The Dictionary of Human Geography

Comp. by: LElumalai Stage : Revises1 ChapterID: 9781405132879_4_P Date:1/4/09
Time:15:20:50 Filepath:H:/00_Blackwell/00_3B2/Gregory-9781405132879/appln/3B2/re-
vises/9781405132879_4_P.3d

entered into their research process (see

reflexivity; see also Moss, 2005). Rose

(1997b) criticized these efforts to make posi-

tionality transparent. Not only is it impossible

to do so, given the complexity of psychological

processes, but these efforts approximate the

‘god-trick’ of complete vision criticized by

Haraway. In a position that is now widely

accepted, she argued that there is an irresolv-

able ‘unknowability’ of our own positions and

those of others. From quite another direction,

some have taken the position that only mem-

bers of a cultural community have the right to

speak for theircommunity(England, 1994).

This reflects concerns – especially among mar-

ginalized communities – that middle-class,

often white, researchers reproduce existing

patterns of domination through the research

process and products. They often have access

to information unavailable to marginalized

groups, they treat the experiences of those they

research as ‘raw data’ that they then interpret,

they have the capacity (unavailable to margin-

alized groups) to present their interpretations

within scholarly and sometimes policy con-

texts, and their research often seems to more

clearly benefit them (through career advance-

ment) than those that they study. Both the

practical difficulties ofidentitypolitics and

the influence of post-structural theories of

the subject (seepost-structuralism) have

tended to soften this position. The under-

standing that subject positions are multiple

and that social differences are constructed

within relations of power has shifted focus

away from binary thinking (i.e. the researcher

is the same as or different from those studied)

to understanding points of partial connection

between researcher and researched, and how

difference is constructed, including within the

research process: ‘[T]he question of ‘‘Who

speaks for whom?’’ cannot be answered upon

the slippery slope of what personal attributes –

what color, whatgender, whatsexuality–

legitimate our existence, but on the basis of

our history of involvement, and on the basis of

understanding how difference is constructed

and used as a political tool’ (Kobayashi,

1994, p. 78).

Rather than stable positionalities and rela-

tions of sameness or difference, the language

has shifted to that of alliances, solidarities, col-

laborations, common ground and in-between-

ness. Katz (1994) recommends a re-focusing of

objectives, away from studying ‘those poor

people’ to researching processes or sets of rela-

tions. Researchers can also re-deploy their priv-

ilege to access spaces of data collection and

dissemination unavailable to the groups they

collaborate with, support marginalized groups

in their self-representation and multiply their

communication resources (Butz and Besio,

2004). Rather than assuming that their

research will benefit a needy group, a stance

that Katz (1994) identifies as suspect because it

elides the subjectivity of those researched, they

can create situations in which all of the partici-

pants (academic, community partners and

those researched) can appropriate the research

products and use them in different ways to

achieve their shared goals for social justice.

Besio (Besio and Butz, 2004) cautions, how-

ever, that the capacity to position oneself in this

way itself depends on positionality; in some

cultural circumstances, for instance, it not a

simple matter for women to enter into these

kinds of research collaborations. Concerns are

also raised about the hazards of over-identifi-

cation with particular groups and there are

good arguments for the practical and analytical

benefits of scholarly distance (Brown, 1995).

Finally, solidarity withactivistgroups can

raise ethical issues, posed most forcibly by

Routledge (2002), when he performed a false

identity in a duplicitous way to access informa-

tion for activist allies. What are the ethical

limits of this flexible positionality (seeethics)?

This goes to the heart of what we understand

as the purpose of scholarly knowledge produc-

tion. gp

Suggested reading

Katz (1994); Kobayashi (1994); Rose (1997).

positive discrimination An approach that

favours peoples who have traditionally suffered

one or more forms of disadvantage. Positive

discrimination or affirmative action pro-

grammes aim to rectify imbalances and injust-

ices through direct intervention. In some cases,

this might mean targeting policies spatially; for

example, giving children from certain deprived

neighbourhoodspreferential access to univer-

sity places. In other cases, it might involve sec-

tor targeting; for example, in the appointment

of women in senior positions in industries, in

which men have traditionally dominated

(Berman, 1984). The aim of both is to create a

more egalitarian society, reducing if not elimin-

ating inequalities (Leach, 1974). kwa

Suggested reading

Berman (1984).

positivism A historically variegated move-

ment in philosophy, affirming that only

Gregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_P Final Proof page 557 1.4.2009 3:20pm

POSITIVISM