Doors - University of Glasgow

Managing Walking Together: The Challenge of Revolving
Doors
Daniel Vesterlind 2, 3 , Alexandra Weilenmann 1 , Per Jacobsson 3 & Eric Laurier 4
Viktoria Institute 1 , Section of Science and Technology Studies, Göteborg University 2 ,
Interactive Institute 3 , Sweden, Geography & Geomatics, University of Glasgow 4
“There are barn doors
And there are revolving doors
Doors on the rudders of big ships
We are revolving doors
There are doors that open by themselves
There are sliding doors
And there are secret doors
There are doors that lock
And doors that don't
There are doors that let you in
And out
But never open
But they are trapdoors
That you can't come back from”
Lyrics from Pull/Pulk Revolving Doors by Radiohead
Introduction
There are so many different doors around. Public doors, domestic doors, revolving doors,
open doors, closed doors, doors with windows, sliding doors, and so on. The world is filled
with a great variety of objects that we call doors. We live in a planet inhabited by doors.
“Doors … are such ordinary objects that, although we constantly use them we seldom give
them a second glance.” (Vince, 1995:3) A human, unable to operate a door, is definitely
immobilized on this planet. As we take this understanding of “door use” for granted we fail to
realize how much work we spend on this activity. Entering or exiting a door is not just about
turning a doorknob and walking.
A door can also be a place to start formulating what is going to happen after entering or
exiting the door. As we approach, we expect to find something on the other side even though
we cannot now for certain that there is something on the other side.When you enter a building
through a door, you need to consider what the next action should be. Doors in this sense are
similar to other spatial technologies, as escalators and elevators; there is a ‘before’ and there
is an ‘after’.
Doors, then, are not just physical obstacles that are used to go in out of buildings, they are
also socially constructed spaces. A door is what “makes space habitable” (Metcalfe &
Ferguson, 2001). Without doors there would not be an outside or an inside – the door
1

separates and connects (Simmel, 1994). However, the door itself can therefore not be
understood as a hole or a wall, it is both and neither- it is a “half-open being” (Meatcalfe &
Ferguson, 2001).
There is a very special type of door, which is in a sense open and closed at the same time: the
revolving door. We got interested in the use of such a door. Inspired by a previous paper of
the art of walking (Ryave and Scheinkein, 1974), we have carried out a video based
ethnography of walking through revolving doors. In doing this, we not only shed light on the
social organization of doing walking through doors, but also contribute to the discussion of
how to best capture activities of this kind. The study is one of three carried out during a
workshop titled “Slow people and mundane technologies”, where the aim was to study the use
of public artifacts and public space using video in various ways.
The paper begins with a look at how doors have been dealt with previously in research. Then
follows an outline of an early study of doing walking, which the present study draws upon to
a large extent. We then describe our method and data collection. Having done that, we present
fragments from our data, along with our analysis. We end with a discussion.
Doors – previous research
“Walls are a nice invention, but if there were no holes in them there would be no way to get in our out – they would be
mausoleums or tombs. The problem is that if you make holes in the walls, anything and anyone can get in and out
(bears, visitors, dust, rats, noise.) So architects invented this hybrid: a hole-wall, often called a door. “ (Latour, 1988)
Doors are intriguing inventions. They solve the problems described in the above quotation by
Latour. Like a wall, it keeps unwanted elements on the outside, but with the added
functionality to momentarily open up and let people in or out at their will. Bruno Latour was
occupied with delegation of activity of closing the door, since failure of closing the door
would result in an open door – a hole.
Donald Norman was fascinated with the multiple designs of doors, confusing users’
understanding of how the particular door in front of them should be opened. Being unable to
open the door, due to a confusing design, would result in a closed door – a wall. Norman
claims that it is difficult to know how to open a door:
“You come to a door. In which direction does it open? Should you pull or push, on the left or the right? Maybe the door
slides? If so, in which direction?” (Norman, 1998: 3).
Both Latour and Norman discuss how doors can lead to problems for the users. In Latour’s
case, he is concerned with problems of having the doors be closed and how this activity is
delegated to objects and things. In Norman’s case, the problem concerns how (first time)
users are able to understand how the door should be opened, a potential problem since there
are so many different objects that we describe as doors. This could be explained by the users
unawareness of the ‘local cultural conditions’ (Latour, 1998:301).
The present study focus on a different type of door: a revolving door. This door is both open
and closed at the same time. It lets people in and out, therefore it is closed, but it also shuts
out certain things, in that sense it is closed. Commercially, revolving doors are marketed as
having several benefits, addressing the problems with regular doors, identified in the previous
work. The below quotations show how revolving doors are described as cost effective and
safe:
2

“Revolving doors allow free pedestrian traffic movement, without exposing the building to outside elements. Revolving
doors are a good investment, because they save the building owner money. Revolving doors can offer a cost payback,
due to energy savings, in as little as two or three years.”
(http://www.edsdoors.com/9000.htm#manualrevolver Eastern Door Service inc.)
“[S]ocial norms such as holding the door open for the next person also undermine the integrity of the building. A
relatively recent but proven approach to controlled access combines the established environmental and aesthetic
benefits of revolving doors with a verification device that controls access into the building.”
(http://www.hortondoors.com/Articles/body_article1.html Horton Automatic Doors)
We have a different approach to doors, and identify a different set of problems associated to
door use. We will shortly describe how our approach differs.
First, while the revolving door is a wall-hole as well, there are a number of obvious physical
differences between a revolving door and the “regular” notion of a door, as Latour and
Norman describe it. The revolving door reformulates the problems described in previous
studies of regular doors. For instance, the design of a revolving door makes it impossible or
unnecessary to hold doors open (Horton Automatic Doors, 2002). Also, its design solves the
problem of making sure that people close the door, after they have used it, something that
Latour was concerned with. The revolving door is actually several doors; as you open one
door another door will be closing behind you. As mentioned before, a revolving door, then, is
always closed and always open.
Second, our study focuses on interaction between groups of door users, rather than on the
interaction between one door and its user. Thus our interest in the local conditions takes a
different perspective. For methodological reasons, it is interesting to have available for
analysis the observable interactional resources used by members of the group, rather than just
having one individual’s interaction with a physical object.
Third, because we aim to make an empirical investigation of walking through doors and
interaction between groups as they do this, our study is based on different data. While our
study is not without philosophical import, we have taken its ‘empirical’ materials as of
primary importance for our investigations. The data we have in hand is of ‘naturally
occurring’ door use, a similar resource to the naturally occurring talk used by anthropologies
of speaking and conversational analysis.
As we will see, while the revolving door solves some of the problems described in the
literature, they also create a new set of problems. One may think that design of the revolving
door solves the problem of closing the door after you have opened it - since you have to do
both at the same time. But this design is also problematic; for instance it excludes people who
are not strong enough to push the door, as well as those with big or long parcels. Also, and
this will be the main focus of this paper, the revolving door poses problems for groups
entering together.
Notes on the art of walking
This paper is inspired by an early ethnomethodological study of the social organization of
walking, Notes on the art of walking, by Lincoln Ryave and James N. Schenkein, from 1974.
The paper on walking became a theoretical, and to some extent, methodological basis for our
fieldwork.
3

The theory presented in this paper highlighted the production and recognition tasks as ongoing
situated accomplishments and the particular ”constraints” they face during walking.
Ryave and Scheinken’s paper on walking, described the the production and recognition tasks
of “doing walking together” and relatedly the act of “doing walking alone”. It directed
attention to the way we as participant walkers treat others walking by recognizing them as
[walking together] or [walking alone]. Spatial proximity, direction and pace are crucial in the
production and recognition of walking-together.
“The requirement of spatial proximity is illustrated by the observations that (a) participants who have lost some
proximity will engage in repair work ranging from hurrying or slowing to calling out or later explaining the separation,
(b) relatedly, violation of the maintenance of spatial proximity fundamentally undermines the enterprise of walkingtogether
and can be seen as a serious interactional breach, and (c) similarly related, spatial proximity is a requisite for
the production of some of the togethering-bound-activities like body contact and verbal exchanges.” (1974:271)
When walking, one can encounter obstacles which makes the walking more difficult, like a
lamp post, a another group of people, someone walking a dog, etc. Especially for a group, it
can be a challenge to continue with the togethering-bound-activities when an obstacle
intervenes. Ryave and Scheinken provide the following example:
“Another illustration from our data is an instance in which three members were observed walking-together while
making a left turn from the street-crossing onto the pavement; in that each adjusted his pace so as to make the
turning non-disruptive of the established spatial proximity, the sense of seeing them as a togethering was
secured.”(1974:270)
For their study, Ryave and Scheinken used two eight-minute segments of film on a pavement
used by students to move from different classes. The space limited the pedestrians and they
had to maneuver against each other. Walking is not an obscure activity, it is so commonplace
that laymen and sociologists seem to have taken it for granted. It is an activity that the
researchers do not need to “go native” to comprehend – they already are competent members.
Secondly, it is the act that the researchers want to understand – not the perceived
understanding of the act that an interview can provide. The method that was used in our study
of doing walking together is inspired by the walking study by Ryave and Scheinken. Doors
and revolving doors are objects that (could come) come into play in the activity of “doing
walking together”.
Method
This paper addresses the issue of data collection in a public setting, focusing on a mundane
and “trivial” activity. Walking through revolving doors is a commonly occurring activity for
many people in cities. Our intention here is to construct a sincere 1 account of what it is to do
walking in and out of revolving doors. We begin with a description of the setting, where the
particular doors we studied are located. We then describe the various ways we used the video
camera to collect data.
Setting – Göteborg’s Handelshögskola
The following scenery is what you would experience, if you, for some reason, come to
Göteborg and enter the main-entrance of the Economics department. The building that houses
the economic department is easy to spot, when walking down Vasagatan or Sprängkullegatan
1 We prefer using ’sincere’ rather than for instance ‘actual’ or ‘real’, with regard to the discussion on
presentation and representation. Christine Hine argues that: “Just because an ethnography is not a
straightforward representation of the real does not mean that it cannot be sincere, unfashionable though sincerity
is in playful postmodern times. “ (Hine, 2000:57).
4

in Göteborg. A white, circular building rises on one side of the conjunction of these roads,
like a huge corner tower of a castle. In 1995, just after it was built, it was rewarded with the
National Association of Swedish Architect’s Kasper Salin Prize. Unlike many
institutionalized buildings it does not center on a grand entrance with huge doors or big stairs.
The tower captures your eye, but does not have a door to the street. There is a huge window in
the middle of the circular wall, located
two stores up. There are only tiny
windows on ground level; they reveal
a lecture hall in the basement of the
"tower". But the entry is still not
apparent. As you come closer to the
tower you find an opening between the
"tower" and an adjacent building that
is also a part of the Economics
department complex. This opening is
similar to an entrance to a "court
yard". A glassed extension of the
"tower" seems to be the entrance. Two
doors beside each other provide the
possibility of getting into the building.
After entering one of the doors, you realize that both doors go to the same small area, which
seems to be used as a kind of “sluice” between the out and the in. Regardless of what door
you choose, one of the revolving doors or the regular door, you will enter into the same small
sluice. You have two glassed doors behind you, and two revolving doors and one regular door
in front of you. The room has a geometrical structure which might seem odd; the walls are
perpendicular to the tangent line of the "tower". Having passed through the sluice you enter
into a spacious area, a room which might meet your expectations of a room representing the
department of Economics. On the left side, after entering the regular door there is a long ramp
(indicating that the regular door was built to enable humans accompanied by wheel chairs,
trolleys , and the like). On the right end, by the
revolving doors, a small staircase and a large spacious
forum where people can stand, walk and wait. The
wall on the right side is white, robust concrete that
hides the content of the tower from the entrance -
room. This wall is circular like the tower. The wall on
the left on the other hand consists of radiators and a
glassed wall revealing the grass (or snow) on the
"court-yard". The room that you have entered is
similar to an indoor square rather than an entrance.
This room and the doors connecting the room to the
outside world is the scene for our fieldwork, it is the
site in which the action takes place.
5

[insert photo of doors here!]
Data collection
We conducted our study by using a video camera. This enabled us to capture data regarding
doing walking through revolving doors. Equally important in the fieldwork was our presence
at the site. By being there we could understand the various sequences of behavior in a similar
way as the members 2 did. In fact we would regard our selves as more like members than
strangers. 3 Since we were part of the setting we participated in the recognition work
simultaneous to the production work constructed by the subject. Therefore our presence as
fellow building-entrance users gave us a recognition of what was unraveling in front of us
through our own recognition work. However, when analyzing and writing about ordinary
production and recognition work in everyday places it is equally important to render this work
in ways that offers it afresh to our eyes. This is why video is so important since we can use it
to look again (and again) at activities which are normally over in seconds. Also, one of the
purposes of the workshop was to elaborate and stretch the limits of data collection in public
spaces. Thus the group used the video camera, not only to capture episodes of social
interaction in public places but also to investigate its capabilities of catching production and
recognition work.
Three steps were identified as we conducted the fieldwork. First, the importance of finding a
suitable site where to conduct fieldwork and familiarizing ourselves with it. When we entered
the building, the square inside the building was almost empty. “Okay, okay, okay, here they 4
are but where is the action” as one of the researchers said. As it was approaching lunchtime,
we expected that a bigger group of students would be coming soon.
Second, we had to find a location within the site where the camera could catch the doorway
activities. It took a while before we could decide where the camera should stand. We placed it
beside a plant and a pillar behind us, so as to not be obstructive to the traffic, on the opposite
side of the indoor square, sat down and started to watch the revolving doors.
Our fascination for the revolving doors grew as people entered and exited. We made some
recordings with the camera static, on the opposite side of the revolving door. One of the
2 Or natives, citizens etc.
3 The tension between membership and strangership is an important resource in social science. While many
pinpoint the importance of being a stranger to the field one studies, others, such as e.g. H.M. Collins (1984)
emphasizes membership during the fieldwork (whereas distance is called for when it comes to analysis.)
4 The revolving doors.
6

difficulties with this way of making recordings, is that when it became too crowded it became
difficult to see what was happening. Of course, this was similar to anyone passing by the
doors during a rush hour. Also, in finding a suitable place for the camera we had to find a
place where we did not obstruct the traffic while getting a good view of the entrance.
Therefore, in placing the camera we chose a spot where we expected to get the best picture of
the enrolling activities while not blocking the passage for people, this way perhaps
corresponding with the typical social science researchers’ perspective of the activity.
Third, on the second day of the data collection, we experimented with different ways of
recording and different locations to position the camera in. Instead of placing the camera
where we expected to get the best picture of the enrolling activities, we now tried other means
of recording to see what they made available.
We started to film people that walked out of the building, standing on a balcony above the
revolving doors, what we could call the birds’ eye view or the view from above. By doing this
we also distanced ourselves from the action, and did not have access to our own recognition
work in the same sense as on the ground. One of these locations had the advantage of
capturing the exchange of glances when using the revolving doors. The other location, on the
opposite side of the entrance but one storey higher gave us a different overview of the
entrance, and were chosen because we believed it would make it easier to distinguish people’s
action once the square was crowded with people.
Once we had about five minutes each on the two birds’ eye view locations we started to
experiment more with the camera. We wanted to follow the subjects’ perspectives during their
walking out of the door, and did this through participation in their activity (where before we
were more like bystanders). We started to participate in the act of walking out of the building,
while holding the video camera. The idea was to follow the sequence up close as it unfolded
instead of watching segments of the act from a distance.
As we wanted to catch the members’ perspective we started to ask people exiting the building
to film as they walked out. This way we enrolled the participants in the activity of collecting
data by handing them a camera to film as they exited the building. This method of using the
camera was not successful, in revealing the acts of entering and exiting a building. We did not
get an apprehendable picture of the activity. The view provided by the camera was artful but
not recognizable and useful (in our way of conducting) research. However, it revealed some
insight in the disturbance that one as a researcher can cause. The people who accepted to carry
the camera out diverged from their groups. They either went in front of their friends or took
another door than their friends. It seemed that our assigned task, to walk out the camera, was
more important and conflicted with the work of “doing walking together”. 5
Analysis
We will begin this excursion into what it is to do walking through revolving doors, by looking
at what it is not.
5 This is a simplification, doing walking together has several exceptions where we as members of this society see
others as walking together even though they do not walk directly close to each other or parallel to each other.
The reason is that we find ways of “explaining” why they do not directly act as walking together. So, in this
case, observers could assume that the group and the person filming are seen as walking together but that one
member is doing something awkward for some reason.
7

(Alex and Daniel, could put digital clips in here before each of your notes? Or maybe a run of
stills from the camera footage? Help the reader get closer to the phenomenon)
Excerpt 1 (13.30, member’s perspective)
Two men, (A) and (B) are about to walk together towards
the doors to leave the building. A is asked by two
researchers to hold a video camera in front of him while
walking out of the building and give the camera to
another researcher outside. The camera is meant to
capture A’s walking patterns in a first person
perspective.
A takes the camera and starts walking. As he is walking
away he asks without really caring about the answer “Why
don’t you do it yourself?” As he approaches the revolving
doors he giggles and says to B, “Cool!”. A takes the lead
and heads for revolving door number 2 without hesitation.
B is somewhat left behind. A spends no time making sure
that B is coming along. A laughs again after passing
through the revolving door and spots the researcher
outside waiting for the camera delivery. A chooses the
opposite outer set of doors. Without hesitation and
without speaking to B, A marches straight up to the
researcher, hands over the camera and says “Here you go.”
This instance from the field reveals how complex the activity of exiting through a door is,
through revealing how unnatural it seems when it is made simple, as the walker above did.
Also, it shows how people perceive of this activity, as being quite simple. The “mission” that
we gave to this young man was to walk out of the doors, carrying the camera. Normally, when
entering or exiting a door, the mere business of walking and managing through the doors, is
not carried out with that much thought. But giving the young man this mission, made him
change his behavior in a way that it became quite evident that what he was doing was not just
exiting the building with his friend, rather it was exiting the building with a camera in hand.
The way in which this young man carried out this task gave us insight into how it can be
perceived that walking in and out of revolving doors is carried out. The ways in which he
exited through the doors stand in stark contrast to the way that people not given the mission to
walk out the door, walked out the door in a natural way. This way of using the video then
revealed to use what exiting the door is really not about, making it possible to see what it is
about to a camera’s way of looking
In this section, we will give a few instances of people managing through revolving doors. For
analytical reasons, we decided to focus on groups of people managing their way through the
doors, rather than individuals. Our question was: what happens when a group of people, two
or more, enter or exit the building? The first part of the analysis investigates cases where the
individuals of the group enter through the same door. The second part deals with cases where
the group split up in order to go through the door. Both these situations involve work, in
order to keep the flow moving out or in the door, to avoid collision, and, what is most
important for our purposes, to make the group remain a group while passing through the
doors. This section investigates the interactional resources available to get this work done.
Doing not walking together
Before we have a look at the fragments of people doing walking together, we will look at two
people exiting through the revolving doors while ensuring they do not give the appearance of
walking together. We will show the ways in which doing walking together and not walking
together differ, which is evident in the work it takes to make it be recognized as different.
8

However, the same interactional resources, such as speed, body orientation, and glancing, are
used in both cases.
Excerpt 2 (5.50, researchers’ perspective)
Two men (A) and (B) walk towards the doors to leave the building. They do not walk
together. At first, A is well ahead of B. A clearly aims for revolving door number
2. At the same time, B comes up from behind at a substantially higher walking
speed.
At first, B seems to choose the regular door, but as he approaches the doors, he
suddenly changes direction and chooses revolving door number 2 – the same door as A
has chosen.
A has not yet come all the way up to the door, and because of B’s higher speed, B
overtakes A right before the door.
When A recognizes B’s overtake and use of revolving door number 2, A changes
direction and chooses revolving door number 1 instead.
A
B
Place
where A
changes
direction.
In this excerpt two men are leaving the building, seemingly by themselves 6 . Their exiting
becomes problematic when they find themselves heading for the same door. Even though they
approached the doors at very different speeds, they reached the top of the stairs at the same
time. The man with the higher speed is given way, while the other had to change direction.
The resources available for solving the problem of heading towards the same door are thus
speed, glancing and bodily orientation, showing which door one aims to select.
Page: 9
[0]Greater speed implies ‘being in a greater hurry’ which gains you some extra, though
contestable rights, in pedestrian (and other transport) situations. The door problem is an
emerging one – the two men do not ‘see’ it and maybe cannot see it from far away, their
selection of the same door is not certain until they are close-up. You can select the same door
6 We recognized them as doing not walking together, due to the clear differences in speed.
9

as someone else without it being a problem, unless you will hit it at almost the exact same
time.
Having shown that there is an effort in doing not walking together, and which resources are
used to do this, we will now move on to groups, and the work it takes to maintain the group
while using the doors.
Reforming the group
This paper deals with how groups manage to maintain themselves as a group, while passing
through an obstacle like doors. We have found that, having entered or exited the revolving
door, the members of the group work to reform the group. The following two fragments,
excerpts 3 and 4, show examples of how this is done.
Excerpt 3 (23.10, researchers’ perspective)
Three women (A), (B) and (C) walk together through the same revolving door (Number
1) to enter the building.
A comes through first.
When A has safely passed through the door, she turns around to wait for B and C to
join her.
When B has safely passed through the door and teamed up with A, B also stops and
turns around to wait for C to team up.
When A, B and C have all come through, the group is reformed and they continue to
walk together.
A B C
Place where A and B slows
down to await C.
Having entered through the door, the person who entered first waits for the second person.
She shows that she is waiting through stopping, and through her bodily orientation and
glancing toward the door and the person entering. The second person enters, and stops to wait
for the third and last person, on top of the stairs, before walking down all together in a row,
with the group reformed.
10

In the next fragment, the first person who enters does similar things to show that she is
walking in pair with the person about to enter through the door. In this case, she does not stop,
but she slows down, letting her friend catch up.
Excerpt 4 (23.45, researchers’ perspective)
Two men (A) and (B), walk together through the same revolving door (Number 1) to
enter the building. They are having a conversation.
A comes through first. Once through the door, A slows down and turns his body
slightly towards B, who now also has come through the door. A also steps aside a
little bit making room for B to come up beside him on the stair case.
A slows down and B catches up as they walk down the steps. After the steps they
continue to walk and converse side by side.
A B
In these two examples, it seems as if the staircase is used as a catch-up place, in this case. The
person who is first to step on the first step of the stairs, moves over so that the other person
can walk beside her. The speed is adjusted so that when they have walked down these few
steps, they are walking side by side in a row.
The problem, in these excerpts, is to pass through the door while maintaining the group which
is in a side-by-side (or row) form. Passing through the door one at a time splits up the row,
reformatting the group nose-to-tail as a file and there is consequently a need to switchback to
a row in order to remain a normal group. In order to reform the group, the person who entered
first, waited, to let the others catch up. They showed that they were ‘doing waiting’ by their
bodily orientation and glancing toward the door and the person entering, that they were
working on reforming the group. Waiting provides a device to show a person at the door to be
linked to another person or group without them being visible (to the camera)
The two previous excerpts show how the “challenge” of a revolving door as a one-at-a-time
device is smoothly managed by groups by using spatial features such as the stairs and by their
body orientation and glancing. However, passing through the door in groups or pairs is not
always as smooth. It is sometimes difficult to know how it should be done. In the following
11

example, where one of the researchers followed the walkers with a camera (without them
being aware of it), problem occurs when the second walker misjudges the size of the door.
Excerpt 5 (11.30, participants’ perspective) “I thought it was bigger”
A man (A) and a woman (B) walk together towards the doors to leave the building.
They are having a conversation as they approach the doors.
A walks slightly ahead of B up the steps, and chooses revolving door number 2.
B chooses the same door.
A revolves first and B is about to enter the same cell as A has chosen. B almost
gets jammed in the door, as they do not both fit into the same cell. B laughs and
says loudly “I thought it was bigger.” B has to settle for the next cell.
On the other side of the revolving door A awaits B, and while keep laughing they
reform into a pair and walk out through the same outer set of doors together.
A
B
Place where B
almost gets jammed
in door.
In an effort presumably to continue doing “walking together” while maintaining both speed
and proximity, B misjudges the size of the slot and tries to walk into the same slot as her
friend. The effort was unsuccessful and the pair had to reform the group in a similar way as in
the previous excerpts. The problem of seeing the capacity of this particular revolving door is
similar to those problems with doors that Latour and Norman discuss. It can be difficult for a
first time user of revolving door to assess whether the door will allow two-at-a-time (since
some do).
Maintaining the group while exiting through different doors
The above section dealt with groups using the same door to enter or exit the building. We
showed how they made sure to maintain the group using various resources. One was to adjust
the speed, wait for others to catch up.
In the following section, members of a row formatted group chose different doors. We assume
that when losing a side-by-side proximity, togethering can be secured in other ways especially
if there are other available doors also arranged in a row. It might be that using different doors
is a way to keep their bodies moving, maintaining momentum, while entering or exiting. The
group is still split up by doors as one-at-a-time selection devices, but now the togethering’s
row format can be maintained.
12

Excerpt 6 (12.17, researchers’ perspective) – Maintaining momentum
Two men (A) and (B) are walking together towards the doors to leave the building.
Without ever looking at each other, they have a conversation.
A chooses revolving door number 2, and walks through it without hesitation or
glancing at B.
B chooses the regular door. B starts walking at a higher speed and makes a hand
gesture towards A before passing through the regular door. B is using the higher
walking speed to catch up with A on the other side of the doors, so that the
conversation can be maintained, and so that they can continue walking together. As
a reformed pair they use the same outer set of doors.
A B
By walking close, parallel to each other at the same high speed, members see the two men as
doing “walking together”. At the doors the men select two doors rather than one for the
group., enabling them to exit as a row without having to use waiting or slowing down. As
they select separate doors which although carrying some sense of being side-by-side is still
threatened by their one-at-a-time division B, uses gazing to retain their doing walking
together (and presumably to monitor position so that like separated figure skaters they can
rejoin one another with near perfect co-ordination on exiting the doors). In fact, reforming the
side-by-side arrangement requires speeding up after he is through the door. Throughout the
sequence the similarities in speed, the maintenance of the row and the exchanging of glances
between the two men leads us to recognize them as a pair.
A group engaged in the work of doing walking together might use different ways of handling
obstacles which they confront. Even though they might use the same recourses in such
situations the way they repair the group is different. In this excerpt the speed is practically
simultaneous between the two men, thus establishing them as doing walking together even
though during the exit they are spatially distant from each other.
Togethering in absurdum
Managing walking together through the revolving doors is not as a straightforward as we
initially expected (see excerpt 1). Instead, members go to some length in production work to
be recognized as doing walking together as our final excerpt shows:
13

Excerpt 7 (11.50, participant’s perspective)
Two men (A) and (B) are walking together side by side towards the doors to leave
the building. They chat with each other. B clearly aims for revolving door number
2, and A follows.
A changes direction and chooses revolving door number 1 instead.
A and B revolves simultaneously in separate doors.
On the other side of the revolving doors they seem to overcompensate for going
through separate doors. They not only meet up – they pass each other and choose the
opposite set of outer doors.
Outside the building they once again have to reform into a pair.
A
B
The two maintain speed by exiting though the revolving doors simultaneously. As they leave
the slots of the revolving doors both men head towards the opposite outer door! They cross
each others paths, in what seems to be from each person’s side an attempt to stay together
with the other.
Conclusions
It takes work to do walking together. In this work, revolving doors are an obstacle. Revolving
doors are a one-at-a-time technology which feeds people through them in a file. Groups walk
to the doors as a row and have to either (i) file through one door or (ii) select separate doors
which potentially divide them from the group, but allows them to maintain the row format.
There seems to be a wish among group members to keep up the appearance of being a group
while passing through the door. We have shown how members doing walking together use
various resources to tackle the obstacle of a revolving door. In short, our data have shown the
following things:
• When using the same door, the members of the group adjust their speed so as to allow
for the others to catch up. They thus maintain spatial proximity.
• When using different doors, the speed is maintained, while spatial proximity is lost.
The lack of spatial proximity needs to be repaired.
14

• The one out of a group or a pair who gets first to the door, has to enter the door first,
if that person does not select another person to go first.
• If one member of the group chooses a different door than the rest of the group, that
person has to make his or her choice of door apparent to the rest of the group.
It might seem strange that passing through a door, which takes so little time, and is done so
often, still needs so much work when it comes to groups managing to get through doors
successfully. Perhaps there is a worry that the others behind will not get past this obstacle.
This might be why people tend to turn around and look for their friends to come through
safely… Why should it be that it is so important that groups stay together in this complex
doorway? If people are about to ‘split’, to find out if they are going in the same direction to go
home or for lunch etc all this becomes problematic if they get split up at the doorway. The
first out might get impatient and leave for lunch without the rest of their group… If you have
a child with you then your child may get stuck, start crying, walk off with someone else by
accident etc. Doors, then, can be a place to start formulating what will happen next.
Discussion
The main focus of this paper has been to describe the ways in which the revolving door poses
problems for groups entering together, and the resources people use to resolve this. In the
introduction to this study, we presented Norman’s and Latour’s respective ideas about door
use. As we pointed out, while the revolving door is a wall-hole as well, there are a number of
obvious physical differences between a revolving door and the “regular” notion of a door, as
Latour and Norman describe it. The major difference between the present approach and that
of Norman and Latour, is that our study focus on the interaction between people as they walk
through doors, not having the interaction between the door and its singular user as the main
point of investigation.
The design of the revolving door reformulates the delegation of a door closer (something
which Latour focuses on). Quite simply it means that as you open the door you also close it,
and the action of closing the door therefore does not have to be delegated to a person.
However, while this design solves the problem of making sure that the door is closed, the use
of the door is also changed. For instance, we have seen in our data how two people tried to
walk through the revolving door using the same slot, something which was difficult due to the
size of each slot. A regular door would have allowed them to walk, still in a row, but without
having to attend to the separate slots. In this sense, the door is certainly an important part of
the interaction. The affordance of the door is consequently a relevant factor also in the
interaction between groups of door users.
In this study we aimed to make an empirical investigation of walking through doors and
interaction between groups as they do this. Our study is therefore an empirical account of
observable interaction, rather than philosophical as that of Norman and Latour. By this
approach we hope to have added to the understanding of what a door is and how we use it.
When first entering the field, we believed that the setting with the revolving doors was quite
“simple”; you have a couple of doors which people can walk either in or out of. What could
be the big deal? Is there really so much going on? Of course, when we began looking, it
turned out to be a lot more messy, not just the setting was messy – there were regular doors
located next to the revolving door, a couple of stairs right after entering the building, and
15

other things in the environment that made the doors quite a complex affair. But it was not just
the physical attributes that made the setting complex; it was also the ways in which people
behaved. People were not simply going in or out of the doors; they were doing a number of
things, in the small frame that was provided to us through the camera lens.
Walking first can involve great responsibilities, in the sense that walking first leads to having
to select the door to exit or enter from. This means that the person who first gets to the doors,
is expected to select the door that is the right one for people to exit from. Chaos can ensue in
airports and other similar places when person at the front of a crowd leads them down the
wrong corridors.
Sometimes people have bags, are on the phone, or are adjusting their clothes, or have other
things which physically can make it problematic to use the revolving doors.
This paper addresses the issue of data collection in a public setting, focusing on a mundane
and seemingly trivial activity. Though this paper has hopefully showed various ways in which
the basic building blocks of being part of a group or being alone are produced and recognized
as part of passing through doors.
We have used video in various ways to examine different ways of looking at a mobile activity
like that of walking through the revolving doors as part of looking with a camera. Four
different uses of the camera have been employed:
• Researchers’ perspective – static camera, best picture of the enrolling activities,
reveals segments rather than sequence, perspective similar to members’ making a
recognition work, obstructed view when crowded
• Birds eye’ view – static camera, overview, unobstructed view. Perspective and angle
very different from where the actual production and recognition work takes place on
the ground.
• Participants’ perspective – mobile camera, covert, close to the activity, reveals
sequence rather than segment, view partly obstructed by objects and camera use
• Member’s perspective – mobile, overt, requires enrollment of subjects, does not focus
on the activity but on the view from the activity
These different ways of using the camera enabled us to get a much richer picture of what it is
to walk through revolving doors than say a questionnaire or counting who chose which kind
of door. Although the researchers’ perspective proved to give us the best view of the doors
and the flow of people, the other views proved useful in other ways. The members’
perspective showed us what doing walking through doors is not about. The participant
perspective, made us come closer to the activity, while we couldn’t see very much more than
a shaking picture of someone’s back. The researchers’ perspective was the film that we could
easily transcribe and analyze later.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank all the participants of the workshop in Göteborg.
16

References
Hine, Christine (2000) Virtual Ethnography, Sage publications, London.
Collins, H.M. (1984) Researching Spoonbending: Concepts and Practice of Participatory Fieldwork, in C Bell & H.
Roberts (eds) Social Resarching: Politics, Problems, Practice. London: Routledge & Kegan, pp 55-69.
Norman, Donald (1998) The Design of Everyday Things, MIT Press, London.
Latour, Bruno (1988) Mixing Humans and Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closer, In Social Problems
vol. 35 no. 3
Latour, Bruno (1992) The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts, in Shaping Technology / Building Society: Studies in
Sociotechnical Change, (eds) Bijker, W. & Law, J., MIT Press, London.
Metcalfe, Andrew & Ferguson, Lucinda (2001) Half-Opened Being, in Timespace: geographies of temporality (eds) May,
J. & Thrift, N., Routledge, London.
Ryave, Lincoln and Schenkein, James N. (1974) Notes on the art of walking, in Ethnomethodology: Selected Readings,
(ed) Roy Turner. Penguin Education.
Simmel, Georg (1994) Bridge and Door, in Theory, Culture and Society vol 11 no 1, pp 5-10 SAGE, London
Vince, John (1995) Doors and Windows, Sorbus
http://www.followmearound.com/lyrics/pulk.html
17