As the preceding chapters have documented, the history of ecological analysis in the field of sociology is one that goes back over a century. It is arguably also the core foundation which from which American Sociology has developed. Much of this development can be linked back to the Chicago School of urban and community sociology. We document through bibliometric study that the Chicago School ­heritage should be formally acknowledged as building upon the work of classical location theories developed those in the field of economic and from the work by rural sociologist Charles J. Galpin at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (Park 1929a, b). This legacy was forgotten, however, by the time that the seminal work, The City (1925) was published and still not acknowledged a century later (Abbott 1999). We hope that this small volume helps in some way to facilitate a clearer understanding of that heritage in hopes of continuing to spur future developments in the area.

Other important developments include early economic theories of location and the introduction of the isotropic map as a tool for social research, first by Galpin (1915) and later by other rural sociologists through its application to understanding core social problems. Since those early innovations, theories of location and ­spatially-centered analytic techniques developed in substantial ways, especially during the past two decades. Of importance to this book is the fact that the development of these theories and methods did not occur in historical unison. Instead, the ­theoretical foundations, which still today provide much of our understanding of macrosociological group processes, were developed decades before the ­computational and analytical capabilities to test such tenants were possible. We believe that they are now not only possible but commonly available to virtually all sociologists.

Ironically, given this unmatched historical development, the current boom in spatially-centered analyses finds itself unprepared to explain theoretically relationships associated with spatial concepts. For example, we have dedicated some narrative explanation of the core spatial concepts of containment, proximity, and adjacency. Today there are methodological tools to operationalize and test the effects of being contained within a specific unit (i.e. neighborhood, county, etc.) and being spatially proximate or adjacent to certain social stimuli. Here we have attempted to bring together some of the most important early developments in ­locational theory with contemporary methodological developments in spatially-centered techniques, which in combination contribute to geo-sociology as a substantive framework. As this is a first attempt at such a consolidation, we expect to be met with certain agreement and opposition. However, in both cases our hope is to spur a discussion which may further lead to a better understanding of the effects of ­context, space, place, and geography in the everyday interactions of individuals and the social processes that occur at their aggregated levels (see also Lieberson and Lynn 2002).

  • What should a spatial analysis in sociology contain? To begin, we argue that a ­spatial analysis should be:

  • Spatial in the middle-range theoretical framework;

  • Spatial in one or more key concepts;

  • Spatial in the operationalization of concepts; and

  • Spatial in the analytical procedures used to explore or test the framework.

As Howell (2004) noted, this is a high standard to reach in practice but one to elicit a few “good theories of the middle-range” (Merton 1968). Indeed, our own published work currently fails in many ways to fully reach each element of this standard. Our exhortation is for sociologists to both acknowledge this spatial heritage, learn the methods required to embrace it, and move the sub-field of ecological sociology forward in substantive and theoretical terms.

This book began with a definition of the term geo-sociology in both practice and principle with a special focus on its situation within the larger field of sociology. Following that introduction, Part I of this book described the historical development of location theory from the early focus on communities in isolation, by economists, to the more modern focus on the relationships between man and the environment in an increasingly global economy. The second part of this book (Part II) built on these theoretical understandings of the relationships between humans and their geographic locations by focusing contemporary methodological approaches that allow sociologists to measure and test the spatial concepts that currently remain unexplored and abstract in the field of sociology.

This is where we feel that the most significant gains can be made in the field of geo-sociology in the near term. To date, methods for understanding the relationship between humans and their geographic context continue to be developed by ­researchers at institutes and centers such as the GeoDa Center for Geospatial Analysis and Computation at Arizona State, the Center for Spatially Integrated Social Science (CSISS) at the University of California Santa Barbara, the GeoVista Center at Pennsylvania State University, and in various university centers in the United Kingdom (e.g., National Centre for Geocomputation at the National University of Ireland-Maynooth, Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis at the University College London), and Japan (Center for Spatial Information Science at the University of Tokyo). As these methodological tools allow us to analytically link individuals and groups to geography in a way that was previously not possible, we find ourselves faced with more questions concerning the theoretical relationships that we continue to uncover.

What is needed is a focus on linking the current movement of contextual sociology (research practice) to a well-defined rhetoric for the examination of social problems that have long been of interest to sociologists. To that point, the rhetoric regarding the importance of context is no different than those that founded the first departments of sociology, nor the general definitions of sociology that we still read to today in our most popular introductory textbooks. What is different is that leading founders of the discipline had a clear intellectual connection between their rhetoric and their research practice. Today we are faced with more computational sophistication than ever before, and trend is only moving forward in this area. As one can surely tell from our enthusiasm in the undertaking of this book project, we believe that incorporating geographic variations in variants of the social and physical environment is essential to much of the research we undertake as sociologists. However, our current ability to put people into these ecological settings, through the implementation of many of the methods described in this book (and many others that were not) does not necessarily mean that the reasons for doing so are well understood.

As Voss (2007) soberly noted regarding contemporary practice, much has been said but little has yet to be done. Following in the footsteps of Voss (and others) we continue to call for a greater acceptance of spatial analyses in sociology and a further development of the theoretical frameworks that will allow us to understand such relationships. Spatial analysis in mainstream sociology is about where path analysis was in the early 1970s: rapidly evolving methods in search of more substance. Such trends signal growing opportunities for those interested in pushing forward geo-social approaches to research in sociology in much the same way that similar opportunities existed, and were met, in the incorporation of other out-of-discipline methods that have been successfully incorporated into mainstream sociology.

In general, this need has been recognized and calls for attention to its development have been made. Such calls have been made since the late 1990s when the National Research Council report, People and Pixels, signaled a need to respond as a discipline. As noted above, the NSF-sponsored Center for Spatially Integrated Social Science (www.csiss.org) effort is a major response, which has provided a wealth of information to spur spatial thinking in the social sciences at-large. Goodchild et al. (2000) argued that the spatial domain puts the social sciences on a common lexicon to communicate. In the case of sociology, the ability to communicate across disciplines is especially valuable given its long history of incorporating theory and methods from other social science concentrations (e.g., path analysis by Otis Dudley Duncan).

In order to flourish, geo-sociology is in need of a few good theorists of the middle-range (Howell 2004). One example of such theory is the work by Sampson and colleagues (1997) which linked levels of neighbor efficacy to variations in crime. This type of an understanding helps researchers to continue to develop theories of concepts like containment. For instance, what is it about being in a neighborhood of high collective efficacy that limits criminal behavior? Sampson and colleagues have provided strong clues as to what that relationship is and others continue to push this understanding forward.

Another necessity in the continued development of geo-sociology includes ­methodological advances involving the growth of spatially-referenced data, ­methods, and computing capacity to conduct analyses. In the past few years, this need has begun to be addressed as many large scale data collection efforts now include geographic identifiers of both the respondent’s locations and the units in which the respondent is contained for the purpose of appending administrative data. Such efforts provide some of the data used in the example applications in Chaps. 6 and 8. For instance, some of the data used in the Chap. 6 example analysis is from the Louisville Metro Survey, which is collected on an annual basis by the University of Louisville Sociology Department and provides information on the nearest cross-streets of its respondents in selected years. In addition, the Panel of American Life Survey (PALS) data (used in the HLM example in Chap. 8) is collected with restricted geo-ids that allow for the linkage of the survey respondents to their county, neighborhood, and actual block through the geocoding of the respondents obtained physical street location. In both examples, the ability to link the survey respondents to a larger geographic context has provided researchers with a greater ability to understand social relationships beyond the individual level data that is provided in the survey questionnaire.

The newness of geo-social approaches to research in sociology has also been met with some hesitancy in acceptance, which is another obstacle that must by ­overcome for continued growth. This issue continues to become less and less of an issue as the methodological tools become more popular and commonplace in the research ­journals that sociologist regularly read.Footnote 1 The taking of theoretical and methodological “chances” predicated upon creative spatial thinking and the acceptance of such approaches by gatekeepers to the published literature (editors, reviewers) will ­continue to ameliorate this issue as spatial thinking becomes more commonplace. Finally, journals must also be willing to complement such an approach through a transitioning to publish color graphics since it remains difficult to convey enough information in current grayscale format.

One way to ensure that such approaches continue to grow in the field is through the implementation of training in spatial methods at both undergraduate and ­graduate levels. Over the last decade the availability of such courses has gone from almost non-existent in sociology departments to be much more commonplace. In fact, many Ph.D.-granting departments in sociology now offer geo-sociologically ­relevant advanced courses in some form. This advanced training at the graduate level ­especially makes appropriate spatial methods as much “ours” as any other ­discipline. An historical metaphor is that the Goodness of Fit Chi-squared statistic was not “sociology” when Karl Pearson first published it for use in the statistics literature. It is now taught in undergraduate statistics courses in the sociology major. Spatial ­analysis in the published literature is likely to continue to push the current ­boundaries of what is “considered sociology” and therefore integrated into the curricula of ­university departments of sociology.

We have argued elsewhere (Howell 2004) that there are some critical elements of curriculum content for adequate spatial analysis coursework. These include: data visualization (GIS), Census geography, spatial data (TIGER database and related), and spatial statistics. These elements are reflexive in nature, requiring that they be learned as a set. For instance, many GIS-based visualizations are based upon poorly-understood “geographies” which misappropriate available spatial data. Spatial ­statistical analyses without some visualization of the data can result in inappropriate interpretations of the analysis. The lack of an adequate understanding of key digital databases, especially the Census Bureau’s TIGER database, can result in either missed research opportunities or inappropriate understandings of the data used in either data visualization (GIS), statistical analysis (spatial statistics), or even the associated attribute data themselves (e.g., errors in merging data to the appropriate TIGER or other polygon, line, or point data). Our own experiences in teaching this material since 1997 leads us to strongly encourage readers to consider these domains of instruction in building new course, whether they are taught in one course or in a sequence of courses.

Overall, the development of a geo-sociology has been predicated on the ­foundations of sociology itself. After all, sociology is the study of society and its effect on individuals and groups within that particular social setting. Inherent in this foundation is the potential variations in human behaviors and group processes that occur across space and over time. A geographic focus in sociology is important and can be traced to the roots of the discipline itself. As geo-sociologists, we look forward to the continued development of the approach in the coming years. In particular, we hope that this book follows Leiberson and Lynn’s (2002) strategy and helps to spur discourse in the substantive area, one that we hope to be modest contributors.