Keywords

In the cluttered rooms of apartments, the busy streets of neighborhoods or the comforting greenery of the city park, daily life takes place in physical structures of concrete, wood, glass and soil. Space and person are so fundamentally connected that the two cannot be separated (cf. Kruse, 1974). Yet, in traditional transition research, the element of space remains underexposed, even after a paradigm shift towards space as a cultural entity in the cultural and social sciences (spatial turn; e.g., Lefebvre, 1991; Löw, 2001), and is often reduced to the physical properties of an external environment. Instead, we conceptualize space as a relational arrangement, i.e., a complex net of interdependent relationships of people and spatial features (cf. Andrews et al., 2013). We propose the idea of spatial sensitivity, or general attention to and acknowledgment of complex relationships between people and physical aspects of environments, as a fruitful research perspective. This kind of sensitivity does not require an explicitly space-related research object but can be applied to a wide range of topics to both broaden and deepen analyses by exploring this key element of human life.

As space holds significance across the life course, we exemplify pursuing spatial sensitivity by following spatial relationships during transitions based on two empirical studies of two life stages: childhood and later life. These studies address (a) transitions to children’s independent mobility (CIM) and (b) transitions of older adults into multigenerational cohousing with backgrounds in (a) dispositive analysis (following the tradition of Foucault, 1986) and (b) environmental psychology (following the tradition of Lewin, 1936). These transitions share specific common features: a non-institutionalized framing, a strong spatial component and a brief history of related research. Although these topics are already space-related, we argue that especially in transitions, which lack institutional regulation, the spaces involved are prone to gain additional power and meaning. Applying a Linking Ages perspective,Footnote 1 we connect the findings of our two projects, which traditionally would not have been combined due to the borders of age-specific disciplines. While mid adulthood is commonly perceived as “normal,” both childhood and later life are marked and marginalized as deviant (Blatterer, 2007). A common perspective on space and both groups (children and elders) emphasize immobility, dependency, barriers, and limited action range (e.g., Mollenkopf & Flaschenträger, 2001), often framing space as a physical structure that individuals either can or cannot use.

We challenge these perspectives by following two different transitions from their beginning to their end, highlighting selected moments, from which we extract cross-age as well as age-specific relationships between individuals and spaces in transitions. In doing so, we go beyond the scope of traditional space research (which focuses on physical structure) as well as traditional transition research (which focuses on changes in social roles). We identify issues of identity, sociability and empowerment in the relationship of space and transitions in childhood and later life. In addition to the private space of the home, these analyses also include open and public spaces of the neighborhood.

This chapter focuses on the diverse roles and relevance of space in transitions. We (1) outline transition research on childhood and later life to show the peripheral position of space in research to date; (2) briefly introduce the research questions and methods of the two projects to set the stage for further interpretation; (3) based on our empirical data, define and introduce four key constellations of space and transitions to show its manifold roles; and (4) discuss how spatial sensitivity can shape, alter and enrich research on transitions across the life course.

The Need for Attention to Space in Traditional Transition Research on Childhood and Later Life

Before addressing the role of space in transition research, we take a closer look at the definition of the term “space” as it is used here. In environmental psychological and environmental gerontological approaches, space is seen as part of transactions of person and environment (Kruse et al., 1990; Wahl et al., 2012), which dates to Lewin’s fundamental equation of person-environment relationships (Lewin, 1936). People and environments are not seen as merely self-contained, mutually opposed entities. Rather, people and environments together form an inseparable whole that changes over time and encompasses physical as well as psychosocial aspects (Altman & Rogoff, 1987). Other fields of research such as spatial sociology (e.g., Löw, 2001), practice theories (e.g., Shove et al., 2012) and human geography (e.g., Ingold, 2000) share comparable assumptions. Such relational approaches (e.g., Andrews et al., 2013) mark an attempt to do justice to the complexity of life as well as transitional reality.

In educational research and childhood studies, transitions in educational institutions appear predominant. Traditionally, starting school at the age of six or seven was considered the beginning of the “serious” life and for a long time marked the central institutional transition (e.g., Andresen et al., 2014; Hanke et al., 2013). Later, the beginning of kindergarten (e.g., Griebel & Niesel, 1999) became increasingly relevant for scholars and the transition to crèche (under 3) has been a subject of study since the start of the millennium (e.g., Roßbach, 2006). Additionally, the field of social work focuses on “successful” transitions “in” and “out” of care institutions, foster families, support programs, etc. during childhood and youth. Research on transitions in later life still often focuses on topics such as retirement, widowhood as well as care dependency (cf. Franke et al., 2017; Munk, 2014). While matters of aging in place and change of living arrangements in later life have received more attention in the last decade (e.g., Ewen et al., 2014), spatial transitions in terms of relocations are still mainly addressed as relocations to institutional settings (i.e., care homes; e.g., Lee et al., 2013). Although most older adults live in private households (Kremer-Preiß, 2012), research on relocations from one private home to another in later life – as recognized in this article – remains scarce (e.g., Oswald et al., 1999).

Even though transitions are repeatedly characterized as individual or “social changes of state” (Stauber et al., 2020, p. 290), what occurs during transitions cannot be isolated from material aspects such as space. For example, van Gennep (1909/1986) examined transitions in the spatial sense by describing spatial rites of passage of different cultures (e.g., showing one’s passport when crossing the border, decorating the doorstep with lucky charms). Thus, transitions can also show in spatial (e.g., no longer using an office through loss of employment; Oswald & Wanka, 2020) and material changes. However, mobility-related transitions or spatial aspects of transitions have not been prominent on the agenda previously, which is unfortunate as mobility offers wider insights into the marginalized position of children and older adults within society: “Unequal social relations reproduce themselves through mobility and thus reinforce their differences, whilst mobilities further enable and perform social relations” (Adey, 2017, p. 123). While some objects and spaces indicate or are even explicitly planned for and dedicated to transitions (e.g., prams or strollers for infants and toddlers, hospices; Depner et al., 2016; Wanka, 2020), we argue that an unexpected variety of transitions might take place in spaces unrelated to their original function. At the same time, a transition may involve an unexpected variety of spaces, both resulting in gained importance and meaning of spaces. While people are expected to die in a hospice, they could also fall in love there. Alternatively, a delivery room is the setting in which one expects to become a parent, but this process takes place in a wide variety of spaces before and after this event (Schadler, 2013). Yet, to the best of our knowledge, transition research with spatial components has, until now, mainly focused on the planned function or mere change of spaces being used instead of following a transition through space.

In sum, little is known about the significance of physical environments for the experience and shaping of transitions as well as the material reflection of transitions (Oswald & Wanka, 2020). This chapter is explicitly dedicated to how space matters for life course transitions, which we aim to examine based on two empirical research projects on two transition phenomena: transitions (a) to children’s independent mobility (CIM) and (b) into multigenerational cohousing.

Bringing Together Two Research Projects on Space in Transitions

The first project addresses children’s independent mobility (or CIM, Hillman et al., 1990), which Mayer Hillman first put on the research agenda in the 1970s and is defined as “the freedom of children to travel and play in their local neighborhood without adult supervision” (Shaw et al., 2015, p. 4). Numbers of children walking or cycling (active school travel, AST) to school without adults steadily declined during the last decades, a trend which is interesting for research on traffic, health, sustainability, and children’s rights as well as the public, such as debates concerning “helicopter parents”. The first listed author (Freutel-Funke) conducted the project “Time to walk alone – A comparative study on the transition to CIM in New York City and Berlin,” a qualitative study meant to uncover and compare the multiple elements, actors and spatial features involved within this non-institutionalized transition to highlight the multifaceted experiences of space. Researching CIM, Freutel-Funke combines questions and traditions from urban ethnography (Duneier et al., 2014; Pink, 2012), childhood mobility studies (Christensen & James, 2017) and transition research (Kullman, 2010) with the theoretical framework of Foucault’s (1986) power-sensitive thoughts about dispositive (also referred to as “apparatus” in English). The choice of the best-fitting research method is closely linked to the theoretical frame and phenomenological perspective on space as well as to the specific expectations on qualitative research methodologies “for” children (Christensen & James, 2017). The walking interview with a Polaroid camera offers children a variety of possibilities to express their views alternatively to verbal expression or how Nansen and colleagues showed “by embedding research in movements and routes of travel, they have been shown to produce data unable to be captured in more discursive or static methods using surveys or focus groups” (Nansen et al., 2015, p. 471). Within three neighborhoods, Tabea Freutel-Funke conducted a total of 11 walks with 14 children between the ages of 4 and 15. Besides a small interview and mapping of their everyday locations within their neighborhood, they walked together to important places and children took nearly 100 Polaroid pictures of subjectively important locations in total. Further material for the dispositive analyses were historical studies and documents, parent and expert interviews as well as participant observation within the neighborhoods.

The second research project addresses multigenerational cohousing. This form of housing represents one new housing option in later life, given increasing life expectancies, a predominant preference of elderly people to age in place, and yet increasingly widespread as well as non-traditional social relationships (Wahl & Steiner, 2014). The term “multigenerational cohousing” signifies self-selected groups of people who decide to move together and form an “intentional neighborhood” (Durrett, 2009). Additional shared spaces complement the dwellers’ own apartments. Beforehand, the group usually comes to an understanding about mutual support in everyday life and joint activities (Hieber et al., 2005). Although a relocation into multigenerational cohousing is still an unusual transition in later life (< 1% of people aged 65 years and older in Germany live in cohousing; Kremer-Preiß, 2012), the societal relevance of housing and intergenerational contact as well as the potential psychological benefits of this form of housing (e.g., Gierse & Wagner, 2012; Müller, 2021) has awakened interest in environmental psychology. This is addressed in the research project “UMGEWOHNT – Umzüge in gemeinschaftliche Mehrgenerationen-Wohnprojekte [Transitions to multigenerational cohousing]” by the second listed author, Helena Müller, who chose a multimethod approach to capture the complexity in how people decide to move into cohousing, how these transitions take shape and which changes go along with them. Seven movers (49–74 years) participated in structured interviews and 54 (measurement point 1) resp. 33 (measurement point 2) movers (26–70 years) participated in an online survey at two measurement points 1 year apart, i.e., before and after moving into cohousing. All of the interviews took place in the interviewees’ homes. Apart from psychological variables, diverse aspects of the housing environment (e.g., selecting belongings to take along, space use in the apartment, furnishing behavior, housing biography) were also captured.

Besides the marginalized societal position of their participant groups (children and older adults), the two research projects both study a transition that is non-institutionalized. While one of these transitions is highly expected (CIM) and follows strong normativity, the other one is more exceptional. However, research has hardly – if at all – addressed both transitions until now. Following the transition unfolding in space, both projects pay special attention to spatial configurations, meanings and roles.

Empirical Findings: Tracing Space in Transitions

Building upon our understanding of space as a relational concept and our research methodologies, the following section provides insights into our empirical findings that elaborate relationships between space and transitions.

Space as a Trigger or Barrier of Transitions

Transition research often raises questions about their starting points and focuses on events and age-related norms, while overlooking spatial elements. The following examples from both research projects show how consistent or changing elements of spatial arrangements may stimulate or hinder transitions. Ben, a 6-year-old boy from Berlin, does not yet walk around the city alone. Since this is still considered the norm in Germany for children beginning school, i.e., aged 6 or 7, his mother aims to teach him the way to school but sees spatial elements as hindering it:

The only real problem is this really big crossing, he would have to pass six traffic lights, with stopovers. Between the big roads. And this worries me – not that he is not able to (.) but you know drivers (.) cross the tramways or just miss their exit and (.) or this worries me, but Ben would be capable, (.) definitely. (Lisa)

Although convinced that Ben would be capable of managing his way, his mother fears the unpredictable reactions of the opponent user: powerful car drivers. Besides difficult street crossings, temporary changes of the urban environment, such as maintenance work and construction sites, could also influence children transitioning to CIM as either pedestrians or passengers of public transportation. Construction sites may alter routines (changes in traffic lights), reduce visibility for drivers and present unknown obstacles, e.g., a closed road, for the child. Parents and children stated similar fears in New York City, where changes of bus stops or unpredictable train routes led to insecurity and worries. On the other hand, they offer challenges for children, which when faced successfully improve their problem-solving abilities, train social interaction (e.g., in asking for the way), and their capability to make decisions in real-time independently from their parents: a set of qualities which may be of interest individually as well as for society. An opposing phenomenon can be found in an example concerning the speeding up of the decision to move to a new home in later life. Here, spatial features of the former housing environment are likely to become push factors (i.e., reasons to leave that environment). For example, Ms. Vogel describes the increasing noise caused by car traffic in front of her apartment as an important reason for moving:

The traffic here outside has increased, increased, increased. So, to the back, in summer, I can hardly tilt the window at night, because it’s just too loud. And there is little green around, especially in this area. (Ms. Vogel)

Due to the effort required in planning the project, movers into cohousing often consider this relocation as “the last relocation in life”. Therefore, relocating to cohousing can be seen as a self-determined relocation “while one still can” to prevent later, involuntary relocations. Accordingly, Ms. Meier explains how she considered future physical housing needs that guided her decision to move into cohousing:

And that is of course very important, that one can imagine spending the next years here without any problem. Of course, one considered that. The elevator is something worth considering. Or local public transport. (Ms. Meier)

The elevator makes her vertical mobility within the building easier, in anticipation that the stairs would be increasingly difficult to take as she gets older. In addition, the proximity of the public transportation system offers a connection to the neighborhood and beyond regardless of car ownership or the ability to drive. Links to relying on public transportation (e.g., gender, financial aspects, age, environmental awareness, loss of driving ability) prompt further considerations on the role of space and mobility in transitions. As such, the physical environment – among other aspects (e.g., resources, opportunities, social support) – can slow down or accelerate transitions depending on the extent to which conditions meet people’s psychological and physical needs.

Individual Transitions Changing Relationships with Spaces

While passing the driving test, for example, brings about a direct change in person-environment relationships, other transitions or events have a more indirect or delayed impact. Following Ms. Meier through the spaces of her apartment, she indicated that she no longer used nor maintained one room: Her late husband’s study. Not only did her use of space change with the death of her partner – leaving one room abandoned (in German “verwaist,” a term also used for children whose parents died) – but this change in her situation is also reflected in the way she thinks and feels about her apartment and about leaving it:

My partner then had the room back there when he was sick. [...] And for that, certain areas are then also somehow occupied. Of course, they are now abandoned. Yes, the back room is practically only a storage room, so I actually don’t [go there] – it is also no longer heated. […] For me, I think it’s also important that I move out of this apartment, so that I can distance myself from this relationship, that I can manage it better, because here I’m not able to live this down, you know? […] That is different now and that must somehow manifest itself outwardly. So not outwardly, but for me inwardly. So the external environment must become a different one and it must be such that I made it myself. (Ms. Meier)

This quote reveals how the transition to widowhood through illness and grief is intertwined with parts of the spatial environment through use and maintenance as well as cognitive and emotional evaluations. With the shared home environment being inseparably linked to the loss of her husband, the change of this environment offers an opportunity for coping and self-care. At the same time, individual transitions may also lead to new, enjoyable spatial experiences, e.g., the freedom of exploring space on one’s own. As Hayley, a mother of three, states in an interview about her children coming home independently from school instead of being picked up by her:

They loiter a bit in the parking lot, walk with their friends slowly or go to a store and buy a drink. Every time between three and four is fine. (Hayley)

Through the transition to CIM, her children get the chance to decide spontaneously which elements will be included within the choreography of their way home after school. This transition leads to a new experience and perspective on the parking lot as a meetup place for play and peer interaction, the way to school as a path to walk along with friends involved in conversations and games, as well as the local store as a destination to buy something unsupervised following their desires. Accordingly, tracing links between space and the individual might not only deepen our understanding of well-researched transitions but may also lead us to discover “new”, i.e., less prominent or not yet acknowledged, transitions in the life course.

Space as Social: Sharing Space During Transitions

Space is also linked to physical relational qualities such as proximity. Especially being in the same place, being in eyesight, or just around the corner influences possibilities of social interaction in transitions. The two examples show how proximity and distance can both be ways to show social support during transitions. Concerning the transition to CIM, proximity, and distance are made extremely relevant. Prior to the transition, especially the physical proximity to their parents or caregivers, holding hands, being “reachable” or at least “within eyesight” directs the relationship to and the range within space for children. The terms to be “hands off” or “to give space” are common metaphors used in the context of social relationships and education and refer to the need for balance between the two poles. The following sequence from an interview with a mother of two in North Manhattan Inwood shows how relational and fragile these small steps are and how they may even differ within the same family, based on their children’s needs and capabilities.

I’ll leave the oldest one [age 8] like if the- like sometimes the younger one [age 4] would have school or maybe he’ll be sick, I’ll leave him in the apartment if I’m going to go down to do the laundry or something, and he seems to be okay with that. I’ll ask him if he wants to come with me and he’ll be like, ‘No, I want to stay here.’ So, it’s just like his comfort level, and as he gets older if he wants to stay while I go to the store. Sammy it’s not like his comfort level, like he’s afraid of staying. I wouldn’t make him stay, but if he’s like, ‘Okay. Yeah. You can go to the store and I’ll stay here by myself,’ then I would be okay with that. It’s just his comfort level I think. (Tessa)

An interview of a mother of two in Berlin raising children in the 1980s and 1990s illustrates a “care from the distance practice” during the transition.

  • J: And I always cared for, that they themselves, autonomously walk to school, first accompanied, then observed and then alone. But already in the first grade they, because the school was always (.) the school close to home, so in the afternoons they would have their social environment, friends and so on. (.)

  • I: How did you “observe” them?

  • J: Dressed up

  • I: No? (laughs)

  • J: Grandma, my mother, (.) she went behind them with a woolen hat, big sunglasses and so (laughs) […] Yes, yes. Seriously. And walked after them, if everything worked out ok, yes mhm. Yep, and then also walked along a bit herself, at a distance.

Aside from the high value and normativity related to children being independent – or at least feeling like they are – this caring practice allows children to develop their relationship to space, step by step. At the same time, the notion of controlling or surveying points to the caretaker’s ambivalent experience of letting the child go out alone, emphasizing social relations reflected in spatial transitions. An opposing perspective of visible social support during transitional periods can be observed in the following example by Ms. Sommer:

Well, we’ve already moved several times as family [–] or as a couple, family, [–] um, I always have that in good memory, so I thought it was actually nice how we did it. […] So you’re still a long way from being finished, and still your friends come and you sit in between, already drinking some wine and, well, and chatting. […] Yes, so it was not only moving, but it was always at the same time living friendship, you know? (Ms. Sommer)

Another woman, Ms. Lang, also describes her friends’ support during her move to cohousing:

I had already commissioned a, I don’t know, small haulage company […] plus my partner and a friend. Who, from her own experience, is very experienced in moving. She moves all the time. And (laughs) comes from far away but said, ‘I'll come, I'll help with your move.’ […] And then we unpacked the boxes. From Friday noon, that was the move itself, until Saturday noon, when she had to leave. But the boxes were unpacked. Almost all of them. (laughs) This woman is really phenomenal. (Ms. Lang)

As different as the spatial practices described here are, they share a common feature of care focusing on family ties as well as friendship. In all three examples, familiar and appreciated people act as – immediate or hidden – companions of the transition. As the transitions in question entail changes in use of space, the social participation of others is based on accompanying the transitioning person along the way, helping to break up and build new person-environment relationships (e.g., through assembling furniture) or from a distance allowing children to find the way on their own.

Shared Right to Define the Completion of a Transition

Comparable to the questions raised about starting points of transitions, the completion of transitions is of high interest as well. Yet, considering a transition completed can vary widely depending on whether the person asked is in transition themselves or an outsider reflecting on someone else. In contrast to an unequivocal A to B logic, transitions offer an inner and outer perspective. In the example of CIM, a mother refers to her husband’s reaction when talking about her daughter’s transition.

And then my daughter, she went shopping alone, it was just out of the house, a small organic store at the corner (.) it must have been at the end of kindergarten, she was five. At this time Daniel conducted his professional training, two houses down the street and I think he told me that he saw her and was really touched by his child walking down the street alone – it wasn’t far. (Anja)

Interesting about this passage is that also spatial transitions are not realized or evaluated only by the transitioning individuals themselves but by a process of reflection, which might be initiated by someone else through another person’s comment or item. In an example from relocation to cohousing, a mover describes how she could partly shape the new space in cohousing by taking things from her old housing environment to the new one. In doing so, she maintained the relationship with these things, which enables personal continuity and an “immediate” feeling of home despite spatial change.

In these completely new surroundings, being able to put the furnishing from another context together again in another collage works out really well. So, I immediately feel at home. (Ms. Meier)

Yet, it also shows that the transferred possessions do not guarantee feeling at home. Rather, there may be a discrepancy between the attachment to the former home and physically being in the new space, i.e., an inner vs. outer relocation.

In terms of feeling, it was like, once my plants are here, I'm here. But I’ve just had an incredibly hard time settling in here. And it’s still not quite 100%. (Ms. Vogel)

Although all of her belongings were moved into her new apartment, Ms. Vogel still does not quite feel at home or in place at the new location. As the spatial and social environment remains new, the adaptation and psychological habituation can take different lengths of time. The outside view of a transition and its thereby alleged end or closing (e.g., watching a child go to the store alone, completely furnishing the new apartment) may differ significantly from the subjective, “inner” perception of the transitioning person.

Conclusion

What can we conclude from these findings for the role(s) that space(s) can play in transitions? Applying a perspective informed by cultural sciences and environmental psychology allows discovering and acknowledging space not just as a stiff external environment or mere projection surfaces but as active elements in the complex nets that are peoples’ lives and transitions. As such, we work out examples of possible influences of space alongside different transition processes. We find that spatial features can trigger, accelerate or slow down transitions, and that transitions can influence peoples’ relationships to their environments, that accompanying other peoples’ transitions in physical (seen or unseen) proximity can strengthen social ties, and last but not least, that the outer view of the completion of a transition can differ significantly from an inner perspective.

To be more specific, what can we derive from these findings for theory, methodology and practice in the field of transition research? Although both of our projects were based on transitions directly related to space from the outset, a more space-sensitive perspective could enrich the research on transitions in general. We plea for a space-related concept of transition based on the following considerations:

  1. (a)

    Space takes an active role in transitions and should not be reduced to a level on which effects of transitions take place and become visible. A different neighborhood (e.g., with fewer crossings, reduced street traffic) or a different apartment (e.g., with an elevator, ramp, or helpful amenities) could lead to very different trajectories of “the same” transition. We aim to follow the transition to the spaces that it is involved with instead of looking for transitions in a given space. As such, different expressions of a transition might emerge (e.g., dealing with widowhood at the workplace vs. in the family garden).

  2. (b)

    Transitions within the life course also change spaces (e.g., from study to sickroom, or babyproofing an apartment). Not every transition influences space to the same extent, but closer inquiries of spatial relationships could also reveal “hidden” (parts of) transitions that are reflected in space (e.g., becoming a working parent).

  3. (c)

    Research from a space-related perspective could shine a new light on well-researched, institutionalized and normative transitions (e.g., from kindergarten to school, from working life to retirement), which could further deepen and extend the understanding of these transitions. From there, new research questions can emerge, such as: Which spaces gain and lose meaning for a child transitioning from kindergarten to school and how does access to certain spaces influence this transition?

From a methodological angle, searching for new links between space and the individual, i.e., explicitly analyzing spatial elements, may highlight new transitions across the life course. Doing so from a relational perspective also allows us to shed the idea of almighty humans in favor of blending into a greater whole. Transferring these considerations into research methods would entail giving space the chance to be heard (and seen) through visual methods (e.g., photography, artifact analysis, walks, sketches) across age groups. When applying verbal methods (e.g., interviews or group discussions), explicit and detailed questions about space and spatial practices can broaden the scope of transition research as well. Consistently pursuing spatial sensitivity in research projects would also be reflected in a conscious selection of where research takes place (e.g., a researcher’s office, an interviewee’s home, a café, during a walk, in a laboratory) and considering how these spatial configurations possibly affect the collected data (Elwood & Martin, 2000).

As space can actively co-constitute transitions, the current findings may also contribute to applying a space-sensitive perspective in intervention and practice. For example, integrating people’s perceptions and space-use patterns into the planning phase of the construction process moves beyond one-size-fits-all solutions and promises more truly user-oriented buildings (e.g., Rambow & Rambow, 1996) and neighborhoods. Acknowledging space in transitions also allows for a differentiated understanding of opportunities, triggers and worries in the transition process that can be addressed and assisted (e.g., narrowing down safe routes for children to walk).

Limitations of research on the role of space, including but not limited to, in transitions can be seen in the dependency of access (impossible or intentionally denied) to certain spaces for researchers. The research topic (e.g., becoming president, nun, Mafioso) as well as the relevant spaces (e.g., the Oval Office, seminary, back rooms) limit the possibility of being researched by spatial features or regulations. Apart from regulatory constraints, capturing person-environment relationships is especially challenging, as space is neither a container nor laboratory that can be controlled or held constant in real life, but encompasses countless bits and pieces to assess and analyze. Also, we would like to underpin that space is an important element that enriches research, but should not be traded for sensitivity for social, structural and psychological processes in transitions – at least in psychology and the social sciences.

Future – preferably interdisciplinary – research should aim to integrate spatial aspects into transition research consistently and to inform discourse on topics such as inclusion or aging: How do certain groups of people (or stereotypical ideas of them) occupy spaces? How do transitions take shape in place? How do spatial preferences emerge, strengthen or change across the life course and how do these preferences and experiences in and with space influence transitions (e.g., moving, shifts in mobility, career choice)? How does space actively shape transitions by hindering or prompting them? And how can we use, create and adjust space to facilitate and support people in transitions across the life course? For example, although not explicitly considered in this chapter, space can also facilitate intergenerational interaction, underlining its power worth considering. Yet again, the mere presence of people from different generations in the same space does not automatically imply interaction (e.g., Noon & Ayalon, 2018). Further research may address intergenerational patterns of space use and their role in transitions more closely. We advocate a methodological shift: That researchers no longer look for transitions in spaces explicitly dedicated to them, but instead follow people through spaces as they make transitions (e.g., using multi-sited ethnography, interviews in different locations or walks).

We set out to find the role of space in transition research and found that considering space can enrich transition research as it actively contributes to the onset, trajectory and end of transitions, as it is strongly intertwined with social life and helps to differentiate perceptions of transitions. Acknowledging space in transition research offers new and deeper insights into not only explicitly space-related, less institutionalized transitions like the ones presented here, but into the physical embeddedness of human life.