3. Methods
3.3. Research method
34
35
3.3.2. The go-along method (Wheel- along)
The method of qualitative phenomenological geography can be operationalized with the study design of a go-along (Kusenbach 2003). With this method researchers follow the individual research participants in the urban environment. The base of the go-along method (wheel-along) is the lived-experience since it combines ethnographic observations and interviewing. Static interviews when researcher and subject sit face-to-face, take the interviewee out of the natural environment. Hereby does the lived experience remain invisible and a dialect takes place instead of a shared perspective with the interviewer (Kusenbach 2003). Furthermore, solely observations show an incomplete image and experiences, and perceptions often remain invisible. Kusenbach explains that field observations from a close vantage point or from a distance “fail to access the environmental perception and experience of (other) members” (2003, p. 461), what they exactly are doing or experiencing is still a mystery.
Depending on the mode of transport this method can be named a walk along (conducted while walking with the participant), ride along (conducted while driving) (Carpiano 2009). Other variations as in the case of this research while the researcher accompanies wheelchair users, a wheel-along are also possible. However, there is limited knowledge from previous research using this type of go-along.
Hereby, knowledge on different transport modes such as the walk-along is valuable.
One example of this is research by Degen & Rose (2014) who state that the experience of place is a result of the individual environment. In their research they analyse this with ‘walk-along’ interviews and state that the experience of the environment is mediated by bodily motions and perceptual memories. Their view on perceptual memories is of significance to consider with the wheel-along. This is since people in a wheelchair often have negative experiences or a lack of experiences of participating in the shopping activities (Bromley 2007; Caroll & Kincade 2011; Fänge et al. 2002; Poldma et al. 2014).
These perceptual filters are of significance for knowledge transfers to a researcher or planner with an abled perspective who does not have to make use of a wheelchair to be mobile. As Degen & Rose (2014) mention that people have perceptual memories which influence the experience of the environment. Kusenbach elaborates that perceptual filters can be divided into “practical knowledge and tastes/values” (2003, p.466). Practical knowledge differs per person, it can constitute out of assessments of safety and accessibility. For example, knowledge of the environment by frequent users possibly makes wheelchair users feel safer. Similarly, this is the case for tastes/values, one street can be accessible but unattractive for an interviewee and thus not chosen as part of the route in the shopping centre. Certain environmental features can be detected by everyone but interpreted differently, wheel-along interviews create visibility for these features.
By accompanying interviewees during fieldwork, the interaction and experience of the interviewee while moving through the physical and social environment not only observed but also questioned with semi-structured interviews. Using a semi-structured interview design, topics can occur during the go-along which are not anticipated before by the researcher (Marquart & Schicketanz 2022).
36 To summarize, go-along interviews in the shopping centre in Utrecht Leidsche Rijn can therefore provide insights in the physical accessibility and the social accessibility. This gives great advantages in exploring, “the role of place in everyday lived experiences” (Kusenbach 2003, p. 459). The sub research questions are thus answered with the help of this wheel-along interview method.
3.3.3. Challenges wheel-along and ethical considerations
Nevertheless, the wheel-along method has flaws and limitations. As Bergeron et al. (2014) states, the go-along can never be truly spontaneous but always needs some organization from both the researcher and respondent. This way, the actual daily routine is not precisely registered. Also, this method needs to be conducted with sensitivity and finesse by the researcher. Especially with sensitive topics such as disability and economic resources. The respondent must feel safe to talk openly about his/her thoughts. This ethical consideration also must be considered while recruiting respondents.
This pitfall is tackled by using familiar and trustworthy organizations for the respondents and making acquaintance with people through meetings of organizations such as SOLGU or acquaintances in community centres. Additionally, the respondent is informed that personal data is anonymized and will not be shared with third parties.
Another challenging factor with the wheel-along is the difference in walking and rolling pace between the wheelchair user and the walking researcher. It is challenging to simultaneous while moving making notes and pictures and asking probing questions while navigating through the environment. This requires focus and active listening skills (Kusenbach 2003). The discussion is also often interrupted by memories of the respondent but also due to factors in the environment, such as traffic and acquaintances in the environment who stop the interview to talk to the respondent.
3.3.4. Expert interviews and online fieldwork
As context for the planned environment expert interviews with the development manager of Leidsche Rijn was conducted. At first an exploratory interview was conducted at the start of the fieldwork research on July 14th, 2022. After the interviews, another interview with follow up questions was conducted on September 27th, to provide a more in depth understanding of the choices in the building process. This method was chosen to provide more in-depth knowledge of the case study and the role of accessibility in the building process. Hereby, the municipality and planning discourse was provided.
This way an answer to sub question 6 can be found. Since it can be researched whether the implemented accessibility policy measures align with the necessary and experiences of accessibility in practice.
For this interview, a topic list was prepared, and probing questions were asked (Appendix D).
Additionally to this, information available online through websites such as wheelmap.org was added to provide more context and knowledge beforehand both the go-along interviews and the expert interview. Hereby, probing questions such as, “what about accessible toilets?” were added to the topic list. The second follow up interview contained more detailed questions about the policies (Appendix D).
Together with the results of the semi-constructed interview during the go-along, an analysis can be done that shows insights into whether there is a gap between what the general guidelines and tools
37 are and what is needed to create an accessible shopping environment for the broadest variety of society (Evcil 2009; Janmaat 2018; Vermeij & Hamelink 2021). According to the universal design principle, the built environment should be useable by all and thus an inclusive environment, both social and physical is created for all.
Limitations are that the data is only based on one individual. The complete image is therefore likely not visible. Also, the respondent might not provide the whole picture and information. However, the main research aim is to gain insights into the experience of accessibility by wheelchair users, this interview is therefore solely for background information. The question, ‘what would you have done differently when it was build?,’ is asked to the participants anyway. The sub research question 6 can therefore also be answered by the wheel-along semi-structured interviews solely. However, this background information is useful additional information.