Constructing explanations in economic geography: An invitation

Abstract

This editorial introduction launches an ongoing section in the journal’s Exchanges section, concerned with methods, methodology and the construction of explanations in economic geography, broadly defined.

The editors of EPA: Economy & Space invite, on a continuing basis, submissions to the journal’s Exchanges section that make distinctive and original interventions that are focused on method, methodology and the construction of explanations in economic geography (broadly defined) from a variety of perspectives and vantage points. Relatively short and ‘methods positive’ interventions are especially welcome, preferably in the region of 2000–3000 words in length. The intention is for this to be an ‘open channel’ in the journal’s Exchanges section.

Rather than relitigating old debates, or resuscitating claims that one methodological approach is somehow inherently superior to another, which too often perpetuate negative stereotypes, the editors instead invite constructive contributions, developed in support of a chosen strategy or approach, and justified in their own terms. There is less interest in judgmental assessments of the state of things, in contributions that advance favoured approaches at the expense of others, or that otherwise diminish alternatives. As a heterodox community, economic geography has a responsibility to cultivate cultures of effective communication and informed dialogue across difference, not least among differing approaches to method, methodology and modes of explanation.

This initiative seeks to enrich, diversify and deepen discussions of methodology in economic geography, by way of constructive interventions and ongoing conversations. To initiate this open-channel process, we invited members of the journal’s editorial board to make individual contributions of their own, which were presented at a panel at the 2023 meetings of the AAG in Denver. The resulting papers are collected in the following pages. Importantly, these are not intended to set an authorized or prescriptive ‘agenda’. The sampling of interventions that follows, while signalling the launch of this ongoing initiative, is intended to be indicative of the kinds of contributions that the journal welcomes in terms of range and content. But this is just the beginning; the horizon is open. Some of the issues that might be addressed include, but are not limited to: What are the expectations (or ‘standards’) of methodological reflexivity, rigour and transparency in the field? What could economic geographers be doing differently, or better even, to propagate more generative cultures of methodological rigour, responsible practice and constructive critique? What particular problems and problematizations can be said to reside in economic geography’s wheelhouse, and what methodological strategies and modes of explanation are being developed in response? Is it the case that economic geographers are methodological magpies, mixing, matching and ‘borrowing’, or can their methodological principles and practices be considered to be somehow distinctive, creative or innovative? What methodological issues, challenges, problems and opportunities warrant more sustained attention in the context of economic geography’s ongoing renewal?

As Bathelt and Li (2020: 103) have recently noted, ‘it is surprising how little attention has been devoted to developing rigorous research methods in economic geography, albeit that the need for this has repeatedly been raised in the past’ (see also Barnes et al., 2007). Of course, there are many roads to rigour. One of the reasons behind our choice to pluralize the running title for these interventions is that ‘explanation’ is a necessarily diverse practice. Hardly reducible to ‘method’, in the narrow sense of the term, it also concerns a raft of considerations that include: positionality, politics and ethics; conceptualization, modes of theorizing and narrative construction; the means to test, reflect upon and renew propositions, hunches and hypotheses; relationships with, and responsibilities to, research subjects, collaborators and partners, audiences and interlocutors; matters relating to publication, ‘access’, and dissemination, and much more.

Contributions to the ‘constructing explanations’ channel are peer reviewed. They can be submitted via ScholarOne, earmarked for the Exchanges section. Informal inquires can be made to Desiree Fields, Jamie Peck, Jessie Poon or any of the journal’s editors.