Elite Interviews: Critical Practice and Tourism

Abstract

The elite interview method has been applied to the study ofpolitics and policy making and to other social andorganisational contexts, although it has been relativelylittle applied in a formal fashion in tourism research.Nevertheless it is a method that has the potential ofenhancing the quality and quantity of research data given thepower and influence of elite subjects. The conduct of eliteinterviews suggests that there are qualitatively differentaspects in interviewing ‘up’ as compared to interviewing‘across’ or ‘down’. The article provides a review of some ofthe major issues involved in the conduct of elite interviewsand highlights some of the tactics that researchers may use inthe interview process as well as some of the potential ethicaland publishing constraints. Even though there are a number ofpotential methodological challenges in using this method itprovides a valuable approach in tourism research, especiallystudies that aim to understand decision-making processes,policy making and perceptions. It is shown that individualingenuity and reflexivity are required in order to overcomesome of the challenges reported in existing studies.

Keywords: elite methodology, tourism research, oppositionalresearch, power, positionality

1

Introduction

Interviews with ‘elite’ individuals are “a special case ofinterviewing that focuses on a particular type of interviewpartner” (Marshall & Grossmann, 2010: 155) that has beenlittle reflected upon within tourism studies. The concept ofelite interviews originated from the study of politics andpolicy making (Dexter, 1969, 1970). As a result of greateremphasis on understanding decision-making processes and policyimpacts and perceptions it has subsequently become popular asa qualitative research method in the social sciences and isgaining interest amongst tourism and business managementresearchers, especially among graduate students (Pridham,1999; Lennon & Graham, 2001; Sharp, 2003; Ames et al., 2006;Hall, 2011a; Mak, 2011; Moswete & Darley, 2012).

In tourism the conduct of elite interviews has generally beensubsumed under the general notion of conducting personalinterviews, including with business and policy decision-makers. However, this has meant that research is potentiallyoften being conducted without an appreciation of the specificconstraints that interviews with elites, e.g. key decision-makers, politicians and corporation heads, bring to theresearch process and that interviewing or studying ‘up’ withrespect to class, political and social status (Gelles, 1974)is different from interviewing or studying ‘across’ or ‘down’(Gusterson, 1997; Smith, 2006). Such a position thereforereflects that an understanding of positionality is fundamentalto developing a better understanding of the interview andresearch process in tourism and elsewhere in the socialsciences (Hall, 2011a; Marshall & Rossmann, 2010; Phillimore &Goodson, 2004), especially from gender (England, 1994), post-colonial (Jacobs‐Huey, 2002), and critical perspectives(Kobayashi, 2001).

Though often ordinarily conceived and depicted as a class orstatus connotation (see Whitty, 2001), the terms“interviewing-up” and “interviewing down” (Desmond, 2004;Kezar, 2003) and “studying up” and “studying down” (Gusterson,1997) are used in elite interview and research literature torefer to perceived knowledgeability, positionality and powerrelationships between the interviewer and interviewee prior tothe interview. These perceptions often inform the researcher’s

2

preparations and need to demonstrate knowledge in theinterview process (Bygnes, 2008).

Knowledge and positionality are culturally, politically andsocially constructed; meaning the identity of the researcherprior to any interview encounter is constructed in relation toboth self and existing social structures as well as sets ofpower relationships (Alvesson, 2003; Hall, 2011b). Bygnes(2008: 5) posits that awareness of the “overarchingsuperstructure of societies is necessary for researchers’overall understanding of the power relations present in thefield”. She further argued that although the micro-environmentof the interview can be experienced as negotiable andchangeable, it is in all probability not isolated fromsocieties’ larger social structures. For example, when“interviewing down” or interviewing non-elites, academics,including graduate researchers, may potentially beconstructed/construed as experts in a “local colonial”relation with the community (Spencer & Taylor, 2010). However,when “researching up” or interviewing elites, interviewees arepresumed to be knowledgeable agents (Giddens, 1984), withrespect to particular subjects - making the interaction moredemanding for the interviewer as elites may prefer todemonstrate knowledge by articulating their views in moreopen-ended fashion (Aberbach & Rockman, 2002).

In addition, understanding the context of elite interviews isextremely significant not only because of the role ofknowledge and power relations in the interview process (Smith,2006; Bygnes, 2008; Hall, 2011b; Thomas, 2012), but alsogender (Ribbens, 1989; Currie, 1994; Elias & Kuttner, 2001;Elias, 2005), ethnicity (Corbie-Smith et al., 2007), religion(Ryan et al., 2011), cultural situatedness (Argon, 2009), andthe importance of reflexivity (Hall, 2004; Ryan & Golden,2006; Dalton, 2011). The conduct of elite interviews isimportant for the conduct of oppositional (Gould, 2010; HansonThiem & Robertson, 2010) and critical research (Kobayashi,2001; Blomley, 2008), and is also a consideration in academicactivism, the politics of research and the limits of enquiry(Horwood & Moon, 2003; Gould, 2010). Therefore, as Bochatonand Lefebvre (2011: 70-71) suggested in their work on medicaltourism in Thailand, “Though not exclusive to the process,interviewing elites raises various methodological issues such

3

as access to informers, the unbalanced power relations duringthe interview, and the reliability of information.”

Nevertheless, there are enormous benefits in interviewingelites. Because they wield power in a different societal,legal, financial, political and organisational settings,elites are well positioned to enhance the quantity and qualityof data collected (Delaney, 2007; Marshall & Grossmann, 2010).It has even been suggested that, in comparison with non-elites, elites are most often good communicators,knowledgeable, appreciate research better and have a widelocus of influence ranging from social, economic throughpolitical (Robson, 2008). Significantly, elites are also ableto make available ‘confidential’ or ‘behind the scenes’information to researchers which otherwise might not beavailable (Schoenberger, 1991). Elite interviews are extremelyimportant in seeking to understand and potentially change theimpacts of business and political decision-making in tourism(Jenkins et al. 2014; Thomas, 2012). For example, eliteinterviews have been used to shed light on why hallmark eventsare held and/or stadiums developed with public monies despitea wealth of evidence that highlights their uneconomic nature(Eckstein & Delaney, 2002; Delaney & Eckstein, 2003, 2007). Inaddition elite interviews are integral to what is referred toin the social marketing literature as upstream behaviouralchange, i.e. changes to business, organisational andinstitutional behaviours (Hall, 2014). This is because “a solefocus on individuals (downstream level) would limit socialmarketing’s effectiveness… because, in some cases,institutional arrangements and structures affect individualbehaviors” (Truong & Hall, 2013: 115).

Elite interviews present considerable conceptual,epistemological, methodological, practical, ethical andprescriptive challenges (Delaney, 2007; Marshall & Grossmann,2010). Consequently, research that is explicitly focused oninterviewing elites is relatively scant when compared to thoseon non-elites (Savage & Williams, 2008), despite theirrecognised importance with respect to the broader impacts ofbusiness and policy decision-making (Jenkins et al., 2014;Thomas, 2012). Elites build barriers and institute gatekeepersusing the power at their disposal in order to restrict accessand analysis (Cormode, 1999; Shenton & Hayter, 2004; Mikecz,

4

2012). Because power can be understood in a number ofdifferent ways (Hall, 2007), conceptualising powerstructurally in this manner where power is more or lessascribed and appropriated is sometimes regarded as problematic(Smith, 2006). An impression created by this line of argumentis that, identifying and interviewing elites can be moredaunting given the potentially powerful and influentialpositions elite members may hold (Woods, 1998; Smith, 2006;Harvey, 2010). Furthermore, elite interviews present majorchallenges for research ethics and codes of conduct (Hall,2011b), given that if elites are unwilling to be interviewed,some researchers may disguise their ‘personalities’ andmanipulated elites for the purposes of gaining access andestablishing trust (Spencer, 1982; Routledge, 2002); or useother research methods to examine elite behaviour andinfluence in tourism, particularly ethnography (e.g. Braun &McLees, 2012; Guerrón Montero, 2011; Wendland, 2012).

Although the interviewing of elites is a research subject ofsignificance across the social sciences it is of particularimportance in tourism because of the ways in which elitesframe business practices and responsibilities (e.g. Fernandoet al., 2012; Miller, 2001); shape destination and communityprocesses, policies and decision-making (e.g. Jayawardena,2002; Hall, 2003), including with respect to destinationbranding and representation, infrastructure development, andunderstandings of the authenticity and legitimacy of heritage(e.g. Mak, 2011; Norkunas, 1993); and influence the very waythat tourism knowledge is created and transferred (Thomas,2012). Elite decisions directly affect the nature of tourismdevelopment. Although it may be intellectually unfashionableto suggest it, in various ways therefore elites serve to helpstructure tourist flows and patterns, consumption experiences,tourism development, the allocation of the costs and benefitsof tourism and, the capacity to do other in tourism andtourism research (Hall, 2013).

This article follows calls for a continuous exploration of newways, as well as the improvement of existing methods ofcollecting, analysing and positioning data in tourism studies(Duval, 2011). In the case of tourism this also includesmaking the various dimensions of the elite interview processmore overt and transparent given that there are a number of

5

studies that constitute elite interviews but are notnecessarily identified as such (e.g. Anastasiadou, 2008;Ferguson, 2010; Guibert, 2006; Stevenson et al. 2008; Tyler &Dinan, 2001; Weed, 2006). The paper also reflects Moore andStokes’ (2012) suggestion that sectoral context is importantin elite interviewing and reinforces their conclusion, in atourism setting, that there is a need to redress a generalpaucity of commentary on elites in the overall business andmanagement research methodology literature.

The article reviews the methodological issues that eliteinterviews raise in an attempt to identify its value as aresearch method in tourism and cognate areas. The paper isorganised as follows. The first section outlines thedefinitional and conceptual treatments of ‘elite’ and ‘eliteinterviews’, an overview of the benefits and place of eliteinterviews in the general scheme of qualitative research isthen provided. Subsequently, the processes and potentialchallenges of elite interviews and how prior researchers havedealt with the problems and succeeded in conducting eliteinterviews are critically reviewed. Ethical issues are thendiscussed before the implications of the review and lessonsfor future elite interview research are noted as part of theconcluding remarks.

Defining and conceptualising the elite

Despite widespread use of the term, the concept of ‘elite’means many things to different people in many differentcontexts (Kezar, 2003; Smith, 2006; Robson, 2008; Mikecz,2012), including in tourism (Chambers, 1997; Mason andDuquette, 2008; Bochaton & Lefebvre, 2011; Salazar & Zhang,2013). This state of affairs can be explained to a largeextent by the differing definitional treatments (Table 1) byresearchers from various disciplines and differentunderstandings of power relationships (Lukes, 2005), who tendto interview different groups of informants they label aselites.

<INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE>

6

Since the concept of elite is often loosely defined andconceptualised (Smith, 2006; Morris, 2009) as well ascontested (Lukes, 2005) – researchers have largely relied onworking definitions (Smith, 2006; Robson, 2008) in an attemptto differentiate between elites and non-elites. Dexter’s(1970) definition which provided a significant point ofreference for scholars has been criticised as inadequatebecause it limits elites to individuals or people of influencewho occupy positions of high visibility, while it is alsodivorced from the broader literature on power (Lukes, 2005),particularly the work of Gramsci and Marx (Karl and Katz,1987; Hall, 2011c).

Richards (1996) argues that these tags of status are assignedand thus people can assume and relinquish those titles anytime(Allen, 1997; Mikecz, 2012) and defining the elite must gobeyond current status and visibility per se as the identity ofthe elite in terms of interviewees can be blurred across timeand space. This approach reflects Dexter (1970) and Richard’s(1996) work on politicians as elite subjects given that theywere highly placed, powerful, influential and more visiblethan general members of the public. Subsequently status based-definitions have flourished in the literature – such as theconcept of the political elite (Aaron, 1988; Eldersvel, 1991);and the corporate or professional elite (Cochrane, 1998;Burnham, Gilland, Grant, & Leyton-Henry, 2004). These eliteshave similar status in the world of business, academia orprofessional practice (England, 2002). There are also aprivileged few (e.g. monarchs) whose elite social class status(Mills, 1953) are not necessarily self-made but assigned bythe same non-elite members of the public. In essence, theconcept of elite may also be described as ‘institutionalised’with easily identifiable and easy to locate subjects.

Two kinds of difficulties with defining the elite in thisfashion becomes apparent when negotiating access toinformants; first there are cases of less superior, lesspowerful and less privileged non-elites who may be even moredifficult to access than professional or business elitesbecause of their less visible position within the existingsocial, political and economic networks (Woods, 1998; Burt,1992). This is particularly the case for tourism given themultifaceted nature of interests in destinations and their

7

concomitant underlying and competing power struggles (Churchand Coles, 2007). Under such circumstances, individuals orstakeholders who perceive themselves to have been marginalisedmay turn to the political process, i.e. through the formationof lobby groups, media and public campaigns, and protests towield, display and exert such power that may even surpassthose of visible and highly placed individuals. Smith (2006)warns researchers of this kind of elite, pointing to thedifficulty researchers may have in accessing and establishingtrust with largely marginalised groups (see also Bourgois,1995). Dexter’s (1970) definition also presumes elites asminorities who occupy top leadership positions and controlresources; however there are people in the larger non-elitemajority who also wield control over resources given thatresources are many and varied (Onias, 1999; Robson, 2008).Furthermore, individual and institutional gatekeepers inacademia exercise power by limiting access to research fields,participants, topics, grants and/or locations (Hall, 2004,2011b).

Second, it is has been observed that elites do not alwaysexercise power to block or dominate interviews. ‘Power isalways possessed but not always exercised, and as a resultpower is perceived as always potential’ (Allen, 1997: 60).Sabot (1999) for instance found out that elites put updifferent and contrasting behaviours depending on theresearcher’s position. Invariably, a definition thattranscends status, position, geography, income is difficult toachieve (Harvey, 2010).

The inability of scholars to refine the early definition byDexter (1970), into a more universal, overarching andmultidisciplinary alternative that reflects the multifacetedtraits of ‘elites’ is likely to raise validity concerns withresearch that employs elite interviews. Even though some willargue that validity is a quantitative research requirement(Stenbacka, 2001), and that the concept is itself constructedto reflect relationships within the academy, others believequalitative researchers should be equally interested in thecredibility and trustworthiness of their work (Lincoln & Guba,1985; Davies & Dodd, 2002). However, the fact that a consensusdefinition of elite is unavailable does not mean that elitesdo not exist. Indeed, the manner in which the term is used

8

reflects broader issues of investigating power in that the useof such a concept is inextricably linked to its methodologicaland philosophical foundations (Lukes, 2005), including intourism (Hall, 2011b). In other words, what you see or defineis what you get.

Benefits of conducting elite interviews

Despite the potentially rich data that elite interviews canprovide researchers, such studies are relatively scarce (Welchet al., 2002; Savage & Williams, 2008; Morris, 2009), with thevast literature available on interviewing provides text mostlyon interviewing-down or across. This may be a function ofresearch problem definition or of the relative proportion ofindividuals concerned as well as how researchers and researchagencies have come to regard the allocation of power insociety. With interviewing-down, the focus is on the ‘ordinaryperson’ (Ostrander, 1995); ‘the less powerful’ (Robson, 2008);and ‘the average person’ (Neuman, 2000). This group ofinterviewees are often classified as non-elites. Nevertheless,as noted above, tourism research can be enhanced if thebenefits of elite interviews are well explored (Thomas, 2012).

Unlike researching ‘down’, in elite research information andknowledge flows from the researched to the researcher (Mikecz,2012) and the role of the researcher is to provide theoreticalperspectives on the knowledge and perspectives of theresearched (Richards, 1996), although arguably the latter issimilar to any interview situation. Nevertheless, eliteinterviews can provide data that might not be available fromelsewhere. For example, Robson (2008) suggests that elitestend to be knowledgeable, widely-read and have excellentcommunication skills which they can bring to bear on thequality and quantity of data collected. Robson (2008) reportedthe case of an Australian elite who demonstrated knowledge andcontributed a lot of useful information to his study of thesocial context of intuition used in Australian businessdecision-making. Apparently, this elite has been reflectingover the topic long before the researcher went to the field tocollect data. Elites are likely well placed when it comes tointerpreting public documents and also pre-empting informationthat is not yet in the public domain (Richards, 1996), and may

9

be especially valuable for the purposes of triangulatingresearch data (Herod, 1999; Delaney, 2007; Marshall &Grossmann, 2010). Nevertheless, having good contacts,connections and sponsors is vital to gaining access in eliteinterviews (Lilleker, 2003; Costa & Kiss, 2011), while theexperience of some elite interview researchers suggests thatit can be more expensive in terms of cost and time whencompared to researching ‘down’ (Welch et al. 2002; Berry, 2002;Mikecz, 2012).

The processes and challenges of elite interviews and howothers got around them

Gaining Access

Gaining access to informants is a crucial step in the researchdata collection process but can be an especially dauntingexercise when working on elites (England, 2002; Desmond, 2004)(see Smith [2006] and Robson [2008] for contrary accounts).Amongst other reasons, it has been observed that elites tendto live in relative seclusion, and, with the excpetion of apossible celebrity elite (Moore & Stokes, 2012), are oftenprivate people who keep away from the public spotlight(Robson, 2008; Harvey, 2010). They therefore employ theavailable machinery and resources under their control to erecta number of direct and indirect barriers (Hertz & Imber, 1995;Laurilla, 1997; Shenton & Haytor, 2004) to distance themselvesfrom others, but the most common is the use of gatekeepers inthe form of personal and executive assistants as well assecurity (Welch et. al., 2002; Mikecz, 2012). Indirectly, someelites also resort to the use of extensive negotiation ofterms and conditions (Cochrane, 1998); even though somescholars suspect they may genuinely be very busy people andtherefore need to make special time for such interviews(Marshall & Grossmann, 2010; Robson, 2008).

Making contact is critical to the whole elite interviewprocess since it holds the key to the rest of the exercise. Atthis point a multiplicity of strategies may contribute tosuccess (Figure 1), although luck and chance are also vital(McDowell, 1998; Costa & Kiss, 2011). Desmond (2004)underscored the importance of timing of the interview tocoincide with periods when the topic or issue is receivingeither positive or negative publicity in the media; yet the

10

right timing could as well happen by accident. For example,Bochaton and Lefebvre (2011), French PhD students who wereconducting research on medical tourism, experienced warmwelcome and positive response from a Thai elite member whosedaughter was about leaving to study in France just around thetime of contact.

Both formal and informal networks are important in improvingaccess and introductions and can be leveraged to make contactswith elites. These connections of social and formal networksoften act as sponsors. The more influential sponsors aresearcher has the easier the access (Walford, 1994; Herod,1999; Welch et al., 2002; Costa & Kiss, 2006), especially ifsponsors buy into the research project themselves.

However, the use of personal contacts and sponsors to gaininitial access can have its downside, for example samplingbiases when investigating opposing ‘factions’ or differenceswithin elites. Elite interviewers are therefore advised tofind additional informants outside those proposed by a sponsoror contact person (Welch et al., 2002).

<INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE>

In the absence of an available ‘sponsor’, a good startingpoint in gaining access should be the researcher’s ownsearches of publicly available directories for contactaddresses and telephone numbers (Lilleker, 2003; Robson,2008). Even though Herod (1999) warns researchers about howchallenging the scheduling of interviews with foreign elitescan be beyond getting their contact addresses, Robson (2008)creates the impression that the ease of access is a functionof individual researcher ingenuity. Interestingly, Sabot(1999) found it easier to gain access to foreign elites thanher own local elites. Robson (2008) used telephone interviewsunlike the face-to-face interviews of Sabot (1999), althoughclearly the telephone option might not be suitable for allpurposes nor for university ethics committees.

A combination of contextual factors come to play in explainingthese conflicting experiences regarding access to elites -the

11

researcher, the researched, the locations of the researcherand the researched, and language barriers are but a few. Forinstance, local politicians may feel less threatened by aforeign interviewer as opposed to a local one since imageprotection is a high priority for a politician (Sabot, 1999).Another important explanation that borders on the cross-cultural is the different kinds of relationship and thus co-operation that exists between academics and elites indifferent cultures. Elites in some regions may be veryaccessible because of the positive relationship between themand academics (Costa & Kiss, 2011). Robson (2008) partlyattributes his easy access to Australian elites to theirresearch-friendly nature since Australian elites conceiveAustralian research as a positive contribution to the good ofsociety. However, a politician or senior public official haseverything to lose by virtue of the fact that they areaccountable to a wider range of stakeholders and often pursuepolitics and public service as life-time careers. They aretherefore constantly under the public microscope.

Developing rapport and establishing trust during the interview process

Merely arranging an interview does not pass for a successfulinterview contact. Developing rapport and establishing trustare important ingredients that an interviewer needs in orderto get quality information from elites beyond public relationsreports or speech. Sabot (1999) found that an inability togain trust despite access to senior public officials affectedthe quality of information collected. Given this backdrop,‘getting the interview’ (Goldstein, 2002: 670) must be treatedas a different process from ‘getting the interview underwaysuccessfully’.

Depending on the purposes, researchers may have to discernbetween the elite’s own personal and objective views on issuesand public relation versions or those reflected by theirorganisations (Batteson & Ball, 1995; Mikecz, 2012). In thebusiness and political worlds, it is extremely likely thatsenior managers and politicians will have undergone publicrelations training, their positions predispose them to thepresenting of official views as opposed to personal views,especially if such comments are to ‘on the record’ and non-anonymised. Furthermore, Mikecz (2012) and Welch et al. (2002)

12

suggest that elite members are typically smart and skilful‘professional’ communicators who know how to switch into themonologue and journalistic mode when faced with the hardquestions. Consequently the degree of openness a researchercan get from interviewees becomes an important factor indetermining how much personal as opposed to organisationalviews he or she can get from elite interviews.

Several strategies to optimise rapport, trust andautomatically openness have been proposed (Figure 1). Theseinclude a thorough appreciation of the backgrounds of theinterviewees; knowledge of –preferred names and titles;speaking tone and language use; type of dressing (Ostrander,1995; Welch et al, 2002; Costa & Kiss, 2011); life history andachievements (Conti & O’Neal, 2007; Stephens, 2007; Costa &Kiss, 2011, Mikecz, 2012). It is therefore vital; theinterviewer is prepared and able to exhibit ‘knowledgeability’especially in relation to the research topic. In some culturesor settings, academic credentials and institutionalaffiliations become important and must be displayed (Richards,1996; Laurilla, 1997; Welch et al., 2002; Robson, 2008). Forexample Mikecz (2012) employed a combination of culturalknowledge and professional academic laurels and institutionalaffiliation to establish rapport with Estonian elites. Herod(1999) chose to use ‘Dr’ in Eastern Europe instead of a firstname in order to get elite interviewees to open-up knowing thepositive relationships that exist between elites and academiain that region. Researchers must therefore thoroughly acquaintthemselves with the cultural and social settings in which theywish to conduct the interviews in order to appreciate when astrategy is most suitable. Some researchers have also suggestentering a ‘supplicant mode’ (Desmond, 2004) since it resultsin a readiness on the part of the interviewee to provide moreinformation (Pollit, Harisson, & Marnock, 1990; Leech, 2002).In this mode, the researcher comes across as a non-threatening‘outsider’ (Herod, 1999; Desmond, 2004).

The location of the interview has also been proposed as one ofthe possible moderators of the public-private persona of theelite. ‘Backstage’ and public informal places, particularlyexclusive hang-outs have been prescribed as a strategy tocurtail ‘officialdom’ and the possibility of the interviewerbecoming overwhelmed which may affect interview quality

13

(Ostrander, 1995; Macdonald & Hellgren, 1998; Mikecz, 2012).However some challenges may arise with this arrangement sincethe interviewer rarely has control over the choice ofinterview location (Ostrander, 1993; Fitz & Halpin, 1995), aswell as contending with personal security and difficulties inlocating such places (Thomas, 1993; Hunter, 1995).

Another issue authors have found salient in developing rapportand gaining trust is about how to approach the interviewprocess proper. It is important to realise the limited timeavailable and the slim possibilities of getting a repeatinterview soon after, so any threatening questions should beleft till late in the interview process (Robson, 2008; Mikecz,2012). This is to allow the interviewer to cover as muchground as possible within the usual time constraints while notputting the interviewee on the defensive too early in theinterview process. This is one of the reasons why a rehearsalof interview script/guidelines and particularly the order inwhich the questions appear, is vital (Harvey, 2010; Costa &Kiss, 2011). Extra ingredients such as innate interviewskills, countenance, empathy, seduction, reflexivity and,above all, experience may be critical in dealing withdifficult and uncomfortable moments during elite interviews ifrapport and trust are to be maintained throughout the process(Costa & Kiss, 2011; Thuesen, 2011). Most of these arequalities are such that they cannot readily be learnt from thetextbook but rather are embodied and also conferred fromexperience.

Nevertheless, some researchers have argued that thesestrategies employed by elite interviewers to get elites tospeak the ‘truth’ may be paradoxical since elite interviews inthemselves are representative of constructivist methods(Richards, 1996; Morris, 2009). Elite researchers maytherefore have to consider the extent to which they pursuethese rapport and trust building strategies in light of thepurpose of their research and their methodological context.

Power relations and positionality in elite interviews

At the centre of most of the issues and challenges discussedabove are the twin mediating factors of positionality andpower relations between the researcher and the researched. Theresearched and researcher’s personal characteristics such as

14

age, race, professional status, ethnicity, religion, sex, andspoken languages have been identified as potential sources ofpower imbalance. Status-wise, the more prevalent assumptionand position taken by a majority of elite researchers is that,the power balance is always tilted in favour of the researched(Desmond, 2001; Welch et. al., 2002; Leech, 2002; Bygnes, 2008).

Elites have clout and by their very nature seek to control anddominate interviews. Some authors have strong convictions onthe negative impact that this power asymmetry may cause forthe reliability and validity of data, and have argued clearlywhy interviewers should rather own that power (Leech, 2002;Kezar, 2003; Lilleker, 2003). The importance of playing the‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ dualism card has arisen as anefficient way to flip the power imbalance in favour of theinterviewer (Sabot, 1999; Welch et. al., 2002).

However, some researchers disagree with this approach ofdealing with power and positional asymmetry and describe thisconceptualisation as a misconception of power which isconstructed as static throughout the relationship (e.g. Herod,1999). These researchers argue that the insider and outsiderpositionality dichotomy assumption is flawed since therelationship is more complex, fluid and dynamic than is oftenpresented. Also contrary to the perception that the powerbalance is always in favour of the elite interviewee from theonset, there have been cases where the elites were moresupplicant (Sabot & Puwar, 1997; McDowell, 1998). Hall (2011b)agrees with the notion that power relations always existbetween an elite and a researcher who is dependent on thatelite to successfully carry out their research. However heargues that both actors at any point in time exercise someminimal level of power for as long as the actors have to dealwith conflicts through negotiation, collaboration andcompliance. The mere fact that an interview has been grantedsuggests that the interviewer at least retains some power.This notion therefore conceptualises power as a two-wayprocess in which actors in the relationship exercise someminimal influence over each other (Lukes, 2005).

The implication of this conceptualisation is that theresearcher can adjust positionality along the insider-outsidercontinuum depending on what is required at a given point in

15

time in the relationship. Some interviewers for example havefound that being an insider is desirable in one instance andundesirable in the other and require researchers to be morereflexive in assuming multiple positions. For example,Bochaton and Lefebvre (2011: 77) claim: ‘we were allowed toask “stupid” questions because we were perceived asunthreatening foreigners and junior scholars’. However, powerrelations and positionality are socially enacted by theresearcher and the researched and it is possible that they maybe oblivious of the dynamics prior to their engagement. Aninsider- outsider dichotomy may thus tell us little aboutpower relations before the interaction actually takes place,let alone inform strategies in advance (Rose, 1997; Smith,2006; Costa and Kiss, 2011). This view comes across as morepragmatic since it explains better some of the experiences ofresearchers portraying these power relations as static.

Ethical issues in elite interviews

The challenges that elite interviews present has specificethical dimensions. Elite interviews unlike non-eliteinterviews have ethical peculiarities which potentialresearchers must bear in mind. Some of the strategies employedby researchers to gain access, develop rapport, establishtrust or manipulate power relations and positionality may passfor unethical conduct in some circumstances (Smith, 2006;Morris, 2009), even though some authors maintain it as anecessary evil (e.g. Spencer, 1982; Routledge, 2002),especially if the ethical situations of the research problemoverride the restraints put in place by university ethicscommittees (Hall, 2011b, 2011d). In one of many instances, aresearcher had “to masquerade as a tour guide in order toobtain information from various authorities involved in thetourism industry in India” (Smith, 2006: 650). Richards (1996)also prescribed a calculated measure of flattering of eliteinterviewees by advising that researchers cunningly stress howcritical their particular input is to the study so they canopen up. These types of behaviours have been justified as theonly legitimate and last resort in the face of hostility andsuspicion –and, in the opinion of Spencer (1982), a trajectorythat definitely serves the interest of society rather thanbeing fed with unsubstantiated half-truths. Elite interviewerswill therefore have to walk a fine line between behaviours

16

that lead to easier access to quality information and thosethat border on the unethical.

Despite the potential benefits, elite researchers often appearhesitant to provide feedback especially in the form of member-checking for the fear that powerful elites would ask forchanges that will detract from the scholarly substance oftheir final report, especially if it borders on informationthat strengthens and gives credibility to a researcher’sarguments (Hirsch, 1995; Mason, 1996). In contrast to non-elites, elites are often wary about what is put on publicrecord since some of the information they provide can bedamaging to their influence and offices, and they maytherefore attempt to negotiate these in some cases (Woliver,2002; Kezar, 2003). Herod (1999: 324) had to deal with such adilemma of ‘naming of names to give authorial possession toparticular comments or pieces of information in order tomaintain a critical perspective’, whilst contemplating his‘betrayal’ of the trust interviewees reposed in him. In aprocess that is now increasingly common in universitysettings, Bradshaw (2001) signed agreements with eliteinterviewees that ‘shelved’ her research findings for aspecified period of time in order to gain access.

In the views of Hall (2011b, 2011d), there would (must) be atrade-off at some point since achieving ‘objective’ andethically-apt research through balancing all interestsincluding self, scholarly community, research subjects and‘sponsors’ may be counterproductive or illusionary – as suchthe researcher must decide on which of these varied andconflicting political, cultural, status, economic, orinstitutional interest to serve. Indeed, he suggested that insome cases the decisions of university ethics committees maybe more geared to legal and institutional concerns than thebroader ethical outcomes of research findings.

Conclusions

Although interviewing is a widely used research method intourism there has been relatively little explicit attentiongiven in the tourism research literature to the issues thatarise in conducting elite interviews (Although see several ofthe chapters in Hall (2011a) as an exception). This is despiteits utilisation in feminist, policy, geographical and business

17

research where the relative power relationships between theinterviewer and the subject raises a number of concerns withthe situatedness of the interview method. It is suggested thatinterviewing ‘up’ requires a set of approaches, skills andexperience that are qualitatively different from thoserequired for interviewing ‘down’ or ‘across’. Elite interviewspresent specific challenges because of the status of elites,which may play out in the interview process. Nonetheless,elite interviews may be beneficial since elite subjects canenhance the quality and quantity of research data by virtue oftheir power and social, economic and/or political influence.This paper also demonstrated that interviewer experiences arealso likely to be different depending on whether one isinterviewing ‘up’, ‘across’ or ‘down’. The 'experience ofother researchers may inform and guide future researchers awayfrom potential pitfalls in the elite interview process andidentify some potential interview tactics, although given theparticular local and cultural context of elite interviews‘there is no one best way’ (Robson, 2008). Nevertheless, thepower relationship between the researcher and the researchedin a very broad sense shapes the relationship from thebeginning where contact is negotiated through to the end whenthe report is finally published and also creates specificethical challenges that researchers need to face.

Finally, it is evident that an overt focus on themethodological issues involved in the conduct of eliteinterviews offer potential for the advancement of tourismresearch, especially on the understanding of business andpolicy decision-making processes and their impacts includingwith respect to the nature of tourism development itself andthe positionality of tourism knowledge and research (Hall,2011a; Thomas, 2012). This potential may be optimised if arelational approach based on trust and reflexivity can beemployed.

References

Aaron, R. (1988). Power, Modernity and Sociology. Cheltenham: EdwardElgar.

Aberbach, J.F., & Rockman, B.A. (2002). Conducting and coding elite interviews. Political Science and Politics, 35, 673-676.

18

Allen, J. (1997). Economies of power and space. In J. Wills & R. Lee (Eds.), Economic Geographies: Representations and Interpretations (59-70). London: Arnold.

Alvesson, M. (2003). Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: A reflexive approach to interviews in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 28(1),13-33.

Ames, B.D., Brosi, W.A., & Damiano‐Teixeira, K.M. (2006). “I’mjust glad my three jobs could be during the day”: Women and work in a rural community. Family Relations, 55(1), 119-131.

Anastasiadou, C. (2008). Tourism interest groups in the EU policy arena: characteristics, relationships and challenges. Current issues in Tourism, 11(1), 24-62.

Argon, K. (2009). Strategies for interreligious and inter-Muslim dialogue: A proposed methodology. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 29, 355-367.

Batteson, C., & Ball, S.J. (1995). Autobiographies and interviews as means of access to elite policy- making in education, British Journal of Educational Studies 43, 201–216.

Berry, J.M. (2002). Validity and reliability in eliteinterviewing. PS: Political Science and Politics, 35, 679‐682.

Blomley, N. (2008). The spaces of critical geography. Progress inHuman Geography, 32, 285–293.

Bochaton, A., & Lefebvre, B. (2011). Interviewing elites: perspectives from the medical tourism sector in India andThailand. In C.M. Hall (Eds.), Fieldwork in Tourism: Methods, Issues and Reflections (70-80). London: Routledge.

Bourgois, P. (1995). In search of respect: Selling crack in El Barrio.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bradshaw, M. (2001). Contracts and member checks in qualitative research in human geography: reason for caution? Area, 33, 202–211.

Braun, Y.A., & McLees, L.A. (2012). Space, ownership and inequality: economic development and tourism in the highlands of Lesotho. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 5(3), 435-449.

Bryman, A. (2004). Social Research Methods. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press. Burnham, P., Gilland, K., Grant, W., & Layton-Henry, Z.

(2004). Research Methods in Politics. Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan.

19

Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural Holes. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.Bygnes, S. (2008). Interviewing People-Oriented Elites,

Eurosphere Online Working Paper Series, Bergen: University of Bergen.

Chambers, E. (Ed.) (1997). Tourism and Culture: An Applied Perspective. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Church, A., & Coles, T. (Eds.) (2007). Tourism, Power and Space, London: Routledge.

Cochrane, A. (1998). Illusions of power: Interviewing local elites. Environment and Planning A, 30, 2121-2132.

Conti, J., & O’Neil, M. (2007). Studying power: Qualitative methods and the global elite. Qualitative Research, 7(1), 63-82.

Corbie-Smith, G., Williams, I.C., Blumenthal, C., Dorrance, J., Estroff, S.E., & Henderson, G. (2007). Relationships and communication in minority participation in research: multidimensional and multidirectional. Journal of the National Medical Association, 99(5), 489-498.

Cormode, L. (1999). The economic geographer as a situated researcher of elites. Geoforum, 30, 299-300.

Costa, E., & Kiss, A. (2011). Dealing with opposition: uncomfortable moments in research. European Educational Research Journal, 10, 242-251.

Currie, J. (1994). An academic’s attempt to use action-oriented research in two Western Australian Universities.The Australian Educational Researcher, 21(1), 87-108.

Dalton, E. (2011). Reflections on interviewing Japanese femalemembers of parliament. Intersections: Gender and Sexuality in Asia andthe Pacific, 5(February), http://intersections.anu.edu.au/issue25/dalton.htm

Davies, D., & Dodd, J. (2002). Qualitative research and the question of rigor. Qualitative Health Research, 12, 279-289.

Delaney, K.J. (2007). Methodological dilemmas and opportunities in interviewing organizational elites. Sociology Compass, 1(1), 208-221.

Delaney, K.J., & Eckstein, R. (2003). The devil is in the details: Neutralizing critical studies of publicly subsidized stadiums. Critical Sociology, 29(2), 189-210.

Delaney, K.J., & Eckstein, R. (2007). Urban power structures and publicly financed stadiums. Sociological Forum, 22(3), 331-353.

20

Desmond, M. (2004). Methodological challenges posed in studying an elite in the field. Area 36(3), 262–269.

Dexter, L.A. (1969). The Sociology and Politics of Congress. Chicago: Rand McNally.Dexter, L.A. (1970). Elite and Specialized Interviewing. Evanston, IL:

Northwestern University Press.Duval, D.T. (2011). Current issues in method and practice.

Current Issues in Tourism, 14, 309-310.Eckstein, R., & Delaney, K. (2002). New sports stadiums,

community self-esteem, and community collective conscience. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 26(3), 235-247.

Eldersveld, S. (1991). Political Elites in Modern Societies. Michigan: University Press, Michigan.

Elias, J. (2005). Stitching-up the labour market: Recruitment,gender and ethnicity in the multinational firm. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7(1), 90-111.

Elias, J., and Kuttner, S. (2001). 2000 BISA Gender and International Relations Working Group Workshop: Methodologies in Feminist Research. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 3, 284-287.

England, K.V. (1994). Getting personal: reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research. The Professional Geographer, 46(1), 80-89.

England, K. (2002). Interviewing elites: Cautionary tales about researching women managers in Canada’s banking industry. In P. Moss (Eds.). Feminist Geography in Practice: Research and Methods (200–213). Oxford: Blackwell.

Ferguson, L. (2010). Interrogating ‘gender’ in development policy and practice: The World Bank, tourism and microenterprise in Honduras. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 12(1), 3-24.

Fernando, Y., Saad, N.M., & Haron, M.S. (2012). New marketing definition: a future agenda for low cost carrier airlinesin Indonesia. Business Strategy Series, 13(1), 31-40.

Fitz, J., & Halpin, D. (1994). Ministers and mandarins: Educational research in elite settings. In G. Walford (Eds.), Researching the Powerful in Education. London: UCL Press.

Gelles, R.J. (1974). The television news interview: A field study. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 2(1), 31-44.

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Oxford: Polity Press.Gould, K. (2010). Anxiety, epistemology, and policy research

“behind enemy lines”. Geoforum, 41, 15–18.

21

Grix, J. (2004). The Foundations of Research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Goldstein, K. (2002). Getting in the door: Sampling and

completing elite interviews. PS: Political Science & Politics, 35(4),669–672.

Guerrón Montero, C. (2011). Heritage, identity and globalisation: The case of island tourism in the Caribbean. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 30(1), 1-6.

Guibert, C. (2006). Communication policies and differentiated regional identities. The use of waves and the surfing world by local authorities on the Aquitaine coast. Téoros, Revue de Recherche en Tourisme, 25(2), 62-71.

Gusterson, H. (1997). Studying up revisited. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 20(1), 114-119.

Hall, C.M. (2003). Politics and place: An analysis of power intourism communities. In S. Singh, D. Timothy & R. Dowling(Eds.), Tourism in destination communities (99-114). Wallingford.CAB International.

Hall, C.M. (2004). Reflexivity and tourism research: Situatingmyself and/with others, pp.137-155 in J. Phillimore & L. Goodson (Eds.), Qualitative Research in Tourism: Ontologies, Epistemologies and Methodologies (137-155). London: Routledge.

Hall, C.M. (2007). Tourism, governance and the (mis-)location of power. In A. Church & T. Coles (Eds.), Tourism, Power and Space (247-269), London: Routledge.

Hall, C.M. (Eds.) (2011a). Fieldwork in Tourism: Methods, issues and reflections. London: Routledge.

Hall, C.M. (2011b). Researching the political in tourism: Where knowledge meets power. In C.M. Hall (Eds.), Fieldwork in Tourism: Methods, Issues and Reflections (39-54). London: Routledge.

Hall, C.M. (2011c). Yes, Virginia, there is a tourism class. Why class still matters in tourism analysis, in J. Mosedale (Ed.), Political economy and tourism: A critical perspective (111-125). London: Routledge.

Hall, C.M. (2011d). Fieldwork in tourism/touring fields: Wheredoes tourism end and fieldwork begin?, In C.M. Hall (Eds.), Fieldwork in Tourism: Methods, issues and reflections, (7-18). London: Routledge.

Hall, C.M. (2013). Framing behavioural approaches to understanding and governing sustainable tourism

22

consumption: Beyond neoliberalism, ‘nudging’ and ‘green growth’? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(7), 1091-1109.

Hall, C.M. (2014). Tourism and Social Marketing. Abingdon: Routledge.

Hanson Thiem, C., & Robertson, M. (2010). Behind enemy lines: Reflections on the practice and production of oppositional research. Geoforum, 41, 5–6

Harvey, W.S. (2010). Methodological approaches for interviewing elites. Geography Compass, 4(3), 193-205.

Herod, A. (1999). Reflections on interviewing foreign elites: Praxis, positionality, validity, and the cult of the insider. Geoforum, 30, 313-327.

Hertz, R., & Imber, J.B. (Eds.), 1995. Studying Elites using Qualitative Methods. London: Sage.

Hirsch, P.M. (1995). Tales from the field: Learning from researchers’ accounts. In R. Hertz & J.B. Imber (Eds.). Studying elites using qualitative methods (40–64). London: Sage.

Horwood, J., & Moon, G. (2003). Accessing the research setting: the politics of research and the limits to enquiry. Area, 35, 106–109.

Hunter, A. (1995). Local knowledge and local power: Notes on the ethnography of local community elites. In R. Hertz & J.B. Imber (Eds.). Studying elites using qualitative methods, (151-170). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jacobs‐Huey, L. (2002). The natives are gazing and talking back: Reviewing the problematics of positionality, voice,and accountability among" native" anthropologists. American Anthropologist, 104(3), 791-804.

Jayawardena, C. (2002). Mastering Caribbean tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 14(2), 88-93.

Jenkins, J.M., Hall, C.M., & Mkono, M. (2014). Tourism and public policy: Contemporary debates and future directions. In A. Lew, C.M. Hall & A. Williams (Eds.). Companion to Tourism (542-555). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Karl, B.D., & Katz, S.N. (1987). Foundations and ruling class elites. Daedalus, 116(1), 1-40.

Kezar, A. (2003). Transformational elite interviews: Principles and problems. Qualitative Inquiry 9(3), 395–415.

Kobayashi, A. (2001). Negotiating the personal and political in critical qualitative research. In M. Limb & C. Dwyer

23

(Eds.), Qualitative Methodologies for Geographers: Issues and Debates (55-72). London: Arnold.

Laurila, J. (1997). Promoting research access and informant rapport in corporate settings: Notes from research on a crisis company. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13, 407-418.

Leech, B.L. (2002). Asking questions: Techniques for semi-structured interviews, PS: Political Science & Politics 35, 665–668.

Lennon, J., & Graham, M. (2001). Prognostication of the Scottish culture and heritage sector's skills profile. Museum Management and Curatorship, 19, 121-139.

Lilleker, D.G. (2003). Interviewing the political elite: navigating a potential minefield, Politics, 23(3), 207–214.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A Radical View (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan.Macdonald, S., & Hellgren, B. (1998). The interview in

management research. IconoclasticPapers, 1(2). Retrieved from http://www.solent.ac.uk/sbs/iconoclastic/Macdon/macdon.html.

Mak, A.K. (2011). An identity-centered approach to place branding: Case of industry partners’ evaluation of Iowa'sdestination image. Journal of Brand Management, 18(6), 438-450.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G.B. (2010). Designing qualitative research, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Mason, D.S., & Duquette, G.H. (2008). Exploring the relationship between local hockey franchises and tourism development. Tourism Management, 29, 1157-1165.

Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage.McDowell, L. (1998). Elites in the city of London: Some

methodological considerations. Environment and Planning A, 30, 2133-2146.

Mikecz, R. (2012). Interviewing elites: Addressing methodological issues. Qualitative Inquiry, 18, 482-493.

Miller, G. (2001). Corporate responsibility in the UK tourism industry. Tourism Management, 22(6), 589-598

Mills, C.W. (1958). The structure of power in American society. British Journal of Sociology, 9, 29-41.

Moore, N., & Stokes, P. (2012). Elite interviewing and the role of sector context: an organizational case from the

24

football industry. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 15(4), 438-464.

Morris, Z.S. (2009). The truth about interviewing elites. Politics, 29(3), 209-217.

Moswete, N.N., & Darley, W.K. (2012). Tourism survey research in sub-Saharan Africa: problems and challenges. Current Issues in Tourism, 15(4), 369-383.

Neuman, W. (2000). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.

Norkunas, M.K. (1993). The politics of public memory: tourism, history, and ethnicity in Monterey, California. Albany: SUNY Press.

Oinas, P. (1999). Voices and silences: The problem of access to embeddedness. Geoforum, 30, 351–361.

Ostrander, S. (1995). Surely you’re not in this just to be helpful: Access, rapport, and interviews in three studiesof elites. In R. Hertz & J.B. Imber (Eds.). Studying Elites using Qualitative Methods (133-150). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ostrander, S.A. (1993). Surely you’re not in this just to be helpful: Access, rapport, and interviews in three studiesof elites. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22(1), 7–27.

Phillimore, J., & Goodson, L. (Eds.) (2004). Qualitative Research in Tourism: Ontologies, Epistemologies and Methodologies, London: Routledge.

Pollitt, C., Harrison, S., Hunter, D., & Marnoch, G. (1990). No hiding place: The discomforts of researching the contemporary policy process. Journal of Social Policy, 19(2), 169–190.

Pridham, G. (1999). Towards sustainable tourism in the mediterranean? Policy and practice in Italy, Spain and Greece. Environmental Politics, 8(2), 97-116.

Ribbens, J. (1989). Interviewing—an “unnatural situation”? Women's Studies International Forum, 12, 579-592.

Richards, D. (1996). Elite interviewing: approaches andpitfalls. Politics, 16(3), 199‐204.Robson, M. (2008). Interviewing the Australian business elite:

Let’s get down to business. In T. Hays & R. Hussain(Ed.). Bridging the gap between ideas and doing research (151-163).University of New England, New South Wales, Australia.

Rose, G. (1997). Situating knowledges: Positionality,reflexivities and other tactics. Progress in Human Geography,12: 305-320.

25

Routledge, P. (2002). Travelling east as Walter Kurtz: Identity, performance, and collaboration in Goa, India. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 20, 477–498.

Ryan, L., & Golden, A. (2006). ‘Tick the box please’: A reflexive approach to doing quantitative social research.Sociology, 40, 1191-1200.

Ryan, L., Kofman, E., & Aaron, P. (2011). Insiders and outsiders: working with peer researchers in researching Muslim communities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(1), 49-60.

Sabot, E.C. (1999). Dr. Jekyl, Mr. H(i)de: The contrasting face of elites at interview. Geoforum, 30, 329-335.

Salazar, N.B., & Zhang, Y. (2013). Seasonal lifestyle tourism:The case of Chinese elites. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 81-99.

Saunders, M., Thornhill A., & Lewis, P. (2006). Research Methods for Business Students, London: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.

Savage, M., & Williams, K. (2008). Elites: Remembered incapitalism and forgotten by social sciences. SociologicalReview, 56, 1‐24.

Schoenberger, E. (1991). The corporate interview as a researchmethod in economic geography. Professional Geographer, 43, 180–189.

Sharp, E.B. (2003). Local government and the politics of decency. Social science quarterly, 84(2), 262-277.

Shenton, A., & Hayter, S. (2004). Strategies for gaining access to organisations and informants in qualitative studies. Education for Information, 22, 223-231.

Sinclair, B., & Brady, D. (1987). Studying members of the United States congress. In G. Moyser & M. Wagstaffe (Eds.), Research Methods for Elite Studies (48-71). London: Allen & Unwin:

Smith, K. (2006). Problematising power relations in “elite” interviews. Geoforum, 37, 643-653.

Stenbacka, C. (2001). Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own. Management Decision, 39(7), 551-555.

Stephens, N. (2007). Collecting data from elites and ultra-elites: Telephone and face-to-face interviews with macroeconomists. Qualitative Research, 7, 203-216.

Spencer, G. (1982). Methodological issues in the study of bureaucratic elites: A case study of West Point. In R.G.

26

Burgess (Eds.), Field research: A sourcebook and field manual (23–30). London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.

Spencer, B.L. and Taylor, A. (2010). Mobilizing knowledge through partnerships. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 26, 47-60.

Stevenson, N., Airey, D., & Miller, G. (2008). Tourism policy making: The policymakers’ perspectives. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(3), 732-750.

Thomas, R. (2012). Business elites, universities and knowledgetransfer in tourism. Tourism Management, 33(3), 553-561

Thomas, R.J. (1993). Interviewing important people in big companies. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22(1), 80–96.

Thuesen, F. (2011). Navigating between dialogue and confrontation: Phronesis and emotions in interviewing elites on ethnic discrimination. Qualitative Inquiry, 17, 613-622.

Troung, V.D., & Hall, C.M. (2013). Social marketing and tourism: what is the evidence? Social Marketing Quarterly, 19(2), 110-135.

Tyler, D., & Dinan, C. (2001). The role of interested groups in England's emerging tourism policy network. Current Issues in Tourism, 4(2-4), 210-252.

Walford, G. (1994). Researching the Powerful in Education. London: UCL Press.

Weed, M. (2006). The influence of policy makers' perceptions on sport tourism policy development. Tourism Review International, 10(4), 227-240.

Welch, C., Marschan-Piekkari, R., Penttinen, H., & Tahvanainen, N. (2002). Corporate elites as informants inqualitative international business research. International Business Review, 11, 611-628.

Wendland, C.L. (2012). Moral maps and medical imaginaries: Clinical tourism at Malawi's College of Medicine. American Anthropologist, 114(1), 108-122.

Whitty, G. (2001) Education, social class and social exclusion, Journal of Education Policy, 16(4), 287-295

Woliver, L.R. (2002). Ethical dilemmas in personal interviewing. PS: Political Science & Politics, 35, 677–678.

Woods, M. (1998). Rethinking elites: Networks, space, and local politics. Environment and Planning A, 30, 2101-2119.

Zuckerman, H.A. (1972). Interviewing an ultra-elite. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 159-175.

27

28

Table 1: Definitions of elites used in interview-based

research

Definition AuthorDiscipline

Subject of study

‘Elites are people in important and exposed positions who require VIP interviewing treatments on the topics which relate to their importance or exposure’ (Dexter, 1970: 5)

Political science

Politicians

‘Elites are a group of individuals, who hold,or have held, a privileged position in society and, as such, as far as a political scientist is concerned, are likely to have had more influence on political outcomes thangeneral members of the public’ (Richards, 1996: 199).

Political science; Publicpolicy

Politicians; Senior public officials

‘Elites are people included in the top echelons of the firm’ (Welch, Marschan-Piekkari, Penttinen, & Tahvanainen, 2002: 613).

International business

Top corporate executives at headquarters and subsidiary levels

‘Elites are those who occupy formal positionsof authority within institutions and organisations’ (Robson, 2008: 153).

Business Business managers

‘Elites are nationals who hold positions of power within organizations such as corporations, governments’ (Herod, 1999: 313).

Geography (usedin tourism by Bochaton & Lefebvre, 2011)

Trade union leaders; Top officials of health and tourism ministries, Medical doctors, Managers of large healthcare facilities.

‘Elites are those exercising the major share of authority, or control within society, organizations and institutions. Elite status stems from the control of human, capital, decisionmaking and knowledge resources’ Desmond (2004: 264).

Geography Politicians; Research scientists in biotechnology,Experts in biotechnology; Trade union leaders; Business managers in biotechnology industry.

‘Elites’ are individuals who appear to routinely exercise power, ‘without significant challenge to the legitimacy of their authority’ (Woods, 1998: 2106).

Geography Senior managers, Religious leaders, Cabinet ministers

‘Elites refer here to people from the commercial, political, or intellectual realms’ (Salazar & Zhang, 2013: )

Anthropology Seasonal lifestyle tourism of Chinese elites

29

Figure 1: Key points in elite interview process

30

EliteInterview

Gaining access

chance encounters timing of contact public directories sponsors elite-academy

relationship

Ethical issues

researcher identity

agreements member-checking feedback selective

Developing rapport andtrust

knowledge on elite knowledge on

cultural and social setting

knowledge on research topic

timing and order of questions

interview experience

Dealing with powerrelations and positionality

fluid and dynamic process

two-way process reflexivity insider-outsider

continuum positioning situatedness oppositional research critical research

31