Approaches in British rural geography

Abstract

In the British academic context, the term ‘human geography’ refers to a wide range of approaches, which can be distinguished primarily by their philosophical-theoretical background and methods. This essay focuses on the approaches taken in British research on rural areas. It is based on some of the most significant publications in rural studies, and some contributions on the various approaches in general. It is based on an analysis of a wider range of studies in order to identify the main approach characteristics (specifically the context they emerged from; their philosophical-theoretical background; methods applied; key questions analysed; their critical reception). The empirical part of this essay seeks to investigate trends in British rural geography throughout the 2000s. For this purpose, publications from the Journal of Rural Studies were selected and analysed according to the approach taken.

The literature on rural geography generally defines four main approaches: positivistic; political-economic; cultural, and the so-called relational turn. Even if we can define and describe different approaches quite well theoretically, it is not easy to clearly categorise them in practice. A significant proportion of the publications selected from the Journal fused theories and philosophies of different approaches or made no reference to any philosophy in particular. The main finding of this analysis is that British rural geography can be described as a diverse subdiscipline, benefiting from a wide range of philosophies, theories and methods in order to understand the socio-spatial tendencies in rural areas. Revisiting previously elaborated theories in the light of the latest academic debates is also not uncommon. Another important characteristic of this sub-discipline is its openness, as there is a lively cooperation between geographers and researchers from other disciplines. The term ‘rural studies’ is widely used, acknowledging that the subject investigated is more important than disciplinary boundaries.

In conclusion, the characteristics of this sub-discipline as excercised in the UK are seen as strengths. Theoretical diversity and interdisciplinary openness ascribe greater heterogeneity to key questions, stimulate the emergence of new concepts, and provide the opportunity for understanding the processes in rural areas from more than one point of view. From a Hungarian perspective, these approaches offer a good basis for future research. Considering the diverse and complex problems of Hungarian rural areas, adopting some of these concepts may lead to more theoretically-conscious and better-underpinned analyses and can contribute significantly to understanding and handling the challenges ahead.