Response to ‘tourism citations in other disciplines’

Abstract

[Extract] I have read with great interest the recent Research Notes by Wardle and Buckley (2014) where the authors examine if tourism research satisfies the characteristics of a mature field of study ('the third phase') based on citations, hence recognition, in other academic disciplines. The disciplines investigated were psychology, sociology, biology, geography and economics. I would like to draw attention to the author' omission of medicine and health from the list of non-tourism disciplines. To date, the link between tourism and health, especially travel medicine, has been largely overlooked and, consequently, there is little tourism literature mentioned in health publications. Travel Medicine as a medical specialty has existed for almost 25 years. However, it still is more ‘medicine’ than 'travel' with very little insight into the travellers apart from their role as being in need of health preparation and, unfortunately, sometimes returning as a patient. Yet, travellers (prepared by travel health professionals) travel in the context of tourism, not in the context of medicine. Understanding basic tourism aspects, theories, models and so on, or at least being aware of such a context, gives Travel Medicine a 'home' and allows travel health professionals to prepare travellers not just based on medical textbook instructions but on an understanding, for example, of how tourists think, what motivates them and why they risk-behave the way they do (food, sex, activities). The same applies to medical care during travel or to post-travel care if travellers return ill or injured.