The term ‘qualitative research’ is something of an enigma. For some time, the issue of what exactly qualitative research is has been at the centre of a great deal of debate within social science, most notably in the disciplines of sociology and anthropology (see May 1993). More recently, these debates have gained greater prominence in the field of tourism research (Hollinshead 1996, 1999; Jamal and Hollinshead 2001; Riley 1996; Riley and Love 2000; Walle 1997; Dann 1996). Traditionally, qualitative research has been viewed somewhat simplistically as a set of different research methods that have certain features in common. In this respect, qualitative methods are employed to collect data about activities, events, occurrences and behaviours and to seek an understanding of actions, problems and processes in their social context. From this perspective, qualitative research is perceived as distinct from quantitative research as it does not produce quantified findings or have measurement and hypothesistesting as an integral part of the research process. When qualitative research is thought of as a series of methods, it is often considered to be an approach to research that is ‘other’ to quantitative research because quantitative data are not collected (Bryman and Burgess 1994). As such, qualitative research has been prone to criticisms that it is a ‘soft’,

‘non-scientific’ and inferior approach to studying social life, and one that is often seen as useful only when accompanied by, or as a precursor to, quantitative techniques (Guba and Lincoln 1998: 196). This attitude to qualitative research was observed by Riley and Love (2000) in their review of the methodological approaches employed in the study of tourism. However, the labelling of qualitative research as a poor alternative to ‘real’, rigorous, ‘scientific’, quantitative studies has been questioned over the past 25 years in many social science disciplines. Those who viewed qualitative research merely as a set of methods have been accused of having an oversimplified view that fails to acknowledge the multiplicity of forms and functions of qualitative research (Silverman 2000). Indeed, over the past few decades, using qualitative approaches to study social life has been considered more acceptable within the mainstream, rather than being viewed as an adjunct to quantitative work. In fact, qualitative research has become increasingly valued as thinking about research developed and research began to be viewed as more of a process than an activity, with discussions about the appropriateness of method being superseded by concerns with methodology (Bryman and Burgess 1994). While this mind shift has been under way in the social sciences generally, it is fair to say that tourism scholars have generally been more hesitant in their adoption and acceptance of qualitative research, and more specifically in developing their understanding of the philosophical and theoretical process that underpins knowledge production and practices.