Interviews

Typically, the research strategy or the strategy of inquiry indicates the specific methods that can be used for collecting data (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998). However, since this research does not adopt any particular strategy of inquiry but rather uses a qualitative approach, it is possible to use a variety of methods to collect empirical materials for research including interviews, direct observation, the analysis of artefacts, documents and cultural records and the use of visual materials or personal experience (ibid.). The choice of data collection methods is guided by the research topic (Silverman, 2011). In order to meet the

aims and objectives of this research, interviewing was chosen as the main data collection method.

The interview or ‘guided introspection’ is a process by which a researcher asks other people to reflect upon or report their experiences (past or present), their actions and their internal states. This is recorded as data (Wallendorf & Brucks, 1993). In interviews, the data are self-reported, i.e. research participants provide their own reports about themselves and consequently about constructs examined, as opposed to observations where the researcher looks at and reports data (Veal, 2006).

VanderStoep (2009) distinguishes between three types of interviews – informal (where the researcher goes with the flow), structured (where the researcher has established questions) and guided (a combination of an informal and a structured interview). However, most authors refer to these interview types as unstructured (or open-ended), structured and semi-structured interviews (Myers, 2011). Structured interviews use pre-formulated questions while unstructured interviews use few or no pre- formulated questions. Semi-structured interviews use some pre-formulated questions but allow new questions to emerge during interviews (ibid.).

For this research, the semi-structured in-depth interview or ‘guided’ interview was chosen for data collection. This is due to the relatively small number of research participants (especially Destination Marketing Organization representatives) and their heterogeneity. Moreover, in-depth interviews allow an exploration of the phenomenon of the study in depth and detail while also allowing the personal context to be understood (Lewis, 2003). It is assumed that information obtained from research participants will vary considerably; hence, interviews allow research participants presenting different stories (Veal, 2006) to acknowledge a variety of realities.

Since in-depth interviews usually vary from interview to interview, it is advisable to prepare a checklist of topics to be discussed rather than present a formal questionnaire (Veal, 2006). It is also suggested researchers avoid “heavy initial instrumentation or closed-ended devices” in exploratory studies since instrumentation methods can and should be revised as a researcher proceeds with data collection (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 35). This research employed a mixture of both: a checklist of topics based on the

conceptual framework and pre-formulated questions that allowed some flexibility. The questions put to participants varied slightly according to the flow of the interview while ensuring that all relevant topics were covered. This approach allowed the collection of contrasting and complementary data on the same topic (Rapley, 2004).

The in-depth interview not only combines some structure with flexibility but is also interactive and generative, i.e. new knowledge and thoughts are created (Legard, Keegan, & Ward, 2003). In response to the researcher’s questions, research participants often reflected on issues that they had not previously thought about (e.g. what is slow tourism, what are examples of slow tourism in Latvia). In such a way, research participants constructed a logical and consistent story, i.e. they actively constructed knowledge (Myers, 2011).

Further, the interpretivist approach assumes that an interview is a co-elaborated act between researcher and study participants and not merely the collection of information by one party (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The researcher was actively participating in the interviews by asking questions, listening, producing follow-up questions on specific themes and topics, allowing research participants the space to talk and occasionally talking about their own personal experiences or ideas where it was relevant (e.g. when the participant asked about the researcher’s own experience). These interactional practices of qualitative interviewing are described as “an engaged,activeor collaborativeformat of interviewing” (Rapley, 2004, p. 22; original emphasis).

The collaboratively produced nature of interviews, however, also implies that not only are interviewers and interviewees actively engaged in the construction of meaning during the interview process (Silverman, 2011); there is also an inevitable interpretation of meanings by both parties (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Hence, one of the main challenges for the researcher was to understand the meaning of what was said by research participants during interviews (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). In order to ensure that the meaning was understood correctly (Legard et al., 2003), several techniques were used. ‘Mirroring’ was one of the techniques used during interviews which involved using research participants’ own words in formulating further questions (Myers, 2011). This allowed meanings to be verified and to focus on the words and language of research

participants (ibid.). In addition, follow-up questions were used to clarify the meanings and provide richer and deeper responses (Patton, 2002).

It is acknowledged that respondents can speak from a variety of perspectives rather than from a single viewpoint, i.e. it is possible that various perspectives can be taken by a single respondent during the interview (Warren, 2002). The standpoints or roles from which the research participants were talking did shift during the interview process. For example, during the interview a respondent could speak as a Destination Marketing Organization (DMO) representative, as a tourist or as a tourism service provider. In fact, some research participants interviewed as representatives of DMOs also talked about their personal travel experiences and practices. Several DMO managers had their own private tourism businesses and talked from the standpoint of a tourism service provider. It is suggested that these varied perspectives are taken into account in understanding the meaning-making process (ibid.).

Finally, in order to discern regularities in human behaviour, it is suggested that particularistic rather than generalized data is collected, i.e. if one wants to make general conclusions about human behaviour it is necessary to inquire about an informant’s accounts of specific occurrences or experiences rather than ask them to provide self- generalizations about their behaviour (Wallendorf & Brucks, 1993). Therefore, participants were not only asked questions about their opinion and understanding of concepts but also about their actual behaviour, experiences and relevant examples.