[Conference] Géopoint - Measuring space, and afterwards? 13 and 14 June in Avignon

It is now commonplace to describe the spatial differentiation of socio-economic and environmental phenomena and, to a lesser extent, to seek in absolute or relative locations all or part of the explanation for their emergence, characteristics and dynamics. Few people really doubt that " space matters ! ".

Over the last twenty years or so, this 'spatial turn' has become all the easier, both in the academic and professional spheres, as geodigital resources have become more abundant and easier to access and, at the same time, the tools and methods for exploiting them - in particular geographic information systems and, more recently, methods linked to artificial intelligence - have become very widely available, both in terms of ease of use and cost. We are now in a position to spatialise and quantify in great detail a number of phenomena and behaviours that until recently were difficult to capture due to a lack of data: from changes in land use to changes in land prices, from the physical mobility of individuals to their digital interactions, or from the precise location of economic activities to tourism practices, etc.

In fact, understanding the spatial dimension of socio-economic and environmental phenomena is no longer the prerogative of geographers alone. It is also the work of researchers in other sciences, whether social or otherwise, specialists in data analysis or visualisation, who are working on the same issues, using the same tools, particularly GIS, which geographers no longer have exclusive rights to. There is therefore a need for everyone to better (re)define their specific contribution to the production of knowledge about spaces and spatialities.

We might also ask whether this new facility for quantifying and spatialising a wide variety of objects of study, while responding to a strong social demand linked to contemporary planning issues, is not distracting us from a more theoretical aspiration. For some, theoretical aspirations have become pointless, and all that is needed is to "let the data speak for itself". In today's knowledge production chain, it has to be said that modelling, which can be used to predict and sometimes explain, is becoming rarer or is too often confined to statistical modelling. Caution is the order of the day when it comes to explanation, perhaps too easily taking refuge behind the inextricable complexity of territorial systems. And yet, while describing is a necessary step in the scientific process, it must necessarily be followed by a desire to explain and theorise, which is the only way to take action.

Finally, as contemporary data and tools facilitate the production of a wide variety of thematic knowledge, we can ask what the 'knowledge objects' of geography are today that cut across the objects of study and can contribute to a more theoretical production. Once it has been demonstrated that what is close by tends to resemble and interact with each other more than what is far away, that many geographical objects, including cities, are more or less kept at a distance according to a gravitational logic, or that asymmetries of power increase inequalities at all scales, what new things are being said, or what are we trying to find out, that are transversal to the objects of study and that would contribute to the (re)definition of the project of producing knowledge about spaces and spatialities?

At a time when big-open dataWith the democratisation of cartography and spatial analysis tools, whose widespread use has helped to relegate epistemological debates to the background among geographers, who are happy to respond to a social demand that recognises their expertise, it seems strategic to reflect on what the geographical project is today:

• By examining the relationship between geography and other sciences, both social and 'hard', to find out, for example, whether the spatialisation of social and environmental phenomena still constitutes a sufficient scientific horizon? Do geographers still have their own approaches, methods and tools, with the democratisation of mapping tools and spatial analysis?
• By questioning the objects of knowledge, whether explicit or not, which are specific to space and transversal to the variety of objects of study tackled. This kind of questioning seems essential, despite the difficulty of sustaining a theoretical aspiration in the face of current research funding arrangements that are geared towards short-term application and exploitation.
• This raises the question of whether it is appropriate to adopt a more prescriptive, or even prescriptive, approach. Researchers interested in the spatial dimension of the social world describe, and at best explain, the forms and (dis)functioning of territories, but should they go so far as to allow themselves to make thematic recommendations or even to propose a holistic, systemic vision of the territories of the future in their form and functioning? If so, are they in a position to do so? Is saying what is, but also what should or could be, among a range of possible alternative trajectories, the condition for being audible in times when action takes precedence?

Beyond these questions, the challenge of this Géopoint is to take the time to (re)question what geographers are after today and to find out whether this objective is specific enough for them not to become, in the long term, an endangered species.

Contact: geopoint@univ-avignon.fr
>> Programme and registration