CAUTHE 2007 Conference Tourism: Past Achievements, Future Challenges HOSPITALITY: A SOCIAL LENS: CHALLENGING THE EXISTING ORDER Paul Lynch University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom paul.lynch@strath.ac.uk Alison Morrison University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom ABSTRACT This paper locates developments in hospitality research, notably relating to hospitality studies, in the context of Kuhn’s (1962) evolution of scientific theory. The paper highlights the development of the ‘hospitality lens’ by Lashley, Lynch and Morrison (2007) and suggests it can facilitate the study of hospitality in any social situation from a strengthened social scientific perspective. It is argued that the study of hospitality should be not just for understanding hospitality but also society itself. Such an approach is suggested as both logical and healthy for the subject development with adoption of more critical perspectives on hospitality. The considerable implications of adopting a ‘new’ hospitality research agenda are described with reference to the conceptualization of hospitality, the nature of research and the research community, subject implications including journal publication outlets, and the higher education context. Keywords: Hospitality lens; ‘new’ hospitality; subject development. INTRODUCTION This paper moves beyond any pre-occupation with the vocational roots of hospitality higher education debate as it is considered that that debate has had its day. Rather, the content is framed within the discourse commenced by Kuhn (1962) who argues that the evolution of scientific theory does not emerge from the straightforward accumulation of facts, but rather from a set of changing intellectual circumstances and possibilities. The adoption of Kuhn’s model allows for the charting of hospitality subject development; in itself the ability to do this to reasonable affect attests to the advancement that hospitality has made. It provides a ‘window’ through which the academic insiders and outsiders can observe the manner in which factions within the community have intellectually challenged received assumptions, beliefs, and engaged in reflection, questioning the prevalent paradigm of the time. Further, this process is significant contributing: ‘valuable texture and structure to a maturing academic field, and is essential for progress’ (Morrison and O’Gorman, 2005: 455), and could well indicate the movement towards what Kuhn (1962) calls a ‘paradigm shift’. One illustration of this shift is the emergence, and growing acceptance, of a hospitality studies paradigm across thirty years (Slattery, 1983; Litteljohn, 1990; Jones, 2004). The aim of this paper is to provide insight into and understanding of the subject development of hospitality over the period of its theoretical evolution, with cognisance of the processes involved in knowledge construction, and its never-ending journey towards some ‘truth’. Specifically, it moves focus to the hospitality studies paradigm, reflecting on its connection to society as a whole, and the location of the world of business and management therein. It does so by introducing a ‘hospitality lens’ as a conceptual frame of reference; a portal through which to explore, analyse and reveal the many contexts, centrality and complexity of hospitality in society. The formulation of a hospitality lens drew on analysis of author chapter contributions to Lashley, Lynch and Morrison (2007) and demonstrates the ways in which different twists and turns of the lens bring to bear ‘multiple ‘eyes’ all focused on the same phenomenon that is hospitality but arriving from diverse intellectual starting points and ways of seeing the world’ (174). Hence, the purpose of this paper is not to propose any definitive end statement, but is to

CAUTHE 2007 Conference Tourism: Past Achievements, Future Challenges make a further intellectual contribution to support a paradigm shift that is already in motion. The merits of the hospitality lens conceptual framework are considered and conclusions and implications drawn relative to the future for further hospitality subject development. SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT The raison d’etre of academia is the pursuit and creation of knowledge, uncovering the new, making novel connections, and making sense out of non-sense to develop a subject (Bourdieu, 1990; Delanty, 1997). Kuhn (1962), one of the most influential philosophers and historians of science of the twentieth century, describes this as a cyclical two mode process, alternating between ‘normal science’ and ‘scientific revolutions’. The first activity is where the majority of academics spend most of their career, predicated on a defining, consensual and shared community of values, beliefs and educational resources that tend to suppress alternative views. However, over time anomalies and internal contradictions evolve and accumulate. They cannot be evaded, subvert the existing tradition of practice, leading academics to a new, alternative set of values and beliefs. These episodes represent the ‘scientific revolutions’, overturning old order and replacing with new. When Khun’s model is applied to the historical evolution of hospitality subject development, it is difficult to isolate what could be taken as periods of ‘normal’ and those of ‘revolution’. However, it could be argued that the publication of In Search Hospitality: theoretical perspectives and debates (Lashley and Morrison, 2000) represents a defining moment, marking a major turning point in the academic life of hospitality, transforming the way in which the community views the subject. What is obvious is a continuous murmuring of academic discontent over the years relative to the prevalent management paradigm, with the decibels rising to a dignified roar at the time of writing as fundamental shortcomings are exposed. The subject commenced life in higher education from what would be viewed today as primitive roots in the 1960s articulating the needs of industry and professional bodies in the preparation of management (Airey and Tribe, 2000). Much of the curriculum originated from a vocational base, composed of an amalgam of craft, ritual and inherited practices (Nailon, 1982). The following discussion highlights the emergence of four sets of entwined anomalies and internal contradictions that accumulated. These include: the vocational/liberal curriculum debate; application of a social science means of enquiry; alternative schools of thought; and the role of academics in the social construction of knowledge. They are viewed as being instrumental in the subject development, spanning a period of three decades to reach a point where the stage is set for a scientific revolution and a paradigmatic shift. First, is the movement to liberate the subject from the false confines of a vocational and action conceptual frame of reference locked within the context of business and management. Specifically, support grew for the inclusion of liberal elements in the subject field in addition to those of a vocational nature (Barrow and Bosselman, 1999), recognising that they are not mutually exclusive (Lashley and Morrison, 2000), and of the educational benefits of preparing students to think outside existing practices and paradigms (Airey and Tribe, 2000). This led Morrison and O’Mahony (2003) to surmise that a point had been reached where there was a will to break out from the vocational and action orientation and begin to explore new territories that would embrace a more liberal and reflective orientation. Furthermore, it serves to open a ‘Pandora’s box’ of possible orientations, issues, comparisons and research directions which hospitality researchers may have previously considered to be outside the realm of hospitality. Indeed, it raises the central question of whether hospitality research should be limited to the domain of commercial hospitality provision (Brotherton, 1999: 172). Second, has been the consistent support for the application of a social sciences means of enquiry (for example, Slattery, 1981; Wood, 1995). It has been argued that the subject has the potential to draw on and synthesise the full range of disciplines, transcending disciplinary boundaries as appropriate (Oppermann, 2000). Furthermore, it provides an opportunity to avoid what Morgan and Pritchard (2006: 763) refer to as the ‘ghettoization’ of hospitality, locked into a

CAUTHE 2007 Conference Tourism: Past Achievements, Future Challenges compartmentalised research field. Thus, a social sciences perspective encourages the creation of new knowledge that is not merely wed to unitary business, industry and/or management ways of knowing what is hospitality. The consequence is a move to more pluralistic and radical critical analysis, yielding significant intellectual gains (Lashley, Lynch and Morrison, 2007). A third development which is a consequence of unlocking the subject’s conceptual framework is that it allows for the entry of alternative and competing schools of thought as introduced by Littlejohn (1990), a feature noted by Kuhn (1962) as characteristic of the early development stages in most sciences. Jones (1996) develops this theme and identifies six principal schools of thought as science, management, relationship, systems, pragmatic tradition, and studies. With reference to Taylor and Edgar (1999), Jones (2004) and Lashley (2004) focus on the studies and management schools, and concur that the difference between them is essentially one of emphasis, and that they can synergistically co-exist. The three foregoing sets of anomalies and contradictions have been at work adding energy and momentum to affect a paradigmatic shift as the subject evolves, matures, specialises and refines understanding of the hospitality phenomenon. Hence, the impetus could be assigned to the innate logical structure of maturing knowledge, however, that neglects the role of social construction which represents the fourth and final set. Morrison and O’Mahony (2003) highlight this aspect in recognising the effect of generational change in the professional and academic profiles of the personalities who dominate a subject. This represents a central tenet of Kuhn’s (1962) thesis stressing that much of the process of knowledge creation can be attributed to the social interactions and strategies of human participants. The way in which academics were trained, their system of beliefs, and even their personal preferences all contribute to what gets supported and what gets dismissed. Brotherton (1999: 172) reflects the attitudes within the hospitality subject community of the time where early adopters of a paradigm shift who found the experience to be intellectually stimulating and liberating, were viewed by the majority as ‘a lot of unnecessary nonsense which only serves to confuse the issues further’. By 2006, a blurring of the management into the studies school was becoming apparent (Morrison and O’Gorman, under review), following Kuhn’s (1962) prediction that ultimately only one school will be adopted as a paradigm, and an increasing number of academics from within and outwith hospitality were devoting intellectual energies to the hospitality studies paradigm. Tangible evidence of this transitional and conversion process is provided, for example: the contributions of editors and authors, for example, Wood (1995), Lashley and Morrison (2000), Sloan (2004) and Lashley, Lynch and Morrison (2007); increased numbers of PhD students’ theses which have hospitality studies as a central theme; a growing critical mass of refereed journal papers informed by an interest in the phenomenon of hospitality as a site of social science enquiry; an explosion of academic literature of wide genre using the metaphor of host/guest hospitality to critically analyse and understand society as a whole; and the ever-growing number of higher education courses that explicitly include hospitality studies. HOSPITALITY: A SOCIAL LENS Consideration will now be given to contextualisng the hospitality lens and its’ potentially transformational subject contributions. Following on from In Search of Hospitality: theoretical concepts and debates, Hospitality: a social lens (Lashley, Lynch and Morrison, 2006) introduced a conceptual lens (Figure 1) to facilitate application of multiple social science perspectives through which to view, analyse, and explore hospitality. The lens provides the potential for novel ways of interpreting, knowing and sense-making, to emerge, and it is considered to represent a fundamental advancement of the three-domain model introduced by Lashley (2000) which located hospitality in the private, social and commercial domains. The hospitality lens presents a conceptual framework that accommodates critical, collective and pluralistic dimensions. It links and organises a set of core concepts into a consolidated and coherent construct, developing a vision that underlies research and knowledge discovery. It brings together a set of ideas and practices that have potential to shape the way the subject is

CAUTHE 2007 Conference Tourism: Past Achievements, Future Challenges developed. Underpinning the lens is a need for a set of shared assumptions, values, and definitions. Figure 1 The Hospitality Conceptual Lens

Inclusion/ Exclusion

Social and Cultural Dimensions

Commerce

Laws

HOST – GUEST TRANSACTION
Types and Sites Politics of Space

Performance

Domestic Discourse

The lens is a representation of a prototype paradigm offered to the academic community. To understand it one must actually step into it, to appreciate that different social science disciplinary twists and turns of the lens have the potential not just to deconstruct the phenomenon, but to reveal multiple, complex and diverse ways of knowing hospitality. It can be applied to the study of management. However, it is much more than that, it is a frame of reference for exploring and understanding society itself. The lens is new and its current state of development still raw, incomplete, is inevitably accompanied by numerous anomalies, and may experience a transition period of readjusting and rethinking research as theories evolve and

CAUTHE 2007 Conference Tourism: Past Achievements, Future Challenges move in different directions. Should it achieve a solidity and unity, it could convert the majority of the community to the new paradigm, replacing the former way of thinking and organising the academic field. A paradigm shift would be seen to have been affected that does not merely involved the revision or transformation of an individual theory, it changes the way terminology is defined, how the academics in the field view their subject, what research agendas and methodologies are appropriate. It is not about extensions of old theories, but shattering of tradition, evolving new theories reflecting radically novel conceptual world views, reconstructing the entire academic field. Kuhn argues that the typical development pattern of a mature academic field is the successive transition from one paradigm to another through a process of revolution. Further, Kuhn (1962: 144) asserts that when a paradigm shift takes place: ‘a scientist’s world is qualitatively transformed [and] quantitatively enriched by fundamental novelties of either fact or theory’. However, the validity of Khun’s (1962: 103) assertion that: ‘the normal-scientific tradition that emerges from a scientific revolution is not only incompatible but often actually incommensurable with that which has gone before’ is disputed. In contrast it is argued that a paradigm shift does not render previous accumulations of knowledge under the old regime redundant. Nevertheless, its current business and management focus will be different from what may emerge in the future, where will be varied epistemological reference points and methods, creating a new world order, but which nevertheless will hold a historical integrity. The principal elements of the hospitality lens are captured below. Each element represents a major dimension of hospitality for exploration. However, attention is drawn to two aspects: firstly, the collectivity of the elements and their power to explore hospitality; secondly, the potential to use the exploration of hospitality through the lens as a means of analysing society itself. Hospitality’s Social Lens • Host/Guest Transaction: a social construct recognised to be at the root of any civilised society, while the mode of operation may vary over time and social and cultural context, in essence it is concerned with the extent to which a host takes responsibility for the care and management of a guest and a guest accepts or rejects the authority of the host. The interactional nature of the transaction is multi-faceted: social, cultural, psychological, economic, emotional etc and captures the idea of a ‘crossing over’ between host and guest. • Inclusion/Exclusion: the metaphorical symbolisation of hospitality with the host welcoming of an ‘other’ (guest) across thresholds signifying inclusion, equivalence among groups, and reaffirms insiders as socially similar; implicit is the converse of exclusion of unwelcome ‘others’ on the outside. • Social and Cultural Dimensions: in the partaking of hospitality host and guest construct a temporary common moral universe, involving a process of production, consumption, and communication embedded in which are strong social and cultural dimensions that will define the host/guest transaction. • ‘Laws’: albeit unwritten, these are socially and culturally defined obligations, standards, principles, norms and rules associated with governing the transaction between host and guest, defining respective duties, and acceptable and unacceptable behaviours. • Performance: the host/guest transaction can be depicted as actors performing their respective roles, within a temporary time frame to a script governed by the prevailing ‘laws’, on a stage that is deliberately constructed to convey symbolism and meaning, and brings into play debates concerning authenticity. • Domestic Discourse: reflects the domestic roots of hospitality and symbolic connotations of practices, language and gendered roles relative to host/guest transaction

CAUTHE 2007 Conference Tourism: Past Achievements, Future Challenges within other types and sites, and emphasises the inter-generational role of that environment in educating as to the ‘laws’. Politics of Space: concerned with the concept of boundaries and meanings of a social, spatial and cultural nature that denote inclusions/exclusions, and defines the level of intimacy/distance within the host/guest transaction once the across thresholds. Types and Sites: makes differentiation, recognising the multi-manifestation of forms and locations for experiencing hospitality and host/guest transaction, within which diverse social and cultural dimensions, and local ‘laws’ that may prevail. Commerce: refers to particular types and sites of commercial hospitality where the host/guest transaction explicitly contains economic dimensions alongside those of the social, where the hosting is often ‘contracted out’ to an agent/employee of a commercial organisation, and authenticity is questioned. (Source: Lashley, Lynch and Morrison, 2007: 174-175)

• • •

In order to deepen understanding of hospitality, the study of hospitality would benefit from turning its gaze outwards to the ways in which hospitality interacts with society. Greater emphasis upon what hospitality does to society and more broadly says about society is needed. Exploration of hospitality in an array of contemporary situations is required. In this ‘new’ world of hospitality, the study of hospitality is without frontiers. Wherever hospitality exists, in whatever shape or form, there is the potential for an analysis through the portable conceptual lens of hospitality. Implications from a hospitality subject perspective The development of a ‘new’ hospitality research agenda poses various challenges and has various subject implications which collectively and cumulatively could revolutionise the status quo. These themes are now given consideration: multidisciplinary engagement; the conceptualization of hospitality; research methods; changes to the research community; research consequences; higher education management; subject associations and journal outlets. Whilst the term ‘new’ is employed, the authors recognise that this is a process already started. The difference now is in the stage that development of such a research approach has reached and achievement of a much greater critical mass and direction. Fundamental, is a willingness to extend the conception of the hospitality subject boundaries and recognise this process as very positive for the subject development and its consequent academic standing. Multidisciplinary perspectives need to be embraced with associated more inclusive literatures informing analyses. This represents a challenge, as much for researchers from within the hospitality subject engaging with other disciplines, as for those outwith who explore aspects of hospitality and would benefit from deepening their understanding of the hospitality concept and realities. Engagement with a wider range of multidisciplinary perspectives should facilitate drawing upon broader theoretical underpinnings in order to inform analyses and thereby contribute towards new hospitality-specific theory. Engagement with a wider range of disciplines than currently, and on a more generous scale than is the case at present, for example, through multidisciplinary research seminars and conferences creates the potential for exposing hospitality research, influencing ‘mainstream’ disciplines and thereby raising the profile and, perhaps also, the quality of hospitality research. One should bear in mind that it is through the pursuit of excellence in research that this idea of ‘new hospitality’ has emerged. Continuing on this path should further enhance the academic standing of hospitality research. ‘New’ hospitality challenges existing conceptualisations of hospitality. Hospitality needs to be able to embrace the physical, behavioural and attitudinal elements identified by Cassee and Reuland (1983:144): ‘a harmonious mixture of food, beverage, and/or shelter, a physical environment, and the behaviour and attitude of people’, yet be willing to question the concept of

CAUTHE 2007 Conference Tourism: Past Achievements, Future Challenges ‘harmony’. It also needs to question the sense of enhancement and idea of ‘voluntarism’ proposed by Brotherton (1999: 169): ‘a contemporaneous human exchange, which is voluntarily entered into, and designed to enhance the mutual wellbeing of the parties concerned through the provision of accommodation and food or drink’. A definition should acknowledge idyllic associations of hospitality yet recognise hospitality may also be a moral or compulsory obligation devoid of the ideals captured by, for example, Morrison and O’Gorman (2005:3): It represents the cordial reception, welcome and entertainment of guests or strangers of diverse social backgrounds and cultures charitably, socially or commercially with kind and generous liberality, into one’s home space to dine and/or lodge temporally. Dependent on circumstance and context the degree to which the hospitality offering is conditional or unconditional may vary. Further, definition needs to acknowledge hospitality may simply be a metaphor with the spatial home of hospitality not just a static physical space but also a mobile and metaphoric space. Therefore, ‘new’ hospitality leads to much broader concepts of hospitality than has been the case to date giving recognition to the multiplicity of ways in which hospitality can be interpreted. As part of this new hospitality research agenda, consideration also requires to be given to the methods employed. Criticisms have been made of the narrow range of largely positivist research methods employed in studies of hospitality and that where qualitative research methods are employed, they are often employing a narrow range of techniques (Morrison, 2002; Lynch 2005). There is value in adopting highly qualitative and imaginative research methods as well as engaging in critical reflection and unifying assorted bodies of literature. A consequence of this academic journey is that who is conceived of as being part of the hospitality research community changes to become larger and more inclusive. Thus researchers based in other disciplines who make research ‘forays’ into hospitality become members of the hospitality research community whether on an ongoing or short-term basis. Such a cultural shift will lead to a change in the composition of research heroines and heros as perceptions by the traditional hospitality community of who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out’ are modified. The engagement of a larger research community in hospitality will release the ‘power’ of hospitality as an academic subject exposing its richness in full as an area of investigation and as a tool for investigation of society. Increasing multi-disciplinary contributions may profoundly affect our academic discourses, for example, the influence of Ritzer and the McDonaldization thesis (Ritzer, 2000). A further consequence of multidisciplinary engagement will be an increase in academic standing of hospitality research both through proximity as well as through actions. The existing level of internationalisation of hospitality research will be expanded giving a greater critical mass that might have beneficial consequences for the funding of hospitality research researchers from disciplines with stronger traditions of attracting research funding. As composition of the research community is redefined, so the nature of the socially constructed knowledge will evolve. In describing such a scenario, the authors hope that ‘new’ hospitality will learn from the mistakes of the critical tourism studies research agenda which embraces multidisciplinary perspectives but tends to be neither very critical nor, arguably, to truly release the power of tourism as a tool for understanding society (Franklin and Crang, 2001). The focus of hospitality research will change to embrace all that is hospitality in some shape or form. Thus, a more inclusive range of hospitality organizations, situations etc will become the focus of study. In this context, a number of concerns may be encountered. For instance, whether such a scenario would lead to a bifurcation of hospitality research towards hospitality management or hospitality studies research. Morrison and O’Gorman (Under review) argue this is a false dichotomy in that

CAUTHE 2007 Conference Tourism: Past Achievements, Future Challenges each will be richer for the existence of and interaction with the other. Further, those researchers from the hospitality subject community will in any event need to work within the subject and associated organizational pressures in terms of research agendas. Rather than represent a potential dilution of hospitality research into ‘management’, the new research agenda should contribute towards the quality of, inter alia, management research through a deepening of insights and new theoretical perspectives. From a higher education management perspective, ‘new’ hospitality might be seen to be particularly attractive since teaching staff can come from a range of disciplines leading to economies of scale and flexible staff deployment. Hospitality courses should benefit from being able to draw upon a wider range of theoretical perspectives, insights and disciplines thus expanding the knowledge base that underpins the subject with whatever emphasis is given to it. One might expect a greater range of consumer attractive courses and modules relating to hospitality to be provided leading to the creation of novel educational markets for hospitality, and new generations of hospitality scholars. On the other hand, the positioning of hospitality between arts and social sciences and business might create an academic vulnerability similar to that of tourism. However, here again this can lead to advantages as might be seen with tourism’s ability to position its research in ‘softer’, less competitive social scientific subject groups in the United Kingdom Research Assessment Exercise and attain higher research gradings as a consequence. Changes to understandings of hospitality will lead to changes in the focus of subject associations. For example, in the United Kingdom where a significant increase in hospitality studies courses is already being witnessed, the Council for Hospitality Management Education at the time of writing is considering whether it should change its name to reflect a broader form of hospitality education that is not just concerned with management. It is to be hoped that, over time, industry will welcome graduates with deeper understandings of hospitality from a social as well as managerial perspective, and with stronger critical and analytical skills. A further challenge to the subject of hospitality lies in the limited availability of journal publishing outlets for more social scientific perspectives on hospitality; there is a significant danger of authors being tied to potentially restrictive and constraining bodies of knowledge owing to particular subject orientations. The development of new journals embracing the wider concept of hospitality from a broad range of multidisciplinary perspectives is to be expected alongside existing management-facing journals reviewing their existing focus. Editorial boards of new journals will include membership from a crosssection of disciplines. None of the foregoing challenges are insurmountable. Whilst some may provoke debate, such discussions can only be indicative of a healthy and vibrant research community. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS This paper has located developments in hospitality research, notably relating to hospitality studies, as part of a Kuhnian revolution in the subject. It hashighlighted the evolution of the ‘hospitality lens’ which, it is suggested, can facilitate the study of hospitality in any social situation from a strengthened social scientific perspective. It has also been proposed that the study of hospitality should be not just for understanding hospitality per se but also society itself. Such an approach is proposed as both logical and healthy for the subject development with adoption of more critical perspectives on hospitality. The considerable implications of adopting a ‘new’ hospitality research agenda are described. Finally, one thing is clear, the health of hospitality research is indisputably strong and its future incredibly exciting and rich.

CAUTHE 2007 Conference Tourism: Past Achievements, Future Challenges ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Contribution of Conrad Lashley and the contributing authors to In Search of Hospitality: theoretical perspectives and debates and Hospitality: a social lens in stimulating the intellectual exploration and reflection that has influenced the content of this paper. REFERENCES Airey, D. & Tribe, J. (2000) ‘Education for Hospitality’, in Lashley, C., Morrson, A. (Eds.) In Search of Hospitality: theoretical perspectives and debates, Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann, 192-276. Barrow, C. & Bosselman, R. (Eds.) (1999), Hospitality Management Education, New York: Haworth Press. Bourdieu, P. (1990), The Logic of Practice, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Brotherton, B. (1999) ‘Towards a definitive view of the nature of hospitality and hospitality management’ International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11(4), 165-173. Cassee, E. (1993) ‘Introduction’, in Cassee, E., Reluand, R. (Eds.) The Management of Hospitality, Oxford: Pergamon, xiii-xxii. Delanty, G. (1997), Social Science: Beyond Constructivism and Realism, Buckingham: Open University Press. Franklin, A. & Crang, M., (2001) ‘The trouble with tourism and travel theory.’ Tourist Studies, 1, 5-22. Jones, P. (1996) ‘Hospitality research – where have we got to?’ International Journal of Hospitality Management, 15(1), 5-10. Jones, P. (2004) ‘Finding the hospitality industry? Or Finding Hospitality Schools of Thought?’ Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 3(1), 33-45. Kuhn, T. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolution, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lashley, C. (1999) ‘In Search of Hospitality: towards a theoretical framework’, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 19(1), 3-15. Lashley, C. (2000) ‘Towards a Theoretical Understanding’, in Lashley, C. & Morrison, A. (Eds.) In Search of Hospitality: theoretical perspectives and debates, Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann, 1-16. Lashley, C., & Morrison, A., (Eds.) (2000) In Search of Hospitality: Theoretical Perspectives and Debates, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Lashley, C., Lynch, P., & Morrison, A., (2007) Hospitality: A Social Lens, Oxford: Elsevier. Litteljohn, D. (1990) ‘Hospitality research: philosophies and progress’, In: Teare, R., Moutinho, L. & Morgan, N., (Eds.), Managing and Marketing Services in the 1990s, London: Cassell, 209-232. Lynch, P.A., (2005) ‘Sociological Impressionism In A Hospitality Context’, Annals of Tourism Research, 32 (3) 527-548. Morrison, A. (2002) ‘Hospitality Research: a pause for reflection’, International Journal of Tourism Research, 4, 161-169. Morrison, A., & O’Gorman, K., (2005) Hospitality Studies: Liberating the Power of the Mind, paper presentation, CAUTHE2005, Victoria University, Melbourne. Morrison, A., & O’Gorman, K. (in review) ‘Hospitality studies and hospitality management: a symbiotic relationship’, International Journal of Hospitality Management. Morrison, A., & O’Mahony, B., (2003) ‘The liberation of hospitality management education’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15 (1) 38-44. Nailon, P. (1982) ‘Theory of Hospitality Management’, International Journal of Hospitlaity Management, 1(3) 135-143. Oppermann, M. (2000) ‘Triangulation – a methodological discussion’, International Journal of Tourism Research, 2(2) 141-146. Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N., (2006) ‘Hotel Babylon? Exploring hotels as liminal sites of transition and transgression’, Tourism Management, 27, 762-772.

CAUTHE 2007 Conference Tourism: Past Achievements, Future Challenges Ritzer, G. (2000) The McDonaldisation of Society, Thousand Oaks: Sage. Slattery, P., (1983) ‘Social scientific methodology and hospitality management’, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 2(1) 9-14. Sloan, D., (2004) Culinary Taste: Consumer Behaviour in the International Restaurant Sector, Oxford: Elsevier. Taylor, S., & Edgar, D. (1999) ‘Lacuna or lost cause? Some reflections on hospitality management research’, in Brotherton, B. (Ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Hospitality Management Research, Chichester: John Wiley, 19-38. Weinberg, S. (1998) ‘Steven Weinberg on scientific revolutions’, New York Review of Books, XLV, 15, October 8. Wood, R. (1995) The Sociology of the Meal, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.