Interpretive walks: advancing the use of mobile methods in the study of entrepreneurial farm tourism settings

Abstract

This article draws on the application of interpretive walks in a socio‐geographical study of tourism‐oriented entrepreneurial activity on multi‐generational family farms in New Zealand. We highlight the great potential this method holds for tourism researchers interested in the ways tourist spaces are produced in processes of place‐making. Mobile methods have been a feature of qualitative field research in several disciplines for some time, particularly in cultural geography with its emphasis on human interactions in and with landscapes. The interpretive walk, known also as the walking interview, has been applied mainly in urban neighbourhood, health, transport, and housing research, where it has proven very useful for revealing human connections to place that have been difficult to elicit using stationary face‐to‐face interviews. This article is one of the few that reports on the use of the method in a farm tourism setting. It is also one of few applied studies seeking to understand the local geographies of farm tourism and their connections to the farm site as both family home and place of primary production. The method is characterised as an effective tool for navigating and interpreting the socio‐spatial settings in which new rural tourism ventures emerge, evolve, and are embedded. The approach allows for unexpected encounters with spatial practices and strategies, projects, and objects, behind which lie stories of changing human relationships with the land, economy, and community, and of the exigencies of everyday life that are less readily unearthed using conventional interviews.

Revealing regional regeneration projects in three small towns in Aotearoa—New Zealand

“…Some of this observational work was planned in advance, but in other cases it occurred spontaneously at the end of our interviews. These mobile interpretative excursions (Mackay, Nelson, & Perkins, ) illustrated the enthusiasm our research participants displayed for the regeneration activities in which they were involved. Good examples include a walking tour of a town centre with the mayor of one of the study towns, visits to planned development sites with property investors, and a guided tour of tourism sites led by a trustee of a community organisation.…”

A flowing conversation? Methodological issues in interviewing farmers about rivers and riparian environments

“…As expected, given the points made earlier in the paper, it was land management that provided a way into the discussion, and being confronted by the river forced an articulation of what was present and how and why it was important. While previous mobile‐interview research has highlighted its usefulness in (re)interpreting familiar environments (and the practices associated with them) afresh “in‐the‐moment” (Holton & Riley, ) and moving away from the rehearsed and more unreflexive accounts, drawn from memory, in static interviews (Mackay et al., ), our application highlights that they too can be used to add colour to the blackspots of interview narratives. The discussion of shading had not arisen within the first, static, part of the interview, and being confronted by trees not only initiated an articulation of their relevance, but also gave an insight into the farmers’ understandings therein, revealing the uncertainty (i.e., stating their response as a question for farmer 16) and giving an insight into how, in the case of farmer 1, they have taken on board the knowledge (“what she says”) of river conservation groups.…”

“…Being mobile and moving around the farm may give an insight into how people (re)interpret particular places, while being in place means that visual cues – such as particular landscape features or pieces of farm machinery – may stimulate narratives and take the interview in unexpected directions (Mackay et al., ). Conducting interviews in and around places such as the workplace or the home may have the practical benefit of allowing the researcher to tag onto the tasks of the day (and feel less of an intrusion on interviewees’ time), while surrounding artefacts and environments may embellish the interview narrative and move from a seemingly more confrontational face‐to‐face approach to a more “side‐by‐side” encounter (Holton & Riley, ).…”

To walk the talk of go-along methods: navigating the unknown terrains of being-along

“…Firstly prominent go-along reseachers such as Kusenbach (2003) and Carpiano ( 2009) did go-alongs in settings familiar to participants and co-generated spaces of learning about participants' lived experiences on the premises of participantsnot researchers. More recently, and in a tourism setting, Mackay et al (2018) did 12 "interpretive farm walks" to understand issues pertaining to place-making and entrepreneurial activity on multi-generational family farms. They share how participants preferred the familiar outdoor settings afforded by their 260 ha (642 acres) to 700 ha (1,730 acres) farms and visibly were excited and motivated to show researchers around.…”

“…Fifth and finally, Mackay et al (2018) comment that not all spaces are walkable. Some may be officially off limits and subject to trespass orders, others too dangerous or difficult to tour, and still others sacred.…”