94 Tourism Education: Renewal Across Generations

1. Introduction

I have been studying gender for a number of years, with a focus on how gender identities are built and negotiated over time and how they intersect with generational belonging. My research also looks at generational dynamics, exploring how social change both shapes and is shaped by generational turnover. My work employs gender-sensitive and longitudinal methods. I currently co-edit the book series Generations, Transitions and Social Change, which brings together many of these themes.

My interest in how generations shape, and are shaped by, social change has inspired this paper. It seeks both to contribute to tourism research and to serve as a letter to future generations of women tourism scholars. These two aims are connected through a focus on tourism education, which is crucial for sharing knowledge from one generation to the next.

Teaching tourism today involves navigating a multilayered system. Tourism is not only an economic sector; it is a complex reality that both shapes and is shaped by diverse and dynamic experiences and identities. This complexity requires tourism education to pursue several equally important aims (Jafari, 2001; Tribe, 2002). One aim is to help students and professionals grasp the multifaceted nature of tourism, including its social, cultural, and environmental dimensions. Another is to encourage critical thinking about tourism’s impact on individual life courses, local cultures, and the environment, by discussing how travel affects vulnerable groups, communities, and ecosystems. Students and professionals should also recognize that ethical decision-making is crucial for shaping the future of destinations and enhancing the well-being of host communities. At the same time, tourism education should prepare future generations to respond to both current and emerging challenges.

The achievement of such important goals can be fostered by adopting a generational perspective, which makes it possible to understand and overcome tensions between different generations and to promote intergenerational dialogue. Today’s school and university classrooms are populated by teachers and educators from older generations—such as Baby Boomers and Generation X, to use well-known terms—and students from younger ones, namely Millennials, Generation Z, and the emerging Generation Alpha in the educational landscape. Without understanding what a generation is and what generational turnover can contribute to the renewal of knowledge, the possibility of exchange and dialogue across generations is limited. Generations are not simply static age groups; generational identities and forms of agency are shaped through shared socio-historical experiences (Mannheim, 1928; 1952). Someone who lived through the Cold War or the rise of mass air travel, for example, may understand mobility differently from someone raised during the climate crisis, the spread of budget airlines, and algorithm-driven travel recommendations. Each generation, therefore, brings its own views on what tourism is and should be. As Walton (2009) notes, each succeeding generation can reinterpret history in response to the dominant issues and challenges of their time.

Based on these premises, this paper addresses three questions: What is a generation? Why is generational turnover important for tourism education? And to what extent can intergenerational dialogue facilitate knowledge exchange in tourism? To explore these issues, the paper adopts Karl Mannheim’s (1928; 1952) theory of generations as its main theoretical framework.

2. What is a Generation?

The concept of generation is often used to make sense of differences between age groups and to place them within historical time. For example, we talk about ‘my grandparents’ generation’ and ‘younger generations,’ and we use expressions like ‘a few generations ago,’ ‘generation gap,’ and ‘generational turnover’ (Pilcher, 1994). When we look beyond the present moment, we often use the term ‘future generations,’ a key concept in sustainable development (Brundtland, 1987). Compared to other concepts used to relate personal experiences to sociocultural structures (such as class), generation has a specific focus on social change (Ariès, 1979; Corsten, 1999; Purhonen, 2016).

Although the notion of generation is seemingly intuitive, it is challenging to define and fully grasp. The definition of a generation varies across disciplines, and generational boundaries are culturally relative rather than universally fixed: the start and end dates of each generation can differ depending on the context in which they are defined. Generational identity is also shaped by intersections with other social categories, such as class, gender, race, and nationality, introducing further layers of complexity (Kingstone, 2021; Kingstone & Bristow, 2024). Well-known terms such as Baby Boomer, Generation X, Millennial, and Generation Z reflect a predominantly Western framework, with most generational studies focusing primarily on a limited number of countries—particularly the United States and Western Europe. The ubiquity of these labels and their widespread use in literature have led researchers from other cultures to adopt them, even though the events that shape generational identities clearly vary from country to country. As Lyons and Kuron (2014) and Akhavan Sarraf (2019) point out, this creates a bias in generational research, which often overlooks the specific cultural and historical conditions of other regions. Parry and Urwin (2011: 90) also warn that the generational categories commonly used in the West are not necessarily valid in non-Western contexts.

Karl Mannheim offers an insightful explanation of the complexity embedded in the concept of generation. He is widely regarded as the most influential scholar in the sociology of generations, and his classic essay Das Problem der Generationen (1928; 1952) remains a key reference in the field.

For Mannheim (1928; 1952), generations are not just age groups but a social reality formed by their shared position in history and specifically shaped by socio-historical experiences that influence a generation’s collective consciousness, beliefs, and priorities. Mannheim (1952) proposed a three-stage model for the study of generations: generational location (Generationslagerung), generation as an actuality (Generationszusammenhang), and generational units (Generationseinheiten). Generational location refers to shared exposure to the influences of the time, which creates the potential for common beliefs and actions. Yet, as Mannheim stresses, this is only a potential that may be realized, suppressed, or reshaped by other social forces. A generation becomes an actuality when people who share the same position in history also consciously engage with their collective destiny. In this sense, coexistence alone is not enough; what matters is active participation: shared worldviews form the basis for collective action (Mannheim, 1952: 303–304; Pilcher, 1994). From a shared collective destiny, distinct generational units may emerge, groups defined by common patterns of response and affinities in action (Mannheim, 1952: 306). In other words, even if young people belong to the same generation, different subgroups may interpret their experiences differently, creating distinct and sometimes contrasting generational units. Mannheim illustrates this with the German case: from 1800 onward, two groups of youth coexisted—romantic-conservative and liberal— expressed opposing responses to the challenges of their time (Mannheim, 1952: 304). Mannheim drew here on Wilhelm Pinder’s notion of generations as the ‘non-simultaneity of the simultaneous’ (Becker, 2008).

Another fundamental idea in Mannheim’s work is that historical and social change affects individuals differently depending on the stage of life. He saw the formative years—late adolescence and early adulthood—as crucial: in this phase, the influence of family and school weakens and is complemented—or even replaced—by direct or mediated experiences of key events. At this stage, young people are especially open to what Mannheim called ‘fresh contacts’ with inherited traditions. As he explained, fresh contacts make it possible for each generation to reinterpret and renew knowledge (Mannheim, 1952: 293). Mannheim also notes that fresh contacts often arise in life transitions—for example, when an adolescent leaves home, or when a person migrates to another country. In such situations, people undergo visible changes in their modes of thinking and relating to the world (Mannheim, 1952: 293). These fresh contacts are a productive force: they allow each generation to revisit inherited culture, challenge established norms, and introduce new perspectives. In this way, generations not only carry traditions forward but also act as engines of renewal and transformation, standing in a reciprocal relationship with history—at once influenced by the past and shaping the future.

3. Generations in the Renewal of Tourism

Karl Mannheim’s theory explains that generations are social formations with the potential to shape the future while being influenced by both present and past. They share a position in historical time and engage with inherited culture, sometimes accepting or continuing it and sometimes challenging it. This framework helps us understand how scholars, professionals, and students from different generations have developed distinctive ways of defining what tourism is, what it should represent, and how it should be studied, planned, and practiced.

Older generations—such as the Baby Boomers and Generation X—were trained in social and academic environments where tourism studies emphasized economic development, tourism’s contribution to GDP, and tourist flows. In the 1970s, tourism was widely recognized as a driver of economic growth. Several factors contributed to this: increased leisure time and the introduction of paid leave, post-WWII prosperity, technological advances in transport, and the growing visibility of destinations through mass media (Cross, 1993; De Grazia, 1962; Mathieson & Wall, 1982; Turner & Ash, 1995). Together, these forces fueled a rapidly expanding international tourism market that had begun in the postwar era and accelerated during the 1970s. One of the first empirical attempts to quantify tourism’s economic impact on income and employment was Sadler and Archer’s (1975) comparative study, which was particularly influential for developing countries. This emphasis on mass tourism, infrastructure investment, and job creation reflected the developmentalist optimism of the time, but it often overlooked long-term environmental and social costs—issues that later works, such as Hall and Lew (2009), placed at the center of the debate.

Younger generations, particularly Millennials and Generation Z, are contributing to what scholars have called an ‘ethical sustainability turn’ in tourism education (Tribe, 2002; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2020; Fennell, 2021). This shift mirrors broader societal concerns and a growing demand for curricula that center justice, ethics, and sustainability. The experiences of Millennials illustrate this change. Coming of age at the turn of the 21st century, they grew up amidst contrasting forces that are central to their generational identity (Benckendorff, Moscardo & Pendergast, 2010; European Commission, 2017; Bialik & Fry, 2019). If, as Mannheim (1952) argues, generational identity emerges from the challenges of historical experience, then for Millennials this has meant navigating the push and pull of global forces and local traditions, international mobility and environmental concerns, digital connectivity and socioeconomic crises. On the one hand, they were shaped by the rapid expansion of digital technologies, which blurred traditional boundaries and opened new forms of intercultural communication and interaction. On the other hand, they faced the darker sides of globalization: increasing labor precarity, recurrent financial crises, widening inequalities, climate change, and a growing sense of uncertainty about the future. Likewise, Generation Z students, born into a world marked by digital technologies, climate change, and social justice movements, bring a different set of concerns, values, and expectations to the classroom. Studies show that Millennials and Gen Z are reshaping the tourism sector, challenging older models focused on profit and growth, and instead prioritizing diversity, sustainability, and global responsibility (Corbisiero, Monaco & Ruspini, 2022).

The exchange between generational perspectives creates both tensions and opportunities for tourism education. Some lecturers may rely on traditional textbooks and economic models, while younger students expect teaching that engages with online reviews, social media trends, and digital platforms, and that addresses global challenges through more critical and justice-oriented approaches (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2020). Yet this encounter also opens possibilities for dialogue and the renewal of knowledge. More experienced teachers contribute professional expertise, historical depth, and awareness of tourism’s development, while younger students bring digital skills and sensitivity to urgent issues such as climate change, cultural diversity, exploitation, and violence. These perspectives can foster dialogue in the classroom, creating space for exchange, negotiation, and new ways of thinking; tourism education becomes a dynamic arena of mutual learning.

4. Intergenerational Dialogue in Tourism Education

Karl Mannheim’s theory shows that intergenerational dialogue is a process that sustains cultural renewal and encourages innovation. This dialogue goes beyond academic updates. In these ‘fresh contacts’, older educators transmit insight and experience, and students learn to connect historical events and temporal dynamics with the evolution of tourism. In doing so, they also draw lessons from the past to plan for the future.

Teaching tourism today requires more than presenting theories or case studies—it involves mediating between historical sensibilities and emerging worldviews. Educators need to both share their expertise and recognize the different ways each generation communicates and interprets the world, ensuring that students’ concerns and core values (such as gender inclusivity, sustainability, community engagement, and decolonial approaches) are genuinely reflected in curricula. By valuing generational perspectives, they can create open learning environments where foundational theories are reinterpreted through contemporary lenses of social and environmental justice. From this viewpoint, classrooms become spaces where generations meet, share ideas, question assumptions, and generate new ways of thinking by contributing additional layers of knowledge. Reciprocal exchange allows different knowledge systems to merge into more balanced perspectives. This enables tourism education not only to address current challenges but also to foster a more inclusive and forward-looking field.

Written by Elisabetta Ruspini, Department of Sociology and Social Research, University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy.

References

Akhavan Sarraf, A. R. (2019). Generational groups in different countries. International Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 4(1), 41–52.

Ariès, P. (1979). Centuries of childhood: A social history of family life (R. Baldick, Trans.). Vintage. (Original work published 1962).

Becker H.A. (2008). Karl Mannheims “Problem der Generationen” – 80 Jahre danach, Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 20(2), 203–221.

Benckendorff, P., Moscardo, G., & Pendergast, D. (2010). Tourism and Generation Y. CABI.

Bialik, K., & Fry, R. (2019, February 14). Millennial life: How young adulthood today compares with prior generations. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/02/14/millennial-life-how-young-adulthood-today-compares-with-prior-generations-2/

Brundtland, G. H. (Ed.). (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press.

Corbisiero, F., Monaco, S., & Ruspini, E. (2022). Millennials, Generation Z and the future of tourism. Channel View Publications.

Corsten, M. (1999). The time of generations. Time & Society, 8(2), 249–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X99008002003

Cross, G. (1993). Time and money: The making of consumer culture. Routledge.

De Grazia, S. (1962). Of time, work, and leisure. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund.

European Commission. (2017). Special Eurobarometer 468: Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment. Publications Office of the EU. https://doi.org/10.2779/256566

Fennell, D. A. (2021). Tourism ethics (3rd ed.). Channel View Publications.

Hall, C. M., & Lew, A. A. (2009). Understanding and managing tourism impacts: An integrated approach. Routledge.

Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2020). Socialising tourism for social and ecological justice after COVID-19. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1757748

Jafari, J. (2001). The scientification of tourism. In V. L. Smith & M. Brent (Eds.), Hosts and guests revisited: Tourism issues of the 21st century (pp. 28–41). Cognizant Communication Corporation.

Kingstone, H. (2021). Generational identities: Historical and literary perspectives. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(10), e12641. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12641
Kingstone, H., & Bristow, J. (Eds.). (2024). Studying generations: Multidisciplinary perspectives. Bristol University Press.

Lyons, S. T., & Kuron, L. K. J. (2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S139–S157. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1913

Mannheim, K. (1928). Das Problem der Generationen. Kölner Vierteljahreshefte für Soziologie, 7(2), 157–185; 309–330.

Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generations (P. Kecskemeti, Trans.). In P. Kecskemeti (Ed.), Essays on the sociology of knowledge (pp. 276–322). Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Original work published 1928).

Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, physical and social impacts. Longman.

Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational differences in work values: A review of theory and evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00285.x

Pilcher, J. (1994). Mannheim’s sociology of generations: An undervalued legacy. The British Journal of Sociology, 45(3), 481–495.

Purhonen, S. (2016). Zeitgeist, identity and politics: The modern meaning of the concept of generation. In I. Goodson (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook on narrative and life history (pp. 167–178). Routledge.

Sadler, P., & Archer, B. H. (1975). The economic impact of tourism in developing countries. Annals of Tourism Research, 2(1), 15–32.

Tribe, J. (2002). The philosophic practitioner. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2), 338–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(01)00038-X

Turner, L., & Ash, J. (1975). The golden hordes: International tourism and the pleasure periphery. St. Martin’s Press.

Walton, J. K. (2009). Histories of tourism. Channel View Publications.

Woodman, D. (2016). The sociology of generations and youth studies. In A. Furlong (Ed.), Routledge handbook of youth and young adulthood (2nd ed., pp. 36–42). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315753058-11