http://jtr.sagepub.com/ Journal of Travel Research http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/49/1/93 The online version of this article can be found at: DOI: 10.1177/0047287509336475 2010 49: 93 originally published online 1 June 2009Journal of Travel Research Deepak Chhabra How They See Us: Perceived Effects of Tourist Gaze on the Old Order Amish Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: Travel and Tourism Research Association can be found at:Journal of Travel ResearchAdditional services and information for http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts: http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions: http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/49/1/93.refs.htmlCitations: by Hisham Gabr on October 15, 2010jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com/ http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/49/1/93 http://www.sagepublications.com http://www.ttra.com http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptions http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/49/1/93.refs.html http://jtr.sagepub.com/ Journal of Travel Research 49(1) 93 –105 © 2010 SAGE Publications Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0047287509336475 http://jtr.sagepub.com How They See Us: Perceived Effects of Tourist Gaze on the Old Order Amish Deepak Chhabra1 Abstract Although abundant literature focuses on tourism impact perspectives, folk communities’ perceptions of tourist gaze and its effects on the cultural fabric of host communities as a subject of inquiry has received scant attention. To shed new light on this discourse, this study investigates perceived impacts of tourist gazing within the framework of resistance theory. The Old Order Amish (OOA) are positioned on a resistance scale, with an open-resistance stance at one end and a full-cooperation stance at the opposite end of the spectrum. This study gathers data from 42 OOA families residing in the state of Iowa, United States. The results show mixed reactions by the OOA and indicate a middle approach of resistance, termed as “negotiated reciprocity” on the resistance continuum. Keywords tourist gaze; folk community; sociocultural impact perceptions; resistance theory; Old Order Amish Introduction Influence of tourism on local communities has been exten- sively examined within the context of social and cultural impacts using the host community’s perspective. Social and cultural impacts pertain to the manner in which tourism plays a role in changing resident value structures, individual conduct, family relations, shared lifestyles, safety zones, moral behavior, innovative expressions, conventional rituals, and community organizations (Fox 1977). Ap and Crompton (1998) explained the tourism effect on local reserves as “pressure on local resources and facilities, local versus imported labor, local language and cultural effects, and life style changes” (1998, p. 121), and proceeded to provide a summary of impacts based on their review of the literature. Positive social and cultural impacts were found to include enhanced quality of life (Pizam 1978; Perdue, Long, and Allen 1990), improved understanding and images of other cultures (Liu, Sheldon, and Var 1987; Milman and Pizam 1988), facilitation of cultural exchange (Belisle and Hoy 1980), educational experience (Liu, Sheldon, and Var 1987), preservation of cultural identity of the host population, and increased demand for historical and cultural exhibits (Liu and Var 1986). Negative social and cultural impacts have included heightened stress, frantic community and personal life (Rotham 1978), and creation of fake folk culture (Brougham and Butler 1981; Cohen 1988). Similar impacts were reinforced by recent studies. For instance, encouragement of cultural activities was reported by Brunt and Courtney (1999). According to Andereck et al. (2005), residents perceive that tourism enhances their com- munity image and creates awareness of heritage. Improved prospects for cultural exchange and revival of local tradi- tions and better quality of life were reported by Besculides, Lee, and McCormick (2002). With regard to externalities, Tosun (2002) suggested social and cultural conflicts arising from sociocultural differences. Cultural commercialization was confirmed by Chhabra, Healy, and Sills (2003). Gursoy and Rutherford (2004) reported negative effects of tourism on the local culture in terms of intrusion. Positive effects included cultural activities by local residents, cultural exchange between tourists and residents, and enhanced cul- tural identity. While the aforementioned impacts are useful in providing an overall assessment of benefits and costs (Andereck et al. 2005; Ham, Brown, and Jang 2004), they have limited value in their ability to unveil root issues or items of concern asso- ciated with host–guest contact at the micro level (Nichols, Giacopassi, and Stitt 2002). It is no surprise then that the authors of many such studies have recommended a further dissection of identified issues such as impact on the cultural and social fabric of receiving regions within the context of cultural commodification. Literature has increasingly recog- nized the significance and sacrifice of authenticity in cultural commodification. This view is heightened by the fact that authenticity is the key message in promotional materials that 1Arizona State University by Hisham Gabr on October 15, 2010jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com/ 94 Journal of Travel Research 49(1) draw tourist attention. The authenticity notion however has multiple connotations. It has been conceptualized and recon- ceptualized during the past few decades. In fact, previous studies have used different meanings of authenticity from tourist and supplier perspectives to gain an insight of cultural and social impacts on host communities (Littrell, Anderson, and Brown 1993; Waitt 2000; Chhabra, Healy, and Sills 2003). In sum, four schools of thought describe the authenticity debate: conventional–essentialist, negotiated, constructed–constructivist, and subjective–existentialist. The conventional concept supports museology and nonin- tervention within the natural phenomena. Many heritage attractions, cultural heritage managers, and museums regard authenticity in the chutzpah of frozen or museumfied heri- tage (Bruner 1994; Yea 2002). This view has increasingly gained strength in the face of ongoing threat to cultural changes in the globe today. This view regards commodifica- tion as a threat to objective authenticity. Next, the negotiated stance holds that commodification can serve a useful func- tion because it intends to accomplish a middle path between demand and supply (Chhabra 2008). On the other hand, the constructed–constructivist paradigm of authenticity is pre- mised on the notion that all judgments are socially constructed and are affected by the contemporary market forces and environments. Last, toward the end of the 20th century, the constructivist notion of authenticity shifted to a purely sub- jective position. This school of thought argues that subjective negotiation of meanings defines an authentic experience (Uriely 2005). Following this trail, another postmodern view argues that authenticity is insignificant and irrelevant. For instance, Reisinger and Steiner (2006) contended that the whole notion of authenticity is unstable. It is laden with con- flicting concepts because it lies in the eyes of the beholder, be it the tourist or the supplier. Nevertheless, authenticity is a most recurrent topic of discussion in tourism impact literature. Furthering this line of study, the complex nature of the host–guest or tourist–local contact (Kim 1999; Laxon 1991; Moaz 2006; Sutton 1967) calls for an in-depth and holistic discursive approach from an ethnic perspective to examine the “visualness” or “gazing” phenomena in tourism that has a profound effect on both hosts and guests. Previous studies have reported local community perceptions in general while failing to provide an examination of perception dynamism within gazing or nongazing settings. That is, some percep- tions may be caused by noninteraction, visual or physical, with tourists; other perceptions can be the consequence of interactions within the context of gazing or exchange of words or buyer–seller setting. Early studies have suggested that tourism creates a dis- tinct type of tourist gaze and locals struggle to deal with it when it lands on their turf. Volkman (1990, p. 91) states that “indigenous peoples are caught up in complex relations with the ethnic tourism industry (and the appetite it stimulates), with tourists, and with major cultural, social, and political transformations at home.” Many such communities have tried to reconstruct their culture in a way that it meshes with consumer demands (Moaz 2006), while struggling to stay in harmony with their cultural and religious values. Extant lit- erature holds that most indigenous communities commodify their culture or freeze selected remnants of their past as per the market need (Beeton 2004; Foster 1953; Light 2000; McGregor 2000). That said, several studies have also reported an active role of other sources such as suppliers (Notzke 1999), the media (Beeton 2004), and the govern- ment (Yea 2002) in the commodification of host community cultures. However, it is also argued that not all local communities walk with tourism; some gaze back (Moaz 2006) to curtail plagued impacts. Impressions from the local gaze can cau- tion against unforeseen intrusions or suggest positive discourses if benefits are evident. Moaz (2006) introduces the term local gaze when referring to reciprocity gestures of hosts to demonstrate knowingly or unknowingly the power of locals in developing countries. The power of locals over the tourists implies the hosts have the capability to exercise choice and control. Against previous assertions that locals in developing countries refrain from gazing and passively hide from the tourist gaze, Moaz questions the asymmetrical nature of the gaze power. In the words of this author, “the gaze is not necessarily ocular and is not concerned only with spectacle as some claim, but relies on mental perceptions. It is not ‘how we see them’ but ‘how they see us’” (2006, p. 222). Local residents are often assumed to be mute or submis- sive. That is, it has often been assumed that locals do not gaze but passively hide from the tourist gaze and try to adapt to the expectations and requirements of tourists (Haraalam- bopoulos and Pizam 1996; Mowforth and Munt 1998; Nash 1989). Recent literature, however, has unpacked a more active role of locals. Some of it has taken the shape of local gaze to discern and scrutinize tourist behavior so that appro- priate response can be crafted to cope with it. Most local gazes are informed and may be based on ste- reotyped notions of the tourists (Joseph and Kavoori 2001). Alternatively some gazes shape perceptions and consequent behavior toward the tourists. These help craft strategies to shield personal lives or construct staged authenticity by con- structing fake back and front stages. According to Chhabra, Healy, and Sills (2003), front stages are contrived to stage authenticity and these are drawn from predetermined and presold images by those in authority. MacCannell (1973) coined the term staged authenticity to explain how barriers are created to block intrusions. In the words of Urry, “Mac- Cannell’s staged authenticity arises from the social relations built around the attempts by visitors visually to consume ‘authentic places’ and people and the resistances to this by mad locals” (1992, p. 177). In sum, the host community’s response to tourists has taken the form of open resistance, veiled resistance, mediated by Hisham Gabr on October 15, 2010jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com/ Chhabra 95 resistance, retreatism into traditional norms pertaining to lan- guage and culture, deliberate boundary maintenance, and adaptation to the tourist culture or the revitalization of arts and crafts on a more positive note (Dogan 1989). Open resis- tance is used in the form of protest and agitation (Westerhausen 2002, p. 198). Veiled resistance constitutes staging and sell- ing of host images. This resistance has passive connotations in the form of “gossip, obstruction, burlesquing, sulking, and insults” (Boissevain 1995, p. 14; Bramwell 2003, p. 588). Mediated resistance involves use of effective rhetoric allow- ing an outlet for airing grievances against visitors while deflecting hostile confrontations with tourists. Retreatism is cutting oneself off from the outside environment. Boundary maintenance, on the other hand, implies retiring of host com- munities behind self-imposed boundaries that afford protection from the tourist invasion (Buck 1978). Finally, cooperation approach is used when the host community fully adapts to tourist needs. Response or the resistance level used by the host community in the face of the tourist gaze phe- nomena can thus be positioned on a scale punctuated by two extremes: open resistance to full adaptation and cooperation. This study refers to these strategies as cradled within the negotiation framework and argues that resistances are pre- mised on the perspectives and deliberations of locals while gazing back visibly or in a hidden manner. Although abundant literature focuses on impact perspec- tives of tourists and tourists in general, a folk community’s perceptions of tourist gaze and its effects on the cultural fabric as a subject of inquiry has received scant attention in tourism literature. To shed new light on this discourse, this study examines perceived impacts of tourist gazing within the framework of resistance theory. The resistance theory holds that negotiation strategy of host communities is guided by singular or multiple resistances to tourist gazing. This argument is premised on the stance that the relationship between guests and hosts is multifaceted and complicated in that “it is mediated while it is being resisted rhetorically” and this mediated resistance functions “to transform an ambiva- lent and disempowered relationship into one that is culturally acceptable to the host community” (Joseph and Kavoori 2001, p. 999). The underpinnings of the negotiation framework while guided by the resistance theory draw inferences from the folk community model. The folk community (FC) model suggests that folk societies change slowly, are immobile, and place emphasis on face-to-face personal relationships. These can however be placed on an urban and nonurban (folk) con- tinuum. “The folk-urban continuum which results from these polar concepts provides a scale along which real societies may be ranged, their position determined by the relative pro- portion of folk or urban characteristics which they display” (Redfield cited in Foster 1953, p. 160). Negotiation (adapta- tion toward increasing urbanness) is crafted as one moves toward the urban end of the continuum. The Old Order Amish The folk community under discussion here is the Old Order Amish in Iowa, United States. According to Cong, the Amish have gained a folk “museum type of quality and antique status” (1994, p. 60). Therefore, the OOA community’s per- spective in this study is regarded as the folk community perspective. The Old Order Amish, a diffused group of Ana- baptists, are descendents of the Swiss Radical Reformation. They are a branch of the Swiss group that originated from suffering and martyrdom in Europe by standing firm for their traditions. Their extensive migration to North America from Europe was encouraged by the relative freedom of move- ment and the opportunities for economic security and ethnoreligious association (Reschly 2000). These led to westward migrations and Iowa became one of the preferred locations because of good and cheap land and a chance to create new settlements. Even though thirty counties of Iowa show records of Amish and Mennonite inhabitants, bigger settlements are found only in four counties: Buchanan, Johnson, Washington, and Wright. The Amish–Mennonite divisions occurred in the late 17th century, with Mennonites leaning more toward worldliness and mingling with the mainstream culture and the Old Order Amish (often referred to as “the plain people” and the first order Amish) clinging to their ancestral traditions. The Old Order Amish (OOA) are usually distinguished from the Amish Mennonites and the Beachy Amish by their strict conformity to the use of horses on the farm and as a means of transportation, their refusal to permit electricity or telephones inside their residence, and their more traditional code of dress that includes using hooks-and-eyes fasteners on some forms of clothing. According to Reschly (2000), the OOA today are guided by approaches such as biological reproduction, cultural resistance, and a willingness to make compromises with the modern world while keeping the core values of Gelassenheit intact. Gelassenheit means submis- sion or yielding to the will of God and forms the cornerstone of OOA values. The Amish community is religiously rooted in Gelassenheit. The Amish believe in redemptive living through Ordnung and Meidung. Ordnung is the order and discipline of the community and by spelling out expected behavior, it shapes Amish life and identity (Kraybill 2001). Meidung is the shunning of erring church members who deviate from the Ordnung. It spells out punishment associ- ated with excommunication and social avoidance. The OOA are also referred to as a folk community because they are not in favor of social mobility and are slow to shift their economic and social positions. OOA folkness is thus described by its efforts to stay isolated as well as connected with the mainstream culture in an intellectual, creative, and artistic manner. The folk model lends itself to understanding the traditional character of the Amish society (Hostetler 1993). According to Redfield, the underlying premise of the by Hisham Gabr on October 15, 2010jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com/ 96 Journal of Travel Research 49(1) Folk Society Model is nonchange. Redfield defines it as “a small, isolated, traditional, simple, homogeneous society in which oral communication and conventional ways are important factors in integrating the whole of life. In such an ideal-type society, shared practical knowledge is more important than science, custom is more valued than critical knowledge, and associations are personal and emotional rather than abstract and categorical” (1955, pp. 8-9). Because most tourism images are nucleated on the special character of the OOA reflected in their living styles, and reputation for integrity and quality of agricultural produce and domestic craft products (Kraybill 2001), the impact of tourism and tourist gaze on this community in particular has been considered more profound. It is for this reason that the OOA are the subject of study and are examined using a mixed methods approach. Mixed methods research requires both collection and analysis of qualitative and quantitative data (Creswell and Clark 2007). It makes use of close-ended as well as open-ended information. By mixing these types of data sets, it is possible to provide an enhanced understanding of the research problem than if either data set were used in isolation. For the purpose of this study, sequential data col- lection was used. The OOA were surveyed in the spring and summer of 2006. Information was elicited on Amish percep- tions of tourist gaze and its impact on their community. In doing so, the extent and direction of negotiation along the open resistance–full adaptation scale is determined. In sum- mary, this study aims to answer the following research questions: What, according to the OOA, are the reasons of tourists’ gazing at them? What are the benefits and costs of tourist gazing on the OOA community? Are certain tourist types preferred by the OOA? Where are OOA positioned on the resistance continuum? Based on the answers to the afore- mentioned questions, implications for the policy makers and brokers of Amish tourism are presented. Literature Review Evidently, many studies have referred to gaze as a singular tourist gazing notion. However, recent literature has also questioned the mundaneness or muteness of gazees. It argues that tourist gaze is reciprocal and not a one-way street because it is countered or returned by the host community (Moaz 2006). Gazing is thus not a one-way phenomenon and is a result of both visual spectacle and mental discernment. Tourists gaze because they consider hosts inferior and want to exert their superiority or they are impressed with their “authenticness” and culture or are just being inquisitive (Bruner 1994; Notzke 1999). The hosts, on the other hand, gaze out of curiosity, to know the “other” to feel secure in dealing with them (Moaz 2006), or when they consider them to be intruders and modern fools (Dogan 1989). They might respond by resistance, retreating, segregating, and establish- ing demarcations, thereby blending their best to benefit themselves (Moaz 2006). Degree of cooperation or resis- tance is often suggested to stem from “social exchange,” which postulates that benefit levels generate positive atti- tudes and perceptions. This section describes local gaze and positions their response on the resistance continuum as pre- sented by previous studies. To begin with, Moaz (2006), in his examination of the local gaze on Israeli backpackers in the Indian Himalayas, argued against the asymmetrical nature of gazing in develop- ing countries. The author argued that gazing is mutual although its objective might differ among the guests and hosts. Interestingly, he stated that tourist gazing is triggered by the local gaze. Moaz’s study identified a range of responses by local Indians from cooperation to open resistance to veiled resistance. He pointed out that tourist gaze generates fear as well as a sense of cooperation to ensure tourist demands are met. Open resistance happens when “both gazes result in a tendency to didactism and in this case to educate the Israelis and teach them to behave” (Moaz 2006, p. 231). For instance, rules regarding party time and entertainment (not beyond 11:00 p.m.) were enforced by local restaurants and guest- houses. Examples of veiled resistance included staging and selling of desired images. In this case, a passive role was adopted and hostility revealed in a subtle manner. Conclud- ing arguments of the author were that such forms of resistance are often based on stereotyped images and prevent a genuine contact between guests and hosts. Local gaze has also been equated with the term reverse gaze, analogous to a second gaze or a questioning gaze that redirects the tourist gaze to the self. The “reverse gaze” term was coined by Gillespie (2006) within the context of interac- tion between tourist photo grapher and local photographee. Gillespie’s study was conducted in Ladakh, India, a popular backpacker destination for tourists. He illustrated how the “reverse gaze” of the Ladakhis caused uncomfortable emo- tions and embarrassment among tourists. In line with this argument, based on Ladakhi feedback, he concluded that the embarrassment was based on tourists’ self-perceptions, which failed to reflect the actual perspectives of the Lada- khis. Unpacking the Ladakhi view, the author reports that they were generally supportive of tourists in touristic spaces such as the festivals, expected to be photographed, and saw tourists important for the overall economic development of their region. Another reason for the Ladakhi enthusiasm was related to the assumed significance of Ladakhi culture and the impression that their culture was revered across the globe. Within the context of resistance theory, Gillespie described Ladakhi stance as one of boundary maintenance. They acknowledged economic dependence on tourism, and their negotiated response was boundary maintenance. Another study conducted by Zhihong (2007) discovered local people in an eagerly “contriving act to play different cards in order to attract tourists,” including renovation and inventing traditions. His study focused on Bai, China, and by Hisham Gabr on October 15, 2010jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com/ Chhabra 97 examined how the local culture became touristified and the social landscape altered while responding to tourism devel- opment. He talked about how a local history was made and located. For instance, the culture exhibition center was a showcase that attempted to fix and define, locate, and regu- late fluid and malleable populations and local identities (Tap 2002, p. 65). The author revealed that the local history, tradi- tions, the place, and the Bai people had willingly embraced modifications to create “Bainess” that could be sold to the tourists. The aim was to achieve their material ends so they readily exoticized and differentiated themselves. In sum, the author presented a mixed impact. According to the author, the tourist market provided a means for celebrating plural ethnicity with different expectations and interpretations from the guests’ and hosts’ perspectives. Hosts were given both the opportunity and the freedom to express who they were and what they chose to represent. This is not to say that they were what they staged and sold but to point out that in this case, tourism served to nurture a sense of being ethnically distinctive and ensured the locals a bigger share of the tourist market. With regard to the resistance theory, the results indi- cated a leaning toward adaptation and full cooperation. Evans-Pritchard (1989) examined the Southwest Indian images of the tourist that orchestrate their actual interactions with the tourists when selling arts and crafts. The author speculated that the images held by Indians guide their com- munication with tourists while at the same time help with boundary maintenance to ensure privacy and protection. Holden (1976) found that most of the references to white visitors were not straightforward. Instead they were drawn through “analogies, indirect allusions or traditional narrative figures.” The tourists “dehumanize the Indian, patronizingly turn him into something ‘cute’ and see him as a fit object for consumption” (Evans-Pritchard 1989). In sum, Indians had developed “a mental repertoire of stereotypes” that in turn informed them of multiple ways tourists could be treated when selling handicrafts. This case study projects the coex- istence of boundary maintenance and veiled resistance premised on the author’s argument that despite all negative images of tourists, Indians benefit from them. The touristic space does not reduce the level of discomfort between the tourists and the Indians but facilitates toleration for eco- nomic benefits. Another study by Joseph and Kavoori (2001) examined the host community’s response to tourism in another Asian pilgrimage town (Pushkar). Although tourism was regarded essential for the economic development of the Pushkar town, the local people perceived it as a threat to tradition and reli- gion. The author used the term mediated resistance to explain the local community’s mixed reaction toward tourism. In line with Moaz’s argument, the author questioned the asym- metrical relationship between guests and hosts in terms of gazing power. The message was that the locals should not be considered passive recipients. Instead, they use many techniques such as reverse gaze (which triggers discomfort) and staged authenticity in contrived settings to protect their back regions. Joseph and Kavoori (2001) discussed three strategies of mediated resistance that guided the local response. Accord- ing to him, three variations, exclusionary, religious, and political, constituted the most significant strategies of medi- ated resistance. Exclusionary rhetoric divided the community into insider and outsider (including domestic Indian tourists on the periphery) domains, and most problems stemming from tourism were blamed on the domestic outsiders. The religious rhetoric, however, blamed tourists for desacraliza- tion of the town. The political rhetoric on the other hand blamed the government for the negative impacts of tourism. Public participation in these different rhetorics acted to serve as channels to vent anger and frustration, thus circumventing the need for further or formal action against the tourism industry. Gazing at the Amish community in the United States and its repercussions has received a preliminary impetus in the form of a small handful of studies. Buck (1978) examined the probable impact of tourist enterprise powered by the tourism organizations in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, on the Old Amish community integration. His study was based on the participant observation technique. According to him, in line with the fact that “the Amish are reproduced and cari- catured in tourist promotion materials, area maps, and billboards,” there appears to be a high likelihood of “the Amish life being ultimately engulfed and emulsified by the socioeconomic impact of tourist experience” (Buck 1978, p. 224). However, in the face of the pervasive presence of tourists, the author is intrigued by the apparent success of this community in maintaining and continuing with their unique way of life. In regard to OOA perception of impacts, the main substance of the response was that tourists were considered a “needless nuisance,” who disturbed an other- wise quiet environment and made horse and buggy travel more difficult (Buck 1978, p. 225). The author found the boundary maintenance approach the most appropriate response. Overall, Buck’s conclusion was that the OOA did not welcome tourism and viewed tourists as “empty pleasure seeking” people (1978, p. 233). That said, the author argued that this stance actually strengthened the Amish self-identity and contributed to its “culture vigor and personal strength” (1978, p. 234). This resistance was also an added advantage for the tourism entrepreneurs who used it to discourage the free movement of tourists. In other words, the tourist enterprise sought to confine tourists within selected contact and view zones. This served a dual purpose. First, it prevented direct contact with the Amish and made it less intrusive. Second, it made the tourists dependent on the tourist enterprise. The entire scene and tour was orchestrated on imagery that “the OOA are out there and all around” even though none of them might actually be seen. by Hisham Gabr on October 15, 2010jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com/ 98 Journal of Travel Research 49(1) The boundary resistance approach was also noted by Loomis and Beegle (1957). The authors had found com- pelling arguments to justify this conjecture in the form of self-identity reinforcement of the OOA in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Boundary maintenance was described as a form of resistance that “signifies activity to retain identity, value orientation, and interaction pattern of a social system. The process of boundary maintenance requires that the system actively resists forces which tend to destroy the iden- tity and interaction” (Loomis and Beegle 1957, p. 9). The authors also concluded that the boundary maintenance helped to sustain OOA integrity (in a shielded aggressive way) and core values despite being situated in a commercial environment. Parallel inferences can be drawn from Fagence’s (2001) work focusing on the OOA at St. Jacobs in Canada. She sug- gested boundary maintenance as a stance taken by the Amish in face of intrusion. The author compared St. Jacobs with Lancaster County in the United States and considered the former as an extreme case of commercialization of Amish themes. According to her, the tourism planners at Lancaster County have crossed all limits to cater for and retain the interest of visitor groups. Although not based on empirical findings, Fagence (2001) restated Buck’s conjecture and con- sidered “boundary maintenance” a useful shield for OOA. Fagence maintained that tourism planning helped facilitate boundary maintenance by checking visitor intrusion. In sum, the aforementioned studies suggest mixed responses. While boundary maintenance is a recurrent response, other responses lie between subtle resistance and adaptation. None of the aforementioned studies reported open resistance. This study endeavors to locate Amish com- munity local gaze and the resulting resistance to tourist gazing in a region (Iowa State) with characteristics different from those found in Canada and Lancaster County, Pennsyl- vania, in terms of life-cycle stage and visitor numbers. Method The aim of this study was to bring to the fore local voices, particularly of those who have been silent receivers of tour- ism (Buck 1978; Cong 1994). Attention was on a living culture, a unique set of Amish residents: the OOA. This exclusive selection from the Amish community was impor- tant because Amish tourism heavily draws on the OOA. As reiterated by Buck, “In choosing a peculiar way of life, OOA stand out in bold relief against modern society and are tour- istically defined as something worth seeing, a scarce human species” (1978, p. 223). This paper is not intended to repre- sent all OOA across United States; instead it is intended as an exploratory study that offers an empiricist investigation on a small scale using a mixed methods approach (see Figure 1). It is hoped that this study will offer a theoretically grounded framework for large-scale studies. The empirical discussion rests on three sets of data gath- ered in the spring and summer of 2006 (see Figure 1). A mixed approach of naturalistic (qualitative) and positivist (quantitative) inquiry was used. The data were collected in three phases to address the research questions. These phases helped to answer the first three research questions inquiring about the OOA perspectives of tourist gaze, its impact in terms of benefits and costs, and preference to certain kinds of tourists. The last research question was discursive and answered by way of inferences drawn from the findings. For the first data set, a total of 12 preliminary interviews were carried out using a purposive sampling technique based on spatial dispersal of OOA families. This form of sampling follows the maximal variation sampling design. The maxi- mal variation design alludes to selection of individuals who can be differentiated according to gender, place of residence, level of schooling etc. (Creswell and Clark 2007). The cen- tral argument is that if respondents are “purposefully chosen to be different in the first place, then their views will reflect this difference and provide a good qualitative study (Cre- swell and Clark 2007, p. 1120). In this study, county of residence was used as a differentiating point. An adult member of each OOA family was interviewed by two university students the bakery shops (frequented by the OOA) in Johnson and Buchanan counties. The selection was based on convenience and accessibility. Prior to contact, permission was obtained from bakery shop owners. The respondent breakdown was as follows: five OOA families from Johnson County and seven from Buchanan County (care was taken to ensure an even representation of gender). These initial informant interviews consisted of a series of open-ended standard questions to obtain an understanding of OOA definition of authenticity, examine impressions from local gaze, and determine perceptions of tourist gaze and its impacts. Questions included What is your definition of authenticity? Why do you think the visitors/tourists seek connections with you or gaze at you? Do you benefit from the visitors/tourists who seek to interact with you? While seeking answers, the interviewer was also given autonomy to seek interesting ideas or pursue issues that arose during the intercepts. The students received training prior to the imple- mentation of the first data collection phase. Reflexivity (a critical approach for self-assessment) was used by the interviewers. The end result helped reduce personal bias and facilitated objectivity. The answers to open-ended questions were in qualitative format. They were analyzed using the data reduction method. This method helped reduce complex, iterative sets of words (Miles and Huberman 1994) and followed four steps: data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing and verifica- tion. The first step (data reduction) referred to the process of selecting, focusing, simplifying, abstracting, and transforming the data that appeared in field notes or transcriptions derived from recordings. Data displayed provided a fresh way of by Hisham Gabr on October 15, 2010jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com/ Chhabra 99 arrangement and reflection of textual answers. Conclusions and verification required retrospection and reflection of the derived meanings and terms from the data. Different themes for the open-ended questions emerged from this process. Therefore, statements were formulated to represent them. The students accomplished the data reduction task, which resulted in several items for each research question. Because multiple opinions resulted from preliminary interviews, they were listed as items to be ranked on a Likert-type scale, with 1 = strongly agree and 5 = strongly disagree. This was deemed necessary to determine level of significance attributed by the OOA to each item. The second phase focused on the main questionnaire, which included close-ended questions. Close-ended ques- tions included a list of items pertaining to reasons for tourist gazing and its impact in terms of benefits and costs. A sec- tion eliciting information on user profile was added. The OOA were surveyed in public places (such as bakery shops, roadside stands, and quilting shops) using a stratified sam- pling technique. Attempt was made to obtain an equal number of responses from each county. Although no pres- sure or incentives were placed on the respondents to facilitate participation, refusal rate was 39% from Buchanan County and 30% from Johnson County. During the survey, the objec- tives and the voluntary nature of the study were explained. The OOA were requested to write their answers on the ques- tionnaire. In some cases, the interviewers waited (a total of 5 minutes were taken on an average to answer questions) and in other cases they returned to pick it up. Overall, 36 responses were gathered. The third phase of the study focused on posttesting. It consisted of follow-up questionnaires using the member- checking approach to test for credibility and interviewer bias. This process verifies that the meanings gleaned from a questionnaire accurately reflect the perceptions and views of survey participants. Alternatively, it also helps to identify doubts and offers the respondents another chance for self- reflection. A sample of six OOA families (three from each county) who had responded to the main survey were selected and requested to answer the questionnaire again. Their answers were used to match or test the final results. Nonre- sponse bias was also tested by intercepting six additional families (not surveyed earlier) during the posttest stage. The end data resulted in a total of 42 surveys. Qualitatively equivalent measures of reliability, validity, and generalizability were applied to determine trustworthi- ness of data. For instance, member checking approach tested for reliability. Content validity was confirmed by compari- son with previous studies and a group of experts on the subject, such as two academicians, a visitor center staff, and a member of the historic society located in one of the study counties. Potential threat to sequential data was addressed by including same individuals for the second and third phases (Creswell and Clark 2007). Figure 1. Mixed Methods Approach (N = 42) Qualitative Data Collection & Analysis Posttest Quantitative Data Collection & Analysis Quantitative Data Collection & Analysis Procedures 1) One-on-one semistructured interviews (n = 12) 2) Content Analysis: Coding & thematic development Procedures 1) Questionnaire with Likert scale items and demographic items (n = 36) 2) Univariate analysis: Frequencies & averages Procedures 1) Questionnaire with Likert scale items and demographic items (n = 6) 2) Testing phase: Univariate analysis Answers matched Product 1) Field notes 2) Open-ended respondent answers on paper 3) Transcripts Product 1) Closed-ended answers: Numerical item scores Product 1) Closed-ended answers: Numerical item scores Phase IIPhase I Phase III by Hisham Gabr on October 15, 2010jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com/ 100 Journal of Travel Research 49(1) Findings The first step in analyzing the Amish perceptions was to determine the reasons that caused the tourists to gaze at them. Table 1 describes Amish perceptions of the reasons behind tourist gaze on a Likert-type scale. It is evident that the Amish perceived that it was their authenticness associ- ated with arts, crafts, woodwork, and food that transpires and inspires the gaze. According to the preliminary interviews, all OOA perceived of authenticity as centered in the primor- dial school of thought and of essentialist character, heavily drawn from past norms. In addition, equal significance was given to curiosity, fol- lowed by desire to learn about other cultures. This view is supported by the general tourist quest to seek the other, where MacCannell (1973) argues that the central drive to postmodern tourism is to discover places that seem to exist outside of history. This view is confirmed by Hawley (2005) and Kreps et al. (1997). Another important reason for tourist gaze was perceived to be entertainment. Previous research- ers have noted that spectacle often forms the core of constructed or inspired tourist gaze. It is generally transpired by promotional images designed by interest groups (Light 2000). In this case, these are more likely to be tourism orga- nizations such as the convention and visitor bureaus, chamber of commerce, and historic societies. The next significant factor was contemplation or nostal- gia for a simpler life. Lowest significance was given to opportunities to be part of their lives and social interactions. It appears that the Amish do not consider intimacy and socialization to be the core objective of gazers. It is likely that the gazers have a predetermined image of the Amish that they want to seek or confirm without stepping out of their comfort zones (Cong 1994). Fleeting experiences and views are sought based on images that are controlled by those inter- ested solely in economic benefits or with a view to distance the OOA. This explanation is supported by Buck (1978). It is possible that many tourists who gaze surrender themselves to the parameters of the gaze without questioning or drawing the object of gaze closer to their physical or personal space. Similar views were presented by Fagence (2001) and Buck (1977, 1978). Buck noted that the tourists “deliver them- selves into the hands of tourist enterprise induced and reinforced boundaries” facilitated by staged authenticity and pseudo-participation (1978, p. 233). With regard to benefits, of all the OOA interviewed, 67% felt that they benefited from tourist gazing. Table 2 ranks items that represent positive impacts. With regard to the per- ceived benefits associated with the gazing phenomena, most among the majority felt that their culture and visibility pointed out the negative consequences of the materialistic culture. In other words, their way of life can make the specta- tors question the fast pace of their own lives and thus served an educational purpose of creating awareness of simple life- styles (Hawley 2005). Next two significant factors associated with benefits of tourist gaze received parallel ratings (see Table 2). These were networking and enhancement of Amish knowledge to the innovations of the outside world. This view aligns with Hostetler’s (1993) contention that Amish are vigilant of their surroundings and are often willing to negotiate behind scenes to progressively accommodate contemporary changes in a way that complements their traditions and community. Eco- nomic numerations ranked third in order of agreement even though the majority (89%) felt tourist gaze led to higher interest in and increased sale of their merchandize. The Amish literature somewhat supports this subtle response. It is with reluctance and careful deliberations that the OOA have embraced microenterprises and deviated from farming as a result of economic hardships. The least beneficial item was “social interactions.” The Amish will rather prefer the tourists stay away (Buck 1978). Boynton (1986) noted that Table 1. Reasons for Tourist Gazing Strongly Agree/ Disagree/ Strongly Item Disagree (%) Neutral (%) Agree (%) Averagea Opportunities to be a part of your life 41.7 16.7 41.6 3.1 To have social interactions 16.7 41.7 41.7 3.2 To escape from day-to-day complexities of modernity 25.0 16.7 58.3 3.3 To explore their roots 33.3 25.0 33.0 3.4 Nostalgia for a simpler life 16.7 16.7 58.3 3.6 To contemplate 8.3 25.0 58.3 3.7 Entertainment 16.7 0.0 75.0 3.8 Learn about another culture 8.3 16.7 66.6 3.9 Curiosity 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.2 Authentic food 0.0 8.3 75.0 4.2 Authentic arts, crafts, and woodwork 0.0 12.4 83.3 4.3 a. Likert-type scale of 1 to 5, with 1= strongly agree and 5 = strongly disagree. by Hisham Gabr on October 15, 2010jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com/ Chhabra 101 the Amish prefer physical isolation. Preference for zero social interactions is premised on the need to maintain their way of life despite the “seemingly pervasive presence of tourists” (Buck 1978, p. 225). Of those who disagreed with the statement that the tourist gaze results in benefits for the OOA community, the majority felt that tourist gazing was intrusive and facilitated poor understanding of their culture (see Table 3). Many also objected to pictures being taken by tourists during such fleet- ing visits. It appears that enough information of the OOA is not made available to tourists to guide their understanding of Amish culture or sensitivity toward it. Of the brochures and descriptions of the Amish in tour mag- azines presented by the Convention and Visitor Bureaus, none provide information about how to be sensitive and less intrusive to the OOA. Instead, the media creates mythological pseudo images of a static culture waiting to be discovered. This image is facilitated by the tour guides and promotional brochures. Similar findings were reported by Buck (1977). For instance, the tour guide’s tour through the backyards of the Amish settle- ment and description of the Amish culture reiterated this view. When asked if permission was taken from the Amish, the answer was nonaffirmative. Throughout the touring experience and the rehearsed narratives, the tour guide gave the impression that an eager OOA community was waiting to unveil itself. On the question if the Amish preferred certain tourist types to other, the majority of them stated yes, with prefer- ence for respectful, polite, sensitive, less bold, and not rough-looking tourists. A couple of them stated that they “rather not have them as it is dangerous at the farm and they can hurt themselves.” Those in business preferred serious customers who through their purchasing can generate eco- nomic benefits. Finally, in response to the question “What do you feel when you see the tourists?” most responses (in their own words) were as follows: We feel like welcoming them; we are comfortable we are also curious; we try to feel if they are happy or not; I do not give them a lot of attention. They are just passers by; uncomfortable; there are occasionally intrusive types wish they were not as many and they minded their own business; hope they will buy our products; we look at their car; we feel their language and sensitivity; I are curi- ous and wonder where they are from? I am interested and concerned about them; wish they stayed away and left us alone; do not know. Discussion In regard to the first research question about Amish percep- tions of why tourists gaze at them, authentic products and curiosity appear to be the main reason. The authentic demand Table 2. Positive Impact of Tourist Gaze Strongly Agree/ Disagree/ Strongly Item Disagree (%) Neutral (%) Agree (%) Averagea Social interactions 22.2 11.1 66.7 3.4 Insight into another culture 22.2 0.0 77.8 3.6 Alternative income 11.1 0.0 88.9 3.8 Strengthens outside network 11.1 22.2 55.6 3.9 Learn new things and increase knowledge 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 Exposure to the negative impacts of modernity 0.0 0.0 75 4.0 a. Likert-type scale of 1 to 5, with 1= strongly agree and 5 = strongly disagree. Table 3. Negative Impact of Tourist Gaze Strongly Agree/ Disagree/ Strongly Item Disagree (%) Neutral (%) Agree (%) Averagea Show disrespect 57.1 28.6 14.3 2.6 Make our community uncomfortable 50.0 25.0 25.0 2.7 Increase in local crime 57.1 14.3 28.6 2.9 Stare at us and our children 42.9 28.6 28.6 2.9 Negative effect on our children 42.9 14.3 42.9 3.0 Tour buses and cars create crowding and pollution 42.9 28.6 14.3 3.3 Take pictures 12.5 12.5 75.0 3.6 Intrusion into our private lives 16.7 0.0 83.3 3.7 Lack of understanding of our culture 24.3 0.0 71.4 4.0 a. Likert-type scale of 1 to 5, with 1= strongly agree and 5 = strongly disagree. by Hisham Gabr on October 15, 2010jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com/ 102 Journal of Travel Research 49(1) view finds support in the reasons described for gazing. The OOA thus believe that demand exists for essentialist and pri- mordial products. Cohen’s (2007) version of objective authenticity (defining authenticity as an unaltered genuine- ness) and Chhabra’s (2008) stance on essentialist authenticity (measured by standards based on unadulterated and real things) resonate with this perspective. Arguably, this view is disputed by the contemporary constructivist reflections on authenticity that suggest abandonment of authenticity (Reis- inger and Steiner 2006). Constructivists hold that authenticity is fluid and is shaped by ongoing social or personal values. Thus, despite recent indications by literature of the post- modern disregard and lack of need for object authenticity, rural, handcrafted, and traditional form of authenticity still prevails in special heritage settings. In this study, this need results from the supplier’s prerogative. In argument with MacCannell’s (1973) contention that an object ceases to be authentic if labeled so, the findings show that constructed revisions of authentic forms strongly adhere to the museo- logic notion of preservation. This view is also confirmed by Joseph and Kavoori (2001). Buck (1978) points out that the OOA, as custodians in authority, have tightened their grip on heritage in the wake of kaleidoscopic constructivist ideolo- gies associated with the postmodern era. This grip has trickled down and influenced or guided selected assimilation of contemporary economic environments into the daily Amish life, thus helping craft an essentialist-driven negoti- ated stance in the form of microenterprises. In these efforts, the authentic ingredients are likely to remain omnipresent and preserved. This view is reiterated by the OOA them- selves and is also supported by Fagence (2001). Curiosity can be attributed to the notion that “Amish products carry a mystique that enhances their marketability. They are viewed as handcrafted, high quality, and unique. Public perception is very positive” (Kraybill and Nolt 1996, p. 160), Curiosity for the other world or lifestyle is a draw for tourists seeking a break from their daily mundane life. According to Fagence (2001), lack of reliance on technology (which is considered indispensable by the modern society) portrays the independent and self-sufficient characteristics of the OOA and this has heightened admiration and inquisi- tiveness of the tourists. Moreover, split opinion was noted with regard to the notion that tourists had a genuine desire to be a part of their day-to-day lives. Some tourists might have a genuine desire to learn about other cultures. This view is supported by Light (2000), who maintains that heritage tourism is an alternative form of tourism that draws a significant number of educated tourists aiming to learn about other cultures. However, paral- lel to this view, another view exists that “tourists are only a nuisance.” This view in its extreme is supported by Buck (1978), who notes that the Amish have a low opinion of tour- ists in Lancaster County because they were out there for cheap entertainment and no inclination to be ontologically a part of the OOA environment. On a positive note, this indi- cates less threat to the Amish backstage. Alternatively, this can also imply lack of seriousness on the part of tourists, who have no intention to understand deeply the object of their gaze. Their act, in their desire to drive through the Amish backyards and staring at funeral processions, can be physically intrusive and reflect disrespect for privacy. This view is supported by Yoder’s (1991) argument that the Amish are often considered unwilling objects of a flourishing tour- ism industry aimed to satisfy the cravings of visitors seeking a glimpse of a simpler and ideal world. The second research question explored benefits of tourist gaze for the OOA. As the findings reveal, the positive bene- fits of tourist gaze were mostly philanthropic. The Amish felt that exposure to their way of living transmits a social mes- sage to those entangled in the web of postmodernity, blindly racing toward capitalist-driven materialistic environments. The OOA hoped that visitors, who travel to distance them- selves from their norms, get to reflect on their existing lifestyles from a different perspective. In other words, the agrarian way of OOA life might suggest the need to slow down, build communitas, and promote a simpler life nucle- ated in rural settings. This view is supported by Kraybill and Nolt (1996, p. xii), who hold that “venturing across the fence that separates the two cultures allows us to glance back and see our own society from a different angle.” Notzke (1999), in her study of the indigenous communities in the Arctic, also demonstrated eagerness on the part of remote communi- ties to educate urbanists of the need to balance life with nature. Furthermore, the results also indicate that benefits associ- ated with economic remunerations were considered important. This is evidenced by the number of microenter- prises that have emerged in Amish settlements as an alternative to agriculture. The occupational departure from farming to microenterprises suggests that the Amish have become directly tied to the economic structure of the main- stream society. Economic exigencies have tempered with the isolated ideology of the OOA. That said, this carefully chosen alternative form of income is still viable because it complements togetherness by keeping family home and together, enabling them to retain cultural values. It is proba- ble that this source has made the OOA less isolated and more accessible and visible to the surrounding regions. According to Hostetler, “if boundaries are respected, both sides can ben- efit from each other” (1993, p. 308). Such encounters help the Amish obtain an insight into human problems in the out- side world, which frequently makes them feel content with their self-imposed isolated path. However, the extent of Amish entanglement with the mainstream society for eco- nomic reasons, in their signs “Come in, we are open” (Kraybill 2001, p. 263) also brings with it the risk of a “potential rift in the family structure where the occupational opportunities for all family members had been previously by Hisham Gabr on October 15, 2010jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com/ Chhabra 103 prescribed by convention and tradition” (Fagence 2001, p. 205). With regard to negative impacts, intrusion, lack of respect, and picture taking ranked high in terms of agree- ment. The majority of the Amish highlighted these issues. Moreover, the OOA preference for respectful and less-intru- sive tourist types supports such concerns. Similar issues were presented by Cong (1994) and Buck (1978). Last, based on the findings, contrary to previous asser- tions, the Amish appear to take a more subtle form of response on the resistance continuum. They can be posi- tioned somewhere between boundary maintenance and full cooperation. This new conjecture is termed as negotiated reciprocity (see Figure 2). It is highly likely that a more posi- tive response rests on the fact that Amish tourism in the study area is still in its development stage. This is in contrast to Lancaster County and St. Jacobs, where tourism develop- ment has reached a maturity level. Hence, in those places negative impacts might have become more visible. Alterna- tively, credit can also be given to the environmental factors that have affected both the OOA and the mainstream culture. With the overwhelming awareness on sustainability and the unfolding of postmodern externalities (such as pollution, crowding, financial issues, health problems, etc.), desire to be part of the diminishing rural environment and culture might prove to be real. With regard to the OOA, the financial problems and increasing acculturation of so many OOA fam- ilies into the mainstream culture might have made the remaining OOA more tolerant and eager to craft negotiations with the mainstream culture. In summary, the results indicate that although the OOA share European heritage with their American neighbors, they are not in favor of the progressive underpinnings of the larger culture and are carefully embracing selected elements of it for economic survival. This view is evidenced in Hostetler’s (1993) assertion that “the Amish people are neither relics of a bygone era nor a people misplaced in time.” Even though the Amish look old fashioned at first glance, they are up-to- date and selective in their choices of modernity embrace. They are neither frozen or history or a fossilized culture from a bygone era (Kraybill 2001). They are thus not static but moving slowly within the self-defined framework of negoti- ation. Over the years, they have negotiated with the ideologies that threaten their existence. Contrary to the prediction by sociologists of gradual assimilation and acculturation of the Amish into the mainstream culture, this has not happened because the OOA culture is a highly integrated culture and is more resistant to change. They have retained their symbolic and social alienation from the world through their dialect, unique dress, horse and buggy transportation, and lanterns (Kraybill 2001). However, they are constantly changing to survive and their negotiation is driven by Gelassenheit principles. Over the years, several fragmentations have taken place within the Amish communities along the urban and folk spectrum. By rejecting certain types of modernity and accepting others, some Amish appear to the outside as con- tradicting themselves. They, in fact, see this strategy as the logic of negotiated selectivity as is indicated by the study results. Today, the OOA have created a thriving enterprise of small shops. Products made of tools rendered outdated in the larger American Society that can no longer be bought in the mass market are still functional and made in Amish shops (Kraybill & Nolt 1996). Even though many outsiders may perceive the Old Order Amish as a people misplaced in time or an ethnic community that will eventually be assimilated into the mainstream of American life, selective negotiation to safeguard cultural capital serves as a protective wall. The primary limitation of this study was the sample size. All OOA families in the study area could not be surveyed because of time constraints. That said, this study is rare in its focus on the perceptions of OOA based on the gazee concept and it makes a significant contribution in cultural and heri- tage tourism literature. It was undertaken in the hope that it would produce insights for those concerned with the preser- vation of this unique community. The results have significant implications for the tourists as well as the tourism organiza- tions, such as the visitor bureaus. To the tourists, information on how they are perceived by the Old Order Amish can help generate awareness and understanding of silent communities that are reluctant to voice their opinions in public. To the tourism organizations, the results can serve as a guide to devise sensitive tours or promotional messages that are respectful, less intrusive, and able to provide economic benefits. References Andereck, K., K. Valentine, R. Knopf, and C. Vogt (2005). “Resi- dents’ Perceptions of Community Tourism Impacts.” Annals of Tourism Research, 32 (4):1056-76. Ap, J., and J. Crompton (1998). “Developing and Testing a Tourism Impact Scale.” Journal of Travel Research, 37 (2): 120-30. Beeton, S. (2004). Rural Tourism in Australia—Has the Gaze Altered? Tracking Rural Images through Film and Tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research, 6 (3): 125-37. Open resistance Full cooperation Veiled resistance Mediated resistance Retreatism Boundary maintenance Negotiated reciprocity Seclusion Assimilation • Amish Position Figure 2. Positioning the Old Order Amish on the Resistance Continuum by Hisham Gabr on October 15, 2010jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com/ 104 Journal of Travel Research 49(1) Belisle, F., and D. Hoy (1980). “The Perceived Impact of Tourism by Residents: A Case Study in Santa Maria, Columbia.” Annals of Tourism Research, 19: 665-90. Besculides, A., M. Lee, and P. McCormick (2002). “Residents’ Per- ceptions of the Cultural Benefits of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (2): 303-19. Boissevain, J. (1995). “Tourism and Development in Malta.” Development and Change, 8: 523-53. Boynton, L. (1986). “The Effect of Tourism on Amish Quilting Design.” Annals of Tourism Research, 13: 451-65. Bramwell, B. (2003). “Maltese Responses to Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research, 30 (3): 581-605. Brougham, J., and R. Butler (1981). “A Segmentation Analysis of Resident Attitudes to the Social Impact of Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research, 8 (4): 569-90. Bruner, E. (1994). “Abraham Lincoln as Authentic Reproduction: A Critique of Postmodernism.” American Anthropologist, 96: 397-425. Brunt, P., and P. Courtney (1999). Host Perceptions of Socio-cul- tural Impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 26 (3): 493-515. Buck, R. (1977). “The Ubiquitous Tourist Brochure: Exploration in Its Intended and Unintended Use.” Annals of Tourism Research, 4 (4): 195-207. Buck, R. (1978). Boundary Maintenance Revisited: Tourist Experi- ence in an Old Order Amish Community. Rural Sociology, 43 (2): 221-34. Chhabra, D. (2008). “Positioning Museums on an Authenticity Continuum.” Annals of Tourism Research, 35 (2): 427-47. Chhabra, D., R. Healy, and E. Sills (2003). “Staged Authenticity and Heritage Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research, 30: 702- 19. Cohen, E. (1988). “Authenticity and Commoditization in Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research, 15: 371-86. Cohen, E. (2007). “Authenticity in Tourism Studies: Apres La Lutte.” Tourism Recreation Research, 32 (2): 75-82. Cong, D. (1994). “The Roots of Amish Popularity in Contemporary USA.” The Journal of American Culture, 17(1): 59-66. Creswell, J., and V. Clark (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. London: Sage. Dogan, H. (1989). “Forms of Adjustment: Sociocultural Impacts of Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research, 16: 216-36. Evans-Pritchard, D. (1989). “How `They See Us’: Native American Images of Tourists.” Annals of Tourism Research, 16: 89-105. Fagence, M. (2001). Tourism as a Protective Barrier. In Hosts and Guests Revisited: Tourism Issues of the 21st Century, edited by V. L. Smith and M. Brent. New York: Cognizant Communica- tions. Foster, G. (1953). “What Is Folk Culture?” American Anthropolo- gist, 55 (2): 159-73. Fox, M. (1977). “The Social Impact of Tourism. Challenge to Researchers and Planners.” In A New Kind of Sugar: Tourism in the Pacific, edited by B. Finney and A. Watson. Honolulu: Center for South Pacific Studies, pp. 27-48. Gillespie, A. (2006). “Tourist Photography and the Reverse Gaze.” Ethos, 34 (3): 343-66. Gursoy, D., and D. Rutherford (2004). “Host Attitudes toward Tourism. An Improved Structural Model.” Annals of Tourism Research, 31 (3): 495-516. Ham, S., D. Brown, and S. Jang (2004). “Proponents or Opponents of Casino Gaming: A Qualitative Choice Model Approach.” Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 28 (4): 391-407. Haraalambopoulos, N., and A. Pizam (1996). “Perceived Impacts of Tourism: The Case of Samos.” Annals of Tourism Research, 23 (3): 503-26. Hawley, J. (2005). “The Commercialization of Old Order Amish Quilts: Enduring and Changing Cultural Meanings.” Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 23 (2): 102-14. Holden, M. (1976). “Making all the Crooked Ways Straight. The Satirical Portrait of Whites in Coast Salish Folklore.” Journal of American Folklore, 89: 271-93. Hostetler, J. (1993). Amish Society. 4th ed. Baltimore: Johns Hop- kins University Press. Joseph, C., and A. Kavoori (2001). “Mediated Resistance: Tour- ism and the Host Community.” Annals of Tourism Research, 28: 998-1009. Kim, S. (1999). “Impact of Korean Tourists on Korean Residents in Hawaii and Queensland, Australia.” In Contemporary Issues in Tourism Development, edited by D. Pearce and R. Butler. Lon- don: Routledge, pp. 257-272. Kraybill, D. (2001). Riddle of the Amish Culture. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Kraybill, D., and S. Nolt (1996). “Amish Enterprise: From Plows to Profits.” Contemporary Sociology, 25 (5): 670-73. Kreps, G., J. Donnermeyer, C. Hurst, R. Blair, and M. Kreps (1997). “The Impact of Tourism on the Amish Subculture: A Case Study.” Community Development Journal, 32 (4): 354-67. Laxon, J. (1991). “How ‘We’ See ‘Them’: Tourism and Native Americans.” Annals of Tourism Research, 18: 365-91. Light, D. (2000). “Gazing on Communism: Heritage Tourism and Post-communist Identities in Germany, Hungary, and Roma- nia.” Tourism Geographies, 2 (2): 157-76. Littrell, M., L. Anderson, and P. Brown (1993). “What Makes a Craft Souvenir Authentic.” Annals of Tourism Research, 20: 197-215. Liu, J., P. Sheldon, and T. Var (1987). “Resident Perceptions of the Environmental Impacts of Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research, 14: 17-37. Liu, J., and T. Var (1986). “Resident Attitudes toward Tourism Impacts in Hawaii.” Annals of Tourism Research, 13: 193-217. Loomis, C., and J. Beegle (1957). Rural Sociology: The Strategy of Change. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. MacCannell, D. (1973). “Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Tourist Settings.” American Journal of Sociol- ogy, 79: 589-603. McGregor, A. (2000). “Dynamic Texts and Tourist Gaze: Death, Bones and Buffalo.” Annals of Tourism Research, 27 (1): 27-50. by Hisham Gabr on October 15, 2010jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com/ Chhabra 105 Sutton, W. (1967). “Travel and Understanding: Notes on the Social Structure of Touring.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 8 (2): 218-33. Tap, N. (2002). “In Defence of the Archaic: A Reconsideration of the 1950s Ethnic Classification Project in China.” Asian Ethnicity, 3 (1): 63-84. Tosun, C. (2002). “Host Perceptions of Impacts: A Comparative Tourism Study.” Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (1): 231-58. Uriely, N. (2005). “The Tourist Experience-Conceptual Develop- ments.” Annals of Tourism Research, 32: 199-216. Urry, J. (1992). “The Tourist Gaze “Revisited.” The American Behavioral Scientist, 36 (2): 172-86. Volkman T. (1990). “Visions and Revisions: Toraja Culture and the Tourist Gaze.” American Ethnologist, 17 (1): 91-110. Waitt, G. (2000). “Consuming Heritage: Perceived Historical Authenticity.” Annals of Tourism Research, 27 (4): 835-62. Westerhausen, K. (2002). Beyond the Beach: An Ethnography of Modern Travellers in Asia. Bangkok: White Lotus Press. Yea, S. (2002). “On and Off the Ethnic Tourism Map in Southeast Asia: The Case of Iban Longhouse Tourism, Sarawak, Malay- sia.” Tourism Geographies, 4 (2): 173-94. Yoder, P. (1991). Tradition and Transition: Amish Mennonites and Old Order Amish 1800-1900. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. Zhihong, B. (2007). “Ethnic Identities under the Tourist Gaze.” Asian Ethnicity, 8 (3): 245-59. Bio Deepak Chhabra is an assistant professor at Arizona State Univer- sity in the School of Community Resources and Development. Her research interests include socioeconomic impacts of tourism, with specialized focus on gaming tourism and heritage tourism. She also has expertise in marketing. Her recent work has centered on sus- tainable marketing of culture and heritage. Miles, M., and M. Huberman (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage. Milman, A. and A. Pizam (1988). “Social Impacts of Tourism on Central Florida.” Annals of Tourism Research, 15: 191-204. Moaz, D. (2006). “The Mutual Gaze.” Annals of Tourism Research, 33 (1): 221-29. Mowforth, M., and I. Munt (1998). Tourism and Sustainability: New Tourism in the Third World. London: Routledge. Nash, D. (1989). “Tourism as a Form of Imperialism.” In Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism, edited by V. Smith. Phila- delphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 37-52. Nichols, M., D. Giacopassi, and G. Stitt (2002). “Casino Gambling as a Catalyst of Economic Development: Perceptions of Resi- dents in New Casino Jurisdictions.” Tourism Economics, 8 (1): 59-75. Notzke, C. (1999). “Indigenous Tourism: Development in the Arc- tic.” Annals of Tourism Research, 26 (1): 55-76. Perdue, R., P. Long, and L. Allen (1990). “Resident Support for Tour- ism Development.” Annals of Tourism Research, 17 (4): 420-29. Pizam, A. (1978). “Tourism Impacts: The Social Costs to the Des- tination Community as Perceived by Its Residents.” Journal of Travel Research, 16 (4): 8-12. Redfield, R. (1955). The Little Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Redfield, R. (1953). The Primitive World and Its Transformations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University of Chicago Press. Reisinger, Y., and C. Steiner (2006). “Reconceptualizing Object Authenticity.” Annals of Tourism Research, 33: 65-86. Reschly, S. (2000). The Amish on the Iowa Prairie, 1840-1910. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Rotham, R. (1978). “Residents and Transients: Community Reac- tion to Seasonal Visitors.” Journal of Travel Research, 16 (3): 8-13. by Hisham Gabr on October 15, 2010jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com/