“You don't want to peer over people's shoulders, it feels too rude!” The moral geographies of using participants’ personal smartphones in research

Abstract

This paper examines the moralities of using participants' personal mobile technologies in research. While smartphones bring novel benefits to research in terms of their labour-saving, innovative, intuitive and low-cost virtues, they also raise unique spatial, ethical and moral issues that can have implications for how research is conducted. Using morality as a conceptual tool, this paper explores the smartphone as a geographical space that is simultaneously private/public, personal/shared and material/imagined. By examining the observations made during a study which tested a mobile walking tour app, this paper questions the moral implications for, and the consequences of, researching using participants' personal technologies and how researchers might access and interpret behaviours within these private digital "spaces." This paper advocates the importance of recognising the complexities of moving into participants' private digital spaces and how a diverse range of behaviours may become part of the research encounter through the ways in which participants form interactions with technologies, the environment and with each other. Finally, this paper contributes to discussions of moral geographies by examining the asymmetric power relations that are evident when examining moral behaviours that are performed simultaneously in digital and geographical spaces, and questions whether these may be functions of hegemonic systems of "acceptable" behaviour. K E Y W O R D S methods, moral geographies, practice, qualitative research, smartphones, virtual space | INTRODUCTIONThere has been a recent drive to adopt emergent mobile technologies, such as smartphones and tablets, into contemporary geographical research practice (DeLyser & Sui, 2013;Gorman, 2017), both in terms of self-directed research (Neff & Nafus, 2016) and research[ing] with others (Brown et al., 2013;Laurier et al., 2016). Yet while advocates argue for the benefits of mobile technologies in generating understandings of, among other things, how people relate to technology, how technology might affect relationships with places and how researchers might capture "new" data in real time, the ethics and moralities of adopting technologies into research remain unclear. While technologies add unique spatial dimensions to the qualitative methodological canon, this paper will demonstrate how technologies bring equally unique spatial, ethical and moral issues to research practice in ways that can seem innocuous at first but may have implications for how research ---

The emotional entanglements of smartphones in the field: On emotional discomfort, power relations, and research ethics

“…“Emotions are what moves us,” says Ahmed (, p. 171). In this sense, we concur with Holton and Harmer's (, p. 7) argument against privileging research over non‐academic usages of the smartphone. Instead, when employing personal smartphones as research tools, we suggest conceding and reflecting on the ways in which participants act and react in social spaces within which they and the data produced are embedded.…”

“…These associations between objects and emotions are sticky, shaped by past associations. When Mischa and Fran were taking photographs with their smartphones for the study, the private and research contexts interconnected with one another (see also Holton & Harmer, ). In other words, the smartphone as a research camera did not conform to past associations of taking photographs during nights out.…”

“…They also facilitate interactive contact between researchers and participants (Kuntsche & Labhart, , ; Laurier et al., ). While the benefits of smartphones have been amply discussed as augmenting and refining research practices, more critical methodological discussions have recently arisen (e.g., Ergler et al., ; Gorman, ; Holton & Harmer, ). For example, Gorman (, p. 226) argues that smartphones are not “isolated artefacts” when used in fieldwork.…”

Qualitative methods III: On different ways of describing our work

“…For example, Von Benzon (2019) drew on online blogs in her home-schooling study to examine what should be considered ‘public’, and Matulis and Moyer (2018) used Twitter archives to study the practical production of ‘counter publics’. Holton and Harmer (2019) thoughtfully discuss how they worked with smart phones, and Garrett and Anderson (2018) argue for a ‘critical drone methodology’ that carefully considers the societal spread of these devices. Finally, we saw innovation coming from those interested in what is usually called either ‘participatory action research’ or ‘action research’.…”

Applying Social Media Research Methods in Geography Teaching: Benefits and Emerging Challenges?

“…Access to smartphone technologies and social media usage amongst young people is ubiquitous and are popular methods for communication and sharing information. Where students are increasingly digital savvy and become intrinsically reliant on digital communication to practice student identities (Holton 2019;Holton and Harmer 2019), digital methods are increasingly permeating their research projects. Academics have examined how students deploy social technologies to facilitate communication during fieldwork between group members and within public networks (Welsh et al 2013;France et al 2015).…”