translated into US equivalents as follows: British lecturer = US assistant professor, British senior lecturer = US associate professor, British professor or reader = US full professor. Of the academic authors, full professors contributed more articles than each of the two lower ranks of associate or assistant professor (except in the case of TM). This is surprising given that publications are necessary to rise through the academic ranks, and once promoted to full professor, the pressures of “publish or perish” diminish. Possible explanations for this are that full professors continue to perform and publish research despite the decreased expectations, or that there is a lag between the performance of the research and its publication. The largest academic category publishing research is entitled “other” and includes fellows, graduate students, and those whose rank was not given in the biographical information accompanying each article. The most prolific nonacademic authors were from government, followed next by writers from the corporate world. The largest contributing group to Annals, however, was consultants. Writers affiliated with government agencies contribute more than other nonacademic writers to both JTR and TM; they even contribute more than associate professors to TM. Geographic Location of Authors The contribution of different the tourism body of knowledge Table AfIXation
Academic: Professor Associate Assistant
Government COrpOT& Researcher Consu tant d Other
-Au-%IQ 85.8 22.5 17.5 17.8 25.7 14.3 4.3 3.2
2.3 2.2 2.3
2. Ranks
regions and countries of the world is shown in Table 3. The location and Positions
%WIb
---Annals%I*
%WIb
63.7 21.9 17.7 17.6 23.2 16.4 4.7 3.7 2.6 2.5 2.9
93.5 26.8 20.3 19.1 27.4 6.6 1.5 .6 1.2 2.1 1.2
93.1 26.6 20.5 19.8 26.3 6.9 1.5 .6 1.2 2.4 1.2
of Authors
-JTR%Ia 86.9 24.3 15.4 17.7 29.4 13.2 4.0 4.3 2.6 1.4 .9
%WIb 84.5 25.1 15.9 17.4 26.1 15.4 4.8 5.1 2.9 1.8 .8
’ %I means percentage of instances. b %Wl means percentage of weighted instances. ’ Fellows, graduate students, and authors whose rank was not given. d Independent authors and members of public organizations or trade associations.
-TM%I0 75.9 15.8 16.8 16.5 19.9 24.1 7.9 4.7 3.2 3.2 5.1
%WIb 73.4 14.9 16.4 15.5 16.0 26.6 7.8 5.7 3.6 3.2 6.3
to of
PAULINE
J. SHELDON
Table 3. Research Contributions Region North America: USA Canada Europe: UK Netherlands Switzerland Austria fiance Othe? AsiafPacific: Australia New Zealand PR China Otherd Middle Easti Israel Turkey Othe?
wa
All%WIb
66.1 52.1 13.0 24.8 17.6 1.8 .I .7 .6 3.4 7.3 3.1 2.0 .9 1.0 1.7 1.4 0.3 1.6
69.0 46.6 12.4 30.1 21.1 2.1 1.0 .7 .7 4.6 7.3 3.3 2.0 .7 1.1 2.1 1.8 0.3 1.8
-AnnaIs%P
%WIb
66.4 52.6 13.8 10.4 8.6 4.1 .3 1.2 1.6 3.2 8.0 5.3 2.1 0.0 .3 4.4 4.1 0.3 2.1
63.5 50.1 13.4 20.7 9.4 4.3 .4 .6 2.0 3.6 8.5 5.6 2.4 0.0 .l 6.4 5.0 0.4 2.2
477
by Geographic Region -JTR%P 89.7 75.5 14.0 4.4 2.9 0.0 .3 .9 0.0 .3 5.5 1.4 2.6 .9 .6 0.0 0.0 0.0 .6
%WIb 89.6 75.3 14.3 5.1 3.0 0.0 .5 1.3 0.0 .3 4.9 1.5 2.0 .6 .6 0.0 0.0 0.0 .S
-TM s1a 36.4 25.3 11.1 63.3 43.4 1.3 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.0 8.6 2.5 1.3 1.9 2.2 0.6 0.0 0.6 1.0
%WIb 30.6 20.7 9.9 69.0 46.7 1.6 2.0 0.0 0.0 a.7 8.2 2.4 1.6 1.4 2.4 0.3 0.0 0.3 2.4
’ %I means percentage of instances. b %WI means percentage of weighted instames. ’ Belgium. Greece, Poland. Italy, Denmark. Sweden, Norway, Germany, Yugoslavia, Spain, and Finland. d Hong Kong. Singapore, Malaysia. and India. * Belize, Barbados, Jamaica, Nigeria, and South Africa.
authors’ institutions (rather than their nationality) was used to identify country. Both instances and weighted instances are tabulated. The three journals in this study are all in the English language and so do not represent research being published in other languages. Non-Englishspeaking countries contribute to other journals not covered in this study, and so are likely to be underrepresented here in their true contribution to the body of tourism knowledge. Despite this limitation, it is valuable to analyze the geographic distribution of tourism research written in English. In a comparison of regions of the world, researchers from North America represented the largest proportion of authors of tourism research (65.1% of instances and 59.0% of weighted instances). European authors were the next largest contributing group (24.8% and 30.1%). The Asia/Pacific region and the Middle East were the third and fourth most prolific regions, with the rest of the world contributing only 1.7 % of all published research. The three leading countries for the decade were the United States (52.1. % of instances), the United Kingdom (17.6% of instances) and Canada (13.0% of instances). Contributions from other countries varied from 0.3 % of instances for Turkey to 3.1% for Australia. The geographic distribution of research remained relatively constant from the first half of the decade to the second, with no region either gaining or losing substantial percentages. Comparison of the two measures of research contribution revealed that coauthorship of articles was more common in the United States than in Europe. When the weighted instance measure is used, Europe’s contribution increases and the US contribution decreases. The other three areas of the world are not significantly affected by the measure used.
478
AN AUTHORSHIP
ANALYSIS
OF TOURISM
RESEARCH
The geographic breakdown of authorship for the three separate journals (also shown in Table 3) shows that some journals publish more international contributions than others. Even though Annuls and JTR are both based in the United States, Annals’ contributors are more international than those of JTR. US authors represent about 75% of all authors for JTR, yet only about 52 % of Annals’ authors. Canadian authors also publish more in JTR than either of the other journals, bringing the North American total for that journal to almost 90%) in contrast to Annals total for North America of about 66%. TM, which is based in Europe, has the most even distribution of authorship around the world, with over half of its contributors being European (53.3%). It also has a higher percentage of authors from the Asia/ Pacific region (8.5%). Among the three journals, Annals draws the most contributions from the rest of world (Middle East and “other” categories). Institutional Contributions to Tourism Research Educational institutions often specialize in certain disciplines and become well-known as leaders in those fields. This section analyzes the research contributions of authors from educational institutions around the world and identifies the leading institutions in tourism research. Table 4 shows the institutions whose authors have contributed more than 10 articles or parts of articles to the top three journals from 1980 to 1989 ( universities with multiple campuses are reported as one institution). As institutional productivity is to some degree dependent on the number of authors at that institution, Table 4 also reports the
Table 4. Research Contributions
Universityb Hawaii, US Waterloo. Canada Surrey, UK Bradford, UK Texas A&M, US Calgary, Canada South Carolina. US North Carolina; US Simon F’raser. Canada Arizona state, us Clemson, us Hebrew. Israel Washington State, US Canterbury. NZ James Cook, Australia Alabama, US Tulane, us Penn state. us Wisconsin, VS Binnineham. UK Central Florida, US Kentucky. US
Instances= 47 31 27 27 27 20 16 16 16 15 14 13 13 12 12 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
Weighted Instances
by Universities:” Number of Authors
30.14 19.14 21.48 17.50 14.66 11.99 8.58 8.57 7.33 10.16 5.81 12.00 6.33 9.00 7.33 6.50 4.73 9.00 7.25 10.00 4.82 3.50
a Those with at least six instances. b Ranked by number of instances. c Counts represent productivity for all campuses of a university. Note: See text for discussion of column definitions.
16 13 16 10 18 6
8
7 6 10 12 6 7 4 3 3 6
8 7 6 6 5
1980-1989
Me= Productivity 2.61 2.38 1.69 2.70 1.50 2.50 2.00 2.29 2.67 1.50 1.17 2.17 1.66 3.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 1.38 1.57 1.67 1.67 2.00
Collaboration R&i0 1.56 1.62 1.26 1.54 1.84 1.67 1.86 1.67 2.18 1.48 2.41 1.08 1.56 1.33 1.64 1.85 2.54 1.22 1.52 1.00 2.07 2.66
PAULINE
J. SHELDON
479
number of authors contributing to the journals from 1980 to 1989. This number does not represent the number of faculty in the institution or department, but the number that have authored or coauthored at least one article in the three journals from 1980 to 1989. Twenty-two universities have contributed at least 10 articles or parts of articles to the three journals from 1980 to 1989. Thirteen of these are US institutions; three are Canadian; three are British, and one each is in Israel, Australia, and New Zealand. University of Hawaii (USA), Waterloo University (Canada), and Surrey University (UK) published the most tourism articles, whether measured by instances or weighted instances. (UK’s University of Bradford and US’s Texas A&M University rank the same as Surrey when measured by instances, but rank lower when measured by weighted instances.) The top three institutions have large numbers of contributing authors (18, 13, and 16, respectively), which partly explains their higher productivity. Mean productivity per author (instances divided by the number of contributing authors at an institution) is reported in column four. It varies from high of 4.0 at James Cook (Australia) and Alabama (USA) where, on average, the authors were very prolific, to a low of 1.17 at Clemson (USA). Th is number is not intended to represent the overall productivity of either the institution or the authors, as authors publish in journals other than the three in this analysis. The top three institutions had a medium level of productivity per researcher (2.61, 2.38, and 1.69, respectively). Coauthorship of research can be viewed in different lights. Crossdisciplinary and international collaboration can improve the quality of research as skills and knowledge are pooled. Indeed, as a field matures and as the review process for articles becomes more rigorous, coauthorship often becomes the norm rather than the exception. Most institutions, however, require faculty’ to demonstrate independent scholarship in addition to collaborative scholarship before tenure and promotion are granted. The collaboration ratio (instances divided by weighted instances) is reported in column 5. It varied from 1.08 at Hebrew University (Israel) where most authors published singly authored articles, to 2.86 at Kentucky (US), where the norm was for almost three authors to collaborate on an article. The top three institutions had medium collaboration ratios (1.56, 1.62, and 1.26). Over time, some institutions fluctuate in research productivity because of the movement of faculty; others maintain their level of productivity despite faculty movement. This phenomenon was examined by dividing the decade into two sections (1980-1984 and 1985- 1989) and ranking the institutions for each live-year period. Table 5 shows the leading ten institutions for the two five-year periods. The leading institution for the entire decade (University of Hawaii) was also ranked top in both halves of the decade, showing stability of research output. Altogether, five universities were in the top 10 in both parts of the decade (Hawaii, Surrey, Waterloo, Calgary, and Texas A&M). Some universities ranked lower in the second half of the decade than they did in the first (Surrey, Calgary, Simon Fraser, South Carolina, James Cook, Amherst, and Washington State). Other institutions not in the top 10 in the first half of the decade emerged as leaders in the latter
AN AUTHORSHIP
480
ANALYSIS OF TOURISM
RESEARCH
Table 5. Research Contributions by the Top Ten Universities for the First and Second Halves of the Decade Ranked by Number of Instances Weighted Instances
University 1980-1984: Hawaii US Sumy:UK Calgary. Canada Simon Fraser. Canada Texas A&M, ils US Waterloo, Canada James Cook, Australia Amherst. Mass, US Washington ST., US 1985.1989: Hawaii US Bradfoid. UK Waterloo; Canada Texas A&M. US North Carolina, US Tulane, us Surrey, UK Arizona state, us Hebrew, Israel Calgary, Canada
SouthCarolina.
AU&X8
20 15 10 10 9 9 8 8 7
12.67 12.00 5.00 5.00 6.50 5.83 5.66 5.50 5.33 3.83
14 9 5 3 4
27 25 23 21 14 12 11 11 10 10
17.50 15.50 13.50 7.58 7.58 4.75 9.50 8.16 9.00 7.00
Mf%Il Productivity
Collaboration Ratio
3 4 4
1.43 1.67 2.00 3.33 2.25 3.00 1.60 2.67 1.75 1.75
1.58 1.25 2.00 2.00 1.38 1.54 1.41 1.45 1.31 1.83
12 10 12 16 5 6 10 6 5 5
2.25 2.50 1.92 1.31 2.80 2.00 1.10 1.83 2.00 2.00
1.54 1.61 1.70 2.77 1.85 2.53 1.16 1.35 1.11 1.43
part (Bradford, North Carolina, Tulane, Arizona State, and Hebrew University). Rankings, however, only give relative performance. A comparison of the two time periods reveals that the top 10 institutions have produced almost 60% more research in the second half of the decade than in the first (164 instances vs. 103). Consequently, to be in the top 10, institutions had to publish at least 10 instances in the second half of the decade, whereas in the first part they only had to publish 7 instances. Some of the above institutions, therefore, have increased their absolute productivity, but now rank lower because of the overall productivity increases. The rise in overall productivity over the decade is partly due to an increase in the number of authors writing in the three journals, rather than an increase in mean productivity per author. From 1980 to 1984, 322 authors contributed to the three journals, whereas from 1985 to 1989, 418 authors contributed - an increase of almost 30 % . From 1980 to 1984, the top 10 institutions had a total of 54 contributing authors, whereas from 1985 to 1989, this number rose to 87. The mean productivity per author in the top 10 institutions, on the other hand, has decreased from 2.15 to 1.97. The collaboration ratio at the top 10 institutions increased from 1.58 to 1.7 1. There are many reasons why authors choose a journal in which to publish their work, and some will always favor a particular journal. Table 6 shows the contributions of the top 10 universities to each For most universities, there is a fairly even journal for the decade. distribution of articles published in the three journals. There are, however, a few exceptions. Two British universities (Surrey and Bradford) predominantly published in the British-based journal TM; Calgary researchers published almost exclusively in JTR; and the US universi-
PAULINE J. SHELDON
Table 6. Research Contributions
of the Top Ten Universities by Journal
_AmfllsUniversitp Instances Hawaii, US Waterloo, Canada surrey, UK Bradford. UK Texas A&M, US Calgary. Canada South Carolina, US North Carolina, US Simon Fraser, Canada AI+mna state. us
13 11 3 4 8 0 6 7 4 4
481
_ Weighted Instances
m____
Instances
9.16 10.15 2.50 2.50 4.83 0.00 4.00 3.83 1.83 3.50
16 8 0 2 16 17 9 7 5 10
Weighted Illstmces
_
TM_
Instances
9.49 5.00 0.00 1.00 1.93 8.99 4.08 3.74 2.50 5.66
18 6 24 21 3 3 1 2 7 1
Weighted Instances 11.49 3.99 18.98 14.00 2.00 3.00 50 1.00 3.00 1.00
a Those with at least six instances.
ties in the lower TM.
part
of the table
had very
few articles
published
in
Repeat Contributions by Authors This section attempts to identify the stability of authorship of tourism research during the 1980s. Specifically, whether authors repeatedly contributed to the journals over the decade will be examined. Table 7 divides the authors into one-time authors, moderately contributing authors (more than one and less than five instances), and intensely contributing authors (five or more instances). The table also shows the information for each journal for the entire decade and in total for the two halves of the decade. The majority of the articles (75 “/ o ) were written by one-time authors. The percentages were slightly higher for each of the journals separately because authors may have contributed only one article to a particular journal, but may have contributed to more than one journal. A similar reasoning explains why there are more moderately and intensely contributing authors for the three journals together than for the individual journals. About 22% of the authors were classified as moderate contributors, and only 4% were classified as intense contributors. Intense contributors had, on average, been contributing research for a span of Table 7. Repeat Contributions Journal
Total Number Authors
One Timea AU&X-S
by Authors Moderatelyb Contributing Authors x 96
Intensely= Contributing Authors I %
#
96
Annals JTR TM Total (1980-1989)
261 258 227 646
216 206 178 485
82.8 79.8 78.4 75.1
40 50 45 134
15.3 19.4 19.8 20.1
5 2 4 27
1.9 0.8 1.8 4.2
1980.84 1985.89
322 418
270 336
83.9 80.4
46 73
14.3 17.5
6 9
1.9 2.2
’ Authors contributing b Authors contributing ’ Authors contributing
one instance. more than one, but less than five instances. five or more instances.
482
AN AUTHORSHIP
ANALYSIS
OF TOURISM
RESEARCH
5.6 years, whereas moderately contributing authors had contributed on average for a span of 3.2 years. An analysis of the two halves of the decade reveal that more repeat contributions occurred in the second half than the first. From 1980 to 1984, 83.9% of authors contributed only once, whereas in the next five-year period, there were only 80.4% one-time authors. Moderately contributing authors rose from 14.3 % to 17.5 %, and intensely contributing authors increased from 1.9 % to 2.2 ‘$% An analysis of repeat authorship at the top 10 institutions suggests that their high level of productivity is due to a few, or in most cases, only one specific author. Table 8 shows the number and percent of one-time authors, moderately contributing authors and intensely contributing authors. In all cases but one (Bradford), more than half of the authors contributed only one research article during the decade. Intensely contributing authors (five instances or more) are very few. There are one or two at each campus, except for Hawaii and Waterloo, each of which has three authors who contributed more than five instances during the decade. The majority of tourism research in these three journals, therefore, is not written by repeat publishers. The interdisciplinary nature of tourism could explain this. Economists, geographers, psychologists, anthropologists, and others, who usually write in journals in their own field, may have written individual articles pertaining to tourism and then returned to their own field. Moreover, graduate students who published their dissertations or theses and do not continue researching in the field may account for some. Others may be publishing work from an individual contract research project.
DISCUSSION
AND
CONCLUSIONS
This article has analyzed the contributions to tourism research from authors of different regions of the world and different universities. Academic authors were found to be the major contributors and are likely to
Table
8. Repeat
University
Contributions
Total Number Authors
by Authors (1980-1989) One Tim&’ Authors x
Hawaii, US Waterloo, Canada Surrey, UK Bradford, UK Texas A&M, US Calgary, Canada South Carolina, US North Carolina, US Smon Fraser, Canada Arizona State, US a Authors b Authors ’ Authors
contributing contributing contributing
18 13 16 10 18 8 8 7 6 10
at the Top Ten Universities
9 8 11 4 14 5 5 4 5 8
% 50 62 69 40 18 60 60 51 83 80
one Instance. more than one, but less than five instances. five or more instances.
Moderatelyb Contributing Authors % x 6 2 4 4 3 2 2 2 0 1
33 15 25 40 11 25 25 29 0 10
Intensely’ Contributing Authors # 7c 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
11 23 6 20 6 13 13 14 17 10
PAULINE
483
J. SHELDON
remain so as long as publishing is a requirement for academic career success. Contributions from nonacademic authors, however, were substantial, especially in Tourism Management. In an applied field such as tourism, this blend of academic and applied research can provide different perspectives and add diversity and richness to the journals. The highest producers of tourism research (in English) are authors from the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. They are shaping the body of tourism knowledge more than writers from other regions of the world. This is not surprising given the population densities and numbers of universities in the two regions, and the fact that they are English-speaking nations. In the decades to come, the Asia/Pacific region and other regions experiencing rapid tourism growth may contribute more research as they seek to understand tourism in their regions. Moreover, as the tourism sector of a country’s economy grows, funding to establish and support educational programs is likely, thereby stimulating more tourism research. This is already happening in Australia and other parts of the world. The study has also identified the university programs with the highest research output. Knowledge of these leading institutions in the tourism field should assist scholars and potential scholars who are seeking universities for study or teaching. No geographic explanation for why the topranked universities have excelled in tourism research is evident, except perhaps in the case of Hawaii, which is one of the world’s best-known tourism destinations. The high ranking of some institutions may be somewhat tenuous, as it is based on the work of one or two prolific authors who could leave the institution. For a program to have lasting excellence, there must be a critical mass of researching faculty to continually attract others and to attract the best students. These findings give some indication of institutions that have achieved that critical mass. Finally, this analysis has identified a number of characteristics of a maturing field of study, most notably that research productivity is increasing over time. It has also identified an increasing tendency to collaborate on research projects, a trend that should be encouraged. As authors from different disciplines work together, more insights are likely to be gained that will take tourism research to a higher level. The trend for more repeat contributors to the journals may also continue as researchers become attracted to the field and continue to work in it. Tourism research still has many phenomena to understand and theories to develop. The results of this study suggest that substantial progress towards that goal has been made in the 198Os, and that the 1990s can be expected to produce even greater gains. 0 0 AcknowledgementsThe author would like to thank Connie Polite and Harold Bindeus (research assistants at the School ofTrave Industry Management, University of Hawaii) for their assistance in creating the data base.
REFERENCES Allen B. J., and D. B. Vellenga 1987 Affiliation of Authors in Transportation and Logistics Update. Transportation Journal 26(3):39-47.
Academic
Journals-An
484
AN AUTHORSHIP
ANALYSIS
OF TOURISM
RESEARCH
Dann, G. M. S., D. Nash, and P. L. Pearce 1988 Methodology in Tourism Research. Annals of Tourism Research 15(1):1-28. Dann, Graham M. S. 1988 Tourism Research on the Caribbean: An Evaluation. Leisure Sciences lO(4): 261-280. Jafari, J., and D. Aaser 1988 Tourism as the Subject of Doctoral Dissertations. Annals of Tourism Research 15(3):407-429. Niemi, A. W., Jr. 1988 Research Productivity of American Business Schools, 1975-1985. Review of Business and Economic Research 23(2):1-17. \ , Sheldon, P. J. 1990 Journal Usage in Tourism: Perceptions of Publishing Faculty. Journal of Tourism Studies 1(1):42-48. \ Stahl, M. J., T. L. Leap, and Z. Z. Wei 1988 Publication in Leading Management Journals as a Measure of Institutional Research Productivity. Academy of Management Journal 31(3):707-720. Van Over, L. D., and R. R. Nelson 1987 Research in Management Information Systems, 1980-1985: A Profile of Leading Journals, Articles and Authors. Unpublished manuscript, University of Houston. I
Submitted 4 May 1990 Revised version submitted 5 September 1990 Accented 29 October 1990 Refeieed anonymously Coordinating Referee: Graham M. S. Dann
1991 Copyright
0
0160-7383191 $3.00 + .oo 1991 Pergamon Press plc and J. Jafari
AN AUTHORSHIP ANALYSIS TOURISM RESEARCH
OF
Pauline J. Sheldon University of Hawaii, USA
Abstract: This article analyzes the authorship of tourism research published in Annals of Tourism Research, Journal of Travel Research, and Tourism Research during the decade of the 1980s. It reports on the academic and nonacademic contributions, the ranks and positions of the authors, and the proportion of authors from various geographic regions of the world. Institutions that produced the most research, and the repeat contributions of authors, are also investigated. The article also discusses trends over the decade that point to a maturing of the study of tourism-the most noticeable one being the overall increase in published research on tourism. Keywords: tourism research, tourism journals, authorship, universities. R&umi: Le present article analyse la repartition des auteurs des articles sur le tourisme qui ont paru dans Annals of Tourism Research, Journal of Travel Research, et Tourism Research pendant les an&es 80. L’article prend en consideration les articles par des intellectuels et par des professionnels, le poste et le rang des auteurs et la proportion des auteurs des diverses regions geographiques du monde. On examine aussi quelles universitts ont produit la plus grande quantitt de recherches et quels auteurs ont contribue plus d’un article. Le present article discute aussi des tendances au tours de la dtcennie qui indiquent la maturation de la discipline du tourisme, la tendance la plus tvidente Ctant celle de l’accroissement ginera1 des articles publies sur le tourisme. Mots-cl&: recherche en tourisme, revues de tourisme, auteurs, universitts.
INTRODUCTION Tourism is both a rapidly growing sector of world economy and a maturing field of study. Research is important to both by extending knowledge of the tourism phenomenon, and by contributing to the field’s academic stature - an important consideration for a maturing field. Academic journals, the major outlets for tourism research, are increasing in number and are publishing more diverse research. A few investigations into the nature of this research have been done.
Pauline Sheldon is Associate Professor of Tourism at the School of Travel Industry Management, University of Hawaii (Honolulu HI 96822, USA). Her doctorate is in economics and management information systems, and her research interests are in tourism information systems, and tourism demand modeling and forecasting. She has also published articles on the status of tourism as an academic discipline and as a profession. 473
474
AN AUTHORSHIP
ANALYSIS
OF TOURISM
RESEARCH
Dann, Nash, and Pearce (1988) have summarized the methodologies of this research using a meta-analytic approach. A regional analysis of Caribbean tourism research has classified characteristics of this research, such as the territorial focus, the thematic emphasis, and the level of sophistication (Dann 1988). The subjects and institutions that produce research in the form of doctoral dissertations have been analyzed by Jafari and Aaser (1988). An analysis of the authorship of research in tourism journals, however, has never been done, and yet can provide important insights into the development of the field. Van Over and Nelson eloquently explain this importance: The vitality of the media of scholarly communication becomes the focus of intense interest within the development years of an academic discipline. In a relatively new field it is periodically necessary to identify and evaluate major research contributions. Such an exercise serves not only to document the historical evolution of a discipline, but to give it a sense of its future as well (1987: 1). This article examines the research contributions in the major tourism journals. It identifies authors by institutional affiliation, the position or rank of the authors, which regions of the world produce most tourism research, which universities have contributed most to the tourism body of knowledge, and the percentage of authors that continue to contribute over the decade. The two halves of the decade are also analyzed separately to investigate changes from the beginning to the end of the decade. To do this, the study analyzes the authorship of tourism journal articles - a methodology used by authors in other fields to assess the growth of a discipline’s research. It has been used by Allen and Vellenga (1987) in transportation, Van Over and Nelson (1987) in management information systems, and Stahl, Leap, and Wei (1988) in management. The results will be of interest to faculty and students identifying potential institutions at which to teach, research, or study tourism.
METHODOLOGY The 1980- 1989 issues of the three tourism journals Annals of Tourism Research (Annals), J ournal of Travel Research (JTR), and Tourism Management (TM) formed the basis of the analysis. Even though tourism research is published in a diversity of publications, these three journals concentrate solely on tourism research. These are considered as the highest-quality and most referenced tourism journals, ranked on the bases of perceived quality (measured by rigor of the review process, and contribution to the field), frequency of referencing by the respondents, and frequency of publishing in the journals (Sheldon 1990). For the purposes of the current study, a data base was created of full-length articles published in all issues of the three journals for 10 years from 1980 to 1989. Research notes, reports, and other sections of the journals were not included. Fields in the data base included author’s name and position or rank, their institution, the country in which the institution is located, and a weight representing contribution
J. SHELDON
PAULINE
475
to coauthored articles. The number of pages attributable to each author has been included in similar studies (e.g., Niemi 1988), but was not included here, as quantity of words was not perceived to translate necessarily into quality or impact. Contributions of researchers from different disciplines were also not included because of the difficulty of obtaining the information; however, a similar analysis can be found elsewhere (Sheldon 1990). Two measures of research contributions were calculated and will be reported in the results. The first is the number of instances. This is the number of times an author from a given region or institution contributed to a research article either partially or wholly. The second measure is the wei’/& instances. This prorates the partial contribution of coauthors. Equal weight was given to each coauthor, assuming that each contributed equally to the research. (In some cases, the first named author may have contributed more than other authors; but this could not be verified from the article.) Therefore, if two authors from the same institution coauthored an article, the institution would receive two instances (1 + 1) but only one weighted instance (0.5 + 0.5). A ratio of these two variables (instances : weighted instances) is a measure of the degree of collaboration between authors for a given affiliation. A ratio of one implies that all articles from that institution were solely authored, whereas a ratio of two implies that articles with two coauthors were the norm. RESULTS The results are presented in four parts: percentage of authors afliliated with academic and nonacademic institutions, the geographic contributions of authors, the research contributions of different universities, and the degree to which repeat authorship exists. All results are reported for each journal and for the entire data base. The literature differs on whether instances or weighted instances is the best measure of contribution. Both measures are reported here to provide the reader with a choice of measure. Academic/Nonacademic
Authorship
Academic authors receive career incentives and rewards for publishing research and so would be expected to contribute most of the research articles. The results in Table 1 confirm this expectation but also show that contributions from nonacademics are also significant. Annals
Table
1. Academic
Versus
Non-Academic
Academic Journals
Instances ew
AnIl& JTR TM O”eAl
93.5 81.1 15.9 85.8
Weighted (%I 93.2 85.0 73.4 83.7
Instances
Authorship
Non-Academic Instances Weighted (40) Cm 6.5 12.9 24.1 14.2
6.8 15.0 26.6 16.3
Instances
476
AN AUTHORSHIP
ANALYSIS
OF TOURISM
RESEARCH
of Tourism Research has the highest percentage of academic authors (93.5%), Journal of Travel Research has the next highest (87.1%), and Tourism Management has the least (75.9%), with the average being 85.8 % . Overall, nonacademics represent 14.2 % of authors when instances are used as a measure and 16.3% when weighted instances are used. The difference in these percentages suggest that there is less coauthoring of articles by nonacademics than by academics, perhaps because coauthors are more available to academics. The ranks and positions of contributing authors are shown in Table 2. To accommodate both US and UK titles of academic authors, British titles were translated into US equivalents as follows: British lecturer = US assistant professor, British senior lecturer = US associate professor, British professor or reader = US full professor. Of the academic authors, full professors contributed more articles than each of the two lower ranks of associate or assistant professor (except in the case of TM). This is surprising given that publications are necessary to rise through the academic ranks, and once promoted to full professor, the pressures of “publish or perish” diminish. Possible explanations for this are that full professors continue to perform and publish research despite the decreased expectations, or that there is a lag between the performance of the research and its publication. The largest academic category publishing research is entitled “other” and includes fellows, graduate students, and those whose rank was not given in the biographical information accompanying each article. The most prolific nonacademic authors were from government, followed next by writers from the corporate world. The largest contributing group to Annals, however, was consultants. Writers affiliated with government agencies contribute more than other nonacademic writers to both JTR and TM; they even contribute more than associate professors to TM. Geographic Location of Authors The contribution of different the tourism body of knowledge Table AfIXation
Academic: Professor Associate Assistant
Government COrpOT& Researcher Consu tant d Other
-Au-%IQ 85.8 22.5 17.5 17.8 25.7 14.3 4.3 3.2
2.3 2.2 2.3
2. Ranks
regions and countries of the world is shown in Table 3. The location and Positions
%WIb
---Annals%I*
%WIb
63.7 21.9 17.7 17.6 23.2 16.4 4.7 3.7 2.6 2.5 2.9
93.5 26.8 20.3 19.1 27.4 6.6 1.5 .6 1.2 2.1 1.2
93.1 26.6 20.5 19.8 26.3 6.9 1.5 .6 1.2 2.4 1.2
of Authors
-JTR%Ia 86.9 24.3 15.4 17.7 29.4 13.2 4.0 4.3 2.6 1.4 .9
%WIb 84.5 25.1 15.9 17.4 26.1 15.4 4.8 5.1 2.9 1.8 .8
’ %I means percentage of instances. b %Wl means percentage of weighted instances. ’ Fellows, graduate students, and authors whose rank was not given. d Independent authors and members of public organizations or trade associations.
-TM%I0 75.9 15.8 16.8 16.5 19.9 24.1 7.9 4.7 3.2 3.2 5.1
%WIb 73.4 14.9 16.4 15.5 16.0 26.6 7.8 5.7 3.6 3.2 6.3
to of
PAULINE
J. SHELDON
Table 3. Research Contributions Region North America: USA Canada Europe: UK Netherlands Switzerland Austria fiance Othe? AsiafPacific: Australia New Zealand PR China Otherd Middle Easti Israel Turkey Othe?
wa
All%WIb
66.1 52.1 13.0 24.8 17.6 1.8 .I .7 .6 3.4 7.3 3.1 2.0 .9 1.0 1.7 1.4 0.3 1.6
69.0 46.6 12.4 30.1 21.1 2.1 1.0 .7 .7 4.6 7.3 3.3 2.0 .7 1.1 2.1 1.8 0.3 1.8
-AnnaIs%P
%WIb
66.4 52.6 13.8 10.4 8.6 4.1 .3 1.2 1.6 3.2 8.0 5.3 2.1 0.0 .3 4.4 4.1 0.3 2.1
63.5 50.1 13.4 20.7 9.4 4.3 .4 .6 2.0 3.6 8.5 5.6 2.4 0.0 .l 6.4 5.0 0.4 2.2
477
by Geographic Region -JTR%P 89.7 75.5 14.0 4.4 2.9 0.0 .3 .9 0.0 .3 5.5 1.4 2.6 .9 .6 0.0 0.0 0.0 .6
%WIb 89.6 75.3 14.3 5.1 3.0 0.0 .5 1.3 0.0 .3 4.9 1.5 2.0 .6 .6 0.0 0.0 0.0 .S
-TM s1a 36.4 25.3 11.1 63.3 43.4 1.3 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.0 8.6 2.5 1.3 1.9 2.2 0.6 0.0 0.6 1.0
%WIb 30.6 20.7 9.9 69.0 46.7 1.6 2.0 0.0 0.0 a.7 8.2 2.4 1.6 1.4 2.4 0.3 0.0 0.3 2.4
’ %I means percentage of instances. b %WI means percentage of weighted instames. ’ Belgium. Greece, Poland. Italy, Denmark. Sweden, Norway, Germany, Yugoslavia, Spain, and Finland. d Hong Kong. Singapore, Malaysia. and India. * Belize, Barbados, Jamaica, Nigeria, and South Africa.
authors’ institutions (rather than their nationality) was used to identify country. Both instances and weighted instances are tabulated. The three journals in this study are all in the English language and so do not represent research being published in other languages. Non-Englishspeaking countries contribute to other journals not covered in this study, and so are likely to be underrepresented here in their true contribution to the body of tourism knowledge. Despite this limitation, it is valuable to analyze the geographic distribution of tourism research written in English. In a comparison of regions of the world, researchers from North America represented the largest proportion of authors of tourism research (65.1% of instances and 59.0% of weighted instances). European authors were the next largest contributing group (24.8% and 30.1%). The Asia/Pacific region and the Middle East were the third and fourth most prolific regions, with the rest of the world contributing only 1.7 % of all published research. The three leading countries for the decade were the United States (52.1. % of instances), the United Kingdom (17.6% of instances) and Canada (13.0% of instances). Contributions from other countries varied from 0.3 % of instances for Turkey to 3.1% for Australia. The geographic distribution of research remained relatively constant from the first half of the decade to the second, with no region either gaining or losing substantial percentages. Comparison of the two measures of research contribution revealed that coauthorship of articles was more common in the United States than in Europe. When the weighted instance measure is used, Europe’s contribution increases and the US contribution decreases. The other three areas of the world are not significantly affected by the measure used.
478
AN AUTHORSHIP
ANALYSIS
OF TOURISM
RESEARCH
The geographic breakdown of authorship for the three separate journals (also shown in Table 3) shows that some journals publish more international contributions than others. Even though Annuls and JTR are both based in the United States, Annals’ contributors are more international than those of JTR. US authors represent about 75% of all authors for JTR, yet only about 52 % of Annals’ authors. Canadian authors also publish more in JTR than either of the other journals, bringing the North American total for that journal to almost 90%) in contrast to Annals total for North America of about 66%. TM, which is based in Europe, has the most even distribution of authorship around the world, with over half of its contributors being European (53.3%). It also has a higher percentage of authors from the Asia/ Pacific region (8.5%). Among the three journals, Annals draws the most contributions from the rest of world (Middle East and “other” categories). Institutional Contributions to Tourism Research Educational institutions often specialize in certain disciplines and become well-known as leaders in those fields. This section analyzes the research contributions of authors from educational institutions around the world and identifies the leading institutions in tourism research. Table 4 shows the institutions whose authors have contributed more than 10 articles or parts of articles to the top three journals from 1980 to 1989 ( universities with multiple campuses are reported as one institution). As institutional productivity is to some degree dependent on the number of authors at that institution, Table 4 also reports the
Table 4. Research Contributions
Universityb Hawaii, US Waterloo. Canada Surrey, UK Bradford, UK Texas A&M, US Calgary, Canada South Carolina. US North Carolina; US Simon F’raser. Canada Arizona state, us Clemson, us Hebrew. Israel Washington State, US Canterbury. NZ James Cook, Australia Alabama, US Tulane, us Penn state. us Wisconsin, VS Binnineham. UK Central Florida, US Kentucky. US
Instances= 47 31 27 27 27 20 16 16 16 15 14 13 13 12 12 12 12 11 11 10 10 10
Weighted Instances
by Universities:” Number of Authors
30.14 19.14 21.48 17.50 14.66 11.99 8.58 8.57 7.33 10.16 5.81 12.00 6.33 9.00 7.33 6.50 4.73 9.00 7.25 10.00 4.82 3.50
a Those with at least six instances. b Ranked by number of instances. c Counts represent productivity for all campuses of a university. Note: See text for discussion of column definitions.
16 13 16 10 18 6
8
7 6 10 12 6 7 4 3 3 6
8 7 6 6 5
1980-1989
Me= Productivity 2.61 2.38 1.69 2.70 1.50 2.50 2.00 2.29 2.67 1.50 1.17 2.17 1.66 3.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 1.38 1.57 1.67 1.67 2.00
Collaboration R&i0 1.56 1.62 1.26 1.54 1.84 1.67 1.86 1.67 2.18 1.48 2.41 1.08 1.56 1.33 1.64 1.85 2.54 1.22 1.52 1.00 2.07 2.66
PAULINE
J. SHELDON
479
number of authors contributing to the journals from 1980 to 1989. This number does not represent the number of faculty in the institution or department, but the number that have authored or coauthored at least one article in the three journals from 1980 to 1989. Twenty-two universities have contributed at least 10 articles or parts of articles to the three journals from 1980 to 1989. Thirteen of these are US institutions; three are Canadian; three are British, and one each is in Israel, Australia, and New Zealand. University of Hawaii (USA), Waterloo University (Canada), and Surrey University (UK) published the most tourism articles, whether measured by instances or weighted instances. (UK’s University of Bradford and US’s Texas A&M University rank the same as Surrey when measured by instances, but rank lower when measured by weighted instances.) The top three institutions have large numbers of contributing authors (18, 13, and 16, respectively), which partly explains their higher productivity. Mean productivity per author (instances divided by the number of contributing authors at an institution) is reported in column four. It varies from high of 4.0 at James Cook (Australia) and Alabama (USA) where, on average, the authors were very prolific, to a low of 1.17 at Clemson (USA). Th is number is not intended to represent the overall productivity of either the institution or the authors, as authors publish in journals other than the three in this analysis. The top three institutions had a medium level of productivity per researcher (2.61, 2.38, and 1.69, respectively). Coauthorship of research can be viewed in different lights. Crossdisciplinary and international collaboration can improve the quality of research as skills and knowledge are pooled. Indeed, as a field matures and as the review process for articles becomes more rigorous, coauthorship often becomes the norm rather than the exception. Most institutions, however, require faculty’ to demonstrate independent scholarship in addition to collaborative scholarship before tenure and promotion are granted. The collaboration ratio (instances divided by weighted instances) is reported in column 5. It varied from 1.08 at Hebrew University (Israel) where most authors published singly authored articles, to 2.86 at Kentucky (US), where the norm was for almost three authors to collaborate on an article. The top three institutions had medium collaboration ratios (1.56, 1.62, and 1.26). Over time, some institutions fluctuate in research productivity because of the movement of faculty; others maintain their level of productivity despite faculty movement. This phenomenon was examined by dividing the decade into two sections (1980-1984 and 1985- 1989) and ranking the institutions for each live-year period. Table 5 shows the leading ten institutions for the two five-year periods. The leading institution for the entire decade (University of Hawaii) was also ranked top in both halves of the decade, showing stability of research output. Altogether, five universities were in the top 10 in both parts of the decade (Hawaii, Surrey, Waterloo, Calgary, and Texas A&M). Some universities ranked lower in the second half of the decade than they did in the first (Surrey, Calgary, Simon Fraser, South Carolina, James Cook, Amherst, and Washington State). Other institutions not in the top 10 in the first half of the decade emerged as leaders in the latter
AN AUTHORSHIP
480
ANALYSIS OF TOURISM
RESEARCH
Table 5. Research Contributions by the Top Ten Universities for the First and Second Halves of the Decade Ranked by Number of Instances Weighted Instances
University 1980-1984: Hawaii US Sumy:UK Calgary. Canada Simon Fraser. Canada Texas A&M, ils US Waterloo, Canada James Cook, Australia Amherst. Mass, US Washington ST., US 1985.1989: Hawaii US Bradfoid. UK Waterloo; Canada Texas A&M. US North Carolina, US Tulane, us Surrey, UK Arizona state, us Hebrew, Israel Calgary, Canada
SouthCarolina.
AU&X8
20 15 10 10 9 9 8 8 7
12.67 12.00 5.00 5.00 6.50 5.83 5.66 5.50 5.33 3.83
14 9 5 3 4
27 25 23 21 14 12 11 11 10 10
17.50 15.50 13.50 7.58 7.58 4.75 9.50 8.16 9.00 7.00
Mf%Il Productivity
Collaboration Ratio
3 4 4
1.43 1.67 2.00 3.33 2.25 3.00 1.60 2.67 1.75 1.75
1.58 1.25 2.00 2.00 1.38 1.54 1.41 1.45 1.31 1.83
12 10 12 16 5 6 10 6 5 5
2.25 2.50 1.92 1.31 2.80 2.00 1.10 1.83 2.00 2.00
1.54 1.61 1.70 2.77 1.85 2.53 1.16 1.35 1.11 1.43
part (Bradford, North Carolina, Tulane, Arizona State, and Hebrew University). Rankings, however, only give relative performance. A comparison of the two time periods reveals that the top 10 institutions have produced almost 60% more research in the second half of the decade than in the first (164 instances vs. 103). Consequently, to be in the top 10, institutions had to publish at least 10 instances in the second half of the decade, whereas in the first part they only had to publish 7 instances. Some of the above institutions, therefore, have increased their absolute productivity, but now rank lower because of the overall productivity increases. The rise in overall productivity over the decade is partly due to an increase in the number of authors writing in the three journals, rather than an increase in mean productivity per author. From 1980 to 1984, 322 authors contributed to the three journals, whereas from 1985 to 1989, 418 authors contributed - an increase of almost 30 % . From 1980 to 1984, the top 10 institutions had a total of 54 contributing authors, whereas from 1985 to 1989, this number rose to 87. The mean productivity per author in the top 10 institutions, on the other hand, has decreased from 2.15 to 1.97. The collaboration ratio at the top 10 institutions increased from 1.58 to 1.7 1. There are many reasons why authors choose a journal in which to publish their work, and some will always favor a particular journal. Table 6 shows the contributions of the top 10 universities to each For most universities, there is a fairly even journal for the decade. distribution of articles published in the three journals. There are, however, a few exceptions. Two British universities (Surrey and Bradford) predominantly published in the British-based journal TM; Calgary researchers published almost exclusively in JTR; and the US universi-
PAULINE J. SHELDON
Table 6. Research Contributions
of the Top Ten Universities by Journal
_AmfllsUniversitp Instances Hawaii, US Waterloo, Canada surrey, UK Bradford. UK Texas A&M, US Calgary. Canada South Carolina, US North Carolina, US Simon Fraser, Canada AI+mna state. us
13 11 3 4 8 0 6 7 4 4
481
_ Weighted Instances
m____
Instances
9.16 10.15 2.50 2.50 4.83 0.00 4.00 3.83 1.83 3.50
16 8 0 2 16 17 9 7 5 10
Weighted Illstmces
_
TM_
Instances
9.49 5.00 0.00 1.00 1.93 8.99 4.08 3.74 2.50 5.66
18 6 24 21 3 3 1 2 7 1
Weighted Instances 11.49 3.99 18.98 14.00 2.00 3.00 50 1.00 3.00 1.00
a Those with at least six instances.
ties in the lower TM.
part
of the table
had very
few articles
published
in
Repeat Contributions by Authors This section attempts to identify the stability of authorship of tourism research during the 1980s. Specifically, whether authors repeatedly contributed to the journals over the decade will be examined. Table 7 divides the authors into one-time authors, moderately contributing authors (more than one and less than five instances), and intensely contributing authors (five or more instances). The table also shows the information for each journal for the entire decade and in total for the two halves of the decade. The majority of the articles (75 “/ o ) were written by one-time authors. The percentages were slightly higher for each of the journals separately because authors may have contributed only one article to a particular journal, but may have contributed to more than one journal. A similar reasoning explains why there are more moderately and intensely contributing authors for the three journals together than for the individual journals. About 22% of the authors were classified as moderate contributors, and only 4% were classified as intense contributors. Intense contributors had, on average, been contributing research for a span of Table 7. Repeat Contributions Journal
Total Number Authors
One Timea AU&X-S
by Authors Moderatelyb Contributing Authors x 96
Intensely= Contributing Authors I %
#
96
Annals JTR TM Total (1980-1989)
261 258 227 646
216 206 178 485
82.8 79.8 78.4 75.1
40 50 45 134
15.3 19.4 19.8 20.1
5 2 4 27
1.9 0.8 1.8 4.2
1980.84 1985.89
322 418
270 336
83.9 80.4
46 73
14.3 17.5
6 9
1.9 2.2
’ Authors contributing b Authors contributing ’ Authors contributing
one instance. more than one, but less than five instances. five or more instances.
482
AN AUTHORSHIP
ANALYSIS
OF TOURISM
RESEARCH
5.6 years, whereas moderately contributing authors had contributed on average for a span of 3.2 years. An analysis of the two halves of the decade reveal that more repeat contributions occurred in the second half than the first. From 1980 to 1984, 83.9% of authors contributed only once, whereas in the next five-year period, there were only 80.4% one-time authors. Moderately contributing authors rose from 14.3 % to 17.5 %, and intensely contributing authors increased from 1.9 % to 2.2 ‘$% An analysis of repeat authorship at the top 10 institutions suggests that their high level of productivity is due to a few, or in most cases, only one specific author. Table 8 shows the number and percent of one-time authors, moderately contributing authors and intensely contributing authors. In all cases but one (Bradford), more than half of the authors contributed only one research article during the decade. Intensely contributing authors (five instances or more) are very few. There are one or two at each campus, except for Hawaii and Waterloo, each of which has three authors who contributed more than five instances during the decade. The majority of tourism research in these three journals, therefore, is not written by repeat publishers. The interdisciplinary nature of tourism could explain this. Economists, geographers, psychologists, anthropologists, and others, who usually write in journals in their own field, may have written individual articles pertaining to tourism and then returned to their own field. Moreover, graduate students who published their dissertations or theses and do not continue researching in the field may account for some. Others may be publishing work from an individual contract research project.
DISCUSSION
AND
CONCLUSIONS
This article has analyzed the contributions to tourism research from authors of different regions of the world and different universities. Academic authors were found to be the major contributors and are likely to
Table
8. Repeat
University
Contributions
Total Number Authors
by Authors (1980-1989) One Tim&’ Authors x
Hawaii, US Waterloo, Canada Surrey, UK Bradford, UK Texas A&M, US Calgary, Canada South Carolina, US North Carolina, US Smon Fraser, Canada Arizona State, US a Authors b Authors ’ Authors
contributing contributing contributing
18 13 16 10 18 8 8 7 6 10
at the Top Ten Universities
9 8 11 4 14 5 5 4 5 8
% 50 62 69 40 18 60 60 51 83 80
one Instance. more than one, but less than five instances. five or more instances.
Moderatelyb Contributing Authors % x 6 2 4 4 3 2 2 2 0 1
33 15 25 40 11 25 25 29 0 10
Intensely’ Contributing Authors # 7c 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
11 23 6 20 6 13 13 14 17 10
PAULINE
483
J. SHELDON
remain so as long as publishing is a requirement for academic career success. Contributions from nonacademic authors, however, were substantial, especially in Tourism Management. In an applied field such as tourism, this blend of academic and applied research can provide different perspectives and add diversity and richness to the journals. The highest producers of tourism research (in English) are authors from the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. They are shaping the body of tourism knowledge more than writers from other regions of the world. This is not surprising given the population densities and numbers of universities in the two regions, and the fact that they are English-speaking nations. In the decades to come, the Asia/Pacific region and other regions experiencing rapid tourism growth may contribute more research as they seek to understand tourism in their regions. Moreover, as the tourism sector of a country’s economy grows, funding to establish and support educational programs is likely, thereby stimulating more tourism research. This is already happening in Australia and other parts of the world. The study has also identified the university programs with the highest research output. Knowledge of these leading institutions in the tourism field should assist scholars and potential scholars who are seeking universities for study or teaching. No geographic explanation for why the topranked universities have excelled in tourism research is evident, except perhaps in the case of Hawaii, which is one of the world’s best-known tourism destinations. The high ranking of some institutions may be somewhat tenuous, as it is based on the work of one or two prolific authors who could leave the institution. For a program to have lasting excellence, there must be a critical mass of researching faculty to continually attract others and to attract the best students. These findings give some indication of institutions that have achieved that critical mass. Finally, this analysis has identified a number of characteristics of a maturing field of study, most notably that research productivity is increasing over time. It has also identified an increasing tendency to collaborate on research projects, a trend that should be encouraged. As authors from different disciplines work together, more insights are likely to be gained that will take tourism research to a higher level. The trend for more repeat contributors to the journals may also continue as researchers become attracted to the field and continue to work in it. Tourism research still has many phenomena to understand and theories to develop. The results of this study suggest that substantial progress towards that goal has been made in the 198Os, and that the 1990s can be expected to produce even greater gains. 0 0 AcknowledgementsThe author would like to thank Connie Polite and Harold Bindeus (research assistants at the School ofTrave Industry Management, University of Hawaii) for their assistance in creating the data base.
REFERENCES Allen B. J., and D. B. Vellenga 1987 Affiliation of Authors in Transportation and Logistics Update. Transportation Journal 26(3):39-47.
Academic
Journals-An
484
AN AUTHORSHIP
ANALYSIS
OF TOURISM
RESEARCH
Dann, G. M. S., D. Nash, and P. L. Pearce 1988 Methodology in Tourism Research. Annals of Tourism Research 15(1):1-28. Dann, Graham M. S. 1988 Tourism Research on the Caribbean: An Evaluation. Leisure Sciences lO(4): 261-280. Jafari, J., and D. Aaser 1988 Tourism as the Subject of Doctoral Dissertations. Annals of Tourism Research 15(3):407-429. Niemi, A. W., Jr. 1988 Research Productivity of American Business Schools, 1975-1985. Review of Business and Economic Research 23(2):1-17. \ , Sheldon, P. J. 1990 Journal Usage in Tourism: Perceptions of Publishing Faculty. Journal of Tourism Studies 1(1):42-48. \ Stahl, M. J., T. L. Leap, and Z. Z. Wei 1988 Publication in Leading Management Journals as a Measure of Institutional Research Productivity. Academy of Management Journal 31(3):707-720. Van Over, L. D., and R. R. Nelson 1987 Research in Management Information Systems, 1980-1985: A Profile of Leading Journals, Articles and Authors. Unpublished manuscript, University of Houston. I
Submitted 4 May 1990 Revised version submitted 5 September 1990 Accented 29 October 1990 Refeieed anonymously Coordinating Referee: Graham M. S. Dann