Critical Reflections on a Field in the Making

  • Christine Biermann
  • Stuart N. Lane
  • Rebecca Lave
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter examines Critical Physical Geography’s (CPG) pursuit of integrative and transformative research in a spirit of self-criticism and reflexivity. We question the distinctiveness of CPG, the values and politics embedded within it, and the risks and benefits of endeavoring to produce transformative research. Three overarching questions guide our discussion: (1) What, if anything, does CPG offer that is distinct? (2) Can engagement with the politics of knowledge production strengthen rather than undermine scientific inquiry? and (3) Can science be normative, and what are critical physical geographers trying to change?

References

  1. Asafu-Adjaye, J., L. Blomqvist, S. Brand, B. Brook, R. DeFries, E. Ellis, C. Foreman, et al. 2015. An ecomodernist manifesto. [Online]. http://www.ecomodernism.org/manifesto-english/. Accessed 2 Mar 2017.
  2. Blue, B., and G. Brierley. 2016. ‘But what do you measure?’ Prospects for a constructive Critical Physical Geography. Area 48 (2): 190–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Castree, N. 2015. Geographers and the discourse of an earth transformed: Influencing the intellectual weather or changing the intellectual climate? Geographical Research 53 (3): 244–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crowley, K. 2016. Our thinking about crossover scholarship is wrong. Inside Higher Ed. [Online]. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/04/05/value-crossover-scholarship-academics-essay. Accessed 2 Mar 2017.
  5. Davis, M., M. Chew, R. Hobbs, A. Lugo, J. Ewel, G. Vermeij, J. Brown, et al. 2011. Don’t judge species on their origins. Nature 474: 153–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dyer, J.M. 2010. Land-use legacies in a central appalachian forest: Differential response of trees and herbs to historic agricultural practices. Applied Vegetation Science 13: 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fischer-Kowalski, M., and H. Haberl. 2002. Sustainable development: Socio-economic metabolism and colonization of nature. International Social Science Journal 50: 573–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Galusky, W. 2000. The promise of conservation biology: The professional and political challenges of an explicitly normative science. Organization and Environment 13 (2): 226–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haraway, D. 2015. Anthropocene, capitalocene, plantationocene, chthulucene: Making kin. Environmental Humanities 6 (1): 159–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jasanoff, S. 2007. Technologies of humility. Nature 450: 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ———. 2008. Speaking honestly to power. American Scientist 6 (3): 240.Google Scholar
  12. Johnston, R.J. 1986. Fixations and the quest for unity in geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 11: 449–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Klepeis, P., and B.L. Turner. 2001. Integrated land history and global change science: The example of the southern yucatan peninsular region project. Land Use Policy 18 (1): 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kristof, N. 2014. Smart minds, slim impact. The New York Times, 15 February. SR11.Google Scholar
  15. Lackey, R. 2004. Normative science. Fisheries 29: 38–39.Google Scholar
  16. Lahsen, M. 2005. Seductive simulations? uncertainty distribution around climate models. Social Studies of Science 35 (6): 895–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lambin, E.F., B.L. Turner, H.J. Geist, S.B. Agbola, A. Angelsen, J.W. Bruce, O.T. Coomes, et al. 2001. The causes of land-use and land-cover change: Moving beyond the myths. Global Environmental Change 11 (4): 261–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Landis, W. 2007. The Exxon Valdez oil spill revisited and the dangers of normative science. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 3 (3): 439–441.Google Scholar
  19. Lane, S.N. 2017. Slow science, the geographical expedition, and Critical Physical Geography. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien 61 (1): 84–101.Google Scholar
  20. Lave, R., M. Wilson, E. Barron, C. Biermann, M. Carey, C. Duvall, L. Johnson, et al. 2014. Intervention: Critical Physical Geography. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien 58 (1): 1–10.Google Scholar
  21. Moore, A. 2015. The Anthropocene: A critical exploration. Environment and Society 6 (1): 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mountz, A., A. Bonds, B. Mansfield, J.M. Loyd, J. Hyndman, M. Walton-Roberts, R. Basu, et al. 2015. For slow scholarship: A feminist politics of resistance through collective action in the neoliberal university. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 14 (4): 1235–1259.Google Scholar
  23. Pain, R. 2014. Impact: Striking a blow or working together? ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 13 (1): 19–23.Google Scholar
  24. Pielke, R. 2007. The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Proctor, J.D. 1998. The social construction of nature: Relativist accusations, pragmatist and critical realist responses. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 88 (3): 352–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Soulé, M. 1995. Reinventing nature?: Responses to postmodern deconstruction. Chicago: Island Press.Google Scholar
  27. Sundberg, M. 2009. The everyday world of simulation modeling: The development of parameterizations in meteorology. Science, Technology and Human Values 34: 162–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine Biermann
    • 1
  • Stuart N. Lane
    • 2
  • Rebecca Lave
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Earth Surface Dynamics, Université de LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department of GeographyIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations