The ‘New’ Regional Geography and Problems of Narrative

Abstract

The growth of interest in a ‘new’ or reconstructed regional geography is discussed and some of the methodological issues which it raises are examined. The movement originated in radical geography and involves an ‘empirical turn’ towards works of geohistorical synthesis. Scales of interest range from the global down to the microsociological, with locality studies being prominent. The methodological issues include the problem of the role of theory where explanations tend to be contextual in character, and the need for integrating ethnographic and political economic accounts. Although there are echoes of the old idiographic–nomothetic polarity in the controversy over the ‘empirical turn’, this traditional way of interpreting the debate is shown to have been undermined by realist philosophy. Yet problems remain in a different form, most importantly, concerning narrative. Two key aspects of narrative are discussed: first, the general problem of the construction of texts and their understanding, especially where they involve the kind of ambitious attempts at geohistorical synthesis which the new regional geography implies; second, there is the more specific problem of the advantages and disadvantages of narrative as opposed to analysis. The paper concludes with some speculations on the kinds of text required by a new, critical regional geography.