The difference that place makes to methodology: uncovering the ‘lived space’ of young people's spatial practices

This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.

While it has been argued that conventional methodological resources are incapable of effectively representing ‘everyday social practice’ (see Latham 2003 Latham, A. 2003. Research, performance, and doing human geography: Some reflections on the diary-photograph, diary-interview method. Environment and Planning A, 35: 1993–2017. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], Environment and Planning A, 35, 1993), this paper posits that a consideration of the ‘where’ of methodology can go some way to taking social practices seriously. Drawing on research into young people's spatial practices, conventional interview techniques were adopted in a range of different sites: a classroom, a school store-cupboard, and in teenage ‘hang outs’. Through discussion of these emplaced techniques, the paper demonstrates the difference the where of method makes to research. It will argue that, if harnessed appropriately, emplaced methodology can enhance social science's capacity to access the range of intelligences that constitute everyday social practice.