The debate about locality studies has provided a focus for wider concerns about method and the relationship of theory and empirical research in urban and regional studies. Discussion of these issues has been plagued by conceptual confusion. Where realist philosophy has been invoked in the debate it has frequently been misunderstood. The problems derive from unexamined and inconsistent usages of a series of dualisms or binary oppositions: viz, contextualising versus nomological (law-seeking) approaches, abstract and concrete, necessity and contingency, theory and empirics, and generality and specificity. When the various uses of these terms are examined it is found that the assumed contrasts either break down or involve more complex relationships than is commonly realised. The main purpose of the paper is to deconstruct the dualisms and expose some of the confusions they generate by reference to the locality debate. A subsidiary theme concerns the way in which different conceptions of generality, specificity, and interdependence form ‘metaphysics’ which tend, unnoticed, to dominate whole research programmes. As different metaphysics may be appropriate for different objects of study it is important to demonstrate their differences and respective limitations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArcherK, 1987, “Mythology and the problem of reading in urban and regional research”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space5384–393
2.
BhaskarR, 1975A Realist Theory of Science (Harvester Press, Brighton, Sussex)
3.
BhaskarR, 1979The Possibility of Naturalism (Harvester Press, Brighton, Sussex)
4.
BhaskarR, 1986Scientific Reason and Human Emancipation (Verso, London)
5.
CochraneA, 1988, “What a difference the place makes: The new structuration of locality”Antipode19354–363
6.
CookeP (Ed.), 1989Localities: The Changing Face of Urban Britain (Unwin Hyman, London)
7.
DuncanSS, 1986, “What is locality?”, WP-51, Urban and Regional Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, Sussex
8.
DuncanSSSavageM, 1989, “Space, scale and locality”Antipode2267–72
9.
EagletonT, 1983Literary Theory: An Introduction (Basil Blackwell, Oxford)
10.
GeertzC, 1973The Interpretation of Cultures (Basic Books, New York)
11.
GiddensA, 1984The Constitution of Society (Polity Press, Cambridge)
12.
GiddensA, 1987Social Theory and Modern Society (Basil Blackwell, Oxford)
13.
HackingI, 1983Representing and Intervening (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
14.
HaggettPChorleyRJ, 1966Models in Geography (Methuen, Andover, Hants)
15.
HarréR, 1972Philosophies of Science (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
16.
HarveyD, 1973Social Justice and the City (Edward Arnold, Sevenoaks, Kent)
17.
HarveyD, 1987, “Three myths in search of reality in urban studies”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space5367–376
18.
HarveyDScottA, 1989, “The practice of human geography: Theory and empirical specificty in the transition from Fordism to flexible specialization”, in Remodelling Geography Ed. MacmillanW (Basil Blackwell, Oxford) pp 217–229
19.
HesseM, 1980Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science (Harvester Press, Brighton, Sussex)
20.
JeffersonA, 1986, “Structuralism and post-structuralism”, in Modern Literary Theory: A Comparitive Introduction Eds JeffersonARobeyD (Batsford, London) pp 92–121
21.
JohnsonB, 1980The Critical Difference: Essays in the Contemporary Rhetoric of Reading (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD)
22.
JohnsonL, 1987, “(Un)Realist perspectives: Patriarchy and feminist challenges in geography”Antipode19210–215
23.
KornaiJ, 1986Contradictions and Dilemmas (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
24.
LipietzA, 1986, “New tendencies in the international division of labour: Regimes of accumulation and modes of regulation”, in Production Work and Territory Eds ScottAStorperM (Allen and Unwin, Boston, MA) pp 16–40
25.
MäkiU, 1989, “How to combine rhetoric and realism in the methodology of economics”Economics and Philosophy489–109
26.
MannM, 1986The Sources of Social Power (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
27.
MarcusGEFischerMMJ, 1986Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An Experimental Note in the Human Sciences (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
MasseyD, 1984Spatial Divisions of Labour (Macmillan, London)
30.
MasseyDMeeganRA, 1982The Anatomy of Job Loss (Methuen, Andover, Hants)
31.
MorganKSayerA, 1988Microcircuits of Capital: ‘Sunrise’ Industry and Uneven Development (Polity Press, Cambridge)
32.
NelsonJSMegillAMcCloskeyDM (Eds), 1987The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences (University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI)
33.
NorrisC, 1985Contest of Faculties: Philosophy and Theory after Deconstruction (Methuen, Andover, Hants)
34.
OilmanB, 1971Marx's Theory of Alienation (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD)
35.
OuthwaiteW, 1987New Philosophies of Social Sciences: Realism, Hermeneutics and Critical Theory (Macmillan, London)
36.
PeetRThriftNJ (Eds), 1989New Models in Geography (Unwin Hyman, London)
37.
PredA, 1989, “Survey 14: The locally spoken word and local struggles”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space7211–233
38.
SaundersPWilliamsP, 1986, “The new conservatism: Some thoughts on recent and future developments in urban studies”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space4393–399
39.
SavageMDuncanS, 1990, “Space, scale and locality: A reply to Cooke and Warde”Antipode2267–72
40.
SavageMBarlowJDuncanPSaundersP, 1987, “‘Locality research’: The Sussex programme on economic restructuring, social change and the locality”The Quarterly Journal of Social Affairs327–51
41.
SayerA, 1984Method in Social Science (Hutchinson, London)
42.
SayerA, 1985a, “The difference that space makes”, in Spatial Structures and Social Processes Eds GregoryDUrryJ (Macmillan, London) pp 49–66
43.
SayerA, 1985b, “Industry and space: A sympathetic critique of radical research”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space33–29
44.
SayerA, 1987, “Hard work and its alternatives”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space5395–399
45.
SayerA, 1989a, “Dualistic thinking and rhetoric in geography”Area21301–305
46.
SayerA, 1989b, “The ‘new’ regional geography and problems of narrative”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space7253–276
47.
SayerD, 1987The Violence of Abstraction (Basil Blackwell, Oxford)
48.
ScottAJ, 1980The Urban Land Nexus (Pion, London)
49.
ScottAJ, 1989Metropolis: From the Division of Labour to Urban Form (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
50.
SmithN, 1987, “Dangers of the empirical turn: Some comments on the CURS initiative”Antipode1959–68
51.
SojaE, 1985, “The spatiality of social life: Towards a transformative retheorisation”, in Spatial Structures and Social Processes Eds GregoryDUrryJ (Macmillan, London) pp 90–127
52.
StorperM, 1985, “Oligopoly and the product cycle: Essentialism in economic geography”Economic Geography61260–282
53.
StorperM, 1987, “The post-Enlightenment challenge to Marxist urban studies”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space5418–426
UrryJ, 1987, “Survey 12: Society, space and locality”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space5435–444
56.
WardeA, 1985, “Spatial change, politics and the division of labour”, in Spatial Structures and Social Processes Eds GregoryDUrryJ (Macmillan, London) pp 190–212
57.
WardeA, 1989, “Recipes for a pudding: A comment on locality”Antipode21274–281
58.
WattsM, 1988, “Deconstructing determinisms: Marxisms, development theory and a comradely critique of Capitalist World Development”Antipode21142–168
