The interest amongst human geographers of different theoretical stripes in the discipline’s relationship with publics other than fellow academics and students shows little sign of abating. The article by Woods and Gardner (2011) is a thoughtful contribution to what is a large and still expanding literature on the ‘impact’ and ‘relevance’ of human geography. It offers us some interesting insights into how working within an existing governmental system does not have to foreclose critical scholarship. Nevertheless, this commentary uses this article to ask some wider questions of what we think we know about human geography and its use by those beyond universities.
BeaumontJLoopmansMUitermarkJ (2005) Politicization of research and the relevance of geography: Some experiences and reflections for an ongoing debate. Area. 37: 118–126.
2.
CastreeNSparkeM (2000) Professional geography and the corporatization of the university: Experiences, evaluations, and engagements. Antipode. 32: 222–229.
3.
Castree N KitchinRvan WessepJBohleHGKleineDKulkeE (2006) Research assessment and the production of geographical knowledge. Progress in Human Geography. 30: 747–782.
4.
CoppockJT (1974) Geography and public policy: Challenges, opportunities, and implications. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 63: 1–17.
5.
DorlingDShawM (2002) Geographies off the agenda: Public policy, the discipline and its (re)turns. Progress in Human Geography. 26: 629–641.
6.
FullerDAskinsK (2007) The discomforting rise of ‘public geographies’: A ‘public’ conversation. Antipode. 39: 579–601.
7.
HareFK (1974) Geography and public policy: A Canadian view. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 63: 25–28.
8.
HarveyD (1972) Revolutionary and counter-revolutionary theory in geography and the problem of ghetto formation. Antipode. 4: 1–13.
9.
HarveyD (1974) What kind of geography for what kind of public policy?Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 63: 18–24.
10.
HoggartK (1996) All washed up and nowhere to go?Public policy and geographical research. Progress in Human Geography. 20: 110–122.
11.
MartinR (2001) Geography and public policy: The case of the missing agenda. Progress in Human Geography. 25: 189–210.
12.
MasseyD (2000) Practising political relevance. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 24: 131–134.
13.
MasseyD (2002) Geography, policy and politics: A response to Dorling and Shaw. Progress in Human Geography. 26: 647–655.
14.
MurphyA (2006) Enhancing geography’s role in public debate. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 96: 1–13.
15.
PainR (2003) Social geography: On action-orientated research. Progress in Human Geography. 27: 649–657.
16.
PainR (2006) Social geography: Seven deadly myths in policy research. Progress in Human Geography. 30: 250–259.
17.
PainRFrancisP (2003) Reflections on participatory research. Area. 35: 46–54.
18.
PeckJ (1999) Grey geography?Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 24: 131–136.
19.
StaeheliLMitchellD (2005) The complex politics of relevance in geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 95: 357–372.
20.
WardK (2005) Geography and public policy: A recent history of ‘policy relevance’. Progress in Human Geography. 29: 310–319.
21.
WardK (2006) Geography and public policy: Towards public geographies. Progress in Human Geography. 30: 495–503.
22.
WardK (2007) Geography and public policy: Activist, participatory, and policy geographies. Progress in Human Geography. 31: 695–705.
23.
WardKJohnstonRRichardsKGandyMTaylorZPaasiA (2009) The future of research monographs: An international perspective. Progress in Human Geography. 33: 101–126.
24.
WoodsMGardnerG (2011) Applied policy research and critical human geography: Some reflections on swimming in murky waters. Dialogues in Human Geography. 1(2). doi: 10.1177/2043820611404488.
