Luso-Brazilian geographies? The making of epistemic communities in semi-peripheral academic human geography

Abstract

This article provides the first overview of the dialogues between Brazilian and Portuguese geography throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. We expand current debates about marginal geographies in the growing field of global histories of geography by arguing that the Luso-Brazilian case reveals how international epistemic communities can be formed between semiperipheral geographic communities. We call attention to the role that science funding plays in the making of epistemic communities in semiperipheral spaces where political instability prevails, by allowing the creation of platforms of dialogue between geographic academies, such as international conferences, scientific journals, and research projects.

Keywords

epistemic communities global histories of geography Luso-Brazilian geography platforms of dialogue science funding semiperiphery

I Introduction

Several important studies on the history of geography in Brazil and Portugal have been published in the last decades, including works on the geographies produced by geographical societies (Custódio, 2010; Cantino, 2012; Cardoso, 2013), the evolution of research themes in each country (Gaspar, 1985; Becker, 1986; Pimenta et al., 2011), the history of the discipline within universities (Almeida et al., 2003; Machado, 2009; Medeiros, 2013), the dialogues with other geographic communities (Lévy, 2007; Mendoza, 2008; Silva, 2016), and several studies on prominent geographers of the two countries (Moreira, 2010; Moraes, 2013; Vasconcelos, 2016a; Melgaço and Prouse, 2017; Davies, 2019; Ferretti, 2018; Ferretti and Pedrosa, 2018). However, there is a striking gap in relation to the dialogue between these two geographic communities that share a common language, with very rare exceptions (Rebelo, 2006; Mary, 2010; Cunha and Jacinto, 2012; Oliveira and Paiva, 2019a). In fact, while there has been a significant amount of work in how non-Anglophone geographies have been influenced by or contested Anglophone geography (Withers, 2006; Jöns et al., 2015), there seems to be a gap regarding how non-Anglophone geographical communities have related to each other (Silva, 2016). This gap is particularly sensitive in the case of Luso-Brazilian geographies, since most human and social sciences have long begun the critical study of the reciprocal dialogues between the two countries (Gobbi et al., 2002; Sarmento and Guimarães, 2010, 2012, 2015; Fiolhais et al., 2011; Nunes and Freire, 2013; Silva et al., 2015; Castelo and Cardão, 2015).

With this in mind, our goal is to provide the first overview of the relations between Brazilian and Portuguese academic geography throughout the 20th and 21st century. Our attention is devoted to academic geographies, by which we mean the geographical practices within universities and academic institutes, because they have dominated the production of geographical knowledge in the Luso-Brazilian context since the 1930s. The case of the Luso-Brazilian geographic dialogue is particularly relevant because both geographic communities have been semiperipheric throughout their history, firstly in relation to the dominance of French geography and, more recently, in relation to the dominance of Anglophone geography. The concept of semiperiphery refers to the spaces that are situated between the centre and the periphery of the world system in economic, cultural or geographic terms (Wallerstein, 1984; Sousa Santos, 1985). While the concept has been applied mostly to economic matters, it has also been recently used to describe the position of certain academic communities that are situated in the world system of academic production between leading academies, such as the case of the United Kingdom or the United States of America, and underdeveloped academies (Bennett, 2014). It is our contention that the Luso-Brazilian case cannot be interpreted through the North-South colonial gaze as a dialogue between a metropolitan and a colonial or postcolonial geographic community, because both Brazilian and Portuguese geography lie outside dominant geographic communities (Bassin, 2000; Keighren, 2018a, 2018b; Ferretti, 2019a). But it also cannot be thought of as a dialogue between subaltern geographies that have been completely marginalized and excluded in the face of more powerful geographical traditions (Canagarajah, 2002; Jazeel, 2014; Clayton and Kumar, 2019; Clayton, 2020). Rather, the relations between Brazilian and Portuguese academic geography lead us to rethink the notion of the peripheral or the margins, which is often applied to non-Anglophone geographical traditions, but never clearly defined (Ferretti, 2019a).

Thus, this article provides a novel case to a growing field of global histories of geography that seeks to move away from unified narratives on the history of the discipline, which implies looking carefully at the geographies excluded from the main narratives about the discipline (Keighren et al., 2013; Keighren, 2017; Ferretti, 2019a; Clayton, 2020), particularly non-Anglophone geographies (Buttimer, 1998; Wardenga, 2013; Craggs and Neate, 2017; Ferretti, 2019a, 2019b). There is still much to explore about what happens to geographic practice in semiperipheral countries with unstable or highly contrasted political regimes, usually very exposed to changes in international political circumstances, such as the case of Brazil and Portugal.

The semiperipheral condition of Brazil and Portugal provides interesting insights on the ‘messiness, complexity, and relativism’ of the global history of geography (Keighren, 2017: 645). More precisely, the dialogue between Brazilian and Portuguese academic geography is fraught with interruptions. In this article, we identify and analyse distinct periods in the relationship between Brazilian and Portuguese academic geography to argue that the fluctuations in the intensity of the Luso-Brazilian geographic dialogue are the result of complex inter-connected shifts in political regimes, geopolitics, ideological contexts, science funding, geographical perspectives, and research agendas. It has been argued that examining the history of geography from other geographic communities highlights the mobility of ideas and, in particular, what constrains and potentiates such mobility. Jöns, Heffernan and Meusburger have argued that the mobility of knowledge is constituted by ‘diverse circulations of people and (im)material resources’ that ‘depend especially on prior skills, mentors, informants, and support networks’ (2017: 15). They add that the mobility of knowledge also largely depends upon the formation of international ‘epistemic communities’ and can be constrained by the clash between different cultural and institutional practices. The Luso-Brazilian case reveals how these ‘epistemic communities’ can be formed in semiperipheral geographic communities and highlights the relation between political shifts and scientific shifts. We argue that the making of ‘epistemic communities’ in semiperipheral spaces cannot be understood without attending to the role that science funding plays in the creation of platforms of dialogue, namely international conferences, scientific journals, and research projects.

In this article, we identify four distinct periods in the relationship between Brazilian and Portuguese academic geography. The first period (1930–49) refers to the process of institutionalization of geography in Portuguese and Brazilian universities. While there was virtually no direct collaboration between Brazilian and Portuguese geographers during this period, the two geographic communities crossed some of their main writings and shared the common influence of leading geographical schools, especially the French. The second period (1949–78) was the main period of collaboration between the two geographic communities in the 20th century. This collaboration was characterized by the dominance of the Vidalian regional paradigm and the influence of dictatorships and state power on scientific elites and geographical practice. The third period (1978–2000) refers to the rupture in Luso-Brazilian collaborations that followed the paradigmatic and geopolitical shifts after the democratization of both countries. The fourth period (2000–19) is the most recent period of collaboration between Brazilian and Portuguese geographers. This ongoing period is undoubtedly the most intense of all times, but recent political shifts in Brazil and funding constraints both in Portugal and Brazil are threatening future collaborations. Our focus on the history of the Luso-Brazilian geographic dialogues must not be understood as an attempt to write down the history of Brazilian and Portuguese geography in general or the history of Lusophone geography. There are significant internal dissidences and resistances (e.g. Silva, 2019), and underexplored histories of African Lusophone geographies (Minga, 2014; Sarmento, 2018, 2019), that beg for further exploration. We conclude the paper by reflecting on the current implications of political regime changes in the diversity of geographical thought and the dialogue between geographical communities across the globe, and we offer future paths of research in the history of geography.

II Geography as an academic discipline in Brazil and Portugal

Although there was virtually no collaboration between Brazilian and Portuguese geographers during the process of making geography an academic discipline in Brazil and Portugal, there are similarities in how the process took place. On one hand, the process took place in the same period in both countries. On the other, both geographic communities were heavily influenced by French geography, which was more evident in Brazil but also ineluctable in Portugal.

Geography was established as an autonomous university degree when Brazil and Portugal faced authoritarian dictatorships, although geography was inserted in the curriculum of the Faculdade de Letras of Lisbon and Coimbra in Portugal alongside with history in 1911, shortly after the proclamation of the Republican Regime (1910–26). The two dictatorships, which had different trajectories, would eventually impact the discipline and the relations between Brazilian and Portuguese geographers.

Geography became an academic discipline in Brazil in the 1930s with the foundation of the Universidade de São Paulo (1934) and the Universidade do Distrito Federal (1935)¹ in Rio de Janeiro, both offering geography degrees (Becker, 1986; Silva, 2016). Brazil and France had established strong cultural relations during the late 19th century and early 20th century, which eventually led to the organization of French university missions in Brazil when the Brazilian universities were created (Machado, 2009; Silva, 2016). Several French geographers participated in these university missions. The first one was Pierre Deffontaines in 1934, who lectured on geography at the Universidade de São Paulo, and later moved to the Universidade do Distrito Federal in 1936 to lecture on human geography (Müller, 1961). The second was Pierre Monbeig, who arrived at São Paulo in 1935 together with well-known French academics such as Fernand Braudel and Claude Lévi-Strauss. Monbeig lectured on human and physical geography, but focused solely on human geography after entrusting physical matters to Emmanuel de Martonne in 1936 (Lemos and Galvani, 2009). Philippe Arbos substituted for Deffontaines at the Universidade do Distrito Federal in 1937, and several other French geographers visited Brazilian universities in the following years (Machado, 2009; Ferretti, 2014).

Monbeig and Deffontaines were decisive for the development of Brazilian academic geography and the broad implementation of the Vidalian geographical paradigm (Gomes and Droulers, 1996; Andrade, 1999a; Campos, 2011). Deffontaines founded the Associação dos Geógrafos Brasileiros (AGB) in 1934 with the historians Caio Prado Júnior, Rubens Borba de Moraes and the geologist Luiz Flores de Moraes Rego, transposing the model of the Association des Géographes Français (Moraes, 1988). The AGB was initially perceived as an instrument of the political and economic oligarchy of the state of São Paulo, but attained a national dimension after 1945. Deffontaines and Monbeig were also actively involved in the foundation of the Conselho Nacional de Geografia (CNG) in Rio de Janeiro in 1937 (Seabra, 2008; Ferretti, 2014). The CNG was closely linked to the central government and was pivotal for the integration of Brazil in the International Geographic Union (IGU) under the direct supervision of the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs during the presidency of Getúlio Vargas (Zusman, 2001; Serna, 2014; Aranha, 2014).

The implementation of geography in Portuguese universities dates back to the 1910s (Gama, 2011; Garcia and Mendizàbal, 2017). Silva Telles became the first appointed Professor of Geography in Portugal in 1904, and the geography courses of the degree in Historical and Geographic Sciences in Lisbon were entrusted to him in 1911 (Rebelo, 2003; Medeiros, 2013). Following William Morris Davis, Silva Telles perceived geography as a naturalist science of positivist and evolutionist background (Pimenta, 2004). The organicist metaphor influenced by Darwinist evolutionism would be a persistent idea discussed by Silva Telles, as when he defined geography as ‘the science of the surface of the Earth considered as an organic unity’ (Silva Telles, 1915: 126), echoing a similar notion of the Earth as an organism that was introduced in Portuguese geography by the agronomist and diplomat Jaime Batalha Reis during the 1890s (Reis, 1896; Garcia, 1985). Aristides Amorim Girão became the first PhD in Geography in Portugal in 1922 at the University of Coimbra and was appointed Professor of Geography at the same university in 1925 (Silva, 1990; Oliveira, 1994). However, the first two geography research centres in Portugal only emerged in the 1940s, respectively at the University of Lisbon in 1943 and at the University of Coimbra in 1949. Both institutions were called Centro de Estudos Geográficos, and operated under the functional supervision and financial support of the Instituto de Alta Cultura (IAC), the main funding body for science and culture in Portugal (Almeida et al., 2003; Rollo et al., 2012).

While the French influence seems inescapable in Brazil, Portuguese geography has slightly more diverse roots. The aforesaid influence of the North American geographer William M. Davis on Silva Telles’ works, as well as the influence of German geographer Hermann Lautensach on the work of Amorim Girão and Orlando Ribeiro, have been noted (Garcia and Aurindo, 2004; Garcia and Mendizàbal, 2017). However, it is undeniable that Portuguese geography in the first half of the 20th century progressively assumed the precepts of the Vidalian regional tradition (Boléo, 1932, 1936; Schwalbach, 1941). It is also noteworthy that the ties between Portuguese and French geography were strengthened when Ribeiro lectured at the Sorbonne during 1937 and 1940, and his mentor Emmanuel de Martonne later visited Portugal in 1944 (Garcia, 1993; Paiva, 2013).

In both Brazil and Portugal, the influence of French geography, and the transposition of French organizational models and Vidalian research approaches, was a consequence of the late development of academic geography in these countries (Claval, 2011). Geography had been an established academic discipline in France since the 19th century, and Brazilian and Portuguese geography assumed a semiperipheral position toward the French geographic community. This is also the most likely explanation of why there was no collaboration between Brazilian and Portuguese geographers during this period: both geographic communities were focused on the development of institutions (associations in Brazil and departments in Portugal) for academic geography under the French model, and not seeking out international partnerships with less developed academies. However, when Brazilian and Portuguese geographic institutions reached a stable position during the 1950s, the convergence of political and scientific intentions led to the emergence of platforms of dialogue between the two communities. In addition to this, the Luso-Brazilian geographic community eventually took on the semiperipheric role of mediating between world centres and the subaltern spaces of geographic practice of African Portuguese-speaking countries (Bennett, 2014).²

III Coming together: Collaboration under the regional paradigm and the influence of dictatorships

Brazilian and Portuguese geography became closer during the 1950s, in what can be described as a phase of exchange of knowledge between the two communities at a certain distance. This was followed by a phase of intensive circulation of geographers and exchange of knowledge between the two geographic communities during the 1960s, especially in the field of urban and rural geography. In both periods, geographic journals and international conferences emerge as platforms of dialogue between the two communities. These platforms of dialogue not only allow geographers to be acquainted with the works of the other country, but they also create spaces for establishing or maintaining bilateral networks, and converging research approaches, topics and methodologies. Nevertheless, these platforms of dialogue emerge in specific political contexts that must be unearthed.

The exchange of knowledge during the 1950s was made through the exchange of books and journals, and through sporadic conferences that Brazilian and Portuguese geographers gave in each other’s country. A large number of books, geography journals and research articles published in Brazil were reviewed in Portuguese journals during the 1940s and 1950s (Boléo, 1943; BSGL, 1953; 1958; De Azevedo, 1951, 1953, 1954, 1956; Girão, 1951, 1957; JF, 1940), but these became much less common after the 1960s (Castelo-Branco, 1964; Daveau, 1969; De Azevedo, 1965; Gaspar, 1971; Ribeiro, 1966a). In Brazil, there seem to have been even fewer examples of Portuguese books reviewed (Soukop, 1960).

The works about Brazil by Portuguese geographers during this period were clearly written at a distance, and most of them with a geopolitical intention. Indeed, Schwalbach (1925; Mesquita, 2018) was the first Portuguese geographer with an interest in the strategic role that Brazil could play for Portugal in geopolitical terms, but in a work on the geographic problems of Brazil he admitted that he had never visited the country (Schwalbach, 1943). Likewise, Martins (1946a) wrote about the economic geography of rubber in Brazil, and Girão (1952) wrote about the geopolitical benefits of greater diplomatic relations between Brazil and Portugal, but neither conducted fieldwork in Brazil. There seem to have been no publications by Brazilian geographers on Portugal during this period, except for the first issue of the Revista Brasileira de Geografia, which was expressly prepared by the CNG for the Portuguese World Exhibition hosted in Lisbon in 1940 (Deffontaines, 1940). Nevertheless, there is some evidence of early comments on Portuguese works by their Brazilian counterparts, such as Girão’s revision of the section on the Southern hemisphere in one of his major works at the request of his readers in Brazil (Girão, 1936, 1946).

The circulation of geographers between Brazil and Portugal began during the 1940s when Pierre Deffontaines hosted conferences on the geography of Brazil in Lisbon and Coimbra, and Aloysio Chaves and Emmanuel de Martonne hosted conferences in Lisbon (BSGL, 1943, 1944; Martins, 1944, 1946b; Chaves, 1952). On the other hand, Schwalbach submitted a study on the Portuguese industry to the 10th Congresso Brasileiro de Geografia in 1944 which was later published in the proceedings (Schwalbach, 1952). After this, Schwalbach was the first geographer to try to establish a connection between Brazilian and Portuguese geography, as he argued for collaboration between Brazil and Portugal in the construction of a common geographic nomenclature (Schwalbach, 1951).

However, the first platform of dialogue between Brazilian and Portuguese geography was the 1949 UGI Congress held in Lisbon. The event was organized by Orlando Ribeiro, with the close assistance of Mariano Feio, Francisco Tenreiro, Raquel Soeiro de Brito, and Fernandes Martins (UGI, 1950–52; Brito, 1966b). The Brazilian mission to the congress was led by Aroldo de Azevedo, and also included Hilgard Sternberg, Raja Gabaglia, Orlando Valverde, Christovam Leite de Castro, Lúcio Castro Soares, Lysia Bernardes, Nilo Bernardes and Elza Coelho de Sousa, among others (UGI, 1950–52).

Azevedo and Ribeiro would maintain a strong friendship throughout the years, which paved the way for further exchanges between Brazilian and Portuguese geographers. They also established a common organicist language in urban geography, one which influenced a generation of Brazilian and Portuguese urban geographers concerned with the history and the formation of cities (Paiva and Oliveira, 2019). Ribeiro visited the Universidade de São Paulo during a fieldwork mission funded by the IAC in 1952 and took part in a series of fieldtrips led by Azevedo, which resulted in a paper he published in Portugal on São Paulo and a draft on Brazilian cities that was published posthumously (Ribeiro, 1955, 2014). They met again at the 1956 UGI Congress in Rio de Janeiro. The event was organized by Sternberg, recently appointed first vice-president of the UGI, replacing Ribeiro himself (Machado, 2009; Oliveira, 2019). The Portuguese mission also included Raquel Soeiro de Brito, who took the opportunity to prepare a study on the Portuguese farmers and fishermen established in Rio de Janeiro that led to the first joint paper between a Portuguese and a Brazilian geographer (Bernardes and Brito, 1959; Brito, 1960, 1961).

After the 1949 and 1956 UGI Congress, the Colóquio Internacional de Estudos Luso-Brasileiros (CIELB) became the main platform for Luso-Brazilian geographic dialogues. This colloquium started in 1950 and had a much more prominent political intention, as it aimed to promote the study of the ‘Portuguese-speaking civilization’. Ribeiro co-organized the third CIELB in Lisbon in 1958, which was attended by several Brazilian geographers including Hilgard Sternberg, René Ribeiro, Lysia Bernardes and Nilo Bernardes (III Colóquio Internacional de Estudos Luso-Brasileiros, 1959; Oliveira, 2019). The fourth CIELB took place at the Universidade da Bahia in 1959, and included a roundtable with the Brazilian geographers Nilo Bernardes, Milton Santos and Aroldo de Azevedo, and their Portuguese colleagues Francisco Tenreiro, Fernandes Martins and António de Medeiros Gouveia, the latter in charge of executive functions related to science funding at the IAC. The political interference that both governments imposed over the colloquiums was noticeable, especially the Portuguese government’s insistence on the ‘colonial question’ (IV Colóquio Internacional de Estudos Luso-Brasileiros, 1959; Ribeiro, 2002, 2010).

Indeed, the interest of Portuguese geographers in Brazil was undoubtedly related to the emergence of a research programme on the tropical regions of interest for Portugal, namely its colonies in Africa and Asia, and the former colony of Brazil. This research programme, which was a priority for the IAC in a broad context of disintegrating empires and the emergence of New World powers on both sides of Western Europe (Rollo et al., 2012; Castelo, 2012), was led by Ribeiro, who was influenced by French tropical geography, namely by Pierre Gourou (Oliveira, 2017, 2019). Aligned with the governmental purposes of ‘scientific occupation of the overseas’, which combined colonizing action with tropical research, Ribeiro’s main goal was to undertake a geography of the ‘world that the Portuguese created’, which meant the geographies of Portuguese colonies (Pimenta et al., 2011; Brandão, 2015). This would eventually become a significant topic of research among his disciples, most of whom received funding by the IAC to conduct fieldwork in tropical regions (Tenreiro, 1961; Amaral, 1964; Brito, 1966a), and it was also one of the drivers of a greater interest of Portuguese geographers in Brazil. The emergence of science funding institutions in Brazil also paved the way for the interest of Brazilian geographers in Portugal. The creation of the Campanha de Aperfeiçoamento do Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) in 1951 in Brazil and the rapid expansion of higher education in the country during the 1950s and 1960s created conditions for Brazilian scholars to conduct studies abroad (Mendonça, 2000). While Portugal was in no way a first choice for Brazilian scholars in general, some Brazilian geographers – especially those interested in urban and rural historical geography – came to Portugal to study the origins of Brazilian towns and villages (e.g. Drumond, 1966; Paviani, 1968).

In addition to this, the temporal coincidence of right-wing dictatorships in Brazil and Portugal also paved the way for a larger circulation of geographers and geographical works between Brazil and Portugal than took place during the 1960s. Portugal became relatively isolated internationally after 1961, when the colonial war began in Angola and soon after also in Guinea and Mozambique. This affected the research programme on tropical geography, as fieldwork in the colonies became increasingly difficult. On the other hand, the military coup of 1964 in Brazil led to the military dictatorship, which also created significant constraints on the Brazilian academy. The authoritarian regimes in Brazil and Portugal thereafter assumed significant diplomatic relations, which created a safe space for geographers aligned with the Luso-tropicalist discourse (Oliveira and Paiva, 2019b).

It is at this time that two geography journals were founded in Lisbon and become important platforms of dialogue. Firstly, the Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa (SGL), in close collaboration with the Instituto Superior de Ciências Sociais e Política Ultramarina (the former Colonial School), published Geographica, beginning in 1965, under the direction of Raquel Soeiro de Brito, who had conducted fieldwork in Brazil in the 1950s and 1960s for her study on the Portuguese immigrant workers in agriculture and fishing in the state of Rio de Janeiro. Soeiro de Brito led some of her Brazilian acquaintances to publish in Geographica in the following years (R.S. Brito, 14 June 2019, personal communication). In 1966, Ribeiro’s Centro de Estudos Geográficos at the Universidade de Lisboa started publishing Finisterra, which was funded by the IAC and soon would become the leading Portuguese academic journal in the field of geography. Ribeiro also returned to Brazil in 1965 for two months after an invitation sponsored by the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Relations (Ribeiro, 1966b, 1967a). It is likely that this was when he renewed old and established new connections with Brazilian geographers who would publish in Finisterra.

Indeed, several Brazilian geographers published works in Geographica and Finisterra. Urban and rural geography stand out as the most significant areas, undoubtedly a consequence of Ribeiro’s interest in cities, and Ribeiro and Brito’s interest in rural landscapes. Several articles described the Brazilian urban landscape, especially focusing on the historic cores of cities (Araújo Filho, 1969; Corte, 1969; Dias, 1970; Penteado, 1966; Soares, 1966). These studies followed the descriptive and organicist perspective on cities established by Azevedo and Ribeiro (Paiva and Oliveira, 2019). On the other hand, a significant number of articles focused on the changes in agricultural systems and their spatial structures in Brazil (Diniz, 1969; Reis, 1971a; Valverde, 1967, 1968a, 1968b), a topic which was also studied by Brito (1969) and Ribeiro (1966c, 1967b) during this period. The first studies by Brazilian geographers on Portuguese case studies were also published during this period (Drumond, 1966; Paviani, 1968; Reis, 1971b). While Brazilian geographers were almost exclusively focused on the urban geography of Portugal, Penteado (1960) also published a study on the Portuguese colony of Angola.

While the temporal coincidence of right-wing dictatorships in Brazil and Portugal during the 1950s and 1960s brought Brazilian and Portuguese geography closer, it also led to the exile of several intellectuals in both countries for political reasons. For instance, Ferretti (2019c; Ferretti and Pedrosa, 2018) has described the exiles of Milton Santos and Josué de Castro, both of whom left Brazil after the 1964 coup. The dictatorship also affected the work of geographers who stayed in Brazil. Manuel Corrêa de Andrade, for instance, was arrested for his political links to the opposition, and likewise suffered political discrimination (Ferretti, 2018). The end of the right-wing dictatorships brought the semiperipheric relations between Brazilian and Portuguese geographers to a sudden halt.

IV Drifting apart: The paradigmatic and geopolitical shifts after democratization

Regional geographers in Brazil and Portugal resisted the introduction of novel geographical perspectives, namely spatial science and critical geography, which were being diffused mostly by the Anglophone world, but also the Francophone world in the case of critical geography. However, the democratization of Brazilian and Portuguese society and its geographical institutions, along with the emergence of a new generation of geographers, created the conditions for change.

Interestingly, the first possibilities for change in Brazil stemmed from geographical institutions. The most significant change was the revision of the statutes of the Associação de Geógrafos Brasileiros in 1970, which extended the position of senior partner to all professionals, thus including a great number of younger geographers in the association’s decision-making processes (Scarim, 2008). This paved the way for the emergence of quantitative geography and critical perspectives in Brazil. Quantitative geography only gained traction at the national institute for statistics – Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística – and at UNESP, an emerging state university in São Paulo (Becker, 1986; Machado and Geiger, 2001; Lamego, 2014; Pedrosa, 2017). The regional geographers that dominated older universities rejected quantitative perspectives, as did the new generation of critical geographers, and for this reason spatial science never became relevant nationwide (Campos, 2011). However, critical geography only became a popular perspective when Brazil began transitioning towards democracy by the end of the 1970s (e.g. Viana, 1976; Gonçalves, 1978).

The return of the geographers Milton Santos and Manuel Corrêa de Andrade to Brazil accentuated the shift toward critical geography. Soon after returning to Brazil, Santos published a book calling for a ‘new geography’ (Santos, 1978). This work was highly critical of the scope and methodology of geography at the time, and presented new epistemological avenues for the future, focusing on social formation, space and time, and seeking a liberated geography. Although the work had a global scope and was not targeted for Brazilian geographers only, it is undisputable that it became the main agenda-setter in Brazilian geography for the following decades. Theoretical debate was particularly vibrant in Brazilian geography in the 1970s, and other epistemological avenues were proposed. For instance, Andrade (1977) highlighted the possibilities for different ways of thinking about reality and incorporated some insights from humanistic geography. Despite this, humanistic geography seems to have been mostly ignored by Brazilian geographers until the 1990s (Corrêa and Rosendahl, 2008). The 1978 Encontro Nacional de Geógrafos in Fortaleza was the event that established critical geography as the dominant perspective in Brazilian geography (Silva, 1984; Valverde, 1984). This was the first national event of the AGB that was open to the participation of non-members of the institution, and for this reason it had a massive participation (Alegre, 2004). The atmosphere of progressive political democratization in Brazil and the increasing influence of Marxist geography in Brazil generated strong expectations of change among the members of the AGB, and Brazilian geographers in general (Alegre, 2004; Moreira, 2000). Moreover, the event marked the return of Milton Santos to Brazil, and his participation in a roundtable on urban geography was eagerly awaited (Abreu, 1996, 2006).

Brazilian geography during the 1980s became focused on issues of social justice and progress, and remained very much influenced by the French journal Hérodote and the North American journal Antipode, as well as the work of sociologists and philosophers such as Manuel Castells and Henri Lefebvre (Valverde, 1984; Becker, 1986; Carlos, 1993). The turn to Marxist thought in Brazilian geography opened up new themes in the discipline related to epistemology, political geography and labour (Moraes, 1981; Becker, 1986). Debates about the concept of space emerged, especially regarding the interaction between spatial and social structures (Moreira, 1982; Santos, 1982; Moraes and Costa, 1984). Geographers also became concerned about issues of power related to borders, the impact of capitalist agriculture in nature, and the mobility of labour within Brazil (Becker, 1986). In addition, urban geography remained a vital topic, but the focus shifted toward spatial inequality, housing, poverty, and the emergence of social movements (Abreu, 1982; Bernardes, 1982; Moraes and Costa, 1984).

The shifts in Portuguese geography during the 1970s were quite different from those in Brazil. The political program of the 1974 revolution had the purpose of democratizing the country and ended colonial rule in Africa, which had a profound impact on geography as Portugal would eventually shift its geopolitical focus from the tropical world towards Europe, with hopes of integration in the European Economic Community (Fernandes, 2018). This meant that tropical geography was no longer an interesting or acceptable research topic. It had already become more difficult to conduct studies of tropical geography in the 1960s, especially in Africa, for two reasons. The first was the beginning of the colonial wars. The second reason was that the relation of Ribeiro, the leader of geographical missions in Africa, with the Estado Novo government became rocky after he presented a report on Goa which was highly critical of the treatment of natives by colonial settlers in Goa (Ribeiro, 1999 [1956]). The 1974 revolution was the final nail in the coffin of Portuguese tropical geography (Sarmento, 2008, 2018). The only studies about tropical regions, including Brazil, that were published in Portuguese geography journals after the revolution were those by Ilídio do Amaral, a disciple of Ribeiro who had specialised in the geomorphology and urban geography of the Portuguese colonies, alongside Ana Amaral (Alcoforado, 2017; Oliveira, 2017). Amaral’s urban geography works approached Brazilian cities, and he was one of the few Portuguese geographers who cited Brazilian literature during this period (Amaral, 1988, 1993; Amaral and Amaral, 1985, 1986, 1988).

However, the hope of European integration also meant that planning would become an instrumental field for the country, and for this reason quantitative geography became a promising approach for geographers seeking to achieve social and political relevance. Despite this, Portuguese geographers initially had little success in planning, although this has changed since the 1990s (Gaspar, 1985, 1993). On the other hand, Portuguese geography was very successful in public education after the revolution, as it was seen as ‘more “neutral” and less “ideologically pernicious”’ than other social sciences (Gaspar, 1985: 324), which was also a consequence of the dominance of the quantitative approach. Only a few geographic works after the revolution engaged with Marxist theory, and these also balanced Marxist and positivist theories (Barata-Salgueiro, 1983; Ferrão, 1987).

The Colóquio Ibérico de Geografia, co-organized by Portuguese and Spanish geographers, was an important milestone in Portuguese geography’s shift from the tropics to Europe. The first two events took place in Salamanca (1979) and Lisbon (1980) and marked a period of a greater integration between the research topics of Portuguese and other European geographers. The main topics of these events were the professional situation of Iberian geographers, urban geography, rural geography, and border geographies (Medeiros, 1980). The latter topic marks the introduction of themes that are fundamental for European integration, which would become central for Portuguese geography during the 1980s and 1990s (Barata-Salgueiro, 1987; Cunha and Jacinto, 2012).

It is noteworthy that this crucial moment of transition in both countries entailed a repositioning of the semiperipherality of its geographies from a Francophone centre toward an Anglophone centre. Although this shift is a gradual process that takes place throughout the 1980s and 1990s, its beginning coincides with the Brazilian transition to critical geography and the Portuguese transition to spatial science. As we will see in the next section, it is under Anglophone critical perspectives that Brazilian and Portuguese geographers find common ground in the 21st century.

V The 21st century: Consolidation and threats

The relations between Brazilian and Portuguese geography were gradually re-established in the 21st century. This rapprochement is certainly related to geopolitical changes as both countries have been interested in establishing economic cooperation between Portuguese-speaking countries since the 1990s, when the Brazilian and Portuguese democracies became more stable and experienced a phase of intensive economic growth. The Community of Portuguese Speaking Countries (CPLP) was founded in 1996 with the purpose of enhancing political and economic cooperation, including the field of science and education (Teixeira, 2015; Fernandes, 2018). While the success of the CPLP is a controversial matter, Brazil and Portugal did eventually enhance their scientific relations through the 2010 cooperation agreement between their main public research funding bodies. This agreement stems from the increasing political proximity between 2005 and 2011 in which both countries were governed by centre-left parties. In addition, the national expenditure on science greatly increased in both countries during this period. The budget for the main science funding bodies increased from 579 million to 3036 million reais in Brazil, and from 160 million to 410 million euros in Portugal, between 2004 and 2011 (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, 2018; Fundação CAPES, 2019). The approximation between the Brazilian and Portuguese academies is also a result of increasing student mobility, especially at the postgraduate level, although the mobility flows are uneven. Since 2008, Brazil has been the foreign country with the largest number of higher education students in Portugal. In 2017/18, Brazilian students accounted for 32 percent of the international students in Portugal (Iorio and Fonseca, 2018). On the other hand, Portugal is only the eighth country of origin for foreign students in Brazil (Diretoria de Estatísticas Educacionais, 2017).

Once again in the history of the two countries, the availability of science funding and the convergence of political and economic interests paved the way for the emergence of platforms of dialogue between Brazilian and Portuguese geographers. A wide range of collaborations between Brazilian and Portuguese geographers emerged in this context. A pioneer example can be traced to a special issue devoted to the practice of geography in Brazil, which was edited by Brazilian and Portuguese geographers (Oliveira and Pacheco, 1995). Interestingly, it was once again urban geography that emerged as the main point of contact (Abreu, 1998; Passos, 1998; Oliveira, 2001a, 2001b), although works on spatial planning (Júnior, 1999), tourism (Cavaco and Fonseca, 2001), geopolitics (Oliveira, 1998; Santos, 2000), and the history and philosophy of geography were also published (Machado, 1998; Andrade, 1999b). Common concerns in the field of urbanism and spatial planning in Brazil and Portugal might explain this renewed collaboration. However, it must be noted that these collaborations took place when a new generation of Portuguese geographers that engaged with diverse critical perspectives, such as Marxism, postcolonialism, and feminism, appeared (André, 1990; Mendes, 2008; Pimenta et al., 2008; Rodrigues, 2014). This has generated common concerns and approaches, especially regarding inequalities in processes of urban regeneration, migration, and tourism, which have similarities in the two countries.

The proximity between Brazilian and Portuguese geography in the last decade is undeniable. This proximity has been underpinned by the emergence of new platforms of dialogue, namely funded collective research projects, although international conferences and geographic journals remain vital platforms. Luso-Brazilian cooperation in geographic research was further advanced by the 2010 cooperation agreement between CAPES and the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT), which established grants for Luso-Brazilian research projects which mostly covered travel expenses. Although this biannual scheme is highly competitive, providing only about 30 grants in each edition, geographers have been successful and secured five research projects in the scheme’s six editions. The projects funded by this scheme have focused on exchanging knowledge about research methods and field data in the field of physical geography, international development, and urban planning. Some of the projects also sought to address mobilities between Brazil and Portugal, namely in the case of migration and scientific cooperation (Vieira and Schaefer, 2011; Fonseca and Siqueira, 2012; Cunha and Passos, 2013; Oliveira and Machado, 2014; Cunha and Yamaki, 2018). It must be noted that only about 10 grants were awarded in the last two editions.

These projects were not only important for the direct connections between Brazilian and Portuguese geographers that were made possible, but also for establishing the basis for the recent proliferation of Luso-Brazilian academic events in many subfields of the discipline, such as the history and philosophy of geography (Colóquio Luso-brasileiro de Teoria e História da Geografia), geographic education (Seminário Luso-brasileiro de Geografia e Educação), historical cartography (Simpósio Luso-brasileiro de Cartografia Histórica), physical geography (Encontro Luso-brasileiro de Riscos), and urban and regional planning (Congresso Luso-brasileiro para o Planeamento Urbano, Regional, Integrado e Sustentável). This collaboration is taking place in the context of a wider cooperation between Portuguese-speaking countries (Encontro Luso-Afro-Americano de Geografia Física e Ambiente; Congresso sobre Planeamento e Gestão das Zonas Costeiras dos Países de Expressão Portuguesa), or between Portugal, Spain, and Latin America (Seminário Internacional Comércio, Cidade e Consumo; Simpósio Ibero-americano de História da Cartografia). It is also noteworthy that the theme of the 2014 Iberian Colloquium of Geography was Ibero-Afro-American geographies.

The increasing research projects and international conferences have brought Brazilian and Portuguese geography closer than they have ever been. While there was a strong circulation of geographic knowledge between Brazil and Portugal during the 1960s, it has only been in the last decade that Brazilian and Portuguese geographers have worked together in research projects and co-authored significant books and papers. This has been taking place in several subfields of human geography. Urban geographers have worked together on urban regeneration projects in historical city centres and urban landscapes of retail and consumption in Brazil and Portugal (Fernandes and Sposito, 2013). Social and cultural geographers have collaborated in studies on the international and urban mobility of migrants (Buhr and McGarrigle, 2017; Iorio and Fonseca, 2018), and the geographies of sexuality in postcolonial settings (Silva and Vieira, 2010, 2014). Health geographers have worked together in studies on the spatial variation of infant mortality (Miranda et al., 2014; Faria and Santana, 2016). Economic geographers have studied the productive circuits of agrofuel (Freitas and Queirós, 2018). A relevant part of these exchanges has stemmed directly from the CAPES-FCT research projects, especially in the field of spatial planning and tourism management (Diógenes et al., 2018; Cunha and Yamaki, 2019), and the history of geography (Silva and Malheiros, 2017a; Paiva et al., 2019; Machado et al., 2019).

Besides these direct collaborations, a series of new open-access geography journals in Brazil and Portugal have become important platforms of dialogue. Several Portuguese geographers have published their research in new open-access Brazilian journals such as human geography journals GeoUERJ (Borges et al., Barreira and Costa, 2017; Cunha et al., 2017; Malta et al., 2017; Parreira et al., 2017) and GeoUSP (Gaspar, 2015; Madeira and Vale, 2015; Freitas and Queirós, 2018; Gonçalves, 2018), planning journal Urbe: Revista Brasileira de Gestão Urbana (Fernandes et al., 2016; Cordeiro et al., 2017; Gonçalves, 2017; Fernandes et al., 2018), social geography journal Movimentos Sociais e Dinâmicas Espaciais (Mendes, 2015, 2016; Gabriel, 2017; Silva and Malheiros, 2017a, 2017b), or the urban geography journal Revista Cidades (Fernandes, 2006, 2012; Barata-Salgueiro, 2014; Cachinho, 2014). The same has taken place in Portuguese open-access geography journals in which several Brazilian geographers have published their works, such as Finisterra (Penna, 2012; Bernardino, 2015; Góes, 2016; Limberger and Tulla, 2017; Mello-Théry, 2018) and Geografia e Ordenamento do Território (Ortigoza, 2014; Ribeiro and Vieira, 2014; Vasconcelos, 2016b; Arruda, 2017; Ribeiro, 2018). Geographers in Brazil and Portugal have likely chosen these journals not only because of the opportunity to publish their work in their first language, but also to resist an increasing pressure to publish in pay-walled Anglophone Web of Science or Scopus journals, which has been understood as a form of epistemic colonialism (Sousa Santos et al., 2005; Ibarra-Colado, 2006; Alcadipani, 2017).

VI Conclusion: What can the history of Luso-Brazilian geographical dialogues teach us about our current challenges?

The history of the academic relations between Brazilian and Portuguese geographers reveals the nuances of the formation and disintegration of ‘epistemic communities’ in semiperipheral academies. Brazilian and Portuguese academic geography have been semiperipheric first in relation to the influence of French geography and, as the Francophone influence faded over the course of the 20th century, in relation to the Anglophone influence that brought new perspectives including spatial science, structuralism, humanistic geography, feminism, and postcolonialism. This semiperipheric condition explains the two periods of distance between Brazilian and Portuguese geographers (institutionalization and democratization), in which they seem to turn to central geographies for epistemological inspiration. Indeed, Brazilian and Portuguese geography have been more concerned with replicating the theories and methods disseminated by the Francophone or Anglophone centres, and adjusting them to their geographical settings, than producing its own original approaches, which is also a trait of its semiperipheral condition (Bennett, 2014). This is the case, for instance, of Azevedo and Ribeiro’s urban geography, Milton Santos’ critical geography, or Jorge Gaspar’s quantitative geography: all of them adjust geographical theories from Francophone or Anglophone centres. Ultimately, this semiperipherality of theoretical production plays a significant role in the approximation or distancing between the two countries, as it defines the existence or absence of common ground.

The semiperipheric condition of the two geographic communities also meant that neither of them had a dominant position over the other. Brazil was never under the influence of Portuguese geography, but the North-South gaze was also never inverted. In relation to this, their semiperipheric position meant that the maintenance of bilateral relationships is very much dependent upon the political context. We have seen that the two periods of greater collaboration between Brazilian and Portuguese geographers coincide with the two periods of greater political proximity between the two countries, in terms of political regimes, ideologies, and geopolitical goals. It is also striking how the shift from dictatorships toward democracies generated an abrupt rupture in Luso-Brazilian collaboration. More importantly, it is noteworthy that this relation between politics and international geographic dialogues is present throughout the history of Luso-Brazilian geographic dialogue, extending beyond questions of empire and coloniality.

The availability of science funding played a very significant role in the development of these relations, namely the funding by CAPES in Brazil and the IAC in Portugal during the 1950s and 1960s, and the funding by CAPES in Brazil and FCT in Portugal during the 21st century. It is through science funding that the (geo)political context has been influencing research agendas in Brazil and Portugal as geographers are forced to attune to the main political goals regarding economic and regional development. The availability of science funding is also that which allowed the emergence of the platforms of dialogue between Brazilian and Portuguese geographers. The dialogue of the 1950s and 1960s stemmed from the organization of two series of international conferences supported by the Brazilian and Portuguese governments, and it was mostly continued in the pages of two geographic journals funded by the Portuguese SGL and IAC. A similar process took place in the 21st century with the emergence of several Luso-Brazilian thematic conferences and the proliferation of articles published in funded open-access geographic journals, which was largely promoted by the Luso-Brazilian research projects of the 2010 cooperation agreement between CAPES and FCT.

There are important lessons to draw from this history, and they have implications for the future of Luso-Brazilian geography in particular, and research on the history and philosophy of geography in general. The Luso-Brazilian geographic community is currently under pressure by geopolitical shifts related to the emergence of a right-wing government in Brazil. The current administration in Brazil has proposed several cuts to funding for research and education (Escobar, 2019a; Mega, 2019), and cutting funding for the social sciences and humanities has been set as a priority (Redden, 2019). In addition to this, there have been threats to academic freedom (Escobar, 2019b; The Guardian, 2019; Barata, 2020). These issues can seriously hinder geographic practice in Brazil, especially considering the current vast engagement of Brazilian geographers with critical perspectives, such as Marxism, feminism, and postcolonialism. It can also jeopardize the relations with geographers in Portugal, where science has also faced significant budget cuts under austerity measures (Levy, 2014). This situation echoes issues that are common across the world, such as the limits to academic freedom being imposed in countries such as China, Hungary, and Turkey, or the attempts to cut science funding that are taking place in countries such as the United States. Geographers must attune to the possible impacts of such threats to geographical practice and seek new ways to protect the different geographical perspectives that thrive across geographical communities. This means generating solidarity and mutual understanding between distinct geographical traditions, and taking into account how future (geo)political shifts might constrain their evolution.

Research on the history and philosophy of geography can play a fundamental role in this endeavor. So far, this work has mostly focused on the Anglophone or Francophone contexts where political regimes have been relatively stable (Claval, 2011; Wardenga, 2013; Craggs and Neate, 2017; Keighren, 2017; Ferretti, 2019a). Recently, the burgeoning literature on other geographical traditions and subaltern geographies has expanded the field into other geographical contexts, particularly those that have not been as politically stable or emerged from long-lasting periods of political constraint over science and academia (Jazeel, 2014; Ferretti and Pedrosa, 2018; Ferretti, 2019a; Ferretti, 2019b). The Luso-Brazilian case leads us to question the semiperipheral spaces (and times) in-between the dominant and the subaltern, the hegemonic and the excluded, and what kind of ‘epistemic communities’ outside the North-South colonial gaze can emerge in these spaces (Bennett, 2014; Jöns et al., 2017).

The insights we draw from the Luso-Brazilian case provide paths for novel research on the history and philosophy of geography. First, a history of science funding in geography must be conducted. Most accounts of the history of geography do not examine the economics of science and the significant impact that it has had on research agendas and the development of research centers, with few exceptions (Johnston, 2004). Science funding is often the main bridge between (geo)political ideologies and regimes and scientific agendas and, as such, deserves more attention. On the other hand, geographers must pay attention to the platforms of dialogue – either they are subsidized by governmental science funding or not – that underpin the formation of international ‘epistemic communities’. Recent studies on geographic conferences have demonstrated that conferences act as generative moments in which geographers from varied origins meet to find common grounds, and studies on geographic journals have shown the role they play in diffusing geographic perspectives beyond national boundaries (Craggs and Mahony, 2014). The role of funded research projects seems to have been ignored so far. Understanding the role of these platforms, and especially how they are combined in the making of international ‘epistemic communities’, is fundamental for a global history of geography, which is much needed in order to face the challenges of the future.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank three anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [grant number Proc. 44.1.00 CAPES/8513/14-7].

ORCID iD

Daniel Paiva

Francisco Roque de Oliveira

Notes

References

Abreu

(1982) Urban structure and the role of the state: A contribution. In: IGU (ed.) Latin American Regional Conference. Brazilian Geographical Studies. Vol. I. Rio de Janeiro: National Commission of Brazil, IGU, 91–95.

Abreu

(1996) Sobre Milton Santos e sobre a crescente auto-estima da geografia brasileira. In: Souza

(ed.) O mundo do cidadão, o cidadão do mundo. São Paulo: Hucitec, 35–48.

Abreu

(1998) Sobre a memória das cidades. Revista da Faculdade de Letras – Geografia I(14): 77–97.

Abreu

(2006) Entrevista com o professor Maurício de Almeida Abreu. Geosul 21(41): 193–225.

Alcadipani

(2017) Periódicos brasileiros em inglês: A mímica do publish or perish ‘global’. Revista de Administração de Empresas 57(4): 405–411.

Alcoforado

(2017) Ilídio do Amaral (1924–2017). Fundador, colaborador e amigo da Finisterra. Finisterra 52(105): 165–173.

Alegre

(2004) Os setenta anos da AGB 1934–2004. Terra Livre 20(22): 213–230.

Almeida

Gama

Cravidão

Cunha

Jacinto

(2003) Fragmentos de um retrato inacabado. In: A Geografia de Coimbra e as Metamorfoses de um País. Coimbra: IEG.

Amaral

(1964) Santiago de Cabo Verde. A Terra e os Homens. Lisbon: JIU.

10.

Amaral

(1988) A propósito das cidades do Terceiro Mundo: Contribuições geográficas. Garcia de Orta. Série de Geografia 13(1–2): 1–24.

11.

Amaral

(1993) Medidas portuguesas para a ocupação e organização de espaços nas margens continentais do Atlântico Sul, em África e na América do Sul, no século XVI (Apontamentos de geografia histórica). Garcia de Orta. Série de Geografia 14(1–2): 1–14.

12.

Amaral

(1985) Geografia das regiões tropicais I (colecção de textos comentados). Garcia de Orta. Série de Geografia 10(1–2): 41–57.

13.

Amaral

(1986) Geografia das regiões tropicais II (colecção de textos comentados). Garcia de Orta. Série de Geografia 11(1–2): 55–68.

14.

Amaral

(1988) Geografia das regiões tropicais III (colecção de textos comentados). Garcia de Orta. Série de Geografia 13(1–2): 55–69.

15.

Andrade

(1977) O pensamento geografico e a realidade brasileira. Boletim Paulista de Geografia 54: 5–28.

16.

Andrade

(1999a) Pierre Monbeig e o pensamento geográfico no Brasil. Boletim Paulista de Geografia 72: 63–82.

17.

Andrade

(1999b) A construção da geografia brasileira. Finisterra 34(66–67): 21–30.

18.

André

(1990) O género em Geografia. Introdução de um novo tema. Finisterra 25(50): 331–348.

19.

Aranha

(2014) O IBGE e a consolidação da geografia universitária brasileira. Terra Brasilis (Nova Série) 3. DOI: 10.4000/terrabrasilis.971.

20.

Araújo Filho

(1969) Victória – um velho porto cafeeiro. Geographica V(17): 63–92.

21.

Arruda

(2017) Território e planejamento contemporâneo: Análise sobre a abordagem territorial dos PPAs. GOT 12: 23–47.

22.

Barata

(2020) Brasil, o laboratório do ataque às humanidades. O Jornal Económico, 10 January. Available at: https://jornaleconomico.sapo.pt/noticias/brasil-o-laboratorio-do-ataque-as-humanidades-533654 (accessed 3 April 2020).

23.

Barata-Salgueiro

(1983) Mercado de habitação e estrutura urbana na área suburbana de Lisboa. Lisbon: Universidade de Lisboa.

24.

Barata-Salgueiro

(1987) IV Colóquio Ibérico de Geografia (Coimbra, 1986). Finisterra 22(44): 415–419.

25.

Barata-Salgueiro

(2014) Mutations in production and appropriation of space in central areas. Revista Cidades 11(18): 19–37.

26.

Bassin

(2000) Studying ourselves: History and philosophy of geography. Progress in Human Geography 24(3): 475–487.

27.

Becker

(1986) Geography in Brazil in the 1980s: Background and recent advances. Progress in Human Geography 10(2): 157–183.

28.

Bennett

(2014) The Semiperiphery of Academic Writing: Discourses, Communities and Practices. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

29.

Bernardes

LMC

(1982) Local planning, urban management and community associations. In: IGU (ed.) Latin American Regional Conference. Symposia and Round Tables. Vol. II. Rio de Janeiro: National Commission of Brazil, 215–218.

30.

Bernardes

LMC

Brito

(1959) Pescadores da Ponta do Caju. In: Actas do III Colóquio de Estudos Luso-Brasileiros, Vol. 1. Lisbon: Centro de Estudos Históricos Ultramarinos, 5–27.

31.

Bernardino

(2015) Mobilidades, comércio e consumo da Feira de Leiria: Conflitos de uma centralidade temporária. Finisterra 50(99): 101–117.

32.

Boléo

(1932) A Geografia, Ciência autónoma. Métodos e processos de ensino da Ciência Geográfica. Lisbon: União Gráfica.

33.

Boléo

(1936) Determinismo Antropogeográfico (O Meio e a Raça). Lisbon: Beleza.

34.

Boléo

(1943) O estudo das ciências geográficas no Brasil. Brasília 2: 233–238.

35.

Borges

Barreira

Costa

(2017) Habitação social e desenvolvimento urbano sustentável: O Caso da Região metropolitana de Goiânia. Geo UERJ 30: 122–144.

36.

Brandão

(2015) Da Organização da Ciência à Política Científica em Portugal (1910–1974): A Emergência da Junta Nacional de Investigação Científica e Tecnológica. Casal de Cambra: Caleidoscópio.

37.

Brito

(1960) Agricultores e pescadores portugueses na cidade do Rio de Janeiro Lisbon: JIU.

38.

Brito

(1961) Agricultores e Pescadores Portuguêses no Rio de Janeiro. Boletim Geográfico XIX(165): 724–771.

39.

Brito

(1966a) Goa e as Praças do Norte. Lisbon: JIU.

40.

Brito

(1966b) Francisco Tenreiro. Estudos Políticos e Sociais 4(1): 5–11.

41.

Brito

(1969) Imigrantes na vida rural brasileira. Geographica V(17): 3–24.

42.

BSGL (1943) Pierre Deffontaines. Le Brésil – Une grande réussite humaine. Boletim da Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa 61(3–4): 292–293.

43.

BSGL (1944) 16 de Maio de 1944 Sessão Mensal e Conferência pelo Snr. Professor E. de Martonne. Boletim da Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa 62(5–6): 416.

44.

BSGL (1953) Boletim Paulista de Geografia. Boletim do Centro de Estudos Geográficos I(4–5): 113.

45.

BSGL (1958) Aroldo de Azevedo. Manual Bibliográfico de Geografia Paulista. Organizado pela Comissão de Geografia Regional, São Paulo, 1957. Boletim da Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa II(16–17): 125–126.

46.

Buhr

McGarrigle

(2017) Navigating urban life in Lisbon: A study of migrants’ mobilities and use of space. Social Inclusion 5(4): 226–234.

47.

Buttimer

(1998) Geography’s contested stories: Changing states-of-the-art. Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 89: 90–99.

48.

Cachinho

(2014) Consumerscapes and the cultural logic of shopping places. Revista Cidades 11(18): 38–63.

49.

Campos

(2011) Breve Histórico do Pensamento Geográfico Brasileiro nos Séculos XIX e XX. Jundiai: Paco Editorial.

50.

Canagarajah

(2002) A Geopolitics of Academic Writing. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

51.

Cantino

(2012) Memórias de um explorador. A colecção Henrique de Carvalho da Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa. Lisbon: Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa.

52.

Cardoso

(2013) O Lugar da Geografia Brasileira: A Sociedade de Geografia do Rio de Janeiro entre 1883 e 1945. São Paulo: Annablume.

53.

Carlos

AFA

(1993) Os caminhos da geografia humana no Brasil. Boletim Paulista de Geografia 71: 129–142.

54.

Castelo

(2012) Investigação científica e política colonial portuguesa: Evolução e articulações, 1936–1974. História, Ciências, Saúde – Manguinhos 19(2): 391–408.

55.

Castelo

Cardão

(2015) Gilberto Freyre: Novas leituras do outro lado do Atlântico. São Paulo: Edusp.

56.

Castelo-Branco

(1964) Aroldo de Azevedo. A formação de São Paulo. Boletim da Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa 82(1–3): 109–110.

57.

Cavaco

Fonseca

(2001) Território e turismo no Brasil: Uma introdução. Lisbon: Centro de Estudos Geográficos.

58.

Chaves

(1952) Aspectos geo-económicos da Amazónia. Boletim da Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa 70(1–3): 7–18.

59.

Claval

(2011) Histoire de la Géographie. Paris: PUF.

60.

Clayton

(2020) The passing of ‘geography’s empire’ and the question of geography in decolonization, 1945–1980. Annals of the American Association of Geographers. Epub ahead of print, 3 March 2020. DOI: 10.1080/24694452.2020.1715194.

61.

Clayton

Kumar

(2019) Geography and decolonisation. Journal of Historical Geography 66: 1–8.

62.

Cordeiro

Gama

Barros

Frias

(2017) Desenvolvimento e educação. O planeamento estratégico integrado como fator de transformação societal de um território. O caso do município da Lousã (Portugal). Urbe: Revista Brasileira de Gestão Urbana 9(1): 271–285.

63.

Corrêa

Rosendahl

(2008) A Geografia cultural brasileira: Uma avaliação preliminar. Revista da ANPEGE 4(4): 73–88.

64.

Corte

(1969) Alguns aspectos do abastecimento da cidade de S. Paulo em uva e figo. Geographica V: 34–51.

65.

Craggs

Mahony

(2014) The geographies of the conference: Knowledge, performance and protest. Geography Compass 8(6): 414–430.

66.

Craggs

Neate

(2017) Post-colonial careering and urban policy mobility: Between Britain and Nigeria, 1945–1990. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 42(1): 44–57.

67.

Cunha

Costa

Barreira

(2017) Integração e cooperação territorial na Região Metropolitana de Goiânia. Geo UERJ 30: 76–98.

68.

Cunha

Jacinto

(2012) O Brasil na Universidade de Coimbra. Um diálogo de Geografias. In: Paiva

Bernardes

(eds) A Universidade de Coimbra e o Brasil. Percurso iconobibliográfico. Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, 61–70.

69.

Cunha

Passos

(2013) North-South: Geography, cooperation, and development. Unpublished research project.

70.

Cunha

Yamaki

(2018) Landscape and territory: New arrangements in urban planning regions. Unpublished research project.

71.

Cunha

Yamaki

(2019) Paisagem e Território. Londrina: Universidade Estadual de Londrina.

72.

Custódio

(2010) Do colégio D. Pedro II à Sociedade Geográfica do Rio de Janeiro: destigmatizando geografias. In: Bomfim

Sousa Neto

(eds) Geografia e pensamento geográfico no Brasil. São Paulo: Annablume, 81–97.

73.

Daveau

(1969) Orlando Valverde, Catharina Vergolina Dias. La route Belém-Brasília, étude de Géographie Régionale. Finisterra 4(7): 140–144.

74.

Davies

(2019) Milton Santos: The conceptual geographer and the philosophy of technics. Progress in Human Geography 43(3): 584–591.

75.

De Azevedo

(1951) Aroldo de Azevedo. ‘Salvador et le Reconcavo de Bahia’. Boletim da Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa 69(11–12): 737–738.

76.

De Azevedo

(1953) Pierre Monbeig. A população do Brasil. Boletim da Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa 71(7–9): 324–325.

77.

De Azevedo

(1954) Aziz Nacib Ab’Sáber. Um estudo sobre a cidade de Manaus. Boletim da Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa 72(4–6): 292.

78.

De Azevedo

(1956) Pierre Monbeig. O papel e o valor do ensino da Geografia. Boletim da Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa 74(1–3): 79–80.

79.

De Azevedo

(1965) Milton Santos. Os geógrafos e o destino de Brasília. Boletim da Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa 83(1–6): 113.

80.

Deffontaines

(1940) Geografia Humana do Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE.

81.

Dias

(1970) Vida urbana na Amazonia. Geographica VI: 32–46.

82.

Diógenes

Santos

César

(2018) The development of a tourist route in the eastern coast of the state of Ceará (Brazil) anchored in cultural landscapes. Cadernos de Geografia 37: 17–32.

83.

Diniz

(1969) Estrutura agrária do munícipio de Araras. Geographica V(17): 93–111.

84.

Diretoria de Estatísticas Educacionais (2017) Censo da educação superior. Notas Estatísticas 2017. Available at: http://download.inep.gov.br/educacao_superior/censo_superior/documentos/2018/censo_da_educacao_superior_2017-notas_estatisticas2.pdf (accessed 27 September 2019)

85.

Drumond

(1966) Aldeia de Castelo Novo. Geographica II: 19–27.

86.

Escobar

(2019a) In Brazil, ‘useful idiots’ protest cuts to research and education. Science Magazine, 17 May. DOI: 10.1126/science.aay0736.

87.

Escobar

(2019b) Brazilian institute head fired after clashing with nation’s president over deforestation data. Science Magazine, 4 August. DOI: 10.1126/science.aay9857.

88.

Faria

Santana

(2016) Variações espaciais e desigualdades regionais no indicador de mortalidade infantil do Estado de Minas Gerais, Brasil. Saúde e Sociedade 25(3): 736–749.

89.

Fernandes

JAR

(2006) O planeamento urbano e a coesão social: A perspectiva européia e o caso de Portugal. Revista Cidades 3(5): 11–36.

90.

Fernandes

JAR

(2012) Políticas públicas e urbanismo no tecido antigo da cidade europeia. Revista Cidades 9(16): 118–143.

91.

Fernandes

JAR

Sposito

MEB

(2013) A Nova Vida do Velho Centro nas Cidades Portuguesas e Brasileiras. Porto: CEGOT.

92.

Fernandes

(2018) Portugal between Lusophony, the European Union and the rest of the world. Mediterranée. Revue Géographique des Pays Méditerranéens 130. DOI: 10.4000/mediterranee.10549.

93.

Fernandes

Mealha

Mendes

(2016) Beira: Uma paisagem modernista na África Tropical. Urbe: Revista Brasileira de Gestão Urbana 8(1): 155–166.

94.

Fernandes

Gama

Barros

(2018) Atividades criativas, especialização inteligente e oportunidades para os territórios urbanos de pequena dimensão: O caso do carnaval de Estarreja. Urbe: Revista Brasileira de Gestão Urbana 10(1): 212–227.

95.

Ferrão

(1987) Indústria e Valorização do Capital: uma análise geográfica. Lisbon: Universidade de Lisboa.

96.

Ferretti

(2014) Pierre Deffontaines et les missions universitaires françaises au Brésil: enjeux politiques et pédagogiques d’une société savante outremer (1934–1938). Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography 703. DOI: 10.4000/cybergeo.26645.

97.

Ferretti

(2018) Geographies of internationalism: Radical development and critical geopolitics from the Northeast of Brazil. Political Geography 63: 10–19.

98.

Ferretti

(2019a) Rediscovering other geographical traditions. Geography Compass 13(3): e12421.

99.

Ferretti

(2019b) History and philosophy of geography I: Decolonising the discipline, diversifying archives and historicising radicalism. Progress in Human Geography. Epub ahead of print, 13 December 2019. DOI: 10.1177/0309132519893442.

100.

Ferretti

(2019c) A coffin for Malthusianism: Josué de Castro’s subaltern geopolitics. Geopolitics. Epub ahead of print, 8 March 2019. DOI: 10.1080/14650045.2019.1583213.

101.

Ferretti

Pedrosa

(2018) Inventing critical development: A Brazilian geographer and his Northern networks. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 43: 703–717.

102.

Fiolhais

Simões

Marins

(2011) História da Ciência Luso-Brasileira: Coimbra entre Portugal e o Brasil. Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade.

103.

Fonseca

Siqueira

(2012) Migratory links between the region of Governadores Valadares (MG) and Portugal – Exit movements and return processes. Unpublished research project.

104.

Freitas

Queirós

(2018) O circuito produtivo dos agrocombustíveis no Brasil sob a ordem do liberalismo transnacional: Do controle estatal à hegemonia corporativa. GEOUSP 21(3): 771–792.

105.

Fundação CAPES (2019) Orçamento – Evolução em reais. Available at: https://www.capes.gov.br/orcamento-evolucao-em-reais (accessed 27 September 2019).

106.

Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (2018) Estatísticas da Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia. Available at: https://www.fct.pt/estatisticas/ResumoEstatisticasVisaoGlobal.pdf (accessed 27 September 2019).

107.

Gabriel

(2017) Mobilidade espacial de galerias de arte portuguesas e seus artistas nas feiras internacionais de arte. Movimentos Sociais & Dinâmicas Espaciais 6(1): 121–153.

108.

Gama

(2011) Geografia e geógrafos: Institucionalização e consolidação da Geografia na Universidade de Coimbra. Biblos IX: 217–246.

109.

Garcia

(1985) Jaime Batalha Reis, geógrafo esquecido. Finisterra 20(40): 300–314.

110.

Garcia

(1993) Orlando Ribeiro (1911–1997): O mundo à sua procura. Revista da Faculdade de Letras – Geografia XIV: 107–116.

111.

Garcia

Aurindo

(2004) Francisco Xavier da Silva Telles. Catálogo da Exposição Bio Bibliográfica na Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa. Lisbon: APG.

112.

Garcia

Mendizàbal

(2017) A Geografia portuguesa em 1929 na correspondência entre Amorim Girão e Gonzalo de Reparaz Ruiz. In: Cravidão

Cunha

Santana

Santos

(eds) Espaços e Tempos. Homenagem a António Gama. Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, 303–317.

113.

Gaspar

(1971) As cidades da Bacia do Rio Paraíba. Finisterra – Revista Portuguesa de Geografia 6(12): 277–282.

114.

Gaspar

(1985) Portuguese human geography: From origins to recent developments. Progress in Human Geography 9(3): 315–330.

115.

Gaspar

(1993) Geografia e Ordenamento do Território – dos Paradigmas aos Novos Mapas. Colóquio/Ciências 13: 51–56.

116.

Gaspar

(2015) A Centralidade da Geografia: Dos conceitos às práticas. GEOUSP 19(2): 183–195.

117.

Girão

(1936) Lições de Geografia Humana. Coimbra: Coimbra Editora.

118.

Girão

(1946) Geografia Humana. Porto: Portucalense.

119.

Girão

(1951) Josué de Castro, fatôres de localização da cidade do Recife – Um ensaio de Geografia Humana – Imprensa Nacional, Brasil, 1948. Boletim do Centro de Estudos Geográficos 1(2–3): 120–123.

120.

Girão

(1952) Portugal e o Brasil no mundo de amanhã. Brasília 7: 19–33.

121.

Girão

(1957) Mauro Mota, o Cajueiro Nordestino, Departamento da Imprensa Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, 1956. Boletim do Centro de Estudos Geográficos II(14–15): 124–125.

122.

Gobbi

Fernandes

Junqueira

(2002) Intelectuais Portugueses e a Cultura Brasileira. Depoimentos e Estudos. São Paulo: UNESP.

123.

Góes

(2016) Shopping center: Consumo, simulação e controle social. Finisterra 51(102): 65–80.

124.

Gomes

PCC

Droulers

(1996) Pierre Monbeig (1908–1987) et la modernité géographique. In: Claval

Sanguin

A-L

(eds) La géographie française a l’époque classique (1918–1968). Paris: L’Harmattan, 259–265.

125.

Gonçalves

(2017) Regiões, cidades e comunidades resilientes: novos princípios de desenvolvimento. Urbe: Revista Brasileira de Gestão Urbana 9(2): 371–385.

126.

Gonçalves

(2018) A natureza das crises nos sistemas socioeconómicos capitalistas. GEOUSP 21(3): 755–770.

127.

Gonçalves

CWP

(1978) A geografia está em crise. Viva a geografia! Boletim Paulista de Geografia 55: 5–30.

128.

III Colóquio Internacional de Estudos Luso-Brasileiros (1959) Actas, Vol. 1. Lisbon: Centro de Estudos Históricos Ultramarinos.

129.

IV Colóquio Internacional de Estudos Luso-Brasileiros (1959) IV Colóquio Internacional de Estudos Luso-Brasileiros. Bahia, Agosto 1959. Bahia: Universidade da Bahia.

130.

Ibarra-Colado

(2006) Organization studies and epistemic coloniality in Latin America: Thinking otherness from the margins. Organization 13(4): 463–488.

131.

Iorio

Fonseca

(2018) Estudantes brasileiros no ensino superior português: Construção do projeto migratório e intenções de mobilidade futura. Finisterra 53(109): 3–20.

132.

Jacinto

Cunha

(2017) Geografia de Moçambique. Um olhar a partir da Geografia portuguesa. Iberografias 13: 49–70.

133.

Jazeel

(2014) Subaltern geographies: Geographical knowledge and postcolonial strategy. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 35(1): 88–103.

134.

JF (1940) Revista Brasileira de Geografia. Boletim da Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa 58(11–12): 508.

135.

Jöns

Mavroudi

Heffernan

(2015) Mobilising the elective diaspora: US–German academic exchanges since 1945. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 40(1): 113–127.

136.

Jöns

Heffernan

Meusburger

(2017) Mobilities of knowledge: An introduction. In: Jöns

Meusburger

Heffernan

(eds) Mobilities of Knowledge. London: Springer, 1–19.

137.

Johnston

(2004) Institutions and disciplinary fortunes: Two moments in the history of UK geography in the 1960s II: Human geography and the Social Science Research Council. Progress in Human Geography 28(2): 187–203.

138.

Júnior

(1999) Gestão e ordenamento territorial da sociedade: Inserção e ‘leituras’ dos actores sociais (uma contribuição ao debate). Inforgeo 1(10): 131–140.

139.

Keighren

(2017) History and philosophy of geography I: The slow, the turbulent, and the dissenting. Progress in Human Geography 41(5): 638–647.

140.

Keighren

(2018a) History and philosophy of geography II: The excluded, the evil, and the anarchic. Progress in Human Geography 42(5): 770–778.

141.

Keighren

(2018b) History and philosophy of geography III: The haunted, the reviled, and the plural. Progress in Human Geography. Epub ahead of print, 23 December 2018. DOI: 10.1177/0309132518818725.

142.

Keighren

Abrahamsson

Della Dora

(2013) On canonical geographies. Dialogues in Human Geography 2(3): 296–312.

143.

Lamego

(2014) O IBGE e a geografia quantitativa brasileira: Construindo um objeto imaginário. Terra Brasilis 3. DOI: 10.4000/terrabrasilis.1015.

144.

Lemos

Galvani

(2009) Geografia, tradições e perspectivas: A presença de Pierre Monbeig. São Paulo: CLASCO.

145.

Levy

(2014) Government funding: cuts threaten future of R&D in Portugal. Nature 506: 159.

146.

Lévy

(2007) Milton Santos, philosophe du mondial, citoyen du local. Lausanne: Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes.

147.

Limberger

Tulla

(2017) A emergência de microcervejarias diante da oligopolização do setor cervejeiro (Brasil e Espanha). Finisterra 52(105): 93–110.

148.

Machado

(1998) Emplacement of ideas. The development of geographical thought in Brazil in the early 20th century. Finisterra 32(65): 195–207.

149.

Machado

Geiger

(2001) Entrevista realizada em 31 de outubro de 2001. GeoBrasil. Available at: http://www.grupogeobrasil.com.br/usuario//pedro_geiger//pedro_geiger_geobiografia_2.pdf (accessed 27 September 2019).

150.

Machado

(2009) A Construção da Geografia Universitária no Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro: Apicuri.

151.

Machado

Carmo

Malheiros

(2019) À procura de Milton Santos: Notas sobre o intercâmbio e a influência na Escola de Geografia de Lisboa. In: Oliveira

Paiva

(eds) Saberes geográficos e Geografia institucional: relações luso-brasileiras no século XX. Lisbon: Centro de Estudos Geográficos, 141–164.

152.

Madeira

Vale

(2015) Desigualdade e espaço no capitalismo contemporâneo: Uma questão de (in)justiça territorial? GEOUSP 19(2): 196–211.

153.

Malta

Costa

Magrini

(2017) Análise da vulnerabilidade socioambiental no Municipio do Rio de Janeiro. Geo UERJ 30: 19–34.

154.

Martins

(1944) Geografia Humana do Brasil. Coimbra: Coimbra Editora.

155.

Martins

(1946a) Grandeza, declínio e novas possibilidades da borracha brasileira. Brasília 3: 341–376.

156.

Martins

(1946b) Geografia humana do Brasil. Brasília 3: 809–824.

157.

Mary

(2010) Geografias Pátrias: Brasil e Portugal, 1878–1889. Niterói: Eduff.

158.

Medeiros

(1980) Os dois primeiros colóquios ibéricos de Geografia – Salamanca (1979), Lisboa (1980). Finisterra 15(30): 261–266.

159.

Medeiros

(2013) Geografia. In: Matos

JR (eds) A Universidade de Lisboa nos Séculos XIX e XX. Lisbon: Universidade de Lisboa, 956–982.

160.

Mega

(2019) Funding crisis at Brazilian science agency could leave 80,000 researchers and students without pay. Science Magazine, 19 August. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaz1848.

161.

Melgaço

Prouse

(2017) Milton Santos: A Pioneer in Cultural Geography from the Global South. London: Springer.

162.

Mello-Théry

(2018) Ambiente, desenvolvimento e políticas de biodiversidade (Brasil). Finisterra 53(109): 133–148.

163.

Mendes

(2008) A ‘crise’ do marxismo e as geografias pós-modernas no estudo da gentrificação. e-cadernos CES 2. DOI: 10.4000/eces.1373.

164.

Mendes

(2015) Globalização e novas condições para o governo neoliberal do território: Prelúdio à nova reforma da administração do poder local português. Movimentos Sociais & Dinâmicas Espaciais 4(1): 188–206.

165.

Mendes

(2016) Arqueologia de uma descentralização ‘recentralizadora’: últimas notas subversivas sobre a reforma da administração local portuguesa. Movimentos Sociais & Dinâmicas Espaciais 5(2): 252–283.

166.

Mendonça

(2000) A universidade no Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Educação 14: 131–150.

167.

Mendoza

(2008) Tras las Huellas de Milton Santos. Una Mirada Latinoamericana a la Geografía Humana Contemporánea. Barcelona: Anthropos.

168.

Mesquita

(2018) Luís Schwalbach (1888–1956) Contributos para a história da Geografia portuguesa. Lisbon: Universidade de Lisboa.

169.

Minga

JAP

(2014) Delegação Universitária de Sá da Bandeira. In: Sousa

Baptista

Pereira

(eds) Estudos Gerais Universitários de Angola. 50 Anos – História e Memórias. Lisbon: Edições Colibri, 79–84.

170.

Miranda

Costa

Santana

Barrozo

(2014) Associação espacial entre variáveis socioeconômicas e risco relativo de nascimentos pré-termo na Região Metropolitana de São Paulo (RMSP) e na Área Metropolitana de Lisboa (AML). Saúde e Sociedade 23(4): 1142–1153.

171.

Moraes

ACR

(1981) Geografia: Pequena História Crítica. São Paulo: HUCITEC.

172.

Moraes

ACR

(1988) Ideologias Geográficas: Espaço, Cultura e Política no Brasil. São Paulo: HUCITEC.

173.

Moraes

ACR

(2013) Território na Geografia de Milton Santos. São Paulo: Annablume.

174.

Moraes

ACR

Costa

(1984) A Valorização do Espaço. São Paulo: Hucitec.

175.

Moreira

(1982) Geografia: Teoria e Crítica. Petrópolis: Vozes.

176.

Moreira

(2000) Asssim se passaram dez anos (A renovação da geografia no Brasil no período 1978–1988). GEOgraphia 2(3): 27–49.

177.

Moreira

(2010) O pensamento geográfico brasileiro: as matrizes brasileiras, Vol. 3. São Paulo: Contexto.

178.

Müller

(1961) Aspectos da vida da Associação dos Geógrafos Brasileiros. Boletim Paulista de Geografia 38: 43–56.

179.

Nunes

Freire

(2013) Historiografias Portuguesa e Brasileira no Século XX: Olhares Cruzados. Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra.

180.

Oliveira

(1994) Amorim Girão, Geógrafo. Cadernos de Geografia 13: 119–148.

181.

Oliveira

(1998) Théry, Hervé. Pouvoir et territoire au Brésil: de l’archipel au continent; Miyamoto, Shiguenoli. Geopolítica e poder no Brasil. Documents d’Anàlisi Geogràfica 32: 237–243.

182.

Oliveira

(2001a) Notícias bibliográficas sobre o urbanismo colonial português dos séculos XV a XVII (primeira parte: a década de 1980 e inéditos de Orlando Ribeiro). Geo UERJ 9: 19–31.

183.

Oliveira

(2001b) Notícias bibliográficas sobre o urbanismo colonial português dos séculos XV a XVII (segunda parte: a década de 1990). Geo UERJ 10: 11–22.

184.

Oliveira

(2017) Ilídio do Amaral (1926–2017): uma vasta obra dedicada à geografia das regiões tropicais. Finisterra 52(106): 149–158.

185.

Oliveira

(2019) El México de Orlando Ribeiro: cuaderno de campo, fotografías y textos relativos a la Conferencia Regional Latinoamericana de la Unión Geográfica Internacional de 1966. Investigaciones Geográficas. Epub ahead of print. DOI: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.14350/rig.60018.

186.

Oliveira

Machado

(2014) Geographical knowledge and institutional geography: Mutual influences and reciprocal relations between Portugal and Brazil in the twentieth century. Unpublished research project.

187.

Oliveira

Pacheco

(1995) The European Geographer 9 (Special issue: The Practice of Geography in Brazil : An overview.

188.

Oliveira

Paiva

(2019a) Saberes geográficos e Geografia institucional: relações luso-brasileiras no século XX. Lisbon: Centro de Estudos Geográficos.

189.

Oliveira

Paiva

(2019b) ‘Na dor ou na alegria’: Bernardino José de Sousa e a convergência luso-brasileira em tempo de estados novos de Salazar e Vargas. In: Sousa

Nunes Vaz

(eds) A Geografia no alvorecer da República. Contribuições à história da ciência geográfica no Brasil. Salvador: EDUFBA, 219–252.

190.

Ortigoza

(2014) Vamos privilegiar os mais fracos: a economia solidária brasileira como possibilidade de (re)inserção do território como base do desenvolvimento. GOT 6: 241–257.

191.

Paiva

(2013) Ribeiro, O. (2011 [1945]), Portugal, o Mediterraneo e o Atlântico. Estudo Geográfico. Investigaciones Geográficas 80: 129–132.

192.

Paiva

Oliveira

(2019) The organic metaphor in twentieth-century Lusophone urban geography: Cities and their history in the work of Aroldo de Azevedo and Orlando Ribeiro. Journal of Historical Geography 63(1): 73–81.

193.

Paiva

Lopes

JFR

Oliveira

(2019) O Brasil e a Geografia brasileira nas revistas académicas portuguesas do século XX: produção, temas e redes. In: Oliveira

Paiva

(eds) Saberes geográficos e Geografia institucional: relações luso-brasileiras no século XX. Lisbon: Centro de Estudos Geográficos, 93–106.

194.

Parreira

Costa

Filho

(2017) Uma análise da vulnerabilidade social das Microregiões Geográficas do Estado de Minas Gerais, Brasil. Geo UERJ 30: 58–75.

195.

Passos

(1998) A urbanização da fronteira agrícola na Amazónia Matogrossense. Cadernos de Geografia 2(17): 175–178.

196.

Paviani

(1968) Alenquer e aspectos geograficos de uma vila Portuguesa. Finisterra 3: 32–110.

197.

Pedrosa

(2017) A recepção da teoria dos polos de crescimento no Brasil. Terra Brasilis 9. DOI: 10.4000/terrabrasilis.2348.

198.

Penna

(2012) Planejamento urbano e estratégias empreendedoras em Brasília. Finisterra 47(93): 109–127.

199.

Penteado

(1960) Aspectos geográficos, paisagens e problemas de Angola. Boletim Paulista de Geografia 36: 36–73.

200.

Penteado

(1966) Belém do Pará – notas sobre a geografia urbana da cidade. Geographica 2: 19–28.

201.

Pimenta

(2004) Introdução. In: Silva

Telles

, Obras de Silva Telles – A Ciência Geográfica. Lisbon: APG, i–xxxv.

202.

Pimenta

Sarmento

Azevedo

(2008) Geografias Pós-coloniais. Ensaios de Geografia Cultural. Porto: Figueirinhas.

203.

Pimenta

Sarmento

Azevedo

(2011). Lusotropicalism: Tropical geography under dictatorship, 1926–1974. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 32(2): 220–235.

204.

Rebelo

(2003) A investigação geográfica em Coimbra. In: Almeida

Gama

Cravidão

Cunha

Jacinto

(eds) Fragmentos de um retrato inacabado. A Geografia de Coimbra e as metamorfoses de um país. Coimbra: IEG, 33–41.

205.

Rebelo

(2006) Viagens pelo Brasil: impressões de um geógrafo, memórias de um reitor. Coimbra: Minerva.

206.

Redden

(2019) In Brazil, a hostility to academe. Inside Higher Ed, 6 May. Available at: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/05/06/far-right-government-brazil-slashes-university-funding-threatens-cuts-philosophy-and (accessed 3 April 2020).

207.

Reis

(1896) On the definition of geography as a science and on the conception and description of the Earth as an organism. In: Report of the Sixth International Geographical Congress. London: John Murray, 753–766.

208.

Reis

(1971a) Transformação da propriedade no litoral do Rio Grande do Sul. Geographica 7(25): 77–93.

209.

Reis

(1971b) O meio rural português – O concelho de Alcobaça. Geographica 7(27): 49–70.

210.

Ribeiro

(2018) A espacialização da distribuição dos serviços e suporte para bicicletas no município do Rio de Janeiro. GOT 13: 389–407.

211.

Ribeiro

Vieira

(2014) O zoneamento urbano como estratégia de preservação da paisagem cultural do centro histórico de Pelotas. GOT 6: 283–303.

212.

Ribeiro

(2002) IV Colóquio Internacional de Estudos Luso-Brasileiros: malhas de sombras e silêncios que o império tece… In: Lemos

Leite

(eds) A missão portuguesa: rotas entrecruzadas. São Paulo: UNESP, 28–38.

213.

Ribeiro

(2010) Francisco Vasques Tenreiro no IV Colóquio Internacional de Estudos Luso-Brasileiros (1959): um intelectual afeito a palavras e a campos disciplinares. In: Mata

(ed.) Francisco José Tenreiro – As múltiplas faces de um intelectual. Lisbon: Colibri, 167–182.

214.

Ribeiro

(1955) São Paulo. Do Campo da Piratininga à metrópole do Brasil. Brasília 9: 243–256.

215.

Ribeiro

(1999 [1956]) Goa em 1956. Relatório ao Governo. Lisbon: CNCDP.

216.

Ribeiro

(1966a) Geografia do Brasil. Finisterra 1: 119–125.

217.

Ribeiro

(1966b) Relatório de uma Missão de Estudo ao Brasil. Unpublished manuscript, 27 January. Espólio de Orlando Ribeiro (D12/Cx. 29). Lisbon: Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal.

218.

Ribeiro

(1966c) Considerações em torno duma tipologia da paisagem rural americana. In: Unión Geográfica Internacional (ed.) Conferencia Regional Latinoamericana – CRLA México. Tomo II. Mexico: Sociedad Mexicana de Geografía y Estadística, 808–817.

219.

Ribeiro

(1967a) Região e rede urbana: formas tradicionais e estruturas novas. Revista de Geografia 67: 157–165.

220.

Ribeiro

(1967b) Paisagens rurais da América tropical – Ensaio de geografia comparada. Finisterra 2(3): 39–76.

221.

Ribeiro

(2014) Reflexões a propósito de algumas cidades do Brasil. In: Opúsculos Geográficos. Tomo III. Lisbon: Gulbenkian, 487–494.

222.

Rodrigues

(2014) À Procura das Geografias de Género e Sexualidade em Portugal. Revista Latino-americana de Geografia e Gênero 5(2): 42–58.

223.

Rollo

Queiroz

Brandão

Salgueiro

(2012) Ciência, Cultura e Língua em Portugal no Século XX. Da Junta de Educação Nacional ao Instituto Camões. Lisbon: Instituto Camões.

224.

Santos

(1978) Por uma Geografia Nova. São Paulo: Hucitec.

225.

Santos

(1982) Pensando o Espaço do Homem. São Paulo: Hucitec.

226.

Santos

(2000) Portugal e o Brasil: as aventuras de uma relação. Cadernos de Geografia 2(19): 83–96.

227.

Sarmento

Guimarães

(2010) Culturas cruzadas em português. Redes de poder e relações culturais (Portugal-Brasil, Séc. XIX e XX). Vol. 1, Instituições, Diplomatas, Intelectuais e Movimentos. Coimbra: Almedina.

228.

Sarmento

Guimarães

(2012) Culturas cruzadas em português. Redes de poder e relações culturais (Portugal-Brasil, Séc. XIX e XX). Vol. 2, Influências, Ideários, Periodismo e Ocorrências. Coimbra: Almedina.

229.

Sarmento

Guimarães

(2015) Culturas cruzadas em português. Redes de poder e relações culturais (Portugal-Brasil, Séc. XIX e XX). Vol. 3, Arte, Educação e Sociedade. Coimbra: Almedina.

230.

Sarmento

(2008) Searching for cultural geography in Portugal. Social & Cultural Geography 9(5): 573–600.

231.

Sarmento

(2018) Portuguese tropical geography and decolonization in Africa: The case of Mozambique. Journal of Historical Geography. Epub ahead of print, 20 December 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhg.2018.11.002.

232.

Sarmento

(2019) A Geografia Tropical Portuguesa e o Ensino Superior em África: o percurso de três jovens geógrafas em Moçambique nos anos 70 do século XX. In: Oliveira

Paiva

(eds) Saberes geográficos e Geografia institucional: relações luso-brasileiras no século XX. Lisbon: Centro de Estudos Geográficos, 253–270.

233.

Scarim

(2008) A construção da geografia acadêmica no Brasil. Boletim Paulista de Geografia 88: 41–71.

234.

Schwalbach

(1925) O Mundo depois da Grande Guerra. Paris-Lisbon: Livraria Aillaud e Bertrand.

235.

Schwalbach

(1941) A Antropogeografia e as Ciências Naturais. Boletim da Sociedade Portuguesa de Ciências Naturais 13(2): 55–57.

236.

Schwalbach

(1943) Brasil – Rico manancial de problemas geográficos. Brasília 2: 227–232.

237.

Schwalbach

(1951) Nomenclatura Geográfica – Oportunidade para um novo intercâmbio lusobrasileiro. Brasília 6: 165–168.

238.

Schwalbach

(1952) O calcário – Alguns aspectos da sua industrialização em Portugal. In: Anais do X Congresso Brasileiro de Geografia, 1944. 3^a Comissão Técnica: Geografia Física, Vol. III. Rio de Janeiro: Conselho Nacional de Geografia, 551–556.

239.

Seabra

(2008) Caio Prado Jr. E os Primeiros Anos da AGB. In: Iumatti

Seabra

Heidemann

(eds) Caio Prado Jr. e a Associação dos Geógrafos Brasileiros. São Paulo: Associação de Geógrafos Brasileiros, 13–125.

240.

Serna

(2014) A junção do G ao E na formação do IBGE. Terra Brasilis (Nova Série) 3: DOI: 10.4000/terrabrasilis.926.

241.

Silva

(1984) A renovação geográfica no Brasil 1976/1983. Boletim Paulista de Geografia 60: 73–140.

242.

Silva

(1990) Geografia política e geografia da administração pública na obra de Amorim Girão. Biblos LXVI: 49–64.

243.

Silva

(2019) Isabel Margarida André, 1956–2017. In: Baigent

Novaes

(eds) Geographers Biobibliographical Studies, Vol. 38. London: Bloomsbury, 199–226.

244.

Silva

Frangella

Aboim

Viegas

(2015) Ciências Sociais Cruzadas entre Portugal e o Brasil. Trajetos e Investigações no ICS. Lisbon: ICS.

245.

Silva

(2016) French-Brazilian Geography: The Influence of French Geography in Brazil. London: Springer.

246.

Silva

Vieira

(2010) ‘Fucking’ geography: An interview with David Bell. Revista Latino-americana de Geografia e Gênero 1(2): 326–332.

247.

Silva

Vieira

(2014) Geographies of sexualities in Brazil: Between national invisibility and subordinate inclusion in postcolonial networks of knowledge production. Geography Compass 8(10): 767–777.

248.

Silva

Malheiros

(2017a) Entrevista com o Coletivo Bolonha pela Democracia. Movimentos Sociais & Dinâmicas Espaciais 6(1): 273–276.

249.

Silva

Malheiros

(2017b). Entrevista com Suzanne Daveau. Revista Movimentos Sociais e Dinâmicas Espaciais 6(2): 242–250.

250.

Silva Telles

(1915) O conceito científico da geografia. Revista da Universidade de Coimbra 4(1): 109–136.

251.

Soares

(1966) A fisionomia urbana do Rio de Janeiro. Geographica 2: 29–49.

252.

Soukop

(1960) Um Atlas de Portugal. Boletim Paulista de Geografia 34: 83–85.

253.

Sousa Santos

(1985) Estado e sociedade na semiperiferia do sistema mundial: o caso português. Análise Social XXI (87–88–89): 869–901.

254.

Sousa Santos

Menezes

Nunes

(2005) Para ampliar o cânone da ciência: a diversidade epistemológica do mundo. In: Sousa Santos

(ed.) Semear outras soluções: os caminhos da biodiversidade e dos conhecimentos. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 1–24.

255.

Teixeira

(2015) Portugal no Mundo. In: Pinto

(ed.) História Contemporânea de Portugal, 1808-2010. Vol. 5, A busca da democracia, 1960–2000. Lisbon: Penguin Random House, 57–78.

256.

Tenreiro

(1961) A Ilha de São Tomé. Estudo Geográfico. Lisbon: JIU.

257.

The Guardian (2019) Call for students to film ‘biased’ teachers brings Brazil’s culture wars to classroom. The Guardian, 3 May. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/03/brazil-schools-teachers-indoctrination-jair-bolsonaro (accessed 3 April 2020).

258.

UGI (1950–52) Comptes rendus du Congrès International de Géographie Lisbonne 1949. Lisbon: Union Géographique Internationale.

259.

Valverde

(1967) Geografia da pecuária no Brasil. Finisterra 2(4): 244–260.

260.

Valverde

(1968a) Sistema de roças (agricultura nômade ou itinerante). Finisterra 3(6): 225–239.

261.

Valverde

(1968b) A Amazônia brasileira. Alguns aspectos sócio-econômicos. Finisterra 3(6): 240–256.

262.

Valverde

(1984) Evolução da Geografia Brasileira no após-guerra: carta aberta de Orlando a Orlando. Boletim Paulista de Geografia 60: 5–20.

263.

Vasconcelos

(2016a) Mauricio de Almeida Abreu (1948–2011). In: Lorimer

Withers

CWJ

(eds) Geographers. Biobibliographical Studies, Vol. 35. London: Bloomsbury, 145–162.

264.

Vasconcelos

(2016b) De redes a territórios: o Império colonial português. GOT 10: 35–54.

265.

Viana

(1976) Editorial: Porque mudar? Boletim Paulista de Geografia 51: 5–6.

266.

Vieira

Schaefer

(2011) Luso-Brazilian Programme for research on permafrost and terrestrial ecosystems of the Maritime Antarctic. Unpublished research project.

267.

Wallerstein

(1984) The Politics of the World-Economy: The States, the Movements and the Civilizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

268.

Wardenga

(2013) Writing the history of geography: What we have learnt – and where to go next. Geographica Helvetica 68: 27–35.

269.

Withers

(2006) History and philosophy of geography 2003–2004: Geography’s modern histories? International dimensions, national stories, personal accounts. Progress in Human Geography 30(1): 79–86.

270.

Zusman

(2001) Na procura das origens da AGB. Boletim Paulista de Geografia 77: 7–32.