I just finished reading two commentaries and a rejoinder on how research agendas are/should be set, and it strikes me that these would be really good reading for an intro class on geographical epistemology or research methods, or for a capstone seminar (here at the U that'd be Geog 4001, 8001/2, and 3985).
The original forum piece is Jay R. Harman, 2003, Whither Geography? in The Professional Geographer, 55:415-421.
Not sure why it took so long for the commentaries to appear, but they are at p 99 and 104 in the Feb 2006 issue of PG (58:1), and are by Mark Pendras and Rich Heyman respectively. Harman's rejoinder follows at p. 106.
How are research agendas in geography determined? Is use value important? If so, who determines it and how? What about critical perspectives? How important are they? In some sense it's the old social constructionism debate all over again, but the articles are pretty accessible (unlike most of the s.c. stuff) and I think it would be really interesting to hear undergrads (in particular) thinking and talking about such issues.
Posted by otto0114 at April 9, 2006 11:55 AM