Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research: Theory and Practice 9781845416416

Citation preview

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

ASPECTS OF TOURISM Series Editors: Chris Cooper (Oxford Brookes University, UK), C. Michael Hall (University of Canterbury, New Zealand) and Dallen J. Timothy (Arizona State University, USA) Aspects of Tourism is an innovative, multifaceted series, which comprises authoritative reference handbooks on global tourism regions, research volumes, texts and monographs. It is designed to provide readers with the latest thinking on tourism worldwide and in so doing will push back the frontiers of tourism knowledge. The series also introduces a new generation of international tourism authors writing on leading edge topics. The volumes are authoritative, readable and user-friendly, providing accessible sources for further research. Books in the series are commissioned to probe the relationship between tourism and cognate subject areas such as strategy, development, retailing, sport and environmental studies. The publisher and series editors welcome proposals from writers with projects on the above topics. All books in this series are externally peer-reviewed. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.channelviewpublications.com, or by writing to Channel View Publications, St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK.

ASPECTS OF TOURISM: 82

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research Theory and Practice

Edited by Wendy Hillman and Kylie Radel

CHANNEL VIEW PUBLICATIONS Bristol • Blue Ridge Summit

DOI https://doi.org/10.21832/HILLMA6409 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Names: Hillman, Wendy, editor. | Radel, Kylie, editor. Title: Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research: Theory and Practice/Edited by Wendy Hillman and Kylie Radel. Description: Bristol, UK; Blue Ridge Summit, PA, USA: Channel View Publications, [2018] | Series: Aspects of Tourism: 82 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017038713| ISBN 9781845416393 (pbk : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781845416409 (hbk: alk. paper) | ISBN 9781845416430 (kindle) | ISBN 9781845416416 (pdf) | ISBN 9781845416423 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Tourism–Research–Methodology. | Qualitative research–Methodology. Classification: LCC G155.7 .Q825 2018 | DDC 910.72/1--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017038713 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-84541-640-9 (hbk) ISBN-13: 978-1-84541-639-3 (pbk) Channel View Publications UK: St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol, BS1 2AW, UK. USA: NBN, Blue Ridge Summit, PA, USA. Website: www.channelviewpublications.com Twitter: Channel_View Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/channelviewpublications Blog: www.channelviewpublications.wordpress.com Copyright © 2018 Wendy Hillman, Kylie Radel and the authors of individual chapters. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by Deanta Global Publishing Services Limited. Printed and bound in the UK by Short Run Press Ltd. Printed and bound in the US by Edwards Brothers Malloy, Inc.

Contents

Figures and Tables

ix

Preface

xi

Contributors

xiii

Foreword Marg Deery

xvii

Introduction Wendy Hillman and Kylie Radel Where Qualitative Methods Meet Quantitative Methods Ethics in Qualitative Research Structure of this Text 1

Ontology, Epistemology: Paradigms and Parameters for Qualitative Approaches to Tourism Research Les Killion and Rickie Fisher The Nature of Qualitative Research Qualitative vs Quantitative Research The Lexicons of Qualitative and Quantitative Research What Do We Mean ‘Paradigm’? Some Perspectives on the Components of a Qualitative Research Paradigm A Note on ‘Mixed Methods’ The Relevance for Tourism Research Conclusion

2

A Grounded Theory Approach to Tourism Kylie Radel and Wendy Hillman Overview of Grounded Theory and Background to its Common Usage Research Contexts Grounded Theory in Practice Some Final Thoughts v

xix xix xx xxii 1 2 4 6 9 13 23 23 24 29

31 33 37 43

vi

3

Contents

Ethnographic Approaches to Tourism Research Amie Matthews What is Ethnography? Ethnographic Fieldwork Ethnographic Writing: Process and Product The Complexities of Doing Ethnography: Considering Issues of Subjectivity and Objectivity Ethnography in Tourism Studies Types of Ethnographic Research Conclusion

4

Phenomenology in Leisure and Tourism Research Laura Sophia Fendt Phenomenology: The Study of Lived Experiences Research Processes and Presentation Phenomenology as a Method for Studying Tourism and Leisure Experiences Case Study: ‘What it is Like to be a Surfer Girl’: Interpretive Phenomenology for Investigating Women’s Surfing Experiences Final Thoughts

5

Action Research and Tourism Studies Gayle Jennings Overview of Action Research and Background to its Common Usage Engaging in Action Research Cyclic Processes of Action Research Research Contexts Determining Quality in Action Research Conclusion

6

Participant Observation in Cross-Cultural Tourism Research Kylie Radel Observation, Participant-Observation and Naturalistic Inquiry Naturalistic Inquiry and Participant-Observation Membership and Cross-Cultural Tourism Research: Inconsistencies and Conflicts A New Model of Research Partnering for Cross-Cultural Tourism Research

50 51 52 54 56 57 60 67 72 73 79 81

86 91 96

100 108 111 113 115 122 129

130 133 135 137

Contents

Case Study: Application of the Model to an Indigenous Tourism Research Context Conclusion 7

Aligning Western and Indigenous Ways of Doing Tourism Research: A Constructivist Grounded Theory Approach Kylie Radel Indigenous Epistemologies, Ontologies and Axiologies: The Natures of Knowing, Being and Values Partnering, Participation and Benefit Sharing Ownership of Knowledge and Informed Consent Indigenous Ways of Doing Research Synthesising a Framework for Indigenous Research Aligning Indigenous and Western Research ‘Am I Doing it Right?’: A Constructivist–Interpretive Paradigm Informed by Indigenous Research Perspectives Conclusion

8

Qualitative Tourism Research: Focus Groups Carolyn Daniels, Wendy Hillman and Kylie Radel What Are Focus Groups? Purpose of Focus Groups Advantages and Disadvantages of Focus Groups for Qualitative Data Collection Role of the Facilitator Focus Group Participants Group Composition Conducting a Focus Group Why Use Focus Groups in Tourism? Case Study: Mindful Memories: Using Focus Groups to Gather Data in Transformative Heritage Tourism Experiences Conclusion

9

The Interview in Tourism Research Felicity Picken Talking to People The Value of Talking to People in Tourism Research Structured, semi-structured and unstructured (in-depth) interviews

vii

144 151 157

159 166 167 168 169 171 175 177 184 184 185 186 186 187 189 189 190

193 196 200 200 201 202

viii

Contents

Tourism-Related People Interviews and Stakeholder Research Interviews and Technology Case Study: Interviewing in Action: Understanding a Controversial Tourist Development Tacking Back and Forth: The Interview Process Concluding Remarks on the Limits of the Interview Method 10 A Mixed Methods Approach in Tourism Research Benjamin Lucca Iaquinto Philosophies of Mixed Methods Research Classifying Mixed Methods Research A Review of Mixed Methods Tourism Research Case Study: A Mixed Methods Approach in Tourism Research A Concurrent Nested Mixed Methods Design Research Design Conclusion 11 Image Use in Tourism Research Methodology Trini Espinosa Abascal, Martin Fluker and Min Jiang Theories on Destination and Activity Choice in Tourism The Use of Visual Methods in Tourism Research The Development of a Photo-based Ranking-Sorting Procedure Mixing Methods Case Study: An Application of the Photo-based Ranking-Sorting Procedure in a Tourism Project Results Discussion and Conclusion

205 209 209 213 216 219 224 225 229 231 233 234 235 241 248 248 250 252 255 256 258 273

12 Conclusion Wendy Hillman

279

Index

285

Figures and Tables

Table 1.1 Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2 Figure 2.1 Table 2.1 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Figure 4.1 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Figure 5.1 Table 5.3 Figure 5.2 Figure 6.1 Figure 6.2 Figure 6.3 Table 7.1 Table 8.1 Table 8.2 Table 8.3 Table 10.1 Table 10.2

Qualitative and quantitative research: Different lexicons Positivism and interpretivism as contrasting paradigms and methodologies Key components of a theoretical research paradigm Model of the grounded theory process Practical principles in thematic analysis Husserlian and Heideggerian phenomenology Approach to phenomenological analysis of the women’s surfing experience Example of a postcard Early classifications of action research and accompanying descriptions Contemporary types and practices of action research, definitions and related researchers Iterative cycles of action research processes Examples of action research in tourism studies and hospitality management ARIES action research cycles Gold’s (1958) typology of participant-observation Adler and Adler’s (1998) naturalistic inquiry membership roles compared with Gold’s (1958) typology of participant-observation Model of qualitative research partnering for crosscultural tourism research The Indigenous Research Framework incorporating Indigenous research epistemology, ontology, agendas, protocols, research designs and methods Advantages and disadvantages of focus groups Desirable focus group facilitator skills Factors influencing participant contributions in focus groups Mixed methods notation system Nine different mixed methods research designs

ix

7 10 12 33 42 76 88 89 98 101 111 116 120 132 134 138 170 186 187 188 229 230

x

Figures and Tables

Table 11.1 Figure 11.1 Table 11.2 Figure 11.2 Table 11.3 Table 11.4 Table 11.5 Table 11.6 Figure 11.3 Table 11.7 Figure 11.4 Figure 11.5 Figure 11.6 Figure 11.7 Table 11.8

Methods used in the present study Ranking-sorting photo-based procedure Methods that contributed to the development of the ranking-sorting photo-based technique Photographs used during the data collection process Response rates Data analysis approaches undertaken in the present study Participants’ demographic characteristics and travel patterns (n = 244) Summary of preferences and intention to participate in tourism activities at Katherine Art and culture tourism category Evaluation results of the photo-based ranking-sorting procedure (n = 38) Food and wine tourism category Indigenous tourism category Nature and wildlife category Outdoors/active tourism category Additional comments regarding the photo-based ranking-sorting procedure

252 253 256 257 258 258 259 260 263 264 265 267 270 272 273

Preface

This edited volume was originally conceived as a text for Channel View Publications’ Aspects of Tourism series. However, from those beginnings, this text has transformed into a vehicle seeking to expose and illustrate new approaches and thinking in qualitative methods that are being developed and implemented in tourism research. We have endeavoured to bring together a ‘mix’ of various qualitative methods and approaches; while at the same time, providing some suggestions for the juxtaposition of qualitative and quantitative methods in mixed methods research. The editors would like to thank a number of people including our families, the inspired authors of each of the chapters, our research participants, our research students, the exceptional editorial team at Channel View Publications and each other. Neither of us could have done this without the valuable and effective input from the rest of you.

xi

Contributors

Trinidad Espinosa-Abascal has past experience in the financial industry having worked for three years within the department of finance at the University of Tec de Monterrey, Mexico. Trini decided to start building her career as a researcher, so she enrolled in the Master of Business (by research) at Victoria University (VU). Her research interest is in Indigenous and nature-based tourism. She has participated in international conferences and published in related field journals. She has been the recipient of scholarships (VU International Postgraduate Research Scholarship to conduct her Master by Research study and her PhD; and a Tourism and Transport Forum [TTF] scholarship to attend a CAUTHE conference), internship offers (TTF in Sydney) and she has been finalist of a tourism award (Todd Award 2014). In 2015, Trini successfully obtained a VU Indigenous Central Research Grant of AUD$9940 to conduct her PhD project. Carolyn Daniels is an early career researcher working in the Office of Indigenous Engagement at Central Queensland University, Australia, Rockhampton campus. Additionally, she is currently in the final year of her doctorate with the School of Business and Law. Carolyn’s research has focused on resilience, health and well-being in the workplace and the broader community. Over the past four years, Carolyn has developed experience in a range of multidisciplinary research projects with expertise in qualitative data collection methods, analysis and interpretation. Laura Sophia Fendt is a lecturer at the School of Business and Tourism at Southern Cross University. She has also completed her PhD, which explores the phenomenon of women’s surfing from a phenomenological perspective. Her honours thesis focused on motivations, constraints and negotiation strategies of women surf tourists. Laura’s main areas of research include gender and leisure, specifically women’s surfing. Her methodological directions follow the qualitative, interpretive pathway with a particular interest in phenomenological methods. Rickie Fisher is a senior lecturer and the head of programme, secondary and postgraduate initial teacher education at Central Queensland University. He completed both his honours and doctoral programmes xiii

xiv

Contributors

using qualitative research paradigms and approaches. In the former, he investigated the reactions and future plans of a group of secondary school hospitality and tourism students. His doctoral research was concerned with career change into secondary school teaching. In the course of that investigation, he devised a ‘fusionist ontology’ as a framework for understanding how past events and situations provided the antecedents that influenced decisions of participants to enter teaching as a second career. Rickie engaged with the central precepts of a grounded theory methodology to analyse the empirical materials that research participants provided. Martin Fluker is a lecturer in tourism at the College of Business, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia. Prior to academia, Dr Fluker held industry positions as far ranging as marketing manager for a global adventure tourism company, duty manager for a 1000-room tropical island resort and professional white water rafting guide. Dr Fluker’s research interests now include adventure tourism and ways in which visitors to nature-based tourism assets can contribute towards their long-term care through community-based environmental monitoring. Wendy Hillman is a senior lecturer in sociology in the School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Sciences at Central Queensland University, Australia. Recently, Wendy has co-authored an Australian edition of an innovative sociology text aimed at a first-year, undergraduate cohort. Wendy has published widely in the area of tourism, travel, isolation and issues related to individuals’ motivations to shift, relocate and travel. Wendy holds a PhD in sociology from James Cook University, Australia, where she also graduated with a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) and a Master of Social Science. She continues to pursue her passion for travel and movements of people and is currently co-authoring a book on the grounded theory method. Wendy’s main research interests include: Nepal, empowering women, transformative travel, emancipation of women through tourism enterprises, trekking, backpackers, ecotourism, sociology of tourism, ecotour guides, rural and regional research and the general mobility of groups of people. Benjamin Lucca Iaquinto was awarded his PhD from the University of Melbourne, Australia. He is a human geographer with research interests in mobilities, place, sustainability, practice theory and tourism. Gayle Jennings is the director of research at Imagine Consulting Group International. Her research agenda focuses on practical and applied research for business and industry, research training and education, qualitative methodologies and quality tourism experiences. Gayle is also an adjunct professor of tourism management, Department of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus.

Contributors

xv

She has sole-authored and edited a number of books, written book chapters and journal articles across a range of topics relating to theoretical paradigms that inform research processes, research methods, education, water-based tourism and quality tourism experiences. Dr Min Jiang is a senior research fellow at the College of Business, Victoria University and an honorary research associate at the University of Sydney, Australia. As an environmental lawyer by training, Min has published internationally in academic journals and books in the areas of tourism vulnerability, resilience, adaptation to climate change, the green economy and water governance. She has led and coordinated a number of research and industry consultancy projects on climate change adaptation, sustainable tourism and the green economy in Australia, China and the South Pacific. Min is the sole author of the commissioned book Towards Tradable Water Rights: Water Law and Policy Reform in China (Springer). Les Killion completed his master’s degree in geography and Diploma in Education at the University of New England, Armidale in 1969–1970. He taught at UNE, Charles Sturt University and the University of Canberra before being appointed to the then Capricornia Institute of Advanced Education, now Central Queensland University (CQU), Australia, where he initially lectured in Community Studies and Sociology. Les developed the university’s tourism degree programme. He served as associate dean in the former Faculty of Arts, head of the former School of Marketing and Tourism and was interim dean of the former Faculty of Business and Law in 2002–2003. He completed his PhD in sociology at the University of Queensland in 1998 and was appointed an associate professor in 1999. Les retired from CQU in 2011 but retains a position as adjunct associate professor. He has co-authored three textbooks in tourism, has presented at national and international conferences on tourism and sociology and continues to supervise doctoral and master’s students. When not following his academic pursuits, Les is also president of the Rockhampton Eisteddfod Association; was formerly chair of the St Ursula’s College board of directors; and breeds and shows miniature dachshunds, four of which have achieved their titles as Australian Champions. Amie Matthews is a lecturer in the School of Social Sciences and Psychology, at Western Sydney University, where she teaches in sociology and tourism studies. Drawing on ethnography, interviews and media analysis, Amie has conducted extensive research into the backpacking culture, focusing on the role of travel in the lives of young people and the influence it has on their self and world perceptions. In addition, she has research interests in the ethics of tourism and tourist practices; tourism, media and the tourist imaginary; and the intersections between tourism, mobilities and everyday cosmopolitanism.

xvi

Contributors

Felicity Picken is a qualitative researcher with a particular interest in tourism and methodologies that work at the disciplinary borders. She has applied these two interests to architecture, urban design, beach tourism and, most recently, undersea as a 21st-century pleasure-space. Her current research develops the concept of ‘blue tourism’ as a relational materialism that troubles land-based legacies of social life in the production and experience of tourism and leisure encounters. Kylie Radel is a senior lecturer in marketing and tourism with the School of Business & Law, at Central Queensland University. Kylie’s research focus is specifically on building and advancing tourism enterprises as an agent for transformation and sustainable economic and social development. She was invited to speak at the Northern Economic Development Conference 2015 in Canada, to present Australian Indigenous development examples as case studies for Aboriginal communities in northern Canada. Dr Radel works with small enterprises in Nepal and Fiji to develop tourism opportunities; specifically for rural and remote women. She is a member of the Tourism Crisis Management, Risk and Recovery research group; has previously conducted and presented research in ‘Disrupting poverty in rural Nepal: Transformations of women through tourism entrepreneurship’; and has over 40 publications on Indigenous tourism, Indigenous and qualitative research methodologies and education in business.

Foreword

Given the advent of the digital age and the plethora of data to which we are now exposed, this edited book on qualitative methods in tourism research is most timely. While the debate between qualitative and quantitative methods continues, it is important that each ‘side’ makes a case for its appropriateness and relevance in an ever-changing world. Various chapters in this edited book explore the value of qualitative research in understanding reasons behind tourist behaviour, not just describing it as may be the case with quantitative research. Qualitative research is becoming more common in tourism research design and the early concerns of qualitative research being too subjective are countered by the techniques outlined in this book. It assists in ensuring that qualitative research is undertaken in a more objective manner and reported accordingly. This book brings qualitative methods into the 21st century, taking a strong and sometimes challenging position on the many attributes that qualitative research brings to understanding our world. Technology has improved communications so that Skype and other ‘distance-defeating technologies’ allow researchers access to informants anywhere in the world. Social media has opened up new ways to understand tourist’s motivations, levels of satisfaction and tourist needs, thereby providing sources of information we have, to date, not been able to access. A number of chapters in this book provide insights into using technology to elucidate lived experiences. The case studies and visual materials further add to the understanding of the various paradigms under discussion. In these times of uncertainty with world developments such as Brexit and ‘fake news’, it is reassuring to be able to access guidelines and examples in how to deal with such phenomena. The ethics associated with these new developments can be complex and challenging, and understanding research approaches such as phenomenology and participant observation goes some way to ‘unpacking’ them. The book offers new interpretations to traditional research designs so that methods such as action research is not only thoroughly explored and explained but the material provides assistance in using the method. It is an excellent resource for both seasoned academics and emerging scholars. Margaret Deery, PhD xvii

Introduction Wendy Hillman and Kylie Radel

Qualitative data with their emphasis on people’s ‘lived experience’ are fundamentally well suited for locating meanings people place on the events, process and structure of their lives: ‘their perceptions, assumptions, prejudgments, presupposition’; and for connecting these meanings to the social world around them. Miles and Huberman, 1994: 10

Qualitative research methodologies and approaches to undertaking research in tourism are frequently contested by many practitioners and academics. As evidenced by the citation above, many authors provide an extensive discussion of the general approach. However, no text yet provides a well-illustrated guide to the development and use of the multiplicity of qualitative research approaches that are being advanced to understand and ground the researcher in the data; and describe the main theoretical framework underpinning the qualitative paradigm. This edited volume on Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research is written from a cross-disciplinary perspective that provides a rare insight into the art of research development in tourism from the business, sociology and tourism standpoints. This presents a distinctive opportunity for social researchers from a variety of discipline areas, in particular tourism, to examine how to adapt the wide variety of qualitative approaches to their particular research needs. The book seeks to attract research higher degree students and academic researchers involved in qualitative research. Therefore, this book is applicable to particular undergraduate courses as well as all research programmes. Where Qualitative Methods Meet Quantitative Methods

This introduction would not be complete without a short discussion of where qualitative and quantitative methods intersect. There is no question that research that includes the integration of qualitative and quantitative methods has come to be increasingly common and valuable in contemporary times. Whereas some critics convey apprehension about the ‘anything goes’ position that supports it (e.g. Buchanan, 1992; Pawson & Tilly, 1997), to the extent that research procedure is involved, blending qualitative and quantitative research has become commonplace and xix

xx

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

routine in many applications. Certainly, for some authors it has appeared as a unique research style ‘in its own right’ that necessitates assessment with each paradigm of quantitative and qualitative research. In this way, we end up with three separate slants to research: qualitative; quantitative; and what is diversely termed multi-methods (Brannen, 1992), multistrategy (Bryman, 2004), mixed methods (Creswell, 2003; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003; see also for example Iaquinto, Chapter 10, this volume) or mixed methodology (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998) research (Bryman, 2006: 97). In the arena of evaluative research, and certainly in quite a few other applied disciplines, the argument for a ‘multi-strategy research’ style appears to have secured particularly robust support (Bryman, 2006: 97; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). One of the persistent concerns in tourism research is the comparative usefulness of distinct research styles and their outputs; mainly, there are strong discussions around the challenge of incorporating potentially dissimilar theories of knowledge (e.g. interpretivist as opposed to positivist) and styles (e.g. quantitative as opposed to qualitative) into one project. However, there have been increasing appeals for practitioners to move away from the vernacular of the disparities between theories of knowledge and research and to foster a systematic, practical, diversity that provides relevant, beneficial outcomes for communities and practitioners alike (Landry & Banville, 1992; Venkatesh et al., 2013; Weber 2004). Mixed methods inquiry has been described as the third procedural advancement, with quantitative and qualitative methods signifying the fi rst and second advancements correspondingly (Ridenour & Newman, 2008; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003, 2009). Advocates of mixed methods research have recommended the potential for mixed methods styles to provide a theoretically richer quality data than a single method strategy. However, there has been strong discussion on the topic of whether or not it is even fitting to coalesce multiple methods that are founded on greatly dissimilar classic traditions (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Guba, 1987). Regardless of the numerous disputes linked with procedural diversity and incongruous philosophical arguments, it has been proposed that it is, in effect, practicable to perform research that intersects several approaches and concepts (Mingers, 1997, 2001; Ridenour & Newman, 2008; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003, 2009). Numerous researchers have reconsidered past appeals for procedural amalgamation and proposed that a synchronisation of several approaches is achievable (Datta, 1994; House, 1994; Ridenour & Newman, 2008; Rossi, 1994; Venkatesh et al., 2013). Ethics in Qualitative Research

While any text on qualitative methods must provide a comprehensive guide to the processes for rigorously applying the methods of the approach,

Introduction xxi

of equal (if not greater) importance is the application and consideration of ethical approaches to gathering data in the field. At the heart of research is an intrinsic confl ict. On the one hand, research is conducted to understand lived experiences so as to provide that experience to develop broader outcomes for the community as a whole. On the other hand, the participant requires and deserves the right to maintain his/her privacy, his/ her voice and his/her ownership of ‘his/her story’. Between the participant and the community sits the researcher with all of his/her own past history, his/her lived experiences and ‘his/her story’. It is in this contested space that we as qualitative researchers need to interrogate our own positionality and accurately represent and protect the voices and lived experiences of our participants. Conducting research in an ethical and appropriate manner must be based on the fundamental premise of providing a real and useful outcome while avoiding harm to the participants, their families or, indeed, the researchers themselves (NHMRC, 2015; Orb et al., 2001). Harm can be avoided or decreased through the development and application of appropriate ethical principles. As a starting point, a researcher’s ethical practice must be guided by broad standards as highlighted by the Australian government’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC, 2015): the values of respect, research merit and integrity, justice, and beneficence have become prominent in the ethics of human research in the past six decades, and they provide a substantial and flexible framework for principles to guide the design, review and conduct of such research. (NHMRC, 2015: np)

Research in health fields has provided researchers with strong pathways and procedural guidelines for ethical research practice with humans as demonstrated by current standards such as the NHMRC (2015), the World Health Organisation (2017) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH, 2016), which are based on seminal documents such as the Declaration of Helsinki (WMA, 1964). Other than health research, traditional disciplines including anthropology and sociology have also developed and refi ned their respective codes of ethics and practices for ethical conduct. Qualitative researchers need to ensure that care is taken within the discipline and further realise that individual universities and countries will have their own specific approaches to ethical issues. All interactions between people, and particularly interactions involving people in research, must consider and recognise the ethical dimensions of those interactions. Being an ethical person or researcher and ‘ethical conduct’ itself constitutes more than ‘simply doing the right thing’ (NHMRC, 2015: 2). Being an ethical, qualitative researcher requires the consideration of one’s actions in the spirit of respect and deep concern

xxii

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

for one’s participants and for humanity in general. Ethical conduct in research therefore requires more than following the ‘rules of ethical clearance’ that are governed by institutionally based ‘Human Ethics in Research Committees’. The ethical, concerned researcher needs to live the philosophy of ethical practice towards his/her research and his/her participants that saturates and integrates the ways in which ‘you’, as a qualitative researcher, engage with ‘your’ participants and ‘your’ approach to research. Structure of this Text

This edited volume aims to provide a site for active researchers to demonstrate their use of qualitative research within a tourism research space. Each of the chapters provides (1) an introduction to the qualitative research method under discussion and a brief background to its usage; (2) an overview of the research contexts under which the method was employed; and (3) a detailed discussion of the processes and practices used throughout the conduct of the research project, including a case study for each chapter. This provides readers with both context and practical application examples from which to draw for their own research. In Chapter 1, Killion and Fisher put forward an argument concerning paradigms and parameters in qualitative tourism research. They introduce us to the basic terminology of qualitative research – ‘ontology and epistemology’ – and they then discuss the triad between ontology, epistemology and methodology. This leads to an overview of the role of researcher values as a further component to research paradigms. They then examine the impacts of ontology, epistemology, axiology and methodology on research methods; and the nature and purpose of the research that guides the choices of ontology and epistemology and hence methodology. Conversely, they suggest, the choice of ontology, epistemology and methodology influences how a research question is defi ned and research aims are established. Finally, they conclude the chapter with implications for qualitative tourism research under these conditions. In Chapter 2, Radel and Hillman discuss the background to grounded theory and its common usage. Doing research using grounded theory is explicated in detail throughout the chapter, with immediate relevance to research contexts. A case study of how one of the researchers went about undertaking a grounded theory study of backpackers travelling around Australia is made clear. The chapter then turns to how to ‘do’ grounded theory research in the field. Lastly, the authors conclude with ways to write up and disseminate the research to a wider audience. Chapter 3, by Matthews, introduces ethnography as a qualitative approach to tourism research. Matthews begins by addressing the question: What is ethnography? and follows this with an account of ‘doing

Introduction xxiii

ethnography’ and the role of the researcher within this paradigm. The fi rst case study is then presented to the reader: ‘Multisited or “glocal” ethnographies’. This is subsequently supported by a section on ‘Ethnography in tourism studies’. The second case study: ‘An autoethnographic approach to backpacking’ and the third case study: ‘Visual ethnographies with tourists’ are then presented to show how ethnography and tourism studies are well suited to each other. The chapter concludes with an overview of ethnography and its role in providing a particular approach to qualitative tourism research. Phenomenology in tourism and leisure research is the focus of Chapter 4 by Fendt. The chapter begins with an overview of ‘Phenomenology: The Study of Lived Experiences’, and then presents the reader with an explanation of phenomenological methods. ‘Phenomenology as a method for studying tourism and leisure experiences’ is discussed in the next section and a case study of women’s surfi ng focusing on the processes and practices of phenomenology is offered. The chapter concludes with some fi nal thoughts about the process of phenomenology as a research process and, to coin Heidegger, ‘Ways of Seeing’. Chapter 5, ‘Action Research and Tourism Studies’, written by Jennings, begins with the historical background to this research approach, and follows its initial origins to its present-day global applications. The chapter opens with an overview of action research and background to its common usage. Then, an explanation of how to engage in action research is presented. Research contexts and action research in practice follow in the next two sections. And fi nally, the chapter concludes with an overview of the background to action research, paradigmatic perspectives and the diversity of approaches to action research. ‘Participant Observation in Cross-Cultural Tourism Research’ is the title of Chapter 6. In this chapter, Radel describes the history of participant observation within the social sciences. The author offers us insights into how participant observation has been used with other methodologies and the insights that participant observation can bring to tourism and the social sciences. Then, participant observation in tourism is discussed with an emphasis on key (case) studies in participant observation and tourism. The chapter includes sections on ethics, interpreting the data and the unique qualities of participant observations as a method. In Chapter 7, Radel considers the alignment of Western and Indigenous ways of doing research using a constructivist grounded theory approach from a non-Indigenous perspective. The chapter provides an introduction to Indigenous methodologies in qualitative tourism research. The Indigenous epistemologies, ontologies and axiologies and the Indigenous research framework are then examined. This is followed by an evaluation concerning the alignment of Indigenous and Western paradigms and practices, and reflexivity, voice, audience and representation.

xxiv

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Considerations around Indigenous methodology in practice are described. A case study of Indigenous methods in tourism is portrayed to round off the chapter. Daniels, Hillman and Radel write about focus groups in qualitative tourism research in Chapter 8. Their discussions are structured around the idea and use of focus groups in tourism research. To complete the chapter, Daniels et al. present a case study on the use of focus groups to gather data in heritage tourism research. Chapter 9 is titled ‘The Interview in Tourism Research’, and is written by Picken. The chapter commences with insights into how the interview makes meaningful data. This is followed by additional sections on the kinds of interviews that can be undertaken, including interviewing host communities, tourists, the tourism industry and other stakeholders, and analysing interview data. The author then follows this with an overview of the interview and complementary methods and understanding the limitations of interview data. Finally, a case study is presented to understand the design and development of a tourist precinct. Iaqunito outlines a ‘Mixed Methods Approach in Tourism Research’ in Chapter 10. His discussions focus on the defi nitions, origins and status of a mixed methods approach in academia, and analysis of some debates concerning a mixed methods approach. He then turns to the reasons for the use of mixed methods in tourism research including: usefulness, prevalence and status in the tourism academy. A section on what, when and how to mix methods follows, and as a fi nal point, a case study is expounded, titled ‘A Mixed Methods Approach in Tourism Research’. Chapter 11, ‘Image Use in Research Methodology’, is authored by Abascal, Fluker and Jiang. This chapter provides a comprehensive insight into the use of photographs in tourism research. The chapter is written from a very realistic perspective, where instructions and insights are offered on how to conduct research using images in a tourism setting. A case study of the Grampians (a mountain range in Victoria, Australia) is used to situate the research and frame the context. Theories on destination and activity choice in tourism are explained and the use of visual methods in tourism research is set out in a practical approach to the methodology itself. Finally, an application of the photo-based sorting-ranking procedure is offered and described. Chapter 12, the conclusion written by Hillman, offers the reader and scholar a comprehensive overview of the application of qualitative research methods in a tourism research context. Throughout this text, we have endeavoured to bring together various forms of qualitative research and their applicability to the tourism research arena. Qualitative research and data collection mean many things to many users of these inductive and ‘lived experience’ methodological approaches. Basing their fi ndings on people’s actions, words and thoughts, scholars

Introduction xxv

produce worthwhile and insightful data sets and materials that display and convey how life situations ‘are’ for those whose lives and situations they explore. Each chapter in the edited volume has been authored to be autonomous from the others (but continuing to be connected through a qualitative research methodology paradigm), and to this purpose the references have been cited independently at the end of each chapter. In this way, scholars are not compelled to go from beginning to end through the volume in a scheduled order, but are welcome to indulge themselves wherever they please, pursuing their own interest or needs. References Brannen, J. (1992) Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches: An overview. In J. Brannen (ed.) Mixing Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research (pp. 3–37). Aldershot: Avebury. Bryman, A. (2004) Social Research Methods (2nd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bryman, A. (2006) Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research 6 (1), 97–113. Buchanan, D.R. (1992) An uneasy alliance: Combining qualitative and quantitative research. Health Education Quarterly 19 (1), 117–135. Creswell, J.W. (2003) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Datta, L. (1994) Paradigm wars: A basis for peaceful coexistence and beyond. In C.S. Reichardt and S.F. Rallis (eds) The Qualitative-Quantitative Debate: New Perspectives (pp. 53–70). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Guba, E.G. (1987) What have we learned about naturalistic evaluation? American Journal of Evaluation 1 (8), 23–43. House, E.R. (1994) Integrating the quantitative and qualitative. In C.S. Reichardt and S.F. Rallis (eds) The Qualitative-Quantitative Debate: New Perspectives (pp. 13–22). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Landry, M. and Banville, C. (1992) A disciplined methodological pluralism for MIS research. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies 2 (2), 77–97. Miles, M. and Huberman, A. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Source Book. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Mingers, J. (1997) Multi-paradigm multimethodology. In J. Mingers and A. Gill (eds) Multimethodology: Theory and Practice of Combining Management Science Methodologies (pp. 1–20). Chichester: Wiley. Mingers, J. (2001) Combining IS research methods: Towards a pluralist methodology. Information Systems Research 12 (3), 240–259. National Health and Medical Research Council (2015) National statement on ethical conduct in human research (2007) (updated May 2015). See https://www.nhmrc.gov. au/book/section-1-values-and-principles-ethical-conduct (accessed 8 February 2017). National Institutes of Health (NIH) (2016) Guiding Principles for Ethical Research – Pursuing Potential Research Participants Protections, Bethesda, Maryland. See https://www.nih.gov/health-information/nih-clinical-research-trials-you/guidingprinciples-ethical-research (accessed 9 February 2017).

xxvi

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Orb, A., Eisenhauer, L. and Wynaden, D. (2001) Ethics in qualitative research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 33 (1), 93–96. Pawson, R. and Tilly, N. (1997) Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage Publications. Ridenour, C.S. and Newman, I. (2008) Mixed Methods Research: Exploring the Interactive Continuum. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Rossi, P.H. (1994) The war between the Quals and the Quants: Is a lasting peace possible? In C.S. Reichardt and S.F. Rallis (eds) The Qualitative-Quantitative Debate: New Perspectives (pp. 23–36). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (1998) Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (2003) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Teddlie, C. and Tashakkori, A. (2003) Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 3–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Teddlie, C. and Tashakkori, A. (2009) Foundations of Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. and Bala, H. (2013) Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Quarterly 37 (1), 21–54. Weber, R. (2004) The rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism: A personal view. MIS Quarterly 28 (1): iii–xii. World Health Organisation (2017) Ethical standards and procedures for research with human beings. See http://www.who.int/ethics/research/en/ (accessed 8 February 2017). World Medical Association (WMA) (2017) WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. See https://www.wma.net/ policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-researchinvolving-human-subjects/ (accessed 9 February 2017).

1 Ontology, Epistemology: Paradigms and Parameters for Qualitative Approaches to Tourism Research Les Killion and Rickie Fisher

He [God] may be back one day, but until then people will seek the reassurance of a wider human context, a bigger picture in which their own walk-on role gives life meaning and significance. Everybody wants to be in a good story. It’s a natural impulse to shape the random events we live through into coherent narrative, otherwise our lives would feel like experimental theatre or abstract painting, which would be a complete bloody nightmare. McCarthy, 2002: 48

This chapter provides some fi rst steps in ‘thinking about’ qualitative research in general, and qualitative tourism research in particular. In writing this chapter, we made the deliberate decision to make it one of ‘broad brush strokes’, developing a general backdrop for the ‘staging’ of qualitative research. We have left it to others to add the specific details derived from their own approaches to qualitative investigations presented in the later chapters of this book. In this chapter, we aimed to provide a backdrop against which their specific investigations could be appreciated more insightfully. Structurally, the chapter revolves around a series of ‘grand tour questions’. As in ethnographic investigations, so also in this chapter ‘A grand tour question establishes a broad topic or scene…’ (Yin, 2010: 137). The grand tour questions addressed in this chapter include: • • • • •

What is qualitative research? What contributions can qualitative research make? In what ways does qualitative research differ from quantitative research? What relationships, interactions and tensions exist between qualitative research and quantitative research? What potential exists for mixed methods investigations?

1

2

• •

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

What are research paradigms and what paradigms provide the points of reference for qualitative investigators and their investigations? What are the key components comprising a paradigm? And, how are these different between qualitative and quantitative paradigms?

As mentioned earlier, this fi rst encounter with terminology and underlying concepts should place you in an improved position from which you can proceed to think about the qualitative research undertaken by those investigators whose works are contained in the later chapters of this book. As you read of their endeavours, you should periodically return to the key concepts that are presented in this chapter and ask yourself questions: what was the nature and purpose of their investigations? Within the parameters of what paradigms did they locate their research? How did this choice relate to the purposes of their investigations? How did their choice of paradigm reflect in the research methods employed? And, how was the information generated from those methods analysed and presented? Before we consider these and other questions, and bearing in mind our earlier comments related to the broad-brush approach adopted in this chapter, let us turn our attention to the fi rst of our grand tour questions: what is qualitative research? The Nature of Qualitative Research

From any perspective, the adjective ‘qualitative’ indicates a focus on ‘qualities’ as opposed to the adjective ‘quantitative’ which implies a focus on measurements and numbers that indicate ‘quantities’. In this sense, qualitative research has a very lengthy history insofar as humans have always been curious about others; have observed others and what they may be doing; and have asked others about their lives, their attitudes, responses, reactions and ‘feelings’ about things occurring within their world as they defi ne it. In a very ordinary sense, throughout the course of our daily lives we are all qualitative investigators. Whether such observations and conversations represent qualitative research is, however, doubtful. It is the noun ‘research’ that makes the difference. ‘Research’ has come to imply that such observations and conversations are carried out with the intention of being systematic, purposeful, disciplined, informed and rigorous and are not simply the by-products of casual everyday social interactions between individuals. However, and somewhat ironically, it may be the very same interactions that may be of central interest to a qualitative researcher. Nonetheless, and as Erickson (2011: 43) observes, ancient scholars such as Herodotus provided the ‘precursors to qualitative social inquiry’. Erickson (2011: 43) also notes that throughout the works of the Renaissance and Baroque eras, writers and philosophers such as Isaak Walton (The Compleat Angler) contributed to the flourishing of ‘descriptive reporting

Ontology, Epistemology 3

of everyday social practices’. However, much of this was to change as the Enlightenment unfurled its positivist flag over human enquiry throughout the 17th century. The Enlightenment, heralded as it was by the works of thinkers such as Descartes, Galileo and Newton among others witnessed the emergence of the so-called ‘scientific’ approach to inquiry. In particular, this saw a growing emphasis placed on the measurement and enumeration of phenomena and the search for universal laws founded on causal relationships. In essence, quantitative approaches and measures began to provide the yardsticks that were used to determine whether an investigation met the rigorous standards and criteria of being ‘scientific’. With universal laws being expounded within the physical and life sciences, some turned their attention to the possibility of formulating comparable universal laws applicable to the social world. Auguste Comte, whom some regard as the ‘founding father’ of the discipline of sociology, sought, for instance, to postulate a science of society that mirrored the earlier developments of causal laws in disciplines such as physics and chemistry which, even today, are still often referred to as the ‘hard sciences’ (along with, of course, mathematics). In the same period, Quetelet, a contemporary of Comte, advocated the use of statistics in social research as a basis for what he referred to as ‘social physics’ (Erickson, 2011: 44). While the hegemony of the ‘scientific’ positivist quantitative approach was (and continues to be) deeply influential and long lasting, there were some investigators who questioned its wisdom in providing a platform from which social phenomena could be understood. Among these, as Erickson (2011) points out, was the German social philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey who argued that the approaches to the natural sciences were not suited to the study of people and human society. In his conceptualising of what he referred to as Geisteswissenschaften (sciences of the spirit) (Erickson, 2011), Dilthey claimed that the social or human sciences were more focused on ‘the particulars of meaning and action taken in everyday life. The purpose of inquiry in the human sciences was understanding (verstehen) rather than proof or prediction’ (Erickson, 2011: 44). It was the notion of verstehen, or empathetic understanding that influenced the thoughts of Max Weber who, along with philosophers such as Simmel, Husserl and Geertz among others, was to refocus social inquiry to acknowledge the contributions of qualitative investigations seeking to understand the realities of social life in all of its varieties, contexts and situations. We do not need to belabour the historical development of qualitative inquiry any further save to share the observations made by Denzin and Lincoln (2011) that: Any defi nition of qualitative research must work within this complex historical field. Qualitative research means different things … Nonetheless,

4

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

an initial, generic defi nition can be offered. Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. Qualitative research consists of a set of interpretive, materials practices that make the world visible. These practices transform the world. They turn the world into a series of representations, including fieldnotes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings, and memos to the self. At this level, qualitative research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011: 3)

In somewhat more direct terms, Erickson (2011) says that: Qualitative inquiry seeks to discover and to describe in narrative reporting what particular people do in their everyday lives and what their actions mean to them. It identifies meaning-relevant kinds of things in the world – kinds of people, kinds of actions, kinds of beliefs and interests – focusing on differences in forms of things that make a difference for meaning. (Erickson, 2011: 43)

Qualitative vs Quantitative Research

Unsurprisingly, the developments over time in how humans collect, analyse and generalise information and contribute to knowledge opened a still persistent chasm and, at times, hotly contested territory between and among purist qualitative and quantitative investigators. Denzin and Lincoln (2011: 1–2) talk in terms of confl ict and ‘paradigm wars’, arguing that ‘the academic and disciplinary resistances to qualitative research illustrate the politics embedded in this field of discourse’ (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011: 2). The reasons for such confl ict can be attributed to the fact that ‘these political and procedural resistances reflect an uneasy awareness that the interpretive traditions of qualitative research commit one to a critique of the positivist or post-positivist project’ (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011: 2). As they see it, the confl icts between qualitative and quantitative approaches arise from the perception (on the part of positivists) that qualitative research is an assault on the traditions of positivist ‘sciences’ seen, at least by some, to be ‘the crowning achievements of Western civilisation’ (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011: 2). ‘Positivists’, suggest Denzin and Lincoln (2011: 2), ‘allege that the so-called new experimental qualitative researchers write fiction, not science, and have no way of verifying their truth statements’. And further, ‘often … politicians and hard scientists call qualitative researchers journalists or “soft” scientists. Their work is termed unscientific, only exploratory, or subjective. It is called criticism and not

Ontology, Epistemology 5

theory, or it is interpreted politically, as a disguised version of Marxism or secular humanism’ (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011: 2). Denzin and Lincoln (2011: 2) depict such critics as [presuming] ‘a stable, unchanging reality that can be studied with the empirical methods of objective social science’. The following scenario developed by Denzin and Lincoln encapsulates much of what qualitative research is seen to be, and the challenges presented by the ongoing confl icts and paradigm wars between qualitative and quantitative investigators: The qualitative research community consists of groups of globally dispersed persons who are attempting to implement a critical interpretive approach that will help them (and others) make sense of the terrifying conditions that defi ne daily life at the fi rst decade of this new century. These individuals employ constructivist, critical theory, feminist, queer and critical race theory, as well as cultural studies models of interpretation. They locate themselves on the borders between post-positivism and post-structuralism. They use any and all of the research strategies (case study, ethnography, phenomenology, grounded theory, biographical, historical, participatory and clinical) … As interpretive bricoleurs, the members of this group are adept at using all of the methods of collecting and analysing empirical materials … And, as writers and interpreters, these individuals wrestle with positivist, post-positivist, post-structural and postmodern criteria for evaluating their written work. (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011: xii)

In terms of qualitative approaches to tourism research, the confl icts between qualitative and quantitative approaches have ramifications. Jennings (2010) and others have observed that much of what we know as tourism research has been dominated by the quantitative research following positivist traditions to gather numeric data concerning such phenomena as numbers of visitors and some of their demographics, their length of stay, patterns of seasonality, dimensions of expenditure and revenue multiplier effects and so on. It was not until the 1970s or thereabouts that qualitative investigators began to make their contributions to tourism research. However, then, and in some cases now, the potential contributions of qualitative research to add greater depth, detail and understanding of a wide range of tourism-related phenomena were under-valued, under-rated and often seen as ‘second rate’. One did qualitative research as some kind of prelude to ‘proper research’ of a quantitative and positivist kind. One example of such an appraisal of the contributions of qualitative research can be found in the work of Peterson (1987). She begins her account of qualitative research methods for the travel and tourism industry in what we might take as a hopeful manner when she says ‘qualitative research is the foundation on which strong

6

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

reliable research programs are based’ (Peterson, 1987: 433). However, her discussion soon dissolves as she goes on to state that ‘qualitative research serves often to broaden the researcher’s views and to uncover issues and topics which should be considered in quantitative evaluations’ (Peterson, 1987: 433–434). And, later, she claims that: The fi ndings from a qualitative research effort must usually be regarded as informed hypotheses, not as proven facts. The samples which are used are quite small, and usually selected in a purposive rather than a probability sampling procedure. Thus, the inferences which are made based on qualitative research are normally subjected to evaluation using quantitative procedures. Hypotheses, issues, ideas for new products/ services, or communications strategies need to be confi rmed on more reliable samples before major decisions are made on the basis of qualitative research. (Peterson, 1987)

It is now some 30 years since Peterson penned her words. It may be that such general perceptions of qualitative research have changed in that time. While we remain optimistic on that score, we have both been members of confi rmation panels for higher degree candidates presenting their research proposals for their dissertation research projects. On occasions when the candidate presents what is clearly to become a qualitative research project, almost without exception the remnants of Peterson’s view resurrect themselves in questions posed by some panel members: How large will the sample be? How will the data be analysed? What hypotheses do you have in mind? What variables will you examine? Such questions in and of themselves give us clear signs that the inherent nature and contributions of qualitative investigations are far from perfectly understood. Our response when faced with such situations is to share and reiterate Denzin and Lincoln’s (2011: 3) retort ‘qualitative research is a field of inquiry in its own right’. The Lexicons of Qualitative and Quantitative Research

While the underpinning philosophical differences between qualitative and quantitative research cannot be lightly dismissed, at least in part the tensions that sometimes exist between the two are reflected in the language and terminologies derived from the two quite different lexicons that each employs to describe and explain their inherent approaches to investigations. Like Jennings (2012), we agree that interpretivist qualitative researchers draw upon a different vocabulary when discussing their investigation compared with the vocabulary employed by positivist and post-positivist quantitative researchers. It is worth saying that the tensions and confl icts existing between the two approaches are sometimes sharpened when

Ontology, Epistemology 7

some terms are used in less-than-flattering ways. For instance, positivist quantitative investigators talk much about the ‘validity’ of their fi ndings, sometimes implying that interpretivist qualitative investigations are something less than valid. Such derogations fail to appreciate that ‘validity’ is not something with which an interpretivist qualitative investigator is concerned. In the latter case, the investigator is more likely to be concerned with questions of ‘authenticity’ and ‘credibility’ in appraising the fi ndings of his/her investigation. In Table 1.1, we have attempted to capture some of the different language and terms that distinguish interpretivism and positivism and so between qualitative and quantitative research. There are, no doubt, other terms across which differences could have been noted, and you may well fi nd some of these referred to as you read some of the investigations documented in the later chapters of this book. You should feel free to add to our table if such is the case. The most cursory glance at Table 1.1 soon illustrates some of the main differences between positivist and interpretivist research approaches and philosophies. While it is not intended to explore all such differences in depth, some are worthy of further comment. You will note, for example, that while the positivist investigator attempts to preserve objectivity, the interpretivist seeks, and in fact actively pursues, a subjectivist approach Table 1.1 Qualitative and quantitative research: Different lexicons Positivism

Interpretivism

Objectivist

Subjectivist

Testing theory

Constructing theory

Variables

Concepts and constructs

Statistical samples – random samples, probability samples, convenience samples, non-random samples

‘Sample’ within empirical materials until point of saturation and emergence of ‘qualitative isomorph’ (Lincoln & Guba, 1985)

Subjects/objects of inquiry

Participants, co-investigators

Data as information

Empirical materials as information

Analysis – usually statistical

Interpretation and construction – usually in some form of textual narrative

Deductive thinking

Inductive thinking

Artificial setting e.g. ‘laboratory conditions’

Naturalistic setting

Outsider (etic) perspectives and understandings

Insider (emic) perspectives and understandings

Objective third-person voice

Subjective often first-person voice

Hegemony of the investigator

Reciprocity and shared ‘power’ between investigator and participants

Limitations

Boundaries

8

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

in order to develop a deeper understanding of the phenomena under investigation. Using the several steps and stages of the so-called ‘scientific method’ and the hegemony that such a framework is frequently seen to bestow, the positivist investigator sets out to identify variables, their relationships (causal or otherwise) and, drawing on quantitative data extracted from the subjects of the investigation, follows a deductive thinking process of reasoning and further theory extensions. Employing qualitative methodologies such as a grounded theory approach, conversational analysis or the like, the interpretivist investigator works in partnership with a group of research participants, sometimes referred to as ‘co-investigators’, to compile a range of empirical materials (texts, transcripts of in-depth interviews, photographs, artistic representations, play scripts and so on) which, through processes of coding and interpretation, are the focal points of inductive thinking as a basis for an emergent theory that offers insights and a degree of understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. Strauss (1987) suggests that it is the fundamental differences between deductive and inductive analysis and thought processes that are the clearest point of difference between qualitative and quantitative investigations. As he says: …it is our contention that the genuinely useful distinction … is in how data [sic] are treated analytically. … In quantitative research, statistics or some other form of mathematical operations are utilized in analysing data. In qualitative research, mathematical techniques are eschewed or are of minimal use, although assuredly rudimentary or implicit counting and measuring are usually involved (how many? How often? To what degree?). Qualitative analysis may utilize a variety of specialised nonmathematical techniques… or as commonly practiced may use procedures not appreciably different from the pragmatic analytic operations used by everybody in thinking about everyday problems. (Strauss, 1987: 2–3)

While positivist investigators typically operate in an artificial and contrived environment (possibly even ‘under laboratory conditions’), their interpretivist colleagues work within natural settings seeking naturalistic information from people where and when they fi nd them. The positivist maintains an objective outsider or etic position. The interpretivist aims to ‘get as close to the action’ as possible and adopts an insider or emic position, sometimes taking up a social role that is congruent within the natural setting of the investigation. When it comes to writing up the fi ndings of the investigation, and reflecting their desire to maintain an objectivist posture, positivists typically make use of the third person. By way of contrast, the interpretivist investigator has few qualms about writing in the fi rst person giving voice to his/her interpretations, constructs and understandings. They quite often also allow the

Ontology, Epistemology 9

focus to fall on the voices of research participants for whom the investigator has been the research instrument and the information and communication conduit. In drawing these contrasting perspectives between qualitative and quantitative investigations, we are, in essence, beginning a conversation about aspects of the theoretical paradigms within which investigators choose to locate their investigations. At this point in the chapter, it is opportune to spend some time exploring the nature of paradigms and their key components. What Do We Mean ‘Paradigm’?

No research investigation takes place in a vacuum. Whether quantitative or qualitative; pure or applied; practical or theoretical, all investigations are shaped and moulded within the parameters of the chosen research paradigm. In developing this chapter, and reflecting our ‘broad brush strokes’ intentions, we have left the discussion of research paradigms, their component elements and theoretical constructs until this section of the chapter. Our decision in this regard was deliberate and reflects our experiences in introducing both undergraduate and postgraduate students to the ‘heavy’ conceptual constructs and philosophical underpinnings of research paradigms. Indeed, in our experience most who begin to ‘think qualitatively’ are challenged by the language, the terminology and the philosophical basis required to comprehend what paradigms are all about. However, it is now time in this chapter to take readers beyond their comfort zones in thinking about qualitative research paradigms. While the choice of research paradigm influences the ways in which an investigation is undertaken, so also do the investigator’s preferences and predilections for particular research paradigms that influence how the research topic is understood and defi ned. Clearly, some investigators have preferences for quantitative approaches while others are more inclined to favour qualitative approaches within their chosen and preferred paradigms. In short, the choice of research paradigm (and for that matter the choice of investigators) ultimately comes to reflect the aims and purposes of the investigation, and the underlying question: as investigators, what do we wish to fi nd out? To add further to the paradox, those who receive the fi ndings of any investigation also have their own mindsets and expectations concerning the investigation and the ways in which the knowledge generated may be used. Some recipients of the outcomes of an investigation may have expectations that fi ndings will be of a quantitative kind; others may have expectations of qualitative information. In thinking about qualitative research in tourism, and for that matter all other areas of investigative human endeavour, these underlying questions need to be considered from the outset.

10

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

There are a wide range of possible paradigms from which an investigator may make his/her selection. It probably comes as no great surprise to find that the paradigm preferences of investigators reflect, among other things, their professional training, their professional socialisation and their experiences and reputations as investigators. The plethora of paradigms can leave the novice researcher feeling quite daunted. This being the case, for the purposes of this chapter, and our early discussions of ‘thinking qualitatively’ about tourism research, we made the decision to keep things fairly simple. Hence, in what follows, to demonstrate aspects of paradigms and the frameworks that they present, we will make regular reference to ‘a positivist paradigm’ and ‘positivism’ which, along with its post-positivist equivalents, most closely aligns with quantitative investigations; and the ‘interpretivist paradigm’ and ‘interpretivism’ (or as it is sometimes termed, the ‘interpretive social sciences paradigm’ and/or an ‘interpretive constructivist paradigm’). Throughout this chapter, we will employ the term interpretivism to include paradigms that most readily relate to qualitative investigations. These broad brush stroke divides are illustrated in Figure 1.1. To a greater or lesser degree, subsumed within each of these overarching paradigm ‘types’, multiple and related paradigms can be located. For example, within the positivist paradigm and its traditions we could expect to fi nd variants including, for instance, experimental frameworks, various statistical modelling frameworks and so on. Similarly, within the larger category of the interpretive paradigm, we might locate aspects of feminist paradigms, critical theory and so on. Those who are keen to follow up with further reading on the wider spectrum of paradigms will fi nd useful discussions in the works of Jennings (2010) and Denzin and Lincoln (2011), among others. Paradigms become both deeply entrenched in the psyche of an investigator and are highly influential when an investigation is being undertaken. Beyond the world of the investigator, whether consciously aware of it or not, all individuals in fact operate throughout the course of their daily existence within the context of some form of paradigm. In these terms, Guba (1990:

Figure 1.1 Positivism and interpretivism as contrasting paradigms and methodologies

Ontology, Epistemology 11

17–18) provides a telling insight in stating that ‘paradigm is a “basic set of beliefs that guides action, whether of the everyday garden variety or action taken in connection with a disciplined inquiry...”’. Somewhat differently, Tashakkori and Teddlie (2002: 139) depict a paradigm as a ‘conceptual model of a person’s worldview, complete with the assumptions that are associated with that view’. For his part, and importantly within the context of this chapter, Mertens (2005: 194) states that a paradigm ‘influences the way knowledge is studied and interpreted’ and serves as a framework for observation and understanding, shaping what should be studied, what is seen and how what is seen is interpreted or understood. In the more specific paradigm context of interpretivism, ‘knowledge is socially constructed by people active in the research process, and… researchers should attempt to understand the complex world of lived experience from the point of view of those who live it’ (Mertens, 2005: 12). Creswell (2003: 62) suggests that investigators adopt an interpretive paradigm when ‘the issue is complex and its complexity needs to be better understood’. The paradigms of interpretivism also focus on understanding what Lincoln and Guba (1985: 37) describe as the ‘multiple realities’ of the participants. In detailing the elements of a grounded theory approach, Mackenzie and Knipe (2006) explain that interpretivists do not generally begin with a theory, but rather generate theory based on patterns or meanings. In this way, and giving meaning to the methods and approaches of so-called ‘grounded theory’, a theory might be formulated that is grounded in the empirical data that were collected, rather than responding to any preconceived research hypotheses. In adhering to an interpretive grounded theory approach, any apparent theory is constructed as information is shared by and gathered from participants and analysed and interpreted what they were saying about the particular phenomenon under investigation. That is, how they had constructed their social realities from the experience of the given phenomenon (Charmaz, 2006). Within such a paradigm the investigator becomes an integral research instrument. The researcher’s role is to become immersed in the research setting in order to interpret and construct the social realities of the participants. In doing so, inductive reasoning applied to the empirical materials in whatever form they take (for example, interview transcripts, personal documents and the like) provides the basis of the grounded theory. Paradigm components

Allowing for the timing of his work, and the later addition of axiology as a paradigm component more recently, for our purposes in this chapter Guba (1990) provides a useful account of the key components. Guba states that: Paradigms ‘can be characterised by the way their proponents respond to three basic questions which can be characterised as the ontological,

12

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

the epistemological … [and] the methodological questions. The questions are these: 1. Ontological: What is the nature of the knowable? Or, what is the nature of reality? 2. Epistemological: what is the nature of the relationship between the knower (the inquirer) and the known (or knowable)? 3. Methodological: how should the inquirer go about fi nding out knowledge’. (Guba, 1990: 18)

The axiological question was added more recently as a paradigm component, despite the fact that the question of values and what is intrinsically worthwhile underlies much of the decision-making on the part of investigators developing their qualitative research projects. Axiology will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter. The diagram in Figure 1.2 aims to depict the main components. Three points should be borne in mind in considering Figure 1.2: (1) None of the four components functions in isolation from all others. The components are, in fact, interrelated and interactive such that, for instance, underlying features on ontology impact directly on epistemology, methodology and axiology. (2) There is no preordained starting point among the four components, although ontology and statements of an ontological nature have tended to figure fi rst in any discussion of the paradigm components. This is more a reflection of tradition rather than anything else. As we will observe later, there are some, such as Denzin and Lincoln (2011), who would claim that axiology provides a more meaningful starting point in any discussion of paradigm components.

Figure 1.2 Key components of a theoretical research paradigm

Ontology, Epistemology 13

(3) It is essential that there is total consistency and congruity between and among the four paradigm components. It makes for nonsense, for instance, if the investigator makes claims for identifying and analysing multiple social realities as a feature of his/her ontology, and then proceeds to account for a methodology that comprises a series of fi xed alternative questionnaires. Investigators sometimes query the need to expound their research paradigm and its components in detail when reporting on their research. Many are higher-degree candidates who have conducted a seemingly endless struggle to write the paradigm chapters or sections of their dissertations. They, in particular, will be somewhat relieved to know that when it comes to presenting fi ndings in, say, a journal or conference paper, paradigm details are seldom discussed in enormous detail. It is often sufficient to provide a broad statement indicating such information in the knowledge that readers or audience members have suffi cient knowledge to draw their own inferences from such a statement. Likewise, in the course of our professional careers we very often become ‘tagged’ as an investigator generally known for our ‘usual’ research approaches. Hence, rather than lengthy statements about the research paradigm employed in a particular project, this information is, at least to some extent, already pre-empted by recipients of the research paper or whatever. However, a fi rm word of warning on this. As previously pointed out, in such circumstances and without necessarily being stated in detail, aspects of the research paradigm must display absolute consistency and congruity. Some Perspectives on the Components of a Qualitative Research Paradigm

The various theoretical paradigms outline different perspectives and approaches that investigators adopt. The choice of paradigm determines how knowledge is acquired and interpreted and therefore the chosen paradigm needs to be congruent with the underlying aims of the research. Denzin and Lincoln (2005) and Guba and Lincoln (2005) note that any research paradigm can be examined from four key perspectives, namely ontological, epistemological, axiological and methodological. Denzin and Lincoln (2005: 191) add the further point that an investigator must ‘understand the basic ontological, epistemological, axiological and methodological assumptions of the paradigm to be able to engage them in dialogue’. The four paradigm perspectives present a belief system that aligns with the researcher’s particular world view in the context of being (ontology), knowing (epistemology), values (axiology) and doing (methodology). Given the contemporary recognition of the importance of

14

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

understanding axiology as a component within any research paradigm, and regardless of the fact that any order of presenting paradigm components fails to understand their interconnectedness, we have followed the above order in the discussion that follows. Ontology

Ontology as a paradigm component asks questions about the nature of the world and of reality (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). In a paradigm founded on interpretivism, multiple realities are considered to be constructed by individuals or groups, acknowledging that ‘realities exist in the form of multiple mental constructions, socially and experientially based, local and specific, dependent on the persons who hold them’ (Hollinshead, 2004: 76). As Sale et al. (2002: 45) note, ‘ontologically speaking, there are multiple realities or multiple truths based on one’s construction of reality’. While the perspective of multiple constructed realities underpins a paradigm founded on interpretivism, it is a perspective that, since the 1970s, has come to be shared with critical realism, an ontology first postulated by Bhaskar (1978). Demonstrating our earlier point that the two main overarching paradigms (interpretivism and positivism) contain a series of related paradigms and perspectives, the critical realist ontology was developed in the later works of Bhaskar (for example, 1979, 1986) and also by Sayer (for example 1992, 2000) and Maxwell (2004a, 2004b). As noted by Klein (2004: 131) ‘the REAL are the causal mechanisms and structures that produce actual events, a subset of which then is empirically observed’. This critical realist ontology shares much in common with the fusionist ontology that Fisher (2012) posited in interpreting the reasons for people making a career change. The fusionist ontology that Fisher adopted was formulated in part from the philosophy of Driesch (1914) and his Theory of Vitalism, and the later work of Blasch and Plano (2003) who argued that the responses, actions and reactions of any individual to ongoing change contain and include the precursors and antecedents to a reality that is yet to exist. For Fisher (2012), this reflected his belief (in other words his ontology or view of the world) that when it comes to significant change, such as a change in career, past, present and future experiences and influences are intermeshed and need to be understood as the basis of the nature and direction of change itself. Wenger (1998: 149) developed this ontological perspective further in suggesting that the self and self-identity are characterised as ‘[being in] …a “constant [of] becoming” that defi nes who we are’, dynamics of change later reflected in the post-modernist views of Michel Foucault (1982). Congruent with all of this, and acknowledging that qualitative investigators are seldom neutral observers, an ontological stance founded on appreciating that there are multiple social realities provides a clear

Ontology, Epistemology 15

signpost to the view that the outcomes of an interpretivist qualitative investigation are inextricably tied to those realities of the participants, the realities of the investigator and the nature of the interactions between participants and the investigator during the collection, analysis and interpretation of empirical materials. Epistemology

Epistemology as an element of a research paradigm is ‘concerned with the nature, sources and limits of knowledge’ (Klein, 2005: 1). In simple terms, epistemology refers to the fundamental question: how can I know reality? and the relationship of the knower with the known. Epistemologically, a paradigm founded on interpretivism, assumes knowledge exists in a variety of forms and emanates from a variety of sources. New knowledge and understandings are thus co-created through the relationships and interactions between the investigator and the participants (Guba & Lincoln, 2005). Within this, contextual and linguistic processes generate knowledge, and identity is created and modified through situated interactions between people. While the researcher ‘approaches the world [to be researched] with a set of ideas, a framework’ based on his/her ‘personal biography’ (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005: 21), the participants too have their own biographies that will impact the research process and the generation of knowledge. Those who have directly experienced the phenomenon under investigation are in the best position to enhance an understanding of its realities and, in critical realist terms, its actualities. The instrumental role of the researcher is to seek to understand the participants’ construction of knowledge related to the area of enquiry. On this basis, the task is then to determine a level of consensus within the empirical materials provided and, through reconstruction as new information comes to hand, to attain a broader understanding that provides the foundations of an explanatory theory grounded in the data (Guba & Lincoln, 2005). Clearly, throughout this process, the relationships and interactions between investigator and participants impact the understandings, interpretations and explanations of the knowledge (Charmaz, 2003). Such is the power of this view that from the wide scope of interpretivism there has emerged a further paradigm. Again, mindful of our point that both interpretivism and positivism have become the ‘parents’ of extended paradigms, what is now referred to as the ‘participatory paradigm’ has been posited by Heron and Reason (1997). As discussed by Denzin and Lincoln (2011) and Jennings (2010: 190), a participatory paradigm gives clear emphasis to the joint participation between participants and investigator in what is often action research undertaken typically with a view to improve ‘…organisational practices, conditions and processes’ and the ‘empowerment of participants’. For the

16

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

interpretivist investigator, and as will be discussed later in this chapter, reflexive practices offer some means of resolving any potential confl icts of interest that may arise throughout such an investigation. Ensuring that the participants’ social realities and experiences are captured and that their voices resonate throughout the investigation means asking questions, but in a manner founded on a conversational style rather than a precontrived questionnaire. This approach to collecting empirical materials is congruent with the open-ended nature of the ‘grand tour questions’ (Leech, 2002: 667) to which a qualitative investigation seeks answers and explanations. Grand tour questions ‘ask respondents to give a verbal tour of something they know well’ (Leech, 2002: 665). Such an approach allows the conversation to develop and flow relatively easily and ‘naturally’ thereby enhancing the ‘naturalistic’ (Lincoln & Guba, 1985: 8) basis of paradigms founded on interpretivism. Interpretivism ‘recognises that the viewer creates the empirical data [sic] and the ensuing analysis through interaction with the viewed’ (Charmaz, 2006: 131). As Charmaz (2000: 524) indicates, ‘data [sic] do not provide a window of reality …rather the “discovered” [her term] reality arises from the interactive process’. Rather than being separate from it, the viewer is then part of what is viewed. As an active participant in the research process, gathering, analysing and collating what Glaser (2002) refers to as ‘constructivist data’, the investigator’s own world views, experiences of social realities, personal biases and interpretations inevitably impact the research process. This will be considered further in the later discussion of axiology. For now, it can be said that the multiple voices of the viewed and viewer need to be ‘interpreted conceptually by the researcher’ (Strauss & Corbin, 2005: 172). In particular, the coding procedures employed in the early stages of analysing the empirical materials help to ensure that the investigator’s voice remains provisional, while the voices of the participants are foregrounded. While her comments relate specifically to grounded theory approaches, Charmaz (2006: 2) offers some sage advice when she states that qualitative investigators must ‘…learn what occurs in the research settings we join and what our research participants’ lives are like’ and, further, that qualitative investigators must ‘test their assumptions about the worlds we study and not unwittingly reproduce these assumptions’ (Chamaz, 2006: 19). Rather, as Charmaz (2003) emphasises, through recognition of multiple realities, understanding is co-created by the researcher and the participants through the interpretation of the participants’ views. For the investigator, the co-creation of knowledge requires a level of immersion in the research setting and the establishment of productive relationships and interactions between the investigator and participants. The literature on qualitative research methods contains a lengthy debate regarding the differences between insider and outsider knowledge of the phenomenon under investigation, and, to

Ontology, Epistemology 17

use the terms identified earlier in this chapter, the differences between ‘emic’ and ‘etic’ perspectives (Headland et al., 1990). In seeking to develop an understanding of, and explanation for, the phenomenon under examination, the qualitative researcher attempts to become as close to being an insider as possible for any individual who, in the final analysis, is an outsider. In this, as we will discuss later when we consider axiology as an element within the interpretive constructivist paradigm, it is necessary for the investigator to acknowledge what he/she brings to the scene, what he/she sees and how he/ she sees it. Axiology

In accounting for matters related to values, ethics and aesthetics in the inquiry process, in the paradigmatic scheme of things axiology is seemingly a later arrival. In the past, paradigms were generally thought of in terms of the three components mentioned previously: ontology, epistemology and methodology. In this it may seem at first glance that the matters of values were entirely overlooked by qualitative investigators. In fact, such matters were often presumed to be reflective of ontology and dealt with as such. More recently, however, values brought to any investigation by key players including participants, the investigator and other potential stakeholders have received more direct attention as a significant paradigm component to be understood. Although a relatively new discipline, Hart (1971) reminds us that the term was fi rst applied by Paul Lapie in 1902 and later by von Hartmann in 1908. Hart (1971) provides some important insights into axiology and its significance within a research paradigm when he states: The problems and issues axiology investigates have been with us from the moment man [sic] began to reflect upon conditions of his life, the structure of reality, the order of nature and man’s place in it. In all probability the quest for values, for things and events which are conducive to survival and the enhancement of life, engendered the quest for knowledge of reality. By his very nature man [sic] has been primarily interested in how things and events administer to his [sic] basic and derivative needs, how they satisfy or frustrate him [sic], how to preserve and promote the good things of life and curtail and erase objects which stifle his [sic] zest for living. (Hart, 1971: 29)

In underscoring the important inclusion of axiology as a paradigm component, especially within qualitative research contexts, Hart (1971) observes that: The concept of value permeates our life at every step. We prefer one thing to another, we shift our attention from one event to another, we praise one

18

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

behaviour and condemn another, we like and dislike, and whenever we do it we value. Behind our passions, interests, purposive actions is the belief that they are worthwhile. (Hart, 1971: 29)

Axiology, then, considers the role of values in the inquiry process. In contrast to the supposedly value-free positivist, objectivist paradigm in which ‘values and biases are prevented from influencing outcomes’ (Guba & Lincoln, 2005: 204), in a paradigm founded on interpretivism values are an intrinsic part of the research process and its outcomes. As Denzin and Lincoln (2005: 315) suggest, ‘the methods for making sense of experience are always personal’. In the co-construction of knowledge and how this is interpreted, investigators and participants interact and collaborate in such ways that it is neither possible nor necessarily desirable for the research process to be value free. Such recognition of the contributions of values to any investigation caused at least Denzin and Lincoln (2011: 116) reason to pause and reflect. Denzin and Lincoln (2011) state: Earlier we placed values on the table as an ‘issue’ on which positivists or phenomenologists might have a ‘posture’. Fortunately, we reserved for ourselves the right to either get smarter or just change our minds. We did both. Now we suspect that axiology should be grouped with basic beliefs… values feed into the inquiry process: choice of the problem, choice of paradigm to guide the problem, choice of theoretical framework, choice of major data-gathering and data-analytic [their terms] methods, choice of context, treatment of values already resident issue [sic] within the context and the choice of format(s) for presenting fi ndings… If we had to do it all again, we would make values or, more correctly axiology… a part of the basic foundational philosophical dimensions of paradigm proposal. (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011: 116)

The values inherent in the preexisting relationship between the participants and the researcher in any investigation may very well impact the responses that participants provide. As Heron and Reason (2006) indicate, in order to improve the quality of their claims of knowing, investigators need to engage with ‘critical subjectivity’. As they put it, ‘in doing so, we don’t have to throw away our personal, living knowledge in the search for objectivity, but are able to build on it and develop it. We can calculate a high quality and valid individual perspective on what there is, in collaboration with others’ (Heron & Reason, 2006: 149). Methodology

Qualitative investigators draw on a wide range of methodologies, methods and approaches when they set out to gather empirical materials. It is worth noting at this point that there are subtle differences intended

Ontology, Epistemology 19

in the use of these three terms. Of the three, methodology is the wider term and is used to account for the overall operationalisation of the investigation, calling up fundamental questions related, for instance, to whether the investigation will be designed using, perhaps, a methodology of unstructured in-depth interviews with participants. The term methods is then used to account for the more specific decisions related to such particulars as the site and settings for such interactions, the likely flow of questions and topics throughout the interview, the maintenance of a conversational style and so on. Thus, approaches, at least as far as we use the term, then accounts for the even more specific decisions that we undertake as investigators. For example, how will the interview/ conversation be recorded, how will we seek to establish a working and workable rapport with our participants, how will we introduce ourselves, how will we describe (to participants) our reciprocal roles and the like. As previously noted, qualitative investigators have a wide smorgasbord of possible methods from which to develop their in-the-field plans for gathering empirical materials. In making detailed research design decisions, the choices that the investigator makes from the smorgasbord should reflect the nature and purpose of the investigation. That is, a methodology, methods and approaches should be chosen because it is considered that they represent the most effective ways of achieving the aims and purposes of the project. Readers who were anticipating a complete exposè of the full range of qualitative research methods are apt to be disappointed in what follows. However, this is not the place within this book for such an account. As you will soon appreciate, the investigations reported in later chapters of this book provide quite detailed and specific accounts of those methodologies and methods that the contributing authors have utilised. With that said, and while we fully appreciate that the term grounded theory has come to take on a very specific meaning within the traditions of qualitative research, most, if not all, methodologies follow a grounded theory approach if by that we mean our fi ndings, derived from investigations carried out in naturalistic contexts and investigating multiple social realities, are, in fact, ‘grounded’ in the empirical materials that we have gathered, analysed and interpreted. Indeed, one of the standards applied to the fi ndings of any qualitative investigation deals with the extent to which a sufficient level of ‘grounded-ness’ is found in any conclusions drawn. This is not, of course, claiming that all qualitative investigators are grounded theorists. However, the broad concepts, precepts and assumptions employed by the exponents of grounded theory are in many ways shared by colleagues who would more accurately describe themselves as ethnographers, ethnomethodologists, phenomenologists, social historians and the like. Recalling our earlier discussion of qualitative research, such investigators enter research settings in ways that are as naturalistic as possible, in order to investigate multiple social realities as mirrored by research participants.

20

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Hence, when it comes to qualitative research methods, these typically share in common some form of interaction between the investigator and individuals located within the research setting, either on a one-on-one basis or in some form of group context. Language in direct form, as in a conversational interview with participants or in the form of various forms of documents (perhaps diaries, correspondence, photographs and so on), becomes the important conduit for gathering empirical materials. In order to capture insights into the participants’ multiple social realities, qualitative investigators need to make allowance for a number of aspects that will impact the investigation. These include the fundamentals of situatedness and positionality, reflexive practice and reciprocity. Situatedness and positionality

In undertaking any form of investigation, but especially one founded upon a qualitative interpretivist paradigm, the situatedness of the researcher is paramount. As Punch (2005) describes it, the researcher becomes the research instrument within the research context, or the channel through which the voices of participants can be heard. From the researcher’s perspective, deciding how to position and present oneself within the relationships and research setting is critical to the success of the study (Fontana & Frey, 2005: 59) and the generation of appropriate knowledge since ‘after one’s presentational self is “cast” it leaves a profound impression on the respondents and has great influence on the success (or failure) of the study’. In this sense, while it is ultimately true that it is the interpretations of the investigator that influence the text (Dart & Davies, 2003), the research act becomes a two-way process. Hence, as suggested by Neil (2006), the potential impact of the researcher on both the collection and analysis of empirical materials needs to be acknowledged and needs to become part of the research record. While it is recognised that some of the work undertaken by members of the Chicago School in the 1930s and beyond (O’Reilly, 2009) was undertaken by investigators acting out covert social roles, bearing in mind the significance of values and ethics contained in axiology, modern-day qualitative research praxis is generally much more overt. For the outcomes of the investigation to be trustworthy and reliable, the investigator’s awareness of self, situatedness and positionality are usually more overt and disclosed to participants. The contemporary literature provides a number of examples where investigators make such disclosures to explain (to participants) their presence and activities in the research settings. In her study of long-term ocean sailors, Jennings (1999), for instance, drew on her personal engagement in sailing to establish her positionality; in investigating how visitor numbers and pilgrimage tourism impacted on members of a religious community, Killion (2003) was employed at Mary MacKillop Place as a tour guide and souvenir shop attendant while conversing with the Sisters on this topic; similarly,

Ontology, Epistemology 21

Radel (2010) was engaged as a staff member for a time while investigating aspects of tourism at an indigenous cultural centre in Central Queensland; and fi nally, Junek (2013) in defi ning her situatedness, decided to remain in the role of university lecturer while investigating the leisure and travel behaviours of international students. In the course of conducting any investigation inevitably there are dynamics at play in the relationships between the researcher and the participants. Bryant and Charmaz (2011) point to the importance of reciprocity and acknowledging and understanding who will give, who will take and what will be given and taken as an interactional subtext between the researcher and the researched (Lempert, 2007). Bryant and Charmaz (2011) and Lempert (2007) also suggest that rather than being planned or formally adopted, give and take should be allowed to emerge from opportunities present in the research interactions. In this, Richardson and St Pierre (2005: 962) make the cogent point that ‘knowing the self and knowing “about” the subject are intertwined, partial, historical, local knowledges’. In all of this, as O’Reilly (2009) reminds us, there is some risk of the investigator ‘going native’. That is, becoming so intimately aligned with participants that this diverts attention away from the scientific purposes of the investigation. Reflexive practices at all stages of the investigation serve to heighten such questions of axiology and remind the investigator of how he/she is situated within the research setting. Reflexivity

Reflexivity is an important consideration. Reflexivity has been defi ned as ‘the researcher’s critique of their influence on the research process and is recognition of, and accounting for, power and trust relationships between researcher and participants’ (Hall & Callery, 2001: 258). Being reflexive can help resolve the dilemma any investigator may experience as the result of playing multiple roles (Angrosino, 2005; Bryman, 2004; Byrne, 2004). Reflexivity requires and demands that deliberate efforts be made to acknowledge and record the potential consequences that the multiple roles of the investigator may exert on participants and the information that they are prepared to provide. Maintaining a reflexive journal can be valuable in taking account of the ‘continuous interplay between analysis and data collection’ (Strauss & Corbin, 2005: 158), to document and record each of the information-gathering interchanges, as well as the role(s) the investigator played, and how this could be seen as impacting the situation and interpretation of the generated knowledge. In this way, reflexivity allows for the analysis of personal, intersubjective and social processes that may have influenced the investigation and rests on the awareness of self (Cutcliffe, 2003). Stated simply, reflexivity is ‘an awareness of the ways in which the researcher as an individual with a particular social

22

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

identity and background has an impact on the research process’ (Robson, 2002: 22). While inevitably complex, reflexivity is a significant component of the research process within an interpretivist paradigm (Angrosino, 2005; Bryman, 2004; Byrne, 2004). Being reflexive is not, however, the same as being reflective. Being reflective about an investigation is a component of reflexivity involving ‘thinking about something after the event’ (Marshall et al., 2010: 21). Reflexivity, however, is more complex and requires the researcher to ‘bend back upon oneself’ (Marshall et al., 2010: 21). While reflexivity involves the researcher in reflecting on self, as well as the processes and representation of self, it moves beyond this to critically examine the power relationships in the research process, the investigator’s accountability in the collection of empirical materials and, more importantly, the interpretation of those materials. Being reflexive allows the investigator to acknowledge, recognise and accept understandings of issues and ultimately the production and creation of knowledge. As defined by Hall and Callery (2001: 258), reflexivity thus provides ‘the researcher’s critique of their influence on the research process and is recognition of, and accounting for, power and trust relationships between researcher and participants’. Although not rejecting the need for investigators to be reflexive, Glaser (2001: 47) warns against the possibility of ‘reflexivity paralysis’, rejecting as he does the ‘self-destructive introspective compulsion to locate their fi ndings within a particular theoretical context’ that overtakes some researchers and the consequential risk that a descriptive analysis may be all that emerges. The potential risk that Glaser (1992) emphasises, in his terms as a grounded theorist, can arise from the tension between the emergence of the grounded theory and forcing the data on the basis of reflexive thoughts. As he argues, creativity has a place within the inductive thought process. The researcher should ‘go with the data’ by interpreting the empirical materials and ‘creat[ing]’ rather than ‘force[ing]’ (Glaser, 2001: 47) the categories on the basis of some preconceptions derived from past experiences or a review of previous literature. This is precisely the reason why it is necessary for any qualitative investigator to acknowledge his/her biases, thoughts, situatedness and predispositions throughout the qualitative research project. Reciprocity

Gathering empirical materials that are rich in depth and detail requires the investigator to establish an effective rapport with participants as a basis for close and increasingly ‘emic’ interactions. In a naturalistic setting this occurs over time and before relationships are established it is not unusual for participants to want to know: ‘what’s in it for me’? In an ideal world the relationships created might be intrinsically sufficient in themselves. While this is often the case, the investigator may wish to express appreciation in other ways – providing ‘thank you’ gifts, inviting participants to events

Ontology, Epistemology 23

related to the presentation of research fi ndings, meeting with participants for a meal and so on. Such reciprocal interactions can greatly enhance the nature of the relationships and the quality of the information. They take time to build and sustain. As a cautionary note: they can also be abused by participants, some of whom can be more extrinsically motivated and might well have their eyes ‘on the prize’ and, at the extreme, mislead the unsuspecting investigator. While not attributable to any particular source, there have, for instance, been passing comments made about some of the work undertaken by the anthropologist Margaret Mead in Samoa with some past participants commenting many years afterwards that they had told Mead ‘what they thought she wanted to know’. A Note on ‘Mixed Methods’

Before we leave this discussion of the methodological component of the interpretivist paradigm, it is perhaps worth making some mention of ‘mixed methods’ research. Within the contemporary research community there has been some major developments among investigators who advocate the use of methods drawn from both qualitative and quantitative domains, claiming that such a combination delivers more effective answers to research questions than either major paradigm taken alone. The diverse nature of the tourism industry (itself an amalgam of industrial entities) would no doubt support such a mixing of methods. Creswell (2011) provides some valuable insights into the wisdom of mixed methods research, suggesting that this may better serve pragmatic purposes in achieving the research purposes and aims. While this may all sound well and good, a deeper question is yet to be adequately answered by mixed methods investigators. This concerns the apparent mixing of paradigms, their ontologies, epistemologies, axiologies and methodologies and the extent to which this then degrades the value of the investigation undertaken on a mixed methods basis. The Relevance for Tourism Research

In light of all of this, we are left with a fi nal question: how do qualitative investigations contribute to our knowledge and understanding of tourism, tourists, tour operators, tourism authorities and other stakeholders both within and beyond the tourism industry? For an industry comprised as it is of a broad set of industrial entities, it comes as no surprise that tourism has benefitted from a large stockpile of quantitative information. Much of this is collected these days as matters of course in the form of quarterly or monthly industry returns to pertinent government authorities and is, generally, accessible for research purposes (see for example Tourism Research Australia [TRA], 2016). Hence,

24

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

quantitative data are most often available reflecting industry components such as: numbers of visitors, their place of residence, their demographics, length of stay, expenditure at the destination, seasonal visitation patterns and so on. Such types of data are available or collectible at national, state or local geographic levels, and may be collected on regular or ad hoc bases. It is a reasonably consistent process across global tourism environments and is useful for statistical analysis and comparison to develop long-term projections and planning for demand and supply issues. However, if the purpose of our investigation is to go further than statistical compilation and analysis then quantitative research alone will not provide the answers we seek. In the fi nal analysis, the phenomenon that is tourism is a human experience with all the subjective vagaries that suggests. While quantitative data may reveal statistical patterns, the explanations of those patterns require the deeper, richer empirical materials that qualitative investigations are able to deliver as they capture the multiple social realities experienced by visitors to a destination or attraction confi rming or rejecting past praxis. How visitors react and respond to the development of destinations in the contemporary world where questions of sustainability, environmental degradation and the perceptions of terrorism is knowledge not so readily obtained through quantitative research. The same is true of the social realities that local destination communities experience when tourism development takes hold and social impacts become as significant as environmental and economic impacts. The subjectivist, naturalistic knowledge that is developed through the capturing of what is after all a ‘slice of life’ through qualitative investigation can prove equally significant to decision makers and others whose livelihoods rely on the further development of tourism and its component industrial entities. In short, the dynamics of tourism in a 21st-century world that is constantly changing are such that how new products, destinations and forms of tourism should be developed, or existing attractions refurbished to satisfy visitor needs and demands, cannot rest on quantitative details alone. Conclusion

In undertaking the task of developing this chapter, we sought to provide our readers, especially those who are discovering what it is like to think quantitatively about tourism, with something of a comfort zone. Mindful as we both were of our own less than comfortable introductions to the often heavily philosophical literature and debates about qualitative and quantitative research, theoretical paradigms, ontologies, epistemologies, axiologies and methodologies, we aimed to use broad brush strokes in depicting what qualitative investigations can be like, how they might be undertaken and

Ontology, Epistemology 25

how the rich information contained within empirical materials shared with us by research participants can be interpreted and understood. We did this from our positions as ‘emic’ qualitative investigators. We see the inherent differences between qualitative and quantitative research and the decisions to take one or other of these investigative pathways subject to the nature and purposes of investigations. As qualitative investigators into tourism and other multiple social realities, we, like Jennings (2012: 315) and the investigators who have shared their research in the later chapters of this book, appreciate that, when it comes to qualitative investigations, ‘[b]eing different does not mean of lesser value or less rigorous in research processes. It just means using different principles and attendant vocabulary to match those principles’. References Angrosino, M.V. (2005) Recontextualising observation: Ethnography, pedagogy, and the prospects for a progressive political agenda. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 729–746). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Bhaskar, R. (1978) A Realist Theory of Science. Hassocks: Harvester Press. Bhaskar, R. (1979) The Possibility of Naturalism. Brighton: Harvester Press. Bhaskar, R. (1986) Scientifi c Realism and Human Emancipation. London: Verso. Blasch, E.P. and Plano, S. (2003) Ontological issues in higher levels of information fusion: User refi nement of the fusion process. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of Information Fusion (pp. 634–641). Cairns Qld. See http://www.dtic.mil/ cgibin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADP021721 (accessed on 23 January 2017). Bryant, A. and Charmaz, K. (eds) (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. London: Sage Publications. Bryman, A. (2004) Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Byrne, B. (2004) Qualitative Interviewing: Researching Society and Culture. London: Sage Publications. Charmaz, K. (2000) Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Charmaz, K. (2003) Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J.A. Holstein and J.F. Gubrium (eds) Inside Interviewing: New Lenses, New Concerns (pp. 311–330). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Charmaz, K. (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research (3rd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. (2003) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J.W. (2011) Controversies in mixed methods research. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (4th edn; pp. 269–284). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cutcliffe, J.R. (2003) Re-considering reflexivity: The case for intellectual entrepreneurship. Qualitative Health Research 13 (1), 136–148. Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (eds) (2005) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

26

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (eds) (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (4th edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Driesch, H. (1914) The History and Theory of Vitalism. London: Hesperides Press. Dwyer, L., Gill, A. and Seetaram, N. (eds) (2012) Handbook of Research Methods in Tourism: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Erickson, F. (2011) A history of qualitative inquiry in social and educational research. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (4th edn; pp. 43–59). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Fisher, R.J. (2012) Becoming: An explanatory grounded theory of secondary school Teaching as a new career. Unpublished PhD thesis, CQUniversity Australia. Fontana, A. and Frey, J.H. (2005) The interview: From neutral stance to political involvement. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 695–727). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Foucault, M. (1982) The subject and power. Critical Theory 8 (4), 777–795. Glaser, B.G. (1992) Emergence vs. Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B.G. (2001) Conceptualisation Contracted with Description. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B.G. (2002) Constructivist grounded theory? [47 paragraphs]. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 3 (3). See http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/index.php/fqs/article/ view/825/1793 (accessed on 23 January 2017). Guba, E.G. (1990) The alternative paradigm dialog. In E.G. Guba (ed.) The Paradigm Dialog (pp. 17–27). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2005) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 191–216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hall, W. and Callery, P. (2001) Enhancing the rigor of grounded theory: Incorporating reflexivity and relationality. Qualitative Health Research 11 (2), 257–272. Hart, S.L. (1971) Axiology: Theory of values. Philosophical and Phenomenological Research 32 (1), 29–41. Headland, T.N., Pike, K.L. and Harris, M. (eds) (1990) Emics and Etics: The Insider/ Outsider Debate. Frontiers of Anthropology, 7. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Heron, J. and Reason, P. (1997) A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry 3 (3), 274–294. Heron, J. and Reason, P. (2006) The practice of co-operative inquiry: Research ‘with’ rather than ‘on’ people. In P. Reason and H. Bradbury (eds) Handbook of Action Research (pp. 144–154). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication. Hollinshead, K. (2004) Ontological craft in tourism studies: The productive mapping of identity and image in tourism settings. In J. Phillimore and L. Goodson (eds) Qualitative Research in Tourism (pp. 83–101). London: Routledge. Jennings, G.R. (1999) Voyages from the centre to the margins: An ethnography of long-term ocean cruisers. Unpublished PhD thesis, Murdoch University. Jennings, G.R. (2010) Tourism Research (2nd edn). Milton Qld: John Wiley and Sons Australia Ltd. Jennings, G.R. (2012) Qualitative research methods. In L. Dwyer, A. Gill and N. Seetaram (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Tourism: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches (pp. 309–323). Cheltenham: Elgar Publishing. Junek, O. (2013) International students and their leisure and travel behaviour: A grounded theory of being-ness and connectivity. Unpublished PhD thesis, CQUniversity, Rockhampton, Queensland.

Ontology, Epistemology 27

Killion, E.L. (2003) More than a miraculous journey: The sisters of St Joseph and their experiences of visitor impacts following the beatification of Blessed Mary Mackillop. Unpublished PhD thesis, CQUniversity Australia, Rockhampton, Queensland. Klein, H.K. (2004) Seeking the new and the critical in critical realism: Deja Vu? Information and Organization 14, 123–144. Klein, P.D. (2005) Epistemology. In E. Craig (ed.) The Shorter Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (pp. 224–227). London: Routledge. Leech, B. (2002) Asking questions: A technique for semi-structured interviews. Political Science and Politics 35, 665–668. Lempert, L.B. (2007) Asking questions of the data: Memo writing in the grounded theory tradition. In A. Bryant and K. Charmaz (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory (pp. 245–264). London: Sage Publications. Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. McCarthy, P. (2002) The Road to McCarthy. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Mackenzie, N. and Knipe, S. (2006) Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in Educational Research 16 (2), 193–205. Marshall, J.E., Fraser, D.M. and Baker, P.N. (2010) Reflexivity: The experience of undertaking an ethnographic study to explore issues of consent to intrapartum procedures. Evidence Based Midwifery 8 (1), 21–25. Maxwell, J. (2004a) Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher 33 (2), 3–11. Maxwell, J. (2004b) Using qualitative methods for causal explanation. Field Methods 16 (3), 243–264. Mertens, D.M. (2005) Research Methods in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Neil, S. (2006) Grounded theory sampling. Journal of Research in Nursing 11 (3), 253–260. O’Reilly, K. (2009) Key Concepts in Ethnography. London: Sage Publications. Peterson, K.I. (1987) Qualitative research methods for the travel and tourism industry. In J.R.B. Ritchie and C.R. Goeldner (eds) Travel, Tourism and Hospitality Research: A Handbook for Managers and Researchers (pp. 433–438). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Punch, M. (2005) Politics and ethics in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 139–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Radel, K. (2010) Dreamtime cultural centre: A grounded theory of doing business in an indigenous tourism enterprise. Unpublished PhD thesis, CQUniversity, Rockhampton, Queensland. Richardson, L. and St. Pierre, E.A. (2005) Writing: A method of inquiry. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd edn; pp. 959– 978). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Ritchie, J.R.B. and Goeldner, C.R. (eds) (1987) Travel, Tourism and Hospitality Research: A Handbook for Managers and Researchers. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Sale, J.E.M., Lohfeld, L.H. and Brazil, K. (2002) Revisiting the quantitative/qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality and Quantity 36, 43–53. Sayer, A. (1992) Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach (2nd edn). London: Routledge. Sayer, A. (2000) Realism and Social Science. London: Sage. Strauss, A. (1987) Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.

28

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (2005) Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 273–284). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (2002) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioural Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Tourism Research Australia [TRA] (2016) Tourism Research Australia, Austrade – Latest Media Releases. See https://www.tra.gov.au/ (accessed on 23 January 2017). Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Yin, R.K. (2010) Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York: Guilford Press.

2 A Grounded Theory Approach to Tourism Kylie Radel and Wendy Hillman

Grounded theory ‘is a detailed grounding by systematically’ and intensively ‘analysing data, often sentence by sentence, or phrase by phrase of the fieldnote, interview, or other document; by “constant comparison”, data are extensively collected and coded’… thus producing a well-constructed theory. The focus of analysis is not merely on collecting or ordering ‘a mass of data, but on organising many ideas which have emerged from analysis of the data’. Strauss, 1987: 22–23

Grounded theory as a justifiable qualitative research method was fi rst presented by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in 1967 (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). It was initiated from an aspiration to intervene in the increasing authority of the quantitative research approach (Charmaz, 2000, 2016), and furnish qualitative social research with a more meticulous, consistent method through which to ‘close the gap between theory and research’ (Glaser & Strauss, 1967: vii). This ‘gap’ was acknowledged by social researchers towards the end of WWII. With the dissemination of their mutual work, Glaser and Strauss (1967) recommended ‘written guidelines for systematic qualitative data analysis with explicit analytic procedures and research strategies’ (Charmaz, 2000: 512). The grounded theory approach (the technique of handling data in a qualitative, grounded theory study) is consequently outlined as: …a qualitative research method that uses a systematic set of procedures to develop an inductively derived grounded theory about a phenomenon. The research fi ndings constitute a theoretical formulation of the reality under investigation, rather than consisting of a set of numbers, or a group of loosely related themes. (Strauss & Corbin, 1990: 24)

Grounded theory as a research design endeavours to analytically induce theory from data via the continual interpretation of the collected material in a technique that is relevant to both the situations and contributors at 29

30

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

the research site. The research settings, information, investigator and analysis procedures are combined and theory results from this rapport (Haig, 1995; Strauss & Corbin, 1994). Glaser and Strauss (1967: 32) argued that theory formation founded on this ‘strategy of comparative analysis’ is dynamic and places emphasis on the concept of ‘theory as process’. The theoretical results are developing, emerging models as opposed to refi ned end results. Initially, the grounded theory approach proposed to offer theoretical answers that ‘fit the situation being researched, and work when put into use’ (Glaser & Strauss, 1967: 3). This research approach contested the impression that only a considerable number of answers in statistically developed quantitative research projects could suggest suitable conclusions for investigation in a deductive context. Constant and comparative analysis, employed perpetually through a progression of ‘comparing data to data, concept to concept, and category to category’ (Charmaz, 2000: 513) will create cohesive, theoretically solid, ‘thick description’ (Geertz, 1973), allowing a ‘tightly woven, explanatory theory that closely approximates the reality it represents’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1990: 57). As Glaser and Strauss argued: [w]hether or not there is a previous speculative theory, discovery gives us a theory that ‘fits or works’ in a substantive or formal area … since the theory has been derived from data, not deduced from logical assumptions. (Glaser & Strauss, 1967: 29–30)

Glaser and Strauss (1967: 3) refi ned their perspective when they maintained that to ‘fit’ meant ‘that the categories must be readily (not forcibly) applicable to and indicated by the data under study’ and to ‘work’ signified that the theories advanced ‘must be meaningfully relevant to and be able to explain the behaviour under study’. The grounded theory research method presents the qualitative scholar with a level of thoroughness with distinct parameters for forming a descriptive design (Charmaz, 2000, 2016; Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). As an inductive procedure, grounded theory starts ‘with detailed observations of the world and move[s] toward more abstract generalizations and ideas’ (Neuman, 2000: 49). A grounded theory is a: theory that was derived from data, systematically gathered and analysed through the research process. (Strauss & Corbin, 1998: 12)

Consequently, the theory established from the grounded theory approach is not a reproduction of a prior inquiry or drawn from the results of an already determined theory. The investigator starts with an area of

A Grounded Theory Approach to Tourism 31

research and the theory is extrapolated from the empirical information collected from that project. The grounded theory created is consequently specific, located temporally and culturally, and founded in the narratives and world views of the participants within that social setting. In this chapter, we will outline the background and common usage of grounded theory. We then discuss how grounded theory is used in specific research situations. This will be followed by a case study of backpackers travelling around Australia, and whether or not they experienced the ‘authentic Australia’ in their journeys. Then, we discuss grounded theory in practice and the steps in the process of ‘doing’ grounded theory. We conclude the chapter with some fi nal thoughts concerning the presentation and writing up of the research outcomes of the grounded theory research approach. Overview of Grounded Theory and Background to its Common Usage

In their research methods, qualitative scholars underscore the salience of the social environments where their knowledge of the social world is cultivated (Neuman, 2000). Intrinsically, the qualitative research inquiry compels the investigator to concentrate not just on the activities taking place in the example of observation, but also on what occurred directly preceding and following the circumstance, the societies and settings of the protagonists, and the values that these protagonists have designated to the circumstances under investigation. In order to do this, qualitative investigators are compelled to elicit a wide range of resources, abilities, information and qualities as commanded and repeatedly without being able to formulate ahead of time what could eventuate (Neuman, 2000). Nonetheless, while planning ahead of time may present difficulties (markedly perhaps for the grounded theory research approach which is comprised of an evolving, inductive style), investigators ought to devise an integrated research approach so as to guarantee that their fieldwork is constructive and seeks to establish theory regarding the research question being studied. There are three vital points necessary for research formed through the grounded theory method (Strauss & Corbin, 1998): Asking questions: An analytic device used to open up the line of inquiry and direct theoretical sampling…; Making theoretical comparisons: An analytic tool used to stimulate thinking about properties and dimensions of categories; [and] Theoretical sampling: Sampling on the basis of emerging concepts, with the aim being to explore the dimensional range or varied conditions along which the properties of concepts vary. (Strauss & Corbin, 1998: 73)

32

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Established by Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) argument, the three significant components of the grounded theory approach specify the predominant means to cultivating and initiating a theory that is grounded in the data. The practice of undertaking grounded theory encompasses (Charmaz, 2006, 2016; Glaser & Strauss, 1967): • • •

• • • •

concurrent gathering and assessment of data; structuring analytical categories and codes from the data in preference to establishing codes on the grounds of already established hypotheses; use of the ‘constant comparative method’ to contrast freshly produced data to data earlier accumulated in the bounds of the present project, guaranteeing an uninterrupted collection and analysis process relevant to the study; continuing the elaboration of the theory through each segment of the collection and analysis approach; constantly composing memos to generate categories and illustrate their qualities, distinguishing connections among classifications and where any shortcomings may prevail in the evolving theory; performing theoretical sampling focused on the formation and sophistication of the evolving theory instead of endeavouring to signify an identified group; and performing a review of the prevailing literature following the analysis of data to ensure that the review is progressive so as to inform rather than illustrate the theoretical framework.

Integrating and signifying these procedures, Figure 2.1 offers an abridged schematic of the grounded theory approach. The figure specifies a universal blueprint from which to emphasise the subsequent argument and evokes the intricacy of a qualitative, grounded theory approach that is grounded on the practices and traditions of an evolving research design direction. Tracking the modelled approach, the procedure is in essence split into three steps that transpire concomitantly; ‘asking questions’ through data compilation, ‘making theoretical comparisons’ in the course of the data analysis and ‘theoretical sampling’ to progress the groupings and classifications into a grounded theory. In the spirit of the grounded theory approach is the function of constant comparative analysis to ‘determine whether the initial evidence was correct. Is the fact a fact?’ (Glaser & Strauss, 1967: 23). This practice of perpetually and persistently assessing recently assembled data from earlier drawn together data within the existing research undertaking is expressed by the movement throughout the diagram. Similarly, as denoted in Figure 2.1, various styles of data can be accumulated and evaluated by means of an inductive, grounded theory process. The constant comparative process (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) can

A Grounded Theory Approach to Tourism 33

Figure 2.1 Model of the grounded theory process (Source: Adapted from Radel, 2010: 59)

be related to many unique disciplinary spheres of inquiry, and can be employed for ‘large-scale’ designs in research by scholars who have not, as yet, ‘conceptualised their methods in terms of grounded theory’ (Seale, 1999: 103). The principal procedure is the perpetual, meticulous scrutiny and assessment of empirical materials created from various bases in the project – concurrently assembling, elucidating and contrasting ‘data to data’ (Charmaz, 2000: 513). Research Contexts

From the time of its establishment, the practice of grounded theory as a process of qualitative investigation has engendered much discussion on the subject of its purpose, owing to some extent, to debate over the central tenets on which it was established. The portrayal of grounded theory has been evidenced by a developmental trend that has underscored at times

34

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

intense deliberations among the originators of the technique and the subsequent advances by successive scholars, for instance, Charmaz (1990, 2000, 2002, 2006, 2008, 2016), Glaser (1978, 1992, 1998, 2001, 2002), Stern (1991, 1994, 2007), Strauss (1987), Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1994, 1998) and numerous others, who have contributed a significantly strident focus to the approach. As stated by Strauss and Corbin (1994: 273), ‘[g]rounded theory is a general methodology for developing theory that is grounded in data systematically gathered and analysed’. In qualitative research terminologies, the use of the grounded theory method establishes a particularised theory, from data obtained from a variety of texts, for instance, interview or focus group transcriptions, field notes, observations and supplementary secondary sources, which has been thoroughly and rigorously examined. Data analysis is frequently accomplished row by row (line-by-line coding) or expression by expression via the constant comparison method to guarantee that a full, well-constructed theory is obtained. The attention to analysis is not simply on assembling or classifying ‘a mass of data, but on organising many ideas which have emerged from analysis of the data’ (Strauss, 1987: 22–23). Use of the grounded theory method has broadened extensively from its earliest phase in the discipline of sociology (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). The method can be located in research endeavours within the accounting, business and organisational behaviour disciplines (Goulding, 1998, 2002), nursing (Mills et al., 2006), computing (van Niekerk & Roode, 2009), tourism (Castellanos-Verdugo et al., 2010; Hillman & Radel, 2012a, 2012b, 2013a, 2013b; Radel, 2010; Radel & Hillman, 2012a, 2012b, 2013a, 2013b, 2016; Riley & Love, 2000), education (Harry et al., 2005), social work and psychology, medicine and other allied health projects (Covington, 2007) and so on. Using the grounded theory method to carry out qualitative research permits the researcher to go beyond the veneer of the individual or organisation, in a manner that reveals the personal existences and quandaries of those in the setting being studied. The grounded theory method through the qualitative model presents researchers with a device for revealing both the distinctions and the life experiences of the societies being examined. In this fashion, the theory grounded in the qualitative data lets the participants’ perspective of the circumstances be highlighted, and their perceptions and understandings on issues regarding the research be spelt out through their opinions. Case study: Backpacking around Australia

As outlined in Figure 2.1, data may be fashioned from a range of sources comprising discussions and conversations, aural soundtracks, reflexive diaries and logs, images, manuscripts, individual narratives and

A Grounded Theory Approach to Tourism 35

various other secondary papers and resources (Silverman, 1993; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Pursuing the procedure of constant comparison, the data from all contexts should be concurrently decrypted and deciphered using a diversity of lenses and interrogations. This practice has the underlying function of crafting theoretical groupings and qualities through analysing the wealth of indications on the perceptions of the grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Including contributor conversations with narratives and deliberations from examinations of the research site and situations, we may develop extra queries that become visible from being absorbed in the data production methods. Seidman (1991) used many sources in his investigation of a corporation and showed that, when using grounded theory: A researcher can approach the experience of people in contemporary organisations through examining personal and institutional documents, through observation, through exploring history,… and through a review of existing literature. If the researcher’s goal, however, is to understand the meaning people … make of their experience, then interviewing provides a necessary … avenue of inquiry. (Seidman, 1991: 4)

Data sources accessible to qualitative grounded theory scholars are fertile and wide ranging. The subsequent case study from research concerning backpackers indicates how the investigator gained access to and decided on a variety of data sources to deliver strength and perspective to the grounded theory classifications and ideas being induced. The case study underlines fi rstly, the need to gain access to suitable locations for the study and the need to identify with the participants from their viewpoints. Secondly, the case study underscores interviewing techniques; participant contentment with the situation; reflection and participant-observation approaches; integrating with research participants on their footings; and presenting oneself and one’s research inquiry through suitable, ethical behaviour and procedures. The case study presented here refers to backpackers travelling long term around Australia. Backpackers were questioned to establish if they had come into contact with an ‘authentic’ or ‘real’ Australia when journeying throughout the countryside. Open-ended in-depth interviews were carried out with a preponderance of female backpackers, who were invited to narrate their vacation events while holidaying in Australia. Grounded theory was used to classify and build an evolving theory centred on empirical data collection. Participants communicated that they had without a doubt come across the ‘authentic’ Australia, and many could even identify the precise whereabouts of the ‘true’ Australia. The notion of studying backpackers and their ideas about authentic touring and tourist travel is a stimulating topic. I initiated approaches

36

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

to backpacker hostels through both official and unofficial sources, stating my purpose and trying to gauge the limitation of access to levels of management and, to the backpackers themselves, together with the possibility of spending some time in a hostel as a non-participant observer. I began my search by contacting a local tourist information centre where I obtained a reference sheet for lists of backpackers and budget accommodation. I asked the information officers specifically about backpacker accommodation hostels that have large kitchen and lounge areas. They gave me the names of the two that I subsequently approached. These areas were suitable for talking to, and interviewing participants. I felt that it also gave the participant group a feeling of solidarity and was also a suitable location for interactions to take place. I wanted also to be able to have a good position in which to view the day to day routine of the backpacker establishment and the activities of backpackers. I felt this would enable me to integrate successfully with the travellers and to become part of their environment and to be able to blend in with them completely. I tended to dress as they did and I wore simple, touristy batik type holiday outfits which gave me the appearance of being a backpacker. I approached the hostel by personally contacting the owner. After explaining that I was interested in partaking of research into backpackers in North Queensland for my dissertation they were more than welcoming. After receiving their approval it was arranged that I would be able to speak and mingle freely with their guests on a given night each week. In the case of this establishment, it was on a Friday evening when there was a free barbecue for all the guests. At all times I carried with me a letter of introduction explaining what my research was about, asking the backpacker to participate and a disclaimer explaining that if they wished to terminate the interview at any stage that was readily permitted. All those whom I approached to be interviewed agreed. I explained that they were under no obligation to participate, but I was never refused. In fact, the majority of them seemed flattered to be chosen. I gave every interviewee in the study a pseudonym, in keeping with university policies of ethics and participant anonymity. (Hillman, 1999: 20–22; 2013)

The practice of soliciting questions is also not exclusively an outwardly oriented endeavour. While scrutinising the data produced from supplementary sources, the investigator needs also to query and detail his/ her personal viewpoints and observations (Harry et al., 2005; Peshkin, 2000) in the course of the development of a reflexive record (Hertz, 1997) and field notes. Frequently ruminating on the researcher’s observations and ideas within the research frameworks indicates ‘the way a researcher’s self, or identity in a situation, intertwines with his or her understanding of the object of the investigation’ (Peshkin, 2000: 5). The reflexive diary

A Grounded Theory Approach to Tourism 37

approach requires the researcher to scrutinise his/her locatedness within the project and to vigorously participate in the research environments. Connecting with the interviewee’s point of view as a starting point, grasping what people ‘say’ genuinely and continually transferring from ‘theory’ to ‘evidence’ enable the scholar to secure insights into the obstacles, discrepancies and predicaments that most people contend with in their conventional everyday lives (Atkinson & Hammersley, 1994; Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995; Mason, 1996). Contained within the conventions of qualitative methodology and participant observation (Bogdan & Taylor, 1975; Mason, 1996; Rosenau, 1992), the participants’ description of the contexts is the significant concern fundamental to the conception of theoretical paradigms that are founded in the originators’ point of view (Anderson & Littrell, 1996; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). ‘Life’ is full of paradoxes and incongruities and the qualitative grounded theory approach delivers an exact way to acknowledge these traits and to bring them to the fore for rigorous analysis and improved awareness. Grounded Theory in Practice

Evaluating qualitative data through the procedure of grounded theory inquiry consists of coding segments of text, and then classifying such coding into the same topics or classifications. Coding is key to the procedure of scrutinising the data and should be constantly carried out as every latest data set is created. A ‘code’ is basically a label or representation that the researcher shapes that signifies the premise or outline surfacing from the data. The direction to unearthing or determining evolving ideas from and contained by the data, and assigning those themes titles, is by fastidious and meticulous scrutiny of the themes repeatedly surfacing in the data group itself (Kellehear, 1993; Patton, 1980, 1990). Patton (1990) justified the procedure: I begin by reading through all my field notes or interviews and making comments in the margins or even attaching pieces of paper with staples or paper clips that contain my notions about what I can do with different parts of the data. This is the beginning of organising the data into topics and fi les. Coming up with topics is like constructing an index for a book or labels for a fi le system, look at what is there and give it a name, a label. The copy on which these topics and labels are written becomes the indexed copy of the field notes. (Patton, 1990: 381)

Strauss and Corbin (1990) refi ned the three focal mechanisms of the coding practice: open coding, axial coding and selective coding. These three mechanisms of classification programing are the central purpose behind the construction of grounded theory (Rice & Ezzy, 1999).

38

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

•

Open coding is the activity where activities, developments and exchanges are primarily linked. The researcher seeks to locate variations and likenesses in the divergences and offers theoretical orderings and eclectic classification sets. Orthodox practices of data investigation are ignored while the researcher abstracts the data to supply social groupings (Rice & Ezzy, 1999). Open coding is regularly amalgamated with Part 1 of the grounded theory development as acknowledged in Figure 2.1. In the course of the activity of raising questions, preliminary themes and their connected classifications are starting to evolve. Axial coding is the activity where the originally established codes are exposed to further meticulous analysis – a second phase of coding (Jennings et al., 2010). Axial coding may be more applicable to Part 2 of the grounded theory development presented in Figure 2.1. Axial coding helps the researcher to work out more purposeful themes, start on structuring codes to categories and explain their qualities and components. The data is interconnected with diverse coded segments to form categories and sub-categories. Each code is examined for unique qualities with the goal of a complete explanation of every code (Rice & Ezzy, 1999). The data is reassembled in original ways using both inductive and deductive reasoning to ascertain links, frameworks, corollaries, foundations and circumstances for each code (Backman & Kyngas, 1999; Glaser, 1978). Miles and Huberman (1994: 254) allude to this practice as ‘subsuming particulars into the general’. Selective coding is the process where groupings are merged jointly to generate ‘core categories’ (Corbin & Strauss, 1990: 14). Selective coding is reminiscent of axial coding, but is applied at a sophisticated stage of generality. The categories and codes are assessed and a key or meaningful code is pinpointed that delivers a theoretical theme of consolidation for the analysis (Rice & Ezzy, 1999). As is evident in the illustration of grounded theory presented in Figure 2.1, selective coding is linked predominantly with the third phase in theoretical sampling to perfect categories and themes and propagate categories.

•

•

The solution to coding the data is the practice of constant comparison (Glaser, 1969; Glaser & Strauss, 1967), as formerly suggested. The constant comparison concerning categories and concepts contained by the grounded theory method, originates from querying and elucidation through a wide multiplicity of lenses to make possible the ‘breaking down’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1990: 57) of the numerous empirical sources. This progression helps build theory more readily than testing it and specifies the ‘rigor necessary to make the theory “good” science’. Glaser and Strauss (1967) practiced the use of constant comparison in the creation of the grounded theory method whereby the

A Grounded Theory Approach to Tourism 39

[j]oint collection, coding, and analysis of data is the underlying operation. The generation of theory, coupled with the notion of theory as process, requires that all three operations be done together as much as possible. They should blur and intertwine continually, from the beginning of an investigation to its end. (Glaser & Strauss, 1967: 43)

In this manner, Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) four action progression is ‘intertwined’ and amalgamated constantly throughout the research to make certain that the grounded theory is closest to the situations from which it was drawn. Part 2 of the grounded theory method (which is substantially incorporated with the activities of inviting queries) is the procedure of ‘making theoretical comparisons’. Theoretical links are developed by relating categories to categories and concepts to concepts and examining how these are joined to each other (Charmaz, 2006). This comparison activity enables the ‘linking and densifying of categories’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1998: 85). The scholar’s reasoning can be inspired concerning the presentation of categories and more precisely about their elements and aspects (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Producing theoretical evaluations and being inspired by their understandings of the properties of categories enhances the researchers’ sensitivity ‘to the number and types of properties that might pertain to phenomena that otherwise might not be noticed’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1998: 82). Employing this approach, the researcher is striving to form ‘thick description’ (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Geertz, 1973) to devise a theory that justifies the significant actions and social situations transpiring within the research situation. In terms of the three key features of the grounded theory procedure, categories, properties and dimensions can often be problematic to manage for new grounded theory researchers. A category ‘stands by itself as a conceptual element of the theory’ (Glaser & Strauss, 1967: 36). A category is a focal idea to the theory that is evolving. The ‘conceptual category’ or ‘theoretical category’, while not satisfactorily explained by Glaser and Strauss (1967: 23), is an arranging of data as ‘evidence’ around a conventional idea – being the concept. Conceptual categories are created from the empirical resources and the sophisticated classification concept becomes a theoretical abstraction founded on the categories. As Glaser and Strauss (1967: 23) suggested, ‘a concept may be generated from one fact, which then becomes merely one of a universe of many possible diverse indicators for, and data on, the concepts’. Categories and the relationships drawn between them provide ‘a conceptual handle on the studied experience’ (Charmaz, 2006: 3), consequently forming greater concentrations of abstraction from the accounts included in the data.

40

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

One of the most powerful choices for the researcher as he/she performs grounded theory rests in the perspectives or conceptions that are required to handle the progress of the resultant universal theory. Occasionally, the themes become clear near the beginning of the research, corroborated on perceptions from primary coding (Smith, 1998). Which segment of coding is more central and which theme is less crucial? Which can be subsumed under other codes and which is a separate code? Will these codes generate sense to the fi nal audiences of the conclusions of the study? The researcher’s inner paradox about which code is the more ubiquitous is in the end interwoven in the issue of keeping authentic to the grounded theoretical method (Smith, 1998: 195). The choices about the allocation of classifications or codes are uniformly a function of, and adhered to strongly by, what Bowen (1968) described as devising the explanations. In Bowen’s (1968) interpretation, the researcher must have all this pinpointing, aligning and particularising the theme in mind as he/she initiates the research. And consequently, the writing captures and alters things – such as a theme – once more (Smith, 1998). Classifications and their sub-classifications also have directions that must be captured in the data and refi ned fully, in order to go into detail about theoretical strength and extent. Strauss and Corbin (1998: 101) termed a classification as a ‘characteristic of a category, the delineation of which defi nes [the category] and gives it meaning’. Sections of categories and sub-categories could be evaluated in terms of their elements, or the scope of difference that the category creates. Attributes of categories can also be connected to the instances under which they function. Procedures to cultivate theoretical sensitivity can be valuable in fully particularising the properties and features of categories and sub-categories (Birks & Mills, 2011). ‘Making theoretical comparisons’ also compels the researcher to make mention of the broader literature from the field of study. This is performed in order to: • • • •

encourage further queries and themes to be investigated with colleagues; direct additional theoretical sampling; operate as a secondary evidence foundation; and deliver a measure of ‘supplementary validation’ to the theory as it evolved from the procedure (Strauss & Corbin, 1990: 52).

Grounded theory does not validate a broad exploration of the extant literature on the topic under examination before doing the research. As Glaser (1992) suggested: [w]e are all used to the normal, extensive literature review to ascertain gaps to fi ll in, hypotheses to test, and ideas to contribute to, in descriptive and

A Grounded Theory Approach to Tourism 41

verificational studies. In contrast the dictum in grounded theory research is: There is a need not to review any of the literature in the substantive area under study. (Glaser, 1992: 31)

Glaser’s (1992) claims indicate that the researcher ought to go into the field with as small a quantity of theoretical knowledge as possible so that s/he will not be distracted from the development of theory grounded in the developing empirical data. Only later in the development should the researcher then draw from prevailing texts. A grounded theory style does not seek to prevent or discount the present status of the literature. Nevertheless, the technique does endeavour to defer beliefs formerly held by the researcher both from past familiarity with the field or outlined in the literature. This supports the internal facets of the study to be revealed (Roffey, 2002). The approach intends to ‘explain phenomena in the light of the theoretical framework that evolved during the research itself; thus, you do not want to be constrained by having to adhere to a previously developed theory that may or may not apply to the area under investigation’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1998: 49). The activity of data analysis in qualitative grounded theory can be equated to managing a dialogue between different ‘people’ in the research. The ‘people’ in this instance are signified by the tangible data from all resources comprising field notes, interviews and other fi les; the transpiring theory; memos and observations; and the researcher (Backman & Kyngas, 1999). The dialogue is endeavouring to frame the data into the key themes or categories pivotal to the evolving grounded theory. The dialogue takes place all through the data compilation, exploration and even the writing stages, with the purpose being to dissect, abstract and put the data back together into the grounded theory. Each ‘protagonist’ in the dialogue takes a stance and ‘argues’ his/her perspective to be sure that the researcher’s inductions are proportionate to, and ‘fit’, the data (Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The grounded theory style affords researchers a process for analysing qualitative data (Creswell, 1998; Rice & Ezzy, 1999). The significant themes and impressions are induced from the narratives and reports of the interviewees (Corbin & Strauss, 1998; Riley, 1996; Sword, 1999). Table 2.1 details the pragmatic origins in accomplishing thematic analysis specifying eight steps that researchers should take to cultivate the grounded theory themes – codes, categories, properties and components. In obvious difference to the scientific process and positivism, which characteristically offer the voice of the researcher as ‘disembodied data-gatherer’ (Mills et al., 2006: 11) with implied authority in the account, qualitative researchers should sincerely accept the functions and expression of the researcher as central to the mutual encounters co-created during the research activity. For a qualitative grounded theory

42

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Table 2.1 Practical principles in thematic analysis 1

Count – look for replication, reappearing events, descriptions or encounters

2

Observe themes, patterns – look for causal connections between encounters

3

Construct metaphors, analogies, diagrams, flow charts, mind maps, socio-grams or symbols for what is occurring

4

Check to see if single differences, actions or occurrences are really more than a few

5

Link specific occurrences to common ones

6

Observe discrepancies and likenesses

7

Observe generating, linking or intervening differences

8

Observe if repetitions in the data look a lot like theories or concepts

Source: Adapted from Hillman (1999: 24); Hillman (2013); Kellehear (1993: 40); Miles and Huberman (1994: 215–230).

researcher, the approach to research is progressed through an association of interchange, diminishing power inequities and concentrating on advances for research participants – favouring interviewees’ expressions over the researcher (Charmaz, 2000; Fontana & Frey, 1998; Mills et al., 2006). The use of reflexivity in research is effective recognition that the researcher’s judgement, activities and analyses of the data created and collected throughout the investigation will ‘inevitably impact upon the meaning and context of the experience under investigation’ (Horsburgh, 2003: 308). In spite of this, it must be observed that whereas this practice of reflexively evaluating the researcher’s situation in the study keenly and clearly positions the researcher’s opinion within the research frameworks and encounters, textual depiction and exposition of an author’s self while also devising the participants’ accounts is integrally risky owing to the power and advantage that has been afforded the author (Gergen & Gergen, 2000; Hertz, 1997; Lincoln & Guba, 2000, 2003; Stimpson, 1988). Hertz (1997) defi ned voice as: …a struggle to figure out how to present the author’s self while simultaneously writing the respondents’ accounts and representing their selves. Voice has multiple dimensions: First, there is the voice of the author. Second, there is the presentation of the voices of one’s respondents within the text. A third dimension appears when the self is the subject of the inquiry… Voice is how authors express themselves within an ethnography. (Hertz, 1997: xi–xii)

Stimpson (1988: 223) indicated that illustration and the difficulty of comprehending and clarifying texts that endeavour to frame a lived reality in terms of comparative ease to the participant ‘is a stew… [a] scrambled menu, it serves up several meanings at once’. Supplementary to this density

A Grounded Theory Approach to Tourism 43

is the supposition that a researcher will truly know from which narrative the participant may be conversing – which ‘I’ is conversing or which stance is exhibited – in an exchange and from what viewpoint or position (Gergen & Gergen, 2000; Gubrium & Holstein, 2002). For instance, in the analysis of employee viewpoints in an indigenous organisation, is the interviewee presently communicating as an employee or as a member of the clan? Is this a businessperson’s speech or the view of an indigenous leader or group representative? All of these diverse voices may be the same individual but interviewed on separate dates and talking in or about distinctive circumstances or conditions (see Radel, 2010). The impressions of reflexivity and speech centre the researcher more completely on the need for meticulous analysis, illustration and creating the diversity of selves (both the interviewees’ and the researcher’s) in the research purpose and production. Characteristically, the use of reflexivity (the capability to ‘bend back’ [Rossman & Rallis, 1998: 47] and take stock of oneself and one’s influences on the frameworks being researched) will be established by the use of fi rst-person grammar (Horsburgh, 2003). Qualitative grounded theory researchers materially and purposefully ‘write’ themselves into the dialogue to underline their individual participation in the research situations. Some Final Thoughts

In this chapter, we have shown what grounded theory is, what makes up a research study using grounded theory, research contexts for grounded theory, a case study of conducting grounded theory research into a specific group of tourists and how to use grounded theory in practice. In this section, we discuss how to write up the grounded theory research and fi nish off a research project. Subsequent to completing the analysis, it is time to disseminate results in manuscripts, theses, monographs and via other means. An encouraging attribute of writing or undertaking seminars is that writing and imparting one’s results help to distil ideas and spell out any vaguely articulated information. As a scholar once recorded: Writing forced me to see the whole theory and highlighted those parts that didn’t fit so well… So I would go back to the data… This kind of building and verifying of various aspects of the theory continued throughout the writing process especially in specifying the relationships between areas of the theory. (Paul Alexander, stated in a memo dated 19 September 1996, as cited in Corbin & Strauss, 2008: 275)

While beginning to deliberate on authoring the fi ndings of a research study, the researcher should revise the concluding integrative samples or outlines and rearrange the memos until the central analytical narrative

44

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

surfaces. This reassessment is ensued by a further categorisation of memos until there is sufficient material to write a thorough outline (Jennings et al., 2010). The categorisation may even cause some uncertainties about the analytical narrative or underline some distractions in theory developments. If that happens, do not become discouraged. The most unfortunate thing that could happen is that the analytical narrative turns out to be moderated, and consequently enriched. Furthermore, the story must be altered into an overall context. From our understanding, it is meaningful to at least prepare a general design; otherwise, there may be inconsistencies in the full account that is presented (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). There are additional measures that can help in spanning the barrier between the study and the structure. Initially, think cautiously about the foundation that informs the story. Every research manuscript, certainly every research piece, will have a central meaning. Each one of them has a minor quantity of meaningful expressions, sentences or paragraphs that underline the author’s central thought (Glaser, 1978: 129–130). This gauge of what is paramount to any specific document (or thesis) is regularly determined in the fi rst component or primary pages and then once more in the closing pages or chapter. With regard to a document, the early version should have its original analytical description depicted straightforwardly. When authoring a thesis or monograph, as separate from a seminar or even a journal manuscript, there should be an explanation of the prevailing analytical description (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Second, construct a sound outline, then document descriptions that unite the sections simultaneously so that one can continue to be explicit about the rising development of the theoretical description. Chapter contexts are defi ned and well-structured by working out what should be included in each component or section, and taking into account the relationship of the parts of the chapter to the complete work itself. Crucial to these options, once again, is the arrangement of the memos that seem applicable. But during the course of authoring, a researcher will repeatedly reconsider the memos for details and explanation. The opening or initial chapter describes the justification of the text and feasibly even runs through the analytical description; precisely, what the thesis or monograph contains. This explanation as well as the outline may be revised if the researcher later thinks it is warranted (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Third, envisage the structural design of the impending document, that is, the theoretical form that one wants the monograph or dissertation to take. Imagining the outline in one’s mind’s eye can be equated to creating a variety of spatial imagery. Once the work is realised its composition is consistent with the spatial imagery. A preamble, a fi rst sentence, a substantial theoretical section and then a further section made up of a quantity of chapters of substantive theory, which elaborate and represent inductions from the conceptual frames proposed earlier (Corbin & Strauss, 2008)

A Grounded Theory Approach to Tourism 45

are the core parts or chapters to be composed in the ultimate rendering of the manuscript. The account of grounded theory is provided through the authoring (Charmaz, 2000; Richardson, 1998; Rossman & Rallis, 1998). Researchers are compelled to establish that their work has been ‘systematic, analytical, rigorous, disciplined, and critical in perspective’. Yet, conversely, the work must also be ‘exploring, playful, metaphorical, insightful, and creative’ (Patton, 1990: 433). The account should also be written in ‘plain language’ (Bennett, 2005) that is beneficial and comprehensible to the participants themselves as much as it is comprehensible to academic and expert communities. Interviewees have permission to examine, distil, query and further participate in the theory, and in the end, gain from the research through their informed positions. Penning the narrative is principally ‘telling people their own stories’ (Cash et al., 2001: 48). Researchers, as co-originators of the narrative, should also incorporate their own tone in the fi rst person rather than portraying the material in a distant third person (Mills et al., 2006) to guarantee the narrative is valued and appreciated (Ermine et al., 2004) and offers an authentic image of the mutual encounter. References Anderson, L. and Littrell, M. (1996) Group profi les of women as tourists and purchasers of souvenirs. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal 25 (1), 28–56. Atkinson, P. and Hammersley, M. (1994) Ethnography and participation observation. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 248–261). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Backman, K. and Kyngas, H.A. (1999) Challenges of the grounded theory approach to a novice researcher. Nursing and Health Sciences 1, 147–153. Bennett, J. (2005) Indigenous entrepreneurship, social capital and tourism enterprise development: Lessons from Cape York. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, La Trobe University. Birks, M. and Mills, J. (2011) Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide. London: Sage Publications. Bogdan, R. and Taylor, J. (1975) Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A Phenomenological Approach to the Social Sciences. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Bowen, C.D. (1968) Biography: The Craft and the Calling. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Cash, K., Khan, S.I., Nasreen, H.-E., Bhuiya, A., Chowdhury, S. and Chowhury, A.M.R. (2001) Telling them their own stories: Legitimizing sexual and reproductive health education in rural Bangladesh. Sex Education 1 (1), 43–57. Castellanos-Verdugo, M., Caro-Gonzalez, F.J. and de la Oviedo-Garcia, M.A. (2010) An application of grounded theory to cultural tourism research: Resident attitudes to tourism activity is Santiponce. In G. Richards and W. Munsters (eds) Cultural Tourism Research Methods (pp. 115–128). Wallingford: CABI International. Charmaz, K. (1990) Identity dilemmas of chronically ill men. In A. Strauss and J. Corbin (eds) Grounded Theory in Practice (pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Charmaz, K. (2000) Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

46

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Charmaz, K. (2002) Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J.F. Gubrium and J.A. Holstein (eds) Handbook of Interview Research: Context & Method (pp. 675–694). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications. Charmaz, K. (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage Publications. Charmaz, K. (2008) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage Publications. Charmaz, K. (2016) The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry 1–12. Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (1990) Grounded theory research. Qualitative Sociology 13 (1), 3–21. Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (1998) Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry (pp. 273–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Covington, R.J. (2007) A grounded theory investigation of the use of the physical therapist clinical performance instrument for self-assessment. Doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern University. Creswell, J. (1998) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions. London: Sage Publications. Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2000) The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 1–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2000) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Ermine, W., Sinclair, R. and Jeffery, B. (2004) The Ethics of Research Involving Indigenous Peoples: Report of the Indigenous Peoples’ Health Research Centre to the Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics. Saskatoon, SK: Indigenous Peoples’ Health Research Centre. Fontana, A. and Frey, J.H. (1998) Interviewing: The art of science. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials (pp. 47–78). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Geertz, C. (1973) Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz (ed.) The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. (pp. 3–30). New York: Basic Books. Gergen, M.M. and Gergen, K.J. (2000) Qualitative inquiry: Tensions and transformations. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Inquiry (pp. 1025–1046). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Glaser, B.G. (1969) The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. In G. McCall and J. Simmons (eds) Issues in Participant Observation (pp. 216–228). Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley. Glaser, B.G. (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances In the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B.G. (1992) Emergence vs. Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B.G. (1998) Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B.G. (2001) The Grounded Theory Perspective: Conceptualization Contrasted with Description. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B.G. (2002) Constructivist grounded theory? Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/ Forum: Qualitative Social Research 3 (3), Art. 12.

A Grounded Theory Approach to Tourism 47

Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Goulding, C. (1998) Grounded theory: The missing methodology on the interpretivist agenda. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 1 (1), 50–57. Goulding, C. (2002) Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market Research. London: Sage Publications. Gubrium, J.F. and Holstein, J.A. (2002) From the individual interview to the interview society. In J.F. Gubrium and J.A. Holstein. (eds) Handbook of Interview Research: Context & Method (pp. 3–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Haig, B.D. (1995) Grounded theory as scientific method. See http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/ PES-Yearbook/95_docs/haig.html (accessed 5 July 2004). Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (1995) Ethnography: Principles in Practice. London: Routledge. Harry, B., Sturges, K.M. and Klinger, J.K. (2005) Mapping the process: An exemplar of process and challenge in grounded theory analysis. Educational Researcher 34 (2), 3–13. Hertz, R. (ed.) (1997) Refl exivity and Voice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hillman, W. (1999) Searching for authenticity in touristic experience: Female backpackers in north Queensland. MA thesis, James Cook University Hillman, W. (2013) Searching for Authenticity in Gendered Touristic Experience: Female Backpackers in Australia. Saarbrücken: Germany LAP Lambert Academic Publishing. Hillman, W. and Radel, K. (2012a) Perceptions of Travel and Risk in Journeys Around Australia. Council for Australian University Tourism and Hospitality Education (CAUTHE) 22nd Annual National Conference: The New Golden Age of Tourism and Hospitality, 6–9 February, La Trobe University, Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre. Hillman, W. and Radel, K. (2012b) Risk and Dangerous Travel Experiences around Australia. The Australian Sociological Association (TASA) Annual Conference 2012: Emerging and Enduring Inequalities, 26–29 November, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane. Hillman, W. and Radel, K. (2013a) Journeys around Australia: Money and Survival as a Rite of Passage. The Australian Sociological Association (TASA) Conference 2013: Reflections, Intersections and Aspirations: 50 Years of Australian Sociology, 25–28 November, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Hillman, W. and Radel, K. (2013b) Money and Survival as a Rite-of-Passage in Journeys around Australia. CAUTHE 2013 Conference Proceedings: Tourism and Global Change: On the Edge of Something Big, 11–14 February, Lincoln University, Christchurch, New Zealand. Horsburgh, D. (2003) Evaluation of qualitative research. Journal of Clinical Nursing 12, 307–312. Jennings, G., Kensbock, S. Junek, O., Radel, K. and Kachel, U. (2010) Lived experiences of early career researchers: Learning about and doing grounded theory. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 17 (1), 21–33. Kellehear, A. (1993) The Unobtrusive Researcher: A Guide to Methods. St. Leonards: Allen and Unwin. Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (2000) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 163–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (2003) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues (pp. 253–291). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

48

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Mason, J. (1996) Qualitative Researching. London: Sage Publications. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications. Mills, J., Bonner, A. and Francis, K. (2006) Adopting a constructivist approach to grounded theory: Implications for research design. International Journal of Nursing Practice 12, 8–13. Neuman, W.L. (2000) Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Patton, M.Q. (1980) Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Patton, M.Q. (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publications. Peshkin, A. (2000) The nature of interpretation in qualitative research. Educational Researcher 29 (5), 5–9. Radel, K. (2010) The Dreamtime Cultural Centre: A grounded theory of doing business in an Indigenous tourism enterprise. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Central Queensland University. Radel, K. and Hillman, W. (2012a) Journeys of Non-Arrival: Survival Escapist Travel as a Response to Trauma. Council for Australian University Tourism and Hospitality Education (CAUTHE) 22nd Annual National Conference: The New Golden Age of Tourism and Hospitality, 6–9 February, La Trobe University, Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre. Radel, K. and Hillman, W. (2012b) Journeys of Non-Arrival in Response to Trauma: Influences of Emotion on Leisure and Tourism Choices. The Australian Sociological Association (TASA) Annual Conference 2012: Emerging and Enduring Inequalities, 26–29 November, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane. Radel, K. and Hillman, W. (2013a) Not on Vacation: Triggering Travel in Response to Trauma. CAUTHE 2013 Conference Proceedings: Tourism and Global Change: On the Edge of Something Big, 11–14 February, Lincoln University, Christchurch, New Zealand. Radel, K. and Hillman, W. (2013b) Not on vacation: Survival escapist as an agent of transformation. In Y. Reisinger (ed.) Transformational Tourism (pp. 33–51). Wallingford: CABI. Radel, K. and Hillman, W. (2016) Disrupting Poverty in Nepal: Transformations of Women through Tourism Entrepreneurship. Paper presented at the 30th Annual Conference of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management [ANZAM], December, Brisbane, Australia. Rice, P. and Ezzy, D. (1999) Qualitative Research Methods: A Health Focus. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Richardson, L. (1998) Writing: A method of inquiry. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials (pp. 345–371). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Riley, R. (1996) Revealing socially constructed knowledge through quasi-structured interviews and grounded theory analysis. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 5 (1–2), 21–40. Riley, R.W. and Love, L.L. (2000) The state of qualitative tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research 27 (1), 164–187. Roffey, B.H. (2002) Beyond culture-centric and gendered models of management: Perspectives on Filipina business leadership. Women in Management Review 17 (8), 352–363. Rosenau, P. (1992) Post-Modernism and the Social Sciences: Insights, Inroads, and Intrusions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

A Grounded Theory Approach to Tourism 49

Rossman, G.B. and Rallis, S.F. (1998) Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Seale, S. (1999) The Quality of Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications. Seidman, I. (1991) Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences. New York: Teachers College Press. Silverman, D. (1993) Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction. London: Sage Publications. Smith, L.M. (1998) Biographical method. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry (pp. 184–224). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Stern, P.N. (1991) Are counting and coding a capella appropriate in qualitative research? In J.M. Morse (ed.) Qualitative Nursing Research: A Contemporary Dialogue (pp. 135–148). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Stern, P.N. (1994) Eroding grounded theory. In J.M. Morse (ed.) Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 212–223). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Stern, P.N. (2007) On solid ground: Essential properties for growing grounded theory. In A. Bryant and K. Charmaz (eds) Handbook of Grounded Theory (pp. 86–98). London: Sage Publications. Stimpson, C.R. (1988) Nancy Reagan wears a hat: Feminism and its cultural consensus. Critical Inquiry 14, 223–243. Strauss, A. (1987) Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1994) Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 273–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Sword, W. (1999) Accounting for presence of self: Reflections on doing qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research 9 (2), 270–278. van Niekerk, J.C. and Roode, J.D. (2009) Glaserian and Straussian Grounded Theory: Similar or Completely Different? 2009 Annual Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists, 12–14 October, Vanderbijlpark, Emfuleni, South Africa.

3 Ethnographic Approaches to Tourism Research Amie Matthews

Initially developed and utilised in anthropology and later sociology, ethnography takes an engaged and intimate approach to the study of social life. Offering detailed insight into various social and cultural phenomena – including different cultural groups and social organisations, their structures, shared practices and experiences – ethnography has since been adopted by, and adapted to, a wide range of research areas and disciplines. While incredibly diverse, ethnographic research shares the common aim of gaining an emic or insider’s perspective into the phenomenon being studied, as it is being lived by the ethnographer and/or those central to her/his enquiry. To this end, ethnography, which is carried out in situ, incorporates an approach that ‘allows the researcher to discover and analyse the categories and questions that are most relevant for the people being studied’ (Murchison, 2010: 12). In this way, those at the centre of ethnographic research often shape the focus of the study, at least indirectly. In addition, they may also influence the analytical framework that is used by the researcher to make sense of what she/he observes. This is because the goal of ethnography is to identify common patterns in behaviour and belief as they emerge within a given social context, and to make sense of participants’ actions and ideologies by considering their ontological positioning (Fetterman, 2008). Such objectives are met by engaging in fieldwork. Best understood as a prolonged period of study at a given research site (or series of sites), during which time the ethnographer employs various methods to get closer to the lived reality of those being researched, fieldwork is one of the cornerstones of ethnography. The other, as Campbell and Lassiter (2014) observe, is writing. They argue that: Ethnography is… both a fieldwork method and an approach to writing. As fieldworkers, ethnographers participate in the lives of others, observing and documenting people and events, taking detailed fieldnotes, conducting interviews, and the like. As writers, ethnographers organize, interpret, and inscribe this collected and, as many argue, constructed information as text. (Campbell & Lassiter, 2014: 1)

50

Ethnographic Approaches to Tourism Research 51

This chapter provides an overview of both aspects of the ethnographic approach. Commencing with an introduction to the method, the chapter will examine some of the key issues that emerge in ethnographic research today, including debates around the role of the researcher and associated concerns with subjectivity and objectivity, representation and the question of ‘voice’. The chapter will also discuss different types of ethnography and consider the contribution that these can make to interdisciplinary research on tourism. Though it is tempting to refer to ethnography as a ‘new’ or ‘emerging’ research method in tourism studies (and indeed, many do), there is a long history of ethnographic tourism research being carried out, particularly within the sociology and anthropology of tourism. In canvassing some of this research, as well as more recent developments, the chapter provides a clear pathway (with established precedents), for those interested in gaining an in-depth understanding of tourism-related issues. What is Ethnography?

In the classical anthropological tradition, ethnography tended to involve the researcher travelling to distant lands in order to examine people whose lives were far removed (geographically, linguistically and socioculturally) from his/her own. To do this successfully, it was argued that the anthropologist, so concerned with foreign places, peoples and cultures, would need to undertake a prolonged period of immersive study, commonly referred to as fieldwork. Living alongside locals for a year or more was deemed necessary if one was to learn the language, build rapport and develop connections with key informants who could explain various aspects of the cultural phenomenon being experienced by the researcher and offer access to others in the community. Most importantly, immersion in the foreign culture (being there and being a part of it) was understood as essential in order to accurately document the various social structures and systems that were in place. By studying things like kinship networks, gender dynamics, sociopolitical hierarchies, economic relations of exchange, rituals, myths and beliefs, the anthropologist aimed to develop, over time and with painstaking dedication to ‘scientific’ observation and interaction, a holistic picture of the group being studied: one informed by group members’ own self-understanding. In other words, the aim was to balance insider and outsider perspectives – to craft through ethnographic research and writing, a realistic and ‘objective’ account of the ‘Other’ (see Said, 1978). One that was close to the native reality, but not so close as to be compromised by the anthropologist having actually ‘gone native’ (for further discussion of the history of ethnography, see Campbell & Lassiter, 2014; Eriksen, 2015; Graburn, 2002; Murchison, 2010; Tedlock, 1991). The sociological adoption of ethnography as a research method shifted the focus from distant Others, to Others closer to home, with

52

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

members of the Chicago School for instance turning their attention to urban communities and cultures (see for example Cressey, 2008). This trend has continued into the present day with researchers from a range of disciplines recognising that the ethnographic techniques used to study ‘foreign’ cultures could be adapted to more familiar settings, helping to develop an in-depth and detailed understanding of behaviours and social practices that might otherwise be taken for granted. In order to avoid what Eriksen (2015: 40) refers to as ‘homeblindness’ though, those employing ethnography within their own societies are still encouraged to seek an emic perspective, and in the majority of cases this is understood as being best achieved through intensive, engaged and where possible, prolonged periods of study in the field. Ethnographic Fieldwork

While fieldwork is identified as a key component of ethnography, beyond the idea of immersion it is not always clear what exactly this entails. In part this is due to the diversity of ethnographic studies that have been conducted, each with different demands, research questions, ethnographers and participants, and thus different research dynamics. As Eriksen (2015: 34) highlights, ‘there are many ways of doing fieldwork, and it is therefore difficult to provide a simple recipe for how to carry it out’. In addition, the ethnography that is often made public is not ethnography as practice but ethnography as product: the polished results of one’s fieldwork experience, edited, interpreted, refi ned and published. Rarely do we gain access to researchers’ raw ethnographic ‘data’, that is, their field notes (exceptions include Campbell & Lassiter, 2014; Matthews, 2012). Instead, we are typically left with romanticised or ‘strongly idealised’ accounts (Eriksen, 2015: 35). This point notwithstanding, there are a number of key features of fieldwork that we can identify. First, as intimated above, fieldwork involves ‘working with people for long periods of time in their natural setting’ (Fetterman, 2008: 552). Therefore, ethnography has been described both as a humanistic and as a naturalistic approach to research (Campbell & Lassiter, 2014; Fetterman, 2008). By conducting research from within (or at the very least, in close proximity to) the group, culture or organisation being studied, the ethnographer aims to capture a holistic and authentic view of those at the centre of his/her enquiry. The behaviour of these research subjects or participants is to be examined then as it manifests in the ‘native environment’, as a product of existing social and cultural norms, constraints and conditions, rather than as an artificial effect or outcome of the research itself (Fetterman, 2008: 552). Of course, this is not to deny the researcher’s influence in ethnography – as will be discussed below, this is somewhat inevitable. However, by studying and analysing

Ethnographic Approaches to Tourism Research 53

a group in their natural setting, and by interpreting and analysing that group’s behaviour with reference to a cultural framework that is relevant to the research context, the aim is to provide a credible account of the social situation being studied. Such an account, it is argued, should resonate with those positioned within the research, as well as those outside of it (for a useful discussion of reliability and credibility in ethnographic research, see Ellis & Bochner, 2003). On this basis, Eriksen (2015: 34) argues that a ‘principal requirement in fieldwork… consists of trying to take part in local life as much as possible’. Depending on the subject of one’s research that local life may be similar or dissimilar to one’s own, but in either case it is imperative that the ethnographer involve himself/herself in what is going on around him/ her and take extensive, methodical notes about this activity. Participant observation is then one of the central methods employed in fieldwork. Though its implementation may vary (with some researchers for instance leaning more towards observation and less towards participation), by taking part actively or passively in the social and cultural activities occurring within the society, group or organisation under study the researcher becomes increasingly familiar with his/her subject. As this familiarity develops and key trends and patterns begin to emerge, other methods may be implemented that allow the researcher to focus on specific aspects of the social or cultural life under examination. Most commonly, these include formal and informal interviews. Whether they are informal conversations with ‘informants’ or semi-structured or structured interactions with research participants, interviews are crucial to fieldwork and are what contribute to ethnography being characterised as a collaborative approach to research (see Campbell & Lassiter, 2014; Murchison, 2010). Interviews allow the ethnographer to gather detailed information about the group, culture or phenomenon being studied and offer insight into the emic reality. They also provide opportunity to contextualise, or perhaps even clarify, what has already been observed and noted in the field. In this way, we can understand participant observation and interviews as symbiotic fieldwork activities, for they feed off and support one another. After all, many of the issues that one faces in conducting interviews – such as ‘accessing the setting’, ‘understanding the language and culture of the respondents’, ‘deciding on how to present oneself’, ‘locating an informant’, ‘gaining trust’ and ‘establishing rapport’ (Fontana & Frey, 2000: 654–656) – are also issues for ethnography. Conducting participant observation prior to interviews, or interviews prior to participant observation may go some way towards assisting the researcher to resolve such matters. Other techniques that the ethnographer may use in the field include (but are not limited to) surveys, textual analysis, life histories and cultural, social and spatial mapping. There is no scope in this chapter to discuss these

54

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

research methods in detail; however, it should be noted that the adoption of complementary methods during the fieldwork process is what allows the researcher to develop as comprehensive a picture as possible of the group being studied. In particular, by assisting the researcher to compare and contrast different sets of information, triangulation allows for the capture of a range of views and helps to balance micro and macro positions (Fetterman, 2008). It is only by identifying different patterns within each set of data and perhaps the similarities and differences between them that the ethnographer can arrive at a rich understanding of the complex matter under study. As Fetterman (2008: 574) suggests: Ethnographers acquire a deeper understanding of and appreciation for a culture as they weave each part of the ornate human tapestry together, by observing and analysing the patterns of everyday life. (Fetterman, 2008: 574) As this human tapestry is created moment to moment, and as each thread is often not fully realised until an interview or a set of observations is completed, Richardson’s (2000) idea of crystallisation holds perhaps even greater weight. Noting that all narratives can only ever be partial and that there is more than one way to tell a story, she asks us to reconsider the concept of validity, posing as an alternative to triangulation the idea of crystallisation. This, she argues, allows for greater fluidity, as: the crystal… combines symmetry and substance with an infi nite variety of shapes, substances, transmutations, multidimensionalities, and angles of approach. Crystals grow, change, alter, but are not amorphous. (Richardson, 2000: 934) With this in mind, ethnography is arguably an iterative and necessarily reflexive approach to research. The ethnographer relies on multiple sources of information obtained during fieldwork and through an ongoing process of comparison and contrast, identifies different trends and patterns and works through these in order to craft, eventually, a detailed description or narrative about the cultural phenomenon being studied. Ideally, one that is both comprehensive and nuanced. Writing plays a key role in this process of analysis, and in establishing this fi nal image. Ethnographic Writing: Process and Product

A crucial component of fieldwork, where ‘the ethnographer becomes the primary research instrument’ observing, collecting and recording information about the group under study, is regular and comprehensive note taking (Murchison, 2010: 13). Using all his/her senses to describe

Ethnographic Approaches to Tourism Research 55

what is witnessed, experienced and felt in the field, and in some cases to record reflections on what is observed and/or fledgling patterns that have been identified, the researcher needs to make these notes as detailed as possible for a number of reasons. Firstly, ‘“what one wants to know” often becomes apparent only after one has begun fieldwork’ (Eriksen, 2015: 35), and in some cases after one has left the field (see also Murchison, 2010). Second, these notes often form the basis of the researcher’s analysis. They ‘document and drive the fieldwork processes that struggle to actively make sense of’ observed social and cultural activities (Campbell & Lassiter, 2014: 66) and may inform other research techniques that are utilised during the course of the project. Finally, field notes may appear in published ethnographic accounts providing, either alone or in conjunction with other recordings (such as fi lm or photography), a clear account of the social and cultural phenomenon being examined. Before this fi nal account is arrived at though, the ethnographer engages in a lengthy period of analysis, reflecting on his/her observations countless times in the field (as they are taking place or near to their occurrence), and again after leaving the field. Field notes will be read and reread, different observations compared and contrasted, set against other sources of information (e.g. interview transcripts, archival material, maps) and fi ltered and categorised through the lens of ‘locally relevant understandings and ways of operating’ (Murchison, 2010: 12). In turn, all of this information will also be interpreted by the researcher with reference to her/his own epistemologies and theoretical frameworks. So, while there is, in ethnography, a privileging of the local, as Eriksen (2015) points out, comparison plays a central role and fieldwork is often marked by the interplay between self and other. Irrespective of how close one is to the subject of one’s study (whether one belongs to the social group being studied or is positioned outside of it), interaction with others in the field and their response to the researcher’s own behaviours, cultural practices and understandings, will frequently shed light on local norms, customs and belief systems. There is then a dialogue that emerges in ethnographic research: a continual back and forth between researcher and researched, observation and analysis, which is typically navigated through the process of writing (Campbell & Lassiter, 2014; Fetterman, 2008). It is this process that allows the ethnographer to provide a detailed account of the society, group or culture being studied. This means that ethnography can never be entirely objective or neutral. The ethnographic process – what is participated in, observed and recorded, how and by whom – influences what is written and published as ethnography. What is published in turn influences how it is read and interpreted by the audience, and both acts, the writing and reading of ethnography, are influenced by the sociocultural and sociohistorical contexts in which they occur (for further discussion see Eriksen,

56

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

2015). It is for these reasons that the ethnographer needs to be acutely aware of how participants are represented, and of how he/she is positioned within her/his own study. The Complexities of Doing Ethnography: Considering Issues of Subjectivity and Objectivity

By now it should be clear that qualitative methods like ethnography require a certain intimacy between researcher and research participant. By embedding herself/himself in the research, the ethnographer is able to better see the world through the eyes of those at the centre of her/his study (Ellis, 2004). The aim and challenge is to then translate that world vision in a manner ‘faithful’ to participants, but also relatable to those situated outside of this intimate relationship (Ellis, 2004: 25). As such, giving voice to those at the centre of one’s research is not a straightforward matter. Ethnographers are charged with relating the stories of participants, with helping to make sense of, contextualising and ‘reframing’ these narratives for others (Hastrup, 1992: 122). However, this also means choosing which stories to share and how best to share them (Hastrup, 1992) and such choices are not made simply with reference to the participants. They are also made with reference to the research question, aims and objectives, and informed by an equally selective or inevitably partial (for not every moment can be witnessed, nor necessarily captured in text) process of participant observation. Complexifying things further is the fact that participant observation, which involves a ‘process… of simultaneously joining in and holding back’ (Leite & Graburn, 2009: 36), is rather paradoxical. On the one hand, participation is what leaves the researcher so deeply embedded within her/his project. On the other, observation suggests a slightly more passive activity, one typically carried out at a distance or at least with a modicum of separation between the ethnographer and his/her subject (Campbell & Lassiter, 2014; Tedlock, 1991). Striking a balance between these two positions then is a necessary endeavour that each ethnographer must engage in, though which is given greater emphasis will likely depend on the individual researcher, the parameters of his/her study, its epistemological underpinnings and the research participants who are involved. Irrespective of whether participation or observation is given greater emphasis, many argue that it is the personal nature of ethnography that renders it unreliable. In the case of observation, one has a process for eliciting information that is rather dependent on the individual researcher – what he/she happens to see, note and then interpret – and with participation one has the ethnographer’s direct (and thus potentially impartial) involvement in the research. On the latter point, Tedlock (1991: 71) notes that despite a growing shift towards ethnographers taking a ‘participatory stance’

Ethnographic Approaches to Tourism Research 57

in their research, ‘the public revelation of participatory details of the fieldwork experience is still considered embarrassingly unprofessional by some ethnographers’. While Tedlock (1991) was writing 25 years ago, and (as we will see when it comes to autoethnography) things have started to change, this is a charge that still haunts many ethnographers today. Especially if they happen to be working in fields, disciplines and, in some cases, institutional settings where qualitative methods have not yet been readily adopted. Of course, the catch is that while revealing ‘too much’ of the participatory nature of ethnography may give rise to claims of subjectivity, reporting ethnography solely as an end product can result in accounts that are devoid of life: a rather ironic predicament as ‘life’ tends to be the focus of the social enquiries where ethnography is typically employed! Further, too little acknowledgement of the role of the researcher in the research, a focus on the information that has been acquired rather than the interactions required to procure it, renders ethnography more rather than less likely to reinforce bias. According to Tedlock (1991), the alternative is to move to ‘the observation of participation’. This means that the researcher considers her/his positioning as she/he observes and/or participates in the activities being documented, and includes some discussion of this in her/his ethnographic accounts. In a sense, such a stance requires observing self as well as others and importantly, self and other in interaction. It also requires being self-aware when it comes to the act of writing. As Campbell and Lassiter (2014: 64) have since noted (following Tedlock, 1991) the shift to ‘observant participation’ involves considering ‘how one’s own experience shapes one’s interpretation of others; builds on the processes of subjectivity and intersubjectivity; and focuses attention on those points where “co-understandings” between and among people surface’. Ultimately then, a focus on the subjective and intersubjective elements of ethnography and consideration of issues of voice and representation helps to foster greater self-awareness and reflexivity in the researcher. In turn, reflexive positioning results in stronger, fuller and more authentic ethnographic descriptions. By drawing on the ‘full range of experience’ available to him/her, the ethnographer is able to provide a more nuanced and ‘human’ account (Campbell & Lassiter, 2014: 65) of his/her subject. Such accounts are imperative when it comes to researching tourism, which is, after all a very human activity. Ethnography in Tourism Studies

It is tempting to talk about ethnographic research and qualitative methods more generally, as a new development in tourism studies. Of course, in some fields of tourism studies and in some tourism departments, quantitative methods still dominate and qualitative enquiry is treated

58

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

as being a little suspect. However, there is a long history of tourism ethnography and a large volume of what we might refer to as ‘tourism studies canon’ draws on this. That said, when early ethnographies of tourism began to emerge they were not necessarily conceived as such. Instead, anthropologists, sociologists and geographers (among others) engaged in studying different cultures, communities and/or places, were forced to deal with tourism as it began to creep in around the edges of their broader investigations. As has been pointed out elsewhere, much social science research on tourism or tourism-related topics emerged then from an interest in other things (Graburn, 2002; Leite & Graburn, 2009). According to Leite and Graburn (2009: 39), this interest manifested either as ‘empirical discovery’, when tourists began to visit places already frequented by researchers for instance, or as a result of ‘work on adjacent topics’, where the subject of enquiry, such as local crafts or artmaking, gradually became relevant to tourist cultures and/or the tourism industry. Subsequently, it is no surprise that one of the key areas that ethnography initially contributed to was studies of tourism impact or tourism-attributed change. This trajectory is evident in now classic works like Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism (Smith, 1978), and the follow-up volumes (Smith, 1989a; Smith & Brent, 2001). In many of the chapters featured in these collections, we see anthropologists and other social scientists considering the influence that tourism is having or has had on the communities at the centre of their studies and the dynamics that exist between tourists and locals in these spaces. Although most of these chapters provide scant methodological detail, as many of the contributors to the fi rst volume of Hosts and Guests had long-standing relationships with the communities featured in their chapters, they were able to provide detailed accounts of the changes that tourism had brought. In the case of their revised chapters for the second edition, they were also well positioned to offer longitudinal reflections on such impacts. For instance, Greenwood (1989) drew on fieldwork in the Basque country of Spain to consider the issue of tourism-related cultural commodification, arguing that this could lead to the destruction of local culture, specifically ritual, and to the disruption of existing sociocultural ties. Similarly, Smith (1989b) drew on 30 years of academic and industry experience of tourism in the Arctic in order to consider the relationship between tourists and Eskimo, and Pi-Sunyer’s (1989) analysis of tourism impacts and changing resident perspectives and responses to tourism in Cap Lloc, Spain, was informed by extensive fieldwork (with multiple site visits) carried out over a 20-year period. Such themes continued to be highlighted in the third volume of Hosts and Guests (Smith & Brent, 2001), where again informed by ethnographic fieldwork various authors drew attention to such things as changing labour practices resulting in a loss of traditional knowledge

Ethnographic Approaches to Tourism Research 59

(Pi-Sunyer et al., 2001), environmental degradation and increased leakage as a result of the massification of tourism (Smith, 2001a), and more positively, increased independence for minority groups such as the elderly and women as a result of their involvement in tourism (Van Broeck, 2001). In each case, ethnographic fieldwork generated the necessary ‘breadth and depth of data’ (Smith, 2001b: 111) to measure these changes, as it has more recently in studies noting the potential for increased cultural pride, cultural rejuvenation and empowerment among local people as a result of their involvement in tourism (see for example Bunten, 2008, 2010; Doron, 2005). While the aim of establishing an ‘holistic analysis’ (Leite & Graburn, 2009: 36), the central enterprise of ethnography, is typically and more easily accomplished with the study of ‘hosts’ who tend to be more closely tied to place, other key bodies of ethnographic tourism research have emerged with respect to the examination of various tourism systems and tourist cultures, including those that are inherently mobile. In such cases, a number of researchers have, as Leite and Graburn (2009: 37) put it, ‘had to adapt their research methods to capture the transient tourist-as-native’s point of view’. For instance, they have opted to match the mobility of tourists by accompanying or interacting with them at various points on their travels, or focusing on a particular destination but accepting that there will be a multitude of ‘informants’ as tourist life ebbs and flows around them (see for example Bruner, 2005; Schmid, 2008; Selanniemi, 2001). Today then there are tourism ethnographies on specific groups of tourists or niche tourism industries, such as backpackers (see for example Elsrud, 2001; Hillman, 2010; Maoz, 2006; Matthews, 2008, 2009, 2014; Sørenson, 2003; Westerhausen, 2002), ‘lifestyle travellers’ (Cohen, 2011), working holiday makers (Clarke, 2005) and volunteer tourists (Everingham, 2015, 2016; Mostafanezhad, 2013). Ethnographies have also been carried out with respect to cultural and educational tourism (see for example Spencer [2008] on study tours in Cuba), dark or ‘reality’ tourism (Freire-Medeiros, 2009; Pezullo, 2009), with tour guides (Hillman, 2005; Salazar, 2010a, 2010b) and street vendors (Steel, 2011), and at key tourism destinations or sites (Cohen, 1982; Córdoba Azcárate, 2011; Law et al., 2007; Schmid, 2008). Though this is by no means a comprehensive list, it is clear that ethnography has a significant role to play in tourism research, especially when it is concerned with unpacking in detail the embodied, affectual and experiential aspects of tourism: the meanings given to tourism by tourists (Graburn, 2002: 30) and the impacts that tourism may have on those who tour, as well as those who are toured. That said, even a partial review of some of the tourism ethnography that exists reveals that there is a great deal of variation with respect to ethnographic reporting. Except for those with a distinctly methodological focus (see for example Frohlick & Harrison’s

60

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

[2008] special issue of Tourist Studies), many publications are limited in their discussion of method and while ethnographic fieldwork is frequently mentioned, the actual ethnographic process is not (a point also made by Nash [2000]; and more recently O’Gorman et al. [2014]). While this is somewhat understandable, after all few journal articles are of size or scope to accommodate detailed discussion of the way in which ethnography has been operationalised, there is a need for such discussion. As such, as well as providing an overview of three different types of ethnographic research that are growing in popularity in tourism studies, the remainder of this chapter is dedicated to examining the ways in which these have been adopted by different tourism researchers. Types of Ethnographic Research Multisited ethnography

According to Marcus (2002: 196), multisited ethnography involves conducting research across multiple fieldwork sites and/or social and cultural spaces. So, the same study or, rather, an examination of the same topic may be carried out in, for example, different communities or countries, leading to increased opportunities for comparison. This, he argues, is encouraged, perhaps even necessitated, by ‘a more globally… organized… world in which fieldwork must be constituted other than locally’ (Marcus, 2015: 35). Falzon (2016: 1–2) expands on such notions, suggesting that ‘the essence of multi-sited research is to follow people, connections, associations, and relationships across space’ and that ‘multisitedness’ allows the researcher to more readily examine ‘spatialized (cultural) difference’ (Falzon, 2016: 13). With multisited ethnography then, we see the field being extended from a reasonably bounded site, in the singular, to include a number of such bounded sites, in the plural. So, rather than examining one group or community that is somewhat confi ned temporally and spatially, we move to studying a number of these groups, in which case ethnographies begin to take on the appearance of comparative case studies. Going one step further, the defi nition of multisited ethnography also encompasses the adoption of research sites that are more fluid or ‘geographically discontinuous’ (Falzon, 2016: 2). This is crucial given the present conditions of hyper-mobility. By encouraging researchers to match their research practices to the mobility of their subject(s), they are enabled to better grapple with mobile processes and practices, such as migration and transnationalism, or in the case of this chapter, tourism. Indeed, given that tourism is an inherently mobile activity, carried out across local and global spaces and heavily reliant on media and visual culture, multisited ethnography, as can be seen in the following case study, offers some interesting possibilities for tourism research.

Ethnographic Approaches to Tourism Research 61

Case study: Multisited or ‘glocal’ ethnographies

In an attempt to gain insight into the ‘human mechanics’ of globalisation as they play out in tourism, Salazar (2010a: xvi) undertakes a multisited, or what he terms a ‘glocal’ (Salazar, 2010b) ethnography of tour guiding. Rather than treating local and global as separate entities, Salazar aims to unpack the interplay between them. He does this by conducting observation (including participant observation), media analysis and interviews with tour guides and other relevant parties (such as industry officials and tourism operators) in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, and Arusha, Tanzania, and comparing the results of each case study. Focusing on guides, who he argues operate as ‘cultural mediators’ (Salazar, 2010b: 188), he examines their interactions with foreign tourists and the narratives and behaviours they employ as they navigate between global tourism imaginaries and tourist perceptions, locally positioned sites and social structures, policies and industries. In this way, he is able to shed light on the multilayered nature of contemporary tourism, which functions on multiple scales and across different temporal, spatial and social boundaries or barriers. Though researching a completely different topic, in her study Everingham (2015, 2016) is similarly motivated to use a multisited approach in order to develop a nuanced and multidimensional understanding of volunteer tourism. Over the course of two years, she undertakes two separate stints of ethnographic fieldwork with volunteer organisations in Peru and Ecuador, combining during this time autoethnography, participant observation, interviews and focus groups. Through this, she strives to gain insight into the embodied and affective aspects of the volunteer experience, aspects which she suggests are often overlooked, with many analyses of volunteer tourism instead being overshadowed by normative discourses of development and aid. Rather than viewing the dynamics of the volunteer experience and volunteer–local interactions as static, she argues that they are in fact characterised by complexity, ambiguity and potently, possibility. The multisited approach provides then the opportunity to develop different case studies, which due to the depth of information gained, in turn are used to move beyond standard or normative conceptualisations of what it means to volunteer and of the volunteer–local relationship. Just as new approaches to fieldwork have developed, resulting in the adoption of multisited, mobile and third spaces as research sites (on the latter, see Marcus, 2015: 37–38), so too new approaches to ethnographic recording have also emerged. Marcus (2002) includes these in his formulation of multisited ethnography, suggesting that in addition to those drawing on multiple geographic or sociocultural locations, we can also conceive of a multisited ethnography where the researcher has to transverse different disciplinary boundaries and knowledge sources and systems, resulting in an ethnography that is characterised by a sense of multiplicity, and in some

62

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

cases, multiple authorship. While some have questioned whether or not this is in fact a new development in ethnographic work (for an overview, see Falzon, 2016), it is clear that a number of researchers and writers are moving from individualistic, field-note-based texts to more creative and collaborative outputs (Marcus, 2015). These may include things like websites, ‘studio events’, exhibitions and performances, archives, labs, fi lm and photography (for more on these options, see Marcus, 2015: 43–48). While tourism studies has been a little slow to pick up on some of these developments, the incorporation of photography into ethnography is an obvious choice, one which will be discussed below with respect to visual ethnography (see also Abascal et al., Chapter 11, this volume). Before doing this though, the chapter turns to autoethnography, which, according to Graburn (2002: 25), is commonly engaged in (in some form or other) by ‘most ethnographers of tourism’ who may, when carrying out their observations, become ‘tourists among tourists’. Being a touristresearcher is not automatically conducive to autoethnography (or good autoethnography) though: the autoethnographic researcher must also be highly reflexive in the way that she/he juggles such dual roles and consciously adopt them as part of her/his approach to research. Autoethnography

Autoethnography is concerned with ‘exploring a particular life’ in order ‘to understand a way of life’ (Ellis & Bochner, 2003: 206). It is about examining, reflecting upon and coming to a deeper understanding of self by turning the observational lens commonly adopted in fieldwork inward. So, the researcher comes to make field notes about his/her own experiences, either in the immediacy of that experience, or in some cases by drawing on emotional recall, reconstruction and memory (Ellis, 1995). On the basis of such notes, one’s own actions, thoughts, beliefs and discourses are analysed for what they reveal about a particular experience or sociocultural phenomenon, and in this way self becomes the basis for better comprehending others. Thus, in autoethnography the researcher becomes the subject of his/ her own enquiry (Ellis, 2004), sometimes in isolation and other times in conjunction with those who are in a similar predicament. It should be noted at this point that just as there are different types of ethnography, autoethnography may also take different forms. These range from personal narratives that are more autobiographical in nature, to those where the researcher is one of many participants in his/her study (for further discussion, see Ellis & Bochner [2003]). In either case, as Ellis and Bochner (2003: 209) emphasise, autoethnography is a deeply reflexive approach to research, which requires the researcher to ‘gaze… outward on social and cultural aspects of their personal experience’ and then ‘inward, exposing a

Ethnographic Approaches to Tourism Research 63

vulnerable self that is moved by and may move through, refract, and revisit cultural interpretation’. They go on to write that in autoethnographic texts: Concrete action, dialogue, emotion, embodiment, spirituality, and selfconsciousness are featured, appearing as relational and institutional stories affected by history, social structure, and culture, which themselves are dialectically revealed through action, feeling, thought, and language. (Ellis & Bochner, 2003: 209) In these multilayered texts, the individual becomes the basis for understanding the cultural, and narrative interplay serves to connect micro and macro positions. Case study: An autoethnographic approach to backpacking

In my own research examining the backpacking culture, I aimed to investigate the meanings that young people, particularly young Australians, gave to backpacking and to examine the rite of passage of travel as it was being lived (see Matthews, 2009, 2010, 2014). This meant conducting ethnographic fieldwork – consisting of media analysis, participant observation and interviews – with backpackers on the move. As backpackers are ‘characterized by impromptu social interaction within a group of erratic composition with unceasing extensive changeover of individuals’ (Sørenson, 2003: 850), I needed to be as mobile, varied and flexible in my global itinerary as they were. To this end over the course of 10 months, I took part in a language immersion and homestay program in Guatemala, participated in volunteer tourism projects in Costa Rica, the US and Thailand, lived and worked in backpacker hostels in the UK, undertook organised tours in Cuba, Canada and India, and travelled independently – by bus, boat, train, plane, tuk tuk, and on foot – in all of the above countries, as well as Panama, France and Spain. Along the way, I stayed in backpacker hostels and guesthouses, slept on friends’ couches (many of whom were Australians undertaking working holidays), and frequented the tourist sites, bars, clubs and cafes popular with young travellers at the time. Informed by media analysis, previous experience backpacking at home and abroad, and time spent working in the Australian and Scottish backpacking industries, I was able to identify these localities quite easily. Indeed, as I have indicated elsewhere (Matthews, 2012) at that point in my life I was defi nitely more at home in the backpacking community than in the academic one, so issues of access were considerably reduced. To this end, the ethnographic research that I undertook could be referred to as insider or ‘active member researcher’ ethnography (see Angrosino & Mays de Pérez, 2003). Given it was carried out across three continents and multiple countries, grappling with local and global, it

64

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

might also be referred to as a multisited or glocal ethnography. Ultimately though, what I want to reference here are its autoethnographic aspects. As mentioned, a large part of the research involved extensive participant observation. At the time of the study, as a 23-year-old Australian, undertaking a round-the-world trip in order to backpack for an extended period of time, I was situated well within my research cohort. I was deeply entrenched in the backpacking culture and, as outlined above, had purposefully developed an itinerary that would offer maximum exposure to the sorts of experiences other young backpackers were having. These were rigorously documented in field note journals, which were incredibly varied in terms of content. I described in detail the places I was visiting and the activities that I was engaged in (what I saw and did); made observations about other travellers (their appearance and behaviour for instance); and recorded snippets of conversation I had with them and with locals, tour guides and other tourism service providers. In addition, I wrote extensively about the experience itself, noting for instance, how I felt, physically and emotionally during my travels, what the journey meant to me, the relationships I had developed, how the research was progressing (or not) and my doubts and fears as a researcher. I also documented the culture more broadly, keeping note of popular songs, books and fi lms, key topics of conversation, common practices, travel routes etc. Finally, I kept records of the emails sent to friends and family at home, and was able to reflect on these, as well as the thousands of photographs I took, in order to develop a holistic picture of the backpacking experience (as experienced by me and those I met along the way). As a combination of travel journal, private diary and research log, my field notes were both micro and macro in focus. They captured my experience as an individual backpacker, and researcher, and provided a basis for comparison when it came to discussing (and later analysing) interviewees’ travel experiences. What resulted then from this combination of autoethnographic elements, with participant observation, interviews and media analysis was a multilayered narrative. When stories were shared between myself and research participants and when all of the recounted experiences revealed in my research were placed atop or alongside one another, common elements emerged. In this way, the stories began to echo one another, play off one another, indeed, ‘talk’ with one another and it is this intersubjective dialogue that I credit with providing an intimate insight into the global backpacking culture, and the role of travel in the lives of young Australians. While the uses to which autoethnography have been put in tourism research vary, in my own experience (discussed in the above case study) the adoption of autoethnographic approaches can help counter concerns about locating informants in a transient and endlessly changing tourist environment. Furthermore, as I have argued elsewhere (Matthews, 2012),

Ethnographic Approaches to Tourism Research 65

most tourism studies scholars travel and while we cannot assume that the tourism researcher’s experience of tourism is ‘the same as all tourists’, it would be equally fallacious to assume that it is inherently different. At a bare minimum, in their personal and professional travels, tourism researchers are also reliant on tourism infrastructure, influenced by tourism policy, consumers of travel media and informed by different tourism imaginaries. Incidentally, it is the pervasive nature of these latter aspects of tourism that makes visual ethnography such a useful method. Visual ethnography

As the name implies, visual ethnography refers to the incorporation of visual technologies and materials in ethnographic practices and products. According to Pink (2007), this may include the adoption of visual technologies, such as fi lm and photography, to record the research process (for example fi lming interviews or taking photos of cultural performances). It may also involve the adoption of these technologies as methods in their own right (for instance having research participants complete video or photo journals) and/or the inclusion of visual culture (such as fi lms, documentaries, advertisements, photographs, maps) as a source of data to be analysed. Finally, the term also encompasses those ethnographies that take visual culture and technology as subject matter. For Pink (2007), developments in visual ethnography have been encouraged by critiques of ethnographic objectivity that emerged in the late 1980s and further enabled by an increased emphasis placed on creativity, intersubjectivity and reflexivity from the 1990s onwards. That said, she is quick to observe that visual elements are not necessarily replacements for written text in ethnography but that they can complement each other. She notes: While images should not necessarily replace words as the dominant mode of research or representation, they should be regarded as an equally meaningful element of ethnographic work. Thus, visual images, objects, descriptions should be incorporated when it is appropriate, opportune, or enlightening to do so. Images may not necessarily be the main research method or topic, but through their relation to other sensory, material and discursive elements of the research images and visual knowledge, will become of interest. (Pink, 2007: 10) As Pink (2007) notes, while in some ethnographies the visual will be given greater emphasis, in other ethnographies written text (or spoken word) will be more important in capturing and conveying the necessary information.

66

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Case study: Visual ethnographies with tourists

In her ‘visual autoethnography’, Caroline Scarles (2010) combines autoethnography and image elicitation during interviews with tourists to Peru, a country that she had also visited in order to gain insight into the experiences of other travellers. Involving mutual discussion of ‘tourist brochures, postcards and tourists’ own photographs’ (Scarles, 2010: 913), images that served as a trigger to tourist desire and/or memory, interviews were carried out pre, during and post travel. The resultant discussions appear to be richly detailed, and the fact that Scarles had similar experiences to her research participants seems to have assisted in building rapport and a sense of affinity. She argues that in visual autoethnography, visuals operate as a ‘bridge that connects researchers’ and respondents’ experiences’ (Scarles, 2010: 912). They assist respondents in verbalising their experiences and help to fill the gaps when the experience is beyond the reach of the verbal. Ultimately, by combining these methods Scarles (2010: 906) was able to open up ‘spaces of understanding… creativity and appreciation, reflection and comprehension’ between interviewer and interviewee; thus, bolstering the dialogue and intersubjectivity that emerges through the research encounter. Connections between researcher and researched are also clear in the work of Canosa (2014: 187) who undertakes a ‘native’ visual ethnography of her home town of Positano. Over a period of 11 years, she undertakes multiple stints of fieldwork and interviews with local residents in order to better understand their experiences as ‘hosts’ when at home and ‘guests’ on their own travels abroad. Problematising this ubiquitous dualism and focusing instead on the way in which mobility and the interplay between local and global shape Positanesi identity, she gives interviewees or ‘collaborators’ the opportunity to share photos and narratives documenting their lives in and outside of Positano. Their discussions and shared images reveal much about place, belonging, community and social change, and Canosa suggests that the incorporation of the visual into her research aids this. Like Scarles (2010), she points to the expressive potentiality of visual ethnography, arguing that, ‘respondent-led and generated photography was essential in facilitating the exchange of information and in exploring the deep-set and intimate feelings, perceptions and imaginaries’ of research participants. Either way, given the dominance of the visual in tourism, and recent calls to better acknowledge the other senses and the role they have to play in tourist experience, visual ethnography has obvious merits when it comes to better understanding these aspects of contemporary tourism. Further, irrespective of the approach taken, the result of incorporating visual elements is ethnographies that are more multisensory and therefore multilayered and that offer ‘new ways of understanding individuals, social relationships, material cultures and ethnographic knowledge itself’ (Pink, 2007: 23). All things considered, this is the ultimate aim. Whether it be

Ethnographic Approaches to Tourism Research 67

visual ethnography, multisited ethnography or autoethnography that the tourism researcher adopts, or for that matter more traditional ethnographic approaches, the objective is to shed new light on the experience of travel and to better grasp the social and cultural aspects of this global practice. Conclusion

This chapter commenced with an introduction to ethnography, providing an overview of some of its key characteristics and examples of its past and present uses in tourism studies, including research on tourism impacts, tourism systems and tourist cultures. What becomes apparent from a review of the methodological literature detailing this approach to research though, generally and with specific reference to tourism, is just how flexible and varied it is. While fieldwork, incorporating observation of some form is central to the ethnographic approach, the emphasis that is given to one method over another will vary depending on the dynamics of each project and may even change throughout the course of a single study. After all, social and cultural life – the subject of most ethnographies – is dynamic and constantly changing. Ethnography allows for this because at its heart is an acceptance of the idea that there may be multiple points of view underpinning the research endeavour. With the aim being to gather as holistic an impression as possible of the phenomenon under study, and crucially, to capture the insider’s perspective and balance it against that of the researcher’s, this is not surprising. Neither is the personal and intimate nature of ethnography, for that insider perspective requires direct engagement with others over a reasonably long period of time. Crucially, it also relies upon a particular stance – of openness and reflexivity – towards those others. As Campbell and Lassiter (2014: 4) argue ‘doing and writing ethnography is about engaging in, wrestling with, and being committed to the human relationships around which ethnography revolves…’. Ethnography, they state ‘begins and ends with people’ (Campbell & Lassiter, 2014: 4), for its central objective is to examine ‘the greater truths of what it means to be human’ (Campbell & Lassiter, 2014: 10) and to seek out ‘understanding between and among people’ (Campbell & Lassiter, 2014: 65). Subsequently, we can view ethnography as relying upon processes of interaction, dialogue, negotiation and reflection. In no way, shape or form can ethnography, or the methods it incorporates (like participant observation and interview) be regarded as a one-way process of information gathering and knowledge generation. As Fontana and Frey (2000: 647) observe of the interview, the ethnographic ‘context is one of interaction and relation; the result is as much a product of this social dynamic as it is a product of accurate accounts and replies’. Thus, I would suggest that the ethnographer’s role is at times one of mediator – to open

68

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

up a dialogue not only between researcher and informants, but to later create a space for, and usher in an emergent dialogue between the many varied narratives and perspectives presented throughout one’s study. Finally, and on this same basis, I would reiterate that much contemporary ethnography is unapologetically subjective. While early ethnographers may have laboured under the false impression of ‘scientific’ objectivity, today it is well recognised that ethnography is contextual, personal and intimate. The researcher and the dynamics of the research undoubtedly influence what is observed and recorded and how that is in turn interpreted and written. The key though is being conscious of this process. Indeed, the subjectivity inherent to ethnography does not have to compromise the research endeavour. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is one of the inherent strengths of this method, for it means that (in good ethnography at least) issues of representation, voice, subject and object, as well as the possibility of personal and cultural bias, will likely be given more careful consideration than in other so-called ‘objective’ methods. Such self-scrutiny and self-awareness is what enables reflexivity, and it is when ethnography is carried out reflexively that it is at its strongest. References Angrosino, M.V. and Mays de Pérez, K.A. (2003) Rethinking observation: From method to context. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials (pp. 107–154). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Bruner, E. (2005) Culture on Tour: Ethnographies of Travel. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bunten, A. (2008) Sharing culture or selling out? Developing the commodified persona in the heritage tourism industry. American Ethnologist 35, 380–395. Bunten, A. (2010) More like ourselves: Indigenous capitalism through tourism. The American Indian Quarterly 34, 285–311. Campbell, E. and Lassiter, L.E. (2014) Doing Ethnography Today: Theories, Methods, Exercises. Somerset, NJ: Wiley. Canosa, A. (2014) The role of travel and mobility in processes of identity formation among the Positanesi. Tourist Studies 14 (2), 182–202. Clarke, N. (2005) Detailing transnational lives of the middle: British working holiday makers in Australia. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 31 (2), 307–322. Cohen, E. (1982) Marginal paradises: Bungalow tourism on the islands of Southern Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research 9, 189–228. Cohen, S.A. (2011) Lifestyle travellers: Backpacking as a way of life. Annals of Tourism Research 38, 1535–1555. Córdoba Azcárate, M. (2011) ‘Thanks God, this is not Cancun!’ Alternative tourism imaginaries in Yucatan (Mexico). Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change 9 (3), 183–200. Cressey, P.G. (2008) The Taxi-Dance Hall: A Sociological Study in Commercialized Recreation and City Life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Doron, A. (2005) Encountering the ‘Other’: Pilgrims, tourists and boatmen in the City of Varanasi. The Australian Journal of Anthropology 16 (2), 157–178. Ellis, C. (1995) Final Negotiations: A Story of Love, Loss, and Chronic Illness. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Ethnographic Approaches to Tourism Research 69

Ellis, C. (2004) The Ethnographic I: A Methodological Novel about Autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA/Lanham, MD/New York/Oxford: AltaMira Press. Ellis, C. and Bochner, A.P. (2003) Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials (pp. 199–258). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Elsrud, T. (2001) Risk creation in traveling: Backpacker adventure narration. Annals of Tourism Research 28 (3), 597–617. Eriksen, T.H. (2015) Small Places, Large Issues: An Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology. London: Pluto Press. Everingham, P. (2015) Intercultural exchange and mutuality in volunteer tourism: The case of intercambio in Ecuador. Tourist Studies 15 (2), 175–190. Everingham, P. (2016) Hopeful possibilities in spaces of ‘the-not-yet-become’: Relational encounters in volunteer tourism. Tourism Geographies 18 (5), 520–538. Falzon, M. (2016) Introduction. In M. Falzon (ed.) Multi-sited Ethnography: Theory, Praxis and Locality in Contemporary Research (pp. 1–24). Abingdon: Routledge. Fetterman, D.M. (2008) Ethnography. In L. Bickman and D.J. Rog (eds) The Sage Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods (pp. 543–588). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Fontana, A. and Frey, J. (2000) The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd edn; pp. 645–670). Thousand Oaks, CA/London/New Delhi: Sage Publications. Freire-Medeiros, B. (2009) The favela and its touristic transits. Geoforum 40, 580–588. Frohlick, S. and Harrison, J. (2008) Engaging ethnography in tourist research: An introduction. Tourist Studies 8 (5), 5–18. Graburn, N.H.H. (2002) The ethnographic tourist. In G.M.S. Dann (ed.) Tourist as a Metaphor of the Social World (pp. 19–39). Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing. Greenwood, D.J. (1989) Culture by the pound: An anthropological perspective on tourism and cultural commoditization. In V. Smith (ed.) Hosts and Guests: An Anthropology of Tourism (pp. 171–186). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Hastrup, K. (1992) Writing ethnography: State of the art. In J. Okely and H. Callaway (eds) Anthropology and Autobiography (pp. 116–133). London/New York, Routledge. Hillman, W. (2005) ‘Protectors and interpreters of the outback’: A study of the emerging occupation of the Savannah guide. Unpublished PhD thesis, James Cook University. Hillman, W. (2010) Veblen and the theory of the backpacker leisure class: Status seeking and emulation in the Australian contemporary tourist economy. Tourism Review International 13 (3), 157–171. Law, L., Bunnell, T. and Ong, C-E. (2007) The beach, the gaze and fi lm tourism. Tourist Studies 7 (2), 141–164. Leite, N. and Graburn, N. (2009) Anthropological interventions in tourism studies. In T. Jamal and M. Robinson (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Tourism Studies (pp. 35–64). London: Sage Publications. Maoz, D. (2006) The mutual gaze. Annals of Tourism Research 33 (1), 221–239. Marcus, G.E. (2002) Beyond Malinowski and after Writing Culture: On the future of cultural anthropology and the predicament of ethnography. The Australian Journal of Anthropology 13 (2), 191–199. Marcus, G.E. (2015) The legacies of writing culture and the near future of the ethnographic form: A sketch. In O. Starn (ed.) Writing Culture and the Life of Anthropology (pp. 35–51). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Matthews, A. (2008) Backpacking as a contemporary rite of passage: Victor Turner and youth travel practices. In G. St John (ed.) Victor Turner and Contemporary Cultural Performance (pp. 174–189). New York/Oxford: Bergahn Books.

70

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Matthews, A. (2009) Living paradoxically: Understanding the discourse of authentic freedom as it emerges in the travel space. Tourism Analysis 14 (2), 165–174. Matthews, A. (2012) ‘Write’ of passage: Reflecting on the fieldwork process and its contribution to critically orientated tourism research. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 19 (3), 11–18. Matthews, A.L. (2014) Young backpackers and the rite of passage travel: Examining the transformative effects of luminality. In G.L. Lean, R. Staiff and E. Waterton (eds) Travel and Transformation (pp. 157–173). Farnham/Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Mostafanezhad, M. (2013) The geography of compassion in volunteer tourism. Tourism Geographies 15 (2), 318–337. Murchison, J. (2010) Ethnography Essentials: Designing, Conducting, and Presenting your Research. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Nash, D. (2000) Ethnographic windows on tourism. Tourism Recreation Research 25 (3), 29–36. O’Gorman, K.D., MacLaren, A.C. and Bryce, D. (2014) A call for renewal in tourism ethnographic research: The researcher as both the subject and object of knowledge. Current Issues in Tourism 17 (1), 46–59. Pezzullo, P.C. (2009) ‘This is the only tour that sells’: Tourism, disaster, and national identity in New Orleans. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change 7 (2), 99–114. Pink, S. (2007) Doing Visual Ethnography. London: Sage Publications. Pi-Sunyer, O. (1989) Changing perceptions of tourism and tourists in a Catalan resort town. In V.L. Smith (ed.) Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism (pp. 187–220). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Pi-Sunyer, O., Thomas, R.B. and Daltabuit, M. (2001) Tourism on the Maya periphery. In V. Smith and M. Brent (eds) Hosts and Guests Revisited: Tourism Issues of the 21st Century (pp. 122–140). New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation. Richardson, L. (2000) Writing: A method of inquiry. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 923–948). Thousand Oaks, CA/London/New Delhi: Sage Publications. Said, E. (1978) On Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books. Salazar, N. (2010a) Envisioning Eden: Mobilizing Imaginaries in Tourism and Beyond. New York/Oxford: Bergahn Books. Salazar, N. (2010b) From local to global (and back): Towards glocal ethnographies of cultural tourism. In G. Richards and W. Munsters (eds) Cultural Tourism Research Methods (pp. 188–198). Wallingford/Cambridge, MA: CABI. Scarles, C. (2010) Where words fail, visuals ignite: Opportunities for visual autoethnography in tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research 37 (4), 905–926. Schmid, K.A. (2008) Doing ethnography of tourist enclaves: Boundaries, ironies, and insights. Tourist Studies 8 (1), 105–121. Selänniemi, T. (2001) Pale skin on playa del anywhere: Finnish tourists in the Liminoid South. In V. Smith and M. Brent (eds) Hosts and Guests Revisited: Tourism Issues of the 21st Century (pp. 80–92). New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation. Smith, V.L. (1978) Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. Oxford: Blackwell. Smith, V.L. (ed.) (1989a) Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Smith, V.L. (1989b) Eskimo tourism: Micro-models and marginal men. In V.L. Smith (ed.) Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism (pp. 55–82). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Smith, V.L. (2001a) Power and ethnicity in ‘paradise’: Boracay, Philippines. In V. Smith and M. Brent (eds) Hosts and Guests Revisited: Tourism Issues of the 21st Century (pp. 141–152). New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation.

Ethnographic Approaches to Tourism Research 71

Smith, V.L. (2001b) Tourism change and impacts. In V. Smith and M. Brent (eds) Hosts and Guests Revisited: Tourism Issues of the 21st Century (pp. 107–121). New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation. Smith, V. and Brent, M. (eds) (2001) Hosts and Guests Revisited: Tourism Issues of the 21st Century. New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation. Sørenson, A. (2003) Backpacker ethnography. Annals of Tourism Research 30 (4), 847–867. Spencer, R. (2008) Lessons from Cuba: A volunteer army of ambassadors. In K. Lyons and S. Wearing (eds) Journeys of Discovery in Volunteer Tourism: International Case Study Perspectives (pp. 36–47). Wallingford/Cambridge, MA: CABI. Steel, G. (2012) Local encounters with globetrotters. Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2), 601–619. Tedlock, B. (1991) From participant observation to the observation of participation: The emergence of narrative ethnography. Journal of Anthropological Research 47 (1), 69–94. Tedlock, B. (2000) Ethnography and ethnographic representation. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 455–486). Thousand Oaks, CA/ London/New Delhi: Sage Publications. Van Broeck, A.M. (2001) Pamukkale: Turkish homestay tourism. In V. Smith and M. Brent (eds) Hosts and Guests Revisited: Tourism Issues of the 21st Century (pp. 161–174). New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation. Westerhausen, K. (2002) Beyond the Beach: An Ethnography of Modern Travellers in Asia. Bangkok: White Lotus Press.

4 Phenomenology in Leisure and Tourism Research Laura Sophia Fendt

Phenomenology has become increasingly popular as a method of qualitative inquiry in the humanistic and social sciences. It is used in various contexts such as psychology (e.g. Giorgi, 1997), theology (e.g. Wolff, 1999), nursing (e.g. Koch, 1995) and education (e.g. van Manen, 1990) and also tourism and leisure (e.g. Berdychevsky & Gibson, 2015; Cohen, 1972; Ingram, 2002; Mannell & Iso-Ahola, 1987; Szarycz, 2008). Nonetheless, phenomenology’s methodological significance has been generally underestimated and remains underutilised in tourism and leisure research (Pernecky & Jamal, 2010). Researchers who do brave phenomenological approaches often await criticism for their research not being faithful to the philosophy that supposedly guided it. Pernecky and Jamal (2010: 1057) highlighted that in spite of phenomenology’s increased popularity among tourism researchers, ‘most of the work has been ambiguous at best’. According to Szarycz (2009:48), ‘what tourism researchers in America, Australia and other western countries are doing today under the putative umbrella of phenomenology is very different from the solitary reflections of twentieth century European philosophers’. Two reasons for this situation may be that the complexities of phenomenology are not well understood by researchers working outside of philosophy, and the act of actually doing and presenting phenomenology presents difficulties for researchers (Fendt et al., 2014; Hycner, 1985). Nevertheless, phenomenology, when conducted appropriately, proves to be a valuable approach of qualitative inquiry where deep understandings of lived experiences are sought. Using phenomenology, rich and candid understandings of people’s tourism and leisure experiences can be acquired (Fendt et al., 2014). Phenomenology seeks thick descriptions of experiences from the experiencing persons’ positions with an emphasis on the personal contexts in which the experiences occur. Phenomenologists study phenomena as they are lived by discovering how the individual perceives it, feels about it, judges it, remembers it, makes sense of it or is affected by it (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). The aim is to obtain deep understanding of individual experiences and their meanings and so identify the essential structures of the phenomenon studied. While the phenomenologist precisely

72

Phenomenology in Leisure and Tourism Research 73

engages with the individual’s meanings of an experience, he/she also typically illuminates the universal character of phenomena, the so-called phenomenological essence. This chapter offers an opportunity for those interested in phenomenology to get to know some of its philosophical underpinnings including core concepts and possible variations and approaches within those. It draws some awareness around the challenges often encountered in phenomenological research and outlines current criticisms of tourism studies that have adopted phenomenological perspectives. Furthermore, this chapter introduces the Heideggerian school of phenomenology as one appropriate for obtaining deep and truthful understandings of people’s tourism and leisure experiences. Finally, the case of the ‘Surfer Girl’ experience is presented where interpretive phenomenology was used to investigate the lived experiences of women surfers. Phenomenology: The Study of Lived Experiences ‘Phenomenology’ is, in the 20th century, mainly the name for a philosophical movement whose primary objective is the direct investigation and description of phenomena as consciously experienced, without theories about their causal explanation and as free as possible from unexamined preconceptions and presuppositions. (Spiegelberg, 1975: 3)

Phenomenology has its roots in early 20th-century European philosophy (Rice & Ezzy, 1999). German philosopher Edmund Husserl (1859–1938) is regarded as the founder of phenomenology (Groenewald, 2004). Originally a mathematician, Husserl developed an interest in philosophy and was looking for a universal foundation of philosophy and science (Scruton, 1995). At a time in history when the sciences, human sciences in particular, were in crises, Husserl rejected the positivist belief systems when answering questions being asked about the human sciences (Merleau-Ponty, 1945). He thought it inappropriate to investigate human issues from a purely objective view that seeks to fi nd one absolute and stable truth (Laverty, 2003; Sadala & Adorno, 2001). Husserl criticised the positive sciences, especially psychology, for applying the methods of the natural sciences without acknowledging that the objective was different (Sadala & Adorno, 2001). Rather, he emphasised the importance of context and perception when dealing with living subjects (Laverty, 2003; Sadala & Adorno, 2001). As opposed to positivist scientists whose main targets were to explain and analyse phenomena, Husserl’s aspirations were to describe them according to the way in which they were lived by the experiencing subject (Merleau-Ponty, 1945). The idea was to develop phenomenology as its own rigorous science, a science of consciousness,

74

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

in order to obtain information through the in-depth study of experiences (Husserl, 1962). The main aim of the phenomenological method is that of describing human experiences as they are lived, not in accordance with predetermined propositions of the natural sciences (Sadala & Adorno, 2001). When proceeding with the phenomenological method, the researcher seeks detailed descriptions of whatever is in front of someone’s eyes, rather than the thing itself (Sadala & Adorno, 2001). Husserl sought a bond between science and the Lebenswelt – translated as lifeworld (Sadala & Adorno, 2001). The lifeworld essentially refers to ‘the prereflective ground for our being in the world, which is given to us in the natural attitude and is taken for granted in everyday life’ (Berndtsson et al., 2007: 257). In its literal sense, lifeworld is a blend between life, as in living beings, and the world. Life and world exist within interdependence, and mutually depend on one another (Berndtsson et al., 2007). In phenomenological terms, there is a phenomenon only if the subject who is experiencing it is present. The world and phenomena are linked to life in an inseparable way (Sadala & Adorno, 2001). In phenomenological research, emphasis is placed on the world and how it is experienced by humans rather than separating a person from his/her reality (Laverty, 2003). The concept of the lifeworld is meaningful within the overall history and development of the phenomenological movement. What Husserl introduced as Lebenswelt, other phenomenologists referred to as In der Welt sein (being in the world; Martin Heidegger), etre au monde (being in the world; Maurice Merleau-Ponty) and the everyday lifeworld (Alfred Schütz) (Berndtsson et al., 2007). Phenomenology is often referred to as the study of consciousness. Being conscious implies being conscious of something; a kind of ‘aboutness’ of things and the world, which Franz Brentano (1838–1917) characterised as intentionality (Brentano, 1973). In phenomenological terms, the world and consciousness cannot be parted (Pollio et al., 1997). Rather, consciousness is seen ‘as a relationship between the living subject and his or her world’ (Pollio et al., 1997: 4). It is consciousness that ultimately gives meanings to objects (Pollio et al., 1997; Sadala & Adorno, 2001). The goal of the phenomenologist is to analyse the intentional experience of being conscious in order to get to the essence of the meaning of the phenomenon (Dowling, 2007). In addition to an innate description of subjective lived experiences, the objective of phenomenology is also to explore the essential structures of this experience, which constitute the experience and bring it to be what it is. An often-perceived obscure feature of phenomenology is that it unites ‘extreme subjectivism and extreme objectivism in its notion of the world’ (Merleau-Ponty, 1945: xxii). The phenomenological essence was described by Heidegger (1971: 3) as ‘the way in which it remains through time as what it is’. van Manen (1990) explained that:

Phenomenology in Leisure and Tourism Research 75

A good [phenomenological] description that constitutes the essence of something is construed so that the structure of a lived experience is revealed in such a fashion that we are now able to grasp the nature and significance of this experience in a hitherto unseen way. (van Manen, 1990: 39)

In order to uncover the essence of an experience, phenomena are explored from a position that is as free as possible from preconceptions and taken-for-granted assumptions (Husserl, 1970). An epistemological procedure named bracketing, epoché or phenomenological reduction is adopted to permit such a position (Dowling, 2007). Bracketing was fi rst introduced by Husserl and further developed and redeveloped by others including Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty (Dowling, 2007). Depending on what type of phenomenology is used, the way in which phenomenological reduction is exercised differs. Fundamentally, the epoché requires a fresh look at things through bracketing one’s own preconceptions and presuppositions (Moustakas, 1994). In this way, the researcher allows himself/herself to encounter the phenomenon in its pure variations, as free and unbiased as possible. A precise description and understanding of the phenomenon can thus be attained (Dowling, 2007). This step, however, varies depending on what school of phenomenology is utilised and furthermore is often accused of not being entirely or at all achievable (e.g. Merleau-Ponty, 1945). Schools of phenomenology

Phenomenology is often associated with the philosophical movement, which means that rather than having one static idea, thoughts have been modified by subsequent scholars (Lopez & Willis, 2004). Husserl’s ideas, along with those of others such as Alfred Schutz (1899–1959), Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) and Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908–1961), formed the philosophical background for the development and application of phenomenological theory (Rice & Ezzy, 1999). Since its origins, phenomenology has evolved significantly and a number of variations have emerged. There are diverse, irreconcilable opinions about how many schools of phenomenology there are and what their processes entail (Giorgi, 2006). For example, did Creswell (2007) explain two main types, namely hermeneutic and transcendental phenomenology? Lopez and Willis (2004) proposed descriptive and interpretive phenomenology, and Lawler (1998) outlined four different forms, including transcendental, Heideggerian, existential and heuristic phenomenology. The most dominant types are Husserlian phenomenology and Heideggerian phenomenology. These are also often referred to as descriptive and interpretive approaches to

76

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

phenomenology. Table 4.1 summarises the basic principles of both types of phenomenology. Husserl’s descriptive phenomenology puts emphasis on the essential structures of the conscious mind of the experiencing person, while Heidegger’s interpretive phenomenology focuses on the contexts in which experiences occur and what the meanings of these experiences are (Crotty, 1998). However, it has to be noted that one can situate his/ her phenomenological work in a number of other paradigms that are not limited to the positivist (Husserl) or the interpretive (Heidegger). Depending on whose philosophy one draws on, a research study might be positioned within paradigms including post-positivist (e.g. Maurice Merleau-Ponty), constructivist (e.g. Alfred Schütz) and deconstructivist (e.g. Jacques Derrida). A former student of Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger altered and challenged Husserl’s phenomenological assumptions. Heidegger questioned Husserl’s approach and suggested that it lacked understanding of persons as existential beings. Heidegger’s sought to explore the meaning of being and viewed being as a situated being-in-the-world in interpretive relationships with objects and things (Heidegger, 1927, 1962). Heidegger takes into consideration anything in a person’s life that might influence his/her experience of a phenomenon and/or shape his/her understanding of it, as opposed to ‘bracketing’ all prepositions as is done in Husserlian Table 4.1 Husserlian and Heideggerian phenomenology Husserlian phenomenology

Heideggerian phenomenology

Transcendental/descriptive

Hermeneutic/interpretive

Questions of what is known

Questions of what is experienced and understood

Mechanical view of person

Person is viewed as a self-interpreting being

How do we know what we know?

What does it mean to be a person? (e.g. a backpacker, a mother?)

Ahistorical

Historicality

Person lives in a world of objects

Person exists in and is part of the world

Analysis focuses on the meaning giving subject Analysis is the relationship between the subject and the situation What is shared is the essence of the conscious mind

What is shared is culture, history and language

Meaning is untouched by the interpreter’s view of the world

Interpreter’s world view plays a role in interpreting data

Emotional distance

Empathy

Subjects’ meanings can be reconstituted by perceiving data to speak for itself

The interpretation of subjects’ meanings can only highlight what is already understood

Strict procedures of interpretation guarantee validity

Development of individual criteria ensuring rapport

Source: Adapted from Koch (1995).

Phenomenology in Leisure and Tourism Research 77

phenomenology. The most significant difference between Husserl’s and Heidegger’s approaches lies within the situatedness of the researcher; one is ahistorical unlike the latter where the historicality of the researcher forms a key component of interpretation and understanding. In Heidegger’s views, consciousness cannot be treated separately from the world. Instead, it is perceived to be a construct of historically lived experience (Heidegger, 1927, 1962). Historicality takes on a determining feature of being in that past experiences constitute present ones. On the contrary, Husserl’s (1970) thought was that past experiences along with all other presumptions must be set aside in order to explore a phenomenon with a fresh look and identify its essential structures. Heidegger argues that understanding and meaning cannot be reached if researchers exclude themselves and their own lived experiences from the situation (Koch, 1995; Lopez & Willis, 2004). According to Heidegger, a person’s historicality forms an essential part of his/her understanding of the world. Historicality shapes how a person thinks about his/her world and forms a pre-understanding of phenomena. Therefore, the researcher’s historicality plays an important role when exploring other’s lifeworlds. In Heidegger’s (1927, 1962) eyes, pre-understanding is a structure for being in the world and cannot simply be set aside because it is part of who that person is and structures the way he/she lives. Thus, within the research process, the observer cannot detach himself/herself from his/her preconceived ideas about the world when interpreting data. Within Heideggerian phenomenology, any presuppositions are already there, they are part of the world, and interpretation is the key to all understanding (Laverty, 2003). Heideggerian phenomenology acknowledges, ‘that every encounter involves an interpretation influenced by an individual’s background or historicality’ (Laverty, 2003: 24). Whereas this could be detrimental to the research process if the researcher uses his/her historicality to prove a case that data spoke for itself, Heidegger argues that ‘it is precisely one’s preconceptions or “unity of understanding” that channels new ideas and guides interpretation’ (Maggs-Rapport, 2000: 221). For the research process this means that the researcher’s interpretations of the data are shaped by his/her world views and these views in fact aid understanding and shaping of the data (Heidegger, 1927, 1962): The interpretive phenomenological approach underlies the postulation ‘that presuppositions or expert knowledge on the part of the researcher are valuable guides to inquiry and…make the inquiry a meaningful undertaking’. (Lopez & Willis, 2004: 729)

Interpretive approaches to phenomenology allow going beyond descriptions of concepts, uncovering meanings embedded in life practices (Conroy, 2003; Lopez & Willis, 2004). Individual’s relations

78

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

to his/her lifeworld and how his/her surroundings influence his/her lifeworlds are core principles of Heidegger’s tradition. This means that by being in the world, persons cannot detach themselves from the world. The interpretive tradition thus does not focus on the ‘pure content of human’s subjectivity’ as the descriptive tradition does; rather, what the meanings of an individual’s narratives are and how these influence the choices that he/she makes (Lopez & Willis, 2004: 729). Relations between people’s experiences and their social, cultural, emotional and political surroundings are imperative within interpretive inquiry and relate to the concept of ‘situated freedom’. This means that people have the freedom to make choices; however, there cannot be an absolute freedom because their choices are always somewhat influenced by their lived circumstances at a given time (Lopez & Willis, 2004). Heidegger’s approach thus includes the specific conditions of people’s daily lives when exploring their experiences of a phenomenon in order to be able to derive understanding grounded in subjective meaning. Quite the opposite, Husserl (1970) strived for objectivity and emotional distance to achieve an essential understanding of consciousness and experience. Husserl suggested that objectivity of ‘even the most logical of objectives be traced back to the structures of consciousness in and through which it fi rst became possible’ (Macann, 1993: 3). Phenomenological reduction, or bracketing, was one of his key techniques to ensure that nothing gets in the way of unearthing the essence of an experience; that which comprises the true nature of phenomena. Phenomenological reduction, or bracketing, comprises the exclusion of any preconceptions about the experience under study in order to uncover the essential structures of consciousness associated with the experience (Husserl, 1970). For Husserl, phenomenology was ‘a rigorous and scientific study of things as they appear to be’ (Pernecky & Jamal, 2010: 1063). Strongly influenced by mathematics and with the aspiration to create a method that brings philosophy up to the standards of the natural sciences, it comes as no surprise that Husserl’s ways of studying experiences carry somewhat positivist connotations. His assumptions that one must detach from the empirical world to be able to identify the true, essential nature of a phenomenon fit with the ontological, epistemological and methodological underpinnings of the positivist paradigm (Pernecky & Jamal, 2010). To further illuminate the important variances between Husserlian and Heideggerian phenomenology, see the following excerpt from Pernecky and Jamal’s (2010: 1069) article who apply both strategies to investigating the experience of being a backpacker: Say one researcher follows Husserl to describe the ‘essential’ experience of being a backpacker, and the other employs hermeneutic [interpretive]

Phenomenology in Leisure and Tourism Research 79

phenomenology. Both researchers will engage in interpretation, but the former would focus on identifying the essential structures of consciousness in the backpacking experience, and employ the scientific method of striving for objectivity and emotional distance. The latter, following Heidegger’s approach, would look to understand what it means to be a backpacker and how that experience emerges. The latter is a dialogic process, and the researcher’s reflexivity is strongly present in interpreting the backpacker’s experience as a dialogue between the researcher and the backpacker. Interpretive understanding therefore plays a key role in hermeneutic approaches to research. (Pernecky & Jamal, 2010: 1069)

It has now been established that interpretive and descriptive phenomenology feature distinct characteristics and depending upon which one is used, the methodology bears implications accordingly (Koch, 1995). Researchers of phenomenological studies must be aware that both approaches, despite sharing similarities, differ significantly. A failure to do so drastically reduces a study’s rigor and this too often is the case in studies by those new to phenomenology. A common practice is to draw on as many phenomenologists as possible (Giorgi, 2006). This, however, becomes problematic because harmonious integration of the different approaches is close to impossible. Confusion about the steps within the research process is so inevitable that the given study is at risk of failing faithfulness to any phenomenological orientation. Rather, it is advisable to decide on one orientation and work with the logic proposed by the individual phenomenologist (Giorgi, 2006). Research Processes and Presentation

Phenomenological studies usually have very small numbers of participants who are not chosen at random. This means that it is necessary for the researcher to look for participants, more so referred to as co-researchers (Giorgi, 1989), who have experienced the phenomenon under investigation and are able to somehow recollect their experiences (Hycner, 1985). Limited numbers of co-researchers are required to ensure thoroughness in handling the typically large amounts of data. Phenomenological data, a more fitting term being experiential descriptions, are normally collected in the form of interview transcripts, journals, diaries or writings alike, but can also include art such as paintings and drawings. Because language is a central feature in phenomenology, the most common method of obtaining experiential description is the in-depth interview. Such are often unstructured so people’s realities can be explored from their viewpoints rather than from the researcher’s predetermined direction. People’s ideas, thoughts and memories can be uncovered, allowing for the maximisation of discovery and description (Reinharz, 1992). Whereas

80

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

the conventional interview usually involves the researcher defi ning and controlling the interview’s directions (Kvale, 1996), the phenomenological interview is guided by the interviewee. While the interviewer facilitates the conversation throughout the phenomenological interview, he/she merely evokes descriptions of what that person experiences rather than testing a hypothesis (Pollio et al., 1997). The way that experiential descriptions are analysed varies greatly among the different approaches to phenomenology. Because ‘phenomenology cannot be reduced to a “cookbook” set of instructions’ (Keen, 1975: 41), a reluctance to provide comprehensive steps can be detected in the literature. Nevertheless, a number of strategies are commonly used to guide analyses in phenomenological research derived from works by phenomenologists such as Colaizzi (1973, 1978), Giorgi (1975) and Keen (1975) (Hycner, 1985). What is rarely covered in the literature are ways in which phenomenological data can be presented to the reader (Hart, 2000; Reid & Gough, 2000). Nielsen (2000: 9) explained that ‘there is no use systematically developing a research design in light of values, theory and a certain interpretation of research methodology, if the reporting of the fi ndings then in no way is aligned with and supports the very considerations that have shaped the inquiry in the fi rst place’. As with many aspects of phenomenology, there are no set guidelines on how it should be presented (van Manen, 1984). The fi nal ‘look’ of a phenomenological study depends on the nature of the phenomenon or phenomena under study and the way that experiences of it are collected. When presenting phenomenology, a form of data presentation must be sought that respects the true nature of a phenomenon rather than attempting to overly conceptualise it (Giorgi, 2006; Polkinghorne, 1995). This is done through allowing the reader to encounter aspects of a phenomenon as close as possible to the lived experiences of it, working towards nearness to the phenomenon and recognition of its significance (Nielsen, 2000). The experience is meant to be ‘reconstructed’ in such a manner that it can be re-lived by the reader. Generally, phenomenological data is presented in text form. Through text, the phenomenologist can demonstrate meaning, create understanding and initiate relatedness with the audience – the reader (Smith, 1998). Findings of phenomenological studies typically display rich, descriptive text that is constructed by going back and forth between scripts and text (Smith, 1998). The goal is to develop a narrative of characteristics of a particular phenomenon (Langeveld, 1983), or a story of what it is like to be experiencing the phenomenon under study (Beattie, 1995). When writing up phenomenology, it is vital to design the text in a fashion that lets the reader connect with the experiencing person’s views and feel a sense of relatedness to him/her. Phenomenological writing should reflect:

Phenomenology in Leisure and Tourism Research 81

A language of rich description, of metaphor and of anecdote that have the capacity to stir deep feelings of experience, to reawaken echoes of emotions, sounds, colours and images that provide the connecting bridges between author and reader. (Smith, 1998: 191)

This is best achieved through the use of many descriptive words, and through the creation of elaborate and rich texts that illuminate a complete spectrum of facets of the experience. Often, these texts include ample excerpts from interview transcripts that provide detailed insights of the phenomena (Smith, 1998). Phenomenological texts can benefit from the support of visuals such as photos, symbols and drawings to further promote closeness to the portrayed experiences in the reader (Fendt et al., 2014). However, one must pay careful attention to whether the proposed research processes and the presentation of fi ndings are coherent with the type of phenomenology used. Depending on what phenomenological orientation is chosen, the ways in which the study is conducted and presented must be adapted accordingly to ensure research rigor. Phenomenology as a Method for Studying Tourism and Leisure Experiences

Phenomenology implies that being in the world is essential to being human and in order to understand humanity the contexts in which people live and make meaning must also be understood (Hegel, 1949). Although there are differences among the different schools of phenomenology, they all perceive knowledge to be subjective and situated and purely derived from how people see and interact with the world (Schmidt, 2005). In phenomenological terms, the world cannot be understood separately from human beings and therefore can only be comprehended by investigating how individuals perceive and operate within it. Phenomenological approaches provide sound opportunities to collect, explore and present personal accounts of experiences that further understandings of phenomena. Phenomenology is being increasingly embraced in social and humanistic science research settings in particular because: (1) Phenomenological studies allow for the participants’/co-researchers’ voices to be heard. In this way, descriptions of the phenomenon as it is apparent in the experiencing person’s mind can be attained (Willson et al., 2013). (2) Participants/co-researchers are able to naturally describe complex phenomena in a way that is personally meaningful to them (Willson et al., 2013). Because some people fi nd it difficult to verbally describe their experiences, phenomenology allows for additional methods including pictures, journal entries, poems and art to help them

82

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

recollect their experiences. Nonetheless, it needs to be acknowledged that a description of an experience is different to the experience itself and it is the task of the researcher to provide a research setting where participants/co-researchers can freely express their experiences to the best of their ability and then present experiential descriptions as faithful as possible (Fendt et al., 2014). (3) Phenomenology exclusively seeks an insider’s view into people’s lifeworlds; the person’s subjective views are steadily protected throughout the research process (Willson et al., 2013). (4) The subject is considered an expert in experiencing the phenomenon under investigation and a strong rapport can be built through emphasis and trust as the person describes his/her conscious involvement in the world (Willson et al., 2013). Phenomenology thus provides an apt methodological orientation where experiential descriptions and meanings rather than explanations of phenomena are sought. This is frequently the case in tourism and leisure research where experiences of particular activities are increasingly the subject of investigation. When understanding of psychological underpinnings of tourism and leisure is sought, it does not suffice to limit investigations to causes, attitudes and behaviour. It is crucial to also examine any processes that occur in the consciousness and subconsciousness of a person engaging in a tourist or leisure activity (Comic & Kalmic, 2015). Phenomenological methods are valuable in gaining holistic insights into tourism and leisure experiences since they allow for immediate feelings and thoughts to be accounted for. The inclusion of such is especially important because tourist behaviour cannot be relied upon to provide a true reflection of what one feels and thinks (Comic & Kalmic, 2015). It is especially advantageous that data can be derived from immediate experiential accounts such as a postcard written at a particular destination or an entry in a travel diary (Comic & Kalmic, 2015). Phenomenology offers approaches to throw light on the complexities of individuals’ tourism and leisure experiences. Phenomenological methods have the capacity to uncover insiders’ views of tourism and leisure experiences as complete as any method can. Indeed phenomenology has gained increasing momentum among tourism and leisure research and an upsurge in publications of studies following phenomenological orientations can be witnessed in the literature. Within the tourism literature, early works discovering the benefits of phenomenology include Cohen (1972) and Plog (1974). These were followed by treaties such as the ones by Mannell and Iso-Ahola (1987) and Dann and Cohen (1991) in the 1980s and 1990s. More recently, researchers have made renewed efforts to utilise phenomenology as part of what Szarycz (2008: 261) calls the ‘experiential turn’ in understanding tourist and leisure behaviour (e.g. Berdychevsky

Phenomenology in Leisure and Tourism Research 83

& Gibson, 2015; Chisholm, 2008; Curtin, 2006; Uriely, 2005; Willson et al., 2013). Tourism and leisure research is further moving away from quantitative methods and turning towards interpretive paradigms featuring qualitative methods that include phenomenology (Szarycz, 2008). However, the use of phenomenology in tourism and leisure research is heavily criticised. Tourism and leisure researchers seem quick to claim that they are following phenomenological orientations but phenomenology does not appear to be well understood (Szarycz, 2009). Many phenomenological studies only provide very brief accounts of the method that is supposedly guiding them and some avoid discussion of it altogether (Pernecky & Jamal, 2010). The philosophical underpinnings of phenomenological traditions as advocated by Husserl and Heidegger are often only minimally acknowledged, if at all (Szarycz, 2009). Researchers’ prerogatives are rarely faithful to the philosophies of Husserl and Heidegger and rather are founded on a ‘potpourri of ideas’ that do include phenomenology but also other paradigms including social constructivism, postmodernism, hermeneutics, feminist theory and naturalism (Szarycz, 2008:48). There are a variety of reasons for this ambiguous state of phenomenology in tourism and leisure research. The complexities and time intensity of phenomenology are generally underestimated and its use in tourism studies is somewhat light-handed because it seems to be ‘in’. Failing to invest decent amounts of time to understand the philosophical foundations of different approaches and their practices can result in a number of problems. Tourism and leisure researchers who claim to use phenomenology all too often fail to acknowledge the important differences between the different schools of phenomenology (Pernecky & Jamal, 2010; Szarycz, 2008). As previously explained, depending on which orientation is chosen, the procedures and outcomes of a study vary greatly and utilising a mix of phenomenological approaches inevitably results in poor research rigor. Tourism and leisure researchers must seek clarity around the philosophical standpoint of their approach and theoretical application to their research. Furthermore, researchers’ tendency to strive for research outcomes that offer generalisable experiences for the purposes of highlighting the implications and contributions of their research is problematic. True phenomenological enquiry does not intend to generalise results but in tourism and leisure research it is sometimes done anyway (Szarycz, 2008). Accepting that one’s phenomenological research does not aim to provide straightforward and somewhat transferable answers can be difficult, as phenomenology’s goal is to clarify phenomena and induce understanding of them (Fendt et al., 2014). Because phenomenological studies feature descriptions of subjective realities by very few participants, the results cannot be generalised or transferred nor can they indicate anything of a broader nature (Szarycz, 2008). The fi ndings essentially only apply to the group of people who were part of the investigation (Fendt, 2015). In

84

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

phenomenological terms, objectivity is not relevant. Narrative accounts of personal realities may be very different from what an objective observer may regard as ‘true’. However, sometimes an individual account may closely match up with what could be seen as an objective truth. What is more, there is a want of methodological guidance in the literature and the lack of clarity surrounding the actual ‘doing’ of phenomenology proves to be challenging for many researchers (Fendt et al., 2014). While the phenomenology literature proposes hardly any methodological steps to guide interpretive approaches, several phenomenologists developed strategies to help with the processes and practices associated with descriptive phenomenology. Researchers who follow Husserl’s reign often refer to works such as Coilazzi (1978), Giorgi (1975), Moustakas (1994) and van Manen (1990) for direction. It thus comes as no surprise that tourism and leisure research so far has favoured the use of descriptive phenomenology (Pernecky & Jamal, 2010). For example, Curtin (2006) drew on guidelines proposed by Moustakas (1994) and van Manen (1990) for data collection and analysis in her undertaking to grasp what it is like to swim with dolphins. So did Hayllar and Griffi n (2005) who investigated experiences of tourists visiting The Rocks in Sydney, Australia. A recent study by Berdychevsky and Gibson (2015) adopted transcendental (Husserlian) phenomenology to study the experiences of young women’s sexual risk-taking in tourism. Nonetheless, there is scepticism around the use of descriptive phenomenology in tourism research because of its very condemned procedure of phenomenological reduction (bracketing) (Szarycz, 2009). Husserl’s practice of ‘laying aside or “suspension” of our understandings, assumptions and previous knowledge of the experience under investigation in order to approach it with fresh insight’ (van Manen, 1990: 47) is not as simple as ‘taking one’s shoes and socks off’ (van Manen, 1990: 33). Indeed, even phenomenologists are unsure how, if at all, assumptions can be identified and then disarmed altogether (Szarycz, 2009). It consequently raises doubts when tourism researchers claim to have successfully mastered this very core concept of Husserlian phenomenology without being able to explain how it was done. The tourism and leisure research Heideggerian phenomenology is underutilised and does not require such a numinous procedure but rather welcomes all pre-understanding as an important part of the research. There are a number of reasons why this makes interpretive phenomenology especially valuable for investigating tourism and leisure experiences. In addition to addressing gaps in the literature, researchers often choose their topic of study based on a personal interest and involvement in a tourism and leisure activity and/or experiences thereof (Fendt, 2015). When pre-understandings are responsible for the researcher’s decision to study a particular phenomenon, it is impossible to then eradicate them (Heidegger, 1927). Ontologically, it does

Phenomenology in Leisure and Tourism Research 85

not make sense to eliminate the researcher’s biases, world views and experiences of the phenomenon. It is, however, crucial to the research process that the researcher is aware of any pre-understanding as much as this is possible and takes account of how it could possibly influence his/ her interpretation (Laverty, 2003). Besides, having personally experienced the phenomenon under study significantly helps the researcher access participants who are typically chosen on a case-specific basis. The researcher and co-researcher can build a basis of trust and empathy through the ability to bond over shared understanding and/or experiences (Garko, 1999). This is particularly important when investigating experiences of alternative tourism and leisure activities and experiences of women and other minorities (Fendt, 2015). Interpretive phenomenology allows for voices to be heard and lived experiences to flourish, thus working against previous cover-ups and misinterpretations of lifeworlds by ‘outsiders’ (Garko, 1999). Within interpretive phenomenology, the researcher and participant co-construct the data and together derive meaning from it so that understanding can occur (Pernecky & Jamal, 2010). The essential meanings uncovered within the interpretive phenomenological research field must reflect the participant’s lifeworlds (Lopez & Willis, 2004). In order to adhere to this, the data must be interpreted accordingly. Whereas the initial level of knowledge about the phenomenon does not always need to be high (Maggs-Rapport, 2000), the researchers’ own experiences and familiarity are helpful if not essential in understanding, interpreting and presenting the participants’ narratives in a way that is as faithful as possible to the lived experiences (Fendt, 2015). In addition to how the position of the researcher is viewed in Heideggerian phenomenology, the inclusion of context is a valuable characteristic of interpretive approaches to the study of tourism and leisure experiences. Heidegger’s method is true to the complexities of human experience in that it acknowledges that any experience is shaped by various contexts rather than being context-free (Heidegger, 1971). This means that an understanding of tourism and leisure experience can be sought that is both situated and embodied. Interpretive traditions take into consideration anything that conditions the way in which someone experiences. This allows for understanding not only what tourists’ experience but also how experiences come to be and interrelate within tourists’ greater lifeworlds. Holistic views of being-in-the world of tourism and leisure from a variety of perspectives such as the tourist, participant, host, worker and business owner can so be obtained (Pernecky & Jamal, 2010). Accounting for the setting in which people experience tourism and leisure also proves valuable for studies that seek understanding of the interrelationships between lived experiences and factors such as gender, race, sex and age.

86

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Heiddegger’s interpretive phenomenology is yet to grasp momentum in tourism and leisure research. In spite of its suitability as a method, it has rarely been utilised for studying tourism. The very limited amount of studies that do follow Heidegger’s thought (e.g. Jamal & Stronza, 2008; Reisinger & Steiner, 2006) draw on his treaties Building, Dwelling, Thinking, which is Heidegger’s (1971) most fitting work for reference in the study of tourism. Pernecky and Jamal (2010) warn that those tourism researchers who admit to the positivist phenomenological reign to study experiences may have to face further questions of disembodiment and Cartesian dualism (separating mind from the body) within their studies. On the other hand, those researchers who are inclined towards interpretive phenomenology await prosperous grounds to unearth lived tourism and leisure experiences along with all the complexities and fullness that human experience has to offer. Case Study: ‘What it is Like to be a Surfer Girl’: Interpretive Phenomenology for Investigating Women’s Surfing Experiences

This section provides a case study of how Heideggerian phenomenology can be applied to explore leisure experiences. It offers those interested in phenomenology an example of how it can be done and presented in a way that protects the philosophical intentions of Heideggerian phenomenology. Interpretive phenomenology was used to investigate the experiences of women surfers. The given study’s aim was to discover what it is like to be a Surfer Girl, in particular, what women’s surfi ng experiences are and how they affect women’s realities. I chose to follow the interpretive tradition because I intended for my own surfi ng experiences to become part of the study as is custom for Heideggerian phenomenology. Moreover, not only were the women’s surfi ng experiences sought but also the meanings of these experiences. It was likewise important to the study to understand the women’s contexts in which they experience surfi ng. Experiential descriptions of 37 women surfers were gathered and interpreted in the way they were intended and experienced, respective of the women’s backgrounds and contexts. Phenomenological in-depth interviews

The collection of experiences for my study came from 37 unstructured in-depth interviews with women who surfed on a regular basis. A technique was used that mimicked the conversational process, and allowed for the women surfers’ voices to be heard and their realities recounted. Furthermore, unstructured in-depth interviews were particularly suitable as they are a method for avoiding autocracy and letting interactions flow naturally (Reinharz, 1992). The notion of control within research

Phenomenology in Leisure and Tourism Research 87

conversations is especially relevant in the phenomenological interview. My facilitation strategy comprised questions such as ‘What was this experience like?’ or ‘Can you describe what you felt when this happened?’. No predetermined set of questions was used. Rather, I asked the women to tell me their story of becoming a surfer, which led to conversations flowing in directions that were personally meaningful to them. Being a surfer myself helped to gain the women’s trust as we bonded over our shared love of surfi ng. My own experiences of surfi ng helped me understand and empathise with the women’s experiences. My conversations with the women lasted up to three hours, and were recorded and transcribed shortly after. Furthermore, I took notes of anything that helped me to get a holistic view of each woman’s lifeworld, for example, how comfortable they seemed sharing or what emotions they displayed. Analysis of experiential scripts

I used interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) as a means to analyse the experiential scripts. IPA supports Heideggerian phenomenology in that it puts emphasis on the individual experiences of phenomena and is especially concerned with the contexts in which experiences occur (Larkin et al., 2006; Laverty, 2003; Smith & Osborn, 2008). As such, the study did not examine the phenomenon of women’s surfi ng itself, but rather how it is understood and experienced by each of the 37 women in relation to her lifeworld. IPA is useful when obtaining an in-depth understanding of experiences and descriptions of what something is like. In the initial stages of analysis, the objective is to generate a description that comes as close as possible to the participant’s view (Larkin et al., 2006). IPA then puts descriptions of experiences into context in order to produce meaning (Larkin et al., 2006). This step worked towards fi nding out what it meant to be a woman surfer within the women’s individual contexts. In this second phase, I tried to make sense of the women who were trying to make sense of their lifeworlds. Often, I had to read between the lines, questioning whether or not something is leaking out, that the woman herself may not be aware of. It was important to be sensitive to the potential difficulty that women faced in attempting to express what they were feeling and it was sometimes necessary to interpret people’s emotional and mental state from what they articulated. IPA provides a way for a detailed description of experiences and interpretative accounts of what these mean within specific contexts. It is a method of analysing data that is highly flexible, accessible and applicable (Larkin et al., 2006). Yet, it is impossible to offer a predetermined structure for the process of analysis because interpretation occurs from the researcher’s pre-understandings (Laverty, 2003). Thus, the steps for analysing the experiential scripts were somewhat guided by the directions

88

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Table 4.2 Approach to phenomenological analysis of the women’s surfing experience Steps undertaken for each transcript 1.

The transcript and interview notes were thoroughly read. While reading, anything that came to my mind was noted. The comments included summaries, paraphrases, associations, connections and preliminary interpretations. This way, I was able to make sense of the whole conversation. This first analytical step resulted in two to three pages of detailed notes for each interview transcript. The notes provided a good basis for acknowledging the whole experience and the contexts in which it occurred.

2.

Any passages that obviously had no association with the topic were eliminated. This was done in a careful manner to not ‘accidentally’ delete relevant information. The removed text came from parts of the tape recordings where the conversation was disrupted by a third party, for example staff in a café or children.

3.

Significant statements were highlighted throughout the transcript and clustered into themes. The number of emergent themes was reflective of the richness of the passages.

4.

For each cluster of themes, summaries were generated that captured their meanings as close as possible to the women’s views. The phrases were created through a blend of the women’s words, their contexts and my interpretations. Each transcript’s notes played a significant role in this process. For each transcript, a table was made that consisted of the emerged themes, summaries and appropriate quotes.

5.

For each Surfer Girl, a ‘postcard’ was created which captured their essential contexts in which they experienced surfing. Each postcard provides an individual synthesis of key themes in relation to the women’s surfing phenomenon. They give a brief account of who the women are and their lifeworlds in which they experience surfing. If relevant, any additional information from the notes was included.

The above steps were repeated for each transcript. As soon as a new transcript was approached, the themes emerged from the foregoing interview were used as a guide. At the same time, I ensured openness to new developing themes. Development of collective statements 6.

Themes were clustered across all transcripts. An exhaustive description of each cluster was generated from individual summaries, women’s quotes and my collective interpretations.

7.

The clusters provided the basis for an empathetic, vivid summary of the 37 women’s surfing experiences.

Source: Informed by Larkin et al. (2006); Laverty (2003); Moustakas (1994); Smith and Osborn (2008); and Willson et al. (2013).

proposed in the IPA literature and also tailored specifically to address the research questions of this study. Table 4.2 outlines my approach to analysing the experiential scripts and notes. Presentation of the findings

As is typical for phenomenological studies, the amount of rich experiential descriptions and notes was overwhelming. Finding an approach to present the fi ndings in a way that was manageable as well as true to Heideggerian phenomenology’s philosophical underpinnings was challenging and time-consuming. Finally, the outcomes were presented in

Phenomenology in Leisure and Tourism Research 89

three sections: postcards, shared story and essential meanings. A way of presenting the fi ndings that was respectful of the women surfers’ unique lifeworlds was vitally important; I felt that the presentation of the women’s words should not be reduced to the point of sacrificing personality and depth. Thirty-seven ‘postcards’ were designed that gave a brief account of each woman and her lifeworld in which she experienced surfi ng. Each woman’s postcard features a title, summary, some demographic information and the woman’s synonym. The women themselves chose the synonyms. This added a further ‘personal touch’ (see Figure 4.1 for a Super-Surfgirl’s postcard). The postcards were like portraits, which are commonly used in phenomenological research as they allow for emphasis on individual voices (Rosser, 1992; Schmidt, 2005). For the audience, the postcards aided in understanding the very unique aspects of each surfer’s experiences and how these influence her life. The goal was to portray each woman’s experience as faithfully as possible and to present her experience of ‘how it really is’. The results are 37 distinctive texts in coloured print; a blend of the women’s and my words showcasing each Surfer Girl’s and my attempts to make meaning from their experiences. While the individual women’s narratives included a spectrum of contexts in which surfi ng was experienced, there were also numerous

Figure 4.1 Example of a postcard

90

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

commonalities across the 37 women’s experiences. The shared story allowed for the common traits of the experiences to be presented in a more collective form. Cumulative examples represented a chorus of voices rather than the individual stories of each of the postcards. With plentiful quotes, the shared story described how women moved along their journeys of becoming and being surfers and showed how the phenomenon moved along with the women’s lives. The following subtitles were used to indicate different stages. Quotes were also included here: ‘I’m going to learn how to surf!’: Women’s motivations for surfi ng ‘It’s not easy!’: Persevering at surfi ng ‘I wanted to be a surfer so badly!’: Addiction and identification ‘It just took over my life’: Surfi ng’s impacts on women’s lives ‘It’s always there’: Surfi ng as a lifelong pursuit

The essential meanings further described the collective aspects of the women’s surfi ng experiences and focused on the impacts that surfi ng had on the 37 women’s lives. The shared essential meanings were uncovered through processes of phenomenological analysis including close engagement with transcripts and notes, and applying my own surfi ng experiences to help understand the women’s narratives. As significant outcomes of the women’s surfi ng experience, three shared essential meanings emerged – connectedness, self-actualisation and empowerment. These shared essential meanings were the result of unpacking the women’s collective. There were strong interrelationships between the three meanings and this was important to acknowledge in order to offer a holistic view of the women’s experiences. Each essential meaning carried further sub-meanings accordingly. For example, ‘connectedness’ carried the sub-meanings ‘self’, ‘nature’ and ‘others’. The way the meanings and sub-meanings were presented resembles a thematic analysis, which is commonly done in qualitative research. Thirty-seven Surfer Girls’ experiences built upon and complemented the shared story of becoming a surfer. For the purposes of allowing the women’s experiences ‘light up’, this section also included many of the women’s words. The women’s experiences, individual (postcards) as well as collective (shared story), along with the shared essential meanings were summarised to conclude the presentation of the fi ndings in a vibrant manner. The summary served to describe the universal characteristics and meanings of the lived women’s surfi ng experience and was a product of the women’s accounts, analysis, reflection and empathy. In this narrative, the women’s surfi ng experience was transformed into a reflection of its essence highlighting the common character of the 37 women’s surfi ng experiences. Below is an excerpt of the summary:

Phenomenology in Leisure and Tourism Research 91

…The women focus on being present and embrace the here and now, fi nding their flow. They are aware of the self and their surroundings as they consciously experience the rawness of the ocean, which to them, seems like an ever-changing artwork. Brightly aware, the women experience wonderful sightings of sea life, feel the tide in form of peaceful crystal clear waves sparkling in the sun and powerful, dark, rough swells. The women enjoy serene oceans; they are gently carried by the waves as if they were flying. At the same time, they cope with bashing and get pummelled by nature’s heated forces. As the women are out there, they fully let go of control and are reminded of theirs and other people’s mortality…

The summary was revealing, but also had its limitations. It described the common structures of the surfi ng experiences of the 37 women of my study only and could therefore not be generalised to all women surfers. The summary was also not intended to be the ‘essential’ fi nding. Rather, it was a tool for presentation that helped echo the Surfer Girl experience as faithfully as possible. Emotion was embedded in the description as it was an important part of the women’s surfi ng experiences, and reflected the lively emotions and feelings they described. Throughout the fi ndings sections, a writing style was adopted that aimed to stay as true as possible to the women’s views and interpretations. Using wording that was academically acceptable was not a priority when informal language better reflected the women’s experiences and my interpretations. What counted was evoking the reader’s connectedness to the women surfi ng phenomenon instead of focusing on language and literary merit. Final Thoughts

When in-depth knowledge about phenomena is sought, phenomenology provides a method to explore it from the experiencing person’s perspective. The fi ndings of phenomenological studies take the form of thick description of lived experiences of phenomena so that an insight into and in-depth understanding of people’s lifeworlds can be obtained. Grounded in self-report and subjective meanings, the aim of phenomenology is not to seek causal explanations or descriptions of objective realities. The phenomenologist does not mean to obtain a description of the thing itself but whatever it is a particular person can see. The focus is on the ‘seeing’, rather than what can be seen. The way in which phenomenological studies are approached varies greatly depending on what type of phenomenology is utilised. This chapter has introduced the most dominant schools of phenomenology: Husserlian (descriptive) and Heideggerian (interpretive) phenomenology. In spite of their similarities, there are significant differences between both and,

92

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

depending on whether Husserl’s or Heidegger’s work is drawn upon, the processes and outcomes of the study differ greatly. Phenomenology is increasingly used to study tourism and leisure phenomena. The literature has seen an upswing in phenomenological studies that seek to explore lived experiences through the eyes of a tourist, a participant or a service provider. Nonetheless, the methodological orientation does not yet seem well understood and researchers face criticism of not being faithful to the philosophical underpinnings of phenomenology in spite of claiming so. Phenomenological tourism studies to date favour descriptive, positivist approaches but such direction excludes the vital nuances of tourism experiences: situatedness and embodiment. The underutilised interpretive phenomenology, on the other hand, allows for such to be considered and so offers a fruitful method to holistically explore being-in-the-world of tourism. For tourism and leisure research this means deep insights into what it is like to be a tourist, a host, a worker, a business owner, a local resident and so on. Nevertheless, the lack of methodological clarification as well as issues around how phenomenological fi ndings should be presented poses difficulties for researchers and students of phenomenology. In order to provide an example of how Heideggerian phenomenology can be applied and presented, an outline of a study that sought to explore what it is like to be a woman surfer was presented. It is hoped that this chapter has highlighted the value of phenomenology, and specifically the interpretive school of phenomenology, for the study of lived tourism and leisure experiences. Interpretive phenomenology, while time-consuming, offers research directions that allow going beyond causes, attitudes and behaviours. It extends to exploring senses, thoughts, feelings and sensations associated with the very moment of experience and situated within individuals’ lifeworlds. It supports an all-rounded view of experiences and how people come to understand such and derive meaning from them. Phenomenology does have a place in tourism and leisure research and hopefully researchers will embark on it more confidently in the future as well as keep their practices true to their philosophical origins and intentions. References Beattie, M. (1995) Constructing Professional Knowledge in Teaching: A Narrative of Change and Development. New York: Teachers College Press. Berdychevsky, L. and Gibson, H. (2015) Phenomenology of young women’s sexual risktaking in tourism. Tourism Management 45, 299–310. Berndtsson, I., Claesson, S., Friberg, F. and Oehlen, J. (2007) Issues about thinking phenomenologically while doing phenomenology. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology 38, 256–277. Brentano, F. (1973) In O. Kraus and L.L. McAlister (eds) Psychology From an Empirical Standpoint (A.C. Rancurello, D.B. Terrell and L. McAlister, trans.). London: Routledge.

Phenomenology in Leisure and Tourism Research 93

Chisholm, D. (2008) Climbing like a girl: An exemplary adventure in feminist phenomenology. Hypatia 23 (1), 10–40. Cohen, E. (1972) Toward a sociology of international tourism. Social Research 39 (1), 164–182. Colaizzi, P. (1973) Refl ection and Research in Psychology. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt. Colaizzi, P. (1978) Psychological research as a phenomenologist views it. In R. Valle and M. King (eds) Existential-Phenomenological Alternatives for Psychology (pp. 48–71). New York: Oxford University Press. Comic, Ð. and Kalmic, L. (2015) Phenomenology of tourist experience. Quaestus 6, 56–71. Conroy, S.A. (2003) A pathway for interpretive phenomenology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2 (3), 36–61. Creswell, J.W. (2007) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Method: Choosing among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Crotty, M. (1998) Describing the phenomenon. In J. Higgs (ed.) Writing Qualitative Research (pp. 205–216). Sydney: Hampden Press. Curtin, S. (2006) Swimming with dolphins: A phenomenological exploration of tourist recollections. International Journal of Tourism Research 8 (4), 301–315. Dann, G. and Cohen, E. (1991) Sociology and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 18 (1), 155–169. Dowling, M. (2007) From Husserl to van Manen: A review of different phenomenological approaches. International Journal of Nursing Studies 44, 131–142. Fendt, L.S. (2015) What is it like to be a Surfer Girl: A phenomenological exploration of women’s surfi ng. Unpublished PhD thesis, Southern Cross University. See http://epubs. scu.edu.au/theses/447/ (accessed 10 February 2017). Fendt, L.S., Wilson, E., Jenkins, J., Dimmock, K. and Weeks, P. (2014) Presenting phenomenology: Faithfully recreating the lived experiences of Surfer Girls. Annals of Leisure Research 17 (4), 398–416. Garko, M.G. (1999) Existential phenomenology and feminist research. Psychology of Women Quarterly 23, 167–175. Giorgi, A. (1975) An application of phenomenological method. In A. Giorgi, C. Fischer and E. Murray (eds) Duquesne Studies in Phenomenological Psychology (Vol. 2; pp. 82–103). Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press. Giorgi, A. (1989) Learning and memory from the perspective of phenomenological psychology. In R. Valle and S. Hallings (eds) Existential-Phenomenology Perspectives in Psychology (pp. 99–112). New York: Plenum Press. Giorgi, A. (1997) The theory, practice, and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a qualitative research procedure. Journal of Phenomenological Phenomenology 28 (2), 235–260. Giorgi, A. (2006) Difficulties encountered in the application of the phenomenological method in the social sciences. Analise Psicologica 3, 353–361. Groenewald, T. (2004) A phenomenological research design illustrated. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 3 (1), 1–26. Hart, P. (2000) Requisite variety: The problem with generic guidelines for diverse denres of inquiry. Environmental Education Research 6 (1), 37–44. Hayllar, B. and Griffi n, T. (2005) The precinct experience: A phenomenological approach. Tourism Management 26 (4), 517–528. Hegel, G. (1949) The Phenomenology of Mind (J.B. Baillie, trans.). New York: Humanities Press. Heidegger, M. (1927) Being and Time (1st edn). Oxford: Blackwell. Heidegger, M. (1962) Being and Time (2nd edn). Oxford: Blackwell. Heidegger, M. (1971) Building, Dwelling, Thinking (A. Hofstadter, trans.). New York: Springer.

94

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Husserl, E. (1962) Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology (W.B. Gibson, trans.). New York/London: Collier, Macmillan. Husserl, E. (1970) The Idea of Phenomenology. Nijhoff: The Hague. Hycner, R.H. (1985) Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data. Human Studies 8, 279–303. Ingram, G. (2002) Motivations of farm tourism hosts and guests in the South West Tapestry Region, Western Australia: A phenomenological study. Indo-Pacifi c Journal of Phenomenology 2 (1), 1–12. Keen, E. (1975) A Primer in Phenomenological Psychology. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston. Koch, T. (1995) Interpretive approaches in nursing research: The influence of Husserl and Heidegger. Journal of Advanced Nursing 21, 827–836. Kvale, S. (1996) Interviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Langeveld, M. (1983) The secret place in the life of a child. Phenomenology & Pedagogy 1 (2), 181–190. Larkin, M., Watts, S. and Clifton, E. (2006) Giving voice and making sense in interpretative phenomenological analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 102–120. Laverty, S.M. (2003) Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: A comparison of historical and methodological considerations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2 (3), 21–35. Lawler, J. (1998) Adapting a phenomenological philosophy to research & writing. In J. Higgs (ed.) Writing Qualitative Research (pp. 47–56). Sydney: Hampden Press. Lopez, K.A. and Willis, D.G. (2004) Descriptive versus interpretive phenomenology: Their contributions to nursing knowledge. Qualitative Health Research 14 (5), 726–735. Macann, C. (1993) Four Phenomenological Philosophers. London: Routledge. Maggs-Rapport, F. (2000) Combining methodological approaches in research: Ethnography and interpretive phenomenology. Methodological Issues in Nursing Research 31 (1), 219–225. Mannell, R.C. and Iso-Ahola, S.E. (1987) Psychological nature of leisure and tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research 14 (3), 314–331. Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. (2011) Designing Qualitative Research (5th edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945) Phenomenology of Perception (C. Smith, trans.). New York: Routledge. Moustakas, C. (1994) Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Nielsen, T.W. (2000) Hermeneutic phenomenological data representation: Portraying the ineffable. Australian Art Education 23 (1), 9–14. Pernecky, T. and Jamal, T. (2010) (Hermeneutic) phenomenology in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research 37 (4), 1055–1075. Plog, S.C. (1974) Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 14 (4), 55–58. Polkinghorne, D. (1995) Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. Qualitative Studies in Education 8 (1), 5–23. Pollio, H.R., Henley, T.B. and Thompson, C.J. (1997) The Phenomenology of Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reid, A. and Gough, S. (2000) Guidelines for reporting and evaluating qualitative research: What are the alternatives? Environmental Education Research 6 (1), 59–85. Reinharz, S. (1992) Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York: Oxford University Press. Rice, P. and Ezzy, D. (1999) Qualitative Research Methods: A Health Focus. South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press.

Phenomenology in Leisure and Tourism Research 95

Rosser, B. (1992) Gay Catholics Down Under. London: Praeger. Sadala, M. and Adorno, R. (2002) Phenomenology as a method to investigate the experience lived: A perspective from Husserl and Merleau Ponty’s thought. Methodological Issues in Nursing Research 37 (3), 282–293. Schmidt, C. (2005) Being, becoming and belonging: The phenomenological essence of spiritual leisure experiences. Unpublished PhD thesis, Griffith University Australia. Scruton, R. (1995) A Short History of Modern Philosophy: From Descartes to Wittgenstein (2nd edn). New York: Routledge. Smith, D.L. (1998) Language and style in phenomenological research. In J. Higgs (ed.) Writing Qualitative Research (pp. 189–204). Sydney: Hampden Press. Smith, J.A. and Osborn, M. (2008) Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In J.A. Smith (ed.) Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods (2nd edn; pp. 276–288). London: Sage Publications. Spiegelberg, H. (1975) Doing Phenomenology: Essays On and In Phenomenology. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Szarycz, G.S. (2008) Cruising, freighter-style: A phenomenological exploration of tourist recollections of a passenger freighter travel experience. International Journal of Tourism Research 10 (3), 259–269. Szarycz, G.S. (2009) Some issues in tourism research phenomenology: A commentary. Current Issues in Tourism 12 (1), 47–58. Uriely, N. (2005) Drugs and tourists’ experiences. Journal of Travel Research 43 (3), 238–246. Van Manen, M. (1990) Researching Lived Experience. New York: State University of New York Press. Willson, G.B., McIntosh, A.J. and Zahra, A.L. (2013) Tourism and spirituality: A phenomenological analysis. Annals of Tourism Research 42, 150–168. Wolff, R.F. (1999) A phenomenological study of in-church and televised worship. Journal for the Scientifi c Study of Religion 38 (2), 219–236.

5 Action Research and Tourism Studies Gayle Jennings

Action research is a participatory, democratic process concerned with developing practical knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes, grounded in a participatory worldview … 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 and Bradbury, 2006a: 1

As a process of inquiry, action research is not a recent phenomenon of the 20th and 21st centuries. Throughout history, humans have engaged in action research processes (Hall, 2001) in order to solve applied issues. More contemporaneously, in the 20th and to some degree in the 21st century, such an applied focus and emphasis on practice within social settings has generated a number of criticisms of action research. Primarily, it is perceived as a process best situated in the realm of consultancy work; having little scientific basis; privileging practical knowing over thinking knowing; having no ‘theory’; and being subjectively and intersubjectively determined instead of objectively determined. Most criticisms have predominantly emerged from within hegemonic positivist or postpositivistic stances regarding what constitutes ‘research’ and relationships between theory and practice. Importantly for action research, it emphasises the practical outcomes of research that arise in the course of cyclical phases of ‘planning’, ‘action’ and ‘fact-fi nding’ (Lewin, 1946: 38). Its intent is ‘the unity of theory and practice’ (Anonymous in Dewey, 1938: 7) for social ‘good’. While Dewey was referring to education, he like Lewin is associated with influencing the field of action research. As you work through this chapter you will see that these criticisms are well countered with regard to action research, and its approach to both theory and practice. Paradigmatically, all research is informed by a set of principles. From a qualitative perspective, action research is informed by the participatory paradigm as well as social constructivism and critical theory orientation. These paradigms are discussed in more detail later in this chapter. Action research is attributed as having several origins. A number of people are noted as early contributors to the ‘science’ of action research;

96

Action Research and Tourism Studies 97

along with the influences of Lewin, a social psychologist, and Dewey, an educational theorist, are John Collier, an American Indian Affairs Commissioner (1933–1945), and Eric Trist, an applied psychologist, as well as others at the Tavistock Institute (Pasmore, 2006). In the 1940s, the term action research was reportedly coined around the same time by Kurt Lewin and John Collier although independently from each other (French & Bell, 1984). Among action research students, Collier is less well known than Lewin (Pasmore, 2006: 39). Regardless of its origins, action research is a positively focused, outcomes-oriented, ‘inquiry-in-action’ approach (Reason & Bradbury, 2006b: xxii). Rather than view action research as a methodology, Bradbury and Reason (2003: xxi) consider it an ‘orientation towards inquiry’ as well as an ‘orientation of inquiry’. Action research serves to insert ‘action’ into knowledge creation; to disrupt hegemonies associated with the generation and use of knowledge beyond tertiary education organisations, recognised research centres and bodies; as well as to reshape Western-centric positivistic world views of ‘economic progress’ value systems (Reason & Bradbury, 2006b: xxiii). Reason and Bradbury (2006a: 2) argue that the ‘characteristics of action research … imply an “action turn” in research practice which builds on and takes us beyond the “language turn” of recent years: the language turn drew our attention to the way knowledge was a social construction; the action turn accepts this, and asks us to consider how we can act in intelligent and informed ways in a socially constructed world’. So, what is action research? Action research is ‘field based, longitudinal and engaged’ inquiry that primarily uses qualitative research methods; although, if relevant, quantitative methods may be included (Reason & Bradbury, 2006b: xxiv). Action research simultaneously integrates theory and practice whereas ‘traditional research and its application’ primarily remain disconnected processes (Reason & Bradbury, 2006b: xxiv). Reason and Torbert (2001: 1) refer to this integration as ‘research/practice’. The traditional approach has resulted in research or knowledge generation being undertaken by researchers and knowledge applications by practitioners. As Lewin (1939: 35) noted, ‘Research that produces nothing but books will not suffice’. In 2001, Reason and Torbert (2001: 1) advanced that given the variety of action-oriented approaches used in social science research, as already noted, a ‘turn to action’ was occurring. Later, the latter was described by Reason and Bradbury (2006b: xxiii) as a ‘turn to reflexive action’. Finally, to conclude this section, it is important to note that action research is not just a phenomenon of Western-centric thinking; its application and engagement has been global (Fals Borda, 2006 in Reason & Bradbury, 2006a: 3). For example, participatory research (PR) has been used in development work in Tanzania (Swantz et al., 2006); and participatory action research (PAR) has been used in Latin America (Fals Borda, 2006). Although it may appear that we have been talking about

Intervention by a change agent, who diagnoses problems and develops a subsequent remedial plan of action (Marrow, 1969).

Community members related to an issue are involved from the outset of the research and subsequently support remediation strategies (Marrow, 1969).

Empirical materials and lived experiences are accumulated from successive and similar groups to gradually develop generalised principles (Marrow, 1969).

Various controlled, hypothesised interventions implemented in comparable ‘field’ or social settings to determine effectiveness of each (Marrow, 1969).

External facilitator’s questions focus ‘action’ with regard to ‘efficiency and effectiveness of practices’ (Carr & Kemmis, 1986: 202).

External facilitator collaborates with practitioners to assist practitioners to identify their issues, develop action plans, as well as monitor and reflect on actions.

Practitioners collectively and interactively determine practice-focus, actions to be taken, monitoring and reflecting in cyclic processes to achieve enlightenment and social change.

Participant

Empirical

Experimental

Technical

Practical

Emancipatory

Comments

Diagnostic

Action research frame

‘Habermas’ knowledge-constitutive interests’ – ‘technical’, ‘practical’ or ‘emancipatory’ (Carr & Kemmis, 1986: 202)

Lewin and his associates’ work

Influenced by

Table 5.1 Early classifications of action research and accompanying descriptions

Varying degrees of ‘democratic participation’ (Carr & Kemmis, 1986: 199–200); ownership of facilitation; and authenticity of strategies to be implemented with regard to practitioner needs and contexts.

Authority instigated; and outcomes oriented

Focus

(Continued)

Carr and Kemmis (1986)

Adelman (1993); Marrow (1969: 198)

Source

98 Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Workplace action research, primarily orchestrated by management, and aimed at instigating organisational change with worker involvement.

Practitioner-oriented action research associated with improving practice.

Action research focused on oppressed and minority groups and their democratic rights to full participation.

Organisational

Professionalising

Empowering

Roots in community development (Hart & Bond, 1995)

Linked to nursing and education (Hart & Bond, 1995)

Tavistock Institute’s researchers (Hart & Bond, 1995), who integrated ‘Lewin’s approach to action research with Bion’s (1946) theories about leaderless groups, and von Bertalanffy’s (1950) work on systems thinking …’ (Pasmore, 2006: 38)

Lewin’s scientific approach to studying interventions and their social outcomes in the ‘field’ (Hart & Bond, 1995)

Source: Based on Adelman (1993), Carr and Kemmis (1986), Hart and Bond (1995) and Marrow (1969).

Scientific experimental approach to hypothesising, planning comparable interventions in similar or same social, work-related settings and the determination of their effectiveness.

Experimental

Table 5.1 (Continued) Varying perspectives with regard to (a) educative base, (b) individuals in the groups, (c) problem focus, (d) change intervention, (e) cyclical process, (f) improvement and involvement and (g) research relationship.

Hart and Bond (1995)

Action Research and Tourism Studies 99

100

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

action research as a singular approach, as is evident by the terms used in these two examples, in fact as Reason and Torbert (2001) recognised, there are a variety of action research approaches each with its own key instigators and aligned researchers and these are presented in this chapter (see Tables 5.1 and 5.2). Overview of Action Research and Background to its Common Usage the primary purpose of action research is not to produce academic theories based on action; nor is it to produce theories about action; nor is it to produce theoretical or empirical knowledge that can be applied in action: it is to liberate the human body, mind and spirit in the search for a better, freer world. (Reason & Bradbury, 2006a: 2)

As already intimated, action research aligns with constructivist and critical theory orientation paradigmatic perspectives towards research. Action research also aligns with the participatory paradigm. Compared to the better-known paradigms of positivism, postpositivism, constructivism and critical theories, the participatory paradigm is a more recent development. In 1997, as a result of the extensive use of action research and cooperative inquiry, Heron and Reason advanced the case for a fi fth paradigmatic position – a participatory paradigm. They argued that Guba’s (1990) and Guba and Lincoln’s (1994: 109) four paradigmatic positions, that is, positivism, postpositivism, ‘critical theory et al.’ and constructivism, were insufficient. At that time, underneath the umbrella term critical theory et al. were clustered, for example, ‘neo Marxism, feminism, materialism, and participatory inquiry’ (Guba & Lincoln, 1994: 109). Heron and Reason (1997) purported that a fi fth paradigmatic position existed – a participatory paradigm. This fi fth paradigm was predicated on knowledge co-creation between researchers and co-researchers/participants in the processes of jointly engaging in experiences and interactions. ‘Social practices’ and ‘collective language’ mediate such experiences and interactions (Heron & Reason, 1997: 278). In response to Heron and Reason’s argument, Lincoln and Guba (2000), Guba and Lincoln (2005) and Lincoln et al. (2011) have successively included this fi fth paradigm in their discourse and tabular representations of theoretical paradigms that inform research processes. In the following five paragraphs, we look further at the participatory paradigm as well as consider it in relation to social constructivism and critical theories paradigms. In those paragraphs, I have incorporated the various authors’ language and vocabulary to describe the three paradigms in order to maintain the specificity of their discourses.

‘… a comparative research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social action and research leading to social action’ (Lewin, 1946: 35) ‘… a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action, and fact-finding about the result of the action’ (Lewin, 1946: 38) ‘Action research aims to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an immediate problematic situation and to the goals of social science by joint collaboration within a mutually acceptable ethical framework’ (Rapoport, 1970: 499) ‘action research can also be viewed as a cyclical process with five phases: diagnosing, action planning, action taking, evaluating, and specifying learning’ (Susman & Evered, 1978: 588)

‘Co-operative inquiry is a way of working with other people who have similar concerns and interests to yourself, in order to: (1) understand your world, make sense of your life and develop new and creative ways of looking at things; and (2) learn how to act to change things you want to change and find out how to do things better’ (Heron & Reason, 2006: 144)

Developmental action inquiry ‘… attempts to interweave first-, second-, and third-person research/practice in ways that open ordinary, everyday settings to such research/practice, while simultaneously recognising the long, paradoxical, ironic, multi-transformational, developmental journey required before one can expect widespread personal, organizational, or public commitment to such notions’ (Torbert, 1999a: 204) ‘…Developmental Action Inquiry understands all human action as a blending of action and reflection, the ultimate challenge at all levels of organizing being to develop a clearer awareness of how they actually blend and how they optimally blend in this time and place, so that one can intervene now’ (Torbert, 1999a: 204)

‘Action science is an inquiry into how human beings design and implement action in relation to one another. …it is a science of practice, … [and] calls for basic research and theory building that are intimately related to social intervention. Clients are participants in a process of public reflection that attempts both to comprehend the concrete details of particular cases and to discover and test propositions of a general theory.’ (Argyris et al., 1985: 4) ‘Action science is centrally concerned with the practice of intervention’ (Argyris et al., 1985: 35) ‘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’ (Friedman, 2006: 132)

Cooperative (ecological) inquiry

Developmental action inquiry/research

Action science

Definition

Action research

Type of action research

Table 5.2 Contemporary types and practices of action research, definitions and related researchers

Links to Dewey and Lewin (Argyris et al., 1985) Argyris et al., (1985); Argyris and Schön (1974, 1978); Schön (1983); Friedman (2006); Putnam (1999)

Torbert (1999a)

Influence of Bateson’s (1972) Learning III on ‘critical subjectivity’ (Reason, 1994: 327); Bradbury (1998); Heron (1971, 1996); Heron and Reason (2006); Reason (1995)

Bateson (1972); Dewey (1938); Lewin (1946); Rapoport (1970); Susman and Evered (1978)

Related researchers

Action Research and Tourism Studies 101

‘Action inquiry offers a [first-] person, second-person and third-person types of research that each of us can conduct in the midst of our own ongoing practices at home or at work’ (Torbert, 2006: 207) Action inquiry associates with outcomes related to single-, double- and triple-loop learning (Torbert, 2006)

‘PAR involves practitioners in the research process from the initial design of the project through data gathering and analysis to final conclusions and actions arising out of the research’ (Whyte, 1991: 7) PAR is ‘an orientation to research that focuses on relationships between academic and community partners, with principles of co-learning, mutual benefit, and long-term commitment, and incorporates community theories, participation, and practices into the research efforts’ (Wallerstein & Duran, 2006: 312)

‘Feminist-grounded action research opens knowledge creation conditions to scrutiny, attempts to unsettle and unequalize power relations between researchers and participants, facilitates conditions for empowerment and reciprocity, wrestles with dilemmas of representation and interpretation, and experiments with polyvocal research accounts (Kirsch, 1999)’ (Maguire, 2006: 67)

‘This form of action research aims not only at improving outcomes, and improving the selfunderstandings of practitioners, but also at assisting practitioners to arrive at a critique of their social or educational work and work settings’ (Kemmis, 2006: 95)

‘Appreciative inquiry is a positive and constructive approach to organizational development (Cooperrider & Whitney, 1996). It is a qualitative research method that involves four stages: appreciating, envisioning, co-constructing, and sustaining’ (Jennings & Seiler, 2000: 73)

‘Fourth generation evaluation is a marriage of responsive focusing-using the claims, concerns, and issues of stakeholders as the organizing elements—and constructivist methodology— aiming to develop judgmental consensus among stakeholders who earlier held different, perhaps conflicting, emic constructions’ (Guba & Lincoln, 1989: 184)

Action inquiry

Participatory (action) research, P(A)R

Some forms of feminist inquiry

Emancipatory action research

Appreciative inquiry

Fourth-generation evaluation

(Continued)

Guba and Lincoln (1989)

Cooperrider (1998); Cooperrider and Srivastva (1987); Hammond (1996); Ludema et al. (2006)

Carr and Kemmis (1986); Kemmis (2006)

Brydon-Miller et al. (2004); Maguire (2006); Mies (1993); Morawski (2001); Olesen (1994)

Fals Borda (2006); Fals-Borda and Rahman (1991); Whyte (1991)

Links to Paulo Freire (1970)

Torbert (1991, 2006)

102 Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

This approach is known as the Scandinavian approach to action research, which was ‘developed on the basis of a strategy for research to have a wider impact on working life’ (Pålshaugen, 2014: 108) ‘The whole notion of action research as understood by us, is to link conceptual learning to new forms of practices (Gustavsen, 1983a)’ (Gustavsen & Engelstad, 1986: 108). Action research occurs through the vehicles of ‘participative organizational redesign conferences’ (Gustavsen & Engelstad, 1986: 107) founded on ‘a merger of … dialogue and work experience’ (Gustavsen & Englestad, 1986: 108). ‘The underlying belief is that the best, or most rational, solutions are most likely to appear in open discussions where, in principle, all participants are seen as having equal rights’ (Gustavsen & Engelstad, 1986: 105)

‘Co-operation in fostering organizational transformations is essential. Community action research offers one approach to such co-operation, based on the underlying theory of learning communities that integrates research, capacity building and practice and on shared understanding of why such integration is both important and difficult’ (Senge & Scharmer, 2006: 195)

‘Classroom action research typically involves the use of qualitative interpretive modes of inquiry and data collection by teachers (often with help by academics) with a view to teachers making judgments about how to improve their own practices’ (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005: 561)

‘Action learning is a means of development, intellectual, emotional or physical that requires its subjects, through responsible involvement in some real, complex and stressful problem, to achieve intended change to improve their observable behavior henceforth in the problem field’ (Revans, 1982: 626–7) ‘Action learning is an approach to the development of people in organizations which takes the task as the vehicle for learning. It is based on the premise that there is no learning without action and no sober and deliberate action without learning … The method … has three main components—people, who accept the responsibility for taking action on a particular issue; problems, or tasks that people set themselves; and a set of six or so colleagues who support and challenge each other to make progress on problems’ (Pedler, 1991: xxxii–xxiii) Marsick and O’Neil (1999) suggest there are three schools of action research: scientific, experiential and critical reflection.

Action research as democratic dialogue

Community action research

Classroom action research

Action learning

Table 5.2 (Continued)

Scientific school, e.g. Revans (1982) Experiential school, e.g. McGill and Beaty (1992) Critical reflection school Marsick and O’Neil (1999); Pedler (1991)

Kemmis and McTaggart (1988; 2005)

Senge and Scharmer (2006)

Gustavsen (1996, 2006); Gustavsen and Engelstad (1986)

Action Research and Tourism Studies 103

104

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

The participatory paradigm is associated with an ontological perspective that is described as ‘participative reality’ (Lincoln et al., 2011: 100) in which reality is subjectively-objectively known and ‘intersubjectively shaped’ with others (Heron & Reason, 1997: 279). Specifically, ‘any subjectiveobjective reality articulated by any one person is done so within an intersubjective field, a context of both linguistic-cultural and experiential shared meanings’ (Heron & Reason, 1997: 280). Epistemologically, the participatory paradigm recognises that there are four ways of knowing: experientially through ‘direct encounter’ (Heron & Reason, 1997: 280) from which arises ‘presentational knowing’ associated with a variety of art forms to metaphorically symbolise our knowing (Heron & Reason, 1997: 281); ‘propositional knowing’ that is, conceptual knowing; and practical knowing, which is, ‘how to do something’ (Heron & Reason, 1997: 281). The various ways of knowing interact and the researcher uses ‘critical subjectivity’ to ‘articulate a reality that is unclouded by a restrictive and ill-disciplined subjectivity’ (Heron & Reason, 1997: 280). Given action research’s focus on ‘knowledge generation and knowledge application’ (Reason & Bradbury, 2006a: xxv), a blurring of boundaries occurs between a traditional, etic-assigned epistemological positioning between a ‘researcher and the known (or knowable)’ (Guba, 1990: 18). Methodologically, a participatory paradigm involves a cyclic process that uses collaborative inquiry linking ‘critical subjectivity’ with ‘critical intersubjectivity’ and ‘democratic dialogue’ (Heron & Reason, 1997: 283). Research questions and methodology are collectively determined using ‘propositional knowledge’. The methodology is practically applied in co-researchers/participants’ practice worlds drawing on ‘practical knowing’, which in turn creates new encounters that generate ‘experiential knowing’, which are then collectively identified as ‘patterns’ and subsequently represented using ‘presentational knowing’. Co-researchers/ participants collectively cycle through this process ‘to enrich … congruence’ (Heron & Reason, 1997: 283). Essentially, ‘[t]he research is done by people with each other, not by researchers on other people or about them’ (Heron & Reason, 1997: 284). Axiologically, the ‘primary purpose of human inquiry is practical: our inquiry is our action in the service of human flourishing … participatory research is thus essentially transformative’ (Heron & Reason, 1997: 288). Relatedly, so is the intention of a critical theories paradigm, albeit that Heron and Reason (1997: 228) argue that ‘neither critical theory nor constructivism acknowledge practical knowing, whereas the participatory paradigm regards it as primary’. Additionally, epistemologically ‘neither constructivism nor critical theory paradigms recognize the intrinsic value of practical knowing’ (Heron & Reason, 1997: 288); instead they emphasise ‘propositional knowing and its instrumental value in generating social

Action Research and Tourism Studies 105

emancipation’ (Heron & Reason, 1997: 291). Within the participatory paradigm, epistemologically, practical knowing has primacy, and axiologically, it is of intrinsic value in the participative paradigm (Heron & Reason, 1997). We have just explored some comparisons between the participatory paradigm and social constructivism and critical theories paradigms. Given that Guba and Lincoln (1994) had earlier clustered the participatory paradigm under ‘critical theory et al.’, how does a participatory paradigm distinguish itself from a critical theories paradigm? It does so in the following ways: ontologically, a recognition of ‘participative reality’ rather than ‘historical realism’; epistemologically, an emphasis on ‘critical subjectivity’ and ‘experiential, propositional, practical knowing, co-created fi ndings’ instead of ‘transactional/subjectivist, value-mediated fi ndings’; methodologically, a focus on ‘collaborative action inquiry, primacy of the practical’ and shared experientially based language in contrast to ‘dialogic/ dialectical’ approaches (Lincoln et al., 2011: 100); axiologically, embracing ‘practical knowing …[as] an end in itself, … [and] intrinsically valuable’ (Heron & Reason, 1997: 287) associated with ‘human flourishing’ (Heron & Reason, 1997: 287) and transformation compared to instigating change and improving circumstances, which can also be emancipatory and transformative in nature. That being said, if participants are not co-researchers/co-subjects, then action research may be better framed within a constructivist or a critical theory orientation, the determinant of which is the degree of collaboration that occurs within the research process – complete (participatory) or, for example, mediated as in achieving informed consent of a research plan and making modifications based on participant feedback (constructivist and critical theory). Having considered the differences between participatory, social constructivism and critical theories paradigmatic views, among extant qualitative action research inquiries there are representations of action research being informed by each of these paradigms as well as a merging of social constructivism and critical theories paradigms ‘sometimes to the point of being inseparable’ (Reason & Bradbury, 2006b: xxiv). Also within the literature, there are examples of action research that are more in line with pragmatism, and these tend to relate to more experimentally shaped action research inquiries. However, from a social constructivist, critical theories orientation and especially participatory perspectives, these may be questioned as the key to ‘action research is research with, rather than on practitioners’ (Reason & Bradbury, 2006b: xxv) and peoples. Often, as already stated, the latter two groups are co-researchers and are constantly involved in overall research processes and decision-making. In the course of the iterative phases of action research, practice and theory are generatively integrated to improve, change and/or develop circumstances for the better.

106

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

There is no separation between the production of research outcomes and theory-building – they occur simultaneously. As researchers, it is important for you to understand the different paradigms that may be associated with action research in order to effectively argue your choice of paradigm. Bear in mind that during your literature searches of the extant literature, you will come across various examples of action research. It is important for you to be able to distinguish which are action research inquiries and which allege to be or only masquerade as action research inquiries. Knowing the related paradigmatic tenets will assist you in this process as well as the tenets of action research. Having said this, the latter is not such an easy task, for while there are overarching tenets, as already noted, there is a multiplicity of action research types. In the following pages, we look at several early classifications of action research as well as a range of more contemporary types of action research. Of course, we do not address every classification or typology or type of action research but sufficient are presented to give you not only an idea of how action research has developed over time but also an insight into some of the key researchers and influencers of the various types. This information is presented in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 and provides a ready-reference from which you can further explore a range of different types of action research and their potential relevance to circumstances that you may be invited, requested, directed or are co-considering with colleagues or community members regarding the use of action research to simultaneously link theory and practice as a means to make positive changes and/or improvements. The types presented in Table 5.1 are earlier classifications of action research. Although I have classified these as earlier types, currently, they are still variously used. The types have some similarity in categorisation as well as research intent. What differs within classifications is the degree of democratic discussion and decision-making between the research instigator/facilitator/researcher and the participants or co-researchers, the way the issue is identified and the degree of ownership of the outcomes associated with the participants, as well as the focus of the research and orientation of research outcomes. As you can see from Table 5.1, there are a number of types of action research, or as Reason and Bradbury (2006b: xxii) describe it, a ‘family of approaches’. Some further and more contemporary types of action research include: action research (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988); PAR (Fals-Borda, 2006; Whyte, 1991); PR; appreciative inquiry (Ludema et al., 2006); cooperative inquiry (Heron & Reason, 2006); communities of inquiry in communities of practice (Friedman, 2006); systems thinking and action research (Flood, 2006); and critical action research (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Zuber-Skerritt, 1996). Additionally, different perspectives have informed action research, such as feminism and power and politics, Marxism and change.

Action Research and Tourism Studies 107

Table 5.2 overviews a number of contemporary types of action research. The table provides a defi nition or several defi nitions relating to each type, which helps to capture the ‘extended epistemologies’ (Reason & Bradbury, 2006a: 9) of each, and identifies researchers and influencers associated with each type. The types presented in Table 5.2 are drawn from Heron and Reason’s (1997: 284) listing along with that of Kemmis and McTaggart (2005: 560–562), and representations in Reason and Bradbury (2006). It is not an exhaustive representation. Finally, a third typology is presented. The three categories of action research presented here were defi ned by Torbert (1998, 1999a, 1999b) and Reason and Torbert (2001). This typology discusses fi rst-, second- and third-person action research. Each is now described in turn. (1) ‘First person research/practice’ (Reason & Torbert, 2001: 1) engages researchers in inquiring into their own social, cultural and professional worlds to instigate change. This category is also related to the ‘reflective practitioner’ (Reason, 2004: 281), for example, an individual teacher undertaking change to classroom practice and praxis in isolation from other practitioners. This type of action research is founded on ‘subjective research’ (Reason & Torbert, 2001: 2); there is an obvious missing element – a reflective partner or group with whom to engage in reflection. And here caution is required, for as Habermas (1974: 29) commented ‘in the act of self-reflection the subject can deceive itself’. However, Reason and Torbert (2001: 17) comment that a person using ‘critical subjectivity’ akin to Bateson’s (1972) Learning III as well as what Torbert (2006: 208) refers to as ‘triple-loop learning’ should be able to counter this. (2) ‘Second person research/practice’ (Reason & Torbert, 2001: 1) requires the researcher co-researching with others regarding shared concerns to benefit practice, conditions or circumstances. It emphasises ‘interpersonal dialogue’ and associates with ‘communities of inquiry’ and ‘learning organizations’. It is undertaken, for example, in organisations, businesses, local-level communities, groups, associations and service industry sectors. (3) ‘Third person research/practice’ (Reason & Torbert, 2001: 1) involves large-scale projects drawing on ‘communities of inquiry’ to engage in networked communication to facilitate transformational changes in communities, organisations and nations. Given the scale of these projects, the changes tend to be associated with broader scale social, cultural, educational, professional and/or political outcomes. As can be seen from the last typology, and variously in Tables 5.1 and 5.2, action research can involve one person bringing about a positive change in his/her practice; a group of people coming together to generate

108

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

positive change within organisations and communities as well as largescale networked communities of inquiry focused on social, cultural and political agendas. Finally, to conclude this section, ‘[a]ction research should (among other things) be context related and collaborative, change practice and generate theory’ (Lyon, 1998/9: 41). Further, given the various types of action research, and the subsequent choices available, ‘there can never be one “right way” of doing action research’ (Reason & Bradbury, 2006b: xxiii) and arguing that one is better than another is a futile activity. Embrace the diversity and determine which approach will enable you and/or others to respond to the issues requiring attention in your professional practice, organisation(s), communities and/or networks. As in any research, the important thing when sharing your inquiry is that you make clear to your audiences the reasons for your choices and substantiate them. Engaging in Action Research Action research is a cyclical process of planning, acting and observing, reflecting; planning, acting and observing, reflecting; planning, … (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005)

Most types of action research are associated with a problem-solving approach (Burns, 2000; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; Whyte, 1989) – changing something for the better. This problem-solving intention has also been defi ned as a deficit-based model (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987). Cooperrider and Srivastva promote an alternative to this model – appreciative inquiry (see Table 5.2) – which they view as operating from a non-deficit model. In response to such critique, Dick (2004, 2006) countered that positive approaches were evident in alternate action research approaches, although this tended to be ignored by appreciative inquiry researchers in their critiques. Appreciative inquiry was developed by Cooperrider (1986). He was influenced by ‘Lewin’s (1959) and Gergen’s (1985) research on human perceptions and social constructionism, and Vickers’ (1980) notion of “appreciative systems”’ (Koster & Lemelin, 2009: 258). Essentially, appreciative inquiry involves five principles: the constructivist principle, the principle of simultaneity, the poetic principle, the anticipatory principle and the positive principle. From these principles, assumptions are generated that guide appreciative inquiry. Appreciative inquiry as a process involves four stages, also known as the 4D cycle: discovery, dreaming, designing and delivery. Alternately and similarly, the 4I cycle can be used to guide inquiry: initiate, inquire, imagine and innovate.

Action Research and Tourism Studies 109

Just as appreciative inquiry critiques other action research approaches for their deficit-based model, appreciative inquiry has also been critiqued for its non-deficit or positive approach to issues. The fi rst criticism is obvious; appreciative inquiry ignores negative aspects of issues. Other critiques relate to appreciative inquiry’s focus on outcomes rather than processes (Grant & Humphries, 2006: 404–405). And as Bushe (2007) argued, appreciative inquiry focuses more on axiological rather than epistemological and ontological concerns. Despite action research having been described as a deficit model that focuses on a problem-solving approach, Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) note: It is not simply problem-solving. Action research involves problem-posing, not just problem-solving. It does not start from a view of ‘problems’ as pathologies. It is motivated by a quest to improve and understand the world by changing it and learning how to improve it from the effects of the changes made. (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988: 21)

Having considered both a deficit and a non-deficit approach to action research, as well as outlining the basic stages of appreciative inquiry, the remainder of this section focuses on action research as an approach that applies both problem posing and problem solving to issues. Taking into account the preceding text and Tables 5.1 and 5.2, if you are thinking about using action research consider the following questions: (1) What is the issue? (2) Who recognised that the issue needs to be addressed – a person in authority, management, colleagues, people or groups directly/ indirectly connected to/involved in the issue, such as community members, disenfranchised groups, work groups, people directly involved in the outcomes ...? And why? (3) Who will/has instigate/d addressing the issue – a person in authority, management, colleagues, people or groups involved with the issue, such as community members, disenfranchised groups, work groups, people directly involved in the outcomes ...? And why? (4) Who will determine how the issue needs to be addressed – a person in authority, management, colleagues, people or groups involved with the issue, such as community members, disenfranchised groups, work groups, people directly involved in the outcomes ...? And why? (5) Who have/has the most vested interest/s in addressing the issue – a person in authority, management, colleagues, people or groups involved with the issue, people directly involved in the outcomes ...? And why?

110

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

(6) Who will drive the action research process – researcher, external facilitator, internal facilitator(s), collectives, communities of inquiries ...? And why? (7) How democratic will participation in the action research inquiry be? And why? (8) How will the issue be identified and described – using theory, authoritative perspective, practical knowing, negotiated, collectively and democratically determined ...? And why? (9) How democratic will the iterative action research processes be regarding planning, decision-making, action-taking, observing, reflecting, planning ...? And why? (10) What roles will people play – facilitator(s), co-facilitators, researcher(s), co-researchers, participants, ‘subjects’ ...? And why? (11) How will theory and practice be co-utilised – will one be more dominant than the other? And why? (12) What roles will critical subjectivity, critical intersubjectivity, democratic dialogue, reflexive thinking and so on have in the inquiry? And why? (13) Will the action research inquiry change the status quo, will it change practice and praxis, will it be transformational, will it be emancipatory ...? And why? (14) How will the ‘action’ be determined as generating improvement – formal evaluation, by an authority figure, democratically, collectively, consensus, recognition of multiple perspectives and so on? (15) When will the ‘action’ be determined as generating improvement – in the process of undertaking action, while fi ne-tuning/adjusting/ changing that action, at a specific point in time, at multiple points in time and so on? And why? (16) How will theory and practice be linked? And why? (17) How will ‘knowing-in-action’ be capitalised upon? Once you have answers to these questions, you will be able to identify: (1) if action research is the appropriate research to use; (2) which paradigm best aligns to inform the integrity of the action research inquiry; and (3) the nature and type of action research in which you most probably will be engaging. Refer to the beginning of this chapter to make sure you familiarise yourself with the tenets of the relevant informing paradigm to assist you (and your co-researchers) with planning an action research inquiry. Refer also to Tables 5.1 and 5.2 and explore some of the literature related to each action research type or approach.

Action Research and Tourism Studies 111

Cyclic Processes of Action Research

In the following paragraphs, based on Kemmis and McTaggart’s (1988; 2005) action research spiral, a simplified representation of action research using iterative processes of planning, acting and observing, as well as reflecting will be applied. This spiral is presented in Figure 5.1. However, when considering the spiral, as Kemmis and McTaggart (2005) noted, it is difficult to figuratively represent social processes. And action research is a social process since it involves social beings. Subsequently, the identified processes are not particularly lockstep in progression, there may be overlap. For example, plans for action may be adjusted during the processes of ‘acting and observing’; ‘reflecting’ may be constantly part of planning, acting and observing. So be aware that the iterative cycles of action research processes may not be as clear-cut as represented in Figure 5.1. That being said, each of the processes associated with the cyclic nature of action research will be considered in their own right. (1) Issue identification Usually before engaging in action research, people identify and/ or situational contexts indicate that an issue requires redress. This may generate dialogue between affected persons and/or peoples. Such dialogue can lead to discussions with others concerning possible ways forward. The affected group(s), an external action researcher or an action research

Figure 5.1 Iterative cycles of action research processes (Source: Based on Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988: 11; 2005: 564)

112

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

facilitator will instigate/lead the action research processes. Importantly, and to reiterate, in action research, there needs to be collaboration with those who are affected along with democratic dialogue. First, the issue has to be identified. The issue, focus or ‘subject matter’ will generally associate with practices, praxis, processes or ‘attitudes, values … behaviour’ (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988: 92) or culture. Tourism-specific examples of issues include how to ‘improve practices and develop new knowledge’ (Björk, 2014: 184); ‘empower… local communities in decision-making’ with regard to tourism planning as well as ‘tak[e]… research out of … researchers’ academic realms and “ivory tower” analytical procedures’ (Paül et al., 2015: 11); ‘develop… organisational capabilities’ (Kelliher et al., 2009: 80); ‘develop… tourism products and … partnerships’ (Schmitz & Tsobgou, 2016: 143); or ‘create change for sustainability in the learning and teaching focus of … business schools and in the operations of the business schools and their partner corporations’ (Thomas & Benn, 2009: 18). Then, participants will collaboratively and democratically develop a course of action. Prior to doing that, some ground rules should be established regarding participation and behaviour in order to facilitate respectful, democratic and collaborative interactions. If singleperson action research is being undertaken, the individual critically selfreflects upon suitable courses of action. (2) Plan a course of action In planning a course of action, primarily three things are considered: Who are the participants? What is the focus? and What is the context? During planning phases, participants reflect on who is involved and the degree that they will be co-researchers in the process. Participation may be full and equal if using a participatory paradigm or it may be participation by varying degrees if informed by social constructivism and/or critical theories paradigms. Through reflection and democratic dialogue or reflection and discussion, researchers and co-researchers or researcher and participants will determine and fi ne-tune the focus or ‘subject matter’ (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988: 92). The context or the setting will be taken into account with regard to spatial (e.g. department, organisation, destination, local, state, national and international), temporal (e.g. current times, past and future times), sociocultural (e.g. mores, values, cultures and expectations), economic (e.g. costs and prices, condition of the economy, organisational fi nancial standing) and political (e.g. government policies, regulations, strategies, initiatives) circumstances. Participants may undertake ‘research’ to assist them in developing a course of action to respond to the issue and improve circumstances. The plan will take into account strategies for change and the roles that people will assume, how reflections and observations will be captured as well as how regularly, and how long the plan will be enacted before a formal group reflection is conducted.

Action Research and Tourism Studies 113

(3) Enact and observe Variously, researchers and co-researchers, researchers and participants will enact the plan and continuously reflect and monitor its enactment. During the enactment process, observations will be made and captured using a variety of methods, such as journal or diary keeping, gathering of empirical materials from the action research setting, field notes, interviews, focus groups, checklists, questionnaires, multimedia methods or formal methods of evaluation. (4) Reflect As already noted in the process of action research, reflection will generally be a constant. Usually, a plan proposes a specific time interval for formal reflection; however, if researchers and co-researchers or participants sense that the plan is not working, it would be irresponsible to continue to enact it; the plan needs to be changed earlier rather than later. That being said, it is important that scheduled reflection times formally evaluate the plan, drawing on the observation materials, the enacted plan materials and co-researcher/participant experiences as well as through democratic dialogue with those affected by the plan. (5) Modify plan of action From reflective processes, knowing-in-action/learnings regarding theory/practice are developed and a new plan is developed along with methods for enacting and observing, and reflecting. And this process iteratively continues to sustain learning and improve situational circumstances. Regardless of whether you are undertaking fi rst-, second- or thirdperson action research, at their core, these basic processes will inform your research/practice. That being said, it should be noted that this is one of a number of process models involved in action research. Each of the types presented in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 have their own terminology and ‘process steps’. Research Contexts The participatory paradigm is especially effective with regard to any research, which is related to facilitating change, engendering collective ownership of and commitment to plans, processes, strategies, and evaluation practices and their practical, in and of the world, applications. (Jennings, 2010: 50)

Within tourism studies, action research has been advocated for instigating change in organisations, to facilitate community development (Jennings, 2010) and local tourism planning processes (Paül et al., 2015).

114

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

It has also been advocated as a vehicle to facilitate change in curricula and classroom practice and praxis (Jennings et al., 2009). Additionally, Jennings and Seiler (2000) advocated the use of appreciative inquiry as an alternative participatory method to action research for managing change in the tourism industry. A number of researchers have reported using action research for the following purposes: tourism service innovation (Björk, 2014); ‘community participation in sustainable rural tourism experience creation’ (Idziak et al., 2015: 1341); community participation and empowerment in sustainable tourism development processes (Cole, 2006); ‘value chain analysis’ (Mitchell, 2012: 457); enhancing a tourism learning network programme (Kelliher et al., 2009: 92) and ‘sustaining local language relationships through indigenous community-based tourism initiatives’ (Whitney-Squire, 2016: 1156). Within the hospitality sector, Afi fy (2008) noted that although the fi rst hospitality-based action research study occurred in the 1940s, few other studies had been conducted until the 21st century. Despite its limited use (Afi fy, 2008; Lashley, 2000; Waser & Johns, 2003), Afi fy (2008: 158) argues its ‘potential benefits and relevance to the [hospitality] industry’, especially with regard to operations management. Waser and Johns (2003) advocated for the use of action research in the hospitality sector for organisational and professional development. These two researchers advanced that action research would be particularly useful in facilitating cultural change in hospitality organisations. Similarly, Lashley (2000: 314) noted that ‘action research can make a significant contribution to lifting both the professionalism of hospitality management and the effectiveness of hospitality management practice’ as well as a means to improve educational practice in ‘hospitality management education’ (Lashley, 2000: 313). Table 5.3 provides an overview of five action research inquiries drawn from tourism studies and hospitality management. Two tourism and two hospitality examples and one tourism and hospitality education example are presented. For each of the five inquiries, the researchers and the related research paper’s title are acknowledged, then the inquiry’s focus, intent, approach, informing paradigm and type of action research approach or practice are identified, participants are reported and research methods noted. Readers are referred to the published papers for more information and examples of action research papers. When conducting a literature search using the term ‘action research’ to prepare Table 5.3, a number of articles were identified. On searching each of these, several mentioned the word ‘action research’ in the abstract; others mentioned the word ‘action research’ in the introduction and nowhere else. A few mentioned that action research had been used but it was not identified or explained. Several articles provided background

Action Research and Tourism Studies 115

or advocated for the use of action research or a particular type of action research, such as appreciative inquiry, or PAR. Several said they were doing PAR but did not. A limited number of articles explained in detail the nature of the action research that was used, whether it was participatory or constructivist or critical theory informed. In other articles, it was left to the reader to determine. Several papers appeared not to understand action research processes and several others appeared to be using action research in a way that was contrary to its core principles in that it was research ‘on’ rather than ‘with’ people. And several others reported that although they had used action research, they had varied methods contrary to the core principles of action research albeit they still referred to their research as action research. Again, action research associates with specific ontological, epistemological, methodological and axiological principles, if a ‘researcher’ is not following the guidelines of these paradigmatic aspects or the primary tenets of action research then the research does not qualify as action research. As noted before, when you conduct your own literature search on action research, be a critical reader and evaluate the published exemplars with regard to their commensurability with action research. It is not uncommon for researchers to present and have published work that does not fit the tenets of action research (Carr & Kemmis, 1986). So, how do we judge action research, as Marshall and Reason (1994) suggest: All good research is for me, for us, and for them: it speaks to three audiences. …It is for them to the extent that it produces some kind of generalizable ideas and outcomes... It is for us to the extent that it responds to concerns for our praxis, is relevant and timely … [for] those who are struggling with problems in their field of action. It is for me to the extent that the process and outcomes respond directly to the individual researcher’s being-in-theworld. (Marshall & Reason, 1994: 112–113)

Determining Quality in Action Research

In addition to judging ‘good’ research, Bradbury and Reason (2006) suggest the following measures for determining the quality of action research inquiries. (1) Does the inquiry utilise ‘relational praxis’ (Bradbury & Reason, 2006: 346)? How cooperative is the inquiry? Are ‘participation and authority’ (Bradbury & Reason, 2006: 346) distributed? Is decision-making

Rural tourism and communitybased tourism development

‘…an exploratory study Appreciative inquiry to determine AI’s potential contribution to community-based tourism development and as a way of addressing some of the criticisms of rural tourism’ (Koster & Lemelin, 2009: 261–262). ‘our aim is to add to the literature on AI, through this simultaneous reflection on the application of AI principles in rural tourism-based business and on the AI process itself’ (Koster & Lemelin, 2009: 266) Constructionist and critical theory

The 4D process: discovery, dream, design, delivery

‘Appreciative inquiry and rural tourism: A case study from Canada’

Intent

Koster and Lemelin (2009)

Focus

Type of action research Constructivist evaluation (see Stufflebeam, 2008)

Article title

Action research Informing approach paradigm Constructivism Tourism prod- ‘ … a systematic, cyclical Action research García-Rosell ‘An integrative – ‘Based … on … ucts, stakeprocess of simultaneand Mäkinen framework for Zuber-Skerritt (1996) (2013) sustainability holders and ous evaluation and sustainability action geared towards and … Maignan et al. evaluation in creating practi(2005)’ (2013: 402) tourism: Applying Iterative cycling cal knowledge and the framework to through four phases shared understanding tourism product development in regarding sustainability of action research that were framed by Finnish Lapland’ through collaboration six steps: planning (2013: 396) and dialogue with the multiple stakeholders of [3 steps], acting [1 a tourism organisation’ step], observing [1 step], reflecting [1 (2013: 402) step].

Researchers

Table 5.3 Examples of action research in tourism studies and hospitality management

‘The empirical material used in the evaluation consists of fieldwork data obtained via participant and nonparticipant observations, convergent interviews, focus groups, narratives and documentary materials.’ (2013: 405) Discourse analysis Case study, interviews, field observations, informal discussions, interpretation based on the 4D process

Researcher/evaluator, research team, eight female tourism entrepreneurs, customers, non-project vocational students

Business operator using AI ‘as a business operating philosophy and life practice’ (2013: 261)

Methods used

Participants

116 Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

‘Building reflective practitioners on business programmes: An action research study’ (2009: 20)

‘Return on investment in managerial training: Does the method matter?’ (2004: 79)

‘An evaluation of action research as a vehicle for individual and organisational development in the hotel industry’ (2003: 373)

Johns and Henwood (2009)

Di Pietro (2004)

Waser and Johns (2003) To gain ‘insights into the way cross-cultural communication operates between hotel managers, workers and guests’ (2003: 373)

‘This research evaluated the changes in performance of an organization by applying action research principles that evaluate whether training performed with managers changed performance in the organization’ (2004: 84)

Hospitality – fast-food service restaurant chain

Hospitality – cross-cultural communication

‘The aim was to establish an environment of reflective practice which would provide an ongoing quality improvement process for two Masters programmes that were relatively new to the institution’ (Johns & Henwood, 1990: 20)

Curriculum and faculty development – reflective practice

Postpositivism, pragmatism

Intervention research – ‘experimental action research’ (Adelman, 1993)

Longitudinal classroom action research

District managers, restaurant managers, trainer

Faculty facilitators in authority roles, ‘faculty … co-opted with an element of persuasion’ (Johns & Henwood, 1990: 34) and students

Adelman (1993); Hart ‘Phenomenological ‘organisational’ Action research parand Bond (1995) stance’ (2003: 392) action research ticipants – managers, model, (2003: 391) workers, guests ‘professionalizing action research model’ (2003: 387)

Field experiment/ quasi-experimental design using ‘repeated measures design’ (2004: 88)

Participatory action Pragmatism research akin to Sanger (1990); use of hypotheses and interventions; Kolb’s (1984) model of experiential learning Documentary analysis, profile accumulation approach (Johns & LeeRoss, 1996) using a quasiquantitative approach, solicited comments, faculty overviews of changes made; meetings; evaluations. Needs analysis, focus group, interventions: classroom style, interactive media, and on-thejob training, mystery shoppers, customer satisfaction surveys, customer complaints, pre- and post-training measures, ANOVA Meetings, open-ended interviews, field notes, complaints, guest interviews, nonparticipant interviews

Action Research and Tourism Studies 117

118

(2)

(3)

(4) (5)

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

inclusive? Were those affected by the inquiry issue and processes assisted by their participation in the inquiry? Were there ‘reflexive-practical outcome[s]’ (Bradbury & Reason, 2006: 347)? Essentially, is the inquiry ‘validated’, do participants comment ‘that was useful – I am using what I learned!’ (Bradbury & Reason, 2006: 347)? Is there a focus on the ‘plurality of knowing’ (Bradbury & Reason, 2006: 347)? Is there ‘conceptual-theoretical integrity’ – is theory practical? Does theory positively re-vision the research setting and context? And does it debunk accepted or dated theories that ‘other’ peoples? Are various ways of knowing explored and utilised? Is theory shared in creative ways beyond ‘written accounts’? Is the inquiry significant? And why – what values are held by those involved and with regard to the inquiry itself? What makes the inquiry significant? Are there ‘enduring consequences’ of the inquiry? Does fi rst-, secondand/or third-person action research embrace and harness different ways of knowing/understanding/theorising the world? Does theory/ practice create new actions and change orthodox patterns of acting and behaving?

Case study: Action research in practice

This case study represents third-person action research. As this chapter focuses on action research as a process of inquiry, the case study will discuss the process methods used rather than ‘report’ the case study as would occur in a journal article. In 2008, Jennings et al. participated in a national research programme initiated and fi nancially supported by the Australian government’s Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA). The Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability (ARIES) with the support of Macquarie University, Australia, facilitated the programme. The aim of the programme was ‘to create change for sustainability in the learning and teaching focus of the five participating Australian business schools and in the operations of the business schools and their partner corporations’ (Thomas & Benn, 2009: 8). The underlying tenet of the programme was the use of action research specifically focused on ‘Education about and for Sustainability in Australian Business Schools Stage 3’ (Thomas & Benn, 2009: 8). Jennings et al. (2008) represented one of the five business school teams involved in the programme. The action research-based programme utilised ‘a multiple-case-study approach (Yin, 2003)’ (Thomas & Benn, 2009: 19), and emphasised a

Action Research and Tourism Studies 119

‘learning-based approach to embedding systemic change’ (Thomas & Benn, 2009: 19). ‘Core to the ARIES model for learning-based change [were]: • • • • •

envisioning alternative futures participation and partnership critically reflective thinking systemic practice iterative learning through social interactions’ (Thomas & Benn, 2009: 20).

As the action research was third-person action research, it involved a range of participants. At the programme level, there was a programme leader and coordinator and a programme advisor. At the business school level, there was a project research leader/co-researcher with co-researcher teaching staff and, variously in some business schools, a mentor, research assistant and a supporter. Additionally, co-researchers and/or co-learners were students and industry partners. In several institutions, multiple action research projects were conducted under the overarching institutional action research project. During the action research processes, the programme leader and programme coordinator as co-researchers continuously connected using voice-to-voice technologies with each of the business school co-researchers as a collective and facilitated reflection on the action research being undertaken at each institution. Email contact was also used as a means of communication. The programme leader and coordinator facilitated face-to-face interactions between representatives from each of the business school participants at a central location. During these interactions, as well as reflection, learning opportunities were presented, which had arisen out of the programme leader and coordinators conversations with all programme action research participants. These interactions were then shared with the representative’s co-researchers at the institutional level. Vocabulary used in the programme included change agents, champions, communities of practice, co-researchers and co-learners. At the outset, ARIES identified the action research cycle for the programme. To address the previously mentioned nature of overlap or multiple processes inputting into action cycles, Figure 5.2 provides a different representation from Figure 5.1 in order to capture this fluidity. Each institution utilised different projects and different methods. For details, refer to Thomas and Benn (2009). The institutional project, which is the focus of this case study, had the following aims:

120

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Revise plan Act Collect data

Revise plan

Issue Diagnose

Act Collect data

Plan & Design research

Monitor Observe

Reflect Evaluate

Act & Collect data Learn & Communicate

Monitor Observe

Action Reflect Evaluate

Monitor & Observe Reflect & Evaluate

Cycle 1

Cycle 2

Cycle 3 …

Project management Figure 5.2 ARIES action research cycles (Source: Thomas & Benn, 2009: 20)

•

•

to partner with micro, small and medium tourism enterprises … in order to engender and/or further enhance sustainability principles associated with such enterprises’ tourism operations; to improve pedagogy, andragogy, ethnogogy, as well as curriculum content of four courses … in addition to enhancing educational praxis associated with Education about Sustainability/for Sustainability within the [Business School] (Jennings et al., 2008: iv)

The institutional project was an umbrella project under which four separate action research inquiries undertaken in a postgraduate course and three undergraduate courses were housed. The institutional action research inquiry occurred in concert with the four course-related action research inquiries. The institutional inquiry was akin to second-person research/practice and the individual course-based action research inquiries to fi rst-person research/practice. The institutional action research team comprised four academic staff members, a project assistant, students enrolled in the three courses and 10 micro, small, medium tourism enterprise (MSME) partners. The institutional and course-related action research inquiries were founded on PAR and were paradigmatically informed by a critical theory orientation. The following methods served to ‘capture the

Action Research and Tourism Studies 121

“project-in-action”: lived experience, reflexive team conversations, team journals, reflexive journals, interviews, focus groups, and student learning materials’ (Jennings et al., 2008: 11). Both formative and summative evaluation methods were used. Formative evaluation methods included ‘reflexive journals by students and course convenors’, ‘reflexive conversations between project team members’ as well as ‘industry participants’ and ‘other business school participants’, ‘dialogue with ARIES team members’ as well as ‘other business school participants’, semi-structured ‘interviews with students and industry’, as well as ‘monitoring shifts in understanding’ with regard to education about sustainability and education for sustainability (Jennings et al., 2008: 14). Summative evaluation methods included ‘reflexive focus groups involving project team members’, and ‘students from each of the courses’, ‘reflexive interviews with students from courses’, student evaluation via learning/teaching questionnaires, content analysis and/or successive approximation of empirical materials, ‘comparisons of pre- and postempirical materials’ as well as ‘pre- and post-reflections’ regarding ‘knowledge, skills and practices associated with sustainability for students, academics and business partners’, reviews by industry during a workshop and dissemination processes of project materials, along with ARIES and DEWHA, and peer review of documentation related to disseminating ‘outcomes’ of the institutional action research inquiry – education about and for sustainability (Jennings et al., 2008: 14). Student-based empirical materials were interpreted using content analysis, while successive approximation was used to interpret industrybased empirical materials (Jennings et al., 2008). For further details refer to Jennings et al. (2008). While this example has been drawn from a co-partnered university– government initiative, it provides an example of instigating change in practices associated with training and education. There is immediate transferability of the action research processes to human resource development, casual employee training, full-time staff training, volunteer training and the transfer of the processes to other organisations such as tourism associations, conference and convention associations and large networked tourism organisations. The case study indicates ways to connect with others to undertake a third-person action research process, which had embedded within it both second- and fi rst-person action research aspects. Other examples of the use of action research in tourism and hospitality were provided in the ‘Research Contexts’ section. Additional examples are provided in Table 5.3.

122

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Conclusion

As already noted, action research has been used throughout history as a means to solve issues. In the fi rst half of the 20th century, several people were associated with ‘formally’ developing action research, specifically Lewin and Collier. The main difference between action research and other research approaches is that action research unites theory and practice, that is, theory/practice. It emphasises knowing-in-action. Other research approaches tend to separate theory and practice by generating theory fi rst and then considering the implications for practice. Although action research has been critiqued for its emphasis on practice, it has become an accepted way of conducting research. Today, it is a global research approach. Its foundations stem from Lewin’s (1946) articulation of cyclic processes of ‘planning, ‘action’ and ‘fact fi nding’ in order to improve the worlds of people and their circumstances. Paradigmatically, in its objectively determined experimental and mixed methods forms, action research aligns with postpositivism. Action research, which is not fully participatory and based on equality with regard to research design and decision-making, aligns with social constructivism and critical theories paradigms. In 1997, Heron and Reason argued for a participatory paradigm, which advocated that those affected need to be collaboratively engaged in all aspects of action research inquiries as equal members, and that democratic dialogue, critical subjectivity and critical intersubjectivity should guide actions and decisions. Arising from the four paradigmatic perspectives, a range of action research approaches has developed, such as experimental, empirical, participant and diagnostic. Within social constructivism, critical theories and participatory paradigms, a family of approaches has developed, such as action research, participatory (action) research, appreciative inquiry, action science, community action research and action learning. In addition, action research has been classified as fi rst-, second- and thirdperson research/practice. Action research involves successive cycles of identifying an issue, making a plan, acting and observing the plan, reflecting on the plan, altering the plan and so on. Within tourism and hospitality studies, action research has been used, for example, with respect to community participation in tourism planning, product and experience development, service innovation, organisational and professional development and practice, organisational change, engendering learning and as a means to enhance training and education. Given the diversity of approaches to action research, it behooves those interested in its use to read widely and familiarise themselves with the paradigmatic perspectives, and related action research approaches. In doing so, the best approach for redressing an issue and for the people

Action Research and Tourism Studies 123

affected can be determined in order to cyclically link theory and practice and simultaneously improve people’s circumstances. How do we judge quality in action research? Five criteria were suggested related to ‘relational praxis’, ‘reflexive-practical outcomes’, ‘plurality of knowing’, significance and ‘enduring consequences’ (Bradbury & Reason, 2006: 346–349). And fi nally, we need to remember as Reason and Bradbury (2006a) noted: …the primary purpose of action research is not to produce theories based on action; nor is it to produce theories about action; nor is it to produce theoretical or empirical knowledge that can be applied in action; it is to liberate the human body, mind and spirit in the search for a better, freer world. (Reason & Bradbury, 2006a: 2) References Adelman, C. (1993) Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research. Educational Action Research 1 (1), 7–24. Afi fy, M.F. (2008) Action research: Solving real-world problems. Tourism and Hospitality Research 8, 153–159. Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1974) Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1978) Organizational Learning. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley. Argyris, C., Putnam, R. and Smith, D. (1985) Action Science: Concepts, Methods, and Skills for Research and Intervention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bateson, G. (1972) The logical categories of learning and communication. In G. Bateson (ed.) Steps to an Ecology of Mind (pp. 250–279). San Francisco, CA: Chandler. Björk, P. (2014) The DNA of tourism service innovation: A quadruple helix approach. Journal of Knowledge Economy 5, 181–202. Bradbury, H. (1998) Learning with the Natural Step: Cooperative Ecological Inquiry Through Cases Theory, and Practice for Sustainable Development. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College Organizational Studies Doctoral Dissertation. Bradbury, H. and Reason, P. (2006) Conclusion: Broadening the bandwith of validity: Issues and choice-points for improving the quality of action research. In P. Reason and H. Bradbury (eds) Handbook of Action Research, Concise Paperback Version (pp. 343– 351). London: Sage Publications. Brydon-Miller, M., Maguire, P. and McIntyre, A. (2004) Traveling Companions: Feminism, Teaching, and Action Research. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Burns, R.B. (2000) Introduction to Research Methods (4th edn). London: Sage Publications. Bushe, G.R. (2007) Why appreciative inquiry is unlikely to generate research publications. AI Practitioner (Special Issue: Using Appreciative Inquiry for Research) 3, 2–11. Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research. Basingstoke: Falmer. Cole, S. (2006) Information and empowerment: The keys to achieving sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 14 (6), 629–644. Cooperrider, D.L. (1986) Appreciative inquiry: Toward a methodology for understanding and enhancing organizational innovation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University. Cooperrider, D.L. (1998) Capturing What Matters Most in the Practice of Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Revolution in Change. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA.

124

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Cooperrider, D.L. and Srivastva, S. (1987) Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In R. Woodman and W. Pasmore (eds) Research on Organizational Change and Development (pp. 129–169). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books. Dick, B. (2004) Action research literature. Action Research 4, 425–444. Dick, B. (2006) Action research literature 2004–2006: Themes and trends. Action Research 4, 439–458. DiPietro, R.B. (2004) Return on investment in management training: Does the method matter? Journal of Foodservice Business Research 7 (4), 79–96. Fals Borda, O. (2006) Participatory (Action) research in social theory: Origins and challenges. In P. Reason and H. Bradbury (eds) Handbook of Action Research, Concise Paperback Version (pp. 27–37). London: Sage Publications. Fals-Borda, O. and Rahman, M.A. (1991) Action and Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly with Participatory Action Research. New York: Intermediate Technology/Apex. Flood, R.L. (2006) The relationship of ‘systems thinking’ to action research. In P. Reason and H. Bradbury (eds) Handbook of Action Research, Concise Paperback Version (pp. 117–128). London: Sage Publications. Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder. French, W. and Bell, C. (1984) Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organizational Improvement. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Friedman, V.J. (2006) The practice of co-operative inquiry: Research ‘with’ rather than ‘on’ people. In P. Reason and H. Bradbury (eds) Handbook of Action Research, Concise Paperback Version (pp. 131–143). London: Sage Publications. García-Rosell, J-C. and Mäkinen, J. (2013) An integrative framework for sustainability evaluation in tourism: Applying the framework to tourism product development in Finnish Lapland. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 21 (3), 396–416. Grant, S. and Humphries, M. (2006) Critical evaluation of appreciative inquiry: Bridging an apparent paradox. Action Research 4, 401–418. Guba, E.G. (1990) The alternative paradigm dialog. In E.G. Guba (ed.) The Paradigm Dialog (pp. 17–27). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (1st edn; pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2005) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd edn; pp. 191–215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Gustavsen, B. (1996) Development in the social sciences: An uneasy relationship. In S. Toulmin and B. Gustavsen (eds) Beyond Theory: Changing Organizations through Participation (pp. 5–30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gustavsen, B. (2006) Theory and practice: The mediating discourse. In P. Reason and H. Bradbury (eds) Handbook of Action Research, Concise Paperback Version (pp. 17–26). London: Sage Publications. Gustavsen, B. and Engelstad, P.H. (1986) The design of conferences and the evolving role of democratic dialogue in changing working life. Human Relations 39 (2), 101–116. Habermas, J. (1974) Theory and Practice (J. Viertel, trans.). London: Heinemann. Hall, B.L. (2001) I wish this were a poem of practices of participatory research. In P. Reason and H. Bradbury (eds) Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice (pp. 171–178). London: Sage Publications. Hammond, S. (1996) The Thin Book of Appreciative Inquiry. Plano, TX: Thin Book Publishing Company.

Action Research and Tourism Studies 125

Hart, E. and Bond, M. (1995) Action Research for Health and Social Care: A Guide to Practice. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Heron, J. (1971) Experience and Method: An Inquiry into the Concept of Experiential Research. Guildford: University of Surrey, Human Potential Research Project. Heron, J. (1996) Cooperative Inquiry. London: Sage Publications. Heron, J. and Reason, P. (1997) A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry 3 (3), 274–294. Heron, J. and Reason, P. (2006) The practice of co-operative inquiry: Research ‘with’ rather than ‘on’ people. In P. Reason and H. Bradbury (eds) Handbook of Action Research, Concise Paperback Version (pp. 144–154). London: Sage Publications. Idziak, W., Majewski, J. and Zmyś lony, P. (2015) Community participation in sustainable rural tourism experience creation: A long-term appraisal and lessons from a thematic villages project in Poland. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 23 (8–9), 1341–1362. Jennings, G. (2010) Tourism Research (2nd edn). Brisbane: John Wiley. Jennings, G., Cater, C., Hales, R., Hornby, G. and Kensbock, S. (2008) Engendering and Enhancing Sustainability Principles and Practices for Small Tourism Business Enterprises. Report, Circulation: Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability, Australian Government Department for the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. See http://aries.mq.edu.au/projects/MBA3/GBS_Report.pdf (accessed on 5 September 2017). Jennings, G., Scantlebury, M., and Wolfe, K. (2009) Tertiary travel and tourism education: Using action research cycles to provide information on pedagogical applications associated with reflexivity, team-based learning and communities of practice. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism 9 (3&4), 193–215. Jennings, G.R. and Seiler, V.L. (2000) Organizational change in the tourism industry: If there’s a problem – Then change your point of view. In C.H.C. Hsu (ed.) The International Society of Travel and Tourism Educators Annual Conference Proceedings, Tampa, Florida, October 5–7, Reunion 2000: Our Past, Our Future (pp. 72–76) ISTTE: Harper Woods, MI, USA. Johns, N. and Lee-Ross, D. (1996) Profi le accumulation: A quality assessment technique for hospitality SMEs. In R. Teare and C. Armistead (eds) Services Management: New Directions and Perspectives (pp. 101–104). London: Cassell. Johns, N. and Henwood, J. (2009) Building reflective practitioners on business programmes: An action research study. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education 8 (1), 20–36. Kelliher, F., Foley, A. and Frampton, A-M. (2009) Facilitating small fi rm learning networks in the Irish tourism sector. Tourism and Hospitality Research 9 (1), 80–95. Kemmis, S. (2006) Exploring the relevance of critical theory for action research: Emancipatory action research in the footsteps of Jürgen Habermas. In P. Reason and H. Bradbury (eds) Handbook of Action Research, Concise Paperback Version (pp. 94–105). London: Sage Publications. Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (1988) Introduction: The nature of action research. In S. Kemmis and R. McTaggart (eds) The Action Research Planner (pp. 5–28). Burwood, VIC: Deakin University Press. Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (2005) Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd edn; pp. 559–603) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning Experience as a Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Koster, R.L.P. and Lemelin, R.H. (2009) Appreciative inquiry and rural tourism: A case study from Canada. Tourism Geographies 11 (2), 256–269. Lashley, C. (2000) Action research: An essential tool for hospitality management education? Tourism and Hospitality Research 1 (4), 313–327.

126

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Lewin, K. (1939) Field theory and experiment in social psychology: Concepts and methods. American Journal of Sociology 44 (6), 868–896. Lewin, K. (1946) Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues 2 (4), 34–46. Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (2000) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd edn; pp. 163–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lincoln, Y.S., Lynham, S.A and Guba, E.G. (2011) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (4th edn; pp. 97–128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Ludema, J.D., Cooperrider, D.L. and Barrett, F.J. (2006) Appreciative inquiry: The power of the unconditional positive question. In P. Reason and H. Bradbury (eds) Handbook of Action Research, Concise Paperback Version (pp. 155–165). London: Sage Publications. Lyon, J. (1998/1999) Applying Hart and Bond’s typology: Implementing clinical supervision in an acute setting. Nurse Researcher 6 (2), 39–56. Maguire, P. (2006) Uneven ground: Feminisms and action research. In P. Reason and H. Bradbury (eds) Handbook of Action Research, Concise Paperback Version (pp. 60–70). London: Sage Publications. Marrow, A.J. (1969) The Practical Theorist: The Life and Work of Kurt Lewin. New York: Basic Books. Marshall, J. and Reason, P. (1994) Adult learning in collaborative action research: Reflections on the supervision process. Studies in Continuing Education: Research and Scholarship in Adult Education 15 (2), 117–132. Marsick, V.J. and O’Neil, J. (1999) The many faces of action learning. Management Learning 30 (2), 159–176. McGill, I. and Beaty, L. (1992) Action Learning: A Practitioner’s Guide. London: Kogan Page. Mies, M. (1993) Feminist research: Science, violence and responsibility. In M. Mies and V. Shiva (eds) Ecofeminism (pp. 36–54). London: Zed Books. Mitchell, J. (2012) Value chain approaches to assessing the impact of tourism on low-income households in developing countries. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 20 (3), 457–475. Morawski, J. (2001) Feminist research methods: Bringing culture to science. In D. Tolman and M. Brydon-Miller (eds) From Subjects to Subjectivities: A Handbook of Interpretive and Participatory Methods (pp. 57–75). New York: New York University Press. Olesen, V. (1994) Feminisms and models of qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (1st edn; pp. 158–174). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pålshaugen, Ø. (2014) Action research for democracy: A Scandinavian approach. International Journal of Action Research 10 (1), 98–115. Pasmore, W. (2006) Action research in the workplace: The socio-technical perspective. In P. Reason and H. Bradbury (eds) Handbook of Action Research, Concise Paperback Version (pp. 38–48). London: Sage Publications. Paül, V., Trillo-Santamaría, J-M. and Pérez-Costas, P. (2015) Action research for tourism planning in rural areas? Examining an experience from the Couto Mixto (Galicia, Spain). Geographical Research 54 (2), 153–164. Pedler, M. (1991) Preface. In M. Pedler (ed.) Action Learning in Practice (2nd edn). Brookfield, VT: Gower. Putnam, R.W. (1999) Transforming social practice: An action science perspective. Management Learning 30 (2), 177–187.

Action Research and Tourism Studies 127

Rapoport, R.N. (1970) Three dilemmas of action research. Human Relations 23, 499–513. Reason, P. (2004) Action research and the single case: A response to Bjørn Gustavsen. Concepts and Transformations 8 (3), 281–294. Reason, P. (1994) Three approaches to participative inquiry. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (1st edn; pp. 324–339). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Reason, P. (1995) Participation in Human Inquiry. London: Sage Publications. Reason, P. and Torbert, W.R. (2001) The action turn: Towards a transformational social science. Concepts and Transformations 6 (1), 1–37. Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (2006a) Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In P. Reason and H. Bradbury (eds) Handbook of Action Research, Concise Paperback Version (pp. 1–14). London: Sage Publications. Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (2006b) Preface. In P. Reason and H. Bradbury (eds) Handbook of Action Research, Concise Paperback Version (pp. xxi–xxxii). London: Sage Publications. Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (eds) (2006c) Handbook of Action Research, Concise Paperback Version. London: Sage Publications. Revans, R.W. (1982) The Origins and Growth of Action Learning. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Sanger, J. (1990) Awakening a scream of consciousness: The critical group in action research. Theory into Practice 29 (3), 174–178. Schmitz, S. and Tsobgou, D.L. (2016) Developing tourism products and new partnerships through participatory action research in rural Cameroon. Geographical Research 54 (2), 143–152. Schön, D.A. (1983) The Refl ective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books. Senge, P.M. and Scharmer, C.O. (2006) Community action research: Learning as a community of practitioners, consultants and researchers. In P. Reason and H. Bradbury (eds) Handbook of Action Research, Concise Paperback Version (pp. 195–206). London: Sage Publications. Stufflebeam, D.L. (2008) Egon Guba’s conceptual journey to constructivist evaluation: A tribute. Qualitative Inquiry 14 (8), 1386–1400. Susman, G. and Evered, R. (1978) An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly 23, 582–603. Swantz, M-L., Ndedya, E. and Masaiganah, M.S. (2006) Participatory action research in southern Tanzania, with special reference to women. In P. Reason and H. Bradbury (eds) Handbook of Action Research, Concise Paperback Version (pp. 286–303). London: Sage Publications. Thomas, J. and Benn, S. (2009) Education about and for Sustainability in Australian Business Schools Stage 3. A report prepared by the Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability for the Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. See http://aries.mq.edu.au/projects/ MBA3/AustBusinessSchools3.pdf (accessed 15 September 2016). Torbert, W.R. (1991) The Power of Balance: Transforming Self, Society, and Scientifi c Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Torbert, W. (1998) Developing courage and wisdom in organizing and sciencing. In S. Srivastva and D. Cooperrider (eds) Organizational Wisdom and Executive Courage (pp. 222–253). San Francisco: The New Lexington Press. Torbert, W.R. (1999a) The distinctive questions developmental action inquiry asks. Management Learning 30 (2 June), 189–206. Torbert, W. (1999b) Transforming social science: Integrating quantitative, qualitative, and action research. In F. Sherman and W. Torbert (eds) Transforming Social Inquiry,

128

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Transforming Social Action: Creating Communities of Practice at the University and in the Community (pp. 67–91). Norwood MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Torbert, W. (1999c) The call to bridge knowledge and action: The response of the Boston College PhD Program in organization transformation. In F. Sherman and W. Torbert (eds) Transforming Social Inquiry, Transforming Social Action: Creating Communities of Practice at the University and in the Community (pp. 247–273). Norwood MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Torbert, W.R. (2006) The practice of action inquiry. In P. Reason and H. Bradbury (eds) Handbook of Action Research, Concise Paperback Version (pp. 207–217). London: Sage Publications. Wallerstein, N.B. and Duran, B. (2006) Using community-based participatory research to address health disparities. Health Promotion Practice 7, 312–313. Waser, H. and Johns, N. (2003) An evaluation of action research as a vehicle for individual and organisational development in the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 22 (4), 373–393. Whitney-Squire, K. (2016) Sustaining local language relationships through indigenous community-based tourism initiatives. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 24 (8–9), 1156–1176. Whyte, W.F. (1989) Advancing scientific knowledge through participatory action research. Sociological Forum 4 (3), 3–38. Whyte, W.F. (1991) Introduction. In W.F. Whyte (ed.) Participatory Action Research (pp. 7–15). Sage Focus Edition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1996) Introduction: New directions in action research. In O. ZuberSkerritt (ed.) New Directions in Action Research (pp. 3–10). London: Routledge.

6 Participant Observation in Cross-Cultural Tourism Research Kylie Radel

Collecting data in the field through observation of, and participation in, the daily lived experiences of the research site is a fundamental technique for qualitative tourism researchers who wish to study communities and their interactions within their unique social and cultural contexts. However, while conducting qualitative tourism research in the field is a long-accepted practice, the practices and processes of observation and participantobservation may represent intrusive, fundamentally contentious processes for the variety of cultures and communities who are often viewed as subjects, as well as for researchers themselves. For example, research conducted with Indigenous populations worldwide has been challenged through issues of controversial mismanagement and perceived endemic disrespect (Caldwell et al., 2005; Cochran et al., 2008; Dodson, 2000; Rigney, 1999; Smith, 1999). As indicated by Martin (2003: 203), research in Australia ‘on Aboriginal people … [and] on Aboriginal lands was done without the permission, consultation, or involvement of Aboriginal people’. Indigenous communities globally tend to regard research as a form of ‘exploitation’ (Dodson, 2000: 56) and researchers with ‘scepticism’ (Cochran et al., 2008: 22) and often intense distrust (Arbour & Cook, 2006; Episkenew & Wheeler, 2002). Similar perspectives are held by many other communities and individuals who come under researchers’ scrutiny. Qualitative researchers seek to understand situations and contexts, interpret actions and develop deep knowledge of interactions and relationships. However, at times the investigative process that aims to give voice to participants has the extraordinary capacity to marginalise and exclude those who are subsequently othered (Hall, 1997) through the research subjectivities; and particularly those in positions of fragility. Qualitative tourism researchers may need to confront their own personal standpoints and their situatedness in the field contexts; evaluate and recognise their relationships with participants; interpret cultural contexts;

129

130

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

and scrutinise their capacity to appropriately represent and interpret the voices and stories. The processes, practices and outcomes from field research and participant-observation in tourism need to be conscious of, and applicable for, culturally diverse and potentially ethically divergent communities. This chapter examines the practices and processes of participantobservation within qualitative tourism research and proposes a new model of research partnering for effective field research. The study on which this chapter is based employed a constructivist, qualitative, grounded theory approach and identified the key success factors for an Indigenous tourism enterprise in the Australian tourism industry. As a non-Indigenous researcher working in an Indigenous research context, I was deeply conscious that the research explicitly demonstrated the principles and protocols of Indigenous research methodologies (Radel, 2010). Throughout the research (used as the case study for this chapter), I sought to foreground the voices and perspectives of Indigenous community members rather than interpret the data through Westernised business research lenses. This chapter focuses on one of the significant fi ndings from the study that challenges previous assumptions around the practices, processes and fundamental positionalities of participantobservation and naturalistic inquiry – specifically when applied in the contexts of a cross-cultural tourism research design. This chapter fi rst provides an overview of the historical perspectives of observation, participant-observation and naturalistic inquiry. The model of reflexive research partnering is then defi ned and explained. It is proposed as an alternative approach to traditional models of participant-observation that is cognisant of the researcher’s positionality, situatedness and data collection techniques as well as being appropriate for the community in (and for) which the research is conducted. While the model is underpinned by Indigenous tourism research contexts, the research partnering model is offered as an approach relevant to any qualitative researcher conducting fieldwork within cross-cultural tourism sites. Observation, Participant-Observation and Naturalistic Inquiry

The processes of conducting research in the field through observation, participant-observation and naturalistic inquiry within tourism and social sciences have undergone significant development and refi nement over time (Baker, 2008). Observation is a complex method of data collection that is generally appropriate for studies that seek to describe the interactions and behaviours of a group ‘who interact with each other on a regular basis in a relatively fi xed setting’ (Neuman, 2000: 345). However, observation and fieldwork’s origins in early European history enabled the practices of these anthropological studies to develop in ways

Participant Observation in Cross-Cultural Tourism Research 131

that did not ‘honour the status’ (Nakata, 1998: 7) of Indigenous peoples and Indigenous research contexts. Early explorers and missionaries were encouraged to investigate distant cultures (Neuman, 2000; Tedlock, 2000), write extensively on the lifestyles and activities of peoples they encountered, take measurements, examine and seize tools and cultural artefacts and misappropriate culture (see, for example, Cushing, 1979). Such investigations were conducted from an ‘imposed etic’ (Albaum & Baker, 2010: 1); a Eurocentric way of being that did not acknowledge differing realities or develop theories and understandings from the perspectives of the community being studied (Degerando, 2007; Foley, 2000; Martinez, 2005; Moreton-Robinson, 2003; Rigney, 2003). During the early 20th century, the Chicago School of Sociology advanced the development of participant-observation as a distinct data collection technique (Adler & Adler, 1987). Using participantobservation methods, researchers employ a systematic, meticulous (Miles & Huberman, 1994) examination of the contexts and interactions between group members to: ‘study people in their natural settings’; ‘study people by directly interacting with them’; and ‘gain an understanding of the social world and make theoretical statements about the members’ perspective’ (Neuman, 2000: 347). By refi ning the earlier procedures of observation and abandoning practices that were perceived as being extremely subjective (Adler & Adler, 1987), participant-observation advocated for researchers to involve themselves more directly in the lives and activities of the community while maintaining ‘some objectivity and detachment in their role and analysis’ (Adler & Adler, 1987: 11). Through this process, researchers could effectively become a marginal native or a professional stranger (Agar, 1980; Freilich, 1970; Mruck & Mey, 2007). In the mid-20th century, Junker (1952, 1960) and Gold (1958) further advanced the participant-observation method into what is now the widely adopted typology of researcher roles for participant-observation. Consisting of four key roles including complete-observer, observer-asparticipant, participant-as-observer and complete-participant (Gold, 1958), the roles may be represented on a continuum of involvement – from detached outsider to intimately involved insider shown in Figure 6.1. As a participant-observer, throughout the study the researcher can adopt any (or many) of these roles (Gold, 1958). Researchers may also be covert or overt participants, allowing differing levels of visibility and therefore access; sustain passive or active participation; and be formal or informal participants in the site contexts (Blumer, 1982; Burgess, 1982; Diaz, 2005; Lindlof & Taylor, 2002; Schwartz & Schwartz, 1955). However, whether an intimately involved insider and friend of the community or a completely detached outsider, the roles entitle the researcher as scientist to maintain distance from his/her subjects (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Eikeland, 2006;

132

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Figure 6.1 Gold’s (1958) typology of participant-observation (Source: Adapted from Radel, 2010: 64)

Gold, 1958; Richards, 2008) who are subsequently objectified and othered by the research. Indeed, as noted by Gold (1958: 219) in his initial progression of the typology, even in instances where the researcher becomes a complete-participant, he/she must maintain objective distance from subjects and, in fact, in many instances he/she may sustain his/her role as a covert researcher: Role-pretence is a basic theme in these activities… What really matters is that he [the researcher] knows that he is pretending to be a colleague. I mean to suggest by this that the crucial value as far as research yield is concerned lies more in the self-orientation of the complete participant than in his surface role-behaviours as he initiates his study… The complete participant realizes that he, and he alone, knows that he is in reality other than the person he pretends to be. He must pretend that his real self is represented by the role, or roles, he plays in and out of the … situation in relationships with people who, to him, are but informants. [note: gendered language is as per the original article]. (Gold, 1958: 219)

Based on this discussion, it is clear that Gold’s (1958) typology was developed from a standpoint that does not allow for or encourage meaningful collaboration, participation and development of deeper, equitable relationships with informants – the relationship with the subject confers power wholly to the researcher.

Participant Observation in Cross-Cultural Tourism Research 133

Naturalistic Inquiry and Participant-Observation

The practices and processes of participant-observation as a qualitative methodology in tourism have continued to evolve from these early concepts. Building on Gold’s (1958) typology, Adler and Adler (1987, 1998) sought to account for changes in qualitative researcher ideology which had moved towards naturalistic inquiry (Denzin, 1971; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Sandelowski, 2000). Under this paradigm, researchers sought to become more deeply involved with, or members of, the communities with whom they worked. Naturalistic inquiry was therefore defi ned as constituting a ‘studied commitment to actively enter the worlds of native people and to render those worlds understandable from the standpoint of a theory that is grounded in the behaviours, languages, defi nitions, attitudes, and feelings of those studied’ (Denzin, 1971: 166). Participant-observation underpinned by naturalistic inquiry was subsequently described by Adler and Adler (1998) as: …fundamentally naturalistic in essence; it occurs in the natural context of occurrence, among the actors who would naturally be participating in the interaction, and follows the natural stream of everyday life. As such, it enjoys the advantage of drawing the observer into the phenomenological complexity of the world, where connections, correlations, and causes can be witnessed as and how they unfold. (Adler & Adler, 1998: 81)

Focusing on examining practices and processes and observing the life experiences of individuals and communities from a member’s standpoint (Jorgensen, 1989; Spradley, 1980), the three principal ‘membership’ roles include: ‘the complete-member-researcher, the active-member-researcher, and the peripheral-member-researcher’ (Adler & Adler, 1998: 84) as shown in Figure 6.2. The membership roles have been superimposed on Gold’s (1958) typology to enable a comparison. The Gold (1958) typology and the later developments of Adler and Adler (1998) share a number of common characteristics. Researchers may be covert or overt and may take passive or active roles in the research environments (Adler & Adler, 1998; Burgess, 1982; Jorgensen, 1989; Whyte, 1984). Further, the complete-member-researcher role aligns strongly with the complete-participant role – the researcher is an insider or member of the group and, in such cases, is often studying a social phenomenon in which he/she is wholly immersed. However, based on early autoethnography and ethnomethodological ideas to become the phenomenon (Adler & Adler, 1998; Garfi nkel, 1967; Hirschauer, 1994), Adler and Adler (1998) argued that the complete-member-researcher role went beyond the complete-participant role; seeking to capture a much greater level of immersion in the research environments than Gold’s (1958) concept allowed.

134

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Figure 6.2 Adler and Adler’s (1998) naturalistic inquiry membership roles compared with Gold’s (1958) typology of participant-observation (Source: Adapted from Radel, 2010: 66)

Adler and Adler (1998) also conceptualised the active-participant membership role that was similar to the participant-as-observer. While in this role, the researcher participates in the core functions of the group enabling close observations of group interactions and processes. In this case, researchers may assume ‘responsibilities that advance the group’; however, they must ensure to engage in these activities ‘without fully committing themselves to members’ values and goals’ (Adler & Adler, 1998: 85). Of the remaining concepts, Gold’s (1958) roles of complete-observer and observer-as-participant were not considered specifically useful for naturalistic inquiry by Adler and Adler (1998). Those roles, they argued, allowed the researcher to interact only casually with the group from a comparatively positivistic perspective, whereas the member roles sought to position the researcher fi rmly within the group. Indeed, according to Adler and Adler (1998: 85), even the least interactive membership role (peripheral-member) requires researchers to ‘interact closely enough with members to establish an insider’s identity without participating in those activities constituting the core of group membership’. Based on their defi nition, membership allows for: …members’ recognition of the researcher as a fellow member. This allows the researcher to participate in the routine practices of members, as one of them, to naturalistically experience the members’ world. (Adler & Adler, 1987: 34)

Participant Observation in Cross-Cultural Tourism Research 135

In contrast with the earlier defi nitions of participant-observation roles, it is clear that Adler and Adler’s (1987, 1998) method of naturalistic inquiry has improved the potential for researchers to engage closely with participants. While both typologies advocated that, at some level at least, the researcher plays an interactive part in the research contexts, the earlier defi nitions retained the researcher in a more distant, objective position. The later adaptations encourage much greater emphasis on participation in the day-to-day activities of the community (Adler & Adler, 1987, 1998; DeWalt & DeWalt, 2002; Tedlock, 2000). Membership and Cross-Cultural Tourism Research: Inconsistencies and Conflicts

At fi rst glance, the membership roles seem appropriate for qualitative tourism research particularly in cross-cultural contexts. The roles suggest an insider positionality, and highlight a critical focus on the use of reflexivity by researchers to examine processes and practices within the study, relationships with participants and the quality and richness of information and its analysis. However, on further consideration under a cross-cultural lens, the roles may reveal substantial causes of concern. Adler and Adler (1987) claimed that conducting naturalistic inquiry through membership could be accomplished even in instances where gender, age or religion may constitute barriers to full or active membership in the group activities. However, even their least interactive role as a peripheral member, the researcher would seem required to share suffi cient sociocultural characteristics in common with his/her subjects to ensure that he/she could ‘blend in’, and be able to adopt a manufactured role within the group’s ‘everyday life sociologies’ (Adler & Adler, 1987: 34). The foundation of group membership seeks to enable researchers to gain access to ostensibly ‘secret’ information (Junker, 1960: 35). The concepts of insider and outsider within the membership roles also require deeper examination. The roles adopt a forced simplicity – a ‘straightforwardly one-dimensional outsider-insider spectrum’ (Dawson, 2010: 174) within which the researcher is able to position himself/ herself almost without challenge. However, qualitative researchers in cross-cultural tourism research contexts must negotiate the complexity, sophistication and multiplicity of unique social, cultural, economic and environmental heritages and identities. Even in cases where research is conducted by cultural or social insiders (such that they are a recognised and accepted member of the community for example), issues may arise due to unforeseen consequences for researchers, participants and their families, and these outcomes will need careful attention and mediation (Smith, 1999; Whyte, 1984).

136

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Further, in negotiating research roles in qualitative tourism research contexts, researchers may need to recognise and accept that there may be culturally accepted community codes of respect and ways of behaving such that the codes specify ‘who may know what, when and in what detail’ (Bell, 1998: 62). Depending on the community, restrictions may be placed on researchers – their level of access, types of knowledge and ways to seek appropriate informed consent from participants. For example, traditional Australian Indigenous cultures are highly gendered with specific ‘women’s business’ and ‘men’s business’ that places precise and detailed responsibilities for maintaining families and land environments (Bell, 1981: 319; see also Ellis & Martyn-Ellis, 1994; Whitebeach, 1994). As Bell (2002: 8) discovered in her work with the ‘Warrabri’ and ‘Kaytej’ peoples of central Australia, permissions granted (as a woman) to undertake research work were immediately qualified that she must ‘confi ne [herself] to the women’. While it may be possible for qualitative researchers conducting tourism research with their own social, cultural or gender-defi ned groups (see, for example, discussions from Foley, 2003; Moreton-Robinson, 2000; Rigney, 1999; Smith, 1999) to assume the relationships suggested by the membership roles, researchers in cross-cultural tourism contexts cannot assume that their insider-outsider status can be disregarded. While such straightforward views of insider-outsider status persist (O’Connor, 2004), and the insider standing of membership roles may be theoretically achievable for a tourism researcher within his/her own socio-cultural contexts, it becomes increasingly challenging for a social and cultural outsider to adequately blend in with members to the same degree. In any case, whether researchers are sociocultural insiders or outsiders, the membership approach has significant potential to foster incompatible and often contradictory subjectivities for researchers as a result of the underlying ‘confl ict model of social interaction’ (Lindquist, 2002: 51) on which the roles are based. A fundamental premise of pretence exists within the membership roles, which adds to the blurring of implicit and explicit power relationships between researchers and participants (Chacko, 2004; Merriam et al., 2001). While the membership researcher is essentially situated as an insider to the community contexts, the study may be conducted covertly or overtly. Indeed, Adler and Adler (1987) implied that pretence constitutes an essential element of membership; even in the most dedicated role of the complete-member. They suggested, however, that in such cases, researchers may take an overt position due to a reduced ‘need for role pretence’ (Adler & Adler, 1987: 34). Confronted with these conflicting role ideologies and subjectivities, and when considered specifically in light of Indigenous research perspectives particularly relevant to the study of Indigenous tourism, both the Gold (1958) typology of participant-observation roles and the Adler and Adler

Participant Observation in Cross-Cultural Tourism Research 137

(1987, 1998) adaptation towards membership left me with a number of challenging questions (Radel, 2010). Am I culturally and socially equipped to become a ‘fully enfranchised member of the group, research affiliations notwithstanding’ (Lindquist, 2002: 51)? Can I truly ground my interpretation and analysis of the data from a position of theoretical strength, while attempting to assume the pretence requirements of either a participantobservation or membership role? How do I appropriately and suitably represent my participants’ voices and perspectives? What are the benefits for the community based on either approach, and can I demonstrate important aspects of reciprocity, responsibility, self-determination, decolonisation and recognition of intellectual property rights for the participants in my study (Smith, 1999)? As a social and cultural outsider, how do I conscientiously situate myself and my own standpoint within the research contexts and capably adopt and demonstrate respect and humility throughout my research that honours other cultural knowledge and rights? A New Model of Research Partnering for Cross-Cultural Tourism Research

It is clear that both the participant-observation roles developed by Gold (1958) and the subsequent naturalistic inquiry member roles proposed by Adler and Adler (1987, 1998) do not adequately describe the positionality of a qualitative researcher who is a cultural outsider to the community in which he/she is conducting the research. I therefore developed a model of research partnering for conducting cross-cultural tourism research to better reflect the needs and aspirations of the participants. The model of research partnering (Figure 6.3) emerged from the research to better reflect my standpoint (the researcher’s epistemological, ontological and axiological ways of doing, knowing and being), situatedness (the researcher’s locations within the study contexts [Ciborra, 2005] and the emergent circumstances, activities and conditions [Suchman, 2007] that arise while working in the field) and positionality (the multiple ways in which the researcher is positioned by others [Franks, 2002] and by his/her own standpoint and situatedness), and the methods used to gather and analyse the data. A researcher’s identity is a complex combination of his/her standpoint, situatedness and positionality and is far from unproblematic within qualitative tourism research (Chacko, 2004). From the beginning of my research journey for this study, I found that I could not fit either myself or my standpoint into either the participantobservation or member roles. Instead, the research participants, contexts and my positionality required the development and refi nement of partner positionalities as a way to draw attention to the ‘unpredictable nature of the interface between researcher identity and the, always multifaceted, research environment’ (Dawson, 2010: 174). I required a perspective on my

138

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

own positionalities that disengaged from the customary preconceptions of participant-observation and naturalistic inquiry, and a way to open a path for both participants and researchers to redefi ne ways of being in the research contexts. The model of partner positionalities that emerged from this nexus demonstrates three main positionalities: the immersed reflexive research partner, the emergent reflexive research partner and the transitory reflexive research partner, as shown in Figure 6.3. The research partner positionalities are not located along a continuum as both the Gold (1958) and Adler and Adler (1987) typologies were previously, and they are neither discrete nor constant in nature. The positionality of researchers and participants is not a simple case of either being an insider or an outsider, for example, to the research contexts (Arber, 2000; Herod, 1999; Koch & Harrington, 1998). Rather, positionality is multiple, complex, overlapping and interrelated modalities resulting from a continuous process of ongoing negotiations between individuals (researchers and participants), within communities and between people and place. The positionalities are therefore not a linear construction.

Figure 6.3 Model of qualitative research partnering for cross-cultural tourism research (Source: Adapted from Radel, 2010: 72)

Participant Observation in Cross-Cultural Tourism Research 139

This non-linearity seeks to reveal and highlight the fluidity of the researcher moving into (and reflexively through) relationships and situatedness within the research contexts as changes and conditions arise. The researcher (in partnership with participants) is continuously (re) negotiating and mediating his/her positionality; situatedness; degree of access to individuals and communities; insider-ship (Radel, 2010); and methods of information generation, interpretation and representation. The model (Figure 6.3) presents a simplified illustration of the complex nature of positionalities for research in cross-cultural tourism contexts. However, there are several strata that need to be unpacked and defi ned, including the transitory, emergent and immersed positionalities; the appreciation of partnering as it is embedded in the positionalities; the use of reflexivity as a means of self-reflection, data generation and interpretation; the insideroutsider modality; and the conversation-interview modality. Transitory, emergent and immersed positionalities

The principal motivation underpinning qualitative research, particularly within cross-cultural tourism contexts, should be the rights of participants to have their voices and their realities appropriately represented within the research outcomes. Cross-cultural research should be framed by the social experiences, cultural contexts, multiple realities and identities of the participants. In my study, I ensured that each contact with each individual was negotiated and mediated from both my positionalities and from my partners’ perspectives on a dynamic basis – constantly and continuously, prior to, during and after the research activity. From this foundation, the researcher positionalities of transitory, emergent and immersed were constructed. The distinctions between the positionalities are based on the level of association and access between partners and researchers; continuously (re)negotiating their positionalities within the site contexts. The positionalities are also based on the intensity of the relationships and the duration over which the study is conducted – for example, short-term, mid-range or for longer-term studies involving more in-depth, intense relationships and interactions. Researchers within any positionality may identify as cultural insiders or outsiders. However, the levels of access, association, intensity and duration remain negotiated depending on the unique circumstances and requirements of the specific research context. On the outer rim of the reflexive researcher positionalities, the transitory positionality accepts relationships and interactions between researchers and partners that offer the capacity to conduct short-term studies as and when the opportunity warrants. Transitory partnerships allow for engagement with research on an occasional basis over time or through ad hoc research projects that may be proposed by communities, individuals

140

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

or by researchers, usually to answer particular problems or issues (see, for example, Brady, 1992; Eversole & Routh, 2005; Fitzgerald, 2004). In a transitory research positionality, researchers typically have a limited level of access to insider information, such as friendship information for example, and partner relationships may be reasonably brief associations to answer specific questions. The research design, methods and outcomes remain framed through the perspectives and voices of research partners, and the benefits arising from the study have the community or researcher partners themselves as the principal audience. In their discussion, Adler and Adler (1987) suggested that a temporary or ad hoc approach to research may not be useful for a naturalistic inquiry member. However, the transitory positionality is dedicated to conducting research that advances the research agendas of community partners as much as academic careers, and fi ndings from the limited (yet still negotiated) access of the positionality, the data generated and the benefits accrued from the research are co-creations of knowledge. The emergent positionality builds on relationships that may have initially developed from transitory partnering. The emergent reflexive researcher develops deeper involvement with research partners and contexts but this involvement remains negotiated and fluid based on requirements within the research. Within this negotiated space, the emergent researcher will usually be required in the field for longer periods of time, though this could be on an irregular basis and the partnering processes encourage greater rapport with participants and potential access to insider information where necessary. Researchers may or may not be direct members of the community however, and generally have only limited access to friendship levels of information. At the deepest level of access and association is the immersed positionality. At this level, the researcher would typically be a community member with unreserved, frequent or continuous contact. However, as demonstrated by such researchers as Bell (1981, 1998, 2002) and Chugh (2015) for example, the positionality is available for researchers who may not be cultural and/or social insiders, but in all cases remains dependent on and negotiated within the specific circumstances and requirements of the study, the researcher’s continuing negotiated level of access and acceptance with individual community members and the long-term duration of the study. With regard to the three positionalities shown in Figure 6.3, it must also be noted that there is no axis for a covert–overt continuum as was shown in Figures 6.1 and 6.2 on the Gold (1958) and Adler and Adler (1987, 1998) typologies. The axiology of the reflexive researcher must be explicitly declared to research partners, which therefore does not allow for covert observations without consent. Consent may be sought from, and provided by, community elders or senior community members,

Participant Observation in Cross-Cultural Tourism Research 141

from enterprise or organisational managers (where the research is being conducted with tourism businesses or organisations for example) and from individual research partners. All research is therefore overt, recognised and acknowledged. Satisfactory informed consent is required prior to conducting the study and may be an ongoing, negotiated process (Ermine et al., 2004; Janke, 2009; Smith, 1999; Ten Fingers, 2005). Partnering for research: Embedding collaboration and co-construction

Embedded as the foundation of the model of researcher positionalities, the partnering process provides the template for designing, conducting and managing research in cross-cultural tourism studies. Using the concept of partnering – in combination with the practices of reflexivity and conversation as the sites of data generation and interpretation – my aim was to challenge and minimise the inherent power imbalances (Battiste et al., 2002; Power, 2004) that often result from the construction of researcher authority as scientist. This inequality locates participants in an inferior, objectified positionality (Fontana, 2002; Hertz, 1997). Partnering in research seeks to ensure appropriate voice and representation of participants – enabling the ‘traditionally silenced subjectivity’ (Fontana, 2002: 168) to be exposed and extinguished. Partnering is a collaborative process. It empowers research to develop from a shared standpoint that celebrates ‘intercultural difference’ (National Health and Medical Research Council, 2003: 3). Partnering requires that communities and researchers are co-collaborators on every phase of the study (Daley et al., 2010). Research partnering through collaboration: …is an open process that seeks answers to questions that have no preset answers… Meaning arises and submerges, is tacit and articulated, and deals with data one moment and the means of gathering data the next. In brief, change is a constant element in the collaborative meaningmaking. … [W]e must constantly be mindful of its emerging nature. (Bray et al., 2000: 89)

All participants in the research take active, engaged responsibility for generating and designing research, evaluating project outcomes and fi ndings, and delivering shared benefits (Caldwell et al., 2005; Eversole & Routh, 2005). The partnering process combines researcher skills and techniques with community experiences, practices, processes and knowledge, enabling all parties to raise and address problems or challenges, set parameters and discuss considerations on engagement and access, and ensure that appropriate voice and representation are a focus of the study. As such, collaborative research that is based on community participation

142

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

engages and empowers communities to defi ne, address and resolve issues that directly affect their lives (Caldwell et al., 2005). Increasing community involvement through research partnering also directly affects community capacity by cultivating and embedding knowledge of research designs, methods, evaluations and outcomes (Bogart & Uyeda, 2009; Brown et al., 2001). Community participants require direct and ongoing input into the ethical governance processes which may include developing new processes for consultation, informed consent and feedback (Bassendowski et al., 2006; Kingsley et al., 2010) and may deliver potential new contributions to community-informed policy changes (Brakefield-Caldwell & Parker, 2000; Brown et al., 2001). Ultimately, building community capacity through research partnering and collaboration enables the development of trust, respect and reciprocity between community members and researchers over the longer term. Research partnering and reflexivity

A principal requirement of the partnering process is to challenge the researcher to ‘be honest about her (him) self, particularly in relation to an other’ (Pillow, 2003: 182). The fostering and use of reflexivity (Hertz, 1997; Rossman & Rallis, 1998) is therefore a crucial component of data generation and interpretation. Reflexivity engages the researcher in the critical investigation of his/her own standpoint, situatedness and positionality within the research contexts. Drawing from the feminist genre (see, for example, Clough, 1992; Du Bois, 1983; Fine et al., 2000; Fontana & Frey, 1998; Haraway, 1991; Harding, 1991), reflexivity delivers a method of conversation with the self that seeks to expose and interrogate issues of ‘power, voice and authority’ (Fitzgerald, 2004: 237) in the research contexts. However, the use of reflexivity is not without challenges. It is an essential function of the partner positionalities but it is dependent upon ‘the researcher’s ability to mark where her (him) self ends and another begins’ (Pillow, 2003: 182). Reflexivity enables researchers to investigate their own perspectives and incorporate those reflections as a critical analytical tool in the research design and should be used to continuously examine the developing knowledge of the researcher – to ensure that ‘what I know’ and ‘how I know it’ (Hertz, 1997: viii) are genuine reflections and representations of the voices and perspectives of partners. Negotiating the complexity of insider-ship–insider-outsider status

The researcher positionalities are further clarified by the insideroutsider modality – the range of ‘intermediate degrees’ (Halliday, 1994: 88) between insider and outsider. As with other characteristics of the

Participant Observation in Cross-Cultural Tourism Research 143

reflexive researcher positionalities, the depth or complexity of insider-ship is dynamic, negotiated and evolving. The progression of insider-ship is ‘shaped by a whole raft of nuanced beliefs, expectations, and stereotypes’ (Rossman & Rallis, 1998: 126) and is affected by all participants involved in the study. A lesser degree of insider-ship does not necessarily represent outsider status and equally, deeper degrees of insider-ship are not synonymous with unrestricted community access. Insider-ship is continuously (re)negotiated between partners and researchers – both individually and collectively – with lesser or greater levels of insider or outsider positionality being dependent on the specific circumstances of the study, relationships between community partners and researchers, and the unique questions under investigation. Greater or lesser degrees of insider-ship are also not dependent on the researcher’s identity. For example, an immersed insider position is equally realisable by researchers both from within the cultural group and from outside of the cultural group. The researcher may be an Indigenous person and therefore able to accept a deeper level of cultural insider-ship within an Indigenous research context – due perhaps to greater ‘cultural intuition’ (Bernal, 1998; Pillow, 2003); however, he/she may not be a staff member of the tourism enterprise or a direct member of the precise community. Further, even where the researcher is a direct member of the community, considering the previous discussion of the gendered nature of many Indigenous cultures for example (Bell, 2002), an Indigenous female researcher may have limitations placed on her level of insider-ship for research with Indigenous males of the group. Between researchers and research partners there may, in fact, be many ‘overlapping racial, socioeconomic, ethnic and other characteristics’ (O’Connor, 2004: 169) which will impact on the establishment, defi nition and ongoing negotiation of insider-ship within each specific research context. Being or becoming an insider or an outsider is neither predetermined nor categorical (Halliday, 1994; Matthiessen, 1996) – it is ‘conditional’, ‘multi-layered’ and ‘contingent’ in nature (O’Connor, 2004: 174–175). Indeed, qualitative researchers in cross-cultural tourism contexts are never simply insiders or outsiders but will continuously (re)negotiate this situated position. Data generation and collection: The conversation-interview modality

The fi nal component of the model of reflexive researcher positionalities (shown in Figure 6.3) is the conversation-interview modality. In the same way as the insider-outsider modality encouraged a range of positions or levels of negotiated insider-ship, the conversation-interview modality encourages researchers to adopt a diversity of positions between informal, ‘spontaneous conversations of daily life’ (Kvale, 1996: 20) through to more formal, semi-structured or structured in-depth interviews.

144

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

The co-constructed conversations to generate data evolve dependent on the continuing (re)negotiation of the degrees of access both to partners within the community and to the conversational spaces agreed within the research contexts. However, whichever of the range of positions is adopted, the conversation-interview modality emphasises the use of conversation as the foundation for data generation. As a method of interviewing, conversation creates a foundation of equality between participants in the co-created dialogue – juxtaposed against the traditional interview monologue. The conversation delivers the flexibility to engage all participants: to determine the nature, topic and duration of the discussion; to focus on raising and extending deep understanding of lived experiences, multiple realities and narratives as the core of the co-constructed knowledge (Brown et al., 2001; Kvale, 1996); and to engage in effective, active listening to encourage in-depth probing by the listener (Atkinson, 2002; Clandinin & Connelly, 1998). The process of conversation therefore, establishes a site to ensure that interactions between researcher and partner are ‘not so much to collect the facts, as it were, as to gather information that meaningfully frames the configuration and salience of those facts in the interviewee’s life’ (Gubrium & Holstein, 2002: 57). The conversation-interview modality is not static in nature. It is not a ‘one-shot’ approach (Charmaz, 2002: 318). The modality requires that narratives and themes are developed and explored through multiple conversations throughout the period of the study – from the initial exploration and design of the research through to well after the traditional writing up. Any (or all) of the range of spontaneous conversations through to in-depth, formal interviews of the conversation-interview modality may be engaged within each of the transitory, emergent or immersed reflexive researcher positionalities. This process develops numerous sites of data generation – seeking to ensure that the emerging story emphasises and reinforces the logic of reflexive qualitative research methods. The process is also collaborative and engages the simultaneous generation and interpretation of context-specific accounts (Fontana, 2002) of community lived experiences. This process of continuous conversations provides the means of continuous analysis and exploration of emerging concepts and themes – enabling the data to develop through thick, rich descriptions and allowing a strongly integrated theory to emerge. Case Study: Application of the Model to an Indigenous Tourism Research Context

The Dreamtime Cultural Centre in Central Queensland began operation in Australia’s bicentennial year, 1988 (Dreamtime Cultural Centre, 2010). After nearly three decades of operation, the enterprise has

Participant Observation in Cross-Cultural Tourism Research 145

grown to provide a range of services and facilities including: the original cultural tours that highlight local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories from the region; three different conference venues that provide full conference meeting facilities and cater for morning and afternoon teas and lunches; a 31-room motel complex incorporating a restaurant, pool and conference centre; a SkillShare Hospitality Training Centre to deliver training up to à la carte service; a visitor centre and kiosk; the Bimbi artefact shop; and an 80-seat theatrette. The research sought to investigate and understand the success factors for the Indigenous tourism enterprise from the perspectives and voices of Indigenous staff and management. My positioning in the research setting was framed initially by my obvious outsider status – located specifically as a non-Indigenous researcher in an Indigenous setting, and further positioned by not being part of the enterprise staff and also not being a tourist or other customer of the centre or the other business units. Throughout the study, I was typically located in an emergent partner positionality due to the midto long-term time frame and the reasonably frequent though intermittent access and contact that was maintained throughout the study. However, as demonstrated by the negotiated nature of the reflexive researcher positions, the level of access to, and acceptance by, individual staff and management personnel of the centre was particular to each specific relationship and also subject to change on a daily basis. For example, there were some staff with whom I spoke only once or twice in a transitory positionality. Other staff did not consent to become research partners at all and yet others I developed much deeper relationships in a more immersed frame. Through one of these relationships for example, I was invited to attend the annual Torres Strait Island festival celebrating the ‘Coming of the Light’, I occasionally had lunch or dinner with some staff away from the enterprise and I attended an elder staff member’s funeral. However, typically as an emergent research partner, socially and culturally an outsider to my research partners’ community, there were limitations on the levels and types of information that I could access. I also navigated a number of complex situations that arose through the research partnering relationships. This was in part due to my limited cultural understanding of processes and practices as an outsider that can only be understood and interpreted by living through and within the culture. My research partners

In line with the methodology, those staff members who agreed to share their lived experiences became partners in the research process. In broad terms, the staff members of the centre who agreed to speak as research partners for this study were from a wide variety of lived experiences and were employed across the range of operations throughout the centre.

146

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

In total, throughout the four years of collaboration and data collection, I spent many hours with more than half of the full-time, part-time and casual staff of the centre. Research partners included management staff, tour guides, Bimbi shop staff, kiosk, wait staff and conference staff, restaurant staff, grounds staff and motel staff. Layering informed consent

Initial consent to undertake the study was sought from both the general manager (head of the enterprise and Indigenous elder) and the fi nancial administrator (the deputy manager) as management of the enterprise and to provide critical Indigenous oversight for the project as research partners. Resulting from two initial meetings with management, a provisional, ‘fi rst line’ of consent was given for the study to proceed. Congruent with the research partnering design, I took an overt positionality – never invisible to staff members. At each initial contact with new staff members, I (re)introduced myself and explained my position and purpose. As my situatedness of ‘researcher’ in the setting was established, there was almost a pre-existing barrier to opening conversations between myself and staff. Staff were immediately reserved and guarded – though remained polite and courteous – as demonstrated by one encounter in my fi rst week in the field: [The staff member] said I could use their office (though I wasn’t entirely sure why I might need to do so) and then introduced me to [another staff member] who showed me briefly around the motel. We inspected a room and then went back to the main building. I think [the staff member] didn’t really know what to do with me (must admit, I didn’t really know what to do with myself for that matter). When we came back to the main building I spoke briefly to [the fi rst staff member] again before I was introduced to [another staff member] who apparently was ‘bored’ and needed someone to talk to. [That staff member] was in the process of preparing morning tea for a conference of about 15–20 people so, I surmised, not ‘bored’ at all. The staff were under the impression that I was there to evaluate their work performance – in [one staff member’s] words ‘so you are here to check up on me now’. I was almost being passed around like the proverbial ‘hot potato’. Eventually, I spoke at length to [two staff] and told them both clearly that while I had been introduced to ‘talk’, in fact, they did not have to talk to me at all. I had no interest in their work performance and I was not reporting to the General Manager on such. I stated that if they told me to go away then I would, no problem. Because I was in the position of ‘having to talk’ to [the staff members] (and vice versa) I had to state up-front who I was and what I was doing.

Participant Observation in Cross-Cultural Tourism Research 147

I found it quite stressful. I spoke to [the staff members] for a good 7–10 minutes each (separately) about the project, who I was and where I was coming from and why I was doing this – even including a brief discussion of my previous involvement with the start-up Indigenous enterprise that failed and why it had done so. The whole situation reminded me clearly of the advice another Indigenous friend (outside of the Centre) had given me previously in a different situation. They said to ‘make sure that before you begin “business” you sit down and have a cuppa. Tell [them] about yourself and make connections to start the relationship off right’. (Journal entry, 25.11.04)

This example from my reflexive journal shows the situated positioning of a non-Indigenous researcher in an Indigenous tourism enterprise context. Several processes were happening simultaneously, including: beginning the extended process of informed consent; questioning my own assumptions regarding the processes of doing research; reflexively examining, linking and ‘intertextually framing’ (MacLachlan & Reid, 1994) the situation with past experiences of Indigenous network contexts to better inform my own practices in the field; and negotiating my positionalities from within the research contexts, in partnership with staff. I found that while a similar level of introduction was required in many instances, for other staff members I had only to provide my situatedness as ‘student’, ‘researcher’ and ‘university staff member’. I also noticed that many staff accepted the ‘student’ and ‘university person’ identities (largely ignoring the ‘researcher’ positionality) and these positions remained moreor-less fi xed throughout the duration of the study. However, other staff continued to question my ‘researcher’ positionality – requiring a (re)telling of that story, adding greater depths of detail about: what I was researching and why; what other work I had done; where I was born and grew up; and what would be done in the future with information developed during the project. This ongoing activity actually constituted the (re)negotiation of an informed consent process that was far more extensive than any mandated by the ethical clearance guidelines of the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (2003, 2007) and university ethical clearance procedures. Using reflexivity and journaling as data generation sites

Reflexivity constituted the means of examining my own situatedness and that of my partners within the contexts of the setting and I combined this with conversation as the principal methods of data generation and interpretation. In the cross-cultural contexts of the tourism research site, formal interviewing processes were inappropriate and would not enable partners to voice their lived experiences (Hertz, 1997). The traditional

148

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

interview model of pre-designed questions and patriarchal relationships (Fontana, 2002) was inappropriate to Indigenous partners, their practices and processes and, therefore, the framework of the study. By using conversation as the launching point for the construction of narratives about practices and processes, I sought to build into the setting a reciprocity of recognition to support long-term relationships (Fontana & Frey, 2000). No staff agreed to formal, taped recordings of interviews or conversations. This was seen as potentially risky by partners, given the relatively small community in which the centre and its staff function. I therefore constructed a reflexive journal that consisted of taped recordings of my thoughts, impressions and conversations post the conversations with partners. Using the reflexively recorded impressions as a way of generating data meant that emphasis was not then placed on individual perspectives from staff members, but on the ‘meanings generated by people as they collectively generate descriptions and explanations’ (Gergen & Gergen, 1991: 78). I then transcribed those tapes and used memos, reflexive analysis and interpretation of, and interaction with, the conversational texts constructed through discussions with partners. Conversations as data: The ‘Hi! How’s it going?’ technique

When I fi rst started fieldwork at the centre, I approached the research site with just two questions in mind – ‘Is Dreamtime a successful enterprise from the perspective of the staff?’ and ‘Why?’. However, while from my perspective these questions seemed important, I found them neither significant nor relevant from the staffs’ perspectives. By the end of my fi rst week in the field: I guess I have summarised the research into a one sentence opener, ‘Why is Dreamtime a successful business’. Then I let them know that it’s a deceptively simple question because there are so many different perspectives. Every time I talk to another person I am trying to be careful to say the same thing and I’m not sure I’m doing it right or not. I’ve also had to talk about what I thought success included. The word ‘success’ has no real meaning or relevance for staff, so I fi nd myself talking about what somebody else has said. Certainly not mentioning names, but comparing what this person has been telling me with what somebody else was telling me. For example, saying ‘you know, somebody else was telling me the same thing that you’re telling me’. It seems that this comparison process gives us room for continuing the conversation, but I worry it may also be shaping their answers and thinking. So, I tried to narrow the questions I ask down to focus more specifically on them, on their own perceptions only and just give them the main topic of ‘Why do you think Dreamtime is a success?’. (Journal entry, 25.11.04)

Participant Observation in Cross-Cultural Tourism Research 149

While I ‘knew’ (based on all the research I had previously done on Indigenous research frameworks) that the positivist, traditional interview style of questioning was inappropriate, I did not know how to rewrite that position to align with the constructivist grounded theory approach from an emergent partner positionality. As shown in the above excerpt, I attempted to ‘adapt my approach’ and offer alternative ways of framing ‘success’. I alternated between broadening the conversation by using comparisons of different conversations to open new chains of discussions, to trying to narrow the focus to the individual perspective of the conversation in which I was currently engaged. I worried constantly if I was ‘doing it right’. However, initially I overlooked the obvious. Each and every individual conversation engendered new knowledge and developed a greater picture of the lived experiences of Indigenous staff and management, and ultimately, the success factors for the Indigenous tourism enterprise. I had not realised that my actual approach to ‘doing research’ was as simple as ‘Hi, how’s it going?’. The ‘Hi, how’s it going?’ technique, as it was later framed, thus began more by accident than design. The phrase (which arose from both my usage and staff usage) was included so often throughout the transcripts that I coded and analysed this as a conceptual category for ‘doing research’ as appropriate for this study. I found that this conversational technique largely fitted with Whyte’s (1984) conception of the early stages of contact and encompassed superficial activities such as ‘keeping in touch’ (Journal entry, 15.7.05) or ‘just talking about life’ or ‘talking about family’ (Journal entry, 29.11.04) or ‘just chatting’ (Journal entry, 9.12.05). These conversation elements then led to deeper discussions about other issues. The following journal entry provides my reflections on the ‘Hi, how’s it going?’ technique: Part of what I was talking about with the staff at [university] yesterday was this idea that what I actually did at Dreamtime was simply go there and say ‘Hi, how’s it going?’. From that, we would just have a conversation about whatever was on our minds on this particular day. For example, most often the discussions were about families which often led to talking about what worked at Dreamtime; or how many tourists were coming into the Centre; what sort of work load the staff had; who was at work and who wasn’t and why, etc. It is more like I have been simply ‘getting to know them’ for 12 months or more now… This is what makes up my field notes. Its field notes of the ‘Hi, how’s it going’ technique. (Journal entry, 2.12.05)

The ‘Hi, how’s it going?’ technique also developed space in the partnering relationships to establish respect and reciprocity as demonstrated in the following journal entry:

150

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

I’ve never been any more or less than I am every single time that I go there and I’ve never questioned [the staff’s] capacity to do [their] work in [their] jobs. Sometimes I may add a suggestion but it’s only ever within the context of the discussion and only when they actually ask me for an opinion. It’s always been just ‘Hi, how’s it going?’ I think that is a strength of the way I’ve been in this environment because that relationship was set up in the beginning and it’s never changed – I’ve never changed. The foundation of our relationship is that they are the professionals and they know what they’re talking about. I’m just a learner – just a student – and I’ve always only ever been in that role. I have never been in any kind of official ‘advisory’ role – at least not once everybody got used to me. (Journal entry, 2.12.05)

I found that Whyte’s (1984) concepts of other stages of information gathering were also apparent where, as he suggested, length of association with partners on a macro scale brought about greater depth of knowledge shared and created. However, I also found that this was true on a micro scale – within each individual conversation experience. I found also that even on both the macro and micro scales, when the conversation moved to more recognisably formalised questions (or specific questions about the business operations), partners also repositioned themselves from the spontaneous conversation style to a more formal response. Subsequent conversations with research partners continued to enrich and ‘densify’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1998: 201) categories and themes within the emergent theory. Further, while I had my questions, my research partners also had theirs and we conversed with an equal exchange of information. They often asked me about my family, holiday plans, ideas for marketing the centre (such as selling didgeridoos in the Bimbi shop) as I asked them questions about the same aspects. This exploration of lived experiences was a symmetrical give and take with research partners rather than the traditional interviewer– respondent dichotomy. This collaborative, partnering style (Heron, 1996) enabled each staff member to have continuous opportunity to impact the emergent research design. Partners directed the duration, locations and content of conversations as much as, and often more than, I did. I also regularly reminded my partners that if they were too busy or could not or did not want to talk for any reason, then they should simply say as much. In some cases, staff did take this option, though usually it was because they had specific work that needed to be completed. Throughout the four years of the fieldwork, I visited the centre on average around once every two to three weeks with much more frequent visits initially and becoming more sporadic towards the end of 2007 and throughout 2008. In total, I spoke with around two thirds of the staff at

Participant Observation in Cross-Cultural Tourism Research 151

the centre during that time, including staff who were permanent, casual or part-time and approaching new staff whenever there was an opportunity to do so. While all staff were invited to become research partners, some did not wish to do so (though of those most did not give substantive reasons; it was always their choice to become involved or otherwise). As identified by the model of research partner positionalities, a number of staff became a core group with whom I spoke most often and with whom I consider I had a much deeper, emergent or immersed reflexive research partnership while others spoke to me only occasionally providing more transitory partnerships. Conclusion

Based on the fieldwork processes and practices that were developed and implemented in consultation with Indigenous community participants, the study identified a new model of reflexive research partnering for crosscultural tourism research. While specifically developed within the contexts of an Indigenous tourism research setting, it is believed that effective research partnering is applicable to a wide variety of qualitative research paradigms and contexts. As a non-Indigenous person within an Australian Indigenous research context, conducting research required me to confront, examine and interrogate my understanding of, and the historical development and use of, traditional participant-observation techniques, interviewing techniques and the use of reflexivity as key components of my research praxis. The data generated and interpreted from the study was principally co-created through my positionality of emergent reflexive research partner. I developed this positionality (along with the immersed and transitory reflexive research partner positionalities) through synergising Indigenous research protocols and responsibilities with Western development of participant-observation research designs. The result was a clear distinction between the previous concepts of participant-observer and naturalistic member inquiry research roles and my development of the research partner positionalities. The transitory, emergent and immersed reflexive partner positionalities draw the researcher’s attention to the idea that the traditional researcher roles cast the researcher in a position of playing a character within the research setting. This has the potential to allow for the invisibility of the researchers themselves, their authorship and implicit acceptance of the inherent power imbalance within research. I generated and adopted a reflexive research partnering design to ensure that I was located within the cross-cultural tourism contexts of my partners – co-creating shared meanings through shared experiences.

152

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

References Adler, P.A. and Adler, P. (1987) Membership Roles in Field Research (vol. 6). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Adler, P.A. and Adler, P. (1998) Observational techniques. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials (pp. 79–109). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Agar, M.H. (1980) The Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction to Ethnography. New York: Academic Press. Albaum, G. and Baker, K. (2010) The Imposed Etic in Survey Research: Fact or Fallacy? Paper presented at the 9th International Business and Economy Conference, 7–10 January, 2010, Prague, Czech Republic. Arber, R. (2000) Defi ning positioning within politics of difference: Negotiating spaces ‘in between’. Race, Ethnicity and Education 3 (1), 45–63. Arbour, L. and Cook, D. (2006) DNA on loan: Issues to consider when carrying out genetic research with Aboriginal families and communities. Community Genetics 9, 153–160. Atkinson, J. (2002) Trauma Trails Recreating Song Lines: The Transgenerational Effects of Trauma in Indigenous Australia. Melbourne: Spinifex Press Pty Ltd. Baker, L.M. (2008) Observation: A complex research method. See http://www. thefreelibrary.com/Observation%3A+a+complex+research+method-a0151440811 (accessed 9 February 2005). Bassendowski, S., Petrucka, P., Smadu, M., Redman, C.R. and Bourassa, C. (2006) Relationship building for research: The Southern Saskatchewan/urban Aboriginal health coalition. Contemporary Nurse 22 (2), 267–274. Battiste, M., Bell, L. and Findlay, L.M. (2002) Decolonizing education in Canadian universities: An interdisciplinary, international, Indigenous research project. Canadian Journal of Native Education 26 (2), 82–95. Bell, D. (1981) Women’s business is hard work: Central Australian Aboriginal women’s love rituals. Signs 7 (2), 314–337. Bell, D. (1998) Ngarrindjeri WurruWarrin: A World that Is, Was, and Will Be. North Melbourne: Spinifex Press Pty Ltd. Bell, D. (2002) Daughters of the Dreaming (3rd edn). Melbourne: Spinifex Press. Bernal, D.D. (1998) Using a Chicana feminist epistemology in educational research. Harvard Educational Review 68 (4), 555–579. Blumer, M. (1982) When is disguise justified? Alternatives to covert participant observation. Human Sciences Press 5 (4), 251–264. Bogart, L.M. and Uyeda, K. (2009) Community-based participatory research: Partnering with communities for effective and sustainable behavioural health interventions. Journal of Health Psychology 28 (4), 391–393. Brady, W. (1992) Indigenous control of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research. Paper presented at the Aboriginal Studies Association Conference. Brakefield-Caldwell, W. and Parker, E. (2000) Successful models combining intervention and basic research in the context of community-based participatory research. Successful models of community-based participatory research: Final report. See http://www.hud. gov/offices/lead/library/hhts/NIEHS_Successful_Models.pdf (accessed 9 February 2005). Bray, J.N., Lee, J., Smith, L.L. and Yorks, L. (2000) Collaborative Inquiry in Practice: Action, Refl ection, and Meaning Making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Brown, A., Brands, J., White, E., Ragg, L., Duffy, M., Walton, S., Franks, C. and Dunbar, T. (2001) Research partnerships: Yarning about research with Indigenous peoples. See http://www.lowitja.org.au/sites/default/fi les/docs/Research_Partnerships.pdf. Burgess, R.G. (1982) Some role problems in field research. In R.G. Burgess (ed.) Field Research: A Sourcebook and Field Manual (pp. 45–49). London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

Participant Observation in Cross-Cultural Tourism Research 153

Caldwell, J.Y., Davis, J.D., Du Bois, B., Echo-Hawk, H., Erickson, J.S., Goins, R.T., Hill, C., Hillabrant, W., Johnson, S.R., Johnson, S.R., Kendall, E., Keemer, K., Manson, S.M., Marshall, C.A., Running Wolf, P., Santiago, R.L., Schacht, R. and Stone, J.B. (2005) Culturally competent research with American Indians and Alaska Natives: Findings and recommendations of the fi rst symposium of the work group on American Indian research and program evaluation methodology. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research: The Journal of the National Centre 12 (1), 1–21. Chacko, E. (2004) Positionality and praxis: Fieldwork experiences in rural India. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 25 (1), 51–63. Charmaz, K. (2002) Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J.F. Gubrium and J.A. Holstein (eds) Handbook of Interview Research: Context & Method (pp. 675–694). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Chugh, P. (2015) A holistic approach to accountability: Measuring outcomes of economic development funding in northern Canadian Aboriginal communities. PhD thesis, Rockhampton, Australia. Ciborra, C. (2005) Getting to the Heart of the Situation: The Phenomenological Roots of Situatedness. Paper presented at the Interaction Design Institute Ivrea, Symposium 2005, Ivrea, Italy. Clandinin, D.J. and Connelly, F.M. (1998) Personal experience methods. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials (pp. 150–178). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Clough, P.T. (1992) The End(s) of Ethnography: From Realism to Social Criticism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Cochran, P.A.L., Marshall, C.A., Garcia-Downing, C., Kendall, E., Cook, D., McCubbin, L. and Gover, R.M.S. (2008) Indigenous ways of knowing: Implications for participatory research and community. American Journal of Public Health 98 (1), 22–27. Cushing, F.H. (1979) In J. Green (ed.) Zuni: Selected Writings of Frank Hamilton Cushing. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Daley, C.M., James, A.S., Ulrey, E., Joseph, S., Talawyma, A., Choi, W.S., Greiner, K. and Coe, M.K. (2010) Using focus groups in community-based participatory research: Challenges and resolutions. Qualitative Health Research 20 (5), 697–706. Dawson, A. (2010) Positionality and role-identity in a new religious context: Participant observation at Ceu do Mapia. Religion 40, 173–181. Degerando, J.M. (2007) The observation of savage peoples. In A.C.G.M. Robben and J.A. Sulka (eds) Ethnographic Fieldwork: An Anthropological Reader (pp. 33–39). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Denzin, N.K. (1971) The logic of naturalistic inquiry. Social Forces 50 (2), 166–182. Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2000) The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd edn; pp. 1–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. DeWalt, K.M. and DeWalt, B.R. (2002) Participant Observation: A Guide for Fieldworkers. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Diaz, F. (2005) Participant observation as a tool for understanding the field of safety and security: Or how I learned the ethnographic approach in an attempt to encompass the complexity of social situations. Champ pénal/Penal Field Nouvelle Revue Internationale de Criminologie [En ligne] 2 (14), 2–20. Dodson, M. (2000) Human genetics: Control of research and sharing of benefits. Australian Aboriginal Studies 2000 (1 & 2), 56–64. Dreamtime Cultural Centre (2010) Nature and history of the Dreamtime Cultural Centre. See https://www.dreamtimecentre.com.au/. Du Bois, B. (1983) Passionate scholarship: Notes on values, knowing and method in feminist social science. In G. Bowles and R.D. Klein (eds) Theories of Women’s Studies (pp. 105–116). Boston, MA: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

154

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Eikeland, O. (2006) Condescending ethics and action research. Action Research 4 (1), 37–47. Ellis, C. and Martyn-Ellis, J. (1994) The sung world of Aboriginal and Islander women. In S. Hawthorne and R. Klein (eds) Australia for Women: Travel and Culture (pp. 163–172). North Melbourne: Spinifex Press. Episkenew, J.A. and Wheeler, W. (2002) A brief to propose a national Indigenous research agenda. See http://caid.ca/NatIndResAge2002.pdf (accessed 20 October 2017). Ermine, W., Sinclair, R. and Jeffery, B. (2004) The ethics of research involving Indigenous peoples – Report of the Indigenous Peoples’ Health Research Centre to the Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics. Retrieved from Saskatoon, SK. Eversole, R. and Routh, R. (2005) Collaborative research as an anti-poverty tool: A research partnership between police and Indigenous Australians. Development in Practice 15 (5), 631–642. Fine, M., Weis, L., Weseen, S. and Wong, L. (2000) For whom? Qualitative research, representations, and social responsibilities. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 107–131). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Fitzgerald, T. (2004) Powerful voices and powerful stories: Reflections on the challenges and dynamics of intercultural research. Journal of Intercultural Studies 25 (3), 233–245. Foley, D. (2000) Indigenous research, differing value systems. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education 28 (1), 17–30. Foley, D. (2003) An examination of Indigenous Australian entrepreneurs. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 8 (2), 133–151. Fontana, A. (2002) Postmodern trends in interviewing. In J.F. Gubrium and J.A. Holstein (eds) Handbook of Interview Research: Context & Method (pp. 161–175). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Fontana, A. and Frey, J.H. (1998) Interviewing: The art of science. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials (pp. 47–78). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Fontana, A. and Frey, J.H. (2000) The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd edn; pp. 645–672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Franks, M. (2002) Feminisms and cross-ideological feminist social research: Standpoint, situatedness and positionality – developing cross-ideological feminist research. Journal of International Women’s Studies 3 (2), 40–53. Freilich, M. (1970) Marginal Natives: Anthropologists at Work. New York: Harper & Row. Garfi nkel, H. (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Gergen, K.J. and Gergen, M.M. (1991) Toward reflexive methodologies. In F. Steier (ed.) Research and Refl exivity (pp. 76–95). London: Sage Publications. Gold, R.L. (1958) Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces 36 (3), 217–223. Gubrium, J.F. and Holstein, J.A. (eds) (2002) Handbook of Interview Research: Context & Method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hall, C.M. (1997) Tourism in the Pacifi c Rim: Developments, Impacts and Markets (2nd edn). South Melbourne: Longman. Halliday, M.A.K. (1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd edn). London: Edward Arnold. Haraway, D.J. (1991) Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge. Harding, S. (1991) Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Milton Keyes: Open University Press. Herod, A. (1999) Reflections on interviewing foreign elites: Praxis, positionality, validity, and the cult of the insider. Geoforum 30 (4), 313–327.

Participant Observation in Cross-Cultural Tourism Research 155

Heron, J. (1996) Co-Operative Inquiry: Research Into the Human Condition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hertz, R. (ed.) (1997) Refl exivity and Voice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hirschauer, S. (1994) Towards a methodology of investigations into the strangeness of one’s own culture: A response to Collins. Social Studies of Science 24 (2), 335–346. Janke, T. (2009) Writing Up Indigenous Research: Authorship, Copyright and Indigenous Knowledge Systems. Sydney: Terri Janke. Jorgensen, D.L. (1989) Participant Observation: A Methodology for Human Studies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Junker, B.H. (1952) Some suggestions for the design of field work learning experiences. In C.E. Hughes (ed.) Cases on Field Work (pp. III–A). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Junker, B.H. (1960) Field Work: An Introduction to the Social Sciences. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kingsley, J.Y., Phillips, R., Townsend, M. and Henderson-Wilson, C. (2010) Using a qualitative approach to research to build trust between a non-Aboriginal researcher and Aboriginal participants (Australia). Qualitative Research 10 (1), 2–12. Koch, T. and Harrington, A. (1998) Reconceptualizing rigour: The case for reflexivity. Journal of Advanced Nursing 28 (4), 882–890. Kvale, S. (1996) Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Lindlof, T.R. and Taylor, B.C. (2002) Qualitative Communication Research Methods (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lindquist, J. (2002) A Place to Stand: Politics and Persuasion in a Working-Class Bar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. MacLachlan, G.L. and Reid, I.W. (1994) Framing and Interpretation. Carlton, VIC: Melbourne University Press. Martin, K. (2003) Ways of knowing, being and doing: A theoretical framework and methods for Indigenous and Indigenist re-search. Journal of Australian Studies 76, 203–214. Martinez, D.E. (2005) Rich Data Through Humility, Generosity and Respect: Native Scholarship Principles in Interviewing and Participant Observations. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, 12 August. Philadelphia, PA. Matthiessen, C. (1996) Tense in English seen through systemic-functional theory. In M. Berry, C. Butler, R. Fawcett and G. Huang (eds) Meaning and Form: Systemic Functional Interpretations: Meaning and Choice in Language: Studies for Michael Halliday (vol. LVII; pp. 431–498). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Merriam, S.B., Johnson-Bailey, J., Lee, M.-Y., Kee, Y., Ntseane, G. and Muhamad, M. (2001) Power and positionality: Negotiating insider/outsider status within and across cultures. International Journal of Lifelong Education 20 (5), 405–416. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd edn). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications. Moreton-Robinson, A. (2000) Talkin’ Up to the White Women: Indigenous Women and Feminism. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press. Moreton-Robinson, A. (2003) Researching whiteness: Some reflections from an Indigenous woman’s standpoint. Hecate 29 (2), 72–85. Mruck, K. and Mey, G. (2007) Grounded theory and reflexivity. In A. Bryant and K. Charmaz (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory (pp. 515–538). London: Sage Publications. Nakata, M. (1998) Anthropological texts and Indigenous standpoints. Australian Aboriginal Studies 2, 3–12.

156

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia). (2003). Values and ethics: Guidelines for ethical conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research. The Council. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/e52 (accessed 20 October 2017). National Health and Medical Research Council (2007) National statement on ethical conduct in human research. See http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/ e72syn.htm (accessed 11 February 2007). Neuman, W.L. (2000) Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (4th edn). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. O’Connor, P. (2004) The conditionality of status: Experience-based reflections on the insider/outsider issue. Australian Geographer 35 (2), 169–176. Pillow, W.S. (2003) Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. Qualitative Studies in Education 16 (2), 175–196. Power, K. (2004) Yarning: A responsive research methodology. Journal of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education 11 (1), 37–46. Radel, K. (2010) The Dreamtime Cultural Centre: A grounded theory of doing business in an Indigenous tourism enterprise. Doctoral dissertation, Central Queensland University. Richards, R. (2008) Writing the othered self: Autoethnography and the problem of objectification in writing about illness and disability. Qualitative Health Research 18 (12), 1717–1728. Rigney, L.-I. (1999) Internationalization of an Indigenous anticolonial cultural critique of research methodologies: A guide to Indigenist research methodology and its principles. Journal for Native American Studies, Wicazo SA Review 14 (2 Fall Edition), 109–113. Rigney, L.-I. (2003) The First Perspective: Culturally Safe Research Practices On or with Indigenous Peoples. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual Chacmool Conference – Indigenous people and archaeology: Honoring the past, discussing the present, building for the future, Alberta, Canada. Rossman, G.B. and Rallis, S.F. (1998) Learning In the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Sandelowski, M. (2000) Focus on research methods: Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health 23, 334–340. Schwartz, M.S. and Schwartz, C.G. (1955) Problems in participant observation. American Journal of Sociology LX (4), 343–353. Smith, L.T. (1999) Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books Ltd. Spradley, J.P. (1980) Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Suchman, L.A. (2007) Human–Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tedlock, B. (2000) Ethnography and ethnographic representation. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 455–486). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Ten Fingers, K. (2005) Rejecting, revitalizing, and reclaiming: First Nations work to set the direction of research and policy development. Canadian Journal of Public Health 96 (1), S60–S63. Whitebeach, T. (1994) Will the real Tasmanian Aborigines please stand up? In S. Hawthorne and R. Klein (eds) Australia for Women: Travel and Culture (pp. 392–399). North Melbourne: Spinifex Press. Whyte, W.F. (1984) Learning From the Field: A Guide From Experience. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

7 Aligning Western and Indigenous Ways of Doing Tourism Research: A Constructivist Grounded Theory Approach Kylie Radel

Extensive scientific research has been conducted on, for and/or with Indigenous peoples globally, across a wide variety of disciplines. Often, the results of these projects have delivered few apparent positive outcomes or benefits for the Indigenous populations concerned (Cochran et al., 2008; Dodson, 2000; Episkenew & Wheeler, 2002; Marshall & Kendall, 2005). Such examination of Indigenous peoples has been conducted by early explorers and anthropologists, medical practitioners, academics and even ‘travellers and voyeurs’, all of whom have tended to observe Indigenous communities and peoples ‘from a distance’ (Rigney, 1999: 109). As Rigney (1999) noted, [t]he research enterprise as a vehicle for investigation has poked, prodded, measured, tested and compared data toward understanding Indigenous cultures and human nature. (Rigney, 1999: 109)

Arguably, Indigenous peoples globally, constitute some of the most frequently studied communities in the world (Fejo-King, 2007; Rigney, 1999; Smith, 1999). Much of the early research was underpinned by positivist and post-positivist epistemologies emerging from the foundation of European (Western) theoretical perspectives and their associated standpoints (Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, 1998). Both Indigenous and non-Indigenous authors, however, have argued that the founding concepts of research in sciences and humanities resulting from these European culturocentric epistemologies may be essentially racially prejudiced (Battiste et al., 2002; Brady, 1992; Gordon et al., 1990; Moreton-Robinson, 2000; Rigney, 1999; Scheurich, 1997; Smith, 1999). As

157

158

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Foley (2000: 17) indicated, ‘Western researchers, by their epistemological application, view Indigenous values from within a structured ethnocentric model’. However, more recently, many authors have challenged these paradigm positions (see, for example, Boutain, 2008; Brady, 1992, 1997; Henry & Pene, 2001; Seuffert, 1997; Smith, 1999). Evans et al. (2009) for example, denounced such perspectives suggesting that Indigenous research methodologies should reject, …research on [I]ndigenous communities that use exclusively positivistic, reductionist, and objectivist research rationales as irrelevant at best, colonialist most of the time, and demonstrably pernicious as a matter of course. (Evans et al., 2009: 894)

It has been assumed that positivist and post-positivist paradigms through their association with science and the scientific method, enabled researchers to produce results uncorrupted by human bias or interference – reality is observable without the intrusion of the researcher. However, as Du Bois (1983: 105) pointed out, ‘[s]cience is not “value-free”; it cannot be. Science is made by scientists, and both we and our science-making are shaped by our culture’. Research is a social phenomenon (Scheurich, 1997) that is interpreted and assigned value through cultural identities and social histories. Findings, methods and the epistemological perspectives from research conducted within social contexts, other than the accepted histories, may be viewed as invalid or illegitimate within the mainstream research community. As Foley (2003b: 44) noted, the production of science has enabled the construction of an ‘Indigenous reality’ that has little or ‘no Indigenous input, in a language that is non-Indigenous, by and for a nonIndigenous audience’. For Indigenous communities, the repercussions of a European cultural standpoint underpinning the practices and processes of research represent a potential epistemological racism (Gordon et al., 1990; Hunter, 2002; Rigney, 2001; Scheurich, 1997; Stanfield II, 1994). While the majority of highly unethical or risky research has ceased (Cochran et al., 2008), inappropriate and culturally insensitive research continues to be practised. Largely due to unacceptable research designs and unsuitable methodologies, research processes and practices have failed to meet the needs, customs, traditions, beliefs and desired outcomes of Indigenous communities and peoples (Dodson, 2000). The study on which this chapter is based, developed a constructivist grounded theory of the key success factors of an Indigenous tourism enterprise in an Australian tourism context. As a non-Indigenous researcher working in an Indigenous tourism setting, I was deeply aware of the need to ensure my research explicitly demonstrated the principles

Aligning Western and Indigenous Ways of Doing Tourism Research 159

and protocols of Indigenous research methodologies. The purpose of this chapter is to elaborate on the development and application of an Indigenous Research Framework that was synthesised from the extant literature and the resulting alignment of the constructivist–interpretive paradigm and the grounded theory method with this framework. My research design was guided by the constructivist–interpretive paradigm to develop knowledge framed from within the interests, experiences and cultural mores of ‘Indigenous research partners’.1 The following sections develop this argument through the further contextualisation of epistemologies and methodologies that have been applied to Indigenous research in the past, and a subsequent critique of current views of Indigenous research methodologies. Finally, I provide a summation aligning Indigenous and Western epistemologies and methodologies through a discussion of the constructivist–interpretive paradigm and my epistemological, ontological and axiological standpoints. Indigenous Epistemologies, Ontologies and Axiologies: The Natures of Knowing, Being and Values

In response to the application of culturocentric perspectives and the resulting negative outcomes for Indigenous communities, Indigenous researchers globally have, …called for the transformation of Western science and its applications to more progressive kinds of knowledge seeking methods. (Rigney, 2001: 7)

Researchers in Indigenous cultural contexts have begun to develop epistemologies and methodologies that centralise Indigenous peoples and their experiences rather than viewing the participants from an objectivist gaze. As Rigney (1999) noted: Indigenous people have the right to expect to be written clearly and affirmatively into research by appropriate methodologies. Therefore, the Indigenous context of knowledge production and research methodologies is about countering racism in, and including Indigenous knowledges and experiences for, Indigenous emancipation. … What is clear is that there must be a process of de-racialisation and de-colonisation of these issues if cultural freedom is to be achieved in the lives of Indigenous people. What must be emphasised here is that from an Indigenous perspective, my peoples’ interests, experiences and knowledges must be at the centre of research methodologies and the construction of knowledge about us. (Rigney, 1999: 119)

Indigenous methodologies tend to frame and situate the Indigenous experiences as central to the research – from its initial design and

160

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

development, through data collection, interpretation and conclusions and through to the outcomes, benefits and knowledge transfer. As Evans et al. (2009: 894) suggested, instead of ‘framing Indigenous worldview from a distance’, Indigenous methodology ‘situates and is reflected on by research/researchers at the location most relevant to that being gazed on, the [I]ndigenous experience’. Indigenous ways of knowing

Conducting research through Indigenous methodologies has moved research communities and outcomes towards establishing greater diversity in knowledge and preserving Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing (Chugh, 2015; Fejo-King, 2007; Foley, 2003a; Henry & Pene, 2001; Kingsley et al., 2010; Moreton-Robinson, 2000; Radel, 2010; Rigney, 1999, 2001; Smith, 1999). Through developing and incorporating liberationist, emancipatory, critical and constructivist epistemologies and using methodologies that encompass collaboration and partnerships, Indigenous research contexts and designs have become much more grounded, …within matters pertaining to the protection and preservation of our country and its Entities and the protection and preservation of our Ways of Knowing, Ways of Being and Ways of Doing. (Martin, 2003: 211)

Many of the emancipatory and decolonising perspectives have been adapted from the key theoretical framework of critical theory and have been further informed by the situatedness constructs explored through insider–outsider theory. These theoretical underpinnings offer essential qualities for Indigenous research in large part due to their capacities to recognise, interpret and give voice to ‘more than just one worldview’ (Foley, 2003b: 45). Essentially a ‘meta-theoretical framework’ (Getty, 2009: 10), critical theory provides the basis for a number of epistemologies including feminism and post-colonialism (Carpenter & McMurchy-Pilkington, 2008; Getty, 2009; Kincheloe & McLaren, 2000), and has contributed to emergent Indigenous research perspectives (Grande, 2000; Rigney, 2001; Smith, 1999). Developed from classical Marxism (Getty, 2009), the critical theorist ontology assumes that reality is a series of structures which have been made real through ‘social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic and gender values crystallized over time’ (Lincoln & Guba, 2000: 168). Critical theory describes, interprets and decodes the actions and symbols of society in order to expose the hidden, legitimising structures through which social groups may be repressed (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2000; LadsonBillings, 2000; Seiler, 2004). Critical theory, therefore, seeks to identify the mechanisms of social oppression and then to develop a framework

Aligning Western and Indigenous Ways of Doing Tourism Research 161

encouraging communities to overcome that oppression (Carpenter & McMurchy-Pilkington, 2008; Kincheloe & McLaren, 2000). Such emancipationist underpinnings form the framework for Indigenous critical theoretical perspectives which support the position that Indigenous peoples are survivors of their colonial past rather than victims (Getty, 2009; Rigney, 1999). The Indigenous critical theory rationale is further characterised by three central principles of ‘resistance’ to oppression: the emancipatory obligation of research and researchers; ‘political integrity’ through research undertaken by Indigenous researchers for the primary benefit of Indigenous peoples; and ‘privileging Indigenous voices in research’ through focusing on lived experiences, traditions, interests, aspirations and ideas of Indigenous peoples (Rigney, 1999: 116–117). Researchers in Indigenous contexts need to adopt culturally safe (Rigney, 2003; Smith, 1999) processes and practices with the all-embracing goal of self-determination for Indigenous peoples. Building on this critical theory foundation, and particularly considering the implications of challenges for research that is framed through resistance to oppression, demonstrates political integrity, and employs appropriate privilege for Indigenous voices; in order for researchers to engage with Indigenous research contexts, they need to interrogate and interpret their positionality in the field. Researchers develop and practice self-reflexivity to be able to discover, comprehend and give voice to the life histories and lived experiences of their research participants. In this space, a great deal of discussion informing the approaches to and perspectives on Indigenous methodology is concentrated around insider–outsider theory. Qualitative researchers engaging in field-based research will often hold the position of outsider – the researcher is outside of the study group due to social or cultural contexts, status, power or privilege, education level, research expertise or any of a wide range of other characteristics (Kerstetter, 2012). However, effective and appropriate qualitative research in Indigenous communities requires researchers to reflect upon traditional inclusion and exclusion doctrine in order to create reciprocity and democratise the research design, implementation and outcomes through engaging with insider–outsider theory (Huggins, 1991; Kerstetter, 2012; Merton, 1972, 1996; Moreton-Robinson, 2000; Smith, 1999). Insider–outsider theory essentially explores the ideas and confl icts for researchers who are either within the sociocultural group (Insiders) or not from the sociocultural group (Outsiders) for the communities with whom they are conducting research (Kerstetter, 2012; Merton, 1972). There are opposing arguments for the benefits and challenges for each positionality within the field. For example, the Insider doctrine would argue that ‘the Outsider has a structurally imposed incapacity to comprehend alien groups, status, cultures and societies’ (Merton, 1972: 15). Insider researchers are considered to be better equipped and situated to gather thick, rich data from

162

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

within the groups for which they hold membership and close relationships (Kerstetter, 2012). Alternatively, the Outsider doctrine suggests that outsider researchers may be valued in research contexts for their capacity to study communities ‘as neutral, detached observers’ (Kerstetter, 2012: 100). The Outsider, due expressly to his/her non-alignment with a particular Insider class, status or political affi liations, may well be ‘able to bring needed perspectives’ (Merton, 1972: 35) to the ‘wicked problem’ (Conklin, 2006: 7). While the ‘Insider argues that the authentic understanding of group life can be achieved only by those who are directly engaged as members in the life of the group’ (Merton, 1972: 32). Merton’s (1996) analysis suggested that only through continued involvement with and socialisation through the group, can a researcher ever truly comprehend and share the meanings of the behaviours and experiences of the social life of the group. However, the extremes of the insider–outsider positionalities and their associated theoretical perspectives are tempered somewhat by the complexity and diversity of Indigenous societies where, for example, as Foley (2000) noted, [i]n effect, Indigenous researchers, through our culturally complex backgrounds are often outsiders within an insider methodology. (Foley, 2000: 21)

Smith (1999: 137) clarified that the more extreme insider perspective is problematic due to there being ‘multiple ways of both being an insider and an outsider in Indigenous contexts’. In such cases, Indigenous researchers face various challenges in negotiating their multiple roles as community members and as researchers (Jacobs-Huey, 2002). To acknowledge and reconcile this multiplicity, Smith (1999) suggested that, [t]he critical issue with insider research is the constant need for reflexivity. At a general level insider researchers have to have ways of thinking critically about their processes, their relationships and the quality and richness of their data and analysis. So too do outsiders, but the major difference is that insiders have to live with the consequences of their processes on a day-to-day basis for ever more, and so do their families and communities. (Smith, 1999: 137)

Combining elements from both the Indigenous critical theory and insider–outsider perspectives, as well as considering other contemporary Indigenous approaches to knowledge, Foley (2000, 2003b, 2005) proposed an Indigenous standpoint theory that is ‘flexible and applicable for numerous Indigenous if not all Indigenous nations’ (Foley, 2003b: 50). The Indigenous standpoint theory covers many of the points previously made and further detailed that: (1) the researcher should be of Indigenous

Aligning Western and Indigenous Ways of Doing Tourism Research 163

descent where possible; (2) the researcher’s axiology and epistemological standpoint is essentially emancipatory and not simply a regurgitation of current Western discourses; and (3) the research outcomes are principally for the benefit of the researchers’ community and the wider Indigenous community (Foley, 2000, 2003b, 2005). Foley (2003b: 50) further argued that the researcher be ‘well versed in social theory, critical sociology, post-structuralism and post-modernism’ among other such academic perspectives, to ensure that he/she was aware of the limitations and potential for distortion of the prevailing paradigms and thereby reflexively interrogate the potential to compromise the fi ndings. Foley (2003b: 50) also advocated that ‘wherever possible the traditional language should be the fi rst form of recording’ of knowledge. This approach is customary of oral traditions to preserve and retain Indigenous knowledge from the Indigenous voice. Indigenous ways of being

Getty (2009), Martin (2003) and Moreton-Robinson (2000) (see also Evans et al., 2009; Foley, 2003b; Greer & Patel, 2000; Henry & Pene, 2001; Simon, 2002; West, 2000; among others) highlighted that Indigenous research methodologies emphasise ‘the relational nature of our worlds and lives’ where ‘[t]his relatedness is core and permeates every aspect of every procedure of the research’ (Martin, 2003: 211). As such, a relational ontology has been considered appropriate for Indigenous research contexts depending on locally specific contexts and consultation with the Indigenous community members directly involved in the process. Atkinson (2002), Ermine et al. (2004), Foley (2003b) and Fredericks (2007) quantified the relational ontology in terms of a sense of community. In broad terms, [t]he term ‘Community’ will be used to refer to the system of relationships within Indigenous societies in which the nature of person-hood is identified. This system of relationships not only includes family, but also extends to comprise the relationships of human, ecological and spiritual origin. Community is a structure of support mechanisms that include the personal responsibility for the collective and reciprocally, the collective concern for individual existence. (Ermine et al., 2004: 5)

Atkinson (2002) suggested that an approach to methodology and ontology that considers the unique characteristics of ‘community’ may be informed by the concepts of Dadirri, which are to develop, …a knowledge and consideration of community and the diversity and unique nature that each individual brings to community; ways of relating and acting within community; a non-intrusive observation, or quietly

164

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

aware watching; a deep listening and hearing with more than the ears; a reflective non-judgemental consideration of what is being seen and heard; and, having learnt from the listening, a purposeful plan to act, with actions informed by learning wisdom, and the informed responsibility that comes with knowledge. (Atkinson, 2002: 16)

Essentially, Atkinson (2002: 16) indicated that Dadirri (the concept of ‘inner deep listening’) has a number of central values. The appreciation of community acknowledges and interprets the diversity within each community by connecting the stories of each individual in relation to all others. Secondly, Dadirri recognises the necessity for reciprocity which accepts the ‘responsibilities that come with knowing and living dadirri’ (Atkinson, 2002: 17) through shared experiences and knowledge between researchers and partners. Indigenous research methodologies are underpinned by community obligation, responsibility and accountability which further underscores the shared relational ontologies (Ford, 2005; Moreton-Robinson, 2003). Finally, the principle of ‘deep listening’ introduces the responsibility of the researcher to ‘get the story – the information – right’ (Atkinson, 2002: 18)! As Atkinson (2002) suggested, [t]he result of dadirri’s profound, non-judgemental watching and listening is insight and recognition of the responsibility to act with fidelity in relationship to what has been heard, observed and learnt. (Atkinson, 2002: 17)

The values of community, reciprocity and responsibility within a relational ontology further inform and are commensurate with Indigenous epistemological standpoints identified previously. The relational ontology provides that the researcher is able to: …know and acknowledge their own value judgements, and understand the beliefs, influences, assumptions and intrusions, the decisions and choices that come from their past and are active in the present in the day-to-day activities of relating in the research. (Atkinson, 2002: 18) Indigenous values, agendas and protocols

Moving forward from the past experiences of inappropriate research within Indigenous contexts and communities, it is clear that how and why we develop and design research are crucial to meeting the needs of Indigenous communities. Indigenous research agendas are realised through methodologies and protocols for research that provide alternative ways of conceptualising and practicing research (Louis, 2006) and contribute

Aligning Western and Indigenous Ways of Doing Tourism Research 165

locally relevant models and theories with the potential for global impact (Meyer, 2006). Indigenous methodologies regard cultural protocols, practices, customs and beliefs as integral to appropriate research design and processes: [t]hey are factors to be built in to research explicitly, to be thought about reflexively, to be declared openly as part of the research design, to be discussed as part of the fi nal results of a study and to be disseminated back to the people in culturally appropriate ways and in a language that can be understood. (Smith, 1999: 15)

Western methodologies need to respect, describe and incorporate Indigenous agendas and protocols for research in their formulation of the research problem, development and application of appropriate research methods, and analysis and reporting of outcomes and benefits. Smith (1999: 116) further identified four primary themes or requirements underpinning Indigenous research agendas and protocols including ‘survival, recovery, development and self-determination’. These four themes integrate and interconnect with the Indigenous epistemological standpoints and feature a wide range of motivations for research including: (1) the survival of the community, peoples, languages and spiritual practices; (2) the recovery of rights, histories and territories; (3) the need to understand and provide opportunities for economic, social and political development for communities and peoples (Bennett, 2005; Ermine et al., 2004; Hart, 2007; Jung, 2003; Louis, 2006; Rigney, 2001; Smith, 1999); and (4) the building of Indigenous research communities (Fejo-King, 2007; Nakata, 2004). These Indigenous research communities ultimately seek to, …preserve or restore or develop [Indigenous]… knowledge and practice but also to build new, productive knowledge that will change relationships, practices, understandings, attitudes and beliefs on both sides of the divide. (Nakata, 2004: 2)

Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers globally have sought to privilege, preserve and restore Indigenous knowledge and advance the central tenets that research in and for Indigenous communities should promote ‘healing’, ‘mobilization’, ‘decolonization’ and ‘transformation’ for Indigenous peoples (Smith, 1999: 116–117) with the overarching goal of self-determination. The political and social landscape of decolonisation, transformation, empowerment and self-determination in Indigenous research requires that academia itself ‘becomes a vehicle for Indigenous recovery’ (Moses, 2010: 19).

166

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

With this in mind, in the Australian context, recognition for Indigenous agendas and protocols for research has brought significant change through research governing bodies at the national as well as local levels. The Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC], 2003, 2015) distinguishes and integrates six core values for research with Indigenous individuals and communities including: ‘reciprocity’; ‘respect’; ‘equality’; ‘responsibility’; ‘survival and protection’; and ‘spirit and integrity’ (NHMRC, 2015: 36–37). These core values broadly inform research practices and processes, providing a model for ensuring that researchers acknowledge and maintain significant engagement with community members, adopting socially and culturally appropriate attitudes and techniques. However, Indigenous protocols also articulate more narrowly defi ned actions while undertaking research including (NHMRC 2015): (1) partnering with, and participation of, Indigenous individuals and communities in research; (2) sharing of benefits and outcomes; (3) ensuring intellectual property rights are retained; and (4) assuring individual rights of informed consent. Partnering, Participation and Benefit Sharing

Fundamental to appropriate research practice, transparency and engagement with communities at all stages of the process is necessary. Researchers need to actively collaborate and partner with Indigenous communities throughout the research process. Collaboration strives to ensure participation for Indigenous peoples, while partnering requires the ongoing development of Indigenous research knowledge and perspectives (see, for example, Bourke, 1995; Bunten, 2006; Cochran et al., 2008; Foley, 2000, 2003b; Gabrenya et al., 2006; Hart, 2007; Harvey, 2003; MoretonRobinson, 2000, 2003; Nakata, 1998, 2004; Oudwater & Martin, 2003; Rigney, 1999, 2001, 2003; Smith, 1999). As stated in the Guidelines for Ethical Research in Indigenous Studies, [i]t is essential that Indigenous people are full participants in research projects that concern them, share an understanding of the aims and methods of the research, and share the results of this work. At every stage, research with and about Indigenous peoples must be founded on a process of meaningful engagement and reciprocity between the researcher and Indigenous people. (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies [AIATSIS], 2012: 1)

Participation and collaboration have often been merely token inclusions where practices and customs of communities have regularly

Aligning Western and Indigenous Ways of Doing Tourism Research 167

been considered as barriers to research rather than integral to appropriate and beneficial outcomes (Cochran et al., 2008; Smith, 1999). However, Indigenous participation and partnering are vital to the conduct of Indigenous research and this has been recognised at a national level in many countries. Through the partnering process, Indigenous peoples are redefi ning research and methodologies in words, language and cultural practices that ‘allows us to see through our own eyes what this process of inquiry and learning means to us’ (Ten Fingers, 2005: S62). The NHMRC (2015) core values are further supported through responsibilities placed on merit and integrity, justice, beneficence and respect in research. These standards provide that research and researchers should ensure methods acknowledge and respect ‘cultural distinctiveness’; provide opportunities to develop trust and equality of partnerships in the research processes; ensure benefits include ‘enhancement or establishment of capabilities’ for Indigenous peoples; and be conducted with respect for, and meaningful engagement with, Indigenous peoples (NHMRC, 2015: 37–38). These same protocols are included in other Indigenous and First Nations peoples’ research processes (see, for example, Assembly of First Nations, 2009; Ermine et al., 2004; Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics [IAPRE], 2017; Ten Fingers, 2005). Ownership of Knowledge and Informed Consent

The NHMRC (2015) core values and guidelines highlight that research and researchers must ensure that benefits from the research are realised through enhancing Indigenous community’s capabilities, opportunities and outcomes as well as ensuring that knowledge is recognised, respected and appropriately acknowledged. A significant element in the recognition of the diversity and uniqueness of Indigenous peoples involves the acknowledgement and preservation of Indigenous cultural and intellectual property rights. These are the rights of Indigenous peoples in relation to culture, knowledge, ideas, traditions and heritages and the need to acknowledge the sources of information and contributions to the research (AIATSIS, 2012; Janke, 2009; Smith, 1999; Ten Fingers, 2005). As an example of this protocol in practice, in her reflections on conducting research on Australian Indigenous kinship, Fejo-King (2007) stated that her, …underlying motivation for proceeding with this research is to return information that was taken away in a form that will strengthen and empower individuals, families, communities and nations. (Fejo-King, 2007: 6)

168

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

As shown by Fejo-King (2007), this principle as a central motivation for undertaking research, links specifically with the agendas of selfdetermination, transformation and decolonisation. The benefits and outcomes of the research remain with the Indigenous community who also retains ownership of the knowledge. In recognising and preserving these rights to intellectual property and individual and collective ownership of knowledge, research with and for Indigenous peoples should ensure that reciprocal benefits from the outcomes of research accrue for Indigenous peoples at a local level as well as more generally (AIATSIS, 2012). Further, research on Indigenous territories and with Indigenous peoples requires free, prior and informed consent (Ermine et al., 2004; Janke, 2009; Smith, 1999; Ten Fingers, 2005) which may be an ongoing process ‘not merely an event or “hoop” to pass through before heading into the field to conduct research’ (Ermine et al., 2004: 31). Indigenous Ways of Doing Research

To accomplish these values and standpoints, researchers in Indigenous contexts have approached methodology particularly from ‘participatory’, ‘self-reflexive’ perspectives embedded in ‘communities of inquiry’ (Lincoln & Guba, 2000: 170). For example, autoethnography or reflexive ethnography has been used by Indigenous Australians such as ‘Ruby Langford, Sally Morgan, Archie Weller, Oodgeroo Noonuccal and Jack Davis’ (Herbert, 2003a: 7). Indeed, Herbert (2003a, 2003b) and Ford (2005) also used autoethnography and storying to examine Indigenous education experiences in universities. Houston (2007: 45) progressed this argument and encouraged an ‘Indigenous auto ethnography’ that provides a ‘legitimate and respectful means of acquiring and formulating knowledge, by combining the tradition of storytelling, with the practice of academic research’. Alternatively, Pascoe and Radel (2008a, 2008b) employed a narrative approach in their studies of education experiences for Indigenous students in custody. Other Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers working in Indigenous tourism and other research contexts have implemented and adapted various methodologies. For example, an insider anthropologist perspective was advocated by Bunten (2006) for examining cultural tourism experiences using participant observation techniques. A similar ‘self-reflexive practice’ employing a collaborative, insider approach was utilised by Wilson (2007: 322) in an archaeological study. Colton’s (2002) study of sustainable tourism in the Caribou Mountains and Hart’s (2007) study with the Cree Nation, both further developed collaborative, insider approaches. Berno (1996) and Gibbs (2001) advocated a collaborative, cross-cultural approach in their studies; and a participatory, action research

Aligning Western and Indigenous Ways of Doing Tourism Research 169

approach was taken by Battiste et al. (2002), Bennett (2005), Cochran et al. (2008), Getty (2009) and Marshall and Kendall (2005). Gale (2008: 7) sought to develop a mixed methods style using a ‘grounded approach for the analysis to privilege the Indigenous tourism operators voices and to allow more meaningful insights to emerge from the data’; and Chugh (2015), Jennings et al. (2010) and Radel (2005, 2010) advocated the use of a grounded theory approach. In all cases, the consensus is to provide a process that is ‘about bringing to the centre and privileging Indigenous values, attitudes and practices’ (Smith, 1999: 125). Synthesising a Framework for Indigenous Research

The essential precepts of Indigenous critical theory, insider–outsider theory and Indigenous standpoint theory progressed by Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers, can be distilled to offer a framework for an epistemological perspective on research, the essence of which is based on six crucial qualities (see Table 7.1). Firstly, research should advance the cause for emancipation from inherent, systemic racism and demonstrate resistance to the continued subjectivity of dominant social structures for Indigenous peoples. Secondly, research should be developed through understanding and acknowledging that there are multiple world views. Thirdly, research and researchers should develop and implement reflexivity as a process to critically assess relationships and the quality of data to assist researchers to reveal subjectivities and acknowledge and interpret multiple world views. Fourthly, wherever possible, research should be conducted for Indigenous peoples by Indigenous peoples to encourage diversity of knowledge and understandings. Fifthly, the research process should proceed through developing shared meanings through shared experiences; and fi nally, research and researchers should privilege Indigenous voices through research focused on Indigenous experiences, traditions, heritages, interests and aspirations and recorded through traditional languages (wherever possible). Building on this epistemological standpoint, researchers must address and acknowledge the relational ontology that provides for community, demonstrates respect and reciprocity, and accepts responsibility to appreciate and integrate Indigenous values and beliefs. The relational ontology encourages researchers to reflexively uncover their assumptions, influences and beliefs and ensure that Indigenous needs and voices are privileged and central in the research design, implementation and outcomes. The epistemological standpoint and relational ontology are further supported and underpinned by Indigenous agendas and protocols for doing research. Indigenous research agendas focus the research and the researcher on the crucial aspects of self-determination and decolonisation

170

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Table 7.1 The Indigenous Research Framework incorporating Indigenous research epistemology, ontology, agendas, protocols, research designs and methods Indigenous research epistemology

Advance the cause for emancipation and self-determination Understand and acknowledge that there are multiple world views Develop and implement reflexivity as a process to critically assess relationships and data Conducted for Indigenous and by Indigenous peoples to encourage diversity of knowledge and understandings Develop shared meanings through shared experiences Privilege Indigenous voices

Relational ontology

Address and acknowledge the relational ontology that provides for community Demonstrate respect and reciprocity Accept responsibility to appreciate and integrate Indigenous values and beliefs

Indigenous agendas and protocols

Focus the research and the researcher on self-determination and decolonisation Incorporate Indigenous ambitions and motivations Provide opportunities for economic, social and political development for Indigenous communities and peoples Promote survival of communities, peoples, languages and spiritual practices Seek the recovery of rights, histories and territories Build Indigenous research communities

Research designs

Acknowledge and secure the rights to intellectual property of Indigenous peoples in relation to culture, knowledge, ideas, traditions and heritages Develop methods for participation, active collaboration and partnering with Indigenous individuals and communities and individuals Implement transparent benefit sharing Demonstrate active recognition of Indigenous knowledge and contributions Maintain transparent, free, prior and perhaps ongoing, informed consent processes that are appropriate and specific to the community involved

Methods for doing research

Collaborative, reflexive, participatory and grounded in Indigenous experience Employ insider perspectives; an emic approach Ensure that researcher subjectivities are interpreted and integrated into the emergent research processes and practices

for Indigenous peoples and incorporating ambitions and motivations for research including: understanding and providing opportunities for economic, social and political development for communities and peoples; survival of communities, peoples, languages and spiritual practices;

Aligning Western and Indigenous Ways of Doing Tourism Research 171

recovery of rights, histories and territories; and building Indigenous research communities. Such agendas for research are enabled through research designs that acknowledge and secure the rights to intellectual property of Indigenous peoples in relation to culture, knowledge, ideas, traditions and heritages. Researchers need to ensure participation, partnering and benefit sharing for Indigenous communities and individuals. They should also demonstrate active recognition of Indigenous knowledge and contributions maintaining transparent, free, prior and perhaps ongoing, informed consent processes that are appropriate and specific to the community involved. As seemingly appropriate for the epistemological standpoint, relational ontology, agendas and protocols for Indigenous research, approaches to methods for doing research should be collaborative, reflexive, participatory and grounded in Indigenous experience. The methods need to employ insider perspectives and ensure that researcher subjectivities are both interpreted and integrated into the emergent research processes and practices. Aligning Indigenous and Western Research

Building a synergistic, holistic methodology from a non-Indigenous perspective, based on the Indigenous Research Framework established above, I adopted the standpoint for this study that a positivist perspective requiring ‘precise quantitative data’ and counting occurrences of actions using ‘experiments, surveys, and statistics’ (Neuman, 2000: 66) from an objectivist gaze was fundamentally unacceptable. The position of researcher in an Indigenous setting is a privileged voice and this privilege requires deconstruction, defi nition and elucidation to enable the voices and perspectives of research partners to be interpreted and respected – to ‘centralise the core structures of [Indigenous] ontology as a framework for research’ (Martin, 2003: 206). Research that is appropriate for research partners provides the community with useful, usable information, and achieves real benefit sharing was the primary consideration. The study from which the Indigenous Research Framework emerged sought to analyse socially constructed, meaningful relationships and the contextual narratives surrounding those actions and reactions (von Glasersfeld, 2008; Weber, 1981). Importantly, the principal objective was to understand and explore the Indigenous tourism enterprise success factors from the perspectives and voices (Hertz, 1997; Lincoln & Guba, 2000) of my Indigenous partners. I therefore assumed and adapted a constructivist–interpretive paradigm (Charmaz, 2000; Denzin & Lincoln, 2000a; Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Lincoln & Guba, 2000) and undertook a grounded theory approach to realise the research aim of understanding key factors for Indigenous tourism enterprise

172

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

success. The emergent substantive theory was coherent and consistent with Indigenous sociocultural identity, and Indigenous research partners’ needs and rights specific to the location and contexts of the enterprise and the community. The constructivist–interpretive epistemology, ontology and axiology provided me (a non-Indigenous researcher) with a scaffold from which to develop an in-depth understanding of the perspectives of my partners. It empowered me to recognise and interrogate my own voice in the research narrative. The grounded theory method of data generation and analysis was therefore galvanised to both centralise Indigenous voices and uncover the visibility of myself in the contexts and ensure that the resulting substantive theory of Indigenous tourism success factors was grounded within the staff’s contexts and identities rather than from my own. ‘How do I know what I know?’

The constructivist–interpretive perspective (constructivism) derives from critiques of scientific method and ‘science’ delivered from a positivist perspective – the ‘natural sciences’ (Naturwissenschaften). Corresponding with Indigenous research perspectives of positivist research, constructivist theorists also argue that positivistic methods are inappropriate to discover deep insight of human contexts and social meanings – the ‘science of the mind’ (Geisteswissenschaften) (Dilthey, 1989a; Schutz, 1967; Schwandt, 1994; Weber, 1981). Positivism defi nes reality as being ‘out there’ and ‘independent of human consciousness’ (Sarantakos, 1998: 36) – it is objective, organised and directed by ‘strict, natural and unchangeable laws’ (Sarantakos, 1998: 36). In contrast, constructivism defi nes social realities in terms of social interactions and relationships that are continuously (re)constructed through a process of interactions and interpretations. It holds potential in a cross-cultural research context to enable an ‘emic research strategy that places primacy on the interpretations of the respondent’ (Gabrenya et al., 2006: 602). Constructivism recognises that individuals construct a social reality of meanings through their experiences and interpretations of the world, their interactions with others and their symbolic cultural practices and processes (Berger & Luckman, 1966; Bourdieu, 1990; Bruner, 1986; Sarantakos, 1998). The interpretive process provides the foundation for constructivist theorists to interact with the multiplicity of diverse ways of knowing and meaning. Knowledge and understandings do not ‘begin in the I, and [they do] not begin in the object: [they begin] in the interactions… There is a reciprocal and simultaneous construction of the subject on the one hand and the object on the other’ (Piaget, 1973, cited in Evans, 1973: 20). Constructivist–interpretive researchers study meaningful social actions rather than simply the observable, external behaviours of people.

Aligning Western and Indigenous Ways of Doing Tourism Research 173

Researchers must take account of the individual’s reasons for, and the contexts of, actions to determine meanings. These meanings cannot exist in a reality separate from individuals and the social environments in which they are constructed (Berger & Luckman, 1966; Chiari & Nuzzo, 1993; Dilthey, 1989b). The theory emerging from constructivist studies therefore, …calls for the imaginative understanding of the studied phenomenon … [that] assumes emergent, multiple realities; indeterminacy; facts and values as linked; truth as provisional; and social life as processual. (Charmaz, 2006: 126)

In line with the Indigenous Research Framework, the constructivist perspective assumes multiple realities and enables an emergent process for developing shared meanings through shared experiences. Constructivism aims to continuously (re)construct a dialogue between researcher and research partners to develop deep, rich meanings (Sarantakos, 1998; Schwandt, 1994). This creates an interactive relationship between researcher and partners, bringing the researcher to a central position of listening to and openly, accountably, interpreting the voices and stories of Indigenous tourism partners – aligning well with the concept of Dadirri (Atkinson, 2002; Mills et al., 2006). Throughout this process in an Indigenous tourism research context, the research and researchers privilege Indigenous voices – focusing on Indigenous experiences, traditions, heritages, interests and aspirations, and reflexively examining the researchers’ own situatedness within those contexts. ‘How do I know the world?’

Constructivism suggests that ‘reality’ is a personal construction of knowledge, identity, social roles and (re)actions of individuals operating within and through those roles, knowledge and identities (Berger & Luckman, 1966; Dilthey, 1989a; Lincoln & Guba, 2000; Schwandt, 1994; von Glasersfeld, 2008). Commensurate with Indigenous research perspectives, the constructivist ontology is relativist (Charmaz, 2000, 2006) where realities are ‘multiple, intangible mental constructions’ that are ‘socially and experientially based, local and specific in nature, and dependent for their form and content on the individual persons or groups holding the constructions’ (Guba & Lincoln, 1994: 110–111). The constructivist perspective uses an interpretive, iterative process for communicating and understanding participants’ social environments (von Glasersfeld, 2008). Constructivist research, therefore, requires a continual construction and negotiation process between partners and researchers that recognises multiple social realities and demonstrates a ‘mutual creation of knowledge by the viewer and the viewed’ (Charmaz, 2000: 510).

174

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Further, consistent with the Indigenous Research Framework and the critical theoretical perspectives of many Indigenous researchers, constructivism demonstrates a fundamental axiology of ‘transactional knowing’ (Lincoln & Guba, 2000: 172). This axiological location enables recognition of, and action towards emancipation from dominant social structures. The direction of the research process is emergent and shared between researchers and research partners and this mutual, relational, ‘ethics-centred’ approach requires community-driven ‘determinations of validity’ (Lincoln & Guba, 2000: 173). The transactional, negotiated nature of the co-created knowledge develops as a community narrative that is grounded in the locational, historical, cultural, structural and temporal factors that underpin the community (Charmaz, 2000; Lincoln & Guba, 2000; Schwandt, 1989). Reflexivity, voice, audience and representation

Aligning with the third criteria of the Indigenous Research Framework (Table 7.1), I used reflexivity (Hertz, 1997) to centralise Indigenous experience and interrogate my (the researcher’s) voice in the community narrative. In direct contrast to a positivistic scientific method (which characteristically presents the voice of the researcher as ‘disembodied datagatherer’ [Mills et al., 2006: 11] with unreserved authority in the narrative), the constructivist perspective openly acknowledges the roles and voices of the researcher as integral to the shared experiences co-constructed throughout the research process. The approach to research is developed through a relationship of reciprocity, minimising power imbalances and focusing on benefits for partners – privileging partners’ voices over the researcher (Charmaz, 2000; Fontana & Frey, 1998; Mills et al., 2006). This approach to reciprocity in research relationships closely mirrors Atkinson’s (2002: 16) concept of Dadirri. As Charmaz (2000) noted, [a] constructivist approach necessitates a relationship with respondents in which they can cast their stories in their terms. It means listening to their stories with openness to feeling and experience. (Charmaz, 2000: 525)

However, while the constructivist perspective dynamically and explicitly places the researcher’s voice within the narratives, representation and presentation of an author’s self while also writing the research partners’ stories is inherently precarious due to the authority and privilege that has been afforded to the writer (Gergen & Gergen, 2000; Hertz, 1997; Lincoln & Guba, 2000, 2003; Stimpson, 1988). Hertz (1997) described voice as, …a struggle to figure out how to present the author’s self while simultaneously writing the respondents’ accounts and representing their

Aligning Western and Indigenous Ways of Doing Tourism Research 175

selves. Voice has multiple dimensions: First, there is the voice of the author. Second, there is the presentation of the voices of one’s respondents within the text. A third dimension appears when the self is the subject of the inquiry… Voice is how authors express themselves within an ethnography. (Hertz, 1997: xi–xii)

Stimpson (1988: 223) suggested that representation and the complexity of reading and interpreting texts that aim to explain a lived reality in relatively simplistic terms ‘is a stew… [a] scrambled menu, it serves up several meanings at once’. Added to this complexity is the assumption that a researcher may actually know from which voice the partner is speaking – which ‘I’ is speaking or which positionality is presented – during a conversation and from what standpoint or perspective (Gergen & Gergen, 2000; Gubrium & Holstein, 2002). The concepts of reflexivity and voice focus the researcher more fully on the need for careful interpretation, representation and writing of the multiplicity of selves (both the partners’ and the researcher’s) into the research design and the outputs. In sharing the multiplicity of subjectivities within the text, postmodern authors reproduce a diversity of representational forms which may demand a great deal more interpretation from a range of audiences (Lincoln & Guba, 2000, 2003). Additionally, audiences for this work are not limited to the academy. Consistent with the Indigenous Research Framework, the principal purpose for the information arising from the study is to be used in the ‘immediate context, for the consumption, reflection, and use of Indigenous audiences’ (Lincoln & Guba, 2000: 185). The researcher and research authors, therefore, will be required to produce information and research outcomes in a diversity of formats – social media and other broadcast media outputs, teaching or educational materials, journal articles, conference papers and presentations to governments and other stakeholders. ‘Am I Doing it Right?’: A Constructivist–Interpretive Paradigm Informed by Indigenous Research Perspectives

As previously indicated, I am not of Indigenous descent and I do not claim to be an Indigenous researcher. My research in this tourism enterprise was conducted on the basis of emergent and interactive strategies. I acknowledged that research in the social environment of the Indigenous tourism enterprise is not value neutral (Radel, 2005). It is person centred and both I and my research partners have life stories, histories and backgrounds which inescapably impact on the research processes and their outcomes (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000b; Giddens, 1982; Martin, 2003; Radel, 2005; Smith, 1999; Vidich & Lyman, 2000). Through the constructivist–interpretive paradigm and my use of reflexivity throughout

176

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

the process, I sought to ensure collaboration and participation with my Indigenous research partners, and give appropriate voice (Hertz, 1997) to these realities. I specifically assumed ‘a relativist ontology’ (understanding there are multiple realities), ‘a subjectivist epistemology’ (where both the partners and I co-created understandings of experiences) and a ‘naturalistic’ (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000a: 21) methodological approach. At every stage of the research process, the ethical conduct of research appropriate to and cognisant with the Indigenous Research Framework and specifically my research partners was at the forefront of my mind. Initial consent for the study was sought from both the general manager (head of the enterprise and Indigenous male Elder) and the fi nancial administrator (the deputy manager of the enterprise and Indigenous female) over two preliminary meetings. Subsequently, I adopted a standpoint to have both management staff act as Indigenous supervisors for the study to ensure that my research was locally and culturally appropriate for my research partners and that outcomes from the research would benefit the staff and the enterprise where possible. I ensured that both the general manager and the fi nancial manager of the centre were continuously updated of my activities and that they oversaw my field work in the enterprise. I also undertook to deliver a full draft of the fi ndings to management and staff of the enterprise before I submitted the material for further publication to ensure that the emergent grounded theory was an accurate reflection of the lived reality for staff of the enterprise and that no breach of confidentiality or anonymity had occurred. While I had approval for the research from the enterprise management, I also approached each of the potential research partners individually for their consent to participate. Ethical clearance for the study involved consultation and incorporation of both the AIATSIS (2000) and NHMRC (2007) codes of conduct for research with Indigenous communities; attending a course of study in Australian Indigenous history to further develop my cultural sensitivity; gaining both an initial letter of in principle support and a fi nal letter of support based on the fi ndings from the enterprise’s general manager; and continuing to be overseen by both the general manager and the fi nancial administrator throughout the duration of the study over four years. I also proactively sought to engage insider emic perspectives as I undertook an 18-month secondment to work in the Central Queensland University’s Indigenous Learning, Spirituality and Research Centre – further informing my knowledge of Indigenous organisations from an insider position. Hand in hand with this was a constant testing of the consistency between Indigenous and Western epistemologies through questioning of my underlying intent for and from each action and reaction. I then refi ned my methodological choices by continuously questioning: (1) ‘How do I know what I know?’; (2) ‘How do I know the world?’; (3) ‘Am I doing

Aligning Western and Indigenous Ways of Doing Tourism Research 177

it right?’ (whatever that means); and (4) ‘How does my approach fit with the Indigenous Research Framework?’ In this way, both I and my partners were co-collaborators within the study and the theoretical outcomes were grounded in the lived experiences of all research partners. Conclusion

Congruent with its principal aims, the study on which this chapter is based was not conducted from a positivist, quantitative research design. It did not seek to establish variables for analysis or test hypotheses and was not used to ‘predict general patterns of human activity’ (Neuman, 2000: 66). This study recognised the multiplicity of spaces and voices of research partners and did not proceed from the untenable position of external observer with objectified gaze. The constructivist paradigm was determined as best fitting the needs and concerns of Indigenous research methodology proponents. While the paradigm has developed from a Westernised view of research practice and process, the epistemological, ontological and axiological perspectives of the paradigm focus the research and researcher on the interactions, fundamental cultural positions and ideologies of the research partners as commensurate with the Indigenous Research Framework. The constructivist paradigm provides spaces and lenses for creating and understanding shared meanings through relational ontological and axiological perspectives that are compatible with Indigenous ways of being and knowing (Martin, 2003). The constructivist paradigm significantly contributes to the knowledge and practice of Indigenous tourism business success factors, and also to Indigenous methodology development and application. It is the progression of a culturally sensitive and ‘safe’ approach to research which demonstrates ‘flexibility [and] a willingness to allow for the emergent, a willingness to use a variety of methods in exploring the many-sided creaturely existence’ (Oates, 2003: np). This is achieved by grounding the research in empirical materials shared with the researcher (who does not claim to assume an Indigenous standpoint), while also being overseen by Indigenous research partners and Elders. The enterprise success factors were generated through the co-construction of knowledge between myself and Indigenous partners with the voices and perspectives of those partners being the means for illuminating and comprehending success. Reflexivity was used extensively to interpret the data, the emergent grounded theory categories and my own positionality in the study. Interpretation of voice (Hertz, 1997) and representations highlighted the complexity of the struggle for me as the researcher to ensure the accurate, authentic presentation of the research partners’ accounts and ensure the recognition of the author’s self throughout the analysis and outcomes.

178

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Note (1)

The concepts of ‘research partners’ and ‘research partnering’ were developed in response to the often ‘pejorative and inadequate’ (Gilchrist & Williams, 1999: 72) capacity of terms such as participant, respondent, interviewee or informant, to capture the reality of the relationships developed in field research with Indigenous communities. Throughout this study, I sought to ensure that my approach to research and to my research partners was not one of ‘passive bystander who generates representational products’ but rather to build ‘generative, communicative relationships’ (Gergen & Gergen, 2000: 1039) through ongoing dialogues.

References Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia (1998) Challenges for the Social Sciences and Australia: Volume 1. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Services. Assembly of First Nations (2009) Ethics in First Nations Research. Ottawa, Ont.: Assembly of First Nations. See http://www.afn.ca/uploads/fi les/rp-research_ethics_fi nal.pdf. Atkinson, J. (2002) Trauma Trails Recreating Song Lines: The Transgenerational Effects of Trauma in Indigenous Australia. Melbourne: Spinifex Press Pty Ltd. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (2000) Guidelines for ethical research in Indigenous studies. See http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/research/ethical. html. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) (2012) Guidelines for ethical research in Australian Indigenous studies. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia. See http://aiatsis.gov.au/research/ethical-research/ guidelines-ethical-research-australian-indigenous-studies. Battiste, M., Bell, L. and Findlay, L.M. (2002) Decolonizing education in Canadian universities: An interdisciplinary, international, Indigenous research project. Canadian Journal of Native Education 26 (2), 82–95. Bennett, J. (2005) Indigenous entrepreneurship, social capital and tourism enterprise development: Lessons from Cape York. Doctoral thesis, La Trobe University. Berger, P.L. and Luckman, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd. Berno, T. (1996) Cross-cultural research methods: Content or context? A Cook Island example. In R. Butler and T. Hinch (eds) Tourism and Indigenous Peoples (pp. 376–395). London: International Thomson Business Press. Bourdieu, P. (1990) The Logic of Practice (R. Nice, trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourke, E. (1995, September) Dilemmas of Integrity and Knowledge: Protocol in Aboriginal Research. Paper presented at the Indigenous Research Ethics, Townsville. Boutain, D. (2008) The next crossroad: Indigenous epistemologies for qualitative research and acceptance beyond IRB compliance. Journal of Nursing Education 47 (6), 243–244. Brady, W. (1992) Indigenous Control of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research. Paper presented at the Aboriginal Studies Association Conference. Brady, W. (1997) Indigenous Australian education and globalisation. International Review of Education 43 (5–6), 413–422. Bruner, J. (1986) Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bunten, A.C. (2006) ‘So, how long have you been Native?’ Self-commodification in the Native-owned cultural tourism industry. Doctoral thesis, University of California. Carpenter, V.M. and McMurchy-Pilkington, C. (2008) Cross-cultural researching: Maori and Pakeha in TeWhakapakari. Qualitative Research 8 (2), 179–196.

Aligning Western and Indigenous Ways of Doing Tourism Research 179

Charmaz, K. (2000) Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd edn, pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Charmaz, K. (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage Publications. Chiari, G. and Nuzzo, M.L. (1993) Personal construct theory within psychological constructivism: Precursor or avant-garde? In B.M. Walker, J. Costigan, L.L. Viney and B. Warren (eds) Personal Construct Theory: A Psychology for the Future (pp. 25–54). Sydney: The Australian Psychological Society. Chugh, P. (2015) A holistic approach to accountability: Measuring outcomes of economic development funding in northern Canadian Aboriginal communities. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Central Queensland University. Cochran, P.A.L., Marshall, C.A., Garcia-Downing, C., Kendall, E., Cook, D., McCubbin, L. and Gover, R.M.S. (2008) Indigenous ways of knowing: Implications for participatory research and community. American Journal of Public Health 98 (1), 22–27. Colton, J. (2002) Building Community Capacity for Indigenous Sustainable Tourism Development. Paper presented at the 10th Canadian Congress on Leisure Research, 22–25 May, Edmonton, Alberta. Conklin, J. (2006) Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2000a) The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2000b) Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dilthey, W. (1989a) Book 1/Volume 1: Survey of the system of the particular human sciences, in which the necessity of a foundational science is demonstrated (M. Neville, trans.). In R.A. Makkreel and F. Rodi (eds) Wilhelm Dilthey Selected Works/Volume I – Introduction to the Human Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Dilthey, W. (1989b) Book 4/Volume 2: Foundations of knowledge. In R.A. Makkreel and F. Rodi (eds) Wilhelm Dilthey Selected Works/Volume I – Introduction to the Human Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Dodson, M. (2000) Human genetics: Control of research and sharing of benefits. Australian Aboriginal Studies 2000 (1 & 2), 56–64. Du Bois, B. (1983) Passionate scholarship: Notes on values, knowing and method in feminist social science. In G. Bowles and R.D. Klein (eds) Theories of Women’s Studies (pp. 105–116). Boston, MA: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Episkenew, J.A. and Wheeler, W. (2002) A brief to propose a national Indigenous research agenda. See http://old.fedcan.ca/english/issues/links/. Ermine, W., Sinclair, R. and Jeffery, B. (2004) The ethics of research involving Indigenous peoples: Report of the Indigenous Peoples’ Health Research Centre to the Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics. Retrieved from Saskatoon, SK. Evans, M., Hole, R., Berg, L.D., Hutchinson, P. and Sookraj, D. (2009) Common insights, differing methodologies: Toward a fusion of Indigenous methodologies, participatory action research and white studies in an urban Aboriginal research agenda. Qualitative Inquiry 15 (5), 893–910. Evans, R. (ed.) (1973) Jean Piaget: The Man and His Ideas. New York: Dutton. Fejo-King, C. (2007) Decolonising research from an Australian Indigenous research perspective. The National Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Workers Inc – E Journal 1 (December), 1–13. Foley, D. (2000) Indigenous research, differing value systems. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education 28 (1), 17–30.

180

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Foley, D. (2003a) An examination of Indigenous Australian entrepreneurs. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 8 (2), 133–151. Foley, D. (2003b) Indigenous epistemology and Indigenous standpoint theory. Social Alternatives 22 (1), 44–52. Foley, D. (2005) A Search for a More Complex Truth in Academia: Indigenous Standpoint. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on New Directions in Humanities, Humanities Conference 2005, 2–5 August. University of Cambridge, UK. Fontana, A. and Frey, J.H. (1998) Interviewing: The art of science. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials (pp. 47–78). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Ford, L.M. (2005) Narratives and landscapes: Their capacity to serve Indigenous knowledge interests. Doctoral thesis, Deakin University. See http://tux.lib.deakin.edu. au/adt-VDU/public/adt-VDU20070614.105953/. Fredericks, B.L. (2007) Utilising the concept of pathway as a framework for Indigenous research. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education 36 (S), 15–22. Gabrenya, W.K., Kung, M.-C. and Chen, L.-Y. (2006) Understanding the Taiwan Indigenous psychology movement: A sociology of science approach. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology 37 (6), 597–622. Gale, D. (2008) Walking an Epistemological Tightrope: The Challenges of Conducting Funded Indigenous Tourism Enterprise Research. Paper presented at the Council for Australian University Tourism & Hospitality Education (CAUTHE) Conference – Tourism and Hospitality Research, Training and Practice: ‘Where the “bloody hell” are we?’, 11–14 February, 2008, Surfers Paradise, Gold Coast, Australia. Gergen, M.M. and Gergen, K.J. (2000) Qualitative inquiry: Tensions and transformations. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Inquiry (2nd edn; pp. 1025–1046). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Getty, G.A. (2009) The journey between Western and Indigenous research paradigms. Journal of Transcultural Nursing 21 (1), 5–14. Gibbs, M. (2001) Toward a strategy for undertaking cross-cultural collaborative research. Society & Natural Resources 14, 673–687. Giddens, A. (1982) Sociology: A Brief But Critical Introduction. London: Macmillan. Gilchrist, V.J. and Williams, R.L. (1999) Key informant interviews. In B.F. Crabtree and W.L. Miller (eds) Doing Qualitative Research (2nd edn; pp. 71–88). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Gordon, E.W., Miller, F. and Rollock, D. (1990) Coping with communicentric bias in knowledge production in the social sciences. Educational Researcher 19 (3), 14–19. Grande, S. (2000) American Indian identity and intellectualism: The quest for a new red pedagogy. Qualitative Studies in Education 13, 343–359. Greer, S. and Patel, C. (2000) The issue of Australian Indigenous world-views and accounting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 13 (3), 307–329. Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Gubrium, J.F. and Holstein, J.A. (eds) (2002) Handbook of Interview Research: Context & Method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hart, M.A. (2007) Cree ways of helping: An Indigenist research project. Doctoral thesis, University of Manitoba. Harvey, G. (2003) Guesthood as ethical decolonising research method. Numen 50 (2), 125–146. Henry, E. and Pene, H. (2001) Kaupapa Maori: Locating Indigenous ontology, epistemology and methodology in the academy. Organization 8, 234–242. Herbert, H.J. (2003a) Indigenous Research: A Communal Act. Paper presented at the Joint AARE/NZARE Conference, Auckland.

Aligning Western and Indigenous Ways of Doing Tourism Research 181

Herbert, H.J. (2003b) Is success a matter of choice? Exploring Indigenous Australian notions of success within the context of the Australian university. Doctoral thesis, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. Hertz, R. (ed.) (1997) Refl exivity and Voice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Houston, J. (2007) Indigenous autoethnography: Formulating our knowledge, our way. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education 36 (Supplement), 45–50. Huggins, J. (1991) Black women and women’s liberation. In S. Gunew (ed.) A Reader in Feminist Knowledge (pp. 6–12). London: Routledge. Hunter, M. (2002) Rethinking epistemology, methodology, and racism: Or, is White sociology really dead? Race and Society 5 (2002), 119–138. Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics (IAPRE) (2017) Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS). Ottawa, Ont.: Government of Canada. See http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/ initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/chapter9-chapitre9/. Jacobs-Huey, L. (2002) The natives are gazing and talking back: Reviewing the problematics of positionality, voice, and accountability, among ‘native’ anthropologists. American Anthropologist 104 (3), 791–804. Janke, T. (2009) Writing up Indigenous research: Authorship, copyright and Indigenous knowledge systems. See http://www.terrijanke.com.au/writing-up-indigenous-research. Jennings, G., Kensbrock, S., Junek, O., Radel, K. and Kachel, U. (2010) Lived experiences of early career researchers: Learning about and doing grounded theory. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 17 (1), 21–33. Jung, C. (2003) The politics of Indigenous identity: Neoliberalism, cultural rights, and the Mexican Zapatistas. Social Research 70 (2), 433–462. Kerstetter, K. (2012) Insider, outsider, or somewhere in between: The impact of researchers’ identities on the community-based research process. Journal of Rural Social Sciences 27 (2), 99–117. Kincheloe, J.L. and McLaren, P.L. (2000) Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd edn; pp. 279–313). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kingsley, J.Y., Phillips, R., Townsend, M. and Henderson-Wilson, C. (2010) Using a qualitative approach to research to build trust between a non-Aboriginal researcher and Aboriginal participants (Australia). Qualitative Research 10 (1), 2–12. Ladson-Billings, G. (2000) Racialized discourses and ethnic epistemologies. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd edn; pp. 257–277). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (2000) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd edn; pp. 163–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (2003) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues (2nd edn; pp. 253–291). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Louis, R.P. (2006) Can you hear us now? Voices from the margin: Using Indigenous methodologies in geographic research. Geographical Research 45 (2), 130–139. Marshall, C.A. and Kendall, E. (2005) When Women Paint a Story: Participatory Action Research, Indigenous Ways of Knowing, and Stories of Culture and Community. Paper presented at the First International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry, University of Illinois. Martin, K. (2003) Ways of knowing, being and doing: A theoretical framework and methods for Indigenous and Indigenist Re-search. Journal of Australian Studies 76, 203–214. Merton, R. (1972) Insiders and outsiders: A chapter in the Sociology of Knowledge. American Journal of Sociology 78 (1), 9–47.

182

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Merton, R. (1996) On Social Construction and Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Meyer, K.E. (2006) Asian management research needs more self-confidence. Asia Pacifi c Journal of Management 2006 (23), 119–137. Mills, J., Bonner, A. and Francis, K. (2006) Adopting a constructivist approach to grounded theory: Implications for research design. International Journal of Nursing Practice 12, 8–13. Moreton-Robinson, A. (2000) Talkin’ Up to the White Women: Indigenous Women and Feminism. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press. Moreton-Robinson, A. (2003) Researching whiteness: Some reflections from an Indigenous woman’s standpoint. Hecate 29 (2), 72–85. Moses, A.D. (2010) Time, Indigeneity, and peoplehood: The postcolony in Australia. Postcolonial Studies 13 (1), 9–32. Nakata, M. (1998) Anthropological texts and Indigenous standpoints. Australian Aboriginal Studies 2, 3–12. Nakata, M. (2004) Ongoing conversations about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research agendas and directions. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education 33 (2004), 1–6. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) (2003) Values and Ethics: Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia. See https://www.nhmrc.gov. au/guidelines-publications/e52. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) (2007) National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (Synopsis). Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia. See http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e72syn.htm. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) (2015) National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007) (Updated May 2015). Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia. See https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/book/ national-statement-ethical-conduct-human-research. Neuman, W.L. (2000) Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (4th edn). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Oates, W.E. (2003) Bastards of the Bush: Towards an Indigenous Australian Research Methodology. Paper presented at the International Education Research Conference AARE – NZARE, 30 November–3 December, Auckland, New Zealand. Oudwater, N. and Martin, A. (2003) Methods and issues in exploring local knowledge of soils. Geoderma 111 (2003), 387–401. Pascoe, V.A. and Radel, K. (2008a) ‘Everything We Thing We Want?’ The Contradiction Between Social Norms and Institutionalisation For Indigenous Australians in Prison: Local Education as a Micro Initiative Against a Hostile Environment. Paper presented at the Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance National Conference: Engaging for a Sustainable Future, 1–4 July. Sippy Downs, Sunshine Coast, Australia. Pascoe, V.A. and Radel, K. (2008b) ‘What are nice guys like them doing in a place like that?’: Education journeys from Australian Indigenous students in custody. International Journal of Learning 15 (1), 301–309. Radel, K. (2005) Indigenous Tourism Research: Influences and Reflections of Epistemological Standpoints. Paper presented at the Council for Australian University Tourism and Hospitality Education (CAUTHE) Conference – Sharing Tourism Knowledge, 1–5 February. Alice Springs, NT. Radel, K. (2010) The Dreamtime Cultural Centre: A grounded theory of doing business in an Indigenous tourism enterprise. Doctoral thesis, Central Queensland University. Rigney, L.-I. (1999) Internationalization of an Indigenous anticolonial cultural critique of research methodologies: A guide to Indigenist research methodology and its principles. Journal for Native American Studies, Wicazo SA Review 14 (2 Fall Edition), 109–113.

Aligning Western and Indigenous Ways of Doing Tourism Research 183

Rigney, L.-I. (2001) A fi rst perspective of Indigenous Australian participation in science: Framing Indigenous research towards Indigenous Australian intellectual sovereignty. Kaurna Higher Education Journal 7 (August), 1–13. Rigney, L.-I. (2003) The First Perspective: Culturally Safe Research Practices on or with Indigenous Peoples. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual Chacmool Conference – Indigenous people and archaeology: Honoring the past, discussing the present, building for the future, Alberta, Canada. Sarantakos, S. (1998) Social Research (2nd edn). South Yarra, Victoria: MacMillan Education Australia Pty Ltd. Scheurich, J.J. (1997) Research Methods in the Postmodern. London: The Falmer Press. Schutz, A. (1967) The Phenomenology of the Social World (G. Walsh and F. Lehnert, trans.). New York: Northwestern University Press. Schwandt, T.A. (1989) Recapturing moral discourse in evaluation. Educational Researcher 18 (8), 11–16. Schwandt, T.A. (1994) Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 118–137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Seiler, R.M. (2004) Human communication in the critical theory tradition. See http://www. ucalgary.ca/~rseiler/critical.htm. Seuffert, N. (1997) Circumscribing knowledge in Aotearoa/New Zealand: Just epistemology. Yearbook of New Zealand Jurisprudence 1, 97–125. Simon, K.H. (2002) Searching for Synergy: Maori/Indigenous and Scientific Conservatory Values: Reconciling Affi nity and Difference? Paper presented at the DevNet Conference 2002 – Contesting Development: Pathways to Better practice, 5–7 December, Massey University. Smith, L.T. (1999) Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books Ltd. Stanfield II, J.H. (1994) Ethnic modeling in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Inquiry (pp. 175–188). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Stimpson, C.R. (1988) Nancy Reagan wears a hat: Feminism and its cultural consensus. Critical Inquiry 14, 223–243. Ten Fingers, K. (2005) Rejecting, revitalizing, and reclaiming: First Nations work to set the direction of research and policy development. Canadian Journal of Public Health 96 (1), S60–S63. Vidich, A.J. and Lyman, S.M. (2000) Qualitative methods: Their history in sociology and anthropology. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd edn; pp. 37–84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. von Glasersfeld, E. (2008) An introduction to radical constructivism. AntiMatters 2 (3), 5–20. Weber, M. (1981) Some categories of interpretative sociology. Sociological Quarterly 22, 151–180. West, J.E.G. (2000) An alternative to existing Australian research and teaching models: The Japanangka teaching and research paradigm, an Australian Aboriginal model. Doctoral thesis, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW. See http://epubs.scu.edu. au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=theses. Wilson, C.L. (2007) Indigenous research and archaeology: Transformative practices in/with/ for the Ngarrindjeri community. Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 3, 320–334.

8 Qualitative Tourism Research: Focus Groups Carolyn Daniels, Wendy Hillman and Kylie Radel

Focus groups advance knowledge about products and services in the tourist field. This chapter outlines the characteristics and purpose of focus groups, highlights the advantages and disadvantages of focus groups and details the role of the facilitator. Factors influencing focus group participants are listed and the composition of focus groups is investigated. Processes involved in conducting focus groups and the nature of the data collected follows. The use of focus groups in tourism research is examined and is followed by a case study of ‘transformative heritage tourism experiences’, which illustrates one of the many ways available for using focus group methodologies in tourism studies. What are Focus Groups?

A focus group is a means of gathering qualitative data from a group of people, usually via semi-structured questions (Creswell, 2016; Delahaye, 2005). Focus groups generally consist of 8–10 participants, though this number varies widely in the literature with figures cited between 5 and 12 (Kreuger & Casey, 2009; Parasuraman et al., 2004; Sekaran, 2003; Veal, 2005). They are led by the researcher (or facilitator) for up to two hours on a particular subject, concept or product (Sekaran, 2003). Focus groups can provide insights and information on various topics introduced by the researcher (Stone, 2008). Participants are generally selected based on their expertise on the topic to be discussed (Sekaran, 2003). The researcher acts as a facilitator of the discussion and participants interact with one another as well as with the facilitator (Veal, 2005). The seminal work of Robert Merton, Marjorie Fiske and Patricia Kendall in The Focused Interview (1956) detailed group interview procedures that are still standard practice today (Krueger & Casey, 2009). While academics were slow to take up the method, post-World War II market researchers embraced it (Krueger & Casey, 2009). It was in the 1980s that academics rediscovered focus groups for data collection and adapted the technique for use in various settings (Krueger & Casey, 2009). Today, focus group discussions are mainly used by social scientists as a method of gathering data (Hopkins, 2007; Krueger & Casey, 2000). 184

Qualitative Tourism Research: Focus Groups 185

Krueger and Casey (2009), in their comprehensive book covering the planning, implementation and reporting of the various styles and types of focus groups, provide a concise summary of focus group discussions, maintaining they are about: [P]aying attention, being open to what people have to say and being nonjudgmental. It is about creating a comfortable environment for people to share. It is about being careful and systematic with the things people tell you. When used appropriately, the results can be used to benefit the people who shared the information. And people go away feeling good about having been heard. (Krueger & Casey, 2009: xiii)

Focus groups in tourism research are useful when researchers need to identify customer’s reactions to new products or services provided by a resort or a theme park for example (Rodgers, 2001). In fact, focus groups are widely used to determine people’s perceptions and feelings about issues, services or opportunities (Krueger & Casey, 2000). Purpose of Focus Groups

The purpose of conducting focus groups is to listen, to collect data, to understand how people think and feel about the issue being discussed and basically, to ‘gather opinions’ (Krueger & Casey, 2009: 2). The distance between the facilitator and participants is lessened during the focus group discussion and the ‘multivocality of the participants’ reduces the control of the facilitator over the research process (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011: 419). While this lack of ‘control’ may appear to be a little disconcerting, focus groups by their very nature encourage this through their interactive group processes. Focus groups are in fact carefully designed discussions that focus on a particular topic of interest in a relaxed, non-threatening environment where participants often enjoy sharing their point of view (Krueger & Casey, 2009). And it is these points of view that researchers compile in their reports that ultimately assist a generalised understanding of a programme, product or service for the benefit of both consumers and providers as defi ned in the research aim. Or stated more concisely, focus groups provide improved understanding and knowledge of programmes, products and services for the consumer, provider or employee as the case may be. While the following list is not exhaustive, focus groups can be used for (a) providing information for decision makers; (b) informing product or programme development where focus group data provides information to create alternative programmes, products or services before a major investment decision; (c) insight into organisational issues such as customer satisfaction, organisational development issues or

186

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

understanding employee concerns; and (d) for planning and goal setting (Krueger & Casey, 2009: 8–11). Moreover, focus groups are particularly useful for (a) gathering general background information about a topic or issue; (b) generating research questions to be investigated via quantitative methodologies; (c) interpreting previously generated quantitative fi ndings; (d) brainstorming new ideas for products and programmes; (e) highlighting opportunities; (f) diagnosing problems; (g) stimulating impressions and perceptions of brands, products and services; and (h) providing a level of understanding about factors that influence the participant’s world (Cooper & Schidler, 2006). Advantages and Disadvantages of Focus Groups for Qualitative Data Collection

When planning a focus group discussion, it is important to be aware of the advantages and disadvantages associated with the research method. According to the situation relative to the planned focus group, it is wise to maximise the advantages and minimise the disadvantages, as illustrated in Table 8.1 (Delahaye, 2005). Quality focus groups require strategic planning, suitable questions, skilful facilitation, careful participant selection, systematic analysis and appropriate reporting (Krueger & Casey, 2009: xiv). Role of the Facilitator

The facilitator of a focus group plays a vital role in the success of the discussion; he/she introduces the topic, observes and takes notes and/ or records the discussion (Sekaran, 2003). An effective facilitator will keep participants focused, particularly so that one individual, or a small coalition, does not dominate the discussion (Fontana & Frey, 1998). Additionally, it is important that the facilitator has keen observational, Table 8.1 Advantages and disadvantages of focus groups Advantages

Disadvantages

Focus groups are more time efficient than interviews

Arranging logistics for focus groups can be challenging in terms of organising a facilitator, participants, location and equipment

Focus groups encourage the knowledge generating process of externalisation

The views of one individual can dominate the discussion

Focus groups allow on-the-spot synthesis of different points of view

Individuals are less willing to disclose information they consider sensitive

Focus groups can flexibly investigate a number of issues

Subjective analysis of the data

Source: Adapted from Delahaye (2005: 131).

Qualitative Tourism Research: Focus Groups 187

Table 8.2 Desirable focus group facilitator skills Facilitator Skill Set Kind but firm

Facilitator displays a kind but permissive attitude towards participants to encourage them to feel relaxed in the group environment. Facilitator keeps the focus on the issue under discussion and manages the tendencies of domination of the group by one or a coalition of participants.

Permissiveness

Facilitator is alert to group dynamics particularly where discussion may get heated and works to re-establish the group purpose. The facilitator’s main role is to keep the focus on the subject.

Involvement

Facilitator initiates and encourages intense personal involvement; they should immerse themselves completely in the issue being discussed. A facilitator’s ability to listen is vital.

Incomplete understanding

Facilitator is careful to use question prompts, including non-committal comments that encourage participants to draw deeply into the sources of their opinions. Facilitator shows a sincere curiosity about the deeper sources of the participants’ understanding of the topic. The ability to probe to uncover all the information is paramount. Facilitator uses body language to encourage participant responses.

Encouragement

Facilitator needs to be aware of unresponsive participants and encourage their response. A facilitator requires the ability to interpret participant’s non-verbal body language as another means of including all group members.

Flexibility

Facilitator should be familiar with the topic and the subject matter to be covered and use it as a reminder only. The facilitator should be able to improvise and to adapt predetermined plans among the distractions of the group process.

Sensitivity

Facilitator needs to have the ability to identify whether or not the information is appropriate for the discussion.

Source: Adapted from Delahaye (2005); Fontana and Frey (1998); Parasuraman et al. (2004: 202).

interpersonal and communication skills so as to recognise and interpret body language and to encourage conversation, thus enabling a healthy discussion (Delahaye, 2005; Parasuraman et al., 2004). In reality, the facilitator is perhaps the most important element of the focus group, and certainly impacts on the effectiveness and usefulness of the focus group as a whole (Parasuraman et al., 2004). The skills required of a good facilitator are presented in Table 8.2. It can be seen from the list of skills outlined in Table 8.2 that the facilitator requires a multifaceted suite of skills to moderate the discussion and to draw out information relevant to the topic being discussed. Focus Group Participants

Focus group participants should have some familiarity with the issue being discussed in order to contribute to the discussion (Parasuraman et al., 2004). Therefore, when selecting participants for a focus group, they should be screened for suitability (Parasuraman et al., 2004). Furthermore,

188

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

these participants may or may not know each other (Veal, 2005). Table 8.3 details the positive and negative factors that can influence participant contributions in focus groups. Table 8.3 Factors influencing participant contributions in focus groups Positive/facilitators Recognition/ego enhancement

Facilitator’s expressed appreciation for participant contributions that contribute to understanding issues. Participant’s open agreement with other participant comments.

Personal contribution

Participants’ desire to be helpful and their perception that their contributions are helpful.

Validation

Participants’ need to have their feelings, attitudes or ideas validated.

Catharsis/load-sharing

Participant’s need to share something that is negative or bothersome to other people.

Personal growth

Participants’ desire to increase their knowledge or understanding through new perspectives. Their desire also for new experiences.

Socialisation

Participant’s desire to meet new people and make friends in a safe environment.

Expectations

Participant’s accurate understanding of the purpose of the focus group discussion.

Extrinsic rewards

Participant’s perception of the fee for participation.

Negative/inhibiters Use of abstract terminology

Facilitators or participants use of unfamiliar jargon or terminology.

Ego threats

Participant’s challenging a fellow participant’s knowledge of the subject being discussed.

Political correctness

Participants withhold comments fearing their contributions might be seen as disrespectful of another participant’s knowledge or opinion.

Ego defence

Participants withholding a comment for fear it will make them appear foolish or that the opinion will be unpopular within the group.

Memory decay

Participant’s inability to remember incidents or details.

Embellishment

Participant’s exaggerations of memories of behaviours in order to participate fully or inflate status.

Inarticulation/rambling accounts

Participant’s inability to express ideas briefly and quickly.

Confusion

Participant’s lack of understanding of the issue being discussed.

Reticence

Participants require an invitation to participate rather than volunteering comments.

Time

Participants’ concerns about their other obligations.

Dominating/monopolising

Participants dominate the discussion, attempt to take the leadership or the spotlight thus inhibiting the contributions of other participants.

Source: Adapted from Cooper and Schindler (2006: 213).

Qualitative Tourism Research: Focus Groups 189

While the unstructured and spontaneous nature of focus groups allows for participants to respond in a natural way to share honest opinions, ideas and feelings about the topic being discussed, there are instances where the group experiences disruption (Sekaran, 2003). In addition to the negative or inhibiting influences that participants may experience as identified in Table 8.3, there are other behaviours that may hinder focus group functionality including: the aggressor who questions the focus group reason for being and may be sarcastic and make personal attacks on the facilitator and participants; the blocker who criticises others comments; the self-confessor who seeks sympathy; the recognition-seeker who brags about previous conquests and successes; and the dominator who seeks to be ‘top dog’ by utilising flattery, by interrupting or by asserting his/her assumed superiority (Delahaye, 2005: 195). Strategies that the facilitator can use to manage these aberrant behaviours include: allowing the group time to regain control; use of body language such as averting eye contact or standing sideways to the disruptive individual; not repeating his/her negative comments but rewarding his/her positive contributions; repeating the question; summarising the progress so far; and, as a last resort, the facilitator may state that he/she cannot see how aberrant contributions achieve the focus group goals (be aware that this may have negative repercussions) (Delahaye, 2005: 195). Group Composition

A focus group can be (a) heterogeneous, which is a group of different people with a variety of opinions, backgrounds and actions; (b) homogeneous, which is a group of similar people with commonality of opinions, backgrounds and actions; (c) experts, which is a group of people with expert knowledge on the topic to be discussed, or (d) non-experts, which is a group of people that have some knowledge about the topic but at an unidentified level (Cooper & Schindler, 2006: 211). Generally speaking, participants in homogeneous groups are more likely to be relaxed and comfortable with each other than they would in heterogeneous groups (Parasuraman et al., 2004). As an example, a focus group aimed at gathering data about family holidays that has participants of varying age groups, some with children, some without, is unlikely to be productive in terms of distinguishing the needs of families when on holiday. Hence, homogeneous focus groups are less likely to elicit inaccurate responses than heterogeneous groups (Parasuraman et al., 2004: 199). Conducting a Focus Group

A focus group draws a number of people together at the one time in a reasonably large space that is comfortable, quiet and relatively free from interruptions (Delahaye, 2005). Suggestions about the appropriate

190

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

‘ambience’ of a focus group have varied over time; however, for discussions centred around holidays for example, the room may be themed to the location under discussion, the layout kept informal and participants may be casually dressed (Rodgers, 2001: 147). The logistics of arranging a focus group include organising the location and associated equipment such as tables, chairs, recording instrument, visual aids, writing materials, provision of gifts to participants and production of transcribed recording. Often, ethical approval of the research is required. Submissions to ethics committees usually include the facilitator’s discussion guide (that includes the questions to be asked), the participant recruitment advertisement, an information sheet, the consent form and the response to the participant letter detailing the time, date and location of the focus group discussion. Focus groups mostly use carefully considered open-ended questions that are arranged in a natural, logical order beginning with general questions and narrowing to more specific questions (Krueger & Casey, 2000: 12). When beginning a focus group discussion, and to assist the transcriber, it is useful to invite each participant to introduce himself/herself, thus allowing the transcriber to recognise individual voices (Creswell, 2016). This has the dual benefit of not only assisting the transcriber, but it also helps participants feel more comfortable in the group. When conducting the focus group, it is helpful to have an assistant facilitator who manages the recording of the discussion and takes notes, allowing the facilitator to concentrate on leading the discussion (Delahay, 2005). The nature of data obtained

Focus groups provide reasonably dependable data within a short time frame and are a relatively inexpensive data gathering method (Sekaran, 2003). It should be noted that focus groups are not suitable when the topic involves sensitive issues because participants are unlikely to share their personal perspectives in a group setting (Creswell, 2008). Nevertheless, the synergy of a focus group encourages participant interaction causing initial ideas to grow because of the multiple perspectives given by participants about the topic (Krueger & Casey, 2009). It is ‘[b]ecause of their synergistic potentials, [that] focus groups often produce data that are seldom produced through individual interviewing and observation and thus yield particularly powerful knowledges and insights’ (Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2011: 559). Why Use Focus Groups in Tourism?

As with all inquiry, it is essential that adequate time is set aside for the development of focus groups. As Morgan (1988) recommends, the two most important aspects in the design period of any research are schedule

Qualitative Tourism Research: Focus Groups 191

and expenditure constrictions. However, these are not the only limitations. The fi rst determination to be made is whether focus groups are the most applicable method of fulfi lling the research issues. Focus groups are exceedingly useful in the inception phases of a research analysis, especially if the focus is new to the investigator. Certainly, one of the most significant benefits of using focus groups in tourism research is that they are beneficial in supporting the researcher to get close to the contributors (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). This is especially effective when endeavouring to comprehend their views and perspectives on a subject that is new to the investigator, not least because the implications of a specific fact can be verified at that moment in time. This questioning of replies can be helpful in revealing matters not formerly discerned by the investigator (Weedon, 2005). Qualitative researchers in tourism fields frequently need to select whether to collect data using focus groups or individual interviews. Focus groups can be completed with groups of usually 6–12 individuals and, in contrast to individual interviews, seek to take advantage of the interactions and group dynamics to encourage discussion between participants as much as individual experiences. In some research projects, it is this inclusion of the interpersonal discussion and participant interactions of focus groups that enables further data collection that may not be gathered from a single participant’s responses (Agar & MacDonald, 1995; Greenbaum, 2003). When the researcher has established whether focus groups are germane and fitting to the analysis, a notable component of designing the research approach is to determine how many focus groups need to be conducted to achieve valid, useful outcomes from the research. The recommendation differs from 2 or 3 groups to a sum of up to 40, contingent upon the capacity of the research inquiries and whether the individuals are an element of a single investigation or just one factor in a research approach (Weedon, 2005). Usually, it is prudent to schedule for three or four groups with any one category of contributor (Krueger & Casey, 2000) or subgroup (Morgan, 1988), but this figure will be determined by the intricacy of the research goals. Nevertheless, at the juncture where more groups are disclosing no new knowledge, the researcher needs to establish whether moving forward with this category of subgroup will produce new perceptions. It is constructive to consider that, ‘there are few economies of scale to doing many groups’ (Morgan, 1988: 43; see also Weedon, 2005). Focus groups, when productive and effectually arbitrated, endeavour to offer a ‘shared experience’, through which it is anticipated that the group will submit more unhesitatingly their beliefs and opinions concerning the research queries. Consequently, it is vital that some deliberation be assigned to where the focus group is to be held. If the intention is to promote self-disclosure (Krueger & Casey, 2000) and inspire individuals to speak unreservedly about their feelings and encounters (Berg, 2001)

192

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

then the location (and ambiance) will need to be non-menacing so as to generate a secure area. The interviewer’s function in this activity is to enable dialogue by generating secure surroundings in which to do this. Not only will the selection of the setting be vital to the achievement of the group, but it can additionally be influential in the presence of contributors. For instance, a summons to a focus group will not ensure presence and so a setting appropriate to all contributors will be essential (Weedon, 2005). Moreover, the setting must be unhampered by disturbances, such as people walking around or mobile phones ringing, all of which can interfere with the course of discussion. It is important to consider that suitable occasions are crucial to foster involvement (Weedon, 2005). The enlistment of contributors is important, as ‘it is vital to have the right participants in a focus group’ (Krueger, 1993: 71). Then again, there is some deliberation in the literature as to who the contributors should be and it is evident that ‘the selection and recruitment of participants for a focus group is a critical task’ (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990: 51). Even though it is recommended that attention be paid to the structure of the group, given that the investigator has to depend on self-selecting unpaid helpers, it is very problematic to pre-regulate the group in terms of age, gender, life experience and so forth. In actuality, the mediator has to be grateful for whomever turns up at the site, and so designing group subtleties for ideal collaboration may turn out to be a futile task. What is most notable to take into account is that enlistment of participants must be ruled by the goals of the research (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990), and it is consequently imperative to deliberate on the structure of the groups in those conditions (Weedon, 2005). It is comparatively straightforward for researchers to create queries on areas that they want a focus group to tackle. Yet, it is not simple to ask the questions in a fashion that will inspire dialogue and also in a language appropriate for all participants. Thus, it is vital to take time to devise the questions, and a formulated questioning compendium is very effective. A questioning compendium or guide is rationalised by Krueger and Casey (2000: 42) who suggest it is ‘a list of sequenced questions in complete, conversational sentences’. This will be particularly significant for a trainee interviewer as it can shape the configuration of the session. But, the interviewer will need to be adaptable throughout the dialogue and delve behind particular accounts. Sticking inflexibly to a set of questions, or a guide, may well be attractive but will not automatically produce worthwhile data. In the end, though, the issues to be included will be influenced by the study aims and it is prudent to recall that throughout the course of a typical focus group, contributors could valuably converse on about four or five subject themes within a 90–120 minute time frame (Weedon, 2005).

Qualitative Tourism Research: Focus Groups 193

A specific concern in preparation is the chronicling of the group dialogue. It is always sensible to digitally record a focus group, as the comprehensive transcript can expedite a more profound analysis than that created entirely by the moderator’s memos of the group discussion. Then again, there is the issue of how to record and whether the group should be fi lmed or not. This last one can very often be achieved quite easily, but the interviewer needs to evaluate whether the existence of the recording equipment with supplementary specialist staff will rule out a candid and honest discussion. There is always the likelihood of this transpiring, at which juncture it may be more fitting to only sound record the group (Weedon, 2005). Considerable interpretation must be taken of ethical concerns linked to ‘disclosure’. As Barbour and Kitzinger (1999: 17) maintain, ‘ethical issues are relevant to all stages of focus group research design, implementation and presentation’. These deliberations, such as the capacity for ‘invasion of privacy’ and matters to do with ‘confidentiality’, are particularly significant when a group of ‘strangers’ gathers to talk about personal beliefs and other delicate subjects. These questions are not limited to focus groups but are commonplace to qualitative research generally (Morgan, 1993), not least because contributors are exposing themselves, either to one another or to an investigator. The investigator should be continually conscious of these matters because by being aware of them it ‘helps to keep them in perspective’ (Morgan, 1998a: 85). Finally, ethical concerns can be brought to the group’s notice by determining ground rules at the commencement of the focus group, as well as probably arbitrating or progressing dialogue forward if a participant agitates or disagrees with another (Weedon, 2005). Case Study: Mindful Memories – Using Focus Groups to Gather Data in Transformative Heritage Tourism Experiences

Reconnecting with our past experiences through reminiscence therapy has been proven beneficial in interventions for depression and dementia sufferers. There is evidence to suggest that for older participants in particular, reminiscence is effective in improving mood, behaviour, wellbeing and motivation. This study seeks to engage participants in reminiscing activities – reconnecting with identities and life histories through touchstone moments in heritage tourism experiences. The Rockhampton Heritage Village (RHV) is a pioneer museum village with both static and working displays of machinery, vehicles, livestock and rides. The village is owned and operated by the Rockhampton Regional Council and funding is achieved through a combination of budget allocation, donations, grants and tourist visitor entrance fees. Staffi ng consists of three full-time, two part-time and currently 166 volunteers. The village operates as an

194

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

information centre, heritage tourism destination (rated as number 3 out of 35 tourism attractions in the region) and a working museum. This study had at is foundation the simple idea that providing people with opportunities to touch, smell, see and experience objects and events from their past through being immersed in a heritage tourism experience, and to talk about, share and remember meaningful instances will have positive impacts on the overall well-being of participants. The World Health Organisation (WHO, 1984) stated that, ‘Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infi rmity’. Apart from the physicality of ‘being well’, individuals’ well-being may be described as relating to their optimism and positive emotions, their opportunities for engagement and purpose, contentment, being fulfi lled and their capacity for making a contribution to their community (Pyke et al., 2016). Positive well-being for individuals requires a proactive mindset and a willingness to experience opportunities (Hartwell et al., 2012), developing and maintaining strong relationships and having adequate time and space for leisure activities and relaxation (Pyke et al., 2016). Importantly, for older individuals, and particularly those living in long-term care situations, having opportunities and spaces for meaningful leisure and relaxation experiences can assist them to resist decline and dependence (Whyte & Fortune, 2016) and potentially enable individuals to engage with their own positive well-being. Reminiscence therapy has been proven beneficial in interventions for depression and dementia sufferers (Jo & Song, 2015). Reminiscence is the process and practice of thinking and talking about one’s past lived experiences (Merriam-Webster Incorporated, 2015) to reflect on and recapture significant events and experiences of one’s life. It enables us to engage in ‘telling stories’ (Latha et al., 2014) about events and people, and to share these stories, thoughts and feelings with others. A number of studies demonstrate significant positive effects from using reminiscence practices as a psychological therapy – particularly with older participants. In terms of personal well-being (Brooker & Duce, 2000) and general health outcomes, reminiscing can assist with improving comprehension and cognitive skills (Spector et al., 2003); boosting self-esteem, alleviating feelings of hopelessness and enhancing self-integration (Latha et al., 2014); and reducing feelings of loneliness, anxiety and depression (Chiang et al., 2009). There is growing evidence to suggest that for ageing participants, reminiscence is effective in improving mood, behaviour, well-being and motivation (Cooney et al., 2014; Latha et al., 2014). Tourism experiences are acknowledged as providing individuals with a means not only to generate positive lasting memories, but also to revisit past experiences, repeat memorable journeys and reconnect with events in one’s life

Qualitative Tourism Research: Focus Groups 195

(Marschall, 2014). The capacity of older participants to engage multiple senses through a heritage village (museum) tourism experience may provide a reminiscence therapy opportunity, enabling participants to reconnect with embedded, lived experiences. The project engaged participants in immersive, sensory and reminiscing activities, reconnecting with identities and life histories through touchstone moments in heritage tourism to provide an intervention for positive mental health and well-being outcomes – using the tourism experience as a site of transformation. Project aim

The project investigated the capacity for immersion within heritage tourism experiences to provide positive mental health and well-being outcomes for older participants. Heritage museum experiences for participants from aged care facilities from the Rockhampton region were provided. These experiences constituted an immersive opportunity, engaging all participants in multiple sensory, reminiscence activities as a means of developing positive mental health and well-being outcomes. The pilot phase of the study involved a partnership between the RHV, the North Rockhampton Nursing Centre (NRNC) and researchers from Central Queensland University. Participants in the study required the following characteristics to be eligible to participate in the project: participants needed to be current residents with the NRNC; participants required a reasonable level of English comprehension to ensure that they could provide informed consent; participants self-selected to join the project and shared their lived experiences of the heritage tourism reminiscence project ‘Mindful Memories’. The NRNC is a large facility providing 100 beds, registered nursing care for residential, respite and secure dementia care residents. Dementia is a lived reality for more than 353,800 Australians with this population increasing to over 400,000 within five years due largely to Australia’s ageing population (Alzheimer’s Australia, 2016). Dementia is the single greatest cause of disability in Australians aged 65 years and over, and will become the third largest source of health and residential aged care spending within the next two decades (Alzheimer’s Australia, 2016). To ensure that the residents of the NRNC who self-selected for the project and who agreed to participate were able to provide appropriate informed consent, only residents in the earlier stages of dementia (mild to moderate) were recruited for the project. Participants were six residents of the NRNC who self-selected to attend the RHV each week for six weeks as part of the residents’ schedule of recreation activities to experience the heritage tourism site and participate in the research. Each visit was held on

196

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

the same day each week and participants were provided with bus transfers, a circuit tour to a variety of displays at the RHV, morning tea provided at the ‘Hospital Display’ and return to the NRNC by lunch at no cost to themselves. We found the inclusion of morning tea as the site for the focus group discussions was a key component of the tour and gathering reminiscence experiences. Each visit was approximately 2.5 hours in total, departing from the NRNC at 09:00 and returning to the centre at around 11:30. The research design was a qualitative, grounded theory process to develop a deep understanding of the potential impacts and lived experiences. Participants were asked to participate in a brief qualitative interview each week during their visit to the RHV. Researchers followed an unstructured interview approach with the participants to discuss their experiences at the RHV and to share their reminiscences of lived experiences that related to their heritage tourism experiences. It was not the purpose of this project to conduct research on dementia, depression or mental illness. However, it was the purpose to understand the impacts of heritage tourism experiences as an immersive reminiscence process and its capacity to provide positive well-being outcomes for older participants. It must be recognised that the capacity of these participants to provide informed consent and their ability to participate in research generally, can vary for many reasons including, for example, where there may be temporary or episodic fluctuations in their conditions from day to day. As such, the consent process included continuing discussion and reiteration of the research project, its benefits and outcomes, the participant’s rights of anonymity and confidentiality and his/her right to withdraw at any time and for any reason. Further, while participating in the heritage tourism visits at the RHV, the participants were accompanied by two staff from the NRNC and the two principal researchers. Conclusion

As a method of gathering rich and valuable data, focus groups can be an excellent approach. For an exploratory investigation of unfamiliar concepts, focus groups are highly recommended. This chapter has put forward a comprehensive explanation of the purpose and use of focus groups. The advantages and disadvantages of focus groups have been discussed with information concerning the role of the facilitator, the focus group participants, the composition of the group itself, how to go about conducting the research with the group and the nature of the data that is gathered from focus group interviews. The question of why to choose this approach of focus group inquiry into tourism research has been considered and a case study entitled ‘Mindful Memories’ presented.

Qualitative Tourism Research: Focus Groups 197

Focus groups are a legitimate form of a qualitative research approach that can be utilised in tourism projects. Focus groups can be easy to arrange, conduct and facilitate. The data collected can be rich, robust and informative. However, issues of confidentiality are possibly the greatest limitation to this methodological approach, as not only does the interviewer have access to data that may be sensitive, but the other members of the group itself are aware of what has been said by all participants. Focus groups gather a large amount of data in a short space of time. They are widely used in marketing research, and have their place in academia as well. Focus groups give ‘voice’ to groups and communities of people from varied backgrounds who narrate stories from their own experiences on predetermined subjects. It is also possible (time and participants permitting) to reconvene the group(s) at later stages and thus perhaps do longitudinal studies on the same topic or on other diverse topics. Regardless of the focus of the groups, they ensure a time-saving, cost-effective way to conduct research. References Agar, M. and MacDonald, J. (1995) Focus groups and ethnography. Human Organization 54, 78–86. Alzheimer’s Australia (2016) Statistics: Key facts and statistics 2016. Alzheimer’s Australia. (accessed 14 January 2017). See https://www.fightdementia.org.au/statistics. Barbour, R.S. and Kitzinger, J. (1999) Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and Practice. London: Sage Publications. Brooker, D. and Duce, L. (2000) Wellbeing and activity in dementia: A comparison of group reminiscence therapy, structured goal-directed group activity and unstructured time, Aging & Mental Health 4 (4), 354–358. Chiang, K-J., Chu, H., Chang, H-J., Chung, M-H., Chen, C-H., Chiou, H-Y. and Chou, K-R. (2009) The effects of reminiscence therapy on psychological well-being, depression, and loneliness among the institutionalized aged. Geriatric Psychiatry 25, 380–388. Cooney, A., Hunter, A., Murphy, K., Casey, D., Devane, D., Smyth, S., Dempsey, L., Murphy, E., Jordan, F. and O’Shea, E. (2014) ‘Seeing me through my memories’: A grounded theory study on using reminiscence with people with dementia living in longterm care. Journal of Clinical Nursing 23, 3564–3574. Cooper, D. and Schindler, P. (2006) Business Research Methods (9th edn). New York: McGraw-Hill. Creswell, J. (2016) 30 Essential Skills for the Qualitative Researcher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Delahaye, B. (2005) Human Resource Development: Adult Learning and Knowledge Management (2nd edn). Milton, Qld: John Wiley & Sons. Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (2011) Methods of collecting and analysing empirical materials. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (4th edn, pp. 415–562). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Fontana, A. and Frey, J. (1998) Interviewing: The art and science. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Data (pp. 47–78). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Greenbaum, T. (2003) The gold standard? Why the focus group deserves to be the most respected of all qualitative research tools. Quirk’s Marketing Research Review 17, 22–27.

198

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Hartwell, H., Hemingway, A., Fyall, A., Filimonau, V. and Wall, S. (2012) Tourism engaging with the public health agenda: Can we promote ‘wellville’ as a destination of choice? Public Health 126 (12), 1027–1074. Hopkins, P. (2007) Thinking critically and creatively about focus groups. Area 39 (4), 528–535. Jo, H. and Song, E. (2015) The effect of reminiscence therapy on depression, quality of life, ego-integrity, social behavior function, and activities of daily living in elderly patients with mild dementia. Educational Gerontology 41, 1–13. Kamberelis, G. and Kimitriadis, G. (2011) Focus groups: Contingent articulations of pedagogy, politics and inquiry. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (4th edn; pp. 545–553). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Krueger, R.A. (1993) Quality control in focus group research. In D.L. Morgan (ed.) Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art (pp. 65–83). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Krueger, R.A. and Casey, M.A. (2000) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research (3rd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Krueger, R.A. and Casey, M.A. (2009) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research (4th edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Latha, K.S., Bhandary, P.V., Tejaswini, S. and Sahana, M. (2014) Reminiscence therapy: An overview. Middle East Journal of Age and Ageing 11 (1), 18–22. Marschall, S. (2014) ‘Travelling down memory lane’: Personal memory as a generator of tourism. Tourism Geographies 17 (1), 36–53. Merriam-Webster Incorporated (2015) Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster Incorporated. See https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordsat-play/word-of-the-year-2015. (accessed 14 January 2017). Merton, R.K., Fiske, M. and Kendall, P.L. (1956) The Focused Interview: A Manual of Problems and Procedures. New York: Free Press. Morgan, D.L. (1993) Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Morgan, D.L. (1998a) The Focus Group Guidebook, Focus Group Kit Vol. 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Morgan, D.L. (1998b) Planning Focus Groups. Focus Group Kit Vol. 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D. and Krishnan, R. (2004) Marketing Research. Boston, MA: Houghton Miffl in Company. Pyke, S., Hartwell, H., Blake, A. and Hemingway, A. (2016) Exploring well-being as a tourism product resource. Tourism Management 55, 94–105. Rodgers, J. (2001) Travel and Tourism. Oxford: Heinemann Educational Publishers. Sekaran, U. (2003) Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach (4th edn). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Spector, A., Thorgrimsen, L., Woods, B., Royan, L., Davies, S., Butterworth, M. and Orrell, M. (2003) Efficacy of an evidence-based cognitive stimulation therapy programme for people with dementia. British Journal of Psychiatry 183 (3), 248–254. Stewart, D.W. and Shamdasani, P.N. (1990) Focus Groups, Theory and Practice. Applied Social Research Methods series, Vol. 20. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Stone, R. (2008) Managing Human Resources (2nd edn). Milton, Qld: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. Veal, A. (2005) Business Research Methods: A Managerial Approach (2nd edn). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Australia. Weedon, P. (2005) A qualitative approach to the ethical consumer: The use of focus groups for cognitive consumer research in tourism. In B.W. Ritchie, P. Burns and C. Palmer (eds) Tourism Research Methods: Integrating Theory with Practice (pp. 179–190). Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

Qualitative Tourism Research: Focus Groups 199

Whyte, C. and Fortune, D. (2016) Natural leisure spaces in long-term care homes: Challenging assumptions about successful aging through meaningful living. Annals of Leisure Research 20 (1), 7–22. World Health Organisation (WHO) (1984) WHO defi nition of health, World Health Organisation. See http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/58259/1/WHO_RSD_87.33. pdf. (accessed 16 January 2017).

9 The Interview in Tourism Research Felicity Picken

I enjoy talking to you. Your mind appeals to me George Orwell

Talking to People

The value of the interview as a method rests upon a very simple premise: that talking to people is a useful way of answering a question, understanding a problem or solving it. While the premise is simple, when it comes to ‘talking to people’ for research, the interview can seem like an unfamiliar and somewhat artificial form of communication. This chapter aims not only to reverse this perception but also to highlight the value of learning to better plan, organise and systematise these conversations in research. While the interview is a formalisation of a method that is already used in everyday life and is part of common sense, it can make even more sense in the development of tourism knowledge when it is systematised and accountable. A substantial amount of research in tourism involves some kind of interviewing. It is useful as a stand-alone method in its own right, as a complementary method to mixed method approaches or as a key component of fieldwork. The aim of this chapter is to outline some of the ways that interviews can be used, and used well, in tourism research. This includes addressing strategic questions like ‘who to talk to?’ and ‘what to talk about?’ as well as employing some of the widely used techniques that make ‘talking to people’ a more productive research method. The interview is a method that responds well to addressing the earlier quantitative bias in tourism research. It is also good for addressing tourism within complex contemporary settings and is able to address the multiplicity of meanings, experiences, signs, influences, politics and, more generally, relations that are associated with tourism. The chapter will discuss some of the important characteristics of the interview method in tourism research. This includes talking to tourists, to hosts or local communities and to the widely variant tourism industry

200

The Interview in Tourism Research 201

as well as the form of interview structure and its effect on research fi ndings. The chapter will outline the differences between two key types of qualitative interviews – the semi-structured interview format and the unstructured ‘in-depth’ interview – as well as discuss the role and influence of technologies on the method in tourism research. Throughout this discussion, the chapter will draw upon examples from existing research, and draw extensively from a case study of a research project that involved interviews with the professionals associated with the development of a tourist precinct. Describing how the interview method unfolded in practice highlights the often unpredictable nature of interviews and the rich vein of knowledge this can assist to produce. The Value of Talking to People in Tourism Research

It is safe to assume, without knowing exactly, that an enormous amount of what is known about tourism today exists on the basis of talking to people. The interview method is valued across all of the disciplines that contribute to tourism studies. Indeed, it is often described as the most popular qualitative method in the social sciences (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003; Phillimore & Goodson, 2004; Travers, 2010). For these reasons, it is one of the most important and widespread ways of conducting tourism research, particularly under the post-positivist or ‘interpretivist’ and ‘constructivist’ paradigms of research (Noy, 2008; Riley & Love, 2000). As a method, interviews are the most appropriate for research that seeks to address questions that require an in-depth, individual response. As Clark et al. (1998) describe it, interviews are: [A] form of collecting qualitative data is at its most useful when it gives us insight into how individuals or groups think about their world [and] how they construct the ‘reality’ of that world. (Clark et al., 1998: 132)

Interviews are part of the suite of methods that are used mainly for qualitative research. They may constitute the main method of data collection or comprise one component of a study that involves mixed methods (qualitative and quantitative) or, as with ethnography, through the deployment of other qualitative research methods like observations and textual and discourse analysis. However they are used, either as a stand-alone method or a complementary method, interviews can be used to ‘drill down’ into a phenomenon, question or problem to provide a closer, more detailed understanding of the topic of inquiry. As is the case for the selection of all and any research approach, the usefulness of interviews as a principle or complementary method depends upon the research problem and design. At its most in-depth, interviews can contribute towards the production of what Geertz (1994) calls ‘thick descriptions’ and with these,

202

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

more focused and nuanced insights into the meanings and processes involved in all aspects of tourism production and consumption. In tourism research, the method of interviewing is most useful for gaining an in-depth understanding of a topic where differences in perceptions, attitudes, impacts, behaviours and practices are anticipated, possible or important. These differences can be noted between groups of people (like stakeholders) or between individuals. The benefits of this kind of deeper insight has been underscored as an important project for tourism scholars, especially following the quantitative bias of much earlier tourism research (Jamal & Hollishead, 2001). In the 21st century, interview methods are valued for better explaining tourism in complex, contemporary settings, where it is increasingly identified as a multipurpose, multi-reasoned phenomenon that is shot through with plural meanings, interpretations and effects (Picken, 2006). Tourism scholarship is now more greatly challenged with the quest to do more than ‘keep up’ with the growing prevalence of tourism in the world (Franklin & Crang, 2001). Calls to ‘challenge the “master paradigm” of positivism’ in tourism research during the 1990s accompanied a perceived need to provide ‘new dimensions to the body of knowledge’ (Riley & Love, 2000: 165). Somewhat ironically, while quantitative approaches to tourism research dominated early tourism scholarship, and while many have called for the ensuing deficit to be addressed, still many of the most highly regarded seminal works in tourism theory originate through qualitative approaches to research (Riley & Love, 2000: 166). Qualitative interviews supported MacCannell’s (1973, 1976) work on the tourist and quest for authenticity in the modern world; Cohen’s (1976) defi ning work on tourists and tourism; and Valene Smith’s (1977) edited work on tourist and host relations. Likewise, Plog’s (1974) development of the tourism motivation model was built upon the basis of in-depth interviews, illustrating the practical value of the method in tourism research. That these discreet, qualitative research projects produced knowledge that remains current and foundational today, says a lot about the power of qualitative approaches to research in the production of tourism knowledge (Hollinshead, 2004). Structured, semi-structured and unstructured (in-depth) interviews

Interviews can be structured, semi-structured or unstructured (in-depth) conversations about a given topic. While interviews tend to be part of the qualitative suite of methods, the qualifier itself is how structured the interviews are. A more structured interview method is more amenable to the aims and capacities of quantitative analyses. The most highly structured interviews are surveys. These are so well structured that they are not often regarded as interviews at all, and can often be undertaken without an interviewer present. Population census surveys are an example of this.

The Interview in Tourism Research 203

They are conducted at the level of a national population and are completed either manually on paper or via internet portals. In tourism, exit surveys, while not necessarily capturing the population of visitors, nevertheless aim to be representative of that population. Since these are designed to capture or represent a large population and are highly structured, and therefore encoded, at the start, they better support deductive, qualitative approaches to tourism research. Deductive reasoning is better supported by structured interview schedules because they exert more influence on the data produced by encouraging the participant to respond to a more particularised line of inquiry. The more structured interview sees the interviewer adopt a position that is like an ‘inquirer’ who has a series of specific questions or matters that he/she would like to discuss. It is for this same reason that surveys tend to produce ‘respondents’ and interviews produce ‘participants’. For the purposes of this chapter, less structured, qualitative approaches to interviewing will be discussed in more detail. A greater level of participation is required in semi-structured and in-depth interviews. Semi-structured interviews typically have a more detailed interview schedule than for in-depth interviews but are not as closed or structured as surveys. There may be multiple questions posed to each participant and these are usually comprised of closed questions, requiring a short or simple answer, and more open-ended questions requiring a greater input from the participant. In this way, they combine some parts that are more survey-like with a second part that is designed to elicit a more detailed, qualitative assessment of the topic. Like surveys, the more structured findings of semi-structured interviews are more amenable to quantitative and comparative analysis since they are effectively pre-coded through the interview schedule. Each question that is repeated across interviews serves as an ‘item’ that can then be analysed and compared across interviews. These kinds of interviews are better suited to inquiries where the research problem is clearly defined around key ‘themes’ or ‘matters’ that are consistently raised with each participant through the interview schedule. This kind of interview is very useful for research that aims to undertake comparative analysis across individuals or groups or within groups. Less structured interviews are useful for studies that, by methodological design or through their exploratory nature, are inductive in nature. Inductive, in this sense, means that participants are given more liberty to determine what is most important about a given, broad research topic. The reason for this is fairly obvious in that each question posed or topic flagged in the interview schedule further shapes (and can possibly limit) the breadth of possible responses to a research topic or problem. The degree of difference across participants depends on how much they are able to determine the course of the conversation during the interview and how many differences actually exist, or are articulated, among the participants

204

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

recruited to the study. Generally, the less structured an interview, the more individualistic, case-by-case, detailed and particularised set of fi ndings are produced. Research that is particularly amenable to inductive kinds of analyses are those that: • • •

Explore a topic from the perspective of those who participate in it. Describe or explain a new or emerging phenomenon or practice. Uncover complexities and multiple meanings, impressions, attitudes, interpretations or effects.

Research that is explorative or that aims to uncover a topic that has hazy parameters is particularly well served by this type of interview. It also supports studies that aim to understand the complexity of a problem or a phenomenon, like motivations for travel, or to address complex concepts like ‘experience’, ‘transformation’, ‘memory’, ‘identity’ and the negotiated relations between ‘self and Other’. They are often used to undertake objectives like ‘to unpack’ our understanding, to ‘gain insight’ into a phenomenon or to describe the individualised, nuanced, differences that can occur even in communal settings like ‘host community’ or ‘tourist enclave’. An in-depth, or very loosely structured, interview will involve fewer set questions and more open questions or ‘prompts’. Prompts are aimed at encouraging participant-led responses to a more generally defi ned topic or issue. The interviewer adopts a position of ‘learner’ and ‘encourager’ of the participants’ telling of their point of view. For this reason, qualitative interviews are most successful in situations where the creation of trust, or rapport, has been achieved (Decrop, 2004). De Santis (1980) defi nes this aspect of the qualitative interview method by the essential trait of a social interaction. Specifically, the in-depth interview is a systematic method of inquiry that aims to be ‘more akin to a conversation’ (De Santis, 1980: 101). Both the form of ‘conversation’ and the development of rapport create the conditions for an easier flow of communication with the participant. In these cases, the interviewer focuses on creating a general understanding of the topic and the areas to be explored, and then on generating a conversation with the participant. When thinking about the use of interviews and then, how structured they will be, it is important to think about the kind of insights sought from participants. A core principle of interviews is to gain a deeper insight into a research problem or question (Reed et al., 2009) rather than to extrapolate trends or fi ndings that can be easily generalised to a wider population. The method of qualitative interviewing does not tend to produce consensus across participants but instead tends to maintain the distinctive differences in whatever is being analysed. For example, Crompton’s (1979) study of

The Interview in Tourism Research 205

tourist motivation shows how interviews produce fi ndings that emphasise individuals and their situation or context rather than a set of traits or typologies that can be generalised to a set of tourist motivations. Tourism-Related People

Interviews involve talking to people who are identified as associated with tourism. These people are usually involved as tourists, as part of a local community or are from among the many and varied people who are committed to tourism industry, policy, planning and development. The decision to interview people, from either or all of these groups, follows an understanding that their individual experiences and knowledge are essential for addressing the research question or problem. When choosing who or which groups to interview, consideration must be given not only to the aims and integrity of the research but also to practical considerations like accessibility and willingness of potential research participants to be involved. In adopting a qualitative interview method, the case for recruitment is one of ‘participant selection’ rather than ‘sampling’ since there is no inference of representation to a wider population through the interview fi ndings. The three most common groups of people who are associated with tourism are tourists, hosts and industry and professional personnel. Interviewing tourists Drunken people [are] un-cooperative at times! (Pawson & Teather, 2002: 283)

The above quotation is a comment from a student researcher after being sent into the field to study tourists at a popular tourist resort. In this particular setting, the observation points to one of the characteristics that has come to typify some tourist behaviour in some of the social settings encouraged by the tourism industry. Hedonism, excitement and out of the ordinary experiences are highlighted as an important part of the social context within which ‘being a tourist’ is defi ned (Urry, 2002). Consequently, one of the first questions we have to ask ourselves about interviewing tourists is whether they are going be accessible and interested in being interviewed while they are on holiday. Tourists are characteristically ‘at leisure’, often adopting different attitudes and even personas while they are away (Allon, 2004) and, by virtue of their mobile nature, they are not necessarily the easiest people to interview during their travels. Tourists are generally ‘getting away from it all’, with a mindset more dedicated to pleasure, escape, enjoyment and relaxation. Participating in research through an interview while they

206

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

are on holidays can seem a lot like ‘work’. The tourist ‘lacks duration’ and is, in many instances, part of a ‘mobile non-community’ (Graburn, 2002: 19–20). In these ways, the tourist is neither the easiest nor the most amenable person to interview. While the best fit for the research question, problem and aims is a key consideration in the choice of method, in the case of tourists, the sociality of tourism needs to be taken into account alongside the practicalities of recruitment and willingness. That said, a qualitative interview that is more like a conversation can generate more interest, or less hostility, to participation in a research project. A key consideration for interviewing tourists is to determine a recruitment strategy including where and when the interviews will take place. Post-tourism interviews are popular in tourism research because they are useful methods through which participants can reflect upon their experiences and articulate these in their own words. Tung and Ritchie (2011) used interviews with tourists after their travels to understand ‘what exactly makes certain experiences special, spectacular, and […] memorable’. In-depth interviews were carried out to explore four previously identified elements of a memorable experience: affect, expectations, consequentiality and recall. These four elements provided a loose structure to the conversation at interview. The emphasis on reflecting on holiday experiences, most notable in the term ‘memorable’, justifies a post-tourism interview strategy in this case. In contrast, Hyde and Lawson’s (2003) research sought to interview travellers while they were on holiday at the beginning and end of their trip. In aiming to understand the ‘nature’ of independent travel, interviews that bracketed the trip at the beginning and end exposed the tourists’ commitment to an evolutionary itinerary, characterised by heightened riskiness, the desire for and the execution of relatively unplanned excursions. These insights were captured ‘in the moment’ so to speak, without the ambiguity of spaces of return (and memory) or departure (and anticipation). This strategy worked well to achieve the aim of describing the nature of this kind of travel as it is revealed through tourists’ own words, while they are still tourists. At the other end, pre-travel interviews with ‘potential’ or ‘committed’ tourists are particularly useful for understanding pre-trip planning, expectations, what is anticipated and what shapes this anticipation (like, for example, ‘the tourist gaze’). Bargeman and van der Poel (2006) conducted in-depth interviews with people who travel or intend to travel in order to understand the processes they undertake to choose a destination. For this study, it was important that people were interviewed before their travel because the research was framed around the idea that holidays are shaped by the routinised aspects of tourists’ everyday lives. For this research, interviews at home, before travel, were able to capture not only decision-making processes, but the routines at home that influenced these.

The Interview in Tourism Research 207

Interviewing hosts

In comparison to tourists, hosts can seem an easier group of people to engage in interviews for research. They are comparatively less mobile than tourists, they are involved in their everyday lives, rather than extraordinary activities, and presumably are less distracted (Picken, 2013b). On the basis of this, they may appear to be more amenable and available to take part in research. Anthropologists were among the fi rst to recognise and focus upon host communities in tourism research. The discipline has contributed most to understanding the ‘hosting’ aspects of tourism and typically employs ethnographic methods, including qualitative interviews, to do so (see Matthews, Chapter 4, this volume). These studies sought to understand the effect of tourism on local communities, including the ‘tourist–host encounter’ and how host communities responded to touristic incursions in their lives (see Smith, 1977). As tourism research has developed and expanded into a recognisable, interdisciplinary field of research, and a widespread phenomenon that makes ‘hosts’ of almost all regional populations, interviewing has been adopted as a method for understanding a wider range of host perceptions, reactions, adaptations and strategies for dealing with tourism. In particular, the now commonly valued idea of ‘host perceptions’ is an outcome of the interview method in tourism settings. Most common among studies that interview hosts are those that seek to understand the perception of tourism impacts (see Tosun, 2002). Interviews have also been used to generate an understanding of contemporary issues like sustainability from a host perspective, including the value of volunteer tourism (McIntosh & Zahra, 2007) and the differences in perception between volunteers and hosts (Wright, 2014) as well as how hosts mediate and negotiate authenticity in the tourist setting (Daugstad & Kirchengast, 2014; Frizvol, 2013). In addition, interviews with hosts are used to further defi ne and explain emerging and continuing niche forms of tourism like ‘rural tourism’ (Kastenholz et al., 2013), ‘safari tourism’ (Mutanga et al., 2013), ‘visiting friends and relatives (VFR) tourism’ (Shani & Uriely, 2012), ‘surf tourism’ (O’Brien & Ponting, 2013) and ‘volunteering tourism’ (McGehee, 2014). These studies refi ne our understanding of the negotiated, transactional nature of niche tourism that tends otherwise to be defi ned and described as industry-led ‘products’ or as outcomes of market research. Research that aims to engage on a deeper level with host communities through interviews can also highlight contentions in tourism development and operations. For example, Gard’ner (2004) was able to use interviews with local members of the Bengalee community in London to gain their culturally specific insights into the local built environment and to understand the shared and contested values between the authorised voice of cultural heritage management and embedded community values of place.

208

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

After the edited volume by Smith (1977, 2012) that examined and exposed the myriad relations between ‘Hosts and Guests’, interviews have been used across both tourists and host communities to understand the ‘touristic encounter’ or the relational process of visitation, perception and, ultimately, tourism ‘impact’ as it endures in tourist hosting places (see Griffiths & Sharpley, 2012). These studies are grounded in ideas about tourism as ‘process’ (Jules-Rosette & Bruner, 1994) and as encounter (Sharpley, 2014) that is well understood through the reflexive process of the interview method. Interviewing the tourism industry and tourism-related professionals

Just as the tourism industry and related professionals comprise a diverse group of people, so interviewing the industry and professionals can take many forms. Studies that have used interviews to address the nature of the tourism industry cover a wide range and varying array of methodologies and theoretical platforms. That said, there is a tendency when studying the industry and professionals to use a semi-structured interview format. The reason for this is in the research designs themselves. Many are seeking to understand a particular aspect of tourism (like success, sustainability or leadership) from a wider range of industry stakeholders. For this reason, semi-structured interviews are able to manage larger numbers of participants without losing the particularity of individual responses. Among these kinds of projects, interviews have been successfully employed to examine disparate topics including the labour conditions of tourism professionals; the key factors of successful tourism businesses and destinations; the challenges and opportunities of sustainable tourism business practice including volunteering, poverty alleviation and conservation ethics, as well as research that aims to identify what makes a good political leader in the tourism sector. Within stakeholder groups, Knollenberg et al. (2016) employed semi-structured interviews to understand the contextual factors and characteristics that were likely to incite political leadership among tourism industry and development professionals. Likewise, Spenceley and Snyman (2016) used semi-structured ‘stakeholder’ interviews to examine the role of private industry organisations in leading and generating conservation ethics in the tourism industry. Through this method, they were able to extrapolate that the direct exposure of private organisations to tourists (and tourist feedback) is an incentive for a more willing engagement with sustainability principles. Exploring the theme of sustainability further, Yadav et al. (2016) used interviews to fi nd out the constraints on and opportunities for sustainable tourism practice from the perspective of tourism development stakeholders including the host community, local

The Interview in Tourism Research 209

business operators and planning and policy authorities. Bornhorst et al. (2010) undertook a study of what constitutes the characteristics of tourism success by conducting interviews with a large sample of 84 tourism managers and stakeholders across Canada. They also implemented a semistructured format to ensure the consistency of the topics covered and a basis for a comparative analysis across the large group of participants. Interviews and Stakeholder Research

Stakeholder research is a key component of tourism knowledge production and is often used to understand tourism development and industry practices. Tourism research that seeks to identify and understand different stakeholders including their perceptions, attitudes and feelings about tourism has also benefitted from the use of qualitative interviews. A tourism stakeholder can be defi ned as ‘any group or individual who can affect or is affected by tourism development in an area’ (Feeeman, 1984, in Byrd, 2007: 6). Just as, at some level, all stakeholder research seeks to understand multiple perspectives in an interdependent relationship, each stakeholder group brings their own challenges and benefits to the interview process. Reed et al. (2009) suggest interviews as a good method for both identifying stakeholders and then explaining the relations between them. Interview can serve to identify and characterise stakeholder groups, including the level of consensus of cohesiveness within stakeholder groups. Interviews can also be used to generate information across stakeholder groups, about relations between stakeholders, by exploring the perceptions of one group, for example ‘hosts’ about another group like ‘tourists’. The interview is an especially effective way of gaining deeper insights into these dependencies or functional relationships that are so important in the production of tourism. While stakeholder views can be collected through individual interviews with different stakeholder group members, focus groups are another way of organising the interview process to gain multiple perspectives on a topic. Focus groups effectively employ the same techniques as an interview, generating a conversation about a topic with a small group of people (Jennings, 2005). Interviews and Technology

As with all research methods, various technologies have adapted and changed both the process of undertaking research and the efficiency dividend that results. In other words, all research methods are technological and this influences the skills required of the researcher, the practice of using the method and the fi ndings that are obtainable from its use.

210

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Communication technologies and interviews

Much research has been dedicated to understanding how technologies are changing the practice and industry of tourism in the world, but less consideration has been given to the changes being wrought by technology on the way tourism research is undertaken. Beginning with the pen and paper, through to voice recorders and transcribers, telephones, email and Skype, it is also true that research interviews have almost always relied on some form of technology. What remains constant then, is the need to be cognisant that there is a technological influence and a need to consider this in undertaking and presenting tourism research. It is worth noting that most of the skepticism and anxiety towards information and communication technologies (ICTs) in their application in qualitative interview methods is related to the interview itself, including the quality of the data collected and the conversation generated, rather than to the use of ICTs in recruitment or in technologically enabled analysis. Most of the concern about technology relates to its potentially disruptive effects on a method once defi ned solely by the idea of a purer (unmediated) face-to-face, guided conversation. Technology is regarded as potentially obstructive to this kind of meaningmaking and more encouraging of the survey methods model of information retrieval (Dicicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). A voice recording device, and later transcription technologies, replaced the pen and paper and shorthand as a way of recording, textualising and incorporating data into research reports and theses. These technologies have improved the speed and accuracy with which an interview conversation can be analysed and represented. They have also altered the interview encounter itself by introducing a third ‘actor’, albeit silently recording the proceedings. The benefit of recording an interview should be considered with the cost of producing a more artificial setting for the interview to take place, of creating a sense of inhibition among participants and altering the kind of information and its flow that might otherwise take place in a more ‘natural’ setting. Recording the interview can place undue emphasis on the participants’ ‘exact words’ in cases where general ideas are more important. Alternatively, in cases where the exact words of the participant are invaluable to the research, a recording is a vital part of the process. The point to note is that all technologies, regardless of their indisputable utility, influence the research process. How they influence each individual research process is a matter for consideration in the study design and fi ndings. Telephones, Skype, social media platforms and other distance-defeating technologies

While the voice recorder introduced both efficiencies and a new kind of awkwardness to the interview process, recent technologies within

The Interview in Tourism Research 211

the realm of ICT are claimed to provide a much greater challenge to the assumptions that underpin traditional face-to-face interviews (Deakin & Wakefield, 2013). Real-time or synchronic interviews are facilitated through technologies like telephones and Skype. Telephone interviews have the advantage of convenience, particularly for the researcher who can alleviate his/her time or monetary budget (Miller, 2001). However, they are also inconvenient in reducing the interaction to one of verbal cues only and losing much of the communication that takes place through co-presence. Phone interviews can still be recorded and transcribed from recordings and while they lack the benefits of face-to-face interaction, they are of benefit in situations where participants are geographically dispersed or are time poor. The geographical dispersion of participants can be particularly challenging for tourism research, attempting to capture and understand processes that, by defi nition, are multi-locational. The advent of synchronous technologies means that it has never been more feasible to ‘access the ideal research sample’, rather than a compromised one (Deakin & Wakefield, 2013: 2). Skype technologies retain the face-to-face quality of interviewing but this is highly mediated through technology. This not only influences the kind of rapport that can be developed and the social setting in which the interview takes place, but it also makes the interview process partial to technological failures. Asynchronous interviews are facilitated through technologies like email and other messenger services. The disadvantage of these kinds of interviews is the loss of non-verbal cues and any voice inflections that can alter the meaning of expression; the inability to generate a conversation or follow up responses at the time; and real difficulties in undertaking an in-depth interview since, most often, there will need to be a clearer structure to the interview, promoting a semi-structured approach. The advantage is that these kinds of interviews can easily fit the schedule of participants. Responses can be well-considered and well-articulated without the pressure of ‘the moment’ of response in the traditional interview setting and the interview is ‘transcribed’ through the process. As has been found in discussions about blogs and social media, there is still a lot of debate about whether this kind of interview elicits a more honest and accurate response or not. Until recently, these kinds of interviewing technologies have been considered a second, or alternative, form of interview process when the ‘gold standard’ of face-to-face interview has not been an option (Deakin & Wakefield, 2013). However, as ICT technologies are increasingly employed in qualitative tourism research, they are enabling new kinds of valid and reliable research to be undertaken that is given value beyond a compensatory ‘plan b’.

212

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Imagery and interviews

Imagery and photographs abound in tourism and are a vital source of information for tourism research (Picken, 2013a). While this state of affairs has produced a range of visual methods in tourism research (see Waterton, 2015; Waterton & Watson, 2014), imagery also produces an avenue and a technology for organising and framing interviews. In particular, images can be used to focus a conversation through the universal language of a picture, generate a conversation at interview and add another dimension to how people recall and describe a tourism-related topic. The technique of using imagery in interviews is sometimes referred to as ‘photo elicitation’, but this term places more of the emphasis on the photographs themselves as a lens for understanding practices. For example, tourists’ photographs have been used with interviews aimed at understanding variations in practice and meanings among tourists (Brandin, 2002). In these cases, tourists’ own photographs provide both evidence of tourist practice and a departure point for describing these practices and the meanings derived from them through interviews. More broadly, photographs or imagery can be employed in tourism research that addresses wider questions, or questions not strongly embedded in image development or consumption. It is through this latter use of imagery – as technologies of interview processes – that images are valued for both practical and methodological purposes (Harper, 2002). The fi rst, more practical, purpose relates to images in the role of assisting the generation of memory and in performing a structure for the interview conversation. The second, methodological, reason for using imagery in interviews is that imagery, as opposed to words, ‘evokes a different kind of information’ (Harper, 2002: 13). For example, the realms of affect and emotion are increasingly exposed through tourism research and recent scholarship. Within this context, images are often regarded as windows to affective states with the power to evoke emotional responses. In this way, they not only provoke memories but are also devices for tapping into the more affective dimensions of tourism (Waterton, 2015). Finally, as a device for cross-cultural communication, an image speaks any language, and can be a way of drawing diverse cultural perspectives together. On a practical level, images, including the tourists’ own photography, can serve as a basis for the interview schedule, as an aide memoire or as a way of communicating cross-culturally (Brandin, 2009). As the basis for an interview schedule, images may be used to structure the conversation between researcher and participants or provide a point of departure for an interview conversation. In the second case, the images’ success as an aide memoire hails from the idea that much of the ‘thrill found in a photograph comes from the onrush of memory’ (Berger, 1992, in Harper, 2002: 13).

The Interview in Tourism Research 213

Case Study: Interviewing in Action: Understanding a Controversial Tourist Development

A key part of any tourism research is not only understanding and explaining the general utility of the methods employed through the research design, but also accounting for how these methods accomplish their stated goals through each individual research process. In real time, these lessons form part of what gradually refi nes and adapts research methods to dynamic, and often innovating, fields of tourism practice. However, there is a tendency to ‘clean up’ our research in the fi nal reporting and this often includes a sanitised methods section that is free from errors, wrong turns, anxiety and uncertainty. Tourism research, through this convention, is often presented as an accomplishment that is achievable by aligning the right question with the right method and its faithful execution. The following case study describes a research process that is messier than this. It illustrates how the techniques and strategies of interviewing were justified and applied and reconsidered through the action of doing the method. The aim of the project was to understand what constituted ‘good tourism planning and design’ for a post-industrialising, postcard destination called Sullivans Cove (and see Picken, 2010). The research question was given additional momentum when the picturesque landscape of Sullivans Cove was blighted by a controversial boutique hotel called Zero Davey, and a local community who seemed unanimously ‘offended’ by it. The building not only created public censure, but exposed the planning process to a scrutiny that, at its core, was interested in pursuing the same question: What constitutes good tourism planning in Sullivans Cove? The following demonstrates the interview method in action including many of the techniques and considerations discussed above including the importance of building rapport, of being willing to relinquish some of the control for the data to the participants and how, through talking to people, our foundational ideas about tourism can begin to change. What follows is an empirical example of the interview as a research method and the kind of fi ndings that this, alone, can generate. Methods can refine the research question

The research question – ‘What constitutes good tourism planning in Sullivans Cove?’ did not immediately specify a group of participants to involve in answering the question. Tourists to the Cove, the immediate host population, tourism businesses, planners and policy makers all had the potential to contribute information to this general inquiry. The fi rst refi nement to the research question came from the need to address the requirements of the method of interviewing: of the ability to select participants. In considering the question of who should respond to the

214

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

question of what constitutes good tourism planning in Sullivans Cove, the question of how tourism was currently planned in Sullivans Cove emerged. The scandal of the hotel development presented itself as a catalyst for the question of what lies behind ‘good tourism planning and design’ in this place. Since the efficacy of the planning scheme and process became important sub-inquiries, it was decided that an opportune moment existed to interview those responsible for the planning and development of, fi rst, the hotel itself and through this, the wider processes of tourism development in Sullivans Cove. Selecting participants

The method for selecting participants for this project shared similarities with the kind of respondent-driven sampling that has been found useful for identifying ‘hidden populations’ (Heckathorn, 1997: 174). In this case, the participants were not particularly hidden or inaccessible but rather they constituted a group of people that only existed through their professional associations with Sullivans Cove. Those people who were to ultimately form the ‘group of participants’ – consisting of a developer, strategic planners, local and state policy makers, urban designers, architects and site developers – only existed as a group by virtue of their association with either the development of the hotel Zero Davey or the planning process that it entered into. Another way of understanding this is that the group of participants were only a group through the research project itself. Participants were fi rst selected through the public record including news media and public meetings written and held about the development of Zero Davey. Following this initial selection process, subsequent potential participants were obtained on the basis of referral. Through this process of adding to the developmental history with each interview, the group of participants evolved into a ‘natural interaction unit’ (in Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981: 141). Potential participants were contacted through their professional workplaces via email and, in some cases, by follow-up telephone call. Most, but not all, of the participants could be accessed locally. Clues to the most important participants in the development of Zero Davey and the principles that guided the planning scheme could also be found in the way the controversial aspects of the development were described. The aesthetics or ‘look’ of Zero Davey was one of its most controversial characteristics so it was considered important to speak with the architects who had worked upon and commented upon the project. This kind of recruitment strategy was found to be useful for a project that aimed to address a question that did not immediately identify the parameters of exactly who the participants would be. Other similar cases

The Interview in Tourism Research 215

may include a particular segment of a tourist population accessible only through this population (like some backpacker subcultures) or a particular aspect of a host community, where the most relevant participants are better found through the referral of others in a vaguely defi ned group. The interviews were planned to proceed in an unstructured manner since the participants were being asked to respond with their various forms of expertise to a set of general questions – about how good tourism planning was decided in Sullivans Cove. The aim was to address this question inductively, taking the participants’ expertise as the most important consideration in the direction of the interview conversation. Put simply, the participants themselves, drawn upon for their professional experience in tourism-associated developments, were to decide what topics of conversation mattered most. Formal, loosely structured interviews were eventually conducted with 18 professionals variously associated with the design and development of the hotel Zero Davey and the planning principles of Sullivans Cove. Each of these interviews was recorded and from these, 22 hours of audio conversation were transcribed. Studying across and in some cases ‘up’

In qualitative research it is desirable to adopt the approach that neither the researcher nor the participants are ‘epistemologically higher’ (Callon, in Barry & Slater, 2002a: 305). This contrasts with survey methods, for example, where the questions tend to steer the respondent along a much more directed path. In this study, epistemological equivalence was made easier to achieve since all of the interviewees were highly educated and knowledgeable professionals who were either interested in or directly associated with the topic of research. The idea of ‘studying up’ or more politely ‘studying across’ (Stacey, 1996: 96) is a relatively new consideration in discussions of interviews and this itself implicates a general earlier propensity to study ‘down’ by which is meant that participants are conceived as having information that needs to be expertly extracted by the researcher and their methods (Latour, 2005; Tedlock, 2003). Adopting the attitude of involving participants ‘more equally’ not only redraws this power relation that is associated with positivistic approaches to research, but is an outcome of contemporary scholarly paradigms including post-modern, post-structural and feminist approaches to social research (see Marcus & Fischer, 1986, in Gusterson, 1997: 114). Interviewing participants on a more equal footing designates an intellectual stance that suggests any participant, regardless of his/her status or education, is also the knowledgeable expert.

216

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Inconvenient conversations

Sometimes, interviews produce fi ndings that appear to further complicate the research problem, rather than clarify or solve it. This was the case in the study of Zero Davey and Sullivans Cove. The interviews soon began to reveal that tourism development can emanate from and turn in unexpected directions and that these directions can be inconvenient for the researcher. Just as with any conversation, it is impossible to fully predict where a conversation will travel. It is surely this unpredictability that makes a conversation interesting (among friends) and important (for research). Put another way, if it were possible to predict the direction of a conversation there would be little reason to have it. In this way, the less structured interview is more open to alternative interpretations and accounts of a research problem or question. A structure of sorts was presented to participants in an information sheet outlining the broad interest of the study. In addition, to facilitate a conversation to begin with and to provide a series of prompts should the conversation begin to falter, a series of general questions that were more like prompts constituted an interview schedule. Prompts were as open ended as ‘what mattered most to you in the development of Zero Davey?’ to ‘what does it mean to create a post-industrial tourist precinct?’. In most cases, little prompting was needed. Since the participants were selected on the basis that their actions were already implicated in the interests of the study, they were able to speak at length about their professional involvement without the need for much encouragement. The degree to which participants may require a more guided conversation depends on the aims of the research and the role of interviews in achieving these aims (including how inductive the research is to be), how expert the participants feel about the topic and how well they are able to articulate their thoughts on the topic. In this research project, the participants were the experts and the researcher took the role of an interested and semi-informed novice in the field. Tacking Back and Forth: The Interview Process

While much of the emphasis of the interview is placed on the spoken word, interviewing equally requires a great deal of active listening. Listening includes the researcher learning the delicate process of passing agency to participants – by allowing them to direct the conversation – without losing all agency himself/herself. To extend this point, the following section describes how, in this research project, the participants disobeyed tourism theory or the intuitions of the tourism researcher and how this provided the researcher with three alternatives. The fi rst was for the researcher to disobey the participants, or not follow their lead in order to ‘remain with

The Interview in Tourism Research 217

tourism’ theory as she understood it. The second alternative was to follow the participants and ‘abandon tourism’ altogether, and the third was to fi nd a way to both follow the participants and ‘return to tourism, without quite returning to tourism in the same way as it was fi rst conceived’. While tourism research has recognised the possibility of unintended tourism development, more persistent is the notion that tourism development is planned for and that ‘tourist places’ are usually outcomes of this. It is conceded that the terms ‘tourism planning’ and ‘tourism development’ are difficult to pin down and are complex, yet they are also obvious and self-evident, especially in tourism places. This is an important assumption in tourism discourse and it underpins the organisation of tertiary and vocational tourism courses into various ‘tourism planning and development’ units, as well conference themes and as keyword search items. From here it is not an intellectual leap to assume that behind tourist places is the professionalisation of tourism planning. However, this assumption was tested in this study when the researcher started to question those involved in the planning and development of a tourism place and was met with a consistency of responses like: I don’t think tourism’s the important question… What really matters here is not tourism, so much as…

In this circumstance, the researcher is faced with a dilemma. Should the researcher, for whom sole authority comes from a bank of ‘tourism knowledge’ that is important to draw from at this early stage, push the question of tourism? Should she relentlessly return to it until the experts realise that tourism is all that she is interested in? Perhaps she should take it upon herself to educate the experts about tourism and how it really does matter to what they are doing. Perhaps then, they could interview her? Once the interviews were completed and transcribed, they were clearly full of ‘resistances’ to being drawn into matters of tourism. Yet, the researcher can again ponder the possibility of remaining with tourism by taking what little reference to tourism there is and making it work, despite the ‘paucity’ of the data. There is enough time in this project to fi nd support elsewhere – in tourism statistics, the historical archives of tourism development in Sullivans Cove, the strategic state-level policy direction and so on. The researcher could go out and interview tourists in the Cove, who cannot say tourism doesn’t matter in this place. The researcher can again have the opportunity to educate the experts and show them why they are naïve in their dismissal of tourism and why it does matter to their professional work. Through this course of action, the researcher can keep her agency and opt, for very good reasons, not to follow the participants who dispel her initial beliefs about tourism theory and planning.

218

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

At the other end of the spectrum, the researcher could relinquish her agency altogether, accept that she had asked the wrong sort of questions or the wrong questions of the wrong people, and move forward with what the experts did want to talk about. She could abandon tourism, accepting that she had been too specific, too deductive and had imposed her premise, her idea of a topic upon a situation that was incapable of responding to it. Now, she has the option of pretending this hadn’t happened and of remaining faithful to the participants and the data that did exist, but not to the questions that led her to it. The problem in this case is ‘the problem’ itself and it can now be modified to ‘fit the data’. There is still enough time in this project to reformulate a question and to sweep away the mistakes made earlier. It is too dangerous to remain with tourism; it needs to be abandoned. This option accepts that while Sullivans Cove has all the hallmarks of a tourist place, this is nevertheless a departure from what really matters in its organisation. What is obvious, in this case, is also deceptive. For the researcher who has given over to the data, it is not the tourism case it was proposed to be but a case, more appropriately, of mistaken identity. This second alternative makes an account of Sullivans Cove that is faithful to the participants and how they understand their worlds but gives no account of the ‘faulty premise’ that leads a researcher interested in how tourism works to Sullivans Cove in the fi rst place. This means that there is little account of the researcher who instead appears almost erased. To replace her ‘faulty premise’ with a ‘better premise’ also ignores the fact that the data that does exist speaks of participants responding to the faulty premise, not the better one. What this option does instead is follow participants wherever they go and the problem with doing this is they ‘go anywhere’. ‘Tourism’ is no longer the central concern, as in the fi rst option, and the interviewer is less interfering in this regard, but there is also a chance that nothing will be conveyed at all without a researcher with a research plan and a will to follow this through. As these kinds of interviews continued, it was realised that the fi ndings of the research would be counterintuitive. Intuition had led to the selection of a controversial tourism development in a ‘tourism place’ as a good case study for tourism planning. In this way, the original premise of the research was simple, or arrived at simply: this place would provide good data for understanding how a ‘tourist place’ is planned and developed. However, during the interviews, this same premise created a tension that could only be resolved in the end by giving in to a process of ‘intuitioncounter-intuition’. Through the interviews was a progression of both deduction and induction (intuition and counterintuition) but these were names more clearly given to points in the research process after it was concluded, not before or during the negotiations that determine them. In

The Interview in Tourism Research 219

this way, through the process of interviewing, the conversational nature of the method became a substantive part of the data collected and not separable from it. [W]e are continually tacking back and forth, the method being a fractal meander, to one side for safety, to the other side for freedom, to one side for regulation of our thoughts, to the other for boldness and discovery. (Serres, 1982/1995: 114)

In both of the fi rst two alternatives, the agency of the researcher can be said to be put at stake since she has engaged the views of others and they have challenged her assumptions. The fi rst alternative protects the agency of the researcher in order to produce an account that is more about tourism, but is less of an account because it has contributed little to what was already normative in the discourse of tourism. The second alternative illustrates a researcher ‘giving agency over’ to participants to produce an account that is not about tourism because there is little it can reconcile with the state of tourism discourse and the researcher seeks to ‘interfere’ as little as possible. To borrow from Foucault (1972: 216), both alternatives present a situation of tentative fit or a ‘return to foundations’ that is ‘no return at all’. To make this kind of return or fit to the experience of research is to conceal rather than account for the sometimes contradictory and counterintuitive turns that take place in conversation. Accounting these, rather than resolving them, became a defi ning characteristic of the research process and ultimately, the research fi ndings. The conversational nature of the loosely structured interview is, therefore, a substantive part of the data collected, not separable from it. The process of research in this case became illustrative of the characteristic unpredictability, highly negotiable and deeply rewarding nature of undertaking loosely structured, in-depth interviews. Concluding Remarks on the Limits of the Interview Method

This chapter has outlined the interview method in tourism research in terms of its practical, theoretical and methodological applicability. The interview has been discussed as a systematic way of turning ‘talking to people’ into data and as a fundamental method in tourism research as either a stand-alone or a complementary method with a structural gradient that shifts from surveys to in-depth, participant-led conversation. The particularities of tourists, hosts and industry and professional people were considered as well as the impact of technologies on reaching these people, recruiting them and successfully interviewing them to varying effect. Finally, a case study of the interview process was presented to ward against

220

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

the temptation to clean up the methods process and to embrace the full diversity of outcomes that are possible through conversing with people. What has not been considered until now is what an interview cannot do. Every method is defi ned as much by its limitations as what it enables or facilitates, and interviews are no exception. While interviews are very good methods for identifying the vast array of meanings, interpretations and experiences associated with tourism, they are unable to identify ‘what is not being said’ and which ‘points of view are not represented’ (Herrold, 2001, in Pawson & Teather, 2002: 278). Put simply, the interview cannot reveal what it does not encounter. This is not only true of missing perspectives that are either not captured through participants’ conversations or not captured in the participant pool, but is also true for all of the actions, behaviours and expressions that lie outside our conversational abilities. Interviews are restricted to how people speak about a topic and this may not exactly map into what people actually do in relation to a topic. Essentially, we are asking people about their observations (Weiss, 1994: 1) and the fi ndings are limited to these. Key considerations in the differences between saying and doing include how well people are able to accurately articulate ‘what is happening’, ‘what they think’ or ‘how they feel’ and how well these articulations bare out through action. Beginning with a clear understanding of what interviews can and cannot do is crucial to the production of tourism knowledge. References Aitcheson, C. (2001) Theorizing other discourses of tourism, gender and culture: Can the subaltern speak in tourism? Tourist Studies 1 (2), 133–147. Allon, F. (2004) Backpacker heaven: The consumption and construction of tourist spaces and landscapes in Sydney. Space and Culture 7 (1), 49–63. Anderson, W. and Nicodemus, G. (2016) Contribution of tourism FDI to poverty alleviation: A selected case from hunting safaris in Tanzania. Business Management Review 18 (2), 1–25. Bargeman, B. and van der Poel, H. (2006) The role of routines in the vacation decisionmaking process of Dutch vacationers. Tourism Management 27 (4), 707–720. Biernacki, P. and Waldorf, D. (1981) Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chair referral sampling. Sociological Methods and Research 10 (2), 141–163. Bornhorst, T., Ritchie, J. and Sheehan, L. (2010) Determinants of tourism success for DMOs and destinations: An empirical examination of stakeholders’ perspectives. Tourism Management 31 (5), 572–589. Brandin, E. (2009) Disposable camera snapshots: Interviewing tourists in the field. In M. Robinson and D. Picard (eds) The Framed World: Tourism, Tourists and Photography (pp. 217–228). Farnham: Ashgate. Byrd, E. (2007) Stakeholders in sustainable tourism development and their roles: Applying stakeholder theory to sustainable tourism development. Tourism Review 62 (2), 6–13. Clark, M., Riley, M., Wilkie, E. and Wood, R. (1998) Researching and Writing Dissertations in Hospitality and Tourism. London: International Thomson Business Press.

The Interview in Tourism Research 221

Cohen, E. (1974) Who is a tourist?: A conceptual clarification. The Sociological Review 22 (4), 527–555. Crompton, J.L. (1979) Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research 6 (4), 408–424. Daugstad, K. and Kirchengast, C. (2013) Authenticity and the pseudo-backstage of agritourism. Annals of Tourism Research 43, 170–191. Deakin, H. and Wakefield, K. (2013) Skype interviewing: Reflections of two PhD researchers. Qualitative Research 1 (1), 1–14. Decrop, A. (2004) Trustworthiness in qualitative tourism research. In J. Phillimore and L. Goodson (eds) Qualitative Research in Tourism: Ontologies, Epistemologies and Methodologies (pp. 156–169). London: Routledge. De Santis, G. (1980) Interviewing as social interaction. Qualitative Sociology 2 (3), 72–98. Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (2003) Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. London: Sage Publications. Duval, T.D. (2003) When hosts become guests: Return visits and diasporic identities in a commonwealth Eastern Caribbean community. Current Issues in Tourism 6 (4), 267–308. Edensor, T. (2009) Tourism and performance. in T. Jamal and M. Robinson (eds) The Sage Handbook of Tourism Studies (pp. 453–557). London: Sage Publications. Favero, P. (2007) ‘What a wonderful world!’: On the ‘touristic ways of seeing’, the knowledge and the politics of the ‘culture industries of otherness’. Tourist Studies 7 (1), 51–81. Feighery, W. (2006) Reflexivity and tourism research: Telling an(other) story. Current Issues in Tourism 9 (3), 269–282. Franklin, A. and Crang, M. (2001) The trouble with travel and tourism theory. Tourist Studies 1 (1), 5–22. Frisvoll, S. (2013) Conceptualising authentication of ruralness. Annals of Tourism Research 43, 272–296. Gard’ner, J. (2004) Heritage protection and social inclusion: A case study from the Bangladeshi community of East London. International Journal of Heritage Studies 10 (1), 75–92. Garlick, S. (2002) Revealing the unseen: Tourism, art and photography. Cultural Studies 16 (2), 289–305. Geertz, C. (1994) Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In M. Martin and L. MacIntyre (eds) Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science (pp. 213–231). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Graburn, N. (2002) The ethnographic tourist. In G. Dann (ed.) The Tourist as a Metaphor of the Social World (pp. 19–40). Trowbridge: CABI. Griffiths, I. and Sharpley, R. (2012) Influences of nationalism on tourist–host relationships. Annals of Tourism Research 39 (4), 2051–2072. Gusterson, H. (1997) Studying up revisited. Polar (20) May, 114–119. Hanna, P. (2012) Using internet technologies (such as Skype) as a research medium: A research note. Qualitative Research 12 (2), 239–242. Harper, D. (2002) Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies 17 (1), 13–26. Hollinshead, K. (2004) Ontological craft in tourism: The productive mapping of identity and image in tourism settings. In J. Phillimore and L. Goodson (eds) Qualitative Research in Tourism: Ontologies, Epistemologies and Methodologies (pp. 83–101). London: Routledge. Hyde, K. and Lawson, R. (2003) The nature of independent travel. Journal of Travel Research 42 (1), 13–23. Jamal, T. and Hollinshead, K. (2001) Tourism and the forbidden zone: The undeserved power of qualitative inquiry. Tourism Management 22, 63–82.

222

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Jennings, G. (2005) Interviewing: Techniques. In B. Ritchie, P. Burns and C. Palmer (eds) Tourism Research Methods: Integrating Theory with Practice (pp. 99–118). Trowbridge: CABI. Jules-Rosette, B. and Bruner, E. (1994) Tourism as process. Annals of Tourism Research 21 (2), 404–406. Kastenholz, E., Carneiro, M., Eusébio, C. and Figueiredo, E. (2013) Host–guest relationships in rural tourism: Evidence from two Portuguese villages. Anatolia 24 (3), 367–380. Knollenberg, W., McGehee, N., Perdue, R. and Andereck, K. (2016) What makes a political leader? Identifying the attributes of tourism industry advocates. Proceedings of Tourism Travel and Research Association: Advancing Tourism Research Globally, Paper 11, June 3, 2016. See http://scholarworks.umass.edu/ttra/2016/ (accessed 21 July 2016). Kvale, S. (1983) The qualitative research interview: A phenomenological and a hermeneutical mode of understanding. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology 14 (2), 171–196. MacCannell, D. (1973) Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in tourist settings. American Journal of Sociology 79 (3), 589–603. MacCannell, D. (1976) The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. Berkley, CA: University of California Press. McGehee, N. (2014) Volunteer tourism: Evolution, issues and futures. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 22 (6), 847–854. McIntosh, A. and Zahra, A. (2007) A cultural encounter through volunteer tourism: Towards the ideals of sustainable tourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15 (5), 541–556. McLellan, E., MacQueen, K. and Neidig, J. (2003) Beyond the qualitative interview: Data preparation and transcription. Field Methods 15 (1), 63–84. Miller, G. (2001) Corporate responsibility in the UK tourism industry. Tourism Management 22 (6), 589–598. Mutanga, C., Vengesayi, S., Kwanisai, G., Mirimi, K. and Chipotereke, C. (2013) Tourism development and host communities. Perceptions: The case of Mana Pools National Park, Zimbabwe. Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities 3 (10), 42–56. Noy, C. (2008) Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 11 (4), 327–344. O’Brien, D. and Ponting, J. (2013) Sustainable surf tourism: A community centered approach in Papua New Guinea. Journal of Sport Management 27 (2), 158–172. Pawson, E. and Teather, E. (2002) ‘Geographical expeditions’: Assessing the benefits of a student-driven fieldwork method. Journal of Geography and Higher Education 26 (3), 275–289. Phillimore, J. and Goodson, L. (2004) From ontology, epistemology and methodology to the field. In J. Phillimore and L. Goodson (eds) Qualitative Research in Tourism: Ontologies, Epistemologies and Methodologies (pp. 185–194). London: Routledge. Picken, F. (2006) From tourist looking-glass to analytical carousels: Navigating tourism through relations and context. Current Issues in Tourism 9 (2), 158–170. Picken, F. (2010) Tourism, design and controversy: Calling on non-humans to explain ourselves. Tourist Studies 10 (3), 245–263. Picken, F. (2013a) From designed spaces to designer savvy societies: The potential of ideas competitions in willing participation. Environment and Planning A: Urban and Regional Research 45 (8), 1963–1976. Picken, F. (2013b) Ethnography. In M. Walter (ed.) Social Research Methods (3rd edn; pp. 337–350). Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Plog, S. (1974) Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 14 (4), 55–58.

The Interview in Tourism Research 223

Ponterotto, J. (2006) Brief note on the origins, evolution, and meaning of the qualitative research concept thick description. The Qualitative Report 11 (3), 538–549. Reed, M.S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C., Quinn, C.H. and Stringer, L.C. (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (5), 1933–1949. Riley, R. and Love, L. (2000) The state of qualitative tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research 27 (1), 164–187. Shani, A. and Uriely, N. (2012) VFR tourism: The host experience. Annals of Tourism Research 39 (1), 421–440. Sharpley, R. (2014) Host perceptions of tourism: A review of the research. Tourism Management 42, 37–49. Smith, V. (ed.) (1977) Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Spenceley, A. and Snyman, S. (2016) Can a wildlife tourism company influence conservation and the development of tourism in a specific destination?. Tourism and Hospitality Research 7 (5), 177–182. Travers, M. (2010) Qualitative interviewing methods. In M. Walter (ed.) Social Research Methods (2nd edn; 287–321). Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Tosun, C. (2002) Host perceptions of impacts: A comparative tourism study. Annals of Tourism Research 29 (1), 231–253. Tung, V. and Ritchie, J. (2011) Exploring the essence of memorable tourism experiences. Annals of Tourism Research 38 (4), 1367–1386. Urry, J. (2002) The Tourist Gaze (2nd edn). London: Sage Publications. Waterton, E. and Watson, S. (2014) The Semiotics of Heritage Tourism. Bristol: Channel View Publications. Waterton, E. (2015) Visuality and its affects: Some new directions for Australian heritage tourism. History Compass 13 (2), 51–63. Weiss, R. (1994) Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies. New York: Simon and Schuster. Yadav, N., Sahu, N. and Sahoo, D. (2016) Sustainable tourism management in the National Chambal Sanctuary, India: Impediments and opportunities. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology 7 (5), 177. Yuksel, F., Bramwell, B. and Yuksel, A. (1999) Stakeholder interviews and tourism planning at Pamukkale, Turkey. Tourism Management 20 (3), 351–360.

10 A Mixed Methods Approach in Tourism Research Benjamin Lucca Iaquinto

For most of its history, tourism research was dominated by the philosophy of positivism and the use of quantitative methods (Goeldner, 2005; Riley & Love, 2000). But over the past decade or so, this dominance has been thoroughly challenged by tourism researchers using a diversity of methodologies and philosophies (Aitchison, 2005; Ateljevic et al., 2007; Bianchi, 2009; Jennings, 2005; Matthews, 2012; Phillimore & Goodson, 2004). One of the alternatives to positivism and quantitative methods that has been adopted by tourism scholars is mixed methods research (MMR) (Heimtun & Morgan, 2012; Jennings, 2009; Mason et al., 2010; Pansiri, 2006). It is the topic of this chapter. MMR is usually understood as research that combines qualitative and quantitative methods (Creswell, 2015; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2011). To mixed methods researchers, combining means ‘collecting, analysing, and interpreting quantitative and qualitative data in a single study or in a series of studies that investigate the same underlying phenomenon’ (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009: 265). While MMR is currently widely accepted in the tourism academy, it is less common than single method approaches (Koc & Boz, 2014; Lu & Nepal, 2009; Nunkoo et al., 2013). Compared to those using strictly quantitative or qualitative methods, there is a lack of resources for tourism researchers seeking to use MMR in their own work. In this chapter, I use my research on backpackers and sustainability (Iaquinto, 2015a) as a case study to illustrate when MMR can be a useful methodology for tourism researchers. A common reason why researchers choose to mix methods is to combine the strengths of each method while minimising their weaknesses (Creswell, 2015). But, according to Creswell and Plano Clark (2011), there are at least six other situations which warrant the use of mixed methods. These are when one data source is inadequate, when there is a need to generalise from an initial exploratory study, when more explanation is required, when a specific research phase needs additional understanding, when a theoretical perspective requires further elaboration and for longitudinal studies that 224

A Mixed Methods Approach in Tourism Research 225

have multiple elements and continue over the course of several years. But in general, the appeal of a ‘mixed methods way of thinking’ is that it enables ‘better understanding’ of complex social phenomena (Greene, 2007: 20). Tourism, as a highly complex social phenomenon, generates research questions quite amenable to the use of mixed methods (Molina-Azorín & Font, 2015). In my research (Iaquinto, 2015a), I was interested in how sustainable practices emerged in the daily activities of backpackers. Using a mix of methods enabled me to detect more sustainable practices than using any single method alone (see also Iaquinto, 2016). Following Bryman’s (2008: 88) concern that in MMR ‘what is actually involved in mixing, integrating, combining, meshing, etc. is quite often underexplained’, this chapter illustrates the process of combining qualitative and quantitative methodologies using a research project on backpackers as a case study. However, it is not the purpose of this chapter to call for more MMR in tourism. There is no point using mixed methods when a single method will suffice. After all, MMR is commonly based on the philosophy of pragmatism (Bryman, 2008; Greene, 2008; Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). Being truly pragmatic involves recognising when single method approaches are sufficient. But since MMR is still emerging, it is ‘relatively unknown and confusing to many researchers’ (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009: 266). MMR requires qualitative and quantitative data sets to be combined, but how is this done in practice? What are the advantages of MMR over single method approaches? These are questions that this chapter will seek to address. The structure of the chapter is as follows. Next, I discuss pragmatist, transformative, critical realist and dialectic philosophies as they are the main philosophies underpinning MMR. This is followed by an explanation of the different types of mixed methods studies that are possible as mixing can take a variety of forms. The various ways that tourism researchers have used MMR are then discussed, followed by the backpacker case study and then the conclusion. Philosophies of Mixed Methods Research

MMR was established as a formal field of research by the late 1980s (Guest, 2013). It emerged as a new front in the ‘paradigm wars’ of the 1970s–1990s (Denzin, 2010), a period in which quantitative and qualitative methods were seen as irreconcilable – the ‘incompatibility thesis’ (Howe, 1988). The merits of both approaches were vigorously debated across the social sciences (Denzin, 2010, 2012; Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). MMR became known as the ‘third methodological movement’ (Johnson et al., 2007: 118), and provided a way to bridge the gap between opposing research traditions.

226

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

The philosophical foundations of MMR have been consistently debated among mixed methods researchers (Creswell, 2015). Sometimes used interchangeably with terms such as paradigm, perspective or world view, a research philosophy is a collection of values and beliefs that inform how research is conducted (Guba in Creswell, 2015). As the field of MMR has developed, it has come to be associated with a number of research philosophies particularly pragmatism, transformative-emancipation, critical realism and dialectics. While none are exclusive to MMR, their popularity among mixed methods researchers means that they are often central to debates regarding the validity of MMR (Mertens, 2010; Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005; Shannon-Baker, 2015; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2012). I will now explain each of these philosophies and their relevance to MMR. Pragmatism

MMR is most commonly underpinned by the philosophy of pragmatism (Bryman, 2008; Feilzer, 2010; Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005; Pansiri, 2005). In the work of Rorty (1999) and Dewey (1925), pragmatism is positioned against the quantitative/qualitative binary, and it rejects the search for ‘truth’ upon which positivism and constructivism are both based (cited by Feilzer, 2010). Pragmatism does not share the focus on objectivity in positivism or the emphasis on subjectivity in constructivism (Feilzer, 2010). Instead, pragmatists argue qualitative and quantitative methods can be combined (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Pragmatists see similarities between quantitative and qualitative approaches, such as the mutual use of observations to answer research questions and that both approaches interpret data to generate meaning (Onwuegbuzie & Leach, 2005). Pragmatism prioritises the use of approaches that most effectively answer specific research questions (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). In other words, pragmatism is about using methods ‘that work’ (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011), and it uses empiricism to determine workable methods (Howe, 1988; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Pragmatism appeals to mixed methods researchers because it provides a middle ground both philosophically and methodologically between quantitative and qualitative positions (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). But using pragmatism does not mean research designs must be positioned directly in the centre between qualitative and quantitative approaches. Mixed methods researchers commonly preference one method depending on the type of research questions they are addressing. The value of pragmatism is its ability to enable researchers to use the methods they need in order to answer specific research questions. But, as Pansiri (2005: 197) highlighted, pragmatism does not provide ‘an emancipatory programme’

A Mixed Methods Approach in Tourism Research 227

and so it may have less to offer critically inclined tourism scholars (Heimtun & Morgan, 2012). As an alternative, Heimtun and Morgan (2012) put forth the transformative paradigm as an alternative philosophy for feminist tourism researchers looking to use mixed methods. Transformative-emancipation

Transformative-emancipation is based on enabling social justice (Mertens, 2010). It can be used by mixed methods researchers to enable social change and to conduct research in the context of cultural complexity (Mertens, 2007). The methodological choices of researchers using transformative perspectives are influenced by their goal of creating social change (Mertens, 2007). The philosophical underpinnings of the approach are based on an ethical position in which the pursuit of human rights is paramount (Mertens, 2012). Ontologically, the transformative paradigm acknowledges that there are multiple socially constructed realities so it is necessary to explain the values that work to shape those realities (Mertens, 2007). Rather than research philosophy guiding methods (or vice versa), the overriding goal of social justice in the transformative paradigm works to connect research philosophy with methods concurrently (Sweetman et al., 2010). This means that both philosophy and methods shape the research process simultaneously rather than one following the other. For researchers influenced by the transformative paradigm, the nature of reality is influenced by the ways that power is exercised in society (Mertens, 2012). The appeal of mixed methods is their ability to convey the complexity of social issues by using both qualitative and quantitative modes of understanding (Mertens, 2012). Like pragmatism, a transformative philosophy enables researchers to select methods that best answer research questions. Unlike pragmatism, it addresses issues of power at every stage of the research process (Mertens, 2007). Critical realism

Critical realism is common in MMR because it supports the view that qualitative and quantitative methods are compatible. Critical realism is based on the idea that theories are incomplete and can never provide comprehensive explanations of phenomena (Shannon-Baker, 2015). It rejects the notion of a single reality detectable via empirical observations and instead values multiple perspectives and therefore mixed methods (Modell, 2009; Shannon-Baker, 2015). Bhaskar (1978) identified three different versions of reality upon which critical realism is based. There is an ‘empirical’ reality that can be

228

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

experienced, an ‘actual’ reality that may or may not be experienced and a ‘real’ reality comprised of objects (cited by McEvoy & Richards, 2006). Unlike positivism which seeks generalisable laws, or interpretivism which seeks to identify people’s lived experiences, the guiding purpose of critical realist research is to gain high levels of insight and explanation (McEvoy & Richards, 2006). Since critical realism encourages researchers to consider multiple versions of reality, Lipscomb (2008) argues that it is better able to provide coherence between research philosophies and methods than pragmatic approaches that do not require such connections. A critical realist philosophy can be used by mixed methods researchers as a way to enable compatibility between qualitative and quantitative methods by emphasising the deficiencies of all theories (Maxwell & Mittapalli, 2010). It thus offers a way to communicate across philosophical and methodological divides (Shannon-Baker, 2015). Dialectics

Dialectics is based on the idea that all philosophies have benefits and so using multiple philosophies improves understanding of the research topic (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003). Dialectics is thus about ‘mixing paradigms while mixing methods’ but it does not privilege one specific world view over others, considering all to be valuable despite their limitations (Green & Caracelli, 2003: 96). Doing dialectic MMR requires engaging with a range of different viewpoints that can be oppositional or contradictory, and to produce useful understandings through the tensions that then occur (Greene & Caracelli, 2003). As Greene (2007: 79) notes, research insights are ‘best attained through a respectful conversation among different ways of seeing and knowing’. Since mixed methods researchers commonly debate the commensurability of qualitative and quantitative methods, dialectics is a useful philosophical partner for MMR as it is based on generating useful knowledge through the combination of oppositional world views. While the previous three philosophies may all be used differently by different researchers, they lack the plurality encouraged by a dialectical stance. However, conversations in dialectics are usually about the topic of research rather than philosophical issues (Greene & Caracelli, 2003). Unlike critical realism which deals with opposing philosophical stances by arguing for the compatibility of qualitative and quantitative approaches, dialectics engages with the tensions between different philosophies in a productive manner. In the next section, I discuss how MMR can be classified depending on the relationship between qualitative and quantitative approaches.

A Mixed Methods Approach in Tourism Research 229

Classifying Mixed Methods Research

The vast range of MMR design typologies is potentially confusing for any researcher, novice or otherwise (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009). This section is intended to provide an introduction to the choices available to researchers looking to use mixed methods; however, it is not exhaustive. You may construct your own MMR design or choose other typologies such as those in Creswell et al. (2003), Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2009) and Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003). According to Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009), mixed methods researchers have devoted considerable effort to designing typologies, and there are five main reasons for this: they establish a shared language, they assist research development, they structure the field, they legitimise the field and they assist in teaching (cited by Guest, 2013). Generally speaking, MMR is classified depending on the order that the data were collected in (concurrently or sequentially), which method was prioritised (qualitative, quantitative or both) and at what point in the research process the mixing occurred (data collection, analysis or interpretation stages) (Creswell, 2015; Creswell et al., 2003; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009). A common way to display this is in the form of a notation system fi rst used by Morse (1991, 2003) but later popularised by mixed methods researchers (Creswell, 2015). Morse used a ‘+’ sign to indicate when the different methodological strands were conducted simultaneously and a right arrow ‘→’ to indicate when one method followed the other (Creswell, 2015). The use of upperand lower-case letters then indicates which method was prioritised (e.g. ‘QUAL’ or ‘QUAN’) (Creswell, 2015). Table 10.1 shows the different types of mixed methods studies that can be communicated using Morse’s notation system. Based on the notation system in Table 10.1, it is then possible to use a diagram to indicate the type of mixed method design being used. Mixed methods researchers can use a simple diagram, such as ‘QUAN+qual’ to indicate the type of MMR design they are using. At their best, diagrams provide a simple way to communicate research designs at conferences,

Table 10.1 Mixed methods notation system Notation

What it indicates

Example

Upper-case letters

Prioritised methods

QUAN, QUAL

Lower-case letters

Supplementary methods

quan, qual

+

Convergent methods

QUAN+QUAL

→

Sequential methods

QUAN→QUAL

Source: Adapted from Creswell (2015: 53).

230

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

in published work and in funding proposals (Creswell, 2015). They are particularly useful for audiences less familiar with mixed methods studies. However, these types of diagrams are most useful with simple mixed method research designs. Studies which use several qualitative and quantitative methods or have numerous stages of data collection are less easily displayed in diagrams and researchers may choose other means of communicating their research. Guest (2013) argues that for more complex MMR designs it is instead useful to focus on the points throughout a study in which qualitative and quantitative approaches meet. He argues this reduces the number of dimensions requiring description to only two – the purpose and timing of mixing. While the notation system in Table 10.1 only includes two different variables – prioritised/supplementary methods and convergent/sequential methods – other variables are possible. As Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) report, the notation system can be expanded to include four other variables. Parentheses can be used to indicate one method to be embedded in a larger research design ‘QUAN(qual)’. An equal sign can be used to indicate the reason methods were mixed ‘QUAN→qual=explain results’. Brackets are used to show when mixed methods are used in one study within a larger series of studies ‘QUAL→QUAN→[QUAN+qual]’. While double arrows indicates the repetition of qualitative and quantitative strands ‘qual→quan →qual→quan(qual→←quan)’. Using only the two variables in Table 10.1, it is possible to create nine different MMR designs. Table 10.2 displays this range of possibilities. It should by now be clear that a vastly different range of studies are classified as MMR. For scholars wishing to use mixed methods in their own research, it is not essential to choose from the designs provided here. These have been discussed to indicate the range of choices available. Since the above may not be appropriate for all research purposes, it is recommended that researchers create their own designs as required. Most importantly,

Table 10.2 Nine different mixed methods research designs Research design

Status of methods

Equal status/convergent design

QUAL+QUAN

Equal status/sequential design

QUAL→QUAN QUAN→QUAL

Prioritised/convergent designs

QUAL+quan quan+QUAL

Prioritised/sequential designs

qual→QUAN QUAL→quan quan→QUAL QUAN→qual

Source: Adapted from Molina-Azorín and Font (2015: 4).

A Mixed Methods Approach in Tourism Research 231

the chosen design must be able to address ‘research objectives, purposes, and questions’ (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009: 274). In the next section, I describe how mixed methods have been used by tourism researchers. A Review of Mixed Methods Tourism Research

Researchers from across the social sciences routinely publish in the Journal of Mixed Methods Research. The status of mixed methods in a number of disciplines has also featured in the Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (see Hunter & Brewer, 2003; Twinn, 2003; Waszak & Sines, 2003). Yet, tourism researchers have contributed very little to the mixed methods literature. While this is partly explained by the numerous journals specifically available to scholars of tourism, it also suggests mixed methods are not commonly used by tourist scholars. But mixed methods have much to offer tourism researchers. This section reviews mixed methods tourism literature and highlights what tourism researchers have been able to accomplish through the use of mixed methods. In tourism research, the use of single method studies (either quantitative or qualitative) was common until around the late 1990s when mixed methods began to be used with more regularity (Jennings, 2009; Oppermann, 2000). At this time, tourism researchers were interested in the concept of ‘triangulation’ (Jennings, 2009), an idea borrowed from geometry where an individual’s location could be determined in relation to a number of stable reference points (Modell, 2009). Pansiri (2005) argues for the use of triangulation in tourism research in order to limit the deficiencies of any single method – a common motivation for using mixed methods. However, this assumes that different methods will produce the same understanding of reality, which is an assumption not accepted by all researchers (Nightingale, 2009). In this case, another motivation for the use of mixed methods is complementarity, which is when different methods are used to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the research topic (Nightingale, 2009). When using complementarity, different fi ndings between methods are considered a learning opportunity rather than a cause for alarm. The current methodological and theoretical openness in the field of tourism research enables a variety of different approaches. Whereas once tourism researchers favoured quantitative methods and the philosophy of positivism, there is no longer a single methodological orthodoxy in tourism research (Iaquinto, 2016). The advantages of using mixed methods and their suitability to tourism researchers are widely recognised (McGehee et al., 2013). Yet, mixed methods are still underused compared to monomethod approaches. Lu and Nepal (2009) report that only 6%

232

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

of studies published in the Journal of Sustainable Tourism used mixed methods, while Nunkoo et al. (2013) found that 13.5% of studies of resident attitudes in three leading tourism journals used mixed methods. Koc and Boz (2014) found that 70.3% of articles published in the top three tourism journals used a single method only. It is therefore not surprising that a review of the use of mixed methods in the field of tourism is yet to be written for the mixed methods literature. However, the use of mixed methods in sustainable tourism research has been reviewed by Molina-Azorín and Font (2015). They reviewed mixed methods studies published in the Journal of Sustainable Tourism from 2005 to 2014 and provided four reasons why mixed methods are particularly well suited to the study of sustainable tourism research. Their reasons were: (i) mixed methods can help promote social change as different types of methods are required to convince different audiences; (ii) mixed methods can help manage social desirability such as helping to explain why tourists who hold sustainability attitudes do not always behave in a sustainable manner; (iii) through triangulation, mixed methods also enable the reliability of data to be improved; and fi nally, (iv) using mixed methods enables interdisciplinary cooperation and this can be used to promote sustainability. These reasons are also why mixed methods are a popular choice for researchers in a variety of fields. Tourism studies using mixed methods have usually been sequential studies applying quantitative methods first, followed by qualitative methods (Jennings, 2009). However, there is not one way of doing MMR in tourism. Heimtun and Morgan (2012) used a quantitative study grounded in the transformative paradigm combined with a qualitative study of the holiday experiences of single women to bolster their analysis of tourism’s gender power relations. In their words, they demonstrated ‘how a transformative-grounded quantitative study taken in combination with a qualitative exploration of single women’s holiday experiences strengthens analysis of gender power relations within tourism’ (Heimtun & Morgan, 2012: 289). In a study on the motivations of film tourists, Rittichainuwat and Rattanaphinanchai (2015) used surveys followed by interviews to explain outliers from the survey analysis. Whereas Molina-Azorín et al. (2015) initially used interviews then followed them up with surveys to assess the competitive advantage that hotels gained through the use of quality and environmental management. Mason et al. (2010) advocated the use of an initial qualitative stage followed by quantitative methods for exploratory tourism research. Tutenges (2012) used a survey instrument combined with ethnographic methods to understand the risk behaviours of young Danish tourists. Mixed methods tourism researchers have thus mixed a variety of different types of methods in different ways. Scholars considering the use of mixed methods for their research should familiarise themselves with

A Mixed Methods Approach in Tourism Research 233

a range of different types of MMR designs. But do not feel constrained by these types. It is acceptable to mix your methods in ways of your own choosing. While there are a number of MMR designs to choose from, the most important factor to consider when selecting a design is what you intend to achieve (Creswell, 2015). For example, comparing two data sets calls for a convergent design, while if the purpose is to use one data set to explain another data set then an exploratory sequential design is required (Creswell, 2015). In what follows, I explain how methods were mixed in a study in which the aim was to understand how sustainability figured in the practices of backpackers. A mixed methods approach was preferred because a mix of methods was able to detect more sustainable practices than any single method. Case Study: A Mixed Methods Approach in Tourism Research

The case study discussed in this section is based on my work published in the Journal of Sustainable Tourism (Iaquinto, 2015a). In this research, I applied a strand of practice theory known as everyday practices to understand how backpackers perform sustainability in their day-to-day activities. The theory of everyday practices situates sustainability among people’s daily activities, habits and routines (Pink, 2012; Shove, 2003; Waitt et al., 2012). It considers sustainability to be a practice or a performance conducted by individuals and it recognises how sustainability is part of people’s daily lives and therefore may not be consciously reflected upon. I mixed two qualitative methods (interviews and participant observation) with two quantitative methods (questionnaires and content analysis). My research was problem driven as the focus was on understanding if backpackers performed sustainable practices and if they did, what types of sustainable practices were performed. Therefore, the meta-theoretical orientation of this research was provided by the philosophy of pragmatism. While sustainability is a contested term with a range of possible meanings (Hall et al., 2015; Mowforth & Munt, 2009), I chose to use a clearly articulated definition in order to avoid the lengthy critical debates about sustainability. This enabled me to focus on the purpose of the research which was to understand how backpackers perform sustainability in their everyday practices. For the purposes of my research (Iaquinto, 2015a) and for this chapter, I have understood sustainability to be comprised of environmental, social and economic elements. Therefore, each element of sustainability is based on different traditions. Environmental sustainability is about reducing resource consumption so it is influenced by the ‘Limits to Growth’ notion of sustainability (Bardi, 2013; Turner, 2008). Social sustainability is about community participation and demonstrating cultural respect so it has been shaped by notions of environmental justice and the urban sustainability

234

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

literature (Bramley & Power, 2009; Davidson, 2010; Figueroa & Waitt, 2008; Waitt et al., 2007). Economic sustainability is about benefitting local economies so it is influenced by sustainable livelihoods and communitybased tourism perspectives (Scheyvens, 2011; Scheyvens & Momsen, 2008; Sneddon, 2000). The paper referred to here, formed one chapter in a larger doctoral research project (Iaquinto, 2015b) that aimed to understand the differences place and mobility make to practices of sustainability. While other research emerging from this project has also been published (Iaquinto, 2013, 2016), my focus is on Iaquinto (2015a) since it is a mixed methods study published in a tourism journal. A case study uses a detailed exploration of a single example in order to derive a broader understanding of a phenomenon. As Iaquinto (2015a) is a clear example of a published mixed methods tourism study, it is best able to act as the case study to understand how mixed methods can be used to the advantage of tourism researchers. The purpose of this section is to articulate how methods were mixed for the research in Iaquinto (2015a) and to identify at what point in the research the mixing took place. Creswell (2015) identified four ways of mixing qualitative and quantitative data – merging, building, explaining and embedding. Merging occurs when different data sets are brought together and compared. Building is when the results from one data set are used to establish the next phase of data collection. Explaining is when one data set explains the results of another data set. Embedding refers to one data set supporting or expanding another data set. These forms of mixing can occur at four different stages in the research: research design, data collection, data analysis and data interpretation (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Later, I elaborate on how mixing was conducted during these four stages of research. Next, I classify the type of mixed method design applied in Iaquinto (2015a). A Concurrent Nested Mixed Methods Design

In the field of sustainable tourism research, Molina-Azorín and Font (2015) found that mixed methods are mainly used to expand and develop results rather than for the purposes of complementarity or triangulation. They also found that sequential designs were more popular than simultaneous designs and qualitative methods were usually used before the quantitative component. The dominant method was generally quantitative but usually both methods were equally important (Molina-Azorín & Font, 2015). These fi ndings differ slightly from those of Jennings (2009) who found that in the field of tourism research in general, mixed methods studies have usually applied quantitative methods before the qualitative component.

A Mixed Methods Approach in Tourism Research 235

Mixed methods were chosen for the case study based on the concept of complementarity, which is used when the goal is comprehensiveness as the main concern was trying to detect as many sustainable practices as possible. Had some methods failed to detect sustainable practices, this would have been an interesting result. However, the four different methods that were used detected different types of sustainable practices, with some overlap (see also Iaquinto, 2016). Based on the typology of MMR designs described by Creswell et al. (2003), the case study example was a concurrent nested mixed method design. Concurrent means that qualitative and quantitative data were collected simultaneously, while nested means that there was a dominant method in which the other methods were embedded or nested (Creswell et al., 2003). My research project could also be considered a convergent mixed methods design as the qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analysed separately but merged at the stage of data interpretation (Creswell, 2015). However, a convergent mixed method design does not indicate which method was prioritised so concurrent nested mixed method design provides a more comprehensive description. The majority of mixed methods approaches position quantitative methods as dominant and use qualitative methods as a way to test quantitative understandings of the social world (Hesse-Biber, 2010). However, the dominant method in my study was qualitative – participant observation. Participant observation, sometimes referred to as ethnography, involves a researcher learning about ‘a particular sociocultural space and those who inhabit it by taking part and continually reflecting on what is happening’ (Walsh, 2009: 77). Unlike other methods, participant observation captures what people do and say, rather than only what they say they do (Walsh, 2009). Most importantly, it was able to detect a range of sustainable practices that backpackers performed unintentionally which was a major fi nding of the research published in Iaquinto (2015a). Once applied in the field, participant observation quickly became the dominant method. It enabled me to compare the claims that backpackers were making in interviews and questionnaires regarding their practices, with direct observation of their practices. I was able to observe many of the practices that backpackers claimed to perform, but I was also able to observe more sustainable practices, including those performed unintentionally by backpackers. As it was able to both support and expand on the other methods, participant observation gave me the confidence that my chosen methods were effective. Research Design

The research design stage was the earliest stage of mixing. But initially, each method was designed separately to maximise each method’s ability to detect sustainable practices. Since questions of sustainability characterised

236

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

all methods across the qualitative–quantitative divide, to be effective each method had to be able to detect individual sustainability practices. In the practice literature, individual practices are considered practices-asperformance (Reckwitz, 2002; Schatzki, 1996). A backpacker checking into a hostel or catching a bus are examples of practices-as-performance since they are individual activities. Practices may also coalesce into an entity (Reckwitz, 2002; Schatzki, 1996). For instance, all backpackers around the world and the combination of their practices would together comprise an entity. However, the practice-as-entity was not assessed in this study since it was not yet known if backpackers performed sustainable practices. So each method was able to detect individual sustainable practices in different ways. The combination of these methods compensated for their weaknesses and so they were able to detect more sustainable practices than any single method alone. Comprehensiveness was one of the strengths of my mixed methods approach, and is a major strength of MMR more generally (Iaquinto, 2016; McKendrick, 2009). The process of mixing began during the research design stage when the methods were fi rst piloted. The fi rst method to be tested was the questionnaire when it was piloted among backpackers at hostels in Melbourne, Australia. The responses to the pilot questionnaire forced a rethink of the interview questions. They revealed that backpackers had no knowledge of sustainability and so direct questions regarding sustainability were ineffective. The interview questions were then redesigned, along with the questionnaire, to fit my own defi nition of sustainability as described in the case study section. Instead of giving backpackers the chance to defi ne what sustainability meant to them, sustainability was now defi ned using the literature. Interview questions then sought to understand what backpackers did to minimise their impact on the environment (environmental sustainability), how they interacted with people at their destinations (social sustainability) and what they spent their money on (economic sustainability). Questionnaires also included similar questions in addition to asking backpackers how often they performed 24 sustainable practices (eight for each element of sustainability) through the use of a Likert scale. Mixing in this stage involved using the results of the questionnaire pilot to inform the design of interview questions. So, a quantitative strand (questionnaires) was used to design a qualitative strand (interviews). Mixing in this stage was best described as building, which is when a data set from one phase of research helps to establish data collection in the next phase (Creswell, 2015). However, building in this stage was different to how it is usually understood as it occurred within a single research phase. Building of the kind described by Creswell (2015) occurs in sequential mixed methods studies in which the qualitative and quantitative strands are conducted one after the other. The research

A Mixed Methods Approach in Tourism Research 237

design phase described here was similarly sequential as the quantitative strand of questionnaires was designed and piloted before the qualitative strand of interviews. Since the effectiveness of questionnaires and interviews depended on backpackers being able to recall their sustainable practices in the moment of questioning, participant observation was believed to be an ideal methodological complement as it would be able to detect sustainable practices that backpackers did not recall or were not aware of. As will soon be explained, this advantage of participant observation would enable it to become the dominant method. As for content analysis, it was added to the mix because of the possibility that sustainable practices were incorporated into the backpacker experience by the industry. Analysing backpacker advertising material would test this assumption. Overall, the four methods used can be located on a spectrum from the most qualitative on one end (participant observation) to the most quantitative on the other (content analysis). Interviews and questionnaires were both located in the middle, with the former towards the qualitative end and the latter towards the quantitative end. However, it is usually the data collection stage in which the issue of methodological sequence is most prominent, which was why the case study was described as concurrent. But as we shall see, qualitative and quantitative methods can be conducted sequentially and concurrently within a single research project. Different stages may require different methodological sequences, and researchers can choose to apply their methods sequentially in one stage and concurrently in another. Consistency is not necessarily validity. The important point to remember is being able to explain the value of your choice of sequence and what mixing enabled you to do. The next subsection explains how mixing was conducted during the data collection phase. Data collection

Embedding best describes the form of mixing used during data collection. Embedding is when a data set is used to expand or support other data sets (Creswell, 2015). But since Creswell’s type of embedding is assumed to occur only after each data set has been acquired, it does not fully account for how mixing actually occurs during the data collection stage. During this stage, it is not possible to mix data sets as they are still in the process of being collected. So, it is the collection process itself that is mixed. This was how it worked for the case study: instead of separate stages of fieldwork for each strand of the research, qualitative and quantitative strands were collected concurrently. This was possible because of the way that participant observation was conducted. Participant observation enabled all the other methods to be conducted at the same time since it

238

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

required prolonged contact with backpackers in the field. Time in the field provided opportunities to conduct interviews with backpackers, distribute questionnaires and collect items for content analysis. It was in this way that these methods came to be embedded in participant observation. As participant observation enabled the other three data sets to be acquired, it was at this stage that it became the dominant method. Mixing during this stage involved the use of a qualitative form of data collection (participant observation) to also collect quantitative data (completed questionnaires and items for content analysis) while also collecting another qualitative strand (interviews). In this stage, it was not the data itself that was being mixed, since it had not yet been fully collected. It was the data collection technique that was mixed as a qualitative strand enabled the collection of quantitative strands. Living in such close proximity with backpackers enabled me to conduct interviews, distribute questionnaires and collect items for content analysis – all while interacting with backpackers and taking detailed notes in my field diary. It was also at this time that I launched the online version of the questionnaire. Therefore, the majority of the data was collected during this two-month period of participant observation. Participant observation was conducted over a period of two months in late 2012 in which I lived as a backpacker throughout Australia. I stayed at backpacker hostels, went on backpacker tours and used backpacker modes of transport such as the Greyhound bus and ride sharing. During this time, it was not possible to reveal my researcher identity to every backpacker I encountered; however, I would always do so if the opportunity was presented. Since backpacker conversations are often based around discussing travel experiences and countries of origin, it was during these conversations that I explained my research. Upon learning of my identity as a researcher, backpackers would either be indifferent or interested to learn more. Unlike the backpackers encountered by O’Regan (2015), they would not become defensive upon learning of my researcher status. Being accepted as a backpacker in the backpacking community not only made participant observation easier, it also made it easier to use the other methods as well. Interviews were easily arranged since they felt like extensions of already existing conversations. Potential interviewees were usually familiar with me already since most areas of backpacker hostels are communal, and the conversational quality of interviews was well suited to backpacking. While some backpackers were less social and chose to spend time in their dorm rooms, they were able to participate in this research via the questionnaire. I distributed the questionnaire in person by knocking on the doors of their dorm rooms and asking if they had time to complete it. Most were happy to oblige. In total, the data collected included field notes from two months of participant observation,

A Mixed Methods Approach in Tourism Research 239

74 interviews with 101 backpackers (there were many group interviews), 155 completed questionnaires (including both online and in person) and 127 items collected for content analysis (mostly tour company brochures, backpacker magazines and free guidebooks). By discussing when an embedded MMR design should be chosen, Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) assume mixed methods designs are determined before the research begins. But this is not always so. In this case study, the embedded design was only decided upon during the data collection stage. Embedding was not a useful mixing technique prior to this stage, nor was it yet known that embedding would become the preferred mixing technique for this stage. When doing MMR, it is not always possible to know in advance how best to mix your data sets. It might be necessary to experiment with different forms of mixing before the best style is found. Mixed methods researchers should be open to different forms of mixing and not feel inhibited by what Hesse-Biber (2010: 455) calls the ‘methodological orthodoxy’ of quantitatively driven MMR. Data analysis

Data sets were analysed in relation to each other using a type of mixing that Creswell (2015) refers to as merging. It involves bringing the data sets together and comparing them. Initially, there were five separate data sets: (i) interview data in the form of interview recordings and notes; (ii) participant observation data in the form of a field diary; (iii) completed paper copies of the questionnaire; (iv) electronic copies of the questionnaire; and (v) content analysis notes. The different forms of questionnaire data were merged using SPSS, a software package used for analysing statistical data, leaving four data sets. Each of these four data sets were fi rst analysed individually using the same coding system. The codes were based on the research question and predetermined by the researcher and so are known as axial codes (Cope, 2009). Three codes were assigned to all data sets – one for each form of sustainability. This was how the data sets were analysed in relation to each other. Using the same codes for all data sets enabled familiarity with each of them and helped reveal how they related to each other. Comparisons between data sets were needed to establish the full range of sustainable practices performed by backpackers. Using the same codes for all data sets made this process easier. Data sets were analysed individually so their specific strengths and weaknesses could be assessed, and the full range of sustainable practices performed by backpackers determined. Thus, unlike the other three stages of research, the data analysis stage was conducted sequentially. Analysing data in a concurrent fashion would have required the collection of an integrated data set incorporating both qualitative and quantitative strands. As there

240

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

were separate data sets, it was not possible to analyse all of them at the same time. Separate data sets enabled each to be analysed equally and assessed on its own merit. Mixing during the data analysis stage involved the qualitative strands of the research merging with the quantitative strands, with the same coding technique used for all four data sets. Thus, data analysis involved a series of comparisons, the purpose of which was to promote familiarity with the data as a whole. Since the data sets took the form of words on paper, and numbers on paper in the case of content analysis, the process of comparison involved simply reading all of the coded notes. While the importance of participant observation was fi rst evident during the data collection stage, it was the process of merging during the data analysis stage that entrenched participant observation as the leading method. It revealed the largest number of sustainable practices and supported much of the fi ndings created by the other methods. Merging rather than embedding during this stage maintained equality between data sets and thus avoided one of the main disadvantages of nested mixed methods approaches – inequality between methods leading to unequal results (Creswell et al., 2003). Merging enabled data sets to be mixed in an equal fashion – yet the value of participant observation was still apparent. This was why the data analysis stage reinforced the notion of participant observation as the dominant method. Data interpretation

The data analysis and interpretation stages can be distinguished by different forms of mixing. The data analysis stage used merging, while the interpretation stage used embedding. While Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) consider a nested mixed methods design to refer to embedding during the data collection and analysis stages, in this case study methods were embedded during the data collection and interpretation stages. Had embedding been used during the data analysis stage, it would have required three of the data sets to augment the analysis of participant observation. But embedding was not a useful mixing technique for the data analysis stage because there was a need to judge the usefulness of each data set on its own merit. This demonstrates why it is important to mix methods in beneficial ways rather than adhering strictly to a prescribed model of mixed methods design. It also further illustrates the diversity of mixed methods approaches, particularly those considered to be nested. The data interpretation stage, or the Results and Discussion section in Iaquinto (2015a), was guided by data produced through participant observation. Data from interviews, questionnaires and content analysis supported or extended the participant observation data. They supported it when reinforcing what was found through participant observation by

A Mixed Methods Approach in Tourism Research 241

detecting the same practices, or by further explaining why sustainable practices were performed. The three supplementary methods then extended the participant observation data by reporting other sustainable practices backpackers performed that were not detected using participant observation. The Results and Discussion section of Iaquinto (2015a) was divided into three different subsections each based on a different element of sustainability. In each subsection, data from participant observation would lead the discussion with other methods brought in when required. Other methods were used to provide further clarification on the reasons a sustainable practice was performed or to discuss sustainable practices not detected using participant observation. Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) explain that an embedded MMR design is chosen when there are different questions to answer that require different forms of data. But in this case, the embedded MMR design was used to answer the same research question in different ways. Each method provided a different perspective of how sustainability figured in backpacker practices and by doing so, was able to answer the research question more comprehensively. Participant observation was best able to detect sustainable practices performed unthinkingly, while interviews and questionnaires detected those sustainable practices backpackers performed knowingly (Iaquinto, 2016). Content analysis illustrated which sustainable practices were embedded into the backpacking experience (Iaquinto, 2016). In this stage, mixing involved the quantitative strands of content analysis and questionnaires being woven into a discussion that was based on participant observation. The methods were mixed in a way that allowed a lengthy discussion of how each element of sustainability was practiced by backpackers. As participant observation was the dominant method, this meant that participant observation data led the discussion and the other methods were used to augment it where necessary to provide more detail on how sustainability was practiced. There was no need to give equal weight to each data set as the purpose was to explain the relationship that backpackers have with sustainability. The methods were mixed so the relationship between backpackers and sustainability could be explained most effectively. Conclusion

In this chapter, I have used published tourism research (Iaquinto, 2015a) as a case study to illustrate how the qualitative methods of participant observation and interviews were mixed with the two quantitative methods of questionnaires and content analysis. I described how mixing occurred at four stages of the research: research design, data collection, data analysis and data interpretation. I showed how different styles of mixing can be used for different stages of the research and indicated how

242

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

much variety exists within the field of MMR, particularly the numerous choices available in terms of how qualitative and quantitative strands can be mixed. Furthermore, I described four philosophies upon which MMR is commonly based: pragmatism, transformative-emancipation, critical realism and dialectics. In the case study, different stages of the research required different forms of mixing. Building was used in the research design phase, merging in the data analysis phase and embedding in both the data collection and interpretation phases. As one of the core characteristics of MMR is the importance of diversity across all levels of research (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2012), using different forms of mixing in different stages of the research process is consistent with the values of MMR. The use of the pragmatist theoretical stance also justified the switching of mixing techniques between research phases as it encourages researchers to choose the technique that will produce superior data (Pansiri, 2005). In fact, being able to use different forms of mixing at different stages of the research was another advantage of MMR as it maximised the ability of the data to answer the research question. Had there been a need for consistency, then one form of mixing would have been used across all stages. This would have limited the effectiveness of the mixed methods approach as it was not the best option for every stage. Practice theory was a mid-range theory used to locate sustainability in the everyday activities of backpackers, and it provided for the possibility that sustainability was practiced intentionally, unknowingly or without deliberate choice. The pragmatist meta-theoretical stance that was adopted for the case study provided the philosophical basis for the chosen mixed methods approach. As pragmatism is based on using methods ‘that work’ (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011), it further helped to justify the forms of mixing used throughout the case study. In the case study, the chosen mix of methods allowed more sustainable practices to be detected than any single method. Methods such as interviews and questionnaires are limited by their reliance on participants recalling their practices during questioning. Participant observation enables the researcher to detect practices that participants perform without realising. Content analysis picks up sustainable practices embedded in backpacker activities promoted by the backpacker industry. The mixed methods approach was essential to detecting this wide array of sustainable practices performed by backpackers. My case study demonstrates the value of qualitatively driven MMR. A quantitatively driven mixed methods approach would not have detected as many sustainable practices, nor would it have been able to explain how sustainable practices were performed unknowingly or describe the context in which sustainable practices emerged spontaneously. While Hesse-Biber

A Mixed Methods Approach in Tourism Research 243

(2010) argued for qualitatively driven MMR to explain how people made meaning in their social worlds, my qualitatively driven MMR revealed the lack of meaning sustainability had in the social world of backpackers. My mixed methods approach was able to show how sustainability could become so thoroughly incorporated into the practices of backpackers without their knowledge. Methodological diversity is required to effectively understand the complex and unpredictable phenomenon that is tourism. This is reflected in the vast diversity of approaches now accepted in tourist studies. MMR provides one option, but it may not be appropriate for every research question. Researchers must choose what works best for their situation. Mixed methods can prevent a more thorough use of single methods or it can become too unwieldy as the various methods divide the attention of the researcher. But it draws its appeal from its ability to provide a range of perspectives on a single phenomenon, limiting the weaknesses of any individual method. It can also provide comprehensiveness, enabling researchers to understand highly complex social phenomena such as tourism, in great detail. I argued that researchers should feel free to mix their methods however they wish to accomplish their research aims and generate insights. As the ever-changing nature of tourism will ensure it continues to confound researchers and elide easy understanding, mixed methods will remain a useful option for tourism researchers seeking a high level of understanding. Acknowledgement

The author appreciates the assistance of the Albert Shimmins Memorial Fund in the preparation of this chapter. References Aitchison, C.C. (2005) Feminist and gender perspectives in tourism studies: The socialcultural nexus of critical and cultural theories. Tourist Studies 5 (3), 207–224. Ateljevic, I., Pritchard, A. and Morgan, N. (eds) (2007) The Critical Turn in Tourism Studies: Innovative Research Methodologies. Oxford: Elsevier. Bardi, U. (2013) The Limits to Growth Revisited. New York: Springer. Bhaskar, R. (1978) A Realist Theory of Science. Brighton: Harvester Press. Bianchi, R.V. (2009) The ‘critical turn’ in tourism studies: A radical critique. Tourism Geographies 484–504. Bramley, G. and Power, S. (2009) Urban form and social sustainability: The role of density and housing type. Environment and Planning B 36, 30–48. Bryman, A. (2007) Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1 (1), 8–22. Bryman, A. (2008) Why do researchers integrate/combine/mesh/blend/mix/merge/fuse quantitative and qualitative research? In M.M. Bergman (ed.) Advances in Mixed Methods Research (pp. 86–100). London: Sage Publications.

244

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Cope, M. (2009) Transcripts (coding and analysis). In R. Kitchin and N. Thrift (eds) International Encyclopaedia of Human Geography (pp. 350–354). Oxford: Elsevier. Creswell, J.W. (2015) A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J.W. and Plano Clark, V.L. (2011) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J.W., Plano Clark, V.L., Gutmann, M.L. and Hanson, W.E. (2003) Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (eds) Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Davidson, M. (2010) Social sustainability and the city. Geography Compass 4 (7), 872–880. Denzin, N.K. (2010) Moments, mixed methods, and paradigm dialogs. Qualitative Inquiry 16 (6), 419–427. Dewey, J. (1925) Experience and Nature. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger. Feilzer, M.Y. (2010) Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 4 (1), 6–16. Figueroa, R.M. and Waitt, G. (2008) Cracks in the mirror: (Un)covering the moral terrains of environmental justice at Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park. Ethics, Place and Environment 11 (3), 327–349. Goeldner, C.R. (2005) Reflections on the historic role of journals in shaping tourism knowledge Journal of Tourism Studies 16 (2), 44–51. Greene, J.C. (2007) Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Greene, J.C. (2008) Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2 (1), 7–22. Greene, J.C. and Caracelli, V.J. (2003) Making paradigmatic sense of mixed methods practice. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (eds) Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 91–110). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Guba, E.G. (1990) The alternative paradigm dialog. In E.G. Guba (ed.) The Paradigm Dialog (pp. 17–30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Guest, G. (2013) Describing mixed methods research: An alternative to typologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 7 (2), 141–151. Hall, C.M., Gӧssling, S. and Scott, D. (eds) (2015) The Routledge Handbook of Tourism and Sustainability. Abingdon: Routledge. Heimtun, B. and Morgan, N. (2012) Proposing paradigm peace: Mixed methods in feminist tourism research. Tourist Studies 12 (3), 287–304. Hesse-Biber, S. (2010) Qualitative approaches to mixed methods practice. Qualitative Inquiry 16 (6), 455–468. Howe, K.R. (1988) Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher 17 (8), 10–16. Hunter, A. and Brewer, J. (2003) Multimethod research in sociology. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (eds) Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 577–594). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Iaquinto, B. (2013) Backpackers and sustainability: A case of leisure-as-usual? In J. Fountain and K. Moore (eds) Tourism and Global Change: On the Edge of Something Big CAUTHE 2013 Conference Proceedings (pp. 384–389). Christchurch: CAUTHE. Iaquinto, B.L. (2015a) ‘I recycle, I turn out the lights’: Understanding the everyday sustainability practices of backpackers. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 23 (4), 577–599. Iaquinto, B.L. (2015b) Backpacking in an Unsustainable World: The Places and Practices of Mobile People. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.

A Mixed Methods Approach in Tourism Research 245

Iaquinto, B.L. (2016) Strengths and weaknesses of using mixed methods to detect the sustainable practices of backpackers: A reflexive account. Journal of Cleaner Production 111, 479–486. Jennings, G.R. (2005) Caught in the irons: One of the lived experiences of long-term ocean cruising women. Tourism Review International 9 (2), 177–193. Jennings, G.R. (2009) Methodologies and methods. In T. Jamal and M. Robinson (eds) The Sage Handbook of Tourism Studies (pp. 673–693). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Johnson, R.B. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004) Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher 33 (7), 14–26. Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Turner, L.A. (2007) Toward a defi nition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1 (2), 112–133. Koc, E. and Boz, H. (2014) Triangulation in tourism research: A bibliometric study of top three tourism journals. Tourism Management Perspectives 12, 9–14. Krueger, R. and Gibbs, D. (eds) (2007) The Sustainable Development Paradox: Urban Political Economy in the United States and Europe. New York: The Guilford Press. Leech, N.L. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2009) A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity 43 (2), 265–275. Lipscomb, M. (2008) Mixed method nursing studies: A critical realist critique. Nursing Philosophy 9 (1), 32–45. Lu, J. and Nepal, S.K. (2009) Sustainable tourism research: An analysis of papers published in the Journal of Sustainable Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17 (1), 5–16. Mason, P., Augustyn, M. and Seakhoa-King, A. (2010) Exploratory study in tourism: Designing an initial, qualitative phase of sequenced, mixed methods research. International Journal of Tourism Research 12 (5), 432–448. Matthews, A.L. (2012) ‘Write’ of passage: Reflecting on the fieldwork process and its contribution to critically orientated tourism research. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 19 (1), 52–59. Maxwell, J.A. and Mittapalli, K. (2010) Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (eds) Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 145–167). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. McEvoy, P. and Richards, D. (2006) A critical realist rationale for using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. Journal of Research in Nursing 11 (1), 66–78. McGehee, N.G., Boley, B.B., Hallo, J.C., McGee, J.A., Norman, W., Oh, C-O. and Goetcheus, C. (2013) Doing sustainability: An application of an inter-disciplinary and mixed-method approach to a regional sustainable tourism project. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 21 (3), 355–375. McKendrick, J.H. (2009) Mixed and multiple methods. In R. Kitchin and N. Thrift (eds) International Encyclopaedia of Human Geography (pp. 128–133). Oxford: Elsevier. Mertens, D.M. (2007) Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1 (3), 212–225. Mertens, D.M. (2010) Transformative mixed methods research. Qualitative Inquiry 16 (6), 469–474. Mertens, D.M. (2012) What comes fi rst? The paradigm or the approach? Journal of Mixed Methods Research 6 (4), 255–257. Modell, S. (2009) In defence of triangulation: A critical realist approach to mixed methods research in management accounting. Management Accounting Research 20 (3), 208–221. Molina-Azorín, J.F. and Font, X. (2015) Mixed methods in sustainable tourism research: An analysis of prevalence, designs and application in JOST (2005–2014). Journal of Sustainable Tourism 24 (4), 549–573.

246

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Morse, J.M. (1991) Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research 40, 120–123. Morse, J.M. (2003) Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioural Research (pp. 189–208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. (2009) Tourism and Sustainability: Development, Globalisation and New Tourism in the Third World. New York: Routledge. Nightingale, A. (2009) Triangulation. In R. Kitchin and N. Thrift (eds) International Encyclopaedia of Human Geography (pp. 489–492). Oxford: Elsevier. Nunkoo, R., Smith, S.L.J. and Ramkissoon, H. (2013) Residents’ attitudes to tourism: A longitudinal study of 140 articles from 1984 to 2010. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 21 (1), 5–25. Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Leech, N.L. (2005) On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8 (5), 375–387. Oppermann, M. (2000) Triangulation: A methodological discussion. The International Journal of Tourism Research 2 (2), 141. O’Regan, M. (2015) Methodological bricolage: A journey on the road less travelled in tourism studies. Tourism Analysis 20, 457–467. Pansiri, J. (2005) Pragmatism: A methodological approach to researching strategic alliances in tourism. Tourism and Hospitality Planning and Development 2 (3), 191–206. Pansiri, J. (2006) Doing tourism research using the pragmatism paradigm: An empirical example. Tourism and Hospitality Planning and Development 3 (3), 223–240. Phillimore, J. and Goodson, L. (2004) From ontology, epistemology and methodology to the field. In J. Phillimore and L. Goodson (eds) Qualitative Research in Tourism: Ontologies, Epistemologies and Methodologies (pp. 185–194). London: Routledge. Pink, S. (2012) Situating Everyday Life: Practices and Places. London: Sage Publications. Reckwitz, A. (2002) Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory 5 (2), 243–263. Riley, R.W. and Love, L.L. (2000) The state of qualitative tourism Research. Annals of Tourism Research 27 (1), 164–187. Rittichainuwat, B. and Rattanaphinanchai, S. (2015) Applying a mixed method of quantitative and qualitative design in explaining the travel motivation of fi lm tourists in visiting a fi lm-shooting destination. Tourism Management 46, 136–147. Rorty, R. (1999) Philosophy and Social Hope. London: Penguin. Schatzki, T.R. (1996) Social Practices: A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scheyvens, R. (2011) The challenge of sustainable tourism development in the Maldives: Understanding the social and political dimensions of sustainability. Asia Pacifi c Viewpoint 52 (2), 148–164. Scheyvens, R. and Momsen, J.H. (2008) Tourism and poverty reduction: Issues for Small Island States. Tourism Geographies 10 (1), 22–41. Shannon-Baker, P. (2015) Making paradigms meaningful in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 10 (4), 319–334. Shove, E. (2003) Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience. New York: Berg. Sneddon, C.S. (2000) ‘Sustainability’ in ecological economics, ecology and livelihoods: A review. Progress in Human Geography 24 (4), 521–549. Sweetman, D., Badiee, M. and Creswell, J.W. (2010) Use of the transformative framework in mixed methods studies. Qualitative Inquiry 16 (6), 441–454. Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (1998) Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

A Mixed Methods Approach in Tourism Research 247

Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (eds) (2003) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Teddlie, C. and Tashakkori, A. (2003) Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (eds) Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 3–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Teddlie, C. and Tashakkori, A. (2009) Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Teddlie, C. and Tashakkori, A. (2011) Mixed methods research: Contemporary issues in an emerging field. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 285–300). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Teddlie, C. and Tashakkori, A. (2012) Common ‘core’ characteristics of mixed methods research: A review of critical issues and call for greater convergence. American Behavioral Scientist 56 (6), 774–788. Turner, G.M. (2008) A comparison of the limits to growth with 30 years of reality. Global Environmental Change 18 (3), 397–411. Tutenges, S. (2012) Nightlife tourism: A mixed methods study of young tourists at an international nightlife resort. Tourist Studies 12 (2), 131–150. Twinn, S. (2003) Status of mixed methods research in nursing. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (eds) Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 541–556). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Waitt, G., Figueroa, R. and McGee, L. (2007) Fissures in the rock: Rethinking pride and shame in the moral terrains of Uluru. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 32, 248–263. Waitt, G., Caputi, P., Gibson, C., Farbotko, C., Head, L., Gill, N. and Stanes, E. (2012) Sustainable household capability: Which households are doing the work of environmental sustainability? Australian Geographer 43 (1), 51–74. Walsh, K. (2009) Participant observation. In R. Kitchin and N. Thrift (eds) International Encyclopedia of Human Geography (pp. 77–81). Oxford: Elsevier. Waszak, C. and Sines, M.C. (2003) Mixed methods in psychological research. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (eds) Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 557–576). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

11 Image Use in Tourism Research Methodology Trini Espinosa Abascal, Martin Fluker and Min Jiang

Tourism is one of the largest and fastest-growing economic sectors and a major contributor to global socio-economic progress (UNWTO, 2015). In 2014, tourism contributed 9% to the global gross domestic product (GDP) and its contribution to the workforce was 9% (UNWTO, 2015). In 2014– 2015, tourism directly contributed $43.3 billion (74% domestic and 26% international) to Australia’s GDP; and in 2013–2014, tourism’s contribution to the Australian workforce was nearly 5% (Tourism Research Australia, 2015). However, with continuing global economic downturns, climate uncertainty and more international tourism destination options available to consumers, it is likely that the Australian tourism industry will face challenges (Ruhanen et al., 2013). One way to cope with these challenges is not only to better understand the reasons why visitors choose to travel to Australia as a destination, but also to understand visitor activity choices. If these reasons can be clearly understood, then product offerings designed to match these specific needs can be developed and improved upon. In this chapter, we will examine in detail a novel method, using images, to better understand visitor activity choices in order to increase our knowledge of the Australian consumer behaviour process. Theories on Destination and Activity Choice in Tourism

There is limited research on the reasons to travel to, or within, Australia. However, these previous studies suggest that the main reasons are to experience the world-class beauty and natural environment, safety and security, food and wine experiences, resting and relaxation, and engaging in activities for fun (Kim, 1997; Tourism Australia, 2014; Zhang & Peng, 2014). The decisions that people make when choosing a particular destination to visit is the result of many variables impacting upon them including demographics, psychological factors, values, personality traits, motivations, previous experiences, groups (e.g. family and friends) and marketing influences (Crompton, 1979; Pearce & Lee, 2005; Plog, 2002; Witt & Wright, 1992; Woodside & King, 2001). Understanding how these variables impact upon destination choice is important when developing

248

Image Use in Tourism Research Methodology 249

a destination marketing strategy (Prebensen et al., 2010). However, ‘motivations’ have been seen as the most significant factor to understand tourist behaviour (Crompton, 1979; Fodness, 1994; Iso-Ahola, 1982). In addition, it is considered one of the most fundamental and crucial topics in tourism studies. During the last four decades, different theories or models of travel motivation have contributed to tourism research (Jiang et al., 2015). Some of the main theories or models include the allocentric-psychocentric theory (Plog, 1974, 1987, 2002); the push and pull theory (Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1977, 1981); the optimal arousal theory (Iso-Ahola, 1982); the leisure motivation approach (Beard & Ragheb, 1983); the travel career ladder theory (Pearce, 1988, 1993), the travel career pattern (TCP), which is an update of the travel career ladder theory (Pearce & Lee, 2005); and the expectancy theory of travel motivation (Witt & Wright, 1992), which could be closely related to the expectancy-value theory (Gutman, 1982). While the majority of these theories focus only on motivations, the push and pull theory suggests that tourists are pushed to travel by invisible factors (psychological factors – internally generated drives: motivations) and pulled by visible factors (attributes of the destination). This theory has been widely used by researchers (Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1977; Kao et al., 2008; Kim et al., 2003; Yoon & and Uysal, 2005). Indeed, some studies have demonstrated the interrelationships between the pull (attributes of a destination) and the push (motivations) factors on travel decisions (e.g. Baloglu & Uysal, 1996; Klenosky, 2002). The results show that there is a relationship between these two factors, meaning that the factors should not be considered as entirely independent of each other (Cha & McCleary, 1995; Klenosky, 2002; Wu et al., 2014). It is important to point out that despite the numerous studies on travel motivation, there is to date no widely agreed upon theoretical or conceptual framework (Pearce & Lee, 2005). While previous studies have focused mainly on motivations to travel, it is also important to understand the factors that shape the preference for tourism activities within the destination and to be able to match the needs of visitors with the appropriate tourism activities offered at the destination (Pizam & Fleischer, 2005). Based on Lawler’s (1973) work, Haas et al. (1980) concluded that when choosing activities, each alternative is evaluated by the individual as either positive or negative in comparison with his/her personal motivation force. However, there could be more than one motivation force when choosing an activity (Raadik et al., 2010). Understanding tourism activity choices is important as, for example, in Australia the 2014 visitor expenditure on tourism activities (including tours, entertainment and food and drinks categories) represented 30% of the overall expenditure – $27.8 of the $92.6 billion of tourism’s contribution to the Australian economy – (Tourism Research Australia, 2016). In addition, Moscardo et al. (1996) claim that activities are critical attributes of destinations; therefore, they

250

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

suggest that through activity choices, motives can be better connected to destination choices. The ‘travel and tourism purchase consumption system’ (Woodside & King, 2001) also suggests that tourism activity choices are linked to the destination. However, contrary to the assumption that travel motivations determine activity choices (Chang-Hung et al., 2004), Mehmetoglu (2007) claims that the motivation to travel and the activity dimension should be treated differently. For example, he argues that not all visitors participating in nature-related activities can be considered nature-based tourists from a motivational perspective. Therefore, by understanding the activity choices, the tourist destination could gain competitive advantage by (a) specialising on specific market segments, (b) improving the product in a specific way, (c) conducting marketing focused on the specific market with the most effective message and (d) improving visitors’ satisfaction (Moscardo et al., 1996). There have been studies segmenting visitors by activity choices (Benson et al., 2013; Chang-Hung et al., 2004; Lang & O’Leary, 1997; Mehmetoglu, 2007; Pizam & Fleischer, 2005; Ryan & Sterling, 2001). However, it appears that little research has been conducted on investigating the reasons that have an impact on tourism activities choices while visitors are travelling within a particular destination. Against this backdrop, using the meansend chain theory and guided by motivation theories, this current research aims not only to further understand visitors’ preferences for participating in tourism activities at a destination, but also to explore visitors’ reasons for participating (enabling factors), or not participating (disabling factors), in these activities. The results may not only contribute towards increasing the knowledge within the consumer behaviour process, but also provide information to existing businesses and destinations which could help improve their marketing and/or product development strategies. It is essential for industry operators to gain as much information as possible regarding existing and potential customers in order to meet their needs better than their competitors by offering more personalised services and memorable experiences (Huang & Hsu, 2009). The Use of Visual Methods in Tourism Research

Visual methods have recently been gaining popularity in tourism research (Cahyanto et al., 2013; Rakic & Chambers, 2012). However, their use is still marginal (Bandyopadhyay, 2011; Rakic & Chambers, 2010). Indeed, Jensen (2015: 5) claims that ‘tourism research has been relatively relaxed in adopting and developing new visual methodologies’, despite visuals playing an important role within the tourism field (Pritchard & Morgan, 2003; Rakic & Chambers, 2010). The main reasons for this slow adoption include the widespread acceptance of

Image Use in Tourism Research Methodology 251

more traditional research methods and the difficulty of publishing visual research outputs (Rakic & Chambers, 2010). Visual methods include, but are not limited to, tourist material, photographs, postcards, film and video (Rakic & Chambers, 2010). Arguments for the use of visual methods in tourism research are (a) to create richer and deeper knowledge which is not readily accessed with the single use of traditional methods; (b) to convey findings more effectively than with the single use of text, graphs and numbers; (c) to share knowledge with wider audiences beyond the academic world; and (d) to study tourism phenomena within different disciplinary, philosophical and methodological approaches (Rakic & Chambers, 2010). Visual tourism research methods have been categorised into three groups: (1) those gathered from secondary sources and analysed through content or semiotic analysis; (2) those created for the purposes of the research project by either the researcher or the participants; and (3) those used to create data by techniques of elicitation (Rakic & Chambers, 2012). Methods using visuals in tourism research include a photo-elicitation technique, volunteer-employed photography, the Zaltman metaphor elicitation technique (ZMET), visual ethnography, photo-questionnaires, visual content analysis, rank-ordering and sorting techniques such as Q-methodology, multiple sorting and repertory grid. Methods using photographs ‘can be less restrictive and, perhaps, more accurate than other methods… they represent a viable, but underleveraged, method’ (Ray & Smith, 2011: 289). One of the most commonly found photo-based methods in tourism research is the photo-elicitation technique. The photo-elicitation technique is the use of photographs as stimuli in research interviews to evoke different kinds of information than that evoked by words (Harper, 2002): ‘as a “can opener”, a starting point from where trust can be developed between the researcher and informants’ (Cederholm, 2004: 226). The technique has its origins in the mid-1950s when John Collier (1957) published a photo-elicitation research-based paper (Harper, 2002). The use of the photo-elicitation technique in tourism is mainly focused on investigating different traveller experiences (Caton & Santos, 2007; Cederholm, 2004; Loeffler, 2004; Matteucci, 2013; Scarles, 2010; Westwood, 2007; Willson & McIntosh, 2010; Zuev & Picard, 2015); or residents’ perceptions (Cahyanto et al., 2013; Croes et al., 2013; Kerstetter & Bricker, 2009; Nyaupane et al., 2014; Wu & Pearce, 2013, 2016). It appears that this method has not been used to investigate visitors’ reasons regarding tourism activity choices. Therefore, the present study uses a photo-elicitation technique (with photographs gathered by the researcher) in combination with other methods to answer the following research question: What are the preferences and reasons given by both domestic and international visitors for choosing to participate, or not, in a range of tourism activities available

252

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

at a particular destination? The rationale for doing this combination of methods is described in the following section. The Development of a Photo-based Ranking-Sorting Procedure

A mixed method approach involves the intentional collection and combination of both qualitative and quantitative data, to better answer the research question (Bergman, 2008; Jennings, 2010; Klassen et al., 2012). It has been claimed that the use of both elements could have theoretical and methodological implications by helping to overcome the limitations of a single method, explain initial results, generalise exploratory fi ndings, enhance and enrich the meaning of a single method and develop a more complete understanding of the problem (Klassen et al., 2012). However, Bergman (2008) claims that mixed methods designs do not automatically provide better answers than well-designed mono method research designs. It is suggested that they can provide an alternative for specific research questions, under certain circumstances (e.g. real-life contextual understanding, multilevel perceptions and cultural influences) and given enough resources (Bergman, 2008; Klassen et al., 2012). Bergman (2008) suggests that mixed methods research designs need elaborated justifications regarding their methods and purposes, and regarding the combination of results. This study uses photographs in a convergent mixed methods design. This design involves contemporaneous data collection and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data. The focus is on comparing and relating both components of the project (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011) with the aim of seeking ‘completeness’, which Bryman (2006: 106) defi nes as: ‘the notion that the researcher can bring together a more comprehensive account of the area of enquiry… if both quantitative and qualitative research are employed’. A summary of the methods used in the study and their relationship to the research question is detailed in Table 11.1.

Table 11.1 Methods used in the present study Method

Research objective

Data collected

Photo-based ranking-sorting procedure

(a) To gain information about visitor preferences for tourism activities available within the destination. (b) To compare preferences for tourism activities versus intention to participate.

Quantitative

Semi-structured interviews using photo-elicitation

(a) To gain information about visitor motivations for, and limitations to, engaging in tourism activities.

Qualitative

On-site survey

(a) To describe the profile of visitors interested in different tourism activities (demographic, psychographic, and travel patterns).

Quantitative

Image Use in Tourism Research Methodology 253

Figure 11.1 Ranking-sorting photo-based procedure

A photo-based ranking-sorting procedure was developed for this study (see Figure 11.1). The development of this procedure involved the contribution of three data collection methods (rank-ordering, sorting technique and photo-elicitation). Rank-ordering

The rank-ordering technique is one of the most commonly applied methods for gaining information about consumer preferences (Hein et al., 2008), which can then be used in the development of marketing strategies (Schibrowsky & Pettier, 1995). The method assumes that each alternative has an expected value and that the participant prefers the alternative with

254

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

the highest value (Schibrowsky & Pettier, 1995). When the method is used to elicit attributes of different alternatives, it involves asking respondents to rank-order a set of elements according to their preferences and then explain the reasons for the rankings (Bech-Larsen & Nielsen, 1999). Brown et al. (1988) claim that photo-based preference judgements have been shown to be highly reliable and of consistent validity. The advantages of this method are its simplicity, its convenience (Moskowitz, 2005) and its predictive ability of attributes elicited due to its focus on evaluation (BechLarsen & Nielsen, 1999). However, while the results of this method indicate the order in which a given set of items are liked, there is no information regarding the degree of engagement with the items (Moskowitz, 2005). In addition, as the results are obtained for specific stimuli, caution must be taken when generalising the fi ndings (Hein et al., 2008). During the present study, this method was used to understand the preferences for a range of different tourism activities available at a specific destination. Multiple-sorting technique

Sorting techniques involve respondents sorting photographs into groups (Green, 2005). These techniques invite but do not pre-request a rank-order (Coxon, 1999). The multiple-sorting technique encourages respondents to sort the elements a number of times, using different criteria (Coxon, 1999). This method is used to reveal people’s own concepts and constructs (Scott & Canter, 1997). The use of this technique in tourism research has been limited (Green, 2005; Nyaupane et al., 2014). This method is suitable for revealing the people’s mental models when they make their evaluation (Scott & Canter, 1997), and revealing a large number of concrete attributes of an item (Bech-Larsen & Nielsen, 1999). However, it is a time-consuming method that would not allow large respondent samples and/or large stimuli sets (Green, 2005). In the present study, 244 participants were asked to sort photographs of activities available at the destination they were visiting into two columns on a table (see Figure 11.1), according to their intention to participate. Photo-elicitation

Semi-structured interviews using a photo-elicitation method were used in this study to gain information about the visitor’s enabling and disabling factors to engage in the range of tourism activities available. The photoelicitation technique was used to trigger the semi-structured interviews. The semi-structured interview method was selected to collect instant answers and to explore participant realities and experiences regarding the issue under investigation (Jennings, 2010). The advantages of introducing photographs as part of the interview include being able to (a)

Image Use in Tourism Research Methodology 255

facilitate rapport, (b) trigger participants’ memories and (c) facilitate the articulation of ideas (Harper, 2002; Scarles, 2010). Different approaches to using photographs in interviews are used; however, the most common approach is using photographs that have been gathered or produced by participants or by researchers (Matteucci, 2013). When the photographs are gathered or produced by the researcher, the main advantages are (a) it is a cost-effective and less time-consuming method than others; (b) the researchers can control which images are suitable for the research intent and are able to select good-quality photographs (Ray & Smith, 2011); and (c) it helps to build rapport with participants (Cederholm, 2004). However, disadvantages such as the researcher missing important features or overemphasising others are a possibility (Ray & Smith, 2011). During the semi-structured interview process, the means-end chain theory and its associated laddering technique were adopted. The means-end chain theory is based on the expectancy-value theory and has previously been used in other studies to understand consumer behaviour (Jiang et al., 2015). Mixing Methods

Table 11.2 indicates the contribution of each method to the development of the methodology used in the present study to investigate visitor preferences, motivations and limitations to engage in tourism activities. The limitations of the single-use methods are also discussed in Table 11.2. The photo-based ranking-sorting procedure was considered the most suitable approach mainly because it allowed the researcher, fi rstly, to explore the different preferences for tourism activities available at the destination; secondly, to capture the intention to participate, or not, in the activities while participants were travelling at the particular destination; and fi nally, to use the columns as prompts for the semistructured interviews. One column (‘I intend to do’) was used to explore the enabling factors for participating in the tourism activities sorted in that column. The other column (‘I do not intend to do’) was used as a prompt to investigate the disabling factors. The justification for applying this method follows Dolnicar’s (2013) suggestions of not only adopting userfriendly instruments when developing instruments for data collection, but also giving answer options to participants that are consistent with the object type investigated. In this case, the intention to participate is a single-item measure that can be explored with a forced-choice binary format (yes-no). The binary format is suitable for capturing behavioural intentions (Dolnicar & Grün, 2009). Therefore, this option seems suitable for the measurement of the intention to participate, and it is also able to avoid capturing response styles (Dolnicar, 2013). This method also allows the researcher to capture the preferences for tourism activities using a rank-ordering technique. This technique has been proved to deliver similar

256

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Table 11.2 Methods that contributed to the development of the ranking-sorting photo-based technique Method

Contribution to the rankingsorting photo-based method

Limitations of single-use method

Ranking-ordering

This method was used to capture the preferences indicated by visitors to engage in a range of tourism activities available at the destination.

This method was used together with the sorting method and the photo-elicitation technique. This method by itself was not used because it would only allow the identification of the preference of tourism activities, but would not allow the researchers to identify the intention to participate in the activities.

Multiple-sorting

Participants were asked to sort photographs into two columns according to their intention to participate.

This method is used to explore the different perceptions when the sorting criterion is changed. As this study aims to explore the intention to participate, a sorting method was used to explore the intention (and non-intention) to participate in the different tourism activities.

Semi-structured interviews using the photoelicitation technique

The photo-elicitation technique was used to trigger semistructured interviews.

This method was used together with the ranking-sorting procedure to explore the enabling and disabling factors for participation. In order to provide a structured format, all three techniques were included.

results to rating data (Hein et al., 2008; Næs et al., 2013; Varela et al., 2014) and more strongly if participants have to explain their justifications for their rankings (Schibrowsky & Pettier, 1995). This methodology was previously tested by the researchers involved in this study and was found to be an effective tool. This was especially so in comparison with a purely quantitative perspective using prompted responses, when trying to gain a deeper understanding of visitor motivations for, and limitations to, engaging in tourism activities (Abascal et al., 2015). Case Study: An Application of the Photo-based Ranking-Sorting Procedure in a Tourism Project

Katherine is a town with an urban population of 6094 on the 2011 census (ABS, 2016). It is located approximately 320 kilometres southeast of Darwin, Northern Territory. Katherine is situated at an intersection where visitors either travelling north to south (Darwin to Adelaide) or east to west (Cairns to Broome) have to pass through. This allowed the researchers to study visitors within a range of profi le types (e.g. type of visitor, age, travelling party). In addition, the destination offers a range of tourism categories (art and culture, food and wine, nature and wildlife, outdoors and Indigenous). Consequently, it is well suited to fulfi l the aims of this study.

Image Use in Tourism Research Methodology 257

Methodology

The in-field data collection for this report was done at the Katherine visitor information centre (corner Lindsay Street and Katherine Terrace, Katherine, NT) from 11 to 26 July 2015. The necessary permissions were obtained from the visitor centre management. The photographs used as part of the data collection were selected based on the following procedure: (1) First, the researcher analysed the Northern Territory’s official tourism website (http://imagegallery.tourismnt.com.au/) to determine the range of tourism activities to be included in the selection process. A number of tourism categories and specific tourism activities are defi ned on the website. The researcher followed the predetermined categorisation (art and culture, food and wine, nature and wildlife, outdoors and Indigenous) to ensure consistency. (2) The researcher registered with, and gained permission from, ‘Tourism NT’ to access their image gallery to download the photographs to be used in the research project. (3) The researcher selected and acquired images of each tourism activity promoted on the official tourism website. (4) In order to select easy to interpret photographic representations of each tourism activity under investigation, a validation process was undertaken using the sorting and repertory grid techniques. This was conducted with 10 participants with an expertise in the broad subject area of this study. (5) After analysing the data, the researcher chose the two most representative photographs of each of the five tourism categories. The selected photographs used during the data collection process are shown in Figure 11.2. It is important to mention that in order to avoid participants’ own interpretation of the photographs, a small description of each photo was included above each image, as shown in Figure 11.2. During the data collection process, participants involved in the study were approached as they entered the visitor information centre. Once they

Figure 11.2 Photographs used during the data collection process (Source: http://imagegallery. tourismnt.com.au/)

258

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Table 11.3 Response rates Approaches

349

Declines

104

Answered

245

Valid (complete demographics and ranking-sorting)

244

Response rate

70%

Table 11.4 Data analysis approaches undertaken in the present study Method

Data analysis

Ranking-sorting photobased procedure

• Mean rankings were computed for each tourism activity. • Chi square tests of independence were computed to examine relationships between intention to engage in tourism activities and visitors’ characteristics.

Semi-structured interviews using photo-elicitation

• Content analysis was conducted. A typology of factors at each level was established and used in the coding process.

Survey

• The distribution of each demographic variable was obtained with the use of appropriate descriptive statistics (frequency distributions).

agreed to be involved in the study, they were fi rst asked to rank, from a pile of photographs, the activities represented on those photographs according to their preferences to participate. Next, participants were asked to sort and rank the activities into two distinct piles: those that they intended to participate in (or had participated in), and those they didn’t intend to participate in, during their time at Katherine. After that, they were asked to explain the reasons for their ranking and sorting (see Figure 11.2). Finally, they were asked to fi ll in a survey to collect demographics and travel behaviour data. Each procedure took approximately 15–25 minutes. Response rates for the survey are presented in Table 11.3. A total of 244 complete procedures were conducted. The main reasons given for not wanting to participate in the survey were not enough time (70), not interested (20), just passing and not staying in Katherine (8) and language barriers (6). When analysing the data, four different techniques were employed, as detailed in Table 11.4. Results

The aim of this chapter is to show how the photo-based mixed methodology helps to investigate the topic under investigation. Detailed results from analysing the demographic and quantitative data are not included in this chapter due to limited space.

Image Use in Tourism Research Methodology 259

Demographic data and travel patterns

Table 11.5 summarises the demographic profi le and travel patterns of participants in the present study. The group represented a relatively wellbalanced spread of gender, age, employment status and education levels. However, 67% of participants were domestic visitors. This is aligned with the Northern Territory statistics of holiday visitors: During the year ending September 2015 there were 69% domestic holiday visitors and 31% international holiday visitors (http://www.tourismnt.com.au/research. aspx). In the present study, 86% of participants identified themselves as holiday visitors. Table 11.5 Participants’ demographic characteristics and travel patterns (n=244) Characteristic

Group

Percentage

Gender

Female Male

59 41

Age group

15–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65+

12 18 8 14 28 20

Type of visitor

Domestic, born in Australia Domestic, born overseas International, travelling more than a month International, travelling a month or less

56 11 27 7

State of residency (domestic visitors)

Victoria New South Wales Queensland Western Australia South Australia Northern Territory Tasmania Australia Capital Territory

33 24 15 10 9 7 2 1

Country of origin (international visitors)

France Germany United Kingdom Belgium Switzerland New Zealand Netherlands United States Asian countries Other

27 17 11 6 6 6 6 5 5 10

Employment status

Retired Full-time employed Part-time employed Other (working-holiday visa/extended leave) Student

32 28 17 17 7

Education level

Postgraduate qualification Bachelor degree Technical and further education Secondary education Other

22 26 25 26 2 (Continued)

260

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Table 11.5 Continued Characteristic

Group

Percentage

Travelling party

With partner With family Alone Friends or relatives

61 16 12 12

Time spent at Katherine

Day trip 1 night 2 nights 3 nights 4+ nights

11 16 34 24 14

Main reason to travel to Katherine

Holiday Visiting friends or relatives Business Education Other

86 4 2 1 7

Preference and intention to participate in tourism activities

While standing at a table inside the Katherine visitor information centre, visitors were presented with an instrument made up of three adjacent columns (see Figure 11.1). Each survey participant was then given a randomly ordered pile of 10 photographs (each depicting a different tourism activity available at Katherine) and were asked to rank each of the 10 activities in the fi rst column (on the left) according to those that they would most like to do (at the top of the column) to those they would least like to do (at the bottom of the column). Participants were then given a second randomly sorted pile of the same 10 photographs, and were asked to sort the activities into the two adjacent columns according to their actual Table 11.6 Summary of preferences and intention to participate in tourism activities at Katherine Activity

Image

Tourism category

Mean ranking*

Position based on mean ranking*

Percentage of participants who intend to participate**

Position based on intention to participate**

Art galleries

Art and culture

3.2

10th

30

10th

Dining out

Food and wine

4.1

8th

43

8th

Indigenous short tour

Indigenous

5.2

6th

37

9th

Image Use in Tourism Research Methodology 261

Museum

Art and culture

4.6

7th

46

4th

Crocodile cruise

Nature and wildlife

5.9

5th

46

5th

Markets and local produce

Food and wine

3.9

9th

44

6th

Sightseeing

Nature and wildlife

7.9

1st

98

1st

Indigenous rock-art

Indigenous

6.4

3rd

70

3rd

Bushwalking

Outdoors/ active

7.7

2nd

81

2nd

Canoeing

Outdoors/ active

6.1

4th

44

6th

*The position spectrum is 1–10. The activity in the first position means that it is the most preferred activity. The maximum mean score is 10. That would mean that all the participants ranked the activity as the most preferred activity. Therefore, the activity with the highest score (closer to 10) was the most preferred activity. **The position spectrum is 1–10. The activity in the first position means that it is the activity with the higher number participants who intend to engage in the activity. The percentage represents the proportion of participants who positioned the activity as ‘intend to do’.

intention to participate, or not, during their present trip to Katherine. Table 11.6 presents the results for each tourism activity. Factors influencing activity choices

During the semi-structured interviews, respondents were asked to explain their reasons for their intention, or not, to participate in the different tourism activities. The laddering technique was used to uncover these reasons. This technique is associated with the means-end chain theory, which focuses on the links between products attributes (means),

262

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

consequences for the consumer (desirable or undesirable) and the personal values these consequences reinforce (ends) (Gutman, 1982; Reynolds & Gutman, 1988). During the interviews, participants were fi rst asked to explain the reasons for their choices to participate, or not, in the 10 tourism activities. The researcher encouraged the respondents to list multiple factors. These responses are typically referred to as attributes (or represented as pull factors in other studies). Next, using the laddering technique, the researcher asked the participant: ‘why is this important to you?’ This was done for each attribute mentioned and was continued until the participant could not provide any further reasons. This process was undertaken to elicit the consequences (benefits) and values (or push factors) related to participation/non-participation. Each interview was audio recorded and transcribed after the event. The transcripts were analysed using content analysis. The coding of the attributes was conducted by an inductive approach (from the data). The framework used for coding the consequences follows the pool of motivations from the tourism and leisure literature used in Pearce and Lee’s (2005) study. The coding at the value level follows the literature on human values (Kahle, 1983; Rokeach, 1973). Through the coding process, 96 concept codes were identified and were grouped into 65 summary content codes for intention to participate (10 on the attribution level, 43 on the consequences level and 12 on the values level) and 31 summary content codes for no intention to participate (15 on the activity level and 16 on the participant level). The codes were then used to develop hierarchical value maps (HVM) for each tourism category. Figures 11.3–11.7 provide a graphic representation of the participation/ non-participation enabling and disabling factors related to each activity. Each figure is divided into two sections. The left-hand section illustrates the fi nal HVM of the enabling factors. The right-hand section illustrates the disabling factors to engage in the activity. The identified disabling factors to participating were classified into two groups: (a) attributes regarding the activity and (b) limiting factors of the participant. The lines represent the links between attributes (or pull factors) and consequences and values (push factors) for each tourism category. The thicker the line, the more times that link was mentioned by the respondents. Only those concepts and associations above a cut-off of 10 were considered for inclusion in the HVM. This means that links mentioned by less than 10 participants are not shown in the figures. Art and culture

Figure 11.3 illustrates the factors for participating, or not, in the ‘art and culture’ tourism category, represented by art galleries and museums. It can be seen that the ‘local’ and ‘history/art, culture’ are the most attractive attributes to the respondents (e.g. ‘Culture and history of Katherine’ – Participant 119). However, ‘conveniently located’ (e.g. ‘I can only see the

Figure 11.3 Art and culture tourism category

Image Use in Tourism Research Methodology 263

264

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Table 11.7 Evaluation results of the photo-based ranking-sorting procedure (n=38) Item

Mean ranking

It was easy to follow

4.34

It was user-friendly

4.38

It was enjoyable

4.13

It was interesting

4.17

It was too time-consuming

2.23

It made me think about the options of activities in a different way

3.47

things close to the city’ – Participant 210) is also an attribute that was mentioned by the participants. The main consequence of these two main attributes is to ‘develop knowledge’ (e.g. ‘Learn more about history of the local area’ – Participant 39). However, other consequences were mentioned: ‘experience differences’ (e.g. ‘See different art to other places’ – Participant 244), ‘appreciation’ (e.g. ‘I appreciate creative work’ – Participant 209) and ‘understanding of other culture’ (e.g. ‘I like to understand the life of the people. How they live’ – Participant 201). The main value derived from ‘develop knowledge’ is ‘self-development’ (e.g. ‘To educate yourself’ – Participant 142). However, ‘warm relations with others’ is linked to ‘understanding other culture’ (e.g. ‘Familiarising ourselves with Aboriginal art is probably something all Australians should do. Is part of getting to know about our aboriginal brothers a little better’ – Participant 57). It can be seen in Table 11.7 that the engagement level on these activities is very low. The right-hand side of Figure 11.3 illustrates the disabling factors to engage in these activities. Disabling attributes regarding the activities are ‘not unique’ (e.g. ‘They are everywhere, not just here. Everywhere you go to the country you can see it’ – Participant 8), ‘boring’ (e.g. ‘I found them boring’ – Participant 2) and ‘indoor’ activities (e.g. ‘I prefer to be outside’ – Participant 139). In addition, disabling factors linked to the participants are ‘limiting time’ (e.g. ‘I have to prioritize as I am only here today and tomorrow’ – Participant 43), ‘lack of interest’ (‘No into it. Not our thing’ – Participant 96), ‘I am not the target market’ (‘Too young to be interested in museums and this. Maybe later on’ – Participant 20), ‘I have done it before or doing it in other place’ (e.g. ‘I wouldn’t do it in this trip. We have seen them in Uluru, so we have experience that and seeing some paintings’ – Participant 34) and ‘saturation’ (e.g. ‘I’ve seen enough already’ – Participant 129). Food and wine

Figure 11.4 illustrates the factors for participating, or not, in the ‘food and wine’ tourism category, represented by dining out and visiting markets/ local produce. Figure 11.4 illustrates that ‘local’ (e.g. Local cuisine’ – Participant 46) is the most attractive attribute of the two activities. However, other attributes such as ‘good quality’ (e.g. ‘You always have to eat good

Figure 11.4 Food and wine tourism category

Image Use in Tourism Research Methodology 265

266

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

food’– Participant 148), ‘history/art/culture’ (e.g. ‘It is part of the culture’ – Participant 5) and ‘convenient’ (e.g. ‘It saves us the cooking’ – Participant 57) were also mentioned. The main consequences of these attributes are to ‘experience pleasure’ (e.g. ‘Eating is a pleasure’ – Participant 135) and ‘experience differences’ (e.g. ‘Mainly to try different food and local food’ – Participant 32). Other important consequences are ‘getting away of everyday activities’ (e.g. ‘I love eating out because I don’t have to cook’ – Participant 97), ‘support’ (‘Supporting the local industry’ – Participant 182) and ‘understanding other culture’ (e.g. ‘To learn something about the culture’ – Participant 112). The values linked to these consequences are ‘fun and enjoyment in life’ (e.g. ‘It was nice, there was music, if was fun’ – Participant 7), ‘self-development’ (‘You learn something about where you are now and where you have been’ – Participant 112) and ‘benevolence’ (‘I believe in putting a little bit of money back on the community’ – Participant 128). The main disabling attribute to engage in these activities is ‘cost’ – particularly for dining out (e.g. ‘Expensive to do it’ – Participant 20). Another two disabling attributes regarding the activities are ‘not unique’ (e.g. ‘I can do it anywhere’ – Participant 96) and ‘timing’ – mentioned for the markets/local produce (e.g. ‘We won’t be around when they are on’ – Participant 148). In addition, disabling factors linked to the participants are ‘limiting time’ (e.g. ‘It is interesting but no time. I am here for a day’ – Participant 16), ‘lack of interest’ (e.g. ‘Buying local food is not important’ – Participant 26), ‘I have done it before or doing it in other place’ (e.g. ‘We don’t do it frequently and we did it recently so we won’t do it here’ – Participant 34) and ‘I prefer to do it by myself’ (e.g. ‘I rather cook myself than going to restaurants’ – Participant 50). Indigenous

Figure 11.5 illustrates the factors for participating, or not, in the ‘Indigenous’ tourism category, represented by short tour and rock-art sites. ‘History/art/culture’ (e.g. ‘Just for the history of the Aborigines’ – Participant 7) is the attribute that was mentioned for both activities. ‘Hands-on/interaction’ (e.g. ‘Getting in touch with Aboriginal people’ – Participant 15) and ‘local’ (e.g. ‘To see the local culture and history’ – Participant 6) were only mentioned for the short tour. ‘Famous/ unique’ (e.g. ‘To experiences the uniqueness. I love the uniqueness of it’ – Participant 35), ‘outdoors/nature’ (e.g. ‘Discover Aboriginal art in nature’ – Participant 51) and ‘authentic’ (e.g. ‘It is old, thousands of years. You can believe what you are looking at’ – Participant 60) were only mentioned for the rock-art sites. The main consequences of these attributes are to ‘understand other culture’ (e.g. ‘Getting in touch with the aboriginals to understand how they live, how they are, and their problems, and how they enjoy life’ – Participant 15), ‘develop knowledge’ (e.g. ‘To learn

Figure 11.5 Indigenous tourism category

Image Use in Tourism Research Methodology 267

268

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

some traditional techniques to live with the nature and without a lot of things’ – Participant 19), ‘experience differences’ (e.g. ‘It would be good to see more. We are interested to see if there is any different to other areas around Alice Springs’ – Participant 44), ‘appreciation’ (e.g. ‘I feel like awe. Some of the art is 50,000 old and well preserve, beautiful. Awesome art’ – Participant 42) and ‘being close to nature/active’ (e.g. ‘I want to see the caves. I like nature and bushwalking. I always like outdoors, I am never been in arts and things like that I am more an outdoors person, more for the nature basically’ – Participant 231). The main values regarding Indigenous tourism activities are ‘self-development’ (e.g. ‘To learn about another area of the human race. I thing we can all learn from. Just to learn and educate yourself as much as possible’ – Participant 142) and ‘inner harmony’ (e.g. ‘See another perspective of life coming from a complete different culture’ – Participant 83). Other values linked to the previous consequences are ‘sense of belonging’ (e.g. ‘Because it is our country I want to know and learn more about our country and every aspect of it’ – Participant 230), ‘warm relationship with others’ (e.g. ‘To try to understand Aboriginal people a little bit more’ – Participant 217) and ‘a world of beauty’ (e.g. ‘See the beauty of it, the open space, the beauty of country’ – Participant 138). Table 11.7 shows that 70% of participants intended to participate in the rock-art sites activity, while only 37% intended to participate in the short tour. Several disabling attributes were mentioned to engage in the short tour: ‘cost’ (e.g. ‘I don’t think I would put money in learning things from aborigines, although it could be very interesting’ – Participant 50), ‘too touristic/inauthentic’ (e.g. ‘This is fake when you are sitting there. Because they are there to be talked to. You can see them in the corner if you want the real’ – Participant 91), ‘no added value’ (e.g. ‘I’ve lived here so it is not important for me. I grew up with Aboriginals and they did those things so I know all this. It is not a novelty to me’ – Participant 131), ‘not unique’ (e.g. ‘Once you have seen one, you have seen a lot and I have seen several already’ – Participant 128) and ‘lack of information’ (e.g. ‘We don’t have information about this. I am sure we would consider it if we got the information’ – Participant 80). For the rock-art sites, only ‘lack of information’ was mentioned. Disabling factors, for both activities, linked to the participants are ‘limiting time’ (e.g. ‘No time, it would take me the whole day’ – Participant 1), ‘I have done it before or doing it in other place’ (e.g. ‘I am going to Darwin and I will try to go to Tiwi Island to try to get a little taste’ – Participant 44), lack of interest’ (e.g. ‘I am not really interested in Aboriginal culture. I don’t know why, it is just what it is’ – Participant 73) and ‘saturation’ (‘I have seen enough about it. When you live in Australia and you travel around, you see enough of it’ – Participant 118). ‘Lack of awareness’ (e.g. ‘I would but I didn’t know you can do it, until you told me’ – Participant 7) was only mentioned for the rock-art sites. ‘Previous bad experience’

Image Use in Tourism Research Methodology 269

(e.g. I did it in Mildura and NSW and it was so fake’ – Participant 117) and ‘I prefer to do it by myself’ (e.g. ‘I would prefer to talk with an Aboriginal without a tour. I feel it is more real’ – Participant 66) were only mentioned for the short tour. Nature and wildlife

Figure 11.6 illustrates the factors for participating, or not, in the ‘nature and wildlife’ tourism category, represented by crocodile cruises and sightseeing. The two main attributes of these activities are ‘famous/ unique’ (e.g. ‘Mainly because it is the main tourists attraction in this area’ – Participant 43) and ‘outdoor/nature’ (e.g. ‘Get out into the environment and have a look around what is in there’ – Participant 84). ‘Free or cheap’ (e.g. ‘We are backpackers and this is for free. You don’t pay anything’ – Participant 58) and ‘convenient’ (e.g. ‘This is easy to do’ – Participant 136) were also mentioned for sightseeing. However, no consequences or values were linked to these two attributes. For the crocodile cruise, ‘element of risk’ (e.g. ‘Element that you can die as well is quiet’ – Participant 11) was an important attribute. The two main consequences linked to the two main attributes are ‘being close to nature’ (e.g. ‘So I can be in the wild and see the nature’ – Participant 27) and ‘experience differences’ (e.g. ‘To see animal wildlife. Something different from my country’ – Participant 37). Values linked to these consequences are ‘a world of beauty’ (e.g. ‘Just the beauty of everything. It is awe inspiring’ – Participant 8) and ‘fun and enjoyment in life’ (e.g. ‘A lot more fun, you see a lot of great waterfalls and swimming’ – Participant 58). Other values linked to this category are ‘excitement’ (e.g. ‘It is pretty exciting. Some adrenaline’ – Participant 50), ‘inner harmony’ (e.g. ‘To feel connected with nature in this raff environment’ – Participant 83) and ‘accomplishment’ (e.g. ‘I found it rewarding’ – Participant 52). Almost all the participants intended to do sightseeing; therefore, there are no disabling attributes linked to this activity. However, only 46% of participants intended to participate in a crocodile cruise. Disabling attributes regarding this tourism activity are ‘ethical concerns’ (e.g. ‘I don’t like being out harassing animals for the sake of tourism so I always look for crocodiles in the while but not like this’ – Participant 3), ‘cost’ (e.g. ‘Too expensive’ – Participant 5) and ‘not unique’ (e.g. ‘We can do it in Darwin’ – Participant 114). Disabling factors linked to the participants are ‘I have done it before or doing it in other place’ (e.g. ‘We have seen them in Kakadu’ – Participant 25), ‘limiting time’ (e.g. ‘It will take too much time’ – Participant 159), ‘lack of interest’ (e.g. ‘No big fan of crocodiles’ – Participant 76) and ‘saturation’ (e.g. ‘I’ve seen enough, I don’t need to see more’ – Participant 44).

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Figure 11.6 Nature and wildlife category

270

Image Use in Tourism Research Methodology 271

Outdoors/active

Figure 11.7 illustrates the factors for participating, or not, in the ‘outdoors/active’ tourism category, represented by bushwalking and canoeing. The main attribute for both activities is ‘outdoor/nature’ (e.g. ‘Because it is outdoors I really enjoy nature and the wild’ – Participant 13). ‘Famous/unique’ (e.g. ‘It is very typical of Australia and you can’t see it somewhere else’ – Participant 20) and ‘free/cheap’ (e.g. ‘it doesn’t cost money’ – Participant 18) were also mentioned for bushwalking. The three main consequences linked to the main attribute are ‘experience differences’ (e.g. ‘I think because I am from Belgium and we don’t have a lot of nature and it is very crowded here, a lot of people living in the same space’ – Participant 13), ‘being active/exploring’ (e.g. ‘We like Sports. Activities in nature’ – Participant 17) and ‘being close to nature’ (e.g. ‘I like the connection to nature and seeing different landscapes’ – Participant 53). Values linked to these consequences are ‘a world of beauty’ (e.g. ‘You appreciate it, just the beauty’ – Participant 8) and ‘accomplishment’ (e.g. ‘When you arrive is very rewarding. You walk to get there. You get more satisfaction’ – Participant 66). Other values linked to this category are ‘fun and enjoyment’ (e.g. ‘A lot more fun, you see a lot of great waterfalls and swimming’ – Participant 50), ‘inner harmony’ (e.g. ‘Discover something bigger than us’ – Participant 17) and ‘warm relationship with others’ (e.g. ‘A way to do it as a family so everyone in the family can participate’ – Participant 6). Around 80% of the participants intended to do bushwalking; the disabling factors for participants to engage were ‘physical/risky activity’ (e.g. ‘It is too hot’ – Participant 215) (activity attribute level), ‘limited time’ (e.g. ‘Lack of time’ – Participant 40) and ‘physical concerns’ (e.g. ‘Not fit enough to do this’ – Participant 39). These factors were also mentioned for canoeing (in which only 46% of participants intended to participate). Other disabling factors to engage in the canoeing are ‘cost’ (e.g. ‘Too expensive’ – Participant 10), ‘travelling party concerns’ (e.g. ‘She can’t swim very well and she will be scared’ – Participant 164), ‘safety concerns’ (e.g. ‘Because of the crocodiles. That is the reason why I am not doing it’ – Participant 217), ‘age concerns’ (e.g. ‘We are too old for this’ – Participant 101), ‘lack of interest’ (e.g. ‘I don’t like canoeing’ – Participant 182) and ‘I have done it or doing it in other place’ (e.g. I have done it before. We prefer to do things we haven’t done before’ – Participant 176). Results on the evaluation of the methodology

As an additional question, at the end of the survey, participants were asked to give their opinion regarding the methodology on a 5-point Likert scale; where ‘5’ and ‘1’, respectively, indicate strong agreement and strong disagreement. The mean ranking results are summarised in Table 11.7. The

Figure 11.7 Outdoors/active tourism category

272 Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Image Use in Tourism Research Methodology 273

Table 11.8 Additional comments regarding the photo-based ranking-sorting procedure Concept

References

Examples of quotes

Good design

18

‘Good visual tool for people that may not speak English well. Interactive’ – Participant 53 ‘Fun. Different from normal surveys. More visual’ – Participant 196

Reflective experience

8

‘It is good. Makes you think what are you doing and why are you doing it’ – Participant 175

Possible improvements

8

‘To do it online’ – Participant 27 ‘Maybe more precise if the activities are labelled free or not’ – Participant 106

Pleasant experience

6

‘Interesting. Thank you for the discussion’ – Participant 176

results indicate that there is positive feedback on the method regarding almost all items except for ‘made me think about the options of activities in a different way’ which shows a neutral opinion. In addition, participants were encouraged to indicate any further comment regarding the photo-base procedure or comments to improve the system. From the 244 participants, 38 gave comments on the method. These comments were analysed using content analysis. The results and example of quotes are shown in Table 11.8. Discussion and Conclusion

While previous studies have contributed to the tourism travel motivation knowledge, there are very few known studies focused on understanding the tourism activity choices. Although many of the concepts explored appear similar to previous travel motivation theory, additional information (at tourism activity choices level) was generated. This suggests that travel motivation theories are also applicable for understanding the activity choice process. The use of semi-structured interviews using the photoelicitation technique along with the ranking-sorting procedure allowed the exploration of enabling and disabling factors in regard to tourism activity choices that have not been previously explored. In fact, it allowed the investigation of the reasons why visitors, despite being interested in some activities, do not participate in them (or vice versa). These results reinforce previous theory that suggests visitors will choose activities more strongly associated to their motivation (Hass et al., 1980). However, the results also indicate that there are other factors for engaging, or not, in some activities, such as convenience, cost, awareness, previous or future participation and travelling party. This supports the claim that motivation to travel and activity choices should be treated differently (Mehmetoglu, 2007). In addition, the results offer insights into

274

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

preferences within tourism categories. It is suggested that participants do not consider all the tourism activities within each tourism category as being equally preferred. In fact, this study suggests that factors are linked to specific activities and not necessarily to broader tourism categories. For example, the semi-structured interview data shows that despite some factors (attributes, consequences, values and disabling attributes) being linked to the tourism category (e.g. world of beauty on ‘nature and wildlife’ activities), others are linked directly to the activity (e.g. ‘excitement’ only mentioned for the crocodile cruise). Finally, the results of this study support Klenosky’s (2002) claim that the two sets of factors (push and pull) should not be viewed as independent variables. It is suggested that the methodology described in this chapter resulted in a more engaging approach when investigating visitor consumer behaviour. This study shows that while various well-established methods in tourism research exist, they can sometimes be combined in order to more fully address the research question. Although the aim of this study was not to generalise conclusions, but to explore the consumer behaviour process regarding tourism activity choices using a novel mixed methods approach, the results do suggest that by using different data collection methods, an extension of previous theory can be achieved. Finally, this study indicates that by developing more engaging research methods, not only is the chance of more participants agreeing to be involved in the study enhanced, but also an overall contribution to knowledge is achieved. However, it is important to recognise that the use of new methods to collect the data brought difficulties while conducting the research. The researchers acknowledge the limitations of the methodology and suggest the following advice for future research that intends to use this methodology: First, this methodology has the ability to obtain qualitative and quantitative data. Therefore, if a particular study takes a mainly qualitative approach, a reduced sample size but an increase in the participants’ participation time would be advisable. Alternatively, if the focus is on a quantitative approach, it is critical to obtain an adequate sample size to increase the generalisability of the analysis. Secondly, it is recognised that while the methodology employed allowed a deeper understanding of visitors’ consumer behaviour process regarding tourism activity choices, the depth of understanding was limited by the time available for interviews because the sample was made up of actual visitors travelling. Finally, as mentioned by a few participants, the methodology can be improved by using technology, reducing the activities under investigation or giving more information regarding the activities (price, location, time, etc.).

Image Use in Tourism Research Methodology 275

Note (1)

We would like to acknowledge the Moondani Balluk Indigenous Academic Unit, Victoria University for providing fi nancial support for the fieldwork, and the Katherine visitor information centre for allowing us conducting the survey within its premises.

References Abascal, T.E., Fluker, M. and Jiang, M. (2015) Domestic demand for Indigenous tourism in Australia: Understanding motivations, barriers, and implications for future development. Journal of Heritage Tourism 10 (1), 1–20. Baloglu, S. and Uysal, M. (1996) Market segments of push and pull motivations: A canonical correlation approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 8 (3), 73–85. Bandyopadhyay, R. (2011) A photo ethnography of tourism as neo-colonialism. Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2), 714–718. Beard, J.G. and Ragheb, M.G. (1983) Measuring leisure motivation. Journal of Leisure Research 15 (3), 219–228. Bech-Larsen, T. and Nielsen, N.A. (1999) A comparison of five elicitation techniques for elicitation attributes of low involvement products. Journal of Economic Psychology 20, 315–341. Benson, C., Watson, P., Taylor, G., Cook, P. and Hollenhorst, S. (2013) Who visits a national park and what do they get out of it?: A joint visitor cluster analysis and travel cost model for Yellowstone National Park. Environmental Management 52 (4), 917–928. Bergman, M.M. (2008) Advances in Mixed Methods Research. London: Sage Publications. Brown, T.C., Daniel, T.C., Richards, M.T. and King, D.A. (1988) Recreation participation and the validity of photo-based preference judgments. Journal of Leisure Research 20, 40–60. Bryman, A. (2006) Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research 6 (1), 97–113. Cahyanto, I., Pennington-Gray, L. and Thapa, B. (2013) Tourist–resident interfaces: Using reflexive photography to develop responsible rural tourism in Indonesia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 21 (5), 732–749. Caton, K. and Santos, C.A. (2007) Heritage tourism on Route 66: Deconstructing nostalgia. Journal of Travel Research 45 (4), 371–386. Cederholm, E.A. (2004) The use of photo-elicitation in tourism research: Framing the backpacker experience. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 4 (3), 225–241. Cha, S. and McCleary, K.W. (1995) Travel motivations of Japanese overseas travelers: A factor-cluster segmentation approach. Journal of Travel Research 34 (1), 33. Chang-Hung, T., Eagles, P.F.J. and Smith, S.L.J. (2004) Profi ling Taiwanese ecotourists using a self-defi nition approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 12 (2), 149–168. Creswell, J.W. and Plano Clark, V.L. (2011) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Croes, R., Lee, S.H. and Olson, E.D. (2013) Authenticity in tourism in small island destinations: A local perspective. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change 11 (1–2), 1–20. Crompton, J.L. (1979) Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research 6 (4), 408–424. Dann, G.M.S. (1977) Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 4 (4), 184–194.

276

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Dann, G.M.S. (1981) Tourist motivation an appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research 8 (2), 187–219. Dolnicar, S. (2013) Asking good survey questions. Journal of Travel Research 52 (5), 551–574. Dolnicar, S. and Grün, B. (2009) Does one size fit all? The suitability of answer formats for different constructs measured. Australasian Marketing Journal 17 (1), 58–64. Fodness, D. (1994) Measuring tourist motivation. Annals of Tourism Research 21 (3), 555–581. Green, R. (2005) Community perceptions of environmental and social change and tourism development on the island of Koh Samui, Thailand. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25 (1), 37–56. Gutman, J. (1982) A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing 46 (2), 60–72. Haas, G.E., Driver, B.L. and Brown, P.J. (1980) Measuring Wilderness Recreation Experiences. Paper presented at the Wilderness Psychology Group Annual Conference, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH. Harper, D. (2002) Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies 17 (1), 13–26. Hein, K.A., Jaeger, S.R., Tom Carr, B. and Delahunty, C.M. (2008) Comparison of five common acceptance and preference methods. Food Quality and Preference 19 (7), 651–661. Huang, S.S. and Hsu, C.H.C. (2009) Effects of travel motivation, past experience, perceived constraint, and attitude on revisit intention. Journal of Travel Research 48 (1), 29–44. Iso-Ahola, S.E. (1982) Toward a social psychological theory of tourism motivation: A rejoinder. Annals of Tourism Research 9 (2), 256–262. Jennings, G. (2010) Tourism Research (2nd edn). Milton, Qld.: John Wiley & Sons. Jensen, M.T. (2015) Distorted representation in visual tourism research. Current Issues in Tourism 1–19. Jiang, S., Scott, N. and Ding, P. (2015) Using means-end chain theory to explore travel motivation: An examination of Chinese outbound tourists. Journal of Vacation Marketing 21 (1), 87–100. Kahle, L.R. (1983) Social Values and Social Change: Adaptation to Life in America. New York: Praeger. Kao, M.C., Patterson, I., Scott, N. and Li, C.K. (2008) Motivations and satisfactions of Taiwanese tourists who visit Australia. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 24 (1), 17–33. Kerstetter, D. and Bricker, K. (2009) Exploring Fijian’s sense of place after exposure to tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17 (6), 691–708. Kim, E.Y.J. (1997) Korean outbound tourism: Pre-visit expectations of Australia. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 6 (1), 11–19. Kim, S.S., Lee, C.-K. and Klenosky, D.B. (2003) The influence of push and pull factors at Korean national parks. Tourism Management 24 (2), 169–180. Klassen, A.C., Creswell, J., Plano Clark, V.L., Smith, K.C. and Meissner, H.I. (2012) Best practices in mixed methods for quality of life research. Quality of Life Research 21 (3), 377–380. Klenosky, D.B. (2002) The ‘pull’ of tourism destinations: A means-end investigation. Journal of Travel Research 40, 385–395. Lang, C.-T. and O’Leary, J.T. (1997) Motivation, participation, and preference: A multisegmentation approach of the Australian nature travel market. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 6 (3/4), 159–180. Lawler, E. (1973) Motivations in Work Organizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Image Use in Tourism Research Methodology 277

Loeffler, T.A. (2004) A photo elicitation study of the meanings of outdoor adventure experiences. Journal of Leisure Research 36 (4), 536–556. Matteucci, X. (2013) Photo elicitation: Exploring tourist experiences with researcher-found images. Tourism Management 35, 190–197. Mehmetoglu, M. (2007) Typologising nature-based tourists by activity: Theoretical and practical implications. Tourism Management 28 (3), 651–660. Moscardo, G., Morrison, A.M., Pearce, P.L., Lang, C.T. and O’Leary, J.T. (1996) Understanding vacation destination choice through travel motivation and activities. Journal of Vacation Marketing 2 (2), 109–122. Moskowitz, H.R. (2005) Issues and viewpoints: Thoughts on subjective measurement, sensory metrics and usefulness of outcomes. Journal of Sensory Studies 20 (4), 347–362. Næs, T., Monteleone, E., Segtnan, A. and Hersleth, M. (2013) A comparison of two new take-away strategies and their relation to rating and ranking of extrinsic properties of dry cured ham. Food Quality and Preference 27 (1), 63–71. Nyaupane, G.P., Lew, A.A. and Tatsugawa, K. (2014) Perceptions of trekking tourism and social and environmental change in Nepal’s Himalayas. Tourism Geographies 16 (3), 415–437. Pearce, P.L. (1988) The Ulysses Factor: Evaluating Visitors in Tourist Settings. New York: Springer-Verlag. Pearce, P.L. (1993) Fundamentals of tourist motivation. In D.G. Pearce and R. Butler (eds) Tourism Research: Critiques and Challenges (pp. 113-134). New York: Routledge. Pearce, P.L. and Lee, U.-I. (2005) Developing the travel career approach to tourist motivation. Journal of Travel Research 43 (3), 226–237. Pizam, A. and Fleischer, A. (2005) The relationship between cultural characteristics and preference for active vs. passive tourist activities. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing 12 (4), 5–25. Plog, S. (1974) Why destinations areas rise and fall in popularity. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 16 (1), 55–58. Plog, S. (1987) Understanding psychographics in tourism research. In J.R.B. Ritchie and C.R. Goeldner (eds) Travel, Tourism, and Hospitality Research (pp. 203–213). New York: Wiley. Plog, S. (2002) The power of psychographics and the concept of venturesomeness. Journal of Travel Research 40 (3), 244–251. Prebensen, N., Skallerud, K. and Chen, J.S. (2010) Tourist motivation with sun and sand destinations: Satisfaction and the WOM-effect. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 27, 858–873. Pritchard, A. and Morgan, N. (2003) Mythic geographies of representation and identity: Contemporary postcards of Wales. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change 1 (2), 111–130. Raadik, J., Cottrell, S.P., Fredman, P., Ritter, P. and Newman, P. (2010) Understanding recreational experience preferences: Application at Fulufjället National Park, Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 10 (3), 231–247. Rakic, T. and Chambers, D. (2010) Innovative techniques in tourism research: An exploration of visual methods and academic fi lmmaking. International Journal of Tourism Research 12, 379–389. Rakic, T. and Chambers, D. (2012) An Introduction to Visual Research Methods in Tourism. London/New York: Routledge. Ray, J.L. and Smith, A.D. (2011) Using photographs to research organizations: Evidence, considerations, and application in a field study. Organizational Research Methods 15 (2), 288–315. Reynolds, T.J. and Gutman, J. (1988) Laddering theory method analysis and interpretation. Journal of Advertising Research 11–31.

278

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Rokeach, M. (1973) The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press. Ruhanen, L., Whitford, M. and McLennan, C.-L. (2013) Demand and Supply Issues in Indigenous Tourism: A Gap Analysis. See http://www.iba.gov.au/wp-content/uplo ads/2013/03/20130304ResearchReport_Demand-and-Supply-Issues-in-IndigenousTourism-A-Gap-Analysis.pdf. Ryan, C. and Sterling, L. (2001) Visitors to Litchfield National Park, Australia: A typology based on behaviours. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9 (1), 61–75. Scarles, C. (2010) Where words fail, visuals ignite. Annals of Tourism Research 37 (4), 905–926. Schibrowsky, J.A. and Pettier, J.W. (1995) Ranking: Is it really sequential choice? Advances in Consumer Research 22 (1), 71–77. Scott, M.J. and Canter, D.V. (1997) Picture or place? A multiple sorting study of landscape. Journal of Environmental Psychology 17, 263–281. Tourism Australia (2014) Consumer demand research. See http://www.tourism.australia. com/en/markets-and-research/reports/consumer-research.html (accessed on 17 June 2016). Tourism Research Australia (2015) State of the industry 2015. Tourism Research Australia (2016) Domestic and international visitor survey. See https:// www.tra.gov.au/research (accessed on 5 March 2016). UNWTO (2015) Tourism highlights. See http://www.e-unwto.org/doi/ pdf/10.18111/9789284416899 (accessed on 11 September 2016). Varela, P., Beltrán, J. and Fiszman, S. (2014) An alternative way to uncover drivers of coffee liking: Preference mapping based on consumers’ preference ranking and open comments. Food Quality and Preference 32, 152–159. Westwood, S. (2007) What lies beneath? Using creative, projective and participatory techniques in qualitative tourism inquiry. In I. Ateljevic, A. Pritchard and N. Morgan (eds) The Critical Turn in Tourism Studies, Innovative Research Methodologies (pp. 293–316). Oxford: Elsevier. Willson, G. and McIntosh, A.J. (2010) Using photo-based interviews to reveal the significance of heritage buildings to cultural tourism experiences. In G. Richards and W. Munsters (eds) Cultural Tourism Research Methods (pp.141–155). Wallingford: CAB International. Witt, C.A. and Wright, P.L. (1992) Tourist motivation: Life after Maslow. In B. Thomas and P.S. Johnson (eds) Choice and Demand in Tourism (pp. 33–55). London: Mansell. Woodside, A.G. and King, R.I. (2001) An updated model of travel and tourism purchaseconsumption systems. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 10 (1), 3–27. Wu, M.-Y. and Pearce, P.L. (2013) Asset-based community development as applied to tourism in Tibet. Tourism Geographies 16 (3), 438–456. Wu, M.-Y. and Pearce, P.L. (2016) A tale of two parks: Tibetan youths’ preferences for tourism community futures. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change 1–21. Wu, T.-C., Wall, G. and Tsou, L.-Y. (2014) Serious tourists: A proposition for sustainable indigenous tourism. Current Issues in Tourism 1–20. Yoon, Y. and Uysal, M. (2005) An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Management 26 (1), 45–56. Zhang, Y. and Peng, Y. (2014) Understanding travel motivations of Chinese tourists visiting Cairns, Australia. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 21, 44–53. Zuev, D. and Picard, D. (2015) Reconstructing the Antarctic tourist interaction ritual chain: Visual sociological perspective. The Polar Journal 5 (1), 146–169.

12 Conclusion Wendy Hillman

Many perceptions of and insights on qualitative research exist, with opposing assertions about what is perceived as useful and significant work. Instead of selecting the principles upheld by one method, ‘model’, ‘snapshot’ or alliance within qualitative research, active researchers can uncover useful examples from each paradigm. This is because qualitative research is technique based and somewhat separate from the requirement to put an end to metaphysical debates. Simultaneously, methodological perception is a constructive conceptual resource in research investigations. It can be attained by introduction to nearly any intellectual methodological debate, whether from constructivist, naturalistic, positivist or postmodern paradigms, in addition to the detailed reflection of research inquiries undertaken by others. Specific procedures created initially to meet the constraints of distinct concepts can sometimes be utilised for other objectives and from inside other concepts if necessary (Seale, 1999: 465). This book began with a notion attributed to Miles and Huberman (1994) that qualitative data collection and methodology are perfect for obtaining information concerning the lived experience and narration of individual’s lives. Miles and Huberman also provide the meanings from the data to connect with the social sphere; and as we are all aware, tourism is a social venture. We have endeavoured to offer the reader an inclusive outline of the purpose of qualitative research methods in a tourism research situation. Qualitative research and data collection mean various things to numerous supporters of these inductive and ‘lived experience’ operational methods. Centring their results on people’s activities, communications and ideas, qualitative researchers create meaningful and astute data sets and materials that exhibit and communicate how life circumstances ‘are’ for those whose existences and circumstances they investigate. In assuming the charge of compiling this book, we aspired to offer our audience, particularly those who encounter what it is like to reflect qualitatively about tourism, with a ‘safe’ position from which to do that. Conscious as we were of the profoundly metaphysical works and disputes about qualitative and quantitative research, academic concepts, the nature of the world around us, theories, ethical perspectives and procedures, we intended to illustrate what qualitative inquiry can be like, how it may be conducted and how the abundant data contained within empirical information, so generously imparted to us by the research contributors, can

279

280

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

be deciphered and appreciated. We undertook this from our situations as qualitative researchers. We perceive the fundamental distinctions between qualitative and quantitative research and the determination to take one or other of these research directions is conditional on the character and intentions of inquiries. Qualitative investigators are obliged to verify that their effort has been ‘systematic, analytical, rigorous, disciplined, and critical in perspective’. Nonetheless, qualitative research must also be ‘exploring, playful, metaphorical, insightful, and creative’ (Patton, 1990: 433). The interpretation should also be composed in ‘plain language’ (Bennett, 2005) that is of assistance and intelligible to the contributors themselves as much as it is clear to intellectual and professional populations. The investigator and the subtleties of qualitative research without doubt modify what is studied and chronicled and how that is in turn construed and composed. The solution nonetheless is being mindful of this procedure. Certainly, the subjectivity fundamental to an ethnographic study does not have to reduce the research undertaking. Moreover, it is one of the intrinsic assets of this process, because it denotes that questions of image, expression, focus and purpose, together with the likelihood of subjective and social prejudice will, comparatively speaking, be afforded more judicious consideration than in other identified ‘objective’ approaches. Such self-analysis and self-recognition is what enables self-reflection, and it is when ethnography is accomplished instinctively that it is at its most robust. Interpretive phenomenology, although time-intensive, presents research objectives that tolerate moving ahead of affects, perspectives and activities. It encompasses investigating viewpoints, concepts, responses and feelings combined with the very flash of comprehension positioned in subjects’ life cycle spheres. It maintains a rounded perspective of encounters and how individuals are able to appreciate such events and gain significance from them. A phenomenological approach does have a position in tourism and leisure research and academics and scholars will enter into it more positively in the time ahead in addition to carrying out their practices authentically in line with the scholarly foundations and purposes. Within hospitality and tourism inquiry, action research has been applied, for instance, with acknowledgement to civic involvement in tourism designing, merchandise and skill expansion, amenity modernism, managerial and expert progress and preparation, structural adjustment, stimulating knowledge and as a channel to enrich instruction and tuition. Granted the multiplicity of ways to undertake action research, it suits those drawn to its use to study broadly and acquaint themselves with the classic points of view, and associated action research attitudes. In doing so, the pre-eminent methodology for rectifying a concern and for the individuals

Conclusion 281

influenced can be resolved with the purpose of recurrently linking theory and practice and at the same time furthering individual’s situations. When conducting participant observation in cross-cultural research as a non-Indigenous individual within an Australian Indigenous research environment, the inquiry necessitates that the researchers face, scrutinise and cross-examine their perceptions of, and the chronological progression and practice of, customary participant-observation procedures, questioning procedures and the use of reflexivity as crucial factors of research practice or conduct. The information created and deciphered from the study will depend on the researcher’s standing; for example, that of an evolving intuitive inquiry collaborator. This standing (together with the absorbed and ephemeral instinctive inquiry collaborator stance) is undertaken by combining the effects of Indigenous inquiry conventions and accountabilities with Western progress of participant-observation inquiry models. The outcome can be a well-defi ned incongruity concerning the prior perceptions of participant-observer and pragmatic participant investigation study responsibilities and advancement of the exploration collaborator standpoints. At the same time as aligning Western and Indigenous ways of doing tourism research, a constructivist grounded theory approach is a valid way to handle the research inquiry. The constructivist paradigm affords openings and perspectives for establishing and grasping reflexive values through social ontological and axiological standpoints that are congruent with Indigenous customs of being and knowing (Martin, 2003). The constructivist paradigm significantly adds to the wisdom and praxis of Indigenous tourism enterprise accomplishment dynamics, and also to Indigenous methodology elaboration and purpose. It is the advance of a traditionally perceptive and ‘safe’ position to research which determines ‘flexibility [and] a willingness to allow for the emergent, a willingness to use a variety of methods in exploring the many-sided creaturely existence’ (Oates, 2003). This is undertaken by grounding the research in genuine fi les communicated with the researcher (who does not assert to embrace an Indigenous outlook), at the same time as being regulated by Indigenous research companions and advisors. Focus groups draw together a considerable volume of information in a reduced amount of time. They are commonly applied in advertising inquiry, but have their position in the academic world too. Focus groups give ‘expression’ to collections of individuals from diverse circumstances who relate descriptions from their personal life stories about predetermined issues. It is feasible (schedule and contributors allowing) to reunite the group(s) at subsequent phases and as a result possibly carry out longitudinal analyses on the equivalent subject or on additional distinct areas. Despite

282

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

the emphasis of the groups, they guarantee a time-saving, expenditureefficient technique to manage research. Each approach is identified as much by its parameters as by what it supports or expedites; and interviewing participants is no exception. Despite the fact that dialogues are a very helpful approach for ascertaining an infi nite collection of significances, clarifications and practices linked to tourism, they are not capable of pinpointing ‘what is not being said’ and which ‘points of view are not represented’ (Herrold, 2001, in Pawson & Teather, 2002: 278). Fundamentally, the interview does not make known what it does not confront. This is accurate not only of absent viewpoints that are either not picked up in the course of interviewee’s dialogues or not depicted in the participant group, but is also true for all of the events, activities and idioms that remain beyond our vernacular proficiencies. Discussions are regulated to how individuals communicate about an issue and this may not correctly draw on what individuals truly do in regard to a particular subject area. In essence, we are asking individuals about their thoughts (Weiss, 1994) and the conclusions are restricted to these. Significant considerations in the variances between expressing and achieving incorporate how well individuals are capable of correctly communicating ‘what is happening’, ‘what they think’ or ‘how they feel’ and how well these communications are uncovered through deeds. Embarking with an unhampered awareness of what conversations can and cannot do is fundamental to the construction of tourism data. Methodological variation is necessary to effectually appreciate the intricate and changeable entity that is tourism. This is revealed in the wide range of styles currently acknowledged in tourist analyses. Mixed methods research offers one possibility; however, it may not be fitting for every study inquiry. Investigators must decide on what functions most suitably for their setting. Mixed methods can inhibit a more meticulous usage of stand-alone methods or it can turn out to be too ungainly as the several methods split the concentration of the investigator. Nevertheless, it derives its allure from its capacity to deliver a series of perceptions on a solitary experience, restricting the limitations of any distinctive technique. It can also deliver richness, empowering academics to appreciate decidedly intricate social experiences, for instance, tourism, in considerable detail. Academics should feel able to blend their techniques, while completing their research objects and creating understandings. While the continually shifting character of tourism will guarantee that it persists in confusing investigators and side-stepping straightforward perception, mixed methods will stay a practical possibility for tourism scholars in search of a superior rank of discernment. Image use in tourism research suggests that whereas several deep-seated approaches in tourism research endure, they can at times be amalgamated

Conclusion 283

so as to more wholly focus on the research inquiry. The use of images in tourism research in the context suggested here was not undertaken in order to oversimplify conclusions, but to investigate the buyer comportment procedure concerning tourism pursuit selections using an innovative mixed methods style, the conclusions do indicate that by employing diverse data collection approaches, an increase in the existing theory can be realised. In the end, the use of images in tourism research signals that through cultivating more appealing research approaches, not only is the probability of more patrons deciding to be engaged in the research method enriched, but additionally an inclusive input to data is accomplished. From an overall reading and engagement with this book, it can be ascertained that qualitative research methods and mixed methods research approaches are valid methodologies within the tourism research canon. This is significant in the 21st century (as it was at the end of the 20th century) because it suggests that both qualitative and mixed methods approaches in tourism research and data collection are valid mainstream approaches to tourism and tourist knowledge accrual. In the past, tourism studies suffered from an over-reliance on quantitative-only approaches to tourism inquiry and ways of interpreting and reporting amassed data. Indeed, as Brewer (1994) succinctly suggests, research does not have to be fact based and rigid to be thorough; anecdotal, impassioned and unique qualitative research can also be reliable, organised and significant. This book has argued for the place of qualitative and mixed methods in tourism research; thus, in the words of Taylor et al. (2015), get out there, get among it, and ‘Go to the People’. References Bennett, J. (2005) Indigenous entrepreneurship, social capital and tourism enterprise development: Lessons from Cape York. Unpublished doctoral thesis, La Trobe University. Brewer, J. (1994) The ethnographic critique of ethnography: Sectarianism in the RUC. Sociology 28 (1), 231–244. Charmaz, K. (2000) Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Jennings, G.R. (2012) Qualitative research methods. In L. Dwyer, A. Gill and N. Seetaram (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Tourism: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches (pp. 309–323). Cheltenham: Elgar Publishing. Martin, K. (2003) Ways of knowing, being and doing: A theoretical framework and methods for Indigenous and Indigenist re-search. Journal of Australian Studies 76, 203–214. Miles, M. and Huberman, A. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Source Book. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Oates, W.E. (2003) ‘Bastards of the bush’: Towards an Indigenous Australian Research Methodology. Paper presented at the International Education Research Conference AARE – NZARE, 30 November–3 December. Auckland, New Zealand.

284

Qualitative Methods in Tourism Research

Pawson, E. and Teather, E. (2002) ‘Geographical expeditions’: Assessing the benefits of a student-driven fieldwork method. Journal of Geography and Higher Education 26 (3), 275–289. Richardson, L. (1998) Writing: A method of inquiry. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials (pp. 345–371). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Richardson, L. and St. Pierre, E.A. (2005) Writing: A method of inquiry. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd edn; pp. 959– 978). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Rossman, G.B. and Rallis, S.F. (1998) Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Seale, S. (1999) The Quality of Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications. Taylor, S.J., Bogdan, R. and DeVault, M. (2015) Introduction: Go to the People. In S.J. Taylor, R. Bogdan and M. DeVault (eds) Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A Guidebook and Resource. (pp. 3–28) Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons Inc. Weiss, R. (1994) Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Index

Page numbers in bold refer to tables or figures.

Aborigines see indigenous peoples action research business schools study 118–21 paradigms 15, 97, 100, 104–6, 112, 113, 115, 122 participatory action research (PAR) 97, 102, 106, 120 process 96, 108–13, 111, 120, 122 quality 115, 118, 123 tourism research 112, 113–15, 116–17, 280–1 typologies 98–9, 101–3, 106–8 active listening 216–17 activity choices 248–50, 251–2, 257–8, 273–4 enabling and disabling factors 261–72 see also tourists Adler’s typology (participant-observer roles) 133–5, 134, 136–7 agency 216–19 allocentric-psychocentric theory 249 alternative tourism 85 anthropology 51, 58, 207 appreciative inquiry 102, 106, 108–9, 114, 116 approaches see methodologies Arctic 58 Argyris, C. 101 art tourism 260, 261, 262, 263, 264 asynchronous interviews 211 Australia backpacking 34–7, 233–41 business schools 118–21 Dreamtime Cultural Centre 144–51 Katherine 256–72 Rockhampton Heritage Village 193–6 The Rocks, Sydney 84 tourism industry 130, 248, 249 see also indigenous peoples Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) 166, 176

Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) 147, 166–7, 176 Australian Research Institute in Education Sustainability (ARIES) 118–19, 120, 121 authenticity 7, 202, 207 autoethnography 61, 62–5, 66, 133, 168 axial coding 37–8 axiologies 11–12, 13–14, 17–18, 20–1 action research 104–5 indigenous research 140, 161–3, 164–6, 170, 174 see also values backpacking ethnographic studies 59, 63–5 grounded theory studies 34–7 mixed methods research (MMR) studies 225, 233–41 phenomenology 78–9 Basque country, Spain 58 being 13, 76, 163–4, 177 in der Welt sein (being in the world) 74, 76–7, 85 see also ontologies benefit sharing 166–7 bias 22, 57, 68, 85 bracketing 75, 76, 78 Bradbury, H. 115, 118 Brentano, Franz 74 building (mixed methods research) 234, 236 business schools 118–21 Campbell, E. 67 Canada 116, 209 Cap Lloc, Spain 58 Cartesian dualism 86 case studies backpacking 34–7, 63–5, 233–41 business schools 118–21

285

286

Index

Dreamtime Cultural Centre 144–51, 175–7 Mindful Memories, Rockhampton 193–6 Sullivans Cove, Australia 213–15 surfers 86–91 tourism experience 66–7 tourist activity choices 256–72 categorisation 22, 30, 31–2, 39, 44 change management 114, 121 Chicago School of Sociology (ethnography) 52, 131 classroom action research 103 co-creation of knowledge 16–17, 20 coding practices 239 grounded theory 37–40 co-investigators 8 action research 100, 104 phenomenology 79, 81–2, 85 see also research partnering collaboration 18, 53, 62, 112, 281 research partnering 141–2, 150, 166–7 Collier, John 97 communication technologies 209–11 communities action research 103 host communities 207 impact of tourism 24, 58, 207–8, 213–14 indigenous peoples 140, 141–2, 161, 163–4, 174 observation techniques 135–7 research partnering 114, 140, 141–2, 174 social sustainability 233–4, 236 communities of inquiry 106, 107, 168 Comte, Auguste 3 concept development 31, 39–40, 77 concurrent methods 234–5 confidentiality 193 congruity 13 consciousness 73–4, 76, 77, 78, 82 consent 140–1, 146–7, 167–8, 195–6 consistency 13 constant comparative method 32–4, 38 constructivism 76, 83, 281 action research 100 grounded theory 149, 158–9 indigenous research 158–9, 171–7 interviews 201 mixed methods research (MMR) 226 content analysis 251 mixed methods research (MMR) 233, 239–41, 242

visual 251 contexts for research (settings) action research 112, 114–15 phenomenology 73, 76, 81, 85, 87–8 controlled conditions 8 convergent methods 235 conversations 16, 148–51, 200, 204, 282 conversation-interview modality 138, 143–4 ethnography 53 interviews 148–51, 215, 216–19, 238 Cooper, D. 188 cooperative inquiry 100, 101, 106 co-researchers 8 action research 100, 104 phenomenology 79, 81–2, 85 covert research 132–4, 140 credibility 7, 53 Cresswell, J. W. 224, 229–30, 233, 234, 239 critical action research 106 critical realism 226, 227–8 critical realist ontology 14 critical subjectivity 104, 107 critical theory orientation 96, 100, 120, 160–1 action research 104–5, 112, 122 cross-cultural research 117, 135–7, 281 interviews 212 research partnering 137–42, 145–7 crystallisation 54 cultural impacts 58–9 cultural tourism 59, 168, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264 culturocentric epistemologies 157–9 cyclic processes action research 96, 108, 111–13, 111, 120, 122 participatory paradigm 104–5 Dadirri (inner deep listening) 163–4, 173, 174 data analysis 239–40 ethnography 53–5, 64 grounded theory 31–4, 37–45 mixed methods research (MMR) 239–40 data collection ethnography 61–2 grounded theory 31–3 mixed methods research (MMR) 237–9 participant observation 130–2, 143–4, 237–9

Index

phenomenology 79–81 data generation 23–4, 143–4 data interpretation continual 29–30 participant observation 240–1 phenomenology 76, 77–80 reflexivity 21 situatedness 20 data presentation narrative (written) 43–5 phenomenology 80–1, 88–91, 92 data sources 33, 34–5 ethnography 55, 65–6 decolonisation 159, 160, 165, 168, 169 deconstructivism 76 deductive thinking 7, 8, 38, 203, 218 deficit-based model 108–9 Delahaye, B. 186, 187 dementia study 193–6 democratic dialogue (action research) 103, 104, 112 demographic data 259–60 Denzin, N. K. 3–5, 13, 18 Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA), Australia 118, 121 Derrida, Jacques 76 descriptive approach (Husserlian school) 75–6, 76, 83, 84, 92 destination choice 206, 248–50 developmental action inquiry/research 101 Dewey, J. 96–7 dialectics 226, 228 Dilthey, Wilhelm 3 disabling factors 250, 254, 255, 262–71, 273–4 see also pull (attributes); push (motivations, values) disembodiment 86 doing 13 see also methodologies Dreamtime Cultural Centre, Australia 144–51, 175–7 Driesch, Hans 14 economic impacts 24 economic sustainability 234, 236 Ecuador 61 educational tourism 59 emancipatory research 102, 160–1 embedding (mixed methods research) 234, 240, 242

287

embodiment 85 emergent reflexive research partners 138–41, 138, 145, 149 emic perspective 7, 8, 17, 22, 50, 52, 53, 82 indigenous research 170, 172, 176 see also insider-outsider status empiricism 226, 227 enabling factors 250, 254, 255, 262–71, 273–4 see also pull (attributes); push (motivations, values) The Enlightenment 3 environmental impacts 24, 58–9 environmental sustainability 233–4, 236 epistemologies 12, 13, 15–17 action research 104–5 culturocentric 157–9 epistemological equivalence 215 indigenous research 160–3, 169, 170 see also knowing epoché 75, 76, 78 Eskimos 58 essential meanings 89–90 ethics 17, 20, 142 cross-cultural research 147, 176 focus groups 190, 193 political integrity 161 ethnography 50–7, 67–8, 280 autoethnography 62–5, 66 backpacking study 63–5 fieldwork 51–4 interviews 201, 207 multisited ethnography 60–2, 64 narrative (written) 54–5 tourism experience study 66–7 tourism research 51, 57–60, 232 visual ethnography 65–7 etic perspective 7, 8, 17 see also insider-outsider status everyday lifeworld 74 existential phenomenology 75 expectancy theory 249 expectancy-value theory 249, 255 experiential descriptions 79–81, 82, 87–8 experiential turn 82–3 explorative research 204 extrapolation 204, 224 facilitators, focus groups 184, 185, 186–7, 187 feminist inquiry 102 feminist theory 83

288

Index

fieldwork ethnography 51–4, 57, 67 grounded theory 31, 144–51 indigenous peoples 144–51, 161 interviews 200 mixed methods research (MMR) 237–9 multisited ethnography 60–2 observation techniques 130–2 First Nations peoples 167, 168 fi rst person research 107, 118 Fisher, R. J. 14 focus groups 184–6, 281–2 ethics 190, 193 ethnography 61 facilitators 184, 185, 186–7, 187 logistics 189–90, 191–2 Mindful Memories study, Rockhampton 193–6 participants 187–9, 188 questions 192–3 stakeholders 209 tourism research 185, 190–3, 197 food tourism 260, 261, 264, 265, 266 fourth-generation evaluation 102 fusionist ontology 14 Geisteswissenschaften (sciences of the spirit) 3, 172 Glaser, Barney 29–30, 38–9 globalisation 61 Gold’s typology (participant-observer roles) 132, 133, 134, 136–7 grounded theory 29–34 backpacking study 34–7 coding practices 37–40 data analysis 37–45 Dreamtime Cultural Centre study 144–51, 158–9, 169, 172, 175–7, 281 paradigms 11, 19, 22 process 31–4, 33 Guba, E. G. 100 Heidegger, Martin 73–9 Heideggerian school 75–6, 76, 83–6, 92 interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) 87–8 women’s surfi ng study 86–91 heritage tourism 193–7 hermeneutic phenomenology 75, 79, 83 Heron, J. 100, 104–5 heuristic phenomenology 75 historicality 76, 77

hospitality sector 114, 117 hosts 58–9, 85, 205, 207–8 humanistic approach 52 Husserl, Edmund 73–9, 84 Husserlian school 75–6, 76, 83, 84, 92 images 212, 248–50, 251, 256–61 photo-elicitation 66, 212, 251, 254–8, 256, 260–2 see also visual methods immersed reflexive research partners 138–41, 138, 151 immersive studies 51–4 in der Welt sein (being in the world) 74, 76–7, 85 independent travel 206 in-depth interviews 20, 79–80, 86–7, 201, 203–5, 215 indigenous peoples 129 being, ways of 163–4, 177 Dreamtime Cultural Centre, Australia 21, 144–51 gendered aspects 136, 143 indigenous research 114, 129, 168–77, 281 Indigenous Research Framework 159, 169–71, 170, 174–7 indigenous standpoint theory 162–3 indigenous tourism 260, 261, 266, 267, 268–9 insider-outsider status 131–7, 138, 142–3, 160–2, 176 knowing, ways of 160–3 research observation techniques 131–2, 135–7, 157 research paradigms 158–66 research partnering 145–7, 166–8, 171–2, 281 values 164–6 voices 129–30, 169, 171, 174–5, 177 Indonesia 61 inductive thinking 7, 8, 22, 29–30 grounded theory 38 interviews 203–4, 218 informed consent 140–1, 146–7, 167–8, 195–6 insider-outsider status 8, 16–17, 51–4, 67, 168–9 indigenous peoples 131–7, 138, 142–3, 160–2, 176 see also emic perspective; investigators insider-ship 50, 139, 142–3

Index

intellectual property rights 166, 167, 168, 171 interpretation of data continual 29–30 participant observation 240–1 phenomenology 76, 77–80 reflexivity 21 situatedness 20 interpretive approach (Heideggerian school) 75–6, 76, 83–6, 92 interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) 87–8 women’s surfi ng study 86–91 interpretivism 10, 11, 171–7, 201, 280 lexicons 7 qualitative approach 6–8 interviews 200–5, 219–20, 282 asynchronous interviews 211 conversations 138, 143–4, 148–51, 215, 216–19, 238 ethnography 53, 61, 63, 64, 66 mixed methods research (MMR) 233, 236–7, 238–9, 240, 242 phenomenology 79–80 process 216–19 semi-structured interviews 211, 252, 254–5, 256, 258, 261–2 structured interviews 202–3 study design 213–19 Sullivans Cove study 213–15 technology 209–12 tourism research 201–2, 205–9 unstructured interviews 20, 79–80, 86–7, 201, 203–5, 215 investigators as participants 52–3, 62–5, 131–7, 132, 134 reflexivity 22, 36–7, 41–3, 142, 280 relationship with participants 15–18, 19, 21, 23, 55–7, 66–8, 251 roles 8, 9, 67–8 situatedness 77, 129, 137 see also insider-outsider status journaling 147–8 Katherine, Australia 256–72 Kemmis, S. 111 knowing 13, 160–3 action research 104–5, 122 indigenous peoples’ ways of 160–3, 177 see also epistemologies

289

Koch, T. 76 Krueger, R. A. 184–6 laddering techniques 249, 255, 261–2 language (data collection) 20, 51, 79 indigenous research 158, 163, 167, 169 language turn 97 Lapland 116 Latin America 97 Lebenswelt (lifeworld) 74, 77–8, 82, 85, 87, 89, 91–2 leisure experiences 82–3 leisure motivation approach 249 Lewin, Kurt 96–7, 98, 99, 101 lexicons 6–9 lifestyle travellers 59 lifeworlds 74, 77–8, 82, 85, 87, 89, 91–2 Lincoln, Y. S. 100, 104 lived experiences 11, 50, 279 phenomenology 72, 73–9, 85, 91–2 locatedness 37 see also situatedness longitudinal studies 58, 97, 117, 197, 224, 281 marginal natives 131 marketing, tourism industry 249, 250 Marxism 160 Mead, Margaret 23 meanings 76, 77–8, 85 research partnering 141 means-end chain theory 250, 255, 261–2 media analysis, ethnography 63, 64 membership roles 133–7 memorable experiences 206 merging (mixed methods research) 234, 240, 242 Merleau-Ponty, Maurice 74, 75, 76 methodologies 12, 13, 18–23 action research 104–5 grounded theory 34 indigenous research 159–61, 163–6, 169–71, 170 phenomenology 79, 84, 92 micro, small, medium tourism enterprises (MSME) 120 Mindful Memories study, Rockhampton 193–6 mixed methods research (MMR) 23–4, 224–31, 241–3 action research 122 backpacking study 233–41

290

Index

design typologies 229–31 interviews 200–1 notation system 229–31, 229, 230 tourism research 231–4, 282–3 visual methods 252–62, 271, 273, 274 mobility 60–2 motivation to travel 205, 232, 249–50, 273–4 multi-methods see mixed methods research (MMR) multiple realities 14–17, 19, 24, 144, 173, 227–8 multiple-sorting technique 254, 256 multisited ethnography 60–2, 64 multi-strategy see mixed methods research (MMR) narrative (written) collaboration 144 cross-cultural research 174–5 ethnography 50, 54–5, 64 grounded theory 43–5 phenomenology 80–1, 84, 89–91 National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Australia 147, 166–7, 176 naturalistic enquiry 8, 18, 52–3, 83, 130–5, 137 nature tourism 261, 269, 270 negotiation authenticity 207 research partnering 135–6, 138–44, 147, 162, 173–4 nested mixed methods 234–5 niche tourism 207 non-deficit model 108–9 non-participant observation 36 objectivity 7 ethnography 56–7 observation techniques 131 phenomenology 73–4, 78, 79 observation techniques 130–2 participant observation 129–35 ontologies 11–12, 13–15 action research 104 constructivism 173 indigenous research 163–4, 169, 170, 171, 177 phenomenology 84–5 see also being open coding 37–8

optimal arousal theory 249 outdoors tourism 261, 271, 272 outsiders see insider-outsider status overt research 132–4, 140, 146 paradigms 2, 9–13, 83, 122, 279 components 13–24 interviews 201 mixed methods research (MMR) 226–8 participatory paradigm 15, 96, 100, 104–6, 112, 113, 168, 171 participant observation 53, 56–7, 129–35, 130, 132 ethnography 61, 63, 64 mixed methods research (MMR) 233–5, 237–41, 242 tourism research 281 participants co-investigators 8, 100 focus groups 187–9, 188 perspective 34 phenomenology 79, 81–2 relationship with investigators 15–18, 19, 21, 23, 55–7, 66–8, 251 selection 205, 214–15 voices 20, 56–7 see also research partnering participative reality 104–5 participatory action research (PAR) 97, 102, 106, 120 participatory paradigm 15, 96, 100, 104–6, 168, 171 action research 112, 113 Peru 61, 66 phenomenology 72–81, 91–2, 280 data presentation 80–1 Heideggerian school 73–9, 76, 83–6, 92 Husserlian school 73–9, 76, 83, 84, 92 methodological steps 84 phenomenological essence 73, 74–5, 78 phenomenological reduction 75, 76, 78 tourism research 72–3, 81–6, 92 women’s surfi ng study 86–91 photography 212, 248–50 ethnography 62, 65 photo-elicitation 66, 212, 251, 254–8, 256, 260–2 see also visual methods pilgrimage tourism 20 plurality of knowing 118 Positano, Italy 66 positionalities 20–1, 130, 135–7

Index

negotiation 138–41, 143, 145 research partners 137–9, 138, 145 positivism 4, 10, 134, 157 action research 97, 100 Husserlian school 76, 78 indigenous research 172 lexicons 7 mixed methods research (MMR) 226, 228, 231–2 quantitative approach 3, 6–8 postcards 88, 89–90, 89 post-modernism 14, 83 post-positivism 4–5, 6, 10, 76, 157, 201 action research 100, 122 post-structuralism 5 power balances research process 7, 21–2, 102, 141 society 227 practice theory 242 pragmatism 105, 225, 226–7, 242 pre-coding 203 preconceptions 75, 77, 78 pre-understandings 77, 84–5 problem-posing approach 109 problem-solving approach 108–10 professional strangers 131 prompts 204, 216 protocols 164–6 pull (attributes) 249, 262–72 see also disabling factors; enabling factors push (motivations, values) 249, 262–72 see also disabling factors; enabling factors push and pull theory 249 Q-methodology 251 qualitative research 19–20, 274 comparison with quantitative research 4–9 nature of 2–9, 279–80 quality 23 action research 115, 118, 123 focus groups 186 quantitative research 3, 10, 274, 279–80 action research 97 comparison with qualitative research 4–9 mixed methods research (MMR) 224–30, 231–42, 252–3 structured interviews 202–3 tourism research 23–4, 57, 83, 283

291

questionnaires 16, 233, 236–7, 238–9, 240, 242 photo-questionnaires 251 Quetelet, Adolphe 3 Radel, K. 33 ranking methods 256–61 rank ordering 253–4, 255, 256 ranking-sorting photos 251, 252–3, 252, 253, 256, 258, 260 realities, multiple 14–17, 19, 24, 144, 173, 227–8 reality tourism 59 real-time interviews 211 Reason, P. 107 reciprocity 7, 21, 22–3 indigenous research 142, 148–9, 161, 164, 166, 169, 174 reflectivity 22 reflective practitioners 107, 117 reflexivity 21–2 ethnography 54, 57, 62–5, 68 grounded theory 41–3 indigenous research 135–9, 138, 147–8, 174–5, 177, 281 insider-outsider status 161–2 phenomenology 79 reflexive practices 16, 36–7 research partnering 141–2, 145, 151 relativism 173, 176 reliability 53 reminiscence therapy 194–6 repertory grid method 251 research design 23–4, 168–73 action research 109–13 grounded theory 29–31, 33, 159 indigenous research 164–6, 170, 175 interviews 208 mixed methods research (MMR) 226–7, 229–31, 234–41 phenomenology 80 qualitative research 19 research paradigms 2, 9–13, 279 components 13–24 interviews 201 mixed methods research (MMR) 226–8 participatory paradigm 15, 96, 100, 104–6, 112, 113, 168, 171 research partnering 130, 137–44, 178 collaboration 141–2, 150, 166–7 conversations 149–50

292

Index

indigenous research 145–7, 166–8, 171–2, 281 negotiation 135–6, 138–44, 147, 162, 173–4 positionalities 137–9, 138, 150–1 see also co-investigators; participants researchers as participants 52–3, 62–5, 131–7, 132, 134 reflexivity 22, 36–7, 41–3, 142, 280 relationship with participants 15–18, 19, 21, 23, 55–7, 66–8, 251 roles 8, 9, 67–8 situatedness 77, 129, 137 see also insider-outsider status rigor (research) 38, 45, 79, 81, 83 Rockhampton Heritage Village, Australia 193–6 The Rocks, Sydney 84 rural tourism 207 safari tourism 207 sailors 20 Samoa 23 samples 6, 7, 211, 274 Schütz, Alfred 74, 75, 76 sciences of the spirit (Geisteswissenschaften) 3, 172 scientific method 3, 8 second person research 107, 118, 120 selective coding 37–8 self-determination 165–6, 168, 169 semiotic analysis 251 semi-structured interviews 201, 203–4, 211 tourism research 208–9 visual methods 252, 254–5, 256, 258, 261–2 sequential methods 234, 239 shared stories 89–90 simultaneous methods 229, 234, 235 situated freedom 78 situatedness 15, 20–1, 22, 37 phenomenology 77, 78, 81, 85 research partnering 130, 137, 139, 147–8 Skype interviews 211 Smith, V. L. 58–9 social constructivism 83, 96 action research 100, 104–5, 112, 122 social impacts 24 social interaction 136, 172, 204 social media 210–11 socially constructed realities 11, 227–8

sorting methods 252–4 Spain 58 stakeholders 17, 102, 208–9 statistical analysis 7, 24, 239 storytelling 168, 194–6 Strauss, Anselm 29–30 structured interviews 202–3 subconsciousness 82 subjectivity 7, 280 action research 96, 104, 107 ethnography 56–7, 68 indigenous research 175 observation techniques 131 phenomenology 74, 78, 82, 91 Sullivans Cove, Australia 213–16, 217 surf tourism 86–91, 207 surveys 202–3, 210, 252, 258 sustainability 207, 208, 232 education about 118, 120, 121 practices 225, 233–41 social sustainability 233–4, 236 types 233–4 synchronic interviews 211 systems thinking 106 Tanzania 61, 97 Tavistock Institute 97, 99 terminology 6–9 thematic analysis grounded theory 37–8, 40–1, 42, 144 phenomenology 88, 90 theory as process 30 theory of vitalism 14 thick descriptions 30, 39, 72, 91, 144, 201–2 third person research 107, 118–19 Torbert, W.R. 101–2, 107 tourism industry stakeholders 23, 92 tourism professionals 61, 85, 205, 208–9, 214–15 tourism-attributed change 24, 58–9 tourism research action research 112, 113–15, 116–17, 280–1 ethnography 51, 57–60 focus groups 185, 190–3, 197 indigenous research 281 interviews 201–2, 205–9, 216–17 mixed methods 231–4 phenomenology 72–3, 81–6, 92 positivism 5 quantitative research 23–4, 57, 83, 283

Index

visual methods 250–2, 256–8, 260–73 tourists 24, 59, 85 demographic data 259–60 interviews 205–6 motivation 205, 232, 249–50, 273–4 see also activity choices training 117, 118–21 transactional knowing 174 transcendental phenomenology 75, 84 transformative-emancipation 226, 227 transitory reflexive research partners 138–41, 138, 151 travel career ladder theory 249 travel motivation 249–50, 273–4 travel patterns 259–60 triangulation 54, 231–2 Trist, Eric 97 understanding (verstehen) 3 unity of understanding 77 unstructured interviews 20, 79–80, 86–7, 201, 203–5, 215 urban communities 52 urban sustainability 233–4 validity 7, 54 values 13, 17–18, 20, 80, 164–6 see also axiologies van Manen, M. 84 verstehen (understanding) 3 visiting friends and relatives (VFR) tourism 207

293

visual methods 250–5, 282–3 ethnography 65–7 mixed methods research (MMR) 252–62, 256, 271, 273, 274 phenomenology 79, 81 tourist activity choice study, Katherine 256–72 see also images vocabulary 6–9 voices 16, 42, 174–5 indigenous peoples 129–30, 140, 160–1, 169, 171, 174–5, 177 participants 56–7 phenomenology 85 surfers 86–91 volunteer tourism 59, 61, 207 Weber, Max 3 Western research perspective 4, 97, 157–9, 171–5, 281 wildlife tourism 261, 269, 270 women’s perspectives 85, 86–91, 232 working holidaymakers 59 written narratives collaboration 144 cross-cultural research 174–5 ethnography 50, 54–5, 64 grounded theory 43–5 phenomenology 80–1, 84, 89–91 Zaltman metaphor elicitation technique (ZMET) 251