Suchergebnisse

Calls for change within the hospitality sector have argued for the industry to seriously consider the implementation of professionalism. Concerns have been raised about the workplace conditions of many employees, the readiness of graduates to meet or challenge these practices, and commitment
to sustainability in promoting and respecting the rights of people in the workplace. In this conceptual article traditional perspectives of professionalism are critically examined. A key argument is that recent changes to professionalism have transformed the term into another discursive tool
for discipline, performance and control. Rather than focusing on professionalism this article asserts that the sector should seriously consider implementing meaningful work and dignity. The article concludes that integrating these concepts through practices such as caring relationships, trust
and education of managers starts to open up avenues for change in this hostile industry. Overall, the article argues that by adopting a broader understanding of professionalism, one that incorporates communication and collaboration, and challenges the lack of dignity in the workplace, we can
start to open up possibilities for interdisciplinary work and more importantly, change.

Following the tragic events of the Christchurch shooting on 15th March 2019, New Zealanders projected a national image of hospitality towards Muslim New Zealanders, involving an Islamic call to prayer in Parliament, and women wearing hijab in solidarity – unique public demonstrations of compassion and inclusion. In 2020, the New Zealand government will raise its refugee quota to 1,500 refugees per year as part of its United Nations obligations and remove its race-based aspects [1]. Globally, there are vast displacements of people fleeing persecution and economic oppression [2]. Arguably, despite its small refugee resettlement quota, New Zealand appears hospitable. Yet our study reveals a context within which negative economic, social and political factors dominate policy and practices. It similarly highlights ways in which New Zealand's hospitality towards refugees is paternalistic and interventionist, even if not deliberately [3]. 'Being hospitable' is typically defined as a social relation that accompanies the ideologies and unconditional practices of 'welcome' [4]. As an act of welcome, hospitality gives ethical recognition to the stranger. This practice of hospitality enables and resonates a feeling of belonging and inclusion. However, the intrinsic nature of hospitality may foster exclusion as well as inclusion. The Christchurch incident arose from an act of unwelcome and a false sense of security from authorities as previous discrimination reported by the local refugee Muslim community was ignored. As such, key questions remain about how hospitable New Zealand is to refugees. When refugees are resettled into a destination, refugee-focused service providers (including not-for-profits, community groups and NGOs) offer frontline services to ease refugees' experiences of trauma and marginalisation. They provide advocacy and welcome through reception processes, translation services and multicultural centres. We facilitated a national think tank attended by 34 refugee-focused service providers to examine how they practice a hospitable welcome through their advocacy and frontline services and how the welcome could be improved. Participants identified the need for greater collaboration and communication between refugee-focused service providers to enhance trust, relationships, to enable former refugees to feel safe in voicing their concerns and access services, and to reduce the competition and duplication of service provision in the face of scarce funding. They also recognised the need to increase attention to the notion of welcome and advocacy by adopting practices from non-interventionist actions that draw on the notion of welcome as empathetic, warm and connecting, with minimum rules, and to centre refugee voices with their active participation in policy development, service delivery and social inclusion activities. Participants also advocated continued efforts by the media and wider community to reduce discrimination and negative social dialogue around refugees and to encourage their social inclusion. To achieve these outcomes, participants raised the need to address the important issues of underfunding and strategy underpinning the delivery of refugee-focused service provision. Overall, our findings suggest that beneath the initial welcoming surface, an alternative perspective may be concealed that restricts us from providing a broader inclusive hospitality and welcome into Aotearoa New Zealand. To bridge this potential impasse, a more humanistic approach is potentially required, where refugees actively co-create the critical framing of hospitality [5, 6] to better support their resettlement.

The hospitality industry is not immune from the social issues facing our society. There are cases of hospitality initiatives for social change, including philanthropy and social enterprise [1]. In our academic work, the key driver for change is how to overcome silos in order to create engaged, meaningful relationships between hospitality scholars in academia and external community stakeholders [1–3]. We sought to move beyond the traditional confines of academic institutions in order to 'flip' mind-sets and practice hospitality for the benefit of wider society. To achieve this vision of hospitality, we needed to work with and within communities. Intervention on long-standing social issues requires wider collaboration – reaching across businesses, third-sector organisations and education institutions. The New Zealand government has been calling on academia to make meaningful relationships that "open up diverse networks of knowledge and resources" for tackling social change [2]. Universities have not always had a good reputation for sustained meaningful engagement with external stakeholders [2]. For instance, typical interactions at universities may include one-way guest lectures or advisory boards who may serve more as a performance of communication for accreditation boards than actual listening and engaging with stakeholders. Dissatisfied with these limiting relationships, "we adopted principles from critical hospitality and dialogue theories to create a long-term space for inclusion, collaboration, and transformational change" [2]. We held a series of community stakeholder meetings using tools, such as Ketso [4, 5], that facilitated co-created conversations with diverse stakeholders – many of whom would not ordinarily have the chance to think through a social problem together. During these meetings, individuals discussed the issue and gained an opportunity to hear, learn and understand each other's experiences. A recommendation emerged from these meetings [2] for the formation of a network of organisations, charities, individuals and businesses that were interested in tackling social change – called The Network for Community Hospitality (NCH). This recommendation enabled a communication network for diverse stakeholders, ranging from corporates, funders and third sector to individual community organisations to share conversation, resources, knowledge and work on social issues facing our communities. NCH has worked with a variety of stakeholders within communities drawing on different sets of knowledge to tackle social cultural issues related to hospitality, such as social housing, disability and employment, refugee welcome, and poverty. NCH has held 'Town & Gown' events to encourage dialogue between stakeholders who may not normally have access to decision-making and financial resources. Invitees to the dinners ranged from businesses to charities and aimed to encourage stakeholders to collectively think through how we can practice and make our communities hospitable. At these dinner events, people with similar interests were strategically placed around the tables. Between dining courses, short three-minute speeches were given by various organisations with a specific call to action for change. Other examples include organisations working with student groups to tackle a particular hospitality issue. Active collaboration with external stakeholders involves student internships/volunteering and students pitching their intervention ideas to the stakeholder. In many cases, after the course key students or student groups will continue either working or (micro-)volunteering with the organisation to help deliver and implement the enterprise or intervention. One of the determinants of success is the mind-set adopted during these processes. The aim is to enact participatory community development approaches that emphasise 'bottom-up', co-creation, and dialogue as important tactics for success. Many of the approaches we used were organic, even chaotic at times, inclusive, and always involved friendly conversations over a cuppa and food. Of course, issues can emerge from time to time due to differing understandings around concerns such as timeframes, focus, ownership and commitment. For education, the benefits are that we engage learners in meaningful practices that bridge students' understanding of theories and real life for a better future. For businesses, it means future hospitality graduates are exposed to real-life issues, well-prepared to manage, able to take leadership and can vision new enterprises and practices for the sector. For society, involving a range of stakeholders to tackle social issues works towards developing inclusive, safe community spaces with a strong sense of civic engagement; in short, a vision for more hospitable communities.

Abstract
This article aims to offer a consideration of hospitality in organizations, occupations and thresholds to illustrate the sociocultural dimensions of hospitality spaces. Our aim is to open up thinking around spaces of hospitality offered by organizational members, particularly those employees who work with the vulnerable 'other', across thresholds into homes and organizational spaces. Community social workers illustrate the practice of hospitality as they offer advocacy and inclusion for those individuals excluded from the wider community. The move towards professionalism has been argued as one way of establishing value, authority and confidence in the role of the community social worker and the decisions these individuals make in their work. However, critics have indicated that professionalism emphasizes practices of ideological control, norms and exclusion, in effect undermining key social work values, ethos and practice. Our results illustrate that community social workers developed asymmetric relationships of trust within their community and negotiated with other organizational members in order to create spaces for their work and inclusion.

AbstractWe present the results of a 2014 survey of Canadian parliamentarians, journalists and bloggers in which respondents were asked to rank competing definitions of open government. Overall, respondents preferred to define open government in terms of access to information and sources. However, controlling for age, ideology and language, we also found that respondents in the different positions ranked definitions of open government differently. Journalists are more likely than any other group to define open government in terms of access to information and sources. In contrast, parliamentarians who were members of a governing party were as likely to choose definitions of open government that emphasized public participation as they were to choose definitions that emphasized access to information. Opposition parliamentarians share more similarities with government parliamentarians than with journalists. These results suggest that key actors in the Canadian policy landscape define open government in ways that are consistent with their institutional interests. We suggest that these results reflect ways in which open government operates more like a buzzword, which helps explain the common pattern whereby opposition parties make promises to be more open and, after taking power, operate in less open ways. Moreover, these results raise questions about the extent to which open government can actually operate as an organizing principle.

Abstract