A Framework for Increasing Understanding of Self Drive Tourism Markets

This paper aims to identify a framework for analysis of case study research into self-drive tourism and its associated markets. The history and significance of drive tourism markets around the world are briefly identified, and statistics are provided to support increased attention being paid to these markets. The lack of existing research is identified, with significant recent exceptions being this special issue of the Journal of Vacation Marketing and a collection of articles edited as a book by Carson et al.1 In order to gain greater understanding of the diversity of self-drive tourism markets and their behaviour in destinations, the framework for analysis suggests attention be paid to location (destination) description; visitor characteristics; access, including distance aspects; nature of visitor flows; expenditure patterns; attractions; accommodation; promotion; history; investment; physical infrastructure; cooperation between stakeholders; level of public sector involvement; and economic impacts and innovation

Undergraduate biotechnology students' views of science communication

Despite rapid growth of the biotechnology industry worldwide, a number of public concerns about the application of biotechnology and its regulation remain. In response to these concerns, greater emphasis has been placed on promoting biotechnologists' public engagement. As tertiary science degree programmes form the foundation of the biotechnology sector by providing a pipeline of university graduates entering into the profession, it has been proposed that formal science communication training be introduced at this early stage of career development. The aim of the present study was to examine the views of biotechnology students towards science communication and science communication training. Using an Australian biotechnology degree programme as a case study, 69 undergraduates from all three years of the programme were administered a questionnaire that asked them to rank the importance of 12 components of a biotechnology curriculum, including two science communication items. The results were compared to the responses of 274 students enrolled in other science programmes. Additional questions were provided to the second year biotechnology undergraduates and semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 13 of these students to further examine their views of this area. The results of this study suggest that the biotechnology students surveyed do not value communication with non-scientists nor science communication training. The implications of these findings for the reform of undergraduate biotechnology courses yet to integrate science communication training into their science curriculum are discussed