Doing Tourism Research Using the Pragmatism Paradigm: An Empirical Example

Abstract

There is a call for mixed-methods research in tourism. Many scholars have called for mixing of quantitative and qualitative research methods as a way of enhancing the understanding of a very complex social world that confronts tourism researchers. This paper takes a practical step by showing how mixing of methods can be done. The paper uses data that were collected in Australia. In doing so, the paper shows how data were collected and analysed. Theoretical understanding of the two approaches shows how the findings were arrived at and further supports the argument behind each approach taken in both data collection and analysis. The paper concludes by shedding light on some of the challenges facing mixed-method researchers, and further provides practical ways of conducting mixed-methods research in tourism effectively.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers of Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development for their helpful insights in improving the paper. I am also grateful to the University of Botswana and the University of Ballarat for funding the research. I am further grateful to Dr Jerry Courvisanos, Dr Jack Harvey and Uma Jogulu for their suggestions.

Notes

1. Dillman (1978) observes that, despite the importance given to response rate comparisons, they are very difficult to make because researchers use various methods to compute them. Dillman compares two methods, one where calculation of response rates is determined as the percentage of people in the original sample from whom completed questionnaires are obtained, and the alternative method where the response rate is calculated from as the percentage of contacts with eligible respondents that result in competed interviews or questionnaires. The formula for this latter calculation is:

It is this latter formula which is used in this thesis.

2. In most mixed methods research, ‘qual’ stands for qualitative, ‘quan’ stands for quantitative, capital letters – ‘QUAL’ and ‘QUAN’ denote high priority or weight, and lower-case letters – ‘qual’ and ‘quan’ – denote lower priority or weight. See Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004), Creswell (2003) and Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998).

3. Pearson's chi-squire test for independence or relatedness tests whether two categorical variables forming a contingency table are related. Field (2005, p. 682) argues that Pearson's chi-square test ‘is an extremely elegant statistic based on the simple idea of comparing the frequencies you observe in certain categories to the frequencies you might expect to get in those categories by chance’.

4. This is ‘a measure of the strength of association between two categorical variables used when one of these variables has more than two categories. It is a variant of phi used because when one or both of the categorical variables contain more than two categories phi fails to reach its minimum value of 0 (indicating no association)’ (Field, 2005, p. 727).

5. A categorical variable is any variable made up of any categories of objects/entities (Field, 2005).

6. Field (2005) argues that in many circumstances data transformation does not help at all, therefore suggesting reporting the Welch's F-ratio because of its utility. He suggests the Welch's F-ratio over the Brown-Forsyth F-ratio, unless there is an extreme mean that is also causing the problem with the variances. Welch's is a version of the F-ratio designed to be accurate when the assumption of homogeneity of variance has been violated.

7. Liamputtong and Ezzy (2005) describe a unit of analysis as a tool used by a researcher in scrutinizing his/her data log, and this unit may be meanings, practices, encounters, narrative structures, organizations or lifestyles.

8. Following Herbert Blumer's thinking, strategic alliances could be seen as ‘objects’ which executives interact with. Adhering to George Herbert Mead's thinking quite closely, Blumer brings in the notion of ‘the nature of objects’, that human beings live in a world of ‘objects’ and their activities are formed around ‘objects’. According to Blumer (1969, p. 79), objects are products of interaction and are defined as anything that can be indicated, designated or referred to. ‘They are human constructs and not self-existing entities with intrinsic nature.’ Their nature, Blumer observes, ‘consists of the meaning that it has for the person for whom it is an object,’ and such meaning does not only set the way in which he/she sees the object but also the way in which he/she is prepared towards it, ‘and the way in which he is ready to talk about it’ (1969, p. 79). Viewed in the light of the above conception, an object may therefore be seen as having different meanings to different individuals. Therefore, objects are social products, which have been formed and transformed by the defining process that takes place in social interaction. Therefore people act toward an object based on the meaning of the object for them (Blumer, 1966, p. 539).

9. Blumer argues that ‘these meanings are handled in and modified through an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he encounters’, and this process has two distinct steps. (a) The actors indicate to themselves the things toward which they are acting, those that have meaning for themselves, and this is an internalized, social process in that the actors are interacting with themselves. (b) Then ‘the actor selects, checks, suspends, regroups, and transforms the meanings in the light of the situation in which he is placed and the direction of his action’ (1969, p. 2). Blumer refers to this process as ‘self-interaction’ (1969, p. 5).

10. Amaratunga et al. summarize the strengths of the positivist (quantitative research) paradigm as relating to the fact that: ‘They can provide wide coverage of the range of situations; They can be fast and economical; Where statistics are aggregated from large samples, they may be of considerable relevance to policy decisions’. On the other hand, they list the strengths of the phenomenological (qualitative research) paradigm as relating to the fact that: ‘Data-gathering methods seen more as natural than artificial; Ability to look at change processes over time; Ability to understand people's meaning; Ability to adjust to new issues and ideas as they emerge; contribute to theory generation’ (2002, p. 20).

11. Amaratunga et al. summarize the weaknesses of the positivist (quantitative research) paradigm as relating to the fact that: ‘The methods used tend to be rather inflexible and artificial; They are not very effective in understanding processes or the significance that people attach to actions; They are not very helpful in generating theories; Because they focus on what is, or what has been recently, they make it hard for policy makers to infer what changes and actions should take place in the future.’ On the other hand, they summarize the weaknesses of the phenomenological (qualitative research) paradigm as relating to the fact that: ‘Data collection can be tedious and require more resources; Analysis and interpretation of data may be more difficult; harder to control the pace, progress and end-points of research process; Policy makers may give low credibility to results from qualitative approach’ (2002, p. 20).