Geographical Analysis at Midlife

Abstract

In this commentary, I reflect on geographical analysis as it enters middle age, focusing on what I perceive to be central elements—for both field and journal—of past growth and development, as well as future robustness and potential. My particular interest lies in evaluating “geographical analysis” as it stands today, taking the journal as one proxy for the larger field, and placing this within a wider context of quantitative human geography. As with any set of perspectives, mine are idiosyncratic and the product of a particular experience at a particular time. To make my case, I draw on manuscript citation histories from Geographical Analysis, my interpretation of recent developments in the discipline, and of course the insights of others who have plowed these pastures before me. I close by offering some thoughts about the future directions of our field and our journal.

Geographical Network Analysis

“…Not only did the share of quantitative work within geography decrease, the share of geometry and network analysis within quantitative geography diminished too (Bennett & Wrigley 1981 ) as much quantitative talent went into the development of GIS (O’Sullivan in Harris et al . 2017 , p. 601; Franklin 2021 ).…”

“…Notwithstanding these studies being part of a growing movement of renewed quantitative and computational geography in certain niches of the discipline (Batty 2013, 2017; Arribas‐Bel & Reades 2018; Poorthuis & Zook 2020; Wolf et al . 2020; Franklin 2021; Singleton & Arribas‐Bel 2021), most geographers today are not specialists in computational methods. This is important to acknowledge because it implies that computation and modelling in the pursuit of universal mechanisms and patterns will not be the bread and butter of geography even if we would believe that the social world lends itself to such a pursuit.…”

“…Examining social life – including spatial processes such as segregation, migration and gentrification – through the prism of complexity often naturalizes and thus obscures underlying power dynamics (Uitermark 2015 ). Moreover, Kitchin ( 2014 , p. 8) argues that computational social science is ‘sacrificing complexity, specificity, context, depth and critique for scale, breadth, automation and descriptive patterns’, whereas Franklin ( 2021 , p. 55) laments that newly emerging fields in spatial and computational analysis, like ‘urban science’ or ‘urban data science,’ are ‘almost completely divorced from substantive geographical domain expertise’.…”

Introduction to the 50th Anniversary Special Issue: Happy Birthday, Geographical Analysis!

“…Editors occupy a lofty perch from which to observe the evolution of the field and their occasional reflections on the subject are well worth reading, especially for those interested in the links between past and present, where research foci, methods, and wider disciplinary debates are concerned (for previous contributions, see especially the 30th anniversary special issue of the journal and pieces from Casetti (1999), Clark (1999), Golledge (1999), Goodchild (1999), and O’Kelly (1999)). It is beyond the scope of this special issue, but it would be interesting to compare these perspectives to those included here, at the 50‐year mark (i.e., Franklin 2020; Griffith 2020; Murray 2020; Rey 2020).…”

“…He also highlights areas where tradition and innovation suggest opportunities for geographical analysis and ways in which the journal can help shape the future of the field, especially where open science and the marriage of theory and data science are concerned. Finally, Franklin (2020) frames the current identity crisis, such as it is, as typical for a field and journal in midlife, and offers a number of areas where new or continued contributions can be made, reiterating, for example, the importance of geographical theory and engagement more broadly.…”