Automobile interviews: Their potential and limitations (a case study of small Russian cities)

Abstract

In the literature on mobile methods, pedestrian interviews and everyday driving practices are discussed far more often than automobile (in-car) interviewing. Ten

years of experience using mobile methods to study small-town spaces provides the basis for summarizing observations. This article examines two significant differences between automobile interviews and walking tours, relating to the image of space and the degree of detail it conveys. Various types of automobile interviews are described, depending on who drives (researcher or informant), the number of participants, and the planning of the trip. The primary advantage of automobile interviews is the ability to reach remote areas of the city that are only alluded to during walking tours. Automobile interviews help expand the pool of informants by including people engaged in everyday driving and possessing a unique perspective on the city and its transport infrastructure. Spontaneous encounters and conversations, for example with taxi drivers, can yield comments that fall outside the socially accepted canon. The limitations of automobile interviews are presented: less detail and limited channels for perceiving urban space from a car, a reduced ability of the informant to integrate narration with the movement of the trip, and the sensitivity of certain topics. At the same time, the greater intimacy of the space, the need for basic trust as a characteristic of a shared sense of “passengers in the same boat” in a car, and the different, more complex and less regulated distribution of roles in the car between interviewers and informants, driver and passengers, allow for some additional insight into the structure of the community, facilitate discussion of complex topics, and create an additional research space through the use of automobility. Particular attention is paid to the experience of the driver-researcher.