You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Spec mapping (AQA 7037): Paper 2, §3.2.2 Changing Places — Place studies: a contrasting and distant place, exploring the development of its character, how people relate to and engage with it, its lived experience past and present, how it has been represented, and the role of endogenous and exogenous factors and of continuity and change — set in comparison with the local place. This lesson develops the contrasting (far) place study through a real, well-attested example — the Isle of Lewis / Outer Hebrides — deliberately chosen to contrast with the diverse, inner-urban local place (Sharrow, Sheffield) studied previously. It also addresses the heavier reliance on secondary data and the critical role of positionality when studying a place from the outside. It links to §3.2.1 (peripheral places and global flows) and §3.2.3 (as a rural counterpoint to urban change). Assessment objectives: AO1 — the framework and concepts; AO2 — application to a real contrasting place and comparison with the near place; AO3 — evaluating and triangulating secondary sources, with awareness of outsider positionality.
The AQA specification requires a study of a contrasting or distant place — your "far place" — set against your local place. Because you may not be able to visit it, you rely more on secondary data and must reckon honestly with your positionality as an outsider — a reliance and a limitation that fundamentally distinguish the far-place study from the primary-data-rich near-place study. As with the previous lesson, this one does not merely teach method in the abstract: it works a real contrasting place — the Isle of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland — chosen because it differs from inner-urban Sharrow on almost every axis that matters geographically (urban vs remote-rural, super-diverse vs culturally distinctive and largely homogeneous, growing/churning vs depopulating, globally connected vs peripheral). Treat it as a model for selecting and analysing your own contrasting place.
It is worth being clear at the outset why AQA insists on two contrasting places rather than one. The pairing forces comparative thinking — the highest-order skill in the unit — and it guards against the trap of assuming that what is true of your own familiar place is true of places everywhere. A student who has only ever analysed a gentrifying inner city might unthinkingly equate "place change" with intensification, rising prices and diversity; studying a depopulating, culturally distinctive island forces the realisation that change can mean the opposite — loss, ageing, and the struggle to retain identity and population. The contrast is not decoration; it is the device through which the specification tests whether you have grasped that places are diverse and that the same global processes produce radically different local outcomes depending on context.
A strong contrasting place differs from your near place along dimensions that connect to the unit's concepts — sense of place, identity, representation, endogenous/exogenous factors, and change over time — so that the comparison generates analysis rather than two parallel descriptions.
| Dimension of contrast | Example pairing |
|---|---|
| Urban vs remote-rural | Inner-city Sheffield (Sharrow) vs the Isle of Lewis, Outer Hebrides |
| Super-diverse vs culturally distinctive/homogeneous | Multicultural Sharrow vs the strongly Gaelic, largely homogeneous Lewis |
| Growing/churning vs depopulating | Student- and migration-fed inner city vs a depopulating, ageing island |
| Globally connected core vs peripheral | A "switched-on" inner-urban quarter vs a remote island periphery |
| Affluent vs deprived | Richmond upon Thames vs Jaywick, Essex |
| Post-industrial vs service economy | Stoke-on-Trent (potteries) vs Bristol (creative/digital) |
Exam Tip: The quality of the contrast matters more than the fame of the place. Choose places whose differences let you apply the key concepts comparatively. The Sharrow–Lewis pairing works because almost every concept in the unit — sense of place, endogenous/exogenous factors, representation, continuity and change — produces a sharp, analysable contrast between a diverse, connected inner city and a remote, culturally distinctive island. Avoid contrasts that are merely different without being instructive: two random towns may differ in countless trivial ways, but a contrast only earns its place if the differences illuminate the unit's concepts and let you explain why the places diverge.
The Isle of Lewis is the northern part of Lewis and Harris, the largest island of the Outer Hebrides, lying off the north-west coast of mainland Scotland and separated from it by The Minch — a stretch of often rough sea crossed by ferry. That sea crossing is itself constitutive of the island's character: the felt remoteness of being hours by boat from the mainland shapes everything from the cost of goods to the difficulty of accessing specialist healthcare to the strength of self-reliant community. Stornoway is its main town and the only sizeable settlement, home to the island's port, services and much of its employment; the rest of the island is a dispersed pattern of crofting townships strung along the coast. Its character is the product of a very different combination of factors from Sharrow's — and the contrast is instructive precisely because the same analytical categories (endogenous and exogenous factors, sense of place, representation, continuity and change) apply, yet yield a completely different result:
This is the near-opposite of Massey's globally "switched-on" inner city: Lewis is a peripheral place whose distinctiveness comes from relative isolation and a deep, continuous indigenous culture rather than from layered global in-migration. Yet — and this is the analytical sting — Lewis is not disconnected from the wider world. Harris Tweed is a globally traded luxury textile, protected by its own Act of Parliament and sold from Tokyo to New York; the island depends on mainland and global markets for tourism, energy and goods; emigration has scattered a Hebridean diaspora across Canada, the USA and Australia who retain ties to "home." Even the most peripheral place, then, is woven into global flows — which is precisely Massey's point, and a reminder to resist the lazy framing of remote places as sealed-off and timeless.
Residents of Lewis typically relate to the island through an intense, rooted sense of place built on kinship, crofting, language, faith and a shared history of hardship and resilience. The croft itself — a small landholding worked part-time and often passed down through generations — is more than an economic unit; it is a anchor of identity and belonging, a literal stake in the place. Engagement is communal and place-bound — through the church (the Free Church tradition remains influential in island life), the croft, Gaelic cultural institutions and events such as the Mòd, and a strong and growing tradition of community land ownership. The land-reform movement that allowed Hebridean communities to buy out their estates (parts of Lewis and neighbouring islands are now community-owned) is a profound expression of islanders' agency — a reversal of the powerlessness symbolised by the Clearances, and a direct illustration of players reshaping a place from the bottom up.
Yet the lived experience is shadowed by depopulation and ageing. The structural predicament of the island is a vicious circle: limited local employment pushes young adults to the mainland for work and university; their departure ages the population, shrinks the school roll, weakens services and erodes the pool of younger Gaelic speakers; and the resulting fragility makes the island even less able to retain or attract the young. Change over time therefore runs in the opposite direction to gentrifying urban places — not intensification but slow attrition — though it is partially offset by tourism, the prospect of renewable-energy investment, and the in-migration of mainland (and English) incomers and returners. These incomers stabilise numbers but introduce new tensions: competition for housing that prices out locals, pressure on the Gaelic language as English-speaking households arrive, and debates over whether second homes and holiday lets hollow out year-round community life — the same affordability and belonging conflicts seen in many British rural honeypots, here sharpened by the fragility of a minority culture.
A-Level Analysis: The Lewis case neatly inverts several assumptions students carry from urban examples. Here, immigration (of incomers) can be experienced as a threat to local identity rather than an enrichment of it; deprivation is driven by remoteness and access rather than industrial collapse; and the central problem of change is too few people, not too many. Holding these inversions in mind — and explaining why they arise from the island's distinctive endogenous and exogenous situation — is exactly the comparative sophistication the far-place study is meant to develop.
The whole point of the two studies is comparison. The table sets Sharrow against Lewis across the specification's themes — note how each row is a genuine contrast that invites explanation, not just description:
| Theme | Near place — Sharrow, Sheffield | Far place — Isle of Lewis |
|---|---|---|
| Physical character | Dense inner-urban valley site; built environment dominates | Remote Atlantic island; peat moorland, dispersed coastal crofting townships |
| Demographic profile | Super-diverse, relatively young, transient student fringe | Culturally distinctive (high Gaelic-speaking share), ageing, depopulating |
| Economic base | Independent multicultural retail/hospitality; inner-urban services | Crofting, fishing, Harris Tweed, public sector, tourism, emerging renewables |
| Sense of place | Layered, globally connected, plural; pride in diversity | Rooted, indigenous, language- and faith-based; pride in continuity and resilience |
| Key exogenous factor | International migration; urban regeneration pressure | Out-migration; historic Clearances; peripheral-region funding; tourism |
| Direction of change | Intensification, studentification, incipient gentrification | Depopulation and ageing, partly offset by tourism, renewables and incomers |
Exam Tip: The examiner assesses your ability to compare and contrast, not to describe two places in turn. Every paragraph of a comparative essay should carry evidence from both places, explicitly linked — "Whereas Sharrow's identity is built from global in-migration, Lewis's derives from deep cultural continuity…" — so the comparison itself does the analytical work.
One of the most productive comparisons between Sharrow and Lewis is the direction and driver of change over time. Setting their trajectories side by side exposes how the same national and global processes produce divergent local outcomes:
| Period | Sharrow (inner-urban) | Isle of Lewis (remote-rural) |
|---|---|---|
| 19th century | Rapid growth as industrial workers' housing was thrown up around the radial route | Trauma of the Clearances; crofting communities evicted/relocated; Harris Tweed industry emerging |
| Mid-20th century | Ageing terraces; early decline of the surrounding industrial economy | Continued out-migration; reliance on crofting, fishing, weaving and the public sector |
| Late 20th century | Successive global migrations remake London Road as a multicultural high street | Accelerating depopulation; EU peripheral-region support; growth of tourism |
| 21st century | Intensification, studentification and incipient gentrification | Community land buy-outs; renewables interest; incomer in-migration partly offsetting depopulation |
The comparison shows that "change" is not a single thing: in Sharrow it is centripetal — people, capital and pressure flowing in, intensifying the place; in Lewis it is largely centrifugal — young people flowing out, thinning the place — even though both are responding to the same wider forces of globalisation, economic restructuring and uneven development. Explaining why the same forces pull in opposite directions (because the places' endogenous foundations and positions in the economy differ utterly) is the analytical heart of a top-band comparative answer.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.