Metatheoretical moments in place attachment research: Seeking clarity in diversity

Abstract

Over fifty years of progress in place attachment research has produced many important insights as well as many competing senses of place attachment as a theoretical construct. Place constructs range from fairly specific terms such as place dependence and place identity to more general terms such as rootedness and sense of place, which all attempt to describe some aspect of place experience and attachment. These constructs are often used interchangeably, which adds to the confusion resulting from different and contested place definitions and relationships (Lewicka, 2011; Relph, 2008). Consequently, the literature abounds with expressions of concern for the apparent lack of theoretical coherence (Hernández, Hidalgo, & Ruiz, 2014). However, as Patterson and Williams (2005) have argued, such consternation over the state of conceptual development in place attachment research represents a flawed quest for unity given the underlying diversity of the many research programs involved, which are often marked by very different substantive goals and conflicting ontological, epistemological, and axiological commitments. In this chapter, we attempt to demonstrate that, rather than being a single body of literature, research on place attachment forms, and benefits from, a diverse and multidisciplinary inquiry. We focus on the specific construct of place attachment as it has developed across time and disciplines as illustrative of both the richness and braided quality of place research. As an interdisciplinary boundary object, place attachment can facilitate fruitful discussion across different disciplines. But without some kind of orienting guide, the multifaceted evolution of this construct appears chaotic and incomprehensible. Going forward, for place attachment to remain relevant, an even greater awareness of the diverse origins of place concepts and constructs seems necessary. Unfortunately these diverse origins also propagate controversies over the disciplinary ownership of place attachment as a theoretical construct. For instance, one cultural geographer reviewing the first edition of Place Attachment commented that: “Once again ... the vast literature on people and place published by cultural geographers [was] overlooked (more likely ignored)” (Smith, 2015, p. 389–390). Chapter 1: Metatheoretical moments in place attachment research: Seeking clarity in diversity