CRITICAL JOURNAL REVIEW of

“ENGLISH FOR TOURISM”

Lecturer:
Dra. Meisuri, M.A.

Compiled by:

Nikita Exena Sitepu

(2151220019)

English Literature A’15

Faculty of Language and Art
State University of Medan
2018
 Preface

First off all, give thanks for God’s love and grace for us. Thanks to God for helping me
and give me chance to finished critical journal report the paper entilled “English For Tourism“
right in calculated time.

The purpose in critical book report is to fulfill the assignment that given by Dra. Meisuri,
M.A. as lecturer in Tourism major. And I also wish to express my deep and sincere gratitude for
all of my friend and my lecturer who have guided in completing this paper. I also realized there
are still many mistakes in process of writing this paper.

I realized this assignment is not perfect, but I hope it can be useful for us. Critics and
suggestion is needed here to make this assignment be better. Last but not the least, hopefully this
paper can helps the readers to gain more knowledge about Tourism major.

Medan, November 2018

Nikita Exena Sitepu

Journal I

Name of Journal : International Journal of Culture, Tourism and

Hospitality Research Emerald Article: North Atlantic
island destinations in tourists’ minds

Edition :9

Year of Publish : 2012

Total of Journal :1

Volume of Journal : Vol.6

Author : Thorhallur Gudlaugsson, Gunnar Magnússon

Journal II

Name of Journal : Tour Operators’ Costumer Information Versus Rendering Excepted

Customer Experience

Edition :-

Year of Publish : 2012

Total of Journal :1

Volume of Journal : Vol.1 no.2

Author : Marius Potgieter, Johan W de Jager, NeelsH Van Heerden

 CHAPTER I
INTODUCTION
     Critical Journal report in the form of this paper contains conclusions from the
comparisons that I will make on the two determined journals with the theme of tourism. I also
mentioned the summary of each journal, where the first and second journals have different titles
as follows:

1. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research Emerald Article:

North Atlantic island destinations in tourists’ minds

2. Tour Operators’ Costumer Information Versus Rendering Excepted Customer

Experience

And the last chapter, I also presents the strength and weakness from both journals. The
purpose and benefits to be achieved by the compiler in the critical writing of this review journal
is to invite the reader to understand more deeply about the two journals.
 CHAPTER II

DESCRIPTION OF THE JOURNAL

Journal 1
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research Emerald Article: North
Atlantic island destinations in tourists’ minds

Summary:
Increasing internationalization leads to increased competition (Friedman, 2006).
Accordingly, organizations and nations need to create a competitive advantage to be able to
compete successfully for access to markets, materials and people (Anholt, 2003; Hooley et al.,
1998; Porter, 1998). The image of organizations and nations and the communication of image at
the national and international level is important for the sustainability of this competitive
advantage (Anholt, 2003; Ries and Trout, 2001). In November 2007, the Icelandic Prime
Minister’s Office assembled a committee to analyze the image of Iceland and come up with
solutions regarding the possibility of strengthening the image internationally.

The research reported here focuses on the image of Iceland as a travel destination for
foreign travelers. The image of tourist destinations is important, influencing both the
decision
making behavior of potential tourists (Jenkins, 1999) and the level of satisfaction tourists
experience, based on the actual experience at the destination (Chon, 1990). The image in the
minds of potential travelers is so important in the destination selection process that the viability
of the destination can be affected by the image the destination holds (Hunt, 1975). At the
international level, destinations often compete on nothing more than the image held in the minds
of potential travelers. Therefore, marketers of tourist destinations spend money, time and effort to
create the right favorable image to guide prospective travelers in their decision to visit or re-visit
their destinations. In the internationally competitive environment of today’s tourism industry,
marketers and developers of destinations should have a good understanding of travelers’ image
of their destination, as well as an understanding of the image travelers hold of competing
destinations (Baloglu and McCleary, 1999). Researchers have studied the image of cities, states
and countries as travel destinations all around the world for the past 30 years (Pike, 2002; Tasci
et al., 2007). However, research on the image of Iceland as a travel destination is limited (Prime
Minister’s Office, 2008).

The Icelandic Tourist Board (Ferðama´ lastofa) has surveyed travelers’ attitudes
concerning their stay in the country (Icelandic Tourist Board, 2004a, b). They have also
conducted image research in Germany, Britain, France, Sweden and on the East Coast of the US
concerning the effects of whaling on the image of Iceland as a travel destination (Prime
Minister’s Office, 2008). The project, Iceland Naturally, designed to promote Iceland as a travel
destination among other things, conducted image research in the US market since 1999
(Gudjonsson, 2005).
The research questions in this paper cover three issues. Firstly, what is the image of Iceland in
the minds of foreign travelers? Secondly, what is Iceland’s leading competitor among the
comparison countries? Thirdly, what possibilities are there to position Iceland, the Faroe Islands,
and Greenland as one travel destination? The goal is also to examine whether the position of
Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Greenland together in tourist markets as one area is possible. The
reason behind this goal is that areas that pooling their resources can have more marketing power
if they cooperate than if they use resources separately (Buhalis, 2000; Cai, 2002; Haahti and
Yavas, 1983).

Research on the image of destinations began in the early 1970s with Gunn’s work in 1972
on how destination image is formed (Gunn, 1988), and Hunt’s work (1975) on how destination
image is measured (Gallarza et al., 2002; Konecnik and Garnter, 2007; Nickerson and Moisey,
1999). In the years 1973 to 2000, at least 142 papers were published that directly or indirectly
investigated destination image topics (Pike, 2002). Many possible approaches are available to
study destination image, because the concept has many implications for human behavior
(Gallarza et al., 2002).

Numerous definitions exist of the concept of destination image and many authors
have tried to get to the core of the concept (Gallarza et al., 2002). Some authors have
examined how the destination image concept has been defined in the literature (e.g. Echnter
and Ritchie, 1991; Gallarza et al., 2002; Tasci et al., 2007). Hunt (1975, p. 1) defines image
as: perception held by potential visitors about an area. Other academic articles most
commonly cite Crompton’s definition (Jenkins, 1999): the sum of beliefs, ideas and
impressions that a person has of a destination.
Gallarza et al. (2002) write that image always corresponds to an interiorization of some
perceptions and that not everyone has the same perceptions. According to them, destination
image refers to tourists’ perceptions of a destination. These correspond to the perceived
contribution of various services at destinations, such as accommodation, food and transport
(Gallarza et al., 2002). Tasci et al. (2007) write that using perception of an image is theoretically
inappropriate when potential tourists have not yet experienced perception through pictures or
visitation. Baloglu and McCleary (1999) and Tasci et al. (2007) studied all the components
proposed by destination image researchers, concluding that the three main components are
cognitive, affective and cognitive.

Several authors (e.g. Echnter and Ritchie, 1991; Fakeye and Crompton, 1991; Gartner,
1993) have written about the lack of a conceptual framework for studying destination image. A
number of authors have put together a conceptual framework for the components of destination
image research, for example, Baloglu and McCleary (1999), Echnter and Ritchie (1991),
Gallarza et al. (2002) and Tasci et al. (2007). Despite widespread interest in a unified destination
image theory, no single approach is commonly accepted (Konecnik and Garnter, 2007).

The research uses two measurement scales; an unstructured scale to find the holistic
image of Iceland and a structured scale to find the image of Iceland according to attributes. The
unstructured scale (open-ended questions) allows participants to answer freely what their image
of Iceland as a tourist destination is. The designed questionnaire employs three open-ended
questions by Echnter and Ritchie (1993) along with three additional questions about participants’
gender and travel behavior.

Question one aims to find a functional holistic image, question two to find a
psychological holistic image and question three to find a unique image of Iceland as a
destination, coding the answers from the unstructured survey according to qualitative
methodology.
The final version of the structured questionnaire consists of 22 questions. The first part
of the questionnaire asks about people’s image of Iceland and the comparison countries for 12
attributes.
 The attribute questions part uses a nine point Likert-type scale, where choice of answers
ranges from description fits badly (1) to description fits well (9). Questions 13-15 ask about
participants’ demographic background and questions 16-19 about their travel habits in Iceland.
Questions 20 and 21 measure destination loyalty (behavioral variables) and question 22 asks
about participants’ satisfaction with their trip to Iceland.

The administration of the unstructured questionnaire took place at a Tourist

Information Center, which is operated by the city of Reykjavik, in Adalstraeti 2 (Visit
Reykjavik, 2008), on the 5 June 2008 from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. The administration of the pre-
test of the structured questionnaire took place at two tourist destinations, at Geysir on the 9th
of June, from 17 p.m.-19 p.m. and at Gullfoss, on the 10 June, from 12 a.m.-14 p.m. The
administration of the final version of the structured questionnaire took place at three sites.
The first site is the main bus terminal in Reykjavik, BSI. From BSI buses travel, for
example, to Keflavik International Airport and to a number of popular tourist destinations in
Iceland (BSI, 2008).

The unstructured survey, the pre-test for the structured survey and the final version of
the structured survey were all self-administered (Burns and Bush, 2006). The survey
administrator stood at a predetermined spot in all of the survey sites and asked tourists who
walk by if they had an interest in participating in a survey. Those tourists who agreed to
participate then received the survey on paper and the administrator explained the main topic.
After that, the participants filled out the survey at their own pace and handed the survey back to
the administrator when completed.

Participants in the surveys were a convenience sample. That is, for the unstructured
survey, for the pre-test and for the final version of the structured survey, the administrator
drew convenience samples. Only those people that are present at the time of a survey’s
administration have a chance of being part of the sample (Burns and Bush, 2006). In total, 25
tourists participated in the unstructured survey, 15 males (60 percent) and ten females (40
percent). A total of 17 tourists participated in the pre-test of the structured survey, eight
males (47 percent) and nine females (53 percent).

Image results from the first question and three functional holistic image groups emerged
from the coding. The biggest category is nature and scenery (geysers, wild nature, scenery,
volcano/lava, waterfalls, mountains, glaciers, nature, water, clean, cold, skies). The second
biggest category is activities (fishing, thermal pools, adventure, horse riding). The third group is
culture and people (woolen sweaters, interesting history, Bjo¨ rk, art, innovation, low population,
friendly, nice, modern, environmental, unique, and quiet). A number of atmosphere/mood images
for Iceland emerged from question number two. The number in the brackets shows how often the
adjective was mentioned by the participants: friendly (11), calm (five), relaxed (four),
security/peace (three), alone (three), free/freedom (three), different (two), surprising (two), quiet
(two).

Scotland is far from the middle, indicating that people have a clear image of Scotland in
their minds. Scotland connects most strongly to the attribute good entertainment and nightlife
although the country positions some distance from that attribute. In the opposite direction of
Scotland, the figure shows the attribute peaceful and quiet. This supports the position of
Scotland as a country of entertainment and nightlife, since entertainment and nightlife seldom
goes hand in hand with peace and quiet. Scotland is also slightly in the opposite direction of the
attributes wild, unique and different, which might indicate that Scotland is neither wild nor
unique and different in the minds of people traveling to Iceland.

Finland appears near the middle of the vertical axis. According to these results, Finland
and Scotland have a similar position in people’s minds and are therefore competitors. Yet
respondents do not connect Finland with any attribute. Nevertheless, since Finland has a
position in the opposite direction of Iceland, the interpretation can be that Finland and Iceland
are quite different destinations in the minds of people, since they do not share similar attributes.
These results imply that Finland is not wild, not unique and different, does not offer an
opportunity for an adventure and is not a safe place to visit, at least not in comparison to the
other destinations under study.

The three research questions aimed to find out actual visitors’ image of Iceland as a
tourist destination. Actual tourists traveling in Iceland participated in an unstructured survey
that measured the holistic image of Iceland and a structured survey that asked about their image
of Iceland in comparison to Norway, Scotland, the Faroe Islands, Finland and Greenland, for 12
attributes.
 In comparison to the messages that the image report from the Prime Minister’s Office
(Prime Minister’s Office, 2008) wants to communicate, the messages from this survey
indicate are power, freedom and peace, thus Iceland’s unique identity should be one of
natural power. In comparison, one can claim that safe place to travel and peace are similar
concepts, so travelers to Iceland already have a peace image of the country. From one
perspective, one can argue that offering opportunity for adventure is freedom so travelers to
Iceland possibly have a freedom image of the country already. The concepts scenic and
natural beauty and natural power can also have the same interpretation, so travelers already
have the image of the country as possessing natural power.

According to the results, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Greenland seem to have a
different image in the minds of tourists and they seem to be offering a different product. Of
these two comparison countries, Iceland and Greenland seem to have more in common than
Iceland and the Faroe Islands. Although these countries can hardly position themselves
together, this should not dissuade them from working together to plan the area as a tourist
region or cooperating in their marketing and promotion activities. These island countries
could benefit from working together to try to get tourists to pick the islands cluster to
traveling to instead of, for example, the area (destination) that comprises Norway, Sweden,
Finland and Denmark. Moreover, if Iceland and Greenland were to position themselves
together as one product (destination), they could use the attributes peaceful and quiet, wild
and unique and different to market the group.

J ou rn al I I

Tour Operators’ Costumer Information Versus Rendering Excepted Customer Experience

Summary

South African tour operators should recognize that being aware of customers’ travel
motivation will enhance their awareness of their customers’ needs (Huang & Hsu, 2009). It will
also enable them to customize their services, to create memorable experiences, and to facilitate
positive post-purchase behaviour.This can be achieved only through information. Marketing
informationsophisticationand innovation needs to transpireso that tour operators can transform
experiences on both sides of the counter. It is imperative that tour operators understand the
nature of tourism experiences since “providing tourists with high quality, memorable experiences
constitutes the essence of tourism and tourism management” (Ritchie et al., 2011).

Tour operators need to be knowledgeable about their customers’ needs and preferences –
a task complicated by the dynamic nature of the environments within which tour operators and
customers function. Information technology (IT) could “generate an analysis of consumers’
behaviour”because this “facilitate and improve the customisation of services” (Aciaret al., 2007).
Marketing information systems (MkIS)willcontribute toward the increased importance tour
operators place on the support they render to their customers “while the cost factor diminishes”
(Andronikidiset al., 2008). It is therefore imperative that tour operators invest in IT and software
that will enable them to be fully conversant regarding all aspects of their target markets. Only
then would they be able to make decisions in terms of how to provide their customers with
memorable experiences and/or whether they should transform their business practices and
tourism offerings.

Mathieson and Wall (quoted by Tripathiet al., 2010) proposed a travel buying
behaviour model in 1982 which starts with travel desire and ends with travel
satisfaction outcome and evaluation. Otto and Ritchie (1996) stated that tourism
management practices are concerned with quality and productivity, but that the
psychological environment (the subjective personal reactions and feelings) of
customers are neglected and an understanding of this should be developed and a
means found for its measurement – then only will the difference between the ‘quality
of the service’ and the ‘quality of the experience’ surface. This is supported by
Stamboulis and Skayannis (2003) who profess that the emergence of new tourism and
innovation can be “considered a new framework of analysis that distinguishes
experience as a distinct value attribute.” Value should be perceived as a dynamic
variable (Sánchez et al., 2006) which is experienced from before purchasing a tourism
offering until long after detachment. ‘Value for money’ is specifically a critical
attribute, according to Ramanathan and Ramanathan (2011). Added to this is tourists’
holistic view of perceived value, which is; “the complete experience that
fulfilmultiple tourism needs, and provides corresponding benefits” (Xu, 2010).
Customers also establish brand knowledge through direct and indirect experiences
and brand managers should take the holistic view into consideration (Xu& Chan,
2010) because customers are more likely to trust direct experiences. Relationship
marketing and dealing with customers’ compliments and complaints can also be seen
as a factor contributing towards a customer’s experiences (Gruber, 2011).
Measuring customers’ actual experiences can be undertaken by analysing
narratives where the customer’s perspectives of ‘How’ and ‘Why’ is taken as the
starting point and this provides a unique way of tapping into a customer’s experiences
because “there is not one universal way of evaluating a tourist experience” (Guthrie &
Anderson, 2010). Martin and Woodside (2011) took this one step further and
conducted ‘storytelling’ research (analysing stories posted on the Internet) to examine
tourists’ interpretations of their visits seeing that this method “clarifies and deepens
knowledge of how people resolve paradoxes triggered in their minds by unbalanced
states”.
The above discussion emphasisesthat it is essential that tour operators are
knowledgeable about their current and future customers and this calls for information
cornucopia. Not only is it obtaining the information but processing it into knowledge
to support and guide decision-makers. Information is said to be “the lifeblood of
tourism” (Buhalis, 1998) and change will force tourism businesses to compute, to
utilise information technologies to its fullest benefit. The author made the following
statement: “Only creative and innovative suppliers will be able to survive the
competition in the new millennium” and recommends that technology should be
utilised in tourism by adopting a strategic approach because unprecedented
opportunities will emerge through information technology.
A research article was published by Wood (2001) and the results indicate that
small- and medium-sized tourism enterprises “make use of informal marketing
information systems which mainly concentrate on internal and immediate operating
environment data. Important wider market intelligence is underutilised owing mainly
to the resource constraints of these smaller businesses. The Internet has not yet been
considered as an important source of market intelligence”. It was discovered that by
the middle of this decade, that only half of the Bed-and- Breakfast owners in Canada
adopted the Internet as a marketing tool (Hudson & Gilbert, 2006) and it is most
likely even less for tour operators in South Africa.
The revolutionary changes of information and communications technology
(ICT) has a major impact on all aspects of a tourist’s value chain. The AIDA-model
was adapted by Dentsu (quoted by Carvão, 2010) into the AISAS-model (attention,
interest, search and sharing) to incorporate user generated content (UGC). According
to this model, tourists can now exchange information of their experiences (something
that is engaging and memorable) with others. This changes touristsinto active players
in influencing the experiences of others, who would want to “differentiate themselves
based on real, original, tourist experiences” (Hudson, 2010). Tour operators should
use ICT to “record customers’ preferences and then provide more personalized
services, thereby developing a long- term relationship with customers” (Ipet al.,
2011). However, it is debatable if there are marketing information systems that can
facilitate tour operators in South Africa to talk to their customers, to understand their
expectations, to study their attitudes, seeking feedback, and accumulating information
for analyses and research purposes, as explained by Mohsin and Lockyer (2010).
The evolution of technology continues to place more importance on
information because “growing market dynamics raise information needs” (Wöber,
2003). Lassnig (quoted by Pike, 2007) indicated in a paper presented at the 13 th
ENTER conference in 2006 (Lausanne, Switzerland) that “the tourism industry lags
behind other sectors in e-business applications.” Could this be still applicable to tour
operators in South Africa?
The above review indicates that being knowledgeable about customers and their
expected experiences requires a sophisticated marketing information system that is
integrated, interconnected, and compatible with the technology used by customers. It
is unascertained if South African tour operators do have such marketing information
systems and/or whether they do have access to exploitable customer-related
information.
Descriptive empirical research was conducted in South Africa and the research
population targeted weretour operations. Apopulation frame was assembled from a
variety of published and electronic sourcesbecause there is no certainty how many
tour operators there are in South Africa.The predetermined parameters are that sample
units must be (1) a South Africa tour operation and (2) they must use a marketing
information system. A non- probability convenience sample was selected from the
research frame and the web-based online survey tool, QuestionPro.com, was used and
the license wasrestricted to1 000 successfully delivered invitations.
A structured web-based questionnaire was used as research instrument and
every sample unit received a personal e-mail which explained the purpose of
this study and inviting them to participate. Further statistical tests did not
reveal any statistically significant differences between the descriptors (type of
tour operation, number of years in existence, size of the tour operation) and
their likeliness of having or not having a marketing information system.
Further research should be conducted to investigate the reason(s) for this
finding.
Having or not having a marketing information system served as a
qualifier and tour operators who indicated that they do not have a marketing
information system was branched out and their participation was terminated
because they would not have been able to respond to the questions of the
survey. The following results are based on the responses obtained from tour
operators who indicated that they do have a marketing information system.
Tour operators were requested to indicate for what reasons they use
information technology and a list of uses were provided to them to which they
could respond either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. The results obtained indicate that
computer technology is used mainly for retrieving data and for
communication purposes (responding to enquiries) whilst more advanced uses
of technology hardly feature. This could have an adverse effect on tour
operators’ ability to accumulate and process valuable customer-related
information that will enable them to provide their customers with memorable
experiences.
Customers indisputably have an impact on a tour operation’s
capability to create value and rendering customer satisfaction and this is why
intelligence about this market environment variable is of paramount
importance and why a marketing information system is a valuable
management tool. Tour operators were requested to indicate the importance
they place on the ability of a marketing information systemto provide them
with marketing intelligence and the attributes respondents could select from
ranged from ‘Extremely important’ to ‘Extremely unimportant’. When
combining the responses ‘Extremely important’ and ‘Important’ and
expressing it as a percentage, then 79.6% (20+2354) of the tour operators
highly value information about the market environment. Surprisingly, micro
(internal) market environment intelligence obtained the highest score (82.7%).
However, there are tour operators who take a neutral stance and there are also
tour operators who do not view marketing intelligence information about their
customers as important.
Tour operators’ decision-making would improve should they utilise
systematic thinking and the collection of appropriate data and information – this calls
on tour operators to redefine their data and information needs, to refine the methods
applied to obtain data and also how this is processed into needed and/or required
information and knowledge. Tour operators were requested to express their perceived
information needs in an open-ended question and the responses received from tour
operators were grouped according to the components of the marketing environment.
Tour operators indicated that the sequence of information needed is as follows: firstly,
market environment-related information (40%) and surprisingly the most mentions
were made regarding information about customers (trends, statistics, contact
information, markets of origin, customer preferences, spending patterns, and their
profiles). This was followed by information about competitors (their activities and
prices) and suppliers (prices and special offers, and what products they have to offer).
However, this is in contradiction to the results obtained when tour operators indicated
that micro marketing environment information is the most important. Marketing-
related information did receive a number of mentions and refer to a system that will
integrate information, information that will guide tour operators in their pricing and
price changes decisions, trends in the market, and also relationship marketing.
 CHAPTER III
STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS

A. Strength

So, the strength of the journal, the first journal entitled International Journal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research Emerald Article: North Atlantic island destinations in tourists’
minds, the author succeed make this journal perferct. The authors explain all of the journal
clearly and all of the research problem of the journal answered by the author perfectly. They also
putting the structured questionnaire consists of 22 questions. And the journal has the identity
completely, the journal is very reliable because the author includes many references/
bibliography so that the journal is very attractive.

The strength of the second journal the title is Tour Operators’ Costumer Information Versus
Rendering Excepted Customer Experience. The journal is the authors can develop several small
points, but quite important to review, and the authors does it pretty good. The authors explain
the explanation of the journal clearly and they put the tables to strengthen the statement tour
operators’ current marketing information systems do provide them with marketing intelligence
information - and this could result in tour operators missing out on viable opportunities in the
tourism market. It is recommended that tour operators should consider the proper organisation
of information flow as an investment, and business success and innovation, and the
introductionof new offerings.

B. Weakness

I found the weakness of the first journal, overall the journal is perfect, but the journal
lack of the research problem. The authors put the research problem not by point, so the reader
hard to find it. And from the second journal I found the weakness, the journal lack of identity
and the references to strengthen the journal.
 C. Suggestion

If we write a journal, it’s better if we make it with brief explanation and complete with the
references and the identity. The reader will trust the journal more.