Chinhoyi University of Technology

Private Bag 7724

Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe
http://www.nwu.ac.za

15 September 2021

The Examiner

Dear Sir/Madam

C17131700S - Z. Hove

Title of Manuscript: THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FRAMEWORK FOR UNIVERSAL

ACCESS IN WHITE WATER-BASED ADVENTURE ACTIVITIES IN ZIMBABWE
Your meaningful advice and comments regarding my Thesis are greatly appreciated. Your input
added much value to the research Thesis and the recommendations you proposed as well as the
comments concerning how I can improve this thesis are valid. As such, I have made extensive
improvements as indicated below. It is my hope and trust that you find it in order. All the
technical and content changes were accepted. I appreciate your most valid analysis and every
effort has been made to improve the quality of the Thesis. This report presents a summary of
how the revisions were done and how the critical issues highlighted were addressed. The nature
and extent of revisions are indicated by the following summary:

EXAMINER’S COMMENT: SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH AND TITLE OF THE

STUDY
Whether the title is an appropriate brief phrase describing the contents of the dissertation.
The dissertation is entitled: The Development of a Framework for Universal Access in White
water-based Adventure Tourism in Zimbabwe.
 The problem with the title is that it’s a depiction of only one objective in the study. Higher
degrees are expected to come up with a model or framework at the end.
 I recommend that an all-encompassing title be crafted to give an overall picture of what the
study was all about.
Whether the abstract is informative and completely self-explanatory and briefly presents the
topic, scope of the work, significant data, and point out major findings and conclusions.
The abstract is a very detailed presentation or summary of the study. However, the researcher
exhibited some very disturbing tendencies of expressing himself. As shown in my comments, I
asked quite a number of times what the candidate was trying to say.
 The candidate should learn to keep it short and simple (K.I.S.S. principle).
 The candidate should make some few recommendations in the abstract.
Whether the introduction provides a clear background and applicable theoretical perspectives
and statement of the problem, significance and specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time
bound objectives supported by hypothesis or research question whichever is appropriate.
The candidate must be applauded for trying to provide a clear and strong basis for a study that is
very important to the dictates of universal access.However, the problem or research question is
not clear right from the start.
 The background is more like a review of literature – you failed to provide the statistical
proof of the existence of the PwDs market. How much worthy is the market? How many are
they? Etc.
 The candidate also failed to transform his proposal into a properly structured Chapter 1. I
would expect such sections as Conceptual framework to come after Literature Review in
Chapter 2. Limitations of the Study are expected right at the end of the last chapter.
 I recommend that a lot of restructuring be done to maintain a proper logical framework for
the dissertation.
 The candidate is also advised to practice academic humility – e.g. page 14 – “In Zimbabwe,
accessible white water-based adventure tourism is neither explored nor redressed”.

Author’s Response
 The title was retained since it captures the contents of the whole study. It is true that what
is needed at the end is universal access in white water-based adventure, but this study
focused on developing the framework with guidelines on how to achieve universal access
of the activities for people with reduced mobility. After redrafting the objectives of the
study, they all pointed towards developing a framework for universal access (p9 - Section
1.4). As such, the title of the study was maintained.
 The researcher revised the abstract as recommended by the examiner and included
recommendations to the study briefly.
 Justifications on the significance of the market for people with disabilities in tourism
were discussed in the background. Statistical evidence of the market was also included.
 Chapter 1 was rewritten and the technical mistakes were addressed. Limitations to the
study were removed and placed in Chapter 6. However, the conceptual framework was
maintained as it introduced the reader to the way the study was structured and how the
whole process was conducted. This was therefore deemed necessary for the introductory
chapter.
 The whole dissertation was restructured and rewritten according to the examiners’
recommendations.
 Arrogant language was removed and replaced with academic humble language so as not
to set the pitch extremely high.
EXAMINER’S COMMENT: LITERATURE REVIEW
Whether adequate relevant literature on the subject, and the proposed approach or solution has
been given at the level commensurate with the dissertation or thesis. Has the literature been
presented in an understandable manner to scholars and or practitioners from a broad range of
disciplines.
Literature review was very elaborate.
 However, the candidate did not indicate the gap in knowledge – what is it that is not known
from literature? Why should the study progress further?
 In terms of presentation, I suggest you review your literature based on the variables of your
topic then you review your objectives. I did not see a thorough review of variables in your
title.
 What is a universal access framework? Do we have case studies to benchmark your
framework with?.

Author’s Response
 Section 2.8 (p71) was added to discuss the rationale for proceeding with the study. The
gap in knowledge was presented and how it paved ground for conducting a further study.
 Literature review was reorganized to represent the variables and themes from the
objectives of the study. Information with lesser relevance to achieving the objectives was
removed from the chapter.

EXAMINER’S COMMENT: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Whether complete enough to allow possible replication of the research. We only expect only
truly new research methods to be described in detail; otherwise previously published methods
should be cited, and important modifications of published methods should be mentioned
briefly.
 I was not happy with the population and sampling procedures in this study.
 What is ontology? How different from philosophy? Why is realism covered under both
ontology and philosophy?
 What is the population size (N)? Especially considering for the quantitative part of the
study.
 What is the sample size (n)?
 May you also explain who comprised of your population – who are they?
 You also had quite a number of classes – you may have to consider quota sampling.
 Data collection procedure was not clear – I am not sure why data was collected at the gate
to the rainforest and not at the study site? How the PwDs were selected (purposive +
snowballing)?
Author’s Response
 The population and sampling procedures were revised to provide appropriate and
adequate information as to how and why specific sizes were considered for the study.
  The section of Ontology was removed in order to eliminate unnecessary repetition and
confusion.
 The rule-of-thumb (n=100) was adopted for the quantitative survey and sources
supporting the move were also acknowledged (p88 - Section 3.6.2.2).
 It was also clarified who comprised the populations for both the demand and supply side
of the study and how the researcher interacted with them during data collection (p87 -
Section 3.6.2.1).
 Data collection procedures were corrected to reflect the exact procedures followed in data
collection ().
 The Time-Location technique in collecting the data referred to times and places where
people with mobility disabilities could be accessed. It also referred to forums and virtual
communities where people with reduced mobility could be accessed and the times at
which they met to discuss issues pertaining to them. The justification for the time and
place technique was addressed on Section 3.6.1.2.
 The interplay of sampling techniques for both the qualitative and quantitative part of the
study was brought about by the complexity of the population from the demand side (hard-
to-reach). Snowballing was used to get the next respondent while purposive was mainly
used to acquire relevant information pertaining to tourists with mobility disabilities only.

EXAMINER’S COMMENT: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
Whether relevant data has been presented with clarity and precision in tables, figures etc. We
expect the results to be written in the past tense and be explained, but largely without referring
to the literature. Discussion, speculation and detailed interpretation of data should not be
included in the Results section unless the chapter combine Results and Discussion section.
Results were presented according to the objectives.
 The presentation of demographic data was too elaborate – however, I did not see anywhere
where the candidate made any co-relations between respondent characteristics and other
research findings. What was the purpose of the respondent demographic information?
 Objective 1 sought to establish the scope of white-water based adventure tourism activities
in Vic Falls – results presented were just an inventory or list activities taking place at the
destination. Results are very shallow.
 Page 144 – 4.8 versus Chapter 1 (Specific Objectives, page 9). The order presented in
Chapter 1 is different from Chapter 4. I didn’t get to see clearly where OBJECTIVE #3
WAS PRESENTED AS PROMISED IN YOUR INTRODUCTION to Chapter 4. (Assess
the extent to which the white water-based adventure tourism products in Victoria Falls
allow for universal access for people with mobility disabilities).
 On the so-called quantitative objectives, I did not get to see the purpose served by
descriptive statistics.

Author’s Response
 The respondents of the study were coded and reference was made to their codes
throughout the presentation of the verbatim quotes.
 Quotes in vernacular were translated to English and put in brackets (p128-129).
  Objective 1 was reworded and it was further explored and elaborated to present
information that represented the scope of the activities in Victoria Falls (p111 - Section
4.3).
 The results presentation chapters were combined to become one and both the qualitative
and quantitative results were presented concurrently in Chapter 4. The first objective was
purely qualitative, hence addressed qualitatively (p110 - Section 4.3). The other
objectives that included both qualitative and quantitative data saw presentation of the
quantitative data first complimented by the qualitative data.
 Having combined the chapters, data on the findings was presented first, then discussion
on all the objectives was done in a separate section (p163 - Section 4.7).
 The descriptive statistics for the determinants and challenges were, however, maintained
because they serve to present quantitative descriptions in a manageable form. They are
also important for providing basic information about variables in a dataset and to
highlight potential relationships between variables in quantitative studies.
 Objective 4 was changed, from seeking to establish relationships among determinants of
universal access, to seeking to establish the effect each determinant has on universal
access in white water-based adventure activities and the whole thesis was adjusted
accordingly.

Whether the candidate interpreted the findings in view of the results obtained in this and in past
studies on the topic but strictly adhering to the research objectives. Has appropriate
conclusions been stated and recommendations made specifically in the application and further
research sphere.
The discussion of results was done concurrently with the presentation of results.
 The discussion of findings related findings to past literature extent, however, most findings
concurred with past studies. The question which arises is what contribution to the body of
knowledge this study is making.
 There is also need for clarity as to the manner in which the findings were presented. I
expected results to be presented in the same order as the objectives.
 Conclusions were drawn for each objective. The challenge of having a main conclusion
emanated from the fact that the study didn’t have a proper research question. The study
sought to develop a universal access framework. The development of the framework
meant that was the conclusion to the study.
 Recommendations were made for enhancing universal access to white water based
adventure tourism activities. However, the candidate is advised to indicate the section
where the recommendation was derived from – e.g. erect a high wire cable car for easy
access (c.f. 4.5.1).
 Recommendations to policy must be very specific – what do you suggest should be
included in universal access policy for white water adventure tourism activities.
 Recommendations for further research must specify the actual research questions to be
answered, specifically those which were not addressed by the current study.
Author’s Response
 The first discussion attempt was marred by poor interpretation of the findings. Hence,
after reviewing the dissertation, the data presentation, analysis and discussion was redone
and different results were therefore presented according to the findings.
  The findings were presented in one chapter (Chapter 4) according to the objectives.
 The main research question was added (p10 - Section 1.5) so as to have proper
conclusions for the study overall.
 Recommendations were revised and specific actions and who is responsible for them
were proposed, for example, the government (p184 - Section 6.5) or research institutions
(p185 - Section 6.6).
 Further research areas not addressed in this study were proposed on Section 6.7.

EXAMINER’S COMMENT: DISSERTATION OR THESIS ORGANIZATION

Whether done logically and language technically pitched at the correct level. Kindly
comment on the “in text referencing” including the quality and currency of the references.
CUT use APA referencing style. You may point out any relevant and useful annexures.
 The dissertation must be subjected to serious technical and language editing. I received
the 296 page dissertation, but after some editing, it’s down to 285. A lot of spaces must
be removed.
 Also work on the choice of words and do a grammar and spelling check before
submission.
 Referencing was not properly done – a few citations I checked on the references list
indicated some lack of understanding how APA 6th Edition works. A number of sources
listed on the references list are not cited in-text and sources cited in-text are not listed on
the references list.
 Another disturbing observation I made in the dissertation was a citation overkill where
too many sources were cited in one paragraph. The candidate would go on to cite the
same source at the beginning of a statement and end the same statement by citing the
same source – e.g. page 39.
 et al. should be in italics all the time.
 Don’t write first names in in-text referencing.
 For sources with multiple authors, write all the authors when citing the sources for the
first time.
Author’s Response
 The whole thesis was reorganised and restructured to address the challenges of repetition
and poor flow of ideas.
 Grammatical and technical errors were also addressed through running the whole document
in grammarly for identification and correction of such.
 In-text citation was corrected and improved and where direct quotes were involved, page
numbers were added (p19 - Section 2.2.1). References that were on the reference list but
not cited in-text were removed, and as well, references cited in-text but not on the reference
list were either added or removed completely. The reference list was reduced from 26
 pages to 18 pages after revising the whole document. Et al. was Italised throughout the
document and when citing many scholars for the first time, all their names were included.
First names were removed from both in-text citation and reference list.
 Over citing was also addressed by removing less relevant scholars from certain paragraphs
and leaving only those with more significance to the points being presented.

EXAMINER’S COMMENT – CONTRIBUTION TO THE BODY OF KNOWLEDGE

Whether the write up adds value qualitatively and quantitatively to the body of knowledge.
Please give your view on whether the work is publishable in referred journals and how many
manuscripts the candidate can produce out of this dissertation or thesis.
 I did not get the “wow” factor from this study. Nothing out of the ordinary – the framework
that was developed is too much dependent on external factors.
 In most cases, findings concur with previous studies – therefore, the contribution to the body
of knowledge is very little.
 The study focused specifically on Vic Falls, therefore there is now literature on white water
adventure tourism in Vic Falls and the challenges PwDs face to access such activities.
 All the objectives can generate research papers. I feel the candidate could have focused
much on qualitative issues of the study because the quantitative part did not add much to the
body of knowledge.

Author’s Response
 The framework was revisited from a new point of view and much focus was removed from
the external environments and put to the determinants as the findings indicated.
 The interpretation of the results was also revised as the researcher’s first attempt did not
accurately represent what was shown by the findings (p165 - Section 4.7).

EXAMINER’S COMMENT – OVERAL RECOMMENTATION

Pass with major amendments.

Author’s Response
 The write-up was dilligently revised and rewritten to the recommended standards by the
examiners.

I hope that you find the changes in order and the work on this Thesis gives it the merit to pass.

Thank you in advance

Zerubabel Hove (C17131700S)