Tourism, as a field of study, has witnessed phenomenal growth in the past 15 years. This growth has been matched by an equally impressive expansion in both the number of journals and authors. It is estimated conservatively that at least 5,000 people and likely many thousands more have contributed to our academic literature in this decade alone. The growth presents both opportunities and challenges for our field of study. On the one hand, tourism is in the midst of a dynamic and creative expansion phase. More people from more countries have more opportunities than ever before to explore ideas and to find a medium to publish those ideas. It is an exciting time to be a tourism scholar. But on the other hand, some colleagues are questioning whether sufficient talent exists to satisfy the opportunity. They wonder if supply has exceeded demand. Good papers will still be published, but they wonder if there are there enough ‘good’ papers to go around. The short answer is yes, for the refereeing process eliminates unpublishable work. But, the longer answer is possibly not, for it appears that a larger number of poor or unacceptable manuscripts are being submitted to journals each year that simply should not be in the system. One senses growing evidence of conservatism, a lack of methodological innovation and an over reliance on clicking the mouse on software packages with a concomitant failure to appreciate the meaning of the results, in much of the research that does not meet publication standards. In addition, one is surprised at the lack of intellectual curiosity evidenced by some PhD students. Admittedly, these comments are based purely on personal observation and informal discussions with colleagues from other universities. But, the trend seems to be accelerating. Research conservatism is an underlying theme behind many of the myths identified by Josef Mazanec in the ‘Probe’. In particular, the advancement of some tourism research is being constrained by the perceived need to largely replicate work conducted by others, but to proclaim it as an advancement. In many instances, such advancements may involve nothing more than repeating the same study in a different locale, while in others, it may involve adding one or two variables to an existing framework. True, it may be admirable to test the universality of some ideas, but how many repetitions of the same study are needed to confirm its basic soundness, perhaps with minor local variations? It is also somewhat disappointing to see so many people feel obligated to use models and test hypotheses. Don’t misunderstand! Models and hypotheses are useful when appropriate for the project. But they can also limit arbitrarily the scope of the project and the depth of intellectual enquiry involved. Some social science research has to be model- and hypothesis-based, but they are not suitable in all cases. Good research, though, is always about good ideas. The best insights can often be gained by posing a question and looking for answers, rather than by imposing a rigid model, quantitative questionnaire or testing binary reject/do not reject hypotheses. Two other issues arise. First, the vast majority of ‘models’ encountered are not models at all. They are primarily methodological frameworks that guide the research process. As such they tend to reflect the linear thinking process behind the study, rather than trying to simplify and explain reality. Likewise, hypotheses work best in limited studies where a no/not no answer is desired, where a sufficient body of knowledge exists to test a proposition. But they do not work in open-ended studies that seek to explore an issue. Asking questions is a much more effective way to frame this type of research. It is no surprise that much of the early work done in tourism is so relevant, for it was all about ideas. Butler’s(1980) lifecycle, Cohen’s (1972, 1979) typologies, Leiper’s (1990) ideas of attractions systems and many other key papers were based on a deductive reasoning approach where people saw reality and tried to explain it. Some people complain that these studies lack rigour, but what they really mean is that they lack numbers. The ideas themselves were developed in a rigorous manner. The same people who subscribe to quantitative methods often fail to appreciate that a survey used is only as good as the questions asked. If the variable is not included, it cannot be measured, no matter how important it may be. The first question that comes to mind