Delphi Round Two: Exploring the Processes

The second round of the Delphi Technique provided this study with its final data group. While round one built a structural profile on the tourism framework in the Rupununi, round two was concerned with exploring the processes of that structure. This was accomplished by further investigating the thoughts, actions and values of those in control of the processes - the stakeholders. Gaining a deeper insight into these processes required a more exploratory approach into stakeholder perspectives. Therefore, a qualitative approach with the specific application of semi-structured interviews and participant observation was used for this exploration. The intended purpose of this data set was to discover emergent themes for theory generation. To achieve this aim, a specific group of experts were selected to be interviewed. As previously seen in set one, these experts represented all six stakeholder groups (Figure 4.5). This sub-section examines the use of the sequential strategy and how respondents were selected from each stakeholder group.

Central to this research design is the use of a sequential explanatory strategy. Within this strategy, results from both rounds worked to mutually reinforce the other (Creswell, 2003: 215). Indeed, the questionnaires were used to inform and guide the second round interviews. In particular, the results were used in the formation of themes to be covered within the interviews. However, the researcher was careful not to discuss the questionnaire results with interview respondents. Instead, the chosen themes and rough outline of questioning were maintained. Furthermore, the interviews expanded the results from the surveys by providing explanations on various elements of the tourism

107

profile created in round one. As noted in Bryman (1992: 60), the results from the questionnaires were also useful in selecting respondents for a qualitative investigation because it helped to identify potential individuals.

Delphi Round Two: Semi-structured Interviews Public Sector Industry Voluntary Sector Host communities Media Tourist Figure 4.5: Delphi Round Two Data Group Sub-sets

Identifying the respondents for round two was similar to the ‘purposive’ system used in round one (Punch, 2005: 187). Punch (2005: 188) argues that any sampling strategy should align with the study’s purpose. Indeed, one of the aims for this study was to generate a theory in regards to the research question. Therefore, with the Delphi Technique in mind, an initial list was created with selected experts. However, a key difference was the amount of respondents. Qualitative research is less concerned with achieving representativeness and attributing data to a larger population. Instead, it is more concerned with exploring the perceptions of a select few key individuals to gain a deeper understanding of a particular phenomenon (Kvale, 1996: 102).

A qualitative approach was dually selected for this study to aid in the process of generating a theory grounded in the data. Grounded theory is a process where data are simultaneously collected, coded and analysed in the search for emerging theories (Castellanos-Verdugo et al., 2010: 118). This process lends itself to theoretical sampling where the respondents are not pre-determined in the methodological design (ibid). The flexibility in this data collection process “...allows the researcher to place the emphasis on one concept or another” (ibid). As a result, respondents for this study were chosen during fieldwork, specifically after the results from Delphi round one were analysed. Castellanos-Verdugo et al. (2010: 18) assert that this is in accordance with the constant comparison method used in grounded theory. Snowball sampling, a common sampling technique used in qualitative studies and grounded theory, was used minimally. This was due to the researcher already having an extensive network of contacts in the region from the first round of data collection (Jennings, 2001: 139).

108

Although it would have been preferable to identify respondents for interviews while collecting data in the field, resource limitations forced the researcher to prepare a definitive list prior to the interviews.

Table 4.2: Delphi Round Two Panel Composition (adapted from Green et al., 1990: 274) Panel Group Round Two Sample

Size Public sector 3 Industry 5 Voluntary sector 4 Host community 4 Media 2 Tourists 4 Total 22

Table 4.2 outlines the Delphi panel for round two. In particular it locates which stakeholder groups the respondents come from and how many were interviewed from each group. In total, 22 interviews were conducted. The respondents were chosen as they are considered to be individuals who are highly involved in tourism development in the Rupununi, which is particularly relevant to this stage of the study (Scott & Cooper, 2007: 204). Moreover, Munsters (2010: 59) argues:

“This selection criterion enhances the representativeness and reliability of the in-depth interviews because the interviewed service providers will voice not only their personal opinion but also the ideas of the stakeholders they represent.”

For example, the interviewee’s included high ranking members of the public sector, managing directors from the industry, travel authors in media organisations and Toshao’s from host communities. Exploring the perspectives of these individuals was aimed at gaining an understanding of the attitudes and values of the central decision makers within each group.

As mentioned above, participant observation and semi–structured interviews were the tools used for data collection in the Rupununi and Georgetown. Similar to the first

109

Delphi round, participant observation was employed to assess tourism operations and the behaviour of the participants. Field notes taken on these subjects were used as supplementary evidence to the questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. The interviews involved open-ended questions and were conducted in a manner consistent with an informal conversation. This relaxed atmosphere assisted with gathering data which had depth and richness.

The number of interviews conducted was in direct correlation to the amount of time and resources available and when the theoretical saturation level was reached. This is the point where additional interviews do not offer any new concepts or knowledge (Castellanos-Verdugo et al., 2010: 118; Kvale, 1996: 102). Kvale (1996: 103) argues that conducting fewer interviews can often be better for a study. This is due to a focus on quality over quantity and taking more time to effectively prepare and analyse fewer interviews (ibid). Moreover, it allows for a more detailed investigation of the relationships between participants and the situation (ibid).

4.3.5 Limitations

Initial limitations found in the research design concern the type and amount of respondents. A core limitation is the sole inclusion of participants who are considered experts. Identifying who in fact was considered an expert was entirely subject to the researcher’s interpretation. An attempt was made to minimise this through the selection of individuals who had obvious involvement and knowledge in Rupununi tourism. On the one hand, excluding individuals or organisations who are not involved in tourism development in the Rupununi limits the overall scope and potential for the study. On the other hand, stakeholder experts were solely chosen because they are the key actors in STD (Medeiros de Araujo & Bramwell, 2000: 72). Their actions, values and opinions ultimately determine the potential of using ecomuseology to support STD. Thus, capturing their perceptions holds the key to answering the research question. In addition, the amount of stakeholder respondents could have been increased to provide additional representativeness in the questionnaires and to explore more themes in the interviews. However, as time and resources were limited, this was not possible. Nonetheless, the number of respondents for both the questionnaires and interviews was considered appropriate based on the research aims and objectives. In particular, the researcher felt a sufficient sample was collected to represent the larger population for

110

the quantitative study (Creswell, 2003: 153). Moreover, the semi-structured interviews allowed for the adequate emergence of themes towards theory generation (Kvale, 1996: 102).

The researcher’s own past experience within the study site contributed to the way the respondents were identified and could be considered a limitation. However, personal knowledge on particular candidates who would be beneficial for questionnaires and interviews was acknowledged by the researcher. Prior relationships between the researcher and respondent could have further contributed to bias from the respondents. To counter this, unknown individuals were selected where possible to minimise bias. Ultimately, there was a constant effort to having an objective approach in selecting respondents. The guarantee of anonymity for participants also helped to promote more honest responses. Moreover, employing the snowballing technique during questionnaires allowed for the inclusion of a significant range of previously unknown participants.

As mentioned in sub-section 4.2.6, there was uniformity in the content and format of both the questionnaires and interviews. This was to establish consistency in comparing the results from each stakeholder group. However, tourists were perhaps not as knowledgeable on key subjects due to a lack of experience at the study site. Nonetheless, gathering their input remained vital and proved useful in analysing the results.

Practical limitations in the research design were found in the ever present lack of time and resources, which were crucial elements in the research design (Creswell, 2003: 215; Kvale, 1996: 92). Accessing all six stakeholder groups required a great deal of effort, time and finances. The many multi-hour trips through dense jungle terrain were consistently demanding but necessary, valuable and quite often entertaining. Moreover, the researcher’s previous experience in the area minimised, where possible, these practical challenges in data collection.