Semi-structured and in-depth interviews

A qualitative approach requires researchers to gather the richest possible data to achieve an in-depth understanding of the phenomena in question (Blumer 1969). As such, interviews were chosen as a way of adding to the richness of the data contained in the diaries. An additional reason for choosing to undertake interviews was because engaging in face to face interaction is regarded as one of the most effective methods of obtaining qualitative

information - it enables the researcher to ‘participate in the minds of the settings’ participants’ (Lofland & Lofland 1995, p. 17).

An interview can be defined as ‘a face to face verbal interchange in which one person, the interviewer, attempts to elicit information or expressions of opinion or belief from another

person or persons’ (Maccoby & Maccoby 1954, p. 499). The aim of qualitative research interviews is to understand the world from the respondent’s point of view - to unfold the meaning of people’s experiences, and to uncover their lived world (Kvale 1996). This study is about understanding individual experiences and beliefs about wilderness. It required an in- depth exploration of the views of individuals about this topic. This could not have been done entirely through the use of research diaries because there would have been no interaction with the researcher, and so there would have been no way to validate or confirm the information contained in the diaries, or to probe for additional information on subjects of interest. For this reason, I considered it necessary to gather additional information from a selection of

respondents to support the findings from the diaries. I felt that interviews were an appropriate way of doing this because they allow the researcher to address specific issues, whilst also giving respondents the opportunity to discuss topics that are important to them in more detail. Interviews also enable the researcher to ask the same questions in different ways in order to explore issues more thoroughly.

Successful qualitative enquiry requires that researchers use a variety of data sources and collection techniques, and view their research questions from differing points of view in order to obtain the clearest possible picture of the social setting (Blumer 1969). Because of this, I felt that it would be useful to gain a managerial and a commercial perspective of the issues in question, and so I approached a selection of tourism operators who worked in remote and wilderness areas of Fiordland National Park and a number of individuals with managerial responsibility and/or influence in wilderness management for interview. Blumer (1969) also highlights the importance of the selection process when choosing potential participants: ‘One such [well informed] person is worth a hundred others who are merely unobservant

participants’ (p. 41). Unlike the self-selection method for the research diaries, I was able to carefully select my participants for the professional interviews (discussed later in this section).

Interviews can range from rigidly-structured discussions where all of the questions are pre- determined and standardised, to completely unstructured interviews, where the content and direction of the conversation is largely determined during the interview by the interviewer and the interviewee (Dunn 2005). A semi-structured interview lies midway between these two extremes. The researcher has a list of themes to cover in the interview, but there is no fixed order to the questions, and the structure and content is likely to vary greatly depending on the knowledge, ideas, attitude and willingness to talk of the person being interviewed (Valentine 1997). I felt that semi-structured interviews were appropriate for the current study in order to ensure that the important issues were covered, but also to allow enough flexibility for each

interview to be tailored to the individual. An in-depth format was chosen as the most appropriate because the aim was to understand, rather than simply describe people’s

experiences in Fiordland. This involved spending a significant amount of time on particular topics, and using probing techniques, or re-phrasing the questions in order to obtain a thorough and detailed response.

Participant selection

Interviews were conducted with a selection of recreationists who had completed research diaries during 2004/2005. Diary participants had been asked to indicate whether they were happy to be contacted for a follow-up interview when they completed the ‘final impressions’ section of the diary. The Department of Conservation individually contacted all of the participants who had answered ‘yes’ to this question, and who currently lived in New

Zealand. A total of twenty four people were still happy to take part, and were approached by the researcher, requesting an interview. Of these twenty four, six were unavailable at the time when I was in the area, resulting in a total of eighteen interview participants83.

Tourism operators with current concessions to take visitors to remote and wilderness areas of Fiordland National Park (as defined in the Draft Fiordland National Park Management Plan) were also identified and approached for interview. I contacted the Department of

Conservation’s Southland Conservancy for a list of operators with concessions.

Representatives from six of these were approached for interview, based on several criteria. Promotional material for each operator was obtained from the company web site or from the local tourism office, and informal discussions were held with members of the Department of Conservation’s Southland Conservancy. Selection was partly based on the company’s reputation (i.e. whether they were reputed to be knowledgeable, helpful and informative), their length of time in operation in Fiordland, and whether they used the term ‘wilderness’ to promote their products. I deliberately selected a range of different activity types and operators who had been working in Fiordland for some time so that I was assured that they would provide a useful contribution to my research. In addition, I interviewed the manager of the Regional Tourism Organisation because numerous key informants believed that this individual could provide an extremely informed perspective on many of the issues in question.

83

As will be explained later in this section, one additional interviewee was recruited through the ‘snowballing’ method, making a total of nineteen recreationist interviews.

I also interviewed individuals with professional involvement in New Zealand wilderness management (and in particular, Fiordland National Park). I called this group of interviewees ‘wilderness professionals’. The inclusion of information from this group provided important contextual and background data for my thesis, as well as enriching the existing data. These participants were identified by drawing up a list (in consultation with the Department of Conservation – the key management authority) of key stakeholders in the Fiordland National Park Management Planning process, and managers with responsibility for either wilderness research of wilderness planning and management. Those identified were contacted personally for interview, and all agreed to participate.

Interview procedure

Interviews were conducted with wilderness recreationists, tourism operators and wilderness professionals. Participation was voluntary, and each interview lasted from 45 minutes to two hours in length. Interviews were conducted in a location convenient to the participant. In the case of the recreationists, this was generally their home (respondents were based all over New Zealand), or in a public place such as a café. The representatives from tourism companies were interviewed in their offices in Te Anau or Manapouri. Wilderness professionals were interviewed in their respective offices, with the exception of the Southland Conservation Board representative, who was interviewed at his friend’s home in Christchurch. With the agreement of respondents, the interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed. I kept a field diary of important events or issues that came up in the interview, and noted down any challenges or successes that occurred, and important themes or issues to follow up on.

Interview structure and format

An interview schedule was used for each set of interviews (Appendices 7, 8 and 9), although the order of questions and length of time spent on each issue varied considerably between respondents. For recreationists, the questions were based around major themes which arose during the diary analysis (such as what are the key characteristics of wilderness? Do you feel that any of the traditional wilderness values are under threat? and what are your views on tourism in wilderness?), and specific questions or points that I wanted to clarify from each individual diary. For tour operators, interview questions focused on the types of activities and experiences provided by the company, the type of clientele they attracted, and their views on the future of wilderness tourism in New Zealand. Given the differing roles of the wilderness professionals involved in this research, the structure and content of each interview varied considerably. Key themes included, but were not limited to: the individual’s role with relation to (and knowledge of) wilderness management in New Zealand, their views on the current

state (and future prospects) of wilderness recreation in New Zealand, and whether they thought there were any major threats to existing wilderness values.

Interview Response

A total of nineteen wilderness recreationists, six tourism operators and seven wilderness professionals were interviewed during the period December 2006 – August 2007. Eighteen of the recreationists had completed diaries during the summer of 2004/2005, and one was an avid wilderness recreationist with an extensive knowledge of Fiordland who was

recommended for interview by another respondent. A summary of information about these participants is provided in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1: Summary information about interviewees (recreationists)

ID # Age Nationality Male/ female

Trip location Activity type

Length of trip 258 40-49 NZ Male Juno River Hunting 10 nights 196 40-49 NZ Male Glaisnock Wilderness Hunting 7 nights 067 60+ NZ Male Freeman Burn Tramping 6 nights 321 50-59 NZ 1 x Female

1 x Male

Dusky and South Coast Track

Tramping 6 nights

247 50-59 NZ Male Glaisnock Wilderness Hunting 8 nights 007 40-49 NZ Male Preservation Inlet Kayaking 13 nights 134 40-49 NZ Male Mount Napier/ Thompson

Sound

Hunting 8 nights

061 20-29 USA Male Dusky Track Tramping 8 nights 995 50-59 NZ Male Glaisnock Wilderness Hunting 10 nights 194 40-49 NZ Male Glaisnock Wilderness Hunting 8 nights 323 30-39 NZ Male Kepler Mountains and

beyond

Tramping 10 nights

244 40-49 NZ Male Doon River Hunting 10 nights 202 20-29 NZ Female Dusky Track Tramping 7 nights 140 20-29 NZ Male Dusky Track Tramping 7 nights 068 30-39 NZ Male Freeman Burn Tramping 6 nights 195 30-39 NZ Male Glaisnock Wilderness Hunting 13 nights 230 30-39 NZ Male Glaisnock Wilderness Hunting 8 nights 152 40-49 NZ Male Glaisnock Wilderness Hunting 11 nights 055 50-59 NZ Male Variety of locations Tramping/

kayaking

Variety of trips

All except one of the recreationists I interviewed were originally from New Zealand84. Although it was not originally a goal of my thesis to specifically explore New Zealanders’ perceptions/values of wilderness as a distinct sub-section of my sample (i.e. separate to overseas visitors), this dominance of New Zealanders in the interview sample was a rather fortuitous occurrence, and provided the ‘essence’ of my final discussion. Details about the wilderness professionals can be seen in Appendix 10. Information about the tour operators who were interviewed is not provided because of the likely possibility of identifying them. In the final analysis and write-up, the wilderness participant data was considered sufficiently rich and detailed that the later interviews largely played a supporting role in the thesis.

Five of the tourism operators were based in Te Anau, and one in Manapouri. I spent two weeks in Te Anau conducting these interviews. The recreationists and wilderness

professionals, however, lived in various places throughout New Zealand, which meant that a significant amount of travelling was required between interviews. I attempted to coordinate the interviews so that all of those people living in a particular area were interviewed during the same week. With the exception of two, all of the interviews were conducted with

individuals. The two exceptions were a married couple who had travelled extensively together in Fiordland (including the trip during which the diary was completed), and requested to be interviewed together, and two professionals from the Department of Conservation’s

Southland Conservancy (the Community Relations Manager and Concessions Supervisor) who felt that their collective input would be more informative than two separate interviews.

Interview Analysis

As with the diaries, I transcribed the interviews so that I could familiarise myself with the contents. Initially, each transcript was then coded, using the same categories as the diaries. Due to the extensive amount of rich and complex data generated through the interview process, however, many new themes and sub-themes were identified, and conversely, several of the original themes from the diary analysis required re-coding or merging with another category as their relative importance in the research findings became more apparent. A full list of the themes generated through the interview coding process is provided in Appendix 11 and an example of a section of coded interview can be seen in Appendix 12.

84

This is largely due to the fact that the interviews were conducted two years after the original wilderness trip had taken place. By this point, all but one of the overseas respondents who had indicated that they were available for interview had left the country. This clearly affected the balance of nationalities represented in the interview sample, although as will be seen in Chapter Ten, this actually became a strength of the current study, because it enabled me to focus on the views of New Zealanders during later analysis. This then became the key to my whole thesis.

Two major topic areas were identified – these were ‘meanings and values of wilderness’ and ‘factors affecting wilderness’. These two themes are explored in detail in Chapters Eight and Nine. The third theme only manifested itself during the latter stages of the analysis (hence the significant amount of re-coding that was required). This was the topic of wilderness and New Zealand culture and identity. Data relating to this theme is presented in Chapter Ten. Within each of these topic areas, many other sub themes were identified. Some of these were practical themes (such as specific elements of the wilderness setting or types of activity that are considered appropriate in wilderness), whereas others were more experiential or socio- psychological (such as respondents’ interpretations of tourism). Individual participants’ experiences and beliefs were compared to those of others undertaking similar trips, and common themes were identified across all respondents. Although there was some diversity within respondents’ views on particular issues, the aim of this thesis was to search for

commonalities and ideas that were similar across respondents. It was not desirable or possible to include every possible point of view on every possible issue. As noted by Glaser and Strauss (1967): It is not necessary ‘to provide a complete description [of a research topic], but to develop a theory that accounts for much of the relevant behaviour’ (p. 30). Therefore, it is the most common themes identified across all respondents which form the bulk of my research findings.

Reporting of interview data

The interview process generated three distinct sets of data: the wilderness recreationists, the tourism representatives, and the wilderness professionals. Each group of interviewees is described differently in the thesis, as follows:

• Wilderness recreationists – referenced in the thesis by their first initial, followed by the individual code number on their original research diary. For example (J 253)

• Tour operators – referenced by TO (to indicate tour operator), followed by a specific code number allocated to them before the interview. For example (TO3)

• Wilderness professionals – identified by name, along with the organisation or company they represent. For example, (Interview: Chris Jacobs, Department of Conservation).