Research design and epistemological stance

Source: based on Creswell 2014, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches,

4edn, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.

Legend: quan: lower emphasis quantitative method; QUAL: dominant qualitative method

Figure 3.2 Sequential exploratory mixed methods design

This study used multi-staged mixed methods approach (Figure 3.2) to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness of a tourism-based leadership development program. The mixed methods design is underpinned by Dewey’s philosophical view drawn out of the epistemological pragmatic perspective, in which the connection between the context and participants’ experiences are the focus. In doing so, the researcher considered the extent to which the MTLP program contributed to the development of leadership at an individual level, and whether and how the program impacted the participants’ workplace, tourism destination and the community within which they exist. The MTLP program is embedded in Melbourne and Victoria’s destination context, and the program’s design is relational and representative of a tourism destination’s leadership development.

Due to the fact that effectiveness and the impact of MTLP have never been studied since its inception nearly ten years ago, a comprehensive study was needed to explain whether the program is effective, and to document how the program contributes to the development of leadership within the tourism destination and its visitor economy. The researcher therefore conducted mixed methods research to produce statistical evidence and narrative, to explain

the program’s perceived phenomenal success. Thus, in this study, neither quantitative nor qualitative methods were sufficient by themselves to explain and document all program evaluations parts, such as the program’s leadership context, content, leadership training approach and the program’s outcomes effectively. Through the mixed methods approach, both quantitative and qualitative methods had complemented each other and produced more comprehensive understanding of the studied problem (Creswell 2014). Feilzer (2010) highlight that Dewey’s pragmatism “does not require a particular method or methods mix” (p.13) as methods should be selected based on the research problem and the research questions. Thus, the research questions drove the logical flow of methods in this study. Dewey’s pragmatic approach is underpinned by thinking and finding the middle ground, by dissolving the dualism of quantitative and qualitative worldviews. This so called ‘third worldview’ therefore produces knowledge that best represents the reality, while freeing the researcher from a mental and practical constraints inflicted by positivism/ post-positivism or constructivism (Creswell 2014). Hanson (2008) reiterates that this third notion is not different at an epistemological or ontological level when compared with pure quantitative or qualitative studies, as they share many attributes of the research inquiry. The overall premise of mixed methods is that it provides a better understanding of the research problem than either approach alone.

Based on this notion and in the view of Dewey’s pragmatism, this study, as depicted in Figure 3.2, first employed a qualitative exploratory collection and analysis of secondary data, which was sequentially followed by a quantitative survey phase, and then qualitative research phase. In this study, data derived from Phase I informed the development of Phase II, and then Phase II informed the development of Phase III. At the end, all findings (Phase I-II-III) were compared and integrated to judge whether the leadership development program is effective. Hence, the following mixing occurred during interpretation: (1) a mix of perspectives from the past program participants on their MTLP experiences and application of learning in their work, tourism destination and community context; (2) a mix of methods and questions looking to know to what extent participants grew in their leadership capacity (quantitative) and how they were able to take the learning into their own contexts (qualitative); (3) a mix of participants’ perspectives between groups (MTLP participants and MTLP stakeholders); and (4) final integration of findings (convergence, divergence and uniqueness).

3.2.1 The inquiry process and approach

Dewey’s pragmatic inquiry consists of five process stages, which offered a useful guidance in establishing the study’s problem, identification of suitable research questions and research methods to come to the conclusion of whether the tourism-based leadership development program is effective. The five pragmatic process stages are: (1) awareness of something amiss, which ignites the subsequent research inquiry; (2) formulation of a problem; (3) formation of research questions; (4) review of conceptual meaning to address the research questions more effectively; and (5) implementation, testing and evaluation of research findings to come to a conclusion (Johnson et al. 2017). Henceforth, this process resulted in the research inquiry briefly outlined below.

The information gathered through literature review, and findings generated from Phase I analysis helped to formulate the research problem. It was found that tourism-based leadership development programs exist, despite the lack of understanding what constitutes effective tourism leadership. The lack of program evaluation evidence in the tourism field was also found to be a major concern as current developmental practices may not actually fit the leadership needed within the tourism industry. This gap enabled the researcher to formulate the study’s research questions which were designed to answer what leadership is needed in the current tourism field and to what extent such leadership is being developed and fostered through a tourism-based initiative in Melbourne and Victoria. Hence, this study resulted in the application of explorative sequential mixed methods design, consisting of three phases. In the first phase, secondary evidence derived from end-of-year program surveys was collected and analysed. The goal of this method was to understand how the past program participants perceived the leadership program and how in their views the program contributed to their leadership development and whether any impact was produced at workplace, tourism destination and community contexts. In addition, the researcher attempted to explore the extent to which the existing end-of-year program surveys are able to produce evidence to conclude whether the program is effective.

The findings of Phase I subsequently called for a second phase, which required a development of quantitative questionnaire to assess what leadership skills, knowledge and behaviours were developed through the program, to what extent these leadership elements

were developed, and what were the resulting program outcomes. Overall, the questionnaire assessed the effectiveness of the program design, including the program fit with the tourism leadership context, content, training approach including the extent of learning and transfer of learning, and the program impacts at four levels including individual, workplace, tourism destination and the community.

Based on the findings generated in Phase II, there was a need to understand at deeper level how the leadership program contributed to learning and transfer of training to the individual, workplace, tourism destination and community contexts, and to further explore the meaning of effective leadership in the tourism context. Thus, the consequent third phase resulted in the use of qualitative method, which aimed to explore the views of not only the program participants who are the current leaders in the visitor economy, but also the views of the key program stakeholders who are currently in senior leadership roles within Victoria’s visitor economy. The findings from the three phases produced useful evidence that contributed to the reflective discussion at the end, and allowed the researcher to conclude if the MTLP program is effective.

In this study, the qualitative phase represented the dominant research method as the researcher aimed to explore (1) the meaning of effective leadership within the tourism context as perceived by current industry leaders, and (2) to find out how the program design contributed to one’s learning and how this learning was transferred to participants’ contexts, including the tourism destination and community contexts. However, it is important to note that without the quantitative method it would be hard to establish what the participants have learned and to what extent the program contributed to their leadership capacity. The quantitative and qualitative methods generated findings used to produce a comprehensive picture of the program’s effectiveness, and helped to explain how the program fits within the wider tourism destination context and specifically the development of leadership within the industry in Melbourne and Victoria.