4.7 Article

Doing research with busy people: Enacting rapid walking methodologies with teachers in a primary school

期刊

CITIES
卷 145, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2023.104707

关键词

Walking interviews; Free listing; Ethics; More-than-human; School gardens; Teachers; Well-being

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper introduces a novel method for conducting research with busy people by combining the "walking interview" method with a "free listing technique." The interviews conducted with teachers at a primary school in north Queensland yielded important findings and provided a reflective analysis of how simple factors such as weather, noise, and interruptions shaped a teacher's day.
Teachers are busy people. How do we, as researchers, address the challenges of doing research with busy people-especially if we wish to enact ethical, more radical futures? How do we adhere to the pressures of fast-paced urban life when research, especially interviews, takes away people's time? This paper presents a novel method for doing research with busy people, combining the 'walking interview' method with a 'free listing technique.' The interviews were carried out with teachers at a north Queensland primary school in a rapidly urbanising neighbourhood, and formed part of a larger project exploring the barriers and opportunities of incorporating community gardens (as important green spaces) into schools. The method itself yielded important findings and this paper is a reflective analysis of how simple factors such as the weather, noise, and interruptions shaped 20 min of a teacher's day. We extend these ideas to explore how conditioned and situational temporalities, along with more-than-human influences, affect the knowledge produced in rapid walking interviews. Keeping track of these affections can yield important data relevant to the project. The research will be invaluable for other re-searchers struggling with ethical and other issues shaping access to stakeholders in a diverse range of urban environments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据