Stage two: Content Analysis of Interviews to the Industry

Paper 6 aims to depict an image which is feasible for LDAs and continues to investigate the nature of lake tourism. The attributes generated from the previous stage were tested by means of different qualitative analysis among stakeholders in the Alqueva Lake.

Although Paper 6 presents a detailed explanation of the methods, techniques and analysis procedures (see Paper 6, section 7.3); this section includes information and material that was not possible to take part of Paper 6 due to the limitations imposed by submission guidelines. Given this, seventeen semi-structured interviews were carried out with various stakeholders involved in lake tourism at the Alqueva Lake.

The data sampling follow a selective and purposeful strategy (Coyne, 1997) which is

“shaped by the time that researcher has available to him, by his framework, by his observations….after several observations the researcher will know who to sample for the purpose of the study” (Schatzman and Strauss, 1973, cited on Coyne, 1997: 624).

Bearing this in mind, Sandelowski (2000) suggests three kinds of purposeful sampling:

maximum variation, phenomenal variation and theoretical variation. The sampling used here is phenomenal variation which is “often made a priori in order to have representative coverage of variables likely to be important in understanding how diverse factors configure as a whole” (Coyne, 1997: 182). Therefore, as Martin and Rodríguez del Bosque’s work (2008), the stakeholder choice process was carried out aiming to

51 reflect the variety of the phenomenon being examined. Various experts professionally involved with the tourism industry were selected as key-informants, such as Public Administration (regional DMO), accommodation, tourist guides, and the outdoor tourism sector. The purpose was to embrace as much as possible different opinions, interests and perspectives about the reality of the destination under study. Thus, their perceptions were examined in order to assess the applicability of image attributes related to LDAs extracted from the prior list (Paper 4). A complete list with detailed information of the respondents can be seen in Table 1.6.

Table 1.6 - List of Respondents (Stage two/Paper 6)

Organization Respondent/Position in the

Company) Director (Development Depart.) PS 13.05 2h

Amieira Marina Founder and General Manager NTO 13.05 2h

Sem Fim Boats Founder and Manager NTO 15.03 1h30m

Alqueva Darksky Reserve Founder and Project Coordinator A+OTC+TI+NTO 16.05 1h40m

Regional Association of Alentejo Guides President TI 19.05 3h

V Sentidos Founder and Manager A 23.05 2h30m

Emotion - Life on Adventure Founding partner OTC 28.05 1h30m

Alqueva Line Founder and Manager NTO 29.05 2h

Spira/Rota do Fresco Founder and Manager OTC 9.06 1h30m

Adega da Ervideira Founder and Manager ENT 12.06 2h30m

Municipality of Portel Tourism Coordinator PS/local 13.06 1h40m

Municipality of Reguengos de Monsaraz Mayor PS/Local 16.06 1h20m

ATTGLA Association President PS/Regional ( **)

Noudar Nature Park Operational Manager A and OT 18.06 1h40m

Break Momentos Fantásticos Founder and Manager OTC and NTO 25.06 1h

Monte Alerta Founder and Manager A 25.06 1h30m

ERT Alentejo e Ribatejo (DMO) President PS/Regional 17.06 1h

ARPTA (Regional Tourism Promotional Bureau) Executive Director PS/Regional 30.06 2h (*) PS - Public Sector; NTO - Nautical Tour-Operator; A - Accomodation; OTC - Outdoor Tourism Company; TI - Tourist Information; ENT - Enotourism. (**) Same respondent than the previous.

Source: Own Elaboration.

The structure of the interview consisted mainly of two sections (see Appendix 4 – Interview). The first is a more structured part where three techniques of extracting data were used (checklist, free-elicitation and photo-elicitation). The intention was to mix the techniques to assess the applicability of the items captured from the previous stage. The second section consisted of seven open-ended questions. Thus, a semi-structured interview was considered the most suitable according to the goals of the research, because “at the root of (…) interviewing is an interest in understanding the experience of other people and the meaning they make to that experience” (Seidman, 2013: 9). The

52 interviewer is seen as a “traveller”, based on an epistemological conception as a process of ‘knowledge construction’, where the journey might instigate a process of reflection that leads the traveller to new ways of self-understanding (Kvale, 1996). Effectively, some structured protocol was used (mainly in the first part with checklist, free-elicitation and photo-free-elicitation) with more closed questions. Nevertheless, in the second part a free conversation took place, although seven questions were asked and the interview was conducted to facilitate the comparison of the findings across respondents.

As stated by Turner (2010:756) “this open-endedness allows the participants to contribute as much detailed information as they desire and it also allows the researcher to ask probing questions as a means of follow-up”.

The interviews attempted to follow Kvale’s (2007) principles regarding the seven stages of an interview investigation and also the interview situation. Keeping the flow of the conversation, keeping the questions brief and simple and especially listening were constant concerns during the interview process of this investigation, which took in total almost 30 hours (the seventeen interviews together). Therefore, pilot testing was implemented between 4 and 14 April 2014 applied to respondents with similar characteristics to those that participated in this study (Kvale, 2007) (a hotel director, an outdoor tourism company manager, a tourist technician from a municipality and two experts from tourism academia). The results from the pilot test helped to refine the research questions, by detecting limitations or other weaknesses. Finally, all the interviews were recorded and verbatim transcripts were made by the thesis author and were subjected to interpretative and comparative analysis.

This qualitative methodology comprises the generation of a checklist, free-elicitation and photo-elicitation techniques within the more structured approach of the interview.

Paper 6 explains the associated method and the corresponding results of each technique.

However, some appendices need to be referenced in this section of this thesis due to the word limitation in order to better understand the procedure (see Paper 6, section 7.3).

This is a type of addendum to this thesis, an addition required to be made, described through the techniques used in this study.

53 Checklist Technique

Appendix 5 shows the two outcomes generated by this process. According to the respondents, most of the items on the list were judged to be important for LDAs. Based on the initial list and according to the respondents, the column on the left side of the table exhibits a set of 44 items most related to LDA, which might influence image formation of this type of destinations. Moving now to the right-hand column, it shows the image attributes of LDA that most describe the Alqueva Lake as the illustrative case of this study. A set of 37 items can be seen in the corresponding table.

Photo-Elicitation Technique

Appendix 6 shows the subset of photos used throughout the interview process regarding the photo-elicitation technique. The photo elimination procedure was based on considerations such as picture quality (for example too dark, too light, focus on a particular feature) and, mainly, redundancy. The final sample of photos used was selected to reflect the range of destinations components in the study area and was undertaken by academic experts in tourism. The photos were classified according to five categories (see Paper 6). The final subset of photos throughout the interviewing process was based on a mixed approach: photo ratings (Ye and Tussayadiah, 2011) and photo-based open-ended queries (Prebensen, 2007). Each respondent was required to rank photos from different DI categories. The most ranked photos together with the respondent’s descriptions are display in Figure 1.11.

Open-Ended Questions

According to the goals of this study, the analytic procedure was operationalized through the development of two levels of analysis. Firstly, in order to define the characteristics and dimensions of the Alqueva reservoir as an emerging LDA, a categorization matrix was developed based on a theory-driven approach guided by specific ideas and research questions to be assessed. The data were closely read prior to analysis, but the analysis categories were question-based and determined a priori (Namely et al., 2008). Secondly, a data-driven approach was added to the analysis to some extent, since the goal here was also to discover new keywords, trends, ideas or themes, adding value to lake tourism theory. This mix between a deductive and inductive method attempted to go from codes and categories to theory, from a real to a more abstract level of analysis. The approach here was based on Saldaña’s ‘pragmatic eclecticism’, which means that coding is

54 needed, although it is important to keep open during the initial coding collection and review before determining which coding methods will be most appropriate. In this study the analytic process used to analysis the open questions was a form of “eclectic coding”

(Saldaña, 2009), applying two or more methods when necessary.

Figure 1.11 - Examples of Photos that Best Portray the Alqueva Lake as an LDA per Category with the Respondents’ Description (Photo Elicitation)

55 Given this, a structural coding method (Namey et al., 2008; Saldaña, 2009) was used for content analysis, based on organizing the data around the research questions.

Specifically, the seven questions were grouped within three domains of inquiry: (1) Lake Tourism and the Alqueva Lake as an LDA (LT_LDA); (2) Motivations/Interests versus Activities/Experiences in the Alqueva Lake (MOT_ACT); (3) Promotion and Image of the Alqueva Lake (PRO_IMG). These codes names included a prefix for the domain and the identifier for the question topic. For example, within the domain Lake Tourism and the Alqueva Lake as an LDA, respondents were asked “How do you define lake tourism based on your experience at the Alqueva Lake? “The code developed here was LT/LDA_definition. Each question and respective response was coded in this way, and so data from the related questions could be easily consolidated and extracted from the full data set. As stated by Namey et al. (2008: 141) the structural code “acts as a labelling and indexing device”. In total seven structural codes were created, each one with sub-codes.

Then, a second level of analysis was undertaken, not only descriptive, but also explorative. Based on the seven structural codes, themes started to arise as a way to bring meaning and identity to the data (DeSantis and Ugarriza, 2000). As an extension of the previous one, Table 1.7 shows the procedure and the results of content analysis framed by a structural, descriptive and theming the data as the used coding methods (Saldaña, 2009).

Consequently, through a second level of analysis, these references generated 34 items or ideas. As a result of a more inductive approach, five themes emerged from these items (e.g. ‘awareness of the value of resources’; ‘natural resources’; ‘cultural resources’). The goal here was to mix deductive and inductive approaches to content analysis. Apart from a more qualitative approach to content-analysis, a quantitative approach also was applied (see Paper 6).