Area (1999) 31.3, 195-1 98 Research, action and ‘critical’ geographies R M Kitchin” and P J Hubbardt *Department of Geography, National University of Ireland, Maynooth, County Kildare, Ireland. Email: [email protected]. tDepartment of Geography, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU. Email: [email protected] In the 199Os, the notion of ‘doing’ critical geogra- teaching and writing. Given the current espousal of phies has become one of the central themes infusing ’critical’ geography as a form of geographical prac- human geographic study. Eschewing the strictures tice that is politically and socially aware, it might be of radical Marxist approaches (which principally considered surprising that the interface between focused on the forms of oppression and inequality academia and activism has been little explored in the wrought by capitalist process), critical geography geographic literature (for exceptions, see Routledge has consequently sought to examine the diverse 1996; Chouinard 1997; forthcoming Kitchin 1999). sociospatial processes that regulate and reproduce Indeed, the absence of critical reflection on the social exclusion. The lens of critical geographers has merits and limitations of action-led or participatory thus widened from a narrow focus on capital-labour research indicates that such efforts remain few and relations to encompass broader processes of social far between. As such, it appears that many social disadvantage and marginalization as they affect and cultural geographers are happy to survey (and women, ethnic minorities, sexual dissidents, disabled ‘map’) the exclusionary landscape, but rarely do people and so on. Simultaneously, this ’critical much to change that landscape apart from the agenda’ has been accompanied by a heightened occasional token nod to ‘planning and policy concern that the geographer’s research on social recommendations’. oppression and exclusion should be sensitive to the Yet, at the same time, anecdotal evidence sug- life experiences of marginalized groups. For example, gests that many of those who subscribe to the in recent years there have been several papers (eg Critical Geography Forum mailing list (and many of Keith 7992; Robinson 1994; Rose 1997) and col- those who do not) are involved in activism at all lections (Canadian Geographer 1993; Professional levels. Indeed, CVs of contemporary human geogra- Geographer 1994; Antipode 1995) that have exam- phers might reveal a discipline riddled with hunt ined issues such as reflexivity, empowerment, eman- saboteurs, anti-road protestors, green activists, char- cipation, critical praxis, positionality and power ity workers and homeless advocates (not to mention relations. Such writing has generally concentrated on local councillors, community representatives and the complex social relations the exist between magistrates). But it appears that most seek to main- researcher and researched, with ideas from feminist tain a scholarly ‘distance’ between their activism and scholarship (in particular) invoked to dismiss assurnp- their teaching, research and publishing activities, tions that research is an objective and ‘value-free’ and do not incorporate such activist concerns into endeavour. their ’disciplinary’ life. Overall, then, whi1.e many (or Following in this tradition, the papers in this edited indeed most) geographers now accept that research issue seek to advance the debate on conducting must recognize the power imbalances that exist critical research by considering the extent to which between researcher and researched, only a minority academically motivated research should seek to be explicitly seek to effect change through the marriage (and can be) empowering and emancipatory. While of research practice and political and social actions. this debate can be addressed on a number of levels, In this sense, while ’critical‘ geography promotes an explicit attempt is made in these papers to (and celebrates) the collapse of boundaries between explore the extent to which geographers can (or researcher and researched, employing strategies that should) become activists, seeking to promote politi- will empower marginalized groups to seek justice cal and social change through actions as well as either themselves or through research, in some ISSk 0004-0894 0Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 1999 196 Kitchin and Hubbard respects it reasserts the dominant practices of explicitly to tackle oppression, exclusion and in- scientific inquiry (particularly the division between justice is never straightforward, and often places study and action). As such, critical geographers may the researcher/activist in a difficult ’third space’ aim to empathize with the researched, seeking to (Routledge 1996). Equally, researching from within empower and emancipate them through their writ- does not absolve geographers from considering the ing and teaching, but, paradoxically, they rarely join ethical implications of their research (far from it). with them in their ‘struggle’. However, we merely wish to suggest that if critical The seeming reticence of geographers to combine geography is serious about its (emancipatory)inten- their politicized ’personal’ interests within their tions, then it needs to reconceptualize how it can ‘public’ research lives (and vice versa) is, however, engage (and participate) with marginalized popu- perhaps understandable. Crossing the boundaries lations, opening new, alternative routes for ’doing’ between the spaces of activism and academia is geography. inherently problematic. As Bourdieu (1988) notes, Admittedly, this argument is not particularly orig- the distinction between the pristine ‘ivory tower’ and inal, and numerous social scientists have also ident- the messy world of the ‘streets‘ has been important ified the need to bridge the chasm that still exists in maintaining the pedagogical authority of edu- between radical, academic theorists and ‘on-the- cation, an authority that is seen to be compromised ground’ activists (Pfeil 1994). For example, Touraine when academics attempt to bridge these two worlds (1985) has described the importance of ‘committed (a point echoed in Sibley’s 1995 discussion of the research’, Katz (1992) has spoken of a ’politics of partitioning of academic knowledges). Inevitably, this engagement’, while hooks (1994) has described distinction reinforces notions of modernist, rationalist an ‘ethics of struggle’ that exists both within the science and seeks to maintain privileges attached to academy and beyond. At the extreme, some have certain types of (academic) knowledge production suggested that ‘unapplied’ knowledge is knowledge over alternative ways of gaining understanding. shorn of its meaning and that, by failing to engage Hence, while critical geographers acknowledge that with ‘on-the-ground’ politics that will improve the academic knowledge(s) are produced, situated and human condition, the academic becomes guilty of politicized, we would argue that they frequently seek ‘systematized selfishness’ (Dickson 1982, cited in to maintain the division between ‘gaze’ and action in Mohan 1996). Routledge (1996) has expressed an attempt to (re)assert their ‘academic’ credentials. similar concerns, questioning the current social This is not to suggest that critical geographers in any responsibility of academics given their training, way wish to return to the days when geography was access to information and freedom of expression. patrician and patriarchal, but merely to stress that Such a perspective views the academy as a body that in an era of increasing educational regulation and takes, but gives little (if anything) in return. On the competition, making connections between action contrary, critical geography could be about give and and research is discouraged by a wider culture of take. As Chouinard (1994, 5) argues: academic production (see especially Sidaway 1997). Such a position suggests that overt political commit- This means putting ourselves ‘on the line’ as academics ment should be left at the college gates, and that the who will not go along with the latest ‘fashion‘ simply ‘outputs’ of academic labour should be papers in because it sells, and who take seriously the notion that ‘knowledge is power’. It means as well personal de- refereed journals with an international audience cisions to put one’s abilities at the disposal of groups at not seditious rants or polemics in fanzines (things the margins of and outside academia. This is not taking that might actually get read by people outside the the ‘moral high ground’ but simply saying that if you spaces of academia)-and certainly not ‘actions’. want to help in struggles against opposition you have to Therefore, we wish to preface this collection of ‘connect’ with the trenches. papers by arguing that human geography-as a ‘critical’ practice-needs to consider the ’place’ of As Chouinard stresses, it is easy to get carried away the activist within the academy. A central plank in with the idea that activism is, by definition, a ‘good our argument here is that the adoption of so-called thing’ and, equally, that a geography conducted on ‘action research’ methods may offer a route for the ‘front line’ (to continue her military metaphor) is geographers to combine a role of activist with that ’better’ or morally superior than that conducted at a of putative academic. As the papers in this issue distance. Indeed, we certainly do not want to give acknowledge, the adoption of research that tries this