3.5 Data Collection Techniques
3.5.1 Semi-structured Interviews
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with community residents and institutional representatives. These two categories were informed by the CCSLF in which ‘stakeholder identification theory’ persisted as an implicit element. The definition of ‘community’ under the current research theme clarifies the delineation of sample units with two
57 major categories that include the indigenous and migrated (Bengali) community residents. The institutional representatives include key institutional personnel (based on power and position) representing (formal) institutions, both political and economic in nature, at local, regional and central levels. A few institutional category participants are also included on-site through snowball sampling procedures and encapsulated under other relevant institutional sub-categories, such as army, or an official from an ongoing tourism project, etc. More precisely, this research has conducted at total of 52 semi-structured interviews including one pilot interview, which was piloted in December 2015. The rest of the interviews (total 51) were carried out from March 2016 to July 2017 with an average duration of 75 minutes each. Out of these 52 interviews, 20 interviews were conducted in Rangamati Sadar, 26 interviews in Bandarban Sadar, and the remaining six in Dhaka. At this point, it should be noted that there were an additional three interviews (key institutional representatives) for which the consent forms were not signed. The interviewees disagreed with providing a signature on the consent form but gave oral permission to use the information as outcomes of ‘informal discussions’. In addition, the researcher faced three unusual situations during the course of face-to-face interviews. In those situations, the researcher had to allow more than one participant (two participants in each situation) in the interview process in which participations were voluntary and welcomed by the referred participant. The researcher found these associated particularly with the culture and characteristics of the overall social setting within which the study has been conducted. Since this research holds the principle of empathetic understanding, the researcher encouraged those participations with a view to generate rich-information from the study sites. However, in counting the total number of interviewees, each situation was counted as a single interview although the researcher secured consent forms signed by all those volunteer participants.
The researcher used the CCSLF-generated themes as a guide for the question patterns in semi-structure interviews. It did not necessarily mean that the discussions were confined or controlled within those conceptual themes rather the researcher encouraged the interactive nature of communication and formulated questions immediately following the responses or discussions flow. In so doing, the researcher followed “double attention” principle of Wengraf (2001, p. 194) indicating:
You must be both listening to the informant's responses to understand what he or she is trying to get at and, at the same time, you must be bearing in mind your needs to ensure that all your questions are liable to get answered within the fixed time at the level of depth and detail that you need.
A semi-structured interview technique was selected as a primary data collection tool for a number of reasons. This method is one of the most accepted qualitative techniques for data collection especially when the investigation comprehends the stakeholder aspects and political issues within a case study location (Murray, 2006; Taylor, Bogdan, & DeVault, 2015). The political and socio-cultural context of the study setting in this research highly encourages
58 adopting such a method. Apart from the contextual elements, the interpretive social sciences paradigm also reassures the selection of the semi-structured interview technique. This data collection technique enables the researcher to grow an empathetic understanding while encouraging the participation of the informants with a view to generating meaning from the informants’ standpoint. Moreover, interviews serve as an appropriate technique to discuss and explore historical information that is actually working within a research setting thereby developing interpretations to shape the findings of the study. Another advantage of using the interview method is that it can work in tandem with other data collection techniques, such as participant observation and focus group discussions.
Sampling
The current research uses purposeful sampling accompanied by the snowball technique. The most comprehensive discussion on this approach as part of primary research methods is evident in the works of Patton (1990, 2002). Patton (1990, p. 169) rationalises the method for information-rich cases and comments:
The logic and power of purposeful sampling lies in selecting information-rich cases for study in depth. Information-rich cases are those from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the research, thus the term purposeful sampling.
Patton has identified 16 different strategies for purposefully selecting information-rich cases. Under the current research theme, ‘stratified purposeful sampling’ and ‘snowball sampling’ were consulted. The stratified sampling follows the stakeholder classifications, as discussed earlier in aligning the sample units. Regarding this approach, Suri (2011, p. 70) states “Stratified samples are samples within samples where each stratum is fairly homogenous.” Such an orientation helped the researcher to develop an overview of the research informants (see Appendix A) to start initially. These preliminary informants were interviewed following the snowball approach to overcome the challenges associated with qualitative research vis-à-vis predetermination of minimum number of sample sizes to ensure the adequacy of the sample size (Sandelowski, 1995).
Snowball or chain referral sampling technique is selected as a means to overcome the problem of securing representatives from adequately qualified subjects in the sampling frame (Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981; Dusek, Yurova & Ruppel, 2015; Heckathorn, 2011). Moreover, a lack of past research left no significant ground studies together with socio-political background of the case study areas directs the researcher to choose this particular sampling method. In the social context, the presence of indigenous communities is noteworthy. They make their decisions customarily in a collective societal environment. Therefore, identification of key influential spokespersons from a community through references had better served the current research purpose than surveying at the individual level. The long on-going political conflict is another important issue for choosing the technique; Cohen and Arieli (2011) specifically
59 recommends a snowball sampling method (SSM) to deal with methodological problems of research conducted in a conflict-prone environment.
However, the strength of the snowball technique is undermined by its nature of a non-probability method leading to biasness and lack of statistical measurement to decide when to stop interviewing (Sadler, Lee, Lim & Fullerton, 2010). On this note, the current study has been conducted within a complex social setting in which social capital or, more specifically, social networks play a significant role in relation to resource decisions. Put simply, the social context cannot be fully free from bias. In addition, the assessment of various capitals (e.g. social capital including social network) towards sustainable livelihood outcomes remains a fundamental consideration of this research. Using a snowball technique is believed to complement the research objective theoretically since the snowball approach is used to predict and measure the depth of social networks in social science research (Goodman, 2011). In conducting the research through snowball sampling, data redundancy leads the researcher to determine the ultimate sample size in the process of empirical evidence collection. Correspondingly, the interviews stopped when the researcher observed data saturation had begun, indicating no new information coming from the investigated phenomenon from the informants. For example, within a particular category of participant (e.g., indigenous community resident) a participant was questioned from several dimensions (data triangulation) by requesting elaboration of alternative explanations about the themes which already emerged (e.g., militarisation).
Administering Fieldwork for Semi-structured Interviews
In order to design the research tool properly for use in the semi-structured interviews, the researcher undertook a pilot interview with one institutional representative during a pre-fieldtrip visit in December 2015. The participant was informed that his participation would be regarded as a ‘pilot interview’ to guide the research tool. The informed consent of the participant was taken at that time with a declaration that after receiving the human ethics approval, his consent would be taken formally to consider the information for further processing in the research. The researcher failed to convince and include more participants for pilot interview as the human ethics application was submitted but not approved at the time of pre-fieldtrip visit. Moreover, it was not the aim of pilot interview to increase the number of participants, rather the aim was to provide the researcher with key insights on the research instrument (e.g. semi-structured questions) and facilitate training on the interview process before the main phase of data collection (Barriball & While, 1994). Thus, the pilot interview was meant to test and redesign, if necessary, the semi- structured questions and their flow and ask the right questions in the right way with a view to create better responses in the main body of the research (Kim, 2011). For this investigation, the process helped the researcher to change the flow of the discussion, design it in a more synchronized way rather than picking each element from the conceptual model and asking for elaboration or explanation.
60 The main phase of data collection for the semi-structured interviews began in March 2016 and continued until July 2016. The researcher used a custom-designed spreadsheet with different colour codes to track the progress of the fieldwork that essentially covered all the data collection techniques including the interviews. This process provides psychological satisfaction (the progress always remained visible) to the researcher while effectively managing the fieldwork. A sample of these documents are enclosed in the appendices (see Appendix G, Table A.3 and Table A.4). To ensure anonymity and confidentiality, the identifiable sections were kept blank. Table 3.1 presents the matrix of participants along with the different phases of the interviews.
Table 3.1 Sample coverage and phases of interviews
Pha
ses
Loc
ati
on
s
Institutional Representatives
[Public and Private]
Community Residents
[People] Public Private [tourism, NGOs, and others] Indigenous Migrated/ BengaliCentral Regional Local
1st Phase
Policy framework
Dhaka n = 2
2nd Phase
Collecting data
from case units
Bandarban Sadar (BS) n = 1 n = 1 n = 4 n = 6 n = 10 n = 4 Rangamati Sadar (RS) n = 1 n = 1 n = 4 n = 4 n = 7 n = 3 3rd Phase Policy integration Dhaka n = 3 Sub-total (n) n = 7 n = 2 n = 8 n = 10 n = 17 n = 7
Total (n)
n = 52
[including one pilot interview; audio records for 45 and only notestaken on seven]
Table 3.1 depicts the three phases of interviewing conducted after the pilot phase. The first phase involved interviewing central government representatives with a view to explore the broad policy orientation to the tourism development in the CHT. Thereafter, the researcher went to the field and gathered data by which to examine the conceptual framework (CCSLF) via informants from the case units. Finally, the data from the case units were tested with the central government representatives from a policy integration perspective. To identify the stakeholder features among the research informants, at the case site levels of BS and RS, 80 percent (n=8) of the institutional representatives under ‘private’ category along with the same percentage from the combined total of regional and local government representatives appear with the features of a “definitive stakeholder” (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 878). Under the ‘other’ sub-category (within private category), the researcher interviewed two military personnel (came from the chain referral process) who were exhibiting features of “dormant stakeholders” by possessing only the
61 ‘power’ construct (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 876). Table 3.1 indicates that a reasonable number of participants might identify themselves as ‘indigenous’ (total 17 participants from 2 cases). For this study, it is of note that the literature review has not addressed indigenous tourism (per se) in great detail. By way of explanation, the current research focuses on tourism resource governance within a sustainable livelihood framework rather concentrating on the indigenous tourism where indigenous cultures and practices are the primary foci of development. Thus, wide representation from diverse communities was sought to examine the intensity and impact of social capital as a key consideration. Indigenous communities however provide an important frame within the research context. Notwithstanding the above, a future study could focus attention on these (local) features and be correspondingly broadened to employ indigenous methods.
The researcher went to the field with a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device to locate the interviewees and present it in the thesis. The location mapping has been carried out with a view to provide a spatial context of the informants’ locations. In so doing, it exhibits how discretely or closely the informants were situated within the case settings. This phenomenon, in turn, was observed with a social network lens since snowball or chain referral technique has been employed to secure informants in this research. Figures 3.4 and 3.5 show the informants’ locations under the ‘community residents’ category.
Figure 3.4 Location mapping for the community resident informants in BS
62 Along with the geographic location, the identifiers also display the demographic data and the informants’ professional linkages to tourism. Accordingly, the researcher considers their ethnic backgrounds, ages and their relationship to tourism. In the figures, the informants’ locations are shown with different colour legends indicating the diversity of ethnicity among the research participants. The ages of the participants are considered to visualise the overall range of ages for the informants. Finally, their relationship to tourism, essentially, brings a livelihood focus by analysing their dependence in tourism.
Figure 3.5 Location mapping for the community resident informants in RS
The typologies of the research participants’ (stakeholders) relationship to the tourism sector has been assessed as direct, indirect or ancillary. The term direct indicates the participant has a direct involvement in tourism affairs and considers tourism as a primary occupation whereas ancillary involvement indicates tourism as an additional form of livelihood (not realised very often though). On the other hand, indirect involvement attributes no direct or ancillary involvement in tourism rather being affected by tourism activities (both positively and negatively) indirectly as a social actor within the settings. The figures generalise and it is evident that community involvement in tourism is not intense within the case sites and, most importantly, tourism as a livelihood means remains largely absent, which resembles the broader picture of CHT (see Chapter Four, Section 4.3).
Figures 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8 illustrate the informants’ locations under the ‘institutional representative’ category.
63
Figure 3.6 Location mapping for the institutional representative informants in BS
64
Figure 3.8 Location mapping for the institutional representative informants in Dhaka
In these figures, the pointers identify the level of affiliation (local, regional and central) while an additional feature has been added to display the educational qualifications of the participants. The educational feature has been brought in, in particular, to scope ‘human capital’, in general, within the different institutions. For convenience, all the economic and other institutional representatives are considered as local representatives functioning at the local level rather emphasising ‘local government’, as indicated in Table 3.1. However, Figure 3.8 principally represents the central level (in this case government) informants located in the capital city of Dhaka. Since this researcher encouraged sympathetic participation, the researcher prioritised the appointment at the discretion of the participants. Consequently, one appointment of a local level representative was set in Dhaka, as shown in Figure 3.8.