There is agreement that the majority of tourism research is positivist and that the interpretive approach is not common in qualitative tourism research (Lynch, 2005). Phillimore & Goodson (2004) argued that, to date, qualitative tourism research has mainly used a set of methods rather than a set of thinking tools (paradigms) which enable researchers to consider different ways of approaching research. Tourism researchers, thus, need to become more sophisticated by encompassing epistemological notions of reflexivity and indeterminacy in their studies (Botterill, 2001). In fact, the influence of the full range of research paradigms is yet to emerge in practice (Goodson & Phillimore, 2004). The continued growth of qualitative tourism research will be ensured by a need for deeper understanding (Riley & Love, 2000). Tourism is an endlessly creative field of lived experiences that should be more deeply explored interpretively, and thereby ‘qualitatively’, especially in the light of new insights gained across social science disciplines (Hollinshead & Jamal, 2007). Qualitative tourism research that utilises advances in social research praxis is, therefore, best positioned to uncover the interpretive understanding of family holiday experiences.
According to Phillimore & Goodson (2004) there are five moments of qualitative research in tourism. The focus of this research is up to the fifth moment in line with current trends in tourism research. A brief discussion of these five moments
is in order. The first moment is associated with positivism. The paradigm of symbolic interactionism is associated with the modernist period (second moment) which considers that there are multiple realities held by the inhabitants of the social world and that these can be reached by techniques such as in-depth interviewing (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). To take this approach further it is essential for this research project to blur the boundaries between different disciplines (third moment) and engage with gender issues/feminist debates, such as men’s and women’s differential holiday experiences. It also includes experimentation with more creative methods, such as photography and holiday scrapbooks used for this research. In addition, there has been the use of multi- method approaches such as the linking of both qualitative and quantitative methods (e.g., Marshall, 2001). The fourth moment requires greater reflexivity, embodiment, and personal biography of the researcher, whereby this researcher adopts the use of the first person to write herself ‘into’ the text. It acknowledges that there are multiple interpretations meditated by the personal biographies of researcher and their research subjects. Reflexive approaches to research have emphasized the subject-centred nature of all human knowing (Feighery, 2006) but has been seldom used in traditional approaches to tourism research (Ateljevic et al., 2005). The fifth moment makes this research project context specific (a ‘snapshot’ in time and space) and my voice as researcher one among many that influence the research process. Examples of fifth moment tourism research are only just emerging (e.g., Lynch, 2005). These moments have since been expanded to eight moments by Denzin & Lincoln (2008) but have not yet been taken up by tourism researchers (Westwood et al., 2006). Jamal & Hollinshead (2001) call for tourism scholars to acknowledge these issues and invoke new ways of interpreting and expressing the multi-vocality, textuality, and situatedness of participants. A move away from positivism, the western hegemonic research paradigm, demonstrates deviance. This form of deviance can be perceived as affirmative for its innovation and progression in research practice (Jennings & Junek, 2007). How these moments are applied to this research project demonstrates a form of affirmative deviance. The interpretive paradigm used here is associated with the second moment along with symbolic interactionism and the GTM. This is adapted through true gender scholarship, the linking of qualitative and quantitative
methods, use of auto-photoelicitation and scrapbooks, and borrowing of the whole-family interview technique from another discipline (third moment). Reflexivity and personal subjectivity is acknowledged in the fourth moment. Focusing this study on New Zealand families and their domestic holidays makes this research context specific and part of the fifth moment.
There are many similarities with Jennings’ (2005) research into experiences of ocean-cruising women. Apart from using the same paradigm and grounded theory, her research also links a survey with in-depth interviews and applies a gendered perspective and reflexivity. However, this project is a major departure from other tourism research in that it introduces the whole-family study borrowed from qualitative family research which allows for an investigation into gender, generation, and group dynamics on family holidays. Situating myself as an interpretive researcher using GTM clearly qualifies as a critical turn by not embracing the dominant research paradigms (Jennings & Junek, 2007). Initiating whole-family studies as a new strategy in tourism research can also be interpreted as innovation and affirmative deviance as discussed in more detail next.
3.3
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH STRATEGIES
There are several qualitative research strategies used for this project that fit the progressive qualitative paradigm. These are GTM, case study inquiry, and whole- family study. While grounded theory and case studies have been used in tourism research, no whole-family study has been reported in the leisure or tourism literature yet (see sections 2.4.2 and 2.6.3). The width of scope and diversity of strategies and methods used for this research are shown in Table 3.1. The discussion now moves to the GTM before explaining the case study design used for this project and the relevance of whole-family studies within qualitative family research. The discussion, thus, progresses from the most widely used strategy in qualitative research to one of the least known, as whole-family studies are mainly used in family and health research. The methods are then explained in section 3.4.
Table 3.1 Paradigm, qualitative strategies, and methods used for this research