MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001614947

The connection between cultural tourism and VFR tourism from immigrant hosts’ perspectives

2019· article· en· W3001614947 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Md. Wahid Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarworks (University of Massachusetts Amherst) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismImmigrationConnection (principal bundle)Tourism geographySociologyGeographyEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The connection between cultural tourism and VFR tourism from immigrant hosts’ perspectives\nCultural tourism study flourished after World War II (Richards, 2018) and Visiting friends and relatives (VFR) tourism drew considerable attention in academia since 1990 (Yousuf & Baker, 2015). The former involves both physical aspects (e.g. heritage sites, monuments and so on) and social aspects (e.g. the way of life of people) of the destination’s culture. Here, the motivation for tourists is the culture or the elements of culture (Cohen, 1972) where the tourists may explore the heritage sites (Ashworth & Turnbridge, 1990) or specific attractions (Richards, 1996). The physical and social elements of a destination’s culture not only provide motivation (Hughes, 200) and activity sources (Petroman et al., 2013) or both (McKercher & du Cros, 2003) to tourists, but also help to add meanings to those cultural elements (Richards, 2018). On the other hand, VFR tourism is about the shared experiences of visitors and residents who have a prior relationship (Griffin, 2013). Though travelers’ primary motivation may be to meet their friends or relatives, experiencing the host community culture would be another motivation for them (Silberberg, 1995). Here cultural tourism is largely defined as experiencing the way of life of a destination. The first group of participants in the study of VFR tourism are the immigrants who left their land of birth to a new destination and became residents. Other participants, the visitors, are the friends or relatives of the immigrants who may or may not be from the immigrants’ former country and thus term visiting friends and relatives tourism is about experiences between visitors and residents who have a prior relationship.\nLiteratures on VFR tourism have found a close relation with migration (Griffin, 2017) as immigrants tend to visit their former home communities and are also visited by their friends or relatives in the migrated places. During their visit to a place the visitors are generally exposed to different cultural attractions (e.g. festivals, events, sites and places of importance) by their hosts’ influence. However, the existing literatures have not considered the connection between VFR and Cultural tourism in the same frame. Therefore, the purpose of this qualitative study is to explore the connection between VFR and cultural tourism from the immigrant hosts’ perspectives of GTA, Ontario, Canada and how these hosts connect themselves and their visitors to the local culture through the interactions of different cultural elements. These interactions include all the elements that represent the way of life of local people which may range from visiting cultural attractions (e.g. sites, monuments and places), experiencing events, attending festivals, tasting foods and so on. In order to meet these objectives, Bangladeshi origin adult immigrants of Greater Toronto Area (GTA) who have hosting experiences will be considered as the population of interest. The study includes a single immigrant community to grasp the depth understanding of that culture and its connection with VFR tourism. Hence the depth understanding of a single culture would allow the researchers to replicate the method and compare it with other cultures.\nThe sample size for this study will be 25 individuals who will meet the criteria and will be recruited through social media group (Facebook) of the Bangladeshi community in the GTA. The recruitment post will be published in the feed of Facebook group with the approval of the group admin. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted for data collection. The interview guide will cover the participants’ experiences of adopting the new culture, the way of connecting themselves with it and forming a potentially hybrid culture, their hosting experiences, the way they share and interpret the new local culture with their visitors, and how the experiences of hosting affect them in their settlement process. The data for this study will be collected in September and October 2019 at the places of participant’s convenience or at Ryerson University research facilities. The high quality ethical standard will be maintained to ensure the confidentiality of the participants. The study will use the grounded theory framework for analyzing the qualitative data (Interview responses). The theoretical sampling will allow the researcher to simultaneously collect, code, and analyze data. It will also guide in deciding on what data to collect next and from where to collect them. Data collected through interview will be coded after reviewing transcripts and/or field notes and will be given labels as these data will be treated as potential indicators of concepts which will then be compared to develop theory. The research will break down, examine, conceptualize and categorize data to yield concepts which will then be grouped into categories. Later, relationship among these categories will be made and validated.\nThe analysis of data is expected to provide a set of well-developed categories that are related to form a theoretical framework to describe the connection between cultural tourism and VFR tourism. The UNWTO (2018) report claimed the continuous expansion of cultural tourism. The connection of cultural tourism with VFR tourism will strengthen the claim as VFR tourism asks for more visits of tourists to a destination for experiencing the destination’s culture. It will help to boost up local business because more visits call for more products and services. The visitors will not only experience the culture, they will consume the products and services of the places as well. The service industry (e.g. hotels, restaurants, transportation companies, tour operators) will be benefited from high volume of visitors. Again, the visitors will spend their money on buying products for their necessities or as a token on souvenirs which is anticipated to expand the local retail business. The findings of the study are also hoped to develop an approach to practice cultural tourism and VFR tourism together with implications for tourism marketers, service providers, and agencies working with immigrant communities. The understanding would develop tourism which is more aligned with community interest and would contribute to community development as a whole.\nReference:\nAshworth , G., & Tunbridge, J. (1990). The Tourist-Historic City. Chichester, England: John Wiley.\nCohen, E. (1972). Towards a Sociology of Internation Tourism. Social Research, 32(1), 164-182.\nGriffin, T. (2013). Research Note: A Content Analysis of Articles on Visiting Friends and Relatives Tourism, 1990-2010. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 22(7), 781–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2012.708960\nGriffin, T., & Dimanche, F. (2017). Urban tourism: the growing role of VFR and immigration. Journal of Tourism Futures, 3(2), 103-113.\nHughes, H. L. (2002). Culture and tourism: A framework for further analysis. Managing Leisure, 7(3), 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360671022000013701\nLarsen, J., Urry, J., & Axhausen, K. W. (2007). Networks and tourism: mobile social life. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1), 244–262.\nMcKercher, B., & du Cros, H. (2003). Testing a cultural tourism typology. International Journal of Tourism Research, 5(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.417\nPetroman, I., Petroman, C., Marin, D., Ciolac, R., Văduva, L., & Pandur, I. (2013). Types of Cultural Tourism. Animal Science and Biotechnologies, 46(1), 385-388.\nRichards, G. (1996). Cultural Tourism in Europe. (G. Richards, Ed.)\nRichards, G. (2018). Cultural tourism: A review of recent research and trends. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 36, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2018.03.005\nShani , A., & Uriely, N. (39, 1 421-440). VFR Tourism: The Host Experience. Annals of Tourism Research.\nSilberberg, T. (1995). Cultural tourism and business opportunities for museums and heritage sites. Tourism Management, 16(5), 361-365.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.400
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarworks (University of Massachusetts Amherst)Same topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207