Much of the literature on research design and methods presents a discussion on paradigms (Gray, 2004; Jennings, 2010; Neuman, 2011; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). When undertaking research, it is important to understand the epistemology and the theoretical perspectives, as these influence the researcher and the research methodology chosen. This is emphasised by Guba and Lincoln (1994) who iterate that the world views and belief systems are more important than choice of method. Moreover, Pansiri (2009) argues that the appropriate choice of methodology can only be made through a basic understanding of the different paradigms. As a result, this section is designed to provide a brief overview of the different types of paradigms and a rationale for why pragmatism is adopted as the most appropriate paradigm for this study. This is followed
85 by a discussion of mixed methods and a detailed explanation as to why this is deemed suitable for research on climate change and tourism and to this thesis’ research objectives of: (1) establishing the key elements of a V/R framework for tourism; (2) testing these elements in the context of Luganville’s dive tourism system; and (3) proposing a new climate change V/R framework for tourism.
3.2.1 Influence of epistemologies and paradigms
Epistemology is the “theory of knowledge” (Mautner, 2000, p. 174) and deals with how knowledge is produced, the nature of human knowledge, its scope and limitations (Mautner, 2000; Neuman, 2011). In other words, epistemology is the philosophical view that helps the researcher decide what types of knowledge are legitimate and what data is adequate (Gray, 2004). The epistemological basis, therefore, represents the relationship between what is being researched (e.g. participants, subjects or objects) and the researcher (Jennings, 2010). Epistemology can be seen as a continuum with objectivism at one end and constructivism at the other (Gray, 2004; Jennings, 2010).
These two opposite forms of epistemology (i.e. objectivism and constructivism) represent two distinct ontological (i.e. nature of reality) positions or approaches; objectivism is deductive and constructivism is inductive (Gray, 2004; Jennings, 2010). For example, in the objectivist epistemology, it is believed that an ‘objective reality’ is to be found ‘out there’ (Gray, 2004). In constructivism, meaning is a construction by the subject’s interaction with the world, whereas the signs and language to be discovered are true representations of the external world in a representationalist epistemology (Gray, 2004).
Paradigms, as the world views or belief systems, can be seen as the lens through which the researcher views the inquiry (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). “Paradigms, thus, define different views of the social world based upon different meta-theoretical assumptions with regard to the nature of science and society” (Pansiri, 2009, p. 84). It forms a theoretical framework for research (Neuman, 2011), which provides a set of assumptions, laws, and techniques that shape the basis of inquiry (Mautner, 2000). The different philosophical paradigms can also be seen in a continuum ranging from positivism at one end of the spectrum to interpretivism at the other (Gray, 2004). A number of other paradigms are situated within this range. These include, amongst others, critical realism, pragmatism, chaos and complexity theory, critical theory,
86
feminist perspectives, post-modernism and participatory paradigms (Jennings, 2010). The paradigm chosen affects the choice of method.
Methodology can be viewed as a set of guidelines used when conducting research (Jennings, 2010) with the two distinct methods of quantitative and qualitative (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Positivism is commonly aligned with a quantitative methodology, and is seen as the traditional and most dominant approach applied in social research (Esterberg, 2002; Neuman, 2011), whereas interpretivism is generally linked with qualitative methods (Jennings, 2010). This distraction resulted in what has been termed the paradigm wars, where researchers of each paradigm would discredit research of the other paradigm. As a result of this debate, the paradigm of pragmatism was developed as a middle-ground, acknowledging the compatibility of both qualitative and quantitative research (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Although both positivism and interpretivism have been dominating and influential approaches in social science research (Gray, 2004; Pansiri, 2005, 2009), “pragmatism has been hailed as the foundation of mixed methods, and, depending on the nature of the research, it can be adopted to yield better outcomes” (Pansiri, 2005, p. 191).
Pragmatism, unlike other theoretical perspectives, does not force particular types of methods to be applied in the inquiry (Pansiri, 2005). A significant aspect of pragmatism is the researcher’s limited concern for the influence of values, although it is acknowledged that these play a significant role in the research from beginning to end (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). I align myself with the theoretical stance of pragmatism, as for any pragmatist the beliefs and ways are socially constructed through different processes (Pansiri, 2005). Nevertheless, the key to pragmatism is not to find the ultimate truth, but to take a holistic approach in order to develop an understanding of the research problem and facilitate problem-solving (Powell, 2001; Panisiri, 2005). As Powell (2001) states, “To a pragmatist, a true proposition is one that facilitates fruitful paths of human discovery” (p. 884). In other words, the research question is more important than the method applied or the underlying world view (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998).
3.2.2 Mixed method research approach
Pragmatism is the most common paradigm for mixed-method research that contains elements of mixed methodology or methodological mixes (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998;
87 Pansiri, 2006). There are numerous designs of mixed method research (Pansiri, 2006), ranging from equivalent status designs, dominant-less dominant designsxvi and multi- level use of approaches (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). This study adopted the multi- level use of approach, because of its capacity to collect “...data from more than one level of organizations or groups...to reach more comprehensive interferences regarding behaviours and/or events” (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998, p. 48). Furthermore, mixed method research is gaining momentum in tourism research, as well as social science in general (Pansiri, 2005, 2006).
The use of mixed methods can enable important questions to be answered during different stages of a study (Pansiri, 2005). As stressed by Phillimore and Goodson (2004), using a single method can result in selective perception, whereas the “the use of multiple methods paves the way for more credible and dependable information” (p. 162). Multi-method research is highly valuable as it allows for different aspects of a research problem to be illuminated (Henninck, 2007). Furthermore, the use of multiple methods may also ensure that multi-faceted meanings [people may view the same phenomena in different ways] can be summarised, thereby, allowing the reader to develop his/her view on the phenomena (Stake, 2005). Consequently, the mixed methods approach was deemed to be the most appropriate for this study, as it allowed for the triangulation of methods, thereby, eliminating the limitations of each individual method (Phillimore & Goodson, 2004). For example, relying on multiple sources of evidence will make the analysis much sounder than if the research relies on one source of evidence (Eisenhardt, 1989; Esterberg, 2002). Therefore, a number of methods were applied to the case study to ensure enough information was gained about Luganville’s dive tourism system (the case) in Vanuatu (Stake, 2005).
A variety of methods have been used in vulnerability studies reported in the literature ranging from quantitative to qualitative research approaches (Calgaro, 2010; Daly et al., 2010; Fraser, 2003; Mataki et al., 2006; Moreno & Becken, 2010; Payet, 2008; Petrosillo et al., 2006; Polsky et al., 2007; Renaud et al., 2010; Richardson & Witkowski, 2010; Romieu et al., 2010; Sales Jr., 2009). Table 3-1 outlines the different types of methods applied to previous vulnerability studies undertaken in the areas of tourism, environmental science and coastal area management. Each of the methods
xviThis refers to a mixed-method study design where two research designs and paradigms are applied, but
88
applied in these individual studies would have had strengths and weaknesses attached to them. This study applied an array of methods to diminish the weaknesses of any particular method, while at the same time building on the strengths of each and every other method (Gray, 2004).
TABLE 3-1: OVERVIEW OF METHODS APPLIED IN VULNERABILITY AND ADAPTATION STUDIES
Field of knowledge
Topic Methods Reference
Tourism Conceptual framework for assessment of economic vulnerability of tourism Surveys Interviews Industry data Stakeholder workshops Participatory deliberation Richardson and Witkowski, 2010 Destination Sustainability Framework (DSF) Secondary data Semi-structured interviews Focus groups Case histories Calgaro, 2010
Five-step tourism vulnerability assessment methodology Secondary data Workshop/collaboration with stakeholders Surveys Moreno and Becken, 2010
Statistical model of climate effects on visits to the Seychelles
Surveys Payet, 2008
Environmental science
Socio-Ecological System (SES) adapted from Gallopín
Secondary data Renaud et al., 2010 Vulnerability Scoping
Diagram (VSD)
Secondary data - archival analysis
Interviews with stakeholders and experts Polsky et al., 2007 Holling’s Conceptual Sustainability model Fragility model
Secondary data Petrosillo et al., 2006
Entitlement framework Panarchy
Secondary data Fraser, 2003 SIS09 pilot study – based on
socio-ecological systems approach Surveys Secondary data Mataki et al., 2006 Coastal area management
Comparative literature review (of climate change science and natural hazard science)
Secondary data Romieu et al., 2010
CIM Plans Village meeting
Group discussions Site visits
Daly et al., 2010
UNDP Adaptation Policy Framework
Focus group discussions Key informant/semi-
structured interviews Consultant workshops Family case studies Secondary data gathering
Sales Jr., 2009
89