![]() ![]() Quite the opposite in fact: my purpose is to show that peer-reviewed knowledge is by no means immune from the basic assumptions underpinning list-mania. Of course, ill-informed discussion in the blogosphere is an easy target but such academic smugness is not my intention here. I have begun with this little rant because it addresses challenges to world city network analysis at their most overt level. No wonder city partisans find our results unappealing actually it would be even more depressing if they did embrace them! Networks are essentially about mutuality, analysing them reveals cooperative relations not competitive ones. And in the particular case of world city network analysis, the overall outcome is to spectacularly misunderstand what the research, and therefore the results, are all about. Ranking brings out the competitive spirit in commentators to replace reasoned thinking. It is part of a contemporary ‘list-mania' where the ranking is all that matters. The results are treated as just ‘out there', available for discussion involving minimal effort: there appears to be little or no interest in how results are produced as if this had no relevance. This is all very depressing on several levels. There is a relatively large constituency of interested parties who consider the results as just another ranking exercise – where is my city in the world pecking order and why isn't it higher? These city partisans, largely in the blogosphere, tend to evaluate research in terms of how it fits with their limited horizons: our world city network results are deemed ‘controversial', meaning suspect, because we tend to rank US cities lower than bloggers would wish. However it does have its depressing side. World city network analysis is an exciting field of research. ![]() (A) The Challenge Facing World City Network Analysis ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |