- Email: [email protected]
Knowledge exchange: A destination perspective
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 2 (2013) 129–131
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jdmm
Regional Spotlight
Knowledge exchange: A destination perspective Simon Hudson n College of Hospitality, Retail and Sport Management, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 11 April 2013 Accepted 26 August 2013 Available online 14 September 2013
A number of tourism researchers have suggested that despite the proliferation of tourism research (there are now over 100 tourism journals) the exchange of knowledge from academic research to practical application in the tourism industry is poor. The argument made is that academic research seldom influences the real world of practice, and that for knowledge transfer to assist destinations for example, a paradigm shift is required. This regional spotlight will take a look at the challenges of knowledge transfer in tourism, and focus on a unique tourism research center in South Carolina, where private and public sectors have joined together in an effort to support applied and commercially relevant research in order to improve the competitiveness of the state as a tourism destination. & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Knowledge transfer Tourism research center Destination competitiveness
As stated, many tourism academics have expressed a concern about the lack of balance between research production and utilization (Cooper, Prideaux, Ruhanen, Mules, & Carson, 2002; Cooper, 2006; Faulkner, Pearce, Shaw, & Weiler, 1994; Frechtling, 2004; Xiao & Smith, 2007). As noted by Ritchie and Ritchie, “a great deal of research is being conducted in tourism, but is inefficiently used and rarely exploited to its full potential” (2002, p 451). Similarly, Xiao and Smith (2007) question the effective use of knowledge by tourism businesses, and suggest there is a paradox in which practitioners espouse an appreciation for research but fail to use it. What are the causes of this breakdown in knowledge transfer? Both Cooper (2006) and Frechtling (2004) suggest that the diffusion of knowledge from academic research to practical application in the tourism industry is weak due in part to the poor linkages between tourism academics and practitioners. Others propose that knowledge generated by academics is often perceived as needlessly complicated or overly sophisticated whilst industry practitioners prefer easy-touse tools or quick answers (Ritchie & Ritchie, 2002; Ryan, 2001; Thomas, 2012). Some say the problem lies with academics who speak to and write only for themselves (Samdahl & Kelly, 1999), failing to understand the transfer process, and other suggest practitioners are indifferent to research journals (Jordan & Roland, 1999), relying more on intuition, personal experience and word of mouth for management and policy decisions than on research. Finally, Tribe (1997) proposes that the impasse between consultancy and academic research needs to be resolved before transfer and adoption of knowledge in tourism is common. Despite these drawbacks, there has been an acknowledgment in the last decade or so, by governments in particular, that
n
Tel.: þ 1 803 777 2705; fax: þ 1 803 777 6427. E-mail address: [email protected]
2212-571X/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2013.08.002
knowledge transfer is a priority for developing policy frameworks for a knowledge-based economy (Beesley, 2004; Cooper, 2006). As a consequence, funding is being provided to set up academic research centers to conduct applied and commercially relevant research, and various forms of technology transfer. Practices such as the Cooperative Research Centre program in Australia, and tourism research centers as part of the extension services in U.S. universities, are models of such knowledge transfer (Xiao, 2006). In 2002, the South Carolina General Assembly created the Center of Economic Excellence program (since rebranded as the ‘SmartState’ program). The legislature authorized the state’s three public research institutions, Clemson University, Medical University of South Carolina, and University of South Carolina, to use state funds to create Centers of Economic Excellence in research areas that would advance South Carolina’s economy. Each Center of Economic Excellence is awarded from $2 million to $5 million in South Carolina Education Lottery funds, which must be matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis with non-state investment. By 2013, 48 Centers had been created in areas such as biomedicine, automotive engineering, future fuels, nanotechnology, advanced materials, neuroscience, and healthcare. 19 of the Centers are collaborations involving multiple institutions. Endowed Chairs are appointed to lead the centers, all of them having to come from outside the state, so as to attract international recognized scholars. To date, the program has resulted in more than $1.4 billion in non-state investment entering the South Carolina economy, and has led to the creation of over 8000 new jobs (SmartState Annual Report, 2012). The SmartState-related jobs were created in part by companies that invested or expanded in South Carolina because of the SmartState program, by start-up companies that were launched based on SmartState research, and by research universities in the form of positions funded by grants and center investments. The $1.4 billion in investment is more than seven times the $180 million in South
130
S. Hudson / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 2 (2013) 129–131
Carolina Education Lottery proceeds that the General Assembly appropriated for the SmartState Program between 2003 and 2008. As part of this program, the “SmartState Center of Excellence for Tourism and Economic Development” was established in 2010 and is housed in the College of Hospitality, Retail and Sport Management on the Columbia campus of the University of South Carolina. In conjunction with industry, faculty, and graduate students, the goal for the center is to perform tourism and hospitality-based research that is relevant and directly applicable to South Carolina, ultimately leading to the creation of jobs in the state. To create the center, the College raised $2 million of private funding to match the State’s $2 million, and much of this sits in an endowment to pay annual running costs, such as salaries. The center has a small team – the director, two assistant professors, and two fully-funded PhD students. In addition, a grant writer is employed by the center as one expectation of research centers is that they attract external funding – always a challenge in the tourism field. The center has matching funds to kick-start projects that have the potential to spur tourism economic development and create jobs in the state. This 50/50 match helped secure one of the center’s first research projects in rural South Carolina, a feasibility study for a $130 million International Equestrian Center in Aiken County. The study, conducted for the Chamber of Commerce, included an industry analysis, a tourism resource inventory of Aiken and surrounding areas, a stakeholder perception and attitude study, projected market demand for the various components of the park, potential direct and indirect economic impacts, and a sustainability analysis. The research conducted was strongly grounded in theory. For example, the qualitative research revealed that trust in the local chamber was a matter of contention and worthy of further examination in assessing resident support for the development. Residents' level of trustworthiness was therefore measured in a survey using scales developed from the literature on trust (Mayer & Gavin, 2005; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2012). The study was an $80,000 project for the center, and if the development moves ahead (a strategy the team recommended), it will have a significant impact on the economy and job creation in South Carolina – as well as raising the profile of the state internationally. In another research project, the team was engaged to undertake a branding assessment and development project for the Town of Bluffton near the south coast. Partnering with a branding company based out of Charleston, the team was responsible for the first stage of destination brand building, which is to establish the core values of the destination and its brand (Morgan, Pritchard, & Piggott, 2003). A mixture of qualitative and quantitative research was employed to understand how contemporary or relevant the brand was to residents, potential businesses, and visitors, and how it compared with key competitors. As an example, the team invited residents to charrettes – which are often used in the development of place brands (Mendoza, 2011) – in order to reveal Bluffton’s cultural characteristics and paint a picture for the future. During the charrettes, the researchers employed appreciative inquiry (Stowell & West, 1991), projective techniques (Burns & Lennon, 1993; Hofstede, van Hoof, Walenberg, & de Jong, 2007), and visioning exercises (Shipley, 2002), all common exercises in brand image research. In another initiative, the center has received funding to develop a health and wellness tourism strategy for South Carolina. There are a growing number of tourists who travel for "lifestyle rejuvenation", so U.S. travelers are being surveyed to investigate perceptions and attitudes towards health and wellness tourism, and their likelihood of visiting South Carolina as a health and wellness destination. Self-determination theory (SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2000) is also being used to understand the motivations of wellness tourists and their ability to attain psychological growth, integration and
well-being from wellness vacations. The outcome will be a strategy document that identifies the best competitive marketing position for health and wellness tourism in the state. Future research projects include identifying ways to increase the number of African American tourists coming to South Carolina and to promote the state’s rich inventory of sites and experiences related to African American culture and history. South Carolina has an unparalleled legacy of African American culture and history and a strong tourism infrastructure capable of supporting the growth and development of this exciting market component. The team is also conducting feasibility studies to open up South Carolina’s waterways for tourism. The state has nearly 500 miles of navigable inland waterways – most of it untouched – so the center is looking at the potential for sustainable tourism development on these lakes, rivers and intracoastal waterways. In order to encourage innovation and create new jobs in the state, the center has also created a tourism and hospitality business incubator. Academic research and research-based education are generally considered indispensable for the encouragement of inventions and innovations and for their subsequent commercial exploitation (Hjalager, 2010). So this new incubator offers opportunities for tourism and hospitality entrepreneurs to turn their business ideas into a reality. The first business into the incubator – a father–son partnership – plans to set up an agri-tourism business in Columbia centered around hydroponics. To assist these (and other) small businesses, the center has also created a new tourism consultancy class for Masters students, where the students go out in teams and consult for tourism and hospitality businesses in the state. One group of students successfully assisted the state’s tourism agency (South Carolina Parks Recreation and Tourism) with their social media strategy, and the agency immediately requested a group be assigned to them for the following year. A future goal for the center is the creation of a training program for tourism and hospitality employees in South Carolina. The team has started with customer service training, but they plan to expand the training into subjects such as Marketing, Finance, Retailing, Research Methods and Sustainability Analysis. They have already conducted customer service training programs for restaurants in Charleston, a local convention center, and a group of small businesses in Lake City. Running a research center does not come without its challenges. Convincing the industry that an academic research center can actually help them is an ongoing trial. As mentioned earlier, practitioners want easy-to-use tools and quick answers – and often for nothing (Ryan, 2001). This relates to the second challenge of raising funds. There are very few government agencies or foundations that sponsor tourism-related research, so winning large grants is not easy. For that reason, the center is collaborating with researchers from different schools across the University of South Carolina campus – from Public Health and Medicine, to Arts and Science and Engineering – in an effort to win major grants from agencies like the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Health. For all research centers of this nature that are designed to support a knowledge-based economy, the transfer of knowledge is critical. This transfer can occur both during the research process and on completion. In two of the projects described above, academic theory was fundamental the research methods employed. In Aiken for example, the theory of trust was employed to assess resident support for the development; and in the Bluffton re-branding exercise, the theory of destination brand building was applied to understand how contemporary or relevant the brand was to residents, potential businesses, and visitors, and how it compared with key competitors. Dissemination of findings is another important component of knowledge transfer, and Cooper and Ruhanen (2002) have suggested
S. Hudson / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 2 (2013) 129–131
that industry partners and researchers should jointly identify appropriate vehicles for transfer prior to commencing the project. This occurred on completion of the Aiken feasibility study referred to earlier. It was decided that a glossy but professional report would be printed and posted online, and released at the same time as a town meeting was held in Aiken, preceded by a media event where local correspondents could interview the researchers about the results of the study. Aside from these individual arrangements, the center distributes information via a dedicated website, a blog, a biannual newsletter, and various printed communication materials. Members of the team speak at industry conferences on a regular basis in the state and publish a number of industry articles in local business magazines. They also comment regularly on various local TV channels and for national newspapers. These public relations opportunities raise the profile of the center and of the university in general. There can be downsides to the establishment of such research centers. Some say that they exacerbate the strain that university faculty already endures (Boardman & Bozeman, 2007), and others suggest that academic departments are ill equipped to evaluate center research when making salary, tenure and promotion decisions (Arocena & Sutz, 2001; Bozeman & Boardman, 2003; Siegel, Campbell, Folleman, & Morgan, 2002). But what this regional spotlight has shown is that academic research centers can be of great benefit to tourism destinations, especially if knowledge is transferred effectively and regularly between scholars and tourism practitioners. The ultimate goal of knowledge transfer is that of gaining competitive advantage (Nonaka, 1991), and for destinations, knowledge is critical for adapting to changing situations (Baggio & Cooper, 2010; Cooper, 2006). It is recognized that the tourism research center profiled here is not a one-off. But the more we can highlight such initiatives, the more likely we are to change the perception that academic research seldom influences the real world of practice. References Arocena, R., & Sutz, J. (2001). Changing knowledge production and Latin American universities. Research Policy, 30(8), 1221–1235. Baggio, R., & Cooper, C. (2010). Knowledge transfer in a tourism destination: The effects of a network structure. The Service Industries Journal, 30(8), 1757–1771. Beesley, L. (2004). Multi-level complexity in the management of collaborative tourism research settings. In: C. Cooper, C. Arcodia, D. Solnet, & M. Whitford (Eds.), Creating Tourism Knowledge: A Selection of Papers from CAUTHE 2004 (pp. 20–36). Victoria: Common Ground Publishing. Boardman, C., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Role strain in university research centers. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(4), 430–463. Bozeman, B., & Boardman, C. (2003). Managing the New Multipurpose, Multidiscipline Research Center: Institutional Innovation in the Academic Community. Washington DC: IBM Endowment for Business of Government. Burns, L. D., & Lennon, S. J. (1993). Social perception: Methods for measuring our perception of others. International Textile and Apparel Association Special Publication, 5, 153–159.
131
Cooper, C. (2006). Knowledge management and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1), 47–64. Cooper, C., Prideaux, B., Ruhanen, L., Mules, T., & Carson, D. (2002). Development of a Destination Management Framework. Brisbane: CRCST. Cooper, C., & Ruhanen, L. (2002). Best Practice in Intellectual Property Commercialization. Brisbane: CRCST. Faulkner, W., Pearce, P., Shaw, R., & Weiler, B. (1994). Tourism research in Australia. In Proceedings for the Tourism Research and Education Conference (pp. 3–15). Brisbane: CAUTHE. Frechtling, D. (2004). Assessment of the tourism/hospitality journals' role in knowledge transfer: An exploratory study. Journal of Travel Research, 43(2), 100–107. Hjalager, A-M. (2010). A review of innovation research in tourism. Tourism Management, 31(1), 1–12. Hofstede, A., van Hoof, J., Walenberg, N., & de Jong, M. (2007). Projective techniques for brand image research: Two personification-based methods explored. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 10(3), 300–309. Jordan, D., & Roland, M. (1999). An examination of differences between academics and practitioners in frequency of reading research and attitudes towards research. Journal of Leisure Research, 31(2), 166–170. Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal Review, 48(5), 874–888. Mendoza, M. (2011). Business leaders meet to brainstorm new brand. The Colorado Springs Business Journal (August 1 Retrieved from) 〈http://csbj.com/2011/08/01/ business-leaders-meet-to-brainstorm-new-brand/〉. Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., & Piggott, R. (2003). Destination branding and the role of the stakeholders: The case of New Zealand. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(3), 285–299. Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 96–104. Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2012). Power, trust, social exchange and community support. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 997–1023. Ritchie, R. B., & Ritchie, B. (2002). A framework for an industry supported destination marketing information system. Tourism Management, 23(5), 439–454. Ryan, C. (2001). Academia-industry tourism research links: States of confusion. Pacific Tourism Review, 5(3–4), 83–95. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. Samdahl, D., & Kelly, J. (1999). Speaking only to ourselves? Citation analysis of Journal of Leisure Research and Leisure Sciences. Journal of Leisure Research, 31 (2), 171–180. Shipley, R. (2002). Visioning in planning: Is the practice based on sound theory? Environment and Planning A, 34(1), 7–22. Siegel, D. S., Campbell, T., Folleman, M. H., & Morgan, E. (2002). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 111–133. SmartState Annual Report (2012). 2011–2012 Annual Report to the S.C. General Assembly and the S.C. Budget & Control Board, Retrieved from: 〈http://smart statesc.org/〉 Accessed June 12.06.13. Stowell, F. A., & West., D. (1991). The appreciative inquiry method, a systems based method of knowledge elicitation. In: M. C. Jackson, G. J. Mansell, R.L Flood, R. B. Blackham, & S. V.E. Probert (Eds.), Systems Thinking in Europe (pp. 493–497). New York: Plenum. Thomas, R. (2012). Business elites, universities and knowledge transfer in tourism. Tourism Management, 33(3), 553–561. Tribe, J. (1997). The indiscipline of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 638–657. Xiao, H. (2006). Towards a research agenda for knowledge management in tourism. Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development, 3(2), 143–157. Xiao, H., & Smith, L. (2007). The use of research knowledge: Research propositions. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(2), 310–331.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jdmm
Regional Spotlight
Knowledge exchange: A destination perspective Simon Hudson n College of Hospitality, Retail and Sport Management, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 11 April 2013 Accepted 26 August 2013 Available online 14 September 2013
A number of tourism researchers have suggested that despite the proliferation of tourism research (there are now over 100 tourism journals) the exchange of knowledge from academic research to practical application in the tourism industry is poor. The argument made is that academic research seldom influences the real world of practice, and that for knowledge transfer to assist destinations for example, a paradigm shift is required. This regional spotlight will take a look at the challenges of knowledge transfer in tourism, and focus on a unique tourism research center in South Carolina, where private and public sectors have joined together in an effort to support applied and commercially relevant research in order to improve the competitiveness of the state as a tourism destination. & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Knowledge transfer Tourism research center Destination competitiveness
As stated, many tourism academics have expressed a concern about the lack of balance between research production and utilization (Cooper, Prideaux, Ruhanen, Mules, & Carson, 2002; Cooper, 2006; Faulkner, Pearce, Shaw, & Weiler, 1994; Frechtling, 2004; Xiao & Smith, 2007). As noted by Ritchie and Ritchie, “a great deal of research is being conducted in tourism, but is inefficiently used and rarely exploited to its full potential” (2002, p 451). Similarly, Xiao and Smith (2007) question the effective use of knowledge by tourism businesses, and suggest there is a paradox in which practitioners espouse an appreciation for research but fail to use it. What are the causes of this breakdown in knowledge transfer? Both Cooper (2006) and Frechtling (2004) suggest that the diffusion of knowledge from academic research to practical application in the tourism industry is weak due in part to the poor linkages between tourism academics and practitioners. Others propose that knowledge generated by academics is often perceived as needlessly complicated or overly sophisticated whilst industry practitioners prefer easy-touse tools or quick answers (Ritchie & Ritchie, 2002; Ryan, 2001; Thomas, 2012). Some say the problem lies with academics who speak to and write only for themselves (Samdahl & Kelly, 1999), failing to understand the transfer process, and other suggest practitioners are indifferent to research journals (Jordan & Roland, 1999), relying more on intuition, personal experience and word of mouth for management and policy decisions than on research. Finally, Tribe (1997) proposes that the impasse between consultancy and academic research needs to be resolved before transfer and adoption of knowledge in tourism is common. Despite these drawbacks, there has been an acknowledgment in the last decade or so, by governments in particular, that
n
Tel.: þ 1 803 777 2705; fax: þ 1 803 777 6427. E-mail address: [email protected]
2212-571X/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2013.08.002
knowledge transfer is a priority for developing policy frameworks for a knowledge-based economy (Beesley, 2004; Cooper, 2006). As a consequence, funding is being provided to set up academic research centers to conduct applied and commercially relevant research, and various forms of technology transfer. Practices such as the Cooperative Research Centre program in Australia, and tourism research centers as part of the extension services in U.S. universities, are models of such knowledge transfer (Xiao, 2006). In 2002, the South Carolina General Assembly created the Center of Economic Excellence program (since rebranded as the ‘SmartState’ program). The legislature authorized the state’s three public research institutions, Clemson University, Medical University of South Carolina, and University of South Carolina, to use state funds to create Centers of Economic Excellence in research areas that would advance South Carolina’s economy. Each Center of Economic Excellence is awarded from $2 million to $5 million in South Carolina Education Lottery funds, which must be matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis with non-state investment. By 2013, 48 Centers had been created in areas such as biomedicine, automotive engineering, future fuels, nanotechnology, advanced materials, neuroscience, and healthcare. 19 of the Centers are collaborations involving multiple institutions. Endowed Chairs are appointed to lead the centers, all of them having to come from outside the state, so as to attract international recognized scholars. To date, the program has resulted in more than $1.4 billion in non-state investment entering the South Carolina economy, and has led to the creation of over 8000 new jobs (SmartState Annual Report, 2012). The SmartState-related jobs were created in part by companies that invested or expanded in South Carolina because of the SmartState program, by start-up companies that were launched based on SmartState research, and by research universities in the form of positions funded by grants and center investments. The $1.4 billion in investment is more than seven times the $180 million in South
130
S. Hudson / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 2 (2013) 129–131
Carolina Education Lottery proceeds that the General Assembly appropriated for the SmartState Program between 2003 and 2008. As part of this program, the “SmartState Center of Excellence for Tourism and Economic Development” was established in 2010 and is housed in the College of Hospitality, Retail and Sport Management on the Columbia campus of the University of South Carolina. In conjunction with industry, faculty, and graduate students, the goal for the center is to perform tourism and hospitality-based research that is relevant and directly applicable to South Carolina, ultimately leading to the creation of jobs in the state. To create the center, the College raised $2 million of private funding to match the State’s $2 million, and much of this sits in an endowment to pay annual running costs, such as salaries. The center has a small team – the director, two assistant professors, and two fully-funded PhD students. In addition, a grant writer is employed by the center as one expectation of research centers is that they attract external funding – always a challenge in the tourism field. The center has matching funds to kick-start projects that have the potential to spur tourism economic development and create jobs in the state. This 50/50 match helped secure one of the center’s first research projects in rural South Carolina, a feasibility study for a $130 million International Equestrian Center in Aiken County. The study, conducted for the Chamber of Commerce, included an industry analysis, a tourism resource inventory of Aiken and surrounding areas, a stakeholder perception and attitude study, projected market demand for the various components of the park, potential direct and indirect economic impacts, and a sustainability analysis. The research conducted was strongly grounded in theory. For example, the qualitative research revealed that trust in the local chamber was a matter of contention and worthy of further examination in assessing resident support for the development. Residents' level of trustworthiness was therefore measured in a survey using scales developed from the literature on trust (Mayer & Gavin, 2005; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2012). The study was an $80,000 project for the center, and if the development moves ahead (a strategy the team recommended), it will have a significant impact on the economy and job creation in South Carolina – as well as raising the profile of the state internationally. In another research project, the team was engaged to undertake a branding assessment and development project for the Town of Bluffton near the south coast. Partnering with a branding company based out of Charleston, the team was responsible for the first stage of destination brand building, which is to establish the core values of the destination and its brand (Morgan, Pritchard, & Piggott, 2003). A mixture of qualitative and quantitative research was employed to understand how contemporary or relevant the brand was to residents, potential businesses, and visitors, and how it compared with key competitors. As an example, the team invited residents to charrettes – which are often used in the development of place brands (Mendoza, 2011) – in order to reveal Bluffton’s cultural characteristics and paint a picture for the future. During the charrettes, the researchers employed appreciative inquiry (Stowell & West, 1991), projective techniques (Burns & Lennon, 1993; Hofstede, van Hoof, Walenberg, & de Jong, 2007), and visioning exercises (Shipley, 2002), all common exercises in brand image research. In another initiative, the center has received funding to develop a health and wellness tourism strategy for South Carolina. There are a growing number of tourists who travel for "lifestyle rejuvenation", so U.S. travelers are being surveyed to investigate perceptions and attitudes towards health and wellness tourism, and their likelihood of visiting South Carolina as a health and wellness destination. Self-determination theory (SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2000) is also being used to understand the motivations of wellness tourists and their ability to attain psychological growth, integration and
well-being from wellness vacations. The outcome will be a strategy document that identifies the best competitive marketing position for health and wellness tourism in the state. Future research projects include identifying ways to increase the number of African American tourists coming to South Carolina and to promote the state’s rich inventory of sites and experiences related to African American culture and history. South Carolina has an unparalleled legacy of African American culture and history and a strong tourism infrastructure capable of supporting the growth and development of this exciting market component. The team is also conducting feasibility studies to open up South Carolina’s waterways for tourism. The state has nearly 500 miles of navigable inland waterways – most of it untouched – so the center is looking at the potential for sustainable tourism development on these lakes, rivers and intracoastal waterways. In order to encourage innovation and create new jobs in the state, the center has also created a tourism and hospitality business incubator. Academic research and research-based education are generally considered indispensable for the encouragement of inventions and innovations and for their subsequent commercial exploitation (Hjalager, 2010). So this new incubator offers opportunities for tourism and hospitality entrepreneurs to turn their business ideas into a reality. The first business into the incubator – a father–son partnership – plans to set up an agri-tourism business in Columbia centered around hydroponics. To assist these (and other) small businesses, the center has also created a new tourism consultancy class for Masters students, where the students go out in teams and consult for tourism and hospitality businesses in the state. One group of students successfully assisted the state’s tourism agency (South Carolina Parks Recreation and Tourism) with their social media strategy, and the agency immediately requested a group be assigned to them for the following year. A future goal for the center is the creation of a training program for tourism and hospitality employees in South Carolina. The team has started with customer service training, but they plan to expand the training into subjects such as Marketing, Finance, Retailing, Research Methods and Sustainability Analysis. They have already conducted customer service training programs for restaurants in Charleston, a local convention center, and a group of small businesses in Lake City. Running a research center does not come without its challenges. Convincing the industry that an academic research center can actually help them is an ongoing trial. As mentioned earlier, practitioners want easy-to-use tools and quick answers – and often for nothing (Ryan, 2001). This relates to the second challenge of raising funds. There are very few government agencies or foundations that sponsor tourism-related research, so winning large grants is not easy. For that reason, the center is collaborating with researchers from different schools across the University of South Carolina campus – from Public Health and Medicine, to Arts and Science and Engineering – in an effort to win major grants from agencies like the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Health. For all research centers of this nature that are designed to support a knowledge-based economy, the transfer of knowledge is critical. This transfer can occur both during the research process and on completion. In two of the projects described above, academic theory was fundamental the research methods employed. In Aiken for example, the theory of trust was employed to assess resident support for the development; and in the Bluffton re-branding exercise, the theory of destination brand building was applied to understand how contemporary or relevant the brand was to residents, potential businesses, and visitors, and how it compared with key competitors. Dissemination of findings is another important component of knowledge transfer, and Cooper and Ruhanen (2002) have suggested
S. Hudson / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 2 (2013) 129–131
that industry partners and researchers should jointly identify appropriate vehicles for transfer prior to commencing the project. This occurred on completion of the Aiken feasibility study referred to earlier. It was decided that a glossy but professional report would be printed and posted online, and released at the same time as a town meeting was held in Aiken, preceded by a media event where local correspondents could interview the researchers about the results of the study. Aside from these individual arrangements, the center distributes information via a dedicated website, a blog, a biannual newsletter, and various printed communication materials. Members of the team speak at industry conferences on a regular basis in the state and publish a number of industry articles in local business magazines. They also comment regularly on various local TV channels and for national newspapers. These public relations opportunities raise the profile of the center and of the university in general. There can be downsides to the establishment of such research centers. Some say that they exacerbate the strain that university faculty already endures (Boardman & Bozeman, 2007), and others suggest that academic departments are ill equipped to evaluate center research when making salary, tenure and promotion decisions (Arocena & Sutz, 2001; Bozeman & Boardman, 2003; Siegel, Campbell, Folleman, & Morgan, 2002). But what this regional spotlight has shown is that academic research centers can be of great benefit to tourism destinations, especially if knowledge is transferred effectively and regularly between scholars and tourism practitioners. The ultimate goal of knowledge transfer is that of gaining competitive advantage (Nonaka, 1991), and for destinations, knowledge is critical for adapting to changing situations (Baggio & Cooper, 2010; Cooper, 2006). It is recognized that the tourism research center profiled here is not a one-off. But the more we can highlight such initiatives, the more likely we are to change the perception that academic research seldom influences the real world of practice. References Arocena, R., & Sutz, J. (2001). Changing knowledge production and Latin American universities. Research Policy, 30(8), 1221–1235. Baggio, R., & Cooper, C. (2010). Knowledge transfer in a tourism destination: The effects of a network structure. The Service Industries Journal, 30(8), 1757–1771. Beesley, L. (2004). Multi-level complexity in the management of collaborative tourism research settings. In: C. Cooper, C. Arcodia, D. Solnet, & M. Whitford (Eds.), Creating Tourism Knowledge: A Selection of Papers from CAUTHE 2004 (pp. 20–36). Victoria: Common Ground Publishing. Boardman, C., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Role strain in university research centers. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(4), 430–463. Bozeman, B., & Boardman, C. (2003). Managing the New Multipurpose, Multidiscipline Research Center: Institutional Innovation in the Academic Community. Washington DC: IBM Endowment for Business of Government. Burns, L. D., & Lennon, S. J. (1993). Social perception: Methods for measuring our perception of others. International Textile and Apparel Association Special Publication, 5, 153–159.
131
Cooper, C. (2006). Knowledge management and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1), 47–64. Cooper, C., Prideaux, B., Ruhanen, L., Mules, T., & Carson, D. (2002). Development of a Destination Management Framework. Brisbane: CRCST. Cooper, C., & Ruhanen, L. (2002). Best Practice in Intellectual Property Commercialization. Brisbane: CRCST. Faulkner, W., Pearce, P., Shaw, R., & Weiler, B. (1994). Tourism research in Australia. In Proceedings for the Tourism Research and Education Conference (pp. 3–15). Brisbane: CAUTHE. Frechtling, D. (2004). Assessment of the tourism/hospitality journals' role in knowledge transfer: An exploratory study. Journal of Travel Research, 43(2), 100–107. Hjalager, A-M. (2010). A review of innovation research in tourism. Tourism Management, 31(1), 1–12. Hofstede, A., van Hoof, J., Walenberg, N., & de Jong, M. (2007). Projective techniques for brand image research: Two personification-based methods explored. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 10(3), 300–309. Jordan, D., & Roland, M. (1999). An examination of differences between academics and practitioners in frequency of reading research and attitudes towards research. Journal of Leisure Research, 31(2), 166–170. Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal Review, 48(5), 874–888. Mendoza, M. (2011). Business leaders meet to brainstorm new brand. The Colorado Springs Business Journal (August 1 Retrieved from) 〈http://csbj.com/2011/08/01/ business-leaders-meet-to-brainstorm-new-brand/〉. Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., & Piggott, R. (2003). Destination branding and the role of the stakeholders: The case of New Zealand. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(3), 285–299. Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 96–104. Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2012). Power, trust, social exchange and community support. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 997–1023. Ritchie, R. B., & Ritchie, B. (2002). A framework for an industry supported destination marketing information system. Tourism Management, 23(5), 439–454. Ryan, C. (2001). Academia-industry tourism research links: States of confusion. Pacific Tourism Review, 5(3–4), 83–95. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. Samdahl, D., & Kelly, J. (1999). Speaking only to ourselves? Citation analysis of Journal of Leisure Research and Leisure Sciences. Journal of Leisure Research, 31 (2), 171–180. Shipley, R. (2002). Visioning in planning: Is the practice based on sound theory? Environment and Planning A, 34(1), 7–22. Siegel, D. S., Campbell, T., Folleman, M. H., & Morgan, E. (2002). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 111–133. SmartState Annual Report (2012). 2011–2012 Annual Report to the S.C. General Assembly and the S.C. Budget & Control Board, Retrieved from: 〈http://smart statesc.org/〉 Accessed June 12.06.13. Stowell, F. A., & West., D. (1991). The appreciative inquiry method, a systems based method of knowledge elicitation. In: M. C. Jackson, G. J. Mansell, R.L Flood, R. B. Blackham, & S. V.E. Probert (Eds.), Systems Thinking in Europe (pp. 493–497). New York: Plenum. Thomas, R. (2012). Business elites, universities and knowledge transfer in tourism. Tourism Management, 33(3), 553–561. Tribe, J. (1997). The indiscipline of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 638–657. Xiao, H. (2006). Towards a research agenda for knowledge management in tourism. Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development, 3(2), 143–157. Xiao, H., & Smith, L. (2007). The use of research knowledge: Research propositions. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(2), 310–331.