Developing a Research Methodology: The Research Approach

As outlined in the literature review, research to date in the genre of dark tourism does not appear to be developed around any large quantitative or qualitative studies. There

has been a notable lack of significant field research in particular, focusing on the demand side of dark tourism and motivations. As established in chapter one of the literature review, there is little consensus on the definitions of dark tourism, and therefore, problems with defining who or what a dark tourist is. More recently, Light (2017) argues that little is known about the fascination of dark tourism, because researchers on the whole have neglected to specifically ask visitors about the importance of the death present at a dark tourism site and their motivations for visiting, a significant gap that this study intends to rectify. Furthermore, the media has tended to regard dark tourism as deviant and troubling and, in some cases, a source of moral panic (Seaton and Lennon, 2004).

Over the past two decades, dark tourism and thanatourism research has focused on a broad range of themes. Namely: 1) a concern with definitions and typologies of dark tourism and thanatourism; 2) ethical debates regarding the presentation of places of death and suffering to tourists; 3) the broader political roles of such places which overlaps with their role as tourist attractions; 4) the nature of demand for such places (particularly the motivations and experiences of visitors); 5) the management, interpretation and marketing of places of death and suffering for tourism and tourists;

6) the research methods used to understand dark tourism and thanatourism. (Light, 2017). This study intends to inform the debates around the concerns with definitions of dark tourism, and the nature of the demand for visit to dark sites.

4.2.1 Ontology

Each paradigm has an ontological base, or set of beliefs associated with the manner in which the world is observed. Gruber (1995) argues that ontology is the specification of

conceptualisations, used to share knowledge. The objects, concepts, and other entities that are assumed to exist in some area of interest and the relationships that hold among them (Genesereth and Nilsson, 1987). There are two dominant ontological and epistemological traditions/ideologies: Positivism and Interpretivism.

The positivist ontology generally takes a controlled and structural approach in conducting research by identifying a clear research topic, constructing appropriate hypotheses and by adopting a suitable research methodology (Churchill, 1996; Carson et al., 2001). Positivist research seeks objectivity and uses consistently rational and logical approaches to research (Carson et al., 2001). A positivist ontological researcher will put distance between themselves and the research/participants and it is important in positivist research to have objectivity and use consistently rational and logical approaches to research (Carson et al., 2001). It is important for a positivist researcher to remain emotionally neutral and make clear distinctions between science and personal experience.

Alternatively, the ontology of interpretivism is that researchers believe the reality is multiple and relative (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988). Lincoln and Guba (1985) explain that these multiple realities also depend on other systems for meanings, which make it even more difficult to interpret in terms of fixed realities (Neuman, 2000). The knowledge acquired in this discipline is socially constructed rather than objectively determined (Carson et al., 2001:5) and perceived (Hirschman, 1985, Berger and Luckman, 1967:3 in Hudson and Ozanne, 1988).

The interpretivist remains open to new knowledge throughout the study and lets it develop with the help of other research tools. The use of such an emergent and collaborative approach is consistent with the interpretivist belief that humans have the ability to adapt (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988). An interpretivist ontological researcher depends upon the individual and their opinions and experience. Important to this study are respondents and bloggers opinions and experiences to develop a theory on why tourists are motivated to visit dark tourism sites, and therefore, an interpretive methodology was needed.

Interpretive research is generally idiographic, which literally means describing aspects of the social world by offering a detailed account of specific social settings, process or relationships. The focus of the research might be to uncover how people feel about the world and make sense of particular vantage points (Kings and Horrocks, 2010). The general focus of this study is to establish who or what a dark tourist is and what motivates visitors to visit dark sites, therefore, making an interpretive methodology the most suitable for this study.

4.2.2 Epistemology

Epistemology is the study of our method of acquiring knowledge. It answers the question, ‘How do we know?’ It encompasses the nature of concepts, the constructing of concepts, the validity of the senses, logical reasoning, as well as thoughts, ideas, memories and emotions. It is concerned with how our minds are related to reality, and whether these relationships are valid or invalid. Epistemology is associated with the manner by which knowledge is obtained and the relationship between researcher and

subject matter under investigations (Jennings 2010). Epistemology is a field of science that tends to describe the many approaches we can choose to understand our world and mostly, it studies the fundamental choices or givens you take into account when you attempt to know something.

Grounded theory is a methodology that has been used to generate theory where little is already known, or to provide a fresh slant on existing knowledge. There is currently little known about the motivations of dark tourism. Grounded theory is an interpretivist mode of enquiry which has its roots in symbolic interactionism and as such language, gestures, expressions and actions are all considered primary to the experience. Due to the nature of the research topic, and the anticipation that some respondents might be emotional, it was important to the findings of this study, that language, expressions and actions were captured. Unlike phenomenological methods, grounded theory allows for multiple data source which may include interviews, observations of behaviours and published reports. Grounded theory is when the research derives a general, abstract theory grounded in the view of the participants (Creswell, 2014). Grounded theory usually involves using multiple stages of data collection and the refinement and interrelationship of categories of information (Charmaz, 2006; Corbin and Strausss, 2007). Weed (2016:6) asserts that the integrity of a grounded theory study is maintained by conducting a substantive review of the literature as ‘part of the iterative process as concepts and ideas are developed and refined…’ and each stage of the methodology of this study will direct and inform the next stage of the research.

Goulding (1998) described grounded theory as the missing methodology on the interpretivist agenda. Grounded theory is a general methodology for developing theory that is grounded in data systemically gathered and analysed. Theory evolves during actual research, and it does this through continuous interplay between analysis and data collection (Strauss and Corbin 1994). Connell and Lowe (1997:167) describe the grounded theory approach as setting out to ‘discover new theoretical insights and innovations…’ i.e. it is not a question of testing hypotheses based on gaps in theoretical knowledge, but of generating new theory. In this sense, a grounded theory approach implies theory construction as opposed to theory testing. Assumptions have been made that tourists who visit dark sites do so for ‘dark and macabre reasons’. For example, Best (2007); Biran et al (2014) and Yankholmes and McKercher (2015b) argue that tourists visit such sites as they have an interest in death or have a morbid curiosity, and Podoshen (2013) argues that tourists have a desire for contact and connection with death, dark events or violence. This research, as directed by the research questions, seeks to clarify dark tourism motivations, and, as yet undetected, key influencing factors. The research that underpins this study is qualitative in nature and follows a paradigm that is interpretive and a methodology this is qualitative.

This study investigates the drivers that motivate tourists to visit dark sites where mass death has occurred, and uses Tuol Sleng and Choeung Ek in Phnom Penh, Cambodia as specific case studies. At both sites you can see blood stained floors and walls, thousands of human remains, a tree that was used to bash babies against rather than shoot them with valuable bullets. Using a qualitative paradigm has provided the space to explore what the overt motivations are for visiting dark sites such as Tuol Sleng and Choeung Ek, as well as deep psychological drivers that inspire tourists to visit such

sites. A hypothetic-deductive method would not be appropriate due to the lack of a robust or rigid theory of dark tourism as highlighted in the literature review.

4.2.3 Qualitative Research

At the core of this research is some academics’ presumption that people visit dark sites because they have a morbid fascination with the dark and macabre. For example, dark tourism is ‘travel to a location wholly, or partially, motivated by the desire for actual or symbolic encounters with death, particularly, but not exclusively, violent death’

(Seaton, 1996:240), and ‘refers to the individuals who are motivated primarily to experience the death and suffering of others for the purpose of enjoyment, pleasure and satisfaction (Best, 2007:38). Moreover, some academics have placed morality at the centre of dark tourism (Stone, 2011c). This study’s aims and objectives intend to ascertain dark tourism motivations and establish who or what a dark tourist is and, therefore, inform the debate and help find a definition that is more universally accepted using a qualitative methodological approach.

Qualitative research encompasses several research methods, such as observations, interview, ethnographies and aims to ‘implement a critical interpretive approach…make sense of the conditions that define daily life’ (Denzin and Lincoln 2005: xv). Holliday (2007:5) argues that qualitative research studies are ‘open-ended and set up research opportunities designed to lead the researcher into unforeseen areas of discovery within the lives of the people she is investigating.’ This type of methodology was deemed most appropriate for this study, as no other known studies have ascertained motivations for visiting dark sites in the field before, so there was a

high expectation of discovering ‘unforeseen areas’. Moreover, Richards (2003:10) claims that ‘the broad aim of qualitative inquiry is to better understand some aspect(s) of the lived world’, and an objective of this study is to understand why tourists visit such sites.

Some researchers, (e.g. Cresswell, 2011; Richards and Morse, 2013; Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009) believe that a mixed-method approach, the use of qualitative and quantitative strategies is appropriate, however, qualitative research in itself provides a broad platform from which a rich, multi-layered, thick description can be composed and shared in a valid way. As this study drew theory from a variety of sources, a qualitative approach, rooted in interpretivist grounded theory was the most appropriate methodology.

The methodology in part is innovative and experimental in terms of the use of new research instruments, the ‘travel blogs’ and the ‘comments in the visitor books’. These two sources provided unsolicited views that will help support or find new themes that emerged during the semi-structured interviews. The methodology also includes a traditional method, such as a semi-structured interview.

The semi-structured interviews were carried out within or very near the sites of Tuol Sleng and Choeung Ek. Preliminary research suggests that most travellers visit both sites, one after the other, and often view the two sites as interlinked sites. Between 1975 and 1978 more than 17,000 people were held and tortured at S-21, now referred to as Tuol Sleng (Lonely Planet, 2013). If prisoners survived the torture of S-21 they were then were taken to Choeung Ek (often referred to as ‘the killing fields’) and

murdered. At Choeung Ek, are the remains of over an estimated 100,000 people (Rea, 2006, accessed 04^th May 2016). Each prisoner that passed through the gates of S-21, was meticulously photographed and processed by the Khmer Rouge regime. This included men, women and children. The photographs and personal artefacts are on display throughout both sites. Today both sites are now significant visitor attractions in Phnom Penh. At the height of the tourist season around seven to eight hundred tourists visit each site each day (Pann, 2017, accessed 03^rd April 2017). This has increased significantly from one to two hundred ten years ago. Although one of the main reasons for this could be that Cambodia has opened up to tourists and is now firmly on the map with travellers to South East Asia, it is significant the amount of tourists who choose to visit one or both sites. After some preliminary research, the author established that the daily management of both sites do not keep details of who and why foreigners visit and are largely unaware of motivations and perceptions of foreign visitors. For example, trying to establish official visitor numbers for the sites was problematic. The methodology chosen for this study, will hopefully present findings that will be able to inform why tourists visit and in part be a useful management tool.