Research record and interests#
Ray HudsonResearch trajectory and interests
My initial research interests, first developed in my doctoral thesis, centred on environmental knowledge and learning and their relation to peoples' behaviour. Methodological concerns were prominent in this research, especially in terms of measuring and assessing environmental knowledge via repertory grid methods and I subsequently sought to reflect on these and related theoretical issues.
This interest in environmental knowledge has to a degree remained, though as part of a broader research programme concerned with understanding spatially uneven development. As such, it has increasingly involved examining the social processes and structures through which the meanings of places are constructed. Moving back to the north east in 1972 was the proximate cause of a refocusing of my research interests around the themes of spatially uneven development, regional and urban growth and decline. It particularly involved seeking more powerful approaches to the explanation of changing patterns of spatially uneven development via exploring (then) novel theoretical approaches. I was one of a small group of geographers in the early 1970s who took a pioneering role in stressing the need to relate spatial changes to more powerful conceptions of social processes than those encompassed by either neo-classical economics or statistical mechanics on the one hand or behavioural critiques of these on the other. In this respect, this was an attempt to move forward in explanatory terms from the concerns of my doctoral research. Equally, there was a growing recognition of the need to look beyond the natural resource endowment of, and events and processes within, particular places in order better to understand change within them; of the need to consider broader national and international processes and the interrelation between local, national and international processes in shaping trajectories of local and regional change (not least as these broader linkages were crucial in a region such as the north east in defining what became the natural resource endowment). While such considerations are now seen by many as mainstream and non-controversial, thirty years or so ago they presented a major challenge to dominant orthodoxies and their introduction had a significant impact on subsequent approaches to understanding uneven development and explaining spatial patterns.
In seeking new theoretical perspectives, my initial focus was on analogies between theories of Third World underdevelopment and relations between core and peripheral national states and the processes producing peripheral regions within the national territories of advanced First World states. As the limits to such an approach became clear, my emphasis increasingly switched to structural Marxian perspectives on the processes of capital accumulation and to explore European contributions to the debates about regional uneven development within a broad political-economy rubric. The next stage in this search for more powerful and nuanced explanations of geographies of economies was to seek to introduce notions of human agency (individual and collective) and institutional influence as well as structural considerations. This involved both theoretical work and empirical investigation of the character of, and interplay between, corporate (dis)investment strategies, trades union policies, state policies (principally in terms of those of national and local governments and nationalised industries) and the tactics of territorially based coalitions in seeking to shape trajectories of regional (and urban) change. Most of my research over the last three decades has involved exploration of these issues and in more recent years I have sought to bring this together in major synthetic theoretical accounts of economies and their geographies..
Consequently, a number of interrelated strands run through my own research over this period, with varying degrees of emphasis placed upon (a) a regional as opposed to industrial focus and (b) seeking greater understanding of such changes as opposed to seeking to influence their direction. In some cases, the emphasis in my research is on regional and urban change per se, with the objective of studying particular places (especially the north east of England) as a context in which to explore, develop and refine theoretical notions about the geography of a capitalist economy as well as better to understand the processes by which places are themselves (re)produced. Throughout the last three decades, I have quite deliberately retained a strong focus on the causes and consequences of change in the north east of England and their effects on the well-being of people and places (an interest given a new twist since taking over as Director of the Wolfson Research Institute). . Over the years I have sought to refine an understanding of the processes of change within the region while at the same time seeking to locate the north east in the context of a broader understanding of inequality within the UK and in a broader comparative context, especially of uneven development within Europe.
In other research projects, the aim has been a more practical one of using such knowledge about processes to explain patterns of change in particular places so as to help provide a basis for effective policies and practical action. At one level this reflects a curiosity to understand the region in which I was born and brought up but beyond that it reflects a belief that intellectuals as citizens as well as Universities as institutions have a moral and social responsibility to engage with developmental problems in the areas around them, to "act locally" while recognising that this requires "thinking globally". I have therefore sought not simply to reflect upon change but seek to influence its trajectory via a series of projects for and with local authorities, trades unions and community groups which address issues of industrial decline and policy responses to it. In recent years, this has led to a growing interest in a variety of community, informal and “third sector” initiatives intended to regenerate places that have suffered from industrial decline. This practical involvement has also, in a sense, led me to come intellectually full circle. For example, the threat of deindustrialization has often triggered campaigns against plant closures and consideration of (as well as participation in some of) these has focused attention on the meanings that these places have for people, the relationships between such meanings and the social and material construction of these places, and the strategies that people have developed to defend their places. Equally, consideration of various community economic development projects has led to reflection upon the nature of the economy and of the economic as a category.
The dominant theme in another strand of my research has been an examination of the relationships between the global restructuring of "old" industries such as cars, coal, chemicals and iron and steel and their changing geographies of production. It has also embraced consideration of the implications of this for uneven spatial development and the growth of some locations at the same time as others decline as a result of changing geographies of production in these industries. The focus here has been upon understanding the strategies that companies use in organising production; on the use of spatial differentiation, and\or the production of such differentiation, by companies, both private and public sector, as part of their production strategies. In a variety of ways these studies of industries and places have also raised broader issues about the changing character of, and theorisations of, capitalist production and of the production and character of places. Most recently, partly as a direct consequence of earlier work on the environmental impacts of coal mining but increasingly in recognition of the more general need to incorporate environmental issues into discussions of industrial and regional change, I have broadened my work in this direction, seeking to develop a view of production that incorporates recognition of material transformations of elements of the natural world via human labour organised within specific political and economic parameters. This is also developing to encompass consideration of perception of environmental impacts and risks associated with economic activity (again linking back to some of the concerns with environmental knowledge that were central to my doctoral research some thirty years ago).
A by-product of interests in the geographies of economic restructuring and employment change has been a growing involvement with major projects concerned with the provision of computerised data bases, in particular with nomis (The National Online Manpower Information System) and rcade (The Resource Centre for Access to Data on Europe). My involvement in these projects has essentially been at a policy and management rather than technical level (not least, I make no claims as to technical competence in these areas) but has been informed both by my own perceptions as a researcher of data needs in these domains and also by my involvement with various projects concerned with local and regional economic development policy issues.
Research impact
Assessing research impact is not easy, a fortiori in the case of one’s own work. This is especially so since quite a lot of my research has been funded by various organisations (ranging from the ESRC to local government and trades unions: these are listed below) and so it has been carried out collaboratively, and at times on both a cross-disciplinary and cross-national basis. I can, however, reasonably claim at least an equal role, and more typically a major role, in these projects in terms of intellectual leadership and writing based on their findings. There is a variety of pieces of evidence which suggest that my research has had a positive impact, both within and beyond the academy.
With regard to the latter, there is evidence that such work has had practical impacts. For example, in the 1990s I completed some research for the Northern Ireland Economic Council, which emphasised the connections between social cohesion and economic success (see Dunford and Hudson, 1996; Hudson et. al., 1998). A subsequent publication from the Council, Growth with Development (1999) began by noting that “one of the important lessons that the Council drew … was that the social dimension is crucial to being considered a successful region”. A review of Coalfields Regeneration (2000) noted that it “presents a holistic approach to understanding economic, social and political change. Theory, method and policy are closely intertwined. The approach is further ‘humanized’ by an emphasis upon seeing this change as lived and experienced by real people in their places. – with deeply personal and collective emotional, cultural and psychological implications for individuals and families. Changes are therefore not seen as phenomena happening in the abstract. Such an approach may help thinking about more sophisticated and community-sensitive regeneration policy development and implementation” (Regional Studies, 35, 372). I am an invited member of the Government Office for the North East’s Academic Panel and am regularly asked to advise the Regional Development Agency ONE North East, as well as local authorities, on issues relating to its regional economic strategy and can claim some influence in shaping ONE’s regional economic strategy and related sub-regional strategies. Finally, I was invited to act as Special Advisor to the House of Commons Select Committee on Coalfields Regeneration., 2003-5.
In terms of its impacts within geography and more broadly the social sciences, there is no doubt that the political-economy approach that I and others sought to bring into the discipline in the 1970s has become part of an orthodoxy (one indication of which is the fact that is has become subject to stringent critique by a variety of "new" geographers/ies). A review of a (former research student and colleague's) book in Progress in Human Geography in 1993 referred to it favourably as reflecting "... the influence of long-standing research into regional-industrial relations at the University of Durham"; insofar as it is correct to speak of such a distinctive "Durham approach" to analysing issues of regional and industrial change, then I think that I can reasonably claim to have provided the intellectual leadership that underlay its emergence and evolution. Insofar as citation measures are meaningful, I was one of a group whose work was identified as heavily cited by others in geography (in TIBG 1991) I believe that it has had wider impacts within the social sciences (H Index c30 and five publications with >100 citations). There is also evidence in book reviews that my research has been favourably received and regarded as significant by others; for example Wrecking a Region was described as " ... a benchmark for future studies" (IJURR, 1989); one that "must become a key text on the region" (Antipode, 1989) and which displays "impressive scholarship" (Environment and Planning C,1990). The first edition of Divided Britain was re-printed in 2000 by Mallard Press in Paris as a “classic study” while the second edition was described as “a compelling read” (Local Government Studies, 1995) and A Place Called Teesside was described as " a carefully argued powerful volume ... an exemplary study of a locality, combining as it does a nuanced understanding of the political, economic, social and cultural infrastructure of Teesside. It is also a cracking good read and, as such, is to be recommended without hesitation." (PiHG, 1995). More recently, Digging Up Trouble: The environment, protest and opencast coal mining was commended as an “imaginative and important piece of research”(New Scene, 2000) while Production, Place and Environment was assessed as “highly recommended political economy … written by one of its leading lights” (Urban Studies, 2001). Placing the Social Economy “makes significant contributions and prompts reflections on several major themes apparent in current debates … the book provides a balanced, evidence –based assessment that tempers both the overly optimistic – ‘Third Way’ - and pessimistic claims for the social economy” (A Pike, Government and Policy, 2003, 471-2).
Reactions to my single-authored book, Producing Places, have been positive: “This book is crystal clear in theoretical usage, writing and organization. A major contribution. “ (Professor R Lee, QMW); “Hudson is one of the most stimulating scholars currently writing in economic geography. [The book’s] juxtaposition of Marxist political economy with contemporary heterodox positions, including evolutionary and institutional economics, all filtered through the lens of spatial difference, is spellbinding. “ (Professor L McDowell, UCL); “This extraordinarily useful book revitalizes radical political economy by bringing it into a constructive relation with other literatures which have animated debate in social theory over the last two decades … an exemplar of clarity” (Professor K Cox, Ohio State University). Yeung (Progress in Human Geography, 2002, 36) identifies it as one of ten “highly influential books published in economic geography” since 1980 while Gough (Economic Geography, 79, 96) hails it as “a major publishing event in economic geography”.
Professor Ron Johnston (Urban Geography, 2002, 696-7) reviewed the book in these terms: “This book is nothing less than a tour de force …. It synthesizes a large and diverse literature in a coherent way, provides important insights to a wide range of issues regarding capitalist space-economies, stresses the importance of a ‘place-based perspective’, and brings new issues to the fore. Furthermore, it is excellently, if tightly, written. Twenty years on, it is a worthy successor to David Harvey’s (!982) The Limits to Capital, and, like that seminal book, will surely prove invaluable to those working or planning to work in the field. With a book like this, we should be shouting from the rooftops that here is a major work of geographical scholarship that stands comparison with material from other social sciences. Hudson has produced a geography book for us to be proud of. Read it; it is a superb synthesis and can only aid your understanding of capitalist space-economies”. Professor Noel Castree assessed the book as follows: ”The hyperbolic endorsements one routinely encounters on the back covers of academic books are enough to dull the senses. In the case of Producing Places, however, the praise is richly deserved. … If Ray /Hudson were to write nothing else in the years ahead, he could retire happy, knowing that he has written a book that will, I am sure, become a classic” (Environment and Planning A, 36, 1707, 2004).
Producing Places was also the subject of a major “Review Symposium” in Antipode (36, 2, 322-43, 2004), Comments include: “Throughout the book, Hudson summarizes a large number of complex theoretical frameworks linking them to an enormous amount of empirical information with remarkable clarity” (Essletzbichler, 325); “Producing Places is a great read … it is an excellent marker to put down in the shifting sands of geographical thought” (Ward, 332); “Hudson does a fine job of incorporating nuanced theoretical positions that address the weakness of Marxist theory , such as addressing gender and ethnicity in the labor market”( Parks, 335); “Producing Places is a lucid and sophisticated account of the complex features of capitalist production shaping the world as we know it” (MacBride, 337).
It is also having an impact beyond geography: “Gregory Peters (Contemporary Sociology, 31, 1, 33-4) judges it to be “an excellent example of what taking a theoretical stance in the social sciences can and perhaps should be. … After carefully reading Producing Places, [my students and colleagues] will be making stronger theoretical arguments, asking better empirical questions, and perhaps going out in the world to do something about it – what more could anyone ask?” Bruce Pietrykowski (Review of Radical Political Economics (Summer 2004, 424-7) concludes: “In sum, Producing Places is a valuable contribution in the dialogue between radical political economy and economic geography. It would be of enormous assistance to anyone who wishes to better understand the political economy of the spatial structures of capitalist production”.
Finally, my latest single-authored book Economic Geographies: Circuits, Flows and Spaces was described by Professor R Lee (QM London) as follows: ”At last, here is a book – the book – which addresses the questions central to the critical understanding of economies and their formative geographies. This is a highly creative and transformative contribution”. Professor R Johnston (Geografiska Annaler, B, 2006, 166-7) suggests that this a “a book which certainly succeeds in what it sets out to do – to introduce economic geographers to a literature, appreciation of which is necessary to a full understanding of the economic. The most appreciative readers may well be his colleagues, who could use him as a guidebook into that new literature; having relished the synthesis of his earlier Producing Places they will now enjoy journeying with him into pastures new. And so, once again, they will owe Ray Hudson a great debt for serving them so well through this latest episode in his long production process”. Dr D MacKinnon (Journal of Economic Geography, 6, 241-3) states that “Economic Geographies represents a major statement of the nature and scope of economic geography from one of the subject’s leading practitioners. It is a work of theoretical synthesis and its chief virtue is to offer an integrated treatment of the economy, bringing together not only production, exchange and consumption, but also regulation and, perhaps most interestingly, the environment. As a statement of the field, it steers a steady course through cross-cutting streams of thought to provide a broad and coherent overview”.
As well as numerous invitations to give conference papers outside the UK and participate in international projects, my work has been translated into French, German, Italian and Spanish and Producing Places is being translated into Korean. My work is quite widely cited (H index 30, with 7 publications with > 100 citations each). And finally the Edward Heath Award of the Royal Geographical Society, the award of the Victoria Medal, by the Royal Geographical Society, an honorary D.Sc from Roskilde University, a D.Sc from Bristol University in 1996, election to the Vice–Presidency of the Royal Geographical Society, to the Academy of Learned Societies for the Social Sciences and as a Fellow of the British Academy and as a member of the Academia Europaea provide evidence of this wider recognition of my research.
I conclude with the citation for the Victoria Medal: “Professor Ray Hudson has made an outstanding contribution to research both in theoretical and empirical analyses of regional and industrial change. Widely acknowledged as one of the most geographical thinkers of his generation, he has been at the forefront of the methodological shifts in economic geography from structuralism to the incorporation of institutionalism and human agency, and – more recently – environmental issues. …. His books Producing Places and Wrecking a Region are highly acclaimed as agenda-setting landmarks in human geography.”
Any further pages in alphabetic order of their title as created by you.
#
Just click at "Create new page", then type a short title and click OK, then add information on the empty page presented to you (including maybe a picture from your harddisk or a pdf-file by using the "Upload" Button) and finally click at "Save".
...no Data available yet!
