Spatial and temporal scale in comparative approaches to rural gentrification

Abstract

Phillips and Smith extend debates about comparative epistemologies onto both the process and concept of rural gentrification. In doing so, they illustrate the forms of comparative research, their various critiques and limitations, and the different ways comparative strategies can illuminate new understandings of rural gentrification. Their opening dialogue connects the field of rural geography more directly with theoretical conversations taking place largely in the realm of urban geography, and I find their explication of the various comparative strategies useful in thinking about the ways in which one might approach comparative research. I, however, also find their discussion of comparison somewhat “flat” in the sense that they emphasize comparison between places (north vs. south, urban vs. rural, etc.). Comparison between places is certainly one approach that can generate new understandings of a spatial phenomenon, but comparison across scales—both spatial and temporal—also has the potential to reveal new ways in which the movement of people, capital, and ideas produce and reproduce contemporary landscapes.