Charting a Critical Physical Geography Path in Graduate School: Sites of Student Agency

  • Lisa C. Kelley
  • Katherine R. Clifford
  • Emily Reisman
  • Devin Lea
  • Marissa Matsler
  • Alex Liebman
  • Melanie Malone
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

This chapter explores strategies for engaging in Critical Physical Geography (CPG) while in graduate school despite known challenges and institutional barriers. We focus on key milestones in the PhD process: from selecting a program and advisor to analyzing and integrating data to writing the dissertation. Each milestone brings unique challenges, necessitating tailored strategies. However, we suggest that two factors are important throughout: first, a long-term view that sees graduate school as the start rather than the end of an engagement with CPG, and second, supportive peer networks which create intellectual and political space for this type of research as early career scholars.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

References

  1. Arce-Nazario, J.A. 2016. Translating land-use science to a museum exhibit. Journal of Land Use Science 11 (4): 417–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bardhan, P., and I. Ray. 2006. Methodological approaches to the question of the commons. Economic Development and Cultural Change 54 (3): 655–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beder, S. 2011. Environmental economics and ecological economics: The contribution of interdisciplinarity to understanding, influence and effectiveness. Environmental Conservation 38 (2): 140–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blue, B., and G. Brierley. 2016. ‘But what do you measure?’ Prospects for a constructive Critical Physical Geography. Area 48 (2): 190–197.Google Scholar
  5. Borrego, M., and L.K. Newswander. 2010. Definitions of interdisciplinary research: Toward graduate-level interdisciplinary learning outcomes. The Review of Higher Education 34 (1): 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braun, B. 2008. Environmental issues: Inventive life. Progress in Human Geography 32 (5): 667–679.Google Scholar
  7. Castree, N. 2002. False antithesis? Marxist, nature and actor networks. Antipode 34 (1): 111–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeLonge, M.S., A. Miles, and L. Carlisle. 2016. Investing in the transition to sustainable agriculture. Environmental Science & Policy 55 (1): 266–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Donaldson, A., N. Ward, and S. Bradley. 2010. Mess among disciplines: Interdisciplinarity in environmental research. Environment and Planning A 42 (7): 1521–1536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gareau, Brian J. 2005. We have never been human: Agential nature, ANT, and marxist political ecology. Capitalism Nature Socialism 16 (4): 127–140.Google Scholar
  11. Graybill, J.K., S. Dooling, V. Shandas, J. Withey, A. Greve, and G.L. Simon. 2006. A rough guide to interdisciplinarity: Graduate student perspectives. BioScience 56 (9): 757–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hedberg, R.C., A. Hesse, D. Baldwin, J. Bernhardt, D.P. Retchless, and J.E. Shinn. 2017. Preparing geographers for interdisciplinary research: Graduate training at the interface of the natural and social sciences. The Professional Geographer 69 (1): 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hiwasaki, L., and S. Arico. 2007. Integrating the social sciences into ecohydrology: Facilitating an interdisciplinary approach to solve issues surrounding water, environment and people. Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology 7 (1): 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnston, R.J. 1986. Fixations and the quest for unity in geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 11: 449–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lane, S.N. 2017. Slow science, the geographical expedition, and Critical Physical Geography. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien 61 (1): 84–101.Google Scholar
  16. Lave, R., and B. Lutz. 2014. Hydraulic fracturing: A Critical Physical Geography review. Geography compass 8 (10): 739–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lave, R., M.W. Wilson, E.S. Barron, C. Biermann, M.A. Carey, C.S. Duvall, L. Johnson, et al. 2014. Intervention: Critical Physical Geography. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien 58 (1): 1–10.Google Scholar
  18. Lattuca, L.R. 2001. Creating interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary research and teaching among college and university faculty. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lele, S., and A. Kurien. 2011. Interdisciplinary analysis of the environment: Insights from tropical forest research. Environmental Conservation 38 (2): 211–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lélé, S., and R.B. Norgaard. 2005. Practicing interdisciplinarity. BioScience 55 (11): 967–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lowe, P., and J. Phillipson. 2009. Barriers to research collaboration across disciplines: Scientific paradigms and institutional practices. Environment and Planning A 41 (5): 1171–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McClintock, N. 2015. A Critical Physical Geography of urban soil contamination. Geoforum 65: 69–85.Google Scholar
  23. Meyerhoff, E., E. Johnson, and B. Braun. 2011. Time and the university. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 10 (3): 483–507.Google Scholar
  24. Mountz, A., A. Bonds, B. Mansfield, J. Loyd, J. Hyndman, M. Walton-Roberts, R. Basu, et al. 2015. For slow scholarship: A feminist politics of resistance through collective action in the neoliberal university. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies 14 (4): 1235–1259.Google Scholar
  25. Morgan, D.L. 2007. Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1 (1): 48–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. ———. 2013. Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: A pragmatic approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Öberg, G. 2009. Facilitating interdisciplinary work: Using quality assessment to create common ground. Higher Education 57 (4): 405–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. ———. 2010. interdisciplinary environmental studies: A primer. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Öberg, G., Fortmann, L., and Gray, T. 2013. Is interdisciplinary research a mashup? IRES Working Paper Series No. 2013–02. Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability.Google Scholar
  30. Pain, R. 2014. Impact: Striking a blow or working together? ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 13 (1): 19–23.Google Scholar
  31. Panelli, R. 2010. More-than-human social geographies: Posthuman and other possibilities. Progress in Human Geography 34 (1): 79–87.Google Scholar
  32. Ray, I. 2006. Outcomes and processes in economics and anthropology. Economic Development and Cultural Change 54 (3): 677–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Robbins, P., and B. Marks. 2010. Assemblage geographies. In The SAGE handbook of social geographies, ed. S. Smith, R. Pain, S. Marston, and J.P. Jones. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  34. Sayre, N.F. 2015. The coyote-proof pasture experiment: How fences replaced predators and labor on US rangelands. Progress in Physical Geography 39 (5): 576–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Slaughter, S., and G. Rhoades. 2000. The neo-liberal university. New Labor Forum 6: 73–79.Google Scholar
  36. Tacconi, L. 2011. Developing environmental governance research: The Example of forest cover change studies. Environmental Conservation 38 (2): 234–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Trompf, G.W. 2011. The classification of the sciences and the quest for interdisciplinarity: A brief history of ideas from ancient philosophy to contemporary environmental science. Environmental Conservation 38 (2): 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tsing, A. 2014. More than human sociality. In Anthropology and nature, ed. K. Hastrup. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Whatmore, Sarah. 2002. Hybrid geographies: Natures, cultures, spaces. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Whatmore, S.J. 2013. Where natural and social science meet? Reflections on an experiment in geographical practice. In Interdisciplinarity: Reconfigurations of the social and natural sciences, ed. A. Barry and G. Born, 161–177. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Wodak, R., and P. Chilton, eds. 2005. A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity. Vol. 13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa C. Kelley
    • 1
  • Katherine R. Clifford
    • 2
  • Emily Reisman
    • 3
  • Devin Lea
    • 4
  • Marissa Matsler
    • 5
  • Alex Liebman
    • 6
  • Melanie Malone
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of Hawaii-MãnoaHonoluluUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeographyUniversity of Colorado-BoulderBoulderUSA
  3. 3.Department of Environmental StudiesUniversity of California at Santa CruzSanta CruzUSA
  4. 4.Department of GeographyUniversity of OregonEugeneUSA
  5. 5.Cary Institute of Ecosystem StudiesMillbrookUSA
  6. 6.Department of Horticultural ScienceUniversity of MinnesotaSaint PaulUSA
  7. 7.Earth, Environment, and SocietyPortland State UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations