Qualitative research encompasses a wide range of data collection and analysis techniques. Qualitative research methods literature frequently emphasizes that it is difficult to settle on a single definition of qualitative research (e.g., Rubin, 2021; Small and Calarco, 2022). Common qualitative data collection techniques used in human subject research include interview, focus group, and observation, (e.g., Creswell, 2009; Hennink et al., 2019; Rubin, 2021). Qualitative data collection can also include the acquisition of text-based artifacts such as documents or web-based content (Rubin, 2021). Qualitative data collection methods are discussed in ways that emphasize examining people’s experiences and identifying ‘issues from the perspective of your study participants [to] understand the meanings and interpretations that they give to behavior, events or objects’ (Hennink et al., 2019, p. 10).

Discussion- and/or observation-based qualitative data collection techniques can be highly regimented, as with interview procedures that rely on a scripted set of questions from which interviewers cannot deviate (e.g., Tourangeau et al., 2000), or open-ended, as with observations in which researchers capture information about how participants behave in a natural setting (e.g., Creswell, 2009). Between those two extremes are a range of semi-structured interventions in which researchers have an interview or observation protocol to guide their interactions with participants, but can go off-script as needed to ensure that necessary and/or relevant topics are covered (e.g., Karatsareas, 2022).

These methods for collecting qualitative data can focus on one participant at a time, as with a one- on-one interview, or can allow researchers to bring groups of people together for a single event, such as a focus group. Research can benefit from the singular focus of an interview because researchers are able to obtain high-quality and in-depth information from a focused encounter, while focus groups allow researchers to benefit from a collective experience in which participants are able to interact with one another in addition to the researchers (Hennink et al., 2019). For interviews, the investment of time required to collect data from a large number of participants can be prohibitive, while focus groups can be efficient in terms of time but the amount of information collected from any given participant may be small.

Our research team was interested in finding a data collection method that would allow us to speak with a large group of people in a limited timeframe, while still retaining the ability to collect in-depth information from each. We also sought a data collection method that would allow us to capture interactions between experts as they discussed topics relevant to their expertise. This led us to explore an educational technique: the gallery walk.

The gallery walk is most often used in educational settings. It is an active learning technique in which participants rotate through a set number of stations, discussing and/or interacting with artifacts at each.

Scholarship about the gallery walk as an instructional method includes guidance about how to implement a gallery walk in an educational setting (e.g., Francek, 2006), descriptions of particular implementations (e.g., Karlsson, 2020; Rodenbaugh, 2015), research about the effectiveness of the gallery walk as an instructional method (e.g., Chin et al., 2015; Hakim et al., 2019), and scholarship about the use of the gallery walk in professional development and teacher education (e.g., McCafferty and Beaudry, 2017; Ramsaroop and Petersen, 2020). An early publication about implementing a gallery walk provides step-by-step instructions for facilitating this type of activity (Francek, 2006). Later publications describe modifications and/or updates to this basic model (Chin et al., 2015; Karlsson, 2020; Rodenbaugh, 2015). Publications about implementing a gallery walk in K-12 education tend to focus on providing instructions (Francek, 2006), while scholarship about implementing a gallery walk in undergraduate and graduate education emphasize evaluating the effectiveness of the instructional method (Chin et al., 2015; Hakim et al., 2019; Karlsson, 2020).

Scholars and educators who have written about their experiences implementing the gallery walk method emphasize that it is particularly effective at encouraging and facilitating discussion between participants (e.g., Chin et al., 2015; Francek, 2006; Hakim et al., 2019; Karlsson, 2020; McCafferty and Beaudry, 2017; Ramsaroop and Petersen, 2020; Rodenbaugh, 2015). Many characterizations frame the gallery walk in opposition to traditional stand-and-deliver or sage-on- a-stage teaching methods, in which students are expected to listen to an instructor lecture about a topic (Chin et al., 2015; Francek, 2006; Hakim et al., 2019; McCafferty and Beaudry, 2017; Ramsaroop and Petersen, 2020; Rodenbaugh, 2015). Others describe it as a complement to traditional teaching methods rather than an alternative (Karlsson, 2020).

Several scholars have noted that participants in a gallery walk bring their own experiences, expertise, and knowledge to the activity (Chin et al., 2015; Francek, 2006; Rodenbaugh, 2015). Others have noted that the gallery walk is a particularly effective setting for exploring open-ended questions (Francek, 2006), and stress the importance of facilitators asking the right kinds of questions and/or presenting information in useful ways in order to ensure a fruitful experience for participants (McCafferty and Beaudry, 2017). Another key feature of the gallery walk is movement. When implemented in an in-person setting, participants must literally walk around the space as they move from station to station. This is frequently described as a benefit of the activity: ‘a gallery walk is a discussion technique that gets learners out of their seats and invites them to become active participants in the learning process’ (McCafferty and Beaudry, 2017, p. 49).

Some have gone so far as to argue that a key benefit of the gallery walk is that it allows participants to show off their knowledge (Ramsaroop and Petersen, 2020), and to practice their speaking skills (Hakim et al., 2019). Indeed, Karlsson explained that

For a gallery walk to work effectively, participants are not only provided with the opportunity to participate but in fact must actively participate.

Gallery walk participants were selected based on their expertise and experience with satellite imagery analysis. The participants primarily had experience in peace and security (e.g., using satellite data for nonproliferation treaty verification, or to monitor the movement of refugees), or in environmental advocacy (e.g., using satellite data to monitor large-scale agricultural trends). Participants came from a variety of professional affiliations, including academia, journalism, nonprofit/advocacy groups, government research laboratories, and satellite providers. Participants came from North America and Europe.

Our gallery walk implementation included four phases, with breaks throughout the 2-day event at suitable intervals: (1) introductory discussion, (2) gallery walk rotations, (3) full-group discussion, and (4) debrief. Each phase will be described in brief below.