The holiday travel process

Clawson and Knetsch (1966) were the first that approached the recreation experience as a process consisting of stages. They proposed a recreation experience framework consisting of five stages, namely: (a) anticipation and planning, that is thinking about and planning the trip;

(b) travel to the site, that is the actual journey to the recreation site; (c) on site experiences and activities, that is the recreation activities and related behaviours taking place at the site; (d) return travel, that is the actual journey back home; and (e) recollection, that is recall and reflection about the experience.

Fridgen (1984) applied Clawson and Knetsch’s framework into the tourism domain suggesting that it “provides a meaningful link between environmental and social processes, and travel tourism behaviour” (Fridgen 1984, p.23). Hall (2005; 2010) also adopts the same framework referring to it as “the stages model of the travel process” (2010, p.9). However, he renames the first stage to “decision making and anticipation” (2010, p.9) clearly indicating that the decision to visit the destination is included in this stage. Although anticipation and planning (or decision making and anticipation) is proposed as the first stage of the process, neither Clawson and Knetsch (1966), nor Fridgen (1984), or Hall (2005; 2010) clearly indicate when exactly the first stage starts, and more specifically if it starts as soon a generic need for recreation or holiday trip has been recognized, or as soon as the generic decision to go on a trip has been made. Bauer (2001) and Maher et al. (2003) although they clearly adopt the Clawson and Knetsch (1966) framework, they reduce the number of stages to three: (a) before the trip, (b) during the trip, and (c) after the trip. The three stages approach is also adopted by Werthner and Klein (1999), Woodside and King (2001), Manrai and Manrai (2011), Dippelreiter et al. (2008), and Mackay and Vogt (2012).

In later years, the notion of Dreaming as a separate stage of the travel process started appearing both in academic literature but also among practitioners (Google 2010; Fotis et al. 2011; Pearo and Carroll 2011; Neuhofer et al. 2012; Sparkler 2013). Although there is lack of a definition of the dreaming stage, there seems to be an initial consensus that the dreaming stage takes place before the consumer’s active search for travel related information (Pearo and Caroll 2011).

However, there is no notion in the literature in terms of when the dreaming stage begins and when it concludes. Assuming a cyclical travel process, Fotis et al. (2011) locate the dreaming stage after the post-trip stage of the last holiday trip and before the pre-trip stage of the next holiday trip.

Another characteristic of the travel process is its cyclical nature. Krippendorf (1986) was the first to envision a cyclical travel process. Krippendorf (1986) considers recreation and tourism as integral parts of the industrial social system with work, habitat, leisure, and travel as its main components. He perceives this system having a cyclical form to demonstrate its repetitive nature, entitling it as the recreation cycle of the human beings in industrial society. Krippendorf supports that even after a leisure trip

“Still, the wish to leave again re-emerges quickly, for life cannot be resuscitated by means of few weeks of vacations and a few weekends. The wagon is overloaded; it overflows with wishes and longings. From this permanent repetition of unquenched and unquenchable desires, the cycle takes its dynamics: a perpetual starting over […]

roughly speaking, this enormous recreational machine operates a cycle which recurs year after year, and to which each person is more or less subjugated, without really being aware of it” (Krippendorf 1986, p.524-525)

Goodall’s (1988, p.1) position that holidays are “a mainstay of behaviour patterns in advanced western societies”, as well as Werthner and Klein’s (1999) tourist’s life cycle, and Hall’s (2005, p.932) “trip cycle” seem also to agree on the circular nature of the travel process.

Based on the above discussion, this study adopts and proposes a four stage cyclical holiday travel process consisting of: (a) the dreaming stage, (b) the before the trip or pre-trip stage, (c) the during the trip stage, and (d) the after the trip or post-trip stage as shown in Figure 3.15:

Figure 3.15: The holiday travel process

Source: Author

The pre, during, and post-trop stages are adopted from the approaches of Werthner and Klein (1999), Woodside and King (2001), Bauer (2001), Maher et al. (2003), Dippelreiter et al.

(2008), Manrai and Manrai (2011), and Mackay and Vogt (2012). Given that this study focuses on the use of social media during the whole holiday travel process, the boundaries of each stage need to be clearly defined. For this purpose, given the absence of clearly defined boundaries in the academic literature, a number of a priori assumptions are made: Adopting the cyclical nature of the travel process, the dreaming stage commences when sharing of experiences about the previous holiday trip are finished. Sharing of experiences can take place in the physical world (e.g. talking in person with friends about the holiday trip) and/or in the virtual world (e.g.

posting photos in social media, writing reviews, self-expression in social media about the trip).

The dreaming stage concludes exactly before the generic decision about a new holiday trip has been taken. The pre-trip stage commences with the generic decision to go on a holiday trip and concludes with the departure from home. The during the trip stage commences with the start of the journey that is with departure from home, and concludes when the holiday maker returns back home after the holiday trip. This approach assumes that the journey to and from the destination is part of the holiday experience. The post-trip stage commences when the holidaymaker is back home and concludes when sharing of experiences (in the physical and/or the virtual world) have been concluded.

The above proposed approach to the holiday travel process will be among the inputs that will inform decisions about data collection and data analysis as will be discussed in detail in the next chapter on methodology.

4. Methodology

4.1. Introduction

Based on the research aim, research objectives, and research questions, this chapter critically discusses the available options, and provides adequate justification, for all methodological decisions taken, describing the research process in depth.

Given that an understanding of philosophy of research is considered as an essential prerequisite in conducting research, the chapter starts with a discussion on research enquiry paradigms.

Towards his effort to meet the requirements of this study’s specific research problem, the researcher admits his pragmatic orientation, and provides adequate argumentation for the choice of a social constructionism perspective. The choice of the qualitative approach adopted in this study is then substantiated. Among the available qualitative data collection methods, the chapter proceeds with providing detailed rationale for the choice of focus groups. A section on focus group design follows addressing discussion strategy and approach, design of questions and individual tasks, the choice of the sampling method, as well as the actual sampling process employed. Further on, the chapter provides adequate information on the focus groups composition, size, length of discussion, number of focus groups and saturation, including a number of other considerations. The analysis of focus group data is described in depth, along with the detailed process employed. The chapter concludes with a discussion of issues related to the generalizability and transferability of findings, and with a discussion on the methodological limitations of this study.