Relación educación – proyecto de vida

Earlier discussion with respect to heritage attractions pointed to their distinct market and structural characteristics and the contention that they characteristically have a broader set of organisational objectives than the purely commercial or profit related targets. Emphasis too was placed on the complex operating environment in which attractions of all types operate, and the imperative of effective response to environmental change.

Given these observations, it is held that heritage attractions are confronted with a unique set of challenges in that they must not only respond effectively to external change, but must resolve what is essentially an internal conflict, in reconciling dichotomous operational objectives.

Any comprehensive understanding of how individual heritage attractions confront, and potentially overcome these challenges seems elusive. The absence of any focused research, and the realisation that individual attractions will almost intuitively respond to these issues in different ways, suggests that any generic pattern of cause and effect simply does not exist.

The quest for a research paradigm with the necessary sensitivity to construct a set of realities or actualities in the specific context of the research thus becomes the focus of this chapter.

As such it behoves the researcher to consider the relative merits of various research paradigms such that the most appropriate approach informs the research.

Defined as an “interpretive framework or as a basic set of beliefs that guides action” (Guba 1990, p.17), the research paradigm encompasses a set of “ontological and epistemological premises which regardless of ultimate truth or falsity become partially self-validating” (Bateson 1972, p.314 in Denzin and Lincoln 2005, p.22).

The relationship between ontological premises [hypothetical perspectives as to the nature of reality], and the epistemological premises [the nature and validity of human understanding] guides the research methodology which, in simple terms is the means by which the researcher might go about obtaining the necessary information to validate [wholly or partially] a set of research propositions.

Before embarking on an exploration of these elements as they relate to the research at hand, a fundamental distinction needs to be made between the positivist or scientific approach [which presumes the existence of certain realities, immutable laws or truths] and constructivist paradigms which are based on the premise that there are multiple realities which must be observed and interpreted in order to literally construct a collective reality (Guba, 1990).

Given earlier observations with respect to the paucity of broad management research into attractions a comprehensive understanding of the particularities of their operation seems elusive. Since it is the express intention of this work to elicit the views of key stakeholders as a means of framing a conceptual model of critical success factors, engaging in an organic interview process which permits a truly subjective view of actualities or realities seems a logical direction. As such, the constructivist paradigm is deemed most appropriate for this research.

Although the research may have accommodated a purely grounded approach in seeking to generate theory from observation, the research was in part shaped by the researcher’s knowledge of the operational domain, and in part informed by both ‘parent’ and tourism centric literature on critical success factors. Although this gave rise to a basic set of theoretical assumptions which guided the interview process, the work remained largely inductive in nature such that the widest possible diversity of views could be accommodated. As Guba (1990, p.25) observes, “Reality can be seen only through a window of theory whether implicit or explicit”.

Quite apart from the apparent suitability of such an approach to the research at hand, Hobson (2003, p.74) points to the domination of scientific research and the proliferation of “quantitatively based research papers that seem to add little or nothing to our understanding of the tourism phenomenon”. As he goes on to observe, “The complex set of relationships and interactions that form the tourism experience cannot be quickly distilled into short hypothesis statements and then readily reduced to a few survey questions” (p.74)

The fundamental decision to adopt a qualitative approach needs, however, to be based on a thorough and rigorous evaluation of the ontological and epistemological assumptions of the constructivist paradigm as it may be applied to the specific directions of this research. Apart from ensuring that the most appropriate paradigm is

used to guide the research method, such a process is also directed at ensuring that the outcomes of the research are as rigorous as possible.

4.5.1 The Ontological Perspective

Primarily due to a paucity of research in the area, any sense of what constitutes ‘reality’ or ‘normalcy’ in this particular theatre of attractions operation remains obscure. More particularly, as Guba (1990, p.p.27-28) observes, realities “exist in the form of multiple mental constructions [that are] socially and experientially based, local and specific, dependant for their form and content on the persons who hold them”. In early considerations of an appropriate research approach, realities were logically seen to reside in the experiences and perceptions of key stakeholders.

The essence of constructivist ontology is for the researcher to adopt a relativist stance (Guba 1990) deeming the existence of truth to be dependant on the beliefs of individuals holding them. Such an approach seems entirely appropriate to the research at hand in that it seeks to aggregate a diversity of views into broad consensus as a means of framing a conceptual model.

There is also some support for the contention that the constructivist view of reality has particular utility in research involving small to medium sized enterprise (Hill and Wright 2001) given that this sector reflects nuances and subtleties which may be more difficulty to identify, given the often organic nature of their structure.

Considered in the context of heritage attractions in particular, substantial attention has already been paid to the environmental and organisational complexities that characterise this attraction sector. Further, the fact that attractions of this type have perceived or actual cultural ‘value’, may be perceived as a community ‘asset’, and may be the recipients of some degree of public funding, suggests a potential polarity of views.

From an ontological perspective, therefore, the constructivist paradigm has the potential to enhance the research in that it implies some particular priorities in the framing of an appropriate research method. The realisation that any theories with respect to critical success factors defy a priori identification supports an approach that

In that regard, distinct synergies are perceived between the basic assumptions inherent in relativist ontology and the objectives of this research

4.5.2 The Epistemological Perspective

Just as individual truths were seen to reside in the minds of the people holding them, the adoption of a subjectivist epistemology which Guber (1990) suggests is central to the constructivist paradigm, is predicated on the doctrine that knowledge and value are dependant on, and limited by, subjective experience. As Sarantakos (2005, p.40) observes “here the qualitative researcher is interested in the subjective meaning, namely the way in which people make sense of their world, and in which they assign meanings to it”.

If, as Guba (1990, p.26) suggests “realities exist in respondents’ minds subjective interaction seems to be to the only way to access them”. Denzin and Lincoln (2005) share this view suggesting that constructivist epistemologies are both transactional and subjectivist with the findings co created [by inquirer and inquired].

Since, by its very intent, this research is directed at capturing a diversity of views on critical success factors, adopting a subjective view of reality seems a logical direction. More particularly, since such capture will involve a range of stakeholders with differing degrees of involvement, in different time frames, and with a range of agenda, anything other than a subjective view seems counterproductive to the research.

Amongst the more significant benefits of the constructivist paradigm, from an epistemological standpoint is the absence of any pre-supposed value system, which, according to Guba (1990) is characteristic of the bundle of paradigmatic options collectively titled critical theory. Although Denzin and Lincoln (2005, p.195) point to a similarity between critical theory and constructivist approaches, in that they share a common subjectivist epistemology, the fact that the findings of studies based on critical or ‘ideologically oriented enquiry’ are value mediated suggests that they may not be truly subjective in their application. As Guba (1990, p.24) observes, “if the findings of the study can vary depending on the values chosen, [it becomes a question of] what values and whose values govern”.

Although it seems, to some extent, inevitable that prior knowledge of the operational domain and immersion in the literature creates at least some notional pre-suppositions as to outcomes, it is held that this is not an imposition of values per se.

As such, some degree of objectivity seems possible without compromising the research process. Long, White Friedman, and Brazeal (2000, p.191) suggest that objectivity and subjectivity are not mutually exclusive and that these approaches sometimes tend to fuse. As they further observe, “the observation of objects itself involves a certain personal perspective, for all observations are positional [that is] they are taken from a certain standpoint” (p.190).

From the perspective of knowledge accumulation which is, after all, the ultimate objective of the research, Denzin and Lincoln (2005, p.194) point to another significant difference between outcomes of constructivist and critical theory based research. Noting that the constructivist approach permits “more informed and sophisticated reconstructions”, suggests that achieving greater subtlety from the data is within reach.

The subjective approach also calls for an inquirer posture that places the researcher in the role of ‘passionate participant’ facilitating multivoice reconstruction (Denzin and Lincoln 2005, p.196). Such a stance appears conducive to the intent of the research in that deeper immersion in the research process seems integral to capturing more subtle nuances.