In lots of academic papers, but especially geography, you will be hit with terms that seem like they came straight out of the philosophy curriculum. These terms often encompass complex and abstract definitions which can be difficult to ground in the terms of the paper that you’re reading or topic you are learning about. By understanding these concepts, you will be able to better comprehend what the author of the paper was trying to convey and will even be able to level up your own writing by applying these terms to your research!
Here’s a breakdown of some philosophical words you will commonly encounter in geographical research papers:
Paradigms
A paradigm is a framework in which something is thought about. Because it is a way of thinking it is shaped by how advanced the knowledge is on a certain topic or what knowledge is available to people on the topic. Because it is a way of thinking, it may not only be shaped by “objective” knowledge, but also be shaped by a certain time period or cultural movement. For example, the Age of Enlightenment marked a paradigm shift from religion to science-based understandings. This often shows up in geographical studies by how we value certain phenomena like thinking of the Earth as a resource rather than thinking of the Earth as our intrinsic home.
Epistemology
Similarly, epistemology is the theory of knowledge. This encapsulates how we think of concepts, how they are disseminated, and how we come to regard things as conceptually true. It is also interested in what more is out there to know. In geography, this is very concerned with research and definitions. For example, there is much epistemological debate on definitions of biodiversity.
Ontology
As opposed to epistemology, ontology is concerned with lived experiences. It is more grounded and less conceptual than the previous two terms. It is the nature of being rather than the nature of knowing. This is not just for material objects, but connections and feelings between them. In geography, this may become important when dealing with living subjects in research. You may want to understand the lived experience of someone affected by a natural disaster or the aftershocks of colonization.
Praxis
Praxis is the most grounded of these terms and has more to do with doing rather than thinking. This is how we engage with the subjects we are theorizing about and how to actually interact with them and change them. This often has to do with public policy, changing laws, protesting, and reacting to real-time events.
Normative
Normativity has to do with morals and what the current accepted understanding of right and wrong is. In social sciences, this is less to do with abstract moral debates and more about the status quo. These are the social norms that society usually operates under like following laws, gender roles, wealth classes, and shared cultural experiences. The opposite of this would be non-normative behaviour and social deviance like crime, civil disobedience, and breaking gender binaries.
Deontology
A deontological view is concerned with whether an action in isolation is right or wrong. This view is not concerned with justifying “an ends to the means.” It does not look at repercussions, consequences, or later benefits as having any weight to whether or not something should be done. Under this view, there are typically agreed universal rules that will determine the outcome of this argument. With an issue like climate change, a deontological view would see contributing to it as a morally wrong action based on it being an abuse to the environment.
Teleology
Teleology is contrasted to deontology because it cares about end results. It attempts to understand and delegate issues by how much net social good or bad it would cause. In some physical and biological sciences, the view is avoided for being too absolutist and implying that everything comes to an end goal. This is an important quandary for geographers because it should be understood that everything on the surface of the Earth is constantly changed and being reevaluated.