PAGE 52What is Action ResearchViaA review of the Literat.docx

What is Action Research?
Via
A review of the Literature
A Dissertation Extract
By
Dr. George SlentzIf you choose to use this document as part of
your research, use the following reference notation:Slentz, G.M.
(2003). A collaborative action research approach to developing
statewide information standards supporting the Delaware
education
network.
CHAPTER II
Literature Review
Inclusion Criteria
After determining the focus of this dissertation, several
Wilmington College faculty members including academic
advisors offered suggestions of relevant literature references.
In addition to those recommendations, two annotated AR
bibliographies by Dick (2002a & 2002b) provided a wealth of
relevant material to review.
The Internet served as both an independent resource as well as a
method to access EBSCOhost an electronic search engine which
accesses numerous academic databases, such as Academic
Search Premier, Masterfile, and Business Source Elite. Only
articles that offered text availability through EBSCOhost were
reviewed. Most Internet searches were conducted using

www.Google.com an excellent, in depth publicly available
search engine. In utilizing either EBSCOhost or Google,
various combinations of search words were used. For example,
one search would consist of “research and action” and the
second “action research.” Since most search engines used,
search, based on word sequence, interchanging the searching
sequence of the words was essential. The searches centered in
two specific topic areas: action research methodologies and
information technology standards.
The Wilmington College Library provided some additional
resources dealing with “research” and “researching techniques,”
as well completed Wilmington College dissertations.
Overview of Action Research Literature
Action research literature was reviewed first, including
definitions, methodologies, origins, and evolution. An in depth
examination of AR literature revealed there was no universal
AR methodology, but rather a confusing conglomeration of
methodologies all alleged to be AR. In some instances, the
differences were subtle, such as who identified the research
setting, the researcher, or the client (Schein, 2001). In other
more diverse examples, conflicting paradigms, epistemologies,
and methodologies emerged (Heron & Reason, 1997). Swepson
(1998) said, “I found some of the literature on the practice of
action research to be contradictory and this left me confused
about how to practice it” (p.2). Comments such as this one
helped this researcher appreciate that other researchers were
equally confused. The context of an AR study may appear
disparate to different researchers. This lack of clarity and
definition was quite common in AR literature, and these
discrepancies often hindered understanding and comprehension
of AR processes.
A variety of reasons for the shortcomings in AR discipline were

identified: a lack of integration in the literature,
decentralization in practice, nomenclature differences, and
conflicting opinions. An inadequacy of the literature was
acknowledged by Greenwood and Levin (1998) as they pointed
out that; “existing works are compendia, focus on a particular
variety of AR to the exclusion of others, or do not link the
history, philosophy, and practice of AR to a sufficiently broad
set philosophical and political issues” (p.5). Decentralization
alludes to the proliferation of methodologies across a variety of
concepts and disciplines. Greenwood and Levin further pointed
out that action researchers were found in social service
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, international
development agencies, planning departments and industry. In
academic institutions, action researchers were found in
disciplines such as education, planning, communications, social
services, program evaluation, sociology, anthropology, and
organizational behavior. As a result, AR practitioners do not
share common knowledge; they read different journals and
books, and “often write in ignorance of relevant contributions
of others in AR from other fields” (p. 5). Nomenclature refers
to misunderstandings that stem from the use of different
terminologies to explain similar concepts as pointed out by
O’Brien (2001) and McTaggart (1997) and reflected in the
number of names used to describe action research including:
participatory research, collaborative inquiry, emancipatory
research, action learning, and contextual research. O’Brien
stated further that they were all just variations on the AR theme,
although the approaches and methodologies were somewhat
different. McNiff, Lomax, & Whitehead (1996) highlighted
conflicting opinions on the basic purpose of AR. Kemmis and
McTaggart from their text, An Action Research Planner, (as
cited in McNiff, Lomax, & Whitehead, 1996, p. 10) stated “The
linking of the terms action and research highlights the essential
feature of the method: trying out ideas in practice as a means of
increasing knowledge.” Elliott, from his text on Action
Research for Educational Change (as cited in McNiff, Lomax, &

Whitehead, 1996, p. 9) argues, “Action research is about
improving practice rather than producing knowledge.” The two
quotes seem to be at odds; the first one emphasized increasing
knowledge, while the second one emphasized, improving
practice rather than producing knowledge.
Contradictions in the literature make it difficult to provide a
direct, focused, and definitive overview of AR. In this review,
some of the more common “AR contradictions” were addressed
by describing the similarities and differences between AR
epistemologies, methodologies, and associated processes.
The review additionally considered a variety of theories,
methodologies, frameworks, and examples involving AR usage
in the IT industry, and standardization of IT.
Action Research: Definitions, History, and Paradigms
What is and is not considered AR
In one respect, AR was effortlessly defined; because, imbedded
in the first or second paragraph of virtually all AR literature
reviewed was a working definition. However, these definitions
vary significantly in both context and content (McTaggart,
1997; O’Brien, 2001; Stringer, 1999). Some of the leading AR
researchers and practitioners’ definitions of action research are
presented first, followed by the definition of AR used in this
study. In general, the definitions reflected AR schools of
thought, methodologies, forms of praxis, and/or associated
paradigms.
1. Action research is simply a form of self-reflective enquiry
undertaken by participants in social situations in order to
improve the rationality and justice of their own practices, their
understanding of these practices, and the situations in which the

practices are carried out (Carr & Kemmis, 1986, p. 162).
2. Action research can be described as a family of research
methodologies, which pursue action (or change) or research (or
understanding) at the same time. In most of its forms it does
this by: using a cyclic or spiral process which alternates
between action and critical reflection and in the later cycles,
continuously refining methods, data, and interpretation in the
light of the understanding developed in the earlier cycles (Dick,
1999, p. 1).
3. AR is social research carried out by a team encompassing a
professional action researcher and members of an organization
or community seeking to improve their situation. AR promotes
broad participation in the research process and supports action
leading to a more just or satisfying situation for the
stakeholders (Greenwood and Levin, 1998, p. 4).
4. Action research is any systematic inquiry conducted by
teacher researchers, principals, school counselors, or other
stakeholders in the teaching/learning environment, to gather
information about the ways that their particular schools operate,
how they teach, and how well their students learn (Mills, 2000,
p. 6).
5. Social psychologist Kurt Lewin, inventor of the term “action
research” in English language, describes action research as
proceeding in a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of
planning, acting, observing, and evaluating the result of the
action. In practice, the process begins with a general idea that
some kind of improvement or change is desirable (McTaggart,
1997, p. 27).
6. Action research…aims to contribute both to the practical
concerns of people in an immediate problematic situation and to
further the goals of social science simultaneously. Thus, there

is a dual commitment in action research to study a system and
concurrently to collaborate with members of the system in
changing it in what is together regarded as a desirable direction.
Accomplishing this twin goal requires the active collaboration
of researcher and client, and thus stresses the importance of co-
learning as a primary aspect of the research process (O’Brien,
2001, p. 2).
7. Action research is a participatory, democratic process
concerned with developing practical knowledge in the pursuit of
worthwhile human purposes, grounded in a participatory
worldview which we believe is emerging at this historical
moment. It seeks to bring together action and reflection, theory
and practice, in participation with others, in the pursuit of
practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to people, and
more generally the flourishing of individual persons and their
communities (Reason & Bradbury, 2001, p. 1).
After interpreting a variety of researchers’ perspectives relating
to the genesis and definitions of AR, Stringer (1999) identified
some common themes that emerged across different schools of
thought. He noted that they all acknowledged fundamental
investment in processes that:
· Are rigorously empirical and reflective (or interpretive)
· Engage people who have traditionally been called subjects as
active participants in the research process
· Result in some practical outcome related to the lives or work
of the participants (p. XVIII).
The definitions vary significantly in that some reflected
theoretical foundations including epistemologies and related
paradigms, some praxis and methodologies, whereas others
reflected results. The diversity in definitions attributed to the

wide variety of approaches in AR process and praxis. At
minimum, it establishes the chicken or egg question of which
came first. Unless researchers and practitioners establish a
universal description of AR, AR processes, methodologies, and
praxis will most likely continue to diversify.
Stringer’s interpretation and summations of AR, fit well with
the process strategies this researcher developed and practiced
during years in IT management. So rather than attempting to
adapt to unfamiliar practices, the AR definition used for this
study is:
AR is a systematic inquiry process that results in some practical
outcome as perceived by the participants involved in the
process. AR is cyclical, involving a series of spiral steps or
activities such as planning, action, and fact-finding (Lewin,
1997) or look, think, and act (Stringer, 1999); reflection occurs
throughout each of the steps. The process engages people who
traditionally have been called subjects as active participants;
and is rigorously empirical and/or interpretive (McTaggart,
1997; Stringer, 1999; Mills, 2000).
Greenwood and Levin (1998) pointed out that AR was not
applied research. “AR explicitly rejects the separation between
thought and action that underlies the pure-applied distinction
that has characterized social research for a number of
generations” (p. 6). They believe that valid social knowledge
was derived from practical reasoning engaged in through action.
Wadsworth (1998) further characterized AR by affirming it was
“not research which sees involvement as a ‘contaminating’
process which bias the scientific effort, nor does it have a
problem with ‘researchers’ identifying with the ‘researched’,
and ‘researched for’, seeing this rather essential to the gaining
of engaged understanding” (p. 17). McTaggart (1997) also has
her list of what participator AR was not. She prefers using the
prefix participatory when referring to AR, to clarify the

intention of its originators, for whom ‘participation’ action
research implied …people doing research for themselves. A
summation of McTaggart’s clarification is provided below:
1. Participatory AR is not the usual thing social practitioners
ordinarily do when they think about their work. It is more
systematic and collaborative in collecting evidence on which to
base rigorous group reflection, and in planning change.
2. Participatory AR is not simply problem solving. It involves
problem posing, not just problem solving.
3. Participatory AR is not research done on other people. It is
research done by particular people on their own work, to help
them improve what they do, including how they work with and
for others.
4. Participatory AR is not a “method” or “technique” for policy
implementation. It does not accept truths created outside the
community or truths created by researchers working inside the
community who treat the community as an object for research.
5. Participatory AR is not “the scientific method” applied to
social (educational, agricultural) work. There is not just one
view of the scientific method, there are many. Participatory AR
is not is not just about testing hypotheses or using data to come
to conclusions.
(p. 39)
Most of the issues identified under “what AR is not” were
basically the same issues addressed under “what is AR,”
although with a reversed context. In some instances, the “what
is not” approach provided a distinct clarity that was not always
captured in a “what is” definition, as evidenced in the “not”
statement “AR is not applied research.” As a result, the

definitions provided a slightly different perspective for
comparing and contrasting established research methodologies
and epistemologies.
Focusing on what AR was not, brought to light several
ideological issues. For example, Wadsworth (1998) explained
AR was not a ‘contaminating’ process, which biases scientific
approach. This helped clarify a personal ideology that
researchers had to remain detached, unbiased, and serve
essentially as an observer, to do effective research.
Additionally, McTaggart (1997) further underscored that AR
was not research done on other people; rather AR research was
done by a particular group of people on there own work, in
order to improve what they do. This further helped this
researcher to understand that AR was a valid grounded research
approach.
AR Genesis and Early Evolution
Although AR had emerged with great diversity and diffusion, its
origin was generally agreed on by researchers and was
attributed to Kurt Lewin, who was often referred to as the father
of AR (Greenwood & Levin, 1998; Mills, 2000; O’Brien, 2001;
Reason & Bradbury, 2001;). Kurt Lewin was born in Prussia
(now part of Poland) in 1890; he studied in Germany earning his
PhD in 1916 from the University of Berlin. During this period,
he experienced anti-Semitism first hand. In 1933, he chose to
leave Germany to seek academic and personal freedoms. He
and his family moved to the United States, where he first
worked at the Cornell School of Economics, then at the
University of Iowa, and finally in 1944 he established the
Research Center for Group Dynamics at MIT (Smith, 2001).
On his way to the United States, he stopped by Cambridge
University (UK), and was given a tour of the University by Eric

Trist an aspiring literature student. Trist was so moved by
Lewin’s ideas that he changed his major to psychology, and
began a lifetime association with the Polish born social
psychologist. Trist began his career as an applied psychologist,
building upon and extending Lewin’s work and theories in
collaboration with his colleagues at the Travistock Institution in
London. Travistock became dedicated to resolving practical
problems by using AR. This AR approach later became a core
methodology in the socio-technical school (Pasmore, 2001) and
the emergence of the industrial tradition or movement
(Greenwood & Levin, 1998).
Although Mills (2000) suggested Lewin originally coined the
term ‘action research’ in 1934, O’Brien (2001) maintained that
Lewin first coined ‘action research’ in his 1946 paper “Action
Research and Minority Problems.” His paper characterized AR
as comparative research on the conditions and effects of various
forms of social action and research leading to social action. He
used a process of iterative steps also referred to as a spiral of
steps; each of which is composed of a cycle of planning, action,
and fact-finding about the result of the action.
Action research grew and expanded in Western Europe largely
through the efforts of Travistock. This new methodology was
referred to as Industrial Democracy, a systematic and large
scale AR effort in Western industrialized countries. Industrial
Democracy followed the tradition of democratic processes,
collaboration and participation of ordinary people, and the
importance of reflective thought in resolving practical
problems. Industrial democracy later expanded to the East,
finding fertile ground in Japan, where their culture readily
accepted collective work and the idea of groups taking on
problem solving and operational responsibilities (Greenwood
and Levin, 1998).
AR Paradigms and Theoretical Foundations

The notion of a paradigm or worldview as a strategic
perspective that organized our approach to being in the world
had become commonplace since Kuhn published, The Structure
of Scientific Revolutions (Heron & Reason, 1997). Kuhn
(1996) pointed out that ”accepted examples of actual scientific
practice – examples which include law, theory, application, and
instrumentation together – provide models from which spring
particular coherent traditions of scientific research” (p. 10).
The traditions inherent in paradigms, however, were not
necessarily scientifically supported, that was to say, they
represented a distillation of what we think about the world but
cannot prove (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In basic terms, Barker
(1992) defined a paradigm as “a set of rules and regulation
(written or unwritten) that does two things: it establishes or
defines boundaries; and it tells you how to behave inside the
boundaries to be successful” (p. 32).
Heron and Reason (1997) presented arguments for a
participatory worldview of inquiry paradigm while critiquing
and deconstructing competing research paradigms of positivism,
postpositivism, critical thinking, and constructivism. Lincoln
and Guba (1985), stressed postpositivism and a naturalistic
paradigm as they emphasized that it was “imperative that
inquiry itself be shifted from a positive to a postpositivist
stance. For, if a new paradigm of thought and belief is
emerging, it is necessary to construct a parallel new paradigm
of inquiry” (p. 15). O’Brien (2001) situates AR into three
varying research paradigms: positivist, interpretive, and praxis.
His interpretative paradigm had many of the same
characteristics that distinguished a postpositivist paradigm. His
praxis paradigm shared many of the perspectives of both the
positivist and interpretive paradigms, emphasizing that
knowledge was derived from practice.

This project was initially planed to employ a positivist research
paradigm; however, in reviewing different philosophical
perspectives and associated paradigms, a more middle-of-the-
road approach was employed that identified closely with
O’Brien’s (2001) praxis paradigm. The integration of both
positivist and interpretive paradigms greatly increased the
flexibility to the project by linking qualitative and quantitative
methodologies for collecting and analyzing data.
Mills (2000) provided a basic theoretical foundation that was
helpful in understanding some of the underpinnings in AR; he
classified AR into two main theories: “critical (or theory based)
action research and practical action research” (p. 7). Critical
AR derived its name from the body of critical theory on which
it was based (not because this type of AR is critical although it
may very well be used in a critical situation). Practical AR
emphasized the ‘how to approach’ and was less philosophical.
His description offered a level of clarity through simplification.
After gaining a basic understanding however, the distinctive
differences in AR processes became apparent. Further research
and understanding of the conceptional framework was needed in
order to identify a more sophisticated distinction among AR
processes. Through further research, a slightly more elaborate
framework was discovered that was usually attributed to
Habermas (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Myers, 1997; Wortley, 1996;
Masters, 1995). Carr and Kemmis (1986) describe Habermas’
proposal that “knowledge is the outcome of human activity that
is motivated by natural needs and interests” (p. 134). They
further point out, “Habermas contends that human knowledge is
constituted by virtue of three knowledge-constitutive interests
which he labels the ‘technical’, the ‘practical’, and the
‘emancipatory’” (p. 134); each interest furthermore related to a
corresponding approach of science. Habermas contends, “ the
approach of the empirical-analytic sciences incorporates a
technical cognitive interest; that of the historical-hermeneutic
sciences incorporates a practical one; and the approach of

critical oriented sciences incorporates the emancipatory
cognitive interest” (Habermas, 1968/1972, p. 308). Based on
Habermas’ analysis, Kemmis (2001) and his group constructed a
three-tiered model that related the interests of empirical -
analytic (technical), hermeneutics (practical), and critical
(emancipatory) to AR. Empirical-analytic or natural science
relates to technical interest usually affiliated with ‘work’; its
main focus was a ‘means to an end’, and a means to getting
things accomplished effectively by following a positivist
paradigm. Hermeneutics or interpretative science related to a
practical interest and involved wise and prudent decision-
making in practical situations. Critical science related to
emancipatory interests and involved emancipating people from
determination of habit, custom, illusion, and coercion (Carr &
Kemmis, 1986; Kemmis, 2001). Using Habermas’ framework,
examples of AR processes that coincide with his theoretical
foundations are provided below. As mentioned previously,
theoretical frameworks were not usually included in the
literature describing AR processes or methodology. Therefore,
the placing of an AR process into one of Kemmis’ three tiers
was based on this researcher’s interpretations of the most
prominent characteristics of each particular AR process. The
examples selected have relatively straightforward or clear cut
characteristics and require minimal interpretation to classify
them into Habermas’ three-tier model.
Empirical-analytic. According to Kemmis (2001), this was a
‘Means to an end’ form of AR problem solving; and regarded as
successful when the outcome matched the aspirations, or when
the goal of the project had been attained. Empirical-analytic
was oriented towards functional improvement measured in terms
of its success in changing particular outcomes of practice. Most
examples aimed to increase or decrease the incidence of a
particular outcome, such as increasing the rate of production in
a factory. This form of AR was a form of ‘problem-solving’,
and was regarded as successful when outcomes matched

aspirations. Researchers do not normally question the goals or
how the situation is conducted or constructed. “It takes a
narrow, generally ‘pragmatic’ (in the ordinary-language use of
the term) view of its purpose” (p. 92).
O’Brien (2001) provided a similar theoretical framework, but he
referred to empirical-analytic as traditional AR that stemmed
from Lewin’s work within organizations and encompassed the
concepts and practices of field theory, group dynamics, T-
groups, and the clinical model. He pointed out, this approach
was relatively conservative, generally maintaining the status
quo of the power structure of the organization.
Technical AR as described by Carr and Kemmis (1986) occurred
when facilitators persuade practitioners to test the findings of
external research in their own practices, and where the outcome
of the tests feed new findings in external literature. The
emphasis was on developing and extending the research
literature base not on improving practice through collaborative
or self-reflective control.
In general, AR under this framework was accomplished within
the parameters of a positivistic paradigm. Although not a
necessity, technical AR most likely employed a quantitative
methodology for data collection and focused on progressive
achievement towards a particular goal or outcome. Early
methodologies did not involve changing social structure or
consider the affects of learning or knowledge growth that may
occur during the process. Two AR processes that follow this
framework were Industrial Democracy and Sociotechnical.
The Industrial Democracy tradition was born when Travistock
researchers lead by Eric Trist, assisted a Norwegian coal mining
company with improving democracy at the shop-floor level.
Trist employment of Kurt Lewin’s change model in the study
resulted in the development of the first generation of action
research processes and methodologies. Lewin’s’ model

simplified the ‘change process’ into three basic steps of
unfreezing, moving, and freezing (Lewin, 2000). Greenwood &
Levin (1998) further pointed out that both experimental design
and change processes were prominent in the early development
of the Industrial Democracy tradition in AR. These early
methodologies required researchers to complete research
analysis, recommend a new design approach, and then structure
the processes by which the changes were implemented.
Changes were implemented and then the organization was
permitted to develop a stable state incorporating the changes.
Greenwood and Levin also stated, “Consultation with the
participants was not to be found” (p. 29).
Industrial Democracy focused on ways research results
improved participants’ abilities to control their own situations
as a result of a redesigned organization. Further, it began the
first reflections about designing research processes that
redefined the relationship between researchers and participants
(Greenwood & Levin, 1998). Researchers working within this
tradition played a clear-cut expert role; they collected data,
analyzed it, and developed recommendations for a new design.
Researchers involved the workers who were directly affected by
the change only during the implementation stage in the change
process. Although the seminal studies on the Norwegian coal
mining company had great bearing on AR development,
Pasmore (2001) pointed out that the studies were not true
examples of AR since the researchers served as observers of the
naturally occurring experiments rather than collaborators in the
planning and evaluation of the experiments.
The single major significant outcome that sprouted from the
Industrial Democracy tradition was the development of
sociotechnical thinking (Greenwood & Levin, 1998). This also
represented a major shift from the prevalent ‘Tayloristic-
Scientific Management’ thinking, where technology and
management control were dominant. In the new paradigm of

sociotechnical design (as cited by Greenwood and Levin, 1998),
Trist differentiated between the old and new management
paradigms. Trish pointed out in the old Scientific Management
(associated with Taylor) paradigm, that man was an extension of
the machine and an expendable spare part; the organization
chart defined a hierarchy, and operation was through
competition and gamesmanship. In the new (sociotechnical)
paradigm, Trist offered a fresh perspective in that he viewed
man as complementary to the machine and as a resource to be
developed; the organization (chart) was designed flat and
operation was through collaboration and collegiality.
Sociotechnical thinking evolved, integrating other theories and
models into the developing process. One other significant new
perspective was the addition of Von Bertalanffy’s theory of
open systems, better known as general systems theory (GST).
Systems thinking observed organizations as complex systems
made up of interrelated parts most usefully studied as an
emergent whole (Flood, 2001). As sociotechnical systems
theory evolved, it included the technical system as well as the
material being worked on, the level of mechanization or
automation, operations including centrality, and a variety of
other impacting functions. In general, sociotechnical systems
theory viewed the technical system as an integral part of the
larger ‘work’ system as a whole. According to Greenwood and
Levin (1998), the systems approach underlies AR in all of its
manifestations. Both AR and GST rely heavily on a holistic
view of the world and on relative efforts to transform society
into more open systems.
Hermeneutics. According to Greenwood and Levin (1998),
“Hermeneutics is based on the ontological position that the
world is subjective and the epistemological project is to make
interpretations of the subjective world” (p. 68). This
interpretative view had a long history beginning as a science for
interpreting biblical texts (Carr & Kemmis, 1986). By the

eighteenth century, it was also used for interpreting literature,
works of art, and music. By the late nineteenth century, the
social sciences expanded their epistemological basis by
embracing hermeneutics. Denzin (2001) reflected on its use in
the social sciences by recognizing that properly conceptualized
interpretative research became a civic, participatory, or
collaborative project that joins the researcher with the
researched in an ongoing moral dialogue.
O’Brien (2001) provided a similar theoretical framework,
referring to practical AR as contextural AR or action learning.
AR was contextural, insofar as it involved reconstituting the
structural relations among actors in a social environment; it was
co-generative, in that it attempted to involve all affected
stakeholders; holistic, as each participant understood the
entirety of the project; and collaborative, by stressing that
participants acted as project designers and co-researchers.
Within this framework, social transformation occurred by
consensus and normative incrementalism. This approach
closely aligned with the CAR process used to develop IT
standards in this study.
In practical AR, external facilitators form cooperative
relationships with practitioners, helping them to articulate their
concerns (Carr & Kemmis, 1986). In collaboration, they planed
the strategic actions necessary for change, monitor the problems
and effects of changes, and reflected on the value of the
changes. Through this process, the stakeholders were
responsible for monitoring their own educational practices with
an immediate aim of expanding their personal knowledge of the
project. McNiff (2000) further described collaboration as a
caring praxis. While we aim to develop and maintain our own
and others’ autonomy, this was always done with respect for
others. McNiff stated, “In this sense, collaboration becomes an
effort to develop mutually respectful autonomy, a practice in
which people work together as equals, engage in the give and

take of negotiating positions, and agree settlements which are
then subjected to critical processes of evaluation and
modification” (p. 217). Collaboration is an attitude, requiring a
willingness to listen and communicate as well as move in the
direction of commonly agreed practice.
Practical AR gets its title because it developed the practical
reasoning of practitioners. Carr and Kemmis further stated that,
“It is to be distinguished from technical AR because it treats the
criteria by which practices are to be judged as problematic and
open to development through self-reflection, rather than treating
them as given” (p. 203). Kemmis (2001) further distinguished
that, unlike technical AR, practical action researchers aim just
as much at understanding themselves and changing themselves
as the subjects of a practice, as changing the outcomes of the
practice.
There are many AR processes that follow the hermeneutic
approach. In fact, the majority of AR processes and derivatives
of those processes employ an interpretative strategy. However,
rather than discussing multiple process and variations, two AR
processes that provided a level of diversity and interest are
community-based AR and action science.
Community–based AR seeks to change the social and personal
dynamics of the research situation, providing a noncompetitive
and nonexploitative as well as enhancing the lives of all those
who participate (Stringer, 1999). By employing a collaborative
approach to inquiry, community–based AR seeks to build
positive working relationships, productive interactions, and
communicative styles among participants.
Community–based AR further draws on an explicit set of social
values and was seen as an inquiry process that employed the
following characteristics: democratic – encouraging
participation from all; equitable – acknowledging peoples

worth; liberating – providing freedom from oppression; and life
enhancing – encouraging peoples full potential. According to
Stringer (1999), all stakeholders whose lives are affected by the
problem should be engaged in the investigation process.
Stakeholders participate in a process of rigorous inquiry;
collecting information and reflecting on that information,
hoping to transform their understanding about the nature of the
problem under investigated. The new set of understandings is
applied to an implementation plan for resolution of the problem
that in turn can be re-evaluated.
There were a few key features to community–based AR worth
noting for their relevance to this study. First, community–based
AR follows a hermeneutic approach to evaluation, which
implies a more democratic, empowering, and humanizing
approach to inquiry. Second, community–based AR very
closely parallels Participatory AR, which is discussed in the
critical AR section of this review. Emancipation appears to be
the only difference between the two processes. While both
process involve all stakeholders, participatory AR aims to
liberate stakeholders from a social injustice by changing
individual actions or thinking on one hand, while
simultaneously changing the culture of the groups, institutions,
societies to which they belong (McTaggart, 1997). Within the
framework of critical AR, emancipation was a significant factor
in the inquiry and expectations. Within the framework of
community-based AR, Stringer acknowledged the necessity for
confrontational action in some situations, however, “it is
fundamentally a consensual approach to inquiry and works from
the assumption that cooperation and consensus making should
be the primary orientation of research activity” (p. 21).
Action science grew out of the work competed by John Dewey
and Kurt Lewin (Argyris, Putnam, & Smith, 1985; Schön,
1983). A variety of definitions written by either Chris Argyris
or Donald Schön are available describing action science. In

fact, Friedman (2001) compiled four of their definitions into a
composite definition. Action science is “a form of social
practice which integrates both the production and use of
knowledge for the purpose of promoting learning with and
among individuals and systems whose work is characterized by
uniqueness, uncertainty, and instability” (p. 159).
Action science according to Argyris and Schön (1996) focused
on the problem of creating conditions for collaborative inquiry
in which people in organizations function as co-researchers
rather than merely as subjects. They further conveyed that
people were more willing to share information about their own
intentions and reasons for actions when they share ownership of
the process generating, interpreting, testing, and using the
information.
According to Ellis and Kiely (2000), action science was an
inquiry approach suited to an organization culture, which
appreciates double-loop learning and was committed to
interpreting knowledge in a way that revealed organizational
patterns, process, and defensive routines. Action science
intervention was psychological since it explored innermost
feelings and emotional reactions, some of which were protected
by personal defense mechanisms. As these defense mechanisms
breakdown, individuals may feel vulnerable and exposed. Risks
to self and others involved were reduced if the group
themselves were sensitive to others feelings and ensured
participants finish sessions on a positive note.
Critical AR. Critical AR owes its origins to theories that
intended to enlighten, empower, and emancipate people from
oppression (Brown and Jones, 2001). This branch of AR
includes participatory, southern participatory, contemporary
feminist analysis, (Greenwood & Levin, 1998) as well as some
educational initiatives (Mills, 2000) and was drawn from the
critical theory of Habermas, neo-Marxism, and liberationist
philosophies. Kemmis (2001) believed, this form of AR aimed

at improving outcomes and the understanding of practitioners,
assisting practitioners in work critiques, as well as intervening
in the cultural, social, and historical process of everyday lives
and activities.
O’Brien (2001) outlined a similar theoretical framework,
referring to critical AR as radical AR and described its roots as
Marxian - ‘dialectical materialism’. Additionally critical AR
had a strong focus on overcoming of power imbalances and
emancipating those with little power. Participatory AR often
found in liberationist movements and feminist analysis both
strived for social transformation via an advocacy process to
strengthen peripheral groups in society.
The common descriptor in each of the provided perspectives of
critical AR was the term emancipatory. The goal of critical AR
was liberation through knowledge gathering (Mills, 2000).
Critical AR had its roots in the critical theory of the social
sciences and humanities, and draws heavily from postmodern
theory, challenging the notion of truth and objectivity that
traditional scientific theory relies upon. According to Mills
(2000), “postmodernists argue that truth is relative, conditional,
and situational, and that knowledge is always an outgrowth of
prior experience” (p. 8). Further, critical AR pulls apart and
examines the mechanisms of knowledge production while
questioning many of the basic assumptions on which modern
life is based.
Numerous AR approaches and processes were included under
the umbrella of critical AR. There was little standardization of
nomenclature and what one researcher referred to as
participatory AR another researcher referred to as participator
research or emancipatory AR. Action research terminology was
always complex, and nowhere more than when describing
participatory action research (PAR). For some, PAR and AR

indicated the same process, for others the process was very
different (Greenwood & Levin, 1998).
According to McTaggart (1997), PAR described a
convergence of traditions in certain kinds of action research and
participatory research. The term participatory was a necessity
that distinguished ‘authentic’ action research from the
miscellaneous array of research types that fall under the
descriptor ‘action research’, when requesting information from
databases. The term action research was used to describe
almost every effort and method under the sun that attempted to
inform action in some way. When contemplating work or trying
to distinguish work that claims to be participatory action
research, McTaggart suggests three general questions be asked.
How is this example participatory research? What does this
example tell us about the criteria we might use to judge claims
that an endeavor is participatory action research (to test our
theory of what participatory action research is)? And most
important of all, what contributions has this example made to
the improvement of the understanding, practice, and social
situation of participants and others in the context described? (p.
26)
The process of PAR was inadequately described in terms of
mechanical steps or sequence, because it is not a self-contained
process (Kemmis & Wilkinson, 1998). PAR does involve a
spiral of self-reflective cycles of: planning a change, acting and
observing the process, reflecting on the process, and finally re-
planning based on the outcome of the action initiated and
resulting change. In reality, these stages or steps overlapped,
and initial plans quickly became obsolete in the light of
learning from experience. The process was fluid, open, and
responsive. The steps were not as important as the participants’
involvement, and knowledge gained as well as the evolution of
their practice.

The future of PAR looks promising, as it continues to grow in
popularity and evolve contextually. As a result of the 1997
World Congress (on AR), Fals Borda (2001) identified seven
emergent tasks that would lead to further growth of this field of
inquiry. Additionally, he emphasized that the merging ways in
which participation, action, and research were articulated would
determine the success and survival of different PAR schools.
He argued the positive effects that PAR has on communities,
cities, families, churches, enterprises, and business must be
considered, as well as the fact that PAR can contribute to
advances in science and technology, as well as changing social
patterns and enrichment of human culture.
References
Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. (1985). Action science:
Concepts, methods, and skills for research and intervention.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning
II: Theory, methods and practice. Reading, MA: Addison
Wesley.
Baker, C. R. (2000, December). Towards the increase use of
action research in accounting information systems. Accounting
Forum24, 366-379. Retrieved November 24, 2002 from the
Masterfile database.
Barker, J.A. (1992). Paradigms: The business of discovering
the future. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Brown, T., & Jones, L. (2001). Action research and
postmodernism: Congruence and critique. Philadelphia, PA:
Open University Press.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education,
knowledge, and action research. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer

Press.
Denzin, N. K. (2001). Interpretive interactionism. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dick, B. (1997). A beginner’s guide to action research. Action
Research International. Retrieved June 8, 2001 from Southern
Cross University, Action Research Resources web site:
http://www. scu.edu.au/schools/sawd/ari/arr/guide.html
Dick, B. (1999). What is action research? . Retrieved October
4, 2002 from Southern Cross University, Action Research
Resources web site:
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/whatisar.html
Dick, B. (2002a). An action research bibliography. Retrieved
October 6, 2002 from Southern Cross University, Action
Research Resources web site:
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/biblio.html
Dick, B. (2002b). Recent books on action research and related
topics. Retrieved October 30, 2002 from Southern Cross
University, Action Research Resources web site:
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/books.html
Ellis, J. H. M., & Kiely, J. A. (2000). The promise of action
inquiry in tackling organizational problems in real time. Action
Research International, Paper 5. Retrieved March 7, 2001 from
Southern Cross University, Action Research Resources web
site:http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/ari/p-jellis00.html
Fals Borda, O. (2001). Participatory (action) research in social
theory: Origins and challenges. In Reason, P. & Bradbury, H.
(Eds.) Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry &
practice (pp. 27-37). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Flood, R. L. (2001). The relationship of ‘systems thinking’ to
action research. In Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (Eds.)
Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry & practice
(pp. 133-144). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Friedman, V. J. (2001). Action science: Creating communities
of inquiry in communities of practice. In Reason, P. &
Bradbury, H. (Eds.) Handbook of action research: Participative
inquiry & practice (pp. 159-170). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, D. (1998). Introduction to action
research: Social research for social change. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests (Shapiro,
J. J., Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press. (Original work published
1968)
Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry
paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry,3(3). Retrieved October 7, 2002
from the Masterfile database.
Kemmis, S. (2001). Exploring the relevance of critical theory
for action research: Emancipatory action research in the
footsteps of Jürgen Habermas. In Reason, P. & Bradbury, H.
(Eds.) Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry &
practice (pp. 91-102). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kemmis, S., & Wilkinson, M. (1998). Participatory action
research and the study of practice. In Atweh, B., Kemmis, S. &
Weeks, P. (Eds.) Action research in practice: Partnership for
social justice in education (pp. 21-36). New York, NY:
Rutledge.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd
ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Levin, M., & Greenwood, D. (2001). Pragmatic action research
and the struggle to transform universities into learning centers.
In Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (Eds.) Handbook of action
research: Participative inquiry & practice (pp. 103-113).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lewin, K. (1997). Resolving social conflicts & field training
in social science. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Masters, J. (1995). The history of action research. Action
Research Electronic Reader. Retrieved November 24, 2002
from Southern Cross University, Action Research Resources
web site:
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arr/arow/masters.html
McNiff, J. (with Whitehead, J.) (2000). Action research in
organizations. New York, NY: Routledge.
McNiff, J., Lomax, P., & Whitehead, J. (1996). You and your
action research project. New York, NY: Routledge.
McTaggart, R. (Ed.). (1997). Participatory action research:
International contexts and consequences. Albany, NY: SUNY.
McTaggart, R. (1998). Is validity really an issue for
participatory action research? Studies in Culture,
Organizations, and Societies4(2). Retrieved July 8, 2001 from
the Masterfile database.
Mills, G.E. (2000). Action research: A guide for the teacher
researcher. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
O’Brien, R. (2001). An overview of the methodological
approach of action research. Retrieved July 3, 2002 from the
World Wide Web:
http://www.web.net/~robrien/papers/arfinal.html
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001) Introduction: Inquiry and
participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration.
In Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (Eds.) Handbook of action

research: Participative inquiry & practice (pp. 1-14). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schein, E. (2001). Clinical inquiry/research. In Reason, P. &
Bradbury, H. (Eds.) Handbook of action research: Participative
inquiry & practice (pp. 228-237). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How
professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Stringer, E. T. (1999). Action research (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Swepson, P. (1998). Separating the Ideals of research from the
methodology of research, either action research or science, can
lead to better research. Action Research International, Paper 2.
Retrieved
March 7, 2002 from Southern Cross University, Action
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/sawd/ari/ari-swepson.html
Wadsworth, Y. (1998). What is participatory action research?
Action Research International. Retrieved March 7, 2002 from
Southern Cross University, Action Research Resources web site:
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/sawd/ari/ari-wadworth.html
Wortley, S. (1996). Business as usual or action research in
practice? Action Research Electronic Reader. Retrieved
November 24, 2002 from Southern Cross University, Action
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arr/arow/rwortley.html
PAGE
http://jtr.sagepub.com/

Journal of Travel Research
http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/05/04/0047287514532
367
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0047287514532367
published online 5 May 2014Journal of Travel Research
Riyad Eid and Hatem El-Gohary
Muslim Tourist Perceived Value in the Hospitality and Tourism
Industry
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/early/2014/05/04/0047287514532
367.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- May 5, 2014OnlineFirst Version of Record >>
at U.A.E University on May 5,
2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at U.A.E University on
May 5, 2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Journal of Travel Research
1 –14
© 2014 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0047287514532367
jtr.sagepub.com
Article

Introduction
Delivering value for customers in hospitality and tourism
industry is heralded by some as the next source of competi-
tive advantage (see, e.g., Al-Sabbahy, Ekinci, and Riley
2004; Prebensen et al. 2013; Woodruff 1997; Zamani-
Farahani and Henderson 2010). The recent development of
publications in the area may give rise to the impression that
customer value has become an area of increasing interest to
marketers as it has emerged as a key determinant of con-
sumer decision making. According to Choi and Chu (2001),
to be successful in the hospitality and tourism industry, com-
panies must provide superior customer value and this must
be done in a continuous and efficient way. Furthermore,
tourism companies should improve the quality of their ser-
vices offerings and ensure that the needs and expectations of
their customers are being met (Haywood 1983).
In responding to these developments, tourism industry is
progressively moving away from mass marketing and is
instead pursuing more sophisticated approaches to segment-
ing tourist markets to address the distinct consumer psychol-
ogy of a particular target market. As a result, a religious
perspective on travel and other purchase decisions is prefer-
able to other segmentation variables such as demographic
characteristics of age and life stage, which have traditionally
been used to identify market segments (Gardiner, King, and
Grace 2013). However, value creation especially in the tour-
ism industry is always a collaborative and interactive process
that takes place in the context of a unique set of multiple
exchange relationships provided through services (Vargo
2009). This actually calls for a move from thinking of cus-
tomers as isolated entities to understanding them in the con-
text of their own networks, backgrounds, and religions.
Meanwhile, there are new trends and developments such

as the investment and adoption of business practices based
on the Islamic principles of Shari’ah “Islamic law” (Essoo
and Dibb 2004; Laderlah et al. 2011; Meng, Tepanon, and
Uysal 2008; Stephenson, Russell, and Edgar 2010;
Weidenfeld and Ron 2008; Zamani-Farahani and Henderson
2010; Zamani-Farahani and Musa 2012). For example,
Essoo and Dibb (2004) found that religion influences tour-
ism behavior among Hindus, Muslims, and Catholics.
Weidenfeld and Ron (2008) also found that religion influ-
ences the destination choice, tourist product favorites, and
selection of religious opportunities and facilities offered.
Laderlah et al. (2011) reported the various features and pop-
ular destinations of Islamic tourism as practiced in Malaysia.
Finally, Meng, Tepanon, and Uysal (2008) found that
532367 JTRXXX10.1177/0047287514532367Journal of Travel
ResearchEid and El-Gohary
research-article2014
1College of Business and Economics, United Arab Emirates
University,
Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates
2Faculty of Commerce, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt
3Birmingham City University Business School, Birmingham,
United
Kingdom
4Cairo University Business School, Cairo, Egypt
Corresponding Author:
Riyad Eid, United Arab Emirates University, Collage of
Business and
Economics, Al-Ain, POB; 15551, Al-Ain, United Arab
Emirates.
Email: [email protected]
Muslim Tourist Perceived Value in the
Hospitality and Tourism Industry

Riyad Eid1,2 and Hatem El-Gohary3,4
Abstract
Perceived value is a subjective and dynamic construct that
varies among different customers and cultures. Although
perceived
customer value has been studied by many researchers, no
research has been done into the measurement of Muslim Tourist
Perceived Value (MTPV) where Muslim tourist evaluates both
traditional and religious aspects of value. By means of a
multidimensional procedure, the authors developed a scale of
measurement of MTPV through 24 items grouped into six
dimensions: quality, price, emotional, social, Islamic physical
attributes, and Islamic nonphysical attributes. The importance
of the proposed constructs was theoretically justified. Using a
sample of 537 Muslim tourists, the constructs were tested
and validated. The results supply tourism companies with a
number of operative factors that may be essential if they are to
remain competitive in the dynamic marketplace. This study is
probably the first to provide an integrative perspective of
MTPV
constructs in the hospitality and tourism industry.
Keywords
customer value, Muslim, tourism and hospitality and scale
development
2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
2 Journal of Travel Research
tourists select destinations that are supposed to best fulfil

their internal desires or preferred destination attributes.
However, although Muslims make up one of the largest
tourist markets in the world as Muslim population consti-
tutes an international market of 2.1 billion possible custom-
ers (Muslim Population Worldwide 2013), the world’s
Muslim population is projected to grow by about 35%
between 2010 and 2030 (Jafari and Scott 2013), and market-
ing scholars have long studied “perceived value” and pro-
posed various conceptualizations of the term (Benkenstein,
Yavas, and Forberger 2003; Dumand and Mattila 2005;
Dumond 2000; Gallarza and Saura 2006; Holbrook 1994;
Nasution and Mavondo 2008; Oh 2003; Peterson 1995;
Petrick 2002; Ravald and Gronroos 1996; Sanchez et al.
2006; Roig et al. 2009), perceived value of tourism offering
oriented toward this market has not been clearly defined
(Laderlah et al. 2011; Stephenson, Russell, and Edgar 2010;
Zamani-Farahani and Henderson 2010; Zamani-Farahani
and Musa 2012).
Undoubtedly, although academics have built considerable
theoretical knowledge on the conceptualization of perceived
value, research about its true meaning that applies to different
customer groups is still few. Very little is known about what
makes up value for different customer groups that come from
various cultural backgrounds (e.g., Muslims). Understanding
Islamic values must be seen in local contexts as type of
“Glocalization” (Robertson 1994; Salazar 2005) and call for a
dramatic change that moves the concept of value-in-use to a
more descriptive “value-in-context” concept (Vargo 2009).
This actually supports Lusch and Vargo’s (2011) view that
“value is always uniquely and phenomenologically deter-
mined by the beneficiary” and is also idiosyncratic, experien-
tial, contextual, and meaning laden. Certainly this embraces a
multiple-perspective (Lusch and Vargo 2011, p. 1303).

Therefore, further explorations are needed to broaden the
concept as they should fit to the needs and expectations of
Muslim consumers. Islamic tourism also is still in its infancy
and yet not well established for many researchers as there is
a great need for having more well-established studies that
can be considered as a step toward a theory building in the
field of Islamic tourism (Al-Hamarneh and Steiner 2004;
Scott and Jafari 2010; Zamani-Farahani and Henderson
2010; Henderson 2008, 2011).
To bridge this gap various conceptual and empirical stud-
ies investigating the concepts of Tourist value, and MTPV
were studied. Their findings highlight the fact that on top of
the traditional dimensions that help in creating value for
tourists, there are more factors that have a direct impact on
successful creation of MTPV. Model, definitions, tech-
niques, and discussion of these factors and how could they
affect MTPV are described in the following sections.
Research Objectives
The purposes of this research are to identify MTPV dimen-
sions and develop items of measuring these dimensions,
empirically validate the scales, and carry out an initial inves-
tigation of the relationship, if any, among the MTPV dimen-
sions. The reminder of this paper is organized as follows.
First, a review of relevant MTPV literature is presented. This
is followed by identification of MTPV dimensions and
development of related scales. Empirical validation of the
dimensions is presented next. On the basis of an exploratory
analysis of the statistical relationships among various MTPV
dimensions, managerial implications are offered. The paper
concludes with recommendations for future extension of this
research.
Literature Review

Islamic Tourism
Islamic tourism seems to be a new concept for most of the
researchers and practitioners in the field of tourism, which is
not true as the concept is very old and can be traced to the
early days of the Islamic civilization and the Abbasid times.
In the early days of Islamic history, where the Islamic empire
covered vast geographical areas of Asia, Africa, and parts of
Europe, Muslims got the chance of travel across the three
continents safely and without any constraints such as pass-
ports, borders, or even security investigations. After the
death of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), the Islamic empire
expanded north into Syria (636 CE), east to Persia and
beyond (636 CE), west into Egypt (640 CE), and then to
Spain and Portugal (711 CE) (Donner 2004). Islam arrived in
the area known today as Pakistan in 711 CE. The Ottoman
Empire (the Turkish dynasty that ruled the Ottoman Empire
from the 13th century to its dissolution after World War I)
expanded into the Balkan area, taking present-day
Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Serbia, Macedonia,
Montenegro, Bosnia, and Hungary. The Ottomans laid siege
to Vienna in 1683 CE but were defeated; from 1699 to 1913
CE, wars and insurrections pushed the Ottoman Empire back
until it reached the current European border of present-day
Turkey (Jafari and Scott 2013).
Islamic tourism is deeply rooted with the Islamic Shari’ah
where every Muslim is demanded to visit the holy city of
Makah (in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) to conduct Hajj
(the fifth pillar of Islam) if he/she can afford to do that finan-
cially and physically. Accordingly, any Muslim that does not
actually live in that holy city needs to conduct tourism activi-
ties to fulfill his/her Shari’ah requirements. Furthermore,
millions of Muslims travel to the holy city of Makah every
year to perform Umrah (Jafari and Scott 2013). Furthermore,
Quranic evidence (Islam’s holy book) has been presented

regarding the vital importance of travel. The Holy Quran
explains in Surat Al-Ankabout (literally, The Spider):
“Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate
creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has
power over all things” (Surat Al-Ankabout, verse number
20).” Therefore, based on this quote from Qur’an, Muslims
are encouraged to do so for historical, social, and cultural
Eid and El-Gohary 3
encounters, to gain knowledge, to associate with others, to
spread God’s word, and to enjoy and appreciate God’s cre-
ations (Timothy and Olsen 2006 ).
However, Muslims practice two different types of tourism
activities. First, pilgrimage-tourism activities or what is
called Hajj: Hajj in Islam is performed in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia within a specific geographical territory
(Almasha’er Almoukadasa) include the holy mosque in
Makkah, Arafat, Muzdalifah, and Mina. It is performed in
specific period, from the 8th to the 13th of the 12th month
(Dhul-Hijja) according to the Hegira calendar. Allah (SWT)
says in the holy Quran, (Surat Albakara), verse number 197:
“Al-Hajj Ashoron Maalomat,” which means that Hajj is per-
formed only at a particular time of the year (Eid 2012).
Muslims who are taking part in this great event should act in
a good manner. Allah says in the holy Quran, chapter 2
(Surat Albakara), verse number 197: “If any one undertakes
that duty therein, Let there be no obscenity, nor wickedness,
nor wrangling in the Hajj.” It means that whoever decides to
go for Hajj should have good manners, so, there shouldn’t be

any immortality, sensuality, or arguments in Hajj.
Undoubtedly, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as the Hajj
destination, all management organizations and hotel proper-
ties have the relevant requirements that are needed by
Muslim tourists, such as prayer times and locations where
mosques can be found. Tourism operators have also pro-
vided their staff with training about cross-cultural communi-
cation and informed them how to accommodate or treat
Muslim tourists with respect. As Muslims typically observe
a dress code, avoid free mixing, and eat Halal food, all hotels
in KSA offer separate recreational facilities for men and
women and serve Halal food (Eid 2012).
The second type of tourism activities that could be prac-
ticed by Muslims is called Islamic tourism and this is the
core theme of this article. According to Jafari and Scott
(2013), Islamic tourism is essentially a new “touristic” inter-
pretation of pilgrimage that merges religious and leisure
tourism. Thus, it is “unlike mass tourism which for Muslims
is ‘characterized by hedonism, permissiveness, lavishness’”
(Sonmez 2001, p. 127). Islamic travel instead is proposed as
an alternative to this hedonic conceptualization of tourism.
Undoubtedly, religious beliefs influence and direct Muslim
adherents to travel to particular sites and influence their atti-
tudes and behavior, perceptions, and perhaps emotions at
those sites (Jafari and Scott 2013). Therefore, trends in forms
of religious tourism may vary between adherents of different
faiths.
Distinctive requirements of Muslims in terms of food,
daily prayers, and travel patterns (Timothy and Olsen 2006)
call for certain adjustments in the tourism offering of most
destinations. For example, Islam necessitates certain prac-
tices regarding health and hygiene, such as washing before
performing the daily prayers, identifies what food is permis-

sible to be consumed; for example, pork and alcohol are pro-
scribed, and how some food should be prepared; Muslims
are to eat Halal meat, which requires Zabh (Slaughter) of an
animal according to Islamic specifications (Hodge 2002). As
these practices remain important when traveling, a number
of authors have discussed how hotels can become Shari’a
compliant to help create Muslim Tourist Value (Henderson
2010; Jafari and Scott 2013; Ozdemir and Met 2012).
Customer Perceived Value
Customer perceived value is the ultimate result of market-
ing activities and is a first-order element in relationship
marketing (Oh 2003; Dumond 2000; Peterson 1995;
Prebensen et al. 2013; Ravald and Gronroos 1996; Sanchez
et al. 2006). It is defined as a trade-off between total per-
ceived benefits and total perceived sacrifices and is con-
sidered as an abstract concept (Weinstein and Johnson
1999); hence, its interpretation varies according to the con-
text (Sweeney and Soutar 2001). The term perceived is
suggested to reflect the experiential view, in which it is
believed that value judgment is dependent upon the con-
sumers’ experience. Some studies have treated value as a
dependent measure rather than a driver of purchase behav-
ior (Heeler, Nguyen, and Buff 2007). Others (Prebensen et al.
2013; Tanford, Baloglu, and Erdem 2012) looked at it as a
predictor variable.
Conceptualizations of Customer Perceived Value
In recent years, customer perceived value has been the object
of interest of many researchers in the hospitality and tourism
industry. Some studies treated perceived value as two crucial
dimensions of consumer behavior (the functional value): one
of benefits received (economic, social, and relationship) and
another of sacrifices made (price, time, effort, risk, and con-
venience) by the customer (see, e.g., Bigne et al. 2005; Oh

2003; Sanchez et al. 2006).
Undoubtedly, hospitality and tourism activities need to
resort to fantasies, feelings, and emotions to explain the tour-
ist purchasing decision. Many products have symbolic mean-
ings, beyond tangible attributes, perceived quality, or price
(Havlena and Holbrook 1986). Furthermore, as perceived
value is a subjective and dynamic construct that varies among
different tourists and cultures at different times, it is neces-
sary to include subjective or emotional reactions that are
generated in the consumer’s mind (Havlena and Holbrook
1986; Bolton and Drew 1991; Prebensen et al. 2013; Sweeney
and Soutar 2001). Havlena and Holbrook have demonstrated
the importance of the affective component in the experiences
of buying and consuming in leisure, aesthetic, creative, and
religious activities (Havlena and Holbrook 1986). Dumand
and Mattila (2005) also found that affective factors, espe-
cially hedonic and pleasure, are related to a cruise vacation-
ers’ value perception. Recently, Lee, Lee, and Choi (2011)
highlighted the importance of emotional value in addition to
functional value for festival goers. They suggested that future
research should examine other potential factors that might
influence perceived value.
Therefore, many studies adopt a wider view that treats the
concept of customer perceived value as a multidimensional
construct (see, e.g., De Ruyter et al. 1997; Prebensen et al.
2013; Rust, Zeithaml, and Lemmon 2000; Sweeney, Soutar,
and Johnson 1999; Sweeney and Soutar 2001; Woodruff

1997). For example, Sweeney, Soutar, and Johnson (1999)
identify five dimensions: social value (acceptability), emo-
tional value, and three functional values of price/value for
money, performance/quality, and versatility; Benkenstein,
Yavas, and Forberger (2003) conclude that satisfaction with
leisure services is a function of cognitive and emotional
(psychological) factors; and Petrick’s (2002) scale consists
of five components: behavioral price, monetary price, emo-
tional response, quality, and reputation. Finally, to measure
the onsite perceived value, Prebensen et al. (2013) suggested
four distinct dimensions: emotional, social, quality/perfor-
mance, and price/value for money.
Table 1 shows studies that have adopted the multidimen-
sional approach in the hospitality and tourism industry and
the proposed dimensions of the construct. All the authors uti-
lized the two underlying dimensions of perceived value: cog-
nitive (functional) and affective (emotional) (Al-Sabbahy,
Ekinci, and Riley 2004); Benkenstein, Yavas, and Forberger
2003; Bradley and Sparks 2012; Duman and Mattila 2005;
Gallarza and Saura 2006; Lee, Lee, and Choi 2011; Nasution
and Mavondo 2008; Petrick 2002; Sanchez et al. 2006;
Prebensen et al. 2013). In this sense, the cognitive dimension
refers to the rational and economic valuations made by indi-
viduals. The quality of the product and of the service would
form part of this dimension. The affective or emotional
dimension is less developed, but captures the feelings or
emotions generated by the products or services.
However, although these studies provide empirical evidence
of the existence of the cognitive and affective dimensions of
perceived value, none of them studies the overall perceived
value of a purchase from an Islamic perspective. The study of
value from an Islamic perspective in particular is important, as
in the Islamic faith, the boundaries of the spiritual and secular
are transcended. The holy book Qur’an provides guidance in all

aspects of human activity, so religion influences the direction of
tourism choices that individuals are making about alternative
forms of its development and practice (Jafari and Scott 2013).
Therefore, evaluation of the value of tourism products in the
case of Islamic tourism participation entails a completely dif-
ferent process because of the requirements of the Islamic
Shari’ah. Participation of Muslims in tourism activities requires
acceptable goods, services, and environments. Therefore, any
attempt to design a scale of measurement of the overall MTPV
of a purchase, or to identify its dimensions, must not only
reflect
a structure that identifies functional and affective dimensions
but also the Shari’ah-compliant attributes.
Additional Dimensions for MTPV
Undoubtedly, religious identity appears to play an impor-
tant role in shaping consumption experiences, including
hospitality and tourism choices among Muslim customers.
This is because some religions teach their followers codes
of behavior that may encourage or discourage them from
being customers to the tourist industry. For example, some
people, because of their religious beliefs, find public alco-
hol consumption to be very offensive (Battour, Ismail, and
Battor 2011; Jafari and Scott 2013). It is a religious com-
pulsion for all Muslims to consume products that are per-
mitted by Allah (God) and falls under the jurisdiction of
Shari’ah. In Islam, Shari’ah-compliant tourism products
generally refer to all such products that are in accordance
with the instructions of Almighty Allah (God) and Prophet
Mohammad (may peace be upon him). Shari’ah designates
the term “Halal” specifically to the products that are per-
missible, lawful, and are unobjectionable to consume.
Shari’ah-compliant tourism products may therefore add
value to Muslim consumers’ shopping experiences through

Table 1. Dimensions of Perceived Customer Value.
Author Dimensions
Article I. Petrick (2002) x Behavioral price
x Monetary price
x Emotional response
x Quality, and reputation
Benkenstein, Yavas, and
Forberger (2003)
x Cognitive factors
x Emotional (psychological) factors
Al-Sabbahy, Ekinci, and
Riley (2004)
x Acquisition value
x Transaction value
Dumand and Mattila
(2005)
x Novelty
x Control
x Hedonics
Gallarza and Saur
(2006)
x Efficiency
x Service quality
x Social value
x Play
x Aesthetics

Sanchez et al. (2006) x Functional value of the travel agency
x Functional value of the contact
personnel
x Functional value (quality)
x Functional value price
x Emotional value
x Social value
Nasution and Mavondo
(2008)
x Reputation for quality
x Value for money
x Prestige
Lee, Lee, and Choi
(2011)
x Emotional values
x Functional values
Bradley and Sparks
(2012)
x Consumer experience
x Product experience
x Consumption experience
x Learning experience
Prebensen et al. (2013) x Emotional
x Social
x Quality/performance
x Price/value for money

Eid and El-Gohary 5
Islamic benefits that contribute to the value of the shopping
experience.
Shari’ah principles are requirements for every Muslim,
and sensitivity toward application of these principles is
important because religious deeds are not acceptable if they
are not conducted appropriately. A typical Muslim is
expected to do regular prayers in clean environments and fast
in Ramadan. In Islamic teachings, Muslims are also expected
to abstain from profligate consumption and indulgence
(Hashim, Murphy, and Hashim 2007). In addition, Shari’ah
principles prohibit adultery, gambling, consumption of pork
and other haram (forbidden) foods, selling or drinking
liquor, and dressing inappropriately (Zamani-Farahani and
Henderson 2010). Actually in the Islamic faith, the boundar-
ies of the spiritual and secular are transcended. The holy
book Qur’an provides guidance in all aspects of human
activity, so religion influences the direction of tourism
choices that individuals are making about alternative tourism
packages and destinations. This unifying tendency is also
found in the concept of Ummah (the Muslim world commu-
nity) regardless of country of origin. Therefore, Shari’ah
compliance should be a prerequisite for high-value tourism
experiences for Muslims.
Based on the above discussions, two conclusions can be
introduced to help in building an effective scale to measure
MTPV. First, the view of perceived value as a cognitive vari-
able is not enough, because it is necessary to incorporate the

affective component. Second, Muslim tourist evaluates not
only the traditional aspects of value (cognitive and affective
components) but also the religious identity–related aspects
that contribute to the value creation. This overall vision
underlies the multidimensional approach to MTPV.
Research Methodology
Data Collection
The generalizability of the study relied on the representative-
ness of the respondents. Therefore, a representative selection
of Muslim tourists was made from a database of Muslim
tourists. Several International tourism organizations that are
located in the United Kingdom, Egypt, and the United Arab
Emirates were contacted to give us access to their tourist
database, of which three prominent ones accepted to give us
such access. The three organizations have been reassured
that only members of the research team will have access to
the data they give and the completed questionnaire will not
be made available to anyone other than the research team. A
database of Muslim tourists has been made for data collec-
tion purposes.
The criteria for selecting tourists to participate were sim-
ple. First, the tourists had to be Muslims. Second, the tourists
should have bought a tourism package during the last two
years. Finally, the tourists had to come from different coun-
tries. This technique resulted in a database of 6,454 Muslim
tourists. A systematic random sampling method was used to
draw a sample of 1,000 tourists. A research packet contain-
ing a covering letter and an anonymous (self-administering)
questionnaire was e-mailed to the tourists; a web link of the
online survey was also been given in the e-mail. Some
respondents refused to participate in the study, in that we did
not get any reply from them. Unfortunately, no information

was available about the nonrespondents and so this source of
nonsampling error cannot be controlled. A total of 571
respondents returned questionnaires, but 34 were omitted
from analyses because of missing data, leaving a total of 537
useful responses, or a 55.59% overall response rate. This
high response rate may be explained by two factors: first, the
questionnaire was designed in such a way that it took only 15
minutes to be completed; second, attempts were made to
contact each respondent up to five times via e-mails and
phone calls before the person was dropped from the sample.
The sample was dominated by male respondents (65.2%),
and this is normal because there are some restrictions in
Islam that prevent women from traveling on her own.
Furthermore, Islamic men are allowed to travel alone, they
also make all of the travel decisions, and according to the
Islamic culture it is not acceptable for a woman to give her
e-mail address to a stranger. This might explain this result. In
terms of age, most (75.4%) were younger than 45 years, and
a few respondents (approximately 9.5%) were more than 55
years old. Approximately 73.2% of the respondents had at
least some college education, with 35.6% having earned a
postgraduate degree. With respect to the income level, 21.0%
of the respondents reported a household income between
$1,000 and $1,999 per month; 24.6% reported a household
income between $2,000 and $3,999 per month, 17.3%
reported a household income between $4,000 and $5,999 per
month, and 17.5% reported a household income more than
$6,000 per month. Finally, we have respondents from 30 dif-
ferent countries, which include Algeria (1.8%), Bangladesh
(3%), Egypt (12.1%), France (3%), India (2.4%), Indonesia
(3.1%), Iran (1.4%), Iraq (3.2%), Ireland (2.3%), Jordan
(4.0%), KSA (2.6%), Kuwait (3.1%), Lebanon, Libya
(2.2%), Malaysia (3.2%), Morocco (3.1%), Oman (2.5%),
Pakistan (2.3%), Palestine (2.4%), Qatar (3.1%), Singapore
(2.6%), Spain (2.5%), Sudan (2.1%), Syria (2.5%), Tunisia

(3%), Turkey (3.1%), United Arab Emirates (9.2%), United
Kingdom (6.7%), United States (2.6%), and Yemen (2.4%).
Research Instrument Development—Measures
We measured the six constructs (functional value [quality],
functional value [price], emotional value, social value,
Islamic physical attributes value, and Islamic nonphysical
attributes value) by multiple-item scales adapted from previ-
ous studies. All items were operationalized using a 5-point
Likert-type scale.
Firstly, in conceptualizing the cognitive value (functional
value), the original Sweeney and Soutar (2001) scale of cog-
nitive value is used in this study. According to Sweeney and
Soutar (2001), cognitive value is a dimension that consists
Table 2. Measure of Construct Reliability.
Constructs Number of Items Alpha
Qualitya 4 .901
Pricea 4 .868
Emotionalb 4 .934
Socialb 4 .899
Islamic physical
attributesc
4 .919

Islamic nonphysical
attributesc
4 .955
a. Cognitive value.
b. Affective value.
c. Islamic value.
of two constructs—quality and price. Four 5-point Likert-
type questions have been used to measure each one of
the two. Second, in conceptualizing the affective value
(Emotional), we follow Sanchez et al. (2006), defining it as
a dimension that consists of two constructs—emotional
value and social value—measured by four 5-point Likert-
type questions. We borrowed or adapted these items from
Gallarza and Saura (2006), Sanchez et al. (2006), and
Sweeney and Soutar (2001).
Finally, in conceptualizing the Islamic value, the develop-
ment of the research instrument was based mainly on new
scales, because we could not identify any past studies directly
addressing this construct. However, three main sources have
been used for this purpose: the Qur’an (Islam’s holy book),
Sunnah (teachings, guidance, and practices of Prophet
Mohammad), and a thorough review of the literature in
which the variable is used theoretically or empirically
(Battour, Ismail, and Battor 2011; Eid 2007; Hashim,
Murphy, and Hashim 2007; Laderlah et al. 2011; Stephenson,
Russell, and Edgar 2010; Zamani-Farahani and Henderson
2010; Zamani-Farahani and Musa 2012). For example, stud-
ies conducted by Battour, Ismail, and Battor (2011) identi-
fied Islamic attributes of destinations that may attract Muslim
tourists such as the inclusion of prayer facilities, Halal food,
Islamic entertainment, Islamic dress codes, general Islamic
morality, and the Islamic call to prayer. This study recom-

mended that Islamic attributes of destination should be
developed for the purpose of empirical research. Ozdemir
and Met (2012) also argued that as Muslims typically observe
a dress code and avoid free mixing, some hotels in Turkey
offer separate swimming pool and recreational facilities for
men and women. However, the three sources lead us to
divide this dimension into two basic constructs—Islamic
physical attribute value and Islamic nonphysical attribute
value, which have been measured by four 5-point Likert-type
questions.
Two consecutive rounds of pretesting were conducted in
order to ensure that respondents could understand the mea-
surement scales used in the study: first, the questionnaire
was reviewed by five academic researchers experienced in
questionnaire design and next, the questionnaire was piloted
with four tourism experts known to the researchers. The pilot
took the form of an interview where the participants were
first handed a copy of the questionnaire and asked to com-
plete it and then discuss any comments or questions they had.
The outcome of the pretesting process was a slight modifica-
tion and alteration of the existing scales, in light of the scales
context under investigation.
Analysis and Results
The evidence generated from the literature suggests that
there are distinct aspects of value. This section discusses the
process used to establish the content for these dimensions
and to validate the scale psychometrically and theoretically.
The process follows Churchill’s (1979) approach for
developing measures of multiple-item marketing constructs.
After the development of an initial set of items, a scale puri-
fication stage was undertaken.
Reliability Analysis

First, the psychometric properties of the constructs were
assessed by calculating the Cronbach’s alpha reliability
coefficient and the items-to-total correlation (Nunnally and
Bernstein 1994). These coefficients are represented for
each of the constructs in Table 2. All scales have reliability
coefficients ranging from 0.868 to 0.955, which exceed the
cut-off level of 0.60 set for basic research (Nunnally 1978)
and used by Eid and El-Gohary (2013) and El-Gohary
(2012, 2010).
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Next, it is also necessary to indicate that as recommended by
Anderson and Gerbing (1988), prior to testing the full latent
model, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted
using principal components analysis with varimax rotation.
EFA yielded six distinct factors that accounted for 80.974%
of the variance extracted (Table 3). All items loaded highly
on their intended constructs.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Next, before building a model that will consider all the dimen-
sions of value together, it is also important to highlight, from a
methodological point of view, that individualized analyses of
each of those dimensions will be made (the measurement
model), in order to carry out a prior refinement of the items
used in their measurement. Having established the six dimen-
sions of the scale, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA). For this research, we chose to use both the structural
model (includes all the constructs in one model) and the mea-
surement model (separate model for each construct).
First, as suggested by Bollen (1989), a null model—in
which no factors were considered to underlie the observed
variables, correlations between observed indicators were

Eid and El-Gohary 7
zero, and the variances of the observed variables were not
restricted—was tested against a series of models, namely,
a one-factor model (suggesting that the observed variables
represent a single value dimension), a three-factor model
(in which price and quality are suggested to represent a
single functional dimension rather than two dimensions,
emotional and social values are suggested to represent a
single emotional dimension rather than two dimensions,
and Islamic physical attributes and Islamic nonphysical
attributes are suggested to represent a single Islamic
dimension rather than two dimensions), and a six-factor
model (in which the dimensions are as proposed in the ear-
lier discussion).
The results, shown in Table 4, support the proposed six-
factor solution, comprising the quality, price, emotional,
social, Islamic physical attribute, and Islamic nonphysical
attribute value dimensions. Not only did this model have the
lowest chi-square and highest adjusted goodness-of-fit index,
but also the highest comparative fit index (CFI) and the low-
est root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA).
Second, we used the measurement model (separate
model for each construct) to assess the different proposed
value dimensions. Thus, two dimensions have been
considered for cognitive value: the first referring to the
quality of the tourism package and the second to the price
of the tourism package. Similarly, two dimensions have
been considered for formative value: the first referring to

the emotional value of the tourism package and the second
to the social value of the tourism package. Finally, two
dimensions have been considered for Islamic value: the
Table 3. Results of Factor Analysis for Value Dimensions.
Value Dimensions
Component
1 2 3 4 5 6
The tourism package purchased was well organized .712
The quality of the tourism was maintained throughout. .737
The tourism package had an acceptable level of quality. .847
The tourism package purchased was well made .673
The tourism package was a good purchase for the price. .741
The tourism package purchased was reasonably priced. .745
The price was the main criterion for my decision. .769
The tourism package purchased was economical. .740
I am comfortable with the tourism package purchased. .751
I felt relaxed about the tourism package purchased. .810
The tourism package purchased gave me a positive feeling. .851
The tourism package purchased gave me pleasure. .826
The tourism package has helped me to feel acceptable. .737
The tourism package improved the way people perceive me.
.832
The tourism package purchased gave me social approval. .809
Many people that I know purchased the tourism package. .733
Availability of prayer facilities. .826
Availability of halal food. .869
Availability of a copy of the Holy Qur’an in hotel room. .792
Availability of Shari’ah-compatible toilets. .849
Availability of segregated services. .901
Availability of Shari’ah-compatible television channels. .915
Availability of Shari’ah-compatible entertainment tools . .919

Availability of art that does not depict the human forms. .883
Initial eigenvalues 10.262 3.572 1.935 1.490 1.169 1.006
% of variance 42.758 14.882 8.061 6.210 4.869 4.192
Cumulative % 42.758 57.741 65.702 71.912 76.781 80.974
Table 4. Comparative Analysis of Models of Various
Dimensionalities.
Model F2 DF AGFI CFI RMSEA
Null 6544.75 252 0.323 0.462 0.216
Three factors 4157.80 249 0.549 0.666 0.171
Six factors 1344.53 237 0.831 0.905 0.093
Statistic Suggested
AGFI t0.80
CFI t0.90
RMSEA d0.10
Note: DF = degree of freedom; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit
index;
CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error
of
approximation.
first referring to the Islamic physical attributes of the tour-
ism package and the second to the Islamic nonphysical
attributes of the tourism package.

Cognitive Value of the Tourism Package: Quality
With respect to the cognitive value of the tourism package,
fundamentally it is the quality level of the different aspects of
the tourism package that is measured (Table 5). Initially four
items were considered. As a result of the CFA, it was found
that the four items form a single factor, and furthermore the
resulting model is adequate because the probability associ-
ated with chi-square is greater than 0.05 (0.061), and the t
value of the parameters obtained is always greater than 1.96.
The scale is also reliable, the statistic of composite reliability
that determines it taking the value 0.90 (Hair et al. 1998).
Cognitive Value of the Tourism Package: Price
The second dimension relating to cognitive value is the price
of the tourism package purchased. To measure it, four items
were used (Table 5). The CFA determined that the four items
were grouped into a single factor. The model grouping these
items is adequate, the probability associated with chi-squared
being greater than 0.01 (0.0311), and all the t values associ-
ated with the parameters obtained in the model are greater
than 1.96. Together with these results, the composite reli-
ability of the factor cognitive value price of the tourism
package is also ratified, attaining the value 0.867 (Hair et al.
1998).
Affective Value of the Tourism Package:
Emotional
With respect to the emotional value of the purchase, four
items were used (Table 5) to measure it. The CFA deter-
mined that the four items were grouped into a single factor.
The resulting model is adequate, the probability associated
with chi-square being greater than 0.01 (0.0316), and all the
t values associated with the parameters obtained in the model
are greater than 1.96. It is also necessary to indicate that the
emotional value has composite reliability, which was deter-

mined to be 0.935 (Hair et al. 1998).
Affective Value of the Tourism Package: Social
The second dimension relating to affective value is the social
value of the tourism package purchased. To measure, it four
items were used (Table 5). The CFA determined that the four
items were grouped into a single factor. The resulting model
is adequate, the probability associated with chi-square being
greater than 0.01 (0.020), and all the t values associated with
the parameters obtained in the model are greater than 1.96. It
is also necessary to indicate that the social value has compos-
ite reliability, determined to be 0.899 (Hair et al. 1998).
Islamic Value of the Tourism Package: Physical
Attributes
With respect to the Islamic physical attribute value of the
tourism package purchased, fundamentally it is the tangible
attributes that make Shari’ah-compliant tourism products
that is measured (Table 5). Initially, four items were consid-
ered. As a result of the CFA, it was found that the four items
form a single factor, and furthermore the resulting model
was adequate because the probability associated with chi-
square is greater than 0.01 (0.016), and the t value of the
parameters obtained is always greater than 1.96. The scale is
also reliable, the statistic of composite reliability that deter-
mines it taking the value 0.919 (Hair et al. 1998).
Islamic Value of the Tourism Package:
Nonphysical Attributes
The last of the dimensions considered refers to the Islamic
nonphysical attributes value. Similarly, it is the intangible
attributes that make Shari’ah-compliant tourism products.
To measure it, four items were used (Table 5). As a result of
the CFA, it was found that the four items form a single fac-
tor, and furthermore the resulting model is adequate because
the probability associated with chi-square is greater than

0.01 (0.110), and the t value of the parameters obtained is
always greater than 1.96. The scale is also reliable, the statis-
tic of composite reliability that determines it taking the value
0.955 (Hair et al. 1998).
Convergent Validity Analysis
Convergent validity describes the extent to which indicators
of a specific construct converge or share a high proportion of
variance (Hair et al. 2006). Convergent validity can be
assessed by three criteria (Fornell and Larcker 1981; Hair et
al. 2006; Čater and Čater 2010). First, factor loading for a
item is at least 0.7 and significant. Second, construct reliabil-
ity is a minimum of 0.7 (see Table 2). Finally, the average
variance extracted (AVE) for a construct is larger than 0.5.
Table 6 summarizes the results of the convergent validity
analysis. Note that all of the scales had an acceptable conver-
gent validity.
Discriminant Validity Analysis:
Correlation matrix and square root of AVE were used to
assess the discriminant validity of constructs. To meet the
requirements for satisfactory discriminant validity, the
square root of AVE of each construct should be higher than
the correlations between any combinations among any two
pairs of constructs in the model as recommended by Fornell
and Larcker (1981). This indicates that each construct should
share more variance with its items than it shares with other
constructs. Table 7 shows that the variances extracted by the
Eid and El-Gohary 9

Table 5. Cognitive Value of the Different Attributes.
Quality
The tourism package purchased was well organized .828 (fixed)
The quality of the tourism was maintained throughout. .861
(15.22)
The tourism package had an acceptable level of quality. .859
(14.61)
The tourism package purchased was well made .785 (13.66)
Fit of the model F2 = 18.572; d = 2; p = 0.061;
RMSEA = 0.086; GFI = 0.98; AGFI = 0.91
Composite reliability = 0.90
Price
The tourism package was a good purchase for the price. .828
(fixed)
The tourism package purchased was reasonably priced. .855
(22.187)
The price was the main criterion for my decision. .703 (17.045)
The tourism package purchased was economical. .760 (18.244)
RMSEA = 0.087; GFI = 0.962; AGFI = 0.811
Emotional value
I am comfortable with the tourism package purchased. .873
(fixed)
I felt relaxed about the tourism package purchased. .898(20.82)
The tourism package purchased gave me a positive feeling.
.901 (20.20)
The tourism package purchased gave me pleasure. .868 (19.56)
RMSEA = 0.076; GFI = 0.957; AGFI = 0.818
Social value

The tourism package has helped me to feel acceptable. .839
(fixed)
The tourism package improved the way people perceive me.
.902 (20.82)
The tourism package purchased gave me social approval. .898
(20.20)
Many people that I know purchased the tourism package. .747
(19.56)
RMSEA = 0.087; GFI = 0.969; AGFI = 0.845
Physical attributes
Availability of prayer facilities. .837 (fixed)
Availability of Halal food. .893 (18.61)
Availability of a copy of the Holy Qur’an in hotel room. .848
(16.28)
Availability of Shari’ah-compatible toilets. .864 (16.10)
RMSEA = 0.016; GFI = 0.974; AGFI = 0.868
Nonphysical attributes
Availability of segregated services. .890 (fixed)
Availability of Shari’ah-compatible television channels. .925
(24.75)
Availability of Shari’ah-compatible entertainment tools. .949
(27.03)
Availability of art that does not depict the human forms. .907
(23.62)
RMSEA = 0.081; GFI = 0.992; AGFI = 0.960
Note: The t values of each parameter are in parentheses. DF =

degree of freedom; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; AGFI =
adjusted goodness-of-fit index;
CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error
of approximation.
Table 6. Convergent Validity Results.
Constructs
Composite
Reliability
Average Variance
Extracted
Quality 0.900 0.694
Price 0.867 0.620
Emotional 0.935 0.783
Social 0.899 0.719
Islamic physical attributes 0.919 0.740
Islamic nonphysical attributes 0.955 0.842
six constructs (AVEs) were greater than any squared correla-
tion among constructs (the factor scores as single-item indi-
cators have been used to calculate the between-constructs
correlations); this implied that constructs were empirically
distinct, confirming the discriminant validity of those four
constructs.
Correlation among the Constructs

One of the main objectives of this study is to set a valid struc-
ture for the MTPV constructs and to carry out an initial
investigation of the relationship, if any, among these con-
structs. According to this research, there are six constructs
constituting the MTPV model. First of all, it is clearly noted
that all of the correlations among the constructs of the MTPV
are positive and significant (see Table 7). These significant
positive correlations also have major implications for mar-
keting and tourism research, as they suggest that the MTPV
constructs should be implemented holistically rather than
piecemeal to get better MTPV.
Discussion and Implications
The purpose of this article was to (1) identify MTPV con-
structs and develop scales for measuring these constructs and
(2) carry out an initial investigation of the relationship, if
any, among the MTPV constructs.
The present research was an attempt to explore the MTPV
dimensions of a tourism consumption experience, in relation
to previous consumer and tourism research. This study
makes a number of contributions to the study of customer
value. Previous studies mostly examined absolute customer
value from the customer’s perspective. There has been little
empirical research that examines customer value from the
perspectives of the Muslim customers. In service industries,
such as tourism, the consumption experience is intangible,
dynamic, and subjective (Bolton and Drew 1991; Havlena
and Holbrook 1986; Jayanti and Ghosh 1996; Sweeney and
Soutar 2001) and therefore it is not acceptable to assume that
the dimensions of value are applicable to different customers
and cultures.
The reliabilities, factor structure, and validity tests indi-
cate that the 24-item MTPV scale and its six dimensions
have sound and stable psychometric properties. The scale

demonstrates that Muslim consumers assess products not
just in functional terms of expected quality of the tourism
product, price of the tourism product, the enjoyment deliv-
ered from the tourism product (emotional value), and what
the tourism product communicates to others (social value)
but also in terms of providing tangible attributes that result
from the delivery of Shari’ah-compliant tourism products
such as Halal food (Islamic physical attributes value) and the
availability of Shari’ah-compatible art, fun, and entertain-
ment tools (Islamic nonphysical attributes value).
A Muslim tourist’s decision should not be seen from a
purely rational point of view. The experiential view pro-
vides new keys to the valuation made by Muslim tourists
and therefore to the most important attributes that will later
affect their buying behavior. Cognitive elements (quality
and price) and affective elements (emotions and social rec-
ognition) play a fundamental role but it would not be pos-
sible to understand the behavior of Muslim tourists without
incorporating the Islamic attributes into the study. The
availability of such Islamic attributes (physical and non-
physical) are considered very important when a Muslim
decides to buy a tourism product. Therefore, the Muslim
tourists may not select a particular tourism product based
on the absence of such attributes (Battour, Ismail, and
Battor 2011). Islamic attributes represent the availability of
Islamic norms and practices that are relevant to tourism at
the destination.
From a theoretical point of view, therefore, this study
supports the experiential view proposed by Holbrook and
Hirschman (1982). This means that the cognitive, affective,
and Islamic attribute components play a fundamental role in
explaining the purchase and consumption behaviors of the
Muslim tourist. In the specific case of the perceived value

What is Action ResearchViaA review of the Literat.docx

PAGE 52What is Action ResearchViaA review of the Literat.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to PAGE 52What is Action ResearchViaA review of the Literat.docx

Similar to PAGE 52What is Action ResearchViaA review of the Literat.docx (20)

More from gerardkortney

More from gerardkortney (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

PAGE 52What is Action ResearchViaA review of the Literat.docx