Semi-structured elite interviews with industry representatives

In-depth semi-structured elite interviews were held both with industry representatives at the case study sites and at a national level. Elite interviews focus on a specific type of interviewee. “Elite individuals are those considered to be influential, prominent, and/or well-informed people in an organisation or community; they are selected for interviews on the basis of their expertise in areas relevant to the research” (Marshall and Rossman 1999: 113). Semi-structured interviewing is chosen because it allows sufficient flexibility for the respondent “ . . . to speak in their words on issues that they consider to be important rather than responding within the predetermined categories identified by the researcher” (Miller 2001: 592), yet the researcher is able to retain a degree of control on the direction that the interview takes (Thomas 1993). The semi-structured interview is quite flexible yet still allows for comparability of key questions, the comparability however may be compromised when the interviewer selects questions for further probing (Finn, Elliott-Whyte et al. 2000).

The semi-structured interview may take unanticipated turns and is particularly useful for exploring a subject in detail or in developing theory (Esterberg 2002).

Chapter 3

92

The interviewees were selected according to a number of predefined criteria.

The objective was to choose informants who would be representative of the whole. The respondents who were chosen who had direct or indirect links with the business of tourism. Unfortunately, time did not allow for comprehensive consultation with the communities at each case study site, although to some extent their opinions were represented by the industry representatives and by the secondary data (Horn, Simmons et al. 2000; Horn and Simmons 2002).

Respondents were chosen from both the public and private sector and from umbrella organisations such as the Tourism Industry Association NZ (TIANZ).

Interviews included attractions operators, accommodation providers, Visitor Information Centres, Regional and National Tourism Organisations, government at national and local level and the Department of Conservation. There were further distinctions within these categories, so for example, attractions operators were selected to include natural and cultural attractions, and accommodation providers were selected to include a range of different types of accommodation from backpackers and campsites to motels and hotels. It should be noted that in Kaikoura, as there is such a small population, many people take on second jobs, sit on committees and have involvement in several different organisations.

Therefore some respondents could be classed as representatives of a public sector organisation and as a private sector accommodation owner. The same was true to a lesser extent for Rotorua. Respondents were asked to identify other useful interviewees, a process known as snowball selection (Robson 1993). Respondents from the following participated:

Kaikoura: Kaikoura District Council, Department of Conservation, Innovative Waste (charitable company), Visitor Information Centre, Takahanga Marae, Environmental Health Protection, five visitor attractions, two accommodation providers.

Rotorua: Rotorua District Council, Department of Conservation, Maori in Tourism Rotorua, Tourism Rotorua Marketing, six visitor attractions, three accommodation providers.

New Zealand: Ministry of Tourism, Department of Conservation, Tourism Industry Association New Zealand

In total 32 key informants were spoken to (See Appendix I for full list of respondents).

Chapter 3

93

Given the busy time of year in which the interviews were held, many of the respondents were more than helpful and generously gave their time and opinions. However, the respondents that were chosen were often key people within their organisation, or were owner/managers. Thomas (1993) observes that interviewing such important people can be problematic. There certainly were problems encountered while undertaking this research which slowed the process. Although most respondents were amenable in principle to taking part, there were several instances where appointments were cancelled with little or no notice. Ten interviewees missed the arranged time for the interview without prior notice, of these three were unable to be rescheduled; two key respondents agreed to be interviewed but in reality an agreeable time to interview them was never found; two key respondents (both attractions/operators) declined to be interviewed and one respondent, having cancelled the arranged appointment twice, allowed only 15 minutes for the discussion.

Arranging the interviews was quite straightforward. This was done with a preliminary phone call to explain the purpose of the research and, if the respondent was agreeable, to arrange a time for an interview. Further information was emailed if required. Interviews lasted from 15 minutes to over an hour, although 45 minutes to one hour was typical. Respondents were advised of the Victoria University of Wellington’s Human Ethics Committee requirements and could choose not to have their responses attributable to them or their organisation. Several respondents declined to have their comments attributable to themselves and so it was decided to present all the views of the industry stakeholders anonymously. The interviews were recorded with the participants’ permission and these were transcribed at a later date by the researcher. The interviews were held according to a checklist of prompts, however, the respondents were encouraged to expand on relevant, but unanticipated areas of discussion (See Appendix II). While this did provide useful and unexpected data, such an approach inevitably compromises the comparability from one interview to another. That said, there were common key elements to the discussions which allow for comparability. These were background details relating to their organisation; impacts of tourism; definitions of responsible/non-responsible tourism and responsible/non-responsible tourists, and what controls were currently in place to encourage/deter responsible/non-responsible tourism. Finally, respondents were asked to

Chapter 3

94

indicate what, if any, relevant documentation the interviewer should follow up to supplement the secondary data.

As this is a comparative study, it is worthwhile to note the differences between the two case study sites, and observations relating to the interviews with industry representatives and tourists can be made. The nature of the interviews with industry representatives in Kaikoura was far less formal than in Rotorua. In Kaikoura advance requests for an interview received the response to just ‘turn up’ and phone the respondents while in Kaikoura, often arranging the final time for the interview with just a few hours notice. None of the respondents in Kaikoura requested additional information in advance of the interviews. Many of the operators who participated did not have office accommodation and thus interviews were held in cafés; in the reception of the interviewer’s accommodation; at the interviewee’s house and even, on one occasion, on the beach. In Rotorua, alternatively, the procedure was far more formal. Interviews were almost always arranged days, if not weeks in advance and written information relating to the research was also requested in advance for approval.

Most of the interviews were held in the respondent’s office or workplace.

This informal approach in Kaikoura made the job harder for the researcher. It was not possible to manage time in advance and much of the time in the field was spent phoning interviewees to find an appropriate time for an interview. In Rotorua a more formal approach was easier for a researcher with limited time in the field. Dates were put into the diary and it was far easier to maximise and manage time. The wisdom to be gained from this experience is that one cannot assume that a certain style of approach and interview will be suitable from one case to another. Just ‘turning up’ and phoning respondents for interviews in Rotorua would have been seen as unprofessional and inappropriate, while in Kaikoura attempting to pre-book interviews weeks in advance would have been equally inappropriate.