Analysis of discourses of STD in the WBR and Final

Interviews July 2010 – July 2013 Primary - Semi- structured interviews Secondary – on-going Review of Literature Critical Discourse Analysis: Analysis of data

Table 5.1: Phases of the research process

Literature Review

In addressing the first objective it is necessary to explore how tourism is viewed as a development option. This involves initially undertaking a literature review on the main themes that surround this subject. As Bourdieu (1983) notes, when undertaking a literature review, a researcher cannot cover all the bases due to the amount of available information. Therefore when engaging with the literature it is useful to consider the major positions/dividing lines the fields are organised around. It is also important to consider how the particular individuals, groups or institutions position themselves with respect to these dividing lines and finally, adopt a critical stance. Taking cognisance of this, the positioning of the thesis in the literature allows these divisions to be made. The project analyses issues of tourism as a sustainable development option

146

from both theoretical and stakeholder perspectives. The literature review was split into two sections based around the macro and micro contexts which underpin the study and was carried out throughout the duration of this thesis, although the bulk of the literature was reviewed between October 2008 and September 2010.

The sources used for this data collection were the core academic books and journals along with crucial South African Government websites, documents and papers. South African governmental organisations include the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) and South African Tourism (formerly SATOUR). Global organisations such as the World Tourism Organisation, the United Nations and the World Bank are all relevant organisations to this study. According to May (2001) the use of government data and other commissioned research is useful and can be regarded as primary data for research purposes, but there needs to be a recognition that the data are often not ‘social facts’, but are social and political constructions which may be based on the interests of those commissioning the research. Thus a critical approach to government and multi-lateral organisation data was used examining who has carried out the research, for what purpose and using what methodological approaches. One of the methodological issues when dealing with the South African government is the temporal issue thrown up by effectively having a completely new type of political regime after apartheid ended. Comparing figures for the pre and post apartheid periods could therefore be problematical and there needs to be recognition that the data may be unreliable.

As a result of conducting the literature review it was evident that while there is a substantial literature on development and SD, the literature on linking tourism development and SD is a fledgling one. Specifically, the work on power that links development, SD and tourism development is limited. Approaches which use CDA to uncover the link between power, ideology and knowledge with regard to tourism development are also lacking in the literature. From a case-study perspective, the literature on the WBR is also very sparse and predominantly concerned with species and habitats in the

147

region. The discovery of these gaps helped to shape the remainder of the research process, determined the methods employed and also the nature of analysis undertaken.

Scoping Visit to South Africa

The first step in this process was a scoping visit to the region during June and July 2009 in order to make contact with the gatekeeper and undertake some preliminary scoping interviews in order that a better understanding of the fundamental issues in the WBR could be ascertained. The use of gatekeepers is imperative in conducting research in social or cultural environments whereby access to individuals or organisations can be problematical (Peil, 1993; Mandel, 2003). The gatekeeper for the project is the chair of the Waterberg Biosphere Reserve Management Committee (WBRMC). I have made contact with this individual on previous visits to South Africa and during the writing of my research proposal. One of the central issues regarding gatekeepers is whether they have the authority to grant access (Denscombe, 2003). Due to his position, this authority enabled me access to other potentially active stakeholders and documentation regarding the biosphere. An underlying concern was that of keeping good relations with this person thus allowing me access to the stakeholders who have an interest in the Biosphere. While recognising that gatekeepers have the keys to the gate, it was crucial to establish that my research is of mutual benefit. It was also necessary that I made reasonable demands on having access to those keys and to time availability. During this initial visit I received a number of contacts and also permission to use the gatekeeper’s name when contacting stakeholders for the first time. This allowed me to undertake a scoping exercise in the area and meet with a number of WBR tourism stakeholders in the accommodation and other tourism-related business categories. Some preliminary interviews were undertaken with those who were easily accessible and who were suitable for these pilot interviews due to their knowledge of tourism in the WBR. In order to carry this out a strategy for formulating questions for the initial and the subsequent interviews was required. This was

148

done using Bryman’s (2004, p326) staged approach. His model sees the process as:

General research area→ Specific research questions→ Interview topics→ Formulate interview questions → Review/revise interview questions→ Pilot guide → Identify novel issues→ Revise interview questions→ Finalise guide.

The initial interviews were not recorded, but notes were taken in order to tease out the critical issues using a thematic analysis with regard to SD and tourism development in the WBR. This was done in order that I could then use Bryman’s model to review/revise the interview questions for the next stage of interviewing. On returning back to the UK, between August 2009 and May 2010 I established contact with some stakeholders in the public and private sectors along with individuals in civil society or related to NGOs to inform them of my research and my pending visit.

Active Stakeholder Justification

Regarding the second objective of examining the discourses of active stakeholders concerning development, tourism development and sustainable development in the Waterberg Biosphere Reserve, it is necessary to ascertain which stakeholders are classified as active. The literature review (section 3.4.4) shows that there are both active and passive stakeholders in any issue or concern. To reiterate, active stakeholders are those who affect decisions or actions, while passive stakeholders are those who are affected. The concern being examined is tourism development and its contribution to SD. The criteria of deciding whether stakeholders are active or passive are based on their ability to affect the three pillars of sustainable tourism development through their involvement with tourism. This was achieved first by examining the literature on active/passive stakeholders and applying it to those with a stake in the tourism industry and development concerns in the WBR. To reiterate, active stakeholders are:

“The most fundamental division between stakeholders is likely to be between those who affect (determine) a decision or

149

action, and those affected by this decision or action (whether positively or negatively); these groups may be termed active

and passive stakeholders.”

Grimble and Wellard (1997, p176)

It is this fundamental division that is important. If active stakeholders can actively affect sustainability concerns in the WBR, then gaining an understanding of how they see development can help to gain an understanding of the tourism development process. This requires some knowledge of owning land, a business, being involved in an NGO or in a public sector role that can influence decisions. It is recognised that passive stakeholders are important, and understanding their views could certainly be an area of further research. Second, all research projects need to gather data which is fit for purpose (Veal, 2011). While on the scoping visit a number of lower-level people in organisations were interviewed regarding development, SD, tourism development and the biosphere. The data generated was however very limited and it was clear that those active stakeholders could produce the data that would be able to help answer the research aim.

The Research Process - Phase 2: Primary Data Collection

The second phase builds on the first in order to more fully address the second research objective. The window of opportunity for primary research was limited and spatially the stakeholders are spread across a large geographical area necessitating long travel times. This research project focuses specifically on the discourses of stakeholders on STD in the Waterberg Biosphere. This is best served by using methods which allow those stakeholders to express views in an open and flexible way and are discussed in the following section.

Data Collection - Semi-structured interviews

When choosing appropriate methods in the research process it is necessary to explore not only appropriateness in terms of the techniques to be used, but also practical concerns such as temporal or spatial issues. Interviews were selected as the most appropriate method to collect data that would enable objective two to be analysed. May (2001) asserts that interviews yield rich insights into people’s experiences, opinions, values, aspirations, attitudes and

150

feelings. They can also generate a significant amount of discourse on a variety of topics. Tourism development is a complex issue and covers a number of themes. Therefore the contextual issues identified in the literature were used as the basis for question formulation. While questionnaires or surveys may uncover stakeholder attitudes, deeper levels of understanding can only be gained through having a semi-structured approach to interviews. This allows the interviewer and interviewee to establish a rapport, to be flexible whereby questions can be framed, re-framed and an iterative process of refinement can occur whereby lines of thought of previous interviews can be explored if necessary. Semi-structured interviews are essential in ascertaining discourses as there are very limited written accounts of how the stakeholders see issues such as STD in the WBR. They allow the interviewer an insight into the interviewees’ world and can provide rich data on a variety of themes. They also allow the translation of research objectives into specific questions and assist the interviewer into motivating the respondent to provide this rich and varied data (Denzin, 2009).

The main phase of interviewing began in June 2010 and ended in July 2010. In total, twenty eight participants were interviewed during this period. The questions of who to interview, when, where and how, relate not only to the logistical elements of the research, but also the theoretical perspectives in constructing the methods. Background research was therefore carried out on stakeholders where possible, through either internet searches, questioning the gatekeeper or other prominent tourism stakeholders or residents in the area.

The question of who to interview was dependent on first identifying the stakeholders and their roles in the WBR. Geographically this restricted the interview sample to those in Limpopo Province and the Waterberg region particularly. The stakeholder analysis in chapter six contains a list of potential international and regional stakeholders, but this study focuses on those who are actively affecting sustainability on the ground and within the WBR. This means that there needs to be criteria for identifying who is and who is not active in STD in the WBR. For example economic criteria involve the ability to

151

be active regarding job creation or income generation, social sustainability revolves around quality of life and empowerment, while environmental sustainability involves such issues as land-use. A criteria-based judgement was taken prior to interview as to whether the stakeholder was likely to be active or passive. Some candidates were rejected for interview as they had low- level roles in organisations and their ability to affect decisions that would impact on SD/STD in the WBR was limited. It is recognised that tourists are a major stakeholder in the industry, but they were rejected for interview as they cannot directly affect tourism development in the WBR. Those selected for interview include:

Public Sector

The public sector employees who were interviewed are at a decision-making level, either at provincial or district levels. All have either a direct or indirect jurisdiction over tourism and have the ability to influence the direction of development in the WBR either as a senior manager or planner making development decisions. This therefore affects their ability to affect tourism as a development option within the region. As stated in stated in chapter three, land-use planning and effective implementation are paramount in the sustainable development of destinations. This ability to make strategic and operational development decisions is critical in them being seen as active stakeholders in tourism development.

Accommodation Providers

The accommodation providers who were interviewed were predominantly the owners of businesses, although some were employees at senior management level with overall responsibility for the whole operation. The rural land owners own accommodation or lodges on large areas of land where they offer activities to tourists such as hunting, game viewing, horse-riding, or a combination of these. These landowners in the Waterberg employ a number of local people in a variety of positions. They can therefore influence economic, social and environmental issues within the WBR. The business managers are some of the major employers in the area and were therefore selected for interview.

152 Other Tourism-related Businesses

Within the WBR there are a number of small businesses which are either directly or indirectly related to the tourism industry. In Vaalwater for instance there are a few cafes and retail outlets that cater to locals and tourists alike. There are no major retail chains in the WBR, with the exception of supermarkets. Most businesses in the retail/hospitality area are locally owned/managed and are SMEs. As hunting plays a large part in the tourism offer in the WBR, there are a number of businesses which relate to this aspect of the industry, for example, taxidermy, game capture and auction. Real estate also plays a significant role in the buying and selling of land in the area as does the development of land and property. Business owners and entrepreneurs from these areas were also selected for interview as land-use concerns are fundamental in determining the direction of tourism development and thus affecting tourism as a development option.

Civil Society Individuals or Representatives

The previous chapter identified the main individuals and civil society groups who have a stake in the tourism industry in the WBR. The WBRMC is represented by the chairman, the administrator and one of the board members who are also responsible for the development and management of one of the few cultural tourism enterprises in the area. The WNC is also represented as are the Waterberg Welfare Society (WWS) who are involved in economic and social development in the area. Small-scale NGOs and interested individuals who have played a role in the creation of the WBR were also interviewed as they either have had or continue to have an influence over tourism development in the WBR.

Land Claimants

As was stated in the previous chapter, there has been an on-going land reclamation process in South Africa for a number of years with some claims resolved and others still continuing. As land ownership was one of the criteria for examining the stakeholders to be interviewed, representatives from one successful and one on-going claim were interviewed. At both interviews there

153

were a number of representatives from each community present, however the spokesperson dominated the interview with only limited input from other community members. These community-oriented groups either have or potentially have the ability to affect what happens on large areas of land within the WBR, thus affecting tourism in the WBR. (Appendix 2 shows a list of the interviewees)

One of the main considerations during the pre-interview stage was the need to brief the gatekeeper of my intentions of who I wanted to interview. This was done via email before I went to South Africa in June 2010 and was subsequently reinforced during my initial meeting on arrival. There were a number of ‘what if’ scenarios that needed to be considered with regard to the ‘who’ question: what if the gatekeeper moves; resigns from the post; we encounter problems in working together or he is extremely unreliable? These issues were carefully considered and contingency plans were drawn up, for example, identifying alternative gatekeepers, or individuals who could act as mediators. An alternative gatekeeper was identified through the scoping visit in 2009. This individual is well known in the WBR, has been involved in the Biosphere from the start and was instrumental in setting up the Waterberg Nature Conservancy (WNC). The contingency plan proved unnecessary as the gatekeeper was extremely forthcoming, not only with documentation pertaining to the WBR, but also with providing me with a list of contacts. The gatekeeper’s role was twofold: first, as a source of a number of documents regarding the biosphere set-up and management and second, the provider of the initial contacts. The gatekeeper was interviewed, but did not participate in any subsequent interviews. Once these initial contacts were made, this person was not involved in the interview process and had no influence on who was subsequently interviewed and the questions which were asked to the interviewees.

The initial interviewees were contacted by phone with an explanation of who I was, what I was doing and that I had gained their contact details from the gatekeeper, thus adding some authority to my interview request. This could be seen as a weakness in the research design as I initially needed to be

154

guided by the gatekeeper, and could be construed as a form of bias in the research. However, the snowball sampling method was used whereby interviewees recommended further potential people to meet. This method is deemed appropriate within tight-knit communities such as those within the tourism industry in the WBR (King and Horrocks, 2010). All interviewees were reassured that any generated materials would only be used for the purposes of this study and/or academic journal articles, that all information would be confidential and all people in the study would be anonymised.

The interviews were semi-structured and what Alvesson (2002) calls ‘localist’ in nature, whereby the interview produces a situated account, drawing upon