Dark tourism: heritage management in Kigali Memorial Centre, Rwanda

Chin Chung LeeHTMi, Hotel & Tourism Management Institute, Sörenberg, 6174 Luzern, Switzerland

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Abstract

This study attempts to examine heritage management in a dark tourism setting in Kigali Memorial Centre, Rwanda. In order to understand how intersectoral ownership plays a role in management, the relationships of stakeholders and business ethics and the degree of local community participating in decision-making process, literature is reviewed. Qualitative research will be conducted. Participant-observation is a method of primary research that usually tends to seek deeper answer for studying social science. Since this is a sensitive topic, observation will be more suitable than other methods. Findings shows that partnerships in owning a heritage usually bring success to it. In discussing groups of stakeholders, it is found out that the necessity of management here is to consult local communities and survivors. In the part of ethics, it is suggested that the decision made by management will influence the degree of authenticity.

Keywords: Dark tourism; heritage management; Stakeholders; Community participation; Authenticity; Kigali Memorial Centre Rwanda

© 2011 International Hospitality Research Centre. All rights reserved.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Introduction

In this paper, the author is going to find out how management plays a role in Kigali Memorial Centre in Rwanda as a heritage. It was about ethnic tension between these two ethnic groups in Rwanda, Hutus and Tutsis. Finally in 1994, Presidential guards started a retribution campaign in murdering Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Kigali. Slaughters began. There were more than 800,000 Rwandans were killed between April and June 1994 and most of them are Tutsis. Most of those who perpetrated this genocide were Hutus (BBC, 2008). On the 10th anniversary of this genocide, UK based Aegis Trust and Kigali City Council has inaugurated the Kigali Memorial Centre to remind to cost of ignorance. There are now over 250,000 victims are buried in the centre (Kigali Memorial Centre, 2010).

Under the classification of UNESCO, Kigali Memorial Centre is categorised as tangible immovable heritage. It is worth to find out how this heritage is managed as a dark tourism attraction under intersectoral collaboration ownership: public ownership and voluntary ownership. According to Swarbrooke (1995, cited in Timothy and Boyd, 2003), primary motivation for public ownership is simply conservation while primary motivation voluntary ownership is conservation by self-sufficiency. However, there might be problem raised.

Dark tourism, or thanatourism, is first defined by Lennon and Foley (1996) as ‘the visitation to any site associated with death, disaster and tragedy in the twentieth century for

remembrance, education or entertainment’. Under this definition, visiting sites of genocide, natural disasters once happened and graveyards are considered as dark tourism (Sharpley and Stone, 2009). Dark tourism has drawn academic attention in the past decade. However, there are still a lot of questions remain undiscovered.

Heritage plays an important role in people’s travelling. Cultural heritage is defined by UNESCO (2003) as ‘‘…the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals…”. The World Tourism Organisation (2002, cited in Timothy and Boyd, 2003) has accounted that heritage (both natural and cultural) is accounted for around 40% of a leisure trip.

Obviously, heritage is something that is linked to the past and it will be passed to our future generation not only in terms of solid artefacts, but also the intangible culture and value. It seems that the educational, cultural and historical value of dark spots (dark tourism attractions) such as war museums, catacombs and battlefields are always overwhelmed by death. Sather-Wagstaff (2011) denotes that there is not enough scholars in helping to understand tourists’ role played in the development and maintenance of such kind of historical dark spots. However, the role of tourists has helped to know the social production, consumption, construction and performance of a memorial attraction such as Kigali Memorial Centre. The transition of a memorial site from an informal to formal commemorative site is also seen in

International Hospitality and Tourism Student Journal 4 (1) 2012 63-72

63\63

understanding the role of tourists (Waterton and Watson, 2010).

According to Middleton and Clarke (2001), attractions including heritage should be managed for visitor enjoyment, entertainment and education and should be seen as resources for locals. Visitors have the right to see and experience the existence of the attractions (Timothy and Boyd, 2003). At the same time, the concerns and ideas of local community should be come up. They should be treated with respect since they are a part of tourism product. Additionally, Timothy (2003) indicates that local residents should have chances in participating in decision-making process in order to voice out their wants in organising tourism. Thus, it is important for organiser to stay close to “grass root” (Pearson and Sullican, 1995 cited in Boyd and Timothy, 2003). In other words, it is necessary to maintain a win-win situation: maximising visitors’ experience and minimising negative impacts brought by tourists.

In considering the locals, ethics should also be taken into consideration. According to Wight (2009, cited in Sharpley and Stone, 2009), business ethics is a factor that must be considered in managing dark tourism attractions since tourism could negatively impact and temper host community when it is viewed as culturally sensitive. Sharpley and Stone (2009) say that ethics could be influence by how inspecting gaze is being managed in tourism marketing and this could be discussed in terms of what is acceptable or not acceptable. However, as the values and beliefs of culture, classes and races vary, it is hard to measure one’s bottom line. The Importance in balancing business and ethics has been seen. In order to strike a balance, Butcher (2003, cited in Sharpley and Stone, 2009) suggests that Corporate Social Responsibility has played a role in caring people who need help. However, dark tourism business has not been involved in this context yet.

Apart from ethics, ownership issues also play a crucial role in managing heritage. The motivation of different type of ownerships variegates. For instance, voluntary owned destinations such as museums tend to see conservation by self-sufficiency as motivation (Swarbrooke, 1995 cited in Timothy and Boyd, 2003). In this case, Kigali Memorial Centre is operated by UK based Trust Aegis and Kigali City Council. Under co-operation ownership, management problems and concerns may arise. Leask (2009) notes that well co-operation is needed in developing management plan so as to pass through wall and corridor.

The author is going to explore the ethics of visitor management. Ethics is defined as “a set of rules and principles that claim authority to guide the actions of groups and communities” (Singer, 1994 cited in Sharpley and Stone, 2009:94). Visitors are looking for the “truth” in visiting dark tourism attractions such as Auschwitz in Poland (Wight, 2009 cited in Sharpley and Stone, 2009). There are concerns in commercialisation of dark tourism attractions with ethic element. Thus, there is a need for the author to explore. Finally, local community should be involved in the decision-making process in tourism as it is also a part of their property. The author will measure the degree of participation

in decision making.The aim of this paper is to examine heritage management

in Kigali Memorial Centre as a dark tourism attraction. This will be achieved with the following objectives: to investigate the role of intersectoral collaboration ownership plays in managing Kigali Memorial Centre; to determine the degree of participation of local community in decision making in Kigali Memorial Centre; and to explore the ethics of visitor management in Kigali Memorial Centre.

2. Literature review

2.1.1. Stakeholder Collaboration

Stakeholder is widely recognised as “any group or individual who can affect, or is affected by the achievement of a corporation’s purpose” (Gretzel et al, 2010). Therefore, everyone involves in the business such as government, local residents, employees, tourists and so on can be regarded as a stakeholder in a tourism business. A tourism attraction, including heritage site, is seen as an open system that all stakeholders share limited amenities and resources in the community. Tourism product is a fragmentation of services provided by different firms. No matter how many stakeholders are involved in it, the perception of “all-in-one experience” is unchangeable (Smith, 2009). Hence, it is fundamental to actively involve all stakeholders in planning and decision-making process in tourism.

Swarbrooke (1995, cited in Aas et al, 2005) indicates that there are three types of ownership: 1) Public; 2) Private and 3) Voluntary. Timothy and Boyd (2003) suggests intersectoral co-operation or partnership, which involves more than one owner from more than one sector and between places, is more commonly seen nowadays. Each type of ownership simply has its own management issues and considerations. The author is going to introduce public and voluntary ownership and discuss some of the issues is these two sectors. First, public ownership of heritage means a site is owned and operated by government. The motivation to operations is conservation and to educate public. Ancient monuments and ruins are examples of heritage that is public owned. Sharpley and Stone (2010c) suggest that the public sector plays a major role in conserving heritage. It is no doubt that the conservation work in public-owned heritage site must be properly done. Conversely, as there are quite a number of heritage sites owned by the government, marketing of these sites are not importantly undertaken. The degree of consistency in terms of facilities, presentation and interpretation need to be carefully considered in the planning process as well (Timothy and Boyd, 2001). Archaeological ruins and ancient monuments are typical examples of public-owned heritage sites. Second, volunteer ownership means a site is owned and operated by a non-profit organisation. Their primary motivation is to gain enough revenue for self-maintain. Thus, a large portion of money will go to maintenance. There is little existing literature that illustrates

International Hospitality and Tourism Student Journal 4 (1) 2012 63-72

64\64

management issues of this sector. Finally, the combination of ownerships in managing the same heritage site is called intersectoral co-operation. Leask and Flyad (2006) point out that co-operation ownership has become a more important study because it helps to address management concerns and problem.

Figure 1: Scale of co-operation in heritage places (Boyd and Timothy, 2001)

Inasmuch as some heritage sites exist within mixed-use setting, a key to successful management in heritage site is co-operation ownership (Timothy and Boyd, 2003). Figure 1 explains types of collaboration suitable for different situation and the approach to form partnerships (ibid). It is described by Shaw and Williams (2002) that protected landscapes normally means protected natural environment. Related heritage sites are natural heritage such as national parks. It emphasizes on being formal in term of ownership and all sectors including grassroots shall be equally involved. On the other hand, they point out that most heritage sites in the context of mixed-use landscapes are cultural heritage sites or mixed heritage sites. It is illustrated that the degree of collaboration is unbalanced that public and private sector have more authorities than grassroots. In other words, if type A and type C are a more bottom-up approach, type B and type D definitely are top-down approach. Laws (2000) argues that one responsibility of managers working in an collaboration environment is to ensure the balance between sectors while promoting and protecting the site at the same time.

It is clear that a co-operation ownership can ensure success in managing some types of attraction and create a wider range of tourism product (Timothy and Boyd, 2003). Nonetheless, it induces problems such as overused ecological resources (Laws, 2000). Since heritage sites also exist in country boundaries, it requires co-operation among countries to effectively conserve them. In this way, inconsistency problem on quality of built attractions within neighbouring areas may occur. Both sectors should have consensus on how

to conserve and represent the same heritage sites properly.

2.1.2 Participation of local community

Nowadays, the attention in drawing local communities into the tourism process is increasing. It appears that the demand side plays a more central role in studying tourism. In the supply side, notwithstanding, as local communities are getting more concerned on what they can offer to tourists and how much economic gains they can make from tourism, awareness in potential of development is raising (Aref et al, 2010). To manage tourism sustainably, the participation of local community in decision-making process is indispensable. This is because locals are generally working at front line to provide service to visitors. It seems that tourism is always benefiting them but it also harms locals. Most importantly, local community, especially in developing countries, is not able to control and influence the decision-making regularly through real authority (Mitchell and Reid, 2000; Richards, 2007).

In common with tourism, the process of managing heritage should include local community. With the intention of balancing heritage conversation and tourism development, it is essential that local community should participate in planning and decision-making process (Aas et al, 2005). Timothy and Boyd (2003) propose that locals shall be allowed and encouraged to support and promote the aspect of the importance of their heritage. Furthermore, locals are also a part of the tourism product. They need to be treated with respect. They have the right to voice out their wants and desires for heritage tourism development. They should have the opportunity to contribute in the process from their experience. In terms of heritage tourism, they can decide which site they want to promote. Similarly, they can also decide what is preferred to be kept hidden. However, Zeppel (2006) disagrees that numerous problems are raised because of the communities themselves. Some cultural practices in local community act as a barrier to effective participation in decision making process.

2.1.3. Obstacles to joint decision making process

As mentioned above, collaboration and coordination among stakeholders are certainly needed for the reason that the fragmented nature of tourism (Smith, 2009). There are quite a number of stakeholders involved in managing heritage. Conflicts arise “when the actions of one set of stakeholders interfere with the desired goals of another set” (McKercher and Cros, 2002:20). Managers should take the complex environment of a heritage into account especially in managing dark tourism attractions.

International Hospitality and Tourism Student Journal 4 (1) 2012 63-72

65\65

Figure 2: The heritage force field (Seaton, 2001)

The above model attends to focus on the issues and conflicts among different stakeholder groups instead of giving ideas on guiding stakeholders through conflicts in the context of dark tourism heritage management. It also illustrates how time influences power and shifting power among stakeholders (Seaton, 2001 cited in Sharpley and Stone, 2009). Stakeholders in dark tourism heritage mainly consist of four groups of people: owners and controllers who are administrating and controlling; subject groups who are the spokespersons for dark tourism/event; host community are people living around the site and visitors (Sharpley and Stone, 2009b; Lennon and Foley, 2000).

The management needs to recognise the perspectives and interest of stakeholders so as to have a favourable decision-making process (figure 2). It has been stated in figure 1 that the top-down communication approach is more commonly seen. Therefore, one function of management is to act as a coordinator to communicate among different groups of stakeholders (Sharpley and Stone, 2009b). Represented subject groups are the sensitive one who needs to be respected. They have stronger feelings than host community about the event commemorated. Accordingly, it is essential for managers to note the meaning of consulting them before making any decision. Managers need to address the benefits and drawbacks of developing dark tourism site to local community as well. Host community might not see the importance and value of the history. Alternatively, they see the importance of the geographic location of the site: neighbour of them. If there is any development of the site, there must be more visitors (figure 2). Hence, the tolerance and participation of locals towards tourism is crucial. Visitors play a crucial role among the stakeholder in heritage management. They are partly seen as a financial source of a heritage site. The “voice” of visitors also helps to make up a tourism product (Mitchell and Reid, 2001). The importance of harmonically involving all stakeholders together in

decision-making process cannot be overlooked. Most importantly, each group of stakeholder has an equal chance to participate in this process.

2.1.4. Ethics

Lennon and Foley (2000) indicate that one motivation that attracts people to visit dark spots is the fascination of death and suffering. It is human nature to explore and be eye-witness to suffering. Yet, there are always questions of “ethics” being raised in visiting dark spots. For example, is it only about egoistic satisfaction to visit dark spot? Is it ethical and acceptable to build our excitement on others’ pain? According to Sharpley and Stone (2009b), ethics in tourism could be referred to a set of principle indicating how visitor ought to act. Winter (2009, cited in Cohen, 2011) suggests that reason accounted for ethical issues being raised is the interpretation for visit is evolving from just simply memorializing the dead to a more learning-focused education on the historic events that happened in dark spots.Most of the scholars have pointed out how tourists behave in the concept of being ethical in dark tourism (Buhalis and Costa, 2005; Butcher, 2002; Hall and Brown, 2006). It is considered that tourists nowadays are more educated and independent. Thus, they might search for enlightenment from an attraction. They will also show a desire to preserve a place in the name of history preservation (Buhalis and Costa, 2005).

Most importantly, tourism can be understood and implement through different dimensions such as to understand through the aspect of different stakeholders. Boniface et al (2009) agree that moral question should not be only seen from the visitor’s side, but also to be featured from the side of management, society and government. It is crucial for management to have suitable methods of interpretation to avoid sensationalism and commercial exploitation. Authenticity of the event is also a consideration in preserving such dark spots of those tragedies had happened before.

2.1.5. Commercial exploitation

In considering ethics from the point of view of management, it is better to start with discussing commercial exploitation. Commercial exploitation can be understood as a part of commercialisation (Lewens, 2004). Not only in the field of heritage, is it also a subjective issue in preserving culture. It is more likely that the reality of an historical event is being replaced with “omnipresent simulation and commodification” (Lennon and Foley, 2000: 58) in preserving heritage. Thus, it is not possible for visitors to learn and know the truth. They may only know the confined history. Re-telling an event in a dark spot is building up or trying to portray some kind of perception in the reality. It is very possible that the reality will be defined by management to the visitor in using spectacle visual presentation (ibid). Nevertheless, Sharpley and Stone (2009b) argue that one can also see the value of the site clearly, not only see it as a monument to the dead, with bright eyes even exhibits,

International Hospitality and Tourism Student Journal 4 (1) 2012 63-72

66\66

interpretation, displaying of artefacts and media are not neutral phenomena.

Apart from confined value of history, there is also a kind of moral critics being made against commodification that generate profit from the dead (Sharpley and Stone, 2010c). Timothy and Boyd (2003) suggest that commodification could be divided into three dimensions: 1) is financial transaction allowable in dark tourism heritage; 2) who will benefit if financial transaction is allowable; and 3) how to make the process of financial transaction in a way do not affect the site? Financial transaction can include charging entrance fee or building gift shop or F&B outlet in the site. There are real cases in some dark spots. For example, this critic has affected the managerial debate at battlefields of KwaZulu Natal in South Africa. Actually, to profit from dead may seem crass and disrespectful (Smith and Duffy, 2006). Nonetheless, if not to do so, there would not be enough revenue that could be used to maintain the site and employ local people (Sharpley and Stone, 2009b). As this process includes local people, there is a need for them to be involved in the decision making process. In the case of KwaZulu, the site has been preserved and developed into a tourism site with the participation of locals (Moeller, 2005). Entrance fee is being charged in order to have enough revenue for self-maintain.

2.1.6. Authenticity

Figure 3 is a summarisation of the overview process of consumption in dark tourism heritage. “Consumption” can be understood as visitor’s experience in the site. It specifically explores how this experience affects the process of commemoration to which visitor’s own identity can be referenced (Sharpley and Stone, 2009b).

Figure 3 Dark tourism: Interpretation and Identity (Sharpley and Stone, 2009b)

Since dark spots do not benefit from the completeness of material items, knowledge, or even some other evidence of

events (ibid), the representation of the event commemorated usually relies on the interpretation or narrative that is made around the site, the event and also the people involved (Stone, 2007). Accordingly, time, space and reality of the original event may be far different from what is being presented. Sharpley and Stone (2009b) believe that the authenticity and the meaning or even the significance to visitors will be distanced because of the altered history. As suggested in figure 3, the interpretation of dark event acts as a “filter” in visitors’ emotional experience. The authenticity in this process plays a role of narrating the interpretation of dark event and assigning a meaning and significance of the event to visitors. Wirth and Freestone (2005) believe that factual interpretation could increase visitor’s understanding on the dark event so as to achieve the aim of education. It can also help to improve visitors’ experience. In contrast, they suggest that misleading or commercialised interpretation will barricade visitors from knowing the truth of the commemorated event. This false interpretation also turns down visitor’s chance to benefit spiritually from visiting the site.

Smith and Duffy (2003:247) contend that “nowhere are these issues more clearly present than in interpretation of hot topic, such as war, and dark tourism places”. It is suggested by them that dark event that is related to visitors’ value, beliefs, interest or memory should be recognised and addressed to interpretation in a way that the emotion of visitor could be aroused which is related to what is mentioned in figure 3. Stone (2007) conclude that the interpretation of dark spots should be authentic that the event they are representing is able to respond to the emotion of visitors. Herbert (2001) agrees that everyone has the right to know the reality remains from the past even visitors of heritage are only partly interested in knowing the historical truth. It is a moral to represent the historical truth to public.

2.1.7. Visitor management

Shackley (2006b) points out that most of the heritage site have seen growing numbers in visitors due to increasing methods of exchanging information. Consequently, visitor pressure on heritage site has increased. Besides, visitors nowadays are also expecting greater experience on the quality of interpretation. Leask and Garrod (2009) believe that because of the above reason, management is going into a more difficult situation. On one hand, they indicate that visitors are not only standing for the source of income for the site, but there is also a meaning that they should enrich themselves in order to satisfy the rising expectation of visitors. On the other hand, due to the increasing flow of visitors to the site, visitors may bring harmful effect to it. For example, physical contact between visitors and artefacts may damage the artefact (Timothy and Boyd, 2003). Hence, there is a need to manage visitors in order to minimize the impact brought by visitors to the site and likewise to satisfy the visitors.

Leask (2009) says that visitor management is a key to success in managing a tourism product. The purpose of

International Hospitality and Tourism Student Journal 4 (1) 2012 63-72

67\67

applying management tool is to manage visitors. It is significant for all heritage sites, not only dark spots, to manage their visitors properly in order to avoid visitor impact induced by traffic flow or crowded conditions (Timothy and Boyd, 2003). Visitor management also serve as a code of ethics for how tourist should behave (Shackley, 2000a). According to WTO (1994, cited in Cooper et al, 2008), visitors of heritage site share responsibility for conservation of the site with local community. Indeed, visitors have the right to enjoy the site but it is the obligation for them to follow the responsible conduct at the site. Sharpley and Stone (2010c) mention that effective visitor management practices could encourage responsible tourist behaviour. This supports that the value of visitor management practices shall base on understanding of related local issues first. To well manage visitor behaviour, Cooper point out that visitor guidelines, ethics and education on responsible conduct at site should be properly set. Pressure is yet seen in managing behaviours through encouraging visitors to act in an ethical manner. There is not enough reflection on the effectiveness on such policies. It is also said that heritage tourism is rather too late to consider being ethical in the consumption (Laws, 2000; Cooper et al, 2008; Swarbrooke and Horner, 2007). Nevertheless, Cooper et al (2008) argue that there is now more support for managing ethical behaviour in this sector with guidebooks for consumers.

2.2. Review of existing empirical research

Timothy and Boyd (2003) mention that heritage especially dark tourism site needs to manage upon understanding of and respect for victims. Sometimes the access needs to be restricted (ibid). Right of local communities needs to be addressed according to their wish. There is little research conducted in related to the field of cultural heritage. A case studied communist heritage tourism in Bulgaria (Ivanov, 2009) points out that communist heritage tourism, which characteristic is similar to dark tourism, some elder supporters of communist party may object presenting communist heritage to tourists. Meanwhile, there are quite a number of researches that is done on site management in natural heritage. A study on Uluru National Park Australia indicates that Aborginal people has a higher involvement in deciding how they want the heritage be presented to visitors (ibid). It is suggested in figure 1 that cooperation in public and private sector will be more commonly seen in natural heritage than cultural heritage. Another research conducted on development of Zhangjiajie National Park indicates that the degree of participation will influence by local’s attitude towards development of tourism. If tourism is well developed, it is more likely local community will feel irritated by tourists. They may participate more in planning and decision making. If tourism is less developed, it is another way round (Zhong et al, 2008). Nonetheless, there is not enough data in suggesting how the situation is in dark tourism.

Despite increasing academic attention has been paid to the subject of dark tourism, Sharpley and Stone (2008a) note that the question that almost been asked is whether the development of dark tourism is moral or not. For example, it was a controversial issue to develop and build memorial hall in 2000 in commemorating the April 3rd incident in Jeju Island Korea because the government considered this event as mutiny of the communist party. Nonetheless, local community are willing to participate in the planning of it. This centre is now under well maintained and recognised as providing excellent experiences to visitors (Kang et al, 2010). Another example is the case of Ground Zero. Questions are being asked on whether people should allow others to stand alongside the place that their loved one died. This is still a dispute in planning the development of Ground Zero today (Sather-Wagstaff, 2011). Another ethical issue with research existed is commodification. Sharpley and Stone (2009b) has studied that there tends to be a trend of selling commodities in forms of souvenirs to visitors. It seems very unethical to get economic gains from the dead but their study reviews that this kind commodity is selling comfort around the consumption of fear which helps to reduce political complexity.

2.3. Research background: Kigali Memorial Centre, Rwanda

The centre was opened in 2004, 10th anniversary of Rwandan genocide. It is managed by Aegis Trust UK on behalf of the Rwandan government. There are now more than 250,000 people buried in the centre. It is mentioned in its official website that “the existence of this centre is to provide education facilities” (Kigali Memorial Centre, 2011). The emphasis in educating the next generation in not making the same mistake is not only in the official website of Kigali Memorial Centre but also in the official website of Aegis Rwanda. It is clearly stated that the principle is to commemorate the genocide through education programme to “rescue traditional values lost in the genocide” (Age is Trust, 2011).

It seems that the local community is very important in the whole development process in this centre. Aegis Trust highlights that desires raised by local resident and subject group of genocide will always be respected. Similarly, they suggest that the whole community should be empowered to ensure genocide will not happen again. Apart from this, cooperation with other groups of stakeholder in order to obtain higher authenticity is seen. The newly-opened archive centre inside it is developed in collaboration with some other institute such as University of Texas. Finally, visitors are seen as a funding source for further improvement (Age is Trust, 2011). It looks that there is a harmonious planning and decision-making process in managing this heritage.

3. Methodology

International Hospitality and Tourism Student Journal 4 (1) 2012 63-72

68\68

3.1. Approach

Savenye and Robinson (2002) define that qualitative approach as an ethnological way to describe and explore a situation analytically and reconstruct the cultural scene in a society. Bryman (2008) adds on that it is more suitable to find out one’s attitude and perception by this approach. On the other hand, quantitative approach is a way to predict future situation by testing a hypothesis using the method of questioning participant directly (ibid). As the author is seeking to develop an understanding on perception of local community rather than testing hypothesis, qualitative research will be used. Since there was once genocide happened in Kigali, sensitivity among local community may become a consideration while conducting the research. People may not be willing to talk because this event reminded them of what had happened in 1994. Thus, participant observation through informal conversation will be more appropriate. Saunders et al (2003) mention that participation observation has encouraged the study on continuous observation of a constantly changing social phenomenon. By adopting participant observation, the author is attempting to become a member of local community in Kigali so as to observe the role of local community plays in managing Kigali Memorial Centre and how it is going to evolve in the future.

3.2. Sampling

Purposive sampling will be entailed in this research as the author is not looking to sample research participants on random basis (Bryman, 2008). The population of this research will be going to focus on local people who are working in Kigali Memorial and visitors who are visiting there in order to help in looking for answering two of the objectives. Quota sampling will be done. The researcher will select sampling elements based on what is existed in the research population and observe. The researcher wants to include the same number of men and women, locals and mixed nationalities (in the context of observing visitors). On the other hand, the researcher would like to observe 20 workers from different who work in the memorial centre to see how the involvement of locals is in planning of this heritage centre.

3.3. Data collection

The role of participant observer plays an important role in participant observation. To achieve one of the objectives, the researcher as an observer attempts to be a complete participant in observing local staff to see the extent of involvement of locals in the decision making process. A complete participant means the researcher is going to take place in the research activity without revealing the true purpose to the group members (Saunders et al, 2003). In other words, the researcher could be a volunteer there to observe the behaviour of other local staff. As the research do not attempt to irritate locals by using formal conversation, informal conversation will be done in order to know and

understand their behaviour so as to determine the extent of involvement in conservation of this historical event. However, since informal conversation usually involves more than one interview or dialogue to get all the information needed, the document process needs to be handled very carefully. It relies on listening, conversation, note-taking and memorising skills a lot.

On the other hand, a complete observation will be used to observe the behaviour of visitor to find out the impact of some visitor management tools such as entrance fee. The purpose of this is to see whether it helps or not to enhance visitor experiences and at the same time secure a higher-quality environment that local community could engage. Researcher will not participate in the research activity (be a visitor) and the research identity will be concealed. The role of the researcher is to observe in an unobtrusive way and try to learn how entrance fee or souvenir shop in the site influences the attitude of visitor. It is more likely that the true emotional involvement could be known. Saunders et al (2003) add on that this could make researcher really know and experience the situation. In this case, the verbal behaviour and interaction, physical behaviour and gesture and human traffic will be observed. Dame (2010) believes that this method is the most suitable method in testing casual relationships. Therefore, the researcher believes that by observing these categories of data are very important in helping to understand the relationship of how business ethics could affect visitor management so as to answer one of the research objectives.

3.5. Validity and reliability

It is noted in Bryman (2008) that validity refers to whether the collected data is reflecting to the reality or not. Participant observation normally is very high on ecological validity because it is a study on social phenomenon (ibid). Nevertheless, it faces history and saturation threat. People’s feeling will wash away by time. Since the genocide happened in 1994, this may well have an effect on the findings. Moreover, participant observation takes longer time than other qualitative research methods because the researcher tends to become a member of that community. It is time-consuming for the researcher as an observer to present herself in a social setting for period of time (Bryman, 2008; Saunder et al, 2003). Observing behaviour simply cannot be done in a short period of time as well. Accordingly, the researcher may devote away from the routine that she used to follow. A gap in the research findings may be seen. There is also threat to reliability. Kawulich (2005) indicates that the biggest threat to reliability is observer bias. It is cited in Saunder et al (2003:230) that “because we are part of the social world we are studying we cannot detach ourselves from it, or avoid relying on our common sense and life experience”.

3.6. Generalisability

International Hospitality and Tourism Student Journal 4 (1) 2012 63-72

69\69

According to Dane (2010), generalisability could refer to external validity. It means the extent of the whether the data is applicable to other research setting or not. This research is lacking of generalisability because of its incomparable setting on the genocide in Kigali. The incomparable culture and society of Kigali create the uniqueness of this research and thus cannot be demonstrated to similar research that study heritage management in other dark tourism attraction.

3.7. Limitations

There are few constraints in participant observation. Firstly, as mentioned above, bias of researcher is one limitation. Dewalt and Dewalt (2002) state out that different people have different access to information. They may see through their own perception. Hence, it is significant for the researcher to know how her perception will affect observation, analysis and interpretation. Secondly, cultural barrier is a barrier for the researcher to conduct an observation in Rwanda. It is hard to study other’s behaviour in an unfamiliar culture because the researcher is not a full participant in local community. Language barrier is one of the cultural barriers faced by the research. Even though English is one of the three official languages in Rwanda, the majority of people are speaking French and Kinyarwanda which the researcher is not familiar with (The Guardian, 2008). This shows that the researcher is being excluded in the community and brings us to the next point that one limitation is the exclusion of community. No matter the researcher is going to participate in the activity or not, this limitation still exists. Thus, the researcher needs to understand clearly how this may affect the observation process. Schensul et al (1999) note that after period of time, the trust between researcher and locals will increase steadily that this problem will be solved. Lastly, Schensul et al (1999) suggest that the skill of researcher is also a very important point to note. The outcome will be determined by the observation, documentation and interpretation skills of researcher. The key to this is trying to obtain accurate data at the beginning stage without enforcing preconceived categories (ibid).

3.8. Ethics

In this context, ethics means the manner of the researcher towards the rights of participants (Saunder et al, 2003). In doing participant observation, Kawulich (2005) mention that it is a manner to let the community know there is a research which is being conducted if the research identity is not concealed. Dewalt et al (1998) say that the researcher shall inform the local community about the purpose of being there so that participant could share adequate information on the research topic. However, this is not applicable in this research because the research identity is hidden due to considering of local people’s agony on this event. Apart from the point mentioned above, it is also necessary to protect the privacy of participant. For instance, identities of individual must be described in a way that no one could recognise because Kigali Memorial Centre is such a small place that each of the

participants knows each other so well. Most importantly, the researcher needs to learn the local culture of Rwanda in order to establish good relationships with local community so as to conduct the research. The researcher should avoid actions that are likely to damage the community. Kawulich (2005) believes that it is also the responsibility of researcher to share the findings to community to maintain the relationship and ensure the accuracy of research.

4. Discussion

This research tends to explore the role of stakeholders and ethical issues in terms of heritage management in Kigali Memorial Centre, Rwanda. It is important to notice that primary research has not been conducted yet. All data is obtained through secondary research.

4.1. Intersectoral collaboration ownership

The role of intersectoral collaboration played in heritage management in Kigali Memorial Centre will be investigated in this section. Kigali Memorial Centre is owned and managed by Aegis Trust; a voluntary organisation aims at preventing crimes against humanity, and Rwandan government. As suggested in figure 1, this kind of partnership can contribute to success in managing such a heritage. However, Timothy and Boyd (2003) argue that there is limited cooperation among stakeholders. Locals are less involved in the decision-making process as well. In fact, this partnership really leads this heritage into success. Not only being ranked #1 in “Things to do in Kigali” in Lonely Planet (2010), it is also a place that always visited by minister of foreign affairs or presidents of various countries such as Bush and Sarkozy (Age is Trust, 2011). Although there are similarities to what is mentioned in literature review chapter, difference exists. Locals are highly involved in the whole process of heritage management in Kigali Memorial Centre. On the other hand, government appears participates less than local community. They are more like supporters than participators. The communication process is more likely to be bottom-up approach than the suggested top-down approach. Nonetheless, existed data shows that the partnership in this centre is undergoing a pleasant process.

4.2. Degree of participation of local community in decision making

Aas et al (2005) say that a tourism product is made up of different elements including local community. In order to balance heritage management and tourism development, the participation of local residents is vital. Kigali Memorial Centre is a not only tourism product, but also a heritage for locals to commemorate the genocide event. Aegis Trust is always promoting the centre to the local residents. They are spreading a message of not to repeat yesterday’s fault to local residents and visitors. The recognition of this centre among locals in Kigali should not be overlooked. It emphasizes on involving locals largely. For instance, they consulted the

International Hospitality and Tourism Student Journal 4 (1) 2012 63-72

70\70

survivors and local residents before they built the new archive centre in December, 2010 (ibid). They are also introducing programmes in the centre to educate both visitors and locals. Locals are hired as a part of product. As seen above, locals are respected. They can voice out their want in the process of preserving their history.

There is no secondary data to show the cons of participation of locals in the process. In the literature review chapter, it is said that the cultural practices of local residents will barricade themselves in participating (Zeppel, 2006). However, secondary data has shown that Aegis Trust has tried to overcome cultural barriers by communicating with locals. Locals themselves are also cooperating a lot with both Aegis Trust and the government so as to obtain a better outcome out of the development of this centre (Age is Trust, 2011).

4.3. Ethics of visitor management

Ethics are a set of principle that suggests how visitors should behave in a tourist attraction (Sharpley and Stone, 2009b). As the purpose of travelling is evolving to a more educational approach, the value and authenticity of a heritage nowadays are becoming more important than past days. Kigali Memorial Centre serves as a place in contribution of educating next generation so as visitors on the consequences of genocide. There is not even a souvenir shop or restaurant exists in the area of the centre. Instead of making money out of commodification, they directly ask visitors for donation and funding inside the centre through press and website. On the point of being authentic, a large amount of document about the events is preserved and some survivors are being involved in the operation of the centre (Age is Trust, 2011). It is hardly seen that this is not an authentic heritage.

5. Conclusion and recommendations

The significance of heritage management is rising in the past decade. The aim of this paper is to gain further understanding in heritage management in dark tourism setting. The topic of heritage management is discussed in different dimensions in this paper. The findings suggest how stakeholders’ decision including local community can affect business ethics. First, the role of stakeholders in intersectoral ownership has been discovered. To successfully manage a heritage, the cooperation between stakeholder groups is a crucial. Secondary findings have suggested that harmonious cooperation is the most effective way in helping to make any decision. Yet, there are also some problem induced in such an environment. For example, inconsistency of standards may occur. Thus, communication between sectors must be done before making any decisions.

Second, the degree of participation of locals is determined. It is necessary to listen to the desires of subject groups and local community especially in dark tourism. The role of management in the planning of heritage management is to consult all stakeholders before making any discussion. It

is usually seen from the point of view of management that they are not willing to let local community to participate in the process for a couple of reasons. However, some finding has suggested that sometimes the cultural practices of local community also acts as a barrier in letting them to involve in the process. It is seen in secondary findings that local community including survivors of genocide in Kigali is highly involved in from the planning to the operation of the memorial centre. However, even government is one of the owners; they participate less than Aegis Trust, the volunteer organisation aims to prevent genocide.

Finally, the issues of ethics have been explored in this paper. Result has shown that the management as stakeholder has played a central role in deciding the degree of being ethical in representing a dark event. Obviously, all decisions made by the management in the heritage will have impact on visitors. On visitors’ point of view, they may want to know the truth of the history. Therefore, somehow it is a responsibility for the management to provide an authentic experience for travelling. The ethical issues have been discussed into two measurements: being commercialised and the degree of authenticity. It is often to see some dark tourism attraction being commodified. This has raised a question on whether we should gain economic goods from the dead or not. On the other hand, the representation of dark event will affect the authenticity. Ethics should not be only considered from the management side, but also from the visitors’ side. They should also be the one in helping to preserve the history.

In order to derive a better quality of findings, improvement in primary research needs to be made. For instance, it is recommended in investigating visitors’ experience, in-depth interview could be conducted. This could reduce the time needed for observation. However, if by using this method, one should consider the verbal conversation carefully since this is a sensitive topic. The most important thing for researcher to bear in mind is to have a very well understanding of the history of this genocide event.

References

Akrivos, C., Ladkin, A. and Reklitis, P. (2007). Hotel managers’ career strategies for success. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality, 19 (2), 107-119.

Aas, C., Ladkin, A., & Fletcher, J. (2005) Stakeholder Collaboration and Heritage Management. Annals of Tourism Research. 32(1):28-45.

Aegis Trust. (2010). Aegis Trust Rwanda. Availabe from http://www.aegistrust.org [Accessed 22/05/11]

Aref, F., Gill, S.S., & Aref, F. (2010). Tourism Development in Local Communities: As a Community Development Approach. Journal of American Science. 6(2):155-161.

Bonniface, B.G., Boniface, B., & Cooper, C. (2009). Worldwide Destinations: The geography of travel and tourism. 5th ed. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Bramwell, B. (2004). Tourism Collaboration And Partner: Politics, Practice and Sustainability. Boston: Mulitlingual Matters.

Bryman, A and Bell, E. (2007). Business research methods. 2nd ed. New York. Oxford.

Buhalis, D., & Costa, C. (2005). Tourism Business Frontiers: Consumers, Products and Industry. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Butcher, J. (2002). The Moralisation of Tourism: Sun, Sand... and Saving the World?. London: Routledge.

International Hospitality and Tourism Student Journal 4 (1) 2012 63-72

71\71

Cohen, E.H. (2010). Educational Dark Tourism at an in Populo Site: The Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem. Annals of Tourism Research. 38(1):193-209.

Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Fyall, A., Gilbert, D., & Wanhill, S. (2008). Tourism: Principles and Practice. 4th ed. London: Pearson.

Dane, F.C. (2010). Evaluating Research: Methodology for People Who Need to Read Research. Boston: Sage Publications.

DeWalt, Kathleen M. & DeWalt, Billie R. (2002). Participant Observation: A Guide for Fieldworkers. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Diekmann and Gillot. (2010). Heritage and Tourism: A dialogue or deaf?. Rivissta di Scienze del Turismo. 2:263-280.

Foley, M., & Lennon, J. J. (1996). Dark Tourism: An Ethical Dilemma. Hospitality, tourism and leisure management: Issues in strategy and culture. London: Cassell.

Gretzel, U., Law, R., & Fuchs, M. (2010). Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2010: Proceedings of International Conference in Lugano, Switzerland, February 10-12, 2010. Berlin: Springer.

Hall, D.R., & Brown, F. (2006). Tourism and Welfare. Wallingford: CABI.Ivanov, S. (2009). Opportunities for developing communist heritage tourism

in Bulgaria. Tourism Review. 57(2):177-192.Kang, E.J., Scott, N., Lee, T.J., & Ballantyne, R. (2010). Benefits of Visiting a

“dark tourism” site: The case of the Jeju April 3rd Peace Park Korea. Tourism Management. In Press.

Kawulich, B.B. (2005). Participant Observation as a Data. FQS Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 6(2):43-50.

Kigali Memorial Centre. (2010). Kigali Memorial Centre. Availabe from http://www.kigalimemorialcentre.org [Accessed 22/05/11]

Laws, E. (2000). Tourism Destination Management. London: Routledge.Leask, A. (2009). Progress in visitor attraction research: Towards More

Effective Management. Tourism Management. 31(6):155-166.Leask, A., & Garrod, B. (2009). Visitor management at a World Heritage Site.

Contemporary Case Online. 1-4.Lewens, T. (2004). The Commercial Exploitation of Ethics. Studies in

History and Philosophy of Biological and Biodemic Science. 35: 145-152.Lonely Planet. (2010). Kigali Memorial Centre. Availabe from http://

www.lonelyplanet.com [Accessed 22/05/11]McGreal, C. (2008). Rwanda to switch from French to English schools.

Guardian. 14, October.McKercher, B., & du Cros, H. (2002). Cultural Tourism: The Partnership

Between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management. London: Routledge.

Mitchell, R.E., & Reid, D. (2000). Community Integration: Island Tourism in Peru. Annals of Tourism Research. 28(1)113-139.

Moeller, M. (2005). Battlefield Tourism in South Africa with special reference to IsandIwana and Rorke’s Drift KwaZulu-Natal. Unpublished MPhil

thesis, Faculty of Economic and Management Science., University of Pretoria.

Nasser, N. (2003). Planning for Urban Heritage Places: Reconciling Conservation, Tourism, and Sustainable Development. Journal of Planning Literature. 17(4): 467-479.

Richards, G. (2006). Cultural Tourism: Global And Local Perspectives. London: Routledge.

Sather-Wagstaff, J. (2011). Heritage That Hurts: Tourists in the Memoryscapes of September 11 (Heritage, Tourism & Community). London: Left Coast Press.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thronhill, A. (2003). Research Method for Business Students. 3rd ed. Essex: Pearson.

Schensul, S.L., Schensul, J., . & LeCompte, M.D. (1999). Essential Ethnographic Methods: Observations, Interviews, and Questionnaires. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Shackley, M. (2000a). Visitor Management. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.Shackley, M. (2006b). Atlas of Travel and Tourism Development. London:

Butterworth-Heinemann. Sharpley, R. (2011). The Study of Tourism: Past Trends and Future

Directions. London: Routledge.Sharpley, R., & Stone, P.R. (2008a). Consuming Dark Tourism: A

Thanatological Perspective. Annals of Tourism Research. 35(2):574-595.Sharpley, R., & Stone, P.R. (2009b). The Darker Side of Travel: The Theory

and Practice of Dark Toursim. London: Channel View Publication.Sharpley, R., & Stone, P.R. (2010). Tourist Experience: Contemporary Perspectives.

London: Routledge.Shaw, G., & Williams, A.M. (2006). Critical Issues in Tourism: A

Geographical Perspective. 2nd ed. Singapore: Blackwell Publishing.Smith, M. (2009). Issues in Cultural Tourism Studies. London: Routledge.Smith, M., & Duffy, R. (2003). The Ethics of Tourism Development: Contemporary

Geographies of Leisure, Tourism and Mobility. London: Routledge.Swarbrooke, J., & Horner, S. (2007). Consumer Behaviour in Tourism. 2nd ed.

London: Butterworth-Heinemann.Timothy, D.J., & Stephen W. Boyd. (2003). Heritage Tourism. London: Pearson.United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2003).

Definition of Intangible Heritage. Available from: http://www.unesco.org [Accessed 1/2/11].

Waterton, E., & Watson, S. (2010). Culture, Heritage and Representation (Heritage, Culture and Identity). London: Ashgate.

Wirth, R., & Freestone, R. (2005). Tourism, Heritage and Authenticity: State-assisted Cultural Commodification in Suburban Sydney Australia. Urban Perspectives. 3(1): 1-10.

Zeppel, H.D. (2006). Indigenous Ecotourism: Sustainable Development and Management. Boston: CABI.Alderfer, G. (1972). Existence, Relatedness and Growth. New York: The Free Press.

International Hospitality and Tourism Student Journal 4 (1) 2012 63-72

72\72