Communication identification and espoused values around accessibility within Bali's tourism provider websites

Communication identification and espoused values around accessibility within Bali tourism websites

Keywords: Accessibility; Critical; Organizational; Communication; Inclusive; Bali; Identification

Due to the negative social stigma of disability, researchers have begun to identify how disability and accessibility are ‘taboo’ topics within the tourism industry and discourse (McIntosh, 2020; Gandin, 2018). Instances of this exclusion occur when tourism organisational communications fail to explicitly communicate or illustrate in images broader aspects of diversity, or even consider marketing their products and services in an inclusive accessible manner (Darcy, Cameron, & Pegg, 2010). In many cases, it has been argued that hospitality products and services are marketed as an “exclusive activity” ignoring marginalised groups of people, such as people with disabilities (Biddulph and Scheyvens, 2018 p. 2; Shaw, Veitch & Coles, 2005; Richards, Pritchard & Morgan, 2010; Dann, 2001). Yet, there is still limited critical communication research that analyses how accessible tourism businesses are for a diverse range of travellers. There is a gap in examining how the tourism organisations’ assumptions, espoused values and worldview communicates inclusion or omits the needs and expectations of travellers with disabilities (Goodwin, Thurmeier & Gustafson, 2004; Iwarsson & Ståhl, 2003). Nevertheless, in a wider context, organisations have an ethical responsibility to society to act as an agent of change in their business environment (Delios, 2010), specifically by incorporating disabilities in their organisational policies, planning and development (Dominguez, Fraiz & Alen, 2013).

Engaging with and within a tourism destination poses challenges and barriers for senior tourists with disabilities, their significant others, informal carers, locals and the industry (Gillovic et al, 2018). For instance, attitudes, values, language and social relationships communicated from the tourism providers shape the experiences and accessibility expectations of senior tourists (Gillovic et al, 2018). To understand the social environment, we applied Cheney’s (1983) communication theory to analyse the espoused values promoted by the organisational providers in their websites.

Google search engine was used to identify organisations who stated publically that they were providing accessible services for tourists in Bali. Key words were used in the search such as, “accessible tourism”, travel with wheelchairs”, “disability travel”, “accessible accommodation”, “accessible destination” and “Bali”. A cross checked against their websites was conducted to ascertain if the information related to tourism and accessibility. Fourteen tourism organisation were identified and of those 7 were explicitly communicating tourism and accessible services. In this paper we use draw on the results from two of these websites, Bali Access Travel and Accessible Indonesia, from our sample to illustrate the organisational communication typology that we used for our analysis. Cheney’s (1983) typology contains four identification strategies with five tactics under the first strategy. This typology provides a clear critical but flexible structure to apply to secondary data, such as website communications, Facebook, corporate reports or even primary data, such as interviews and focuses group transcriptions. His four strategies are Common Ground; Antithesis/Disassociation; Assumed Language; Unifying Symbols. Within the common ground strategy, there are five tactics. These five tactics are Expression of concern for individual; Recognition of individual contribution; Advocacy of organisational benefits; Testimonials; Espoused values. Cheney’s typology provides the benefits of a theoretical rich analysis tool to analyse the rhetoric, discourses and assumptions embedded in organisational communications (Petre, 2018).

In brief, Cheney’s analysis uncovered embedded espoused values and assumptions that both organisations communicate in their websites. For instance, it is clear from our typology that physical disabilities and wheelchairs are a focus for both websites. Bali Access Travel only provides two images that depict a typical island holiday and highlight scuba diving as an “adventurous’ activity. Our analysis also indicated that being involved, socially active and the group aspects of holidays were highlighted on both websites. Both organisations included inclusive words in the websites such as “access”, “accessible” and both had inclusive symbols from the active, moving wheelchair to the Bali traditional house on stilts with a ramp.

Although both organisations had provided services for tourists with disabilities, there was a clear difference between the two regarding their espoused values and assumptions. Accessible Indonesia displayed more content and images that represented tourists getting directly involved in a variety of typical activities and behaviour. Figure 1 from their website illustrates images of tourists with a specially adapted wheelchair on the beach. Under this image, the text states “how we work” notes that they “stand for thorough preparation” “direct communication with guests and agencies … your preferences and requirements”. From this website the typology illustrates how identification is created with the tourist by getting them involved in the planning, or opening up typical holiday activities for them. The espoused values here are that tourists are not restricted by the physical environment or their impairments, as Accessible Indonesia describe that they can visit “mountains, terraced rice paddies and forests”.

Overall, both organisations did create common ground to create identification by illustrating their knowledge of physical disabilities and associated equipment. Cheney’s typology revealed the espoused expectations, assumptions and positioning by each organisation. For instance, identification revolved around similarities in terms of physical aspects and impairments communicated in both organisations’ websites. Bali Access Travel focused more on the physical aspects of disabilities and displayed limited activities. While Accessible Indonesia identified their guests as independent individuals who are encouraged to voice their preferences and get involved in a variety of destinations, activities and typical tourism experiences.

Cheney theoretical analysis identified the unintentional dissociative feature in Accessible Indonesia’s website. The word accessible is typically used to cover a wide range of needs of people with disabilities (Buhalis & Darcy, 2011). Accessible Indonesia, despite the name, emphases mobility-related issues and senior tourists. It was evident from their communications that other types of disabilities, such as people with vision impairments, hearing problems and cognitive impairment are excluded. The explicit communication of lots of care related equipment shown in their website also indicated a limiting of tourists’ holiday choices. Cheney’s typology provided us with a more nuanced understanding of these organisations’ communications as they veer between tensions of being accessible, inclusive, providing unlimited access versus the more limiting structures and medical perspectives of disabilities.

Figure 1. An example of activity in adapted wheelchair

Source: Accessible Indonesia website

In conclusion, it was evident that the organisations focused on services and facilities for people with mobility restrictions, and excluded other types of disabilities. The analysis, also indicated their overall mind-set and how these assumptions regarding accessibility would in a wider aspect determine the degree of access into tourism attractions and sites. As such, the organisational communication illustrate, for tourists, expectations and whether certain cultural, social and structural barriers could be overcome. For tourism and hospitality scholars, Cheney’s communication theory provides two benefits; first, the analysis provides a critical nuanced understanding of organisational communications as they shape and legitimise their social environment. Second, on a practical level, using Cheney’s strategies enriched and deepen critical perspectives on the secondary data, as the typology provides a theory-driven instead of the usual methodological based analysis (Greenwood, Jack, & Haylock, 2019).

References

Accessible Indonesia accessed December 2019 from: https://www.accessibleindonesia.org/

Bali Access Travel, (2019), accessed December 2019 from: http://www.baliaccesstravel.com/

Biddulph, R., & Scheyvens, R. (2018), ‘Introducing inclusive tourism’, Tourism Geographies, 20:4, pp. 583-588.

Buhalis, D., & Darcy, S. (2011), ‘Conceptualizing disability’,in D. Buhalis & S. Darcy (Eds.), Accessible Tourism: Concepts and issues, Bristol, UK: Channel View Publications, pp. 21-42

Cheney, G. (1983), ‘On the various and changing meanings of organisational membership: A field study of organisational identification’, Communications Monographs, 50:4, pp. 342-362.

Cockburn-Wootten, C. (2002), ‘Gender, grocery shopping and the discourse of leisure’, Doctoral dissertation, Cardiff Metropolitan University, UK.

Cockburn-Wootten, C. (2012), ‘Critically unpacking professionalism in hospitality: Knowledge, meaningful work and dignity’, Hospitality & Society, 2(2), 215-230.

Dann, G. (2001), ‘Senior tourism and quality of life’, Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 9:1, pp. 5-19.

Darcy, S., Cameron, B., & Pegg, S. (2010), ‘Accessible tourism and sustainability: A discussion and case study’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18:4, pp. 515-537.

Delios, A. (2010),’How can organizations be competitive but dare to care?’, Academy of Management Perspectives, 24:3, pp. 25-36.  

Dominguez, T., Fraiz, J. A., & Alen, E. (2013),’ Economic profitability of accessible tourism for the tourism sector in Spain’, Tourism Economics, 19:6, pp. 1385-1399

Gandin, S. (2018)’ ‘Tourism Promotion and Disability: Still a (Linguistic) Taboo? A Preliminary Study’, in Bielenia-Grajewska, M., & Cortes de los Rios, E. (eds.), Innovative Perspectives on Tourism Discourse, IGI Global. pp. 22-73.

Gillovic, B., McIntosh, A., Darcy, S., & Cockburn-Wootten, C. (2018),’ Enabling the language of accessible tourism’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26:4, pp. 615-630.

Goodwin, D. L., Thurmeier, R., & Gustafson, P. (2004),’Reactions to the metaphors of disability: The mediating effects of physical activity’, Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly; APAQ, 21:4, pp. 379–398.

Greenwood, M., Jack, G., & Haylock, B. (2019), ‘Toward a methodology for analyzing visual rhetoric in corporate reports’, Organisational Research Methods, 22:3, pp. 798-827.

Iwarsson, S., & Ståhl, A. (2003), ‘Accessibility, usability and universal design—positioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships’, Disability and rehabilitation, 25:2, pp. 57-66.

McIntosh, A. J. (2020), ‘The hidden side of travel: Epilepsy and tourism’, Annals of Tourism Research, 81, pp. 1-10.

Muhcină, S., Popovici, V., & Popovici, N. (2014),’Marketing communication tools – important means to promote the image in tourism activity’, Quality - Access to Success, 15, pp. 86-92.

Petre, E. A. (2018), ‘Encouraging Identification with the Larger Campaign Narrative: Grassroots Organizing Texts in Barack Obama’s 2008 Presidential Campaign’, Communication Quarterly, 66:3, pp. 283-307.

Richards, V., Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N. (2010), ‘(Re)envisioning tourism and visual impairment’, Annals of Tourism Research, 37:4, pp. 1097-1116.

Shaw, G., Veitch, C., & Coles, T. I. M. (2005),’Access, disability, and tourism: Changing responses in the United Kingdom,’ Tourism Review International, 8:3, pp. 167-176.