Embodied graffiti and street art research

This is a sel -a chi ed e sion o an o iginal a icle. This e sion may di e om he o iginal in pagina ion and ypog aphic de ails. Au ho (s): Ti le: Yea : Ve sion: Copy igh : Righ s: Righ s u l: Please ci e he o iginal e sion: CC BY 4.0 h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/ Embodied g a i i and s ee a esea ch © The Au ho (s) 2021 Published e sion F ansbe g, Malin; Myllylä, Ma i; Tolonen, Jonna F ansbe g, M., Myllylä, M., & Tolonen, J. (2023). Embodied g a i i and s ee a esea ch. Quali a i e Resea ch, 23(2), 362-379. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/14687941211028795 2023 h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/14687941211028795 Quali a i e Resea ch 1 –18 © The Au ho (s) 2021 A icle euse guidelines: sagepub.com/jou nals-pe missions DOI: 10.1177/14687941211028795 jou nals.sagepub.com/home/q j Q R Embodied g a i i and s ee a esea ch Malin F ansbe g Pos doc o al esea che a Tampe e Uni e si y, Finland Ma i Myllylä PhD candida e a Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, Finland Jonna Tolonen Pos doc o al esea che a he Uni e si y o Lapland, Finland Abs ac G a i i and s ee a esea ch (GSAR) has become mo e acknowledged wi hin he academic discou se; howe e , i has much o gain om heo ising i s me hodological aspec s. As a mul idisciplina y ield, GSAR has mos ly used quali a i e esea ch me hods, explo ing u ban space h ough me hods ha ange om isual eco dings o e hnog aphy, emphasising he esea che s’ e lexi i y. This quali a i e app oach has, howe e , paid li le a en ion o he ole o embodied p ac ices. In his pape we discuss how embodied me hodologies p o ide mul isenso y esea ch esul s whe e he expe ienced momen s, he pa icipan ’s and esea che ’s senses, cogni ion and mobili y in u ban spaces a e connec ed. Ou discussion d aws on he au ho s’ ieldwo k expe iences o walking and edge wo king, and on he li e a u e conce ning embodimen and embodied me hodology ela ed o he con ex o GSAR. Keywo ds G a i i, GSAR, s ee a , embodied me hodology, e hnog aphy, senses, cogni ion, edgewo k, walking, gende In oduc ion G a i i and s ee a can be de ined as public – and o en unau ho ised – c ea i e a pieces in u ban spaces ha a e p oduced by sel -mo i a ed indi iduals o collec i es. Resea ching a ound his issue is a a he new discipline and schola s om he g a i i and Co esponding au ho : Jonna Tolonen D.A. & M.Ed, Pos doc o al esea che a he Uni e si y o Lapland, Yliopis onka u 8, Ro aniemi, Lapland 96101, Finland. Email: [email p o ec ed] 1028795QRJ0010.1177/14687941211028795Quali a i e Resea chF ansbe g e al. esea ch-a icle2021 S anda d A icle 2 Quali a i e Resea ch 00(0) s ee a esea ch (GSAR) a ena a e pa o a di e se in e disciplina y ield (see e.g. A amidis and Tsilimpounidi, 2017; Ross, 2016a; Ross e al., 2017; Zaimakis e al., 2021). The di e si y o disciplina y adi ions, such as isual s udies, sociology, c imi- nology, geog aphy and a his o y, en iches he esea ch e minology and i s me hodolo- gies, which should be ealised as one o he GSAR ields’ s onges con ibu ions. On he o he hand, a c oss-cu ing science challenges he epis emological pe spec i es in GSAR. As Ross s a es, he ield ‘lacks a consis en iden i iable body o hypo heses/p oposi ions, heo ies, and models’ (Ross, 2016b: 8). This in iguing mul idisciplina y aspec en ails g a i i and s ee a o be esea ched om se e al di e en pe spec i es and ye i com- plica es he de elopmen o one concu en esea ch language. One o he challenges wi hin he in e disciplina y ield o g a i i and s ee a s ud- ies could po en ially cen e a ound he issue o me hodology. The e a e, howe e , excep ionally ew w i ings ha a emp o con empla e he me hodology o GSAR (see e.g. And on, 2017; Fe ell, 2004; Hansen and Flynn, 2015; Lynn and Lea, 2005; Snyde , 2009). Ne e heless, i is ela i ely appa en ha GSAR’s majo me hod is app oached h ough quali a i e esea ch, anging om e hnog aphies, o in-dep h in e iews, and o collec ions o isual da a. One way o e lec his obus quali a i e dissemina ion o g a i i and s ee a p ac ices is o ela e hem o embodied p ac ices ha subs uc u es he cul u al a e ac s in u ban space. In pa icula , an embodied me hodology is use ul when he esea ch objec is he p ac i ione in ac ion and in cases whe e he aim is o s udy he in e ac ion be ween embodied p ac ices, isual in e ac ion and u ban space. Embodied me hodologies a e becoming an es ablished esea ch p ac ice among a wide ange o human sciences such as he social sciences, cul u al s udies and he cogni- i e sciences. Howe e , i is no cons i u ed as a subs an i e epis emic ield in i s own igh among disciplines ha ela e o his me hodology (Spa z, 2017). Ne e heless, a wide ange o di e en esea ch me hods – such as ‘ac ion esea ch’, ‘a is ic esea ch’, ‘p ac ice esea ch’ and ‘pe o mance esea ch’ – ha e all been ela ed o wha may now be dis inguished as embodied me hodologies, which emphasises he signi icance o bod- ily expe iences in a mul idisciplina y ield. This app oach pu s he ocus on he body as an a ea o in es iga ion and p oposes a speci ic unde s anding o knowledge h ough embodied p ac ices (Spa z, 2017: 6). While he embodied me hodology is no a no el app oach in he social sciences and humani ies, i has been enaciously neglec ed h ough he mind–body dualism, in which he mind is p esen ing ‘ a ionali y’, and he body ‘impulsi e’ and ‘i a ional passions’ (F ank, 1990; Howson and Inglis, 2001; Me leau-Pon y, 1962; Shilling, 2001). In socio- logical hinking, he ‘b inging bodies in’ has s essed he anscendence o he mind– body dualism, limi ing accoun s o embodied o ‘ca nal’ knowledge as c ucial o unde s anding social agency in in e ac ion wi h social o de (Howson and Inglis, 2001). Thus, such as he concep ualisa ions o ‘habi us’ by Bou dieu ha e sough o inco po a e leshly embedded me hodologies ha ecognise e lexi i y and bodily ac ions as ways o knowing (Wacquan , 2014). Simila challenges ha e been ecognised wi hin he cogni- i e sciences (Gallaghe and Zaha i, 2012; Va ela e al., 1993), whe e dualis ic hinking has been c i icised o educing cogni ion and he mind o ‘a disembodied compu e p og am’ (Gallaghe and Zaha i, 2012: 7). F ansbe g e al. 3 Feminis schola s ha e been a he o e on o de eloping embodied me hodologies and quali a i e enqui ies (O’Neill and Robe s, 2020; Young, 1980), and speci ically s eng hened he c i icisms agains he dualis ic app oach o he body–mind se (Howson and Inglis, 2001: 303). I e uses o app oach he body me ely as a s a ic ensemble o a subjec ’s ac ions (Bu le , 2010), as well emphasised he ele ance o embodied expe i- ence as c ucial in p oducing scien i ic knowledge (Sinclai , 2019). In he ield o a is ic esea ch, he concep ion o embodied knowledge is also ai ly s anda d. Mains eam scien i ic esea ch pa adigms a e o en ill- i ing wi h a is ic and cul u al esea ch ha deals wi h s udying pe o mances, emo ions and ac ile o bodily expe iences in an u ban space. The body, in a is ic esea ch, is ele an ‘e e -p esen in any kind o meaning making’, and he e o e i is na u al o ‘unde s and hinking as some- hing we do wi h ou body as much as ou b ain’ (Fen z and McGui k, 2015: 16–17). A mul idisciplina y ield such as GSAR may elabo a e some o he aspec s ega ding me hodologies conce ning embodimen . This pape pu s o wa d he iews and expe i- ences o embodied me hodologies om h ee g a i i and s ee a esea che s wi h back- g ounds in a is ic esea ch, sociology and cogni i e science. Such a mul idisciplina y app oach may a imes challenge a mu ual esea ch angle o sha ed concep ions. On he o he hand, i p o ides a p oduc i e se ing in which we can ca y ou esea ch om a holis ic pe spec i e. Thus, we a emp o demons a e how embodied me hodologies can be applied and elabo a ed in o GSAR. He e, embodimen emphasises ou unde s anding o he mind–body as one cons uc , as a p ocess ha expe iences and in e ac s wi h objec s and o he people in changing con ex s and imes (Cla k, 2013a; O’Neill and Robe s, 2020; Va ela e al., 1993). Ou pape conside s he ollowing ques ions: Wha can be unde s ood as an embodied me hodology in GSAR and wha kinds o examples a e p esen ed in he cu en li e a- u e? Mo eo e , we demons a e how an embodied me hodology, can be exempli ied u he by illus a ions o case s udies ha a e d awn om esea ch ha anges om walking (e.g. Ingold, 2007; Pink, 2015) o edge e hnog aphy (e.g. Lyng, 1990). We will begin by dis inguishing he embodied and i s me hodological aspec s as a amewo k o conduc ing mul idisciplina y GSAR. The a icle con inues wi h me hodological exam- ples om he au ho s’ esea ch. Fi s , we ake a close look a how embodied me hodolo- gies may be illus a ed in walking as a mul isenso y embodied expe ience in explo ing poli ical s ee a on oo in Spain (Tolonen, 2021a; 2021b). We analyse Tolonen’s esea ch si ua ions and d aw e lec ions on ield no es ha we e main ained o e ou mon hs o ield wo k be ween 2017 and 2018. The nex sec ion depic s how gende as an embodied p ac ice becomes ele an in e hnog aphic edgewo k ela ed o g a i i w i - ing. The sec ion d aws on examples om F ansbe g’s long- e m e hnog aphy (2011– 2019) in a Finnish male-domina ed g a i i subcul u e (F ansbe g, 2021). The a icle concludes wi h h ee indings ha a e p oposed o u he GSAR ield s udies. The embodied as a amewo k G a i i and s ee a p ac ices may be unde s ood as embodied expe iences whe e bo h schola s and esea ch pa icipan s a e pa o he embodied p ocess, accumula ing ield- ele an knowledge. Some g a i i and s ee a esea che s ha e conside ed how hei 4 Quali a i e Resea ch 00(0) c ea o s’ agency, iden i ies, cul u es, bodies, hough s and emo ions a e embodied in a e ac s (Hanne z, 2017; Schac e , 2014). O he esea che s ha e emphasised he join mind–body ac ions in gene a ing and pe cei ing g a i i and s ee a p oduc s h ough embodied expe iences (Myllylä, 2018; Halsey and Young, 2006; Nomeikai e, 2017). Beng sen (2014: 48–53) desc ibes he in e play o e bal and non e bal communica ion be ween a s ee a esea che and an in o man in he di e en physical and empo al con ex s. As Hansen and Flynn (2015) explain, expe iencing s ee a may be unde - s ood as an ac i e con e sa ion be ween he wo k, he a is and he iewe , whe e in e - p e a ions a e made in people’s sense-making p ocesses and ha a e a ec ed by physical con ex s as well as iewe s’ pe cep ions and alues. To unde s and human p ac ices and expe iences, humans can be s udied as in en- ional and social agen s. We in e ac wi h he physical and sociocul u al wo ld, making sense o in o ma ion om in e nal and ex e nal en i onmen s ha a e embedded in objec s and o he agen s (De Jaeghe and Di Paolo, 2007; Reinha d and Loke, 2013; Rowlands, 2010). Recei ing and p ocessing in o ma ion assumedly causes bodily sen- sa ions, which lead o cogni i e and soma ic a ec s (Noland, 2010: 4; Reinha d and Loke, 2013: 137). Ou expe iences and embodied ac ions a e hough o be guided by, o example, hough s and emo ions, pas memo ies and u u e goals (Gallaghe and Zaha i, 2012; Rodaway, 1994). We lea n by pa icipa ing in ou cul u e’s p ac ices and sense-making, as we engage in ou physical and in e subjec i e men al eali ies, coo dina ing and exp essing ou ac ions wi hin he changing li e si ua ions (De Jaeghe and Di Paolo, 2007; Rodaway, 1994). We may pe cei e ou en i onmen s as a o dances, as possibili- ies o ou ac ions by enac i e p ocesses (Gibson, 1986; Rowlands, 2010). Th ough ou ac ions – ac ions such as al e ing ou en i onmen and i s co esponding objec s – we ex end ou embodimen ou wa ds owa ds a e ac s (Reinha d and Loke, 2013; Rowlands, 2010). The amewo k o embodied expe iences expounds ha we humans a e in e wo en mind–body en i ies; ‘embodied minds’,1 whe e ou bodies and senses shape ou cogni- ion (and ice e sa) in hinking, emo ions, pe cep ions, memo ies, expe iences and social in e ac ions, how we a e si ua ed and how we beha e and mo e in he wo ld (Gallaghe and Zaha i, 2012; Igna ow, 2007; Ingold, 2007; Noland, 2010; O’Neill and Robe s, 2020). Ou men al s a es a e exp essed, o example, in ou physical mo emen s – such as ou ges u es and bodily exp essions (Gallaghe and Zaha i, 2012; Igna ow, 2007). Acco ding o Noland (2010), in en ional o spon aneous ges u es can exhibi aes- he ic and exp essi e – among o he ypes o – goals. Howe e , ou abili y o sense quali- a i e di e ences in ges u es’ meanings in e ms o shi ing social si ua ions is somewha o a lea ned skill (Noland, 2010: 6). Cul u al a e ac s and concep s may con ey social, symbolic meanings; o example, exp essing one’s membe ship wi hin a pee g oup o iden i y wi hin a subcul u e (Macdonald, 2002). Bodies can be pe cei ed as cul u al objec s, whe e a pe son’s sym- bolic iden i y is dis inguished, e alua ed and communica ed h ough bodily p ac ices (Hanne z, 2017; Igna ow, 2007; Noland, 2010). Wi hin g a i i and s ee a , cul u al a e ac s may embody he c ea o s’ indi idual and cul u ally idealised o ms (Hanne z, 2017). F ansbe g e al. 5 Embodied me hodology: Se ing up he esea ch, expanding he analysis Embodied me hodology emphasises he impo ance o he physical and socio- empo al con ex s and he in e ac ions wi h all people who a e in ol ed in he s udy. In a esea ch si ua ion, he esea che , pa icipan (s) and he o he in ol ed pa ies a e all engaged in in e subjec i e sense-making pe o mances, leading o he cons uc ion o socially sha ed meanings and embodied expe iences (De Jaeghe and Di Paolo, 2007; Noland, 2010). When people y o unde s and each o he , hey obse e and eac o hei oppo- nen s’ bodily mo emen s, which in u n may c ea e imagined assump ions abou o he s’ expe iences and in e pe sonally sha ed, simila ges u es (Fuchs and De Jaeghe , 2009). This kind o in e subjec i e unc ioning may en ich he esea ch analysis. Fo example, Chadwick (2017) has desc ibed embodied me hodologies as he means o eco d mul i- ocal p ac ices and how emale body p esences a e demons a ed in speech na a i es. He me hod p ima ily ocuses on he language used in sel - e e ence, ela ions o and memo ised opics o one’s own and o he s’ bodies (Chadwick, 2017). Embodied me hodology has been used also in GSAR. Schac e (2014: 224) e lec s: ‘I was by ac ion, by subjec i e in ol emen (wi h all he a ec i e quali ies hese engen- de ed) ha one gained embodied knowledge, a knowledge mo e impo an han any pu ely cogni i e unde s anding.’ Quo es om Schac e ’s (2014) ield no es desc ibe he en i onmen al con ex , physical spaces and empo ali y, bodily ges u es and in e ac ions be ween he in o man s and he esea che . Such in e ac ions allow o conclude esea ch indings in ways ha conce n ield ac i i ies as bodily engaged, a o m o social enac - men o ela ionships, communica ion and commi men s (Schac e , 2014: 226–227). Simila ly, as Fe ell (2004) no es, me hodologies ha en ail engagemen wi h he esea ch subjec s p o ide an unde s anding o di e en cul u al nuances and momen a y expe i- ences ha a e ela ed o g a i i. Nomeikai e (2017) explo es he possibili ies o esea ching s ee a by including obse a ions and e bal explica ions o he physical in e ac ions and expe iences wi h people and a e ac s (Nomeika e, 2017). Halsey and Young (2006) sugges ha he ac o g a i i w i ing in ol es bodily, a ec i e aspec s, causing a powe ul embodied expe i- ence. G a i i connec s hei c ea o s o he wo ld, e lec ing hei subjec i e, a ying ela ionships h ough he ac o w i ing g a i i. Thus, o a esea che , he poin o GSAR is no only o con i m exis ing heo ies, bu also o in es iga e: ‘how do a ious li ed bodies concei e o and speak abou wha hey do?’ (Halsey and Young, 2006: 294). Ryan (2017: 133) and Tolonen (2021a) ha e bo h epo ed on g a i i w i e s and s ee a is s gaining emedial bene i s om he ac o pain ing, e lec ing ha ‘pain ing does some- hing’ o hei bodies and acknowledging he in ense physical and emo ional sensa ions ha occu du ing he p ocess o c ea ing. G a i i subcul u e is o en desc ibed as male-domina ed and hence esea ched h ough a masculine lens o hough (F ansbe g, 2021; Macdonald, 2002). In e hno- g aphic esea ch he esea che is physically in ol ed in he li es o he s udy pa ici- pan s in he obse ed ield. Gende ed bodies o en c ea e meanings in hese esea ch se ings and a e c ucial in unde s anding he p ocess o knowledge c ea ion (Naegle and Salman, 2016). Bu le (1988: 520) p oposes ha gende iden i y is pe o med 6 Quali a i e Resea ch 00(0) as a ‘s ylized epe i ion o ac s h ough ime’. I is exp essed in bodily signs and o he discou ses, which cons uc iden i ies h ough embodied ac s in a social pe o mance (Bu le , 1988; 2010). Gende may he e o e in luence how he esea ch is conduc ed. Fo some esea che s, when walking alone in u ban en i onmen s, a eeling o sa e y migh no necessa ily be consis en due o easons such as hei gende , age o he o e all con ex (O’Neill and Robe s, 2019: 51). Acco ding o Tay and Diene (2011), he eeling o sa e y and secu i y can be unde s ood as a undamen al need ha people usually in end o ul il o emos . Howe e , indi idual psychosocial needs such as eeling espec ed, being able o mas e one’s ield o expe ise and ha ing a sense o independence migh be pu sued be o e basic o sa e y needs a e ully me (Tay and Diene , 2011). We a e also d i en by he emo ion o in e es (Cla k, 2013a; Iza d, 2009), which acco ding o Iza d (2009: 4) is essen ial ‘ o engagemen in c ea i e and cons uc i e endea ou s and o he sense o well-being’, also impac ing upon one’s a en ion and o he men al p ocesses. An indi idual’s p io knowl- edge and expe iences, emo ions, alues, needs and in e es s can a ec subjec i e in e - ences and beha iou (Igna ow, 2007; Ingold, 2007; Saa iluoma e al., 2016). This may explain ha some hing such as g a i i, ag o s ee a may seem de ian o insigni ican o one, bu i may seem no el, in e es ing and appealing o he o he . Embodied me hodologies can u ilise se e al me hods, anging om i s - o hi d- pe son pe spec i es, and om quali a i e o quan i a i e da a. Fo example, Myllylä (in p ess) uses hink aloud me hod, which is common in use psychology, a scien i ic dis- cou se o s udying people’s minds and beha io when hey in e ac wi h echnical a e- ac s (Saa iluoma e al., 2016), o in es iga e he esea ch pa icipan s’ embodied expe iences o selec ed g a i i wo ks. Thus, we would a gue ha di e en me hodolo- gies should be iewed as complemen a y and no as exclusi e o excluding. In he ollowing sec ions we will ocus on esea ch cases ha pe cei e u ban en i on- men s h ough walking and edge e hnog aphy. We illus a e ha walking can be a usable means o expe iencing and in e ac ing wi h he en i onmen and is elabo a ed he e upon as an embodied me hodology wi hin GSAR (Tolonen, 2021b; Young, 2016). We also p esen ha edge e hnog aphy is a me hodology ha equi es deep in ol emen and imme sion in he physical, social and emo ional ac i i ies o he subjec s, e en in he po en ial isk and e hical issues ha a e ela ed wo k o he engagemen o bo h he esea che and he subjec s (Fe ell, 1998; Lyng, 1990). Wi h hese wo cases we p o ide examples o how embodimen can be depic ed and how i can impac upon bo h esea ch me hods and analysis, in his case, in he examina ion o s ee a and g a i i. Walking as a esea che ’s embodied expe ience Walking has been heo ised in many ields o science, o example, in an h opology, geology, philosophy and sociology (see e.g. Ingold, 2007; O’Neill and Robe s, 2019; Pinde , 2008; Pink, 2015). Walking in en i onmen s is, in i sel , an endea ou ha includes expe ien ial, psychological, social, bodily and physical aspec s (O’Neill and Robe s, 2019). In GSAR, walking has become an inc easingly u ilised esea ch me hod. Fo example, Phillips (2015), Tolonen (2021a; 2021b) and Young (2016), among many o he s, ha e s udied and analysed g a i i and s ee a by walking a ound ci ies and F ansbe g e al. 7 pho og aphing a wo ks. Walking pe se has no ye been he main ocus o g a i i and s ee a esea che s and ye e en he esea che s hemsel es end o acknowledge i s impac s on hei pe cep ions, as Young (2016: 92) he e e lec s: Walking on he s ee pu s you in he mids , able o see ex u es up close, o walk away, u n and see a wo k om a dis ance, o lay you hand upon i and eel he unde lying s one h ough he pape o pain . The e o e, i can be a gued ha walking as a mul isenso y expe ience is a me hodology, as opposed o being simply a esea ch me hod (see also Pink, 2015), as Tolonen unde lines: I’m no longe su e i walking o me is jus a esea ch me hod. I see i now mo e as a bodily and mul isenso y s a e o hinking. A s a e in which, h ough my mo emen and obse a ions in he ci y space, I’m es ing he empi ical da a and heo e ical amewo ks o s ee a .2 By walking, a g a i i and s ee a esea che gains an expe ience o he su oundings o he a wo k as well as o he a wo k i sel . The esea che is able o see a wo ks om di e en angles and dis ances, eel he ex u es unde nea h, and some imes la e e u n o he a wo k and obse e how he wea he condi ions o o he a is s ha e modi ied i (see Figu e 1). Figu e 1. Some imes walking akes a esea che o su p ising loca ions, as happened o Tolonen du ing he wo-mon h s ay in Las Palmas, Spain, whe e she encoun e ed a mul i- laye ed p ac ising place o beginne s. 2018. Pho og aph @Jonna Tolonen. 8 Quali a i e Resea ch 00(0) The e migh also be momen s when he esea che can s ill smell he eshly sp ayed pain , discuss wi h o he passe s-by abou he eelings he a wo k aises o e en wi ness he a wo k being pain ed o e (see Figu e 2). The e o e, walking is a se ies o pe cep ions, hough s, emo ions and expe iences ha coincide wi h g a i i and s ee a and also wi h he esea che s hemsel es. Walking equi es one being p esen wi h all o one’s senses. The idea o mul i-senso iali y – in e - wining one’s sigh wi h one’s o he senses – is a undamen al p inciple in e ms o he esea che ’s walking expe iences. Vision is no unde s ood as a p ima y sense o he esea che , as he pe cep ion o he en i onmen could be cha ac e ised as a senso y p o- cess whe e seeing wo ks alongside he o he senses. Doing g a i i and s ee a esea ch on oo Walking is a o m o ieldwo k on oo and i gene ally in ol es pe cei ing, ou ing and eco ding. A esea che obse es he e e -changing en i onmen and pe cei es in o ma- ion om mu ually o e lapping sounds and ol ac o y scene y, landscape iews and a i- a ions in he g ound su aces unde his o he ee . Du ing he walk, he esea che can Figu e 2. A popula g a i i spo in Mad id, Spain, o e pain ed by he ci y’s cleaning c ew. A e aking he pho o Tolonen had a cha wi h he cleane s and one o hem old he was ‘a pain e mysel ’. 2015. Pho og aph @Jonna Tolonen. F ansbe g e al. 15 ORCID iD Jonna Tolonen h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0003-3363-9946 No es 1. In his pape we condense he concep s o ‘embodied mind’ and embodimen in o a he b ie desc ip ions, hough ex ensi e li e a u e exis s ega ding hese concep s. See, o example, Cla k (2013b) o embodimen and cogni ion, and Sca inzi (2015) o embodied mind in aes he ics. 2. Tolonen’s ield no e, Valencia, Decembe 2017. 3. Tolonen’s ield no e, Valencia, No embe 2017. [some addi ional in o ma ion has been dele ed o main ain he in eg i y o he e iew p ocess]. 4. Tolonen’s ield no e, Las Palmas, Janua y 2018. [some addi ional in o ma ion has been dele ed o main ain he in eg i y o he e iew p ocess] 5. Tolonen’s ield no e, Valencia, No embe 2017. [some addi ional in o ma ion has been dele ed o main ain he in eg i y o he e iew p ocess]. 6. F ansbe g’s ield no e wi h emale g a i i w i e , June 2018. 7. F ansbe g’s ield no e, Helsinki, Sep embe 2016. [some addi ional in o ma ion has been dele ed o main ain he in eg i y o he e iew p ocess]. Re e ences And on S (2017) In e iewing walls: owa ds a me hod o eading hyb id su ace insc ip ions. In: A amidis K and Tsilimpounidi M (eds) G a i i and S ee A . Reading, W i ing and Rep esen ing he Ci y. London and New Yo k: Rou ledge, 71–88. A lande A (2012) PERFORMING LANDSCAPE – No es on Si e-speci ic Wo k and A is ic Resea ch (Tex s 2001–2011). Helsinki: Thea e Academy Helsinki, Pe o ming A s Resea ch Cen e. A amidis K and Tsilimpounidi M (eds) (2017) G a i i and S ee A . Reading, W i ing and Rep esen ing he Ci y. London and New Yo k: Rou ledge. Beng sen P (2014) The S ee A Wo ld. Lund: Almend os de G anada P ess. Be ge R (2015) Now I see i , now I don’ : esea che ’s posi ion and e lexi i y in quali a i e esea ch. Quali a i e Resea ch 15(2): 219–234. Bo gdo H (2011) The p oduc ion o knowledge in a is ic esea ch. In: Biggs M and Ka lsson H (eds) The Rou ledge Companion o Resea ch in he A s. London: Rou ledge, 45–63. Bu le J (1988) Pe o ma i e ac s and gende cons i u ion: an essay in phenomenology and emi- nis heo y. Thea e Jou nal 40(4): 519–531. Bu le J (2010) Gende T ouble. New Yo k and Oxon: Rou ledge. Chadwick R (2017) Embodied me hodologies: challenges, e lec ions and s a egies. Quali a i e Resea ch 17(1): 54–74. Cla k A (2013a) Wha e e nex ? P edic i e b ains, si ua ed agen s, and he u u e o cogni i e sci- ence. Beha io al and B ain Sciences 36(3): 181–204. Cla k A (2013b) Embodied, embedded, and ex ended cogni ion. In: F ankish K and Ramsey W M (eds) The Camb idge Handbook o Cogni i e Science. Camb idge and New Yo k: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 275–291. Classen C (1993) Wo lds o Sense: Explo ing he Senses in he His o y and Ac oss Cul u es. Co nwall: Rou ledge. De Jaeghe H and Di Paolo E (2007) Pa icipa o y sense-making. Phenomenology and he Cogni i e Sciences 6(4): 485–507. 16 Quali a i e Resea ch 00(0) Fen z C and McGui k T (2015) In oduc ion. In: Fen z C and McGui k T (eds) A is ic Resea ch: S a egies o Embodimen . Å hus: NSU P ess, 11–20. Fe ell J (1996) C imes o S yle: U ban G a i i and he Poli ics o C iminali y. Bos on: No heas e n Uni e si y P ess. Fe ell J (1998) C iminological Ve s ehen: inside he immediacy o C ime. In: Fe ell J and Hamm M (eds) E hnog aphy a he Edge: C ime, De iance, and Field Resea ch. Bos on: No h- Eas e n Uni e si y P ess, 20–42. Fe ell J (2004) Bo edom, c ime and c iminology. Theo e ical C iminology 8(3): 287–302. F ank AW (1990) B inging bodies back in: a decade e iew. Theo y, Cul u e & Socie y 7(1): 131–162. F ansbe g M (2021) Helsinki G a i i Subcul u e: Meanings o Con ol and Gende in he A e ma h o Ze o Tole ance. Doc o al Thesis. Tampe e: Tampe e Uni e si y. Fuchs T and De Jaeghe H (2009) Enac i e in e subjec i i y: pa icipa o y sense-making and mu ual inco po a ion. Phenomenology and he Cogni i e Sciences 8(4): 465–486. Gallaghe S and Zaha i D (2012) The Phenomenological Mind. 2nd edn. Oxon and New Yo k: Rou ledge. Gibson J (1986) The Ecological App oach o Visual Pe cep ion. New Yo k and Ho e: Psychology P ess. Halsey M and Young A (2006) ‘Ou desi es a e ungo e nable’ w i ing g a i i in u ban space. Theo e ical C iminology 10(3): 275–306. Hanne z E (2017) Bodies, doings, and gende ed ideals in Swedish g a i i. Sociologisk Fo skning 54(4): 373–376. Hansen S and Flynn D (2015) Longi udinal pho o-documen a ion: eco ding li ing walls. S ee A & U ban C ea i i y Jou nal 1(1): 26–31. Howson A and Inglis D (2001) The body in sociology: ensions inside and ou side sociological hough . The Sociological Re iew 49(3): 297–317. Igna ow G (2007) Theo ies o embodied knowledge: new di ec ions o cul u al and cogni i e sociology? Jou nal o he Theo y o Social Beha iou 37(2): 115–135. Ingold T (2007) Lines. A B ie His o y. London and New Yo k: Rou ledge. Iza d CE (2009) Emo ion heo y and esea ch: highligh s, unanswe ed ques ions, and eme ging issues. Annual Re iew o Psychology 60(1): 1–25. Lumsden K (2009) ‘Do we look like boy ace s?’ The ole o he olk de il in con empo a y mo al panics. Sociological Resea ch Online 14(1): 1–12. Lyng S (1990) Edgewo k: a social psychological analysis o olun a y isk aking. The Ame ican Jou nal o Sociology 95(4): 851–886. Lyng S (2004) C ime, edgewo k and co po eal ansac ion. Theo e ical C iminology 8(3): 359– 375. Lyng S (2005) Sociology o he edge: social heo y and olun a y isk aking. In: Lyng S (ed.), Edgewo k: The Sociology o Risk-Taking. New Yo k: Rou ledge, 17–49. Lynn N and Lea S J (2005) Th ough he looking glass: conside ing he challenges isual me h- odologies aise o quali a i e esea ch. Quali a i e Resea ch in Psychology 2(3): 213–225. Macdonald N (2002) The G a i i Subcul u e: You h, Masculini y and Iden i y in London and New Yo k. New Yo k: Palg a e Macmillan. Me leau-Pon y M (1962) Phenomenology o Pe cep ion. London: Rou ledge and Keagan Paul. Myllylä, M (2018) G a i i as a Palimpses . SAUC - S ee A & U ban C ea i i y Scien i ic Jou nal 4(2): 25–35. h ps://doi.o g/10.25765/sauc. 4i2.141 Myllylä, M (in p ess) Empa hy in Technology Design and G a i i. The HCI In e na ional 2021 Con e ence P oceedings. Lec u e No es in Compu e Science (LNCS). Sp inge . F ansbe g e al. 17 Naegle L and Salman S (2016) Cul u al c iminology and gende consciousness: mo ing eminis heo y om ma gin o cen e . Feminis C iminology 11(4): 354–374. Noland C (2010) Agency and Embodimen : Pe o ming Ges u es/P oducing Cul u e. Camb idge: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess. Nomeikai e L (2017) S ee a , he i age and embodimen . SAUC – S ee A & U ban C ea i i y Scien i ic Jou nal 3(1): 43–53. O’Neill M and Robe s B (2020) Walking Me hods: Resea ch on he Mo e. New Yo k: Rou ledge. O’Reilly K (2012) E hnog aphic Me hods. London: Rou ledge. Phillips A (2015) De ining isual a : in con as o poli ical s encils. Visual An h opology 28(1): 51–66. Pinde D (2008) U ban in e en ions: a , poli ics and pedagogy. In e na ional Jou nal o U ban and Regional Resea ch 32(2): 730–736. Pink S (2015) Doing Senso y E hnog aphy. 2nd edn. G ea B i ain: Sage Publica ions. Poul on E (2012) ‘I you had balls, You’d Be One o Us!’ Doing Gende ed esea ch: me hodo- logical e lec ions on being emale academic esea che in he hype -masculine subcul u e o ‘ oo ball hooliganism’. Sociological Resea ch Online 17(4): 1–13. Reinha d D and Loke L (2013) No wha we hink: sensa e machines o ewi ing. In: P oceedings o he 9 h ACM Con e ence on C ea i i y & Cogni ion (eds Yi-Luen Do E, Dow S, Ox J, e al.), Sydney, Aus alia, 17–20 June 2013, 135–144. New Yo k: ACM Publica ions. Rodaway P (1994) Sensuous Geog aphies: Body, Sense and Place. Eas bou ne: Rou ledge. Ross JI (ed.) (2016a) Rou ledge Handbook o G a i i and S ee A . New Yo k: Rou ledge. Ross JI (2016b) In oduc ion. In: Ross JI (ed.), Rou ledge Handbook o G a i i and S ee A . New Yo k: Rou ledge, 1–10. Ross J, Beng sen P, Lennon J, e al. (2017) In sea ch o academic legi imacy: he cu en s a e o schola ship on g a i i and s ee a . The Social Science Jou nal 54(4): 411–419. Rowlands M (2010) The New Science o he Mind: F om Ex ended Mind o Embodied Phenomenology. Camb idge, MA: A B ad o d Book. Ryan HE (2017) Poli ical S ee A : Communica ion, Cul u e and Resis ance in La in Ame ica. Co nwall: Rou ledge. Saa iluoma P, Cañas J and Leikas J (2016) Designing o Li e: A Human Pe spec i e on Technology De elopmen . London: Palg a e Macmillan. Sca inzi A (ed.) (2015) Aes he ics and he Embodied Mind: Beyond A Theo y and he Ca esian Mind-Body Dicho omy. Do d ech , Heidelbe g, New Yo k and London: Sp inge . Schac e R (2014) O namen and O de : G a i i, S ee A and he Pa e gon. Fa nham, Su ey: Rou ledge. Shilling C (2001) The embodied ounda ions o social heo y. In: Ri ze G and Sma B (eds) Handbook o Social Theo y. London: Sage Publica ions L d, 439–457. Sinclai A (2019) Fi e mo emen s in embodied eminism: a memoi . Human ela ions 72(1): 144–158. Snyde JS (2009) G a i i Li es: Beyond he Tag in New Yo k’s U ban Unde g ound. London: New Yo k Uni e si y P ess. Spa z B (2017) Embodied esea ch: a me hodology. Liminali ies: A Jou nal o Pe o mance S udies 13(2): 1–31. Tay L and Diene E (2011) Needs and subjec i e well-being a ound he wo ld. Jou nal o Pe sonali y and Social Psychology 101(2): 354–365. Tolonen J (2021a) ‘Wha e e I can do o pu hose people in jail’ – C isis u ns Spanish a is s o s ee ac i ism. In: Zaimakis Y., Pa oni A. and Campos R. (eds) Poli ical G a i i in C i ical Times: The Aes he ics o S ee Poli ics. London: Be ghahn Books, pp. 52–73. 18 Quali a i e Resea ch 00(0) Tolonen, J (2021b). Resis ance o iolence agains women on Spanish walls. Visual Communica ion. Epub ahead o p in 30 Ma ch 2021. DOI: 10.1177/1470357220943632 Va ela FJ, Thompson E and Rosch E (1993) The Embodied Mind: Cogni i e Science and Human Expe ience. Rep in , Camb idge: MIT P ess, 1995. Wacquan L (2014) Homines in ex emis: wha igh ing schola s each us abou habi us. Body & Socie y 20(2): 3–17. Young A (2016) S ee A Wo ld. China: Reak ion Books. Young I (1980) Th owing like a gi l: a phenomenology o eminine body compo men , mo ili y, and spa iali y. Human S udies 3(1): 137–156. Zaimakis Y, Pa oni A and Campos R (eds) (2021) Poli ical G a i i in C i ical Times: The Aes he ics o S ee Poli ics. London: Be ghahn Books. Au ho biog aphies Malin F ansbe g is a sociologis and specialises in hemes o subcul u al heo ies, gende and cul- u al c iminology. He e hnog aphic PhD hesis ocused on he c iminalisa ion o g a i i in Helsinki and he a ec o ze o ole ance policy on he subcul u e’s gende pe o ma i i ies. She is cu en ly s udying young people’s ela ionships and pe spec i es on animals, and i s ele ance o p o-en i onmen al beha iou . Ma i Myllylä is a cogni i e scien is wi h p e ious deg ees in design and IT business. She is cu - en ly inishing he PhD hesis abou in o ma ion con en o men al ep esen a ion in expe ience o g a i i. He esea ch in e es s a e in g a i i a expe ience, ep esen a ional men al con en s and embodied mind. She cu en ly wo ks in he ETAIROS p ojec ha s udies e hical assessmen and design amewo ks o A i icial In elligence (AI) and associa ed echnologies. Jonna Tolonen is a pos doc o al esea che a he Facul y o A and Design a he Uni e si y o Lapland, Finland. She has p esen ed and published widely on gen i ica ion and s ee a . Jonna is also a membe o INDAGUE, he Spanish Associa ion o Resea che s o G a i i and U ban A . He cu en esea ch in e es s deal wi h isual cul u e, socio-en i onmen al jus ice and a i ism. www.s ee walke . i