It is therefore possible to see from the section above that scientific procedures are employed in all areas of geography, either directly or in a suitably adapted form. Thus, geography has had at its disposal the same pluralist methodology that characterises the physical sciences but which is, in fact, common to many areas of sciences. However one must be aware that there are arguments against geography as a science and there are areas, -like human geography- of the discipline that are less scientific.
Varieties of Science
Karl Richards chapter in Holloway et al. (2003) gives a brief and generalised summary of the relationships between philosophies and aspects of scientific method. Positivism, developed in the nineteenth century was concerned with theory testing by verification: observation and measurement. Auguste Comte, 1798- 1857, was the leading figure in the movement. The nineteenth century also saw the development of the philosophy of logical empiricism. David Hulme, 1711-76, brought about changes in intervening: experimentation, laws of constant conjunction. After World War 2 theorising and critical rationalism was fore fronted by Karl Popper, 1902-94, leading to theory testing by hypothesis generation and falsification. The 1980’s brought realism, which presumes world is ordered and can be understood. This order isn’t based on visible empirical association but on underlying hidden structures and mechanisms (Roy Bhaskar, 1944-; Andrew Sayer). Finally there is a post modern science movement of the late twentieth century, in which science reflects the perspective of the observer; the uncertainty principle (Albert Einstein, 1879-1955; Werner Heisenberg, 1901-76); how does the observer interact and change the observed? How does the theoretical scientist relate to the empiricist when it becomes very hard to experiment? How does one investigate when the investigation itself will affect the results?
This brief history of the relationship between philosophies and scientific method is included in the argument to highlight the changes brought to methods, which are used in various areas of geography. For instance, critical rationalism brought about implications for theorising which is used in human geography research methods. Also the later philosophies are more relevant to human geography. I did not see the relevance to the question to explain in detail what the various philosophies were, and why they came about. ((More information can be found in Karl Richards (2003) chapter of Holloway et al. (2003) book)).
Can Human Geography be Scientific?
Before the question of whether human geography can be scientific or not, can be answered one must first understand the origins of the discipline. Geography’s origins were reflected in how it was practiced for the first half of the century. Geology was the basis for development of physical geography. Economics stimulated interest in the patterns of economic activity and links with other disciplines, such as anthropology. This generated work on less developed societies such as geography, as geographers mapped patterns of economic activity and related them to the physical environment. This was further enhanced by the creation of geography departments in universities around the world. This orientation of the discipline meant that there was little contact with the social sciences. Geography claimed to be the bridging point between the arts and the sciences, combining human activities within its environmental context.
From the mid- 1950’s there was a rapid growth of the social sciences. Economics became increasingly important as states became larger actors in and regulators of economies, especially during wartime. Other factors also increased economics importance such as, ownership and management shifting from individuals and families to shareholders in corporations, and the growth of the welfare state. Other social sciences such as, sociology and political science also found their applied relevance increase. It was these three disciplines which were at the core of the social sciences. Other disciplines, which overlapped the social sciences, notably psychology also increased in academic importance in understanding and managing human behaviour.
During the war geographers were involved in a range of intelligence gathering anf provision activities. This led to geographers like Ackerman to campaign for changes in the discipline, as their contribution was not of high quality. While the social sciences increased in academic importance, geographers found growing activity in town and country planning. Geographers knowledge and expertise about regions could provide information for the production of national and local land-use plans. However it had seemed geography had been excluded from the new set of disciplines which had come to the fore. In the 1950’s and 1960’s a new generation of geographers sought to reorientate their discipline towards the social sciences. As British geographers went for post-graduate training in the USA, much of the early impetus occurred there. Three aspects became attractive to post-war geographers. The first was the concern for scientific rigour, as the current geographical practice was seen as being theoretically weak and lacking the objectively neutral approach associated with the natural sciences. This involved adopting the ‘scientific method’. Secondly was as argument that quantitative methods were necessary to the more rigorous approach. To be rigorous geographers had to be quantitative. Finally was the realisation that rigorously obtained research results could be applied to a wide range of ‘real world’ problems. Many geographers were concerned that their discipline did not have the status it deserved among decision- makers. Due to the social sciences more rigorous scientific approach to problem solving they were much more influential. The argument was for geographers to regain this validity.
This would seem to suggest that human geography had to become more scientific. However at the same time the quantitative ‘revolution’, which was welcomed by many, came under attack. Davies (1972) suggested, by reducing all decision- making to economic criteria, subject to laws regarding least-cost, profit- maximisation and distance-minimising, it in fact ignoring the role of culture and individuality in human conditioning and behaviour. Suggesting the use of such laws as the basis for spatial planning, were just reproducing the status quo of capitalist domination not to mention patronising of individual’s behaviour. Out of these arguments grew three main strands of work. One was Marxist-inspired, concerned with economy with an added spatial dimension to it, but also the class conflict which underpins Marxian analysis. For such work, the positivist scientific method was irrelevant since it assumes constant conditions within which economic dimensions are taken whereas, for Marxist scholars, continuous change is the norm. The second strand linked to sociology, especially work on gender and the growth of feminist scholarship. The argument is that individuals occupy multiple positions within society, not just the class position of Marxian analysis. Feminist geographers argued that not only was geography a male dominated discipline but that it also reflected masculine positions within society. (Rose 1993). As a result women were ignored, the work aimed to remove this ignorance and demonstrate that gender divisions in society could not be reduced to class position. This resulted in work which embraced not only gender divisions within society nut also ethnic, racial, and national and other criteria on which individual’s identities were based. These divisions, and people’s positionality within them cannot be achieved by the abstract theorising of either positivist spatial science or Marxian analysis. It calls for interpretative methodologies aimed at understanding through empathy, through methods used by the social sciences such as participant observation and in-depth interviewing. The final strand became known as postmodernism, again a major development in the social sciences. This argues, “There are no absolute truths and therefore no grand theories that can provide both explanations and guides to action… Truths are the beliefs on which people act, so there are multiple truths- none which can claim primacy over others.” (Holloway et al, 2003: pp64).
Finally in conclusion while reinventing their own discipline geographers also had to make strong claims that their discipline was a social science to gain academic relevance and applied importance. To do this, they empathised, prevailing economic aspects of the social sciences over other forces as determinants of human behaviour, and empathising models of spatial behaviour. Some success was achieved through this. The rigorous analysis of quantitative data remains the core methodology of spatial analysis, but spatial patterns derived from oversimplified principles have largely been frowned upon. Therefore there are areas of human geography that vary in their levels of science. Along with this, there are individuals who are schooled in particular approaches to the overall goal of understanding, within their own context. Geographer’s perspective is based around the key concepts of place, space, environment and scale; which they promote within different groups of the discipline, thus emphasising different concepts. Human Geographers interact with other scientists –social or otherwise- bringing differing perspectives to bear on shared subjects. For the last three decades, human geographers have been party to these interactions between disciplines, having largely abandoned their origins as a discipline built on firm foundations in the physical sciences. Thus generally speaking Powell’s statement, “Human geography can not be a science,” must be taken as being correct to some degree as human geographers challenged the scientific orthodoxy and now identify themselves as social scientists that draw on a more diverse range of theories and approaches.
Word Count: 1,983
Bibliography
- Ackerman, E.A. (1958) “Geography as a Fundamental Research Discipline.” In
Holloway, S. et al. (2003) “Key Concepts in Geography.” Sage: London.
- Bird, J. (1989) “The Changing Worlds of Geography: A Critical Guide to Concepts and Methods.” Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Davies, W.K.D. (1972) “The Conceptual Revolution in Geography.” In
Davies, W.K.D. (eds) “The Conceptual Revolution in Geography.” London: University of London
- Holloway, S. et al. (2003) “Key Concepts in Geography.” Sage: London.
- Oxford English Dictionary (2002). Oxford: London.
- Powell, J.M. (1980) “The Haunting of Saloman’s House: Geography and the Limits of Science.” 14, 3: 327- 41.
- Richards, K. (2003) “Geography and the Physical Sciences Tradition” in Holloway, S. et al (2003) “Key Concepts in Geography.” Sage: London.
- Rose, G. (1993) “Feminism and Geography.” Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Sack, D. (1992) “New Wine in Old Bottles: The Historiography of a Paradigm Change.” Geomorphology, 5: 251- 63.
- Woolgar (1988) “Science: The Very Idea.” Chichester: Ellis Horwood.
