Metodologia badań nad turystyką Podstawy ontologiczne i epistemologiczne oraz rozwój historyczno-instytucjonalny

The researcher's task in tourism is the pursuit of truth about the subject. This basic principle underlies the following exploration of selected aspects of the ontological, epistemological, and methodological foundations of tourism studies. Such issues are rarely at the center of tourism researchers' interests, as noted by Coles, Hall, & Duval (2009, 81) who argue that: “Scholars interested in tourism have been criticized for a lack of interest in the ontological and epistemological [. . .] foundations of their work, including the notion that some tourism knowledges are created for tourism knowledges’ sake in a fragmented, incoherent and unsystematic manner”. 

This point of view supports the following premise: exploring the philosophical aspects of tourism research will improve the conditions for conducting empirical studies of the complex reality of tourism. Analysis and clarification of the philosophical issues form the solid basis needed for studying tourist phenomena. And the result will be increasingly reliable knowledge about tourism in its diverse manifestations.

The discussion begins by defining the tourist reality as a part of the social reality created by people, simultaneously constituting a complex subject of study for various scientific disciplines. Next is  an analysis of n the nature (ontological aspect) and possibilities of understanding (epistemic aspect) this reality. The entire argument is formulated in relation to two main positions present in contemporary social sciences: realism and relativism. In the first case, J. Searle’s (1995, 2011) “new realism” ontology of social reality is used to determine the nature of tourist reality and the possibilities of its cognition. In the second case, the assumptions of social constructionism are  utilized to relate the views of proponents of a relativistic approach in tourism research. Finally, as a synthesis of the deliberations, a methodological approach was presented, which proposes to overcome the dichotomy between objectivist realism and subjectivist relativism in knowledge (about tourism). For the purposes of this work, it is termed the realistic-humanistic approach.

It is worth noting that while discussing the opposing positions of realism and relativism, reference is simultaneously made to two competing perspectives that interpret the development of science, including the social sciences and, in their frame, tourism research. The first relates to the so- called cumulative model of knowledge, where development is purposeful (teleological), continually bringing us closer to the truth about the world. This model, endorsed by Popper (1935, 1959, 1975) and Searle (1995, 2011), is also accepted by the entire naturalistic tradition. Relativism, on the other hand, refers to the paradigmatic model, attributed to Kuhn (1962), assuming a discontinuous development of science characterized by periods of scientific revolutions. Within each paradigm, knowledge takes on relativistic features. This relativistic view, especially in the form of moderate social constructionism, gains broad recognition among tourism researchers (Tribe, 2006; Pernecky, 2013, 2014; Tribe, Liburd, 2016). Many attribute fundamental importance to internal and external factors, which, according to them, hinder researchers from adopting an objective stance towards the studied reality.

The realistic-humanistic concept attempts to reconcile both opposing approaches. On the one hand, it incorporates the metaphysical assumption of the existence of external (to the researcher) world, including tourist reality. This world, being knowable, allows the search for truth about it. 

On the other hand, this search permits the individualization and subjectivization of the cognitive process, and it utilizes the achievements and traditions of various scientific schools or methodological models. In the context mentioned above, it seems that the realistic-humanistic  approach, to some extent, overcomes the ontological-epistemological opposition between realism (objectivism) and relativism (subjectivism), at least in their moderate versions.

This comprehensive study of the ontological and epistemological foundations of tourism research quite properly leads to the question of its relevance to empirical studies. Despite the inherent importance of these issues, certain doubts remain. Indeed, many tourism researchers have never concerned themselves with the dilemmas of the ontology or epistemology of their studies, which did not hinder them from successfully conducting their research. Therefore, the question of the usefulness of such deliberations will remain open, and the readers over time will provide  answers. Nevertheless, Searle’s opinion clarifies why basic research is important, and it provides the rationale for this study: “It is impossible to tell in advance what is going to be useful for actual research. [.. .] My instinct, though, is to think that it is always a good idea to understand the foundational issues. It is much more plausible to me to think that an understanding of the basic ontology of any discipline will deepen the understanding of issues within that discipline.” (Searle, 2011, 200).

Complementing the analysis of the ontological-epistemological foundations of tourism is a discussion of the methodology of studies in this field. The account is split into two sections: 1) the main methodological models used in tourism research and 2) the issues of the disciplinary nature of tourism studies. The first section reviews the major theories regarding tourism research, which are divided into the naturalistic and humanistic-interpretive models, a division common in foundational theories from various social sciences. The second section discusses the problem of the disciplinary nature of tourism studies, taking into account the views of both proponents and opponents of granting them such status. The entire discussion is followed by a historical overview  of the development of tourism research, mainly from a European perspective focusing  on the contributions of German-speaking, French, and Polish researchers. The results of the analysis yield evidence for the hypothesis that the globalization of tourism studies, combined with the dominant role of the Anglo-American tradition (also in linguistic terms), limits the contemporary knowledge of tourism. This trend is marginalizing the achievements of other research schools both in research practice and related academic communication. An example of this situation is the history of the substantial achievements of Polish tourism research that are poorly known on the international stage.

The discussion also touches upon a very important issue relating to the process of creating knowledge, including knowledge about tourism:  the relationship between (broadly understood) power and knowledge (science). Simply put, power can have an undue influence on scientific activity. Many authors, including Foucault (1961, 1971, 1980), Zybertowicz (1995), Szklarska (2015), and, in relation to tourism research, Butowski, Kaczmarek, Kowalczyk-Anioł, Szafrańska (2021), have addressed this issue from various ideological positions. This  crucial point is the final conclusion formulated independently by researchers from different (sometimes opposing) traditions. Many of them point out the paradox arising from adopting relativistic views. If, according to these views, truth has no objective value and is a kind of socio-cultural convention, we must admit the possibility that it can also be imposed by stronger communities on weaker ones. Thus, the acceptance of views advocating the permissibility and equal rights of different positions and discourses, and consequently, relativized truths, while simultaneously rejecting the anchor of cognitive realism, may lead to the hegemony of certain academic or ideological centers. It seems that to a large extent, we are already witnessing this in the social and human sciences, where the relativistic worldview serves as a philosophical-methodological foundation imposed by stronger groups on weaker ones (Roszkowski, 2019, 2020).

This situation has migrated into the field of tourism research, where the dominant position of researchers representing mostly views consistent with the described relativistic tendencies in the social sciences is noticeable. It is important to emphasize that this process occurs at the expense of other scientific traditions that have been pushed to the margins. This is even recognized by some representatives of this dominant option, occupying the most  recognized positions in the international academic community (Dann, 2011; Dann, Liebman Parinello, 2009; Gibson, 2008; Hall, Williams, Lew, 2004; Viken, 2013). It is ironic that, despite verbally identifying the problem, they willingly continue to play the role of gatekeepers (Hall, 2004) or power brokers (McCarcher, 2002) in tourism knowledge.

The  conclusion of the entire discussion strongly emphasizes that the outcomes formulated within it, especially those regarding knowledge about the world, concern exclusively the sphere of scientific knowledge. This sphere is undoubtedly essential, but it is not the only source of knowledge about the surrounding reality. It is supplemented by other, no less important ways of understanding, perceiving, or experiencing the world, which, by their nature, create a different, non-scientific or even metaphysical domain of human life. It seems that only by considering both of these domains – the "physical" and the "metaphysical" – is it possible to provide a reasonably complete image of the world attainable by humans, with the awareness that it will never be truly complete. This reflection appears to be consistent with the message of John Paul II contained in the encyclical letter "Fides et Ratio. Encyclical on the Relationship between Faith and Reason," which formed the basis for the author's vision of the role and place of science in the cognition and understanding of the contemporary world (http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/pl/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html" t "_new" (August 21, 2023).