Theory and Theoretical Contribution in Tourism Research: Confusions and Clarifications

Confusions in understanding what theory is and what constitutes a theoretical contribution are commonly found in the literature. Such confusions may be more harmful for a relatively young field such as tourism. This editorial paper identifies some typical confusions in understanding theory and theoretical contribution and provides conceptual clarifications for tourism researchers. In clarifying the confusions, this paper proposes two definitions of theory: the general definition (Type I) and the special definition (Type II). Type I theories are broad and loose in use and refer to abstract reflections and the underlying laws/rules of phenomena and observations. These theories may include speculation, disillusion, perspective, concept, formula, process, and relationship and comprise both the colloquial use of theory and the professional use of the perspective/lens theories in the context of academic research. Type II theories involve clearly defined concepts and postulate on the interrelationships between/among concepts that explain how and why some phenomena occur. In understanding theoretical contributions in tourism, a prescience perspective valuing relevance to practice is advocated; tourism researchers are also advised to differentiate theoretical contributions from knowledge contributions, and regard tourism as a context in both theory application and theory building. It is hoped the clarifications in this paper can benefit researchers in training and early career researchers in the field of tourism to develop better understanding of theory and theoretical contribution.