This article reports on research into the navigational practices of blind and visually impaired people in urban environments. The members of this community encounter many types of obstacles, but this article focuses on ‘unpredictable inanimate moveable objects’. The analyses are based on recorded video material from ‘naturally occurring’ walks in a Danish urban area and are informed by ethnomethodology, with a focus on how blind or visually impaired people navigate and deal with trouble sources. This research unpacks the detailed features of navigation and obstacle-detection in the urban environment and demonstrates the value of using ethnomethodology to analyze the skilled character of everyday navigation in spaces in which the walker-with-cane is a kind of assemblage in harmony or at odds with other surfaces and objects. The findings have implications for space design and technology developments which can assist blind people with obstacle detection. The article uses empirical cases to discuss an ocular-centric bias and suggests the need for a more granular understanding of physical objects and tactile experiences in future developments of a sociology of space.
ArminenIWeilenmannA (2009) Mobile presence and intimacy—Reshaping social actions in mobile contextual configuration (Communicating Place, Space and Mobility). Journal of Pragmatics41(10): 1905–1923.
2.
BatesCRhys-TaylorA (2017) Walking through Social Research. London: Routledge.
3.
BoysJ (2017) Disability, Space, Architecture: A Reader. London: Routledge.
4.
BrothMKeevallikL (2014) Getting ready to move as a couple: Accomplishing mobile formations in a dance class. Space and Culture17(2): 107–121.
5.
BrothMMondadaL (2013) Walking away: The embodied achievement of activity closings in mobile interaction. Journal of Pragmatics47(1): 41–58.
6.
BruceIWMcKennellACWalkerEC, et al. (1991) Blind and Partially Sighted Adults in Britain: The RNIB Survey. London: HMSO.
7.
ButtonG (2008) Against ‘distributed cognition’. Theory, Culture & Society25(2): 87–104.
8.
CastellsM (2009) The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture, vol. I. 2nd ed. with a New Preface ed. Chichester; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
9.
CekaiteA (2016) Touch as social control: Haptic organization of attention in adult–child interactions. Journal of Pragmatics92: 30–42.
10.
DantT (1999) Material Culture in the Social World: Values, Activities, Lifestyles. Buckingham: Open University Press.
11.
DantT (2004) The driver-car. Theory, Culture & Society21(4–5): 61–79.
12.
De StefaniEMondadaL (2014) Reorganizing mobile formations when ‘guided’ participants initiate reorientations in guided tours. Space and Culture17(2): 157–175.
13.
DescartesR (1988) Selected Philosophical Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
DueB (2017) Multimodal interaktionsanalyse og videoetnografisk dataindsamling. København: Samfundslitteratur.
15.
DueBLangeS (2018a) Semiotic resources for navigation: A video ethnographic study of blind people’s uses of the white cane and a guide dog for navigating in urban areas. Semiotica2018(222): 287–312.
16.
DueBLangeS (2018b) The Moses effect: The spatial hierarchy and joint accomplishment of a blind person navigating. Space and Culture21(2): 129–144.
17.
DueBKupersRLangeS, et al. (2017) Technology enhanced vision in blind and visually impaired individuals: Synoptik Foundation research project. Circd Working Papers in Social Interaction3(1): 1–31.
18.
FoucaultM (1986) Of other spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias. Diacritics161: 22–27.
19.
FrancisDHesterS (2004) An Invitation to Ethnomethodology: Language, Society and Interaction. London: SAGE.
20.
GarfinkelH (1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
21.
GarfinkelH (1991) Respecification: Evidence for locally produced, naturally accountable phenomena of order, logic, reason, meaning, methods, etc. in and of the essential haecceity of immortal ordinary society (I) – An announcement of studies. In: ButtonG (ed.) Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 10–19.
22.
GarfinkelH (2002) Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working Out Durkeim’s Aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
23.
GarrettBL (2011) Videographic geographies: Using digital video for geographic research. Progress in Human Geography35(4): 521–541.
24.
GibsonJJ (1977) The theory of affordance. In: ShawRBransfordJ (eds) Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing, pp. 127–143. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25.
GiddensA (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
26.
GiudiceNALeggeGE (2008) Blind navigation and the role of technology. In: (Sumi) HelalAMokhtariMAbdulrazakB (eds) The Engineering Handbook of Smart Technology for Aging, Disability, and Independence. John Wiley & Sons, pp. 479–500. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ep.fjernadgang.kb.dk/doi/10.1002/9780470379424.ch25/summary (accessed 23 June 2016).
27.
GleesonB (2002) Geographies of Disability. London: Routledge.
28.
GoodwinC (1993) The blackness of black: Color categories as situated practice. In: ResnickLBSäljöRPontecorvoC, et al (eds) Discourse, Tools and Reasoning: Essays on Situated Cognition. Berlin; New York: Springer, pp. 111–140.
29.
GoodwinC (1994) Professional vision. American Anthropologist96(3): 606–633.
30.
GoodwinC (1995) Co-constructing meaning in conversations with an aphasic man. Research on Language and Social Interaction28(3): 233–260.
31.
GoodwinC (2001) Practices of seeing: Visual analysis: An ethnomethodological approach. In: Van LeeuwenTJewittC (eds) Handbook of Visual Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 157–182.
32.
GoodwinC (2006) Human sociality as mutual orientation in a rich interactive environment: Multimodal utterances and pointing in aphasia. In: EnfieldNLevinsonSC (eds) Roots of Human Sociality. Oxford: Berg Press, pp. 96–125.
33.
GoodwinCGoodwinMH (1996) Formulating planes: Seeing as a situated activity. In: MiddletonDEngestromY (eds) Cognition and Communication at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 61–95.
34.
GoodwinMH (1980) He-said-she-said: Formal cultural procedures for the construction of a gossip dispute activity. American Ethnologist7(4): 674–695.
HaddingtonPRauniomaaM (2014) Interaction between road users offering space in traffic. Space and Culture17(2): 176–190.
37.
HallET (1966) The Hidden Dimension. New York: Anchor.
38.
HayhoeS (2012) Grounded Theory and Disability Studies: An Investigation into Legacies of Blindness. Amherst, NY: Cambria Press. Available at: http://www.cambriapress.com/ (accessed 25 March 2016).
39.
HeathCHindmarshJLuffP (2010) Video in Qualitative Research. London: SAGE.
40.
JayM (1994) Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-Century French Thought. Berkeley: University of California Press.
41.
JeffersonG (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In: LernerGH (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 13–31.
KemmisD (1992) Community and the Politics of Place. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
44.
KreplakYMondéméC (2014) Artworks as touchable objects. In: NevileMHaddingtonPHeinemannT, et al. (eds) Interacting with Objects: Language, Materiality, and Social Activity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 295–318. Available at: https://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/z.186.13kre/details (accessed 6 July 2016).
45.
LahtinenR (2008) Haptices and Haptemes. A case study of developmental process in touch-based communication of acquired deafblind people. PhD Thesis, University of Helsinki, Helsinki.
LeBaronCStreeckJ (1997) Built space and the interactional framing of experience during a murder interrogation. Human Studies20(1): 1.
48.
LeeJREWatsonR (1993) Interaction in Public Space: Final Report to the Plan Urbain. Paris: Plan Urbain.
49.
LefebvreH (1991) The Production of Space. 1st ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
50.
LibermanK (2013) More Studies in Ethnomethodology. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
51.
LöwM (2016) The Sociology of Space – Materiality, Social Structures, and Action. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Available at: www.palgrave.com/us/book/9781137487711 (accessed 21 March 2018).
52.
LynchM (1993) Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodology and Social Studies of Science. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
53.
McIlvennyPBrothMHaddingtonP (2014) Moving together mobile formations in interaction. Space and Culture17(2): 104–106.
54.
MacphersonH (2006) Landscape’s ocular-centrism – And beyond? In: TressBTressGFryG, et al (eds) From Landscape Research to Landscape Planning. Aspects of Integration, Education and Application. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 95–104.
55.
MasseyD (1999) Power-Geometries and the Politics of Space-Time. Heidelberg: Department of Geography, University of Heidelberg.
56.
MasseyD (2005) For Space. London: SAGE.
57.
MaynardDWClaymanS (2003) Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. In: ReynoldsLTHerman-KinneyNJ (eds) Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, pp. 173–203.
58.
Merleau-PontyM (2002) Phenomenology of Perception. London; New York: Routledge.
59.
MolA (2003) The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
60.
MondadaL (2009) Emergent focused interactions in public places: A systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space (Communicating Place, Space and Mobility: 1977–1997). Journal of Pragmatics41(10): 1977–1997.
61.
MondadaL (2012) Talking and driving: Multiactivity in the car. Semiotica191: 223–256.
62.
MondadaL (2014) The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction (A Body of Resources – CA Studies of Social Conduct). Journal of Pragmatics65: 137–156.
63.
NeuschmidJGajevicLSchrenkM, et al. (2014) The blind’s critical space and the role of modern ICT. In: CalcatingeA (ed.) Critical Spaces: Contemporary Perspectives in Urban, Spatial and Landscape Studies. Münster: LIT Verlag, pp. 179–203.
64.
NishizakaA (2011) Touch without vision: Referential practice in a non-technological environment. Journal of Pragmatics43(2): 504–520.
65.
NishizakaA (2017) The perceived body and embodied vision in interaction. Mind, Culture, and Activity24(2): 110–128.
66.
NormanD (1999) Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions6: 38–43.
67.
NormanD (2000) The Design of Everyday Things. London: The MIT Press.
68.
OchsE (1979) Transcription as theory. In: OchsESchieffelinB (eds) Developmental Pragmatics, pp. 43–72. Academic Press.
69.
ParkinJSmithiesN (2012) Accounting for the needs of blind and visually impaired people in public realm design. Journal of Urban Design17(1): 135–149.
70.
PsathasG (1992) The study of extended sequences: The case of the garden lesson. In: WatsonGSeilerRM (eds) Text in Context: Contributions to Ethnomethodology. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, pp. 99–122.
71.
QuéréLRelieuM (2001) Modes de locomotion et inscription spatiale des inégalités. Les déplacements des personnes atteintes de handicaps visuels et moteurs dans l’esplace public. Convention Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Scienc es Sociales/Ministère de l’équipement, du transport et du logement-Direction générale de l’urbanisme, de l’habitat et de la constructio.
72.
RaanesEBergeSS (2017) Sign language interpreters’ use of haptic signs in interpreted meetings with deafblind persons. Journal of Pragmatics107: 91–104.
73.
RelieuM (1994) Les catégories dans l’action. L’apprentissage des traversées de rue par des non-voyants [Categories in action. Blind persons learning to cross the street]. In: Raisons Pratiques. L’enquête Sur Les Categories, Vol. 7, pp. 185–218.
74.
RelieuM (1999) Parler en marchant. Pour une écologie dynamique des échanges de paroles. Langage et société89(1): 37–67.
SacksHL (1989) Lecture six: The M.I.R. membership categorization device. Human Studies12(3/4): 271–281.
78.
SaerbergS (2010) Just go straight ahead. The Senses and Society5(3): 364–381.
79.
SchegloffEA (1992) Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology97(5): 1295–1345.
80.
SchegloffEA (1997) Third turn repair. In: GregoryRCrawfordFSchiffrinDBaughJTowards a Social Science of Language: Papers in honor of William Labov. Social interaction and discourse structures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, Vol. 2, pp. 31–40.
81.
SchegloffEA (2000) When ‘others’ initiate repair. Applied Linguistics21(2): 205–243.
82.
SchegloffEAJeffersonGSacksHL (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language53(2): 361–382.
83.
SojaEW (1989) Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. London: Verso.
84.
SoldaticKMorganHRoulstoneA (2014) Disability, Spaces and Places of Policy Exclusion. Abingdon: Routledge.
85.
StreeckJGoodwinCLeBaronC (2011) Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. New York: Cambridge University Press.
86.
ThriftN (2003) Space: The fundamental stuff of human geography. In: HollawaySLRiceSP (eds) Key Concept in Geography. London: SAGE, pp. 95–107.
87.
TitchkoskyT (2011) The Question of Access: Disability, Space, Meaning. Toronto, ON, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
88.
Vom LehnD (2010) Discovering ‘experience-ables’: Socially including visually impaired people in art museums. Journal of Marketing Management26(7–8): 749–769.
WeilenmannANormarkDLaurierE (2014) Managing walking together: The challenge of revolving doors. Space and Culture17(2): 122–136.
91.
WorkmanJ (2016) Phenomenology and blindness: Merleau-Ponty, Levinas, and an alternative metaphysical vision. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Available at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/1210
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
