Is Critical Human Geography Research Replicable?

The debate concerning replicable scientific research has reached geography’s shores. This has exposed old fault lines in our discipline, because some forms of geographical inquiry are more amenable to replicability than others. If there is a corner of the discipline that seems especially ill-suited to replicability, it is critical human geography. Almost no work in the subfield exhibits the combination of qualities—explicit and replicable methods; large, numerical data sets; full reporting—that enable reproducibility. Should we care? Although the inability of critical human geographers to reproduce our research results does not constitute a crisis, it is a matter worthy of reflection. Even if it proves difficult to realize, the challenge of designing replicable research promises to generate insights into the relative rigor of our disciplinary practices. Moreover, by clarifying the limits on replicability in social inquiry, we should be better positioned to weigh and mediate between competing values, for instance, the potential conflict between the principle of scientific integrity and the protection of vulnerable research subjects. I contend that producing a rigorous and reproducible geographical research, while also respecting the dignity of subaltern social groups, would require significant changes to standard research practice. To flesh out these claims, I offer concise reflections on the literature from critical human geography research with subaltern social groups.