The Citation Relationships between Journals of Geography and Cognate Disciplines

There is an ongoing debate concerning the relationship between the disciplinary ends of the broad spectrum that is geography and also the relationship between geography and other disciplines, including the extent to which it is self-focussed or inward looking. These issues were assessed using an analysis of citation relationships between journals in the Thompson Scientific Journal Citation Reports databases at the category level. Thirty-four categories were used, comparing the two geography categories (‘Geography’, representing human geography and ‘Geography, Physical’, representing physical geography) with 32 other cognate categories. A matrix of the citation relationships between each category was developed using a relatedness factor that corrects for the opportunity for citations to occur. The resultant matrix of factors indicates that human geography journals are considerably more likely to cite their own papers than are those of physical geography, but that they are by no means the most self-citing of the journals assessed. Both human and physical geography journals have strong citation relationships with several other disciplines, with those for human geography most often being net export relationships in the sense of a balance of trade. This finding contradicts previous assertions that human geography imports more than it exports. The citation relationships of physical geography are smaller than those of human geography, and are typically small net imports. The relationship between human and physical geography journals is a small net export from physical geography to human geography, but their total trade volume is considerably smaller than their respective relationships with other disciplines. These results are likely to be caused by many factors in addition to the actual relatedness between disciplines and sub-disciplines, but they do represent a benchmark against which more detailed analyses can be assessed.     

Quantitative Methods in Physical-Geography Research

The use of quantitative techniques in physical geography is discussed with reference to three particular disciplines—climatology, glaciology and geomorphology. Although significant advances have been made in these and other particular disciplines, there is increasing need for applying quantitative methods to the composite of geographical processes, related to various forms of the exchange of matter and energy. A quantitative approach to integrated physical-geography research is needed for a resolution of the general problem of a quantitative explanation of the physical-geographic process and the formulation of a quantitative theory of physical geography. Aside from inherent difficulties in applying quantitative techniques to physical geography, particularly the biogeographic disciplines, there are additional problems of an organizational nature in the Soviet Union, where specialists in various disciplines tend to be associated with different institutes.     

70年来中国历史民族地理研究的主要进展

历史民族地理是现代中国历史人文地理的一个分支,其研究成果涉及中国民族史、民族学(人类学)、历史人文地理以及边疆史地等多个学科。中华人民共和国成立70年来,历史民族地理的发展也经历了一个曲折而复杂的过程。改革开放以来,随着各个相关学科的蓬勃发展,历史民族地理研究成果丰硕,成绩斐然,已初步成为历史人文地理研究领域的一个重要分支。     

Marine Geography

The significance of marine geography as a branch of the system of geographical disciplines is stressed, and several steps are recommended to make the new discipline more viable. In keeping with the attention given to horizontal and vertical zonality in terrestrial geography, the research focus in marine geography should also be on problems of a zonal character. Geography is visualized as a dualistic system of disciplines, combined into marine geography and terrestrial geography, with both branches complementing each other in research of joint interest. Priority should be given to four immediate organizational aspects: meetings of marine geographers for the discussion of key research problems; the inclusion of marine geography in the research programs of oceanographic vessels; the compilation of regional volumes of the geography of oceans; and the publication of a textbook on marine geography.     

THINGS THAT ARE ALMOST BUT NOT QUITE WELL KNOWN IN PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY

The author, a physical geographer, sees no need to despair about the present state of the discipline and the future of geography. He places geography in context among the sciences and finds a need for a synthesizing discipline that pulls together the findings of the particular disciplines. Such a function might be performed by landscape science and regional geography. In general, geographers are found to go too far afield in their research and there is a need to define the focus of the disciplines to eliminate the present centrifugal tendencies. Such a unifying focus might be found in geographical prediction. Geographers should be aware of the limits and capabilities of their discipline; geography is most effective in fostering solutions in conjunction with other disciplines. Fieldwork per se is criticized; some geographers make a fetish of fieldwork, spending their life in the field without ever writing up the results as a contribution to science. The language of geographical exposition must be cleansed of pseudoscientific jargon; too much geographical writing is incomprehensible. The use of mathematics in geography should be placed in historical perspective; it is not the panacea for all that ails geography.     

南京大学人文地理学发展系谱

本文梳理了南京大学人文地理研究机构的发展历程,总结南京大学人文地理研究机构由基础层、应用层、联合应用层三个层级组成。将南京大学九十年的人文地理学科发展历程划分为三个历史时期,即1919年到建国初期的近代中国人文地理学源地与人才培养的摇篮,建国初期到20世纪70年代末80年代初承担全国性科学研究和生产任务的先行者,20世纪80年代初期至今的优势学科凸显,同时"大人文地理科学"蓬勃发展与国际化阶段。认为南京大学对中国人文地理学科发展有四大贡献,即中国人文地理学的摇篮与创新源地,中国人文地理学思想理论发展的中坚,中国人文地理学主要分支学科建设的引领者,以及中国人文地理学承担国家重大项目的主体。     

A New Work on Theoretical Geography (a review of David Harvey,Explanation in Geography)

A discussion of Harvey's book, with particular reference to the landscape concept, classification principles, modeling, the map as an information channel, the systems paradigm and the organization of geography as a science. In the reviewer's view, Harvey's book represents a useful introduction to the strategy of geography because it seeks to formulate a sort of metatheory of geography as a whole, instead of dealing with particular geographical disciplines. Sochava regards geography not as a simple collection of particular disciplines that sometimes exchange information and join in the solution of interdisciplinary problems. He views geography rather as a vast area of human knowledge that seeks to integrate within itself those elements from various disciplines that relate to the basic function of geography, leaving all that is nongeographical to such sciences as geology, biology and economics.     

INTEGRATION AND DIFFERENTIATION IN MODERN GEOGRAPHY

A leading physical geographer reviews recent efforts in the Soviet Union to foster integration among the physical and socioeconomic disciplines of geography. He identifies a number of barriers that stand in the way of integration: the ever increasing multiplicity of conceptual approaches and models in geography, runaway terminological innovation and confusion, the increasing tendency of socioeconomic geographers to give their particular disciplines a greater economic and sociological orientation, the lack of cohesion in efforts to work out general geographic concepts and theories, the absence of physical-geographic background in work on social and economic geography, the increasing trend toward differentiation in geography, the fact that there is actually very little joint work among physical and socioeconomic geographers. In Isachenko's view, geography in the Soviet Union remains inevitably a dualistic discipline, in which progress toward genuine integration would require, for example, genuine collaboration among geographers in the various subfields.     

On the Unity of Geography

A Leningrad University physical geographer criticizes attempts to affirm the unity of geography through the creation of new disciplines like “general geography,” which would focus on study of the man-nature relationship. He contends that such a general geography, which would seek to identify general geographic laws, is advocated primarily by economic geographers who would emphasize the role of man at the expense of physical geography. Isachenko takes issue with the view that what makes any research “geographical” is its relationship to man. He contends that the criterion of whether any investigation is “geographical” is its relationship to the geosystem, defined as any natural complex, ranging from the global to the local scale. In his opinion, the unity of geography should be furthered not through the establishment of new supradisciplines, such as general geography, but through closer ties, both in methodology and in organizational terms, between the two main groups of geographical disciplines—physical geography and economic geography.     

Fifty Years of Development of Soviet Geographic Thought

A review of trends in Soviet geography covers the increasing specialization of physical-geographic disciplines and attempts to integrate physical geography through landscape-study techniques and the theory of a physical-geographic envelope of the earth. Economic geography has focused on regionalization problems and the formation of territorial-production complexes. The controversy over the content of geography is reviewed, and cartography and regional geography are viewed as frameworks for the generalization of geographic information. The new constructive school of Soviet geography is described.     

The Subject and Structure of Geosystems Theory

A logical model of the system of disciplines generally known as physical geography distinguishes three subjects of study, each associated with a particular level of organization of the basic study object, namely the earth's physical landscape envelope or landscape shell and its subsystems (individual landscapes or geocomplexes): (1) study of the componental level of organization would be the subject of the particular disciplines in physical geography (geomorphology, climatology, etc.); (2) study of the integrated level of organization would be the subject of landscape science, which is viewed as a synthesis of the particular disciplines; (3) study of the earth's natural environment at the level of the entire landscape envelope would be the subject of general physical geography or general earth science. The subject matter of the particular disciplines and of the synthesized landscape science is further broken down into research areas: regional research (concerned with geographical spaces); typological research (quasi-geographical spaces) and general research (nongeographical).     

The Development of Geography in the Ukraine during the Soviet Period

A survey of geographic research in the Ukraine over the last 50 years reviews work in the various disciplines. In physical geography, research has focused on the problems of the steppe, including irrigation, droughts and erosion control. In economic geography, work has concentrated on resource development, agricultural regionalization and industrial geography. Research in geography is done mainly by universities, institutes of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, and a number of government agencies.     

Soviet Geographers at the 19th International Geographical Congress

Reviewing the contribution of Soviet geographers at the Stockholm congress, the author makes a plea for more papers on economic geography and on integrated problems in geography. He denies that a trend toward greater emphasis on specialized disciplines is characteristic of Soviet geography. He criticizes some Soviet geographers for preparing what Saushkin considers misleading summaries of papers presented by foreign geographers.     

The Scientific Basis for Presentation of the General Geographical Relations of the Landscape Sphere in an Exhibit of the Museum of Earth Science

The author, a curator of the Earth Science Museum of Moscow University and an advocate of a general geography, reviews the methodological dispute in Soviet geography. He urges official status in education and research for a general geography that would be concerned with establishing the general geographic laws of the man-nature relationship and would delimit natural-social regions and zones. Such a general geography, in the author's view, would not supersede or dominate the other branches of geography, but would function side by side with the particular disciplines. Proposals made by I. P. Gerasimov in 1966 to restructure geography into basic problem areas instead of the traditional subdivisions are said to be in line with the efforts of those advocating a general geography.     

Straddling the Boundaries Between Sciences

The author reverts to the theme that, in addition to the particular disciplines in physical geography and in economic geography, there is a genuine need for a general geographic approach to study of the geographical environment and of the man-nature relationship. As a result of the growing social impact on the environment, the operation of natural laws and social laws becomes so closely intertwined that no single discipline operating with one particular set of laws is capable of understanding the complex processes and phenomena in the interplay between nature and society. The growing specialized differentiation of geography as a science does not eliminate it as a distinct field of human knowledge with a common object of study. However there is a danger that the process of differentiation may be going too far, with an increasing number of scholars from adjacent disciplines coming into geography. The trend is said to be evident in the advanced training of geographers in universities, where geography facilities are turning into collections of departments turning out, say, meteorologists with little general geographic background. And yet there is a growing need for broadly trained geographers, particularly in the entire field of long-range planning and pre-planning research, in which the author is engaged.     

On the Study of the History of Geographical Ideas

The author rebuts the criticism by Yu. G. Saushkin that the book Razvitiye geograficheskikh idey [The Evolution of Geographical Ideas] is in effect a history of physical geography rather than a history of geography as a whole. Isachenko contends that concepts of natural science have been at the root of geography throughout its history and it is therefore natural for a history of geographical ideas to deal predominantly with the ideas of physical geography. Far from having ignored human geography, Isachenko contends, his book traces the anthropocentric school through its various stages of development. Only the survey of Soviet geography was restricted to physical geography, the author says, because Soviet geography consists of two virtually independent disciplines and the author happens to be a physical geographer viewing his discipline as the foundation of all geography.     

Geographic Education and Research at Canadian Universities

A Soviet visiting geographer assesses the state of geography at Canadian universities in the light of Soviet experience. The system of higher education in geography is found to have expanded considerably in recent years, partly through the formation of new universities and the creation of new geography departments. Despite relatively weak links among universities and a wide diversity in research topics, each major department appears to have specialized in certain areas. This is partly a result of efforts by the Canadian Association of Geographers. The status of various geographic disciplines is briefly reviewed.     

On the Interaction of the Geographic Sciences

Taking Il'yichev as a starting point, Ryabchikov argues that the different character of the laws of nature and of society requires continued separation of physical and economic geography, but that this division should not prevent the closest interaction between the two, leading to geographic synthesis and, ultimately, geographic forecasting. Ryabchikov regards synthesis Linwhich he includes regional geography] as an approach for generalizing the findings of separate disciplines, and not as a separate science in itself. He also opposes the concept of a unified geography.     

跨学科视角下中国农村“多维贫困”研究——概念及其研究范式

从跨学科视角系统梳理经济学、综合性人文社会科学、地理学和统计学对中国农村多维贫困概念和研究范式的不同理解。研究发现：①各学科的研究有很多相似之处,包括对“动态多维贫困”等概念的关注,对“多维贫困测量与识别”等议题的探讨,以及对多维贫困分析框架的广泛应用;②各学科的研究又各具特色,一是经济学衍生了“资产贫困”概念,地理学衍生了“空间贫困”和“综合贫困”概念,综合人文社会科学衍生了“隐性贫困”概念;二是在研究议题上,经济学和综合性人文社会科学涉及面较广,对新时代多维贫困问题探讨较多。经济学和统计学在多维贫困动态研究上更具优势。地理学更具有空间和综合思维,对多维贫困时空分析与贫困的可视化表达等方面特色鲜明;三是在分析框架上,经济学、综合性人文社会科学、地理学在传统分析框架的基础上,已经做出了积极的探索。在此基础上提出未来中国农村贫困研究拓展的主要方向,以期为深入开展本领域研究提供参考。     

Let's Not!

Armand finds that Anuchin painted an overly dark picture of the future of geography in the Soviet Union. The issue of a unified geography versus two or more geographies is regarded by Armand as a fruitless terminological argument. He holds that geographers can make their research count increasingly in national planning by making more use of mathematical apparatus, familiarizing themselves with related technical disciplines, and by being bolder in making practical recommendations to policy makers.