Where We Go From Here: The Mental Sketch Mapping Method and Its Analytic Components
J.J. Gieseking, (2013)
Mental mapping has a vaguely defined methodological history. Proponents contend that the method “affords a lens into the way people produce and experience space, forms of spatial intelligence, and dynamics of human-environment relations” and can be used as a “tool for examining the roles and meanings of space and place in everyday lives.” Through the discussion of original research, Gieseking provides an analysis and critique of the mental mapping methods devised by Lynch (Image of the City, 1960) and used Milgram and Jodelet (1970) and others in variety of ways. The article resulted from Geiseking’s frustration with and desire to understand the best practices for utilizing the mental mapping method and the ambiguous guidelines for analyzing mental maps.
Geiseking’s analysis of the method comes from a critical geographic perspective that “builds from the idea that space is produced all at once in how it is perceived, conceived, and lived” (cites Lefebvre). His original research highlights the metal sketch mapping (MSM) approach where participants draw visual maps gleaned from their cognitive maps, in this case the campus of an elite private college in the Northeast US. For my own research I am interested in and concerned about how this method could work for a less well-defined space/place; for example, an individual’s digital ecology. Gieseking traces “cognitive mapping” back to Edward Tolman (1948) and contends that his own approach to mental maps is both processual and representational (bridging the gap in the debate over conceived cognitive maps versus maps made from knowledge of moving through the space in question) . In Gieseking’s research, maps were the central focus of the interview but this does not have to be the case; in other studies maps have served as a discussion point within an interview.
Gieseking followed Lynch’s original steps (1960: Appendix B, below) but also expanded on the method to focus on the relationships between people and spaces (drawn from Devlin 1976 to relax and situate participants).
- asking about first thoughts when participant imagines the space
- draw map of the space
- detailed movements on an average day
After the basic “grand tour questions” (above) Gieseking used the map and continuous adding/drawing to guide the remainder of the interview. This allowed and encouraged participants to open up and express details about everyday life in the space/place. Gieseking notes how the order of the questions was paramount for getting participants to open up and that “it proved most significant to describe and enact the mapping process as one of mutual exploration.”
Gieseking analyzed the interviews and maps together as a whole (suggests that compiling maps alone would be useful only for creating a collective vision). Drawing on the mental mapping literature and his own thematic coding, Gieseking developed 57 analytic techniques and components, divided into 4 categories, for analyzing the mental maps; techniques refer to ways to examine the map and components describe elements of the map or aspects of its production. The 4 categories of techniques and components:
- Mechanics of method (MOM): representations of (spatial) reality; participants level of focus, anxiety; sequence and order of elements drawn
- Drawing elements (DE): qualities of the map, location of items – center, borders, colors, symbols, legends
- Narrative of Place (NOP): physical, remembered, imagines places; stories related to mentally walking through the map, situates participant, often renews and embodies memory; use of Lynch’s original districts, edges, notes, landmarks, paths; shared (or not) geographical imaginary
- Personalization (P): individual’s unique and deepest experiences and emotions within the space/place; aspects that possess personal meaning; first and last drawn elements
Through Gieseking’s research we can see that mental mapping provides significant insight into human-environment relations that moves beyond mere verbal exchange. Gieseking’s 57 analytic techniques and components provide helpful guidelines for engaging with and analyzing mental maps to better understand individuals’ experiences of space and place and allow a researcher to move between scales, “back and forth between global processes into the intimate embodied experience”. Due to the playful nature of the method, mapping would work well with younger individuals and can foster participatory experiences by encouraging each participant to tell their story.
Cite: Gieseking, J.J. 2013. Where We Go from Here: the Spatial Mental Mapping Method and Its Analytic Components for Social Science Data Gathering. Qualitative Inquiry. 19(9).
