• No results found

Methodological approach and research design

Chapter 3: The Isles of Scilly-setting the context

4.1 Methodological approach and research design

The complexity of image measurement is well documented throughout the literature (Guthrie and Gale, 1991; Echtner and Ritchie, 1993; Jenkins, 1999; Echtner and Ritchie, 2003), where a wide range of methodological approaches, employed to measure destination image, are identifiable (Pike, 2002). The nature of tourism destination image makes any approach to its measurement methodologically challenging (Carmichael, 1992) as, when measuring image, researchers face difficulties in capturing the all-inclusive nature of the phenomenon. It has been noted that “destination images are holistic representations of a place and in attempting to measure them, researchers are compelled to look at the parts or attributes singularly”

(Jenkins, 1999, p. 5). Consequently, destination image is more commonly conceptualised in terms of lists of attributes and not in terms of holistic impressions (Echtner and Ritchie, 2003).

Studies tend to focus on physical or functional characteristics of image (Jenkins, 1999) and few have attempted to include the less tangible elements (Echtner and Ritchie, 1991). Difficulty in measuring image, and indeed, in creating a universally accepted method for doing so, not only stems from the holistic nature of image, but also in the tri-dimensionality of image studies.

Three dimensions are present in destination image research. It has been suggested that destination image studies identify the tourist perception, explore the perception in relation to the destination and frame the research within an individual context (Mazanec, 1994b). This context, or third dimension, considers the subjects’ perceptions with respect to explicit attributes or characteristics. The recognised complexity in measuring perceptions, pertaining to a destination (Guthrie and Gale, 1991), adds to the difficulty selecting an appropriate methodology to measure destination image. Given the difficulty in measuring image it was necessary to review methodological approaches employed within existing studies.

107

Although a number of papers have reviewed literature pertaining to destination image, three key papers stand out in their extensive discussion of destination image literature (Gallarza et al., 2002; Echtner and Ritchie, 2003; Pike, 2004). These papers identify common attributes used in tourism destination image studies (Gallarza et al., 2002; Echtner and Ritchie, 2003), consider the sample that data are collected from and the context in which the study is located (Gallarza et al., 2002; Pike, 2002), and also comment upon the number of variables tested (Pike, 2002). Most notably however they identify the methodological approaches adopted in measuring destination image. Although the reviews conducted by Echtner and Ritchie (2003), Pike (2002) and Gallarza et al. (2002) are extensive and particularly useful in assessing the breadth of methodological approaches apparent in the literature, a discussion of more recent approaches is necessary.

Data collection and analysis methods employed in a number of destination image studies, published since the reviews of Echtner and Ritchie (2003), Pike (2002) and Gallarza et al.

(2002), have been collated and details of such research are presented in Tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3. Studies employing a quantitative methodology are documented in Table 4.1, while those with a qualitative methodology are detailed in Table 4.2. Finally, Table 4.3 presents those studies adopting a mixed methods approach.

108

Data collection methods Analysis Author(s)

Self- administered

Principal component analysis Kim and Richardson (2003)

Face-to-face questionnaire with structured questions

Factor analysis Beerli and Martίn (2004) Self- administered

questionnaire with structured questions

Confirmatory factor analysis Lee et al. (2005)

Face-to-face questionnaire with structured questions

Measurement model analysis Nadeau et al. (2008) Face-to-face questionnaire

with structured questions

Path analysis Castro, Armario and Ruiz (2007)

Principal component analysis Yilmaz et al. (2009)

Face-to-face questionnaire

Veasna, Wu and Huang (2013)

Self- administered Principal Component Analysis Huang, Chen and Lin (2013)

109

Data collection methods Analysis Author(s)

questionnaire with structured

Structural Equation Modelling Agapito et al. (2013)

Self- administered

Experiment with pre and post testing structured

questionnaires

t-tests Tessitore, Pandelaere and Van

Kerckhove (2014) Self- administered

questionnaire with structured questions

Structural Equation Modelling Chew and Jahari (2014)

Self- administered

Structural Equation Modelling Hallmann et al. (2015)

Self- administered

Exploratory Factor Analysis Kim and Park (2015)

Experiment with pre and post testing structured

questionnaires

ANCOVA Rodríguez-Molina,

Frías-Jamilena and Castañeda-García (2015)

Table 4.1 Quantitative approaches in destination image research 2000-2016

110

Traditionally, quantitative methodologies have been employed to measure destination image where a combination of Likert- scales, semantic differential-scales and multi-dimensional scales have been utilised (Gartner and Hunt, 1987; Baloglu and Brinberg, 1997). The popularity of quantitative methods is still evident (as documented in Table 4.1) where the rating of destination attributes is a common methodological approach in the measurement of image (Sönmez and Sirakaya, 2002; Lin et al., 2007; Chen and Phou, 2013; Chew and Jahari, 2014;

Gilboa et al., 2015; Kim and Park, 2015). Although effective, in facilitating data analysis, there are many limitations to a purely quantitative approach as structured methodologies are attribute focused and fail to identify intangible impressions of place (Jenkins, 1999; Echtner and Ritchie, 2003). Table 4.2 demonstrates that, by comparison, very few studies choose to adopt a purely qualitative approach despite Reilly (1990) having previously suggested a free elicitation method for assessing tourism destination image. Recent qualitative studies have however collected rich data from less conventional sources including travel blogs (Law and Cheung, 2010; Sun et al., 2015), destination review websites (Kladou and Mavragani, 2015) and visitor employed photography (MacKay and Couldwell, 2004).

Data collection methods Analysis Author(s)

Visitor employed photography Content Analysis MacKay and Couldwell (2004)

Interviews Thematic Analysis

Content Analysis Govers et al. (2007a)

Travel blogs Content Analysis Law and Cheung (2010)

Trip Advisor Content Analysis Kladou and Mavragani (2015)

Travel blogs and online

Travel blogs Content Analysis Sun et al. (2015)

Table 4.2 Qualitative approaches in destination image research 2000-2016

Within this body of literature studies that employ a mixed method approach to their data collection and analysis are also identifiable. A number of these studies adopt a largely structured approach but also include unstructured questions, using Reilly’s (1990) free elicitation method, in order to measure more holistic aspects of image (Tapachai and

111

Waryszak, 2000; O’Leary and Deegan, 2003). This review revealed that qualitative techniques are often used to inform the design of quantitative survey instruments. Focus groups and interviews have been utilised within many studies to validate the image variables utilised in otherwise structured methodologies (Rezende-Parker et al., 2003; Bonn et al., 2005; Prayag, 2012). There are however many studies identifiable within Table 4.3 that have integrated qualitative and quantitative techniques to provide a truly mixed approach to measuring image, through their data collection, data analysis or both (Son, 2005; Yüksel and Akgül, 2007; Chen et al., 2013; Syed-Ahmad et al., 2013; Kim and Stepchenkova, 2015; Smith et al., 2015).

Data collection methods Analysis Author(s)

Self- administered

Content Analysis O’Leary and Deegan (2003)

Secondary data collection,

Secondary data Content Analysis

Artificial Neutral Network

San Martín and Rodríguez del Bosque (2008)

112

Visitor employed photography t-tests

Kruskall-Wallis

Travel magazines Content analysis Chi-square

Table 4.3 Mixed method approaches in destination image research 2000-2016

In addition to reviewing tried and tested approaches within the literature, it was also important to review those papers that propose or critique methodological frameworks for destination image measurement (Echtner and Ritchie, 1991; Echtner and Ritchie, 1993;

Formica, 2002; Deslandes et al., 2006; Govers et al., 2007b; Byon and Zhang, 2010). Of these papers, Echtner and Ritchie’s (1993) paper ‘the measurement of destination image: an

empirical assessment’ is the mostnotable. Echtner and Ritchie (1993) proposed an alternative to the traditional quantitative rating scales, through the creation of a framework that

113

considers three dimensions of destination image - attribute-holistic, functional-psychological and common-unique- considering both tangible and intangible aspects of the destination.

Their framework has been widely accepted among researchers, evident by its extensive use within destination image studies (O’Leary and Deegan, 2003; Ryan and Cave, 2005;

Stepchenkova and Morrison, 2008). Traditionally, structured quantitative approaches have dominated destination image studies (Pike, 2002), however there are several authors who strongly advocate a mixed methods approach for image research (Echtner and Ritchie, 1993;

Selby and Morgan, 1996; Jenkins, 1999).

It has been recognised that, in designing an appropriate methodology, there is often a degree of trade-off between the application of structured and unstructured survey techniques (Selby and Morgan, 1996). Due to the limitations of each of these methods, the most useful data in place image studies is achieved through a combination of techniques (Selby and Morgan, 1996). Consequently, this study will be adopting a mixed method approach, combining both structured and unstructured techniques as illustrated in Figure 4.1.

114 Figure 4.1 Research Design

Descriptive analysis of secondary data sources

Collection of management data Collection of travel blog and online marketing material Selection of case study destination

Secondary data collection

Pre pilot and pilot of survey instrument Quantitative

Develop image based typology Test conceptual framework

15 semi structured group and individual interviews with

self-selecting sample Pre pilot and pilot of interview

schedule

115 4.1.1 Research philosophy

It is recognised that the paradigm, or worldview, adopted in research not only guides the assumptions of reality, truth and knowledge but also determines the research methods employed within a study (Masadeh, 2012). Historically two major philosophical perspectives have been adopted in research, positivism and phenomenology (Creswell, Plano Clark,

Gutmann and Hanson, 2003; Feilzer, 2010; Masadeh, 2012). These perspectives are, however, fundamentally opposed. Positivism, as a paradigm, “defines knowledge in terms of empirically verifiable observation” (Masadeh, 2012, p. 129) while phenomenology identifies that

knowledge is “constructed, subjective and social in nature” (Masadeh, 2012, p. 129). These opposing philosophical perspectives call for different methodological approaches and research methods in order to address study aims (Azzopardi and Nash, 2014). As such, positivist

research adopts a quantitative methodology and deductive approach, whereas

phenomenology employs qualitative methods and an inductive approach (Creswell, 2014).

The dominance of the positivist paradigm in social science and tourism research has long been noted (Dann, Nash and Pearce, 1988; Walle, 1997; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2010; Masadeh, 2012; Azzopardi and Nash, 2014), evidenced through the prevalence of quantitative methodologies, where research is undertaken by means of statistical investigation (Pansiri, 2005; Ballantyne, Packer and Axelsen, 2009). Ballantyne et al. (2009) highlighted the frequent use of quantitative methodologies in tourism research, identifying that, among a sample of research papers published between 1994 and 2004, the majority (59%) of papers reviewed used a quantitative approach in data collection. Furthermore, it was identified that 70% of papers examined had used some form statistical analysis (Ballantyne et al., 2009), revealing the quantification of data in both mixed methods and qualitative studies. These findings are supported by a review of research published between 2000 and 2009 in Tourism Management, Annals of Tourism Research, and Journal of Travel Research (Dunn and Wickham, 2012). In this

116

review Dunn and Wickham (2012) identified 54% of research published during this time was quantitative. The use of quantitative methodologies, within destination image research, is also particularly significant. A review of papers, researching destination image, published between 1973 and 2000 identified that 80% of studies used structured methods to measure image (Pike, 2002).

Despite past dominance of positivism, in guiding tourism research, the value of a

phenomenological approach is gaining recognition (Masadeh, 2012) where a subjective, or interpretive, perspective can add value to tourism research (Creswell et al., 2003; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011; Creswell, 2014). As qualitative inquiry in tourism research tends to be seen as a ‘forbidden zone’ (Jamal and Hollinshead, 2001) it has been argued that an holistic research approach combining both quantitative and qualitative methods may be more appropriate. The complementary nature of qualitative and quantitative methods has been identified, where, through the combination of methods, useful results, which offer new perspectives and deeper understanding of the phenomena, under investigation, can be obtained (Creswell, 2014). As such, the use of a mixed method approach has gained popularity in the social sciences and tourism research where a number of researchers argue the necessity of a mixed methods approach (Davies, 2003; Pansiri, 2006; Creswell and Tashakkori, 2007; Greene, 2007;

Tashakkori and Creswell, 2007; Tashakkori, 2009; Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2010).

Although there have been calls for a greater number of mixed methods studies there are issues in the conflicting perspectives of positivism and phenomenology where commentators, such as Feilzer (2010, p. 7), assert that a mixed research strategy “does not fall comfortably within one or the other worldview”. This notion is also supported by Davies (2003), who recognised that purists consider the differences, in the belief systems of positivist and constructivists, to be too great. Despite this, the need for tourism researchers to work with conflicting philosophical perspectives, to realise the potential of combining quantitative and

117

qualitative methods, has been recognised (Davies, 2003; Pansiri, 2005; Pansiri, 2006; Heimtun, 2012). It has been noted that, as tourism research advances, researchers have begun to engage with competing philosophical perspectives (Heimtun, 2012). It has been observed that some destination image researchers condone the mixing of paradigms, in order to adopt both approaches (Lai and Li, 2012), yet it has long been argued that the mixing of paradigms is unable to improve validity of research (Fielding and Fielding, 1986). There has been much debate as to whether it is possible to combine quantitative and qualitative methods without violating philosophical principles (Morgan, 2007). Consequently, there have been calls for a new paradigm for mixed methods research in order to enhance the credibility of the methods used (Downward and Mearman, 2004).

Advocating the combination of opposing philosophical perspectives (Heimtun, 2012) pragmatism has risen, from this debate, as an alternative paradigm (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998; Pansiri, 2005; Morgan, 2007). Pragmatism is acknowledged to be the most suitable paradigm for justifying a mixed methods approach (Pansiri, 2006), thus, it is widely recognised as the foundation of mixed methods research (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998; Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2003; Heimtun, 2012; Azzopardi and Nash, 2014; Creswell, 2014). Pragmatism is able to provide a philosophical underpinning for mixed methods research and is, consequently, the paradigm employed within this research.

Pragmatism is an American philosophy (Blosch, 2001) founded by Holmes, James, Peirce, Wright and Mead in the early 1870s but is also linked to contemporary theorists including Quine, Rorty and Davidson (Murphy and Rorty, 1990; Laughlin, 1995; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998; Creswell, 2003). The association of pragmatism with mixed methods research has increased awareness of this philosophy (Morgan, 2014). A renewed interest in pragmatist philosophy has been observed among social scientists (Rosiek, 2013) as pragmatism has the capability to draw on a number of different paradigms (Maxcy, 2003) and resolve issues in mixed method research (Morgan, 2014). This provides particular benefit for tourism research

118

which has, in the past, lacked philosophical cohesion due to its interdisciplinary nature (Masadeh, 2012).

In a pragmatic approach knowledge and reality are based on socially constructed beliefs and habits and “there is no problem with asserting both that there is a single “real world” and all that individuals have their own unique interpretations of that world” (Morgan, 2007, p. 72).

From a pragmatist perspective “truth is what works at the time” (Creswell, 2003, p. 12) and knowledge arises from actions, situations and consequences, not antecedent conditions (Creswell, 2014). As a philosophical perspective, pragmatism “rejects the forced choice between positivism and interpretivism with regard to methods, logic and epistemology”

(Pansiri, 2005, p. 198). Pragmatism recognises that both positivism and interpretivism are useful perspectives (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). As such, pragmatists can draw from both positivist and phenomenologist paradigms rather than committing to any one system of philosophy (Creswell, 2003; Creswell, 2014). It has been recognised that pragmatism is able to bridge the gap between objective and subjective philosophical orientations, where, as a philosophy, pragmatism does not recognise the incompatibility of these approaches (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004) placing emphasis instead on what works (Maxcy, 2003).

Pragmatism differentiates itself from the two main streams of philosophy, positivism and phenomenology, by placing emphasis upon, and prioritising, the research question (Maxcy, 2003). Pragmatism permits the strengths of two approaches to be implemented in research strategies, drawing upon the tools best suited to the job at hand (Maxcy, 2003; Masadeh, 2012; Ritchie, Lewis, Nicholls and Ormston, 2014). A pragmatic approach considers the

research question to be of greater importance than the methods adopted or the paradigm that underpins them (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2003) as such “the mandate of science is not to find truth or reality, the existence of which are perpetually in dispute, but to facilitate human problem solving” (Powell, 2001, p. 884). The suitability of pragmatism, as a philosophical underpinning for mixed method research, stems from its prioritisation of the research

119

question over both methods used and the paradigm that supports it (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2010; Masadeh, 2012).

In emphasising the choice of methods depending on the context, pragmatism is particularly applicable to the measurement of image facilitating the application of the most appropriate research design. As difficulties have been identified in the measurement of image it is imperative that the research approach employed is that which is most applicable to meet research aims. This approach is of particular value in image studies, where the difficulty in measuring image using a solely structured (Jenkins, 1999), or unstructured (Stepchenkova and Li, 2014) approach has been observed. As such, it is unsurprising that pragmatism has been adopted as a worldview in previous destination image research. Bregoli (2013) and Sun et al.

(2015), for instance, employed pragmatic perspectives in order to mix both qualitative and quantitative data and solve the problems met in the measurement of image. Within this study there is a clear need to employ a mixed method research design in order to address the research question.

There is a strong justification for a pragmatic underpinning to this study due to the nature of both tourism and image research. In order to test the conceptual framework (outlined in Chapter 3) both qualitative and quantitative data are required. A pragmatic approach places focus on the research question facilitating a flexible methodological approach, and providing an alternative to the traditional dichotomy of quantitative or qualitative methods. General images can be ranked, rated, assessed and quantified through objective and structured methods, yet, to attain a deep understanding as to the unique and individual images held of the destination a subjective approach is requires. As this research has practical implications for the marketing of island destinations, the most pertinent factor in method choice, both in terms of data collection and data analysis, is utilising a combination of methods that provide the best understanding of the research problem, rather than fitting into the parameters of a particular philosophy.

120

The mixing of paradigms is common in mixed method research but, in this instance, has been deemed unsuitable. Mixing of paradigms may occur in mixed methods research when two stages of data collection are taking place independently and the data is analysed separately. In this scenario different paradigms of inquiry will be utilised for each part of the research (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011). However, in this research, a convergent design is adopted where the two elements of data are collected simultaneously and the results are drawn together during the interpretation stage. To draw from multiple paradigms raises questions to the validity of the research. While a singular reality is sought in terms of proving hypotheses during the deductive research, the incompatibility of a positivist perspective is evident as multiple realities are to be built within the inductive research. Likewise, a phenomenological perspective wouldn’t support the measurement of image through a deductive approach.

Another alternative often employed in mixed method research is a post-positivist philosophy yet the requirement of objectivity, within this paradigm, is again incompatible with an interpretative approach. As typology development and verification of hypotheses require objectivity and statistical analysis of variance, yet the exploration of relationships between memory, nostalgia and place image require the social construction of knowledge, it is evident that a pragmatic perspective is the most suitable to underpin this study.

4.1.2 Case study approach

This research adopted a case study approach to research design, using the Isles of Scilly as the case. This research was carried out in the context of one British island destination due to the seasonal variation in their product offer. All archipelagos and independent islands within the British Isles were initially considered as the case study, assessed in relation to their suitability for this research. Islands within archipelagos were, however, assessed collectively due to the

121

inability to separate a shared image. In order to select the case study a list of requirements

inability to separate a shared image. In order to select the case study a list of requirements