Methodologies: Ethnography

The idea that ethnography can produce accurate and valid knowledge and represent social and cultural worlds by capturing these worlds from within has been subject to extensive critiques. These critiques come from different disciplinary and theoretical positions: what follows is a summary, ordered in a loose chronological order. This means that each critique belongs to a historical context. For instance, the debate on the value of qualitative as opposed to quantitative methodologies is no longer current, and it is generally recognised that qualitative methodologies like ethnography are crucial to understand people and their environments. This summary then is useful to locate the critiques to ethnography as a methodology historically.

In brief, social researchers welded to positivist frameworks derived from the study of natural sciences critiqued ethnography for three main reasons (Brewer 2000).

• First, they believed that ethnography fails because it is a qualitative methodology that researches in depth small samples rather than a quantitative methodology based on the gathering of large quantities of data. In addition to this mix-methods data collection such as observation, interviews and focus groups were judged to be unsystematic.
• Second, positivist critics objected to the ethnographer being embedded in the research, arguing that this positioning influences the research results, especially when the ethnographer engages in self-reflection and becomes an observant participant (a self-reflective participant conscious of her or his positionality) rather than a participant observer (see Donna Haraway response to this in, Situated Knowledge 1991).
• Third, the nature of data, such as quotations from interviews, field notes, objects, visual documentation was deemed to be too subjective, in comparison with scientific numerical data (Brewer 2000, p. 19-21).

Starting in the late 1980s the idea that ethnography could produce universally valid knowledge by representing cultural and social worlds from a privileged position, such as the one adopted by Geertz with his ‘thick descriptions’, came under attack in the context of postmodern theory, feminism and post-colonialism. These critiques to classical ethnography can be summarised in five main points.

1. Researchers often produce representations of disenfranchised people that do not take into consideration the uneven power relations between researchers and research participants.
2. Ethnography does not do justice to participants’ sense of reality, rather it reinforces Western grand narratives, a classic example of which is colonialism.
3. The positionality of ‘classic’ ethnographers, largely white and males, resulted in privileging a ‘rational’ way of understanding the world inherited by the natural sciences, and consequently focused on ‘partial truths’ (Clifford 1986, p. 7). This focus erased different ways of knowing, of being and of being political, such as for instance those of marginalised people, including women. These ways may include embodied, sensory, emotional ways of knowing and being in the world.
4. Ethnography does not reciprocate by ‘giving back’ to communities in the form of knowledge, but also of practical actions, such as for instance making research available for the benefits of communities (Clifford and Marcus 1986). Indigenous critics add to this, calling for respect and reciprocity, as Jonathan Jones explains in his podcast.
5. In the last two decades ethnographers have also theorised ethnographies that take into account other things and beings, such as objects, animals, plants, and fungi (Haraway 2003, 2016; Kirksey and Helmreich 2010; Tsing 2012; Head, Atchison and Phillips 2014). Anne Galloway to make an example, leads the More-Than-Human Lab, combining ethnographic and creative research methods to explore human/nonhuman entanglements, such as between humans and sheep, or humans and invasive animal species in New Zealand.

The combination of critiques summarised in the previous section has given rise to ‘new ethnographies’ (Saukko 2003, pp. 56-73) and to revised approaches and methodologies. One such approach is to adopt a reflexive and self-reflexive position by taking into consideration our perspective and how it differs from others. This allows the researcher to become aware of her or his own position and thus to become open to radically different ways of understanding the world. (Saukko 2003, p. 57). The other is to recognise that the way we know, make, and make sense of the world, is not simply a cognitive act, but also an embodied experience. In this view the senses are the media through which we experience the world (Howes 2005, p. 4).

Observation, the most distinctive ethnographic method used to study place, as well as other methods, have been revised in light of these critiques. In early anthropology the researcher was imagined as the observer and writer on the cultural and social life of others. Implicit in this view was that the ethnographer produced knowledge about other people, seen as her or his object of inquiry. A more contemporary and subtle definition in relation to research on space and place describes the practice of observation:

Participant observation involves spending time being, living or working with people or communities in order to understand them. In other words, it is, as the name implies, a method based on participating and observing in which field-notes, sketches, photographs or video recordings are used as a method of data collection. The basis of this approach is to become, or stay, as close to the spatial phenomenon being studied as possible and it is thereby quite distinct from methodologies that emphasize distance and objectivity (Laurier 2010, p. 116).

Observation is particularly well suited to study place because it enables the understanding how place emerges through cultural and social practices. Watson and Till, two geographers who use ethnography as their research mode, emphasise the capacity of participant observation to grasp everyday interactions, and how these interactions create public and private spaces. The scale of these spaces can vary from home to neighbourhood, to country, to transnational networks, to multi-local sites. In addition to this, observation can help to understand how bodies interact and mingle and in doing so constitute social spaces. Ethnography is therefore particularly suited to understand the power relations that come with the everyday and with bodily interactions and place-making practices, such for instance practices of inclusion and exclusion (2010, p. 122). In other words, observation is suitable tool:

To understand how people create and experience their worlds through processes such as place making, inhabiting social spaces, forging local and transnational networks, and representing and decolonizing spatial imaginaries (Watson and Till 2010, pp. 121-122).

In their podcasts Angela Giovanangeli, Kristine Aquino, Kate Barclay, and Clancy Wilmott all make examples of how they use observation in their work, and Emi Otsuji explains one particular for of ethnography based on linguistic analysis in urban contexts.

In the last two decades, the definition and scope of participant observation has been expanded to consider the researcher being in the field as an active participant who also engages in self- reflexive practice. For instance, while Ilaria was researching design and activism in Italy for Precarious Objects, she participated in protests and spent time in a maker space, so as to understand how social spaces came into being in everyday exchanges, particularly when associated with the production and circulation of objects.

This mode of research, which alternates self-reflexive moments with active participation in a place or community, is sometimes referred to as observant participation. Shifting the terms from participant observation to observant participation is not simply a matter of updating terminology. This shift captures a change in practice from observer to participant: it stresses the engagement in the community the ethnographer is researching. As such observant participation grounds data collection in lived experience and enables the researcher to make contributions to that community. This resonates with the necessity to decolonise ethnography by framing research as co-production, including for instance framing research questions as a participatory process so that whatever knowledge is produced is useful to the community as well as to the researcher, that recognises and legitimises expert knowledge beyond academic settings (Watson and Till 2010, p. 130). Listen to Alexandra Crosby and Jonathan Jones explaining the importance of collaborations in their podcasts.

For instance, while studying how gardens and gardening are place-making practices in Haberfield, Mapping Edges organised a seeds swap to create an occasion for gardeners to meet and reinforce their networks, and quite simply to exchange seeds with other gardeners. This event did not go well: only a few people turned up and the seeds swap confirmed that there is a gap between what people say they are interested in doing in interviews, for instance that they want to meet other gardeners, and what they do. Although our activity failed as a seeds swap, it was very useful to understand the value of observant participation, without which we would have thought that gardeners in the specific community we were researching wanted to expand their networks or get different seeds. Instead it became clear that small, discrete existing networks combined around particular and at times contrasting gardening and place-making practices, such as cultivating ornamental, native or vegetable gardens.

Seed packets from Ilaria’s box. Some were collected at the street seed library at the Cross Road Community Corner in Gardners Bay, Tasmania.

This seeds swap was part of a trans-disciplinary research process that included various methods. Building diversity and iteration in the research process is important to record the multiplicity and messiness of everyday life and illustrate it in ways similar to Massey’s description of Kilburn in the initial quote of this methodology. Observation in this sense is a method that uses diverse, iterative techniques, both during data gathering and during writing and data presentation. Observing can mean different things: watching, paying attention, listening, touching, talking, walking, smelling, tasting, chatting, making, photographing, sketching, recording, filming, hanging out, eating, taking field notes and interviewing. It also means writing, analysing, reflecting and revising writing and going back for further fieldwork. This circular connection between fieldwork and writing is the trademark of ethnographic research. In general, it is a good idea to write observations and ideas that might be prompted by certain events, stories, sentences, objects or images, and detailed descriptions of research sessions as soon as possible, sometimes while immersed in the research itself. This type of writing is called field notes. While some researchers do write field notes in notebooks (field journals) others use social media, such as Instagram and Twitter to write short and to the point notes and keep a visual diary (Alexandra Crosby talks about this in her podcast). Some apps like IOS notes, Microsoft One Note, Google Docs can be used to write. Phone apps like Notes  and its Android equivalents in particular are useful because they enables the researcher to organise data in notes and organises notes in notebooks, to tag (see coding, below) and make connections among notes, to include clippings, articles, images, video and sound. Finally, one can type notes, or use the speech to text function and simply speak and let your phone transcribe for you. Kate Barclay in her podcast talks about the importance of good and functional tools during fieldwork from bags to pens.

Watson and Till describe their writing practices and tools depending on the context of their research (2010, pp. 121-137). Till uses different notebooks or field journals for fieldwork to jot down notes on the go, and other notebooks for critical analysis and reflection. She classifies her notes as descriptive, reflective and interpretative/analytical notes: this classification is useful when coding. She then writes up her notes on her computer, and during periods of research she sets aside one day a week to go through her notebooks and write (2010, p. 127). In a different a more sensitive research context, Watson realised that extensive fieldnotes are not appropriate to her fieldwork (to avoid constructing Indigenous people as ‘objects’ of knowledge) and writes in private at the end of each day of fieldwork (2010, p. 128). Both use memos to reflect and analyse their research experience. This is an essential step in the research process and as it is a form of private writing it is useful to understand failure and cringeworthy moments:

In memos, we question our experiences and assumptions, pay attention to processes, respond to our embodied and emotional presences, consider the material and visual cultures that constitute what is being studied, scrutinizes various relationships with research fields and partners, and elaborate upon our insights. We also make connections to other studies or previous work in memos, and raise critical questions that inform future theoretical readings (2010, p. 128).

Another process used to make sense of the data gathered during fieldwork is coding. Coding means to recognise and name patterns and themes emerging in the fieldwork and writing. As an example, during our research on gardens we realised that birds came up in many conversations, that many gardeners grow trees and shrubs to support birds, and that think of their gardens as part of a local ecosystem. Unsurprisingly we called this pattern ‘birds’, a shortcut to indicate people, animals, and plants’ entanglements in the process of place- making. Like ethnography itself, the practicalities of coding mean different things in different disciplines. While linguists or sociologists may use qualitative research analysis programs (some free and open source), others might code with more DIY technologies. These include highlighting text, colour coding, writing on margins, writing on post-its, reverse outlining (an outline created from an existing text) and so on. Some researchers use MSWord, as explained here. It is a good idea to show the emerging patterns to research participants, if possible, and get their opinion on them.

One of the new ways of understanding and practicing ethnography that has emerged in the last decade is sensory ethnography. Sensory ethnography can be broadly understood as two main and intersecting, fields of concern. On one hand, there is an ‘anthropology of the senses’ that focuses on collective sensorial practices of a given society or group and can be defined as the study of how different cultures have different and not fixed sensory systems (Feld and Basso 1996; Howes 2005; Howes and Classen 2013; Stoller 1997). On the other hand, there is an ‘anthropology of the senses’ that results from a recognition of the role played by embodied experiences in the way we know the world, as an attention to the ‘creative interweaving of experience in discourse and the way in which the resulting discursive constructions in turn affect people’s perceptions of the world around them’ (Ingold 2000, p. 285). As an example the experimental and interdisciplinary centre Sensory Ethnography Lab (SEL) at Harvard University draws from ‘the arts, the social and natural sciences, and the humanities, [and] encourages attention to the many dimensions of the world, both animate and inanimate, that may only with difficulty, if it all, be rendered with words’ (‘Sensory Ethnography Lab’ 2010).

Creative and cultural producers and researchers have also adopted sensory ethnography in projects that explore place and place-making, because it enables modes of research more experimental than cognitive and language-based methodologies. In the Place-based Methodologies @UTS podcast series, as an example, Paul Allatson, highlights the importance of a sensory analysis of place to understand the world a text (written, or visual, or aural) originates. For instance, artist and researcher Adeola Enigbokan works in and on cities, imagining them as archives. Her practice involves the participation of the public in site- specific events. She invites the researcher:

To actively engage his or her sensory experience–through walking, telling stories, making maps, searching out encounters with strangers or getting lost–as an important methodology for producing knowledge about the city.

In Sydney, artist Cat Jones has created a smell portrait of the city. She held a series of interviews and conversations on themes such as landscape, democracy, extravagance, resistance and competition, asking participants to think about these topics through smell. Then she created distinctive scents of the city based on these conversations, available on the Scent of Sydney website. Auntie Francis Bodkin, for instance, draws on Dharawal ecology to explain Sydney landscape through the smell of native plants. Michael Darcy talks about the changing economy of the city through his recollection of the smell of the brewery near central station on the current site of Central Park, opposite UTS tower. William Gladstone uses the smell of briny air and algae to evoke the connection with our natural environment.

The starting point of all these projects and of sensory ethnography is that the way we understand the world and our meaning making practices do not emerge only from language. Instead meaning making practices are also located in a specific place and resulting from our sensory experiences. Our way of sensing and the ensuing sensory experiences though are not universal, neutral, or static. On the contrary they develop from cultural and social practices, and they are inflected by factors such as class, gender and race. For instance, think of the preference for certain foods and how it changes across cultures. Some plants like dandelion are eaten in salads in Italy yet considered a weed in Australia. Think also how the taste for certain foods comes to define social classes and generations. A good example is the smashed avo on toast debacle. A baby boomer columnist, Bernard Salt, wrote a piece arguing that young people in Australia cannot afford to buy a house because they spend too much money on avocado on toast. This created a social media reaction, was then picked up by other commentators of similar socio-economic background, and finally became a meme. Smashed avo thus became a generational and class marker, but also a symbol of an urban aesthetics. This anecdote is helpful to remember how sensory systems and worlds, also called sensoria (singular sensorium) are not simply biological, they are also shaped by cultural and social practices.

David Howes, one of the first anthropologist to attend to the senses, explains this entanglement of sensory, social and cultural values as emplacement. This is defined as a ‘sensuous interrelationship of body-mind-environment’ where environment is understood as ‘a bundle of sensory and social values’ (2005, p. 7). Sensory ethnography is a method to research and understand this bundle of sensory and social values. Sarah Pink, a pioneer of visual and sensory methodologies, writes that sensory ethnography is a ‘process of learning through the ethnographer’s own multisensory, emplaced experience’ (2009, p. 64). The emphasis on emplacement is key to the study of others’ experiences in specific environments. Therefore, paying attention to the sensory perceptions is important to understand how place is constituted through sensory practices that are situated in specific cultural and social contexts. In turn the study of emplaced experiences opens up the possibility to understand what constitutes the impact of sensory elements on social and cultural practices and on the way peoples choose to do things in their everyday lives. Taking part in the same experience enables the research to align herself or himself with what is experienced by others. Pink highlights the importance of sharing the sensorial experiences of participant observation:

Understood through a theory of place, the idea of ethnographer-participation implies that the ethnographer is co-participating in practices through which place is constituted with those who simultaneously participate on her or his research, and as such might become similarly emplaced. (2009, p. 64).

On a practical level attending to sensorial experiences involves the researcher being alive to her/his own and other people’s embodied experiences and practices. Megan Heyward for instance, in her podcast explains her methodology as a practice-based combination of the physical act of walking and photo and video documentation that uses the camera as an immediate, embodied and creative response to the environment. In sensory ethnography observation may include smell, taste, touch, and movement in addition to the more traditional focus on the visual (see Low 2015 for a survey of sensory methodologies to study the social life of the senses in urban contexts, such as smellscape walkabouts).

In sensory ethnography observation may include smell, taste, touch, and movement

Pink (2008, 2011 and 2012) has written about audio visual techniques to explore experiences and visual representations of movement in urban contexts. This article presents also the narrative of her research process, and as such it offers a model to think about ethnographic research. She explains:

Visual Ethnography involves an approach that engages with audio-visual media and methods throughout its processes of research, analysis and representation. It is inevitably collaborative and to varying extents participatory. This might involve analysing the existing visual cultures in which one is researching and collaboratively producing audio-visual materials with research participants—and usually entails understandings such sets of materials in relation to each other (2008, n.p.).

In relation to place-making, Pink continues, audio visual techniques create place during the research process, and later as documentation. Because she understands place as an event (Casey 1996) or process, as something that is continuously made and remade, she argues that audio visual methods are important to understand both the place as a process itself, and how audio-visual media represent and mediate place (2008, n.p.).

It is useful at this stage to consider how ethnography is used to understand the social and sensory practices of place-making. Amanda Wise’s research on everyday and sensuous multiculturalism in the Sydney suburb of Ashfield provides an excellent example. Wise conducted ethnographies with elderly Anglo Australian and European Australian residents for over two years, to comprehend how they reacted and felt to the rapid demographic changes in the suburb brought about by the arrival of new residents from China. Wise discovered that many of the reactions commonly understood as racist were the result of conflicting sensory experiences. To stress the connection between the way we perceive the world through ours senses and the way our senses are the result of social and cultural practices, Wise uses the concept of habitus, intended as the embodiment of social norms and dispositions that orient and guide our behaviour. Habitus manifests itself in our actions and appearance, and in the way we speak, move, stand and so forth. A ‘well-fitted habitus’ produces a sense of homeliness (2010, p. 923). Wise deploys the concept of cross-cultural habitus to describe ‘how Ashfield’s new environment has produced a rupture, or disjuncture in the previously “well-fitted habitus” of its long term elderly residents’ (Wise 2010, p. 923). Examples of how habitus shapes sensory experiences include the perception of Chinese residents as rude, pushy, dirty, and smelly. Anglo and European residents described their discomfort in front of the changes to their neighbourhood in bodily terms, as changes to the way they shopped, moved, and inhabited the suburb. To foreground embodied experiences in multicultural and intercultural situations Wise develops the notion of ‘sensuous multiculturalism’, which is useful to understand how place emerges through intercultural interactions, including ‘intercultural anxiety and everyday racism’ (2010, pp. 917-937).

(See Also Oral Histories)

A key method in ethnographic research is to gather data through interviews. Interviews are often chosen as the default methodology to find out how people are affected by, relate to and make place, and how a specific place can be read in relation to broader theoretical, spatial and contextual concerns. Kate Barclay talks about using interviews (and gives some good practical advice about them) in conjunction with other methods, such as document analysis. Carolyn Cartier talks about using interviews in her research on cities in China, specifically in relation to scale. As an another example, in our research on gardening practices even when we were asking questions about very specific gardens, or even corners of gardens, we held as a point of reference whole neighbourhoods, councils, state and federal policies, city demographics, gentrification and so on.

The typologies of interviews vary greatly from highly structured, survey-like interviews where the researchers ask specific questions in a specific order and repeat the process with a number of interviewees, to semi-structured interviews that follow broad prompts, to conversational interviews with no predetermined question and structure. Different kinds of interview function more or less well depending on research questions and projects. As an example, a project that seeks to glean data about a large number of people (for instance how many people visit a museum and what they do once they are in the museum) may need highly structured interviews administered online. A project that tries to find out why people chose to do something (for instance the reasons why they go to a museum) would work better with a smaller number of semi-structured interviews. A project that wants to understand how people feel about being in a certain place or how they perceive a place (for instance how they feel while in a museum and how they perceive it) would require more conversational interviews.

The choice of type of interview reflects also theoretical approaches and developments in ethnography and other social sciences. These changes can be described briefly as moving from an idea of the detached researcher gathering objective quantitative data (up to the 1980s), to the understanding that data gathered in an interview is constructed through language and it is steeped in the politics of representation (Clifford and Marcus 1986), to the current attention to the inclusion of meaning making practices not based solely on language (also known as non-representational ethnography, Vannini 2014).

Linda McDowell provides an eloquent critical appraisal of interviews as a method stressing the complexities and personal nature of the interactions between interviewer and interviewee. As a senior academic who has used interviews as a method during her entire career, she reveals:

And yet each time, before I go to talk to the people I have identified as important to the aims of my work, my heart thumps, my palms sweat and I wonder whether I have the energy, confidence and the sheer check required to persuade them to share with me the sometimes intimate and occasionally painful details of their lives for what might seem to them to be very little return (2010, p. 157).

In addition to sharing a common experience of fear before doing interviews, an experience rarely written about in discussions of methods, McDowell introduces two other key aspects. The first one is that interviews are not simply an exchange of words but are deeply embodied and affective encounters. The second point is that the interviewer needs to think about what the benefit for the interviewee is. In short McDowell suggests that issues of ethics, responsibility and power underline the entire interview process.

In this process the interviewer can feel like a ‘supplicant’ (2010, p. 162) hoping to glean knowledge from the interviewee. Importantly the author stresses that the degree of comfort or discomfort during an interview varies in proportion to similarity or difference of class, ethnicity, gender, language and accent. One way to minimise discomfort is to create some shared understanding of the issue at hand introducing personal narratives, or in some cases creating a shared sensory experience. In my experience these two techniques facilitate the interview process. For example, many of the interviews for my projects involved sharing food and personal life stories. This does not mean simply meeting someone for coffee. Drinking coffee, eating a specific food is a way to establish a common sensory experience and when this happens in someone’s home it must be recognised as an act of hospitality. Similarly sharing personal stories generates empathy and makes the interview process closer to what is described in Oral Histories as co-production of knowledge, but it is equally important to avoid talking too much and dominating the conversation.

There are now many texts and multimedia resources on interviews, and what follows is a summary of a selection of authors who are rather text-book like in their approach to qualitative interviews but overall, they provide useful information and tips. For example, Edwards and Holland (2013), cover the practicalities of interviewing and provide definitions for terms that are sometimes slippery such as, ‘research subject, interviewee, respondent or participant’ (2013, p. 2). They also cover the issue of consent, and the affective aspects of interviewing. Perhaps most innovatively they focus on the importance of place, choice of location and research techniques. Travers (2006) covers much of the same but each section is supported with case study examples. Also included is a useful exercise (2006, p. 101) on designing questions and practicing a sample interview. This is helpful when thinking about topic themes and what the experience of the interviewee or subject may be like. Turner (2010) focuses on ‘novice investigators’. It is worth noting to the novice that unstructured does not equate to undisciplined: there must be a purpose in the flow of a conversational interview. In addition, there is some level of difficulty in gaining data using this method. Therefore, Turner extends on the other two guides by providing examples of research questions and follow up questions. 

Based on the rationale that the unstructured interview is a powerful way to develop ‘a broader understanding of society’, Mark and Holton (2017 n.p.), present a case study of two projects that depart from the above methodologies in that they focus on the walking interview and how place is related to ‘how we do interviews’. Their use of case studies illustrates farmers’ practices and students on placement. In both situations place is directly connected to the kind of experiences interviewees were asked to talk about. The authors list the practical issues involved in walking interviews such as safety, data capture, weather, timing, planning. Writing up notes summarising the experience into a narrative then sharing it with the participants is a good way to validate the data. In discussing the benefits, the case studies illustrate how walking interviews and place are complimentary in some situations.

In conclusion, like all methodologies the purpose for choosing structured or unstructured interviews and walking as you talk as opposed to sitting while you interview is entirely dependent on the context of the research. All the guides contain tips for different contexts and all concur that even an unstructured interview or conversational method needs to be planned and that ethical and affective factors be considered.

Brewer, J. 2000, Ethnography, Open University Press, Buckingham and Philadelphia.

Casey, E. 1996, ‘How to get from space in a fairly short stretch of time: Phenomenological Prolegomena’, in S. Feld & K. Basso (eds), Senses of Place, School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 13–52.

Clifford, J. & Marcus, G.E. (eds) 1986, Writing Culture. The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, University of California Press, Berkeley Los Angeles London.

Clifford, J. 1986, ‘Introduction: Partial Truths’, in J. Clifford & G.E. Marcus (eds), Writing Culture. The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, pp. 1–26.

Edwards, R. & Holland, J. 2013, What is qualitative interviewing?, Bloomsbury, London New Delhi New York Sydney, viewed 2 July 2018, <http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/3276/1/complete_proofs.pdf>.

Feld, S. & Basso, K. (eds) 1996, Senses of Place, School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Fontana, A. 2004, ‘Unstructured interview’, in M. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman & T. Futing Liao (eds), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Fontana, A. 2004, ‘Unstructured interview’, in M. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman & T. Futing Liao (eds),The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Geertz, C. 1973, The Interpretation of Culture, Basic Books, New York.

Grbich, C. 2004, ‘Data Presentation and Re-presentation’, New Approaches in Social

Research, SAGE Publications Ltd, London, pp. 94–107.

Haraway, D. 1991, ‘Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective’, Simians, cyborgs and women: the reinvention of nature, Free Association Books, London, pp. 183–201.

Haraway, D. 2003, The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness, Prickly Paradigm Press, Chicago.

Haraway, D. 2016, Staying with the Trouble, Duke University Press, Durham and London.

Harvey, P. 2018, ‘Ethnography’, Methods@Manchester – The University of Manchester, viewed 21 June 2018, <https://www.methods.manchester.ac.uk/themes/ethnographic-methods/ethnography/>.

Head, L., Atchison, J., Phillips, C. & Buckingham, K. 2014, ‘Vegetal politics: belonging, practices and places’, Social and Cultural Geography, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 861–70.

Howes, D. (ed.) 2005, Empire of the Senses: The Sensual Culture Reader, Berg Publishers, London.

Howes, D. & Classen, C. 2013, Ways of Sensing: Understanding the Senses In Society, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon and New York.

Ingold, T. 2000, ‘The Perception of the Environment’, London Routledge.

Kirksey, S.E. & Helmreich, S. 2010, ‘The emergence of multispecies ethnography’, Cultural Anthropology, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 545–76, viewed 16 September 2017, <http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1548-1360.2010.01069.x>.

Laurier, E. 2010, ‘Participant Observation’, in N. Clifford, S. French & G. Valentine (eds), Key Methods in Geography, Sage, Los Angeles London New Delhi Singapore Washington DC, pp. 116–30.

Low, K.E.Y.Y. 2015, ‘The sensuous city: Sensory methodologies in urban ethnographic research’, Ethnography, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 295–312.

Massey, D. 1991, ‘A Global Sense Of Place’, Marxism Today, June, pp. 24–9.

Massey, D. 2005, For Space, Sage, London.

McDowell, L. 2010, ‘Interviewing: Fear and Liking in the Field’, The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Geography, Sage, London Thousand Oaks New Delhi Singapore, pp. 156– 71.

Nova, N. (ed.) 2017, Beyond Design Ethnography. How Designers Practice Ethnographic Research, HAL, Geneva, viewed 21 June 2018, <https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01514264/document>.

Pink, S. 2008, ‘Mobilising Visual Ethnography: Making Routes, Making Place and Making Images’, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, vol. 9, no. 3, viewed 29 June 2018, <http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1166/2575>.

Pink, S. 2009, Doing Sensory Ethnography, Sage, London.

Pink, S. 2011, ‘Multimodality, multi-sensoriality and ethnographic knowing: social semiotics and the phenomenology of perception’, Qualitative Research, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 261–76.

Pink, S. 2012, Situating Everyday Life: Practices and Places, Sage, London.

Rhodes, J. n.d., ‘Ethnography in Sociology’, Methods@Manchester – The University of Manchester, viewed 21 June 2018, <https://www.methods.manchester.ac.uk/themes/ethnographic-methods/ethnography-in-sociology/>.

Riley, M. & Holton, M. 2016, ‘Place-Based Interviewing: Creating and Conducting Walking Interviews’, SAGE Research Methods Cases, Sage, London.

Saukko, P. 2003, Doing Research in Cultural Studies, SAGE Publications Ltd, London.

Stoller, P. 1997, Sensuous Scholarship, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Travers, M. 2006, ‘Qualitative Interviewing methods’, in W. Maggie (ed.), Social Research Methods: An Australian Perspective, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Vic, pp. 83–111.

Tsing, A. 2012, ‘Unruly Edges: Mushrooms as Companion Species’, Environmental Humanities, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 141–54, viewed 16 September 2017, <www.environmentalhumanities.org>.

Turner, D.W. 2010, ‘Qualitative Interview Design: A Practical Guide for Novice’, The Qualitative Report, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 754–60.

Vannini, P. 2014, ‘Non-representational ethnography: new ways of animating lifeworlds’, Cultural Geographies, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 317–27.

Watson, A. & Till, K.E. 2010, ‘Ethnography and Participant Observation’, in D. DeLyser, S. Herbert, S. Aitken, M. Crang & L. McDowell (eds), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Geography, Sage, London Thousand Oaks New Delhi Singapore, pp. 121–37.

Wise, A. 2010, ‘Sensuous Multiculturalism: Emotional Landscapes of Inter-Ethnic Living in Australian Suburbia’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 917– 37.

Websites

Adeola Enigbokan art + urbanism, https://archivingthecity.com/projects/ Cat Jones, https://catjones.net/2016/10/26/scent-of-sydney/

More Than Human Lab, http://morethanhumanlab.org/

Scent of Sydney, https://scentofsydney.net/