Urban mobility injustice and imagined sociospatial differences in cities

Who we are and how we ask questions shape qualitative researchers’ material and influence the understanding and intelligibility we attach to different mobility experiences. Our normativity and social positions have implications for the representation of people and places. In this way, methodological decisions are interlinked with the production and reproduction of mobility injustice and epistemic injustice. With its starting point in reflexive methodology, this article critically examines qualitative mobility research based on a research project in its final phases and exemplifies how mobility injustice is easily produced and reproduced in the research process. By way of confronting this tendency, we demonstrate that the interview guide is a powerful tool for supporting reflexivity at all stages of the research process, identifying new perspectives, and promoting reflexive mobilities research that recognises epistemic justice. However, the strategy is not infallible as it is impossible for mobilities researchers to identify all blind spots in their own culture, research field and language. A rich research community and adequate time for researchers to circle around and outside their core field are also crucial for supporting reflexivity and for reflexive mobilities research to thrive.