See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/309962707

The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps

Article in New Media & Society · March 2018

DOI: 10.1177/1461444816675438

CITATIONS READS

830 8,375

3 authors, including:

Ben Light
University of Salford
99 PUBLICATIONS 5,220 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ben Light on 30 November 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

675438
research-article2016
NMS0010.1177/1461444816675438new media & societyLight et al.

Article

new media & society

The walkthrough method:

2018, Vol. 20(3) 881­–900
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
An approach to the study [Link]/[Link]
DOI: 10.1177/1461444816675438
[Link]
of apps [Link]/home/nms

Ben Light
University of Salford, UK

Jean Burgess
Queensland University of Technology, Australia

Stefanie Duguay
Queensland University of Technology, Australia

Abstract
Software applications (apps) are now prevalent in the digital media environment. They are
the site of significant sociocultural and economic transformations across many domains,
from health and relationships to entertainment and everyday finance. As relatively
closed technical systems, apps pose new methodological challenges for sociocultural
digital media research. This article describes a method, grounded in a combination of
science and technology studies with cultural studies, through which researchers can
perform a critical analysis of a given app. The method involves establishing an app’s
environment of expected use by identifying and describing its vision, operating model
and modes of governance. It then deploys a walkthrough technique to systematically and
forensically step through the various stages of app registration and entry, everyday use
and discontinuation of use. The walkthrough method establishes a foundational corpus
of data upon which can be built a more detailed analysis of an app’s intended purpose,
embedded cultural meanings and implied ideal users and uses. The walkthrough also
serves as a foundation for further user-centred research that can identify how users
resist these arrangements and appropriate app technology for their own purposes.

Corresponding author:
Ben Light, University of Salford, Salford, M5 4WT, UK.
Email: [Link]@[Link]
882 new media & society 20(3)

Keywords
Apps, cultural studies, digital methods, mobile media, qualitative methods, STS,
walkthrough

So I guess the tie means that you used some form of protection.

This remark was made during one of our digital methods workshops, where we were
teaching app analysis to some of our colleagues and PhD students. The participant was
commenting on the icons used for reporting sexual activity within the menstruation-
tracking app Clue (Figure 1). In our discussion, participants raised points about naviga-
tional features and their symbolic qualities, which shaped how they viewed the app.
Within this screen, the complexity of sexual activity is reduced to four simple icons
indicating binary predicaments: sex is either protected or unprotected and, if problems
arise, they are due to either a high sex drive or withdrawal from intimate contact. Through
oversimplification, the app’s presentation of options obscures how safer sex practices
can include varying levels of protection, and how individuals can encounter a range of
sexual challenges that encompass far more than just having too much or too little sex.
The icons also reinforce cultural norms of heterosexuality and elide the possibility of
trans identities. Assuming that the user identifies as female and chooses male sexual
partners, the app uses a symbolically male clothing item – the tie – that can be read as
carrying moral undertones, indicating that protected suitors are prim and proper gentle-
men. In this article, we set out the method that we used in this workshop for the rigorous
and systematic study of apps and that allowed nuanced discussions such as these to
emerge from it: the walkthrough method.
The walkthrough method is a way of engaging directly with an app’s interface to
examine its technological mechanisms and embedded cultural references to understand
how it guides users and shapes their experiences. The core of this method involves the
step-by-step observation and documentation of an app’s screens, features and flows of
activity – slowing down the mundane actions and interactions that form part of normal
app use in order to make them salient and therefore available for critical analysis. The
researcher registers and logs into the app, mimics everyday use where possible and dis-
continues or logs out while attending to technical aspects, such as the placement or num-
ber of icons, as well as symbolic elements, like pictures and text. This process is
contextualised within a review of the app’s vision, operating model and governance.
While similar techniques are deployed in User Experience Design and vernacular con-
texts like technology reviews, the interpretative aspects of the method as we describe it
here are underpinned by specific theoretical frameworks: science and technology studies
(STS) and cultural studies supply the analytical power to identify connections between
these contextual elements and the app’s technical interface.
This article works through the various components of the method, first discussing
challenges for app research, the utility of a walkthrough technique and how we combine
STS and cultural studies as a lens for app analysis. We describe how to identify the app’s
Light et al. 883

Figure 1. Screenshot from menstruation-tracking app Clue.

vision, operating model and governance as investigative work that stakes out the app’s
environment of expected use – how app provider anticipates it will be received, generate
profit or other forms of benefit and regulate user activity. This work to establish the envi-
ronment of expected use can be done in preparation for the step-by-step technical walk-
through or it can be done alongside the walkthrough process to illuminate the intentions
behind particular features and functions.1 We then explain the process of walking through
884 new media & society 20(3)

different phases of app use and highlight points of interest that may be common across a
range of research contexts. We conclude with methodological and ethical considerations,
explaining how this approach fits within a toolkit of traditional and digital methods.
Working together on a collaboration around dating and hook-up apps, we developed
the walkthrough method out of our engagement with the current digital methods litera-
ture and discussions with colleagues calling for a way to unite STS approaches of tracing
technological systems with cultural studies techniques for recognising discursive and
symbolic representations. It has proved essential in our own analyses, allowing for the
deep interrogation of apps, such as investigating how Ashley Madison’s profile features
interact with bots (Light, 2016a), exploring the use of apps for engaging with public
sexual cultures (Light, 2016b) and assessing how Tinder’s connection with Facebook
builds a sense that its users are authentic (Duguay, 2017). The method has also been
implemented in comparisons across apps, allowing us to develop a comparative typology
of mobile dating and hook-up apps (Duguay et al., 2017) as well as contrasting Vine and
Instagram’s creative features (Duguay, 2016).
We have further refined and elaborated the method through our experience conduct-
ing and garnering feedback from a series of research methods workshops involving more
than 250 academics and graduate students working across a number of social science and
humanities disciplines. These workshops included practical exercises where participants
deployed the walkthrough method to analyse apps across domains including gaming,
music, health, ridesharing and microtasking. This process of reflection and refinement
has shaped the method into an approach that is now adaptable – in whole or in part – to
a range of research questions and agendas. While we invite researchers to apply the
walkthrough flexibly and in conjunction with other methods, here we present all its ele-
ments sequentially for the sake of coherence and comprehensiveness.

Apps and their methodological challenges

The increased prominence of apps from around 2008 is often associated with the intro-
duction of Apple’s iPhone, iOS and App Store – and indeed, the age of the smartphone
has proceeded in lockstep with the appification of the digital media environment and the
decline of the open web. However, software applications, from where the more generic
term ‘app’ originates, have existed for much longer. Understood in the sense of ‘software
applications’, apps are a subset of computer programs: they are computer programs that
solve particular, often singular, user needs – originally, business needs (Pressman, 2005).
We usually think of proprietary distribution platforms, such as the Apple App Store or
Google Play Store, delivering apps, but contemporary app developers also create for the
web (including the mobile web), using technology such as HTML5 to bypass app stores.
Apps are a significant component of digital culture and the digital economy. In 2014,
worldwide app revenues were US$34.99 billion and are expected to rise to US$76.52 bil-
lion in 2017 ([Link], 2015).
While there is debate about whether the app model of digital media development
represents an open or closed cultural system more generally (Burgess, 2012), apps’ tech-
nical closure presents empirical challenges to digital media researchers. An app’s source
code is not often shared publicly, prohibiting researchers from examining its underlying
Light et al. 885

structure or operating code as they would with webpages or software programs with
accessible structures and file libraries. Although researchers gather digital data for some
apps by querying Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) – protocols allowing the
app to interact with other software – these queries often return partial datasets, limited to
protect commercial interests (Burgess and Bruns, 2015). Furthermore, the API documen-
tation upon which researchers rely when developing programs for data queries is often
incomplete (Uddin and Robillard, 2015) and many apps have APIs that are partially or
altogether inaccessible to the public. Commercial apps also protect trade secrets and
design architecture, requiring innovative approaches, such as auditing an app’s algo-
rithms through experimental scenarios (Sandvig et al., 2014). Furthermore, while this
sociotechnical closure creates challenges for accessing data through established digital
research methods, automated methods that collect ‘big’ data or metadata can overlook an
app’s symbolic elements and users’ social interpretations (Rieder and Röhle, 2012).
Scholars in relevant areas of the humanities and social sciences have called for new
methods appropriate to this contemporary ‘computational turn’ (Berry, 2011) – that is,
going beyond merely using computational tools to tackle traditional social science ques-
tions, and instead developing new concepts and methods to study computational tech-
nologies as sociocultural artefacts. In elaborating the notion of digital methods, Rogers
(2013) asserts the necessity of using the ‘methods of the medium’: studying society and
culture through the functions and everyday practices of digital media technologies that
remediate and shape sociocultural phenomena. Therefore, analysing an app requires
attention to its embedded sociocultural representations as much as its technological fea-
tures or data outputs, which also have social and cultural influences. This is the intent of
our approach to studying apps via the walkthrough method. Our approach incorporates
the methods of the medium by inviting the researcher to engage closely with the app,
using a step-by-step walkthrough technique that involves progressing through the app’s
requirements, screens, and activities to understand how it guides users.

Prior uses of walkthroughs

Walkthroughs are an established genre of vernacular cultural practice, particularly in the
consumption and evaluation of cultural goods (Grimes, 2015; Singh et al., 2000).
Walkthroughs, in this vernacular sense, can have pedagogical and commercial value.
Examples include traditional infomercials, instructional game walkthroughs and walk-
throughs as key elements of game, app and software reviews on sites such as YouTube,
which hold the potential to educate and persuade target audiences (Lee and Hoffman,
2015; Singh et al., 2000; Smith and Sanchez, 2015). Vernacular walkthroughs reveal
intricate details about the artefact in question, creating a step-by-step narrative of use.
Walkthroughs often make explicit the otherwise implicit and (by design) apparently
seamless process of engaging with a digital media object – and they can give away hid-
den affordances and tricks (as in game walkthroughs which can reveal shortcuts and
workarounds for wickedly difficult elements of gameplay). Of course, like all cultural
texts, walkthrough videos and narratives inevitably reflect the discursive and ideological
positions of their producers and align with their agendas (e.g. performing technical mas-
tery or critical expertise, increasing sales, generating followers).
886 new media & society 20(3)

In more formal academic settings, early uses of the walkthrough as a technique were
grounded in software engineering and oriented towards improving the quality of code
and user experience (Fagan, 1976). Human–computer interaction (HCI) drew from soft-
ware engineering and formalised ‘user walkthroughs’ as devices to assist in the creation
of more usable and useful digital products – in particular by highlighting users’ depar-
tures from the intended procedures or pathways, and then tweaking the design in response
(Lewis et al., 1990; Nickerson and Landauer, 1997). The walkthrough method we
describe here is a significant departure from how similar techniques have been used in
such contexts. The walkthrough method we propose is used, not to test whether users
respond to an interface in the ways its designers intended, but rather to illuminate the
material traces of those intensions, and thereby to critically examine the workings of an
app as a sociotechnical artefact. It does so by grounding the step-by-step technique in a
combined framework of STS and cultural studies that allows for identifying the techno-
logical mechanisms that shape – and are shaped by – the app’s cultural, social, political
and economic context.

Conceptual framework
The walkthrough method as we use it is grounded in the principles of Actor-Network
Theory (ANT), as a specific aspect of STS. ANT foregrounds a relational ontology
according to which sociocultural and technical processes are mutually shaping (Callon,
1989; Latour, 2005). Among the actors configured in relation to a particular technology,
ANT differentiates between intermediaries and mediators, which can additionally be
human or non-human (Latour, 2005). Intermediaries pass meaning along unchanged
throughout a network of relations while mediators are transformative – they alter the
meaning or circumstances within a system. In the case of apps, user interfaces and func-
tions are therefore understood as non-human actors that can be mediators. For example,
a dating app can take a simple piece of information about a person, such as an affinity for
the outdoors, and transform its meaning by adding a fitness-related emoji to the user’s
profile, implying healthiness due to the program’s associations with particular hobbies
and symbolic repertoire for indicating such associations.
Another way of understanding the influence of non-human actors is through consid-
eration of a technology’s materiality and the affordances it extends. Bucher and Helmond
(2016) note that affordance theories have progressed from understanding affordances
broadly as behaviours that an environment offers or constrains (Gibson, 2015) to actions
guided by a technology’s design (Norman, 1988) and eventually acknowledging the role
of social and material influences on how users perceive actions they can take in relation
to a technology. The walkthrough examines affordances at multiple levels of scale
(McVeigh-Schultz and Baym, 2015), from the app’s buttons to its interaction with oper-
ating systems, hardware, structures of connectivity (e.g. wifi) and other apps in its
extended environment. Attention to materiality identifies physical interactions encour-
aged by the app, from Tinder’s thumb swiping for selecting matches to WeChat’s phone
shaking to find chat partners. Being mindful of apps’ material influences allows the
researcher to place oneself in the user’s position and imagine the range of affordances the
user perceives.
Light et al. 887

Since the technological architectures of apps are a kind of infrastructure, they can be
examined in a similar fashion as in prior research on infrastructural systems. Star (1999)
describes how infrastructure is invisible in the sense that when individuals pour a glass
of water, they do not consider the intricate plumbing systems involved in its delivery.
Similarly, app users may overlook the icons and screen sequences integral to their every-
day activities. By definition, apps more closely resemble ‘platforms’ as closed and con-
trolled systems, which are often commercially owned and organise activity within a
specific software program (Plantin et al., 2018). However, the ‘infrastructuralization of
platforms’ (Plantin et al., 2018: 9) as they grow and interconnect means that apps can be
examined using infrastructure studies techniques. Star (1999) suggests bringing an ‘eth-
nographic sensibility’2 (p. 383) to closed-off or hidden systems through multiple
approaches including literary analysis, observations and systems analysis. The central
walkthrough technique of stepping through the app incorporates elements of ethnogra-
phy through observation and generating field notes. Establishing the app’s environment
of expected use requires digging through its related materials and ancillary media. The
walkthrough draws on previous approaches to infrastructure ethnographies to make an
app’s system of actors visible for analysis.
While focused on interactions among actors, STS scholars also noted cultural influ-
ences within technological systems. These are identified as master narratives (Star, 1999)
as an arrangement of actors that declares a particular understanding, such as medical
forms reinforcing gender binaries through checkboxes for only male or female patients.
In tracing struggles between users and technology creators, Pfaffenberger (1992) identi-
fied that technologies serve the cultural aspirations of their creators, who often accrue
power by oppressing particular groups. Technologies are deployed with symbolism and
rituals to reinforce these aims. For example, a menstruation-tracking app may be devel-
oped within a male-dominated technology industry whereby men succeed through wom-
en’s oppression. Within this cultural context, its designers do not think twice about
symbolising pre-menstrual syndrome through a whirlwind icon intimating that women
act as chaotically as natural disasters several days each month. Through this recognition
of cultural influences in technological systems, we interlock STS concepts with cultural
studies approaches to identifying and deconstructing a technology’s cultural discourses.
The walkthrough method builds on scholarship in cultural studies that, similar to the
aspects of STS we draw on above, attends to how technologies shape culture while
simultaneously being a product of it, considering also the symbolic or representational
elements of cultural objects in combination with the technological or material ones. In
Raymond Williams’ (1974) cultural analysis of television at a time when, like mobile
media, it was still fairly new but had become firmly embedded in and representative of
institutional regimes of power, he underscored how technology neither determines soci-
ety’s trajectory nor is it symptomatic of social change. Instead, technologies are designed,
experienced and further developed within a culture that shapes and is influenced by
them. Recognition of this mutual shaping is integral to the walkthrough, which takes the
researcher through a process of identifying cultural values embedded in app features and
imagining how these features, in turn, seek to reinforce values among users.
The walkthrough’s close engagement with app technology mobilises the existing
methodological toolkit of cultural studies, particularly as it is concerned with studying
888 new media & society 20(3)

material culture and everyday practices of technology consumers. Du Gay et al.’s (2013)
‘circuit of culture’, applied originally to study the Sony Walkman as material artefact and
site of cultural struggle, identifies the sociocultural processes surrounding an artefact. It
regards ‘how [a technology] is represented, what social identities are associated with it,
how it is produced and consumed, and what mechanisms regulate its distribution and
use’ (p. xxxi). Examining an app’s environment of expected use begins to uncover these
elements and their direct presentation to users becomes apparent during the step-by-step
walkthrough. For example, Tinder’s promotional videos tend to feature actors in their
20s participating in youthful activities (e.g. road trips, rooftop parties). These efforts to
target younger users are realised in the app’s subscription screen offering a lower fee to
younger users and the preferences screen sorting older users into a broad ‘55+’ category.
The circuit of culture provides a frame from which to identify embedded cultural values
while walking through the app’s interface.
While digital media scholars have begun identifying cultural influences within com-
munications technologies, the walkthrough method is tailored to apps. Studies of web-
sites have identified how features, such as drop-down menus, shape users’ identity
expression (Nakamura, 2002). Others have focused on commercial influences steering
the development of technology practices, such as Nokia’s role in shaping early multime-
dia messaging practices (Lillie, 2012). Recent studies of social media platforms have
identified how platform companies’ economic and political interests guide a platform’s
development (Van Dijck, 2013), such as by analysing Mark Zuckerberg’s public rhetoric
about Facebook (Hoffmann et al., 2018). The walkthrough method extends these
approaches to consider how qualities specific to apps, such as geolocative features,
mobile access, and distribution through apps stores, also feature in cultural struggles
among a technology’s economic, political and social players.
The need for a new approach is evident in related methods that involve similar con-
siderations but do specify how to interrogate an app’s technological architecture.
Recent interview-based methods in media and cultural studies have adopted partici-
pant-led platform explorations. These include scrolling back through a participant’s
Facebook Timeline (Robards and Lincoln, 2016) or ‘media go-alongs’ where users
respond to questions as they interact with an app (Jørgensen, 2016). While these
approaches highlight app features, understandings are interpreted through users, who
place their lens of experience upon these qualities. While the walkthrough method can
similarly be conducted alongside users, its standard application simply involves the
researcher examining what the app contributes to users’ interactions with it. This more
closely resembles components of Critical Technocultural Discourse Analysis (CTDA),
which examines an artefact’s interpellation, or calling out, of certain identities accord-
ing to its embedded ideologies (Brock, 2012). Whereas CTDA examines a technolo-
gy’s interface alongside user practices, the walkthrough method focuses on interface
elements and their connection to the app’s environment of expected use. It provides a
systematic approach to identifying cultural discourses that shape and are perpetuated
by interface elements, which allows for integration with frameworks like CTDA or
mixed methods studies.
In combining compatible concepts and approaches from STS and cultural studies, the
walkthrough method is representative of a broader shift to the dual consideration of
Light et al. 889

technology and culture in response to the ‘computational turn’ (Berry, 2011). The following
sections outline the method’s processes of data collection and analysis, establishing an app’s
context and then walking through the program itself to identify key technological mecha-
nisms of cultural meaning.

The environment of expected use

This part of the walkthrough points researchers towards pivotal aspects of an app’s con-
text for analysis in conjunction with its technological architecture. It draws from Van
Dijck’s (2013) recognition that beyond users, content and technology, researchers must
also account for the socioeconomic and cultural aspects of platforms. Examining an
app’s vision, operating model and governance allows researchers to understand how an
app’s designers, developers, publishers and owners expect users to receive and integrate
it into their technology usage practices.

Vision
An app’s vision involves its purpose, target user base and scenarios of use, which are
often communicated through the app provider’s organisational materials. This is not just
a question of considering users as markets in the capitalist sense (though this may be
important), it also examines conceptions the app conveys about activities it is supposed
to provide, support or enable (Light, 2014; Light et al., 2008; Light and McGrath, 2010;
Papacharissi, 2009). For example, Tinder is presented as being for those interested in
relationships between two people, referencing a particular view of monogamous intimate
relations. In contrast, Squirt, a hook-up app for men who have sex with men, highlights
its functionality for communicating with multiple partners at once, disregarding monog-
amous relationship norms. An app’s vision tells user what it is supposed to do and, by
extension, implies how it can be used and by whom. While users often expand upon or
subvert this, understanding the app’s original vision provides a baseline for identifying
user appropriation.
Apps disseminate their vision through numerous means. App stores may moderate
communications about an app’s vision, as they regulate access and use through tight
control of app development (Goggin, 2011), while many apps have webpages further
elaborating their product’s niche. For example, Clue’s app store description pragmati-
cally explains its purpose as a ‘period tracker’ while its webpage declares it as ‘Beautifully
scientific!’ alongside a photo of presumed data experts gathered around a phone with
serious expressions. Through this imagery, the company differentiates its app by appeal-
ing to users who desire empirical rigour when tracking their periods. It also ties into
longstanding traditions of medicalising women’s bodies, subjecting them to the scientific
gaze (Bartky, 2003). Other sources for data collection include company blogs, marketing
materials, press releases and public statements from representatives of the organisation
that provides the app. These often establish an app’s discursive and symbolic representa-
tion (e.g. logos, colour schemes, images), which is carried through to its technical inter-
face. Clue’s scientific theme gives rise to clean and streamlined aesthetics that lend some
explanation to the app’s simplistic icons.
890 new media & society 20(3)

Operating model
An app’s operating model involves its business strategy and revenue sources, which
indicate underlying political and economic interests. Revenue generation may involve
payment for the app or in-app purchases, permitting access to additional functions (e.g.
rewind/redo in Tinder), increased levels of access (e.g. unlimited profile viewing in
Squirt) or tokens for increased engagement, such as RSVP’s exchange of stamps for
messaging abilities. Since many apps allow access to services in exchange for personal
data that can be sold to advertisers and data miners (Van Dijck, 2013), revenue genera-
tion may not involve monetary exchange. Both levels of access and the quality of user
experience can depend on how much data users provide. Such an exchange commences
during registration, with app companies collecting basic information (e.g. email, name,
birth date) and escalates as users encounter features requiring more data (e.g. location,
connections to social media platforms). Apps may cultivate multi-sided markets, garner-
ing revenue from in-app advertising and purchases as well as partnerships with other
platforms (Nieborg, 2015). While some apps, such as those produced by governments or
non-profits, have little commercial interest, these still receive resource support to oper-
ate, such as through public funding or donations. In-app economies also function among
users, for example, sharing lives in gaming apps or forms of recognition that generate
social and cultural capital.
App-generated materials, technology industry sources and public market information
are all useful sources for determining an app’s operating model. The app’s price in app
stores, in-app purchase menus, employee recruitment materials, press kits and other doc-
uments about the app provider all provide indications of the app’s profit or income gen-
erating mechanisms and about the app provider itself. For commercial apps, LinkedIn
and company databases like Crunchbase provide information about a company’s
employee base, funding/investors and recent acquisitions. Business media outlets, such
as Forbes, often interview companies about their business expansion plans. If a company
is publicly traded, articles about its Initial Public Offering (IPO) and official documents,
such as its SEC filing (financial statements lodged with the US Securities and Exchange
Commission) provide a wealth of information about revenue and future projections.

Governance
An app’s governance involves how the app provider seeks to manage and regulate user
activity to sustain their operating model and fulfil their vision. Governance is reflected in
the app’s rules and guidelines, which place boundaries around the types of activity that
users are able to conduct, and even the types of users allowed on an app. This regulatory
work may also be hard coded into an app’s features, such as through text recognition
mechanisms that disallow posting about certain topics. Governance may expand from
simply managing user activity to enforcing norms and values. Apps may enlist users in
enforcing governance through mutual surveillance facilitated by reporting systems.
Governance is often enacted through formal Terms of Service (TOS) documents and
informally by encouraging users to behave in ways that align with the norms of the ideal
forms of user the app is targeted at. The length, complexity and nature of TOS indicate
Light et al. 891

conceptions of governance, especially when studied over time using tools like the
Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. Formal policies may provide information about
the ownership and applications of user data, privacy and safety matters and expected
community standards. Copyright licences tend to vary across sites and require attention
since they often defy user expectations of the app provider’s right to their content (Fiesler
et al., 2016). Similar matters might also be found in a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
section, which generally offers informal governance by articulating community norms
and preferred user practices. Popular and technical media often capture quotes from app
provider representatives about expected user conduct. Finally, the platform through
which the app is delivered may act as a governance mechanism, whether this involves an
app store’s terms or the legal status of the activity the app enables in a particular geo-
graphical region.

The technical walkthrough

The technical walkthrough is the method’s central data-gathering procedure. It involves
the researcher engaging with the app interface, working through screens, tapping buttons
and exploring menus. Walking through the app requires the researcher assume a user’s
position while applying an analytical eye to the process of acquiring the app, registering,
accessing features and functionalities and discontinuing use. The researcher adopts an
STS approach of systematically tracing key actors, such as icons and purchase buttons,
producing a collection of data by generating detailed field notes and recordings, such as
through screenshots, video recordings of the phone screen and audio recordings of one’s
thoughts while conducting the walkthrough. This involves attention to the app’s materi-
ality, including the actions it requires and guides users to conduct, and imaging how
users would perceive these as affordances or constraints. It also involves drawing on
cultural research skills in textual and semiotic analysis, recognising indicators of embed-
ded cultural discourses, such as how the app constructs conceptions of gender, ethnicity,
ability, sexuality and class.
An app’s technical and cultural influences are conveyed through mediator character-
istics, which provide indications of how the app seeks to configure relations among
actors, such as how it guides users to interact (or not) and how these actors construct or
transfer meaning. Drawing on ANT’s notion of mediators, an app’s mediator character-
istics transform meaning through the interactions they invoke. They are embedded with
culture because their meanings exist in reference to cultural texts and understandings that
exist outside the app. Mediator characteristics may include the following:

•• User interface arrangement. How the app guides users through activities via the
placement of buttons and menus. For example, some buttons like ‘Report’ or
‘Share’ may be smaller or harder to find than others;
•• Functions and features. Groups of arrangements that mandate or enable an activ-
ity, including pop up windows, compulsory fields and requests made by the app to
link with other user accounts;
•• Textual content and tone. More than instructions, this includes text embedded in
user interfaces, such as the order of drop-down menu options or the categories
892 new media & society 20(3)

available (e.g. sexual identity categories on dating apps) and their discursive
power to shape use;
•• Symbolic representation. A semiotic approach to examining the look and feel of
the app and its likely connotations and cultural associations with respect to the
imagined user and ideal scenarios of use. This may involve considerations regard-
ing branding, colour and font choices.

As researchers traverse the app, interrogating mediator characteristics renders

visible aspects of the interface that may otherwise blend into the background of eve-
ryday use.
While apps present a range of uses, we have grouped these into three common
stages for data generation through documentation and analysis during the walkthrough.
These stages include registration and entry; everyday use; and suspension, closure and
leaving. While these categories are not discreet (e.g. registration fields often construct
a profile that features in everyday use), we present them separately for the sake of
discussion.

Registration and entry

This is often the starting point of a walkthrough, involving description and analysis of
how a user sets up an account for a particular app. Initial contact with an app may vary
as they may be part of a larger infrastructure. Some may require registration through a
desktop computer, while others are only available through mobile technology and require
registration through a tablet or phone. Squirt allows users to register via the website and
subsequently sign into mobile site in a phone’s browser, since it is not vetted by app
stores. Users can, however, register via the mobile app and choose to only access it
through its reduced mobile functionality. The mobile version emphasises proximity to
other users and facilitates quick encounters while the desktop version allows for greater
interactivity in Squirt’s online forums. Choosing between these routes presents different
app mediators and alters the user experience.
Registration can occur through other mechanisms, such as automatic functions by
which an app calls out to partner services or retrieves existing user content. For example,
connecting with Facebook is a compulsory form of identity verification on Tinder. Where
this occurs, it is necessary to consider the nature of the connection and what elements
(e.g. usernames, passwords, content) of the connected service become actors within the
registration process. Other examples of common registration steps include requests for
access to a user’s personal contacts, photographs or location. If a profile is required, as is
the case with some games, the registration and entry process may be as simple as instal-
lation or pointing a browser to a URL.
The app’s expected use is often strongly communicated during registration. The
vision may be stated in welcome screens and the operating model becomes salient in
offers for premium versions. Registration is also a stage where an app generally com-
municates its governance, including ‘terms of use’ screens that require users to click ‘I
agree’. Preferred user practices go hand-in-hand with subtle suggestions about the ideal
user, often depicted in ‘how to’ screens that demonstrate app use.
Light et al. 893

Figure 2. Comparison of Squirt and Pet Rescue Saga.

Everyday use
This stage refers to activities that registered users regularly engage in. This part of the
walkthrough method focuses on recording the functionality, options and affordances that
the app provides to users. This may require creating multiple profiles to engage with
algorithms tailored to certain user groups. Not all functions may be easily accessible to a
researcher who does not wish to or is not able to interact with other users, pay money or
execute certain activities (e.g. spending hours to unlock a level in a game). However,
walking through even the app’s basic functionality provides a sense of what activities it
enables, limits and guides users towards. Paying attention not only to the app’s features
but also to the flow of activity (i.e. the order of screens and functions) provides valuable
data. To give some sense of what considerations during this stage, we offer examples
from apps with contrasting purposes: the hook-up app Squirt and the game Pet Rescue
Saga (Figure 2).
The app’s menu can be used initially to trace mediators. All apps have a menu system
but this may not be presented in an obviously structured fashion. Considering interface
arrangement, it is possible to clearly see Squirt’s structuring as it uses tightly organised
navigation text and images to guide users. The navigation structure remains the same at
deeper levels (images 1 and 2). Menu icons are also key features that can symbolise
cultural representations. Squirt’s inclusion of a ‘cruising’ tab with a treasure map refer-
ences a history of gay men meeting covertly in semi-public spaces (Mowlabocus, 2008).
894 new media & society 20(3)

These icons and the app’s aesthetic include red as a colour of excitement but grey domi-
nates. This provides a serious tone, emphasising the app’s streamlined functionality that
digitally mediates cruising, shifting it into a more precise, private activity than its offline
practice.
In contrast, Pet Rescue Saga is less structured and is playful in its aesthetics and sym-
bolism. Menu items are not immediately obvious and change depending upon the user’s
position within the app (images 4 and 5). During a walkthrough, the researcher may use
the menu to anchor exploration, tapping on each item and following its associated activi-
ties. Depending on the research focus, it may instead be relevant to anticipate how users
would select menu items and focus on the most common activities.
Since attending only to static interface elements risks missing important points of
mediation, work is needed to unearth how and why a set of associations exists. For exam-
ple, Squirt uses locative grid sorting to organise members’ profiles in a geographic fash-
ion so users can identify who is nearby. The app emphasises user geography manually
via postcode (if entered) and automatically via a request for access to locative services
(during login – see image 2). These aspects cannot be discerned without further engage-
ment as the researcher performs the walkthrough and allows the app to present use
requirements or options. Following these activity flows can help to identify how the app
mediates users in cultural spaces. Grid sorting within hook-up apps for men seeking men
can create a co-presence among users that increases their sense of belonging even when
physically situated in heteronormative public spaces (Blackwell et al., 2015). In Pet
Rescue Saga, connecting with friends via Facebook enables the ability to request lives
and share them with other players – a key in-app currency but a functionality that can
impose on friend networks if accompanied by multiple automatic requests. These exam-
ples illustrate how the researcher must follow some activity flows to better understand an
app’s navigation and potential role in users’ lives.

App suspension, closure and leaving

Temporarily or permanently leaving apps is complicated for users and has implications
for developers (Brubaker et al., 2014; Karppi, 2011; Light and Cassidy, 2014). Non-use
can range from logging out to hiding profiles and removal of user data. Different apps
attempt to retain user engagement in multiple ways. For example, Facebook seeks to
keep users engaged by offering opportunities to maintain one’s data in the space rather
than have it removed (Karppi, 2011; Light and Cassidy, 2014). Deleting the Facebook
app may seem straightforward: on an iPhone, users deleting the app are simply advised
that ‘Deleting Facebook will also delete all of its data’. However, this is not fully accu-
rate, as this action deletes data from the user’s device but not from Facebook’s database.
Users must log into Facebook’s website to go through the process of data removal, dur-
ing which they are often prompted to reconsider deletion. Facebook enrols affective
content and tone, telling users they ‘will be missed by friends’ and performs symbolic
persuasive work, displaying images of friends to be lost while offering a 7-day reactiva-
tion option.
The process of account suspension, closure or leaving may not always represent a
total break of the relationship between user and app. The walkthrough may reveal ways
Light et al. 895

that leaving invites new modes of participation. For example, once Tinder users left
swipe to discard a potential match, they will not be shown that user’s profile again.
However, users may delete their account and register anew to reset the database of pos-
sible matches. Walking through aspects of apps that allow users to disconnect can pro-
vide insights into how apps seek to sustain use, retain value from users even after they
leave (e.g. by continuing to sell their data) and mitigate features that may otherwise
dissuade use.

Assessing evidence of unexpected practices

Although the walkthrough method (when not combined with other methods) does not
involve interviews with or observations of users, exploring the app’s interface and envi-
ronment of expected use may uncover evidence of unexpected user practices. This moves
beyond identifying user deviations from the designer’s original vision (e.g. choosing not
to complete certain profile fields) to recognising user-led activities, artefacts or services
associated with the app. These include developing and using third-party apps to extend
functionality, social media to develop and critique normative user practices and code to
hack and distort an app’s functionality. Tinder’s unexpected use has involved the devel-
opment of third-party apps rearranging its interface, art projects critiquing users for treat-
ing others like pieces of meat (Maureira, 2014) and code to make male users believe they
are chatting with women when they are really talking to each other (Zelenko, 2015).
Since acts of technology appropriation can shift power from designers to users (Eglash,
2004), these unexpected uses can re-allocate some control of the app experience to users,
creating new purposes for apps, thwarting profit-making strategies and circumventing
governance tactics.
It may be necessary to perform the walkthrough with third-party apps, since they
often transform the original app’s mediators. For example, Bonfire replaces Tinder’s
swipe-to-match functionality with a grid interface (similar to Squirt) enabling users to
see and like many profiles at once. This grid is not sorted by location, as it would be in
Squirt, because Tinder relies less on location as a matching criterion even though it uses
GPS technology. This differentiation may not have been identifiable through a Tinder
walkthrough alone. Bonfire also filters out friends of friends, challenging Tinder’s
assumption that users with shared friends want to date each other. This indicates that
Tinder’s vision may be incongruent with social practices, such as the tendency to reveal
more intimate information to potential suitors than one would share with Facebook
friends. Tracing evidence of unexpected practices can provide insight into how users,
and even outside developers, reconfigure an app’s relations to challenge, extend and
break free from its environment of expected use.

Ethical and methodological considerations

While some apps pose greater ethical and legal complications than others (e.g. the use of
hook-up apps for sex work), the walkthrough method calls for consideration of two par-
ticular ethical concerns regardless of the app being examined. First, while the walk-
through avoids interaction with users, there is the possibility that it may disturb users
896 new media & society 20(3)

anyway. If a dummy account is created, others may consider this account to be real and
attempt to engage with it. We have opted in our research to ignore user attempts at inter-
action but researchers must assess these situations individually. One may imagine that
when walking through a peer support or counselling app, a message of distress or other
attempts at interaction would require careful handling. Strategies for managing potential
user interactions need to be considered before any empirical work takes place.
Second, a great deal of user information, such as users’ names, photos and in-app
activity, can be observed and recorded during the walkthrough. If the researcher is not
engaging directly with users, they will not have provided informed consent for the use
and display of their data. Even if these users could provide consent, it may not always be
appropriate to request it (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007). User data should be treated
similar to data gathered from observation methods, for example, through anonymisation.
If it is pertinent to demonstrate arrangements between the app and users, researchers
might use their own or dummy profiles, contact users to obtain consent or rely on pub-
licly available marketing materials. Since it is not always possible to know whether users
intend their data to be used outside of its original context, there are ethical issues to
consider wherever research protocols result in the re- or de-contextualisation of such
information.
The walkthrough method’s limitations can be addressed by combining methods or
data sources. While walking through an app can provide a sense of user engagement, the
walkthrough does not directly collect and analyse user content, activity or attitudes. App
reviews, news articles and online user discussions can provide supplemental data. For
example, discussions on the Tinder subreddit ([Link]/r/tinder) often include opin-
ions about the latest updates. As mentioned, user interviews and user-led walkthroughs
can also provide insight into how individuals engage with a particular app. Some func-
tionality may be a by-product of programming aspects rather than a deliberate developer
choice. Interviews with developers in technology-related news can clarify their inten-
tions. Since this method does not engage with user content, researchers can pair it with
data collection techniques that query APIs or close readings of user data samples.
Combining the walkthrough method with other forms of data collection heeds discus-
sions of how digital methods can incorporate other digital and traditional methods to
expand and compare datasets (Snee et al., 2015). Since apps are not stabilised artefacts,
it may be necessary to conduct the walkthrough multiple times throughout an app’s
development and updates.

Conclusion
Apps matter because they reflect our cultural values, bring multiple actors including
users, developers and advertisers into an interaction space and communicate meanings
that shape our everyday practices. The walkthrough method introduces an approach to
studying apps that mobilises concepts from STS and cultural studies to examine these
arrangements. It enables researchers to identify the app’s context, highlighting the vision,
operating model and governance that form a set of expectations for ideal use. By walking
through the app’s registration, everyday use and deletion, this technique allows for rec-
ognition of embedded cultural values in an app’s features and functions. Once an app’s
Light et al. 897

intended use is established, user-developed practices, services and artefacts provide a

sense of how individuals resist these intentions. The walkthrough method is versatile and
provides foundational analysis of an app, which can be combined with content analysis
or interviews to gain further insights into users’ application and appropriation of app
technology to suit their own purposes.
We developed the walkthrough method to dig deeper into how apps frame users’ self-
expression, relationships and interactions. It provides a systematic approach to thinking
through mobile software components that are often overlooked or subsumed in broader
analyses of mobile technologies. We have illustrated how even small associations make
a difference, such as the influence of a menstruation-tracking app’s icon on how users
may feel about their sexual partners and practices. The walkthrough method uncovers
these associations and makes them available for analysis.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this
article.

Notes
1. The entire approach is called the ‘walkthrough method’ and the step-by-step process is a
walkthrough of the app itself.
2. While Star and others sometimes engage with ethnomethodology, this approach draws on eth-
nographic methods but links them with a theoretical perspective of social action (Dourish and
Button, 1998) that is outside the scope of our framework. We invite researchers to layer theo-
ries into analysis of data collected through the walkthrough method as it suits their research
questions.

References
Bartky SL (2003) Foucault, femininity, and the modernization of patriarchal power: sexuality,
appearance, and behavior. In: Weitz R (ed.) The Politics of Women’s Bodies. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp. 25–45.
Berry DM (2011) The computational turn: thinking about the digital humanities. Culture Machine
12: 1–22.
Blackwell C, Birnholtz J and Abbott C (2015) Seeing and being seen: co-situation and impres-
sion formation using Grindr, a location-aware gay dating app. New Media & Society 17(7):
1117–1136.
Brock A (2012) From the blackhand side: twitter as a cultural conversation. Journal of Broadcasting
& Electronic Media 56(4): 529–549.
Brubaker JR, Ananny M and Crawford K (2014) Departing glances: a sociotechnical account of
‘leaving’ Grindr. New Media & Society 18(3): 373–390.
Bucher T and Helmond A (2016) The affordances of social media platforms. In: Burgess J,
Poell T and Marwick A (eds) The Sage Handbook of Social Media. London; New York:
SAGE.
Burgess J (2012) The iPhone moment, the Apple Brand and the creative consumer: from ‘hack-
ability and usability’ to cultural generativity. In: Hjorth L, Richardson I and Burgess J (eds)
Studying Mobile Media: Cultural Technologies, Mobile Communication, and the iPhone.
New York: Routledge, pp. 28–42.
898 new media & society 20(3)

Burgess J and Bruns A (2015) Easy data, hard data: the politics and pragmatics of Twitter research
after the computational turn. In: Langlois G, Redden J and Elmer G (eds) Compromised Data:
From Social Media to Big Data. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 93–113.
Callon M (1989) Society in the making: the study of technology as a tool for sociological analy-
sis. In: Bijker WE, Hughes TP and Pinch T (eds) The Social Construction of Technological
Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, pp. 83–103.
Dourish P and Button G (1998) On ‘technomethodology’: foundational relationships between eth-
nomethodology and system design. Human-Computer Interaction 13(4): 395–432.
Du Gay P, Hall S, Janes L, et al. (2013) Doing Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman.
2nd ed. London: SAGE.
Duguay S (2016) Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Queer visibility through selfies: comparing
platform mediators across Ruby Rose’s Instagram and Vine presence. Social Media + Society
2(2): 1–12.
Duguay S (2017) Dressing up Tinderella: interrogating authenticity claims on the mobile dating
app Tinder. Information, Communication & Society 20(3): 351–367.
Duguay S, Burgess J and Light B (2017) Mobile dating and hookup app culture. In: Messaris P
and Humphreys L (eds) Digital Media: Transformations in Human Communication. 2nd ed.
New York: Peter Lang.
Eglash R (2004) Appropriating technology: an introduction. In: Eglash R, Croissant JL, Chiro GD,
et al. (eds) Appropriating Technology: Vernacular Science and Social Power. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. vii–xxi.
Fagan ME (1976) Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development. IBM
Systems Journal 15(3): 182–211.
Fiesler C, Lampe C and Bruckman AS (2016) Reality and perception of copyright terms of ser-
vice for online content creation. In: Proceedings of the CSCW’16, San Francisco, CA, 27
February–2 March.
Gibson JJ (2015) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. New York: Psychology
Press.
Goggin G (2011) Ubiquitous apps: politics of openness in global mobile cultures. Digital Creativity
22(3): 148–159.
Grimes SM (2015) Little big scene. Cultural Studies 29(3): 379–400.
Hammersley M and Atkinson P (2007) Ethnography: Principles in Practice. 3rd ed. London:
Routledge.
Hoffmann AL, Proferes N and Zimmer M (2018) ‘Making the world more open and connected’:
mark Zuckerberg and the discursive construction of Facebook and its users. New Media &
Society 20(1): 199–218.
Jørgensen KM (2016) The media go-along: researching mobilities with media at hand. Journal of
Media and Communication Research 60: 32–49.
Karppi T (2011) Digital suicide and the biopolitics of leaving Facebook. Transformations: Journal
of Media and Culture 20. Available at: [Link]
article_02.shtml
Latour B (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lee SH and Hoffman KD (2015) Learning the ShamWow: creating infomercials to teach the
AIDA model. Marketing Education Review 25(1): 9–14.
Lewis C, Polson PG, Wharton C, et al. (1990) Testing a walkthrough methodology for theory-
based design of walk-up-and-use interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on
Light et al. 899

human factors in computing systems, Seattle, WA, April 1-5 1990, pp. 235–242. New York:
ACM.
Light B (2014) Disconnecting with Social Networking Sites. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Light B (2016a) The rise of speculative devices: hooking up with the bots of Ashley Madison. First
Monday 21(6). Available at: [Link]
Light B (2016) Producing sexual cultures and pseudonymous publics with digital networks. In:
Lind R (ed.) Race and Gender in Electronic Media: Challenges and Opportunities. London:
Routledge UK, 231–246.
Light B and Cassidy E (2014) Strategies for the suspension and prevention of connection: render-
ing disconnection as socioeconomic lubricant with Facebook. New Media & Society 16(7):
1169–1184.
Light B and McGrath K (2010) Ethics and social networking sites: a disclosive analysis of
Facebook. Information Technology & People 23(4): 290–311.
Light B, Fletcher G and Adam A (2008) Gay men, Gaydar and the commodification of difference.
Information Technology & People 21(3): 300–314.
Lillie J (2012) Nokia’s MMS: a cultural analysis of mobile picture messaging. New Media &
Society 14(1): 80–97.
McVeigh-Schultz J and Baym NK (2015) Thinking of you: vernacular affordance in the context of
the microsocial relationship app, Couple. Social Media + Society 1(2): 1–13.
Maureira MG (2014) Tender – it’s how people meat. Available at: [Link]
(accessed 7 July 2016).
Mowlabocus S (2008) Revisiting old haunts through new technologies: public (homo)sexual cul-
tures in cyberspace. International Journal of Cultural Studies 11(4): 419–439.
Nakamura L (2002) Cybertypes: Race, Ethnicity, and Identity on the Internet. London: Routledge.
Nickerson RS and Landauer TK (1997) Human-computer interaction: background and issues. In:
Helander MG, Landauer TK and Prabhu PV (eds) Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction.
2nd ed. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 3–32.
Nieborg DB (2015) Crushing candy: the free-to-play game in its connective commodity form.
Social Media + Society 1(2): 1–12.
Norman DA (1988) The Psychology of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.
Papacharissi Z (2009) The virtual geographies of social networks: a comparative analysis of
Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New Media & Society 11(1–2): 199–220.
Pfaffenberger B (1992) Technological dramas. Science, Technology & Human Values 17(3):
282–312.
Plantin J-C, Lagoze C, Edwards PN, et al. (2018) Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in
the age of Google and Facebook. New Media & Society 20(1): 293–310
Pressman RS (2005) Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach. London: McGraw-Hill.
Rieder B and Röhle T (2012) Digital methods: five challenges. In: Berry DM (ed.) Understanding
Digital Humanities. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 67–84.
Robards B and Lincoln S (2016) Making it ‘Facebook official’: reflecting on romantic relation-
ships through sustained Facebook use. Social Media + Society 2(4): 1–10.
Rogers R (2013) Digital Methods. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sandvig C, Hamilton K, Karahalios K, et al. (2014) An algorithm audit. In: Gangadharan SP (ed.)
Data and Discrimination: Collected Essays. Washington, DC: New America Foundation, pp.
6–10.
Singh M, Balasubramanian SK and Chakraborty G (2000) A comparative analysis of three com-
munication formats: advertising, infomercial, and direct experience. Journal of Advertising
29(4): 59–75.
900 new media & society 20(3)

Smith P and Sanchez A (2015) Let’s play, video streams, and the evolution of new digital literacy.
In: Zaphiris P and Loannou A (eds) Learning and Collaboration Technologies. Los Angeles,
CA: Springer, pp. 520–527.
Snee H, Hine C, Morey Y, et al. (eds) (2015) Digital Methods for Social Science: An Interdisciplinary
Guide to Research Innovation. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Star SL (1999) The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist 43(3): 377–391.
[Link] (2015) Worldwide mobile app revenues from 2011–2017 (in billion US dollars).
Available at: [Link]
forecast/ (accessed 21 August 2015).
Uddin G and Robillard MP (2015) How API documentation fails. IEEE Software 32(4): 68–75.
Van Dijck J (2013) The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Williams R (1974) Television: Technology and Cultural Form. London and New York: Routledge.
Zelenko M (2015) A brilliant Tinder hack made hundreds of bros unwittingly flirt with each other.
The Verge. Available at: [Link]
swiping-bros (accessed 11 September 2016).

Author biographies
Ben Light is a professor of Digital Society at the University of Salford. His research concerns peo-
ple’s everyday uses of digital media with a focus on (non)consumption, gender, sexuality and digi-
tal methods. His work has been published in Cultural Sociology, Information, Communication &
Society and First Monday. His book, Disconnecting with social networking sites, was published by
Palgrave Macmillan in 2014.
Jean Burgess is a professor of Digital Media and director of the Digital Media Research Centre
(DMRC) at Queensland University of Technology. Her research focuses on the cultures, politics
and digital methods for studying social and mobile media platforms.
Stefanie Duguay is a PhD candidate in the Digital Media Research Centre at the Queensland
University of Technology. She holds an MSc from the Oxford Internet Institute, University of
Oxford, and a BASc in Sociology and Psychology from the University of Lethbridge. Her research
focuses on the mutual shaping of users and digital technology in the performance of sexual iden-
tity. Her work has been published in Information, Communication and Society, the International
Journal of Communication and Disability & Society.

View publication stats