Introduction
On one hand, the geographical space as a “phenomenon” includes various phenomena that we can put them in the two Dasien(s) and non-Dasien(s) layers. On the other hand, there are two major categories scientific methodology: 1.the “explanation” -with its subcategory (positivism)-is spatial methodology of non-Dasien(s), 2. “Interpretation”- with its subcategories (phenomenology, hermeneutic phenomenology, genealogy and critical thinking)- is special methodology of Dasien(s). The geographical space includes Dasien(s) and non-Dasien(s) layers, so this is basic question:” “which methodology is suitable methodology to cognition geographical space?”.
Materials and Methods
This article, at first, describes the categories and subcategories of scientific methodology, then criticizes their use in the geography science by presenting philosophical – logical relations between the ontology and methodology of layers of geographical space by the perspective of hermeneutic phenomenology philosophy.
Discussion and Results
From hermeneutic phenomenology perspective, we can describe the cognition of geographical space as ““unveiling and analyzing (explanation/interpretation) “phenomena of geographical space” for example urban crimes, poverty and … or “phenomenon of geographical space” that is same “world-life” that people interpret or are interpreted by it”. From hermeneutic phenomenology perspective there are the two great disincentives of cognition of the geographical space: 1.Rupture phenomenon from its world: the “explanation”- and its subcategories means “positivism “as the special methodology natural Science – ruptures phenomenon from its text and its text from context, so this methodology cannot understand phenomenon because from the hermeneutic phenomenology perspective, phenomena are understood with their text and context.  2. To capture geographer in his/her world: From hermeneutic phenomenology perspective is possible that geographers capture in their “world-life”, “consciousness” (phenomenology) or “ideologies” (critical thinking). When a geographer captures in his/her world-life, conscious or a special ideology, he/she cannot see phenomena from other perspectives so phenomena veil themselves from geographer. Geographers can remove these two disincentives by “hermeneutic circle” – that is a part of hermeneutic phenomenology philosophy - among phenomena and their text and context, and also among their pre- understandings (perspectives, conscious, theories and …). So, the answer of mentioned question is: the methodology of geographical space is mostly “interpretation” that “hermeneutic circle” is located within it. “Explanation” is suitable methodology for non-Dasien(s) (natural and artificial phenomena like rivers, land use, … but “interpretation” is suitable methodology for Dasien(s) like thought of managers and citizens discourses, structures, plans, strategies and. there are deep relation between the “understanding of world-life” – that without understanding of it we cannot understand geographical phenomena- and understandings geographical phenomena so “interpretation” is important/suitable methodology for geographical analysis.
Conclusions
The “contextual” and “interpretation” methodologies (phenomenology, hermeneutic phenomenology and …) can analyze geographical space better than positive methodology that analyzes geographical space as a non-Dasien because non-Dasiens layer is only one part of it. Dasiens layer is more important of it that geographers for analyzing it need the “contextual” and “interpretation” methodologies.
This article suggests the seven steps for the cognition of geographical space:
Step1: (hermeneutic circle within one layer): in this step, geographer makes a hermeneutic circle among under investigation phenomenon of a layer (part) and other phenomena same layer (whole). This layer can be Dasien(s) or non-Dasiens(s) layer of geographical space.
Step 2: (hermeneutic circle among layers): in this step, geographer make a hermeneutic circle among layer that there are his/him under investigation phenomenon within it(part) and other layers of geographical space(whole), because it may be a reason/cause of a phenomenon within another layers.
Step 3: (hermeneutic circle among spaces): in this step, geographer make a hermeneutic circle among under investigation geographic space(part) and other geographic space(whole), for example, in the study of a city (part), regional, national and global spaces are other spaces that under investigation city is located within them(whole).
Step 4: (hermeneutic circle within a pre-understanding): in this step, geographer make a hermeneutic circle among his/her pre-understanding - that can be a theory, philosophical perspective and …(part)- and political/social/cultural & …context of  creation and also political/social/cultural & …effects of acceptation that pre-understanding(whole).
Step 5: (hermeneutic circle among pre-understandings): in this step, geographer makes a hermeneutic circle among his/her pre-understanding (part) and other different and opposite pre-understandings (whole).
Step 6:(hermeneutic circle among subjective-objective space): in this step, geographer makes a hermeneutic circle among his/her pre-understanding (part) and facts of geographical space (whole). This step is very important because the creating and unveiling of geographical “phenomena” be happened in this step by geographer, and within this hermeneutic circle. Compared with step 7, step 6 can be named “the subjective court of the Geographer” because the judgment of understanding of geographer of phenomena is being done by himself/herself.
Step 7: (inter-subjective hermeneutic circle): In step 6, Geographer receives a personal conscious from facts of geographical spaces; in step 7, Geographer attempt to presents his/her conscious (part) for other geographers or researchers (whole). By doing this, a personal and subjective conscious of geographical facts is become an inter-subjective conscious that other researchers can understand and unveil that phenomenon by their critical thinking .Compared with step 6, step 7 can be named “the inter-subjective court of the Geographers” because in this step, the conscious a geographer of phenomena is sharing with other researchers.