We, Hannah and Floris, are researching how irregularity affects the everyday lives of illegalised people[1]. While Hannah focuses on infrastructures, Floris’ central theme is insecurity. Both interested in suitable qualitative methods, we decided to collaboratively organise a subjective mapping workshop in the Brussels-Capital Region. Subjective mapping is a qualitative spatial method in which participants are asked to draw a map of places and spaces related to a research topic. The method builds on the insight that to understand how and why things happen, it is crucial to understand where things happen. A central characteristic of a subjective map is that they are non-representative, i.e., not aligning with the “objective” Google Maps-type cartographic representation that disregards lived experiences, emotions, and memory (de Vet, 2023). In this blog, we reflect on the limitations and challenges encountered when doing the method and its relevance in light of our research projects. We look at what worked and didn’t and provide some takeaways for researchers interested in using subjective mappings.
Why subjective mapping?
Our choice to use subjective mapping is rooted in the specific nature of our research focuses. We focus on processes that unfold in the realm of the ‘everyday’, the mundane, day-to-day dwellings and practices of our participants. A key characteristic of focusing on the everyday is the attention it brings to the ‘spaces, rhythms, objects, and practices’ that often go unnoticed in daily life (Sheringham, 2006, p. 2). Subjective mapping can be used as a method to make visible the everyday spaces we otherwise cannot directly observe.
Besides that, we both pursue a mode of research that emphasises respect and care in our research practice. Subjective mapping is a data collection method that allows participants to retain control over their stories. They decide what they want to draw, and consequently, what they share. In a migration context where stories are often instrumentalised and reduced to ‘truths’ and ‘lies’ by the immigration institutions, this can contribute to more meaningful relationships with participants.
Doing the method
We were both new to carrying out the method, consequently posing some challenges. Approaching the workshop, the biggest challenge was the uncertainty about the space and participants. Floris had a gatekeeper but limited knowledge of the location itself. Cochrane & Corbet (2020) note the importance of a shared preparatory phase, and how the absence of this can undermine meaningful engagement. In our case, however, adopting a more coordinated approach (e.g., by organizing preparatory meetings and possibly pre-selecting participants) could have possibly reinforced existing hierarchies, such as the dominance of an appointed community spokesperson. Faced with this dilemma we focused on preparing as well as possible whilst remaining flexible and keeping enough time for conversation and questions. We structured the workshop in the following way: first, a short introduction, including an informed consent procedure; second, a focus group discussion lasting around 40 minutes; third, a mapping exercise lasting around 30 minutes; fourth, a final group discussion about the drawings.
On the morning of the workshop, we met with the gatekeeper. While she gathered the participants, we started setting up the room and session. This involved overcoming some expected challenges, such as finding enough chairs. There were also some less anticipated challenges, such as the presence of children. We improvised by giving them pens, pencils and paper to draw with. Despite this ‘solution’, the noise caused trouble for the recordings and transcription of this session.
Figure 1. Hannah setting up the workshop
Another unforeseen dynamic emerged during the session when people started passing by and showing interest in joining. Initially, this brought energy to the group, teaching us how important it was for people to join spontaneously. However, we eventually had to ask people to stop joining mid-session, as it was no longer possible to properly inform them about the activity’s objectives nor obtain informed consent. Instead, we offered to hold a second session later that afternoon.
Compared to the first, the second session was more chaotic and presented different challenges. We had more participants (seven instead of four), including more dominant personalities. The power relations between the participants were more palpable in the second session, whereas in the first they were more present between the researchers and the participants. This shift meant that we adopted different facilitation roles. While our focus in the first workshop was on building trust with the participants, in the second workshop we found ourselves acting more as mediators, ensuring that everyone had the opportunity to speak and contribute. These contrasting dynamics demonstrate the need for researchers to be able to continuously react to changing relational and political settings. We’ve added a list of practical considerations when engaging with the method:
- Make sure everyone is comfortable and not disturbed. We provided biscuits and fruit juice to create an informal setting.
- Think about your instructions. Use specific prompts (draw the places you visited yesterday) when needed a bad memory you have in the city, draw the event and location) when appropriate.
- Drawing materials matters. We used sheets of A1 paper, coloured pencils and pens. Different materials enable different outcomes.
- Participate in the drawing exercise. This prevents participants from feeling watched.
- With bigger groups, use pseudonymised nametags. It helps to link the participants to their stories in the transcription.
- Be attentive to power dynamics. Make sure people are not withheld from speaking.
- Approach the first time(s) as a try-out. Do not feel discouraged when the process is messy’. Give yourself time to experiment with timing and instructions.
Reflections on the ‘success’ of the workshop
We both evaluate the workshop in light of our own research projects. Floris: “To me, it served as a preliminary success, but it’s clear we haven’t yet realised its full potential. Which is okay; we approached this workshop as a try-out. It was a success because the data from the mapping exercise pointed to elements we didn’t reach during the focus group preceding the exercise. Feelings of security and insecurity are loaded topics, and participants seem inclined to discuss these in general, cursory terms, with reference to ‘big events’, such as an arrest or a police encounter. Asking them to draw and giving them time to decide what they want to draw seems to enable more textured and nuanced responses. For example, two participants drew their dream house instead of the place where they lived – which was the instruction. When asked about it, they shared that they aspire to live in a real home with multiple rooms, a car, flowers on the dinner table, and so on. Different from the 12m² rooms they occupy now. This response gives insight into their conception of ‘home’, their understanding of their current situation and unrealised aspirations. In another example, participants described their daily routines, from dropping off their kids at school in the morning to grocery shopping and attending a language school. These mundane elements were often overlooked during the focus group, which focused more on ‘big events’ and the structural limitations of their condition.”
For Hannah, when reflecting on whether the mapping exercise was a ‘success’, different questions came to her mind: “First, at the beginning of the first session, not everyone felt comfortable. Despite the 20-minute explanation of the research projects as part of the informed consent procedure, people were apprehensive during the first discussion. However, as the session progressed, people gradually became more relaxed. This was particularly evident during the mapping exercise, which transformed the setting while also being experienced as a ‘fun activity’”. Reflecting on this process confirms that the method is a subjective instrument that actives participative and interactive processes rather than producing ‘objective’ material outcomes (de Vet, 2023, p.29). Hannah continues, “But, within the framework of my research project, its application was however more limited. It was valuable as community members could relay their experiences of inclusion and exclusion from places in the city. However, it proved inadequate for understanding how people relate to and interact with the social and material aspects of everyday infrastructural surroundings in the urban environment. Using other materials than coloured markers and pencils might have helped to better grasp the relationality of lived experiences”. This resonates with Sou et al. (2022, p. 2432) who argue that “materials with diverse colours, textures, shapes, densities, weights and smells are key collaborators in emotional mapping”, as they can evoke and invoke different feelings and sensory reactions.
Hannah concludes: “However, the above thoughts lead me to a more general question. While the method was successful in empowering marginalised communities and shifting power dynamics, it fell short in terms of meeting the project’s predefined objectives. This raises the question: to what extent is subjective mapping compatible with a research setup that is already shaped by predefined goals and questions? The goal of subjective mappings is to allow marginalised communities to participate in the production of maps, thereby shifting power dynamics. But is this possible in a predefined research project where institutional frameworks have already decided upon the objectives and concepts? Do such frameworks unintentionally negate the very thing that makes the method powerful in the first place? Questions that I continue to ponder upon.”
References
Cochrane, L., & Corbett, J. (2020). Participatory mapping. Handbook of communication for development and social change, 705-713.
De Genova, N. P. (2002). Migrant “illegality” and deportability in everyday life. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 419-447.
de Vet, A. (2023). The problem of cartography, from singular to plural mapping. In TYPP (pp. 21-30): Sint-Lucas School of Arts.
Sheringham, M. (2006). Everyday Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sou, G., Carvalho, J., Cidade, N., & Eugenia, M. (2022). A New Method to Bridge New Materialism and Emotional Mapping: Spatio-Emotional Experiences in Disaster-Affected Brazilian Favelas. The Qualitative Report, 27(11), 2432-2445.
Wunderlich, F. M. (2008). Walking and rhythmicity: Sensing urban space. Journal of urban design, 13(1), 125-139.
Authors Biographies
Hannah is a PhD Candidate at the Department of Public Administration and Sociology of at the Erasmus University Rotterdam. She works on the URBIMM project which unravels the interplay between urban migration infrastructures and irregularised migrant mobilities. Her focus lies on the cities of Brussels and Trieste.
Floris is a PhD Candidate at the Crime and Society Research group at the Vrije Universiteit Brussels. He researches feelings of insecurity in the everyday lives of undocumented individuals in the Brussels-Capital Region from a spatial perspective.
[1] Others use ‘illegalized migrants’, ‘unauthorized migrants’, ‘undocumented migrants’, but we have chosen this term because it highlights that a person is not illegal but is made illegal by the state and non-state actors (on the production of ‘migrant illegality’, see De Genova, 2002).