Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)

The semi-structured interviews were complemented by a series of focus groups. Focus groups or group interviews are defined as “a research technique that collects data through group interaction on a topic determined by the researcher” (Morgan, 1996, p. 130). From this definition, Morgan identified three aspects of focus groups: first, it is a method for collecting empirical evidence; secondly, this empirical evidence is generated through an interactive process; and, finally, the researcher plays an active role in conducting the session. These features of focus groups are also evident in the literature under varied explanations (Carey, 1994; Kitzinger, 1995; Rabiee, 2004). In social sciences

65 research, focus groups are usually used in combination with other data collection techniques. This research uses focus groups along with semi-structured interviews and participant observations. This approach was taken to create a balance and strengthen the overall methodological combinations in this research. Participant observation provides a means to observe the seen and unseen while interviews generate rich information while focus groups synchronize the goals associate with both techniques (McLafferty, 2004). Morgan (1996, p. 134) finds the use of focus groups with interviews is uncomplicated as both are represented by qualitative methods and they complement each other by ensuring ‘greater depth’ in the interviews and ‘greater breadth’ in the focus groups.

Five focus group sessions were conducted in August 2016: four of which were carried out in the case study sites and one (exclusively represented by tourism industry people) in Dhaka. Figure 3.9 provides location map for those focus groups along with the number of participants in each session. The focus groups were conducted after a pre-analysis of the interviews’ findings, which provided a basis for conducting those sessions. The number of participants in the focus groups varied from 6 to 18. The literature suggests that there is no ideal size for focus groups but generally recommends a group consisting of 8-12 members can generate better outcomes (Fern, 2001; Jennings, 2010; Krueger & Casey, 2014). This range is neither too large to face controlling difficulties, nor too small to produce rich information. However, the literature reported that the size could vary from five members to 20 (Hess, 1968; Sampson, 1972). Within this spectrum, the ideal size depends on the layout of the venue as well as the attitudes and requirements of the researcher (Greenbaum, 1998; Wells, 1974) to serve the research purposes. In addition, the availability of a group of people on a particular date and time also remains critical. The researcher faced this challenge in the field and addressed it in a careful and unhurried way to ensure the maximum representation.

Given the socio-cultural and political sensitivities associated with the case study settings, the researcher observed that sometimes an individual does not express himself or herself openly than at a group forum. This feature was particularly evident among indigenous community participants, who found easier expression in a group environment (i.e., with other indigenous members). Thus, the researcher used focus groups particularly to ensure the richness of information while facilitating methodological triangulation. In this regard, an initial design for the focus groups was represented by a sub-set of the interviewees. After the pre-analysis of the interview data, the researcher approached the interviewees from each site where the diversity of stakeholder representation was considered as a theoretical base. It was challenging to arrange sessions with a consensus about time, especially when participants were involved in diverse occupations with varying working hours. Accordingly, from the Rangamati Sadar unit, the researcher found eight participants (approached 16 participants) whereas from Bandarban Sadar unit, six participants (approached 14 participants) attended the session although nine participants initially agreed.

66

Figure 3.9 Location mapping for the focus groups

Apart from the sub-set of interviewees, three more focus groups were conducted based on the immediate field response obligations. In the preliminary analysis, it was evident that all the informants were aged above 30 (reported in Figures 3.4 to 3.8). The researcher observed this as a limitation, as the voice of the youth (generation Z) were largely absent (within case sites as community residents). Consequently, the situation was responded to by pursuing a plausible in-field strategy. The researcher conducted two youth focus groups (one at each case site) to incorporate the youth voice into this research where the participants’ age-range was from 18 to 30. The selection of youth groups was followed by a straightforward approach in which the researcher found the presence of one tertiary level educational institution in each embedded unit. Those institutions were supposedly the most promising sources of targeted participants especially for the age range. Moreover, the researcher found it realistic to seek participants from an organised environment within a short time to respond the challenge promptly while maintaining uniformity of source. Another important motive that worked behind the selection of tertiary level educational institution was the capability to participate. Added to this observation, students from those institutions are supposed to lead society therein and are expected to participate in tourism decision-making and the implementation processes. Subsequently, the researcher contacted the head (principal) of the institutions concerned and briefed them about the research

67 objectives and requirements. The principals, in cooperation with other teachers, recommended the participants for youth focus groups. The participant selection process, in principle, followed the snowball technique and secured eight participants for each session.

Following the case studies, one industry interactive focus group was carried out in Dhaka; the institutional stakeholders, mostly tour operators, who do business in the CHT based in the capital city and policy stakeholders (who are involved in central level policy-making) represented the group. This session also came about as in response to field necessities. By the time the researcher completed his fieldwork, the industry people became aware that academic research was going on CHT tourism and requested the researcher present the research ideas in front of them as they were eager to give some inputs from being a ‘definitive’ stakeholder in tourism. The researcher took this as an opportunity to gather additional information to ensure the “richness of the empirical materials collected” (Jennings, 2010, p. 181). Accordingly, the industry people were contacted and brought together to generate information. The researcher was aware that not all the information out of the session would be meaningful but it would likely help in data triangulation and thereby contribute towards the validity of the qualitative research.