Semi-Structured Interviews

The primary data collecting technique used in this research is semi-structured interviews with key research informants. Specifically, this research utilises a comprehensive series of 35 semi-structured interviews with key research informants from 19 agencies,

organisations and stakeholder groups associated with or impacted by tourism

development in the Hurunui District. These interviews were carried out from July 2008 to June 2009, and were between 60 to 90 minutes in duration.

Semi-structured interviews were selected as the primary data collecting technique for three key reasons. Firstly, interviews provide an appropriate forum to discuss and explore historical aspects of the case study. This includes the way in which previous institutional arrangements and organisational structures have influenced current patterns of

interaction and decision-making with respect to tourism and regional development. Secondly, interviews are identified within the methodological literature as the most suitable technique to investigate issues of stakeholder relationships and politics within the case study location (e.g., Henderson, 1991, Murray, 2006; Taylor & Bogdan, 1984). Thirdly, the wide range of individuals, organisations and settings to be investigated, ranging from the central government tourism managers engaged in policy development through to community-level stakeholder groups, made participant observations across the entire network both unsuitable and unworkable.

As noted by Murray (2006), while there are many advantages to using interviews as a research technique, it should not be selected as the primary tool for data collection without examining its shortcomings. These need to be acknowledged so that the researcher, in designing and conducting the interviews, can minimise the potential negative effects of this technique. Foremost among these potential shortcomings is that, unlike participant observation, the interviewer relies exclusively on second-hand accounts from others. Thus, while interviews allow the researcher to better understand the

participants’ experiences and interpretations of past events, when used in isolation they afford the researcher no opportunity to observe these events. Mindful of this potential shortcoming, interview data gathered in this doctoral research was compared and contrasted with information gathered through secondary data collection techniques, including literature reviews, document analysis, participant observation fieldwork, and textural analysis of historical texts, newspapers and government debates and policy documents.

Sample Selection

Research informants were selected via a purposeful method of theoretical sampling. This non-random method of sampling is accretive in process and reflexive in character, and is considered to be a hallmark of grounded theory methodology (Jennings, 2010).

Theoretical sampling is described by Strauss (1987: 21) as follows:

[Theoretical sampling is]sampling directed by an evolving theory. It is harnessed to the making of comparisons between and among those samples of events, activities [and] populations.

As noted earlier in this chapter, and In keeping with a Foucauldian perspective, research informants were selected on the basis of the various stakeholder groups, organisations and agencies they represent. These groups, in turn, were selected on the basis of the roles and responsibilities (actual and potential), influence over, and/or potential impact experienced by, the process of tourism governance and development in the case study location. As such, they were considered to be those closest to the decision-making process and, by implication, those with high levels of knowledge (and thus Foucauldian ‘knowledge–power’) necessary in respect of tourism-related decision-making and power relations in the Hurunui District. Clearly, various respondents will have been much ‘closer’ to the decision-making and development process than others, depending on the

roles/positions they hold and the organisations they represent. There is also an element of interconnectedness, particularly in locations such as the Hurunui District, where a relatively low number of individuals typically hold a disproportionately high number of significant positions across a range of organisations.

This researcher was mindful of ensuring equitable representation across the broad range of stakeholder groups and interests within the research setting. As such, interviews were conducted with informants from the public, private, and non-government sectors at the national, regional and local levels. Interviews were also conducted with informants from the tourism industry, as well as from non-tourism industries such as agriculture. In addition, informants were selected from a broad geographical spread of the Hurunui District area in order to have representation from across the case study area. Research informants from local Māori iwi (Ngāi Tahu) were also utilised in order to identify specific

issues associated with the identification and engagement of Treaty of Waitangi partners in the development of Hurunui District tourism (see Table 5.1 for a overview of the research sample, and Appendix A for a full list of research informants and positions held). The majority of interviews with research informants were conducted face-to-face and on an individual basis. These interviews were tape-recorded on most occasions to enable the researcher to establish rapport, to probe and clarify issues as they emerged and to revisit this information during the research process. Tape-recording was not used on several occasions at the request of the research informants being interviewed.

At the district level, it was anticipated that these stakeholders would be aligned principally with the public sector (e.g., local council, tourism promotions, elected officials), while at the local level, these stakeholders were likely to be aligned with the private sector (e.g., tourism business owners/operators) as well as community

representatives, community organisations and individual residents. This approach was employed to clarify the way in which the public and private sectors regard tourism development and its anticipated growth, stagnation, decline and/or rejuvenation – à la Butler’s (1980) concept of a tourism area cycle of evolution – as well as to reveal any incongruity between the two cohorts and identify any potential or actual vectors of conflict. As noted above, this phase of the research process was informed largely by documentary analysis undertaken prior to this stage.

Once identified and contacted, in-depth interviews were conducted with informants in which a range of questions, topics and issues were discussed. These were based around a range of key themes, including: the role of tourism in the Hurunui District; the perceived value or benefit of tourism to the District; the change over time of tourism (and its use as a development tool) in the District; how that change has been managed over time; the influence of their organisation on shaping that change; and, the impact of that change on their organisation.

Specific issues within the research setting were also explored as and when they were revealed via the interview process. The interviewees were also asked to identify the issues and interactions influencing the tourism policy, planning and development process in their experience. Their responses often led to reflections about key people or

organisations, the place or role of tourism in Hanmer Springs and the Hurunui District, the political will to engage in tourism, the networks and joint arrangements to deliver

government and council policies. At the end of each interview the interviewee was asked if there were any other important issues that had not been discussed, enabling them to broaden out the frame of reference and introduce new themes (see Appendix D for a full list of interview questions).

Data Analysis

The informant interviews undertaken in this research were transcribed in full, along with any additional notes made by this researcher at the time of the interview. Notes taken during the field observations were also included, along with any comments and insights that arose from the observation. These notes gradually grew with each observation and interview, and spawned specific themes that served to support the preliminary

quantitative data analysis. These themes were then separated out of the main body of data using dual processes of open coding and axial coding.

Following the work of Glaser (1992), Stauss and Corbin (1998), Goulding (2002) and, more recently, Stevenson et al. (2008), a procedure of initial open coding was used in this doctoral thesis to fragment the interview data identifying concepts and using constant comparison to scrutinise for meaning. The initial codes were labelled to generate concepts, which were then clustered into descriptive categories. The identification of concepts were then analysed in more depth and grouped under more abstract higher- order concepts. At this stage incidents were compared with incidents recalled from experience, from research notes written during the data collection and analysis process, and from the literature.

Axial coding was used to begin the process of reassembling the data that were fractured during open coding. Goulding (2002: 169) describes axial coding as “a more sophisticated

method of coding data which seeks to identify incidents which have a relationship to each other”. At this stage the descriptive codes were subsumed into the higher-order category which, as argued by Goulding (2002), serves to unite the theoretical concepts to offer an explanation or theory of the phenomenon. This approach assisted in the separation of data and afforded a more precise means of analysis.