Theme Park Management - Case Study Example

The Case Study The Europapark, which is located in the border area of Germany, France and Switzerland, was started in 1975. The town of Rust, in Germany, was considered the perfect location because of the huge catchment area provided by these countries. This is a theme park and Europe is the obvious focus. Spread over 70 hectares and employing over 3000 people, the Europapark also has three hotels, a campsite and a 'tipi-village', all of which together can provide accommodation to almost 4,128 customers. The hotels are of special interest for companies to hold conferences, meetings, etc, as they provide incentive to the participants to bring their families along. The maximum number of tourists are from Germany (about 50 percent), with Switzerland contributing 22 percent and France, a close second, with 18 percent. The rest 10 percent constitute visitors from other countries. The Research Topic Given these facts, the researcher has attempted to find out if the planning process of the theme park laid any stress on sustainable development of the local community. The research, therefore, aimed at evaluating to what extent the local residents were involved in the planning process of the park, both then and now, and the perspective of the local residents and stakeholders about their involvement, again both then and now. The Research Process The researcher has used a positivistic research philosophy with a mainly deductive research approach, to establish the research objectives. Primary research (interviews, questionnaire) and secondary research (review of travel literature) were used for the project. The logic employed was that since the number of people was relatively large, a quantitative approach was employed. Though the researcher has not excluded the importance of qualitative research and in fact has included few interviews in trying to establish the aim of the project. Critical Analysis of the Research Approach In every research it is important to know about the research approach, how the data was collected and analysed, as the results of the research will vary accordingly. (Language Center. Writing up Research Method and Research Design.) For example, if the efficiency of the voting system in a democracy has to be determined and if a questionnaire survey is being provided to the people across the country, then it is a much better approach than randomly interviewing people. Two factors, one the huge base and the second sectional bias and prejudice will affect the results of the interviews. However, if the questionnaire has options marked as excellent, very good and good, then it gives no option to the respondent to answer in the negative. Hence, though the quantitative research method would be the best suited, it may lead to wrong conclusions, because the questions did not have exhaustive options. What is generally agreed on is that there is no 'perfect' research method. Data collection, however, is best representative when both quantitative and qualitative data is collected. So, interviews, which tell the 'inside story' is essential to understand the analysis. (Carter McNamara, Copyright 1997-2008.) In whatever which way the data is collected, analysis is best when the process starts working backward that is from the research goals. Starting this way, helps to streamline the thought, organise the data and focus on the analysis. In the Europapark project, though the aim was to determine the involvement of the local community in the initial as well as the present planning and implementation of the theme park project, the research objectives were fragmented into: Determining tourist attraction in a theme park and ways in which the local community can be involved in the project. Identifying the actual involvement of the local community in the planning process, in the design phase and in the current period. Determining the local community's perception of their involvement in the planning phase. Determining the local community's perception of their involvement in the current phase. Determining the stakeholders' perception of the integration. Given these objectives, the research was done through a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. Since, by the basic tenets of research methodology, a deductive approach is usually a quantitative approach and is employed when the research domain is relatively broader, the Europapark research employed the same principles. However, the first point of contention is that the survey neglected the employment of a pilot project, which usually puts the questionnaire to test; this is done to identify if the questions are understandable and clear to the masses, as there would be no interviewer present to clarify any point. Due to lack of time such a pilot project was not done. Instead the questions were run through a group of family and friends, who were accessible, and in all probability cannot be representative of a cross-section of society, typical to Rust in Germany. The eligible people (whose age was above 18) who were questioned were 3000 in number. Since, these people cannot be assumed to have the similar educational background, the questions, in the absence of a person, can be interpreted differently by them. Hence, it was extremely necessary to run the questions through a focus group. (Note to customer: This was taken from wiki, however, since you did not want it to be given, I have not mentioned it.)Secondly, if the survey questions are examined, it will be seen that most of the questions warrant a 'yes' or 'No' answer. There is no opportunity in the questions for a qualitative feedback. For example, consider question number six - Did you as a citizen feel involved in the initial planning process The respondent will answer in a 'Yes' or 'No.' However, the absence of a follow up question such as 'As a citizen, how would you have felt involved in the initial planning process' eliminates the scope of a complete view of the picture. One may argue that such type of broad subjective questions cannot be included in a survey questionnaire. In that case, such surveys should have been supported by interviews of a considerable number of people. However, the researcher only interviewed two people - the mayor, and an employee of Europapark. In an eligible population base of 3000, two people interviewed will hardly add any qualitative depth to the research. Quantitative research tools can always be developed through qualitative methods. This, as has been mentioned, can involve the formation of a focus group, with a small number of people, to explore the issues; the data thrown up by this process can well be utilised to develop the quantitative survey questionnaire for the entire survey base. Since the Europapark research was concentrated to a group comprising of the people of Rust, the researcher would have done better to identify a cross-section of the population to explore the main issue here - 'To evaluate the Europapark's local community planning process and how the local residents and stakeholders feel about their involvement.' Such a 'focus group' would explore the question both from the past and present perspective. They would have been able to identify the things that were done to involve the community, when the project was being planned and the things that the developers of the park were doing presently, so as the park becomes a symbol of sustainable tourist project benefiting the local community. (Note to customer: This was taken from wiki, however, since you did not want it to be given, I have not mentioned it.) Would an Alternative Strategy be more suitable The research approach that was adopted for the Europapark project has been discussed. Let us now employ three other alternative strategies, one by one, and try to ascertain if these methodologies would have provided better results for the aims and objectives. The three methods that will be discussed are - Ethnography, Grounded Theory and Action Research. Ethnography Ethnography involves a research process where the researcher is just not an unattached entity but relies closely on personal experience with the group of people whom the researcher is observing. The data collected in Ethnography is of three kinds - interviews, observation and documents. (A synthesis of Ethnographic Research by Michael Genzuk.) Ethnography is best suited for research, which is exploratory in nature. It involves various qualitative and quantitative methods to find out the local point of view, the community's knowledge and their personal experience. With this type of methodology, the researcher delves beyond the spoken words. For the Europapark project, ethnographic measures of research would have been suitable from certain aspects. The researcher could have engaged in first-hand data collection by observing the daily participation of the community at Rust. Also interviews with a cross-section of the community would have given substantial data to analyse the research aims and objectives. In the research method that was followed only two interviews with two very specific people were taken; obviously the views would also be very specific and will not reflect the general feeling. If the researcher had followed the ethnographic research mode then in the long-term study of the site, multiple questionnaires would have been given out over this period and it would have accurately captured the changes in the community. Where focus groups fail to inform marketers about what people really do, ethnography links what people say to what they actually do-avoiding the pitfalls that come from relying only on self-reported, focus-group data. However, "When used as a method, ethnography typically refers to field work (alternatively participant-observation) conducted by a single investigator who 'lives with and lives like' those who are studied, usually for a year or more." (John Van Maanen, 1996.) (A synthesis of Ethnographic Research by Michael Genzuk.) This basic requirement may not have been possible for the researcher and would have adversely affected the research result. Also, according to many experts such as Gary Alan Fine, "the nature of ethnographic inquiry demands that researchers deviate from formal and idealistic rules or ethics that have come to be widely accepted in qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. Many of these ethical assumptions are rooted in positivist and post-positivist epistemologies that have adapted over time, but nonetheless are apparent and must be accounted for in all research paradigms. These ethical dilemmas are evident throughout the entire process of conducting ethnographies, including the design, implementation, and reporting of an ethnographic study." (Note to customer: This was taken from wiki, however, since you did not want it to be given, I have not mentioned it.) What Fine essentially means is that the question of ethics in Ethnography is questionable. Grounded Theory This particular research method aims at developing the theory from the collected data. Moving from the specific to the generalised, this methodology is inductive in nature. It is an extremely systematic approach for analysing qualitative data. The three fundamentals of the grounded theory are concepts, categories and propositions. (Grounded Theory, http://www.essortment.com/all/groundedtheory_rmnf.htm). If the researcher had used the grounded theory approach for the Europapark project, then the research questions should have been framed in a very open and general way, so that the researcher could arrive at an observable fact relevant to the participants. For example, the respondents of the survey would be asked "As a citizen of Rust how will you feel, if the town is chosen as the location for a theme park Rather than "When Rust was chosen as the location for Europapark, were you as a local citizen informed of the decision" The later question assumes that the location of the theme park is final and is interested in a 'yes' or 'no' answer from the respondent. In grounded theory method since the researcher would keep the question open for a qualitative response (as in the first question), the scope of finding out the true feeling of the local community about the project is broader. Hence the analysis would be much deeper. The use of the grounded theory gives the researcher a continuous option of altering the data collection method because the data analysis that follows the initial data collection helps to shape further data collection. However, because of such detailed precision required in following this research method, a high level of experience and acumen is required on the part of the researcher. Hence, this method is best avoided by less-experienced and first time researchers. Action Research (O'Brien, R. (2001) Action research is a method which aims to achieve the dual purpose of studying a system while collaborating with the members of the system to change the system towards a desirable direction. The research process aims at co-learning and requires the researcher and the researched to work together. The methodology stresses on the fact that if the people being researched are also turned into researchers, they learn better, as they are themselves doing or following a certain activity. In the Europapark situation, the action research method could have been used to achieve better results. The researcher had the local community of Rust, at the disposal of the project. The research project - determining the involvement of the local residents and the stake holders in the planning, implementation and growth of the Europapark project - was occurring in a real-world situation and dealing with real problems, two very basic requirements of an action research methodology. Since, the action research process is a more holistic approach towards problem solving and it relies on nurturing local leaders, who can take responsibility for the process, the particular research project under discussion would have capitalised on an action research method. In 1991, a research project to determine the possibilities of nature tourism in four Caribbean Islands - St. Lucia, Grenada, Dominica, and St. Vincent, was undertaken. An action research methodology was deemed appropriate as many stakeholders were involved. Though the same process was followed in all four islands, while St. Vincent showed a very successful project, St. Lucia and Grenada had a mixed success and Dominica had the least successful project implementation. The difference in the outcomes was because the government in the four islands reacted differently to the growing power of the stake holders. An action research project is based on empowering the stakeholders but it also runs the risk of changing power equations, which if not handled properly can yield unwanted results. Hence, though the method would have been the best suited for the Europapark project, as a collaborative group of citizens of Rust would have accomplished the involvement level in the theme park, as desired by them, there was always the risk that if the researcher was not able to control the local leaders, then results may be quite disastrous; after all 'power can also corrupt.' Conclusion The given research, under the constraints of time and resources, was done in a way that was deemed to be the best. However, in the critique the most relevant point that can be mentioned is that though the researcher used a mix of quantitative and qualitative methodologies, neither of the processes were used in a way that would yield the best results, under respective limitations of each process. The research would have definitely yielded much better results, if interviews had been conducted more extensively, if a focus group had been drawn up in a pilot project and if the questions were more open-ended to facilitate better response. Reference List: 1. A synthesis of Ethnographic Research by Michael Genzuk, University of Southern California, Center for Multilingual, Multicultural Research. [Internet] (Updated NA) Available at: http://docs.google.com/viewera=v&q=cache:dOWM2wcvg7kJ:www-rcf.usc.edu/genzuk/Ethnographic_Research.pdf+what+is+the+research+study+of+ethnography&hl=en&gl=in&sig=AHIEtbTLtz3nh27aZT65e5ETOD3Jy9IBZQ [Accessed 02 Dec 2009.] 2. [Internet] (Updated NA) Available at: http://www.essortment.com/all/groundedtheory_rmnf.htm[Accessed 02 Dec 2009.] 3. Research Methods - Knowledge Base. Structure of research. [Internet] (Updated 20th Oct 2006) Available at: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/strucres.php[Accessed 02 Dec 2009.] 4. Language Center. Writing up Research Method and Research Design [Internet] (Updated NA) Available at: http://www.languages.ait.ac.th/el21meth.htm[Accessed 02 Dec 2009.] 5. Bryman & Bell: Research Project Guide. Formulating research aims and objectives. Chapters 2 & 26 [Internet] (Updated NA) Available at: http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199259380/01student/research_project_guide/rpg/page_11.htm[Accessed 02 Dec 2009.] 6. Analyzing, Interpreting and Reporting Basic Research Results Written by Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD, Authenticity Consulting, LLC. Copyright 1997-2008. [Internet] (Updated NA) Available at: http://managementhelp.org/research/analyze.htm[Accessed 02 Dec 2009.] 7. Companion for Undergraduate Dissertations Approaching the Dissertation: Appropriate Methodologies. [Internet] (Updated NA) Available at: http://www.socscidiss.bham.ac.uk/s9.html[Accessed 02 Dec 2009.] 8. An Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action Research. O'Brien, R. (2001). Available at: http://www.web.net/robrien/papers/arfinal.html [Accessed 02 Dec 2009.] Read More