The Professional Geographer

ISSN: 0033-0124 (Print) 1467-9272 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtpg20

Geographies on the Move: A Practical and

Theoretical Approach to the Mobile Interview

Jessica M. Finlay & Jay A. Bowman

To cite this article: Jessica M. Finlay & Jay A. Bowman (2017) Geographies on the Move: A
Practical and Theoretical Approach to the Mobile Interview, The Professional Geographer, 69:2,
263-274, DOI: 10.1080/00330124.2016.1229623

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2016.1229623

Published online: 20 Oct 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 880

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 17 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtpg20
Geographies on the Move: A Practical and Theoretical Approach to
the Mobile Interview

Jessica M. Finlay and Jay A. Bowman

University of Minnesota

This article considers the mobile interview method’s utility to geography through five strengths: the ability to (1) produce
spatially grounded and place-specific data, (2) access subtler and more complex meanings of place, (3) create opportunities for
flexible and collaborative conversation with participants in situ, (4) build rapport and adjust participant–researcher power
dynamics, and (5) efficiently produce rich geographic data. Practical, technical, ethical, and epistemological considerations are
discussed. We expand methodological exploration of disempowered individuals’ experiences of home, neighborhood, and urban
space. The mobile interview offers a valuable, underutilized method for geographers to better understand the coconstitutive
relationship between self and place. Key Words: lived experience, mobile methods, neighborhoods, place, qualitative.

本文考量动态访谈方法透过五大长处对地理学提供的效用: (1) 生产植基于空间且地方特定的数据, (2) 取得更为微妙且复杂

的地方意义, (3) 在原地创造与参与者进行弹性且共同合作的对话之机会, (4) 建立密切关係并调节参与者—研究者的权力
动态, 以及 (5) 有效生产丰富的地理数据之能力。本文将探讨有关实务、技术、伦理和认识论的考量。我们扩展对于被剥夺
权力的个人对家庭、邻里和城市空间的经验之方法论探讨。动态访谈为地理学者提供了尚未被充分利用的可贵方法, 以更
佳理解自我和地方之间的共构关係。 关键词: 生活经验, 动态方法, 邻里, 地方, 质性。

Este artículo se refiere a la utilidad para la geografía del m
etodo de la entrevista itinerante a trav
es de cinco fortalezas: la habilidad
para (1) producir datos específicos sobre el lugar, espacialmente anclados, (2) acceder a significados de lugar m
as sutiles y de
mayor complejidad, (3) crear oportunidades in situ para la conversaci
on con los participantes, flexible y colaboradora, (4)
construir buena relaci
on y ajustar la din
amica del poder de participante–investigador, y (5) producir eficientemente datos
geogr
aficos de gran riqueza. Se discuten consideraciones de naturaleza pr
actica, t
ecnica,
etica y epistemol
ogica. Nos extendemos
en la exploraci
on metodol
ogica de las experiencias de hogar, vecindario y espacio urbano de individuos despojados de poder. La
entrevista itinerante ofrece a los ge
ografos un valioso m
etodo poco utilizado para entender mejor la relaci
on co-constitutiva
entre el yo y el lugar. Palabras clave: experiencia vivida, m
etodos m
oviles, vecindarios, lugar, cualitativo.

G uided by the notion that place matters (Massey

1984), the mobile interview generates rich spa-
tial observations and theories grounded in lived expe-
rience. Researchers can experience places that matter
to participants in situ (Kusenbach 2003). The method
involves interviewing “on the move” through any
mode of transit, including by foot, bicycle, car, and
public transportation. Researchers ask questions and
observe while exploring participants’ streams of expe-
riences and perceptions with the surrounding environ-
ment (Evans and Jones 2011). The method might be
used alone or in tandem with other methods, such as
immobile interviews and geographic information sys-
tems (GIS; Jones et al. 2008; Carpiano 2009). The
flexible format creates a rich nexus of narrative, geo-
graphic, and visual data (Bergeron, Paquette, and
Poullaouec-Gonidec 2014). This article expands
methodological exploration of disempowered individ-
uals’ experiences of urban space through intimate
mobile interviews with elderly participants. The field-
work serves as a platform to consider the method’s
utility specifically to geography. We propose five
strengths: the ability to (1) produce spatially grounded
and place-specific data, (2) access subtler and more
complex meanings of place, (3) create opportunities
for flexible and collaborative conversation with
participants in situ, (4) build rapport and adjust partici-
pant-researcher power dynamics, and (5) efficiently
produce rich geographic data. Practical, technical, eth-
ical, and epistemological considerations are discussed.
We conclude that the mobile interview offers a valu-
able, underutilized method for geographers to better
understand the coconstitutive relationship between
self and place and suggest avenues to further enrich
geographic applications.
Theories and Applications of Mobile
Methodologies
Place is central to geography, and the concept contin-
ues to be studied and theorized in increasingly com-
plex ways. Beginning in the 1970s, humanistic
geographers drew from phenomenologists to argue
that place finds meaning through the quotidian
(Rose 1993; Peet 1998; Cresswell 2004; Seamon and
Sowers 2008): The significance of place can be found
in every aspect of a person’s life and experience
(Rose 1995). Understanding an individual’s sense
of place, therefore, requires eliciting subjective
responses to social and physical environments (Cress-
well 2004).

The Professional Geographer, 69(2) 2017, pages 263–274 © 2017 by American Association of Geographers.
Initial submission, March 2016; revised submissions, June and July 2016; final acceptance, July 2016.
Published by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
264 Volume 69, Number 2, May 2017
The mobile interview interrogates sense of place as
respondents articulate their own subjectivity in real time.
Their ideas and emotions are articulated differently first-
hand, as opposed to by recall (Evans and Jones 2011).
The method further investigates how places are diversely
experienced. Empowered and able-bodied individuals
often use and experience public spaces as they are origi-
nally designed, but disempowered individuals, such as
youth and the disabled, must negotiate the space to create
a safer affective environment (Imrie 1996; R. Butler and
Parr 1998; Kitchin and Law 2001; Chouinard, Hall, and
Wilton 2010; Duff 2010).
Building from humanistic geographers’ recognition
that sense of place is deeply personal, feminists and
critical geographers sought to understand how social
hierarchies influence an individual in place. For exam-
ple, latent verbal and physical racism for African
Americans fundamentally changes the experience of
public space (hooks 1990). The self–place relationship
is not just one of reciprocal influence; it is “more radi-
cally, [one] of constitutive co-ingredience: each is
essential to the being of the other. In effect, there is
no place without self and no self without place” (Casey
2001, 684). The advent of increased speed in global
transit and social media alters our experiences of place.
With spatiotemporal compressions (Harvey 1990),
our sense of place is not limited to immediate sur-
roundings. Rather, it includes previously far-flung pla-
ces. Our lifeworlds might include the streets of a
major city that is only a plane ride away (M. Davis
2006).
The passages of ourselves and communications central
to our sense of place spurred a new mobilities paradigm:
A set of questions, theories and methodologies that
seek to transcend the dichotomy between transport
research and social research, putting social relations
into travel and connecting different forms of transport
with complex patterns of social experience conducted
through communications at-a-distance. (Sheller and
Urry 2006, 210)
Understanding sense of place on the go, as we travel
through the world and have it filtered back to us
through digital and social media, requires dynamic
mobile methodologies (Fincham, McGuiness, and
Murray 2010).
Social scientists employ a variety of mobile methods
to complement “a-mobile” research (Sheller and Urry
2006; Middleton 2011). Lynch (1960) first docu-
mented “walk-alongs” when interviewers equipped
with tape recorders joined participants along routes
previously identified in seated interviews. The novel
investigation explored how urban U.S. residents inter-
pret environmental images throughout daily activities.
Kozol (1991) narrated experiences of impoverished
children in South Bronx neighborhoods: Walking
with them accessed intimate sociophysical experiences
and interpretive understandings. Kusenbach (2003)
conducted “go-alongs” to investigate perception and
socialization in daily routines in a three-year ethno-
graphic study. It explored how residents in Hollywood
perceive local issues and how their daily routines and
social exchanges inform understanding. Carpiano
(2009) extended the application of go-alongs to study
place–health interconnections in neighborhoods of
Milwaukee. The walk-alongs and ride-alongs, many
with socioeconomically marginalized participants,
exposed complex experiences and considerations of
health and place. Building on these seminal works,
additional mobile methodologies include walking
interviews (Jones et al. 2008; Clark and Emmel 2010;
Garcia et al. 2012; M. Butler and Derrett 2014; Hol-
ton and Riley 2014; Finlay et al. 2015), ride-alongs
with police (Herbert and Beckett 2009), and trips with
car commuters (Laurier and Lorimer 2012), on ferries
(Vannini 2011), and on bicycles (Spinney 2009, 2011;
Spinney and Brown 2009).
In this article, we discuss the utility of interviewing
“on the move” specifically for geographers. Geo-
graphic applications to date remain limited and
underutilized. Notable exceptions include Anderson
(2004), who conversed while walking with participants
to study places of protest produced by radical environ-
mentalists. Bissell (2009) explored perceptions of time,
space, and location that unfolded during railway jour-
neys in Britain. Evans and Jones (2011) measured dif-
ferences between seated and walking interviews’
ability to produce place narratives: The latter gener-
ated higher quantities of place-based observations and
spatial specificity. Lindeke (2015) video recorded ride-
alongs with bicycle commuters in Minneapolis–St.
Paul to document class and race differences in city
space usage. In this article, intertwined fieldwork
excerpts and photographs generate novel geographic
dimensions of place and self in later life. We extend
discussion of disempowered individuals’ experiences
of space through mobile interviews with understudied
elderly populations. The fieldwork provides the plat-
form for this original methodological guide to geo-
graphic applications of mobile interviews.
Methods
Observations are based on a mixed-methods study
in the Minneapolis metropolitan area (Figure 1).
It involved 125 adults aged fifty-five to ninety-
one living independently to investigate how home
and neighborhood affect well-being in later life
(Table 1). We conducted seated interviews to dis-
cuss daily routines, social interactions, experien-
ces of the home and neighborhood, health, and
quality of life. Immediately following the seated
portion, participants provided a short “tour” for
the mobile interview. After establishing rapport
in the seated portion, the mobile interview
offered a natural extension of the visit to experi-
ence participants’ homes and neighborhoods
firsthand.

Figure 1 Case study areas in Hennepin County, Minnesota. (Color figure available online.)
Table 1 Participant demographic information
Age
Gender
Self-identified race or ethnicity
Self-identified debility
a
“Other” self-identified races and ethnicities include (in alphabetical order) African, Arabic, Bohemian, French, German, Irish, Jewish, Nor-
wegian, Polish, Scottish, and Swedish.
Geographies on the Move 265
Entire study sample (n D 125) Mobile interviewee sample (n D 96)
Range: 55–91 years old Range: 55–91 years old
Average: 71.1 years (median: 71.0) Average: 71.1 years (median: 71.0)
Male: 32.8% (n D 41) Male: 31.3% (n D 30)
Female: 67.2% (n D 84) Female: 68.8% (n D 66)
White: 56.8% (n D 71) White: 61.5% (n D 59)
Black/African American: 24.8% (n D 31) Black/African American: 21.9% (n D 21)
Hispanic/Latin American: 0.8% (n D 1) Hispanic/Latin American: 1% (n D 1)
American Indian: 0.8% (n D 1) American Indian: 0% (n D 0)
Asian: 0.8% (n D 1) Asian: 0% (n D 0)
Othera: 16% (n D 20) Othera: 15.6% (n D 15)
Total: 40.8% (n D 51) Total: 36.5% (n D 35)
Experience one or more physical Experience one or more physical
impairment(s): 32% (n D 40) impairment(s): 27.1% (n D 26)
Experience one or more cognitive Experience one or more cognitive
impairment(s): 8.8% (n D 11) impairment(s): 9.4% (n D 9)
266 Volume 69, Number 2, May 2017
Among the study sample, 76.8 percent (n D 96) partici-
pated in the mobile interview (Table 1). They determined
the route, speed, duration, and mode of travel most com-
fortable. Most chose to walk, and some used a wheelchair
or motorized scooter (Table 2). To balance the formal
nature of the seated interview, we purposefully chose an
open-ended and nonstructured format for the mobile
interview. In contrast to the seated interview, we did not
have any prepared questions and did not use an audio
recorder. Instead, we employed a hybrid of casual conver-
sation and observation. Ethnographic strategies unobtru-
sively engaged participants in their natural settings and
routines (Kawulich 2005). Putting away the recorders
after lengthy targeted questioning provided relief in the
session’s intensity with vulnerable elderly interviewees
and deeper immersion into participants’ worlds (Emer-
son, Fretz, and Shaw 1995). This generated more natural
behavior, spontaneous social situations, and events (Mar-
shall and Rossman 1995; DeMunck and Sobo 1998)
unhindered by an audio recorder. Participants did not
receive instructions on what to discuss, and researchers
only occasionally pointed out nearby features to prompt
conversation. The open format put participants at ease
and “in charge” after extensive targeted seated
questioning.
Researchers used notebooks to record observations and
statements and a digital camera to document features and
scenery. We tracked duration, distance, route, and speed
through a Global Positioning System watch. Interviewers
individually wrote comprehensive notes within twenty-
four hours to describe the route, participant mobility,
observed features, social interactions, and discussion.
These structured observations provided systematic
description of events, behaviors, and artifacts (Marshall
and Rossman 1989) in participants’ socioenvironmental
settings: a “written photograph” (Erlandson et al. 1993).
The data were organized with qualitative software NVivo
and analyzed using grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss
1967). Researchers employed member checking, peer
debriefing, triangulation, and reflexive memoing to
enhance transparency and credibility (Marshall and
Rossman 2016).
Table 2 Summary of mobile interviews (n D 96)
Mode of transit Walking unaideda: 90.6% (n D 87)
Walking with a cane or walker: 7.3% (n D 7)
Seated in a motorized wheelchair or
scooter: 2.1% (n D 2)
Duration Range: 1:02–42:40 minutes
Average: 17:07 minutes
Median: 16:00 minutes
Distance Range: 0.14–3.44 km (0.09–2.14 miles)
Average: 0.86 km (0.53 miles)
Median: 0.67 km (0.42 miles)
Environments Inside home area/residential building
toured only: 9.4% (n D 9)
Inclusion of areas outside the home (i.e.,
around the neighborhood): 90.6% (n D 87)
a
Of those walking unaided, four participants walked with his or her
dog(s), one participant with coffee, and one participant with a fire
poker for protection against neighbors’ dogs.
Discussion and Fieldwork Excerpts
The majority of participants (76.8%, n D 96)
engaged in the mobile interview: 73.1 percent of
men (n D 30) and 78.6 percent of women (n D 66).
More white interviewees participated (83.1%,
n D 59), in comparison to 67.7 percent of African
Americans (n D 21) and 69.6 percent of other
racially self-identified participants (n D 16). Most
participants walked unaided (90.6%, n D 87), and
others walked with a cane or walker (7.3%, n D 7)
or seated in a motorized wheelchair (2.1%, n D 2).
The mobile interviews lasted on average seventeen
minutes for 0.86 km. The vast majority of partici-
pants led researchers through their home and
immediate neighborhood (90.6%, n D 87), with the
remainder (9.4%, n D 9) staying within the home
and residential building area (often due to mobility
limitations or bad weather). Based on this field-
work, we discuss five strengths of the mobile inter-
view for geography. The flexible format generates a
rich nexus of narrative, geographic, and visual data
grounded in lived experience.
Production of More Place-Specific and Spatially
Grounded Data
Geographical context of interviews is often over-
looked despite the established relationship among
spatial identity, behavior, and understanding
(Anderson 2004; Murray 2009). Qualitative
researchers allude to spatial context but rarely
specify how it informs the research (Holton and
Riley 2014). It is intuitively sensible to ask partici-
pants to talk about significant and interesting
places while in that place (Evans and Jones 2011).
The mobile interview enables deeper investigation
into participants’ everyday lives “in place”:
their biographies and experiences framed by
geography:
Dennis (age sixty-five)1 discussed his relation to
place in limited terms during the seated inter-
view. In contrast, the mobile interview gener-
ated rich information about his everyday life,
health, and experiences. Due to medical disabil-
ity, Dennis has severe mobility limitations.
Leaving the apartment was a multistep routine
to gather belongings and hoist into a motorized
wheelchair. Once outside, Dennis speedily navi-
gated the tangle of downtown indoor skyways
with intimate familiarity. Unprompted, he ges-
tured toward and enthusiastically discussed
favorite shops and services along the route
(Figure 2). We learned that without these sky-
ways Dennis would not be able to leave his
home during the winter due to the impassable
ice and snow outside.

Figure 2 Participant Dennis gestures toward a favorite
shop in the Minneapolis downtown skyway. Source:
Photo by Jay A. Bowman, 2015.
The mobile interview elicited essential information
and directly identified spaces where Dennis finds his
social sustenance. The method enabled broader
understanding of how participants locate sociospatial
networks and understand sense of community (Car-
piano 2009; Clark and Emmel 2010).
In-person encounters with environmental aesthetics
produced richer conceptualizations of the neighbor-
hood (Clark and Emmel 2010; Middleton 2011). Sen-
sory ethnography incorporated in the mobile
interview encouraged participants and researchers to
be more attuned to previously ignored or unnoticed
experiences that shape well-being (Sunderland et al.
2012). We formed more complete understandings of
each participant’s relationship to his or her local envi-
ronment and its impact on well-being:
Chris (age seventy) articulated his corporeal strug-
gles navigating the local area. He pointed to diffi-
cult street crossings, potholes, and uneven surfaces
that cause him to fall (Figure 3). Chris found it eas-
ier to convey his perceptions and experiences with
on-hand examples, and we witnessed firsthand
how Chris’s lifelong cognitive disability exacer-
bates physical age-related declines of balance and
mobility. Though Chris carefully abided by pedes-
trian rules and focused on obstacles in our path, he
labored to walk and expressed confusion navigating
the downtown.
By pointing to exact features, the mobile interview
captured often-unnoticed microfeatures of the built
environment that significantly impact Chris’s sense of
confidence outside the home. He expressed and con-
textualized experiences and values more naturally
while walking with us (Bergeron, Paquette, and Poul-
laouec-Gonidec 2014). Reflecting Kusenbach (2003),
Geographies on the Move 267
Figure 3 Participant Chris struggles with difficult street
crossings and uneven surfaces in his downtown neighbor-
hood. Source: Photo by Jay A. Bowman, 2015.
the method stood apart from the seated interview in
its ability to access reflexive and unrefined lived expe-
riences in situ. Participants literally navigated us
through the contexts of everyday later life.
Access Subtler and More Complex Meanings
of Place
The mobile interview offered rich insights into
place and self: It attended to participants’ rich
realities and places in the world. In contrast to
the seated interview, we could engage with our
senses and comprehend places for ourselves
(Evans and Jones 2011). The study attended to
specific issues of disempowered older people’s
relations with place. Effects of age cut across tra-
ditional power structures (e.g., gender, race, socio-
economic status) to affect how participants
positioned themselves. We witnessed ageism first-
hand, such as hearing rude remarks on the street
or feeling invisible in a sidewalk crowd. Partici-
pants often reflected on local circumstances that
made them feel less important, confident, and in
control:
We slowly walked with Deborah (age eighty)
along her suburban street with large trees and
manicured lawns (Figure 4). Deborah has a
complicated relationship with her neighbor-
hood: She appreciates the tranquil atmosphere
but feels that she no longer fits in. In the past
she felt at the center of vibrant social activities
and her children’s lives, but now she lives a
“quiet and lonely life on the periphery.” Debo-
rah struggles to maintain her home since wid-
owed: She does not have the strength for
repairs and maintenance and cannot afford pro-
fessional services as her savings dwindle. As we
walked, Deborah commented that her
268 Volume 69, Number 2, May 2017
Figure 4 Participant Deborah’s suburban neighborhood
where she feels pushed to the periphery in old age.
Source: Photo by Jessica M. Finlay, 2015.
neighbors will likely be happy to see her move
into a nursing home: “I am bringing down the
neighborhood . . . [with my] unkempt yard.”
Deborah illuminated the social architecture of her
neighborhood and made visible to us the complex web
of embedded connections. The method captured
nuanced spatial practices, rich personal biographies,
and situated social architectures (Kusenbach 2003). It
gained access to deeply personal and emotional experi-
ences of place in later life.
Participants provided place-bound narratives and
revealed intimate landscape values. They shared with
us microgeographies of aging:
Eight participants lived in a three-block area
of newer high-rise condominiums and low-
income senior apartments. Their mobile
interviews often included a well-traveled
pedestrian zone (Figure 5), where they dis-
played diverse perceptions and experiences.
Stephanie (age seventy), a low-income woman
who uses the buses regularly, loved the pedes-
trian zone because it is well-shoveled in win-
ter and can be traversed using little to no
stairs. Sandy (age eighty), in comparison,
feared the space because she was attacked
there in an attempted robbery and feels vul-
nerable. Richard (age seventy-five) does not
like the pedestrian zone because it only serves
to remind him that he is not where he wants
to be: living back in Asia closer to friends and
youthful aspirations. Brad (age eighty) and
Susan (age eighty) have privileged gated
access to the pedestrian zone but rarely use it.
Their mobile interview focused on the many
facilities of their private complex. When asked
about the pedestrian zone while peering at it
Figure 5 A well-traveled downtown pedestrian green-
way that produced disparate reactions from local senior
residents. Source: Photo by Jay A. Bowman, 2015.
through the gate, Brad replied that they rarely
do things in the immediate neighborhood.
The heterogeneity of this neighborhood and diverse
sociospatial understandings of the elderly were effec-
tively communicated. Affective responses to place—
ranging from joy to fear, resentment, and indiffer-
ence—were forcefully communicated. The method
articulated how experience is embodied and emplaced.
We could feel for ourselves what it is like to live and
age in these places.
Create Opportunities for Flexible and Collaborative
Conversation with Participants in Situ
The mobile interview’s flexibility put participants at
ease. It was conducive to frank conversation with natu-
ral breakpoints involving stories and personal experi-
ence (Anderson 2004; Carpiano 2009; Garcia et al.
2012). Participants were less concerned with trying to
give the “right” answers as in the seated interview
(Evans and Jones 2011) and often engaged in more
fluid open dialogue:
Brady (age sixty) lived comfortably as a bachelor
in North Minneapolis. His seated interview
responses were often brief and straightforward.
During the mobile interview, Brady walked his
dogs and became noticeably more comfortable
as he settled into his well-worn routine. Brady’s
affection for the dogs made him feel more at
ease to discuss his personal life. He expressed
sadness that a friend recently passed away and
his own struggles and fears with aging.
This vital information, although difficult to discuss, came
when Brady was at ease without formal questions or audio
recording. He spoke more about himself in relation to
place (echoing Evans and Jones 2011) and spontaneously

provided more personal information. Reflecting Kusen-
bach (2003, 466), this helped us reconstruct personal
guiding “relevances” for participants. The interaction
with his dogs and sight of neighbors’ homes revealed
complex layering and filtering of perception.
The mobile interview often unfolded naturally
with changing surroundings (Sunderland et al.
2012). Shorthand body language and gestures con-
veyed meaning quickly (Kelly et al. 2011), and the
spontaneity of unplanned encounters elicited
deeper reflection and remembrance of the past
(Bergeron, Paquette, and Poullaouec-Gonidec
2014). We captured streams of perception and
emotion that, as Kusenbach (2003) noted, partici-
pants often keep to themselves:
Nicola (age eighty-five) and Steve’s (age eighty-
five) deep attachment to their long-time home
shone through the mobile interview. Due to
Steve’s severe mobility limitations, they gave an
interior tour. Steve participated by taking fre-
quent breaks in chairs throughout the house.
They spoke movingly of treasured belongings,
sentimental artwork, and family photos (Fig-
ure 6) and showed recent aging modifications
(e.g., walk-in shower with grab bars). Moments
of silence to pause and gather thoughts were
valuable, such as smiling at photos of grandchil-
dren and departed loved ones.
Broadening the research to often slower and more
limited daily rhythms of the elderly created opportuni-
ties to better appreciate their lives and contexts. Love
for home and family became more apparent as it rever-
berated through actions and words: communicating
the embodiment of experience as they interpreted the
places, objects, and people of their accumulated lives
(K. Davis 1997; Pink 2008; Sunderland et al. 2012; M.
Butler and Derrett 2014).
Figure 6 Participant Steve shows researchers treasured
belongings and personal artifacts in his home. Source:
Photo by Jessica M. Finlay, 2015.
Geographies on the Move 269
Build Rapport and Democratize Participant–
Researcher Power Dynamics
The mobile interview offered intimate views of land-
scape, life history, and layered meanings of place. Par-
ticipants were empowered to become the “tour guide”
and expert (Garcia et al. 2012). We could reduce situa-
tional disparities (e.g., age, education, race) and inter-
act on a deeper level through a more egalitarian
connection. The method helped us convey respect,
interest, and enthusiasm (Carpiano 2009):
Georgia (age seventy) built trust and felt comfort-
able sharing guarded intimate details of her life. An
interviewer attentively listened to Georgia’s stories
about growing up as an African American in the
South and inquired further about her frequent
moves around northern industrial cities. The inter-
viewer learned that Georgia’s decision to live in her
apartment and precarious sense of safety are pro-
foundly influenced by a traumatic event forty years
earlier. When asked why she chose this particular
building, Georgia stopped walking and thought-
fully looked at the interviewer. “I chose to live
here”—as she pointed to her newly built com-
plex—“because it doesn’t look anything like that.”
She gestured across the street to dilapidated blocks
of inner-city development. “Places like that remind
me of [an American city], where I was raped.”
Georgia emotionally explained that she continues
to recover from the trauma and cannot comfort-
ably live in particular types of built environments.
Certain urban architecture—store fronts, parking
lots, and even sidewalks (Figure 7)—vividly recall
her trauma.
The unstructured nature of the mobile interview with
only pencil and paper enabled Georgia to guide the
conversation and develop a relationship with the
Figure 7 Certain urban architecture vividly recalls partici-
pant Georgia’s personal trauma. Source: Photo by Jessica
M. Finlay, 2015. (Color figure available online.)
270 Volume 69, Number 2, May 2017
interviewer. Georgia felt more comfortable to recall
significant past experiences that profoundly influence
her. The method assisted rapport-building across
socioeconomic and age divides. Many were initially
wary and guarded during the audio-recorded seated
interview. The more democratic nature of the mobile
interview reduced situational disparities. Participants
guided us to “become old” with them and corporeally
experience life through their lens.
The collaborative approach enabled more demo-
cratic coconstruction of knowledge in which partici-
pants shaped the literal and metaphorical direction of
the mobile interview (Holton and Riley 2014). Instead
of directed questioning and participants striving to
find “correct” answers, we tapped into less categorized
discussions of identity, emotion, and complicated per-
son–place relationships. Through this personalized
approach, some participants were able to better recog-
nize and articulate sources of struggle (Carpiano 2009)
as they age in their community:
Layla’s (age eighty) belabored body movements
and vibrant facial expressions conveyed deep
affection for the park near her home and
increasing struggles to visit her favorite bench
(Figure 8). The sadness etched across her face
as she described needing to move soon into
institutional facilities due to declining health
and personal security. Layla no longer feels safe
in the subsidized building since it eliminated the
age minimum. She feels victimized and fearful
of “rough men” moving in. Layla quietly
pointed to some of these young men who were
lounging and drinking outside. Though
immensely sad to leave her long-time home,
Layla expressed that safety was her top priority.
Layla’s narrative told through situated experiences
added rich details to our understanding. We grasped
her embodied struggles and deep fear of vulnerability
Figure 8 Participant Layla struggles to maintain indepen-
dent daily visits to her favorite park bench as her health
declines. Source: Photo by Jessica M. Finlay, 2015.
in old age. Sessions often became intimately personal,
and many expressed gratitude to have a supportive
opportunity to share. Too often seniors are marginal-
ized and silenced (especially those already disenfran-
chised by traditional power structures), and the mobile
interview encouraged participants to feel more impor-
tant and valued.
Efficiently Produce Rich Geographic Data
The mobile interview can be efficient for time commit-
ment and resources. The costs are minimal, with as little
as a pencil and notebook needed. The method offers
many of the advantages of participant observation and
“hanging out” without the intensity or time commitments
of ethnography (DeLyser and Sui 2013):
With Nadine (age sixty-five), we learned more
walking around a single residential block than
all of our interactions during the seated inter-
view beforehand. Nadine repeatedly mentioned
during the seated interview that she did not feel
safe at night because of the “loud people” in her
neighborhood. When asked to clarify these
statements, Nadine would not elaborate. Dur-
ing the mobile interview we witnessed an open-
air drug market at the end of her block. We
halted our conversation and quietly put our
camera and notepads away. Nadine averted her
eyes and meekly walked by. When we arrived
back to Nadine’s yard, she told us, “Those are
the loud people that I don’t like.”
Although the seated interview contained multiple
open-ended questions about safety and well-being,
Nadine did not feel comfortable elaborating on tape
about her concerns. The mobile interview enabled us
to quickly and unobtrusively understand her fear of
illicit activities just six doors down from her house. It
articulated sources of problems facing some partici-
pants (Carpiano 2009) by swiftly clarifying underlying
circumstances.
Accompanying more than one participant at a time,
such as couples and neighbors, produced plentiful
information with minimal time commitment:
A fifteen-minute mobile interview with Michelle
(age seventy-five) and Kurt (age eighty) revealed
great depths about their relationship and experien-
ces of aging and place. They showed us around
their suburban condo complex and its various ame-
nities. Michelle walked briskly ahead and
commandingly relayed information. She did not
pause to look back at her husband who struggled
to keep up. He leaned worryingly on his cane and
breathed heavily with exertion (Figure 9).
Their actions and commentary communicated multiface-
ted insights and quickly contextualized statements made

Figure 9 Participant Kurt leans heavily on his cane.
Source: Photo by Jay A. Bowman, 2015. (Color figure
available online.)
during the seated interview. The method also probed for
confirmation and incompatibility between methods, such
as what participants stated during the seated interview
versus how they behaved during the “tour.” Corrobora-
tion and incompatibility are easily found with methods
such as immobile interviews, photo-voice participatory
action research, focus groups, and GIS (Carpiano 2009;
Evans and Jones 2011).
Methodological Constraints and
Considerations
The mobile interview involves practical, technical,
ethical, and epistemological considerations. Limited
research to date critically evaluates its strengths and
weaknesses. Notable exceptions include Garcia and
colleagues (2012), Evans and Jones (2011), and Car-
piano (2009) for go-alongs and walking interviews.
This section elaborates and extends discussion of
methodological shortcomings and analytical consider-
ations regarding mobile interviewing.
Preinterview discussion sets the epistemological
grounding for the session. Mobile interviews are often
unfamiliar and participants seek guidance. Prescriptive
instructions and strict geographic boundaries can be limit-
ing and diminish participant individuality. Researchers
generally aim for a balance to provide enough guidance
so that appropriate data can be obtained but remain open
enough to enable participants to guide researchers
through spaces as they want them to be seen and under-
stood (Gardner 2011). We asked participants to take us
anywhere they thought appropriate for approximately
twenty minutes on a normal route of their choice. Route
selection can never be completely spontaneous: As Ber-
geron, Paquette, and Poullaouec-Gonidec (2014) noted,
it involves some degree of coconstruction between
researchers and participants. Some studies involve
researchers setting the route in advance to focus on
Geographies on the Move 271
specific places of relevance (e.g., Paulos and Goodman
2004; Inwood and Martin 2008; Jones et al. 2008). This
approach generates pertinent data but can make it less
authentic as participants might engage in activities beyond
their usual habits (Jones et al. 2008; Evans and Jones
2011). Other studies encourage more participant auton-
omy to select the route (e.g., Kusenbach 2003; Carpiano
2009; Gardner 2011; Finlay et al. 2015). This prioritizes
“naturalness” to see and experience habitual areas and
routines.
The mode of travel also influences observations and
findings, of which walking and driving are the most com-
mon forms to date. Walking can enable rich immersive
experiences through direct exposure and detailed multi-
sensory accounts of specific places (Bergeron, Paquette,
and Poullaouec-Gonidec 2014). The car can be an effi-
cient and practical way to view and discuss a wider variety
of spaces, but reduces direct exposure. Multisensory data
collection is reduced primarily to vision with less tangible
experiences in place (e.g., smells, sounds). This could be
remedied by exiting the car together in key places along
the driven route. Depending on time of day and driving
ability, the participant might solely focus on the mechan-
ics of driving (e.g., observing traffic and driving safely)
rather than attending to the surroundings. Driving also
reduces spontaneous social encounters, which can be an
important element. Alternative modes (e.g., bicycling,
public transit) could be useful to efficiently experience a
variety of places in situ. Bicycling and public transit are
underutilized forms of mobile interviewing to date
(exceptions include Khan 2006; Bissell 2009; Spinney
2009, 2011; Spinney and Brown 2009; Vannini 2011; and
Lindeke 2015). Sessions can cover more ground than
walking but still enable immersive multisensory experien-
ces and spontaneous social interactions. Seasonal weather
conditions largely beyond researcher control are also a
factor. Depending on the location, sessions during winter
can be cold, difficult to navigate with snow and ice, and
dark. Summers can be humid and hot and influence par-
ticipants’ willingness and ability to participate (Carpiano
2009; Garcia et al. 2012). Researchers can begin to
account for this issue by purposefully timing sessions to
occur during different seasonal and weather conditions or
use travel modes that are more sheltered (e.g., cars, public
transit). Interior mobile interviews can also be interesting
and valuable. Downtown-living participants in our study
who were unable to navigate exterior environments often
chose instead to take us through the Minneapolis “sky-
ways” network. Others chose to stay inside and gave inte-
rior tours of their home and building. When participants
did not go outside it was, for our research purposes, as
interesting as when and where they did.
Time of day is another important methodological
consideration. Mobile interviews generally capture a
brief snapshot of local daily rhythm. The type and fre-
quency of activities often differ throughout the course
of the day and week (Carpiano 2009). We experienced
some neighborhoods at quiet times and others during
busy periods. We purposefully conducted mobile
interviews at varied times on different days of the
272 Volume 69, Number 2, May 2017
week to experience diverse rhythms. Researchers
could repeat mobile interviews at a range of times
along the same route to further take this into account.
Advance planning and testing are required for
mobile interview equipment. Audio recorders can be
less effective in high-traffic, construction, and
crowded areas. Wind, loud noises, microphones falling
off, and outside people entering the conversation can
reduce audio quality (Carpiano 2009; Garcia et al.
2012). Cameras are weather-sensitive and can shut off
in extremely cold temperatures. Researchers need to
check batteries regularly and carry ample backup bat-
tery power. In rainy conditions, notebooks can
become waterlogged, wet pens can stop writing, and
camera lenses can blur from condensation. We found
that smaller notebooks and cameras were easier to
shield, and pencils wrote best in the rain.
The visible recording mechanisms can compromise
participants’ privacy and confidentiality. In some instan-
ces, we put recording devices away for safety. As Carpiano
(2009) noted, there can be fear of repercussions if a partic-
ipant seen walking and pointing with researchers is con-
strued as reporting illicit activity. When engaging with
others in the street, it is imperative to carefully manage
recording devices to preserve the anonymity of speakers.
Confidentiality is a constant concern (Garcia et al. 2012).
We heeded participant direction when encountering
others and, unless explicitly introduced, remained as
inconspicuous and discreet as possible.
Participants need to be in control and feel empow-
ered to stay within their personal parameters for safety
and comfort. This includes physical comfort. Partici-
pants of any age can become tired. It is important to
check in regularly with participants and watch for any
signs of fatigue, dizziness, or soreness. Interviewer
safety is also essential. All of our researchers carried
cell phones with location services during fieldwork.
We wore comfortable shoes, carried water and snacks,
and brought appropriate clothing. If participants sug-
gested travel by car, protocol required a valid driver’s
license and confirmed driving ability. Researchers
constantly scanned surroundings and obeyed traffic
laws. Clear guidelines should be established before
beginning the mobile interview to ensure participant
and researcher well-being and security.
The value of data collected depends on the inclusion
of sufficient locational identifiers to situate and ground
the interview. Echoing Carpiano’s (2009) observation,
we found that participants could be vague when
describing surroundings given the conversational
nature of the session. Participant gestures were diffi-
cult to capture, and we reminded some participants to
verbalize (Garcia et al. 2012). Without any guidance,
the mobile interview can turn into a social visit. We
used surrounding environmental features as conversa-
tion prompts when needed to reground the discussion
in a sociospatial context. Our notes included specific
locations and geographic identifiers such as streets and
public landmarks. Observations are based on visual
(photograph), geospatial (mapped routes), and textual
(detailed notation) data. As discussed previously, our
decision not to audio record the mobile interviews
provided valuable flexibility, deeper personal reflec-
tion, and emotional connection. We do not have ver-
batim quotes from the mobile interviews, though, and
much of the information is derived from researcher
recall and descriptive accounts. To minimize any loss
of data, researchers used notebooks in progress to jot
down observations, key statements, and notes about
surroundings. While the experience was still fresh in
their minds, interviewers recorded detailed field notes
immediately after the session. With proper documen-
tation and diligent multimodal observation, we feel
that researchers can capture the richness of partici-
pants’ sense of place.
Conclusion
The mobile interview highlights the fundamental reflex-
ivity of human engagement with sociospatial surround-
ings. Shared real-time fieldwork makes visible some of
the filters that shape participants’ life worlds (Kusenbach
2003). By grounding the research in participants’ lived
experiences, the method offers innovative ways to better
understand how place and space matter (Carpiano 2009).
It accesses more mundane and less easily storied spaces
that can be overlooked (Holton and Riley 2014).
Further investigation employing the mobile interview
can broaden the field of geography. There are opportuni-
ties to engage with research “on the move” beyond con-
ventional mobility, such as athletic (e.g., swimming,
boating) and in-home activities (e.g., cleaning, cooking,
caregiving). Cyberresearch could explore virtual mobility
through different types of electronic connectivity (e.g.,
first-person computer game simulations). The method
could span broader geographic areas and time periods,
such as pilgrimages and refugee movements. Multi-
method approaches could further contextualize real-time
perspectives and experiences (e.g., wearable GIS technol-
ogy, time–space diaries, multisensory data capture). In
summary, there are numerous avenues for the mobile
interview to capture multifarious ways of being in, and
moving through, the world. The method innovatively
challenges geography to investigate and (re)construct
understandings of self and place. ■
Acknowledgments
We thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for
their helpful and constructive comments.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Science
Foundation (Grant No. 1558577), Queen’s University
Alfred Bader Fellowship, and University of Minnesota
Interdisciplinary Doctoral Fellowship.

Note
1
Participant’s pseudonym and age at the time of the interview
rounded to the nearest five-year interval.
Literature Cited
Anderson, J. 2004. Talking whilst walking: A geographical
archaeology of knowledge. Area 36 (3): 254–61.
Bergeron, J., S. Paquette, and P. Poullaouec-Gonidec. 2014.
Uncovering landscape values and micro-geographies of
meanings with the go-along method. Landscape and Urban
Planning 122:108–21.
Bissell, D. 2009. Visualising everyday geographies: Practices
of vision through travel-time. Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers 34 (1): 42–60.
Butler, M., and S. Derrett. 2014. The walking interview: An
ethnographic approach to understanding disability. The
Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice 12 (3): 1–8.
Butler, R., and H. Parr. 1998. Mind and body spaces:
Geographies of illness, impairment and disability. London and
New York: Routledge.
Carpiano, R. 2009. 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 15 (1): 263–72.
Casey, E. 2001. Between geography and philosopy: What
does it mean to be in the place world? Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 91 (4): 683–93.
Chouinard, V., E. Hall, and R. Wilton, eds. 2010. Towards
enabling geographies: “Disabled” bodies and minds in society and
space. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Clark, A., and N. Emmel. 2010. Using walking interviews.
Manchester, UK: ESRC National Centre for Research
Methods. http://www.manchester.ac.uk/realities/resources/
toolkits (last accessed 25 February 2016).
Cresswell, T. 2004. Place: A short introduction. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Davis, K. 1997. Embodying theory: Beyond modernist and
postmodernist readings of the body. In Embodied practices:
Feminist perspectives on the body, ed. K. Davis, 1–24.
Washington, DC: Sage.
Davis, M. 2006. Planet of slums. London: Verso.
DeLyser, D., and D. Sui. 2013. Crossing the qualitative–
quantitative divide II: Inventive approaches to big data,
mobile methods, and rhythmanalysis. Progress in Human
Geography 37 (2): 293–305.
DeMunck, V. C., and E. J. Sobo. 1998. Using methods in the
field: A practical introduction and casebook. Walnut Creek,
CA: AltaMira.
Duff, C. 2010. On the role of affect and practice in the
production of place. Environment and Planning D: Society
and Space 28 (5): 881–95.
Emerson, R., R. Fretz, and L. Shaw. 1995. Writing
ethnographic fieldnotes. 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Erlandson, D. A., E. L. Harris, B. L. Skipper, and S. D. Allen.
1993. Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Evans, J., and P. Jones. 2011. The walking interview:
Methodology, mobility and place. Applied Geography 31 (2):
849–58.
Fincham, B., M. McGuiness, and L. Murray, eds. 2010.
Mobile methodologies. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Geographies on the Move 273
Finlay, J., T. Franke, H. McKay, and J. Sims-Gould. 2015.
Therapeutic landscapes and wellbeing in later life: Impacts
of blue and green spaces for older adults. Health & Place
34:97–106.
Garcia, C., M. Eisenberg, E. Frerich, K. Lechner, and K.
Lust. 2012. Conducting go-along interviews to understand
context and promote health. Qualitative Health Research 22
(10): 1395–1403.
Gardner, P. 2011. Natural neighborhood networks—
Important social networks in the lives of older adults aging
in place. Journal of Aging Studies 25 (3): 263–71.
Glaser, B., and A. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded
theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Harvey, D. 1990. The condition of postmodernity: An enquiry into
the origins of cultural change. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.
Herbert, S., and K. Beckett. 2009. Zoning out disorder:
Assessing contemporary practices of urban social control.
Studies in Law, Politics and Society 47:1–25.
Holton, M., and M. Riley. 2014. Talking on the move: Place-based
interviewing with undergraduate students. Area 46 (1): 59–65.
hooks, b., ed. 1990. Homeplace (as a site of resistance). In
Yearning: Race, gender, and cultural politics, 41–49. Boston:
South End Press.
Imrie, R. 1996. Disability and the city: International perspectives.
London: Sage.
Inwood, J., and D. Martin. 2008. Whitewash: White privilege
and racialized landscapes at the University of Georgia.
Social & Cultural Geography 9 (4): 373–95.
Jones, P., G. Bunce, J. Evans, H. Gibbs, and J. Hein. 2008.
Exploring space and place with walking interviews. Journal
of Research Practice 4 (2): 1–9.
Kawulich, B. 2005. Participant observation as a data
collection method. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/
Forum: Qualitative Social Research 6 (2): Art. 43.
Kelly, C., M. Tight, F. Hodgson, and M. Page. 2011. A
comparison of three methods for assessing the walkability
of the pedestrian environment. Journal of Transport
Geography 19 (6): 1500–8.
Khan, N. 2006. Flaws in the flow: Roads and their modernity
in Pakistan. Social Text 89 (24): 87–113.
Kitchin, R., and R. Law. 2001. The socio-spatial construction
of (in)accessible public toilets. Urban Studies 38 (2): 287–98.
Kozol, J. 1991. Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools.
Portland, OR: Broadway Books.
Kusenbach, M. 2003. Street phenomenology: The go-along
as ethnographic research tool. Ethnography 4 (3): 455–85.
Laurier, E., and H. Lorimer. 2012. Other ways: Landscapes
of commuting. Landscape Research 37 (2): 207–24.
Lindeke, W. 2015. In search of new riders: Affective exclusions
and bicycle planning in Minneapolis/Saint Paul. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota.
Lynch, K. 1960. The image of the city. Boston: MIT Press.
Marshall, C., and G. B. Rossman. 1989. Designing qualitative
research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
———. 1995. Designing qualitative research. 2nd ed. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
———. 2016. Designing qualitative research. 6th ed. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Massey, D. 1984. Introduction: Geography matters. In
Geography matters!, ed. D. Massey and J. Allen, 1–11. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Middleton, J. 2011. Walking in the city: The geographies of
everyday pedestrian practices. Geography Compass 5 (2): 90–
105.
Murray, L. 2009. Looking at and looking back: Visualization
in mobile research. Qualitative Research 9 (4): 469–88.
274 Volume 69, Number 2, May 2017
Paulos, E., and E. Goodman. 2004. The familiar stranger:
Anxiety, comfort, and play in public places. In Proceedings
of CHI 2004, 223–30. New York: Association for
Computing Machinery.
Peet, R. 1998. Modern geographic thought. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Pink, S. 2008. An urban tour: The sensory sociality of
ethnographic place-making. Ethnography 9 (2): 175–96.
Rose, G. 1993. Feminism and geography: The limits of geographical
knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
———. 1995. Place and identity: A sense of place. In A place
in the world? Places, cultures, and globalization, ed. D. Massey
and P. Jess, 88–132. Oxford, UK: The Open University.
Seamon, D., and J. Sowers. 2008. Edward Relph, “Place and
Placelessness” (1976). In Key texts in human geography, ed. P.
Hubbard, R. Kitchin, and G. Valentine, 43–51. London: Sage.
Sheller, M., and J. Urry. 2006. The new mobilities paradigm.
Environment and Planning A 38 (2): 207–26.
Spinney, J. 2009. Cycling the city: Movement, meaning and
method. Geography Compass 3 (2): 817–35.
———. 2011. A chance to catch a breath: Using mobile video
ethnography in cycling research. Mobilities 6 (2): 161–82.
Spinney, J., and K. Brown. 2009. Come ride with me: Using
video as part of a mobile methodology. In Mobile
methodologies, ed. B. Fincham, M. McGuiness, and L.
Murray, 130–51. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sunderland, N., H. Bristed, O. Gudes, J. Boddy, and M. Da
Silva. 2012. What does it feel like to live here? Exploring
sensory ethnography as a collaborative methodology for
investigating social determinants of health in place. Health
& Place 18 (5): 1056–67.
Vannini, P. 2011. The techne of making a ferry: A non-
representational approach to passengers’ gathering
taskscapes. Journal of Transport Geography 19 (5): 1031–36.
JESSICA M. FINLAY is an interdisciplinary doctoral fellow
in the Department of Geography, Environment, and Society
at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455.
E-mail: finla039@umn.edu. Her research focuses on urban
and health geographies of later life.
JAY A. BOWMAN is a doctoral student in the Department of
Geography, Environment, and Society at the University of Min-
nesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455. E-mail: bowma214@umn.edu.
His doctoral research focuses on the municipal bureaucracy and
informal recycling sector’s coconstitution of the waste infrastruc-
ture of Amman, Jordan.