ABSTRACT
The growing recognition of the inadequate application of quantitative methods for some research problems has resulted in an increased acknowledgment and exploration of qualitative research tools of other disciplines within tourism projects (Echtner and Jamal 1997). Thus, social science research approaches are frequently applied, theorised and critically reflected upon within tourism studies and epistemology and ontology, positivism and non-positivism, self-reflectivity and self-reflexivity, ethnography and autoethnography are regularly discussed within a tourism context (e.g. Sandiford and Ap 1998; Echtner 1999; Galani-Moutafi 2000; Botterill 2001; Jamal and Hollinshead 2001; Palmer 2001; Rogelja 2002; Tucker 2003; Phillimore and Goodson 2004). It seems that tourism researchers are finally attempting to claim their role within the ‘ongoing search for a more satisfactory epistemological solution in the social science’ (Botterill 2001: 212). However, the complex nature of qualitative research complicates the development of a universal philosophical framework (if such a thing is actually necessary). Thus, while qualitative research has been increasingly applied within social science projects, its contextual standing is perceived along the lines of ‘messy, experimental and multi-layered texts, cultural criticism, new approaches to the research text, new understandings of old analytic methods, and evolving research strategies’ (Denzin and Lincoln 2002: xi). Nevertheless, projectspecific philosophical and contextual frameworks are possible and necessary for individual qualitative projects. Generally speaking, ‘qualitative research has become an umbrella term encompassing a wide range of epistemological viewpoints, research strategies, and specific techniques for understanding people in their natural contexts’ (Denzin and Lincoln 2002: 3; see also Denzin 1997; Cresswell 1998; Willis and Trondman 2002; Hobbs and Wright 2006; McCall 2006).
