UK Travel and Hospitality Industry

Running head: BUSINESS RESEARCH 1

The UK Travel and Hospitality Industry

[email protected]

BUSINESS RESEARCH 2

Table of ContentsIntroduction.................................................................................................................................................5

Part I............................................................................................................................................................5

1.1. Questionnaire Development.........................................................................................................5

1.2. Questionnaire Distribution Methods............................................................................................5

1.3. Questionnaire Critical Evaluation................................................................................................6

Part II...........................................................................................................................................................8

2.1. Data Analysis, Findings and Managerial Implications.................................................................8

(i) Holidays.......................................................................................................................................8

(ii) Children.................................................................................................................................14

(iii) Ratings...................................................................................................................................15

(iv) Satisfaction............................................................................................................................18

(v) Regression Model..................................................................................................................21

Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................23

List of References......................................................................................................................................25

Appendices................................................................................................................................................27

Appendix 1: Questionnaire Introduction....................................................................................................27

Appendix 2: Questions for the questionnaire.........................................................................................28

Appendix 3: Coding Plan for the Questionnaire....................................................................................31

Appendix 4: Variable List.....................................................................................................................33

Appendix 5: Tables................................................................................................................................34

BUSINESS RESEARCH 3

List of Figures

Figure 2: Number of holidays taken last year................................................................................10

Figure 3: Destination for the holiday.............................................................................................11

Figure 4: No. of previous holidays with the company...................................................................12

Figure 5: Satisfaction levels...........................................................................................................19

BUSINESS RESEARCH 4

List of Tables

Table 1: Holidays taken last year...................................................................................................10

Table 2: Destination of holiday.....................................................................................................10

Table 3: No. of previous holidays taken with the company..........................................................12

Table 4: Measures of association between destination and whether or not respondents travelled with children..................................................................................................................................14

Table 5: T-tests for equality of means...........................................................................................16

Table 6: Association between destination and accommodation rating..........................................16

Table 7: Association between destination and travel rating..........................................................17

Table 8: Overall satisfaction..........................................................................................................18

Table 9: Satisfaction-number of children correlation....................................................................20

Table 10: Regression Table A.......................................................................................................22

Table 11: Regression Table B........................................................................................................22

Table 12: Association between destination and accommodation rating, travel rating and resort rating..............................................................................................................................................35

Table 14: Cross tabs for grouped satisfaction and whether one had children or not.....................36

BUSINESS RESEARCH 5

Introduction

The travel and hospitality industry is one of the fastest growing industries in the world. The

growth is enhanced, in present days, by modern forms of information and communications technology

such as the internet. Through internet, it has become possible for tour companies to easily connect with

their clients. However, there is a need to explore the level of satisfaction of clients. The purpose of this

research is to establish clients’ opinions towards the packages offered by the travel and hospitality

company. The other purpose of the survey is to get suggestions from both individual and corporate clients

on how the services of the company could be improved. In order to accomplish this, the research process

is divided into two parts. The first part deals with questionnaire development, distribution methods and

critical evaluation. In the second part, the findings are presented and data analyzed. The analysis also

addresses the implications of the findings in management practice.

Part I

1.1.Questionnaire Development

See Appendix 1.

1.2.Questionnaire Distribution Methods

Distribution of questionnaires is a critical stage in research. According to Armstrong and Fildes

(2006), questionnaire distribution depends on the sampling method that is used. In modern times, there

has been improved efficiency in the way documents are delivered. Berg (2009) applauds the role of

information and communications technology in research. However, this must be catered for in the

research design or methodology. Nevertheless, the rapid development and use of internet has helped the

BUSINESS RESEARCH 6

process of research. In this case, email will be a major distribution method of the questionnaires. They

will be sent as word documents such that the client fills with ease. Creswell (2008) and Patton (2002)

observe that PDF files discourage respondents from participation because they have to print, fill by hand,

scan and send again. The traditional mailing systems are also being phased out. As earlier noted

technology does not mar the research process but rather enhances it. This implies that before

questionnaires are distributed, consent is sought from the potential respondent. Seeking consent will be

done either through email or cell phone. This is what Franklin (2012) calls “online consent.” The

company has a huge database of clients.

Although technology assists in making work easier, it cannot be ignored that hard copies are also

important. There will also be physical distribution of questionnaires at the company’s physical office.

Target respondents are the ones defined in the sampling methods and procedures. These include return

clients who come to the offices of the company; as well as clients who came in the past but are followed

up for survey purposes. These two approaches are expected to optimize the entire process in a bid to

inform the management about policy areas to improve.

1.3.Questionnaire Critical Evaluation

Questionnaires are very important in any research. This is because the measure aspects being

studied (Armstrong & Soelberg, 1968). This is done through questions that are designed in a way that

actually measures what is supposed to be measured. According to Kara (2012), this is called validity. The

firs aspect in evaluating this questionnaire is looking at the construct of validity. According to Silverman

(2011), validity has to do with whether a tool, such as a questionnaire, measures what it is supposed to

measure. The development of this questionnaire was based on a wide range of principles; hence the belief

that it is a valid instrument. There are several examples that can illustrate this fact. For instance, one of

the key objectives of the study was to measure client’s opinions towards the services and packages

offered by the company. In order to achieve this, this question was asked, “How can you rate our

BUSINESS RESEARCH 7

packages?” The responses that are provided as based in principles of ordinal measurement. According to

Eisner (1981), ordinal measures have direction. This means that they can be ranked. However, they

cannot be quantified. For instance, very bad, bad, moderate, goo and very good follow each other in terms

of directionality. If a client, for example, say that the packages are very good; it implies that the company

did well in serving him or her.

The questionnaire used in this study has three sections. These include demographic information,

travel information and information regarding the services and packages of the company. Demographic

information is very essential because it offers an opportunity for the company to explore and profile the

characteristics of its customers. This is important for several reasons. The first one is that a company is

able to define its target market. For instance, if more young people are traveling with the company, then

the implication for management is to diversify products and services in that regard. In addition, studies

could be carried out to establish why other age groups are not as interested in the services of the company

as others. The question on nationality can be used to measure the representativeness of the sample.

According to Lesage (2009), samples that do not cover wide geographical areas are likely to be biased.

In the words of Herrman (2009), results obtained from such a sample cannot be generalized for the entire

population. Hence some test statistics such as Chi Square are used. Therefore, the first part is very

essential in capturing the characteristics of the participants as well as the sample.

Travel information helps a company to analyze the behavior of consumers in a market

(Armstrong & Fildes, 2006; Joubish, 2009). This is done by exploring the trends in purchase patterns

and decision making. For instance, question six that seeks to ask whether one travelled alone or in a group

is useful in measuring consumer behavior. For instance, if data is collected for a long time, it is possible

to realize patterns such as shift from individual to group tours. This kind of knowledge is importance in

the development of other aspects of a package. Another indicator of the need to develop other products is

the increase of, for instance, corporate travels as opposed to personal tours. This questionnaire appears to

BUSINESS RESEARCH 8

have covered very thematic areas in market research; yet in a simple outline and content. Furthermore, the

questionnaire is very easy to understand. It is not complicated nor is it long. In about 10 minutes, any

person would have completed it. Moreover, the researcher indicated that it could be filled in 15 minutes

as a way of taking into consideration those that a slow.

The questionnaire has several strengths. First, the questions in section B are able to give a rough

idea on return customers. The question seeks to enquire how many times the client ever traveled with the

company. The smaller the number, the more customers do not return. Thus the questionnaire has

succeeded in helping the analyst formulate a hypothesis about the services of the company. If most clients

report that they have travelled with the company for more than five times, it is expected that their

response to the question on how to rate the company would be “very good.” By asking questions about

children, spouses, the number of days spent of travel and the like, the questionnaire is able to assess

changes in preferences of consumers over time and across space (Alana, Slater & Bucknam, 2011).

However, the questionnaire may not fully get the differential in destination areas. The category “outside

Europe” is too general to cover all the areas that people from North East England visit. For instance, it is

expected that British visits to the East such as China and Japan are fewer than those to America and those

to Africa (Creswell, 2008). The questionnaire could have included these other categories as independent

categories without mixing them under a broad category.

Part II

2.1.Data Analysis, Findings and Managerial Implications

(i) Holidays

Number of holidays taken in the last year:

BUSINESS RESEARCH 9

Tests are carried out to test hypotheses for holidays taken in the last year. The research hypothesis

is that most people went for 2 holidays. The table below shows results for one sample t-test. From the

table, the mean number of holidays taken last year is 2.07. The second table shows that this difference is

not statistically significant (sig 0.359). The significance level is 0.05. The null hypothesis is that most

people did not take 2 holidays in the last year. Since 0.359>0.05, reject the null hypothesis.

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Holidays last year 155 2.07 .961 .077

One-Sample Test

Test Value = 2 Decision

t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of

the Difference

Reject the null

hypothesis

Lower Upper

Holidays last year .919 154 .359 .071 -.08 .22

The number of holidays taken last year ranged from 1 to 5. Most respondents had traveled only

once; that is 53 out of 155. This represented a 34.2% of all respondents. There were also considerable

numbers of those respondents who traveled twice and thrice. The percentages were 31.0% and 30.3%

respectively. Hardly had any respondents travelled 5 times. As far as management is concerned, it implies

that more efforts should be directed towards marketing. Moreover, there are other reasons as to why

people do not travel a lot. These may include the cost of travel and busy schedules. If this is the case, the

management could carry out campaigns on the need to holiday. For instance, health benefits could be

used as a reason for travel. These results are also shown in the graph.

BUSINESS RESEARCH 10

Table 1: Holidays taken last year

Holidays last yearFrequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

1 53 34.2 34.2 34.22 48 31.0 31.0 65.23 47 30.3 30.3 95.54 4 2.6 2.6 98.15 3 1.9 1.9 100.0Total 155 100.0 100.0

Figure 1: Number of holidays taken last year

Holiday destination:

The summary statistics for holiday destination are presented below.

Table 2: Destination of holiday

Holiday destinationFrequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

UK 62 40.0 40.0 40.0Within Europe 30 19.4 19.4 59.4Outside Europe 63 40.6 40.6 100.0Total 155 100.0 100.0


From the above frequency distribution table, it is clear that fewer respondents traveled

within Europe. Most of them, 63% traveled outside Europe. Contrastingly, while few people

travel within Europe, a huge percentage of 62% travel within UK. This implies that the UK is a

preferred destination as opposed to other European countries. For management purposes, there is

a need to increase marketing efforts in other European countries; this includes strengthening the

existing strategies for the UK. Notably, there is no significant difference between respondents

who traveled outside Europe and those who traveled within UK. This could pose an issue of

consumer behavior to the management. The underlying question is “why should British from

North Eastern prefer to go to other countries and the UK but not other European countries?” That

area requires additional research. This is also represented in the graph below.

Figure 2: Destination for the holiday

Number of previous holidays taken with the company:

The results show that most respondents have taken 4 to 6 previous trips with the

company. Since the first set of analysis on the number of holidays in the last year showed that

most respondents had had one visit, it implies that the 4 to 6 holidays may be spread in the past 4


to 6 years. This is unhealthy trend as far as business is concerned. There is a need for marketing

managers to make clients travel more with the company. It is also important to point out that the

distribution of the number of previous did not form a perfect normal curve. As shown in the

corresponding graph below the table, those who previously travelled with the company 5 times

were unexpectedly low. In order to deal with these fluctuations it the number of return

customers, the company should reconsider its incentives.

Table 3: No. of previous holidays taken with the company

Previous holidays with companyFrequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

1 19 12.3 12.3 12.32 17 11.0 11.0 23.23 24 15.5 15.5 38.74 32 20.6 20.6 59.45 17 11.0 11.0 70.36 32 20.6 20.6 91.07 14 9.0 9.0 100.0Total 155 100.0 100.0

Figure 3: No. of previous holidays with the company


There is also a need to test whether the number of previous holidays taken with the company

differs significantly across gender divide. An independent t-test is carried out and the results

presented thus:

Group Statistics

Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Decision:

Reject null

hypothesisPrevious holidays with companyFemale 79 4.11 1.941 .218

Male 76 3.99 1.785 .205

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Previous

holidays

with

company

Equal

variances

assumed

1.592 .209 .424 153 .672 .127 .300 -.465 .720

Equal

variances

not

assumed

.424 152.692 .672 .127 .299 -.464 .719

The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between group means. The test shown in

the first table (sig 0,05) shows that there is a difference. Mean for males is 3.99 while for females

is 4.11. It means that more females than males have travelled with the company. For

management, it implies that more products are developed for women.


(ii) ChildrenRecoding into different variable, those who traveled without children are assigned “0” and those

who had children are assigned “1”. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between those who

travelled with children and those who did. The Chi square value is 0.166 with 2 degrees of freedom

(p=0.921). Significance level used was 0.05. Since p>0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected.

Table 4: Measures of association between destination and whether or not respondents travelled with children

Chi-Square TestsValue df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square .166a 2 .920Likelihood Ratio .166 2 .921Linear-by-Linear Association .156 1 .693N of Valid Cases 155a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.19.

The measures show that the null hypothesis is rejected. As can be seen in the table in

Appendix 6, 20.6% of respondents travelled without children while 79.4% traveled with

children. In other words, more travelers travel with children. This has some managerial

implications. It implies that among other things, the company should avail services that are in

tandem with children. This would greatly attract parents to travel with the company as opposed

to those companies that do not provide complimentary services. This is also shown in the graph

below.


Among those who traveled with children, 40.7% went traveled within UK, 19.5% within Europe

and 39.8% outside Europe. As can be seen, there is not much difference between “within UK” and

“outside Europe.” This has far reaching implications for management. It implies that travel to other

European countries should not be promoted as much because it does not make much business sense. It

appears that there is some consumer behavior that is not needs to be addressed before investing more in

non-UK European market. Among those who traveled with children, 37.5% went to UK, 18.8% within

Europe and 43.8% traveled outside Europe. The latter could imply that the cost involved in traveling with

children may have deterred those who did not travel with them outside Europe to not to travel with them.

The company could consider giving more incentives in line with complementary services for family

travel.

(iii) RatingsThe null hypothesis is that accommodation rating is not below 50% which means more than 5.

From the second table, the results are significant (sig level at 0.05). A t-test is carried out and results presented below. Since all means are >5, accept null hypothesis.


Table 5: T-tests for equality of means

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Decision

Accomm rating 155 6.03 2.118 .170 Accept null hypothesis

Resortrating 155 6.10 2.061 .166 Accept null hypothesis

Travel rating 155 5.79 2.488 .200 Accept null hypothesis

ANOVASum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Resortrating

Between Groups 8.415 2 4.208 .990 .374Within Groups 645.933 152 4.250

Total 654.348 154

Accomm ratingBetween Groups 18.542 2 9.271 2.096 .126Within Groups 672.297 152 4.423Total 690.839 154

Travel rating

Between Groups 172.382 2 86.191 16.774 .000Within Groups 781.011 152 5.138

Total 953.394 154

The above table shows that it is only travel rating mean which differs significantly from

destination. F value is 16.774 and p=0.000 (significance level is 0.05). The results show that the

means for destination and the other variables (accommodation rating and resort rating) do not

differ significant because p>0.05. The posthoc tests are shown in the appendix.

Null Hypothesis Test Significance DecisionDestination mean=Resort rating mean F-Test .374 Reject null hypothesisDestination mean=Accommodation rating mean F-Test .126 Reject null hypothesisDestination mean=Travel rating mean F-Test .000 Accept null hypothesis


Table 6: Association between destination and accommodation rating

Directional Measures

Value

Nominal by Interval EtaHoliday destination Dependent .181

Accomm rating Dependent .164

There is a weak positive association between the accommodation rating and destination.

This is because Eta was 0.181 for destination and 0.164 for accommodation rating. Although the

relationship is weak, it is significant. It was established that Spearman’s correlation significance

was at 0.758 based on normal approximation. Generally, accommodation ratings in Europe are

less that in the other two destinations. The ratings for UK appear to be the best followed by

“outside Europe.” On a general sense, accommodation rating could be averaged at 5 and 6. These

results are shown in appendix 6.

The relationship between travel rating and destination is also weak. Moreover, it is in a

positive direction; and stronger than that of accommodation. This is because the value of Eta is

0.459 for destination and 0.425 for travel rating. It is also significant because Spearman

correlation is at 0.0000. Most ratings are between 4 and 6. In UK, travel did not receive any

“negative” rating until at option or level 4 of answers. Rating within Europe begins at score 3

and peaks at 5 while the respective scores for “outside Europe” were 0 and 5 respectively.

Appendix 6 and the table below show this fact.

Table 7: Association between destination and travel rating


Value


Travel rating Dependent .425


The table below shows summary statistics for the association between destination and

resort rating. The association is weaker than that of travel but stronger than that of

accommodation. Eta is 0.263 for destination and 0.113 for resort rating. Resort rating in the UK

is the highest followed by outside Europe than within Europe. Overall, compared to

accommodation and travel, resorts were higher rated. For management, this has an implication;

that travelers mind a lot about where they will spend their nights.


Value


Resortrating Dependent .113

(iv) SatisfactionSatisfaction levels were out of 100. In this case, they were grouped into 6 classes whose interval

was 10. If least satisfaction is considered to be below 50%, then 25.2% of respondents were least

satisfied. Moderate satisfaction is considered between 50% and 70%. This implies that 45.8% of

respondents were moderately satisfied. If excellent satisfaction is that which is above 80%, the 21% of the

participants were excellently satisfied. This means that the satisfaction distribution is normal. In terms of

assigned 10-interval groups, it implies that most people reported satisfaction levels of between 50% and

59%: they formed the leading percentage of 25.8%. Further information is illustrated in the corresponding

graph below.

Table 8: Overall satisfaction

Grouped SatisfactionFrequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 30-39 10 6.5 6.5 6.540-49 29 18.7 18.7 25.250-59 40 25.8 25.8 51.060-69 31 20.0 20.0 71.070-79 34 21.9 21.9 92.9


80-89 11 7.1 7.1 100.0Total 155 100.0 100.0

Figure 4: Satisfaction levels

The table below summarizes the association between overall satisfaction and whether or not

travelers were with children:

Symmetric MeasuresValue Approx. Sig.

Nominal by NominalPhi .151 .617Cramer's V .151 .617

N of Valid Cases 155a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

From the table, it can clearly be seen that there is a strong positive relationship between

the two variables. The significance level is set at 0.05. This means that although the results

obtained showed strong association, they were not significant. This is because the value of Phi is


0.151. Details of the variation of satisfaction with children are illustrated in the table (appendix

6).As the table shows, the level of satisfaction when the respondents had children was higher

than those who did not have children. For instance, for category 30-39, those who were satisfied

without children and with children were 3.1% and 7.3%. For 50-59, the percentages of

respondents were 28.1% and 25.2%; while for 80-89, the percentages of respondents were 6.2%

and 7.3%. In other words, children add satisfaction to the trip. For management, this implies that

complementary services must be increased. There should also be deliberate campaigns to

encourage clients to travel with children as they would be more satisfied. However, as shown in

the table below, correlations reveal negative relationship between satisfaction and “number” (not

whether or not) of children. This is because Pearson’s correlation co-efficient is -0.052.

Table 9: Satisfaction-number of children correlation

CorrelationsChildren number Satisfaction

Children numberPearson Correlation 1 -.052Sig. (2-tailed) .519N 155 155

SatisfactionPearson Correlation -.052 1Sig. (2-tailed) .519N 155 155

The relationship between satisfaction and whether or not the group had children can also

be tested by independent sample t-test. The table below shows results of the independent t-test.

Since standard deviations for the two groups are the same, 13.1 and 13.2, equal variances are

assumed and corresponding test used.

Group Statistics

With or without children N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

SatisfactionWithout children 32 60.91 13.175 2.329

With children 123 59.43 13.323 1.201


The results below show that there was no statistically significantly different means for those who

had and had no children (60.91 and 59.43; without children and with children respectively). This

is because t=0.781 with 153 degrees of freedom and p=.577.

Independent Samples TestLevene's Test for Equality of

Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

Std. Error Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the

DifferenceLower Upper

Satisfaction

Equal variances assumed

.078 .781 .559 153 .577 1.475 2.638 -3.736 6.687

Equal variances not assumed

.563 48.813 .576 1.475 2.621 -3.791 6.742

The table below shows analysis of variance between overall satisfactions rating and

destination chosen. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two means.

However, according to the table, there was a statistically significant difference between the

means (F=7.832 and p=0.001).

ANOVA

Satisfaction

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 2531.134 2 1265.567 7.832 .001

Within Groups 24561.021 152 161.586

Total 27092.155 154

(v) Regression ModelThere are associations between overall satisfaction and each as well as all ratings: resort,

accommodation and travel. This is illustrated in the tables below:


CorrelationsSatisfaction Travel rating

SatisfactionPearson Correlation 1 .427**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000N 155 155

Travel ratingPearson Correlation .427** 1Sig. (2-tailed) .000N 155 155

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Weak positive association at 0.01 significance level.

CorrelationsSatisfaction Accomm rating


Sig. (2-tailed) .000N 155 155

Accomm ratingPearson Correlation .334** 1Sig. (2-tailed) .000N 155 155


The above table also shows weak positive association between satisfaction and accommodation

rating at 0.01 significance level.

CorrelationsSatisfaction Resortrating


Sig. (2-tailed) .000N 155 155

ResortratingPearson Correlation .835** 1Sig. (2-tailed) .000N 155 155


This is the highest correlation at the same significance level (.835 at 0.01).

Table 10: Regression Table A

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate


1 .988a .976 .975 2.089

a. Predictors: (Constant), Travel rating, Resortrating, Accomm ratingAs per the model summary table, the three variables can explain up to 97.5% of the

overall satisfaction (Adjusted R square). The co-efficients are as shown below:

Table 11: Regression Table B

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.B Std. Error Beta

1

(Constant) 2.436 .809 3.010 .003Resortrating 5.226 .082 .812 63.569 .000Accomm rating 1.795 .080 .287 22.339 .000Travel rating 2.515 .068 .472 37.000 .000

a. Dependent Variable: Satisfaction

Based on the coefficients, the regression model is:

Satisfaction=2.436+5.226(Resort) +1.795(Accommodation) +2.515(Travel)

Thus:

For one who gives scores of 4, 5 and 10 for travel, accommodation and resort respectively,

satisfaction is given thus;

Satisfaction=2.436+5.226(10) +1.795(5) +2.515(4)

=73.841%

For one who gives scores of 1, 3 and 5 for travel, accommodation and resort respectively; satisfaction is given thus;

Satisfaction=2.436+5.226(1) +1.795(3) +2.515(5)

=25.732%From the above table of co-efficients, resort rating contributes most to satisfaction. A

high score such as 10 translates into greater satisfaction (first model). The management should

ensure that they take their clients to better hotels and restaurants. On the contrary, if resorts are

given low scores such as 1 in the second model, there is expected to be low satisfaction.


ConclusionAs a matter of conclusion, this study aimed at establishing the opinions of clients towards

the services, packages and related aspects of the company. This was done through designing a

questionnaire that captured all the objectives. After carefully evaluating the questionnaire, it was

apparent that it had more strengths than weaknesses. In the first part of the report, it was evident

that development and critical analyses of the questionnaire were handled. In the second part of

the paper, data analysis and findings were presented. It was found out that type of resorts were

the greatest predictor of satisfaction among clients in North East England.


List of ReferencesAlana, J. E., Slater, T. & Bucknam, A. (2011). Action Research for Business, Nonprofit, and Public

Administration - A Tool for Complex Times . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Armstrong, J.S. & Fildes, R. (2006). "Monetary Incentives in Mail Surveys". International Journal of Forecasting.

Armstrong, J.S. & Soelberg, P. (1968). "On the Interpretation of Factor Analysis". Psychological Bulletin, 70, 61–364.

Armstrong, J.S. & Sperry, T. (1994). "Business School Prestige: Research versus Teaching". Energy & Environment, 18 (2), 13–43.

Berg, B. L., (2009). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 7th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.

Cohen, N. & Arieli, T. (2011) Field research in conflict environments: Methodological challenges and snowball sampling. Journal of Peace Research, 48 (4), 423–436.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Pearson Education, Inc.

Eisner, E. W. (1981). "On the Differences between Scientific and Artistic Approaches to Qualitative Research". Educational Researcher, 10 (4), 5–9.

Franklin, M.I. (2012). Understanding Research: Coping with the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide. London and New York: Routledge.

Freshwater, D., Sherwood, G. & Drury, V. (2006) International research collaboration. Issues, benefits and challenges of the global network. Journal of Research in Nursing, 11 (4), 9295–303.

Herrman, C. S. (2009). “Fundamentals of Methodology,” a series of papers On the Social Sciences Research Network (SSRN).

Joubish, F. (2009). Educational Research, Federal Urdu University, Karachi, Pakistan.

Kara, H. (2012) Research and Evaluation for Busy Practitioners: A Time-Saving Guide. Bristol: The Policy Press.

Lesage, D. (2009). "Who’s Afraid of Artistic Research? On measuring artistic research output". Art &Research: A Journal of Ideas, Contexts and Methods, 2 (2).

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.


Silverman, D. (Ed). (2011). Qualitative Research: Issues of Theory, Method and Practice, 3rd ed. London, Sage Publications.


Appendices

Appendix 1: Questionnaire Introduction

Dear Customers,

We are carrying out an evaluation of our services and products. We wish to ask your opinion so that we can improve where necessary and make them more relevant for you. We assure you that this information will only be used for research purposes (Do not write your name anywhere in this questionnaire).

Filing the questionnaire will take about 15 minutes. Kindly tick or fill as is appropriate.

Thanking you in advance.


Appendix 2: Questions for the questionnaire

Customers Satisfaction Survey2013

-Questionnaire-

Section A: Demographic Information

1. Gender

Male Female

2. Age

3. NationalityBritish French German

Spaniard Dutch Other (Specify)

Section B: Travel Information

4. How many times have you ever travelled with us?1 2 3 4 5 6

5. Was the last travel corporate or individual?

Official use only

Question…………

1…………

2…………

3…………

4…………

5…………

6…………

7…………

8…………

9…………

10…………

11…………

12…………

13…………


Individual Corporate

6. Did you travel alone or as a group?Alone (Skip to no. 8) Group (Proceed to no. 7)

7. How many people were in the group?1 2 3 4 5 6 Other (specify)

8. Did you travel with children?Yes (Proceed to no. 9) No (Skip to no. 10)

9. How many children did you travel with? 10. Did you travel with spouse?

Yes No

11. How many days did you stay away from your family?

12. Which country did you visit?UK Europe Outside Europe

Section D: Information Regarding our Packages and Services

13. How can you rate our packages?Very Good Good Moderate Bad Very bad

14. Do you see the need for complementary services?Yes

14…………

15…………

16…………

17…………

18…………


No

15. Which of our events have you attended before?Motor race Rugby Soccer Tennis Other

16. On a scale of 4, how would you rate our staff? Very effective Effective Ineffective Very ineffective

17. What do you think we should improve on?

.......................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................

18. Any other comment?

Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this questionnaire.


Appendix 3: Coding Plan for the Questionnaire

Question Label Code/Absolutes

1. Male

Female

1

2

2. Age

3. British

French

German

Spaniard

Dutch

Other (Specify)........

1

2

3

4

5

6

4. No. of times

5. Individual

Corporate

1

2

6. Alone

Group

1

2

7. No. of people

8. Yes

No

1

0

9. Yes _

10. Yes

No

1

2

11. No. of days away

12. UK

Europe

Outside Europe

1

2

3


13. Very Good

Good

Moderate

Bad

Very bad

1

2

3

4

5

14. Yes

No

1

2

15. Motor race

Rugby

Soccer

Tennis

Other

1

2

3

4

5

16. Very effective

Effective

Ineffective

Very ineffective

1

2

3

4

17. _ _

18. _ _


Appendix 4: Variable List1) Gender

2) Age

3) Holidays

4) Previous

5) Adults

6) Children

7) Seniors

8) Destination

9) Resort

10) Accommodation

11) Travel

12) Satisfaction

13) Childrenornot

14) Newsatisfaction


Appendix 5: Tables

Holiday destination * With or without children CrosstabulationWith or without children Total

Without children With children

Holiday destination

UKCount 12 50 62Expected Count 12.8 49.2 62.0% within With or without children 37.5% 40.7% 40.0%

Within EuropeCount 6 24 30Expected Count 6.2 23.8 30.0% within With or without children 18.8% 19.5% 19.4%

Outside Europe

Count 14 49 63Expected Count 13.0 50.0 63.0% within With or without children 43.8% 39.8% 40.6%

TotalCount 32 123 155Expected Count 32.0 123.0 155.0% within With or without children 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


Table 12: Association between destination and accommodation rating, travel rating and resort rating.

Multiple ComparisonsDependent Variable (I) Holiday

destination(J) Holiday destination

Mean Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Resortrating

Tukey HSD

UKWithin Europe .639 .458 .347 -.45 1.72Outside Europe .275 .369 .736 -.60 1.15

Within EuropeUK -.639 .458 .347 -1.72 .45Outside Europe -.363 .457 .707 -1.45 .72

Outside EuropeUK -.275 .369 .736 -1.15 .60Within Europe .363 .457 .707 -.72 1.45

Games-Howell

UKWithin Europe .639 .427 .300 -.38 1.66Outside Europe .275 .380 .750 -.63 1.18

Within EuropeUK -.639 .427 .300 -1.66 .38Outside Europe -.363 .412 .653 -1.35 .62

Outside EuropeUK -.275 .380 .750 -1.18 .63Within Europe .363 .412 .653 -.62 1.35

Accomm rating

Tukey HSD

UK Within Europe .812 .468 .195 -.30 1.92Outside Europe -.109 .376 .955 -1.00 .78

Within Europe UK -.812 .468 .195 -1.92 .30Outside Europe -.921 .467 .122 -2.02 .18

Outside Europe UK .109 .376 .955 -.78 1.00Within Europe .921 .467 .122 -.18 2.02

Games-Howell

UK Within Europe .812 .472 .206 -.32 1.95Outside Europe -.109 .376 .955 -1.00 .78

Within Europe UK -.812 .472 .206 -1.95 .32Outside Europe -.921 .464 .125 -2.04 .20

Outside Europe UK .109 .376 .955 -.78 1.00Within Europe .921 .464 .125 -.20 2.04

Travel rating

Tukey HSD

UKWithin Europe 1.981* .504 .000 .79 3.17Outside Europe 2.224* .406 .000 1.26 3.18

Within EuropeUK -1.981* .504 .000 -3.17 -.79Outside Europe .243 .503 .879 -.95 1.43

Outside EuropeUK -2.224* .406 .000 -3.18 -1.26Within Europe -.243 .503 .879 -1.43 .95

Games-Howell

UKWithin Europe 1.981* .354 .000 1.14 2.83Outside Europe 2.224* .434 .000 1.19 3.25

Within EuropeUK -1.981* .354 .000 -2.83 -1.14Outside Europe .243 .429 .839 -.78 1.27

Outside EuropeUK -2.224* .434 .000 -3.25 -1.19Within Europe -.243 .429 .839 -1.27 .78

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.


Table 13: Cross tabs for grouped satisfaction and whether one had children or not

Grouped Satisfaction * With or without children Cross tabulationWith or without children Total

Without children With children

Grouped Satisfaction

30-39Count 1 9 10% within With or without children 3.1% 7.3% 6.5%






TotalCount 32 123 155% within With or without children 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Documents

UK Travel and Hospitality Industry