Bridging the Qualitative–Quantitative Divide in Transport Geography∗

Abstract

Recent viewpoints concerning the state of research in transport geography have touched on the issue of insularity and the need to bridge the divide between the largely spatial–analytical or quantitative research in transport geography and the critical or qualitative research prevalent in urban, economic, and most other subfields of human geography. Transport geography has been criticized by some for being a quiet corner of our discipline that has lost its centrality largely because it remains within the analytical framework of the 1960s. This article explores these sentiments by reexamining recent transport-oriented research in highly cited geography journals to assess the degree to which the qualitative–quantitative divide exists within transport geography and between transport and other subfield in human geography, as well as to explore issues of productivity and centrality of transport-oriented research in geography. Results indicate that geographical research involving transport topics is much more prevalent and reflects a wider range of epistemological and methodological approaches than is frequently assumed. Nevertheless, there is still a considerable divide between “mainstream” transport geography and other human geographical research that necessitates much more interaction between transport and other subfields and greater incorporation of alternative research approaches within the mainstream of transport geography. To that end, we propose a preliminary critical transport geography research agenda that is open to a variety of methodological approaches, including quantitative analysis.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 73 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.