Mayer (2008) critiques the TPSN heuristic as a reification of the 'spatial' and she laments the disappearance of the 'social' along with the 'actors':
The authors suggest that the TPSN heuristic can be employed to look at tensions and dilemmas induced by each spatial dimension using the notion of 'compossibility'.
It must be remembered (13) that the TPSN heuristic, though informed by empirical situations, is not per se an abstraction that faithfully models an empirical situation.
From a fractal world view (which incorporates claims about how the world is structured), how would the TPSN heuristic fare?
If the above argument is accepted, how then can the TPSN model incorporate the position of the observer, and be made more polymorphous (as the authors wish) in order to take into account the 'social' and not just the 'spatial' [as critiqued by Mayer (2008) and Paasi (2008)] for different spatiotemporal fixes?
To incorporate more than two dimensions (to which the TPSN being a matrix is limited) would involve working across the cells of the matrix.
The proponents and commentators of the TPSN heuristic have been engaged in theorising some of the 'big' questions in state spatialities and sociospatial relations.
Rather than just being used with the SRA, the TPSN matrix (sliced as it is) is, I would argue, a depiction of the various spatialities in one level within the SRA.
In order to demonstrate the theoretical usefulness of the concept, I then discussed the TPSN model of Jessop et al (2008) for theorising sociospatial relations from a critical realist position, arguing that the model neglected the position of the observer and the consequent impacts on the grain of observation.