Practical issues

So, with the interview guide ready, it was time to get some interview-subjects. This was challenging both with the questionnaire and the interview and I depended a lot on the help of the two companies to access their guests. While this process varied between the companies due to differences in how they are run, I am very grateful for all the help that I got in this area. (Smith, 2012, p. 112)

I initially wanted to arrange things with the guest ahead of time, but this turned out to be challenging due to the fact that many guests book through tour operators. This meant that there was little communication between the company and the guest ahead of time and it was hard to send out any information or a consent form ahead of time. Even if I wanted them to arrived informed of the

project, I ended up filling them in upon meeting them in person. (Denscombe, 2014, p. 193)

When they arrived, the consent-form was particularly important to hand out, not just because it was important for them to have a fuller overview of the project, but because I would be recording the interviews. Human-memory is not always reliable and because the details of the interview were important, I wanted to record everything on an audio recorder. (Denscombe, 2014, p. 196)

Even if all of my participants would be anonymous, I still had to ensure that they were fully informed of their rights, seeing as I would record their voice and ask for their nationality, which is personal data. It was also important to let them know that they could withdraw their participation at any point, all the way up to my deadline. Luckily, none did, but consent is something that is very important when doing interviews or collecting data through other people. They should know that they are taking part of and how to get out of it. The interviews should always be done with their interests in mind. (Denscombe, 2014, pp. 306-312; NSD, 2019)

This also comes down to doing the interview in a place that is convenient for them and where they feel relaxed (Smith, 2012, p. 113). This is also why I wanted to agree on a place and time ahead of time, to be able to plan more and set the stage. This proved more difficult than anticipated.

Most of the interviews I did ended up being planned to some degree on the spot, even though there were a couple of outliers from both companies. With Glød I would know that the guest would arrive, but not whether they would agree to the interview until a few hours before it would take place. Luckily I worked at

Scandic, where most of the Glød interviews took place and so I was able to borrow a room on a short notice.

Meanwhile, with Holmen Husky all the interviews took place at

company’s location. While one of the couples that I interviewed agreed to do so

before I arrived, the rest I had to show up and ask in person. I got almost all the interviews done in one week, as I drove up to Holmen four out of seven days to

“fish” for participants. Luckily I am good at fishing and I talked to 12 of total of 14 participants in that time.

Four of these were participating on a different experience than I was originally working with, but as they were the only ones there that day and because I thought it would be interesting with a different perspective, I also talked to these. With the approval of those who run Holmen, of course.

Looking at the number of participants versus the amount of interviews that I did, you can already tell that I often interviewed more than one person at the same time. I can also add here that I had 10 participants from Glød across five interviews.

Most commonly, interviews are one-to-one, often due to the fact that it is easier to arrange, but also because it is easier to control the interview and steer the conversation, if the interview is supposed to be structured or semi-structured. It also makes it easier to differentiate between the voices later in the process, when you are transcribing the interviews. (Denscombe, 2014, p. 187)

The convenience argument is rather turned on its head in my case, as the reason most of my interviews were done with two people at once, is because they were couples that travelled together. Interviewing them together both saved time and helped make them feel more comfortable in the setting, even allowing the conversation to float more naturally, as they would also respond to each other.

This is an advantage that comes with group interviews, as it allows more opinions and views to come fort and the discussion flows more naturally. (Denscombe, 2014, pp. 187-188)

At one point I interviewed four people at once. This was meant to be a kind of focus group interview, with my supervisor participating, but it turned out to be more of a mix between this and group interview. While it was slightly freer

than my other interviews, it was still not as free as a focus group interview. My focus was still on getting answers, not just about the discussion itself.

(Denscombe, 2014, pp. 187-189)

Having such a big group as four people was definitely challenging, especially trying to get a proper response from everyone. One of the participants was watching a young child while the interview was taking place and she was not very active in the conversation in general. There is also the fear – and this is the same with interviewing two people together – that they influence each other’s answers. When all participants pick a similar answer, it becomes even more important to listen to the rest of what they have to say, to understand their reasoning. (Denscombe, 2014, pp. 187-188)