Analysing digital multilocality between urban centres and rural peripheries: Combining and integrating digital and analogue research methods

Authors

  • Reto Bürgin University of Bern
  • Heike Mayer University of Bern
  • Alexander Kashev University of Bern
  • Sigve Haug University of Bern

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.116

Keywords:

mixed methods, digital methods, digital multilocality, digitalisation, research ethics, qualitative methods, quantitative methods

Abstract

The application of mixed methods in researching digitalisation and rural development has numerous benefits in terms of the integration of various data sources. In this paper, we present a novel, mixed methods approach that combines digital and analogue methods. We investigate multilocal work arrangements of knowledge workers in Switzerland who mainly work in a central urban area but occasionally withdraw to peripheral mountain regions in order to conduct their work in a concentrated and undisturbed environment. To analyse such multilocal work arrangements, we use a mixed methods approach that incorporates six integrated methods: geotracking, laptop and smartphone tracking, self-administered digital diaries, ethnographic walk-along observations and qualitative semi-structured interviews. Our study illustrates that mixed methods in digitalisation research provide in-depth insights, but that they also have limitations. Furthermore, we show how ethical standards can and should be used to create a basis of trust with the study participants and how this affects the recruitment of the sample.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Anderson, J. (2014): Talking whilst walking: A geographical archaeology of knowledge. In: Area 36, 3, 254–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0004-0894.2004.00222.x

Anderson, R.J.; Jirotka, M. (2015): Ethical Praxis in Digital Social Research. In: Halfpenny, P.; Procter, R. (eds.): Innovations in Digital Research Methods. Los Angeles, 271–296.

Bathelt, H.; Li, P. (2020): Building Better Methods in Economic Geography. In: Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie 64, 3, 103–108. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfw-2020-0014

Birenboim, A.; Shoval, N. (2017): Mobility Research in the Age of the Smartphone. In: Kwan, M.-P.; Schwanen, T. (eds.): Geographies of Mobility: Recent Advances in Theory and Method. London, 41–49.

Bosworth, G.; Venhorst, V. (2018): Economic linkages between urban and rural regions – what’s in it for the rural? In: Regional Studies 52, 8, 1075–1085. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1339868

Bosworth, G.; Willett, J. (2011): Embeddedness or Escapism? Rural Perceptions and Economic Development in Cornwall and Northumberland. In: Sociologia Ruralis 51, 2, 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2011.00533.x

Bryman, A. (2007): Barriers to Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research In: Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1, 1, 8–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906290531

Buchal, R.; Songsore, E. (2019): Using Microsoft Teams to Support Collaborative Knowledge Building in the Context of Sustainability Assessment. In: Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association 2019. https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.vi0.13882

Cain, L.K.; MacDonald, A.L.; Coker, J.M.; Velasco, J.C.; West, G.D. (2019): Ethics and Reflexivity in Mixed Methods Research: An Examination of Current Practices and a Call for Further Discussion. In: International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches 11, 2, 144–155. https://doi.org/10.29034/ijmra.v11n2a2

Christensen, P.; RomeroMikkelsen, M.; Sick Nielsen, T.A.; Harder, H. (2011): Children, Mobility, and Space: Using GPS and Mobile Phone Technologies in Ethnographic Research. In: Journal of Mixed Methods Research 5, 3, 227–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689811406121

Cope, M.; Kurtz, H. (2016): Organizing, Coding, and Analyzing Qualitative Data. In: Clifford, N.J.; Cope, M.; Gillespie, T.; French, S. (eds.): Key Methods in Geography. Los Angeles, 647–664.

Crabtree, A.; Tennent, P.; Brundell, P.; Knight, D. (2015): Digital Records and the Digital Replay System. In Halfpenny, P.; Procter, R. (eds:): Innovations in Digital Research Methods. Los Angeles, 193–220.

Dowler, L. (2001): Fieldwork in the trenches: participant observation in a conflict area. In: Limb, M.; Dwyer, C. (eds.): Qualitative Methodologies for Geographers: Issues and Debates. New York, 153–164.

Dreyfus, J. (2021): Homeoffice in den Bergen: Tapetenwechsel. In: Blick, 1 February 2021. https://www.blick.ch/life/homeoffice-in-den-bergen-tapetenwechselid16319587.html (24.02.2022).

Elliot, M.; Purdam, K. (2015): Exploiting New Sources of Data. In: Halfpenny, P.; Procter, R. (eds.): Innovations in Digital Research Methods. Los Angeles, 59–83.

Florida, R. (2005): Cities and the Creative Class. New York. Forman, C.; van Zeebroeck, N. (2019): Digital technology adoption and knowledge flows within firms: Can the Internet overcome geographic and technological distance. In: Research Policy 48, 8, 103697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.021

Geoghegan, H. (2019): Participatory Methods and Citizen Science. In: Ash, J.; Kitchin, R.; Leszczynski, A. (eds.): Digital Geographies. Los Angeles, 106–117.

Grabher, G. (2018): Marginality as strategy: Leveraging peripherality for creativity. In: Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 50, 8, 1785–1794. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X18784021

Halfpenny, P.; Procter, R. (2015): Introduction and Overview. In: Halfpenny, P.; Procter, R. (eds.): Innovations in Digital Research Methods. Los Angeles, 1–23.

Hautala, J.; Ibert, O. (2018): Creativity in arts and sciences: Collective processes from a spatial perspective. In: Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 50, 8, 1688–1696. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X18786967

Hesse-Biber, S.N. (2010): Mixed Methods Research: Merging Theory with Practice. New York.

Jack, S.L.; Anderson, A.R. (2002): The effects of embeddedness on the entrepreneurial process. In: Journal of Business Venturing 17, 5, 467–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(01)00076-3

Kern, F.G. (2018): The Trials and Tribulations of Applied Triangulation: Weighing Different Data Sources. In: Journal of Mixed Methods Research 12, 2, 166–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816651032

Kinsley, S. (2013): Beyond the Screen: Methods for Investigating Geographies of Life ‘Online’. In: Geography Compass 7, 8, 540–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12062

Koroma, J.; Hyrkkänen, U.; Vartiainen, M. (2014): Looking for people, places and connections: hindrances when working in multiple locations: a review. In: New Technology, Work and Employment 29, 2, 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12030

Kuckartz, U. (2014): Mixed Methods: Methodologie, Forschungsdesigns und Analyseverfahren. Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93267-5

Kühn, M. (2015): Peripheralization: Theoretical Concepts Explaining Socio-Spatial Inequalities. In: European Planning Studies 23, 2, 367–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.862518

Latham, A. (2016): Respondent Diaries. In: Clifford, N.J.; Cope, M.; Gillespie, T.; French, S. (eds.): Key Methods in Geography. Los Angeles, 157–168.

Leszczynski, A. (2018): Digital methods I: Wicked tensions. In: Progress in Human Geography 42, 3, 473–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132517711779

Madge, C. (2007): Developing a geographers’ agenda for online research ethics. In: Progress in Human Geography 31, 5, 654–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132507081496

Mayer, H.; Habersetzer, A.; Meili, R. (2016): Rural-urban linkages and sustainable regional development: The role of entrepreneurs in linking peripheries and centers. In: Sustainability 8, 8, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8080745

Mayring, P. (2015): Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Weinheim. McMorran, C. (2012): Practising workplace geographies: Embodied labour as method in human geography. In: Area 44, 4, 489–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2012.01101.x

Messenger, J.C. (2019): Conclusions and recommendations for policy and practice. In: Messenger, J.C. (ed.): Telework in the 21st Century: An Evolutionary Perspective. Northampton, 286–315. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789903751

Meth, P. (2003): Entries and Omissions: Using Solicited Diaries in Geographical Research. In: Area 35, 2, 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-4762.00263

Nadler, R. (2014): Plug&Play Places: Lifeworlds of multilocal creative knowledge workers. Warsaw. https://doi.org/10.2478/9783110401745

Ojala, S.; Pyöriä, P. (2018): Mobile knowledge workers and traditional mobile workers: Assessing the prevalence of multi-locational work in Europe. In: Acta Sociologica 61, 4, 402–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699317722593

Preissle, J.; Glover-Kudon, R.; Rohan, E.A.; Boehm, J.E.; DeGroff, A. (2015): Putting Ethics on the Mixed Methods Map. In: Hesse-Biber, S.N.; Johnson, R.B. (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry. Oxford, 144–163. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199933624.013.46

Rogers, R. (2013): Digital Methods. Cambridge. Rose, G.; Degen, M.; Basdas, B. (2010): More on ‘big things’: Building events and feelings. In: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 35, 3, 334–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2010.00388.x

Schilliger, P.; Steiger, U. (2020): Flexible Arbeitsformen: Chance für die ländlichen Räume? In: RegioS. Das Magazin zur Regionalentwicklung 18, 5–13.

Sgourev, S.V. (2021): Inside Out: When Ideas from the Core are Radicalized on the Periphery. In: Schuessler, E.; Cohendet, P.; Svejenova, S. (Eds.): Organizing Creativity in the Innovation Journey. Bingley, 19–37. = Research in the Sociology of Organizations 75. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20210000075004

Strijker, D.; Bosworth, G.; Bouter, G. (2020): Research methods in rural studies: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods. In: Journal of Rural Studies 78, 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.06.007

Tashakkori, A.; Creswell, J.W. (2007): The New Era of Mixed Methods. In: Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1, 1, 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906293042

Teddlie, C.; Tashakkori, A. (2009): Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Los Angeles.

Tiidenberg, K. (2018): Ethics in Digital Research. In: Flick, U. (ed.): The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection. London, 466–479. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526416070.n30

Torre, A. (2008): On the role played by temporary geographical proximity in knowledge transmission. In: Regional Studies 42, 6, 869–889. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400801922814

Torre, A.; Rallet, A. (2005): Proximity and localization. In: Regional Studies 39, 1, 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320842

Truong, J. (2018): Collapsing contexts: social networking technologies in young people’s nightlife. In: Children’s Geographies 16, 3, 266–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2018.1458214

Vesala, H.; Tuomivaara, S. (2015): Slowing work down by teleworking periodically in rural settings? In: Personnel Review 44, 4, 511–528. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-07-2013-0116

Watkins, D.; Gioia, D. (2015): Mixed Methods Research. New York.

Weber, B.A.; Freshwater, D. (2016): The Death of Distance? Networks, the Costs of Distance and Urban- Rural Interdependence. In Shucksmith, M.; Brown, D. L. (Eds.): Routledge International Handbook of Rural Studies. London, 154–164. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315753041

Published

Issue publication date 2022-06-30 (version 2)
Published online first 2022-04-04 (version 1)

Versions

How to Cite

Bürgin, R., Mayer, H., Kashev, A. and Haug, S. (2022) “Analysing digital multilocality between urban centres and rural peripheries: Combining and integrating digital and analogue research methods”, Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning. DE, 80(3), pp. 279–295. doi: 10.14512/rur.116.

Issue

Section

Article