Rukai indigenous tourism: Representations, cultural identity and Q method

Tourism Management 32 (2011) 335e348

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Progress in Tourism Management

Rukai indigenous tourism: Representations, cultural identity and Q method William Cannon Hunter* Department of Convention Management College of Hotel & Tourism Management, Kyung Hee University, 1 Hoegi-Dong, Dongdaemun-Gu, Seoul 130-701, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 4 June 2007 Accepted 8 March 2010

In tourism, cultural representations of indigenous destinations are problematic. They are essential to the promotion of tourism, making destinations understandable and desirable to visitors. But they are also blamed for upsetting the cultural equilibrium of smaller destinations. However, in practice, the origin, mechanism and effects of touristic representations are not easy to identify. In this study, the problem of representations and resident cultural identity in indigenous tourism is explored. In consideration of the generative nature of representations and the contingency of subjectivities toward them, this study is context-specific, focusing on a small but significant community in southern Taiwan where indigenous tourism is a dominant industry and social issue. Q method, a technique designed for the systematic study of subjectivity in terms of opinions, beliefs, and attitudes is employed, eliciting responses from a P set (sample) of 30 participants. Subjectivities were elicited using photographs of one cultural representation, the indigenous Rukai standing stones. It was found that representations must be learned but can be ignored, and that in this community tourism is not the only socio-economic power that drives the feedback loop between representations and subjectivity. For tourism management, implications are that representations can be highly effective tools for destination promotion when informed by the diverse and highly individualized subjectivities of its residents and the production of quality local products. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cultural identity Indigenous tourism Q Method Representations Resident Rukai Standing Stones Subjectivity Taiwan Wutai

1. Introduction In tourism, a cultural representation is a person, place or thing indigenous to a destination that has taken on new meanings to suit the needs and desires of visitors. They are considered genuine but distorted because they facilitate the interests of tourists e and profit e at the expense of local identity, or autonomy (Hendry, 2005). Representations are considered evidence of both the ontological problem and the power dynamic of entitlement and exploitation inherited from colonialism (Fabian, 1983). And if tourism is neo-colonialism, then theoretically, cultural representations are its indicators and they are necessarily racist or exploitative. But if local residents collaborate with visitors in the construction of representational narratives then questions arise as to how the realities of host and guest run together without one destroying the other. What subjectivities do residents have toward their own cultural identity and the representations that are operational in destination tourism? In indigenous tourism, representations in tourism are blamed for upsetting the natural equilibrium of a destination culture, exaggerating certain elements of ordinary life (Bruner, 1996) and

* Tel.: þ82(02) 961 2329, þ82 10 4152 4199 (mobile); fax. þ82 (02) 964 2537. E-mail address: [email protected] 0261-5177/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2010.03.003

silencing others (Laxon, 1991). However, such claims are usually derived from the observance or solicitation of tourists’ tastes and sensibilities via opinion polls and surveys (Brown, Turner, Hameed, & Bateman, 1997). Research that focuses on residents and the degree to which they identify with touristic representations of themselves is underrepresented. Therefore in this paper, the research questions of how cultural representations work within the power dynamics of indigenous tourism, and to what extent residents collaborate with visitors in the perpetuation of certain narratives that are built around those representations, are addressed. Specifically, then, the aims of this study are to 1) explore residents’ subjectivities in terms of identity, cultural representations and tourism, and 2) to gain a deeper understanding of the origins, workings and social effects of representations. It is hypothesized that subjectivity and representations are closely related and a methodology specifically designed to evaluate subjectivity, Q method, is employed. The research context for this study is a small but significant destination for indigenous tourism in southern Taiwan. Research objectives are:
To survey the theme of representations in tourism, including their origins, workings and social effects,
To survey the socio-historical role of representations in the identification of indigenous people, particularly in Taiwan,

336

W.C. Hunter / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 335e348


To elicit residents’ subjectivities toward identity, representations and tourism using Q method,
To apply the theme of representations to the analysis of resident subjectivities in order to generate theoretical and operational findings/implications for indigenous tourism policy and management. This study is based on concerns that representations may be the effect of quantum, multiple intertwined realities that emerge as “familiar habits of language” (Billig, 2006) and their meanings are ‘slippery’ or ‘jumpy’ due to the variety and diversity of their forms, contexts, effects and generative nature (Stewart, 2005). The meanings of cultural representations are neither subjective nor objective but rather, dislocated e and challenge the ontological, epistemological and methodological conventions of tourism research. 2. Representations in cultural tourism 2.1. Touristic representations Touristic representations are ‘true’ descriptions of destinations and their residents (Brown, 1995). They convey the objectivity (Wolcott, 1995) of sights and experiences. They are signs (Hunter, 2008) that put forward the best, or worst, of places and people, in a language, or code, that is operationally inseparable from the practices of the tourism industry. Representations originate as ‘things-in-themselves’ (people, costumes, food, features of the natural and built environment or other unique iconic features) and are transformed visually into photographs or film; verbally into factual or scientific accounts, news reports, myths; aurally into music, song, speech; physically into miniatures, simulations, souvenirs; digitally, in any combination, into networks. Representations are ‘true’ because they are tangible and real, and they deceive because they only convey appearances in terms of certain social conventions (Hollinshead, 2000). Representations are a form of commercial exchange in cultural tourism (Crick, 1989) designed to be understood by tourists in light of their own social-specific contexts, a vehicle for marketing that caters to sentiments of escape and the exotic. Touristic representations become associated with economic and social power as tourists’ and local residents’ cultural identity, expectations and experiences become entwined in complex relationships that blur boundaries and autonomy. The host and guest relationship becomes eclipsed by a seamless array of representations that affect local reality (Baudrillard, 1983). But visitors might grow doubtful of colorful depictions and performances they encounter, wondering if they are “seeing ‘real people’ playing ‘authentic’ roles for them, or, whether the shows have somehow been created to please them” (Hendry, 2005, p. 58e59). Tourists will suspect that residents are engaging in “twicebehaved behavior” (Schedner & Turner, 1985, p. 179), or that they are striving to “re-become who they never were but wish to have been or wish to become” (Conquergood, 1992, p. 44). Concerns arise as to the authenticity of the encounter (Hughes, 1995) and about who really benefits from the performance. 2.2. Representations and destination promotion Touristic representations of local and national culture or heritage are the preferred “material objects of touristic exchange” (Doorne, Ateljevic, & Bai, 2003) as they require little or no investment in destination infrastructure. They can be easily collected and quickly transformed into the currency of destination promotion. They shape the haphazard commodification or commoditization of

local heritage (Prideaux, 2003) basing it on a destination’s most typical stereotypes (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson, & Sanford, 1982). The manipulation of culture (to capitalize on tourism’s economic potential) is implicitly or actively practiced by all players in tourism, including government, developers, researchers, tourists and residents. For national governments or occupying regimes, the motivations behind the widespread use of representations in tourism are economic and political, too often favoring the tourist at the expense of local communities (Greaves, 1994). The role of governments in the manipulation of cultural images e to develop marketing and branding strategies for tourism (Pritchard & Morgan, 2001) e is, however, not always deliberate. It may be no more than what Billig (2006, p. 94) refers to as “familiar habits of language” or the putting to use of a tradition of argumentation, to identify who ‘we’ are or who we govern. In this sense, ethnic groups are causally drawn upon as tools for the construction, maintenance or revision of a national identity (Pretes, 2003). The potency of tourism and the encouragement of governments rally developers and researchers to seek ways to best implement cultural tourism, favoring “technical, rational and scientific” (Hughes, 1995, p. 49) means to provide efficient and operational models. Experiences are identified based on touristic representations that can transform residents of a community into a unitary cultural entity based on cultural themes (Sternberg, 1997). There is an acute sensitivity to the manipulation of a destination’s image in order to maximize its desirability (Andsager & Drzewiecka, 2002), and to shape “motivations for travel” (Silver, 1993). The interests of the tourist have wide and significant social implications (Ryan, 2005). The tourist’s tastes and sensibilities are analyzed in order to anticipate their needs, to maintain “the integrity of an attraction” and to mediate “between the tourist and the attraction” (Brown, Turner, Hameed, & Bateman, 1997, p. 316). To this effect, tourists become the central figure in the determination of how a destination is represented, serving as the source of intelligence for most tourism research (Masberg & Silverman, 1996) in defining what is ‘cultural’, and therefore, ‘attractive’. The tourist seems to stand in as a mechanism for the “regulation of the world” (Hollinshead, 1999, p. 7). The economy of representations in tourism can operationally silence residents’ subjectivities regarding their own social or cultural identity. They willingly or unwillingly become buried beneath touristic representations oriented toward making sense only in the context of outside social, political and economic realities (Laxon, 1991). And resident attitudes are generally appraised only in the interest of tourism planning (Stoffle & Evans 1990) or development (Smith & Krannich, 2000). Local subjectivities remain unknown because they are recruited, ostensibly, only at the moment of tourism policy implementation, or revision (HerbertCheshire & Higgins, 2004). 2.3. Representations and their social effects Representations are favorable to the tourist experience, (Bowen & Santos, 2006) constructing a “drama of the quotidian” (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 1998) e sensationalizing everyday activities or events e reinforcing a myth of ‘vanishing cultures’. Stereotypes are maintained or accentuated that reflect the tourist’s exaggerated curiosity toward certain elements of everyday life that are simply taken for granted (Bruner, 1996) by local residents. These may include an overemphasis on the body and its appearance (Mason, 1990) or other cultural attributes considered ‘different’ (Breitbart, 1997). Touristic representations that favor “form without substance” (Yamamura, 2005) threaten original intangible heritage, and degrade the lifestyles and beliefs of toured peoples.

W.C. Hunter / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 335e348

A destination that is over-dependent on its tourism can make residents inflexible and unable to adapt to change when natural disasters or epidemics occur, or when larger economic and social trends shift. Tourism can replace a community’s traditional hunting, fishing and agriculture (MacDonald & Jolliffe, 2003), ensuring economic and socio-cultural dependence or assimilation. In addition, representations can impair the social and emotional development of toured communities. Frozen in time, they become no more than tourist attractions (Morris, 1998). Touristic representations e continually and repeatedly lived out in the fantasy world of travel e can creep over and into the local community as a sort of ‘systematic and unconscious illusion’ (Preiswerk & Perrot, 1978). To add insult to injury, there is evidence to suggest that tourists are not interested in and do not even seek cultural attractions (McIntosh, 2004; Ryan, 2002). For many, the purpose of traveling might be for personal self-transformation (Bruner, 1991), transcendence (Cary, 2004) and self-discovery or self-representation (Galani-Moutafi, 2000). Touristic representations can influence the ways that communities perceive themselves (Bruner, 1991), accepting them as their collectively ‘true’ and defining characteristics (Medina, 2003). With no other option than to perform in the ways they have been identified, cultural tourists will encounter parody, feigned ignorance or outright deception (Sweet, 1989). Facing the predicament of tourism, residents’ hospitality can be replaced by the “dollar” (Wu, 2000), and trust (Hunter, 2001) with deception. Destination sustainability (Ko, 2003) can be threatened unless some residents are willing to re-invent themselves and their culture. The discourses surrounding and defining the representations in indigenous tourism are formed through ‘mundane’ but ‘ideological’ networks of power relations (Hollinshead, 2007, p. 293 after Pêcheux, 1982) that are only partially understood by those who communicate them. These ‘cultural representations’ in all their forms are never entirely accurate or true presentations of an indigenous culture as a whole. Instead, as they take on forms and circulate within the “’talk’ and ‘deeds’ of the travel trade” (p. 293) they also arouse certain reactions in the population of the represented. Certain individuals will come to ‘identify’, and others to ‘counteridentify’ and others to ‘disidentify’ (Pêcheux, 1982) with those representations, with various outcomes. In this sense there is no pure or original indigenous culture but instead a number of interest groups with their own understanding of, and stake in, cultural ‘reality’. And in recognizing this, indigenous tourism can be operated in ways that can be rewarding to residents, providing them with a better quality of life (Bruner & Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 1994). A wider or more innovative spectrum of touristic representations can also contribute to cultural revival (Grunewald, 2002; Medina, 2003). When there are local residents who play roles in the determination of their own representation and other tourism practitioners at planning levels who are sensitive and aware of their own partial understandings of indigenous culture, tourism can be a means to “emancipation and self-determination and the search for spontaneity, enhanced interpersonal relations and creativity” (Weaver, 1991, p. 415). Cultural pride (Dyer, Aberdeen, & Schuler, 2003), autonomy (Ryan, 2002) and economic benefits can nurture the community and in turn, the visitor and even the nation. Representations can become vehicles for indigenous political identity (Ryan, 1997) and rallying points, even when the ‘points of view’ embedded in them are cryptic or unknown to some. The origins, mechanics and social effects of touristic representations are, in theory, subtle and diverse. There is no universal or decisive originator, no singular form, and no satisfactory explanation as to how they infiltrate and eventually define a destination. In addition, it seems that the social effects of representations range

337

from the harmful to the beneficial and do not favor all parties equally. Theoretically, touristic representations are ‘slippery’ or ‘jumpy’ because the variety and diversity of their forms, contexts, effects and generative nature (Stewart, 2005) makes them resistant to generalization. Their discussion must, instead, move past the general and universal to a specific social and methodological setting, which is, in this paper a case study of indigenous tourism in Taiwan, described in the following section. 3. Indigenous tourism in Taiwan 3.1. Indigenous people in Taiwan The story of indigenous people in Taiwan usually begins with narratives contesting their prehistorical indigenous origins versus their various arrivals as outside tribal groups, anytime from 6000 to 15,000 years ago. A more coherent starting point begins about 400 years ago, with the recorded history of consecutive foreign regimes. It paints a picture of a primitive indigenous culture defined by savagery, conflict, segregation and assimilation (Manthorpe, 2005). It also silences the individuality, sophistication and validity of Taiwan’s original people. Oral histories, myths, legends, songs, traditional wisdom and the recitation of kinship relations tell another story, in other languages, of people who share a history 16 times longer than that of all the occupying regimes combined. Since 1624 there have been six distinct political regimes on Taiwan, naming it an island, a colony, a province, or a nation and identifying its original inhabitants as ‘tribes’, of which there are currently 14 (see Table 1, following). The operational representations of indigenous people in Taiwan e language and dialect, tribal regalia and tattooing, hunting, farming and fishing methods, dwellings, rituals and festivals (Scott, 2004) e enabled regimes to group families together as ‘tribes’ and informed the means and strategies of trade, manipulation, attack, dispersal or assimilation (Brown, 2004). The Christian Dutch distinguished savagery from religion, rewarding conversion with intermarriage and the giving of Christian names. The Qing distinguished raw (sheng fan) from cooked (shu fan) savages depending on the paying of taxes or adoption of customs (Brown, 2004). The Japanese ‘barbarian management policies’ imposed tribal boundaries based on the geographical proximity and accessibility of people’s dwellings, for the purposes of governance and taxation. The original inhabitants were collectively referred to as aboriginal (yuanzhumin), and included plains tribes (pingpuzu) and mountain people (san dir en) or high mountain tribes (gaoshanzu). Japanese policy identified all ethnic groups on the island as non-Japanese and therefore subjects. The Kuomintang favored representations that identified the indigenous people in Taiwan as tribal rather than ethnic. This was a management or acculturation approach that included all residents of Taiwan as Chinese to secure the KMTs governing authority over competing or potential occupiers (Roy, 2003). This approach played down the ‘aboriginal identity’ with a Sinicization of Taiwan that was in many ways more brutal than its colonization or previous exploitation (Zeitoun & Yu, 2005). In the past, although considered inferior and punished for resistance, indigenous groups were otherwise left alone to pursue their ways of life. Under the KMT, they were forced to acculturate or perish. With the arrival of the KMT, brutal measures were taken to erase all signs of cultural difference. Taiwanese Han, Hakka and indigenous groups suffered from events and policies such as the ‘228 Massacre’ in 1947, the ‘Shandi Pingdi Hua’ movement in 1953, and the ‘New Life Movement’ that dragged on into the 1970’s (Stainton, 2007). The sanitization of tribal representations was accomplished by the confiscation of material culture (homes,

338

W.C. Hunter / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 335e348

clothing, implements and art), forced relocation and mandatory education in Mandarin Chinese. New representations of ‘poor’, ‘dirty’ and ‘backwards’ identified minority groups as Chinese, but uncultured. The new post-martial law democracy movement in Taiwan needed a new national identity that was ‘neither Chinese nor Japanese’ (Phillips, 2007; Rubenstein, 2007). A new ‘Taiwanese’ identity was cultivated to give legitimacy to a claim for national independence from China. Tribal representations were re-imposed on indigenous groups and the revitalization of ‘material culture’ aggressively pursued. A new image of ‘aboriginal’ Taiwan was developed without granting these people autonomy or the right to speak with one voice as the legitimate and original residents of the island (Brown, 2004). 3.2. Indigenous tourism in Taiwan The new democracy did, however, bring about two new developments. First was the establishment of the ‘Council of Indigenous Peoples, Executive Yuan’ on December 1, 1996 (www.apc.gov.tw) and second was government sponsorship and promotion of indigenous tourism. The Taiwan Tourism Bureau developed the “Naruwan” tourism campaign using various representations of undifferentiated ‘tribal’ culture (a general ‘Taiwanese’ indigenous image) implemental in a new national image management strategy. Indigenous-friendly campaigns are not, however, a panacea for social and economic problems that include aboriginal groups’ large unemployment or over-representation in unskilled or low-skilled sectors of the urban workforce (DGBAS, 2000). Nor is a slogan, “Naruwan” enough to guarantee a tourism that will not impose a “discourse of silence” (Ryan, Chang, & Huan, 2007, p. 189) where narrow and selective cultural representations, lack of destinationspecific funding, or poor planning in the development of attractions have a complex effect on local toured communities. Taiwan, it seems has learned well by the mistakes of history in other countries by repeating them.

Consider the similarity of indigenous tourism in Taiwan to similar classic cased in tourism research literature, such as the ‘exotic spectacle’ of the Hula dance in Hawaii (Buck, 1993), and the reduction of the Tasaday to a ‘media-made sign’ (Dumont, 1988). Or currently, consider the case of China’s shaoshu minzu (indigenous minority groups) whose touristic representations are sanctioned or banned by the Han Government based on those which “will not challenge national unity” (Sofield & Li, 2007, p. 275). In Taiwan, operational control of tourism is left to travel agents and operators, who act as the major sources for information for tourists. The same approach in New Zealand leaves tourists articulating their impressions of the Maori in terms of stereotypes McIntosh, 2004 or in Jeju Island, Korea, where tourists (and residents) are buried beneath a limited few iconic representations, heavily promoted by government, such as the island’s indigenous version of ‘standing stones’ (Hunter & Suh, 2007). Taiwan has designated its indigenous tourism destinations using a two-step approach: 1) development of culture parks, and 2) museumification (the creation/designation of nearby communities as tourism attractions) with mixed results. Examples include the establishment of the Taroko National Park (a ‘natural’ culture park) which included the forced resettlement of the Truku and Amis (Lin, 2006) and has been described as a case of environmental terrorism. Designation of Wulai (a mountain community near Taipei) as a combination culture park/tourist attraction threatened indigenous Atayal, but they have been successful to some extent in managing and retaining their territory while developing a successful hot springs resort. The Formosan Aboriginal Culture Village in Nantou threatens/ignores the cultural integrity of Atayal in neighboring Dalin Village, and the Ping-pu in nearby Sun Moon Lake and has been called exploitative and superficial (Mo, 2005). The Indigenous Peoples Culture Park in Pingtung has produced better results, directly employing local youth and establishing itself as a center of employment and education, under the direct administration of the Executive Yuan. Neighboring townships of Majia, Sandimen and Wutai have been developed as tourist

Table 1 Lists of regimes and indigenous tribal groups in Taiwan.

Adapted from: Brown, 2004; Council for Indigenous Affairs http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5-gp/culture/indigenous/.

W.C. Hunter / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 335e348

attractions featuring the indigenous Paiwan and Rukai people. The third of these, Wutai, provides the context for this study and is described in the following section. 3.3. Rukai indigenous tourism in Wutai Wutai is an indigenous-majority township ( ) located in Pingtung County ( ), in South Taiwan not far from the Indigenous Peoples Culture Park. The 98% majority population of Wutai’s 2982 inhabitants is Rukai, and this community faces a high-volume of visitation, largely by tour bus. Tourists want to enjoy the cultural sites and experience they have come to expect, having been exposed to a fixed set of clearly defined touristic representations of indigenous culture that are found in culture parks and in the media, or now, in the wider public imagination. In this community, as in others, as artists and writers struggle to rebuild their material culture and social identity confiscated or obliterated by past regimes, they risk the danger of becoming a toured culture (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 1998). In Fig. 1 (following) a map of Taiwan and the southernmost county of Pingtung is shown (enlarged). The eight Paiwan and Rukai townships (shaded) are shown, with Wutai at the top right. The representations that drive and define Wutai’s indigenous tourism are based on the colorful Rukai regalia, unique lifestyle and festivals, artifacts, dwellings and handicrafts that have been largely adapted into the highly iconic indigenous image that is used in Taiwan’s national destination image promotion (Ushinosuke, 1977), representing indigenous people as a whole, or as part of a ‘collection’ (Chen, 1988). In addition, their shared legends and myths, carved in wood and slate are depicted everywhere in the built environment: primal themes such as the ancestor figure, fertility and kinship imagery, the hundred pace snake, the sun and the lily (Liu, 1997) and are commonly referred to, strangely, as ‘totems’. Important festivals such as the annual harvest festival held on August 15 causes

339

visitation to spike, as tourists come to witness colorful costumes, feasting and dancing as well as games and contests. Table 2 (below) contains a summary of vital facts for Wutai, including governmental administration, and descriptions of the township and features of its tourism. The Maolin National Scenic Area is responsible for the administration of tourism to Wutai where a population of less than 3000 Rukai inhabits the extremely mountainous area that hosted over 95,000 tourists in 2005. This amazing ratio (32:1) of tourist to resident was accommodated with no national funding for planning or development. The huge popularity of Wutai as a tourism destination (in spite of the 2005 Haitang super typhoon disaster) indicates a dizzying transformation, over the 10 or so years since tourism was first introduced, of the community from isolation to a sudden hysteria (or tourist-culture mania). It is known that tourism involving indigenous peoples is particularly sensitive to stereotypes and imbalanced relationships of power (Chang, 2006; Chang, Wall, & Chu, 2006) and, therefore, particularly susceptible to inaccurate self-presentation on the one hand and misinterpretation on the other (Chang, Wall, & Tsai, 2005). But how a few representations of Rukai culture became such a common currency for tourism or how they define the tourism of Wutai, and why other potential representations are excluded are unknown, as are the effects of cultural representations on residents’ identity in Wutai. As mentioned in the previous section, the mechanism of how certain representations proliferate is relatively unknown, whether they are established by culture parks, the media, or interpretive narratives offered by tour operators, or governments interested in establishing branding strategies or reinforcing nationalism, by researchers who comply with a mandate to maximize a destination’s desirability. or by local residents who promote or resist them for their own reasons. It is known, theoretically, that representations are preserved in daily life, routinely ‘flagged’ by the repetition of familiar patterns (Billig, 2006, p. 42). They are

Fig. 1. Map of Taiwan and Pingtung townships with standing stones

340 Table 2 Wutai destination profile e vital facts.

W.C. Hunter / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 335e348

W.C. Hunter / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 335e348

epistemic (based on beliefs), historicist (based on convention) and collaborative (based on social norms) (Thomas, 1994), and these signs can be ‘jumpy’ or crude and cryptic (Stewart, 2005, pp. 10341035) as they circulate in a social environment. What is most curious is why other representations of Rukai culture do not emerge in the tourism context. How does the scope of representations or cultural signs prevent new imagery or stories, or why do residents so readily conform to touristic stereotypes? Have residents identified so strongly with existing cultural representations in circulation that any alternative is unacceptable? Resident subjectivities are generally overlooked in favor of those of developers or tourists (Herbert-Cheshire & Higgins, 2004; Smith & Krannich, 2000; Stoffle & Evans, 1990). Little has been done to better understand how residents think about these representations e other than the observed tendency toward ‘twice behaved behavior’ (Schedner & Turner, 1985, p. 179), or the suspected participation in a ‘systematic and unconscious illusion’ (Preiswerk & Perrot, 1978). To address these questions, a research methodology was developed for this study focusing on an ‘alternative’ representation of Wutai’s Rukai culture, to elicit residents’ subjectivities regarding their cultural identity, representations and tourism. The

341

methodology and the ‘alternative’ representation are described in the following section. 4. Methodology 4.1. Standing stones In Wutai as well as all other Rukai and Paiwan villages, standing stones are found that act as traditional boundary markers, ancestor stones that mark hereditary roles and kinships, and are embedded with legends and stories. To some they are considered sacred, to others ordinary and they are ubiquitous. They articulate tradition and “cultural emergence” (Stewart, 2005, p. 1034) and as markers they are not of everyday interest but when brought into discussion, they provoke strong sentiments regarding cultural identity. Rukai standing stones are not among the cultural representations used in Taiwan’s indigenous tourism, not even in Wutai. However, standing stones have been energetically developed as a cultural representation and destination attraction in other places (Hunter & Suh, 2007). Fig. 2 (below) shows the location of townships with standing stones in and around Wutai and includes a depiction of people raising one.

Fig. 2. Various types of standing stones.

342

W.C. Hunter / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 335e348

When a particular standing stone is discussed with residents, it is associated with notable events, legends and kinship relationships. Each stone is recognized by its particular features and specific associated meanings. It is a conversation piece. But when ‘standing stones’ are referred to as a ‘representation’ of Rukai culture, local residents have great difficulty in thinking of them the way they would the typical established representations such as traditional costume, festivals, slate houses or glass beads. Although the stones can easily be sorted into loose categories, or types, most people interviewed reject these in favor of a particular stone’s significance. This surprising a priori discovery suggests that alternative representations are not easily identified until certain everyday things are transformed into cultural signs or types by tourism promotion media or other means, or organically through host-guest interaction. Rukai standing stones, then, are an ideal ‘cultural feature’ upon which to base an investigation into held subjectivities regarding cultural identity, representations and tourism. The standing stones have not acquired the automatic and extant currency as stereotype that other representations (the stone house, the pot and machete, or the ‘totems’) already have. Therefore, to conduct such an investigation, some photo-elicitation was necessary in order to ensure that respondents had a concrete understanding of what was meant by ‘standing stones’. To this purpose, a physical search for standing stones in the built environment over a 3-week period by car and on foot was conducted to find some 208 standing stones (in all eight indigenous Paiwan and Rukai townships in Pingtung). These were shown to respondents in order to convey the meaning of ‘standing stones’ that could not be achieved directly through verbal descriptions. A sample of ‘types’ of standing stones found is shown in Fig. 2. 4.2. Q method In this study, Q method was used to systematically identify resident subjectivities in Wutai, related to cultural identity, representations (particularly standing stones) and tourism. Q is a method for the systematic study of subjectivity in terms of opinions, beliefs and attitudes (Brown, 1993). It uses conventional factor analysis (Stephenson, 1935), to draw out shared or individual communicable subjectivities that can be generalized back to a particular phenomenon, in this case, Rukai standing stones (and identity, representations and tourism in Wutai in general) (Hutson & Montgomery, 2006). A study using Q Method describes a population of viewpoints rather than a population of people (Risdon et al., 2003). It is an effective methodology for investigating social identities (Marshall, 1991), the effect of things or events on peoples’ lives (Senn, 1991) and strategic planning and design (Popovich & Popovich, 2000), or feelings towards nature places (Hutson & Montgomery, 2006). It is versatile and easy to administer because participants are not bored by, or intimidated at the prospect of filling out a lengthy survey or questionnaire. Nor does it require the lengthy interaction necessary for conducting face-toface interviews. This study is based on a sample of 30 respondents recruited using a purposive sampling technique. In the sample of respondents (known as a ‘P set’ in Q terminology) a maximum breadth and diversity of subjectivities was favored over a random or statistically generated sample (Balch, 1982; Patton, 1990). In Q, the held ontological viewpoint is that in reality, action is situational and epistemologically, in the context of this study, it is theorized that representations are not ‘things in themselves’ but elements of lived experience. People make sense of who they are through a diverse ‘psychosocial constructions of representations’ (Bahl & Milne, 2006). It is held that participants with a wide variety of held

subjectivities and an understanding of research problem (i.e., cultural identity, standing stones and tourism) will best help the research (Creswell, 2003). For this reason, certain participants were excluded during the purposive sampling, including: 1) Older people with no formal education who understood neither Chinese, nor the relevance of the research subject, 2) Younger people raised in urban areas who claim no knowledge or opinion of Rukai culture, and 3) People who insisted that their opinion was not important and that they did not have the authority to speak about cultural issues. Purposive sampling or judgmental ‘sampling’ in Q method relies on “a diverse non-random selection” (Fairweather & Swaffield, 2002, p. 288; Noth, 1990) of individuals and the sample’s size and respondents’ characteristics can be pre-specified or emergent (Miles & Huberman, 1994). In this study, the sample size of 30 respondents reached during the study’s recruitment process was emergent, informed by the researcher’s understanding of local resident subjectivities (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996) and the ontological perspectives and theoretical framework of representations and cultural identity (Brown, 1980). Stopping at a sample size of 30 respondents was also informed by precedents set by previous Q research where samples as small as 20 (Hutson & Montgomery, 2006) and as large as 66 (Fairweather & Swaffield, 2001) have been used and in studies where samples of about 30 have been recommended (Brown, 1993; McKeown & Thomas, 1988). The P set arrived at in this study consisted of 22 men and 8 women between the ages of about 30 to 55. As a note, the judgmental qualities of purposive sampling do not imply an approach that it is a labor saving device or a shortcut for research. The concourse, in Q method, is the flow of communicability surrounding any topic (Stephenson, 1978), be it photographs (Fairweather & Swaffield, 2002), music (Grosswiler, 1990), cartoons (Kinsey, 1991) or any other manifestation of human life as expressed in a shared culture (Brown, 1993) where clusters of subjectivity exist (Smith, 2001) are identified. In this study, the concourse was elicited from participants in conversations regarding Rukai cultural identity and tourism in the community and by browsing photographs of standing stones. In those conversations certain statements emerged that seemed to represent certain held subjectivities. These were refined into 42 statements that in Q method are understood as a ‘Q set’ (Van Exel & De Graaf, 2005) and printed on laminated cards, and eventually given back to participants (the P set) for sorting. The ‘Q sort’ requires each participant to arrange the cards/statements according to how they reflect his or her own subjectivities regarding the concourse (Van Exel & De Graaf, 2005). Participants, in a restaurant, on the side of the road, at a construction site, in the field or in a car would browse photographs of standing stones during a short conversation about culture and tourism, and then perform the Q sort. Some completed the Q sort in 10 minutes while others struggled. Q method raises certain challenges for tourism research because it falls outside of conventional notions of what is quantitative or qualitative. This method is not based on Newtonian principles of certainty and reductionism (Brown, 2009), so “statements in the Q sort are entangled”, “factors are irreducibly paradoxical”, and “measurement and meaning are inseparable” (p. 240-241). However, including only Q sorts with significant loadings and ensuring that clusters produced in factor analysis are mutually exclusive and exhaustive are (Fairweather & Swaffield, 2002) preliminary checks that take place in the pre-test. Validity (content validity) is checked through the Q sort procedure and (discriminant validity) is checked by the Q sort procedure and correlation test. All

W.C. Hunter / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 335e348

these support construct validity (Ekinci & Riley, 2001). The major sources of error in Q e shamming and instability (Balch, 1982) e raise fears of missing a latent variable in the development of the concourse. Q method is suggested for exploratory work (Stephenson, 1953) or in cases where the very existence of concepts has not been established (Tractinsky & Jarvenpaa, 1995). Better reliability can be insured when additional P sets are tested and compared with the same concourse (Valenta & Wigger, 1997). The results of Q method can stand alone or can be further developed with in-depth interview techniques, or the employment of questionnaires (Ekinci & Riley, 2001). However, it is not that questionnaires can help a posteriori to overcome weaknesses in Q methodology; rather, that Q methodology can help, a priori, in the fine tuning of questionnaires by grounding them in functional realities. Q method is highly interpretive and it is the underlying theory that ensures that the discovery of ‘clusters’ corresponds to respondents’ attitudes. “It is a ‘dimensionless’ task in which subjectivity and objectivity grope around to find each other” (Ekinci & Riley, 2001, p. 206 after Coxon & Jones, 1978, p. 65). Therefore, purposive sampling is very important in the generation of a P set of respondents who will offer subjectivities that are relevant or friendly to the research (Brown, 1980). 5. Discussion 5.1. Findings Score sheets for the 30 completed Q sorts were coded and scored for factor analysis. Preliminary conventional factor analysis reveals six types of subjectivity, or viewpoints, held by the individuals in the P set (within the pre-determined concourse from which the 42 statements were drawn). Table 3 (below) illustrates how these 30 respondents are organized into six groups, described in Q method as “clusters”. Eigen-values and explained variance for each cluster are illustrated in Table 4, following.

Table 3 Q sort factor analysis. Respondent

Cluster 1

26 21 15 27 28 10 16 19 22 17 6 7 3 2 1 4 14 24 29 8 12 23 9 5 30 13 18 25

.814 .771 .752 .630 .587

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

Cluster 4

Cluster 5

Cluster 6

.763 .657 .630 .600 .539 .448 .726 .669 .656 .623 .532 .823 .726 .588 .491 .457

343

Table 4 Eigen-values and explained variance between clusters. Analysis

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5 Cluster 6

Eigen-value 11.785 Cum. % 42.088 Respond-ents 5

2.114 49.636 6

1.904 56.436 5

1.687 62.461 5

1.465 67.694 4

1.108 71.651 3

Because respondents are the variables in a Q method’s factor analysis, the six factors (clusters) generated from the factor analysis are also the variables in the correlation analysis. A correlation matrix (Table 5, below) shows the strength of correlation between clusters. The strongest correlations between clusters are those between clusters 1 & 2 (.706), 2 & 3 (.703) and 1 & 3 (.680), respectively. The factor and correlation analyses demonstrate that subjectivities vary within the concourse and that they are identifiable as six quantitatively different and distinct clusters. In addition, an analysis of variance identifies exactly which specific subjectivities (as found in the Q set of 42 statements) in the concourse are shared. Significant statistical difference was found through the one-way ANOVA, identifying 11 statements that were significantly different within a 5% level. The results of the ANOVA are detailed in Table 6, listing the key 11 statements from the concourse with F and p scores. The 11 statistically significant statements are not distributed equally among the six clusters. Rather, analysis of variance demonstrates that the statements actually identify the difference of opinions that distinguish the six clusters. The most significant statements held in consensus by each of the six clusters are illustrated in Table 7. The categorization is based on the highest and lowest means derived when all 11 statements were compared among all six clusters. Highest mean identifies the most agreed upon statement whereas lowest mean identifies the most disagreed upon statement held in consensus by a cluster. Statements have been rephrased as declarative. The table illustrates the essential differences in subjectivities held by each of the six clusters. Each cluster is thus defined quantitatively by its statistical correlation externally and by statements held in consensus, internally. The statements reveal clues about how the respondents in each cluster think about the standing stones as a representation of Rukai culture, tourism in Wutai, and traditional culture, or cultural identity in general. Additional interpretation summarized in Table 8 (below) shows a comparison of the 6 clusters with the 11 Q statements. Statements have been rephrased as declarative, and each reflects a dimension of subjectivity concerning Rukai culture, tourism and local residents’ relationship to the dominant Han society. Considered together, they describe the aspects of the concourse that are shared by respondents in each particular cluster. By considering the respondents’ social roles or identity and the clusters’ identifying statements, some insight can be gained regarding residents’ subjectivities. Taken as a whole it is found that

Table 5 Correlation matrix between six clusters. Group .852 .559 .538 .508 .826 -.484 .427

Group Group Group Group Group Group

1 2 3 4 5 6

**p < 0.01.

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5

Group 6

1.000 .706** .680** .595** .663** .584**

1.000 .703** .635** .651** .514**

1.000 .583** .549** .532**

1.000 .550** .573**

1.000 .550**

1.000

344

W.C. Hunter / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 335e348

Table 6 One-way ANOVA: 11 statistically significant statements. Statement 1 7 11 16 18 29 30 32 35 38 39

F

Standing stones have no particular meaning in relation to aboriginal culture Tourists recognize the importance of the stones because they are made of slate I don’t care about standing stones because they have no meaning in my life Whenever I see a standing stone, I automatically recall its story Aboriginal standing stones are sacred Making money is the most important thing in my life Aboriginal culture is not as important as progress and development Tourists know nothing about aboriginal standing stones There is no place in modern life for cultural markers such as these No two standing stones are alike The standing stones are all basically the same

p.

the other clusters, defined by a stronger cultural identity that varies by perceived socioeconomic conditions. Findings indicate that:

4.086 .009** 3.495 .018* 4.722 .004** 2.710 .047* 3.929 .011* 3.405 .020* 2.686 .048* 10.543 .000** 5.099 .003** 3.170 .026* 4.158 .008**

being Rukai is not a singular event; like any other society, identity is contested and stereotypes do not reflect the reality of local social conditions. The quantitative analyses performed for Q method demonstrate that respondents in a P set may be organized into ‘clusters’ that hold in common certain subjectivities concerning a particular concourse that differ from other ‘clusters’. However, Q can also require a certain degree of interpretation, particularly in identifying certain social roles or characteristics of respondents and how they relate to shared subjectivities within the cluster, and differ between clusters. Interpretation of social characteristics by cluster is illustrated in Table 9. This table illustrates certain shared subjectivities regarding respondents’ sense of identity, understanding of the standing stones, attitudes towards tourism and attitudes concerning the surrounding dominant Han culture and economic system. Clusters 1, 2 and 3 share a stronger correlation with each other than with

Greater social integration (C1) comes with the price of reduced cultural knowledge; Cultural insularity (C2) pushes concerns about tourists and outside society aside; and Cultural awareness (C3) indicates a mature knowledge of local culture and tourism, but a pessimism concerning its relevance or survivability. Clusters 4, 5, and 6 are related (in contrast to clusters 1, 2, & 3) in a closer association with local tourism. Findings indicate that: Cultural identity is contingent (C4) upon business success in local tourism, and respondents in this cluster favor established representations over alternatives that may threaten the norm; Strong cultural identity and less successful involvement in local tourism (C5) are associated with a more open acceptance of alternative representations; and A heightened concern over making a living (C6) indicates a lack of interest in local culture or tourism, and even a lack of exposure to outside social conditions. This group would be best described as socially and economically isolated or destitute. In summary, stronger subjectivities are found among those who are established in relation to society and to their own personal cultural identity (C1, 2, 3). They seem to share ambivalence towards tourism. Cultural brokers in tourism seem to have a stronger loyalty to cultural representations or stereotypes depending upon their level of success (C4, 5, 6). And poverty seems to be a direct threat to cultural integrity, acculturation or success in tourism businesses. This interpretation suggests that in Wutai, a resilient toured local community is comprised of a mixture of subjectivities towards tourism and established cultural representations. There are cultural purists who insulate themselves from tourists and tourism and

Table 7 Comparison of clusters and their most significant statements. Cluster and respondents

Statements agreed

Statements disagreed

Declarative statements

Cluster 1 15,21,56,27,28

32 (5.60/0.89)

18 (5.20/2.17) 30 (1.40/0.55)

Cluster 2 6,10,16,17,19,22

18 (8.17/1.17)

35 (2.67/1.03) 38 (3.33/1.86)

Cluster 3 1,2,3,4,7

7 (5.40/0.89) 30 (4.20/1.79)

1 (2.00/1.00) 39 (2.20/0.84)

Cluster 4 8,12,14,24,29

1 (4.60/1.34) 16 (7.60/1.14) 29 (6.20/1.79) 38 (6.40/0.89)

7 (2.40/1.14) 32 (1.60/0.89)

Cluster 5 5,9,23,30

32 (5.75/0.96)

11 (3.25/0.96) 16 (5.00/0.82) 29 (1.75/0.96)

Cluster 6 13,18,25

11 (7.67/2.31) 35 (6.67/1.53) 39 (5.33/3.06) e

–

32) Tourists know nothing about aboriginal standing stones 18) Aboriginal standing stones are not sacred 30) Aboriginal culture is as important as progress and development 18) Aboriginal standing stones are sacred 35) There is a place in modern life for cultural markers such as these 38) It is not true that no two standing stones are alike 7) Tourists recognize the importance of the stones because they are made of slate 30) Aboriginal culture is not as important as progress and development 1) Standing stones do have meaning in relation to aboriginal culture 39) The standing stones are not all basically the same 1) Standing stones have no particular meaning in relation to aboriginal culture 16) Whenever I see a standing stone, I automatically recall its story 29) Making money is the most important thing in my life 38) No two standing stones are alike 7) Tourists do not recognize the importance of the stones just because they are made of slate 32) Tourists do know about aboriginal standing stones 32) Tourists know nothing about aboriginal standing stones 11) I do care about standing stones because they have meaning in my life 16) Whenever I see a standing stone, I do not automatically recall its story 29) Making money is not the most important thing in my life 11) I don’t care about standing stones because they have no meaning in my life 35) There is no place in modern life for cultural markers such as these 39) The standing stones are all basically the same

Rejected 11,20

e

Notes: Statement mean/standard deviation in brackets Statements have been altered to indicate agreement or disagreement

W.C. Hunter / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 335e348

345

Table 8 Comparison of 6 Clusters with 11 Q Statements Cluster 1 Statements: The stones are not sacred (18). Tourists do not know about them (32). Rukai traditional culture is as important as progress (30). Cluster 2 Statements: The stones are sacred, and certain ‘types’ exist (18, 38). No statements regarding tourism were shared (0). They are relevant to modern life (35). Cluster 3 Statements: The stones are a meaningful part of Rukai culture and certain ‘types’ exist (1, 39). Tourists recognize the stones in terms of their material, slate, a key feature of the Rukai cultural environment (7) Progress and development are more important than Rukai culture (30). Cluster 4 Statements: Each standing stone is unique, with its own story, but have no particular relevance to Rukai culture today (1, 16, 38). Tourists do know about the stones, but not just in terms of their material (7, 32). Making money is the most important thing in life (29). Cluster 5 Statements: Standing stones are important, although their meaning is not fully understood (11, 16). Tourists do not know about them (32). Making money is not the most important thing in life (29). Cluster 6 Statements: express no interest in tourism, or in standing stones as culturally significant. Standing stones are all the same and they are irrelevant to my life (11, 39). No statements regarding tourism were shared (0). They are not relevant to modern life (35). Note: All statements reflect one of the three dimensions of subjectivity concerning Rukai culture, tourism and their relationships to the dominant outside Han society, as follows: 1) Out of 24 statements regarding the standing stones’ relevance to Rukai Culture, 6 statistically significant statements were found: 1, 11, 16, 18, 38, 39. 2) Out of 7 statements regarding standing stones’ relevance to Rukai cultural tourism, 2 statistically significant statements were found: 7, 32. 3) Out of 11 statements regarding the relationship of Rukai culture to the dominant society that surrounds it, 3 statistically significant statements were found: 29, 30, 35.

cultural relativists who succeed in tourism businesses by being so. A majority of the community seem ambivalent to tourism regardless of their knowledge of its importance or their stake in its benefits. A smaller proportion of the community seems interested in tourism and invested in the belief that the circulation of stereotypical cultural representations is associated with prosperity. A sub-culture of the impoverished seems indifferent to traditional culture even though they are fully immersed. 6. Further discussion In this study the theme of touristic representations was visited, grounded in the context of Taiwan’s Rukai indigenous tourism at a small but significant community, Wutai. Q method was used to elicit and then identify Wutai residents’ subjectivities concerning social identity, cultural representations (in particular, Rukai standing stones) and tourism in their community. Purposive sampling was an instrumental component of the study’s methodology, ensuring that a wide variety of subjectivities were included and that respondents were invested in the study (Creswell, 2003). It was important in this study that residents’ subjectivities found a voice to speak to the ontological claim that in indigenous tourism, action is situational and that representations are not unidimensional and objective blocks of ‘reality’ (i.e., they are not ‘things in themselves’). Findings suggest that Wutai residents understand representations, but subjectivities toward them vary. For some, they seem to be repositories of residents’ cultural knowledge, anchoring histories, stories and knowledge or functional in everyday life, marking boundaries, or tools of social hierarchy indicating wealth, expertise or kinship. For these respondents, the standing stones in particular, are not intended for visitors. For others, it appears that cultural representations in general are the necessary and wanted currency for the socio-economic power relations of tourism, and are strictly

intended for tourists and instrumental in making tourism profitable. For these respondents, standing stones are not as viable as established stereotypes and there is fear that they might threaten the status quo and affect destination ‘branding’. A third perspective also emerges, an ambivalent attitude that cultural representations hold no significant place in the community. The use of Q method in the study of resident subjectivities toward cultural representations in tourism raises certain ontological and epistemological implications (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). On an ontological level, this study reveals how blurred the distinction may be between ‘things’ and ‘reality’. Representations have been described as material objects (Doorne, Ateljevic, & Bai, 2003) or true descriptions (Brown, 1995). In this sense, respondents were very capable of articulating their subjectivities regarding a particular stone, but could not make sense of standing stones as a cultural representation until they were exposed to visual stimuli (photographs of the stones). In this sense representations are generative (Stewart, 2005), not absolute. They are interpreted rather than perceived, that is to say, they exist as points of view rather than centers of consciousness and the implication of this difference is that ‘things’ must be imbued with meaning via residents’ consciousness e representations must be learned. Instead of affecting a collective illusion (Preiswerk & Perrot, 1978), representations in tourism come into being via situational power relations that determine the relative meaning of things. At the epistemological level, this study illustrates how power relations in tourism form perceptions. This power drives the perpetual feedback loop of representations and subjectivities, directing the generation of social meaning in objects (Stewart, 2005, p. 1027). In this sense, tourism works the same as any other form of hegemony, where self-reflexive narratives are affected to the extent that individuals are subjected to dependency. In this study, only those individuals whose livelihoods are attached to

346

W.C. Hunter / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 335e348

Table 9 Interpretation of social characteristics by cluster. Cluster 1 Social Characteristics (5 respondents with a consensus on 3 statements): Strongest correlation with cluster 2 & 3 Culturally loyal, but also integrated into the dominant Han society in which they make their livings Low perception of stones and their relevance to tourism Cluster 2 Social Characteristics (6 respondents with a consensus on 3 statements): Strongest correlation with cluster 1 & 3 Strong Rukai identity e typified as headmasters or artisans, making a living in Wutai Strong perception of stones and their relevance to modern life Cluster 3 Social Characteristics (5 respondents with a consensus on 4 statements): Strongest correlation with cluster 1 & 2 Culturally aware headmasters or artisans balancing a living between cultures Demonstrate a strong understanding of stones as well as the central role of slate in defining the touristic representation of Rukai culture Consider ‘progress’ antagonistic to Rukai culture Cluster 4 Social Characteristics (5 respondents with a consensus on 6 statements): Contingent cultural identity and directly involved in the local tourism industry as providers of accommodation, dining or entertainment Demonstrate a understanding of the stones and tourists’ understandings, but consider them irrelevant e perhaps sharing a strong loyalty to the established cultural representations upon which the Wutai tourism industry is based Cluster 5 Social Characteristics (4 respondents with a consensus on 4 statements): Also involved in the local tourism industry, but with less success than Cluster 4 Recognize that the stones are important, but residents as well as tourists do not know enough about them Cluster 6 Social Characteristics (3 respondents with a consensus on 3 statements): Live and work in Wutai, but express no interest or understanding in the stones Concerns for making a living eclipse any considerations about Rukai culture Commentary: Clusters 1e3 indicate a focus on Rukai culture in relation with ‘modern’ Han society whereas clusters 4e6 indicate a stronger emphasis on Rukai culture in terms of tourism.

tourism indicated that established touristic representations are necessary or wanted. Representations, without a catalyst, hover between the subliminal (Billig, 2006) and the purposeful (Conquergood, 1992) e they are ignored or rejected. There are practical implications in this study for policy makers at the national and local level and for operators at the destination. By recognizing that touristic representations are actually a network of diverse subjectivities, policy makers can focus their energies by encouraging promotional strategies that focus on the unique characteristics of individuals at a destination rather than on a collection of cultural or indigenous things. In other words, the economic production of culture should take precedence over its products, or its representations. Development should focus on supporting local artist guilds, agricultural projects and restaurants that are sites of production. This will serve the interests of residents, operators and tourists by furnishing more and better-toured sites where locally produced commodities can be bought and sold. Existing representations of a destination are necessary and practical. They enable an operational segregation that simultaneously facilitates the mutually exclusive development of cultural identity and a successful tourism base. There are known and unknown representations depending upon social conventions. Tourists might prefer certain representations because they are known and know certain representations because they are preferred. Likewise residents hold different subjectivities depending upon the roles they play in the community. The production of representations should be undertaken by local residents who can add dimension to the otherwise stereotypical. In the management of a destination’s aesthetic appeal e especially in small communities e the proliferation of certain cultural representations should be controlled by encouraging local artists in the production of signage, murals and other elements of the built environment. Local residents have a sophisticated understanding of the best aesthetics, promotion and interaction for pleasing tourists and should be frequently consulted by policy makers and tourist operators (Fairweather & Swaffield, 2001). Indigenous tourism promotion too frequently relies on an understanding of ‘culture’ as something discrete and inanimate

rather than as a dynamic and interactive system. The concept of “worldmaking” (Hollinshead, 2009, p. 143) describes how tourism can preserve, invent or rediscover the “inheritances of places and spaces” and the people who inhabit them. Rather than mirroring and intensifying what is already at work in a destination, tourism is actively at work as a force in itself, constructive or destructive. And equally, there are individuals at work either ‘identifying’, ‘counteridentifying’, or ‘disidentifying’ with those forces (Hollinshead, 2007; Pêcheux, 1982). Tourism destination policy makers and those in charge of destination promotion need to recognize the dynamic, evolving, unique and largely unpredictable characteristics of tourism and to lend generous economic support to residents, the fundamental human resource in indigenous tourism, to create their own reality as they see fit. Limitations in this research are found in the formulation of the Q method concourse and the generation of clusters. Shamming (deliberate deceit on the part of respondents) can result in latent variables or missing clusters. Also, having only 11 out of 42 statistically significant statements raises questions as to the representational power of the Q sort. Existing clusters may be unstable due to small numbers of respondents (such as cluster 6, with only three respondents). In fact the threat of shamming is a major issue in Q method and one of the key reasons why the triangulation of purposive sampling, researcher expertise and theoretical framework is necessary. In Q method a relationship of collaboration must exist between the researcher and respondent where ownership of the research problem is shared. When such a relationship does exist, it can be found, through Q method that residents in a community where indigenous tourism is the dominant industry do not conform to stereotypes. In fact any number of purposefully determined points of view can be in circulation and each is viable, practical, and finely tuned to the needs and held ideologies of the individual. Q method offers tourism researchers an opportunity to delve into the ontological problem of subjectivity in a way that transcends the normative ‘subjective e objective’ divide in social science research. At the risk of a schizophrenic logic the Q approach hovers between certainty and the emergent, where cultural representations emerge and circulate simultaneously epistemic,

W.C. Hunter / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 335e348

historicist and collaborative ‘points of view’. Future research using Q method will uncover other concourses where subjectivities are at work in the generation, perpetuation or dissolution of cultural representations in indigenous tourism. Acknowledgements The author would like to express heartfelt appreciation to the young headmaster, Mr. Modaras Abaliuso, and Ms Brusan Batsagene of Wutai who played important roles in the search for, and discussion of the Rukai and Paiwan Standing Stones in Pingtung, and their significance. And the author would also like to express an equally heartfelt regret for the pain and suffering of the Rukai ) and Chilu ( ) people, especially the residents of Ali ( villages, who were forced to abandon their ancestral homes permanently, in the wake of the Typhoon Morakot disaster which hit Southern Taiwan on 8 August, 2009. The population of Wutai has been reduced by half since the completion of the research described in this paper, and to Mr. Abaliuso who died of natural causes during the typhoon, may he rest in peace. References Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (Eds.). (1982). The authoritarian personality. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company. Andsager, J. L., & Drzewiecka, J. A. (2002). Desirability of differences in destinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2), 401e421. Bahl, S., & Milne, G. R. (2006). Mixed methods in interpretive research: an application to the study of the self concept. In R. W. Belk (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research methods in marketing (pp. 198e218). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Balch, G. (1982). Review. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(1), 162e163. Baudrillard, J. (1983). Simulations. P. Foss, P. Patton & P. Beitchman (Trans.). NY: Semiotext(e), Inc.. Billig, M. (2006). Banal nationalism. London: Sage. Bowen, H. E., & Santos, C. A. (2006). Constructing quality, constructing reality. In G. Jennings, & N. P. Nickerson (Eds.), Quality tourism experiences (pp. 38e54). NY: Elsevier. Breitbart, E. (1997). A world on display: Photographs from the St. Louis World’s Fair 1904. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Brown, K., Turner, P. K., Hameed, H., & Bateman, I. (1997). Environmental carrying capacity and tourism development in the Maldives and Nepal. Environmental Conservation, 24(4), 316e325. Brown, M. J. (2004). Is Taiwan Chinese? The impact of culture, power, and migration on changing identities. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Brown, R. H. (1995). Realism and power in aesthetic representation. In R. H. Brown (Ed.), Postmodern representation: Truth, power, and mimesis in the human sciences and public culture (pp. 134e167). Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. London: Yale University Press. Brown, S. R. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity, 16, 91e138. Brown, S. R. (2009). Q technique, method and methodology: comments on Stentor Danielson’s article. Field Methods, 21(3), 238e241. Bruner, E. M. (1991). Transformation of self in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(2), 238e250. Bruner, E. M. (1996). Tourism in Ghana: the representation of slavery and the return of the black diaspora. American Anthropologist, 99(2), 290e304. Bruner, E. M., & Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (1994). Maasai on the lawn: tourist realism in East Africa. Cultural Anthropologist, 9(2), 435e469. Buck, E. (1993). Paradise remade: The politics of culture and history in Hawai’i. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Cary, S. H. (2004). The tourist moment. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), 61e77. Chang, J. (2006). Segmenting tourists to aboriginal cultural festivals: an example in the Rukai tribal area, Taiwan. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1224e1234. Chang, J., Wall, G., & Tsai, C. T. (2005). Endorsement advertising in aboriginal tourism: an experiment in Taiwan. International Journal of Tourism Research, 7, 347e356. Chang, J., Wall, G., & Chu, S. T. (2006). Novelty seeking at aboriginal attractions. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(3), 729e747. Chen, C. L. (1988). Material culture of the Formosan Aborigines. Taipei: The Taiwan Museum. Conquergood, D. (1992). Performance theory, Hmong shamans, and cultural politics. In J. G. Reinelt, & J. R. Roach (Eds.), Critical theory and performance (pp. 41e64). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Coxon, A. P., & Jones, C. L. (1978). The images of occupational prestige. London: Macmillan. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

347

Crick, M. (1989). Representations of international tourism in the social sciences: sun, sex, sights, savings, and servility. Annual Review of Anthropology, 18, 307e344. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Introduction: entering the field of qualitative research. In N. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1e17). London: Sage Publications. Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan, R.O.C. (DGBAS) (2000). National Statistics, Republic of China (Taiwan). Preliminary statistical analysis report of 2000 population and housing census. http://eng. stat.gov.tw/public/Data/511114261371.rtf. Doorne, S., Ateljevic, I., & Bai, Z. (2003). Representing identities through tourism: encounters of ethnic minorities in Dali, Yunnan Province, People’s Republic of China. International Journal of Tourism Research, 5, 1e11. Dumont, J. (1988). The Tasaday, which and whose? Toward the political economy of an ethnographic sign. Cultural Anthropology, 3(3), 261e275. Dyer, P., Aberdeen, L., & Schuler, S. (2003). Tourism impacts on an Australian indigenous community: a Djabugay case study. Tourism Management, 24, 83e95. Ekinci, Y., & Riley, M. (2001). Validating quality dimensions. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(1), 202e223. Fabian, J. (1983). Time and the other: How anthropology makes its object. NY: Columbia University Press. Fairweather, J. R., & Swaffield, S. R. (2001). Visitor experiences of Kaikoura, New Zealand: an interpretive study using photographs of landscapes and Q method. Tourism Management, 22(3), 219e228. Fairweather, J. R., & Swaffield, S. R. (2002). Visitors’ and locals’ experiences of Rotorua, New Zealand: an interpretive study using photographs of landscapes and Q method. International Journal of Tourism Research, 4, 283e297. Galani-Moutafi, V. (2000). The self and the other: traveler, ethnographer, tourist. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(1), 203e224. Gall, M. B., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.). NY: Longman. Council for Indigenous Affairs (2007) Official website. Republic of China (Taiwan). http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website. Greaves, T. (1994). IPR, a current study. In T. Greaves (Ed.), Intellectual property rights for indigenous peoples: a sourcebook. Oklahoma City OK: Society for Applied Anthropology, Inc. Grosswiler, P. (1990). The shifting sensorium: a Q-methodology and critical theory exploration of Marshall McLuhan’s visual and acoustic typologies in media, aesthethics and ideology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. MA: University of Missouri-Columbia. Grunewald, R. A. (2002). Tourism and cultural revival. Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (4), 1004e1021. Hendry, J. (2005). Reclaiming culture: Indigenous people and self-representation. NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Herbert-Cheshire, L., & Higgins, V. (2004). From risky to responsible: expert knowledge and the governing of community-led rural development. Journal of Rural Studies, 20(3), 289e302. Hollinshead, K. (1999). Surveillance of the worlds of tourism: Foucault and the eyeof-power. Tourism Management, 20, 7e23. Hollinshead, K. (2000). Representation. In J. Jafari (Ed.), Encyclopedia of tourism (pp. 501). NY: Routledge. Hollinshead, K. (2007). Indigenous Australia in the bittersweet world: The power of tourism in the projection of ‘old’ and ‘fresh’ visions of aboriginality. In D. Butler, & T. Hinch (Eds.), Tourism and indigenous peoples: Issues and implications (pp. 281e304). NY: Elsevier. Hollinshead, K. (2009). The ‘worldmaking’ prodigy of tourism: the reach and power of tourism in the dynamics of change and transformation. Tourism Analysis, 14, 139e152. Hughes, G. (1995). The cultural construction of sustainable tourism. Tourism Management, 16(1), 49e59. Hutson, G., & Montgomery, D. (2006). How do outdoor leaders feel connected to nature places? A Q-method inquiry. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 10 (2), 29e39. Hunter, W. C. (2001). Trust between culture: the tourist. Current Issues in Tourism, 4 (1), 42e67. Hunter, W. C. (2008). A typology of photographic representations for tourism. Tourism Management, 29(2), 354e365. Hunter, W. C., & Suh, Y. K. (2007). Multimethod research on destination image perception: Jeju standing stones. Tourism Management, 28(1), 130e139. Kinsey, D. (1991). Humor communicability: a general theory of humor appreciation. In: Paper presented at the meeting of the International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity. Columbia, MO. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (1998). Destination culture: Tourism, museums, and heritage. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Ko, T. G. (2003). Development of a tourism sustainability assessment methodology based on stakeholder inputs: a conceptual approach. International Journal of Tourism Sciences, 3(1), 17e46. Laxon, J. D. (1991). How “we” see “them:” tourism and native Americans. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(3), 365e391. Lin, J. (May 6, 2006). Resettled Truku blast plans for hotels in Taroko Park. Taipei Times, Taiwan. www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2006/05/06/ 2006258163. Liu, M. C. W. (1997). Culture and art of the Formosan aborigines. Taipei: Shong Shr Books Publishing Company. MacDonald, R., & Jolliffe, L. (2003). Cultural rural tourism: evidence from Canada. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(2), 307e322.

348

W.C. Hunter / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 335e348

Manthorpe, J. (2005). Forbidden nation: A history of Taiwan. NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Marshall, H. (1991). The social identities of women lawyers. Operant Subjectivity, 14, 106e121. Masberg, B. A., & Silverman, L. H. (1996). Visitor experiences at heritage sites: a phenomenological approach. Journal of Travel Research, 34(4), 20e25. Mason, P. (1990). Deconstructing America: Representations of the other. NY: Routledge. McIntosh, A. (2004). Tourists’ appreciation of Maori culture in New Zealand. Tourism Management, 25, 1e15. McKeown, B. F., & Thomas, D. B. (1988). Q methodology. In: Quantitative applications in the social sciences, Vol. 66. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Medina, L. K. (2003). Commoditizing culture: tourism and Maya identity. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(2), 353e368. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Mo, Y. C. (March 21, 2005). Aboriginal rights advocates blast cultural tourism. Taipei Times, Taiwan. www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2005/03/21/2003247174. Morris, M. (1998). Life as a tourist object in Australia. In M. Lanfant, J. Allcock, & E. Bruner (Eds.), International tourism: Identity and change (pp. 177e191). London: Sage Publications. Noth, W. (1990). Handbook of semiotics. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Pêcheux, M. (1982). Language, semantics and ideology: Stating the obvious. H. Nagpal (Trans.). London: Macmillian. Phillips, S. (2007). Between assimilation and independence: Taiwanese political aspirations under Nationalist Chinese rule, 1945e1948. In M. A. Rubinstein (Ed.), Taiwan: A new history (pp. 275e319). NY: Armonk. Popovich, M. N., & Popovich, K. (2000). Use of Q methodology for hospital strategic planning. Journal of Healthcare Management, 45(6), 405e414. Preiswerk, R., & Perrot, D. (1978). Ethnocentrism and history: Africa, Asian and Indian America in Western textbooks. NY: NOK Publishers International. Pretes, M. (2003). Tourism and nationalism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1), 125e142. Prideaux, B. (2003). Commodifying heritage: loss of authenticity and meaning or an appropriate response to difficult circumstances? International Journal of Tourism Sciences, 3(1), 1e15. Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N. J. (2001). Culture, identity and tourism representation: Marketing Cymru or Wales? Tourism Management, 22, 167e179. Risdon, A., Eccleston, C., Crombez, G., & McCracken, M. (2003). How can we learn to live with pain? A Q-methodological analysis of the diverse understandings of acceptance of chronic pain. Social Science and Medicine, 56, 375e386. Roy, D. (2003). Taiwan: A political history. NY: Cornell University. Rubenstein, M. A. (2007). Taiwan’s socioeconomic modernization, 1971e1996. In M. A. Rubinstein (Ed.), Taiwan: A new history (pp. 366e402). NY: Armonk. Ryan, C. (1997). Maori and tourism: a relationship of history, constitutions and rites. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5(4), 257e278. Ryan, C. (2002). Tourism and cultural proximity: examples from New Zealand. Annals of Tourism Research, 29, 952e971. Ryan, C. (2005). Introduction: tourist-host nexus e research considerations. In C. Ryan, & M. Aicken (Eds.), Indigenous tourism: The comodification and management of culture (pp. 1e14). NY: Elsevier. Ryan, C., Chang, J., & Huan, T. C. (2007). The aboriginal people of Taiwan: discourse and silence. In D. Butler, & T. Hinch (Eds.), Tourism and indigenous peoples: Issues and implications (pp. 188e202). NY: Elsevier. Schedner, R., & Turner, V. W. (1985). Between theater and anthropology. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Scott, D. (2004). Semiologies of travel: From Gautier to Baudrillard. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Senn, C.Y. (1991). The impact of pornography in women’s lives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. York University, Canada. Silver, I. (1993). Marketing authenticity in third world countries. Annals of Tourism Research, 20, 302e318. Smith, M. D., & Krannich, R. S. (2000). “Culture clash” revisited: Newcomer and longerterm residents’ attitudes toward land use, development, and environmental issues in rural communities in the Rocky Mountain West. Rural Sociology, 65(3), 396e421. Smith, N. W. (2001). Current systems in psychology: History, theory, research, and applications. NY: Wadsworth. Sofield, T., & Li, F. M. S. (2007). Indigenous minorities of China and effects of tourism. In D. Butler, & T. Hinch (Eds.), Tourism and indigenous peoples: Issues and implications (pp. 265e280). NY: Elsevier. Stainton, M. (2007). Aboriginal self-government: Taiwan’s uncompleted agenda. In M. A. Rubinstein (Ed.), Taiwan: A new history (pp. 419e435). NY: Armonk. Stephenson, W. (1935). Correlating people instead of tests. Character and Personality, 4, 17e24. Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Stephenson, W. (1978). Concourse theory of communication. Communication, 3, 21e40. Sternberg, E. (1997). The iconography of the tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(4), 951e969. Stewart, K. (2005). Cultural poesis: the generativity of emergent things. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1027e1042). London: Sage Publication. Stoffle, R. W., & Evans, M. J. (1990). Holistic conservation and cultural triage: American Indian perspectives on cultural resources. Human Organization, 49(2), 91e99. Sweet, J. D. (1989). Burlesquing “The Other” in Pueblo performance. Annals of Tourism Research, 16, 62e75. Thomas, N. (1994). Colonialism’s culture: Anthropology, travel and government. N.J.: Princeton University Press. Tractinsky, N., & Jarvenpaa, S. (1995). Information systems design decisions in a global versus domestic context. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 19 (4), 507e534. Ushinosuke, M. (1977). The pictorial life of the Taiwan aborigines during the Japanese period. Taipei: Chiuching Publishing Company, Ltd. Valenta, A. L., & Wigger, U. (1997). Definition and application in health care informatics. The Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 4(6), 501e510. Van Exel, J., & De Graaf, G. (2005). Q methodology: a sneak preview. Available from: www.jobvanexel.nl. Weaver, D. B. (1991). Alternatives to mass tourism in Dominica. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(3), 414e432. Wolcott, H. F. (1995). Making a study “more ethnographic”. In J. F. Maanen (Ed.), Representation in ethnography (pp. 79e111). London: Sage. Wu, X. (2000). Ethnic tourism: a helicopter from “huge graveyard” to paradise? Hmong Studies Journal, 3(Winter), 1e33. Yamamura, T. (2005). Dongba art in Lijiang, China: indigenous culture, local community and tourism. In C. Ryan, & M. Aicken (Eds.), Indigenous tourism: The commodification and management of culture (pp. 181e200). NY: Elsevier. Zeitoun, E., & Yu, C. H. (2005). The Formosan language archive: linguistic analysis and language processing. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 10(2), 167e200.