Políticas de seguridad

The use of photograph in tourism research is well established. For example, photographs have been used to capture backpackers‟ experiences (Andersson, 2004), the relationship between tourism and neocolonialism (Bandyopadhyay, 2011), perceptions of residents and visitors of a destination (Garrod, 2008; Mackay & Couldwell, 2004), the advertising effects on tourism attractions (Hem, Iversen, & Gronhaug, 2003), the potential of photographic encounters as social exchange and reinforce of cultural identity (Scarles, 2012), and visitor‟ dissemination of photographs through social media (Sheungting, McKercher, Lo, Cheung, & Law, 2011). “Photographic research methods provide a means of data collection and analysis that can be less restrictive and, perhaps, more accurate than other method…they represent a viable, but underleveraged, method that should be more fully incorporated in the methodological tool kit” (Ray & Smith, 2011, p. 289). There are two main photo-techniques used in this study: Photo-elicitation and sorting-ranking procedures. During this section the two techniques are described. This section also states the approach followed in this study.

3.4.2.1 Photo-elicitation Technique

The photo-elicitation technique is described as the use of photographs in research interviews with the aim to evoke a different kind of information than one evoked by words (Harper, 2002): “as a „„can opener‟‟, a starting point from where trust can be developed between the researcher and informants” (Andersson, 2004, p. 226). The technique has its origins in the mid-1950s when John Collier (1957) published a photo-elicitation research based paper (Harper, 2002). Different approaches to using photographs in interviews have appeared; however, the most common examples are either using photographs gathered by participants or by researchers (Matteucci, 2013).

46 When the photographs are gathered by the researcher, the main advantages of this method are: low cost and less time consuming than other methods, the researcher can control what images are suitable for the research intent and is able to select good-quality photographs (Ray & Smith, 2011), and help to build rapport with the participants (Andersson, 2004). However, disadvantages such as the researcher missing important features or overemphasizing others are a possibility (Ray & Smith, 2011). In addition, if the researcher decided to approach this method by using volunteer-employed photography (VEP), participants‟ understanding might be gained (Jacobsen, 2007); however, this approach could be more time consuming and costly (cost of camera, and photography processing), and the participants might capture images that are not consistent with the study (Ray & Smith, 2011).

Its use in tourism remains marginal (Matteucci, 2013), and mainly focused on investigating travellers‟ experiences (e.g. Botterill & Crompton, 1987, 1996 as cited in Jenkins, 1999; Andersson, 2004; Matteucci, 2013).

3.4.2.2 Ranking-sorting Procedures

Ranking-sorting procedures use pre-selected photographs as stimuli, and take place when participants are required to sort and/or rank data (Coxon, 1999). Important examples of these procedures are the Q-technique and the multiple sorting tasks.

The Q technique approach involves participants‟ sorting photographs according to specific instructions and then providing the explanation of their preferences (Brown, 1980 as cited in Fairweather & Swaffield, 2001; Green, 2005; Jacobsen, 2007; McKeown & Thomas, 1988). This technique uses both a fixed (the categories of sorting are determined by the researcher) and graded sorting (Coxon, 1999) methodology which then employs both qualitative and quantitative analysis using a by-person factor analysis. Generally the Q-sample (for example, a set of photographs) is larger than the participants sample (Dziopa & Ahern, 2011). The Q-technique “encourage[s] greater participant involvement where the issues facing tourism researchers involve multiple truths…on the other hand, does not impose meanings a priori. Instead, it asks the participants to decide what has value and significance from their

47 perspective” (Stergiou & Airey, 2011, p. 317-318). The use of the Q technique in tourism is relatively novel, and has been used to investigate destination images. For example, Davis and Khare (2002) used the Q method to identify the main destination images of the Bay of Fundy, Canada. Additionally, Dewar, Mei and Davis, (2007) conducted a study to describe group-specific (students in Canada and China) perceptions of travel destination´s images; while Fairweather and Swaffield (2001) used this method to capture the differences between perceived five experiences in Kaikoura, New Zealand (ecotourism, maritime recreational, coastal community, picturesque landscape, and family coastal holiday).

The advantages of this method are that it can provide in-depth answers regarding the patterns of subjective perspectives that prevail in a given situation (Steelman & Maguire, 1999), it can capture more spontaneous answers as it focuses on the subjective experience of the people talking part, it can encourage greater participation involvement by diminishing the awkwardness that an interview may feel from being put on the spot, it gives focus and sharpness to vague memories, and it does not impose meaning a priori (Banks, 2007; Stergiou & Airey, 2011). In contrast, this method does not produce statistically generalizable results as this technique usually involves a small sample (Steelman & Maguire, 1999). Also, Q methodology studies conducted on-site could have the limitation of visitors having not enough time available to participate, and the methodology can be time consuming not only during the field work but also during the data analysis process (Jacobsen, 2007).

Similarly to the Q-technique, the multiple-sorting task technique involves respondents sorting photographs into groups (Green, 2005); however, this technique invites but does not pre-request a rank-order (Coxon, 1999). The multiple-sorting technique encourages respondents to “sort the elements, using different criteria, a number of times” (Canter et al., 1985, p.88 as cited in Coxon, 1999). Its use in tourism research it has been limited (Jacobsen, 2007). For example, Green (2005) used this approach to investigate locals´ perceptions regarding tourism development in Koh Samui, Thailand. Advantages of this technique are that the technique allows testing reliability; it reveals people´s own concepts rather than the researcher; it is useful for uncovering the people´s models when making evaluations; and it allows obtaining different perceptions by changing the context of categorization (Coxon, 1999; Scott & Canter, 1997).

48 However, in the same way as the Q technique, this technique could be time consuming, both during the field work and during the data analysis (Jacobsen, 2007).

3.4.2.3 Photo-based Technique Approach Used in this Study

Based on the above analysis of three different photo-based techniques and their alignment with the objectives of this study, it has been decided to assume the following approach: sorting-ranking procedure along with a photo-elicitation technique used in semi-structured interviews. This decision is based on the following assumptions:

a) Photo elicitation can be used as a qualitative method to trigger semi- structured interviews, which then allows the researcher to capture the motivations for, and barriers to, participating in Indigenous tourism activities

b) A combination of Q technique and multiple sorting procedures (e.g. Green, 2005) can be used to identify, first the participation (or not) in Indigenous tourism activities and then to capture the preferences for these activities in comparison to other types of activities. The Q methodology (alone) was not chosen because despite Q-sorts are firmly, but by no means necessarily, wedded to the factor analytic model (Coxon, 1999; Dziopa & Ahern, 2011); this methodology requires a large Q-sample (photographs). As one of the objectives of this study is to capture the preferences for the five TRA categories, the inclusion of a larger sample of photographs is not relevant and it would be more time consuming. In addition, this methodology is widely used to capture the factors that have an influence on participants´ preferences; in this study the aim is to capture the preferences themselves. Therefore, the combination of a sorting and then ranking technique was considered as the most suitable approach mainly because the sorting technique allowed the researcher to use the two columns as prompts. One column was used for exploring the motivations for participating in the tourism activities sorted in that column. The other column was used as prompt for investigating the barriers to engaging in the tourism activities sorted

49 in that column. Secondly, the ranking technique allowed the researcher to explore the preferences for the tourism activities. Section 3.7.2.2 illustrates the deployment of this method during the data collection process.