著者

阿部 和俊

出版者

一般社団法人 人文地理学会

雑誌

人文地理 (ISSN:00187216)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.59, no.5, pp.432-446, 2007 (Released:2018-01-06)

参考文献数

18

被引用文献数

1 2

---

The purpose of this report is to consider the identity of the discipline of human geography, focusing on urban geography. In order to do this, the author first examined the urban geography articles-research essays, short reports, research notes, views, and editorials-published in Geographical Review of Japan, Japanese Journal of Human Geography, Tōhoku Geography Quarterly, Annals of the Japan Association of Economic Geography, and Geographical Sciences from 1945 to 2005, considering them from the three viewpoints of: 1) whether they analyzed cities as points (point analysis) or areas (area analysis); 2) whether they analyzed cities or phenomena in cities; and 3) the changes apparent in the descriptive style of analytical results.As a result, it was clear that the number of urban geography studies had increased between 1945 and 2005. Moreover, the following points became evident: 1) a decrease in point analysis studies; 2) an increase in area analysis research; 3) an increase in studies of urban functions; 4) a decline in studies using quantitative methods; 5) an increase in studies that looked at people or social groups; 6) an increase in studies hard to classify by existing categories; and 7) an increase of studies ‘in’ rather than ‘of’ cities.As for changes in the descriptive style of analytical results, studies recording the actual voices of those surveyed increased. This is a descriptive style seen in folklore and sociology.Next, the mutual interaction between human geography and other humanistic and social science fields was considered from three perspectives: 1) the research citations listed in human geography articles published in Geographical Review of Japan, Japanese Journal of Human Geography, and Annals of the Japan Association of Economic Geography from 1971–1975 (earlier period) and 2001–2005 (later period); 2) the research citations listed in articles in Japanese Sociological Review during 2003–2006; and 3) research citations listed in single-author books.The results: 1) In the geography articles, the number of citations in each article had increased. 2) But the proportion of citations from within the discipline of geography itself declined. 3) In the earlier period, many of the citations were from the fields of history or economics, but in the later period the citations from sociology increased. 4) In the later period, there was an increase in citations from many ‘other fields’.In the articles published in Japanese Sociological Review, it was evident that: 1) citations from within the field of sociology were proportionally higher when compared to those from geography in geographic articles; and 2) there were extremely few citations in sociology articles from the field of geography. This trend was about the same in single-author books.How should we think about these facts? Does the fact that citations from geography are so few in sociology (and not only in sociology!) mean that geography’s research findings are not valued? But surely it must indicate that they are ignorant of and indifferent to geography’s findings.On the other hand, how should geographers themselves think about the fact that the level of citations from their own discipline has declined? If one reacts negatively, it means they do not value their own field, but if one reacts positively it means that geographers have an abundance of curiosity and spare no pains in hunting down the findings of other disciplines.Along with the changes in the descriptive style of analytical findings, as people who have chosen the field of geography, surely we need to seriously reconsider our own standpoint and the identity of human geography. We should be deeply concerned that if we are lax in this effort, it may mean the withering and even extinction of human geography.