i never use ‘maps’ anymore’’: engaging with sat nav ... · technologies, cartographic and...

R E F E R E E D P A P E R

‘‘I Never Use ‘Maps’ Anymore’’: Engaging with Sat NavTechnologies and the Implications for Cartographic Literacyand Spatial Awareness

Janet Speake and Stephen Axon

Liverpool Hope University, UK

Email: [email protected]

It is somewhat paradoxical that at a time of widespread and increasing adoption of Satellite Navigation (Sat Nav)

technologies of wayfinding, geographic and cartographic research has engaged very little with issues relating to their

impact on spatial awareness and cartographic literacy. Through exploration of geography students’ engagements with Sat

Nav, we investigate how these latest forms of wayfinding technologies are influencing choice and methods of navigation

and how they affect attitudes towards more ‘traditional’ forms of maps and map use. We explore engagement in terms of

what geography students know about, feel towards, and achieve with, Sat Nav technologies. Principally, Sat Nav is not

seen as a ‘map’ but as something different and distinctive. This, in turn, has implications for how people navigate, how they

relate to the places and spaces around them and for their spatial cognition and ‘map-reading’ abilities.

Keywords: Sat Nav, technologies of navigation, cartographic engagement, spatial awareness, cartographic literacy

ENGAGING WITH SAT NAV TECHNOLOGIES: AN

INTRODUCTION

It is ironic that at the 2012 Association of AmericanGeographers Annual Meeting we were handed numerouspaper-based maps, when our research is indicating thatsome young geographers are not engaging with traditionalmaps. It is also paradoxical that at a time of widespread andincreasing adoption of Satellite Navigation (Sat Nav)technologies, cartographic and geographic research hasengaged very little with issues relating to their impact onspatial awareness and cartographic literacy. To date,academic engagements with Sat Nav have been largelygrounded in psychology and computer science andgeographers are comparative latecomers to this currentinterdisciplinary dialogue (Axon et al., 2012). Throughexploration of geography students’ engagements with SatNav, we consider how these latest forms of wayfindingtechnologies are influencing choice and methods ofnavigation and how they affect attitudes towards more‘traditional’ forms of maps and map use. In this paper, SatNav [technologies] are defined as in-vehicle systems(Figure 1), portable Sat Nav devices, and Sat Nav enabledmobile phones and smartphones (Figure 2).

People engage in various kinds of spatial behaviour intheir daily lives such as planning a route and movingthrough space to a destination (Ishikawa et al., 2008).

Navigating through places can be a demanding andchallenging task as there are large individual differences inthe ability to comprehend the layout of the environment(Dillemuth, 2005; Ishikawa et al., 2008; Dillemuth, 2009).Traditionally, maps have played major roles in conveyingspatial information and guiding people around in space(Ishikawa et al., 2008). Recently, many kinds of wayfindingartefacts such as Sat Nav technologies have been developedto aid navigation (Munzer et al., 2006; Ishikawa et al.,2008; Girardin and Blat, 2010). Unlike maps, Sat Navtechnologies do not provide spatial information in acomplete survey view with a stable reference frame(Munzer et al., 2006). Currently, people are relying moreon Sat Nav technologies than maps to navigate their wayincluding in novel environments (Munzer et al., 2006).Mintel (2012) report that between December 2011 andJanuary 2012 household ownership of Sat Nav devices(excluding smartphones) rose from 41 to 42%. In the sameperiod, personal ownership of smartphones increasedcommensurately from 53 to 56% and using online maps isthe sixth most commonly performed smartphone activityfollowing activities such as sending messages, using searchengines and accessing social networks (Mintel, 2012).

It is often assumed that students studying geographyrelated disciplines strongly engage with a range of wayfind-ing tools, in particular maps. Axon et al. (2012) reportstudents’ perspectives on the benefits for using Sat

The Cartographic Journal Vol. 49 No. 4 pp. 326–336 Cognition, Behaviour, Representation - Special Issue November 2012# The British Cartographic Society 2012

DOI: 10.1179/1743277412Y.0000000021

Nav technologies over traditional paper-based maps.Additionally, Axon et al. (2012: 5, 6) demonstrate thatthere is a clear preference of using Sat Nav technologies,with claims including: ‘I only use Sat Nav’ and ‘I never usemaps anymore’. These remarks illustrate the nature of someof the engagements with technologies of navigation. Morespecifically, they demonstrate that the students surveyed byAxon et al. (2012) were passively engaging with traditionalpaper-based maps, and yet actively engaging with Sat Navtechnologies on a daily basis. These various engagementsreflect young geographers’ perceptions of traditional paper-based maps and Sat Nav as two distinctive technologies ofnavigation (Kitchin and Dodge, 2007; Laurier and Brown,2008; Axon et al., 2012).

Here, we seek to explore engagements with Sat Nav inthe context of the evolving literature on engagement(Lorenzoni et al., 2007; Ockwell et al., 2009; Whitmarshand O’Neill, 2011). Little research has explored userengagements with electronic wayfinding artefacts (Todmanand Monaghan, 1994; O’Brien and Toms, 2008; Rak Jung,2012). Engagement theories are a relatively new approach toexploring peoples’ responses to a range of issues (Krause andCoates, 2008; Whitmarsh and O’Neill, 2011; Whitmarshet al., 2011). These techniques have demonstrable merit inhelping understand responses towards complex issues, suchas addressing climate change (Whitmarsh et al., 2011), buthave not yet been applied to engagements with technologiesof navigation. The strength of these conceptual andmethodological techniques is that they focus on thecognitive, affective and behavioural dimensions of engage-ment. In this paper, the multi-faceted nature of engagementis defined as having these three key components: cognitive(knowledge and understanding), affective (emotion, interest,and feeling) and behavioural (action) (Lorenzoni et al.,2007; Ockwell et al., 2009; Whitmarsh and O’Neill, 2011),and we apply these to investigate what geography studentsknow about, feel towards, and achieve with, Sat Navtechnologies.

There are few detailed definitions of active and passiveengagement, but there appears to be an implicit under-standing of active engagement meaning ‘what is done’with the object of engagement and passive engagementmeaning ‘what is not done’. Active engagement refers tothe intensity and emotional quality of involvement incarrying out activities with an object of engagement(Mitchell and Carbone, 2011), in this instance, technol-ogies of navigation. Active involvement with theseinvolves cognitive, affective and behavioural engage-ments. People demonstrate an understanding of how touse a wayfinding artefact and develop a level of emotionalattachment to it, whether positive or negative. Activebehavioural engagements with traditional paper-basedmaps and Sat Nav are distinguishable (Munzer et al.,2006). For example, active behavioural involvements withSat Nav show that people follow, and respond to, visualand aural navigation instructions (Axon et al., 2012).Whereas, active behavioural engagements with paper-based maps show that people use it practically to gain anunderstanding of their geographic position and orienta-tion. Passive engagements with technologies of naviga-tion illustrate that people have little understanding of the

wayfinding artefact in use (whether a paper-based map orSat Nav), have limited emotional connections with it anduse the technology sparingly or follow it unquestioningly.

Building on these underpinnings, this paper adopts amixed methods, attitudinal approach to open up theopportunities for future research to focus on ethno-methodological informed studies of practice. This con-ceptual and methodological approach forms an empiricalcontext about the relative roles of cognitive, affective andbehavioural engagements with Sat Nav technologies. It alsoforms a basis for ethno-methodologically oriented study inwhich dimensions such as affective engagements and issuesrelating to affect could be explored in more detail such ashow affective engagements might influence behaviouralengagements.

The study of Sat Nav use can be situated within thecontext of geographies of mobility (Sheller and Urry, 2006;Merriman, 2009). Sheller and Urry (2006) suggest that thenew mobilities paradigm attempts to account for patterns ofconcentration that create zones of connectivity, centralityand empowerment as well as disconnection. Our papercontributes to the new mobilities paradigm in the contextof analysing mobility aided by Sat Nav and highlighting thesignificance of navigation systems in everyday mobilities.This input to the mobilities discourse begins to addresstechnological concerns about mobile information andcommunication (Sheller and Urry, 2006; Merriman,2009), specifically in relation to Sat Nav technologies.While there is a widespread perception that the use of SatNav has negative consequences on cartographic literacy andspatial awareness (Patel et al., 2008; Parker, 2009), newtechnologies of navigation encourage different sorts ofengagements with wayfinding artefacts (Laurier and Brown,2008).

In the development of navigation tools such as paper-based maps and online mapping applications, Sat Navtechnologies are the latest wayfinding artefact (Livingstone,1991; Wood, 1992; Meng et al., 2005; Goodchild, 2007).The extensive use of Sat Nav illustrates the significance ofreadily available cartographic information for journeyplanning and wayfinding (Meng et al., 2005; Girardin andBlat, 2010), by a wide range of users (Perkins, 2004;Perkins, 2008; Axon et al., 2012). Through the popular useand accessibility of Sat Nav, cartographic material can beaccessed in any geographic location.

Technology, mobility and society have been prominentthemes in research on wayfinding (Sheller and Urry, 2006;Kwan, 2007; Schwanen and Kwan, 2008; Pfaff, 2010).Usability issues related to technologies of navigation haverecently started to be explored by Lee et al. (2008),Sanchez and Branaghan (2009), and Lavie et al. (2011).This literature is by no means comprehensive and is focusedlargely on the technological dimensions of navigationsystems. The use of location tracking, geographic dataand satellite imagery in traffic engineering, law enforcementand military intelligence have featured in the work ofCrampton (2001), Perkins (2004), and Dodge et al.(2009). This research considers the relationship betweenthe individual, the state and visualisations. It also exploresthe relationships between state power and technologyrelating to Foucauldian notions of governance (Perkins,

‘‘I Never Use ‘Maps’ Anymore’’ 327

2004; Monmonier, 2005). In relation to maps, wayfindingand navigation, Brown and Laurier (2005) utilized ethno-methodology and conversation analysis to study map usewhich re-situates these activities as shared social and culturalpractices.

Ishikawa et al. (2008) observe that GPS-based systemsaffect user wayfinding behaviour and spatial understandingin different ways to maps and direct experience. Theseresults indicate that Sat Nav technologies were less effectiveboth as support for smooth navigation and for helpingpeople acquire accurate knowledge about routes (Ishikawaet al., 2008). Axon et al. (2012) investigated attitudestowards, and experiences of, Sat Nav use and called forfurther research on the implications of Sat Nav technologieson cartographic literacy and spatial awareness. Axon et al.(2012) reported that navigation capacities and the techno-logical aspects of Sat Nav were regarded positively whereasnegative attitudes focused on the safety, technological andfinancial attributes of Sat Nav use. It was also observedthat the use of Sat Nav negatively impacted upon the useof other technologies of navigation (such as traditional

paper-based maps), as well as spatial awareness andcartographic literacy. For example, lost map skills, overlyreliant on technology (such as Sat Nav), decreased ability toread maps, as well as a feeling that maps are unnecessary(Axon et al., 2012).

Globally, the investigation of attitudes towards, engage-ment with, and experiences of, Sat Nav technologies as wellas the implications for cartographic literacy and spatialawareness is an under researched area (Lee and Cheng,2008; Dodge et al., 2009; Girardin and Blat, 2010; Axonet al., 2012). Dodge et al. (2009) argue for research whichfocuses on the use and practices of digital mapping toolssuch as Sat Nav and call for studies on how people use SatNav technologies rather than how systems have beendesigned to work. Axon et al. (2012) reinforce this andassert that cartographers and geographers should engagemore with interdisciplinary dialogues on people’s changingperspectives on wayfinding, navigation and map design.They also suggest that exploring attitudes towards the useof Sat Nav is an important area of research for thecartographic and geographic communities as Sat Nav

Figure 1. In-vehicle Sat Nav system Vehicular position at Liverpool Hope University, Hope Park campus, as shown via an in-vehicle Sat Navsystem (Audi Navigation plus)

328 The Cartographic Journal

technologies are increasingly adopted for journey planning,wayfinding and navigation. In this paper, we thereforecontribute to filling this substantive gap in the cartographicand geographic literature.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Explorations of geography students’ engagement with SatNav technologies and understanding the implications forcartographic literacy and spatial awareness were the aims ofthis research project. We also sought to extend the dialogueon how people use Sat Nav technologies (Dodge et al.,2009) and on people’s changing understandings, perspec-tives and use of contemporary cartographies (Axon et al.,2012).

In all, 84 geography undergraduates studying atLiverpool Hope University were surveyed by questionnaire.Two year group intakes participated, 2010–11 (n546)and 2011–12 (n538), in January 2011 and January2012 respectively. At the times of survey, students were

beginning their second semester of study of their first yearintroductory geography undergraduate course ‘Landscape,Environment and Place’. At this stage, students had hadexposure to introductory cartographic principles and for thevast majority this builds on their previous cartographicexperiences at pre-university level. Typical engagements ingeography at pre-university level (AS/A Level [AdvancedSubsidiary/Advanced Level, post-16 education]) includethe use of new technologies, such as GIS, to assistgeographical investigation and the ability to extract andinterpret information from a range of sources. Thesecomprise maps (including Ordnance Survey maps ofdifferent scales), drawings, and photographs (ground, aerialand satellite imagery). All students had experience of mapproduction and self-directed fieldwork using a range ofnavigation systems in urban and rural environments. Mostrespondents were younger students: 18–20 years (n568),21–29 (n512) and 30z (n54), with a mean age of 20.3and a mode of 18 years. Females comprised 64.3% (n554)of the population and males 35.7% (n530). The ques-tionnaire incorporated open and closed questions relating

Figure 2. Sat Nav enabled smartphone Pedestrian position at Liverpool Hope University, Hope Park campus, demonstrated on the mappingapplication on a Sat Nav enabled smartphone (iPhone 4)


to the uses of, and implications of engagements with, SatNav technologies.

In pursuing the nature of young geographers’ engage-ment with technologies of navigation it quickly becameobvious that detailed insights into their own positionalitiesand engagements with Sat Nav were also called for. Werequired ‘real words’ (Wisker, 2001: 168) in order toidentify key themes and issues. Our questionnaire generatedvaluable broad perspectives and initial contexts of Sat Navuse and also triggered a desire to explore more deeply thecharacter of individual engagements.

To glean these in-depth perspectives and attain somesense and understanding of engagements with technologiesof navigation, direct access to relevant conversation wasneeded. This access was sought and provided through focusgroup discussion. A focus group was convened in February2012, comprising eight undergraduate geographers, con-forming to generally accepted optimal numbers for mean-ingful focus group operation (Finn et al., 2000; Longhurst,2003; Boddy, 2005). The student volunteers and facilitatordiscussed engagement with technologies of navigation foran hour and a quarter; the conversations were recorded andtranscribed.

As Massey (2011: 7) reports, the focus group approachpresents an opportunity to obtain information relating to‘the experiences, observations and opinions of groupmembers’. Although the potential pitfalls of focus groups,such as conspicuous facilitator participation and disjointedinteraction are often highlighted (Morgan, 1997;Greenbaum, 1998; Puchta and Potter, 2004; Stewartet al., 2007), focus groups generate valuable subjective,emotional responses and multilayered multivocality(Morgan, 1997; Bryman, 2008; Newing, 2011). They areboth dynamic and idiosyncratic (Massey, 2011). Withcareful prompts and inputs from the facilitator, focusgroups also have the advantage of both immediacy andflexibility (Shurmer-Smith, 2005), which were attractive tous in the context of this research. We were also aware ofpossible cultural inflections which could be generated bythe facilitator’s own positionality (Wisker, 2001) butrecognized and embraced this in attempting to minimize

more obvious forms of bias. Facilitator inputs were there-fore kept to a bare minimum in order to create theopportunity for group conversation and the emergence ofnon-facilitator generated thematic discussion.

Thematic analysis is a widely used, although infrequentlyacknowledged, qualitative methodological tool which hasbeen adopted across disciplines (Braun and Clarke, 2006)which focuses on identifiable themes of living and/orbehaviour (Aronson, 1994). Its advantages for use in ourstudy include its flexibility and its ability to incorporateboth researcher and participant contributions. Students’responses were logged and coded manually using theauthors’ a priori coding of the key dimensions ofengagement theories. Initially, student feedback wascategorized into the three broad categories of cognitive,affective and behavioural.

However, it became clear that, based on their vocality,the coding could, and should be, refined further to providemore detailed insights into these behavioural attributes. Toencapsulate the multi-dimensional aspects of engagement,these three broad categories were subdivided into seven: (1)cognitive; (2) cognitive and affective; (3) affective; (4)affective and behavioural; (5) behavioural; (6) behaviouraland cognitive; and (7) cognitive, affective and behavioural.Assigning codes to comments followed criteria based on theuse of vocabulary to describe accepted definitions of theterms cognitive (knowledge and understanding), affective(emotion, interest and feeling) and behavioural (action)(Lorenzoni et al., 2007; Ockwell et al., 2009; Whitmarshand O’Neill, 2011). The additional categories of cognitiveand affective; affective and behavioural; behavioural andcognitive; and cognitive, affective and behavioural wereascribed as having more than one characteristic from eacharea of engagement. Positive and negative labels wereassigned to comments according to their context as well asthe nature of the vocabulary used (Table 1). For example, ‘Iam still using my purple map that I have in my car, it takesme quicker to use the paper map than set up the Sat Nav’was classified as a positive behavioural comment and ‘lack ofunderstanding about map keys and map squares’ was codedas a negative cognitive comment.

Table 1. Exemplar comments coded for types of engagement with technologies of navigation

Engagement type Positive Negative

Cognitive ‘No consequences, I know how to use Sat Nav’ ‘Sat Nav would decrease knowledge ofOS [Ordnance Survey] maps’

Cognitive and affective ‘I am able to still read maps, but a lot of peoplewho can’t read them rely on Sat Nav’

‘Sat Nav may prevent this [ability toread and interpret spatial data] and peoplebecome too reliant and depend on it’

Affective ‘I prefer to use AA [Automobile Association] maps’ ‘I hate using maps’Affective and behavioural ‘[Sat Nav is] more convenient than maps

as you don’t have to read all the time’‘Sat Nav makes people lazy, no pointin learning how to read a map’

Behavioural ‘I have become better at reading maps’ ‘Sat Nav lessens the use of maps aspeople don’t use them anymore’

Behavioural and cognitive ‘Sat Nav has improved my ability toread and interpret spatial data andI can orientate myself a lot quicker than before’

‘The use of Sat Nav causes other mapreading skills and use to decrease’

Cognitive, affectiveand behavioural

‘Sat Nav is easier, quicker andoften reduces confusion’

‘Sat Nav may cause us to rely toomuch on technology, we will notunderstand maps and will strugglegiven an original map’


These codings were constructive in identifying themultifaceted nature of engagement. This was not a simpleprocess, as has been observed in many other contexts(Crang and Cook, 2007; Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007;Scott Jones, 2010).

The resultant detailed coding protocol formed the basisfor the ensuing results categorisation by the two indepen-dent raters. It was felt to be important that there were tworaters in order to strengthen the reliability in terms of thecredibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability(Crang and Cook, 2007) of the data categorisation. In allbut a handful of cases there was correspondence betweenthe raters’ coding results. Where there was divergence, acase-by-case moderation exercise took place in whichstudent responses were re-read and interpreted, taking intoconsideration individual raters’ reading of the text and howthey had interpreted phraseology and emphasis. Thematicanalysis as an analytical technique has the capacity tocapture conversational outputs at a precise moment in time,in this case, at a pivotal point in the development of ourunderstanding of Sat Nav use and its effects on cartographicliteracy and spatial awareness.

ENGAGING WITH SAT NAV TECHNOLOGIES:

COGNITIVE, AFFECTIVE, AND BEHAVIOURAL

ENGAGEMENTS

Mintel (2009) report that in 2009, portable Sat Nav deviceswere owned by 41% of 16–24 year olds in the UK, 19%owned a Sat Nav enabled smartphone and 5% owned an in-vehicle system. In our survey, 57.6% of the 2010–11 intakeowned and used portable Sat Nav devices such as TomTomand Garmin. In addition, 36.4% of students owned a SatNav enabled smartphone and none had an in-vehiclesystem. For the intake year 2011–12, there was a shift inownership and use patterns as students reported that theyused Sat Nav enabled mobile phones and smartphones(71.4%) most frequently. Moreover, 39.3% of the 2011–12intake owned and used a portable Sat Nav device and 3.6%had an in-vehicle system.

Male and female Sat Nav ownership patterns in the UKfor 2009 illustrate that 36% of females and 40% of males

owned portable Sat Nav devices, with fewer owning Sat Navenabled mobiles phones at 11 and 17% respectively (Mintel,2009). Our data for the 2010–11 intake show that a higherproportion of females (36.4%) owned a portable Sat Navdevice than males (24.2%). However, for the 2011–12intake ownership of Sat Nav devices was less (with 28.6% forfemales and 10.7% for males). With respect to gender,ownership of Sat Nav enabled smartphones for the 2010–11 (21.2% for females and 15.2% for males) was half that forthe 2011–12 intake (42.6% for females and 28.6% formales).

Table 2 illustrates that there are marked differencesbetween the two intake years with respect to the particularuses of Sat Nav technologies within specific contexts. Forexample, 20.6% of the 2010–11 intake year identifiedusing Sat Nav to find unknown destinations, in compar-ison to 89.5% of the 2011–12 intake year. Likewise,pedestrian users also reflected this increase. For intake year2011–12 there was a far higher use of Sat Nav, than by theintake year 2010–11, when respondents thought they werelost.

Students were asked about their most positive, negativeand then most memorable experiences with Sat Nav.Table 3 shows that the majority of positive and negativeexperiences were either cognitive or behavioural engage-ments. Cognitive engagements related to ease of use,accuracy, and respondents’ thoughts that Sat Nav is leadingto people getting lost. Behavioural engagements focused onreaching unknown destinations, taking shortcuts and nothaving to work out your own route. Memorable experi-ences were largely behavioural engagements such as being‘advised to enter a ditch three miles from destination’(R1.12) [i.e. Respondent Intake 2010–11, number 12] and‘driving through Montana’ (R2.35) [i.e. RespondentIntake 2011–12, number 35].

From the analysis of the questionnaire results, the threedimensions of engagement; cognitive, affective and beha-vioural, were clearly observable. The questionnaire did notcontain overt reference to the dimensions of engagement.These classifications were derived from students commentsabout their conceptualisations, and articulations, of Sat Navtechnologies in particular their understanding and their useof them in specific contexts. Designation of the dimensions

Table 2. Motorist and pedestrian use of Sat Nav technologies

Vehicle use (%*) Pedestrian use (%*)

Intake year 2010 Intake year 2011 Intake year 2010 Intake year 2011

Short journeys (,3 km) 4.5 10.5 14.1 27.0Long journeys (§3 km) 15.0 60.5 4.7 16.2Known destinations 1.0 2.6 7.8 54.1Unknown destinations 20.6 89.5 20.3 56.8Part of journeys which you are unsure of 15.5 73.7 17.2 51.4When lost 18.1 78.9 20.3 62.2Traffic disruptions 5.5 21.1 1.6 54.1In urban areas 8.5 44.7 9.4 40.1In rural areas 10.1 55.3 4.7 18.9Other 1.0 2.6 0.0 0Total number of responses 199 (100%) 167 (100%) 64 (100%) 106 (100%)

Note: *% calculated on multiple answers cited by students (Intake year 2010/11 n546, Intake year 2011/12 n538).


of engagement was undertaken by the researchers duringthe analysis phase. The focus group explored these threebroad components of engaging with Sat Nav morespecifically and in greater depth. The ensuing conversationscreated text which was analysed verbatim to identifypredominant themes on engagement with technologies ofnavigation. Some themes such as the cognitive, affective andbehavioural engagements with Sat Nav and the perceptionsof ‘maps’ were created by the researchers because of theirsignificance to this project. Others, for example, theinfrequent use of traditional maps and increasing over-reliance on electronic gadgets emerged directly from thefocus group participants themselves during their discussionsand were subsequently used to shape analysis, interpretationand commentary.

Cognitive engagement with Sat Nav technologies

Cognitive engagement reflects the extent to which respon-dents expend mental effort (Mitchell and Carbone, 2011)towards their use of Sat Nav technologies for example,navigation capacity and ease of use. Focus group conversa-tions revolved around the navigation capacity characteristicsof Sat Nav use, the majority of which were concerned withthe instructional dimensions:

‘They tell you where to go’ (P3) [i.e. focus groupparticipant, number 3].‘They get you lost’ (P6).‘You always hear the bad stories like that someone droveinto a lake or something because their Sat Nav toldthem where to go’ (P8).

These seem to mirror media concerns with technologi-cally induced navigation blunders (Patel et al., 2008;Parker, 2009). They are also indicative of their ownpersonal mishaps which have accompanied Sat Nav use.They acknowledged that these were attributable to Sat Navbeing a recent technology and [our emphasis] also tohuman error. The association of Sat Nav blunders withtechnological difficulties was felt to mask individualresponsibility and one of their key concerns was that SatNav may foster user ‘blamelessness’ (P5).

Affective engagement with Sat Nav technologies

Affective engagement reveals the level of emotionalresponse (Mitchell and Carbone, 2011) towards the useof Sat Nav technologies for example, positive attitudestowards, or preference for, Sat Nav technologies overtraditional mapping tools such as paper-based maps.Responses indicating affective engagements with Sat Navwere instinctive, succinct and direct:

‘I love it’ (P7).‘I couldn’t live without mine [the Sat Nav]’ (P3).‘My Nan’s got one, she absolutely loves it’ (P2).‘I just don’t like it’ (P4).‘I’ve been in a car when my Mum has used a Sat Navand argued with it’ (P5).‘Probably a negative thing in the grand scheme ofworldly knowledge. You know how you said that yourDad knows everywhere and that’s probably because he’sdriven to loads of places over his forty years of lifewithout looking at a Sat Nav and we’ll be that age andwe won’t know anywhere because we’ve just looked atSat Nav for 20 years’ (P8).‘They can be intrinsically good and intrinsically bad…you hear the bad aspects quite a lot like they’re takingaway your own awareness of where you’re going. If youuse a map, you’ve got to think. Using a Sat Nav to godown the road means some people don’t have to think,they’re just being dumbed down by the technology.They’ve given up their own sovereign brain’ (P5).

These comments indicate polarized affective engage-ment. Students seemed to love or hate Sat Nav according totheir individual experiences. It is noteworthy that therewere no statements of indifference.

Behavioural engagement with Sat Nav technologies

Behavioural engagements reflect both active and passiveresponses (Mitchell and Carbone, 2011) of using Sat Navtechnologies for example, active: ‘I prefer to use AA maps’(R1.17) and passive: ‘I don’t use a map if I have Sat Nav’(R1.18). Focus group participants acknowledged that SatNav technologies have the capacity to navigate ‘for you’.Some disliked them sufficiently to only use Sat Nav as a ‘lastresort’ in that they always had a map or would ‘wing it’(P8). Another approach was to ask for directions:

‘In Liverpool, people are dead helpful and will tell youdirections for about 10 minutes’ (P8).

The focus group raised questions about whether partici-pants actually engaged with both their chosen technologiesof navigation and the surrounding location. P1 and P5argued that when people use Sat Nav devices they are morelikely to end up in a fjord, river or even park on a train track.These comments suggest that active engagements with SatNav resulted in a passive engagement with the spaces andplaces around them. In contrast, there was a belief thatusing traditional maps would result in active engagementwith their surroundings by using landmarks such as ‘pubs’(P8) to navigate. In addition, P1 suggested that Sat Navwas used for purposes other than wayfinding due to thetechnological characteristics of the device, such as thecalculation of fuel efficiency.

Table 3. Experiences with Sat Nav technologies

Engagement Positive Negative Memorable

Cognitive 33 53 1Cognitive and affective 1 2 0Affective 1 4 0Affective and behavioural 3 1 17Behavioural 25 7 47Behavioural and cognitive 14 6 4Cognitive, affective andbehavioural 2 3 3Non-responses 5 8 12Total 84 84 84

n584.


To complement the preceding information, we sought toascertain whether what students say they do actually reflectswhat they really do. Vignettes provided by focus groupparticipants added this additional dimension and enhancesthis work as a real world study. Exemplar commentariesdemonstrate everyday behavioural engagements with SatNav:

‘The Sat Nav we have (a Garmin) estimates your timeof arrival and the amount of fuel needed to complete thejourney. I usually have the Sat Nav in the holderattached to the wind screen, with the sound on so I canhear the direction, but quite often if it is a motorwayjourney I will keep my eye on the arrow which marks outthe route to ensure I don’t miss my turning’ (P8).‘I will only use Sat Nav if I do not know where I amgoing or I am unfamiliar with an area I am visiting.In order for me to get to a certain place, I research thepostcode and I enter it in to the Sat Nav before I leavemy house so that I know it is correct. I do this by turningit on and pressing enter postcode on the screen. It thengives an option of the house number and I press thecorrect one. When I am ready to leave I can press the gobutton and it will begin the journey. I then listen to theinstructions it gives me and I follow them until I reachmy destination or I am in familiar territory and then Iwill switch it off’ (P2).

PERCEPTIONS OF ‘MAPS’

Initial discussions of possible interpretations of ‘maps’ andSat Nav, were characterized by a measure of uncertainty andimaginative thinking:

‘It’s a grey area for me… It’s a form of map but it’s nota map, it’s not the map. It’s [the map] a physicalmaterial thing – it’s like there is a little man in there[the Sat Nav] drawing the map as you go along’ (P5).‘I call mine Jane’ (P2).‘I think it’s [Sat Nav] a map, just a different sort ofmap’ (P3).

Later, a general consensus evolved that ‘maps’ and SatNav are distinctive. These explorations are cogentlyencapsulated in the following quotations:

‘[A map’s] a piece of paper or book with a crease whereyou want to go’ (P8).‘Turn to page 59 from page 10 – that’s a map!’ (P5).‘I would never think about it [Sat Nav] as a map… Amap is something that you pull out from under the seat,that’s tatty from wear. I don’t feel like I have arelationship with a map on the phone. A map’s a mapand a Sat Nav is a Sat Nav – two different entities’(P1).

These comments reflect the affective engagements thatstudents have with traditional paper-based maps and theirpreviously stated positive experiences and affinity withthem. In most instances the vocabulary used to describetheir responses illustrated that they have a strong emotionalattachment towards paper-based maps. One participanteven went as far to say that:

‘You bond with it, you have a relationship with a map’(P5).

No one said anything similar about a Sat Nav. Theseaffective engagements contribute to conceptualisations ofthe differences between traditional mapping tools and SatNav technologies. Research by Kitchin and Dodge (2007)and Laurier and Brown (2008) iterates that it is theimportance of how ‘maps’ are used rather than how they areperceived. These comments capture the interesting relation-ship between the perception that a ‘Sat Nav is a Sat Nav anda map is a map’ and the resulting consequences of this onSat Nav and map use (Axon et al., 2012). The next sectionhighlights some of the consequences of this perception onSat Nav and map use.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CARTOGRAPHIC LITERACY AND

SPATIAL AWARENESS: THE END OF MAPS AS WE KNOW

THEM?

While students engaged positively with Sat Nav, theygenerally engaged negatively with other technologies ofnavigation such as OS maps, AA maps and a range of onlinemaps (non-specified) particularly in the behavioural andcognitive dimensions (Table 4). We recognize that there isan interesting outlier in positive affective/behaviouralengagements with other navigation systems in that fewarticulated a preference for traditional paper-based maps: ‘Iprefer using maps’ (R2.16). However, the majority (67%)expressed their dislike of paper-based maps because ofperceived difficulties of reading and using maps, their lackof intuitiveness (user friendliness and ease of use), as well asdependence on Sat Nav. Exemplifying comments included:‘[I] rely less on maps therefore you may forget how to reada map properly’ (R2.26), ‘Sat Nav devices are much easierto use than other maps’ (R1.44) and ‘it [Sat Nav] preventsyou from using basic maps, allowing maps to die out’(R2.38).

The corollary of not liking or using a map frequently, wasthe inability to actually use a traditional paper-based mapfor example, ‘It will decrease my ability as I won’t beapplying my skills as frequently’ (R1.43), ‘I can’t use a mapbecause I don’t need to with my Sat Nav and don’t knowhow to because of this’ (R2.12), ‘I am able to still readmaps, but a lot of people who can’t read them rely on SatNavs’ (R2.18) and ‘[Sat Nav] decreases your abilitythrough lack of use/lack of having to think’ (R2.34).

Table 4. Engaging with technologies of navigation other than SatNav

Engagement Positive Negative Total

Cognitive 0 3 3Cognitive and affective 1 3 4Affective 2 2 4Affective and behavioural 5 3 8Behavioural 14 29 43Behavioural and cognitive 1 7 8Cognitive, affective and behavioural 2 6 8Total 25 53 78

n584 (including 6 non-responses).


Focus group participants used vocabulary and phrasingwhich showed ‘affection’ for particular attributes oftraditional maps:

‘It’s satisfaction as well isn’t it? When you’re looking ata map and you find it [the desired location], you’re like– ‘yeah’!’ (P8).

Students did not appear to be thinking and acting in away that demonstrated they were interacting with thespaces and places beyond the line of Sat Nav visualisation(Table 5). This effect was observed even in spaces andplaces that were relatively local and known/familiar tothem. This was captured as follows:

‘I don’t know all of Liverpool, I live in SouthLiverpool… but I don’t know all of South Liverpool.Like where one of my friends lives, I had to put it [thepostcode] in the Sat Nav to find out where it was’ (P2).

Students were also surprised when other drivers with(assumed) local knowledge used Sat Nav within familiarlocations, as exemplified by the following conversation.

‘You know the Tesco on Allerton Road [large super-market in suburban Liverpool], the massive one, likeyou get a taxi from here [Liverpool Hope UniversityHope Park campus] to there [distance: 2km] andthey’re like ‘where is it?’ It’s like…’ (P4),‘Local [laughs]’ (P8),‘Yeah, it’s down the road’ (P4).

Their surprise was that even when someone is driving in afamiliar place, they seem to use Sat Nav as the defaultmethod of navigation. Students were concerned that thiscould contribute to spatial ‘disconnection’, even in knownenvironments. P1 attempted to articulate this aspect ofspatiality by reflecting that ‘I don’t like the tunnel visioneffect of Sat Nav and the loss of sense of place’.

Other examples of spatially astute remarks included: ‘Ithink I may be coming [sic] too dependent on technologyand have a vision of a shrinking world’ (R1.26) and ‘It[spatial awareness] has improved and I can orientate myselfa lot quicker than before’ (R2.3).

Implications of Sat Nav on the geographic and cartographic disciplines

Responses to the facilitator directed question ‘does theimpact of Sat Nav matter?’ were striking and unequivocal.Nearly all participants said, or intimated, that they rarely

used traditional maps. Two (intake 2011–12) said theonly time they used a map was in an examination and thatthey thought that for many people map-reading is basedsolely within the school curriculum. Just one studentconsidered that ‘map reading is an important life skill andshould be important for school’ and that ‘it should beimportant for individuals and geographers’ (P1). Anothersaid that ‘geographers just do it, it just has to be part ofgeography’ (P8). P2 quizzed about the effects ofincreasing Sat Nav use on the next generation and asked:‘aren’t they going to need to read a map?’ The questionprovoked the response from P1 ‘do you know how to usea compass?’ At this point the conversation stoppedabruptly.

Participants reflected that the impact of Sat Nav mattersfor society, as Sat Nav is now more mainstream. P5 thoughtthat it contributed to the decline of ‘the get out and domentality’. More than that, there were concerns that youngpeople are losing the ability to think for themselves andindividuals are becoming over-reliant on ‘things’ in generaland electronic gadgets, such as Sat Nav, in particular. Therewas an over-riding view that people become lazy as theylisten to directional instructions and that their sense ofaccomplishment may be diminished as they depend onrelayed instruction rather than on the individual, personalwayfinding that tends to accompany paper-based map use.Their choice of words and how they were intimated, relayedthe impression that they were not particularly concernedabout the decline of traditional paper-based maps, forexample:

‘If you don’t have a map though, you’re not going tonecessarily go out and buy one if you’ve already got it onyour phone’ (P8),‘I’ve got my Sat Nav, it’s alright!’ (P2).

Interestingly, in an almost post-apocalyptic lateralthought, P8 reflected that future, universal use of Sat Navcould lead to complete transformation of streetscapes byreducing the frequency and type of traditional navigationstreet signage.

Finally, discussion centred on whether the apparentnegative impacts of Sat Nav on traditional map-readingand wayfinding should matter. Here, there were yet morechallenging comments. There was general consensus thatit should matter in terms of its impacts on generalgeographic and cartographic knowledge, sense of placeand spatial awareness. However, it is worth highlightingthat one of the youngest participants (P2) said firmly andwithout hesitation that ‘geography is not based on mapsanymore and that maps have been pushed to the side’. Thiscomment raises potentially deep questions for the subjectbut these are matters beyond the immediate remit of thispaper.

CONCLUSIONS

The first original contribution of this paper is that itexplores the nature of young geographers’ engagementswith Sat Nav and other technologies of navigation. Thiscontribution to knowledge is presented at a pivotalmoment in the development of our understanding of Sat

Table 5. Engaging with spaces and places

Engagement Positive Negative Total

Cognitive 9 21 30Cognitive and affective 4 3 7Affective 0 0 0Affective and behavioural 0 3 3Behavioural 1 3 3Behavioural and cognitive 3 10 14Cognitive, affective and behavioural 6 9 15Total 23 49 72

n584 (including 12 non-responses).


Nav use and its implications for cartographic literacy andspatial awareness. The vast majority of positive andnegative engagements with Sat Nav were cognitive(accuracy and ease of use) and behavioural (taking short-cuts and getting lost) rather than affective engagements.They reported that their engagements with traditionalpaper-based maps and Sat Nav were distinctive because ofperceived differences in, for example map size, accuracyand use of symbols.

Students preferred the use of Sat Nav and other digitalmapping tools over traditional paper-based maps. Our resultsshow clearly that young geographers consider that ‘a map’s amap and a Sat Nav is a Sat Nav’ (P1) and thus identify themas two distinct navigation entities. Although these two resultsreflect previous findings (Kitchin and Dodge, 2007; Laurierand Brown, 2008; Axon et al., 2012), the strength of thisparticular study is that our observations have emanated fromexploring user engagements with wayfinding artefacts. Yet,despite this, engagements are still with a representation of a‘map’ irrespective of its form (Meng et al., 2005, Akerman,2007). Students were also aware that their use of Sat Nav wasengendering geographical and spatial disconnection withsurrounding places and spaces.

This paper’s second novel contribution is the concep-tual and methodological direction which promotes aqualitative approach (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003;Bryman, 2008) in a predominantly quantitative, carto-graphic domain. Engagement theories are a relatively newapproach (Krause and Coates, 2008; Whitmarsh et al.,2011) and we have applied this to user engagements withwayfinding artefacts. This focus on the nature of engage-ments adds to our knowledge about people’s under-standings of, feelings towards and achievements with SatNav technologies. Incorporating a qualitative methodo-logical approach it lends itself to hearing and under-standing the multi-vocality of user engagements with SatNav technologies. It explores ‘real words’, narratives andverbalized experiences (Braun and Clarke, 2006). We havedemonstrated that this is an appropriate method ofunderstanding responses to, and engagements with,diverse technologies of navigation. Through this techni-que we have heard users’ voices and have been ableto contextualize these within a cognitive, affective andbehavioural structure of engagement.

We are aware of the specificities of our research participants inthat they are young geographers, but maintain that theircharacteristics are important because they offer insights into theways in which the next generation of cartographers andgeographers are thinking about the future of maps andmapping. Their understandings of ‘maps’ suggest that theythink that the popularisation of Sat Nav is subsuming the use oftraditional paper-based maps. However, the majority displayedan apparent lack of concern that their use of traditional mapswas declining and saw it just as a consequence of the nature oftechnological advancement. Students were fully engaged withthe discussion but were actually not particularly worried aboutthe decline in traditional map use or whether, or not, it shouldmatter to cartographers and geographers.

In this paper we have presented a distinctive and revealingglimpse into the application of engagement researchapproaches to Sat Nav use, which we feel could be extended

further to a wider range of technologies of navigation andsocietal contexts. In addition, we form an empiricalunderpinning for ethno-methodologically informed studiesof wayfinding practices. This study presents some materialindicators of how young, cartographically competentgeographers engage with Sat Nav technologies and pointsto some major emergent issues which we maintain are/should be of particular interest to the cartographic andgeographic academies. Some of these issues include theperception that the discipline of geography is not nowbased on traditional paper-based maps; a concern fromyoung geographers about the over-dependence and result-ing consequences of Sat Nav including the emergence ofuser ‘blamelessness’; and a polarisation between an apparentlack of student concern about the decline of traditional mapuse despite feeling affinity for this form of wayfindingartefact.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Dr Janet Speake is a SeniorLecturer in Human Geo-graphy at Liverpool HopeUniversity. Her most recentresearch explores the im-pacts on cartographic lit-eracy and spatial awarenessas a result of Sat Nav use.Her other research interestscentre on the contemporarytransformation of urbanareas and the nature andimpacts of the varied transi-tions affecting cities. Ofspecific interest are issues

relating to urban renaissance and the effects of cultureled revitalisation particularly within a city centre/inner citycontext.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to take this opportunity to thank theundergraduate students at Liverpool Hope Univer-sity for their participation in the survey and focusgroup. In addition, we would also like to thank twoanonymous reviewers for their helpful and insightfulcontributions.

REFERENCES

Akerman, J. (2007). ‘Finding our way’, in Maps: Finding our place inthe world, ed. by Akerman, J. R. and Karrow, R. W. Jr, pp. 16–64,The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Aronson, J. (1994). ‘A pragmatic view of thematic analysis’, http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/BackIssues/QR2-1/aronson.html (accessed21 December 2011).

Axon, S., Speake, J. and Crawford, K. (2012). ‘‘At the next junction,turn left’: attitudes towards Sat Nav use’, Area, 44, pp. 170–177.


Boddy, C. (2005). ‘A rose by any other name may smell as sweet but‘group discussion’ is not another name for a ‘focus group’ norshould it be’, Qualitative Market Research, 8, pp. 248–255.

Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006). ‘Using thematic analysis inpsychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, pp. 77–101.

Brown, B. and Laurier, E. (2005). ‘Maps and journeys: an ethno-methodological approach’, Cartographica, 40, pp. 17–33.

Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods, Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford.

Crampton, J. W. (2001). ‘Maps as social constructions: power,communication and visualisation’, Progress in HumanGeography, 25, pp. 235–252.

Crang, M. and Cook, I. (2007). Doing Ethnographies, Sage, London.Dillemuth, J. (2005). ‘Map design evaluation for mobile display’,

Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 32, pp. 285–301.Dillemuth, J. (2009). ‘Navigation tasks with small-display maps: the

sum of the parts foes not equal the whole’, Cartographica, 44, pp.187–200.

Dodge, M., Perkins, C. and Kitchin, R. (2009). ‘Mapping modes,methods and moments’, in Rethinking Maps, ed. by Dodge, M.,Kitchin, R. and Perkins, C., pp. 311– 341, Routledge, London.

Finn, M., Elliot-White, M. and Walton, M. (2000). Tourism andLeisure Research Methods: Data Collection, analysis andinterpretation, Pearson Longman, Harlow.

Girardin, F. and Blat, J. (2010). ‘The co-evolution of taxi driversand their in-car navigation systems’, Pervasive and MobileComputing, 6, pp. 424–434.

Goodchild, M. F. (2007). ‘Citizens as sensors: the world ofvolunteered geography’, GeoJournal, 69, pp. 211–221.

Greenbaum, T. L. (1998). The Handbook for Focus GroupResearch, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principlesin Practice, Routledge, London.

Ishikawa, T., Fujiwara, H., Imai, O. and Okabe, A. (2008).‘Wayfinding with a GPS-based mobile navigation system: acomparison with maps and direct experience’, Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 28, pp. 74–82.

Kitchin, R. and Dodge, M. (2007). ‘Rethinking maps’, Progress inHuman Geography, 31, pp. 331–344.

Krause, K-L. and Coates, H. (2008). ‘Students’engagement infirst-year university’, Assessment and Evaluation in HigherEducation, 33, pp. 493–505.

Kwan, M-P. (2007). ‘Mobile communications, social networks andurban travel: hypertext as a new metaphor for conceptualising spatialinteraction’, The Professional Geographer, 58, pp. 434–446.

Laurier, E. and Brown, B. (2008). ‘Rotating maps and readers:praxiological aspects of alignment and orientation’, Transactionsof the Institute of British Geographers, 33, pp. 201–221.

Lavie, T., Oron-Gilad, T. and Meyer, J. (2011). ‘Aesthetics andusability of in-vehicle navigation displays’, International Journalof Human-Computer Studies, 69, pp. 80–99.

Lee, W-C. and Cheng, B-W. (2008). ‘Effects of using a portablenavigation system and a paper map in real driving’, AccidentAnalysis and Prevention, 40, pp. 302–308.

Lee, J., Forlizzi, J. and Hudson, S. E. (2008). ‘Iterative design ofMOVE: a situationally appropriate vehicle navigation system’,International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66, pp.189–215.

Livingstone, D. N. (1991). The Geographical Tradition, Blackwell,Oxford.

Longhurst, R. (2003). ‘Semi-structured interviews and focus groups’,in Key Methods in Geography, ed. by Clifford, N. J. andValentine, G., pp. 117–132, Sage, London.

Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S. and Whitmarsh, L. (2007). ‘Barriersperceived to engaging with climate change among the UK publicand their policy implications’, Global Environmental Change, 17,pp. 445–459.

Massey, O. T. (2011). ‘A proposed model for the analysis andinterpretation of focus groups in evaluation research’, Evaluationand Program Planning, 34, pp. 21–28.

Meng, L., Zipf, A. and Reichenbacher, T. (2005) Map Based MobileServices, Springer, Berlin.

Merriman, P. (2009). ‘Automobility and the geographies of the car’,Geography Compass, 3, pp. 586–599.

Mintel (2009). ‘Satellite Navigation Systems – UK – October 2009’,http://store.mintel.com/satellite-navigation-systems-uk-october-2009.html (accessed 13 July 2012).

Mintel. (2012). ‘Digital trends spring – UK – April 2012’, http://oxygen.mintel.com/display/590111/(accessed 13 July 12).

Mitchell, I. and Carbone, A. (2011). ‘A typology of task characteristicsand their effects on student learning’, International Journal ofEducation Research, 50, pp. 257–270.

Monmonier, M. (2005). ‘Cartography: distortions, worldviews and creativesolutions’, Progress in Human Geography, 29, pp. 217–224.

Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research, Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA.

Munzer, S., Zimmer, H. D., Schwalm, M., Baus, J. and Aslan, I.(2006). ‘Computer-assisted navigation and the acquisition of routeand survey knowledge’, Journal of Environmental Psychology,26, pp. 300–308.

Newing, H. (2011). Conducting Research in Conservation: ASocial Science Perspective, Routledge, Abingdon.

O’Brien, H. L. and Toms, E. G. (2008). ‘What is user engagement? Aconcpetual framework for defining user engagement with technol-ogy’, Journal of the American Society for Information Scienceand Technology, 59, pp. 938–955.

Ockwell, D., Whitmarsh, L. and O’Neill, S. (2009). ‘Reorientingclimate change communication for effective mitigation: forcingpeople to be green or fostering grassroots engagement’, ScienceCommunication, 30, pp. 305–327.

Parker, M. (2009). Map Addict: A Tale of Obsession, Fudge and theOrdnance Survey, Collins, London.

Patel, J., Ball, D. J. and Jones, H. (2008). ‘Factors influencingsubjective ranking of driver distractions’, Accident Analysis andPrevention, 40, pp. 392–395.

Perkins, C. (2004). ‘Cartography – cultures of mapping: power inpractice’, Progress in Human Geography, 28, pp. 381–391.

Perkins, C. (2008). ‘Cultures of map use’, The Cartographic Journal,45, pp. 150–158.

Pfaff, J. (2010). ‘Mobile phone Geographies’, Geography Compass,4, pp. 1433–1447.

Puchta, C. and Potter, J. (2004). Focus Group Practice, Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA.

Rak Jung, W. (2012). Impact of the availability of a navigation systemon human wayfinding behaviour, Cognition, Behavior andRepresentation VI: Facilitating Wayfinding, Association ofAmerican Geographers Annual Meeting, New York, NY.

Sanchez, C. A. and Branaghan, R. J. (2009). ‘The interaction of mapresolution and spatial abilities on map learning’, InternationalJournal of Human-Computer Studies, 67, pp. 475–481.

Schwanen, T. and Kwan, M-P. (2008). ‘The Internet, mobile phoneand space-time constraints’, Geoforum, 39, pp. 1362–1377.

Scott Jones, J. (2010). ‘Making sense of it all: analysing ethnographicdata’ in Ethnography in Social Science Practice, ed. by ScottJones, J. and Watt, S., pp. 157–172, Routledge, London.

Sheller, M. and Urry, J. (2006). ‘The new mobilities paradigm’,Environment and Planning A, 38, pp. 207–226.

Shurmer-Smith, P. (2005). Doing Cultural Geography, Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA.

Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N. and Rook, D. W. (2007). FocusGroups: Theory and Practice, Sage, London.

Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of MixedMethods in Social and Behavioural Research, Sage, London.

Todman, J. and Monaghan, E. (1994). ‘Qualitative differences in computerexperience, computer anxiety and students’use of computers: a pathmodel’, Computers in Human Behaviour, 4, pp. 529–539.

Whitmarsh, L. and O’Neill, S. (2011). ‘Introduction: opportunities forand barriers to engaging individuals with climate change’, inEngaging the Public with Climate Change, ed. by Whitmarsh,L., O’Neill, S. and Lorenzoni, I., pp. 1–14, Earthscan, London.

Whitmarsh, L., Seyfang, G. and O’Neill, S. (2011). ‘Public engage-ment with carbon and climate change: to what extent is the public‘carbon capable?’, Global Environmental Change, 21, pp. 56–65.

Wisker, G. (2001). The Postgraduate Research Handbook, Palgrave,Basingstoke.

Wood, D. (1992). The Power of Maps, Routledge, London.


Copyright of Cartographic Journal is the property of Maney Publishing and its content may not be copied or

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

i never use ‘maps’ anymore’’: engaging with sat nav ... · technologies, cartographic and...

Documents