Advertisement
A recent news report in India described how the government has decided to replace geography with environmental studies as a required subject for secondary schools and colleges. Perhaps geography is to further face more challenges in self-validation. In the middle of the last century the discipline of Geography faced criticism both internally and externally that it was not being scientific enough (hence the quatitative revolution). This lead to many universities (including Harvard) to close their deparments or merge them with other disciplines. Today GIS may be pumping new life into some departments. A key impact is the channeling funds into these departments. However, even with GIS other disciplines are incorporating training in the such geospatial technologies into their programs. Geography may be a broad discipline with both human and physical aspects but what may be the future of the discipline? Are we becoming so specialized that the discipline may just erode away into other disciplines?
posted by:
|
Atlanta
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Ecology vs Geography
Sun, January 25, 2004 - 4:02 AM...and does it really matter? -
-
Re: Ecology vs Geography
Sun, January 25, 2004 - 7:33 AMPerhaps I worry too much at times . . . seems job titles for geographers are usually something like "demography specialist". I think every corporation and government needs an official "geographer" to keep them straight! - or maybe - I just drink way too much coffee. -
-
Re: Ecology vs Geography
Sun, January 25, 2004 - 2:05 PMI'm not sure you're necessarily worrying too much. Certainly here in the UK university geography departments have been disappearing at an alarming rate over the last ten years. And, I do think that's a shame.
But, at the same time, I have a bit of a weird relationship with the discipline. My first degree was in Fine Art, my Masters an interdisciplinary MA by independent study based in a soiology department, and it is only now that I'm doing a PhD that I find myself in a geography department. So, maybe I don't have as much invested in the discipline of geography as some other people here (even if i do think of myself as a geographer).
However, I do wonder how much longer integrated departments with both physical and human geography faculty will remain intact. Will the physical geographers merge with environmental studies folk etc., and us human geographers find ourselves in hybrid departments with anthropologists, town planners and/or sociologists...?
But again, I ask, would that necessarily be a bad thing? -
-
Re: Ecology vs Geography
Sun, January 25, 2004 - 6:16 PMYes, I think that would be a bad thing as a beautiful discipline would be lost.
It is true that there are others in the field of geography that are much more specialized than others and I often find myself asking those same types of questions “Why aren’t I an ecology major?” or “an environmental studies major”. However, I am constantly reminded in my research of the spatial and temporal importance in which everything occurs.
“Landscape ecologists, epidemiologists, health geographers, and crime analysts all must carefully consider the 'geography' of their problem, and what effects that geography alone may have on their analyses” www.geog.ubc.ca/courses/ge...ecture2.htm
-
-
Re: Ecology vs Geography
Sun, January 25, 2004 - 7:13 PMI see myself first and foremost as a geographer for this very reason as you suggest Gannet. In many cases, I question to whether to write cartographer or geographer on the form. I opt for the geographer label as it seems to bind together all that I do and am interested in. This year the Washington Post finally hired a geographer/cartographer to make their maps! So my point is that in a perfect world geographers could actually fill positions called geographer and go to school and study geography not just earth science, etc. It is my understanding that in the UK that geography is often thought to be as important as physics. Unfortunately, in the US geography is not given such a high status. Perhaps this is why you see so many British and Canadian geography professors in the US?
As for education, the India article I think issues a warning that in places around the world the disciple of geography is being under emphasized and taking a back seat to things like earth or environmental science. In the US we are finally seeing improvements at the primary school level for geography but it definitely needs improvements at the secondary and university level.
I don't know how I could practice geography without considering both human and physical geography. Geography allows me to make connections between time-space, people and their environments, and socio-cultural contexts. Through its lens I can see things in a broader perspective. Sometimes I am amazed at the differences between my work (primarily human) and colleagues who concentrate on the physical but more importantly I am inspired when I see the similarities (or connections).
As for Gavin's question, I think hybrid departments are necessary to make geography education available to more college campuses. Hybrid departments are not a bad thing nor is the fact that the discipline is increasing specialized. However, I do think something is lost when compulsory geography programs are replaced with environmental studies or . . . GIS education is taken up by IT departments or . . . graphic designers are used as cartographers.
Hmmmm . . . then again, maybe I should have been a sociologist.
-
-
-
-
