🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CHH6Iu.2Cv@rice.edu> pound@ruf.rice.edu (Christopher Brian Pound) w
rites:
>In article <2dlr5k$lkl@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rjackson@magnus.acs.oh
io-state.edu (Randy W Jackson) writes:
>>Of course, and I doubt that you would find anyone who would vehemently defend
>>the concept of absolute objectivity.  In no way, however, does this fact rend
er
>>empirical research a fantasy.
>
>Right, but the problem with empiricism isn't really its objectivist tendencies
>(although that's generally what you'll hear about it from someone still
>thinking in terms of subject/object).  Empiricist approaches partake in a
>false consciousness of the analytic that excludes any examination of the
>social conditions in which knowledge is produced.  By "social conditions,"
>I'm talking about a whole lot of things besides just personal bias or the
>limits of perspective.  Frex, I'm talking about the thoroughly historicizable
>assumption that data exist apart from the theory that explains them and that
>the analyst can take some position outside of or blind to the work she or
>he undertakes (obviously, the analyst can set the experiment up such that
>she or he won't be able to influence the outcome, but in the process of
>setting up the experiment, the kind of outcomes that will be possible are
>necessarily "controlled").  I'm also talking about the empiricist's amnesia
>with regard to his or her socialization as an analyst and with regard to
>the metaphoricity on which her or his explanations of the results of the
>experiment will necessarily hinge.  And, also, about the blind acceptance of
>traditional categories like "theory/practice," "fact/fiction,"
>"subject/object," "order/chaos," "knowing/being," "identity/difference,"
>"apparent/real," "revealed/hidden," "said/seen," "self/other," and so many
>other problematic oppositions that constitute our intellectual heritage.
>So you see, it's not a matter of personal bias, but of the unreflexivity
>with respect to power (authority, social status, etc.), representation
>(truth, metaphor, simulation, etc.) and the intersections between the two.
>That's what's really troublesome about empiricism.
>

Christopher,

First, it is unfair to throw all empirically based work in geography into the
same bag.  I will name two areas that I believe are clear exceptions to the
kinds of generalizations you are making, and I am sure there are others.

Physical geography is the most obvious exception, wherein measurement of
characteristics of physical systems is critical.

A second area is location analysis.  Locations of relevant aspects of the
geographical landscape can be measured, and decisions based on the locations of
supply and demand (or similar analogies) can be quite useful.  It is well and
good to consider the issues you have raised, but it is of great value in the
application of geography to problem solving to be able to inform a
decision-maker on, for example, the m cost-minimizing locations to serve a
particular demand area (e.g., locating emergency service facilities).

Now I know that you were directing your comments primarily toward empirically
based statistical research.  I agree that we all wear glasses of unique tints
with which we view the world.  Yes, the data that are available for processing
are the consequence of some individual's or group's subjective definition, and
their accompanying definition of importance (theoretically or otherwise based).

 We are left with imperfect vision and imperfect viewing subjects.  Should we,
therefore, abandon our attempts to see?  Even if our only goal were to
understand the human condition better, I would not agree that we should abandon
data and attempts to understand relationships through empirical analysis
(although I understand that you or others might).

There is a society around us that, either through private sources or through
the political system (and rightly or wrongly), is starved and eager for
information on which to base decisions.  Therefore, we have two choices:

1) We can ask them to wait while we attempt to understand better the effects of
socialization on our approach to research, the problematic oppositions that
constitute our intellectual heritage, and the other aspects of empirical
research that trouble you so.  [I suppose that instead of asking them to wait,
we could just offer society an explanation of why such guidance can't be
provided.]

2)  We can forge ahead with the information (data) available to us, and attempt
to assist society in its efforts to move ahead, bearing in mind the
imperfections of our data and analytical tools.

Many choose the former tack, and bask in the comfort that comes from knowing
their hands haven't been tainted by socially constructed (and therefore
imperfect) data.  Others choose, however, to work in the dirty, empirically
based world, with colleagues who are willing to risk offering society
information that comes from an analysis of data.

 _____________________________________________________________
/  Randy Jackson, Assoc. Prof. /\  Geography, OSU             \
|  1152 Derby,154 No. Oval     ][  Columbus, Ohio 43210-1361  |

\__614 292-7998________________\/__INTERNET: jackson+@osu.edu /

>Christopher Pound  +    "Homer deserves to be thrown out of the
>Anthro Grad Student     +     contests and flogged."
>pound@rice.edu          +                           -- Heraclitus