Chicago and L.A.: A Clash of Epistemologies

The Chicago and L.A. Schools of Urban Studies are often contrasted with one another. At one level, the contrast is obvious: studies of late-20th century Los Angeles are clearly going to produce empirical results and observations that differ from studies of early-20th century Chicago. At another level, the contrast reflects a clash of epistemologies. On the one hand, there is a long tradition of urban studies based on the scientific method, and much of this can be traced back to the Chicago School's pioneering methodological and epistemological explorations. On the other hand, there is a more recent body of research that takes a postmodern approach to knowledge (a type of approach, it can be argued, that continues to underpin the more current cultural turn in geography) first introduced into urban geography by the L.A. School. In this essay, I briefly comment on the empirical differences between L.A. and Chicago research, and show how this leads to the epistemological debate. I then focus my attention on the way in which knowledge is acquired under modern and postmodern stances. I argue that, within the realms of academic research, the "scientific method," although rejected by postmodernists, often underpins the research of those who reject it.