Go-Along Interviews

Certain methodologies may more readily capture movement and mobility reveals much about how people relate to particular spaces (Hein, Evans & Jones, 2008). Mobile interviews involve the researcher and subjects in motion in the field (Hein, Evans & Jones, 2008). Three participants agreed to mobile interviews for at least some of the interview process.

According to Sin (2003):

The theorization of space in the setting of an interview has been curiously abstracted and removed from the concrete ‘place’ in which an interview takes place. The spatial contexts under which interviews are carried out remain largely excluded from any theorization of the social construction of knowledge. (p.306) “Mobile methodologies seek to use movement as part of the research approach itself” (Hein, Evans & Jones, 2008, p. 1269). Through adopting mobile interviews my research aimed to capture the experiences of disabled students in university settings by attending to the socio-spatial dynamics of interviews by appreciating, understanding and valuing the spaces and places in which interviews take place.

The Go-along interview represented a way to capture movement and mobility, to observe and better understand the institution through moving in particular places of importance to mad and disabled participants in the academy. This method enabled

participants and myself to converse and interact during the interview while reflecting and moving through the university. According to Hein, Evans and Jones (2008): “Go-alongs combine the observation of everyday activities (as practiced in participant observation) with the respondent’s reflections as revealed in interviews” (p. 1275). The go-along

166

technique allows researchers to observe their participants’ spatial practices in situ while accessing their experiences and interpretations at the same time (Hein, Evans & Jones, 2008). As part of this process I reflected on my able-bodiedness, my movements and affective interactions with participants. In this way, the go-along also represents a tool through which my able-bodied privilege, movements and mobility in space could be critically examined. As I moved through institutional spaces I later reflected on each interview.

Kusenbach (2003) offers an extensive methodological discussion of the go-along. Go-alongs allow researchers to better understand and perceive respondents’ daily

interactions in local contexts. According to Kusenback (2003) go-along interviews are well suited for exploring and examining: (1) informants’ knowledge, perceptions and values guiding their experiences and interactions in social and physical environments; (2) spatial practices and the ways in which people engage with their lived environment; (3) the ties between biography and place; (4) social architecture of natural settings and how individuals situate themselves in various social settings; (5) social realms and how place patterns and mediates social interactions. For the above noted reasons go-along

interviews represented a viable interview technique for this research project as it allowed for a deeper examination of informants’ knowledge and interactions in space. Go-along interviews are potentially a highly flexible method that allows researchers opportunities to raise questions in an inductive way and become familiar with a particular locality, and observe phenomena in the field.

Some noteworthy considerations when undertaking go-along interviews include conditions that are not in the control of the researcher such as: weather and the health of

167

respondents (Carpiano, 2009). Yet, in the case of this study issues of health/illness and disability are part of the respondents’ lived realities and institutional milieu including weather conditions as material bodies interact in space, thus these may also be considered as aspects of the lived and navigated environment captured by the go-along interview process. Nevertheless, weather and respondents’ health, mobility, and physicality were issues to consider. Flexibility to account for changing conditions and having alternate locations/spaces for the interviews were considered and provided as options. According to Carpiano (2009) safety for the respondent and researcher also merits consideration as respondents may be identified and encounter questions from other individuals as they move in a particular landscape with a researcher. Go-along interviews required adequate recording equipment optimal in environments that may be noisy and pick up other sounds.

I often suggested go-along interviews, however, participants favoured other interview formats and options stating that go-along interviews would increase their visibility at the university sites. I was disappointed by the lack of interest in Go-along interviews. Yet, upon deeper reflection, although I was eager to move with participants, I needed to reflect more deeply about my own ease and access afforded by my white able- bodied mobile privilege to move in institutional spaces without discrimination or

increased exposure to a pathologizing biomedical gaze. Mobility and movement thus represent sites of access and privilege. It was also winter season, and weather conditions of cold, wet, ice and snow likely also dissuaded participants from engaging in go-alongs. Indoor and face-to-face interviews were favoured. For the three mobile interviews that took place much of movement took place indoors, navigating university buildings and

168

hallway corridors. Participants without mobility impairments also troubled the use and purpose of go-along interviews, often stating that they did not experience barriers in built environments and, therefore, did not see the point of moving through the institution to discuss barriers to access and academic accommodations. The rationale ‘fit’ between go- along interviews as a viable method reflected in the intentions and purposes of this

research were questioned by participants, and rightly so. The need to reflect deeper on the limitations of mobile methods while engaging in research with marginalized persons is an important methodological reflection of this study. As such, the majority of participants elected more traditional face-to-face audio-recorded interviews. As a researcher, I likely could have better explained my purpose and reasoning for go-along interviews in relation to this research, however, I also did not want to push my chosen methods on participants and favoured providing interview format options decided in consultations together.