Human geography, ideology and institutional normativity

Keiron Bailey, Ted Grossardt

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review


In response to Woods and Gardner's (2011) article we note a number of points of agreement. These include the need to engage and collaborate with formal institutional representatives and structures even under less than ideal conditions, for example involving our lack of ability to deliver meaningful products in accord with stated (rhetorical) aims. In this way, we may ensure presentation of data and methods that may be otherwise plausibly deniable. However, we would like to raise the question of how broader societal aims might be better identified and served, and of how we as human geographers might work within the often random, and sometimes contradictory, environment of the academic-industrial complex to encourage such progress. We outline examples from our experience on large-scale projects in contested domains which highlight the need for human geographers to maintain multiple positionalities within democratic systems.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)228-232
Number of pages5
JournalDialogues in Human Geography
Issue number2
StatePublished - Jul 2011


  • Peet
  • institutional recalcitrance
  • metrics
  • stakeholders

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geography, Planning and Development


Dive into the research topics of 'Human geography, ideology and institutional normativity'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this