My experience as a staff member and manager in hospitality, and university lecturer and Head of Department, gave me some understanding of tourism education. However, the contribution of depth research during the DProf journey to how this has evolved with particular reference to Airey’s (2008) theory was a major factor in the progression of the research. Whilst Airey drew the roadmap showing the direction of tourism education as a model, I further questioned the direction it takes next. During this journey, I have found that tourism education has been behind
previous mistakes made in other tourism destinations. For example, when the Mediterranean and the Caribbean were being developed for tourism, there were negative impacts on the environment – so programmes were introduced with courses such as sustainable tourism. However, what is required today is to look to the future of what the sector requires and, more importantly, based on knowledge obtained during this project using new pedagogies to support tourism education.
In order to research this ethically and build this proposed new model, I found it necessary to include all the stakeholders affected by tourism education in North Cyprus. I used AR to achieve an insight into what is required and how it should be applied. This meant that I worked with different power groups, including professionals from accreditation bodies, experts from the tourism sector and students. What became evident was that these groups may have conflicting values; for example, whilst the student wants to learn skills by working in a hotel, the hotelier may just want cheap labour. I formulated solutions to this by informing all stakeholders equally about the purpose of the new programme, and what is and is not to be expected. This experience taught me to manage different power groups ethically and efficiently.
7.1.1 Cognitive (thinking skills)
I believe that combining my experience with what has been written to date about tourism education, and more importantly analysing and synthesising this information as a whole, has possibly redefined knowledge on tourism education. The learning outcome has been that there was a requirement for a new curriculum in tourism internationally; it must be a new style of teaching (a blended paradigm), according to the tourism sector of North Cyprus and students in tourism; and it must be acceptable to the accreditation bodies at national and international levels. The selected methodology of face-to-face in-depth interviews with the various stakeholders has provided evidence of communication with “critical communities” – not only
has my project with them supported the development of a new paradigm; it has established a rapport for its future sustainability.
Understanding the secondary data of tourism education before interviewing the stakeholders was beneficial, and previous studies supported arguments and discussion at great length. This is what gained the support of the various stakeholders and, to a degree, made them more aware of the current status. KITOBS’s offered support to promote the new programme is an indication of this.
7.1.2 Practical skills
The action research model described by Coghan and Brannick (2014) was directly applied to my methodology and I used each step as my own, with the application of relevant contexts. For example, the first step is identified as the pre-step in this model. It is outlined as a justification of why this project is necessary or desirable. This can be identified through an assessment of the micro- and macro-conditions of the organisation that incorporates the internal and external conditions – to be economical, political and social for external; and cultural and structural for internal. I used Chapter 2, a Literature Review on tourism education, to research the current state of higher education in North Cyprus and GAU. I applied each step of the model in the same way and much of my interdisciplinary approaches and understandings arose from this AR model. This taught me particularly, that it is important to master the literature written on the subject area before questioning it further. This process developed my confidence as a doctoral candidate in tourism education. Only after this experience did I feel that I was ready to be questioned about my subject. Basically, I understood what other researchers had to say about tourism education, and only then was I ready to add my views.
I have used resources that are up-to-date but also those that have been milestones for tourism education, and the main point that I have raised, is that to date in tourism education we have
considered what is required in curricula for sustaining environments, earning profit and possibly establishing what is required for employability, but in this research I have questioned the way we teach students and if this is sufficient. What has become evident is that there is a requirement for a blended approach in tourism education. I therefore consider that this will impact on future studies in tourism education.
As mentioned, communicating the proposed new programme during Cycle 1 and 2 to “critical communities” including accreditation bodies’ representatives, sector representatives and students professionally was important to gain their support and to retrieve sufficient and accurate responses. Further, I have presented the new programme at the KITOB main office to the main representatives of my research. This experience has taught me to manage different interest power groups.