Methodological approach

This section describes the two main methodological approaches that were employed in this study. These are the qualitative approach and the case study approach.

6.3.1 The qualitative approach

Qualitative research has been used in the social sciences since the early 1900s (Denzin & Lincoln 1994), however, its popularity has increased rapidly in the last 25 years (Winchester 2005). There are three main types of qualitative research: the oral (primarily interview-based), the textual (creative, documentary and landscape) and the observational (Hay 2000).

Qualitative research is concerned with the opinions, experiences and feelings of individuals, and with understanding social phenomena within their natural context. Underlying the methods is a belief that individual experiences cannot necessarily be generalised through statistical analysis. Hence, qualitative methods tend to emphasise multiple meanings and interpretations rather than seeking a ‘correct’ explanation for an event or situation (ibid.). Qualitative research focuses on depth rather than breadth of information, and takes an inductive approach to the development of theory. Emerging data, rather than pre-existing theories, are used to develop patterns that help to explain social situations (Simmons & Berno 1995).

Qualitative methods differ from quantitative in their theoretical bases, processes and outcomes (Simmons & Berno1995). Unlike quantitative research methods, qualitative sampling techniques seek information from specific groups and sub-groups in the population and, as such, produce subjective data. The nature of qualitative methods also means that they

tend to be intensive and time-consuming, and necessitate the use of small samples. As a result, qualitative data, have less generalisability than quantitative data, but have a greater capacity for understanding the complexities of social phenomena. In 1995, Moore noted that:

The systematic use of qualitative methods is rare … and yet their potential for producing theoretical insights is significant. Analyses of the rich meanings

recreationists bring to their activities and places is a notable omission from current understandings of outdoor recreation behaviour. Yet, ultimately it is only through such analyses that outdoor recreation can be fully understood. (p. 85)

Although the use of qualitative research methods has become more popular amongst outdoor recreation researchers since 1995, there is still a feeling amongst some managers and

academics that qualitative research is not ‘real research’, and that only facts and figures generated through quantitative experiments or survey-based research are credible enough to be used in policy and planning.

The aim of the current study was to investigate the complexities of the New Zealand

wilderness experience; to understand what people value about wilderness, and to explore how these values might be affected by a variety of factors occurring both within and outside wilderness. Wilderness is a subjective concept, and individual interpretations of wilderness (and potential influences on it) are invariably complex and multi-faceted. The complexities that are embodied in a qualitative approach reflect the idea that wilderness in itself is

multifarious. It is for these reasons that qualitative methods were deemed appropriate for this study.

The approach chosen was inductive rather than deductive, because I did not want my research findings to be constrained from the outset by a particular theory or idea. Instead, theory was developed as the data were analysed, allowing the data and study respondents to ‘show me the way’. Glaser & Strauss (1967) note that this can be a very successful way of understanding social situations, but that theory developed in this way must be grounded in empirical data. This idea of researcher subjectivity and reflexivity will be discussed in section 6.5.

There were also practical and logistical reasons for choosing a qualitative approach (rather than a quantitative survey approach) for this study. First, Fiordland National Park (the chosen study site) covers a vast area, with multiple entry and exit points, meaning that it would have been very difficult to survey participants during their trip. Because of this (and the small numbers of wilderness users) response rates were likely to be very low, which would have necessitated an extremely lengthy survey period in order to generate reliable quantitative data.

And second, based on existing knowledge of this visitor group, it was felt that the presence of a surveyor may have been very intrusive to participants.

6.3.2 The case-study approach

A case study is a detailed analysis of a particular situation, person or group (Colorado State Education Guides 2006). The aim is to understand as much as possible about a particular situation. Case studies are the preferred method when the researcher wants to know ‘how’ and ‘why’ a situation is as it is, and where there is a contemporary focus on a real life context (ibid.). By focusing on a particular person, group or institution, the case study approach allows a subject to be examined in greater depth and insight than with other methods (Machlis & Field 1984). This type of research takes place in a natural setting, and aims to provide a more holistic interpretation of the phenomena in question.

The case study approach was chosen for this research primarily because it was not feasible to undertake such a study on a larger scale. By focusing on one particular national park, it was felt that it would be possible to obtain a broad overview of the meanings and values of New Zealand wilderness, whilst also gathering important place-specific information about

Fiordland National Park. Yin (2003) noted that case studies are useful when there is a need to understand complex social phenomena within a real life context, and Kappelle (2001) stated that the case study approach is appropriate when the phenomenon is worth studying in its own context, rather than how it relates to other phenomena. Both of these criteria are met by the current study. Wilderness experiences are inherently complex social phenomena, and occur within a real life context. Moreover, people’s experiences in (and views about) wilderness are unique to each protected natural area, and the focus of this study is on describing and

understanding these experiences in the context of Fiordland.

As will be discussed in Chapter Ten, respondents frequently mentioned aspects of their experiences which may have been specific to Fiordland. This does not, however, mean that the study has no wider significance. Rather it emphasises the importance of the characteristics of the place in determining the types of wilderness experiences that people have. Further, many of these discussions highlighted the strong links between respondents’ views of

wilderness and New Zealand’s unique cultural and political history. This assured me that the findings are likely to be applicable to most wild areas in the country, and that the broader ideas and concepts presented in Chapters Ten and Eleven will be relevant for other countries with similar cultural backgrounds. Although various other national parks could have been

selected as case studies for this project, there were a number of reasons why Fiordland National Park was chosen. These are outlined next.

6.3.3 Reasons for site selection

1. Department of Conservation research needs

As noted in Chapter One, this study initially began as applied research for the New Zealand Department of Conservation’s Southland Conservancy. The primary factor influencing the choice of study site was therefore the Department’s research needs. Managers lacked information about users of remote and wilderness areas, and required this to inform the Fiordland National Park Plan. I was working for the Department of Conservation at the time, and was asked to design and undertake a research project with the objective of understanding the Fiordland wilderness experience, including visitor characteristics, motivations,

expectations and satisfactions, and any factors that may have an impact on this experience. The overall aim of the project was to gather information that would help with recreation and visitor management in Fiordland. When I left the Department of Conservation several months later to return to university, I came to an agreement with Lincoln University and the

Department that I would continue with the research project and incorporate it into my thesis. The time, resources and specific management requirements therefore were major

considerations when deciding on the method for the first set of primary data collection79, and the study site.

2. Wilderness character of the Park

Another major reason for choosing Fiordland for this study was because of its wilderness character. The primary study objective was to explore the New Zealand wilderness

experience, and Fiordland National Park is renowned for its wilderness character. Fiordland is internationally recognised as one of the world’s great wilderness areas (DOC 2006a), and a large proportion of the Park is managed to provide traditional remote and wilderness recreation opportunities. For this reason, it was a very appropriate area in which to conduct such a study.

3. Variety of activity types

Fiordland was also regarded as a suitable study site because of the diversity of recreational opportunities that it provides. Rather than simply focusing on one particular type of

recreational activity (such as tramping) as many of the previous New Zealand outdoor

79

The method used to collect the second set of primary data was chosen and undertaken after the research had become a doctoral project.

recreation studies have done, I anticipated that this study would incorporate a range of types of recreationists. Given its immense size, coastal location, and varied topography, Fiordland caters for an extremely wide range of activity types, including tramping, climbing, kayaking, fishing and hunting. I felt that it was important to include a range of activity types in order to obtain a thorough understanding of the wilderness experience.