1 Reflections on the Practice of Ethnography within Heritage ... - Core

4 downloads 0 Views 179KB Size Report
1983; MacCannell 1989; Moore 1980; Nash 1996; Palmer 2005; Selwyn .... the American Catholic-school-trained, rebellious though still ambivalently ..... the number of older visitors attracted to the house due to its connection with Winston.
Reflections on the Practice of Ethnography within Heritage Tourism    Published in: Heritage Studies. Methods and Approaches   Catherine Palmer (University of Brighton, UK)  ____________________________________________________________________________________________  Full reference: Palmer, C. (2009) ‘Reflections on the Practice of Ethnography in Heritage Tourism’, in M-L. S. Sørensen and J. Carman (eds.) Heritage Studies. Methods and Approaches, pp. 123-39. London: Routledge.  ____________________________________________________________________________________________  Introduction In this chapter I reflect upon the methodological issues involved in research designed to explore how meaning is made through tourism. Embedded within an anthropological framework, the research used as a case study focused on the relationship between heritage tourism and English national identity through an ethnographic investigation of three heritage sites: Battle Abbey, Hever Castle, and Chartwell (Palmer 1999). The original aims of the research, the research strategy and its implementation are employed here to illustrate the wider methodological issues considered. My epistemological focus then and now is understanding how knowledge is constructed through experience of the world, whether consciously in terms of a purposeful desire to seek out knowledge or unconsciously through the mundane taken for granted activities of daily life such as working, shopping and going on holiday. In the context of such activities the form of knowledge generation I am concerned with is that relating to issues of identity and belonging. Specifically in this instance with

1

the cultural dynamics or processes by which identity is constructed, mediated and understood through visiting places of historic interest. A focus on heritage is instructive since the heritage is a significant resource and structural component of tourism. It is also an important part of culture because of its association with the notion of inheritance, of there being something of value handed down for safe keeping from one generation to the next (see Lowenthal 1998). Given that my overarching aim is to explore how individuals make sense of the world through their experiences of it, then encounters with the heritage can shed light on how sensemaking in the present is structured in relation to the past. The link with anthropology or more specifically social anthropology is clear since anthropology is concerned with understanding the world through the social and cultural structures that individuals use to organise, guide and give meaning to their lives: structures such as work, play, and faith (Delaney 2004; Hendry 1999; Herzfeld 2001). Tourism, as one aspect of ‘play’, requires individuals to engage with the world and in so doing frames the way in which people think and feel about what being in the world actually means, about who they are, about identity and belonging. Social anthropology is, therefore, rightly interested in how meaning is made through tourism, an interest that has generated a substantial body of knowledge from a variety of different perspectives (see Andrews 2004; Cohen 2004; Edensor 1998; Graburn 1983; MacCannell 1989; Moore 1980; Nash 1996; Palmer 2005; Selwyn 1996; Smith 1989; Tucker 2003). It is clear, therefore, that tourism matters because it is one of the defining activities of the modern world, shaping the ways in which people relate to and make sense of the world, self /Other.

2

The significance of tourism and tourists to social science can be traced back to MacCannell’s seminal work The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class, which set out to present a critique of tourism as a feature of modernity. MacCannell (1989: 1) argues that anthropology’s focus on less technologically advanced societies should be redirected towards modern mass leisure generally and to tourism in particular ”[o]ur first apprehension of modern civilization, it seems to me, emerges in the mind of the tourist”. To this end MacCannell sets out to record and analyse tourist behaviour by following groups of tourists sightseeing in Paris. Sometimes he joined in with their activities whilst at other times he observed from afar by watching what took place or by reading accounts by or about tourism and tourists. For MacCannell, tourist attractions represent a typology of structure capable of giving access to the thought processes of modern peoples and so by following tourists “…we may be able to come to a better understanding of ourselves” (1989: 5). In line with MacCannell, my interest in tourist behaviour is not in terms of the direct impact of that behaviour on destinations and their inhabitants but in terms of what this behaviour can tell us about ourselves, specifically in this instance ourselves as a nation, as an identity. A perspective that sees identity as being socially constructed through experience of the world necessitates a focus on culture since culture is key to understanding the mind of the tourist. Accessing and interpreting the cultural dynamics that underpin the creation and maintenance of identity requires a methodological framework suited to understanding the worldly experience under investigation, that of tourists visiting heritage attractions. In this sense tourists are a form of ‘society’ within a specific social context namely that of tourism, albeit a society that is highly mobile and where membership is fluid, temporally contingent, and determined by location and purpose. Understanding tourism in this way fits well

3

with Berger and Berger’s comment that: “Society is our experience with other people around us…It serves as the context for everything else we experience, including our experience of the natural world and of ourselves, because these other experiences are also mediated by and modified for us by other people” (1976: 13). The concept of ‘tourist society’ enables the act of tourism to be visualised as a totality capable of investigation and analysis from a variety of different perspectives, including that concerned with the culture of tourist society, namely social anthropology.

Context and Foundations Anthropology’s focus on the interpretation, or representation, of culture is largely but not exclusively addressed through ethnography as both method and monograph. As method, ethnography is employed when the aim of the research is to understand the ways in which individuals make sense of their everyday life “[t]he ethnographer participates, overtly or covertly in people’s daily lives, watching what happens, listening to what is said, asking questions; in fact collecting whatever data are available to throw light on the issues with which he or she is concerned” (Hammersley and Atkinson 1983: 2). Ethnography thus entails a ‘family of methods’ (Willis and Trondman 2000: 5) of which participant observation is merely one of the ways in which data is gathered. Other, complimentary methods are frequently employed in order to support and ‘flesh out’ data generated in this way, for example the interviewing of key informants and actors, and the analysis of textual and visual sources. However, participant observation remains a key part of anthropological fieldwork serving “…as distinctive method and professional rite of passage” (Willis and Trondman 2000: 4).

4

Ethnography concerns itself with understanding lived experience from the insiders perspective (see Geertz 1973; Van Maanen 1988) ; but although it is uniquely suited to studies of tourism and tourists it remains largely under-employed as a method in these respects, although there are exceptions as seen by the work of Andrews (2004), Cole (2004), and Tucker (2003). The issue of time is certainly a factor here in terms of a traditional view of ethnographic fieldwork where one or two years spent in the field living with the local inhabitants is almost the minimum time required. However, Wolcott queries this basic assumption by asking “[m]ust an ethnographer always spend months and months in the field in order to claim ethnographic validity?” (1999: 197 original emphasis). Now, clearly the investigation of culture through lived experience requires a certain amount of time because of the complexities involved but decisions about time spent in the field are not straightforward. The research questions, the nature, purpose, and fieldwork location/s, issues of context and history and of intimacy and distance in terms of the social, cultural, economic, and linguistic differences between the researcher and the researched all influence ‘time’ in the field. Time is particularly significant for research into the impacts of tourism since both the effects of tourism and attitudes towards these effects are not fixed in time (Wilson 1993). The research discussed here adds another dimension to the issue of time since tourists on day trips to heritage attractions are characterised by fluidity and flow in that each day, indeed each morning and afternoon, may comprise different individuals and groups. Although individuals come and go in all societal groupings, day trips to places of interest are marked by the transitory composition of visitors at the given location. While there are certainly tourism activities where a core group of recognisable individuals can be observed over a period of time, for example cruise

5

ship passengers, package tourists staying at one hotel for the duration of their holiday, or guided tours, it is not always possible to observe a core group of people day after day, month after month; tourists visiting Battle Abbey, Hever Castle, and Chartwell are not a community at least not in the ‘traditional’ sense as illustrated by the contributors to Cohen’s (1982a) book on British rural cultures and the work of such as Okely (1983) and Scheper-Hughes (1979). Indeed, with day trips to historic sites each day brings with it a different set of people so a dictum of a year spent in the field in this context is not always the most appropriate rule for a study of tourist behaviour to be described as ethnographic. In addition to the factors influencing time noted above the importance of time with regard to ethnographies of tourist attractions is largely in terms of seasonality, days and times of the week as these factors affect the composition of tourist ‘society’ on an ongoing basis. Hence, judgements as to what is enough time to be spent in the field should be based on considerations such as data saturation, the number and range of fieldwork locations, and what Wolcott (1999) refers to as a matter-of-fact attitude to time where too much time is as bad a too little. Scholars of tourism should therefore not allow the issue of time to deter them from employing ethnography as method since it can help to uncover significant ‘knowledge’ in terms of how meaning is made through tourism. In reflecting upon the three sites discussed here Marcus’ (1995, 2007) call for multi-sited ethnography offers much food for thought when the focus of the ethnographic investigation is heritage tourism. A traditional ethnographic lens would focus on one tourist attraction and offer a thorough and detailed analysis of embedded practice. However, if I had focused my attention on only one site then no matter how instructive such a lens would have been it would result in a singular view of identity,

6

a view based upon the historic period depicted at the particular site. Yet the different heritage sites used for heritage tourism offer multiple versions of identity that cut across time and space. For example, my three sites are spatially divorced from each other in terms of their location and they represent different periods of history and hence differing perspectives of Englishness. So, although not without its own methodological challenges (see Scarangella 2007), a multi-sited approach enabled me to uncover connections, perspectives, and relationships that would have been missed had I focused on only one site (see Palmer 2005). As noted earlier what anthropologists actually ‘do’ in the field is to immerse themselves in the life of those individuals or groups with whom they are concerned as a means of understanding the insider’s world view. Immersion is, however, an intimate act (Herzfeld 2001), and it is not always desirable or even possible to separate the researcher from those individuals under investigation as Kotsi (2007) illustrates through her discussion of research into the experiences of tourists and pilgrims at Mount Athos in Greece. Greek by birth she describes her ethnographic position as being that of a native anthropologist close to and familiar with the culture under investigation. Such a position caused her to reflect upon what it meant to be Greek, to be a woman, and a member of the Orthodox Church. So although ethnography requires the researcher to maintain a stance that is uncritical of the behaviour and activities observed whilst at the same time being open to elements that cannot be codified at the time of the study (see Baszanger and Dodier 1997), there is a balance to be struck between intimacy and distance. As Scheper-Hughes acknowledges in response to the controversy generated by her ethnography of mental illness in rural Ireland:

7

…the real dilemma and contradiction was this: How can we know what we know other than by filtering experience through the highly subjective categories of thinking and feeling that represent our own particular ways of being – such as the American Catholic-school-trained, rebellious though still ambivalently Catholic, post-Freudian, neo-Marxists, feminist woman I was in my initial encounter with the villagers of Ballybran. (Scheper-Hughes 2000: 127)

The issues raised by Scheper-Hughes provide the focus for a book entitled How Do We Know? Evidence, Ethnography, and the Making of Anthropological Knowledge (Chua et al, 2008a). Here, the various contributors discuss the relationship between anthropological evidence and knowledge generation and in so doing illustrate the role of the anthropologist in creating rather than merely discovering knowledge. As the book’s editors argue anthropological knowledge is “…. the product of a historical, social, and personal assemblage which includes not only the ethnographer’s person, but also one’s intellectual background, institutional demands, conceptual genealogies, and relational quirks within and beyond the field…” (Chua et al 2008b: 17). Ethnographies of tourism are an interesting example of the above since many anthropologists are also tourists and may even take employment in tourism as a means of gathering data (see Bruner 1995). The ethnographer-tourist has a very real dilemma when considering Scheper-Hughes’ point about the effect of subjectivity on knowledge since the experience of being a tourist, of experiencing the very things that form the focus of investigation colours the view from above as well as that from within. Indeed, the reverse is often true as I have sometimes found it hard to switch off the ethnographic eye when on holiday and just enjoy the moment. Within tourist studies the issue of positionality is increasingly being recognised and discussed in

8

terms of its influence on the collection and analysis of data, particularly in situations when the research focus is upon cultural particularities or experiences with which the researcher is familiar (see Kotsi 2007; Pritchard and Morgan 2003; Morgan and Pritchard 2005). In terms of the research discussed here I was not able to distance myself from my own position as a female, WASP, ethnographer-tourist who describes herself as both English and British. Indeed, I did not seek distance since “[t]he ethnographer is an element within the field as well as its ‘observer’” (Atkinson, 1990; 158). The ethnographer’s role in creating rather than merely uncovering knowledge is discussed in a variety of ways by the contributors to the volume edited by Chua et al (2008a) on evidence, ethnography, and knowledge. In the introductory chapter the editors argue that although it is acknowledged that ‘how we know’ is deeply entrenched in ‘who we are’ much still needs to be done as anthropologists need to acknowledge their role in creating and not merely uncovering the evidence upon which anthropological knowledge is based (Chua et al 2008b: 17). As ScheperHughes again illustrates:

Like poetry, ethnography is an act of translation and the kind of ‘truth’ that it produces is necessarily deeply subjective….Our task requires of us only a highly disciplined subjectivity. There are scientific methods and models appropriate to other ways of doing anthropological research, but ethnography, as I understand it, is not a science. (Scheper-Hughes 2000: 132)

The cultural translation of people’s lives is not, therefore, a neutral act since acts of translation and interpretation are shot through with issues of power and control.

9

Hence, a researcher has a duty to be critical and self-questioning about what he or she uncovers and to adopt a rigorous approach to the relationship between theory, data, and interpretation (Herzfeld 2001; Moore and Sanders 2006). Theory is, therefore, fundamental to both the collection and interpretation of data providing as it does a context within and against which data can be examined (Herzfeld 2001; Willis and Trondman 2000). Indeed, whatever methods are employed data requires a framework within which it can be analysed “[o]ne cannot simply observe. A question such as “What is going on here?” can only be addressed when fleshed out with enough detail to answer the related question, “in terms of what?”” (Wolcott 1999: 69). In considering the relationship between heritage tourism and Englishness my approach to Wolcott’s first question ‘what is going on here?’ encompassed three broad areas: Firstly, the tourism industry’s use and reliance upon culture, upon the material and symbolic resources of the nation’s heritage as a means of defining and promoting Englishness. Secondly, the symbolic transmission of identity, in other words how each site communicated identity through aspects of the nation’s cultural heritage - the social mechanisms by which identity was conveyed; Thirdly, the ways in which individuals, as tourists and employees, experienced and understood a particular site. The theoretical framework required to address these areas, and thus Wolcott’s second question, lay primarily within those disciplines and fields concerned with the study of nations, nationalism and national identity (see Anderson 1991; Bhabha 1990; Connor 1993; Gellner 1983; Kedourie 1960; Smith 1983, 1986, 1991). Of particular relevance were studies that linked the theory of nations and the emergence of national consciousness to the experience of identity in everyday life (see Billig 1995; Cohen 1982b; Palmer 1998). Several key issues highlighted by the literature proved to be particularly useful in terms of investigating the social and

10

cultural dynamics at play in visiting heritage attractions. Issues such as the role of the imagination, of feeling and of sentiment, of kinship and community, of power and agency in constructing a particular interpretation of Englishness were recognised as important (see Palmer 2005).

From Theory to Method Given that the primary focus of the study was the cultural representation of Englishness, the symbolic display of 'ourselves', this involved analysing the ways in which individuals experienced the display of culture, the natural and physical landscapes, the material and visual artefacts. Such aspects enable the cultural particularities of a people to be communicated and understood (or misunderstood). How people respond to such cultural markers, how they behave, what they say and what they do when confronted by them is important in terms of understanding the cultural transmission of identity because “…it is through the flow of behaviour - or, more precisely, social action - that cultural forms find articulation” (Geertz 1973:17). My overall aim, then, was to access the mind of the tourist as a way of understanding ‘what was going on here’ in terms of identity. Ethnography enabled me to immerse myself in the world of the tourist and to explore issues of meaning and interpretation by uncovering the thought processes behind visitor reactions to each site. The range of methods employed allowed me to search for patterns and themes in visitor thinking, to understand how visitors thought about and imagined identity/ Englishness, “[i]deology is to be discovered in those patterns of common-sense thinking which cut across class, age and gender distinctions. This means looking for commonalities in what is said. And just as importantly…..in what is not said” (Billig 1992: 19). In a sense, I was seeking an anthropologically derived ‘common sense’

11

response to each site although it is acknowledged that common sense as understanding is not common to all cultures being as it is context specific (Herzfeld 2001). Drawing upon Geertz’s (1973) interpretive approach to culture a key feature of the research methods was the identification and analysis of the structures of signification inherent in the three sites. Battle Abbey, Hever Castle, and Chartwell represent specific social settings within which individuals interact with themselves and with others. It was through the observation and recording of such interactions that the visitors 'conceptual world' was accessed.

Accessing the tourist mind Given the above, the methods employed were: analysis of the particular historic context, the review and analysis of books, archival sources, documents, guides and other relevant published and unpublished material relating to the three sites; tape recorded interviews with key people associated with the sites, for example, employees, managers, members of related associations and relevant individuals from the organisations that owned the sites; observation of visitors at different times taking into account seasonal factors, days and times of the week with written notes being made of visitor behaviour and overheard ‘conversations’; tape recorded interviews with visitors. Site employees were interviewed ‘on the job’, in offices, during communal tea breaks and where appropriate inside the properties just prior to opening or in ‘gaps’ between tourists coming and going. Some staff were spoken to only once, whilst with others I engaged in on-off conversations during the research period. Around four to five months was spent at each site over an eighteen-month period and the range of methods not only generated a rich and extensive amount of data but also

12

enabled data source triangulation to support the analysis and interpretation of findings:

....data-source triangulation involves the comparison of data relating to the same phenomenon but deriving from different phases of the fieldwork. ....This is very time consuming but, besides providing a validity check, it also gives added depth to the description of the social meanings involved in a setting. (Hammersley and Atkinson 1983: 198)

The characteristics of each site affected where the visitor interviews took place. Battle Abbey is an outdoor site encompassing the ruins of Battle Abbey hence there was space to interview people as they wandered around the site. No interviews were carried out inside Chartwell or Hever Castle for two reasons. Firstly, the respective managers did not wish visitors to be approached as this may have detracted from their visit, and secondly, it would have undermined anonymity and compromised my observations of visitor behaviour inside the properties and around the grounds outside. At Hever Castle visitor interviews were restricted to certain areas again to minimize disruption to visitors. Interestingly, this was not the only restriction I encountered at Hever. I was not permitted to interview employees as it was felt this would take them away from their duties around the site. Such access issues highlight the fine line anthropologists have to tread when searching for insights into the thinking of others, a line that requires flexibility and a willingness to adapt to the context of the research setting (see Van Maanen 1988; van Meijl 2005). The interviews with tourists were conducted along the line of conversations. The intention being to put people at their ease and so increase the possibility of obtaining

13

information that may more readily indicate patterns of common sense thinking, underlying feelings, assumptions, and beliefs. Cohen provides a good illustration of what took place:

The proper ethnographic interview is a conversation in which ethnographers risk the appearance of naivety and ignorance in order continually to satisfy themselves that they have understood what is being said.... the conversations ...are instruments...for stripping away the ballasts of expectation and assumption...” (Cohen 1984: 226).

The visitor interviews highlight some interesting issues when considering this quote from Cohen alongside Scheper-Hughes’ call for ‘highly disciplined subjectivity’. The appearance of naivety and ignorance worked well as a strategy for delving deeper into what people said/ did not say and as a means of enabling them to work through their reactions to the site. However, I was continually ‘on guard’, watching for interesting snippets of conversation that could be developed further or for issues I had not expected or considered when devising the themes to be covered in my conversations with tourists. However, a conversation is a two way process and although I was mindful of the need for disciplined subjectivity this was not something the tourists considered at all for understandable reasons. Hence I often found myself being asked questions in return, questions about my experiences and understanding of a particular site. My dilemma was whether to say exactly what I thought and risk influencing the visitor’s own reactions or ‘hide’ my real views behind bland statements of interest. In the end I found the latter hindered conversation whilst on many occasions the former actually enabled a deeper investigation of what was being discussed.

14

Moreover, when confronted with questions they have not expected or prepared for, people tend to respond more instinctively than they may do if given advanced warning of what is to come. In such situations the responses are arguably more 'honest' as the visitor does not have time to think of what might be considered a 'suitable' reply, or of what the researcher may be 'looking for'. In general people were well able to articulate their experiences and thoughts within a conversation that allowed for differing views to be explored by all parties. Having said that, a researcher should not ‘lose’ him or herself so completely that self questioning gives way to complicity, and “...a useful tactic is to make the question 'lead' in a direction opposite to that in which one expects the answer to lie and thus avoid the danger of simply misleadingly confirming one's expectations” (Hammersley and Atkinson 1983: 115-6). I made observations of visitors as they toured each site and notes made of behaviour and overheard conversations. The ‘unannounced’ participatory stance adopted enabled me to be part of the heritage experience while at the same time witnessing the social and cultural dynamics of visitor interaction with the site. One of the identified problems with observation is that of validity in terms of what is chosen to be observed and what is not chosen or even noticed because of the observers own fallibility or biases as they relate to world-view, or such factors as age, gender, sexual orientation or matters of faith. Adler and Adler (1998) suggest that multiple observers can address these concerns but this is not always possible, particularly with the kind of doctoral research discussed here. Although I was the only observer in an academic sense I was not the only observer in the field. Site employees and managers are also observers by virtue of working at the sites, they too notice what visitors do and many

15

are acutely aware of visitor reactions and preoccupations since they have to respond to questions about a site. For the two sites where I was allowed to talk to employees they proved invaluable in this regard. Covert observation does raise ethical concerns. While my purpose is not to engage in a lengthy discussion of these concerns (see Adler and Adler 1998; Denzin 1970; Hamersley and Atkinson 1995; Punch 1998; Scheper-Hughes 2004) an interesting illustration of the dilemmas, the implications and the effectiveness of covert research is provided by Dan Rose’s research into black American street life. In his monograph Living the Ethnographic Life, Rose (1990: 11) argues that his ‘ethically painful’ decision to undertake covert research fundamentally changed his assumptions about the practice of ethnography because the reality of covert fieldwork did not sit easily with the theory learnt from books and from the classroom. His experiences caused him to question the corporate academic culture that governs what is acceptable methodological practice. Lugosi makes a similar point when discussing his ethnography of a suburban bar by arguing that the covert-overt debate is not best served by “…a culture of denigration that treats all our untruths as professional misconduct” (2006: 555), since the reality of fieldwork can mean that sometimes concealment is both necessary and unavoidable. My approach to the question of ethics in relation to the covert observations discussed here is in line with that adopted by Denzin: “I take the stance that justifies ‘unannounced’, disguised research methods. If we are not permitted to study things that people wish hidden then sociology will remain a science of public conduct based on evidence and data given us by volunteers.....” (1970: xiii). Sugden’s (2002) investigative ethnography of the deviant subcultures feeding off and into international football illustrates the importance and value of covert research into ‘things that people wish hidden’.

16

For myself, a guiding principle was and is that of harm to subjects, specifically, would my observations, my analysis and presentation of findings harm the people I had been observing? Given the character and purpose of my research I would argue no, although I am mindful of Hammersley and Atkinson’s (1995) point that what constitutes harm is a matter of judgement and may well be contentious. So, while I noted down generalities such as gender and made a guess as to age no other personal details were sought or recorded. Anonymity was respected since I was not interested in divisions between identifiable people but rather in the many, varied and complex ways in which identity is experienced through culture. That said, I was interested in nationality insofar as it revealed itself through what people said when visiting a particular site. As my notes made no mention of personal variables other than age and gender, it was and still is not possible for any individual to be identified. Public culture publicly displayed is a legitimate concern of anthropology and observation of a publicly accessible activity such as tourism is essential if we are to understand how knowledge is created through tourism. Such a position does not mean that public settings are immune from ethical protocols since they are peopled by private individuals but rather highlights the wider point that there is no one size fits all ethical position, particularly in terms of covert observation. The purpose and context (disciplinary and methodological) of any research are key influencing factors. Again, the overarching issue is the balance between harm to subjects and the advancement of knowledge, as Adler and Adler argue the pursuit of knowledge must “….be fettered by a sensitivity to the rights of unknowing others” (1998: 102-3).

17

The practice of ethnography Although my ethnography included an analysis of the published and unpublished sources necessary for locating the sites within an appropriate historic context I am not intending to discuss this aspect of the methodology but rather to focus on the methods adopted at the three sites; what has been referred to as the messy business of qualitative fieldwork (Jamal and Holinshead 2001; Ritchie et al 2005). In this respect it is worth bearing in mind Denzin’s (1970) comment that the theory of research does not always relate to the practical application of research since fieldwork is far from being an idealised process where theories fall into place once the data has been gathered. Indeed, reflection may cause a researcher to doubt previously published interpretations of their data (see Greenwood1989; Salzinger 2004) while a particular method may lead to unexpected and unintended outcomes for both the researcher and the research participants. For example, Weeden’s focus group research into ethical tourism resulted in a revelatory moment for some participants “…when for the first time they felt a personal responsibility for the impact of tourism” (2005: 188). Practical considerations experienced in the field often require the researcher to change tack or to modify her or his behaviour in terms of data collection or line of questioning (see Cole 2005; Lugosi 2006). Although my research did not involve me living or working with a community or group in the traditional sense of ‘living with’, it still presented certain practical difficulties that at times caused me to suffer from what Rose (1990) has described as the maddening frustration of ethnographic fieldwork. Like any field site, the characteristics of each site affected the process of observation. Chartwell and Hever Castle present the visitor with buildings to visit and rooms to wander through so observations of visitors could be made as they toured

18

inside each structure. There are also extensive grounds surrounding both properties, where visitors could again be observed. As noted earlier Battle Abbey is an outdoor site consisting of the ruins of Battle Abbey, the surrounding fields upon which the Battle of Hastings 1066 was fought, and a gatehouse exhibition relating to issues of history and archaeology. Hence, the visitor experience of Battle Abbey is quite different to that of the other two sites. When observing ‘what is going on here’ it was not possible to follow every visitor or group of visitors, or to record every overheard conversation. Nor was it possible to ask visitors their age so, as stated above, an educated guess had to be made. Age is a particular issue at Chartwell where the typical visitor profile reflects the number of older visitors attracted to the house due to its connection with Winston Churchill and the Second World War. So I needed to ensure that as far as possible I observed visitors of all ages by constantly checking my notes and by being careful to observe visitors such as children, adolescents and people who appeared to be under the age of forty-five to fifty. The checking and rechecking of what is being recorded is vital in terms of assessing whether something is being missed or whether preconceptions are merely being confirmed. I frequently took ‘time out’ to review what I was recording and to read through my captured ‘conversations’ so that I could actively search for alternative or differing examples. Such periods of reflection also proved useful when it came to the visitor interviews since they often suggested potentially fruitful lines of questioning. As noted earlier the site employees were extremely useful and provided me with accounts of visitor behaviour/ reactions and frequently asked questions. The influence of gender on understandings of identity is an important avenue of research but this was not the purpose of my investigation. So, when recording my

19

observations I took note of gender in so far as it enabled me to identify groups of men, women or mixed groups and to distinguish between individuals when speaking. While the gender of the speaker could be noted, the nationality of the speaker could not be assured in this way. However, as with gender I was not interested in nationality per se but as identity is influenced by the view of the Other the reactions of nonEnglish people were important. Although it is not possible to determine whether someone is English or not through observation alone common sense can be applied by listening to what is being said. As with any ethnography the note book or diary is an indispensable part of the ethnographic routine and mine was no exception since I used it to record my own thoughts as well as the overheard conversations. As people wandered through Chartwell and the fortified manor house that comprises Hever ‘castle’ such conversations manifested themselves in different ways. Some people said very little or even nothing at all while others were deep in conversation so as to appear oblivious to their surroundings. Indeed, naturally occurring speech in these settings is not usually a sustained monologue but rather a few words here and there then perhaps a pause while individuals read from guidebooks, information boards or just study a particular room or artefact, before resuming their conversation. Moreover, people do not always converse logically and their expressions often resemble 'thoughts out loud' rather than actual conversations. Conversations may appear disjointed and can end abruptly or even move to different and often seemingly unrelated topics. The challenge for the ethnographer is to capture as much of the ‘conversations’ and comments as possible while staying alert for what may be happening at the periphery.

20

The interviews with visitors took place in the grounds of each site. However, visitors to Battle Abbey wandered around the site with a greater degree of serendipity than at the other sites. The difficulties of dealing with such a situation are discussed by Ireland in his study of Land's End in Cornwall. Here Ireland interviewed visitors at specific locations decided upon by dividing the site into four areas so as “...to replicate as far as possible, the exploratory behaviour of the visitor after leaving the car park” (1990: 35). A similar strategy was adopted at Battle Abbey, and in relation to the grounds at Chartwell. As already stated, the locations for the interviews at Hever were prescribed by the manager and the area chosen encompassed the main thoroughfare for visitors coming from and going to the castle. Although the above presents a fairly structured approach to the interviews I was acutely aware of what I referred to above as the serendipitous nature of tourist behaviour. Clearly, visits to heritage attractions are structured by elements such as signage, guidebooks, paths, and site employees but visitors also wander around a site in their own fashion, either through naive or purposeful ignorance of such signage. So, although certain areas provided a focal point for interviews and acted as key locations from which to observe visitor behaviour my own wanderings enabled me to access visitors I may not otherwise have encountered. Data gathered by means of observation and interview certainly illustrates the messiness of qualitative research. However, ‘mess’ should not be viewed in a pejorative sense but rather as an apt description of lived experience - of the group or society being investigated and of the ethnographer. Cultural contexts are not neatly organised into clearly identifiable categories. They are complex, disorganised and disjointed arenas into which a researcher tries, sometimes in-vain to bring about a form of ordered meaning no matter how contingent. Making sense of visitor

21

behaviour, our interpretations of what we observe and record are necessarily incomplete since exceptions to the rule can always be found. Rather like the chips of a kaleidoscope socially constructed knowledge, meaning made from lived experience, forms and reforms in a variety of shapes and patterns “… for, as in a kaleidoscope, one always sees the chips distributed in some pattern, however ill-formed or irregular. But, as in a kaleidoscope, they are detachable from these structures and arrangeable into different ones of a similar sort” (Geertz, 1973: 353 original emphasis).

Conclusion While the above discussion illustrates some of the methodological and practical aspects of ethnography it also highlights the value of ethnography as method in terms of investigating tourist behaviour and the spaces, places, and contexts in which it is to be found. Tourism is a complex cultural phenomenon yet too often studies of tourism employ methodologies that lack the subtlety and reach needed to scratch beneath the surface when such a question as ‘what is going on here?’ is applied to tourist attractions. This chapter’s focus on one particular study illustrates that ethnography is well suited to addressing the subtle complexities inherent in this question. Moreover, when focusing on heritage tourism there is much to be gained by adopting a multisited ethnographic approach that seeks to uncover relationships between aspects of the heritage rather than singular interpretations of particular heritage spaces. The complex nature of tourism presents an interesting challenge for any researcher given the comment made previously that many anthropologists are themselves tourists. The ethnographer-tourist label highlights van Meijl’s (2005) point about the multiple identities required of the researcher in the field as a way of reconciling the

22

irreconcilable demands of ethnographic research. My experiences at the sites discussed here certainly reflect a blurring of the line between the researcher and the researched. As already noted I was participating in the experience of touring the sites and was thus aware of my own emotions and thoughts. However, Rose (1990) stresses that the author's voice and emotional reactions should not be excluded, as they too require consideration and analysis. As Hammersley and Atkinson illustrate “[t]here is, then, a constant interplay between the personal and the emotional on the one hand, and the intellectual on the other. Private response is thus transformed, by reflexive analysis, into potential public knowledge” (1983:166-7). To conclude, while there are challenges to be faced when the focus of investigation is the researcher’s own cultural milieu it is at times necessary to turn the familiar on its head, to make it unfamiliar in order to rethink preconceived or takenfor-granted assumptions and knowledge. Ethnography as method should be more widely employed to uncover and to question the knowledge generated through heritage interpretations of the past. _____________________________________________________________________ References Adler, P. A. and Adler, J. H. (1998) ‘Observational Techniques’, in N.K. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds.) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials, pp. 79-109. London: Sage. Anderson, B. (1991) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, 2nd ed. London: Verso. Andrews, H. (2004) Escape to Britain: The case of charter tourists to Mallorca. PhD Thesis. London Metropolitan University. Atkinson, P. (1990) The Ethnographic Imagination. London: Routledge.

23

Baszanger, I. and Dodier, N. (1997) 'Ethnography: Relating the Part to the Whole', in D. Silverman (ed.) Qualitative Research. Theory, Method and Practice, pp. 8-23. London: Sage. Berger, P. L. and Berger, B. (1976) Sociology: A Biographical Approach. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Bhabha, H. K. (1990) ed. Nation and Narration. London: Routledge. Billig, M. (1992) Talking of the Royal Family. London: Routledge. Billig, M. (1995) Banal Nationalism. London: Sage. Bruner, E. M. (1995) ‘The Ethnographer/Tourist in Indonesia’, in M-L. Lanfant, J.B. Allcock and E. M. Bruner (eds.) International Tourism. Identity and Change, pp. 224-241. London: Sage. Chua, L., High, C., Lau, T. eds. (2008a) How Do We Know? Evidence, Ethnography, and the Making of Anthropological Knowledge. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Chua, L., High, C., Lau, T. (2008b) ‘Introduction: Questions of Evidence’, in L. Chua, C. High and T. Lau (eds) How Do We Know? Evidence, Ethnography, and the Making of Anthropological Knowledge, pp 1-19. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Cohen, A. P. ed. (1982a) Belonging. Identity and social organisation in British rural cultures. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Cohen, A. P. (1982b) 'Belonging: the experience of culture', in A. P. Cohen (ed.) Belonging. Identity and social organisation in British rural cultures, pp 1-17. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

24

Cohen, A. P. (1984) 'Informants', in R. F. Ellen (ed.) Ethnographic Research: A Guide to General Conduct. (Research Methods in Social Anthropology 1), pp. 223-229. London: Academic Press. Cohen, E. (2004) Contemporary Tourism. Diversity and Change. Oxford: Elsevier Cole, S. (2004) ‘Shared benefits: longditudinal research in eastern Indonesia’, in J. Phillimore and L. Goodson (eds.) Qualitative Research in Tourism. Ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies, pp. 292-310. London: Routledge. Cole, S. (2005) ‘Action Ethnography: Using Participant Observation’, in B.W. Ritchie, P. Burns, C. Palmer (eds.) Tourism Research Methods. Integrating Theory with Practice, pp. 63-72. Wallingford: CAB International. Connor, W. (1993) 'Beyond Reason: the nature of the ethnonational bond'. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 16 (3): 373-89. Delaney, C. (2004) Investigating Culture. An Experiential Introduction to Anthropology. Oxford: Blackwell. Denzin, N. K. (1970) The Research Art in Sociology: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. London: Butterworth. Edensor, T. (1998) Tourists at the Taj. Performance and Meaning at a Symbolic Site. London: Routledge. Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books. Gellner, E. (1983) Nations and Nationalism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Graburn, N. H. H. (1983) ‘The Anthropology of Tourism’. Annals of Tourism Research 10 (1): 9-35. Greenwood, D. J. (1989) ‘Culture by the Pound: An Anthropological Perspective on Tourism as Cultural Commoditization’, in V.L. Smith (ed.) Hosts and Guests.

25

The Anthropology of Tourism, pp. 171-86. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (1983) Ethnography. Principles and Practice. London: Routledge. Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (1995) Ethnography. Principles and Practice, 2nd ed. London: Routledge. Hendry, J. (1999) An Introduction to Social Anthropology: other people’s worlds. Basingstoke; Macmillan Herzfeld, M. (2001) Anthropology. Theoretical Practice in Culture and Society. Oxford: Blackwell. Ireland, M. J. (1990) 'Come to Cornwall, Come to Land's End. A Study of Visitor Experience at a Touristic Sight'. Problems of Tourism 8 (3-4): 33-53. Jamal, T. and Hollinshead, K. (2001) ‘Tourism and the forbidden zone: the undeserved power of qualitative inquiry’. Tourism Management, 22: 63-82. Kedourie, E. (1960) Nationalism. London: Hutchinson. Kotsi, F. (2007) ‘Mirroring the Anthropologist: Reflex-ions of the Self’. Paper presented at the Association of Social Anthropologists annual conference ‘Thinking Through Tourism’, London Metropolitan University, 10-13 April. Lowenthal, D. (1998) The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. Cambridge University Press. Lugosi, P. (2006) ‘Between Overt and Covert Research. Concealment and Disclosure in an Ethnographic Study of Commercial Hospitality. Qualitative Inquiry, 12 (3): 541-61. MacCannell, D. (1989) The Tourist: a new theory of the leisure class. 2nd ed. New York: Schocken.

26

Marcus, G. (1995) ‘Ethnography in/of the World System: The emergence of multisited ethnography’. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24: 95-117. Marcus, G. (2007) ‘What is at Stake – and is not – in the Idea and Practice of Multisited Ethnography’, in H.L. Moore and T. Sanders (eds.) Anthropology in Theory. Issues in Epistemology, pp. 618-21. Oxford: Blackwell. Moore, A. (1980) ‘Walt Disney World: Bounded Ritual Space and the Playful Pilgrimage Center’. Anthropological Quarterly 53 (4): 207-18. Moore, H. L. and Sanders, T. (2006) ‘Anthropology and Epistemology’, in H.L. Moore and T. Sanders (eds.) Anthropology in Theory. Issues in Epistemology, pp. 1-21. Oxford: Blackwell. Morgan, N. and Pritchard, A. (2005) ‘On souvenirs and metonymy. Narratives of memory, metaphor and Materiality, Tourist Studies 5: 29-53. Nash, D. (1996) The Anthropology of Tourism. Oxford: Pergamon. Okely, J. (1983) Changing Cultures. The Traveller-Gypsies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Palmer, C. (1998) 'From Theory to Practice. Experiencing the nation in everyday life'. Journal of Material Culture 3 (2): 175-199. Palmer, C. (1999) Heritage Tourism and English National Identity. PhD Thesis, University of North London. Palmer, C. (2005) ‘An Ethnography of Englishness. Experiencing Identity through Tourism’. Annals of Tourism Research, 32: 7-27. Pritchard, A. and Morgan, N. (2003) ‘Mythic Geographies of Representation and Identity: Contemporary Postcards of Wales’. Tourism and Cultural Change, 1 (2): 111-30.

27

Punch, M (1998) ‘Politics and Ethics in Qualitative Research’, in N.K. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds.) The Landscape of Qualitative Research. Theories and Issues, pp. 156-84. London: Sage. Ritchie, B.W., Burns, P., Palmer, C. (2005) ‘Introduction: Reflections on the Practice of Research’, in B.W. Ritchie, P. Burns, C. Palmer (eds.) Tourism Research Methods. Integrating Theory with Practice, pp. 1-8. Wallingford: CAB International. Rose, D. (1990) Living the Ethnographic Life. London: Sage. Salzinger, L. (2004) ‘Revealing the unmarked. Finding masculinity in a global factory. Ethnography, 5: 5-27. Scarangella, L. (2007) ‘Multi-sited Ethnography and the Anthropological Study of Tourism’. Paper presented at the Association of Social Anthropologists annual conference ‘Thinking Through Tourism’, London Metropolitan University, 10-13 April. Scheper-Hughes, N. (1979) Saints, Scholars, and Schizophrenics : Mental Illness in Rural Ireland. University of California Press. Scheper-Hughes, N. (2000) ‘Ire in Ireland’. Ethnography, 1: 117-40. Scheper-Hughes, N. (2004) ‘Parts unknown Undercover ethnography of the organs-trafficking underworld’. Ethnography, 5: 29-73. Selwyn, T. ed. (1996) The Tourist Image. Myths and Myth Making in Tourism. Chichester: Wiley. Smith, A. D. (1983) Theories of Nationalism, 2nd ed. London: Duckworth. Smith, A. D. (1986) Ethnic Origin of Nations. Oxford: Blackwell. Smith, A.D. (1991) National Identity. London: Penguin.

28

Smith, V. ed. (1989) Hosts and Guests. The Anthropology of Tourism, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Sugden, J. (2002) Scum Airways: Inside Football's Underground Economy. Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing. Tucker, H. (2003) Living with Tourism. Negotiating Identities in a Turkish Village. London: Routledge. Van Maanen, J. (1988) Tales of the Field. On Writing Ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. van Meijl, T. (2005) ‘The Critical Ethnographer as Trickster’. Anthropological; Forum, 15 (3): 235-45. Weeden, C. (2005) ‘A Qualitative Approach to the Ethical Consumer. The Use of Focus Groups for Cognitive Consumer Research in Tourism’, in B.W. Ritchie, P. Burns, C. Palmer (eds.) Tourism Research Methods. Integrating Theory with Practice, pp. 179-90. Wallingford: CAB International. Willis, P. and Trondman, M. (2000) ‘Manifesto for Ethnography’. Ethnography, 1: 516. Wilson, D. (1993) ‘Time and tides in the anthropology of Tourism’, in M. Hitchcock, V.T. King and M.Parnwell (eds.) Tourism in South-East Asia, pp. 32-47. London: Routledge. Wolcott, H. F. (1999) Ethnography. A way of seeing. London: Altamira Press

29