Data collection method

Qualitative data primarily consists of interviews, observations, and documents (Patton 2002).

Interviews provide verbatim quotations providing access to participants’ opinions, perceptions, experiences, feelings and knowledge. Observations usually provide field notes that give access to interactions, behaviours, activities, and processes. Documents of various types (text, photos, objects) provide access to information that cannot be observed or told. Qualitative research employs four main forms of data collection methods: (a) Individual interviews; (b) group interviews; (c) observation; and (d) review of documents (Marshall and Rossman 2006). For the purposes of the specific study, the interview method was selected, and more specifically the focus group method for the reasons that are explained in detail in section 4.6.2.

4.6.1. Focus groups

Focus groups as a research method for data collection were introduced during the 1940s by Paul Lazarsfeld for the purpose of measuring audience response in radio broadcasts. Almost in parallel, Robert Merton used them to assess effectiveness of military propaganda efforts.

Despite the fall in their popularity during the 1960s and 1970s, it is since the 1980s that focus groups have been rediscovered by social scientists, becoming the subject of important methodological discussions, to the extent that they have even been characterized as a very innovative research method (Acocella 2011, p.1). In tourism research, the widespread adoption of focus groups became apparent in the mid-2000s (Cater and Low 2012). Today, focus groups are considered as a form of scientific research, as a systematic and verifiable process of disciplined enquiry (Krueger and Casey 2000), and as a source of rich qualitative data (Jaccard and Jacoby 2010).

Patton (2002, p.385) defines focus groups as “an interview with a small group of people, on a specific topic” and characterizes them as a highly efficient qualitative data collection technique.

Morgan (1997, p.6) emphasizes the importance of group interaction and defines them as “a research technique that collects data through group interaction on a topic determined by the

researcher”. Kitzinger and Barbour (1999) place focus groups within the broader category of group interviews, identifying however that their distinguishing characteristic lies in group interaction:

“Any group discussion may be called a ‘focus group’ as long as the researcher is actively encouraging of, and attentive to, the group interaction” (Kitzinger and Barbour 1999, p.4-5).

In comparison to one to one in-depth interviews, a number of scholars claim that focus groups cannot gain so much insight, in particular when it comes to the experiences and opinions of any given participant (Fern 1982; Morgan 1997). However, others suggest that social interaction among participants often produces richer and deeper material than that of one to one interviews:

It is the group setting, the natural discussion and the interaction that may lead participants to defend or explain their views, thus revealing deeper thoughts and beliefs (Rabiee 2004; Hares et al. 2010). This interaction is often seen as the hallmark of focus groups, as it enables the production of data and insights that are less accessible in personal interviews (Morgan 1988b;

Flick 2006). Another distinct feature of focus groups, especially as opposed to personal interviews, is that group discussions are perceived as a mean for validating statements and views, since the group enables corrections on views that are “not correct, not socially shared or extreme” (Flick 2006, p.191). Moreover, during focus groups the contribution of any participant into the discussion can act as a catalyst for ideas and thoughtful expressions of other members of the group (Jaccard and Jacoby 2010). Moreover, it has been argued that focus groups, in contrast to personal interviews, offer a more natural environment for discussion and interaction that resembles the way that people discuss and interact in real life situations (Krueger and Casey 2000). Lastly, focus groups are considered to have a lower cost and to require less time to conduct compared to personal interviews (Flick 2006).

4.6.2. Rationale for the selection of focus groups

The aim and objectives of the study not only inform the methodological approach, that is qualitative versus quantitative, but also provide a direction for the choice of the data collection method to be adopted. Focus groups have been proposed as a data collection method when the researcher, among other goals, seeks to:

1. Orientate oneself to a new field (Morgan 1988b).

2. Reveal a wide range of ideas (Krueger and Casey 2000; Bryman 2008; Jaccard and Jacoby 2010).

3. Explore people’s experiences and opinions (Morgan 1997; Kitzinger and Barbour 1999).

4. Examine people’s variety of perspectives when they operate within a social network (Kitzinger and Barbour 1999).

5. Gain insights into multifaceted behaviours (Krueger and Casey 2000).

6. Support participants in remembering events (Flick 2006).

7. Collect data with limited financial and time resources (Flick 2006).

The above seven qualities of focus groups provide a very good fit with the aim and the objectives of the specific study:

1. Focus groups have been proposed as a data collection method to orientate a researcher into a new field (Morgan 1988b). Exploring social media use throughout the holiday travel process has never been studied in depth in academia. As it was seen in Chapter 2 there are numerous studies providing insights primarily during the pre-trip and the post-trip stages of the travel process. However, most are either social media type specific, or application specific. As a result, the aim of this study, to explore as a whole social media use and impact during the whole travel process, can be considered as an orientation into a new field, therefore being in agreement with the argument of Morgan (1988b) for the selection of focus groups..

2. A number of scholars propose focus groups as a data collection method to reveal a wide range of ideas (Krueger and Casey 2000; Bryman 2008; Jaccard and Jacoby 2010).

Within the context of the present study it is necessary to gather as much as possible ideas and inputs not only on when social media are used during the holiday travel process, but also on how they are used, as well as the reasons for use. A wide range of ideas on those questions will provide a greater insight into social media users’

behaviour. Moreover, the fact that the study is not limited to any specific holiday travel related decision (e.g. only destination selection, or only accommodation selection) stresses even more the need for a data collection method that provides more breath rather that depth of insights.

3. Focus groups have been proposed as a data collection method to explore people’s experiences and opinions (Morgan 1997; Kitzinger and Barbour 1999). Within the context of the present study, exploring if and how social media are used throughout the holiday travel process requires access to people’s holiday travel experiences, so that it

can be revealed if interactions with social media took place before, during and after the trip. Moreover, access to social media users’ opinions about those interactions and their outcome is required so to provide insights into the impact of social media on their holiday plans and decisions.

4. Kitzinger and Barbour (1999) also propose focus groups as a data collection method to examine people’s variety of perspectives when they operate within a social network.

Although, it is clear (given the year of the publication) that Kitzinger and Barbour refer to the physical social network, the validity of their claim can be extended to online social networks. As it was seen in Chapter 2, social media are by default platforms and tools that enable users to interact with their physical social network providing not only the online spaces hosting such interactions, but also numerous user-friendly tools to manage these interactions. Moreover, social media extend significantly people’s physical social network by enabling access to, and exchange of information from / with individuals outside the reach of their physical social network. The ability of focus groups to provide an exploration into the variety of perspectives within a social network seems compatible with the need of the present study to explore the variety of perspectives of such interactions. Finally, it is the very nature of the focus groups that is compatible with the very nature of social media: Focus groups place the participant as an active member of a discussion, as an active member of a social gathering that involves interactions with other participants, also giving participants the possibility to alter their ideas and opinions based on this interaction. In a very similar sense, social media provide online spaces for their users to host discussions and interactions based on which ideas and opinions are formed, exchanges and possibly altered. As a result, focus groups seem to provide a natural setting for this study that aims to explore consumers’

interactions within social media.

5. Focus groups have also been proposed as a data collection method to gain insights into multifaceted behaviours (Krueger and Casey 2000). Travel related decisions are considered as multifaceted since for the same trip there are a number of choices (e.g.

destination, accommodation, activities, trip duration) that are not independent but interrelated and evolving over time (Dellaert et al. 1998). Moreover, travel, and especially holiday travel, can be seen as the demonstration of a traveller’s multifaceted behaviour either within the same holiday trip, or across a number of trips: Within the same trip the same traveller may act as a visitor to cultural sights, as gourmet, as a sportsman, as nightlifer, as a shopper. Across a number of trips, the same traveller can evidence multifaceted behaviours that may vary according to the type of the holiday trip

(e.g. a city break, a holiday under the sun, a sports oriented trip, an adventure travel), or even according to the composition of the travel party (e.g. travelling with kids, travelling as a couple, or even travelling with friends). At the same time, social media enable development and maintenance of multiple personas not only in the form of different online identities (Gonzalves 2008), but also in the form of different type of travel related content that users reveal in each platform since travel writing has been seen as the presentation of multiple personas (Holland and Huggan 2000). It may therefore be the case that such multifaceted behaviours may have an impact on usage of social media during the travel process.

6. Flick (2006) suggests that focus groups support participants in remembering events. In the context of the present study, it is required from participants to recall holiday trips that took place within the last 12 months (as it will be explained later in the chapter). As a result, a data collection method, such as focus groups, that supports participants’ recall of events and experiences due to the presence and interaction with the other participants is preferred.

7. Finally, issues of cost and time were also considered for the selection of focus groups as the data collection method. As Flick (2006) suggests focus groups are considered to have a lower cost and to require less time to conduct compared to personal interviews.

Given that this is a PhD study, time is a crucial factor. Focus groups were seen as the best option to enable access to the experiences, thoughts, and views of the maximum possible number of participants with the lowest possible cost, at least when compared to personal interviews.

4.6.3. Limitations of focus groups

Although focus groups have certain advantages, they are not without limitations, as is the case with any other data collection method.

When compared with participants’ observation, focus groups are considered less naturalistic:

They involve a researcher / moderator who not only “guides” the group into a discussion, but also influences the discussion so to maintain its focus, claims that hold true even for some forms of one to one interviews (Morgan 1997). As Jaccard and Jacoby suggest it may be the case that the conversation becomes “side tracked and off point, in which case the moderator needs to keep participants on task” (2010, p.266). Moreover, the moderator may bias the results by intentional or non-intentional provision of cues on desirable answers, or even in an attempt to

achieve consensus on specific topics or parts of the discussion (Stewart et al. 2006). As a result, the moderator may become “an instrument of influence” (Kleiber 2004, p.98).

Participants can also become sources of limitations. The presence of a dominant, opinionated, or influential participant may lead to a biased content of discussion, and therefore biased results.

Such a member may also make other members hesitant to participate actively in the discussion to the extent that it can undermine the group. Group conformity can also become an issue in focus groups: Participants may not express views or experiences that they perceive as private, or simply they do not want to reveal in the presence of others. The presence of others may also influence participants on how they express their views and opinions (Stewart et al. 2006;

Jaccard and Jacoby 2010).

Focus groups have also practical limitations. When compared with one to one interviews the number of questions that can be asked during a focus group is limited (Flick 2006). For example, the design of a 60 minutes focus group should take into account that eight participants should be given adequate time to respond and to interact. The same amount of time devoted to a one to one interview enables the researcher to ask a larger number of questions. Moreover, given the high level of interactions, there is some degree of difficulty in moderating and at the same time taking notes on non-verbal cues (Krueger 1998c; Flick 2006).

During the focus group design and the actual conversations, systematic efforts have been taken to minimize, as much as possible, the impacts of the above limitations. These efforts are described in detail in the following sections.