Advertisement

Walking Interviews

  • Alexandra C. KingEmail author
  • Jessica Woodroffe
Reference work entry

Abstract

Walking interviews or “go-alongs” are an innovative qualitative research method which has recently gained popularity among cross-disciplinary researchers. Walking interviews entail researchers and participants talking while walking together. Informed by “the new mobilities paradigm” and “the spatial turn” within the social sciences, this method has been employed in various settings and with participants of all ages. Walking interviews are a valuable means of deepening understandings of lived experiences in particular places. The rich, detailed, and multisensory data generated by walking interviews demonstrates that they are a valuable, valid, feasible, and empowering means of conducting qualitative inquiry. They can also be employed concurrently with other qualitative methods such as in-depth interviews and ethnographic observation. The use of walking interviews in health research, with its potential to capture the lived experiences of health and illness, has so far been relatively limited. This chapter introduces the reader to the walking interview method, provides practical guidance for its use, outlines epistemological, ethical, and practical considerations for researchers, and canvasses its varied applications for qualitative health research.

Keywords

Walking interviews Go alongs Mobile research methods Mobilities Emplacement 

References

  1. Anderson J, Jones K. The difference that place makes to methodology: uncovering the ‘lived space’ of young people’s spatial practices. Child Geogr. 2009;7(3):291–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergeron J, Paquette S, Poullaouec-Gonidec P. Uncovering landscape values and micro-geographies of meanings with the go-along method. Landsc Urban Plan. 2014;122:108–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown L, Durrheim K. Different kinds of knowing: generating qualitative data through mobile interviewing. Qual Inq. 2009;15(5):911–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Büscher M, Urry J. Mobile methods and the empirical. Eur J Soc Theory. 2009;12(1):99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carpiano RM. Come take a walk with me: the “go-along” interview as a novel method for studying the implications of place for health and well-being. Health Place. 2009;15(1):263–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Casey ES. How to get from space to place in a fairly short stretch of time: phenomenological prolegomena. In: Basso KH, Feld S, editors. Senses of place. Sante Fe: School of American Research Press; 1996. p. 13–52.Google Scholar
  7. Clark A, Emmel N. Realities toolkit #13: using walking interviews. Manchester: ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, University of Manchester; 2010.Google Scholar
  8. Cresswell T. Mobilities II: still. Prog Hum Geogr. 2012;36(5):645–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Leon JP, Cohen JH. Object and walking probes in ethnographic interviewing. Field Methods. 2005;17(2):200–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Edensor T. Walking in rhythms: place, regulation, style and the flow of experience. Vis Stud. 2010;25(1):69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ehrlich G. Islands, the universe, home. New York: Penguin Books; 1992.Google Scholar
  12. Evans J, Jones P. The walking interview: methodology, mobility and place. Appl Geogr. 2011;31(2):849–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garcia CM, Eisenberg ME, Frerich EA, Lechner KE, Lust K. Conducting go-along interviews to understand context and promote health. Qual Health Res. 2012;22(10):1395–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grbich C. Qualitative research in health: an introduction. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin; 1999.Google Scholar
  15. Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative methods for health research. 3rd ed. London: SAGE; 2014.Google Scholar
  16. Hall T, Coffey A, Lashua B. Steps and stages: rethinking transitions in youth and place. J Youth Stud. 2009;12(5):547–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hitchings R, Jones V. Living with plants and the exploration of botanical encounter within human geographic research practice. Ethics Place Environ. 2004;7(1–2):3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holton M, Riley M. Talking on the move: place-based interviewing with undergraduate students. Area. 2014;46(1):59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Horton J, Christensen P, Kraftl P, Hadfield-Hill S. ‘Walking … just walking’: how children and young people’s everyday pedestrian practices matter. Soc Cult Geogr. 2013;15(1):94–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ingold T, Vergunst JL. Introduction. In: Ingold T, Vergunst JL, editors. Ways of walking: ethnography and practice on foot. Aldershot: Ashgate; 2008. p. 1–19.Google Scholar
  21. Irving A. Dangerous substances and visible evidence: tears, blood, alcohol, pills. Vis Stud. 2010;25(1):24–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jackson M, editor. Things as they are: new directions in phenomenological anthropology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  23. Jirón P. On becoming ‘la sombra/the shadow’. In: Buscher M, Urry J, Witchger K, editors. Mobile methods. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis; 2010. p. 36–53.Google Scholar
  24. Jones P, Evans J. Rescue geography: place making, affect and regeneration. Urban Stud. 2011;49(11):2315–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones P, Bunce G, Evans J, Gibbs H, Ricketts Hein J. Research design: exploring space and place with walking interviews. J Res Pract. 2008;4(2):1–9.Google Scholar
  26. King AC. Food security and insecurity in older adults: a phenomenological ethnographic study. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy thesis (Rural Health), University of Tasmania, Hobart. 2014.Google Scholar
  27. King AC, Orpin P, Woodroffe J, Boyer K. Eating and ageing in rural Australia: applying temporal perspectives from phenomenology to uncover meanings in older adults’ experiences. Ageing Soc FirstView. 2015;1–24.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X15001440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kusenbach M. Street phenomenology: the go-along as ethnographic research tool. Ethnography. 2003;4(3):455–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kusenbach M. Mobile methods. In: Delamont S, editor. Handbook of qualitative research in education. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2012. p. 252–64.Google Scholar
  30. Lee J, Ingold T. Fieldwork on foot: perceiving, routing, socialising. In: Coleman SM, Collins P, editors. Locating the field: space, place and context in anthropology. Oxford: Berg; 2006. p. 67–85.Google Scholar
  31. Liamputtong P. Researching the vulnerable: a guide to sensitive research methods. London: SAGE; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liamputtong P. Qualitative research methods. 4th ed. Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2013.Google Scholar
  33. Liamputtong P. Qualitative research and evidence-based practice in public health. In: Liamputtong P, editor. Public health: local and global perspectives. South Melbourne: Cambridge University Press; 2016. p. 171–87.Google Scholar
  34. Liamputtong P, editor. Research methods in health: foundations for evidence based practice. 3rd ed. Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2017.Google Scholar
  35. Lorimer H. Walking: new forms and space for studies of pedestrianism. In: Cresswell T, Merriman P, editors. Geographies of mobilities: practices, space, subjects. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.; 2011. p. 19–33.Google Scholar
  36. Mason J. Qualitative researching. 2nd ed. London: SAGE; 2002.Google Scholar
  37. Merriman P. Rethinking mobile methods. Mobilities. 2014;9(2):167–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moles K. A walk in thirdspace: place, methods and walking. Sociol Res Online. 2008;13(4):2. Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/13/4/2.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Murray SA, Kendall M, Carduff E, Worth A, Harris FM, Lloyd A, … Sheikh A. Use of serial qualitative interviews to understand patients’ evolving experiences and needs. Br Med J. 2009;339:b3702.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b3702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nettleton S. The sociology of health and illness. 3rd ed. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press; 2013.Google Scholar
  41. Peyrefitte M. Ways of seeing, ways of being and ways of knowing in the inner-city: exploring sense of place through visual tours. Sociol Res Online. 2012;17(4):11. Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/17/4/11.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pink S. Walking with video. Vis Stud. 2007;22(3):240–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Poole R. Kierkegaard: the indirect communication. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press; 1993.Google Scholar
  44. Renard J. The journal of Jules Renard. Edited and translated by Louise Bogan and Elizabeth Roget. Portland: Tin House Books; 2008.Google Scholar
  45. Ricketts Hein J, Evans J, Jones P. Mobile methodologies: theory, technology and practice. Geogr Compass. 2008;2(5):1266–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Riley M. Emplacing the research encounter: exploring farm life histories. Qual Inq. 2010;16(8): 651–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rose G, Degen M, Basdas B. More on ‘big things’: building events and feelings. Trans Inst Br Geogr. 2010;35(3):334–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ross NJ, Renold E, Holland S, Hillman A. Moving stories: using mobile methods to explore the everyday lives of young people in public care. Qual Res. 2009;9(5):605–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sheller M. The new mobilities paradigm for a live sociology. Curr Sociol. 2014;62(6):789–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Solnit R. Wanderlust: a history of walking. New York: Penguin; 2001.Google Scholar
  51. Spinney J. Close encounters? Mobile methods, (post) phenomenology and affect. Cult Geogr. 2014;22(2):231–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stroud C, Jegels D. Semiotic landscapes and mobile narrations of place: performing the local. Int J Sociol Lang. 2014;2014(228):179–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thoreau HD. Thoreau: a writer’s journal. Selected and edited by Laurence Stapleton. Mineola: Dover Publications; 1960.Google Scholar
  54. Thrift N. Non-representational theory: space, politics, affect. Abingdon: Routledge; 2008.Google Scholar
  55. Vergunst J. Rhythms of walking: history and presence in a city street. Space Cult. 2010;13(4): 376–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rural Clinical School, Faculty of HealthUniversity of TasmaniaBurnieAustralia
  2. 2.School of Pharmacy, Faculty of HealthUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia
  3. 3.Access, Participation, and Partnerships, Academic DivisionUniversity of TasmaniaLauncestonAustralia

Personalised recommendations