首页> 外文期刊>Geoforum >The great implications of spatialisation: Grounds for closer engagement between political geography and political science?
【24h】

The great implications of spatialisation: Grounds for closer engagement between political geography and political science?

机译:空间化的巨大含义:政治地理学与政治科学之间更紧密互动的依据?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Increasingly, the sociospatialities of political behaviour is a topic of growing debate across the social sciences. This paper contributes to this debate as it relates to the boundedness and fluidity of political behaviours, specifically by addressing calls from political scientists for closer engagement between political science and political geography over "the great implications of spatialization" for political behaviour research (Ethington and McDaniel, 2007, 130). Here, we critically evaluate one theoretical approach identified by these political scientists for spatialising research on this topic: new institution-alism. We begin by clarifying differing conceptions of spatialisation in the political geographic and political science literatures and their compatibility with new institutionalism. We then show how substantive new institutional research conducted on the European Union can be used to critically evaluate the prospects of Ethington and McDaniel's cross-disciplinary spatialisation agenda. Our analysis confirms the scope and potential for spatialising new institutionalist studies, by demonstrating how fluidities of political behaviours predicated by post-structural accounts of place and space come to be 'fixed' within certain 'sticky' institutional places. Consequently, we argue that a spatialised new institutionalism offers promising conceptual and methodological possibilities for developing research collaborations between political geography and political science on the placing and spacing of political behaviours.
机译:政治行为的社会空间性日益成为整个社会科学界越来越多的辩论话题。本文为这场辩论做出了贡献,因为它涉及政治行为的有限性和流动性,特别是针对政治学家的呼吁,即政治学和政治地理学之间就“空间化对政治行为研究的巨大影响”之间进行更紧密的接触而提出的呼吁(Ethington和McDaniel ,2007,130)。在这里,我们批判性地评估这些政治学家确定的用于对该主题进行空间研究的一种理论方法:新制度主义。我们首先要澄清政治地理和政治科学文献中关于空间化的不同概念,以及它们与新制度主义的兼容性。然后,我们将展示如何使用在欧盟进行的实质性新机构研究来批判性地评估Ethington和McDaniel跨学科空间化议程的前景。我们的分析通过展示如何通过后结构性的场所和空间说明来预测政治行为的流动性如何“固定”在某些“粘性”机构场所中,从而确定了空间化新制度主义研究的范围和潜力。因此,我们认为,空间化的新制度主义为发展政治地理学和政治学之间在政治行为的放置和间隔方面的研究合作提供了有希望的概念和方法论可能性。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Geoforum》 |2013年第3期|305-314|共10页
  • 作者

    Julian Clark; Alun Jones;

  • 作者单位

    School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, England, United Kingdom;

    School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Policy, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

    Political behaviour; European Union; Spatialisation; Historical institutionalism;

    机译:政治行为;欧洲联盟;空间化;历史制度主义;
  • 入库时间 2022-08-18 03:36:29

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号