Walking as Research Practice
Walking has been used as a methodology for studying space and place across disciplines, including the social sciences, cultural & urban studies, anthropology, and philosophy [1]. It not only holds intrinsic value as a purely functional activity but is also suited for investigating our relationship to our environment [1]. By heightening our sensitivity and responsiveness to our surroundings, walking offers a lens through which to observe lived experiences [1]. As a relational practice [1], walking attunes us to the “visual, sonic, olfactory and tactile ambiances” [1] of the city, connecting “bodies, environments, and the sensory surrounds of a place” [1]. This underscores the significance of walking as a primary means for conducting sensory inquiries.
However, in my early experiments with data walks, I noticed that completely open-ended walking, akin to the original dérive, could quickly become overwhelming for participants. To structure the data collection while preserving room for subjectivity, it’s helpful to provide a few guardrails.
In contemporary art, a ‘protocol’ is a set of rules employed by artists to create their artwork [2]. Similarly, ‘walking protocols’, sometimes referred to as scores in the literature [2], help shape walks by defining how to move and what to observe. In my data walks, I frame scores as creative instructions designed to nudge the observer to specific slices of their sensory encounters. These scores are modular, adaptable, incorporating elements like field notes, sketches, photography, audio recordings, and videos and can be conducted with or without technological support.