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

<strong>Reflections</strong> 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) ‘<strong>Reflections</strong> 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 sense-
making 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 Scheper-
Hughes 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

esponse 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 non-
English 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

ehaviour, 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 multi-
sited 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 taken-
for-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: <strong>Reflections</strong> 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, 2 nd
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 multi-
sited ethnography’. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24: 95-117.
Marcus, G. (2007) ‘What is at Stake – and is not – in the Idea and Practice of Multi-
sited 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: <strong>Reflections</strong> 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: 5-
16.
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