Is Critical Human Geography Research Replicable?

References

• Al-Quraishi, M., and P. Sorger. 2016. Reproducibility will only come with data liberation. Science Translational Medicine 8 (339). doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf0968.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, M. 2016. 1,500 Scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 533 (7604):452–54. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes, T., and E. Sheppard, eds. 2019. Spatial histories of radical geography: North America and beyond. London: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Bergmann, L. 2013. Bound by chains of carbon: Ecological–economic geographies of globalization. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103 (6):1348–70. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2013.779547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bohman, J. 2019. Critical theory. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. E. N. Zalta. Accessed May 13, 2020. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/critical-theory/.
   Google Scholar
• Bowen, M. 1981. Empiricism and geographical thought: From Francis Bacon to Alexander von Humboldt. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brunsdon, C. 2016. Quantitative methods I: Reproducible research and quantitative geography. Progress in Human Geography 40 (5):687–96. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132515599625.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Büscher, B. 2020. Not-so-SMART: Why new platform and surveillance technologies are bad news for science and understanding. Geoforum 112:3–5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.12.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, L. 2019. Platform capitalism and the governance of knowledge infrastructure. Paper presented at the Digital Initiative Symposium, San Diego, CA, April 29–30. Accessed September 25, 2019. https://zenodo.org/record/2656601#.XYu82WZ7mUl.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, G., A. Posada, and L. Chan. 2019. Vertical integration in academic publishing: Implications for knowledge inequality. In Connecting the knowledge commons—From projects to sustainable infrastructure: The 22nd International Conference on Electronic Publishing—Revised selected papers, ed. L. Chan and P. Mounier. Accessed August 26, 2020. http://books.openedition.org/oep/9068.
   Google Scholar
• Ekers, M., G. Hart, S. Kipfer, and A. Loftus, eds. 2012. Gramsci: Space, nature, politics. Oxford, UK: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Fanelli, D. 2017. “Reproducible” is not synonymous with “true”: A comment on the NAS report. Accessed October 11, 2019. http://danielefanelli.com/Blog.html#.
   Google Scholar
• Fanelli, D. 2018. Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (11):2628–31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708272114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fanelli, D., R. Costas, and V. Larivière. 2015. Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity. PLoS ONE 10 (6). doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127556.
   Google Scholar
• Gertler, P., S. Galiani, and M. Romero. 2018. How to make replication the norm. Nature 554 (7693):417–19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-02108-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman, S., D. Fanelli, and J. Ioannidis. 2016. What does research reproducibility mean? Science Translational Medicine 8 (341). doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf5027.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gramsci, A. 1916. The popular university. In The Antonio Gramsci reader, ed. D. Forgacs, 64–67. New York: New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gramsci, A. 1995. Further selections from the prison notebooks. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gregory, D. 1978. Ideology, science, and human geography. London: St. Martin’s.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey, D. 1969. Explanation in geography. London: Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey, D. 1972. Revolutionary and counter revolutionary theory in geography and the problem of ghetto formation. Antipode 4 (2):1–13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.1972.tb00486.x.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey, D. 1974. Population, resources, and the ideology of science. Economic Geography 50 (3):256–77. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/142863.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horkheimer, M. 1972. Critical theory. New York: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Horkheimer, M. 1987. Eclipse of reason. Boston: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kedron, P., A. Frazier, A. Trgovac, T. Nelson, and A. Fotheringham. 2019. Reproducibility and replicability in geographical analysis. Geographical Analysis. Advance online publication. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/gean.12221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer, K., and J. Wainwright. 2018. Science in “the storm”: Reflections on politics and plant sciences today. Human Geography 11 (3):1–10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/194277861801100301.
   Google Scholar
• Mies, M. 1993. Towards a methodology for feminist research. In Social Research: Philosophy, Politics and Practice, ed. M. Hammersley, 64–82. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• National Academy of Sciences. 2019. Reproducibility and replicability in science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Sullivan, D., L. Bergmann, and J. E. Thatcher. 2018. Spatiality, maps, and mathematics in critical human geography: Toward a repetition with difference. The Professional Geographer 70 (1):129–39. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2017.1326081.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson, D. 2019. Dealing with geoprivacy and confidential geospatial data crossing borders. ESRI Arcnews, Spring. Accessed October 28, 2019. https://www.esri.com/about/newsroom/arcnews/dealing-with-geoprivacy-and-confidential-geospatial-data/.
   Google Scholar
• Schaefer, F. 1953. Exceptionalism in geography: A methodological examination. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 43 (3):226–49. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00045605309352114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Servick, K. 2018. Social science studies get a “generous” test. Science 361 (6405):836. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.361.6405.836.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sui, D., and P. Kedron. 2020. Reproducibility and replicability in the context of the contested identities of geography. Annals of the American Association of Geographers. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1806024.
   Google Scholar
• Tullis, J., and B. Kar. 2020. Where is the provenance? Ethical replicability and reproducibility in GIScience and its critical applications. Annals of the American Association of Geographers. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1806029.
   Google Scholar
• Wainwright, J. 2010. On Gramsci’s conceptions of the world. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 35 (4):507–21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2010.00397.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wainwright, J., and G. Bervejillo. 2020. Leveraging monopoly power up the value chain: Academic publishing in an era of surveillance capitalism. Geoforum. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.04.012.
   Google Scholar