The crisis of the ‘crisis of representation’ – mapping qualitative tourism research in Southeast Asia

While the quantitative–qualitative dichotomy still permeates academic circles, qualitative research is gaining momentum within the realm of social sciences. Among the scholars who have contributed to legitimize qualitative approaches to research, Denzin and Lincoln [2005. Preface. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. ix–xix). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2011. Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage] have represented one of the leading voices in the field in the last 30 years. A significant aspect of Denzin and Lincoln's scholarly production concerns the historical analysis of qualitative methodologies. More specifically, they identify eight historical periods or ‘moments’ of qualitative research, which heuristically map the development of qualitative studies from the beginning of the twentieth century until the ‘fractured present’. Based on Denzin and Lincoln's [2011. Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage] eight moments, this paper employs descriptive statistics to present a critical analysis of the state of qualitative tourism research in Southeast Asia. The results indicate that quantitative approaches are privileged over qualitative methodologies. Moreover, the findings show that Asian qualitative tourism research is mainly driven by positivist and post-positivist paradigms. The results are discussed in relation to the colonial and postcolonial forces that have shaped the political and sociocultural context of Southeast Asian academic circles.