Structural and Compositional Change in Geography Graduate Programs in the United States: 1991–2001

Abstract

This paper presents an accounting of observed shifts within the structure and composition of geography graduate programs between 1991 and 2001. Using the AAG Guide to Programs, the study details how geography's primary divisions and areas of specialization have changed based on several parameters. These parameters include: department name, total tenure track lines, tenure track lines by major division (macrospecialization), tenure tracks by selected research areas (microspecialization), faculty rank, and degree programs. Using descriptive statistics, the paper identifies the structural implications of retirement in recent years, notes the emergence of new research areas (at both the macro- and microlevel), charts the expansion of traditional geography graduate programs, and the creation of new geography degree programs. The trajectory of the discipline is positive and growth continues. When and where reductions have been observed, the demographic transition of the professoriate is often an issue. Despite this inevitable transition, the growth and expansion of graduate programs continues and the overall pace observed is encouraging.

Key Words:

• graduate programs
• faculty
• research interests

Notes

1 While a longer study period would have been optimal, the number of “missing” departments increases significantly at “15-years” and “20-years.” Additionally, the structure of the guide has changed somewhat over the years, as has the participation rate and relative quality of the data provided by departments. Ideally, this study can be used as a baseline for future studies as the AAG Guide has a now standard structure and relatively high participation rate. However, we do not feel that the time interval is a methodological shortcoming. Indeed, the NRC's rankings were based on observed change in program quality over a 5-year period, as opposed to 10 years

2 While some faculty list as many as six to eight areas of expertise, the depth and scope of any single faculty member's ability to contribute to any number of specializations is uneven. To that end, microspecializations are limited to two areas. In fact, two is the largest number of possible specializations that would reasonably be “universal” as many limit their areas to two. This limitation, however, is of limited importance in relative terms as many listed items are interdependent and/or lists of specific regions of interest. To that end, the assignment of microspecializations is a based on the relative ranking (assuming a rank order left to right) of identified areas and the related “interdependence” within and between stated specializations. Every effort has been taken to distill the essence of faculty interests into core areas that are consistent with a faculty's macrospecialization (human, human-environment, physical, and geotechniques). For example, many human-environment specialists had declared specializations in “transitioning economies,”“cultural-ecology,”“political-ecology,”“Latin America,” and “Africa.” In the case of transitioning economies, political-ecology and cultural-ecology are functionally synonymous within the context of the classification system used in this study with the secondary specialty being “regional-areal.” Likewise, “regional geography” and specific regions were collapsed into a single “regional-areal” specialization. Hence, multiple references to a single “microspecialization” were necessarily collapsed into a single specialization. Ultimately, the classification of individual faculty was based on the shared interpretation of the researchers. For the purposes of clarity, “research methods” or “philosophy/history of geography” have not been assigned as a specialty area. The rationale for omitting these “specializations” extends from the assumption that all graduate programs have expertise in these areas, and hence these areas are (or theoretically should be) ubiquitous

*The authors greatly appreciated the comments and insight of the following readers: John A. Harrington, Jr. (Kansas State), John McGregor (Indiana State), David J. Nemeth (Toledo), and Julie A. Winkler (Michigan State). Likewise, the authors appreciate the input of the three anonymous reviewers and the editor.

**The manuscript was written with equal contribution from both authors.