|
ИСТИНА |
Войти в систему Регистрация |
ИСТИНА ЦЭМИ РАН |
||
THE INTEGRATION PARADIGM OF GEOGRAPHYстатья
- Авторы: Gladkey A.V., Golubchikov Iu
- Журнал: Часопис соціально-економічної географії
- Том: 20
- Номер: 1
- Год издания: 2016
- Первая страница: 11
- Последняя страница: 17
- Аннотация: 2016 Часопис соціально-економічної географії випуск 20(1) 11UDC 911.3 Alexander Gladkey1, D.Sc. (Geography), Professor e-mail: gladkey_alex@univ.kiev.ua Iurii Golubchikov1, PhD (Geography), Senior Lecturer e-mail: golubchikov@list.ru 1Kyiv Taras Shevchenko National University 1Lomonosov Moscow State University THE INTEGRATION PARADIGM OF GEOGRAPHY The processes of natural and humanitarian integration in the geography are described. The humanistic geography (or human geography, anthropogeography), is seen as an integrating methodology for geography which combines the principles of natural sci-ences and humanities. The general scientific problems connected with the dehumanization of knowledge as well as with differentia-tion of sciences are rethinking. The history of geographical paradigms development is explored. Anthropogeographical paradigm (anthropogeography), which combines the principles of natural sciences and humanities, prevailed in Russian geography of the early XX century and then turned out to be uncalled by Marxist-Leninist philosophy. Positivist paradigm, connected with dehumanization of knowledge as well as with differentiation of sciences, held dominating position in Soviet geographical school. The role of post-modern worldview in the development of post-disciplinary knowledge is revealed. The introduction subject in the scientific knowl-edge is defined. The role of geography in development of humanistic scientific values and post-disciplinary knowledge is based. The devel-opment of the humanism in geographic sciences is analyzed in the historical aspect. The current problems of “mechanistic approach” in geography are investigated. The necessity of perfection of current system paradigm with entering of humanistic elements is sub-stantiated. It is offered four ways for paradigm transformation: 1) from anthropocentrism to humaneness; 2) from systematicity to humanistic synergy; 3) from quantitative methods to its further qualitative analysis and humanistic interpretation; 4) from territorial differentiation to philosophic fundamentals of global geo-space. Key words: integration paradigm, humanization, post-disciplinary knowledge, quantitative and humanistic methods, human-istic values, imperative of humanistic thinking in geography. Олександр Гладкий, Юрій Голубчиков. ІНТЕГРАЦІЙНА ПАРАДИГМА ГЕОГРАФІЧНОЇ НАУКИ Досліджено процеси природно-гуманітарної інтеграції в географії. На роль загальногеографічної методології, що по-єднує принципи природничих і гуманітарних наук, претендує гуманітарна географія (вона ж географія людини, антропогео-графія). Осмислюються загальнонаукові проблеми, пов'язані з дегуманізацією знання і диференціацією наук. Розкривається світоглядна роль постмодерну у формуванні постдисциплінарного наукового знання. Обґрунтовується введення в науку суб'єкта. Визначено роль географії у формуванні гуманістичних наукових цінностей і постдисциплінарного знання. Розви-ток гуманізму в географічних науках проаналізовано в історичному аспекті. Ключові слова: інтеграційна парадигма, гуманізація, постдисциплінарне знання, кількісні і якісні методи, гуманісти-чні цінності, імператив гуманістичного мислення в географії. Александр Гладкий, Юрий Голубчиков. ИНТЕГРАЦИОННАЯ ПАРАДИГМА ГЕОГРАФИЧЕСКОЙ НАУКИ Исследованы процессы естественно-гуманитарной интеграции в географии. На роль общегеографической методоло-гии, сочетающей принципы естественных и гуманитарных наук, возводится гуманитарная география (она же география человека, антропогеография). Осмысливаются общенаучные проблемы, связанные с дегуманизацией знания и дифферен-циацией наук. Раскрывается мировоззренческая роль постмодерна в формировании постдисциплинарного научного знания. Обосновывается введение в науку субъекта. Определена роль географии в формировании гуманистических научных ценно-стей и постдисциплинарного знания. Развитие гуманизма в географических науках проанализировано в историческом ас-пекте. Ключевые слова: интеграционная парадигма, гуманизация, постдисциплинарное знание, количественные и качест-венные методы, гуманистические ценности, императив гуманистического мышления в географии. Introduction. The investigations dealing with natu-ral and humanitarian integration of geographic knowl-edge as well as with its general humanization have be-come more and more urgent nowadays. Dehumanization and increasing differentiation of positivist science af-fected the whole scientific knowledge of 20th century, but especially detrimental influence they caused on the Soviet geographic school. We remember the destruction of genetics and cy-bernetics in the USSR. But the marginalization of other "nonprincipal" sciences that neither broadens our world of things nor enhances the power of man over nature was less developed. Soviet scientists did not have the slogan - more possess, more produce as well as more consume. Their slogan was – to know more. ______________________________ © Gladkey A., Golubchikov I., 2016 Anthropogeography and the study of local lore were among these sciences. Literature review. Before 1929 the Russian sci-ence did not experience any pressure of ideological atti-tudes, although the dictate of Marxism philosophy (his-torical materialism) until the middle 1920s was already quite noticeable in the field of humanities. But for natu-ral sciences the 1920s were still something like a golden age. This period was marked by prominent scientific works: Biosphere by V. Vernadsky and Nomogenesis by L. Berg; V. Sukachev laid the foundations of biogeo-cenosis theory; V. P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky exercises his scientific talent; L. Berg published his comprehen-sive anthropogeographical review named Landscape-Geographical Zones of the USSR that had little in com-mon with its subsequent reissues in the field of physical geography. Geography continued developing its unique 2016 Часопис соціально-економічної географії випуск 20(1) 12way, combining features of both natural and humanitar-ian sciences. The scientific goal of the article is to investigate the processes of natural and humanitarian integration in geography as well as to define the role of geography in the development of humanistic scientific values and post-disciplinary knowledge. Main contents of research. Fractures of positiv-ism. The development of positivism in geography had several stages. The Soviet geographic sciences suffered from the most devastating ideological storms during the 1920-1930th. These ideological campaigns, resulted in elimination of any philosophical and methodological foundations of science, except Darwinist-Marxist-Leninist ones. The way of the differentiation between natural and social sciences was consistent and principled. The disciplines that were between natural and social sci-ences became undesirable. Any scientists who were en-gaged in researching the relations between man and na-ture in the frames of narrow practical tasks became in-convenient. It is interesting that the teaching of Karl Marx just predicted the opposite – i.e. the junction of natural science with the science of society into a single one. Physical geography was suggested to be the natural science discipline based on the principles of dialectical materialism and evolutionism. Economic geography was declared to be a social science based on the foundation of historical materialism and political economy. Accord-ing to N. Dronin [9] and Yu. Simonov [29], any attempts to unite the so-called laws of historical and dialectical materialism in one conceptual scheme were firmly sup-pressed. In accordance with the division of political econ-omy into political economy of capitalism as well as the political economy of socialism, economic geography was suggested to be differentiated into the economic geography of capitalist countries and the economic geog-raphy of the USSR. Subsequently, this distinction caused changes in the structure of the faculties of geography in most soviet universities, for example in the Moscow State University, where there appeared the departments of economic geography of the USSR, the economic ge-ography of socialist countries as well as the economic geography of capitalist and developing countries. So structure of science was based on the doctrine of changes in socio-economic formations with complete disregarded of any global or civilizational features. It was a forma-tion-progressivist picture where only phase and time differences were important, for example, between feu-dalism and capitalism. The differences between coun-tries or continents in formation doctrines had no signifi-cance. The gap between economic geography and physical one in the USSR increased. The investigations in physi-cal geography gave no place to economic one as well as the economic one and the investigations in economic geography did not proceed the physical geography re-searches. The economic geography division into districts did not correspond to the physical geography one. They were studied separately. And both of them lost relation to the course of history. Natural and humanitarian unity of geography was divided into many disciplines. Physical geographic char-acteristics of any country or any part of the world were shown as if there were no population, no people or their history on the territory. Physical geography refused hu-man investigations and kept only the anthropogenic fac-tor and economic geography declined the investigations of nature and was engaged in the research of natural re-sources only. The philosophical and methodological foundations of geography, such as geographical determinism (doc-trine of man's dependence on the geographical environ-ment), horology (the study of space) as well as anthro-pogeography (human geography) were consistently and strictly suppressed. According to A. Grigoryiv [8], na-tional geography investigations were practically forbid-den (for example, geopolitics and regional studies) and others (such as geography of culture) were not well de-veloped in contrast to foreign science. This approach had apparently, a lot of followers. It was the time of prosperity, caused by the science delimi-tation in the mid of the 19th century. This resulted in or-ganization of institutions, faculties and departments, training programs, scientific journals and international scientific institutions, supported by terminology and bib-liography, definitions and identities, shown to B. Turner [33]. Dehumanization disrupted the unity of scientific perception and comprehension of nature, destroyed the integrity of science, which resulted in structural decom-position and dissipation of science that lost the character of human values [12]. The principles of reductionism combined with the investigations of the world meso-complex objects only as a physical world, where there was no place to Cosmos, living matter and man, were suitable and acceptable for many geographers. Such ge-ographers tried to follow the canons of experimental and "exact sciences" and as a result they found themselves as geophysicists, geologists, geochemists or geo-economists. Usually they do not give a self-descriptive name for their geographic science and changed it with pleasure to "geoecology". The present-day geography almost completely re-fused the descriptive and speculative approaches in stud-ies. It widely operates with formalized quantitative re-search methods based on mathematical and statistical analysis, modelling and logic. Their emergence and de-velopment are associated with the dominance of dehu-manizing scientism and positivism. According to these ideologies, physics and chemistry become unconditional standards of all sciences that should be made such accu-rate and conclusive as they are. Therefore, special atten-tion is paid to the methods and techniques for getting results and to the accuracy of research procedures as well as to a wide application of statistical methods. Prof. I. Pavlov [11] said that science moves by any stimuli and these stimuli are predetermined by methods. Many geographers accepted the fundamentals of experimental and exact sciences and investigated com-plex objects of mesoworld in a simplified version only as a physical world. According to A. Tishkov [31], the leading positions in geography were occupied mostly not by those who knew and understood the nature, but by those who became proficient in the formal methods of 2016 Часопис соціально-економічної географії випуск 20(1) 13analysis such as mathematical, chemical and biochemi-cal, physical, computer, etc. According to D. Zamyatin [10] and Yu. Saushkin [28], geography began to lose its humanistic values us-ing only the quantitative researches and moving away from humanitarian problems. This "quantitative revolu-tion" included the creation of a new mathematical geog-raphy as a science that studies using the mathematical method complex dynamic (changing its condition with time) and spatially distributed in areas of dry land and water systems that combine nature, production and popu-lation with direct and feedback relations. The systematic approach (based on the system paradigm) as well as structural analysis and synthesis became the basis for geographic studies [22]. The concept of positivism overcame the exceptional complexity of geographical systems by reducing sche-matization and modelling of geographical objects. The tendency to measure everything that may be measured was observed in all the fields of geographic studies. This resulted using math in publishing books or defending PhD thesis. Therefore, mathematics was shown to be able to open or establish certain structures, patterns and interaction in geography. Reductionism in many ways became an integral part of the culture of geographers. It determines the devel-opment in modern geography in our country. The geog-rapher-analyst forced out still more the geographer-philosopher who tried not for the depth of analysis, but to for a wide overview and conceptual synthesis in the science. As show by prof. N. Mironenko [17], these processes are especially characterized by the differentia-tion of geographic science as well as by the difference between the current periods of its development with availability of many new objects of investigations activi-ties at new scientific trends and new disciplines. Yu. Tyutyunnik [32] said that geography is not mathematics; it is opposite to it in many ways. Mathe-matics is not even a science; it is a language of high de-gree generality. Its postulates do not contain any reality, but certainly, they are absolutely accurate. The development of integrated geographical re-search is really connected with the introduction of com-puter technology. These sciences were expected to pre-sent all the elements of geographic reality as any kind of a matrix that will include all the elements to quantify geographic systems (complexes). However, it was not happen. On the contrary, with mathematization and for-malization processes in geography caused the science to lose its philosophical and epistemological content as well as it turned down the total dehumanization of geo-graphical knowledge. Any attempts to reduce geographi-cal science to the laws of other fundamental sciences often resulted in a real threat to the existence of geo-graphical science. Instead of hermeneutic "understand-ing" of the essence of geographical processes and phe-nomena, modern geography moved to a partial formal-ized "explanation" of their separate properties. The ex-tension of quantitative methods led to a simplified mechanized representation of geographical reality that appears in the form of quantitative data separated from a concrete territory. Criticism of quantitative methods in geography had begun in the days of their mass introduction into scien-tific investigations. Some scientists criticized the new prospects opened with the "quantitative revolution" and warned the apologists of mathematization in geography that their practice leads to a loss of integrity in under-standing the geographical reality as well as to the ap-pearance of small-section applied research that would not be able to adequately reflect all the processes and phenomena in geographical environment [4]. The appli-cation of systemic paradigm and diverse quantitative methods can give us the understanding of specific prob-lems only. It is difficult to formalize a significant num-ber of geographical facts. Efficiency of quantitative geographical investiga-tions is limited by the imperfection of mathematical technics. Mathematization of new material objects and systems in the history of mathematics involved the de-velopment of new mathematical theories. So, classical mechanics connected with the application of ordinary differential calculus. The vector analysis was suitable for classical electrodynamics. The investigations in aerody-namics led to the development of the complex variable theory. The theory of relativity caused the tensor analy-sis and the theory of curved Riemann spaces, quantum and nuclear physics caused the functional analysis and the theory of Hilbert spaces and the elementary particle theory caused the theory of groups and generalized func-tions. According to Yu. Golubchikov [7], mathematiza-tion of economic studies generated the optimal control theory, theory of games, statistical decisions theory as well as investigations of dynamic and linear program-ming. In this case, the need for simulating any class of ob-jects was supplied by the corresponding formal scientific techniques created earlier. In other words, the theory of differential calculus was created before mechanics needed it. The development of the game theory or opti-mal control theory was prior to the needs in economic science. An appropriate theory was seemed to exist al-ready or some class of geographical objects. The infor-mation-cybernetic approach was proposed as a formal-logical method created for physical geography. But the energy-physical approach in modern science was the first both historically and logically. In this connection, V. Solntsev [30] stated that the analysis of information processes in geosystems would be possible in the nearest future only on the basis of intensive investigations of their thermodynamic entity. So, using mathematical methods, geographers are not able for the time being to analyze and explain all the set of components of territorial systems. Scientists ex-plain this problem by a very high complicacy of territo-rial systems and their dependence on a number of inter-nal and external factors. S. Moroz [18] stated that scien-tists need to simplify and schematize territorial systems using quantitative analysis. However, such simplification and schematization may result in dehumanization of geographical knowl-edge and in disregard of humanistic elements in geo-graphical systems. This problem was widely covered in works of the Noble prize winner Ivan Bunin [3]. In his opinion, geographers make use of quantitative methods as a cover for their work. Using such methods, they in-2016 Часопис соціально-економічної географії випуск 20(1) 14vestigate only separate elements of geographical reality, essentially schematized and simplified. These methods are aimed at substantiation of the systematics of any ter-ritorial complex and devoted to support this system. So, such methods are correct only within a speculative quan-titative system but they lost though with reality. Integration trends. Since the 1990th the ideas of humanism in the Post-Soviet sciences make every- in-creasing transition from a pure philosophical and hu-manities researches to the natural ones. At the same time such a transition becomes a basis for new post-disciplinary knowledge all over the world. The ideal of this knowledge is not only the research cognition of separate (dehumanized) individual coincidences, regu-larities, laws as well as the collection of solid informa-tion base for a better understanding of general laws of nature and society development. This knowledge forms the foundation for understanding the essence of nature, human, society or a state as well as for understanding "how their development was possible, or, in other words, - how did it happen that they become to origin as they are" [5;16]. As V. Preobrazhensky, T. Aleksandrova and L. Maksimova [23] showed the development of human geography in western countries resulted in the develop-ment of knowledge that is hard to be identified with any of the traditional science branches developed in the for-mer USSR. These authors emphasized the general posi-tion of human geography in western science that is equal to the central position of physical geography in our sci-ence. According to M. Pistun [22], under conditions of new humanistic post-disciplinary knowledge formation geography should combine both directions of scientific investigations - natural and social. Only geography can provide these two polar systems with the contiguity and close relationship. The unique role of geography consists not only in simple combination of different sciences, but also in deep and comprehensive analysis of space and all its elements (tangible and intangible) in their unity, in-tegrity and relationships. However, the dehumanization of geographic research resulted in a simplified concep-tion of the world, space and the man, his intelligence, culture, values. The era of tourism, postmodern, epistemological and philosophical investigations intensified the emo-tional side of our perception in the mesoworld. The land-scape paradigm gained unique humanistic regulations with tourism that was based on the natural sciences only. Tourism returned a landscape perception to the physical landscape according to O. Borsuk [1] and E. Kolo-bovskiy [15]. Prof. D. Zamyatin [11] made a detailed description of individual areas using socio-cultural, eco-nomic and landscape-aesthetic aspects, which provide an informal humanitarian-colored analysis of geographic images. Tourism returned the individual experience and emotional content of a subject to scientific discourse. This discipline becomes a revolution in all science, not only in geography. Before that scientific investigations demanded to release the objective reality from its per-sonal understanding of the subject. Natural science in-vestigated universe problems of existence, but the indi-vidual world disappeared. Humanities made to think using the state ideology, where the individual point of view was also lost. But suddenly there appeared tourism that uses relativistic models of world cognition, places subject knowledge between impersonal and personal substations, declares knowledge to be the subject-object substation relative to different times, spaces and civiliza-tions. This concept has the world view radically. Some sources of information from everyday life were needed to understand the landscape essence: arti-cles from mass media, advertising, travel notes, belles-lettres, etc. There occurs the transformation from the sensory-measurement interpretation of the landscape to the perception of its natural and socio-cultural unity as stated by V. Kalutskov [13; 14], M. Ragulina [26; 27]. The picturesque and high aesthetic qualities of land-scapes became one of main requirements to them by A. Bredihin [2]. The unique visual characteristics become important for creation of national parks. Natural land-scape classification was supplemented with emotional and visual groupings, landscape diversity, aesthetic qualities of the territory as well as with the presence of water and type of the water basin, as O. Borsuk et al. [1], V. Nikolaev [19] and E. Petrova [21] described. As V. Kalutskov [13; 14] says, the status of scien-tific and artistic landscape concept is created in modern geography. The aesthetic relations to the nature are started as a special form of its cognition connected with natural science according to A. Ozerov [20]. There occur a deep epistemological synthesis of worldview, science and art connected with current mainstream investigations in geography. S. Moroz [18] and V. Maksakovskiy [16] defines humanistic elements in geography as a new Weltan-schauung that is based on common-to-all-mankind val-ues and gives the first place in scientific research to hu-man persons and their social relations. The great human-istic value of geographic investigations and description of different territories and nations were stressed more than once by such well-known Russian literary men as N. Gogol, K. Paustovskiy, M. Voloshin, I. Bunin, etc. Post-discipline geography. The wide process of humanization in geography at the level of transformation to conceptual fundamentals is still to come. For the fur-ther development of humanistic ideas in geographic sci-ence we can suggest a number of such transformations. Here are four main directions of humanization in geog-raphy: 1. From anthropocentrism to humanness. The tra-ditional anthropocentric concept in geographic investiga-tions requires practical orientation of our science for the most complete satisfaction of human needs. However, such a scientific approach is rather utilitarian. Anthropo-centrism means that the human needs are the center of scientific problems and their satisfaction is the main goal of any scientific research. On the other hand, geography as any other science must be involved into problems of humanness and common-to-all-mankind values rather than individual persons only. According to K. Voblyi [4], geographic investigations can be useful for man to realize his role in the world, for developing high aes-thetic, cultural, moral and living principles as well as for making natural resources more balanced and the society 2016 Часопис соціально-економічної географії випуск 20(1) 15more humanized. 2. From systematics to humanistic synergy. Most of geographic objects are considered as a complex and compound system of different components and relations. According to V. Preobrazhenskiy [25], the system con-sists of many heterogeneous elements, each of them playing its own role, having own internal relations, a number of chain reactions, internal mechanism of stabil-ity and self-regulation. However, most elements of geo-graphic space do not fit into a traditional concept of the system, especially if it is formalized with quantitative methods. The classical system in itself has no humanistic tint, so it cannot illustrate geographic reality in an ade-quate manner. According to M. Pistun [22], geographic systems include not only material components of human activities, but also spiritual ones. These spiritual compo-nents cannot be involved into the formalization and mechanistic concept of systematics. The systemic para-digm that is based on concepts of natural and exact sci-ences only should be supplemented with new humanistic elements, which will provide an integral and non-formalized approach to investigation and comprehension of any object of inquiry. Every geographic landscape or complex has specific elements of humanistic synergy. Such elements are hardly studied due to imperfection of a systemic approach. So, according to V. Preobrazhenskiy [25], physical geographers should realize humanistic elements in natural-science investiga-tions and social geographers should study human geog-raphy firstly. Yu. Golubchikov [7] shown that geography should combine all elements from every science into one symphony, one landscape. To feel the soul of landscape, to comprehend its music and harmony – these are the main topics of geography. 3. From quantitative methods to their further qualitative analysis and humanistic interpretation. The quantitative methods in geography have been criticized since the time of their introduction. Prof. V. Preobraz-henskiy [25] warned against a wide use of the above mentioned methods, because the latter results in simpli-fication of geographic reality, development of small-scale applied investigations that cannot reflect all the processes and phenomena in geographic space in an ade-quate manner. Evaluating on the whole positively the development of exact formalized methods in geography, Prof. V. Preobrazhenskiy [25] claimed that these meth-ods should be followed by synthesis, qualitative analysis and creative interpretation of the obtained results, which would complete quantitative investigations. According to representatives of the American school of geographers, the rigorous scientific method does not provide a com-prehensive perception of the object of geographic study. Undoubtedly, the introduction of new humanitarian methods into modern geography is possible only to-gether with a wide use of formalized methods of infor-mation processing and computer systems. Nevertheless, research tools of geographers should not be limited only by them. Geographers should use both formalized and non-formalized methods in their investigations, both quantitative and qualitative ones with their further hu-manistic interpretation and predominance of the univer-sal, common-to-all-mankind values. 4. From territorial differentiation to philosophic fundamentals of global geospace. This transition is de-voted to definition of main topics of geographic investi-gations as well as to characteristics of geographical ob-jects. According to V. Preobrazhenskiy [25], the main problem in the definition of the essence of geography consists in the existence of different points of view on its object of study: “What is geography? Is it a science about complexes or about territorial differentiation of any processes and phenomena on the Earth? If so, is there any difference between geography and geology or geophysics? Is it a method of solving a variety of prob-lems (geographic approaches to perception of biological diversity, economic division into districts)? I think that geography is ‘a complex + the many-dimensional terres-trial = biota, people, space’. But now many scientists think that we deal with bodies and phenomena in three-dimensional physical space”. So, geography should not be limited by narrow bounds of perception of spatial system and relations. The bounds of geography are much wider and essentially extend to generalized comprehen-sion of philosophic fundamentals of global geospace in all the variety of its manifestations, sides and properties. It is this statement that the close relations between geog-raphy and philosophy and humanities consist in. It is here that the foundation of new post-disciplinary knowl-edge is laid according to A Hettner [6]. Conclusions. These four directions of humanization in geography would determine gradual transition from systemic to humanistic paradigm in geography that would be based on the common-to-all-mankind values. This would allow one to investigate the geographic real-ity in the context of post-non-classical hermeneutics. So, according to S. Moroz, modern geography should be based on the imperative of humanistic think-ing. Its great philosophic, cultural and world outlook potential is of great importance for humanitarian studies as well as systemic studies of space are of the same sig-nificance for natural sciences. The humanistic paradigm in geographic investigations will help to avoid a mecha-nistic systemic approach and allow one to develop new conceptual fundamentals of geography. It will keep to-gether the elements of lost scientific unity and become the basis of new post-disciplinary knowledge. Список використаних джерел: 1. Борсук О.А. Эстетика рельефа и ее изучение / О.А. Борсук, Э.А. Лихачева, Д.А. Тимофеев // Новые и традиционные идеи в геоморфологии. V Щукинские чтения. Труды. – М.: Географический факультет МГУ, 2005. – С. 582-584. 2. Бредихин А.В. Рекреационно-геоморфологические системы. / А.В. Бредихин. – М. – Смоленск, 2010. – 330 с. 3. Бунин И.А. Вести с родины. Собр. соч. в 6 т. / И.А. Бунин – М.: Издание т-ва А.Ф. Маркс, Петроград, 1915. – Т. 2. – С. 29-36. 2016 Часопис соціально-економічної географії випуск 20(1) 164. Воблий К.Г. Організація праці наукового працівника (методика і техніка). / К.Г. Воблий. – К.: Видавництво АН УРСР, 1947. – 150 с. 5. Гадамер Ганс-Георг. Істина і метод: пер. з нім. / Ганс-Георг Гадамер. – К.: Юніверс, 2000. – Т. 1.: Герменев-тика І: Основи філософ. герменевтики. – 464 с. 6. Геттнер А. География, ее история, сущность и методы. / А. Геттнер. – Л.: Госиздат «Красный пролетарий», 1930. – 416 с. 7. Голубчиков Ю.Н. Энергетико-физический подход к изучению природных комплексов / Ю.Н. Голубчиков // Вопросы географии. Геофизика ландшафта. – М.: Мысль, 1981. – Сб. 117. – С. 88-95. 8. Григорьев А.А. География всемирного наследия. / А.А. Григорьев. – Спб.: Астерион, 2012. – 344 с. 9. Дронин Н.М. Эволюция ландшафтной концепции в русской и советской физической географии. / Н.М. Дронин. – М.: ГЕОС, 1999. – 232 с. 10. Замятин Д.Н. Гуманитарная география. Пространство и язык географических образов / Д.Н. Замятин. – М.: Алетейя, 2003. 11. Замятин Д.Н. Метагеография. Пространство образов и образы пространства. / Д.Н. Замятин. – М.: Аграф, 2004. – 512 с. 12. Іщук С.І. Розколота географія / С.І. Іщук, Т.І. Шпарага, О.В. Гладкий // Наукові записки Вінницького дер-жавного педагогічного університету імені Михайла Коцюбинського. Серія: Географія. – 2003. – Вип. 6. – С. 5-8. 13. Калуцков В.Н. Ландшафт в культурной географии / В.Н. Калуцков. – М.:«Новый хронограф», 2008. – 320 с. 14. Калуцков В.Н. Основы этнокультурного ландшафтоведения: Уч. пос. / В.Н. Калуцков. – М.: Изд-во МГУ, 2000. – 96 с. 15. Колбовский Е.Ю. Эстетическая оценка ландшафтов: проблемы методологии. / Е.Ю. Колбовский. – Ярославский педагогический вестник. 2011. - № 4. – Т. III (Естественные науки). – С. 161-166. 16. Максаковский В.П. Географическая культура / В.П. Максаковский. – М.: Гуманит. изд. центр Владос, 1998. – 416 с. 17. Мироненко Н.С. Страноведение: Теория и методы. Уч. пос. для вузов / Н.С. Мироненко. – М.:«Аспект Пресс», 2001. – 268 c. 18. Мороз С.А. Методологія географічної науки: Навч. посібник / С.А. Мороз, В.І. Онопрієнко, С.Ю. Бортник.– К.: Заповіт, 1997. – 333 с. 19. Николаев В.А. Ландшафтоведение. Эстетика и дизайн / В.А. Николаев. – М.: Аспект пресс, 2003. – 176 с. 20. Озеров А.Г. Формирование экологической культуры личности в процессе исследовательской, туристско-краеведческой деятельности учащихся / А.Г. Озеров // Краеведческий альманах. – 2009. - № 1. – С. 3-12. 21. Петрова Е.Г. Эмоционально-зрительное восприятие природных ландшафтов в России и Японии: сравнительный анализ / Е.Г. Петрова, Ю.В. Миронов // Известия РАН. Серия географическая. – 2014. - № 1. – С. 130-140. 22. Пістун М Д. Основи теорії суспільної географії: Навч. посібник / М Д. Пістун. – К.: Вища школа, 1996. – 231 с. 23. Преображенский В.С. География в меняющемся мире. Век XX / В.С. Преображенский, Т.Д. Александрова, Л.В. Максимова. – М.:«ИГРАН», 1997. – 273 с. 24. Преображенский B.C. Острые проблемы ландшафтоведения на рубеже веков / В.С. Преображенский // Известия РАН. Сер. географ. – 1998. - № 3. – С. 14-19. 25. Преображенский В.С. Я – географ. Из творческого наследия / В.С. Преображенский. – М.: ГЕОС, 2001. – 292 с. 26. Рагулина М.В. Культурная география: теории, методы, региональный синтез / М.В. Рагулина. – Иркутск: ИГ СО РАН, 2004. – 173 с. 27. Рагулина М.В. Культурный ландшафт и сотворчество человека и природы / М.В. Рагулина // География и природные ресурсы. – 2007. - № 3. – С. 88-95. 28. Саушкин Ю.Г. Избранные труды / Ю.Г. Саушкин. – Смоленск: Универсум, 2001. – 416 с. 29. Симонов Ю.Г. История географии в Московском университете: события и люди / Ю.Г. Симонов. – М.: «Городец», 2008. – 504 с. 30. Солнцев В.Н. О трудностях внедрения системного подхода в физическую географию / В.Н. Солнцев // Вопросы географии. – М.: Мысль, 1977. – Сб. 104. 31. Тишков А.А. Люди нашего племени. Очерки / А.А. Тишков. – М.: Институт географии РАН, 2012. – 276 с. 32. Тютюник Ю.Г. Проблемные вопросы теории культурного ландшафта / Ю.Г. Тютюник // Известия РАН. Серия географическая. – 2013. - № 4. – С. 34-45. 33. Turner B.L. Contested identities: Human-environment geography and disciplinary implications in a restructuring academy / B.L. Turner // Annals of the Association of American Geographers. – 2002. – V. 92(1). – P. 52-74. 2016 Часопис соціально-економічної географії випуск 20(1) 17 References: 1. Borsuk, O.A., Likhacheva, E.A., Timofeev, D.A. (2005). Estetika relyefa i ee izuchenie. Novye i traditsionnye idei v geomorfologii. V Shchukinskie chteniya. Trudy. M.: Geograficheskiy fakultet MGU, 582-584. 2. Bredikhin, A.V. (2010). Rekreatsionno-geomorfologicheskie sistemy. M. – Smolensk, 330. 3. Bunin, I.A. (1915). Vesti s rodiny. Sobr. soch. v 6 t. M.: Izdanie t-va A.F. Marks, Petrograd, 2, 29-36. 4. Voblyi, K.H. (1947). Organіzatsіya pratsі naukovoho pratsіvnyka (metodyka і tekhnіka). K.: Vydavnytstvo AN URSR, 150. 5. Gadamer, Gans-Georg. (2000). Іstina і metod: per. z nіm. K.: Iunіvers. T. 1.: Germenevtika І: Osnovy fіlosof. germenevtiki, 464. 6. Gettner, A. (1930). Geografiya, ee istoriya, sushchnost i metody. L.: Gosizdat «Krasnyi proletariy», 416. 7. Golubchikov, Iu.N. (1981). Energetiko-fizicheskiy podkhod k izucheniyu prirodnykh kompleksov. Voprosy geografii. Geofizika landshafta. M.: Mysl, Sb. 117, 88-95. 8. Grigoriev, A.A. (2012). Geografiya vsemirnogo naslediya. Spb.: Asterion, 344. 9. Dronin, N.M. (1999). Evolyutsiya landshaftnoy kontseptsii v russkoy i sovetskoy fizicheskoy geografii. M.: GEOS, 232. 10. Zamiatin, D.N. (2003). Gumanitarnaya geografiya. Prostranstvo i yazyk geograficheskikh obrazov. M.: Aleteia. 11. Zamiatin, D.N. (2004). Metageografiya. Prostranstvo obrazov i obrazy prostranstva. M.: Agraf, 512. 12. Іshchuk, S.І., Shparaga, T.І., Gladkey, O.V. (2003). Rozkolota geografіya. Naukovі zapysky Vіnnytskoho derzhavnoho pedagogіchnoho unіversytetu іmenі Mykhayla Kotsyubynskoho. Serіya: Geografіya, 6, 5-8. 13. Kalutskov, V.N. (2008). Landshaft v kulturnoy geografii. M.:«Novyi khronograf», 320. 14. Kalutskov, V.N. (2000). Osnovy etnokulturnogo landshaftovedeniya: Uch. pos. M.: Izd-vo MGU, 96. 15. Kolbovskiy, E.Iu. (2011). Esteticheskaya otsenka landshaftov: problemy metodologii. Yaroslavskiy pedagogicheskiy vestnik, 4, III (Estestvennye nauki), 161-166. 16. Maksakovskiy, V.P. (1998). Geograficheskaya kultura. M.: Gumanit. izd. tsentr Vlados, 416. 17. Mironenko, N.S. (2001). Stranovedenie: Teoriya i metody. Uch. pos. dlya vuzov. M.:«Aspekt Press», 268. 18. Moroz, S.A., Onoprіenko, V.І., Bortnik, S.Iu. (1997). Metodologіya geografіchnoi nauky: Navch. posіbnyk. K.: Zapovіt, 333. 19. Nikolaev, V.A. (2003). Landshaftovedenie. Estetika i dizayn. M.: Aspekt press, 176. 20. Ozerov, A.G. (2009). Formirovanie ekologicheskoy kultury lichnosti v protsesse issledovatelskoy, turistsko-kraevedcheskoy deyatelnosti uchashchikhsya. Kraevedcheskiy almanakh, 1, 3-12. 21. Petrova, E.G., Mironov, Yu.V. (2014). Emotsionalno-zritelnoe vospriyatie prirodnykh landshaftov v Rossii i Yaponii: sravnitelnyi analiz. Izvestiya RAN. Seriya geograficheskaya, 1, 130-140. 22. Pіstun, M.D. (1996). Osnovy teorіi suspіlnoi geografіi: Navch. posіbnyk. K.: Vyshcha shkola, 231. 23. Preobrazhenskiy, V.S., Aleksandrova, T.D., Maksimova, L.V. (1997). Geografiya v menyayushchemsya mire. Vek XX. M.:«IGRAN», 273. 24. Preobrazhenskiy, V.S. (1998). Ostrye problemy landshaftovedeniya na rubezhe vekov. Izvestiia RAN. Ser. geograf., 3, 14-19. 25. Preobrazhenskiy, V.S. (2001). Ya – geograf. Iz tvorcheskogo naslediya. M.: GEOS, 292. 26. Ragulina, M.V. (2004). Kulturnaya geografiya: teorii, metody, regionalnyi sintez. Irkutsk: IG SO RAN, 173. 27. Ragulina, M.V. (2007). Kulturnyi landshaft i sotvorchestvo cheloveka i prirody. Geografiya i prirodnye resursy, 3, 88-95. 28. Saushkin, Yu.G. (2001). Izbrannye trudy. Smolensk: Universum, 416. 29. Simonov, Yu.G. (2008). Istoriya geografii v Moskovskom universitete: sobytiya i lyudi. M.: «Gorodets», 504. 30. Solntsev, V.N. (1977). O trudnostyakh vnedreniya sistemnogo podkhoda v fizicheskuyu geografiyu. Voprosy geografii. M.: Mysl, 104. 31. Tishkov, A.A. (2012). Lyudi nashego plemeni. Ocherki. M.: Institut geografii RAN, 276. 32. Tiutiunik, Yu.G. (2013). Problemnye voprosy teorii kulturnogo landshafta. Izvestiya RAN. Seriya geograficheskaya, 4, 34-45. 33. Turner, B.L. (2002). Contested identities: Human-environment geography and disciplinary implications in a restructuring academy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 92(1), 52-74. Надійшла до редколегії 07.03.2016 р.
- Добавил в систему: Голубчиков Юрий Николаевич