The Walking Interview: A Promising Method for Promoting the Participation of Autistic People in Research Projects

Abstract

Walking interviews are increasingly used in the field of health to understand the relationship between individuals and places. With this method, the interviewer and the participant move from place to place within an environment and use it to enrich the discussion. Several advantages have been reported concerning its use, such as the richness of the data it provides and that it allows interviewers to immerse themselves in the participant’s world.

This article is based on the experience of using walking interviews in an innovative context, with 10 autistic adolescents and adults and 13 parents. The method was used in the participants’ home environment, as part of study conducted in Québec (Canada) on home environment factors that influence autistic people’s independence at home. It was chosen to meet the study objectives, but also to support the participation of autistic people in research interviews. These people’s participation in research can be a challenge when data collection methods are not adapted, given the difficulties that some have communicating and interacting socially, as well as discussing abstract topics.

In this article, the advantages, limitations and suggestions related to the use of walking interviews are reported from the participants’ and interviewer’s perspectives. The authors also discuss the potential for using walking interviews to collect the perspectives of other populations, especially those with difficulties expressing themselves, such as allophones or people with language disorders.

Introduction

Walking interviews are increasingly used as a research method in several disciplines, including geography, urban planning, anthropology, sociology and, more recently, the health field (Carpiano, 2009; Evans & Jones, 2011; Kinney, 2017). Initially used in ethnographical studies, this method helps provide a finer understanding of the relationship between individuals and places (Butler & Derrett, 2014; Carpiano, 2009; Clark & Emmel, 2010; Finlay & Bowman, 2017). Also known as ‘go-along interviews’ or ‘walk-along interviews’ (Clark & Emmel, 2010; Holton & Riley, 2014), walking interviews are among the mobile methodologies (Carpiano, 2009; Finlay & Bowman, 2017) that include pedestrianism, hiking and nature walking (Engage, 2021). This method always involves the interviewer and the participant going from place to place in a given environment during the interview (Carpiano, 2009; Evans & Jones, 2011).

The way walking interviews are used can differ according to the purposes of the research project, as well as the epistemologies and the underlying theoretical approaches. First, the way the route is determined can vary, from being determined entirely by the interviewee to being determined only by the interviewer, which has an influence on the distribution of power between the participant and the interviewer (Engage, 2021; Evans & Jones, 2011). The method can be used with one participant at a time or with a group by carrying out collective walks (O’Neil, 2018). Furthermore, the interview may be semi-structured or unstructured, in which case the discussion is open around a theme given by the interviewer (Carpiano, 2009). It can take place in several types of environments, either indoors or outdoors, although it seems to occur mostly in neighbourhoods where the participants live or spend time (Butler & Derrett, 2014; Clark & Emmel, 2010; Evans & Jones, 2011; Holton & Riley, 2014; Lauwers et al., 2021; Wästerfors, 2021). Nonetheless, the method has also been used in indoor public places, such as grocery stores (Thompson et al., 2013) and school settings (Garcia et al., 2012; Holton & Riley, 2014). Finlay and Bowman (2017), for their part, used it in residential settings of elderly people living autonomously, as well as in their neighbourhoods. Ratnam and Drozdzewski (2020) also used this method in home environments with Sri Lankan refugees in Australia. Moreover, walking interviews can be combined with other methods. For example, the interviewer could combine it with participant observations, note taking or technology-based geographical data, or the interviewer or participant may take photos or videos (Clark & Emmel, 2010; Evans & Jones, 2011; Lauwers et al., 2021; Thompson et al., 2013). Combinations with these methods help associate the participants’ narratives with the places where they were shared. The importance attributed to this aspect varies from one study to the next, depending on their objectives (Evans & Jones, 2011; Kinney, 2017). Besides, to conduct a participatory arts-based research, O’Neil (2018) combined walking interviews with other methods, such as storytelling, biographical, and filmic methods, which enabled sharing the lived experience of the participants through talks, an exhibition, and a film.

The method has several advantages. First, it appears to be effective for better understanding the relationship between people and their environments and for producing rich geographical data (Finlay & Bowman, 2017). Walking interviews appear to be useful when the study objective pertains to the participants’ perceptions, attitudes, knowledge and/or experiences regarding their environment (Carpiano, 2009; Clark & Emmel, 2010; Evans & Jones, 2011; Shareck et al., 2021). Furthermore, this method provides rich data because people are stimulated by their connection to the environment and by the clues it provides (Clark & Emmel, 2010; Evans & Jones, 2011; Holton & Riley, 2014). Also, compared with static interviews, walking interviews tend to last longer, so more data can be collected (Evans & Jones, 2011). The action of walking creates an informal context and being in a familiar environment makes the participants more comfortable, which contribute to put them at ease to discuss and to have spontaneous conversations (Clark & Emmel, 2010; Evans & Jones, 2011; Finlay & Bowman, 2017; Kinney, 2017). Participants are also less likely to want to give the ‘right’ answer in this context (Finlay & Bowman, 2017). Moreover, this method allows interviewers to immerse themselves in the participant’s world and to access more subtle and complex meanings of the place, which may help them better understand some of the narratives shared (Clark & Emmel, 2010; Finlay & Bowman, 2017; Shareck et al., 2021). It is an embodied and multi-sensory experience that foster connection, dialogue and understanding between the interviewer and the interviewees (O’Neil, 2018). Finally, walking interviews would help balance the relationships of power between the interviewer and the participant, notably because it brings them to walk side by side rather than having a face-to-face interview (Butler & Derrett, 2014). This is also because participants are considered experts in their environment, especially when they select the route and thus become a guide for the interviewer (Carpiano, 2009; Finlay & Bowman, 2017; Shareck et al., 2021; Shepherd, 2018). It is therefore a promising method for including vulnerable and marginalized populations in research (Kinney, 2017).

The method also has limitations. First, the way the interview is conducted can be influenced by various elements of the environment, such as the weather, the encounter of acquaintances of the participants and ambient noises (Carpiano, 2009; Evans & Jones, 2011; Thompson & Reynolds, 2019). Although these elements may disrupt the interviews, Thompson and Reynolds (2019) argue that disruptions are a valuable dimension of walking interviews for exploring interactions between health, place and practice. Nevertheless, these environmental elements and the fact that the participant and interviewer are moving may also lead to technical issues, such as difficulties obtaining a quality recording (Carpiano, 2009). Some data may also escape the audio recording if, for example, the person points to something without verbalizing it (Garcia et al., 2012). The method may also raise ethical issues, notably related to difficulties ensuring the participants’ confidentiality while they are walking with the interviewer in a public space (Clark & Emmel, 2010; Lenette, 2021). Evans and Jones (2011) also mentioned that the method excludes some participants who are unable to walk during an interview. Other authors, however, saw it as an opportunity to adapt the method by allowing participants to use a mobility aid to move around and by taking more frequent breaks during the interviews (Finlay & Bowman, 2017; Lauwers et al., 2021; Lenette, 2021). Wästerfors (2021) went even further, expressly using walking interviews with people who had mobility issues to meet a specific research objective: to identify the strategies that these people use to deal with inaccessibility in environments that they frequent. Nevertheless, even if Castrodale (2018) wanted to use walking interviews with disabled students on a university campus, some participants preferred more traditional methods, such as sit-down face-to-face interviews. The author suggests that one factor that explains the refusal of using walking interviews is that participants had accessibility concerns relating to physical and attitudinal barriers (Castrodale, 2018).

The characteristics of walking interviews make it a promising method for promoting the participation in research interviews of populations who have trouble expressing themselves. Autistic people ¹ are an example of a population for whom expressing oneself in a research interview can represent a challenge, as they may have trouble communicating and interacting socially. These difficulties, which are one of the diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder (ASD; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), can notably translate to a tendency towards acquiescence, to elaborate little on their answers or to select the last option proposed in a multiple-choice question (Preece, 2002; Preece & Jordan, 2010). Some autistic people may have more trouble answering open-ended questions and may need more time to reflect before answering (Harrington et al., 2014; Preece, 2002; Preece & Jordan, 2010). Some autistic people are also nonverbal (Preece, 2002; Preece & Jordan, 2010). Other challenges are related to the difficulty some autistic people have discussing abstract topics (Preece, 2002; Preece & Jordan, 2010). This can lead to difficulties expressing preferences based on emotions or discussing their wishes and aspirations. A tendency to report only recent events has also been observed (Preece, 2002; Preece & Jordan, 2010). Of course, skills vary greatly from one person to the next. Added to these challenges related to the specificities of autism are those generally associated with the participation of vulnerable populations in research projects. They include power issues, the recognition of different types of knowledge, as well as constraints of the university institutions and granting agencies (Loignon et al., 2019; Nicolaidis et al., 2019).

It is important to overcome these challenges to enable autistic people to participate in research projects that concern them. Their involvement in research helps in obtaining results that are more consistent with their real situation and that have better external validity (Camden et al., 2015; Loignon et al., 2019).

The characteristics of walking interviews may potentially contribute to overcoming some of the challenges that autistic people can face when participating in research interviews. For example, it is plausible to think that the richness of the data associated with walking interviews could compensate for the difficulty some have expanding on their answers and that being in the environment that is being discussed could compensate for the difficulty talking about abstract topics. The study by Shepherd (2018) is the only one found in which walking interviews were used with autistic people. That author used the method with an autistic young adult in a school environment to collect his perspectives on his post-secondary transition (Shepherd, 2018). The method seems to have helped open the discussion, give it a goal and structure it, as well as reduce the pressure related to social interactions between the interviewer and the participant. According to the author, these elements contribute to making walking interviews a promising method for helping autistic people express themselves (Shepherd, 2018). Although innovative and interesting, that article remains insufficient to lead to conclusions on the relevance of walking interviews to collect autistic participants’ perspectives in the research context. The method was used with only one participant, in a context where the walking interview was combined with other methods intended to enable his participation in research.

Involvement of autistic people was desired in a research project pertaining to home environment factors that influence autistic adolescents’ and adults’ independence at home (Marcotte et al., submitted). Dyads composed of one autistic person and at least one of his or her parents participated in individual interviews to meet the study objectives. In light of the information previously presented, walking interviews appeared to be a promising method for supporting the participation of autistic people in this research project, in addition to being consistent with its objectives. It thus seemed important to report the experience of using walking interviews with the autistic population through a reflective article, to contribute to the reflections on the use of this method for supporting their participation in research projects.

Objectives

The purpose of this article is to report the experience of using walking interviews to collect the perspectives of autistic participants and of their parents in their home environment, from their point of view and that of the interviewer. More specifically, the advantages, limitations and suggestions related to using walking interviews will be reported, and then discussed.

Methodology

Participants

Ten dyads, consisting of 10 autistic participants and 10 parental units participated in walking interviews. Written consent was obtained from the participants or from a parent when the participant was considered incapable of consenting to the study. Autistic participants were aged between 16 and 28. Their parent considered them capable of expressing themselves about their independence at home when strategies are implemented to help them express themselves. The parental units included four fathers and nine mothers, for a total of 13 parents. For more details concerning the participants and the methods used to recruit them, see Marcotte et al. (submitted). Ethical approval was obtained from the ethics committee on research in rehabilitation and social integration of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux – Capitale-Nationale (#2020-1848).

Using the Walking Interview

The interviews took place in the participants’ homes. They were conducted individually with the parental unit, and then with the autistic participant. The interviewer and the participant went into several rooms in the home to discuss environmental factors that influence independence at home. The rooms visited included: the kitchen, the autistic person’s bedroom, the bathroom, the family room (e.g. living room), the laundry room and another relevant room (if needed). The rooms visited and the route were determined by the interviewer to make sure all the critical rooms in which activities associated with independence at home were visited. The interviewer used a guide to semi-structured interviews. No strategy was used to document the exact locations where the participants shared their thoughts. The interviews lasted from 32 to 116 minutes.

Walking interviews were combined with other strategies to help the participants express themselves. These strategies were inspired by those used in other studies to enable autistic people’s participation in research (Harrington et al., 2014; Nicolaidis et al., 2019; Preece, 2002; Preece & Jordan, 2010). First, the interview was conducted with the parent or parents to gather advice on how to support their child’s participation in the interview. Next, a social scenario describing the reasons for the interviewer’s visit was presented to some participants to prepare them for the interview. The consent form was adapted for all the participants, to make it as clear and accessible as possible, by using simplified language and pictures. A visual schedule of the meeting and pictograms were also used. Moreover, the interviewer would allow up to 10 seconds of silence before rewording her questions to give participants enough time to understand the question, think about their answer and formulate it. Various ways to communicate were also offered to the participants, who could answer questions verbally, with a drawing or in writing. To limit the guidance of participants’ responses, the interviewer always started with an open-ended question (e.g.: What helps you to be independent in the kitchen?). Response options and visual supports were provided if the participant had difficulties answering the question. If the difficulties persisted, a closed-ended question that could be answered by yes or no was asked (e.g.: Does your mother help you to cook?).

Two people who had experience with interventions with autistic people validated the interview guide. A pretest was also used with one dyad. The interview guide was modified further to each of these validation steps. For example, the order of the questions was changed and the wording of some of them was adjusted so they would be simpler and more concrete. The interview method was used the same way with the parents as with the autistic participants.

Data Collection

Two types of data collection tools were used: interviews with participants having experienced the walking interview and a logbook filled in by the interviewer. The participants first tried using the walking interview to answer questions on environmental factors influencing independence at home. Next, they shared their perspectives regarding this method. In addition to share about their personal experience with this method, the parents also talked about its relevance for enabling their autistic child’s participation in the interview. The interviewer also kept a logbook where she recorded her observations and reflections about using walking interviews.

Analyses

The key ideas of the interviews were transcribed verbatim. An inductive thematic content analysis was performed on the information collected during the interviews as well as on the content of the logbook (Fortin & Gagnon, 2015) using NVivo 12 software.

Results

Perceived Advantages

Several advantages of the walking interviews were documented.

Helps Participants Express Themselves

The majority of the parents and autistic participants said the interview method had helped them answer the questions. The interviewer also reported this in her logbook.

First, the participants could show some elements of their environment rather than describe them verbally. It was thus easy and efficient to explain their thoughts about environmental factors as they could show them to the interviewer. For example, one mother explained that it was helpful to show the family’s chore chart instead of describing it in detail to the interviewer:

Participant (P): Well, I like it because it’s easier, … I don’t have to explain so much.

Interviewer (I): Uh huh.

P: Trying to explain my tables, it’s like...oops! That’s not so easy! (Participant 3.a)

Other participants mimicked how they normally carried out the activity using the items in the environment. Therefore, being in the environment where the activities normally take place allowed them to show how they performed the task rather than explain it verbally.

Furthermore, the participants sometimes used the environment to support their narratives or to show examples, which could help complete some of their answers. For instance, some participants opened the drawers or cabinets to show how the items were stored in them.

Moreover, being in the environment sometimes helped the participants remember some answers. The interviewer documented in her logbook that several participants seemed to look for answers in the rooms they were in during the interview. This was also mentioned by the autistic participants and by the parents, such as this mother:

P: Yes, it helped. Yes, I think that seeing the things helps and it reminds us. (Participant 10.a)

It could also reassure some participants of their answers, as mentioned by one autistic participant:

I: Like then, we walked around in the house. Is that something that helped you answer the questions?

P: Um, well, yes, obviously, to see the things, it’s easier to remember them.

I: Okay.

P: I don’t feel so much like I’m just saying anything. (Participant 10.b)

Makes the Questions Concrete and Targeted.

In her logbook, the interviewer reported that the method helped her ask the participants concrete, targeted questions, which contributed notably to making them more accessible. In fact, she could use the information shared by the participant who pointed out items in the environment to formulate specific questions, which enabled her to conduct a more in-depth interview. Below is an excerpt from the logbook illustrating this aspect:

Also, I would sometimes ask him to show me what in the room helped him to be autonomous …. He would then point to the items and I could formulate a more concrete question (e.g., It helps you for which activity? How do you use it?). (Logbook, concerning the interview with Participant 5.b)

The interviewer could also use her observations to ask participants concrete and targeted questions about the items that influence their independence at home, for example: I see that there’s a visual support on the fridge. Does this visual support help you or not help you?

From the interviewees’ side, one mother said that the method made the interview topic concrete, which would foster her autistic son’s participation.

Helps to Better Understand the Participants’ Answers

Another element that emerged from the interviewer’s notes in the logbook is that the method enabled her to better understand some of the parents’ and autistic participants’ answers. For example, it helped her better understand the types of visual tools used by the family as well as the changes made to the environment. This element also emerged from some narratives of the participants, who mentioned that walking interviews probably helped the interviewer understand what they were saying, as explained by one autistic participant:

P: Well…to show you things, and then for you to see how it’s done, … I’m sure that helps you more. (Participant 4.b)

This advantage became clearer to the interviewer after she conducted an interview with two parents who lived in two different houses. The interview took place in only one of the home settings, which showed the interviewer that it was more difficult to understand some of the father’s explanations because the interview was not taking place in his environment. This is illustrated in the following excerpt from the logbook:

The father was describing how things were done in his home. He seemed to use several visual tools. It would have been easier and quicker for me to see it…. This made me realize the advantage of being in their home life environment. (Interviewer’s logbook, concerning the interview with Parental Unit 6.a)

Can Make Autistic Participants Comfortable

Several aspects of the method were documented as helping to make the autistic participants comfortable in the interview context. First, conducting interviews in a familiar environment could help reduce the stress related to participating in the research project, as explained below by one mother:

P: And [autistic participant’s name] is in her environment.

I: Uh huh.

P: So, it’s not the stress either, of what is it going to be like? What do I do? Where do I sit? Uh... those are things that I always try to plan for, so, this time, I didn’t have anything to plan. (Participant 3.a)

Furthermore, because the method involves standing and moving, the participants did not feel obliged to look at the interviewer throughout the interview. The context was rather favourable to them looking elsewhere, in the environment. This seemed to make the interview context less awkward for some participants, which was reported in the interviewer’s logbook.

Finally, because the method involves changing rooms regularly during the interview, it was possible to access certain places in the house where the people felt more comfortable expressing themselves. Some places, such as the person’s bedroom, were indeed more conducive than others to confiding.

Adaptable to the Context

Although the route was determined by the interviewer, the methodology still allowed her some flexibility. She documented this in her logbook as an advantage of the method, since it allowed her to adapt to the context. She could indeed change the order of the rooms visited depending on the configuration of the house or on where other people were, for example. She was also able to adapt the method if it did not suit the participant, for example if the participant refused to use it. One way of adapting the method was to do a quick tour of the home before settling in a spot that was more comfortable to conduct the entire interview. This type of adaptation was also possible if the context was less favourable to conducting an interview in some rooms, such as if they were too small to have conversations in them.

Limitations

Some limitations related to the use of walking interviews were also documented.

Fear of Being Judged for the Condition of the Household

The logbook revealed that some participants expressed a fear of being judged for the condition of the household. This fear seemed amplified by the fact that the interviewer would be visiting several rooms in the home. The interviewer initially perceived concerns during the first phone contact with some parents when she explained the interview method for the first time. Nearly half of the parents expressed concerns over the housekeeping of their home and asked many questions about the rooms that would be visited. Most of them said they were reassured when the interviewer specified that she was not there to judge their household. Nonetheless, a certain discomfort was noticed during some interviews, notably through comments made by the parents and one autistic participant when it was suggested that they go into a room that they considered ‘messy’ or ‘embarrassing’ because it had not been cleaned. Experiencing discomfort related to housekeeping was also reported by two parents when they were asked about the use of the walking interview.

Disruptions Related to This Unusual Way of Doing Things

Two autistic participants were troubled by the unusual way of conducting an interview. One of them refused to go into different rooms in the house. She preferred to remain seated at the kitchen table to continue her puzzle, an activity she likes. Her father specified that she generally did not like strangers going around in the house. He was even surprised that she wasn’t troubled by the interviewer going around the house for the interview with the parent.

The other participant accepted to go into some rooms but said she could not concentrate enough to answer questions in them. She explained that it was too unusual to converse in a bathroom, for example.

Some Unfavourable Situations

The content of the logbook revealed that some situations were unfavourable to the use of walking interviews. This led to an adaptation of the method in certain cases and resulted in some limitations.

Some rooms were indeed unfavourable to conversing, whether due to their size, the furniture layout or mess, for example. The bathroom was the one most often unfavourable to discussion. Conducting interviews with parental units composed of two parents sometimes increase the difficulties.

Other unfavourable situations were related to the presence of family members during the interviews. The fact that the method involves going from room to room during the interview increased the probability of other family members being close by at some point or other during the interview. This could compromise the confidentiality of the person’s narratives. Several potential impacts of these privacy-related issues were raised in the logbook. They included the possibility of the participants not sharing certain elements and of their answers being influenced by those of the other person in the dyad. Moreover, the nearby presence of other family members during the interview could also be a source of distraction, for both the participant and the interviewer. Finally, in a few situations, their presence limited access to certain rooms.

Insufficient for Supporting Participation for All

Walking interviews were not enough to help some autistic participants answer all the questions related to the research project.

The data from the logbook revealed that certain questions remained difficult to answer for some participants, despite the method used. In this regard, a few participants were unable to indicate what hindered their independence at home or what could help them more, although they were able to name the elements that did help them.

Thoughts shared by certain autistic participants were along the same lines. In fact, several of them mentioned being stumped by some questions and being unsure about their answers. They explained that the questions sometimes concerned elements to which they had never given any thought, which made it complicated to elaborate on an answer, as explained by one participant:

I: And, were there questions that were still more difficult to answer?

P: Well, everything that was about me. Because I’m not aware of what I do, like naturally. It requires greater reflection on my part. (Participant 10.b)

Neutral Perspective

When asked about their opinions about walking interviews, several parental units indicated having a neutral perspective (n = 4). Those parents explained that the method had not particularly helped them to answer the questions, but that they did not see any specific disadvantage either. This neutral perspective is illustrated in the following excerpt:

I: How did you like that we walk around like that to do the interview?

P: It’s okay with me!

I: Did you find that it had helped you answer the questions?

P: Not necessarily …. I think I would have been here and I could have easily visualized the different rooms and... it didn’t give me more ideas, I think anyway. I don’t think so.

I: And did you see any disadvantages to using that technique?

P: No, it’s fine. (Participant 1.a)

Suggestions

Participants shared comments regarding strategies to use to foster the expression of autistic people’s during walking interviews. The suggestions listed below emerged from the participants’ narratives.

Adapt and Listen Closely to the Person

The first suggestion was to adapt to the person’s reactions as the interview progresses. In this regard, the participants highlighted the importance of the interviewer adapting if the person does not seem to clearly understand the question or deviates from the topic, or if the interview process seems too demanding for the person.

One participant also insisted on the importance of the interviewer listening closely to the participants:

P: Um, Keep listening closely to them.

I: Yes? That’s important?

P: Well, I mean, I think that when you’re autistic, you like to be heard, like 95% of the population. (Participant 9.b)

Use Terms and Questions That the Person Understands

Another suggestion from the participants was to use terms that the person knows, as explained by one autistic participant:

P: Sometimes, there are certain terms that you use that I don’t always understand, so sometimes you have to use different ones. (Participant 4.b)

Another suggestion along the same lines was to word the questions simply. For example, one mother explained that it was more difficult for her son to understand and answer questions that ask him to explain ‘why’.

Reduce Distractions

Two parents said that it is advisable to limit distractions as much as possible to favour their autistic child’s participation in the interview. For example, they suggested turning off the child’s computer and limiting the amount of paper given by the interviewer at the beginning of the interview.

Discussion

In light of the results presented, walking interviews appear useful for supporting the participation of autistic people and their parents in research interviews. The various advantages documented indicate that this method favours the collection of rich, contextualized, high-quality data from the participants. Several advantages raised in this article are consistent with those reported in the study by Shepherd (2018), the only one identified where this method was used with autistic people. Shepherd (2018) also noted elements related to the method making it easier for participants to express themselves. One such element was the fact that it helps open the discussion and allows participants to show, rather than describe, the environment. Shepherd (2018) also found that the method helps to clarify the purpose of the discussion and to structure it. This finding is consistent with the advantage noted in the present study that the method helps the interviewer ask more concrete and targeted questions. Moreover, in both the present study and the one by Shepherd (2018), being in the participant’s environment was found to help the interviewer understand it better. Finally, Shepherd (2018) noted that the method has the advantage of decreasing the pressure related to social interactions, notably by reducing the need for visual contact between the participant and the interviewer, which was found in the present study as well. This last advantage appears to be particularly interesting given the challenges related to social interactions that are associated with autism (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

Furthermore, some characteristics of walking interviews are in line with the recommendations made in other studies for supporting autistic people’s participation in research interviews. Some of these recommendations aim to make communication easier between the autistic person and the interviewer by using more concrete concepts and visual supports (Harrington et al., 2014; Nicolaidis et al., 2019). Other recommendations concerned being flexible regarding the methods used, to be able to adapt to each participant (Beresford et al., 2004; Ha & Whittaker, 2016; Lewis, 2009; Preece, 2002). In this regard, Carpiano (2009) highlighted the flexibility of walking interviews as a characteristic that makes the method adaptable to the purposes of various research projects. The flexibility of walking interviews was also noted as an advantage in the current project. It made it possible to adapt to the person’s preferences and characteristics, as well as to environmental characteristics, such as the characteristics of the house or the other family members present. These convergence points between the recommendations for supporting autistic people’s participation in research interviews and the characteristics of walking interviews reinforce the relevance of using the method with this population.

Nonetheless, limitations were also documented concerning the use of walking interviews in a home setting, such as the nearby presence of other family members, the fact that some rooms were less conducive to discussion or the participants feeling uncomfortable about the housekeeping of their home. Since these limitations are specific to using the method in a home environment, it is not surprising that they had not been noted in other studies, because walking interviews are generally used outdoors (Butler & Derrett, 2014; Clark & Emmel, 2010; Evans & Jones, 2011; Holton & Riley, 2014; Lauwers et al., 2021; Wästerfors, 2021) or in indoor public spaces (Garcia et al., 2012; Holton & Riley, 2014; Thompson et al., 2013). Another limitation documented is that using walking interviews was insufficient for supporting participation for all as some questions remained difficult to answer for some participants. To meet this limitation, the method could be adapted by taking inspiration in strategies used in other studies to facilitate the thought process of autistic participants. These strategies include providing interview questions ahead of time (Nicolaidis et al., 2019; Preece & Jordan, 2010), sending the recording of the interview to the participants to allow them to provide additional information if they wish (Preece & Jordan, 2010) and conducting the interview in several visits (Beresford et al., 2004).

Finally, the participants also gave suggestions, which included adapting to the person and using terms and questions that the person understands. These suggestions are consistent with those made by Nicolaidis et al. (2019) for involving autistic people as research participants. The recommendations included offering participants several modes of communication (e.g. written, oral) to adapt to each one’s strengths and difficulties as well as to make the interview guide as accessible as possible (Nicolaidis et al., 2019). The latter can be achieved by working with community partners to prepare the questions and by offering participants to review the questions in advance (Nicolaidis et al., 2019). Although the participants’ suggestions were made in a context of using walking interviews, most appeared to be transferable to other types of interviews because they pertained to the interviewer’s soft skills and know-how.

Moreover, the choices made concerning the way to use walking interviews in this study has implications. On one hand, we decided not to link the narratives to the locations where they were shared, whereas situating discussions would add an extra layer to the interpretation of the data collected (Evans & Jones, 2011). However, as documented in other studies, the strategies used to document locations can lead to major ethical and technical issues. For example, people can be recognized on photos token during the interviews (Shepherd, 2018), and video recording and note taking is a lot for the interviewer to do at the same time (Evans & Jones, 2011). These issues could have been even greater in this study because the interviews took place in the participants’ private homes and the interviewer had to be very focused to collect the perspectives. Nevertheless, Ratnam and Drozdzewski (2020) filmed the walk-along interviews conducted in home environments of Sri Lankan refugees, which allowed them to capture the walking routes, sensory aspects of the environment as well as the body language of the participants as they were sharing their stories. Yet, the authors do not discuss the ethical issues raised by this method. Another strategy suggested by Evans and Jones (2011) is to use a geographical information system to collect data on the route, which works in a neighbourhood, but not in a more restricted environment such as in a home. There thus remains a need to explore the preferred modalities for documenting locations when the interview takes place in a private environment.

On the other hand, it was decided that the interviewer would determine which rooms would be visited and in which order, to meet the study objectives. Consequently, this choice precluded the balancing of power relationships, whereas this is an advantage of walking interviews often reported. In fact, the authors who reported this advantage had all allowed participants to select the route (Carpiano, 2009; Evans & Jones, 2011; Finlay & Bowman, 2017; Shareck et al., 2021; Shepherd, 2018). Allowing participants to choose the route would also favour access to a more authentic experience of their environment (Evans & Jones, 2011; Finlay & Bowman, 2017). Nonetheless, a balance should be found between the person’s natural route and the research objectives, as the latter could require visits of specific, predetermined locations (Evans & Jones, 2011; Finlay & Bowman, 2017).

Moreover, in the literature consulted, the choice to use walking interviews seems generally guided by the study objectives. This method appears particularly relevant for understanding the relationship between environments and individuals, their health, as well as their well-being (Carpiano, 2009; Finlay & Bowman, 2017; Garcia et al., 2012; Lauwers et al., 2021; Thompson et al., 2013). This article still opens the door to using this method for other purposes, that is, to facilitate the expression of people for whom participating in an interview represents a challenge. Therefore, walking interviews could be considered for collecting the perspectives of other populations with difficulties expressing themselves, such as allophones and people with intellectual disabilities, language disorders or low literacy levels, in research and clinical contexts alike.

Strengths and Limitations

The originality of this study lies in the use of walking interviews with autistic participants, which has rarely been reported. Given that little data on the best ways to promote autistic people’s participation in research are reported in scientific articles, this article constitutes an important contribution in this regard as well. Furthermore, we used the method inside a home environment, whereas it is generally used outdoors, in public environments. The article also offers an overall view of the perspectives of the various actors concerned with the use of this method, because it includes both the reflections of the interviewer and the comments of the participants who tried it. The participation of autistic adolescents and adults, as well as of their parents, contributes to the richness of the results.

Nevertheless, parents of autistic participants considered them capable of expressing themselves about their independence at home when strategies are implemented to favour their expression. In fact, this criterion led to the exclusion of at least one interested dyad. With regards to the transferability of the findings, some elements should be kept in mind, notably the heterogeneity of autistic profiles, experiences and contexts, as well as the characteristic of the interviewer. As an occupational therapist and researcher, the interviewer wished to enable the participation of autistic individuals in her research about independence at home. Yet, none of the authors have an experiential knowledge of being autistic, but the interviewer has experience working with this population. Furthermore, the method was combined with other strategies for favouring the participants’ expression and was not compared with the static interview. These elements make it difficult to pinpoint which observations are related exclusively to the use of walking interviews.

Conclusion

Walking interviews appear to be a promising avenue for supporting the participation in research of people with difficulties expressing themselves when the research objectives lend themselves to it. Authors of future research should focus on documenting the use of walking interviews to collect the perspectives of other populations with difficulties expressing themselves in research interviews, such as people with intellectual disabilities or low literacy levels. They should also explore the possibility of using walking interviews to collect these people’s perspectives in a clinical context.

Because it enables autistic people to participate in research interviews, walking interviews seem to be a promising method for including them in research. It still is necessary to explore the strategies that help support their participation at every step of the research projects that concern them, not only at the data collection phase. In this regard, participatory research allows people with experiential knowledge to participate at all research stages, such as the objective setting, as well as the interpretation and dissemination of the results. Including autistic people in the various stages of a study would favour the conduct of research that is more consistent with the community’s situation and that would yield results that respond to their interests, values and priorities (Nicolaidis, 2012; Pellicano et al., 2014; Roche et al., 2020). Although participatory research has been slow to enter the field of autism research and remains uncommon (Bertilsdotter, 2019; Jivraj et al., 2014), its use has increased in recent years (Nicolaidis et al., 2019). It is thus important to continue exploring strategies to make research more accessible to participants coming from a variety of perspective, including an autistic lens.