Year: 2005
Type: conference-paper
Abstract: Over the last three decades the way in which public policy analysts learn about the structure and function of Australia’s small towns has shifted from the intensive, in-depth analysis provided by the anthropologist living in the community (called “community studies”) to a more empirically oriented, demographic-based research carried out at a distance from these places (called “sustainability studies”). Rather than just understanding the functioning of small towns through case studies, recent research emphasis has centred on the more “aggregative” question of small town sustainability in all it forms. This alters the way in which small towns are viewed and complicates the current policy approaches to small town development and change. This paper identifies the two different methodologies implied by these divergent approaches and examines what this means to understanding of small towns and the policy implications that emerge. By reviewing the community studies approach to learning about small towns popular in the 1960s and 1970s, and contrasting this approach with recent, more aggregative approaches to learning about the sustainability of towns; this paper aims to find points of alignment and suggest a broader research framework that incorporates both approaches. This provides a comprehensive understanding of small towns, leading to a more effective development of public policies for these communities.
Authors: Jerry Courvisanos, John Martin
Language: English
Subfield: Urban Studies
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W174594425