Research approach

4.2.1 A combination of qualitative and quantitative methods

Rather than accepting that one research paradigm should dominate the whole research (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004; Johnson et al. 2007), a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches were adopted for this research by selecting specific methods and approaches with respect to the underlying research questions. Although, mixed methods could be used with any paradigm (Creswell 2003), this study employs a pragmatic paradigm. This paradigm is associated with the combination of methods in a single study that involve collection data in a sequential (or simultaneous) manner using methods that are drawn from both qualitative and quantitative approaches in a manner that best addresses the research question/s (Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998; Creswell 2003).

The concept of using both qualitative and quantitative methods has been increasingly recognised as a growing trend in conducting research (Johnson et al. 2007). An increasing number of tourism impact studies, i.e., Davis et al. 1988; Foster 2001; Abdool 2002; Rao and Lbanez 2003; Farmer and Knapp 2008; Rattan 2008; Aref and Gill 2009, employ a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods (also referred to as mixed methods, integrated or blended) because the integration of quantitative and qualitative research methods provides depth and clarity to the research (Walle 1997; Bryman 2001; Mason 2002; Tashakkori and Teddlie 2003 and Weinreich 2006). Creswell (2009, p.203) states that „because research methodology continues to evolve and develop, and mixed methods is another step forward, utilising the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative research.‟ However, debate exists over whether quantitative research and qualitative research methods can be complementary. According to Sarantakos, (2005, p. 145) the term “triangulation” refers to the “use of multiple means for collecting data,” either qualitative or quantitative methods (within-method), or a combination (between-methods) in the same study (Denzin 1989; Sarantakos 2005; Sorenson 2006).

110

4.2.2 Benefits and criticism of a combination of qualitative and quantitative approach Several scholars have highlighted the benefits of using more than one approach to collecting data as it can overcome the limitation of one particular approach and gain a wider picture of the topic being studied (Denzin 1989; Tashakkori and Teddlie 2003 and Sorenson 2006).

Sarantakos (2005) explains that the combination approaches allows the researcher to consider the subject of a study from more than one perspective allowing an enrichment of knowledge and/or to test validity. Johnson et al. (2007) and Creswell (2009) highlight the benefits of numerical data which can be used to add precision to words which together produce more complete knowledge to inform theory and practice. Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003, p. 14-15) also believe that using a combination of methods, rather than a single method, can answer research questions that the other methods cannot. It can also provide the opportunity for presenting a greater diversity of different views (Tashakkori and Teddlie 2003).

Whereas, other researchers (Kuhn 1970; Witkin 1994; Bryman 2003; Haynes 2004; Weinreich 2006 and Wallace 2007) believe that the theory of knowledge and how it relates to truth, belief, and justification highlighted in each of the approaches is so different that they cannot be reconciled within a research project. As a result, one may end up not doing either type of research well. Witkin (1994) and Wallace (2007) support the idea that different methods bring in results that cannot be compared. Bryman (2001) suggests that the main character of qualitative studies tends to get the correct meaning; however, if the questions in quantitative approaches are based on prior qualitative questions it then can also lead to correct meaning.

Though both techniques are valid, applying the right tool to the right job is valid because different approaches raise different issues.

Bryman (2001) discusses the common argument regarding mixed methods, namely, that qualitative and quantitative methods should not be used together as they represent conflicting paradigms. However, he argues that qualitative and quantitative research methods are research approaches and not paradigms although they have overlapping areas. Three question types relate to paradigms, i.e., ontological, epistemological and methodological questions. However, in this case the tool that has been considered to answer the ontological questions uses the qualitative research approach to facilitate a quantitative approach as the qualitative approach provides in-depth knowledge of social contexts to help design the questionnaire (Bryman 2001). Therefore, this study employed a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to gain deeper and more valid insights into the perceptions of local hill tribe people toward the socio-cultural impacts they perceive occurring upon themselves and the changes in their community resulting from the interaction between themselves and ETAs. In this case, the concept of triangulation

111

(between methods) was used to gather information on this topic with the intention to improve validity and provide better (stronger) inferences (Tashakkori and Teddlie 2003).

4.2.3 Reason for choosing a sequential exploratory approach

Creswell (2003) asserted a sequential exploratory approach (qual + QUAN) as the inquirer first explores generally to learn about what variables to study then studies those variables with a large sample of individuals, who can answer the research questions that the researcher is investigating. Therefore, this research has adopted a sequential exploratory approach (qual + QUAN). In this case, the primary enquiries began by using qualitative methods, that is focus groups and in-depth interviews to gain insights that may not have arisen from a review of the existing literature. These insights were then combined with those arising from the literature to determine perceptions by means of a large scale quantitative survey. Therefore, the results can be cautiously regarded as representative of the population and may be cautiously generalisable as they do not simply reflect the views of a small number of participants.

The sequential explanatory approach (QUAN + qual) on the other hand, can be more straightforward and can be useful when unexpected results arise from a quantitative study (Mores 1991). However, this strategy does not fit well with the selected research participants due to their limited ability to analyse and reflect on their lifestyles from the questionnaire, which is more likely to unnerve them due to the formality of the process. Secondly, giving them a set of questions at first may have made them feel nervous and uncomfortable to talk to the researcher for the first time. As a result, they would generally give the most obvious and expected answers according to the choices given in the questionnaire without being critical or thinking outside the box. Therefore, utilising the sequential exploratory design (qual + QUAN) allowed the investigatory process to move forward resulting in unpredicted and surprising outcomes that developed through interaction and discussion in a group of people, sharing similarities and feeling familiar enough to contribute their ideas.

According to Denzin (1989) and Creswell (2003) it is important not only to use the existing literature because they do not come from the same resources, which may lead to a misinterpretation of the result. Therefore qualitative methods with a particular group were applied initially in order to gain more precise detail of the certain group. Therefore, focus groups and interviews can be helpful for two main reasons. First, they help improve the questionnaire design, e.g., some of the information reported during focus groups and in-depth interviews was not found from existing literature and was used to form questionnaire items to more accurately fit this selected sample group. Second, they help limit the risk of restricting the depth of the interpretation of the questionnaire data, because they enhance better understanding

112

of how respondents understand and answer questions. Separating the data collection process into two stages using three research methods (focus groups and interviews for the initial stage and questionnaires in the second stage) led in the first stage to an appreciation of Karen and Hmong perceptions towards the issues arising from the activities of the ETAs and led to an appreciation of their level of knowledge and involvement. These outputs made it easier to subsequently understand the respondents‟ perspectives, allowing more appropriate questions to be formulated.

4.3 Research methods of data collection