Participant Observation

During the entirety of the fieldwork for this study, the researcher utilised the method of participant observation. Participant observation was useful in comparing the literature, interviews and questionnaires with the reality of the situation on site (Brewer & Hunter,

91

1989:45). Indeed, this method is typically used to explore and interact with the activities and behaviours of research participants. In turn, this often leads to a rapport being developed between the researcher and those being observed (Angrosino, 2008: 162; Fontana & Frey, 2008: 132; Pereiro, 2010: 178). This permits the researcher to gain a deeper insight behind the thoughts and values of research participants, leading to more in-depth and rich data (Punch, 2005: 183). Ensuring the reliability of this in-depth and rich data rests in the legitimacy of the data collection styles used in participant observation (Pereiro, 2010: 178). Participant observation requires the taking of field notes, which detail the research site along with the actions of individuals. Field notes can provide further validity to a study through a comparison with other data to identify any similarities and differences (Creswell, 2003: 185). Participant observation descriptions provide a ‘window view’ for the reader and in accordance must be “factual, accurate and thorough” (Patton, 1987: 12).

Participant observation was used during both quantitative and qualitative fieldwork. Participant observation is a vital aspect of qualitative research and compliments other qualitative techniques, particularly interviews as the two are “mutually reinforcing” (Patton, 1987: 13; Pereiro, 2010:177; Brewer & Hunter, 1989: 78). This is because of their ability to gain an internal view of the situation and assess if the data is also being expressed through the interviewee’s behaviour (Brewer & Hunter, 1989: 78; Fontana & Frey, 2008: 132). Participant observation provides the researcher with more understanding on the local experience and culture and how these affect motivations (Pererio, 2010:177-178). The self-administered collection of quantitative data (questionnaires) also involved participant observation as it required the research to be on-site amongst the participants. As with qualitative methods, this served to enhance and add validity to the surveys.

4.2.4 Questionnaires

Quantitative research is founded on the practice of collecting data for statistical analysis (Melkert & Vos, 2010: 34). A major quantitative strategy is found in surveys, and in particular questionnaires (Punch, 2005: 99). Although surveys can be considered for both quantitative and qualitative data, it refers to the former in this study (Jennings, 2001: 262). Surveys are instrumental in understanding the role of tourism in a destination due to their ability to produce a profile and behavioural information on respondents (Richards, 2010: 13). Surveys can also be considered as “descriptive

92

research” through their ability to portray the phenomenon under study (Jennings, 2001: 18). A key survey tool, the questionnaire, was used to sample a small portion of the targeted population. Creswell (2003: 153) asserts that by studying this sample, numeric descriptions can then be made on the “trends, attitudes or opinions” of the total population (see also Punch, 2005: 99). Indeed, producing a profile that described the activities and opinions of the larger population was the main reason for selecting a survey strategy. Furthermore, questionnaires have a rapid turnaround in data collection and analysis, which was useful in the sequential strategy (Section 4.3) of this study (Creswell, 2003: 154). The following paragraphs detail the specific reason behind selecting a survey approach and the process of developing the questionnaire.

The aim of using a questionnaire (Appendix A) was to construct a profile on the tourism framework in the Rupununi. This profile would be created from stakeholder perceptions and literature and identify various aspects of the framework including: stakeholder priorities and power dynamics; tourism infrastructure; the importance of sustainability in local tourism development; educational resources; associated impacts; and, benefits and the use of any natural and/or cultural conservation efforts. To collate this information, a structured, original questionnaire was developed to survey individuals from each of the six stakeholder groups.

The first step in designing a quantitative strategy requires identification of the “proposed variables” (Creswell, 2003: 95; Jennings, 2001: 244). Thus, relevant academic literature on sustainable tourism and ecomuseology was examined and used in the development of questions. In particular, questions were designed around the 21 identified principles of ecomuseology (Sub-section 3.4.1) and their placement within the three pillars of sustainability. This combination of material was included to ascertain potential answers to the research question. For example, Question 15 on the questionnaire asks, “Do the cultural and heritage attractions in the Rupununi show a relationship between nature and culture?”. This is in direct correlation with ecomuseology Principle 19, which states, “Attempts to illustrate connections between: technology/individual, nature/culture, and past/present”. Richards (2010: 17) contends that once you have identified the relevant topics, they have to be converted into an accessible format for respondents while also providing the answers the researcher is seeking. Thus, intricate consideration was given to the design of the questionnaire to ensure all respondents could fully comprehend the questions. Additional factors were considered such as the clarity, length and logical flow of questions (Richards, 2010: 19).

93

The questionnaire was divided into five main sections with a total of 18 questions. These included an initial section identifying basic demographic information about the respondent (e.g. stakeholder role, age, gender, education) followed by four thematic sections on sustainable tourism: general knowledge; environmental; socio-cultural; and, economical. The majority of questions were in a closed format but provided space for open answers; a common arrangement in most questionnaires (Oppenheim, 1992: 112). Question formats included a mixture of ‘yes or no’ inquiries, standard ranking scales and Likert scales. The Likert scale measures respondent attitudes through a five point scale that ranges from strongly disagree through undecided to strongly agree (Jennings, 2001: 250). Each questionnaire had a unique tracking number to account for distribution quantities, location and date.

The survey was cross-sectional and carried out in December, 2011. However, and as mentioned previously, prior to this (November, 2011) the questionnaire was tested in the pilot survey to ensure the content material was understandable and improve the layout and individual questions (Creswell, 2003: 158). The researcher distributed the questionnaires through a self-administered approach, also allowing for the use of participant observation. As mention in Chapter One, the Rupununi has a poor infrastructure which usually meant that travelling to different villages to speak with stakeholders entailed long walks, opportunistic lifts from passing vehicles and some interesting motorbike rides through the savannah. The self-administered approach was found to be more efficient than email distribution, particularly in the remote indigenous communities which lack the necessary resources. Respondents were given the questionnaire and then left alone to complete it. This was done to minimise respondent bias from the researcher’s presence. However, it should be noted that some participants needed clarification on certain questions. In these instances, the researcher assisted with completing the survey but was diligent in assuring that participants had a clear understanding of the question and felt comfortable in giving an accurate and honest response. Oppenheim (1992: 103) advocates this style of self-administered approach and argues:

“This method of data collection ensures a high response rate, accurate sampling and a minimum of interviewer bias, while permitting interviewer assessments, providing necessary explanations (but not the interpretation of questions) and giving the benefit of a degree of personal contact.”

94

The survey was used to describe a specific population, sometimes referred to as a “descriptive survey” (Finn et al., 2000: 88; Jennings, 2001: 18). The purpose of these commonly used surveys is to describe a sample population through simple percentages (Punch, 2005: 75). This is in contrast to a correlation survey which tests relationships between variables (ibid). Although this study does make comparisons between stakeholder group perceptions, these were not analysed through experimental (t-test, analysis of variance) statistical tests (Punch, 2005: 66). Correlation tests were not used because the descriptive format was sufficient for constructing a profile on the tourism framework (Jennings, 2001: 18). In other words, a correlation survey would have been better to principally examine the differences between stakeholder perceptions and not to create a profile on the study area based on these perceptions (Byrd et al., 2009: 695- 696). Individual descriptive surveys were collated for each stakeholder group and then analysed to elaborate further on the profile of the tourism framework.

It should be noted that the questionnaire format and content was the same for all six stakeholder groups. This presented a key challenge for accurately capturing the perceptions of tourists as they were less aware of certain aspects of the tourism framework in the Rupununi. For example, while they could personally value the importance of sustainability (e.g. Question 8) and describe certain tourism features (e.g. Question 15), they tended to have less knowledge on key issues such as benefits and impacts on host communities. However, while this was a limitation to the study, this fact in itself became useful in identifying the amount of available educational information.