A note on the research method of home walkthrough in Housing Studies

A note on the research method of home walkthrough in Housing Studies

 

Highlight 5 main ideas of the research method of "home walkthrough" in Housing Studies. Try to provide a simple example for illustration of the ideas. Then, also provide 2 academic references in Harvard reference format on this research method.

A home walkthrough is a mobile, in-situ research method in Housing Studies in which the researcher accompanies residents through their dwelling, observing the physical environment while discussing how they use, experience, and make sense of it. It combines observation, interview, and sometimes visual documentation, thereby linking housing conditions to everyday domestic practices.

Five main ideas

1.    Researching housing in its real setting
The method moves beyond a desk-based interview by studying the home where housing problems and practices actually occur. Researchers can directly observe conditions such as dampness, ventilation, crowding, safety hazards, or inadequate facilities.

2.    Combining observation with conversation
The walkthrough is usually guided by a semi-structured interview or checklist, but residents explain what the researcher sees. This helps connect physical features—such as a broken light fitting or a mouldy wall—to residents’ experiences, coping strategies, and meanings.

3.    Following residents’ everyday practices
Rather than treating the home as a static building, the walkthrough examines what people do in it: cooking, cleaning, storing belongings, ventilating rooms, caring for children, or using shared spaces. This is valuable for studying housing adequacy, energy use, health, and domestic life.

4.    Using residents as guides
Participants lead the researcher around their home and decide what to show, explain, or emphasise. This makes the method more participatory and can reveal locally important issues that a fixed checklist might miss.

5.    Producing rich, triangulated evidence
Data may include field notes, photographs, video, sketches, and interview transcripts. Comparing what residents say with what is observed helps validate and contextualise findings, although ethical safeguards around privacy, consent, and confidentiality are essential.

Simple example

Suppose a Housing Studies student investigates whether older residents in an ageing public rental estate can live safely and comfortably at home.

• The researcher arranges a consented visit and uses a short checklist covering lighting, flooring, bathroom safety, ventilation, storage, and access to facilities.
• During the walkthrough, an older resident shows the researcher that the bathroom has no grab rail and that a portable lamp is used because the corridor light is broken.
• The resident explains that they avoid showering at night because they fear slipping in the dark.
• The researcher records these observations and quotes in field notes, with the resident’s permission.
• The findings show that “poor housing” is not only about building defects; it also concerns how defects shape residents’ daily routines, safety, and wellbeing.

Harvard references

Pink, S. (2007) ‘Walking with video’, Visual Studies, 22(3), pp. 240–252. doi:10.1080/14725860701657142.

Pink, S. and Leder Mackley, K. (2013) ‘Situating everyday life in the home: routes, rhythms and atmospheres’, in Pink, S. (ed.) Situating Everyday Life: Practices and Places. London: Sage, pp. 91–110.

These references are relevant because Pink’s work develops walking and video-tour approaches for studying people’s sensory and practical relationships with home environments, while Pink and Leder Mackley apply home-based mobile methods to everyday domestic life.