Triangulation in Participative Research: PART

Oppermann (2000: 141) contends that, although triangulation has been

‘embraced’ in tourism studies, an array of approaches has – as in the social

86 sciences more broadly – engendered confusion surrounding what it “currently denotes and what it should connote”. Smith (2010: 57) argues that “a defining characteristic of triangulation is the use of multiple sources of comparable data from different perspectives to arrive at a desired new piece of information”;

while Denzin and Lincoln (2011: 5) claim that triangulation is the “display of multiple, refracted realities simultaneously”.

Decrop (1999) demarcates Denzin’s (1978) four types of triangulation to show how it has been employed within tourism research. This includes the triangulation of qualitative and/or quantitative methods (e.g. Matteucci, 2013);

the triangulation of primary and/or secondary sources of data (e.g. MacKay &

Couldwell, 2004); the triangulation of theories that serve to frame the data (e.g.

Kwon & Vogt, 2010); and the triangulation of investigators who analyse the dataset (e.g. Conran, 2011). In his later work, Decrop (2004: 162) contends that, by engaging in the above four types of triangulation, “richer and potentially more credible interpretations” can ensue. It is significant, therefore, that Bowd and Ӧzerdem (2010) emphasise that participatory methodologies are beneficial in facilitating all four types of triangulation.

Yet, through the above four modes, it is clear that triangulation is essentially equated to collecting and/or doing more of the same phenomenon, as opposed to a process that facilitates the examination of a research ‘problem’ from contextually distinct vantage points. This is particularly surprising given that, according to Wall and Mathieson (2006: 19), tourism is constituted by three marked elements: (1) a desire for, and the decision to, travel; (2) a temporary residence in and interaction with the economic, environmental and social

87 systems of the host destination; and (3) a consideration of the (in)direct effects of tourists’ behaviour(s) in preceding phases.

This thesis, therefore, breaks away from previous applications of triangulation and considers the three phases through which tourists’ transition as the basis for triangulation (i.e. Prospective, Active and Reflective Triangulation (PART)). In so doing, the research adopts an emic approach to triangulation in that it situates the participants’ experience(s) and narrative(s) within the specific context in which they are embedded at any given point. Consequently, rather than viewing triangulation as a ‘validation strategy’ (Flick, 2004: 178) – as is more commonly the case – this thesis aligns with Jick (1979: 603-604) and regards it as a conduit for eliciting “a more complete, holistic and contextual portrayal” of the total tourism experience.

3.4.3 Mapping PART on to the Four Stage Cycle of Action and Reflection This thesis maps the Prospective, Active and Reflective phases of the tourism experience on to Heron’s (1996) four stage process of action and reflection (Figure 3.2). According to Heron, the first stage of reflection (Stage 1) involves the launch and design of the inquiry, with the researcher and subject determining how to collect data in the action stages. The first stage of action (Stage 2) occurs when participants enter the research setting, with the second action stage (Stage 3) transpiring as a “state of mind” (p.73) once subjects become immersed in the research environment and begin “bracketing off preconceptions” (ibid). Lastly, the second reflection stage (Stage 4) necessitates that the researcher and subject

88 Figure 3.2 Heron’s (1996) four stages of participative inquiry mapped on to the Prospective, Active and Reflective phases of the tourism experience

reconvene in order to (co)reflect on the data elicited in the previous stages. With the four-stage process of action and reflection in mind, this section outlines the researcher and participants’ processes and practices at each of the three phases of the PARTicipative inquiry. Although a brief indication of methods will be proffered, these will be further elaborated upon in the succeeding section (3.5).

Prospective Phase: In the Prospective Phase (Stage 1), the researcher and participant engaged in a semi-structured, contextual interview that averaged 45 minutes (see Appendix 1). The purpose of the Prospective Phase was twofold.

First, it enabled the researcher to introduce the aims of the research and explain the research design, with a particular focus on methods of data collection for the

89 Active Phase. Second, it enabled the researcher to ascertain participants’ pre-holiday images and projections for their upcoming responsible tourism experience. To start with, participants were asked to define what responsible tourism meant (to them), and describe the type of responsible practice they typically engaged in (and/or their ‘identity’ as a responsible tourist). Following this, the tourists were asked if they had read any (non)market materials (e.g.

guidebooks, consumer review sites etc) to shape their ‘responsibility’ and/or their projections for their upcoming holiday more generally. The interview also considered their motivations for travel, reasons for selecting their destination, and their planned activities. The interview ended with a discussion of how they viewed themselves as ethical, or engaged in ethical practices, within their ‘home life’. Given the semi-structured nature of the interview, questions varied somewhat depending on the responses of the participants.

Overall, the data elicited in this phase acted as a contextual backdrop – or discursive ‘benchmark’ – against which participants could not only compare or contrast their actual experience, but more readily expose any instances of ethical tension or struggle between projected and lived behaviour (e.g. Torbert, 2001).

Equally, the Prospective Phase also allowed participants to recount how experiences within past holidays had served to iteratively (re)shape their projections for their current holiday. In this regard, this demonstrates how PARTicipative inquiry is attuned to the ways in which tourism experiences can be viewed as circular, or interrelated phenomena.

Active Phase: In the Active Phase (Stages 2 and 3), the participants collected their own data during their holiday. As previously emphasised (3.4.1), the

90 participants had full control in determining what they captured in their diaries and photographs, and had the freedom to collect data via any other methods that they wished. Out of the sixteen participants: fifteen kept diaries (see Appendix 2-4), thirteen took photographs; and half brought back additional materials such as corporate documents (i.e. hotels’ ‘Green Codes’), magazine/newspaper cuttings (Appendix 5), leaflets, poetry and drawings. Although the level of input varied, all of the participants had at least one form of data – most commonly two, but often three – that they could use as a prompt in the post-holiday interview.

Reflective Phase: In the Reflective Phase, the researcher and participant re-convened in order to conduct an ‘active interview’ (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995) (see 3.5.1; Appendix 6). On average, the interviews lasted just over one hour, with the longest running to two hours (see Table 3.5). Participants tended to steer the direction of the interview by reflecting on the visual and written data that they had collected, with the researcher interjecting with questions and/or to ask them to expand on certain reflections. The primary purpose of the Reflective Phase was for the researcher and participant to ‘make sense’ of the holiday – often by drawing links between the Active and Prospective data – in a way which allowed ‘meaningful patterns’ to emerge (Heron, 1996: 87-88). Put simply, the Reflective Phase provided space to examine: (i) how participants experienced responsible tourism (RQ2); (ii) how they rationalised or resolved any trade-offs, tensions and/or deviations (RQ2) (perhaps in light of envisaged practice (RQ1));

and (iii) how they framed their moral autonomy to act as desired (RQ3) (again, perhaps in comparison to envisaged practice (RQ1)). It is noted that while participants ascribed meaning to their practices and subjectivities in the

91 Reflective Phase, their participation in the research terminated after the post-holiday interview. They were not invited to take part in the formal process of data analysis, which was conducted solely by the researcher.

3.4.4 Summary

This section has shown how the research was guided by the main principles of a supported action inquiry to develop what has been termed a PARTicipative inquiry (Ingram et al, 2017). Section 3.4.1 outlined the researcher and participants’ degrees of participation. It showed how participants would be the sole researchers of their experience on holiday, focussing on how they had complete autonomy to determine the content and quantity of data they recorded in the Active Phase. Section 3.4.2 then illustrated how PART presented a unique approach to triangulation, in that it centralised the narrative(s) and experience(s) of the participant within the specific context in which they were situated. Lastly, Section 3.4.3 discussed how PART transposed on to Heron’s (1996) four stage process of action and reflection, outlining the practices and processes of the researcher and participants at each phase. The next section elaborates on the research methods adopted in more detail.