シンポジウム：地域科学の課題

―地域分析の理論的基礎―

抄録

Over 20 years have passed since the introduction of regional science in Japan. In that time, much work has been done to enhance our understanding of the areas that surround us. This doesn't mean that there isn't anything wrong with the present state of regional science. There are a few issues to be dealt with when considering the future development of this field. Among these, the main issue is the trend toward specialization of the approaches to regional problems. In other words, there is too much reliance on the use of specialized discipline to gain scientific and general knowledge of the regions we study.
It was Isard's intention at the time of the founding that regional science be an academic as well as scientific discipline in which we propose ways to shed light on and to deal with the many problems of a particular portion of the earth's surface. This field was originally characterized by its problem or subject orientation and the interdisciplinary approach that came along with it. After, the founding, however, the academic society's activities did not always live up to the original expectations; the field started to head in a different direction and follow more of a disciplinary than interdisciplinary approach. The dominance of specialized discipline has appeared in several forms but there are two points that are specially notable. They are,
1) the dominance of the scientific approach, especially that of the mathematical and quantitative approaches, in contrast to the non-scientific approach
2) Among the scientific approaches, we see the dominance of the social science approach and especially the economics approach.
This trend toward specialization in regional science has led to a drop-off in the activities of those researchers affiliated in other fields, and this has led to a loss of interest in other fields by many members of the society.
In terms of point No. 1, we should consider the rise of such so-called nonscientific approaches as phenomonology and hermeneutics in the '60s and '70s. This trend was one type of reaction to thwart the scienticism invasion of the 1950s that appeared in many fields: We can't ignore the existence of this trend to oppose the scientific approach in philosophy, art, sociology, cultural anthropology, and geography. If regional science is made up of philosophy, art, and other various disciplines, then we can't ignore thee intellectual evolution taking place in these fields.
The same holds true for No. 2. The truth is that in the last 20 years we have been wrestling with many different regional problems-disorganization of the community, maldistribution of political representation, and the gradual destruction of the traditional lanscape and way of life. These problems can not be solved by economists (especially mathematical and quantitative economists) alone. The solutions to these varied and complex problems can only be found by incorporating the invaluable knowledge and know-how of sociologists, political scientists, cultural anthropologists, etc.. Moreover, the cooperation of natural scientists and technical engineers is necessary in solving such problems as environmental pollution, etc., and finding the optimum development of the infrastructure.
The issue we are faced with is one of realising that a lack of intellectual balance exists in our academic society and one of responding in the proper manner to correct the situation so that a balance between disciplines can be struck. As I mentioned above, the large increase in the number of researchers joining a specific field has been the cause of a decline in the active participation of members in other fields. We are caught in a dilemma of positive feedback by which the expansion of a specific field causes the shrinking of the remaining fields.