President's Column

The Future of Physical Geography

June 30, 2014

For my last column as AAG President, I explore further the role and status of physical geography within the AAG. I share with you some of the input received from AAG members on this topic, and outline some initial steps to capitalize on that input, as well as address concerns that have been raised. My thanks to everyone who spoke to me personally, emailed their thoughts, responded to earlier columns, and/or participated in the well-attended Conversation on the Future of Physical Geography special session at the AAG annual meeting in Tampa. Your input is greatly appreciated. Special thanks go to Frank Magilligan and Kim Medley who joined me at the Tampa special session in providing opening remarks, many of which are captured below, and to Ken Foote, chair of the AAG’s Long Range Planning Committee, for kindly moderating the discussion that followed. The major issues that emerged from these multiple sources of input include: participation in the AAG annual meeting, competitiveness of physical geography graduates for academic positions, the AAG journal suite as an outlet for the research conducted by physical geographers, and the potential for greater outreach. The discussion below is organized around these issues.

The message from members

Last fall, while attending the AAG regional meetings, several early career physical geographers relayed to me their concerns that an unanticipated consequence of the explosive growth in the AAG annual meeting is relatively light attendance at some of the many concurrent sessions, making it more difficult for their research to receive the visibility within the discipline needed to help build their careers. Several other AAG members expressed their concern that the growing attraction of meetings of other scholarly societies, especially if these meetings provide or are perceived to provide greater visibility, further draws attendance away from individual sessions at the AAG annual meeting. These concerns were also repeatedly raised during the special session in Tampa. However, the importance of the AAG annual meeting to the viability of physical geography was also highlighted, along with the need to promote attendance at the annual meeting. Essential intellectual and social networks are disrupted when physical geographers do not participate in the annual meeting. Attendees of the special session expressed considerable support for experimenting with alternative formats to help increase the visibility of individual oral and poster presentations. Of particular interest is a format similar to that of the popular Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), with a modest number of themed oral sessions accompanied by large poster sessions. Several attendees further argued that, if themed sessions were to be adopted, keynote speakers for these sessions should be drawn from multiple disciplines, not only geography, to help attract more non-geographers to the annual meeting, and that the presentations should be peer-oriented and science intensive. Arguments made for large poster sessions include a greater potential for networking compared to an oral or poster presentation in one of multiple concurrent sessions.

The training of physical geographers is an important, ongoing issue that received considerable attention at the Tampa special session. Physical geographers interested in academic positions often compete with graduates from other disciplines, especially when the advertised position is in a merged or a broad geosciences department. Consequently, geography graduates need to have publication records and opportunities for professional development comparable to those of other disciplines. A move to publication-based dissertations, where each chapter is a publishable manuscript, is one approach to placing our graduates in a poised position for advancing their publication records at the time when they are applying for faculty positions. The need for more post-doctoral opportunities for physical geography graduates was also raised, and the AAG was encouraged to take the lead in approaching public and private funding agencies to establish prestigious post-doctoral positions explicitly for physical geography.

The topic for which I have received the most input over the past year has been publishing in the AAG journals. Recently, the AAG Council approved a new AAG-sponsored interdisciplinary journal, Geohumanities, whose two-member editorial team will be drawn from geography and from another humanities discipline. Around the same time, the small number of submissions to the Environmental Sciences section of the Annals, in spite of heroic efforts by current and past editors to solicit manuscripts, led to an issue without an Environmental Sciences section. The confluence of these two events prompted me to propose in my October column that the AAG sponsor a second interdisciplinary journal of interest to physical geographers. This journal would supplement and complement the current AAG journals, and provide an outlet with the AAG imprimatur for those authors wishing to reach a more interdisciplinary audience. The reaction to this proposal has been mixed, with fairly strong opinions on both sides. Several physical geographers have shared their concern that the currently large number of journals, especially in the areas of environmental science and global change, may limit opportunities for a new journal. Others have warned of the considerable resources and effort needed to develop a new journal and nurture it to success. On the other hand, a number physical geographers have expressed support for a new journal. They would like to support the AAG and its journals, but because their research is interdisciplinary in character, they do not consider the current AAG journals with their primarily disciplinary readership to be viable outlets. Some members, including senior physical geographers, told me that they have never published in an AAG journal. Other members recommended that one way to “jump start” a new journal is to acquire, and build upon, an existing journal. Arguments were made at the Tampa session that a new journal, if adopted, should be an outlet for interdisciplinary physical science, not only for interdisciplinary research on global change and natural-human systems. A new journal would need to be highly visible, attract authors from multiple disciplines, and appeal to an interdisciplinary readership. Members also supported further strengthening of the AAG’s current journals, and several shared their recent positive experiences with the review process.

Several attendees at the special session in Tampa advocated that the AAG and its members reach out to other societies, such as AGU, and have a more visible presence at their meetings to promote the disciplinary-relatedness of geography. To quote an attendee, “the AAG should bring geography to other disciplines.” One potential avenue would be for professional societies to jointly organize sessions at each other’s meetings. Active recruitment of physical scientists, whose primary membership is in another scholarly society, could also be worthwhile. Additionally, outreach within geography itself is recognized as important. Physical geographers need to be involved in structuring the discipline of geography and guiding its future.

Actionable steps

What can be done to implement some of the recommendations from physical geography members of the AAG? Experimenting with alternative formats for physical geography sessions at the AAG annual meeting seems an obvious next step given its strong support. To help move this forward, Past Presidents Richard Marston, Carol Harden and I are working with the AAG central office to spearhead the introduction of “AGU-like” sessions for the upcoming annual meeting in Chicago. We are planning two themed sessions on “Environmental Reconstruction: A Nexus of Biogeography, Climatology and Geomorphology”, followed by two large poster session. “Environmental reconstruction” refers to both the study of past climates, landscapes, and biological systems, and to the reclamation of damaged environments. The rationale for this theme is that it captures the breadth of physical geography, and, in addition, complements the climate change theme of the recent AAG meeting in Tampa. These sessions represent an initial foray to evaluate the impact of this format and to work out logistics, such as costs and implications for other components of the annual meeting. Invited speakers for the themed sessions will include geographers and non-geographers, and I encourage you to become involved in planning these sessions, and, in particular, to nominate potential speakers. The oral and poster sessions will be scheduled to minimize conflicts with concurrent sessions. If there is continued support for this type of format, the intent is to develop protocols for requesting and evaluating proposals for future themed sessions.

Some initial steps are also being taken to offer career development support for physical geography students and recent graduates. A career session customized for physical geographers is under discussion for the annual meeting in Chicago. In addition, openings for post-doctoral scholars can now be posted in Jobs in Geography, hopefully making students more aware of these opportunities. These are modest initiatives, but I hope that AAG members, including student members, will step up with additional suggestions and proposals.

Progress has also been made on outreach to other scholarly societies. In February, the AAG hosted a booth at the annual meeting of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), an organization that regularly exhibits at our meeting. The booth was well visited and helped to create broader awareness of the AAG and of geography. As one AMS member who visited the booth tweeted under the #AMS2014 hashtag, “Did not realize there was a big climate community there [AAG]”. This was a relatively new endeavor for the AAG, and the lessons learned from the AMS meeting exhibit will be useful for future exhibits at the meetings of other relevant scholarly societies.

That a substantial portion of the physical geography membership does not regularly publish in Association journals presents a potential long-term vulnerability for the AAG, and a wide range of initiatives, including an expanded publication suite, need to be considered. That said, the reservations that have been expressed also need to be acknowledged and considered. Next steps include involvement of the AAG Publications Committee and Long-Range Planning Committee to help assess feasibility, and a survey of the publishing preferences and history of AAG members.

Finally, a Conversation on the Future of Physical Geography II is planned for the Chicago annual meeting to continue the thoughtful discussion from Tampa, and especially to hear more from early career scholars on how to enhance physical geography within the AAG. Please watch the AAG Geogram for information on location and time, and send along suggestions for discussion topics.

All geographers, speak up!

A scholarly society is continually evolving, and input from members is needed to make certain that it evolves to meet member needs. In an inherently integrative discipline such as ours, it is critical that all of our sub-disciplinary voices remain under the larger disciplinary umbrella and join the discussion of our future. It is essential that all geographers, including physical geographers, speak up within our larger community rather than turn inward and become apart. It is only through continued dialog that the AAG can undertake thoughtful and proactive initiatives that enhance and promote geography.

And a personal “thank you”

As noted above, this is my last presidential column — whew! Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to serve as AAG President and for the support you have shown. It has been a privilege and an honor. This year was a wonderful and memorable experience.

Julie Winkler

DOI: 10.14433/2014.0009

Post

‘Earth Interactions’ Journal Undergoes Recent Changes

May 29, 2014

Since 1997 the American Geophysical Union (AGU), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the Association of American Geographers (AAG) have jointly published Earth Interactions, an electronic journal focusing on the interactions between the lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, and biosphere in the context of global issues or global change. Earth Interactions has recently undergone several significant changes. Beginning in January 2014, the AMS has taken on all editorial responsibilities, from submission through publication, although the journal continues to be a joint publication of all three organizations. Additionally, Earth Interactions is now a fully open access journal, available free of charge to all readers.

Earth Interactions is a peer-reviewed, highly interdisciplinary journal that accepts original research articles, review articles, brief “data reports” and “model reports,” and special collections of papers from conferences and workshops. Submissions from interdisciplinary research teams are encouraged, especially those that involve scientists and practitioners from the disciplines represented by AAG, AGU, and AMS. Earth Interactions is a unique publishing venue as it exploits the capabilities of electronic communications technology. In particular, it provides authors with the opportunity to use animations and other visualization techniques that traditional publications typically cannot accommodate.

To cover the publication expenses of this open access journal, there is a flat author fee for all papers accepted for publication. Partial or full waivers of the author fee are available for those with no (or extremely limited) funding. More information about Earth Interactions can be obtained from the journal website (https://journals.ametsoc.org/loi/eint) or by contacting Rezaul Mahmood, Editor, Department of Geography and Geology, Western Kentucky University, rezaul [dot] mahmood [at] wku [dot] edu.

President's Column

Women in Academia: It’s Not Just About Numbers

May 29, 2014

While I appreciate, and have even contributed to, the extensive literature on the underrepresentation of women in the professoriate and the challenges for their recruitment and retention, I am struck by the more limited literature on the well-being of women in departments that have, or are approaching, numbers of female faculty that are reflective of the percentage of women earning PhDs in a discipline or even the percentage of women in the general population. As the number of women on geography faculties continues to grow, the latter becomes an increasingly important consideration. To help explore this issue, I first present two scenarios of large PhD-granting departments located within research-intensive universities.

In Department #1, 20 percent of the tenure-track faculty are women, a proportion that is substantially below the percentage of women earning PhDs in this discipline over the past several decades. Recent hires at all levels (assistant, associate and full professor) have been disproportionately men, although a senior woman was hired to lead a research institute affiliated with the department, and another woman was hired as an endowed chair. Approximately half of the female faculty hold the rank of full professor, and the current associate chair of the department is a woman. The salaries of the female faculty fall near the median value of the salaries earned by male colleagues at a similar rank. Women collaborate with colleagues within the department at approximately the same rate as the male faculty, and they are equally likely to collaborate with men as with women. In terms of social interaction, most faculty, including the department chair, share their lunch times in the departmental conference room, where they informally discuss their current research, upcoming conferences, publication and grant opportunities and practices, and other professional topics.

In Department #2, the representation of female faculty is much higher. Here women compose 40 percent of the tenure-track faculty, which compares favorably with the proportion of women earning PhDs in this discipline over the past ten years. The current hiring rate of women exceeds that of men at the assistant professor level; however, none of the recent senior hires have been women. Proportionally, representation of women is much less at the full professor level compared to the assistant and associate ranks. Positions of prestige and/or leadership (e.g., endowed chair, distinguished professor, chair, associate chair, directors of research institutes) are all held by men. The salaries of the female faculty fall near or at the bottom of the scale for their respective ranks, even after adjusting for time in rank. The female faculty have fewer collaborators compared to the male faculty, and are more likely to collaborate with other women. Department social interactions, whether group lunches, coffee breaks, or light conversation, are gender-segregated. This extends to the chair’s social interactions with faculty.

Based on numbers alone, Department #1 might appear to someone in higher administration to have a “chillier climate” for women. Certainly, departments where the number of female faculty is considerably below disciplinary proportions need to be carefully scrutinized, and improved recruitment and retention of women must be a priority and an expectation. But administrators also need to closely monitor the developments exemplified in Department #2. The second scenario was developed to highlight the impact of what Liisa Husu at Örebro University refers to as “non-events.” In a recent interview published in Nature, Professor Husu commented that “I have found that it is not only the things that happen to women … that affect them in pursuing a career in science or that slow their career development. It is also the things that do not happen: what I call ‘non-events.’ Non-events are about not being seen, heard, supported, encouraged, taken into account, validated, invited, included, welcomed, greeted, or simply asked along … A single non-event — for example, failing to cite a relevant report from a female colleague — might seem almost harmless but the accumulation of such slights over time can have a deep impact.” Husu points out that “non-events” can be difficult to address, or in her words, “Nothing happened so why the fuss?”

Husu’s remarks resonated strongly with me, and I used her concept of “non-events” to develop a short checklist for evaluating the well-being of faculty that I presented at the 2013 AAG Chair’s Symposium on Promoting Diversity. I repeat three of these indicators here, ones that I personally have found to be particularly reflective of faculty well-being, and use the two scenarios above to illustrate.

Do all faculty have access to the primary social activities and the accompanying informal information exchange within the department? Hypothetical Department #1 has the edge here, as the major departmental social activity focuses explicitly on the sharing of professional experiences and is open to all faculty interested in participating. Furthermore, the daily availability of social discussions allows faculty within this department to participate frequently, yet still accommodate other responsibilities. On the other hand, female faculty in Department #2 are left out of the department’s major avenues for informal information exchange, with potential implications including a lack of informal mentoring, less opportunity to develop collaborations with departmental colleagues, less awareness by male faculty of the activities and accomplishments of their female colleagues, and, for the scenario presented here, less access to the department chair.

Are women hired for faculty positions at all ranks? Improvements in hiring practices are needed for both hypothetical departments. The few recent hires of women by Department #1 suggest that recruitment is an issue and that search committees are not aggressively identifying potential female candidates. As Mary Ann Holmes and her colleagues recently wrote in Nature Geoscience, faculty search committees too often forget that “search” is an active verb. For Department #2, the concern is that only men have been hired into senior positions. This can disrupt the gender balance at the senior ranks, even if men and women who enter the department as assistant professors are tenured and promoted at the same rate. Also, as senior positions usually come with greater research and/or administrative expectations, the faculty hired in these positions typically receive teaching reductions and substantial start-up funding which can lead to greater research success and on-campus profiles, compared to senior women who are likely balancing more traditional research and teaching expectations. Hypothetical Department #1 successfully hired two senior female faculty, but for many departments this can be difficult, as often initiatives to improve representation primarily come from the underrepresented faculty themselves. Female faculty, especially if they are not administrators, may not have the savvy to initiate a senior hire, especially one outside of normal search procedures, or the clout to make it happen.

Are male and female faculty earning comparable salaries? Many authors, including myself, have investigated the differences in faculty salary by gender, although the findings are sometimes conflicting, partly a small numbers problem. But as the number of female faculty increases, salary become more of a litmus test of well-being among female faculty. In Department #1, the small number of women makes it difficult to identify the existence (or lack) of gender differences in salary, but for Department #2, where the representation by women is greater, their lower salaries are potentially indicative of constraints that are influencing the relative productivity and success of female faculty.

Obviously, the two scenarios presented above are dramatized, and most departments actually share some characteristics with both the hypothetical departments. Also, some readers may argue for different or additional indicators of faculty well-being. My point, though, is that as the number of female faculty in geography increases, we need to closely gauge, and rectify, the influence of non-events and subtle biases on women’s success and satisfaction with their positions. After all, the strongest and most creative geography departments are those where all faculty are successful and respected.

I look forward to your comments.

Julie Winkler

DOI: 10.14433/2014.0008

[For more information on the articles referred to above see “Scientists of the world speak up for equity”, Nature, 2013, Vol. 495, p. 35-38. DOI:10.1038/495035a, and “Gender parity in the geosciences: data and geoscientists’ perceptions”, Nature Geoscience, 2008, Vol. 1, p. 79-82. DOI:10.1038/ngeo113.]

President's Column

What’s in a Name? The Renaming and Rebranding of Geography Departments

April 29, 2014

In a recent issue of the Observer magazine, author Eric Jaffe explored the nature and rationale of recent changes in the names of prominent U.S. psychology departments. Jaffe interviewed faculty and administrators from several universities that had changed the departmental name from Psychology to alternative nomenclatures including Psychological Sciences, Psychological and Brain Sciences, Psychology and Neuroscience, and Cognitive, Linguistic and Psychological Sciences. Some of these name changes reflect the merger of two or more departments, but others were an attempt to rebrand a department and, more generally, the discipline of psychology. For some, the rationale was to portray psychology “as a science, not an art,” whereas for others the motivation was to draw attention to new focus areas and approaches within psychological research.

Does this sound familiar? It sure does to me. A cursory comparison of current geography department listings to those of previous years suggests a recent uptick in the number of departments that have undergone name changes. Some of the more recent renamings share similarities with the name changes seen for psychology, such as Geographical Sciences, Geography and Environmental Sustainability, and Geography, Environment and Society. Also, similar to psychology, some of the name changes were mandated by departmental mergers, but others are a rebranding, intended to portray a geography department in a different light, emphasize new disciplinary developments, convey modernity and relevance, capture new audiences, and/or become more broadly appealing to graduate and undergraduate students (and their parents).

Given the broader implications of these changes for the discipline of geography, the AAG Council chose to use the “challenge question” portion of their meeting earlier this month for an open-ended discussion of the long-term benefits and consequences of renaming and rebranding geography departments. The discussion was insightful and fascinating, and the experiences of the Council members varied widely. This column conveys my impressions of that discussion with the goal to initiate broader dialog and information sharing. One message that I took away from the Council discussion is that, although the contextual and political settings in which these decisions are being made varies markedly from one university to the next, there are sufficiently common circumstances that a greater sharing of experiences would benefit those geography departments considering renaming and rebranding.

A common theme from the discussion was that the decision to rename a department cannot be taken lightly, and the motivations for such a change need to carefully examined and thoroughly debated. Many of us may be reluctant to consider a departmental name change, in part because of what one Council member referred to as the “heart tug” of the name Geography. But, depending on the context, there can be compelling reasons for renaming and/or rebranding, and for some departments, especially those involved in a merger, renaming is inevitable. It is critical that departments ask: “Who are the audiences for the renaming/rebranding?” and “Is renaming/rebranding the most effective means for reaching those audiences?” For some departments, other approaches may be as effective, or at least merit consideration. These might include additional undergraduate degree options, greater external publicity of geography as a discipline and internal publicity of the skills and accomplishments of geography faculty, and additional resources or a reallocation of current resources to ensure that geography faculty are as productive and as highly regarded as faculty from other departments. But for other departments, these measures may not be sufficient or some may not be possible within the university structure, and renaming and rebranding may help ensure that these departments are able to “survive and thrive.”

Timeliness can be important. A repeated message in the marketing literature on renaming and rebranding companies is “don’t procrastinate.” Along those lines, one councillor observed that name changes that originate organically from within a department are likely to be more creative and effective than those that are imposed from higher administration. Consequently, it can be to a department’s advantage to take the initiative on making the difficult decision of whether to rename and/or rebrand. Also, geography is not the only discipline currently undergoing departmental name changes, but rather this is occurring across academia. Consequently, there likely will be competition with other departments on campus for ownership of relevant descriptors (e.g., environment, sustainability, global, geospatial) and/or areas in which geography departments would like to expand. Thus, it behooves us to carefully monitor higher administration’s assessment and expectations of our departments along with developments in other departments, so that we can be proactive rather than reactive. Student input can also be extremely helpful when considering a name change.

A name is more than the sum of its parts and needs to be selected carefully, particularly as it can benefit or disadvantage some subgroups. Often departments, especially merged departments composed of several disciplines, seek integrative names such as Geosciences or Environmental Sciences. However, these particular examples of departmental names can disadvantage the humanities and social science components of geography, such as critical human geography, especially if university administrators and others on campus perceive the department as focusing primarily on the physical environment rather than also on the built environment or the social and political environment. One departmental chair shared with their regional councillor that an interpretation of “environment” as only the physical environment can skew the local perception of geography with potentially negative consequences on hiring and teaching decisions. Similarly, a departmental name such as Global Studies, or even Environmental Studies, can disadvantage physical geography, particularly if the term “studies” is construed as less scientific than the use of the term “sciences.” Keeping “geography” as part of the departmental name can have a number of advantages, as it portrays a more holistic view of geography. It also provides an obvious linkage to the department’s past and to its alumni, and is respectful to those who helped to pioneer the department. Explicitly including “geography” in the departmental name can also provide long-term stability, as geography is an evolving discipline and the other components of the department’s name may change with time as new subfields and interests develop.

Some councillors raised the concern that the renaming and rebranding of departments has the potential to dilute geography’s identity. For example, renaming a department is often accompanied by new or modified degree offerings, and one concern is whether majors will migrate from geography to the other degree options and how resources will be allocated among the different degrees. Also, capturing and communicating geography’s strengths in GIScience can be particularly challenging for geography departments, especially if other departments on campus add terms such as “geospatial” to their names. While geography departments need to strive to be the primary on-campus source of GIScience education and research, they need to be cognizant that students also come to geography for other reasons and that a narrow focus on GIScience can de-emphasize geography as a discipline.

I admit to a particular fascination with this topic of renaming and rebranding geography departments. The position to which I was hired was offered by higher administration as a “carrot” to the geography department to agree to a merger with two other departments, and the heated debates in those early faculty meetings on the name of the merged department are etched into my memory. My impression is that the discipline is now more accepting of renaming and rebranding than in the early days of my career. But at the same time, we need to focus on how to use renaming and rebranding to our advantage, while minimizing potential negatives. Thus, we need to share experiences. We also need to be critical and closely monitor the long-term impacts of departmental name changes on the discipline. And let’s not forget that renaming/rebranding is not a substitute for high quality, high impact geographic teaching and research that makes a difference to students and stakeholders.

My thanks to the members of the AAG Council for the very thought-provoking conversation. I hope that I accurately conveyed their thoughts and remarks in stimulating further discussion of this issue.

Julie Winkler

[The reference to Eric Jaffe’s article is “Identity Shift”, Observer, Association for Psychological Science, 2011, available at http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2011/september-11/identity-shift.html.]

DOI: 10.14433/2014.0006

President's Column

Why We Join the AAG

March 31, 2014

In just a few days, many of us will be in Tampa for the AAG annual meeting. We will be beneficiaries of the months of intense effort by the AAG central office to plan for, and execute, a seamless meeting for thousands of attendees. At the same time, each of us will contribute to the success of this meeting, and to the AAG more broadly, through our scholarly presentations and dialog, and also through our volunteer activities. The latter includes participation in AAG specialty groups and our service on the numerous AAG standing committees and editorial boards, many of which will be meeting in Tampa. I would like to explore in this column our position as both beneficiaries of, and contributors to, the AAG and the reasons why we should be AAG members.

In my July column, I focused on the newly-initiated AAG long-range planning effort and the challenges currently facing scholarly societies. I referenced several recent surveys of what individuals expect from their membership in a scholarly society. In response to that column, my colleague Judy Olson, a past president of the AAG, shared with me a conversation she had a number of years earlier with Susan Hanson, another AAG past president, on the rationale for membership in scholarly societies. Susan had argued that a scholarly society is an important component of the infrastructure of a discipline, and that scholarly societies represent and promote a discipline in ways not possible by individuals alone. Thus, we should join scholarly societies to support our discipline, not necessarily to meet our individual needs. To quote Judy, “it is not just about what the member personally gets out of their membership, but what the member is supporting.” As we prepare for the excitement of the annual meeting, this is an opportune time for each of us to take stock and ask ourselves: Do I view my membership in the AAG as primarily supporting the discipline of geography or as a professional development opportunity for myself? Am I willing to continue participating in the AAG even if future personal benefits may appear to be modest due to changing career circumstances or life stage?

One reason that some geographers may not see the AAG as part of the infrastructure of our discipline, or comprehend their responsibility in supporting this infrastructure, is that they simply are not familiar with the many activities and initiatives of the AAG. One advantage of serving in AAG governance over the past two years is that I have been able to interact with most of the AAG staff and learn more about their roles and contributions. I have been very impressed. The AAG staff are consummate professionals, who approach their jobs with creativity and dedication, and who have achieved considerable success. For example, the AAG’s education program compares favorably with those of other professional societies. The AAG staff in this area have garnered considerable external funding to support their efforts and have worked cooperatively with geographers from the U.S. and internationally to develop innovative K-12 and university-level educational materials and workshops. The AAG has also developed numerous initiatives to increase the participation of underrepresented groups within the discipline, and sponsors workshops for new faculty and department chairs to help ensure the ongoing strength and visibility of our disciple and maintenance of “healthy” departments. Innumerable geography students and young professionals have taken advantage of the AAG Jobs & Careers Center, which in turn benefits the discipline as a whole. The AAG has recently expanded its public policy outreach and has been actively engaged in efforts to reduce threats to federal funding for the social sciences and to promote funding for K-12 education, including the promotion of a AAG resolution on the advancement of geography education that has been endorsed by U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense, many governors, and others. The AAG also expertly represents the discipline of geography in the complex and ongoing discussions of GIS accreditation and certification. The AAG seeks to promote the importance of geographic thought, theory, and practice to other disciplines and federal agencies, and only last month was invited to provide a presentation and webinar on the role of geography and GIScience in health research to program officers at the National Institutes of Health. All the while, the AAG continues to play a major role in communicating geographic research, organizing the largest professional meeting of geographers worldwide, and publishing leading journals in the discipline.

As we acknowledge the many accomplishments of the AAG staff, we also need to keep in mind that, no matter how great the staff, the AAG is in essence a volunteer organization, and we, as AAG members, need to step up to this responsibility. I have had the opportunity to observe truly remarkable contributions by members in support of the Association, but many members remain relatively uninvolved. The continued success of the Association requires that we all acknowledge our responsibilities and not just rely on the AAG staff to provide the services we expect or demand from a scholarly society. We, too, need to work to strengthen the organization, and must lend our insights and creativity to the Association. If there are aspects of the AAG that we feel need improvement, rather than only critiquing, we are responsible for identifying alternative approaches, carefully weighing their strengths and limitations, and working with AAG governance and staff in a professional and constructive manner to make change happen. Also, dedicated service, whatever the form that takes and even though time consuming, should be an expectation of all members. Furthermore, as members, we in effect “own” the Association, and as responsible owners we must keep abreast of the activities and new developments of the AAG, and also the challenges that the AAG, like any scholarly society, faces.

While in Tampa, I encourage you to seek out the AAG staff and personally thank them for their exceptional service to our scholarly society. I also encourage you to participate in the several sessions on the future of geography and the AAG including the session titled “Conversation on the Future of Physical Geography,” and the special session on the AAG’s Long Range Plan (see the meeting program for dates and times). Also, seek out members of the AAG Council, standing committees, and specialty group board of directors and share with them what you think is going well and what might be improved. And look around the meeting and consider how you might become more involved in the AAG, how you can become an “owner.”

Again quoting Judy Olson, “We believe in what our organizations represent out in the wider world, not just in our own little sphere. That’s the number one reason to be part of our professional organizations.”

Enjoy Tampa!

Julie Winkler

DOI: 10.14433/2014.0005

President's Column

The Challenge of Giving Credit Where Credit is Due: “Who’s on First?”

February 27, 2014

Earlier this winter, I had dinner with a friend who is a senior scientist at a federal data and research center. At one point during the evening, our conversation turned to authorship practices and the diffusion of disciplinary-specific authorship styles to other disciplines. This diffusion was leading to some concern and even confusion among my friend’s colleagues, as many were initially unaware of, or did not fully appreciate, the disciplinary differences in authorship practice that exist. Furthermore, some were concerned that their contribution to a particular research effort may not be fully recognized by their peers if the ordering of the authorship differed from that expected by disciplinary standards. On the other hand, others acknowledged that the practices of different disciplines provided additional alternatives for handling the sometimes difficult issue of authorship order, especially for research efforts involving numerous junior and senior investigators.

As geographers become more and more involved in interdisciplinary research, we, too, are exposed to, and even participate in, a broader range of authorship practices. In this column, I explore authorship styles, drawing attention to the range of practices that exist and highlighting how geography can draw on the practices of other disciplines to allow for a broader range of options for conveying authors’ relative contributions. Please note this column is about authorship order, and I assume that the authorship list has been appropriately determined. Disciplinary differences can also exist in who is considered an author, but that topic merits separate discussion.

For most social sciences and many physical sciences, authorship order reflects the nature and quantity of the effort expended, with the first author position awarded to the author who contributed most to the conceptualization of the research design, performed the bulk of the data analysis, and drafted much of the manuscript. Subsequent authors are listed in order of their relative contribution. One exception is economics where alphabetical ordering of the authors has long been the tradition, a practice that other disciplines may frown upon or even consider a “cop out” to determining authorship order. A considerably different authorship practice has developed in the biological sciences. The student or postdoctoral associate who performed the majority of the analyses is typically awarded first authorship, whereas the last author position, referred to as “corresponding author”, is reserved for the senior scientist who provided overall direction and garnered funding for the research effort. Most often, in addition to being placed last, the corresponding author is defined as such in a footnote. Several variants on this style are seen. Co-first authorship is often used if the manuscript communicates approximately equally the efforts of more than one student, or a student and a postdoctoral associate, and co-corresponding authorship reflects that two or more research teams jointly contributed to the research. Such co-crediting is generally defined in a footnote to the author list. A “professor sandwich,” where senior scientists occupy both the first and last authorship positions, and are listed as co-corresponding authors, is an alternative when a manuscript reflects primarily the efforts of the senior rather than junior scientists on a team.

As I become more involved in extramurally-funded and interdisciplinary research, I find the authorship practice used in the biological sciences increasingly more appealing, and in some ways more honest, than alternative styles, including the “effort-based” ordering traditionally employed in geography. By definition, a funded research project was conceptualized by the principal investigators (i.e., the senior scientists), who also carefully laid out the initial research design and methods. These contributions should be reflected in the authorship of the manuscripts conveying project findings. The corresponding author (or co-corresponding authors) position at the end of the author list clearly communicates who was responsible for initial conceptualization without infringing on the contributions of the often junior scientists who performed the majority of the data collection and analysis. At the same time, as a research project progresses, it evolves substantially from its initial conception, and the first author (or co-first author) position acknowledges the creativity and the unique contributions of the junior scientists and their efforts to ensure the success of the project in addition to their data collection and analysis efforts. This authorship style also fits better my conception of a research team as a mentoring unit, with everyone (junior and senior scientists alike) actively contributing to all aspects of the project, from brainstorming on new directions to problem solving to data analysis and interpretation and eventually to manuscript preparation and revision. To this is added the recognition that the senior scientist(s) has the added responsibility to ensure that the needed resources are available to conduct the research and that the final project outcomes are significant, scientifically sound, and publishable.

Although I have experimented with this authorship style on a few publications, I have not used it extensively, primarily out of concern that many within geography are unfamiliar with this practice. I have been particularly reluctant to list myself as a corresponding author on manuscripts involving PhD students, even when the work was funded from grants on which I was the lead principal investigator, as I do not want the corresponding author designation to inadvertently detract from the student’s contribution in the eyes of the geography community. In this case, my research group uses the more familiar “effort based” authorship style, and I am typically listed as second author in the string of authors. But this style can also detract from the student’s contribution, as it does not as clearly distinguish my expected supervisory role, rather conflating it with my other contributions to the research effort. However, even if my students and I rarely employ this authorship practice for our own work, this style is showing up more often on our curricula vitae because of our participation in large research projects involving disciplines where this is the standard practice. In fact, my next task for this morning, after I submit this column, is to edit a manuscript from a multi-disciplinary effort that is employing a “professor sandwich” authorship style.

At the very least, geographers need to familiarize themselves with the range of authorship practices employed in the scientific literature, so that they do not misinterpret the contributions of other scientists, including some of their geography colleagues, who use alternative authorship styles than those common to geography. Geographers also should become familiar with differing authorship styles so that they can anticipate issues and concerns that may arise regarding authorship order as they participate in research teams involving disciplines with different authorship practices. I would also argue that in some situations the authorship practices of other disciplines may be more appropriate and more meaningful than the standard effort-based style used in geography, and that geography as a discipline should be open to these alternative practices. An initial first step could be simply to better accommodate the option of a corresponding author designation in the AAG’s journals, the Annals and the Professional Geographer. This might also make these journals more attractive outlets for publishing the synthetic findings of large interdisciplinary research efforts. In sum, I am arguing that geography and geographers should be open to exploring a range of authorship practices.

For those of you who may be thinking that authorship practice is a nerdy conversation topic for dinner with a good friend, I assure you that most of the evening was spent catching up on family and mutual friends and enjoying a very nice bottle of wine. But it is admittedly hard to leave work at the office …

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on authorship practices.

—Julie Winkler

DOI: 10.14433/2014.0002

President's Column

University Research Centers: An Opportunity or Challenge for Geography?

January 30, 2014

The number of research centers on university campuses has grown substantially in the past several decades, in part a response to funding opportunities offered by the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and other major funding agencies. These agencies have helped to promote this organizational structure via their requests for proposals for science and engineering centers to support cutting-edge, interdisciplinary research. Universities themselves have contributed to this trend, establishing on-campus research centers to enhance extramural funding, publication and other research outputs, and student training.

Research centers vary in administration, size, and mission. Typically they lie outside the traditional departmental structure of universities, although ties to individual departments can be strong. Research centers range from those involving only a few faculty to national-level centers that span multiple institutions. Some centers are relatively ephemeral. They are established in response to a particular funding opportunity and are dissolved when that funding terminates. Others are long-lived with center members seeking ongoing extramural support from a range of funding agencies. Although research centers are now a common component of the university landscape, our understanding of the impact of these centers on individual researchers, departments, universities, disciplines, and the advancement of scientific knowledge is relatively limited. In this column, I explore the advantages offered by research centers and the challenges they pose, particularly with respect to the discipline of geography and geography departments.

A primary rationale for research centers is to foster research on complex, interdisciplinary topics and issues. When successful, centers enhance a university’s visibility within a particular research area, help attract exceptional faculty and graduate students, and strengthen the university’s overall research reputation. In addition, research centers can contribute to a university’s agility to respond to, and participate in, emerging research themes that do not fit well with existing departmental specializations or disciplinary approaches. These centers can enhance the research profiles of individual faculty as well. Faculty affiliated with a center typically are provided release time from teaching and additional research support (e.g., laboratory space, equipment). Recent case studies, including an analysis of the activities of scientists allied with the Mid-America Earthquake Center by Branco Ponomariov and Craig Boardman, suggest that, on average, faculty affiliated with research centers have higher productivity, greater collaboration, increased industry connections, and more technology transfer (e.g., patents) than those not affiliated with a center.

But research centers also present challenges. There is the inevitable competition for limited university resources between research centers and departments, and between faculty affiliated with centers and those whose appointments lie strictly within a department. Research centers can also spark on-campus debate regarding the relative importance of disciplinary versus interdisciplinary knowledge, with potential consequences for the continued viability of traditional disciplinary departments. Faculty do not appear to benefit equally from their involvement in a research center. For instance, Meghna Sabharwal and Qian Hu discovered that senior faculty are more likely to benefit from the collaborative opportunities of research centers than junior faculty. Also, Marla Parker and Eric Welch found that women faculty are much more unlikely than men to serve in leadership roles within a research center, limiting, in their words, women’s impact on “knowledge production and the conduct of science,” both at their universities and for science in general. Another concern is whether traditional departments receive appropriate recognition for the efforts and successes of their faculty who are affiliated with a research center. Also, the proliferation of research centers is an issue. As the number of on-campus research centers grows, university resources for pursuing emerging research directions decrease because of the large capital and human investment in existing centers. Thus, the university loses, rather than gains, nimbleness. University attempts to debulk themselves of research centers in order to free up resources for new opportunities are often complicated by a lack of well-tested procedures for evaluating the performance and continuing relevance of research centers. Also, research centers become entrenched, making them difficult to sunset, and closures can cause considerable hardship for support staff and research faculty. Furthermore, the viability of research centers ebbs and flows with the availability of federal funding.

I became concerned about possible negative impacts of research centers on geography departments about a year ago, when I served on a university-wide committee charged with developing a hiring plan for a new campus-wide research initiative. As we discussed possible tenure homes for potential hires, I was nonplussed when a fellow committee member stated that university expertise in geographic information science (GIS) lies in Center X, followed a few minutes later by another member announcing that expertise in climatology lies in Center Y. Both comments elicited a quick response from me that expertise in these areas in fact falls within the Department of Geography. But this exchange prompted contemplation on whether my department’s close association with several research centers has led to a reduction in on-campus visibility for geography itself, and whether geography is more susceptible to this possibility than other disciplines. Many of our university colleagues are unfamiliar with geography as a discipline or even hold misperceptions of what constitutes geography, which may make it easier for them to assign subfields within geography, even those with “geographic” in their name, to a center rather than a department. Also, the relatively small size of geography departments compared to other departments on campus may make them more vulnerable to the negative impacts of research centers. For example, the siphoning of partial credit for accomplishments of faculty to research centers in which they are members potentially can have a larger impact on the “bottom line” for a smaller rather than larger department, especially if a substantial portion of the faculty have center affiliations.

On the other hand, geography may benefit more from affiliation with research centers compared to many other disciplines. The breadth of geography offers possibilities for participation by geographers in a wide range of research centers, providing opportunities for on-campus promotion of the discipline and hopefully increased recognition by others of the theoretical contributions and skills of geographers. Also, smaller departments, including many geography departments, stand to benefit greatly from additional resources available through their connection with research centers, such as faculty lines or support for a larger cadre of graduate students. Research centers also provide excellent training opportunities for geography graduate students, and allow for interdisciplinary research opportunities for geography faculty that they might not otherwise have. All of these can enhance the long-term success of a geography department.

Clearly, university research centers present both opportunities and challenges. Geography departments need to continuously monitor their involvement and interactions with university research centers to make certain that they take full advantage of the opportunities these centers offer, but at the same time ensure that they receive appropriate university recognition and visibility for departmental contributions to research centers. The desired end result is that the involvement of a geography department in research centers directly or indirectly furthers the careers of all faculty within the department, and enhances the department’s reputation at the university level and within the discipline of geography and the scientific community at large.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the connections between geography departments and university research centers.

— Julie Winkler

DOI: 10.14433/2014.0001

For more information on the articles referred to above see:

“Influencing scientists’ collaboration and productivity patterns through new institutions: University research centers and scientific and technical human capital” by Branco L. Ponomariov and P. Craig Boardman in Research Policy, Volume 39, pages 613-624, 2010, DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2010.02.013

“Professional networks, science ability, and gender determinants of three types of leadership in academic science and engineering” by Marla Parker and Eric W. Welch in The Leadership Quarterly, Volume 24, pages 332-348, 2013, DOI:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.01.001

“Participation in university-base research centers: Is it helping or hurting researchers?” by Meghna Sabharwal and Qian Hu in Research Policy, Volume 42, pages 1301-1311, 2013, DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2013.03.005

President's Column

Climate Variability and Change: Embracing Complexity and Uncertainty

December 26, 2013

Julie Winkler Last spring, at a listening session I attended on climate variability and change in northwestern Michigan, a local fruit grower summarized his concerns with the analogy that his industry is the “canary in the coal mine” for the potential impacts of climate variability and change on agriculture. This statement was motivated by the sensitivity of fruit production to climate extremes, particularly changes in the frequency of devastating spring freezes, and the limited short-term adaptation options given the relatively long-term investment of orchard blocks.

Geographers have increasingly become involved in assessments of the vulnerability to, and potential impacts of, climate variability and change. These challenging interdisciplinary endeavors are providing many geographers with exciting opportunities to work collectively with scientists from a range of disciplines, interact directly with stakeholder groups, and engage in research that is not only stimulating but also has considerable applied significance. I am concerned, however, with what I see as a continuing tendency in assessment studies to downplay the complexity and uncertainty of the potential impacts of climate variability and change.

Several years ago, in an editorial in Environmental Science & Technology, Baruch Fischhoff, a well-known decision scientist, argued that scientists, although traditionally trained to consider uncertainty, multiple approaches and a range of data sources, often turn to an advocacy-based communication when they are highly concerned about the potential consequences of either action or inaction and/or when they believe that the “science will not receive a fair hearing.” In advocacy-based communication, a case is made for a specific viewpoint and uncertainty is introduced only through arguments with contrasting viewpoints. Although advocacy-based communication has its place, a potential consequence is the loss of confidence in, and appreciation for, science by the general public. As an alternative, Fischhoff argued for what he refers to as nonpersuasive communication, an approach that explicitly considers uncertainty and “allows science to speak for itself.” From Fischhoff’s perspective, communication of climate variability and change involves climate scientists, or more generally domain scientists, who develop the information to eventually be communicated and confirm that it is scientifically sound, decision scientists who help identify the information relevant to a particular decision, and social scientists who work to overcome communication barriers.

Personally, I have long been uncomfortable with communication regarding climate variability change that fails to convey the associated complexity and uncertainty, particularly the many limitations of climate observations and projections, with which I am all too familiar as a geographer/climate scientist. Thus, Fischhoff’s argument for nonpersuasive communication of climate variability and change resonates strongly with me, although I would expand Fischhoff’s model to include a broader range of experts as domain scientists and would blur the distinctions between the domain, decision, and social science experts, emphasizing instead the communication among experts and between experts and stakeholders.

Climate scientists are not the exclusive domain experts in the communication of the potential impacts of climate variability and change. In fact, few stakeholders can directly incorporate future projections of climate variables in their decision-making. Rather, stakeholders require information on changes in climate-influenced parameters of relevance to their activity or industry. Expertise from a range of disciplines is needed, including social science (e.g., human geography, economics, demography) whose involvement extends well beyond overcoming communication barriers to the development and evaluation of information required for decision-making. For example, while growers of commodity crops (e.g., maize, soybeans, and wheat) are cognizant that changes in temperature and precipitation during the growing season will affect their operations, projected changes in yield and farm income are much more relevant parameters for their decision-making.

Furthermore, inferring potential yield or income from simplified climate scenarios (e.g., change in growing-season mean temperature and precipitation) is suspect given the complex relationships between weather/climate and yield, and between yield and income. Consequently, climate scientists, agronomists, economists and others need to collaboratively explore, in a scientifically sound manner, the ways that a perturbed climate may influence yield and, subsequently, profitability and livelihood.

The concept of the “usability” of assessment outcomes also needs to be broadened. Although a number of previous authors have implored climate scientists to consider the “usability” of their observations and projections, even chiding them for the too often opaqueness of the metadata (when provided) of climate information, the usability of the outcomes of the different impact models employed in an assessment, such as yield models, is less often considered. In addition, one can argue that stakeholders should be part of, rather than separate from, the assessment team, working with decision scientists to identify the information relevant to the decisions that they will be making, and with domain scientists to facilitate the co-creation of that information.

As someone involved in the development and use of climate projections for local/regional assessments, I am often asked by scientists from other fields for advice on the availability and suitability of climate information for a particular assessment. Lately, I have been somewhat disheartened by the number of requests I receive for “simple” climate scenarios (often little more than a projected change in mean temperature and precipitation). To be sure, simple scenarios, even “what if” scenarios, are extremely useful, particularly for vulnerability assessments, and they complement more detailed projections which, in conjunction with suitable impact models, can illuminate potential “surprises” that fall outside stakeholder experience. I am more concerned that a reliance on simplistic projections, especially when paired with relatively unsophisticated impact models, will fail to fully illuminate the complexity and uncertainty associated with climate variability and change, and fail to provide the information needed for robust decision-making, in contrast to when a plurality of approaches — both simple and complex — are employed. I have also been rather dismayed by the disconnect between the very fine spatial resolution at which climate information frequently is requested versus the information content of the scenarios which often varies much more broadly in space.

Another concern is the lack of consideration of the assumptions of the impact models that will be employed in an assessment in the context of the nature and limitations of climate information, or of the contribution of the impact models themselves to the uncertainty of the assessment outcomes. That said, several recent publications represent initial steps in addressing these concerns. In particular, a recent analysis conducted at the University of California-Berkeley illustrated that the high degree of spatial autocorrelation in gridded climate observations can violate the independent assumption of empirical economic models that are often used in assessment studies and recommended that station observations may be the more appropriate choice of climate information for the development and application of these models. Also, members of the AgMIP (Agricultural Modeling Intercomparison and Improvement Project) team recently demonstrated that uncertainty introduced in future projections of wheat yield by the choice of yield model was as large or larger than the uncertainty introduced by an ensemble of climate projections. Both these studies point to the need for careful attention to the assumptions of impact models and to the necessity of evaluating the uncertainty surrounding all components of an assessment, rather than just the uncertainty of the climate information.

Geographers are in a unique position to develop enhanced approaches for climate assessments that improve the usability of assessment outcomes and to advocate for nonpersuasive communication in decision-making that embraces complexity and uncertainty. Geography is an “interdisciplinary discipline.” We regularly and effectively work across the many subfields of Geography and across disciplinary boundaries. We are also sensitive to disciplinary differences in research culture, methods and approaches, and, therefore, can help facilitate a more seamless integration across assessment components. Geographers are already actively involved in assessment efforts, but there is much more that we can do to advance new assessment approaches. The fruit grower in northwest Michigan, and the many others facing complex choices in an uncertain future, could use our help. Let’s step up to the task.

—Julie Winkler

DOI: 10.14433/2013.0023

For more information on articles referred to above see:

“Nonpersuasive Communication about Matters of Greatest Urgency: Climate Change” by Baruch Fischhoff in Environmental Science and Technology, pages 7204-7208, November 1, 2007

“Uncertainty in Simulating Wheat Yields under Climate Change” by Asseng et al. in Nature Climate Change, Volume 3, pages 827–832, 2013, DOI:10.1038/nclimate1916

“Using Weather Data and Climate Model Output in Economic Analyses of Climate Change” by Auffhammer et al., NBER Working Paper No. w19087, 2013, DOI:10.3386/w19087

Photo credit: Dwight Burdette; Apple orchard on Wassem Fruit Farm, Augusta Township, Michigan

President's Column

Supporting the Regional Divisions

November 25, 2013

Over the years, the AAG Newsletter has been peppered with presidential columns about the AAG regional divisions. The nine regional divisions host their annual meetings during autumn, and, barring scheduling conflicts, the AAG president represents the national-level Association at these meetings. Hence, it is only natural that former presidents have wanted to share with the AAG membership their thoughts on this intense, motivating, and rather exhausting experience. Foci of past columns have included approaches for enhancing attendance at the regional meetings, ways that the regional meetings can advance geography, opportunities for students, the relative participation of faculty and students from undergraduate-only and Ph.D.-granting geography departments, and the regional division structure itself.

I would like to add my thoughts to this ongoing discussion. However, my travels to the regional meetings coincide with ongoing deliberations by the AAG Council of the challenges and opportunities for the regional divisions. At the AAG Council meeting earlier this month, an entire morning session was reserved for the discussion of two questions posed to the regional and national councillors: How have changes in the “external” environment during the past two decades impacted your regional division, considering both the opportunities they create and the challenges they pose? How can the regional divisions strengthen geography at the national level and the AAG specifically? Thus, I also draw on that discussion for this column.

My overall impression is that the regional divisions have enormous potential for supporting geography and geographers. Some of this potential is very much realized, but much also remains untapped. Geographers require opportunities and venues for professional development throughout their careers. Some geographers will seek development opportunities primarily through AAG national-level activities, such as the AAG annual meeting, and/or through professional offerings from other organizations. But for others, the regional division meetings can provide an important additional, or even alternative, professional development venue. Some geographers may find that the smaller, more intimate regional meetings facilitate networking and the establishment of new research and teaching collaborations. The regional meetings can also be an ideal venue for sharing findings and for interacting with peers for those geographers conducting regionally focused research. For others, the regional meetings can provide an initial foray into disciplinary professional activities. Many geographers, myself included, presented their first paper or poster at a regional meeting. Also, the regional meetings can, and should be, a means for non-geographers interested in working more closely with geographers to introduce themselves to the discipline in a less formal setting. The regional meetings can also fill a professional development role for those geographers whose professional and personal constraints make participation in national-level activities challenging. Some geographers, including many community college faculty, are limited by their employers to only a few off-site days per year, hindering their ability to participate in the nearly week-long AAG annual meeting. Entrepreneurial geographers lose revenue every day away from their businesses. Other geographers are caring for small children or elderly relatives, making extended periods away from home difficult. In these situations, the shorter regional meetings, which often overlap with the weekend, are a more accessible professional development venue.

In order to tap into their full potential, regional divisions need to closely monitor the effectiveness of their annual meeting. Viewing the regional meetings through the lens of professional development can help with this assessment. An initial question is simply whether the meeting attendance is diverse and, if not, whether there are sectors within the geography community who feel that the regional meetings are not providing the professional development opportunities they are seeking. For example: Is attendance from graduate, four-year, and two-year academic programs proportional to the number and size of these programs within the region? Are non-academic geographers in attendance? Do undergraduate and graduate students participate? The quality of the professional development that is offered to attendees is also important: Is informal networking facilitated? Has care been taken to minimize conflicting sessions so that attendees can easily participate in all sessions of interest to them, maximizing exposure to, and feedback on, each other’s presentations? Are workshops or other skill-enhancing opportunities provided? These and similar assessment questions can help identify gaps in what the regional meetings are offering, and also can point to potential enhancements.

Discussion and assessment also needs to occur at the national level, and, in advance of the fall council meeting, the AAG Regional Councillors collectively identified a suite of challenges and opportunities for the regional divisions. A number of the challenges (continued reductions in travel funding, increased conference costs, undervaluation by employers and administration of participation in the regional organizations) are not surprising, but one potential challenge that garnered considerable discussion is that new faculty within a region may be unaware of what the regional meetings have to offer, especially if they are graduates of programs that historically have not participated in their regional division. Potential opportunities include greater advertisement of the regional divisions to AAG members, more joint regional conferences, sponsored plenary speakers who have broad public appeal, and the sharing of best practices among regions. The latter, sharing of best practices, was viewed as having particular potential, as many AAG members are familiar with only a small number of the regional divisions (often the division in which they currently work and the one where they completed their education).

The AAG Council and Central Office are undertaking several initiatives in support of the regional divisions. Regional division chairs have been invited to a luncheon meeting at the AAG annual meeting in Tampa to discuss with Council members their perceptions on the future of the regional divisions and the linkages between the regional and national components of the AAG. Following the luncheon, a two-hour workshop intended for all regional division officers will focus on sharing best practices, including practices and initiatives for membership recruitment and retention, meeting organization, hosting joint meetings, communication with members, and financial management. AAG Central Office staff will also be present to share insights based on their national-level experiences. In further support of the regional meetings, the Council approved at their fall meeting an extension of the childcare subsidy offered to attendees at the AAG annual meeting to attendees of the regional meetings, although at a reduced rate reflective of the shorter duration of the regional meetings. The provision of this subsidy recognizes that for some AAG members the regional division is their professional association, and that these members should have the same benefits as those who mainly participate in national-level activities.

I was fortunate to be able to attend the annual meetings of eight of the nine regional divisions, five this Fall and three last year. Frankly, this experience was one of my more rewarding professional opportunities in quite awhile. Each meeting had its own “flavor,” but some of the lingering highlights and memories, beyond the excellent scientific presentations and posters, include: the APCG member who subsidized the banquet tickets for student first-authors of papers and posters; the moving and relevant keynote address on memorialization of university tragedies at the joint West Lakes/East Lakes meeting hosted by Northern Illinois University, a university that experienced such a tragedy first hand; the pleasure of an esteemed geographer, someone I personally admire, in receiving SEDAAG’s Lifetime Achievement Award; the motion at the SWAAG business meeting to work to make their meetings more family friendly; meeting Maryland’s Chief Innovation Officer at the MAD meeting and discovering that he is a geographer; the vanloads of undergraduate students who attended the Middle States meeting and their incredible presentations; the open house at the University of Nebraska-Omaha Geography Department, host of the GPRM meeting, and viewing their enviable facilities; talking with an assistant professor from a major Ph.D. program, a first time attendee of the SWAGG meeting, who was thrilled with the attendance and feedback for his paper presentation; the gift basket of local products delivered to my hotel by the Geography Club at Stephen F. Austin University; and the Mark Twain impersonator at the APCG banquet who relived Twain’s adventures as a reporter for the Territorial Enterprise newspaper in Virginia City, Nevada (absolutely sublime). I also found out that, not only have I forgotten much of my introductory geography, I cannot even follow the Geography Bowl rules (apologies fellow SEDAAG “Dream Team” members!)

You may not receive a gift basket, and the impersonator was perhaps a one-off experience, but nonetheless, give the regional meetings a try. My experiences of the past year certainly have reinvigorated my commitment to my regional division.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the regional divisions and their annual meetings.

—Julie Winkler

DOI: 10.14433/2013.0020

President's Column

Physical Geography In the AAG Journals: Is It Time for a New Approach and a New Journal?

October 17, 2013

A great deal of excellent research is conducted by physical geographers. Unfortunately, only a small portion of this research is published in the two AAG journals, the Annals of the Association of American Geographers and The Professional Geographer. As you peruse your November issue of the Annals, you may notice that, for the first time in a number of years, this issue does not include an Environmental Sciences (ES) section. The small number of submissions to this section, in conjunction with the recent increase in the number of Annals issues per year, has made it more difficult to regularly populate an ES section in spite of extensive efforts by the current ES editor to recruit manuscripts. The submission rate of physical geography manuscripts is in sharp contrast to the overall substantial increase in manuscripts submitted to the Annals and The Professional Geographer, but is consistent with trends observed for journals published by other geographical scholarly societies. Few articles by physical geographers appear in the Transactions of the British Geographical Society, for example.

Why do physical geographers publish less in the AAG journals compared to other subfields of geography? Like any author, physical geographers want their research to reach the largest possible audience. They also want their work to reach the audience that can best make use of, and build upon, their research. The perception of many physical geographers is that these goals may not be achieved by publishing in the AAG journals. My own experience is in line with this perception. Over my career, I have published a modest number of physical geography-related articles in the Annals and The Professional Geographer. For the most part, these articles have been cited by fellow “geographer climatologists.” This, of course, is a community whom I respect, and I am honored that they read my work. But at the same time, I would have liked a broader readership for these articles. Other physical geographers apparently feel similarly, as recent surveys, such as that of Steven Quiring* from Texas A&M University, suggest a decline in the proportion of physical geography articles published in geography journals. Quiring found that in 1989-1997 geographer climatologists published 21% of their articles in geography journals, but by 1998-2005 the proportion had dropped to only 11%.

Another confounding factor is that physical geographers are frequently involved in multi-disciplinary research, and the selection of a journal for publication is often a group decision. Journals with names like Annals of the Association of American Geographers or The Professional Geographer can be seen as overly discipline-specific to non-geographers on a research team. More often, interdisciplinary research is submitted to journals serving a broad range of disciplines or to disciplinary journals with exceptionally large readerships. Greater use of quantitative indices to evaluate research success may also be contributing to the relatively small number of submissions by physical geographers to AAG journals. A decade or more ago, quantification of individual productivity was mostly limited to the number of articles published per year, but now H-factors, total number of citations, and related measures are also used to evaluate research productivity and impact. Since physical geographers often compete for resources and recognition with other physical scientists, they are compelled to publish in journals with similar impact factors as the publication outlets of their non-geography colleagues.

What impact does the limited publication by physical geographers in the Annals and The Professional Geography have on the AAG and, more generally, the discipline of geography? In my opinion, the potential consequences are large. We argue that a major strength of our discipline is its integrative nature and the ability of geographers to think and work across the human/physical divide. Yet how strongly can we make this argument if our major journals include little physical geography? What impression do these journals give others of the breadth of geography and its synergies? Also, how is a geography community built, if a major component of the discipline is not publishing in geography journals, and, consequently, other geographers are largely unaware of their work? And if physical geographers no longer turn to the AAG as a publication outlet, will they continue to participate in and support other aspects of the AAG, such as its professional meetings?

The concerns raised above are not new. Nor do they apply only to physical geography. But the lack of an ES section in next month’s Annals reinforces the need for new efforts to ensure the visibility of physical geography within the geography community and beyond.

An essential initial step is for individual physical geographers — including me — to acknowledge the importance of a physical geography presence in AAG journals to the discipline as a whole. A modest commitment, of perhaps one manuscript submission every three to four years over the course of one’s publishing career, would go a long way to increasing physical geography’s presence in the Annals and The Professional Geographer. Physical geographers also need to reconsider what constitutes an “Annals article.” Many of us wait to submit to the Annals until we have that special manuscript we think appeals broadly across much of geography or can be written in a manner that is easily understandable across multiple subfields. We need to keep in mind that scientifically-sound manuscripts that move a subfield of geography forward also merit review and potential publication in the Annals. Greater publicity of AAG journals to other disciplines is also needed. Strategically-distributed press releases of particularly significant papers, whatever the subfield, can attract readership. Additional options include the wide distribution of the table of contents of the Annals and The Professional Geographer via relevant listservs and other media to reach a broader audience.

But “out of the box” approaches also need to be considered. One such option is for the AAG to add new journals to its publications suite — journals that have the AAG imprimatur, yet appeal to a wide range of disciplines and have broad visibility. Such a journal, tentatively titled Geohumanities, is already under consideration by the AAG Council and Central Office, and, at its last meeting, the AAG Council initiated discussion of a second journal geared toward environmental science, referred to, for discussion only at this point, as Geographical Perspectives on Global Change. Both journals would have as their goal the publication of quality research by geographers and non-geographers that advances geographic understanding and/or employs geographic methods and techniques.

How might a new AAG-sponsored global change/environmental science journal enhance the visibility of physical geography research? A thematic, rather than disciplinary, journal title would hopefully attract a broad readership across multiple disciplines. A broad readership, in turn, would make this journal an attractive outlet for physical geographers and other environmental scientists to publish their research. Also, a more thematic journal would be appealing as a publication outlet for the outcomes of interdisciplinary research efforts. If well supported by physical geographers, all geographers could easily turn to this journal to keep abreast of new developments in physical geography. In addition, the AAG could more aggressively market a journal devoted to global change/environmental science to other disciplines, especially those in the natural sciences, than what is currently possible when only a small number of articles related to environmental science are published in the Annals and The Physical Geographer. Wider marketing would bring more attention to the entire AAG journal suite, benefiting our current journals, as well as the proposed new journal. Furthermore, the AAG imprimatur on a successful global change/environmental science journal that is highly regarded across multiple disciplines would bring more visibility to geography’s contribution to these areas, a benefit for the entire discipline.

Obviously, further effort is needed to assure such a journal’s success. We need to explore and identify a niche(s) that an AAG-sponsored global change/environmental science journal could best fill, and selection of a journal title requires careful attention. A visionary, well respected, and dedicated editor, along with a world-class editorial board drawn from multiple disciplines, are essential to the journal’s success. An intense and extensive publicity campaign is also essential. Admittedly, initiating a new journal, especially at a time when the publication industry is undergoing substantial change, has some risk. But so, too, does having a major portion of our discipline not publishing in AAG journals.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on a new journal, specifically, and on physical geography, more broadly. Also, we will have a moderated discussion on how the AAG can better support physical geography at our annual meeting in Tampa. I invite you to participate. This session is tentatively scheduled for 11:45 a.m. – 12:40 p.m., Thursday, April 10, 2014. More information will be posted on the AAG website and distributed electronically via the AAG Geogram.

–Julie Winkler

DOI: 10.14433/2013.0018

* For more information on the survey conducted by Steven Quiring see “Trends in Publication Outlets of Geographer-Climatologists,” The Professional Geographer, Volume 59, Issue 3, pages 357–364, August 2007. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9272.2007.00618.x Members can log in to see this article.