Once the 10 participating families were recruited via phone, a time was arranged to meet with the whole family in their home in December 2006/January 2007, shortly before their summer holiday. This proved difficult because pre-Christmas is very busy for families. Once at the house, information letters provided details about the purpose of the study, the types of data that would be collected, and family members’ roles and choices. Daly (1992) and Astedt-Kurki et al. (2001) advised that for whole-family interviews it is necessary to ask separately for the consent of each and every family member. Consent was sought from all family members: written for the parents, verbal and written for the children depending on age (see Appendix B). This process recognised that children have a status in their own right (Stafford et al., 2003) and safeguarded against one family member consenting but not passing on all the information to the rest of the family. Three families opted to have at least one parent present during the individual interviews with their children (see Hilbrecht et al., 2008) (Table 3.8). Combined with a
general lack of privacy in modern housing, this meant that confidentiality of individual interviews was hard to achieve. The whole-family interviews, thus, were neither anonymous nor confidential for all three phases of interviewing.
One family known to me was used as a pilot in terms of testing the interview schedule (Table 3.7). Pilot studies can be used for pre-testing a research instrument (Van Teijlingen & Hundley, 2001). Piloting the questions resulted in streamlining some questions and cutting down on possible repetitions, as the pilot participants felt that the interview was too long. The data from the pilot study were included in the main study because the content of the questions did not change, only the flow (see Van Teijlingen & Hundley, 2001). Piloting with a familiar family helped in testing the process of interviewing children and using certain projective techniques, i.e., daydreaming (see Decrop, 2005). This involved asking the interviewed family members to close their eyes and to describe in their own words how they see one ideal day out of the next summer holiday. Each family was given a blank book for anecdotal notes and children’s drawings, as a holiday scrapbook. At the end of the project, the book remained the permanent property of the family but photocopies were made of the entries (Murphy, 1992).
Additionally, disposable cameras were handed out to all children participating and to parents that did not own their own cameras to let them take holiday photos. The reward was getting their own disposable cameras and one set of copies of the photos afterwards. Both children and adults were specifically asked to take photos that were related to their positive and negative holiday experiences, including travel to and from the destination(s). The scrapbook and photographs were treated as field data and for APE during the two interview phases after the holiday.
The interview schedule used for this pre-holiday interview (see Appendix C) followed on from the key themes identified in the survey to establish the social experiences and meanings sought in a family holiday from generation, gender, and group dynamic perspectives. As a result of GTM, a key emergent theme from the survey was the importance of visiting friends and family on holiday (see section 4.2.1) which was addressed as interview questions. As an icebreaker and to build rapport with the families, I introduced myself and showed them some of
Table 3.8 Research reflections on family interviews pre-holiday (Dec 2006–Jan 2007) Space*
Family Interview Time pre- Other persons Behaviour of Inter- Comments
name order holiday present participants ruption
Fantail Family then 7 days open no Very supportive no Some questions did not apply due to different kind of holiday (boat)
Individual
Goldfinch Family then 4 days open Everybody around for Parents making no Close family with no privacy, expecting second child individual individual interviews comments, supportive
Hoiho Family then 39 days open Parents for children’s Children restless no Some repetition in interview due to pilot, long family interview
(pilot) individual interviews
Kakariki Family then 27 days open Family around for Children shy and not much contributing,
no No real privacy, supportive
individual individual interviews
parents commenting
Kea Family then 6 days closed Youngest daughter Younger child shy, no Relaxed atmosphere
individual (toddler) very supportive
Kereru Family then 21 days open Family around for Parents making no No real privacy, eldest son joining later, supportive
individual individual interview comments
Pukeko Family then 13 days open Parents in the kitchen Entire family very no Relaxed atmosphere
individual listening at times supportive
Takahe Family then 1 day open no Supportive, relaxed no In holiday mode
individual
Tui Family then 16 days open no Father taciturn no Some disharmony, appeared
that father was not informed about the interview
individual
Weka Family then 6 days open A friend and child Parents somewhat yes Not expected by the family, father forgot to tell. Family interview over dinner
individual present distracted, relaxed
* Open space denotes open-plan living, while closed space means a separate room.
my family holiday photos. The first set of questions got all family members to define and describe a family holiday, which allowed comparisons with the survey.
The next set of questions was about the anticipations for their upcoming holiday and sought to establish the social experiences and meanings family members seek from their holiday. A differentiation was made between generalised intentional responses (reasons for travelling) and more situational responses (decision making) to elicit intrinsic motivations along with motivations that are made within the context of interpersonal relationships (see McCabe, 2000). The positive and negative aspects of family holidaying were probed. The schedule of questions for the individual interviews was a replication of the group interview questions, but with a focus on personal experiences as opposed to collective experiences. The aim here was to explore differences and similarities between a collective and individual perspective of family holidays, as used for all three interview phases.
The interview analysis and interpretation was based on the GTM, which is discussed in section 3.6.1. Procedures in GTM include the concurrent collection and analysis of data and the constant comparison of data and emerging interpretations which influenced the interview schedule for the next phase of family interviews. See Table 3.11 for a thematic development of interview questions through the research phases using the GTM. The themes that emerged from the data coding process pertained to the anticipated holiday experiences of the whole family. These included the importance of fun for children, the change from normal routine, and the relationship between own time/relaxation and togetherness/family time (chapters 5 and 6). Thus, the analysis of the multiple forms of data from different family members informed theory development (through emergent themes and patterns) and was refined for the next phase.