Research Approach

Research methods and how to conduct research has been a subject of debate for centuries, just as the way we view and approach the world has undergone a lot of changes. As a foundation, we often talk about research

paradigms, which represent different orientation on theory and research (Neuman, 2014, p. 96). While they go by different names depending on whom you ask (Positivist or Naturalist? Constructivist or Interpretive?), there are three main research paradigms that tend to be used in social science; Positivist, Constructivist and Critical Theory.

Positivism is the oldest and perhaps more heavily used, also in tourism. It is an approach that emerged from natural sciences and to many this is the only correct way of approaching research. (Neuman, 2014, p. 97) In terms of the way positivists approach research, there is an underlying belief that the truth is out there and that answers to scientific questions can only come from systematic, objective observations and experiments (Moses and Knutsen, 2012, pp. 8-9).

Meanwhile, many have criticised the positivist approach as being too narrow or perhaps even basic, as it does not take into consideration the

complexity of the world and how our own interpretation of reality influence how we move through life and the choices we make, no matter how objective we try to be. Both Constructivism and Critical Theory come out of this criticism, as both allow for a more interpretative approach to reality and research. (Moses and Knutsen, 2012, p. 9)

Whereas positivists are concerned with uncovering the truth,

constructivists take into consideration that the truth might differ from person to person and seek understanding rather than uncovering. Constructivist research focuses more on complexity and understanding and focus on the fact that we all

have our biases that influence the decisions we make and the conclusions we come to. (Moses and Knutsen, 2012, pp. 10-11)

Critical Theory share many similarities with constructivism, but critical theorist are generally more political and concerned with uncovering injustices and faults in society and fight oppression. This is why they are in their own distinct category. (Moses and Knutsen, 2012, pp. 184-185)

So where does my research project fit into all of this? Well, considering the subjects that I am working with, I would position myself squarely in the constructivist camp. While there is definitely merit in approaching research from a positivist point of view, I believe that a constructivist approach allows for more nuances and complexity, which makes more sense when dealing with something as complex as human beings.

For example, while positivists are so concerned with the truth that they might cling onto it for dear life when found, constructivists are more open to the idea that knowledge is evolving, just as society does. There is also a notion that knowledge comes in many forms and there are differences between knowledge based on nature, context and how it is shared. For example, there is a difference between those who have studied to become sailors in school and those who have learned it through just doing it for years. Both parties will have access to

knowledge that the other does not, but the value of their knowledge depends on the situation. (Moses and Knutsen, 2012, pp. 182-183)

Understanding and interpretation are also central themes for

constructivists. The concept of verstehen – which is a German word that translate to understanding – lies at the heart of the constructivist paradigm and is something that many philosophers have developed over the years. One of them, Wilhelm Dilthey, emphasised empathy as important for gaining an understanding of where other people come from and how they see the world. However, with the shadow of subjectivity looming over him, he went in a slightly different direction. (Moses and Knutsen, 2012, p. 187)

This is where the other central theme in constructivism comes in;

interpretation. More specifically, he hoisted the technique of hermeneutics back into the light. This ancient concept comes from those who studied the bible in the past and boils down to interpreting the part in accordance with the whole and the whole in accordance with the individual parts. The name of the concept that Dilthey came up with is known as the hermeneutic circle, as it as constant dance of interpretation between the parts and the whole. (Moses and Knutsen, 2012, pp.

187-188)

The concept of the hermeneutic circle is all about understanding how we are always moving and influencing each other, both on a societal and individual level. We are neither completely helpless to influence the world around us, nor able to escape influence ourselves. It is all a part of seeing the bigger picture and understanding the small issue in the bigger context and vice versa. (Moses and Knutsen, 2012, p. 188)

In terms of motivation and the subject of my thesis, this goes back to understanding that what motivates people to travel is a complex range of factors. I will get more into the detail of this in my discussion chapter, but it is also worth noting that even the answers that I got from the interviews and questionnaires must be interpreted in the context that they took place. Everything from the setting to the questions themselves and the various factors that made us all end up in this place at this time must be understood as some kind of influence on the results.

Some people call constructivism interpretism, as the belief that we all have an interpretation, or construction, of reality in our mind, which influence how we interpret the rest of the world. We give different meaning to different events, all based on the way we view the world. (Smith, 2012, p. 23) An extreme example of this is flat-earthers, whose warped world-view influences the way they consume media and news and interpret the world around them. While most of us take the

images of the moon landing as an example of technological progress, flat-earthers believe it is a hoax put together by a deceptive government.

Because interpretation is such an important part of this kind of research, it is important to have some self-awareness when doing research. While the goal is to try to be as objective as possible, considering the frame of mind that we are all interpreting the world around us based on inherent biases, we must be aware of how this might influence us. (Moses and Knutse, 2012, pp. 157-158)

Reflexivity is therefore important when undertaking research and

analysing data in particular. Reflexivity relates to examining and being aware of your own biases – to try to interpret yourself in the situation and what might influence to interpret a thing in a certain way. However, it is also important not to let this take too much centre stage in the research. It is something that you need to be aware of, but not something that should be the main focus. (Alvesson, 2003, p.

25)