Applied Geography: Should We, Must We, Can We?

Abstract

EOGRAPHERS are being forced by economic circumstances to look for applications of their discipline to real-world problems, but many of them are neither happy nor comfortable with this development. Little prestige has been accorded applied geography in recent decades, even though it continues a long geographical tradition. A major adjustment, more in attitudes and purposes than in curriculum, will be necessary if the application of their research is to offer either greater recognition or opportunities to geographers. These are some of the conclusions reached at a masterfully organized symposium on Applications of Geographic that was held at Michigan State University on June 2 and 3, 1977. Harold A. Winters and Gary A. Manson arranged the symposium around a program of fifteen papers prepared by staff members and advanced graduate students at Michigan State and by geographers who had received a doctorate from the university. In addition, fourteen guests were invited to discuss the implications of the papers and the broader problems of applying geographical research. A volume containing the papers (Applications of Geographic Research: Viewpoints from Michigan State University [edited by Harold A. Winters and Marjorie K. Winters; Dept. of Geography, Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, 1977]) was circulated before the symposium and can be purchased for $2.50 from the Social Science Research Bureau, 206 Berkey Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824. The papers, presented in three sessions, were designed to discuss the applications of geographical research to generally recognized problems, to call attention to needed research, or to exemplify applied work under way. The first set of papers was grouped under the title Applications of Geographic Techniques and Methodology. These papers, except for one philosophical introduction, dealt primarily with specific cartographic or computer research techniques or with places and mechanisms to apply geographical research. The discussant for this session, John D. Stephens, found the suggestion of a geographical extension service to involve residents of an area in geographical research to be especially provocative. The second group of papers dealt with Applications of Physical, Historical, and Cultural Geography. Because of the difficulties of programming, this was a particularly disparate group of topics. In discussing the papers, Stephen S. Birdsall pointed out that it was perhaps surprising that the geomorphic research reported had most clearly been applied to solve generally perceived problems. The final session of papers covered Applications of Economic, Political, Social, and Urban Geography. The topics ranged from an economic development problem in the United States, through a catalog of research needed in social geography, to a plea for greater involvement by geographers in development problems of foreign areas. The discussant, Clifford E. Tiedemann, noted that the papers did not always distinguish between studies of something and studies for someone. He observed that for their results to be accepted, geographers must learn to define problems in terms meaningful to the client. The rest of the time was spent in wide-ranging discussions (especially by the invited guests) of applying geographical research and of doing applied geography. The distinction is not clear to many geographers, who continue to wonder if we are asking relevant questions in our research. Anyone can apply the results of geographical research, but concern for finding relevant questions is the wrong focus for applied geography. As Howard G. Roepke pointed out, there is no need to search for problems-many already exist and are recognized by everyone. What is needed is for geographers to study obvious problems and to be bold enough to advocate the solutions that their research indicates would be useful. Timidity or obscurity