Abstract
While upholding the analytical relevance of a better distinction of mechanism from process in the geographical analysis of uneven development, the five commentators of my forum paper have raised some critical epistemological issues that provoke three points of clarification in this response. First, I argue for an epistemological position that views theory not only as abstract devices but more importantly as explanation of social–spatial change. I elaborate further on the importance of causal mechanism in such an explanatory kind of theory. Second, I discuss the relevance and usefulness of mid-range theories in geographical research. Finally, this response ends with a return to the bigger picture of the kind of human geography that might benefit from mechanism-based theorizing.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
