Walking, when used as a deliberate and reflective research method in qualitative urban geography, offers an embodied way to develop local literacy, uncovering the spatial rhythms, social practices, and contextual nuances of cities that are often missed through desk-based or interview-only approaches. Pierce and Lawhon argue that although researchers frequently walk during fieldwork, this practice is rarely reported explicitly, reducing transparency and limiting methodological comparability. Observational walking encompasses not just movement, but standing, interacting, and observing, drawing from traditions such as the flâneur while engaging with contemporary critiques of rigor and positionality. Through case studies in Pittsburgh, USA, and Tshwane, South Africa, the authors propose a framework for systematic walking research: start from familiar locations to anchor observations, explore flows, boundaries, and connections to reveal mobility patterns, iterate walks across spatial and temporal contexts to capture variation, and end with questions rather than definitive answers to integrate findings into broader qualitative triangulation. Walking’s value lies in generating serendipitous insights, revealing barriers—both physical and social—and situating the researcher within the embodied experience of urban life. Yet, constraints such as safety, accessibility, or local norms may limit walking, and acknowledging its absence is equally important for evaluating research validity. By advocating for explicit reporting of walking practices, the authors aim to enhance rigor, reflexivity, and comparability in urban studies, positioning walking as a methodological tool that can enrich understanding of place-making, mobility, and urban social dynamics.
Pierce, J. & Lawhon, M., 2015. Walking as method: Toward methodological forthrightness and comparability in urban geographical research. The Professional Geographer, 67(4), pp.655–662.
