- Email: [email protected]
The debate between empirical and broader phenomenological approaches to research
Tourism Management xxx (2016) 1e5
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Tourism Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman
The debate between empirical and broader phenomenological approaches to research Ziqian Song China Tourism Academy, 9A Jianguomennei Ave., Beijing 100740, China
h i g h l i g h t s Examines current debate in China over research approaches. Examines the requirement for ‘scientific integrity’ in Chinese tourism research. Distinguishes between ‘pseudo-empiricism’ and empiricism.
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 7 March 2016 Accepted 7 March 2016 Available online xxx
Since the end of the nineteenth century, the discourse between positivism and phenomenology has dominated the development of social science research methods. The argument is reflected in current tourism research and some scholars doubt the validity of positivism. Here opposing views as expressed in two recent Chinese publications are examined. By analyzing the two views and their methodology, the characteristics and limitations of both positivism and phenomenology can be highlighted. Both positivism and phenomenological methods have their own advantages and disadvantages, and an integration of the two types of research methods is most commonly used. In some specific research methods positivistic and phenomenological methods can be combined to attain more scientific knowledge. The paper also examines ‘technical rationality’, a philosophy which has been criticized by many for excessively focusing on the tool itself and so ignoring the research object and the purpose of the study. Yet although technical rationality does derive from positivism the former cannot simply be equal to the latter. It is suggested that the improvement of the scientific quality of tourism research is still the primary need for the development of the tourism discipline at present. It is not possible for tourism research to become a discipline purely through inclusion in specialized courses or existing subject content. Tourism research must become more scientific before it becomes a discipline. © 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords: Tourism science Research methodology Positivism Phenomenology
1. Introduction In recent years, more tourism researchers are skeptical of positivism. Thus, Li Tianyuan (Babble, 2009) and Zhang Jinshan (Hui, 2010) have warned against excessive praise of positivism in tourism research. Similarly, Xie Yanjun (Husserl, 2001; Li, 2010), and Zhang bin and Zhang Pengjun (Qing, 2010) have suggested exploring the essence of tourism with phenomenology, which they regard as the primary way in which to conduct research, and they have sought to construct the own system of tourism studies from that perspective. To summarize that discussion seems to tell people: phenomenology will be the mainstream in the tourism
E-mail address: [email protected].
research. Currently, it seems in the Chinese literature that few adopt both positivism and phenomenology, and there remains a lack of theoretical analysis for the adoption of mixed methods. In this case, it is necessary to deepen discussion in tourism studies. Based on that premise, this paper will combine the two theories put forward by the Chinese scholars and try to elaborate their characteristics and limitations. Moreover, this paper will also discuss the trend in tourism research methodologies. 2. The characteristics and limitations of positivism Using Shen Baojia's concept of tourism phenomenalism as an example, in 2010, when Shen Baojia was nearly 90 years old, he published a book, entitled “The principle of tourism - the systematic explanation of tourism research on the Law of Motion”. In this book
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.03.016 0261-5177/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Please cite this article in press as: Song, Z., The debate between empirical and broader phenomenological approaches to research, Tourism Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.03.016
2
Z. Song / Tourism Management xxx (2016) 1e5
Shen developed one of his basic points, namely: tourism is one of the outcomes of market economy development. He said this conclusion was the first proposition in his research life and it has subsequently directed his research (Shen, 2010, P 4). Shen notes in his research of the basic theory of tourism that the first problem to be solved is the origin of tourism. In the tourism academy, reference is made to the view that “tourism is from ancient times” (Shen, 2010, P 40). Therefore, for Shen, his conclusion that tourism is one of results of market economy development is a view based on rigorous research with positivist methodology and derived from historical study. Shen's argument involved two complex concepts. The first is his definition that “tourism” is better understood as the “tourism phenomenon”. Shen then argues that the concept is basic and is a core theory in his research. This is justified by the view that tourism is a personal activity, but in its wider context a better way of describing the issues is to use the phraseology “tourism phenomenon” (Shen, 2010, P 16). From the above summary, it can be seen that Shen never denies that “tourism” is one of personal activities, but the “tourism phenomenon is one of the productions of market economy development” and hence the total study is premised around the “condition of tourism phenomenon production” and the “development and operational form of tourism phenomenon.” For Shen the understanding of “tourism” is primarily within the “tourism phenomenon.” The second related perspective is that Shen's “tourism phenomenon” is actually “tourism as a social phenomenon”. When he discussed the question ‘what is the tourism research object?, Shen quoted Durkheim's words: “When the sociologist tries to study a kind of social reality, he must investigate it as an independent existence, instead of studying it from specific personal behavior.” in the other words, researchers should investigate those social realities as a “thing”. The “thing” does not mean social reality or social phenomenon had been materially created, but it means a law and that social reality and social phenomenon have their own law, which cannot be transformed by people's mind alone but by a wider social structure (Shen, 2010, P 14). In conclusion, Shen pointed “when we confirmed tourism is a historical product of social development, we also confirm it is physical attribute. We confirmed it is a ‘regular’ social phenomenon and we called it a ‘tourism phenomenon.’” (Shen, 2010, P 15). Understanding Shen's point that “tourism is one of the productions of a market economy development” transfers to mean “tourism as a social phenomenon, is one of the productions of the market economy development”, makes it easier to comprehend his whole study. Only under the market economic system of mass production, does tourism become a kind of public lifestyle. Or in the other words, “tourism” becomes “tourism phenomenon”. In history, tourism was (arguably) a form of personal entertainment of travel and leisure instead of being social phenomenon. Only when mass production and self-consciousness become the supporting material and spiritual power of social development, could tourism transfer from a time it was but a small scale and self-supporting economy where tourism was a personal entertainment into a tourism phenomenon in a market economy (Shen, 2010, P 3). Researching “tourism” as regular social phenomenon rather than personal activity is representative of the classical departure point of early positivists (such as Durkheim) among the social sciences researchers who wanted to locate social science research alongside a science of nature. The basic positivism behind the researcher's gaze of social fact and social phenomenon as a “thing” is seeking the ‘fact’ as the basis of research. Or, all valid knowledge must be based on empirical facts and be confirmed by experience.
In this way, this experience is a perceptual experience that can be observed by the public and quantified by measurement. Only in this way can tourism research achieve scientific objective and accuracy (Tian, 2010, P 11). Some positivists even proposed strictly separating ‘fact judgments’ and ‘value judgments’ because the former is premised in a realism that can be confirmed by experience but the latter is an idealistic judgment not capable of being wholly confirmed by experience. Therefore, value judgment does not belong within the scope of scientific research (Tian, 2010, P 24). One of the major challenges posed by early social science is the focusing of research on objective reality, particularly in regular social phenomenon, which enabled social science to get rid of ambiguous concepts or value based contradictions and thereby attain higher-consensus research achievements by using research methodologies derived from the natural sciences. However, there are methodological limitations that attract many critiques. First, many have questioned whether there is an ‘objective reality’. It is argued that it is inevitable that social scientists bring their own consciousness into their research, and hence the ‘objective fact’ is simply their own understanding of an objective fact. The developments of phenomenology and postmodernism relate to these issues. Earl Babbie notes in his book “The Practice of Social Research” that increasing numbers of philosophers are discussing reality from a postmodern viewpoint. From this perspective “reality” comes from their consciousness. Namely, there is no external world. All is in an internal world (Tribe, 1997, P 10). Second, people also suspected there is a regularity in social phenomenon. Positivists such as Mill believed social phenomenon also has homogeneity, but is nuanced, uncertain and hard to find. Others disagreed. They insisted that the decisive factors that influence the people's behavior or social change are not only perplexing and constantly changing, but also hard or impossible to predict; while others have suggested that social research is not independent of the object being researched, that is to say, social science theory could affect the development of social phenomenon. It remains an open question as to whether there are regularities of social phenomenon. Yet, even they do exist, they may be difficult to discern and may be inhibited by patterns of wider changes due to complex influences and a changing. Popper, although a positivist, noted in the beginning of his book ”The Poverty of Historicism”, that “The basic argument of this book is believing historical destiny is a kind of superstition. Human history cannot be predicted by any ways” (Tian, 2010, P 64). Third, the outcomes of social science research are reduced for want of value. For example, Husserl pointed out in his latest book, Die Krisis der Europaischen Wissenschaften und die Transzendentale Phanomenologie, that a modern person's whole world view is the only thing dominated by empirical science, and also is the only thing confused by the “prosperity” of science. This uniqueness means people avoid the crucial question of the true humanity, almost with indifference (Xie, 2005). Fourth, the generalization of a technical rationality leads to social science research that escapes from social practice. The technical rationality is in itself neutral, but adverse consequences may appear from such a generalization. This paper provides a detailed analysis in the third part of this paper. Certainly, although the above critics have a point, it does not provide sufficient reason to reject empirical research. For example, everyone observes facts with personal perspectives, but there is space to be filled. To forecast the development of society is difficult, but it cannot be denied that there are instances when the development of specific social phenomenon has been successfully forecast. Besides, positivism itself is developing. For instance, Popper proposed “critical rationalism” when he criticized logical
Please cite this article in press as: Song, Z., The debate between empirical and broader phenomenological approaches to research, Tourism Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.03.016
Z. Song / Tourism Management xxx (2016) 1e5
positivism, which is new stage of positivism. He proposed a research method by which researchers investigate by continuous trials and debugging errors. Shen based his theory on three aspects: social production, social consciousness and social formation, which, within the premise of a market economy, permit the tourism phenomenon to develop. This approach provide insights of value, but issues remain due to the nature of social science research that generates less consensus than those found in research in the natural sciences. One, as noted previously, is the concept of subjectivity. Shen's statement that “tourism is the product of the development of market economy” involves two important concepts: “tourism” and “market economy”. But some questions persist, for example, when did recreation travel become the tourism phenomenon, and what kind of economy is the market economy? It is difficult to establish objective responses to these questions. For instance, in the Tang Dynasty, many traveled, such as Li Bai, one of the most famous of Chinese poets. Why cannot their traveling be defined as a social phenomenon? Moreover, the rudiments of capitalism appeared in the Ming dynasty but the ‘tourism phenomenon’ did not exist as per Shen's definition. Actually, what Shen regarded the beginning of tourism phenomenon was those tourism activities organized by Thomas Cook. Of course, such activities were significant as it was the first time each of tourism items in the chain of distribution had been organized and travel agencies appeared. While today many of the more modern tourism activities are increasingly independent, why is it that the appearance of travel agency is the sign of the ‘tourism phenomenon’? The other aspect of the problem is the validity and validation of the law. “Tourism is one of products of the market economy development”, states. Shen, and again, “So far, in the real world, the law always works in the production and the development of tourism.” Since the 1990s, China domestic tourism has achieved a rapid development. But because China is a developing country, it was inbound tourism that was the first sign of modern tourism, and not domestic tourism, which is contrary to the general rule of tourism production and development. Shen agreed that: “From a scientific point of view, this is a very serious problem” and he classified such a phenomenon as an “unconventionality of tourism”. The writer believed such an “unconventionality” was an outcome of history because the conditions of other countries and regions were not as same as Thomas Cook's. It remains an untested proposition. China first developed inbound tourism as a policy choice because it was in urgent need of foreign exchange, and there were no conditions present within which to develop domestic tourism. The explanatory nature of social science research is less precise than the natural science. There is no tourism phenomenon as defined by Shen when the first travel agency was formed in China in 1927. 2.1. Characteristics and limitations of the phenomenological method: Xie Yanjun's tourism essentialism Xie Yanjun has systematically researched tourism experience using phenomenology in his doctoral dissertation in 2005. At the end of his dissertation, he pointed out that to research travel experience, whether studying the essence of a phenomenon or operational issues in applied fields, people should use the phenomenological method and hold to a phenomenological perspective as being potentially more scientific than positivism (Husserl, 2001). In the next part of the paper, Xie's paper “The nature of tourism and its recognition method – from the view of discipline consciousness” published in “Tourism Tribune” in 2010, is subjected to analysis. In this paper, Xie mentioned one of his experiments using
3
phenomenology method in which he had invited 5 freshmen to describe one of their travels and had then summarised the keywords. His conclusion was that “Tourism is a leisure experience in which people utilize their leisure time in the other's places. In other words, the nature of tourism is a kind of experience, the leisure time and different places separate this experience from others and give it unique characteristics” (Li, 2010). As Xie pointed out, this is the typical research method of phenomenology. When people investigate psychology, consciousness, experience, behavior and the essence of related behavior, he suggests this kind of method is regarded as the best. Two of the main characteristics of this method are: one is “facing the fact itself”, “facing essence”, “to restore the generality of empirical facts to the generality of essence”. A second factor is the emphasis on “Epoche”, trying “universal doubt”, temporarily shelving any pre-existing factor, even the scientific concept itself. Only in this way, people can face “essence”. In Xie's investigation, those students without a “professional tourism education” could describe, without difficulty, their “tourism” scenarios in consistent ways while possessing a general significance (Li, 2010). Xie realized the “facing of essence” of tourism by using “facing the fact itself” and “Epoche”: all preexisting scientific concepts. Phenomenology had been produced and developed as the reflection of positivism. It differs from positivism, which pays attention to the “fact” and is value-neutral. The objective of phenomenology is consciousness and the target of study is “meaningfinding”. When phenomenology emerged as a mode of study it had significant philosophical influence. Following Husserl, a large number of scholars developed this theory in new fields and established the well-known “phenomenology movement” in the history of modern western philosophy. In this process, many new schools of philosophy have been developed which constituted the trend of thought of postmodernism. In the meantime, the methodology of phenomenology has had a powerful impact on the role of positivism in social science research. Various researchers proposed diverse phenomenology methodologies from their own understanding, which significantly enriched the understanding of phenomenology. However, as a mode of philosophical thought, phenomenology cannot achieve unification in theory, but still retains several problems in its approach. The first question is: how can the “common knowledge” exist? The method of phenomenology sets the internal-consciousness as its foothold and regards only internal-consciousness as selfevident. However, how can the self-evident shift to common knowledge? Phenomenology cannot answer this question. For example, in a specific social research, communication is the only way to acquire statements of others' experiences. However, this kind of communication needs a priori knowledge as to what should be recognize by both sides as the foundation of common understanding. In this case, internal-consciousness cannot suffice as a mode of communication. The reason is there is not inborn a priori knowledge, which only comes from learning. This conclusion confirms outside-observation as reasonable as assumed in positivism. The second question is: how to do complete Husserl's concept of epoche and restore it to tourism research? Xu Huifu wrote his points in his book “The method and procedure in phenomenology”: “Husserl's epoche is a complete epoche that puts the existence of all the things into epoche, which laid the foundation of strict science. But it is very hard to do complete epoche, even impossible.” “As difficult as completing a sense of epoche, so too completing a “restore” also is a beautiful “fairyland” because “restore” is partial and remains subjective forever. In fact, since Husserl's phenomenology, a difficult problem needs to be solved, namely how to undertake “epoche” and “restore”, and this is what really bothered
Please cite this article in press as: Song, Z., The debate between empirical and broader phenomenological approaches to research, Tourism Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.03.016
4
Z. Song / Tourism Management xxx (2016) 1e5
Husserl and his successors” (Xie, 2010). It is different with the theory of phenomenology, its methods had less development. Especially, the “epoche” and “restore” laid a very high requirement on its researchers, which has limited the use of phenomenology. In addition, the phenomenology emphasizes the research of nature and phenomenon, and neglects the quantitative law and the forecast of a thing's development. From the need of social decision making perspective, it represents a deficiency. Zhang Bin and Zhang Pengjun comment on Xie's research. They affirmed Xie's research and noted that because Xie's “experience” is based on psychology, he can just put the tourism “experience” into the model of “leisure experience” and hence thereby the method cannot apply a real phenomenological analysis to the tourism experience and its essence (Qing, 2010). But even Zhang Bin and Zhang Pengjun themselves cannot explain how to undertake a complete phenomenological analysis and much remains at the level of philosophical speculation. Besides an incomplete understanding of “epoche and restore”, “common knowledge” is another important issue bedeviling Xie's research. When he asked college students to describe their “tourism” experience, Prof. Xie had already provided a concept of “tourism” to those interviewees, which means the students know what is “tourism” and all the descriptions are based on their understanding. In this way, Xie can only get the “commonsense” cognition of “tourism”. This kind of method permits the researcher to know “the meaning of tourism experience” but not the “essence of tourism”. As for the methodology, we can ask: before the concept of tourism had formed, how do we derive an understanding of the essence of tourism?
3. The orientation of tourism research methodologies 3.1. The general trend to combine positivism and phenomenology In the past century, the controversy between positivism and phenomenology was the key to the development of scientific philosophy. In this background, the controversy of positivism and phenomenology in tourism research is just an embodiment of the development of wider scientific philosophy in the field of tourism. The controversy is not a “fight” per se but an issue of conceiving fusion. Today, “many scientific philosophers develop their ideology when they discuss with others, sometime. It is very difficult to classify some scientific philosophers” (Xie, 2011). Modern social scientific philosophy usually compares positivism and phenomenology as not only theory but methodology. “They can be regarded as two different arrows in one hand, each of them has different functions and then complement each other” (Tribe, 1997, P 44). As in many social science disciplines, the general trend in tourism research is to use both positivism and phenomenology is. As mentioned before, phenomenology has advantages in the research of things' essences and behaviors' meaning, and positivism is useful in it being well understood in its methods and its discernment of the causation of a thing's development. Phenomenology must overcome the issue of not being able to generalize, and needs positivism's external observation as the support; positivism needs the inner experiences revealed by phenomenology to help it explain the consequences of concepts. Positivism cannot be used all the time, and equally researchers cannot try to use the phenomenological research to replace other specific scientific research. Before and after the development of phenomenological methods, many results obtained using positivistic approaches. Even Xie Yanjun, who had strongly advocated the use of phenomenology, wrote a book in 2011 entitled “Research on tourism experiencetowards an empirical science” (Xu, 2008).
3.2. Technical rationality cannot be the reason that tourism research opposes positivism Since scientific research based on positivism emphasizes conceptualization and empirical testing, it leads to the utilization of mathematical language to a large extent. This in itself is one reason why positivism in tourism research has been questioned. The language of mathematics is the preferred language of empirical study because of its accuracy of description, rigor of logic and the convenience of its tools. Even the sophistication of the mathematics used in a subject is an important sign of the development of a given field of research. However, when the stylization and mathematization promote the development of scientific research, there come with these trends negative influences. For example, the method may place too much attention on the tool itself and ignores the research object and purpose. This is not untypical in economics research. In economics, positivism has held supreme and has formed a highly formalized and technical mode of argument. In this way, the threshold of economic mathematics has significantly improved, and many economists have a mathematical or physics background (and one may note, Husserl, the founder of phenomenology had also learned mathematics). On the one hand, this kind of development pulled economics into the field of the physical sciences thinking, and the tentacles of economics have entered into every field of social science. Thus it is called “economics imperialism”. On the other hand, sometimes, this development has attracted criticism from both without and within economics. In tourism research, Tribe warned of this “technical rationality” over a decade ago (Zhang & Zhang, 2010). His reason was that though economics was acknowledged to be the closest to the natural sciences in social science, one of the subsequent costs was that economics research had separated itself from social practice to a degree and the methods developed by mainstream economists became bound to the further development of economics and its techniques of analysis. Technical rationality is also the reason why Zhang Jinshan warned of “the popularity of positivism in Tourism Research”. He thought that tourism research had already fallen into the trap of positivism. This was especially because of the prevalence (in China) of scientism pushing forward the development of tourism research to a high formalized and technical approach that cannot help tourism research as a more comprehensive social discipline (Hui, 2010). It is undeniable that there were some examples in tourism research where, although using skilled and “fancy” mathematical tools, the questions they studied possessed less scientific significance or the results could have been obtained with simpler means. As Qing Qianlong said “modeling for a model, only makes a model: let research ignore logical reasoning and empirical reality” (Zhang, 2011). Hui Hong also commented about the “abuse and inappropriate use of quantitative models” (Zhang, 2010a). However, to associate positivism in tourism research with technical rationality is a mistaken notion for at least two reasons. Firstly, technical rationality is not equal to positivism. Some positivist theorists insist value judgment should be excluded from the category of empirical research, because they regard value judgments as not belonging to positivism rather than deny the value of value judgments. The first step of empirical research is refining questions from actual situations and the final results need to be verified in situ. The development of formal and technical argumentation research mode is inherent within the development of empirical research, which seeks theoretical generalization and clear logic. As stated above, it is the formal and technical argumentation mode that has greatly promoted the development of economics. The reason why formalization and
Please cite this article in press as: Song, Z., The debate between empirical and broader phenomenological approaches to research, Tourism Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.03.016
Z. Song / Tourism Management xxx (2016) 1e5
technicalization drew apart from practice is that they had deviated from the essence of positivism. In this case, though formalization and technicalization were the derivatives of positivism. Secondly, tourism research remains distant from over formalization and technicalization. To blame positivism for too much formalization and technicalization is a reflection of the prevalent trend of social science research in the field of tourism research. Yet there is little justification for tourism researchers joining the antipositivist faction at this time. Unlike economics research, tourism research has not reached the same high degree of formalization and technicalization. Mathematical tools in economics have been constructed a very manner consistent with strict economics thinking. In recent years, mainstream economics researchers have basically adopted a mathematical language and usually provide variables, functions, and equations with economic implications in a mathematical analysis. Furthermore, the economics researchers often use econometric analytical methods based in statistical sampling. Nowadays, more tourism researchers employ econometric methods, but few adopt mathematical analyses. If people are wantonly opposed to positivism at this stage, tourism scientific research could be stifled. In the operationalization of research, the way to solve the issues technological rationality is not to reject empirical research. On the contrary, there is a need to strengthen the application of empirical research methods. Only those researchers having a deep understanding of empirical research methods should utilize such methods. 3.3. The primary task is promotion the scientific nature of tourism research It is necessary to enhance the scientific nature of tourism research. The reason researchers have criticized the research methods associated with positivism is largely because of the misunderstanding and misuse of positivism in tourism research. For example, Li, Tianyuan refers to “pseudo empirical” when he questioned the use of positivism in tourism research (Babble, 2009). In another example, the paper, “Empirical Study on the influencing factors of tourist satisfaction in scenic spots based on FuzzyIPA”, was published by Tourism Tribune in 2010 and the study designed a Fuzzy-IPA analysis method for investigating the factors influencing tourist satisfaction at scenic spots, and took Wuhu Fangte theme park as a case study in which to explore the key determinants of tourist satisfaction with this method (Zhang, 2010b). Though the researcher regarded his paper as an example of positivism, in reviewing this paper one can just see the conclusion about those influencing factors and there is no demonstration of the validity of the research method itself. In this case, this “empirical research” is not a real “empirical research” but an application case. Actually, the researcher also acknowledged one of the article's limitations was “the Fuzzy-IPA method has not been gotten a relevant demonstration”. To identify the true and false and false nature of empirical research would benefit the promotion of the scientific method within tourism research. Logically, the “pseudo empirical” cannot be the reason with which to oppose positivism. A deeper understanding and utilization of correct empirical research methods is the only way to solve the problem. Compared with the “pseudo empirical”, more attention should
5
be paid to the issues of reliability and validity in tourism research (Zhong, 2010). However, this is more related to questions of academic rigor rather than validity of empirical research method. Furthermore, because the empirical research method came from the physical sciences and has been a mainstream social science research method over the long term, it is almost the epitome of what constitutes the scientific research method. However, it is very important to remember that Husserl's original intention was to establish a philosophy of a strict science research and to lay the foundation for all disciplines. As a result, it is necessary to improve the science even in the applications of phenomenology. If tourism wants to become a real discipline, it is cannot just rely on the adjustment of catalogues of degrees and majors. Only when the subject becomes a science, can it be a discipline regardless of its positivism or phenomenology. References Babble, E. (2009). The practice of social research. Qiu, Z., trans (11th ed.). Beijing: Huaxia Press (in Chinese). Hui, H. (2010). Reflections on China's tourism research methods. Tourism Tribune, 25(12), 10e11 (in Chinese). Husserl, E. (2001). The crisis of the European science and the phenomenology of transcendental. Wang, B., trans. Beijing: The Commercial Press (in Chinese). Li, T. (2010). Some humble opinions on tourism research. Tourism Tribune, 25(10), 5e6 (in Chinese). Qing, Q. (2010). The application of quantitative models in tourism economy researches. Tourism Tribune, 25(12), 8e9 (in Chinese). Shen, B. (2010). Tourism principles: The system statements of tourism operating rules. Beijing: China Travel & Tourism Press (in Chinese). Tian, K. (2010). An empirical study of factors that affect tourist satisfaction in scenic areas based on Fuzzy-IPA. Tourism Tribune, 25(5), 61e65 (in Chinese). Tribe, J. (1997). The indiscipline of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 638e657. Xie, Y. (2005). The study of tourist experience: A phenomenological perspective to explore. PhD thesis. Dalian: Dongbei University of Finance and Economics (in Chinese). Xie, Y. (2010). On the essence of tourism and its way of cognition: viewing from the perspective of the discipline itself. Tourism Tribune, 25(1), 26e31 (in Chinese). Xie, Y. (2011). The study of tourist experience: Towards to empirical science. Beijing: China Travel. Xu, H. (2008). Phenomenological research methods and steps. Shanghai: Academia Press (in Chinese). Zhang, J. (2010). Tourism research: positivism popular vigilance. Tourism Tribune, 25(11), 6e7 (in Chinese). Zhang, Q. (2010). The philosophy of the social sciences: Positivism, hermeneutics and Wittgenstein transformation[M]. Shanghai: Fudan University Press & Tourism Press (in Chinese). Zhang, H. (2011). Western social science paradigm and indigenous tourism research in China. Tourism Science, 25(5), 1e9 (in Chinese). Zhang, B., & Zhang, P. (2010). A study on tourist experience based on Husserl's phenomenology. Tourism Science, 24(6), 1e8 (in Chinese). Zhong, L. (2010). Reliability and validity of the tourism research. Tourism Tribune, 25(10), 10e11 (in Chinese).
Ziqian Song is a Researcher at the China Tourism Academy. He holds an undergraduate degree and Master's Degree in Tourism Management from National Huaqiao University. He received his PhD in industrial economics from the Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in 2005. His research focuses on basic theory in tourism studies and tourism policy.
Please cite this article in press as: Song, Z., The debate between empirical and broader phenomenological approaches to research, Tourism Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.03.016
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Tourism Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman
The debate between empirical and broader phenomenological approaches to research Ziqian Song China Tourism Academy, 9A Jianguomennei Ave., Beijing 100740, China
h i g h l i g h t s Examines current debate in China over research approaches. Examines the requirement for ‘scientific integrity’ in Chinese tourism research. Distinguishes between ‘pseudo-empiricism’ and empiricism.
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 7 March 2016 Accepted 7 March 2016 Available online xxx
Since the end of the nineteenth century, the discourse between positivism and phenomenology has dominated the development of social science research methods. The argument is reflected in current tourism research and some scholars doubt the validity of positivism. Here opposing views as expressed in two recent Chinese publications are examined. By analyzing the two views and their methodology, the characteristics and limitations of both positivism and phenomenology can be highlighted. Both positivism and phenomenological methods have their own advantages and disadvantages, and an integration of the two types of research methods is most commonly used. In some specific research methods positivistic and phenomenological methods can be combined to attain more scientific knowledge. The paper also examines ‘technical rationality’, a philosophy which has been criticized by many for excessively focusing on the tool itself and so ignoring the research object and the purpose of the study. Yet although technical rationality does derive from positivism the former cannot simply be equal to the latter. It is suggested that the improvement of the scientific quality of tourism research is still the primary need for the development of the tourism discipline at present. It is not possible for tourism research to become a discipline purely through inclusion in specialized courses or existing subject content. Tourism research must become more scientific before it becomes a discipline. © 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords: Tourism science Research methodology Positivism Phenomenology
1. Introduction In recent years, more tourism researchers are skeptical of positivism. Thus, Li Tianyuan (Babble, 2009) and Zhang Jinshan (Hui, 2010) have warned against excessive praise of positivism in tourism research. Similarly, Xie Yanjun (Husserl, 2001; Li, 2010), and Zhang bin and Zhang Pengjun (Qing, 2010) have suggested exploring the essence of tourism with phenomenology, which they regard as the primary way in which to conduct research, and they have sought to construct the own system of tourism studies from that perspective. To summarize that discussion seems to tell people: phenomenology will be the mainstream in the tourism
E-mail address: [email protected].
research. Currently, it seems in the Chinese literature that few adopt both positivism and phenomenology, and there remains a lack of theoretical analysis for the adoption of mixed methods. In this case, it is necessary to deepen discussion in tourism studies. Based on that premise, this paper will combine the two theories put forward by the Chinese scholars and try to elaborate their characteristics and limitations. Moreover, this paper will also discuss the trend in tourism research methodologies. 2. The characteristics and limitations of positivism Using Shen Baojia's concept of tourism phenomenalism as an example, in 2010, when Shen Baojia was nearly 90 years old, he published a book, entitled “The principle of tourism - the systematic explanation of tourism research on the Law of Motion”. In this book
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.03.016 0261-5177/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Please cite this article in press as: Song, Z., The debate between empirical and broader phenomenological approaches to research, Tourism Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.03.016
2
Z. Song / Tourism Management xxx (2016) 1e5
Shen developed one of his basic points, namely: tourism is one of the outcomes of market economy development. He said this conclusion was the first proposition in his research life and it has subsequently directed his research (Shen, 2010, P 4). Shen notes in his research of the basic theory of tourism that the first problem to be solved is the origin of tourism. In the tourism academy, reference is made to the view that “tourism is from ancient times” (Shen, 2010, P 40). Therefore, for Shen, his conclusion that tourism is one of results of market economy development is a view based on rigorous research with positivist methodology and derived from historical study. Shen's argument involved two complex concepts. The first is his definition that “tourism” is better understood as the “tourism phenomenon”. Shen then argues that the concept is basic and is a core theory in his research. This is justified by the view that tourism is a personal activity, but in its wider context a better way of describing the issues is to use the phraseology “tourism phenomenon” (Shen, 2010, P 16). From the above summary, it can be seen that Shen never denies that “tourism” is one of personal activities, but the “tourism phenomenon is one of the productions of market economy development” and hence the total study is premised around the “condition of tourism phenomenon production” and the “development and operational form of tourism phenomenon.” For Shen the understanding of “tourism” is primarily within the “tourism phenomenon.” The second related perspective is that Shen's “tourism phenomenon” is actually “tourism as a social phenomenon”. When he discussed the question ‘what is the tourism research object?, Shen quoted Durkheim's words: “When the sociologist tries to study a kind of social reality, he must investigate it as an independent existence, instead of studying it from specific personal behavior.” in the other words, researchers should investigate those social realities as a “thing”. The “thing” does not mean social reality or social phenomenon had been materially created, but it means a law and that social reality and social phenomenon have their own law, which cannot be transformed by people's mind alone but by a wider social structure (Shen, 2010, P 14). In conclusion, Shen pointed “when we confirmed tourism is a historical product of social development, we also confirm it is physical attribute. We confirmed it is a ‘regular’ social phenomenon and we called it a ‘tourism phenomenon.’” (Shen, 2010, P 15). Understanding Shen's point that “tourism is one of the productions of a market economy development” transfers to mean “tourism as a social phenomenon, is one of the productions of the market economy development”, makes it easier to comprehend his whole study. Only under the market economic system of mass production, does tourism become a kind of public lifestyle. Or in the other words, “tourism” becomes “tourism phenomenon”. In history, tourism was (arguably) a form of personal entertainment of travel and leisure instead of being social phenomenon. Only when mass production and self-consciousness become the supporting material and spiritual power of social development, could tourism transfer from a time it was but a small scale and self-supporting economy where tourism was a personal entertainment into a tourism phenomenon in a market economy (Shen, 2010, P 3). Researching “tourism” as regular social phenomenon rather than personal activity is representative of the classical departure point of early positivists (such as Durkheim) among the social sciences researchers who wanted to locate social science research alongside a science of nature. The basic positivism behind the researcher's gaze of social fact and social phenomenon as a “thing” is seeking the ‘fact’ as the basis of research. Or, all valid knowledge must be based on empirical facts and be confirmed by experience.
In this way, this experience is a perceptual experience that can be observed by the public and quantified by measurement. Only in this way can tourism research achieve scientific objective and accuracy (Tian, 2010, P 11). Some positivists even proposed strictly separating ‘fact judgments’ and ‘value judgments’ because the former is premised in a realism that can be confirmed by experience but the latter is an idealistic judgment not capable of being wholly confirmed by experience. Therefore, value judgment does not belong within the scope of scientific research (Tian, 2010, P 24). One of the major challenges posed by early social science is the focusing of research on objective reality, particularly in regular social phenomenon, which enabled social science to get rid of ambiguous concepts or value based contradictions and thereby attain higher-consensus research achievements by using research methodologies derived from the natural sciences. However, there are methodological limitations that attract many critiques. First, many have questioned whether there is an ‘objective reality’. It is argued that it is inevitable that social scientists bring their own consciousness into their research, and hence the ‘objective fact’ is simply their own understanding of an objective fact. The developments of phenomenology and postmodernism relate to these issues. Earl Babbie notes in his book “The Practice of Social Research” that increasing numbers of philosophers are discussing reality from a postmodern viewpoint. From this perspective “reality” comes from their consciousness. Namely, there is no external world. All is in an internal world (Tribe, 1997, P 10). Second, people also suspected there is a regularity in social phenomenon. Positivists such as Mill believed social phenomenon also has homogeneity, but is nuanced, uncertain and hard to find. Others disagreed. They insisted that the decisive factors that influence the people's behavior or social change are not only perplexing and constantly changing, but also hard or impossible to predict; while others have suggested that social research is not independent of the object being researched, that is to say, social science theory could affect the development of social phenomenon. It remains an open question as to whether there are regularities of social phenomenon. Yet, even they do exist, they may be difficult to discern and may be inhibited by patterns of wider changes due to complex influences and a changing. Popper, although a positivist, noted in the beginning of his book ”The Poverty of Historicism”, that “The basic argument of this book is believing historical destiny is a kind of superstition. Human history cannot be predicted by any ways” (Tian, 2010, P 64). Third, the outcomes of social science research are reduced for want of value. For example, Husserl pointed out in his latest book, Die Krisis der Europaischen Wissenschaften und die Transzendentale Phanomenologie, that a modern person's whole world view is the only thing dominated by empirical science, and also is the only thing confused by the “prosperity” of science. This uniqueness means people avoid the crucial question of the true humanity, almost with indifference (Xie, 2005). Fourth, the generalization of a technical rationality leads to social science research that escapes from social practice. The technical rationality is in itself neutral, but adverse consequences may appear from such a generalization. This paper provides a detailed analysis in the third part of this paper. Certainly, although the above critics have a point, it does not provide sufficient reason to reject empirical research. For example, everyone observes facts with personal perspectives, but there is space to be filled. To forecast the development of society is difficult, but it cannot be denied that there are instances when the development of specific social phenomenon has been successfully forecast. Besides, positivism itself is developing. For instance, Popper proposed “critical rationalism” when he criticized logical
Please cite this article in press as: Song, Z., The debate between empirical and broader phenomenological approaches to research, Tourism Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.03.016
Z. Song / Tourism Management xxx (2016) 1e5
positivism, which is new stage of positivism. He proposed a research method by which researchers investigate by continuous trials and debugging errors. Shen based his theory on three aspects: social production, social consciousness and social formation, which, within the premise of a market economy, permit the tourism phenomenon to develop. This approach provide insights of value, but issues remain due to the nature of social science research that generates less consensus than those found in research in the natural sciences. One, as noted previously, is the concept of subjectivity. Shen's statement that “tourism is the product of the development of market economy” involves two important concepts: “tourism” and “market economy”. But some questions persist, for example, when did recreation travel become the tourism phenomenon, and what kind of economy is the market economy? It is difficult to establish objective responses to these questions. For instance, in the Tang Dynasty, many traveled, such as Li Bai, one of the most famous of Chinese poets. Why cannot their traveling be defined as a social phenomenon? Moreover, the rudiments of capitalism appeared in the Ming dynasty but the ‘tourism phenomenon’ did not exist as per Shen's definition. Actually, what Shen regarded the beginning of tourism phenomenon was those tourism activities organized by Thomas Cook. Of course, such activities were significant as it was the first time each of tourism items in the chain of distribution had been organized and travel agencies appeared. While today many of the more modern tourism activities are increasingly independent, why is it that the appearance of travel agency is the sign of the ‘tourism phenomenon’? The other aspect of the problem is the validity and validation of the law. “Tourism is one of products of the market economy development”, states. Shen, and again, “So far, in the real world, the law always works in the production and the development of tourism.” Since the 1990s, China domestic tourism has achieved a rapid development. But because China is a developing country, it was inbound tourism that was the first sign of modern tourism, and not domestic tourism, which is contrary to the general rule of tourism production and development. Shen agreed that: “From a scientific point of view, this is a very serious problem” and he classified such a phenomenon as an “unconventionality of tourism”. The writer believed such an “unconventionality” was an outcome of history because the conditions of other countries and regions were not as same as Thomas Cook's. It remains an untested proposition. China first developed inbound tourism as a policy choice because it was in urgent need of foreign exchange, and there were no conditions present within which to develop domestic tourism. The explanatory nature of social science research is less precise than the natural science. There is no tourism phenomenon as defined by Shen when the first travel agency was formed in China in 1927. 2.1. Characteristics and limitations of the phenomenological method: Xie Yanjun's tourism essentialism Xie Yanjun has systematically researched tourism experience using phenomenology in his doctoral dissertation in 2005. At the end of his dissertation, he pointed out that to research travel experience, whether studying the essence of a phenomenon or operational issues in applied fields, people should use the phenomenological method and hold to a phenomenological perspective as being potentially more scientific than positivism (Husserl, 2001). In the next part of the paper, Xie's paper “The nature of tourism and its recognition method – from the view of discipline consciousness” published in “Tourism Tribune” in 2010, is subjected to analysis. In this paper, Xie mentioned one of his experiments using
3
phenomenology method in which he had invited 5 freshmen to describe one of their travels and had then summarised the keywords. His conclusion was that “Tourism is a leisure experience in which people utilize their leisure time in the other's places. In other words, the nature of tourism is a kind of experience, the leisure time and different places separate this experience from others and give it unique characteristics” (Li, 2010). As Xie pointed out, this is the typical research method of phenomenology. When people investigate psychology, consciousness, experience, behavior and the essence of related behavior, he suggests this kind of method is regarded as the best. Two of the main characteristics of this method are: one is “facing the fact itself”, “facing essence”, “to restore the generality of empirical facts to the generality of essence”. A second factor is the emphasis on “Epoche”, trying “universal doubt”, temporarily shelving any pre-existing factor, even the scientific concept itself. Only in this way, people can face “essence”. In Xie's investigation, those students without a “professional tourism education” could describe, without difficulty, their “tourism” scenarios in consistent ways while possessing a general significance (Li, 2010). Xie realized the “facing of essence” of tourism by using “facing the fact itself” and “Epoche”: all preexisting scientific concepts. Phenomenology had been produced and developed as the reflection of positivism. It differs from positivism, which pays attention to the “fact” and is value-neutral. The objective of phenomenology is consciousness and the target of study is “meaningfinding”. When phenomenology emerged as a mode of study it had significant philosophical influence. Following Husserl, a large number of scholars developed this theory in new fields and established the well-known “phenomenology movement” in the history of modern western philosophy. In this process, many new schools of philosophy have been developed which constituted the trend of thought of postmodernism. In the meantime, the methodology of phenomenology has had a powerful impact on the role of positivism in social science research. Various researchers proposed diverse phenomenology methodologies from their own understanding, which significantly enriched the understanding of phenomenology. However, as a mode of philosophical thought, phenomenology cannot achieve unification in theory, but still retains several problems in its approach. The first question is: how can the “common knowledge” exist? The method of phenomenology sets the internal-consciousness as its foothold and regards only internal-consciousness as selfevident. However, how can the self-evident shift to common knowledge? Phenomenology cannot answer this question. For example, in a specific social research, communication is the only way to acquire statements of others' experiences. However, this kind of communication needs a priori knowledge as to what should be recognize by both sides as the foundation of common understanding. In this case, internal-consciousness cannot suffice as a mode of communication. The reason is there is not inborn a priori knowledge, which only comes from learning. This conclusion confirms outside-observation as reasonable as assumed in positivism. The second question is: how to do complete Husserl's concept of epoche and restore it to tourism research? Xu Huifu wrote his points in his book “The method and procedure in phenomenology”: “Husserl's epoche is a complete epoche that puts the existence of all the things into epoche, which laid the foundation of strict science. But it is very hard to do complete epoche, even impossible.” “As difficult as completing a sense of epoche, so too completing a “restore” also is a beautiful “fairyland” because “restore” is partial and remains subjective forever. In fact, since Husserl's phenomenology, a difficult problem needs to be solved, namely how to undertake “epoche” and “restore”, and this is what really bothered
Please cite this article in press as: Song, Z., The debate between empirical and broader phenomenological approaches to research, Tourism Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.03.016
4
Z. Song / Tourism Management xxx (2016) 1e5
Husserl and his successors” (Xie, 2010). It is different with the theory of phenomenology, its methods had less development. Especially, the “epoche” and “restore” laid a very high requirement on its researchers, which has limited the use of phenomenology. In addition, the phenomenology emphasizes the research of nature and phenomenon, and neglects the quantitative law and the forecast of a thing's development. From the need of social decision making perspective, it represents a deficiency. Zhang Bin and Zhang Pengjun comment on Xie's research. They affirmed Xie's research and noted that because Xie's “experience” is based on psychology, he can just put the tourism “experience” into the model of “leisure experience” and hence thereby the method cannot apply a real phenomenological analysis to the tourism experience and its essence (Qing, 2010). But even Zhang Bin and Zhang Pengjun themselves cannot explain how to undertake a complete phenomenological analysis and much remains at the level of philosophical speculation. Besides an incomplete understanding of “epoche and restore”, “common knowledge” is another important issue bedeviling Xie's research. When he asked college students to describe their “tourism” experience, Prof. Xie had already provided a concept of “tourism” to those interviewees, which means the students know what is “tourism” and all the descriptions are based on their understanding. In this way, Xie can only get the “commonsense” cognition of “tourism”. This kind of method permits the researcher to know “the meaning of tourism experience” but not the “essence of tourism”. As for the methodology, we can ask: before the concept of tourism had formed, how do we derive an understanding of the essence of tourism?
3. The orientation of tourism research methodologies 3.1. The general trend to combine positivism and phenomenology In the past century, the controversy between positivism and phenomenology was the key to the development of scientific philosophy. In this background, the controversy of positivism and phenomenology in tourism research is just an embodiment of the development of wider scientific philosophy in the field of tourism. The controversy is not a “fight” per se but an issue of conceiving fusion. Today, “many scientific philosophers develop their ideology when they discuss with others, sometime. It is very difficult to classify some scientific philosophers” (Xie, 2011). Modern social scientific philosophy usually compares positivism and phenomenology as not only theory but methodology. “They can be regarded as two different arrows in one hand, each of them has different functions and then complement each other” (Tribe, 1997, P 44). As in many social science disciplines, the general trend in tourism research is to use both positivism and phenomenology is. As mentioned before, phenomenology has advantages in the research of things' essences and behaviors' meaning, and positivism is useful in it being well understood in its methods and its discernment of the causation of a thing's development. Phenomenology must overcome the issue of not being able to generalize, and needs positivism's external observation as the support; positivism needs the inner experiences revealed by phenomenology to help it explain the consequences of concepts. Positivism cannot be used all the time, and equally researchers cannot try to use the phenomenological research to replace other specific scientific research. Before and after the development of phenomenological methods, many results obtained using positivistic approaches. Even Xie Yanjun, who had strongly advocated the use of phenomenology, wrote a book in 2011 entitled “Research on tourism experiencetowards an empirical science” (Xu, 2008).
3.2. Technical rationality cannot be the reason that tourism research opposes positivism Since scientific research based on positivism emphasizes conceptualization and empirical testing, it leads to the utilization of mathematical language to a large extent. This in itself is one reason why positivism in tourism research has been questioned. The language of mathematics is the preferred language of empirical study because of its accuracy of description, rigor of logic and the convenience of its tools. Even the sophistication of the mathematics used in a subject is an important sign of the development of a given field of research. However, when the stylization and mathematization promote the development of scientific research, there come with these trends negative influences. For example, the method may place too much attention on the tool itself and ignores the research object and purpose. This is not untypical in economics research. In economics, positivism has held supreme and has formed a highly formalized and technical mode of argument. In this way, the threshold of economic mathematics has significantly improved, and many economists have a mathematical or physics background (and one may note, Husserl, the founder of phenomenology had also learned mathematics). On the one hand, this kind of development pulled economics into the field of the physical sciences thinking, and the tentacles of economics have entered into every field of social science. Thus it is called “economics imperialism”. On the other hand, sometimes, this development has attracted criticism from both without and within economics. In tourism research, Tribe warned of this “technical rationality” over a decade ago (Zhang & Zhang, 2010). His reason was that though economics was acknowledged to be the closest to the natural sciences in social science, one of the subsequent costs was that economics research had separated itself from social practice to a degree and the methods developed by mainstream economists became bound to the further development of economics and its techniques of analysis. Technical rationality is also the reason why Zhang Jinshan warned of “the popularity of positivism in Tourism Research”. He thought that tourism research had already fallen into the trap of positivism. This was especially because of the prevalence (in China) of scientism pushing forward the development of tourism research to a high formalized and technical approach that cannot help tourism research as a more comprehensive social discipline (Hui, 2010). It is undeniable that there were some examples in tourism research where, although using skilled and “fancy” mathematical tools, the questions they studied possessed less scientific significance or the results could have been obtained with simpler means. As Qing Qianlong said “modeling for a model, only makes a model: let research ignore logical reasoning and empirical reality” (Zhang, 2011). Hui Hong also commented about the “abuse and inappropriate use of quantitative models” (Zhang, 2010a). However, to associate positivism in tourism research with technical rationality is a mistaken notion for at least two reasons. Firstly, technical rationality is not equal to positivism. Some positivist theorists insist value judgment should be excluded from the category of empirical research, because they regard value judgments as not belonging to positivism rather than deny the value of value judgments. The first step of empirical research is refining questions from actual situations and the final results need to be verified in situ. The development of formal and technical argumentation research mode is inherent within the development of empirical research, which seeks theoretical generalization and clear logic. As stated above, it is the formal and technical argumentation mode that has greatly promoted the development of economics. The reason why formalization and
Please cite this article in press as: Song, Z., The debate between empirical and broader phenomenological approaches to research, Tourism Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.03.016
Z. Song / Tourism Management xxx (2016) 1e5
technicalization drew apart from practice is that they had deviated from the essence of positivism. In this case, though formalization and technicalization were the derivatives of positivism. Secondly, tourism research remains distant from over formalization and technicalization. To blame positivism for too much formalization and technicalization is a reflection of the prevalent trend of social science research in the field of tourism research. Yet there is little justification for tourism researchers joining the antipositivist faction at this time. Unlike economics research, tourism research has not reached the same high degree of formalization and technicalization. Mathematical tools in economics have been constructed a very manner consistent with strict economics thinking. In recent years, mainstream economics researchers have basically adopted a mathematical language and usually provide variables, functions, and equations with economic implications in a mathematical analysis. Furthermore, the economics researchers often use econometric analytical methods based in statistical sampling. Nowadays, more tourism researchers employ econometric methods, but few adopt mathematical analyses. If people are wantonly opposed to positivism at this stage, tourism scientific research could be stifled. In the operationalization of research, the way to solve the issues technological rationality is not to reject empirical research. On the contrary, there is a need to strengthen the application of empirical research methods. Only those researchers having a deep understanding of empirical research methods should utilize such methods. 3.3. The primary task is promotion the scientific nature of tourism research It is necessary to enhance the scientific nature of tourism research. The reason researchers have criticized the research methods associated with positivism is largely because of the misunderstanding and misuse of positivism in tourism research. For example, Li, Tianyuan refers to “pseudo empirical” when he questioned the use of positivism in tourism research (Babble, 2009). In another example, the paper, “Empirical Study on the influencing factors of tourist satisfaction in scenic spots based on FuzzyIPA”, was published by Tourism Tribune in 2010 and the study designed a Fuzzy-IPA analysis method for investigating the factors influencing tourist satisfaction at scenic spots, and took Wuhu Fangte theme park as a case study in which to explore the key determinants of tourist satisfaction with this method (Zhang, 2010b). Though the researcher regarded his paper as an example of positivism, in reviewing this paper one can just see the conclusion about those influencing factors and there is no demonstration of the validity of the research method itself. In this case, this “empirical research” is not a real “empirical research” but an application case. Actually, the researcher also acknowledged one of the article's limitations was “the Fuzzy-IPA method has not been gotten a relevant demonstration”. To identify the true and false and false nature of empirical research would benefit the promotion of the scientific method within tourism research. Logically, the “pseudo empirical” cannot be the reason with which to oppose positivism. A deeper understanding and utilization of correct empirical research methods is the only way to solve the problem. Compared with the “pseudo empirical”, more attention should
5
be paid to the issues of reliability and validity in tourism research (Zhong, 2010). However, this is more related to questions of academic rigor rather than validity of empirical research method. Furthermore, because the empirical research method came from the physical sciences and has been a mainstream social science research method over the long term, it is almost the epitome of what constitutes the scientific research method. However, it is very important to remember that Husserl's original intention was to establish a philosophy of a strict science research and to lay the foundation for all disciplines. As a result, it is necessary to improve the science even in the applications of phenomenology. If tourism wants to become a real discipline, it is cannot just rely on the adjustment of catalogues of degrees and majors. Only when the subject becomes a science, can it be a discipline regardless of its positivism or phenomenology. References Babble, E. (2009). The practice of social research. Qiu, Z., trans (11th ed.). Beijing: Huaxia Press (in Chinese). Hui, H. (2010). Reflections on China's tourism research methods. Tourism Tribune, 25(12), 10e11 (in Chinese). Husserl, E. (2001). The crisis of the European science and the phenomenology of transcendental. Wang, B., trans. Beijing: The Commercial Press (in Chinese). Li, T. (2010). Some humble opinions on tourism research. Tourism Tribune, 25(10), 5e6 (in Chinese). Qing, Q. (2010). The application of quantitative models in tourism economy researches. Tourism Tribune, 25(12), 8e9 (in Chinese). Shen, B. (2010). Tourism principles: The system statements of tourism operating rules. Beijing: China Travel & Tourism Press (in Chinese). Tian, K. (2010). An empirical study of factors that affect tourist satisfaction in scenic areas based on Fuzzy-IPA. Tourism Tribune, 25(5), 61e65 (in Chinese). Tribe, J. (1997). The indiscipline of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 638e657. Xie, Y. (2005). The study of tourist experience: A phenomenological perspective to explore. PhD thesis. Dalian: Dongbei University of Finance and Economics (in Chinese). Xie, Y. (2010). On the essence of tourism and its way of cognition: viewing from the perspective of the discipline itself. Tourism Tribune, 25(1), 26e31 (in Chinese). Xie, Y. (2011). The study of tourist experience: Towards to empirical science. Beijing: China Travel. Xu, H. (2008). Phenomenological research methods and steps. Shanghai: Academia Press (in Chinese). Zhang, J. (2010). Tourism research: positivism popular vigilance. Tourism Tribune, 25(11), 6e7 (in Chinese). Zhang, Q. (2010). The philosophy of the social sciences: Positivism, hermeneutics and Wittgenstein transformation[M]. Shanghai: Fudan University Press & Tourism Press (in Chinese). Zhang, H. (2011). Western social science paradigm and indigenous tourism research in China. Tourism Science, 25(5), 1e9 (in Chinese). Zhang, B., & Zhang, P. (2010). A study on tourist experience based on Husserl's phenomenology. Tourism Science, 24(6), 1e8 (in Chinese). Zhong, L. (2010). Reliability and validity of the tourism research. Tourism Tribune, 25(10), 10e11 (in Chinese).
Ziqian Song is a Researcher at the China Tourism Academy. He holds an undergraduate degree and Master's Degree in Tourism Management from National Huaqiao University. He received his PhD in industrial economics from the Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in 2005. His research focuses on basic theory in tourism studies and tourism policy.
Please cite this article in press as: Song, Z., The debate between empirical and broader phenomenological approaches to research, Tourism Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.03.016