Professional Geographer, 53(4) 2001, pages 511–521 © Copyright 2001 by Association of American Geographers. Initial submission, January 1999; revised submission, May 2000; final acceptance, June 2000. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, and 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JF, UK. Masculinism, Emplacement, and Positionality in Peer Review* Lawrence D. Berg Okanagan University College In this article I examine peer review (refereeing) of manuscripts for geography journals, focusing in particular upon the discourse of refereeing. I suggest that this discourse is constituted through seemingly banal practices and that it constructs and positions referees, the conceptual space of geography, and the knowledge produced by academics about specific places. Drawing upon feminist theory, I suggest that the dominant practice of “blind” (and “double- blind”) refereeing relies upon a masculinist model of “objectivity” that is disembodied, impartial, and unlocated. This approach to peer review, I argue, genders geographic theory, reconstitutes abstract Cartesian space, and effaces place. Key Words: emplacing knowledge, feminist theory, masculinism, partial knowledges, peer review. Introduction little more than five years ago, I undertook my first ever task as a peer reviewer of a manuscript for a journal—an experience that had a profound impact on my thinking about peer reviewing and the journal publication pro- cess. In my role as a neophyte reviewer, I was struck by two aspects of the reviewing process. First, I noted how powerfully my task posi- tioned me as a subject of knowledge. Second — and perhaps more importantly—I was quite astonished by my own embodied reaction to this discursive positioning. I felt that the dis- course of refereeing—that is, the hidden set of expectations, norms, and ideologies that give ref- ereeing meaning (Barnes and Duncan 1992)— had constituted me as an outside expert, brought in to pass judgment on the quality of the manu- script under review (see, e.g., Polak 1995). I was also struck by the forceful way that the discourse of peer reviewing required me to say something significant and critical about the paper in ques- tion (Bakanic, McPhail, and Simon 1989). What really amazed me, however, was the visceral reac- tion I had to this positioning as an ostensible ex- pert. A range of emotions—excitement, pride, fear, desire—rushed through my body when I read the letter requesting my participation as a referee. Interestingly, and in spite of the numer- ous times I have acted as a referee since, I still have similar embodied reactions to being asked to referee papers. This article arises from these very personal experiences as a first-time peer reviewer, and from my response to the underlying discourse of peer review in geographic publishing. I ar- gue that this discourse is constituted through seemingly banal practices and that it constructs and positions referees, the conceptual space of geography, and the knowledge produced by aca- demics about specific places. Although it is now commonly accepted—by feminist and post- structuralist geographers, at least—that knowl- edge is partial and situated (Haraway 1991), the dominant practice of “blind” (and “double- blind”) refereeing relies upon an older, mascu- linist model of “objectivity” that is disembod- ied, impartial, and unlocated. This approach to refereeing, I argue, genders geographic theory (as masculine), reconstitutes abstract Cartesian space, and effaces place. In order to counter this, I argue that it is time to transform the anonymous (blind) review of manuscripts submitted to geography journals to a more dialogical approach (Bakhtin 1981). Although I am uncertain about the best way to proceed, I would like to suggest two possible options. The first is to adopt a system of signed reviews for geography journals, an approach that would accord with similar calls by a num- ber of other authors (Goodstein 1995a, 1995b; A *This paper was presented at the Inaugural International Conference of Critical Geographers in Vancouver, August 1997. It has benefited from constructive criticism from many of the participants in the special session, “Locating the Politics of Theory in Critical Human Geography.” I am especially grateful to Stuart Aitken, Liz Bondi, Margo Guertin, Richie Howitt, Karen Morin, Steve Pile, Sue Ruddick, and Kirsten Simonsen for their helpful comments on my presentation at the IICCG and/or earlier drafts. Thanks to Sandy Robson, a research assistant who lost her job to “downsizing” at Massey University, for her invaluable research assistance. Finally, I am grateful to the four referees (three of whom identified themselves to me) who provided helpful comments on the penultimate draft of this paper. Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 23:32 19 October 2012