Charting a Critical Physical Geography Path in Graduate School: Sites of Student Agency
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.
References
- Arce-Nazario, J.A. 2016. Translating land-use science to a museum exhibit. Journal of Land Use Science 11 (4): 417–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Braun, B. 2008. Environmental issues: Inventive life. Progress in Human Geography 32 (5): 667–679.Google Scholar
- Castree, N. 2002. False antithesis? Marxist, nature and actor networks. Antipode 34 (1): 111–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Johnston, R.J. 1986. Fixations and the quest for unity in geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 11: 449–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Lave, R., and B. Lutz. 2014. Hydraulic fracturing: A Critical Physical Geography review. Geography compass 8 (10): 739–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Lattuca, L.R. 2001. Creating interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary research and teaching among college and university faculty. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
- Lele, S., and A. Kurien. 2011. Interdisciplinary analysis of the environment: Insights from tropical forest research. Environmental Conservation 38 (2): 211–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lélé, S., and R.B. Norgaard. 2005. Practicing interdisciplinarity. BioScience 55 (11): 967–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- McClintock, N. 2015. A Critical Physical Geography of urban soil contamination. Geoforum 65: 69–85.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- ———. 2013. Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: A pragmatic approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Öberg, G. 2009. Facilitating interdisciplinary work: Using quality assessment to create common ground. Higher Education 57 (4): 405–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- ———. 2010. interdisciplinary environmental studies: A primer. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Pain, R. 2014. Impact: Striking a blow or working together? ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 13 (1): 19–23.Google Scholar
- Panelli, R. 2010. More-than-human social geographies: Posthuman and other possibilities. Progress in Human Geography 34 (1): 79–87.Google Scholar
- Ray, I. 2006. Outcomes and processes in economics and anthropology. Economic Development and Cultural Change 54 (3): 677–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Slaughter, S., and G. Rhoades. 2000. The neo-liberal university. New Labor Forum 6: 73–79.Google Scholar
- Tacconi, L. 2011. Developing environmental governance research: The Example of forest cover change studies. Environmental Conservation 38 (2): 234–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Tsing, A. 2014. More than human sociality. In Anthropology and nature, ed. K. Hastrup. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Whatmore, Sarah. 2002. Hybrid geographies: Natures, cultures, spaces. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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