Applying Human Geography

Human geography has to be one of the most nuanced academic fields out there. There are several reasons why it is so nuanced and given its complexity it is no surprise. Three things are certain when it comes to research within human geography. Critical reflexivity is essential, which effectively means that researchers should be aware of the role they themselves play as researchers and need to self scrutinize (Hay, 2015, p. 34). I say this is one of the three certainties in human geography research because it is essential to the human aspect of the research. It would be ridiculous for humans to research other humans and not consider the effects they themselves are having on the research. Secondly, participant selection is key. With nearly 8 billion people living on the planet currently, there is bound to be variation in your sample. This is why when conducting research that requires pulling individuals from this 8 billion strong pool, how you go about selection is important. There are 7 common ways to do it, and it is essential for researchers to look at what they want to do and to decide which method works best for their research (Hay, 2015, p. 124). The last certainty I have when it comes to this topic, is that a consensus can be difficult to find. The topic of social geography is a good example of this. The implications and assumptions are relatively easy to define when someone says "social geography". However in the last 100 years that the term has been used, no consensus has been found about what the term exactly means. Which is a testament to the complexity of the social aspect of human geography. How this ties into the third certainty about human geography research is this: Human geography research is complicated just like the things it studies (us), and nothing about it makes it easy to find the right answers if there are any.

There are a few things about the research that I do not understand, and some areas I need to develop more if I wanted to move up in this field. Focus groups, power relationships, and politics. That sums up where my confusion and struggles lie. Focus groups are a small group of people talking about a topic at the request of a researcher in a setting where each person is given ample time to talk and discuss their point of view (Hay, 2015, p. 203). I understand the use of focus groups, what I do not see is when would a focus group be used when you can just conduct interviews with a much larger sample size. In some cases a focus group sounds like the easier way to get an idea about what people think, which is fine, just when you want to make sure your research is pristine; why go this route? In short, focus groups to me sound like an easier route to getting a feel for a topic but you runt he risk of using a small sample size, so why do it at all.

Power relationships are a big source of confusion to me. If the goal for research is to be objective, then why is focus put onto what the researcher has to do with anything relating to the power differences. Is the goal not to disconnect the researcher entirely from the subjects being researched, and how does being aware of the power difference achieve this. In my view, if your research methods are good enough, and objective enough, and you have done everything right, why do you still have to look at the power relationship. Perhaps I am just too new to this subject to fully understand its importance, this was the first time I have ever heard of this approach being taken, so I would say this is something I need to spend time on to fully grasp and apply to feel more confident in my research ability.

The last thing I would like to discuss is politics. Personally I love discussing politics, it can be complex and sometimes jarring. However, we live in a world where most of us can discuss our politics without fear of prosecution, so lets talk about it. Politics and research do not mix. But maybe they do. Perhaps the way we do research and what we research is and should be a reflection of what goes on around us politically. Research can be used to influence politics, and vice versa. My confusion is whether or not this particular use of research (with the goal to influence politics) stains the ethics of the research or is simply just another methodology being applied. I don't know, and I do not have enough experience in human geography research to know. What I do know is that in politics, "studies" are referenced countless times to bolster arguments, and I do not know how to feel about that. Did the researchers in those studies intend for their work to be used in such a way? That question has many implications.

Over the last few years, and especially since the pandemic started, how people consume information has changed. More and more people are starting to listen to podcasts more regularly than anything else. According to Podcast Insights, there are currently over 1.7 million different shows to pick from, all in the podcast format. 3 years ago, there were only around 500 thousand shows. In three years it has tripled. 

Why is this? Some would say that the distrust in the media/government has pushed people to search for more unmoderated sources of information. An interview setting has predetermined questions, that are given to the person being interviewed which effectively means it is scripted. In focus groups, there is no debate allowed, so what does that even accomplish. Podcasts on the other hand, provide a platform for unscripted debates to happen, without moderation. There are a large amount of platforms to choose from when looking for a podcast to listen to or to even start your own. This accessibility combined with sheer lack of moderation and script, creates a space where a true debate may take place.

I am not saying interviews and focus groups do not have a place in todays society. What I am saying is that the sudden interest in podcasts is not spontaneous and given the path that mainstream media has been going down in the last few years, it was inevitable. At a certain point, people want to know what is going on in the world, and if the media stops providing that then it will be acquired somewhere else. 

Ironically a quote from a recent Forbes article states that “61% of Americans think that the media is not doing well at being objective and non-partisan.” Which effectively explains the rise of the podcast scene. Although podcast participants are also likely not being objective, it is not hidden from the audience. Everything the participants say and the context they are saying it is preserved in the podcast. The interpretation of what is being said is left to the audience, which is what I believe people want. 

When it comes to studying anything geography related, there are many factors to consider. What research is being conducted, how is it being conducted, who/what is being researched, has there been previous research, what are future research opportunities, and many more things to keep in mind. One of the ultimate goals of research is to find answers (best case scenario) or to at least obtain a better understanding of a situation (better than nothing). The rise of podcasts plays into this because in a day to day life where the information people receive is heavily moderated, any research done into social issues and such will be affected negatively. If the general population has been given a skewed understanding of a topic, how can any research done using the same population be taken seriously. 

Example: A group of researchers want to find out in what direction is a town’s policies going regarding a social issue. One of the research techniques would be to go door to door asking individuals from the community. The answers people will give to the researchers are based on two things. Their awareness of the towns’ policies, and how they receive information regarding to social issue. 

My question to you is should researchers be concerned with where their subjects are getting their information from and how does that affect the end results? 

Also, would you consider a three hour podcast with an expert on a topic be more informative and closer to the truth than a 15 minute segment on a popular news program? 

References:

https://www.podcastinsights.com/podcast-statistics/

If I were given the opportunity to interview a key person in the social geography field, I would be lost. Strictly speaking there are no key thinkers in social geography, since it isn’t even clear what “social geography” means. It is such an ambiguous field, that most of the information on it from the 20th century are geographers trying to figure out what “social geography” even means. With that in mind, if I wanted to interview a key thinker it would have to be one of these past geographers. George Wilson Hoke would be my first choice, he was the first person to use the term “social geography” in 1907. It had no academic impact, however it would be interesting to know where he got the term from and what he meant by it. 

My first question would be to George then, to determine where he got the terminology from, this would shed some light on the origins and meaning of the term. Secondly, I would like to speak with Percy M. Roxby, who in 1930 considered social geography to be one of human geography's four main parts. Other geographers of the time said similar things about social geography being an important part of geography as a whole. My second question would be to Percy. I would like to ask how social geography fit in with society and other fields of geography. Many of the points made about social geography say that it has a lot of overlap with many other academic fields, my hope is that Percy would be able to help determine how social geography sits on its own, if at all. 

In German-language geography, there is a focus on how society influences the physical landscape. Hans Bobek and Wolfgang Hartke are crucial to this focus, and to them I would want to ask the following two questions: Can German-language geography be considered a subsection of social geography due to how it specifically focuses on language, space, and social groups? Due to the ambiguity of social geography as a field of study, does it make sense to specifically classify something as “German-language” geography when you can simply call it something more broad. These two questions are an example of the ambiguity of social geography as a field, and how easy it sometimes is to relate something to the field of geography. 

With limitless resources, there is so much one person can research. In December 2019 I had the opportunity to travel to the Mayan ruins at Lamanai, in Belize. It was a wonderful trip that included some of the largest Mayan structures as well as very obnoxious howler monkeys. They really bring the jungle to life. While there I had asked our guide about the state of the site. What she told me was an absolute shock. There are literal piles of rocks and dirt that remain unexcavated at Lamanai. These are not small mounds, we are talking large house sized mounds made up of stone, dirt and jungle that are just waiting to reveal their secrets. I asked about these mounds and they told me they very likely have more ruins underneath them however there was no motivation or resources to continue excavation. 

What I propose is that we go to Lamanai, and in close partnership with the locals and caretakers of the site (tour guides, officials, etc.) and complete the excavation. The use of Lidar (which the University of Guelph has access too) would allow us to survey the jungle floor without having to affect the foliage or wildlife. Best not to disturb the howler monkeys. Through a joint committee made up of us researchers, archaeologists, representatives of Belize, and several other organizations, genuine progress could be made. 

Mesoamerican excavation is an archaeological field that could really use some investment and motivation. Not for lack of trying, it is just a more isolated and difficult region to work in. The reflexivity of us as researchers is especially important because we are coming from the outside, excavating the history of the people who are currently living there today. Ethics and morals will come into play when it comes to distribution of funds, who gets credit for what, and a multitude of other things (some being more trivial than others). The bottom point is, if I had the resources: I would like to turn Lamanai into an example of what good research/archeological practices can do for the historical community as well as the local population. 

The entirety of this proposed projects’ existence relies on one crucial element. That element is the willingness and cooperation of the local population. What that essentially means is if the people of Belize do not want us to come in and work together to discover a part of their past, then that is their decision and we as ethical researchers must respect that. 

Pictured in this post is me and my brother standing by the mask temple at Lamanai. It is estimated that this mask was added to the temple around 600 AD.

The VICE documentary Surviving in the Siberian Wilderness for 70 Years is a case study about Agafia and her journey. They live in an area in Siberia that is over 160 miles away from the nearest town and it takes quite a lot of effort to get there. Agafia's father fled in 1936 to this location, where the Lykov family would spend most of their lives in isolation with very few visitors. The Lykov family has been through a lot, even though they are isolated. Agafia’s mother starved herself so that the family would have enough food to eat. After a group of geologists found them, 3 of the older children died due to contracting pneumonia. Agafia’s father died eventually too. 

Being the last Lykov, Agafia lives a very interesting life. Siberia is an area larger than the United States, and is almost entirely untouched wilderness. The only way to reach the residence was either a 7 day canoe trip in summer or by helicopter during the winter. Other than those two options there are none that are relatively safe. 

The research done in this mini-documentary is unique. It is so because not only is the situation they are researching special , but what the researchers have to go through is astounding as well. The researchers arrived by helicopter, brought camera equipment, several other fold such as park representatives, and a large amount of other equipment for staying there (tents and such). Looking at how Agafia lives, it is such a juxtaposition to see. Agafia has to wake up at 6 in the morning everyday and spend all day doing chores just in order to survive. She does this on top of keeping up her religious practices, taking care of some pets, and takes care of a geologist who moved there 16 years ago. 

The researchers bring what's called an invisible backpack with them. The invisible backpack is what every person has, it is their life experience and their privilege. It is a way to explain that every person has a different upbringing, and no matter what they do they always carry a piece of it with them in their invisible backpack. These researchers bring with them an invisible backpack that includes the amenities of modern day life such as roads, electricity, cars, access to healthcare, and many other things. 

VICE does a good job at not letting their invisible backpack influence the research. It is borderline impossible to not let it influence research in some way, however in the video it is not evident.  Personally I would absolutely love the opportunity to go on a research expedition like this. I know for a fact it would be difficult for me to not apply my biases and worldviews while there, and it would take a lot of planning on my part to ensure the research is done ethically and with as little biases as possible. That is one way I look at an opportunity like this, on the other hand I would be remorseful if Agafia was not interested or wanted the research to be done. I would like to proceed with this only if I had the blessing of the family, I would not want to make anyone feel obligated to welcome me or any researchers for that matter. Basically if they want me there then great, but if they do not then it would be unethical and wrong to pursue the research any further. 

My name is Cilliers, and as you can probably tell my name is pretty weird. That's because I am from South Africa. Both sides of my family have been there since the 1700s, so I come from a proper Afrikaner family. I moved to Canada when I was 13 years old in 2012. Before then I had done a lot of traveling with my family throughout most of Southern Africa (Botswana, Mozambique, Lesotho, Namibia, and the entirety of South Africa). The point is that I have seen a lot of what Africa has to offer as far as tourism goes. 

Since moving here I have visited home several times to see family and to explore the continent even further. In-between these trips to Africa, I have found time and opportunity to explore my new home, North America. To say it is a different kind of tourism and overall environment is an understatement. The people, the food, the culture, everything is different. I have been to many places in my life, and plan on going to many more. Unfortunately I only recently became aware of the impacts tourism has on the environment, and it saddens me. Looking forward, I would encourage my family and everyone who reads this to travel environmentally friendly and to do your research as far as which tourism industries you support. 

So that's me I guess. Been to around 13 different countries on 3 different continents including SCUBA diving in 3 different oceans. The world is worth exploring, and if you ever find yourself in a position to do so, take that leap of faith. 

Coolest animals I’ve seen while diving at 60 feet: 2 Sea Turtles, MASSIVE moray eel (terrifying but immensely cool), Stone Fish (one of the most venomous creatures on Earth).

Most Beautiful creature I have seen: Saw an Eagle ray off the coast of Honduras. Thing was massive and effortlessly glided through the water. Felt no fear or anxiety when seeing it, as if it and I had an understanding. Wicked feeling. The Moray eel was ready to eat me for sure though lol.

“All nations have to make sacrifices in order to address the issue of climate change” Anote Tong, Kiribati President

Kiribati will be destroyed. The Pacific Island nation made up of 33 islands is in danger due to climate change. This is not a “at risk” scenario, some areas have already been destroyed/contaminated with sea water. I cannot stress enough how urgent this problem is, because we have already seen irreversible damage to both the physical coastline and to the nation's population. 

It is simple physics that the water from melting ice caps and glaciers in the mountains eventually ends up in the ocean. Which means that the sea level rises. Since 40% of the human population lives within 100km of a coastline, one would expect there to be a sense of urgency to address the problem. 

Addressing this problem is something that the people of Kiribati have been dealing with for quite some time. These are people we are talking about, not data points or numbers in a report, people with families and homes that want a future for their children. Through a combination of sea walls and mangrove trees, the inhabitants of these islands have attempted to defend their coastline from the ever encroaching ocean. Sea walls break, mangroves have to grow, resources run out, and hope sometimes seems futile. Kiribati is not a superpower, yet it has done everything it can on its own to combat the consequences of climate change. The global community has to do the right thing and assist the Kiribati government and its people in securing a future for this island nation. If this does not happen then the myth of Atlantis will soon have an updated name and over a one hundred thousand people are going to need a new home. 

It is difficult to take an objective approach to research this issue due to the immediate impact these issues have on the people of Kiribati. This discussion is filled with personal testimony and heart wrenching stories of how people have had to deal with the inevitability of total destruction. So as researchers we have to have a certain level of reflexivity. This means that the research has to be scrutinized so as to avoid the data being contaminated by the social context of the situation. There are a plethora of solutions that can be implemented to save this nation, and some of these solutions already dot the coastline (clumps of mangroves, seawalls, emigrated families). The point of researching this is to provide Kiribati with possible solutions, therefore it is imperative that the data obtained is as accurate as possible and that the solutions do everything they can to tackle the problem.

References:

Al Jazeera (Producer). (2014, December 8). Kiribati: The Sinking Islands Being Destroyed By Climate Change | AJ+ Docs [Video file]. Retrieved January 21, 2021, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P7jXveokDY

I started my time at university as a student of history. I took a few geography courses and found them to be both interesting and applicable to some of the work done in my history courses. Eventually, this led to me deciding to work towards a BA in Geography on top of my BA in History. Both geography and history are fields where a lot of emphases is put on connections. These can be between places, people, events, environments, and many other things. These connections that we look at today don’t just appear out of nowhere. They are the result of studies, enquiries, fieldwork, and many other practices that have to do with the gathering and analysis of data. Not to mention the countless hours spent doing so. The information which these connections are derived from has to be sound. This is where determining the reliability of your findings comes along. There is an enormous amount of information out there, and how does one even begin to determine what is reliable and what is not.

Most of my information for courses comes from searching databases such as Primo or Google Scholar, and the occasional online article from a newspaper or something similar. Textbooks are always a useful tool to have as well. Good research involves a specific process that ensures your sources and the information they are giving you is reliable and relevant. I like to get as much information on a specific topic as possible, then it is a matter of reading through it all and trying to arrange them in an order of reliability and usefulness. An article or study does not have to be 100% relevant to the project or work for it to be useful, it may touch on a subject that has a relationship to what you are working on. To determine if a source is reliable, several things have to be taken into account: date of publication, who is the source, how was the information gathered, is the article or study peer-reviewed, and lastly what other researchers are saying about this topic. I look for sources that are recent, come from a reliable institution, avoid biases,  and if it is an academic piece it has to be peer-reviewed. Once all the information is gathered and organized, it is time to start finding these connections.