Critical Geographies with the State: The Problem of Social Vulnerability and the Politics of Engaged Research

Abstract: State interventions to govern social vulnerability highlight the complexity of contemporary states, marked by neoliberal agenda but also by progressive interventions and the desire for effectiveness. This paper draws on collaborative research with government agencies on social vulnerability in the Hunter region to assess the desirability of undertaking critical geographies with the state. We see states as contested terrains invested with the institutional capacity to mobilise diverse political projects. We argue that critical research in partnership with states is possible, as are mobilisations of the agency of state institutions to promote progressive policy development. The paper explores how we might use engaged research to intersect with the production and circulation of texts, technologies and practices within the state apparatus to achieve desirable change. While critical research with the state involves uncertainties and compromise, with no permanent resolutions, we conclude that states must remain centred in our critical conversations and praxis. In this paper we advance the case for the critical possibilities of policy‐oriented research with the state. We reflect on experiences of an engaged research project with state government agencies in the NSW Hunter Region involving the production and use of the texts and technologies as state interventions in social vulnerability. Working through the project's reflexive, collaborative methodologies and our use of critical GIS, we highlight the creation of opportunities to change how the components of social vulnerability were conceptualised, contest policymakers’ view of what was “relevant”, and shift framing rationalities and resultant state practices. As such the paper contributes to our knowledge of strategic research practices for pursuing critical, progressive projects with the state. Such engagement involves uncertainties and contingent compromise. Yet, as terrains of contestation wherein diverse political projects are assembled and propelled, states must remain centred in our critical conversations and in our critical praxis.     

Book reviews

Ian McLean, White Aborigines. Identity Politics in Australian Art, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. x + 204 pp., 9 b. & w. illus. ISBN 0–521–58416–7. £40.00.

Ákos Moravánszky, Competing Visions. Aesthetic Invention and Social Imagination in Central European Architecture, 1867–1918, Cambridge, Mass. & London: MIT Press, 1998. xvi + 508 pp., 32 col. and 312 b. & w. illus. ISBN 0–262–13334–2. £29.95.

Andrew Piersenné, Explaining Our World, London and New York: E. & F. N. Spon, 1999. xii + 252 pp., 50 b. & w. illus. ISBN 0–419–21940–4. £45–00.

Simone Abram, Jacqueline Waldren and Donald V. L. Macleod (eds.), Tourists and Tourism: Identifying with People and Places, Oxford and New York: Berg, 1997. xii + 245 pp., 4 figs. ISBN 1–85973–905–9. £14.99.

Martin Cooper (ed.), Laser Cleaning in Conservation: An Introduction, Oxford: Butterworth‐Heinemann, 1998. xii + 98 pp, 43 col. and 11 b. & w. illus. ISBN 0–7506–3117–1. £40.00.

Jon Lang, Madhavi Desai and Miki Desai, Architecture and Independence. The Search for Identity—India 1880 to 1980, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997. xxii + 347 pp., c. 750 b. & w. illus. and figs. ISBN 0–19–563900–6. £20.00.     

Car park charging in the Cairngorms National Park

Charges for parking in the countryside pose a particular dilemma in Scotland as they are seen by many outdoor groups as a backdoor approach to restricting the public's newly acquired right of responsible access to the countryside. The issue is particularly sensitive in the case of the Cairngorms National Park (CNP) where charging has spread to a number of key car parks across the area. Based on the results of a survey of over 300 visitors this paper investigates visitors’ attitudes and perceptions towards car park charging in the CNP, and explores the conditions under which they would find charging legitimate; in particular, the notion of hypothecation (i.e. the practice of declaring where and how monies contributed will be spent). We find that the vast majority of visitors surveyed are supportive of charging but that support is conditional on: the nature of the charging system, the type of location in question, and the landowners’ commitment to hypothecating user fees for reinvestment in visitor facilities and preservation of the environment. We conclude by proposing a CNP‐wide charging policy, fundamentally based on the principle of hypothecation.