Multicultural Education & Technology JournalEmerald Article: Human Geography trains diverse perspectives on global developmentGilbert Ahamer

Article information:

To cite this document: Gilbert Ahamer, (2012),"Human Geography trains diverse perspectives on global development", Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, Vol. 6 Iss: 4 pp. 312 - 333

Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17504971211279554

Downloaded on: 21-11-2012

References: This document contains references to 85 other documents

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Emerald Author Access

For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comWith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Human Geography trains diverseperspectives on global

developmentGilbert Ahamer

Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria

Abstract

Purpose – Education for equity in global development and cultural diversity calls for professionalcapacity building to perceive diverse perspectives on complex procedures of globalisation. Thediscipline of human geography is such a “provider of perspectives”. The purpose of this paper is topropose a historic series of how theories of geography and human development have emerged.

Design/methodology/approach – This paper contributes to education and training by proposing ahistoric series of how theories of geography and human development have emerged.

Findings – The outcomes of this analysis of geographic paradigms offer options for the managementof multicultural education in development. A critical synopsis and a combination of various paradigmson global development seem most promising for a holistic and comprehensive understanding ofglobalisation.

Research limitations/implications – In particular, recent developments in human geographyexhibit rapidly changing paradigms (ironically called “the Latin America of sciences”) and are hencedifficult to systematise.

Practical implications – Spaces are understood to be communicational spaces, the substrate ofwhich is enabling communication technologies. The theoretical contemplations of this paper permit todesign learning environments, learning styles and related technologies.

Social implications – Perception and understanding of contradicting theories on global (economicand human) development facilitate education fostering multiple cultures of understanding. Theauthor’s own professional experience shows that only esteem for all paradigms can provide the fullpicture. Success means “collective production of meaning”.

Originality/value – Understanding history frees us to reach future consensus.

Keywords Multiparadigmatic, History, Geography, Global development, Paradigms, Education

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionBy showing and enumerating various, often divergent paradigms of globaldevelopment – mostly from the fields of (human and economic) geography – thispaper provides tools to better understand conflicting approaches to multiculturality,globalisation and related technological case studies (Durakovic et al., 2012). Geographymay be the science that is most inclined to take a multiparadigmatic stance; hence thispaper will employ the historic cascade of geographic paradigms to provide a theoreticalbasis for multicultural and multiparadigmatic education and learning.

This text proposes the following broad definition of geography: geography providesviews and perspectives. Traditionally, this is made true by “mapping” in the strictgeodetic sense; however, later on geography expanded to perceive social issues andfunctionalities as well (Agnew et al., 1996; Ahamer, 2010b). Human geography providesperspectives on human development while using a multiparadigmatic approach.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-497X.htm

METJ6,4

312

Multicultural Education &Technology JournalVol. 6 No. 4, 2012pp. 312-333q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1750-497XDOI 10.1108/17504971211279554

According to Gebhardt et al. (2007, p. 82), a paradigm is a model of thought, a myth orconstituting content to which any narratives implicitly refer.

With the aim of providing a theoretical basis for multicultural learning, this papertries to contribute to all four layers of the “pyramid of science” (Figure 1).

The perspective of human geographyWithin this paper “mapping” is understood as (spatial) pattern recognition. For thispurpose it provides concepts of space developed during the history of geographicthought and available in geographic literature.

“Mapping” in its historic genesis meant to take a standpoint that is principallyinaccessible for humans (e.g. the “bird’s eye view”, at left in Figure 2) above a plain inorder to overcome all perspective-bound limitations and all perspectival preferences sothat ideally a “perspective-less” image of reality may be produced.

In reality, social, medical and other aspects can be perceived (centre and at right inFigure 2); and especially when it comes to processes, a multitude of perceptions is possible.

What geography meansIn this paper, taking a geographical perspective is usually understood as using aspatial vantage point. For the targets of a journal on multicultural learning, we try

Figure 2.There are

countless opportunities toperceive a process in

(geo-referenced) realities

Notes: The example of a hiking tour from Tajikistan’s capital Dushanbe (at left in thebackground, source: Google Earth) to a famous waterfall (at left in the insert, Ahamer et al.(2010) in a social group of colleagues (symbolically mirrored at centre in the author’s photoduring a rest break) is physically measured by speed (at right: blue line with car travel, thenhike), elevation (brown area) and impacts the heart rate of the author (red line; GPS-equippedmeasurement device: Polar, 2009)

Figure 1.The pyramid of

geographicscience according to

Abler et al. (1971), citedafter Borsdorf (1999, p. 21)

and Ahamer (2013)

Phi-losophy

Meta theory

Methodology

Practice

Source: Abler, Adams & Gould (1971); Borsdorf (1999: 21);Ahamer (2013)

Note: The present text tries to contribute to all layers of geographicthinking

HumanGeography

313

to increase the degree of complexity of this definition towards understanding on threelevels (Figure 3, Ahamer, 2012, p. 178).

We start out with the first and second level. Important contributions to thediscussion of geographic theories include Geography – A Global Synthesis byPeter Haggett (2001, p. 10) who encourages us to:

[. . .] leave the straitjacket (of geo-localisation, i.e. the 1st level of facts) [. . .] and to concentratedirectly on the relationships [i.e. the 2nd level of functions in Figure 3) between man and theenvironment on the spatial consequences and the resulting regional structures on the earth’ssurface.

The very fundamental geographic example of “Geography on the beach” was authoredby Haggett (2001, p. 27) and is outlined again by Borsdorf (1999, p. 15).

Geography has a bearing on “spatial-temporal procedural patterns” (Borsdorf, 1999,p. 17f); the question of “where and when” directly leads to the question of “why”.A comprehensive collection of paradigms in geography stem from Abler et al. (1971),entitled “Spatial organisation – the geographer’s view of the world”. As a conceptualbasis for geography as such, Borsdorf (1999, p. 27) lists eight scientific concepts:empiricism, neopositivism/critical rationalism, (traditional) hermeneutics, criticaltheory/(critical) hermeneutics, structuralism. These concepts also occur in otherdisciplines such as history, sociology, psychology, economics, evolution, and mayconsequently be of general relevance. By far the most comprehensive book in theGerman language encompassing the highest number of geographic approaches andgeographic perspectives is “Geography” by Gebhardt et al. (2007).

“Temporal development and evolution leads to spatial patterns”: having conceivedthis key idea, one of the bases for the importance of the space-time theme in moderngeography becomes clear (GIScience, 2011). Hagerstrand (1978) developed space-timegeography and concentrated on the process of spatial diffusion (according to Haggett,2001, pp. 31f, 506ff).

Very importantly and helpfully, the French sociologist Lefebvre (1991, cited inHubbard et al., 2002, p. 14), author of La production de l’espace, (The Production ofSpace, Lefebvre, 1974a, b) suggests that there are three complementary levels whichseems a very appropriate place to sum up and conclude this theoretical introduction.Lefebvre’s concept of space includes:

. spatial practices;

. representation of space; and

. spaces of representation ¼ representational space.

Concepts of spaceThe concepts of space presented in geography stem from paradigms varying fromnatural to social science: the initial concept of space as geographic (geodetic) spaceunfolds into a multitude of social and philosophical concepts. The literature analysed

Figure 3.Three levels ofperspectives regardingglobal development lead tomulticultural perception

METJ6,4

314

on the following pages deals with integrative views, human geography (including socialgeography, economic geography, political geography, geography and history, socialproduction of space, philosophy of space and time) and also briefly with GIS (geographicinformation systems and science: physical views, physio-geography).

Obviously and historically, the first frame of reference was “objective”, geometric,physical, astronomic, geodetic space (Hund, 1972), the so-called “container space”welcoming any object or event to localise in it.

In such early times (based on Kant’s understanding) space was understood asobjective, but there seemed to exist no “homo geographicus” (Latin: geographic human, aterm coined with allusion to the “homo oeconomicus”, the economic human) who wouldcognise perfectly well anything about space. Humans perceive only part of spatial reality,namely as a function of their attention, interest, present events, social factors – which iscalled “selection” and leads to a different “assessment”. The resulting behaviour in spaceis a function of the subjective perception of space’s structures (Borsdorf, 1999, p. 79).Starting from this definition, the network-like interdisciplinary structure of geography(Borsdorf, 1999, p. 51) extends inter alia to the Munich based social geography and to aperception-oriented approach (i.e. the third level of functions in Figure 3).

Apart from topographic space, temporal, functional, state spaces and social spacesare also included in the present text. As a classical example of a state space, remotesensing refers to feature spaces (e.g. different channels with different wave lengths),or to property spaces (Barton, 1955). Another example from classical geography mightbe the wind drift maps or ocean drift maps which essentially use arrows for depictingmovements, speeds, streams and vectors (Trenberth, 1995 in Ahamer, 1997, p. 174).

What else does the approach of geography comprise? Essentially, geography offersan artificial view of reality. On the meta-level, geography provides perspectives(Ahamer et al., 2009). In this paper, “perspectives” as an objective of cognition (third levelof perspectives in Figure 3) are placed into the larger context of the history of science.

Geographic paradigmsWhat geography may mapPresent-day concepts in human geography consider space as perception and construction:Gould and White (2002, p. 1) refer to the sensed, perceived physical landscape. Thebasic environmental perception is the effect of distance on movement (Gould and White,2002, p. 2); this leads them to focus on social proximity versus physical distanceand further on maps of space preferences. For them, relative location is “accessibility”(Gould and White, 2002, p. 5).

Is there a “structure of spaces”? As a follow-up to this question, the “act of mappingamounts to cognising and representing the structure of space”. According to Gould(2000, p. 153ff), a key term is connectivity which is describable in a behavioural spaceby a behavioural matrix, representing a matrix of perceived proximities, i.e. intensitiesof interaction. Gould’s (2000, 164ff) social map is less questioned but structurallysimilar to concepts of a dynamic social space as conceived by Hellinger’s (2000) familyor systemic constellations. While his therapeutic method occurs autopoetically in thegeometric space of a seminar room (Ahamer and Purker, 2011) and is claimed to reflectand materialise analogous relationships in the social space, Gould’s experimentdeliberately occurs in the social action space. In both cases, “social space” allows socialactors to walk through a “social landscape”, while acting socially. In this context,

HumanGeography

315

Gould defines a “measure” or metric, i.e. a distance, in his type of social space: in a paperhe writes the names of individuals at a distance indicating how well they interact witheach other. This means that Gould’s measure for such a sociogram is the coherence,value and density of their interaction (Ahamer and Purker, 2011, p. 161). In apsychological sense, similar live sociograms are created by family constellations.

One of the most distinctive descriptions characterising the common geographicalapproach is Tobler’s (1970) “First Law of Geography”: adjacent locations are similar(adjacency implies similarity). Spatial autocorrelation seems to have been found toconstitute a fundamental property of geographic space.

In a different approach, the geographer Unwin (1992, p. 1) addresses how “knowledge”(perspectives, visions) is produced by different societies and how specific societies produceknowledge. He refers to geography as a “socially constructed discipline” and suggests thatwhat a society accepts as being truthful statements is the result of a series ofinteractions between social, political, economic and ideological interests. His book ThePlace of Geography is “designed as a historically oriented reflection on the emergence ofcontemporary geography, which seeks to reveal the underlying connections thatexist between knowledge, power and human interest.” In this volume, Langthaler et al.(2012) provide a critical evaluation of “knowledge for development”.

Integrative views of geography: a history of geographic thoughtThe timeline and the history of geography might start out with the early history ofgeography (Hard, 1973, pp. 290-3; Bartels, 1970; Abler et al., 1971, p. 70). The followingsubchapter attempts to provide a historic overview of paradigms:

. From antiquity (Strabo, Ptolemy) to 1800 (according to Wright, 1926, cited inAgnew et al., 1996, pp. 25-36): “Where” questions are in the foreground, the targetis to produce a map. “Geography means to know the map”. This form ofgeography’s utility peaked around 1500-1800 (Abler et al., 1971, p. 70).

. Galileo Galilei essentially opened up the medieval space by utilising the telescopeas a basis for an experimental method instead of relying on scriptures (be theyclassical, biblical or revealed otherwise); this is the core of Galilei’s andCopernicus’ revolution.

. For philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) the categories of space and timealready represented the fundament for cognition. The same was the case for thephysics-oriented concept of space with Lagrange and other (mostly French)mathematicians (Hund, 1972). In such understanding, “only space and time enableaccess to the world” (Gebhardt et al., 2007, p. 32). In this tradition, social geographydeals with the concept of space as such. Kant has conceived space as resultingfrom the spatial relations of individuals (which by the way is astonishingly similarto modern sociologists saying that structures are generated by social practice).Emphasising spatial relations as constituents for space was very prominentlysuggested by Haggett’s (2001, p. 27) “geography on the beach” and highlighted byBailey (2009) and MacDonald (2003).

. Descriptive, taxonomic, (regionalistic) period of history: 1800-1950: questions of“what is where?” are in the foreground, e.g. spatial distributions of soil, plants andanimals. Carl Ritter (1779-1859) produced 20 volumes of “Erdkunde”, FriedrichRatzel (1844-1904) wrote his book Anthropogeographie in 1882; he was influenced

METJ6,4

316

by Darwin and Bismarck (Knox and Marston, 2008, p. 72). Ratzel in turninfluenced Richthofen’s physical geography and Haushofer’s concept of“geopolitics” in the 1920s (with deplorable political consequences) and later,in the Anglo-Saxon countries, Ellen Churchill Semple (Haggett, 2001, p. 364) andEllsworth Huntington (1876-1947) (Knox and Marston, 2008, p. 73; Dorn, 1991,p. xviii) claimed the existence of an environmentalist superiority of the white race.Evidently, such a concept is not appropriate for us.

. Such a geo-deterministic phase (Hard, 1973, p. 292) means: geography acts as themain descriptor of relations (Gebhardt et al., 2007, p. 70). A British representative ofgeodeterminism is Halford J. Mackinder (1861-1947) who saw the steppe asthe pivotal area in Eurasia and hence the geographical pivot of history; hedeterministically separated land power from sea power (contemporarily we mightconceive an additional antagonising “virtual power” in Cyberspace). This approachcould be called “geopolitics” from the British point of view, complementingHaushofer’s view. Such an unnecessarily strong overemphasis of environmental(i.e. geographically driven) determinants on (economic, social and cultural)development was later softened by the so-called stop-and-go determinism (Haggett,2001, p. 363), its most widely known representative being Griffith Taylor(1880-1963).

. Possibilistic phase: Lucien Febvre (1878-1956, see Hard (1973, p. 161)). Thepossibilistic revolution around 1900 in France (Hard, 1973, p. 293) and thisparadigmatic transition is embodied by the multifaceted personality of PaulVidal de la Blache (1845-1919) and his key concept of “genres de vie”. Emphasiswas laid on the liberty of humans and on the wide scope of their possibilities.Synthesising “landscape”, “regional studies of wholeness”, a culture ecologicaland historically-genetic analysis was considered a geographic task. Such aparadigm led to the emergence of cultural geography (Knox and Marston, 2008,p. 319f) and the notion of cultural landscape (Carl Sauer, 1899-1975). Hans Bobek(1903-1990) suggested a stepwise theory of integrations (in German:Integrationsstufenlehre) (Knox and Marston, 2008, p. 321; Wardenga andWeichhart, 2006, p. 12; Weichhart, 1999, p. 69).

. After First World War, a shift from regional geography (idiographic, i.e. describingindividual case studies; in German Landerkunde) to landscape science (nomothetic,i.e. positing general laws; in German Landschaftskunde) began, and led to theemergence of landscape ecology and social geography during 1950-1960 (Bobek,Hartke).

. During 1920-1930, Walter Christaller and Hans Bobek established a structural-functional economic and social geography. Spatial sciences during 1950-1960analysed regularities in spatial patterns (of human activities): “The explanation ofclasses of events by demonstrating that they are instances of widely applicable lawsand theories” (Hubbard et al., 2002, p. 25).

. History of spatial economic modelling: The major purpose of locationaltheory (Knox: 71) is to put location into economic theory. The perception of,e.g. mercantile and industrial landscape in the 1970s led to generation of a theory ofspace including a more severe methodology for general and thematic geography.

HumanGeography

317

. After the 1980s, the “quantitative revolution” (Harvey) was leading to ananalytical and theoretical geography (in Germany: functional phase: y ¼ f(x)(a parameter y is a function of a parameter x, mostly space), Hard, 1973, p. 293).

. Behavioural social geographic phase (Munich School: Ruppert, Hartke): basicfunctions of living (in German Daseinsgrundfunktionen, mental maps, 1960-1970:behavioural geography (Hubbard et al., 2002).

. Critical rationalism (Bartels) after the 1970s: Falsification, Popper. 1970-1980:radical-structural geography: Hubbard et al. (2002, p. 23).

. Haggett (2001, p. 506): Torsten Hagerstrand’s (1916-2004) Time Geography:“Spatial diffusion as an innovative process (Knox and Marston, 2008, p. 3.4): timeand space is a pre-requisite for human action.

. Quantitative and analytic-scientistic phase: z ¼ f(x, y) – where x, y aregeographic coordinates and z any property (Hartshorne, 1939 in Agnew et al.,1996, p. 390), statistical geography: Duncan (Haggett, 1990, pp. 43, 91, 115).

. Park (1926) cited in Ley (1980) in Agnew et al. (1996, p. 193): reduce all socialrelations to relations of space (as did Christaller) and it would be possible toapply to human relations the fundamental logic of the natural sciences,consequently David Harvey’s geometric science of spatial relation. Agnew et al.,1996, p. 200: Ley: Marxian structuralism: David Harvey and Manuel Castells.Ley (in Agnew et al., 1996, p. 203) “the agents of the historical process are notpersons but abstractions”; wants to find the equilibrium of how much“development” is structurally caused, the relations of productions. People simplyplay the roles ascribed to them, not by themselves or by any other people but bythe functional necessity of a structural logic. For Ley (Agnew et al., 1996, p. 204)“the denial and suppression of the subjective is an epistemological error”. Ley inAgnew et al. (1996, p. 205) holds that geographic facts are not fatalisticallypredetermined; they are the outcome of both constraint and choice of processes ofnegotiation by geographic agents. Is the modern individual’s authenticity notmerely a reflection of his or her environment? (Agnew et al., 1996, p. 209).

. Geography is a science where the object (i.e. worlds, reality) is more importantthan the methodology (unlike in, e.g. physics, economics); hence geographynecessarily experiences a continuous methodological discussion and a sequenceof methodological turns.

. Wolfgang Hartke (1908-1997) emphasised “doing geography” (in German:“Geographie machen”) as a new concept, establishing a new cultural geography.

. Action-oriented research, partly as opposed to a behavioural orientation: socialconstructivism (as opposed to critical rationalism), Benno Werlen’s “geographywithout space”. Plurality of concepts, post-modern, spatial planning (Borsdorf,1999; Werlen, 1993). Borsdorf (1999): action is the production of space! (Werlen,1987, p. 3). It is possible to act without space across a distance. Dissolution of space(de-anchoring). Social geography deals with the meaning of actions in space andfor the purpose of societal constitution. The actors produce their own geographies;strong emphasis on the subject; this approach cannot explain responsibilities.

. Decision-oriented or action-oriented research (Hamilton, Werlen, 1987):individual-society-space. In Germany: regulation theory: “Evolution is

METJ6,4

318

a non-deterministic sequence of stable development phases” ( ¼ in German“Formationen”) and breaks down with such developments.

. Systems analytical approach (Butzer, 1980 in Agnew et al., 1996, p. 268; Borsdorf,1999, p. 83) as an antithesis to the organic approach by the historians Spengler,Toynbee & Clarke (Culture System Ontogeny). Rather: chronological systemsresearch (Hard, 1973, p. 240): Bartels.

. Perception-oriented approach. There is no homo geographicus who knows allreality, ecopsychology, Borsdorf (1999, p. 79); mental maps. Gebhardt et al. (2007,p. 591): mental maps show the “perception of distance”. Selective assessment ofreality: a human reacts to reality as he or she sees it, not as it is. Behaviour inreality is a function of the subjective perception of reality. Hard (1973, p. 251):geography survives best if geography is able: (1) to cooperate in aninterdisciplinary fashion (Weichhart, 1999; Wardenga and Weichhart, 2006)and (2) to invest specific perspectives.

. Post-structuralist perspective. Oriented to discourse (Aitken and Valentine, 2006,pp. 298, 303, 130), semantically-oriented: language constitutes the spatial. Thereis no meaning without space, meaning results from the relational play in space:“Linguistic turn”, e.g. Said (1978) in Agnew et al. (1996, p. 415).

. Deconstruction or: what happens (Aitken and Valentine, 2006, p. 299).

. Bryson et al. (1999, p. 49): Analysis of discourse is discourse analysis of economy:Michel Foucault “linguistic turn”.

. After the 1980s: poststructuralist approaches (Aitken and Valentine, 2006,pp. 130f, 298); interpretative. 1980: Hermeneutic-interpretative approaches,qualitative turn (Borsdorf, 1999, p. 94): understanding, authentically based onone’s worldview and on the individual living context, humanistic geography inthe 1960s and 1970s (Hubbard et al., 2002, p. 25) Qualitative post-structuralisticapproaches, field research, participant observer, guided interview, discoursiveanalysis, hegemonial discourses (Latour, 1998, 2000) Recently, a shift to criticalgeopolitics has occurred (OTuathail, 1996).

. A pluralism of methods can be observed, a myriad of meanings exist, there isno absolute or universal truth (geography becomes narrative): cultural turn(Gebhardt et al., 2007, p. 574), semiotic turn and linguistic turn in human geographythat has always embarked on a hybrid approaches, in brief: a multiplicity ofstories Aitken and Valentine (2006, p. 264): humanistic geographers are thereforeinterested in complex and dynamic wholes – experience, places, lifeworks. (Aitkenand Valentine, 2006, p. 270): geography means people-centred methodologies,self-reflection and biographical strategies.

. To Hard, inquiry of what geography is, needs a universe of discourse producinga “plurality of geographies” (compare Ahamer et al., 2009, p. 313; Durakovic et al.,2012: Figure 1). These geographies were often ordered along the metatheories oflogical empiricism, critical rationalism, dialectic-hermeneutical inquiry, reachinginto interpretative approaches of social philosophy (Hard, 1973, pp. 25–32).

According to Hubbard et al. (2002, p. 235) and as a conclusion to this looseenumeration, the following main questions for geographic research can be established:

HumanGeography

319

(1) Naturalist or anti naturalist?

(2) Value-free or action-oriented?

(3) Objective or situated?

(4) Is there one or many geographies?

(5) Realist or idealist?

(6) Human geography with human agency or structural explanation?

Geography as a multiparadigmatic scienceAs has become evident from the above enumeration of paradigms, geography is“a multi-paradigmatic discipline” (Gebhardt et al., 2007, pp. v, 48) with very widelydifferentiated themes and methodologies. Geography is the “science of the entireworld” with accumulated paradigms. “Geography being what geographers do” focuseson the “overarching functional relationships” among physis (nature), anthropos(human), economic and social aspects (Gebhardt et al., 2007, p. 48).

The author’s own professional experience shows that only “esteem for allparadigms” ( ¼ views, perspectives) can provide the full picture in the “macroscope”(Strobl, 2008). All the above-mentioned methods contribute to a “collective productionof meaning” (Gebhardt et al., 2007, p. 181). Human geography is thus amulti-perspectivistic field (Gebhardt et al., 2007, p. 572ff).

Geography has undergone so many revolutions in the second half of the twentiethcentury that it was called the “Latin America among sciences” according to Blotevogel(Borsdorf, 1999, p. 94).

“The method of geography is something to be created and designed, not somethingthat is fixed and predetermined” (Hard, 1973, p. 11). This horizon might lead somereaders to believe in an ongoing creative evolution of geographic thought, in analogy tothe theory of Kuhn (1962), presented in his book Structure of Scientific Revolution, seeGebhardt et al. (2007, p. 70).

History of economic geographiesAfter having studied the history of geography in general, the following subchaptersdeal with subdisciplines of geography. According to Krugman (1991, p. 1), economicgeography means the location of “production in space” (Knox and Agnew, 1997, p. 9).Cyclical economic fluctuations, such as the cycles theorised by Kondratieff andKuznets (one Kondratieff cycle amounts to two Kuznets cycles) explain merely a portionof economic patterns. The first industrial, or any subsequent boom became a victim ofits own success, the “market became saturated”, which led to an understanding of themeta-patterns of any evolutionary economic, agricultural development.

Spatiality of change is explicitly included in Wallerstein’s “world systems theory”:geography deals with variability within a general context, hence the concept of core,semi-periphery and periphery (Knox and Agnew, 1997, p. 16ff). Geography is understoodas the science dealing with such variability (core versus periphery within a generalcontext). Immanuel Wallerstein (Knox and Agnew, 1997, p. 65) tries to understand thegeographic path dependence of economic activities; “one cannot analyse social phenomenaunless one bounds them in space and time”. Wallerstein (1984) sees the world as anevolving market system (Knox and Agnew, 1997, p. 20). The economic hierarchy of statesis a product of the long-term economic cycles that dominate the dynamics of the system!

METJ6,4

320

In this view, “underdevelopment is a direct result of the nature of spatial relationships”within the world capitalist system (dependency theory of development, Knox andAgnew, 1997, p. 84).

It can be criticised that often economic sciences represent an extreme case of taking“data for granted and thus replacing the realistic view”. Traditional “growth theory”(Ahamer, 2008; Crang et al., 1999, p. 7) especially opposes this hubris pretending thatthe structures of economic (and civilisational) growth are known.

History of developmental theoriesDevelopmental theories are discussed in more detail in Ahamer (2008, 2009, 2010a).Their interest is similar to the history of economics because they search for answers tothe question: “where are economies rich and where are they poor?” which is a deliberatealteration of the title by Landes’ (1999) much discussed developmental book Why SomeAre So Rich and Some So Poor.

In developmental economics, two main antagonistic paradigms span across a widerange of more differentiated understandings. In the order of their historical emergence,these two are:

(1) the growth theory; and

(2) the dependency theory.

(see symbolically in Figure 4), discussed in more detail in the course of the “GlobalStudies” curriculum (Ahamer, 2011; Ahamer et al., 2011a). A strongly andcontroversially discussed assumption for (1) is the “homo oeconomicus”, namely anidealised person acting according to the behavioural laws assumed in (neo)classicaleconomics. As a footnote: it seems that (even) young cats strive for optimal socialquality (e.g. maximum joy when play-fighting with each other), not for maximisingtheir individual benefit (e.g. consisting in winning a played battle; for this purpose thestronger brother often intentionally succumbs to the weaker brother). It can be thusobserved that young cats are ready to cede their individual benefit for another’sbenefit, implying successful social interaction (here joyful game play). Furthermore,young cats (under normal nutritional circumstances) do not even strictly corroborateBrecht’s (1928, p. 67) hypothesis of “first feed, then ethics”, because after morningwake-up they first desire social contact and only second their feed.

The major theoretical perspectives in economic geography since the 1960s, accordingto Coe et al. (2007, p. 12f) follows the lines of the history of economy (e.g. Irving Fisher’smachine (Coe et al., 2007, p. 38). Marxist political economy since the early 1970s hasfocused on uneven development (Bryson et al., 1999, p. 9), searching for statistical lawsof spatial distribution and for processes of uneven urban and regional development.

Figure 4.The “magnetic field” ofdevelopmental theories

evolves between(neo)classical growth

theories and competingdependency theories, also

called internal and externaltheories of development

(Ahamer, 2010b)

growththeory

dependencytheory

HumanGeography

321

The capitalist dynamic was seen to be heated as a result of Schumpeter’s “creativedestruction”. In this context, the important author David Harvey wrote on Urban socialjustice in 1973.

As another example for (1), see in Figure 4 at left, location theory again perceiveseconomics with a neoclassical approach. Representatives in Germany are Alfred Weber(1909) and August Losch; in Great Britain and the USA: Brian Berry, William Carrison,Peter Haggett. This approach was adopted at the beginning of the 1990s by whateconomists referred to as “new economic geography” (NEG). New economic geographyviews economic processes as linked to social, cultural, institutional factors,at left in Figure 4.

Quite antagonistic to growth theories:. development theories; and. represent complementary views.

The theory of the modern world system (Wallerstein, 1984, at right in Figure 4) dealtwith economic globalisation. In this view, world regions are linked up by “unequalexchange” leading to unequal development (Knox and Marston, 2008, p. 74). As anexample, the core-periphery approach was taken by Krugman (1991, p. 89). Theeconomic equilibrium theory allows for apparently consistent modelling, however,the state of spatial equilibrium is never reached (Knox and Agnew, 1997, p. 84). Duringthe late 1960s until the early 1980s, a behavioural approach assuming boundedrationality allowed for model decision-making and resulting locational outcomes.

Bryson et al. (1999, p. 35) states: “economy is a function of power relations” and as acritique of the classical measure for economic level (Bryson et al., 1999, p. 46): “GDPdoes not contain informal activities”.

Agnew et al. (1996, p. 600ff) describe that David Harvey, in his view, states that “thegeography of capital accumulation leads to annihilation of space by time” (whichmight be corroborated by the syndromes generated by financial markets in late 2011).He suggests (Agnew et al., 1996, p. 612) “a ‘spatial fix’ to capitalism’s contradictions:

1st contradiction: Space can be overcome only through the production of space (Agnew et al.,1996, p. 620).

2nd contradiction: The internal contradictions of capitalism can be resolved by a spatial fix,but in doing so, capitalism transfers its contradictions to a wider sphere and gives themgreater latitude. Conclusion: The more fiercely capitalism is impelled to seek a spatial fix forits internal contradictions, the deeper the tension of overcoming space through the productionof space becomes.”

Harvey (1973, 1989, p. 46ff) (followed by many other theorists), explains that the keydefining feature of the new capitalism is “flexible accumulation”. In his seminal book“The condition of postmodernity”, the principal task of economic geography is seenas “understanding the geographies of global integration”. For Harvey (1989, p. 16),“postmodernism encourages the multi-perspectival, multi-dimensional and multi-vocal,but at the same time compels one to examine the positionality and authority ofknowledge claims, whatever the voice”:

The cultural turn has introduced economic geography to a new set of qualitative methodologies,for example textural analysis, iconography, semiotics, ethnography, participant observation andaction research, to name but a few. (Harvey, 1989, p. 17).

METJ6,4

322

An eclectic collection of philosophical standpoints and social theories led to theso-called “cultural turn” (in geography or elsewhere) which was seen as a “danger ofmuddying the analytical waters” (Bryson et al., 1999, p. 14). In a similar vein, Daly(1991, p. 93) perceives:

We have moved from the metaphysical realm to the metaphorical: That is to say, we havemoved from the idea that economic “truth” is discovered towards the idea that is made.

Summing up in more detail, apart from development theory (e.g. Rostow’s five stagesof growth) there are three theories for the emergence and structure of the worldeconomy (Knox and Agnew, 1997, p. 108):

(1) long-wave theories (such as Kondratieff);

(2) world system theories (Wallerstein); and

(3) regulationist theories (Coe et al., 2007, p. 71).

But in the understanding of Coe et al. (2007, p. xix), economic geography is distinctfrom developmental geography. To him, there are two perspectives on economicgeography: political economic perspectives (after the 1970s) and new economicgeography perspectives (Coe et al., 2007, p. x).

Bryson et al. (1999, p. 10) identifies four components of economic orthodoxy,i.e. neo-classics:

(1) Universalism (one size fits all approach to poverty).

(2) Economic rationality always prevails (homo oeconomicus exists).

(3) Competition and equilibrium (market mechanism finds optimal efficiency).

(4) Laws and principles steer economic processes.

In order to condense it all into a paradigm of economic geography, Bryson et al. (1999,p. 11) coin the expression that “economic geography is space, place, scale”(where “space” might be understood as provider of the occasion for localisation).However, the author suggests that readers might wish to conceive: “important truthsare very badly localisable but small truths are easily localisable”. There might be aprincipal trade-off between relevance and ability to generalise versus locability andconcreteness in our spaces of understanding. It may not be easy to localise Einstein’slaw of “E ¼ m.c2” anywhere in this universe, unlike geological faults and volcanoes.Hence, paradigms even within the natural sciences can be quite controversial, muchlike the resulting conviction of “what does scientific quality mean”.

As a possibly suitable solution to this dilemma we might conceive: both thegeographic context and the functional context are necessary, namely to an extentappropriate for the respective issue.

In the next step of deliberation, we use the word “space” to describe not onlygeographic or economic spaces but any such (social) spaces.

Space in the history of human geographyLooking at social sciences from the “outside”, Agnew et al. (1996, p. 7) diagnose aconsiderable “geographical turn in the social sciences” which consistently complementsthe many turns in (human) geography and underpins the diagnosis by Gebhardt et al.(2007) that “geography became a theory exporting science” recently. A very helpful

HumanGeography

323

book by Knox and Marston (2008) on human geography was edited in the Germanlanguage by Gebhardt et al. (2008).

In order to start at first with a calm look at the turbulent history of thought inhuman geography, Gebhardt et al. (2008, p. 28) provide a well-structured and stringentlist of succinct definitions of several types of spaces including:

. absolute (mathematical) space (compare Kant);

. geodetic space (GIS, astronomic space);

. space as a container with a metric (compare French mathematisedunderstanding of physics, e.g. Lagrange);

. relative space (social and economic approach);, e.g. Haggett’s “geography on thebeach” uses the degree of connectivity;

. relative experience (constructivism); and

. cognitive space: behavioural sciences, regarding values and perceptions.

John N. Nystuen (in Agnew et al., 1996, p. 590ff) provides an “identification of somefundamental spatial concepts”, namely space conceived as:

. “distance” (ordinal or metric);

. areal differentiation: concept of spatial interaction;

. isotropic plane in the sense of Hagerstrand;

. abstract space (Agnew et al., 1996, p. 593);

. distance measure (“spaces” result from assigning properties to a measure ofdistance);

. a measure that can be asymmetric (e.g. one-way streets);

. systemically effluent from the so-called triangular inequality; and

. connectivity (adjacency, contiguity), necessitating interaction (Agnew et al.,1996, p. 596).

Nystuen concludes his theoretical analysis by extracting the following terms definingthe concept of “geographic view”:

. direction or orientation;

. distance; and

. connection or relative position.

Timespace geography and web didacticsIf understood on a meta-level, Torsten Hagerstrand’s time-geography (Agnew et al.,1996, pp. 637, 644) fits well into globalisation and web-based didactics, not onlybecause he describes procedures in space-time, but also due to his choice of vocabulary,namely “synchronisation and synchorisation” (ethymology: khronos from Greek:o x@ono6: time; khoros with long o from Greek: h xv@a: land, (empty) space;�o x ~v@o6: estate, landscape; distinct and not to be confused etymologically with khoroswith short o: o xo@o6 choir, dance). Intentionally choosing the latter for vocabulary,the “choreography of existence” recalls the musical notation invented in (Ahamer,2011b) to symbolically depict whether or if students are at the same point in the state

METJ6,4

324

space of learning, gaming and understanding. This means, as is often mentioned in thistext, that by sharing space or time (or rather transformed space and time), entities havean option to interact, filling the statement “to have the same location” with meaning.Such may serve as a pragmatic but powerful definition of space with a view to webdidactics, using a functional method of definition that conceptually starts from scratch.

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica (2011), Torsten Hagerstrand conceived a“locational or spatial analysis or, to some, spatial science.” He wrote in an article on“diorama, path and project” (Hagerstrand, 1982, p. 323):

The concept of path (or trajectory) was introduced in order to help [us] to appreciate thesignificance of continuity in the succession of situations. We have to keep in mind that itrefers not only to man but to all other packets of continuants which fill up our world(Agnew et al., 1996, p. 650; Ahamer et al., 2009, p. 302; Kraak, 2009).

Such a basis, applied to timespace geography, dwells on the century-long convictionthat “natura saltus non facit” (nature does not make (unattended, unannounced,inexplicable) jumps) which is as perfectly in line with differential calculus, gradualismand determinism as it is in natural philosophy – and as debatable. The “diorama”approach (diorao in Greek: is to look through, to see clearly, to notice) meansto him “a portrait of the grand situation” (Agnew et al., 1996, p. 655), just as publiclyknown from museums of natural history.

Regarding the history of human geography, Derek Gregory states (Agnew et al.,1996, p. 212): “Postmodernism is, in a very real sense, “post paradigma”: that is to saypost-modern writers are immensely suspicious of any attempt to construct a system ofthought which claims to be complete and comprehensive.” In contrast to classicalscience, it rejects the notion that social life can be explained in terms of some “deeperstructure” (postmodernism is similar to poststructuralism) (Agnew et al., 1996, p. 214).Such a post-modernist approach even interferes with the strategy of detecting “paths”in the process of globalisation.

Gebhardt et al. (2008, p. 31) lays an emphasis on spatial interaction that might bemanifested by (material) flows which can be monitored and measured moreconveniently in order to characterise the underlying (spatial) dynamic interaction.

In the sense of “space time convergence”, travel times decrease with increasingtechnological facilities, and this space-time convergence has an effect on perception(Gebhardt et al., 2008).

In a general criticism of the classical European history of sciences, which in his viewhas overemphasised history and humanities over (natural) science, the geographerEd W. Soja (1989, in Agnew et al., 1996, p. 625) critically explains: “Michel Foucault’sphilosophy of the invisibility of space and time: Space was treated as the dead, the fixed,the un-dialectical, the immobile”. “Time, on the contrary, was richness, fecundity, life,dialectic”. “To recover from this historicist devaluation, to make space visible again as afundamental reference requires a major rethinking into a larger epistemology.”He continues: “There are three overlapping spaces: physical, mental, social (the socialspace is the one that allows and foresees interaction). Spatiality exists ontologically as theproduct of a transformation process.” He adopts Henri Bergson’s “concepts of ‘time’,namely ‘duree’ as opposed to ‘evenement’ (Agnew et al., 1996, p. 633), the former beingthe carrier of creativity, spirit and meaning”. The present text chooses to translate as“effective time” (in German: Wirkzeit, wirkbare Zeit), in analogy, the spatial metric j~xj

HumanGeography

325

suggested in geography and GIS means the “effective spatial distance” (in German:Wirkdistanz des Raumes).

Very helpfully, and as an underpinning for the understanding of the present text,Soja (1989, in Agnew et al., 1996, p. 633) concludes: “Spatiality is both outcome andmedium for the social relation and social structure”.

Other helpful levels of understanding of space versus spatiality are (Hubbard et al.,2002, p. 13):

. Space ¼ absolute (Euclidic) space (Capek, 1976, p. 113), a container of objects.

. Space ¼ relative understanding, constituted by socio-spatial relations.

. Ed Soja: “Only spatiality, not space is socially produced” (Hubbard et al., 2002,p. 14).

In the author’s view, the space-time issue is a “conclusion of geography in history”,it suitably prepares this paper’s own approach and at the same time opens a path toweb didactics.

Deliberations on “what is space?” with a view to e-learningAs a rather aphoristic definition, Agnew et al. (1996, p. 516) see three principle episodesamong many other conceivable ones in human geography:

(1) Geopolitics and chronopolitics (imperialism).

(2) The space age (1957-1970).

(3) Transition to new spaces (present times).

Regarding the third item, (Harvey, 1989, in Agnew et al., 1996, p. 521) suggests theconcept of time-space compression as one of the possible procedures for arriving at“new spaces”: “The door is opened to the possibility of many spaces, none of whichmay be said to be the sole cause of all others.” This multiplication of spaces includesmetaphorical spaces (Smith and Katz, 1993), thirdspaces (Soja and Hooper, 1993) andimaginative geographies (Said, 1994).

In the view of the author, space separates individual humans and prevents themfrom interacting directly and physically. Space introduces privacy in our world as itprevents from interaction. “Space can be thought of as a provider of distance, hencedifficulty for communication.” In this concept, “spatial distance is the inverse oflikelihood to communicate”. Consequently, such a concept might be capable of unitingthe scientific fields of (social) communication and of (geographic) space.

Explicitly, web-based learning overcomes such a barrier for communication.As a conclusion to these above theoretical contemplations, the author posits three

hypotheses:

H1. Space ¼ opportunity for processes.

H2. Time ¼ substrate to enact processes.

H3. To accelerate time means to facilitate learning.

In the above contemplation, time and space are complementary; they need each otherfor existing. Communication mediates. Consequently, the type of communicationdefines the type of metric of space and time.

METJ6,4

326

There are additional suggestions on how to re-integrate space and time:. From a dialectical standpoint, best expressed by Harvey: geographical difference

cannot be expressed apart from the temporal dynamics of capitalism.. From the standpoint of Hagerstrand’s time-geography (Haggett, 2001, p. 31):

re-integrate through the medium of social action. Action produces a path andconstraints are conditions for concrete social action.

. From a standpoint of everyday life: people do not experience space and timeseparately.

. From a technological standpoint: GIS can further integrate spatial and temporalinformation.

. From a systems analytical standpoint: over time, (i) physical and(ii) communicational structure building can be conceived.

In a speculative manner the following paragraph further pursues the above definitionof “space” as constituting an “obstacle to the opportunity for communication”, and triesto apply it to early human history.

In a world of purely physical interaction (i.e. mainly without tools), as in prehistorictimes, the effort to reach another individual is first proportional to the geodeticdistance, and second to the relative penetrability of such locations which can beincreased by rough surfaces (e.g. grassland versus shrubland), altitude differences,woods or waters. On the other hand, in a contemporary world where communication islargely operated by tools and technologies, the “communicative distances” tocommunication partners can be a modified geodetic distance (e.g. by vehicles) –leading to privileged veins of communication “paths”; but in a world of almost totallytechnology-based ways of communication, such as the telephone, broadcasting andinternet, the geodetic distances are in no way any longer a constituent for a (similarlyrelevant) metric of space, as defined above through communication surmountinggeodetic distances. Rather, the density and intensity of communication determines thistype of space (the metric of which, by the way, has since the advent of mankind alwaysbeen based on the reachability, frequency and depth of exchange, e.g. defined by thetime elapsed until successful communication is achieved). One might call such a space“non-geodetic” space. In it, the superposition principle might no longer be available.

Hence, the manner of generation of “space” has not changed in principle, but theshape of the result has. “Any space is determined by its means of communication”.In our century, several authors have suggested that we mainly live in acommunicational space and have postulated that (additional) space is generatedby additional communication technologies. This leads De Blij (2009, p. xi) to state“the world is flat”.

In the early days of human ontogenesis, spaces were so strongly “hardwired” thatthese counted as “really real”. Examples are tactile spaces for protozoa; walking spaces,seeing spaces, hearing spaces for higher animals, spaces of physical battles for earliercivilisations, cultural and religious spaces for all civilisations, long distance weaponsspaces for recent civilisations, ICT spaces for the most recent decades, and possiblyspaces for instantaneous communication (cf. EPR paradoxon, etc.) in the future.

At any rate, independent of the concrete naming of the described effect by differentauthors, we may speak of a “spatial transition” that adds to the list of other

HumanGeography

327

civilisational transitions such as population transition, etc. This is a crucial point inthe present text and this contemplation might be complemented by a “temporaltransition” to be described in more detail later.

In brief, the theoretic contemplation above suggests (the sign:¼ means “is definedby”, as in mathematics):

H4. Space:¼ separation of possibilities for communication.

Consequently, and inversely, eliminating such a “spatial” separation (i.e. juxtapositionin such space) enables communication (e.g. by learning technologies based on theinternet).

Quite practically, destruction of such spaces may occur among others:. In everyday life through information and communication technologies (ICT)

such as the internet; as examples, see the Arab Spring movements; or bye-learning strategies: what an implementation of de Chardin’s (1955) noosphere(�o no ~y6 or ~o n�oo6: the mind in Greek).

. In quantum mechanics through instantaneous information transfer across largedistances as described by Einstein et al. (1935) and often reconsidered as EPRparadoxon (Moser, 1996, 1999).

GIS provide “world views”In this sense, GIS facilitate the exchange of views (to the extent that these arespace-related and geo-referenced, hence localisable) which is a necessary pre-conditionfor dialogue which in turn promotes scientific evolution, or at least is hoped topromote cultural evolution at the same time. In the understanding of this paper, GIS(& virtual globes) act as providers of world views, they facilitate and enhancediscussion of individuals’ world views (and thus might even contribute to “speedingup” evolution), at least technically, but also conceptually from an optimistic point ofview, by deepening one’s understanding of opponents’ views. From the perspective ofGIS proponents, geo-referencing may represent a common denominator between andamong individuals who want to exchange world views, e.g. for planning, whichunequivocally means Public Participation by GIS (PPGIS, Jekel et al., 2010; Ahamerand Purker, 2011).

A speculative futureThe above definition of space (H4) allows for a highly speculative deliberation in thefollowing paragraph: to the extent that communication between humans is enabledmore and more, and as a tendency becomes pervasive, the notion of “space” becomesvoid. According to Renard (2003), the “dissolution of space” takes its “place”, i.e. occurs.The ultimate and universal conclusion might be: In our era of the internet, e-learningand social networks we see the principal annihilation of physical, geodetic space (in itsmain function as a barrier to communication) or also “space” viewed and conceived asaccessibility, resulting in the emphasis on spatial diffusion (Knox and Agnew, 1997,p. 66). As one conceivable socio-political consequence, the importance of area-orientednation states (i.e. clusters in the geo-space) might vanish over the next few decades or ina more distant future, and will be replaced by clusters in the cultural, communicationaland ethical spaces;, i.e. those people who interact based on a similar philosophy oflife, similar set of values, shared constituent myths and technological facilities.

METJ6,4

328

Consequently, the classic notion of “property” and “wealth” could vanish (by itself,autopoietically, not by external “revolution”) and be shifted into communicational“potency” – the one who shares most, best, and most suitably will be considered therichest, in continuation of the present-day Google and Facebook economy, striving for anonmaterial, information-related objective. Present success stories of values created byopenly accessible information resources on the internet attest to the fact that this futurehas already begun. Secluding fences are no longer the symbol of the type of wealththat becomes most prevalent but “sharing” is: the one who shares most is richest(in esteem – a new metric in human space). Communicational wealth in the space offlows (Castells, 1996) and “optimal flow” as psychological experience (Csikszentmihalyi,1990) might take a more important place.

Summing up the last subchapters, it can be said based on the above historic andmathematical deliberations that:

. “Space” may well be defined as a function of communication options, where“distance” is a measure based on (communicational) occurrences in a functionalspace. In this sense, space is an opportunity for processes to occur.

. “Time” may be defined as a function of change processes (e.g. learning processes); incase of complex systems these may often proceed in a self-generating(i.e. autopoietic) evolutionary way. In this sense, time is a substrate to enact processes.

ConclusionsGeography witnessed so many revolutions in the second half of the 20th century that itwas called the “Latin America among sciences” according to Blotevogel (Borsdorf, 1999,p. 94). Human geography is thus a multi-perspectivistic field. A “geographical turn inthe social sciences” consistently complements these many turns in (human) geographyand underpins the diagnosis that geography has recently become a theory exportingscience recently. Hence it appears justified that the present attempt to provide theoreticalunderpinnings to “multicultural education” makes use of the discipline of geography.

The method of geography (and analogously of developmental science andmulticultural learning) is something to be created and designed, not something fixedand predetermined.

Space and time in the classical understanding can largely be transcended by(web-based) learning technologies, if suitably designed, implemented, and enacted.

The present paper has attempted to provide some theoretical deliberations that canfurther serve to design learning technologies for multicultural understanding of globaldevelopment with a view to global equity.

In the understanding of this paper, successful learning means “collective productionof meaning”.

Successful global development is “growing jointly in mutual esteem”. Esteem is thecurrency of future.

References

Abler, J.S., Adams, P.R. and Gould, P. (1971), Spatial Organisation: The Geographer’s View of theWorld, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Agnew, J., Livingstone, D.N. and Rogers, A. (1996), Human Geography: An Essential Anthology,Blackwell, Oxford.

HumanGeography

329

Ahamer, G. (1997), Klimamodelle und Klimawandel (Climate Change and Climate Models),Lecture notes at Salzburg University, Institute for Geography, Salzburg.

Ahamer, G. (2008), “Im Spiegelkabinett unterschiedlicher Entwicklungsvorstellungen”, Journalfur Entwicklungspolitik ( JEP), Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 56-76, avaliable at: www.mattersburgerkreis.at/jep/20083.php#ahamer

Ahamer, G. (2009), “Rezension des Bandes ‘Klassiker der Entwicklungstheorie – VonModernisierung bis Post-Development’”, Journal fur Entwicklungspolitik ( JEP), Vol. 4,pp. 115-9, available at: www.mattersburgerkreis.at/jep/20094.php

Ahamer, G. (2010a), “Heuristics of social process design”, in Lazinica, A. (Ed.), ComputationalIntelligence & Modern Heuristics, Intech, pp. 265-98, available at: www.intechweb.org/,www.sciyo.com/articles/show/title/heuristics-of-social-process-design

Ahamer, G. (2010b), Social and Cultural Geography, Lecture Notes for Global Studies,Karl-Franzens University Graz, Master Curriculum “Global Studies”, available at: www.uni-graz.at/globalstudies/deposit/GS-Basis-LV_Anteil-Gilbert-Ahamer_291210.ppt

Ahamer, G. (2011), “How technologies can localise learners in a multicultural space”,International Journal of Technology and Educational Marketing (IJTEM), Vol. 1 No. 3,pp. 1-24.

Ahamer, G. (2012), “The jet principle: technologies provide border conditions for globallearning”, Multicultural Education and Technologies Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 177-210.

Ahamer, G. (2013), Mapping Global Change, Environmental Protection Series, Springer,Dordrecht.

Ahamer, G. and Purker, E. (2011), “Surfing Global Change – Partizipation “spielend” erlernen.( ¼Play a Role in Public Participation Geographic Information Systems)”, in Handler, M.and Trattnig, R. (Eds), Zukunft der Offentlichkeitsbeteiligung. Chancen – Grenzen –Herausforderungen, Lebensministerium.at & OGUT & Strategiegruppe Partizipation,Vienna, pp. 163-70, available at: www.partizipation.at/zukunft-oe-beteiligung.html

Ahamer, G., Kumpfmuller, K.A. and Hohenwarter, M. (2011), “Web-based exchange of viewsenhances ‘Global Studies’”, Campus-Wide Information Systems, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 16-40.

Ahamer, G., Car, A., Marschallinger, R., Wallentin, G. and Zobl, F. (2009), “Heuristics and patternrecognition for complex geo-referenced systems”, in Lazinica, A. (Ed.), ComputationalIntelligence & Modern Heuristics, Intech, pp. 299-317, available at: http://sciyo.com/articles/show/title/heuristics-and-pattern-recognition-in-complex-geo-referenced-systems

Ahamer, G., Strauß, C., Pruller, R., Scholz, J. and Lehner, C. (Eds) (2010), EnerGIS’10 StaffDevelopment Workshop – Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for Energy Issues inCentral Asia, Workbook for the Workshop on September 20-24, Dushanbe, available at:http://energis.tugraz.at/

Aitken, S. and Valentine, G. (Eds) (2006), Approaches to Human Geography, Sage, London.

Bailey, R.G. (2009), Ecosystem Geography: From Ecoregions to Sites, Springer, New York, NY.

Bartels, D. (1970), Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeographie, Kiepenheuer & Witsch, Koln.

Barton, A.H. (1955), “The concept of property-space in social research”, in Lazarsfeld, P.F. andRosenberg, M. (Eds), The Language of Social Research: A Reader in the Methodology ofSocial Research, The Free Press, New York, NY, p. 40 sq.

Borsdorf, A. (1999), Geographisch denken und wissenschaftlich arbeiten, Klett-Perthes, Gotha(latest edition: 2007).

Brecht, B. (1928), Die Dreigroschenoper (The Beggar’s Opera or The Threepenny Opera),Universal-Edition, Vienna.

METJ6,4

330

Bryson, J., Henry, N., Keeble, D. and Martin, R. (Eds) (1999), The Economic Geography Reader,Wiley, Chichester.

Butzer, K.W. (1980), “Civilizations: organisms or systems?”, American Scientist, Vol. 68, pp. 517-23.

Capek, M. (Ed.) (1976), The Concepts of Space and Time: Their Structure and Development,D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Boston.

Castells, M. (1996), The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.

Coe, N.M., Kelly, P.F. and Yeung, H.W.C. (2007), Economic Geography, a ContemporaryIntroduction, Blackwell, Oxford.

Crang, M., Crang, P. and May, J. (1999), Virtual Geographies, Bodies, Space and Relations,Routledge, London.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990), Flow – The Psychology of Optimal Experience, Harper and Row,New York, NY.

Daly, G. (1991), “The discursive construction of economic space: logics of organization anddisorganization”, Economy and Space, Vol. 20, pp. 79-102.

De Blij, H.J. (2009), The Power of Place: Geography, Destiny, and Globalization’s RoughLandscape, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

de Chardin, T. (1955), Le Phenomene Humain, editions du Seuil, Paris.

Dorn, H. (1991), The Geography of Science, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

Durakovic, E., Feigl, B.M., Fischer, B.M., Fleck, C., Galler, L.-M., Heinrich, J., Kulmer, K.,Kurzweil, B., Scholze, M., Sperl, R.S., Unterkofler, R., Remele, K., Matzenberger, J.,Ahamer, G. (2012), “Dialogic Global Studies for multicultural technology assessment”,Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 261-86.

Einstein, A., Podolsky, B. and Rosen, N. (1935), “Can quantum-mechanical description of physicalreality be considered complete?”, Physical Review, Vol. 47 No. 8, pp. 777-80, 2nd Ser.

Encyclopaedia Britannica (2011), “Entries about the geographer Torsten Hagerstrand and aboutHuman geography as locational analysis”, available at: www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/251516/Torsten-Hagerstrand

Gebhardt, H., Meusburger, P. and Wastl-Walter, D. (2008), Humangeographie, Spektrum Verlag,Heidelberg (English original: Places and regions in global context: human geography,by P.L. Knox and S.A. Marston).

Gebhardt, H., Glaser, R., Radtke, U. and Reuber, P. (2007), Geographie: Physische Geographie undHumangeographie, Spektrum Verlag, Heidelberg (2nd ed.: 2011).

GIScience (2011), “Lecture notes for UNIGIS and GIScience website”, available at: www.oeaw-giscience.org/

Gould, P. (2000), Becoming a Geographer, Syracuse University Press, New York, NY.

Gould, P. and White, R. (2002), Mental Maps, Routledge, London.

Hagerstrand, T. (1978), “A note on the quality of life-times”, in Carlstein, T., Parkes, D. andThrift, N. (Eds), Human Activity and Time Geography, Vol. 2, Edward Arnold, London.

Hagerstrand, T. (1982), “Diorama, path and project”, Tijdschrift voor Economische en SocialeGeografie, Vol. 73 No. 6, pp. 323-39.

Haggett, P. (1990), The Geographer’s Art, Blackwell, Oxford.

Haggett, P. (2001), Geography – A Global Synthesis, Pearson Education, Harlow.

Hard, G. (1973), Die Geographie. Eine wissenschaftstheoretische Einfuhrung, Sammlung GoschenBand 9001, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.

HumanGeography

331

Hartshorne, R. (1939), “The character of regional geography”, The Nature of Geography:A Critical Survey of Current Thought in Light of the Past, Association of AmericanGeographers, Washington, DC.

Harvey, D. (1973), Social Justice and the City, Edward Arnold, London.

Harvey, D. (1989), The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of CulturalChange, Blackwell, Oxford.

Hellinger, B. (2000), Ordnungen der Liebe. Knaur, In English: The Art and Practice of FamilyConstellations Leading Family Constellations as Developed by Bert Hellinger, ed.Ulsamer, B., Tucker and Theisen, 2003.

Hubbard, P., Kitchin, R., Bartley, B. and Fuller, D. (2002), Thinking Geographically: Space, Theoryand Contemporary Human Geography, Continuum, London.

Hund, F. (1972), Geschichte der physikalischen Begriffe, Spektrum, Akad. Verlag, Heidelberg.

Jekel, T., Gryl, I. and Donert, K. (2010), “Spatial Citizenship. Beitrage von Geoinformation zu einermundigen Raumaneignung”, Geographie und Schule, Vol. 32 No. 186, pp. 39-45.

Knox, P.L. and Agnew, J. (1997), The Geography of the World Economy: An Introduction toEconomic Geography, Arnold, London.

Knox, P.L. and Marston, S.A. (2000), Places and Regions in Global Context: Human Geography,Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ (edited in German and enlarged by Gebhardt et al., 2008,4th edition, Auflage, Spektrum Verlag).

Kraak (2009), Minard’s Map, available at: www.itc.nl/personal/kraak/1812/3dnap.swf

Krugman, P. (1991), Geography and Trade, Leuven University Press, Leuven.

Kuhn, T.S. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Landes, D.S. (1999), The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some SoPoor, W.W. Norton, New York, NY, p. 544.

Langthaler, M., Witjes, N., Slezak, G. (2012), “A critical examination of the ‘knowledge fordevelopment’ paradigm”, Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4,pp. 235-47.

Latour, B. (1998), Wir sind nie modern gewesen: versuch einer symmetrischen Anthropologie,Fischer-Taschenbuch, Frankfurt am Main.

Latour, B. (2000), Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies, Harvard UniversityPress, Cambridge, MA.

Lefebvre, H. (1974a), Kritik des Alltagslebens, Vol. 3, Reihe Carl Hanser, Munchen, pp. 142-4.

Lefebvre, H. (1974b), La Production de l’espace, Anthropos, Paris.

Lefebvre, H. (1991), The Production of Space, Blackwell, Oxford.

Ley, D. (1980), “Geography without a man: a humanistic critique”, paper presented at School ofGeography Research Paper 24, Oxford University, Oxford.

MacDonald, G. (2003), Biogeography, Introduction to Space, Time, Life, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.

Moser, F. (1996), Bewusstsein in Raum und Zeit: Grundlagen der holistischen Weltsicht, InselVerlag, Frankfurt am Main.

Moser, F. (1999), Bewusstsein in Beziehungen, Die Grundlagen einer holistischen Ethik,Leykam, Graz.

OTuathail, G. (1996), Critical Geopolitics: The Politics of Writing Global Space, Routledge, London.

Park, R. (1926), “The urban community as a spatial pattern and a moral order”, in Burgess, E. (Ed.),The Urban Community, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

METJ6,4

332

Renard, G. (2003), The Disappearance of the Universe, Fearless Books, Berkeley, CA.

Said, E. (1994), Orientalism, Vintage Books, New York, NY.

Smith, N. and Katz, C. (1993), “Grounding metaphors”, in Keith, M. and Pile, S. (Eds), Place andthe Politics of Identity, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 67-83.

Soja, E.W. (1989), Postmodern Geography: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory,Verso, London.

Soja, E.W. and Hooper, B. (1993), “The spaces that difference makes: some notes on thegeographical margins of the new cultural politics”, in Keith, M. and Pile, S. (Eds), Place andthe Politics of Identity, Routledge, London, pp. 183-205.

Strobl (2008), Z_GIS Annual Report 2008, Centre for Geoinformatics ZGIS, Salzburg University,available at: www.uni-salzburg.at/pls/portal/docs/1/617158.PDF

Tobler, W. (1970), “A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region”, EconomicGeography, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 234-40.

Trenberth, K.E. (Ed.) (1995), Climate System Modeling, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Unwin, T. (1992), The Place of Geography, Longman, London.

Wallerstein, I. (1984), Politics of the World Economy: The States, the Movements, and theCivilizations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Wardenga, U. and Weichhart, P. (2006), “Sozialokologische Interaktionsmodelle undSystemtheorien – Ansatze einer theoretischen Begrundung interaktiver Projekte in derGeographie?”, Mitteilungen der Osterreichischen Geographischen Gesellschaft, Vol. 148,pp. 9-31, available at: http://homepage.univie.ac.at/peter.weichhart/TGPhHum/S9_32_Weichhart.pdf

Weichhard, P. (1999), “Die Raume zwischen den Welten und die Welt der Raume”,Handlungsorientierte Sozialgeographie, Benno Werlens Entwurf in kritischerDiskussion, Erdkundliches Wissen, Nr. 130, Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart, pp. 67-94.

Weber, A. (1909), Eber den Standort der Industrie, Theory of the Location of Industries,Tubingen.

Werlen, B. (1987), “Gesellschaft, Handlung und Raum: Grundlagen handlungstheoretischerSozialgeographie”, Erdkundliches Wissen, Heft 89, F, Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden.

Werlen, B. (1993), “Gibt es eine Geographie ohne Raum? Zum Verhaltnis von traditionellerGeographie und zeitgenossischen Gesellschaften”, Erdkunde: Archiv fur wissenschaftlicheGeographie, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 241-55.

Wright, J.K. (1926), “A plea for the history of geography”, Isis, Vol. 8, pp. 477-91.

About the authorGilbert Ahamer, Institute for Geographic Information Sciences at the Austrian Academy ofSciences, deliberates the meaning of space and time after decade-long experiences in web-basedlearning. After multiple affiliations he has been instrumental in establishing the developmentalcurriculum “Global Studies” since 2004 at Graz University and searches for ways to implementinterdisciplinary, intercultural and interparadigmatic understanding of global evolution inequity. Gilbert Ahamer can be contacted at: gilbert.ahamer@oeaw.ac.at

HumanGeography

333

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints