What kind of theory for what kind of population geography?

✍ Scribed by Graham, Elspeth

• Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
• Year: 2000
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 148 KB
• Volume: 6
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 1077-3495
• DOI: 10.1002/1099-1220(200007/08)6:4<257::aid-ijpg189>3.0.co;2-#

✦ Synopsis

This paper raises the issue of the role of theory in population geography. In the last decade there have been calls for population geographers to become more involved in the wider debates of human geography and related social sciences, including a plea for (re)theorisation of the subdiscipline. Yet, there has been little response. Since theory is not an optional extra, why this lack of enthusiasm? One explanation, I suggest, relates to an uncertainty about the different kinds of theory that inform empirical population research. Using the example of demographic transition theory, I identify different layers' of theory (population theory, theories of society, and philosophical theories) that underpin population research. I argue that, in addition, population geographers must recognise the continuing importance of disciplinary cultures and attend to theories of space and place. Understanding difference and diversity must lie at the heart of population geography's contribution to the multidisciplinary arena of population studies. It is the ideas of postmodernism that have legitimised' such understandings in the wider social sciences. At the same time, these ideas have introduced an ultimately nihilistic pluralism. Resolution of the resulting tension is the greatest challenge currently facing the discipline of geography. My entreaty is that population geographers recognise this challenge and, as part of the (re)theorisation of the subdiscipline, become more involved in the debate.