Search results

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the incorporation, prioritization and depth of equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) initiatives in tourism industry restart policies of Canadian provinces and territories. This study investigates how the detailing of EDI in policies determine the priority in emancipating tourism workers from the inequities exacerbated during the pandemic. Such investigation enables a better understanding of the complexities, tendencies and rationale of involving EDI in the tourism industry’s recovery.

The research investigated the presence and prioritization of equity, diversity, and inclusion using systematic text analytics of 38 publicly available restart plans and statements from 52 government and non-government agencies. Using web-based software Voyant Tools to assist in text analytics, a hybrid deductive-inductive coding approach was conducted.

Key outcomes from the analysis revealed scarce to no full and dedicated content on EDI as a holistic initiative necessary for tourism industry relaunch. This lack of EDI content was a result of the greater impetus to prioritize economic generation and limited data due to practical and ideological issues. Results also suggested the tokenizing of EDI in some policies.

Difficulties in data used for research include the lack and availability of restart policies specifically for tourism; most policies were generalized and referred to economic recovery as a whole. Studies of tourism-specific EDI issues were also limited.

The research is revelatory for investigating EDI prioritizations in restart policies even among well-developed and worker-diverse tourism industries such as in Canada, where inequities and injustices to women, Black, Indigenous, gender-diverse, and newcomer tourism workers among others have been withstanding.

Our study centered on activity-based workspaces (ABWs), unassigned open-plan configurations where users’ activities determine the workplace. These workspaces are conceived and shaped by accommodation professionals (APs) like managers and architects and are loaded with their ideas, ideals, norms and values; therefore, they are normative and hegemonic. Previous research has largely failed to consider how APs’ spatial conceptions materialize in the workplace. To address this omission, we adopted a narrative approach to study APs’ impact during the conceptualization stage.

The data were collected via a 10-year at-home ethnographic study at a Dutch university, including observations, interviews, documents and reports. Studying the researchers’ organization allowed for a longitudinal research approach and participative observations. The data focused on the narrative techniques of APs when establishing an ABW.

In introducing ABWs, APs resorted to two principal narrative strategies. Firstly, the ABW concept was lauded as a solution to a host of existing problems. Yet, in the face of shortcomings, lecturers were often blamed.

Despite the considerable influence of APs on both the physical layout of workspaces and the nature of academic labor, there is little insight into their conceptions of the academic workspace. Our research contributes a novel perspective by revealing how APs’ workspace conceptions drive the narratives that underpin the roll-out of ABWs and how they construct narratives of success and failure.

Megaprojects stimulate and challenge public opinion across countries, generating extensive reactions from citizens. Given their ability to attract public attention, they may also influence public participation in collective choices and political decision-making. These issues are relevant for evaluating projects, but are unfortunately rarely discussed in the managerial literature. This study aims to open up a debate on social issues and how they could be taken into account within management studies.

This study carried out a systematic review of the literature on the social impact of megaprojects to identify different research areas related to the evaluation of megaprojects from a social perspective.

This study identified three different research areas related to the evaluation of megaprojects from a social perspective: the role of power and social issues; infrastructure and social space; and stakeholder engagement and endorsement.

This paper underlines the need to go beyond current understanding of the social impacts of megaprojects and calls for a more interdisciplinary research agenda.