MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116799599 · doi:10.1177/16094069251409100

Learning on the Go: Experiences Researching Urban Stewardship Practices Through Walking Interview

2025· article· en· W7116799599 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Daniel Sax

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInsiderNegotiationQualitative researchExperiential learningContext (archaeology)Action researchParticipatory action researchPhoto elicitationAction (physics)Interview

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The following paper offers an in-depth, experiential analysis of the walking interview, applied within a participatory action research context. I share both reflection and critique, analyzing my experience conducting two walking interviews with stewards of urban green spaces in Vancouver, Canada and Medellín, Colombia that explored practices of care in urban nature as well as relationships to local urban ecologies. Discussion is oriented towards two essential methodological questions: (1) how does the use of walking interview advance research towards deeper understandings of stewardship practices and the relationships between stewards and urban nature; and (2) what is the lived and affective experience of conducting a walking interview as a researcher? I adopt a reflective and narrative style to emphasize the role of embodiment in community-engaged work and make explicit the discomfort and uncertainty inherent to qualitative and relationship-centered approaches to inquiry. My intention is to share lessons learned with scholars interested in pursuing similar research approaches. First, I introduce my work, myself, and my relationship and orientation to place-based qualitative inquiry. Next, I share accounts from two walking interviews held with urban green space stewards in Vancouver, CA and Medellín, CO. My experiences with walking interview illuminate its capacity to invite in-depth, sensory connection to place on the part of both the researcher and interviewee. I demystify the dynamics present between researcher and interviewee in the context of action research – commenting on how I navigated fluctuations from outsider to insider researcher (and back) and how negotiation of research relationships influenced my interview practice. I end with reflection on several limitations of the walking interview method, focusing on the challenge of navigating personal attachment and mutual obligation within the container of walking interview.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0140.018
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.957
GPT teacher head0.824
Teacher spread0.132 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Qualitative MethodsSame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207