Am Soc (2011) 42:288–302

DOI 10.1007/s12108-011-9131-4

Context, Location, and Space: The Continued

Development of our ‘Geo-Sociological’ Imaginations

Jeremy R. Porter

Published online: 5 March 2011

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract The history of sociology has been one of borrowing and synthesizing
methods and theoretical frameworks form sister disciplines in largely a reciprocal
fashion. While these transitions are often well documented and attributed to a
progression towards an “improved” sociology, a recent increasing interest in the
spatial context in which individual and group actions occur has largely gone
unnoticed. The current manuscript takes a historical approach in implementing a
pseudo content analysis of all articles ever published in mainstream sociology
journals. The results show that while sociology has historically been a leader within
the social sciences concerning ecological analyses, a recent boom in its presence has
solidified its place within the discipline. Ultimately, this is not surprising given the
core tenets and roots of the discipline. However, what is somewhat surprising is the
relative absence of acknowledgement of such a transition outside of the sub-
disciplines of demography, criminology and rural sociology. This manuscript looks
to those areas as evidence of future work in the more general field of sociology and
couples that argument with historical results substantiating the trend.

Keywords History of sociology . Spatial sociology . Sociology of sociology

Introduction

The purpose of this article is to introduce the concept of “geo-sociology” through a

short, and historical, look at the progression of our understanding of society and
space. This is undertaken via a chronological examination of cross-disciplinary work
followed by an overview of “recent” developments in the analytic methods that
have, both directly and indirectly, contributed to the rise of the current attention
given to these analyses. In many ways, these developments in the analytic methods

J. R. Porter (*)
Department of Economics, City University of New York—Brooklyn College, 218 Whitehead Hall,
2900 Bedford Ave, New York, NY 11210, USA
e-mail: jeremy.reed.porter@gmail.com
Am Soc (2011) 42:288–302 289

have allowed sociologists to re-visit the core tenets of the discipline by allowing
them to understand the direct causal effects of varying ecological conditions on
human behavior. In fact, while aggregate patterns exist in society, not explicitly
controlling for one’s spatial propinquity to a given ecological situation decreases our
understanding of the intensifying and relaxing effects associated with spatial context.
‘Geo-sociology’ refers to the unique situation of micro-level behaviors within the
ecological confines of a given geographic landscape. It is related to human
geography in its ability to descriptively locate population characteristics in space.
However, the role of ‘geo-sociology’ moves beyond this important stage to a more
dynamic position involving weighting schemes, distance analysis, and explanatory
power. That is not to say that ‘geo-sociology’ is solely quantitative either; as with all
analytic approaches in the field of sociology, it finds its beginnings in a well
grounded series of cross-disciplinary theoretical frameworks pulling from the closely
related disciplines of geography, economics, sociology, and others.
Drawing on early economic theories of location and space, some of the first
American sociologists to pay attention to the importance of this relationship were
researchers at historically influential institutions, such as the University of Chicago and
the University of Wisconsin at Madison. While these conceptual frameworks were
usually hindered by a dearth of appropriate quantitative methods for analyzing such
relationships at larger scales, this early work was essential in laying the ground work for
the importance of spatial/location theory in the understanding of social behavior.
The use of cross-disciplinary methods in the maturation of Sociology as an
academic discipline was vital to its growth and development. In fact, in Recent
Developments in the Social Sciences (1927), Dr. Charles Ellwood of the University
of Missouri outlined the series’ look at early developments in the field of Sociology
and brought to light two major points: (1) the need for Sociologists to drive to move
beyond ‘organic’ or ‘synthetic’ understandings of social phenomena, and (2) the
accomplishment of this through the synthesis of several cross-disciplinary analytic
methods. These syntheses were to be charged with ultimately producing a method of
their own aimed at developing an over-arching understanding of society, through the
combination of borrowed methods from sister disciplines. At that time, the most
influential disciplines within the then emerging field of American sociology were
psychology and biology which, over time, have both developed into strong
concentrations within the field of sociology. In fact, psycho- and bio-social analyses
still remain important to the multi-method approach employed within the discipline.
The ability to place individuals within specific psychological and biological
dimensions became important in ultimately allowing researchers to better understand
individual action in terms of a given context. In fact, Pitirim Sorokin’s survey of
Contemporary Sociological Theories points out that “almost since the beginning of
man’s history it has been known that the characteristics, behavior, social
organization, social processes, and historical destinies of a society depend upon
the geographical environment” (1928: p. 99). Furthermore, Sorokin (1927) is most
widely known in sociology for his link of social mobility to physical space in which
the limitations of geographic boundaries serve as restraints on the potential for such
social movement in society. Given the power of such constraints on stratification, the
importance of understanding the relationship of individual circumstance and its
relationship to place is undeniable.
290 Am Soc (2011) 42:288–302

In relation, the conceptualization of context has evolved along with the discipline,
flagged by landmark research, which has continually pushed along our understand-
ing of behavior based on locating individuals within a given frame. Perhaps most
notable is the synthesizing work of C.W. Mills (1959) in his book, The Sociological
Imagination. In this piece, Mills introduced the importance of contextual biography
to the understanding of agency within given structural situations saying that, “No
social study that does not come back to the problems of biography, of history, and of
their intersection within a society has completed its intellectual journey” (Pp. 5).
Since that time, many have extended and worked within the context of the
Sociological Imagination as a framework for understanding unique individual
circumstance (for example see Shanahan and Macmillan 2008 and Fuller 2006).
This continued the standard, and interdisciplinary, pattern of drawing on
established disciplines in the continued development of sociology by coupling
historical sociological methods for the development of a subfield such as historical
sociology. Within this field, the increasing intersection of society’s development,
within a historical framework, further allowed for the continued emphasis of
contextual location as a determinant of individual behavior. However, as Abbott
(1994) notes, historical sociology has not seen the same representation as many other
sub-fields in sociology and he has, therefore, referred to it as “The Lost Synthesis.”
However, its simple development, in combination with other contextually driven
approaches to understanding society, speaks to the ever-increasing role of context in
sociology. Still, many residuals can be seen across the sociological landscape
directly relating to the synthesis.
While some may see the inter-dependence of sociology with other disciplines as a
weakness, others, myself included, see the discipline as progressing through a
natural development towards normal science. In fact, the synthesizing nature of
sociology represents a direct following of the patterns identified by Thomas Khun
(1962) in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Here, Kuhn explicitly states that
the development of science is related, historically, to the synthesis of competing and
complementary theoretical epistemologies in the face of scientific anomalies. It is
argued that the marrying of sociology to biology, psychology, and history is a
consequence of such anomalies encountered by early sociologists and has allowed
for the development of the dynamic and meaningful discipline we see today. It
should be expected that, as long as the discipline continues to draw upon other
related disciplines in the quest to better understand social phenomena and processes,
it is continually progressing towards a “better” sociology (Levine 2004).
In fact, some researches have professed a belief that the origins of sociology, and
the social sciences in general, took place much earlier than we give them credit for
(see McDonald 1993), while still others acknowledge the industrial age as its
seminal point (see Olson 1993). From either point of view, the continued
development and nature of a contemporary sociology is simply the manifestation
of a synthesizing, reactionary, and interdisciplinary approach to the examination of
human beings and the society in which they live. The society they live in is a key
term in this piece and it relates to the more general term of context, which,
interestingly, finds its beginning in the various syntheses outlined here.
One synthesis, which has historically received relatively little formal recognition,
is geography and sociology. Yet, the historical content analysis undertaken here,
Am Soc (2011) 42:288–302 291

through a sociology of sociology approach, shows that the synthesis has been
noticeably embedded within the discipline, especially in the very recent past and in
relation to ‘sister’ disciplines. Not surprising, the role of geography, location, and
space in sociological analyses are most often reserved for those whose substantive
interest inherently ties them to space, such as urban/rural sociologists, demographers,
criminologists, and epidemiologists. In a larger sense, all are distinct, yet
fundamental, parts of the sociology family, yet, each has a direct link to the spatial
relationships of macro-level units of analysis, displacement, diffusion, epidemics,
and other spatial (and spatio-temporal) relationships.
What is somewhat surprising, given the lack of formal recognition mentioned
above, is its corresponding growth in mainstream general sociology journals. While
it is somewhat expected given its increased visibility and usage in sub-disciplines of
sociology (i.e. criminology, epidemiology, and demography), comprehensively, little
is known within the field about its development, present application, and recent
developments.

Milestones in the Devlopment of a ‘Geo-Sociology’

Along with recent advancements in spatially-centered analytic techniques, a number

of location-specific and spatial theories have developed as a way to help explain and
forecast current and future population trends as well as the social phenomena that,
undoubtedly, are directly affected as a consequence. Many of these theories claim
importance as both indicators of structural forces within society and as valuable
sources of information for individual policy-makers and the government at all levels.
The explanatory value of such information could ultimately lead to the more equal
distribution of resources and, in the event of forecasts, could allow for the
appropriate infrastructure development necessary to support the future population
and predicted shifts in population. The development of location theory, while
extremely valuable in the study of human population, does not have its roots in
demography or even in the social sciences for that matter.
The roots of socially-related spatial theory lie deeply planted in the field of economics
within such early ideas as the Thunen Model of land use and Christaller’s Central Place
Theory (Haggert 1967). In these models, the ideas represent logical use of space or
location as a way to maximize earning potential, whether through land use in
agriculture or the development of urban areas in the analysis of a hierarchy of places
(cities and towns). These ideas were later combined with and applied to population, as
Losch’s Population Cycles as a Cause of Business Cycles (1937) illustrates.
Along the way, other important developments have occurred and contributed to
the continued development of spatial theory, such as the use of Thunen Model by
Park and Burgess and Mckenzie’s, The City (1925). Within this work, the concentric
zonal model was introduced by researchers from the Chicago School as a further
development of research from the seminal work of Galpin, Anatomy of a Rural
Community (1915). As a whole, these developments have furthered the range of
spatial theory and have helped develop the theory into one of population and people,
therefore transforming this traditionally economic theory into one of importance to
social scientists, demographers, and economic theorists alike.
292 Am Soc (2011) 42:288–302

Classical Economic Theories of Location (Pre- to Early-1900’s)

One of the earliest and most accepted forms of spatial location theory in economics
is that of J.H. Von Thunen (1783–1850), who was a German farmer and amateur
economist. The Von Thunen model is concerned with the spatial arrangement of
various land covers to the central city. It is important to note that this model was
developed prior to the rise of industrial production and the development of factories
and, as a result, this model is based on a number of limiting assumptions. Of primary
concern to Von Thunen was the ability of farmers to grow and maximize profits.
Therefore, the model was applied to single farms as a way of planning the planting
of crops based on their harvesting costs. The model is economically grounded in
hopes of balancing land costs with transportation costs and is simple in structure as
there are four rings of agricultural activity surrounding the central city.
The innermost ring is where intensive farming takes place in order to reduce transport
costs to the city. The second ring consists of timber and firewood for fuel and building;
its placement was also determined by the fact that timber was heavy and hard to
transport. Extensive field crops, which include grains, occupy the third ring because they
keep longer than dairy and are much lighter than fuel. Finally, the last ring in the model
is reserved for ranching/animal products, which can be raised far from the city because
they are self-transporting. From this model and the accompanying assumptions, you can
see that these ideas are very primitive and, taken as is, they are of almost no use to
modern spatial theory. Of great importance, however, is the fact that these ideas provided
the initial foundation on which other ideas were built.
In 1933, Christaller’s Central Place Theory (CPT) was published using many of
the same ideas introduced by Von Thunen over a century earlier (Haggert 1967).
CPT, like the Von Thunen Model, was grounded in economics. However, unlike Von
Thunen’s model, CPT realized that the city is neither isolated nor is it self-sufficient,
and, based on that idea, Christaller developed a hierarchy of cities or towns. This
hierarchy was developed based on two basic concepts: (1) threshold-the minimum
market needed to bring a goods seller into existence and keep it in business, and (2)
range-the maximum distance people will travel to purchase goods. The range, then,
was further spatially divided based on lower or higher order goods. Lower order
goods were those consumers need frequently and, therefore, are less likely to travel
long distances for them and higher goods visa-versa.
Christaller’s theory is also concerned with a central trade center and the activity
that disperses from that center. The threshold and the range are directly related to one
another, primarily depending on the goods being sold. In larger central trade centers
(large cities), which are more likely to have higher order goods, the range would be
much further than the threshold as people are willing to travel further for higher
order goods. In the smaller trade centers (smaller towns), the range is not very big as
they are more likely to have only lower order goods and, as mentioned earlier,
people are not willing to travel very far for lower ordered goods. This, then, sets up a
hierarchy of cities in which the larger cities with higher order goods are surrounded
by a number of smaller towns as individuals can get lower ordered goods in their
own small towns and are willing to travel to the larger cities for higher ordered
goods. Current methods are still used today by a number of individuals including
retailers who are looking into site analysis.
Am Soc (2011) 42:288–302 293

While Von Thunen and Christaller laid the groundwork for what would eventually
develop into an important spatial theory within the social sciences, they were
primarily concerned with economics and neglected to look at the role of non-
economic social relationships.

Space and the Wisconsin and Chicago Schools (Early 1910’s–1920’s)

In 1928, Contemporary Sociological Theories (Sorokin) presented what at the time

was surely considered a comprehensive survey of the state of sociological theory. To
underscore the importance of geography in sociological theory, Sorokin devoted a
chapter in this survey to the Geographical School. Sorokin (1928) pointed out that
there was an undeniable link between human behavior and geographical context and
spent time explaining these variable patterns concerning the distribution of the
human population, development and character of human infrastructure, the development
of clothing and fashion, economic life and the organization of the means of production,
variations in race, health patterns, among other topics. At the conclusion of the chapter,
Sorokin identified a need to test social relationships in geographic context and offered a
set of less than sophisticated (by today’s standards) methods. Yet, these early versions of
spatial analyses provided a wonderful platform from which the current state of spatial
analysis has developed.
Around the same time as Sorokin’s survey, social scientists began building similar
models tying location more directly to population distribution, again, implicitly tied
to economically efficient models. The earliest documented work, directly within the
realm of American sociology, was that of Charles Galpin (1915) of the University of
Wisconsin who identified distinct spatial arrangements in rural farming communities
in Wisconsin. Early on, Galpin’s The Social Anatomy of a Rural Community
identified the importance of places and the fact that local context is a major influence
on people’s lives. This was certainly not isolated as sociologists in Europe were
identifying similar relationships (Friedman 1996). A relationship that would later be
made famous at the neighboring University of Chicago.
The use of location can be seen as a trademark of a number of researchers
associated with Chicago School sociology, in that, much of their work was focused
on the city of Chicago and was based on spatial zones throughout the city, which
helped to characterize a person based on predicted attributes. The City (Park et al.
1925) introduced an idea that would become known as the concentric zonal
hypothesis, following an earlier work put forth by rural sociologist Galpin, Anatomy
of a Rural Community (1915). The Park et al. (1925) hypothesis posited that the city
of Chicago could be seen as having a central core with rings dispersing outward,
much like the Von Thunen economic model. The rings, then, would indicate
particular zones that could be labeled based on their characteristics. The original
hypothesis had five zones: (1) Central Business District, (2) Transition Zone, (3)
Workingman Zone, (4) Residential Zone, and (5) Commuter Zone (Park et al. 1925).
Each zone can be seen as pushing outwards into the next zone from the Central
Business District.
Interestingly, similar movements were taking place around the world. In France,
for instance, Marc Bloch was calling for an interdisciplinary approach to the
understanding of social phenomena (Friedman 1996). At the core of such a cross-
294 Am Soc (2011) 42:288–302

discipline approach was the integration of sociology and geography. Friedman

(1996) points out that Bloch took a stand somewhere between sociology and
geography, focusing on the sociological impacts of concepts like natural boundaries
and cartographic depictions and how they affected the development and under-
standing of an ecologically unique social-system.
It is important to note here that while much of the attention in the Chicago school is
paid to the work of Park, Burgess, Mead and other men during this time period, the
tradition of studying sociology in spatial context can find at least a share of its roots in the
early work of Jane Addams (Deegan 1988). In fact, in conjunction with her colleagues at
the Hull House, Jane Addams published what has been called a masterpiece in Hull-
House Maps and Papers (Deegan 1988). This book was one of the first to use the tool
of mapping demographic information according to spatial distribution and contributed
to the earliest use of maps in the sociological analysis of place (Deegan 1988). Of
course the Chicago school is now credited for this contribution to the discipline;
however, it is usually accredited solely to the men of the time period.
Building on the work of Galpin at the University of Wisconsin, the men of the
University of Chicago, and Jane Addams and the women of the Hull-House, interest
in community studies built through the first third of the century. Ultimately, studies
such as Middletown (Lynd and Lynd 1929) began to study specific communities
almost as case studies in which the historical background would be linked to the
current day inter-workings of the society. A comprehensive survey of the field,
published in 1971 by Bell and Newby, that outlined theories of community, the
community as a method of empirical investigation, and a mention of landmark
community studies in both American and European sociology. Bell and Newby
(1977) highlight the relatively high position of community studies in the first half of
the century by mentioning that “since the Lynd’s study of Middletown literally
hundreds of studies of small towns” have been published (p. 250).

Re-Emergence of Space in Sociology (1950’s–1960’s)

In the 1950’s, the role of space and the ecological environment on individual
behaviors experienced somewhat of a renaissance with the emergence of human
ecology. Spearheading this emergence was Amos Hawley, whose Human Ecology: A
Theoretical Essay (1950) is still the primary read in the area. Hawley set up the
ecological foundation in which the development and maintenance of the community
takes place by positing certain assumptions and hypotheses involving both natural-
environmental and demographic phenomena. Conceptually, the piece has been
essential to the development of ecologically-related analyses and continues to
complement advancing spatial methodologies.
Early advances in such methodologies began to take place in the 1960’s as
outlined by Sorokin (1964). Here, Sorokin points out those such advances were
driving an accelerated understanding of spatio-temporal causality. However, he is
quick to acknowledge that, while such relationships have their founding in the
natural sciences, the application of such, under the same methodology and
terminology, would be irresponsible as social relationships occur at a much different
level. Of import here is not the purpose of this note, but the note itself. The fact that
spatial relationships had, again, been brought to the forefront of the discipline
Am Soc (2011) 42:288–302 295

acknowledges the importance of such a conceptualization and the increased usability

and development of technology and methodology created a relative boom in
sociological interest in space and geography.

The Development of the Los Angeles School (1980’s–1990’s)

As with most theories and ideas throughout academia, spatial theory and related modern
theories of location have become threatened by the recent rise in attention given to the
postmodern movement. One of the leading writers on the postmodern movement, within
theories of location, is geographer Michael Dear from the comparatively less known (in
relation to the Chicago school) Los Angeles School of urban sociology. Although Dear
is a geographer, his primary interest is that of social geography, or human geography,
and the relationship of space to social theory. The development of his writing coincided
with the larger trend of giving increasing importance to geography along with many of
the political, economic, and environmental issues that arose during the time period
(National Research Council 1997).
Dear sees the postmodern movement as the perfect opportunity to reconstruct
human geography in hopes of ultimately realigning it with social theory. He goes on
to explain the effect of such a process as: (1) repositioning geography to have a
central position within the social sciences, (2) recasting the internal structure of the
discipline (geography), (3) re-forging geography’s links with the mainstream debates
in the philosophy and method of the human sciences (Dear 1988).
In integrating human geography and social theory, Dear is concerned with the role
of social theory as the “illumination of the concrete process of the everyday life”
(Dear 1988). Dear (1988) was interested in the development of geographic areas as
they relate to postmodern thinking. Dear believes that, as modern cities (i.e.
Chicago) developed around concentric zones tied closely to primary transportation
hubs, newer postmodern cities developed in a much more random pattern tied only
to non-physical communication hubs (i.e. telecommunications, etc.). Ultimately, this
development calls for a movement beyond ‘geo-sociology’ in simple terms of spatial
proximity and towards an analysis of social geographies.
Dear goes on to note that the use of history in the social sciences as a mechanism
of time for examining behavior is much farther along than the use of geography as a
way of explaining behavior based on space or location. He further makes the claim
that by fully understanding the potential to which the use of human geography can
help develop social theory, geography itself will re-situate itself in the center of a
newly defined paradigm on human inquiry (Dear 1988). Dear also explains that
human landscapes are created by knowledgeable actors (agents) operating within a
specific social context (structure). Furthermore, the structure is transformed by the
agents making any narrative on the human landscape an account of the reciprocal
relationship between long-term structural arrangements and short-term practices of
individual agents (Dear 1988).
This last statement shows the degree to which human geography is linked to
social theory. Further proof of such a relationship is that social relations are
constituted through space, constrained by space (boundaries), and mediated through
space (Dear 1988). The use of location in social theory is an exercise in reflexivity in
which any single locale is a complex synthesis involving the ever-evolving social
296 Am Soc (2011) 42:288–302

processes and their relation to the above-mentioned, location-specific limitations

(Dear 1988).
Dear’s argument takes aim at urbanism from a postmodern point of view. In doing
so, he compares the Chicago School’s Concentric Zonal Hypothesis with that of a
newly developing postmodern view of the city of Los Angeles from the aptly named
Los Angeles School. If one recalls, the Chicago School view of the city was one of a
central business district and concentric zonal rings, which dispersed outward,
forming layers of rings. Each of these rings, then, constituted a different
neighborhood that could be characterized by the type of housing, crime rates, social
class, etc., which existed within the ring.
The Los Angeles School model uses a postmodern method of deconstruction to show
that the Chicago School model is outdated and of little use. The Los Angeles School
model is not perfectly situated in concentric zones; it is instead a random layout of
fundamental urban characteristics that more aptly make up the postmodern urban center.
The Chicago School assumptions of uniform land surface, universal access to single
central city, free competition for space, and the notion of outward development can be
dismissed from a postmodern point of view, as they simply do not represent current day
reality. The development of the Los Angeles model, then, can be seen as the evolution of
spatial theory taking place as a result of deconstructing theoretical assumptions and
reexamining the sources of current knowledge.

Methodological Advancements and in Moving Mainstream (1990’s–Present)

Recent advances in technology have increased the ease and practicality of analyses
concerning the spatial analysis of social data. The ability to computerize and apply
spatial statistics to the mapping of social processes is a relatively new phenomenon,
developing during the early 1990’s (Anselin et al. 2000). According to Anselin
(1999a, b), statisticians have long been aware of the potential effects from violations
of basic statistical techniques, but spatial techniques did not disseminate into practice
until recently, primarily due to technological hurdles.
Currently, a number of spatial-autoregressive and hierarchical approaches exist
for the ecological analysis of micro-relationships within a given macro-level context.
One of the more popular methods for the measure of spatial dependence is the Local
Indicator of Spatial Autocorrelation (LISA) statistic. The LISA statistic is visualized
using a scatterplot of the variable of interest’s score plotted against the mean score of
all spatial neighbors as defined by the weighted neighborhood matrix (Anselin 1995,
1996). The LISA statistic is a tool that is part of a larger group of analytic tools used
in Exploratory Spatial Data Analysis (ESDA). ESDA is a collection of techniques
used to describe and visualize spatial distributions, to identify atypical locations and
spatial outliers, to discover patterns of spatial association, clusters, or hot spots, and
to suggest spatial regimes and other forms of spatial heterogeneity (Anselin 1992,
1994, 1998, 1999a). It is an extension of Tukey’s Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA),
with special attention focused on the distinguishing characteristics of geographic
data (Anselin 1989).
According to Anselin and Bera (1998) and Anselin (1988), the use of spatial
methods allows for the controlling of potentially biased results and inaccurate
inferences obtained from traditional methods, which ignore these effects. These effects
Am Soc (2011) 42:288–302 297

are caused by spatial dependence, which violates the basic assumptions inherent in
classic linear regression. Two potential motivations for the use of spatial statistical
techniques are to handle spatial dependence as a nuance and spatial dependence as a
substantive issue (theory driven). As a result, two different spatial regression models
are available for the analysis of data, spatial error models for the former and spatial lag
models for the latter (Anselin and Sridharan 2000).
Due to the increasing popularity and use of such methods, there are now a number of
packages and instructive manuals that allow for many of the spatial procedures reviewed
in this section (Anselin and Hudak 1992; Anselin and Smirnov 1998; Chang 2006;
Waller and Gotway 2004). However, the development of such technology is far from
exhaustive and recently scholars have called for the continued usage of computer
technology in the understanding of global phenomena of all types. One such
researcher, Hagerstrand (2000), called for the implementation of computer-based GIS
in the development of more complicated and tedious research and pointed out that, to
date, we are still not using the technology available to us, which could possibly help
us understand the effects of many of the processes we currently study.
Other approaches to the spatial analysis of social data include drawing on
methods of general contextual analysis. Most were developed based on the
conceptual issue of combining the micro and macro in order to understand and
introduce spatially-related contextual variation (Collins 1983; Duster 1983; Knorr-
Cetina 1983; Raudenbush et al. 2004; Bickel 2007). Early on, theoretical arguments
were established in order to lay the groundwork for such analyses. These included
works by influential sociologists interested in the micro–macro interactions of
agency and structure (Collins 1983; Bourdieu 1983; Giddens 1983).
Since that time, technological and statistical advancements have allowed for the
application of such theories to individuals within a unique social and spatial
environment. One such method, Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) accounts for
the purely nested nature of individuals within a given ecological context through the
employment of cross-level interaction terms. Traditionally substituted modeling
processes such as pooling students by gender, race, and discipline are unacceptable
alternatives as all provide unreliable and biased estimates based on incorrect
standard errors (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002; Bickel 2007). However, the use of an
HLM approach controls for such issues through the modeling of separate prediction
equations for each nested unit of analysis, culminating in a single set of coefficients
corrected for reliability (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002; Bickel 2007).
The fact that, arguably, the most well-known ‘geo-sociologist’ (Luc Anselin) and
methods used in its analyses (HLM) were developed and championed by individuals
that are not classically trained sociologists, tells of the still somewhat bastardized
stance sociology, as a discipline, takes towards a ‘geo-sociology.’ Yet, there is
support that the role of the methodological and conceptual tool is gaining in
acceptance and enjoying a much more visible role in mainstream sociology.

An Increasing Prevelance of ‘Geo-Sociology’?

Through a historical content analysis of spatially-related articles published in

sociology journals form 1910–2000, support for the increasing prevalence of a ‘geo-
298 Am Soc (2011) 42:288–302

sociological’ approach to the analysis of social phenomena was found. The data
were collected via the J-STOR search engine by selecting all sociology journals and
searching on a set of relevant key words, such as spatial analysis, geography, GIS,
and ecological context. Furthermore, the analysis was completed for all economics
and political science journals as well for comparative purposes.1 Next, the total
number of spatially-centered articles was compiled for all three disciplines, across all
years. The proportion of all spatially-centered articles was also computed for each of
the three disciplines for each year from 1910–2000.
The results presented in the top panel of Fig. 1 illustrate a steady increase in
presence of articles meeting the search conditions since the late 1950’s and early
1960’s. This increase corresponds with the earlier mentioned conceptual piece by
Amos Hawley (1950) and the prophetic work by Pitirim Sorokin (1964).
Interestingly, the development of a spatially-centered sociology corresponds with
the developments of spatially-centered political science and economics. However, it
is noteworthy that sociology seems to be leading the drive in terms of total
publications. When examining the lower half of the figure, one can see that, when
controlling for the total number of journal in print, a similar pattern appears. Using
the proportion is probably a better measure of the degree of acceptance within a
given discipline, and again, sociology has been and still is leading the way in this
movement.

Discussion

The fact that ‘geo-sociology’ has become more relevant in mainstream sociology
journals is not surprising. The technological and methodological tools have recently
allowed for the increased usage and understanding of such relationships throughout
the discipline. Equally, as relevant are the roots of the discipline which plant
themselves squarely in an understanding of human behavior in a multi-method
integration of macro-level structural conditions and micro-level human agency.
However, as their presence in the discipline develops, more comprehensive work on
these conceptual ideas must be developed in order to facilitate the continued
methodological advancements. It is likely that such will occur given the historical
trajectory of their role in the discipline. On that point, it is even more important to
outline and understand the position and role of such a transition.
In relation to the increased interest, the website for the Center of Spatially
Integrated Social Science (CSISS) lists some of the researchers in the spatial analysis
of social phenomena and their related courses, which each teaches. They are (in
listed order) Dr. Frank M. Howell of Mississippi State University, Dr. Paul Voss of
the University of Wisconsin, and Dr. Stephen A. Mathews of Penn State University.
Furthermore, the prominent work, Spatially Integrated Social Science by Goodchild
and Janelle (2004), also affiliated with the CSISS, displays the importance and
development of spatial methods in the analysis of social data.

1
The use of any given search engine was arbitrary with JSTOR simply being chosen because of its
popularity, familiarity, and a listing years in which the searched journals were in print.
Am Soc (2011) 42:288–302 299

Total Number of “Geo-Sociologically” Related Articles by Year

300

250
Sociology
Economics
200
Political Science

150

100

50

0
1910 - 1920 - 1930 - 1940 - 1950 - 1960 - 1970 - 1980 - 1990 -
1919 1929 1939 1949 1959 1969 1979 1989 2000

Proportion “Geo-Sociologically” Related Articles per Available Journal by Year

1.2

Sociology
1 Economics
Political Science
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
1910 - 1920 - 1930 - 1940 - 1950 - 1960 - 1970 - 1980 - 1990 -
1919 1929 1939 1949 1959 1969 1979 1989 2000
Fig. 1 Total number and proportion of articles identified as spatially-centered in analytic methodology or
substantive interest

Along with these acknowledgements, the highly visible and influential works of
sociologists such as Linda Lobao (1990; Lobao et al. 1999) and Ann Tickameyer,
(with Lobao et al. 2007) continue to serve as examples of mainstream sociologists
who have pushed ‘geo-sociology’ forward by professing the importance of
understanding geography and space as an explanatory tool necessary for the greater
understanding of societal behaviors and organization, along with others.2
This recent interest is highlighted by the 2007 Presidential Address at the
Population Association of America annual meetings in New York City entitled
“Putting People into Place” (Entwisle 2007). That the address took place at the
annual meetings of arguably the most prestigious of all demography conferences is
not surprising given the inherent spatial and multi-level nature of much of the
substantive material presented during its proceedings. In the address, Entwisle

2
Of course this list is truncated due to the scope and format of the paper. It is important to note that many
other sociologist have adopted and made visible these spatial methods.
300 Am Soc (2011) 42:288–302

(2007) points out that, in the last two decades, there has been an explosion in
empirical research on neighborhoods and health. This demographic interest is further
highlighted by a set of special issues edited by Paul Voss on “Spatial Demography”
(Voss 2007a), in which he points out that while many see these methods as a new
trend in sociology, they are in fact the re-emergence of theoretical frameworks long
abandoned (Voss 2007b).
In fact, for much of the history of American Sociology, and sociology in general
for that matter, structural theories of human action permeated the literature. The
macro-level contextual understanding was then replaced in the early-mid 1900’s by
micro-level theories of interaction form individuals such as Mead, Goffman, and
Blumer. This is not an attempt to undermine or champion either approach, but
instead to identify the importance of the development of our spatially centered
sociological imaginations. In fact the recent increase in the uses of spatially centered
methodologies has led to a methodological and theoretical synthesis of the
traditional structural sociology and more recent micro-level approaches to
understanding human behavior. This “geo-social” movement has allowed for the
placing of individual behavior in spatial context, thus bringing together modern
methods and frameworks with the core tenets of sociology as a discipline based on a
mixture of structure and agency.
The transition itself is highlighted by a contemporary movement toward more
dynamic mediums for the presentation of sociological research, whether this is
through the continued development of visual sociology and related tools necessary
for relaying quantitative information to laypeople and professional audiences or
through the empirically supported increasing attention given to ‘geo-sociology.’ In
relation to the latter, maps and spatial proximity plots and charts have increasingly
helped to understand the relationships of social phenomena to individuals, groups,
and organizations, the core units of analysis in the discipline of sociology.
Furthermore, the ability to place individuals within any given context gets at the
central role of sociology and its place in academia. We know from biology,
psychology, etc. why individuals and organisms behave the way they do in given
situations; however, what we, as a discipline, must do is continue to welcome
contextual understandings of human behavior, in the same vein that C.W. Mills
made popular through his many professions. Now that we have the technology,
methods, integrated theoretical frameworks, and know-how, it is important to foster
the development of our ‘Geo-Sociological Imaginations.’

Acknowledgements The author gratefully acknowledges critical commentary and editorial remarks
from Dr. Larry Nichols, Dr. Gaungqing Chi, and especially Dr. Frank M. Howell.

References

Abbott, A. (1994). History and sociology: The lost synthesis. In E. H. Monkkonen (Ed.), Engaging
the past: The uses of history across the social sciences. Durham and London: Duke University
Press.
Anselin, L. (1988). Spatial econometrics: Methods and models. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Anselin, L. (1989). What is Special About Spatial Data? Technical Report 8–4. Santa Barbara: University
of California, Santa Barbara, National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis. [Contained
Am Soc (2011) 42:288–302 301

on CD-ROM. Fundamental Research in Geographic Information and Analysis. Santa Barbara:

National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis].
Anselin, L. (1992). SpaceStat, a software package for the analysis of spatial data. Santa Barbara:
University of California, Santa Barbara, National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis.
http://www.spacestat.com.
Anselin, L. (1994). Exploratory spatial data analysis and geographic information systems. In M. Painho
(Ed.), New tools for spatial analysis. Luxembourg: Eurostat.
Anselin, L. (1995). Local indicators of spatial association—LISA. Geographical Analysis, 27, 93–
115.
Anselin, L. (1996). The moran scatterplot as an ESDA tool to assess local instability in spatial association.
In M. Fischer, H. Scholten, & D. Unwin (Eds.), Spatial analytical perspectives on GIS. London:
Taylor and Francis.
Anselin, L. (1998). Exploratory spatial data analysis in geocomputational environment. In P. Longley, S.
Brooks, R. McDonnell, & B. Macmillan (Eds.), Geocomputation, a primer. New York: Wiley.
Anselin, L. (1999a). Interactive techniques and exploratory spatial data analysis. In P. Longley, M.
Goodchild, D. Maguire, & D. Rhind (Eds.), Geographical information systems (2nd ed.). New York:
Wiley.
Anselin, L. (1999b). Spatial econometrics. In B. Baltagi (Ed.), Companion in theoretical econometrics.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Anselin, L., & Bera, A. (1998). Spatial dependence in linear regression models with an introduction to
spatial econometrics. In A. Ullah & D. E. A. Giles (Eds.), Handbook of applied economic statistics.
New York: Marcel Dekker.
Anselin, L., & Hudak, S. (1992). Spatial econometrics in practice, a review of software options. Regional
Science and Urban Econometrics, 22, 509–536.
Anselin, L., & Smirnov, O. (1998). The DynESDA Extension for ArcView. http://www.spacestat.com/
downloads.htm.
Anselin, L., & Sridharan, S. (2000). Exploring spatial and temporal patterns in juvenile violent crime.
Center for Spatially Integrated Social Science.
Anselin, L., Cohen, J., Cook, D., Gorr, W., & Tita, G. (2000). Spatial analyses of crime. Measurement and
Analyses of Crime and Justice, 4, 213–262.
Bell, C., & Newby, H. (1977). Doing sociological research. New York: Free.
Bickel, R. (2007). Multilevel analysis for applied research: It’s just regression. New York: Guilford.
Bourdieu, P. (1983). Men and machines. In K. Knorr-Cenina & A. V. Cicourel (Eds.), Advances in social
theory and methodology. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Chang, K. (2006). Introduction to geographic information systems (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Higher
Education.
Collins, R. (1983). In K. Knorr-Cenina, & A. V. Cicourel (Eds.), Advances in social theory and
methodology. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Dear, M. (1988). The postmodern challenge: reconstructing human geography. Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers, 13(3), 262–274.
Deegan, M. J. (1988). Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School, 1892–1918. New Brunswick:
Transaction Books.
Duster, T. (1983). Intermediate steps between micro- and macro-integration: The case of screening for
inhereted disorders. In K. Knorr-Cenina & A. V. Cicourel (Eds.), Advances in social theory and
methodology. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Ellwood, C. A. (1927). Recent developments in sociology. In E. C. Hayes (Ed.), Recent developments in
the social sciences. Philadelphia and London: J.B. Lippincott Company.
Entwisle, B. (2007). Putting people into place. Demography, 44(4), 687–703.
Friedman, S. W. (1996). Marc Bloch, sociology, and geography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fuller, S. (2006). The new sociological imagination. London: Sage.
Galpin, C. (1915). The social anatomy of an agricultural community. Agricultural Experiment Station,
University of Wisconsin. Research Bulletin 34.
Giddens, A. (1983). Agency, institution, and time-space analysis. In K. Knorr-Cenina & A. V. Cicourel
(Eds.), Advances in social theory and methodology. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Goodchild, M. F., & Janelle, D. G. (2004). Thinking spatially in the social sciences. Chapter 1. In M. F.
Goodchild & D. G. Janelle (Eds.), Spatially integrated social sciences. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Hagerstrand, T. (2000). The computer and the geographer. Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers, 42, 1–19.
302 Am Soc (2011) 42:288–302

Haggert, P. (1967). Three pioneers in spatial theory. Geographical Journal, 133(3), 357–359.
Hawley, A. (1950, reprinted in 1986). Human ecology: A theoretical essay. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Khun, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. London: University of Chicago Press.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1983). The micro-sociological challenge of macro-sociology: Towards a reconstruction
of social theory and methodology. In K. Knorr-Cenina & A. V. Cicourel (Eds.), Advances in social
theory and methodology. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Levine, R. F. (Ed.). (2004). Enriching the sociological imagination: How radical sociology changed the
discipline. Boston: Brill.
Lobao, L. M. (1990). Locality and inequality: Farm and industry structure and socioeconomic conditions.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Lobao, L. M., Rulli, J., & Brown, L. A. (1999). Macrolevel theory and local-level inequality: industrial
structure, institutional arrangements, and the political economy of redistribution, 1970–1990. Annals
of the Association of American Geographers, 89(4), 571–601.
Lobao, L. M., Hooks, G., Tickameyer, A. (Eds.) (2007). The sociology of spatial inequality. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Losch, A. (1937). Population cycles as a cause of business cycles. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 51(4),
649–662.
Lynd, R., & Lynd, H. M. (1929). Middletown: A study in contemporary American culture. New York:
Harcourt, Brce and Company.
McDonald, L. (1993). The early origins of the social sciences. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University
Press.
Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.
National research Council (NRC). (1997). Rediscovering geography: New relevance for science and
society. Washington D.C: National Academy Press.
Olson, R. (1993). The emergence of the social sciences 1642–1792. New York: Twayne Publishers.
Park, R. K., Burgess, E. W., & McKenzie, R. D. (Eds.). (1925). The city. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis
methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. (2004). HLM6: Hierarchical linear and
nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood IL: Scientific Software International.
Shanahan, M. J., & Macmillan, R. (2008). Biography and the sociological imagination: Contexts and
contingencies. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
Sorokin, P. A. (1927). Social mobility. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
Sorokin, P. A. (1928). Contemporary sociological theories. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
Sorokin, P. A. (1964). Sociocultural causality, space, and time: A study of referential principles of
sociology and social science. New York: Russell & Russell Inc.
Voss, P. R. (2007a). Introduction to the special issue on spatial demography. Population Research and
Policy Review, 26(4), 455–456.
Voss, P. R. (2007b). Demography and spatial social science. Population Research and Policy Review, 26
(4), 457–476.
Waller, L. A., & Gotway, C. A. (2004). Applied spatial statistics for public health data. Wiley-Interscience.