Critical Discourse Analysis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RADAR Research Archive and Digital Asset Repository Meaning(s) in “Sustainable Tourism”: A Social Semiotic Approach Nadezda Sorokina (2013) https://radar.brookes.ac.uk/radar/items/3071a82d-9028-429d-ac4e-75e9dd030711/1/ Copyright © and Moral Rights for this thesis are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. When referring to this work, the full bibliographic details must be given as follows: Sorokina, N (2013) Meaning(s) in “Sustainable Tourism”: A Social Semiotic Approach PhD, Oxford Brookes University WWW.BROOKES.AC.UK/GO/RADAR Meaning(s) in “Sustainable Tourism”: A Social Semiotic Approach Nadezda Sorokina A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the award of Doctor of Philosophy Length: 99781 Faculty of Business Oxford Brookes University May 2013 Abstract It can be argued that ”sustainable tourism” is considered to be a solution for ensuring the industry’s long-term survival. However, the concept of “sustainable tourism” is contested. A key issue is a lack of consensus in how stakeholders define “sustainable tourism”, and this creates communication challenges when different stakeholders discuss the concept. Within the field of sustainable tourism, there is limited literature on the meanings that stakeholder groups attribute to the concept of “sustainable tourism”. This study aims to address this theoretical gap, by exploring the meanings that stakeholders attribute to “sustainable tourism”, and the potential for the creation of shared meanings. This thesis addresses this gap by applying a social semiotic approach to exploring the meanings attributed to “sustainable tourism” by various stakeholder groups. Social semiotics is a theory that studies meanings created in groups, and is applied in this thesis as an analysis of “sustainable tourism” stakeholders’ web-pages. A total of 18 webpages from five stakeholder groups: the Public sector, the Tourism industry, Universities and research centres, the Third sector and Environmental and tourism consultancies, have been analysed for the purpose of this study. The findings of the thesis add value to both theory and practice. The theoretical contribution is twofold. Conceptually, the study has contributed to the theory of “sustainable tourism” by establishing that there is no orderliness in the ways that stakeholders conceptualise “sustainable tourism” meanings. Instead, further fragmentation of values, according to clusters or individual organisations within stakeholder groups, occurs. The meanings identified in this study can be organised into five dualities and tensions, and represent the positions in power relations in “sustainable tourism”. Methodologically, the study has contributed to the body of knowledge by introducing social semiotics into “sustainable tourism” research methodology, and by developing an original and replicable research instrument based on methods of social semiotics. II The practical implications of the thesis are twofold as well. The meanings identified in the study can help breach perceptual gap between organisations in different stakeholder groups and clusters, promoting more effective communication, inclusion and participation in “sustainable tourism”. Furthermore, the original research instrument developed for this study can be adopted by practitioners for the analysis of their own webpage for the meanings conveyed. III Acknowledgements I would like to dedicate my doctoral thesis to my family: my parents, my brother, my sister-in-law and my nephew. They have tirelessly supported me at every step of my doctoral journey. I owe them my deepest gratitude, as this work would not have been possible without my family’s care, patience and unconditional love. Without my parents’ helpful financial and emotional support, this journey would not take place. I am grateful to my parents for understanding me and my peculiarities and giving me the mental space I needed to finish this work. I would also like to thank my brother for providing me with much needed distractions in form of latest musical updates, and the discussions on the Scandinavian literature, TV and Asian cuisine. I wish to thank my first supervisor and Director of Studies, David Bowie, my second supervisor, Dr Rebecca Hawkins, and my third supervisor, Dr David Bowen. They continuously challenged, motivated and guided me by providing most helpful feedback and advice. Each, with their own experience, commented on my work and provided much needed direction. Without it, this thesis would not have been completed. I am forever indebted to my friends, who tolerated my mood swings and kept me going. I would like to thank my PhD support-group that included Anastasia Mariussen, Maureen Lee and Pimpika Thongrom. Their constant support, help, encouragement, advice, as well as our coffee breaks and discussions of the latest episodes of ‘The Big Bang Theory’ provided me with inspiration and the motivation I needed. I would also like to thank my closest non-PhD friends: Dani Helms, Ellie Chiu, Oksana Karavanska and Olga Gorbunova for repeating over and over that there was life outside PhD, encouraging to pursue my dreams and reminding that logic does not always suggest the best way forward. The thesis would have not been completed without help from many individuals. I would like to thank all those who contributed to my thesis, in terms of questions, suggestions and occasional biscuits. In particular, I am IV grateful to my PhD Suite colleagues for creating an atmosphere that encouraged studying; Dr John O’Regan for suggesting to use social semiotics in my research, and to Dr Jan Harwell and Lyn Bibbings for the knowledge and aspects of life that they have taught. Finally, I am grateful to my examiners for reading and evaluating this thesis. V Table of Contents MEANING(S) IN “SUSTAINABLE TOURISM”: A SOCIAL SEMIOTIC APPROACH ...................... 1 ABSTRACT................................................................................................................... II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ IV LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................. X LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. XII 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... - 3 - 1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. - 3 - 1.2 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ............................................................................... - 6 - 1.2.1 Tourism and its characteristics ....................................................................... - 6 - 1.2.2 “Sustainable tourism” and its characteristics ................................................ - 9 - 1.2.3 Social semiotics and its characteristics ....................................................... - 12 - 1.3 RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY ......................................................................................- 15 - 1.4 RESEARCH AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................- 17 - 1.5 HOW THIS THESIS IS DIFFERENT AND HOW TO APPROACH THE READING OF IT ........- 18 - 1.6 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS ......................................................................................- 19 - 2. “SUSTAINABLE TOURISM” MEANINGS AND “SUSTAINABLE TOURISM” STAKEHOLDERS .................................................................................................. - 23 - 2.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................- 23 - 2.2 “SUSTAINABLE TOURISM”: ORIGINS ...........................................................................- 24 - 2.3 “SUSTAINABLE TOURISM”: IMPLEMENTATION AND ADAPTATIONS .............................- 28 - 2.3.1 “Sustainable tourism”: Implementation ....................................................... - 28 - 2.3.2 “Sustainable tourism”: Stakeholders’ interpretations ................................ - 30 - 2.3.2.1 “Sustainable tourism” adaptations: The Tourism industry .................... - 36 - 2.3.2.2 “Sustainable tourism” adaptations: Consumers ..................................... - 40 - 2.3.2.3 “Sustainable tourism” adaptations: The Public sector ........................... - 41 - 2.3.2.4 “Sustainable tourism” adaptations: The Third sector ............................. - 44 - 2.3.2.5 “Sustainable tourism” adaptations: Universities and research centres- 45 - 2.3.3 “Sustainable tourism”: further developments ............................................. - 46 - 2.4 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................- 47 - 3. SOCIAL SEMIOTICS, ITS ORIGINS, THEORIES AND METHODS ................. - 48 - 3.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................- 48 - 3.2 SEMIOTICS: SCHOOLS