Advertisement

GeoJournal

, Volume 65, Issue 4, pp 263–273 | Cite as

Gender, geography and policy: the conundrums of engagement

  • Alison Mountz
  • Margaret Walton-Roberts
Article

Abstract

This paper contemplates the relationship between the discipline of geography, and the making of public policy. It is particularly concerned with the compatibilities and incompatibilities of the nature of academic knowledge production and public policy development. As such, we contribute to an ongoing debate among geographers regarding whether and how they should engage with policy, and utilize examples from our involvement in the Metropolis Project, a Canadian initiative based on interdisciplinary research networks linked to government and public service agencies involved in immigrant settlement. We argue ultimately that geographers do need to engage politically with policymaking, but that the manner in which to do this is never straightforward, but rather takes place across institutional, ideological, and political landscapes that are perpetually shifting. Finally we suggest some helpful tools from feminist methodologies with which to approach policy-related issues.

Keywords

Gender Geography Immigration Feminist methodologies Public policy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bailey, A. J., Wright, R., Mountz, A., & Miyares, I. (2002). (Re)producing salvadoran transnational geographies. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 92, 125–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blomley, N. (1994). Activism and the academy. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 12, 383–385.Google Scholar
  3. Burstein, M. (2001). The metropolis project: Canada. In: Bridging the information gaps: A conference of research on asylum and immigration in the UK (pp. 33–35). 1 Whitehall Place, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, M. (2002). Mapping social relations: A primer in doing institutional ethnography. Toronto: Garamond Press.Google Scholar
  5. Castree, N., & Sparke, M. (2000). Professional geography and the corporatization of the university: Experiences, evaluations and engagements. Antipode, 32, 222–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cope, M., (2002). Feminist Epistemology in Geography. In: Feminist geography in practice: Research and methods (pp. 43–56). Oxford and Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Charlton, A., Duff, S., Grant, D., Mountz, A., Pike, R., Sohn, J. and Taylor, C. (2002). The Challenges to Responding to Human Smuggling in Canada: Practitioners Reflect on the 1999 Boat Arrivals in British Columbia. Vancouver Centre for Excellence Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis RIIM working paper 02–23.Google Scholar
  8. Del Casino, V., Grimes, A. J., Hanna, S. P., & Jones, J. P. (2000). Methodological frameworks for the geography of organizations. Geoforum, 31, 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Demeritt, D. (2000). The new social contract for science: Accountability, relevance and value in US and UK science and research policy. Antipode, 32, 308–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dorling, D., & Shaw, M. (2002). Geographies of the agenda: public policy, the discipline and its (re) ‘turns’. Progress in Human Geography, 26, 629–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duncan, H. (2001). The metropolis project: Canada. In: Bridging the information gaps: A conference of research on asylum and immigration in the UK (pp. 33–35). 1 Whitehall Place, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  12. Gordon, D. (1995). Border work: Feminist ethnography and the dissemination of literacy. In: R. Behar, & D. Gordon (Eds.), Women writing culture (pp. 373–389). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gottfried, H. (1996). Feminism and social change: Bridging theory and practice. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  14. Harley, J. B. (1988). Maps, knowledge and power. In: D. Cosgrove, & S. Daniels (Eds.), The Iconography of landscape: Essays in the representation, design and use of past environments (pp. 277–312). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (1993). Why advocacy research? Reflections on research and activism with immigrant women. American Sociologist, 24, 56–68.Google Scholar
  16. Hyndman, J., & Walton-Roberts, M., (2000). Interrogating borders: A transnational approach to refugee research in Vancouver. Canadian Geographer, 44(3), 244–258.Google Scholar
  17. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow engineers and scientists through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lee, R. (2002). Geography, policy, and geographical agendas – a short intervention in a continuing debate. Progress in Human Geography, 26(5), 627–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McDowell, L. (1997). Capital culture: Gender at work in the city. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Macklin, A. (1992). Foreign domestic worker: Surrogate housewife or mail order servant? McGill Law Journal, 37, 681–760.Google Scholar
  21. Martin, R. (2001). Geography and public policy: The case of the missing agenda. Progress in Human Geography, 25(2), 189–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mahtani, M., & Mountz, A. (2002). Immigration to British Columbia: Media representation and public opinion. Research on immigration and integration in the metropolis, Working Paper Series, No. 02–15. http://www.riim.metropolis.net
  23. Mountz, A. (2003). Embodied geographies of the nation-state: An ethnography of Canada’s response to human smuggling. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  24. Mountz, A., Wright, R., Miyares, I., & Bailey, A. (2002). Lives in limbo: Temporary protected status and immigrant identities. Global Networks, 2(4), 335–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Papademetriou, D. & Ho, D. (1997). Making policy more responsive to research: A view from the United States. Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 20(1–2), 299–302.Google Scholar
  26. Peck, J. (1995). Moving and shaking: Business elites, state localism and urban privatism. Progress in Human Geography, 19, 16–46.Google Scholar
  27. Peck, J. (1999). Grey geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 24(2), 131–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pratt, G. in collaboration with The Philippine Women Centre of Vancouver. (2003). From migrant to immigrant: Domestic workers settle in Vancouver, Canada. Vancouver Centre of Excellence Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis working paper series # 03–18.Google Scholar
  29. Pratt, G. (1993). Reflections on poststructuralism and feminist empirics, theory and practice. Antipode 25(1), 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Richmond, A. (2000). Immigration policy and research in Canada: Pure or applied? Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 26(1), 109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roberts, S. (2000). Realizing critical geographies of the university. Antipode, 32(3), 230–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Simonson, L. J., & Bushaw, V. A. (1993). Participatory action research: Easier said than done. The American Sociologist, 24(1), 27–37.Google Scholar
  33. Smith, D. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  34. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. From granting council to knowledge council: Renewing the social sciences and humanities in Canada (Vol. 3). Report on the consultations, January 2005Google Scholar
  35. Staeheli, L. A., & Mitchell, D. (2005). The complex politics of relevance in geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 95(2), 357–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Walton-Roberts, M. (2004). Rescaling citizenship: Gendering Canadian immigration policy. Political Geography, 23(3), 265–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Whyte, A. (1997). Presidential address: ‘In the national interest’: Science, geography, and public policy in Canada. The Canadian Geographer, 41(4), 338–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geography, Maxwell SchoolSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA
  2. 2.Department of Geography and Environmental StudiesWilfrid Laurier UniversityW. WaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations