Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
Leisure, 1984 to 1992) provided another forum for research developments and interaction
by geographers and non-geographers with similar research interests. Nevertheless,
despite such initiatives, the relationship of the geography of tourism and recreation to the
broader discipline of geography has suffered two major problems:
• the rise of applied geography within the discipline, and tourism and recreation
geography within it, has seen critics view it as rather ephemeral and lacking in
substance and rigour
• in some countries (e.g. the UK and Australia), national geographical organisations and
geography departments have often failed to recognise the significance of recreation
and tourism as a legitimate research area capable of strengthening and supporting the
discipline.
One consequence is that many geographers who developed recreational and tourism
research interests in the 1980s and 1990s have left the inherent conservatism and ongoing
criticism of their research activity to move to fresh pastures where autonomous tourism
research centres or departments have eventuated. This does not, however, denigrate the
excellent contribution that leading geographers such as Patmore, Coppock, Mercer,
Glyptis and Pearce have made to establishing recreation and tourism as serious areas of
academic study within the discipline. Nevertheless, a significant number of geographers
are now based in business schools or tourism, recreation or leisure departments where
their research interests are aligned within a multidisciplinary environment that can cross-
fertilise their research and support an applied focus. Indeed, in some respects, history is
perhaps repeating itself all over again, where planning emerged as a discipline and split
from some of its geographical roots and where the development of environmental studies
departments has also led to a departure of geographers to such centres.
Since the mid-1980s many geographers unwilling to have the progress of their careers
impeded by views held by peers who did not see tourism and recreation as mainstream
spatial research have similarly split from the discipline. For example, in New Zealand,
with one or two exceptions, all the geographers with a tourism or recreation focus are
now located in business schools, departments of tourism and recreation or other non-
geographical departments. This situation is not dramatically different from the situation
in Australia, where educational expansion in this area has made extensive use of
professional geographers to develop and lead such developments (Weiler and Hall 1991).
As Janiskee and Mitchell (1989) concluded:
This is certainly an interesting and exciting time to be a recreation
geographer. After a slow start, the subdiscipline has achieved a critical
mass and seems destined to enjoy a bright future…. There is no question
that the application of recreation geography knowledge and expertise to
problem solving contexts outside academia offers potential rewards of
considerable worth to the sub-discipline: more jobs for recreation
geographers, a stimulus to academic research with implications for
problem solving, a more clearly defined sense of purpose or social worth,
and greater visibility, both within and outside academic circles.
(Janiskee and Mitchell 1989:159)
