What kind of theory for what kind of population geography

E. Graham
{"title":"What kind of theory for what kind of population geography","authors":"E. Graham","doi":"10.1002/1099-1220(200007/08)6:4<257::AID-IJPG189>3.0.CO;2-#","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper raises the issue of the role of theory in population geography. In the last decade there have been calls for population geographers to become more involved in the wider debates of human geography and related social sciences including a plea for (re)theorization of the subdiscipline. Yet there has been little response. Since theory is not an optional extra why this lack of enthusiasm? One explanation the author suggests relates to an uncertainty about the different kinds of theory that inform empirical population research. Using the example of demographic transition theory the author identifies different “layers” of theory (population theory theories of society and philosophical theories) that underpin population research. The author argues that in addition population geographers must recognize the continuing importance of disciplinary cultures and attend to theories of space and place. Understanding difference and diversity must lie at the heart of population geographys contribution to the multidisciplinary arena of population studies. It is the ideas of postmodernism that have “legitimized” such understandings in the wider social sciences. At the same time these ideas have introduced an ultimately nihilistic pluralism. Resolution of the resulting tension is the greatest challenge currently facing the discipline of geography. The authors entreaty is that population geographers recognize this challenge and as part of the (re)theorization of the subdiscipline become more involved in the debate. (authors)","PeriodicalId":73472,"journal":{"name":"International journal of population geography : IJPG","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/1099-1220(200007/08)6:4<257::AID-IJPG189>3.0.CO;2-#","citationCount":"42","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of population geography : IJPG","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1220(200007/08)6:4<257::AID-IJPG189>3.0.CO;2-#","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 42

Abstract

This paper raises the issue of the role of theory in population geography. In the last decade there have been calls for population geographers to become more involved in the wider debates of human geography and related social sciences including a plea for (re)theorization of the subdiscipline. Yet there has been little response. Since theory is not an optional extra why this lack of enthusiasm? One explanation the author suggests relates to an uncertainty about the different kinds of theory that inform empirical population research. Using the example of demographic transition theory the author identifies different “layers” of theory (population theory theories of society and philosophical theories) that underpin population research. The author argues that in addition population geographers must recognize the continuing importance of disciplinary cultures and attend to theories of space and place. Understanding difference and diversity must lie at the heart of population geographys contribution to the multidisciplinary arena of population studies. It is the ideas of postmodernism that have “legitimized” such understandings in the wider social sciences. At the same time these ideas have introduced an ultimately nihilistic pluralism. Resolution of the resulting tension is the greatest challenge currently facing the discipline of geography. The authors entreaty is that population geographers recognize this challenge and as part of the (re)theorization of the subdiscipline become more involved in the debate. (authors)
什么样的理论适合什么样的人口地理学
本文提出了理论在人口地理学中的作用问题。在过去的十年里,人们一直呼吁人口地理学家更多地参与人文地理学和相关社会科学的广泛辩论,包括呼吁(重新)理论化这一分支学科。然而,几乎没有什么回应。既然理论不是一个可选的额外的,为什么缺乏热情?作者提出的一种解释与实证人口研究中不同理论的不确定性有关。作者以人口转型理论为例,确定了支撑人口研究的不同“层次”理论(人口理论、社会理论和哲学理论)。此外,作者认为,人口地理学家必须认识到学科文化的持续重要性,并关注空间和地点理论。理解差异和多样性必须成为人口地理学对人口研究多学科领域贡献的核心。正是后现代主义的思想使这种理解在更广泛的社会科学中“合法化”。同时,这些思想引入了一种最终虚无主义的多元主义。解决由此产生的紧张关系是地理学科目前面临的最大挑战。作者恳求人口地理学家认识到这一挑战,并作为该分支学科(重新)理论化的一部分,更多地参与辩论。(作者)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信