Christoph Van Dülmen

This article presents a mixed-methods research protocol suitable for studying everyday mobility and its effects on life chances for a wide range of populations. We argue that it can address, among other issues, two important methodological challenges in the study of mobility: addressing pre-reflexivity and habits, as well as differentiating between voluntary and forced movements. The research protocol combines a problem-centered interview, two weeks of GPS tracking, and a subsequent mobility interview. It has been shaped by its application to more than 60 socially disadvantaged residents of rural peripheries as part of an international research project. It contributes to existing qualitative methods of spatial analysis because its design incorporates not only theoretical considerations but also insights of real-world application from conducting it in varied contexts and with different populations, which are typically underrepresented in more elaborate research designs. Nevertheless, due to its thematic openness, the design is not only interesting for mobility research, but also for other research focusing on spatial phenomena at the individual level. We provide a detailed account of the method’s implementation, contextualize it in relation to previous approaches, and discuss the analytical potential of the data obtained. We suggest that by triangulating movement data with interview data, perceptions and meanings of everyday mobility can be uncovered that would otherwise remain at a pre-reflexive level.

Social networks of socially disadvantaged individuals can help them in coping with everyday life and avoiding social exclusion. At the same time, social ties also have the power to bind an individual to their disadvantageous situation, perpetuating the risks of social exclusion. One mechanism through which ties can be established are “foci”: extra‐network structures around which common interactions occur (e.g., family, workplace, clubs) that usually have spatial anchor points (places) where joint interactions happen. To better understand this interplay of places and networks, we use a methodological novelty that connects a person’s everyday places with their ego‐centred network (two‐mode network). We analyse in depth two cases (elderly women living alone) from a mixed‐methods study conducted in rural peripheries in eastern Germany, and we combine data from GPS tracking, qualitative interviews, and egocentric networks. A central finding of our analysis is that tie formation in places is more successful if ego has certain resources (e.g., cultural, financial, or time resources) that allow them to utilise places as foci—hence, ego and places must “match” in their characteristics. Beyond that, the existing foci (and their spatial anchoring as places in everyday life) in which ego is integrated must be considered as structures. Even if a person has enough resources and easy access to places with characteristics that promote contact, this does not automatically mean that they will form ties in such places, as the person’s network plays a major role in whether they frequent these places and establish new ties there.