Documentation

As indicated in Section 3.2.3 on methods, a qualitative interview comprises conversation and interaction between the researcher and the participant. I recorded the

110

interviews in order to be able to pay full attention to the interviewees during our conversations (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005), as well as to obtain a full audio-taped record of data for exploration of the interview contents and context (Kvale, 2008). Before each interview, I sought oral permission to digitally record the interviews. However, non-verbal impressions and/or facial expressions cannot be recorded. Therefore, I took written notes on emphasised statements, key words or emerging issues for further exploration, which were followed up later in order not to interrupt the flow of the story but to actively listen to what was said. Indeed, some interviewees showed they were uncomfortable with being recorded, either directly or indirectly by turning away or speaking quietly. In these cases, I noted and narrated the discomfort due to voice recording from my own point of view, and put the recorder aside, out of the interviewee’s field of sight. This did not influence the quality of the recording due to the quality of the apparatus but made the participants feel more secure and comfortable. On two occasions, I needed to complement the recording of the interviews with written notes because of technical issues. In these cases, I recorded the main topics immediately after the interviews had taken place.

An interview setting as a whole has various impacts upon the meaning that is created (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005; Miles and Huberman, 1994; Patton, 2002). First, I had an active role as an interviewer in the interviewing approach, which I expressed through body language, confidence and prior understanding. Prior understanding of the context was gathered by looking at the websites of the organisations, as well as studying either the documents provided by the partner or publicly available material. Second, the relationship between interviewer and participant is influenced by the degree of trust, which impacts upon the depth of insights the respondent is willing to disclose. Taking this into account, I introduced myself and my tourism background before the

111

interview started, which allowed me to speak the same language, gave me confidence and built trust to a certain extent. The third impact comes from the context of the interview, and ultimately the subject discussed, but this was not perceived as ethically critical by the interviewees. In addition, the interview setting and time were chosen by the interviewee and most interviews took place in the office or a seminar room of the respective organisation, and rarely in a public facility (café, lobby, at the exhibition etc.).

Each interview varied according to the interview setting, encounter, and the state of mind of the interviewer and interviewee. Consequently, it needs to be recognised in the analysis and interpretation of interview data that both interviewer and respondents jointly create an understanding of the meaning about the research topic and coproduce the account (Holstein and Gubrium, 1995; Rapley, 2001). Moreover, Silverman (2002) states that “how we record data is important because it is directly linked to the quality of data analysis. In this sense, field notes and contact sheets are, of course, only means to an end – developing the analysis” (p.142). Taking these issues in qualitative research into account, after each interview I recorded the perceived interview setting as a whole, using an interview log or so-called ‘post-scriptum’6 (Froschauer and Lueger, 2003, p.74). In the interview log, impressions prior to, during and after the interview were reflected on and written down, which were useful for the analysis and interpretation as well as for reflecting continuously on the interview process.

6 _{The interview log contains information about location, date, time, duration of interview, description of}

participant, conversation atmosphere, course of conversation, interruptions during the interview, and significant conversation after the recorder was switched off.

112

I transcribed the interviews according to the slightly modified transcription rules suggested by Hoffmann-Riem (1980), and followed three consistent steps. First, I transcribed all interviews word-by-word, removing names or any information about the firms that could give a clue to their identification using pseudonyms7 or general

descriptions. Second, I inserted non-verbal features of the interviews (e.g. a pause, laughter, or an interruption) in brackets in the text. Finally, I listened to the audio tapes again and proof read the document for typing errors or mistakes. Although this transcription process was very time consuming, it helped me to familiarise myself with the data and undertake the first steps of coding and memo writing.

Because of the German context, and because it is the native language of both the interviewees and myself, I conducted and transcribed all interviews in German. I started to execute the analytical process in English, by using English expressions for codes and categories, whereas the respective data chunks still remained in German. Only in the writing up of the analysis were the interview quotations that supported the descriptions, interpretation and discussion transcribed into English. A German native with experience in the international tourism industry in English-speaking countries, and proficient in English, translated the interview quotations into English, which I then back-translated and re-evaluated to ensure clarity of meaning. During the final stage of writing up, I followed Poland’s (2003) suggestion and omitted some transcription details (e.g. uhm, eh, hm) to make the text more readable. This said, the tidying up came after the analysis of the information and the ‘original verbatim’ of the interviews, so that I could analyse the original meaning of the data. I describe the analysis process in the following section.

7

113