Environment and Planning A, 1987, volume 19, pages 143-151 Research policy and review 15. From Little Englanders into Big Englanders: Thoughts on the relevance of relevant research A Gilbert Institute of Latin American Studies, and Department of Geography, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1H OAR England Received 7 April 1986 Abstract. In the geographical and planning literature there is a rather limited view of what is relevant. On the whole, the study of our own country is deemed to be highly relevant, that of other developed countries is sometimes relevant, whereas the study of poorer societies is seen generally to be irrelevant. Recent shifts towards a world-economy perspective have helped to reorientate our sights beyond the Straits of Dover, but have tended to concentrate on the more obviously relevant countries such as the United States of America, the European Economic Community, and Japan. Meanwhile, the amount of work on other, poorer, parts of the world seems to be decreasing. This is unfortunate partly because there are important issues concerned with development and poverty which need to be studied and about which we can perhaps contribute solutions. But, still more vital is the perspective that historical and international comparisons provide; perspective that is often lacking in work that is currently relevant. Sometimes the experiences of very different societies offer warnings about how to tackle a current problem at home. We need more, theoretically informed, work on the great overseas. Such work is vital for both the intellectual and the material well-being of this country. No doubt most readers are in favour of relevance. It is, after all, one of the catchwords of the postwar period. Ideologically, it is even fairly neutral, for relevance is as popular on the left as on the right of the political spectrum; it is arguably even more popular in the middle. And as geographers and planners we should presumably be concerned with the relevance of our work. For does not relevance conjure up notions of progress, justice, and a better society? Do we not want a subject that is of importance to society? But what precisely is relevance? The more I think about it, the less I think I understand; Turning to the Concise Oxford Dictionary for help provides little guidance. Relevance it seems is that which is "Bearing upon, pertinent to, the matter in hand". If I ask, therefore, what makes a subject of relevance to the geographer or planner, I get a somewhat tautological answer. Not only geographers, it seems, are defined by what they do; relevance is that which is 'in hand'. Those subjects which are studied most intensively in geography and planning, therefore, are those which are most relevant. Presumably, if we were all to study the Domesday Book it would become the most relevant of all subjects. Clearly, such a conclusion would be unsatisfactory. Of course, we can improve matters by specifying the object of the relevance of our work. By including more ideological and political guidelines, we can decide that the most relevant research is that which is pertinent to, say, resolving poverty, or accelerating economic growth, or improving scientific knowledge. But even that is not much of an advance because we all have our favoured candidates for relevance, most of which are currently neglected. What the issue of relevance poses is another question: why is it that our disciplines study some subjects to death, their last entrail poured over in excruciating