Talk:Technical geography/Archive 1

Archive 1

Necessary Additions

I'm quite surprised this page did not exist already, as the concept is currently taught in introduction to geography courses, and is often used to broadly organize text books.

We need elaboration on geostatistics, geotechnologies, and the internet as it applies to geography.

Any useful photos might be useful. I have several venn diagrams showing Geography broken between Technical geography, physical, and human. They are all copyrighted however. Creating such a diagram would be useful for this page as well as the general geography page.GeogSage (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that technical geography as a term or concept is as well-established as suggested in this article. The two sources of the first sentence have been cited 10 and 3 times, respectively, according to Google Scholar. That's next to nothing and a weak support for a bold claim ("Technical geography is one of three main branches of geography"). Furthermore, human geography and physical geography each refer to different kinds of geographical features, so if there's a third branch, it's integrated geography. Technical geography, on the other hand, is a set of methods and techniques and therefore more related to applied geography and quantitative geography, both of which currently are redirects that, imo, would've been more appropriate to cover the content presented in this article. I'm not saying this is all wrong, but I do think the article should be a bit more ambiguous concerning how technical geography relates to geography in general. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Axolotl Nr.733 that the sourcing is insufficient for such a bold claim, and I would add that the book that is cited (ISBN 978-1-84826-960-6) isn't even held by any libraries in WorldCat (OCLC 368068533), which is suspiciously obscure. Please verify this claim with some major textbooks used in the field, not these obscure references! Biogeographist (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I have improved the link to the book, as well as added another part. The publisher is EOLSS UNESCO. Please see below URL linking to de-obscure the reference. The ISBN might not be correct, but it is the one I pulled initially. Please see this link to Google Books that includes one of two volumes of the book as well. https://books.google.com/books?id=mr2cDAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

You can read more GIS material from the UNESCO page here if you'd like: https://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c01/

GeogSage (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

GeogSage added a reference to a major textbook, but I removed it since (oddly) it didn't verify the claim. Since we have two editors questioning the credibility of this article's main claim, I have added a {{POV}} tag to the article until the issue is resolved. Further explanation here by GeogSage would be appreciated. Biogeographist (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The breakdown of how we organize geography is a fair and ongoing debate. The concept of technical geography was introduced to me in an intro to geography textbook I was using for a class as a branch, and I dug up a bit more on it from there to find it in the literature. Integrated geography is specific to both human and physical. It is one of the four traditions of geography for sure, which is another way of breaking down the discipline, but in a ven diagram it isn't a branch, it is overlap between the two. Human and physical geography are referring to sub-fields and approaches within geography, not kinds of geographic features. GIScience, geoinformatics, and other subdisciplines are still geography, even if they are not working with a specific type of thematic data.

On the main geography page, the four traditions (Spatial, human environment interaction (integrated geography), regional, and Earth science (physical geography)) are a separate way to break down the discipline, with the second being the branch model. Like the branch model, these four approaches are not related to types of features, but instead approaches to dealing with spatial data. Outside of academia, few people use the grand traditions to describe geography, or organize the discipline, and instead broad categories of subdisciplines are organized together into branches.

Quantitative geography redirects to the quantitative revolution, a historic transition in philosophy, not a branch in the discipline, and applied geography is redirecting to the main geography page. The quantitative revolution certainly birthed technical geography, but the same can be said for Geographic Information Science, another popular term that warrants it's own page, but is much more applied then broad theoretical, and claims itself to be a separate sub-discipline within geography from geomatics, geoinformatics, etc. Technical geography is useful as a broad categorical umbrella to group these together in a way consistent with human and physical geography that is easy to understand.

The term "technical geography" is a bit of a novel word, as is GIS and the quantitative revolution, but it does exist within the peer reviewed literature as a distinction to group the novel fields of Geographic Information Science, Geoinformatics, etc.. Not many people publishing will get so theoretical as to discuss the organization of the discipline, and most literature will be much more subdivided. While the impact factor is not the highest, the word technical geography is the name of a peer-reviewed journal, Geographia Technica. The first article cited is from the first issue of the journal, where it defined itself, however the journal promotes technical geography, and the publications under this journal can be assumed to work under the framework of the term.

As a geographer that identifies a bit with this term, my issue has been that people expect us to be either physical or human in orientation. However, a large section of people I've worked with, and people I've taught, no longer identify with either of those two branches, and instead are completely focused on the spatial statistics and software side of things. I have worked with both human and physical geography, sure, but I have also worked to study the tools themselves and how they can be used to convey spatial information. The term technical geography has been proposed to capture that new subset of the discipline, and ensure that the spatial sciences don't get absorbed by other sub-displines outside of geography. Beyond that, this is how it has been taught or organized in text books. Finally, several sources have divided out the techniques of geography as the third branch, without using the term.

All models are wrong, some models are useful. The branch model is one way to think of geography, and the four traditions are another. Within the four traditions, we have the Spatial tradition, which most closely corresponds with technical geography, however the relationship is not 1 to 1. There are other ways and terms to organize the discipline, but technical geography is one that has emerged in recent years.

On the main geography page, both the branches and four traditions are included as theoretical ways to break down and understand the discipline. GeogSage (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the lengthy explanation of your perspective. I think that's a legitimate view; we just need a way to communicate in the article the novelty of the term and the scope of its usage. I had not encountered the term before you started writing about it in Wikipedia, but I didn't really care too much how widely the term was used. However, now that another editor has raised the issue, it needs to be resolved somehow. If Ionel Haidu was the first to promote the term in 2008, perhaps mentioning that in the first few sentences, instead of implying that the human/physical/technical division is long-established, would resolve the issue. Biogeographist (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. On the textbook, interesting you couldn't find a reference. Perhaps it was an edition error with the book.

When I was teaching a course, their (the textbook I cited) online quiz material had the following graphic https://media.cheggcdn.com/media/4ca/4cadf7e3-a7b4-405d-a328-a2823900652f/phpX7nxGe.png. Pardon the source, it is the fastest way I can find it online.

This was what sent me down the literature review rabbit hole in the first place. I will continue to look into it.

Regardless, that book, as well as many others, are organized in such a way that split out techniques as a separate category from human and physical.

I will improve the first paragraph to reflect the novelty of the term. GeogSage (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

Okay so I have cleaned the initial reference to the UNESCO book, and added more disclaimers about competing use of the term. I also have added a bit into the controversy section. If anyone wants to elaborate on that critic, I'm all for it. I have now seen the term used by geographers, and use the term in class.

The major reason for it is that geographic information scientists work within the discipline of geography, and are trying to assert themselves as a separate and equal branch to physical and human. Other geographers are trying to ensure that the spatial sciences are not appropriated by other disciplines. As the other two categories are "human geography", and "physical geography", the category of technical geography keeps the wording consistent.

I hope this reduces the dispute over the term a bit. GeogSage (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed the {{POV}} tag. I wouldn't be surprised if we see more discussion here in the future, but this is definitely an improvement. Biogeographist (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Awesome! Glad that it is an improvement. I would be surprised if there wasn't more discussion here in the future. I will continue to look for more information and improve as time goes on. I'm glad to get feedback on this stuff, a healthy talk page keeps us all honest and may address future questions people have. GeogSage (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Sources and clarification on dispute over the term

Technical geography as a term is present within literature. I have provided numerous sources in this article, including peer-reviewed journals, entries in other encyclopedia's, and textbooks, that make use of the term AND use it to subdivide the discipline. At the time of writing this, this article has more citations then both the human geography and physical geography pages combined. This is necessary as the term is much more novel then either human or physical geography, and there are competing words/phrases used to subdivide the discipline. These phrases and terms have been noted within this article, as has the dispute over the use of the term.

On the main geography page, technical geography is used as one of two methods for subdividing the discipline. The first is the four traditions of geography, and the second is the branch model. The branch system is based in large part on the three main themes of the UNESCO Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems geography publication from 2009 which explicitly use the term "technical geography". Other sources have employed similar concepts to technical geography, dividing geography into multiple branches, categories, themes, etc. Several of these other concepts are noted in the article, and are employed to give theoretical backing to a separate category of geography focused on the things under the umbrella of technical geography. Geographic Information Science is a very similar concept, but is not as inclusive within the literature. One textbook has used the terms interchangeably, however other terms have also been used. In addition to the use of technical geography as a term to subdivide the discipline, from an ontological perspective, technical geography as a term fits cleanly with physical geography and human geography, grammatically speaking, where other terms do not.

Other branches, including integrated geography, are proposed branches under different systems for subdividing the discipline. I propose, based on my understanding of existing literature, that all geography is integrated geography to some extent, and trying to subdivide the field deeply along those lines is challenging. On the main geography page, integrated geography is used as the main page for the Human-environment interaction tradition in the four traditions of geography organization. The category can be seen here Human-Environment interaction and has six pages and no subcategories. All geography should be integrated to some extent, but as far as subfields go, it will tend towards human, physical, or technical.

How to subdivide geography is challenging, and hotly debated within the literature. This is why I reorganized the main geography page to include both the four traditions AND a branch system (the four traditions were previously not included on the page, and branches were haphazardly included). The four traditions, as I understand them, are more historic and theoretical in focus, while the branches are a product of applied geography. I believe, based on reviewing available literature, that within the overlap of the human-environment traditions, and spatial tradition, a branch of applied geography has emerged that is distinct in focus from human and physical. Disputes over the term are noted in the "criticism" section of the page. Ambiguity and debate of the term has been noted extensively within this page and the main geography page. While technical geography is a novel term, and controversial, I believe it is a good addition when trying to explain the ways we can divide geography. Failure to include this would be a major omission, and I believe by having this in addition to the four laws on the main geography page, a reader can get a good grasp on the organization of geography. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The rate of unemployment is high among people with low education level,this is because employers prefer to hire skilled labour

Possible hypothesis 41.13.112.77 (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on this? I don't understand how it is relevant to the page. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)