International Benchmarking Review of UK Human Geography International Benchmarking Review of UK Human Geography
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
International Benchmarking Review of UK Human Geography International Benchmarking Review of UK Human Geography Contents Foreword 4 Executive Summary 5 1. Introduction 6 1.1 The Project 6 1.1.1 Terms of reference and commissioners 6 1.1.2 The evidence base 6 1.2 The National Academic Context 6 1.2.1 An audit culture 6 1.2.2 Marketisation 7 2. Research Quality 7 2.1 Positioning Human Geography in the UK 7 2.2 The Distinctiveness of UK Human Geography Since 1990 8 2.3 Thematic Areas in UK Human Geography 9 2.3.1 Cultural and social geography 9 2.3.2 Development geography 10 2.3.3 Economic geography 10 2.3.4 Historical geography and the history and philosophy of geography 11 2.3.5 Political geography 11 2.3.6 Population geography and demography 12 2.3.7 Quantitative geography, GIS, and cartography 12 2.3.8 Society and environment research 13 2.3.9 Urban geography 13 2.4 Emerging Research Areas 14 2.5 Evidence of Global Leadership 14 2.6 Areas for Improvement 15 2.6.1 Relative weakness in quantitative methods and GIS 15 2.6.2 Internationalisation 16 2.6.3 The institutional environment and research outputs 16 3. Research Capacity 17 3.1 Student and Faculty Numbers 17 3.2 Postgraduate Training 18 3.3 Early Career Scholars 18 3.4 Age Profile and Diversity 19 3.5 Funding and Infrastructure 19 3.5.1 QR and non-QR 19 3.5.2 Research funding and research risk 20 4. Research Impact 21 4.1 The Impact Criterion 21 4.2 Disciplinary Responses 21 5. Conclusions and Recommendations 22 5.1 The Primacy of UK Human Geography 22 5.2 Recommendations 22 5.2.1 Internationalisation 22 5.2.2 Quantitative methods and Geographical Information Science 23 5.2.3 Mitigating precarious early careers 23 5.2.4 Minority representation 24 5.2.5 Disseminating success 24 2 International Benchmarking Review of UK Human Geography Appendices Appendix 1: Panel Members 25 Appendix 2: Steering Group Members 25 Appendix 3: Impacts from Human Geography Research 25 Appendix 4: Departmental Submissions to the Benchmarking Review 26 Appendix 5: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) 26 Appendix 6: Steering Group Response to the International Panel’s Report 27 3 International Benchmarking Review of UK Human Geography Foreword The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the Royal Geographical Society (with IBG) (RGS-IBG) and Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) have worked in partnership in order to review the standing and contribution of UK human geography against international standards. This is the sixth in the series of ESRC sponsored disciplinary reviews. A Steering Group, chaired by Dr Rita Gardner, CBE, RGS-IBG, comprising prominent UK academics, users of human geography research and funders was formed to initiate and oversee the review. The Group, in consultation with the UK human geography community, appointed an International Panel of leading international experts, chaired by Professor David Ley, The University of British Columbia. The Panel made an independent assessment of the UK’s performance in human geography research and identified a number of recommendations. The Steering Group Members are listed in Appendix 2 and the International Panel Members in Appendix 1. We, the review partners, endorse the Panel’s view that UK human geography ranks first in the world. Underpinning this are the findings that it is an empirically and conceptually innovative, diverse, vibrant discipline and in many areas sets the intellectual agenda. Furthermore, its interdisciplinary nature allows for the exchange of innovations beyond the discipline’s boundaries. The many accounts of research impact on policy and practice detailed in Appendix 3 and the confidence of the UK human geography community in embracing this agenda are also very welcome highlights of the report. The report’s recommendations will be considered by the review partners and actions planned in response. These actions will be publicised later in the year. We hope that the review’s findings will also be considered more widely by all those with an interest in the development of UK human geography. We would like to thank David Ley and the Panel members for their commitment to, and hard work in, producing this important review and all who participated in the discussions and consultations involved. Professor Paul Boyle, Economic and Social Research Council Dr Rita Gardner CBE, Royal Geographical Society (with IBG) February 2013 4 International Benchmarking Review of UK Human Geography Executive Summary focused investment in GIS laboratories and renewed In our judgement, documentary and oral evidence commitment to hiring in this sub-discipline. support the conclusion that UK human geography 3) Mitigating precarious early careers. The Panel is is empirically and conceptually innovative, diverse, very concerned by the precarious conditions of early vibrant, and is resourcefully navigating the institutional career scholars, which threaten the reproduction of environment of UK higher education. In many sub- the talent pool that will provide the next generation disciplines it is world leading, setting the intellectual of disciplinary leaders. We recommend a series of agenda and providing articulate spokespersons mentoring and modest funding initiatives to build a and persuasive authors to present new knowledge more supportive infrastructure to create a more stable and fresh conceptual insights. The field is radically and attractive career pathway for early career scholars. interdisciplinary in its projects, partnerships, and 4) Minority representation. Like other social sciences, publications; the geographical imagination seems human geography has an under-representative faculty by inherently to cross boundaries. It absorbs new insights class, ethnicity and gender. The Panel makes suggestions and is in a state of constant re-invention. The quality for moving toward a more balanced staff structure. of its undergraduate students is superior to other social 5) Disseminating success. In a competitive science disciplines according to secondary education environment for students and funding we suggest a results, and this quality moves successively up the more pro-active approach to disseminating disciplinary student and faculty hierarchy. We note from bibliometric successes to the media and on to government and civil data that UK human geography surpasses in volume society networks. and citation impact the output from other countries and also exceeds comparator disciplines in the UK on most bibliometric indicators. Cumulatively, this evidence supports the conclusion that human geography as a whole in the UK ranks first in the world. There are many areas of strength in the nine sub-disciplines of human geography that the Panel reviewed in some detail. In the past decade cultural and social geography, political geography, and society and environment studies have been in the ascendancy in terms of intellectual innovation, but other fields have maintained their long-standing quality including historical geography, urban geography and others. In all fields there are contributions that set a global standard. Inevitably our survey revealed some points for improvement. We offer five recommendations. 1) Internationalisation. We noted some blind spots in international research coverage. There is a tendency when working within the advantages of an English- language environment to assume that others will make the effort of conceptual and linguistic translation. In a fast changing landscape of emerging economies and new global geopolitics, the Panel recommends faculty appointments with regional expertise in the Global South be added across the sub-disciplines of human geography. 2) Quantitative methods and Geographical Information Science (GIS). The Panel makes several suggestions for enhanced training in mixed methods including quantitative techniques. More surprising to us has been underinvestment in Geographical Information Science (GIS), a suite of spatial skills developed largely by geographers. The Panel recommends more 5 International Benchmarking Review of UK Human Geography 1. Introduction geography in the UK (15 submissions were received) 1.1 The Project • A statistical profile of UK Human Geography: 1.1.1 Terms of reference and commissioners. Briefing Document: Statistical Overview and The review is charged ‘to benchmark the current Commentary by Paul Wakeling (2012) position of UK human geography research against • Bibliometric Data for the ESRC International the best done world-wide, highlighting strengths and Benchmarking Review of Human Geography by weaknesses as appropriate’. The emphasis of the Thomson Reuters (2012) report is to be on the past decade of research. The • A Short Introduction to UK Research Funding review is to include an assessment of research quality, Policy by David Mills (2012) research capacity and research impact. The human • Survey of Users of Human Geography Research by geography review is the sixth in a series commissioned Steve Johnson, David Gibbs and Ian Mills (2012). by the Economic and Social Research Council In addition, the RGS-IBG provided informative (henceforth, ESRC) in the UK. briefing notes as context for recent developments in The review is managed by the ESRC in partnership the discipline. Overall a rich source of evidence was with the AHRC and the RGS-IBG. It is overseen by a provided to the Panel, and these documentary and Steering Group including UK academics, non-academic interview materials are the basis of the assessment stakeholders and representatives of ESRC, AHRC and that follows. Inevitably our report is assembled RGS-IBG. from the evidence we received. At issue could be 1.1.2 The evidence base. The International Panel the representativeness of views expressed by the (Appendix 1) met in the RGS-IBG building in central stakeholders we spoke to, and the reports that London from 28 May-1 June 2012. Staff at the RGS- were submitted to us. Moreover, in the absence of IBG and ESRC were most welcoming and assisted international comparative benchmarking criteria – other the Panel in a professional and effective manner while than citation scores – the Panel has also used its own respecting the Panel’s independence.