Data analysis as outlined in Part 4 of the research process (Figure 3.1) was started after the completion and transcription of the interviews. These verbatim transcripts were first read several times to gain a thorough understanding of the data and information within (Miles & Huberman, 1994), followed by manual coding. The information contained within the transcripts could be divided into two parts – one part referred to the social aspect of travelling in more general terms and the second part elaborated on the two specific social interactions with other visitors as discussed in the previous Section 3.5.2. This was to examine both patterns and personal experiences in accordance with the post positivist paradigm, while the remaining questions referred to experiences with social interactions in particular and other travellers in general. Two sets of codes were therefore necessary in order to build a
92
foundation that would enable the emergence of interdependencies, interrelationships and patterns within particular social interactions while still maintaining the flexibility to incorporate individual experiences and personal perceptions. These included information that illustrated the interviewees’ personal attitude towards the social aspect of their holiday as well as other experiences that did not fit within the criteria of selecting specific interactions, but were still considered relevant enough to be mentioned during the interview.
When it came to the coding process, each interview was therefore read and coded twice. Since the sections of the interviews looking at specific social interactions were structured and followed a predetermined and relatively inflexible set of questions as outlined in Table 3.1, the coding process was straightforward and highly oriented towards the original interview guidelines with only minor variations and adjustments. A code referring to the circumstances of social interactions for example was labelled ‘Activity at location’, with sub-codes consisting of ‘Accommodation’,
‘Transport’ or ‘Organized tourist activities’. The codes referring to the semi-structured part of the interviews underwent several stages before being finalized.
After coding ten interviews, the current coding list was examined and adjusted. This list was then used to code a further ten interviews, after which it was again examined and adjusted where necessary. These adjustments most frequently consisted of combining certain categories, dividing them or creating sub-categories when appropriate. Interviewees were, for example, asked about any negative experiences they have had with other visitors, resulting in a code named ‘Negative experiences’.
Initially, this code included sub-codes such as ‘Noise’ and ‘Lack of cleanliness. Due to the relatively small number of answers that were included in these categories, they were eventually combined in the sub-code of ‘Inconsiderate behaviour’. After 40 interviews had been coded in this manner, no further changes within the coding list occurred and the data were then transferred into NVivo 9. Here, the final coding lists were entered and interviews were again re-coded accordingly. The reduction of physical material led to a clearer understanding of the information and, subsequently, several smaller readjustments of the final coding list.
Although exploratory interviews had already been coded and analysed during Part 2 of the research process (see Figure 3.1), the focus at the time was to determine the further methodological approach. A second analysis based on the coding list
93
developed from the main interviews was therefore conducted. After all interviews from the main research phase were coded, the transcripts of exploratory interviews were added to NVivo and transcripts were then coded based on the coding list stemming from the main interviews. During this process, no existing codes were changed and only one additional code had to be created to accommodate the previously collected data. This enabled a more reliable incorporation of the exploratory interviews in the findings of the study as further illustrated in Section 3.6.
While both the structured and the semi-structured part of the main interviews were included in the qualitative data analysis supported by NVivo, the comparatively rigid approach to specific social interactions also allowed for some quantitative analysis.
As the post positivist research paradigm accommodates this possibility, a transformative approach was used to quantitize the data stemming from the structured part of the main interviews as detailed in Table 3.1. “Quantitizing refers to a process by which qualitative data are treated with quantitative techniques to transform them into quantitative data” (Sandelowski, 2000, p. 253), and frequently consists of the reduction of qualitative verbal data into unambiguous items or variables that can then be analysed and presented numerically (e.g. Abeyasekera, 2005; Sandelowski, 2000; Young, 1981). It has been found to be especially useful when dealing with large amounts of qualitative data that contain a high number of individual factors, as a reduction of material by quantifying components allows for a more targeted analysis and provides the possibility to identify first the common and then the more individual aspects (Abeyasekera, 2005). Maxwell (2010) argues that the incorporation of quantitative numbers in qualitative research can contribute to an internal generalizability by identifying characteristics and connections that are applicable to a specific set of findings. In addition, the diversity of data can be identified and characterised and common patterns are more easily discovered. More importantly however, quantitizing data can help to “identify patterns that are not apparent simply from the unquantitized qualitative data (…) or even to participants (…). Individuals are often unaware of larger patterns beyond their immediate experience, and quantitative data can thus complement the participants’ perspectives in providing a clearer and more in-depth understanding of what’s going on in a particular setting” (Maxwell, 2010, p. 479).
94
This research is partly concerned with identifying underlying patterns and relationships within the interaction process and its influential factors. The data consist of a large amount of information referring to 121 specific social interactions as provided by interviewees, who – as suggested by Goffman (1967) and illustrated in Section 2.2.1 – are not necessarily aware of all interdependencies within their social interactions. The structured approach taken during the parts of the interview that related to specific recent social interactions and the commonalities in responses that existed within this data provided the basis for considering this transformative approach. The fact that the answers to each of the details as displayed in Table 3.1 could be broken down and assigned to a limited number of specific categories enabled a conversion of the qualitative data into a quantitative dataset. Quantitizing the data from the main interview was thus deemed appropriate as the first step in approaching data analysis. As mentioned previously, the conceptual framework on which methodology and data collection were based stemmed from a variety of different sources and disciplines, with no clear knowledge as to how the specific aspects of the framework were related to and interconnected with each other.
Quantitizing the collected information on specific social interactions provided a first overview of the main interdependencies and influential factors, and allowed for a more structured and targeted investigation by first identifying independent variables and commonalities upon which the subsequent qualitative in-depth approach could be based.
As a first step, all information from the transcripts referring to one detail collected during the structured parts of the interviews was combined and, using quantitative coding techniques, assigned to specific categories that encompassed the information given by interviewees. Based upon these codes, variables within an SPSS dataset were created and the codes were transformed into their respective categories. For example, the question referring to the location of the social interaction resulted in a variable with categories labelled ‘accommodation’, ‘transport’, ‘organized tourist activity’ and ‘independent tourist activity’. A second related variable then included the specific location within these categories, such as ‘dormitory’, ‘common area’,
‘bus stop’ or ‘parking lot’. In addition, the demographic and travel related information provided was also incorporated into the dataset. After dataset completion, cross tabulations amongst the variables were conducted. Due to often
95
small sample sizes within specific categories, the rich information contained in the qualitative transcripts was then used to confirm the indications provided by cross tabulations. After connections between individual variables were determined, they were then identified as either dependent or independent variables. Variables that were shown to be independent were then examined in terms of the connections they displayed with the three parts of the specific social interactions (circumstances, process, perception, Table 3.1). Those that influenced all parts of the conceptual framework were then identified and served as a structure for further data analysis.
The two factors identified as being highly influential for the occurrence, process and evaluation of social interactions between visitors were found to be the interaction type (were interviewees the initiators or targets) and a range of demographic and travel related characteristics. This initial approach to data analysis thus confirmed the already assumed importance of interaction type (Sections 2.2.3 and 2.5.2), while the demographic and travel related factors will be explained in detail in Section 4.2 which provides a typology of the visitors represented within the sample.
The two influential factors of interaction and visitor type were incorporated when analysing antecedents, process, perception, and impact of social interactions by not only looking at the overall information but also at the differences that existed between these factors. The main part of the data analysis consisted of an initial quantitative analysis of frequencies and cross tabulations between variables relating to specific social interactions and influential factors. Cross tabulations were conducted for demographic and travel related characteristics in combination with variables that related to the antecedents, process and perception of social interaction, for example whether there was a possible connection between the visitor type of interviewees and the locations in which they interacted. Based upon this, the qualitative analysis was undertaken to confirm potential relationships. If cross tabulations indicated that certain visitor types did indeed seem to interact more in one specific setting than in others, the transcripts from interviewees who belonged to this visitor type were examined more closely to confirm if this was indeed the case for the majority and whether or not they showed similarities in their answers. The patterns and connections developed through this approach then provided the structure for a purely qualitative in-depth analysis to determine the reasons underlying these relationships and their individual impact on the interviewees –
96
attention was thus paid to the explanations that interviewees had provided, namely why they interacted most frequently in these locations and not in others. At this point, exploratory interviews were incorporated in the data analysis. These were more general and less specific in nature, and thus contained a wealth of information that provided further insight into and support for these patterns and connections.
They shed light on whether these patterns were only applicable to their respective contexts or if they were a more frequent and generalizable occurrence less dependent upon situational factors. If one visitor type reported to interact mostly in accommodation settings for certain reasons, exploratory interview transcripts were then analysed. This was to see if interviewees who had illustrated their social interactions with other visitors in more general terms (i.e. without referring to one specific interaction) also preferred these settings, and if their general explanations for this were in accordance with those factors that determined these choices for specific social interactions.
The main interviews as conducted during Step 3 thus provided the initial overview of interdependencies, whereas the exploratory interviews from Step 2 occupied a supporting role and provided information on the extent to which these interdependencies were dependent upon their specific social interaction.
97 3.5.6 Sample characteristics
Before discussing strengths and limitations of the methodological approach and its resulting findings, a brief overview of the sample of the main interviews will be provided. Table 3.2 includes the demographic and personal characteristics of interviewees. Female visitors accounted for nearly two thirds of the sample, and the large majority was under 40 years of age and of European descent. About two thirds also considered themselves more extroverted as opposed to introverted (only 19%) during their travels in New Zealand. Over half of the visitors regarded contacts with other travellers for this trip as either ‘important’ or ‘very important’, whereas for about a quarter, the social aspect of their travels was either ‘less important’ or ‘not important at all’.
Table 3.2 Sample characteristics – demographic and personal
% n
98
In terms of travel characteristics, over three quarters of interviewees stayed in New Zealand for four weeks or longer, with about two thirds being single travellers.
Rental cars or campervans were used by about half, public bus networks by about 40% and organised backpacker buses were the most popular form of transport used in New Zealand for 16%. In terms of accommodation, the most frequently chosen main types of accommodation were youth hostels (two thirds) and campsites (a quarter), followed by a variety of private and catered accommodation types. ‘Nature’
as the main focus of their holiday was named by nearly half of the interviewees, followed by culture (18%) and general sightseeing (15%), which corresponds to the overall interests of international visitors to New Zealand (see Section 1.4.1).
Younger, single and long-term travellers seem to be overrepresented within this sample. These correspond to Tourism New Zealand’s youth traveller segment as described in Section 1.4.2 – overall these visitors account for up to 25% of all international tourists (Tourism New Zealand, 2013d), yet they provide over half of the sample of this study. In addition, the number of interviewees corresponding to certain categories is often very small. The reasons for and implications of this will be further discussed in Section 3.7, which outlines the strengths and limitations of this study.
99
Table 3.3 Sample characteristics – travel behaviour
% n
100