Impacts of the Northern Tourism Program
For more than a decade, a circumpolar group of universities has combined online learning, field experience and academic collaboration to build knowledge, networks and research capacity around northern tourism. This interactive summary presents the main evidence from the 2026 impact study.
Impacts build over more than a decade
The study combines alumni survey evidence with interviews and a Theory of Change approach to trace how a relatively modest programme developed longer-term educational, professional and institutional effects.
The field course is the strongest recurring impact mechanism
Across the interviews, the field course was consistently identified as the most significant experience. It connected academic concepts with place-based learning, collaboration, mentorship and direct engagement with tourism actors, communities and researchers.
From resources to longer-term impact
The report uses a Theory of Change to connect programme inputs and activities with learning, networks, career effects and wider institutional collaboration.
A collaborative model rather than a new joint degree
The programme originated in discussions among scholars within the Thematic Network in 2010. The original ambition for a complete joint master’s programme evolved into a more practical model that complements existing degrees. Students can access specialist northern tourism expertise across institutions without replacing their home programme.
The three-course structure comprises i) Sustainable Development in Northern Environments, ii) Northern Tourists; Northern Hosts, and iii) the field course Northern Tourism in Practice. The online courses establish shared concepts, while the field course provides the applied core.
The UArctic Thematic Network on Northern Tourism is established.
Early development is supported alongside the Chair in Arctic Tourism research project.
Further course development and the first cohort are supported through the High North Programme grant.
Field courses run in a series of northern locations, supported by mobility and research funding.
The impact study examines longer-term effects on students, instructors and institutional collaboration.
A circumpolar university network
From 2015 onwards, a core group of institutions have provided in-kind administrative and instructional support. These are shown on Figure 1 and are: UiT - The Arctic University of Norway, UMU - Umeå University Sweden, HI - Háskóli Íslands, University of Iceland, ULapland - the University of Lapland Finland, UOulu - the University of Oulu Finland, VIU - Vancouver Island University (Canada) and since 2019 NU - Nipissing University in Canada.
From 2015-2019 the additional Canadian partner was CB - Cape Breton University, where the lead researcher was based at the time. This same researcher was based at the University of Northern British Columbia during 2010-2012 development.
Explore the network
Select an institution to show its place in the programme history recorded in the report.
Institutional figures and counts of related Thematic Networks are from UArctic member profiles, accessed 21 September 2026. UArctic notes that recent system changes can delay updates to Thematic Network member lists. Vancouver Island University is treated separately because a current live UArctic member profile was not available when checked.
Theory of Change
The study first mapped the programme’s expected causal pathway and then used survey, interview and documentary evidence to examine whether those pathways were visible in practice.
Resources and relationships mobilised
What the initiative did with those inputs
Tangible products and services created
Changes in skills, behaviour and systems
Longer-term benefits if outcomes persist
Interviews
Seven semi-structured alumni interviews explored professional development, attitudes and programme experience. Six semi-structured instructor interviews examined the programme’s vision, implementation, challenges and longer-term effects.
Survey
The survey targeted alumni who had passed at least one course. Of 347 students in the records, 98 were reached by email or social media and 24 responded. Questions combined four-point scales with open responses.
This gives a response rate of about 24% of those reached and about 7% of the total alumni population, so the survey findings should be interpreted with the sample size and self-selection in mind.
Core concepts remained visible years later
Climate change was the most strongly recalled concept, followed by northern communities and sustainability. Entrepreneurship, participatory approaches and labour markets had lower levels of strong recall.
21 of 24 respondents therefore reported a moderate or significant influence on their attitude towards the development of northern tourism.
Alumni recollection of course concepts and UArctic values
The field course connected theory, place and people
Alumni described the programme as enriching and well structured. They highlighted sustainability, development and degrowth, land use, stakeholder and rights-holder engagement, Indigenous communities and climate change.
The field course stood out because it went beyond classroom learning. It offered collaboration, hands-on activities, direct contact with researchers and tourism actors, and practice in working across cultures and disciplines.
Career effects were often indirect, but sometimes decisive
Interview evidence shows several pathways from the programme into later careers. For some, the field course prompted interest in doctoral study; for others it shaped research topics, encouraged a career change, or gave practical approaches that remained useful outside tourism.
Half of the survey respondents reported that they were currently, or had previously been, working in tourism. The report also notes that the programme’s concepts transferred into other fields through practices such as stakeholder engagement and ethical decision-making.
Doctoral progression
Several alumni narratives link the programme, and especially the field course, to decisions to pursue PhD research.
Research direction
Discussions during the programme helped shape thesis topics and later research interests.
Transferable practice
Stakeholder engagement, collaboration and critical reflection were described as useful beyond tourism-specific roles.
The network also shaped instructors’ careers
Instructors described sustained collaboration, research projects, publications, conferences, PhD supervision and broader academic networks. Trust built over years of shared work was repeatedly described as central to making collaboration possible.
The interviews also identified administrative friction across institutions, especially admissions, registration, digital learning environments and mobility. These are important constraints because the programme deliberately spans institutional systems.
What sustained collaboration enabled
- Access to colleagues with overlapping expertise and meaningful feedback.
- Opportunities for joint research, funding applications and supervision.
- Learning from colleagues experienced in community involvement, workshops and participatory research.
- A wider sense of academic belonging across disciplines and national borders.
Interview evidence identifies pathways from field participation to doctoral study, research engagement and later academic careers.
The field component repeatedly appears as the place where theory, mentorship, peer networks and practice came together.
Alumni and instructors described sustained international relationships, collaboration and research opportunities beyond the courses themselves.
21 of 24 survey respondents reported a moderate or significant shift in perspective on northern tourism development.
Seven recommendations
Select a recommendation to read the rationale from the report.
A concluding reflection
The programme suggests that educational impact in networked environments does not scale through size alone. The report emphasises trust, continuity, intellectual coherence and lived collaboration as enabling conditions that accumulated over more than a decade.
Its wider question is deliberately forward-looking: if sustained thematic collaboration over a decade can generate measurable research capacity in one specialised field, what might longer-term stable network support achieve across other Arctic domains?
