An Irreductionist History of Human Geography: exemplified upon the figure of Torsten Hägerstrand

2013-07-31

Here is my attempt to wirte an article, that I recently submitted for peer review.

An Irreductionist History of Human Geography:
exemplified upon the figure of Torsten Hägerstrand 

In order to know where you're going, you have to know where you've been.
(English proverb)

I.                   INTRODUCTION

Geography as a discipline has a long tradition, modern geography developed in the 17^th century, transformed in the 18^th and by the end of the 19^th century geography had become a respected discipline at European universities (Fellmann et.al 2007). Presentations like these are given to students in many human geography textbooks dealing with the history of human geography. Unfortunately this reveals nothing about the contingent history of the discipline, like the split into natural and human geography, the quantitative revolution or the introduction of GIS to just name a few fundamental changes. Special books dedicated to the history of the discipline present a more detailed picture (e.g. Johnston & Sidaway 2004). These macro-historic accounts succeed in giving a general picture of what changes occurred. However, on the exact mechanisms how these changes unfolded they often remain rather vague. 

Recently, great progress has been made; in writing a more detailed history of (human) geography (e.g. Agnew & Livingstone 2011; Keighren 2010; Withers 2010; Maddrell 2009; Buttimer & Mels 2006; Livingstone 2006; Johnston 2006; Barnes 2001). Nevertheless, there still exist tendencies to overly simplify the history of human geography (similar to the example in the introduction). In contemporary theory of science, this type of presentation is called a Whig history. A Whig history is a: 

“…historical outlook which tends to dominate and distort general accounts’. These distortions occur because ‘standards of the present [are imposed] upon the past’ and ‘explanations based on logical progression [are substituted] for a less rational and more complex interpretation of the past.” (Kearney 1971 in Dymitrow 2012:16)

This turns historic accounts into a ‘mythology of modernity’, creating a metanarrative with the goal of supplying contemporary populations with justifications for their current way of conduct, based in history (Dymitrow 2012:14; Nora’s 2001:365). The reasons for this Whiggish interpretation range from; political motivation of the narrator, memory lapses to the seductions of simplification. To understand which of these apply represents a field of inquiry in itself, where much can be learned (for a vivid example see Dymitrow 2012). However, for the argument presented here it’s enough to accept that these tendencies exist and that they are counterproductive to the presentation of the historical account. As they write “[s]cientific history […] backwards” (Johnston 2006:27), distorting the actual chain of events.

The aim of this article is provide an alternative way of presenting the history of human geography without falling prey to these tendencies, by providing ‘rules of thumb’ to avoid them. The life of Torsten Hägerstrand is used here as a detailed empirical example of Whiggish accounts and how they can be avoided. The here presented view of scientific conduct draws heavily from insights of Science and Technology Studies (STS) for describing the history of human geography. Presenting scientific conduct as an undetermined project influenced by; material, social and discursive forces acting upon its practitioners, described in symmetrical terms. This approach has been described as material sociology (MacKenzie 2009), is underlying Actor-Network Theory (Mol 2010) and can even be found in the sociology of scientific knowledge (Collins 2010). However for the here described purpose it is less vital to distinguish between these different STS approaches, but rather focus on their similarities. Simplified the overarching outlook of these approaches could be summarized as the ‘irreductionist program’ (Asdal & Moser 2012). But before indulging more into the practical empirical description and the theoretical framework of this approach, first a short introduction to the figure of Torsten Hägerstrand.

II.                TORSTEN HÄGERSTRAND

Periods of the life of Torsten Hägerstrand are used in this article to exemplify Whiggish tendencies and subsequently how they can be circumvented, with help of the irreductionist program. But, who was Torsten Hägerstrand? He was one of the most prominent figures in human geography in the last century (Johnston 2005), having a significant impact upon the discipline itself and public planning, both in Sweden and abroad (Öberg 2005). In recognition of his contribution Pred called him a “giant of the discipline” (Pred in Duncan 1974:132). Hägerstrand is most famous for his work on the diffusion of ideas and as the founding father of time geography. Concepts of his time geography were first introduced to the English speaking academia in his 1970 article ‘What about people in regional science’ (Hägerstrand 1970), as he developed it in the late 1960s. During his lifetime he kept developing his version of time geography. The fullest description of this theoretical framework is his book Web of Existence¹ (Hägerstrand 2009). However, he never finished it as he died before its completion. It was completed and published post-mortem by Kajsa Ellegård and Uno Svedin. His total volume of works still average around 40 citations per year and the 1970 article still represents his most singly cited work (Persson & Ellegård 2011:10).

Most of the works dealing with the genealogy and development of his intellectual heritage focus largely upon Hägerstrand´s persona (e.g. Ellegård & Svedin 2012; Buttimer 2007; Pred 2005; Morril 2005, Thrift 2005, Öberg 2005, Sollbe 1991; Hägerstrand 1983). The popular (often Whiggish) interpretation is that the conceptual roots of time geography “were to be found in Hägerstrand´s writing in the 1940s and 1950s” (Lenntorp 2008:1), proclaiming that his future academic development merely helped him to better express his world view. This represents a major simplification (as we shall see). Furthermore, “professional preoccupations as a university employee and […] service in national and international organizations […] [are regarded as] busy transit halls” (Hägerstrand 1983:240). Claiming that the privileges of an academic position were useful insofar that they provided tenure, security and access to the library, but beside that represented a distraction from his main passion, research. Material externalities are regarded in the same fashion, e.g. the influence of the computer is regarded as a “purely practical facilitator” (Hägerstrand 1983:254).        

To summarize the picture presented; Hägerstrand is an actor creating his own life project. He makes the connections, his work, his curiosity, his personality traits, his social network are the vital factors that helped him to succeed. This general picture could be regarded as a Whiggish account, as it’s overemphasizes social connections and excludes external material influences for example. To clarify, the personality traits of Hägerstrand and his social network are undoubtedly important. However, they only represent part of the complete picture that allowed for his success. The cases discussed below represents examples from an irreductionist point of view; how to avoid Whiggish presentations.

III.             DECONSTRUCTING A SUCCESS STORY

In the face of Whiggish presentations, how is it possible to avoid these fallacies? The principle of symmetry (Bloor 1991) has been suggested as a possible alternative. This requires that both successful and failed accounts have to be described in the same terms. Because if one wants to understand the conflicts involved in the development of scientific and technological projects one has to deny oneself labels of rationality, right or wrong, as these are put into place after the fact creation. In addition to the symmetry principle (un-determinacy) two other concept are very useful; materiality and discursive effects. The Hägerstrand account will exemplify each one of these, presenting an alternative historical description. Therefore this account here is not intended as holistic description of Hägerstrand’s life, rather themes from his life are used to exemplify that external conditions are more than merely “useful” (Hägerstrand 1983:240). That materiality’s impact is deeper that just being “purely practical” (Hägerstrand 1983:254) and that Hägerstrand’s involvement in planning which he himself only regarded as a distraction to his theoretical work, impacted his life in more profound ways. 

STS traditionally studied failed projects (for irreductionist examples describing failed accounts see: Latour 1996; Avango 2005; Bijker & Law 1992). As “failure represents a methodological convenience: controversy surrounding failure tends to reveal processes that are more easily hidden in the case of successful projects and institutions” (Callon & Law 1992:22). Established successful accounts are regarded as black boxes, to borrow a Latourian phrase. These hide the struggles and contradictions apparent in their creation. This makes successful stories harder to analyze than failed ones. Nevertheless, it is possible if the previous mentioned concepts are used as a constant reminder when presenting and researching a historic account. The next section elaborates how the un-determinacy of scientific practice can be revealed; by taking into consideration the chronology of actual events and questioning popular notions.

1.      Recognition

One indication that the Hägerstrand story might not have been as smooth as some of the previously mentioned accounts suggest, is his delayed recognition by his contemporary peers (Duncan 1974). Hägerstrand published his doctoral thesis already in 1953 (Hägerstrand 1953). According to many of the previously mentioned accounts by this point he had already development many of the concepts that he was to become famous for. However, it took almost 7 more years for him to be recognized and become a part of the than established quantitative revolution. However some biographical accounts simply ignore this period. He himself treats this period only briefly and the rest of the accounts Whiggishly attribute it to some form of language barrier, by claiming that “many of his publications were in Swedish which delayed the impact he made on research in other countries” (Öberg 2005:341). Thereby the language barrier is treated as an explanation to his belated recognition of his contribution. However this represents one type of reconstruction that can be empirically tested, by turning to the works published by Hägerstrand and others mentioning him prior to 1960.

It is true that his doctoral thesis was published in Swedish; however Hägerstrand spoke fluently English and had several aboard contacts prior to his recognition. Furthermore, his thesis was not even ignored; it received its first positive English review already in late 1954 by the prestigious Geographical Review, parsing it in the highest fashion. The reviewer claimed that “[n]o one who essays in the future to interpret the distribution of cultural elements in process of diffusion can afford to ignore Hägerstrand’s methods and conclusions” (Leighly 1954:441). In retrospect this prediction was even called “prophetic” (Mikesell 1984:191), despite this and several other publications on the same subject in English (Hägerstrand 1951; Hägerstrand 1952; Hägerstrand 1958) “they did” (Duncan 1974:122) ignore him for at least 7 more years. Once his doctoral thesis was finally translated by Pred in 1967, Hägerstrand already was a well-recognized figure only to achieve the Outstanding Achievement Award from the Association of American Geographers one year later. This raises the question, why did they ignore him? The presented Whiggish interpretation of language barrier seems not to be sufficient as an explanation.

Here the irreductionist approach reminds us that ‘success’ is not a unilateral achievement of one person’s actions. Rather it represents the product of multifactorial chain of events that have to come together for broader recognition. This is also the case in the Hägerstrand account. Because, prior to his wider recognition Hägerstrand made attempts to promote his ideas abroad. He lectured at Oslo and Copenhagen in 1954, he was to visit Edinburgh as a guest lecturer in 1957, and he even conducted a lecture course in Munich in the early 1960s. Despite all this, his efforts were unsuccessfully, even at home his own senior students were “unsympathetic to his ideas” (Hägerstrand in Duncan 1974:128). The consequences for his work on diffusion were that he emphasized his empirical findings rather than the methodology, in order to avoid theoretical controversy with the reigning regional paradigm. The first recognition of his work was to come from when he in the winter of 1959/60 attended a conference in Seattle, then a stronghold of the new (quantitative) geography. However even the attendance of the conference seems like a chance event, as he was only invited because:

“USA visas were not granted, on political grounds, for their first two choices – Hans Bobek and Walter Christaller – that Torsten from ’neutral’ Sweden was invited.” (Ullman in Buttimer 2007:140)

What did change during the period between 1950 and 1960 was the discipline of geography and how the work of Hägerstrand was subsequently viewed. Most countries geography departments underwent two substantial changes during this period. First there occurred a split of geography into human and natural geography and secondly there was a shift from the regional paradigm to a more quantitative dominated paradigm (Johnsston 1997). Every country underwent its individual change and the dates when this change manifested itself differ significantly (Johnston & Caval 1984). Nevertheless, the pioneering countries of this change were the United States and subsequently the UK. In the 1950s United States the newly formed discipline of human geography experienced specialization towards different sub-disciplines; like political, economic, historical, urban geography and so forth fragmenting the previously unified regional paradigm. In the mid-1950s a climate of strong emphasis on positivism and more ‘scientific’ methods slowly transformed human geography and turning it to more quantitative methods that fitted neatly with the previous specializations (Mikesell 1984:191-192). This change was not uncontested; however in the matter roughly 5 years this shift had manifested itself. The term ‘quantitative revolution’ was later borrowed from Kuhn’s paradigm theory in order to legitimize the transformation and to indicate a shift to something better and more ‘scientific’ (Mikesell 1984; Johnsston & Gregory 1984). Therefore, his recognition and integration into the ‘quantitative geography’ was only possible once the discipline had changed. Once the change manifested itself the discipline was ready to accept Hägerstrand´s earlier quantitative ideas. 

This external change as being paramount for his recognition is not emphasized in most of the biographical accounts. However, by revisiting the original literature and upholding the un-determinacy of a project, such facets in a story are revealed. This more complex version of the story resonates well with the irreductionist approach. Because nothing is from the outset obvious, there is no directionality in history, events unfold in a certain matter and people have intention. However, even if these events occur; it does not imply that the actions of the actors were singly responsible for this particular outcome. Therefore a wider frame of reference is needed to contrast personal reflections (for more detailed irreductionist examples of the un-determinacy of scientific, technological and social conduct see: Wainwright (2012); Pinch (2009); MacKenzie (2009)).  

2.      The Practical Facilitator

The next concept from the irreductionist approach addresses the materiality of our social reality. Technical, social and scientific accounts are all subject to material restrictions in some form or another. This aspect is a central tenet within contemporary STS; however it is often ignored in traditional historical accounts of science (Bennett & Joyce 2010). Since the black box presentation hides the internal struggles, limitations and facilitations these material aspects often get ignored in a similar fashion. However, a turn to the original literature with a special material focus can reveal some of these material effects. For example, the Whiggish assumption that the computer represents merely a “practical facilitator” (Hägerstrand 1983:254) is very seductive, because undeniably the computer did ease some of the work load. However, while it did this; new problems, new restrictions arose, that all had to be accounted for and which have non-trivial consequence. 

One of the more apparent examples of describing the easing of the work load is described in an article published shortly after the publication of his dissertation. At this point in time he did not yet had access to a real computer. However the arguments he put forward were based on his experience of punched card tabulator which he was allowed to borrow of the courtesy of Carl-Erik Quensel, a professor of statistics at Lund University (Hägerstrand 1955:240). This in itself represents a material property of the Lund environment that Hägerstrand engaged in from which he benefited. In the article he outlines a method for a coordinate based approach to handling geographical information, in particular population data of units of dwelling. In the article he describes the benefits that this new methodology would offer. Benefits like “independence from administrative units, because there ‘boundaries change, spoil[ing] the continuity of data” (Hägerstrand 1955:254). With the by him described approach the researcher could assign his own useful frame of reference independent of administrative areas. Another more practical benefit represents the saving of time, as he describes the frustration of having to physically visit every dwelling to establish its occupancy and locating a specific dwelling unit could often take “hours” (Hägerstrand 1955:251) compared to the few minutes with the help of a computer. This time saving aspect alone opened for different types of analyses, qualitatively changing what types of inquiries are feasible.                   

In the 1955 article one can find hints of the benefits Hägerstrand reaped from being in physical proximity to academic environment of the University of Lund. This becomes even more apparent with the establishment of Sweden’s second computer in 1956, Siffermaskinen i Lund (SMIL). Bo Lenntorp regards this historical contingency in the highest fashion by claiming: “It is the fortunate combinations, constellations that facilitate development and change [in science]. SMIL, Hägerstrand and human geography was one of these” (Lenntorp 2006)². Because, at the time computers were large machines requiring significant expertise in the staff to run and maintain them, Thereby, Hägerstrand clearly benefited from Lund having institutionalized a computer. Hägerstrand himself only admits this in passing in his own biography when he writes: 

“… my school-mate since secondary school, Carl-Erik Fröberg, who had just come back from a stay in the United States […] introduced me to the concept of random numbers […] and handed over to me a thin pamphlet on the Monte Carlo Method (Hägerstrand 1983:248)

The mentioned trip to the United States was an effort financed by the Swedish government to evaluate the possibilities to build its own computer. The contacts that were established during this trip with pioneers of computations like John von Neumann, were essential in forming the computer at Lund.³ Not only did Fröberg introduce him to mathematical concepts that would define his doctoral thesis, Fröberg would also go on to hold the chair of numerical analysis at Lund University. A chair especially established for him and SMIL. Fröberg would teach courses in numerical analyses, which even Hägerstrand himself attended (Hägerstrand 1983:248). So Hägerstrand undoubtedly benefited more than just practically from having a computer at Lund. Therefore, the physical proximity can be regarded as material beneficial property aiding Hägerstrand´s development and subsequent recognition. 

Furthermore, the material impact of using computational help does not just end at an inspirational level. It also had clear practical implication on what kind of research was feasible and what wasn´t. As SMIL represented Sweden’s second computer, access to such a high-tech device was far from self-evident. Therefore, Lund could be regarded as privileged institution both at a national and international level. Leaving no alternative machines to work on, the material properties of the machine at hand became paramount. In 1965 he writes that he “has worked out a more complicated and probably more life-like version [of the applied model] ... [however this] would call for a [memory capacity] of the computer which has not as yet been available” (Hägerstrand 1965:66). Therefore constant upgrading of the machine was necessary; nevertheless it did impose an upper limit on possibilities. However even the opposite was true, because on a later date he admits that the “output consist of more than a hundred different maps. This is, incidentally, one of the problems with automatic data-processing: the output can easily become unmanageable in its quantity” (Hägerstrand 1967:16). This indicates another limit, human comprehension. Thereby the material properties of the machine used and the cognitive capacity to analyze the output created material restrictions to what type of research was possible and which was not. 

Nevertheless, even if the computer did impose limits and restrictions Hägerstrand made sure to capitalize on its implementation. The computer was avidly used both in academic theoretical problems and in planning problems. He was so convinced of the practical benefits of using the computer that he urged the discipline to change in a fashion that every “geographer accepts the computer as an everyday aid in his work” (Hägerstrand 1967:3). This qualitative change of the discipline of geography did eventually materialize and is what we now regard as the quantitative revolution within human geography. This paradigm shift qualitatively changed the discipline to a more positivistic, physics inspired approach that was nomothetic in its nature as opposed to the descriptive nature of the regional paradigm (Johnston 1997). This irreductionist account shows that the material properties of the Lund environment clearly influenced the future conduct of Hägerstrand´s work more than just on a purely practical level (for more irreductionist examples of how technological influence human thought and conduct see: Fridlund (2012); Edwards (2010); Clark (2003)).

3.      The Distraction of Planning

The last conceptual tool from the irreductionist approach introduced in this article might arguably be the most difficult to recognize, due to the nature of how it influences scientific conduct. Discursive structures influence scientific conduct by subtly changing the word repertoire, highlighting and neglecting certain aspects etc. This realization attributes great importance to textual accounts of science and their use of rhetoric (Latour 2007). One great difficulty involved in analyzing the use of rhetoric and discourse is that the person analyzing is in themselves using a particular rhetoric and adhering to a specific discourse (Lee & Brown 1994). Despite these difficulties it is possible to analyze these mechanisms, by turning to the literature and studying the rhetoric used by the actors involved. Studying which aspects are emphasized and which are neglected and how do these change over time.  

In Hägerstrand’s account this is especially apparent for his involvement with planning. Planning was regarded by Hägerstrand as useful in so far that it gave him practical knowledge, representing a case study for his ideas, but in general represented a distraction to his theoretical preoccupations. However when analyzing the literature a different account manifest itself. Therefore, separating between his involvement in planning and his academic interests is no straight forward enterprise. To understand one of his interests in planning it is important to acknowledge that the previous mentioned split of human geography and natural geography did occur in Sweden as well. However, in Sweden it occurred probably sooner than in most other countries, as the split already manifested itself in 1948. Initially this was welcomed by Hägerstrand as it meant that “Adjudicators of doctoral work could henceforth include social scientists rather than geomorphologists and historians” (Buttimer 2007:124). This allowed Hägerstrand to focus more on social factors instead of focusing on geomorphology or historical aspects for his doctoral dissertation. This split changed the discourse of the newly established human geography in Sweden to take a more social science focus. However this change had bitter side-taste, because the school subject of ‘Hembygdskunskap’⁴ laid claims to a similar intellectual area as the new human geography dominated by a regional paradgim (without physical geography). This meant that higher human geographical education was in jeopardy of getting its funding removed. Hägerstrand explains one of his initial interests in planning in these terms, stating:

“Since geographers had an uncertain future on higher levels in the school system we were several university geographers who felt it is our obligation to try to open a new labor market for our advanced students.” (Hägerstrand 1983:252)

The labor market that he refers to is the involvement of geographers in public planning. In this effort the new quantitative paradigm was very welcomed, in that it clearly separated the ‘scientific’ subject of human geography from ‘simple’ a school subject. However, his effort combined with that of his peers was maybe a bit too successful. As many of his students that he inspired to work in planning did in fact leave the department to just pursue such career paths. Inspired by the rhetoric used and better pay of the governmental work they left in great numbers. This can be regarded as a genuine “brain drain” from the Lund Department of Geography (Öberg 2005:342).               

       

However, the involvement with planning was by no means all negative. He himself regards this experience as a “valuable [in understanding] how the transformation of localities and region is bound up with events in society at large” (Hägerstrand 1983:253). This experience left a definite mark on the use of his rhetoric as he henceforth used this involvement as an argumentative tool. For example he pointed out that one out of three⁵ possible benefits of his Monte Carlo approach represented the possibility to give “insights into the time-efficiency of prevalent policy” (Hägerstrand 1967:18). Furthermore he explains his approaches based on projects that he worked upon under government funding (e.g. Øresund straight project). Even in his most cited article he uses this connection to legitimize his critique of the general direction of human geography. He asserts that geography should serve as an instrument “with which to guide policy and planning” (Hägerstrand 1970:1), as opposed to the American tradition of purely theoretical focus. In his biographical reflections he mainly argues that he draws inspiration for this critique from his earlier work on migration, however in writing he combines this rhetoric with his involvement in planning. Thereby it represented a useful rhetorical tool for him, even in academic circles, as he continuously uses it as an authoritative argument strengthening his theoretical assertions.    

The above explained influences are more subtle in their nature of affecting his career and theoretical workings. However the granting of research funding had much more direct effects. As previously explained his involvement in planning allowed for securing of tenure at the university, as geographical education now had a clear practical application. By looking at a specific research grant from 1966 when Sven Godlund and Olof Wärneryd and he were granted a grant of 1.1 million SEK the effects become much clearer. This particular grant represented the biggest single research grant that “any social scientists in the country had ever received” (Hägerstrand 1983:253) up to that date. The funding for their study upon the urbanization process allowed that they could “employ full-time researchers and pay them good wages” (Hägerstrand 1991: 86), effectively competing with government wages and stop the brain drain from the department. But it did much more than that; it supported their work by means of seminars and publications (Hägerstrand 1991:102) that allowed them to create a platform for their ideas. By funding journals to publish their work, financing seminars and travel expenditures to invite scholars and send researchers abroad effectively helping with “what we today refers to as a [academic] network” (Hägerstrand 1991:96). In fact the particular network structure that Duncan (1974) attributed so much importance in helping with the recognition of Hägerstrand´s contribution by the wider human geography community.                        

This completes the circle, making the distinction between academic interests and planning so difficult. In practice is it better to see them as reinforcing mechanisms, where the advancement of one strengthens the other and vice versa. Seeing them as an enabling function, that creates the structure that made network building possible. This process of ‘political work’ should be familiar to contemporary social scientist, because it us what today is known as being ‘socially relevant’, with its important function of securing funding. However, it also dedicates what research question are addressed and which are not, thereby actively shaping the scientific discourse (for irreductionist examples of discursive influences upon the practice of science, technology and society see: Latour (2007); Oudshoorn (2012); Gad & Jensen (2010)).

4.      Other Influences

Obviously other important influence can be mentioned, that are recurring in the biographical accounts like; the importance of the figure of Edgar Kant, that Hägerstrand regarded as a mentor and “who opened the world for him” (Öberg 2005:341). His wife´s influence “being a lifelong unpaid research assistant” (Hägerstrand in Sollbe 1991). Or the benefits that others drew from his work, like Fröberg who mentions his work as an application of the computer and their usages (Fröberg & Sigurd 1962). These aspects are important but have been excluded in the here presented argument for several reasons. Reasons like the difficulties to establish their precise impact, insufficient source material or simple editorial choices.

IV.              Conclusion

The ireductionist account presented here stresses the multiplicity and un-determinacy of scientific conduct. Presenting science as a process of network building, where the network heterogeneously stretches over material and social or political and academic boundaries. As exemplified in Hägerstrand’s case, it is not one particular event or personality trait that helped him to his success. Success (or failure) is dependent upon a combination of many different factors; it is the entirety of a project that leads to success (or failure), not one individual part.

These factors can be intentional and dependent upon the actor. However, they can also be external and outside the control of the actor entirely, in the Hägerstrand case the invitation to Seattle is such an incident. These discursive, material or contingent aspects are often ignored in the secondary literature, thereby, creating Whiggish accounts. Therefore, if the aim is to provide a detailed account of the historical chronological development, consultation of the primary literature is unavoidable in order to rediscover these influences. Necessitating the combination of secondary literature with other sources like; research grants, projects in the physical proximity etc. that all help to establish a fuller description of the development. 

The here introduced irreductionist concepts of; un-determinacy, materiality and discursive effects are drawn from Science and Technology Studies. Hopefully, they can provide methodological aids for future researchers to avoid Whiggish fallacies in their historical accounts of the development of human geography.

V.                 Acknowledgments

I am grateful for the literature suggestions of Ronald John Johnston, Simon Duncan and Kajsa Ellegård in regard to secondary literature regarding Torsten Hägerstrand. Their comments upon the framework of the here described irreductionist approach represented a valuable source of inspiration.

Last but not least I am very grateful for the comments of Mirek Dymitrow and Mats Fridlund. Their input greatly clarified the concepts of the here presented concepts and their application upon the history of human geography.      

VI.              Notes

1. The book is written in Swedish as Hägerstrand felt it represented the language in which he could best express himself. It´s Swedish title is ‘Tillvaroväven’.
   
2. Translation into English by the author, original Swedish quote: ”... som vanligt är de lyckosamma kombinationer, konstellationerna som skapar utveckling och förändring. SMIL, Hägerstrand och kulturgeografi var en sådan.”
3. All information regarding SMIL is compiled from a lecture series of SMIL´s 50th anniversary given at Lund. The lecturers were: Bengt Svensson, Sten Henriksson,
   Kai Holmgren, Kenneth Nilsson, Bo Lenntorp, Bengt Sigurd, Torgil Ekman
   and Ingemar Dahlstrand among others. Lectures only available in Swedish
   (video.ldc.lu.se/smil-50.htm)
4. Hembygdskunskap was a Swedish school discipline teaching students about their local surroundings. The regional paradigm in human geography had a similar descriptive approach. However, funding studies within human geography that investigated particular social phenomena was than unheard off (1940s and 1950s). Because this was the realm of social sciences, human geographies claim to this area of knowledge had first to be established, and subsequently the need for funding these types of inquiries.
5. The other two represent independence of administrative units and generating non-intuitive predictions when a large amount of different factors are combined and interact over long periods of time.

VII.           References

• ___Agnew A. A., Livingstone D. N., (2011), (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Geographical Knowlegde, Sage Publications.
• ___Asdal K., Moser I., (2012), „Experiments in Context and Contexting”, Science, Technology, & Human Values, vol. 3, nr. 4, p.291-306
• ___Avango D., (2005), Sveagruvan – Svensk gruvhantering mellan industri, diplomati och geovetenskap 1910-1934, Jernkontorets Berghistoriska Skriftserie 44
• ___Barnes T. J., (2001), „Retheorizing Economic Geography: From the Quantitative Revolution to the “Cultural Turn””, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 91, is. 3, p.546–565
• ___Bennett T., Joyce P., (2010), Material Powers: Cultural Studies, History and the Material Turn, Routledge
• ___Bijker W.E., Law J., (1992), Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, MIT Press
• ___Buttimer A., Mels T., (2006), By Northern Lights - On the Making of Geography in Sweden, Asgate
• ___Buttimer A., (2007), „TorstenHägerstrand 1916–2004”, in Lorimer H., Withers C. W. J., (eds) Geographers: bibliographical studies, vol. 26, p.119–57
• ___Callon M., Law J., (1992), „The Life and death of an Aircraft: A Network Analysis of Technical Change”, in Bijker W. E., Law J., (eds) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. MIT Press, p.54-76
• ___Clark A., (2003), Natural-Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies and the Future of Human Intelligence, Oxford University Press.
• ___Collins H., (2010), Tacit and Explicit Knowledge, University of Chicago Press
• ___Duncan S., (1974), „The Isolation of Scientific Discovery: Indifference and Resistance to a New Idea”, Social Studies of Science, vol.4, p.109-134
• ___Dymitrow M., (2012), „Degraded towns in Poland as cultural heritage”, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 2012-06-07 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2012.681681)
• ___Edwards P.N., (2010), A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data and the Politics of Global Warming, MIT Press
  
• ___Ellegård K., Svedin U., (2012), „TorstenHägerstrand’s time-geography as the cradle of the activity approach”, Journal of Transport Geography. vol.23, p.17–25
• ___Fellmann J.D., Gettis A., Gettis J., (2007), Human Geography: Landscapes of human activity 9th ed., McGraw Hill
• ___Fridlund M., 2012: „Affording terrorism: Idealists and materialities in the emergence of modern terrorism”, in Taylor M., Currie P. M., (eds) Terrorism and Affordances, Continuum, p.47-87
• ___Fröberg C.E., Sigurd B., (1965), Datamaskiner och deras användning, Gleerup
• ___Gad C., Jensen C. B., (2010), „On the Consequences of Post-ANT”, Science Technology Human Values, vol. 35, no.1, p.55-80
• ___Hägerstrand T., (1951), „Migration and the Growth of Culture Regions. Studies in rural-urban interaction”, Lund Studies in Geography Series B, vol.3, p.33–36
• ___Hägerstrand T., (1952), „The Propagation of Innovation Waves”. Lund Studies in Geography Series, vol. 4, p.1-20
• ___Hägerstrand T., (1953), Innovationsförloppet ur korologisk synpunkt, Gleerup
• ___Hägerstrand T., (1955), „Statistiska primäruppgifter, flygkartering och dataprocessingmaskiner, ett kombineringsprojekt”, Svensk Geografisk Årsbok, vol. 31, p.233–255
• ___Hägerstrand T., (1958), „A Century of Migration to and from a Rural Parish in Sweden”. Les migrations rurales. Communications et changesde Vues. Premier Congrès de la Société Européenne de Sociologie Rurale, Bruxelles-Louvain, p.144–151
• ___Hägerstrand T., (1965), „A Monte Carlo Approach to Diffusion”, European Journal of Sociology, vol. 6, nr. 1, p.43–67
• ___Hägerstrand T., (1967), The Geographer and the Computer, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 42:1–19
• ___Hägerstrand T., (1970), „What about people in Regional Science?”, Papers in Regional Science, vol. 24, nr. 1, p.6-21
• ___Hägerstrand T., (1983), „In Search for the Sources of Concepts”, in Buttimer A., (eds) The Practice of Geography, Longman, p.238–256
• ___Hägerstrand T., (1991), „Urbanization processes”, in Härnqvis K., Svensson N-E., (eds) Swedish research in a changing society. The Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation 1965 – 1990, Gidlundsbokförlag, p.86–104
• ___Hägerstrand T., (red) Ellegård K., Svedin U., (2009), Tillvaroväven, Formas
• ___Johnston R. J., Claval P., (1984), Geography Since the Second World war – An International Study, Croom Helm
• ___Johnston R. J., Gregory S., (1984), „The United Kingdom”, in Johnston R. J., Claval P., (eds)
  Geography Since the Second World war – An International Study, London, Croom Helm, p.107-131
• ___Johnston R. J., Sidaway J. D., (2004), Geography & Geographers: Anglo-American Human Geography Since 1945 6th ed, Taylor & Francis
• ___Johnston R. J., (1997), Geography & Geographers: Anglo-American Human Geography Since 1945 5th ed., Arnold
• ___Johnston R. J., (2005), „Makers of modern human geography: introduction to a new series”, Progress in Human Geography, vol. 29, p.327–328
• ___Johnston R. J., (2006), „Sixty Years of Change in Human Geography”, 2012-12-09 (http://www2.lse.ac.uk/CPNSS/events/Abstracts/HIstoryofPoswarScience/lse.pdf)
• ___Keighren I. M., (2010), Bringing Geography to Book: Ellen Semple and the Reception of Geographical Knowledge, I B Tauris & Co Ltd
• ___Latour B., (1996), Aramis, or the Love of Technology, Harvard University Press
• ___Latour B., (2007), Reassembling the Social – An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Oxford University Press
• ___Lee N., Brown S., (1994), „Otherness and the Actor Network: The Undiscovered Continent”, American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 37, p.772-790
• ___Leighley J., (1954), „Innovation and Area” Geographical Review, vol. 44, no. 3, p.439-441
• ___Lenntorp B., (2006), „SMIL, Hägerstrand och kulturgeografi. Lecture”,  2012-11-27, (http://video.ldc.lu.se/smil-50.htm, accessed)
• ___Lenntorp B., (2008), „Innovation Diffusion as a spatial process (1953): TorstenHägerstrand”, in Hubbard P., Kitchin R., Valintine G., Key texts in Human Geography: A Reader Guide, Sage, p.1-14
• ___Livingstone D. N., (2003), Putting Science in Its Place - Geographies of Scientific Knowledge, University of Chicago Press
• ___MacKenzie D., (2009), Material Markets: How Economic Agents are Constructed, Oxford University Press
• ___Maddrell A., (2009), Complex Locations: Women's Geographical Work in the UK 1850-1970, Wiley
• ___Mikesell M. W., (1984), „North America”, in  Johnston R. J., Claval P., Geography Since the Second World war – An International Study, Croom Helm, p.185-213
• ___Mol A., (2010), „Koordination und Ordnungsbildung in der Akteur-Netzwerk-Theorie – Actor-Network Theory: Sensitive Terms and Enduring Tension“, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, vol. 50, no.1, p.253-269
• ___Morrill R., (2005), „Hägerstrand and the ‘quantitative revolution’: a personal appreciation”, Progress in Human Geography, vol. 29, p.333–336
• ___Nora P., (2001), „Mellan minne och historia”; in Sörlin S., (eds) Nationens röst- texter om nationalismens teori och praktik. Stockholm, SNS Förlag, 365–394
• ___Öberg S., (2005), „Hägerstrand and the remaking of Sweden”, Progress in Human Geography, vol. 29, p.340–349
• ___Oudshoorn N., (2012), „How places matter: Telecare technologies and the changing spatial dimensions of healthcare”, Social Studies of Science, vol. 42, p.121-142
• ___Persson O., Ellegård K., (2011), „TorstenHägerstrand in the Citation Time Web”, The Professional Geographer, vol. 64, nr. 2, p.250-261
• ___Pinch T., (2008), „Technology and Institutions: Living in a Material World”, Theory and Society, vol. 37, nr. 5, p.461-483
• ___Pred A., (2005), „Hägerstrand matters: life(-path) and death matters--some touching remarks”, Progress in Human Geography, vol. 29, p.328-332
• ___Sollbe B., (1991), „Professorn från Moheda”, in Carlestam G., Sollbe B., (eds) Om tingens vidd och tidens ordning, Byggforskningsrådet, vol. 2, p.14-29
• ___Thrift N., (2005), „TorstenHägerstrand and social theory”, Progress in Human Geography, vol. 29, p.337-340
• ___Wainwright S. P., (2012), „Science studies in physical geography: An idea whose time has come?”, Progress in Physical Geography”, 2012-12-10 (http://ppg.sagepub.com/content/36/6/786)
• ___Withers C. W. J., (2010), Geography and science in Britain, 1831-1939: a study of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Manchester University Press