2022
16
31012021
19072021
Abstract: When it comes to knowledge management (KM), one of the ways to classify it is through its processes. When it comes to tourism, it is the sectors that reveal its practical development. At this juncture, this article aims to analyze which are the tourism sectors that are considering KM in their research, as well as which KM processes are most used in tourism studies. To this end, this research is supported by an integrative literature review and follows the guidelines of the PRISMA recommendation. Due to the research protocol established and using the Scopus and Web of Science databases, an initial sample of 376 articles was obtained, of which 107 met the eligibility criteria. The research results are: (1) the most representative sectors are macro tourism and the accommodation services segment; (2) there is an emphasis on knowledge sharing and transfer processes, which are KM concerns also in other areas; (3) the researches highlight tacit knowledge, given its management complexity and the competitive differential it supports; (4) the researches on KM in tourism received criticism for low quality, complexity of scientific language, or disconnection with the managers and operators in the private and public sectors.
Keywords: Knowledge management, Tourism, Integrative review, Knowledge sharing, Tacit knowledge.
Resumo: Quando se trata de gestão do conhecimento (GC), uma das formas de classificá-la é por meio de seus processos. Quando o assunto é turismo, são os setores que revelam seu desenvolvimento prático. Nesta conjuntura, este artigo tem como objetivo analisar quais são os setores do turismo que estão considerando a GC em suas pesquisas, bem como quais processos de GC são mais utilizados nos estudos de turismo. Para tanto, esta pesquisa está apoiada em uma revisão integrativa da literatura e segue as diretrizes da recomendação PRISMA. Devido ao protocolo de pesquisa estabelecido e utilizando as bases de dados Scopus e Web of Science, obteve-se uma amostra inicial de 376 artigos, dos quais 107 atenderam aos critérios de elegibilidade. São resultados da pesquisa: (1) os setores mais representativos são o macro turismo e o segmento de serviços de hospedagem; (2) há uma ênfase nos processos de compartilhamento e transferência de conhecimento, que são preocupações da GC também em outras áreas; (3) as pesquisas destacam o conhecimento tácito, dada a sua complexidade de gestão e o diferencial competitivo que suporta; (4) as pesquisas sobre GC no turismo receberam críticas pela baixa qualidade, complexidade da linguagem científica, ou desconexão com o mercado.
Palavras-chave: Gestão do conhecimento, Turismo, Revisão integrativa, Compartilhamento de conhecimento, Conhecimento tácito.
Resumen: Cuando se trata de la gestión del conocimiento (GC), una de las formas de clasificarlo es a través de sus procesos. Cuando se trata de turismo, son los sectores los que revelan su desarrollo práctico. En esta coyuntura, este artículo tiene como objetivo analizar cuáles son los sectores turísticos que están considerando la GC en sus investigaciones, así como qué procesos de GC son más utilizados en los estudios turísticos. Para ello, esta investigación está respaldada por una revisión integradora de la literatura y sigue los lineamientos de la recomendación PRISMA. Debido al protocolo de investigación establecido y utilizando las bases de datos Scopus y Web of Science, se obtuvo una muestra de 376 artículos, de los cuales 107 cumplieron con los criterios de elegibilidad. Los resultados de la investigación son: (1) los sectores más representativos son el macro turismo y el segmento de servicios de alojamiento; (2) se hace hincapié en los procesos de intercambio y transferencia de conocimientos; (3) las investigaciones destacan el conocimiento tácito, dada su complejidad y el diferencial competitivo; (4) las investigaciones sobre la GC en el turismo recibieron críticas por la baja calidad, la complejidad del lenguaje científico o la desconexión con el mercado.
Palabras clave: Gestión del conocimiento, Turismo, Revisión integradora, Intercambio de conocimientos, Conocimiento tácito.
Articles – Tourism Management
Tourism, knowledge management and its processes: an integrative literature review
Turismo, gestão do conhecimento e seus processos: uma revisão integrativa da literatura
Turismo, gestión del conocimiento y sus procesos: revisión integradora de la literatura
Received: 31 January 2021
Accepted: 19 July 2021
According to the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO, 2020), the business volume that tourism provides is equal to or exceeds that of oil, food or automobile exports. It is one of the highlights of international trade, culminating in a significant contribution to the income of many countries. However, Theobald (2002) talks about the difficulty of establishing statistical comparisons of tourism with other industries, aiming to demonstrate its contribution with a portion of this economy. This is because there is a complex issue in defining tourism. Ansarah (2001) states that the tourism activity can be considered as a grouping of sectors that are technically complemented in a direct way by several sectors of the economy and, in an indirect way, by all the other sectors.
Considering the foundation of the sectors in the understanding of tourism, there is the basis on Understanding Tourism: Basic Glossary, by the UNWTO (2019). In this, to ensure international comparability, a theoretical framework was established, which includes the following tourism industries: Accommodation services for visitors; Air passenger transport; Cultural activities; Food and beverage serving services; Railway passenger transport; Road passenger transport; Sports and recreational activities; Transport equipment rental; Travel agencies and other reservation services activities; and Water passenger transport. In addition to these subclasses, there are two specific categories per country: the retail trade of country-specific tourism characteristic goods; and other country-specific tourism characteristic activities (Cooper, Volvo, Gartner, & Scott, 2018), following the classification of the UNWTO (2019). Thus, addressing tourism through sectors can provide a more comprehensive approach, with results that have a transversal impact on this industry, and that provide greater support for comparison with other industries.
However, the structural complexity and the integration of different sectors mean that tourism needs to be constantly renewed to compete in view of the diversity of options and competitors in the world. Even more so in an economy characterized by experience and knowledge. In the first case, Kirillova, Lehto and Cai (2016) state that in this economy tourists are looking for more personal and transformational experiences. Experiences that require constant renovations and adaptations to attract new customers and retain existing ones. On the other hand, Cavalcanti and Gomes (2001) report that the knowledge economy shifts the wealth axis to sectors where products and processes are intensive in knowledge, intelligence, and technology. Shaw and Williams (2009) emphasize the importance of knowledge as one of (and perhaps “the”) drivers of innovation, productivity, and competitiveness in tourism.
It is also noted that knowledge can contribute to the evolution of the tourist experience, as it is an input for the development of innovative products and processes. Knowledge is a highly requested resource at the present time, when there is a lot of impermanence and fluidity, forcing tourist destinations and their businesses to become dynamic and innovative (Tuominen & Ascenção, 2016). In this environment, Tussyadiah (2014) understands that it is necessary to offer differentiated and exclusive products and services that trigger memorable experiences, in order to survive and stand out in the market.
This competitive environment supports the term VUCA, an acronym for volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (Bennett & Lemoine, 2014). This environment also includes issues of different natures and levels, as can be observed by the worsening of people's daily lives due to the threat of COVID-19, and tourism, due to its dependence on human mobility, is very compromised by outbreaks of infectious diseases (Yang, Zhang, & Chen, 2020). Because of these, knowledge management (KM) can contribute to the mitigation of problems, the seizing of opportunities, and the taking of strategic actions to deal with the VUCA world.
Studies have already shown the contributions that KM can provide to the tourism activity, such as the increasing the competitive advantage of companies (Cooper, 2006; Shafiee, Ghatari, Hasanzadeh, & Jahanyan, 2019); the development of smart tourism destinations (Femenia-Serra & Neuhofer, 2018; Varra, Buzzigoli, Buzzigoli, & Loro, 2019); the possibility of obtaining innovations (Zapalska, Brozik & Zieser, 2015; Durmusoglu et. al., 2018); the support for improving local, regional or national governance (Macbeth, Carson, & Northcote, 2004; Bruyn & Alonso, 2012); and the favoring cooperation, collaboration, and alliances between tourism players (Petrou & Daskalopoulou, 2013; Zach, 2016).
In many studies the relationship between KM and tourism is addressed with a focus on specific processes that are part of KM, such as the knowledge acquisition studied in King, Breen and Whitelaw (2014), and the knowledge transfer addressed by Avdimiotis (2016b). Elements that must be taken into account when carrying out KM and that must be incorporated into organizational processes. In turn, Steil (2007) presented a systematization of the definitions of KM and its subsystems, identifying 17 descriptors for the KM subsystems or processes: Creation; Access; Reuse; Capture; Use; Storage; Distribution; Sharing; Application; Acquisition; Collection; Retention; Transfer; Use; Transformation; Formalization; and Communication. And, just as the sectors contribute to the practical understanding of tourism, the processes support the performance of KM approaches.
Based on the presented scenario, deepening the understanding of KM approaches to tourism, considering its processes and sectors, respectively, can bring new perspectives, point out gaps and support a competitive tourism development. In view of this, as an intention to explore the relationships between KM and tourism, the guiding question of this research was: what directions are the scientific articles that study the application of KM and its processes in the context of tourism taking?
Considering the conditions and opportunities that this research proposes to know, by means of an integrative literature review involving scientific articles that study together tourism and KM, the specific objectives were:
Identify the tourism sectors most studied when KM is involved.
Map the KM processes used in tourism research.
Highlight and distinguish the main relationships established between tourism and KM.
In addition to this introduction, the present work is divided into the section on the literature review, followed by the sections presenting the research method and the results, and then the discussion and final considerations.
In the challenge of understanding KM, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1997) started from the understanding that it adopts management practices compatible with the creation and individual learning processes that facilitate the ways of converting tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. And Nonaka and Konno (1998) explain that explicit knowledge is that which can be expressed in words and numbers, and shared in the form of data, manuals, etc. However, tacit knowledge is not so easily visible and expressive, as it is something very personal and difficult to formalize, such as ideas, intuitions.
And the different knowledge configurations, such as their tacit and explicit typologies, require different knowledge management strategies, practices and processes (Greiner, Böhmann, & Krcmar, 2007), through which organizations find, select, organize, disseminate and transfer necessary knowledge for activities such as problem solving, dynamic learning, strategic planning and decision making (Gupta, Iyer, & Aronson, 2000). Thus, different authors try to define KM to better understand the processes (such as acquisition, organization, support, application, sharing, renewal, etc.) to improve organizational performance and create value. North and Kumta (2018, p. 13) say that:
Knowledge management enables individuals, teams and entire organisations as well as networks, regions and nations to collectively and systematically create, share and apply knowledge to achieve their strategic and operational objectives. Knowledge management contributes to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of operations on the one hand and to change the quality of competition (innovation) on the other by developing a learning organisation.
Dalkir (2005) conceptualizes KM as a planned and systematic coordination of resources (people and technology), processes and the organizational structure to generate value. Which goes through some processes, such as the creation, sharing and application of existing knowledge; in addition to feeding the lessons learned and best practices in corporate memory in order to promote organizational learning on a continuous basis. And Evans, Dalkir and Bidian (2014) compiled the definition of several authors and claim that KM is the systematization of knowledge through its processes and performance improvement, for example.
Such concepts have in common a systematic coordination of knowledge processes to generate some type of value: innovation or efficiency, for example. As well as the emphasis on processes for handling knowledge. Thus, processes are essential for managing knowledge. Dalkir (2005) refers to them as “cycles of knowledge”, which move from creation to identification, and also address the collection, classification, storage, access, exploitation and protection of knowledge. Heisig (2009), on the other hand, contemplates five processes in KM: the use, identification, creation, sharing and storage of knowledge. In turn, Gonzales and Martins (2017) summarize in four processes: the acquisition, storage, distribution and use of knowledge. Which shows the variety of thinking when it comes to managing knowledge.
Evans, Dalkir and Bidian (2014) created a model (Figure 1) that presents the knowledge management cycle, supported by KM processes and based on several studies. And they indicated that this cycle has the following processes: identification, creation, storage, sharing, use, learning and improvement of knowledge.
According to such a model, the KM cycle can be a requisition that occurs due to numerous factors, such as the resolution of a problem, decision-making, the search for innovation or knowledge gap analysis. Hence it is possible to identify whether such internal knowledge exists or whether it is necessary to create or acquire it. Therefore, both identifying and creating knowledge come together in the model. Subsequently, the storage of knowledge becomes necessary to organize what has been acquired, thus creating organizational memory. Therefore, such a repository must be structured in such a way as to allow its manipulation, recovery and sharing. The latter, which becomes the next process of the cycle, and is considered the bridge between the top of the model (hunting and knowledge gathering) with the bottom (more related to practice) (Evans, Dalkir & Bidian, 2014).
Then, it comes to the use of knowledge, which can be extracted and applied in the organization. Since the more complex such an asset, the more difficult it is to extract and use it to generate value. By going through all these cycles, learning is arrived at, that is, new knowledge is created or the previously existing ones are refined, which involves integrating, connecting, combining and internalizing knowledge. If the knowledge is considered insufficient, it starts again for the beginning of the cycle (identification and / or creation of knowledge). If it is considered sufficient, it starts with its improvement, which will be stored afterwards. This bifurcation was named by the authors as double looping (Evans, Dalkir & Bidian, 2014).
As noted, different KM processes are considered by different researchers. Thus, in order to obtain a broader approach to KM, it is understood that it is opportune to base itself on some comprehensive systematization of its processes, such as that presented by Steil (2007), which includes 17 processes already revealed in the introduction of this research. But what is the context of the application of this set of KM processes in tourism, considering its complexity of sectors? The answer to this question starts with the next topic, which reveals the methodology adopted for this purpose.
An integrative literature review was adopted, which includes empirical and theoretical studies, according to the definitions of Whittemore and Knafl (2005), as well as qualitative and quantitative studies that synthesize a topic (Doolen, 2017). The integrative review represents the broadest methodological approach of the reviews (Souza, Silva, & Carvalho, 2010). According to Doolen (2017), it incorporates a wide range of purposes, such as the definition of concepts, the review of theories and evidences, and the analysis of methodological problems of a topic.
A relevant issue regarding the integrative review is that it is important to have a systematic approach, a premise that was followed in this study through the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) recommendation, which consists of a checklist (PRISMA, 2019a) and a flowchart (PRISMA, 2019b). Another relevant issue, according to Torraco (2016), is that the methodology must be written in sufficient detail so that other researchers can replicate the literature review. Based on this, the eligibility criteria for studies were:
Databases - Scopus and Web of Science.
Geographic origin, Knowledge areas and Language – all.
Temporality - all (everything published in the bases before the search date).
Type of document - article, due to the fact that it goes through peer review.
Topic considered in the studies - containing, in English, in its title some of the terms referring to tourism (and synonyms and radicals), plus the reference to knowledge management (also considering synonyms and radicals).
The choice of Scopus and Web of Science databases is based on the fact that other researches on tourism, such as the systematic review of Tadini, Gauna, Mascarenhas and Pereira (2017) and the integrative review of Caldeira Sanches, Sauer and Binotto (2019), have also used them.
The search strategies used in both databases consider the specificities of the advanced search module for each case, involving the Boolean operators specific to the platforms. As the objective of the search was common to both bases, the keywords used are repeated. According to these requirements, the search string used in Scopus was: “(TITLE(tour*) OR TITLE(hospitalit*) OR TITLE(travel*) OR TITLE(trip*) OR TITLE(voyage*) OR TITLE(journey*) OR TITLE(visit*) OR TITLE(holiday*) OR TITLE(entertainment) OR TITLE(leisure) OR TITLE(recreation)) AND(TITLE(knowledge*)) AND(TITLE(manage*) OR TITLE(governance) OR TITLE(creat*) OR TITLE(access*) OR TITLE(reu*) OR TITLE(catch*) OR TITLE(captur*) OR TITLE(use*) OR TITLE(stor*) OR TITLE(distribut*) OR TITLE(deliver*) OR TITLE(shar*) OR TITLE(applica*) OR TITLE(acquisition*) OR TITLE(collect*) OR TITLE(retention) OR TITLE(transf*) OR TITLE(generat*) OR TITLE(formaliz*) OR TITLE(communicat*) OR TITLE(obtain*) OR TITLE(utiliz*) OR TITLE(disseminat*) OR TITLE(diffusi*) OR TITLE(transmission*) OR TITLE(production)) AND DOCTYPE(ar)”.
The search strategy was focused on the titles, since it is understood that they represent the central topics of the articles. The asterisk was used to give the search a flexible character, allowing searching singular, plural, and derivations of the terms. In relation to the keywords that refer to tourism and related areas, they are justified in the fact that it was sought to contemplate studies that dealt with KM in different contexts of tourism. The choice of keywords on KM processes is based on the classification of KM subsystems proposed by Steil (2007), having the addition of synonyms identified in the translation into English. This work was determined because no other production was found that would reveal such an extensive systematization of KM processes, considering that this research also intended to involve the broadest possible spectrum of these processes when applied to tourism.
After searching the databases on April 25, 2019, that considered everything that had been published before this day, a .ris file was generated for each database, which were imported into the EndNote bibliographic manager. On import, EndNote detects possible duplicate searches and already excludes them. With the .pdf files located, the next step involved an initial screening of the articles, through a reading focusing on summary, methodology, and results of studies, to identify those who were adherent to the research objective. This process was carried out by two researchers in each article, in order to minimize bias. The articles identified as adherent to the purpose were analyzed in their entirety to fulfill all the research goals.
The data extracted from each study were directed to a pilot form. Regarding the KM processes, the processes that appeared with some prominence were considered, that is, in relevant parts of the articles, such as: in the title, abstract and keywords, or containing a specific discussion in the theoretical framework, or being analyzed empirically or, finally, deepened in the research results. As for the sectors, there was not only textual, but also contextual analysis of each article, with the objective of identifying the appropriate tourism sector that was the backdrop for each work. All researchers analyzed all selected articles to present their perception of the tourism sector and the synthesis of the relationship between KM and tourism addressed in each survey.
Both the KM processes and the tourism sectors were identified from the predominantly human analysis of the researchers, due to the understanding that from software it would not be possible to obtain such an aligned and contextualized approach to the research purposes. Since, for example, issues such as differences in the nomenclatures of these processes and sectors, or the fact that a sector may be implicit in the article, not being identified in a textual analysis only, can be analyzed more assertively by human scrutiny, even more if evaluated by more than one researcher, as was the case of this research.
From the searches, 376 articles were found (217 Scopus; 159 Web of Science). Duplicate articles (127) were eliminated, as well as an article with no identified authorship. Five articles were eliminated due to not obtaining their full text until the conclusion of this research. Finally, 136 articles were discarded as they were not related to the application of KM in the context of tourism, reaching the number of 107 articles selected for the integrative review. The article selection process is illustrated in Figure 2.
The data from the 107 selected studies were worked on to design the analyzes that will be presented below.
In addition to the tourism industries indicated by UNWTO (2019), it was necessary to add another one (Macro Tourism) to account for the complexity of the studies, since they often approached more than one sector at the same time, or their research simply cited the term “tourism”, without specifying any sub-sector or subtype. The result of the respective analysis carried out in the 107 articles is in Figure 3.
Of the 107 articles analyzed, most (39.3%) refer to Macro Tourism, which indicates that studies have been carried out on more than one sector. An example is the study by Maswera and Dawson (2005), who investigated how African tourist organizations (including airlines, parks and travel agencies, etc.) acquire, disseminate and apply knowledge through their websites.
In second, with 20.6%, Other Country-Specific Tourism Characteristic Activities appears, contemplating very specific items of some country or situations that could not fit in the other categories. Example is the study by Biz, Todesco and Rados (2013) on tourist websites of public tourism organizations in Brazilian municipalities. In third place, with 15.9%, was Accommodation for Visitors. One example is the study on knowledge-intensive hotel service business in Spain by Alvarez-Gonzalez and Gonzalez-Morales (2014).
The other sectors contemplated were in the following positions: Cultural Activities in fourth with 12.1%; Retail Trade of Country-Specific Tourism Characteristic Goods in fifth with 4.7%; in sixth Travel Agencies and Other Reservation Services Activities, representing 3.7% of the researches; in seventh Sports and Recreational Activities with 2.8%; Air Passenger Transport in eighth, involving 0.9% of the articles.
The sectors that were not contemplated in the 107 studies are Food and Beverage Serving Activities, Transport Equipment Rental, Water Passenger Transport, Railway Passenger Transport, and Road Passenger Transport.
Although the systematic search of this research considers only the compilation of KM processes proposed by Steil (2007), and some synonyms of these in the translation into English, for the strings in the bases, the analysis that follows will not be limited to these processes, contemplating all those with the aforementioned empirical or theoretical deepening.
It should be mentioned that the article by Tachapetpaiboon and Kularbphettong (2015) does not present theoretical or empirical depth in any specific KM process, but with an emphasis on the application of ontologies as support for KM in tourism. Thus, it was attributed to the knowledge representation process, since this process is identified as one of the most relevant proposals of an ontology in the ICT scenario, based on the seminal articles like Gruber (1995).
In the other 106 articles, there was the identification of at least one in-depth KM process or several cases where KM was treated in a macro manner, without the detailed empirical or theoretical study on any specific KM process. In these cases, the classification used was “Macro Knowledge Management”.
Based on the context detailed above, Table 1 displays the main KM processes addressed in the 107 articles:
Relevance is observed in the processes of knowledge sharing (38 occurrences, 17.92% of the total) and transfer (27 occurrences, 12.74% of the total), occupying the first two places so distant from the fourth and the others placed. This scenario shows alignment with the research carried out by Ribière and Walter (2013), who analyzed the keywords associated with the 235 articles published in Knowledge Management Research & Practice between 2003 and 2012.
In third place appears “Macro Knowledge Management”, with 25 occurrences, 11.79% of the total. In fourth appears the process of knowledge acquisition, with 16 cases. The following is the ranking of occurrences of KM processes in the 107 articles and the most prominent: knowledge application (ten occurrences), knowledge storage (eight), knowledge creation (seven), knowledge dissemination (six), and knowledge use (four).
Besides the main processes shown in Table 1, 37 more processes were identified with only one occurrence in the 107 articles selected: assimilation, co-creating, co-production, codification, communication, construction, curating, devolution, diffusion, discovery, distribution, donating, embedding, extraction, feedback, generation, innovation, internalization, interpretation, legitimising, localization, mapping, mining, presentation, preservation, protection, replication, representation, retrieval, reuse, selection, spreading, stock, transformation, treatment, searching, and update.
Of the KM processes contemplated in the systematic search, according to the string utilized, only seven were not addressed in the 107 articles surveyed here: access, catching, delivering, formalizing, obtaining, utilization, and transmission. However, the KM processes presented by such articles reach a total of sixty, as shown in Table 1 and complemented in the previous paragraph.
Among the systematic search terms used to research the breadth of the tourism activity, what stood out the most was the word “tourism”. One of the justifications for this may be the fact that, according Panosso Netto (2010), in common sense, many terms serve to contemplate tourism. So, it is normal to find more than one bias to understand it, whether from a more personal perspective (focus on rest and the search for pleasure), a more entrepreneurial perspective (financial and income aspects), or a more academic-scientific one (socio-political-educational point of view).
The results on the tourism sectors reinforce this perception, where those that stood out were Macro Tourism and Other Country-Specific Tourism Characteristic Activities. The first, for contemplating studies on more than one sector. The second for involving several very specific sectors of some country.
It is also possible to think that Macro Tourism was identified with greater presence in the researches due to the finding of Cooper (2006), who speaks that the tourism has been slow in adopting KM approach because of the lack of connection between researchers and the sector.
Cooper (2006) also reports that tourism presents a hostile environment for the adoption of KM. This environment is characterized by fragmentation, the presence of small businesses, and the sector's vocational reinforcements. This “fragmentation” concerns the variety of activities that exist in tourism, as can be seen in the subclasses of activities characteristic of tourism presented by UNWTO (2019). The hostile environment derived from the “presence of small businesses” can be interpreted by their difficulty in adopting new processes, since their managers and even owners may be more involved in operational actions (Zapalska, Brozik, & Zieser, 2015). Finally, the character of “vocational reinforcements” is related to the difficulties, such as the working conditions, involving high employee turnover, and orientation for the customer only and not for the employee (Yao, Qiu, & Wei, 2019).
The fact that the Macro Tourism category has shown a greater focus of attention may stem from the initial need for them to seek to work KM in a broad way in tourism, establishing a solid knowledge base, so that they begin to understand and research the peculiarities of this tourist activity and its relationship with KM.
In turn, the category Other Country-Specific Tourism Characteristic Activities was the second most frequent due to very specific examples that do not fit the other categories proposed by the UNWTO (2019). This may be an indication that the elements contemplated in the studies relating KM and tourism present peculiar and parallel conditions to this classification.
Studies have specifically addressed one element in common: online travel communities (Lee & Hyun, 2018; Lee, Reid, & Kim, 2014; Ku & Fan, 2009; Ku, 2014). Other studies that have in their essence tourism based on nature or close to it, such as rural tourism (Grinberga-Zalite, Vitolina, & Rivza, 2017) and ecotourism (Zheng, Xu, & Kong, 2017).
Considering this variation of approaches, at some point it may become opportune or necessary to add more categories to the subclasses of activities characteristic of tourism, taking into account an economic context in constant and rapid change, increasingly tied to technologies. In addition, it should be considered that approaches that may escape the economic spectrum, such as online travel communities.
Following, the specific sector with the most prominence was that of Accommodation for Visitors. The relevance of this sector can be justified by the significant growth showing, as highlighted by consulting company FEBC International (2019), which points out that, from 2009 to 2018, jobs in the hospitality sector grew from 353,000 to 1,139,000. Another possible justification for the highlight of research involving the hospitality sector can be based on Veiga and Farias (2005), who state that hotels are no longer limited to hosting people, providing multifunctional spaces for business and social events. Petrocchi (2002) reports that, in the same way as transport and tourist attractions, accommodation is one of the bases of the tourist product, since it helps in the longer stay of tourists in destinations.
Another possible motivation is that the hotel sector is increasingly under pressure to innovate, as its customers constantly expect improvements and different offers in terms of new products, processes, and services (Martínez-Ros & Orfila-Sintes, 2012). This requires companies in the sector to focus on differentiation strategies based on innovation (Pikkemaat, 2008).
Finally, the absence of studies on the following sectors of tourism was evidenced: Food and Beverage Serving Activities, Transport Equipment Rental, Water Passenger Transport, Railway Passenger Transport, and Road Passenger Transport. In the first case, it is believed that the absence is due in part to the research method used, because the sector is generally seen as related to the gastronomy sector, a term not contemplated in the systematic search. Another possible justification is that many of the researches that deal with Accommodation for Visitors may consider other services as intrinsic to accommodation, such as the food services.
In relation to transport, when considering the speed and long distance travel requirements, the air passenger transport stands out in the tourism sector. Even so, it only appeared in a single study (Yuan, Lin, & Zhuo, 2016) or also appeared in multisectoral surveys (Macro Tourism), as in Gamble, Chalder and Stone (2001). In addition, it is understood that some ways of transport do not stand out because of their lesser representativeness in terms of quantity (such as railway and waterway transport), which sometimes depend on the characteristics of the destination, such as geography and infrastructure. There may also be little research due to the lack of glamor that the Road Transport category may present to some researchers, as it is numerous and, in many cases, because it is related to people's private lives.
In the specific case of Transport Equipment Rental there is the difficulty to identify if its performance is concentrated in activities related to tourism or in others, such as work, for example, which can affect the interest of researchers in this category.
Knowledge sharing has shown to be one of the main concerns of the researchers, distinguishing its current relevance among the other KM processes. This is in part due to the understanding that to achieve a high innovation performance in services organizations (like tourism) must first develop knowledge sharing behaviours and a better team culture (Hu, Horng, & Sun, 2009).
Along with the knowledge sharing process, a highlight for the knowledge transfer process is also displayed in section 3.3. Despite an apparent similarity between the terms, which may be originated by the choices of the researchers involved, and related to the vocabulary or culture of each case or related to the context in which the process is observed, other studies demonstrate important distinctions between them.
To clearly outline the differences and interconnections between knowledge sharing and transfer, Tangaraja, Rasdi, Samah and Ismail (2016) realized in their integrative review that knowledge sharing (KS) and knowledge transfer (KT) are two different concepts, although they are interconnected in some way. The article found that KS is a subset of KT when dealing with personalization strategy (where tacit knowledge in the form of know-how and best practices is transferred from one employee to another directly via personal contact), while KT as a whole is a broader concept. However, if the coding strategy for KT is used (where explicit knowledge is structured and stored in repository systems to enable KT), KS is not one of the immediate processes during the actual knowledge transfer, because the actual coding process occurred in a previous period, in the relationship between people and systems.
Long (2017) states that the existing literature on knowledge “transfer” and “exchange” between researchers, policy makers, and tourism professionals seems to have little to say about what this knowledge can comprise. This indicates that, despite the references of the other authors, there is still a gap to be explored on knowledge transfer in tourism and hospitality.
Another highlight is the focus of researches on tacit knowledge. About this, Czernek (2017) points that hospitality and tourism need to invest more in KM, since these sectors have and work a lot with tacit knowledge. However, Avdimiotis (2016a) and Sigala and Chalkiti (2007) describe that the management of tacit knowledge as a research field in the studies of hotel management is still immature, showing a potential research field to be explored.
Avdimiotis (2016a) still reveals that this type of knowledge is recognized as the “cornerstone” of competitive advantage, and Avdimiotis (2012) reports that it is compared to the body of the intellectual capital iceberg. It serves to attract and retain employees with unique knowledge (Bednarska & Olszewski, 2013), and to improve employee performance in engaging in affective bonds and in understanding the needs and expectations of customers (Pereira, Alves & Ferreira, 2021). Hoarau (2014) and Musulin, Gamulin and Crnojevac (2011) claims that tacit knowledge is the main challenge as knowledge to be accessed and absorbed, but that it is also difficult to imitate, which ensures great differential for those who hold it.
It is because of this recognition of tacit knowledge that researches in tourism invest on several fronts to deal with it (Cooper, 2006), to understand how to specifically manage tacit knowledge, and to carry out tourism development projects (Clarke, Raffay, & Wiltshier, 2009; Zhang, Xiao, Gursoy; Rao, 2015; Pereira, Alves & Ferreira (2021). The emphasis on tacit knowledge is a consequence of the differentials it provides, but have the efforts of tourist organizations been sufficient to value it and convert it into explicit knowledge? The answer to this question requires further studies, but this research, by looking at the topic, intends to show that this is a priority on the tourist agenda.
There was the identification of criticisms made to the academic researches, some of which seen as tangential, unnecessarily complex, and communicated in an inaccessible way. Cooper (2006, p.59) calls this the “past failure of researchers to engage in the knowledge codification”. Especially when trying to establish an alignment with the vision of a part of entrepreneurial elites, as Thomas (2012) found in his study on elite business, universities and knowledge transfer in tourism. And if such perception was made by an elite that, at first, has greater capacity to access resources, even more difficult is for small and medium entrepreneurs, as pointed out by Lee, Ginn and Naylor (2009).
Frechtling (2004), Xiao and Smith (2007), Lee, Ginn and Naylor (2009), and Hardy, Vorobjovas-Pinta and Eccleston (2018) report the difficulty of transferring knowledge from the academic sector to other sectors of the area. Information like this brings a reflection on scientific work and its contribution to society, since a considerable part of the results of academic research are destined to journals with restricted (paid) access, making it even more difficult, along with the very language adopted in the research, the appropriation of this knowledge by the market and other interested parties. What Cooper (2006, p. 59) said to be “the real barriers to transferring research to operational adopters”. There is also a difficulty of knowledge transfer among researchers due to the different existing cultures (Cooper, 2006).
One must think about the direction the research is taking, since many researchers prefer to publish, due to the requirement of government agencies, in journals with high academic significance. Frechtling (2004) realized in his study that there is a differentiation between the best journals for sale and the best journals to transfer knowledge in the U.S. This may contribute to making access to research content even more difficult, whether due to the more elaborate language, the foreign language, or the monetary price to be paid.
Xiao, Su and Li (2010), by identifying a growing trend of Chinese tourism researchers citing or referring to foreign sources, found a predominance of Anglo-Saxon culture and language. And although the study is based on citation data from three tourism journals and this does not necessarily reflect on other publications, the results and discussion could potentially shed light on the diffusion of knowledge among other tourism research communities.
As for the quality of the research, Hallin and Marnburg (2008) analyzed the state of the art of empirical studies on KM in the hospitality area and concluded that most research uses a micro-enterprise approach and is based on exploratory research (that is, with in order to understand the phenomena, not to draw conclusions). This indicates that the studies are limited, inconclusive and mainly descriptive, with a focus on case studies. Thus, it is identified that there is a great need for empirical studies of KM in the context of hospitality, based on an adequate and solid research design that implies satisfactory testability and generalization (Tribe, 2018; Xiao & Smith, 2007) (when studies allow), and that can contribute to a comprehensive research debate on KM in hospitality.
Furthermore, Ruhanen and Cooper (2004) point out that KM approach should be the underpinning objective for future research agendas, so that the increasing intellectual capital in tourism can be transformed into industry competitiveness and sustainability. Which indicates that there are many research opportunities to be made involving KM and tourism, not only in terms of quantity, but mainly in terms of the quality and variety of studies. This is something that can be interpreted as positive for researchers in the area.
When it comes to the tourism sectors involved in the researches, the authors preferred, in most cases, to study more than one at the same time. But, when researched individually, the highlight was Accommodation for visitors, which shows the strength of these ventures for tourism, even in a world with new players in the market. In addition, the greater concentration of studies in a few sectors, and the lack in some, reinforce that there is a wide spectrum of opportunities for the advancement of KM and highlight sectors in which research can break frontiers of knowledge that have not yet been faced.
It was also identified that the KM processes most addressed in tourism researches are sharing and transfer, followed by far by the processes of acquisition, application, among others. Knowledge sharing and transfer have also been highlighted in other KM researches, taking into account that they represent important competitive and functional factors for organizations, and are configured as some of the most complex KM processes to be worked on and managed. However, the concentration of research and possible practical uses in few of the KM processes reveal a wide range of possibilities for advancement both in studies and in practices in tourist organizations.
There was also a significant criticism of researches related to tourism, both by companies and professionals for not being able to appropriate these studies due to a series of reasons (for example, the language and complexity of the approaches used). This supports a reflection on the role of the university in today's society, as well as on the quality of the research that has been carried out, since there are many examples that use exploratory research in order to describe more phenomenologically and specifically a given reality, rather than seek a more comprehensive analysis and/or prescribe feasible conditions for KM in tourism.
In view of the above, there is the understanding that the goals raised for this research were achieved, addressing a range of relationships between tourism and KM, such as the tourism sectors and KM processes involved. This made it possible to know the research trends of scientific articles that deal jointly with tourism and its sectors, and KM and its processes.
As limitations, it should be considered that the search for scientific articles involved only the terms that appeared in their title, which can be extended further. In addition, despite the use of a variety of terms related to tourism, it is still possible to find other words that can broaden the research proposed here, for example, the addition of “gastronomy”, “food and beverages”, etc. Still as possibilities for future research, it is suggested to expand the systematic search with variations of new constructs, aiming to contemplate other realities, as well as to perform analysis of other categories and new data crossings.
The research gap on tourism that addresses the knowledge transfer stands out, especially the most difficult type to transmit and assimilate and that is capable of generating significant competitive advantage over competitors in the industry: tacit knowledge. Finally, it is hoped that this work will contribute to a greater understanding of the terms searched here and help other researchers to reflect on this new moment that the world is going through in the knowledge economy, mainly in strategic activities such as tourism, seeking greater synergy between research and market.
This work was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001 (the Brazilian National Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel), and also with the support of the Foundation for the Support of Research and Innovation of the State of Santa Catarina(FAPESC), Brazil.
Contributions: Research design, literature review, data collection and analysis, and discussion of results.
Contributions: Research design, literature review, data collection and analysis, and discussion of results.
Contributions: Research design, literature review, data collection and analysis, and discussion of results.
Contributions: Research design, and discussion of results.
E-mail: marcelo.henrique.oto@gmail.comE-mail: leolllacerda@yahoo.com.brE-mail: luana.emdf@gmail.comE-mail: bizdetur@gmail.com
