 Welcome to Part 3, the final part of my three-part video series on walking and participatory digital methods. Building on Part 2 where I illustrate walking methods in practice using case study in urban environments in the Rio 2016 Olympics. In Part 3, I will reflect on the limitations of this approach, generally and specifically with regards to the Olympic cities as an extreme case or extreme environment that serves as a container for complex forms of interaction and organisation. I will then close by crystallising how my co-author, Professor David McGilvery at the University of West of Scotland and I brought this together in a research project coupled with a digital research dissemination strategy, which we call the Rio Zones approach. So there are some limitations to this particular approach. There's a limited length of time immersed in the context, which is problematic in and of itself. Coupled with the vagaries of urban life that change so quickly and the individuals and the social groups that inhabit it. But it could be overcome if longitudinal approaches are taken, if one's embedded for longer and triangulates against other sources. So there are ways to get around these particular limitations. Of course, geotagging and time-stamping pictures can really help build an idea of changes over time. Crowdsourcing, publicly available images, videos and other commentary and datasets can be useful to triangulate with your own snapshot to offer longitudinal and wider geographical views to improve both the internal and the external validity of findings. But walking methods is not just about being armed with photo, video and recording devices. It requires a clear analytical focus, like the questions that we use to frame our case study. But you must also have flexibility to activate and understand the research problems and opportunities in the moment too, depending on the nature of the phenomena under investigation, of course. Full benefits are realised if the researchers activate interested stakeholders to partake in dialogue. Thus, people should put in the groundwork or have preformed networks that are fundamentally required to end live and debate and draw people into your insights and conversations as you do them. This includes key researchers in the fields as well as policy makers and managers. And indeed, including these stakeholders are critical if you wish to use your insights to help generate real life change and move toward a research impact agenda. As part of the Rio Zones project, although we don't deal with detail here, we explicitly target key gatekeepers across these phases and especially mobilise them for phase two interviews that I haven't gone into in detail but I mentioned earlier. But one must be really aware of the cross-cultural differences between contexts and stakeholders involved, of course. From Beijing to London to the Rio 2016 Olympics and now Tokyo, they are wildly different. The governance structures, the local cultural responses to organising, through to the likelihood key stakeholders will engage or not in some of my case in Tokyo. Fundamentally, unless you have a large research team, it is difficult to cover all the spaces and time phases that you'd like to if you wanted to do a large study that is. But triangulating others' content is key but not a golden bullet and it does not come without its limitations. But raw footage and images can be very useful to capture objective facts like how the spaces are designed, who's in them, what's going on. So to recap, be aware of these three big limitations but ones that can be overcome with good planning. Limited temporal engagement, limited cultural awareness and access and having mostly non-local perspectives. And based on that point, I'm certainly reflecting on all three, let's position ourselves in the research. Our prism as researchers affecting what we see, collect, interpret, choose as evidence, right up as a story. One must recognise the inherent bias and the dominant logic that comes with having that particular position. And therefore it's a good idea to work with local researchers of course. Going back to earlier, contrary to popular thought and existing empirical evidence, we had an important story and angle to tell, like I mentioned, at the end of part two. Less doom and glue, more spaces of opportunity as a result of seeing these micro level processes and interactions at play. We took a traditional approach, papers, conversation articles, journal articles, participatory digital approaches like Twitter. People have been doing that and we've written several papers on it and we'll provide the links to these at the end. However, recently we've witnessed a digital ethnographic turn whereby ethnographic ethos have adapted to a fit the affordances of digital culture. Pink et al 2015 suggests we live and act in a context that is today almost always co-constituted and entangled with digital tech content presence and communications. So the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup, as well as other major events like the Super Bowl, Wimbledon are media-tized events. They're ideal for generating digital content, digital data sets in and of themselves, and by many who commentate and produce these spaces for the dissemination of ideas across digital platforms, whether that be Twitter, with hashtags, handles and other associated identities like vloggers for example. So what did we do in terms of our participatory digital methods? Well, it was effectively split down into two. We had vlogging and we had the official ReoZone's WordPress site, of course other sites are available. And then we had micro vlogging or micro blogging via the ReoZone's Twitter hashtag, again other platforms are available too. And these digital tools help network and build conversations to reach a wider public, particularly important in the era of research impact. Encouraging a more open approach where digital sharing and collaboration becomes ways of being and relating to others according to Pink et al 2015, whether that be scholars, policy makers, managers or practitioners. And this is invoked by posting hashtags of immediate and reflected findings, showing videos, photos, writing and recording vlogs and putting out there for people to see. Capturing and then considering how one shares content and reflects in vlogs in itself is a knowledge making practice through editing and creative reimagining of the content. Yet how research is disseminated is an important consideration. Not to promote the power relation between the researcher and the researched. We don't want to do that. But to involve them in conversation where possible. But the devil is in the detail. How can this really be afforded? It's difficult. Does the researcher have confidence and the ability to invite key stakeholders into the knowledge production, dissemination and application phases? It's a very difficult task. It's this longitudinal embedded approach to walking itself and of the wider Rio Zones project which appear to have significant value, bringing along stakeholders across the phases and not just extending reach but extending the time of the scrutiny on big projects as well. And it's a key criticism of similar studies and of capturing just one moment in time event case study series according to YIN 2013. As once the curtain closes on this closing ceremony, policy makers, scholars pay less attention to the after effects. So therefore keeping these longer term effects in view is really, really important and digital participatory methods like vlogging etc can help do that and keep the scrutiny on. Yet these so called legacies are the reason why host cities bid for them in the first place. That's why we need to do that. So having a longitudinal embedded approach helps to overcome these inherent problems and maintain scrutiny over public policy. And this is what we do as researchers. We critique the effectiveness and sustainability inclusivity of public policy. Many of us do that anyway. Important for all scholars particularly in the era of research impact. So alongside the Rio Zones vlog, Twitter, the conversation articles, journal publications, conferencing etc. We mobilized a number of media outlets as well. Regional, national and international news outlets. The BBC, right through to the ABC News Network in Australia to provide a window, a public window into insights that would rarely feature in traditional media stories. So in terms of the conclusions of this particular video series, the first one. The Rio Zones approach illustrates the multifaceted traditional and creative ways researchers can interrogate processes and implications of organizing in extreme environments like the Olympics. And we believe that you can actually link and apply many of these particular approaches and focus to other extreme environments as well. And the second point is that this approach can disrupt linear, sometimes entrenched epistemological and methodological positions. The third point illustrates how physical embodied methods can quite nicely be integrated alongside digital platforms and participatory digital methods for dissemination and interaction. The fourth point illustrates how in real time and throughout the life of a project, observational, photographic, video, narrative analysis, Twitter commentary, all that can be engaged with stakeholders and help share raw data and reflective findings periodically to extend access to knowledge beyond the academy, as well as within the academy of course as well. The fifth point. The Rio Zones approach helped to promote a longitudinal scrutiny, an inherent challenge for event case study approaches generally, but also a recognized challenge in this particular applied field. The sixth conclusion. It helped to illustrate generally how complex environments such as Olympic cities are fertile grounds for collecting very interesting data sets and data sets that you might not traditionally have seen if you weren't there. And the seventh point, utilizing a network public via social media can lead to critical issues around the processes and these implications into the public domain faster. Enabling affected group and supporters to mobilize at a faster rate. Additionally, in the era of fact checking, competing claims about the truth, what happened can be aired and fact checked with those actually on the ground witnessing like we did. And our final point, number seven, offers a deeper interrogation to the social spatial relations, whatever they may be in extreme environments important for those undertaking descriptive, interpretive and critical approaches. Walking and a whole host of mobile methods can help find things often left under the radar. So thank you for listening. I hope this was of interest and use. For our paper that this is based on, there is a link on the National Centre for Research Methods page. And for extended information on walking methods and our Olympic City casework, visit michaeldignan.uk or follow me on Twitter at michaelbdignan. Thanks.