2004 Rclsky . .J.M. Contributions orqualitative research to understanding the politics of community eco1ourism. In: J. Phillimore and L. Goodson (eds.) Qualirative Method~ in Tourism Research. Routledge Press, chap 16 ppo. 274-291

16 Contributions of qualitative research to understanding the politics of community ecotourism fill Belsky

Aims or lhe chapter • To briefly review tl1c literature on the politics of tourism research and

practices.

• To chscuss two qualitative methods - participant observation and indcpth interviewing - that l emphasised in my teaching about and research on community ecotourism in Gales Point, Belize. ~

" • To discu~s opportunilies and challenges that these two methods afforded tl1is project. .

~·:!

•, '. ..

Tn offer some sugges tions for pushing the benefits of particip;mt

~ ?./ ' observation and in-depth interviewing further through critical rcUeeLion and, possibly, partidratory research. ~~} .. ~.· ,. -1.tltroduction ~1· \""'

\ 'QU;fJlla tive research has hceo i.ustrumemaJ for uncovering and elucidating '' ill'c political dimensions and lcusions of tourism. Among the many tools in

iJ1c ,qu:1litallve rescurch toolbox, participant observation and in-depth : 'Interviewing caa help lo develnp a holislic perspective on the context and r ~

political dynamics of politics. Though not without its own cha llenges, partiCjpAQt observatiou can enable opponunities for observing everyday IOurhm activities and for in-depth dialogue berween researcher and sublecrs, These conditions, as opposed 10 fom1aJ settings and procedures that S°'ID work against dialogue and a fuUer viewing of tourism in practice, can re.veal interconnections and power dyaamks associated with tourism praclicct and help 111 the creation of new theories. Given the newness ofa!f~mativc tourisms such as community ecotou rism, these qualitative lllClhods nrc parhcularly suitable for assisting in theory discovery and gcnctalion following Burawoy's (1991) extended case method.

To illustrate these points, I draw upon my multi-year research on

c~rnmunity ecotounsm in Gales Point, Belize (CeatraJ America). The sub

ltltntivc tindtngs of this research have been published elsewhere (Belsky

1999,2001, 2003, Outside Television 2000).

lfj,,,

The politics ofcommunity ecotouri.sm 275

and economy rather than ideals of equality and social justice ' ( I !all 1994: 7). Nonetheless, some tourism researchers ltave studied how tourism unevenly affects different social groups within and across nations (Britton 1991). Ethnographic works by anthropologists are particularly noteworthy for paying attention to a.~ymmetries in terms of power between hosts and guests, and analysing the impncts these bave on each (Stronza 2001). Anthropologists and other tourism researchers to a limited degree have addressed political themes, including tourism and the global local nexus (Cameron 1997; Milne 1998); class, commodification and tourism (Greenwood l976; Patullo 1996); tourism discourse and tourism marketing (Urry 1990): and cultural politics (Chambers 1997;

1Greenwood 1976, 1989; Smith 1989). Otcong and Miller (2000) challenge tourism researchers to move beyond discussing how tourists, and especially wealthy Northern tourists, negtltively impact Southern hosts, to how 'there is power everywhere in tourism' (Cheong and Miller 2000: 372). They advise increased scrutiny of how the exercise of power operates at individual, institutional, industry and state levels, and of how local peoples creatively respond lo tuuri:nn not as p~

The politics ofconunUJUty ecotourism 277 ogy and method. She writes, 'a research melhodology is a theory and analysis of how research does or should proceed' whereas 'a research method is a technique for (or way of proceeding in) gathering evidence' (1987: 2- 3). Methodology frames the questions being asked, determines the methods and 1ypes of evidence to be used, and shapes the analyses. As Burawoy (1991: 271) says, 'U technique is concerned with the instruments and strategics of data c0Uec1ion, then meU1odology is concerned with the reciprocal rela1ionship between data and theory.• Quali1a1ive methodology and its porlfotio of available lechni4ues would seem well suited to tourism research that is critical of a value-free epistemology aod attuned to particular contexts as well as the poli1ical dimensions of tourism practice. Indeed, Dcn7.in and Lincoln (2000: 3) define the key, enduring features of qualirn1ive research as contextuality, interpretation and subjectivity:

Qualitative research is ll situated activity that locates the observer in the world . .. qualitative research involves an inlerpretivP., naturalistic appro:ich to lhc world. Tf\is means that qualitative researcher~ study things in their nalural settings, attempting lo make sense of, or to interpret phcnomella in terms of the meanings people bring to them.

A basic assumption of participant observation is that ii is critical of the researcher as a neutral, objective interpreter ;md seeker of truth, emphasising ins1ead the subjeciivity of the research process and empathy between researcher and research 'subjects' (Berg 2001; Taylor and Bogdan 1998). Participant observation refers to !he me!hod of researchers making observations in the course of laking par! in the activities of lhe people they study. Like other observational me1hods, it excels in !he possibility of

gaining an in-depth undersianding of a situation in its natural or usual

social context, and especiaUy by providing a sense of what has been called

an 'insider's view' of that situation and context. For example, participant

observers have documented the benefit of this method for studying mar

ginalised populaiions uncomfonable with interacting with professional researchers from a different socio-economic and cultural background. Women researchers haYC also noted the benefits of participant observation, as well as informal, in-depth interviewing. for researching other women. Women arc often Ill at ease talking to male researchers, especfally if their concerns include critiques of men. Nonetheless, feminist and other scholars also continue to challenge participant observation on issues of scale, authority, significance and balance between researcher and research subjects' views (Clifford und Marcus l9l'j5, Stacey_.199l). Box 16.1, adapted froll\ Adler and Clnrk (J992) ;md Neuman (2003), sets out the advantangcs and disadvantages of participaru observation. It is to these complex issues that I turn now. Whar follows is based un my co111m1111ity ecotourismcescarch in Belize.

I

I The politics ofcommunity ecotourism 279 J first went to Bcli7.c in 1976 as an undergraduate Panicipant on a studenr study group to learn anthropological field methods for understand. II

ing applied development issues. Belize was still British Honduras (it did notreceive its full independence until 1981) and there were few foreign travellers, at least m the remote coastal community of Placencia where I was 'immersed' for five months. The fishing economy and rural social structure were still very much thriving. When I revisited Placencia in 1996 I caught a glimpse of how transformation had occurred in one place. Whereas 20

I years earlier one reached Placencia by air or boat, a road now connects the village to the mainland. ·n1e road is dotted with driveways with cars bearing foreign licence plates (mostly Crom California). The once coconut-lined beaches had been replaced by small lodges, restaurants, bars, diving supply shops and orher tourist facilities. The fishing co-opera tive that was inaugurated during my stay in l976 had closed that week, signalling quite dramati

I... cally the restructuring of Placencia uom a natural resource-based economy to one largely focused on tourism, or ecotourism as its promoters contend. Expensive yachts replace the small woo

re~dide11 euts

dories l re rnembered from my

r earlier time. In trying to learn how al'e making sense of these ' changes, I was able 10 rccom1cct wi1h an e lderly woman who, quite ama~

.ingly, remembered me from my earlier s tudent days. Her con:wu.:m exquisitdy sumn up at lc•m one pen;pec1jve on the changes. She told me, ' We have hecomc a comrnuoity without a soul.' Among o ilie r cooccnis, she told me about the poverty, prostitution and d rug addiction I.bat plagued the community and her own family. Iler story remained with me as I moved lhrough my academic studies of rural eco!ourism in the nineties, as did the tremendous richness and insigJus afforded by the ethnographic methods lbad learned so many years carlier.2

This research projec1 began in 1992 when f returned to Belize as a coinstructor of a student field practicum on conservation and development issues. The field trip wa~ one component of a larger, five-year linkage project be1ween the Universi1y of Montana (UM) and University CoUege of Belize (UCB) 1ha1 developed exchange experiences for both American and Belizean studems and faculty. The larger project was designed to be inlernational, inrerdiscipfinary, collaborative and action orientated in the form of fostering engaged scholarship and creating a new degree programme at UCB. Each year from 1992 lo 1998, I and anot.her faculty member from the Unrversity of Mon1ana's Schoof of Fores1ry brought 10 to 12 students to Belize to teach field research methods and examine cons~rvation and development issues. Participants in the field trips included both Belizeans and Americans, and were diversified too in tem1s of social

and natural science background and gender. Those attending UM were

required to complete a semester-long background course, while Belizeans

• Were provided with key tcxis from the seminar.

We first visilcd the village of Ga les Point in 1992 to investigate tJ1e

'cornrnunity ecotourisrn µroject thnt had just begun in this rural Creole

Tlte politics ofcommunity ecorourism 281

pan1 observa1ion and, especially, note-laking. With regard to the !alter, we kepi copious no1cs, carefully differentialing between direct observation, inference, analysis and our own personal feelings (Neuman 2003). We also me1 daily as a learn 10 compare what we bad learned, identify themes for further invcstiga1ion and validation, and draw up lists of questions for guiding if not structuring interviews.

There were many advantages to conducting participant observation and in-depth field interviews. TI1cse included observing the daily ac1ivi1jes and demands of cco1ouris1 hosts and organisers, holding conversations in an informal , more naturalistic and Jess hierarchical manner than is possible in formal interviews, and, related to this, developing relationships and trust between researcher and research subjects. Rather than being th e 'object' of research with little or no control over what is discussed, many ecotourist hosts raised importanr issues during imerviews. Many of the bed and breakfast hostesses were particularly comfortable sharing their concerns regarding increased workload, trade-offs between tourism and historical nalura l resource extractive accivities, and ensuing conflicts over leadership and policies upheld in the vurious ecotourisin associations (Belsky 1999). The bed and breakfast hostesses as well as the nature and boat tour guides

whom we paid for their se rvices greatly appreciated the economic business

our group provided, an i1nponant bur rarely acknowledged benefit of par

ticipant nhservn tion. The be>d am.I breakfast hostesses were particularly

pleased abour having a guest for multiple days and that every bed and

breakfast associa tion member received a guest. During interviews with

bed and breakfast hosCllS.~Cs many complained about inequi1ies in the allo

cation of and compcrition between bed mid breakfast hostesses for guest~

(Belsky 1999). T~1stly, tile fact that most of the student participant

observers were young and some were Bclizcan (though from different

ethnic groups and from urban areas) afforded additional intersections 10

reduce difference and hierarchy between researcher and research subjects.

I think rhese characreristics increased the willingness of many in the

•illage to engage wirh us, nor just answering questiollS but posing ques

tions to us as well. Our ongoing inleraction offset some of the inevitable

discomfoC1 rural Bclizeans may have felt with us and especially me, a for

mally educated, non-Creole-speaking foreign professor.•

I suggcsr tha1 ano1her advantage of participant observa1fon, most perti

nen1 to the role of qualitative methods in tourism research, was an ability

to gain an understanding of power dynamics and the politics of ecotourism from the perspective of different community members. These methods were particularly succc~sful for facilitating communica1ion wi1h women, especially 1he leas1 materially well off women from the leas1 powerful families and fac1ions in Gales Point. The views of women, and especially the poores1 women, are usually not sough t or given adequate attention When dcvclopmen1 projects are di:.cussed or illlplemented (Smith 1999). llnl'n1al approaches such as requesting tiua ntitative information can be

The politiCJ ofcommunity ecotourism 283

analysis. By working to explain the particulars of a single case, but also why there arc differences across cases, it becomes possible to acknowledge the historically specific causality of a cose, but to move to broader generalisations by checking how it informs or challenges some pre-existing theory that is then reconstructed. The significance of a case then relates to what it

t l

tells us about the world in which it is embedded. lo addition to Gales Point, we visited and revisited other rural

communities involved in ccotouri.~m and integrated conservation and development projects. These included the Community Baboon Sanctuary, the Crooked Tree Wildlife Sanctuary, the Maya Center and the Cockscomb Basin Wildlife (Jaguar) Sanctuary, and the Rio Bravo Conservation and Management Area. Where possible, we replicated exercises we

I conducted in Gales Point, including staying with and conducting partici! pant observation with bed and breakfaM hostesses, tom· guides and nu1dom household surveys. As .13urawoy (1991) suggests, these other cases provided a broader context for understanding the particulars of Gales Point and cnable.d me to develop some c

The polilit:s ofcommunity ecotourism 285 suggesting again Hall's critique that tourism research is political nnd value laden. Discourse analysis emphasises the value-laden and reflexive nature of research. In Decolonizing Methodologies, Smith reminds us that:

Research is one of the ways in which the underlying code of imperialism and colonialism is both regulated and realized. Jr is regulated through the formal rules of individual scholarly disciplines and scientillc paradigms, and the iJlStitutions that support them (including the state). It is realized in the myriad of representations and ideological constructions of the Other io scholarly and 'popular' works, and the principles that help to select and recontextualize those constructions in such ways as the media, official histories, and school curricula.

(1999: 7)

Others critique the 'deconstruction' method on other grounds, especially Uiat it is long on critique and short on coustructjve alternatives. Indeed, Smith argues tl1a1 in a 'decolonizing framework', unraveJJiag meanings and their deployment for particular agendas is part of a much larger project:

Taking apart a story, revealing uuclcrlying texts, ai1d giving voice 10 things that are oft.en known intuitively docs not help people ro improve their cuncnt conrlilion•. II pwviucs words, perhaps an insight that explains certain experiences - but it does not prevent someone from dying.

(l99

The politics ofcommunity ecotourisrn 287

topics and strategies to understand if not directly challenge the domination of its tourism industries by foreigners (increasingly Americans). But it is also fraught with challenges.

Taking up the example in Gales Point illustrates the range of complexities and challenges faced in participatory action research. Though desir able to many residents, working on . behalf of understanding and developing a more individualistic approach to tourism, if not ecotourism, might be beneficial to a few individuals and households, and could undermine the ecological COllJlllitment hoped for through ecotourism. It raises questions regarding how lo decide among the interests of competing 'participants' in considering how best to base a participatory action research effort, and, though this is not noted as important, what happens if they conflict with those of the researcher? In Gales Point there is no unified community interest among resident 'participants' (Belsky 1999). Even in the relatively small, rural community of Gales Point it would be extremely challenging to identify issues t.b.at would be relevant to a broad and inclusive group. Rather, perspectives and possible action agendas would depend on particular individua!S and groups within the 'coinnmnity' of place, or within the 'communit.y' of interests (i.e. local and foreign conservation organisations, state and other regional actors). Neither group of potential parti(.ipants is homogeneous, nor would they be in agreement with the other regarding key topics and preferred actions. An example is that attention lo ecological sttstainabiljty, thou~h the primary '""'~'~n of biodiversity conservationists involved in U1e Gales l'oiut ecolourism project, was not the key concern among residents struggling with livelihood secmity, though ii became important to residents benefiting from ecotourism. As a result, the1·e were considerable tensions aud conflicL~ over the practice and meaning of 'biodiversity' both among residents and

with those of outside orgat1isers, and most likely there would be questions

regarding some of these views as against my own.

ln thinking about the applicability of participatory action research to tourism, il is likely that (conventional) tourism researchers would raise both practical and theoretical issues with both the methodology and its particular techniques. If qualitative research may be viewed as overly subjective and unscientific, it is likely that participant action research would be criticised as even more so, and derided as advocacy rather than research. Nonetheless, supporters of participatory action research would credit it as a valid knowledge-building process, and no less subjective and advocacy based - only in this case, advocacy on behalf of particular groups of peoples and social justice values.

·couclusiou

lu conclusion, this chapter has reviewed the notion that tourism research has insufficiently recognised politics in tourism practice and the practice of

Tiu: pofitic.r ofcommunity eco1011rism 289 3 The srudenr group also llS.

The politil'.y ofcommunity ecotourism 291 Park, P. (1999) 'People, k nowledge nnd cha11gc in participatory research', Monnge

mem Leaming, JO (2): 141- 157.

P11 l11llo, P. (1996) Lost Resorts: 1/1c Cost of Tourism in the Caribbean. New York , NY: Monthly Review Press.

Rilchie, J. R . (1984) 'Assessing lhe impoc1 of haJlmnrk events: concepl ual and research issues', foumal ofTravel RP.search, 23 (1): 2-JI.

Ritcbie, J. R. and Goeldner, C. (1987) Tmvel, Towism, and Hospitality Research· A Handbook for Manogusand Rcrearclius. New York , N Y: Wiley.

Roche, M. (1992) 'Mega-events and micro-modernization: on the sociology or rhc new urban tourism'. British Joumal of Sociology, 43 (4): 563--600.

Smith, 1- T. (1999) Decoloniting Met/1odolog1es: Research and Indigenous J'eople.t.1..ondon: Zed Books.

Srujth, V. (1989) Hosts and Guests: The Antropoloi;y of Touri.un, 2nd cdn. Oxford· Dlnckwell.

Sraccy, J . (1991). 'Cao there he a femin ise ethnogwphy'!'. In S. B. Uluck nod D.

Pnrai (eds) Women's Word.261-283,

Taylor, S. J. and Bogdan, R. (1998) lnrrotfu(' /i rm lo Qualitative Researr.h Me1ht>ds: I\ Guiticb ok an