Research method and design

While research paradigm set a foundation for a research approach, there are different ways of approaching a research question. The main approaches are induction and deduction. With deduction you start with a general truth and then use established rules of reasoning to explain certain events. Induction, on the other hand, starts with observations or data collection and then develops theories from those results. (Moses and Knutsen, 2012, pp. 21-22)

Yet, there is also a third approach, which is not as well-established, but still useful. This approach is called abduction and is often used in research that deals with case-studies. Abduction has both characteristics from deduction and

induction, as theories often come from empirical findings, but are then developed and improved through more findings. This approach has some similarities with hermeneutics, as there is an extended focus on understanding and development based on findings. (Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2009, p. 4)

My approach is most similar to abduction, as my theory has developed as the research has progressed. This is also why my research question has changed over time, from when I first started doing interviews and data collection, as I saw that the data was taking me in a different and more interesting direction.

3.2.1 Qualitative and Quantitative research methods.

Having looked at approach and the foundation that I have built my project on, I will now focus more on the methods I have used and how specifically I have worked to collect my data. In social scientific research we tend to use two over-arching categories that influence the way we collect data; quantitative and qualitative methods. (Neuman, 2014, p. 16)

In some ways, one might say that quantitative methods of data collection would be more favoured by the positivist researchers, as it is much more

concerned with measuring objective facts and placing data into boxes.

Meanwhile, qualitative methods allow more lee-way, taking into consideration more nuanced ways of looking at the world and opening up more to interpretation – closer to a constructivist view. However, it is possible to use both methods, or approaches, in social research, if it fits the project. (Neuman, 2014, pp. 16-17)

In quantitative research, one often starts with a topic and then narrows it down to a question, which makes it easier to focus on what you want to find out.

A quantitative researcher might then design a questionnaire or experiment as a foundation to get answers to the this question. Preferably, when using a

questionnaire, the number of answers should be quite high, to create a

representative samples. The answers are then put into some sort of program, where they are turned into numbers and used to get some kind of statistical analysis. (Neuman, 2014, pp. 17-18)

Qualitative research, meanwhile, has a slightly different approach and a wider variety of methods that can be used to collect data. The method and number of participants/subjects that are part of the research depends on its nature. The aim is often to gain insight into people’s beliefs and life experiences, but as different researchers are interested in different subjects, the approaches vary a lot.

(Denscombe, 2014, p. 2)

3.2.2 Mixed methods.

Considering that I use both qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection, my research would fall under mixed methods research approach (Denscombe, 2014, pp. 146-147). Mixed methods are good for getting a better overview of a subject and can in many ways help cement the accuracy of findings (Denscombe, 2014, p.147).

With my initial research question and approach I wanted to test whether it was possible to use feedbacks from guests to improve the way we communicate a product/experience – all in the frame of NordNorsk Reiseliv’s Travel Styles. To test this, the idea was to interview a number of tourists participating in a specific experience, asking them about their motivations for travel with Travel Styles as reference points. I would then create a new product text, based on their answers, and put it in a questionnaire to hand out to a larger population undergoing the same experience.

In doing this, part of the idea was to check 1. Whether they shared similar motivations as the interview-subjects and 2. If they found the new text – made with them in mind – more appealing and/or accurate. This way, I would start with

the qualitative interviews and then use the quantitative questionnaires as a way to support or check the findings in the initial research (Denscombe, 2014, pp. 150-151).

I am still using this approach to some degree and much of the process was a lot like my initial plan. Yet, several factors have made me shift my focus in more of a qualitative direction, even with the questionnaire. First of all, my research question and focus has shifted. While I am still working with Travel Styles and motivation, I have grown less interested in the text-aspect and more interested in the connection between what people says motivates them to travel and what actually brings them to Alta.

Secondly, quantitative research requires a much larger number of answers to form an accurate representation of a group of people (Smith, 2010, pp. 102-103). This does not mean that the questionnaires were useless. Part of the reason people use mixed methods is to get a wider understanding of a subject, for example by testing whether a pattern found through one method persist when using another (Denscombe, 2014, pp. 147-148). Through asking similar questions both in the interviews and through the survey, I was able to see a clear connection and a red thread running through the answers.

Using interviews – or focus groups - to create a foundation for a

questionnaire is not uncommon in mixed methods research. It is a good tool for gauging which subjects are most important, based on what people focus on and what comes out of the conversations. It can also be useful focusing the

questionnaire and providing suggestions for questions with multiple answers.

(Denscombe, 2014, pp. 148-149) I will delve deeper into how I used this further down.

Using qualitative methods first and then quantitative methods is just one of many different sequences that you can use in mixed methods. Some may also start in the quantitative camp and then use qualitative methods to catch the nuances, while others might yet again do that and then use the qualitative data to perform

another quantitative survey. It all depends on what kind of research you are doing.

Some may even use both methods simultaneously, just to see if different results arise from different kinds of research. (Denscombe, 2014, pp. 150-151)

The reason I chose the sequence that I did comes back to focus. Dealing with a subject such as motivation, where the opinions are subjective and nuanced, it makes sense to use more qualitative methods to grasp the complexity of the subject. Certain things cannot just be put into boxes and numbers and as researchers we cannot always guess correctly the foundation that people use to build their decisions on.

While I initially intended to allow the quantitative data to have a bigger role, as the project progressed, it became clear that it would play more of a supporting role than a lead. This is not necessarily unusual in mixed methods research, as quantitative data can often be used to support data found during qualitative research. (Denscombe, 2014, p. 151) Both quantitative and qualitative methods can be used to compare, build up and develop findings from each other.

In my case, I am using quantitative methods to “build up” – or support – findings from my qualitative research. Having also used open-ended questions (which I will get back to later), I was able to gather data from the questionnaires that I could analyse qualitatively. This way I was able to get a fuller picture overall.

(Denscombe, 2014, p. 152)

3.2.3 Data collection.

Before delving deeper into the methods that I used to collect my data and discussing the reasons for the choices I made, I would like to present a brief overview of the practical process.

I have been working with two companies who have let me collect data from their guests. These companies are Glød Explorer and Holmen Husky Lodge.

With Glød Explorer, I talked to guests who had chosen to do snow shoeing – some ice-fishing and some not. Meanwhile, for Holmen Husky Lodge I actually ended up talking to guests doing two kinds of products. My main focus was on guests participating in a package called Northern Night, where an evening dog sledding trip was combined with special accommodations. However, I had the chance to talk to four guests who were participating in a longer dogsledding expedition; Weekend Adventure, which allowed me some insight into these particular guests as well.

As the products that I was working with are winter products, I began conducting interviews in December 2019, though most of the interviews were done in January 2020. Afterwards I put together the questionnaires, which I handed out in February and March. Unfortunately, due to world events, which I will discuss in my limitations chapter, I was not able to get as many answers I wanted and I needed to adapt and change my approach. I decided to focus more on the qualitative part of the research, which I could still used the questionnaires for, both due to the open-ended questions and the findings supporting the

interviews. I will get more into this further on.