Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
•
Place:
as a centre of action and intention in relation to human activity, where
perception, human activity and changes in the life course of individuals and groups
occur.
•
Time:
how it is fundamental to human activity, action and the interaction with humans
and their environment, in terms of resource conflict in outdoor recreation and their use
of leisure time.
•
People:
as the fundamental focus in a relevant 'human geography'.
These four central themes characterise the geographer's focus and, even though it is
specific to the way the humanist views the world, place, space and time which is different
from the positivist, they are key elements in establishing research questions and a
particular view of the world. Therefore, in the new millennium, tourism and recreational
geographers are increasingly being divided into the positivist-humanistic camps, with the
ongoing quest for relevance, explanation and recognition of their respective contributions
to a spatially relevant subject. At a personal level, the authors recognise the criticisms of
applied geography as critiqued and debated by Pacione (1999a, 1999b) and would proffer
the following role for the geographer in a wider leisure context: to utilise an applied
analytical science with its focus on space, place, time and people with a view to problem-
solving, understanding and explanation. One important qualification needs to be added,
however: to adopt a radical critique, such as Peet (1977a, 1977b), will likely not
contribute to a wider public policy debate for geographers and an ability to improve the
human condition, albeit from within the capitalist system. This is not to say that the
authors are not empathetic with such a perspective—far from it. However, we would
argue that to actually improve the human condition (and we remain such unreconstructed
children of the Enlightenment that we still see this as a goal of geography and ourselves
as academics), one needs to engage and communicate with stakeholders, most especially
the wider public and those who are affected by our work, in a language which is broadly
understandable and not the domain of arcane, inward-looking academic subcommunities.
This does not mean that we seek the corporatisation of the university nor that we wish
just to talk the language of industry—it means we need to argue and communicate in a
manner which can be understood in the public sphere. As one of the author's experience
of working on the education-industry interface, being funded by an enterprise company,
suggests, geographers and other academics who engage with the wider world need to be
able to 'talk the talk' of industry and other groups when required to engage them
effectively rather than remain marginalised on the periphery looking in. It is that
marginalisation that has continued to dominate the discipline's relationships with the
outside world. Being able to engage effectively requires not only a specific skill set to
understand the needs and values of such bodies, but also a direct, focused and concise
manner of communication. In very simple terms, industry poses a problem to solve and it
wants a credible, robust and methodologically sound solution, although people in
industry may not want to engage with all the complexities of how you arrived at such a
solution. They just need to know it has integrity and will stand up to scrutiny. What
industry does not want to know is the ephemeral and somewhat indulgent rhetoric that
surrounds many academics when they engage with outside bodies on what they have
published recently and how influential it is. External agencies and companies frequently
return to a set series of questions:
