Day visitor interview method

The justification for choosing interviews for this final stage of data collection rests upon the detail of responses and their subjectivity. This research aims to explore why it is important to differentiate day visitors by exploring this group in depth and interpreting the suitability of categories for day visitors. Such detail cannot be achieved with a questionnaire due to the rigidity of questions that they demand (Fontana and Frey, 2003). A focus group was not chosen since it was important to ensure that the interviewees were honest and impartial in their responses (Silverman, 2011). It was crucial to gain the most authentic discussions about their perspectives and experiences as day visitors. The interviews were

semi-structured; it was important to allow the interviewee to add their own stories and experiences in order for unique data to emerge (Bryman, 2008). The question themes were chosen in advance due to the trends found from the questionnaire and focus group. However, the questions were not given to the participants prior to the interviews to protect original

thoughts and discussions (Silverman, 2011). Travelling distances and visitation regularity were two strong themes found from the original questionnaire to explore further within the

interviews. In addition, the debates within the literature of home and identity directed the topics of the interviews.

In total, five interviews were conducted for this data set. The interviews lasted between 25-35 minutes. To maintain anonymity, the interviewees were referenced as participant I, J and K. Two of the interviewees were selected from the original focus group meeting since further insights could be gained from these participants. The source of

90 participants from the focus group did not compromise the interview since this interview had a different focus upon identities and perspectives as a visitor. The remaining four participants were sampled from connections with people from the focus group. An email invitation was sent to the potential interested participants recommended by those within the focus group.

Like the sampling process for the focus group, these individuals were invited if they were residents or lived in close proximity to the PDNP and often visited the PNDP for the day.

As with the focus group, these interviews were recorded using two devices to ensure that the data was protected and not lost during recording. The interviews were transcribed and analysed by organising the comments into themes, such as the influences of activity choices, distance from home, and familiarity. The literature was primarily used to create the themes to determine if responses could be grouped in this manner. For instance, visitor familiarity with a place, a sense of home, and plural identities were themes identified from the literature. Furthermore, to meet objective three, the environmental awareness of day visitors was a dominant theme of the interviews. The emerging trends from the cross-referenced questionnaire, such as activity choices and travelling distance, also dictated the themes for analysis. Finally, some themes were identified from the interviews themselves, such as new residents to the PDNP. Literature was later added to support such interesting and

unanticipated findings. These themes are arranged within Appendices 13-20, in order for quotes to be cited in the discussion with ease.

Prior to the interviews, the participants who agreed to take part were emailed the information sheet to read in advance. The interviews were held at a mutually agreed space, that was familiar and comfortable. These venues ranged from local cafes or work places. As with the focus group, the venue, date and time were confirmed a week before the meeting.

The same information sheet was read out to the interviewee at the time of the interview, alongside the consent forms. The interviewer asked if the participant had any questions first,

91 and explained that the interview would be recorded and that the interviewee would remain anonymous within the write-up of the research. The interviewer asked the participant to make the interviewer aware of any sensitive comments they wished not to be included in the study. To encourage honest and open responses, these introductions were vital and gave time for the interviewee to relax (Silverman, 2011). The interviews each began with a similar opening question to describe what the interviewees usually did when they visited the PDNP.

This initial open-ended question was deemed to be accessible to all of the participants and would set the foundations for the rest of the interview. Depending on how much detail the interviewees gave at this stage, the following questions varied.

4.4.2 Summary

Table showing the interview method used to further differentiate day visitors

Method: Interviews with Day Visitors

Key themes Questions and aims

92

Table 4.4: Overview of the key themes of the day visitor interview method, their detailed questions, supporting literature and application to the aim and objectives.

93 4.5 Considered and addressed research limitations

The initial data collection for this study before the viva, was restricted due to the time restraints encountered with ethical approval. The questionnaire responses were collected over 5 months rather than a year which would have provided a complete and more

representative data set of annual day visitors. Consequently, the sample for the questionnaire remained relatively small. Equally, more than one focus group would have been conducted without time restraints. A range of focus groups and a larger questionnaire sample would provide a more representative sample of day visitors. It was for this reason, that further research in the form of day visitor interviews, was added to the research. The questionnaire was instead used as an informative data set upon which to base the remaining research upon rather than representing the main body of the research. This research is based within one national park at one moment in time. A more comprehensive study would have been able to explore visitor perspectives of their identity over time and within different national parks.