Qualitative Procedures

The distinction between positivism and interpretivism is in some senses real and in others wholly artificial (Clark et al., 1998) since both research paradigms try to understand behaviour based on different assumptions about the world of phenomena. An understanding of the main differences between these paradigms can be achieved through addressing some fundamental philosophical questions in the philosophical categories of: ontology, epistemology, logic, teleology and methodological assumptions (Maykut and Morehouse, 1994; Johnson, 1998).

The adherents of the positivist position believe that there is only one, true, objectively measurable, tangible, physical reality, which can be dissected into its component parts and fully explained (Maykut and Morehouse, 1994;

Sarantakos, 1988; Johnsons, 1998; Crotty, 1998).

In direct contrast, the interpretivism sees reality as “multiple” and interconnected, consisting of both tangible elements and “numerous constructs of the mind, past, present and future (Johnson, 1998; Maykut and Morehouse, 1994). Thus, interpretivism rejects the positivists’ position on one true, measurable and divisible reality. Hence, it follows that researchers within the two paradigms firstly ask different questions and secondly use different research approaches.

The two competing paradigms further differ in their axiological assumptions, in other words, the role that values play in understanding the world.

Supporters of positivism defend the position that values can be suspended to promote understanding, and that it is possible to be “value free”. Advocates of the interpretivist paradigm, in contrast, believe that it is neither feasible nor in favour of the research to be value-free since values are an integral part of the constructed reality and must be necessarily reflected by the researcher (Johnson, 1998; Maykut and Morehause, 1994).

The position on causality is also different. In positivisim, the emphasis is on establishing causality, where one event comes before, and causes another

event. Interpretivism, however, views events as mutually shaped and having multidirectional relationships (Maykut and Morehause, 1994).

Generalization of researchers’ findings is another area of difference between the two paradigms. Qualitative researchers, on one hand, value context sensitivity; they scrutinize phenomena within a particular situation and environment keeping in mind and paying attention to its complexity. On the other hand, the peculiarity of quantitative research is that it endeavours to eliminate all genuine research aspects, allowing generalisations to be made (Maykut and Morehouse, 1994; Decrop, 1999) by claiming the existence of

“universal truth” (Pawson, 1999).

As for the contribution of a particular research to a body of knowledge the positivist position is focused on verifying or proving of propositions. The interpretivist paradigm’s view is to discern uncovered propositions by observation and analysis of the patterns, which come into sight from the data (Maykut and Morehouse, 1994).

The differences between the two paradigms are fundamental and affect not only the general approach to research, but also the particular practises associated with each research tradition. The purpose of the positivist approach is to set up “complete intellectual control over experience in terms of precise rules” (Polanyi, 1958, cited in Maykut and Morehouse, 1994;

Johnson, 1998), whereas the interpretivist paradigm aims to examine human behaviour in order to detect salient patterns. The distinctions between these two ways of understanding the world reflect the process of selecting appropriate research tools (words versus numbers) - the positivist paradigm is associated with the quantitative approach to research, whilst the interpretivist paradigm is related to the qualitative approach to research (Johnson, 1998).

5.3. Methodological Considerations of Research

The use of qualitative research in human disciplines originated long time ago and any efforts to define it must take into consideration its historically determined complex nature (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003). Nevertheless, Denzin and Lincoln (2003) offer a broad definition of qualitative research:

Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make the world visible. These practises transform the world….

qualitative research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or to interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them.

(Denzin and Lincoln, 2003:4-5) There are no privileged research instruments or practices in qualitative research and its proponents apply approaches, methods, and techniques of a variety of disciplines (e.g. phenomenology, hermeneutics) (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003).

Creswell (1994) states that in a qualitative study a theory may come into sight through a data collection and consequent data analysis stage, or incorporated in a later stage as a way for comparing and contrasting results with other theories. Qualitative studies are concerned with the multiple nature of reality, the interdependence between the researcher and the research object, the value-laden nature of enquiry and the subjective component of research (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003; Ryan, 1995; Johnson, 1998; Maykut and Morehouse, 1994). In addition, qualitative approach to research does not focus on numbers, but on collecting rich data about a small group of people (Veal, 1997). Jary and Jary (1991) describe qualitative methods as relying to some extent on the interviewing skills of the researcher and his/ her training in collecting qualitative data.

There is a tendency to employ qualitative techniques mainly for studying of groups and when (a) the researcher looks for exploratory theory building

rather than for theory testing; (b) meanings and attitudes are in the centre of the research; and (c) the researcher assumes that concepts, terms and issues must not be defined by the researcher in advance, but should be elicited from the subjects being studied. Qualitative methods are not suitable for studies trying to generalise about large populations, especially in cases where general statements require some degree of quantification (Veal, 1997).

5.3.1.1. Advantages and Disadvantages of Qualitative Research

The qualitative approach has more than a few advantages. The results of qualitative studies are a wealth of information, feelings and impressions where the “reduction of such an experience to a few ticks on a five-point scale is obviously insufficient” (Ryan, 1995:28). Qualitative research can be seen as a way to generate ideas and insights, or to get different opinions about a phenomenon (Ryan, 1995). This approach also provides an opportunity for participants to directly share their understanding and perception of reality (Creswell, 2009).

Qualitative researchers, however, face many challenges that go to extremes as being called journalists, or soft scientists and being accused of unscientific, or only exploratory and subjective work (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003; Ryan, 1995). Additionally, one of the major criticisms of qualitative methods is that results depend not only on the observing or interviewing skills of the researcher, but also on the fact that not all people are equally articulate and perceptive (Creswell, 2009). Other weak points of qualitative research are (a) its interpretative nature making its findings subject to researcher’s understanding and interpretation that might lead to distorted final conclusions and results (Silverman, 2000) and (b) possible research bias as a result of researcher’s presence and its influence over respondents answers and/or behaviour (Creshwell, 2009). In some cases as Bryman (1988) argues respondents may even be influenced by their perceptions about the aims of the research. Bryman (1988) also mentions that qualitative

research is often criticized by quantitative researchers for its difficulty to realize replications of its findings.

Positivist proponents further reproach qualitative researchers for having no methods of statements verification (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003; Katz 1983, cited in Foddy, 1993). Decrop (1999) states that both reliability and validity of qualitative studies are put into question since homogeneity of data and coefficients of determination cannot be computed. Denzin and Lincoln (2003:35) argue, however, that “terms such as credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability replace the usual positivist criteria of internal and external validity, reliability, and objectivity”.

5.3.1.2. Criteria to Authenticate Data in Qualitative Research Credibility aims to confirm the suitability of the chosen design and methodology to identify and describe the subject of the research (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Alston and Bowles, 1998; Denzin and Lincoln, 2003). Leisure and tourism research is acknowledged to suffer from a sufficient number of difficulties in this area, mainly because it is largely concerned with people’s behaviour and attitudes (Veil, 1997). Creswell (2009) suggested a set of techniques to confirm research credibility. First of all, he recommended clarification of researchers’ bias by adding comments on how researchers’

understanding and interpretation of the results was influenced by their background. His second suggestion is to use an external auditor to review the entire project by looking over the accuracy of transcription, the connections between research questions, collected data and interpretation, etc.

The second criterion, transferability answers the question: “How applicable are the research findings to another setting or group?” (Decrop, 1999).

Dependability represents the third criterion and answers the question:”Are the results consistent and reproducible?” (Decrop, 1999). It endeavours to ensure that if the research is replicated, the same results, the same findings and conclusions would be found (Veil, 1997; Denscombe, 2000; Creswell,

2009). Nonetheless, as research subjects in tourism studies are often individuals, this is highly questionable. Therefore, Schofield (1993, cited in Roberts, 2004: 164) suggested that assessment of dependability should consider:

The aims of the research and its basic premises (purpose, theory), how the research was undertaken, most importantly in this context, the reasoning behind key decisions made and the role of researcher values.

(Roberts, 2004: 164) Clark et al., (1998) recognised an association between credibility and dependability; a qualitative study that has been shown to be credible is, likewise, also dependable. There is also the criterion of confirmability, where the design of the enquiry is looked at in an impartial fashion, by distancing the enquirer himself or herself (Johnson, 1998). Confirmability, in other words, answers the question: “Do the findings reflect the participants and the enquiry, or are they a product of the researcher’s biases and prejudices?”(Decrop, 1999).