Research can be traditionally defined as the systematic study of a problem or phenomenon through holistic description, explanation or prediction, thereby contributing to the development of knowledge. In a puristic manner, research can conceivably be conducted within the rules and conventions of science, following a research process involving various steps and elements such as selecting a topic, reviewing the literature, formulating research questions and objectives. Nonetheless, research can be defined more broadly as the search for discovery and knowledge through investigation or inquiry. Furthermore, people are increasingly on the move for research and knowledge seeking activities. Think, for example, about independent researchers, academics, students and consultants who travel to participate in conferences, study programmes, fieldwork and other research-related activities.

However, researchers often do not wish to be equated with tourists even though a number of similarities between scientific tourists and more ‘ordinary’ tourists engaging in cultural tourism or ‘ethno-travel’ can be observed. Both groups require services that are touristic in nature, for example, available forms of transport and accommodation, and the presence of guides or translators at the destination. Consequently, although there appears to be some disagreement concerning the social demarcation between tourists and researchers, there are still very clear similarities between the two identities.

Whilst previously, research tourism has been examined in a narrow way without broadly considering research as the search for knowledge and discovery, a typology of six distinctive but interconnected types of Research-related Tourism (RrT) has been developed and adopted.

This six-fold typology of RrT deciphers new relationships between research and tourism. It conceptualises three common types of research tourism, notably ‘ (1) scientific tourism’ (e.g. fieldwork abroad), ‘ (2) education and academic tourism’ (e.g. academic staff or student exchange between universities), and ‘(3) volunteer tourism’ (e.g. assisting a research project as part of the voluntourism experience) but also conceives and advances three additional sub-forms: ‘(4) business tourism’ (e.g. conference visits), ‘ (5) virtual research tourism’ (e.g. VR application or drone research) and ‘ (6) genealogy and roots tourism’ (e.g. DNA travel and family history tourism). Importantly, RrT permeates in areas outside of the everyday work environment to pervade non-work, familial, personalised and non-institutionalised environments and recognises ‘virtual research tourism’ which has recently gained momentum during the current pandemic.

RrT serves as a useful tool for tourism destination planning and marketing, especially as it is more wide-ranging than initially anticipated. Understanding the commonalities and differences of RrT assists in identifying the behaviour patterns of such tourists, which is beneficial for institutions hosting conferences, villages accommodating researchers or companies engaging in DNA research for genealogy tourism.

Through systematising the ‘categories’, ‘dimensions’ and ‘attributes’ of RrT, public and private institutions can readily collect market research intelligence concerning the dynamic types of research and forms of knowledge-driven tourism.

Associate Professor Dr Alexander Trupp
School of Hospitality and Service Management
Email: @email

This article was published in the Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management