Untitled

time or inclination to develop expertise in tourism
since it is a secondary, incidental and part-time
subject. Thus, the relating to tourism problem is
not adequately addressed, and the complex
problem of linking fragmented disciplines remains
neglected. Students are often unaware that it is a
specific problem.
A third strategy is a variation on the second. A
small specialist tourism unit or subdepartment is
formed. Its members teach core subjects in tourism
studies, and arrange multidisciplinary inputs from
other departments. For most of their classes,
students are taught by discipline specialists from
scattered departments. This strategy has the same
potential problems, moderated slightly, as the
second. This third strategy is clearly described in
a diagram devised by Jafari, presented in various
publications �Jafari and Ritchie 1981). Sixteen
disciplines or departments are shown in the
diagram around the rim of a wheel. The hub is
termed `Centre for Tourism Studies'. The diagram
implies that specialists from these many fields
�indicative, not definitive) visit periodically. Most of
the education comes from the rim �for another
strategy, see Finnish University Network for
Tourism Studies).
A fourth strategy is, arguably, ideal for students
�Jafari and Ritchie 1981: 24) but is not normally
feasible because of typical policies in universities
and colleges. In this ideal, a substantial department
�or school) of tourism is formed, comprising
academics specialising in tourism with expertise in
various disciplines. All or most subjects in the
course are delivered by a multidisciplinary team.
Until recently, very few universities have followed
this fourth strategy, for a number of reasons
�Bodewes 1981; Jafari and Ritchie 1981). In the
1980s and 1990s, a trend occurred towards its
adoption, although it remains unusual. The trend
reflects academic history. Over time, new departments
or schools are formed to concentrate on
new specialisations, while some older departments,
deemed no longer relevant to society, are
closed.
All four strategies involve multidisciplinary
approaches. Thus, they create the benefits and
some of the problems accompanying applied
multidisciplinary education. A persistent problem
is the risk of excessive discipline subjectivity, the
education, multidisciplinary 181
`blinkered approach', which leads students to
think they should be developing their knowledge
of, for example, sociology while their main need
is to understand tourism. Such a situation can
divert the purpose of applied education and
reverse the proper strategic direction of the flow
of knowledge �Leiper 1981: 71±2). Another
persistent problem is the risk that contributions
from particular disciplines will be overemphasised,
diluted or distorted, rendering a true synthesis
impossible.
A common problem across the first three
strategies is that multidisciplinary education on
an applied field tends to be fragmented, and
fragments of knowledge are not conducive to
understanding. Given the lack of a method for
integrating knowledge from various disciplines into
a cohesive whole, many students fail to achieve an
adequate understanding of tourism. In other
words, `the multidisciplinary miracle has to take
place . . . within the swallowing and digesting student'
�Bodewes 1981: 43).
That common problem where the first three
strategies are followed can be regarded as a
condition of proliferating variety in the educational
system. A remedy is found in systems theory.
Reducing a system's complexity requires, as a first
step, systemic models. These provide students and
teachers with a set of shared frameworks for study.
These models should have structural and dynamic
features �`frameworks' and `clockworks', in systems
jargon) and must be sufficiently broad and general
to allow multidisciplinary approaches to continue,
but also need specificity, to indicate the key topics
and systemic linkages in a comprehensive and
cohesive study of tourism. They are models of
whole tourism systems.
Such models can be placed at the hub of the
wheel in Jafari's diagram for multidisciplinary
education. There they become foundation concepts
in courses in tourism, treated as a developing
discipline in its own right. The hub then functions,
not as a passive dumping ground for disciplinary
specialists from the wheel's rim, but as a vital point
of common reference for those specialists. The
fourth strategy seems most likely to encourage this
process, but the third strategy is also suitable.
Tourism education is most likely to remain
multidisciplinary, largely following the third and