CHAPTER 5: Research Methodology
5.3 Research methods 129
5.3.1 Research design 129
- 129 -
A mixed method approach was used to explore a number of issues in respect of the tourists’
social perspectives on disasters, crises and risks and their perception on Durban as a tourism destination. To this end, Veal (2011:231-232) contends that the:
“The term qualitative is used to describe research methods and techniques which use and give rise to, qualitative rather than quantitative information that is information in the form of words, images and sounds rather than numbers. In general the qualitative approach tends to collect a great deal of detailed (sometimes referred to as ‘rich or thick’) information about relatively few cases or subjects…”
The reasons for the use of a mixed method approach are as follows: this concepts of disasters, crises and risk are complex constructs, which are produced at the intersection of people and the physical environment. To this end, Speakman (2011:41) contends that “human beings do not find or discover knowledge so much as construct or make it”. Schwandt (1994:129) adds that
“constructions are attempts to make sense of or to interpret experience, and are self-sustaining and renewing”. Accordingly, the researcher mainly gathered information whose genesis can be traced to the respondents’ personal experiences regarding disasters, crises and risk, and this warranted the use of a mixed method of inquiry. The dynamic nature of disasters, crises and risks further require a holistic approach, which views the situation from “a wide sweep of contexts: temporal and spatial, historical, political, economic, cultural, social and personal”
(Stake, 1995:42). A qualitative approach enabled the researcher to unpack disasters, crises and risks ‘through the eyes’ of tourists and key informants, in order to gain a thorough understanding of the dynamics concerned. This also created ‘space’ for the comparisons to be made between theories that anchor the study and the empirical data. The theories anchoring the study also call for the use of this approach. Furthermore, the study is grounded in the
- 130 -
perspective that disasters, crises and risks are not identical (Evans et al., 2005). The mixed method approach was augmented by the use of semi-structured interviews (to be discussed in the subsequent paragraphs) and a literature review. This approach can illustrate the complexities of a situation by recognising more than one contributing variable. Tourism disasters, crises and risks are complex situations (Speakman, 2011), and the challenge is to take cognisance of the factors contributing to this scenario, and generate solutions. In this study, the complexity lies in disasters, crises and risk-fear nexus. Therefore, the study sought to unpack this relationship, as well as how tourists perceive Durban as a tourism destination.
However, there are some researchers (Sofaer, 2002; Decrop, 1999) who raise certain concerns about the validity and reliability of the qualitative methods. To deal with such concerns the researcher employed the following approaches to ensure that the findings of the study were reliable and valid.
Triangulation: Decrop (1999:158) defines this as “looking at the same phenomenon, or research question, from more than one source of data” and adds that “information coming from different angles can be used to corroborate, elaborate or illuminate the research problem. It limits personal and methodological biases and enhances a study’s generalisability.” Therefore the researcher triangulated the research findings to deal with the weaknesses inherent in the use of qualitative methods. To achieve this goal, different types of material were collected and analysed. Secondary data was cross-checked against information from interviews with the tourists and the key informants. Secondary data, as obtained from the textbooks, research articles, journals, newspapers, working papers, conference proceedings etc. (Decrop, 1999) were used to assess the validity and reliability of empirical data. Data generated through the use of the semi-structured interviews was also subject to triangulation. Field notes were used
- 131 -
to triangulate data during and immediately after each interview (Decrop, 1999). The notes were more useful as they provided additional light on the textual content or indicate certain questions, which were not sufficiently addressed during the interviews (Veal, 2011; Smith, 2010; Finn et al., 2000; Decrop, 1999). An effort was also made to check if new data corroborates or runs contrary to the established theories that anchored the study.
The practices posited above were in line with Decrop’s (1999:160) suggestion of “permanently asking questions and making comparisons”. Alternative explanations offered therefore assisted to render the findings and conclusions of the study more valid and reliable. The use of semi- structured interviews was essential, as they had a set of pre-determined questions to ensure consistency in terms of posing them to the respondents. The responses of the tourism experts (key informants) were compared, digressed and probed further, and a degree of validity was therefore ensured, by drawing them from a wide range of tourism sub-sectors for the industry as a whole. The interviews with key informants were audio-taped and transcribed by a professional transcriber at a later stage.
To sum up, triangulation enabled the researcher to compare results from empirical research with data from secondary sources. Interviews were used to add more impetus to the process of triangulation. This therefore enhanced the generalisability of the findings of the study.