Theory, explanation and references in geography: Comparing two seminal books by David Harvey and Henry Yeung

This paper focuses on Henry Yeung’s recently published book with Wiley, Theory and Explanation in Geography, discussing it through the lens of an international group of scholars and from various perspectives. On the one hand, the current study aligns with the volume’s main message to create and apply mid-range explanatory theories in geography more intensively, rather than relying too heavily on theories imported from other disciplines, such as philosophy, which often overlook different geographical contexts and provide inadequate causal explanations. We also advocate for the conscious promotion of the internationalisation and decolonisation of geography through such theories. On the other hand, the paper examines the challenges and ambiguities of how geographers can become more self-reflective and philosophically educated to develop better theories, as well as how the history and philosophy of geography, as a subfield of the discipline, can contribute to this goal.This study also scrutinises the relationship between proximity, scale, and causality, discusses the book’s major takeaways through a Central and Eastern European lens, and, even more broadly, analyses the structural shifts the volume and its referencing patterns indicate in the international practice of doing geographical research during the last half a century. By doing so, the article summarises the conclusions of a panel discussion held in November 2024 at Babeş-Bolyai University in Cluj-Napoca, Romania, the only book launch event of Theory and Explanation in Geography to have occurred so far in post-communist Central and Eastern Europe.

Biogeographies: Transcending anthropocentrism in the Anthropocene

There is an ongoing debate concerning the relationship between the disciplinary ends of the broad spectrum that is geography and also the relationship between geography and other disciplines, including the extent to which it is self‐focussed or inward looking. These issues were assessed using an analysis of citation relationships between journals in the Thompson Scientific Journal Citation Reports databases at the category level. Thirty‐four categories were used, comparing the two geography categories (‘Geography’, representing human geography and ‘Geography, Physical’, representing physical geography) with 32 other cognate categories. A matrix of the citation relationships between each category was developed using a relatedness factor that corrects for the opportunity for citations to occur. The resultant matrix of factors indicates that human geography journals are considerably more likely to cite their own papers than are those of physical geography, but that they are by no means the most self‐citing of the journals assessed. Both human and physical geography journals have strong citation relationships with several other disciplines, with those for human geography most often being net export relationships in the sense of a balance of trade. This finding contradicts previous assertions that human geography imports more than it exports. The citation relationships of physical geography are smaller than those of human geography, and are typically small net imports. The relationship between human and physical geography journals is a small net export from physical geography to human geography, but their total trade volume is considerably smaller than their respective relationships with other disciplines. These results are likely to be caused by many factors in addition to the actual relatedness between disciplines and sub‐disciplines, but they do represent a benchmark against which more detailed analyses can be assessed.

Human and physical geography share a concern with the implications of spatial arrangement for process and hence for differentiation over the earth’s surface. In human geography, its explanatory role is crucial to (sub-) disciplinary awareness. In physical geography this is not the case. In the first place, this is a result of prevailing views of space: space as relative in human geography and as relational in physical geography. In human geography, space exists because objects exist and can exercise effects; in physical geography space is constitutive of objects, so that the idea of separate spatial effects is meaningless. This might seem to have to do with the fundamental nature of objects: people exercise choice in a way that packets of air cannot. What this fails to recognize is that choice is always exercised under particular social conditions; those of capitalism seem to impose a separation of objects from each other and from space that is wholly illusory.

Throughout its recorded history, the aims of geography have shifted between synthesis and specialized systematic studies. Cosmography, as understood by Alexander von Humboldt and others, presented an ambitious synthesis of climate, topography, biogeography, settlement and human life. Explorations financed by geographical societies gradually led to growth of specialized disciplines, particularly in natural sciences. This broad activity was regarded as geography by the general public and those that established geography chairs 1870–1910. The first professors adhered to synthesis of human and physical geography and found relevant research themes. Initially geography was dominated by environmental determinism, possibilism and a focus on regional geography through synthesis. Gradually specialized research in systematic branches led to a nomothetic shift to spatial science, inspiring models in both human and physical geography. Synthesis of physical and human geography remained an aim within spatial science but provided few integrating research exemplars. Synthesis of physical and human geo-factors was fundamental for the first professors and was seen as a goal for many geographers in the following generations, but has been difficult to attain in research projects. However, present global changes give our discipline new relevance for research on global sustainability.

The present book is an attempt to bring all theories of geography in one book for easy reading of teachers and students. Many divisions in geography has many theories. Readers should take effort to collect the theories from all books. All divisions has certain theories. There are so many theories in physical geography as well as human geography. A simple idea makes it convenient to read the theories in one book. First, we selected the certain theories as follows: Theory of continental drift, The theory of Isostasy, Von Thunens location theory, Crop combination method, The central place theory, Internal structure of city, The rank size rule, The social area analysis method, Losch’s theory of economics of location, Walter Isard’s theory, Alfred Weber’s theory of least cost location, Demographic transition theory, Malthusian Theory of population- Criticism and applicability and Growth pole theory. Like this, there are 14 theories collected and compiled in this book as first volume. The theories collected from both physical geography and human geography. These theories are very important for those who are preparing for UPSC, should go through the theories.

The process of exactization of geography requires the examination of its own fundaments i. e., the reinterpretation of basic categories of geography as a science. As two main attributes of geography we can consider (a) the spaciousness and (b) the synthesis. Both these attributes require reexplication and a suitable choice of abstract language, The meta-language of the space aspect of geography become such branches as geometry, topology, if you like physics; the meta-language of the synthetic aspect seems to be the suitable-general system theory and cybernetics. The main stress of the study is laid on the synthetic-integrative effort of geography. It is discussed here such a level of synthesis which leads to the integration of all geographical branches, to the unity of geography as science. In this sense the author tried to elaborate various unitary conceptions of geography. 1. Objectological-methodological conception of the unity of geography was explicite formed e. g., in the work of Anuchin (1960) and Fehrmann (1962). The unity of geography in the understanding of Anuchin shortly expressed is based on the opinion that the physical and human geography have (a) a common subject of study - the geosphere and (b) the physical and human geography have a common basic method - the chorologic method. Fehrman's idea of unity is based on the Oppenheim's "Thoung surface" (Denkfläche) in which all sciences form an integrated innerly continuous system (Fig. No 1). The division of sciences into natural and social is from the standpoint of "thought surface" (Denkfläche) inadequate. The decisive point of view is here the mutual relation of the concretization, of abstraction, of individualization and typization. The position of geography in the "thought surface" (Denkfläche) shows Fig. No 2. 2. Systemologic conception of unity of geography is leaning partly against (a) structural-functional approach, partly against (b) system-wholeness approach. The structural-functional approach means the finding of structural-functional analogies (isomorphism, homomorphism) between physical and human geography. The possibility to use the same mathematical models in these both branches showed e. g., in his work Bunge (1962). System-wholeness approach originates in two postulates of the system theory: system as a wholeness we can consider such a system in which (a) the change of one element evokes a change in all other elements and (b) the behaviour of the system cannot be reduced on the behaviour of its singular elements. Berry (1964) showed that the geosphere we can consider as a system, Kalesnik (1947) showed that the earth-shell posseses the marks of the postulate (a). From the standpoint of the postulate (b) follows, that by the study of geosphere we cannot manage with only physical and human geography, but that it is necessary also the geography as such, studying the system-geosphere which we cannot reduce to the systems studied by physical geography, or by human geography, systems apparently of a lower order. 3. Physically inspired conception of unity of geography comes put from a certain analogy which we can meet in physics - in the effort to construct a unitary theory of materia, this is the programme the originator of which is A. Einstein. Such understanding of the unity of geography could mean the search not of the structural-functional analogies between physical and human geography, but the finding of a certain more general, deeper principle. Though the whole geography it seems to be a far programme, in the frame of human geography Bunge tried to form a certain principle ("interacting objects locate to each other as near as possible" [Bunge 1964, p. 273]), on the base of which it would be possible, to attaint to a certain general equation, from which it would be possible to derive all until now known locational theories. 4. The logical conception of the unity of geography is bases on the idea of axiomatization of geography, on the construction of deductive system of all geographical knowledge. The unity of a certain science can be that is to say, considered as a unity of its knowledge. The first attempt to axiomatize the whole geography is met by Neef (1950). Neef formulates three axiome (a) planetary, (b) landscape, (c) chorologic. As we can see from Neef's formulation the frontiers between physical and human geography are abolished. Other attempts to axiomatize the geography have considerably narrower extent. Also the above mentioned Bunge's principle can be understood in substance axiomatically. In further part of the study the author points to wider possibilites of the system approach in geography and in the conclusion he stresses the fact that the system approach provides also a new foundation of geography as a science.

This commentary takes on Jamie Peck’s conjunctural methodologies and reflects on the epistemological matter of theory and explanation in geography. Mapping onto several key elements of conjunctural analysis, I reframe its methodological examination in relation to mid-level concepts and theories (i.e. mid-range theory), the articulation of causality and causal co-determination (i.e. causal mechanisms), and situational analysis, historicisation, and thick theorisation as context-rich explanation (i.e. context-specificity). By way of a sympathetic critique, I focus on two potential ‘blind spots’ that might require further rethinking and perhaps remedies: the underdevelopment of practical adequacy and the role of normative theorising in conjunctural methodologies.

On Henry Yeung's <i>Theory and Explanation in Geography</i> Henry Wai-chung Yeung, <i>Theory and Explanation in Geography</i> , Chichester: Wiley, 2023; 226 pp. $39.95 (paperback), ISBN: 978-1-119-84550-8.

This paper reports on a meeting which was held at the RGS/IBG annual conference in London in September 2003, where we aimed to investigate and debate some of the ways in which human and physical geography could (and should?) reopen a dialogue. This conference session was timely for three reasons. First, whilst human geography has a long tradition of engaging in philosophical discussion, physical geographers have been rather more reluctant to examine ontological and epistemological issues. However, there have been a number of recent interventions by physical geographers which have attempted to formulate coherent philosophies for geomorphology (e.g. Richards et al. 1997; Harrison 2001) and it seemed appropriate to attempt to widen this debate. Seond, human and physical geographers have begun to discuss the linkages between the two sub-disciplines (e.g. Massey 2000; Lane 2001) and this coincided with two workshops at the RGS in 2000 and 2001 where physical and human geographers debated the opportunities for further integration and conversations. Third, the concept of Earth System Science has found a central role in the reformulation of physical geography, and stresses the links between physical, biological and social systems to investigate large-scale issues such as climate change. Such an approach stresses large-scale modelling and explanations in which linkages across the disciplines are developed. In addition, we used this session and this paper to flag up the debate which continued at the 2004 RGS-IGU in Glasgow. As a result, we brought together four different voices from physical and human geography and anthropology in order to initiate a debate on the ways in which closer disciplinary links can be fostered. This paper allows each of the four speakers to outline their arguments, and closes with a summary of the debate which followed.

The relationship (or lack thereof) between physical and human geography is a longstanding discussion within our field. In PiPG alone there have been dozens of articles that raise the issue over more than three decades. Some authors call for physical/human synthesis (e.g. Bracken and Oughton’s 2009 special issue of Area; Clifford, 2002; Harrison et al.’s 2008 special issue of Geoforum; Massey, 1999; Thornes, 1981); others are less convinced that deep integration is feasible, or even desirable (e.g. Demeritt, 2009; Johnston, 1983; Johnston, 2012; Thrift, 2002). But even a brief review of the literature makes two points glaringly clear: this discussion has been going on for decades and, given its regular reoccurrence, it would seem we have remarkably little to show for it. A great deal of ink and angst has been expended on the topic of integrating our field, and yet physical and human geography appear to have remained stubbornly, and in some cases hostilely, separate. Given that long and not notably effective history, why would you bother to read this special issue? Because the articles that follow depart from every paper cited above in one very important way: instead of calling for integrated work, they do it, demonstrating the scientific and political utility of integrating critical human and physical geography in practice. Individually or in teams, the authors in this special issue work across the divide, combining insights from geomorphology, ecology, and biogeography with approaches from participatory action research, political ecology, science and technology studies, and environmental history. While these authors hail from disparate geographic fields, the broad approach they share is critical physical geography (Lave, 2014; Lave et al., 2014), a new field that combines

Abstract. Space is often described as a dynamic entity in human geographic theory, one that resists being pinned down to static representations. Co-produced in and through relations between various things and phenomena, space in these accounts is variously described as being contingent, processual, plastic, relational, situated, topological, and uneven. In contrast, most cartographic methods and tools are based on static, Euclidean understandings of space that can be reduced to a simple, mathematical description. In this work, I explore how cartography can deal with space as a dynamic and fluid concept that is entangled with the phenomena and objects being mapped. To those ends, I describe a method for creating animated maps based on relational understandings of space that are always in flux.This work builds on research in collaboration with Luke Bergmann, where we suggest a move from Geographic Information Systems (GIS) as we commonly know them to the broader realm of geographical imagination systems (gis) that are informed by spatial theory in human geography. The animated maps here are produced using our prototype gis software Enfolding, which use multidimensional scaling (MDS) to visualize relational spaces, in combination with Blender, an open-source 3D rendering program. Written in JavaScript and available as open source software, Enfolding is our first attempt to make gis an accessible set of tools that expand the possibilities for mapping by providing new grammars for creative cartographic practices.In the cartographic workflow presented here, I use Enfolding to produce manifolds from a set of points and user-defined distances between points. Changing those measures of distance – which might represent travel times, affective connections, communicative links, or any other relationship as defined by a user – produces shifting manifolds. Using the .obj export option in Enfolding, I then import the manifolds into Blender, using them as animation keyframes. In Figure 1, I have added a digital elevation model (DEM) to the 3D figure, producing an animated visualization of a dynamic and relational space that includes a hillshade.This workflow represents only one of many creative possibilities for innovative cartographic practices that engage with space as a matter of concern. With growing interest in 3D cartographic methods comes expanded possibilities for visualizing dynamic and relational spaces. Combining conceptual antecedents in both human and quantitative geography with current cartographic methods allows for new approaches to both mapping and space. The workflow and tools that have emerged from this research are presented here with the hope of spurring creative and exploratory cartographic work that draws from but also contributes to vibrant discussions in spatial theory and creative cartography.

This paper explores the possibility that there may be commonalities between physical geography and human geography in emerging ways of conceptualizing space, time and space‐time. It argues that one of the things holding physical and human geography apart for so long has been their relationship to physics as an assumed model of ‘science'. It is proposed here that not only is this an inadequate model of science but that it has led us astray in our inherited conceptualizations of both time and space. The urge to think ‘historically’ is now evident in both physical and human geography. The paper argues that this both forms the basis for a possible conversation and also obliges us to rethink our notions of space/space‐time.

PHYSICAL geographers traditionally have avoided introspective philosophical analysis of their scholarly activities. This situation contrasts sharply with the fierce philosophical debate among human geographers during the past fifteen years (Smith 1979; Walford and Gregory 1989; Johnston 1991). The primary purpose of this article is to persuade physical geographers of the virtue of engaging in philosophical introspection; however, it is important to recognize that physical geography is as diverse as human geography. This essay focuses specifically on the potential contribution of philosophical analysis to geomorphology, but it also informs other sub fields of physical geography, because the issues discussed are central to all branches of the physical sciences. The reason for the neglect of philosophical issues by geomorphologists is unclear. Perhaps it reflects a basic sense of philosophical security. Although the issue of whether geomorphology should be regarded as scientific or historical has been somewhat controversial, much of this discussion has occurred within geology, not geography (Simpson 1963; Watson 1966, 1969; Kitts 1977; Baker 1988; Baker and Twidale 1991). Contemporary geographical geomorphologists appear to be fairly secure in their role as physical scientists, a view that is reinforced by continued emphasis on the dichotomy between human and physical geography. Thus they may be confident that geomorphology is firmly rooted in established philosophical foundations of physics and chemistry. In other words, as physical scientists their philosophical underpinnings are incontrovertible, a perspective strengthened by the limited exposure that many geomorphologists have had to the philosophy of science. Geomorphologists generally receive little, if any, formal training in philosophical topics at the undergraduate or graduate level. Moreover, in many cases what little training they do receive often comes from human geographers, who simply inform the physical geographers that they are empiricists and then proceed to survey the myriad philosophical perspectives in human geography. As a result most geographical geomorphologists have perfunctorily embraced either logical positivism (Harvey 1969) or critical rationalism (Haines-Young and Petch 1986). These philosophical perspectives generally are erroneously portrayed as equivalent, except for a minor difference in method: logical positivists attempt to verify hypotheses, but critical rationalists try to falsify them (Johnston 1991, 72). One purpose of this essay is to illustrate to human and physical geographers alike that the philosophy of the physical sciences, including geomorphology, is not as secure or uncontroversial as it may seem. Even if the philosophical foundation of the physical sciences is controversial, this situation may not trouble geomorphologists for two reasons. First, they may presume that any debate about philosophical issues concerning the physical sciences should focus on physics or chemistry, not geomorphology, which is derivative from fundamental sciences. This view is misguided because geomorphology as a science deals with distinctive types of complex, unconstrained natural systems that differ from those investigated in laboratory sciences and in many cases uses methods that vary from those employed in laboratory investigations. It is therefore uncertain that philosophical arguments developed for physics and chemistry directly inform geomorphology. Second, some geomorphologists probably perceive philosophy as an esoteric, unnecessary endeavor that has little relevance for practicing scientists. Although occasional forays into philosophy are necessary for well-rounded scientists, to delve too deeply into such issues often is regarded with suspicion, if not outright contempt, and is sanctioned only if the primary purpose is to seek methodological guidance rather than philosophical insight. This disparaging attitude reflects a basic misunderstanding of the relationship between science and the philosophy of science. …

Science studies perspectives are largely absent in research on the making of physical geography. In this paper I outline literature from the history and sociology of science that may prove useful both in filling this gap, and in ‘bridging the divide’ between human and physical geography. I begin with an overview of work that argues for science studies in human geography, physical geography and the history of geology. I then discuss a series of science studies approaches that address questions such as the following. How are the social worlds of science constituted? How do new scientific disciplines emerge and change? How do different groups in a discipline view/contest research? How are scientific identities and careers formed? How does laboratory culture shape the practice of science? How is science distinguished from non-science? How do scientific biographies reflect and change the ‘spirit of the age’? Drawing on a biographical science studies approach, I examine key aspects of the life and work of the eminent river scientist Luna Leopold (1915–2006). This then leads to a discussion of the geographical imagination, and particularly how this is grounded in the sociological imagination – where history and biography are entwined. I argue that Leopold’s life and writings provide valuable insights into developing ‘the geographical imagination’. In conclusion, my aim is to encourage students and researchers in the three fields of human geography, physical geography and science studies to use the ‘view from the river’ of science studies in research on the making and shaping of physical geography.