Mobile Autoethnography As a Method for Understanding Lived Experience of Urban Mobility

Nazarpour, Mohammad

Mobile Autoethnography As a Method for Understanding Lived Experience of Urban Mobility

Document Type : Brief Communication

Author

M. nazarpour

PhD Student, Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Art, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Aims: However, with the emergence of “Mobilities Turn” and consequently the “New Mobilities Paradigm”, different flows and modes of movement are considered as actions constructing various individual and collective lived experiences, enabling the new experience of the expressed concepts from among the moving experiences. No comprehensive and proper methodologies have been developed for understanding these mobile lived experiences although two decades have passed since the emergence of this new paradigm and this epistemological issue in the field of social sciences. The study tries to develop the methodology to understand these mobile lived experiences – the methods that can reach the hidden meanings of these mobile experiences.
Methods: After examining this methodological gap, the study explain and proposes “mobile autoethnography” as a new approach to understand these lived experiences in motion

Findings: mobile autoethnography is an approach enabling the researcher to understand the lived meanings in the actions of movement in everyday life environments through the lived experience of self and others within the framework of the new mobilities paradigm.

Conclusion: Autoethnography is an emerging approach in ethnography which aims to understand everyday life’s experience can be used to understand mobile lived experience in the field of urban mobility in urban studies disciplines.

Keywords

Mobilities Turn

New Mobilities Paradigm

Mobile Lived Experience

Subjects

Urban Design Theories

1. Urry, J. (2007). Mobilities. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
2. Adey, P. (2010). Mobility. London: Routledge.
3. Cresswell, T. (2006). On the move. Oxford, UK: Routledge.
4. Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The New Mobilities Paradigm. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 38(2), 207–226.
5. Cox, P. (2019). Cycling: A Sociology of Vélomobility. The Mobilization Series on Social Movements, Protest, and Culture. London and New York: Routledge.
6. Jensen, Ole B. 2009. “Foreword: Mobilities as Culture.” In Cultures of Alternative Mobilities: Routes Less Traveled, edited by Philip Vannini, xv–xix. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing.
7. Shane, D. G. (2005) Recombinant Urbanism. Conceptual Modelling in Architecture, Urban Design, and City Theory (Chichester: Wiley).
8. Simpson, P (2018). Elemental mobilities: atmospheres, matter and cycling amid the weather-world, Social & Cultural Geography.
9. Jaffe, R and Koning, A. (2016(. Introducing urban anthropology. London, New York: Routledge.
10. Gamble, J & Snizek, B & Nielsen, T. (2017). From people to cycling indicators: Documenting and understanding the urban context of cyclists' experiences in Quito, Ecuador, Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), 167-177.
11. Law, J. and Urry, J., (2004). Enacting the social. Economy and Society, 33:3, 390–410.
12. Cupples J, and Ridley, E. (2008).Towards a heterogeneous environmental responsibility: Sustainability and cycling fundamentalism. Area 40: 254–264.
13. Blackman, L. and Venn, C. (2010). Affect. Body & Society 16: 7.
14. Oosterhuis, Harry. (2015). Ingebakken gewoonte of buitenissige liefhebberij? Een vergelijking tussen nationale fietsculturen. Sociologie, 11, 3–30.
15. Pesses, M. 2010. “Automobility, Vélomobility, American Mobility: An Exploration of the Bicycle Tour.” Mobilities 5 (1): 1–24.
16. Ingold, T. (2000), The Perception of the Environment: Essays in livelihood, dwelling and enskillment (London: Routledge).
17. Laurier, E. (2010) Being there/seeing there: Recording and analysing life in the car, in: B. Fincham, M.
18. Spinney, J. 2011. “A Chance to Catch a Breath: Using Mobile Video Ethnography in Cycling Research.” Mobilities 6 (2): 161–182.
19. Streule, M. (2020). Doing mobile ethnography: Grounded, situated and comparative. Urban Studies, 57(2), 421–438.
20. Lee J and Ingold T .(2006) Fieldwork on foot. Perceiving, routing, socializing. In: Coleman S and Collins P (eds) Locating the Field. Space, Place and Context in Anthropology. Oxford: Berg, pp. 67-85
21. Chang, H. (2008) Autoethnography as Method. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast.
22. Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
23. Adams, T. E., Jones, S. H., & Ellis, C. (2015) Autoethnography: Understanding qualitative research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
24. Anderson, L. (2006) Analytic Autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 373-375.
25. Lash, S. (1990) Sociology of postmodernism, Routledge, London.
26. Jameson, F. (1991) Postmodernism, or the cultural logic of late capitalism, Verso Books, London.
27. Fludernik, M. (2005) Histories on narrative theory (II): From structuralism to the present. In A Companion to Narrative Theory, edited by J. Phelan and P.J. Rabinowitz. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
28. Herman, David. (2005) Histories of narrative theory (I): A genealogy of early developments. In A Companion to Narrative Theory, edited by J. Phelan and P.J. Rabinowitz. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
29. Soja, E. (2008). The spatial Turn Interdisciplinary Perspectives. English: Routledge.
30. Lefebvre, H. (1996) Writing on cities. E. Kofman and E. Lebas, trans. And eds., Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
31. Clifford, J. (1988). The predicament of culture: twentieth century ethnography, literature and art. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
32. Marcus, G. E., and Fischer, M. M. (1986). Anthropology as cultural critique: an experimental moment in the human sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.