A Framework for Analysis in the History of Modern Geograpy

Abstract

The purpose of this study is twofold; (1) to clarify the problems of introducing the method of neo-Kuhnian history of science into the history of geography, pointing out the defects of earlier arguments about the validity of paradigm concept in geography by some methodologists, and (2) to throw new light on a theme not so well studied so far, diffusion (i. e. advocacy, acceptance, transformation) of theories, with a case study of the Hartshornian paradigm.Although some critics have considered ‘paradigm’ in geography as a model of scientific development, paradigm is a device for grasping both social and intellectual aspects of science together. Actually such critics have paid attention to the social aspect of geography, but they identify it with external influences as though it were separable from its intellectual aspect. Scientific knowledge is dependent on the context of scientific community, which has become apparent after institutionalization.Obtained from studying natural sciences, the methods of the history of science must be modified in some degree so that they are applicable to geography. Institutionalized geography has two different aspects from academic science; one is that the codification in geography is less developed, and the other is that the circle of the profession is not closed. However, geography is not so deprived of autonomy as industrialised science. So, with alterations on some items which result from the above differences, such as social relevance and the undefined nature of groups of geographers, we could apply the framework used to analyze academic science to institutionalized geography.Under the condition of less developed codification, a theory with little concreteness has much room for various interpretation. And frequently this is the case with geography. Therefore, diffusion of a theory in geography always involves some transformation of its meaning. Nevertheless historians of geography have shown little interest in this aspect except in the transfer of a theory beyond the boundaries of disciplines or of nations. This is probably because they have seen the transformation as external and contingent noise, unconsciously assuming communication of a shared code. Yet we should view this process adopting a communication model in which sender and receiver have their own codes, respectively, which are dependent on their past experiences and present situations. At this point we can study such transformation and fixation of theories as social and essential phenomena, not as personal nor accidental. In sum, diffusion of theories should be examined in the following respects: the context of advocate, his intent, the context of accepters, and the condition of the medium.The context in which The Nature of Geography (NG) was brought forth consisted of two parts: 1) Hartshorne's career of study leading to NG, 2) the group into which he had been socialised and with which he had common experiences.Hartshorne was incorporated into the ‘invisible college’ of the field conferences (FC) which was organized by W. D. Jones and Sauer for studying methods of land-use survey. At the outset they treated this theme from the viewpoint of environmentalism, but with the expansion of the study they had gotten off environmentalism into regionalism by the early thirties. The central problem in their methodological debates was the conventionalisation of procedures for regional study. And with it there were theoretical problems, such as the necessity for and means of generalization and synthesis, visibility as the criterion for research, and treatment of the time-dimension. Some alternative sets of answers to these questions were presented.From 1924 to 1939 Hartshorne had changed his subjects of inquiry but nevertheless some traits were consistent