Selecting the Study Community

An important decision in this research project was deciding whether to study a single or multiple communities during the investigation. In the volunteer tourism literature, there is evidence of empirical investigations relying on single communities (Barbieri

et al., 2011; Tomazos and Butler, 2012) and those incorporating multiple communities (Coren and Gray, 2012). Both approaches have particular advantages and disadvantages depending on the nature of the study. The limited time available for doctoral fieldwork, and a desire for an in-depth study, resulted in my initial decision to study one community. Inspecting Yanapuma’s website revealed a number of volunteer projects based on the notion of community development. Following a more thorough examination, I selected the Kichwa community of Chilcapamba to be the subject of inquiry. The description of the Chilcapamba project taken from the Yanapuma website can be seen in Figure 3 below:

Figure 3. Yanapuma description of volunteer project in Kichwa community

Figure 3 indicates that this project locates volunteer tourism in the community rather than with a specific organisation. I was interested in how this organisational setup functioned, and how different community members interpreted volunteer tourism in their locale. In addition, I suspected that the array of tasks available to the volunteer tourists under the banner of ‘Andean Community Development’ would provide a rich environment for gathering empirical evidence. Finally, the description of volunteer tourists as staying with local host families, rather than a volunteer house, suggested that the volunteers are immersed in community life. I surmised that this organisational setup would provide an opportunity for close interaction between volunteer tourists and hosts, and subsequently a potential source of rich empirical

65 data. I contacted Yanapuma via email to discuss the nature of the research project, and the organisation agreed that the Chilcapamba project would provide an interesting and viable community to study. I then travelled to Ecuador on the 12th of May 2015, meeting the director of Yanapuma two days later on the 14th of May. On the 15th _{of May, I travelled via bus to the Chilcapamba community, where I stayed}

for the proceeding two months.

On the 5th _{July 2015, I decided to alter the research plan by incorporating an}

additional study community. This is because recurring patterns were emerging from the empirical investigation, resulting in my belief that no new information was forthcoming, or that a ‘saturation point’ had been reached (Guest et al., 2006). Reaching saturation point at this stage of fieldwork was unexpected but reflected two factors. Firstly, although described as a ‘community project’, there was a clear divide between the small number of community members who were involved and had contact with volunteer tourists, and the large majority with much more limited, or no, contact. As a result, respondents in these two groups provided similar responses to volunteer tourism in their community, providing little space for new avenues of exploration. Secondly, I quickly identified as significant the project leaders’ strong influence and power over volunteer tourism in the community. I was interested in exploring whether this was an anomaly confined to this community, or a trend in how volunteer tourism generally functions within indigenous communities in Ecuador. The flexibility incorporated into the design of this study, allowed an additional community to be purposefully selected at this stage.

To select the additional community, a discussion with the NGO director took place in July 2015, as I recognised that the director was an important gatekeeper with access to unique and privileged information. During this discussion the director suggested that the Tsa’chila community near the city of Santa Domingo could be of interest, as it offered a contrast to the Kichwa community in Chilcapamba. He implied that this contrast was a result of the Tsa’chila not letting their culture decline to the extent that had occurred in the Kichwa community. The suggestion of the director appears to be based on a predisposition in Western society to position indigenous people along a discursive hierarchy, based on their level of ‘Indian-ness’ or cultural authenticity. In

correspondence with my supervisor, I appeared to fall into this Western discourse too, stating in an email:

“Following recommendations of the NGO director, I have decided to include a Tsa’chila community in my study. This community is supposed to be more traditional, in that they paint their hair and live more basically, and so should be an interesting addition to the research.” [10th _{July 2015]}

The correspondence indicates that, at this stage, my selection of an additional community was based upon an uncritical assumption relating to the level of ‘indigeneity’ of the community. Fossey et al., (2002) argue that it is important for a researcher to recognise and indicate how their own assumptions have developed during the research process, so the reader can assess the researchers’ transparency. My view has subsequently shifted, to recognise that indigeneity is neither static nor able to be judged in relation to the prevalence of particular signs of indigeneity that fit within Western imaginaries. The additional community nevertheless proved very beneficial to the study. This is because it provides further evidence of the processes and negotiations, which occur when an indigenous community becomes a site for volunteer tourism, beyond one isolated example. The description of the Tsa’chila project provided on the Yanapuma website can be seen in Figure 4, below:

67

Figure 4. Yanapuma description of volunteer project in Tsa'chila community

Figure 4 indicates that the project in the Tsa’chila community has similarities with that in the Kichwa community. The volunteer tourists can be involved in a range of development projects, whilst also having the opportunity, if desired, to stay in the homes of indigenous members. There is greater emphasis placed on indigenous culture in this project, with Tsa’chila traditions and heritage given prominence in the project. Figure 4 illustrates this with its description of Tsa’chila culture as under threat, with its “rich traditions being lost”. This concern abides by colonial discourses of the ‘vanishing savage’ (Rosaldo, 1989), which has the aim of enticing volunteer tourists before this ‘pristine’ culture is lost, and furthermore discursively positions

the Western volunteer tourist as having the ability to help protect this ‘fragile’ culture through their travel choices.

I spent two months in the Tsa’chila community, leaving Ecuador in September 2015. In total I spent four-and-a-half months in Ecuador conducting research in two indigenous communities, as well as interviewing the director of Yanapuma. I highlighted in Chapter Two how there is no agreed upon definition of a ‘community’. In this thesis, I considered a community in-line with how it is interpreted in both projects – a spatial area consisting of indigenous members. As a result, indigenous people of Kichwa or Tsa’chila origin outside this spatial area are not included. The location of the selected communities are indicated on the map of Ecuador below:

Figure 5. Map of Ecuador with study communities highlighted

A summary of the two communities is available in Table 2 on the following page. The information presented is collated from the Yanapuma website, as well as being obtained from interviews with the director of Yanapuma and indigenous community members.

69

Table 2. Summary of study communities

Kichwa Tsa’chila

Geographical Location 3 hours North of Quito in the high Andes.

4 hours West of Quito at the base of the Andes. Main Occupations Small-scale farming,

selling crafts to tourists.

Small-scale farming. Demographic and

Geographical Constitution

Mix of indigenous and Meztisos (Ecuadorians of European descent). It has a steep hill running through it dividing the community via economic status: Mestizos4 living at the lower part, middle-class Kichwa members in the middle regions, with the poorest members nearing the summit.

Mix of Meztisos and Tsa’chila members.

Covers a large

geographical area, with members tending to use motorised transport for travel around the community.

Year Started to Receive Volunteers

2007 2007

Volunteer Tasks Primary: water project Secondary: teaching English, farm work

Primary: upkeep of cultural centre Secondary: reforestation, teaching English Accommodation Provided

Specially built volunteer houses. Occasionally houses of project members.

Cabañas in cultural centre. Option of staying in houses of project members.

Organisational Set-Up Project leader, with help from close family members.

Originally 25 families, now 11 families involved in project.

Focus of Project Community development Community development and preservation of culture

Distribution of Income Received by project leader, distributed at his discretion.

Split evenly between all project members.

The summary provided by Table 2 identifies a number of differences between the volunteer projects. One important difference is that in the Kichwa community, one family has considerable control over the project, whilst in the Tsa’chila community,

4_{Mestizo emerged as a racial category referring to an individual of combined indigenous and European descent.}

However, it is now widely considered a social, class based category applied to individuals who speak Spanish, literate and engage in urban and market-based society (Radcliffe, 1999).

control is shared between eleven families. The leader of the Tsa’chila project encouraged community participation in the hope this would help preserve Tsa’chila culture. However, since its inception fourteen families have decided to leave the project. Conversely, the Kichwa project has placed less emphasis on community participation. Families who have left this project tended to have done so not of their own volition. The factors determining indigenous members’ involvement and influence in the projects is analysed in Chapters Five and Six. A summary of the organisational set-up of the projects is provided in Figures 6 and 7, whilst the position of community members cited in this thesis can be seen in Table 3 and 4.

Figure 6. Organisational set-up of Kichwa volunteer project. (Source: Author’s own compilation)

Figure 6 identifies four different groups of indigenous members’ in the Kichwa community, relating to their involvement in the volunteer project. Those in group 1 having control over project, group 2 being involved but having little power in how it functions, group 3 no longer being involved, and group 4 who have never been involved in the project. The voices of community members from each of these groups is included in this thesis, identified with pseudonyms listed in table 3 below:

Table 3. Kichwa respondents position in volunteer tourism project

Position in Project Pseudonym of Respondents

Group One Samuel, Carolina

Group Two Mariela, Stephanie, Veronica, Alexis,

Group Three Leonardo, Carmen

71

Figure 7. Organisational set-up of Tsa’chila volunteer project (Source: Author’s own compilation)

Figure 7 identifies three different groups of indigenous members’ in the Tsa’chila community, relating to their involvement in the volunteer project. Those in group 1 having control over project, group 2 no longer being involved, and group 3 who have never been involved in the project. The voices of community members from each of these groups is includes in this thesis, identified with pseudonyms listed in table 4 below:

Table 4. Tsa’chila respondents position in volunteer tourism project

Group One Daniel, Diego, Jesus, Matias, Ricardo, Roberto, Rafael, Valeria, Samantha, Lionel

Group Two David, Alejandro, Lucas, Tomas

Group Three Adrian, Juliana, Mathew, Sebastian, Tadeo