Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
Each scenario places emphasis on different parts of geography's
structure - the specialisms, the subdisciplines, or the disciplinary
core - hence elements of these three possible futures can be seen
in geography today.
According to the '
laissez-faire
' scenario, which in many ways
mirrors recent trends, development is uncontrolled and more
or less 'anything-goes'. Geography's existing specialisms would
thrive under this scenario and numerous new speciality areas
would almost certainly continue to emerge. Geographers
would also continue to make major contributions to
interdisciplinary research, at least in the short term. It could
also be argued that accepting such unplanned development
is appropriate. After all, this seems to be what is already
happening. Why should future possibilities be constrained
when the future cannot be predicted? One reason is that further
diversifi cation and specialization is likely to lead to further
neglect of the core of geography, with more and more geographers
working at the periphery of their discipline, or beyond. This
distancing of research and teaching activity from the core could
mean that key areas of knowledge and understanding - that
comprise geography's mission - would thereby be neglected,
ultimately leading to the fragmentation of geography and its
absorption by other disciplines or new areas of interdisciplinary
activity.
A second possible future - the 'separate-development'
scenario - envisages that the subdisciplines of physical and
human geography will become increasingly autonomous. The two
halves of Figure 30 would separate. Since the mid-20th century,
the differences between physical and human geography, in terms
of subject matter, literature, methods, and philosophical bases,
have become more prominent. This scenario merely recognizes,
consolidates, and emphasizes these differences. Many of the
disadvantages of this scenario are, however, similar to those
of the
laissez-faire
scenario. The integrated core of geography,
