The relation between generalizing and particularizing claims has a very long history in human geography. There have been approaches that wanted to throw out the generalizing altogether; and then those that saw no future for a field dedicated t particularization.
Today there are signs that we have moved on and that it is the relation between the two that should command attention. The significance of contextualization is recognized but with more universal conditions that provide both possibilities and limits. Claims for ‘theorizing from the South’ represent a different approach while the ‘varieties of capitalism’ literature suggest another starting point. On the other hand, we can still find unjustified de-contextualizations, home country bias, and the attempt to define particular cases as representative.
This opens up a quite huge range of possibilities for discussion including questions of both theory and method. These embrace old questions like the relation between space and place or that of scale relations such as the local and the global as well as what we might understand by an appropriate method.
|Panelist||Elena Trubina Ural Federal University||15|
|Panelist||Nancy Ettlinger Ohio State University||15|
|Panelist||Jamie Peck University of British Columbia||15|
|Panelist||Mark Boyle University of Liverpool||15|
To access contact information login