The purpose of this research was to investigate factors that influence research culture in the accommodation sectors in Kenya. Despite there being massive benefits of research to the accommodation sector, available literature indicates that most players in the sector hardly conduct research. Although most hoteliers have a questionnaire administered to the guests to investigate visitor’s satisfaction with the services offered by the facility, rarely do they conduct research aimed at collecting external data that may assist them rate their services and products against those of their competitors. Why don’t small and medium accommodation facilities conduct research? What are the hindering factors? This is the gap the study addressed. Research in tourism and hospitality has been extensively conducted by the academia [1-4] but most of the findings are hardly consumed by hoteliers. In some cases, there is a delink between research areas and topics covered by academia and those expected by the hoteliers [5]. These researches are more supply-driven and not demand-driven in cases where students together with their supervisors select research topics without involving the hoteliers. Research in tourism and hospitality should be aimed at responding to industry demands in the areas of product development, innovations, and emerging trends in consumer behavior. This means that academia and the hospitality industry should collaborate in linkages to facilitate research whose findings can be operationalized by those investing in the sector. Amongst the generic reasons why the accommodation sectors do not conduct much research are finances and expertise. Some hotels do not have staff with the necessary skills and knowledge to conduct research and interpret results. In other cases, hotels prioritize operational concerns over long-term strategic planning, leading to a lack of investment in research. This study examined the variables that impact research culture in Kenya's lodging industries. The author opines that although hoteliers understand the value of research, most of them do not do research. The specific objective of the study was to investigate the perception of hoteliers on research and to examine factors that hinder them from conducting research. The study also sought to understand the benefits hoteliers associate with research. Although many academic institutions conduct research in the areas of tourism and hospitality, this study wanted to examine how research findings from hotelier and educational institutions are disseminated and shared with the target audience.

Theories Guiding the Study

Communities of Practice Theory

This study was guided by two theories that were applicable in the hospitality industry and academia. Communities of Practice (CoP) theory, developed by [13], which focuses on how groups of people with shared interests or professions engage in collection and sharing knowledge. It states that learning occurs through participation, which involves acquiring knowledge and contributing to and refining practices within the community. The theory noted that social interactions and relationships are crucial for developing and sharing knowledge, allowing members to learn from each other and solve problems collaboratively. This relationship and collaboration is what may be missing between the academia and the practitioners in the hospitality industry thus affecting joint research and sharing of findings.

The Resource-Based Theory

Another relevant theory to the study is the Resource-Based Theory (RBT) a strategic management theory. Developed by [6] the theory focuses on how business leverage their limited resources to maximize their performance. Hoteliers with limited resources will only allocate funds to research if they believe that the allocation will influence their profitability. Those expenditures with the highest expected returns are given priority to others. In sharing these resources, research is not in most cases given priority as it may not generate income directly.

Hindrance to Conducting Research

It's agreeable to scholars and practitioners in the tourism and hospitality industry that there are many reasons why hoteliers need to do research. It is documented that hotels that embrace research gain a competitive edge by understanding guest preferences, improving service quality, and in some cases optimizing operational efficiency [7-9]. Research has also been seen to drive innovation in amenities and marketing strategies, and enhance guest satisfaction and loyalty. Globally, a proactive approach to research helps hotel management make informed decisions and adapt to changing market trends effectively. Although there are many benefits associated with in-house research some hoteliers have given different reasons why they do not do research. Some have pointed towards the costs associated with research while others do not have the time and capability of collecting and analyzing data. Some managers may feel that research outcomes are not of immediate benefit. Others see the research process as a way of diverting their scarce resources which could have been used on daily operations. In addition, some managers believe that existing practices are already effective, leading to resistance to changes and in other cases skepticism about research altogether. Research may not be a core function of a hotel and for some cares the research and development department may not be fully operational and equipped with qualified researchers. This is commonly the case for small and medium hotels which in most cases collect data from visitors. In bigger hotel brands, the case is different as some have invested in data collection tools and infrastructure that give them information on emerging trends, technological innovations, and changes in consumer behavior. Whatever the case, it’s the author's conviction that academic institutions should have collaborations and linkages with hotels and work together not only in training but also in research. In many parts of the world, there exists a notable gap between training institutions and the hospitality industry which are meant to consume the research findings. The gap may be due to the differences in priorities, language, and timelines. Academic institutions may be seen to focus on theoretical, long-term research with a primary goal of advancing knowledge, while the private sector is looking for practical, immediate solutions that can drive profitability. This disconnect can be exacerbated by differing approaches to risk, funding constraints, and communication styles. Building bridges between these sectors often requires fostering partnerships, translating academic research into actionable insights, and aligning research goals with business needs.

Research Finding Dissemination

It has also been noted that educational institutions have research findings from their master's and doctorate students in their repositories and some of their findings may not have been disseminated to their consumers. Research shows that effective dissemination relies on choosing the right channels, including academic journals, conferences, social media, and institutional repositories, tailored to the target audience. In most cases, academic institution may use seminars and conference which in some cases may only have delegates from academia leaving the hoteliers. This is also the case when the hoteliers organize their exhibitions, most of the participants will be fellow hoteliers, tour operators, and travel agents who may see such a forum as a marketing and promotion forum. In this case, successful data dissemination is often facilitated by collaborations between researchers, practitioners, and policymakers, which can help in translating data into practical applications. [10-12] have found that there has been a disconnect in the dissemination of research findings from academicians to their targeted audience and consumers working in the hospitality industry.

Study Design

The study adopted a descriptive design and combined both qualitative and quantitative methods. The target population included managers and departmental heads from 3 to 5-star rated hotels in Nairobi, Nakuru, and Naivasha region. The regions were purposefully selected and may have introduced some biases. A sample size of 384 respondents was involved of which 291 responded. Primary data was collected using researcher-administered questionnaires and interviews. The pilot testing was conducted on the data collection tool and respondent’s views were considered when in the final questionnaires. Cronbach alpha reliability test was conducted in the data collection tools and was 0.801 which was considered satisfactory.

Perception of Hoteliers toward Research

Respondents Profile

A total of 384 questionnaires were administered and 281 were completed and were usable. A total of 70% of respondents were from accommodation sectors,7% from tour/travel companies, and 11% from restaurants. About 49% were supervisors and 12 were managers with 7% being hotel owners. In terms of their ages, 31% were below 30 years, and 63% of the respondents were between 30 and 50 years with a minority 5 % being over 50year. The findings indicated that 49% had worked in the same company for less than 5 years, compared to 45 % who had worked there for more than 10 years. From the respondent's profile, we can conclude that the feedback given is reliable due to their work experience and their position in the company. It also shows that most of the employees in the hospitality industry are young. The industry has low job turnover.

Research Culture of the Hospitality Industry in Kenya

The respondents were asked if their companies conduct research, and the findings are given in Table 1. The chi-square goodness of fit test is a hypothesis test that allows one to conclude if the distribution of a population is based on a sample.

Table 1: Does your company research to inform your decision.

A hypothesis was as stated below.

Ho: The number of companies that do research is the same as those who do not

H1: The number of companies that do research is different from those that do not

The findings showed that the number of respondents who conduct research is higher than those who do not. This finding is significant at was significant at (X2 = 76.761, (Df1), P< 001). The null hypothesis was therefore rejected and the study concluded that those companies that conduct research are not the same as those that do not. The finding therefore represents the population. Table1

The chi-square goodness-of-fit test indicates that the majority of respondents believe that their company's research informs decision-making, significantly more than what would be expected if there were no such influence. The result is highly significant, affirming the importance of research in your company’s decision-making process.

Benefits Associated with Research in the Accommodations Sect ors

Although there are some perceptions that research is very important to the accommodation sector, some general statements were given to the respondent, and their level of agreement or disagreement was recorded. The majority (96%) agreed to the fact that in a normal situation, research should inform hoteliers about the supply and demand of their products and services. A big majority (96%) also agreed that hotels need research to inform them of consumer needs and preferences and inform them of new upcoming markets. The questions were then who was to conduct the study and share the findings. The majority 94% agreed to the statement that research informs the competition of the destinations locally and internationally. It also brings about innovations and inventions in the hospitality industry. Research guides hoteliers in determining internal and external opportunities and threats, strengths, and weaknesses. About 87% agreed that they rely on research from another source to inform them on the competitiveness of a destination, upcoming market, and changing consumer habits. The majority (91%) need research to identify threats and opportunities in the market. With this background in mind, a follow-up question was necessary to investigate why despite the majority of respondents understanding and appreciating the benefits of research they do not conduct.

Perception of Hoteliers towards Research

The study instigated the perception of the respondents toward research and whether hotels have partners with whom they collaborate in undertaking research. The finding indicated that the majority of hotels (65%) conduct internal research mostly on room occupancy and guest satisfaction, compared to 35% who do not do research. Follow-up questions indicated that financial constraints and a lack of knowledge were the greatest hindrances.

Figure 1: Research culture of the hospitality industry in Kenya.

The finding indicated that the majority (51%) of hotels do not have a research budget. Only 49% had such a budget. This would therefore explain the reason why financial constraint was a big hindrance as most of them do not have a vote line specifically for research. In contrast, the majority (83%) said that they conducted some research before introducing a new product or service in the establishment. It was not clear how this research was conducted. It was noted that the majority (70%) of hotels do not have a research department as most researches are conducted by the responsible departments. The marketing department is tasked to survey marketing and product development. This would therefore explain why minimal research is undertaken and the perceptions towards research.

Table 2: My Company has a research department.

The chi-square statistic of 45.465 and the very low p-value of .000 indicate a highly significant result. This suggests that there is a substantial and statistically significant difference between the observed frequencies and the expected frequencies. Table 2 the chi-square goodness-of-fit test results indicate a significant deviation from the expected distribution regarding whether the company has a research department. The observed number of "Yes" responses is significantly lower than expected, while the number of "No" responses is significantly higher than expected. This significant difference suggests that the actual distribution of responses differs notably from what was anticipated, indicating that the presence of a research department is not as common as expected, or other factors may be influencing the distribution of these responses. It was also noted that the majority (51%) of respondents do not have any collaborations or partnerships with academic institutions or research companies. Only 49% have such collaboration mostly the established hotels with brands locally and internationally. It is therefore understandable why small and medium hotels would not be expected to do research.

Table 3: Collaboration with research companies and academia.

The chi-square statistic is very low (0.095), and the p-value is very high (0.758). This indicates that there is no statistically significant difference between the observed and expected frequencies. Table 3 the chi-square goodness-of-fit test results suggest that the observed distribution of responses about whether the company has collaborations with research and academic institutions is not significantly different from the expected distribution. The test shows no significant deviation, meaning that the actual responses (129 "Yes" and 134 "No") are consistent with what was expected (both 131.5). Therefore, the data does not provide evidence of a significant difference in the distribution of responses. This section gives the reader the perceptions and attitudes of hoteliers toward research. It’s upon the academia to see how such collaborations and linkages can be enhanced. Universities have the time, and another necessary prerequisite for research and innovation, and such collaborations would be advisable. Table 4.

Table 4: Does your firm have a research budget.

• Null Hypothesis (H?): The number of companies that have a research budget are the same as those without
• Alternative Hypothesis (H?): The number of companies that have a research budget is different from those without

Since the p-value (greater than 0.672) is much higher than typical significance levels (0.01), the study failed to reject the null hypothesis and concluded that there is no significant difference between the observed counts of Yes and No and the expected counts. The distribution of responses (Yes and No) is consistent with what was expected.

In other words, the research budget distribution between Yes and No responses does not differ significantly from what would be expected if there were no differences between the categories.

 Hindrance towards Research

The slogan “You either publish or perish “is what drives research in academia. Would a hotel in this century survive without research? This is the question this section intended to respond to. The study wanted to investigate what specifically inhibits research in the accommodation sector. Respondent gave their level of agreement with some statements on factors that had been raised during interviews on the major challenges to research. The majority (80%) of the respondents agreed that most employees do not have the time, manpower, and financial capability required to conduct research and therefore may require external intervention. This is an opportunity that may be taken by academia and other research organizations. It was also noted that in some case,40% of managers said that they do not fully understand the benefit or research to their establishment. The majority (51%) of the respondents said that they can easily interpret research findings as compared to 19% who indicated that they have a challenge interpreting data they collect in their establishment. (figure 2) The majority of respondents (50%)said that most of their decisions are guided by their industry experience and intuitions, meaning that they mostly rely more on government advice and industrial conferences and exhibitions. The finding also indicated that (44%) of respondents agreed that their company has a culture of conducting research as compared to 37% of respondents who said that their company doesn’t have a research culture. It was also noted that a minority of the respondents (29%) associate research with risks that stop them from sharing in-house data. This is observable by any researcher who targets hoteliers in the data collection process. Most felt their confidentiality would be compromised The academia and research organizations must get forums where they can share their finding with academia and other stakeholders in the tourism and hospitality industry. Currently, the academia and tourism and hospitality practitioners do not have forums where the hotels inform the academia on research areas of prioritization. The study noted that research in the academic is academic and supply-driven instead of demands from the stakeholders.

Figure 2: Hindrance toward research.

Reseasech Gap between Scholars and Industry Practitioners

The study sought to investigate the channels hoteliers use to disseminate and share their research findings. There is an almost equal split between hoteliers who attend and present at conferences and those who do not. This suggests that while conferences and workshops are a viable option for dissemination, they are not universally adopted, and some may prefer other methods or find them less relevant. (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Methods used to disseminate research findings.

A majority (59%) of hoteliers actively share their research findings with industry stakeholders, partners, and clients. This indicates a practical approach where the focus is on engaging with parties directly affected by or interested in the research, highlighting the importance of relevance and application in industry-specific contexts. A significant portion (58%) of hoteliers uses digital platforms to disseminate their research. This reflects a modern approach, leveraging the broad reach and immediacy of digital channels to engage a wide audience, facilitate real-time updates, and enhance visibility. The highest percentage (66%) of hoteliers disseminate research findings to targeted audiences such as industry professionals and associations. This method is highly valued for its effectiveness in reaching those who are directly relevant to the research, suggesting a preference for targeted, impactful communication. A slight majority (52%) collaborate with academic and research institutions to disseminate their findings. This indicates that while academic collaboration is practiced and valued, it is not the dominant method, reflecting a balanced approach.The smallest proportion (39%) of hoteliers publish research findings in journals. This suggests that journal publication is less commonly used, possibly due to the lengthy process involved or a preference for more immediate and accessible dissemination channels.

The study concludes that hoteliers and other investors in the accommodation sectors in Kenya understand the value and benefits of research to the company. For this reason, most of them conduct in-house surveys and collect data to ascertain guests' satisfaction with the services offered. However, most of them do not do research that targets external environments. The main reasons are lack of expertise in research, financial constraints, and lack of time. Unlike the small and medium hotels, hotels with international brands conduct comprehensive research on marketing and competitor analysis which informs them on how their brand is doing as compared to others. Once the research has been conducted, the findings are shared internally with only a few hotels sharing them with other stakeholders either in exhibitions, conferences, and their website and online channels. There is minimal collaboration between hoteliers and the academic institutions in Kenya and most of the research conducted by the academia is driven instead of them being demand-driven. The findings from the academia are hardly shared with the hoteliers thus creating a research finding dissemination gap. Rarely do hotels and academia share forums to discuss research and innovations in the tourism and hospitality industry but will have parallel conferences and seminars. Most of the innovations done by the academia are not implemented by the hoteliers and they may not have enough details on how to implement some recommendations. The study recommends that the academia and the hoteliers should complement one another where the hoteliers identify the problem and together with the academia do joint research. The academia should create a forum where their research findings and innovations can be shared with hoteliers and other investors in the accommodation sector. The study recommends further research in the subject area with a bigger sample size and larger study area.

1. Zhou T, Law R and Lee PC. Exploring Sustainable Measurements of Academic Research: How Do Faculty Members in Teaching-Oriented Universities of China Evaluate Good? Res Tourism Hospitality Sus. 2021; 13: 11129.
2. Gusenbauer M and Haddaway NR. What every researcher should know about searching-clarified concepts search advice and an agenda to improve finding in academia. Res syn meth. 2021; 12: 136-147.
3. Aprile KT, Ellem P and Lole L. Publish perish or pursue? Early career academics perspectives on demands for research productivity in regional universities. Higher Edu Res Dev. 2021; 40: 1131-1145.
4. Da Silva JAT. Challenges that early career researchers face in academic research and publishing: pre-and post-COVID-19 perspectives. Exchanges: the interdisciplinary research journal. 2021; 9: 77-106.
5. Agarwal R, Kim S and Moeen M. Leveraging private enterprise: Incubation of new industries to address the public sector’s mission-oriented grand challenges. Strategy Science. 2021; 6: 385-411.
6. Barney JB, Ketchen DJ and Wright M. Resource-based theory and the value creation framework. Journal of Management. 2021; 27: 1936-1955.
7. Bardukova L. Navigating the Hospitality Horizon: Current Trends and Strategies for Customer Attraction and Retention in the Hotel Industry. Econ computer sci. 2023; 2: 88-103.
8. Bilgihan A and Ricci P. The new era of hotel marketing: integrating cutting-edge technologies with core marketing principles. J Hospitality Tourism Tech. 2024; 15: 123-137.
9. Cheon F and Law R. Human employees versus robotic employees: Customers and hotel managers’ perceived experience at unmanned smart hotels. Cogent Social Sciences. 2023; 9: 2202937.
10. Buchanan GJ, Filiatreau LM and Moore JE. Organizing the dissemination and implementation field: who are we what are we doing and how should we do it? Imp Sci Com. 2024; 5: 38.
11. Schirling D. From the Classroom to the Community: Pedagogy in the Presence of Disconnect. The Macksey Journal. 2022; 3.
12. Gunn CM, Amerson AM, Adkisson KL and Haxel JH. A framework for effective science communication and outreach strategies and dissemination of research findings for marine energy projects. J Marine Sci Eng. 2022; 10: 130.
13. Collado MA, Gómez-Rico M, Sigala M, Molina MV, Aranda E and Salinero Y. Mapping tourism and hospitality research on information and communication technology: a bibliometric and scientific approach. Inf Tech Tourism. 2022; 24: 299-340.