Delphi Technique

As mentioned above, stakeholder perceptions are considered vital to understanding sustainable tourism development at the study site. Thus, the respondents selected for data collection were those stakeholders who have direct links with Rupununi tourism. While some of the stakeholder groups contain individuals or organisations that are internationally based or affiliated, it was those with a local presence that were mostly selected for data collection with the exception of two Skype interviews that were done to a lack of availability of the respondents. Capturing the perceptions of these stakeholders presents a view into the minds of those most knowledgeable on Rupununi tourism. This strategy falls in line with the Delphi Technique which has been found

100

increasingly applicable to tourism research (for example see Kaynak et al., 1994; Green et al 1990; Miller, 2001).

The Delphi Technique is a method of collecting expert opinions in an effort to gain consensus on how to solve a complex issue (Kaynak et al., 1994: 19; Green et al 1990: 271). Furthermore, and pertinent to this study, Miller (2001: 353) asserts, “If ever a topic could be described as a complex problem and also one lacking in perfect knowledge then sustainability would appear to be so”. The Delphi Technique normally solves these problems without its expert participants having to meet “face to face” (Green et al., 1990: 271). Furthermore, Delphi studies typically occur in three or less stages, also referred to as rounds (Green et al., 1990: 273; Miller, 2001: 353; Kaynak et al., 1994: 19). Typically during these rounds, questionnaires are distributed to a designated group of experts on a particular topic or issue. Green et al. (1990: 271) assert that feedback from the previous round is intended to shift the participants toward a mutual agreement. This agreement isn’t necessarily the “definitive answer” to the issue, but rather an “aid in the development of possible solutions” (Miller, 2001: 353). Green et al. (1990: 271) identified two key advantages from using the Delphi Technique: (1) results are from individuals and not groups in constant contact which limits potential bias; and, (2) all responses are anonymous and tend to be more honest and impartial.

The order in which data-collection techniques are employed can facilitate insight into their analysis (Creswell, 2003: 16). Creswell (2003:18) argues that a mixed-methods approach employs its individual techniques either “simultaneously or sequentially” depending on the research question. In alliance with the Delphi Technique, this study used a sequential explanatory strategy (see Figure 4.2 above). In this strategy, findings from one method are later used to expand the findings from another (Creswell, 2003: 215). Indeed, the results from the first round questionnaires were used to inform and guide the second-round interviews. Several authors contend that when using mixed- methods, the order in which they are employed often signifies a power dynamic (Brannen, 1992: 11; Bryman, 1992: 62; Creswell, 2003: 221; Melkert & Vos, 2010: 34). For example, the application of questionnaires first in this study might signal that quantitative data is the primary data source, with qualitative data being supplementary. However, for this research the two methods acted as complimentary to one another and were equally valued.

The Delphi Technique was selected for this study to capture the perceptions of ‘experts’ on Rupununi tourism. Here, the term ‘experts’ refers to those individuals

101

(stakeholders) who are actively involved in tourism in the Rupununi. In addition, this study adopted a modified version of the technique. While the use of experts remained, the operational aspects of the Delphi Technique were altered. The first modification was the employment of only two stages or rounds. This was unfortunately due to the limited time and budget available to gather input from all six stakeholder groups for three rounds. Although it could be argued that the pilot study constituted the preliminary stage, thus allowing for the full three stages considered to be adequate (Miller, 2001: 353). Secondly, while the first round was comprised of questionnaires, the second round utilised semi-structured interviews instead of the normal, repeated use of questionnaires. These modifications were deemed appropriate given the hypothetical and exploratory nature of the required research approach.

Approach Research Question

Mixed-methods Quantitative Qualitative Surveys Participant Observation Grounded Theory Design

Delphi Round One: Questionnaires Delphi Round Two: Semi- structured Interviews Literature Review

Data Sets Literature Delphi Round One Delphi Round _Two

102

This study developed three main data sets: literature, Delphi round one and Delphi round two. The process of arriving at these data sets is presented in Figure 4.3. This diagram unites the approach (Section 4.2) with the design (Section 4.3) and demonstrates how the research question produced the data sets. The data sets are a mixture of theoretical and empirical data and are examined more in the following sub- sections.

4.3.2 Literature

In this study, literature represents data that is hypothetical and not empirically collected. Punch (2005: 27) argues that data is any evidence or information which can be used to create or assess ideas. Indeed, literature was a key data set for this study due to this very notion, which it carried out in three main roles. First, reviewing the literature identified key gaps of knowledge particular to this study. Secondly, literature was used in the development of the questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Eventually, it was compared with data from the other two sets to generate theories on how to answer the research question. This data set was comprised of both academic and grey literature, involving various texts on sustainable tourism, ecomuseology and the study site. Moreover, the academic texts presented established theories which were used to develop parallel connections between the three subjects. The following two sub-sections discuss the remaining two data groups which were empirically collected and then compared against the literature.