Semi-structured Interviews

Understanding stakeholder perceptions is fundamental to this study. Capturing their perceptions is necessary to discover what sustainable tourism means to each stakeholder group (Maxwell, 1996: 17). As a result, this meaning can assist with answering the research question by identifying areas in need of support. While questionnaires were used to gather generalisations, there remained a need to ‘go behind the scenes’ and uncover the thoughts, values and attitudes as they correspond to individuals from each group. This was made possible through the interactive nature of semi-structured interviews. This sub-section describes semi-structured interviews in more detail and the reasons for its inclusion in this research framework.

95

Although surveys are used to describe a total population, they do not theorise about the relationships between individual attitudes and actions (Creswell, 2003: 153). These relationships are better suited to be explored by qualitative methods. Qualitative methods, particularly semi-structured interviews, continue the links from surveys by exploring the relationship between its variables (Brannen, 1992: 23). Melkert and Vos (2010: 34) define qualitative research as research “...that aims to obtain in-depth insight into the social reality on the basis of a relatively small number of respondents or observations”. Qualitative methodologies do not usually rely on employing statistical analysis from a set of defined variables. Instead, they are best suited for situations where little is known about the subject matter to be analysed. Kvale (1996: 11) argues, “The basic subject matter is no longer objective data to be quantified, but meaningful relations to be interpreted”. Indeed, qualitative researchers are sometimes referred to as “data enhancers” (Ragin, 1994: 92 from Melkert & Vos, 2010: 34). Interviews, as a main data-collection technique in qualitative research, seek to provide rich and detailed accounts of people’s thoughts and activities (Mason, 2002: 64; Punch, 2005: 168; Stevenson, 2007: 190). These experiential accounts showcase the discovery of thoughts and attitudes as they correspond to each unique interviewee (Silverman, 2000: 35; Punch, 2005:168).

As mentioned above, the specific qualitative technique selected for this study was semi- structured interviews. Semi-structured interviews strike a balance between the strict protocols of structured interviews versus the much more informal unstructured interview (Kvale, 1996). Semi-structured interviews by nature are inductive and exploratory; ideally suited for theory generation (Stevenson, 2007: 190). The lack of formal structures produces data that has both “richness” and “depth”, giving a more nuanced understanding behind the personal meaning of the respondent (Fox et al., 2010: 76). They typically tend to exist in a friendly conversational style while maintaining a line of enquiry (Kvale, 1996: 6; Munsters, 2010: 58). Furthermore, the interviewer controls the dialogue while covering the main topics of research (ibid). Punch (2005: 172) asserts that if done correctly, semi-structured interviews should resemble a “prolonged and intimate conversation”. The relaxed atmosphere should allow interviewees to comfortably “...formulate in a dialogue their own conceptions of the lived world” (Kvale, 1996: 11).

To achieve data from the respondents that has ‘depth’ and ‘richness’, open ended questions were asked in-situ within the confines of the individual stakeholder group. In

96

particular, this involved going to many individual’s homes or places of work. Sitting in the kitchen of a local Makushi home and paying close attention to their daily life undoubtedly contributed to this ‘depth’ and ‘richness’. During data collection and typically found in semi-structured interviews in general, there was no set number of questions. Instead, Kvale (1996: 124) argues that there should be a list of suggested questions which cover relevant themes. However, the order in which they are asked should remain flexible (ibid). Furthermore, follow up questions should be contextually specific depending on the interviewee (ibid). The interviewer steers the conversation through the introduction of topics and line of questioning, but aims to have the respondent doing most of the communicating (Kvale, 1996: 126). The next sub-section focuses on the limitations of a mixed-methods approach and its individual techniques.

4.2.6 Limitations

The selection of appropriate methodological approaches is vital to any research project and is dependent on its question, aims and objectives. This study presented both known and unknown variables, requiring a strategy that was simultaneously hypothetical and exploratory. Using Bryman’s (1992: 60-61) expressions, which are ‘structure’ and ‘processes’ as a model, a mixed-methods approach was selected to: (1) establish a

structure concerning the respondents and study area (quantitative), and (2) develop an

understanding of the processes of this structure from the perspectives of the respondents (qualitative) (see also Jennings, 2001: 18). However, while the selection of multiple methods was deemed necessary to fulfill the aims of the study, limitations can be found in each approach and their combined use (Creswell, 2003: 148).

Firstly, practical limitations were found in the amount of time and resources needed to conduct a study of this magnitude (Miller, 1991:160-161). The study site is a remote, difficult and expensive area to reach and opportunities to do so were minimal because of limited funding and time. As questionnaires and interviews require multiple respondents before themes start to emerge, detailed planning was necessary to ensure a sufficient number of participants were acquired. This sub-section further reviews the limitations of a mixed-methods approach and how these limitations were minimised. As mentioned above, surveys have a history of being the common technique used in tourism research (Walle, 1997: 524; Riley & Love, 2000:164). However, one of the main limitations of surveys is the lack of understanding on the “...nature of society and

97

human-kind” (Walle, 1997: 525). Quantitative techniques can sometimes produce “sterile” research that is not as in-depth and humanising as qualitative research (Pereiro, 2009: 180; see also Walle, 1997: 525). Indeed, exploring the thoughts and opinions of people through empirical research often requires diverse forms of evidence. As a result, employing a single method would not be sufficient for capturing an accurate reality from respondents.

Qualitative research aims to understand, from the perceptions of individuals, a “...wide array of dimensions of the social world” (Mason, 2002: 1). However, capturing an objective understanding of these perceptions is fraught with difficulty. Limitations in conducting qualitative research, particularly semi-structured interviews, can primarily be found in the biases of the researcher (Kvale, 1996: 286; Creswell, 2003:196; Punch, 2005: 176). Researcher bias influences the way respondent’s perceptions are interpreted, which can significantly alter data (Kvale, 1996: 286; Patton, 1987: 166). Kvale (1996: 286) similarly agrees, adding that bias from both the interviewer and interviewee should be considered. Consequently, researchers must simultaneously be responsive while establishing distance from participants (Brannen, 1992: 5; see also Pereiro, 2010: 178; Munsters & Richards, 2010: 210-211). Moreover, Patton (1987: 167) argues that researchers should conduct fieldwork “with no axe to grind, no theory to prove, and no predetermined results to support”. Participant observation has also been closely linked with bias where the researcher is “...both a participant in and observer of the situation” (Punch, 2005: 182, see also Pereiro, 2010:177-178). As a result, questions begin to form on the validity of data based on the effects of the researcher’s presence on the situation and his/her ability to capture an objective reality without applying it to his/her own socio-cultural background (Pereiro, 2010: 178; Denzin & Lincoln, 2008: 7).

Bias is a limitation because of the lack of validation it generates in research (Patton, 1987: 165-166). Validity is important as it suggests the research is authentic and credible (Creswell, 2003: 196). However, Patton (1987: 166) argues that it is not likely that any one person or method can ever be truly “objective”. Since there is no holistic method for establishing complete validity in a study, a mixed method approach can serve as a cross-technique validation strategy (Punch, 2005: 98). This process, also known as ‘triangulation’, uses and compares data from multiple methods to make research findings more credible (Finn et al., 2000: 35; DeCrop, 1999: 159; Bryman, 1992: 63). Triangulation was created out of the recognition by researchers that all

98

methods have “inherent biases” that could be counterbalanced, or cancelled, by “the biases of other methods” (Creswell, 2003: 15). These limitations provided the impetus for a mixed-methods approach.

In addition to triangulation, Kvale (1996: 286) suggests researchers should clarify any potential bias, particularly their positionality (see also Creswell 2003: 195). This is primarily because unacknowledged bias runs the risk of invalidating the results from a study (Kvale, 1996: 286). Therefore, it should be noted that the researcher is a non- indigenous, non-Guyanese white male and former tourism manager of an organisation at the study site. These key facts were considered throughout data collection and analysis in the attempt to keep a consistently objective perspective and are discussed more in Section 4.4. However, the researcher would like to point out that due to the qualitative nature of this study, positionality is inevitably going to affect the research design. For example, the researcher may have had a different social and geographical upbringing than Rupununi residents which could limit the researcher’s understanding of the local context. However, the researcher’s previous time spent living in the Rupununi also enabled him to have a strong degree of social proximity with the local residents and their daily lifestyles. This certainly helped in the design of the research strategy (Section 4.3) and enabled the researcher to minimise some of the limitations of the study, especially the practical details of travel, introductions and accommodation. It also enabled the researcher to better understand the divisions that exist between him and local residents.

Integration between quantitative and qualitative methods has much potential. Researchers choose to combine them in order to minimise the weaknesses of each approach and maximise their strengths (DeCrop, 1999: 159). However, methods should be appropriately selected according to the desired response (Melkert & Vos, 2010: 39). The incorrect use of a particular method has potential to provide invalid data. Furthermore, mixing methods runs the risk of delivering inconsistent results. For example, Bryman (1992: 64) argues that when doing semi-structured interviews and questionnaires, different subjects often end up being discussed. This results from having different question structures for each method (ibid). Therefore, consideration was placed on ensuring that interview questions echoed questions from the surveys. This ensured continuity through the mixed-methods approach and the presence of similar themes and concepts.

99

4.3 Research Design: Respondent Identification and Sequential