Image and reality

21 Image and reality

How do others see us? Ashley Kent

As we approach the end of the twentieth century,I wish to suggest that,across the world,Geography is often still perceived in an outdated and inaccurate fashion. We, as professional geographers,are convinced about and committed to its values,the ways in which it causes us to wonder at,analyse,understand and help propose alter- native futures for our world. Our knowledge,understanding and perceptions of the discipline invariably contrast with those of fellow educators,parents,the public in general,employers,politicians and even our own students. This is a call to arms for geographers around the world and particularly those associated with the IGU Commission on Geography Education. It suggests that,at an international level,we geographers should research the perceptions held by non-geographers in our respec- tive societies and,based on these,propose,share and carry out strategies for promoting up-to-date and accurate knowledge,understanding and thus perceptions of the study of Geography.

The comments which follow are based upon UK experience and writings but anecdotal evidence suggests that circumstances are not dissimilar elsewhere across the world. Concern about our image is not new. As early as 1976 Michael Naish reminded us that ‘ignorance of the spirit and purpose of modern geography is commonplace: we need a public relations exercise’. Indeed,in 1971 Blachford force- fully declared that ‘we must advertise the work of geography teachers. It needs to be advertised quite openly,blatantly,proudly and positively in order to dispel the many persistent misrepresentations and oversimplifications which are so frequently made with reference to geography and geography teachers’.

In a nutshell,Geography is frequently seen as being a burden on the memory rather than a challenge to the mind and is invariably associated with a catalogue of facts. A particularly typical and uninformed discussion was broadcast on BBC Radio

4 (22 January 1983) which described Geography as ‘a species of dead end’. ‘What other subject offers such a minimum of speculation,such limitless savannas of unleavened fact?’ In that discussion Geography was held to be ‘low in the hierarchy of acceptable subjects’ and to be concerned with studying the ‘eccentric,the odd and the absurd’. A survey by John Chiplen was reported in the Times Educational Supple- ment in 1984. He attempted a classification of some of the limited views of Geog- raphy that he discovered. He identified firstly ‘Eiffel Tower knowledge’,concerning the height and length of various features; ‘Timbuktu knowledge’ which concerns itself with gazetteer information about the location of places; and ‘Colman’s Mustard knowledge’ which involves lists of the products grown or made in various

ASPECTS OF TEACHING SECONDARY GEOGRAPHY

towns,regions or countries. He concluded that ‘geography appears to be particularly misunderstood and to be singularly unfortunate in not being able to shed the really obsolete, naive images of itself’ (Chiplen 1984).

In Britain,from 1981 the joint Royal Geographical Society,Geographical Associ- ation and Institute of British Geographers Committee on Geography in Higher Education was ‘increasingly concerned about the public’s image of geography which it senses as often neutral,frequently obsolete and sometimes contemptible’ (GA Council minutes,March 1983). The committee considered a number of needs and actions as a part of its deliberations. The identified needs were to:

1 bring the general public’s,educators’,employers’ and decision-makers’ attention to the nature and concerns of modern Geography and to the actual and potential roles of geographers;

2 present Geography as both exciting and relevant to issues which command widespread concern;

3 stress space,environment and their implications as the distinctive focuses of modern Geography;

4 present Geography as analytical as well as descriptive;

5 utilize the mass media in attempting to achieve points 1–4;

6 review at every level the geography curriculum and the methodologies of Geography both as preparations for Citizenship and in the light of the contemporary needs of society;

7 promote the adaptability of geography graduates as employees at a time when adaptability is increasingly seen to be a virtue;

8 promote in-service courses for those teaching Geography in schools in order to update the content and methodologies of Geography during a period when the entry of specialist geographers seems likely to be minimal; and

9 stimulate Geography within the continuing education sector. The joint committee also suggested a number of actions designed to counter the

situation as they perceived it. The actions they proposed at that time included:

1 preparing and maintaining a list of influential media contacts;

2 preparing and maintaining a list of geographers qualified,willing and able to speak or write effectively on specific topics,regions and places in such a way that they would satisfy the media requirements of brevity,clarity,relevance and immediacy;

3 encouraging existing groups of geographers to approach editors in televi- sion,radio and the press with specific suggestions for programmes and arti- cles accompanied by the names of advisers and possible contributors/ authors;

4 encouraging individuals to form links with the mass media on a personal basis with a view to offering information,opinion and comment on current issues of public concern;

5 adopting positive strategies equivalent to but different from 1–4,designed to revise the image and increase the perceived utility of Geography in

IMAGE AND REALITY

regional and national government and likewise in the world of commerce and industry; and

6 seeking the advice of public-relations specialists with a view to developing an integrated public-relations policy.

At least in Britain,it appears that only one piece of substantial research has been undertaken on images of Geography since that time,and that was by Bunce in 1984, while the issue has periodically resurfaced as indicated by the editorial in the Journal of Geography in Higher Educatio n in 1989. Yet probably more regular and persistent than academic debate has been the negative stereotyping of Geography in the media. Two relatively recent examples occurred in January 1997 in the UK. First,in an article in the Sunday Telegraph newspaper (12 January 1997) entitled ‘Marx seizes the rift valleys’,Ross Clark argued that left-wing ideology had taken over the geography departments of UK universities. Basing his argument on papers produced at the Exeter conference of the Royal Geographical Society–Institute of British Geogra- phers held a week earlier,he wrote: ‘Geography has abandoned its original territory in favour of people and politics. In doing so,it is rapidly becoming not so much an academic subject as a general depository for Marxist academics who don’t quite fit in any other university department’.

The focus of criticism shifted later in the month to school-level Geography when the following headlines made four national daily newspapers on 23 January 1997 to 3 January 1997:

• ‘Geography goes west for schools’ lost generation’ (Daily Mail); • ‘Children cannot pinpoint London’ (The Times); • ‘London moves to Aberdeen in schoolchildren’s mixed up world’ (The

Guardian ); and • ‘Half of Britain’s children can’t put London on the map’ (The Telegraph).

This publicity was orchestrated by the press release from Microsoft Research the previous day entitled,‘British Children don’t make the Geography Grade’. 892 chil- dren between the ages of eight and sixteen were interviewed about their ‘geograph- ical knowledge’. NOP Consumer Market Research carried out the research for Microsoft,publishers of the Encarta 97 World Atlas. Clearly, Encarta had a vested interest in such negative results being revealed! The research approach and instru- ment can be questioned but even so such results are profoundly depressing for geog- raphy educators especially when trumpeted so loudly in the national media.

That is not to say that Geography does not have its supporters,since,after all,our students both past and present represent our most effective advocates,and some influ- ential members of the press such as Simon Jenkins stand up for the subject. Jenkins,in

a number of editorials in The Times newspaper and articles,for example in the Sunday Times in 1988 and at the GA conference in 1992,has been an influential ally.

There has been a particular ‘edge’ to this issue in Britain since 1997 when a new government began reassessing the entire 14–19 school curriculum,and Geography had to demonstrate how it could contribute within both new and traditional curric- ulum structures. The latest approach asks geographers to specify the minimum enti- tlement of Geography for every 14–19-year-old.

ASPECTS OF TEACHING SECONDARY GEOGRAPHY

Making the case for Geography (and enhancing its image) is not unique to Britain. In the United States of America,a social studies curriculum led to a demise of ‘quality’ geography education and necessitated an encouraging ‘renaissance’ of school Geography under the new Alliances subsidized by the National Geographic Society. More recently in South Africa,a new curriculum framework announced in February 1997 entitled ‘Curriculum 2005’ has removed traditional subject areas. The eight ‘learning areas’ include Human and Social Sciences,and Natural Sciences. Geography is having to make a strong case for its inclusion in at least those two ‘learning areas’. Similarly in Australia,discussions at a national level led to the creation of ‘key learning areas’,one of which was entitled ‘Studies of Society and Environment’ and to which geographers were asked to pledge allegiance. Issues of state rights over education have resulted in almost continuous confusion over the status of Geography over the past decade which currently appears to have been resolved in favour of Geography in Victoria and New South Wales,the two most populous states,while the battle to prevent students being denied their ‘geographical entitlement’ still rages in Queensland. In all these examples,the case being made for Geography is one of image, relevance and status.

It appears that the concerns of the joint committee in Britain in the early 1980s are still with us at the international scale. In the late 1990s,I should like to propose a number of questions we as geographers should ask ourselves and actions we could take, based on Bunce’s research.

Question

Possible action

1 In-school image: Do I as a internal promotion of subject; keep geography teacher have sufficient

headteachers briefed verbally and dialogue with colleagues about

with documentation briefing recent subject developments,

colleagues

approaches and resources?

2 Parental image: Am I keeping handouts at parents’ meetings; in- parents informed about Geography’s school displays of project work or changing role?

fieldwork on open days

3 Public image: Is there anything I displays of work in public areas, e.g. can do to make the general public

council offices, libraries, galleries; more aware of the benefits of

local press coverage of visits and Geography?

departmental activities

4 Political image: Can I help to make write to your local MP about the politicians better informed about

work you do; send him or her Geography’s modern role and utility? geographical articles of likely use and interest to him or her; brief him or her on departmental activities

5 Media image: How can I gain a write letters and articles for higher media profile for Geography

newspapers and popular magazines; (in local press, radio and television)? stimulate more local press coverage of your departmental trips and other activities

IMAGE AND REALITY

References Blachford,K.R. (1971) ‘Why is geography in the curriculum?’ Geographical Education 1.

Bunce,V.J. (1984) ‘An investigation into whether viewpoints and images of geography held by decision makers reflects its potential as a valuable medium for education’, unpublished MA dissertation,University of London,Institute of Education.

Chiplen,J. (1984) ‘Image,role and relevance’,Times Educational Supplement,13 April 1984. Conolly,G. (1997) Rediscover Geography,Geography Teachers’ Association of New South Wales Inc. Jenkins,S. (1988) ‘Geography puts on its glad rags at last’,Sunday Times,3 April 1988. —— (1992) ‘Four cheers for geography’, Geography 72(3). Kent, W.A. (ed.) (1990) Selling Geography, Geographical Association. —— (1997) ‘Challenging geography’, Geography 82(4). —— (ed.) (1999) Promoting Geography in Schools, Geographical Association. Naish, M. (1976) ‘Public relations’, Geographical Magazine 48(4). National Department of Education (1997) Curriculum 2005,National Department of

Education, South Africa. Walker,D. and Unwin,D. (1989) ‘The image of geography’ (editorial),Journal of Geography in Higher Education 13(2).

4 The final section of the book goes beyond the classroom to take a brief glimpse at

Research geography and professional development

some of the current directions of research in geographical education. Michael Williams and Rod Gerber provide an overview of the range of research areas currently being undertaken,and this is followed by two specific examples of research studies – one into gender and one into children’s perceptions. There is much here to stimulate thought about classroom practice and to encourage new (and more experi- enced) teachers to go beyond the constraints and pressures of the daily ‘grind’ and to help push the frontiers of geography teaching forward. In the final chapter,Ashley Kent provides encouragement for teachers themselves to take an active part in researching geography education by undertaking work towards a higher degree as part of their professional development – a move that is becoming increasingly important as part of a teacher’s career progression.